APBRmetrics

Are those years Kirilenko’s peak? Injuries, and then maybe Sloan mishandling him (or at least their relationship not working) and his confidence seemingly going meant at an age when you might expect him to be peaking he had what by PER and WS/48 is his worst year (’07) and an average or worse year (‘08). By contrast he played just 5 playoff games in the three years that PER and WS/48 concur was his peak (03-05).

You're right about AK's actual peak seasons being when he was in his early 20s. Still, the experience of those years in the spotlight didn't translate into his doing well when his team was driving into the playoffs.

So in fact I use a 'cumulative' po/rs ratio; and an 'annual' one, in which each season's playoffs are compared to that season's rates. And Kirilenko's average 'annual' po/rs is better than .76 -- it's .83
So his normal RS-PO dropoff isn't 6x the norm for players of his caliber; it's been about 4x the norm. Still pretty serious.

Some of us are partial to a high peak value, some are partial to accumulated totals, and I suspect some are partial to sheer uniqueness. There are a lot of similar, multi-talented forwards in this 70-120 range, guys who rebound and put up points, so maybe none of them stand out especially: Cummings = Thorpe = Grant = Boozer, etc.

Kirilenko is the undisputed master of the 5x5, after all.
Rodman has his freakish average stat lines. Others without "traditional" skill sets have been named: Ben Wallace, most notably. Perhaps someone will give a write-in vote for Manute before long.

Wow, there's a lot of guys I wouldn't put in my top 300, let alone 100. I don't think I'll use a write-in, but I think we're missing the boat on guys like Reed, Pistol, Tiny, Bing, Greer, Lenny Wilkens, Pearl, Moncrief, Haywood, Dumars, King, Thompson, Hawkins, Fulks, Pollard, Gus Johnson, Gallatin, Goodrich, Pollard and it keeps going. There are guys on the choice list who wouldn't make the team with all these other guys I just mentioned. The Boozer's, Marion's, Odom's, Kirilenko's, Baron Davis's of the world seem more ordinary to me. I have Herb Williams at #348 and he would probably be in the middle of those guys.
There is some mention of defensive players like Rodman and Ben Wallace who were both strong defenders, but when it is a center who is a great defender with limited offensive skills we don't consider them great. Think of Tree Rollins and Mark Eaton. Neither is considered a great center (yes you haven't added a few truly great ones), but their teams could freelance a lot because of them. Dominique was average to below defensively, but Rollins made it easy for him. Eaton was the key to those Utah teams and covered for a lot of his teammates. Point being Rodman and Wallace belong with these two and guys like Silas and Oakley which are all still better than Boozer, Marion, Odom, Davis and Kirilenko (as are a hundred or more other guys).
So how about great defensive players who also had some solid offensive skills like Moncrief and Dumars?
Not sure why there is a lack of support for the 50's, 60's and 70's guys, but Moncrief is someone I'd take over guys already in like Payton, Miller, Drexler, Wade (probably).
Know what make Moncrief my write-in.

Mike G wrote:Kirilenko has one. Bobbo, you should have one more vote yet.

Of this group of (now) 51, AK has scored more points than Rodman or Walton.
He's 37th of 51 in rebounds, 38th in assists, 28th in steals, and 5th in blocks.
In the sum of all these things, he's ahead of only Walton, and he's 45th in minutes.

In 45 playoff games his PO/RS ratio is dead last, and by a good bit -- .76 -- next lowest is .82 (Cassell), and the median is .96

His playoff PER is 14.9, vs season PER of 19.0 -- ratio is .78
PO/RS WS/48 = .093/.155 = .60
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lan01.html

This isn't a fluke result of his having most playoff minutes outside his prime years. 68% of his playoff minutes are from '07 and '08, age 25-26. He just has never brought his A game to the postseason.

My defense of AK largely stems from his plus minus stuff that just isn't available for earlier generation players. We know, for example, AK was a standout defender - his contributions way exceed the boxscore. At his peak, as well, he was one of a few players who brought championship equity. That's top 100 value, to me.

My last vote goes to the "Squid", as well. I realize I cut my voting short in the case if I forgot someone. Def want him in there.

Not sure why there is a lack of support for the 50's, 60's and 70's guys, but Moncrief is someone I'd take over guys already in like Payton, Miller, Drexler, Wade (probably).
Know what make Moncrief my write-in.

