RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #58

[LA Bird]

Still the same votes. Might comment later on Carter vs Iverson later if I have the time....

1. Vince Carter
Carter has a clear longevity advantage against McGrady and Harden who peaked higher. Against volume scorers with similar longevity, Carter's 3pt shot spaces the floor better and he is a better passer than Wilkins, a better defensive player than Iverson.
A great all round player who wasn't far off from Pierce (who was voted in 15 places ago BTW) during their primes. Somewhat questionable intangibles early on especially in how he left Toronto but turned into a great teammate towards the end of his career. FWIW, I have Carter ranked as 2nd best sixth man in the league in his first season off the bench with the Mavs and it's not often you see a star of his caliber transition into a bench role this successfully.

2. Nate Thurmond

[penbeast0]

I do not think English was a poor defender, he was Paul Pierce level speaking solely from eye test. Certainly above the level of Wilkins (peers voted him least interested in defense in the league) or Dantley (prior to Detroit).

Nate Thurmond v. Elvin Hayes is very interesting. Both outstanding defenders, both inefficient offensive players. Thurmond the more loved by coaches and teammates, Hayes the more team success both overall (Washington) and relative to the talent around him (San Diego).

[Outside]

I do not think English was a poor defender, he was Paul Pierce level speaking solely from eye test. Certainly above the level of Wilkins (peers voted him least interested in defense in the league) or Dantley (prior to Detroit).

Nate Thurmond v. Elvin Hayes is very interesting. Both outstanding defenders, both inefficient offensive players. Thurmond the more loved by coaches and teammates, Hayes the more team success both overall (Washington) and relative to the talent around him (San Diego).

We have differences of opinion on English's defense. No need to belabor that.

I know it was just a quick take on your part, but I'll point out a few things about your Thurmond-Hayes comparison.

-- Equating them as "both outstanding defenders" seems wrong on multiple counts. Hayes was a good defender, but Thurmond was head and shoulders better as a defender. All-Defense didn't start until Thurmond's 6th season (Hayes' rookie season), yet Thurmond was 1st team twice and 2nd team three times while Hayes was only 2nd team twice and was never 1st team. Thurmond was better at individual defense, help defense, and shotblocking. The only defensive area they were comparable in is rebounding, though Thurmond also has the edge there in RPG and rebound percentage, though Hayes has more total rebounds due to greater longevity.

-- Saying Thurmond was more loved by coaches and teammates is putting it mildly. They are at extreme opposite ends of that spectrum.

-- I don't give Hayes any edge over Thurmond for "team success." Giving Hayes credit for the San Diego years seems curious considering that those teams went 37-45, 27-55, and 40-42. Hayes went to the finals three times compared to twice for Thurmond, and Hayes also won a title while Thurmond didn't, but Hayes was also on a team that got swept in one of the biggest upsets in NBA finals history. The Warriors under owner Franklin Mueli in San Francisco were a shoestring operation, never able to afford roster depth like Hayes had with the Bullets. Thurmond lost in the finals to two of the greatest teams of that or any era. Thurmond did well with the rosters he was on.

[penbeast0]

I do not think English was a poor defender, he was Paul Pierce level speaking solely from eye test. Certainly above the level of Wilkins (peers voted him least interested in defense in the league) or Dantley (prior to Detroit).

Nate Thurmond v. Elvin Hayes is very interesting. Both outstanding defenders, both inefficient offensive players. Thurmond the more loved by coaches and teammates, Hayes the more team success both overall (Washington) and relative to the talent around him (San Diego).

We have differences of opinion on English's defense. No need to belabor that.

I know it was just a quick take on your part, but I'll point out a few things about your Thurmond-Hayes comparison.

-- Equating them as "both outstanding defenders" seems wrong on multiple counts. Hayes was a good defender, but Thurmond was head and shoulders better as a defender. All-Defense didn't start until Thurmond's 6th season (Hayes' rookie season), yet Thurmond was 1st team twice and 2nd team three times while Hayes was only 2nd team twice and was never 1st team. Thurmond was better at individual defense, help defense, and shotblocking. The only defensive area they were comparable in is rebounding, though Thurmond also has the edge there in RPG and rebound percentage, though Hayes has more total rebounds due to greater longevity.

-- Saying Thurmond was more loved by coaches and teammates is putting it mildly. They are at extreme opposite ends of that spectrum.

