RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #55

[dhsilv2]

I voted Reed again.

Though I think you're forgetting Rose who's still left on the board and Walton. We got 5 MVP's left! And I guess ABA guys....but I'm not going here.

Oh yeah, technically speaking. Both fell off with injuries. I don't know if either cracks my Top 100. Will have to see.

I'm pretty confident that I can't take either. I for starters don't feel either was the MVP the year they got it. Walton was in the 60's for games played which is already a deal breaker often, and Kareem was just better. He didn't have an actual healthy season in his prime, he had sort healthy. Rose was just a bad choice all around, he should have gotten votes, but lebron should have won that year as well or I wouldn't even scoff at Howard (52 wins is kinda low for MVP though).

[pandrade83]

I'd agree his peak is very comparable to Schayes. Bottom line to me is that he played 10 seasons vs. Schayes's 15. Schayes has an edge of 283 rs games played, an estimate 6500-7000 more rs minutes (that difference in minutes is like 3 relatively injury-free seasons of starter level minutes). And while many of those extra minutes were not prime minutes, some were, and only for 24 games (350 minutes) of his career (his final season) was Schayes useless or ineffectual.

This far out on the list, the difference between adjacent spots is quite literally nothing; the difference between FIVE places (e.g. 50 to 55) is still paper-thin. So a longevity edge of that size (assuming other things equal--->debatable) demands ~18-28 places separation for me.....and Schayes only went in 9 spots ago.

My 2c....

This is how I feel - except it seems like Schayes held up a little better as the game evolved. I see myself supporting Arizin around the 70-75 range?

I'm not sure if I agree Schayes held up better in an evolving league. Most people would probably argue the opposite, as Arizin has the more modern-looking game (though that's still sort of fuzzy as far as determining era portability, as I think great players will always be able to develop the skills [to some degree] required of the era they're reared in).

I mean, if we look at '55-'62, Schayes looks a little better----21.8 PER, .187 WS/48 in 36.3 mpg over those 8 years; vs Arizin who was an 18.9 PER and .173 WS/48 in 37.7 mpg in those 8 years----and Schayes does appear to have the better post-shotclock peak year, too. So maybe you're right.


However, if we narrow it toward near-prime years in which integration and other evolutions were really beginning to take off, like '60-'62: Arizin was collectively a 16.4 PER, .145 WS/48 in 36.4 mpg over those three years. Schayes was a 19.0 PER, .140 WS/48 in 34.4 mpg (caveat: I believe '62 was somewhat of an injury year for him). But that's very comparable overall. And in '62 alone, Arizin had very equivalent rate metrics as Schayes, but while playing like +9 mpg (again, though: possible injury year for Schayes). They were identical in age (like 6 weeks separating their birthdays), too.


So idk......Schayes decided to hang around for a couple of extra years after '62 (only one in which he was minimally effective) whereas Arizin retired, but I don't fully know what to make of that; maybe Arizin's ego wouldn't allow those kind of "twilight seasons".

Arizin's military service is one thing that gives me pause in how I assess his longevity, though. I never know how to consider something like that, and sometimes think I should give them a partial pass on it. idk....


Anyway, I generally agree with your placement of him, though. I tentatively have Arizin #71 on my own ATL presently.

I have no idea what to do with Arizin's military service . . . and I say this as someone who is married to a member of the Nat'l Guard. I looked at the data in much the same way you did; I also took playoff performance into consideration and was really impressed with how Schayes stayed relevant and posted credible performances vs. Wilt & Russell even as he aged. It's not that I think Arizin was poor per se - I just was more impressed by what I saw from Schayes (in the data of course).

Of the guys who I'd call 50's players, my order would go:

Pettit
MIkan
Schayes
Arizin
Cousy - one of the very last guys.
-----------------
Johnston - not Top 100.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Willis Reed

Vote 2 - Elvin Hayes

On their way to the championship in 1970, willis helped the knicks knock off 2 of the most dominant centers of all time in wilt and kareem. Undersized for a center at 6’9”, his brute strength and good defensive instincts were still able to deter them. He also had a great outside shot for a big man, which was very effective against wilt in his later years. He would again get the best of wilt in 73 when the knicks took down the lakers in the finals.

I don’t have a problem with questioning his 2 finals MVPs relative to Clyde’s level of play in those series. However, I don’t doubt that reed was a player whose impact went beyond the box score, and I’d say that’s what voters were recognizing when selecting him as finals MVP in both seasons. This was best exemplified in the famous moment when reed came through the tunnel in game 7 of the 70 finals:

Watch on YouTube

As the lakers were warming up, they froze as they saw willis coming onto the court (he had previously missed game 6 with a torn muscle in his thigh, and no one expected him to play). He hit his first 2 jumpers, and the rest was history. Dramatic narrative? Of course, but Clyde himself said they wouldn’t have had the confidence to go out there and perform like they did without their captain leading the way. When you have the talent to back it up as willis did, that makes a difference.

