RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 (Chris Bosh)

Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,441
And1: 8,108
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 (Chris Bosh) 

Post#1 » by trex_8063 » Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:48 pm

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. Kevin Durant
23. Chris Paul
24. Stephen Curry
25. Bob Pettit
26. John Stockton
27. Steve Nash
28. Dwyane Wade
29. Patrick Ewing
30. Walt Frazier
31. James Harden
32. Scottie Pippen
33. Elgin Baylor
34. John Havlicek
35. Rick Barry
36. Jason Kidd
37. George Gervin
38. Clyde Drexler
39. Reggie Miller
40. Artis Gilmore
41. Dolph Schayes
42. Kawhi Leonard
43. Isiah Thomas
44. Russell Westbrook
45. Willis Reed
46. Chauncey Billups
47. Paul Pierce
48. Gary Payton
49. Pau Gasol
50. Ray Allen
51. Dwight Howard
52. Kevin McHale
53. Manu Ginobili
54. Dave Cowens
55. Adrian Dantley
56. Sam Jones
57. Bob Lanier
58. Dikembe Mutombo
59. Elvin Hayes
60. Paul Arizin
61. Anthony Davis
62. Robert Parish
63. Bob Cousy
64. Alonzo Mourning
65. 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. Damian Lillard
86. ???

Target stop-time around 9-10am EST on Tuesday.
And remember: ordered list for Condorcet validation please.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,441
And1: 8,108
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#2 » by trex_8063 » Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:55 pm

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
See post 10 of the #80 thread for arguments, if you don't think he's a solid candidate here (at least if longevity of quality factors into your criteria AT ALL [and perhaps even if it doesn't, by this stage]).


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:
Bosh > Grant > Issel > Webber/Melo/LMA > Beaty > Cheeks > Sikma > Porter > Walker > DeBusschere > Hornacek > Hawkins > G.Williams > D.Johnson > Cunningham > Walton > Jokic > Tiny (may change the order on Walton/Jokic/Tiny as we go along, but this is how I'm currently feeling).
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
sansterre
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,312
And1: 1,816
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#3 » by sansterre » Sun Apr 18, 2021 1:59 pm

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 > B.King > D.Johnson > C.Hawkins > M.Price > C.Mullin > N.Johnston > K.Irving > K.Thompson > Archibald
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."

"Trust one who seeks the truth. Doubt one who claims to have found the truth."
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#4 » by HeartBreakKid » Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:22 pm

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 of 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 > Issel > Hornacek > H Grant > Bosh > Cunningham > Dennis Johnson > Archibald > Lucas > C Anthony > Bellamy > DeBusschere
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 29,874
And1: 9,615
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#5 » by penbeast0 » Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:57 pm

1. Horace Grant -- 3 long, very good career guy are next on my list. Grant 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.

2. 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.

3. Terry Porter -- feels strange that Porter is getting a lot of mention and Derek Harper's name has not come up. I always felt they were very similar talents with Porter a bit better offensively and Harper a bit better defensively. I will probably put Harper into my list eventually but Porter has been looking better in hindsight while Harper has remained about the same.

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 James Worthy, Connie Hawkins, Chris Bosh, Dave DeBussschere, Billy Cunningham, Dan Issel, Derek Harper?, Gus Williams, Dennis Johnson, Carmelo Anthony, Bill Walton, Jokic in roughly that order.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 20,817
And1: 19,236
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#6 » by Hal14 » Sun Apr 18, 2021 4:13 pm

Hal14 wrote: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).

https://www.sportscasting.com/larry-bird-reveals-the-best-player-hes-ever-played-with/

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:


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:


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:


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:

1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
Dutchball97
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,406
And1: 5,001
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#7 » by Dutchball97 » Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:35 pm

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 > 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
Cavsfansince84
RealGM
Posts: 14,607
And1: 11,191
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#8 » by Cavsfansince84 » Sun Apr 18, 2021 6:51 pm

86. 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

87. 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).

88. 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)

89. Worthy
90. Lucas
91. Cheeks
92. Mullin
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>Archibald>Hawkins
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 52,686
And1: 21,622
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#9 » by Doctor MJ » Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:49 pm

Alright...

1. Connie Hawkins
2. Chris Bosh
3. Bill Walton

Other preferences in order:

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


Okay, so here's my love letter to the Hawk.

