2015 Anger General Greatest post-merger Players of All Time #24

[Robceltsfan]

I nominate Len Bias and Reggie Lewis.

[Deez]

I nominate Len Bias and Reggie Lewis.

umm...

[vcsgrizzfan]

How does Walton *obviously* rise above Steph Curry if we are just considering peak performance to the near exclusion of everything else?

Both have a MVP.
Both would have won a "playoff MVP" (if you find the Finals MVP vs. "Playoff MVP" in an unbalanced league meaningful).
Both won rings as a clear lead dog.
Both are legendarily good at something extremely important (shooting/scoring vs. rebounding/defense).
Both are well-rounded at their respective positions.
Nearly identical peak PER rankings (2nd for Walton vs. 3rd for Curry in a more expanded league).
Nearly identical peak BPM rankings (2nd for Walton vs. 2nd for Curry in a more expanded league).
Nearly identical peak VORP ranking (3rd for Walton vs. 1st for Curry in a more expanded league).

No, statistics and analytics aren't everything, and hardware certainly isn't everything, but when different pieces of information cluster around a common conclusion, it should at least hold your interest a bit.

Even within the "peak weighed super-duper heavily", it isn't clear to me why Walton would *obviously and clearly* rise to the top now, let alone be someone who should have already been picked.

The sense I get is that it is a bit of nostalgia combined with people mentally extrapolating a career "that could have been" for Walton, because he was so brilliant at his peak and for those guys, it's more fun to play "what if" than for more regular players (see almost any discussion about streetball legends that fall from grace).

Curry, given a relatively short amount of time, would be on this list. He didn't come out of the gates in the way Walton did, dominating immediately, but has become that guy.

Walton was unquestionably one of the best few players in the NBA for a few seasons. He was dominating. I'm not being nostalgic - I'm stating a fact.

How many guys that aren't on the list now have both a regular season MVP and finals MVP? That would be zero. And while sometimes an MVP or a finals MVP can be a little bit of the "first among equals", such as with Billups FMVP in 2004 which should have gone to Ben Wallace, that was certainly not the case with Bill. His teams were generally mediocre without him.

In his two MVP seasons, one with the MVP and one with the finals MVP, his teams went 48-10 and 44-21 when he played. They went 10-14 and 5-12 in the games he didn't play. The winning percentage in combination went from 92-31 to 15-26. I'm not sure how many guys in the history of the NBA could be said to be that impactful when they played. Do you really think that Seattle beats the Blazers and goes on to the finals in 1978 if Bill is healthy and playing in that series? I sure as hell don't. I think in all likelihood Bill has two finals MVPs if he doesn't get hurt. I know its iffa, coulda, woulda, but Bill at that point was that impactful. I also don't think the Celts win their title in 1986 without him. While he was reduced to limited minutes obviously by then, they don't beat the Hakeem and Sampson Rockets without him. He won the 6th man of the year award that season and was clearly impactful despite limited playing time.

We are now in the realm of guys who generally just aren't that impactful in the grand scheme of things with some exceptions like Durant and Curry that you just brought up. The guys we are talking about now generally never had the ability to elevate teams to great things. Without question, Bill could do that and did that. We can value things differently and stats differently, but ultimately the game is played to determine who wins, and there is no one on the list now that impacted winning the way Bill did. I know it was for a very short period, but at this point in the proceedings, it's good enough for me.

[876Stephen]

Durant easy. I'd put Kidd and Iverson ahead of Nique and Gervin.

[Bush4Ever]

Curry, given a relatively short amount of time, would be on this list. He didn't come out of the gates in the way Walton did, dominating immediately, but has become that guy.

Why does the order of events matter on a career front when it comes to tallying up accomplishment?

This is sort of what I mean by extrapolating. I think people are mentally extrapolating a traditional career arc for Walton, instead of acknowledging that Walton had an amazing start *and* a disasterous finish (more or less-compared to the average superstar-type player at this level).

Walton was unquestionably one of the best few players in the NBA for a few seasons. He was dominating. I'm not being nostalgic - I'm stating a fact.

