RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #50 (Robert Parish)

If English or Dantley get in, I'm probably looking to a modern player like Ginobili, the Bobby Jones of this century or maybe Russell Westbrook. 90s have been picked through pretty well except for Mourning, Mutombo and the oddity that is Dennis Rodman; GOAT rebounder in regular season, but big dropoffs in the postseason or I'd probably be looking at him here.

80s, Sidney Moncrief had a short career but every time I saw him he was brutally effective, particularly defensively. Bobby Jones is another great two way player with limited time (not length of career for him but minutes per game). On the other end, Adrian Dantley is probably the next great scorer over Nique (and King/Aguirre/Marques who didn't have the longevity even if they peaked higher). To paraphrase LA Bird, the only real argument for Nique over English is style over substance; they scored roughly equivalent amounts but English was more efficient, a clearly superior defender, and he scored them in the context of the Nuggets offense without having to have constant isos run for him. No one left is as offensively impressive to me as English and Dantley except for the shorter modern careers like Westbrook and Harden.

60s guys, I am looking at Sam Jones, Hal Greer, Dave Debusschere, and Nate Thurmond, maybe Chet Walker. Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray. 70s there are a bunch of guys like Daniels, Cowens, Hayes, Reed, and McAdoo just among big men. Of these, I'd rather have Dave Cowens though the stats don't always back me up. But having watched them a lot, he had an Alonzo Mourning attitude with stretch the floor midrange shooting. 50s guys, Arizin and Cousy are the best left plus maybe Neil Johnston, the Amare of the 50s, whose great looking numbers overrate his impact.

Vote: Alex English
Alternate: Adrian Dantley

scrabbarista · Post #3 » by **scrabbarista** » Sat Oct 7, 2017 4:59 pm

50. Elvin Hayes

51. Dave Cowens

Elvin Hayes' career points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 48,625

Wes Unseld's career points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 29,210

That's for the regular season. Hayes also has higher totals in the post-season.

wtf, people?

Post #4 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Oct 7, 2017 5:24 pm

Robert Parish (some old arguments, and a few new ones)

Broad strokes production and accomplishments (bullet-point format), and remember we're talking about #50 here. Parish is.....

*32nd all-time (in NBA/ABA combined) in career rs pts scored
**9th all-time in rs rebounds
***11th in rs blocks.
****26th all-time in rs WS.
*****32nd all-time in career playoff pts
******9th in playoff rebounds
*******6th in playoff blocks
********35th all-time in playoff WS.
*********9-Time NBA All-Star (that's with an at least marginal snub in '89, too)
**********Finished as high as 4th in the MVP vote, 7th another year (and three other seasons between 11th-14th).
***********4 NBA titles (three of those as no worse than the 3rd-best player on the team)

If you look at his career in terms of PER, WS/48, BPM, remind yourself that you're looking at numbers that span an ayfkm 21 seasons. If we look at some of the other candidates with some traction (or recently voted in), note their careers were all 13 [or a little over] seasons.
Parish, by the end of his 13th season, had a career PER of 20.0, .163 WS/48, +2.4 BPM in 31.0 mpg (which doesn't compare too unfavorably vs them, except maybe a little bit vs Iverson). Parish would have two more All-Star seasons AFTER that, though, as well as a handful of years of usefulness besides.

SUMMARY TIMELINE POINTS (to outline the longevity):
*Parish came into the league as an above average [role] player in his rookie season (19.3 PER, .167 WS/48, +1.5 BPM in 18.0 mpg).
**By his third season he was at least a borderline All-Star calibre player going for 17.2 ppg (though league-average shooting efficiency) with 12.1 rpg and 2.9 bpg (in just 31.7 mpg, too). He had the league's BEST DREB% while simultaneously averaging 3.2 blocks/36 min, had the league's best individual DRtg while anchoring a top 5 defense (-1.8 rDRTG).
***He would then consistently be more or less All-Star calibre (occasionally All-NBA, once finishing 4th in MVP vote, 7th another year) every year thru his 15th (or arguably his 16th?) season.
****He was a consistent starter thru his 18th season, and clearly an above average per minute player (on >27 mpg) as late as his 17th season.

And he was there for his team night after night, on average missing LESS THAN 4 game games per year for two solid decades.

And let's also consider when this occurred: his rookie year was the first season after the merger. The bulk of his prime came in the relatively talent-dense 80's and early 90's (and he played the majority of his career in the clear tougher conference, too), and retired just as the league was going into a slightly expansion-diluted stretch.
If you were going to outline a 21-year stretch in NBA history, you can hardly find a tougher [collectively] 21-year era.

Parish was a two-way player. Offensively, he was one of the best transition running centers in the game (watch some early 80's Celtics games if you doubt this statement; watch some of the '86 Finals to see 32-year-old Parish beating the young legs of Olajuwon and Ralph Sampson down the court multiple times in transition), could clean up easy hoops inside, but also had a deadly accurate spot-up from <14 ft or turn-around jumper from <12 ft (and made FT's at 72% for his career). His turn-around was not a fade-away, fwiw, but rather would turn squared up and fire this unique high-arcing shot that was somewhat difficult to block.

At the end of his 15th season he still had a career average of 16.5 ppg @ 57.7% TS while having been a consistent rebounding anchor (career 10.1 rpg at that point), as well as a reasonable rim protector (career 1.7 bpg at that point). He had anchored a top-5 defense in '79 while averaging 2.9 bpg (3.2 blk/36 min) and still maintaining the league's best DREB%......he led the league in individual DRtg that year, fwiw.

