100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
How are your ratings calculated? Tough to make any sort of comments on these without having some idea of what went into the calculations.
-
AcrossTheCourt
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:56 am
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
Given how often Wilt is on top, I assume box score stats are hugely important. There's also very little information about basketball back then, so it's hard to use anything else. Turnovers weren't even tracked, which is crazy.
I also saw guys like Adrian Dantley high. Box score stat guys can be really deceiving. We just had a mini-revolution with +/-, where the point was guys can have impact beyond the limited box score and some guys actually have limited impact despite the pretty numbers. I don't know if there's any of that here.
And it's so hard to compare across eras because we have different amounts of information available.
I also saw guys like Adrian Dantley high. Box score stat guys can be really deceiving. We just had a mini-revolution with +/-, where the point was guys can have impact beyond the limited box score and some guys actually have limited impact despite the pretty numbers. I don't know if there's any of that here.
And it's so hard to compare across eras because we have different amounts of information available.
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
I also saw guys like Adrian Dantley high. Box score stat guys can be really deceiving... some guys actually have limited impact despite the pretty numbers.
what specifically are you trying to say about dantley here?...
what specifically are you trying to say about dantley here?...
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
For player raw ratings, I used what I label an adjusted PER to establish a base for rating each players Offensive Ability. I find the original PER lacking as a defensive metric, so I removed the defensive computations from the formula. I later take that adj PER and multiply it by TS%. I also utilize Offensive/Defensive WS, WS/48 * MVP Shares, All Defensive team selections: (1) = 1st team, (.5) = 2nd team, HOF factor. I researched hundreds of SI, and other periodicals and articles from the NBA's inception to reexamine player performance. For example, although Bob Cousy, has one of the highest DWS for a PG in the 50s, once I received enough sources stating that he was somewhat poor defensively, I deducted enough points from his defensive ability to reflect sub-par ratings in my reference base (compiled from the defensive data of other players).knarsu3 wrote:How are your ratings calculated? Tough to make any sort of comments on these without having some idea of what went into the calculations.
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
This is great to see. There are lots of tools only recently available, which may be incorporated into such lists.
I do these alltime rankings without regard to awards and accolades. Just stats, heavy on playoffs.
Here are some players not in your top 100 but in my top 75. Their shortcomings may include lack of titles or awards:
Some others that I've got ranked significantly higher (showing your rank, my rank) :Mostly moderns and bigs.
Guys you've got ranked a lot higher:Forgot to mention, I haven't updated thru this season. But I doubt Kobe or Bosh or Durant will have moved that much higher.
You're clearly including ABA numbers. Are they given just as much weight as NBA? For awards, even?
I do these alltime rankings without regard to awards and accolades. Just stats, heavy on playoffs.
Here are some players not in your top 100 but in my top 75. Their shortcomings may include lack of titles or awards:
Code: Select all
46 Pau Gasol
48 Shawn Kemp
53 Reggie Miller
55 Chauncey Billups
58 Manu Ginobili
63 Rasheed Wallace
65 Terry Cummings
68 Larry Nance
69 Vlade Divac
71 Kevin Johnson
74 Walt Bellamy
75 Shawn Marion
Code: Select all
Chris Webber 86 37
Karl Malone 11 5
Dan Issel 89 47
Vince Carter 92 49
Hakeem Olajuwon 13 7
Paul Pierce 53 30
Bob Lanier 67 38
Tracy McGrady 69 40
Scottie Pippen 34 20
John Stockton 40 24
Robert Parish 57 36
Jack Sikma 100 64
Kevin Garnett 17 11
Clyde Drexler 38 25
Guys you've got ranked a lot higher:
Code: Select all
Slater Martin 72 459
Bill Sharman 47 180
Willis Reed 36 122
Tiny Archibald 74 236
Connie Hawkins 60 191
Kevin Durant 46 127
Hal Greer 49 131
Gus Johnson 96 252
Spencer Haywood 56 143
Kobe Bryant 7 16
Paul Arizin 48 109
Mel Daniels 64 144
Chris Bosh 63 141
Ed Macauley 68 152
JoJo White 80 178
Sidney Moncrief 77 168
George Yardley 82 169
Lenny Wilkens 61 124
Dennis Rodman 93 188
Dave Bing 88 175
George Gervin 30 59
You're clearly including ABA numbers. Are they given just as much weight as NBA? For awards, even?
