2015 Anger General Greatest post-merger Players of All Time #29

[Y2K]

The results are in. George Gervin was vote as the #28 greatest post-merger player of all-time.

Each thread will be stickied to the general board until the given round is over. Nominations during this round are open. In the event that more than 2 players receive nominations, we will vote on which TWO will be added to the ballot in round 30.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Tim Duncan
3. Earvin Magic Johnson
4. Larry Bird
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
7. Kobe Bryant
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Lebron James
10. Moses Malone
11. Kevin Garnett
12. David Robinson
13. Dirk Nowitzki
14. Karl Malone
15. Dwyane Wade
16. Julius Erving
17. Charles Barkley
18. Scottie Pippen
19. Isiah Thomas
20. John Stockton
21. Patrick Ewing
22. Clyde Drexler
23. Steve Nash
24. Kevin McHale
25. Kevin Durant
26. Gary Payton
27. Jason Kidd
28. George Gervin

Begin by casting your vote for #29 from these candidates:


Alonzo Mourning - 4

Chris Paul - 6

Dwight Howard -

Allen Iverson - 1


Total Votes: 11

[PhutureDynasty]

Mourning.

[Bush4Ever]

Very tough choice here.

I was originally going to vote for Howard, but I'm going to officially vote for Chris Paul.

Howard has advanced deeper into the playoffs, and despite his career being a disappoinment, indeed the top center in the league for a pretty fair stretch, with monster rebounding and defense.

But Chris Paul was roughly as dominant compared to his peers at PG, and is a level or two above Dwight in terms of advanced analytics. I don't think Howard has enough in other areas to cancel out that huge difference.

Consider that Howard has played 809 games and has 106.7 win shares. (.132 per game).
Paul has played 699 games but racked up 131.3 win shares (.188 per game). That's more than 40 percent greater than Howard on a per game basis.

Paul also runs away with it in VORP, BPM, and PER rankings, etc...

[Robceltsfan]

CP3

[AbeVigodaLive]

Fine. Chris Paul.

Nominate Bill Walton. He's ready to enter into the discussion now.

[Robceltsfan]

I nominate 10-time all-star, 4-time All-NBA selection and Finals MVP......Paul Pierce.

26,000 points
7,300 rebounds
4,600 assists

7-year peak of 24.8/6.7/4.1. Career PER of 20.1 (which is really impressive for anyone who has put in that many years of service (17)).

149.1 Win Shares. 62.0 career VORP.

[Deez]

I'll go Paul, Mourning does have a title but he declines in the playoffs compared to regular season.

[Y2K]

Chris Paul is my vote. As nice of a run that Howard had in Orlando, it's been 3 years since he's been a true difference maker. He's only 29 years old. Paul is 30 and still kicking ass on a very high level With no signs of slowing down.

[Y2K]

Thoughts on Bill Walton?

[Deez]

Thoughts on Bill Walton?

Plenty ahead of him yet.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Thoughts on Bill Walton?

We're getting to the point where there aren't many players left who can come close to matching him at his peak as a player.

And closer to the point where the "is it better to vote for a good player for a long time or a great player for a short time"... where is that line? Is it with Paul Pierce? Or, will some people not be satisfied until Walton drops below guys like Reggie Miller?

[elmouse03]

I truly don't know who to vote for here.

[Bush4Ever]

To me, Bill Walton had the highest peak of all the players still on board.

However, the rest of his career (minus a brief spark in 1986) was really meager.

We aren't really talking about a guy who had a really high MVP-level peak, and simply dropped back a level for the rest of his career (actually I think Howard is a good example of that).

We are talking about a guy who dropped to basically nothingness in terms of accomplishment (save 1986).

People can value peaks really highly, but if you value 1-2 year peaks so highly, you need to have been consistent with that across the board. For example:

Wilt probably had a higher 1-2 year peak than Russell (plus way, way, way, way more accomplishment in non-peak years than Walton had in his).

Kareem probably had a higher 1-2 year peak than Duncan.

Lebron probably had a higher 1-2 year peak than Bird who probably had a slightly higher 1-2 year peak than Magic.

Shaq certainly had a higher 1-2 year peak than Kobe.

And so on. You can weigh brief peak vs. best 7 year run vs. all years however you want to because it's subjective. But you need to be internally consistent with your weighting from round to round, or it confounds your rankings.

[AbeVigodaLive]

To me, Bill Walton had the highest peak of all the players still on board.

However, the rest of his career (minus a brief spark in 1986) was really meager.

We aren't really talking about a guy who had a really high MVP-level peak, and simply dropped back a level for the rest of his career (actually I think Howard is a good example of that).

We are talking about a guy who dropped to basically nothingness in terms of accomplishment (save 1986).

People can value peaks really highly, but if you value 1-2 year peaks so highly, you need to have been consistent with that across the board. For example:

Wilt probably had a higher 1-2 year peak than Russell (plus way, way, way, way more accomplishment in non-peak years than Walton had in his).

