RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #37

[euroleague]

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Isiah Thomas
HM: Kevin McHale

Pick: Cousy - Cousey's passing influenced the way the game was played hugely, and he did so in an unconventional way that didn't gain any unfair advantage a la goaltending. He won an MVP as his prime was ending, and his offensive style lives on far past his retirement and beyond his success leading the Celtics pre-Russell (questionable how Russell's passing would've developed without Cousey).

When Cousy joined the league, the Celtics were a 20 win team, and he immediately brought them to 40 his rookie year. He changed a bottom dwelling team to an immediate contender, and went on to contend with an elite offense in the eastern conference before Russell ever joined. He won MVP, and led the league in assists many times on his way to 10 all-nba first teams.

Alt: isiah Thomas: In 1988 he led the league in VORP for the post-season. In this post-season, MJ was playing on a team with no back-up, Magic was in his prime, Bird was beasting still. And Isiah Thomas led the league in VORP on a "deep" team that had other guards who were legit. The Pistons wouldn't be close to the team they were without Isiah, and even with him on the bench they immediately suffered more than the Lakers without Magic.

In 1988 he also led the league in DWS for the PS.

From 1987-1990, Isiah Thomas was never lower than 3rd in Post-Season VORP. His team is often called "the deepest of the 80s", in terms of talent across the board, but Isiah's impact was consistently on the tier of MJ/Bird/Magic (these 4 dominated the VORP rankings).

Isiah Thomas was also 3rd in playoff box-score plus-minus in 87 and 88, and 2nd in 90.

As a floor general, his impact went far beyond volume statistics. When IT wasn't in the game, the Pistons were suffering. He was capable of scoring if needed, evidenced by the 55 point outing that should've sealed a Pistons championship in 88 (except for a bad call from a ref in the last seconds) WHILE he was injured.

IT had his teammates back, and would throw himself under the fire to keep them alright. Isiah embraced the "bad boy" role even though he himself was obviously far from a bad boy image, with his clean smile and baby face, and his impact was equal to GOAT level players in the late 80s.


HM2: McHale is possibly the greatest m2m PF defender in NBA history, and one of the greatest individual scorers in the post in NBA history. His playstyle is similar to Hakeem for most of Hakeem's career in terms of scoring and man2man defense, except McHale may be the superior post scorer and the superior man 2 man defender. He was, however, even worse at passing (basically a black hole on offense) and not a rim protector so these two aspects give Hakeem the edge on both ends in the end. But, McHale's scoring is getting very underrated.

McHale averaged 26ppg on 65% TS in 1987. He had a 24 PER, 10rpg and 2.2 bpg. His ws/48 was .232 and he played more minutes than Larry Bird, resulting in 14.8 WS.

To compare with MJ that year, MJ had a league leading 16.9 WS and a 29.8 PER.

Larry Bird led the league in PER in 85 and 86 with 26.5 and 25.8.

McHale was 5th in the league in PER, behind only MJ/Bird/Barkley/maybe Magic didn't look. He was 4th in WS and WS/48. He was top 10 in VORP/BPM, but didn't have the same impact coming off the court as he would have if he was the team captain (obviously) because Bird was the leader of the team, so these numbers are lessened.

His PER/WS/WS/48 were all ahead of Hakeem, Moses, Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, and many other stars in their heyday.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't see any real reason to think that Kidd as a not-so-great scoring point guard had to be more valuable than the greatest off guard in history (unless you count Curry).

I know that line could not have been casually inserted there, so I'll go ahead and bite:

"But oh Doctor MJ, Doctor MJ! How can you consider Reggie Miller the greatest off guard in history???"



Because I consider him rather a fraud. One of the most overrated players in history, even when he's not being touted as Top 40 despite only being good at the one thing. This is a career 18-3-3 player that was rarely considered even an average defender. Mitch Richmond was a better overall player. In general Miller deserves considerable credit as a playoff performer, but even there if you scratch the surface of the big showcase games, you see that most of his best playoff seasons took place during 1 and done series, and his performances were closer to average for him in the deeper runs. And even at the height, or previous height, of his hype, people of the era intuitively understood his limitations. He wasn't even an annual All Star, and only rarely deemed one of the 6 best guards in the game, sneaking onto a trio of Third Team All NBAs. He never won a title either, so he can't even get that bump, and in general I'm wondering what he is doing being mentioned up here amongst MVPs and annual First Team ALL NBA guys, some of whom were contemporaries routinely considered better while they were both playing. A nice TS% can only take you so far, and an 18ppg scorer offering little else can only carry so much water for his team.

Well let's start out with something general that isn't exactly damning for Richmond on the whole:

Off-guards became a lot more potentially valuable with the availability of the 3. At this point it's clear that if you're an off-guard and you're not focused on shooting 3's, you're doing it wrong. And Reggie is essentially the spearhead of this. Until recently he'd made more 3's than anyone else in history.

