RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #42 (Reggie Miller)

[Pablo Novi]

VOTE: Bob Cousy
ALT: Dolph Schayes

Adding a bit on Schayes while repeating "VOTE: Bob Cousy ..." from (dozens? of) other previous threads:
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. He revolutionized his position too. (Btw, I'm no Celtics' or Cousy fan)

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

Schayes was selected ALL-League TWELVE times (6 X 1st-Team, 6 X 2nd-Team) (by far the highest number of selections for any player we have not yet voted-in not-named Cousy). Way more dominant of his position than any other remaining PF.

Cousy (and Schayes) 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. In fact, after Cousy's & Schayes 12 ALL-League 1st+2nd Teams each; double (or more) all remaining players except the following 6 guys, who each had "only" 7 combined:

Greer (1963-1969 seasons),
Davies (1947-53),
Sharman (1953-60)
McDermott (1942-48),
Edwards (1938-46) &
Shipp (1938-44)
--------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
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; in other words, particularly players who played before 1960 are significantly "penalized" for their "Great Years" during weak eras). So players such as Cousy & Schayes have significant deductions on their "Points" totals; still they have the most "Points" of all remaining players:

my GOAT #15, PG #03:1st-Teams:10, 2nd-Teams: 2: (40.5 "Points") Bob Cousy
ALT VOTE:
my GOAT #33, PF #07: 1st-Teams: 6, 2nd-Teams: 6: (28.2 "Points") Dolph Schayes

Honorable Mention:
my GOAT #30, SG #06: 1st-Teams: 1, 2nd-Teams: 4: (18.0 "Points") Sidney Moncrief
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 had him as my alt for 2 rounds now. I think the negative personality stuff is completely fair though I feel a few people are blowing it up. We have a lot of personality issues and possible drug issue types at this level. Kidd and Iverson both are if we believe the news stories (I don't follow closely so correct me if we know better now) pretty awful people and treated their wives pretty horribly. I can't imagine some of that didn't impact the locker rooms. Guys on drugs might make a locker room more "fun" but sure as heck doesn't make a team win. I tend to try and stay out of these things on this list in part because I feel team success should go down with it. For me I don't think howard needs a lot of negative credit here given his success has been fairly poor outside of his finals run in orlando.

I also give him a 100% pass for the LA year for anyone wondering, full disclosure on that one! (I give pretty much full passes for anyone not winning in LA or NYC as I think both cities are just bad for players).

I noticed you were ahead of me in pushing Dwight - that's why I was careful to write "one of" the leaders instead of the first.

In 80-85% of cases, I don't really care about the intangibles - I feel like they should/do manifest themselves in the results enough of the time that it takes care of itself. I know others on the board care about them a lot - you saw it in the group that was pushing for Isiah, and though I wasn't voting then, I saw it on the Russell debate; it's the only way he's as high as he is and Wilt is as low as he is.

Dwight's been punished enough on the intangibles and here's one way to illustrate this:

Let's say an AI had all the information that we know about basketball dumped into it's core. It only knew the data - all of it that we have & the team results. It doesn't know about locker room stuff, it doesn't know about off the court stuff. The AI is told that it can have any player left put into a time machine, given nutritional benefits to compensate for the era and that's it to build a franchise around. The AI is told that it has to give the player a gigantic $400 M contract - but it can figure out how to pay the player that $400 M any way it wants over the next 20 years, and it's locked into it's production.

The AI's goal is to maximize likelihood of success and told that over a 20 year window, building around this player if it doesn't achieve 30 points based on the below scale, it will be destroyed.

Playoff Series Win = 1 Point
Division Title = 1 Point
Playoff Appearance = 1 Point
Finals Appearance = 4 points
Title = 10 Points

I feel pretty confident that the AI would be picking Howard in this spot - and that the AI would select Howard over a fair number of players we've already voted in if given the choice. That last part - that's how I know that Howard has been punished enough. It's time to start the process of getting him in there.

Ftr here is the list I made of total WS rank and MVP share rank averaged, players are in bold are voted in already.

Spoiler:

1 Kareem-Abdul Jabbar 2
2 Michael Jordan 2.5
3 Lebron James 4.5
4 Karl Malone 5.5
5 Wilt Chamberlain 6.5
6 Tim Duncan 7.5
7 Shaquille O'Neal 9.5
8 Bill Russell 12.5
8 Julius Erving 12.5
10 Kevin Garnett 13
11 Magic Johnson 14
11 Kobe Bryant 14
11 David Robinson 14
14 Moses Malone 14.5
15 Larry Bird 15.5
15 Oscar Robertson 15.5
17 Dirk Nowitzki 17.5
18 Charles Barkley 18.5
19 Hakeem Olajuwon 19.5
20 Jerry West 22.5
21 Bob Pettit 25.5
22 Chris Paul 26
23 Artis Gilmore 28 (includes ABA)
24 Steve Nash 30
25 Kevin Durant 31
26 Rick Barry 32 (includes ABA)
27 Patrick Ewing 37
28 Jason Kidd 38
29 Gary Payton 39
30 Dwight Howard 40.5
31 Dan Issel 42.5 (includes ABA)
31 Dolph Schayes 42.5
33 Clyde Drexler 43
34 Scottie Pippen 48
35 Dominique Wilkins 49.5
36 George Gervin 51
37 Dwyane Wade 51.5
38 Elgin Baylor 52.5
39 John Stockton 53.5
40 Elvin Hayes 55
41 Robert Parish 58
42 Allen Iverson 58.5
43 Wes Unseld 59
44 Bob Lanier 59.5
45 Zelmo Beaty 61.5 (includes ABA)
46 Chauncey Billups 62.5
47 John Havlicek 62.5
48 James Harden 65.5
49 Alonzo Mourning 66.5
50 Tracy McGrady 68

So on a list that correlates very well with our voting with 37 of the top 41 matching (and one of the others being ABA driven in Issel, and on the other end Mikan couldn't make the above list) Howard rates highest, although the real most impressive is Schayes considering he would have rated higher if there was MVP voting in his first 6 seasons

Where to put Bob Lanier is interesting, he never got that relevant champion team, but he has a 3rd and 4th place in MVP voting, finishes top 5 in WS 3 times (3rd once), is a fantastic BPM player including a 1st place and a 2nd place in VORP. Compared to other players with non-limited longevity that looks like a good resume

Nice work.

Lanier is another "name only" to me, but I expected to see him when we got to around 60 (our base 10 math driving our thinking). I'll be interested to arguments for him when they come.

[trex_8063]

Since Miller is going to be one of the frontrunners this thread, how confident are we that Miller > Allen?

They do feel very very close; until very recently I basically had them adjacent on my ATL. And fwiw, I do kinda feel like Allen could have filled Miller's role in Indiana better than Miller could have filled Allen's role in Milwaukee/Seattle. Allen's got better on-ball/iso skills, is a marginally better passer/play-maker [imo], and he is a slightly better rebounder, while basically being an equal shooter.

Reggie was distinctly better at one thing, which was drawing fouls: he averaged 7.6 FTA/100 with a .402 FTr (vs 5.6 and .260 for Allen). If memory serves, he did a lot of that via kicking the one leg out on his shot, which the defender would periodically bump into (and Reggie would fall down for show), and the ref would blow the whistle. That distinctly higher FTr is the reason Reggie was more efficient overall. And the fact that he operated somewhat more off-ball enabled him to produce similar volume with a marginally lower turnover rate, as well. Gun to my head, I'd say Miller was the marginally better defender, too.


As has been mentioned previously, Miller appears to win the battle of impact slightly, has the more consistently awesome playoff resume, and appears to have a marginal longevity/durability edge: very similar career arc, but Miller managed to maintain at a slightly higher level during those final two seasons, and also tended to be injured less often.
^^^^These are the things that push Miller a little ahead for me recently.

Peak vs Peak thoughts? Love this post btw. Especially on miller's shall we call it "90's style flopping" which I wanted to hint at before, but just didn't trust my memory enough to go there.

Peak vs peak, I'd say Ray Allen ('01 Ray Ray was pretty special, imo).

And you are not mis-remembering the "90's style flopping", although I don't think it's exactly limited to the 90's.

[oldschooled]

Still not sold on Allen, Pierce, Reggie at this point. Yes they contributed highly on winning (WS), longevity and are high impact guys but there's still guys left with MVP's and championships. I just can't put them above those guys.

Vote: Willis Reed
Alt: Wes Unseld

Should these guys have been seen as MVP caliber players though? To me both Reed & Unseld's MVP years were pretty fluky.

I'll add that Reed also has major longevity issues.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Compared to those guys? Yes.

Code: Select all

                                       
Rank               Player MVP     Shares
40.              Willis Reed*      1.048
58.               Wes Unseld*      0.655
143.              Paul Pierce      0.040
147.                Ray Allen      0.038


And yes I'm aware of Reed's longevity issues, 4, 5 year prime max. But factoring all, i'd still take those two over Pierce, Reggie and the Allen's of the world.

[dhsilv2]

They do feel very very close; until very recently I basically had them adjacent on my ATL. And fwiw, I do kinda feel like Allen could have filled Miller's role in Indiana better than Miller could have filled Allen's role in Milwaukee/Seattle. Allen's got better on-ball/iso skills, is a marginally better passer/play-maker [imo], and he is a slightly better rebounder, while basically being an equal shooter.

