RealGM Top 100 List #73

[penbeast0]

Seeing Bobby Jones getting traction here, I think it's time to seriously consider Horace Grant and Rasheed Wallace (peak-wise, even Andrei Kirilenko is more or less in the same class, although I think that his career isn't impressive enough to make the top 100). Obviously Shawn Marion, too.

Jones is more decorated than all of those guys, and a clearly more efficient scorer, career-wise, but I'm not sure if their accolades really reflect how good they were - for example Bobby made the All-Defensive 1st team nine times (plus one second team), Matrix never made an All-Defensive team, which is a travesty.

Also, 1977 Jones vs 1992 Grant vs 2004 Kirilenko seems like a great comparison. Extremely close, at first glance. I'd take 2006 Marion over all of them. Not sure how I feel about Sheed, but he may've been better than all of them except Marion (numbers-wise, he's not that impressive, but his skillset and non-boxscore impact was great). Horace might get underrated, but his longevity is pretty good, and he was an excellent playoff performer (even better playoff than RS performer).

Tiny Archibald, James Worthy and Chris Bosh are my top 3 candidates right now (plus maybe Tony Parker and Carmelo Anthony), I just still prefer to vote for more traditional stars at this point, but it's very possible that Marion, Jones and Grant would all make my top 80, at least that's how I feel about it right now (I've never really put together a GOAT list that long, so I'm just going spot-by-spot here, not having any big picture to look at).

Bobby Jones made the 1st team All-Defense list 11 times (most in league history), 2 ABA, 9 NBA. If Kirilenko had played to his peak level consistently, he'd be in already. I agree that the rest are all serious candidates at this point; but I'd take Bobby Jones of the 4, and Horace Grant and Shawn Marion over Rasheed Wallace as well, just based on having watched them. I could be convinced statistically to change my mind, but Rasheed disappeared for long stretches where he didn't do much as well as his well-documented technicals; the others were more consistently bringing their A game.

Worthy v. Bobby Jones is interesting since they have the same strengths (efficiency, winning teams, defense, etc.) and the same weaknesses (rebounding, supporting better players). Both had a year or so as the team's best player: rookie Jones's team had the best regular season record in the ABA in 75, aging Worthy and his team looked much weaker and less impressive. Worthy is the more explosive scorer of the two with isolation moves that Jones couldn't touch. Jones is the better help defender both as a shotblocker and in the passing lanes as well as being as solid as a man defender. Jones has an edge in passing and versatility, Worthy in minutes. On the whole, I take Jones over Worthy because to me the defensive edge I feel is more of a difference maker than Worthy's scoring in the post, especially as a 3 and the rest of their games overall have an edge to Jones as well.

[Owly]

I'll come back to voting Nance.

The guys with 11+ seasons of WS/48 at or above .144 (which was a touch over 2000 player seasons when I compiled this, I think a couple of summers ago)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
John Stockton 18
Karl Malone 17
Tim Duncan 16
Reggie Miller 16
Shaquille O'Neal 15
Charles Barkley 15
Hakeem Olajuwon 15
Kevin Garnett 14
Kobe Bryant 14
Wilt Chamberlain 13
David Robinson 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Oscar Robertson 13
Moses Malone 13
Paul Pierce 13
Robert Parish 13
Bill Russell 12
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Jerry West 12
Adrian Dantley 12
Ray Allen 12
Michael Jordan 11
Larry Bird 11
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Larry Nance 11
Steve Nash 11
Bailey Howell 11
Detlef Schrempf 11

These players are almost all in. Those that aren't should be in contention soon (Schrempf and Howell).

The equivalent top 2000(ish) player seasons for PER

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 18
John Stockton 17
Karl Malone 17
Shaquille O'Neal 17
Kevin Garnett 17
Tim Duncan 16
Hakeem Olajuwon 16
Kobe Bryant 16
Moses Malone 16
Charles Barkley 15
Paul Pierce 14
Clyde Drexler 14
Wilt Chamberlain 13
Dirk Nowitzki 13
Robert Parish 13
Michael Jordan 13
David Robinson 12
Oscar Robertson 12
Earvin "Magic" Johnson 12
Jerry West 12
Larry Bird 12
Steve Nash 12
Patrick Ewing 12
Dominique Wilkins 12
Allen Iverson 12
Adrian Dantley 11
Bob Pettit 11
Bob Lanier 11
Larry Nance 11
Pau Gasol 11
Elgin Baylor 11
Vince Carter 11
Chris Webber 11
Alex English 11

All in bar Webber. Webber has only 5 seasons over the WS/48 bar. Howell has 10 over the PER bar, Schrempf 7.

