RealGM Top 100 #49

[Snakebites]

Hmm.

Alright, I'll bite.

I nominate Marques Johnson.

Still debating on my vote, but it will be either Hayes or KJ. I haven't seen the level of interest in Moncrief that I would need to consider putting a vote there.

See, I'm being transparent about my lack of integrity in my voting. Hope that helps.

[ElGee]

Meanwhile, in Washington...

The 1972 Bullets were 38 - 44 with a -1.26 SRS; 14th/17 in offensive ppg (107.1 ppg, 45% FG), 5th in pts allowed (108.3 ppg). By minutes, the main players on the 1972 Bullets were:

1) Archie Clark (30 yrs old, guard, 3243 min in 76 games)
2) Wes Unseld (25 yrs old, C, 3171 min in 76 games)
3) Jack Marin (27 yrs old, wing, 2927 min in 78 games)
4) Phil Chenier (21 yrs old, guard, 2481 min in 82 games)

Hayes joined the team in 1973, and they went 52 - 30 with a +2.85 SRS; 12th/17 in offensive PPG (105 ppg, 46.4% FG) and 4th in pts allowed (101.6 ppg). By minutes, the main players were:

1) Mike Riordan (27 yrs old, wing, 3466 min in 82 games)
2) Elvin Hayes (27 yrs old, FC, 3347 min in 81 games)
3) Wes Unseld (26 yrs old, C, 3085 min in 79 games)
4) Phil Chenier (22 yrs old, guard, 2776 min in 71 games)

Unseld and Chenier were essentially constants, with Hayes and Riordan replacing Clark (played only 39 games in '73) and Marin in the minutes hierarchy.

Totally disagree. I urge people to appreciate the growth in young players. Chanier jumps from his rookie year (12 ppg) to 19-4-4 in his second year. Huge jump in scoring rate and efficiency. That's not a constant.

Btw, the Rockets Estimated O/DRtg's for the period you highlight:
68 Off: -5.8 (last) Def: -1.2 (9th)
69 Off: -3.3 (12th of 14) Def: 3.1 (3rd) **fastest pace in league
70 Off: -5.4 (last) Def: 3.0 (2nd) **fastest pace in league
71 Off: -2.4 (14th of 17) Def: 2.2 (t-3rd)
72 Off: -2.8 (t-14th) Def: 1.6 (6th)
73 Off: 1.3 (9th) Def: -2.8 (13th)

Bullets
72 Off; -1.6 (t-12th) Def: 0.5 (9th)
73 Off: -0.7 (11th) Def: 3.8 (5th)

[drza]

Meanwhile, in Washington...

The 1972 Bullets were 38 - 44 with a -1.26 SRS; 14th/17 in offensive ppg (107.1 ppg, 45% FG), 5th in pts allowed (108.3 ppg). By minutes, the main players on the 1972 Bullets were:

1) Archie Clark (30 yrs old, guard, 3243 min in 76 games)
2) Wes Unseld (25 yrs old, C, 3171 min in 76 games)
3) Jack Marin (27 yrs old, wing, 2927 min in 78 games)
4) Phil Chenier (21 yrs old, guard, 2481 min in 82 games)

Hayes joined the team in 1973, and they went 52 - 30 with a +2.85 SRS; 12th/17 in offensive PPG (105 ppg, 46.4% FG) and 4th in pts allowed (101.6 ppg). By minutes, the main players were:

1) Mike Riordan (27 yrs old, wing, 3466 min in 82 games)
2) Elvin Hayes (27 yrs old, FC, 3347 min in 81 games)
3) Wes Unseld (26 yrs old, C, 3085 min in 79 games)
4) Phil Chenier (22 yrs old, guard, 2776 min in 71 games)

Unseld and Chenier were essentially constants, with Hayes and Riordan replacing Clark (played only 39 games in '73) and Marin in the minutes hierarchy.

