RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #47 (Ray Allen)

[Outside]

Younger Allen was more versatile, pretty athletic (especially with Bucks) and had no issues creating his own shot. Was actually a pretty good ballhandler in MIL and SEA.

More versatile than one-trick pony Ray at the end of his career, sure, but he wasn't a gifted ballhandler or playmaker, and that part of his game eroded over time.

Discussing these guys seems like something of a lose-lose situation. Ray Allen was really, really good. He had great efficiency, made more threes than anyone in history, and played in 10 all-star games. But in discussing the relative strengths and weaknesses of players for an all-time list, things that they were merely good at become weaknesses compared to all-time greats. Ray Allen's game in Milwaukee and Seattle was very good, but it doesn't hold up from a versatility standpoint when compared to the top players of all time.

[Outside]

It should be noted Reed was an all nba defensive team selection once so saying he was an offensive guy I think under sells him on that end. He was form all I have seen an impact defender, though some of that is likely coming from his teammates who were very good on that end.

Reed was a good defender. He was strong and smart, and he fit in well with an excellent defensive team (the Knicks led the league in opponent scoring three straight seasons starting in 1968-69). But he was part of a good defense, not a defensive anchor like Russell or Thurmond. In 1971-72, with Reed missing all but 11 games, the Knicks dropped only two spots to third in opponent scoring and actually gave up fewer points per game than the previous season.

The league average pace was dropping quite rapidly, though: it fell by 3.1 from '71 to '72 (and the Knicks' pace fell by 4.2)......that effects the ppg allowed. In terms of league rank in DRtg, they fell from 2nd to 6th, and there's a noticeable relation in their rDRTG:

'71: -3.9
'72: -1.6
'73: -4.3

I personally feel Reed was the most important defensive player on that team some of those years (though perhaps not by a large margin over guys like Frazier or DeBusschere, and I generally agree that he's not the same class of defensive anchor as Thurmond or Russell).

You're right about the pace, and rDRtg is a better gauge. I was lazy and just went with opponent PPG.

I think we're all in the same neighborhood assessing Reed as a defender, though I wouldn't go as far as saying that he was the most important defender some years. Those Knicks are a classic example of egalitarian basketball, where everyone was capable of scoring and everyone could defend. The defense started with Frazier hounding the opposing point guard and everyone behind him playing solid positional defense throughout the possession, forcing the opponent into lower percentage shots as often as possible.

As for the drop in rDRtg in 72, I'll characterize it this way: they lost a solid defender in Reed, and they replaced him with a below-average defender in Jerry Lucas. Of course their rDRtg went down.

[dhsilv2]

For the runoff, as it often does for me, this one is sort of decided by the longevity.
As much as I like Willis Reed's game, I just don't think his career----which is essentially only 8 seasons (not counting 11 ineffectual games in '72, and 19 games as only slightly above average in '74), only five that could generously be called prime seasons----can quite stack up to the total career value of either Iverson or Allen (both of whom had primes that add up to more games than Reed played in his entire career).

I find how people think on these things pretty interesting.

Lets say we have a hypothetical player, who has a 4 year career. 4 MVP's 4 titles and while the clear best player in the league......

Just so we're clear: what you've described is significantly better than Reed ever was.
But hypothetically speaking, that might put this player ahead of the candidates here (if we're talking about a player in a competitive era). Not sure, depends on the specifics.

As an example, I rank Stephen Curry ahead of all three of these runoff candidates, even though he's only played 8 seasons. But three of his seasons have been "holy ****!" good (like any one of them would put him in the top 20-25 [at least] on a peaks list for me), one other is clear All-NBA (1st or 2nd team) caliber, another is clear All-Star (maybe 3rd team) caliber, another is borderline All-Star level; the remaining two seasons are his rookie year (which was at least average) and an injury year (missed more than half the season, though was playing at an All-Star click when active).

But though I rank Curry ahead of these candidates, I rank him lower than we [collectively] have in this project. #29 was too high by my criteria (again on basis of longevity, which is lacking).

I was clearly *hoping* to put a candidate who should rank ahead of Reed, but I went with 4 years as a full career with the hope of getting you to give me a rough idea of who is the "one" better and the "one" worse, clearly knowing this was an insanely hard hypothetical.

Curry with 8 years is far too long a career to compare for this. I on another thread brought up Alex Groza who I get, 50's is a non factor here, but he looked to be on his way to having a 72 career winshare after 4 years. If we had a guy even remotely close to that in a 4 year span, I'd *hope* said player would be in by now. However with the focus on longevity, I'm trying figure out not just if, but when.

[dhsilv2]

Reed was a good defender. He was strong and smart, and he fit in well with an excellent defensive team (the Knicks led the league in opponent scoring three straight seasons starting in 1968-69). But he was part of a good defense, not a defensive anchor like Russell or Thurmond. In 1971-72, with Reed missing all but 11 games, the Knicks dropped only two spots to third in opponent scoring and actually gave up fewer points per game than the previous season.

The league average pace was dropping quite rapidly, though: it fell by 3.1 from '71 to '72 (and the Knicks' pace fell by 4.2)......that effects the ppg allowed. In terms of league rank in DRtg, they fell from 2nd to 6th, and there's a noticeable relation in their rDRTG:

'71: -3.9
'72: -1.6
'73: -4.3

I personally feel Reed was the most important defensive player on that team some of those years (though perhaps not by a large margin over guys like Frazier or DeBusschere, and I generally agree that he's not the same class of defensive anchor as Thurmond or Russell).

You're right about the pace, and rDRtg is a better gauge. I was lazy and just went with opponent PPG.

I think we're all in the same neighborhood assessing Reed as a defender, though I wouldn't go as far as saying that he was the most important defender some years. Those Knicks are a classic example of egalitarian basketball, where everyone was capable of scoring and everyone could defend. The defense started with Frazier hounding the opposing point guard and everyone behind him playing solid positional defense throughout the possession, forcing the opponent into lower percentage shots as often as possible.

As for the drop in rDRtg in 72, I'll characterize it this way: they lost a solid defender in Reed, and they replaced him with a below-average defender in Jerry Lucas. Of course their rDRtg went down.

Just to voice my view in simple terms. If you were close on Reed vs Iverson, but didn't think the gap in defense is significant, well imo it was. It was pretty meaningful. If you thought that and just didn't say it but still value Iverson, I fully respect that.

[pandrade83]

This is another batch where I'm not in love with any of them.

Reed has one of (but not the very) highest peaks of anyone left and that's meaningful. But his longevity is a real problem for me.

I loved watching Allen Iverson play - but I think it's very hard to win a championship with him in prime form.

Ray Allen has a fairly low peak for this juncture - there's at least 10-15 guys left with a stronger peak. I'd like to see us get back to players who were closer to the top tier.

Allen has a demonstrated impact on his team's offensive ratings and is a clear boon to offensive performance. He wasn't better than peak Reed, but the longevity more than off-sets it and I feel like if I had a team that was winning high 40's/low 50's, Allen is going to materially impact my ability to win a title more than Iverson.

Run-off vote: Ray Allen

[euroleague]

Run-off vote: Willis Reed

Clearly the most dominant 2-way peak of the candidates, he had perhaps the single greatest intangible impact ever recorded when he came back to play the game after getting injured.

Better accolades, better success as a star than the other candidates, and a better player compared to his contemporaries.

[Outside]

Just to voice my view in simple terms. If you were close on Reed vs Iverson, but didn't think the gap in defense is significant, well imo it was. It was pretty meaningful. If you thought that and just didn't say it but still value Iverson, I fully respect that.

