RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41 (George Gervin)

[dhsilv2]

I'm sticking with my last list, though I'll expand a bit.

Guy I'm really looking at right now who aren't on my list are Unseld, Cowens, Gervin, Cousy, and Iverson.

The guys I'm almost at a loss for are Miller is for me an elite secondary piece, but not a true star level guy. The stats show him as an all time great complementary player for his era and the awards don't support his stardom. If you want to give people credit for innovation or changing the game then we have a lot of other guys, off the top of my head a David Thompson I'd consider first. His career length is exceptional and I think he's better than our box score stats and awards claim, but this early? No I'm sorry and I have Ray Allen just ahead of him both because he had worse teams, could do more, and he had to play more roles as he moved around.

Pierce, I really like Pierce and a part of me wants to accept this, but he was a scorer/go to guy and for YEARS he let his team allow Walker to be Walker. I guess you have to decide between if he was selfless or too stupid to put his foot down. The thing is I can't think of another volume scorer who could have put up with walker taking often more shots than him. The issue here isn't so much that he wasn't a jerk who forced his way, but so much that he lacked the intangibles to demand a change without saying it. Throw in there wasn't' much success and I'm pretty torn. Iverson was able to peak much higher and had everyone all in on him. Pierce never seemed to get that kind of respect with in his own organization and that gives me pause. I'm not sure if this is unfair. I am however sure that 7 top 10 seasons when we add up PER, VORP, and WS doesn't work for me here. Nor does 4 all nba's.

Elvin Hayes, he has some crazy boxscore stats. The problem here is Unseld was better and I think he even agrees. He never cracked a 20 in PER. I respect the support for him, but outside of per game stats, I'm not seeing it.

Schayes, so here's the thing with him and his era. All nba then was maybe even lesser than an allstar today. 10 all nba players in a league from 8-12 teams (so about 1 player per team made all nba) vs today with 24 + injury replacements making it from 30 teams. The talent gap for me is huge. I think for a 50's or early 60's league we could have 50-75 teams of similar talent. I know that is not a shared view as a lot of people think the 60's were a better era, and while there is a case for the top top tier guys, the middle and the benches were horrid imo. Thus we had so many guys playing not just 40 a game, but 45 a game! This all isn't to say he isn't viable right now. Actually to the contrary I think he's an interesting and viable candidate. I'm struggling in that we've not put many people in from this era and yet he's only got 2 top 3 MVP season. Given it was such a small league with so so few players, that's causing me some heart burn. Otherwise the stats are really solid and the career length is almost amazing for the era. From a raw stats perspective I think he's a better guy from the era than Cousy, but Cousy won an MVP and he was a key guy for the celtic's title run, and I've always looked at this is not just about who you could be or were, but what you did and winning still matters for me even if you're not the best player.

I remain open for someone to talk me out of either of these picks and I'd really love to see a case against them but I stand by my last picks as nobody has made a case to move me at all.

1. Reed - Short career, not the best player on his team, but the captain. I see him based on what I know and the small sample of quarters I've seen him play as a high intangibles guy, and as an early era example of a stretch big. He ranks high on other people's lists where I think they take a more historical focus, and he won in NYC (I won't explain this as I'll upset people but lets just say I think rather poorly of that city but I have to add it). As for awards he's a 5 time all nba guy. Lets compare that to Miller (3) and Pierce (4) who are getting a lot of love here. I think the league scaled well so not having a 3rd team is fair for Reed and having one is fair for Pierce (Dunno about miller's first one in 95 before that expansion). 5x allstar ties miller but pales to pierce. 2x finals MVP and an MVP. 2x nba champ. the MVP, finals MVP, and 2 rings pass both miller and pierce. Seems silly but Hayes getting some love never hit the 20 PER mark, and Reed did it twice. He also did it in the playoffs 4 times all be it some short series in a few cases. It was a short career and I'd be open to changing this vote but I'm not compelled by longer careers by guys like Miler who had great teams around them and yet didn't manage to do more. A guy who was able to do more but perhaps was on a worse team I could consider here or perhaps a case for one of those from his era who I'm underrating, but right now I think I'm good with Reed

2. The Alt. D Howard. I really wasn't thinking Howard until I saw the Ewing vote. That vote while it didn't sell me on Ewing made me think and if you had Ewing in, I think Howard at this point is a clear cute next guy. I think Howard is a better defender, I don't think it's that close. Howard never had an Oakley or a coach like Riley. Ewing was the better scorer and his career imo was a bit better. I have Ewing ahead of Howard. And I'm fully with people saying Howard was a mental case and a bad team guy. Where I struggle however is with how darn good he's been. He gets his love for beating lebron and making a finals, but I rarely hear any credit for his work on houston where he beat already in top 25 guy Chris Paul (in maybe his best season) in 2015 to make the conference finals. Nearly 18 and 14 with a great field goal percentage and star level GmSc. His career playoff PER is 22.3, his WS/48 is .168, BPM of 3.5....these are star level playoff numbers across the board. He is already 44th all time in WS, 57th in VORP, 37th in career PER, and he is 99.1% on the hall of fame probability (and that system doesn't value all nba or DPOY). He is also a 6 time leader in the league in rebounds per game, I point this out as we still see the scoring champ as an award, but he was a rebounding champ and a block champ (2x). A 3 time defensive player of the year, and I think all 3 where legit, an 8 time all nba and 8 time allstar. if he weren't a team killer and a nut case how is he not already in?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Been voting these two for a while so I think my views are clear. Let me talk about some other guys who I've been thinking about lately.

