Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #27

Vote: Stephen Curry
2nd vote: Elgin Baylor

Yes, I'm voting Curry here. To me he has shown enough. Maybe he lacks some longevity, but he's got one of the GOAT peaks, 2 MVPs and 2 championships as the top dog (second is arguable). He led his team to the best regular season record ever, he led them to beat a record nobody thought could be beat. GOAT shooter along with killer handles.

As for my second vote, Baylor is really the opposite than Curry. He has the longevity, but was always beaten by better players in MVP voting and in the playoffs. Had the tough task of beating the Celtics, and like many others, he couldn't do that. But his scoring and especially rebounding for somebody his size, it's special

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Post #3 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:11 pm

Going to copy some thoughts from the prior thread:

In reply I wanted to review how some of these teams performed defensively, in light of the cast present. I'm going to start in the 90's (just to save time), btw; they were above average defensively in '88 and '89, too, fwiw. Of the defensive four factors (DREB%, opp eFG%, opp TOV%, and opp FTr), I may occasionally spotlight the DREB% and opp eFG% because (for obvious reasons), those are the factors a rim-protecting center like Ewing can have the MOST influence on.

‘90 Knicks
Mediocre coaching, imo, and no real sophisticated defense schema going on yet. The Knicks had no back-up center this season (and this is before the era of small-ball). Oakley (minutes somewhat staggered with Ewing’s) I believe often filled that role the ~10 mpg that Ewing sits; during which they’d generally have Kenny Walker---undersized, mediocre defensively and poor on the defensive glass---filling in at PF; he was also the primary PF when Ewing was on but Oakley was off.
A backcourt of Mark Jackson, Gerald Wilkins, limited minutes of aging Mo Cheeks (was a late-season acquisition), and Trent Tucker is [imo] average defensively.
Johnny Neuman was the starting SF (mediocre halfcourt defender, I think, though I don't remember him much other than he was a skinny/lanky dude who could shoot decent in the midrange; terrible rebounding SF though-->avg just 3.0 reb/36 min).

This team managed a -0.1 rDRTG (13th/27), although it needs to be noted that Oakley missed 21 games that season (again: Walker filling in). Knicks were a +2.0 rDRtg in the 21 games Oakley missed; -0.8 rDRtg in the 61 games Oakley was around for. So that -0.8 rDRTG (would have been 11th/27) is more representative of what this line-up (led by Ewing and Oakley) was doing. There are 96 PF/C minutes to be filled per game; considering Ewing and Oakley are accounting for ~74 of them, that still leaves ~22 mpg to be filled by someone else. If we're talking about the entire frontcourt (SF included), Ewing/Oakley are only accounting for ~74 of 144 mpg. That's a considerable amount of other minutes being played by BAD defensive frontcourt players (because Ewing and Oakley are literally the ONLY two frontcourt players worth their salt in that line-up). And the backcourt and coaching are only mediocre at best. All things considered, I don't view a -0.8 rDRTG as a major failure. A minor underachievement at worst.

‘91 Knicks
The defensive situation in the backcourt is marginally improved by having aging (34 years old) Mo Cheeks for the whole season, and thru the acquisition of John Starks (still a bench role player at this stage, though).
But otherwise defense at the SF position gets worse, as Kiki Vandeweghe was the starting SF: he avg 2.4 rpg (only 2.7 reb/36 min…..as a 6’8” SF; that’s abysmal), and is imo on the All-Time All-NO Defensive Team. Just didn't give a damn on that end.

They mostly don’t have a back-up center again, except for career scrub (and weak defensively) Eddie Lee Wilkins, +/- limited minutes of scrub Jerrod Mustaf; either that or they may have the occasional staggering of Oakley’s and Ewing’s minutes to have Oakley fill the role when Ewing sits. Backing up Oakley there’s again Kenny Walker and aforementioned scrub Jerrod Mustaf.
In short, their defensive frontcourt goes to hell any time Ewing and/or Oakley has to sit, and there’s the ever-present gaping hole at the SF position with Kiki there. Considering ONLY those frontcourt players outside of Ewing and Oakley, I would say this frontcourt supporting cast is even WORSE defensively than they were in '90.
And like previous year, there’s not really a strong or clever defensive strategist coaching the team. This team managed a -0.6 rDRTG. That's a small or marginal defensive underachievement by Ewing/Oakley at worst, imo.

‘92 Knicks
Riley comes in and institutes a decidedly more focused and grinding defensive strategy/mentality. Kiki has been relegated to limited minutes off the bench (though the team still must “sustain” ~14 mpg of his inept defense). Xavier McDaniel has been brought in to replace Kiki; X-man is not a great defensive talent, but is at least a strong and physical SF, rebounds reasonably well, and doesn’t blatantly back down from his defensive responsibilities like Kiki did. Also brought in to provide a solid defensive presence at the SF/PF/C position off the bench is Anthony Mason.
The backcourt is perhaps slightly above average with Mark Jackson (capable, but not great) at PG, Gerald Wilkins at SG (mediocre defensively), and Starks (pretty good defensively) and Greg Anthony (capable) coming off the bench.
This team performed as a -4.0 rDRTG (2nd/27) in the rs, and actually was -6.4 rDRTG (relative to ORtg’s faced) in the playoffs.
Centering more specifically on Ewing’s contributions, they were 5th/27 in opp eFG%, 1st/27 in DREB%.

