Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #40

[Dr Positivity]

Gervin is a worse defender and passer than the other wings in contention and I would say players who struggle at those things and aren't a floor spacer like Miller tend to look worse in impact stats than box score. Gervin has an excellent case to get in but that would be the case against him

[penbeast0]

...

Defense and passing ability basically. Gervin was a great scorer, but that's all he was. He didn't want to bring the ball up or initiate things and he didn't put consistent effort into defense.

[THKNKG]

On the high scoring wings that are getting votes:

I feel like Gervin has the best combination of efficiency/volume - and he certainly has the accolades/team impact/success to complement it.

If Gervin had the best combination of efficiency & volume for that type, I am sort of unclear on what's the case for some of the other archetypes that get votes over him? When I think about those type of players, Gervin seems to be the best at the trick; and there's obviously a "market" for high scoring wings given that they're about 1/2 the players represented right now.

What's the case for some of the other wings over him (excluding Tmac - I view his case as a different argument - both for and against than the others)?

My general argument for Reggie > Gervin is as follows:

1) Gervin scored more in the RS, but Miller was more efficient
2) They were at similar levels of volume and efficiency in the playoffs, the most important section of the year
3) Reggie did that in a playstyle (off ball) that's more conducive to the high volume ISO scorer guy

[Outside]

Not a fan of Pierce this high. I think people tend to think of him in the period starting in 2007-08, and he definitely deserves credit for those years, but I think of him as more of a me-baller in the nine seasons prior to that who didn't look as unselfish because he had Antoine Walker next to him.

Pros:

-- Well-rounded game with assists and rebounds in addition to points
-- Played at an elite level during the "big three" era
-- Was often clutch in big playoff games in the "big three" era
-- Had effective go-to shots in crunch time
-- Developed very good BBIQ
-- Developed into an reasonably effective team defender and post defender

Cons:

-- Tended toward selfish play the first half of his career
-- Not a good individual defender in space
-- Could play smart team defense when surrounded by good defenders, but was otherwise a defensive liability
-- Flailed his head and arms frequently to exaggerate contact or even when there was no contact (not everyone considers this a negative, and some might consider it a positive because it worked at drawing fouls, but I hate that kind of stuff)

I suppose I should give him some slack because he joined the Celtics when they were truly awful and they generally bad teams prior to the big three era, but I tend to consider stats on bad teams as inflated.

The big three era arrived at the perfect time for Pierce. He had honed his skills and matured enough that he was tired of stat padding and wanted out of Boston to be on a winner (https://nesn.com/2016/02/paul-pierce-celtics-came-real-close-to-portland-trade-i-wanted-to-go-to-dallas/). With KG, Ray Allen, and a bunch of quality role players, Pierce entered a five-year stretch of excellent basketball -- his scoring went down, his efficiency went up, he used his playmaking skills to great effect, and he was the offensive leader of a team that won a title and was a contender in the other years when healthy.

That five-year window alone qualifies Pierce for a place on this list. He had a few moments after that window, but his physical decline was very apparent. How high Pierce ranks depends on how you value his first nine seasons. I tend to downgrade those seasons and have him ranked in the 50s, but others obviously feel otherwise.

[Outside]

Gervin was a great scorer, but that's all he was. He didn't want to bring the ball up or initiate things and he didn't put consistent effort into defense.

I don't think that's a fair characterization of Gervin.

First of all, scoring is the most highly valued skill in the game, and Gervin did it in volume and with efficiency -- he led the NBA in scoring four times, has a career scoring average of 25.1 (only nine players have a higher career average), and his TS% of 56.4 is better than all of them except Jordan, LeBron, and Durant.

He seemed to score at will. I saw him play once when he had 18 points in the first half, then got hot in the second half and wound up with 40-something. Just incredible to watch, and to score that efficiently without a three-point shot is remarkable (he had range out to 20 feet, but out of 20,583 FGA, only 451 were threes).

He wasn't a great rebounder, but he averaged 5.3 for his career, which is pretty good (Paul Pierce, who is generally thought of as a good rebounder, averaged 5.6). His assists weren't great -- only 2.6 APG for his career -- and while he wasn't a good defender, he did average 1.0 blocks and 1.2 steals per game.