As such while it might seem hyperbolic to call Reggie the best off-guard in history, I don't even see a conversation to be had comparing to other in prior eras who didn't shoot 3's, or the Rip Hamilton's of the world who focused on 2's despite patterning themselves after Reggie.

Mitch did shoot 3's. Not as many or as well as Reggie, but he did shoot them well, and toward the end of his career he shot a lot of them.

The split in our perspectives probably comes down to you seeing Mitch's bigger average volume along with bigger assist numbers. But Reggie demonstrated he was capable of raising that volume when he had to and he did it on much better efficiency. Additionally, if you're playing full-on off-guard, you're not going to get a ton of assists. Mitch's edge there isn't massive either, but regardless, I don't judge Reggie by looking at his non-scoring stats and thinking "He wasn't doing as much as other people". Reggie ran like crazy, and did so with a purpose. It tied the defense in knots and wore them out. He created openings for his teammates to use.

I don't really expect this to convince you, and it's cool to have the back and forth, but I just want to emphasize one more time that my esteem in Reggie is primarily shaped by watching how he served as a prototype to what we are now watching work like crazy. Back when Reggie & Mitch played, most expected a 2-guard to be someone who often looked to iso. That wasn't Reggie's approach, and now the iso 2-guard is almost dead while the 3-shooting off-guard is the norm.

[Doctor MJ]

Are we sure Miller, Pierce, Allen types should be ranked above Manu? I'm ready to start seriously considering him

Harden and Westbrook should be in play soon as well, at some point having the MVP caliber peak may mean more than longer second tier careers. Neither player is Walton in terms of longevity, Harden has 5 Houston seasons and his last season in OKC had good advanced stats. Westbrook has 3 mega years and then 3.5 more all-star ones. I think I rate them both over Dwight who's prime is about as long

The tricky part of Ginobili is 1) how little he played (Reggie played almost double the regular season minutes of Manu), and 2) how he played disproportionately against opponents' softer units (being 6th man has his privilege). Not saying you're crazy to prefer Manu's career as he was considerably more effective per minute played than these guys, but you should be able to see good cases in both directions.

Re: Harden/Westbrook. "soon"? I'm not really opposed to that, but I think Miller/Pierce/Allen have accomplished more to this point. That's a personal perspective on peak vs longevity to be sure, but there's also the matter that these young guys have been going through a lot of change and we're still in the process of seeing how it all lands. I don't think either player should be getting such huge numbers if they are playing the game optimally, and so to me in the end they'll be judged based on what they do next.

[Franco]

Are we sure Miller, Pierce, Allen types should be ranked above Manu? I'm ready to start seriously considering him

Harden and Westbrook should be in play soon as well, at some point having the MVP caliber peak may mean more than longer second tier careers. Neither player is Walton in terms of longevity, Harden has 5 Houston seasons and his last season in OKC had good advanced stats. Westbrook has 3 mega years and then 3.5 more all-star ones. I think I rate them both over Dwight who's prime is about as long

The tricky part of Ginobili is 1) how little he played (Reggie played almost double the regular season minutes of Manu), and 2) how he played disproportionately against opponents' softer units (being 6th man has his privilege). Not saying you're crazy to prefer Manu's career as he was considerably more effective per minute played than these guys, but you should be able to see good cases in both directions.

Re: Harden/Westbrook. "soon"? I'm not really opposed to that, but I think Miller/Pierce/Allen have accomplished more to this point. That's a personal perspective on peak vs longevity to be sure, but there's also the matter that these young guys have been going through a lot of change and we're still in the process of seeing how it all lands. I don't think either player should be getting such huge numbers if they are playing the game optimally, and so to me in the end they'll be judged based on what they do next.

I think it's a little weird to rank Allen/Pierce/Miller above Westbrook or Harden just out of longevity, considering that Bird is in the top 10 and had 7~8 really great seasons. Not saying that either of those guys had that kind of peak, and still don't have as many elite seasons, but was just wondering how you value peak and prime Vs longevity.

(Not an attack by the way, just legitimately curious, been reading the forum for a while but just now started interacting with you guys lol)

[penbeast0]

I do think active players who are still in the prime of their career do get underrated compared to retired stars because it takes a couple of years for the impact of modern stardom to really sink in. I know I tend to be skeptical of the Westbrook/Harden types still for a couple of years after they have established a prime that I would support if it were a retired star to see if their weaknesses get exposed . . . like Dwight who has dropped on my lists behind people I rated him ahead of 4 years ago. Sort of the opposite of the recency bias that sometimes shows up here.

[trex_8063]

Pierce?

I certainly understand the Kidd scepticism, but the occasional mention of clear 2nd tier guys like Pierce, and even 3rd or 4th tier guys like Miller or Allen is confusing.