‘93 Knicks
Somewhat still lacking in a true back-up center, except for limited games/minutes of aging Herb Williams (capable defender) filling part of the void. Otherwise again shifting Oakley (and/or Mason) into a center role when Ewing sits. But that’s the big thing that's different now: a fairly developed (at least defensively) Anthony Mason can now fill in if you shift Oakley to center, so essentially they ALWAYS have a solid defensive presence at BOTH big-man positions at all times.
They also now have a somewhat oversized shot-blocking presence at the SF in Charles Smith (who in certain match-ups can play PF or even C on defense).
The backcourt is now the (very capable) Doc Rivers at PG, John Starks (very good defensively) at SG, and Greg Anthony (capable) coming off the bench, though a few relative weak spots at the SG/SF in guys like aging Rolando Blackman, Hubert Davis, and Tony Campbell (not awful, but none of them good defensively).
This cast managed an historically awesome [more below on how historically] -8.3 rDRTG. They were #1 in the league in BOTH opp eFG% and DREB%.
And fwiw, they took a juggernaut Bulls team 6 games deep in the ECF (the Bulls had swept their first two opponents, and only took 6 games to finish off a very talented Suns team, remember).

‘94 Knicks
Same basic line-up as in ‘93, except Rivers misses most of the season with injury, but nearing mid-season they acquire 32-year-old Derek Harper (still fairly good defensively) to fill the void. Charles Smith also misses a lot of games, but Anthony Bonner helps fill the void (not as good defensively as Smith, iirc, but a beast on the offensive glass). NOTE: John Starks (their best backcourt defender) misses 23 games this season.
They still managed another historically awesome -8.1 rDRTG (again: #1 in league in both DREB% and opp eFG%).

Now I’ve mentioned that those were historically awesome defenses, and I want to delve into HOW awesome they were.

Well, we’ve got 66 NBA seasons in which team ORtg/DRtg is noted, and there’s anywhere from 8 to 30 teams in each of those seasons. I counted them up it amounts to 1395 teams over 66 years. Out of those 1395 teams, only EIGHT have ever managed a rDRTG as good as -8.0 or better. But four of those were Bill Russell teams; and many people like to speculate that no single player (even Bill Russell) would be capable of that level of defensive impact in a modern context.
So I'd further note that in the 48 seasons since Bill Russell retired, there have been 1238 teams, and only four of them have ever achieved a rDRTG of -8 or better. That's just over 0.3%; even in a league of 30 teams, that averages out to about ONE team every 11-12 years. The Knicks (with Ewing as anchor) did it two years in a row.

These types of defenses DO NOT happen without an all-time great level defensive center in the middle. The other centers who ever anchored such a defense are Bill Russell (4 times), Kevin Garnett (once), and Tim Duncan (once).

One can try to counter that Ewing had a lot of defensive help (Oakley, Mason, Starks, Harper), and they'd be right. But that's basically true of any of the other anchors of this level of team defense, too (even Russell, really: KC Jones, Havlicek, Loscutoff, Sam Jones was capable). Garnett had Tony Allen, James Posey, Pierce was capable, Perkins was decent defensively (and Thibs system). Duncan had Bruce Bowen, and guys like Horry, Ginobili, and Nestorovic were decent defensively.

wrt the Knicks defense maintaining strong even as Ewing appeared to go into decline (and I'd note that this includes after both Oakley and Mason have departed).......
While you seem to be implying that might be a strike against him (i.e. maybe it wasn't really him anchoring these defenses), I'd potentially take the opposite tack and count that as a point in his favor (i.e. he was still a fairly capable defensive anchor even in the early stages of decline, and somewhat portable from system to system).
As late as '99, Ewing still appears more than capable defensively. He had pretty good defensive help that year: Kurt Thomas, young Marcus Camby, and Chris Dudley in the frontcourt. Sprewell was a good defensive SG, and iirc Charlie Ward (at PG) was decent defensively too.
That team managed a -4.7 rDRTG (4th/29). I'd note, however, that Ewing missed 12 games that season. They were a -2.8 rDRTG in those 12 games; they were a -5.3 rDRTG (would have been 2nd/29) in the 38 games he played in.
I'd previously noted how that team performed as a -7.1 rDRTG (relative to the ORtg's they were facing) in the playoffs, too. And while Ewing missed the last 4 games of the ECF and ALL of the Finals, it was mostly in the early rounds (when he was present) that their defense was the most impressive: -6.3 rDRTG in the 1st round, -11.2 rDRTG in the ECSF, -6.7 rDRTG in the ECF (Ewing present for 2 of 6 games); then -5.1 rDRTG in the finals.