Totally agree. But so did Curry last season (the raw stats, advanced analytics, and even winning/team dominance all point to that idea). I don't see that as a point of *distinction* between them.

How many guys that aren't on the list now have both a regular season MVP and finals MVP? That would be zero. And while sometimes an MVP or a finals MVP can be a little bit of the "first among equals", such as with Billups FMVP in 2004 which should have gone to Ben Wallace, that was certainly not the case with Bill. His teams were generally mediocre without him.

Like I said, the value of Finals MVP vs. "Playoff Performance" becomes less and less the more and more unbalanced the league becomes.

Personally, my heuristic is "on the whole, how important was this guy compared to his teammates". You can break that down regular season/playoffs or whatever, but both Walton and Curry were unquestionably the best player/lead dog.

In terms of their respective teams being mediocre without them, that is addressed in a large way by BPM, where they had essentially identical peak performance. Consider that Curry's OPM (offensive plus/minus) was *almost exactly on par* with Jordan's *peak* seasons. His shooting and increasingly skilled ball-handling is a *huge* boon, just like Walton's defense/rebounding and passing for a big were.

In his two MVP seasons, one with the MVP and one with the finals MVP, his teams went 48-10 and 44-21 when he played. They went 10-14 and 5-12 in the games he didn't play. The winning percentage in combination went from 92-31 to 15-26. I'm not sure how many guys in the history of the NBA could be said to be that impactful when they played. Do you really think that Seattle beats the Blazers and goes on to the finals in 1978 if Bill is healthy and playing in that series? I sure as hell don't. I think in all likelihood Bill has two finals MVPs if he doesn't get hurt. I know its iffa, coulda, woulda, but Bill at that point was that impactful. I also don't think the Celts win their title in 1986 without him. While he was reduced to limited minutes obviously by then, they don't beat the Hakeem and Sampson Rockets without him. He won the 6th man of the year award that season and was clearly impactful despite limited playing time.

Not to get too stat-wonky, but I think the main difference here is that you are looking at specific discrete points in time and largely evaluating based on a discrete classification (i.e.-- winning vs. losing) to get an estimate of value, whereas I'm using more of a population and continuous approach.

For example, if player A had a +6 within game 1 in a two point loss vs. a +6 within game 2 in a three point win, I would say their relative contribution to winning was the same in both games, whereas you would not.

I'm actually not *overly* familiar with the mid-late 70s NBA like I am for other eras. It was kind of a dark period. But yes, from what I know, I don't think the Blazers win those series without Walton. No argument there. I *do* think however the 1986 Celtics would have probably still won, if only because they matched up way better against Houston than the Lakers of that time.

We are now in the realm of guys who generally just aren't that impactful in the grand scheme of things with some exceptions like Durant and Curry that you just brought up. The guys we are talking about now generally never had the ability to elevate teams to great things. Without question, Bill could do that and did that. We can value things differently and stats differently, but ultimately the game is played to determine who wins, and there is no one on the list now that impacted winning the way Bill did. I know it was for a very short period, but at this point in the proceedings, it's good enough for me.

I just don't see the evidence that his peak overall contribution to winning was radically different than Curry's (who I am using as an example only because he's probably the closest match now in terms of combing peak/tenure/winning---I don't think Curry should be voted in either).

In the Parish vs. McHale thing in the other thread, I said I think the source of the miscalibration was not appreciating the magnitude of difference between them off the boards. In this case, I think it's undervaluing just how magnificent Curry's shooting/scoring was this past season.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The 1978 Blazers were arguably a better team than the 1977 version. They were 50 - 10 when Walton got injured. They lost in the 1st round of the playoffs to Seattle after Walton reinjured himself in Game 2.

Walton sat out the next season... but not because of injury. He thought the Blazers were unethical and incompetent treating players' injuries, so he refused to play. Imagine the drama and scandal something like that would produce today.

[Deez]

The 1978 Blazers were arguably a better team than the 1977 version. They were 50 - 10 when Walton got injured. They lost in the 1st round of the playoffs to Seattle after Walton reinjured himself in Game 2.