Totally disagree. I urge people to appreciate the growth in young players. Chanier jumps from his rookie year (12 ppg) to 19-4-4 in his second year. Huge jump in scoring rate and efficiency. That's not a constant.

Btw, the Rockets Estimated O/DRtg's for the period you highlight:
68 Off: -5.8 (last) Def: -1.2 (9th)
69 Off: -3.3 (12th of 14) Def: 3.1 (3rd) **fastest pace in league
70 Off: -5.4 (last) Def: 3.0 (2nd) **fastest pace in league
71 Off: -2.4 (14th of 17) Def: 2.2 (t-3rd)
72 Off: -2.8 (t-14th) Def: 1.6 (6th)
73 Off: 1.3 (9th) Def: -2.8 (13th)

Bullets
72 Off; -1.6 (t-12th) Def: 0.5 (9th)
73 Off: -0.7 (11th) Def: 3.8 (5th)

Good point on Chenier. I had noticed that he was a rookie when doing the analysis and planned to account for it, but as I was writing my conclusions I just glanced at the fairly consistent minutes played for he and Unseld combined and didn't account for his actual production. Good point.

On the other hand, both my further prose in that post as well as the estimated O/DRtgs you provided suggest that a good chunk of the team's improvement was defensive, which would tend to implicate Hayes more than Chenier's 2nd year development in the backcourt.

[Dr Positivity]

One more wrapup on Howard vs Paul. I've stated it's not insane to say 05-07 Howard vs 06-07 Paul is close enough to not matter. Even if that's true, it's still

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Howard vs 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Paul

Which again, is 3 MVP caliber seasons vs 2 (+33%) and 4 All-NBA seasons vs 3 (+25%). 25-33% is exactly the difference in longevity value or whatever you want to call it

[ElGee]

vote: Chris Paul
nominate: Marques Johnson

Well, no offense, this is just ridiculous. Wade played 51 games in 07 at a higher level in the regular season (29 PER) to Paul's 45 Gs (23 PER) because Paul was playing injured after the first 10 Gs - and Wade put up a 15/5/4 44% in the RS in his comeback and Paul put up 9/8/3/40%. It's not like he was 2011 Paul when he came back - he was straight trash statistically. Paul in no way was better than Wade when he came back. If Wade could hardly play, then Paul definitely could hardly play. It seems pretty clear that Wade was MORE valuable in 07 than Paul in 2010 - Saying "Can't be reduced to 07 Wade" about Paul's 2010, and even putting in an if you do caveat comparing 2008 Howard to 2010 Paul, is absurd and clearly comes from finding a way to push Paul

I already edited what you quoted because it did come out wrong. That said, I won't hold this rant against you. But seriously, stop citing Paul's last 10g stats since I assume you didn't watch the games. And let's stop talking about such inconsequential seasons.

I'm pushing Paul after evaluation. I'm trying to convey that evaluation. I think for the rest of the project I'm going to attempt to use god points or SRS impact in a vacuum, because my current method isn't resonating.

I suppose it's just strange to me to see your view of Howard and Paul (and no one else is talking about it, so it's just you and me now). I have Howard 36th. You have Howard 36th. You talk about him in such glowing terms that sometimes I cringe a bit when I read it. Like, 2008 Howard...really not that awesome. Comparable to Manu and Pierce that year IMO. 2009 Howard - finally takes the leap, but maybe I'm just influenced by watching Perkins D him up straight and Dwight having limited offensive game at that point. Then you denigrate the 09 Magic, a team incredibly well coached who also made a run in the PS based on NCCA-like 3-point shooting for a few rounds. Yet we rank the guy the same (technically).

Then with Paul, you don't like his 2010. OK, that's cool. But 12-10 from a rookie Howard "is what every team wants," but 95% of the league wouldn't kill for a 17-9 floor general in Paul? His 2008 season WAS ridiculous. His 2009 season his APM was +15 (!) and the team offense was 97 --> 113 raw with him off/on. And no, I don't agree the LA defense went into the series and somehow made Chris Paul superhuman. That's always a strange approach to take unless it's totally obvious that something changed, and let's give Paul credit where credit is due.

