RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #93 (Terry Porter)

[trex_8063]

Condorcet votes:

1. Dennis Johnson
2. Bill Walton
3. Bernard King
4. Connie Hawkins
5. Jack Sikma
6. Lamarcus Aldridge
7. Nikola Jokic

Could you please edit this to include DeBusschere, Porter, and Gus Williams? They've been voted for the last several threads [with ONE exception for Porter, when his foremost champion missed the deadline]; so it's likely they will be on the ballot again.

[Hal14]

The only guy to lead the league in scoring and assists in the same season not being on the list is mind boggling.

Yup. He's in my top 100, that's for sure. Unfortunately, most of the posters here have a big recency bias and also heavy emphasis on advanced metrics - which those 2 go hand in hand..

[Dutchball97]

The only guy to lead the league in scoring and assists in the same season not being on the list is mind boggling.

Yup. He's in my top 100, that's for sure. Unfortunately, most of the posters here have a big recency bias and also heavy emphasis on advanced metrics - which those 2 go hand in hand..

Yeah all those stupid metrics, right? Way better to just go off narratives and make stuff up as you go, right?

Nobody is voting for the guys on your ballot? Must be everyone else who is wrong. Grow up.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Bernard King
Vote 3 - Chris Webber
Vote 3 - Tiny Archibald

DeBusschere > Terry Porter > Bellamy > Jerry Lucas > Aldridge > Gus Williams > Lowry > Sikma > Dennis Johnson > Hawkins > Jokic > Johnston > Draymond > Walton

At his peak, king was one of the most dynamic scorers the league had seen. He was more methodical than flashy, but he knew what he was good at and kept going to it. His turnaround jumper was so lethal that he didn't even have to look at the hoop when releasing the shot. It was all in 1 quick motion where the defender really had no chance to block it. He was also very bull-like in the open court. Not a high leaper, but extremely powerful with long strides getting to the rim.

From 79-85 he put up the following:

Regular Season
23.6 PPG, 6.1 RPG, 3.2 APG, 1.1 SPG, .3 BPG, 55.1% FG, 70.1% FT, 58.7% TS, .153 WS/48, 111 ORtg

Playoffs
30.5 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 2.8 APG, 1 SPG, .3 BPG, 56.8% FG, 72% FT, 60.9% TS, .213 WS/48, 122 ORtg

His prime was obviously cut short by injuries, but he still put together 11 seasons of solid production when it was all said and done. When he tore his ACL, his career was largely thought to be over given the era he played in. He went on to make an improbable comeback which culminated with him getting back to All NBA status in 90-91 with the bullets. I've alluded to this with other players in the project, but the amount of determination it takes to come back from major injuries and still perform at a high level is really impressive.

[As an aside, the Knicks stupidly released him because he wanted to do his rehab on his own instead of at the knicks training facility. Always would've loved to see even a lesser version of King get to play with Ewing. Could've been a great match.]

He was probably best known for his 1st round game 5 clincher against the pistons in 84:

In a critical and decisive Game 5, Bernard King was his usual unstoppable self putting up 40 points as the Knicks held a double-digit lead with under two minutes remaining in the fourth quarter. Then Thomas decided to take things into his own hands by putting on a performance of epic proportions, tallying 16 points within the game’s final 94 seconds, to force overtime. King and Thomas exchanged offensive blows like a heavyweight title fight, with King getting the final blow by jamming an offensive put-back in the games final moments, giving him a game high 46 points and the Knicks a 3-2 series win. King showed a national audience that he would become one of the game’s most prolific scoring machines before injuries robbed him of his explosiveness. Game 5 was also arguably the moment that put a young “Zeke” on par with the NBA’s elite.

http://www.theshadowleague.com/articles/the-epic-battle-of-bernard-king-vs-isiah-thomas

Notice the splints on both of King's hands...

Watch on YouTube

The Knicks would go on to lose to the eventual NBA champion celtics in 7 games, as he played through injuries and still averaged 29.1 PPG on 59.7% TS in the series.

The guy was just relentless.