Yes, defense was clearly in Reed's favor. But I started out from the position that Reed had a big mountain to climb due to longevity, and he doesn't get there.

It was actually an interesting exercise. I started out with Reed as my choice, probably just because I like him as a player, but by the time I went through all the factors, it was clear to me that Iverson was the choice.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Wilkins English and Dantley SHOULD be better arguments than Richmond.

And they also should be better arguments than Ray Allen.

The point is not that Mitch Richmond is a Top 50 player, the point is that neither is Ray Allen. In fact Ray Allen WAS Mitch Richmond until he got lucky enough to get traded to go run for bagels in Boston, then ran away to go do the same for Bron. Largely the same character. Begins career as part of a three-headed moderately successful monster in Milwaukee, just as Mitch did in Golden State. Then gets traded off to an unsuccessful stint as not-quite-good-enough-to-be franchise player on a West Coast team. Makes the playoffs once on his own. And along the way these are his pace-adjusted stats compared to Richmond's:

Per 100 Possessions
Allen 28.0pts (.452 .400 .894) 6.0reb 5.0ast 1.7stl 0.3blk 3.1TO
Mitch 29.6pts (.455 .388 .850) 5.5reb 4.9ast 1.7ast 0.3blk 3.7TO

idk, this again seems a little "spun" and not quite like an apples to apples comparison.

For one, you're comparing career numbers here, despite one career having lasted 14 years while the other was 18.

If we look only at Allen's first 14 seasons, we see the following per 100 possession numbers:
29.3 pts, 6.2 reb, 5.3 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.3 TOV.....in 37.1 mpg, fwiw (Richmond's career avg was marginally lower 35.2).

Secondly, the manner in which you presented some of the shooting data is inappropriate: you utilized raw FG% (which favors Richmond by a near-negligible amount), despite the fact that Allen had a MUCH higher 3PAr.
If we look at % by area:
Richmond: 47.4% 2pt, 38.8% 3pt, 85.0% FT
Allen ('97-'10): 48.3% 2pt, 39.6% 3pt, 89.4% FT

So we see Allen is actually a little better from absolutely everywhere on the court (his career %'s are actually marginally better than his "1st 14 season" sample, fwiw)----57.6% TS [58.0% for career] vs 55.7% for Richmond----while scoring the same volume. Simultaneously was the slightly better rebounder and playmaker (higher ast anyway), while turning the ball over less (Allen's career rs Modified TOV% is 8.27 [7.73% in the playoffs], Richmond's is 9.24).

....and then, where Richmond's career was over, Allen went on to play 4 more useful seasons beyond that.
On the flip-side, Richmond was a better defender. But not exactly a stalwart defender (and it's not like Allen was James Harden bad defensively); tbh, I'm not sure his defensive advantage equals the statistical edge we can clearly see for Allen. And that's before we consider the additional four seasons.


Measuring team success in raw terms is no contest, but the water is terribly muddied by the awful casts Richmond had in Sacramento. However, if we look at Allen-led teams like the '01 Bucks or '05 Sonics, are those casts so much better as to account for a +5-6 SRS difference that exists between them and the BEST Richmond-led cast? It's open for debate, but it's a bit of a hard sell for me.
I also note that where the Allen-led teams were good was pretty consistently on offense. In fact, once Allen was in his prime, there was not a single Allen-led team that was NOT at least top 10 offensively (SIX times they were in the top 3, once #1).


Context is very important to consider, although ultimately, there's a finite amount speculative "correcting" for career luck I'm willing to do where Richmond (or anyone) is concerned. EDIT: And further it should be considered that Allen put up similar or slightly better numbers for [mostly] better teams. Even if the teams are better because of his supporting cast--->a stronger supporting cast means less need for a star player to put up big numbers (because he has more talent around him).

I can't really get a peg on how you feel about "correcting" for career luck. You panned Pau Gasol in the last thread for going 0-12 in the playoffs in Memphis. Still......that's THREE times he led them into the playoffs [in a tough as nails WC] as the clear [often by far] best player; he never had a truly "good" cast in Memphis (three years of roughly average supporting cast......and those are the years they made the playoffs).

But otoh you'll quickly give DeMarcus a pass on the bad records because his casts have been trash, and apparently the same goes for Richmond (who had a 1-4 playoff record in ONE playoff appearance in EIGHT seasons as the top dog). You frequently spurn the team success of others with facetious remarks about how players "magically become winners once they get on a good team".

So it seems for you a player's team success [or lack there of] is sometimes not of his doing (e.g. Cousins, Richmond), and other times the team result is their fault.

Setting aside that being asked to elevate Sacramento is 7th circle of hell stuff far in excess of having All Stars on your roster the way Ray did, or 10-man deep solid stacks of veterans like Pau did...

I am not the one who is inconsistent in these things. You will not have seen me one single time nominate ANY of these guys. you keep on raising Boogie and now Richmond as if I have put them up for early consideration. I have not. I am very consistent. They are not up. And neither should Ray, nor Pau, nor Deke, or any other third tier not good enough to get it done himself dude. I believe every one of those guys belongs in this project. But not NOW. Not so early while blatantly ignoring First Ballot HOFers.

And actually, I don't myself consider elevating bad teams a major front-burning concern. I point it out, repeatedly, precisely because several of you, and the several of you driving what I consider to be some of these misreadings of history, make SUCH a point of it. It's almost a single-minded obsession.

For example, this is now the 3rd time you've spontaneously raised DeMarcus Cousins in these threads. And I thought I was a fan. I'd like to think it's because you suddenly realized the extreme danger you are subjecting yourself to with Cousins now free of Sacramento and in danger of starting to win. The internet does not forget afterall. But no, more likely is because you (used in the plural) find it absolutely inconceivable, like OMG my brain is exploding inconceivable, to support Demarcus Cousins in a thing like this. And if that's true, now you know how I feel at the blatant disrespect of history involved in repeatedly elevating third tier characters above defining figures. Nobody will ever know who Ray Allen was in 30 years. For good reason. And no, they won't know Mitch either, also for good reason. One day they'll be Neil Johnston, oh, was he good too?

So here is a challenge for you, just to expose the problem that I am seeing again and again: make an argument against DeMarcus Cousins that does NOT involve his lack of winning (or metrics which rely heavily on winning). That should make you think a bit, because it's virtually impossible. He's one of the most productive players in NBA history. But the winning issue, in absolutely brutal circumstances too, trumps EVERYTHING with him. At least for some.

I think that's a short-sided mistake to make. It doesn't display any insight as to a player's actual abilities, and substitutes in a broad team-based statistic in place of individual work. But ok...it's your standard (again used in the plural). Then STICK TO IT. Be consistent. I don't raise the shaky individual history of guys because it's what I look at first, I raise it because, SOME of the time, it's used as an absolute disqualifier. Because people are elevating third tier characters up over up over dominant franchise players on the excuse that oh, those franchise guys were overrated, after all, they couldn't win. Which is poppycock.

You know what the record of Ray Allen's teams was in the ELEVEN (11) years before he landed in Boston? 428-442 .492. That is through age 31. And he had at least one All Star level teammate through many/most of those years. So that is the great winner unfrocked.

All that Ray Allen proved, as a winner, is that he could win a title if paired with at least 2 HOFs and 1 Top 15 player of all time while functioning as a 3rd or 4th weapon. That's all we know about him as a winner. And...whoopee? I mean, who couldn't? Let's go trade Boogie off to the Cavs and see if he doesn't win next to a much older LeBron/Wade pair. Or, let's put Mitch on those Boston teams. Or Joe Dumars. Or Reggie. Or Klay Thompson for that matter. Manu. Any number of guys who have not been taken yet, and should not be taken yet. It's entirely possible those titles could have been won with a lesser guy who won't even get mention like Eddie Jones (who BTW has only 1 All NBA less than Ray).

