Owly wrote:Cavsfansince84 wrote:The main question I have with someone like Horace Grant is do the posters semi supporting him feel he should have been making all nba teams most years in his prime? Because otherwise I don't see much of a resume for him to be in a top 100 outside of having played on the first 3 peat but my issue there is that I feel like was a bit like Malone in the playoffs and was also a guy that Jordan specifically told teammates to not pass the ball to in the final minutes of any playoff game because he couldn't be trusted with the ball. Now having seen him play quite a bit I don't see his prime years as being good enough to be all nba in those years which of course he wasn't. He only made 1 all star team and his prime wasn't that long either.
I won't argue for a particular spot but "should have been making all star [edit: should have read "all NBA"] teams" is a pretty poor measure. Grant is playing the same time frame as Malone and Barkley. Just as Elton Brand shouldn't be punished for playing in the same era as Duncan, Garnett and Nowitzki (others with some overlap). If everyone at the position was putting up inflated numbers and there wasn't separation from league average at the position there'd maybe be a case but I don't think that's what's happening here (without digging deep, though at points in history box metrics for bigs have, imo. been relatively inflated). If you happen to think that, say, Nance (in addition to the two above names) edges him in a given year does that vastly diminish that year?
I think "is all NBA caliber" is a more meaningful and useful idea/phrasing to convey what I hope is the same intent.
Regarding playoffs I hadn't heard the MJ quote (do you have a source ... tbh it probably doesn't matter, I - and perhaps others - have reservations on MJ as a talent evaluator) but the playoff claim seems a touch mean on the face of it given his career box-composites hold pretty steady in the playoffs (as ever this is an imperfect comparison as different players have different proportions of their playoff careers aligned to their prime years, but given the higher level of competition holding his numbers seems like a small win for him).
Plus leaving aside offense there's the fact that a lot of his value is on D. (And if one wants to get anecdotal - not really my bag for heavy weighting - Bach [the defensive coach] supposedly considered Grant ... I don't recall the exact detail of the quote ... the most crucial? Most important? Something like that [think the quote is from one of the Sam Smith books] ... of the "Dobermans" and that vaunted defense.)
I agree "All-NBA caliber" is more meaningful. Actual awards are subject to so much "noise" in term of comparing players, particularly across eras (competition at one's position, general competitiveness of era, typical media mistakes in evaluation, etc).
Though even the "caliber" method is of limited value, imo (like other arbitrary "crosses X threshold" methods). It suggest that somebody that made All-NBA 3rd Team once and otherwise never cracked the top 30 in the league had a more valuable career than someone who was top 20-25 for like eight years [or whatever].
To answer Cavsfansince84, yes, I believe he was roughly 3rd-Team "level" in '92 and '94.
I think he was then at least borderline All-Star (anywhere from top 20-30(ish) in the league) in '91, '93, '95-'97.
And '98 [on the very fringes of his prime, arguably early post-prime] is an interesting year.....
Shaq had already left for greener pastures in LA.
Then in '98:
*Penny gets injured and basically missed the whole year [played just 19 games, partially injured in many; they went just 10-9 in those].
**Nick Anderson also is dealing with injuries and misses 24 games.
NOTE: Darrell Armstrong has yet had his "coming out" season, and he missed 34 games this year anyway.
So '98 for the Magic was mostly a near post-prime Horace Grant and Bo Outlaw, with limited amount of Nick Anderson, and a bunch of spare parts and little roster consistency (17 players would play >100 minutes, though only Grant and Outlaw played as many as 1800 [both of them over 2800, actually]).
They still managed to tread water at 41-41, Grant and Outlaw anchoring a -1.2 rDRTG.
In '99 (now definitively past his prime), alongside post-injury Penny, a surprisingly effective Darrell Armstrong, and Nick Anderson, they're on pace for 54 wins in a full-length season (though did lose in 1st round).
In '00, he's 34 years old, easily past his prime, but moves to a new team and is again immediately inserted as a starter on another decent playoff-level team.
In '01, he's 35 years old [WELL past his prime], moves to LA and is again immediately inserted as a consistent starter on the eventual champion, one of the most dominant playoff teams ever.
Three years later [age 38!] he's again finding consistent playing time for yet another contender.
It just sort of goes on and on with his career.
Was Grant lucky to be on the Jordan Bulls? Sure. But let's not act like they for sure 3peat if you replace him with.....let's say his brother Harvey. It's likely they don't get AT LEAST one of those titles there.
And then Chicago was still very good with Pippen/Grant and spare parts the next year.
And then those other things happen in Orlando, and LA, and Seattle.
Over and over again in his career he was deemed valuable on contender level teams. And sporadically in between he's giving strong value on much less talented teams; teams that could be said to have over-achieved their talent (e.g. '94 Bulls, '98 Magic, +/- '99 Magic).
At some point, I feel one has to allow that he was creating some of his own luck. His consistency, his portability, his attitude, his willingness to do the little things, made him consistently valuable to teams with high aspirations.
Regarding the supposed quote by MJ, I'm not sure that wasn't about Cartwright [as pen stated]. THough I'd not necessarily put a ton of stock in MJ's talent scouting anyway, and at any rate as a one-off I'll cite Grant's assist to Pax for the game-winner in G6 of the '93 Finals (nice find).
"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