"The key was his preparation," said former Knicks coach and ESPN analyst Hubie Brown.

Part of that preparation included practicing thousands of shots from what King called his "sweet spots." In the half court, he identified three points along the baseline out to the sideline, then extended an imaginary line from a halfway point up the lane to the sideline with three more, then three more extended from the foul line to the sideline. He did the same on the other side of the lane.

Within the lane he identified four spots from the rim to the top of the key. These 22 spots, all within 18 feet of the basket, created a matrix of areas from which he felt supremely confident he could score. If a team tried to deny him the ball on offense, he would move from one sweet spot to another.

"He had the ability to see what all five positions were doing. That's how he could handle double- and triple-teams, because he knew where everyone would be," Brown said. "He knew how to create space for the high-percentage shot or find the guy who was open."

http://espn.go.com/nba/halloffame13/story/_/id/9653879/bernard-king-ahead

[Odinn21]

93. Gus Williams
It's interesting to me that a player with similar prime but worse postseason resilience made the list before Gus in Lillard.
Gus had decent prime duration, elite peak and prime level. Had he not sat out a season with a contract dispute, I’d probably make a case for him earlier. But that season without him showed how valuable he was.
1979 Sonics, 52 wins and title with Gus, Sikma and DJ
1980 Sonics, 56 wins and WCF loss against the eventual champions with Gus, Sikma and DJ
1981 Sonics, 34 wins and no playoffs with only Sikma (Gus sat out, DJ was traded away for Westphal and Westphal played only 36 games)
1982 Sonics, 52 wins and 2nd round exit with Gus and Sikma (Westphal wasn’t in Seattle in that season)

94. Walt Bellamy
His prime has some inconsistencies but he had a career trajectory of a ‘00s player in the ‘60s with good quality. It’s all there for him.
(In terms of first few seasons, Bellamy and Hawkins are pretty similar but curious about why Hawkins should be a better candidate than Bellamy, Cunningham, Issel with their entire careers. It’s arguable that Hawkins peaked higher to begin with...)

95. Bernard King
Arguably the best peak among the big scoring wings of the '80s (Gervin, Dantley, English and Wilkins). Even after the injuries he was still a good impact ended up with nearly 20k career point.
I know my list is quite harsh on Bill Walton and Connie Hawkins who do not have much to show for outside of their top 3 or 4 seasons. But King is not like them to me. If anything, King is like a more impactful Carmelo Anthony IMO.

J. Sikma > D. DeBusschere > J. Worthy > C. Webber > T. Porter > N. Jokic > > K. Lowry > L. Aldridge > D. Green > Z. Beaty > C. Hawkins > B. Walton > N. Archibald > N. Johnston > D. Johnson

[sansterre]

1. 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 tweener-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.

2. Draymond Green - Draymond is a weird player to evaluate. Normally I'm big on longevity and Draymond is still playing. But his peak (by certain metrics) was crazy. He's an insane ceiling raiser, like Ben Wallace but better. And unlike the Ben Wallace argument "Yeah, but having him kills your offense" you really can't argue that for Draymond. Because he was on a lot of extremely strong offenses. He wasn't a great scorer by a long shot, but he was an outstanding passer. A lot of people don't realize that Draymond often averaged more Assists/100 than Curry did (the two were neck and neck during their peak years). So despite not being a good scorer (and he was okay, averaging around league average shooting on high teens usage) he actually tended toward being a net positive on offense from all the impact data we have. And his ability to play a hyper-aware long-armed center in a lineup of all athletic wings (and Curry) transformed the Warriors. I'm not making any argument that Green is as valuable to the Warriors as Curry was. But his AuRPM numbers actually come out looking really close to Curry, and in 2017 were above Durant in both AuRPM and RAPM.

The Warriors from 2015 to 2018 were four of the best teams ever and every impact metric we have suggests that Draymond was a very close 2nd in value on three of them. Unlike shot-blocking bigs like Embiid and Gobert, Draymond's defensive value tends to go up in the playoffs. Because smart switchability is a serious asset in playoff defense and Draymond has that as well as anyone.