None of those guys were top of the league guys. Wouldn't have been Top 5 at any point in their careers. Pierce notched 3 Third Team All NBAs and a largely undeserved 2nd Team All NBA in 2009 at a point where he was barely a 20pt scorer anymore. Reggie Miller got 3 Third Team All NBAs. Ray Allen got 1 3rd Team and 1 2nd Team. These were just never super-elite MVP caliber guys. They won't exactly be forgotten, but in 20 years nobody is going to talk much about them because they weren't the defining players of their era.

??

We've been on 2nd tier guys since Pippen was voted in. Frazier, Isiah are the last ones who provably won titles as 1st option types and even then a lot of Isiah's defensive support is questioned.

Its semantics. if we want to call Pierce "Third Tier" to make the semantics work, then fine.

My general point would just be this (working off a list I put together some threads ago, and adding in MVP shares):


Iverson 7x (3/3/1) All NBA, 4x Scoring Champ, 1x MVP 1.567 MVP Shares
Thomas 5x (3/2) All NBA, 2x champion .316 MVP Shares
Payton 9x (2/5/2) All NBA, 9x All Defense (9/0), 1x DPOY .824 MVP Shares
Westbrook 6x (4/2) All NBA, 2x Scoring Champ, 1x MVP 1.531 MVP Shares
Cousy 12x (10/2) All NBA, 6x champion, 8x Assists Champ, 1x MVP N/A MVP Shares
Frazier 6x (4/2) All NBA, 2x champion, 7x All Defense (7/0) .170 MVP Shares
JKidd 6x (5/1) All NBA, 1x champion, 5x Assist Champ, 9x All Defense (4/5) .931 MVP Shares
Gervin 7x (5/2) All NBA + 2x All ABA (0/2), 4x Scoring Champ .904 MVP Shares

Guys who I really don't think should be talked about yet:

Pierce 4x (0/1/3) All NBA, 1x champion .040 MVP Shares
Billups 3x (0/1/2) All NBA, 1x champion, 2x All Defense (0/2) .375 MVP Shares
Miller 3x (0/0/3) All NBA .003 MVP Shares
Allen 2x (0/1/1) All NBA .038 MVP Shares

Sorted by MVP shares:
Cousy N/A
Iverson 1.567
Westbrook 1.531
JKidd .931
Gervin .904
Payton .824
Billups .375
Thomas .316
Frazier .170
Pierce .040
Allen .038
Miller .003

I could supplement that just by some other major players still on the board to try to ballpark:
Howard 1.050
Mourning .967
McGrady .856
Wilkins .845
Webber .587
Anthony .453
Parker .379
Carter .051
Worthy .009
PGasol .000


I'm not in any way touting MVP Shares as a be all btw. Just trying to illustrate my discomfort with guys with miniscule totals being ranked up above guys who were annually MVP candidates, First Team All NBA etc. The ranking are not at all exclusive, you can certainly move guys around, but it seems like jumping several classes.

It all depends on what you place emphasis on. Based on what you've posted above, I assume you place a lot of emphasis on awards/honors and MVP shares (as well as volume scoring), which is all well and good. I consider those things, too.

But whereas you've highlighted awards and MVP shares to indicate maybe guys like Pierce, Miller, Allen, or Gasol don't deserve consideration yet, I could [as I did for other players in prior post] note different measures which suggest they do.
Examples: career rs WS (in all NBA/ABA history Miller is 17th, Pierce 25th, Allen 29th, Gasol 32nd), career playoff WS (Miller 23rd, Allen 27th, Pierce 32nd, Gasol 39th), career rs VORP (since 1973 Miller is 21st, Pierce 23rd, Allen 25th, Gasol 28th), or career playoff VORP (Allen 25th, Miller 26th, Pierce 29th, Gasol 31st).


I know you don't like metrics such as these, which reward players for extra "merely useful" seasons, and thus favor the longevity kings. But I do (value those "merely useful" seasons, that is), as do others. Obviously those seasons don't carry much value relative to other high-end seasons (and rest assured that I, at least, have measures in place that go beyond merely scanning WS and VORP totals, fwiw). But those sub-superstar seasons are far from irrelevant to me.

It's just a difference in criteria and values. I suspect some (perhaps you among them) value a single season of peak Steph Curry over 4-5 years of prime John Stockton.
I, otoh, value those 4-5 prime Stockton years higher. Part of that may stem from a differing philosophy on what constitutes "success" from the team standpoint. Whereas some appear to take a "championship or bust" view of team success (where anything less than a title is relatively meaningless), I don't hold such a narrow view on team success. Although even if I did, I'm not sure that one peak Curry season provides greater championship odds [based on Elgee's studies] than those 4-5 prime Stockton seasons.

