RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 (Sam Jones)

Moderators: penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,553
And1: 8,182
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 (Sam Jones) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 4:27 pm

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. Kevin Durant
23. Chris Paul
24. Stephen Curry
25. Bob Pettit
26. John Stockton
27. Steve Nash
28. Dwyane Wade
29. Patrick Ewing
30. Walt Frazier
31. James Harden
32. Scottie Pippen
33. Elgin Baylor
34. John Havlicek
35. Rick Barry
36. Jason Kidd
37. George Gervin
38. Clyde Drexler
39. Reggie Miller
40. Artis Gilmore
41. Dolph Schayes
42. Kawhi Leonard
43. Isiah Thomas
44. Russell Westbrook
45. Willis Reed
46. Chauncey Billups
47. Paul Pierce
48. Gary Payton
49. Pau Gasol
50. Ray Allen
51. Dwight Howard
52. Kevin McHale
53. Manu Ginobili
54. Dave Cowens
55. Adrian Dantley
56. ???

I'll look to close this one as close to 11-12 EST on Thursday as I can get.
Again, to Joao Saraiva [and others], it'll be good to inform me of your order of ALL players with significant traction, as it's pretty much always going to come down to Condorcet validation at this point.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

RSCD3_ wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"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
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#2 » by sansterre » Tue Feb 9, 2021 4:32 pm

1. Bob Lanier - I know next to nothing about his play, but I've loved his stats ever since I could read them. One of the highest WOWYRs remaining (+5.4/+5.8), he played on multiple teams and missed some time so we got a good sample of his impact, and it was considerable. He was a high-usage player (I'm eyeballing it in the mid-high 20s) but extremely efficient, averaging +5 rTS% through his peak. He was not a skilled passer, but he wasn't a liability with the ball either. He wasn't an historically great rebounder, but he commonly was in the top ten in rebounds per game, dominant on the defensive glass. He was a sufficient defender, but his unusually high efficiency combined with high volume made him unusually valuable, and it was value that he retained regardless of team. And in the playoffs his shooting, far from dropping, actually *increased* 2%. In fact, here are his per 100s for regular season and playoffs from '74 to '80:

Regular Season: 28.2 points on 24.8 TSA (56.2% TS), 13.9 TRB, 4.4 AST, 1.5 TOV
Playoffs: 28.9 points on 24.8 TSA (58.2% TS), 15.2 TRB, 4.4 AST, 0.7 TOV

So against playoff defenses his usage stays the same, but he's even more efficient, rebounds even more and drops his turnovers in half, without losing any assists. Seriously. Bob Lanier was fantastic. So why don't we hear about him? Because he played for the sad-sack Detroit Pistons through his entire prime and only ended up in Milwaukee a little past his peak. And Milwaukee happened to play in a murderous conference and could never make the Finals. He may never have been on a winner. But I'm telling you. Bob Lanier deserves serious consideration.

2. Anthony Davis - I know his career has been fairly short, but he's put up some pretty insane defensive numbers; you don't see a blend of steals/blocks like that outside of Robinson and Hakeem. He's a solid passer, doesn't turn it over much (is an unusually skilled big man) and scores well at volume. He's never been the best at any one thing, but he's really good at a whole lot of things and really doesn't have weaknesses. And it's become clear that, when paired with a LeBron, he becomes one of the Top 5 players in the game (as it is he's probably had an argument for Top 10 for the last several years). I know he doesn't have longevity, but he's been so good that I really can't fault him. I think he merits some attention here.

3. Robert Parish - Parish is done a disservice by the fact that his most memorable years ('86 specifically) were well past his prime. The knock on Parish is that he was never *great*. He had many iterations as a scorer, from higher usage and sufficient efficiency to lower usage and more efficiency. But he was never a particularly good scorer. He *was* a really good rebounder, but never dominant. He had eight different years in the top 10 of rebounds, but only one in the Top 5. He was never a dominant defender, but he was strong on that end for a very long time. And for all of McHale getting flack for being a black hole, Parish's Shots per Assist was around 10 for most of his career (compared to 7 for McHale). Parish was never a good passer and turned the ball over a fair amount. Put all this together and Parish was never dominant. He was never close to dominant. At his best he was only quite good. But here's the thing. He did that crap FOR EVER. He's 2nd all time in offensive boards, 4th in defensive boards, 10th in blocks, Top 30 in points and so on. To be clear, I don't care about those career counting stats. But I want to be clear that, in contrast to, say, Giannis, who has several ATG seasons but little else, Parish has maybe 15 All-Star (or close) seasons. In career value, Parish makes up the difference in sheer longevity.

Next: Giannis

But seriously. Take a look at Bob Lanier's stats. The only reason he isn't getting attention is because he played most of his career for a crappy franchise and he didn't get much love in his day.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,001
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#3 » by Dutchball97 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 4:49 pm

1. Paul Arizin - One thing I'd like to clear up again is Arizin's longevity. He's 69th in career WS with 108 WS, which is more than Cowens, Jones and AD have (all around 85-95 WS). His two years of military service kept him from having comparable longevity to the likes of Parish, Dantley, Hayes or Lanier but I find it strange how especially for Cowens and Sam Jones people don't tend to mention lacking longevity, while they do for Arizin. Meanwhile, Arizin's regular season peak is also one of the best left out there. The real difference maker for me is the post-season though. On first look his play-off resume doesn't look breathtaking but you have to remember the play-offs didn't have as many rounds back then. In 58 for example they beat Schayes' Nationals 2-1 and then lost 1-4 to the Celtics. That's only 8 games but those 8 games are worth much more than a modern second round exit imo. Arizin has multiple of these runs where he didn't play a lot of games but only because the only teams he faced in the play-offs were strong teams with elite players, no first round freebies like we have now.