But what if those seasons were just above the thresholds. Lets have a look at how some of the leading box-score productive guys plus other named contenders (this from a few threads ago, Sam Jones, McAdoo, Grant Hill, Moncrief, Unseld and King since in) get on with a measure which rewards both minutes and distance above those thresholds, lets call it Wins Above Good

Neil Johnston 37.50535
Bailey Howell 26.02558
Sidney Moncrief 23.0294
Walt Bellamy 20.93269
Sam Jones 19.9995
Amar'e Stoudemire 18.79104
Larry Nance 18.67998
Bob McAdoo 18.40183
Shawn Marion 18.08771
Elton Brand 17.67381
Marques Johnson 16.40483
Shawn Kemp 15.98746
Grant Hill 11.53165
Jack Sikma 10.18433
Wes Unseld 10.12033
Terrell Brandon 8.899083
Dennis Rodman 8.412583
Rasheed Wallace 6.774042
Bill Walton 6.547875
Bernard King 6.473833
Vlade Divac 3.322479
Bob Cousy 3.230292

Cousy still missing first year data. Moncrief and Jones have gone. Only Howell of those above Nance isn't a guy thought to be worse than their numbers (Johnston, Bellamy and STAT), and he too deserves consideration here. Still I think I prefer Nance's rounded game.

Neil Johnston 62.31428
Elton Brand 56.76358
Amar'e Stoudemire 53.01318
Bob McAdoo 49.68881
Walt Bellamy 47.441
Grant Hill 42.28965
Shawn Marion 37.39274
Larry Nance 33.13085
Shawn Kemp 32.23035
Marques Johnson 31.59547
Bob Cousy 29.94303
Terrell Brandon 26.5204
Bernard King 24.73716
Bailey Howell 23.32214
Sidney Moncrief 18.29985
Bill Walton 15.57692
Jack Sikma 12.07736
Sam Jones 10.72607
Rasheed Wallace 8.006766
Vlade Divac 6.38592
Wes Unseld 0.0602488
Dennis Rodman 0

McAdoo is off the board, as is Hill. Johnston, STAT and Bellamy are near the top again, but have some combination of era/system and defense/team performance issues. Brand has had my backing but it seems like he's not on anyone's radar and he's overshadowed within his era so I'll hold off for the moment. Marion also a legit contender but some people have concerns about Marion's numbers being inflated by system/Nash and whilst I don't entirely agree, there may be some merit and I certainly wouldn't feel confident entirely rebutting it.

I am looking at Bobby Jones and am a fan of the style of both these guys, anyway from discussions with Doctor MJ about the two there were discussions of minutes he's got about 6500 (RS) minutes on Jones (and see also the metrics above which show him as one of the top players on the board by accumulative style metrics which value longevity) and might be slightly better boxscore wise (per minute).

With Nance though we don't don't know about plus minus, where Jones is strong. So I thought I'd do a quick with/without.

'87: with Nance (69 games) -71, -1.029 per game
without Nance (13 games) - 129, -9.923076923. Small sample but that team looks pretty bad without Nance. Without looking at schedule differences that's an approximate impact of 8.894076923 on their points differential (may look to find another season with a reliable sample).

I'm fine with Doc's subjective take,

I've always been pretty impressed with Nance, but I don't tend to classify him in that category of "everyone loved that guy as a huge team guy, and analytical analysis makes him look even better than I thought" where I have guys like Jones and Ginobili.

But every angle I've seen ranks him at least pretty well analytically, and he was certainly highly regarded as a teammate/pro/leader at least for the span where I have feedback on this (from the Barry scouting books)

Nance is a classy pro, an inspiration to Cleveland's younger players. After being the head honcho in Phoenix, he demonstrated supreme adaptive skills and molded himself into Cleveland's system, which didn't feature any one player.
Intangiables grade: AA

A consumate pro. "Couldn't ask for a better player to work with," noted one admirer. Undoubtedly, there were nights when his ankle was hurting, but you'd never hear a peep from Nance.
Intangiables grade: AA

A pro's pro ... Consistent ... Smart player ... Tremendous work ethic
Intangiables grade: AAA

Never one to toot his own horn, another reason he's never generated much attention ... A "behind the scenes" leader, offering encouragement to teammates, especially Cavs' younger players ... The ultimate pro
Intangiables grade: AAA

Off the court, completely self-effacing, one of the humblest stars in the league... Good with Cavs' rookies, taking them under his wing... A pro's pro... But he's not a fiery, on-court leader, which is what the Cavs so desperately need.
Intangiables grade: AAA

Nance has a solid consensus from the metrics he was good or better for a long time. He's a player with portability - particularly to good teams as he is defined not by volume scoring but D, efficiency, low mistakes, a leader, a solid passer, and as time went on spacing as he became a strong 15-18 feet jump shooter and was generally offensively versatile (post game, drive, transition, off the ball and the J, all appear to have been solid options).

