Owly wrote:sansterre wrote:1. Vince Carter - I know, I know. I move on from one guy famous for scoring who never won anything onto a second guy famous for dunking who never won anything. I'm sorry. But, not kidding, I think Vince deserves some love. Instead of being voted in for his dunking (which I really could not care less about) let's appreciate this guy. We're talking a guy who is 15th all-time in minutes. From 2000-2007 he averaged a +5.1 OBPM over 21.6k minutes. But he's also got another 18k minutes averaging above a +2 OBPM. I'm not trying to brag about a +2 OBPM, but my point is that he was averaging +5 OBPM for almost a Bill-Sharman-career number of minutes, and then he went on to continue being a solid (but not great) offensive player for another wad of minutes comparable to Kawhi's entire career so far. That is *insane* levels of longevity. Let me put it another way: Carter played more career regular season minutes than Robert Parish. At his peak he was a solid volume scorer, with solid passing numbers and low turnovers. In fact, let's compare Vince (ages 23-28) to Kobe at the same ages:
Kobe: 33.0% Usage, 55.8% TS, 8.3% REB (3.5 OREB), 26.0% AST, 11.0% TO, +5.9 OBPM (450 games)
Vince: 30.7% Usage, 53.2% TS, 7.9% REB (5.2 OREB), 22.4% AST, 9.2% TO, +5.3 OBPM (410 games)
I'm not trying to say that Carter was Kobe-level during his peak. He wasn't. But he's in the same ballpark. And that's a massive credit, considering that a) we're in the mid-60s right now and b) Vince played another billion minutes after this. Let's check playoffs:
Kobe: 30.8% Usage, 52.5% TS, 6.9% REB (2.7 OREB), 22.6% AST, 11.1% TO, +4.6 OBPM
Vince: 29.9% Usage, 50.4% TS, 9.4% REB (7.6 OREB), 24.1% AST, 9.3% TO, +5.8 OBPM
"But," you may say, "that's all box-score metrics. His actual impact was worse, because we know that he was a selfish weasel." But his WOWYR, while not great, is a respectable +3.5 (and that's over an 11-year peak), which is about average for the players being mentioned now. And AuRPM actually quite likes him. From 2000 to 2017 he put up the following number of seasons in each range:
+5s: 4
+4s: 4
+3s: 3
+2s: 4
+1s: 2
None of those are bonkers seasons, but that is a buttload of career value. And his numbers don't appreciably slip in the playoffs. He had a strong (but not dominant peak), and then put up buckets (literally and figuratively) of value in the rest of his career. Let's give this guy some love.
2. Rasheed Wallace - I was shocked to have Rasheed jump leaps and bounds over everyone besides McGrady. Pretty much every metric really, really likes him. VORP (which punishes inefficient scoring) only has him slightly above average for this group, but he has the 3rd highest WSCORP and 2nd highest BPCorp. His PIPMCORP is really good, and his WOWYR of +6.0 is the highest of anyone remaining by a good margin (unless you're counting Bill Walton or Sidney Moncrief). So all the box-score driven metrics think fairly well of him, but the impact metrics think he's even better. Don't forget that he had a habit of showing up on teams that were way better than they seemingly should have been, from the '00 Blazers to the '04-05 Pistons. And also let's point out that the '04 Pistons switched from very good to murderous the second they acquired Rasheed. I'm very comfortable with him being here.
3. Larry Nance - Don't laugh. I know that nobody else has mentioned him (except for TRex bringing his name up to me). But I'm telling you, Larry Nance was considerably better than you think. You know that Bill James observation that people like players who do one thing historically well more than players who are quite good at everything (Lou Brock vs. Ron Santo is a good example - Santo was miles better, but Brock was more historically notable). Anyhow. This applies to Nance particularly. He was an athletic 6'10" power forward who played strong defense. He consistently posted strong defensive stats (Block% above 3.5 and Steal% above 1 for much of his career) and pretty much every metric we have (which are, in fairness, mostly box score driven) really like his defense. But he was no Hakeem or Ewing. He was merely an unusually good defending 4. He also rebounded well, averaging 13+% TRB for most of his career, but he was never great. Just quite good. Passing/ball control? His turnover were low for a big, and his assists were in the "not a liability, but definitely not strong" for a big. His scoring? His usage rate was rarely higher than 22%, and his PP75 were never much above 21-22%. But his efficiency was exceptional, posting seven different seasons with an rTS% above +5, and four above +6. You know who his statistical (not play style, just statistical) comp is? Kevin McHale.
McHale: 30.1k minutes, 22.4% usage, +6.7 rTS, 13.2% Reb, 8.1% Ast, 11.7% TO, 0.6% Stl, 3.2% Blk, +2.4 / +0.1 / +2.5
Nance: 30.7k minutes, 20.6% usage, +4.9 rTS, 13.6% Reb, 11.8% Ast, 11.3% TO, 1.4% Stl, 3.8% Blk, +2.3 / +1.4 / +3.6
They're comparable as rebounders. As passers Nance has a small edge. McHale is clearly the better scorer but Nance (according to box score metrics) was the notably better defender. Now, I'll be the first to admit that McHale's defense is underestimated by DBPM. I'm not trying to suggest that Nance was the better defender necessarily. But if I said "Picture McHale, slightly worse scorer, comparable defender and slightly better passer" . . . that's a pretty good player, right? And I'll stipulate that McHale's scoring took a jump in the postseason where Nance's didn't, but still. McHale got in a while ago. And it's worth mentioning that McHale's WOWYR numbers are fairly humdrum (+3.6 prime) compared to Nance's +5.1 prime.
So if Nance was so good, why is nobody talking about him? Because his teams never won. He was dominant on a series of decent Phoenix teams, and then they traded Nance and immediately took off. That may sound like a bad look for Nance but Phoenix got a haul for him. They basically got West and Corbin (their quality defensive bigs for the next five years) and Dan Majerle while replacing Nance with free agent Tom Chambers. Both teams got what they needed. And in Nance's twilight years (where he was still very good) his Cavs were quite good, breaking 50+ wins several times. But he was never on a team that made the Finals. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Nance was an excellent all-around player that both impact metrics (WOWYR) and box score metrics think very well of.
Carter > R.Wallace > Nance > B.Wallace > Grant > Marion > Unseld > Moncrief > Bosh > A.Hardaway > Parker > Issel > Giannis > Greer > Wilkins > Worthy > B.Jones > Walton > Rodman > Jokic > English > McAdoo
You might be underselling Nance. The assist percentage gap undersells the passing gap slightly with McHale's greater usage inflating his assist % slightly and McHale's better teammates to pass to and Nance's clearly superior A:T ratio also suggest Nance as the better passer. McHale's DBPM probably underrates him otoh because of the lesser passing, but there is also talk circa '89 of the accolades overrating him at that point (i.e. a bit of the Kobe ... he's and established good defender, lets vote him).
In the trade you note, you don't explicitly mention the about to explode KJ as the primary piece in addition to the 3 quality players (especially defensively) that come.
The Rick Barry books have him as a very good "pro" for intangibles too.
It's certainly not crazy, imo, I was mentioning him in the no. 60 thread back in '14 and he got in at 73 (81 in '17).
All good points.
I'm trying not to overplay it, because I honestly know pretty little about Nance besides what I was finding. But from my research he really looks like one of those standard "really good at most things, great at nothing, played for teams that never won anything" brand of underrated.
But when you're pushing a player you don't know very well it can get awkward to come on too strong, you know?
Either way, thanks for reassuring me that I'm not crazy.
]. I'll get the next up....