He was certainly deserving of winning reg season MVP in 1970, leading the knicks to a 60-22 record and the #1 ranked SRS in the league. He put together season averages of 21.7 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 2 APG, 50.7 FG, 75.6% FT, 55.2% TS (+4.1% above league avg) and .227 WS/48.

From 69-73, reed would anchor a knicks defense that ranked in the top 3rd of the league for 4 seasons:

69 - 4th
70 - 1st
71 - 2nd
73 - 4th

The season after reed retired, the knicks dropped to 11th (of 18) in DRTG. His impact on that end of the floor was clear, as was the ability to lead a group of players to what’s often considered one of the best stretches of “team play” in NBA history.

[penbeast0]

WILLIS REED v. DAVE COWENS

By the numbers:
Career

Scoring: Reed is superior due to his being more efficient with a better foul draw and greater volume. Cowens has more range on his shot, spreading the floor more than Reed.

Rebounding: Very close. Reed has a slight advantage in total rebound rate, Cowens is the better offensive rebounder.

Playmaking: Not close. Cowens was a willing passer, Reed was more of a black hole despite the vaunted Knicks passing offense.

Defense: Reed is stronger, Cowens more mobile, though both were strong enough to bother Kareem physically. Reed is a better shotblocker though it was not a strength for either. This is pretty close though watching them I'd prefer Cowens.

Intangibles: Reed was a steadying and professional influence, Cowens was a fiery dynamo with a great motor. Both excellent, but I give the edge to Reed.

Longevity/Durability: Cowens has a clear edge playing over a hundred more games, maybe a full extra season worth of goodness if you ignore the half season he spent with Milwaukee which gives him an extra year over Reed.

Accolades: Reed has 1 MVP, 2 finals MVPs (1 extremely dubious), 1 1st team All-NBA, 4 second team All-NBA, no All-D, and 7 All-Star appearances. Cowens has 1 MVP, 3 second team All-NBA, 3 second team All-Defense and 8 All-Star appearances. Again, very close.

It depends what you prefer. I think modern analysis has shown that superior defense and passing add a great deal to impact and that would favor Cowens. Both are good candidates at this point.

[iggymcfrack]

Since Reed's getting so much mileage out of his MVP, I think it's worth pointing out that Harden has 1.568 MVP award shares to Reed's 1.039, and that Harden actually got a higher share of the vote in both 2014/15 and 2016/17 than Reed did the year he won. If you vote for Reed, you're basically just rewarding him for the top of the league being weak in both relative and absolute terms the years he won his awards/titles. If Harden plays Reed's years with the same teams he's on now, and you somehow make them 10x worse by era adjusting them, Harden still wins multiple MVPs and very well may win multiple rings as well.

[dhsilv2]

Since Reed's getting so much mileage out of his MVP, I think it's worth pointing out that Harden has 1.568 MVP award shares to Reed's 1.039, and that Harden actually got a higher share of the vote in both 2014/15 and 2016/17 than Reed did the year he won. If you vote for Reed, you're basically just rewarding him for the top of the league being weak in both relative and absolute terms the years he won his awards/titles. If Harden plays Reed's years with the same teams he's on now, and you somehow make them 10x worse by era adjusting them, Harden still wins multiple MVPs and very well may win multiple rings as well.

Being the MVP and winning the title the same year is a big factor for me. Doing the two in the same season is very different than what harden has done. Harden and Westbrook for me still have a way to go, both will be after Iverson, Reed, and more than likely Cowen for me. Once those guys are in, there are some other volume guys like Tmac and Wilkens and perhaps English I'd be looking at.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #26:

Willis Reed - 3 (Clyde Frazier, fundamentals21, dhsilv2)
Chauncey Billups - 2 (Joao Saraiva, LABird)
James Harden - 1 (pandrade83)
Bob Lanier - 1 (trex_8063)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (iggymcfrack)


Give this one about 24 hours (possibly marginally less, since we got this one started early) before it goes to runoff.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

WILLIS REED v. DAVE COWENS

By the numbers:
Career

Scoring: Reed is superior due to his being more efficient with a better foul draw and greater volume. Cowens has more range on his shot, spreading the floor more than Reed.

