RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #42 (Kawhi Leonard)

[trex_8063]

I guess, the upside about Horry is that he was crazy additive with an offensively-minded 5. And that's an extremely valuable skill . . . if you're paired with one. It's just that Horry played with Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan, so this ability was very much on display. But he's obviously aberrant in having been optimally positioned for the use of his skill for his whole career.

Yeah, "aberrant in having been optimally positioned" is a good way of putting it. Since you stated it this way, I just double-checked his year-to-year position: he spent 15.5 of 16 seasons (all 16 playoffs, fwiw) next to a top-10 [of all-time] big (Hakeem, then Shaq, then Duncan) during that big's prime for all 15.5.
Three of the 6.5 seasons in LAL also had a prime Kobe (FOUR, if you consider '00 prime Kobe).
And his years in San Antonio coincide with a number of Manu's very best seasons (including his peak).


One lucky bugger......


EDIT: btw, please tell me your pick between Isiah and Kawhi.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #21:

Isiah Thomas - 3 (Cavsfansince84, Hal14, Odinn21)
Kawhi Leonard - 2 (DQuinn1575, Dutchball97)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Magic Is Magic)
Russell Westbrook - 1 (sansterre)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)


Probably about 22 hours left for this one. And a reminder to please tell me your pick between Isiah and Kawhi, regardless of who your votes are for.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[sansterre]

Kawhi > Isiah for me.

[penbeast0]

Players mentioned so far:

PG -- Isiah Thomas, Russell Westbrook, Chauncey Billups, Gary Payton,Bob Cousy
SG -- Ray Allen, Sam Jones. Manu Ginobili, Hal Greer
SF -- Kawhi Leonard. Paul Pierce, Adrian Dantley, Alex English
PF -- Pau Gasol. Kevin McHale, Chris Webber (+Horry)
C -- Willis Reed, Dwight Howard, Robert Parish, Ben Wallace, Anthony Davis(+ Walton)

Looking at the PGs, Westbrook is the biggest impact maker but (as we've seen in Washington this year), he can't seem to adjust his game to be anything but what he is. Giant stat producer but also huge proportion of "Oh NO!" plays. I'd have him as the best floor raiser but worst ceiling raiser. Isiah is like Westbrook lite only seems to be higher IQ and able to adjust his game more to fit his teammates. I mark him down for his low efficiency and for forcing out Adrian Dantley but not too much because the team won two titles despite the Dantley trade. I think he get romanticized by playing in an era with Bird and Magic; like Carmelo gets romanticized by being the 3rd star from their draft behind LeBron and Wade. Neither belong in the category of the first two. Payton scored in good volume, got assists but never really seemed to fulfill his draft predictions about him being Rondo like passer, and has a rep as one of the 3 most likely candidates for GOAT PG defender (though +/- type numbers have soured me on this a bit as Nate McMillan on his own team seems to have more defensive impact). Billups is the opposite of Westbrook here. Lowest floor raiser of the group, but probably the most portable with easily the highest off ball skills. If I have a bad team, they rank Westbrook, Isiah, Payton, Billups; if I have a good team already, I would reverse that ranking. Sheesh. I will go for Chauncey Billups of the 4 here.

Wings, we have Kawhi, Manu, Allen, Pierce, and Sam Jones. Out of this group, I have Manu slightly above Kawhi (both limited minutes players, Kawhi has stronger postseason runs, Manu the better locker room guy and more versatile in playing different roles); Allen over Pierce and Jones for the pure wing scorer types. Manu v. Ray Allen again depends what your team is. If you need that big scorer who plays big minutes, Ray Allen. IF you have top talent and you need a swiss army knife player who can do it all, go with Manu. Again, I tend to look at winning championships and am going to go with Manu here.

Bigs, we have Reed, Pau, McHale, and Webber. Webber is a step below the other three. Reed the strongest impact but in the weakest era and for the shortest time so eliminate him as well. Pau v. McHale: my head says McHale for his stronger defense and post game, my gut says Pau for his superior passing, range, and because he played a much bigger role in the Laker championships than McHale did in the Celtics titles. I'll go with Pau here.

So, putting it to a very shaky conclusion:

1. Chauncey Billups
2. Manu Ginobili
3. Pau Gasol

If it comes down to Kawhi v. Isiah, I am going to flip-flop from the last time and go with Kawhi this time. We are at a very tough spot in the rankings!

[trex_8063]

For anyone who is paying attention, I just edited my vote post to reflect that in a decision between Isiah and Kawhi, I'm gonna go with Kawhi. Had been leaning [very slightly] toward Isiah, but I find I'm struggling a touch on the justification for it.

Just putting that out there for anyone keeping track.

I'm lower on Kawhi than many due to lacking longevity, the frank overrating of his '19 campaign [imo], and some frowns toward his intangibles as a leader.
I'm lower on Isiah than the mainstream simply because I don't swallow some of the narrative wholesale. I've acknowledged that HE was the acknowledged leader of that squad, and obviously a very very good player with some fair/decent longevity overall. But I also note when the Pistons were at their very best, they won more on the strength of their defense than their offense (for which Isiah---though actually a decent defender----may have been the single weakest link defensively in the starting line-up [there were some guys on the bench who were worse, imo]).
Additionally, those were some exceptionally deep rosters [see sansterre's 100 Greatest teams project and their ratings on depth], and not at all squad's that were "carried" by Isiah.
He was a very good [not necessarily "great"---except perhaps sporadically, in very short streaks] player, and was so for a decent length of time; and he fit in well as the vocal leader of an exceptional group. That's what he's got going for him.

