RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #68 (Alex English)

Post #1 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Mar 9, 2021 3:13 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. ??

Target stop-time will be around 10-11am EST on Thursday.

Spoiler:

Hal14 · Post #2 » by **Hal14** » Tue Mar 9, 2021 4:23 pm

Hal14 wrote:1. Alex English
2. Dominique Wilkins
3. Dennis Rodman

English barely gets the edge over Wilkins. Very close. But English with the advantage on shooting efficiency and slight edge on defense and passing barely gives him the nod over Wilkins.

Both Wilkins and English were extremely elite players throughout the 80s - English was the decade's leading scorer while Dominique had higher finishes in MVP voting. Both are right there in that next tier of great players from the 80s after Bird/Magic/Jordan. Both English and Wilkins were absolutely lethal scorers who also helped their team in other ways. Neither had great team success, but it's understandable given the highly competitive era with so many great teams that were stacked with better supporting casts than they had. If either guy carried their teams to the finals they would have been voted in way before now.

As for Rodman, apparently I'm higher on him than others. Rodman was:

-Top 5 rebounder of all time arguably the best
-Top 5 defender of all time - arguably the best
-In terms of running through a wall to make a play, going all out to help his team, hustle, diving on the floor for loose balls - he's also top 5 of all time in that, arguably the best
-Won 5 titles. Was a top 3 player on his team for 3 of those titles (96-98) and probably a top 3 player on the other 2 (89, 90)..many people even think he should have won finals MVP in 96.

To me, that's good enough to be a top 69 player of all time. Sure, you can say that he couldn't score and that he was a head case who at times caused team turmoil - but that's why he's here and not 20 spots higher.

Love him or hate him, you've got to respect that he was one of the greatest players of all time:

Watch on YouTube

Post #3 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Mar 9, 2021 6:02 pm

1. Alex English -- Versatility, consistency, and character put English over the likes of Dantley, Nique, Tmac, etc. English played many roles and always made his teams better no matter what role Denver played him in. He was a solid 35-30ppg scorer at above average efficiency for a full decade. In the 1980s he scored more points than Larry Bird, Dominique Wilkens, Adrian Dantley, Isiah Thomas, Moses Malone, or well, anyone. And he did it while generally guarding the better of the opponents starting forwards in the era of the great scoring forwards. From watching him, I have him as the only above average defender among the killer lineup of great scoring fowards of his era (Bird, Gervin, Nique, AD, King, Aquirre). One of the most underrated players in history. Also won numerous citizenship awards, one of the great people to play the game.

2. Bobby Jones, another English type player with super consistency and versatility though a defensive star instead of an offensive one, then maybe Parish. Note that Jones has more 1st team All-Defense teams than any other player in history with 11 (2 ABA). He was 1st All-Defense team every year of his career until his final one where he was 2nd team.

3. Giannis -- Highest prime left outside of Walton but more than 1.5 seasons as a star plus 1 as a reserve, doesn't have the multiple years of hurting his team due to salary/injury.

After Giannis, then Unseld, Mourning, Rodman, Thurmond, Carter, Parker, Nique, Moncrief, Hawkins. Those are subject to change and new players to be added. I don't have Walton on my top 100 despite his iconic status (and not sure about Hawkins or even Moncrief either).

Post #4 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Mar 9, 2021 6:09 pm

English v. Nique

Two of the greatest scorers of the 80s, both classy guys who stayed with one team for a decade.
English is the most efficient, shooting at a .550 ts% for his career, Nique is behind him at .536. Since the main value of each is their volume scoring, this seems a strong argument for English. On the other hand, Nique scored the most per 100 possessions at 34.5pts (though he was also the most frequently iso scorer rather than scoring in the flow of the offense), with English at 30.4. Note: Using the per 100 figure to avoid giving an advantage to English over Nique since English played in an extremely high pace system in DEN and Nique in a relatively low paced one in ATL.