So yeah, while coaching plays a role (and Pat Riley is brilliant), let's not lose sight of the fact that the coaches don't actually take the floor. Their job is to recognize the strengths of the players they have, and utilize them in a manner that optimizes his players' effectiveness......but it's still the players that are actually exerting that impact. Riley recognized he had an extraordinary defensive talent in Ewing, and set out to optimize that, realizing that was their best chance of winning.

And they came awfully damn close. As has been pointed out previously (by others, not just me):
*The '94 Knicks went 7 games with the Rockets in the Finals.
**They actually outscored the Rockets by 5 pts in the series.
***They lost game 7 by just six points with John Starks going 2-18 FG's, 0-11 3PA. As Clyde Frazier mentioned, if Starks doesn't pick that exact moment to have basically the worst game of his entire prime (he could still have a bad game....just not THAT bad), we'd very likely have seen a Knicks win and a title for Ewing.
====>Imagine how different the legacies of both Ewing and Hakeem might be if Starks hadn't had such a rotten game. Instead of these two great centers typically being separated by ~15 places, we'd likely see them separated by <5 places on most ATL's.

In reply to suggestions that I'm "blaming" Starks for Ewing's not having a title. That's not really what I mean here,
but rather (copied from previous thread):
To some degree this misses the mark (of what I was saying, at least). I’m not trying to lay blame, and I apologize if it came out like that. I’m not suggesting Ewing had a great series (and I’m not sure anyone is denying he had a very poor offensive series).
But it’s been stated fairly explicitly by more than one poster that the presence or absence of a title----and particularly the winning a title as the clear best player on the team----is a HUGE factor in the criteria of many of the voter/participants of this project.

So I was merely pointing out that Ewing could have played EXACTLY as he did in ‘94 and in that series, and they still could/would have one if not for ONE teammate in ONE game having an extreme outlier bad performance…….that’s how close they were. And then I’m further asking the question of how much differently Ewing would be perceived if we could attach that “accomplishment” or narrative to his career resume? How much different would Hakeem’s legacy without that win, too, for that matter?

I’m fairly certain Ewing would have been off the table a few places ago if Starks had had a better game 7 (so maybe we should get him off the table here), is what I’m suggesting.

1st vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd vote: Kevin Durant

I could potentially be swayed off of Durant, toward Pippen or Havlicek, or even Jason Kidd after drza's compelling info last thread. But for now this is where I'm going.

Post #4 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:18 pm

PG -- Curry is clearly the best peak, even 5 year prime he probably still has the edge. Frazier would be next in terms of prime for me, he is arguably the greatest defensive PG (Payton is the other ATG PG defender and probably the right choice in terms of consistent defense; Frazier was more like Jordan turning it on at key times and resting at others), his scoring was both efficient and able to take over games, his playmaking was excellent in the Chauncey Billups mode of efficiently running a spread offense rather than dominating the ball. His career is a bit short and Curry has a slight edge to me. I'd pick either over Nash despite the greater longevity; the great playoff performances and winner's bias give them the edge.

SG -- Like the PGs, the guy with the best 5 year prime has a very short career (as short as Curry and unlike Curry, his knees left him a shadow of himself for his last few years). That would be Sidney Moncrief, the GOAT defensive 2 and a superefficient, 20ppg scorer on a spread the wealth offense (sensing a theme!). Longevity would favor Clyde Drexler though and they are probably close enough that Drexler should get the edge. Gervin's defense is a problem, Sam Jones isn't quite their level.

SF -- Durant is the highest prime guy left and he's had 10 years in the league, 8 at ATG levels. Probably Pippen next as I didn't think Baylor's team results with Jerry West who I am super high on maximized his team results. Havlicek also has been mentioned but his scoring was inefficient for much of his career and while his motor was GOAT level, I don't think his defense and impact are quite PIppen's level.

PF -- The great PFs are in with Pettit; we are left with the not quite greats such as Hayes, McHale, Webber, Amare, and whatever we do with Dennis Rodman. No one ready to be considered unless I am forgetting something.

C -- The next C that I have is Patrick Ewing then Artis Gilmore, outstanding defensive peaks though Gilmore's was in the ABA (not nearly as impressed by his post merger defense), good but not great scorers, mediocre passers. Ewing has the clear edge on leadership as Gilmore was overly passive. I don't have Daniels, Reed, or Cowens this high.

PICK: Kevin Durant

ALTERNATE: Stephen Curry

Post #5 » by **Outside** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:55 pm

(Didn't finish this in time to include on the last thread, so I'm transferring it to this one.)

Dr Positivity wrote:
drza wrote:Across their 10-year primes, it certainly looks to me like Baylor was competitive with Pettit in the regular season and clearly the better post-season performer. Pettit's accolades were deserved, but upon closer examination don't appear to give him any real advantage in this comp. So I ask again, for those voting Pettit here...what's his case over Baylor?

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: ????