So neither one is quite this high on my own list [full disclosure: I have Kawhi #49, Isiah #50]; but that's not all that far off anymore.

The only issue I have with this criticism of Isiah is that the other top teams his team was going against were also pretty deep and its not like the Pistons were a team with 4 all stars. His second and third best players were a young Dumars and Laimbeer imo. Isiah was their only all star in 88 and 89.

I mean, this depends on if we're going only by who was officially or technically an All-Star (rather than who deserved to be an all-star). By that definition, '09 Mo Williams, '00 Dale Davis, and '92 Michael Adams were "All-Stars", while Reggie Miller [in '91, '92, '93, '94, '97, and '99], Rudy Gobert ['17, '18, and '19], and Damian Lillard ['16 and '17] were not.

As to the two Piston teams you refer to.....
On the '88 Pistons, certainly at least Bill Laimbeer and Adrian Dantley were as much "All-Stars" as any one of '09 Mo Williams, '00 Davis, or '92 Adams ever were.
On the '89 Pistons, I'd say the same of Laimbeer, Dumars, and Rodman.
idk if that makes them "all-stars"(ish) or not in your preferred semantics.

But "depth" refers to more than just "co-stars"......that's what got pretty remarkable about the two title teams in particular. In '89 they had the backcourt tandem of Thomas/Dumars, the Laimbeer/Mahorn/Aguirre frontcourt (no superstars, perhaps, but a pretty nice starting line-up: three guys who are at least borderline All-Stars, and only one who's a marginally weak starter [Mahorn]). However, after that they had Dennis Rodman as 6th man [played more mpg than Mahorn], who was arguably another borderline All-Star. 7th and 8th men in the line-up are Vinnie Johnson and John Salley, 9th is the somewhat aging James Edwards. Chuck Daly a helluva coach too.
How many teams in history can boast 6th-9th men + coach that good? Very very few. Teams like the '96 Bulls come to mind. Maybe the '15 or '16 Warriors?

'90 is basically the same team, except Mahorn is gone and Vinnie Johnson seems to have abruptly hit his post-prime, though they obtained a reasonably decent back-up PG in the aging Gerald Henderson.

So I think he does deserve quite a bit of credit for those teams ranking fairly high in ORtg in the 88-90 period. 6th, 7th and 11th. Its not like they won only with defense. They also had a very efficient slow it down offense.

A fair point. Though to be clear, I never said they won "only" with defense. I said they won "more on the strength of their defense than their offense".

In their best 5-year stretch ['87-'91] where they made it at least as far the CF each year, they did indeed have a better than average offense each year. However, their defense was better [based on rDRTG vs rORTG] each and every one of those five years; by as little as a negligible +0.1 ['89] to a pretty darn sizeable +3.0 ['91] (average was +1.54 better).
So strictly speaking, what I said was entirely true. My wording may have seemed to overstate the margin, perhaps? Acknowledging here they were decent offensively, too.

As to what made them good offensively, I note that the two best offenses in this span were when Dantley was around [for at least half the season] in '88 and '89. Likely in direct relation to his presence, the FF they shine in was eFG% and FTAr.
They 3rd-best rORTG of this span was in '90: with Dantley entirely out of the picture, their eFG% and FTAr have fallen substantially to where they're now entirely mediocre in these (and where eFG% isiah is -3.6% relative to the team average).......where they're now good is in OREB% and TOV%.
Isiah's turnover economy is not that good [in this year in particular]; but both Dumars and Laimbeer [and back-up Henderson, actually] all have good to elite overall turnover economies.

And OREB% is apparently the underappreciated value-added trait [unless we're talking about Moses Malone].
Dennis Rodman is playing the biggest minutes of his career to this point and has an almost obscene OREB%. Isiah might be "helping" a little in this by way of what I call the "Iverson assist": penetrates, gets the interior defensive help to commit [leaving a teammate without a body boxing him out], thus allowing better offensive rebounding opportunities......don't know exactly how much he was really helping in this regard [certainly not a huge volume].


I know this all comes across as very disparaging, but only because I'm responding as counterpoint to praise. All just food for thought.

[trex_8063]

Players mentioned so far:

PG -- Isiah Thomas, Russell Westbrook, Chauncey Billups, Gary Payton
SG -- Ray Allen, Sam Jones. Manu Ginobili
SF -- Kawhi Leonard. Paul Pierce
PF -- Pau Gasol. Kevin McHale, Chris Webber (+Horry)
C -- Willis Reed

I've made a brief post supporting Robert Parish, too.
EDIT: And Bob Cousy has a little support.
EDIT2: And Ben Wallace has been voted as an alternate by one poster.
EDIT3: And Dwight Howard has also appeared as an alternate on ballots at this point.
EDIT4: I think Anthony Davis was at least mentioned a couple threads ago.

[Cavsfansince84]

So I think he does deserve quite a bit of credit for those teams ranking fairly high in ORtg in the 88-90 period. 6th, 7th and 11th. Its not like they won only with defense. They also had a very efficient slow it down offense.

A fair point. Though to be clear, I never said they won "only" with defense. I said they won "more on the strength of their defense than their offense".

In their best 5-year stretch ['87-'91] where they made it at least as far the CF each year, they did indeed have a better than average offense each year. However, their defense was better [based on rDRTG vs rORTG] each and every one of those five years; by as little as a negligible +0.1 ['89] to a pretty darn sizeable +3.0 ['91] (average was +1.54 better).
So strictly speaking, what I said was entirely true. My wording may have seemed to overstate the margin, perhaps? Acknowledging here they were decent offensively, too.