I think there's never been anyone like him, before or since. I'm dying to see more footage of him, because honestly I think he's got a bunch of moves that we don't have names for.

The roots of Hawkins becoming what he became are a story not of some kind of inevitable success through sheer talent, but of a guy with great talent getting bounced around and picking up stuff as he went.

Hawkins was a star in each of the following places:
1. The Schoolyard
2. Golden Age NYC High School Basketball
3. ABL
4. Harlem Globetrotters
5. ABA
6. NBA

All 6 of these things are a big deal, though I'll note that I'd consider (1) and (4) the best for understanding how Hawkins became what he became where (5) and (6) represent the proof in the pudding.

To speak on (1), the thing to understand is that play in the school yard all day is what the "good" Black boys did in this era. You were either playing basketball, or you were getting involved in gangs, pimping, and eventually drugs. So if you had basketball talent, this is where your family wanted you. Stay on the court, where it's safe.

And from the perspective of these Black kids, when they played (white) kids from other places, they just always got the sense that those white kids were far less experienced, because they were doing a lot of things other than playing basketball.

So, while Hawkins was dominating the incredibly high quality ball of NYC back then too, the Schoolyard was always where he developed his game. Just trying different things.

Others noted that while Hawkins lacked confidence in general, and was a poor reader and a poor student, he was an extremely quick learner when he saw someone else do something on the basketball court. When an opponent did something with the ball against Hawkins, Hawkins seemed to instantly have a new tool.

It's also important to note that in the Schoolyard, Hawkins didn't start out as The Man. He learned to play by fitting in around others who were older and better. We're talking about a kid who was playing against NBA pros (in the NBA off-season) before he was a High School star, so when he was playing those games, he wasn't just going in as the star. He learned to fit in. He learned how to be an aware passer before he learned to be a scorer.

About (3), so as many of you know, Hawkins was banned from college due to point shaving scandal (he later won a lawsuit clearing his name), so he ended up getting an opportunity in Abe Saperstein's ABL, which had various former NBA pros and a 3-point line. In the lone full season of that league, Hawkins would win MVP.

This is obviously impressive for a guy basically straight out of high school - and speaks both to his talent and how much experience he'd already had beyond just playing against other high schoolers - but I'd also argue that if not for the existence of the ABL, there's a good chance Hawkins would have died on the vine. He didn't have any other great skills other than basketball, so most likely he'd have ended up like many of his other peers still in Brooklyn which was being taken over by a see of heroin.

But his performance in the ABL, led to an invitation to join Saperstein's flagship product: The Harlem Globetrotters.

And as fortune would have it, Sweetwater Clifton - former New York Ren, Globetrotters, NBA all-star - played in the ABL that year with Hawkins, and re-joined the Globetrotters at the same time as Hawkins. And he told Hawkins basically, "You don't realize what kind of things you can do with those big hands!"

He mentored Hawkins on the ways you can use your ability to easily palm a hand. More flexibility when driving, more ways to protect the ball when you're guarded, myriad tricky passes, and the ability to rebound with just one hand so you can use your other arm (ahem, elbow) to fend of opponents.

I've noted before that big hands seem to be a Harlem Globetrotter thing. Beginning with the team's first clown - Goose Tatum - along through Clifton, Meadowlark Lemon, along with Wilt Chamberlain, Hawkins, and others - the Globetrotters seemed to look for guys with big hands in a way that the NBA has literally never done. I've also seen it noted that a particular Globetrotter was held back by his hand size despite being naturally very comedic.

There's a kind of trickery you can do with hands like this that lends itself well to comedy through basketball actions, and this raises the question of whether these Globetrotters were much better at certain basketball skills than NBA players.

There the answer is yes with an asterisk. Most of the tricks the Globetrotters did, while they required great skill, were not designed to hold up against actual defenders, and this was a source of frustration for Hawkins who felt that he was becoming soft due to not playing in a real competitive league, which I'd say was true.

At the same time, he'd still go back to NYC and play in the Schoolyard testing out techniques. Basically, he mined stuff out from the Globetrotters, and the stuff he found could work against actual defenders, he made a part of his repertoire. And this is how he became truly unique.

