RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #71 (Tony Parker)

[trex_8063]

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. Nate Thurmond
66. Allen Iverson
67. Tracy McGrady
68. Alex English
69. Vince Carter
70. Wes Unseld
71. ???

Target stop time around 1-2pm EST on Wednesday.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

1st vote: Dominique Wilkins
Based on rate-metrics he actually appears superior to [at least in rs] English, who went #68; and he has similar longevity.

On Wilkins' impact [focus on offense] during his prime......

Atlanta Hawks rORtg and league rank during Nique’s prime
‘86: +0.7 rORTG (11th/23)
‘87: +4.3 rORTG (4th/23)
‘88: +3.3 rORTG (5th/23)
‘89: +4.4 rORTG (4th/25)
‘90: +4.9 rORTG (4th/27)
‘91: +3.0 rORTG (8th/27)
‘92: -0.9 rORTG (16th/27)***
***Important to note Nique missed 40 games this^^^ year. They were +0.8 rORTG in the 42 games he played, -2.6 rORTG in the 40 he missed.
‘93: +1.3 rORTG (10th/27)
‘94: +0.9 rORTG (12th/27)**
**Nique traded away late season, played 49 games for Hawks that season. They were a +3.3 rORTG before the trade, -1.5 rORTG after the trade. The Hawks were then a -1.7 rORTG in '95.


Below is his primary supporting cast in descending order of playing time for that 5-year stretch in which they were above +3.0 rORTG each year.....
'87: Kevin Willis, Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Tree Rollins, Jon Koncak
'88: Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb, John Battle
'89: [late prime/early post-prime] Moses Malone, Reggie Theus, Doc Rivers, Cliff Levingston, John Battle, Jon Koncak, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb
'90: Moses Malone (post-prime), Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Cliff Levingston, Doc Rivers, John Battle
'91: Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Jon Koncak, Moses Malone (35 yrs old, very post-prime), John Battle


Dominique Wilkins with/without records in prime
‘86: 49-29 (.628) with, 1-3 (.250) without
‘87: 56-23 (.709) with, 1-2 (.333) without
‘88: 48-30 (.615) with, 2-2 (.500) without
‘89: 51-29 (.638) with, 1-1 (.500) without
‘90: 39-41 (.488) with, 2-0 without
‘91: 43-38 (.531) with, 0-1 without
‘92: 22-20 (.524) with, 16-24 (.400) without
‘93: 39-32 (.549) with, 4-7 (.364) without
‘94: 42-32 (.568) with, 4-5 (.444) without
TOTAL: 389-274 (.587)---on pace for 48.1 wins---with him; 31-45 (.408)---on pace for 33.5 wins---without him. Avg +14.7 wins added.


Previous suggestions of him as an "empty calorie" stats guy don't seem to hold water for me. Their offense seems to ride heavily on him [and sorta fell apart without him]......or at least close enough that, in combination with his decent longevity, he deserves very serious consideration.


2nd vote: Tony Parker
Parker was a significant piece of a number of contenders, fit very well with what the Spurs were doing.
Not a great 3pt shooter, but so quick and adept at breaking guys down off the dribble that during the 10-year period ['05-'14] which might reasonably be called his "extended prime", he managed to get 37.3% of all attempts at the rim, while converting 66.0% of them........as a 6'2" guard who never dunks.
He had[instagram][/instagram] a 20.5 PER and +2.3 BPM over that 10-year span, peaking at 23.4 and +3.6 [twice], respectively (and that includes a sort of sub-par injury-dinged year). That's not too shabby in terms of career value, considering he's got at least four other respectable value-adding seasons in addition to this decade.

His best 7-years RAPMs [added] are in the company of guys like Shawn Marion, Kyle Lowry, Nene Hilario, and late-career Reggie Miller [also used rs AuAPM for '94-'96 where Reggie's numbers are concerned].......which is not bad company.
Best 10-years company?: Ben Wallace, Eddie Jones, Luol Deng, Gary Payton, Andrei Kirilenko, and Paul Millsap. Again, not bad.

So looking at his full profile (box, impact, team-related "legacy", accolades [fwiw], statistical footprint, etc), he's certainly got the resume that warrants plenty of consideration around #70.


3rd vote (switched): Giannis Antetokounmpo
Yeah, I've stewed and decided I'm bumping McAdoo in favour of Giannis.
Thinking about it, really the ONLY thing I'm comfortable saying McAdoo is better at is shooting [and admittedly he's a good ways better there]. But I think Giannis is at least a tiny bit better and literally everything else (and probably by pretty good margins at things like defense, finishing, and getting to the stripe).

Further, McAdoo's meaningful longevity is barely an edge over Giannis: he seemed to decline so quickly post-merger [or perhaps him struggling to thrive as a superstar post-merger is an indication he wasn't as dominant as '74 and '75 would have us believe?? just being devil's advocate there], and was relatively injury-dinged much of the time.

So yeah, I'm gonna go with Giannis [whose playoff woes are over-blown, imo, though I tend to value rs achievement more than most anyway].


Among those who have received votes of any kind, I'm presently going with this order:
Wilkins > Parker > Giannis > McAdoo (though waffling, and may drop him even further) > Marion > Nance > Sheed > Rodman > Jones > Greer > D.Johnson > Walton/Jokic (I need to think more about where I'd have Jokic in relation to Walton, though presently leaning Walton > Jokic; both are outside my top 100 as of 2020, though, so unlikely to be ahead of many players who may come up in Condorcet for me).

For the record, I could see flip-flopping Rodman and Bobby Jones. Also, I could see moving Greer up a pinch to where he could overtake one or both of them.

[penbeast0]

1. Bobby Jones, NBA history's greatest "glue guy," with super consistency and versatility, although a defensive star instead of an offensive one. 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. One of only 4 guys to ever average 2 blocks, 2 steals in a season and the only one not named Hakeem to do it twice (76, 77 with rounding to nearest 10th). Offensively, he was an 10-15ppg guy who, despite not being a post-up big, led the ABA/NBA in fg% three times and was an excellent passer as well. FInished 2nd and 4th in MVP voting in his two highest minute seasons. All this despite asthma that limited his stamina.

2. Giannis -- Very short prime but appreciably more than Bill Walton, the only player with a higher peak left. That and he didn't demand to be one of the highest paid guys in the league for a decade while only making it to the playoffs once.

3. Dennis Rodman? Hate putting a bad character guy in here and the Worm is the poster boy for (non-drugs) bad character guys. On the other hand, he's probably the GOAT impact guy without scoring, best rebounder in NBA history, terrific defender (though not in his GOAT rebounding seasons), decently smart passer. Also looking at Rasheed and Marion though both also had their headcase moments; Nance seems a hair below those two, Parker/Greer/Nique also a bit lower, Moncrief and Hawkins should be this high but just didn't play enough prime seasons.

Looking for someone to make a case.

I am looking at Rodman, Rasheed, Marion, Parker, Nance, Greer, Horace Grant, Moncrief, McAdoo, Hawkins, DJ in roughly that order. Those are subject to change and new players to be added. I don't have Walton on my top 100 despite his iconic status (and not sure about Hawkins or even Moncrief either). I don't see Jokic as top 100 without including this year.

[trex_8063]

3. Alonzo Mourning. VERY TENATIVE! I would love for someone to show another player as superior because, although I liked Alonzo Mourning and his fire for the game, he's the type of player I think tends to be overrated with his poor post passing and high block rates. Still, right now, I have him over Thurmond, my default next top center,

Personally, I would advise against voting for Mourning here; if for no other reason than because he was already voted in at #64.

For that matter, Thurmond is also off the table. I'd not said anything about your listings [which continued to include them] only because they still provided me with the info I needed.

[Dutchball97]

1. 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. That said I do think Giannis' perception suffers from the same thing as Harden and that's the post-season play generally not living up to the standards set by their insane regular season play even though they still perform really well in the play-offs. Giannis had a disappointing post-season last year but he still had a 31.3 PER, .238 WS/48 and 11.2 BPM over 9 games. Bud's schemes not holding up, Bledsoe starting and Middleton seemingly unable to make a shot when Giannis is on the floor with him are the things that I blame more for the Bucks second round exit than I do Giannis' performance.

2. Nikola Jokic - I might be voting for Jokic for a while but I think he deserves to make the list at least. Jokic' case is very similar to Giannis in my opinion. Both have 4 high level years along with 1 other positively contributing year. While both have 4 great regular seasons it is clear Giannis has the edge up till 2020, which is why I have him ahead. The difference in longevity is just Giannis' first two years when he was barely a replacement level player so if you're fine with Giannis being voted in this range, how can you justify not having Jokic not in your top 100 at all? Their play-off resumes are comparable at this point as well. Giannis has 5.8 WS and 3.4 VORP in the post-season so far compared to 5.5 WS and 3.5 VORP for Jokic. Giannis has reached the play-offs more often (5 times) than Jokic (2 times) but both have 3 play-off series wins at this point. While Giannis has played 10 more games than Jokic, the reason why the numbers are still close is that both of Jokic' runs were arguably better than any of Giannis' play-off outings. I just think this is closer than a lot of people think already.

3. Ben Wallace - Boxscore stats generally don't do defensive specialists justice but even so Ben Wallace still comes out looking very well in stats like WS and BPM. Despite a relatively short 6 year prime Ben still has pretty solid longevity at this point in the list as well. The main factor why I'm voting for him here is his excellent post-season play. 3 consecutive post-season runs with 3+ WS and 1+ VORP is very impressive. That alone would be a strong play-off pedigree at this point but he has multiple other very solid performances in the post-season as well. His pivotal role for the Pistons in some very deep runs and even a championship shouldn't be understated.

Kevin Johnson > Anfernee Hardaway > James Worthy > Bobby Jones > Rasheed Wallace > Larry Nance > Hal Greer > Tony Parker > Bob McAdoo > Dominique Wilkins > Dennis Rodman > Bill Walton > Dennis Johnson

[sansterre]

1. 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.

Rasheed's rankings on five of my ranking tools, of the 23 players that have been mentioned so far:

BackPicks CORP, 6th of 23
PIPM CORP, 3rd of 22
Win Shares CORP, 10th of 23
VORP CORP, 8th of 21
WOWYR, 3rd of 21

Box-score counting stats like 'Sheed (he shows up as above average at this point) but his biggest showings are in PIPM and WOWYR, both impact stats (one more than the other). In other words, metrics that focus on what a player does to help his team that doesn't show up in the box score think Rasheed is one of the very best players remaining.

I'll be honest, I kind of thought that this site would have more support for him. Was 'Sheed great at any one thing? Nope! His steals and blocks are fine, but neither of them jump off the page. And yet we *know* that his defense was excellent - it just show up in the box score. His offense wasn't efficient, but he spaced the floor and could carry a respectable part of the offense. But it's so clear that his contribution transcends the box score. Here are his AuRPMs starting in '97:

+3.6, +4.8, +7.0, +6.3, +4.6, +4.9, +5.7, +6.4, +3.2, +5.4, +3.9, +4.5, +3.7

Those are some really sweet numbers. To put it in rankings:

35th, 17th, 4th, 7th, 18th, 13th, 7th, 5th, 42nd, 13th, 22nd, 17th, 30th

A 4th, a 5th and two 7ths? That's pretty nuts. That may not sound impressive, but that means that besides Shaq, Duncan and KG, in those years 'Sheed was one of the very best players in the league.

Rasheed Wallace simply did tons of little things to help his team win. The '00 Blazers didn't jump off the page, but they were a butterfly fart from being NBA champions that year. The '04 Pistons went from being a very good team to be an overwhelming champion when they added 'Sheed.

The argument for Rasheed (besides the fact that his longevity is pretty good) is that he was good at so many things that his teams were always way better than you'd guess, and he was incredibly scalable. You know how Draymond Green is great, but the way we really know it is because of his impact metrics (because his box score stuff isn't as impressive)? Rasheed is very similar. Both did way more than their counting stats.

2. Larry Nance - Don't laugh. I know that nobody else has mentioned him (except for TRex bringing his name up to me). But I'm telling you, Larry Nance was considerably better than you think. You know that Bill James observation that people like players who do one thing historically well more than players who are quite good at everything (Lou Brock vs. Ron Santo is a good example - Santo was miles better, but Brock was more historically notable). Anyhow. This applies to Nance particularly. He was an athletic 6'10" power forward who played strong defense. He consistently posted strong defensive stats (Block% above 3.5 and Steal% above 1 for much of his career) and pretty much every metric we have (which are, in fairness, mostly box score driven) really like his defense. But he was no Hakeem or Ewing. He was merely an unusually good defending 4. He also rebounded well, averaging 13+% TRB for most of his career, but he was never great. Just quite good. Passing/ball control? His turnover were low for a big, and his assists were in the "not a liability, but definitely not strong" for a big. His scoring? His usage rate was rarely higher than 22%, and his PP75 were never much above 21-22%. But his efficiency was exceptional, posting seven different seasons with an rTS% above +5, and four above +6. You know who his statistical (not play style, just statistical) comp is? Kevin McHale.

McHale: 30.1k minutes, 22.4% usage, +6.7 rTS, 13.2% Reb, 8.1% Ast, 11.7% TO, 0.6% Stl, 3.2% Blk, +2.4 / +0.1 / +2.5
Nance: 30.7k minutes, 20.6% usage, +4.9 rTS, 13.6% Reb, 11.8% Ast, 11.3% TO, 1.4% Stl, 3.8% Blk, +2.3 / +1.4 / +3.6

They're comparable as rebounders. As passers Nance has a small edge. McHale is clearly the better scorer but Nance (according to box score metrics) was the notably better defender. Now, I'll be the first to admit that McHale's defense is underestimated by DBPM. I'm not trying to suggest that Nance was the better defender necessarily. But if I said "Picture McHale, slightly worse scorer, comparable defender and slightly better passer" . . . that's a pretty good player, right? And I'll stipulate that McHale's scoring took a jump in the postseason where Nance's didn't, but still. McHale got in a while ago. And it's worth mentioning that McHale's WOWYR numbers are fairly humdrum (+3.6 prime) compared to Nance's +5.1 prime.

So if Nance was so good, why is nobody talking about him? Because his teams never won. He was dominant on a series of decent Phoenix teams, and then they traded Nance and immediately took off. That may sound like a bad look for Nance but Phoenix got a haul for him. They basically got West and Corbin (their quality defensive bigs for the next five years) and Dan Majerle while replacing Nance with free agent Tom Chambers. Both teams got what they needed. And in Nance's twilight years (where he was still very good) his Cavs were quite good, breaking 50+ wins several times. But he was never on a team that made the Finals. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Nance was an excellent all-around player that both impact metrics (WOWYR) and box score metrics think very well of.

3. Jeff Hornacek - "Jeff Hornacek!?" you say. "Jeff Hornacek" I say. There are simply not metrics that he looks bad in. His BackPicks BPM, Win Shares CORP and VORP CORP are all well above average for this group. His PIPM is a little underwhelming, though still above average. And his peak WOWYR of +5.2 is one of the best in this group. Surprising, right? And yet, he's weirdly excellent.

Let's imagine that we looked for strong (but not dominant) shooting guard seasons. We're looking for a 2nd/3rd option, so sub 22% usage. He needs to break an OBPM of +2, TS above 57% and post PPX above 22. But we want him to be a solid passer who doesn't make mistakes, so AST% > 22% and TO% below 12.5%. That's a pretty specific player I just asked for. But Hornacek had six of those seasons; nobody else had more than 1. What if I loosened the terms? If I allowed usage rates higher than 22% I'd get Jordan and Kyrie tying with him. If I dropped the shooting efficiency requirement Fat Lever had four of those seasons. If I remove the assist requirement Hornacek had 8 seasons, with Reggie Miller and J.J. Reddick having 5 each. My point is, I'll stipulate that Hornacek was only an average usage player. But within those constraints he 1) scored efficiently, 2) passed well (or at least for volume), 3) turned the ball over very little (Assist:TO of 2.5 for much of his career) and 4) overall contributed to offenses at a solid level. And he did it for a long freaking time. He never really had a "Peak" because his seasons were metronomically excellent. He put up four straight 3+ VORP seasons in Phoenix, then another five in Utah. So if you're trying to remember Hornacek's time when he dominated the league . . . you won't find it. He was merely really good for a very long time.

And he kept showing up on strong teams. His age 25 season (1989) was when the Suns took a big step forward. Was he the one driving it? No, KJ was. But Johnson surely benefited from the spacing that Hornacek provided. And by VORP, Hornacek was the 2nd best player on both the '89 and '90 Suns (two teams that made my Top 100 list). In '92 The Suns posted a +5.68 RSRS with Hornacek as their best player (according to VORP). From 1992 to 1993 the Suns replaced Hornacek with Danny Ainge, and replaced Tim Perry and Andrew Lang with Charles Barkley and Cedric Ceballos. And the team's RSRS improved by . . . +0.59. Perry + Lang -> Barkely + Ceballos is clearly a monster upgrade. And Danny Ainge was no pushover. Was losing Hornacek a bigger blow than we thought? I don't want to overplay it; KJ missed almost half the year and that was clearly a driving force. And I'm not trying to sell you on the idea that Hornacek was a Barkley-level player. He wasn't. But even with KJ missing some time, you'd think the jump from '92 to '93 would be bigger than it was. Unless Hornacek was actually better than anyone realized.

And then Utah. Here are their seasons starting at '93:

1993: 47-35, +1.74 RSRS
1994: 53-29, +4.10 RSRS
1995: 60-22, +7.76 RSRS
1996: 55-27, +6.25 RSRS
1997: 64-18, +7.97 RSRS

They acquired Hornacek in the middle of one of those seasons; any guesses which?

Look. This is all slightly circumstantial. There are other factors that explain why the Jazz went from being decent to being the best team in the conference besides Jeff Hornacek. But Hornacek was clearly a big part of it.

Naysayers would argue that Hornacek was a bad first option. This is totally true. He had no business running your offense as the primary ball handler. But as long as he wasn't asked to take more than 20% of the team's shots he'd space the floor, can shots at a well-above average rate, pass well, not screw anything up and generate a fair number of steals. And the combination of these things had a consistent and genuine impact, even if no one of them is particularly remarkable.

We don't have AuRPM for his whole career, but here are his numbers with the Jazz starting at Age 31:

+3.4, +2.8, +5.9, +5.2, +4.5, +3.1

Two +5 seasons toward the tail-end of his career? That's damned impressive.

R.Wallace > Nance > Hornacek > D.Green? > B.Wallace > Eddie Jones > Horace Grant > Shawn Marion > Kyle Lowry > LaMarcus Aldridge > Terry Porter > Moncrief > Webber > Jokic > P.George > Bosh > Giannis > A.Hardaway > Hill > T.Parker > B.Walton > M.Cheeks > D.Issel > J.Worthy > B.Jones > A.Kirilenko > D.Wilkins > D.Rodman > A.Iguodala > D.Johnson > J.Butler > D.Lillard > H.Greer > C.Mullin > K.Irving > K.Thompson > B.McAdoo

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm curious if there is a reason for Jones playing such low minutes in his career other than playing on some very talented teams. Anyone have any input on this?

[sansterre]

I'll take any thoughts about Draymond. He kind of broke my rating system. His 2016 is the best season PIPM has. Ever. And his AuRPM are absolutely insane. But once we get to 2018+ I use the ESPN RPM and suddenly Draymond looks only decent. Draymond's counting metrics (Win Shares and VORP) are really low for this group (only Walton and Klay Thompson are that low) but his playoff resiliency (not in scoring but in contributing) really pops and his Impact-driven stats are selectively at an all-time-great level.

The aggregate result is that my system is telling me that he's the 4th best player available here. And I'm just really, really skeeved out by how lopsided his AuRPM and PIPM are telling me that he was at his best. If I take them seriously then Draymond had some of the best seasons *ever* and he's a reasonable submission here. I have a hard time taking them at their face value. So I'd appreciate some other points of view.

And please don't weigh in by saying that he shouldn't be this high because he couldn't score. Bill Russell couldn't score and he did alright.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'll take any thoughts about Draymond. He kind of broke my rating system. His 2016 is the best season PIPM has. Ever. And his AuRPM are absolutely insane. But once we get to 2018+ I use the ESPN RPM and suddenly Draymond looks only decent. Draymond's counting metrics (Win Shares and VORP) are really low for this group (only Walton and Klay Thompson are that low) but his playoff resiliency (not in scoring but in contributing) really pops and his Impact-driven stats are selectively at an all-time-great level.

The aggregate result is that my system is telling me that he's the 4th best player available here. And I'm just really, really skeeved out by how lopsided his AuRPM and PIPM are telling me that he was at his best. If I take them seriously then Draymond had some of the best seasons *ever* and he's a reasonable submission here. I have a hard time taking them at their face value. So I'd appreciate some other points of view.

And please don't weigh in by saying that he shouldn't be this high because he couldn't score. Bill Russell couldn't score and he did alright.

My thoughts on him are very good and valuable 3 year peak but has dropped off some since then and that 3 year run isn't enough for me to rank him in my top 100. I'd also be interested in seeing the results on the data you run for Maurice Cheeks who I think is deserving of some mention right now. More so when you dig into the numbers of how valuable he was to teams which made 3 finals and won a title.

[Rich Michmond]

I'm curious if there is a reason for Jones playing such low minutes in his career other than playing on some very talented teams. Anyone have any input on this?

A heart condition, asthma, and epilepsy.

[sansterre]

I'll take any thoughts about Draymond. He kind of broke my rating system. His 2016 is the best season PIPM has. Ever. And his AuRPM are absolutely insane. But once we get to 2018+ I use the ESPN RPM and suddenly Draymond looks only decent. Draymond's counting metrics (Win Shares and VORP) are really low for this group (only Walton and Klay Thompson are that low) but his playoff resiliency (not in scoring but in contributing) really pops and his Impact-driven stats are selectively at an all-time-great level.

The aggregate result is that my system is telling me that he's the 4th best player available here. And I'm just really, really skeeved out by how lopsided his AuRPM and PIPM are telling me that he was at his best. If I take them seriously then Draymond had some of the best seasons *ever* and he's a reasonable submission here. I have a hard time taking them at their face value. So I'd appreciate some other points of view.

And please don't weigh in by saying that he shouldn't be this high because he couldn't score. Bill Russell couldn't score and he did alright.

My thoughts on him are very good and valuable 3 year peak but has dropped off some since then and that 3 year run isn't enough for me to rank him in my top 100. I'd also be interested in seeing the results on the data you run for Maurice Cheeks who I think is deserving of some mention right now. More so when you dig into the numbers of how valuable he was to teams which made 3 finals and won a title.

I actually ran Cheeks (all the guys I've run are ordered on my post, though I won't pretend they're easy to read). He 's middle-of-the-pack-ish for the 30-odd players I have waiting. His PIPM, WS and VORP are all quite nice (if not great for this group). And his playoff resiliency looks good. But his WOWYR is fairly awful. No matter which version you use, his WOWYR shows around +1, which is really low for this group. So put it all together and he ranks well . . . but not as well as some others.

[Cavsfansince84]

I actually ran Cheeks (all the guys I've run are ordered on my post, though I won't pretend they're easy to read). He 's middle-of-the-pack-ish for the 30-odd players I have waiting. His PIPM, WS and VORP are all quite nice (if not great for this group). And his playoff resiliency looks good. But his WOWYR is fairly awful. No matter which version you use, his WOWYR shows around +1, which is really low for this group. So put it all together and he ranks well . . . but not as well as some others.

Then you also have to add in him being a perennial 1st team all defense guy during his prime. Which I don't know how good wowy is at factoring in but its a thing to consider. Plus being very high efficiency.

[Owly]

I'll take any thoughts about Draymond. He kind of broke my rating system. His 2016 is the best season PIPM has. Ever. And his AuRPM are absolutely insane. But once we get to 2018+ I use the ESPN RPM and suddenly Draymond looks only decent. Draymond's counting metrics (Win Shares and VORP) are really low for this group (only Walton and Klay Thompson are that low) but his playoff resiliency (not in scoring but in contributing) really pops and his Impact-driven stats are selectively at an all-time-great level.

The aggregate result is that my system is telling me that he's the 4th best player available here. And I'm just really, really skeeved out by how lopsided his AuRPM and PIPM are telling me that he was at his best. If I take them seriously then Draymond had some of the best seasons *ever* and he's a reasonable submission here. I have a hard time taking them at their face value. So I'd appreciate some other points of view.

And please don't weigh in by saying that he shouldn't be this high because he couldn't score. Bill Russell couldn't score and he did alright.

My thoughts on him are very good and valuable 3 year peak but has dropped off some since then and that 3 year run isn't enough for me to rank him in my top 100. I'd also be interested in seeing the results on the data you run for Maurice Cheeks who I think is deserving of some mention right now. More so when you dig into the numbers of how valuable he was to teams which made 3 finals and won a title.

I actually ran Cheeks (all the guys I've run are ordered on my post, though I won't pretend they're easy to read). He 's middle-of-the-pack-ish for the 30-odd players I have waiting. His PIPM, WS and VORP are all quite nice (if not great for this group). And his playoff resiliency looks good. But his WOWYR is fairly awful. No matter which version you use, his WOWYR shows around +1, which is really low for this group. So put it all together and he ranks well . . . but not as well as some others.

His on-off numbers (available for his era 76ers teams) seem to suggest very strong impact based on what I recall (the numbers and perhaps moreso interpretations of them on here).

I think this is the main thread for it: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1343246&start=140

[sansterre]

My thoughts on him are very good and valuable 3 year peak but has dropped off some since then and that 3 year run isn't enough for me to rank him in my top 100. I'd also be interested in seeing the results on the data you run for Maurice Cheeks who I think is deserving of some mention right now. More so when you dig into the numbers of how valuable he was to teams which made 3 finals and won a title.

I actually ran Cheeks (all the guys I've run are ordered on my post, though I won't pretend they're easy to read). He 's middle-of-the-pack-ish for the 30-odd players I have waiting. His PIPM, WS and VORP are all quite nice (if not great for this group). And his playoff resiliency looks good. But his WOWYR is fairly awful. No matter which version you use, his WOWYR shows around +1, which is really low for this group. So put it all together and he ranks well . . . but not as well as some others.

His on-off numbers (available for his era 76ers teams) seem to suggest very strong impact based on what I recall (the numbers and perhaps moreso interpretations of them on here).

I think this is the main thread for it: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1343246&start=140

The AuRPM seasons I see average a +2.2, which is a heck of a lot better than the +1.0 WOWYR has for him, but neither is it world-beating. He should likely be higher than where I have him; I'm just not sure by how much.

[Cavsfansince84]

71. Dominique Wilkins
-7x all nba(1x 1st, 4x 2nd, 2x 3rd), 5x top 10 in mvp voting(high of 2nd)
-10x 25+ppg on usually close to league average efficiency(both below and above)
-ranks 34th all time in vorp, 52nd in win shares
-led teams which won 50+ games 4 straight years during his prime

72. 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).

73. Giannis Antetokounmpo
-Perhaps the highest peak of any player left(along with Walton and Jokic) and I am very reserved on ranking any player whose prime is in the 5 years or less range but he's been at such a high level for the last 2 seasons(2 mvps & a dpoy) with another 2-3 strong seasons prior that I have to rank him here. Just an all around unstoppable type of player who I think could do very well in a reduced usage role as well.

74. Parker
75. Jones
76. McAdoo
77. Lucas
78. DeBusschere
79. Johnston
80. Rodman
81. Cunningham
82. Worthy
83. Cheeks
84. Ben Wallace
85. KJ
86. Hill
87. Mullin
88. Marion
89. Issel
90. Lillard
91. Butler
92. DJohnson
93. Moncrief
94. Jokic
95. Dumars
95. Irving
96. Porter
97. Nance
98. Bellamy
99. Hagan
100. Richmond


others still considering: Silas, Melo, Price, Sheed, Webber(missing a ton of games is why I'm not firm on having him in my top 100 yet), Maurice Lucas, Marques Johnson

[penbeast0]

3. Alonzo Mourning. VERY TENATIVE! I would love for someone to show another player as superior because, although I liked Alonzo Mourning and his fire for the game, he's the type of player I think tends to be overrated with his poor post passing and high block rates. Still, right now, I have him over Thurmond, my default next top center,

Personally, I would advise against voting for Mourning here; if for no other reason than because he was already voted in at #64.

For that matter, Thurmond is also off the table. I'd not said anything about your listings [which continued to include them] only because they still provided me with the info I needed.

Duh, thanks! Thurmond I remembered, just forgot to take him out of the chain.

[Cavsfansince84]

Duh, thanks! Thurmond I remembered, just forgot to take him out of the chain.

I'm curious of the guys I have listed as honorable mentions which you would rank the highest. Plus your impressions if any you have on Bellamy. My issue with him is he put up 3-4 great seasons on terrible teams and questionable on defense.

[Hal14]

I'm curious if there is a reason for Jones playing such low minutes in his career other than playing on some very talented teams. Anyone have any input on this?

1. He was not a star player. He was a role player. Role players play less minutes than stars.
2. Jones was injured a lot during his career so his teams had to be careful to watch his minutes to avoid injury
3. Like you said, he was on a lot of stacked teams which also plays into it

[Hal14]

1. Dominique Wilkins
2. Dennis Rodman
3. Dennis Johnson

English just got voted in but he is only barely ahead of Wilkins so Wilkins gets my vote here.

Both Wilkins and English were extremely elite players throughout the 80s - English was the decade's leading scorer while Dominique had higher finishes in MVP voting. Both are right there in that next tier of great players from the 80s after Bird/Magic/Jordan. Both English and Wilkins were absolutely lethal scorers who also helped their team in other ways. Neither had great team success, but it's understandable given the highly competitive era with so many great teams that were stacked with better supporting casts than they had. If either guy carried their teams to the finals they would have been voted in way before now.

As for Rodman, apparently I'm higher on him than others. Rodman was:

-Top 5 rebounder of all time - arguably the best
-Top 5 defender of all time - arguably the best
-In terms of running through a wall to make a play, going all out to help his team, hustle, diving on the floor for loose balls - he's also top 5 of all time in that, arguably the best
-Won 5 titles. Was a top 3 player on his team for 3 of those titles (96-98) and probably a top 3 player on the other 2 (89, 90)..many people even think he should have won finals MVP in 96.

To me, that's good enough to be a top 70 player of all time. Sure, you can say that he couldn't score and that he was a head case who at times caused team turmoil - but that's why he's here and not 20 spots higher.

Love him or hate him, you've got to respect that he was one of the greatest players of all time:

Watch on YouTube

Johnson was one of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time, he was a significant contributor for 3 NBA championship teams and played in 5 NBA finals - all of them as a top 4 player on his team. He was NBA Finals MVP in 79. Bird says Johnson was the best teammate he ever played with - yes that means Bird thinks Johnson was better than both McHale and Parish. Johnson had solid longevity, he was a clutch performer (hit game winning shot to beat Lakers in LA in game 4 of 85 finals, made the game winning layup to beat the Pistons in game 5 of 87 ECF, etc.) he showed the versatility of being able to play both guard positions. Very strong case to be top 70 of all time - and has a strong case that he accomplished more and in terms of being a 2-way player, being clutch and being a winner, Johnson has a strong case for being better than quite a few players who have been voted in to this poll over him.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm curious if there is a reason for Jones playing such low minutes in his career other than playing on some very talented teams. Anyone have any input on this?

1. He was not a star player. He was a role player. Role players play less minutes than stars.
2. Jones was injured a lot during his career so his teams had to be careful to watch his minutes to avoid injury
3. Like you said, he was on a lot of stacked teams which also plays into it

I think the biggest reason was given by someone else above who mentioned him dealing with multiple illnesses including asthma.