RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #65 (Nate Thurmond)

Post #1 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 3:26 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. Sam Jones
57. Bob Lanier
58. Dikembe Mutombo
59. Elvin Hayes
60. Paul Arizin
61. Anthony Davis
62. Robert Parish
63. Bob Cousy
64. Alonzo Mourning
65. ??

Target stop time is ~10-11am EST on Friday.
OP of #60 thread is important to note for anyone who hasn't read it.

Spoiler:

Post #2 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 3:35 pm

1st vote: Allen Iverson
I'm not a fan of Iverson at all. He's got some major flaws as a player and no doubt is overrated in the mainstream. But I [somewhat grudgingly??] must acknowledge that his body of work makes him a decent candidate at this stage.

First thing to keep in mind if you look at his "all-in-one" rate metrics (things like PER, WS/48, BPM): Iverson played some absurd minutes (and a PER of 21 while playing 30 mpg is not at all the same thing as doing it while playing 42 mpg, for example).
Consider that in his first twelve seasons in the league, Iverson averaged <40 mpg ONCE (at 39.4 mpg).
I mean, the guy's motor was beyond compare (Hondo is always the first guy to jump to mind when talking about motor, but Iverson is right there with him).

Such playing must also be kept in mind if looking at his impact metrics or indicators. For example, his best 7 years RAPM added puts him in the company of guys like Marc Gasol [whom you'd think would be higher, as we always allude to his non-box impact] and Steve Francis, as well as the best 6-years [because I'm missing '20] for Anthony Davis and Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Not bad company. Iverson does so while destroying the field in mpg, though.

I compiled some extensive WOWY data for Iverson [with special focus on team offense]----which fwiw, Iverson is one of those players for whom what paints a far different picture than Ben Taylor's WOWYR (Sidney Moncrief is the other who comes to mind:
WOWYR loves him, but my own [fairly extensive] WOWY studies painted a far more pedestrian picture).
Anyway, here's how that looked for Iverson:

’99
Sixer avg 83.0 ppg w/o him, 89.9 ppg with (+6.9 ppg change).
47.5 TS% w/o him, 49.5 TS% with (+2.0%).
97.4 ORtg w/o, 100.0 ORtg with (+2.6).
-12.04 SRS w/o, +3.17 SRS with (+15.21).

’00
85.4 ppg without him, 96.4 ppg with him (+11.0 ppg).
46.9 TS% without him, 50.6 TS% with him (+3.7%).
94.7 ORtg w/o him, 102.7 ORtg with him (+8.0).
-1.69 SRS w/o him, +1.48 SRS with him (+3.17).

’01
88.8 ppg w/o him, 95.6 with (+6.8 ppg).
51.6 TS% w/o, 51.8 TS% with (+0.2%).
103.2 ORtg w/o, 103.7 ORtg with (+0.5).
+0.48 SRS w/o, +4.12 SRS with him (+3.63).

’02
84.7 ppg w/o, 93.3 ppg with (+8.6 ppg).
49.1 TS% w/o, 50.7 TS% with (+1.6%).
100.2 ORtg w/o, 102.8 ORtg with (+2.6).
-4.18 SRS w/o, +3.27 SRS with him (+7.45).

'03--no missed games

’04---banged up much of year, missed 34 games
85.1 ppg w/o, 90.0 ppg with (+4.9 ppg).
50.8 TS% w/o, 50.3 TS% with (-0.5%)
100.3 ORtg w/o, 98.3 ORtg with (-2.0).
-2.54 SRS w/o, -3.24 with him (-0.70).

’05
95.9 ppg w/o, 99.4 ppg with (+3.5 ppg).
52.6 TS% w/o, 52.8 TS% with (+0.2%).
101.6 ORtg w/o, 103.7 ORtg with (+2.1).
-0.60 SRS w/o, -1.11 with him (-0.51).

’06
90.9 ppg w/o, 100.5 ppg with (+9.6 ppg).
53.1 TS% w/o, 53.9 TS% with (+0.8%).
103.9 ORtg w/o, 106.3 ORtg with (+2.4).
-5.59 SRS w/o, -1.62 with him (+3.97).

AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over these years:
NOT weighted for games played/missed
+7.3 ppg
+1.1% TS%
+2.3 ORtg
+4.61 SRS
WEIGHTED for games played
+7.4 ppg
+1.2% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+4.21 SRS
Weighted for games missed
+7.1 ppg
+0.8% TS%
+1.4 ORtg
+2.90 SRS
39-59 record (.398) without, 251-193 record (.565) with (avg of +13.7 wins added per 82-game season).