-- I don't give Hayes any edge over Thurmond for "team success." Giving Hayes credit for the San Diego years seems curious considering that those teams went 37-45, 27-55, and 40-42. Hayes went to the finals three times compared to twice for Thurmond, and Hayes also won a title while Thurmond didn't, but Hayes was also on a team that got swept in one of the biggest upsets in NBA finals history. The Warriors under owner Franklin Mueli in San Francisco were a shoestring operation, never able to afford roster depth like Hayes had with the Bullets. Thurmond lost in the finals to two of the greatest teams of that or any era. Thurmond did well with the rosters he was on.

I agree with you on comparing Thurmond to Hayes defensively but we have statements here to the effect of there being statistical evidence of Hayes being a top 10 defender in NBA history so I left it more open. His San Diego teams didn't have much of a record in a vacuum but when you consider that it was an expansion team, I think it is the best 1st year record for an expansion team since the 24 second rule.

[Outside]

I do not think English was a poor defender, he was Paul Pierce level speaking solely from eye test. Certainly above the level of Wilkins (peers voted him least interested in defense in the league) or Dantley (prior to Detroit).

Nate Thurmond v. Elvin Hayes is very interesting. Both outstanding defenders, both inefficient offensive players. Thurmond the more loved by coaches and teammates, Hayes the more team success both overall (Washington) and relative to the talent around him (San Diego).

We have differences of opinion on English's defense. No need to belabor that.

I know it was just a quick take on your part, but I'll point out a few things about your Thurmond-Hayes comparison.

-- Equating them as "both outstanding defenders" seems wrong on multiple counts. Hayes was a good defender, but Thurmond was head and shoulders better as a defender. All-Defense didn't start until Thurmond's 6th season (Hayes' rookie season), yet Thurmond was 1st team twice and 2nd team three times while Hayes was only 2nd team twice and was never 1st team. Thurmond was better at individual defense, help defense, and shotblocking. The only defensive area they were comparable in is rebounding, though Thurmond also has the edge there in RPG and rebound percentage, though Hayes has more total rebounds due to greater longevity.

-- Saying Thurmond was more loved by coaches and teammates is putting it mildly. They are at extreme opposite ends of that spectrum.

-- I don't give Hayes any edge over Thurmond for "team success." Giving Hayes credit for the San Diego years seems curious considering that those teams went 37-45, 27-55, and 40-42. Hayes went to the finals three times compared to twice for Thurmond, and Hayes also won a title while Thurmond didn't, but Hayes was also on a team that got swept in one of the biggest upsets in NBA finals history. The Warriors under owner Franklin Mueli in San Francisco were a shoestring operation, never able to afford roster depth like Hayes had with the Bullets. Thurmond lost in the finals to two of the greatest teams of that or any era. Thurmond did well with the rosters he was on.

I agree with you on comparing Thurmond to Hayes defensively but we have statements here to the effect of there being statistical evidence of Hayes being a top 10 defender in NBA history so I left it more open. His San Diego teams didn't have much of a record in a vacuum but when you consider that it was an expansion team, I think it is the best 1st year record for an expansion team since the 24 second rule.

I'm glad you clarified. Like I said, I knew it was just a quick take on your part, and picking apart a quick take isn't exactly fair, but it's an avenue to discussion, which is what we're here for.

To me, where Hayes has the edge over Thurmond is in offensive production and longevity, while Nate has the edge in defense, rebounding, and character (leadership, chemistry, that sort of thing). Both deserve to get in soon.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #25:

Allen Iverson - 3 (fundamentals21, dhsilv2, trex_8063)
Vince Carter - 2 (LABird, Dr Positivity)
James Harden - 1 (pandrade83)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Nate Thurmond - 1 (Outside)
Adrian Dantley - 1 (Clyde Frazier)


One or two of Harden's supporters are MIA this thread, so we go to runoff between Iverson and Carter. Eliminating those with one vote, none of the votes transfer to the remaining runoff candidates, so:

Allen Iverson - 3 (fundamentals21, dhsilv2, trex_8063)
Vince Carter - 2 (LABird, Dr Positivity)


If your name isn't shown there, please state your pick between AI and Vinsanity and at least brief reasons why. Runoff to conclude in ~24 hours.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Owly]

I do not think English was a poor defender, he was Paul Pierce level speaking solely from eye test. Certainly above the level of Wilkins (peers voted him least interested in defense in the league) or Dantley (prior to Detroit).