As we look at Hawkins ABA & NBA years, one of the things to understand is that both when he joined Pittsburgh in the ABA and Phoenix in the NBA, the teams did not immediately re-shape their offenses around Hawkins, and between these ramp up times, Hawkins increasing tendency toward injury, and a tendency for Hawkins to get down on himself, when we look at his yearly stats, it has to be noted that there was far more variance over the course of the season in team and Hawkins-specific performance than you'd expect not simply as a modern observer, but as a contemporary observer. Hawkins wasn't the absolute rock that you'd expect from a Jerry West, and this certainly doesn't help his Top 100 case.

But what this context also means is that when you look at Hawkins' yearly stats those first few years, as impressive as they look, know that they underrate what he was doing at his best.

I've noted before that in his first year in the ABA, Hawkins led the league in PPG despite being 3rd on his team in FGA. He did this by also leading the league in TS%, and do so while also leading the team in APG, RPG, and almost certainly BPG & SPM had they had that data (but interestingly he did not lead his team in TOs, and was 11th on his team in terms of TOs per minute). To lead a team to the title like this is amazing, but it does give rise to the question: Why were other guys shooting more than Hawkins?

The answer seems to be that these guys were just flat out bad chuckers who the coach couldn't get to pass the ball even though he'd sometimes bench them just to ensure the ball went to Hawkins, but apparently the team couldn't get anyone better mid-season (neither would last that much longer in the ABA).

Now, I tend to read stuff that focuses on Hawkins' perspective rather than the perspective Chico Vaughn, so bias is a concern. But my conclusion is that even in a young ABA that wasn't what it would later become, the Pittsburgh Pipers had no business winning a title given the lack of team play. But what was the case is that when Hawkins played the pivot, the offense hummed with Hawkins both scoring incredibly well and passing incredibly well.

Hawkins suffered the defining injury of his career midway through his second ABA season, and most don't think he was ever as good again, yet still he ended up blowing away the NBA once he got going.

What precipitated him getting going? Mid-way through the season, Phoenix Suns GM Jerry Colangelo fired coach Red Kerr, took over as coach, and had the team play with Hawkins in the high post as the guy the offense would run through. Prior to that point, Hawkins had been positioned in the corner while team captain Gail Goodrich dribbled, dribbled, dribble, and then shot. Goodrich, it should be noted seems to have had a good attitude and was willing to play in an offense with Hawkins as the focus, but when left to his own devices, he tended to just iso.

A few more anecdotes in Hawkins first year in the NBA:

1. After the Suns beat the Celtics in Boston, Bill Russell - who had retired the previous year - came over and gushed "You can do things with the ball I've never seen before!". (Hawkins responded "If you'd have been out there, you'd have blocked half my shots". Russell then said "I don't think so".)

2. Hawkins drew rave reviews as the best passer in the league. Was he better than Oscar? I'm not prepared to say that, but what I can say is that Hawkins was doing things Oscar could not. One described play involved Hawkins having the ball in the high post and making two quick passing fakes in opposite directions (which he could do because had had the ball palmed), and then casually dribbling through the now open lane to the basket.

3. Another anecdote: Apparently Hawkins could dribble through press defense unaided. When a team pressed the Suns, they'd pass the ball to Hawkins, and get out of the way, while he dribbled his way through opponents. If this seems unrealistic for a player generally, I'd note that this skill was a major thing before the shot clock, and the team most famous for this ability was the Globetrotters back in their still-competitive days in the '40s. Against the Mikan-led Lakers, the Globetrotters famously gave the ball to master-dribbler Marques Haynes, and he dribbled what remained of the 4th quarter away so that his team could take the last shot.

While the shot clock rendered this specific ability moot, the Globetrotters used it as part of their act, and so this was something the Globetrotter players actually practiced, and Hawkins honed the ability there.

So I'd say the most amazing thing isn't that someone could do this, but that Hawkins at 6'8" could do this.

4. I'd note that Wilt said that Hawkins was the only guy in the world who could play "all three positions" - by which he meant guard, forward, and center.

I should also note that Hawkins's quickness and agility was tied to his lithe fame, so when Hawkins played center, he took a severe beating that made it hard for him to sustain that kind of play over a season.

I'll also note that Hawkins was a guy who got very little training in formal defense. With his long arms and quickness he could get blocks and steals, but he struggled beyond that.

5. Some people hated his "clown antics". Some refs in particular. I think this makes sense because the Globetrotters - while they may be clowns - spend their games making their opponents look like fools. What happens when you do that to someone who isn't paid to take it? Animosity.