Baylor's first 5 years may be as good as Pettit's or better, the argument against him is the next 5 or 6 after his knee surgery are not as strong as Pettit's. From 64-70 Baylor finishes 15th, 25th, 51st, 21st, 17th, 20th, 26th in Win Shares in a small league and shoots too much considering his inefficiency compared to West and the league as a whole. He continues to make 1st team All-NBAs but the comp isn't at this position, and in MVP vote he gets 3rd in 68 and 5th in 69 when his efficiency under BVBK system improves, but misses the other years in the 60s. Personally I don't know if 64-70 Baylor is playing at even a top 50 all time level.

So assuming the 2nd half of his career is worse than Pettit's, the argument for Baylor would be to need to have first 5 years as hands down better to make up for it. Pettit's record in the first 5 years in both MVP vote and WS (WS/48) is better than Baylor's first 5. You mentioned that his first MVP is weak, but beating Russell with a worse record for the 2nd one is highly impressive. Then there's 61 where Pettit finishes 2nd but it's an impressive 2nd as he's ahead of Wilt, Baylor and Oscar. Someone in the last thread used the example of saying Baylor's 35/20/5 in 1961 looks better than Pettit's 28/20/3, but Pettit was ahead of him in both WS and MVP voting that season. He finished ahead in WS cause he was more efficient and was credited in DWS for the Hawks being the 2nd best defensive team in the league. I don't know who had better season but I certainly am not going to jump to the conclusion that the higher PPG player is automatically better here. Then there's looking beyond the boxscore to what type of impact they may make, but while Baylor was a playmaking wing (But who also used high pace, minutes and crazy shooting volume to get his assists) which has value, Pettit being the original floor spacing PF adds non boxscore value as well.

Some rebuttals to your points about Baylor:

-- I'm hesitant to put too much weight on WS and DWS for current players (in my opinion, they are too influenced by team factors and aren't a reliable assessment of an individual player), but I consider them almost worthless for players in that early era when stats were a skeleton of what we have available today. Looking at how B-R.com calculates win shares (https://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html), it's apparent that it's the bluntest of tools for seasons prior to 1974 and that defensive win shares is based solely on the team's defense, so that each player gets 1/5 of the defensive credit for the team's performance, which means a pedestrian defender like Cousy suddenly has stellar DWS once Russell arrives.

-- MVP shares is another complicated metric for that era. The award was voted on by players until 1980, and while Russell and Chamberlain won most MVPs during their time because their dominance from an individual and team standpoint was undeniable, racism played a part in the pecking order, as did good old-fashioned collusion. For example, even though Wilt won the MVP in his rookie season, he didn't win again for another six seasons despite arguably some of the most statistically dominant seasons in league history. In 1962-63, Wilt averaged 44.8 pts and 24.3 reb on 52.3 FG%, all league highs, yet he got zero first place votes and only 9 out of a possible 505 MVP points, good for 7th in MVP voting behind Red Kerr (15.7/13.0/47.4%). The fact that Baylor did as well as he did in MVP voting is a testament to how well-liked and respected he was around the league in addition to being a great player.

-- Regarding pace, the era was obviously characterized by high pace, but the Lakers were consistently at or near the bottom of the league in pace during Baylor's career. They were no higher than 6th in an 8- or 9-team league and frequently last until 1966-67, when they were 3rd during a 36-45 injury-depleted season. They went right back to 8th the next season, then 13th in the Van Breda Kolff season. The takeaway is that Baylor's stats deserve adjustment due to the pace of the era, but not as much as other players.

-- Regarding Baylor's low FG% relative to West, having an effective one-two combo made each of them more effective. Yes, West had the better percentage of the two, but that's partly due to Baylor's ability to collapse the defense around the basket. While it's fair to argue that West should've gotten more shots than Baylor based on FG%, that doesn't mean that West should've gotten the lion's share of the shots or that West was willing to take those additional shots. Also, we don't have ORBs from those days, but Baylor's propensity to shoot near the rim and his exceptional rebounding ability meant that he scored many times after rebounding his misses, which means a lower FG% but a high rate of conversion for a particular trip down the floor. Baylor wasn't like Moses, just throwing the ball up so he could go get it, but he was very good at following his shot.

-- Regarding Baylor's FG% relative to the league, here's a comparison.

Year - Baylor FG% - League FG% - Diff
58-59 - 40.8 - 39.5 - +1.3
59-60 - 42.4 - 41.0 - +1.4
60-61 - 43.0 - 41.5 - +1.5
61-62 - 42.8 - 42.6 - +0.2
62-63 - 45.3 - 44.1 - +1.2
63-64 - 42.5 - 43.3 - -0.8
64-65 - 40.1 - 42.6 - -2.5
65-66 - 40.1 - 43.3 - -3.2
66-67 - 42.9 - 44.1 - -1.2
67-68 - 44.3 - 44.6 - -0.3
68-69 - 44.7 - 44.1 - +0.6
69-70 - 48.6 - 46.0 - +2.6

Now look at a comparison of TS%.

