RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #27 (Dwyane Wade)

[rk2023]

To be a bit more nuanced, the claim is that Stockton worked with a lot less OFFENSIVE FOCUSED talent than Nash. Consistently, over his career, Karl Malone was the only good offensive player (better than league average) he worked with after he reached his prime and before they got Jeff Hornacek. That does not mean the players were bad, many of the Jazz centers and shooting forwards were strong defenders like Ty Corbin, just not good offensive players.

Jeff Malone was a reasonably above average offensive player for them, and many of the roleplayers were selected for their ability to slot into specific roles inside Sloan's system to function around the core dynamic of the PnR. Corner shooters and the like. That was an intentional structural decision to foster the very specific driver Sloan wanted out of the Malone/Stockton pairing. That isn't any different than running set shooters with Nash. And again, you saw what he was able to do without Amare at all.

In the case of Utah, their organization and precision was just as much an advantage to Stockton as the arrangement of talent around Nash in Phoenix.

I'm not trying to slander Stockton here, I think it's the same thing, except that Sloan was demanding more specific structure and D'Antoni was demanding freedom and the ability to hit anyone, anywhere, for a jumper off a pass from Nash as he widdley-widdleyed in the paint. Wherefore our earlier discussion about improvisational ability and resetting after a broken set.

i mean it's not even close in terms of who played with more offensive talent in terms of it being nash. stockton played almost every year of his career with either an eaton, spencer, donaldson, or ostertag. that alone is a massive hit to offense. nash played with dirk, who is a better offensive talent than malone, and then got an exceptional pick-and-roll/pick-and-pop counterpart in amare. and his teams were purposely slanting hard towards offense while sacrificing defense. don nelson was running small ball lineups with heavy does of van exel and finley and jamison and lafrentz, and that's obviously in addition to dirk. the 2004 mavs were practically a gimmick team, stretching the limits of ignoring defense in favor of offense.

in phoenix, they had maybe the fastest C and fastest PF in the game to get out and run against anybody and were openly willing to do things like let teams have layups to avoid potential fouls because they could get out and run after the make and they couldn't after free throws. then they had tons of shooters. even if you take out steve nash's own 3 point shooting (to not influence the results), here's how the suns ranked in 3 point shooting. again, nash's shots entirely removed:

3 Point Makes
2005 Suns - 1st
2006 Suns - 1st
2007 Suns - 3rd

3 Point %
2005 Suns - 1st
2006 Suns - 1st
2007 Suns - 1st

now some people will say nash is the reason they shot so well, but either way, that is a bevy of shooters for the halfcourt, with 2 gazelles for the fastbreak in the frontcourt, with offensive slanted coaching. and that was arguably the more "defensive" of his 2 teams compared to dallas. and even old nash was playing on teams with channing frye as the center.

Relative 3 Point Attempt-Rate
2017 Rockets: +15.4%
2018 Rockets: +16.5%
2019 Rockets: +16.0%
2020 Rockets: +11.7%

2005 Suns: +9.3%
2006 Suns: +9.1%
2007 suns: +7.4%

What do you think of these numbers?

[Owly]

Jeff Malone was a pure jump shooter with a well above average midrange shot who didn't have a 3 or drive well and was below average at everything else (handles, rebounding, defense, etc.). I watched him a lot in Washington, but he was what he was even then, and by the time he got to Utah, his speed was slipping as well.

All of that is true, however, he was also an above-average scorer in terms of efficiency for a good chunk of his stretch in Utah even still. In that way, he wasn't a lot different than Hornacek as a scoring threat. Horny obviously offered superior spacing, and also passing, but I was addressing the root remark about offensive-minded players. Utah had a third guy for a lot of their run,

So in Utah, on lower usage he was above average efficiency. His PER and OBPM are below league average (OWS/48 above) because he didn't do much else. That's league average, not average starter.

As a "third guy" on offense and especially overall I think he's putting you substantially behind the curve for a contender.

Regarding bolded, and noting above and others have noted that he was more limited in a number of other ways ... J Malone gives an average of +44 TS add per season in his three full Jazz seasons (done for simplicity, his 4th, partial season would drop this, given it was circa neutral over 50 games). Hornacek's equivalent over his first 3 full Jazz seasons is 147.0333333 or 3.341666667 times the distance above average (if you expect starters to be above league average and raise that bar, this ratio grows). Arguably then, one is "above average" in this regard and the other is at least good, probably very good. The Jazz also slow down during this time, deflating the real terms gap (95-97 range pace for the Jeff years, 90-93 for the Hornacek years tilting towards the lower end).

[tsherkin]

So in Utah, on lower usage he was above average efficiency. His PER and OBPM are below league average (OWS/48 above) because he didn't do much else. That's league average, not average starter.

I understand. But he was a 105 TS+ guy in a role where he was asked to do nothing but shoot, and on lower usage, which was appropriate for him. I didn't say he was an All-Star.

As a "third guy" on offense and especially overall I think he's putting you substantially behind the curve for a contender.