Ray Allen absolutely belongs in this project. I don't even object to the idea that Ray Allen belongs in ahead of MItch. If we were talking here and Ray was being nominated at #64, and Mitch not until #71. Wouldn't bother me at all. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a career long also ran who gets dumped into an absolutely perfect late career situation that any number of equal or lesser figures could have succeeded in. And because he's next to great players he gets to rack up double figure "win shares" for being a 15ppg roleplayer like a poor man's Rip Hamilton. And now suddenly this guy who we had ENORMOUS amounts of individual datapoints on, get's thrown up on what is basically the new 50 Greatest list. And there's just no way he belongs here. In 20 picks he belongs. In conversations about Ray v. Mitch v. Webber v. Pau v. Manu v. Lanier etc., he belongs. Not in conversations with MVPs and MVP candidates who by the way ALL won more than he did before he became Byron Scott.

[euroleague]

Wilkins English and Dantley SHOULD be better arguments than Richmond.

And they also should be better arguments than Ray Allen.

The point is not that Mitch Richmond is a Top 50 player, the point is that neither is Ray Allen. In fact Ray Allen WAS Mitch Richmond until he got lucky enough to get traded to go run for bagels in Boston, then ran away to go do the same for Bron. Largely the same character. Begins career as part of a three-headed moderately successful monster in Milwaukee, just as Mitch did in Golden State. Then gets traded off to an unsuccessful stint as not-quite-good-enough-to-be franchise player on a West Coast team. Makes the playoffs once on his own. And along the way these are his pace-adjusted stats compared to Richmond's:

Per 100 Possessions
Allen 28.0pts (.452 .400 .894) 6.0reb 5.0ast 1.7stl 0.3blk 3.1TO
Mitch 29.6pts (.455 .388 .850) 5.5reb 4.9ast 1.7ast 0.3blk 3.7TO

idk, this again seems a little "spun" and not quite like an apples to apples comparison.

For one, you're comparing career numbers here, despite one career having lasted 14 years while the other was 18.

If we look only at Allen's first 14 seasons, we see the following per 100 possession numbers:
29.3 pts, 6.2 reb, 5.3 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.3 TOV.....in 37.1 mpg, fwiw (Richmond's career avg was marginally lower 35.2).

Secondly, the manner in which you presented some of the shooting data is inappropriate: you utilized raw FG% (which favors Richmond by a near-negligible amount), despite the fact that Allen had a MUCH higher 3PAr.
If we look at % by area:
Richmond: 47.4% 2pt, 38.8% 3pt, 85.0% FT
Allen ('97-'10): 48.3% 2pt, 39.6% 3pt, 89.4% FT

So we see Allen is actually a little better from absolutely everywhere on the court (his career %'s are actually marginally better than his "1st 14 season" sample, fwiw)----57.6% TS [58.0% for career] vs 55.7% for Richmond----while scoring the same volume. Simultaneously was the slightly better rebounder and playmaker (higher ast anyway), while turning the ball over less (Allen's career rs Modified TOV% is 8.27 [7.73% in the playoffs], Richmond's is 9.24).

....and then, where Richmond's career was over, Allen went on to play 4 more useful seasons beyond that.
On the flip-side, Richmond was a better defender. But not exactly a stalwart defender (and it's not like Allen was James Harden bad defensively); tbh, I'm not sure his defensive advantage equals the statistical edge we can clearly see for Allen. And that's before we consider the additional four seasons.


Measuring team success in raw terms is no contest, but the water is terribly muddied by the awful casts Richmond had in Sacramento. However, if we look at Allen-led teams like the '01 Bucks or '05 Sonics, are those casts so much better as to account for a +5-6 SRS difference that exists between them and the BEST Richmond-led cast? It's open for debate, but it's a bit of a hard sell for me.
I also note that where the Allen-led teams were good was pretty consistently on offense. In fact, once Allen was in his prime, there was not a single Allen-led team that was NOT at least top 10 offensively (SIX times they were in the top 3, once #1).


Context is very important to consider, although ultimately, there's a finite amount speculative "correcting" for career luck I'm willing to do where Richmond (or anyone) is concerned. EDIT: And further it should be considered that Allen put up similar or slightly better numbers for [mostly] better teams. Even if the teams are better because of his supporting cast--->a stronger supporting cast means less need for a star player to put up big numbers (because he has more talent around him).

I can't really get a peg on how you feel about "correcting" for career luck. You panned Pau Gasol in the last thread for going 0-12 in the playoffs in Memphis. Still......that's THREE times he led them into the playoffs [in a tough as nails WC] as the clear [often by far] best player; he never had a truly "good" cast in Memphis (three years of roughly average supporting cast......and those are the years they made the playoffs).

But otoh you'll quickly give DeMarcus a pass on the bad records because his casts have been trash, and apparently the same goes for Richmond (who had a 1-4 playoff record in ONE playoff appearance in EIGHT seasons as the top dog). You frequently spurn the team success of others with facetious remarks about how players "magically become winners once they get on a good team".

So it seems for you a player's team success [or lack there of] is sometimes not of his doing (e.g. Cousins, Richmond), and other times the team result is their fault.

Setting aside that being asked to elevate Sacramento is 7th circle of hell stuff far in excess of having All Stars on your roster the way Ray did, or 10-man deep solid stacks of veterans like Pau did...

I am not the one who is inconsistent in these things. You will not have seen me one single time nominate ANY of these guys. you keep on raising Boogie and now Richmond as if I have put them up for early consideration. I have not. I am very consistent. They are not up. And neither should Ray, nor Pau, nor Deke, or any other third tier not good enough to get it done himself dude. I believe every one of those guys belongs in this project. But not NOW. Not so early while blatantly ignoring First Ballot HOFers.

And actually, I don't myself consider elevating bad teams a major front-burning concern. I point it out, repeatedly, precisely because several of you, and the several of you driving what I consider to be some of these misreadings of history, make SUCH a point of it. It's almost a single-minded obsession.

For example, this is now the 3rd time you've spontaneously raised DeMarcus Cousins in these threads. And I thought I was a fan. I'd like to think it's because you suddenly realized the extreme danger you are subjecting yourself to with Cousins now free of Sacramento and in danger of starting to win. The internet does not forget afterall. But no, more likely is because you (used in the plural) find it absolutely inconceivable, like OMG my brain is exploding inconceivable, to support Demarcus Cousins in a thing like this. And if that's true, now you know how I feel at the blatant disrespect of history involved in repeatedly elevating third tier characters above defining figures. Nobody will ever know who Ray Allen was in 30 years. For good reason. And no, they won't know Mitch either, also for good reason. One day they'll be Neil Johnston, oh, was he good too?

So here is a challenge for you, just to expose the problem that I am seeing again and again: make an argument against DeMarcus Cousins that does NOT involve his lack of winning (or metrics which rely heavily on winning). That should make you think a bit, because it's virtually impossible. He's one of the most productive players in NBA history. But the winning issue, in absolutely brutal circumstances too, trumps EVERYTHING with him. At least for some.

I think that's a short-sided mistake to make. It doesn't display any insight as to a player's actual abilities, and substitutes in a broad team-based statistic in place of individual work. But ok...it's your standard (again used in the plural). Then STICK TO IT. Be consistent. I don't raise the shaky individual history of guys because it's what I look at first, I raise it because, SOME of the time, it's used as an absolute disqualifier. Because people are elevating third tier characters up over up over dominant franchise players on the excuse that oh, those franchise guys were overrated, after all, they couldn't win. Which is poppycock.