Does he (at least by any significant degree)? From the games I watched, Reed is routinely taking shots from 13-16 feet out, and I know I've at least once seen him take (and make) one as far as 19 ft. Heck, even the two buckets in G7 of the 1970 Finals demonstrates some range:

Watch on YouTube

He's standing on the FT-line for the first make, and the second looks about 16-17 feet out. I could certainly agree to equal range, but Cowens wasn't shooting from much further than that on any regular basis, was he? Maybe he was, but I feel any difference in "floor spreading" is pretty marginal with these two.

Reed always struck me as having a little more sophisticated low-post game, better touch in the 3-12 ft range, and better running and finishing in transition, too. (these being factors contributing to him being a superior overall scorer)

Rebounding: Very close. Reed has a slight advantage in total rebound rate, Cowens is the better offensive rebounder.

Agree about Cowens on the offensive glass (at least that's my impression in the games I've watched; he's tenacious, and much more athletic than he's likely given credit for).
Does Reed have a better rebounding rate? Reed averaged 13.1 reb/36 minutes for his career to Cowen's 12.7/36 min.......but that's in a faster-paced era, and while playing about 3 mpg fewer than Cowens.

I don't have estimates for Cowen's pre-'74, but he averaged 15.2 reb/100 possessions from '74-career end (15.3 if we exclude the Bucks year; total Boston career average likely to be similar....marginally better at most [like 15.4 or something]).
Here are per 100 possession estimates for most of Reed's career:
'65: 16.3
'66: 14.05
'67: 16.3
'68: 15.3
'69: 16.4
'70: 15.3
'71: 15.0
'73: 14.25
'74 (per bbref): 13.1

Agree very close; rebounding rate appears more or less a wash. If I was to award an edge, I'd give it to Cowens, based on the fact that he rebounded at the same rate while averaging +3.1 mpg.

Playmaking: Not close. Cowens was a willing passer, Reed was more of a black hole despite the vaunted Knicks passing offense.

Defense: Reed is stronger, Cowens more mobile, though both were strong enough to bother Kareem physically. Reed is a better shotblocker though it was not a strength for either. This is pretty close though watching them I'd prefer Cowens.

Intangibles: Reed was a steadying and professional influence, Cowens was a fiery dynamo with a great motor. Both excellent, but I give the edge to Reed.

Longevity/Durability: Cowens has a clear edge playing over a hundred more games, maybe a full extra season worth of goodness if you ignore the half season he spent with Milwaukee which gives him an extra year over Reed.

Agree x 4.

Accolades: Reed has 1 MVP, 2 finals MVPs (1 extremely dubious), 1 1st team All-NBA, 4 second team All-NBA, no All-D, and 7 All-Star appearances. Cowens has 1 MVP, 3 second team All-NBA, 3 second team All-Defense and 8 All-Star appearances. Again, very close.

Reed was All-D 1st Team in '70. Small edge to Reed overall in accolades, fwiw [imo].

It depends what you prefer. I think modern analysis has shown that superior defense and passing add a great deal to impact and that would favor Cowens. Both are good candidates at this point.

I rank Cowens higher by a hair, on the basis of the longevity/durability edge you mentioned. If he didn't have what amounts to a full prime season more games (even discounting his Bucks year), I'd likely favor Reed by a small but clear margin. But that extra season worth of "goodness" puts him just a hair ahead for me. Agree both are not unreasonable candidates at this stage.

[Dr Positivity]

Reed is better defensively than Lanier offensively but worse defensively, overall stats like WS and BPM doesn't present a clearcut advantage for Reed. When longevity is added in I like Lanier of those

I'm not the biggest fan of Billups longevity either. The bulk of his value is 03-10, at that point I think I'd rather just vote Harden who peaks at a way higher level statistically.

A player I feel has probably been underrated is Carter. He has a strong peak (leads league in OBPM), a solid decade long prime and then good post prime years. He is 43rd in WS and 27th in VORP.

Vote Bob Lanier

2nd: Vince Carter

[dhsilv2]

Reed is better defensively than Lanier offensively but worse defensively, overall stats like WS and BPM doesn't present a clearcut advantage for Reed. When longevity is added in I like Lanier of those

I'm not the biggest fan of Billups longevity either. The bulk of his value is 03-10, at that point I think I'd rather just vote Harden who peaks at a way higher level statistically.

A player I feel has probably been underrated is Carter. He has a strong peak (leads league in OBPM), a solid decade long prime and then good post prime years. He is 43rd in WS and 27th in VORP.

Vote Bob Lanier

2nd: Vince Carter

How do you reconcile Carter's rather awful intangibles back in his prime?