In terms of playmaking, English a decent secondary playmaker at 5.1 assists per 100 possessions, and Wilkins not creating much for others at 3.5. Nique turned the ball over 3.5 times/100 possessions with English in the same neighborhood at 3.3. Rebounding gives the edge to Nique at 9.1 v. 7.7 to English.

In terms of versatility and a willingness to take on different roles to help the team, English has a strong case, at different times, he was the primary front court defensive stopper (next to Kiki Vandeweghe and Dan Issel, on an admittedly terrible defensive front court), a post up threat (same team), the primary outside shooter (later teams with Fat Lever and TR Dunn at guard), a point forward, an offball player, etc. Nique was always defined primarily as an iso scorer but he changed his game to incorporate a 3 point shot toward the end of his career which English never really added.

Playoff success is the one additional factor that frequently gets mentioned. English's numbers didn't drop at all in the playoffs, maybe because of his versatility. His teams had one WCF appearance and 4 times into the second round for the most playoff success of the 3. Nique is one of the great whose number drop the most precipitously in playoff competition; maybe because he tended to one particular style that could be gamed more, I don't know. He had ATL in the playoffs every year but two but only got out of the 1st round 3 times in the stacked East of his era.

I have it English over Wilkins based primarily on efficiency, consistency, and character. Nique has a definite advantage in recognition as one of the great dunkers while English would get a "quiet" 25-30; Nique also had possibly the greatest nickname in NBA history -- I think this translated into more accolades for the flashier player.

sansterre · Post #5 » by **sansterre** » Tue Mar 9, 2021 6:27 pm

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

Dutchball97 · Post #6 » by **Dutchball97** » Tue Mar 9, 2021 6:31 pm

1. Giannis Antetokounmpo - Not the best longevity as he's only 26 and needed a few seasons to grow into his own but at this point in the list I'd definitely argue that 4 elite seasons that include solid post-season play every one of those years is really good. We've already voted in players with similar longevity to that and Giannis' peak is nothing to scoff at. He just lacks that one play-off run that cements him as elite in the post-season to place him ahead of the likes of Arizin or AD in my book. That said I do think Giannis' perception suffers from the same thing as Harden and that's the post-season play generally not living up to the standards set by their insane regular season play even though they still perform really well in the play-offs. Giannis had a disappointing post-season last year but he still had a 31.3 PER, .238 WS/48 and 11.2 BPM over 9 games. Bud's schemes not holding up, Bledsoe starting and Middleton seemingly unable to make a shot when Giannis is on the floor with him are the things that I blame more for the Bucks second round exit than I do Giannis' performance.

2. Wes Unseld - I've mainly voted for players with high peaks but I find myself dabbling into longevity cases more around this part of the list. I've voted Parish and Hayes as well based on similar arguments. None of them might have peaked near MVP level but it's not like we're talking about roleplayers either. Unseld played at a high level for over a decade and especially his play-off impact stands out at this point. He has 4 very deep post-season runs in 71, 75, 77 and 78. In every single one of those years he consistently performed at a high level.

3. 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. I just think this is closer than a lot of people think already.

Vince Carter > Anfernee Hardaway > Alex English > James Worthy > Bobby Jones > Rasheed Wallace > Hal Greer > Tony Parker > Dominique Wilkins > Dennis Rodman > Bill Walton

Post #7 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Mar 9, 2021 6:36 pm

Transferred this quote from last thread as it's still on-topic here:

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Alex English was a better off ball player [than Wilkins] by a good amount. That is probably what would separate him from Dantley, Melo, Wilkins, etc.

The bolded is likely true [not sure about the "by a good amount"]. But I'll disagree that this is something that will separate him from Wilkins in value......because I would argue there are aspects of Nique's game [not showing in the boxscore] that make up for (or even exceed??) this difference.