That's my final word on this. I assume most of the group agrees with you based on the voting history...

[drza]

That's my final word on this. I assume most of the group agrees with you based on the voting history...

I'm in the camp that focuses a lot more on the match-ups within a given group of 10 than trying to compare with players already gone by. Because frankly, though I haven't voted for Paul yet, I actually WOULD have voted for Paul above some of the players that have already gone in like Miller or Pierce. So for me, it's not so much a case of trying to get a player into the exact correct slot where they should go, as there are too many moving variables for me to have that much confidence in a static list anyway (plus, as we've been discussing this thread, our voting method doesn't make this tenable).

[Dr Positivity]

Well I have a pretty clear criteria of "How much is this season helping me win a title". I took a pretty strong stance in the RPOY that 78 Walton was absolutely not making my ballot and wouldn't make my top 20 if we made it, for the same reason that 10 Paul Pierce would've been more valuable than 10 Lebron if the latter had a season ending injury in the playoffs

So when I see something like Chris Paul's 2010...

- Plays 45 Gs - 10 as a superstar, 28 as a 3rd team All-NBA and 7 as a virtual scrub. Something like 7 Ws added looks about perfect for the RS

- Is hardly useable when he comes back. I did see some of those games and I remember thinking he didn't belong on the court, and that New Orleans and Portland bringing Paul and Roy back/choosing to remove their meniscus instead of getting the surgery, was two of the dumbest moves I've seen a franchise make. I assume if Paul played the playoffs it would've been the exact same as Roy's playoffs that year or Gilbert's in 2008. I'm not going to give a player the benefit of the doubt that he could turn 9/8/.44 TS% play into 20/10 just from playing harder in the PS. Didn't happen for Wade, Roy, Gilbert, etc. The best evidence we have is the player he was at the end of the season. And frankly it's really hard for me to value a 38 G of good play season even if they're healthy at the end. That's almost a surefire a) Playoff miss b) 7th-8th seed. With his poor play at the end? I'd find it kind to even say it's as valuable as Dwight's rookie season

I think it's a season 80-90% as good as Wade's 07 which I really didn't care about anyways. Those seasons don't help you get a title

2008 Dwight... he made 1st team All-NBA and top 6 MVP and anchored a 50 W team. No he wasn't arguably the most valuable player in the league, but he was really good, which is about the most I can say about 2011 Paul, so I think it's a fine comparison and arguably even kind to Paul considering his team did much worse and he was recognized much less

[ronnymac2]

Anybody want to give a reason why Bob McAdoo shouldn't be getting considered here?

[Dr Positivity]

More important is KJ vs Paul though

I'm in the camp that thinks KJ's best two seasons (90, 91 arguably) are only slightly worse than Paul's 08, 09 - he turns it over more, rebounds less, steals less, and is extremely efficient but not as much as Paul. The argument that Paul takes a cerebral approach to KJ's athleticism one I'm not completley buying - Paul needs that head to make up for not having KJ's physical talent, if it can lead to the same results it's not a huge distinction for me. Johnson noteably has more fastbreak value. And Johnson's teams did have a better ORTG and overall team record which indicates being more brawn than brains didn't hurt the Suns results. What happened in the playoffs is also pretty similar, 08 Paul and 90 KJ went off, 09 Paul and 91 KJ had disappointing stats and team results. I think with both guys you need about the same things. Probably one other stud, some shooters, a good rebounder, and a good bench.

