RealGM Top 100 List #74

Post #1 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:21 am

PG: Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left, Nate Archibald and Penny Hardaway are the main short peak guys. I haven't looked at Tony Parker properly, if anyone wants to fun him against the others.

Wings: I am leaning toward a forward right now . . .

Defensive stalwarts: Ben Wallace, Bobby Jones, Shawn Marion (should add Horace Grant and Rasheed Wallace here too . . . )

Spoiler:

Comparing 4 guys known as scoring 3's: Carmelo Anthony, Billy Cunningham, Marques Johnson, James Worthy (should get around to adding Chris Mullin and Glen Rice to the mix, maybe even Jamaal Wilkes or Bobby Dandridge).

Spoiler:

Best bigs left: My favorite is Mel Daniels with his 2 ABA MVPs and 3 rings (2 as clearly the best player) -- played like Alonzo Mourning offensively and Moses defensively -- but his weaknesses (and the weakness of the early ABA) are problematic. Bill Walton and Connie Hawkins are super short, super peak guys. Neil Johnston, Amare, Dan Issel, Jerry Lucas, and Spencer Haywood have offensive creds but bigs who don't play good defense are problematic for me. Even Zelmo Beaty, Elton Brand, Chris Bosh, Chris Webber, and Yao Ming are on my radar.

Jerry Lucas, Mel Daniels, Bobby Jones, and Shawn Marion are the main guys on my list right now. Lucas was a great rebounder, outstanding secondary scorer with stretch the floor range and good passing skills. Not a good defender though willing; did a good job post prime taking over for injured Willis Reed and playing most of the center minutes on the Knicks second title team. Daniels is a 2 time ABA MVP; I'd take him over the flashier numbers of Neil Johnston and the 50s bigs because even though the early ABA isn't strong, it was better than the 50s NBA, super warrior type, short career arc. Jones is a great glue guy who gave up minutes and starting roles to help his team, still is the all-time record holder with the most 1st team All-Def awards, very efficient high energy, good passing, nice midrange . . . was the best player on the best team in 1975 ABA without great help (Denver had a better record than either Erving's Nets or Gilmore's Colonels) who made Larry Brown's jump and switch defense into a winner, limited minutes player is his main weakness (and not a good rebounder for a 4). Marion has a long career as one of the great offball slashers and wing rebounders of all time, versatile, was clearly the second best player (better than Amare who got all the awards) on those Nash led Sun teams -- Suns didn't miss a beat when Amare went down; and did a great job on LeBron in Dallas's title run.

I guess I will tentatively vote for Bobby Jones for his versatility, willingness to sacrifice glory for team, and just being the epitome of what basketball should be about. If it's about winning rather than stats, Jones is your poster boy.

ronnymac2 · Post #2 » by **ronnymac2** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:27 am

Vote: Nate "Tiny" Archibald

Unguardable in his prime. He's got 4 seasons where he averages at least 24.8 points and 6.8 assists. He later became the heady leader of a multi-polar Boston Celtic squad which contended throughout Nate's time there, peaking with a title in 1981. Excellent free throw shooter, unselfish, and doesn't have problems other 1970s stars had aside from injuries.

Post #3 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:02 am

I'll go ahead and put it out there.....vote for #74: Tony Parker.

There's a great deal of positive to be said for him......
In the last 12 seasons (not counting this current one) he's been no less than the 3rd-best---often the 2nd-best---player on FOUR title teams. He's been no less than 3rd-best on.....well, 10-11 contenders (because the Spurs have legitimately been contenders nearly every season of his career); and in the case of '12, at the very least, you can make an argument he was actually the #1 guy (at least a #1A/1B scenario) on a contender-level squad.

His rs stats over that 12-year span (863 rs games):
17.8 ppg/6.1 apg/2.6 tov @ 55.4% ts
19.7 PER, .156 WS/48, 110 ORtg/104 DRtg (+6) in 32.9 mpg

And he did this for what is generally one of the best and most balanced teams in the league.
He's fantastic at breaking guys down off the dribble (for his career 35.8% of his fga are from inside 3 ft), an outstanding finisher (career 65.4% from <3ft), and really a very good mid-range pull-up shooter, too. I have little doubt that a peak Tony Parker could have annually been putting up 22-24 ppg on decent efficiency for a lesser team.