Bill Walton - so hard to place. I really can't fault you if he's not in your Top 100. But he was so, so, so good. It won't take much for me to follow others lead on him when he gets momentum.

Zo/Mutombo - the two Hoyas have compelling arguments imho. Zo with better longevity would easily be my pick over Reggie.

George Gervin - can definitely see the argument for him over the two guys I've picked, but I just barely prefer them to him.

Unseld/Reed/Cowens - I view these guys similarly. Though I don't think they were quite as good as their accolades indicate, neither did people back then have a mass hallucination. These guys were incredible team players.

I can't get too on board wtih zo and mutombo if Howard isn't ahead of them both.

I am still also struggling with Miller over Ray Allen. Allen's peak was better and his "role player" era lead to titles. I can see a case for miller over him, but if you have miller that high I just can't see there being 7 + guys separating him.

To me Allen is a better version of miller on WAY worse teams until he got to boston. And from there he showed his ability fit into different roles something miller never really did.

I ding Dwight a lot for his attitude. That's probably the big gap between us here.

But I really would rate as about as good as Howard when they were both at their best.

Re: Ray peak better. I mean, if that's what you think, I'd expect you'd side with Allen. I'd also expect that you believe his time in Seattle as his peak which is not how I see it.

Re: fit different roles. To me the only reason either guy is relevant this high up is their off-ball play.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[LA Bird]

Same votes again...

1. Reggie Miller
Reggie is not all rounded if you are looking at the rebounds and assists but he is so good in the one area he excels in (efficient scoring) that the all in one advanced stats still rate him very highly despite his one dimensionality. WS may be a bit too generous in terms of rewarding solid players with great longevity but even in something more accurate like career VORP, Reggie is top 25 all time. For comparison, Rip Hamilton, who often get compared to Miller due to their similar playing style, is at #393 all time in careeer VORP. Miller is the highest remaining player in both WS and VORP, which is pretty impressive since off-ball players usually don't look that great in box score type stats. Reggie looks good in late 90s RAPM and the Pacers were around a +3 offense for more than a decade under his leadership. Consistently stepped up his game in the playoffs which corresponded with an improvement in the Pacers offense in the postseason as well.

Alternate: Paul Pierce

[dhsilv2]

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Been voting these two for a while so I think my views are clear. Let me talk about some other guys who I've been thinking about lately.

Bill Walton - so hard to place. I really can't fault you if he's not in your Top 100. But he was so, so, so good. It won't take much for me to follow others lead on him when he gets momentum.

Zo/Mutombo - the two Hoyas have compelling arguments imho. Zo with better longevity would easily be my pick over Reggie.

George Gervin - can definitely see the argument for him over the two guys I've picked, but I just barely prefer them to him.

Unseld/Reed/Cowens - I view these guys similarly. Though I don't think they were quite as good as their accolades indicate, neither did people back then have a mass hallucination. These guys were incredible team players.

I can't get too on board wtih zo and mutombo if Howard isn't ahead of them both.

I am still also struggling with Miller over Ray Allen. Allen's peak was better and his "role player" era lead to titles. I can see a case for miller over him, but if you have miller that high I just can't see there being 7 + guys separating him.

To me Allen is a better version of miller on WAY worse teams until he got to boston. And from there he showed his ability fit into different roles something miller never really did.

I ding Dwight a lot for his attitude. That's probably the big gap between us here.

But I really would rate as about as good as Howard when they were both at their best.

Re: Ray peak better. I mean, if that's what you think, I'd expect you'd side with Allen. I'd also expect that you believe his time in Seattle as his peak which is not how I see it.

Re: fit different roles. To me the only reason either guy is relevant this high up is their off-ball play.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I do ding Howard though, otherwise imo he should already be in.

As for Allen, I always assumed his bucks day where his best. As for roles, Allen was if needed a better iso player and he was able to be a 3rd option on a title contender which we never saw miller fall into that role. He was almost always the go to, I guess a few early years maybe it was an either or.

[Doctor MJ]

I can't get too on board wtih zo and mutombo if Howard isn't ahead of them both.

I am still also struggling with Miller over Ray Allen. Allen's peak was better and his "role player" era lead to titles. I can see a case for miller over him, but if you have miller that high I just can't see there being 7 + guys separating him.

To me Allen is a better version of miller on WAY worse teams until he got to boston. And from there he showed his ability fit into different roles something miller never really did.

I ding Dwight a lot for his attitude. That's probably the big gap between us here.

But I really would rate as about as good as Howard when they were both at their best.

Re: Ray peak better. I mean, if that's what you think, I'd expect you'd side with Allen. I'd also expect that you believe his time in Seattle as his peak which is not how I see it.

Re: fit different roles. To me the only reason either guy is relevant this high up is their off-ball play.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I do ding Howard though, otherwise imo he should already be in.