He was arguably/likely the 2nd-best player for a title team ('81 Celtics), probably about a 2b for another title team ('84 Celtics), and the fairly clear 3rd-best player for another title team; was either 2nd or 3rd best for multiple other contenders, too.

"But he was never the top dog for a good team" or "He was only any good on offense due to Bird's passing".....
These are critical statements I've heard in the past. Fortunately, we need look no further than the '89 Celtics to dispel them as false. In '89 Bird was injured and missed basically the entire year. It was a 35-yr-old Robert Parish who filled much of the void. I bold the age to emphasize this isn't even Parish in his physical prime.
Parish nonetheless led the team in ORebs, DRebs and TRebs (by handy margins on all accounts): he was actually 3rd in the whole league in rpg that year (behind only Hakeem and Barkley, and he actually had a higher reb/36 min than Barkley), and led the entire league in TREB%. He also led the team in bpg, and averaged 18.6 ppg (2nd on the team, and +4.3 from '88), and still on a very elite 60.7% TS [again: without Bird].

He had the team's best PER at 21.6 (2nd was McHale's 20.3), the team's best WS/48 at .177 (2nd was McHale's .168, not counting Ed Pinckney's .176 which came on <700 total minutes), and the team's best BPM at +4.2 (2nd was McHale's +2.1, not counting Pinckney's +3.0). And there's not enough difference between McHale and Parish in mpg to account for Parish's edge in everything (36.9 mpg for McHale, 35.5 mpg for Parish, who missed two fewer games as well).

In short, he was the top dog on this team that managed a 42-40 record in a tough Eastern Conference (+1.26 SRS); and this was after turning 35 years old before the season even started.

He was a 9-time All-Star, 1-time All-NBA 2nd Team, 1-time All-NBA 3rd Team, and has four total NBA titles to his credit--->playing during one of the toughest eras in the history of the league, too.
He figured into the MVP vote FIVE seasons, twice in the top 10, once as high as 4th.

To me, this is a fairly stellar career easily deserving of top 50 recognition.

For my alternate, I'm either going with a guy who's longevity is lacking (though still better than Willis Reed, fwiw) though has a monstrous peak......or a guy with pretty good longevity and consistently, peak probably oversold by the presence of an MVP: Russell Westbrook or Allen Iverson. Will try to decide in the next day and edit it in.
Guys like Hayes, McGrady, Lanier, perhaps even Billups or Wilkins feel reasonable to me around now, as well.

1st vote: Robert Parish
2nd vote: tentatively Russell Westbrook

Post #5 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Oct 7, 2017 6:10 pm

scrabbarista wrote:50. Elvin Hayes

51. Dave Cowens

Elvin Hayes' career points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 48,625

Wes Unseld's career points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals: 29,210

That's for the regular season. Hayes also has higher totals in the post-season.

wtf, people?

Most of that edge comes from career points and I literally think Hayes would have been considerably better if he shot the ball much less. What you see as the major edge Hayes has, I see as what the problem with Hayes was in a nutshell.

pandrade83 · Post #6 » by **pandrade83** » Sat Oct 7, 2017 7:24 pm

1st choice: Russell Westbrook
Honorable Mention: Alonzo Mourning

I loved watching Allen Iverson play. His style, his determination & his explosiveness were all captivating. The man had a relentless motor. He's on my all-time "favorite guys to watch" team - but he's not in my Top 50.

Watching him play, you can kind of tell, deep down in a place you don't totally want to admit that your ceiling is capped with him because of efficiency issues.

But what if, you could capture the competitive fire, never say die attitude, motor at max 100% of the time, reckless abandonment & "I can't wait to see this guy play" factor in a sabermetric friendly version? I present to you Russell Westbrook (full disclosure: my favorite player to watch in the league).

The advanced metrics actually love him

One of the biggest knocks on Westbrook is going to be around efficiency - his detractors are going to say that he wasn't an efficient player and that they have stylistic concerns about him. Some (but not all) of these metrics I'm going to present will somewhat over-state his impact. The point isn't to say he had the best season ever (like VORP will) - rather this is to illustrate that all the sabermetrics actually recognize his impact - and should dispel some efficiency concerns.

RAPM - he finished 4th in ESPN's RPM Wins each of the last 2 years, 7th in '15, and 13th in RPM in '14 and a strong "pre-prime" of being 21st in the chained RAPM from '08-'11.
VORP - Last year Russell Westbrook posted the highest single season VORP Score EVER.
BPM - Westbrook has finished 1st in this metric twice ('15 & '17) and holds 2 of the Top 10 scores EVER.
WS - FWIW, he already has more career Win Shares than Willis Reed - who has been in the last several run-offs. He's hit 13 WS + twice - of our remaining candidates from last round, Reed got there twice, Gasol once & Mutombo never.
PER - last time out he broke the 30 barrier. That's relevant because here is your list of guys who also have:

Steph Curry
Anthony Davis
Lebron James
Dwayne Wade
Tracy McGrady
Shaq
David Robinson
MJ
Chamberlain

That's an impressive group. Everyone else is in but Tmac & AD.

An ability to perform well against other elite guards when it matters

In his lone encounter against Paul in the playoffs
Westbrook - 28/9/6 - 61% TS
Paul - 23/12/4 - 61% TS

vs. Steph in the playoffs:

Westbrook - 27/11/7 - 51.2% TS
Steph - 28/6/6 - 61.3% TS

vs. Wade in the '12 Finals:

Westbrook - 27/7/6 - 51% TS
Wade - 23/6/5 - 51% TS

vs. Harden in LY Playoffs:

Westbrook - 34/10/10 * not technically a triple double - rounding here - 51% TS
Harden - 32/7/6 - 57% TS - so much flopping - worse FG & 3PT%'s than Westbrook :noway:

Westbrook doesn't necessarily win all these matchups (2 are wins; 1's a draw & 1's a loss; but in EVERY matchup he competes and acquits himself well) - say what you will about Westbrook but you'll never see anything like this shameful performance:

Watch on YouTube

Elephant in the room: Stylistics & KD

I'll tackle the KD thing - why did he leave? I'll put it in KD's own words:

"he didn't like the organization or playing for Billy Donovan. His roster wasn't that good, it was just him and russ."