6. Among players, Elvin Hayes in particular apparently expressed hostility toward Hawkins, and this led to a showdown in the very last game of the '69-70 season which Hawkin's Suns needed to make the playoffs. The Suns were down 19 points at half time, and in the second half Hawkins & Hayes matched up. Hawkins led the team back to a victory with a 44/20/8 night on 30 FGA, and was said to have had 5 blocks & 5 steals in the 3rd quarter alone. Multiple of those blocks came on Hayes who went for 23/18/2 on 25 FGA.

7. In the playoffs, the Suns would fight hard before losing in 7 to the West/Wilt led Lakers, with some making the comment that it was essentially "the Lakers vs Connie Hawkins".

After that year, Hawkins would still have great runs, but injuries took more of a toll. The general feeling was that his body was much older than his age suggested having played 250 Globetrotter games per year while others his age were playing 25 college games per year, to say nothing about all that time on the Schoolyard.

In the end, with Hawkins, I think it's very hard to know how to rank him and so I completely understand those who won't have him in the Top 100. More than anything else, I hope others can just appreciate how singular he was, and how significant on a level beyond simple career impact.

But I do think he warrants a place above Bill Walton, who is my #3 pick here. Love, love, love Walton, but as much as Hawkins had longevity issues, I'd say Walton had them worse, and I'm not comfortable saying that Walton was clearly the better player best vs best. I think Walton was amazing like this, and he certainly has the defensive edge overall, but in some ways I feel like you could look at Walton on offense as a poor man's Hawkins.

Part of what I'm saying here is that I believe that the pivot-and-cut offense that Jack Ramsay instituted for Walton in Portland is not some completely new thing, but rather something that was huge and never really made it to the NBA. Once the basketball world saw Mikan & Kurland, pivot-and-cut passing didn't seem as useful as just pass to low post and score. And when that paradigm got challenged, it got challenged by perimeter-oriented offenses that in today's game are dominant.

I would submit that we've never really seen the potential for a pivot-and-cut offense in the modern NBA until Nikola Jokic, and I might make a comparison between Jokic & Hawkins. And on that front, note that I have Jokic below Walton. Through the end of last season, I didn't think Jokic had done enough to surpass Walton, but with this season, well, things are changing.

I will note, with regards to context, I consider Jokic to be more of "random genius" than Hawkins. I think Hawkins became what he did because he was shaped by unique context and had specific, rare physical gifts. Jokic seems like he was born like this.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,441
And1: 8,108
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#10 » by trex_8063 » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:04 pm

Thru post #9:

Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Jeff Hornacek - 1 (sansterre)
Dave DeBusschere - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Chris Bosh - 1 (trex_8063)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Horace Grant - 1 (penbeast0)


About 24 hours or just under left for this one.
As you may note: we have 8 votes for 8 candidates (and we may well end up with 10 votes for 10 candidates)........this is going to force me to declare a winner [or potential runoff] based ENTIRELY on ALL-AROUND Condorcet findings.

So I need know everyone's ordered list among ALL EIGHT of the players above PLUS Billy Cunningham and Melo [as they're both likely to appear as well]. I need this from EVERYONE, if you haven't already done so.

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Hal14
RealGM
Posts: 20,817
And1: 19,236
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#11 » by Hal14 » Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:29 pm

Condorcet votes:

1. Dennis Johnson
2. Bill Walton
3. Dave DeBusschere
4. Carmelo Anthony
5. Connie Hawkins
6. Chris Bosh
7. Billy Cunningham
8. Horace Grant
9. Jeff Hornacek
10. Nikola Jokic
1/11/24 The birth of a new Hal. From now on being less combative, avoiding confrontation - like Switzerland :)
User avatar
Odinn21
Analyst
Posts: 3,514
And1: 2,940
Joined: May 19, 2019
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#12 » by Odinn21 » Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:18 pm

86. 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.

87. 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.

88. 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 > T. Porter > N. Jokic > C. Anthony > C. Hawkins > B. Walton > N. Archibald > N. Johnston > J. Hornacek > D. Johnson

---

Coming from the #85 thread.

sansterre wrote:
Odinn21 wrote: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?

I think that this is a really interesting question.

For me, I ignore this, or try to. If a player with metrics that rate their career as worth X is considered as good regardless of whether they were a #1 option, a #3 option or a defensive/rebounding specialist.

