RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #45 (Dolph Schayes)

[eminence]

As an aside Dolph Schayes over Bob Cousy doesn't make much sense. All of the weaknesses, none of the groundbreaking and winning.

Prior to Russell's arrival Syracuse finished above Boston in the standings 4/6 seasons and advanced further than the Celtics in the playoffs 4 times (1 time same round, and 1 time Boston went further) along with actually managing to pull out a title in '55. The correct Celtic was already awarded for all that later dominance, and it wasn't Cousy.

[penbeast0]

As an aside Dolph Schayes over Bob Cousy doesn't make much sense. All of the weaknesses, none of the groundbreaking and winning.

I never saw him but from contemporaries comments . . . the first stretch 4? Apparently he had 3 point caliber range though he really got most of his offensive impact at the foul line (where he shot 85% for his career).

[pandrade83]

As an aside Dolph Schayes over Bob Cousy doesn't make much sense. All of the weaknesses, none of the groundbreaking and winning.

I think Schayes vs. Cousy is pretty easy tbh.

-Pre-Russell, Schayes & Cousy faced off in the playoffs 4 times - Schayes came out ahead 3 of those encounters.
-Schayes led teams to 3 Total Finals with 1 Chip - Cousy never led a team to the same.
-Schayes had at least 7 seasons where his PER Score is higher than Cousy's peak - we don't know '50 & '51, but given that Schayes posted double digit WS both years - a feat Cousy never achieved, it's probably 9.
-Schayes had 10 years of WS higher than Cousy's peak.

I noted in my post that in the playoffs, Schayes was able to credibly compete against Wilt & Russell and that he was able to keep up with the evolution of the league, unlike Cousy.

The only argument I see for Cousy is if you put all your emphasis on accolades OR you (falsely) give him credit for those rings. The man responsible for those rings is already in.

My next 50's player that I'm going to support isn't even Cousy - it's Arizin.

[THKNKG]

...
Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways....

I would love to hear a demonstration of this in a couple of ways because I am far from sure it is true.

(a) It is true that in today's game, the value of perimeter players RELATIVE to post players is higher than it has ever been before because of modern zone defenses and tactics.
(b) It is true that there are less high scoring bigs in the league today than there were in prior eras and some of them work on the perimeter


(c) I don't believe this is a historical fact; particularly before the 3 point line, post scorers were more efficient generally than perimeter scorers and most offenses were built around the gravity of a primary post player.
(d) I still think a great post scorer dominates and has a high gravity effect today, just much less focus on this sort of player both in the league and in teaching because it is a lot easier to find an oustanding 6-0 to 6-8 player than one 6-11 or taller.

I'll approach it from a few different lenses, and you can give your thoughts if you agree or think I'm not taking a great approach. I want to note first though, that for the most part, these general rules are not as strong in my mind with GOAT level players. They're outliers, so the rules bend around them.

1. The fact that perimeter offensive players don't require another player to generate their offense for them. Yes, off ball scorers are great, and I've said so, but it's different in the post because a) it's hard to get the ball there and b) it doesn't produce as much gravity/spacing as an off ball guard.

2. ORAPM - looking at Doc's chronology sheet, and ranked by 5sum (sum of best 5 years. 73 of the top 100 players played the majority of their minutes at the 1/2/3. That's 13% more than expected, which is pretty significant.

3. ORAPM - about 50 of those top 100 play either the 1/2. There are about 20 pg and SG in the top 30.

4. The best offenses tend to be PG led (in the sense that the best offenses run through the PG and not the big men).

To be clear, I don't equate the gap between the two on offense and defense. The gap is much more sizable on defense, whereas on offense it is clear, but definitely smaller.

[trex_8063]

Alternate: Adrian Dantley?

I'll try to post some details later, but does it not bother you that Dantley---for all of his scoring efficiency----did not seem to move the needle a great deal as far as team offensive performance?
I mean, Allen Iverson arguably has a greater record of elevating poor offensive casts up to mediocrity (occasionally a little better) than Dantley does. And that's quite a problem, imo, when volume scoring is really your entire forte.

Yes, very much so. If it didn't, he would have been up (or above) Charles Barkley for me because he was a better scorer than Chuckles and (arguably) better intangibles and passing though of course nowhere close to Sir Charles as a rebounder. As far as pure individual scoring, Dantley may be the GOAT or at least in the argument and unlike players I like better like Sidney Moncrief, he had excellent durability/longevity. As it is, I am looking at him after English so marginally top 50 seems about right? Hard decisions here.

Not sure I agree that he was a better passer (particularly relative to positional expectations) than Barkley, fwiw.