Do I have him too high here? Maybe. His 2016 PIPM kind of broke my metric. But the impact metrics scream that he was one of the most valuable players in the league during his peak.

Was he a crap floor-raiser? Definitely. And if you like floor-raisers or wins-added, then Draymond is probably far lower on your list.

But we have to make our peace with the fact that he may have been one of the greatest ceiling-raisers ever. And there's some serious value there. From a CORP point of view, he has a pretty respectable argument.

#3. Kyle Lowry - This may seem incongruous, but Kyle Lowry has some pretty strong selling points. His career has actually been quietly impressive. He's got four different 10+ Win Share seasons and over 30k career minutes. He's got four seasons above 4.5 VORP. Did you know that of all active NBA players he's currently 11th in Win Shares and VORP? These are respectably impressive stats. But would you believe that Kyle Lowry's impact metrics are outstanding? He put up a +4.5 AuRPM in 2014, a +4.6 AuRPM in 2015, a +6.5 in 2016 (10th in the league) and a +6.3 in 2017 (6th). His RAPM in 2018 (including playoffs) was 6th in the league (ESPN's RPM has him #1), ESPN's RPM has him 5th in 2019 and it has him 6th in 2020. By Impact metrics, Kyle Lowry's been a Top 10 player in the league for the past five years.

How is this possible? After all, Lowry is a good offensive player but not great. He's pretty consistently in the low 20s for usage and his shooting was only around +3 or +4 in his five-year peak. How good can he be? But he's also a weirdly quality rebounder. Kyle Lowry may be the best rebounding six footer ever (not a huge claim to fame, but still). He has eight different seasons at 7% TRB or higher, while no other six footer has more than 4. You could argue that he's a rebound-chaser, but his impact metrics suggest that isn't the case. He's a strong floor spacer (half his shots are threes and he made them at 38% over the last ten seasons) and a strong passer (passer ratings at 6.5 or higher from Ben Taylor). I won't argue that he has the offensive impact of a Lillard (though he surely has more longevity). But unlike Lillard, Lowry is a strong defender, generally considered an underrated team defender with a knack for drawing charges. And if he's an actual plus on defense (as most metrics consider him) that means he doesn't need to be as good on offense for the same level of impact.

Has he struggled in the playoffs historically? Yes. But no more than Lillard has, and Dame has been getting a fair amount of love in these votes. And recently Lowry has turned it around in the postseason, posting the 4th best RAPTOR-WAR in the '19 playoffs (+6.6 average) and 5th best in the '20 playoffs (+9.3).

Like Porter, like a lot of guys I champion, he's not super-sexy. But he's had a long career and a strong peak. Instead of being an all-offense chucker he's good at everything, and was a key piece in leading the Raptors to their first ever NBA title. Maybe he deserves some love too.

Terry Porter > D.Green > Kyle Lowry > Eddie Jones > Bellamy > Z.Beaty > Jokic > A.Kirilenko > M.Cheeks > B.Walton > P.George > LaMarcus Aldridge > Webber > Sikma > A.Iguodala > Schrempf > G.Williams > Lucas > 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

[trex_8063]

(Draymond Green) -- great defense plus playmaking
4. Webber
(Cliff Hagan) -- stepped up consistently in playoffs
5. Bellamy
(Zelmo Beaty)
6. DJ
7. Mookie
(Maurice Cheeks)
8. Connie Hawkins
(Chris Mullin) -- Smart, good outside shooter, slow footed defender
(LaMarcus Aldridge) -- 2-way consistency over a long prime
9. EltonBrand
(Marques Johnson -- peaked higher than King, shorter career, substance abuse issues
(Bernard King) -- a couple of great playoff performances, reasonably efficient scorer but brings little else and had substance abuse issues.
(Tiny Archibald) -- Amazing for a couple of years on Kings, like Isiaih Thomas that year in Boston, but with his lack of defense and the way his scoring game worked, can't really see him as a key ceiling raiser piece.
10. Walton
11. Jokic
12. Gus Williams
(David Thompson) -- Another skywalker, great scorer, but career destroyed by cocaine

For Condorcet ranking I'm putting those parenthetical names above who they're listed above [even though they're conspicuously un-numbered]; I hope that's the intent.
Also, I need to know where DeBusschere sits in this group (I'm presuming LAST unless you tell me otherwise). But Condorcet round-robins are likely to be deciding spots from now on, so a CLEAR listing that includes ALL voted candidates is helpful [required].