Someone may pipe in "of course they do: Curry has two titles in eight seasons, Stockton had none in 19 years"; but that's result-oriented thinking. By the same logic, if we were playing poker and you had pocket aces and I had QJo, and I proceeded to draw out and win that hand.....I could then conclude QJo is better than AA.


jsia.....I've gotten much more philosophical regarding differences in opinion about where players belong all-time, as it largely comes down to an individual's value system (and who's to say one is better than the other?).
I will say I frown on criteria that is TOO heavy on award/honors or MVP shares, because people voting are often not "experts" as some are trying to label them----hell, the silly fan vote produces some ridiculous All-Star selections and omissions some years----and because I don't feel these measures can always be taken at face value due to differences in era quality across the whole spectrum of years.
And I've come to believe that volume scoring, for its own sake, has been historically overrated by both casual fans and the people doing the voting. I feel impact studies have fairly effectively proven that volume scoring does not consistently correlate with a high degree of impact, and that defense and other intangible skill-sets have more impact than has been historically appreciated.


EDIT: On a side-note, I'd point out that Jason Kidd, while looking great in cumulative measures such as VORP and WS (against the last SEVEN inductees, plus Frazier and Isiah----as I'd noted above), also rates out competitive among those you listed in MVP shares and accumulated awards/honors. Combine those things with some reasonably impressive impact metrics......

[Doctor MJ]

Are we sure Miller, Pierce, Allen types should be ranked above Manu? I'm ready to start seriously considering him

Harden and Westbrook should be in play soon as well, at some point having the MVP caliber peak may mean more than longer second tier careers. Neither player is Walton in terms of longevity, Harden has 5 Houston seasons and his last season in OKC had good advanced stats. Westbrook has 3 mega years and then 3.5 more all-star ones. I think I rate them both over Dwight who's prime is about as long

The tricky part of Ginobili is 1) how little he played (Reggie played almost double the regular season minutes of Manu), and 2) how he played disproportionately against opponents' softer units (being 6th man has his privilege). Not saying you're crazy to prefer Manu's career as he was considerably more effective per minute played than these guys, but you should be able to see good cases in both directions.

Re: Harden/Westbrook. "soon"? I'm not really opposed to that, but I think Miller/Pierce/Allen have accomplished more to this point. That's a personal perspective on peak vs longevity to be sure, but there's also the matter that these young guys have been going through a lot of change and we're still in the process of seeing how it all lands. I don't think either player should be getting such huge numbers if they are playing the game optimally, and so to me in the end they'll be judged based on what they do next.

I think it's a little weird to rank Allen/Pierce/Miller above Westbrook or Harden just out of longevity, considering that Bird is in the top 10 and had 7~8 really great seasons. Not saying that either of those guys had that kind of peak, and still don't have as many elite seasons, but was just wondering how you value peak and prime Vs longevity.

(Not an attack by the way, just legitimately curious, been reading the forum for a while but just now started interacting with you guys lol)

Bird had megastar impact as a rookie, Westbrook and Harden took a lot longer to get there and neither has the kind of peak Bird does in my opinion.

[Doctor MJ]

I do think active players who are still in the prime of their career do get underrated compared to retired stars because it takes a couple of years for the impact of modern stardom to really sink in. I know I tend to be skeptical of the Westbrook/Harden types still for a couple of years after they have established a prime that I would support if it were a retired star to see if their weaknesses get exposed . . . like Dwight who has dropped on my lists behind people I rated him ahead of 4 years ago. Sort of the opposite of the recency bias that sometimes shows up here.

I think Howard shows why we need to be careful about overrating players mid-career. In Howard you had someone with clear cut pluses and minuses back in his day, but how to weigh the good and the bad wasn't clear cut at all. How should you penalize a guy for being high-maintenance? Well, if it all ends up being part of a growing project, maybe you shouldn't at all. On the other hand if he ends up destroying the situation, and then crashing/burning in every other situation he goes to, then his off-court issues simply have to be reckoned with.

In business it's perfectly reasonable for a supremely talented individual to struggle if he's too hard to work with, and this gets factored in the overall evaluation. It should be no different.

Getting back to Westbrook and Harden, what they've done in the years leading up to this will be reshaped based on what we see next. It's entirely possible, for example, that what Westbrook did last year will in the end be looked upon as something he did simply because that's what his team needed, and when he got George around him he adjusted beautifully, but it's also possible we'll see major diminishing returns when OKC attempts to add talent around him.

So for me personally, I'm cautious. I'm not blindly cautious due to their relative youth. To me Curry's legacy is really solidified. No matter what happens from here on out, he's an all-time great.

[penbeast0]

I think Howard shows why we need to be careful about overrating players mid-career. In Howard you had someone with clear cut pluses and minuses back in his day, but how to weigh the good and the bad wasn't clear cut at all. How should you penalize a guy for being high-maintenance? Well, if it all ends up being part of a growing project, maybe you shouldn't at all. On the other hand if he ends up destroying the situation, and then crashing/burning in every other situation he goes to, then his off-court issues simply have to be reckoned with.

In business it's perfectly reasonable for a supremely talented individual to struggle if he's too hard to work with, and this gets factored in the overall evaluation. It should be no different.