2. Sam Jones - I've been considering him for a while now but at this point I'm comfortable with voting him in. His peak (both in the regular season and play-offs) is good but nothing special compared to most of the other contenders here and like I just showed, Jones also isn't the strongest longevity candidate (by WS at least, which I prefer over simply counting years). The thing is that pretty much everyone getting traction has limited play-off showings. You either get guys like Parish or Hayes who have good longevity in both the RS and PS but didn't have all that spectacular peaks or guys with strong peaks but limited PS experience like Lanier or Davis. Sam Jones was 1B for the dynasty Celtics for a while and racked up a lot of great post-seasons. His 64 play-offs especially remind me of something like a light version of 2005 Manu and unlike Manu, this wasn't quite an outlier for Jones. I still think Jones is a difficult player to rank because nobody else really has a career like him but having a strong play-off record really helps his case here against some questionable play-off performers.

3. Elvin Hayes - I had a difficult time deciding between Hayes and Cowens for the 3rd spot last time so with Cowens in Hayes slides through. He has great longevity in both the regular season and post-season. While his peak wasn't as impressive as some other candidates, he did manage quite a lot of pretty impressive play-off runs.
DQuinn1575
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,948
And1: 711
Joined: Feb 20, 2014

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#4 » by DQuinn1575 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 5:28 pm

1. Sam Jones -
2. Paul Arizin
3. Bob Cousy

at the point where I have 3 old-timers, who were all among the Top 5 players in the league while they played, with Arizin and Cousy considered among the very best, while Jones had the misfortune of career overlap with Oscar and West.
Jones was one of the very best Game 7 players ever, averaging 27 ppg, while having his team go 9-0 - his game 7 performances had a big impact on multiple championships, and his playoff performance in 62-66 for 5 straight years isnt matched by a lot of players.

Arizin, like Jones, missed some time due to military. Arizin was one of the best players in the league, and key to a championship.

Cousy was the best guard in the league for many years, and I am at the point to vote him in over others.

From before I have Lanier > Parish > English, but not positive I wouldnt have someone else at #4 -
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#5 » by Odinn21 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 5:38 pm

56. Alonzo Mourning
It's quite insane that we as a group have forgotten about Mourning. He had Walton-Reed like career in a way but the unlucky injury hit him much later. He had 8 good prime seasons with very very good peak. He still had 4 seasons of regular games after the injury, his overall longevity isn't great but it's there. His intangibles were great.
Dantley is the only pick I'm certain right now and I'm going through names to be more certain and I had Mutombo in my ballot before but I'm changing him to Mourning/Hayes.

57. Elvin Hayes
Well, my last vote had Dantley/McHale/Mutombo. I have Dantley as my top pick again and McHale got in but I'm changing my order with Hayes ahead of Mutombo. Hayes' overall longevity is already superior, considering he had that kind of longevity 20 years before Mutombo, it's almost given. Also, I'd probably take peak Hayes over peak Mutombo, so, Mutombo isn't coming ahead of in all my criteria, so, I have Hayes over Mutombo for sure as we go forward.
Hayes is one of Moses-esque figures in the game's history for me. He gets too much undeserved blames.

58. Dikembe Mutombo
I think it's OK to reward him for being one of the biggest defensive forces we've ever seen. Unlike Ben Wallace, he wasn't a limited player with negative impact on offense until later in his career.
This was a recap of Mutombo's career;
Spoiler:
Odinn21 wrote:
Does anyone know of any strong evidence for Mutombo's defense moving the needle? Obviously it did, but how much? BPM takes a fairly dim view of steals, but AuRPM gives Mutombo several very strong seasons, and his WOWYR is bonkers. I would really like to give him some love, but I'm cautious about voting players that BPM is so meh about. I know he was better than BPM says; I just don't know how much better.

The Nuggets went from being the dead last to being average on defense in Mutombo's rookie season.

Here's a quick recap;

1991 Nuggets; -10.31 SRS (27th), +6.8 rDRtg (27th) [the 2nd worst SRS in the season was -6.27]
Mutombo joins as a rookie
1992 Nuggets; -7.59 SRS (27th), +0.4 rDRtg (13th) [the 2nd worst SRS in the season was -7.47]
1993 Nuggets; -2.14 SRS (21st), -1.7 rDRtg (8th)
1994 Nuggets; +1.54 SRS (16th), -4.0 rDRtg (5th)
The team makes the playoffs and upsets the 63W (+8.68 SRS, 1st in SRS Sonics) with Deke's defense and the team also forces a game 7 against the 53W Jazz (+4.10 SRS)
1995 Nuggets; +0.96 SRS (13th), -0.1 rDRtg (14th)
The team gets swept by the Spurs in the 1st round. Mutombo does a good job on Robinson. Though I don't recall why Mutombo played and shot so little in that series.
1996 Nuggets; -2.62 SRS (19th), +0.5 rDRtg (17th)
The team misses the playoffs.

1996 Hawks; +1.29 SRS (14th), +0.4 rDRtg (16th)
Mutombo joins the team in the middle of his prime.
1997 Hawks; +5.52 SRS (5th), -4.4 rDRtg (3rd)
The team gets past the Pistons in the 1st round after Deke's massive performance (18.2 ppg on .745 ts, +21.4 rts), then they fall short to the historic Bulls in 5.
1998 Hawks; +3.85 SRS (8th), -0.7 rDRtg (13th)
The team loses to the Hornets in the 1st round, mediocre performance from Mutombo.
1999 Hawks; +2.82 SRS (8th), -5.1 rDRtg (2nd)
Another strong performance by Mutombo against the Pistons in the 1st round. Mutombo did a good job against Ewing, but the Hawks were utterly outclassed by the pace Sprewell and Houston brought. Mutombo was .492 ts scorer and the rest of the team was .405 ts.
The Hawks give up on Blaylock and Smith.
2000 Hawks; -5.41 SRS (26th), +3.8 rDRtg (25th)
The team misses the playoffs.