Reggie was distinctly better at one thing, which was drawing fouls: he averaged 7.6 FTA/100 with a .402 FTr (vs 5.6 and .260 for Allen). If memory serves, he did a lot of that via kicking the one leg out on his shot, which the defender would periodically bump into (and Reggie would fall down for show), and the ref would blow the whistle. That distinctly higher FTr is the reason Reggie was more efficient overall. And the fact that he operated somewhat more off-ball enabled him to produce similar volume with a marginally lower turnover rate, as well. Gun to my head, I'd say Miller was the marginally better defender, too.


As has been mentioned previously, Miller appears to win the battle of impact slightly, has the more consistently awesome playoff resume, and appears to have a marginal longevity/durability edge: very similar career arc, but Miller managed to maintain at a slightly higher level during those final two seasons, and also tended to be injured less often.
^^^^These are the things that push Miller a little ahead for me recently.

Peak vs Peak thoughts? Love this post btw. Especially on miller's shall we call it "90's style flopping" which I wanted to hint at before, but just didn't trust my memory enough to go there.

Peak vs peak, I'd say Ray Allen ('01 Ray Ray was pretty special, imo).

And you are not mis-remembering the "90's style flopping", although I don't think it's exactly limited to the 90's.

Long drunk response....great post! We disagree on value but agree on these two. I love it! I value peaks you don't, and these two are so close that well both views are fine.

cheers!

[Winsome Gerbil]

Guys like Manu, and to a lesser extent Reggie, are hard to assess because they never faced much adversity. They always had strong teammates, good coaches. They were on winning teams from the moment they entered the league. It's almost a separate class of guys. I'm very open to the idea that Manu was more talented than many guys. I flat think he WAS more talented than Reggie. If you wanted to argue he was more talented than Richmond or Allen I wouldn't think you were crazy. Its an unproven hypothesis, but the eye test always suggested such a thing. But the thing is he never had that pressure on him to perform while other teams keyed on him. To carry sad sack teammates. To overcome shoddy coaching. As he's aged he's been able to drift back into a low minutes role player. At this point he's played in 992 games, and averaged only 25.8min and 13.6pts. My eye test and numerous metrics suggest he was much better than those numbers -- indeed on numbers alone he probably does not even belong in this Top 100 project. But I can't put a guy like that way up the charts over guys who were perennial All NBA types and MVP candidates and as their team's #1.

[trex_8063]

Guys like Manu, and to a lesser extent Reggie, are hard to assess because they never faced much adversity. They always had strong teammates, good coaches. They were on winning teams from the moment they entered the league.

I can't say this doesn't seem like some spin-doctoring (if not flat false).

Reggie arrived to a team that had been losing for years, had just managed a 41-41 record (and the first playoff appearance in six years--->1st round exit) the year before he arrived. Does that sound anything at all like the environment Manu arrived to?

The best player on the Pacers the year Reggie arrived was Vern Fleming; the 2nd-best player was probably Steve Stipanovich.......the best player when Manu arrived was Tim Duncan, 2nd-best was twilight David Robinson. Does this sound similar?

In Reggie's 2nd season he had four (four) head coaches, ultimately landing on Dick Versace (who had a career of three seasons as head coach with a losing record overall); when Versace was done, he had Bob Hill for a few years before finally landing Larry Brown.
Manu had Pop throughout.......I'm not sure who could think this sounds similar.

And though Reggie's supporting casts improved for much of the 90's (at least by the mid-90's), I don't think Detlef, Smits, Dale Davis, Vern Fleming et al truly compares well to Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry and co.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #47:

Willis Reed - 3 (dhsilv, Clyde Frazier, oldschooled)
Reggie Miller - 2 (JordansBulls, LABird)
Paul Pierce - 1 (trex_8063)
Wes Unseld - 1 (pandrade83)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Pablo Novi)
Nate Thurmond -1 (Outside)

This thread has about 18-20 hour more [early tomorrow evening, in in North America] before we hit a runoff.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[euroleague]

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Harden
HM: Westbrook

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: Harden - Harden has redefined flopping, and will probably get a rule change. However, it can't be argued that he is a very effective scorer and passer, who led his team to the WCF and is capable of leading teams with no secondary star better than Eric Gordon to 55+ wins. Multiple MVP level seasons.

HM: Westbrook - Westbrook was 1b to Durant's 1a, and Durant was in a long time ago. He averaged a 3x double, which is significant simply because for the entire history of the nba only Oscar had done it (although it's a little meaningless). He had a huge impact on the game, and showed that he can elevate a team as a solo first option. This year, playing more normal minute totals with a back-up in PG, I expect he will do much better in terms of wins.




Quite divided on who to rank higher still, WB or Harden. But for now, going this order.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Guys like Manu, and to a lesser extent Reggie, are hard to assess because they never faced much adversity. They always had strong teammates, good coaches. They were on winning teams from the moment they entered the league.

I can't say this doesn't seem like some spin-doctoring (if not flat false).