Walton sat out the next season... but not because of injury. He thought the Blazers were unethical and incompetent treating players' injuries, so he refused to play. Imagine the drama and scandal something like that would produce today.

Based on his all around stats and the very short amount of time he played I really can't see how he should be on this list. It boggles my mind.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The 1978 Blazers were arguably a better team than the 1977 version. They were 50 - 10 when Walton got injured. They lost in the 1st round of the playoffs to Seattle after Walton reinjured himself in Game 2.

Walton sat out the next season... but not because of injury. He thought the Blazers were unethical and incompetent treating players' injuries, so he refused to play. Imagine the drama and scandal something like that would produce today.

Based on his all around stats and the very short amount of time he played I really can't see how he should be on this list. It boggles my mind.

Run with your opinion, I really don't care what you think. I haven't been impressed by your takes in the past.

I'm not saying Walton deserves this spot... at all. I'm just shedding light on what was a really odd, glorious, heartbreaking and relatively brief career.

For the record... Walton was a very good all-around player. He could score. Rebound very well. Pass. Block shots. Et al. In fact, we hear that his two greatest assets might have been his defense and his unselfishness and doing whatever the team needed in order to win.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Curry, given a relatively short amount of time, would be on this list. He didn't come out of the gates in the way Walton did, dominating immediately, but has become that guy.

Why does the order of events matter on a career front when it comes to tallying up accomplishment?

This is sort of what I mean by extrapolating. I think people are mentally extrapolating a traditional career arc for Walton, instead of acknowledging that Walton had an amazing start *and* a disasterous finish (more or less-compared to the average superstar-type player at this level).

Walton was unquestionably one of the best few players in the NBA for a few seasons. He was dominating. I'm not being nostalgic - I'm stating a fact.

Totally agree. But so did Curry last season (the raw stats, advanced analytics, and even winning/team dominance all point to that idea). I don't see that as a point of *distinction* between them.

How many guys that aren't on the list now have both a regular season MVP and finals MVP? That would be zero. And while sometimes an MVP or a finals MVP can be a little bit of the "first among equals", such as with Billups FMVP in 2004 which should have gone to Ben Wallace, that was certainly not the case with Bill. His teams were generally mediocre without him.

Like I said, the value of Finals MVP vs. "Playoff Performance" becomes less and less the more and more unbalanced the league becomes.

Personally, my heuristic is "on the whole, how important was this guy compared to his teammates". You can break that down regular season/playoffs or whatever, but both Walton and Curry were unquestionably the best player/lead dog.

In terms of their respective teams being mediocre without them, that is addressed in a large way by BPM, where they had essentially identical peak performance. Consider that Curry's OPM (offensive plus/minus) was *almost exactly on par* with Jordan's *peak* seasons. His shooting and increasingly skilled ball-handling is a *huge* boon, just like Walton's defense/rebounding and passing for a big were.

In his two MVP seasons, one with the MVP and one with the finals MVP, his teams went 48-10 and 44-21 when he played. They went 10-14 and 5-12 in the games he didn't play. The winning percentage in combination went from 92-31 to 15-26. I'm not sure how many guys in the history of the NBA could be said to be that impactful when they played. Do you really think that Seattle beats the Blazers and goes on to the finals in 1978 if Bill is healthy and playing in that series? I sure as hell don't. I think in all likelihood Bill has two finals MVPs if he doesn't get hurt. I know its iffa, coulda, woulda, but Bill at that point was that impactful. I also don't think the Celts win their title in 1986 without him. While he was reduced to limited minutes obviously by then, they don't beat the Hakeem and Sampson Rockets without him. He won the 6th man of the year award that season and was clearly impactful despite limited playing time.

Not to get too stat-wonky, but I think the main difference here is that you are looking at specific discrete points in time and largely evaluating based on a discrete classification (i.e.-- winning vs. losing) to get an estimate of value, whereas I'm using more of a population and continuous approach.

For example, if player A had a +6 within game 1 in a two point loss vs. a +6 within game 2 in a three point win, I would say their relative contribution to winning was the same in both games, whereas you would not.

I'm actually not *overly* familiar with the mid-late 70s NBA like I am for other eras. It was kind of a dark period. But yes, from what I know, I don't think the Blazers win those series without Walton. No argument there. I *do* think however the 1986 Celtics would have probably still won, if only because they matched up way better against Houston than the Lakers of that time.

We are now in the realm of guys who generally just aren't that impactful in the grand scheme of things with some exceptions like Durant and Curry that you just brought up. The guys we are talking about now generally never had the ability to elevate teams to great things. Without question, Bill could do that and did that. We can value things differently and stats differently, but ultimately the game is played to determine who wins, and there is no one on the list now that impacted winning the way Bill did. I know it was for a very short period, but at this point in the proceedings, it's good enough for me.

I just don't see the evidence that his peak overall contribution to winning was radically different than Curry's (who I am using as an example only because he's probably the closest match now in terms of combing peak/tenure/winning---I don't think Curry should be voted in either).

In the Parish vs. McHale thing in the other thread, I said I think the source of the miscalibration was not appreciating the magnitude of difference between them off the boards. In this case, I think it's undervaluing just how magnificent Curry's shooting/scoring was this past season.

I'd be far more likely to support a vote for Curry than for many others being considered here, essentially for the same reasons I think Walton should be in already. I do believe Walton had more impact on the Blazers winning than Curry had on GSW winning, in the sense that I believe the Blazers were shitty without Walton and the Warriors just mediocre without Curry, although it's splitting hairs. At the end of the day, neither teams wins shit without them. We will agree to disagree on the 1986 Celtics.

[Deez]

The 1978 Blazers were arguably a better team than the 1977 version. They were 50 - 10 when Walton got injured. They lost in the 1st round of the playoffs to Seattle after Walton reinjured himself in Game 2.

Walton sat out the next season... but not because of injury. He thought the Blazers were unethical and incompetent treating players' injuries, so he refused to play. Imagine the drama and scandal something like that would produce today.

Based on his all around stats and the very short amount of time he played I really can't see how he should be on this list. It boggles my mind.

Run with your opinion, I really don't care what you think. I haven't been impressed by your takes in the past.

I'm not saying Walton deserves this spot... at all. I'm just shedding light on what was a really odd, glorious, heartbreaking and relatively brief career.

For the record... Walton was a very good all-around player. He could score. Rebound very well. Pass. Block shots. Et al. In fact, we hear that his two greatest assets might have been his defense and his unselfishness and doing whatever the team needed in order to win.

I love how we nit pick what stats/accomplishments or whatever we use for each round. This guy only scored 10 ppg, he shouldn't be on the list, but he has 3 rings. This dude average 28/10 but has no rings. He doesn't deserve to be on. Walton may be a good all around player and yes the ring is what should single him out but without that he's still just a 13 ppg score with defense.

[Bush4Ever]

Anyway, good discussions.

Even if the people who disagree with me are wrong about everything*, it's been better than most.

*I'm joking.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Based on his all around stats and the very short amount of time he played I really can't see how he should be on this list. It boggles my mind.

Run with your opinion, I really don't care what you think. I haven't been impressed by your takes in the past.

I'm not saying Walton deserves this spot... at all. I'm just shedding light on what was a really odd, glorious, heartbreaking and relatively brief career.

For the record... Walton was a very good all-around player. He could score. Rebound very well. Pass. Block shots. Et al. In fact, we hear that his two greatest assets might have been his defense and his unselfishness and doing whatever the team needed in order to win.

I love how we nit pick what stats/accomplishments or whatever we use for each round. This guy only scored 10 ppg, he shouldn't be on the list, but he has 3 rings. This dude average 28/10 but has no rings. He doesn't deserve to be on. Walton may be a good all around player and yes the ring is what should single him out but without that he's still just a 13 ppg score with defense.

You do realize only one poster here is championing for Walton, right?

And it isn't me...

[vcsgrizzfan]

Anyway, good discussions.

Even if the people who disagree with me are wrong about everything*, it's been better than most.

*I'm joking.

Deez agrees with you. Feel proud.

[elmouse03]

Run with your opinion, I really don't care what you think. I haven't been impressed by your takes in the past.

I'm not saying Walton deserves this spot... at all. I'm just shedding light on what was a really odd, glorious, heartbreaking and relatively brief career.

For the record... Walton was a very good all-around player. He could score. Rebound very well. Pass. Block shots. Et al. In fact, we hear that his two greatest assets might have been his defense and his unselfishness and doing whatever the team needed in order to win.

I love how we nit pick what stats/accomplishments or whatever we use for each round. This guy only scored 10 ppg, he shouldn't be on the list, but he has 3 rings. This dude average 28/10 but has no rings. He doesn't deserve to be on. Walton may be a good all around player and yes the ring is what should single him out but without that he's still just a 13 ppg score with defense.

You do realize only one poster here is championing for Walton, right?

And it isn't me...

Yeah we know you are picking your spot to put Rubio in the mix.

[Bush4Ever]

Walton was an extremely dominant defensive rebounder.

He basically led the league every year he played a full or nearly-full season.

I'm not going to repeat what Grizz and Abe siad, but it's almost more cruel to have glimpse at greatness and then have it yanked from you than to never have it all.

[elmouse03]

Walton was an extremely dominant defensive rebounder.

He basically led the league every year he played a full or nearly-full season.

I'm not going to repeat what Grizz and Abe siad, but it's almost more cruel to have glimpse at greatness and then have it yanked from you than to never have it all.

Walton did play in 81 games.....in 1985-86 as the 6th man of the year for the champion Celtics.

[Y2K]

Yes, I think Rob is right in the "very good" vs. "great" distinction. I think in general, the evidence shows that he wasn't great, because most great players in situations without talented teammates will single-handidly carry their team to the playoffs and usually win a bit here and there, even if they don't win a title. Outside of some brief flashes in a *miserable* East at the turn of the century, that didn't really happen at all.

But when the right situation came for him to win, he won to a meaningful degree. Even with the main players being somewhat past it, especially after the ring. One ring, and a fixed game away from two rings (:P).

His ring is also interesting to think about in that he was the clutch guy, the main offensive weapon in critical moments, but (IMO) wasn't the most important player to the team on net (KG). Usually those two things line up, but in that case it didn't.

I agree that Pierce's time is basically up now, although I think we are at a place where there is a cluster of 5-7 guys or so who are reasonable choices. I certainly don't see a reason to immediately throw the vote to Gervin/Nique or maybe even career-not-finished-still-ringless Durant (even if Durant is clearly superior peak to peak) without considering him.

I felt that KG should have gotten that FMVP as well. I don't think that his legacy would grow or that it was lessened due to not winning though.

Pierce's best statistical season saw his team finish 16 games below .500. He didn't make an all-nba team that year either if I recall correctly. It's things like such that turn people away before realizing that he was a very good, productive player.

[Deez]

Walton was an extremely dominant defensive rebounder.

He basically led the league every year he played a full or nearly-full season.

I'm not going to repeat what Grizz and Abe siad, but it's almost more cruel to have glimpse at greatness and then have it yanked from you than to never have it all.

So once roughly?

[Bush4Ever]

Walton was an extremely dominant defensive rebounder.

He basically led the league every year he played a full or nearly-full season.

I'm not going to repeat what Grizz and Abe siad, but it's almost more cruel to have glimpse at greatness and then have it yanked from you than to never have it all.

So once roughly?

Well, I think he led the league maybe 5 times or so. Not all of them were full seasons, but they were enough to draw a statistically reasonable sample from.

[Deez]

Walton was an extremely dominant defensive rebounder.

He basically led the league every year he played a full or nearly-full season.

I'm not going to repeat what Grizz and Abe siad, but it's almost more cruel to have glimpse at greatness and then have it yanked from you than to never have it all.

So once roughly?

Well, I think he led the league maybe 5 times or so. Not all of them were full seasons, but they were enough to draw a statistically reasonable sample from.

He played in a whopping 6 seasons where he played at least 50 games.