2001 Sixers; they were doing OK with Ratliff in 2000 and also in 2001 regular season, in fact their Rtg numbers got worse with Mutombo in 2001 regular season. But NPI-RAPM has Mutombo in the top 7-8 percentile in general and he was in the top percentile in D-RAPM.
In the playoffs, Mutombo was massive though. Especially against the Bucks in the ECF. He had a series like he did against the Pistons in 1997. 16.6 ppg on .577 ts (when the rest of the team scored on .462 ts). One could make a case for Mutombo being the best Sixer over Iverson in that series.
He was almost 35 by this point.

I'm not sure how you'd like to interpret this recap but I think it's quite impressive. He proved his defensive qualities in many different situations. The only significant dip in there was 2000 Hawks season but it was like Draymond Green's season without Curry and Thompson, it was hard to care. I remember some vague games of that Hawks team and I thought how disorganized they are at the time. But I wasn't a full-time follower back then, so, I might be off with 2000 Hawks season.

And I think it's good enough to earn Mutombo this spot. Though I definitely see Parish's and Lanier's cases as well. I have Mutombo ahead of them right now.

I'll edit this message about my rankings of the players those got 1st place votes for the Condorcet method.

Edit;
Mourning > Parish > Lanier > Cousy > Arizin > English > Jones
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 21,560
And1: 20,142
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#6 » by Hal14 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 5:52 pm

Hal14 wrote:1. Bob Cousy
2. Nate Thurmond
3. Elvin Hayes

Bob Cousy - Very underrated on this board. When you look at the players from his era, Mikan and Pettit were better than Cousy. But Cousy has a strong argument for being better than any other player from his era. You could argue that Cousy was better than Schayes and Schayes got voted in a long time ago in the no. 41 spot.

Cousy - 13x all star, 10x all NBA 1st team, 1 MVP, 6x NBA title
Schayes - 12x all star, 6x all NBA 1st team, 0 MVP, 1x NBA title

Cousy has a clear edge in awards and titles over Schayes plus had greater impact on the game - decades later, Cousy was the guy all point guards modeled their game after. Did Schayes do that? Of course not - he was a PF and the guy back then all PFs modeled their game after was Pettit.

What about Arizin? He was a SF and he didn't have as much impact as Cousy either - Baylor was the guy back then all SFs would model their game after - not Arizin.

And as for awards and titles, we have:

Cousy - 13x all star, 10x all NBA 1st team, 2x all NBA 2nd team, 1 MVP, 6x NBA title
Arizin - 10x all star, 3x all NBA 1st team, 1x all NBA 2nd team, 0 MVP, 0 NBA title

Not to mention the impact Cousy had on the game and his legacy. We simply had never before seen a guy who could make the kind of passes that Cousy could. It's like he had eyes in the back of his head - able to see 2 steps ahead of the opposition, able to anticipate where his teammates would be, hit teammates perfectly in stride for transition layups. Some of the plays he made - you might watch them today in 2021 and think they are routine plays - but a) many of the plays he made were truly outstanding and not routine at all and b) He was so far ahead of his time - to make the types of plays he did back in the 50s was pretty amazing. Keep in mind back then there was much more strict rules in regards to dribbling. The way players dribble the ball in today's game - they would get called for a carry, palming or travel pretty much every time down the floor. Cousy was called the hardwood Houdini for a reason. And it's not like he was all flash and no substance (like Maravich, Jason Williams, etc.), Cousy was all about winning. That's all he cared about - winning. Scoring the basketball, making great passes to teammates to get them baskets. Hell, he was even a good rebounder for his size. He did whatever it takes to win. He became the player that all point guards who would come later on would model their games after.

Not for another 2 decades when Frazier came along would we see a player as good as Cousy at both scoring and setting up teammates for scores. Frazier was obviously a better defender, but he also had the advantage of coming along decades later, when more players were lifting weights, rules weren't as strict on palming/carrying/traveling, the ball was easier to shoot and easier to dribble than the one Cousy played with, etc. Frazier was voted in at the no. 30 spot in this poll. Is he really 26 spots better than Cousy? No way.



Cousy led the NBA in assists 8 years in a row.

Nate Thurmond - right in that same tier with Reed, Gilmore and Ewing. I see those four centers as pretty debatable. Ewing, Gilmore and Reed all got voted in already - it's Thurmond's time now. Thurmond has a strong case for being better than all 3 of them (probably the best defender of the group, but Gilmore has the longevity and ABA Finals MVP, Reed has 2 Finals MVPs so I've got Thurmond just barely ranked behind those other guys).

Article here:
https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

Excerpt:
Both Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain have gone on record saying they felt Thurmond was their toughest adversary. “He plays me better than anybody ever has,” Abdul-Jabbar told Basketball Digest when he was in his prime. “He’s tall, has real long arms, and most of all he’s agile and strong.” In an article in Sport, Abdul-Jabbar also said, “When I score on Nate, I know I’ve done something. He sweats and he wants you to sweat, too.”

"Some basketball observers have suggested that the 6-11 Thurmond provided the best mix of offense and defense in basketball history. Many say that his defense was better than Chamberlain’s, and that his offense was better than Bill Russell’s. With quickness and long hands, a smooth outside shooting touch, tenacious rebounding, classic shot blocking ability, and a total team attitude, Thurmond offered a perfectly balanced package."