I don't. I think they had bigger issues with their Big Two not coming through strongly enough. He was pretty good for them in 91 and 92. Not so much in 93, speaking of the postseason. Hornacek was certainly better, I don't contest the point. There's a reason Utah's offenses got noticeably better when he arrived.

[Owly]

There's also contemporary sources saying

Suns were highly incensed when he put a half-hearted attempt into this rehab in January ... They claim he could have come back sooner and possibly even prevented later injuries that occurred in the playoffs...

I take anything that comes out of Rick Barry's mouth with a grain of salt, but it's certainly one example of a source talking about it. Whether or not it was true is another thing, of course. In the meantime, Barkley played 24, 10, 10 and 4 postseason games for Phoenix... aka "all of them." Did it affect his efficacy? Maybe. Did it keep him out of games? No. Was he why they lost to Houston in 94 and 95, and the Spurs in 96? In 94, they ate 37/17 from Olajuwon in game 7 while Barkley and KJ played quite well. In 95, he struggled at the line, but he popped 34 (game-high, 64.4% TS)/14 on the Rockets in game 6 (which Houston won) and grabbed 23 boards in Game 7. In game 5, they ate 30/8/10 from Olajuwon (with 5 blocks) while he shot 59% from the field. In Game 7, Hakeem and Drexler both popped off for 29 and Alien had 18 off the bench. Barkley had 18/23 and 6 offensive boards. Struggled with turnovers and didn't shoot amazingly well. You could point maybe to that as an issue if you could tie it to mobility, but he was still generally getting it done and KJ went mad for 46/10 on 26 FGAs. D-Rob had an outstanding series in the 96 matchup with Phoenix. Barkley put up about 26/14/4 on 56% TS but they got outscored by like 10 a game. They went down in 4, but Barkley drew 10+ FTA in all but game 2 (he had 9) and had 12+ boards in all but game 4 (he had 9), including an 8-OREB, 20-TRB performance in Game 2.

Tough to look at that relative to his other production and really grief Barkley or look at minor injuries costing him in those matchups. Other issues, sure, but it retrospectively and from watching some of the games and highlights, it really doesn't look like he was hurting too badly.

His attitude wasn't amazing for his teammates, for sure. Everyone knows about his party habits and what-not, but I hesitate to believe that they got in the way of his play that much. I can absolutely believe it would cause some issues with teammates who had a more disciplined approach. That, I won't contest. But how much it impacted his own actual play, I question.

Barry is the "name" author.
Jordan Cohn is the other author and kept the book going one year under a different name whilst Barry was coaching in the CBA. This isn't some comment that "comes out of Rick Barry's mouth". It's a book with two guys working around the league who have committed these ideas to print.

Their intros cite many named sources from around the league for input and of course many more would remain anonymous.

There's more than "one example of a source" I provided another book from the time.

I do not claim to know the exact cost of his not taking rehab seriously/bailing on it or more general conditioning issues. I would suggest it is unknowable. I haven't ever asserted to have known this. You have responded to my post calling it a "bs argument" (at best, assuming an implied argument that simply wasn't there).

I'm not looking to review his standard of play (I haven't seen those games in a long time and can't speak to his defense for one thing) but some of the angles seem more pure promotion than a serious balanced attempt to gauge his play, for instance the point of focus seems rather ad hoc ... "23 rebounds in game seven" ... yes, but also 27.8 TOV%, .495 TS% for a -2.0 BPM. Other game level box aggregates may vary, I am always open to a discussion about what tool is best at this level.

"Was he why they lost ..." ... outside the remit of my posting but I would argue that any single factor explanation of why a team lost is missing a great deal of nuance and detail.

[tsherkin]

Barry is the "name" author.

Fair enough.

I do not claim to know the exact cost of his not taking rehab seriously/bailing on it or more general conditioning issues. I would suggest it is unknowable. I haven't ever asserted to have known this. You have responded to my post calling it a "bs argument" (at best, assuming an implied argument that simply wasn't there).

I mean, I don't see it meaningfully impacting Barkley's gameplay. You're taking issue with a given phrase, and that's fine. But again, I was addressing more the arguments advanced by the quotes and sentiments you put out there from others. It isn't an issue with the way you are arranging your position, it's an address of the source material you're referencing.

Never the less, Barkley's performance in Phoenix isn't really out of sorts with the player development curve, and he didn't miss time, so complaining about his injuries specifically in the postseason as the quote you posted did is somewhat BS. Most players deal with some kind of injury during the playoffs, just wear and tear stuff. It didn't affect his rebounding. He shot better in 94 and 95 than he had done in 93 and he was into his 30s, so he was losing athleticism, and undersized to begin with. He was slowing down even in the RS, backing down more, exploding less... it's just the natural arc of the player's career.

And it's basically not too hot an argument to look at a guy who played at his usual level and say that injuries were undercutting him compared to what he could have been had he attended his rehab practices a little more studiously. Especially given that we're speaking of the playoffs in particular.

[f4p]

i mean it's not even close in terms of who played with more offensive talent in terms of it being nash.