Nate Thurmond v. Elvin Hayes is very interesting. Both outstanding defenders, both inefficient offensive players. Thurmond the more loved by coaches and teammates, Hayes the more team success both overall (Washington) and relative to the talent around him (San Diego).

We have differences of opinion on English's defense. No need to belabor that.

I know it was just a quick take on your part, but I'll point out a few things about your Thurmond-Hayes comparison.

-- Equating them as "both outstanding defenders" seems wrong on multiple counts. Hayes was a good defender, but Thurmond was head and shoulders better as a defender. All-Defense didn't start until Thurmond's 6th season (Hayes' rookie season), yet Thurmond was 1st team twice and 2nd team three times while Hayes was only 2nd team twice and was never 1st team. Thurmond was better at individual defense, help defense, and shotblocking. The only defensive area they were comparable in is rebounding, though Thurmond also has the edge there in RPG and rebound percentage, though Hayes has more total rebounds due to greater longevity.

-- Saying Thurmond was more loved by coaches and teammates is putting it mildly. They are at extreme opposite ends of that spectrum.

-- I don't give Hayes any edge over Thurmond for "team success." Giving Hayes credit for the San Diego years seems curious considering that those teams went 37-45, 27-55, and 40-42. Hayes went to the finals three times compared to twice for Thurmond, and Hayes also won a title while Thurmond didn't, but Hayes was also on a team that got swept in one of the biggest upsets in NBA finals history. The Warriors under owner Franklin Mueli in San Francisco were a shoestring operation, never able to afford roster depth like Hayes had with the Bullets. Thurmond lost in the finals to two of the greatest teams of that or any era. Thurmond did well with the rosters he was on.

I agree with you on comparing Thurmond to Hayes defensively but we have statements here to the effect of there being statistical evidence of Hayes being a top 10 defender in NBA history so I left it more open. His San Diego teams didn't have much of a record in a vacuum but when you consider that it was an expansion team, I think it is the best 1st year record for an expansion team since the 24 second rule.

The following doesn't matter to the substance of your point.

I was pretty sure that it was Chicago who had the best expansion year record ('67 33-48). As it transpires, you were (mis-)remembering Hayes' rookie season as the expansion year. The expansion Rockets were 15-67 (in '68, led in PER and WS/48 by Hank Finkel) then, upon Hayes' arrival, as noted the Rockets win 37, 27, 40 and (in Houston) 34. As I said, it doesn't affect (perhaps reinforces) the point.

[dhsilv2]

Wow this will be an interesting run off discussion. Both guys were seen as problem guys in the primes, but Carter has this really interesting longer career with a long time as being a role player with a lot of high value intangibles. Meanwhile when they were in their primes Iverson was generally seen as better or much better.

Iverson was an allstar from 00-10 (the 10 vote is a joke and 09 is questionable), but he absolutely would have been on in 99 so it almost evens out. Carter was an allstar from 00-07. No issues with his selections and 99 I doubt he makes it as rookies tend to struggle to get in, but he was good enough to be in. I'll let others decide. Now it gets weird with Carter because he was a 2/3 hybrid so I'm not sure if they were competing or not for all nba spots some years. Carter's two selections however were as a forward. However in the same era and same years Iverson made 7 all nba teams including 3 first team awards. Carter had MVP considerations 4 times, but never higher than 10th. Iverson of course was an MVP and had considerations 8 times.

Carter has a career WS lead 122.1 vs Iverson at 99.0
Carter has the better VORP as well at 54.4 vs 44.1

As I think we all know advanced stats weren't huge fans of Iverson due to his shooting, but everyone following the league generally speaking thought of Iverson as the better player. Playoff WS and VORP are nearly identical, slight edge in PER for Iverson and WS/48 and BPM are a hair better for Carter (meaningless differences).

I'm siding with Iverson, I think he did a LOT that isn't captured by the advanced stats and RAPM struggles given his HUGE minutes. But it's an interesting mix, Carter oddly has managed to create so much longevity along with an early career super nice peak that he's a really interesting choice at this point.

And of course none of the runoffs got an additional vote, they were all for Cowens who likely would win a runoff against anyone here given that.