Thurmond is one of the most underrated players of all time and is top 50, no question in my mind.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/warriors/defensive-dominator-thurmond-one-nbas-most-underrated-all-time

Thurmond went against Wilt, Russell, Chamberlain, Kareem, Unseld, Bellamy, Beaty, Cowens, Reed - all in their prime. Yet he still managed:

-7 all star games in 14 seasons

-2 times all defensive 1st team, 3 times all defensive 2nd team...despite the fact that all defense awards didn't exist until his 6th season! Clearly one of the best defensive players of all time and one of the best rebounders of all time

-Did not make a 1st or 2nd team all NBA (obviously those usually went to Wilt/Kareem/Russell) but there's very little question he would have made quite a few all NBA 3rd team selections if it existed back when he played

-Finished 2nd in MVP voting in 66-67, finishing ahead of Russell, Robertson and Barry - Thurmond finished no. 2 behind Wilt who was no. 1. Finished 11th in 69-70, 8th in 70-7, 8th in 71-72, 9th in 72-73 and 8th in 73-74

-Helped his team to NBA Finals in 67, where they lost to arguably the greatest team of all time, the 67 Sixers. That series Thurmond averaged 14 PPG and 26.7 RPG while playing 47 MPG, going head to head vs Wilt. Thurmond's Warriors fell in 6 games to Wilt's Sixers. Let's compare that to the Eastern Division Finals - Russell (while also going against Wilt) averaged less PPG (11) and less RPG (23) than Thurmond, and Russell's Celtics lost in 5 games to Wilt's Sixers. How did Wilt do in each series? His numbers. were better in the Eastern Division Finals, going against Russell than they were in the NBA finals vs Thurmond. Wilt went from 21 PPG, 32 RPG and 10 APG vs Russell down to 17 PPG, 28 RPG and 6 APG vs Thurmond.
1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,553
And1: 8,182
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#7 » by trex_8063 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 6:07 pm

1st vote: Robert Parish
So yeah.....I'm a meaningful longevity guy. This is not a secret, nor new. And Parish is actually my clear top pick via my criteria; as my list stands now, there's actually no one left on the table who's even within 5 places of Parish.

But seriously:
Parish was an entirely fine two-way player [and was so for a really damn long time].
While I think he’s somewhat more remembered for his offense, he was also a very capable defender thru much of his career (especially early on).

For example, during his first SEVEN seasons in the league......
*He never averaged less than 2.8 blocks per 100 possessions (and as high as 4.4).
**In both ‘79 and ‘81 he was 4th in the league in bpg despite playing just 31.7 and 28.0 mpg; was 5th in ‘82 while playing just 31.7 mpg, too.
***He had a cumulative 97 DRtg, leading the league in DRtg in ‘79; had a DRtg in the top 8 four times (three times in the top 3).

Offensively, he was a 7-footer who ran the floor pretty well, while being a competent finisher (making him one of the more notable transition threats among the centers of his era). He was a very very good low-post scorer (could utilize a little hook shot, or that crazy high-arcing turnaround of his), and also had a tiny bit of range (out to about 12-14 feet, anyway, he was quite effective).
Was an entirely decent FT-shooter for a big-man (72.1% for his career).
The primary reason he was averaging just 16-20 ppg during his prime was because he was playing on an extremely stacked team thru most of it. I've little doubt prime Parish could have avg ~23-24 ppg for a less talent-laden club.

While I don't think Parish could have been “the man” on a contender, I think we’re well past the point on the list where that is a necessary consideration. Especially when one has the kind of longevity that Parish had: he had a prime that basically lasted 13 years (>1,000 rs games), and five other seasons as decent role player of varying (but certainly relevant) value; only 3 seasons (years 19-21) that were of negligible or nil value.

And while he couldn’t have been #1 on a contender, he certainly could have been the #1 on a 40-45 win playoff participant. I think this was more or less proven in '89 when Bird missed the entire season: Parish was arguably the best player [at worst a "1B"] on a 42-win team.....this was at age 35 (the single-oldest man on the Celtic roster). No Bird to feed him, but old-man Parish still averaged 18.6 ppg @ +7.0% rTS, to go with 12.5 rpg and 1.5 bpg.

And he was clearly capable of being the #2 on a contender. Indeed, he WAS either the 2nd or 3rd best player on MULTIPLE contenders.
He’s got one ring as the clear #2 ('81), another as---at worst---the #2B ('84), a third ring as the clear #3 ('86), and then a 4th ring as a sparsely used limited-value bench player ('97).

He was 7th in MVP voting in ‘81, 4th in MVP voting in ‘82.

A look at his prime production…….
Robert Parish (‘79-’91) (13 years: 1022 rs games!)
Per 100 (rs): 25.8 pts, 15.6 reb, 2.5 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk with 3.6 tov @ 58.4% TS
PER 20.2, .168 WS/48, 113 ORtg/102 DRtg (+11) in 32.4 mpg
Playoffs Per 100: 22.9 pts, 13.9 reb, 1.9 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.2 tov @ .551 TS%
PER 16.5, .121 WS/48 in 34.9 mpg

Robert Parish (full career)
Per 100 (rs): 24.6 pts, 15.5 reb, 2.3 ast, 1.3 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.5 tov @ .571 TS%
PER 19.2, .154 WS/48, 111 ORtg/102 DRtg (+9) in 28.4 mpg
**And note this is over 21 years, 1611 rs games (more than any other player in history)
Per 100 (playoffs): 22.6 pts, 14.2 reb, 1.9 ast, 1.2 stl, 2.5 blk, 3.1 tov @ .547 TS%
PER 16.6, .121 WS/48, 109 ORtg/105 DRtg (+4) in 33.6 mpg

Career rs WS: 147.0 (#26 all-time)
Career playoff WS: 15.6 (#39 all-time)
9-Time NBA All-Star
2-Time All-NBA (1x 2nd, 1x 3rd)

That’s an awful lot of career value, imo.


2nd vote: Bob Lanier
A big body with sweet shooting touch in the mid and close ranges, very good rebounder, fair passing big. Sporadically [like in '74] was a good defensive big, though overall probably not so much. But when looking at his production, efficiency, and signs of lift, as well as his totally decent longevity (generously might be said to have had a 9-year prime [so so], but 14 mostly durable seasons in which he was ALWAYS good).......he seems like a worthy candidate for this stage.

From '72-'80 (extended prime) he averaged roughly 28 pts/100 possessions [give or take a couple tenths], ~14.4 reb/100, and ~4.2 ast/100 @ +4.2% rTS with a fair/respectable big-man turnover economy [based on '78-'84].
This is all while averaging 37.4 mpg thru those 9 seasons.

