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

[Hal14]

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.

I've got Bellamy on that same tier of centers with Unseld, Mcadoo and Walton.

[HeartBreakKid]

Criteria

Spoiler:

I'm a pretty big peak guy, I'm not that interested in value of total seasons. The value of multiple seasons to me is to give me a greater sample size to understanding how good they were on the court, not necessarily the totality of their impact through out the years.

I also value impact over all else, and I define impact as the ability to help a team win games. Boxscore stats, team accolades and individual accolades (unless I agree with them personally) have very little baring on my voting so some names will look a bit wonky. The reason why I ignore accolades and winningness is because basketball is a team game and the players are largely not in control of the quality of their teammates or the health f their team (or their own personal health in key moments), thus I don't see the value of rating players based on xx has this many MVPs versus this guy has this many rings. In addition, I simply find this type of analysis boring because it's quite easy to simply look at who has a bigger laundry list of accomplishments.

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.












R Wallace > Jones> McAdoo > Nance > Greer> Parker> Wilkins

[HeartBreakKid]

Was no one else semi-convinced by the Larry Nance post? I haven't put him near the top of my list, but I do have him over a few guys.

[Cavsfansince84]

Was no one else semi-convinced by the Larry Nance post? I haven't put him near the top of my list, but I do have him over a few guys.

I didn't really need convincing on Nance but I have him at about 94. There's honestly a lot of really good players that people haven't even started mentioning yet who were competing for mvps and winnings rings that I still have to keep ahead of someone like Nance who I got to see play a lot.

[penbeast0]

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

1. Before the lung problems grew worse, he finished 2nd and 4th in MVP shares in Denver.
2. His injury history was pretty good, as someone above posted, he had issues with his breathing which limited his minutes, not a lot of injuries.
3. He led a not terribly stacked team in 75 (Mack Calvin, Ralph Simpson, Fatty Taylor, Mike Green) to the best record in the ABA (better than Gilmore/Issel/Dampier or Erving/Kenon/Paultz), then, when they signed rookie David Thompson and Dan Issel (replacing Calvin and Green), did it again in 76. I would say clearly the best player on both those teams (those were the 4th and 2nd place MVP finishes). The Philly teams were indeed seriously stacked.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #25:

Dominique Wilkins - 3 (Cavsfansince84, Hal14, trex_8063)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bobby Jones - 1 (penbeast0)
Rasheed Wallace - 1 (sansterre)


Probably about 27 hours left for this one.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

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.

fwiw, AuPM for Charles Barkley ('85-'92) averages to just +2.66.

I seem to recall someone running an RAPM model [which included playoffs], and guys like Cheeks and Jones [and obviously Moses in '83] really shined, while Erving was surprisingly midling.

EDIT: Anyway, if comparing Mo's best 7-years AuPM added to best 7-year RAPMs, his nearest company are guys like Yao Ming, Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Elton Brand, Chauncey Billups, and later career Mitch Richmond [used AuPM for '94-'96 Richmond]. It's not bad company.

[sansterre]

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.

fwiw, AuPM for Charles Barkley ('85-'92) averages to just +2.66.

I seem to recall someone running an RAPM model [which included playoffs], and guys like Cheeks and Jones [and obviously Moses in '83] really shined, while Erving was surprisingly midling.

EDIT: Anyway, if comparing Mo's best 7-years AuPM added to best 7-year RAPMs, his nearest company are guys like Yao Ming, Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Elton Brand, Chauncey Billups, and later career Mitch Richmond [used AuPM for '94-'96 Richmond]. It's not bad company.

I wish I understood why WOWYR has such skewed results for certain players. I'll definitely say that there are times when I find the years he picks for a player's "Prime" are extremely strange, but still. Because all my numbers rather like Cheeks, but WOWYR hates him.

[Owly]

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.

fwiw, AuPM for Charles Barkley ('85-'92) averages to just +2.66.

I seem to recall someone running an RAPM model [which included playoffs], and guys like Cheeks and Jones [and obviously Moses in '83] really shined, while Erving was surprisingly midling.

EDIT: Anyway, if comparing Mo's best 7-years AuPM added to best 7-year RAPMs, his nearest company are guys like Yao Ming, Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Elton Brand, Chauncey Billups, and later career Mitch Richmond [used AuPM for '94-'96 Richmond]. It's not bad company.

I wish I understood why WOWYR has such skewed results for certain players. I'll definitely say that there are times when I find the years he picks for a player's "Prime" are extremely strange, but still. Because all my numbers rather like Cheeks, but WOWYR hates him.

To me ... WoWY (and direct relatives) is somewhat of a last resort metric. If you need something impact-y and you don't have within game level data then it might be better (perhaps, with a decent out [and in] sample, if otherwise healthy) than comparing across seasons with different rosters. But if you've got a guy consistently playing over 75 games nearly every year and you have even basic on-off, I would think you're getting a lot more opportunity for signal (i.e. when he's actually on versus when actually off) versus WoWY with a noisy on (not really "in" all the time) a too small off (limited to absences) and an odd, possibly non-alike sample for in and out (may be concentrated in one or two years for the out). I don't know how much or how WoWYR cleans up for this last factor (iirc, remember a vid talking about trying to look at lineups) but for the former points it can't.

That would be my take anyway, I am open to the idea I'm missing something or just wrong.

[trex_8063]

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.

fwiw, AuPM for Charles Barkley ('85-'92) averages to just +2.66.

I seem to recall someone running an RAPM model [which included playoffs], and guys like Cheeks and Jones [and obviously Moses in '83] really shined, while Erving was surprisingly midling.

EDIT: Anyway, if comparing Mo's best 7-years AuPM added to best 7-year RAPMs, his nearest company are guys like Yao Ming, Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Elton Brand, Chauncey Billups, and later career Mitch Richmond [used AuPM for '94-'96 Richmond]. It's not bad company.

I wish I understood why WOWYR has such skewed results for certain players. I'll definitely say that there are times when I find the years he picks for a player's "Prime" are extremely strange, but still. Because all my numbers rather like Cheeks, but WOWYR hates him.

WOWYR is kind of nice to have for some of those older players [any port in a storm, right?]; but yeah, I think it needs to be taken with a rather large grain of salt (and definitely never in isolation [not that you have been]).
There are those handful of players, too, for whom WOWYR is fairly out of sync with raw WOWY......which is always a bit puzzling for me:

Sidney Moncrief in particular--->his raw WOWY info that I have harvested [can share upon request] is relatively unimpressive......it actually looks marginally LESSER THAN Iverson's in terms of wins added and/or SRS-change (to be fair: Iverson's teams were a worse baseline [and it's a touch easier to raise the floor than raise the ceiling, as it were]).

Yet Moncrief's prime/career WOWYR are a monstrous +8.6/+4.1, whereas Iverson's are just +1.7/+0.8.


Maybe there's an adjustment for team/cast quality that partly accounts for this. But if so, why doesn't Wilkins [who also had better supporting cast than Iverson most years] look far better than he does via WOWYR??
Again, I cited his WOWY above (though I haven't done SRS change for each year, I do have the it in terms of wins--->which are a larger change than seen with prime Moncrief).

So idk......I don't know why/how guys with same(ish) appearance in WOWY data can have dramatically different WOWYR [or even the guy with the LEAST impressive WOWY having the MOST impressive WOWYR]......especially when there's a dearth of teammate injuries to account for differences.

[sansterre]

Good points. I'll see what I can do to assemble better impact data for these players. Not much of a way around it with guys like Greer but I've definitely been persuaded that figuring out how to move away from WOWYR where possible is probably for the best.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Just to clarify: Is this a point in time ranking (as 12/31/2020 or end of 2020 season)?
Think it makes a huge difference with Giannis as he only has 2 negative marks in longevity and play-off success. He has since had another year of top 10 play. I understand why he is ranked this low, but personally/biasedly I would have a lot higher as he is one of 14 2x MVPs. Leonard is ranked way above him due to 2 finals performances, whereas Giannis has played more games, had more points, etc. So it is really ranking the FMVP over MVP? I'm still bitter because if that ball doesn't bounce into against the sixers, it could've been Giannis with the FMVP and Leonard probably isnt on this list.

Think every year he will move up 5-10 spots with awards and playoff success.

Will be interesting to see where he ranks in 2 years after 2 championships and moving up on the all-time scoring rankings

Sorry for the interruption and carry-on on with the process

[Cavsfansince84]

Just to clarify: Is this a point in time ranking (as 12/31/2020 or end of 2020 season)?
Think it makes a huge difference with Giannis as he only has 2 negative marks in longevity and play-off success. He has since had another year of top 10 play. I understand why he is ranked this low, but personally/biasedly I would have a lot higher as he is one of 14 2x MVPs. Leonard is ranked way above him due to 2 finals performances, whereas Giannis has played more games, had more points, etc. So it is really ranking the FMVP over MVP? I'm still bitter because if that ball doesn't bounce into against the sixers, it could've been Giannis with the FMVP and Leonard probably isnt on this list.

Think every year he will move up 5-10 spots with awards and playoff success.

Will be interesting to see where he ranks in 2 years after 2 championships and moving up on the all-time scoring rankings

Sorry for the interruption and carry-on on with the process

1. It's supposed to only go to the end of the 2020 season as I understood it.
2. I'd agree on Kawhi being rated way too high here but some people are really strong on peaks and great playoff runs when they do their rankings.

[Owly]

fwiw, AuPM for Charles Barkley ('85-'92) averages to just +2.66.

I seem to recall someone running an RAPM model [which included playoffs], and guys like Cheeks and Jones [and obviously Moses in '83] really shined, while Erving was surprisingly midling.

EDIT: Anyway, if comparing Mo's best 7-years AuPM added to best 7-year RAPMs, his nearest company are guys like Yao Ming, Tyson Chandler, Kevin Love, Elton Brand, Chauncey Billups, and later career Mitch Richmond [used AuPM for '94-'96 Richmond]. It's not bad company.

I wish I understood why WOWYR has such skewed results for certain players. I'll definitely say that there are times when I find the years he picks for a player's "Prime" are extremely strange, but still. Because all my numbers rather like Cheeks, but WOWYR hates him.

WOWYR is kind of nice to have for some of those older players [any port in a storm, right?]; but yeah, I think it needs to be taken with a rather large grain of salt (and definitely never in isolation [not that you have been]).
There are those handful of players, too, for whom WOWYR is fairly out of sync with raw WOWY......which is always a bit puzzling for me:

Sidney Moncrief in particular--->his raw WOWY info that I have harvested [can share upon request] is relatively unimpressive......it actually looks marginally LESSER THAN Iverson's in terms of wins added and/or SRS-change (to be fair: Iverson's teams were a worse baseline [and it's a touch easier to raise the floor than raise the ceiling, as it were]).

Yet Moncrief's prime/career WOWYR are a monstrous +8.6/+4.1, whereas Iverson's are just +1.7/+0.8.


Maybe there's an adjustment for team/cast quality that partly accounts for this. But if so, why doesn't Wilkins [who also had better supporting cast than Iverson most years] look far better than he does via WOWYR??
Again, I cited his WOWY above (though I haven't done SRS change for each year, I do have the it in terms of wins--->which are a larger change than seen with prime Moncrief).

So idk......I don't know why/how guys with same(ish) appearance in WOWY data can have dramatically different WOWYR [or even the guy with the LEAST impressive WOWY having the MOST impressive WOWYR]......especially when there's a dearth of teammate injuries to account for differences.

Some Moncrief data and controlsfrom yhe circa 2015 spreadsheet)
Player, Team, Games Missed, SRS IN, SRS Change, PWins IN, PWins Change, Sample Controls, 95% +/-, SIO, WOWY Score
Moncrief, 81 Bucks, 2, 8.7, 18.1, 64, 47, 25+ In + PS (54), 13.7, 14.1, 2.4
Moncrief, 87 Bucks, 23, 4.8, -2.9, 55, -7, Pressey In (61), 4, -4.7, -3.4
Moncrief, 85 Bucks, 9, 7.5, 7, 61, 19, 0, 7.7, 7.1, 3.9
Moncrief, 86 Bucks, 9, 9.1, 0.2, 65, 0, Hodges In (66), 7.7, 0.4, 0.2

In any case I would say a "career" number might be misleading for Moncrief he gutted out near full seasons through '86 then was seemingly clearly never the same after (see stats but for reference ... reporting at the time ...)

Gutsy ... Gave more than he probably should have in the playoffs, when he was suffering from a very sore left heel ... Sustained injury in final first-round game against Nets ... Soul and inspiration of the Bucks he rallied them past the Sixers in conference semis, but could do nothing to avert Celtics' sweep in finals
...
Can't find anything bad to say about him, except that his knees and heel have betrayed him and could pose serious problems as he grows older

My gut would be the earlier absences are small enough that parsing signal from noise would be tricky.

Sidenote: Assume dearth of injuries is regarding Moncrief?

[trex_8063]

Yet Moncrief's prime/career WOWYR are a monstrous +8.6/+4.1, whereas Iverson's are just +1.7/+0.8.


Maybe there's an adjustment for team/cast quality that partly accounts for this. But if so, why doesn't Wilkins [who also had better supporting cast than Iverson most years] look far better than he does via WOWYR??
Again, I cited his WOWY above (though I haven't done SRS change for each year, I do have the it in terms of wins--->which are a larger change than seen with prime Moncrief).

So idk......I don't know why/how guys with same(ish) appearance in WOWY data can have dramatically different WOWYR [or even the guy with the LEAST impressive WOWY having the MOST impressive WOWYR]......especially when there's a dearth of teammate injuries to account for differences.

Some Moncrief data and controlsfrom yhe circa 2015 spreadsheet)
Player, Team, Games Missed, SRS IN, SRS Change, PWins IN, PWins Change, Sample Controls, 95% +/-, SIO, WOWY Score
Moncrief, 81 Bucks, 2, 8.7, 18.1, 64, 47, 25+ In + PS (54), 13.7, 14.1, 2.4
Moncrief, 87 Bucks, 23, 4.8, -2.9, 55, -7, Pressey In (61), 4, -4.7, -3.4
Moncrief, 85 Bucks, 9, 7.5, 7, 61, 19, 0, 7.7, 7.1, 3.9
Moncrief, 86 Bucks, 9, 9.1, 0.2, 65, 0, Hodges In (66), 7.7, 0.4, 0.2

In any case I would say a "career" number might be misleading for Moncrief he gutted out near full seasons through '86 then was seemingly clearly never the same after (see stats but for reference ... reporting at the time ...)

Sidenote: Assume dearth of injuries is regarding Moncrief?

I don't know which spreadsheet is "the circa 2015 spreadsheet" you're referring to [nor who the author is].
But some of the data appears mistaken, if I'm reading the way you charted it correctly:

'87:
*Says he missed 23 games, but he actually missed 43.
**Says their SRS with him in was +4.8, which was -2.9 WORSE than what they were without him [that is: they were a +7.7 without him] (again: if I'm reading this correctly)......which is impossible given they were a +4.04 SRS overall. Unless this is overall [playoff included] SRS??? But I sort of doubt it: they barely squeeked by a mediocre Philly team, then managed to play an excellent Boston team to a stand-still......pretty sure that's not enough to push their overall SRS up into the territory we're talking about, no matter how heavily you weight that Boston series.
***Says they were on pace for 55 wins with him, which was -7 WORSE than what they were on pace for without him......except they only won 50 games that year.


Also, I may not be as math/stat-savvy as you assume; can you tell me what SIO is? I feel like I knew once, but have forgotten.


Sidenote ("dearth of injuries"): I was referring to Nique.
"Dearth" means scarcity or lack of, if I'm not mistaken. And that's largely what we see among his supporting cast during his prime. 2nd year Spud Webb missed a bunch of time, but he was only like a 16 mpg bench player [not a huge impact player even in his prime, anyway]; and Jon Koncak missed significant time in both '88 and '90, iirc. But other than that, none of his supporting cast misses significant time.

Thus, it's unlikely that the apparent consistent lift we seem to see during his prime can be explained away by saying "that's just because so-and-so was out at the same time Nique was out; that's why they dropped off so hard".

I mean, it's [slimly] possible; I admit I did not look at each of Nique's absenses to see who else was out at the same time. But given it was exceedingly rare for anyone on his principle supporting cast to miss more than a half-dozen games [other than the Spud/Koncak exceptions mentioned], it's unlikely for things to have been "skewed" in Nique's favour in that fashion.

[LA Bird]

Some Moncrief data and controlsfrom yhe circa 2015 spreadsheet)
Player, Team, Games Missed, SRS IN, SRS Change, PWins IN, PWins Change, Sample Controls, 95% +/-, SIO, WOWY Score
Moncrief, 81 Bucks, 2, 8.7, 18.1, 64, 47, 25+ In + PS (54), 13.7, 14.1, 2.4
Moncrief, 87 Bucks, 23, 4.8, -2.9, 55, -7, Pressey In (61), 4, -4.7, -3.4
Moncrief, 85 Bucks, 9, 7.5, 7, 61, 19, 0, 7.7, 7.1, 3.9
Moncrief, 86 Bucks, 9, 9.1, 0.2, 65, 0, Hodges In (66), 7.7, 0.4, 0.2

In any case I would say a "career" number might be misleading for Moncrief he gutted out near full seasons through '86 then was seemingly clearly never the same after (see stats but for reference ... reporting at the time ...)

Sidenote: Assume dearth of injuries is regarding Moncrief?

I don't know which spreadsheet is "the circa 2015 spreadsheet" you're referring to [nor who the author is].
But some of the data appears mistaken, if I'm reading the way you charted it correctly:

'87:
*Says he missed 23 games, but he actually missed 43.
**Says their SRS with him in was +4.8, which was -2.9 WORSE than what they were without him [that is: they were a +7.7 without him] (again: if I'm reading this correctly)......which is impossible given they were a +4.04 SRS overall. Unless this is overall [playoff included] SRS??? But I sort of doubt it: they barely squeeked by a mediocre Philly team, then managed to play an excellent Boston team to a stand-still......pretty sure that's not enough to push their overall SRS up into the territory we're talking about, no matter how heavily you weight that Boston series.
***Says they were on pace for 55 wins with him, which was -7 WORSE than what they were on pace for without him......except they only won 50 games that year.

Also, I may not be as math/stat-savvy as you assume; can you tell me what SIO is? I feel like I knew once, but have forgotten.

It's the spreadsheet from ElGee's original WOWY thread (link) before he made it private. I saved a copy at the time as well and it has the same numbers.

The 87 Bucks numbers are about right if we look at two player raw WOWYs:

With Pressey, Without Moncrief (23G): 17-6, +8.43 MOV
With Pressey, With Moncrief (38G): 25-13, +4.61 MOV
Without Pressey, Without Moncrief (20G): 8-12, -1.55 MOV
Without Pressey, With Moncrief (1G): 0-1, -17.00 MOV

The "Pressey In (61)" control means ElGee is only looking at the 61 games Pressey played in. In that sample, the 87 Bucks were on pace for about 7 fewer wins with Moncrief than without him.

(SIO is defined by ElGee as the simple SRS impact on a true theoretical 0 SRS team. A +8 "SIO" player, by this working definition, improves a 0 SRS team to 8. A +3 SIO Player to 3. And so on.)

[trex_8063]

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.

Well OK, I'll take another stab.....

Why not someone like Horace Grant over Rodman?

In terms of impact:

WOWYR (which we've been calling into question a lot in the above posts, fwiw)
Rodman (prime/career): +5.3/+3.9
Grant: +3.6/+4.0


AuPM ['94-'96] (using Ben Taylor's AuPM spreadsheet; granted Ho is four years younger, though only 1 year younger in NBA years)
'94 - Rodman: +2.7, Grant: +2.7 (fwiw, Grant leads +2.91 to +2.48 by colts18's AuPM model)
'95 - Rodman: +3.8, Grant: +4.6
'96 - Rodman: +2.6, Grant: +4.3


RAPM
‘97 - Rodman: +3.23, Grant: +3.25
‘98 - Rodman: +1.70, Grant: +2.26
‘99 - Rodman: +0.37, Grant: +1.17

Grant would go on to be a positive in RAPM each year until his 17th and final season [‘04], where he was -0.2.

PIPM
Rodman’s best 7 years are: +2.4, +2.1, +1.2, +1.2, +0.9, +0.8, +0.6 (avg of +1.31)
Grant’s best years are: +4.5, +2.7, +2.2, +2.0, +2.0, +1.9, +1.8 (avg of +2.44 [equal or marginally better than Rodman’s single-season best])

Grant has 13 total seasons with a PIPM >0, whereas Rodman has just 10.


In a quick-glance career box-based rate metrics (both played almost exclusively for very successful teams, and have similar career win%’s, for those metrics influenced by team success)….
Rodman: 14.6 PER, .150 WS/48, +0.9 BPM, +14 net rating, in 31.7 mpg
Grant: 16.0 PER, .147 WS/48, +1.4 BPM, +13 net rating in 33.2 mpg

^^^That’s despite playing three more seasons than Rodman. If we look only at Grant’s first 14 seasons [that’s as long as Rodman was around], to not penalize for three “twilight years”....

Grant: 16.3 PER, .151 WS/48, +1.6 BPM, +13 net rating in 34.2 mpg
…..having already played more than 6,300 more minutes than Rodman did in his career, because Grant was significantly more durable.


On top of all this, he’s a model teammate who meshed almost seamlessly with multiple contenders.

He’s a solid defender; peaked lower than Rodman defensively, but in terms of defensive consistency [or average defensive year], he’s probably roughly on par with Rodman, even if he doesn’t have the media accolades to show for it (like Kobe and Payton, Rodman got some based on reputation alone).
Grant’s a decent post defender, a very good pnr defender; not super-versatile on the perimeter, but you’re not hung out to dry if he’s caught on a switch either [see final play of G6 ‘93 Finals as example]. He provides more rim-protection than Rodman [generates more turnovers too, for that matter], and is a solid defensive rebounder (actually blocks out, too, whereas Rodman poached).

He’s arguably a better passer than Rodman [though I’ll def give Rodman the edge in outlet passing]; at any rate he has a MUCH better turnover economy (Horace Grant is actually in a GOAT-tier [with Dirk and LMA] among big-men for overall turnover economy).

Grant is at least a marginally better scorer, and definitely spreads the floor a pinch more.

Rodman’s the much better offensive rebounder, though Grant was also pretty good in this regard too.


Idk, my 2c….
Character, portability, and longevity all factored in, I think Horace Grant actually stacks up very similarly/favourably vs your top pick Jones. He just doesn’t have as many media awards as the other two.

Anyway, just throwing a dark-horse candidate [though sincerely: he shouldn't be viewed as a "dark horse", imo] out there; there are a number of others I feel are more deserving than Rodman [even some at Rodman's own position].

[Odinn21]

71. 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.)

72. Rasheed Wallace
This is where it gets psychological. I also have that feeling of having Vince Carter close to McGrady and Iverson. But when I did ordering among the players with traction, McGrady and Iverson were yet to make the list and I had Sheed over Carter. I think that was the more logical decision, so I'm going to stick with it.
I'm big on Sheed's peak and prime. Arguably, they are not as good as Carter's. Carter had a very respective 8 season of 25+ ppg prime with good impact (he was in the top 5% in 14 year RAPM from '99 to '13). Though Sheed's impact was better with the tiniest edge (only 2 player between them). But Sheed's last 3 seasons in Detroit and that 1 season in Boston feel more valuable than what Carter added to his career after 2006-07 season.
A case for Sheed without a comparison to Carter;
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=89482065#p89482065

73. Dominique Wilkins
Well, as one of the highest scoring players in the '80s, Wilkins' rivals felt like they all (Bird, Erving, Gervin, Dantley, King, English) were better than him. Constantly comparing a player to players than him would give a sense of "this player is not that good". But we're at a point that he's not not that good any more. Denying him for further doesn't make much sense to me.
He had a 6-7 seasons of a proper prime. Then he added 2 more valuable seasons to his career after coming back from such injury.
In terms of impact, there are more impactful players. Walton, Jokic, Giannis, but their total career values do not come close enough to pick the better impact players.
The only thing I'd hold against him is he was like Durant in a way, in the playoffs it was rather easy to force him out of his comfort zone and it took a toll on his output and efficiency.

---

I wish I understood why WOWYR has such skewed results for certain players. I'll definitely say that there are times when I find the years he picks for a player's "Prime" are extremely strange, but still. Because all my numbers rather like Cheeks, but WOWYR hates him.

WOWRY is an inherently cursed approach because it has a fundamental conflict. To have a big rating, you have to miss so many games to sample size be somewhat accurate statistically and to have a good rating, you need a relatively awful rotation. And the conflict comes from that you do not want your (one of) best player to miss so many games in a season. This is still all a matter of motor and stamina. Bill Walton has the best peak left on the board, his WOWYR numbers are goat level due to the reasons I stated and he'll likely to be voted in after #85 at this rate.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Bob McAdoo
Vote 2 - Dominique Wilkins
Vote 3 - Bobby Jones

The Rest

Parker
Giannis
Greer
Moncrief
Marion
Rasheed
Nance
Rodman
Jokic
Walton

McAdoo's MVP season in 75 was quite impressive posting 34.5 PPG, 14.1 RPG, 2.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, 2.1 BPG on 56.9% TS (+6.7 rTS). The Braves would lose in 7 games to the #1 SRS ranked Bullets that year, with a valiant effort by McAdoo: 37.4 PPG, 13.4 RPG, 1.4 APG, .9 SPG, 2.7 BPG, 52.8% TS. He was an efficiency darling in general during his prime with rTS ranging from +3 to +9. I think at this point in the project every player will have their flaws, and his defense comes off more as knocking him down a peg as opposed to a major liability.

The contributions to the lakers 82 and 85 championship teams give him the edge over someone like giannis for me. In the 82 run he put up 16.7 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 1.6 APG, .7 SPG, 1.5 BPG on 58.7% TS. I just don't value short careers, even as impressive as giannis' as much. Anythony Davis got in much higher than I had him, even with the championship run for example.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #39:

Dominique Wilkins - 3 (Cavsfansince84, Hal14, trex_8063)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 1 (Dutchball97)
Tony Parker - 1 (Odinn21)
Bobby Jones - 1 (penbeast0)
Rasheed Wallace - 1 (sansterre)
Bob McAdoo - 1 (Clyde Frazier)


9 votes requires 5 for a majority. With this spread, Wilkins is again the default winner, but it will need to be validated against ALL of the others here.....

He beats Walton soundly in Condorcet, by a margin of 7-2.
He beats both of Jones and Giannis by 5-4.

He trails Sheed and Parker by a margin of 4-5, though. So we'll have to enter a runoff with those three.
Looking for NEW voters from the panel to chime in on the 3-way runoff. NEW VOTERS--->Please list your order between all three runoff contestants.

If runoff criteria not met, we'll go with the all-around Condorcet winner.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.