Alright, Moncrief (the Squid) has 2 votes, Kirilenko has 1.
The current list of 50 offers 11 guys who came up in the '50s-60s and 11 from the '70s.
These 22 players have 33 votes.
The other 30 -- including 2 write-ins -- from 1980 and after, have 41 votes.
There's neither "lack of support" nor shortage of candidates from the early years.

... guys like Silas and Oakley which are all still better than Boozer, Marion, Odom, Davis and Kirilenko (as are a hundred or more other guys).

Yeah yeah, and Bill Bradley was so much better than Nowitzki
But seriously, Paul Silas was a 2-time allstar, once in Phx and one rather random season in Boston. Five times all-D. Great role player for a couple of champions.
Charles Oakley, in perhaps a tougher era, had one allstar game and 2 all-D teams.
Neither player was ever all-league.

Shawn Marion is a 4-time allstar and twice all-NBA. Baron Davis and Carlos Boozer have been allstar and all-NBA. I don't know if these facts affect anyone else's voting. They don't figure in to my list, and that's how I vote.
I would have to say they offer corroboration between their stats and the perception of the players at they time they're playing.

When you say the old timers were better, maybe tell us how they were better.
Joe Fulks made 30% of his shots. Explain how that is better than Boozer's 53%
Why are the Bulls paying Boozer $15 mill? That's 5 - 10 times what an "average" player gets.

Bobbofitos wrote:My defense of AK largely stems from his plus minus stuff that just isn't available for earlier generation players. We know, for example, AK was a standout defender - his contributions way exceed the boxscore. At his peak, as well, he was one of a few players who brought championship equity. That's top 100 value, to me.

Kirilenko has played some 23,000 RS minutes, ranking #327 in that column.
In this poll we're looking for players in the top 90-something. The #90-100 players in minutes are around 33,000 RS minutes.
Does it seem that Kirilenko's minutes are 50% more effective than the average of the (say) #70-326 most-played guys?

His peak (assuming it's passed) was, what, two and a half years? I guess there would be a non-zero chance that in that interval he might have hooked up with a champion -- except that he didn't.
His postseasons, as noted, are distinctly not in his favor. Even among those with as many minutes, he's very close to the bottom in po/rs.
Or what exactly does it mean that he "brought championship equity" ?

I have never seen a game with those guys and felt I am watching a great player, similar to Silas. They do some nice things, but I never felt they were great. Now Spencer Haywood or Gus Johnson or Connie Hawkins made me feel like I was watching greatness. Pete Maravich was amazing. David Thompson though briefly was great. Earl Monroe too. The current guys I feel that way about are already in and most cases a little too quick.

As for Boozer making ridiculous money, that is a sign of the times. An innings eater if you will. There is a guy on the Cubs who is a below 500 pitcher named Eddie Jackson who keeps getting big contracts to fill innings, but nothing more. Making the All Star game is not what it once was. Hal Greer was never All NBA 1st team, but I put him with some the greatest guards of all time; he just had the unfortunate timing of being around at the same time as Jerry and Oscar.

Baron Davis is good, but more of a Reggie Theus (not an insult) type who you have to live with his streakiness. Marion is my type of player, but I think he is being mentioned too early. I prefer Buck Williams, but he is hurt by the fact he played forever.

Another defensive center who doesn't get the respect he deserves is Bill Laimbeer. He was an extremely smart player. He had a way of making you play bad which is what the great ones like Russell and Thurmond always did.

There are good players today, but why is there such a rush to make them great. I think Chris Paul is already been placed in the top 75 and it seems it little too quick. I still don't think he's reached Nate Archibald yet. Dwight Howard? He's more similar to Rony Seikaly (again not an insult) than to the guys we've grouped him with. Slow down with these guys.

Need To Argue wrote:Baron Davis is good, but more of a Reggie Theus (not an insult) type who you have to live with his streakiness..

If you take the time to look at their numbers - http://bkref.com/tiny/byfWM
Davis looks like a slightly better player who did not play as many games. About the same minutes per game.
Scroll down and look at their playoff numbers, and Davis looks like a superstar vs Theus who was pretty much crap, in his limited (17 games) appearances.
Both players made 2 Allstar games.

Making the All Star game is not what it once was. ..