From a purely objective non-narrative approach I only see one reason to consider roles, and that's if you're trying to figure out the player's value on completely random team configurations.

If you're using this approach here are some completely spitballed thoughts (because this isn't a line of reasoning I normally follow):

#1 Option: These are the easiest to project to other teams, because a #1 option can be the #1 option on most teams. There are weird exceptions, but you can see Curry/Jordan/Gervin/English/Wilkins as being the #1 on any team they're on. Which makes them easier to project. And they're generally considered less dependent on supporting cast. It's pretty rare to characterize a #1 option as benefiting from their teammates (though it happens), usually the flow happens in the other direction. There, of course, are the opposite kinds of situations where a #1 option suffers from lack of support (as we infer that Allen Iverson and Sam Jones did). The only real time I'd be cautious about a #1's value in another setting is if he's not actually a great #1. Guys like Iverson or Westbrook seem to quietly put a cap on their offenses' efficiency with their limitations. So a Jordan or whatever is awesome no matter where, but an Iverson doesn't necessarily translate his skills effectively to other teams. But I'd ballpark these as a pretty easily transferrable skillset. If you value floor-raising over ceiling-raising then these guys need a serious bump from most metrics.

Non-Scoring: This is a category for the Ben Wallaces, Horace Grants and Draymond Greens, all of whom are usually below their team's #3 option. On one hand, I'd argue that these players are the most transferrable no matter what. Ben Wallace would have been a monster rebounder/defender no matter what his team situation. So, in a way, I like these players better than most. But there are two asterisks. The first is if the player is a low-usage high-efficiency scorer (like Grant or Gobert) you could argue that his efficiency is somewhat dependent on other players drawing attention. I don't necessarily buy this a lot, but it's an argument. The second is if you value floor-raising over ceiling-raising. Guys like Wallace, Grant and Draymond are amazing ceiling-raisers, but they're not as good as floor raisers. Or rather, they are but their value doesn't increase with a worse team. Westbrook may be worth 25 wins to a garbage team and 10 wins to a great team, while Wallace may be worth 15 to both. So if you're about win-increases instead of CORP increases, you probably slant against this type.

#2 / #3 Options: These are by far the most fit dependent. A offensive second fiddle can look really good in an optimal environment (Klay Thompson) or pretty rough in the wrong environment (KG/DRob). So it's really a question of trying to figure out how their scoring would transfer to a variety of team offenses. With players like KG or DRob it's less of a question because so much of their value comes from non-scoring areas. But for others . . . let's take Jeff Hornacek. His impact metrics (and box metrics though a little less) agree that he was a big difference-maker for his teams. I maintain that if a #1 option had Hornacek's metrics he'd have been in by now. But Hornacek wasn't a #1 option, in fact he was a #3 option on most of his teams (behind KJ/Chambers or Stockton/Malone). And we know that when teams tried to use him as something like a primary ball handler his value dropped hard. But, of course, Hornacek's primary impact came from off-ball offense (and secondary passing). The question is whether or not Hornacek would still have similar impact working off-ball on teams without other strong scorers (you have to admit that KJ/Chambers and Stockton/Malone are pretty ideal #1/#2 options historically). It's hard to know. If you have a player that was misused as a #1 option then you probably ought to bump them *some*, because some teams (certainly not all) wouldn't have put them in that bad situation. And if a player was ideally suited as a #2 or #3, you probably ought to drop them some if their supporting cast would be difficult to replicate. I still like Hornacek as a weird scoring ceiling-raiser, but if I was thinking about archetypes I'd basically try and ballpark how ideally their teams fit their skills and adjust that somewhat.

Again, totally spitballing, but it was an interesting question.

There are some minor disagreements on my part but great breakdown. My question was about if anyone's favouring one certain type over the other. I try to go by 1v1 / eliminations to see who comes out on top and I think I don't necessarily favour one type of player looking at my preferences. But I still sense some biases in my process and they might be inconsistent. That's why I asked. Maybe sticking with one archetype would result in more objective rankings?
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,441
And1: 8,108
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#13 » by trex_8063 » Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:47 pm

Odinn21 wrote:
G. Williams > W. Bellamy > D. Issel > D. DeBusschere > T. Porter > N. Jokic > C. Hawkins > B. Walton > N. Archibald > C. Hawkins > N. Johnston > J. Hornacek > D. Johnson

---


You have Connie Hawkins listed in two different places......which makes Condorcet difficult.