[Clyde Frazier]

Feel like I'm leaning Carter here, but will come back to it. It's a shame Iverson couldn't accept a role off the bench and extend his career a few more years.

[Outside]

Vince has longevity, but it isn't by as much as I expected, and Iverson has the edge in PS minutes.

Category: Carter vs Iverson
RS games: 1,354 vs 901
RS total minutes: 43,210 vs 37,584
PS games: 88 vs 71
PS total minutes: 3,033 vs 3,203

Carter had a productive first half of his career before settling in as a role player. Iverson never made that transition. Here's how their basic stats compare.

Category: Carter vs Iverson
RS PPG: 18.1 vs 26.7
RS TS%: 53.6 vs 51.8
RS PRG: 4.5 vs 3.7
RS APG: 3.3 vs 6.2
RS STL: 1.1 vs 2.2
RS TOV: 1.8 vs 3.6

RS PPG: 18.1 vs 29.7
PS TS%: 51.8 vs 48.9
RS PRG: 5.4 vs 3.8
RS APG: 3.4 vs 6.0
RS STL: 1.1 vs 2.1
RS TOV: 1.9 vs 3.1

Some of that difference is due to Carter's reduced role in later years. I expected Carter to have a sizeable advantage in TS%, particularly because I always thought of him as a better three-point shooter than Iverson, but it was much closer than I thought.

Awards:

Category: Carter vs Iverson
MVPs: 0 vs 1
Seasons in top 10 of MVP shares: 1 vs 7
All-NBA 1st team: 0 vs 3
All-NBA 2nd team: 1 vs 3
All NBA 3rd team: 1 vs 1

Vince's longevity just doesn't compensate for Iverson's impressive PS scoring, title, MVP, and MVP shares. Iverson just attained a higher level.

Runoff vote: Iverson

[LA Bird]

Carter vs Iverson

Iverson has the scoring titles but when you break the scoring down to volume and efficiency relative to league average, I don't think there was much of a gap between him and Carter. Looking at their top 8 scoring seasons,

Per 100 possessions
00~07 VC: 34.7 points on +1.1% TS
99~06 AI: 36.8 points on -1.2% TS

Is the extra 2 points per 100 possession worth the 2% TS difference? One could argue that the offensive value of Iverson was not from the efficiency of his scoring but from collapsing the opponent defense by constantly attacking the basket a la Westbrook and that such an effect is not captured in his individual box scores. However, Iverson doesn't rate very highly in on-off stats, RAPM or WOWYR either. Carter tops Iverson in all of the impact stats which attempts to capture non box score impact.

Career on-off (regular season)
+7.3 Carter
+3.9 Iverson

Career on-off (playoffs)
+8.2 Carter
-9.7 Iverson

01~15 RAPM
+4.43 Carter
+1.13 Iverson
* Carter was ahead of Iverson in RAPM every single year, including 1999 and 2000.

Career WOWRYR
+2.7 Carter
+0.8 Iverson

A good thing about Iverson was his low turnovers (12.2 TOV%) when carrying an insanely high offensive load but Carter had even lower turnovers and his TOV% is pretty much second to Jordan among scoring wings. Iverson may be better at carrying a completely awful offensive supporting cast due to his scoring outbursts but on most teams which have some sort of offensive help, Carter would be more valuable. Add in the extra longevity (higher career WS, VORP and even total points) due to him being a much better teammate towards the end of his career and I think Carter should be ahead of Iverson here.

[dhsilv2]

I'd look at offensive rebound rates though. And the number of fouls they drew. TS% doesn't really do justice their styles of play. Early career carter was going to the rim like Iverson, but after a few years he did it less and less. Iverson was drawing fouls and his team rebounded far more of those shots at the rim.

[penbeast0]

We have differences of opinion on English's defense. No need to belabor that.

I know it was just a quick take on your part, but I'll point out a few things about your Thurmond-Hayes comparison.

-- Equating them as "both outstanding defenders" seems wrong on multiple counts. Hayes was a good defender, but Thurmond was head and shoulders better as a defender. All-Defense didn't start until Thurmond's 6th season (Hayes' rookie season), yet Thurmond was 1st team twice and 2nd team three times while Hayes was only 2nd team twice and was never 1st team. Thurmond was better at individual defense, help defense, and shotblocking. The only defensive area they were comparable in is rebounding, though Thurmond also has the edge there in RPG and rebound percentage, though Hayes has more total rebounds due to greater longevity.

-- Saying Thurmond was more loved by coaches and teammates is putting it mildly. They are at extreme opposite ends of that spectrum.

-- I don't give Hayes any edge over Thurmond for "team success." Giving Hayes credit for the San Diego years seems curious considering that those teams went 37-45, 27-55, and 40-42. Hayes went to the finals three times compared to twice for Thurmond, and Hayes also won a title while Thurmond didn't, but Hayes was also on a team that got swept in one of the biggest upsets in NBA finals history. The Warriors under owner Franklin Mueli in San Francisco were a shoestring operation, never able to afford roster depth like Hayes had with the Bullets. Thurmond lost in the finals to two of the greatest teams of that or any era. Thurmond did well with the rosters he was on.

I agree with you on comparing Thurmond to Hayes defensively but we have statements here to the effect of there being statistical evidence of Hayes being a top 10 defender in NBA history so I left it more open. His San Diego teams didn't have much of a record in a vacuum but when you consider that it was an expansion team, I think it is the best 1st year record for an expansion team since the 24 second rule.

The following doesn't matter to the substance of your point.

I was pretty sure that it was Chicago who had the best expansion year record ('67 33-48). As it transpires, you were (mis-)remembering Hayes' rookie season as the expansion year. The expansion Rockets were 15-67 (in '68, led in PER and WS/48 by Hank Finkel) then, upon Hayes' arrival, as noted the Rockets win 37, 27, 40 and (in Houston) 34. As I said, it doesn't affect (perhaps reinforces) the point.

Dang, sorry, thanks for the correction.

[trex_8063]

Carter vs Iverson

Career WOWRYR
+2.7 Carter
+0.8 Iverson
.

Fwiw, I’ve had to question Elgee’s method to some degree. I don’t know if it’s because he counted games <20 minutes played as games missed, or some other factor of methodology…...but I question the +0.8 value for Iverson in light of my own WOWY findings for him (outlined in post #3 itt), while Dantley, for example, rates a +4.3----who, by comparison, shows the following according to my own WOWY investigations (seasons '80-'88 covered):

NOT weighted for games played/missed *only three years data for ts% and ORtg (‘86-’88)
+3.3 ppg
+0.4% TS%*
-1.2 ORtg*
+1.26 SRS
Weighted for games PLAYED
+3.4 ppg
+0.4% TS%*
-1.5 ORtg*
+1.63 SRS
Weighted for games MISSED
+2.7 ppg
+0.8 TS%*
+1.8 ORtg*
-0.52 SRS
51-76 (.402) record w/o him, 290-321 (.475) record with: avg +6.0 wins per 82-game season.


Overall of Utah Prime Years (‘80-’86): 195-266 (.423) with him, 40-73 (.354) without him; avg +5.7 wins added per 82 games.
WOWY effect of ‘80-’86 Dantley (Non-weighted)
+5.1 ppg
+1.85 SRS

WOWY effect of ‘80-’86 Dantley (weighted for games played)
+5.6 ppg
+2.38 SRS

WOWY effect of ‘80-’86 Dantley (weighted for games missed)
+2.9 ppg
-0.30 SRS


…..FAR less impressive.

[penbeast0]

I'd look at offensive rebound rates though. And the number of fouls they drew. TS% doesn't really do justice their styles of play. Early career carter was going to the rim like Iverson, but after a few years he did it less and less. Iverson was drawing fouls and his team rebounded far more of those shots at the rim.

And yet we've had the last 5 years of analysis here talking about how spacing gives more advantage not reflected in the box score than interior scoring. Iverson was a poor exemplar of spacing, particularly for a small guard. Carter turned into a pretty good floor spacer.

[penbeast0]

In terms of the runoffs, I think it's too early for both of them but LA Bird's advanced stats analysis makes up to some degree for Carter's unimpressive efficiency, at least relative to Iverson. And, for all the questions about Carter's intangibles, Iverson's practice habits and defensive inconsistency are worse.

VOTE VINCE CARTER (holding nose)

[pandrade83]

Head over heart here.