Getting back to Westbrook and Harden, what they've done in the years leading up to this will be reshaped based on what we see next. It's entirely possible, for example, that what Westbrook did last year will in the end be looked upon as something he did simply because that's what his team needed, and when he got George around him he adjusted beautifully, but it's also possible we'll see major diminishing returns when OKC attempts to add talent around him.

So for me personally, I'm cautious. I'm not blindly cautious due to their relative youth. To me Curry's legacy is really solidified. No matter what happens from here on out, he's an all-time great.

Excellent explanation of why I haven't voted for either yet and why I did support Durant and Curry . . . well, that and I tend to value efficiency and defense higher than the average poster I think.

[Franco]

The tricky part of Ginobili is 1) how little he played (Reggie played almost double the regular season minutes of Manu), and 2) how he played disproportionately against opponents' softer units (being 6th man has his privilege). Not saying you're crazy to prefer Manu's career as he was considerably more effective per minute played than these guys, but you should be able to see good cases in both directions.

Re: Harden/Westbrook. "soon"? I'm not really opposed to that, but I think Miller/Pierce/Allen have accomplished more to this point. That's a personal perspective on peak vs longevity to be sure, but there's also the matter that these young guys have been going through a lot of change and we're still in the process of seeing how it all lands. I don't think either player should be getting such huge numbers if they are playing the game optimally, and so to me in the end they'll be judged based on what they do next.

I think it's a little weird to rank Allen/Pierce/Miller above Westbrook or Harden just out of longevity, considering that Bird is in the top 10 and had 7~8 really great seasons. Not saying that either of those guys had that kind of peak, and still don't have as many elite seasons, but was just wondering how you value peak and prime Vs longevity.

(Not an attack by the way, just legitimately curious, been reading the forum for a while but just now started interacting with you guys lol)

Bird had megastar impact as a rookie, Westbrook and Harden took a lot longer to get there and neither has the kind of peak Bird does in my opinion.

I agree about Bird, but just as I can't put Bird and Pierce in the same place among ATG because of Bird's edge on peak, I don't see guys like Iverson and Allen above Westbrook and Harden who both peaked at ATG levels (although severely overrated by the public in general) and have been elite players for a few years now. Basically I think that their edges in peak should be enough for it to put them above or at least comparable rankings in a GOAT list.

EDIT: And about "recency bias" (which obviously exist), I think that thinking too hard about it at the moment won't do any good, since we don't know about what'll happen in the future, so while I get that nobody want to overreact about a player's unfinished career... it's also unfair to underrate it just to compensate possible "recency bias". That's why there's a top 100 project once every few years, right?

[Doctor MJ]

I think it's a little weird to rank Allen/Pierce/Miller above Westbrook or Harden just out of longevity, considering that Bird is in the top 10 and had 7~8 really great seasons. Not saying that either of those guys had that kind of peak, and still don't have as many elite seasons, but was just wondering how you value peak and prime Vs longevity.

(Not an attack by the way, just legitimately curious, been reading the forum for a while but just now started interacting with you guys lol)

Bird had megastar impact as a rookie, Westbrook and Harden took a lot longer to get there and neither has the kind of peak Bird does in my opinion.

I agree about Bird, but just as I can't put Bird and Pierce in the same place among ATG because of Bird's edge on peak, I don't see guys like Iverson and Allen above Westbrook and Harden who both peaked at ATG levels (although severely overrated by the public in general) and have been elite players for a few years now. Basically I think that their edges in peak should be enough for it to put them above or at least comparable rankings in a GOAT list.

EDIT: And about "recency bias" (which obviously exist), I think that thinking too hard about it at the moment won't do any good, since we don't know about what'll happen in the future, so while I get that nobody want to overreact about a player's unfinished career... it's also unfair to underrate it just to compensate possible "recency bias". That's why there's a top 100 project once every few years, right?

I actually have no problem at all with those guys over Iverson. The worst case scenario for either of them at this point is as nothing more than rich man's AIs, which would still put them over Iverson.

So what is it I hold in so much respect about the Ray Allens of the world? I might say that it's the fact that I know with an absolute certainty how they'll respond when a team is in position to actually win a title, and I'm impressed with that response.

I really liked Harden in his OKC role for that reason, but realistically the reason why he's being talked at already in this project is because of what he's done as an alpha...and I don't think what he's done as an alpha is actually that much of an outlier. He - and Westbrook to an even larger degree - have taken roles where they are at the fulcrum of everything and it lets them rack up huge numbers, but I don't think those huge numbers are actually all that healthy, and I don't think it actually proves all that much about what you'll do as an alpha in a truly healthy context.

But again, I"m not saying they've done nothing yet, I"m just saying that in an all-time great context, there's still a lot left to be written before we know what these guys truly are.