You also don’t have Melo in there at all.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 20,192
And1: 26,047
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#14 » by Clyde Frazier » Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:54 am

Vote 1 - Carmelo Anthony
Vote 2 - Chris Bosh
Vote 3 - Billy Cunningham

The Rest: King > Tiny > DeBusschere > Terry Porter > Jerry Lucas > Gus Williams > Hornacek > Horace Grant > Dennis Johnson > Hawkins > Jokic > Walton


Peak carmelo developed into one of the best offensive players in the league. The “iso melo” stigma really became an outdated narrative as you saw all he really needed was a decent PG rotation to keep the ball moving (a little different, but billups certainly got the best out of him in denver). He became one of the better off the ball players in 12-13, actually shooting more efficiently and on higher volume than durant in catch and shoot situations. His transition to a great 3 pt shooter also opened up his game, and he stepped into transition 3s about as well as anyone in the league.

He’s obviously known for his great post up and face up game, but not acknowledged as much for being a great offensive rebounder for his position. He had a deceptively quick second jump and soft touch around the rim for put backs. He also possessed a unique rolling spin move to the hoop i’m not sure anyone else in the league has. The one thing he was really average at is finishing at the rim, and i’d say that partially has to do with him not being able to take advantage of the way the game is called these days. He wasn’t a freak show athlete like lebron, and he doesn’t have those long strides like durant / harden where they know the angles and draw fouls as easily as they do.

I then look at someone like dominique, who was voted in at #73, and I don't think carmelo should fall too far behind. Let's look at their first 11 seasons. You can change the years, but my point remains the same.

https://stathead.com/tiny/Vr6aD

They’re very comparable in most areas, and carmelo actually comes out as the better postseason performer, something wilkins was well criticized for, but still managed to get voted in much earlier. Melo also has a clear edge in relative scoring efficiency. I noted trex's argument in past threads about nique consistently carrying offenses with not much support. It's a valid point, although a good portion of melo's prime was wasted on poor PG play, which was the key to unlocking his best performance.

I'd also point out that while melo's transition to a role player was a bit rocky, he didn't call it quits like iverson when asked to come off the bench. You could make the argument that he was scapegoated in houston (to be clear, no conspiracy theories here about him getting blackballed -- that was just dumb). There's some revisionist history there as he literally came off the bench for HOU, so he did what they asked. Then last year in portland he did exactly what you'd want from a role player in year 17: 38.5% from 3 on 3.9 attempts per game, posting a positive net rating and on/off along with being a great teammate.
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,441
And1: 8,108
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 

Post#15 » by trex_8063 » Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:14 pm

Thru post #14:

Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Jeff Hornacek - 1 (sansterre)
Billy Cunningham - 1 (Odinn21)
Dave DeBusschere - 1 (Cavsfansince84)
Chris Bosh - 1 (trex_8063)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Horace Grant - 1 (penbeast0)
Carmelo Anthony - 1 (Clyde Frazier)


So.....along the way there have been A LOT of circumstances I didn't foresee, and which need a protocol in place.

We'd previously established that in the event there was more than one default winner, we would go with the Condorcet leader as the winner of the spot. But I mostly had in mind the instance of there being TWO default winners (maybe I vaguely conceived of there being THREE default winners), for which there would be a clear leader.

I did not anticipate the possibility of having TEN default winners to decide between; but that's what we have here.....

.....Which left me with the following question [as far as determining the all-around Condorcet leader]: Do I go with the player with the best "Condorcet record"? Or the one with the most "Condorcet 'points'"?

Condorcet Record
This is a player's Win-Loss-Tie record in all of the [in this case] NINE head-to-heads.

Condorcet Points
This is basically awarding one point for each vote a player receives in EACH INDIVIDUAL head-to-head (i.e. Bosh leads DJ 8-2 in Condorcet, so he gets 8 points for that particular H2H [DJ gets 2 points]......and so on for each and every H2H).