wrt post-season, I think his playoff woes get marginally over-stated. His ps numbers over this same span do take a bit of a dip; however, closer scrutiny reveals that it's in a large part due to TWO bad playoff years ('03 and '05). If we look at the other TEN seasons in this span, his playoff numbers are:

19.04 PER, .103 WS/48 in 35.8 mpg. This is basically a typical post-season dip that we see from most players.

On the grandest stage (the Finals), he's had some poor performances, though he does have at least one very very nice finals performance in '07: 24.5 ppg/5.0/3.3 apg/3.0 tov @ 59.5% ts (Finals MVP).
And really, he was pretty good last year in the finals, too: 18.0 ppg/4.6 apg/2.0 tov @ 55.0% ts (non-existent rebounding, although you're not really counting on boards from your PG anyway).

I don't think DRtg (and thus ORtg/DRtg comparisons) really do him justice, as DRtg has a somewhat causal relationship with not only steals/blocks (which he doesn't get many of), but also defensive rebounds (which he's not a very good rebounding PG-->not really a big slam on him, because......PG; it's typically the least relevant skill/attribute for a PG).

Generally I would say Parker appears "checked in" on defense, certainly not a huge liability on that end (like say....certain years of Steve Nash, or Derrick Rose, whose defensive effort is abominable at times).

Non-scaled PI DRAPM for Parker:
'03--> +0.9
'04--> +0.5
'05--> -0.2
'06--> +0.9
'07--> -2.2
'08--> +1.01
'09--> +0.48
'10--> -0.21
'11--> -0.44
'12--> +1.16
'13--> +1.06
'14--> +0.20

Aside from one poor year in '07, he generally appears entirely decent defensively based on impact data (particularly for a PG).

His best 3-year and best 5-year combined PI RAPM marks are similar to guys like Tracy McGrady and Kevin Durant, and a little better than Pau Gasol.

Other guys I could strategically get behind should a consensus emerge: Chris Bosh, Tiny Archibald, and perhaps even Shawn Marion???

Post #4 » by **Doctor MJ** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:10 am

Vote: Bobby Jones

Clearly I'm not succeeding in convincing others. Oh well.

I'll reiterate: Manu Ginobili got in a while ago. If you totally disagree with that, then I don't really expect you to vote for Jones.

If you're fine with Manu though, on what basis do you see Ginobili as so, so different from Jones? Not that they are identical of course, but in both cases you're seeing guys who clearly do great quantifiable things, have great motor and vibe, and show all signs to being considerably more impactful than their already quite positive numbers suggest. And on the negative side, Jones plays limited minutes of course, but so did Ginobili.

Post #5 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:03 am

Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Bobby Jones

Clearly I'm not succeeding in convincing others. Oh well.

I'll reiterate: Manu Ginobili got in a while ago. If you totally disagree with that, then I don't really expect you to vote for Jones.

If you're fine with Manu though, on what basis do you see Ginobili as so, so different from Jones?

Career PER
Ginobili - 21.5
Jones - 18.2

Career WS/48
Ginobili - .209
Jones - .175

Ginobili confirmed (or as close as we can come) big impact based on impact data: consistently among the league's elite in that regard. With Jones, it's more speculative.

I'd use that as a starting point.

Post #6 » by **Moonbeam** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:06 am

trex_8063 wrote:I'll go ahead and put it out there.....vote for #74: Tony Parker.

There's a great deal of positive to be said for him......
In the last 12 seasons (not counting this current one) he's been no less than the 3rd-best---often the 2nd-best---player on FOUR title teams. He's been no less than 3rd-best on.....well, 10-11 contenders (because the Spurs have legitimately been contenders nearly every season of his career); and in the case of '12, at the very least, you can make an argument he was actually the #1 guy (at least a #1A/1B scenario) on a contender-level squad.

His rs stats over that 12-year span (863 rs games):
17.8 ppg/6.1 apg/2.6 tov @ 55.4% ts
19.7 PER, .156 WS/48, 110 ORtg/104 DRtg (+6) in 32.9 mpg

And he did this for what is generally one of the best and most balanced teams in the league.
He's fantastic at breaking guys down off the dribble (for his career 35.8% of his fga are from inside 3 ft), an outstanding finisher (career 65.4% from <3ft), and really a very good mid-range pull-up shooter, too. I have little doubt that a peak Tony Parker could have annually been putting up 22-24 ppg on decent efficiency for a lesser team.