BTW has anyone lead the league in VORP and had a losing season other than Lanier? The more I look at his stats for this project that more confused I am with his results.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #30:

Willis Reed - 3 (Clyde Frazier, fundamentals21, dhsilv2)
Chauncey Billups - 2 (Joao Saraiva, LABird)
Bob Lanier - 2 (Dr Positivity, trex_8063)
James Harden - 1 (pandrade83)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (iggymcfrack)


Eliminating all those with one vote. One vote transfers to Billups; the rest become ghost votes....

Willis Reed - 3 (Clyde Frazier, fundamentals21, dhsilv2)
Chauncey Billups - 3 (Joao Saraiva, LABird, pandrade83)
Bob Lanier - 2 (Dr Positivity, trex_8063)


Will then eliminate Lanier, and we have our runoff: Reed vs. Billups.

Willis Reed - 3 (Clyde Frazier, fundamentals21, dhsilv2)
Chauncey Billups - 3 (Joao Saraiva, LABird, pandrade83)


If your name isn't shown there, please state your pick between these two and reasons why. Runoff will conclude in ~24 hours.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[pandrade83]

Reed is better defensively than Lanier offensively but worse defensively, overall stats like WS and BPM doesn't present a clearcut advantage for Reed. When longevity is added in I like Lanier of those

I'm not the biggest fan of Billups longevity either. The bulk of his value is 03-10, at that point I think I'd rather just vote Harden who peaks at a way higher level statistically.

A player I feel has probably been underrated is Carter. He has a strong peak (leads league in OBPM), a solid decade long prime and then good post prime years. He is 43rd in WS and 27th in VORP.

Vote Bob Lanier

2nd: Vince Carter

How do you reconcile Carter's rather awful intangibles back in his prime?

BTW has anyone lead the league in VORP and had a losing season other than Lanier? The more I look at his stats for this project that more confused I am with his results.

A few threads back I was trying to do the same mental gymnastics wrt Lanier & I asked if it's fair to think of him as roughly equivalent to Pau Gasol & a couple users responded that it's a good comparison.

[trex_8063]

Reed vs Billups

Reed's career spans 10 seasons in which he played 650 rs games: 18.6 PER, .156 WS/48 in 35.5 mpg. fwiw, in scaled terms (from my standard deviation studies), he was a career scaled PER of 21.1, scaled WS/48 of .186.

As Reed's career was just 10 seasons, I'm going to look for a moment at ONLY Billups' best 10 seasons ('03-'12). During that span he played 705 rs games (nearly an extra full season) as an average 20.3 PER, .205 WS/48 in 34.2 mpg (scaled terms nearly identical, fwiw).
So that's awfully comparable rs resume (even in scaled terms), if not marginally better with the 55 extra games. Billups was averaging 17.3 ppg and 6.1 apg over that 10-year span, with just 2.2 topg (2.79 Ast:TO ratio) and 59.4% TS, and played respectable defense thru much of that span.

Both are excellent playoff performers and demonstrate good intangibles (Reed with small edge in the latter).


Reed was a 1-time MVP, and was a top 4 finisher in the MVP vote three times; noteworthy is that those were the only three years he received any MVP votes, and his one MVP is certainly debateable (Jerry West; also this was the year Wilt was injured); has total 1.049 MVP shares.
Billups finished as high as 5th in the MVP vote in '06--->this year includes peak(ish) Dwyane Wade, Steve Nash, and Kobe Bryant, as well as prime versions of Garnett, Nowitzki, and Duncan, as well as peak Elton Brand, peak Gilbert Arenas (among perhaps a few other noteworthies); so 5th among this crowd is no small achievement. He finished 6th another year, and two other top 12 finishes (0.375 total MVP shares).

Reed certainly wins out total awards/accolades by clear but not huge margin.
Reed has 2 FMVP's, though as has been noted one or both are a bit dubious. Billups also has a FMVP and was approximately a 1b overall on that title team (and probably the 1a on one or two other contenders).

I give Billups the clear edge for competitiveness of era played in.


So it's awfully close in looking at those 10 seasons, and I'd give the marginal edge to Reed overall if those 10 years were all that comprised Chauncey's career.......but Billups actually had an additional 338 games played outside of '03-'12.
Add '02 to those 10 seasons, and I then feel the small edge goes to Billups. Any additional value provided by '99, '00, and '13 (other seasons are meaningless) is just gravy.