Yeah, idk.....Dantley's a hard one.
While it's true the Jazz ORtg abruptly improves by 3.1 upon his arrival (despite losing PF Truck Robinson/Spencer Haywood, who had split the season as the PF of '79), and they do have their worst offensive year during his tenure in the season he misses 27 games (and the 2nd-worst offense of his tenure in the season he missed 60 games [will try to compile some with/without data at some point]).......it's also true that they only had one season (out of seven with Dantley at the helm) above mediocrity on offense (Dantley's peak year of '84: they were a +1.4 rORTG), and had TWO seasons (in which Dantley was perfectly healthy) where their rORTG was worse than -2.0.
How the Jazz ORtg is effected on his departure is difficult, as there are other confounding factors: they got Kelly Tripucka (and Kent Benson) in the trade, and one could note that Karl Malone and John Stockton are improving, too (though neither yet in their primes; Stockton still coming off the bench in ‘87)........the Jazz rORTG would only worsen by 1.2 with Dantley’s departure (and overall they improved marginally--->+2 wins and +0.71 SRS change).
Certainly those details don’t help his case as a strong offensive anchor.

And the fact that the Piston’s rORTG gets worse by 0.9 upon Dantley’s arrival gives one pause.

It's hard [for me] to reconcile some of this, if we're considering him an offensive anchor worthy of fringe top 50 status (when he doesn't have any other hooks upon which to hang his hat).

By comparison (since you invoked the Barkley comp), Barkley seemingly induced a +4.2 change to Philly’s rORTG upon his arrival, and they suffered a -3.5 drop when he left. He NEVER allowed a below average offense during his time in Philly (even when he had a crap bench and Charles Shackleford/Manute Bol splitting time at the C position), and led TWO elite offenses with frontcourt sidekicks Mike Gminski and Ron Anderson (+/- Rick Mahorn) and a backcourt of Hersey Hawkins and either Johnny Dawkins or old Maurice Cheeks.

Even steering clear of the Barkley comparison, let’s look at Dominique Wilkins…..
During his 9-year prime (‘86-’94, almost entirely in Atlanta), they only had ONE year of mediocre offense in that near decade: a -0.9 rORTG, not surprisingly in the year Nique missed 40 games due to injury. EDIT: They were a +0.6 rORTG in the 42 games he played, -2.6 rORTG in the 40 games he missed.
They were above average offensively every other year of Nique’s prime, including two fairly elite seasons (peaking at +4.9 rORTG, with a supporting cast of ancient Moses Malone, Kevin Willis, a rotating backcourt of Spud Webb, Doc Rivers, John Battle, and John Long; and Cliff Levingston, Jon Koncak, and Alexander Volkov as the primary frontcourt bench players). They had four consecutive years with a rORTG of +3 or better (significantly better than ANY Dantley-anchored offense).


Didn’t intend this to turn into a pro-Wilkins post, but there are things that are often overlooked [if too zeroed in on shooting efficiency] when viewing some of these elite scoring wings. Things which contribute to offensive success.
Things like offensive rebounding (Wilkins > Dantley as an offensive rebounding SF) and turnover economy (Wilkins > Dantley in turnover economy, even in light of the difference in assists/playmaking…...Wilkins career rs Modified TOV% is 8.05, Dantley’s (minus ‘77) is 9.79).

There’s also the “ball-stopping” criticism of Dantley (I leave it to individuals to determine how valid that consideration is).


Anyway, at the end of the day, I can’t help thinking that Dantley’s remarkable shooting efficiency overstates [perhaps grossly] his overall capability as an offensive anchor.

[penbeast0]

...
Offense - The value of an offensive perimeter player is higher than the value of an offensive big man. Again, this can be demonstrated a couple of ways....

I would love to hear a demonstration of this in a couple of ways because I am far from sure it is true.

(a) It is true that in today's game, the value of perimeter players RELATIVE to post players is higher than it has ever been before because of modern zone defenses and tactics.
(b) It is true that there are less high scoring bigs in the league today than there were in prior eras and some of them work on the perimeter


(c) I don't believe this is a historical fact; particularly before the 3 point line, post scorers were more efficient generally than perimeter scorers and most offenses were built around the gravity of a primary post player.
(d) I still think a great post scorer dominates and has a high gravity effect today, just much less focus on this sort of player both in the league and in teaching because it is a lot easier to find an oustanding 6-0 to 6-8 player than one 6-11 or taller.

I'll approach it from a few different lenses, and you can give your thoughts if you agree or think I'm not taking a great approach. I want to note first though, that for the most part, these general rules are not as strong in my mind with GOAT level players. They're outliers, so the rules bend around them.