EDIT: And if you update things within the post in a later edit, please inform me that you've done so.

[trex_8063]

OK guys, PLEASE help me out by simply doing what I've asked at the start and/or middle of damn near each and every one of the last approximately 40 threads: include an ordered list of EVERYONE who gets votes or is likely to get votes. And there is NO EXCUSE for not knowing who that is or will be, given I have specifically stated who in the OP [in which you were all quoted/notified]. And otherwise just assume anyone who received a vote in a prior thread will be voted for again [including those with 2nd/3rd place votes is also a good idea].

Also, if you go back and edit your post/listing, PLEASE NOTIFY ME THAT YOU'VE DONE SO. There's too much to tabulate and figure out if I left it ALL to the end, especially if it comes down to a full round-robin Condorcet ruling [which will be common].
I don't have 2+ hours free to do it ALL right at the designated stop-time......so I chip away at as we go along [few minutes here, few minutes there].
And I keep a notation of where I'm at: e.g. "finished thru post #17"......so if you go back and CHANGE post #14, for example, I might miss it, because I pick up where I left off. I've caught some edits that were put in after the fact, but it's so easy to miss those.

Anyway, there's going to be a bit of a delay in finishing this thread, because I simply don't have clear and/or complete listings. I've already been on penbeast0 and Hal14 itt to patch things up on their lists; I've now just discovered Doctor MJ's list is missing both Jack Sikma and Bernard King [and was edited after it's original posting to include Aldridge].
There may be others who are missing 1 player [EDIT: such as Sikma missing from Odinn21's listing, I just noticed] (I need them ALL included to do a proper round-robin).


Thru post #27:

LaMarcus Aldridge - 1 (trex_8063)
Nikola Jokic - 1 (Dutchball97)
Gus Williams - 1 (Odinn21)
Bernard King - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Jack Sikma - 1 (penbeast0)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Dennis Johnson - 1 (Hal14)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Terry Porter - 1 (sansterre)
assume DeBusschere, too

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Hal14]

The only guy to lead the league in scoring and assists in the same season not being on the list is mind boggling.

Yup. He's in my top 100, that's for sure. Unfortunately, most of the posters here have a big recency bias and also heavy emphasis on advanced metrics - which those 2 go hand in hand..

Yeah all those stupid metrics, right? Way better to just go off narratives and make stuff up as you go, right?

Nobody is voting for the guys on your ballot? Must be everyone else who is wrong. Grow up.

LOL, why you mad bro? I wasn't even talking to you or about you. No idea who you even are, lol.

Make up stuff as I go? What did I make up?

The 3 guys on my ballot, 2 of them (Bellamy and Archibald) have gotten votes from other people. The other (Dennis Johnson) is considered by many to be one of the most underrated players of all time:

Watch on YouTube

https://aminoapps.com/c/hoops/page/blog/most-underrated-nba-player-of-all-time-dennis-johnson/pXNH_Qun5plrpdaKeJJ7JElNaBb8Qez#:~:text=Johnson%20(R.I.P.)%20is%20NBA's%20all,the%20most%20underrated%20player%20ever.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3584-the-most-underrated-players-in-nba-history

https://www.celticsblog.com/2014/10/20/7012785/celtic-great-dennis-johnson-clutch-underrated

http://loganssportsratings.blogspot.com/2016/08/top-100-nba-players-45-dennis-johnson.html

What makes you rank Terry Porter over Dennis Johnson? All you give for a reasoning with Porter is "only a 2 time all-star but he had a good 6 year prime and he was good in the playoffs during those seasons"...that's nice that you think that is enough to be top 100 player of all time, but I've got a higher bar than that. I suppose next you'll have Rik Smits on your ballot lol. Johnson had like a 9 year prime instead of 6. Johnson was better in the postseason than Porter, won 3 rings and a finals MVP. 5 all-star games and considered by most to be top 5 defensive guard of all time.