Reggie arrived to a team that had been losing for years, had just managed a 41-41 record (and the first playoff appearance in six years--->1st round exit) the year before he arrived. Does that sound anything at all like the environment Manu arrived to?

The best player on the Pacers the year Reggie arrived was Vern Fleming; the 2nd-best player was probably Steve Stipanovich.......the best player when Manu arrived was Tim Duncan, 2nd-best was twilight David Robinson. Does this sound similar?

In Reggie's 2nd season he had four (four) head coaches, ultimately landing on Dick Versace (who had a career of three seasons as head coach with a losing record overall); when Versace was done, he had Bob Hill for a few years before finally landing Larry Brown.
Manu had Pop throughout.......I'm not sure who could think this sounds similar.

And though Reggie's supporting casts improved for much of the 90's (at least by the mid-90's), I don't think Detlef, Smits, Dale Davis, Vern Fleming et al truly compares well to Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry and co.

There's a reason I said "to a lesser extent".

Reggie had a ton of quality teammates over his career. And not just offensive guys. But quality guys doing the things Reggie was not good at. Lot of good talent. Good post scorers, good defenders, good passers, as well as really skilled perimeter offensive guys like Rifleman, Shrempf, Rose etc.

Manu obviously was born into the NBA with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was surrounded by HOF talent, not merely "good" talent.

And the results of the different levels of privilege are obvious in the win totals. For all of this Reggie as great winner myth, it took him EIGHT years before his first team won 50+ games, and then after 2 52 win seasons, they were back under .500 again for his 10th campaign. Manu OTOH arrived to a 58 win team and amazingly has never had to suffer a single sub-50 win season.

My real and eternal point with the overrating of privileged players is can anybody say with a straight face that if Reggie or Mitch Richmond had showed up in San Antonio as rookies instead of Manu that the Spurs wouldn't have gone on to win just as much? Or nearly so? Because that's the problem when overcrediting guys who were not their team's #1 guys. We don't know, and they might have been considerably more replaceable than most people admit. The tendency to overcredit guys on winning teams isn't higher level analysis. Its exactly the opposite. Its lack of imagination. I saw this guy win, therefore he's a winner. I didn't see this guy win therefore he's not. But the circumstances leading to that winning or losing are far bigger than the individual player.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Now as we get to tertiary guys like Ray Allen, again I have to wonder what does hanging around on good teams have to do with "greatness"? Because it looks to me very much like sloppy bleedover -- wow that team was great! Ray's great too!

And the thing is, like the Pierce situation, we actually got to see what Ray Allen could do alone as a standalone star, and what he could do, even with Rashard Lewis along, was go 37-45, 52-30, 35-47 and 31-51.

And again, I'm not the guy to necessarily hold guys to task for failing to individually elevate bad situations. HOWEVER, when those players are being compared across the board to far more decorated players, who put up bigger numbers, led their one star teams further, were annually considered All NBA/Top 10 players etc.. Then yes it matters.

By the time Ray Allen went to Boston he was putting up Rip Hamilton numbers. By the time he left it was more like Byron Scott numbers. He was just the saavy old bench talent in Miami. Those are all positive years for him on the greatness totem pole, but in no way should it be magically launching him up above guys who were clearly more productive and esteemed in their days. Ray was a #3 in Boston, maybe even a #4 by the end. He was a bencher in Miami. How many titles does he win without KG and LeBron? Zero.

I have said this repeatedly about these second and third tier guys, that it's these following guys who are the legends, the guys who will be remembered for their own greatness, not the greatness of their teammates:

Allen Iverson 7x All NBA, 1.567 MVP Shares
Russell Westbrook 6x All NBA, 1.531 MVP Shares
Dominique Wilkins , 7x All NBA, .844 MVP Shares
Dwight Howard 8x All NBA, 1.250 MVP Shares (perhaps inflated as the last/only big of his era)

guys like Reggie, Pierce, Allen, or Manu are on a different, lesser tier:

Reggie Miller 3x All NBA, .003 MVP Shares
Paul Pierce 4x All NBA, .040 MVP Shares
Ray Allen 2x All NBA, .038 MVP Shares
Manu Ginobili 2x All NBA, .026 MVP Shares

There's an obvious obvious gap there.

42) Iverson
43) Westbrook

P.S. this is also why I mentioned that Curry was going too high. If you want Curry in the Top 30, then Westbrook has the numbers and accolades to be hot on his heels. Positing a 20 player gap between fellow MVPs from the same era with similar stats is very hard to justify.

[Doctor MJ]

Still not sold on Allen, Pierce, Reggie at this point. Yes they contributed highly on winning (WS), longevity and are high impact guys but there's still guys left with MVP's and championships. I just can't put them above those guys.

Vote: Willis Reed
Alt: Wes Unseld

Should these guys have been seen as MVP caliber players though? To me both Reed & Unseld's MVP years were pretty fluky.