So I think Paul is the better player in their primes, but KJ then gives you two more season (89, 92) where he's in his prime and anchoring a great team as the best guy, a 2nd team All-NBA 94 season, and is all-star caliber in short seasons in 93, 95, 96. In 97 he puts up his usual 20/9 in 70 Gs (good for him at that point) but his postseason stats are as bad as they can get. Paul has his 06, 07 rook/soph seasons, arguably 3rd team All-NBA caliber in 07 if he didn't play 64 Gs - then 2010 and 2011. If the goal is to win a title, I ask the Paul voters to question whether it really would be the wiser choice to take Paul of these choices. You get a 2 year prime vs 4 years for KJ, and 3.5 other/need to be lucky years (06, 07, 10, 11) for Paul vs 5 for KJ (93, 94, 95, 96, 97). I side with KJ on both those comparisons, but some may see the gap between him and prime Paul as more significant than I do

[Dr Positivity]

I have Hayes over McAdoo for now... albeit I have both near this spot. Hard for me to not give Elvin the benefit of the doubt for doing it so much longer in his prime

[TMACFORMVP]

If it's worth anything, Hayes inefficiency in the playoffs isn't as bad as it is in the regular season (relative to TS% in the post-season):

69: .479 (+8.5)
73: .490 (+5.0)
74: .491 (+7.1)
75: .501 (+0.6)
76: .509 (-3.0)
77: .511 (-3.6)
78: .507 (+0.8)
79: .502 (-3.1)

He has three post seasons of 25/11+ play on 50+% from the field. He has another 25/11 post-season where he shot a respectable 47% (and a TS% above league average). Then he has a championship post-season run, where he's a beast on the boards, does 22/13 overall, with average TS%, shooting 49% from the field en route to a championship. I know he wasn't a clutch player, but that's a pretty awesome five year playoff peak to point at.

Also worth mentioning, the dude was an iron man, playing 80+ games every season.

[TMACFORMVP]

RE: Playoff value was a question in a thread or two ago; does CP3 have more of that playoff value than KJ?

I posted this in a thread earlier:

In '90, KJ was ridden with the flu (intestinal virus, bothered him the entire series). He didn't play in G1 (only played 9 minutes); the Suns got blown out. In G2, KJ dropped 22/7 (Stockton had 12/8). He had a 29/12 game in G3, and Stockton was nearly taken out of the game due to being in foul trouble. In the deciding G5 (series, best of 5), the Suns were down double digits with 10 minutes left in the game, went on a big run, and a Malone jumper tied the game with 12 seconds left. The Suns run down the clock, and KJ drills a jumper to win the series (104-103), and advance to the second round -- finishing with 26 points.

...In that second round, in the UPSET beating the Lakers (who had the best record in the NBA that season), KJ finished that series with:

G4: 30 points, 16 assists (11 points in the final 10 minutes)
G5: 37 points, 8 assists on 14/23

Against the Spurs in '92; he did 22.3 PPG and 15.6 APG on 59% TS. Heck, in '93, which wouldn't be considered part of his ultimate peak, he was the x-factor, averaging 21/9 on 53% for the series (leading the Suns to a G1 win, where Barkley went 5-21, and DRob had a 32/10 game with 7 blocks).

The guy has had a 46/10 game on 65% TS in a G7 in the playoffs (and in the same series having a 43/6/9 game on near 80% TS). If Barkley doesn't have a below average offensive game (by his standards), and seven turnovers in that G7, then all of sudden we could be looking at the Suns winning that series, and KJ being recognized as putting up a ridiculous performance to lead the Suns to the WCF (27.8 PPG, 9.4 APG on 66% TS).

This is almost the same story in '94 against the Rockets as well (another series where Barkley played below his normal standards): 26.5 PPG and 9.7 APG, and even rebounded the ball well.

Paul has had two fantastic post seasons, and one clunker against Billups and the Nuggets.