As to what made them good offensively, I note that the two best offenses in this span were when Dantley was around [for at least half the season] in '88 and '89. Likely in direct relation to his presence, the FF they shine in was eFG% and FTAr.
They 3rd-best rORTG of this span was in '90: with Dantley entirely out of the picture, their eFG% and FTAr have fallen substantially to where they're now entirely mediocre in these (and where eFG% isiah is -3.6% relative to the team average).......where they're now good is in OREB% and TOV%.
Isiah's turnover economy is not that good [in this year in particular]; but both Dumars and Laimbeer [and back-up Henderson, actually] all have good to elite overall turnover economies.

And OREB% is apparently the underappreciated value-added trait [unless we're talking about Moses Malone].
Dennis Rodman is playing the biggest minutes of his career to this point and has an almost obscene OREB%. Isiah might be "helping" a little in this by way of what I call the "Iverson assist": penetrates, gets the interior defensive help to commit [leaving a teammate without a body boxing him out], thus allowing better offensive rebounding opportunities......don't know exactly how much he was really helping in this regard [certainly not a huge volume].


I know this all comes across as very disparaging, but only because I'm responding as counterpoint to praise. All just food for thought.

Granted I'd say AD was very close to all star caliber in 88 and Laimbeer was fringe all star level and Rodman as well as Dumars were both all stars in 1990 but my greater point here is that we've seen plenty of collections of near all star talent over the years that don't accomplish much of anything. It takes clear leadership and someone really holding the reins to drive those kinds of teams to true contender status much less very near dynasty status which is what those Pistons were able to do. Which I think is in large part due to both Daly and Isiah. I don't think Isiah being 18th in career playoff bpm is coincidental here either. I would say his ability to play realistically more like a top 5-10 player in the league in those playoffs is a big reason why they were able to nearly 3 peat. I think Isiah is just a guy who understood bb very well. I think this also is due to him getting to play under coaches like Knight and Daly. He had a great ability to just know who should take a shot and when his team needed him to score more.

[euroleague]

1. Bob Cousy
2. Isiah Thomas
3. Bill Walton

1. Cousy was a revolutionary player in the NBA, and he was a huge contributor on many championship teams. His stats may not have been good, but as a PG, much of his impact wasn't in his scoring stats. His elite playmaking set the stage for Russell's passing to develop, and his transition offense helped the defense by tiring out opponents. It's no coincidence that the Celtics were consistently first in ppg - his offense also allowed for offensive rebounding to be more effective.

Many people hating on Cousy never actually watched these games. I myself haven't watched enough of them to be an expert, but what I have seen of Cousy has him as an elite floor general whose impact went far beyond his stats.

2. Isiah Thomas - Another PG whose impact went way beyond the box score. People often credit Bill Russell's leadership - but Isiah was perhaps the best leader in the NBA's history, in my ranking. Most teams, when hated like the Pistons, can't maintain cohesion and unity with all the players being proud of their roles and completely buying in. Isiah led the team in fostering an image that was scary, brutal, and disliked by most... while keeping the team proud of their image and identity. Furthermore, his on-court dominance was as a floor-general... players like him and Rondo didn't always have the best stats, but their impact on teams is undeniable, as we saw on the Bulls when Rondo went down.

3. Bill Walton - This may be a lot higher than most have him, but his run at his best was so elite, both in the regular and post-season, i feel comfortable putting him this high. MVP, FMVP, would've won DPOOY, 6MOY with the Celtics on a GOAT level team. McHale had a bigger role on those teams, and will probably be my next selection, but Walton's brief period of being arguably the best player in the league, and winning Portland's only title, put him this high for me.

[DQuinn1575]

How many teams in history can boast 6th-9th men + coach that good? Very very few. Teams like the '96 Bulls come to mind. Maybe the '15 or '16 Warriors?

What?
So when I look at subs, I look to see how much they play for other teams - were they starter quality?

Kukoc - did it 10 times - great 6th man, really a level above this type of analysis.
Wennington - never played more than 18.9 minutes a game
Kerr - played 50% of the time - 24.8 mpg - once
Buechler - never played more than 21.1 minutes per game

So you have one guy who was definite starter quality, and one guy who was starter level once.
This is not a talented bench.

To compare

Rodman - did it 13 times, like Kukoc really a level (or two) above this
Johnson - 8 times played 24 mpg or more
Salley did it 5 times,
Edwards did it 11 items

So it shows the Pistons have guys 6-9 that were starter quality - I thought so at the time, and they go 9 deep probably as well as most any team ever.

These benches aren't close, to me little doubt 4 of the top 5 guys are Pistons.
Now you can argue that the Bulls were well coached, and that they were used well, but in terms of talent, having your 7th-9th guys having only one season has being a regular is really low.

[LA Bird]

I didn't expect to see Horry's name in this project but for voters who only look at the playoffs, he is not actually too bad of a pick. There have been some talk of "postseason longevity" in previous threads and Horry is top 30 all time in both playoffs WS and VORP. He often gets lumped with guys like Fisher or Kerr who also won a lot of rings with lucky game winners but Horry actually has some good playoff numbers. His career 3.7 BPM in the playoffs is All Star level whereas Kerr (+0.9) and Fisher (+0.6) were just average. Horry is also one of the more versatile power forwards for a low scoring role player. He can pass, defend, and had good handles for a 6'10 guy and he is a more consistent 3pt shooter than almost all PFs who play defense. He was top 15 in RS+PO RAPM three consecutive seasons and he even got a special mention in ElGee's passer rating article as a great extra passer.