1. The fact that perimeter offensive players don't require another player to generate their offense for them. Yes, off ball scorers are great, and I've said so, but it's different in the post because a) it's hard to get the ball there and b) it doesn't produce as much gravity/spacing as an off ball guard.

2. ORAPM - looking at Doc's chronology sheet, and ranked by 5sum (sum of best 5 years. 73 of the top 100 players played the majority of their minutes at the 1/2/3. That's 13% more than expected, which is pretty significant.

3. ORAPM - about 50 of those top 100 play either the 1/2. There are about 20 pg and SG in the top 30.

4. The best offenses tend to be PG led (in the sense that the best offenses run through the PG and not the big men).

To be clear, I don't equate the gap between the two on offense and defense. The gap is much more sizable on defense, whereas on offense it is clear, but definitely smaller.

Other than the "doesn't produce as much gravity . . . " comment (when they have to double a post scorer, that's a tremendous amount of gravity creating open looks on the perimeter, my only question is whether this is only true today (which I do believe true for various reasons) or is it actually historically true?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #26:

Willis Reed - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Dolph Schayes - 1 (trex_8063)
Allen Iverson - *1 (Winsome Gerbil) *still need your arguments attached before the deadline
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Dikembe Mutombo - 1 (micahclay)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (twolves97)
Wes Unseld - 1 (pandrade83)


This thread will go into runoff sometime tomorrow morning (if in North America), approximately 17 or so hours from now. Get your picks in by then if you're going to.
Side note: hope Pablo is doing OK.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Outside]

Great response, thanks. I wouldn't say Thurmond was out of contention for me, but I would say that his efficiency issues are a problem to some degree - I'm still attempting to flesh that out in my mind though. I'm not convinced that Nate had superior anti-gravity, though. Can you elaborate as to why you think that?

I base my argument about Thurmond's anti-gravity on several factors.

1) The eye test. I watched him play, both in person and on TV. My brothers and I are all tall and played center, so we paid particular attention to center play. Being the youngest, I had the benefit of watching those games with older brothers who knew the game well and pointed out nuances that I might not have otherwise noticed. But even to anyone with a passing knowledge of the game, Thurmond's defensive impact was obvious to anyone who watched him play.

2) Impact on all-time great opponents. Here are the head2head finder results for Thurmond and Kareem.

http://bkref.com/tiny/1oItw

Nate looks decent in the overall results, 12.7 PPG vs 26.3 for Kareem, which is holding down the greatest scorer in the history of the game during his highest scoring years.

But look a little closer, and Nate's performances are more impressive. Through 1970-71 (Kareem's first three seasons when he averaged 31.8 PPG, total of 9 games H2H), the scoring averages are 25.0 for Kareem and 22.8 for Nate. Through 1972-73 (18 games), it's 25.1 for Kareem vs 18.7 for Nate. If you scan the list, you'll see numerous instances where they were even scoring-wise or Thurmond outscored him.

Thurmond's scoring drops after that, but his defense on Kareem is still effective. The last few games are outliers at the end of Thurmond's career where he didn't play as much and the numbers are less relevant.

Unfortunately, the results don't list rebounds, FG%, blocks, or steals until the later years. I'm particularly interested in rebounds and will attempt to get those from the box scores.

But the info still demonstrates that Thurmond limited Kareem as well as anyone could and was pretty effective offensively until wear and tear took its toll.

I want to get H2H results against other top centers, but I won't be able to do that until later tonight or tomorrow.

3) What other players said. Kareem and Wilt are both quoted as saying that Nate played them as tough or tougher than anyone, which is a testament to his individual defense. Many players of the day, both teammates and opponents, remarked on Thurmond's shotblocking and rim protection being second only to Russell. He was just a slight notch behind Wilt and Russell as a rebounder, the two most prolific rebounders of all time, and I've posted numerous stats to back that up.

I'll try to supplement this particular point later also, but I've got to run, so this is it for now.

[Pablo Novi]

Thru post #26:

Willis Reed - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Dolph Schayes - 1 (trex_8063)
Allen Iverson - *1 (Winsome Gerbil) *still need your arguments attached before the deadline
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Dikembe Mutombo - 1 (micahclay)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (twolves97)
Wes Unseld - 1 (pandrade83)


This thread will go into runoff sometime tomorrow morning (if in North America), approximately 17 or so hours from now. Get your picks in by then if you're going to.
Side note: hope Pablo is doing OK.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I'm fine; thanx for the concern.
Been busy trying to help with digging out survivors - but it took a while to figure out where help was most needed (hours-long walks didn't take us to any of the most-needy areas); and by then they were announcing they didn't need more digger-outers; but instead providers of stuff I/we can't provide, such as: place to sleep (my in-laws would never allow that); / camping tent (no $); food (no $), basic necessities (no $, no spare supplies); access to electricity to recharge cell phones (but in our area of town it doesn't seem that people went long without electricity).

btw, for those who haven't checked out any news/videos of the destruction here; if you just assume the city looks just like one of those earthquake movies - you've got it. (Early post-quake fotos showing dust-clouds from destroyed buildings sprinkled out in all directions; since then, large numbers of people trying to dig out would-be survivors MOSTLY BY HAND). Our general areas seems to have one of the least hardest-hit ones.