In '74 he averaged 1.6 steals and 3.7 blocks per 100 possessions with a 27.1% DREB%, anchoring a -3.9 rDRTG [3rd of 17 teams]. He had both the league's best individual DRtg AND the league's best DBPM (this was a league that contained Dave Cowens and Kareem).

Granted, that year appears like a completely outlier for him [defensively], but it's still worth acknowledging.

His WOWYR is more than strong for this stage of the list, with a prime WOWYR of +5.4 (career WOWYR of +5.8).
This jives with some of my own more crude WOWY studies for Lanier [omitted his first four years since he only missed four games TOTAL in that span]......
With/Without Records and 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 trading Lanier 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: 48-19 (.716) with Lanier, 12-3 (.800) without him/-6.9 wins
‘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, fwiw.

He always took a back seat to some of the other great centers of his day, as he just never seemed to be on a team that could generate the narrative. I'll back-track to that '74 season, because it was a pretty impressive accomplishment (almost a "carry-job", I would say [and I HATE that term, and feel it's way over-used])......but they won 52 games with a +4.02 SRS [2nd of 17] with just Lanier, post-injury Dave Bing, and nothing much behind that [Curtis Rowe was probably the 3rd-best player].
They lost in the first round, though it was in 7-games to 54-win +3.20 SRS Bulls team that boasted Chet Walker, Jerry Sloan, Bob Love, and Norm Van Lier; and the Pistons actually outscored them by 2.3 ppg in the series. The Piston victories were by 9, 14, and 4; while their losses were by 5, 1, 4, and 2.
sansterre would probably say they merely lost a coin-toss, or even that they may have been the marginally better team.

I'm also going to refer to sansterre's post #14 in the #54 thread.



3rd pick gets hard.
I guess I'll go with [throws dart]......
EDITED: 3rd vote: Elvin Hayes
A defensive stud [or semi-stud, at least] who played for a long time (seems longer when considering the insane mpg he had thru most of his career) while barely missing a game [9 missed games in 16 years :o ].
A pretty damn substantial piece of a title Bullets team, and an utterly massive statistical footprint (for whatever that's worth to you).
Whether you like his style or not, it can hardly be denied that he's a valid candidate here.


"4th vote": Anthony Davis(???)
Was thinking really hard about breaking the ice on Allen Iverson, too. Bob Cousy and Elvin Hayes are guys I'd be more or less comfortable supporting here, too.
I think AD is arguably the best peak left on the board [imo it's between him, Giannis, and TMac, for that distinction]. Whereas TMac has a clear [almost outlier] peak season ('03), I think AD actually has a couple years of similar value (I think quite highly of his '15 campaign, which I think gets slept on).

He's proven to be a good floor-raiser, and fit nicely next to Lebron to be the best 1-2 punch in the league on what ultimately was the championship team.
Came into the league as pretty much a borderline All-Star as a rookie [and as mentioned was (imo) at least weak MVP tier by his 3rd season], so though he's got only 8 seasons, he's packed a considerable amount of value in there.


For the record....
Among those with traction [the six remaining from last thread + Mourning, Hayes, and Davis], I'm presently going with this order:
Parish > Lanier > Hayes > Davis > Cousy > Mourning > Jones > Arizin > English.
"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
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#8 » by sansterre » Tue Feb 9, 2021 6:09 pm

Lanier > AD > Parish > Mutombo > Mourning > Hayes > Thurmond > English > Walton > Jones > Arizin > Cousy
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,140
And1: 9,758
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#9 » by penbeast0 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 6:20 pm

1. Alex English -- Versatility, consistency, and character put English over the likes of Dantley, Nique, Tmac, etc. English doesn't have the stats of Adrian Dantley (though he's close) or possibly even Tmac, but English played many roles and always made his teams better no matter what role Denver played him in. One of the most underrated players in history despite having scored more in the 80s than Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkins, Adrian Dantley, or well, anyone else in the game. Also won numerous citizenship awards, one of the great people to play the game.

2. Anthony Davis -- last season pushed his totals for me quite a bit. 8 year career, great peak/playoff run. Two way player, very versatile.

3. Paul Arizin (more central role than Jones, more success and team oriented than TMac).

Then: Parish (better combination of offense and defense than Hayes, Thurmond, or Lanier), Sam Jones (playoff success puts him over McGrady), could have one of the bigs over Sam Jones, haven't really worked that out. Put Bobby Jones in there somewhere too, after Jones, and before Hayes/Thurmond/Lanier.

Guys that I love but whose primes are too short right now: Giannis, Hawkins, Moncrief, Lever, Walton . . . convince me they have played long enough to go ahead of an Anthony Davis (short but not AS short) type player.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#10 » by Odinn21 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 6:29 pm

I am not so sure if I'm too old school or the hype around Davis is too strong.

As for competition at his position, I just don't think that he has enough to be over Elvin Hayes for example.

Hayes had his own fair share of issues. He was a high motor but inefficient scorer.
We don't have RAPM for his time but I'd assume that he wouldn't make it to the top percentile. He probably would be in the top 5-10 percentile.
But that is also true for Anthony Davis. From 2013-14 to 2019-20, he was never in the top percentile. Aside from 2014-15 season (he was in the top 2 percentile), he barely made the top 10 percentile in single season RAPM numbers.
He was in the top 7-8 percentile with his consistency while spiking players got worse of course.
This is the data set I look at; http://nbashotcharts.com/rapm (Luck adjusted section)

Even if we'd rate Davis ahead of Hayes for peak, their overall prime quality are on the same level and as it is now, Hayes had the longer prime. Hayes had a prime lasted longer than a decade and this 2020-21 season is Davis' 9th season in the league. Hayes' overall longevity is also better.
Another thing is Hayes was one of the most durable players ever. In his 16 season career, he missed only 9 games.