25, 595 career points -- 16th all time
12 all-star games
1st team all-NBA 5 times, 2nd team all-NBA twice, 2nd team all-ABA twice

I didn't vote for him this thread, but he's coming up for me very shortly.

[mikejames23]

Looks like Frazier and Isiah snuck in right in time.



Wes Unseld

Superstar glue guy. The adjusted numbers he puts up aren't necessarily super impressive, but he does post great O Ratings, a bit like an interesting version of Tyson Chandler/Shane Battier types. He obv. had a higher rep than either, but Unseld is a mystery to me.

I posted a bit on him above. Look beyond the traditional stats - his VORP/BPM numbers are very impressive and he leads his team in those metrics for basically all of his career (I caveated when he didn't), including their championship/Finals appearances.

His impact comes from strong rebounding, strong passing, efficient scoring & generally mistake free ball.

Appears to be this way. Had a very high rep during that era. Doing some research on Unseld.

The captain of those Bullets teams was Wes Unseld, who for 13 seasons was one of the NBA's finest centers despite being only 6'7" and weighing 245 pounds. "I don't know of anybody who ever set a meaner screen or who was more vicious under the boards than Wes Unseld," says Collins, wincing slightly.

Unseld had little in common with the modern player except his enormous physical strength. He never lifted weights; the Bullets didn't have a workout room anyway—like most NBA teams then. Unseld's power was forged in the steel supply house where he worked as a teenager. And while his methods may have been less sophisticated than the iron-pumping of the new Adonises, the results were no less physical. Players like Unseld and his teammate Gus Johnson, Dave DeBusschere of the Pistons and the Knicks, and Bill Bridges of the Hawks, 76ers, Lakers and Warriors took pride in the violence of their body language. "In those days we got more involved in articulating our picks," says Unseld, now a Bullets vice-president and assistant coach. "I was going to push you, beat on you, make your life miserable for 48 minutes to make sure you wouldn't be the one to beat us at the end." That type of play has been around pro ball forever, but today's Unselds and DeBusscheres have a lot more scientific data and better training methods available to them if they want to get stronger. And more and more of them do.

https://www.si.com/vault/1987/11/09/116554/lets-get-physical-finesse-is-taking-a-backseat-as-teams-vie-with-each-other-to-get-the-big-bangers-who-can-tough-it-out-under-the-basket

"Unseld is a bully. He has bullied his way through this league all his life."

https://www.si.com/vault/1979/05/07/823594/alive-but-just-barely-amazing-atlanta-took-the-defending-nba-champion-bullets-to-seven-stirring-games-in-the-eastern-conference-semifinals-then-the-big-e-and-bobby-d-made-the-hawks-feathers-fly

Lots of fighting between Hayes and Unseld. They didn't get along at all.

His prickly personality does not endear him to most of his teammates, some of whom consider him a finger pointer. For instance, after the Bullets blew a 19-point lead and lost to Seattle in the opening game of the championship series, Hayes criticized Center Wes Unseld in the newspapers for his lack of offense. Hayes insists his quotes were a year old and out of context. Nevertheless, Unseld was upset. He and Hayes have never been close. Says Unseld, “I always hear Elvin say, ‘They’re blaming Elvin.’ I never hear anybody blaming Elvin. Not coaches or players, anyway, just the papers, and that happens to everybody when they lose. It’s just that Elvin keeps calling attention to himself.”

“I do my talking to other players face-to-face, not through the press. I don’t dwell within Elvin. I don’t know what he’s thinking and I don’t care. The person I know is the basketball player, and right now he is one of the best in the league. What he’s done verifies that. We’ve had more than our share of run-ins off the court. But when he’s on the court he’s a professional and that’s all that matters.”

http://www.truthaboutit.net/2009/09/elvin-hayes-versus-wes-unseld.html

Some stuff on Reed vs Unseld

Instead of attempting to wrestle with Unseld for rebounds they rarely got, the Knicks, always one of the quickest teams in the league at dropping back to cover the fast break, fell away from the boards and attempted to sever Baltimore's passing lanes. At least one, and often two, players lunged at Unseld with arms raised to obscure his vision and occasionally deflect his passes. The other Knicks scrambled downcourt to cover the remaining Bullets, effectively halting Baltimore's running game. Unseld was often forced to wait for one of his teammates to circle back to take short laterals from him.

https://www.si.com/vault/1971/04/26/611919/winner-gets-to-play-alcindor

How about some Kareem vs Unseld?