And note: '04 [injury year] was a definitive outlier within this time period (according to all his rate metrics too). He was playing banged up and performing well below his usual standard; and perhaps non-surprisingly, it's the ONE year in this sample that looks off from the rest.
If I can cherry-pick a little and remove that year from consideration.....
AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him during '99-'02, '05 and '06:
NOT weighted for # of games played in each season
+7.8 ppg
+1.4% TS%
+3.0 ORtg
+5.49 SRS
WEIGHTED for games played
+7.7 ppg
+1.4% TS%
+3.0 ORtg
+4.81 SRS
WEIGHTED for games missed
+8.3 ppg
+1.5% TS%
+3.2 ORtg
+4.82 SRS
25-39 record (.391) without, 232-164 record (.586) with: avg of +16 wins added per 82-game season.

So basically in his prime [minus '04], he was worth about 16 additional wins and a roughly +5 bump to their SRS (and specifically at +3(ish) bump to their ORtg).

2nd vote: Tracy McGrady
I used to be pretty high on McGrady; my opinion was soured a little noting his less than stellar RAPM [and maybe a smidge by his comments in the '03 playoffs].
But sansterre's made some sort of compelling arguments to where it feels harder and harder to justify some of the others ahead of him. And certainly mid-60s doesn't feel inappropriate at all.

3rd vote: Nate Thurmond
I used to have Wes Unseld just ahead of him. But ultimately, even if I think Unseld's combination of halfcourt passing, outlet passing, screen-setting, offensive rebounding, and decent efficiency low-volume scoring makes him a bit more valuable offensively than Thurmond's highish volume/low efficiency scoring, I think the gap defensively is too big to easily justify him being behind Unseld. At any rate, that was the last straw for me.

Notes on Wes Unseld (likely my top runner up):
Solid [but not great] post defender and team defender (smart in his positioning, physical, and near-impossible to move if he didn't want to be moved; solid box-out big, too). Possible GOAT in screen-setting and outlet passing, as has been often stated. Efficient low-volume scorer, definitely one of the better/best passing bigs left on the table, and and offensive rebounding threat. Seemingly a model teammate and certainly one of the better intangible leader-types left on the table.

This company feels about right considering his full legacy.

For the record....
Among those with traction, I'm presently going with this order:
Iverson > McGrady > Thurmond > Unseld > Wilkins > Parker > Giannis > English > Walton/Jokic (I need to think more about where I'd have Jokic in relation to Walton; both are outside my top 100 as of 2020, though)

Post #3 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 4:28 pm

Vote 1 - Allen Iverson
Vote 2 - Alex English
Vote 3 - Tracy McGrady

The Rest

Thurmond
Unseld
Bobby Jones
Parker
Giannis
Moncrief
Rasheed
Jokic
Walton

At this point in the project, Iverson's durability is pretty impressive to look at. He played 40+ MPG in 11 of his first 12 seasons, leading the league in MPG 7 times in that span. From 99-08 he got to the line 9.8 times per game with a FT rate of .417. His body really took a beating and it didn't deter him from attacking the rim consistently. His middling playoff success certainly falls on him some, but those sixers teams didn't feature world beater rosters either. The fit with melo later in his career was less than ideal.

Iverson has to be one of the best examples of a player who would've benefited from playing more recently. It isn't a coincidence that his most efficient seasons came at the end of his prime when hand checking rules changed. From 05-08 he put up 29.1 PPG on 54.6% TS, posting above league avg TS% in each of those 4 seasons. He added 3.3 RPG, 7.4 APG and 2.1 SPG in that span. His shooting from 16-23' in his first 5 seasons (42.3%) also suggests he'd be able to adapt to volume 3PT shooting in this era. Add in better spacing and more friendly officiating for the offense and you can see iverson thriving in today's game.

Hal14 · Post #4 » by **Hal14** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 4:30 pm

Hal14 wrote:1. Nate Thurmond
2. Allen Iverson
3. Alex English

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.”

"Nate Thurmond was an incredible defensive basketball player. He played me as well as Bill Russell."
-Wilt Chamberlain

"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.

Allen Iverson
Very underrated guy on this board. Has a strong case over Ginobili and Sam Jones - both got voted in awhile ago. Hell, he can even make a case over Miller and Ray Allen who were both voted in a LONG time ago. I get it, Iverson wasn't the most efficient shooter, but:

-the dude took a beating, he had to carry the team, had such a weak supporting cast of dudes who couldn't score on the Sixers which meant he had to take more shots and defenses geared up to stop him which created higher degree of difficulty for his shots. He still won 4 scoring titles
-Overall a good defender who led the league in steals 3 years in a row
-Won an MVP, beating out Duncan, Shaq, McGrady and KG who were all in their prime - that year he got a team to the NBA finals with a weak supporting cast - and despite going against one of the best teams of all time (01 Lakers) he led the Sixers to a win in game 1 (pretty much everyone assumed it would be a sweep, no contest) on the road in LA, where Iverson put on one of the best performances in NBA finals history
-Wasn't just a scorer, but also averaged 7+ assists 7 times and averaged 6+ assists 10 times...the scoring and assist numbers were especially impressive given the era which was a lower number of possessions

Alex English
He barely gets the edge over Wilkins. Very close. But English with the advantage on shooting efficiency and slight edge on defense and passing barely gives him the nod over Wilkins.