...and then I agree with Mufasa here. I'm failing to understand why Paul's regular season value is THAT much more impressive. I haven't seen too many arguments outside of WS/PER (the, APM argument is good however). I mean, they're very similar in volume (Paul is better in the passing lanes, and taking care of the ball however). But it's been proven that KJ's impact has been rather large as well, check out KJ's impact on team record in his six best statistical seasons:

Suns w/ Kevin Johnson: 273-149 (.646)
Suns w/out Kevin Johnson: 26-44 (.371)

*bit cherry picking, as the Suns were very good in KJ's other two injured seasons, but he also wasn't that great in general -- even when he was on the floor.

Paul was better in '08 and '09 than KJ was in '90 and '91. KJ was arguably better in '89 than '11 Paul, while he was better IMO, in '92 than Paul in '10. Then, KJ gives you another 20/10 season, along with two other 19/9 sort seasons, another year in '95 where he has a post-season run of 27/3/10, and similar production to an '07 Paul, with a '93 KJ.

[Fencer reregistered]

Re Howard getting D'ed straight-up by Perkins in the 2009 postseason: Actually, Dwight went off on Perk in a couple of games. That had a significant impact on my opinion of both players.

[Doctor MJ]

On the run off voting debate, I think the closest we can get to 50% of us agreeing on a player, the better - and if it comes down to two players, getting extra votes on who should be higher between the two matters. Essentially what's happening is that if everyone had a list made, the ones who switched from KJ to Zo in the last thread would've had both KJ and Zo above Paul. Thus the consensus saying Zo > Paul is very correct

There's just ample reason to think that the player who emerges as the top contender in a given thread simply has a lot to do with who get so a couple quick votes and then becomes the guy to pick if you simply really disagree with the philosophy of others on another player who you know will get votes.

I agree with this, but it seems to me like the "everyone but Paul"-ians really are deciding on who's going next, and the same process is happening there as when the whole group is picking between players. It's not random - the order went Cousy, Cowens, Iverson, Walton, Zo because that's what the consensus, in this case the people not naming Paul, chose. I don't see any reason to believe that if Paul wasn't in the mix, that the order would change in the last 5 spots for any other reason than the Paul voters landing strongly on the side of someone else, which is a different problem than vote switching

When people change their votes, essentially everyone has already voted, and it's become clear who the leader is (other than Paul). I have to assume that they'd have been leading otherwise and thus winning

I don't think any of us are thinking "oh crap, I have to vote for anyone but Paul" and not putting thought into picking between the other candidates. I know personally that I didn't switch my vote in Cousy vs Paul because I didn't have a strong feeling towards either, but I did switch on Zo vs Paul because I did feel strongly about Zo having a CLEAR edge by my criteria (and that KJ and Zo are virtually tied)

I think this is a very good response to me and a post in general. Appreciate that.

Yes, of course those of us "stuck" on voting Paul are arguably reducing our voting power by removing ourselves from the rest of the consensus, and in all honesty, I'm probably frustrated partly because I "let" myself get in this situation.

There's a trap a voter can get into where they think their guy has a shot each thread, and so just keep voting for him when he actually doesn't. The Cousy people I think felt this with the nomination process, and it's certainly unfortunate.

However, the thing that makes this the perfect trap was Howard getting voted in, someone with virtually the same strengths and weaknesses, from a GOAT thread point of view, as Paul. I still just can't fathom how anyone thinks there's a major gap between these two, and when I bring this up, it seems like no one other than maybe you will even acknowledge they voted for him despite the fact that he won in a complete blowout. What the heck people?

Were Howard not in yet, I don't think the situation would bother me nearly as much, since it would be pretty clear what the problem, but since he was voted in almost unanimously 10 spots ago, I really don't understand the Paul issue.

Now, you've made clear you think KJ > CP. That actually doesn't bother me that much. I can see how someone gets there, and if someone were simply not voting for CP because there's one other player in the way who also has been voting in, everything makes sense.