You know what the record of Ray Allen's teams was in the ELEVEN (11) years before he landed in Boston? 428-442 .492. That is through age 31. And he had at least one All Star level teammate through many/most of those years. So that is the great winner unfrocked.

All that Ray Allen proved, as a winner, is that he could win a title if paired with at least 2 HOFs and 1 Top 15 player of all time while functioning as a 3rd or 4th weapon. That's all we know about him as a winner. And...whoopee? I mean, who couldn't? Let's go trade Boogie off to the Cavs and see if he doesn't win next to a much older LeBron/Wade pair. Or, let's put Mitch on those Boston teams. Or Joe Dumars. Or Reggie. Or Klay Thompson for that matter. Manu. Any number of guys who have not been taken yet, and should not be taken yet. It's entirely possible those titles could have been won with a lesser guy who won't even get mention like Eddie Jones (who BTW has only 1 All NBA less than Ray).

Ray Allen absolutely belongs in this project. I don't even object to the idea that Ray Allen belongs in ahead of MItch. If we were talking here and Ray was being nominated at #64, and Mitch not until #71. Wouldn't bother me at all. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a career long also ran who gets dumped into an absolutely perfect late career situation that any number of equal or lesser figures could have succeeded in. And because he's next to great players he gets to rack up double figure "win shares" for being a 15ppg roleplayer like a poor man's Rip Hamilton. And now suddenly this guy who we had ENORMOUS amounts of individual datapoints on, get's thrown up on what is basically the new 50 Greatest list. And there's just no way he belongs here. In 20 picks he belongs. In conversations about Ray v. Mitch v. Webber v. Pau v. Manu v. Lanier etc., he belongs. Not in conversations with MVPs and MVP candidates who by the way ALL won more than he did before he became Byron Scott.

DeMarcus Cousins intangibles cause his team to not win. He is a rare player whose intangibles are so bad, they hurt an organization. He's like the Terrell Owens of basketball.

I agree that Ray Allen doesn't belong in the top 50 above Dominique. I also think Harden/Westbrook are both better than Ray Allen, and don't see much argument for Ray Allen against them.

It seems like this project should really end at 50 or 60. the last 40 spots are gonna be really biased, as the players are no longer "greatest".

[pandrade83]

Wilkins English and Dantley SHOULD be better arguments than Richmond.

And they also should be better arguments than Ray Allen.

The point is not that Mitch Richmond is a Top 50 player, the point is that neither is Ray Allen. In fact Ray Allen WAS Mitch Richmond until he got lucky enough to get traded to go run for bagels in Boston, then ran away to go do the same for Bron. Largely the same character. Begins career as part of a three-headed moderately successful monster in Milwaukee, just as Mitch did in Golden State. Then gets traded off to an unsuccessful stint as not-quite-good-enough-to-be franchise player on a West Coast team. Makes the playoffs once on his own. And along the way these are his pace-adjusted stats compared to Richmond's:

Per 100 Possessions
Allen 28.0pts (.452 .400 .894) 6.0reb 5.0ast 1.7stl 0.3blk 3.1TO
Mitch 29.6pts (.455 .388 .850) 5.5reb 4.9ast 1.7ast 0.3blk 3.7TO

idk, this again seems a little "spun" and not quite like an apples to apples comparison.

For one, you're comparing career numbers here, despite one career having lasted 14 years while the other was 18.

If we look only at Allen's first 14 seasons, we see the following per 100 possession numbers:
29.3 pts, 6.2 reb, 5.3 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.3 TOV.....in 37.1 mpg, fwiw (Richmond's career avg was marginally lower 35.2).

Secondly, the manner in which you presented some of the shooting data is inappropriate: you utilized raw FG% (which favors Richmond by a near-negligible amount), despite the fact that Allen had a MUCH higher 3PAr.
If we look at % by area:
Richmond: 47.4% 2pt, 38.8% 3pt, 85.0% FT
Allen ('97-'10): 48.3% 2pt, 39.6% 3pt, 89.4% FT

So we see Allen is actually a little better from absolutely everywhere on the court (his career %'s are actually marginally better than his "1st 14 season" sample, fwiw)----57.6% TS [58.0% for career] vs 55.7% for Richmond----while scoring the same volume. Simultaneously was the slightly better rebounder and playmaker (higher ast anyway), while turning the ball over less (Allen's career rs Modified TOV% is 8.27 [7.73% in the playoffs], Richmond's is 9.24).

....and then, where Richmond's career was over, Allen went on to play 4 more useful seasons beyond that.
On the flip-side, Richmond was a better defender. But not exactly a stalwart defender (and it's not like Allen was James Harden bad defensively); tbh, I'm not sure his defensive advantage equals the statistical edge we can clearly see for Allen. And that's before we consider the additional four seasons.


Measuring team success in raw terms is no contest, but the water is terribly muddied by the awful casts Richmond had in Sacramento. However, if we look at Allen-led teams like the '01 Bucks or '05 Sonics, are those casts so much better as to account for a +5-6 SRS difference that exists between them and the BEST Richmond-led cast? It's open for debate, but it's a bit of a hard sell for me.
I also note that where the Allen-led teams were good was pretty consistently on offense. In fact, once Allen was in his prime, there was not a single Allen-led team that was NOT at least top 10 offensively (SIX times they were in the top 3, once #1).


Context is very important to consider, although ultimately, there's a finite amount speculative "correcting" for career luck I'm willing to do where Richmond (or anyone) is concerned. EDIT: And further it should be considered that Allen put up similar or slightly better numbers for [mostly] better teams. Even if the teams are better because of his supporting cast--->a stronger supporting cast means less need for a star player to put up big numbers (because he has more talent around him).

I can't really get a peg on how you feel about "correcting" for career luck. You panned Pau Gasol in the last thread for going 0-12 in the playoffs in Memphis. Still......that's THREE times he led them into the playoffs [in a tough as nails WC] as the clear [often by far] best player; he never had a truly "good" cast in Memphis (three years of roughly average supporting cast......and those are the years they made the playoffs).

But otoh you'll quickly give DeMarcus a pass on the bad records because his casts have been trash, and apparently the same goes for Richmond (who had a 1-4 playoff record in ONE playoff appearance in EIGHT seasons as the top dog). You frequently spurn the team success of others with facetious remarks about how players "magically become winners once they get on a good team".

So it seems for you a player's team success [or lack there of] is sometimes not of his doing (e.g. Cousins, Richmond), and other times the team result is their fault.

Setting aside that being asked to elevate Sacramento is 7th circle of hell stuff far in excess of having All Stars on your roster the way Ray did, or 10-man deep solid stacks of veterans like Pau did...

I am not the one who is inconsistent in these things. You will not have seen me one single time nominate ANY of these guys. you keep on raising Boogie and now Richmond as if I have put them up for early consideration. I have not. I am very consistent. They are not up. And neither should Ray, nor Pau, nor Deke, or any other third tier not good enough to get it done himself dude. I believe every one of those guys belongs in this project. But not NOW. Not so early while blatantly ignoring First Ballot HOFers.

And actually, I don't myself consider elevating bad teams a major front-burning concern. I point it out, repeatedly, precisely because several of you, and the several of you driving what I consider to be some of these misreadings of history, make SUCH a point of it. It's almost a single-minded obsession.