Post #5 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 4:40 pm

1. Alex English -- Versatility, consistency, and character put English over the likes of Dantley, Nique, Tmac, etc. English played many roles and always made his teams better no matter what role Denver played him in. He was a solid 35-30ppg scorer at above average efficiency for a full decade. In the 1980s he scored more points than Larry Bird, Dominique Wilkens, Adrian Dantley, Isiah Thomas, Moses Malone, or well, anyone. And he did it while generally guarding the better of the opponents starting forwards in the era of the great scoring forwards. From watching him, I have him as the only above average defender among the killer lineup of great scoring fowards of his era (Bird, Gervin, Nique, AD, King, Aquirre). One of the most underrated players in history. Also won numerous citizenship awards, one of the great people to play the game.

2. Bobby Jones, another English type player with super consistency and versatility though a defensive star instead of an offensive one, then maybe Parish. Note that Jones has more 1st team All-Defense teams than any other player in history with 11 (2 ABA). He was 1st All-Defense team every year of his career until his final one where he was 2nd team.

3. Giannis -- Highest prime left outside of Walton but more than 1.5 seasons as a star plus 1 as a reserve, doesn't have the multiple years of hurting his team due to salary/injury.

After Giannis, then Unseld, Mourning, Thurmond, Parker, Nique, Tmac, Hawkins, Moncrief. Those are subject to change and new players to be added. I don't have either Iverson or Walton on my top 100 despite their iconic status.

Post #6 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 4:41 pm

English v. Nique v. Tmac

Two of the greatest scorers of the 80s, both classy guys who stayed with one team for a decade. Tmac is a more modern player who gets the advantage of the 3 point shot being used in his lifetime but suffers in terms of leadership and locker room issues as more than 1 of his coaches have complained about his practice habits and insistence on doing things his way instead of playing within the team concept.

Defensively, Tmac has the edge on peak, English on consistency. Strangely enough Wilkins probably played on the best defensive teams with those Mike Fratello Hawks squads but he fails the eye test, once getting voted "player who puts the least effort on defense" in a player contest in Sports Illustrated (over George Gervin who came in second). Tmac could be a terrific defender when locked in; English started with more of a rep as a defensive player than a scorer in Milwaukee and Indiana before coming to Denver and starting a run where he scored more points during the 80s than anyone else, including Larry Bird, Adrian Dantley, and Nique among others.

IN terms of scoring, English is the most efficient, shooting at a .550 ts% for his career, Nique is behind him at .536, with Tmac trailing at .519 though in a tougher defensive era. Since the main value of each of the three is their volume scoring, this seems a strong argument for English. On the other hand, while all three were big volume scorers, Nique scored the most per 100 possessions at 34.5pts (though he was also the most frequently iso scorer rather than scoring in the flow of the offense), Tmac is a 31.6 and English at 30.4. Tmac has the single dominant season of the 3 when Grant Hill went down to injury and Orlando featured Tmac all the time every time; but he was also less consistent and more often injured than the other two. Note: Using the per 100 figure to avoid giving an advantage to English over Nique since English played in an extremely high pace system in DEN and Nique in a relatively low paced one in ATL.

In terms of playmaking, Tmac was the primary playmaker at 7.1 assists per 100 possessions, English a decent secondary playmaker at 5.1, and Wilkins not creating much for others at 3.5. Nique turned the ball over 3.5 times/100 possessions as did Tmac with English in the same neighborhood at 3.3. Rebounding gives the edge to Nique by a hair of Tmac at 9.3 v. 9.1 v. 7.7 to English.

In terms of versatility and a willingness to take on different roles to help the team, English has a strong case, at different times, he was the primary front court defensive stopper (next to Kiki Vandeweghe and Dan Issel, on an admittedly terrible defensive front court), a post up threat (same team), the primary outside shooter (later teams with Fat Lever and TR Dunn at guard), a point forward, an offball player, etc. Tmac played much more 2 guard and even some 4 which neither of the other two did much of, he even played PG at time. Nique changed his game to incorporate a 3 point shot toward the end of his career which English never really added.

Playoff success is the one additional factor that frequently gets mentioned. Tmac went to the playoffs less and never got out of the 1st round but had some great numbers in losing series. From watching him, he tended to play less well when his teammates were strong but would suddenly take on the superman mantle when Hill went out in Orlando or when Yao would get injured in Houston and just be a one man wrecking crew. English's numbers didn't drop at all in the playoffs, maybe because of his versatility. His teams had one WCF appearance and 4 times into the second round for the most playoff success of the 3. Nique is one of the great whose number drop the most precipitously in playoff competition; maybe because he tended to one particular style that could be gamed more, I don't know. He had ATL in the playoffs every year but two but only got out of the 1st round 3 times in the stacked East of his era.