"imagine taking russ off that team, see how bad they were. Kd can't win a championship with those cats."

This wasn't a Westbrook issue - this is an org & Billy Donovan issue.

As for stylistics - I know Westbrook took a lot of flack for the style he played last year. But look at the mess Westbrook still got 10 apg with:

Watch on YouTube

Then you have Oladipo - who is basically a homeless man's Westbrook - who somehow managed to shoot a worse TS% than Westbrook last year despite having minimal offensive gravity- as did Sabonis. You're only real offensive weapon - Enes Kanter - can't stay on the floor in the playoffs because of things like this:

Watch on YouTube

I know Adams was there - but I feel like Adams usage rate was probably optimized last year. I want him scoring in the 12-15 PPG range on a high TS%. And that's sort of the point - in that situation, Westbrook probably optimized OKC's chances of winning.

This is a guy who is a strong playoff performer and is a very high efficiency guy who has had an incredibly high peak and already turned in 6 very high quality seasons & he hasn't had a BAD season yet. It's time for him to get some support.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a 2 Time DPOY winner, Alonzo Mourning is an elite defensive anchor. And we still have a few left who I'll give shout outs to in Mutombo, Wallace, Eaton & Thurmond.

The difference between Mourning & those guys is he really separates himself from them at the offensive end and I don't know if we recognize Mourning for the offensive impact he had.

Mourning was a 6 time 20 PPG scorer who shot between 56-59% TS in those years. His turnover efficiency isn't terrible either at a 15% rate. Mutombo hit the 15 PPG mark just once on worse efficiency than any of Mourning's 20 PPG years, Thurmond creates an offensive drag with his TS%'s - he only hit 50% once in his whole career despite the relatively high volume, & Eaton/Wallace are like playing 4 on 5 offensively.

In this

Watch on YouTube

video, Mourning displays a strong ability to move up & down the court along with some competent post moves. He's not Olajuwon down there, but he's not Dwight either.

He has a clear impact on winning that's displayed in his whole career.

'93 - In Charlotte, the Hornets accelerate from 31 wins to 44 wins in his 1st year (note, Larry Johnson's development is probably worth at least a couple of those) as Mourning hits the close-out shot to eliminate Boston. Mourning is a 24-10 player in the playoffs to go with over 3 blocks.
'94 - Charlotte is 35-25 with Mourning in the lineup, just 6-16 without him. Larry Johnson's prime abruptly ends with injuries.
'95 - Mourning is the leading scorer on a team that becomes Top 10 in offensive efficiency and the team improves defensively. They make the playoffs. Mourning plays well in the series to Chicago, averaging 23 & 13; the Bulls don't have an answer for him.
'96 - Miami's roster has significant turnover so it's hard to attribute too much to one guy, but Mourning was brought in for Glen Rice among others & the Heat still improve by 10 wins. They jump defensively from +1.6 to -3.8.
'97 - Mourning anchors the #1 defense in the league as the Heat win 61 games. Miami makes the ECF.
'98 - Potentially a black mark if I'm being honest. The WOWY impact isn't great - 39-19 with, 16-8 without. Not a huge impact there. The Heat are upset in round 1 by the Ewing-less Knicks. This is the year where Johnson & Mourning get in a fight & JVG is clinging to Mourning's leg like an animal. Just a very strange series. It is noteworthy that Miami loses the game Mourning is suspended for in the series vs. NY.
'99 - Mourning leads the Heat to the #1 seed and finishes 2nd in the MVP voting. From a Mourning advocate perspective, you wish you could erase what happened in the playoffs

Watch on YouTube

and you also wish he would've more thoroughly dominated Ewing but Ewing always played him tough. Still, Mourning had a great year as the defensive anchor on a team that had the best record in the East & was the lead scorer for a team that finished 2nd in offensive efficiency for the 2nd straight year.
'00 - Miami starts to get old. Mourning drags them to the Atlantic title again, finishing 3rd in the MVP Voting.They still can't get over the Knicks hump & Ewing is inexplicably still effective against Mourning.

The the kidney thing happens - but he still comes back after that as a highly valuable defensive role player & is critical in the FInals win over Dallas in '06. Even post-kidney disease, you still see him battling strong.

Watch on YouTube

But the defensive impact - it never goes away.

There's a couple black marks in there - he gets slowed by post-prime Ewing in those Heat/Knicks series more than he should. In some of the Heat years, the WOWY impact is iffy.

But look - we're still talking a guy who was regarded as a Top 5 player multiple years, elite defensive anchor, good (not elite but good) offensive player who led winning teams all the way through and showed a tremendous amount of courage in battling back from kidney disease and exhibited outstanding intangibles - for whatever you value that. Anyone who is brought up is going to have some black marks - & if one of Mourning's biggest black marks is he got slowed by a mentor more than he should in the playoffs? I can live with that more than the warts of others. Even the longevity is better than you might think - 8 very strong years ('93-'00) another strong year ('02), 3 post-prime years as an excellent back-up center; others have better but given the kidney disease, it's better than you might think.

pandrade83 · Post #7 » by **pandrade83** » Sat Oct 7, 2017 7:27 pm

penbeast0 wrote:If English or Dantley get in, I'm probably looking to a modern player like Ginobili, the Bobby Jones of this century, or even Ray Allen. 90s have been picked through pretty well except for Mutombo and the oddity that is Dennis Rodman; GOAT rebounder in regular season, but big dropoffs in the postseason or I'd probably be looking at him here.