Kareem probably had a higher 1-2 year peak than Duncan.

Lebron probably had a higher 1-2 year peak than Bird who probably had a slightly higher 1-2 year peak than Magic.

Shaq certainly had a higher 1-2 year peak than Kobe.


And so on. You can weigh brief peak vs. best 7 year run vs. all years however you want to because it's subjective. But you need to be internally consistent with your weighting from round to round, or it confounds your rankings.

We're not discussing who's the most elite of the elite at this stage in the process. With Shaq and Kareem and LeBron and Bird... all of them are elite. So I used certain metrics to separate one elite guy from the next.

We're about to enter into the top 30+ players since the merger. We're about to start discussing #3 options on teams very soon. Heck, we already have floated their names around. The same metrics I used earlier don't apply... they can't. We're dealing with players (or will be soon) who were never actually elite... just good or very good. Differentiating them at this point is a different exercise. It has to be...

[Bush4Ever]

We're not discussing who's the most elite of the elite at this stage in the process. With Shaq and Kareem and LeBron and Bird... all of them are elite. So I used certain metrics to separate one elite guy from the next.

We're about to enter into the top 30+ players since the merger. We're about to start discussing #3 options on teams very soon. Heck, we already have floated their names around. The same metrics I used earlier don't apply... they can't. We're dealing with players (or will be soon) who were never actually elite... just good or very good. Differentiating them at this point is a different exercise. It has to be...

From a measurement perspective, that is simply unsound, because your criterion would automatically be changing, despite being grouped into a single common criterion on the list.

Whatever your weighting system is, it should be consistent from round to round.

There's a difference between:

1. Having the same weighting system round to round, and having scoring/discussion center around certain aspects more than others across the board at various points *as a function of* how deep you are on the list.

2. Weighing different elements differently across rounds.

For example, if you say "10 points for every MVP and 2 points for every all-nba selection", you should have a 10:2 ratio for the entire list, even though most everyone is going to be putting up a 0 in MVP-stuff at this stage of the game.

Saying "Walton > Howard because...peak despite have far less accomplishments in total" is fine in and of itself, but it simply can't be paired with "Kobe > Shaq", since Shaq had a significantly higher peak and was almost identical in total accomplishment to Kobe.

[Deez]

Walton averaged like 46 games played per season and played what 10 years? You wanna use longevity as a factor than he is way down on the list. He had 3 solid seasons. I don't see how he should be mentioned yet. We have plenty of guys who have done much more

[elmouse03]

Parish deserves a mention yet due to longevity? How about another 4 time DPOY in Mutombo or maybe Ben Wallace?

[AbeVigodaLive]

We're not discussing who's the most elite of the elite at this stage in the process. With Shaq and Kareem and LeBron and Bird... all of them are elite. So I used certain metrics to separate one elite guy from the next.

We're about to enter into the top 30+ players since the merger. We're about to start discussing #3 options on teams very soon. Heck, we already have floated their names around. The same metrics I used earlier don't apply... they can't. We're dealing with players (or will be soon) who were never actually elite... just good or very good. Differentiating them at this point is a different exercise. It has to be...

From a measurement perspective, that is simply unsound, because your criterion would automatically be changing, despite being grouped into a single common criterion on the list.

Whatever your weighting system is, it should be consistent from round to round.

There's a difference between:

1. Having the same weighting system round to round, and having scoring/discussion center around certain aspects more than others across the board at various points *as a function of* how deep you are on the list.

2. Weighing different elements differently across rounds.

For example, if you say "10 points for every MVP and 2 points for every all-nba selection", you should have a 10:2 ratio for the entire list, even though most everyone is going to be putting up a 0 in MVP-stuff at this stage of the game.

I think having one concrete grading system is too myopic when the subjects are changing so much.

Again, I'm no longer comparing elite players. I'm comparing good to great players... so I judge them entirely different... just as I would if I was comparing baseball players or favorite fruits or hot female celebrities right now.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Walton averaged like 46 games played per season and played what 10 years? You wanna use longevity as a factor than he is way down on the list. He had 3 solid seasons. I don't see how he should be mentioned yet. We have plenty of guys who have done much more

Interesting choice of the term "solid"...

We all have our own way of using it I guess. For example, I think Maurice Cheeks had 10 - 12 "solid" seasons.

[Deez]

Walton averaged like 46 games played per season and played what 10 years? You wanna use longevity as a factor than he is way down on the list. He had 3 solid seasons. I don't see how he should be mentioned yet. We have plenty of guys who have done much more

Interesting choice of the term "solid"...

We all have our own way of using it I guess. For example, I think Maurice Cheeks had 10 - 12 "solid" seasons.

Did he not have 3 solid seasons? I'm being generous too btw.