As for Allen, I always assumed his bucks day where his best. As for roles, Allen was if needed a better iso player and he was able to be a 3rd option on a title contender which we never saw miller fall into that role. He was almost always the go to, I guess a few early years maybe it was an either or.

I'm saying I probably ding him a lot more than you. To me it's a big deal that he began with a franchise that made some great moves around him that let him be at his very best, and that even then his attitude turned to crap and he ended up ruining it. "even then", because he's been close to unbearable on other teams he's been on since then too.

Re: Allen Bucks. Hmm, okay. I agree with you that that was his most impressive time, I'm just not really sure why you think his time in Milwaukee has a clear edge on Reggie.

You mention Ray was a better iso scorer, but note that it was always Reggie rather than Ray who was known for clutch performance. Note also that Reggie drew way more fouls than Ray did - drawing fouls being a central part of the benefit of iso scoring.

Re: able to be a 3rd option. Don't think of everything in terms of primacy. Allen in Milwaukee and Boston played the off-ball role. How often his number was called varied, but it's still largely the same role, and it's the role Reggie was a master at.

[trex_8063]

I've not been swayed off of Paul Pierce for my top pick. A 10-time All-Star, 17 seasons as an above average player in the league, peaking at roughly an All-NBA 2nd/3rd team player (in an era with quite a few top-tier forwards: Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, and in the 2nd half of his prime---Lebron; to say nothing of the Elton Brands, Shawn Marions, etc).

Has a statistical resume roughly comparable many other candidates, especially if you compare same number of years. e.g. if comparing him to Gervin, for example, I'd suggest doing so by comparing only Pierce's first 14 seasons ('cause that's all Gervin played); and then remind yourself that Pierce had three more pretty good seasons after that.
I'd also point out that Pierce was the best defensive wing player of basically all the wings presently being considered (defense being something that isn't well-captured in that "statistical resume").

For my alternate, tbh, I could just roll a dice and attach a number to 5-6 different individuals, 'cause they're just sort of clustered in a floating group; I can see cases for one over another pretty easily, and am constantly shifting them around. As such, in the last couple threads I'd largely just tried to decide between Reggie and Gervin, because they have the most traction. And recently I'm kinda feeling Reggie more; the more I look at his career and resume, the more I'm impressed. So although it's sort of "floating", he's likely moving/moved a few spots higher on my ATL in the past couple weeks.

1st vote: Paul Pierce
2nd vote: Reggie Miller

[trex_8063]

Thru post #26:

Reggie Miller - 2 (Doctor MJ, LABird)
George Gervin - 2 (Clyde Frazier, penbeast0)
Paul Pierce - 1 (trex_8063)
Willis Reed - 1 (dhsilv2)
Wes Unseld - 1 (pandrade83)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (twolves97)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)

This thread will be open ~10-12 more hours (until tonight, if you're in North America). Then [as per new guidelines] we'll be moving into a run-off.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

I ding Dwight a lot for his attitude. That's probably the big gap between us here.

But I really would rate as about as good as Howard when they were both at their best.

Re: Ray peak better. I mean, if that's what you think, I'd expect you'd side with Allen. I'd also expect that you believe his time in Seattle as his peak which is not how I see it.

Re: fit different roles. To me the only reason either guy is relevant this high up is their off-ball play.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

I do ding Howard though, otherwise imo he should already be in.

As for Allen, I always assumed his bucks day where his best. As for roles, Allen was if needed a better iso player and he was able to be a 3rd option on a title contender which we never saw miller fall into that role. He was almost always the go to, I guess a few early years maybe it was an either or.

I'm saying I probably ding him a lot more than you. To me it's a big deal that he began with a franchise that made some great moves around him that let him be at his very best, and that even then his attitude turned to crap and he ended up ruining it. "even then", because he's been close to unbearable on other teams he's been on since then too.

Re: Allen Bucks. Hmm, okay. I agree with you that that was his most impressive time, I'm just not really sure why you think his time in Milwaukee has a clear edge on Reggie.

You mention Ray was a better iso scorer, but note that it was always Reggie rather than Ray who was known for clutch performance. Note also that Reggie drew way more fouls than Ray did - drawing fouls being a central part of the benefit of iso scoring.

Re: able to be a 3rd option. Don't think of everything in terms of primacy. Allen in Milwaukee and Boston played the off-ball role. How often his number was called varied, but it's still largely the same role, and it's the role Reggie was a master at.

perhaps so on Howard. I think the results place him ahead of zo and mutombo enough that his crap attitude doesn't matter in that comparison. I think an Thomas vs Howard is a great an interesting discussion as they represent two extremes in personality and Howard imo was a vastly better player on the court (which I know others disagree with, and strongly for those who really liked the high scoring early years). There is a small part of me that wonders if Orlando management is not a bit more to blame than we give them credit for. They have found a way to run a lot of people off over the years, shaq and howard being the best examples. But that's another topic.

You make a great point on the free throw difference in miller and allen. I hadn't thought about that, and it's interesting. I do think of miller as the my physical guy, but that was more about how he moved around screens and pushed off to get space to catch.