Alcindor returned to dominate the second half, scoring 18 points in the third quarter and finishing with 31 in the 33 minutes he played. It was the only time in the series that Lew scored with consistent ease over Wes Unseld. Bullet Coach Gene Shue took the risk of assigning the 6'7½" Unseld to guard Alcindor unassisted. Only twice in the first game and not much more often subsequently, did Wes receive aid from his teammates. Since nobody, perhaps not even his mother, seems to know exactly how tall Lew is, the disparity between the two centers was guessed at anywhere from seven to 10 inches. When Unseld stood on his toes, he barely seemed able to peer over Alcindor's shoulder. But Unseld had an advantage of his own, since he outweighs Lew by 13 pounds, all of it muscle. Wes danced around Alcindor, overplaying him first on one side, then the other, frequently batting away passes into the post and generally laying a load of weight on Lew's spine. He forced Alcindor to attempt all the shots in his repertoire, from dunks to that majestic hook fired from an absurd yard above the basket, to jump shots outside Lew's best range. Alcindor occasionally responded by backing strongly into Unseld and jostling him slightly, which is equivalent to making the Sphinx flinch, but after the opening game Unseld was able to hold Alcindor six points under his league-leading regular season average of 31.7.

https://www.si.com/vault/1971/05/10/612007/hey-look-ma-only-one-hand

Wes was the Bullets enforcer and the reason they were cohesive as a team. This much I can tell. Elvin may have been game planned around, but Wes's style of play in a pre-data ball era is truly appreciable.

BTW, his lack of size is that big of a deal? We have literally seen Ben Wallace and Draymond Green win DPOY's in the modern era. I don't feel this is a legitimate argument. He literally bullied around the Centers of his era.

[mikejames23]

The 70's was a chaotic mess between the NBA and ABA, but it also appears to be an era of strong physical centers. Really respect Kareem dominating the competition in this era - 70's ball makes this very very difficult on anyone.

[pandrade83]

...

Defense and passing ability basically. Gervin was a great scorer, but that's all he was. He didn't want to bring the ball up or initiate things and he didn't put consistent effort into defense.

While I don't think that's unfair, my issue is - how exactly is this different from Reggie or Wilkins?

WRT Pierce, Gervin was clearly better scorer at higher volume - so then the question becomes how much do you value the better defense/ball handling Pierce brought? For me, given their primary role, I think Gervin was clearly better at it; the other stuff closes the gap.

[penbeast0]

...

Defense and passing ability basically. Gervin was a great scorer, but that's all he was. He didn't want to bring the ball up or initiate things and he didn't put consistent effort into defense.

While I don't think that's unfair, my issue is - how exactly is this different from Reggie or Wilkins?

WRT Pierce, Gervin was clearly better scorer at higher volume - so then the question becomes how much do you value the better defense/ball handling Pierce brought? For me, given their primary role, I think Gervin was clearly better at it; the other stuff closes the gap.

Just FYI, my vote was for Gervin.

[Pablo Novi]

VOTE: Bob Cousy
ALT: George Gervin

Repeated from last thread:
Of those not-yet selected, only Gervin comes close to Cousy's domination of their own position during their own era. Cousy was selected 1st-Team ALL-NBA TEN times (one of only 10 players ever so honored in the 80 combined years of the: NBL, ABA, NBA); plus two additional 2nd-Team ALL-NBA selections. Sure most of his Great Years were during the 1950's, a decade definitely weaker than all subsequent decades - but he DOMINATED his position for a decade - one can hardly do more or ask for more than that. (Btw, I'm no Celtics' or Cousy fan; nor was/am I a big fan of Gervin's - I liked both of their's play but neither was a favorite of mine).

Gervin was selected ALL-League NINE times (5 X 1st-Team, 4 X 2nd-Team) (the highest number of selections for any player we have not yet voted-in not-named Cousy).

The significance of being selected to ALL-League teams can not be over-stated. The 100++ people who are the selectors are PAID to report on the sport - who could possibly be in a better position to report on which players dominated each year. Further, the large number of them is super-effective in canceling out any individual biases (much like, but much better than: Olympic Diving voting (where the top and bottom votes are eliminated, and the diver's score is based on the remaining votes)).