This is very true and significant. In the '50s and '60s, with 8 to 12 teams, every team got at least one player named to the Allstar game. Nowadays, only about half of teams are represented. Some great players are always omitted, while some mediocre Center occasionally gets in, due to a shortage at the position.

Marion is my type of player, but I think he is being mentioned too early. I prefer Buck Williams, but he is hurt by the fact he played forever.

I have to admit I don't get this. Why should anyone be "hurt by the fact he played forever" ? You mean his per-game averages came down? Here in Metrics, we don't need no steenkin' per game averages. We go per-minute, per-rebound and etc.
Around here, people suggested Marion was the "real" MVP for the Suns, when Nash was getting the award. After all, he played both ends.

Chris Paul is already been placed in the top 75 and it seems it little too quick. I still don't think he's reached Nate Archibald yet. Dwight Howard? He's more similar to Rony Seikaly (again not an insult) than to the guys we've grouped him with. Slow down with these guys.

Time waits for no man. Seikaly vs Howard: http://bkref.com/tiny/3DElT
Hmm, that's not especially close. If numbers don't do it for you, consider that Rony was never an allstar, and Dwight is 5 times all-NBA First team.
It's Wilt Chamberlain vs Walter Dukes.

It also seems that Chris Paul's career may in fact be greater than Nate Archibald's: http://bkref.com/tiny/58XxC
While Paul has only 2/3 of Nate's career minutes, he's already got more Win Shares (103 to 83).
Nate was a 6-time allstar and 5 time all-NBA (three 1st teams); Paul has identical mentions. It's a great comparison!
If Archibald doesn't get injured, then we get into the what-ifs. But this isn't really intended as a what-if poll. And I hope nobody is basing their votes on what they think a player will accomplish in the future.

Need To Argue wrote:Wow, there's a lot of guys I wouldn't put in my top 300, let alone 100. I don't think I'll use a write-in, but I think we're missing the boat on guys like Reed, Pistol, Tiny, Bing, Greer, Lenny Wilkens, Pearl, Moncrief, Haywood, Dumars, King, Thompson, Hawkins, Fulks, Pollard, Gus Johnson, Gallatin, Goodrich, Pollard and it keeps going. There are guys on the choice list who wouldn't make the team with all these other guys I just mentioned. The Boozer's, Marion's, Odom's, Kirilenko's, Baron Davis's of the world seem more ordinary to me. I have Herb Williams at #348 and he would probably be in the middle of those guys.
There is some mention of defensive players like Rodman and Ben Wallace who were both strong defenders, but when it is a center who is a great defender with limited offensive skills we don't consider them great. Think of Tree Rollins and Mark Eaton. Neither is considered a great center (yes you haven't added a few truly great ones), but their teams could freelance a lot because of them. Dominique was average to below defensively, but Rollins made it easy for him. Eaton was the key to those Utah teams and covered for a lot of his teammates. Point being Rodman and Wallace belong with these two and guys like Silas and Oakley which are all still better than Boozer, Marion, Odom, Davis and Kirilenko (as are a hundred or more other guys).
So how about great defensive players who also had some solid offensive skills like Moncrief and Dumars?
Not sure why there is a lack of support for the 50's, 60's and 70's guys, but Moncrief is someone I'd take over guys already in like Payton, Miller, Drexler, Wade (probably).
Know what make Moncrief my write-in.

Well it's done on careers so you're going to have to pick your battles with the older players.

Reed is hurt by the fact he had only five really good years (note Frazier has now long been in, in significant part because he played well for longer, its not just an era thing).

Pistol, Bing, Pearl, Thompson and Goodrich. How many lived up to their potential. I won't break them down one by one but either they
a) missed too many shots
b) turned the ball over too often
c) didn't maintain their peak performance or stay particularly close to it for various reasons (including injuries, coke etc)
d) were never that good anyway (thinking maybe Goodrich here)
e) weren't noted stoppers

Didn't Paul Westphal (a less glamorous name) have a better career than all of them?

How long was Haywood a notably good player in the NBA? Five years? He was hardly special in New York. His percentages in his prime are very poor for a big man (though perhaps not too much more so than Elvin Hayes, who I feel got in too early). I could keep going. Not that these guys weren't good or won't be coming up. But there's a reason that nobody's writing them in yet.