I have it English, Wilkins, Tmac based primarily on efficiency, consistency, and character. Nique and TMac have a definite advantage in flash being great dunkers while English would get a "quiet" 25-30; Nique also had possibly the greatest nickname in NBA history -- this translated into more accolades for the two flashier players.

sansterre · Post #7 » by **sansterre** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 5:03 pm

It is my custom only to run numbers on players that get votes or are discussed. So if somebody suddenly gets mentioned, don't be surprised if they pop up on my list.

1. Tracy McGrady. I've spoilered my wad of posts about McGrady for length.

Spoiler:

2. Vince Carter - I know, I know. I move on from one guy famous for scoring who never won anything onto a second guy famous for dunking who never won anything. I'm sorry. But, not kidding, I think Vince deserves some love. Instead of being voted in for his dunking (which I really could not care less about) let's appreciate this guy. We're talking a guy who is 15th all-time in minutes. From 2000-2007 he averaged a +5.1 OBPM over 21.6k minutes. But he's also got another 18k minutes averaging above a +2 OBPM. I'm not trying to brag about a +2 OBPM, but my point is that he was averaging +5 OBPM for almost a Bill-Sharman-career number of minutes, and then he went on to continue being a solid (but not great) offensive player for another wad of minutes comparable to Kawhi's entire career so far. That is *insane* levels of longevity. Let me put it another way: Carter played more career regular season minutes than Robert Parish. At his peak he was a solid volume scorer, with solid passing numbers and low turnovers. In fact, let's compare Vince (ages 23-28) to Kobe at the same ages:

Kobe: 33.0% Usage, 55.8% TS, 8.3% REB (3.5 OREB), 26.0% AST, 11.0% TO, +5.9 OBPM (450 games)
Vince: 30.7% Usage, 53.2% TS, 7.9% REB (5.2 OREB), 22.4% AST, 9.2% TO, +5.3 OBPM (410 games)

I'm not trying to say that Carter was Kobe-level during his peak. He wasn't. But he's in the same ballpark. And that's a massive credit, considering that a) we're in the mid-60s right now and b) Vince played another billion minutes after this. Let's check playoffs:

Kobe: 30.8% Usage, 52.5% TS, 6.9% REB (2.7 OREB), 22.6% AST, 11.1% TO, +4.6 OBPM
Vince: 29.9% Usage, 50.4% TS, 9.4% REB (7.6 OREB), 24.1% AST, 9.3% TO, +5.8 OBPM

"But," you may say, "that's all box-score metrics. His actual impact was worse, because we know that he was a selfish weasel." But his WOWYR, while not great, is a respectable +3.5 (and that's over an 11-year peak), which is about average for the players being mentioned now. And AuRPM actually quite likes him. From 2000 to 2017 he put up the following number of seasons in each range:

+5s: 4
+4s: 4
+3s: 3
+2s: 4
+1s: 2

None of those are bonkers seasons, but that is a buttload of career value. And his numbers don't appreciably slip in the playoffs. He had a strong (but not dominant peak), and then put up buckets (literally and figuratively) of value in the rest of his career. Let's give this guy some love.

3. Rasheed Wallace - I was shocked to have Rasheed jump leaps and bounds over everyone besides McGrady. Pretty much every metric really, really likes him. VORP (which punishes inefficient scoring) only has him slightly above average for this group, but he has the 3rd highest WSCORP and 2nd highest BPCorp. His PIPMCORP is really good, and his WOWYR of +6.0 is the highest of anyone remaining by a good margin (unless you're counting Bill Walton or Sidney Moncrief). So all the box-score driven metrics think fairly well of him, but the impact metrics think he's even better. Don't forget that he had a habit of showing up on teams that were way better than they seemingly should have been, from the '00 Blazers to the '04-05 Pistons. And also let's point out that the '04 Pistons switched from very good to murderous the second they acquired Rasheed. I'm very comfortable with him being here.

McGrady > Carter > R.Wallace > Nance > B.Wallace > Grant > Marion > Unseld > Moncrief > Thurmond > Iverson > Bosh > A.Hardaway > Parker > Issel > Giannis > Greer > Wilkins > Worthy > B.Jones > Walton > Jokic > English > McAdoo

Dutchball97 · Post #8 » by **Dutchball97** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 5:12 pm

1. Allen Iverson - He has his faults but that doesn't mean AI wasn't a really good basketball player. His 2001 season as a whole was really good and he has enough other strong seasons in both the regular season and play-offs for me to not see it as a complete outlier. The deep and high level 2001 play-offs are what sets him apart from guys like T-Mac and Giannis who are otherwise comparable but lack that one defining run.