Horry's clutchness also overshadow some of his other Finals achievements. He has two of the highest steal + block averages in Finals history next to some of the best defensive centers (and 16 LeBron):

Finals steals + blocks (since 1974)
1. 2003 Duncan (6.33)
2. 2009 Howard (5.60)
3. 1994 Ewing (5.57)
4. 1986 Olajuwon (5.50)
5. 1994 Olajuwon (5.43)
6. 1995 Horry (5.25)
7. 1980 Abdul-Jabbar (5.20)
8. 2016 James (4.86)
9. 2005 Wallace (4.71)
10. 1977 Walton (4.67)
11=. 1982 Abdul-Jabbar (4.50)
11=. 2002 Horry (4.50)

And he has outscored his MVP teammates in the 4th quarter in multiple Finals series.
2000 Finals Q4 - Horry: 19 points on 7-15 FG. Kobe: 14 points on 3-15 FG.
2001 Finals Q4 - Horry: 24 points on 7-11 FG. Shaq: 22 points on 9-20 FG. Kobe: 22 points on 6-17 FG.
2005 Finals Q4 - Horry: 32 points on 10-16 FG. Duncan: 30 points on 11-29 FG.

Horry's regular season production is most likely too low to get a vote from me at all but he is a very useful role player to have on a championship contender. People often dismiss his rings because he got carried by superstars but Horry probably contributed more in his Finals wins than Rodman did in his except 1996.

[Joao Saraiva]

Votes
1. Kawih Leonard
2. Chauncey Billups
3. Dwight Howard

Well well... Kawih vs Isiah seems to be the debate.

Kawih Leonard is a two time champion and two time finals MVP. Isiah is a two time champion... and won one finals MVP.

Kawih is more of a true contender for the MVP award than Isiah has ever been.

Kawih is an elite scorer, both in volume and in efficiency. Thomas was below the average ts% of the league...

Thomas is a better playmaker, but it's not like Kawih needs super playmaking for him to work. Obviously he won't carry that job for the team... but this is the only point Thomas has no Kawih.

Kawih is a better rebounder, definitely a better defender...

Kawih is a player in another tier as his raw and advanced stats confirm.

Idk what is there left for Thomas in this comparison.

You can call it leadership... but well, if Kawih isn't a great leader the gap on his play has to be even bigger, cause he already won in 2 different situations. It means he can at least be lead.

I was one of the people who put an asterisk on him doing well with the Spurs. He proved it with the Raptors. That was when he took a big jump all time wise and confirmed that the Spurs system and staff wasn't needed for him to thrive.

[trex_8063]

How many teams in history can boast 6th-9th men + coach that good? Very very few. Teams like the '96 Bulls come to mind. Maybe the '15 or '16 Warriors?

What?
So when I look at subs, I look to see how much they play for other teams - were they starter quality?

Kukoc - did it 10 times - great 6th man, really a level above this type of analysis.
Wennington - never played more than 18.9 minutes a game
Kerr - played 50% of the time - 24.8 mpg - once
Buechler - never played more than 21.1 minutes per game

So you have one guy who was definite starter quality, and one guy who was starter level once.
This is not a talented bench.

To compare

Rodman - did it 13 times, like Kukoc really a level (or two) above this
Johnson - 8 times played 24 mpg or more
Salley did it 5 times,
Edwards did it 11 items

So it shows the Pistons have guys 6-9 that were starter quality - I thought so at the time, and they go 9 deep probably as well as most any team ever.

These benches aren't close, to me little doubt 4 of the top 5 guys are Pistons.
Now you can argue that the Bulls were well coached, and that they were used well, but in terms of talent, having your 7th-9th guys having only one season has being a regular is really low.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing the Pistons had the better bench.....that was sort of the whole point of what I was saying wrt to their depth. I was merely [off the top of my head] throwing out some suggestions of teams that may have had a bench somewhat comparable.

I don't really agree with the methodology you're using for comparison here, though. Just because a guy was a starter in years past [or years future] doesn't necessarily have a lot of bearing on what they were in a specific year in outside of that time.
Vinnie Johnson in '90, for example, was 33 years old and had clearly hit his post-prime [as I'd indicated]; he simply wasn't the player he'd been even a year previously.

And while it's a slight derail, I'm going to elaborate one why I think you're underselling the Chicago bench of that year. You wanna say the bench on the '89 Pistons was better, fine; I'll probably agree with you. But to say that was "not a talented bench" does not ring true at all to me:

6th man: Toni Kukoc
Was 6MOY in '96 and legitimately fringe/borderline All-Star level player. Can try to qualify the latter part of that statement if needed, but hopefully that at least does not come across as even remotely "hot takey".


7th man: Steve Kerr
Steve Kerr was a pretty decent player, and bear in mind that from '95-'97 [when the brought the above-the-break 3pt line in by 21"], his stock rose a bit. He was already an extremely elite catch-and-shoot outside marksman; when they made it that much easier for him to get the extra point, he was actually a pretty important player, and VERY complimentary on a team that had someone who was frequently doubled in the post and good passing out of the double (Jordan), and someone who was decent penetrating and kicking (Pippen, Jordan, and Kukoc). He averaged 6.5 3PA/100 this season, while making 51.5% of them. While he didn't score high volume [slightly below league average at 18.9 pts/100, actually], his eFG% was 63.3%: best on the team by nearly 9% over the 2nd-place teammate.
Although he rarely got to the FT-line, he shot a career-best 92.9% this year, too. All factored in, his rTS% was an astounding +12.1% (best on the team by more than 7% over 2nd).