However, CP's been trouncing KJ in basically every thread until now so KJ is clearly not the rational reason why CP hasn't been voted in. The rational reason, has to account for why we keep seeing a new guy in each thread be bumped ahead of CP based on arguments that would have totally worked with Howard, and yet it wasn't even really on the table. I mean, people seem to be saying "it wasn't me" with Howard, and I buy people going through periods of paying less attention, but again: Dude won in a blowout.

[Snakebites]

However, CP's been trouncing KJ in basically every thread until now so KJ is clearly not the rational reason why CP hasn't been voted in. The rational reason, has to account for why we keep seeing a new guy in each thread be bumped ahead of CP based on arguments that would have totally worked with Howard, and yet it wasn't even really on the table. I mean, people seem to be saying "it wasn't me" with Howard, and I buy people going through periods of paying less attention, but again: Dude won in a blowout.

This really, really doesn't follow for me at all.

I actually HAVE been thinking of KJ as the reason I wouldn't put Paul in this early. I have been voting for him, but that is even besides the point.

Someone can think KJ's peak isn't that much worse than Paul, rank him ahead based on longevity edge, and STILL think other players are ahead of him.

I think you're losing yourself in these arguments a little bit MJ. There's probably a good point in there somewhere, but honest to goodness I just can't find it because of all of the repetition and non-sequitors.

[Dr Positivity]

Well, there's clearly been a lot of arguments already on Paul vs Howard, if you still side with it being indistinguishable that's fine, but it's pretty clear to me that Howard has 3 MVP/this guy could be the best player on a title team seasons and Paul has 2 which is a significant gap on its own, essentially the same difference between Lebron/Robinson and the normal 10-12 year prime % wise, plus Howard has made 5 All-NBA teams and Paul has made 3 which is another large % difference. My rebuttal to the Paul/Howard arguments is no, it isn't the same career, and that extra MVP season and extra All-NBA season Howard tacks on is more than enough to make a large gap in rankings

Still think Miller/Allen and Nique/English is closer. Miller and Allen are basically as comparable as any two stars on this list in game - While Nique and English both score around the same at SF and have the same amount of success

Or Frazier vs Reed esque. Even though it's impossible to consider Reed anything less than 1b in their primes, the few extra really strong years Frazier tacks on is significant enough to make a 15-20 spot gap on most lists

[Snakebites]

Hmm.

I think I've been convinced that, through all of his issues, Hayes did have an impact. He also had longevity and great productivity. I think he's suffered enough for his character issues.

Vote: Hayes
Nominate: Marques Johnson

[Fencer reregistered]

Vote: Elvin Hayes (finally)
Nominate: Dennis Rodman

Not my usual pro-intangibles bias ...

[lorak]

ElGee,
What do you think about CP over Hayes? I ask because you were big Karl Malone supporter and one of your main arguments was longevity (similar case was with Reggie). CP's 4 elite years is enough to overcame Hayes longevity?

[ElGee]

ElGee,
What do you think about CP over Hayes? I ask because you were big Karl Malone supporter and one of your main arguments was longevity (similar case was with Reggie). CP's 4 elite years is enough to overcame Hayes longevity?

I think you missed the last couple threads but I addressed this basically. Longevity and peak aren't competing ideas.

Peak matters bc in basketball the better the star the more likely the team to win, and that likelihod increases exponentially.

Longevity matters bc over a period of years a star raises the likelihood a team wins a title(s) additively.

Sometimes, one year (Walton) gives a franchise more of a chance than 5 years of someone else (Mitch Richmond?). Sometimes, longevity starts to give the franchise more of a chance than peak (Malone is the case among the elite since I think he has the worst peak of my top-12...although not by a huge amount.)

I have Hayes and Paul next to each other if you view my list (pg 12 main thread). I can understand going with Hayes bc I do adjust for era slightly and think the 70s are weak...but it's very close. As for peak v longevity, Paul's peak and awesome few years just make it close to Hayes sustained play. I have Hayes peak somewhere around 50th, ftr.