For example, this is now the 3rd time you've spontaneously raised DeMarcus Cousins in these threads. And I thought I was a fan. I'd like to think it's because you suddenly realized the extreme danger you are subjecting yourself to with Cousins now free of Sacramento and in danger of starting to win. The internet does not forget afterall. But no, more likely is because you (used in the plural) find it absolutely inconceivable, like OMG my brain is exploding inconceivable, to support Demarcus Cousins in a thing like this. And if that's true, now you know how I feel at the blatant disrespect of history involved in repeatedly elevating third tier characters above defining figures. Nobody will ever know who Ray Allen was in 30 years. For good reason. And no, they won't know Mitch either, also for good reason. One day they'll be Neil Johnston, oh, was he good too?

So here is a challenge for you, just to expose the problem that I am seeing again and again: make an argument against DeMarcus Cousins that does NOT involve his lack of winning (or metrics which rely heavily on winning). That should make you think a bit, because it's virtually impossible. He's one of the most productive players in NBA history. But the winning issue, in absolutely brutal circumstances too, trumps EVERYTHING with him. At least for some.

I think that's a short-sided mistake to make. It doesn't display any insight as to a player's actual abilities, and substitutes in a broad team-based statistic in place of individual work. But ok...it's your standard (again used in the plural). Then STICK TO IT. Be consistent. I don't raise the shaky individual history of guys because it's what I look at first, I raise it because, SOME of the time, it's used as an absolute disqualifier. Because people are elevating third tier characters up over up over dominant franchise players on the excuse that oh, those franchise guys were overrated, after all, they couldn't win. Which is poppycock.

You know what the record of Ray Allen's teams was in the ELEVEN (11) years before he landed in Boston? 428-442 .492. That is through age 31. And he had at least one All Star level teammate through many/most of those years. So that is the great winner unfrocked.

All that Ray Allen proved, as a winner, is that he could win a title if paired with at least 2 HOFs and 1 Top 15 player of all time while functioning as a 3rd or 4th weapon. That's all we know about him as a winner. And...whoopee? I mean, who couldn't? Let's go trade Boogie off to the Cavs and see if he doesn't win next to a much older LeBron/Wade pair. Or, let's put Mitch on those Boston teams. Or Joe Dumars. Or Reggie. Or Klay Thompson for that matter. Manu. Any number of guys who have not been taken yet, and should not be taken yet. It's entirely possible those titles could have been won with a lesser guy who won't even get mention like Eddie Jones (who BTW has only 1 All NBA less than Ray).

Ray Allen absolutely belongs in this project. I don't even object to the idea that Ray Allen belongs in ahead of MItch. If we were talking here and Ray was being nominated at #64, and Mitch not until #71. Wouldn't bother me at all. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a career long also ran who gets dumped into an absolutely perfect late career situation that any number of equal or lesser figures could have succeeded in. And because he's next to great players he gets to rack up double figure "win shares" for being a 15ppg roleplayer like a poor man's Rip Hamilton. And now suddenly this guy who we had ENORMOUS amounts of individual datapoints on, get's thrown up on what is basically the new 50 Greatest list. And there's just no way he belongs here. In 20 picks he belongs. In conversations about Ray v. Mitch v. Webber v. Pau v. Manu v. Lanier etc., he belongs. Not in conversations with MVPs and MVP candidates who by the way ALL won more than he did before he became Byron Scott.

I know I voted for Allen - but I agree with you - it's just that I think it's too early for ALL 3.

[Winsome Gerbil]

idk, this again seems a little "spun" and not quite like an apples to apples comparison.

For one, you're comparing career numbers here, despite one career having lasted 14 years while the other was 18.

If we look only at Allen's first 14 seasons, we see the following per 100 possession numbers:
29.3 pts, 6.2 reb, 5.3 ast, 1.7 stl, 0.3 blk, 3.3 TOV.....in 37.1 mpg, fwiw (Richmond's career avg was marginally lower 35.2).

Secondly, the manner in which you presented some of the shooting data is inappropriate: you utilized raw FG% (which favors Richmond by a near-negligible amount), despite the fact that Allen had a MUCH higher 3PAr.
If we look at % by area:
Richmond: 47.4% 2pt, 38.8% 3pt, 85.0% FT
Allen ('97-'10): 48.3% 2pt, 39.6% 3pt, 89.4% FT

So we see Allen is actually a little better from absolutely everywhere on the court (his career %'s are actually marginally better than his "1st 14 season" sample, fwiw)----57.6% TS [58.0% for career] vs 55.7% for Richmond----while scoring the same volume. Simultaneously was the slightly better rebounder and playmaker (higher ast anyway), while turning the ball over less (Allen's career rs Modified TOV% is 8.27 [7.73% in the playoffs], Richmond's is 9.24).

....and then, where Richmond's career was over, Allen went on to play 4 more useful seasons beyond that.
On the flip-side, Richmond was a better defender. But not exactly a stalwart defender (and it's not like Allen was James Harden bad defensively); tbh, I'm not sure his defensive advantage equals the statistical edge we can clearly see for Allen. And that's before we consider the additional four seasons.


Measuring team success in raw terms is no contest, but the water is terribly muddied by the awful casts Richmond had in Sacramento. However, if we look at Allen-led teams like the '01 Bucks or '05 Sonics, are those casts so much better as to account for a +5-6 SRS difference that exists between them and the BEST Richmond-led cast? It's open for debate, but it's a bit of a hard sell for me.
I also note that where the Allen-led teams were good was pretty consistently on offense. In fact, once Allen was in his prime, there was not a single Allen-led team that was NOT at least top 10 offensively (SIX times they were in the top 3, once #1).


Context is very important to consider, although ultimately, there's a finite amount speculative "correcting" for career luck I'm willing to do where Richmond (or anyone) is concerned. EDIT: And further it should be considered that Allen put up similar or slightly better numbers for [mostly] better teams. Even if the teams are better because of his supporting cast--->a stronger supporting cast means less need for a star player to put up big numbers (because he has more talent around him).

I can't really get a peg on how you feel about "correcting" for career luck. You panned Pau Gasol in the last thread for going 0-12 in the playoffs in Memphis. Still......that's THREE times he led them into the playoffs [in a tough as nails WC] as the clear [often by far] best player; he never had a truly "good" cast in Memphis (three years of roughly average supporting cast......and those are the years they made the playoffs).

But otoh you'll quickly give DeMarcus a pass on the bad records because his casts have been trash, and apparently the same goes for Richmond (who had a 1-4 playoff record in ONE playoff appearance in EIGHT seasons as the top dog). You frequently spurn the team success of others with facetious remarks about how players "magically become winners once they get on a good team".

So it seems for you a player's team success [or lack there of] is sometimes not of his doing (e.g. Cousins, Richmond), and other times the team result is their fault.

Setting aside that being asked to elevate Sacramento is 7th circle of hell stuff far in excess of having All Stars on your roster the way Ray did, or 10-man deep solid stacks of veterans like Pau did...

I am not the one who is inconsistent in these things. You will not have seen me one single time nominate ANY of these guys. you keep on raising Boogie and now Richmond as if I have put them up for early consideration. I have not. I am very consistent. They are not up. And neither should Ray, nor Pau, nor Deke, or any other third tier not good enough to get it done himself dude. I believe every one of those guys belongs in this project. But not NOW. Not so early while blatantly ignoring First Ballot HOFers.

And actually, I don't myself consider elevating bad teams a major front-burning concern. I point it out, repeatedly, precisely because several of you, and the several of you driving what I consider to be some of these misreadings of history, make SUCH a point of it. It's almost a single-minded obsession.