I'll add that Reed also has major longevity issues.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Compared to those guys? Yes.

Code: Select all

                                       
Rank               Player MVP     Shares
40.              Willis Reed*      1.048
58.               Wes Unseld*      0.655
143.              Paul Pierce      0.040
147.                Ray Allen      0.038


And yes I'm aware of Reed's longevity issues, 4, 5 year prime max. But factoring all, i'd still take those two over Pierce, Reggie and the Allen's of the world.

I don't know what you're doing quoting MVP shares with me. I know the history just fine. They got treated as far stronger MVP candidates than Pierce and Allen, that much is clear. The question is really whether they were actually on entirely different tiers as players in actuality.

[Doctor MJ]

Now as we get to tertiary guys like Ray Allen, again I have to wonder what does hanging around on good teams have to do with "greatness"? Because it looks to me very much like sloppy bleedover -- wow that team was great! Ray's great too!

And the thing is, like the Pierce situation, we actually got to see what Ray Allen could do alone as a standalone star, and what he could do, even with Rashard Lewis along, was go 37-45, 52-30, 35-47 and 31-51.

And again, I'm not the guy to necessarily hold guys to task for failing to individually elevate bad situations. HOWEVER, when those players are being compared across the board to far more decorated players, who put up bigger numbers, led their one star teams further, were annually considered All NBA/Top 10 players etc.. Then yes it matters.

By the time Ray Allen went to Boston he was putting up Rip Hamilton numbers. By the time he left it was more like Byron Scott numbers. He was just the saavy old bench talent in Miami. Those are all positive years for him on the greatness totem pole, but in no way should it be magically launching him up above guys who were clearly more productive and esteemed in their days. Ray was a #3 in Boston, maybe even a #4 by the end. He was a bencher in Miami. How many titles does he win without KG and LeBron? Zero.

I have said this repeatedly about these second and third tier guys, that it's these following guys who are the legends, the guys who will be remembered for their own greatness, not the greatness of their teammates:

Allen Iverson 11x All Star, 7x All NBA, 1.567 MVP Shares
Russell Westbrook 6x All Star, 6x All NBA, 1.531 MVP Shares
Dominique Wilkins 9x All Star, 7x All NBA, .844 MVP Shares

and while he only had half a career of dominance and I think there was a little inflation as the last/only big man of his era:
Dwight Howard 8x All Star, 8x All NBA, 1.531 MVP Shares

42) Iverson
43) Westbrook

P.S. this is also why i mentioned that Curry was going too high. If you want Curry in the Top 30, then Westbrook has the numbers and accolades to be hot on his heels. Positing a 20 player gap between fellow MVPs from the same era with similar stats is very hard to justify.

What Ray Allen did in Boston was better than anything Iverson ever did.

Is that a crazy statement? Well, if your goal is to win a title, what Allen did in Boston is very valuable. What Iverson did anywhere basically precluded the possibility. I know they got their way to the finals once, but only because they briefly were able to pull off a marvelous defense in the weak East. Letting Iverson score like that is not a wise way to try to win a title and that's before you even get into his actual issues.

Re: Iverson remembered for his greatness. By those who really don't know much, that is all they'll probably know. Well that and his cornrows. The cornrows are his real legacy. Those were some killer cornrows.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Been voting for these guys for a while. I'm used to that. I expect it at certain times in these projects.

I like to think I don't get frustrated, but that's not really true. I don't get frustrated because people disagree, just some of the reasons people give for disagreeing. In the end I really feel like what we do by default is base our opinions on what we thought the game was when we were younger. Typically that means traditional stats, prestigious accolades, and rings. Even when readily speak to the nuance that makes a player so clearly more than these things, we tend to merely slide the original assessment over a bit rather than starting over from whole cloth.

So with Miller what we get is a lot of people essentially saying "I see why you're saying Miller would be underrated because of his lack of volume stats, but c'mon, he can't be THAT underrated." There's an utter disbelief to the objection that to me has no rational basis because people know full well these award voters are far from perfect and none of us has done any kind of rigorous analysis confirming a maximum possible error they could have. It's an incidence where one can find a poster trash an authority and then appeal to that same authority in argument in the span of a few paragraphs.

Reggie was playing a role that nowadays we basically recognize as a must-have for a championship team. It's a role that allows the player to constantly have small but significant amounts of positive effect all throughout the possession, and among players who truly play that role, Reggie has had the best career in history. The idea that someone like that wouldn't be a lock for Top 50 is frankly strange to me.

[Outside]

I'll present multiple posts in favor of Nate Thurmond. First up is a reworked version of my first post promoting his candidacy.

Nate Thurmond. Nate the Great. My favorite player ever, so I can't claim to be impartial, but I can be his advocate for this project.

Thurmond was a great, great defender and rebounder. Even though he was better at defense than Wilt and Kareem and better at offense than Russell, his profile never rose above those three, and he's overlooked because of it.