2. Giannis Antetokounmpo - Not the best longevity as he's only 26 and needed a few seasons to grow into his own but at this point in the list I'd definitely argue that 4 elite seasons that include solid post-season play every one of those years is really good. We've already voted in players with similar longevity to that and Giannis' peak is nothing to scoff at. He just lacks that one play-off run that cements him as elite in the post-season to place him ahead of the likes of Arizin or AD in my book.

3. Tracy McGrady - T-Mac is pretty much the guard version of Bob Lanier. Both had a high peak, solid prime length and generally played well in the post-season despite little team success. I feel like he's definitely on the level of the last couple of picks and only got moved to the back of that list because the others generally did have deeper play-off runs.

Wes Unseld > Nikola Jokic > Anfernee Hardaway > Vince Carter > Alex English > James Worthy > Bobby Jones > Rasheed Wallace > Tony Parker > Dominique Wilkins > Nate Thurmond > Bill Walton

Cavsfansince84 · Post #9 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 6:52 pm

65. Nate Thurmond
-Accolades were hard to come by for him due to playing alongside Wilt and Russell and then Kareem for his entire career but I can't help but think that relative to era, much like Russell that his impact was quite large which I think shows up in him being top 10 in mvp voting 5x. He's obviously a great combination of size, strength, rebounding and defense with a prime that lasted 9-10 years. 5x all defense once that started in 1969. 5 straight years over 20pppg.

66. Alex English
-Nice combo of size, athleticism and scoring skills. Good length of prime and leading or co leading teams that were somewhat competitive(usually 1st or 2nd rd exits). 3x all nba 2nd team. 6x top 15 in mvp voting. 23rd all time scorer on 103 ts+ for career(1.5% above league average).

67. Hal Greer
-7x all nba 2nd team. 9-10 year prime where he is between 20-23ppg on very good efficiency(ts+ between 103 and 106) while being a + defender. Many high scoring playoff runs including the 67 title Sixers that he led in playoff scoring(27.7ppg).

68. Giannis
69. Wilkins
70. Tmac
71. Parker
72. Unseld
73. Jones
74. McAdoo
75. Iverson
76. Lucas
77. Hagan
78. Worthy
79. Dumars
80. Cheeks
81. Rodman
82. DeBusschere
83. Hill
84. Johnston
85. Carter
86. Irving
87. Bellamy
88. Issel
89. KJ
90. Wallace
91. Mullin
92. Cunningham
93. Jokic
94. Nance
95. Silas
96. Moncrief
97. Price
98. Rasheed
99. Aldridge
100. Bosh

LA Bird · Post #10 » by **LA Bird** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 7:24 pm

1. Vince Carter
2. Nate Thurmond
3. Tracy McGrady

Preference among candidates with some traction: B Jones > Giannis > Iverson > English > Walton

Carter - His scoring numbers at his peak in 01 were identical to Kobe's that season (36.7 pp100 on +3.3 rTS% vs 36.4 pp100 on +3.4 rTS%), he can shoot 3s, he can pass and he is a solid defender. He had a surprisingly good post-prime career after his athleticism declined and I consider his 13 season to be a strong contender for 6MOY that year. Overall, Carter has consistently rated well in +/- stats and he still has the most double digit on/off seasons of any player in the last 25 years besides LeBron and Garnett.

Thurmond - GOAT man defender. I believe the Warriors 10+ SRS decline in 67/68 without him rates as the highest two year WOWY run behind only 77/78 Walton which is crazy since Walton was elite on both ends and Thurmond was a negative on offense. He improved as a passer over his career but unfortunately never stopped shooting too many inefficient jumpers. Thurmond embarassed prime Kareem in consecutive playoffs so badly that Bucks Kareem doesn't really get the respect it deserves as the best 4 year run of anyone besides LeBron and Jordan.

McGrady - super 03 peak and a few other great years. Lack of any deep playoff runs mean there is some uncertainty about his playoffs resiliency but I wouldn't say the bar is particularly high now in the mid 60s.

Carter vs Iverson

Iverson's argument begins and ends with his scoring so let's look at the volume efficiency trade off. At their peaks, AI scored 137 more points than Carter while taking 157 more FGA and 217 more FTA. That's the equivalent of 27.1% TS efficiency for additional scoring on top of Carter's already very high volume. Carter had the second lowest TOV% of any starter besides Horace Grant (who was not a scorer) and he also had the 2nd highest 3P% of any top 50 scorer behind only Ray Allen that season. His advanced stats and +/- stats were better across the board. Unless volume scoring is the only thing that matters, Carter was the better player.

> But Iverson had to carry awful rosters. So did Carter, whose supporting cast were regularly worse if we look at the numbers. AI had the luxury of having one of the best defenses in the league behind him which always get overlooked because people only look at offense when talking about teammate quality.