For example, this is now the 3rd time you've spontaneously raised DeMarcus Cousins in these threads. And I thought I was a fan. I'd like to think it's because you suddenly realized the extreme danger you are subjecting yourself to with Cousins now free of Sacramento and in danger of starting to win. The internet does not forget afterall. But no, more likely is because you (used in the plural) find it absolutely inconceivable, like OMG my brain is exploding inconceivable, to support Demarcus Cousins in a thing like this. And if that's true, now you know how I feel at the blatant disrespect of history involved in repeatedly elevating third tier characters above defining figures. Nobody will ever know who Ray Allen was in 30 years. For good reason. And no, they won't know Mitch either, also for good reason. One day they'll be Neil Johnston, oh, was he good too?

So here is a challenge for you, just to expose the problem that I am seeing again and again: make an argument against DeMarcus Cousins that does NOT involve his lack of winning (or metrics which rely heavily on winning). That should make you think a bit, because it's virtually impossible. He's one of the most productive players in NBA history. But the winning issue, in absolutely brutal circumstances too, trumps EVERYTHING with him. At least for some.

I think that's a short-sided mistake to make. It doesn't display any insight as to a player's actual abilities, and substitutes in a broad team-based statistic in place of individual work. But ok...it's your standard (again used in the plural). Then STICK TO IT. Be consistent. I don't raise the shaky individual history of guys because it's what I look at first, I raise it because, SOME of the time, it's used as an absolute disqualifier. Because people are elevating third tier characters up over up over dominant franchise players on the excuse that oh, those franchise guys were overrated, after all, they couldn't win. Which is poppycock.

You know what the record of Ray Allen's teams was in the ELEVEN (11) years before he landed in Boston? 428-442 .492. That is through age 31. And he had at least one All Star level teammate through many/most of those years. So that is the great winner unfrocked.

All that Ray Allen proved, as a winner, is that he could win a title if paired with at least 2 HOFs and 1 Top 15 player of all time while functioning as a 3rd or 4th weapon. That's all we know about him as a winner. And...whoopee? I mean, who couldn't? Let's go trade Boogie off to the Cavs and see if he doesn't win next to a much older LeBron/Wade pair. Or, let's put Mitch on those Boston teams. Or Joe Dumars. Or Reggie. Or Klay Thompson for that matter. Manu. Any number of guys who have not been taken yet, and should not be taken yet. It's entirely possible those titles could have been won with a lesser guy who won't even get mention like Eddie Jones (who BTW has only 1 All NBA less than Ray).

Ray Allen absolutely belongs in this project. I don't even object to the idea that Ray Allen belongs in ahead of MItch. If we were talking here and Ray was being nominated at #64, and Mitch not until #71. Wouldn't bother me at all. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a career long also ran who gets dumped into an absolutely perfect late career situation that any number of equal or lesser figures could have succeeded in. And because he's next to great players he gets to rack up double figure "win shares" for being a 15ppg roleplayer like a poor man's Rip Hamilton. And now suddenly this guy who we had ENORMOUS amounts of individual datapoints on, get's thrown up on what is basically the new 50 Greatest list. And there's just no way he belongs here. In 20 picks he belongs. In conversations about Ray v. Mitch v. Webber v. Pau v. Manu v. Lanier etc., he belongs. Not in conversations with MVPs and MVP candidates who by the way ALL won more than he did before he became Byron Scott.

I know I voted for Allen - but I agree with you - it's just that I think it's too early for ALL 3.

2 of the 3 guys won league MVPs and made NBA Finals as the main man.

The 3rd guy barely made All League and made a single playoffs as the main man.

[eminence]

2 of the 3 guys won league MVPs and made NBA Finals as the main man.

The 3rd guy barely made All League and made a single playoffs as the main man.

Ray Allen was at the very least every bit "the main man" in Milwaukee that Reed was in New York (some guy named Frazier had 36 and 19 to close out that finals series while Reed hobbled up and down the court inspiringly).

[SactoKingsFan]

Setting aside that being asked to elevate Sacramento is 7th circle of hell stuff far in excess of having All Stars on your roster the way Ray did, or 10-man deep solid stacks of veterans like Pau did...

I am not the one who is inconsistent in these things. You will not have seen me one single time nominate ANY of these guys. you keep on raising Boogie and now Richmond as if I have put them up for early consideration. I have not. I am very consistent. They are not up. And neither should Ray, nor Pau, nor Deke, or any other third tier not good enough to get it done himself dude. I believe every one of those guys belongs in this project. But not NOW. Not so early while blatantly ignoring First Ballot HOFers.

And actually, I don't myself consider elevating bad teams a major front-burning concern. I point it out, repeatedly, precisely because several of you, and the several of you driving what I consider to be some of these misreadings of history, make SUCH a point of it. It's almost a single-minded obsession.

For example, this is now the 3rd time you've spontaneously raised DeMarcus Cousins in these threads. And I thought I was a fan. I'd like to think it's because you suddenly realized the extreme danger you are subjecting yourself to with Cousins now free of Sacramento and in danger of starting to win. The internet does not forget afterall. But no, more likely is because you (used in the plural) find it absolutely inconceivable, like OMG my brain is exploding inconceivable, to support Demarcus Cousins in a thing like this. And if that's true, now you know how I feel at the blatant disrespect of history involved in repeatedly elevating third tier characters above defining figures. Nobody will ever know who Ray Allen was in 30 years. For good reason. And no, they won't know Mitch either, also for good reason. One day they'll be Neil Johnston, oh, was he good too?

So here is a challenge for you, just to expose the problem that I am seeing again and again: make an argument against DeMarcus Cousins that does NOT involve his lack of winning (or metrics which rely heavily on winning). That should make you think a bit, because it's virtually impossible. He's one of the most productive players in NBA history. But the winning issue, in absolutely brutal circumstances too, trumps EVERYTHING with him. At least for some.

I think that's a short-sided mistake to make. It doesn't display any insight as to a player's actual abilities, and substitutes in a broad team-based statistic in place of individual work. But ok...it's your standard (again used in the plural). Then STICK TO IT. Be consistent. I don't raise the shaky individual history of guys because it's what I look at first, I raise it because, SOME of the time, it's used as an absolute disqualifier. Because people are elevating third tier characters up over up over dominant franchise players on the excuse that oh, those franchise guys were overrated, after all, they couldn't win. Which is poppycock.

You know what the record of Ray Allen's teams was in the ELEVEN (11) years before he landed in Boston? 428-442 .492. That is through age 31. And he had at least one All Star level teammate through many/most of those years. So that is the great winner unfrocked.

All that Ray Allen proved, as a winner, is that he could win a title if paired with at least 2 HOFs and 1 Top 15 player of all time while functioning as a 3rd or 4th weapon. That's all we know about him as a winner. And...whoopee? I mean, who couldn't? Let's go trade Boogie off to the Cavs and see if he doesn't win next to a much older LeBron/Wade pair. Or, let's put Mitch on those Boston teams. Or Joe Dumars. Or Reggie. Or Klay Thompson for that matter. Manu. Any number of guys who have not been taken yet, and should not be taken yet. It's entirely possible those titles could have been won with a lesser guy who won't even get mention like Eddie Jones (who BTW has only 1 All NBA less than Ray).