Nance is a great third option (offensively) for a contender (and played an important role on some really good when healthy Cleveland teams (most notably the '89 Cavs who posted a league leading 7.95 SRS on slow pace, and looked like the favourites until a vicious Mahorn elbow concussed Price late in the season, but also the 92 and 93 teams).

I don't know about anchoring arguments but FWIW looking at the numbers is there any real gap between Nance and McHale http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 4=&p5=&p6= (McHale has playoff WS advantage, but arguably that's due to superior teammates). McHale has an advantage overall based on a higher peak (and the additional value in title probability that brings), but the seems far from huge. For what it's worth McHale was in at 44.

There's a few guys I'm looking at (including) Brand, Howell, Marion, maybe Bobby Jones and dynasty Celtics Cousy, Sharman and Howell (probably should start looking at Hagan too ...).

Nonetheless my vote here goes to Larry Nance.


Nance versus Archibald (part beacuse Archibald wasn't in my previous numbers set, part because he may be a contender given he's been in a runoff)

Larry Nance 18.67998
Nate Archibald 7.946291667

Larry Nance 33.13085
Nate Archibald 32.49492537

Remember this is a method that favours peak/elite level performance. And both measures struggle to quantify D (a strength for Nance, and despite some ability to be pest when healthy a weakness for Archibald). And PER favour scorers. And Archibald's best years (the years which contribute the entire of his PER/EWA Wins above Good and most of his WS/48 WaG) don't include turnovers, which based on the years we do have for him were high.

Even Nance's one relative weakness the playoffs (and I don't believe this is a big issue) is a large advantage over Archibald (even after acknowledging that most of Archibald's playoff appearances were outside his main prime).

Here's the discussion on Nance's lack of accolades (and the Nance v Jones context around it)

I'm fine with Doc's subjective take,


But every angle I've seen ranks him at least pretty well analytically, and he was certainly highly regarded as a teammate/pro/leader at least for the span where I have feedback on this (from the Barry scouting books)

So, good post, and I'm glad that you don't object to my subjective stance.

Here's what I'll say, just in my perception with the recognition that my opinion on these guys is shaped largely with retrospective analysis (I watched Nance play, but I was too young to have any analysis worth talking about.):

They are two very different players.
Hear people praise Nance, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and having great verticality.
Hear people praise Jones, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and a man on fire out on the court.

Watch the highlights, you see Nance on the interior jump really high for a dunk or a block.
Watch the highlights, you see Jones dive on the ground, make steal way far from the net, chase down the fast break and get a block out of nowhere.

There's no doubt that Nance could jump high and reach higher, yet Jones blocked similar amounts of shots, rebounded similarly, and also was scene as a scary man defender out to the perimeter, and a terror in the passing lanes.

With Jones, you look at his body and you ask "How good can that guy possibly be?"
With Nance, you look at him and think, "Wow, that guy could be a superstar.", which of course he wasn't. He was the very definition of a borderline all-star despite being 6'10" with a vertical leap that was outlier good even for a guard.

So yeah, while in some sense it makes sense to see these guys as similar, I tend to see Jones as more like Larry Bird than Nance. Obviously Jones is nowhere near as capable as Bird, and to be clear I don't really have a problem with people siding with Nance here, but to me they just aren't in the same category.

See there are some things I would take issue with here.

Not that Nance was averse to playing above the rim but ...

Unlike his earlier years, when his game resided above the rim (he was the first winner of the of the Slam Dunk Championship), the 33-year old Nance is now primarily a jump shooter ... And a deadly one

That's after arguably his best year.

I can't help wonder if the difference in perception ("when you look at him") is partially a result of race (black guy is about -natural?- talent and athleticism, the white guy is fiery and overcomes the odds). I'm not saying Nance wasn't a good athlete or Jones didn't give his all.