Of those you mentioned Wilkens (2nd best pg of 60s), Tiny (2nd best pg 70s), Moncrief (best primarily 80s SG, better advanced metrics than most of your 70s SGs, more efficient and also a way better defender) are among the stronger canidates to be in soon. King and Thompson's peaks might be strong enough for them to garner some support now. Dumars' D (awesome for an SG) might be good enough that people will overlook his pedestrain numbers too. You could target Fulks (and he might stand a chance, being a better "name" than Davies, Feerick et al) but I've mentioned the problems for older era players. Fulks might be a poor early era target from a strictly metrics POV. In his last three years they suggest he was sub-replacement level (PER) or even costing his team games (WS/48). That said his peak looks strong though the limited metrics available (WS) prefer Feerick. Gallatin looks strong by the metrics but could suffer from playing in the shadow of Schayes and Pettit (as such he and Mikkelsen are fighting for 3rd best 50s PF) and the perception that it was a weak era.

I would say the players available does skew somewhat modern. But ...
1) This seems to be a shortlisting phase so there should be a fair amount of flexibility yet
and
2) It's only a suggested board. Some of those you don't think belong haven't been racking up votes and will be on the board for a while.
IMO Davis won't get votes for a while yet. Too inefficient (not unlike the the above 70s SGs). Odom was probably too unexceptional to get consideration for votes yet too.

Pistol, Bing, Pearl, Thompson and Goodrich. How many lived up to their potential. I won't break them down one by one but either they
a) missed too many shots
b) turned the ball over too often
c) didn't maintain their peak performance or stay particularly close to it for various reasons (including injuries, coke etc)
d) were never that good anyway (thinking maybe Goodrich here)
e) weren't noted stoppers

The '70s were, in general, a weak era for guards. Oscar had stepped down from his earlier untouchable status. After he and West quit (1974), Archibald got hurt about the same time, Wilkens retired a year later. Guys like DiGregorio, Kevin Porter, Buse, Slick Watts, and Michael Ray Richardson took turns as Assist leaders. Norm Nixon was about the steadiest version of an 'elite' point guard. And the ABA was no bastion of great points.

But when all-league and all-star teams were named every year, of course guards were included. The Hall of Fame came a-calling and again went with those who had won such honors. So these guys represent some of the least deserving of Hall members, at least since the '50s.

But I digress. The HOF includes college and whatever; it's just that we are discussing the value of pro careers here, and sometimes a name that gets bandied about for decades just carries more weight than one that's newer to the discussion.

I would say the players available does skew somewhat modern. But ...

You think? Should every decade have the same number of candidates? If so -- or if it should be closer -- why? How far back in time would you go with this?

Joe Fulks not only shot 30% on FG, he did it against all white northeastern / midwestern players. A small fraction of the potential talent pool was available to the NBA/BAA/NBL, really until the mid- or late-'60s.
As players from other regions of the country -- African-Americans in particular -- entered the fray, it's fairly certain that the competition level increased. Even relative to inflation.
Then we got the Euros, Africans, South Americans ...

We have 4 voters and exactly 100 votes!
4 - Bellamy, Johnston, Nance, Sikma
3 - Arizin, Billups, Divac, Tim Hardaway, Heinsohn, Hill, Marques Johnson, Kemp, Marion, Walton, Webber
2 - Aguirre, Anthony, Bosh, Brand, Cassell, Cummings, Baron Davis, DeBusschere, English, Horace Grant, Hagan, Mark Jackson, Sam Jones, McGinnis, Moncrief, Terry Porter, Rodman, Rasheed, Gus Williams
1 - Adams, Beaty, Boozer, Dandridge, Hornacek, DJ, Bobby Jones, Kirilenko, Lovellette, Mo Lucas, Odom, Sharman, Amar'e
0 - Coleman, Foust, Hamilton, Strickland, A Walker

A very bell-shaped curve!
15 players have 3 or more votes, and 34 have 2 or more.

MW and Mike
Paul Westphal is a really good player, I feel a top 100 guy. I also haven't mentioned guys like Jo Jo White who was a stud as well.
The one that surprises me that you mentioned specifically in Gail Goodrich, to me today would be Steve Nash. The Lakers were hurting when they lost him to Utah, then got him back. He was that slasher type who could run a team and did so much to keep them around while the big name guys got old.