wrt post-season, I think his playoff woes get marginally over-stated. His ps numbers over this same span do take a bit of a dip; however, closer scrutiny reveals that it's in a large part due to TWO bad playoff years ('03 and '05). If we look at the other TEN seasons in this span, his playoff numbers are:

19.04 PER, .103 WS/48 in 35.8 mpg. This is basically a typical post-season dip that we see from most players.

On the grandest stage (the Finals), he's had some poor performances, though he does have at least one very very nice finals performance in '07: 24.5 ppg/5.0/3.3 apg/3.0 tov @ 59.5% ts (Finals MVP).
And really, he was pretty good last year in the finals, too: 18.0 ppg/4.6 apg/2.0 tov @ 55.0% ts (non-existent rebounding, although you're not really counting on boards from your PG anyway).

I don't think DRtg (and thus ORtg/DRtg comparisons) really do him justice, as DRtg has a somewhat causal relationship with not only steals/blocks (which he doesn't get many of), but also defensive rebounds (which he's not a very good rebounding PG-->not really a big slam on him, because......PG; it's typically the least relevant skill/attribute for a PG).

Generally I would say Parker appears "checked in" on defense, certainly not a huge liability on that end (like say....certain years of Steve Nash, or Derrick Rose, whose defensive effort is abominable at times).

Non-scaled PI DRAPM for Parker:
'03--> +0.9
'04--> +0.5
'05--> -0.2
'06--> +0.9
'07--> -2.2
'08--> +1.01
'09--> +0.48
'10--> -0.21
'11--> -0.44
'12--> +1.16
'13--> +1.06
'14--> +0.20

Aside from one poor year in '07, he generally appears entirely decent defensively based on impact data (particularly for a PG).

His best 3-year and best 5-year combined PI RAPM marks are similar to guys like Tracy McGrady and Kevin Durant, and a little better than Pau Gasol.

Other guys I could strategically get behind should a consensus emerge: Chris Bosh, Tiny Archibald, and perhaps even Shawn Marion???

I think Parker should be considered soon, but your arguments for him seem ripe for comparison to James Worthy. Both are key guys to multiple contenders but were never the main guy. They aren't too far off accolade wise though Parker has an advantage (Worthy was a 7-time All-Star, Parker a 6-time All-Star, Worthy has 2 All-NBA 3rd teams but Parker was three times an All-NBA 2nd team member in addition to an All-NBA 3rd Team member once).

Parker maybe has a bit of a longevity edge in all-encompassing advanced metrics, but they aren't worlds apart:

WS: Parker 97.4, Worthy 81.2
WS/48: Parker .148, Worthy .130
PER: Parker 19.0, Worthy 17.7
O/D: Parker 109/104, Worthy 112/108
BPM: Parker 1.3, Worthy 1.7
VORP: Parker 26.3, Worthy 27.9

Where Worthy makes his case is in the playoffs.

You've mentioned Parker's struggles, but there is a chasm between Parker and Worthy in terms of offensive performance in the postseason.

Parker:

Code: Select all

Year   Score+    O+
2002    0.465  -0.98
2003   -2.326  -5.58
2004   -0.721   1.44
2005   -1.648  -7.61
2006   -0.048  -2.90
2007   -0.769  -2.04
2008    1.130   0.99
2009    3.705   1.05
2010   -1.761  -5.23
2011   -0.715  -3.96
2012    0.552   2.82
2013   -0.164   4.21
2014   -0.607  -3.83
Total  -0.525  -1.73

Worthy:

Code: Select all

Year   Score+    O+
1985    4.781  20.93
1986    1.371   1.07
1987    4.169  13.23
1988    2.247  10.16
1989    4.075  14.32
1990    1.511   4.82
1991   -1.625  -2.13
1993   -8.814 -19.15
Total   2.072   8.07

Those numbers don't include his 1984 postseason, in which he posted a TS and ORating above his career averages, so his career total Score+ and O+ would likely rise. He fell off hard in the 90s, but I these stats suggest that Worthy was clearly a better offensive performer in the playoffs than Parker. Defensively, I don't think Worthy would be any worse than Parker, either.

Post #7 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:28 pm

Vote for #74 - Nate Archibald

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.

Post #8 » by **Quotatious** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:11 pm

Vote: Tiny Archibald.