I think the clutch comments are misleading though. Allen played 26 total playoff games his entire time on the bucks and another 11 on seattle. He never had teammates remotely close to what Miller had and thus he didn't get the opportunities to have clutch playoff moments like miller did. Perhaps we disagree here, but for me I think Miller had a really really great supporting cast over the years. If we were looking at a top 20 guy, I'd expect multiple titles to have come out of those pacers teams even with MJ in the way.

I do see your point on the off ball play style and how it is similar, but the pacers offense was designed around getting miller open. So no I don't think the number of times a guy's number gets called is fair here. He had a team with some really good screeners who were there to get him open. The reason Hamilton imo gets talked about like Miller is I think to a lesser extent the pistons used to in their slow down off court offense, put similar effort into getting rip those kinds of shots. I didn't see that same effort for Allen nor do I think he had the right team around him to run that kind of offense.

For me to have miller this high without more accolades or a ring or even a stand out "wow" season, I'd need to think one of two things. The first is that he was a pioneer and I value that a lot. I would agree with pioneer, but for me I don't value that enough to move him up plus I think we have some just as worthy candidates by that standard. But if you want to give extra credit for being a pioneer then that's imo a good reason to move him up here. The second if you don't think the pacers were a playoff team with a replacement level shoot first 2/3 in his place. I think they'd have still been a playoff team all be it not one that could take the bulls 7 games or beat the knicks.

Anyway those are my thoughts. I'd like to get a few more players with NBA title/MVP peaks in along with a few more guys who had some outstanding peaks before a miller. If we could clear out a few more of those guys, I think miller is still a nice fit for the end of the 40's, but oddly enough I think we have enough really high quality guys where this feels early for him.

[Pablo Novi]

VOTE: Bob Cousy
ALT: George Gervin

Repeated from last thread AND, below; repeating "VOTE: Bob Cousy ..." from other previous threads:
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.

VOTE: Cousy.
ALT: Gervin.

Bob Cousy: Of the remaining players no one comes close to Cousy for dominance of their own position in their own era. Cousy was 1st-Team ALL-NBA TEN times and 2nd-Team two additional times. He revolutionized his position too.

I have Cousy as my GOAT #15, and GOAT PG #3 (behind: Magic and then "O"; ahead of: Stockton, CP3 & then J.Kidd)

George Gervin: ALL-League 1st-Team FIVE times; 2nd-Team FOUR times. Way more dominant of his position than any other remaining SG.

In what follows: in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots, there's one player per position. GOAT POSITIONAL rankings are determined primarily by "Points" which are determined by the number of ALL-League selections (pro-rated upwards for each succeeding decade):

my GOAT #15, PG #03:1st-Teams:10, 2nd-Teams: 2: (40.5 "Points") Bob Cousy
my GOAT #20, SG #04: 1st-Teams: 5, 2nd-Teams: 4: (31.5 "Points") George Gervin

Honorable Mention:
my GOAT #30, SG #06: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (18.0 "Points") Sidney Moncrief
my GOAT #33, PF #07: 1st-Teams: 6, 2nd-Teams: 6: (28.2 "Points") Dolph Schayes
my GOAT #35, SG #07: 1st-Teams: 0, 2nd-Teams: 7: (17.5 "Points") Hal Greer

Upcoming (in my GOAT Top 50)
my GOAT #36,, C #08: 1st-Teams: 5, 2nd-Teams: 1: (31.4 "Points") Dwight Howard
my GOAT #37, PG #08: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 3: (25.6 "Points") Allen Iverson
my GOAT #38, SF #08: 1st-Teams: 2, 2nd-Teams: 3: (22.1 "Points") Tracy McGrady
my GOAT #39, PF #08: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 2: (17.5 "Points") Jerry Lucas
my GOAT #40, SG #08: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 1: (17.5 "Points") Paul Westphal
my GOAT #43, SF #09: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (19.3 "Points") Dominique Wilkins
my GOAT #44, PF #09: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (17.0 "Points") Amar'e Stoudemire
my GOAT #45, SG #09: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 0: (16.8 "Points") James Harden
my GOAT #48, SF #10: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (17.0 "Points") Grant Hill
my GOAT #50, PF #10: 1st-Teams: 3, 2nd-Teams: 2: (15.8 "Points") George McGinnis

[dhsilv2]

I've not been swayed off of Paul Pierce for my top pick. A 10-time All-Star, 17 seasons as an above average player in the league, peaking at roughly an All-NBA 2nd/3rd team player (in an era with quite a few top-tier forwards: Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, and in the 2nd half of his prime---Lebron; to say nothing of the Elton Brands, Shawn Marions, etc).

Has a statistical resume roughly comparable many other candidates, especially if you compare same number of years. e.g. if comparing him to Gervin, for example, I'd suggest doing so by comparing only Pierce's first 14 seasons ('cause that's all Gervin played); and then remind yourself that Pierce had three more pretty good seasons after that.
I'd also point out that Pierce was the best defensive wing player of basically all the wings presently being considered (defense being something that isn't well-captured in that "statistical resume").

For my alternate, tbh, I could just roll a dice and attach a number to 5-6 different individuals, 'cause they're just sort of clustered in a floating group; I can see cases for one over another pretty easily, and am constantly shifting them around. As such, in the last couple threads I'd largely just tried to decide between Reggie and Gervin, because they have the most traction. And recently I'm kinda feeling Reggie more; the more I look at his career and resume, the more I'm impressed. So although it's sort of "floating", he's likely moving/moved a few spots higher on my ATL in the past couple weeks.