LA Bird wrote:Iverson fans often make a big deal out of how he was carrying teams with very little talent but Carter and TMac had it even worse. Here are the worst off-court net ratings across the three of them during their primes:

Carter's teams during his first 10 seasons were -8.9 without him. It's the worst 10 year stretch in terms of off-court net rating of any player I've checked (even worse than TWolves Garnett's -8.1). Meanwhile, the 76ers had a positive net rating without Iverson in 00, 01, 03. Philadelphia didn't have a lot of scoring but over their best years, they were the #2 defensive team behind only the Spurs and had one of the best defensive coaches in Larry Brown.

> But Iverson beat Carter H2H in the playoffs at their peak. And Dwight Howard also beat LeBron H2H in the playoffs and nobody (besides JordanBulls at least) use that lazy argument.

If we stop looking at AI's shiny MVP award which he didn't deserve anyway, did he really have a better peak than Carter? And if not, what is the argument for him for overall career when Carter had far better longevity? Or is this just one of those cases where we focus on career narratives and popularity instead? I don't want to single out anyone but there was a comparison thread on Vince, Iverson and McGrady just a few months ago where one of the current AI voters ranked their best seasons as:

1. Tracy McGrady 03
2. Vince Carter 01
3. Tracy McGrady 01
4. Tracy McGrady 05
5. Tracy McGrady 02
6. Allen Iverson 01
7. Vince Carter 00
8. Vince Carter 05
9. Tracy McGrady 04
10. Tracy McGrady 07

Voting Iverson #1 all time out of the three now is completely inconsistent with the year by year rankings.

Dutchball97 · Post #11 » by **Dutchball97** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 7:43 pm

I'd honestly rather just be named instead of indirectly being called inconsistent in my approach. I ranked them based on regular seasons back then I assume as AI definitely doesn't come out looking great in that department compared to T-Mac. I've already expressed I would take T-Mac over AI if not for the 01 play-offs so I don't really see the inconsistency in taking AI over T-Mac with the post-season taken into account.

Odinn21 · Post #12 » by **Odinn21** » Wed Mar 3, 2021 9:49 pm

65. Tony Parker
His peak is underrated, also how long his peak lasted is underrated. I'd personally pick 2013 as his peak but I definitely see someone going for 2009 which was only to be disrupted by injury in 2010 in the future. In 2009, he was in the top 10% percentile in impact numbers. In 2012 and 2013 he was in the very top 1%. He usually is considered as not so great impact player but he really was at his best. His prime duration beyond peak duration was also good. He had 9 seasons of actual prime with 4 seasons worthy of peak. Even before going into extended prime which I usually refer as just prime, he was a force for a decade and a half. Yeah, his overall longevity is worse than Parish without a doubt but I think edges going in his favour for peak and prime are more than that.
Some of us in here usually look at WS or VORP but in Parker's case, sheer numbers are more telling.
He's #10* in total points and #5 in total assists in the pro playoff history. It's very likely that Durant will surpass Parker for that #10 spot in 2021 playoffs but the point stands still. Parker is the only player in top 20 to make the list yet it's obvious that his peak/prime/longevity stack more than enough at this point in the list.
(*He's #9 in the NBA playoff history. Erving's ABA career.)

66. Nate Thurmond
This was between Thurmond and McGrady for me. As I discussed in Giannis/Hawkins/McGrady thread, I think McGrady is too underrated for his prime right now. Though, between him and Thurmond, Thurmond beats McGrady in number of prime seasons. Nate had one or two more prime seasons than McGrady 30 years before. I don't think McGrady's quality advantage is big enough for me to go with him here.

67. Wes Unseld
Well, like I keep saying I'm bigger on higher scoring thus better floor raisers but I think Unseld's combination of defense, rebounding and facilitating is tad better than McGrady's insane offensive output with considering the prime durations and the times they played in.

HeartBreakKid · Post #13 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Thu Mar 4, 2021 12:50 am

Criteria

Spoiler:

1) Bill Walton. He is the best player by far here. He was probably a top 3 player in the world during his last couple years in college as well, though I believe this is NBA only. I am quite certain that Bill Walton is a top 20 peak ever. He is a top ten defensive anchor which alone adds more value than anyone left, and his offensive passing can generate very efficient offenses without him needing to score.

2)) Nikola Jokic. #2 vote I'll give to the only guy who is large and passes better than Walton. I'm not a longevity guy but Jokic has actually been a star caliber player for longer than people think. He was greatly underplayed in his 2nd season and Malone was criticized for that even back then. He has 4 seasons of all-star impact and two seasons where I had him as the 2nd best player in the league. I do think his offense is so special from his position that it causes an imbalance that makes him more valuable than two way bigs. His scoring ability might be the best among all the bigs left, and what's great about him is that he doesn't need to score a lot to have impact. Walton's defense is so intense that I can't imagine taking Jokic over that, but everyone else left is a tier or 2 down from either Walton's offense or his defense.