Also I understand the idea of whole careers, but my point about Buck Williams was that as a mid-thirties ten minute a night guy he wasn't a major player anymore and more of a place holder. Come in and guard a big man for a few minutes which he did. I call it the Gary carter syndrome where you get blamed for getting old and still playing and others maybe less talented pass you historically. In his prime and healthy, he is a better player than some of these guys supposedly ahead of him.

The Shawn Marion stuff is more of a solid modern team without a superstar better as a sum of its parts. I do have Nash at #87 and Goodrich at #88. Marion may have been their MVP, but their are guys who were actual MVP's who may not have had great careers. Bert Jones syndrome, not enough people can spell Zolio Versalles.

Mike mentioned that it is an era with a shortage of centers, that is why I wouldn't reward Dwight for being better (supposedly) than the below average centers of the day. During the season I read an article in a New York paper about sometimes the trades you don't make end up being the best ones. It was about the Nets not getting Dwight. I agree that they are better off. Lopez though he reminds me offensively(in a good way) of Joe Barry Carroll. Also Seikaly, more than held his own in an era of great centers. He got to face a great Moses Malone who killed everyone in those days and all the young studs of Akeem, Patrick and David. Shaq, the modern Mikan too. Mourning and Dikembe. The only guy today even close to this group is Duncan and he plays a more graceful game at "forward". Even the average players were pretty good, James Edwards was talented. Rik Smits, Bill Cartwright, Tree Rollins, Mark Eaton and on and on. Today I can't name five guys who wouldn't be backups then (some don't make second string or possibly the team). So I stand by Dwight vs. Seikaly

The reason I remember the 70's guards being more offensive and less interested in assists, especially on the bad teams was the contract explosion. A lot of it was when Pete got that big contract. There were times when he and Lou Hudson seemed to be competing with each other rather than the opponent and it later was found to have some truth to that, but it doesn't take away the fact that he was an amazing talent. There are some players who create an unusual interest from casual fans where people just have to see certain players. In that respect Pete was right up there with Michael and LeBron; Gretzky and Pele and Ali.

As far as statistical comparisons, you know that is not me, but Baron Davis reminds me of Reggie Theus because they both can only get you so far despite being able to do it all.
I always use the same guy on this. Statistics can tell you what a great player Stephon Marbury was, but my eyes say otherwise.

In his prime and healthy, he is a better player than some of these guys supposedly ahead of him.

This was in regard to Buck Williams, but it applies equally to anyone who had a period of decline before retirement.
We can't fairly compare one player's prime years with other players' career averages. We compare primes to primes, totals to totals, etc.
Whether you remember a player's amazing plays or his dog days, that doesn't really affect what the stats show. That's one reason we look at the facts (the stats) rather than simply recall how we felt on the day that we saw someone. Whether he had a good game or a rotten one, his normal play is recorded in his season totals.

If a guy's shots were "a thing of beauty" or "butt ugly", I don't care. I only care if they went in more often than they missed, at what percentage, and in what situations.

What constitutes a player's "prime", in the qualifying sense? His best 5 years? Best year? Best game or quarter or single play?
Because this is a very subjective path, I don't care to go there. That's why we look at averages. Everyone has good games and bad games, some are streakier than others. I can't say that "streaky" is better or worse than "steady". The average is what matters.

Below-average allstar centers aren't a recent thing. Donaldson and Duckworth date to the Kareem/Moses/Olajuwon era. One conference may be short in a given year. Last year's best -- Duncan, Gasol, Chandler, Lopez, Horford, Howard, Noah, Garnett, Bosh -- were pretty good.
Hibbert was a beast, but not quite all-star.

Need To Argue wrote:MW and Mike
Paul Westphal is a really good player, I feel a top 100 guy. I also haven't mentioned guys like Jo Jo White who was a stud as well.
The one that surprises me that you mentioned specifically in Gail Goodrich, to me today would be Steve Nash. The Lakers were hurting when they lost him to Utah, then got him back. He was that slasher type who could run a team and did so much to keep them around while the big name guys got old.

Also I understand the idea of whole careers, but my point about Buck Williams was that as a mid-thirties ten minute a night guy he wasn't a major player anymore and more of a place holder. Come in and guard a big man for a few minutes which he did. I call it the Gary carter syndrome where you get blamed for getting old and still playing and others maybe less talented pass you historically. In his prime and healthy, he is a better player than some of these guys supposedly ahead of him.