The ALL-League selection process is so good, that since I've been paying attention to it (the 59-1960 season); I've never had any MAJOR problems with it. Imo, it TRUMPS by a huge margin any and all reliance on any other factor / stat or combination of them. Again, THEY were there, it was THEIR JOB to observe closely and report accurately. They did get it right.

Cousy (and Gervin) had WAY MORE Great Years (as defined here as being selected ALL-League 1st-Team or 2nd-Team) than many of the players we've already voted in to our GOAT list; and WAY MORE Great Years than ALL of the players currently getting more traction than they are.

[mikejames23]

...

Defense and passing ability basically. Gervin was a great scorer, but that's all he was. He didn't want to bring the ball up or initiate things and he didn't put consistent effort into defense.

While I don't think that's unfair, my issue is - how exactly is this different from Reggie or Wilkins?

WRT Pierce, Gervin was clearly better scorer at higher volume - so then the question becomes how much do you value the better defense/ball handling Pierce brought? For me, given their primary role, I think Gervin was clearly better at it; the other stuff closes the gap.

If we're talking about defense, Pierce generally measured out to be very very good at that level, by +/- - he was only a little lower than Shane Battier in the 02-11 study. If we're saying Gervin's a liability, than Pierce's style ends up being more effective. Better defense, fitting perfectly in a role without egos, better passing, ability to play #2 within a championship system makes for a better player all time than what Gervin brought to the floor.

[pandrade83]

Defense and passing ability basically. Gervin was a great scorer, but that's all he was. He didn't want to bring the ball up or initiate things and he didn't put consistent effort into defense.

While I don't think that's unfair, my issue is - how exactly is this different from Reggie or Wilkins?

WRT Pierce, Gervin was clearly better scorer at higher volume - so then the question becomes how much do you value the better defense/ball handling Pierce brought? For me, given their primary role, I think Gervin was clearly better at it; the other stuff closes the gap.

Just FYI, my vote was for Gervin.

Well played

[trex_8063]

Sorry guys, this thread's gonna be open a few hours more 'cause I'm just getting my ass kicked by life today. Will have it wrapped up and the new one started sometime tonight....

[Doctor MJ]

And of course Iveson was a contemporary for Pierce's entire pre-Big Three career. Not ONCE, not one single time did Pierce finish ahead of A.I. in MVP voting up to and including the year the new Big Three Celts won it all in 2008. And Pierce was 30 at that point. So now we come along, not even a decade after these guys retire, and decide to rewrite all that? Pierce wasn't considered at A.I.'s level only 10 years ago, but now he is better? Because he suddenly got better teammates?

There's some truth in this. All 3 of the Celtic Big 3 had their legacy changed by the far-better-than-expected success they had together. That might seem crazy given that they only one a single title, but at their best that team was an absolute juggernaut that experts didn't see coming. People thought they'd be good, but not as good as they were.

So what that means is that Pierce can be seen as a more-than-the-sum-of-parts guy which when combined with his ability to put up big stats on weaker teams and his longevity makes him a pretty typical Top 50 lock.

There is also the matter though that Iverson was a less-than-the-sum-of-parts guy. To my mind he got massively overrated for a time because of the way that '00-01 played out. It made people think of him as someone on the same order as Shaq or Duncan, but he just wasn't. To be the star on a great team he needed the defense to be great, because he couldn't make the offense great. And since he had very little to do with the defense...

I loved AI at the time. He was my favorite player. I loved his pluck. But basically everything I've seen in more rigorous analysis has shown to me he wasn't having the impact I thought he was. Beyond that, while AI's attitude helped his team in that perfect situation, most of the time that attitude was a liability. Stars who don't recognize their effect on how well their role players play tend to be problematic, stars who outright blow off the chance to develop better on-court chemistry with their teammates are considerably more problematic.

What all this means is that while I acknowledge Pierce moved up due to the Big 3 era, and that he was fortunate for us to see that, I don't actually think Pierce is the real thing. The real thing is that a lot of us don't take AI seriously as a franchise player.