80s, Sidney Moncrief had a short career but every time I saw him he was brutally effective, particularly defensively. Bobby Jones is another great two way player with limited time (not length of career for him but minutes per game). On the other end, Adrian Dantley is probably the next great scorer over Nique (and King/Aguirre/Marques who didn't have the longevity even if they peaked higher). To paraphrase LA Bird, the only real argument for Nique over English is style over substance; they scored roughly equivalent amounts but English was more efficient, a clearly superior defender, and he scored them in the context of the Nuggets offense without having to have constant isos run for him. No one left is as offensively impressive to me as English and Dantley except for the shorter modern careers like Westbrook and Harden.

60s guys, I am looking at Sam Jones, Hal Greer, Dave Debusschere, and Nate Thurmond, maybe Chet Walker. Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray. 70s there are a bunch of guys like Daniels, Cowens, Hayes, Reed, and McAdoo just among big men. Of these, I'd rather have Dave Cowens though the stats don't always back me up. But having watched them a lot, he was Alonzo Mourning's attitude with stretch the floor midrange shooting. 50s guys, Arizin and Cousy are the best left plus maybe Neil Johnston, the Amare of the 50s, whose great looking numbers overrate his impact.

Vote: Alex English
Alternate: Adrian Dantley

Given the specific players you call out, I'm kind of surprised Mourning doesn't even get a shout-out. Why are you down on him?

Post #8 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Oct 7, 2017 8:56 pm

pandrade83 wrote:
Given the specific players you call out, I'm kind of surprised Mourning doesn't even get a shout-out. Why are you down on him?

He should be on the list too; my downside for Zo is that his post passing is very poor for a scoring big which is a problem. The upside is his attitude and work ethic is superb. He is basically Mel Daniels with shotblocking instead of rebounding in a more competitive environment and will certainly be my choice before Daniels.

iggymcfrack · Post #9 » by **iggymcfrack** » Sat Oct 7, 2017 11:50 pm

Can't say I'm very impressed with Elvin Hayes and his bulk scoring on career TS% of .491. That's pretty much the definition of empty stats in my book. I'd rather have Iverson and he's still not on my radar for a while yet.

Zo meanwhile is an excellent player. An incredible defensive anchor and a pretty damn good scorer too before the kidney disease hobbled him. He did have trouble staying on the court, but at his healthy peak, I'd have him Top 20 all-time.

I'd go 1. Westbrook 2. Zo among the players available right now with Harden due some serious consideration once Westbrook comes off the board.

Post #10 » by **Outside** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 1:58 am

penbeast0 wrote:If English or Dantley get in, I'm probably looking to a modern player like Ginobili, the Bobby Jones of this century, or even Ray Allen.

I figure you're just copying and pasting from prior threads, but Ray Allen went no. 47.

penbeast0 wrote:To paraphrase LA Bird, the only real argument for Nique over English is style over substance; they scored roughly equivalent amounts but English was more efficient, a clearly superior defender, and he scored them in the context of the Nuggets offense without having to have constant isos run for him.

Wilkins career RS PPG is 24.8, PS is 25.4. English career RS PPG is 21.5, PS is 24.4. The Hawks during that time played below league average pace, while the Nuggets under Moe played above pace, which means that English's scoring would be inflated compared to Wilkins. I agree that English was more efficient -- 55.0 RS TS% / 55/6 PS TS% vs 53.6 RS /51.0 PS for Wilkins -- but I don't buy the argument that they score roughly equivalent amounts. Wilkins' averages are higher, and the difference is amplified when you adjust for pace.

Re: defense, what evidence is there to support English's defense? Those Doug Moe Nugget teams were known for fast-paced, high-scoring offense while being just plain awful defensively.

Here's some stats on English during his prime seasons in Denver, once he started playing big minutes.

Season - DRtg rank - English DWS rank on team - English MP rank on team
81-82 - 23 of 23 teams - 4 - 1
82-83 - 20 of 23 - 2 - 1
83-84 - 22 of 23 - 4 - 1
84-85 - 15 of 23 - 5 - 1
85-86 - 9 of 23 - 4 - 1
86-87 - 15 of 23 - 8 - 1
87-88 - 6 of 23 - 4 - 2
88-89 - 8 of 25 - 6 - 1
89-90 - 7 of 27 - 5 - 3

English's rank on the team in DWS is always lower than his rank in minutes, usually substantially so. DWS isn't a perfect defensive metric, but that doesn't look good. let's compare it to Dominique during his time in Atlanta (he started playing big minutes his rookie season).

82-83 - 9 of 23 - 3 - 2
83-84 - 7 of 23 - 2 - 1
84-85 - 11 of 23 - 1 - 1
85-86 - 5 of 23 - 1 - 1
86-87 - 2 of 23 - 3 - 1
87-88 - 14 of 23 - 2 - 1
88-89 - 9 of 25 - 3 - 1
89-90 - 25 of 27 - 1 - 1
90-91 - 21 of 27 - 1 - 1
91-92 - 16 of 27 - 8 - 6 (only played 42 games)
92-93 - 23 of 27 - 4 - 3

Those last four seasons, the Hawks were bad defensively, but they were good prior to that. So not only was Dominique part of better defensive teams than English, he tracks much better regarding his defensive impact. Primary scorers like English and Wilkins are typically average defenders, and appropriately so since they carry a larger load on the offensive end. But they accumulate DWS credit just by playing the minutes they play, so their DWS rank should at least track closely with their minutes rank. Wilkin's DWS rank tracks much better than English's.

penbeast0 wrote:Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray.