3) Giannis Antetokounmpo - I can see why he isn't getting much traction as he's still young. Though he has 6 seasons of being a good player and 5/6 of them he was all-nba caliber I think. Two well deserved MVP's is nothing to scoff at and even though he is slammed for his playoff failures he still did make the conference finals. I am fairly convinced that his crazy ability to finish in the paint as well as have the handles to get into there produces so much gravity that if he played with another real star you wouldn't be able to just "stay back and let Giannis shoot". As he is now he still requires 3-4 guys jumping in the paint - what if you replaced Khris Middleton with Curry, Bryant, Durant, Pierce etc - these are all guys who were 2nd options or co-anchors of teams. Seems like a lot of players who do not have MVP caliber teammates are held to the same standards as guys with them which does not make sense to me. I can see why me picking Jokic would be controversial, but Giannis seems pretty primed for this type of competition - I don't think he is any less valuable than Anthony Davis, and I am still not sure how Davis winning a title with LBJ convinces people that he is a much better post season player than Giannis.

Unseld > Thurmond>McGrady> Jones> English> Parker> Iverson> Wilkins

HeartBreakKid · Post #14 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Thu Mar 4, 2021 12:56 am

I don't really get the love for Iverson. Yes, he played for a long time and for a lot of minutes but what about positive impact and helping teams win games? If he has modest positive impact then does playing for a while really mean that much?

I just don't see how Allen Iverson can help a team win more than Wes Unseld or Nate Thurmond. I can't really see how he helps a team more than Bobby Jones in all honesty. What contending team would benefit more from Allen Iverson than a top ten defender?

At the very least shouldn't Vince Carter make Iverson a bit obsolete? They played at the same time and Carter seemed like a better scorer. Vince was also undeniably a better offball player, shooter and defender.Their primes are the same exact length. Vince Carter played for way longer in their post primes.

A lot of this seems to be about if Iverson played today he would be better. Well, yes, it's a more offensive friendly era - one could say the same for pretty much every player. I'm not sure why how a player plays today is so important, if Iverson played in the 70s he wouldn't be the bees knees either.

Cavsfansince84 · Post #15 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Thu Mar 4, 2021 1:04 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:I don't really get the love for Iverson. Yes, he played for a long time and for a lot of minutes but what about positive impact and helping teams win games? If he has modest positive impact then does playing for a while really mean that much?

I just don't see how Allen Iverson can help a team win more than Wes Unseld or Nate Thurmond. I can't really see how he helps a team more than Bobby Jones in all honesty. What contending team would benefit more from Allen Iverson than a top ten defender?

At the very least shouldn't Vince Carter make Iverson a bit obsolete? They played at the same time and Carter seemed like a better scorer. Vince was also undeniably a better offball player, shooter and defender.Their primes are the same exact length. Vince Carter played for way longer in their post primes.

A lot of this seems to be about if Iverson played today he would be better. Well, yes, it's a more offensive friendly era - one could say the same for pretty much every player. I'm not sure why how a player plays today is so important, if Iverson played in the 70s he wouldn't be the bees knees either.

I feel like he's just one of those guys who is so polarizing that there's not even much point in debating him. Its better to just let people put him wherever they do and leave it at that.

HeartBreakKid · Post #16 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Thu Mar 4, 2021 1:09 am

I know but how is Vince Carter not on anyones radar except LA Bird if they have Iverson at 65? Shouldn't VC not be that far?

Cavsfansince84 · Post #17 » by **Cavsfansince84** » Thu Mar 4, 2021 1:16 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:I know but how is Vince Carter not on anyones radar except LA Bird if they have Iverson at 65? Shouldn't VC not be that far?

Ya, I can see that argument. I think it almost entirely has to do with AI's mvp and him reaching the finals. Vince sort of comes with his own baggage as well. I might move Iverson down tbh just because I don't like his portability much. Which I view portability isn't so much between eras but if you add him to a team how much better do they get. I do give him some credit for how he blended in with Denver for a couple of years though.

HeartBreakKid · Post #18 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Thu Mar 4, 2021 4:26 am

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I know but how is Vince Carter not on anyones radar except LA Bird if they have Iverson at 65? Shouldn't VC not be that far?

Ya, I can see that argument. I think it almost entirely has to do with AI's mvp and him reaching the finals. Vince sort of comes with his own baggage as well. I might move Iverson down tbh just because I don't like his portability much. Which I view portability isn't so much between eras but if you add him to a team how much better do they get. I do give him some credit for how he blended in with Denver for a couple of years though.

The Nuggets won one playoff game in the two post seasons Allen Iverson was there. He played poorly in both series, especially the one against the Spurs.

Seems like they got better when Billups came though I'm sure some of that has to do with the Nuggets younger players maturing.

Post #19 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Mar 4, 2021 2:52 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Cavsfansince84 wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I know but how is Vince Carter not on anyones radar except LA Bird if they have Iverson at 65? Shouldn't VC not be that far?