1st vote: Paul Pierce
2nd vote: Reggie Miller

Trex, I have an odd question here but I think it would be helpful for me on pierce. Year by year (cluster them if you need to for time and simplicity), where do you rank him in terms of best player in the league? Where I struggle with him is that I never thought of him as a top 10 guy at any point in his career. he was just really really good year by year, but never a guy who moves the needle. But I haven't go back and looked at him because he hasn't really hit my lists, but between him and a miller (who's getting a lot of play) I think of him as the better guy vs his peers. I'm also looking at gervin in the same light. At this point for me I want a top 5 player peak, but I'm starting to waffle on that.

[Doctor MJ]

I do ding Howard though, otherwise imo he should already be in.

As for Allen, I always assumed his bucks day where his best. As for roles, Allen was if needed a better iso player and he was able to be a 3rd option on a title contender which we never saw miller fall into that role. He was almost always the go to, I guess a few early years maybe it was an either or.

I'm saying I probably ding him a lot more than you. To me it's a big deal that he began with a franchise that made some great moves around him that let him be at his very best, and that even then his attitude turned to crap and he ended up ruining it. "even then", because he's been close to unbearable on other teams he's been on since then too.

Re: Allen Bucks. Hmm, okay. I agree with you that that was his most impressive time, I'm just not really sure why you think his time in Milwaukee has a clear edge on Reggie.

You mention Ray was a better iso scorer, but note that it was always Reggie rather than Ray who was known for clutch performance. Note also that Reggie drew way more fouls than Ray did - drawing fouls being a central part of the benefit of iso scoring.

Re: able to be a 3rd option. Don't think of everything in terms of primacy. Allen in Milwaukee and Boston played the off-ball role. How often his number was called varied, but it's still largely the same role, and it's the role Reggie was a master at.

perhaps so on Howard. I think the results place him ahead of zo and mutombo enough that his crap attitude doesn't matter in that comparison. I think an Thomas vs Howard is a great an interesting discussion as they represent two extremes in personality and Howard imo was a vastly better player on the court (which I know others disagree with, and strongly for those who really liked the high scoring early years). There is a small part of me that wonders if Orlando management is not a bit more to blame than we give them credit for. They have found a way to run a lot of people off over the years, shaq and howard being the best examples. But that's another topic.

You make a great point on the free throw difference in miller and allen. I hadn't thought about that, and it's interesting. I do think of miller as the my physical guy, but that was more about how he moved around screens and pushed off to get space to catch.

I think the clutch comments are misleading though. Allen played 26 total playoff games his entire time on the bucks and another 11 on seattle. He never had teammates remotely close to what Miller had and thus he didn't get the opportunities to have clutch playoff moments like miller did. Perhaps we disagree here, but for me I think Miller had a really really great supporting cast over the years. If we were looking at a top 20 guy, I'd expect multiple titles to have come out of those pacers teams even with MJ in the way.

I do see your point on the off ball play style and how it is similar, but the pacers offense was designed around getting miller open. So no I don't think the number of times a guy's number gets called is fair here. He had a team with some really good screeners who were there to get him open. The reason Hamilton imo gets talked about like Miller is I think to a lesser extent the pistons used to in their slow down off court offense, put similar effort into getting rip those kinds of shots. I didn't see that same effort for Allen nor do I think he had the right team around him to run that kind of offense.

For me to have miller this high without more accolades or a ring or even a stand out "wow" season, I'd need to think one of two things. The first is that he was a pioneer and I value that a lot. I would agree with pioneer, but for me I don't value that enough to move him up plus I think we have some just as worthy candidates by that standard. But if you want to give extra credit for being a pioneer then that's imo a good reason to move him up here. The second if you don't think the pacers were a playoff team with a replacement level shoot first 2/3 in his place. I think they'd have still been a playoff team all be it not one that could take the bulls 7 games or beat the knicks.

Anyway those are my thoughts. I'd like to get a few more players with NBA title/MVP peaks in along with a few more guys who had some outstanding peaks before a miller. If we could clear out a few more of those guys, I think miller is still a nice fit for the end of the 40's, but oddly enough I think we have enough really high quality guys where this feels early for him.

I would side with Thomas over Howard pretty easily, and as you may know, i think Thomas is overrated.

It's the difference between a guy getting too much credit for being the alpha of extremely successful ensemble and a guy who isn't capable of embodying that role at all over an extended period of time.

Re: Orlando deserving blame. Sure, but Howard was the one that put them in a desperate situation in the first place. His malaise made them make some risky moves that didn't pan out, then he started outright politicking against SVG, who had designed basically the perfect system for Howard on both sides of the ball, then after making all sorts of noice Howard resigns for a year, goes through more of it, then he goes to LA and loses in a no-lose situation, then he goes to Howard and literally holds a team back that improved like crazy when he left, and he's on his 2nd team since that.

There were better ways for Orlando to handle Howard, but there's only so much you can protect yourself with you're a billion dollar business at the mercy of an athlete so mentally young.

-Appreciate the comment acknowledging I said something novel. Always encouraging to hear.

