1st vote: Bob Lanier
2nd vote: Allen Iverson *thinking of flip-flopping these two back the way I had them previously, fwiw
My biggest reservation about Lanier has been his defense. I was recently watching Game 6 of the '76 WCSF (Pistons '76/Warriors)---which is a fabulous game, btw, available on YouTube---and my impression of Lanier's defense was.......that's it's sporadic. I would see some lazy defensive possessions intermingled with some
brilliant defensive plays (like his two blocks in a row at the end of regulation).
However, Owly assuaged my concerns somewhat last thread with these details:
Owly wrote:Team level D might be held against him but his Drtg (hardly perfect, but I think sufficient for the point/claim being made) in '74 when he played 81 games led the league.
A concern might be that he missed quite a few games, including playing (just) less than 65 games and 2500 minutes for three of his five short prime/extended peak years ('76, '77 and '78 of '74-'78). Still for that 5 year span he looks like the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league (even after minutes are factored in) and he lasted much better than McAdoo.
cf:
The five year span in question
http://bkref.com/tiny/64BQL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The 70s:
http://bkref.com/tiny/0DbJe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reviews on D
The 1975 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1974 wrote:Lanier is the big difference. He played only when in the mood before last season. He concentrated more on stopping other teams from penetrating and fourth in blocked shots with 247.
[individual bio]
Called "Moses" by his teammates ... For leading them out of the wilderness ...... trimmer last season ...... Defense was his biggest improvement
The 1977 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1976 wrote:Depending on who's in there, the Pistons can make you work. When one of the "whos" is either Trapp or Howard Porter, the opponents can relax a bit. But Rowe, Ford, Mengelt, Kevin Porter, Money and Lanier will get down and play some defense. Lanier, in fact often surprises people by jumping out to pick up guards or forwards. He also clogs the middle nicely.
[individual bio]
Has become a very intimidating defensive player who, like Dave Cowens, is not afraid to switch out on unsuspecting forwards and guards.
The 1978 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1977 wrote:Somewhat confusing. Lanier is a mammoth figure to try and get around [and some other decent players but the Porters are bad and the bench "woefully weak" ... comunication and fouling called a problem, perhaps coaching semi-implied as a problem based on that?]
[individual bio]
Can rebound, block shots, play defense, do everything but clean the kitchen floor ...... [unrelated but I've touched on this] Injuries have been a problem, though, but he has always played hurt
The 1979 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1978 wrote:[Vitale will be looking to emphasize D] Lanier gives him a head start. That is the advantage of having a big center. Lanier seals off the middle and is tough and aggressive.
The 1980 Pro Basketball Handbook from 1979 wrote:[individual bio]Devensively he can be as imposing as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Walton or Artis Gilmore
Depending on how much you allow hypotheticals, you might also consider that Detroit rushed him back in his rookie year which may have been detrimental to his long term health.
I know it's subjective/anecdotal, but still better than nothing. And the guy was an outstanding offensive big.
And though I didn't quote it here to keep the length down, Owly also presented some data pertaining to Lanier's impact. I'll present my own [more coarse] findings in WOWY (with a few different means of looking at '80):
With/Without Records/Wins added per season (pro-rated to 82 games)‘75: 39-37 (.513) with Lanier, 1-5 (.167) without him/+28.4 wins
‘76: 30-34 (.469) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+11.1 wins
‘77: 38-26 (.594) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+21.4 wins
‘78: 31-32 (.492) with Lanier, 7-12 (.368) without him/+10.2 wins
‘79: 21-32 (396) with Lanier, 9-20 (.310) without him/+7.1 wins
‘80 Pistons: 9-28 (.243) with Lanier, 5-12 (.294) without
‘80 Pistons overall before trade (for Kent Benson): 14-40 (.259)
‘80 Pistons after trade: 2-26 (.071)
‘80 Bucks before obtaining Lanier: 29-27 (.518)
‘80 Bucks after obtaining Lanier: 20-6 (.769) (Lanier played all 26 games)
*‘81: 48/49-18/19 with Lanier, *11/12-3/4 without him
*he actually played 67 games, but game log data only recording 66 (48-18); is possible [likely] they won they other game he played in, making the with record 49-18 (.731) and 11-4 (.733) without. Would be -0.1 wins added in that instance.