[Doctor MJ]

Also, if you go back and edit your post/listing, PLEASE NOTIFY ME THAT YOU'VE DONE SO. There's too much to tabulate and figure out if I left it ALL to the end, especially if it comes down to a full round-robin Condorcet ruling [which will be common].
I don't have 2+ hours free to do it ALL right at the designated stop-time......so I chip away at as we go along [few minutes here, few minutes there].

I've updated to include Sikma, but a suggestion:

As far as I can tell, the only reason I need to included Sikma on my list of 10+ guys is because after I voted someone voted him first for the first time. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but the idea that we need to refrain from counting up votes until each and everyone one of us checks back in after voting to make sure to include way down on our list some other guy who didn't matter before now seems inefficient.

I do understand that that ideally all of these guys should be on everyone's list, and I do understand the possibility that two guys bubble up from non-consideration in the same thread to become top contenders, but I would have been completely fine with you assuming that I'd have chosen everyone else on my list ahead of Sikma to just end things, and then have Sikma be a "must rank" guy to be mentioned at the start of the next thread.

To be clear, no shade on Sikma, who is now on my list and not at the bottom, it's just that I already updated my extended list when I posted, and I think having to do that multiple times per thread is bound to slow things down. If I don't have someone on my list, if it can help you move forward, please do consider that permission to assume I prefer others even if the reality is that I don't.

[Dutchball97]

Yup. He's in my top 100, that's for sure. Unfortunately, most of the posters here have a big recency bias and also heavy emphasis on advanced metrics - which those 2 go hand in hand..

Yeah all those stupid metrics, right? Way better to just go off narratives and make stuff up as you go, right?

Nobody is voting for the guys on your ballot? Must be everyone else who is wrong. Grow up.

LOL, why you mad bro? I wasn't even talking to you or about you. No idea who you even are, lol.

Make up stuff as I go? What did I make up?

The 3 guys on my ballot, 2 of them (Bellamy and Archibald) have gotten votes from other people. The other (Dennis Johnson) is considered by many to be one of the most underrated players of all time:

Watch on YouTube

https://aminoapps.com/c/hoops/page/blog/most-underrated-nba-player-of-all-time-dennis-johnson/pXNH_Qun5plrpdaKeJJ7JElNaBb8Qez#:~:text=Johnson%20(R.I.P.)%20is%20NBA's%20all,the%20most%20underrated%20player%20ever.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3584-the-most-underrated-players-in-nba-history

https://www.celticsblog.com/2014/10/20/7012785/celtic-great-dennis-johnson-clutch-underrated

http://loganssportsratings.blogspot.com/2016/08/top-100-nba-players-45-dennis-johnson.html

What makes you rank Terry Porter over Dennis Johnson? All you give for a reasoning with Porter is "only a 2 time all-star but he had a good 6 year prime and he was good in the playoffs during those seasons"...that's nice that you think that is enough to be top 100 player of all time, but I've got a higher bar than that. I suppose next you'll have Rik Smits on your ballot lol. Johnson had like a 9 year prime instead of 6. Johnson was better in the postseason than Porter, won 3 rings and a finals MVP. 5 all-star games and considered by most to be top 5 defensive guard of all time.

Dennis Johnson was better than Porter in the post-season based on what? You claim something and then point at rings and media awards as your proof, while dismissing all stats and whining about other people not doing the same. It's great you're having a laugh about it all but you don't seriously expect a few fan blogs are going to convince anyone?

[sansterre]

What makes you rank Terry Porter over Dennis Johnson? All you give for a reasoning with Porter is "only a 2 time all-star but he had a good 6 year prime and he was good in the playoffs during those seasons"...that's nice that you think that is enough to be top 100 player of all time, but I've got a higher bar than that. I suppose next you'll have Rik Smits on your ballot lol. Johnson had like a 9 year prime instead of 6. Johnson was better in the postseason than Porter, won 3 rings and a finals MVP. 5 all-star games and considered by most to be top 5 defensive guard of all time.