Defensively, he was second only to Russell. When the league began recognizing All-Defensive Team honors in 1968-69, his sixth season, he was 1st team twice and 2nd team three times.

He was an exceptional shotblocker, one of the best the game has ever seen, but blocks weren't recorded until 1973-74, his 11th season in the league. Even though the game had taken a toll on his knees by that point, he was still top 10 in blocks the next two seasons (8th and 3rd).

Once blocks and steals became official stats, another stat became possible -- the quadruple-double. Thurmond was the first player to record one, with 22 points, 14 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks. There have been only three other quadruple-doubles since.

But to provide some context, Thurmond said this:

Any good basketball fan knows that there were plenty of quadruple-doubles back in the 1960s... Let me put it this way: I had 12 blocks in my quadruple-double game, and it was my 12th year in the league. That’s with two bad knees and more than 30,000 minutes pounding NBA floors, night after night. You bet I had plenty of quadruple-doubles before 1974. I’m not trying to brag, but there were games where it was ridiculous the number of shots I blocked. When I was young, there were nights when guys couldn’t come close to getting shots off on me. Only Russell could have blocked more in his career.

Said Walt Hazzard: "As for blocking shots, I've seen guys get offensive rebounds and then go back 15 feet to make sure they can get a shot off. They know Nate is there."

Kareem said Thurmond was his toughest opponent. "He plays me better than anybody ever has, He's tall, has real long arms, and most of all he's agile and strong. When I score on Nate, I know I've done something."

Wilt Chamberlain: "Nate Thurmond was an incredible defensive basketball player. He played me as well as Bill Russell."

As a rebounder, Thurmond was one of the best ever:

-- NBA record for rebounds in a quarter - 18
-- One of only four players with 40 rebounds in a game (Russell, Chamberlain, Lucas)
-- One of only five players to average 20 rebounds for a season (Russell, Chamberlain, Pettit, Lucas);
-- One of only five players to average 15 rebounds for a career (Russell, Chamberlain, Pettit, Lucas)
-- 10th all time in career rebounds

Offensively, Thurmond had an inside and outside game. He averaged 15 PPG for his career and had five straight 20-point seasons. His outside shot was inconsistent, but he was one of the earliest centers with floor spacing ability, benefitting his team by drawing the opposing center outside. Often overlooked are the other aspects of his offensive game -- he was an excellent passer for a big man and one of the best at setting screens.

Thurmond had six seasons with MVP shares, including 1966-67, when he came in second to Wilt and well ahead of Russell and Oscar.

Watch on YouTube

[Dr Positivity]

Thoughts on Cousy, Billups, Miller, Tmac, Mourning, Dwight, Schayes, Iverson, Unseld, Pierce, Westbrook, Hayes 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.

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.

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.

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.

Wes Unseld - Case for: Impact not captured by his boxscore. His outlet passes don't always end in assists, GOAT level screen setter and defends well without it showing up in blocks. More than his MVP, his Finals MVP averaging 9/12/4 looks even crazier in terms of impact he must have shown without stats. Even with that in mind, his boxscore is still decent, he finished top 10 in WS and VORP 5 times each. Fantastic intangibles. Relevant for over a decade. Leads his team to 4 Finals and a title. Case against: Very mediocre volume scoring threat when you take into account pace as well. Combined with playing center it's hard to believe he has a great offensive impact despite the passing. Never makes an all-defensive team. Never makes All-NBA after his MVP season or finishes higher than 8th in MVP again. As soon as he gets there Hayes is voted on as the best player on the team by MVP votes.

Paul Pierce - Case for: All time great longevity, he comes in relatively polished and is still a great player by his 15th year in the league, and even BKN/WAS version after that is starting caliber. 25th all in in WS, 23rd in VORP. Perimeter players who handles and passes well tend to rate strongly in ORPM. Good floor spacer. Strong playoff credentials. Good playoff career including in 08 going toe to to with Lebron and winning Finals MVP. Defense in Garnett era was solid. Case against: Arguable low peak for players here. Only finishes in top 10 in MVP voting once (7th in 09), his 2nd that season was also the only time he finished better than 3rd All-NBA. Only finishes top 10 in RAPM once (08). In his 26-27ppg season she played a lot of minutes to inflate his numbers. Difficult to build champion around him as #1.

Russell Westbrook - Case for: High peak dropping a crazy 32/11/10 MVP season. His last 2 seasons would've ranked high for peaks at this range too. Broke BPM/VORP. A monster talent who puts a ton of physical pressure on the opponent. Plays hard every minute. Has excelled as both 2nd option and 1st. Very good in the playoffs and has come out on the better end of several high profile PG battles. Case against: Rates as top 10 not top 5 peak in RPM. Average longevity, has been a star level player for 7 years, one of them he played 46 games in, and it's only the last 3 where he went to MVP level peak. Low portability both emotionally and style of play, is not taking a backseat to anyone and wants to shoot as much as possible. Mediocre 3pt shooting and floor spacing. Average TS throughout his career and turnover prone.

