2015 Anger General Greatest post-merger Players of All Time #48

[rtiff68]

I would be willing to go Manu over Hill. Without sounding bitter, I don't get why Mullin has gained so much traction over players that have better resumes or were better players.

Everyone is giving rtiff a handjob.

I want to clarify that I am not insinuating that Mullin should not be in the conversation. I just fail to see, outside of one's slight bias, how that 5 year run of his should overtake English or even Manu.

First of all, I enjoy handjobs. Thanks to all.

Second of all-- to address Y2k's question directly-- the case for Mullin over Manu and English is as follows...

Manu: There's a ton of "shoulda, woulda, coulda" in taking Manu. If you're a person who believes he's a superstar who sacrificed big time numbers to be part of a winning team, then you could easily rank him higher than he is right now. If you only look at what they've actually done, Manu never consistently performed (as in, for at least a single season) at a superstar level. His best offensive season doesn't come anywhere close to touching Mullin or English's best 5-- in volume numbers OR efficiency.

Just to be clear: I don't consider it egregiously terrible to take Manu here, I just think that if you do you're leaning pretty heavily on "the eyeball test" ("what my eyes said he could have been") and "the ringz" argument.

English: When you look at both Mullin and English's peaks, English has a slight edge in volume per game numbers. That said, consider that English did not have deep range and Mullin was considered one of the best deep shooters in the game...which leads to Mullin having a fairly significant advantage in TS% (.594 versus .550). On top of that, Mullin also averaged 1 fewer TO per game. Their total per game numbers during their respective peaks were fairly close, but Mullin was more efficient and coughed it up less. In terms of advanced metrics, I've already said that peak Mullin had the edge in ORtg and WS, while peak English had the edge in PER.

Statistically, they're extremely close, but I'd take Mullin.

If we look beyond statistics, there's the fact that Mullin made 4 All NBA teams-- including an NBA 1st team, which English never made-- to English's 3, and the fact that Mullin was selected over guys like Reggie Miller (already on the list) for the original Dream Team, and he's the only member not yet on the list.

Once again, you can make a case for anyone listed here, but the case for Mullin isn't as weak and sentiment/handjob based as some here seem to be suggesting.

In conclusion, I Mullin.

[Y2K]

Everyone is giving rtiff a handjob.

I want to clarify that I am not insinuating that Mullin should not be in the conversation. I just fail to see, outside of one's slight bias, how that 5 year run of his should overtake English or even Manu.

First of all, I enjoy handjobs. Thanks to all.

Second of all-- to address Y2k's question directly-- the case for Mullin over Manu and English is as follows...

Manu: There's a ton of "shoulda, woulda, coulda" in taking Manu. If you're a person who believes he's a superstar who sacrificed big time numbers to be part of a winning team, then you could easily rank him higher than he is right now. If you only look at what they've actually done, Manu never consistently performed (as in, for at least a single season) at a superstar level. His best offensive season doesn't come anywhere close to touching Mullin or English's best 5-- in volume numbers OR efficiency.

Just to be clear: I don't consider it egregiously terrible to take Manu here, I just think that if you do you're leaning pretty heavily on "the eyeball test" ("what my eyes said he could have been") and "the ringz" argument.

English: When you look at both Mullin and English's peaks, English has a slight edge in volume per game numbers. That said, consider that English did not have deep range and Mullin was considered one of the best deep shooters in the game...which leads to Mullin having a fairly significant advantage in TS% (.594 versus .550). On top of that, Mullin also averaged 1 fewer TO per game. Their total per game numbers during their respective peaks were fairly close, but Mullin was more efficient and coughed it up less. In terms of advanced metrics, I've already said that peak Mullin had the edge in ORtg and WS, while peak English had the edge in PER.

Statistically, they're extremely close, but I'd take Mullin.

If we look beyond statistics, there's the fact that Mullin made 4 All NBA teams-- including an NBA 1st team, which English never made-- to English's 3, and the fact that Mullin was selected over guys like Reggie Miller (already on the list) for the original Dream Team, and he's the only member not yet on the list.

Once again, you can make a case for anyone listed here, but the case for Mullin isn't as weak and sentiment/handjob based as some here seem to be suggesting.

In conclusion, I Mullin.

[rtiff68]

I want to clarify that I am not insinuating that Mullin should not be in the conversation. I just fail to see, outside of one's slight bias, how that 5 year run of his should overtake English or even Manu.

First of all, I enjoy handjobs. Thanks to all.

Second of all-- to address Y2k's question directly-- the case for Mullin over Manu and English is as follows...

Manu: There's a ton of "shoulda, woulda, coulda" in taking Manu. If you're a person who believes he's a superstar who sacrificed big time numbers to be part of a winning team, then you could easily rank him higher than he is right now. If you only look at what they've actually done, Manu never consistently performed (as in, for at least a single season) at a superstar level. His best offensive season doesn't come anywhere close to touching Mullin or English's best 5-- in volume numbers OR efficiency.

Just to be clear: I don't consider it egregiously terrible to take Manu here, I just think that if you do you're leaning pretty heavily on "the eyeball test" ("what my eyes said he could have been") and "the ringz" argument.

English: When you look at both Mullin and English's peaks, English has a slight edge in volume per game numbers. That said, consider that English did not have deep range and Mullin was considered one of the best deep shooters in the game...which leads to Mullin having a fairly significant advantage in TS% (.594 versus .550). On top of that, Mullin also averaged 1 fewer TO per game. Their total per game numbers during their respective peaks were fairly close, but Mullin was more efficient and coughed it up less. In terms of advanced metrics, I've already said that peak Mullin had the edge in ORtg and WS, while peak English had the edge in PER.

Statistically, they're extremely close, but I'd take Mullin.

If we look beyond statistics, there's the fact that Mullin made 4 All NBA teams-- including an NBA 1st team, which English never made-- to English's 3, and the fact that Mullin was selected over guys like Reggie Miller (already on the list) for the original Dream Team, and he's the only member not yet on the list.

Once again, you can make a case for anyone listed here, but the case for Mullin isn't as weak and sentiment/handjob based as some here seem to be suggesting.

In conclusion, I Mullin.

Covered that base by disqualifying him from "counting" earlier in this thread.

[elmouse03]

I nominate Laettner to finish the dream team players on the list

[rtiff68]

I nominate Laettner to finish the dream team players on the list

Laettner to make the list over teammate Grant Hill?!?

[elmouse03]

I nominate Laettner to finish the dream team players on the list

Laettner to make the list over teammate Grant Hill?!?

[rtiff68]

Grant, overall, is the best player on the board. What he did pre-injury illustrates that. But it's like you said there simply isn't enough high-end longevity (for obvious reasons) and team success and it is very reasonable not to pick him at this point.

How many playoff GAMES, not series did he win pre-injury? Damn few. It's not be all obviously, but it is something that has to be considered.

I like Manu here. To me, he was incredibly valuable to the Spurs in the 2005 run and generally was the underrated of the big 3 with Parker the overrated one.

I know he didn't even start much of the time, but he had balls the size of grapefruits at key times for the Spurs. Extremely smart and his toughness is seriously underestimated.

I would be willing to go Manu over Hill. Without sounding bitter, I don't get why Mullin has gained so much traction over players that have better resumes or were better players.

The better resume thing we've already discussed-- it's mostly a wash/preference pick at this point.

...but I'll take you to task a bit on the "better player" comment. OF whom is still available, who was, in your opinion, clearly the better player? Keep in mind that Mullin is a recovering alcoholic, and a reason why his career wasn't longer was the fact that he went through recovery.

If people play the "what if" game with a guy like Manu, "what if" Mullin had played with a prime Duncan? If you look at the numbers Mullin put up on winning teams-- and compare them to what Manu did-- how good might Mullin have been had he played with a prime Tim Duncan? He was an unselfish player and a good passer (like Manu), but also a consistent volume scorer with efficiency...unlike Manu.

What if?

[Y2K]

First of all, I enjoy handjobs. Thanks to all.

Second of all-- to address Y2k's question directly-- the case for Mullin over Manu and English is as follows...

Manu: There's a ton of "shoulda, woulda, coulda" in taking Manu. If you're a person who believes he's a superstar who sacrificed big time numbers to be part of a winning team, then you could easily rank him higher than he is right now. If you only look at what they've actually done, Manu never consistently performed (as in, for at least a single season) at a superstar level. His best offensive season doesn't come anywhere close to touching Mullin or English's best 5-- in volume numbers OR efficiency.

Just to be clear: I don't consider it egregiously terrible to take Manu here, I just think that if you do you're leaning pretty heavily on "the eyeball test" ("what my eyes said he could have been") and "the ringz" argument.

English: When you look at both Mullin and English's peaks, English has a slight edge in volume per game numbers. That said, consider that English did not have deep range and Mullin was considered one of the best deep shooters in the game...which leads to Mullin having a fairly significant advantage in TS% (.594 versus .550). On top of that, Mullin also averaged 1 fewer TO per game. Their total per game numbers during their respective peaks were fairly close, but Mullin was more efficient and coughed it up less. In terms of advanced metrics, I've already said that peak Mullin had the edge in ORtg and WS, while peak English had the edge in PER.

Statistically, they're extremely close, but I'd take Mullin.

If we look beyond statistics, there's the fact that Mullin made 4 All NBA teams-- including an NBA 1st team, which English never made-- to English's 3, and the fact that Mullin was selected over guys like Reggie Miller (already on the list) for the original Dream Team, and he's the only member not yet on the list.

Once again, you can make a case for anyone listed here, but the case for Mullin isn't as weak and sentiment/handjob based as some here seem to be suggesting.

In conclusion, I Mullin.

Covered that base by disqualifying him from "counting" earlier in this thread.

[dwcmwa]

Yeah you gotta go Mully here, English I have just a tinge behind.

Grant Hill is very deserving as well because of his pure talent and what he accomplished before he hit Orlando.


The Run TMC teams were more successful than the Nuggets.

[Y2K]

Yeah you gotta go Mully here, English I have just a tinge behind.

Grant Hill is very deserving as well because of his pure talent and what he accomplished before he hit Orlando.


The Run TMC teams were more successful than the Nuggets.

They really weren't more successful.

[Y2K]

My thinking of English over Mullin is how he sustained a high level of play for double the time of Mullin. Since neither really had elite team success and the analytics favor both across the board, why doesn't English get the nod from non-Warriors fans?

[americaninfidel]

How many playoff GAMES, not series did he win pre-injury? Damn few. It's not be all obviously, but it is something that has to be considered.

I like Manu here. To me, he was incredibly valuable to the Spurs in the 2005 run and generally was the underrated of the big 3 with Parker the overrated one.

I know he didn't even start much of the time, but he had balls the size of grapefruits at key times for the Spurs. Extremely smart and his toughness is seriously underestimated.

I would be willing to go Manu over Hill. Without sounding bitter, I don't get why Mullin has gained so much traction over players that have better resumes or were better players.

The better resume thing we've already discussed-- it's mostly a wash/preference pick at this point.

...but I'll take you to task a bit on the "better player" comment. OF whom is still available, who was, in your opinion, clearly the better player? Keep in mind that Mullin is a recovering alcoholic, and a reason why his career wasn't longer was the fact that he went through recovery.

If people play the "what if" game with a guy like Manu, "what if" Mullin had played with a prime Duncan? If you look at the numbers Mullin put up on winning teams-- and compare them to what Manu did-- how good might Mullin have been had he played with a prime Tim Duncan? He was an unselfish player and a good passer (like Manu), but also a consistent volume scorer with efficiency...unlike Manu.

What if?

I guess you really do hate Argentines.

[Y2K]

I'm nominating Adrian Dantley And my vote is for Alex English.

[Y2K]

Voting for the round closes at 3 pm CST.