You keep repeating this, but it's just not true.

Dick Vertlieb took over at GM after the 1973-74 season. From a Sports Illustrated article about the Warriors' 1975 title (https://www.si.com/vault/1975/06/02/616619/the-warriors-were-bulletproof#):

Vertlieb's first move was to sign Wilkes and Smith, the Warriors' top draft choices. It was the first time Golden State had signed a No. 1 pick since 1969. Then he traded veteran center Nate Thurmond to Chicago for Ray, $500,000 and a first-round draft pick. And signed Dudley and Bill Bridges as free agents.

"I was just lucky," said [Vertlieb]. "Wilkes and Smith were picked before I came and I just had to sign them. And to be honest, we traded Thurmond because I needed cash to carry out some other things. We got Ray, but I was just hoping to maintain the team. I didn't think he would improve it. And Dudley—shoot, I was just doing a favor to a friend who suggested we give him another tryout. With the deals I've made, Al Attles has bailed me out. The job he and the athletes have done. I've just been real lucky."

You make it sound like the Warriors improved to become a title team because they got rid of Thurmond, but more than anything, the new GM did that trade for the cash, because the Warriors were short on money. The consensus at the time was that Chicago got the much better end of the deal, as they hoped Thurmond would help them advance further in the playoffs. As it turned out, Rick Barry had his last great season for the Warriors (he averaged 30.6 PPG after averaging 25.1 and 22.3 the prior seasons, and he average 21 the next two seasons), Clifford Ray had his best season as a Warrior, Jamaal Wilkes was Rookie of the Year, and Phil Smith and Charles Dudley fit nicely into the rotation.

Everything just fell right for the Warriors that season. I don't know why you keep portraying this as a black mark on Thurmond's resume.

Post #11 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 2:36 am

Outside wrote:
Spoiler:
penbeast0 wrote:If English or Dantley get in, I'm probably looking to a modern player like Ginobili, the Bobby Jones of this century, or even Ray Allen.

I figure you're just copying and pasting from prior threads, but Ray Allen went no. 47.

penbeast0 wrote:To paraphrase LA Bird, the only real argument for Nique over English is style over substance; they scored roughly equivalent amounts but English was more efficient, a clearly superior defender, and he scored them in the context of the Nuggets offense without having to have constant isos run for him.

Wilkins career RS PPG is 24.8, PS is 25.4. English career RS PPG is 21.5, PS is 24.4. The Hawks during that time played below league average pace, while the Nuggets under Moe played above pace, which means that English's scoring would be inflated compared to Wilkins. I agree that English was more efficient -- 55.0 RS TS% / 55/6 PS TS% vs 53.6 RS /51.0 PS for Wilkins -- but I don't buy the argument that they score roughly equivalent amounts. Wilkins' averages are higher, and the difference is amplified when you adjust for pace.

Re: defense, what evidence is there to support English's defense? Those Doug Moe Nugget teams were known for fast-paced, high-scoring offense while being just plain awful defensively.

Here's some stats on English during his prime seasons in Denver, once he started playing big minutes.

Season - DRtg rank - English DWS rank on team - English MP rank on team
81-82 - 23 of 23 teams - 4 - 1
82-83 - 20 of 23 - 2 - 1
83-84 - 22 of 23 - 4 - 1
84-85 - 15 of 23 - 5 - 1
85-86 - 9 of 23 - 4 - 1
86-87 - 15 of 23 - 8 - 1
87-88 - 6 of 23 - 4 - 2
88-89 - 8 of 25 - 6 - 1
89-90 - 7 of 27 - 5 - 3

English's rank on the team in DWS is always lower than his rank in minutes, usually substantially so. DWS isn't a perfect defensive metric, but that doesn't look good. let's compare it to Dominique during his time in Atlanta (he started playing big minutes his rookie season).

82-83 - 9 of 23 - 3 - 2
83-84 - 7 of 23 - 2 - 1
84-85 - 11 of 23 - 1 - 1
85-86 - 5 of 23 - 1 - 1
86-87 - 2 of 23 - 3 - 1
87-88 - 14 of 23 - 2 - 1
88-89 - 9 of 25 - 3 - 1
89-90 - 25 of 27 - 1 - 1
90-91 - 21 of 27 - 1 - 1
91-92 - 16 of 27 - 8 - 6 (only played 42 games)
92-93 - 23 of 27 - 4 - 3

Those last four seasons, the Hawks were bad defensively, but they were good prior to that. So not only was Dominique part of better defensive teams than English, he tracks much better regarding his defensive impact. Primary scorers like English and Wilkins are typically average defenders, and appropriately so since they carry a larger load on the offensive end. But they accumulate DWS credit just by playing the minutes they play, so their DWS rank should at least track closely with their minutes rank. Wilkin's DWS rank tracks much better than English's.

penbeast0 wrote:Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray.

You keep repeating this, but it's just not true.

Dick Vertlieb took over at GM after the 1973-74 season. From a Sports Illustrated article about the Warriors' 1975 title (https://www.si.com/vault/1975/06/02/616619/the-warriors-were-bulletproof#):

Vertlieb's first move was to sign Wilkes and Smith, the Warriors' top draft choices. It was the first time Golden State had signed a No. 1 pick since 1969. Then he traded veteran center Nate Thurmond to Chicago for Ray, $500,000 and a first-round draft pick. And signed Dudley and Bill Bridges as free agents.