Same reasoning as before. Higher peak than anyone left not named Bill Walton (but much better longevity than Walton), one of only two players in NBA history who led the league in scoring and assists in the same season, 6-time All-Star, 3-time All-NBA 1st team, 2-time All-NBA 2nd team choice, 54th in career MVP shares (finished in the top 10 five times, even as high as 3rd in 1973). His peak numbers certainly weren't "empty", as his 34 points and over 11 assists per game led the Kings to the best offense in the league - that team just wasn't good enough on defense to make the playoffs). Averaged about 27/3/8 (54.5% TS, 22.0 PER) between 1972 and 1977 (four healthy seasons, when he played at least 76 games in each of these 4 seasons, and two more with 34 and 35 games).
Finally, he was a key part of the Celtics championship team in 1981, being able to reinvent his game after injuries robbed him of a lot of his youthful athleticism, and a savvy veteran/leader.

Glad to see another Tiny voter - Clyde Frazier.

ronnymac2 · Post #9 » by **ronnymac2** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:33 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Bobby Jones

Clearly I'm not succeeding in convincing others. Oh well.

I'll reiterate: Manu Ginobili got in a while ago. If you totally disagree with that, then I don't really expect you to vote for Jones.

If you're fine with Manu though, on what basis do you see Ginobili as so, so different from Jones? Not that they are identical of course, but in both cases you're seeing guys who clearly do great quantifiable things, have great motor and vibe, and show all signs to being considerably more impactful than their already quite positive numbers suggest. And on the negative side, Jones plays limited minutes of course, but so did Ginobili.

I think Bobby Jones would be awesome today on an ensemble cast where his minutes could be monitored on a SAS/ATL type team. Tremendous defensive activity with blocks and steals.

That said, why take Bobby Jones over Horace Grant? Grant has a significant longevity edge (nearly 13,000 more REG SEA minutes; 24 more career win shares; 3 more legit seasons as a rotational player), so it can't be that. What about prime/peak play?

I see Grant as a clearly more valuable offensive player, hitting an individual offensive peak on all-time great offensive teams (1992 Bulls, 1995 Magic — broke the vaunted 115 Team ORTG barrier) as a disciplined conduit of offensive flow. He made his bones in a few ways:

1. Offensive rebounder (top 5 a few times)
2. Elite mid-range shooter (spreading the floor with post-up options, acting as a pick-n-pop partner for ball-handlers like Penny)
3. Low-turnover passing hub, who'd receive the ball after a superstar drew attention and get it to shooters when his shot wasn't there, or as a hi-low passer to bigs (Namely, Shaq).

Horace led the league in 1992 with a Tyson Chandler-esque 132 ORTG despite taking jump shots from mid-range. He ranked in the top-10 in turnover % multiple times.

Jones certainly impresses with his individual scoring efficiency, but his turnovers relative to his ability to create for others or himself leaves a lot to be desired. Per 100-Possessions for his career, he's at 3.3. Grant is nearly half that at 1.7. We aren't talking about ball-handlers or creators where we know their risks come with massive rewards. These are offensive role players who are expected to play off others and be efficient in doing so.

Defensively, Jones is superior. Looking at his blocks and steals numbers, you get a really small list of players that ever achieved what he did. I'm talking Olajuwon, Big Ben, AK-47 types. But Grant was known as an All-NBA defensive team-level defender with the energy, much like Jones, to play in a trapping scheme that pressured ball-handlers and entry passes. Chicago's defense during the first 3-peat excelled because, along with a dominant perimeter tandem, they had Grant, who could spot cover smalls on the perimeter and trap them. He was also on average a superior defensive rebounder per possession to Jones.

Then you get to MPG. You're getting Grant's disciplined, efficient, portable offense with spacing and passing, and game-changing frenetic-yet-smart defense, in way more MPG. Jones eclipsed 30 MPG 3 seasons in his career. Grant eclipsed 33 MPG 12 times. It's nearly the same story come playoff time.

His portability in terms of skillset as well as its real-life application across multiple team constructs over his career is effective and proven. At the end of his career, he carved out a niche as a post defender against Golden Era Of PF bigs like Tim Duncan, Rasheed Wallace, and Chris Webber, plugging in the major weakness for the dynasty Lakers and helping the '01 squad rise toward all-time playoff greatness.

Post #10 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 10:56 pm

Good post ronnymac; I can only say that having watched them both, the eye test makes me think Jones the more impactful player . . . and remember that he was the best player on the 75 Nuggets who went 65-19!

However, I would be interested how you compare Grant to Jerry Lucas, Shawn Marion, and Rasheed and Ben Wallace.