-
Neil Paine
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:18 am
- Location: Philadelphia
- Contact:
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
I don't want to speak for AcrossTheCourt here, but I think he's alluding to the old BackPicks research showing that, despite his rather incredible combination of usage and efficiency, Dantley didn't really seem to make his teams play better. Some of that is certainly defense, where Dantley's rep was never great, but it's also a matter of his teams' offenses playing below what you'd expect from a guy with his numbers.bchaikin wrote:I also saw guys like Adrian Dantley high. Box score stat guys can be really deceiving... some guys actually have limited impact despite the pretty numbers.
what specifically are you trying to say about dantley here?...
From 1980-86, Dantley had an insane run where he had an individual offensive rating of 120.6 (20 points above the NBA average!!!) while consuming 27.3% of possessions while on the court. That kind of production is at borderline Jordan/LeBron levels (albeit with a lower usage rate), so you'd expect teams with a player like that to at least have a good offense, if not a great one. Yet over that same 1980-86 span, Dantley's Jazz teams posted a collective offensive rating 1.6 points BELOW the league average.
How is that possible? Either Dantley's teammates were the worst collection of offensive talent ever assembled, or maybe, just maybe, it's possible that Dantley's incredible combo of efficiency and usage overstated his true offensive impact. Rickey Green was his most common teammate in terms of minutes -- he was hardly a horrible offensive talent (15.3 career PER, +0.2 career OASPM). Darrell Griffith was probably below-average offensively, but not by much. Same with Ben Poquette, Allan Bristow, Thurl Bailey. Yes, he played extensively with Jeff Wilkins and Mark Eaton, a couple of bad offensive players, but that supporting cast would not be horrible enough to lower an offense with a LeBron-esque talent to well-below-average levels.
The only conclusion you can draw is that Dantley's offensive impact was not as great as his combination of efficiency and usage would have you believe. And that, I think, is what specifically AcrossTheCourt was trying to say about Dantley here.
-
Neil Paine
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:18 am
- Location: Philadelphia
- Contact:
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
Btw, this was the BackPicks post that really opened a lot of eyes to Dantley's teams' paradoxically poor offensive performances during his prime. It also touches on some of the same issues w/r/t Wilt's impact during his statistically-dominant Warriors years.
-
AcrossTheCourt
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:56 am
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
Yes, thanks, and also Adrian Dantley changed teams a lot, and they never seemed to miss him. Detroit, for example, traded him to Dallas, and then won the title. Utah was a slightly below average team in 1986 and then traded him in the following season to Detroit for Tripucka and Kent Benson. The next season they were slightly above average. The Jazz were actually happy to kick him out: "The biggest benefit to us in the Adrian Dantley trade was addition by subtraction. We knew we had to get rid of him and we were never so happy to get rid of a guy in the history of the franchise." Addition by subtraction is an important term: it's also known as Braess' paradox. Although Dantley's offensive efficiency is high, he lowers or has no effect on his team's offensive efficiency. Basically, an individual's optimal level and a system-wide optical level are not one and the same. Dantley would, for example, hold the ball in his spot in the midrange area for a while surveying his chances at a high percentage shot and if he didn't like them, he'd just kick the ball out and let the offense suffer with a lot time now bled off the clock.
He has nice stats and all, but the effect on the team isn't a significant net positive.
So defense is partly subjective? Did you add a subjective offensive factor for stuff not found in the box score?
He has nice stats and all, but the effect on the team isn't a significant net positive.
So defense is partly subjective? Did you add a subjective offensive factor for stuff not found in the box score?
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
neil - you by chance read the comments section of that post? please do, because this:
The "only" conclusion you can draw is that Dantley's offensive impact was not as great as his combination of efficiency and usage would have you believe.
is not the only conclusion one can draw, if one understands the numbers...
his rather incredible combination of usage and efficiency... From 1980-86, Dantley had an insane run where he had an individual offensive rating of 120.6 (20 points above the NBA average!!!) while consuming 27.3% of possessions while on the court. That kind of production is at borderline Jordan/LeBron levels (albeit with a lower usage rate),
yes - 29.6 pts/g on a 61.6% ScFG%, 2.75 pts/0ptposs, over 7 seasons (79-80 to 85-86) are insanely excellent offensive numbers over a very long period of time...
How is that possible? Either Dantley's teammates were the worst collection of offensive talent ever assembled
those 7 seasons his teammates pts/0ptposs on offense was 1.80 (dantley's was 2.75, with dantley the team was at 1.95), which is less than that of ALL other teams over that 7 year period (range of 1.85 - 2.13 pts/0ptposs)...
that supporting cast would not be horrible enough to lower an offense with a LeBron-esque talent to well-below-average levels.
again - without dantley's numbers, the jazz pts/0ptposs on offense those 7 seasons was worse than all other teams over that 7 year stretch...
Dantley didn't really seem to make his teams play better
with pts/0ptposs on offense worse than the rest of the entire league over a long 7 year period sans dantley, how well do you think they would have played in terms of a W-L record without an offensive player like dantley?...
maybe, just maybe, it's possible that Dantley's incredible combo of efficiency and usage overstated his true offensive impact
maybe, just maybe, the person who did this study doesn't understand - statistically - the impact of a player like dantley...
Although Dantley's offensive efficiency is high, he lowers or has no effect on his team's offensive efficiency.
let me get this straight - dantley puts up some of the best offensive numbers in terms of points scored and efficiency over a very long 7 year stretch (79-80 to 85-86) the league has ever seen, playing just 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes played but scoring 22% of their total points scored at outrageous offensive efficiency, and you say "...he lowers... his team's offensive efficiency..."?...
you're joking right? based on what statistical evidence?...
The "only" conclusion you can draw is that Dantley's offensive impact was not as great as his combination of efficiency and usage would have you believe.
is not the only conclusion one can draw, if one understands the numbers...
his rather incredible combination of usage and efficiency... From 1980-86, Dantley had an insane run where he had an individual offensive rating of 120.6 (20 points above the NBA average!!!) while consuming 27.3% of possessions while on the court. That kind of production is at borderline Jordan/LeBron levels (albeit with a lower usage rate),
yes - 29.6 pts/g on a 61.6% ScFG%, 2.75 pts/0ptposs, over 7 seasons (79-80 to 85-86) are insanely excellent offensive numbers over a very long period of time...
How is that possible? Either Dantley's teammates were the worst collection of offensive talent ever assembled
those 7 seasons his teammates pts/0ptposs on offense was 1.80 (dantley's was 2.75, with dantley the team was at 1.95), which is less than that of ALL other teams over that 7 year period (range of 1.85 - 2.13 pts/0ptposs)...
that supporting cast would not be horrible enough to lower an offense with a LeBron-esque talent to well-below-average levels.
again - without dantley's numbers, the jazz pts/0ptposs on offense those 7 seasons was worse than all other teams over that 7 year stretch...
Dantley didn't really seem to make his teams play better
with pts/0ptposs on offense worse than the rest of the entire league over a long 7 year period sans dantley, how well do you think they would have played in terms of a W-L record without an offensive player like dantley?...
maybe, just maybe, it's possible that Dantley's incredible combo of efficiency and usage overstated his true offensive impact
maybe, just maybe, the person who did this study doesn't understand - statistically - the impact of a player like dantley...
Although Dantley's offensive efficiency is high, he lowers or has no effect on his team's offensive efficiency.
let me get this straight - dantley puts up some of the best offensive numbers in terms of points scored and efficiency over a very long 7 year stretch (79-80 to 85-86) the league has ever seen, playing just 1/8 to 1/7 of the team's total minutes played but scoring 22% of their total points scored at outrageous offensive efficiency, and you say "...he lowers... his team's offensive efficiency..."?...
you're joking right? based on what statistical evidence?...
-
Neil Paine
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:18 am
- Location: Philadelphia
- Contact:
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
The problem with these kinds of arguments is that it's hard to find numbers that aren't merely tautological. For example: OF COURSE his teammates posted low individual efficiency numbers during the years in question -- we already established that Dantley's efficiency numbers were quite high, and his teams' overall efficiency was below-average. By definition, that means his teammates had very low individual efficiency numbers.
The question is, were they low because Dantley's teammates sucked? Or because Dantley was boosting his own numbers at the expense of his teammates?
I'm not above changing my opinion on this, so I looked at all the guys who played with Dantley on the Jazz during that 1980-86 period. Here they are sorted by (and w/ the overall average weighted by) the geometric mean of their minutes with and w/o AD:
On average, they played better without Dantley, but that number is also heavily skewed by Stockton and Malone, who blow everything up with their massive career minute totals. If you throw them out, the averages are still +1.0 PER and +.023 OWS48 without AD, but it also bears mentioning that the majority of the guys who played the most w/ AD out of that group played better on offense with him than without him:
So I'm beginning to re- re-think my position on Dantley. It's more complicated than either "Dantley's stats were great, therefore his teammates must suck!", or "Dantley made his teammates play worse!" Neither one of those extremes are actually true.
The question is, were they low because Dantley's teammates sucked? Or because Dantley was boosting his own numbers at the expense of his teammates?
I'm not above changing my opinion on this, so I looked at all the guys who played with Dantley on the Jazz during that 1980-86 period. Here they are sorted by (and w/ the overall average weighted by) the geometric mean of their minutes with and w/o AD:
Code: Select all
|-----w/ Dantley------| |----w/o Dantley------| |----Diff-----|
Player mp PER OWS48 mp PER OWS48 PER OWS48
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Stockton 3425 15.4 .052 44339 22.3 .151 +6.9 +.098
Mark Eaton 9031 12.5 -.022 16138 10.0 .002 -2.5 +.024
Ron Boone 5015 10.7 -.009 27376 16.2 .066 +5.5 +.075
Karl Malone 2475 13.7 -.046 52377 24.4 .133 +10.7 +.179
Rickey Green 14123 16.8 .070 9148 12.9 .029 -3.9 -.041
Thurl Bailey 6848 14.3 .027 18025 14.3 .030 +0.0 +.002
D. Griffith 13677 15.6 .008 7726 12.8 -.006 -2.8 -.014
Danny Schayes 5489 13.4 .034 16486 13.4 .059 +0.0 +.025
John Drew 3466 19.5 .068 18362 21.0 .105 +1.5 +.037
Brad Davis 3311 13.2 .061 18991 14.9 .096 +1.6 +.035
Ben Poquette 9186 13.4 .055 6577 11.4 .033 -1.9 -.022
Rich Kelley 3730 10.0 .007 13981 16.3 .044 +6.3 +.038
Allan Bristow 4305 15.8 .051 9854 14.1 .051 -1.7 -.000
Fred Roberts 3456 13.2 .050 11247 12.4 .048 -0.8 -.002
Wayne Cooper 1420 12.2 .016 18854 13.5 .024 +1.3 +.009
Bob Hansen 3097 9.8 -.002 8007 10.0 .023 +0.3 +.025
John Gianelli 1568 9.8 -.011 12082 12.0 .041 +2.2 +.052
Mack Calvin 772 14.5 .074 20821 17.5 .100 +3.0 +.025
Pete Maravich 522 12.4 -.046 23794 18.5 .063 +6.1 +.109
Bernard King 419 11.4 -.018 28998 19.3 .082 +7.9 +.100
Billy Paultz 370 5.0 -.084 30022 16.5 .060 +11.4 +.144
Tom Boswell 1816 14.0 .066 5230 13.6 .062 -0.4 -.004
Billy McKinney 1032 11.0 .036 8157 14.0 .066 +3.1 +.029
Bill Robinzine 651 11.3 -.049 10781 15.1 .041 +3.9 +.090
James Hardy 3923 11.7 .023 1456 10.7 .001 -0.9 -.022
Terry Furlow 1718 16.0 .052 3091 16.3 .049 +0.2 -.002
Jeff Wilkins 9482 10.7 -.006 522 6.7 -.021 -3.9 -.014
J. Whitehead 328 6.2 -.067 11500 12.2 .043 +6.0 +.110
Marc Iavaroni 345 9.7 .017 8026 7.8 -.014 -1.8 -.031
John Duren 1514 5.7 -.044 1433 8.2 .001 +2.5 +.045
Mel Bennett 598 9.2 -.024 3127 11.1 -.020 +1.9 +.004
Jeff Judkins 666 11.1 .038 2755 13.4 .056 +2.3 +.018
Carey Scurry 1168 11.9 -.015 1208 16.3 .032 +4.4 +.047
F. Williams 210 5.9 -.075 6396 18.3 .065 +12.3 +.141
Carl Nicks 1938 10.9 -.020 641 9.2 -.052 -1.7 -.032
Pace Mannion 877 11.2 .002 1248 8.2 -.023 -3.0 -.025
Steve Hayes 397 5.1 -.031 1899 9.1 .024 +4.0 +.055
John Brown 24 -0.5 -.279 10084 11.8 .045 +12.3 +.324
Robert Smith 73 9.6 .046 3045 11.0 .045 +1.5 -.001
Jerry Eaves 2622 12.1 .025 63 -0.4 -.090 -12.5 -.115
Jeff Cook 17 6.8 -.122 9680 10.9 .025 +4.1 +.146
J.J. Anderson 1922 12.3 .007 48 3.9 -.146 -8.4 -.152
Bobby Cattage 337 10.5 .010 185 9.8 -.016 -0.7 -.027
Kenny Natt 223 8.7 -.027 165 5.4 -.090 -3.3 -.063
Andre Wakefield 47 -2.0 -.191 586 4.9 -.100 +6.9 +.092
Sam Worthen 22 1.9 -.074 945 8.9 -.018 +6.9 +.056
Dick Miller 19 1.4 -.188 34 4.4 -.138 +3.0 +.050
Duck Williams 1794 8.6 -.025 0 0.0 .000 -8.6 +.025
Paul Dawkins 776 11.0 -.031 0 0.0 .000 -11.0 +.031
Rickey Williams 346 9.6 -.059 0 0.0 .000 -9.6 +.059
Howard Wood 342 12.0 .032 0 0.0 .000 -12.0 -.032
Brett Vroman 93 11.8 -.018 0 0.0 .000 -11.8 +.018
Greg Deane 48 4.5 -.059 0 0.0 .000 -4.5 +.059
Carl Kilpatrick 6 22.7 .154 0 0.0 .000 -22.7 -.154
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average +1.9 +.037
Code: Select all
|-----w/ Dantley------| |----w/o Dantley------| |----Diff-----|
Player mp PER OWS48 mp PER OWS48 PER OWS48
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rickey Green 14123 16.8 .070 9148 12.9 .029 -3.9 -.041
D. Griffith 13677 15.6 .008 7726 12.8 -.006 -2.8 -.014
Jeff Wilkins 9482 10.7 -.006 522 6.7 -.021 -3.9 -.014
Ben Poquette 9186 13.4 .055 6577 11.4 .033 -1.9 -.022
Mark Eaton 9031 12.5 -.022 16138 10.0 .002 -2.5 +.024
Thurl Bailey 6848 14.3 .027 18025 14.3 .030 +0.0 +.002
Danny Schayes 5489 13.4 .034 16486 13.4 .059 +0.0 +.025
Ron Boone 5015 10.7 -.009 27376 16.2 .066 +5.5 +.075
Allan Bristow 4305 15.8 .051 9854 14.1 .051 -1.7 -.000
James Hardy 3923 11.7 .023 1456 10.7 .001 -0.9 -.022-
AcrossTheCourt
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:56 am
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
Isn't age a major issue? Of course, if you play with young Stockton/Malone and then leave the team they'll "somehow" look a lot better without you. This also reminds me of the Carmelo debate when people looked at how guys played with and without Carmelo.
I'm not saying Dantley is definitely a negative player, but I really don't think he has much of a positive impact.
Part of the issue here is that we have an inclination to rewrite history based on stats. Dantley was not a respected player in his time and kept getting traded for a reason. He was an empty stats, isolation scorer, and people didn't seem to want to play with him. But years after people forgot about this and a new generation comes up, we go back and see these crazy efficient scoring seasons and assume this guy was a huge offensive force. Yet we should investigate the criticisms made about the player first to see what was really going on. It's like the Wilt/Russell debate. For a while, guys like Hollinger thought Russell was overrated because he didn't score well, but once people looked at the Celtics' defensive efficiency and how it matched up with Russell's career they began to consider Russell as an amazing defensive force.
I decided to look at how his teams did when he was in the game versus when he was out of the game:
1983 (PER of 24.4, 66.6 TS%, missed 60 games):
Without Dantley:
-3.7 point diff, -3.7 SRS
With Dantley:
-5.7 point diff, -5.7 SRS
(Yes, the SOS was 0 for both, and yes, I checked it.)
1985 (PER of 22, 61 TS%, missed 27 games):
Without Dantley:
-3.2 point diff, -3.1 SRS
With Dantley:
1.4 point diff, 1.0 SRS
1988 (PER of 19.9, 62 TS%, missed 13 games):
Without Dantley:
6.8 point diff, 7.4 SRS, 108.6 off eff, 101.5 def eff
With Dantley:
4.9 point diff, 5.1 SRS, 107.9 off eff, 106.0 def eff
I'd like to look at these seasons closer to see if anyone was injured for key stretches, but that's only one out of three seasons where the team got worse without Dantley. Only 1988 had full gamelogs for computing off/def efficiency. For that season, the offense barely got worse while the defense improved by a huge amount. But the 1983 numbers are incriminating. How does such a terrible team get worse when their 66 TS% star doesn't play?
I'll look at how his teams did before/after the trade later.
I'm not saying Dantley is definitely a negative player, but I really don't think he has much of a positive impact.
Part of the issue here is that we have an inclination to rewrite history based on stats. Dantley was not a respected player in his time and kept getting traded for a reason. He was an empty stats, isolation scorer, and people didn't seem to want to play with him. But years after people forgot about this and a new generation comes up, we go back and see these crazy efficient scoring seasons and assume this guy was a huge offensive force. Yet we should investigate the criticisms made about the player first to see what was really going on. It's like the Wilt/Russell debate. For a while, guys like Hollinger thought Russell was overrated because he didn't score well, but once people looked at the Celtics' defensive efficiency and how it matched up with Russell's career they began to consider Russell as an amazing defensive force.
I decided to look at how his teams did when he was in the game versus when he was out of the game:
1983 (PER of 24.4, 66.6 TS%, missed 60 games):
Without Dantley:
-3.7 point diff, -3.7 SRS
With Dantley:
-5.7 point diff, -5.7 SRS
(Yes, the SOS was 0 for both, and yes, I checked it.)
1985 (PER of 22, 61 TS%, missed 27 games):
Without Dantley:
-3.2 point diff, -3.1 SRS
With Dantley:
1.4 point diff, 1.0 SRS
1988 (PER of 19.9, 62 TS%, missed 13 games):
Without Dantley:
6.8 point diff, 7.4 SRS, 108.6 off eff, 101.5 def eff
With Dantley:
4.9 point diff, 5.1 SRS, 107.9 off eff, 106.0 def eff
I'd like to look at these seasons closer to see if anyone was injured for key stretches, but that's only one out of three seasons where the team got worse without Dantley. Only 1988 had full gamelogs for computing off/def efficiency. For that season, the offense barely got worse while the defense improved by a huge amount. But the 1983 numbers are incriminating. How does such a terrible team get worse when their 66 TS% star doesn't play?