"I was just lucky," said [Vertlieb]. "Wilkes and Smith were picked before I came and I just had to sign them. And to be honest, we traded Thurmond because I needed cash to carry out some other things. We got Ray, but I was just hoping to maintain the team. I didn't think he would improve it. And Dudley—shoot, I was just doing a favor to a friend who suggested we give him another tryout. With the deals I've made, Al Attles has bailed me out. The job he and the athletes have done. I've just been real lucky."

You make it sound like the Warriors improved to become a title team because they got rid of Thurmond, but more than anything, the new GM did that trade for the cash, because the Warriors were short on money. The consensus at the time was that Chicago got the much better end of the deal, as they hoped Thurmond would help them advance further in the playoffs. As it turned out, Rick Barry had his last great season for the Warriors (he averaged 30.6 PPG after averaging 25.1 and 22.3 the prior seasons, and he average 21 the next two seasons), Clifford Ray had his best season as a Warrior, Jamaal Wilkes was Rookie of the Year, and Phil Smith and Charles Dudley fit nicely into the rotation.

Everything just fell right for the Warriors that season. I don't know why you keep portraying this as a black mark on Thurmond's resume.

Some very good points in there.

wrt the Warriors apparent improvement in '75, I'll also point out Thurmond got injured and missed like the last quarter of the '74 season. Warriors went 9-11 (.450) in the 20 he missed, but were 35-27 (.565, on pace for 46-47 wins) in the 62 he played in----they only won 48 in '75.
I also point out that this was Thurmond at 33 years old (at the very end of his prime in '74) that got traded.

I will say, however, that it's not in THurmond's favor that the Bulls defense got marginally worse upon his arrival (though Bob Love did miss a few games that could partially account for this). Thurmond was decidedly post-prime in '75, though.

Joao Saraiva · Post #12 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 3:42 am

1st vote Chauncey Billups

Tremendous pace controller. Great scorer when needed. Gave the ball to his teammates when needed, made it happen by himself when needed.

As a PG he was definitely not a liability on D.

I know I stopped voting at some point but it can get frustrating when you vote too much for a guy and he doesn't even have consideration. Do people really think Isiah was a better player than Billups? If yes, why so?

2nd vote Adrian Dantley

Post #13 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 3:46 am

Outside wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:If English or Dantley get in, I'm probably looking to a modern player like Ginobili, the Bobby Jones of this century, or even Ray Allen.

I figure you're just copying and pasting from prior threads, but Ray Allen went no. 47.

penbeast0 wrote:To paraphrase LA Bird, the only real argument for Nique over English is style over substance; they scored roughly equivalent amounts but English was more efficient, a clearly superior defender, and he scored them in the context of the Nuggets offense without having to have constant isos run for him.

Wilkins career RS PPG is 24.8, PS is 25.4. English career RS PPG is 21.5, PS is 24.4. The Hawks during that time played below league average pace, while the Nuggets under Moe played above pace, which means that English's scoring would be inflated compared to Wilkins. I agree that English was more efficient -- 55.0 RS TS% / 55/6 PS TS% vs 53.6 RS /51.0 PS for Wilkins -- but I don't buy the argument that they score roughly equivalent amounts. Wilkins' averages are higher, and the difference is amplified when you adjust for pace.

Re: defense, what evidence is there to support English's defense? Those Doug Moe Nugget teams were known for fast-paced, high-scoring offense while being just plain awful defensively.

Here's some stats on English during his prime seasons in Denver, once he started playing big minutes.

Season - DRtg rank - English DWS rank on team - English MP rank on team
81-82 - 23 of 23 teams - 4 - 1
82-83 - 20 of 23 - 2 - 1
83-84 - 22 of 23 - 4 - 1
84-85 - 15 of 23 - 5 - 1
85-86 - 9 of 23 - 4 - 1
86-87 - 15 of 23 - 8 - 1
87-88 - 6 of 23 - 4 - 2
88-89 - 8 of 25 - 6 - 1
89-90 - 7 of 27 - 5 - 3

English's rank on the team in DWS is always lower than his rank in minutes, usually substantially so. DWS isn't a perfect defensive metric, but that doesn't look good. let's compare it to Dominique during his time in Atlanta (he started playing big minutes his rookie season).

82-83 - 9 of 23 - 3 - 2
83-84 - 7 of 23 - 2 - 1
84-85 - 11 of 23 - 1 - 1
85-86 - 5 of 23 - 1 - 1
86-87 - 2 of 23 - 3 - 1
87-88 - 14 of 23 - 2 - 1
88-89 - 9 of 25 - 3 - 1
89-90 - 25 of 27 - 1 - 1
90-91 - 21 of 27 - 1 - 1
91-92 - 16 of 27 - 8 - 6 (only played 42 games)
92-93 - 23 of 27 - 4 - 3

Those last four seasons, the Hawks were bad defensively, but they were good prior to that. So not only was Dominique part of better defensive teams than English, he tracks much better regarding his defensive impact. Primary scorers like English and Wilkins are typically average defenders, and appropriately so since they carry a larger load on the offensive end. But they accumulate DWS credit just by playing the minutes they play, so their DWS rank should at least track closely with their minutes rank. Wilkin's DWS rank tracks much better than English's.

penbeast0 wrote:Thurmond is hurt by his offense and his team winning a title just after trading him for Cliff Ray.

You keep repeating this, but it's just not true.