Post #11 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Jan 21, 2015 11:32 pm

Great post, ronnymac2.

A couple years ago Ho Grant was someone I had placed in the ~120 range all-time. More recently, I've come to think of him as massively underrated, and suspect he should perhaps be in the discussion and/or receiving votes right now. Your analysis has furthered that suspicion, fwiw.

Post #12 » by **Moonbeam** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 12:52 am

Yeah, Horace Grant is on my shortlist at this point, too. He was very integral to the first Bull 3-peat and I think some new +/- data has him above Pippen at one point in Chicago (I'd have to check, though).

Post #13 » by **Doctor MJ** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:40 am

ronnymac2 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Bobby Jones

Clearly I'm not succeeding in convincing others. Oh well.

I'll reiterate: Manu Ginobili got in a while ago. If you totally disagree with that, then I don't really expect you to vote for Jones.

If you're fine with Manu though, on what basis do you see Ginobili as so, so different from Jones? Not that they are identical of course, but in both cases you're seeing guys who clearly do great quantifiable things, have great motor and vibe, and show all signs to being considerably more impactful than their already quite positive numbers suggest. And on the negative side, Jones plays limited minutes of course, but so did Ginobili.

I think Bobby Jones would be awesome today on an ensemble cast where his minutes could be monitored on a SAS/ATL type team. Tremendous defensive activity with blocks and steals.

That said, why take Bobby Jones over Horace Grant? Grant has a significant longevity edge (nearly 13,000 more REG SEA minutes; 24 more career win shares; 3 more legit seasons as a rotational player), so it can't be that. What about prime/peak play?

I see Grant as a clearly more valuable offensive player, hitting an individual offensive peak on all-time great offensive teams (1992 Bulls, 1995 Magic — broke the vaunted 115 Team ORTG barrier) as a disciplined conduit of offensive flow. He made his bones in a few ways:

1. Offensive rebounder (top 5 a few times)
2. Elite mid-range shooter (spreading the floor with post-up options, acting as a pick-n-pop partner for ball-handlers like Penny)
3. Low-turnover passing hub, who'd receive the ball after a superstar drew attention and get it to shooters when his shot wasn't there, or as a hi-low passer to bigs (Namely, Shaq).

Horace led the league in 1992 with a Tyson Chandler-esque 132 ORTG despite taking jump shots from mid-range. He ranked in the top-10 in turnover % multiple times.

Jones certainly impresses with his individual scoring efficiency, but his turnovers relative to his ability to create for others or himself leaves a lot to be desired. Per 100-Possessions for his career, he's at 3.3. Grant is nearly half that at 1.7. We aren't talking about ball-handlers or creators where we know their risks come with massive rewards. These are offensive role players who are expected to play off others and be efficient in doing so.

Defensively, Jones is superior. Looking at his blocks and steals numbers, you get a really small list of players that ever achieved what he did. I'm talking Olajuwon, Big Ben, AK-47 types. But Grant was known as an All-NBA defensive team-level defender with the energy, much like Jones, to play in a trapping scheme that pressured ball-handlers and entry passes. Chicago's defense during the first 3-peat excelled because, along with a dominant perimeter tandem, they had Grant, who could spot cover smalls on the perimeter and trap them. He was also on average a superior defensive rebounder per possession to Jones.

Then you get to MPG. You're getting Grant's disciplined, efficient, portable offense with spacing and passing, and game-changing frenetic-yet-smart defense, in way more MPG. Jones eclipsed 30 MPG 3 seasons in his career. Grant eclipsed 33 MPG 12 times. It's nearly the same story come playoff time.

His portability in terms of skillset as well as its real-life application across multiple team constructs over his career is effective and proven. At the end of his career, he carved out a niche as a post defender against Golden Era Of PF bigs like Tim Duncan, Rasheed Wallace, and Chris Webber, plugging in the major weakness for the dynasty Lakers and helping the '01 squad rise toward all-time playoff greatness.

I think it's really easy to overrate the offensive rebounding of Grant based on his time in Chicago. This was a team, after all, that saw it's offensive rebounding rank improve AFTER Grant left BEFORE Rodman got there at a time when the club's top offensive rebounder only played 20 MPG. Clearly Jackson made a huge point to go after offensive rebounding, which I think was brilliant given what Jordan was, and clearly Grant was someone who could contribute toward that goal. But he's not Rodman, a guy worth mentioning largely on the back of that skill.