‘82: 53-21 (.716) with Lanier, 2-6 (.250) without him/+38.2 wins
The above data spans eight years, SIX different head coaches, and a fair amount of supporting cast turnover.
So one way are another, Lanier's impact appears to have been pretty consistently substantial in nature (and was so across multiple settings). And while Lanier's lack of All-NBA honors will work against him for some people, I'd caution against thinking that this means he was scarcely ever a top 5-10 player: he finished 3rd in the MVP vote in '74, 4th in '77 (POST-merger), and had TWO other top 10 finishes, and received at least slight MVP consideration in a total SEVEN seasons.
wrt Iverson:
Here's some WOWY findings from '99-'06.....
AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over these years:
NOT weighted for games played/missed+7.3 ppg
+1.1% TS%
+2.3 ORtg
+4.61 SRS
WEIGHTED for games played+7.4 ppg
+1.2% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+4.21 SRS
Weighted for games missed+7.1 ppg
+0.8% TS%
+1.4 ORtg
+2.90 SRS
39-59 record (.398) without, 251-193 record (.565) with (avg of +13.7 wins per 82-game season).
And again: '04 was a definitive outlier within this time period; he was playing banged up and performing well below his usual standard. If I can cherry-pick a little and remove that year from consideration.....
AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him during '99-'02, '05 and '06:NOT weighted for # of games played in each season+7.8 ppg
+1.4% TS%
+3.0 ORtg
+5.49 SRSWEIGHTED for games played+7.7 ppg
+1.4% TS%
+3.0 ORtg
+4.81 SRSWEIGHTED for games missed+8.3 ppg
+1.5% TS%
+3.2 ORtg
+4.82 SRS25-39 record (.391) without, 232-164 record (.586) with: avg of +16 wins per 82-game season.^^^^Granted, these teams were built around/for him; but still, this isn't the result of a cherry-picked season or two; this is the AVERAGE of SIX different seasons. And I think particularly interesting is the shift in TEAM TS% and ORtg (things critics assume he can't have had much positive impact upon, because his individual shooting efficiency is so pedestrian).In terms of rate metrics, Iverson often isn't quite an apples to apples comparison to some other players, due to the extreme mpg he was typically playing. Just as a few for instances, looking at best 9-year spans:
Alex English ('81-'89): 21.5 PER, .139 WS/48, +2.3 BPM in 36.6 mpg
Dominique Wilkins ('86-'94): 23.2 PER, .173 WS/48, +3.5 BPM in 37.4 mpg
Manu Ginobili ('04-'12): 22.4 PER, .222 WS/48, ~+6.4 BPM in 28.7 mpg---->just want to point out that fatigue or pacing one's self is almost never an issue in these kinds of minutes for a conditioned NBA athlete.
Allen Iverson ('98-'06): 22.1 PER, .139 WS/48, +3.7 BPM in
41.9 mpg---->fatigue would become a nightly significant issue for most players (especially while shouldering his kind of usage), which would effect their rate metrics. His rate metrics are still slightly better than those of English, and only slightly behind those of Wilkins. Significantly behind those of Manu, though again there's more than an entire quarter of play difference in their respective playing times, so it's a bit hard to make the straight up comparison.
Manu soundly trumps all in terms of impact metrics, though I'll say again: impact is not player quality. It's player quality + role/fit/circumstance......and I do think Manu got the best of the latter category among pretty much everyone else on the table at this time. I must confess to worrying about his health/longevity in other settings, too, fwiw.
Impact measures are also
rate metrics, too, don't forget (again referring to his limited minute role).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