This is what I see. I'd like to get a feedback on this.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,140
And1: 9,758
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#11 » by penbeast0 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 6:39 pm

BOB LANIER v. ALEX ENGLISH

LANIER: 959 g, 20.1ppg, 10.1reb, 3.1ast, 2.6 to (his first few years turnovers weren't kept but his first two seasons after the stat, he had negative A/T correlation), ts%.559, generally poor defensive performances through his prime in Detroit except for 1 outlier year in 74 then on good defenses in Milwaukee but platooned as the offensive end of an O/D platoon and it was post injury so he wasn't moving as well anyway, weaker era (70s were worse than the 80s). Higher WS of 117 to 100 fwiw, almost completely for his defense (OWS almost identical).

ENGLISH: G 1193, PPG 21.3, reb 5.5, ast 3.6, to 2.5 (stat not kept his rookie year where he played low minutes anyway), .550 ts% in about 2 minutes less per game on the average. Above average defender by my eye test in a much less important defensive position, very versatile on both ends, stronger era, more of a leader type as Big Bob was very laid back (citizenship awards, peer comments).

Offensively similar abilities, duration, consistency. Owly, one of the posters I respect most, disagrees with me on Lanier's defensive impact. If you think Lanier deserves the nod over English based on defense (like WS claims), then vote Lanier. If you think Lanier had a strong degree of repsonsibility for a decade of porous Detroit defense and is a weakness on that end, (and agree that English is an average or above average defensive SF playing next to weak defensive centers like Dan Issel for most of his career), then support English. That's where I really see the debate between the two.

FWIW, Dan Issel played more games, averaged more points, on a higher TS% than Lanier with more mobility and range though less rebounding and shotblocking. But I always considered Issel the weak spot in Denver despite nice numbers as I think it was almost impossible to win a title with a weak defensive center in the era of the 70s/80s.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#12 » by sansterre » Tue Feb 9, 2021 6:50 pm

penbeast0 wrote:BOB LANIER v. ALEX ENGLISH

LANIER: 959 g, 20.1ppg, 10.1reb, 3.1ast, 2.6 to (his first few years turnovers weren't kept but his first two seasons after the stat, he had negative A/T correlation), ts%.559, generally poor defensive performances through his prime in Detroit except for 1 outlier year in 74 then on good defenses in Milwaukee but platooned as the offensive end of an O/D platoon and it was post injury so he wasn't moving as well anyway, weaker era (70s were worse than the 80s). Higher WS of 117 to 100 fwiw, almost completely for his defense (OWS almost identical).

ENGLISH: G 1193, PPG 21.3, reb 5.5, ast 3.6, to 2.5 (stat not kept his rookie year where he played low minutes anyway), .550 ts% in about 2 minutes less per game on the average. Above average defender by my eye test in a much less important defensive position, very versatile on both ends, stronger era, more of a leader type as Big Bob was very laid back (citizenship awards, peer comments).

Offensively similar abilities, duration, consistency. Owly, one of the posters I respect most, disagrees with me on Lanier's defensive impact. If you think Lanier deserves the nod over English based on defense (like WS claims), then vote Lanier. If you think Lanier had a strong degree of repsonsibility for a decade of porous Detroit defense and is a weakness on that end, (and agree that English is an average or above average defensive SF playing next to weak defensive centers like Dan Issel for most of his career), then support English. That's where I really see the debate between the two.

FWIW, Dan Issel played more games, averaged more points, on a higher TS% than Lanier with more mobility and range though less rebounding and shotblocking. But I always considered Issel the weak spot in Denver despite nice numbers as I think it was almost impossible to win a title with a weak defensive center in the era of the 70s/80s.

Good breakdown.

For me the arguments for Lanier here are:

1) Lanier's scoring efficiency improved in the playoffs where English's declined (that isn't everything right there, but they're close enough in the regular season that I think that this counts);
2) If they're comparable offensively, the big is probably the more valuable player (as the average big is more valuable defensively than the average small) unless you have reason to think that the big is notably inferior defensively;
3) Lanier's WOWYR numbers are considerably better.

But I could easily be wrong :)
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,659
And1: 24,976
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#13 » by 70sFan » Tue Feb 9, 2021 7:05 pm

I don't follow the project anymore (I have so little time for basketball recently...) but I'm shocked to see Dantley being this high. To be honest, even I wouldn't have him inside my top 55 probably and I'm the biggest Dantley fan on the planet. I'm glad he finally got enough recognition though :D
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#14 » by sansterre » Tue Feb 9, 2021 7:14 pm

Odinn21 wrote:I am not so sure if I'm too old school or the hype around Davis is too strong.

As for competition at his position, I just don't think that he has enough to be over Elvin Hayes for example.

Hayes had his own fair share of issues. He was a high motor but inefficient scorer.
We don't have RAPM for his time but I'd assume that he wouldn't make it to the top percentile. He probably would be in the top 5-10 percentile.
But that is also true for Anthony Davis. From 2013-14 to 2019-20, he was never in the top percentile. Aside from 2014-15 season (he was in the top 2 percentile), he barely made the top 10 percentile in single season RAPM numbers.
He was in the top 7-8 percentile with his consistency while spiking players got worse of course.
This is the data set I look at; http://nbashotcharts.com/rapm (Luck adjusted section)

Even if we'd rate Davis ahead of Hayes for peak, their overall prime quality are on the same level and as it is now, Hayes had the longer prime. Hayes had a prime lasted longer than a decade and this 2020-21 season is Davis' 9th season in the league. Hayes' overall longevity is also better.
Another thing is Hayes was one of the most durable players ever. In his 16 season career, he missed only 9 games.

This is what I see. I'd like to get a feedback on this.

I absolutely agree that for Davis to be ahead of Hayes we need to find that his peak was considerably better. So here's what I got.