Dick Vertlieb took over at GM after the 1973-74 season. From a Sports Illustrated article about the Warriors' 1975 title (https://www.si.com/vault/1975/06/02/616619/the-warriors-were-bulletproof#):

Vertlieb's first move was to sign Wilkes and Smith, the Warriors' top draft choices. It was the first time Golden State had signed a No. 1 pick since 1969. Then he traded veteran center Nate Thurmond to Chicago for Ray, $500,000 and a first-round draft pick. And signed Dudley and Bill Bridges as free agents.

"I was just lucky," said [Vertlieb]. "Wilkes and Smith were picked before I came and I just had to sign them. And to be honest, we traded Thurmond because I needed cash to carry out some other things. We got Ray, but I was just hoping to maintain the team. I didn't think he would improve it. And Dudley—shoot, I was just doing a favor to a friend who suggested we give him another tryout. With the deals I've made, Al Attles has bailed me out. The job he and the athletes have done. I've just been real lucky."

You make it sound like the Warriors improved to become a title team because they got rid of Thurmond, but more than anything, the new GM did that trade for the cash, because the Warriors were short on money. The consensus at the time was that Chicago got the much better end of the deal, as they hoped Thurmond would help them advance further in the playoffs. As it turned out, Rick Barry had his last great season for the Warriors (he averaged 30.6 PPG after averaging 25.1 and 22.3 the prior seasons, and he average 21 the next two seasons), Clifford Ray had his best season as a Warrior, Jamaal Wilkes was Rookie of the Year, and Phil Smith and Charles Dudley fit nicely into the rotation.

Everything just fell right for the Warriors that season. I don't know why you keep portraying this as a black mark on Thurmond's resume.

(a) Sorry, Ray Allen wasn't on my radar yet and when he got in, it didn't really register. I would have him at least 10 places lower, maybe more.
(b) The pace argument is countered by watching the teams. The Hawks featured Wilkins, ran continuous isos for him, he was the centerpiece for their offense. English got his points within the context of the Nuggets read and react offense; it was generally high paced because you had to read and react immediately or pass the ball off. The Hawks offense would fequently clear a side then Wilkens would take his time to set up a dribble drive. It worked well enough to make a decent team, helped by a strong defensive philosophy under Fratello, but that sort of offense to me has a fairly low ceiling. It's the same criticism leveled at Adrian Dantley and one reason I have Dantley below English but Dantley was an efficiency beast within that context, Nique was not.
(c) My starting point for defensive judgement is the eye test; team stats matter (and I have taken several looks at Nique because his teams had good defenses, but I keep seeing a lazy defender who rests on that end). When I watched English, and the 80s were an era where I watched a lot of basketball, I saw a willing and hustling defender pretty consistently. The only others of the high scoring wings of that period that I would prefer defensively are Worthy, Erving, and peak Marques Johnson (though Marques quit working as hard on defense as his career deteriorated). To me he was clearly better on that end than Bird, Nique, Aguirre, Dantley, or King; just more consistent effort. The TSN player survey I cite is one I remember from that era but it confirmed the opinions I already had.
(d) Not all the Nuggets teams were bad defensively. True the Issel/Vandeweghe/English teams were awful . . . as you might expect in an era where efficient scoring was done from the interior and you had two of the worst defenders in the league at the 5 and 4. The teams with Wayne Cooper or Danny Schayes at center were top 10 (not elite certainly but not bad) most of their years. Though neither were intimidating rim protectors they worked hard at that end and were average or close to it defensively. People sometimes only look at the points given up (pace) and not at efficiency. These weren't great rebounding teams nor did they have the intimidating presence in the middle but they were (like the Hawks offenses) good enough that the generally good Nuggets offenses made them a consistent playoff team if not up there with the Showtime Lakers, Bird era Celtics, or Erving Sixers . . . but then neither were any other teams in the league.
(5) I do see the Warriors taking a step up in the playoffs as a drawback to Thurmond's case and my comment was based solely on my evaluation. I am not saying Cliff Ray is better than THurmond, he was a very good reserve, average at best starter. I am saying that if we are talking about a top 50 player in the history of the NBA, and the team trades him and then goes on a historic playoff run . . . maybe that player isn't a top 50 player at least at that point. A top 50 player should have impact beyond that. I have a similar issue with Elgin Baylor being replaced by Jim McMillan coinciding with the Lakers exploding into one of the greatest win streaks in history. Elgin was great in his career, but it's something you should look at and wonder (or in reverse, Wes Unseld coming to the sad sack Bullets and they suddenly start winning . . . are there other factors, yes, but I and the MVP voters that year certainly give Wes a lot of the credit). And I do think that Thurmond's low efficiency post game and questionable post passing hurt the Warriors' offense.

I think your critiques are well thought out and you may be right and I may be wrong; it's just how I saw and still see things. Please keep criticizing where you think I am wrong, that's how we all learn.

Post #14 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 5:10 am

iggymcfrack wrote:Can't say I'm very impressed with Elvin Hayes and his bulk scoring on career TS% of .491. That's pretty much the definition of empty stats in my book. I'd rather have Iverson and he's still not on my radar for a while yet.

Zo meanwhile is an excellent player. An incredible defensive anchor and a pretty damn good scorer too before the kidney disease hobbled him. He did have trouble staying on the court, but at his healthy peak, I'd have him Top 20 all-time.

I'd go 1. Westbrook 2. Zo among the players available right now with Harden due some serious consideration once Westbrook comes off the board.

Please read my post on hayes from the 2014 project... simply taking stats at face value without context is shortsighted.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1359006&p=41877452#p41877452

Lou Fan · Post #15 » by **Lou Fan** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 6:58 am

1st Vote: T-Mac
2nd Vote: Nique

iggymcfrack · Post #16 » by **iggymcfrack** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 1:01 pm

Clyde Frazier wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:Can't say I'm very impressed with Elvin Hayes and his bulk scoring on career TS% of .491. That's pretty much the definition of empty stats in my book. I'd rather have Iverson and he's still not on my radar for a while yet.