Nobody is questioning DJ being a great defensive guard. The problem is that historically he was barely above average on offense, and that puts a massive cap on how much a guard can contribute, even a guard as good defensively as Johnson.

If you're a big believer in media awards and team-driven achievements, DJ is clearly better than Porter.

But if you're less persuaded by those things, and more on the actual data, DJ is a tough sell. He may well be a player that Impact Metrics would have loved . . . but we don't have those for his era. Which is definitely our loss.

[trex_8063]

Also, if you go back and edit your post/listing, PLEASE NOTIFY ME THAT YOU'VE DONE SO. There's too much to tabulate and figure out if I left it ALL to the end, especially if it comes down to a full round-robin Condorcet ruling [which will be common].
I don't have 2+ hours free to do it ALL right at the designated stop-time......so I chip away at as we go along [few minutes here, few minutes there].

I've updated to include Sikma, but a suggestion:

As far as I can tell, the only reason I need to included Sikma on my list of 10+ guys is because after I voted someone voted him first for the first time. Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but the idea that we need to refrain from counting up votes until each and everyone one of us checks back in after voting to make sure to include way down on our list some other guy who didn't matter before now seems inefficient.

I do understand that that ideally all of these guys should be on everyone's list, and I do understand the possibility that two guys bubble up from non-consideration in the same thread to become top contenders, but I would have been completely fine with you assuming that I'd have chosen everyone else on my list ahead of Sikma to just end things, and then have Sikma be a "must rank" guy to be mentioned at the start of the next thread.

To be clear, no shade on Sikma, who is now on my list and not at the bottom, it's just that I already updated my extended list when I posted, and I think having to do that multiple times per thread is bound to slow things down. If I don't have someone on my list, if it can help you move forward, please do consider that permission to assume I prefer others even if the reality is that I don't.

I appreciate the feedback.

New candidates appearing somewhat out of nowhere will be inevitable for some threads, when we're typically having 9 votes for 9 players. It's inconvenient for YOU guys to have to check back in and update, but far LESS inconvenient for me [who has many times the "work-load" on his plate for this project]. Tabulating the ranked votes AND conducting a round-robin among 9-10 players takes time [even if I eliminate a few candidates early (before completing their full round-robin) when it becomes clear they're losing too many match-ups]; I rarely have that amount of time to sit and get it ALL done at once at the designated time.

And it often doesn't take a lot of checking back on your parts [just like once at about the 24-hour mark....maybe]: I'm facilitating to make it as easy as possible for you all to to know exactly who is needed---->I directly stated in the OP [which everyone gets a notification for] to include ALL the eligible players who received votes in the previous round PLUS King and LMA. That right there should have covered 8 of the 9 current candidates before the first vote was even cast.
When there was still 25 hours left to deadline, I posted an update asking everyone to include Sikma as well.


wrt your suggestion: in the future when counting yours I will consider any name absent from the listing to be last [however, there STILL may be problems if you leave MULTIPLE players off your list].
But I'm reluctant to do that with other posters, just to save time, unless they give me permission. Because that's frankly the EXACT kind of thing that has got people pissed off in prior rounds (e.g. "how did Player X win the spot with such a tiny margin? I would have picked Player Y over him, but you didn't even ask me. Why does everyone else's opinion matter but mine?".....and nastier accusations [of manipulating the results] would typically follow if "Player X" in that example happened to be one of the players on my own ballot).

[prolific passer]

Are we seriously talking about taking Terry Porter over HOFers DJ, Hagan, and Archibald?

[Dutchball97]

Are we seriously talking about taking Terry Porter over HOFers DJ, Hagan, and Archibald?

Yes.

[penbeast0]

Yes, that's the intended order, the original group was numbered and had statistical analysis to support it but the stats got wiped and people kept bringing up more names so the names in parentheses are those I added in an ad hoc fashion that I will have to back up with some analysis for my own enlightenment when I can.

