Joao Saraiva wrote:.
(quoting Joao too, since similar voting preference between Rodman and Wilkins)
penbeast0 wrote:Nah, grew up with two older sisters (and 3 brothers), I have a skin like a crocodile. I'd love the feedback because other than the first 3, I tend to just stab at it rather than putting in serious analysis.
OK then; I was going to bring in some talking points circling around Alex English, Dominique, and Rodman.....
I still contend that having English like 25(ish) places ahead of Nique is not a tenable position. English just went in, but it's apparent that were it up to you he'd have gone in
at least 15 places ago......and yet still even now there are NINE players you have inducted before Nique goes. I mean...
Looking at rate metrics for their respective best 9 years ('81-'89 for English, '86-'94 for Nique)---some are volume-favouring, some are efficiency-favouring, some skew toward team MOV, some a combo of these---Nique looks better by a clear margin [at least in the rs]:
English: 21.2 PER, .139 WS/48, +2.7 BPM, +2 net rating in 36.6 mpg
Wilkins: 23.2 PER, .173 WS/48 [better than English's career-best, btw], +4.5 BPM, +5 net rating in 37.4 mpg
Granted, English was a bit more durable in this period, but otherwise it's an obvious edge to Wilkins.
One may attempt to claim that Nique's stats were "empty calories" compared to English......but this doesn't exactly hold up well to scrutiny.
Certainly English's WOWYR is superior to Wilkins'; however, I have at times questioned the methodology and ambiguous "adjustments" Taylor applies to this figure.
As you can see in my vote post above, the raw WOWY data suggests substantial [and
consistent] lift in his prime (and teammates were rarely missing substantial time in this period to create substantial "confusion" on the matter).
Their offense in particular seems to fall apart to some degree without him (look at '92 with/without, '94 before/after trade [which persisted into '95). And if you frankly believe it's not him that is the primary cog in their offensive machine, then I sincerely suggest that Kevin Willis [and perhaps Doc Rivers??] should then be getting SERIOUS top 100 consideration on your list.......'cause those were some pretty good offenses, and I don't think it was guys like Tree Rollins/John Koncak, Cliff Levingston, John Battle, and Duane Ferrell who were driving those near-elite offenses year over year.
And then PIPM clearly favours Wilkins > English:
Wilkins' five best PIPM years look like this: +3.4, +3.1, +3.1, +2.6, +2.4.
English's five best PIPM years are thus: +2.9, +2.4, +1.7, +1.7, +1.5.
Nique's average PIPM for his 15-year career [not weighted for minutes] is +1.27.
English's avg PIPM for his 15 years: +0.44.
This is all relevant toward TOTAL positive impact [not just offensively], btw.
I believe it was in the #68 thread HBK had suggested English's off-ball play as something that is a difference-maker in terms of non-boxscore offensive impact. I'd countered with noting Nique's superior spacing effect created by better range than English, as well as his consistently attacking the rim, which arguably/likely creates better offensive rebounding opportunities [for teammates].
And Nique was basically a class-act, too [you'd explicitly stated **character was important to your criteria]. I honestly just don't see much beyond preference to justify having English SO far ahead of Wilkins.
**Re: "character", that brings me to Rodman (also above Wilkins [among others] for you).....
Well, nut-shell comment is that Rodman was a
nightmare in terms of character. Even in Chicago with the calming and supportive [Zen master] presence of Phil Jackson, and the hard-assed "brook no bulls***" presence of Jordan.....Rodman
still bugged out on the team to go party/blow off steam in Vegas for 2-3 days late in their '98 playoff run.
In '95, I think it can seriously be argued that Rodman cost the Spurs the Western Conference Finals and title-shot.
His defense at times sorely lacking by this point in his career----particularly if guarding a perimeter-oriented forward [because he couldn't be bothered to consistently defend the perimeter, as that would draw him out of the paint area where he could cannibalize rebounds]; though he'd still get All-D honours based more on reputation than----he allowed Robert Horry to go off like a semi-All Star:
Horry had averaged 10.2 pts @ 55.6% TS, 5.1 rpg, 3.4 apg, with 1.9 topg in the rs.
In the series against San Antonio, he averaged 14.5 pts @ 58.3% TS, 7.2 rpg, 2.7 apg, only 1.0 topg......with Rodman his primary defender.
Let's remember Rodman is not a relevant shot blocker or generator of turnovers; his defensive rep is entirely built around being a versatile "stopper". But Robert Horry lit him up.
And it's worth noting that Horry did that pts and efficiency despite shooting nearly 10% worse than normal from the FT-line [the one place Rodman can have NO effect]: he'd been a 76.1% FT-shooter in the rs, but hit just 66.7% (16 of 24) in that series. If he'd shot his usual average at the line, he'd have averaged 14.8 to 15.0 ppg @ 59.7 to 60.4% TS.
How did it happen? Again: Rodman would only sporadically trouble himself to effectively defend the perimeter. More often than not he'd impotently flap an arm at Horry from 5-6' away and then turn and head toward the hoop to be in position to chase a rebound.
Consequently Horry's 3PAr [which had been .423 in the rs] jumped to .625, while his 3pt efficiency [which had been 37.9% in the rs] jumped to 42.5%.
His FTAr also jumped (from .212 to .375).
In essence, despite a mpg jump (from 32.4 to 40.0) which should contribute to increased fatigue concerns, his usage actually nudged just negligibly upward with a simultaneous INCREASE in shooting efficiency. His assist rate went down a bit, but at the same time his turnover rate was more than halved.
And some of these defensive fails happened at the worst possible times......like the final HOU possession in game 1.....which the Spurs lost by a single point.....on a go-ahead bucket by Horry......which was a WIDE open 19-20-footer because Rodman went completely rogue on the possesion.
Let us also not forget that for almost the entire series Rodman had been having a
very public meltdown, doing things like sitting on the scorer's table with a petulant look on his face, refusing to join the huddle at time-outs, etc. Hard to imagine this
wasn't a major distraction and morale-suck for the whole team.
So.....jsia.
Not saying Rodman wasn't a special player, and I absolutely think he has a place somewhere on this list.
But when defense is his calling card [and it was clearly lacking at times], and when you yourself explicitly state character matters (and his is among the worst of those left on the table).......should he REALLY be placed above so many other candidates?
Hopefully food for thought.
"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