Examples:
1) Wilkins was ahead of the curve in utilizing the 3pt line, making regular use of it by the very start of the 1990's...
In '90 he was a semi-respectable 32.2% on 2.3 3PA/game.
In '91 he was 34.1% [51.2% eFG%, which was +2.5% to league-avg] on 3.1 3PA/game.
In '93 he was 38.0% on 4.5 3PA/game: which would be respectable in terms of efficiency AND volume even by today's standards......in '93 ENTIRE TEAMS were averaging just 9.0 3PA PER FULL GAME [and making just 33.6%].

Being a credible 3pt threat, as we know, has a positive floor-spacing effect for teammates. Range is something English never really incorporated in his game; he rarely shot even as far as 20' from the hoop.

2) The "Iverson assist". Wilkins endeavored to get past the man guarding him in route to attacking the basket [or at least the paint area] to a much higher degree than English. My evidence for that suggestion is twofold: 1 - Eyetest. 2 - Look at the shooting data for his last two [completely washed up] seasons---->he STILL even at that stage had nearly 43% of his attempts coming within 3' of the hoop.

This type of attack frequently forced interior help to commit.....which then leaves someone like Willis or Rollins or Koncak or Levingston without a body on them when/if the shot missed.
The Hawks had some pretty elite offenses from '87-'91 [sometimes without a great offensive supporting cast on paper], and pretty consistently one of the things they were really good at [like top 5 in league, twice as high as 2nd] was offensive rebounding.

Now, some of that was Wilkins himself (who was a very good offensive rebounding SF); but I'm focusing on non-boxscore effects. In the same way that someone like Iverson made offensive rebounding just a little easier for his bigs, I think Wilkins did the same for his mates.

These are a couple of "hidden" ways in which he had a positive impact on his team's offense. I have some WOWY info to post, too, but I'll have to do so later.

HeartBreakKid wrote:Even if English isn't a stopper he's still considerably better on defense than Wilkins I would think.

Perhaps; I've just never been impressed by English on defense.
I don't necessarily doubt he was better than Wilkins here; it's just the margin I'm questioning.

To me, I'm wondering if it's not like comparing James Harden to Bojan Bogdanovic [obviously the gap there is much larger than with English/Wilkins]: Bojan is likely a better night-to-night defender.......but I don't think it's a factor that is moving the needle much in the comparison.

Post #8 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Mar 9, 2021 11:36 pm

1st vote: Wes Unseld
Solid [but not great] post defender and team defender (smart in his positioning, physical, and near-impossible to move if he didn't want to be moved; solid box-out big, too). Possible GOAT in screen-setting and outlet passing, as has been often stated. Efficient low-volume scorer, definitely one of the better passing bigs left on the table, and an offensive rebounding threat. Seemingly a model teammate and certainly one of the better intangible leader-types left on the table.

This company feels about right considering his full legacy.

2nd vote: Vince Carter
It does just feel [gut feeling] right for Carter to be somewhere very near McGrady and Iverson.
I'd like to find time to write more about him; sansterre and LA Bird already wrote some good stuff on him. Ultimately just a really nice all-around player: more than solid scorer in his prime, decent playmaking wing [though lesser than either McGrady or Iverson, imo], decent rebounding wing, decent [not great] defensive wing.
And obviously his longevity is pretty solid: not a terribly long prime, but a quite extended period of "use" in the league.

3rd vote: Dominique Wilkins
I'll try to bring in a pinch more in support of him later, if I have time.

For the record....
Among those with traction, I'm presently going with this order:
Unseld > Carter > Wilkins > Parker > Giannis > English > Sheed > Jones > Walton/Jokic (I need to think more about where I'd have Jokic in relation to Walton; both are outside my top 100 as of 2020, though, so unlikely to be ahead of many players who may come up in Condorcet for me)

HeartBreakKid · Post #9 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:13 am

Criteria

Spoiler:

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) Giannis Antetokounmpo - I can see why he isn't getting much traction as he's still young. Though he has 6 seasons of being a good player and 5/6 of them he was all-nba caliber I think. Two well deserved MVP's is nothing to scoff at and even though he is slammed for his playoff failures he still did make the conference finals. I am fairly convinced that his crazy ability to finish in the paint as well as have the handles to get into there produces so much gravity that if he played with another real star you wouldn't be able to just "stay back and let Giannis shoot". As he is now he still requires 3-4 guys jumping in the paint - what if you replaced Khris Middleton with Curry, Bryant, Durant, Pierce etc - these are all guys who were 2nd options or co-anchors of teams. Seems like a lot of players who do not have MVP caliber teammates are held to the same standards as guys with them which does not make sense to me. I can see why me picking Jokic would be controversial, but Giannis seems pretty primed for this type of competition - I don't think he is any less valuable than Anthony Davis, and I am still not sure how Davis winning a title with LBJ convinces people that he is a much better post season player than Giannis.

Unseld > R Wallace > Carter> Jones> English> Greer> Parker> Wilkins

Hal14 · Post #10 » by **Hal14** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 3:00 am

Dutchball97 wrote:1. Giannis Antetokounmpo - Not the best longevity as he's only 26 and needed a few seasons to grow into his own but at this point in the list I'd definitely argue that 4 elite seasons that include solid post-season play every one of those years is really good. We've already voted in players with similar longevity to that

We have?

Giannis has only played 6 seasons with 40+ games played and 25+ mins per game in the season.

Enlighten me - who have we voted in who has such weak longevity?

Odinn21 · Post #11 » by **Odinn21** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:49 am

68. Tony Parker
His peak is underrated, also how long his peak lasted is underrated. I'd personally pick 2013 as his peak but I definitely see someone going for 2009 which was only to be disrupted by injury in 2010 in the future. In 2009, he was in the top 10% percentile in impact numbers. In 2012 and 2013 he was in the very top 1%. He usually is considered as not so great impact player but he really was at his best. His prime duration beyond peak duration was also good. He had 9 seasons of actual prime with 4 seasons worthy of peak. Even before going into extended prime which I usually refer as just prime, he was a force for a decade and a half. Yeah, his overall longevity is worse than Parish without a doubt but I think edges going in his favour for peak and prime are more than that.
Some of us in here usually look at WS or VORP but in Parker's case, sheer numbers are more telling.
He's #10* in total points and #5 in total assists in the pro playoff history. It's very likely that Durant will surpass Parker for that #10 spot in 2021 playoffs but the point stands still. Parker is the only player in top 20 to make the list yet it's obvious that his peak/prime/longevity stack more than enough at this point in the list.
(*He's #9 in the NBA playoff history. Erving's ABA career.)

69. Wes Unseld
Well, like I keep saying I'm bigger on higher scoring thus better floor raisers but I think Unseld's combination of defense, rebounding and facilitating is tad better than McGrady's insane offensive output with considering the prime durations and the times they played in.

70. Rasheed Wallace
This is where it gets psychological. I also have that feeling of having Vince Carter close to McGrady and Iverson. But when I did ordering among the players with traction, McGrady and Iverson were yet to make the list and I had Sheed over Carter. I think that was the more logical decision, so I'm going to stick with it.
I'm big on Sheed's peak and prime. Arguably, they are not as good as Carter's. Carter had a very respective 8 season of 25+ ppg prime with good impact (he was in the top 5% in 14 year RAPM from '99 to '13). Though Sheed's impact was better with the tiniest edge (only 2 player between them). But Sheed's last 3 seasons in Detroit and that 1 season in Boston feel more valuable than what Carter added to his career after 2006-07 season.

HeartBreakKid · Post #12 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:06 am

Rasheed Wallace had a longer prime than people remember. I think because of Sheed's relatively low scoring in combination with the Blazers not being that relevant for alot of his stay there makes it seem like Rasheed Wallace existed only in 2000, 2004 and 2005.

He's not the volume scorer as a Carter or Wilkins but we're really exploring how good #2s can these guys be. Rasheed still put up 18-19 points per game in the early 2000s, that's Scottie Pippen numbers so he's no slouch. Defensively he is comparable to Scottie as well I think.