Re: expect multiple titles with Miller's supporting cast. I don't really understand why you think his supporting cast was THAT good. Perhaps you can expound.

Re: Allen didn't have system to play like Miller, didn't have clutch opportunity. Hmm. Recurring theme here where you 1) insist Allen played better, but 2) when I say that off-ball play was the true value and that Miller was better there, your response is to blame it on lack of opportunity for Allen. These two things aren't coherent.

If you really believe what Allen was doing was more valuable than what Miller was doing, there should be no need to excuse Allen from not being entirely like Miller, because you really believe that Allen was doing something more valuable.

Re: this high without more accolades/ring. None of that stuff should matter dude. Things like that should get your attention and drive you to certain types of analysis, but in the end your analysis should be based on your own interpretation of what a player accomplished.

Re: would they be a playoff team without him? Such things are always tough to say. What we can say though is that a role like Reggie's tends to help decent teams become a lot scarier. It tends to scale well, in other words, even if you don't do it as well as Reggie, and all the numbers tell us Reggie was extraordinary.

[dhsilv2]

I'm saying I probably ding him a lot more than you. To me it's a big deal that he began with a franchise that made some great moves around him that let him be at his very best, and that even then his attitude turned to crap and he ended up ruining it. "even then", because he's been close to unbearable on other teams he's been on since then too.

Re: Allen Bucks. Hmm, okay. I agree with you that that was his most impressive time, I'm just not really sure why you think his time in Milwaukee has a clear edge on Reggie.

You mention Ray was a better iso scorer, but note that it was always Reggie rather than Ray who was known for clutch performance. Note also that Reggie drew way more fouls than Ray did - drawing fouls being a central part of the benefit of iso scoring.

Re: able to be a 3rd option. Don't think of everything in terms of primacy. Allen in Milwaukee and Boston played the off-ball role. How often his number was called varied, but it's still largely the same role, and it's the role Reggie was a master at.

perhaps so on Howard. I think the results place him ahead of zo and mutombo enough that his crap attitude doesn't matter in that comparison. I think an Thomas vs Howard is a great an interesting discussion as they represent two extremes in personality and Howard imo was a vastly better player on the court (which I know others disagree with, and strongly for those who really liked the high scoring early years). There is a small part of me that wonders if Orlando management is not a bit more to blame than we give them credit for. They have found a way to run a lot of people off over the years, shaq and howard being the best examples. But that's another topic.

You make a great point on the free throw difference in miller and allen. I hadn't thought about that, and it's interesting. I do think of miller as the my physical guy, but that was more about how he moved around screens and pushed off to get space to catch.

I think the clutch comments are misleading though. Allen played 26 total playoff games his entire time on the bucks and another 11 on seattle. He never had teammates remotely close to what Miller had and thus he didn't get the opportunities to have clutch playoff moments like miller did. Perhaps we disagree here, but for me I think Miller had a really really great supporting cast over the years. If we were looking at a top 20 guy, I'd expect multiple titles to have come out of those pacers teams even with MJ in the way.

I do see your point on the off ball play style and how it is similar, but the pacers offense was designed around getting miller open. So no I don't think the number of times a guy's number gets called is fair here. He had a team with some really good screeners who were there to get him open. The reason Hamilton imo gets talked about like Miller is I think to a lesser extent the pistons used to in their slow down off court offense, put similar effort into getting rip those kinds of shots. I didn't see that same effort for Allen nor do I think he had the right team around him to run that kind of offense.

For me to have miller this high without more accolades or a ring or even a stand out "wow" season, I'd need to think one of two things. The first is that he was a pioneer and I value that a lot. I would agree with pioneer, but for me I don't value that enough to move him up plus I think we have some just as worthy candidates by that standard. But if you want to give extra credit for being a pioneer then that's imo a good reason to move him up here. The second if you don't think the pacers were a playoff team with a replacement level shoot first 2/3 in his place. I think they'd have still been a playoff team all be it not one that could take the bulls 7 games or beat the knicks.

Anyway those are my thoughts. I'd like to get a few more players with NBA title/MVP peaks in along with a few more guys who had some outstanding peaks before a miller. If we could clear out a few more of those guys, I think miller is still a nice fit for the end of the 40's, but oddly enough I think we have enough really high quality guys where this feels early for him.

I would side with Thomas over Howard pretty easily, and as you may know, i think Thomas is overrated.

It's the difference between a guy getting too much credit for being the alpha of extremely successful ensemble and a guy who isn't capable of embodying that role at all over an extended period of time.

Re: Orlando deserving blame. Sure, but Howard was the one that put them in a desperate situation in the first place. His malaise made them make some risky moves that didn't pan out, then he started outright politicking against SVG, who had designed basically the perfect system for Howard on both sides of the ball, then after making all sorts of noice Howard resigns for a year, goes through more of it, then he goes to LA and loses in a no-lose situation, then he goes to Howard and literally holds a team back that improved like crazy when he left, and he's on his 2nd team since that.

There were better ways for Orlando to handle Howard, but there's only so much you can protect yourself with you're a billion dollar business at the mercy of an athlete so mentally young.

-Appreciate the comment acknowledging I said something novel. Always encouraging to hear.