[Franco]

Bird had megastar impact as a rookie, Westbrook and Harden took a lot longer to get there and neither has the kind of peak Bird does in my opinion.

I agree about Bird, but just as I can't put Bird and Pierce in the same place among ATG because of Bird's edge on peak, I don't see guys like Iverson and Allen above Westbrook and Harden who both peaked at ATG levels (although severely overrated by the public in general) and have been elite players for a few years now. Basically I think that their edges in peak should be enough for it to put them above or at least comparable rankings in a GOAT list.

EDIT: And about "recency bias" (which obviously exist), I think that thinking too hard about it at the moment won't do any good, since we don't know about what'll happen in the future, so while I get that nobody want to overreact about a player's unfinished career... it's also unfair to underrate it just to compensate possible "recency bias". That's why there's a top 100 project once every few years, right?

I actually have no problem at all with those guys over Iverson. The worst case scenario for either of them at this point is as nothing more than rich man's AIs, which would still put them over Iverson.

So what is it I hold in so much respect about the Ray Allens of the world? I might say that it's the fact that I know with an absolute certainty how they'll respond when a team is in position to actually win a title, and I'm impressed with that response.

I really liked Harden in his OKC role for that reason, but realistically the reason why he's being talked at already in this project is because of what he's done as an alpha...and I don't think what he's done as an alpha is actually that much of an outlier. He - and Westbrook to an even larger degree - have taken roles where they are at the fulcrum of everything and it lets them rack up huge numbers, but I don't think those huge numbers are actually all that healthy, and I don't think it actually proves all that much about what you'll do as an alpha in a truly healthy context.

But again, I"m not saying they've done nothing yet, I"m just saying that in an all-time great context, there's still a lot left to be written before we know what these guys truly are.

Fair enough, I think that the playoffs can really be held against them when talking about this level of ATG, especially with Harden's complete no-show on the elimination game last year age Spurs and Westbrook's game 6 and 7 self-destruction against the Warriors.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #32:

Jason Kidd - 2 (pandrade83, trex_8063)
Walt Frazier - 2 (dhsilv2, penbeast0)
Isiah Thomas - 2 (JordansBulls, scabbarista)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)
Reggie Miller - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)

This thread will be open a little less than one more day (~20-22 more hours).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

I agree about Bird, but just as I can't put Bird and Pierce in the same place among ATG because of Bird's edge on peak, I don't see guys like Iverson and Allen above Westbrook and Harden who both peaked at ATG levels (although severely overrated by the public in general) and have been elite players for a few years now. Basically I think that their edges in peak should be enough for it to put them above or at least comparable rankings in a GOAT list.

EDIT: And about "recency bias" (which obviously exist), I think that thinking too hard about it at the moment won't do any good, since we don't know about what'll happen in the future, so while I get that nobody want to overreact about a player's unfinished career... it's also unfair to underrate it just to compensate possible "recency bias". That's why there's a top 100 project once every few years, right?

I actually have no problem at all with those guys over Iverson. The worst case scenario for either of them at this point is as nothing more than rich man's AIs, which would still put them over Iverson.

So what is it I hold in so much respect about the Ray Allens of the world? I might say that it's the fact that I know with an absolute certainty how they'll respond when a team is in position to actually win a title, and I'm impressed with that response.

I really liked Harden in his OKC role for that reason, but realistically the reason why he's being talked at already in this project is because of what he's done as an alpha...and I don't think what he's done as an alpha is actually that much of an outlier. He - and Westbrook to an even larger degree - have taken roles where they are at the fulcrum of everything and it lets them rack up huge numbers, but I don't think those huge numbers are actually all that healthy, and I don't think it actually proves all that much about what you'll do as an alpha in a truly healthy context.

But again, I"m not saying they've done nothing yet, I"m just saying that in an all-time great context, there's still a lot left to be written before we know what these guys truly are.

Fair enough, I think that the playoffs can really be held against them when talking about this level of ATG, especially with Harden's complete no-show on the elimination game last year age Spurs and Westbrook's game 6 and 7 self-destruction against the Warriors.

Less than 5 games is always going to be completely suspect. A single game being used for good or bad on a player's career seems horrible to me.

[Winsome Gerbil]

It's a bit like saying Frank Gore > Jim Brown because he has more 1000yd seasons.

Or Mike Mussina > Clayton Kershaw.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Walt Frazier

Vote 2 - George Gervin

Reasoning: viewtopic.php?p=58257557#p58257557

[trex_8063]

It's a bit like saying Frank Gore > Jim Brown because he has more 1000yd seasons.

Strawman: it's both hyperbolic and more narrow-based/simplistic than any opposing view that's been stated.


Gore > Brown because of slightly more yds or 1000yd seasons would be kinda like me saying Jason Kidd > Magic Johnson because he has more assists. The statements I've made are neither so over-simplified, nor as far-fetched.

[Doctor MJ]

It's a bit like saying Frank Gore > Jim Brown because he has more 1000yd seasons.