And while his creation responsibilities were small, he conducted his role with an ultra-elite [GOAT-level] turnover economy (even in light of of his light load): consider that for every 2 turnovers he committed, he'd have accrued 32.8 pts and 9.1 ast.
And it's not as though he didn't have to handle the ball some; he was actually fairly routinely tasked with advancing the ball into the halfcourt anyway, spelling Pippen a little on those responsibilities.

Between his ultra-elite shooting efficiency and even more ultra-elite turnover economy, he has an individual ORtg of 141, which is best in the league among players who played even remotely relevant minutes. Off-hand, that might be the best individual ORtg I ever recall seeing, actually.

Defensively he's very limited, mostly due to his size and mediocre lateral quickness (though he's neither dumb nor lazy defensively).
But the offensive value he brings based on his shooting and ball control make him a fairly relevant player.

Taking a quick glance at all the box-based metrics and the limited +/- based ones, '96 Kerr was a 15.2 PER, .208 WS/48, +3.4 BPM, +35 net rating [again, not sure I've seen one so high on actual relevant minutes], and +0.3 AuPM while averaging >23 mpg and not missing a single game.
Are his circumstances favourable to the type of player he is? Sure; but that's a pretty decent player, no matter how you slice it. With the shortened line, Kerr is at least a "weak starter level" player.......and that's a pretty good asset to have as your 7th-man.


8th man: Bill Wennington
Yeah, Wennington is nothing special, but he's not bad for that role. You're not writing home about him, but nor are you crying about a player like Wennington as your 8th man. He's basically league average among 8th-men.


9th man: Jud Beuchler
Beuchler wasn't a bad player. He's basically a fair/decent 3&D role player (and those kinds of guys always have value). With the shortened line he was shooting 44.4% from beyond the arc that year, and that's on a not insignificant 6.4 3PA/100, and I recall him being fair/decent defensively (averaged 2.9 stl+blk/100, fwiw). And he's a halfway decent rebounding SF, particularly on the offensive glass (his OREB% is barely behind Longley, and actually ahead of Wennington).
As the 9th man in your rotation.....that's actually pretty good.


And let's not forget that after the AS-break [and in the playoffs], the '96 Bulls also had one of the very players you're praising above: John Salley; only 31-32 years old, had been a starter just the year prior.


Don't know that it's as good as the bench of the '89 Pistons; but "not a talented bench" is a clear mischaracterization, imo.

[Doctor MJ]

Re-posting from last:

Vote:
1. Kawhi Leonard
2. Ray Allen
3. Kevin McHale

Kawhi & Allen move up one. Still could see the argument for Allen here, but Kawhi's the one who is a real candidate so I'll keep going with him.

Going to go with McHale for the 3rd spot this time. He was astonishingly effective.

Not looking to hate on Isiah. Could definitely see arguments for him here.

Sorry so short. I can add more if necessary.

[Hal14]

Votes
1. Kawih Leonard
2. Chauncey Billups
3. Dwight Howard

Well well... Kawih vs Isiah seems to be the debate.

Kawih Leonard is a two time champion and two time finals MVP. Isiah is a two time champion... and won one finals MVP.

Kawih is more of a true contender for the MVP award than Isiah has ever been.

Kawih is an elite scorer, both in volume and in efficiency. Thomas was below the average ts% of the league...

Thomas is a better playmaker, but it's not like Kawih needs super playmaking for him to work. Obviously he won't carry that job for the team... but this is the only point Thomas has no Kawih.

Kawih is a better rebounder, definitely a better defender...

Kawih is a player in another tier as his raw and advanced stats confirm.

Idk what is there left for Thomas in this comparison.

You can call it leadership... but well, if Kawih isn't a great leader the gap on his play has to be even bigger, cause he already won in 2 different situations. It means he can at least be lead.

I was one of the people who put an asterisk on him doing well with the Spurs. He proved it with the Raptors. That was when he took a big jump all time wise and confirmed that the Spurs system and staff wasn't needed for him to thrive.

Player A= loyal to one organization, loyal to the team that drafted him, loyal to the city and was drafted by a franchise that was in shambles yet stuck with them even after a few rough seasons in the beginning, stuck with that franchise, allowed the franchise to build the team around him, won 2 titles and 3 NBA finals appearances and stayed with that franchise his entire career

Player B = starts his career off in the PERFECT situation, on a Spurs team which already had a culture of winning built, he's on a team with 3 hall of fame players and a hall of fame coach, wins a title but then pouts, whines, turns into a complete a-hole, my way or the highway, all about himself and not about the team kind of guy, sits out the season, refuses to play when the going gets tough and then goes to Toronto - yeah he wins a title but he could have stayed in Toronto and built a dynasty but instead he jumps ship after only 1 season, ditching the Raptors, once again showing zero loyalty to the organization, goes to the Clippers because all he cares about is himself and doesn't care at all about the organization he is with at the time so he goes to the Clippers where a) better weather in LA b) more marketable city / bigger market and c) team up with another star player (Paul George) as they both go to a clippers team which was already pretty good, hence giving himself an easier shot at the title, so taking the easy way out. Yet even then, his one and only season so far with the clippers ends in disappointment when the Clippers team chemistry falls apart in the playoffs. Kawhi couldn't get along with his teammates, he wasn't a leader, couldn't get along with Coach Doc Rivers (who then loses his job) couldn't make it work with star teammate Paul George (resulting in numerous trade rumors this past offseason involving George)

Give me Player A over Player B in a heartbeat every day of the week.