Re: expect multiple titles with Miller's supporting cast. I don't really understand why you think his supporting cast was THAT good. Perhaps you can expound.

Re: Allen didn't have system to play like Miller, didn't have clutch opportunity. Hmm. Recurring theme here where you 1) insist Allen played better, but 2) when I say that off-ball play was the true value and that Miller was better there, your response is to blame it on lack of opportunity for Allen. These two things aren't coherent.

If you really believe what Allen was doing was more valuable than what Miller was doing, there should be no need to excuse Allen from not being entirely like Miller, because you really believe that Allen was doing something more valuable.

Re: this high without more accolades/ring. None of that stuff should matter dude. Things like that should get your attention and drive you to certain types of analysis, but in the end your analysis should be based on your own interpretation of what a player accomplished.

Re: would they be a playoff team without him? Such things are always tough to say. What we can say though is that a role like Reggie's tends to help decent teams become a lot scarier. It tends to scale well, in other words, even if you don't do it as well as Reggie, and all the numbers tell us Reggie was extraordinary.

I think my point in the Miller Allen discussion can be summed up by some bullet points.

1. IMO Allen had more roles and did them very well. From a guy who could be an iso scorer to being a true 3rd or 4th option without a system designed to get him shots. Basically, Allen imo could fit into more systems at a high production level. I think this is a point of value where as I cannot see Miller handling a role like Allen had for the bucks.

2. Miller was on a much better team. He didn't have a team of stars but he had among the best point guards in the league after the top 5 or so with him for a number of years. He had one of the better power forwards for doing the dirty work. I think after Grant and Oakley he was right there with anyone else. He had a very high caliber center. The team was able at different times to get him other quality guys such as Schrempf or Mullins. For me that is a great cast of players. Sure he didn't have a Pippen, but it was a cast consistently full of players who'd start on 20+ teams in the league.

Now I would agree that Miller was a better off ball guy than Ray Allen, but it's a small advantage in my mind. I think that is however easily offset by Allen being a meaningfully better passer which is something we've not really discussed but I tend to lump that into why I value Allen's iso play a bit more. I'm still thinking about the free throw gap though, that's an interesting point. It's got me wondering as when I think of these two I think of Miller getting roughed up taking jumpers and Allen seemingly even getting his dunks fairly uncontested. Though perhaps Miller had a bit of Manu/Harden style jumping into his man, at a rate that perhaps I missed?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #32 (only 11 votes):

Reggie Miller - 2 (Doctor MJ, LABird)
George Gervin - 2 (penbeast0, Clyde Frazier)
Paul Pierce - 1 (trex_8063)
Willis Reed - 1 (dhsilv2)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Pablo Novi)
Wes Unseld - 1 (pandrade83)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (twolves97)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)

.....requiring me to make another on-the-fly adjustment to our protocol (which no doubt would have been necessary eventually, as participation dwindles late in the project):

EDIT (updated 9/9/17): Beginning in thread #41, we will continue using the ranked choice vote as we have been as a means of narrowing the field down to THREE candidates (or potentially 4-5, in the event of a tie for 3rd place, or a 3-way tie for 2nd, etc). But as true majorities are never being reached at this stage, we will then automatically enter a run-off [which will be open to ALL registered project participants, even if they had not cast an initial vote in that particular thread] between those 3+ candidates, where participants are asked to specify with ONE of those candidates they favor (at least cursory reasons for one's pick is required). In the event the run-off leads to a tie for 1st place, we will enter a second run-off between only those two individuals.
EDIT of 9/10/17: In the event that the ranked choice system does not clearly narrow it to 5 or fewer candidates, the number of 2nd ballot votes received will be used as the means of determining the run-off candidates. Example: there are 11 total votes cast, Player A and Player B each received two 1st ballot votes, and then seven other players received one 1st ballot vote each. Players A & B will automatically be included in the run-off, as they had the most 1st ballot votes. Which 1 [or more] of the other seven candidates is to be included will be determined by which of them has the most 2nd ballot votes.

So of those players in the 7-way tie for 3rd, two of them had also received some 2nd ballot votes: Willis Reed (1) and Paul Pierce (2).

So Paul Pierce will join Reggie and Ice Man as the 3rd candidate in the run-off, which begins now and will go for ~24 hours (or longer if needed to break a tie).
Anyone who cast either of their votes for one of these candidates doesn't need to specify (your prior votes will count).

EVERYONE ELSE (including any/all registered participants, even if you didn't cast a vote in this thread), please specify who you choose between Reggie Miller, George Gervin, and Paul Pierce (with a brief explanation of why)....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

Trex, I have an odd question here but I think it would be helpful for me on pierce. Year by year (cluster them if you need to for time and simplicity), where do you rank him in terms of best player in the league? Where I struggle with him is that I never thought of him as a top 10 guy at any point in his career. he was just really really good year by year, but never a guy who moves the needle. But I haven't go back and looked at him because he hasn't really hit my lists, but between him and a miller (who's getting a lot of play) I think of him as the better guy vs his peers. I'm also looking at gervin in the same light. At this point for me I want a top 5 player peak, but I'm starting to waffle on that.

fwiw, that type of arbitrary bench-mark (top-10 or top-5 player in the league) is not important to me, and I don't really tend to keep track of seasons in those kinds of terms (so I'd have to do some homework and think on it as far as giving you his rank in the league by year).
And as I try to assess total career value, I can easily favor one player over another who has a better peak. Roughly speaking by way of making an example, I'd value Player A's two seasons in which he was the 8th-best and 11th-best player in the league more than I'd value Player B's ONE season in which he was the 5th-best player (other considerations---like era---being roughly equal). Am I making sense so far?