Additionally, my "horses in this race", Cousy then Schayes, can't get over the hump; and I've started feeling "useless" (if that's the right word) just re-posting the same old arguments for Cousy. Acknowledging that that is acceptable; I'll do so asap.

[Pablo Novi]

Vote: Cousy (My GOAT #15 - I've been voting him 1st or 2nd for about 30 threads! Oh well, lol!)
Alternate: Schayes (My GOAT #33 - I'm putting him above Moncrief cause Sidney's gotten ZERO traction so far).

Remaining un-selected players from my GOAT Top 50:
My GOAT #15, #3 PG: Cousy, Bob ... (40.5 "Points", TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Teams)
My GOAT #33, #7 PF: Schayes, D. .. (28.2 "Points", . SIX 1st-Team ALL-League selections, ... SIX 2nd-Teams)

H.M.:
My GOAT #30, #6 SG: Moncrief, S. . (18.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #35, #7 SG: Greer, Hal ... (17.5 "Points", . ZERO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, SEVEN 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #37, #8 PG: Iverson, A.... (25.6 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #38, #8 SF: TMac ........ (22.1 "Points", . TWO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #39, #8 PF: JLucas, Jerry (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #40, #8 SG: Westphal, P. . (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #43, #9 SF: Wilkins, D. ... (19.3 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #44, #9 PF: Stoudeire, A. (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #45, #9 SG: Harden, J. .. (16.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . ZERO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #49, #10 SF: Hill, Grant . (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #50, #10 PF: McGinnis ... (15.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)

Getting Traction Here (but not with me):
My GOAT #103,#11 C: Reed, Willis . (07.5 "Points", . ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)

Additional thoughts:
Cousy dominated HIS position during HIS era WAY MORE than anybody not-yet-selected. For me, that trumps just about everything else.

I've NEVER seen a GOAT list that didn't have Bob Cousy in its Top 50; heck, I've hardly ever seen one where he isn't Top 30 - including GOAT TOP 5 for the Celtics. (This in itself doesn't automatically mean that our list here is wrong; but TEN All-League 1st-Teams (and TWO additional 2nd-Teams) IS DOMINATION). My impression of the main-counter argument(s) is that the 50s were much weaker than the subsequent decades. I'm sure that's the case; but, again, a player can only dominate his own position during his own era - and he DID that.

Schayes got SIX 1st-Team and SIX 2nd-Team selections. Far more than anybody remaining not named Cousy.

As to the weakness of the 50s, I've already factored that in by a significant % reduction in their "Points". Cousy's "Points" have been reduced from 56 down to 40.5 and Schayes' "Points" have been reduced from 48 "Points" to 28.2.

[eminence]

Cousy's getting close for me, but Schayes for sure scores notably above him in my book. Behind Schayes I've got a couple big men I'm debating (Gasol/Mutombo) vs Cousy. Also, just as an aside, but I was kind of shocked at how low Issel scored on past lists (not quite ready to seriously dive into him, but at first glance he doesn't seem tiers below the upcoming big men). Getting votes with short cases down in case I don't wake up early enough tomorrow morning.

Vote: Dolph Schayes Very very good longevity for his era (don't forget his rookie year was spent in the NBL before moving to the NBA, where he won ROY and led the second best team in the league). Cousy dominated his position more than Schayes did, but his position was also spectacularly weak comparatively. Schayes was a good shooter, and the indicators I can see say that his defense goes beyond okay and into the realm of solidly good (Dirk tier). Don't think Pettit was more than a half step up on him when they were both in their primes. All in all it adds up to a guy who's probably knocking on a top 30 spot on my personal list.

Alternate: Dikembe Mutombo Don't feel great about Gasol's early years with Memphis, while I really like the work Deke did with Denver when he led them. As more supporting type guys both were phenomenal. Cousy was probably the best leading man of the trio, but I'm not super impressed with his time with Russell.

[euroleague]

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Harden
HM1: Domnique Wilkins
HM2: 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.

Hm1: Dominique - a player with epic head to head battles against larry bird, and a great locker room guy who could score in huge volume when he wished. 1988 ECSF - if that had gone slightly differently, it would've been the Hawks vs the Pistons in the ECF... And both those teams were better than the Lakers. 99% of that Pistons loss in 1988 was nerves.