Year - Baylor TS% - League TS% - Diff
58-59 - 48.8 - 46.3 - +2.5
59-60 - 48.9 - 46.3 - +2.6
60-61 - 49.8 - 46.9 - +2.9
61-62 - 49.2 - 47.9 - +1.3
62-63 - 51.9 - 49.3 - +1.4
63-64 - 48.7 - 48.5 - +0.2
64-65 - 46.3 - 47.9 - -1.4
65-66 - 45.6 - 48.7 - -3.1
66-67 - 49.1 - 49.3 - -0.2
67-68 - 50.5 - 49.8 - +0.7
68-69 - 50.0 - 49.1 - +0.9
69-70 - 53.7 - 51.1 - +2.6

Note: I didn't include his last two seasons, when he played a total of only 11 games.

First off, Baylor's FG% is above league average 7 of 12 years. He has a rough patch starting with the 1963-64 season, when his knee problems started, but he adjusted his game over time and improved from the low of the 1965-66 season, which followed his knee injury in the 1965 playoffs.

From a TS% standpoint, Baylor looks even better because he was very good at drawing fouls (nine seasons in the top 10 for FTA). Baylor was above league TS% average 9 of 12 seasons, and for his seasons below average, the difference isn't as dramatic as it is for FG%.

For someone who scored as much as Baylor, his efficiency is very good. Just because West was better doesn't mean Baylor was bad. Add in Baylor's ability to rebound and convert his own misses and I don't think it's fair to criticize Baylor from an efficiency standpoint.

JordansBulls · Post #6 » by **JordansBulls** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:50 pm

Vote: Clyde Drexler (led team to the finals twice as the man, was the leader of win shares on a team that won the title in 1995). Was on the Original Dream Team, 10x allstar

2nd Vote: Patrick Ewing

pandrade83 · Post #7 » by **pandrade83** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:18 pm

This is almost verbatim from last time.

Much of last time is the same - some tweaks have been made based on the remaining voter pool.

My Top 2 Point Guards left: Steph/Payton
My Top 2 wing/forwards left: Durant/Pippen
My Top 2 Centers left: Ewing/Artis full disclosure - I grew up a Knicks fan. :banghead:

Kevin Durant is great. He really is. For a second, I was worried he would be the Drexler to Lebron. I'm glad he's became so much more (and that's not an insult to Drexler). I loved that he figured out in the Finals that he is the best center in the league because he is the evolution of where that position is going. I loved that he really took his defensive game to another level this year. I loved that he went right at Lebron in the Finals. I sincerely believe he has the potential to become a Top 10 GOAT player and pass Bird. If he doesn't get injured those two years (I really believe OKC wins the '13 title if he doesn't get hurt), the narrative changes and he's in the Top 20. He's still "only" 44th in Win Shares, "only" 33rd in VORP, I think he will get to where he is going. He's a situation where the RPAM stats are wrong. Some things that highlight his impact:

- > 60% TS every year since '12 on >25 ppg every year during that time span. That's amazing efficiency - better than Dirk - who got all kinds of love earlier.
- A strong playmaker on top of his deadly efficiency - hovering at or around 5 apg since '13; that's why his TOV rate hovers around 12.
- OKC falls from 2nd in offensive efficiency to 16th once he departs
- GS improves from -2.6 to -4.8 on Defense this year. I know some are saying his D Impact is questionable and his career advanced stats are middling but I believe that's due to the context of the team; the improvement when he arrived in GS is material.
-His '13/'14/'16 playoffs have been criticized as "under-performing". If his bar is so high that these numbers are defined as under-performing, then he should've been in long ago:

2013: 31-9-6 12.7% TO, 57% TS
2014: 30-9-4 12.7% TO, 57% TS
2016: 28-7-3, 12.1% TO, 54% TS

Solid Defensive Indicators all 3 years. And this is "under-performing?" I'll take that under-performer on my team any day & he should have been in the Top 25.

----------------------------------------
Patrick Ewing anchored a defense that was best in the league for 3 straight years and Top 4 for nearly a decade - at their peak the Knicks were a Defensive GOAT caliber Team.. He forced MJ into a Game 7, and had MJ down 2-0 in '93. Everyone holds the '94 Finals over his head - what is forgotten is that he set the Finals blocks record in that series. He never won the big one and has some memorable defeats - but even in defeat he was a monster ('95 Gm 7 vs Indy, '97 Gm 7 vs. Miami, '92/'93 series vs. Chicago). He was what got them over the hump ('90 vs. Boston, '92 vs. Detroit) and he never played with another player in their prime who will sniff this list. It's unfortunate that he never quite got a chip - his offensive deficiencies had a way of showing up at the worst times.
----------------------------------
Steph: Right with Durant, he has the potential to be an all time Top 10 player. Every metric that you'd want is there - he's also the only multiple time MVP with a title against quality competition left. The only reason he's not higher is the years aren't there - yet. I just can't vote for a 4 time all-star quite this early - even though his peak impact is greater than anyone left.
-----------------------------------------

GP (I'll be voting for him before Pippen & the A-Train): Very underrated, imo. I'll lead off with an outstanding elimination/closeout track record (which is far superior to Nash's).
22.8 PPG, 5.8 reb, 8.0 ast, 1.8 stl, 0.2 blk, 2.7 TO, 55.3% TS - all stats from '94-'03.
Had a knack for outplaying other strong point guards when it mattered because of his outstanding defensive presence and is one of very few point guards whose defensive impact is highlighted that he's the only one to win DPOY. A true all around player who averaged 21-8-5 during his prime while bringing elite defense and averaged 24-8-5 during the playoffs and had a tendency of showing up when it mattered. Has more Win Shares & VORP (the latter by a lot) vs. Nash even though one of Payton's best seasons ('99) was a lockout shortened one.