I'm comparing Davis' '14-20 seasons (since he got pretty good pretty fast) and Hayes' 74-79 seasons (because that loosely looks like his peak, though I'd be happy to be corrected). Bonus, we have possession data through '74, so we can use per possession numbers.

Getting it out of the way, Hayes played 5.2 more minutes per game, and 15 more games a season. That's a real thing, and it means that Davis needs to be way, way better per possession to get the nod here. Regular season comparison incoming:

Scoring: Hayes averaged 24.1 PPX on -0.7% rTS vs. Davis averaging 35.5 PPX on +4% rTS
Rebounding: Hayes averaged 14.7 PPX, Davis averaged 14.9 PPX
Passing/Turnovers: Hayes averaged 6.9% Ast and 12.2% TO, while Davis averaged 11.9% Ast and 8.5% TO

So Davis was an excellent scorer if not ATG, while Hayes was pretty much average or below. They're comparable defensively, and Davis was the much better passer and better with the ball. And while defensive stats here get challenging (as we can both agree that box score defensive measures are imperfect) Davis sure as heck looks like the stronger defender.

All-in-one metrics are problematic, but WS/48 has Davis at 0.225 (Top 10 player range) while Hayes is 0.148 (All-star-ish). And BPM (big grain of salt) has Davis *way* out ahead, +6.7 to +1.9 BPM and 36 to 19.3 VORP.

In the playoffs the gap in scoring increases (up for Davis in PPX by 0.2 and in rTS% by +4.7 additional points).

I'll be the first to admit that these stats may be underrating Hayes. But he reads to me, basically, like an average scorer (though an above average scorer for a big) who rebounded well and wasn't particularly good with the ball. All-star level? Sure. Why not. But Davis reads to me as pretty consistently being a Top 10 player in the league. From a CORP point of view, I feel like Davis' peak may be worth twice as much per season as Hayes. And while Hayes has way more seasons, I think Davis' high end is so much higher that it's worth it.

But reasonable minds could differ here.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,140
And1: 9,758
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#15 » by penbeast0 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 7:26 pm

sansterre wrote:Good breakdown.

For me the arguments for Lanier here are:

1) Lanier's scoring efficiency improved in the playoffs where English's declined (that isn't everything right there, but they're close enough in the regular season that I think that this counts);
2) If they're comparable offensively, the big is probably the more valuable player (as the average big is more valuable defensively than the average small) unless you have reason to think that the big is notably inferior defensively;
3) Lanier's WOWYR numbers are considerably better.

But I could easily be wrong :)


I will disagree strongly with point #2. Bigs were more valuable than non-bigs as a rule but it was mainly due to their DEFENSIVE impact; offensively, superior playmaking seems to be the clearest team value adder to the individual numbers, not position. That's why guys like Oscar have more OFFENSIVE impact than guys like Wilt (while Wilt has vastly superior defensive impact making him the better player). I believe English is the superior playmaker to Lanier, both from watching them and from the numbers . . . and the numbers overstate Lanier's turnover economy because they don't include the first few years of his career where players generally have worse turnover economy (and the first years after they counted turnovers, Lanier didn't look that good).

If WOWYR numbers are better for Lanier, that implies either (a) his defensive impact was indeed stronger or (b) the Nuggets had good wing reserves while the Pistons had weaker backups for Lanier which is probably true but not dispositive on the issue of defensive impact.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 21,560
And1: 20,142
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#16 » by Hal14 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 7:46 pm

Odinn21 wrote:I am not so sure if I'm too old school or the hype around Davis is too strong.

As for competition at his position, I just don't think that he has enough to be over Elvin Hayes for example.

Hayes had his own fair share of issues. He was a high motor but inefficient scorer.
We don't have RAPM for his time but I'd assume that he wouldn't make it to the top percentile. He probably would be in the top 5-10 percentile.
But that is also true for Anthony Davis. From 2013-14 to 2019-20, he was never in the top percentile. Aside from 2014-15 season (he was in the top 2 percentile), he barely made the top 10 percentile in single season RAPM numbers.
He was in the top 7-8 percentile with his consistency while spiking players got worse of course.
This is the data set I look at; http://nbashotcharts.com/rapm (Luck adjusted section)

Even if we'd rate Davis ahead of Hayes for peak, their overall prime quality are on the same level and as it is now, Hayes had the longer prime. Hayes had a prime lasted longer than a decade and this 2020-21 season is Davis' 9th season in the league. Hayes' overall longevity is also better.
Another thing is Hayes was one of the most durable players ever. In his 16 season career, he missed only 9 games.

This is what I see. I'd like to get a feedback on this.

Agreed - Davis has no case over Hayes IMO. Good point about Hayes' durability, too - Davis has missed a ton of games throughout his (very short) career despite the fact that Hayes played in the era that was more physical, worse facilities, worse equipment, less advancements in strength and conditioning, etc. so a pretty massive edge for Hayes in both longevity and durability.
1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
euroleague
General Manager
Posts: 8,448
And1: 1,871
Joined: Mar 26, 2014
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#17 » by euroleague » Tue Feb 9, 2021 8:11 pm

1. Bob Cousy
2. 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. 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.

Will vote for a 3rd based off the run-off.
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#18 » by Odinn21 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 8:43 pm

sansterre wrote:...

I agree that Davis is a better scorer than Hayes but I don't agree with that method because the more possessions went to the role players, not the superstars in the '70s.

Here's what I mean;
1973-74 regular season had only 3 players with 30+ pts per 100 and the highest was 31.4.
1974-75 regular season had only 4 players with 30+ pts per 100 and the highest was 35.6.
1975-76 regular season had only 4 players with 30+ pts per 100 and the highest was 32.7.
1976-77 regular season had only 6 players with 30+ pts per 100 and the highest was 33.5.
1977-78 regular season had only 7 players with 30+ pts per 100 and the highest was 35.0.
1978-79 regular season had only 9 players with 30+ pts per 100 and the highest was 35.6.