Elvin Hayes - Case for: Strong longevity and perfect durability leading to high total career marks in points and rebounds. Rated as a star in his time with 2 3rd place MVP, a 5th and several other top 10s and makes 3 1st team All-NBA. Good defensive player and makes a few 2nd team all-defense. Successful in Washington and arguably most talented or best player on a champion, and making 2 other Finals. Case against: Underwhelming TS and a poor passer for his volume, which combines for only ok performance in stats like OWS or OBPM. Terrible intangibles, reviled by many teammates and coaches and has been compared to Chinese water torture, and has been called the worst person they've met in sports. Overall playoff stats are decent, but had choker reputation.

+ Willis Reed - Case for: High level peak. A player who at different points win MVP and leads league in WS. Outside of the boxscore which is great on its own, has non box value as a 1st team all-defense C who is a great floor spacer for his position. Rated the best player on a team with Frazier. Good intangibles. Quality playoff performer with two Finals MVP. Case against: Short longevity with about 5 prime years and some other decent ones. Not a great passer or dominant offensive player overall, plays weakest offensive position in center. Support as best Knicks player over Frazier may be because white people preferred the quieter black man.

+ Nate Thurmond - Case for: Rated a high level defender in his time at a key defensive position in C, both man to man where he is supposed GOAT level in an era where it matters a lot, and late career block numbers are promising. With high baseline of value on defense does not need much more on offense to be great. Volume scorer, floor spacer and above average playmaker. A quality decade's worth of longevity. Peaks at 2nd in MVP. Case against: Poor TS while taking a lot of shots for his role. Due to inefficiency weak WS numbers for a player this high.

Vote Paul Pierce

Pierce has a high value offensive role as a ball handler, passer, creator and floor spacer with solid defense. His longevity is tremendous still going strong 15 years into his career and has good moments in the playoffs.

2nd: Reggie Miller

[Winsome Gerbil]

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Been voting for these guys for a while. I'm used to that. I expect it at certain times in these projects.

I like to think I don't get frustrated, but that's not really true. I don't get frustrated because people disagree, just some of the reasons people give for disagreeing. In the end I really feel like what we do by default is base our opinions on what we thought the game was when we were younger. Typically that means traditional stats, prestigious accolades, and rings. Even when readily speak to the nuance that makes a player so clearly more than these things, we tend to merely slide the original assessment over a bit rather than starting over from whole cloth.

So with Miller what we get is a lot of people essentially saying "I see why you're saying Miller would be underrated because of his lack of volume stats, but c'mon, he can't be THAT underrated." There's an utter disbelief to the objection that to me has no rational basis because people know full well these award voters are far from perfect and none of us has done any kind of rigorous analysis confirming a maximum possible error they could have. It's an incidence where one can find a poster trash an authority and then appeal to that same authority in argument in the span of a few paragraphs.

Reggie was playing a role that nowadays we basically recognize as a must-have for a championship team. It's a role that allows the player to constantly have small but significant amounts of positive effect all throughout the possession, and among players who truly play that role, Reggie has had the best career in history. The idea that someone like that wouldn't be a lock for Top 50 is frankly strange to me.

Actually, unless you are just referring to 3pt shooting and flopping, I would say the role Reggie played is practically obsolete now. His weakness with the ball is the complete opposite with the way the vast majority of perimeter play has trended. Nobody has the patience to wait for an off the ball guy to run around in circles for 15 seconds trying to get open anymore. Why should they when it's perfectly acceptable now for any guard to pull up at any time and chuck his own shot off the dribble? Reggie was the purest of "off" guards, but those have largely gone the way of the pure points. Now everybody wants to be a tweener, and the one great SG plays the game like a chucking PG and in fact was called a PG all last season.

BTW, volume stats ARE stats, and for a reason. While the number varies a bit through the ages, generally speaking there are about 95-100 possessions per team per game. It gets increasingly hard to say if you are Reggie, that hey, I know you guys had 80 other possessions, but it was my 13 shots and 3 assists a game that made you guys winners! He contributed to his team's success on a much smaller percentage of their possessions than let's say a Russell Westbrook did last season.

Career Per 100 Possessions:
Iverson 33.7pts 4.7reb 7.8ast
Wilkins 34.7pts 9.3reb 3.5ast
Westbrook 33.8pts 9.2reb 11.8ast
Miller 27.5pts 4.5reb 4.5ast

Without even taking into account minutes, where Iverson in particular was famous for ironmanning 40+ min a night, Reggie's lack of "volume stats" is precisely leaving a whole hell of a lot more for his teammates to do to earn a victory.