Runoff vote: Chauncey Billups

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Willis Reed

I knock Reed relative to his awards which overstate his value, but the fact remains he was the star and inspirational leader of one of the great teams in history. That's not a small thing. Longevity remains an issue in this comparison as it does most of the time, but Billups took a long time to come into his own. I think it's reasonable to pick Billups here - it's close - but I still think Reed's prime is special enough to give him the edge.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #34:

Willis Reed - 4 (Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, fundamentals21, dhsilv2)
Chauncey Billups - 4 (trex_8063, Joao Saraiva, LABird, pandrade83)


So far we have a dead heat. Would like to conclude this runoff in ~8-11 hours (depending on when I can get to it tonight).

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

Heart says Reed for his leadership and iconic status.
Brain says Billups for his efficiency and era.

If no one else votes, I'll break the tie at the end but right now I'm holding out.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Reed

Reed had just as strong box score but defense and spacing added another layer of impact

[Clyde Frazier]

Even as someone who values longevity highly, it seems like reed is sorta getting cast aside in these runoffs with a “i’m not in love with his era and his longevity isn’t great” without much further consideration.

This isn’t a walton situation career wise. Walton only had 1 star season where he even approached 70 games played, and didn’t play in 70+ until he was a role player at 19 MPG with the celtics. His peak was excellent, but basically doesn’t have a substantial career to go along with it.

Reed gives you 7 seasons of star level play (with excellent durability during that time) and an 8th where he played an integral role in the knicks’ second championship run. He played at an even higher level in the finals that year. He had several seasons as one of the top players in the league and as i’ve already noted definitely had an impact beyond the box score with team chemistry and leadership.

As we get into this range, every player is going to have some flaws. With his career accomplishments and consistent high level of play, I’d say he deserves his due.

[trex_8063]

Even as someone who values longevity highly, it seems like reed is sorta getting cast aside in these runoffs with a “i’m not in love with his era and his longevity isn’t great” without much further consideration.

This isn’t a walton situation career wise. Walton only had 1 star season where he even approached 70 games played, and didn’t play in 70+ until he was a role player at 19 MPG with the celtics. His peak was excellent, but basically doesn’t have a substantial career to go along with it.

Reed gives you 7 seasons of star level play (with excellent durability during that time) and an 8th where he played an integral role in the knicks’ second championship run.

Firstly, I think the mention of Walton is neither here nor there. Walton is perhaps unlikely to gain traction within the project AT ALL due to his unfortunately putrid longevity; Reed's had traction since the mid-point of the project, and even if he misses out in this thread, is almost sure to get voted in somewhere in the next 5-6 threads (at worst). So the difference between his "poor" longevity and Walton's "poor" longevity is well-recognized.

But secondly (and admittedly, this is semantics), I disagree with the claim that he had 7 "star-level" seasons. His rookie season, for example: yes he averaged 19.5/14.7 (note: consider the pace and circumstances of the time when viewing per game numbers), but with mediocre shooting efficiency, for a poor/losing team, and a team that was near the bottom of the league defensively (and he was the anchor). To me, that's certainly a "good" and useful season that adds career value......but that's not "star-level" to me (even if he did get an All-Star selection).

His 2nd season: gets shifted to PF (and perhaps struggles with the adjustment and/or doesn't mesh well with Bellamy???). At any rate, his numbers come down to 15.5/11.6 (and a career low in apg), on just slightly above league avg TS%, again for a poor team which is dead-last defensively (though that perhaps rests more on Bellamy's shoulders than Reed's). Again, this is perhaps a "useful" season, but not "star-level" to me. To me, this doesn't rate any better (or perhaps even AS good) as any of the last few seasons of Jonas Valanciunas.

imo, he's got 5 roughly "star-level" years: '67-'71.

[Owly]

Even as someone who values longevity highly, it seems like reed is sorta getting cast aside in these runoffs with a “i’m not in love with his era and his longevity isn’t great” without much further consideration.

This isn’t a walton situation career wise. Walton only had 1 star season where he even approached 70 games played, and didn’t play in 70+ until he was a role player at 19 MPG with the celtics. His peak was excellent, but basically doesn’t have a substantial career to go along with it.

Reed gives you 7 seasons of star level play (with excellent durability during that time) and an 8th where he played an integral role in the knicks’ second championship run. He played at an even higher level in the finals that year. He had several seasons as one of the top players in the league and as i’ve already noted definitely had an impact beyond the box score with team chemistry and leadership.

Which seven seasons have you got Reed at "star level"?

I personally make it five ('67-'71).

Also where you say he "definitely had an impact beyond the boxscore ..." is this something you ascribe to him across his entire career (and/or across all hypothetical scenarios). Or is this specific to '70 (Game 7?), and then following on from that?