But Jones wasn't exactly some slouch athletically

And Nance wasn't just about the athleticism as we'll go on to discuss. Nor does it hold true that Nance was the blue-chip prospect underachiever who should have been more and Jones the underdog hustler when you look at their respective draft positions (Jones 5, Nance 20).

Hear people praise Nance, and they'll talk about him being nice, humble, and having great verticality.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdBDOyzh8T8[/youtube]
Lenny Wilkens: Larry has brought, err, tremendous leadership to the ballclub. He's a guy that comes to play every night. He's, he's a winner. He does it. He's there delivering every night. And the players see that and respond to it.
Brad Daugherty: Larry brings to us a great deal of athletic ability and a great deal of (of, uh) mental concentration and that's what we needed basically, was a player with a great deal of experience who'd go out and put it on the floor for us each night, to lead by example and whatnot and he's that person.

They seem to be giving him a large share of the credit for their huge improvement. Whilst I'm not sure we can parse out what is Nance, what is internal growth, the Cavs certainly improved a lot in his first full season.

But the main thing from what they're saying is that the on court stuff isn't just verticality it's leadership by example, consistency and I'd suggest implicity with that ... hustle. His steals (over 1 a game each year in Phoenix after a low minute rookie year) too (when combined with the blocks and defensive reputation, i.e. not just Josh Smith) suggest a pretty impressive effort level.

And that's the key to my issue. If you have Jones's effort/intangiables in a super elite tier, that's fine. Nance was far from just athleticism. and

He was the very definition of a borderline all-star despite being 6'10" with a vertical leap that was outlier good even for a guard

Really?

In what sense?

In the literal, he missed the ASG a few times in his prime. Sure (though it'd be slightly odd to raise that in a comparison v Jones). It's a pretty crude bar though.

In the sense he wasn't a go-to scorer. Sure (though very odd to mention that in a comparison v Jones). Another pretty poor bar.

In the sense that he wasn't a top 20 player year on year (for about 10 years, injured '90 maybe not)? I'm not buying it. And thats the bottom end. He sometimes misses a few too many games, but metric wise (PER and WS/48) year in year out who is there that there is a consensus is better (and note often that guys who are better by the boxscore are worse on D (and intanigables and BPM)

Spoiler:

'84 (10)
Dantley
King
Bird
Moncrief
McHale
Magic
Vandeweghe
Erving
Moses
Jim Paxson

'85 (9, or maybe 10)
Bird
Magic
Jordan
Jabbar
McHale
Dantley
Moses
Cummings
Natt
(Isiah tied on WS/48)

'86 (8)
Bird
Magic
Dantley
McHale
Jabbar
Olajuwon
Barkley
Wilkins

'87 (6)
Magic
Jordan
Bird
McHale
Barkley
Wilkins

'88 (11)
Jordan
Barkley
Bird
Stockton
Drexler
McHale
Magic
Olajuwon
Lever
Moses
Aguirre

'89 (8)
Jordan
Magic
Barkley
Stockton
K. Malone
Price
Drexler
Olajuwon

'90 (24)
Jordan
Magic
Barkley
K. Malone
Robinson
Stockton
Drexler
Ewing
Porter
K. Johnson
McHale
Wilkins
Miller
Hornacek
Price
Chambers
Mullin
Olajuwon
Worthy
Charles Smith
Ricky Pierce
D Harper
Parish
Bird

'91 (15, or 17)
Jordan
Robinson
Barkley
Magic
Porter
K Malone
K Johnson
Stockton
Drexler
Miller
Olajuwon
McHale
Wilkins
Mullin
Pierce

(Parish, Pippen tied PER)

'92 (8)
Jordan
Robinson
K Malone
Drexler
Stockton
Daugherty
Barkley
Price

'93 (8)
Jordan
Barkley
K Malone
Olajuwon
Daugherty
Robinson
Price
Wilkins

Matching/besting both marks is a high requirement but as I said even from these guys there are some that, between D and intangiables Nance has a case on as better in the given season (mostly the exclusively scorer types). And fwiw, if he truly were on the AS borderline standard of player, it'd wouldn't be too big an ask. It's a crude measure but to me it fits with a guy typically on the periphery (probably more often outside) the top 10, in the top 15 than a guy around the 24th best player.

I don't think he was a perhiperal all-star, and I'd be surprised if you really thought he was in any sense that you value as measure of a player.