GP isn't getting any other sort of traction, so I should probably address the two issues likely to crop up:

1) The Denver series. There's no justification for it. It really is indefensible. 3 of those games are in my elimination/closeout records and his 2 worst performances in those types of games were in the Denver series (Games 3 & 5).
1A) The '95 LA Series. Van Exel out played him. Between '94 & '95 these were two years where a Title was in play for Seattle and they didn't just take a dump on the bed, they got up and smeared it on the wall as well :noway:

That said - those series did factor into the overall playoff and elimination record I showed above - and the overall track record is strong. It's unfortunate that he peaked later than a lot of other point guards did - and by the time he peaked the talent on him was not championship caliber to say the least; if you consider '99 or 2000 his peak, it was an outright dumpster fire situation.

2) His RPAM numbers are not as good as they could be. I'm not a huge fan of +/- stats but I can't ignore them either.

'97 & '98 are very strong - '99 for some reason isn't great - but I suspect team context (middling overall record, was out there for virtually all meaningful minutes - 2,010 minutes in a 50 game season is a ton) - even though 2000 bounces back. '01-'03 are basically flat even though WIn Shares & VORP remain at very high levels in '01 & '02 in particular. I don't think his '03 season has tremendous impact - and I think his defense was starting to slip in '01 & '02. It was probably still good - but not necessarily warranting the All D honors he received either.

I'm OK with this wart because I don't think RPAM stats do a great job of explaining elite players' impact who play huge minutes on basically .500 teams - it feels like a "blind spot" for the model - moreso in the years I'm referencing than some of the later years. The inconsistency from '99 to '00 in the metric is odd even though his other performance indicators are fairly comparable and I've read some of the multi-year work in this area - which makes me trust the '99 number less. I'm definitely aware of the flaws in the '97-'00 data vs. other years, but I do think it's important to at least speak to the wart.

If anyone has questions on why I picked Pippen or Artis over competitors in those spaces, I'm more than happy to address - but we're a ways off before I'm making a serious case for either of them.

--------------------------------------------

1st choice: Kevin Durant
Alternate Selection: Patrick Ewing

Winsome Gerbil · Post #8 » by **Winsome Gerbil** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:41 pm

Okay, didn't see the Nash thing coming.

Back to the franchise players:

#27 Ewing
#28 Durant

P.S. this list is just underscoring Jordan's greatness if he ran off 6 titles in 8 years leading one of the GOAT teams, and the second best player on his team is barely going to crack the Top 30, if that.

Lou Fan · Post #9 » by **Lou Fan** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:04 pm

Winsome Gerbil wrote:P.S. this list is just underscoring Jordan's greatness if he ran off 6 titles in 8 years leading one of the GOAT teams, and the second best player on his team is barely going to crack the Top 30, if that.

Huh? Can you explain what you mean I don't get what your saying. Thanks.

dhsilv2 · Post #10 » by **dhsilv2** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:09 pm

I don't have a lot of time for this one, but I'm making some changes here.

I had Curry as my next in last round but after reading some rather compelling arguments for Durant I'm moving him up. The drivers here are the 5 first team all nba's (I know we have cousy and baylor to address with 10 each) and then the 3 times he was runner up in the MVP. Again I value the MVP voting as it provides us the best look at where a player ranked in their career. Guys like Ewing who were never contenders (and Stockton btw) imo should not be getting much traction till after 30 (more on Ewing to come). Earlier I'd not though enough about the runner up awards and given who he lost to, I think it's fair to give him a bit more credit. The issue for me is Curry has been the clear better player for a few years and to me was clearly better than KD in 2017 (clear not meaning it was a huge gap, but just that it seemed clear who was better due to how other teams defended them and their overall impact).

I did want to make a cry for help for Pippen. The biggest concern I have with Pippen this high is that his era I think is already over represented. We have MJ, Chuck, Robinson, Hakeem, Malone, and Stockton all over him (I'll move shaq to the next gen though he's a tweener) and bird and Magic are the prior Gen. Still that's a lot of guys who all peaked late 80's early to mid 90's. This leads me to either conclude the bulk of voters are like myself and between the ages of 30 and 40 and thus we watched a lot of this unfold as we got into basketball and had lets say undeveloped minds, expansion created a 60's style gap in the talent and the league was overly watered down, or there was a freaky era of genetic mutant all born close together. I however think Pippen should be here and you can tell me which one of my crazy ideas is right. But I bring him up because to me he was a franchise level talent, he was better at his peak than Ewing (getting play here) and was better at the same time Ewing was having his best team success. Remember Pippen got voted higher in the MVP race than Ewing EVER did and he was absolutely on a worse team than ewing had that year. If we're looking for another add from that era it is Pippen.