As for points 2 & 3, Jones scored comparable volume on superior efficiency while racking up more assists. I hope you're not arguing he actually has an edge as an attacker - that you're simply saying that with the rebounding you think he's the better player. You talk about turnovers, and try to equate the roles of the 2 guys, but when the guy with more turnovers also has more assists, he's obviously being asked to do a considerably more intensive playmaking role.

So yeah to me, I see Jones as being asked to do more of everything than Grant, except rebounding. And while I"m fine giving Grant props for his rebounding, it has to be noted that he was in the perfect situation to get props for his rebounding and that the team did more than fine on that front without him.

Post #14 » by **Doctor MJ** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:40 am

Moonbeam wrote:Yeah, Horace Grant is on my shortlist at this point, too. He was very integral to the first Bull 3-peat and I think some new +/- data has him above Pippen at one point in Chicago (I'd have to check, though).

I'd be interested to be reminded of that data. It does ring a vague bell.

Post #15 » by **Moonbeam** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 3:20 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
Moonbeam wrote:Yeah, Horace Grant is on my shortlist at this point, too. He was very integral to the first Bull 3-peat and I think some new +/- data has him above Pippen at one point in Chicago (I'd have to check, though).

I'd be interested to be reminded of that data. It does ring a vague bell.

It's here somewhere: viewtopic.php?t=1343246

Post #16 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:44 am

Doctor MJ wrote:I think it's really easy to overrate the offensive rebounding of Grant based on his time in Chicago. This was a team, after all, that saw it's offensive rebounding rank improve AFTER Grant left BEFORE Rodman got there at a time when the club's top offensive rebounder only played 20 MPG.

This is a somewhat misleading statement, imo. For one, their league rank in ORebs improved only from the year immediately before (but were ranked worse in some OReb categories than any season in recent memory with Grant in a Bull uniform). Secondly, while their league rank mysteriously improves, their OReb numbers (by any and all means you choose to measure) were worse in '95 than in any of the previous four seasons. I'll show what I mean.....

Below I'll list (by year) Chicago's ORebs (league rank)/OREB% (league rank)/% of missed TSA's claimed by OReb:
'91: 1148 (13th/27)/34.7% (4th/27)/30.90%
'92: 1173 (12th/27)/35.1% (5th/27)/31.16%
'93: 1290 (3rd/27)/36.3% (1st/27)/32.58%
'94: 1143 (13th/27)/33.8% (11th/27)/29.99%
'95 (no Grant, no Rodman): 1106 (7th/27)/32.9% (6th/27)/29.36%
'96: 1247 (3rd/29)/36.9% (1st/29)/32.62%

Doctor MJ wrote: You talk about turnovers, and try to equate the roles of the 2 guys, but when the guy with more turnovers also has more assists, he's obviously being asked to do a considerably more intensive playmaking role.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "considerably more intensive role" as a playmaker. Jones is averaging 4.5 ast/100 poss vs. 3.4 for Grant. It's more, yes, but the verbiage used seems to imply Jones had to shoulder a ton of facilitating (which isn't precisely the case). Further, I'm not sure getting +1.1 ast/100 possessions at expense of 1.6 additional turnovers per 100 possessions is a nice exchange, regardless of role.

Longevity's another significant consideration when comparing the two, fwiw.

Owly · Post #17 » by **Owly** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:47 pm

A few guys I'm looking at and why they have my attention

Neil Johnston - The best numbers and most dominant on the board. All NBA first team accolades suggest he was highly thought of in his time. The main factors against are era and team success.

Elton Brand - Good combination of boxscore and D/intangiables/portabability (imo). I can see that Bosh might catch him (of post 2000 PFs) but right now? I don't see it. Brand was good right out of the gate, so I think he still has the advantage in quality years. Negatives: Not a "sexy" pick because he played on a poor team in a (then) irrelevant franchise, for his prime.

Marion - Numbers a bit worse than Brand but more rounded flexible game and still some strong metrics of those left. The against: Shot creation not great. How much did playing with Nash help (though see his Phoenix pre-Nash years)?

Bobby Jones - Another in the rounded, defensive, mold. Jones was (v Marion) less of a rebounder, a better passer, more selective with his shooting (clearly better efficiency, including drawing double the ftas per shot, but on a smaller burden, less spacing), higher turnover %. Jones got on with his role seemingly more willingly though perhaps it's easier not to be resentful of Erving than it is with Amar'e. Honestly I'd love to have either.