On the bolded (because it stands out from the rest, and the tone/message is different). Is it it ASG that is your default starting point? Accolades? Would we be okay calling Reggie Miller a borderline all-star (5 times, never more than twice consecutively), 3 Third Teams (not available for a large chunk of Nance's career), less MVP shares than Nance.

Either it's a real issue, and he is someone you define as "a borderline all-star" or it's a marginal point, in which case you note it in passing (e.g. "his [lack of] accolades may raise a red flag to some").

Accolades are a starting point yes. I'm not chained to them, but I don't simply brush aside the opinions of contemporary analysts either.

As noted, I think they really, really missed the mark with Reggie. I've yet to be convinced that they saw Nance totally wrong.

To be clear, in prior projects, I've always seen Nance as a guy who deserved to be in the Top 100, so at 71 we aren't way off the mark. I like Jones' game more though.

but it's not like it's a mystery why he'd be seen in this light

Why is he? (I've noted strong career value added by the metrics already plus intangiables etc)

The only reason I can see is that he wasn't a self promoter and that he hadn't been a blue chip, high pick prospect. Or again that he's not a high scorer (which would be an odd thing to highlight in the context of a Nance-Jones discussion).

[blah, blah late first rounder, 20th pick blah] but nobody expected this much this soon

[gushing praise blah, blah blah] Finally steped into the spotlight with his victory in the Slam Dunk Contest

Won the NBA Slam Dunk Competition in Denver in 1984 and says that he has been stereotyped as nothing more than a dunker since that time ... While theres no doubting his dunking and leaping abilities, real fans know he's one of the best all-around forwards in the game ... Drafted without much fanfare as the 20th pick overall in 1981, he made rapid progress and become one of the brightest stars in the league

Fell off his high perch ... The former "High-Atollah of Slamola" has paid the price for not wanting to be known as a dunk artist ... After winning the NBA Slam Dunk title in 1984, he eschewed the spotlight and did not even participate in the 1986 contest ... Paid the price for his reclusiveness by being left off the Western Conference All-Star team by both the fans and the coaches ... But be sure that opponents never overlook him ... One of the finest forwards in the game, he is an exceptional leaper and overpowering inside player ... The third ranking field-goal percentage shooter in the league at .581 last season .. Has never shot less than .521 in five pro seasons .. Born Feb 12, 1959, in Anderson, S.C.. .... Probably underpaid at a salary of $500,000 last season ... One of the great steals of the draft, he was taken on the 20th pick of the first round in 1981

[Repeated dunk contest back story] ... Didn't like being regarded as one-dimensional, so he shied away from the spotlight ... How they've left him off the all-star team in the last two years is a mystery ... He's one of the few rays of hope in in a bleak Suns' picture

Magnificent leaper with murderous inside game ... Generally underrated. Made All-Star Game just once

'90 came after his '89 All-Star game so there was merely an allusion to his second ASG.

Underrated and unappreciated most of his career, he came to Cavs from Phoenix in a monster deal for Kevin Johnson on Feb 25, 1988 ... Smart, good passer, especially against double-teaming ... Complete pro who's unfortunately on down side of career [note: this transpired not to be true, just an injury hit down year] ... Career .522 shooting mark puts him in top 10 among active players ... Winner of first-ever Slam Dunk title. Too many associated him with flash over his abundant substance, though

Always underrated. Quiet guy who never self-promotes ... Consistent, honest worker

'94 edition focused on the career he'd had, statistical landmark, how good he was for the oldest starting forward in the league "No sign of slowing down as he keeps himself in magnificent shape" his scoring tools, his timing.

I don't pretend to know intangiable impact to a high degree (though I'll certainly factor in what best info we have). Despite the train of "Nance is great, how dare you not vote for him" above based on aspects of your post -probably mostly my interpretation of the "but it's not like it's a mystery why he'd be seen in this light" line - through the last few posts there have been consistent threads of "I just think Bobby Jones is super-elite all-time intangiables guy." And for the most part I'd agree. My line of thinking isn't Nance is equal there and the numbers are better. It's that the numbers per minute are similar (Nance's, I'd suggest a little better), Nance gives you two extra seasons worth (and fwiw, might have gone longer without injuries) of minutes, and throw in that Nance was very highly regarded (Barry and Cohn ran out of ways to call him a leader by example e.g. pro's pro (x2), ultimate pro, consumate pro, a classy pro) and Jones has to be at the very ceiling of intangiables to add enough value to push his career ahead of Nance's. But I'm thinking you've got Jones there. I guess I was just hoping to get in a defensive minded box score stuffer who was good over a long spell in before all the offensive stars who were bigger names but played really well for a much shorter period (and/or maybe weren't so great on D, and perhaps intangiables), and concentrate that vote.