FYI the curry reasons are simple, on pace for a top 10 all time career, most impactful offensive player ever imo, and best player on two championship teams. At this stage we really don't have anyone with a better peak. the short career still gives me pause and I reserve the right to move him to second next round too, but at this point I think I'm going to hold him there. Pippen is right there as is Baylor. I'm also wanting to hear more GP discussion, I didn't watch a lot of basketball in 00 or 01 and those years look on paper really great for him.

First Kevin Durant
Second Stephen Curry
HM Scottie Pippen

Post #11 » by **Outside** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:25 pm

Winsome Gerbil wrote:P.S. this list is just underscoring Jordan's greatness if he ran off 6 titles in 8 years leading one of the GOAT teams, and the second best player on his team is barely going to crack the Top 30, if that.

By that logic, Russell should be higher than Jordan because he ran off 11 titles in 13 seasons and his teammates are struggling to gain any traction. But you can get in trouble going down that road, or else you'll decide that Bird was better than Magic because he didn't have another top-10 talent on his team.

There have been a LOT of really great players. Pippen not being voted in yet is more a reflection of that than a commentary about how great Jordan was.

Post #12 » by **Outside** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:27 pm

Vote: Baylor
Alternate: Havlicek

Reasoning for Baylor is in other posts, both in this thread and previous ones. Will that work?

2klegend · Post #13 » by **2klegend** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:56 pm

I noticed every player that I vote had a 90% of getting in. Very nice...

There are a few worthy candidates for the 27th spot: Pippen, Patrick Ewing, John Halicek, Bob Cousy.

Pippen, Halicek, Cousy can get in purely from the winning title perspective by being a major contributor. While not the best player on title runs, but their contribution were to be respected. '94 Pip showed what he can do outside of Jordan shadow. Cousy is the 1st PG in style before Big-0 and Magic. Halicek is the typical SF/PF that can defend. Really those three guys deserve a spot now.

Pat is a weak offensive player, but he has a strong prime and being very good defensively. It helps he played in an era of Hakeem/Shaq/D-Rob. He was the 2nd tier big man but he was good. 8th best center all-time or 9th if we counting Walton legendary '77. So Pat can be a strong candidate for #27.

1st Vote: Pat
2nd Vote: Pip

CodeBreaker · Post #14 » by **CodeBreaker** » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:11 am

Nash was surprising. I have Curry ahead of him already.

1st: Kevin Durant
2nd: Stephen Curry

Kevin Durant talent wise alone is a top 10 all time player imo. With that size and skillset combination is very rare to see, a generational player. He continues to climb this list as he continue to win rings. He should be top 25 for me.

Narigo · Post #15 » by **Narigo** » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:26 am

Vote: Artis Gilmore
Second Vote: Jason Kidd

Gilmore peaked just as high as Ewing imo and much better longevity. Arguably the best 83 Spurs that took the Lakers to six games in the playoffs. Led the Colnels into a ABA championship in 1975 where the ABA was almost as strong as the NBA. I also think he was top 5 player in NBA post merger in the 70s.

oldschooled · Post #16 » by **oldschooled** » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:14 am

If a 2-time MVP (1 unanimous), a 2-time champion (both lead dog), arguably top 4 peak all time, highest OBPM all time, one of the best offensive anchors all time (and not just some anchor, Curry proved that a jump shooting team can win in the finals), and arguably best gravity in the history (together with Shaq imo) would get passed by this much, i dont know what to say.

Vote: Curry (for the nth time)
2nd Vote: Hondo

Hornet Mania · Post #17 » by **Hornet Mania** » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:17 am

I'll stick with Ewing and Baylor, with Kidd, Drexler, Pippen, Durant and Curry (roughly in that order) next on my mind. I actually think Curry and Durant will end up comfortably ahead of the others I listed when their careers are finished but I do tend to "penalize" current guys for having incomplete careers more than most.

27. Patrick Ewing
Alt. Elgin Baylor

drza · Post #18 » by **drza** » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:19 am

I re-posted one of my older Isiah Thomas posts in the last thread ( viewtopic.php?p=58100054#p58100054 ). Here is the post that followed that one, in 2011, where I further made the case that his impact was strong (at a time when we didn't have much in the way of impact measures outside of WOWY, and Isiah didn't miss all that many games in his prime):

Isiah Thomas 2 (from 2011...w/ a bit of Dennis Rodman thrown in). Continuing conversation with then DavidStern (now Lorak)

DavidStern wrote:
Laimbeer wrote:Some here will will disagree, but it's pretty clear to me Isiah was the most important player on those Piston teams, both strategically and emotionally. We've entertained significant evidence on behalf of guys like Russell that's basically narrative based, and I see no reason not to with Isiah.

There's clear connection between Russell's impact and Celtics defensive dominance. On the other hand there's no such connection between Isiah's impact and Pistons defensive dominance.
Well, maybe Bill Laimbeer was more valuable to Bad Boys than Thomas?