The Shawn Marion stuff is more of a solid modern team without a superstar better as a sum of its parts. I do have Nash at #87 and Goodrich at #88. Marion may have been their MVP, but their are guys who were actual MVP's who may not have had great careers. Bert Jones syndrome, not enough people can spell Zolio Versalles.

Mike mentioned that it is an era with a shortage of centers, that is why I wouldn't reward Dwight for being better (supposedly) than the below average centers of the day. During the season I read an article in a New York paper about sometimes the trades you don't make end up being the best ones. It was about the Nets not getting Dwight. I agree that they are better off. Lopez though he reminds me offensively(in a good way) of Joe Barry Carroll. Also Seikaly, more than held his own in an era of great centers. He got to face a great Moses Malone who killed everyone in those days and all the young studs of Akeem, Patrick and David. Shaq, the modern Mikan too. Mourning and Dikembe. The only guy today even close to this group is Duncan and he plays a more graceful game at "forward". Even the average players were pretty good, James Edwards was talented. Rik Smits, Bill Cartwright, Tree Rollins, Mark Eaton and on and on. Today I can't name five guys who wouldn't be backups then (some don't make second string or possibly the team). So I stand by Dwight vs. Seikaly

The reason I remember the 70's guards being more offensive and less interested in assists, especially on the bad teams was the contract explosion. A lot of it was when Pete got that big contract. There were times when he and Lou Hudson seemed to be competing with each other rather than the opponent and it later was found to have some truth to that, but it doesn't take away the fact that he was an amazing talent. There are some players who create an unusual interest from casual fans where people just have to see certain players. In that respect Pete was right up there with Michael and LeBron; Gretzky and Pele and Ali.

As far as statistical comparisons, you know that is not me, but Baron Davis reminds me of Reggie Theus because they both can only get you so far despite being able to do it all.
I always use the same guy on this. Statistics can tell you what a great player Stephon Marbury was, but my eyes say otherwise.

For Goodrich versus Nash it's not just the stats, but their standings at the time Goodrich never sniffed an MVP (I don't think he ever got a vote). Goodrich's apex seems similar to that of Archie Clark.

Certainly it's not the case that all long careers are being punished here. Mike's listing method favours longer careers (arguably to the detriment of earlier era players). Hayes is top 50 despite a weak tale end of his career, the same with Parish, Moses Malone and Jabbar.

I'm not sure which era you're going for with Seikaly. Malone, Edwards, Cartwright, Rollins and Eaton were primarily eighties centers. Seikaly only got good in the 90s. But yes the first decade of the 2000s was weak for centers where the 90s were very strong. Still I don't think the top center of his decade (I list Shaq as 90s) is really comparable to a non-top 10 guy from his era. Even stats aside, Dwight has been a far superior defender.

Maravich was certainly influential, skilled and had an aesthetically appealling game. But for the most part rating the greats is about what produces wins.

Marbury is (a) now underrated because of how crazy he was at the end and (b) a very extreme example of what boxscore stats (and measures based on them) miss. He was a horrible teammate and a bad defender. Not too many players stray that far from the average in the non-boxscore areas.

Mike G wrote:

Bobbofitos wrote:My defense of AK largely stems from his plus minus stuff that just isn't available for earlier generation players. We know, for example, AK was a standout defender - his contributions way exceed the boxscore. At his peak, as well, he was one of a few players who brought championship equity. That's top 100 value, to me.

Kirilenko has played some 23,000 RS minutes, ranking #327 in that column.
In this poll we're looking for players in the top 90-something. The #90-100 players in minutes are around 33,000 RS minutes.
Does it seem that Kirilenko's minutes are 50% more effective than the average of the (say) #70-326 most-played guys?

His peak (assuming it's passed) was, what, two and a half years? I guess there would be a non-zero chance that in that interval he might have hooked up with a champion -- except that he didn't.
His postseasons, as noted, are distinctly not in his favor. Even among those with as many minutes, he's very close to the bottom in po/rs.
Or what exactly does it mean that he "brought championship equity" ?

Mike, I'm not really familiar with your stat ("po/rs").

Championship equity = having a top "X" player in a given year which moves the needle a [greater than marginal amount]. If a lot of the +/- from earlier years are to be believed (and I absolutely buy into them), Kirilenko was one of those players who could be the figurehead of a contender.

Boozer, on the other hand (since you keep bringing up Carlos, since he's a poster child for bulk points and rebounds) is not.