He was one of the first stretch bigs who shot 3s - there still wasn't that much emphasis on that type of play and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if he just stopped practicing them, but there is a good 3 year stretch where he legitimately shot well on decent volume. Making 1.5 3s on 36% is not even bad for a big today (that's what Al Horford does to put things in perspective), back then that was unicorn status.

It also felt like he could elevate a team. Like when he joined the Pistons it felt like they really kicked it up another gear. I thought that even when he was an old man the Celtics felt better with him hanging around, and even the 20 games or so with the ancient NYK Knicks it felt like he lifted their culture up in a positive way.

I guess what I am trying to say is that he's a pretty damn useful offensive player, and his defense kind of goes without saying. He doesn't have the glamor numbers though - modest rebounds, often low blocks per game (he did have a season where he got 1.8 which is pretty beastly, that's KG territory). I'm trying to think if a player like Vince Carter who is all around very good but not truly great at anything might be better than him for a contending team - my gut says no, as defense is incredibly scalable and they both have pretty portable offensive styles (obviously Carter is the better offensive player overall, by a good amount).

His skill set would be in large demand today, perhaps his defensive reputation might even be better if he played in today's game. It is still very good today, but there are still skeptics of how good Sheed's defense really was and perhaps because he played at the same time as Garnett and Duncan it might be seen as second rate.

It is worth noting that the Blazers usually had a solid defense and sometimes a top of the line one - and around the time he left they pretty much became a bad defense while the Pistons went from a very good defense to an all time great one. (and thus he became the "X-Factor" for a team that nearly won two titles in a row)

sansterre · Post #13 » by **sansterre** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:50 am

Rasheed's rankings on five of my ranking tools, of the 23 players that have been mentioned so far:

BackPicks CORP, 6th of 23
PIPM CORP, 3rd of 22
Win Shares CORP, 10th of 23
VORP CORP, 8th of 21
WOWYR, 3rd of 21

Box-score counting stats like 'Sheed (he shows up as above average at this point) but his biggest showings are in PIPM and WOWYR, both impact stats (one more than the other). In other words, metrics that focus on what a player does to help his team that doesn't show up in the box score think Rasheed is one of the very best players remaining.

I'll be honest, I kind of thought that this site would have more support for him. Was 'Sheed great at any one thing? Nope! His steals and blocks are fine, but neither of them jump off the page. And yet we *know* that his defense was excellent - it just show up in the box score. His offense wasn't efficient, but he spaced the floor and could carry a respectable part of the offense. But it's so clear that his contribution transcends the box score. Here are his AuRPMs starting in '97:

+3.6, +4.8, +7.0, +6.3, +4.6, +4.9, +5.7, +6.4, +3.2, +5.4, +3.9, +4.5, +3.7

Those are some really sweet numbers. To put it in rankings:

35th, 17th, 4th, 7th, 18th, 13th, 7th, 5th, 42nd, 13th, 22nd, 17th, 30th

A 4th, a 5th and two 7ths? That's pretty nuts. That may not sound impressive, but that means that besides Shaq, Duncan and KG, in those years 'Sheed was one of the very best players in the league.

Rasheed Wallace simply did tons of little things to help his team win. The '00 Blazers didn't jump off the page, but they were a butterfly fart from being NBA champions that year. The '04 Pistons went from being a very good team to be an overwhelming champion when they added 'Sheed.

The argument for Rasheed (besides the fact that his longevity is pretty good) is that he was good at so many things that his teams were always way better than you'd guess, and he was incredibly scalable. You know how Draymond Green is great, but the way we really know it is because of his impact metrics (because his box score stuff isn't as impressive)? Rasheed is very similar. Both did way more than their counting stats.

Post #14 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:55 am

How does Draymond show in your various stats?

sansterre · Post #15 » by **sansterre** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:53 pm

penbeast0 wrote:How does Draymond show in your various stats?

I don't run them until a player is asked about, so now I have to check.

Grump grump.