Not sure what happened to DeBusschere, he was on there when I wrote the original list, I will add him back.

[prolific passer]

Well Horace Grant and Jeff Hornacek made the list so Porter being a candidate makes sense I guess.

[sansterre]

Are we seriously talking about taking Terry Porter over HOFers DJ, Hagan, and Archibald?

From a stats point of view I'm surprised to find that I really like Hagan. Per season I probably like him more than Porter. The knock on Hagan is 25k minutes vs 35k from Porter.

Archibald had one fantastic season, where he took 31% of his team's shots and made them at around +5%, which is a damned good scoring season while also dishing a ton of assists. If we're going by peak, I see the argument. But Tiny (like McAdoo) has a very narrow peak and gets considerably less impressive as soon as you get away from his best two years, and metrics (within their considerable limits) rate him as a pretty bad defender (not least of which because he had a weirdly high turnover rate, even when he started taking fewer shots). In terms of overall career, Porter looks better to me - I'd only consider Tiny if I was looking at top year or two.

As for DJ . . . It's pretty obvious that Porter was the better offensive player in almost every way but offensive rebounding. The question is whether or not DJ's defense makes up the difference (and Porter was no slouch on that side of the ball) is fair, but I'm not really persuaded. I'd go DJ if I favored awards and team achievements, but Porter is the safer bet.

[prolific passer]

Are we seriously talking about taking Terry Porter over HOFers DJ, Hagan, and Archibald?

From a stats point of view I'm surprised to find that I really like Hagan. Per season I probably like him more than Porter. The knock on Hagan is 25k minutes vs 35k from Porter.

Archibald had one fantastic season, where he took 31% of his team's shots and made them at around +5%, which is a damned good scoring season while also dishing a ton of assists. If we're going by peak, I see the argument. But Tiny (like McAdoo) has a very narrow peak and gets considerably less impressive as soon as you get away from his best two years, and metrics (within their considerable limits) rate him as a pretty bad defender (not least of which because he had a weirdly high turnover rate, even when he started taking fewer shots). In terms of overall career, Porter looks better to me - I'd only consider Tiny if I was looking at top year or two.

As for DJ . . . It's pretty obvious that Porter was the better offensive player in almost every way but offensive rebounding. The question is whether or not DJ's defense makes up the difference (and Porter was no slouch on that side of the ball) is fair, but I'm not really persuaded. I'd go DJ if I favored awards and team achievements, but Porter is the safer bet.

Porter had a nice stretch from 87-94 but those other guys had HOF careers and are more accomplished.
Basically a few stats vs a bunch of accolades and in today's world. Those few stats win.

[sansterre]

Are we seriously talking about taking Terry Porter over HOFers DJ, Hagan, and Archibald?

From a stats point of view I'm surprised to find that I really like Hagan. Per season I probably like him more than Porter. The knock on Hagan is 25k minutes vs 35k from Porter.

Archibald had one fantastic season, where he took 31% of his team's shots and made them at around +5%, which is a damned good scoring season while also dishing a ton of assists. If we're going by peak, I see the argument. But Tiny (like McAdoo) has a very narrow peak and gets considerably less impressive as soon as you get away from his best two years, and metrics (within their considerable limits) rate him as a pretty bad defender (not least of which because he had a weirdly high turnover rate, even when he started taking fewer shots). In terms of overall career, Porter looks better to me - I'd only consider Tiny if I was looking at top year or two.

As for DJ . . . It's pretty obvious that Porter was the better offensive player in almost every way but offensive rebounding. The question is whether or not DJ's defense makes up the difference (and Porter was no slouch on that side of the ball) is fair, but I'm not really persuaded. I'd go DJ if I favored awards and team achievements, but Porter is the safer bet.

Porter had a nice stretch from 87-94 but those other guys had HOF careers and are more accomplished.
Basically a few stats vs a bunch of accolades and in today's world. Those few stats win.

As compared to yesterday's world where it was just a question of whether they were on a team that won a championship? That's not a super-persuasive argument.