I think the point people miss with Iverson, or Iversonesque players, is that he 'bought" the Sixers those defensive players that made them successful. And by that I mean that he was an offensive force all by himself, and so because of him, everybody else could be a defender. Iverson may not have been a great defender himself (although the impact numbers don't support him actually being terrible -- he could be disruptive, but just small), but he may have helped the Sixers be strong defensively anyway by allowing them to run out lineups of Theo Ratliff, Tyrone Hill, Eric Snow and George Lynch and just count on him to do all the scoring

My own problems with Iverson (who was NOT my favorite player in the era) was the impression that maybe that was the only way it would work, but it DID work to some degree whether people like it or not. In fact in the dozen years since he's been gone, Philadelphia has never actually broken .500. And it's impossible to separate however well it did work from Allen Iverson.

You want to hear a staggering fact? In the past 25 years the Philadelphia 76ers have finished above .500 a grand total of 5 times. All 5 of those happened with Iverson as the franchise player.

On a broad level, it's a question of how hard it is to build Iverson an effective supporting cast compared to others. Philly achieved it briefly but it sure didn't seem to be easy. I'll add that Derrick Rose was in a similar situation in Chicago, and his teammates clearly deserved a lot of credit. I'll reiterate that Isiah Thomas was in a similar situation in Detroit, and his teammates clearly deserved a lot of credit.

And then I would add that we have a family of stats that speaks to this. It's called +/-. It was essentially invoked by Iverson fans every time they said the team "wouldn't win a game without him". And those stats don't make Iverson look all that valuable.On that compiled spreadsheet I have from like '98 to '12, for example, when I sort the players based on they performed over their past 5 years,Pierce ranked 18th, Iverson rated 121st.

Not a typo. Iverson doesn't even rank in the top 100 of that group.

I totally get not being convinced by that, but it's important to remember that we're talking about known issues in a known situation. We know what the pros and the cons are, and the question is simply how they truly add up. In a situation like that, to me there's nothing else available that gives the information +/- does.

[trex_8063]

Sorry for the late finish.
Thru post #74 (nice turnout for this stage---21 votes, for 14! different players----requiring 11 for true majority):

Reggie Miller - 3 (Doctor MJ, micahclay, LABird)
Kevin McHale - 3 (Dr Positivity, Outside, penbeast0)
Wes Unseld - 2 (pandrade83, oldschooled)
Paul Pierce - 2 (trex_8063, SactoKingsFan)
Bob Cousy - 2 (euroleague, Pablo Novi)
Willis Reed - 1 (dhsilv2)
George Gervin - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Dolph Schayes - 1 (eminence)
Bill Walton - 1 (janmagn)
Chauncey Billups - 1 (Joao Saraiva)
Dominique Wilkins - 1 (JordansBulls)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (twolves97)

So all the guys with one vote are eliminated.
Two votes transfer to McHale. The rest become ghost votes [having been for Howard (3), Reed, Gervin, Schayes, and Westbrook].

McHale - 5
Miller - 3
Pierce - 2
Reed - 2
Unseld - 2

Pierce, Reed, and Unseld are next eliminated. Two votes each transfer to McHale and Miller, two more become ghost votes [Gervin again].

McHale - 7
Miller - 5

So it seems McHale swoops in out of no where to nab this spot. Will have the next thread open in a moment.....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

.

Never mind . . . not worth worrying about.

[dhsilv2]

The 70's was a chaotic mess between the NBA and ABA, but it also appears to be an era of strong physical centers. Really respect Kareem dominating the competition in this era - 70's ball makes this very very difficult on anyone.

Strong physical centers? Gilmore would fit this, but a lot of the Centers from that era as I've been researching were much more skills guys than any decade other than the current one.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm sure Gervin or Nique would have loved to suddenly have '08 KG and Allen and Rondo show up.

On this particular point, the Celtics wouldn't have won anything that year if it had been contingent on getting production from Allen. He didn't bother to show up until the Finals. It was fortunate for them that they were able to get there in the first place with only two of their "Big Three" actually positively contributing. (It was actually a good thing Allen didn't win Finals MVP, otherwise people would be harping on that and his prior disappearance that playoff run would be swept under the rug because he won an award.) It's nice to have that luxury to be able to get to the Finals without it mattering what you do.