Ray Allen absolutely belongs in this project. I don't even object to the idea that Ray Allen belongs in ahead of MItch. If we were talking here and Ray was being nominated at #64, and Mitch not until #71. Wouldn't bother me at all. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a career long also ran who gets dumped into an absolutely perfect late career situation that any number of equal or lesser figures could have succeeded in. And because he's next to great players he gets to rack up double figure "win shares" for being a 15ppg roleplayer like a poor man's Rip Hamilton. And now suddenly this guy who we had ENORMOUS amounts of individual datapoints on, get's thrown up on what is basically the new 50 Greatest list. And there's just no way he belongs here. In 20 picks he belongs. In conversations about Ray v. Mitch v. Webber v. Pau v. Manu v. Lanier etc., he belongs. Not in conversations with MVPs and MVP candidates who by the way ALL won more than he did before he became Byron Scott.

I know I voted for Allen - but I agree with you - it's just that I think it's too early for ALL 3.

2 of the 3 guys won league MVPs and made NBA Finals as the main man.

The 3rd guy barely made All League and made a single playoffs as the main man.

Allen was clearly the best player on those Bucks teams that made the playoffs.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[trex_8063]

2 of the 3 guys won league MVPs.....

At least one of the 2 guys who won MVP (arguably both) didn't really deserve it [or so many would contest].

.....and made NBA Finals as the main man.

I don't know why this MUST be a part of one's criteria, but anyway.....

The third guy [while functioning as "the man" on his team] went 7 games deep in the conference finals against one of the other guys (during the one and only year that guy went to the finals), having lost Game 5 by just a single point and having been outscored by a mere 2 points in the entire 7-game series.

i.e. The narrative you're offering was just 2 pts away from being completely flip-flopped.

The 3rd guy barely made All League and made a single playoffs as the main man.

??????????

The 3rd guy made the playoffs FOUR times as the main man, getting past the 1st round in two of those.

The third guy also had the best longevity of the three.


btw, I'm happy you're referring to Pierce as a HOF'er now (he was a third-tier star who was being laughably overrated to be included in the top 50 when he was on the table to be inducted to the list) and Garnett a top 15 player all-time (he was 19th on your pre-project list).

[Winsome Gerbil]

2 of the 3 guys won league MVPs.....

At least one of the 2 guys who won MVP (arguably both) didn't really deserve it [or so many would contest].

.....and made NBA Finals as the main man.

I don't know why this MUST be a part of one's criteria, but anyway.....

The third guy [while functioning as "the man" on his team] went 7 games deep in the conference finals against one of the other guys (during the one and only year that guy went to the finals), having lost Game 5 by just a single point and having been outscored by a mere 2 points in the entire 7-game series.

i.e. The narrative you're offering was just 2 pts away from being completely flip-flopped.

The 3rd guy barely made All League and made a single playoffs as the main man.

??????????

The 3rd guy made the playoffs FOUR times as the main man, getting past the 1st round in two of those.

The third guy also had the best longevity of the three.


btw, I'm happy you're referring to Pierce as a HOF'er now (he was a third-tier star who was being laughably overrated to be included in the top 50 when he was on the table to be inducted to the list) and Garnett a top 15 player all-time (he was 19th on your pre-project list).

I never at any point denied Paul Pierce as a HOFer. I did, and do deny him as a "Top 45" anything. And more critically, I did and do deny him being better than MVP caliber guys. Strictly a second rate HOFer. But a strong candidate again out somewhere beyond 50 after guys who were demonstrably better than him are off the board.

And I intentionally used Garnett's ranking in this project, as his stature to members of this group is what is important.

P.S. Calling what Ray Allen did in Milwaukee "main manning" is stretching the concept to its utter limit. At the very least the responsibility was shared. In his 4+ Milwaulkee years Sam Cassel averaged 19.0pts 4.0reb 7.2ast a game. Before he arrived, Terrel Brandon was there averaging 16.7pts 7.6ast. Those were two of the most notorious "Mike Conleys" of their era. Then of course Big Dog was there was 8 years averaging 21.1pts 6.8reb 2.8ast. Meanwhile Ray was there for 7 years and averaged 19.6pts 4.6reb 3.8ast. So was Ray the best of the three? Yeah, history would say so. But to say that he was any kind of clear #1 over the other guys is just distorting history. Which really needs to be avoided. He was a first among equals. On any given night any one of the guys could take the lead.

[trex_8063]

I am not the one who is inconsistent in these things. You will not have seen me one single time nominate ANY of these guys. you keep on raising Boogie and now Richmond as if I have put them up for early consideration.

I did not invoke Richmond here, you did.
And while you did not put him up for consideration, you did [paraphrasing] say that he's essentially an equal candidate to Ray Allen. I went about explaining why that is not really the case, showing that there is a small but clear separation in the numbers (and that's before even going into the extra four seasons, and the chasm in team success---luck or no), and thus emphasizing that outing Richmond as a valid candidate here doesn't really rule Allen out at all (i.e. somewhat a strawman to bring up in the first place).


You are rather famously Boogie's biggest champion on this forum and have stated you'd support him in this top 100 project. So while you were deriding Paul Pierce's candidacy so early, I invoked Boogie to try to reach you in a different manner regarding a player on the table at that time (Pierce). I outlined how Pierce had done a nearly equal "lifting" with crap casts for TWICE as long as Boogie, then also noted his 2nd/(3rd) banana roles on contender teams as evidence of Pierce's candidacy.

I was basically saying "if accomplishing X is sufficient to give Boogie top 100 consideration, then surely accomplishing 2*X + Y is sufficient to give Pierce top 50 consideration". I felt I was pretty clear on that.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I am not the one who is inconsistent in these things. You will not have seen me one single time nominate ANY of these guys. you keep on raising Boogie and now Richmond as if I have put them up for early consideration.

I did not invoke Richmond here, you did.
And while you did not put him up for consideration, you did [paraphrasing] say that he's essentially an equal candidate to Ray Allen. I went about explaining why that is not really the case, showing that there is a small but clear separation in the numbers (and that's before even going into the extra four seasons, and the chasm in team success---luck or no), and thus emphasizing that outing Richmond as a valid candidate here doesn't really rule Allen out at all (i.e. somewhat a strawman to bring up in the first place).



You are rather famously Boogie's biggest champion on this forum and have stated you'd support him in this top 100 project. So while you were deriding Paul Pierce's candidacy so early, I invoked Boogie to try to reach you in a different manner regarding a player on the table at that time (Pierce). I outlined how Pierce had done a nearly equal "lifting" with crap casts for TWICE as long as Boogie, then also noted his 2nd/(3rd) banana roles on contender teams as evidence of Pierce's candidacy.

I was basically saying "if accomplishing X is sufficient to give Boogie top 100 consideration, then surely accomplishing 2*X + Y is sufficient to give Pierce top 50 consideration". I felt I was pretty clear on that.

I raise Boogie and Richmond and draw direct correlations in the numbers precisely because I know this little group is quite biased against them. At various times people have indicated they will likely vote for neither. Thus if candidates in the Top 50 cannot clearly surpass the numbers put up by the pariahs, there is no way in hell they can justify Top 50ness given that neither Mitch nor Boogie will be making an appearance before 70 in all liklihood.

That should not be necessary. It becomes necessary when people don't even address the yawning statistical gulf between these also ran type guys who barely charted on an All League level and the huge statistical monsters who were annual MVP candidates still out there. I should be able to end a Ray Allen vs. Iverson or Nique or Westbrook debate with a simple haha, and a statline. But no. There is a blindness there. Just a serene refusal. So the problem has to be worked from the opposite end. Show how the also ran's stats look a hell of a lot like stats put up by pariahs. Something has to break through.

[dhsilv2]

2 of the 3 guys won league MVPs.....

At least one of the 2 guys who won MVP (arguably both) didn't really deserve it [or so many would contest].

.....and made NBA Finals as the main man.