HM2: 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.

[dhsilv2]

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Harden
HM1: Domnique Wilkins
HM2: 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.

Hm1: Dominique - a player with epic head to head battles against larry bird, and a great locker room guy who could score in huge volume when he wished. 1988 ECSF - if that had gone slightly differently, it would've been the Hawks vs the Pistons in the ECF... And both those teams were better than the Lakers. 99% of that Pistons loss in 1988 was nerves.

HM2: 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.

How is harden' flopping different from Manu? Harden is manu with more usage and minutes is he not? Full disclosure but Manu is for me is at this point going to go ahead of Harden. The RAPM data shows Manu was an elite player. And with these two the playoffs REALLy start to matter. 17 Harden is miles head of best manu regular season, but if we combine playoffs, Manu was so much better than Harden in 05, and 05 regular season was pretty pretty good. Harden's playoff BPM was an amazing god level 7.9. Manu's 05 playoff BPM was 8.7. Harden's PER was 23.0. Manu's was 24.8.

If you're rooting for Cousy for changing the game, then Manu was a bigger game changer than Harden.

[dhsilv2]

btw, for those who haven't checked out any news/videos of the destruction here; if you just assume the city looks just like one of those earthquake movies - you've got it. (Early post-quake fotos showing dust-clouds from destroyed buildings sprinkled out in all directions; since then, large numbers of people trying to dig out would-be survivors MOSTLY BY HAND). Our general areas seems to have one of the least hardest-hit ones.

Additionally, my "horses in this race", Cousy then Schayes, can't get over the hump; and I've started feeling "useless" (if that's the right word) just re-posting the same old arguments for Cousy. Acknowledging that that is acceptable; I'll do so asap.

This has been an absurdly awful year for natural disasters, and perhaps and all time great statement about how city planning needs to think long term. So glad to hear you're doing well and I'm loving that you have internet. It's a sign that things are working! Wishing you all the best.

Also loving your contributions here!

[euroleague]

How is harden' flopping different from Manu? Harden is manu with more usage and minutes is he not? Full disclosure but Manu is for me is at this point going to go ahead of Harden. The RAPM data shows Manu was an elite player. And with these two the playoffs REALLy start to matter. 17 Harden is miles head of best manu regular season, but if we combine playoffs, Manu was so much better than Harden in 05, and 05 regular season was pretty pretty good. Harden's playoff BPM was an amazing god level 7.9. Manu's 05 playoff BPM was 8.7. Harden's PER was 23.0. Manu's was 24.8.

If you're rooting for Cousy for changing the game, then Manu was a bigger game changer than Harden.

in terms of RAPM and BPM, Westbrook rules. But Harden just had a rule named after him, regarding shooting motion and calling fouls. Manu and Divac were floppers, but not like Harden who is has no shame.

Harden definitely is changing the game more though. The whole 3 and D set-up, that many speculated about with LBJ, clearly works with Harden. Harden is (offensively) one of the best players of the era, and his passing improved dramatically.

Manu was a very good player, but to rank him any higher I would have to see him win a title or at least lead a team on his own (or at least be a starter). 6th men can have inflated RAPM.

[dhsilv2]

Just get this offical.

Vote Reed An early stretch 5, in the sense of he could stretch teams out 15. He was a top tier defender in his era. He had 6-7 star level years with about 3 years of superstar level play. He has one of the 50 most iconic moments ever in sports, period, in his game 7 walking back on the court. All indications are he was a well above average team guy, a huge intangibles guy, he was the clear "captain" of one of the better teams of the 70's. He's an MVP and a two time finals MVP with enough allstar bids and all nba's to consider him here. He has his flaws, his career was short, and he likely wasn't the actual best player on his team for those titles. If we were talking earlier then I'll pass, but right now a two time champ and an MVP? He need his due!

The alt pick is ROUGH here.

My gut is Dave Cowens. 2 time champ, 3x all nba, 8x allstars, ROY, MVP, defensive first kinda guy, and he's MVP was no fluke. He finished top 4th, 2nd, and 3rd in mvp voting after his mvp and got some great MVP share traction in those votes (and this was against kareem at his best btw). He has 3 top 10 WS seasons and 4 VORP seasons. If you're not ok with reed because of career length you get much of his same accolades with a few more years here.

The guy I can't get a feel for is Unseld who seems based on the stats to be a "glue guy" and in the most epic way. He's got the MVP, the accolaids, and he just seems to be a great player. I tend to down grade scorers from 90 and before as being overrated, but this is a guy who didn't score that much and was so highly rated, it's crazy.