Here's what I've ultimately decided on how we should proceed (if anyone objects, now is the time to speak up):

1) Condorcet Record should take precedent. As example: Player A, who is 9-0 in these H2H's [that is: we, by consensus, feel he is the best of each and every individual match-up] should not lose the spot to Player B, who is 8-1 [and whose one loss, of necessity, came against Player A] simply because Player B managed to get a couple additional points in one of the other match-ups. To me, it doesn't make sense to give the spot to Player B when we----by consensus---feel Player A is more deserving in a direct comparison, and who won more match-ups overall.
Anyone strongly disagree?
EDIT (tentative): As per proposition in post 16, ties will be counted as both a half-win and half-loss.

2) In the event that there is a tie for the best record, we will look who wins within their individual H2H to decide the spot. In the event that is also a tie, then....

3) We will look at Condorcet points to decide a winner.

4) In the unlikely event that step #3 is also a tie, well then I guess we're stuck going to a runoff.

Does anyone object to this method?


As it turns out, it doesn't matter for this one [but it was AWFULLY close].....

Without going into excruciating detail of standings for all 10 players, I'll just summarize:
Chris Bosh wins, but Horace Grant was very close.

Bosh won ALL NINE of his Condorcet H2H's. Grant was closest with a 7-1-1 record (his only loss obviously coming to Bosh; next best was Cunningham at 5-1-3, fwiw).
Bosh also leads in Condorcet points, with 61 (Grant was again very close with 59 [I think Cunningham was again 3rd, with 52]).



Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,441
And1: 8,108
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 (Chris Bosh) 

Post#16 » by trex_8063 » Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:08 pm

1) Condorcet Record should take precedent. As example: Player A, who is 9-0 in these H2H's [that is: we, by consensus, feel he is the best of each and every individual match-up] should not lose the spot to Player B, who is 8-1 [and whose one loss, of necessity, came against Player A] simply because Player B managed to get a couple additional points in one of the other match-ups. To me, it doesn't make sense to give the spot to Player B when we----by consensus---feel Player A is more deserving in a direct comparison, and who won more match-ups overall.
Anyone strongly disagree?

2) In the event that there is a tie for the best record, we will look who wins within their individual H2H to decide the spot. In the event that is also a tie, then....

3) We will look at Condorcet points to decide a winner.

4) In the unlikely event that step #3 is also a tie, well then I guess we're stuck going to a runoff.

Does anyone object to this method?


btw, within step 1, I think I'll count a tie as a half-win AND half-loss.

I was just thinking (again: situations you don't anticipate unless you're really looking for 'em): what if I was trying to declare the "best record" between a guy whose W-L-T record was 8-1-0, and a guy who went 7-0-2??

The first guy won more Condorcet match-ups, but he also LOST more [as the second player technically didn't lose to anyone]. So who should get it? imo, that's pretty much a Condorcet draw; the half-measures on a tie will account for that.

Anyone object to that?

Spoiler:
Ainosterhaspie wrote:.

Ambrose wrote:.

Baski wrote:.

bidofo wrote:.

Blackmill wrote:.

Clyde Frazier wrote:.

Doctor MJ wrote:.

DQuinn1575 wrote:.

Dr Positivity wrote:.

drza wrote:.

Dutchball97 wrote:.

Eddy_JukeZ wrote:.

eminence wrote:.

euroleague wrote:.

Franco wrote:.

Gregoire wrote:.

Hal14 wrote:.

HeartBreakKid wrote:.

Hornet Mania wrote:.

iggymcfrack wrote:.

Jaivl wrote:.

Joao Saraiva wrote:.

Joe Malburg wrote:.

Joey Wheeler wrote:.

Jordan Syndrome wrote:.

LA Bird wrote:.

lebron3-14-3 wrote:.

limbo wrote:.

Magic Is Magic wrote:.

Matzer wrote:.

Moonbeam wrote:.

Odinn21 wrote:.

Owly wrote:.

O_6 wrote:.

PaulieWal wrote:.

penbeast0 wrote:.

PistolPeteJR wrote:.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]
Senior wrote:.

SeniorWalker wrote:.

SHAQ32 wrote:.

Texas Chuck wrote:.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:.

TrueLAfan wrote:.

Whopper_Sr wrote:.

ZeppelinPage wrote:.

2klegend wrote:.

70sFan wrote:.

876Stephen wrote:.

90sAllDecade wrote:.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 29,874
And1: 9,615
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #86 (Chris Bosh) 

Post#17 » by penbeast0 » Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:21 pm

IT's all good.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.

Return to Player Comparisons