I know you were being somewhat flippant with your last sentence, but after really taking them to the lab more last night the pattern of those Pistons really seems clearer to me. And one thing that I noticed was that Laimbeer was NOT the lynchpin for that defense. Essentially, it seems to me that the 2 units for the Pistons developed in opposite ways: The offense was more unipolar early then grew to more ensemble later, while the defense was more ensemble early and grew to unipolar later. And in both cases, when there was a more unipolar period, the main figure was pretty clear: Zeke on offense, and Rodman on defense.

I go back to those ORtg and DRtg lists that you posted at the top of pg 2 of this thread as evidence. Offensively, you don't show 1981 (year before Zeke), but the first huge jump for the Pistons was from 1981 to 1982 when Zeke (and Tripucka) were the primary new additions. The next big jump was from '83 to '84, when Daly came in as coach and Zeke/Tripucka were still the main 2 options. You mentioned in that post that "With Dantley and Augirre Pistons had two of three best offenses during Isiah career", but let's be more specific and check out the Pistons' top 6 offenses in that period:

1) 1984 - Main options Isiah, Tripucka (+3.9)
2) 1989 - Main options Isiah, the Dantley/Aguirre combo, Dumars (+3.0)
3) 1988 - Main options Isiah, Dantley (+2.5)
4) 1986 - Main options Isiah, Tripucka, Laimbeer (+1.8)
5) 1990 - Main options Isiah, Dumars (+1.8)
6) 1985 - Main options Isiah, Laimbeer, Tripucka (injured a lot) (+1.7)

See, "In/out" is only one way to do rough "impact" measurement when we don't have access to +/-. Another way to estimate impact over time is through "common thread" analysis. The Pistons team offense was extremely consistent from 1984 - 1990 (O-Rtg around 110 every year), but over that time period all of the moving parts changed...except Zeke. By the late 80s the Pistons offense had become much more ensemble, and another guard in Dumars was stepping forward to take more responsibility. But the common thread in all of those offenses was still Zeke, and when Zeke started fading was when the Pistons' offenses started sliding.

A similar trend, but in reverse, happens on the defense. I won't go into as much detail, but it certainly appears that Laimbeer was NOT the factor. He was there for 4 years from '83 - 86 while the team defense was average or slightly below. In fact, to my memory, in those early days Laimbeer was more of an offense guy than a defender. In '86 Mahorn joined him in the rotation, but the defense was still slightly below average. It wasn't until '87, when Sidney Green, Salley and Rodman joined the mix, that we see the Pistons defense ratings/rankings/relative-to-average-marks really improve. In '87 it was an ensemble (Laimbeer, Green, Salley, Mahorn and Rodman all saw minutes in the big man rotation) but by '90 Green and Mahorn were gone and Rodman had clearly become the defensive leader (that was his first DPoY season). The defense, converse to the offense, went from ensemble to unipoloar...but the common thread in all of those elite defenses was Rodman.

Post #19 » by **penbeast0** » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:29 am

drza wrote:... The Pistons team offense was extremely consistent from 1984 - 1990 (O-Rtg around 110 every year), but over that time period all of the moving parts changed...except Zeke. By the late 80s the Pistons offense had become much more ensemble, and another guard in Dumars was stepping forward to take more responsibility. But the common thread in all of those offenses was still Zeke, and when Zeke started fading was when the Pistons' offenses started sliding.

A similar trend, but in reverse, happens on the defense ... The defense, converse to the offense, went from ensemble to unipoloar...but the common thread in all of those elite defenses was Rodman.

The Worm is one of the players I am most interested to see when he starts getting traction and when he actually gets in (if he gets in). Since those Pistons teams won titles primarily with defense, it might be that Rodman, not Isiah, should be the GOAT Bad Boy. He, Russell, and Ben Wallace are probably the three most unipolar defenders that have a shot at the top 100 (Thurmond too but he scored a lot and people rate that as offensive ability despite his volume scoring probably hurting his team more than helping it). I am looking forward to those discussions even though I despised Rodman's antics and attitude in San Antonio (and to a lesser degree elsewhere) and dock him strongly for them.

pandrade83 · Post #20 » by **pandrade83** » Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:04 am

Here's what bugs me about Nash getting in over Ewing:

-Shorter prime; take whatever Ewing year from '88-'97 you think is the weakest (probably '88 or '96 but whatever) - that year is still giving you a lot more value than anything Nash did in Dallas
-Nash was actively bad at defense; total liability.
-Ewing was far from elite on offense - but he was useful at the very least - he did lead a team that made the 2nd round 8 of 9 years in scoring each & every year.
-You can definitely make a case that Nash is a GOAT caliber offensive player using RAPM & team offensive rating - it's not an argument that I buy per se for reasons I won't get into here- the problem is similar case that indicates that Ewing is a GOAT caliber defensive type player (harder to base around RAPM because of data availability) - while having a longer prime AND being useful on both ends, as opposed to a straight up liability.