Post #16 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:02 pm

On Wilkins' impact [focus on offense] during his prime......

Atlanta Hawks rORtg and league rank during Nique’s prime
‘86: +0.7 rORTG (11th/23)
‘87: +4.3 rORTG (4th/23)
‘88: +3.3 rORTG (5th/23)
‘89: +4.4 rORTG (4th/25)
‘90: +4.9 rORTG (4th/27)
‘91: +3.0 rORTG (8th/27)
‘92: -0.9 rORTG (16th/27)***
***Important to note Nique missed 40 games this^^^ year. They were +0.8 rORTG in the 42 games he played, -2.6 rORTG in the 40 he missed.
‘93: +1.3 rORTG (10th/27)
‘94: +0.9 rORTG (12th/27)**
**Nique traded away late season, played 49 games for Hawks that season. They were a +3.3 rORTG before the trade, -1.5 rORTG after the trade. The Hawks were then a -1.7 rORTG in '95.

Below is his primary supporting cast in descending order of playing time for that 5-year stretch in which they were above +3.0 rORTG each year.....
'87: Kevin Willis, Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Tree Rollins, Jon Koncak
'88: Doc Rivers, Randy Wittman, Cliff Levingston, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb, John Battle
'89: [late prime/early post-prime] Moses Malone, Reggie Theus, Doc Rivers, Cliff Levingston, John Battle, Jon Koncak, Antoine Carr, Spud Webb
'90: Moses Malone (post-prime), Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Cliff Levingston, Doc Rivers, John Battle
'91: Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis, Spud Webb, Jon Koncak, Moses Malone (35 yrs old, very post-prime), John Battle

Dominique Wilkins with/without records in prime
‘86: 49-29 (.628) with, 1-3 (.250) without
‘87: 56-23 (.709) with, 1-2 (.333) without
‘88: 48-30 (.615) with, 2-2 (.500) without
‘89: 51-29 (.638) with, 1-1 (.500) without
‘90: 39-41 (.488) with, 2-0 without
‘91: 43-38 (.531) with, 0-1 without
‘92: 22-20 (.524) with, 16-24 (.400) without
‘93: 39-32 (.549) with, 4-7 (.364) without
‘94: 42-32 (.568) with, 4-5 (.444) without
TOTAL: 389-274 (.587)---on pace for 48.1 wins---with him; 31-45 (.408)---on pace for 33.5 wins---without him. Avg +14.7 wins added.

Post #17 » by **trex_8063** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:11 pm

Thru post #16:

Alex English - 2 (Hal14, penbeast0)
Vince Carter - 1 (sansterre)
Wes Unseld - 1 (trex_8063)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Tony Parker - 1 (Odinn21)
Giannis Antetokounmpo - 1 (Dutchball97)

About 26 hours left for this one. Definitely going to be some extensive Condorcet validation required if no additional votes come in. So everybody please make sure you've listed an order among all players listed above, at the very least.

Spoiler:

Joao Saraiva · Post #18 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 6:20 pm

Votes
Vince Carter
Dennis Rodman
Ben Wallace

I think Vince Carter has good longevity, good peak, adapted himself to lesser roles, was a great scorer, great outside threat too. He wasn't a good defender, but he's definitely among the Tracy McGrady/Iverson combo, since he has more longevity than them and he adapted better as his career progressed.

He was also the most spectacular player I've witnessed, I'm a big fan of him.

I think it makes sense to put Vince right here.

Right next
Giannis, Alex English, Jokic, Tony Parker, Unseld, Bill Walton

Owly · Post #19 » by **Owly** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:05 pm

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).

SeniorWalker · Post #20 » by **SeniorWalker** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:26 pm

I want to vote for Giannis but I feel that my usefulness or objectiveness this far in the thread is rather low.

My knowledge of basketball pre 80s is very limited and I don't feel I can do justice to the thread unless players I really know are up for votes.

I guess I'm only bringing this up because I haven't voted consistently, and because I really think Giannis should have already made it based on what he's already done.