I don't know why this MUST be a part of one's criteria, but anyway.....

The third guy [while functioning as "the man" on his team] went 7 games deep in the conference finals against one of the other guys (during the one and only year that guy went to the finals), having lost Game 5 by just a single point and having been outscored by a mere 2 points in the entire 7-game series.

i.e. The narrative you're offering was just 2 pts away from being completely flip-flopped.

The 3rd guy barely made All League and made a single playoffs as the main man.

??????????

The 3rd guy made the playoffs FOUR times as the main man, getting past the 1st round in two of those.

The third guy also had the best longevity of the three.


btw, I'm happy you're referring to Pierce as a HOF'er now (he was a third-tier star who was being laughably overrated to be included in the top 50 when he was on the table to be inducted to the list) and Garnett a top 15 player all-time (he was 19th on your pre-project list).

I never at any point denied Paul Pierce as a HOFer. I did, and do deny him as a "Top 45" anything. And more critically, I did and do deny him being better than MVP caliber guys. Strictly a second rate HOFer. But a strong candidate again out somewhere beyond 50 after guys who were demonstrably better than him are off the board.

And I intentionally used Garnett's ranking in this project, as his stature to members of this group is what is important.

P.S. Calling what Ray Allen did in Milwaukee "main manning" is stretching the concept to its utter limit. At the very least the responsibility was shared. In his 4+ Milwaulkee years Sam Cassel averaged 19.0pts 4.0reb 7.2ast a game. Before he arrived, Terrel Brandon was there averaging 16.7pts 7.6ast. Those were two of the most notorious "Mike Conleys" of their era. Then of course Big Dog was there was 8 years averaging 21.1pts 6.8reb 2.8ast. Meanwhile Ray was there for 7 years and averaged 19.6pts 4.6reb 3.8ast. So was Ray the best of the three? Yeah, history would say so. But to say that he was any kind of clear #1 over the other guys is just distorting history. Which really needs to be avoided. He was a first among equals. On any given night any one of the guys could take the lead.

Odd, I was about to go look up who else was on the bucks with Allen, as I remember those years, and Allen was so far and away considered at the time to be the best player on the team it wasn't even close. I have to say, I think you're the one changing history. Ray Allen was an absolute super star in those years. Those other guys are and were pretty far down the food chain. I will say Sam Cassel likely was and is underrated.

[trex_8063]

P.S. Calling what Ray Allen did in Milwaukee "main manning" is stretching the concept to its utter limit. At the very least the responsibility was shared. In his 4+ Milwaulkee years Sam Cassel averaged 19.0pts 4.0reb 7.2ast a game. Before he arrived, Terrel Brandon was there averaging 16.7pts 7.6ast. Those were two of the most notorious "Mike Conleys" of their era. Then of course Big Dog was there was 8 years averaging 21.1pts 6.8reb 2.8ast. Meanwhile Ray was there for 7 years and averaged 19.6pts 4.6reb 3.8ast. So was Ray the best of the three? Yeah, history would say so. But to say that he was any kind of clear #1 over the other guys is just distorting history. Which really needs to be avoided. He was a first among equals. On any given night any one of the guys could take the lead.

'99 Bucks:
Ray Allen - 18.9 PER, .146 WS/48, +2.9 BPM in 34.4 mpg and not missing a single game
Glenn Robinson - 19.7 PER, .122 WS/48, +0.9 BPM in 33.7 mpg and missing three games

----I know you're a big proponent of PER (even though it has the least correlation with RAPM of the three main rate metrics), but overall that looks like a tiny edge to Allen. Perhaps not "clear" enough, but it is the ultimate take-away looking at these. fwiw, Robinson did have the small advantage in PI RAPM (+3.06 vs +2.73 for Allen), though in the past you've expressed nothing but skepticism for most impact data (if you acknowledge it at all).


'00 Bucks:
Ray Allen - 20.6 PER, .157 WS/48, +3.0 BPM in 37.4 mpg (didn't miss a single game)
Sam Cassell - 21.1 PER, .152 WS/48, +1.8 BPM in 35.8 mpg (missed one game)

----fwiw, Ray Allen also had the marginal edge in PI RAPM (+2.26 vs +2.22 for Cassell). It's close, and definitely could be seen as a 1a/1b situation. Bearing in mind these are all rate metrics, Allen again appears to be the top dog just ever so slightly, though.


So these^^^ two seasons can be quibbled about (though, as shown above, I am most certainly NOT "stretching the main man concept to the utter limit" to say that Allen was the best guy on these teams).
But those two aside....

.....'01 Bucks and '05 Sonics: there is really no case for anyone other than Allen as the best player. He is---by a clear margin---the best player on both of these teams that BOTH got past the first round (one of them coming 2 pts from defeating Iverson's Sixers in the ECF).

[trex_8063]

I am not the one who is inconsistent in these things. You will not have seen me one single time nominate ANY of these guys. you keep on raising Boogie and now Richmond as if I have put them up for early consideration.

I did not invoke Richmond here, you did.
And while you did not put him up for consideration, you did [paraphrasing] say that he's essentially an equal candidate to Ray Allen. I went about explaining why that is not really the case, showing that there is a small but clear separation in the numbers (and that's before even going into the extra four seasons, and the chasm in team success---luck or no), and thus emphasizing that outing Richmond as a valid candidate here doesn't really rule Allen out at all (i.e. somewhat a strawman to bring up in the first place).



You are rather famously Boogie's biggest champion on this forum and have stated you'd support him in this top 100 project. So while you were deriding Paul Pierce's candidacy so early, I invoked Boogie to try to reach you in a different manner regarding a player on the table at that time (Pierce). I outlined how Pierce had done a nearly equal "lifting" with crap casts for TWICE as long as Boogie, then also noted his 2nd/(3rd) banana roles on contender teams as evidence of Pierce's candidacy.

I was basically saying "if accomplishing X is sufficient to give Boogie top 100 consideration, then surely accomplishing 2*X + Y is sufficient to give Pierce top 50 consideration". I felt I was pretty clear on that.

I raise Boogie and Richmond and draw direct correlations in the numbers precisely because I know this little group is quite biased against them.

I'm a touch wowed at this point. I'm going to summarize the exchange thus far (as it pertains to Allen, the guy currently on the table):

1st: You draw these "direct correlations", indicating you believe that A basically equals B, or in this case: Richmond's numbers equal Allen's.

2nd: I then point out some inappropriate slants in the numbers you presented--->I instead go with Allen's first 14 seasons---because that's all Richmond played; and while you don't have to laud players for longevity, it's not fair to penalize them for it---and also noting raw FG% is inappropriate because of a gross difference in 3PAr. Upon presenting a more "apples to apples" data comparison, I think I adequately showed----in pure black and white numbers----that there is a small but clear edge to Ray Allen (i.e. the "direct correlation" is actually not too direct).......and this was before noting the significant difference in the quality of teams these big numbers are put up for (this is something I'd mentioned in many other places: it's one thing to put up certain numbers for a team that struggles to get 30 wins, quite another to do it for a solid playoff team, or perhaps even a .500 team), and also before acknowledging the additional FOUR [pretty good] seasons Allen played.

3rd: You nonetheless reply still referring to it as a "direct correlation" and claim [with the condescending reference to this "little group"] that it's everyone else that isn't seeing it clearly.


I don't know what to do with this. So I'm going to do my best to just disengage and agree to disagree on some points. We're clearly just spinning our wheels at each other. Our criteria/value systems are clearly quite different, and even when on the same page we seem to view the evidence very differently. Hopefully someone has benefited from this exchange, but I doubt we are anymore.