Iverson. I have a feeling he's going to get under valued. I get it, he was not loved by all and his stats seem a bit flat. But the guy took a team without offensive players to a finals. He was just such a stand out. No title hurts him here.

Westbrook doesn't have enough yet to move him over Iverson, so we'll wait on him.

Harden doesn't yet have a good case vs Manu.

Sam Jones - 3 top 10 PER seasons. 6 top 10 ws seasons, does well on the defensive metrics. 5x allstar and 3x all league. 2 top 5 mvp votes. I was higher on him before, but I'm downgrading him the more I look.

The defensive centers? Mutombo and Zo? Zo has a good case if we value that post jordan down era. I kinda downgrade 99-01 as the league was a mess. That is when Zo really peaked and honestly made a case for himself here. Mutombo was just never that good, though he was really good for a long time. A tough one to think about here. Still Mutombo could have never been the best player on a title team. He never won.

The volume scorers? I just don't see a Wilins or English here. I see better players above.

Alt - Iverson - Iverson is my personal favorite player who isn't Manu left. So I'm biased. But for all his flaws he was just darn darn darn good! He was better than pierce and better than miller when the were all in the league and nobody thought it was close. Sure I'm not supporting either of those two this high, but Iverson was and is imo a better player. So I'll continue with my Howard Trend and go with another recent guy here.

[dhsilv2]

How is harden' flopping different from Manu? Harden is manu with more usage and minutes is he not? Full disclosure but Manu is for me is at this point going to go ahead of Harden. The RAPM data shows Manu was an elite player. And with these two the playoffs REALLy start to matter. 17 Harden is miles head of best manu regular season, but if we combine playoffs, Manu was so much better than Harden in 05, and 05 regular season was pretty pretty good. Harden's playoff BPM was an amazing god level 7.9. Manu's 05 playoff BPM was 8.7. Harden's PER was 23.0. Manu's was 24.8.

If you're rooting for Cousy for changing the game, then Manu was a bigger game changer than Harden.

in terms of RAPM and BPM, Westbrook rules. But Harden just had a rule named after him, regarding shooting motion and calling fouls. Manu and Divac were floppers, but not like Harden who is has no shame.

Harden definitely is changing the game more though. The whole 3 and D set-up, that many speculated about with LBJ, clearly works with Harden. Harden is (offensively) one of the best players of the era, and his passing improved dramatically.

Manu was a very good player, but to rank him any higher I would have to see him win a title or at least lead a team on his own (or at least be a starter). 6th men can have inflated RAPM.

Manu was NOT a freaking 6th man! 05 Manu started EVERY game! I'm so tired of hearing how Manu was this bench guy. he lead the league in RAPM as a starter! During his prime he was a starter the majority of the time!

Manu is credited with popularizing the euro step in the nba. That is far more important than anything Harden has done.

If you want to discredit manu for less minutes or a lesser role, then I can't complain about those valid complaints. But the guy was a starter at his peak, he mostly started. Pop limited his minutes, but all the players today are seeing that trend continue. Manu might be the case study used for modern minute rashining, which again would make him more influential.

Manu won 4 titles and had a reasonable case for a finals MVP in 05. I'm fine if you take harden, but harden hasn't had the same impact on the game.

[Pablo Novi]

btw, for those who haven't checked out any news/videos of the destruction here; if you just assume the city looks just like one of those earthquake movies - you've got it. (Early post-quake fotos showing dust-clouds from destroyed buildings sprinkled out in all directions; since then, large numbers of people trying to dig out would-be survivors MOSTLY BY HAND). Our general areas seems to have one of the least hardest-hit ones.

Additionally, my "horses in this race", Cousy then Schayes, can't get over the hump; and I've started feeling "useless" (if that's the right word) just re-posting the same old arguments for Cousy. Acknowledging that that is acceptable; I'll do so asap.

This has been an absurdly awful year for natural disasters, and perhaps and all time great statement about how city planning needs to think long term. So glad to hear you're doing well and I'm loving that you have internet. It's a sign that things are working! Wishing you all the best.

Also loving your contributions here!

Thanx for the well-wishes and compliments; I REALLY appreciate them.

Earthquake "stuff":
TWO MONSTER QUAKES IN 10 DAYS:
We've had TWO monster quakes in 10 days. The first was an 8.0, much further away from Mexico City - and did relatively little damage HERE - but the sheer number, an 8-point quake, had people plenty jumpy. With this new one, inevitably there's bound to be some kind of psychic shift amongst the 20+ million people here.