Carter shakes out better in RAPM, in VORP Peak & Totals, BPM Peak & Career Average despite playing a lot more games, in WS Peak & Totals. I don't think all of Iverson's value is captured in those kind of metrics & the WOWY Data from T-Rex seems more illustrative of his value - there's tremendous value in getting to the line at the rate he did & his style of play does put pressure on the defense. However, I think that there's a ceiling in having Iverson on your team and I think the WOWY data is influenced in part by the team construction. Those Sixer Teams were constructed in a strange way and when paired with better teammates in Denver, he never really fully adapted the way he needed too. Carter strikes me as more value add to a good team and it's unfortunate he got stuck on some stinkers.

Run-off Vote: Vince Carter

[dhsilv2]

I'd look at offensive rebound rates though. And the number of fouls they drew. TS% doesn't really do justice their styles of play. Early career carter was going to the rim like Iverson, but after a few years he did it less and less. Iverson was drawing fouls and his team rebounded far more of those shots at the rim.

And yet we've had the last 5 years of analysis here talking about how spacing gives more advantage not reflected in the box score than interior scoring. Iverson was a poor exemplar of spacing, particularly for a small guard. Carter turned into a pretty good floor spacer.

Why would Iverson, who always had the ball, be bad for spacing? We have data that suggests guys like Wade have similar gravity out to the 3 point line as Korver because of his slashing ability.

[Joao Saraiva]

Runoff vote: Allen Iverson

I think Iverson's ceiling was bigger than Carter's. On a great night he could destroy teams by himself. Of course his willing and style of play also translated into such poor games like VC mostly didn't have. It's not like VC couldn't explode into great games but those crazy 50 point nights like AI had didn't happen nearly as often.

But I'll take Iverson's bigger variation here. If he can do it two or three times in a series he can guarantee a good fight and a chance of winning the series.

Feel sorry for not voting for VC, hope he gets in the next spot.

[penbeast0]

Why would Iverson, who always had the ball, be bad for spacing? We have data that suggests guys like Wade have similar gravity out to the 3 point line as Korver because of his slashing ability.

Iverson has gravity, like Shaq had gravity, because people are afraid of his scoring on them. That's not the same as spacing.
Why might this be a problem? Two reasons:
(1) A unipolar offense where there is one primary scorer like Wilt with the Warriors or Gervin some years with the Spurs, is easier to game for defensively. There are a much more limited set of options for the defense to worry about and good defense will find it easier to handle than that same caliber of player in a multipolar offense. Shaq with no one dangerous around him still has tremendous gravity (more even) but when they collapse on him as they will time after time, there are less options for him to score or make plays for others. Shaq with Kobe scoring 25 ppg will find it easier to score himself because defenses have to respect the other options for the team but also the team will find it easier to get good shots because if the defense focuses on one threat, there are others. You saw Iverson be more efficient (not great but not as bad) in Denver because of this. It's also the reason I am not as impressed with players who need the ball in their hands and an isolation set to let them operate (this includes Adrian Dantley) as I am with players who get their points without the team having to set the floor for them but scoring within the context of a team offense (like Alex English).
(2) The SG position is normally one of the primary places for great shooters because they have less responsibilities other than shooting than any other spot on the floor in the stereotypical offense. PG's must bring the ball up and initiate the offense, they are expected to distribute as well. Forward have more rebounding responsiblity. Centers also have extra defensive responsiblities as rim protectors. OF course, when you have a Jokic you let him playmake, when you have a Curry at PG, you get extra shooting, etc. but SG has the least non-scoring responsiblities in a normal talent distribution. Thus it is even more important to get the spacing to open the floor for other players.

Does that mean you don't play a Dwyane Wade or Sidney Moncrief because they aren't great floor spacers? OF course not. When a player is that good, you build your offense around him as Philly did for Iverson. Just that I feel that it is more difficult to build around a player who dominates the ball and doesnt' spread the floor from the 2 guard spot.

And Joao, not sure that variation is a good thing. If you are weaker team, then yes, you win games you would have lost and lose games you would have won and that helps you. But, if you are a stronger team than your opponent, then you lose game you would have won and win games you would have lost and since you are winning most of them on the average then that hurts you. So, to me, greater variation is a negative for a team with championship aspirations. Now, if the greater variation player is also greater on the average, then he is probably still the greater player . . . I don't think the variation issue is that major, but to the degree it is a tie breaker, I would say it is bad thing.