Efficient historical Celtics (Sharman and Howell) - Sharman clearly the best shooter of his era, clearly the best SG of his era, good intangiables, D, toughness. Issue: Era concerns, non-mind blowing metrics (arguably position-era related). Howell one of the absolute top notch scorers of the 60s and up there amongst the best metrics candidates on the board.

Hagan - Best available SF of his era (whether you put him in 50s or 60s, only Baylor ahead at SF of all 60s if you count Baylor as an SF). Monster playoffs in his prime (albeit small samples back then) including best playoff performer on a title team.

If you're a big playoff weigher there's Gus Williams and Frank Ramsey (and perhaps Kemp if you don't need ringz).

I'll tentatively ...
vote: Brand
but am amenable to switching if I see arguments.

ronnymac2 · Post #18 » by **ronnymac2** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:08 pm

penbeast0 wrote:Good post ronnymac; I can only say that having watched them both, the eye test makes me think Jones the more impactful player . . . and remember that he was the best player on the 75 Nuggets who went 65-19!

However, I would be interested how you compare Grant to Jerry Lucas, Shawn Marion, and Rasheed and Ben Wallace.

I'd take Horace Grant over Jerry Lucas and Shawn Kemp. I appreciate Lucas; smart player with an excellent jump shot. I think he was a poor defensive player though, and his overall impact probably wasn't as good as what his boxscore numbers were. Shawn Kemp to me is a complete idiot on offense. Great scoring efficiency that is negated by turnover numbers that make DeMarcus Cousins look like Anthony Davis. Kemp thought he had ball-handling skills in the half-court offense when he didn't. Wasn't a great jump shooter or passer. Excellent defender, but he did foul a lot, and he didn't seem interested in boxing out. With his fouls, minutes, and turnovers, he's not a player I'd want on my championship team.

HoGrant vs. Big Ben, Sheed, and Matrix is tough though. Rasheed is as unselfish as Horace and is probably just as good if not beter on defense. He can be a pseudo-anchor with decent shot-blocking, and he can cover pick-n-rolls well. Excellent man defender in the post; better than Grant in Chicago. Offensively, Sheed is less efficiency but gives you 3-point shooting and a much better iso post threat. I think I'd take Sheed for his ability to carry an offense with his scoring for a stretch. Sheed was also an extremely low turnover guy. Smart player.

Big Ben is clearly the best defender left. He's all-time level great with his defensive rebounding, blocks, steals, pick-n-roll coverage, and discipline in terms of fouls per minute. Just a monster defensive player. I think Wallace wasn't the negative he is portrayed as offense either, because he was a great offensive rebounder, good passer, and some years was a solid efficiency scorer. His activity on the glass means you couldn't leave him; you had to faceguard him, somewhat like with Rodman. From 2001-2007, he anchored dominant defensive teams, from Brown's Pistons to Saunders' Pistons to the Bulls. Longevity is a slight concern, but I'd lean Wallace over Grant.

Matrix is also a superb defender because of his ability to board at an elite level as a 3 while providing great man defense vs. wings, too. That's also somewhat Rodman-like. Offensively, if you give him a good creator, he's an efficient scorer. Low turnover guy who understands what he is and what his job is. He's got strong longevity, too. Even now and last year in Dallas, he was a useful guy. Not sure who I'd take there.

Then you've got Brand, Webber, Bosh, and Amar'e to consider, too. Brand and Webber were top-flight stars in the Golden Era of PFs. Amar'e is one of the great scoring bigs ever. Bosh has a great attitude and turned himself into a prototype 3-point shooting stretch PF/C with very good defense (moderate rim-protection, excellent pick-n-roll defense, smart help defender).

Post #19 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:16 pm

Elton Brand -- Owly

Nate Archibald -- Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, ronnymac2,

Bobby Jones -- Doctor MJ, penbeast0

Tony Parker -- trex_8063

So, it looks like another offense v. defensive impact matchup . . . fun

Joao Saraiva · Post #20 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:06 pm

I enjoyed the argument for Tony Parker. Really trex you're a great poster. I'm thinking about voting for Parker at #75.

Still from what I read my vote goes to Tiny Archibald in this runoff. His peak justifies the spot. I'm not going to repeat what others have said, you've seen votes from other posters on Tiny with enough good reasoning.