CLOSED-FOR-BUSINESS
Yesterday we walked to downtown, 45 minutes each way (neither of us has any interest in getting on the Metro anymore (I can only imagine what it was like either underground (most stations) or high up (a few stations). We've got a legal issue going, so we were checking in for an update - but almost everybody was off work (particularly the actual legal bureaucrats. Some of them were sitting outside. One joked that the guy we most deal with was, "still buried under the rubble"; and I responded, "Yeah, and nobody's volunteered to dig him out!" Which got a big scream of laughter from three people, one of which we'd never seen even smile before.

A MASS "CONFESSIONAL"
This is a HIGHLY (Catholic) religious country. Everybody is talking about how, as the shaking ripped thru the buildings, people were praying AND begging God for forgiveness for their latest and/or un-confessed "sins". Meaning: a LOT of people PUBLICLY revealed a LOT of stuff (that they'd normally never reveal to anybody but their priest) to people they would NEVER normally reveal anything to. Once confessed, there's no way to erase the memory - so there's going to be a TON of awkward interactions / relationships in the days to come.

HIGH PANIC IN HIGH PLACES
One interesting dynamic: its SOP that in tall office buildings, the security staff do NOT allow the people on the higher floors to even begin to try to descend until both the shaking stops AND people are clearly showing that they are NOT in panic mode. This makes sense as you can't allow too many people onto the stairs at any one time; particularly trying to descend as rapidly as possible. Given how much the upper floors moved, that panic mode must have been near-universal. Not being allowed to move towards the stairwells must have only made many people even more nervous.

We've seen a whole number of closely-built buildings that suffered significant damage to their upper corners - such building-to-building collisions must have been one of the worst experiences.

ELEVATOR HELL
And then there's all the people stuck in the elevators.

HOW MANY BUILDINGS WILL HAVE TO BE TORN DOWN
Most of the damage we've seen came in two widely separate categories: wiped-out buildings vs building SHOWING little to no damage. You have to wonder how many of the buildings with little external visible damage have been weakened enough to merit either major renovations or complete demolitions?

The MONSTER quake that hit PRECISELY 32 years earlier just wrecked havoc on the city - massive destruction, death and injury. Upgraded quake-codes prevented anything approaching that.

PSYCHIATRY IN MOTION
The psychological repercussions are going to be many, massive and a bit hard to predict.
A) Employees in tall buildings are gonna be seriously questioning remaining in those jobs;
B) People who live in or next to tall buildings are gonna face similar questions;
C) People who (will) have on-going reasons to visit offices in tall buildings are gonna re-evaluate how important those issues are to them VS the risks. We wouldn't be surprised if the number of legal cases, for example, gets significantly reduced,as people decide that:
i) bogus cases aren't worth the physical risk;
ii) real cases aren't worth the physical risk given how long most of those cases drag out. (Legal intra-family battles TEND to drag out beyond 10 years! We're aware of a number of cases that have gone on over 20 years with no end in sight.)

OOPS! EARTH-QUAKE WARNING SIRENS ARE GOING OFF!!!

[pandrade83]

Just get this offical.

Vote Reed An early stretch 5, in the sense of he could stretch teams out 15. He was a top tier defender in his era. He had 6-7 star level years with about 3 years of superstar level play. He has one of the 50 most iconic moments ever in sports, period, in his game 7 walking back on the court. All indications are he was a well above average team guy, a huge intangibles guy, he was the clear "captain" of one of the better teams of the 70's. He's an MVP and a two time finals MVP with enough allstar bids and all nba's to consider him here. He has his flaws, his career was short, and he likely wasn't the actual best player on his team for those titles. If we were talking earlier then I'll pass, but right now a two time champ and an MVP? He need his due!

The alt pick is ROUGH here.

My gut is Dave Cowens. 2 time champ, 3x all nba, 8x allstars, ROY, MVP, defensive first kinda guy, and he's MVP was no fluke. He finished top 4th, 2nd, and 3rd in mvp voting after his mvp and got some great MVP share traction in those votes (and this was against kareem at his best btw). He has 3 top 10 WS seasons and 4 VORP seasons. If you're not ok with reed because of career length you get much of his same accolades with a few more years here.

The guy I can't get a feel for is Unseld who seems based on the stats to be a "glue guy" and in the most epic way. He's got the MVP, the accolaids, and he just seems to be a great player. I tend to down grade scorers from 90 and before as being overrated, but this is a guy who didn't score that much and was so highly rated, it's crazy.

Iverson. I have a feeling he's going to get under valued. I get it, he was not loved by all and his stats seem a bit flat. But the guy took a team without offensive players to a finals. He was just such a stand out. No title hurts him here.

Westbrook doesn't have enough yet to move him over Iverson, so we'll wait on him.

Harden doesn't yet have a good case vs Manu.