Nance was a guy who just didn't rack up eye-popping numbers. The only thing he was consistently on the league leader board for was blocks, and even there he was a 2-3 block guy in an era where the very top guys were in the 4-5 block range. There's nothing about that's going to necessarily drive a guy to be seen as a clear cut franchise player.

Again, doesn't mean he wasn't, but if I'm comparing him to, say, Elton Brand, it's far from trivial to argue that Nance was clearly the better player.

And again, you can say all that same stuff about Jones, it's just that to me Jones' story pops out beyond those norms much more saliently.

Put simply based on the quality of his advanced numbers, his intangiables and contemporary reports, the lack of ASG accolades should not be a factor (also note Rodman just got in with 2 ASG appearances). Whilst it might be semi-conceivable as to he wasn't at ASG's i.e. no one outstanding area (though shotblocking outstanding for a forward, low mistakes player with low trn%, high ts%, and AA to AAA range intangiables), it seems to have been considered at the time by some to have been poor decisions bordering on a joke. Given the lack of openness (and possibility for horse-trading), or more likely just assigning spots badly, for instance on team performance even if it's mostly one guy and the next best guy is now injured (2002: Wally Szczerbiak over Brand - who eventually got in after Shaq got injured, Karl Malone, Shawn Marion, even rookie Pau or Kirilenko), there's little reason to trust it as strong evaluator in this instance.

*This isn't particularly a response to Doc just a summary of where I am from the above discussion. The Brand point is entirely fair. I would argue that if the 4+ bar for shot blocking is Eaton and Bol, well they're two of the absolute all time greats in this aspect of the game, if they had a game anything like as rounded as Nance's they'd be in a while ago; if it's Olajuwon (x3) and Robinson (x1) they were in a long time ago.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I think this is too soon for Bobby Jones. He had good defensive timing and an accurate mid range shot.
I remember him as something like a cross between Tayshaun Prince, David Lee and Kirilenko but with an accurate mid range shot.

I'm not sure how to respond to the "cross between" statement.

All 3 guys seem like they are being thrown out there to point to him as an underwhelming player compared to others at this level, but quite literally if we said something like: "He's like peak Kirilenko, but a much superior man defender who also scores efficiently at decent volume", to me that's a strong MVP candidate. And if you're not talking about Prince to mean "excellent man defender" I don't know what he's supposed to mean here.

Though I guess no matter what the Lee mention just weirds me. I don't see the connection.

I am talking about 76ers Bobby Jones. If Nuggets Bobby Jones is much better then I may not stand by my comparison statement. Nuggets Bobby Jones does have better stats than 76ers Bobby Jones.

David Lee is not an insult. Out of Bobby Jones, Kirilenko, Prince and Lee, David Lee is the best scorer and best rebounder.
Bobby Jones had the most accurate mid range shot of those 4 but he did not create his own shot. Lee is best of the 4 driving to the basket despite being the slowest of the 4.

I seriously doubt that peak Bobby Jones was even in peak Kirilenko's class as far as raw athleticism. 76ers Bobby Jones was not in Kirilenko's class in terms of raw athleticism. Bobby Jone's defense was about reading the play correctly and having his timing correct. So there is a 2nd hole in my "cross between" statement because in addition to having the most accurate mid range shot Bobby Jones also has the best defensive timing.

Tayshaun is long and shoots the deep ball better than the others. A cross between Lee, Prince and Kirilenko would be sort of similar to Bobby Jones.

I don't think Bobby Jones is that much better than Kirilenko, Lee and Prince.

Bobby Jones may have been on 11 all defensive teams but keep in mind that Larry Bird was also selected to 2nd team all defensive team one of those years. I am not sure who should have been all defensive team in Jones place in the mid 1980s but from my vantage point as a Celtic fan Jones was good but not great.

[Doctor MJ]

I am talking about 76ers Bobby Jones. If Nuggets Bobby Jones is much better then I may not stand by my comparison statement. Nuggets Bobby Jones does have better stats than 76ers Bobby Jones.

David Lee is not an insult. Out of Bobby Jones, Kirilenko, Prince and Lee, David Lee is the best scorer and best rebounder.
Bobby Jones had the most accurate mid range shot of those 4 but he did not create his own shot. Lee is best of the 4 driving to the basket despite being the slowest of the 4.

I seriously doubt that peak Bobby Jones was even in Kirilenko's class as far as raw athleticism. 76ers Bobby Jones was not in Kirilenko's class in terms of raw athleticism. Bobby Jone's defense was about reading the play correctly and having his timing correct. So there is a 2nd hole in my "cross between" statement because in addition to having the most accurate mid range shot Bobby Jones also has the best defensive timing.

Tayshaun is long and shoots the deep ball better than the others. A cross between Lee, Prince and Kirilenko would be sort of similar to Bobby Jones.

I don't think Bobby Jones is that much better than Kirilenko, Lee and Prince

See, to me, Kirilenko is VASTLY superior to the other two guys. Lee is basically a guy who got a lot of points & rebounds on bad teams, and who has never had a track record in Golden State for them to miss him at all. Prince was merely a guy who was a good fit in Detroit with some other superior talents, and who never mattered at all other than that.

So honestly, the fact that you equate them says quite a lot about how we disagree: To me Jones and Kirilenko are guys to compare with each other, and I think they are both excellent. If Kirilenko had been able to keep up how he broke out after Malone & Stockton, he's an absolute lock to make the Top 100.

Then there's Lee and Prince, who I don't know if they'd make my Top 200 despite the fact that they haven't really had health issues define their career. (Lee's missed time in GS sure, but it only re-shaped thinking based on how replaceable what he did was.)

Re: Athleticism Kirilenko vs Jones. Yeah I'd give Kirilenko the edge there. I'd give Jones the edge in motor, scoring, and intangibles.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #23:

Bobby Jones (2) - penbeast0, Doctor MJ

Tiny Archibald (2) - ronnymac2, Quotatious

James Worthy (1) - moonbeam

Larry Nance (1) - Owly

[trex_8063]

Just as a mention, figuring his ABA years into consideration, Dan Issel is another guy I think belongs in the discussion by this point.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

My vote: Larry Nance
Larry Nance impressed me more as a defender than 76ers Bobby Jones did. He was also a high quality offensive player. While I can't decide who I really want to support at this slot because there are so many good candidates there is nothing wrong with Larry Nance getting in here.

[trex_8063]

Vote: abstaining

This is somewhat a strategic pick. Tiny isn't my top pick for this spot, but among the guys with support who appear to have a chance of getting a run-off and/or winning this spot, he'd be my choice. He's the highest peak of the guys getting votes or serious discussion at this point. Led a #1 offense at this peak where his principle supporting cast was Sam Lacey, Tom Van Arsdale, Matt Guokas, Nate Williams, and Ron Riley. Some of that was clearly team strategy (offense over defense), but that's still an impressive accomplishment. Had some supporting cast seasons late in his career which are more valuable than his advanced metrics would indicate, too, imo.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

So honestly, the fact that you equate them says quite a lot about how we disagree

I realize that my image of Bobby Jones is very warped by my so overwhelmingly thinking of him with 76ers vs the Celtics. Maybe the Celtics were not a good match up for Jones. The 76ers who really impressed me as defenders against the Celtics were Caldwell Jones and Mo Cheeks. Caldwell Jones was the only player that I remember seriously disrupting Cedric Maxwell. I don't remember Bobby Jones having any more success vs Maxwell and Bird than other above average defenders did.

[penbeast0]

Just as a mention, figuring his ABA years into consideration, Dan Issel is another guy I think belongs in the discussion by this point.

I see Amare over Issel as players with similar games; would rather have a decent offense, great defense player like Jones or Nance than either though the stats might not be as flashy.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #73 - Nate Archibald

I had too much indecision in the last thread between archibald and worthy, so I decided to sit that one out. Kinda curious how a worthy / rodman runoff would've gone, as rodman had wrapped it up when I came back to vote for tiny.

My main issue with tiny was the lack of any playoff success before boston. Worthy was more consistent overall during his career, but i'm more impressed with tiny's best stretch of play, which is a large enough sample size for me. Worthy's finals MVP in 88 also seems questionable given he had the amazing game 7, but magic clearly had the better series overall:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-DET

Archibald in his own right played a significant role in the celtics 81 championship run. It at least suggests that he would've succeeded in his prime with better teammates, and i'd give someone as talented as him the benefit of the doubt.

[ceiling raiser]

Bobby Jones

Just a note, lorak was kind enough to compute net on/off and ortg/drtg from the Pollack guides. Might be useful in this discussion:

• Bobby Jones

Code: Select all

YEAR   MIN   ORTG   DRTG   NET
1978-79   2304   0,7   -2,7   3,4
1979-80   2125   5,3   -3,1   8,4
1980-81   2046   3,8   -7,0   10,8
1981-82   2181   1,1   -3,1   4,2
1982-83   1749   9,7   -1,3   11,0
1983-84   1761   5,5   -2,1   7,6
1984-85   1633   8,4   -2,0   10,4
1985-86   1519   1,1   -2,7   3,8


I considered Jones as a little bit overrated player, but these numbers will definitely change may opinion about him. He basically looks like Manu, but with better balance between offense and defense. Really nothing bad I can tell here about Jones. Rosters and team strategy changed but his impact was still there on BOTH ends of the floor until very last season of his career. VERY impressive.

source: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1343246&start=140#p41147920

[Doctor MJ]

So honestly, the fact that you equate them says quite a lot about how we disagree

I realize that my image of Bobby Jones is very warped by my so overwhelmingly thinking of him with 76ers vs the Celtics. Maybe the Celtics were not a good match up for Jones. The 76ers who really impressed me as defenders against the Celtics were Caldwell Jones and Mo Cheeks. Caldwell Jones was the only player that I remember seriously disrupting Cedric Maxwell. I don't remember Bobby Jones having any more success vs Maxwell and Bird than other above average defenders did.

Fair enough. Incidentally, Cheeks is someone else I expect to champion before this project is through.

[penbeast0]

Caldwell Jones and Maurice Cheeks were terrific defenders as well and Maxwell was primarily a post scorer so it makes since that the Sixers would put Jones primarily on him (or McHale who played the same role later) while using Bobby Jones on Cowens/Parish and/or Bird depending on whether he was in at the 4 or the 3. Heck, I remember them putting Jones on Dennis Johnson a few times too when they ran a big lineup.

At the moment, the key comp is Bobby Jones v. Larry Nance (or even James Worthy if he gets another vote) to set up the classic matchup of the offensive only superstar v. the two way star. Anyone want to run a deeper comp on Jones v. Nance than the rather sketchy one I have in the OP?

[trex_8063]

Not sure who else is paying attention, but I wonder if Moonbeam would be willing to switch his vote to either one of Bobby Jones or Larry Nance (to put this into a run-off); or switch to Tiny Archibald (which would end it immediately by giving Tiny a majority)....

[Moonbeam]

Not sure who else is paying attention, but I wonder if Moonbeam would be willing to switch his vote to either one of Bobby Jones or Larry Nance (to put this into a run-off); or switch to Tiny Archibald (which would end it immediately by giving Tiny a majority)....

I'll switch to Larry Nance. He's not too far off for me anyway. Love his combination of solid offense and defense in multiple roles. Jones is good, too, but the minutes thing makes me reluctant to take him ahead of Nance.

[penbeast0]

OK, runoff between Nate Archibald and Larry Nance. I will switch my vote to Nance too; I just don't see Nate's impact on a championship contender matching up. What he brought to the table as a star was a great degree of ball dominant scoring and playmaking. But, he only stayed at that level for a short time; he will always be a very good ballhandler and passer with some degree of scoring threat, but on a talented team, I don't see his offensive impact being as great as Nance's two-way impact.



Tiny Archibald - ronnymac2, Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, Joao Saraiva

Larry Nance - Owly, SinceGatlingWasARookie, Moonbeam, penbeast0,

[Joao Saraiva]

I've read your posts guys and I'm more convinced on Tiny Archibald. Also Quotatious has done a good job defending him in the latest threads, so my run off vote goes to Tiny.

Sorry I haven't been so active lately.

[trex_8063]

Not to complicate things (by bringing the vote back to a draw), but I am officially retracting my vote for Tiny Archibald (edited in original post: he would have made the run-off without me). Looking at Nance more, and now I just don't feel certain at all in voting for Tiny. I am NOT switching my vote to Nance, but rather am choosing to conscientiously abstain.

[SactoKingsFan]

I've recently spent some time tweaking my ATL. I ended up putting Nance and Archibald in the 70-80 range with Nance a few spots ahead of Tiny since he had more high quality seasons and was a two way player.

Run-off vote: Larry Nance

Other guys on my radar:

Spoiler:

Worthy
Parker
Marion
Webber
Ben Wallace
Sheed
Mullin
Richmond
Kemp
Bosh
Tim Hardaway
Brand
Grant
Jones