Or Mike Mussina > Clayton Kershaw.

I'm sorry, who is the guy you think deserves to have Jim Brown as their analogue?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[oldschooled]

Ason Kidd -
Top tier defensive guard (data, advanced stats shows he has more impact defensively than offensively) with longevity to boot. Impact even in his late seasons. Important piece on that Mavs championship team.

Walt Frazier -
Top tier defensive guard, co-led his team to 2 rings and its NY for christ sake (he should be elevated in this rankings just for this imo ) Elevates his game in the playoffs.

Isiah Thomas -
Led (or co-led) his team to 2 NBA championships. Really hard to rank Isiah because im not sure if he's really the driving force on that Pistons team (even the stats wont agree with him). But he's def the leader. His intangibles played a role in those chips.

Vote: Walt Frazier
Alt: Ason Kidd

[Dr Positivity]

Thoughts on Cousy, Frazier, Thomas, Billups, Kidd, Miller, Gervin, Tmac, Mourning, Dwight from last thread:

Spoiler:

Bob Cousy - Case for: Superb longevity. He is still a 2nd team All-NBA level, all-star in his 13th season. Highly regarded by his peers with all his All-NBA, wins MVP, and in 1980 which is about the halfway point for this project is one of 11 players selected for the 35th anniversary team ahead of some contenders here like Barry and Frazier. Being one of the best slashers of his era and the best passer are both high value offensive roles. Helped Boston to 1st ORTGs when he was the best player. Case against: Played against mostly segregated players in his prime. Being the best guard passer in a poor passing league doesn't necessarily mean he was better at it than future players. Weak TS leads to disappointing OWS and WS production, never finishes higher than 8th/9th in WS. The Celtics dynasty was predicted to collapse without him but they did just fine. Likely overcredited in his time for Boston's offensive success, noting that this was a time where they didn't know any better than to think whoever scored the most points had the best offense, eg. in Cousy's MVP year they had the 5th highest ORTG but scored the most points easily so they may have credited the offensive player as the driving force.

Walt Frazier - Case for: Fabulous boxscore stats despite steals not being tracked a lot of his prime. Has multiple 2nd/3rd finishes in WS and if steals were tracked earlier would've done fabulously in VORP, he 4th/3rd the first two seasons it's tracked in 74 and 75 despite his offensive stats not being what it was a few years earlier. High value offensive role as a scorer/creator and one of the top defensive PGs making all-defensive 1st team throughout his prime. Great playoff career including one of the great Finals games. Case against: Weak longevity (6-7 years prime). No top 3 finishes in WS and voters at the time seemed to clearly prefer Reed as the Knicks best player, although a theory could be use racism (Frazier being "too black") having something to do with that.

Isiah Thomas - Case for: Very solid longevity being great for about a 11 year prime. Great intangibles and praised by many teammates. Strong playoff career leading his team to the top of the mountain. One of the best passers in the league which is a highly valuable offensive skill, along with creation ability. Case against: Average TS leading to only one top 10 finish in WS at 7th, and a 4th/7th in VORP. A good not great scoring career when you consider the volume and efficiency. Finishes 5th in MVP once and never above 8th and surprisingly underrecognized in Pistons title years in either MVP or All-NBA. Despite being a great leader and passer he struggles to fit in his most talented teammate ever in Dantley and keeps shooting as much as ever.

Chauncey Billups - Case for: Combination of passing, getting to the line and free throw line all of which is highly valuable on offense. Somewhat ahead of his time in appreciation for his skillset and value of 3pt spacing. Very good boxscore player with a few top 5s in WS (3rd/5th) and other top 10s and solid but would do better in VORP if his defense was rated better as it probably should've been. Leads Pistons to some strong seasons even without Ben Wallace. Iverson for Billups trade looks terrific for his case with his impact on the Nuggets both as a player and leader and Pistons decline without him. Case against: Ok longevity with about 8 strong years. Good but not great RAPM career, mainly peaking later in his prime. Felt less talented than other players in contention here. Not rated a superstar in his time, not even a star on the level of players like Pierce, Allen and Kidd. His reasonable MVP/All-NBA career somewhat misrepresents the lack of real star labelling there was for Billups. Seen somewhat like the game manager QB on an elite football defense, great at it, but still a game manager. Doesn't necessarily "put pressure on the defense" athletically.

Jason Kidd - Case for: One of the strongest RAPM players left ranking top 5 in his prime and some great on/off seasons. Playmaking alone has strong value at PG offensively, while is a great defensive player at his position who can up his value by guarding 2s. A great fastbreak starter due to his rebounder. Peaks at 2nd in MVP voting. Good VORP career finishing 1st in it once (99) and top 5 another time. Decent decade of prime longevity and valuable older player. Case against: Mediocre scoring career, making it harder to make a star level offensive impact and lack of shooting hurts floor spacing value. Not the best WS player with a 5th and 9th as his top 10s. Two top 5 finishes in MVP but often settled at 8th/9th.