Ya, I can see that argument. I think it almost entirely has to do with AI's mvp and him reaching the finals. Vince sort of comes with his own baggage as well. I might move Iverson down tbh just because I don't like his portability much. Which I view portability isn't so much between eras but if you add him to a team how much better do they get. I do give him some credit for how he blended in with Denver for a couple of years though.

The Nuggets won one playoff game in the two post seasons Allen Iverson was there. He played poorly in both series, especially the one against the Spurs.

Seems like they got better when Billups came though I'm sure some of that has to do with the Nuggets younger players maturing.

Well, and also Billups was a really damn good player who's grossly underrated in the mainstream (and voted in almost 20 places ago here). So assertions that he didn't do as good in a situation as Billups doesn't necessarily rule him out HERE.

Otherwise I was going to go back to something you'd said previously about his minutes: the minutes thing matters; it matters in evaluating any sort of rate measure, including the impact variety.

As a hypothetical, if one player is a roughly +2.5 player in 33 mpg, and another guy is only +2.0 but for 42 mpg, who is having a bigger impact [above average] PER GAME between them?
It's actually the second guy by a tiny margin.

If we measure it in terms of impact above replacement level [like approx. a -2.0, instead of above average (+/- 0)], the second guy's edge is more substantial.
Measuring as improvement from that -2.0 replacement level baseline, the 2nd guy could actually be as little as +1.6 in his 42 mpg, and he'd STILL be providing more lift above replacement PER GAME than the +2.5 guy.

Looked at some other ways.....

I've mentioned in prior threads a formula I've used that measures cumulative production/value above replacement level using PER and WS/48 ("replacement level" defined as PER 13.5 and .078 WS/48 in rs, and 12.5 and .064 in playoffs [to account for typical drop-off seen]), weights attached such that a PER of 15 [average] achieves the same value or score as a WS/48 of .100 [average]. Stnd Dev-scaled PER and WS/48 values are used [to account for years of differing parity], and playoff minutes are weighted 3.25x as heavy as rs minutes:

By that measure, Iverson rates out ahead of both McGrady and Carter (fair margin over Carter).

Other more complex [far more inputs, including some WOWY] algorithms I use also posit Iverson in the lead among the three [again substantially over Carter].
Now, these more complex formulas also utilize a point system for honors and media-awarded accolades, as well as MVP award shares.......and as you noted Iverson did not deserve his MVP.
HOWEVER, I can remove his MVP from the equation and lower his career MVP shares by a full .800 (cutting his career shares by more than half), and he STILL rates out marginally ahead of McGrady in all versions (and comfortably ahead of Carter).

In terms of strictly looking at impact metrics.....
His WOWYR isn't all that flattering, though as I noted in my vote post, my own WOWY studies are not exactly in line with Taylor's findings (Iverson is not the only player for whom this is the case; and I have at times questioned the ambiguous adjustments he refers to [but does not elaborate upon] in calculating his WOWYR).

His pure RAPM profile is not flattering for a "superstar"; but neither is McGrady's [and the minute consideration brings them to just about even]. Carter's is much better than either, to his credit.

RPM does favour both McGrady and Carter over Iverson.

I don't know where all of that leaves us; they're all close imo. Really everyone from the late 50s to the early 70s on my ATL feel really close. Even with my criteria firm in my head, there are so many different orders I could go with based upon the micro-weighting of various factors. The difference between #57 and #72 is basically like the difference between #5 and #7......which is to say not a lot [fully debateable, in fact]. And the difference between Iverson/McGrady/Carter is even smaller than that for me.

And grudgingly I must admit Iverson was the most "iconic" of the three; the one who shaped basketball's evolution thru his broad and intense fan appeal more than the other two (for whatever that's worth). Ironically, I think that factor works against him here [on the PC forum]......we'll call it the "Coldplay Phenomenon".
Coldplay actually made a handful a pretty cool songs; but they achieved SO much mainstream appeal [and were overplayed] to the degree that there was this counterculture backlash, in which they basically became the butt of a joke (e.g. from the movie The 40-Year-Old Virgin: "Wanna know how I know you're gay?* 'Cause you like Coldplay.")

*Disclaimer: merely quoting a movie; I do NOT condone using "gay" as a derogatory.

I sometimes feel similar backlash has occurred against Iverson.

At any rate, sansterre's got me waffling a little [toward McGrady, who is my 2nd vote anyway].

Post #20 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Mar 4, 2021 2:57 pm

Thru post #19:

Allen Iverson - 3 (Clyde Frazier, Dutchball97, trex_8063)
Nate Thurmond - 2 (Cavsfansince84, Hal14)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Vince Carter - 1 (LA Bird)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (sansterre)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Tony Parker - 1 (Odinn21)

About 24 hours or so left for this one.

Spoiler: