RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #85 (Damian Lillard)

[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. Tony Parker
72. Rasheed Wallace
73. Dominique Wilkins
74. Giannis Antetokounmpo
75. Kevin Johnson
76. Bobby Jones
77. Bob McAdoo
78. Shawn Marion
79. Dennis Rodman
80. Larry Nance
81. Ben Wallace
82. Hal Greer
83. Grant Hill
84. Sidney Moncrief
85. ???

Target stop-time will be around 9am EST on Sunday.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[sansterre]

I like Lillard fine, but he tends to drop off in the playoffs, has had a comparably short career and has limited impact metrics until recently. I think others have a better case, but then, I definitely err less toward peak than most here.

1. Jeff Hornacek - 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.

2. Terry Porter - Porter is a weird mix of peak and longevity. He played 35k minutes, with 13 different seasons posting higher than a +1 OBPM, and 9 different seasons posting higher than a +2 OBPM. And he retained fair value even late in his career, posting back-to-back +4 AuRPM seasons for the Spurs at the turn of the century. He's 55th in offensive win shares all-time, and 45th in VORP all-time. Most metrics really like Porter; he's more than one standard deviation above the mean in both PIPM and VORP, and his win shares and BackPicks ratings are still well above average.

Porter was a weird sort of tweeter-guard. He rarely posted higher than league average usage rates, but made up for it with efficiency (consistently scoring in the +4 to +6% range) passing well (assist% in the 25-35% range) and being a fair ballhawk (ten different seasons at 2%+ steals). His seven-year peak:

19.9% Usage, +4.5% rTS, 30.5% Ast, 2.2% Steals, 15.4% TO, +3.3 OBPM, +3.9 BPM

It's good, but not great (though again, it's a strong peak combined with a lot of longevity). But in the playoffs he got better. For his nine-year playoff peak (89-97):

20.2% Usage, +7.3% rTS, 26.1% Ast, 1.6% Steals, 12.2% TO, +4.5 OBPM, +4.8 BPM

So in the playoffs (and in fairness, I'm taking slightly different years), Porter slowed as a distributor and grew into an extremely efficient scorer. A nine-year playoff peak with an OBPM at +4.5? That's pretty nice. I'll give you a hint on this; McHale didn't have a nine-year playoff peak at that level (though select seasons were certainly better).

Regular season Terry Porter? He was a strong player with a decently long career and a good peak. But playoff Terry Porter? Playoff Terry Porter was *really* good. Do you know how many players increase both usage and shooting against playoff defenses? Not a lot of them. But Terry Porter is absolutely on that list.

3. Horace Grant - don't have time to write out the support here but it's coming. At some point.


Hornacek > Terry Porter > Horace Grant > D.Green? > Kyle Lowry > Eddie Jones > Bosh > Bellamy > Z.Beaty > Jokic > A.Kirilenko > M.Cheeks > B.Walton > P.George > Webber > LaMarcus Aldridge > D.Issel > A.Iguodala > Schrempf > G.Williams > J.Worthy > C.Anthony > Lucas > Cunningham > A.Hardaway > D.DeBusschere >J.Butler > M. Johnson > D.Lillard > B.King > D.Johnson > C.Hawkins > M.Price > C.Mullin > N.Johnston > K.Irving > K.Thompson > Archibald

[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) Connie Hawkins - He was widely seen as the best player in the early days of the ABA and was believed that he would have been a dominant force had he been in the NBA. He was generally rated higher than Rick Barry while they were both in the ABA (a player who got in a long time ago), and the stats and results seem to back that up as well. His interior scoring, great passing and rebounding make him an easy candidate.












Porter > G Williams > Lillard > Issel > Hornacek > H Grant > Bosh > Cunningham > Dennis Johnson > Archibald > Lucas > C Anthony > Bellamy > DeBusschere

[penbeast0]

1. Damon Lilliard -- A lot of these guys are close but Lilliard's numbers are really impressive and he's led Portland to a lot of years of contention. It's a bit hard to judge contemporary players because all the offensive numbers of today's stars are so inflated by rules favoring offense and coaching schemes that focus scoring on fewer guys but he looks very good. Defense is an issue of course but I'm much more willing to give that a pass in a PG than in a C (sorry Dan Issel, another of my childhood favs).

2. Horace Grant -- A long, very good career guy is next on my list. He never graduated to "great" in my book but made very consistent contributions both as a very good (not great) defender and good offensive player. Grant's advantage comes from his superior passing and turnover economy.

3. Jeff Hornacek -- The Jazz offense improved so much when they added Hornacek to give them a 3rd competent offensive player next to Stockton/Malone; that impressed me a lot.

Looking at the list from 2017, the following names have not been voted in yet:

75 Chris Bosh
80. Dan Issel
82. Worthy
83. Webber
86. H. Grant
87. Brand
88. T. Porter
89. Cheeks
90. Anthony
91. T. Hardaway
92. Sikma
93. Cunningham
94. Blaylock
95. C. Walker
97. Divac
98. Walton
99. Hawkins
100. Mel Daniels

I am looking at Terry Porter, James Worthy, Connie Hawkins, Chris Bosh, Dave DeBussschere, Billy Cunningham, Dan Issel, Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, Carmelo Anthony, Bill Walton, Jokic in roughly that order.

[HeartBreakKid]

I considered putting Draymond Green into my top 3 this round.

[trex_8063]

1st vote: Chris Bosh
Things I really like when looking at his career....
1) Fairly nice peak and average prime year: he was basically like clockwork good for ~23/10 year after year in Toronto. Much of that was for mediocre to poor teams, though he also did it for a couple of weak supporting casts that he semi-carried to positive SRS's, 41-47 wins, and playoff berths.
2) Adaptability: he altered his game in Miami to integrate with Lebron on a contender [semi-dynasty]. He developed a 3pt shot, and didn't complain [to my knowledge] about his reduced role. In the meantime he also became [imo] one of the league's best pnr defenders.
3) Consistent high level/longevity of quality. If you just look at total games played [893] or seasons played [13], his longevity doesn't look that great. But a couple things to consider: a) he packed nearly 32k minutes into the 893 games [CAREER avg of 35.8 mpg]; and b) he was good basically his ENTIRE career--->he was already at least an average player as a rookie, improved to clearly above avg in his 2nd year, was a clear All-Star talent by his 3rd season.....and basically never again declined below at least borderline All-Star for the rest of his career [peaking near All-NBA 2nd Team level].

EDIT: His peak PIPM is +4.3 [which is only slightly below legit super-star level], and his best SEVEN years of PIPM avg out to just above +3 (solid All-Star territory, in other words).
From '08-'11 his RAPM was +4 or better EACH YEAR (peaking at +5.3 in '08 [was 9th in the league that year, while playing >36 mpg]), with another +4.5 year in '14, and multiple other seasons in the neighborhood of +2 or higher, and 11 consecutive seasons at greater than +1.
Solid impact pretty much the duration of his career, in other words.

All things considered, it's a formidable amount of career value for this stage of the list, which few other candidates can legitimately challenge. Surprised he doesn't have a pinch more traction, really.


2nd vote: Horace Grant
Yup, I went there. See post 10 of the #80 thread for arguments, for anyone who does not think he's a solid candidate at this stage [at least if longevity of quality factors into your criteria AT ALL].


3rd vote: Dan Issel
As was discussed in the #81 thread (circa-post 30), Dan Issel is sort of like Amar'e Stoudemire (not in style, but in substance)......except with good longevity/durability.
He wasn't much defensively [though probably better than Stat], but he scored and scored and scored (and fairly efficiently: +3.3% rTS for his entire 15-year career, with a solid turnover economy too).

We're talking about the guy who is 11th all-time in career ABA/NBA combined points scored. He's ahead of Hakeem and Elvin Hayes. He's ahead of guys who pretty much hang their hats on being great scorers [and not much else] and who've already been voted in [e.g. Dominique Wilkins, Alex English, Adrian Dantley], as well as Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, Reggie Miller, Oscar Robertson, John Havlicek, Rick Barry, etc etc etc.

He's also #31 all-time in career rebounds.
He's #23 all-time in career rs WS--->the highest ranked player still on the table; he's actually the ONLY player in the top 39 all-time still not voted on to this list (one of only TWO players [with Walt Bellamy] in the top 49 all-time who are not yet on this list).
Going into this current season he was #80 all-time [or since 1973] in career VORP.

He was only awarded an All-Star appearance once in the NBA [though 6 consecutive years in the ABA], but look at his numbers: he was posting All-Star calibre metrics year after year pretty much until his 14th season.

I don't think there's any way he can't at least be in the discussion.


Up next for me has got to be one of Webber, LaMarcus, and Melo; I'm sort of bouncing them around in my head, can't seem to land on an order I'm consistently happy with among them.

Among those who have received votes of any kind or traction, I'm tentatively going with this order (have opted to move Damian Lillard up a bit):
Bosh > Grant > Issel > Webber/Melo/LMA > Beaty > Lillard > Cheeks > Sikma > Porter > Walker > DeBusschere > Hornacek > Hawkins > G.Williams > D.Johnson > Cunningham > Tiny/Walton/Jokic (I need think about how I want those four ordered; I've gone round and round in my head. None of them are actually all that close to my top 100, but if it's required for Condorcet I will come up with a hierarchy I can live with).

[Dutchball97]

1. 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. It's a shame some of the voters don't consider him for the top 100 project at all but at this point of the list we're all simply going to have to accept players will receive votes that others don't have among their next 25 picks at all.

2. Gus Williams - While another voter already has Dennis Johnson on his ballot, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned his teammate on the 79 champion Supersonics yet tbh. Gus Williams was only a 2 time All-Star so I understand he might fly under the radar for some people but this massively undervalues him. His prime quality and duration really isn't much different than Ben Wallace. It maybe shouldn't be a surprise I'm this high on Gus WIlliams because I've consistently put a big emphasis on play-off performance and Gus was a post-season savant who consistently stepped his game up when it counted most. After being the best player for the 78 Sonics that lost game 7 of the finals, he went on to post a 23.8 PER, .210 WS/48 and 6.7 BPM alongside a league leading 2.7 WS and 1.3 VORP on the way to a championship the next year. That isn't the end of Gus Williams being amazing in the play-offs though. In the 1980, 82, 83 and 84 post-seasons he had 20+ PER, .150+ WS/48 and 6+ BPM in every single one of those campaigns.

3.Terry Porter - Like Gus Williams, Terry Porter is only a 2-time All-Star but just like with Gus this underrates Porter's prime significantly. Porter's prime was cut short but he still managed 6 very strong seasons from 87/88 till 92/93. In the play-offs he was always solid but his main case there are 3 very strong consecutive post-seasons in 1990, 91 and 92. He played 58 play-off games over that 3 year stretch and was playing at a high level throughout. I think Gus Williams just has a few more really strong post-seasons but other than that I don't see much seperating them.

Anfernee Hardaway > Draymond Green > Jimmy Butler > Horace Grant > James Worthy > Paul George > Damian Lillard > Jeff Hornacek > Kyle Lowry > Billy Cunningham > Jerry Lucas > Walt Bellamy > Carmelo Anthony > Maurice Cheeks > Andrei Kirilenko > Eddie Jones > Chris Bosh > Bill Walton > Connie Hawkins > Dennis Johnson > Dave DeBusschere > Tiny Archibald

[Hal14]

1. Dennis Johnson
2. Tiny Archibald
3. Walt Bellamy

Johnson was Finals MVP in 79. The dude was an animal. Flying around the court like a bat outta hell, some of the best defense a guard has ever played. Going all out, hustling, taking it strong to the rim.

Next, let's look at 84. 83-84 was his first year on the Celtics. The year before that in 83 the Celtics got swept in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Yes, KC Jones taking over as coach was a factor as well, but the Celtics adding Johnson was a HUGE reason why they went from being swept in the 2nd round in 83 to NBA world champs beating the Lakers in the finals the very next year in 84 (with Magic and Kareem in their prime).

In both 84 and 86 Johnson was one of the team's top 4 players, came through in the clutch time and time again and Bird is on record saying that Johnson was the best teammate he ever played with (meaning Bird thinks Johnson was better than Parish and Mchale).

Johnson was one of the best defensive guards of all time, easily one of the top 10 defensive guards ever. The guy had very good size and strength at the PG position which made him a tough matchup, early in his career had great explosiveness and athleticism, he could score inside, drive to the basket and as his career went on developed a deadly outside shot - especially in the mid range area, not as much from 3 because at the time 3's weren't being taken very much across the league (early in his career there was no 3 point line), plus he could rebound well, unselfishly looked to get the ball to his teammates but would make you pay dearly if you ignored him too much on offense, plus of course his outstanding defense.

Solid longevity, played 14 seasons (13 of which he played 27+ mins a game and all of them he played in 70+ games) which was solid for that era, especially considering he played in a ton (180 to be exact) of playoff games.

How about durability? The guy always played, he was always in the lineup. Out of his 14 seasons:
-he played 72+ games in 14/14 (100%)
-he played in 77+ games in 12/14 seasons (86%)
-he played in 80+ games in 7/14 seasons (50%)

How about Rasheed's durability?
-he played 72+ games in 14/16 (63%)
-he played in 77+ games in 8/16 seasons (50%)
-he played in 80+ games in 10/16 seasons (13%)

Here's a glimpse into how good Johnson was on defense:

Watch on YouTube

Johnson was as good defensively as any guard to ever play. Only guards I might put over him on D are Jordan, Payton and maybe Frazier.

How clutch was Johnson? Take a look at this huge shot to beat the Lakers in the finals:

Watch on YouTube

Want more clutch plays? Larry Bird made a great steal, but it wouldn't have mattered, the Celtics would have still lost that game (and the series) if Johnson didn't race in towards the basket, catch the ball in traffic and finish over a defender:

Watch on YouTube

If you want a guys who put up some nice advanced stats in an era where advanced stats didn't even exist yet, sure go ahead and vote for Hornacek. But if you want to win, then DJ is your guy.

Tiny is a 6 time all-star, 3x all NBA 1st team, 2x all NBA 2nd team. You want peak? Only player ever to lead the NBA in both scoring and assists in the same season. And he was a key piece on the 1981 NBA championship-winning Celtics. Solid defender. Very few point guards in the history of the game possessed his combination of scoring and distributing. And he did it in an era before it was easier for point guards to dominate the league (like it's been since 2005). He'd be even higher up this list if not for injuries, but still had 13 seasons which is pretty good longevity, especially for that era.

Bellamy was a dominant center who could do it all - hit shots, score with power inside, rebound, defend, run the floor. Good combination of size, strength and skill. Sure, his ability diminished in his later years, but that's why he's not a top 50 player. If you just look at top 1 or 2 years for peak, there are very few centers who can match Bellamy. It's about time he gets voted in:

Watch on YouTube

[Odinn21]

I was on a roll with my last 4 #1 picks getting in but I guess this it.

85. Billy Cunningham
I initially thought of Bosh for this spot but Cunningham was also a borderline superstar, I think Cunningham as a player was on the same level as Bosh but he was on that level in a time being on that level was harder and more of an outlier. Also Cunningham's total prime duration, despite being less, comes off as bigger than Bosh's with a consideration for era standards.
Though this is definitely open to discussion and I'd like to get some feedbacks on Cunningham vs. players with traction already in Bosh, Grant, Bellamy and Issel.

86. Chris Bosh
I'm quite high on Horace Grant's impact. His performances such as against the Bulls in '95 playoffs stand out so much to me. You can see that he had the impact and he also had the output when he was needed. Bosh OTOH was more consistent on that production level.

87. Horace Grant
Immense impact with good enough output to have this spot for me. And he upped his game whenever necessary more often than not. His performances such as 1995 Bulls series, 1994 Knicks series, 1996 Hawks/Pistons series, 1992 Cavs series, 1991 Lakers series, (first 4 games of 1993 Suns series), this man had too many good playoff series over other impact players as Draymond Green.
He was truly better than his box numbers and he proved it over a longer stretch.

G. Williams > W. Bellamy > D. Issel > D. DeBusschere > D. Lillard > T. Porter > N. Jokic > C. Hawkins > B. Walton > N. Archibald > C. Hawkins > N. Johnston > J. Hornacek > D. Johnson

[falcolombardi]

i am not a voter but how do you guys feel about paul george chances?

lillard is getting attention and i honestly dont think george career is worse than his in general. nor is his impact overall worse...but i would need to research them both more

[sansterre]

i am not a voter but how do you guys feel about paul george chances?

lillard is getting attention and i honestly dont think george career is worse than his in general. nor is his impact overall worse...but i would need to research them both more

I have George a fair way above Lillard. But George is still a good ways down for me.

Don't read too much into Lillard > George. At the intersection of 1) scoring, 2) having a high peak and 3) being good right now Lillard has attributes that particularly appeal to some voters.

[falcolombardi]

i am not a voter but how do you guys feel about paul george chances?

lillard is getting attention and i honestly dont think george career is worse than his in general. nor is his impact overall worse...but i would need to research them both more

I have George a fair way above Lillard. But George is still a good ways down for me.

Don't read too much into Lillard > George. At the intersection of 1) scoring, 2) having a high peak and 3) being good right now Lillard has attributes that particularly appeal to some voters.

i am crazy for feeling like considering defense (where lillard seems to make portland worse and george makes the clippers better) george may not be worse even right now than lillard

[Cavsfansince84]

i am crazy for feeling like considering defense (where lillard seems to make portland worse and george makes the clippers better) george may not be worse even right now than lillard

I think the main thing in that comparison is that Lillard is seen as a guy who can more consistently carry an offense over the course of a season. George between his offensive inconsistency and injury history is slightly harder to build a team around imo. Of course he does get some bonus points here because of his defense. Both guys have an up and down playoff history.

[Cavsfansince84]

85. Dave DeBusschere
-10 yr prime where he averages 16.5/11.3/2.9 on ts+ of 96
-6x all defense 1st team, 1x all nba 2nd team
-Finishes top 11 in mvp voting from 72-74 while playing for Knicks teams that win lots of games after Reed has injuries
-Big part of two Knicks title teams
-Known for being gritty defender/rebounder and great team guy who also could hit big shots in the playoffs
-spent three years as player/coach in Det showing his leadership ability

86. Neil Johnston
-Only a 6 year prime but during which he led the league in win shares 5 straight years(even while playing on a 12 win team), scoring 3 straight years, ts% twice, rebounding once and had ts add over 250 5 straight years(which is incredible).
-5x all nba(4x 1st team, 1x 2nd)
-Co-led the Warriors to a title with Arizin in 56. So in short I think the argument could be made that from 53-58 he was a top 3-5 player in the league every year and had a span of dominance which few players have matched statistically. Also, imo is more athletic than most people probably give him credit for with good length to go with good handles for a center and solid outside shooting(more so for his era).

87. Billy Cunningham
-Averaged 21.2/10.4/4.3 during 11 year career on career ts+ of 101
-5x all nba/aba(4x 1st team, 1x 2nd team)
-4x top 10 in mvp voting(high of 1st in aba, high of 3rd in nba)
-1x nba champ
-joins 35 win Carolina team in the aba and the next year(73) with him they win 57 games and lose in 7 in the conf finals
-from 68-73 playoffs averaged 24.8/12.1/4.5 on ts of 54%(roughly +2.5% league avg)

88. Worthy
89. Lucas
90. Cheeks
91. Mullin
92. Lillard
93. DJohnson
94. Porter
95. Issel
96. Melo
97. Butler
98. Jokic
99. Dumars
100. Griffin

others: Webber>King>George>Williams>Bosh>Grant>Bellamy>Hornacek>Price>Walton>Hawkins

[trex_8063]

i am not a voter but how do you guys feel about paul george chances?

lillard is getting attention and i honestly dont think george career is worse than his in general. nor is his impact overall worse...but i would need to research them both more

I have George a fair way above Lillard. But George is still a good ways down for me.

Don't read too much into Lillard > George. At the intersection of 1) scoring, 2) having a high peak and 3) being good right now Lillard has attributes that particularly appeal to some voters.

In relation to #1 in particular, you yourself (in your #4 thread of greatest teams) speculated upon the apparent benefit in the modern era of an efficient high-usage perimeter player [if the aim is to be a contender]. So from that point of view, Lillard's scoring acumen becomes increasingly relevant, no?

fwiw, I sometimes also consider the respective replaceability between a high-end volume scoring perimeter player and, say....a very good defensive and floor-spacing PF. Metrics like PIPM or RAPM may posit the latter really close to [occasionally even ahead of??] the former.
But the latter is also more replaceable [that is: more "in stock" within the league].

Not that George is as easily-replaced as this hypothetical PF, but nor is he necessarily as scarce as someone like Lillard. Something to consider, anyway.


And while I'll acknowledge that [obviously] George is FAR better defensively, I also don't think the offensive comparison is all that close [even though George is pretty good offensively].

For illustration, let's take a look at their respective BEST years ('19 for PG13, '20 for Lillard), in offense-only per 100 and relative numbers:

'19 George: 35.5 pts @ +2.34% rTS, 5.2 ast, 3.4 tov, 1.7 oreb
'20 Lillard: 38.1 pts @ +6.25% rTS, 10.2 ast, 3.7 tov, 0.6 oreb

Lillard delivered just over 1 fewer orebs per 100, but otherwise a little more scoring volume on notably better shooting efficiency, and FIVE extra assists, while committing just +0.3 extra turnovers in the balance. Note that in PG13's case, this is while playing with a pretty darn good playmaker, and in so doing co-anchoring a -0.1 rORTG.

Lillard's came while being the fairly singular anchor and primary play-maker for a +3.1 rORTG. What's more is he stretches/warps the defense more by having range that makes him a legitimate threat out to around 33-35'.

At a quick glance, the rest of their respective primes/careers shake out roughly similar [if not marginally larger??] in terms of offensive gap.

And despite more years, I'm not sure George has any longevity edge: because Lillard's been so durable [missed just 33 games total in his first 8 seasons], he's actually played only like 30(ish) fewer games than George, despite two fewer seasons in the league (and was actually marginally AHEAD in minutes played).
He also seemed "NBA-ready" a pinch quicker.


Although I've been critical of Lillard in replies to Doctor MJ [noting, for example, his playoffs woes], I've still got him comfortably ahead of George for the time being.

[HeartBreakKid]

i am not a voter but how do you guys feel about paul george chances?

lillard is getting attention and i honestly dont think george career is worse than his in general. nor is his impact overall worse...but i would need to research them both more

I think he's better and I would rank him higher.

I did bring this up in another thread, and another voter did ding him for switching franchises/personality issues

[trex_8063]

Thru post #16:

Damian Lillard - 1 (penbeast0)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Jeff Hornacek - 1 (sansterre)
Dave DeBusschere - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Chris Bosh - 1 (trex_8063)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Billy Cunningham - 1 (Odinn21)


About 21-22 hours left for this one.
A reminder to include an ordered listing of [at least, plus maybe Melo] everyone listed above, if you haven’t already.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Baski]

i am not a voter but how do you guys feel about paul george chances?

lillard is getting attention and i honestly dont think george career is worse than his in general. nor is his impact overall worse...but i would need to research them both more

I have George a fair way above Lillard. But George is still a good ways down for me.

Don't read too much into Lillard > George. At the intersection of 1) scoring, 2) having a high peak and 3) being good right now Lillard has attributes that particularly appeal to some voters.

In relation to #1 in particular, you yourself (in your #4 thread of greatest teams) speculated upon the apparent benefit in the modern era of an efficient high-usage perimeter player [if the aim is to be a contender]. So from that point of view, Lillard's scoring acumen becomes increasingly relevant, no?

fwiw, I sometimes also consider the respective replaceability between a high-end volume scoring perimeter player and, say....a very good defensive and floor-spacing PF. Metrics like PIPM or RAPM may posit the latter really close to [occasionally even ahead of??] the former.
But the latter is also more replaceable [that is: more "in stock" within the league].

Not that George is as easily-replaced as this hypothetical PF, but nor is he necessarily as scarce as someone like Lillard. Something to consider, anyway.


And while I'll acknowledge that [obviously] George is FAR better defensively, I also don't think the offensive comparison is all that close [even though George is pretty good offensively].

For illustration, let's take a look at their respective BEST years ('19 for PG13, '20 for Lillard), in offense-only per 100 and relative numbers:

'19 George: 35.5 pts @ +2.34% rTS, 5.2 ast, 3.4 tov, 1.7 oreb
'20 Lillard: 38.1 pts @ +6.25% rTS, 10.2 ast, 3.7 tov, 0.6 oreb

Lillard delivered just over 1 fewer orebs per 100, but otherwise a little more scoring volume on notably better shooting efficiency, and FIVE extra assists, while committing just +0.3 extra turnovers in the balance. Note that in PG13's case, this is while playing with a pretty darn good playmaker, and in so doing co-anchoring a -0.1 rORTG.

Lillard's came while being the fairly singular anchor and primary play-maker for a +3.1 rORTG. What's more is he stretches/warps the defense more by having range that makes him a legitimate threat out to around 33-35'.

At a quick glance, the rest of their respective primes/careers shake out roughly similar [if not marginally larger??] in terms of offensive gap.

And despite more years, I'm not sure George has any longevity edge: because Lillard's been so durable [missed just 33 games total in his first 8 seasons], he's actually played only like 30(ish) fewer games than George, despite two fewer seasons in the league (and was actually marginally AHEAD in minutes played).
He also seemed "NBA-ready" a pinch quicker.


Although I've been critical of Lillard in replies to Doctor MJ [noting, for example, his playoffs woes], I've still got him comfortably ahead of George for the time being.

I agree with having Lillard above George, but the comparison of their peak years interested me, especially when comparing George's team's rORTG vs Lillard's.
I think Westbrook that year was not necessarily a positive for the Thunder's offense. At the time George's narrative was one where he hard carried the Thunder's offense while Westbrook dragged it down. there a way to factor this into that comparison? Maybe show George with/without WB? If it's not too much work that is.

On the other hand 2020 Lillard suffered from a boatload of injuries to teammates so its not like he was any luckier than 2019 George. Besides his level of play was just visibly higher than George's.

[Odinn21]

Curious about if archetypes playing a role.

There is Damian Lillard who has been a clear cut #1 player on his team for several seasons, it did not translate into great team success, if it did, he'd already be on the list.
Then there's the ones like Horace Grant and Jeff Hornacek, never a superstar but always a high impact player.
Then there's also hybrids such as Gus Williams, Billy Cunningham and Chris Bosh. They were borderline superstars, but they were also high impact players in a winning setup.

Do you consider one archetype over the other? Or just make direct, 1v1 comparisons between the players and then you have your list?

[Doctor MJ]

Making sure to get my vote in:

Sliding Bosh into my Top 3, but I do want people to know that I'm listening to them even if its not enough to sway me yet.

Vote:
1. Damian Lillard
2. Connie Hawkins
3. Chris Bosh

Other preferences in order:

Spoiler:

Bill Walton
Nikola Jokic
Billy Cunningham
Sidney Moncrief
Tiny Archibald
James Worthy
Dave DeBusschere
Horace Grant
Dennis Johnson
Terry Porter
Jeff Hornacek
Jerry Lucas
Dan Issel
Walt Bellamy
Gus Williams
Carmelo Anthony

Keeping my reasoning from before about Dame & Hawk.

Spoiler:

On Lillard: I'm trying to think about why his longevity feels different to me than it does others. This might be a misguided notion because it might just be that I'm debating with folks who value longevity more than me in general, but there are people in with limited longevity so I really have to think that there is a contingent of voters that have Lillard's rise a bit stuck in their head because his career is still happening - which is something I think we always need to watch for.

First thing, we're talking a lot about longevity here, so I want to compare a few guys with a career production metric - I'll use Win Shares:

Hal Greer 102
Russell Westbrook 101
Kyle Lowry 97
Damian Lillard 89
Anthony Davis 86
Kawhi Leonard 82
Isiah Thomas 80

Now not all of these players are comparison points for the same reason so don't try to force a throughline hastily, let me lay it out a bit:

I've got Lowry there because that's a continuation of something from last thread. Fundamentally, I'm struggling to make myself believe in an argument of longevity over peak when the guy with the longevity edge has around the same amount of total productivity. I know there's room for more nuance than this, but on a certain level I find myself asking "What specifically am I waiting for Lillard to do before I rank him above Lowry?", and I'm drawing a blank.

Westbrook's on there because I think it's pretty telling. We're now at a point where I think we need to start asking ourselves not if but when Lillard surpasses Westbrook in our rankings. If you're not thinking about this, you should be. I think it's highly debatable who should be ranked higher even now.

Isiah is there because, wait, why do we think Isiah was better than Lillard? And Lillard's already surpassed Isiah's career production? And Isiah got voted in how long ago?

AD & Kawhi are there just for point of reference as guys who have been in the league at least as long as Lillard, have already been voted in, and still lag behind Lillard in career production. (To be clear, I rank both guys ahead of Lillard, but I think the point I'm making here is worth pondering.)

Greer is there because he's being discussed.

When I look at this group, I see a disconnect between how other guys are being evaluated and how Lillard is being evaluated. As I've tried to make clear, if you're someone who just takes longevity really seriously in general you're going to just say "Some dudes too high, Lillard too high would be another mistake", that's fine.

But for anyone who is more like me in the sense of being a bit less longevity concerned, I think Lillard may warrant to re-evaluation.

On the Hawk:

Did you know, that Sweetwater Clifton taught Connie Hawkins when both arrived on the Harlem Globetrotters (Clifton for the 2nd time) after the death of the ABL? Hawkins as a 19 year old had won the MVP of the league they were both in the prior year, and when they got on the same team Clifton apparently sought Hawkins out because of the specific untapped potential he saw from being another guy with very large hands.

The skill was specifically very useful as a Globetrotter, but Hawkins was surprised to realize just how effective it was for him in competitive games. It wasn't just that he had a solid grip on the ball to prevent turnovers or that he could use it to do sneaky passing. It also allowed him to keep his other arm free to battle with people. He was going up for rebounds with one hand so he could use the other hand and arm for...other stuff. He did this in part because he was always a skinny guy for his height (and especially his length), and so while this helped his agility he was vulnerable to brute force.

But while Hawkins took this from his Globetrotters game and it helped make him a completely unique player in the world upon his return to the competitive ranks, he had a deep belief and fear that playing for the Globetrotters was making him poorly suited to playing against serious players. Most of the signature Globetrotter moves couldn't be done against real defenders, and the Globetrotters themselves weren't ever really playing defense themselves.

And I do think this tied in to why Hawkins got off to a bit of a slow start in his first year in the ABA before catching fire and utterly dominated.