Oh yeah, and Kawhi:
-Has only played 4 seasons where he averaged 17+ PPG while playing at least 10 games in that season. .Isiah did it 11 times
-Has only played 30+ MPG while playing at least 1/2 of his team's games in the same season 6 times...Isiah did it 13 times
-Not counting this season for Kawhi obviously, we'll just look at Kawhi's first 9 seasons in the league compared to Isiah's first 9 seasons in the league. Let's look at their availability. Out of a possible 712 regular season games, Kawhi only played in 524 of them. That's 73%. Isiah played in 716 out of a possible 738 games. That's 97%. It's not even close, apples to oranges comparison here. Even if we remove the year Kawhi was a cry baby and sat out most of the last season he was with the Spurs (and to be fair we remove the season during Isiah's first 9 where he played the least amount of games), we still get Kawhi with 515 games played out of a possible 630 (81%) compared to Isiah with 644 games played out of a possible 656 (98%). Again, it's not even close.
-Not only has Kawhi only played 9 seasons (obviously not counting this season which he's only played 9 games in) but during those 9 seasons he has only played in 73% of his team's games!

All of these durability issues for Kawhi, despite the fact that he plays in the era with much less physicality, no hand checking, no hard fouls, more days off between games, better facilities, better equipment and more advancements in sports training and sports science.

Sure, he's won 2 titles but he's caused drama and been a head case on 3 different teams!

[Odinn21]

I guess I'm way lower on Leonard's career value because I just don't see it stacking up enough.

2015-16 was his first season as a superstar.
2016-17 was on the verge of becoming one of the top but left unfinished for him.
2018-19 was a massive performance in the playoffs but he had a team that could afford to sit him for one quarter of the season and the only worthy opponent they had in the playoffs was the Bucks. The Raptors shouldn't have gone to a game 7 against the Sixers and the Warriors were utterly crippled.
2019-20 was just an underwhelming season for his reputation/stature.

He didn't have at least one season like Dwyane Wade's 2005-06, let alone something like Bird's 1983-84.

It's very interesting for me to see that I, the guy care of a peak/prime more, go against him but some of the posters who are way bigger than me on total career value go for Leonard.

To me, this is kind of like saying 2015-16 Stephen Curry is one of the top 10 single season peaks. The wow factor just suppresses the issues to be addressed.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Oh yeah, and Kawhi:
-Has only played 4 seasons where he averaged 17+ PPG while playing at least 10 games in that season. .Isiah did it 11 times

This is such a random number...17 PPG? You did this because 1) Kawhi has a season with 16.5 PPG.

Thomas's career high in Points per 100 is 27.6 while Kawhi's career average is 30.3 with 4 seasons above 32.

-Has only played 30+ MPG while playing at least 1/2 of his team's games in the same season 6 times...Isiah did it 13 times

Modern players play less minutes. Increased movement and a better understanding of how to maximize a players total impact in a game results in less regular season minutes but a high intensity in those minutes.

-Not counting this season for Kawhi obviously, we'll just look at Kawhi's first 9 seasons in the league compared to Isiah's first 9 seasons in the league. Let's look at their availability. Out of a possible 712 regular season games, Kawhi only played in 524 of them. That's 73%. Isiah played in 716 out of a possible 738 games. That's 97%. It's not even close, apples to oranges comparison here. Even if we remove the year Kawhi was a cry baby and sat out most of the last season he was with the Spurs (and to be fair we remove the season during Isiah's first 9 where he played the least amount of games), we still get Kawhi with 515 games played out of a possible 630 (81%) compared to Isiah with 644 games played out of a possible 656 (98%). Again, it's not even close.

Correct, Isiah beats Kawhi on Longevity yet you weren't someone high on Longevity when Reggie Miller was gaining traction.

All of these durability issues for Kawhi, despite the fact that he plays in the era with much less physicality, no hand checking, no hard fouls, more days off between games, better facilities, better equipment and more advancements in sports training and sports science.

This is such a "Back in my day..." comment without any evidence or thought. You realize players move much more now than they did in the 1980s, right?

Sure, he's won 2 titles but he's caused drama and been a head case on 3 different teams!

When was he a headcase on Toronto? Is he actually a "headcase" in LA?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #36:

Kawhi Leonard - 4 (Doctor MJ, DQuinn1575, Dutchball97, Joao Saraiva)
Isiah Thomas - 3 (Cavsfansince84, Hal14, Odinn21)
Bob Cousy - 2 (euroleague, Magic Is Magic)
Russell Westbrook - 1 (sansterre)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)


Closing time. 11 votes requires 6 for a majority. So Pau and Russ are first eliminated, which actually ghosts both votes.
So we'll eliminate Cousy next, which transfers one to Kawhi, one to Isiah....

Kawhi - 5
Isiah - 4
(ghosted) - 2

Which would make Kawhi the default winner. But as per protocol we have to validity-check default winners via Condorcet. The two ghosted votes are myself and sansterre, and both of us have opted to go with Kawhi in a KL v IT decision....

Kawhi - 7
Isiah - 4

So Kawhi gets this one. I'll have the next up in a jiffy.....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[DQuinn1575]

How many teams in history can boast 6th-9th men + coach that good? Very very few. Teams like the '96 Bulls come to mind. Maybe the '15 or '16 Warriors?

What?
So when I look at subs, I look to see how much they play for other teams - were they starter quality?

Kukoc - did it 10 times - great 6th man, really a level above this type of analysis.
Wennington - never played more than 18.9 minutes a game
Kerr - played 50% of the time - 24.8 mpg - once
Buechler - never played more than 21.1 minutes per game

So you have one guy who was definite starter quality, and one guy who was starter level once.
This is not a talented bench.

To compare

Rodman - did it 13 times, like Kukoc really a level (or two) above this
Johnson - 8 times played 24 mpg or more
Salley did it 5 times,
Edwards did it 11 items

So it shows the Pistons have guys 6-9 that were starter quality - I thought so at the time, and they go 9 deep probably as well as most any team ever.

These benches aren't close, to me little doubt 4 of the top 5 guys are Pistons.
Now you can argue that the Bulls were well coached, and that they were used well, but in terms of talent, having your 7th-9th guys having only one season has being a regular is really low.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing the Pistons had the better bench.....that was sort of the whole point of what I was saying wrt to their depth. I was merely [off the top of my head] throwing out some suggestions of teams that may have had a bench somewhat comparable.

I don't really agree with the methodology you're using for comparison here, though. Just because a guy was a starter in years past [or years future] doesn't necessarily have a lot of bearing on what they were in a specific year in outside of that time.
Vinnie Johnson in '90, for example, was 33 years old and had clearly hit his post-prime [as I'd indicated]; he simply wasn't the player he'd been even a year previously.

And while it's a slight derail, I'm going to elaborate one why I think you're underselling the Chicago bench of that year. You wanna say the bench on the '89 Pistons was better, fine; I'll probably agree with you. But to say that was "not a talented bench" does not ring true at all to me:

Spoiler:

6th man: Toni Kukoc
Was 6MOY in '96 and legitimately fringe/borderline All-Star level player. Can try to qualify the latter part of that statement if needed, but hopefully that at least does not come across as even remotely "hot takey".


7th man: Steve Kerr
Steve Kerr was a pretty decent player, and bear in mind that from '95-'97 [when the brought the above-the-break 3pt line in by 21"], his stock rose a bit. He was already an extremely elite catch-and-shoot outside marksman; when they made it that much easier for him to get the extra point, he was actually a pretty important player, and VERY complimentary on a team that had someone who was frequently doubled in the post and good passing out of the double (Jordan), and someone who was decent penetrating and kicking (Pippen, Jordan, and Kukoc). He averaged 6.5 3PA/100 this season, while making 51.5% of them. While he didn't score high volume [slightly below league average at 18.9 pts/100, actually], his eFG% was 63.3%: best on the team by nearly 9% over the 2nd-place teammate.
Although he rarely got to the FT-line, he shot a career-best 92.9% this year, too. All factored in, his rTS% was an astounding +12.1% (best on the team by more than 7% over 2nd).

And while his creation responsibilities were small, he conducted his role with an ultra-elite [GOAT-level] turnover economy (even in light of of his light load): consider that for every 2 turnovers he committed, he'd have accrued 32.8 pts and 9.1 ast.
And it's not as though he didn't have to handle the ball some; he was actually fairly routinely tasked with advancing the ball into the halfcourt anyway, spelling Pippen a little on those responsibilities.

Between his ultra-elite shooting efficiency and even more ultra-elite turnover economy, he has an individual ORtg of 141, which is best in the league among players who played even remotely relevant minutes. Off-hand, that might be the best individual ORtg I ever recall seeing, actually.

Defensively he's very limited, mostly due to his size and mediocre lateral quickness (though he's neither dumb nor lazy defensively).
But the offensive value he brings based on his shooting and ball control make him a fairly relevant player.

Taking a quick glance at all the box-based metrics and the limited +/- based ones, '96 Kerr was a 15.2 PER, .208 WS/48, +3.4 BPM, +35 net rating [again, not sure I've seen one so high on actual relevant minutes], and +0.3 AuPM while averaging >23 mpg and not missing a single game.
Are his circumstances favourable to the type of player he is? Sure; but that's a pretty decent player, no matter how you slice it. With the shortened line, Kerr is at least a "weak starter level" player.......and that's a pretty good asset to have as your 7th-man.

8th man: Bill Wennington
Yeah, Wennington is nothing special, but he's not bad for that role. You're not writing home about him, but nor are you crying about a player like Wennington as your 8th man. He's basically league average among 8th-men.


9th man: Jud Beuchler
Beuchler wasn't a bad player. He's basically a fair/decent 3&D role player (and those kinds of guys always have value). With the shortened line he was shooting 44.4% from beyond the arc that year, and that's on a not insignificant 6.4 3PA/100, and I recall him being fair/decent defensively (averaged 2.9 stl+blk/100, fwiw). And he's a halfway decent rebounding SF, particularly on the offensive glass (his OREB% is barely behind Longley, and actually ahead of Wennington).
As the 9th man in your rotation.....that's actually pretty good.


And let's not forget that after the AS-break [and in the playoffs], the '96 Bulls also had one of the very players you're praising above: John Salley; only 31-32 years old, had been a starter just the year prior.


Don't know that it's as good as the bench of the '89 Pistons; but "not a talented bench" is a clear mischaracterization, imo.

I use the 24 mpg to get an idea of how you would compare say a Wennington or Buechler as an 8th or 9th man. The thought is that these guys play on a few different teams, and one way to peg a level of play above rotation/replacement player is if they are a regular. How good a statement is it that Wennington and Buechler are good 8th and 9th men? Well, if they played regularly in other years that is an indication of tealent.
Using 89 Detroit as a basis for comparison is unfair, it was the one being mentioned; I think they are one of the best benches 6-9. I have toyed with this, but never went very far with it before, so I took what was easy.
So, I will be more fair. 1996 top teams, the other top 3 teams, San Antonio and Indiana, so the next 5 best teams in the league.
Every single player of their 6-9 guys -20 in total, played at least 1 season of 24 mpg, and 13 of them had at least 3.
There's always exceptions, and always guys who are good fits.

So all the other top teams had the next 4 guys in minutes played being someone who played regularly at some point in their career.
The Bulls 8th and 9th men never did.