It's somewhat semantics (i.e. depends on exactly what you mean by "moves the needle"), but I might disagree with that statement. As I'd stated previously, I'm under no illusion that Paul Pierce was ever true "superstar" of the like that can be the stand-alone [by a long margin] best player on a contender-level team (and yes, I realize there are other guys left on the table who had at least one season in which they were that good). Again, just not important to me.
But anyway, Pierce was a guy who could have been the best player on an ensemble contender/champion (teams like the Bad Boy Pistons or the '04 Pistons, or maybe the '79 Sonics???), and could be a near-ideal Robin for other contenders (like the '08 Celtics), as well as a pretty good floor-raiser for trash casts.

As to whether he was ever a top 10 player in the league......
idk, like I said, I've never really thought about it in exactly those terms. Off the cuff, I think probably he was at least 1-2 years, though likely just barely (I doubt he was ever better than maybe 7th or 8th best). Some potentials......

'02: his fellow starters are (at PF) the offensive black-hole and frequent travesty that was Antoine Walker, who would heave up a 2nd on the team 24.4 TSA/game while shooting an abysmal 49.0% TS. At PG is a post-prime Kenny Anderson, and C is Tony Battie. At starting SG is a rotating door of Tony Delk, Eric Williams, and rookie Joe Johnson. Their bench has relatively few bright spots (arguably the best one was Rodney Rogers, who they only have for about a third of the season). Pierce would average 26.1 ppg (57% TS)/6.9 rpg/3.2 apg and play good defense to lead this squad to 49 wins and an ECF appearance. Even in a weak Eastern Conference, that is nothing to sneeze at. In summary stats, he was a 22.3 PER, .187 WS/48, +4.9 BPM while playing 40.3 mpg and not missing a single game. He averaged 24.6 ppg (52.9% TS), 8.6 rpg, 4.1 apg in the playoffs.
I think that was probably a top 10 season. Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, McGrady, Dirk, Kobe......I think those six guys were clearly better. I don't think there's anyone else who was "clearly" better (though I feel Jason Kidd probably was--->that was the year he finished 2nd in the MVP vote, fwiw; can make arguments for a few others).

'06: Only 33 wins that season, but this was a dumpster fire of a supporting cast. Pierce averaged 26.8 ppg (58.2% TS), 6.7 rpg, 4.7 apg. Strong year for top end talent, though, so....., but I think he's in the mix of guys filling #9-15 that year.

'08: I know people put a glance to this season and brush it aside because there was such a dip in his ppg, but I feel that's just because there was such a wealth of talent on that team. But he went for 19.6 ppg (59.9% TS), 5.1 rpg, 4.5 apg and the lowest turnover rate he'd had in awhile and good defense for a historic great team that won 66 games and the title. Don't know if that's top ten, but it's probably not far outside it (was top 10 in RAPM that year, fwiw).

[JordansBulls]

1st Vote: Reggie Miller (had water in his veins in the playoffs and had to play superior players generally in them as well)
2nd vote: Nique

[scrabbarista]

41. George Gervin

Pierce was never a Top 5 MVP candidate.

Reggie's Top 5 finishes add up to like 40% of one Award.

Gervin's add up to like 220% of one.

EDIT: This isn't technically accurate. What I meant was, if a 5th place finish equals 20%, a 4th place is 40%, up to winning the award equaling 100%. It was based on finishes, not actual votes. But, put simply, Gervin had a lot more high finishes in MVP voting.

[oldschooled]

Vote: Willis Reed
Alt: Wes Unseld

Changing my vote to Willis Reed. I just think he had better impact on those championship teams. Being a MVP and 2-time Finals MVP doesn't hurt either . Had better elite in-era level of play compared to any of the guys mentioned (except AI) - MVP shares. Elite level of play, a champion and a 2-time Finals MVP, Reed takes this ahead of the likes of Reggie, Pierce, etc.

[euroleague]

George Gervin

Wow. The one time I miss voting, Cousy would've been in it.

Anyway, Gervin is a scoring icon. No contest here. Miller had good teams, but not the consistency of Gervin.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote: Wes Unseld

Check previous post for reasoning!

We are in a run off now. You have to choose one of gervin, pierce or reggie and give reasoning for it.

[oldschooled]

Vote: Willis Reed
Alt: Wes Unseld

Changing my vote to Willis Reed. I just think he had better impact on those championship teams. Being a MVP and 2-time Finals MVP doesn't hurt either . Had better elite in-era level of play compared to any of the guys mentioned (except AI) - MVP shares. Elite level of play, a champion and a 2-time Finals MVP, Reed takes this ahead of the likes of Reggie, Pierce, etc.

Crap. So this won't count now? If Pierce, Truth and Gervin are the guys next, i guess i'll take a pass.