Sam Jones - 3 top 10 PER seasons. 6 top 10 ws seasons, does well on the defensive metrics. 5x allstar and 3x all league. 2 top 5 mvp votes. I was higher on him before, but I'm downgrading him the more I look.

The defensive centers? Mutombo and Zo? Zo has a good case if we value that post jordan down era. I kinda downgrade 99-01 as the league was a mess. That is when Zo really peaked and honestly made a case for himself here. Mutombo was just never that good, though he was really good for a long time. A tough one to think about here. Still Mutombo could have never been the best player on a title team. He never won.

The volume scorers? I just don't see a Wilins or English here. I see better players above.

Alt - Iverson - Iverson is my personal favorite player who isn't Manu left. So I'm biased. But for all his flaws he was just darn darn darn good! He was better than pierce and better than miller when the were all in the league and nobody thought it was close. Sure I'm not supporting either of those two this high, but Iverson was and is imo a better player. So I'll continue with my Howard Trend and go with another recent guy here.

On unseld being a glue guy - the impact he has in stats - strong passing, excellent rebounding, strong turnover efficiency (averaged 1.8 for years we know of) and efficient scoring - translate to robust vorp and bpm scores. For the past several runs he's usually posted more vorp and bpm scores at 5 or higher than the runoff candidates combined (see my post for more details)

[dhsilv2]

Just get this offical.

Vote Reed An early stretch 5, in the sense of he could stretch teams out 15. He was a top tier defender in his era. He had 6-7 star level years with about 3 years of superstar level play. He has one of the 50 most iconic moments ever in sports, period, in his game 7 walking back on the court. All indications are he was a well above average team guy, a huge intangibles guy, he was the clear "captain" of one of the better teams of the 70's. He's an MVP and a two time finals MVP with enough allstar bids and all nba's to consider him here. He has his flaws, his career was short, and he likely wasn't the actual best player on his team for those titles. If we were talking earlier then I'll pass, but right now a two time champ and an MVP? He need his due!

The alt pick is ROUGH here.

My gut is Dave Cowens. 2 time champ, 3x all nba, 8x allstars, ROY, MVP, defensive first kinda guy, and he's MVP was no fluke. He finished top 4th, 2nd, and 3rd in mvp voting after his mvp and got some great MVP share traction in those votes (and this was against kareem at his best btw). He has 3 top 10 WS seasons and 4 VORP seasons. If you're not ok with reed because of career length you get much of his same accolades with a few more years here.

The guy I can't get a feel for is Unseld who seems based on the stats to be a "glue guy" and in the most epic way. He's got the MVP, the accolaids, and he just seems to be a great player. I tend to down grade scorers from 90 and before as being overrated, but this is a guy who didn't score that much and was so highly rated, it's crazy.

Iverson. I have a feeling he's going to get under valued. I get it, he was not loved by all and his stats seem a bit flat. But the guy took a team without offensive players to a finals. He was just such a stand out. No title hurts him here.

Westbrook doesn't have enough yet to move him over Iverson, so we'll wait on him.

Harden doesn't yet have a good case vs Manu.

Sam Jones - 3 top 10 PER seasons. 6 top 10 ws seasons, does well on the defensive metrics. 5x allstar and 3x all league. 2 top 5 mvp votes. I was higher on him before, but I'm downgrading him the more I look.

The defensive centers? Mutombo and Zo? Zo has a good case if we value that post jordan down era. I kinda downgrade 99-01 as the league was a mess. That is when Zo really peaked and honestly made a case for himself here. Mutombo was just never that good, though he was really good for a long time. A tough one to think about here. Still Mutombo could have never been the best player on a title team. He never won.

The volume scorers? I just don't see a Wilins or English here. I see better players above.

Alt - Iverson - Iverson is my personal favorite player who isn't Manu left. So I'm biased. But for all his flaws he was just darn darn darn good! He was better than pierce and better than miller when the were all in the league and nobody thought it was close. Sure I'm not supporting either of those two this high, but Iverson was and is imo a better player. So I'll continue with my Howard Trend and go with another recent guy here.

On unseld being a glue guy - the impact he has in stats - strong passing, excellent rebounding, strong turnover efficiency (averaged 1.8 for years we know of) and efficient scoring - translate to robust vorp and bpm scores. For the past several runs he's usually posted more vorp and bpm scores at 5 or higher than the runoff candidates combined (see my post for more details)

My issue is that BPM and VORP can overrate really easily.

What I'd like on him is a bit of contemporary praise/discussion. People who thought he was THAT good at the time and a bit more detail. I've looked a bit, I've seen enough to think highly of him. I'm just not ready to vote him here, but I'm actually more open on moving him up/changing my vote to him than anyone else on the board. I just need a bit more, and I haven't seen it googling yet.