How could anyone from that time frame match that 35.5 pts per 100? By that method, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar never matched Anthony Davis' scoring volume.

Here's the scale;
Average of the highest pts per 100; 34.0 from 1974-75 to 1978-79 / 43.6 from 2013-14 to 2019-20
Average of the 5 highest pts per 100; 32.2 from 1974-75 to 1978-79 / 39.2 from 2013-14 to 2019-20

The gap is way closer than that 11.4 between 24.1 and 35.5.

Davis is the better scorer because he's definitely more efficient than Hayes. It's obvious that he also has more volume in him but it's very hard to agree with that extent.

I never look at assist numbers of the bigs. Assists numbers are only useful when the topic at hand is pass-first PGs. Hakeem Olajuwon and Shaquille O'Neal are my go-to examples for this. Olajuwon ('93-'95) had higher assists rates than threepeat O'Neal and O'Neal was the better passer.
Davis is probably the better passer between the two but he's not Kevin Garnett either, so I don't see this meaning much. As a facilitator, Hayes had better off-ball value due to his exceptional screening. So, passing and facilitating are just non-factor in this one.

Davis has better efficiency, slightly higher volume, better turnover economy. These are the major highlights.

I'd argue that Hayes was the better defender. Davis does a better job against wings/guards, Hayes did better job against bigs and as a rim protector. I'd take Hayes over Davis with these since they are bigs.

Rebounding is on the same level. (Rebounding is the only thing that works decent with linear adjustments and has less care for distributions.)

So, Davis is the better offensive piece without much discussion. Their rebounding is on the same level, though Hayes sharing the floor with Unseld lowered his number slightly. Their defense is probably on the same level. I have Hayes but I see Davis' case.

BTW, Hayes is one of the players that isn't loved by advanced metrics. I'd call it Moses Malone syndrome of the advanced metrics. :D
His impact was greater than what his advanced metrics would suggest.

And here comes the but! after all these.
The time frame you had for Hayes left out 5 seasons of prior prime play. Also do not know why you left out 1980. Davis has been in his prime since 2014-15 season. That's 6 and a half season. And you left out almost the same amount from Hayes' prime.
Another thing is durability. Davis never missed less than 7 games in a season so far. Hayes missed 9 games over 16 seasons.

But Davis reads to me as pretty consistently being a Top 10 player in the league.

Hayes was a top 10 player in the league for a decade BTW. If you think 24-25 pts per 100 is not good enough for top 10 in the '70s coupled with Hayes' rebounding and defense, you're in the wrong because the league and the stats were different back then.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#19 » by sansterre » Tue Feb 9, 2021 9:22 pm

Odinn21 wrote: ...


Fair points. It's almost unthinkable to me that Hayes is the better defender (since AD's among the best defensive bigs of this era) but that is rooted in fair knowledge of Davis and extraordinarily limited knowledge of Hayes. So I won't really argue the point.

I only grabbed Hayes' best years by WS/48; as I said, I don't represent that it's his true peak or anything. I don't know how it would matter too much.

The point about high usage players in the 70s being, well, low usage, is excellent. But we're still left with Davis being much higher volume and way more efficient. But again, it's a good contextual point.

And the points about longevity/injury are totally valid.

As for the Top 10 thing, implicitly a Top 10 player from an 18 team era is worse than a Top 10 player from a 30 team era. I don't disagree with characterizing Hayes that high at all. It's just that I think that a Top 10 player in the modern game is more valuable.

I just keep coming back to the fact that I believe that Davis' peak is so much higher that it makes his limited seasons (and minutes) more valuable than Hayes. But implicit in that is the assumption that Davis is the better defender than Hayes. If they're comparable . . . I can see the argument for Hayes' career value being higher.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,942
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #56 

Post#20 » by Odinn21 » Tue Feb 9, 2021 10:04 pm

sansterre wrote:I only grabbed Hayes' best years by WS/48; as I said, I don't represent that it's his true peak or anything. I don't know how it would matter too much.


Hayes peaked around the mid '70s. I'd probably have 1974-75 as his single best season. He had a strong upward trend going into the season and he was just amazing all around.

One important thing to mention, Hayes' production slightly went down when he joined Unseld in Baltimore.

sansterre wrote:The point about high usage players in the 70s being, well, low usage, is excellent. But we're still left with Davis being much higher volume and way more efficient. But again, it's a good contextual point.


Yeah, there's no doubt about Davis having better scoring metrics. I mentioned those pts per 100 numbers as the gap between their volumes is closer than what those numbers (24.1 vs 35.5) would suggest without the scale.

sansterre wrote:As for the Top 10 thing, implicitly a Top 10 player from an 18 team era is worse than a Top 10 player from a 30 team era. I don't disagree with characterizing Hayes that high at all. It's just that I think that a Top 10 player in the modern game is more valuable.


Well, I don't consider number of teams as an indicator. I tend to evaluate seasons as each. 1962 season had Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, Baylor, West all in their prime or at their peak. Bob Pettit and Cliff Hagan were still in their respective primes. Then you can complete the top 10 with 3 of Bailey Howell, Hal Greer, Sam Jones, Richie Guerin, Tom Heinsohn, Walt Bellamy, again all of them in their respective primes. That's a pretty strong top 10 in a 9 team league.

I think the important thing about the top 10 NBA players in the '70s would be the existence of the ABA for better part of the decade. The talents were scattered in a unique situation. Julius Erving, Rick Barry and Artis Gilmore spent significant time in the ABA.

sansterre wrote:I just keep coming back to the fact that I believe that Davis' peak is so much higher that it makes his limited seasons (and minutes) more valuable than Hayes. But implicit in that is the assumption that Davis is the better defender than Hayes. If they're comparable . . . I can see the argument for Hayes' career value being higher.


All this goes back to my initial argument about Davis' peak versus Hayes' better prime duration and way better durability (thus better overall longevity) and I just don't see Davis' better but fragile peak being enough.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.

Return to Player Comparisons