I'll look at how his teams did before/after the trade later.
-
jbrocato23
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:49 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
One interesting but obviously not conclusive part of the Dantley story:
32-13 (.711) '89 Pistons replace Dantley (.613 TS% 23% USG) with Aguirre (.551 TS% 23% USG) via trade.
End the regular season 31-6 (.838), win the title losing only 2 games (both to Jordan's Bulls) in the playoffs, so 47-8 (.855) with Aguirre.
It's worth noting that Dumars missed 13 games with Dantley still on the team and none with Aguirre.
The previous two seasons Detroit won 54 (and lost in the finals to Magic's Lakers), and 52 (and lost in the ECF to Bird's Celtics) with Dantley and substantially the same roster. The following season they win 59 games and another title.
Obviously lots of explanations possible here, but interesting nonetheless.
32-13 (.711) '89 Pistons replace Dantley (.613 TS% 23% USG) with Aguirre (.551 TS% 23% USG) via trade.
End the regular season 31-6 (.838), win the title losing only 2 games (both to Jordan's Bulls) in the playoffs, so 47-8 (.855) with Aguirre.
It's worth noting that Dumars missed 13 games with Dantley still on the team and none with Aguirre.
The previous two seasons Detroit won 54 (and lost in the finals to Magic's Lakers), and 52 (and lost in the ECF to Bird's Celtics) with Dantley and substantially the same roster. The following season they win 59 games and another title.
Obviously lots of explanations possible here, but interesting nonetheless.
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
As in my previous post, I'm making reference to this list:
A number of players whose rankings are not notably different from mine :Players from all eras are represented, as are all positions.
Once I've updated, LeBron may well have passed Bird, or more.
It appears about 2/3 of the way down in the OP's link.Top 100 NBA players Career Portfolio EVAL (CPE)
a.) Ranking system that multiplies player raw ratings by a career % factor (inclduing AWARDS shares, AS appearances, HOF factor, ect.) to measure career results with raw potential.
A number of players whose rankings are not notably different from mine :
Code: Select all
Michael Jordan 1 1 Dave Cowens 41 45
Kareem AbdulJabbar 2 2 George Mikan 42 42
Wilt Chamberlain 3 3 Walt Frazier 45 50
Shaquille O'Neal 4 4 Bob McAdoo 55 56
LeBron James 9 10 Alonzo Mourning 62 60
Larry Bird 10 9 Neil Johnston 65 70
Julius Erving 12 13 Jerry Lucas 66 72
David Robinson 16 15 Tony Parker 73 73
Bob Pettit 20 21 Grant Hill 78 80
Dwyane Wade 25 27 Adrian Dantley 81 85
Patrick Ewing 26 23 Wes Unseld 84 81
Artis Gilmore 31 34 Dennis Johnson 90 96
Elvin Hayes 32 32 Carmelo Anthony 91 98
Dolph Schayes 33 31 Amare Stoudamire 95 84
Once I've updated, LeBron may well have passed Bird, or more.
Re: 100 Greatest NBA Players (The Ultimate List)
The 1983 Jazz were 9-14 (.391) when Dantley went down for the season; finishing 30-52, they were 21-38 (.356) without him. Just a couple of wins less than that .391 pace.
Dean Oliver used to say certain players will drag a team toward mediocrity. If it's a lousy team, that's good. If it's a team full of good players, it's not good.
Dean Oliver used to say certain players will drag a team toward mediocrity. If it's a lousy team, that's good. If it's a team full of good players, it's not good.
The 1989 Pistons were 54-15 (.783) with Dumars in the regular season, and 9-4 (.692) without him.It's worth noting that Dumars missed 13 games with Dantley still on the team and none with Aguirre.