Seattle
Perkins - 13x
Askew - 2x
McMillian - 7x
Brickowski 5x (and a 23.9, just to show I'm strict on my definition)

Utah
Keefe - 1x
Morris -7x
Carr -2x
Eisley 3x

Orlando
Shaw 5x
Bowie 2x
Wolf 1x
Royal 1x

San Antonio
Person 10x
Perdue 1x
Rivers 10x
Smith 7x

Indiana
A Davis 10
Pierce 9
Workman 3
Johnson 10

[colts18]

Oh yeah, and Kawhi:
-Has only played 4 seasons where he averaged 17+ PPG while playing at least 10 games in that season. .Isiah did it 11 times

This is such a random number...17 PPG? You did this because 1) Kawhi has a season with 16.5 PPG.

Thomas's career high in Points per 100 is 27.6 while Kawhi's career average is 30.3 with 4 seasons above 32.

-Has only played 30+ MPG while playing at least 1/2 of his team's games in the same season 6 times...Isiah did it 13 times

Modern players play less minutes. Increased movement and a better understanding of how to maximize a players total impact in a game results in less regular season minutes but a high intensity in those minutes.

-Not counting this season for Kawhi obviously, we'll just look at Kawhi's first 9 seasons in the league compared to Isiah's first 9 seasons in the league. Let's look at their availability. Out of a possible 712 regular season games, Kawhi only played in 524 of them. That's 73%. Isiah played in 716 out of a possible 738 games. That's 97%. It's not even close, apples to oranges comparison here. Even if we remove the year Kawhi was a cry baby and sat out most of the last season he was with the Spurs (and to be fair we remove the season during Isiah's first 9 where he played the least amount of games), we still get Kawhi with 515 games played out of a possible 630 (81%) compared to Isiah with 644 games played out of a possible 656 (98%). Again, it's not even close.

Correct, Isiah beats Kawhi on Longevity yet you weren't someone high on Longevity when Reggie Miller was gaining traction.

All of these durability issues for Kawhi, despite the fact that he plays in the era with much less physicality, no hand checking, no hard fouls, more days off between games, better facilities, better equipment and more advancements in sports training and sports science.

This is such a "Back in my day..." comment without any evidence or thought. You realize players move much more now than they did in the 1980s, right?

Sure, he's won 2 titles but he's caused drama and been a head case on 3 different teams!

When was he a headcase on Toronto? Is he actually a "headcase" in LA?

It's much easier to play today than the 80's. For one, traveling is easier. Every team has a private charter flight. Back in the 80's, teams had to wait in the airport like normal people and take regular flights. The shoes and equipment are better today. The hotels players stay at are better today too. So is the fact that the NBA didn't enforce flagrants in the 80's but they do now.

Kawhi not playing back to back's is a massive advantage. So is playing less minutes. Isiah has 10 seasons over 2,500+ minutes including 9 at over 2,900+ minutes. Kawhi has 0 career 2,500+ minute seasons. Let's see how well Kawhi looks when he has to play every single game at 38 Minutes per game with no off days. He has never proven he is capable of that.

[trex_8063]

Seattle
Perkins - 13x
Askew - 2x
McMillian - 7x
Brickowski 5x (and a 23.9, just to show I'm strict on my definition)

Utah
Keefe - 1x
Morris -7x
Carr -2x
Eisley 3x

Orlando
Shaw 5x
Bowie 2x
Wolf 1x
Royal 1x

San Antonio
Person 10x
Perdue 1x
Rivers 10x
Smith 7x

Indiana
A Davis 10
Pierce 9
Workman 3
Johnson 10

This is all well and good, but do you truly feel that looking at how many times a player averaged >24 mpg in seasons which are NOT under scrutiny is the singular best way to evaluate who good he was in a season that IS under scrutiny?

I mean, just one reason [of the myriad that exist] as to why this method is really murky/shoddy is that mediocre [or even poor] players will get relevant playing time on bad teams. Bad teams don't have anyone better to fill the minutes===>that's why they're bad.
GOOD teams don't have to settle for just anyone to take minutes on the court; they have options [usually good options] to fill in that playing time===>that's why they're good.


Exploring this idea with just a few examples from above [drawn from not even a full pass of these names]....

Joe Wolf - the ONE season he averaged >24 [27.1, to be exact] was in a 42-game sample for a team that went 17-65 (-10.24 SRS: which I think is like bottom three or four of all-time).

Will Perdue - the ONE season he averaged >24 mpg [29.5, to be precise] was on the Spurs team that was suddenly without Robinson; a team that had not only sustained a season-ending injury to the star player who happened to play the same position, but that also went 20-62 that year. If we're going to evaluate players in this manner, it's worth noting that Perdue doesn't have a single other season avg as many as 21 mpg, and only one other >20 mpg [only TWO others >18 mpg; only THREE others >14 mpg, and one of those was for an awful 17-65 team].

Frank Brickowski - His five seasons are as follows:
31.8 mpg for a 31-51 team
28.5 mpg for a 21-61 team
25.5 mpg for a 48-34 team
31.4 mpg for a 28-54 team
29.5 mpg by way of a split: 33.4 mpg for a 20-62 team and 23.3 mpg for a 41-41 team
....this also noting Brickowski [and Perdue] played a position that was sorely lacking in depth at that time.

If one is going to insist on scrutinizing players like this, I personally feel warranting 23.4 mpg on a 72-10 team trumps 30 minutes for 20-30 win team or similar.


But again: I don't advocate using this method anyway.
What is so objectional about just looking what players actually did during a year in question?