[euroleague]

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Been voting for these guys for a while. I'm used to that. I expect it at certain times in these projects.

I like to think I don't get frustrated, but that's not really true. I don't get frustrated because people disagree, just some of the reasons people give for disagreeing. In the end I really feel like what we do by default is base our opinions on what we thought the game was when we were younger. Typically that means traditional stats, prestigious accolades, and rings. Even when readily speak to the nuance that makes a player so clearly more than these things, we tend to merely slide the original assessment over a bit rather than starting over from whole cloth.

So with Miller what we get is a lot of people essentially saying "I see why you're saying Miller would be underrated because of his lack of volume stats, but c'mon, he can't be THAT underrated." There's an utter disbelief to the objection that to me has no rational basis because people know full well these award voters are far from perfect and none of us has done any kind of rigorous analysis confirming a maximum possible error they could have. It's an incidence where one can find a poster trash an authority and then appeal to that same authority in argument in the span of a few paragraphs.

Reggie was playing a role that nowadays we basically recognize as a must-have for a championship team. It's a role that allows the player to constantly have small but significant amounts of positive effect all throughout the possession, and among players who truly play that role, Reggie has had the best career in history. The idea that someone like that wouldn't be a lock for Top 50 is frankly strange to me.

Me and pavlo voted cousy something like 20 straight threads. Literally all my Alts and HMs have been voted in 3x over.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Been voting for these guys for a while. I'm used to that. I expect it at certain times in these projects.

I like to think I don't get frustrated, but that's not really true. I don't get frustrated because people disagree, just some of the reasons people give for disagreeing. In the end I really feel like what we do by default is base our opinions on what we thought the game was when we were younger. Typically that means traditional stats, prestigious accolades, and rings. Even when readily speak to the nuance that makes a player so clearly more than these things, we tend to merely slide the original assessment over a bit rather than starting over from whole cloth.

So with Miller what we get is a lot of people essentially saying "I see why you're saying Miller would be underrated because of his lack of volume stats, but c'mon, he can't be THAT underrated." There's an utter disbelief to the objection that to me has no rational basis because people know full well these award voters are far from perfect and none of us has done any kind of rigorous analysis confirming a maximum possible error they could have. It's an incidence where one can find a poster trash an authority and then appeal to that same authority in argument in the span of a few paragraphs.

Reggie was playing a role that nowadays we basically recognize as a must-have for a championship team. It's a role that allows the player to constantly have small but significant amounts of positive effect all throughout the possession, and among players who truly play that role, Reggie has had the best career in history. The idea that someone like that wouldn't be a lock for Top 50 is frankly strange to me.

Me and pavlo voted cousy something like 20 straight threads. Literally all my Alts and HMs have been voted in 3x over.

I would switch my alt vote back to him to get him in the runoff, but that feels despicably tactical, which is just what the mods running this show are trying to avoid.

[Outside]

When I argued for Thurmond in prior threads, he was criticized for his offense, particularly his shooting percentages. In this post, I'll offer some rebuttals regarding Thurmond's offense.

Thurmond's FG% is not good, but he shot free throws well, so his TS% compares much more favorably. For example, Bill Russell had a better FG% (44.0 to 42.1), but their TS% is almost identical (47.1 to 47.0).

Centers like Dikembe Mutombo and Wes Unseld had better efficiency, but they were never primary scorers on their teams. Thurmond, on the other hand, was a primary scorer for much of his career:

66-67 - 2nd leading scorer (18.7) behind Rick Barry (35.6)
67-68 - 2nd leading scorer (20.5) behind Rudy LaRusso (21.8)
68-69 - 2nd leading scorer (21.5) behind Jeff Mullins (22.8)
69-70 - 2nd leading scorer (21.9) behind Mullins (22.1)
70-71 - 2nd leading scorer (20.0) behind Mullins (20.8)
71-72 - 2nd leading scorer (21.4) behind Mullins (21.5)
72-73 - 3rd leading scorer (17.1) behind Barry (22.3) and Mullins (17.8)

That's a responsibility that Wes Unseld and Dikembe Mutombo never had.

Unseld was his team's 5th leading scorer in his ROY and MVP season and the 9th leading scorer the year Washington won the title. Unseld averaged at least 15 PPG only once (16.4), while Thurmond did it nine times, including five seasons of over 20 PPG.

In his rookie season, Mutombo was his team's 2nd leading scorer (16.6 PPG), but his efficiency was low for him (49.3 FG%, 54.0 TS%). His efficiency would go up a few points in subsequent seasons, but his scoring went down, fluctuating between 10-13 PPG as his team's 4th or 5th leading scorer.

In addition to scoring, Thurmond brought value to other aspects of the offensive game, including passing, setting screens, and floor spacing.

All this merely makes Thurmond credible offensively. When you add that to his all-time greatness as a defender and rebounder, he becomes an excellent choice compared to other players being considered.