Zo meanwhile is an excellent player. An incredible defensive anchor and a pretty damn good scorer too before the kidney disease hobbled him. He did have trouble staying on the court, but at his healthy peak, I'd have him Top 20 all-time.

I'd go 1. Westbrook 2. Zo among the players available right now with Harden due some serious consideration once Westbrook comes off the board.

Please read my post on hayes from the 2014 project... simply taking stats at face value without context is shortsighted.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1359006&p=41877452#p41877452

You basically just said he was good at defense and rebounding in that post. Big whoop. Zo blocked twice as many shots, was a better pace-adjusted rebounder, and was a much better offensive player in a much, much tougher era. Yeah, he wasn't as durable, but he was also legitimately elite for a good 7 or 8 years which I don't think you can say about Hayes ever.

The only reason Hayes wasn't an outright liability on offense is that the standard of offense was so low league-wide during his prime. If you're just looking at defense and rebounding and not his terribly inefficient offense, there's no way he compares to a Zo/Mutombo/Wallace. I really don't think he deserves any traction for at least another 30 spots.

Post #17 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 4:10 pm

twolves97 wrote:1st Vote: T-Mac
2nd Vote: Nique

You need to at least copy/paste your prior arguments.

Post #18 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 4:18 pm

Thru post #17:

[color=#FF0000]Russell Westbrook - 1 (pandrade83)
Robert Parish - 1 (trex_8063)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Chauncey Billups - 1 (Joao Saraiva)
*Tracy McGrady - 1 (twolves97)[/color]

*arguments required

Thread will go to runoff in just under 24 hours.

[quote="eminence"].[/quote]
[quote="penbeast0"].[/quote]
[quote="Clyde Frazier"].[/quote]
[quote="PaulieWal"].[/quote]
[quote="Colbinii"].[/quote]
[quote="Texas Chuck"].[/quote]
[quote="drza"].[/quote]
[quote="Dr Spaceman"].[/quote]
[quote="fpliii"].[/quote]
[quote="euroleague"].[/quote]
[quote="pandrade83"].[/quote]
[quote="Hornet Mania"].[/quote]
[quote="Eddy_JukeZ"].[/quote]
[quote="SactoKingsFan"].[/quote]
[quote="Blackmill"].[/quote]
[quote="JordansBulls"].[/quote]
[quote="RSCS3_"].[/quote]
[quote="BasketballFan7"].[/quote]
[quote="micahclay"].[/quote]
[quote="ardee"].[/quote]
[quote="RCM88x"].[/quote]
[quote="Tesla"].[/quote]
[quote="Joao Saraiva"].[/quote]
[quote="LA Bird"].[/quote]
[quote="MyUniBroDavis"].[/quote]
[quote="kayess"].[/quote]
[quote="2klegend"].[/quote]
[quote="MisterHibachi"].[/quote]
[quote="70sFan"].[/quote]
[quote="mischievous"].[/quote]
[quote="Doctor MJ"].[/quote]
[quote="Dr Positivity"].[/quote]
[quote="Jaivl"].[/quote]
[quote="Bad Gatorade"].[/quote]
[quote="andrewww"].[/quote]
[quote="colts18"].[/quote]
[quote="Moonbeam"].[/quote]
[quote="Cyrusman122000"].[/quote]
[quote="Winsome Gerbil"].[/quote]
[quote="Narigo"].[/quote]
[quote="wojoaderge"].[/quote]
[quote="TrueLAfan"].[/quote]
[quote="90sAllDecade"].[/quote]
[quote="Outside"].[/quote]
[quote="scabbarista"].[/quote]
[quote="janmagn"].[/quote]
[quote="Arman_tanzarian"].[/quote]
[quote="oldschooled"].[/quote]
[quote="Pablo Novi"].[/quote]
[quote="john248"].[/quote]
[quote="mdonnelly1989"].[/quote]
[quote="Senior"].[/quote]
[quote="twolves97"].[/quote]
[quote="CodeBreaker"].[/quote]
[quote="JoeMalburg"].[/quote]
[quote="dhsilv2"].[/quote]

janmagn · Post #19 » by **janmagn** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 4:47 pm

Vote: Bill Walton
2nd vote: Robert Parish

One of the best center peaks ever, better longevity than gets given credit, was the main dog in a championship team

So, let's talk about his longevity. Yes, he missed a ton of games. Yes, advanced career stats show that he is as good as Robin Lopez. But you have to look into the context. Lopez is playing full seasons consistenly, while Walton always missed a ton of games.

But why I think his longevity gets underrated? It's always like "he played only 30 games he's bad." But when you really look at him, the skills never faded even with injuries, a reason he won 6MOTY when he was healthy for a season. He could've done much more if he ever was healthy, and even with that body he did a lot.

Ultimately his peak is the main reason I'm voting him here, but there was some insight on why his longevity is underrated in my opinion.

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Post #20 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Oct 8, 2017 5:07 pm

janmagn wrote:Vote: Bill Walton

One of the best center peaks ever, better longevity than gets given credit, was the main dog in a championship team

No, he's doesn't. He played one season as a starter where he actually made it to the playoffs. He had one more where he played over half the games as a starter where he he didn't make the playoffs. He had two seasons where he made the playoffs as a reserve (one of which he only played about 2/3 of the playoffs). EVERY other season he came up limping, ruining his team's chances (since he still demanded to be paid as a superstar and was treated as such . . . which he was if healthy).