Reggie Miller - Case for: Increases his stock in the playoffs where he is on several occasions a killer. Game translates to playoffs well since he can create open shots by movement. Outstanding longevity and durability and still has value late in his career as floor spacer. 17th in career WS. High floor spacing effect that he know better now than they did in the 90s the value of. Solid passing stats and ability to get to the FT Line, not just a spot up shooter. Good RAPM support. Case against: Shockingly little accolades in his time, not just missing MVP and All-NBA but all-star games half the time. Difficult to make the case he was ever a top 5 player, even in the stat that loves him WS he never finishes top 5. Limited RAPM sample also has him as very good but more of a fringe top 10 guy.

George Gervin - Case for: One of the best offensive careers left, leads the league in scoring 4x and a highly efficient scorer and leads good offenses and contenders. Considered a superstar on his time, 2x 2nd and 1x 3rd MVP finishes and 5 straight 1st team All-NBA. Case against: The Harden of his era on defense, probably worst top 50 defender if Harden doesn’t get in. Only finishes top 5 once in WS and peaks at 6th in VORP in NBA. Mediocre passing for his scoring volume, playmaking is typically critical for high offensive impact for a guard.

Tracy McGrady - Case for: Amazing statistical peak in 2003 right up there (9.7 BPM!) that’s up there with any Kobe season. Great playmaking wing increasing his value throughout his career along with high volume scoring. Good playoff performer. Case against: Weak longevity and health. Poor intangibles and often seemed half asleep. TS average outside of 03. Never makes it past 1st round as a real player. Him and Yao never seemed to reach their potential together and the Rockets suspiciously overperformed whenever one got injured.

Alonzo Mourning - Case for: One of the best defensive centers remaining, as elite shotblocker and 2x DPOY. Plays the right position to be defense first. Peaks at 2nd in MVP voting in 00 and 1st in 99 RAPM (ascreamingacrossthecourt). Solid 8 years before kidney problems, decent play in 02 and valuable few years as mega shotblocking backup C in 06 and 07. 20 point scorer with above average TS and has midrange floor spacing. Outstanding intangibles, he is both the anti-Dwight and anti-Gilmore in a way. Case against: Not a great offensive threat. Terrible passing numbers and assist to turnover rate. Visually a Meh scoring skillset. May have got the job done in the regular season but to win a title there needs to be a more dynamic offensive player on the team.

Dwight Howard - Case for: Excellent accolades in his time, finishing 2nd in MVP (and possibly deserving to win) and 2x 4th place and 1x 5th place. 3rd a few times in WS and peaks at 5th/6th in VORP. The consensus best defender in the league in his prime and offensively is a 20 point, highly efficient scorer who creates gravity on the pick and roll. The defense alone is highly valuable at center. Peaks at 5th/8th in RAPM. Case against: Poor intangibles, annoying manchild. Very poor passing center who turns it over, and a complete non floor spacer at C. Played in a perfect offensive fit for his style, with ahead of its time floor spacing giving him room inside to score and he has never been the same without it. His offensive skillset never fully passed the eye test. Defensive impact seemed to evaporate after Orlando. When looking at how much better a player like late career Mourning was on defense than post prime Dwight, is it a clue about their ability on that end in their prime?

Dolph Schayes - Case for: Terrific all around offense for his time. High volume scoring, highly efficient, good passing and one of the original floor spacing bigs. Quality longevity as still a relevant player (2nd team All-NBA) in his 12th season and production as late as 61 shows he wasn't just a product of pre shot clock. Defense is hard to gauge but he did well in DWS and finished 1st in the league once. A clearcut top 5 player for his time which many of the alternatives above were not. Won a title as best player. Case against: Played in mostly segregated era and has an antiquated shooting style. Doesn't appear to have had a good defensive skillset even if he was good for his time - he just played in weaker era.

+ Allen Iverson - Case for: Rated well in his time, MVP winner with two other top 5 finishes. Tremendous volume scorer, on ball playmaker which is high value offensive role. For an advanced stats lightning rod, is a respectable 42nd in VORP. Solid longevity compared to other options here, a solid decade. Made Finals with role players. Efficiency problems somewhat connected to context. Played on defense first team with terrible spacing, in pre handcheck rules era. TS improved in Denver when this was rectified. Imagine if he played with the spacing Harden has right now. Case against: Not a great advanced stats player. Rated as overrated by RAPM and WS on the whole. TS when it dips low enough in PHI makes it harder to say he's worth it. Weak defense. Poor intangibles. Very weak portability both for his style of game and his attitude.

Vote: Jason Kidd

Kidd has a long career with excellent impact going by on/off and RAPM, he is not the best offensive player with options like Miller and Gervin out there but he makes up for with high defensive impact for a PG.

2nd: Bob Cousy