Mmm, yeah, I mean he didn't play with a big lug at center. But the rest of the guys around him were pretty much shooters, aside from Amare.

well a big lug at center is usually a really bad thing for your offense. it's not just a throwaway position, especially if the other guy has amare or sometimes even dirk for a center. and you keep saying "shooters" like it's derogatory. a great offensive player surrounded by shooters leads to amazing offense. not necessarily a great team, but almost always great offense. throw in a perfect PnR partner like amare and that's going to lead to great offense.

Which isn't too different from Stockton's scenario, just flashed forward to an era with better shooters and higher emphasis on the 3pt line in particular.

okay, but is it actually the same? i haven't run the numbers for stockton, but i did above for nash. his teams were literally the best 3 point shooting team in the league, AFTER you removed their best shooter in nash. that's volume and efficiency like essentially no team has outside of their best shooter. and that's after their focus on fast scoring doesn't work. i have the numbers because of another board where people were saying harden and nash played with shooters. outside of harden the rockets were:

3 Point Makes
2018 - 2nd
2019 - 11th
2020 - 19th

3 Point %
2018 - 14th
2019 - 20th
2020 - 26th

the 1996/7/8 jazz are way at the bottom of makes and range from 13th to 5th on % but that % is a little inflated by stockton himself. so there's big time differences in the kind of shooters you play with.

In Dallas, you have a different story. Dirk, Finley, Jamison, etc, etc, that was a separate scenario. But he also didn't have the focal play or freedom that he did in Phoenix. Too many iso specialists working their game in Dallas and Dirk was the clear lead (which, of course, made a fair degree of sense).

yeah, but people include dallas for nash. otherwise, we keep running into this weird thing where nash has good longevity but also his dallas years and any bad results there can't be held against him because it wasn't really the nash we know.

now some people will say nash is the reason they shot so well, but either way, that is a bevy of shooters for the halfcourt, with 2 gazelles for the fastbreak in the frontcourt, with offensive slanted coaching. and that was arguably the more "defensive" of his 2 teams compared to dallas. and even old nash was playing on teams with channing frye as the center.

Yes, they loaded up on shooters. That was a specific strategy to work around Nash's dribble-drive and continuity game, and to have options out of the pick-and-roll. This is comparable to the way that Sloan picked system players for Utah as well.

loading up on shooters is better than "system" guys, especially since i'm not sure what made some of these guys system guys in a uniquely positive way for offense.

[f4p]

Spoiler:

Jeff Malone was a reasonably above average offensive player for them, and many of the roleplayers were selected for their ability to slot into specific roles inside Sloan's system to function around the core dynamic of the PnR. Corner shooters and the like. That was an intentional structural decision to foster the very specific driver Sloan wanted out of the Malone/Stockton pairing. That isn't any different than running set shooters with Nash. And again, you saw what he was able to do without Amare at all.

In the case of Utah, their organization and precision was just as much an advantage to Stockton as the arrangement of talent around Nash in Phoenix.

I'm not trying to slander Stockton here, I think it's the same thing, except that Sloan was demanding more specific structure and D'Antoni was demanding freedom and the ability to hit anyone, anywhere, for a jumper off a pass from Nash as he widdley-widdleyed in the paint. Wherefore our earlier discussion about improvisational ability and resetting after a broken set.

i mean it's not even close in terms of who played with more offensive talent in terms of it being nash. stockton played almost every year of his career with either an eaton, spencer, donaldson, or ostertag. that alone is a massive hit to offense. nash played with dirk, who is a better offensive talent than malone, and then got an exceptional pick-and-roll/pick-and-pop counterpart in amare. and his teams were purposely slanting hard towards offense while sacrificing defense. don nelson was running small ball lineups with heavy does of van exel and finley and jamison and lafrentz, and that's obviously in addition to dirk. the 2004 mavs were practically a gimmick team, stretching the limits of ignoring defense in favor of offense.

in phoenix, they had maybe the fastest C and fastest PF in the game to get out and run against anybody and were openly willing to do things like let teams have layups to avoid potential fouls because they could get out and run after the make and they couldn't after free throws. then they had tons of shooters. even if you take out steve nash's own 3 point shooting (to not influence the results), here's how the suns ranked in 3 point shooting. again, nash's shots entirely removed:

3 Point Makes
2005 Suns - 1st
2006 Suns - 1st
2007 Suns - 3rd

3 Point %
2005 Suns - 1st
2006 Suns - 1st
2007 Suns - 1st

now some people will say nash is the reason they shot so well, but either way, that is a bevy of shooters for the halfcourt, with 2 gazelles for the fastbreak in the frontcourt, with offensive slanted coaching. and that was arguably the more "defensive" of his 2 teams compared to dallas. and even old nash was playing on teams with channing frye as the center.

Relative 3 Point Attempt-Rate
2017 Rockets: +15.4%
2018 Rockets: +16.5%
2019 Rockets: +16.0%
2020 Rockets: +11.7%

2005 Suns: +9.3%
2006 Suns: +9.1%
2007 suns: +7.4%

What do you think of these numbers?

i made my post before i saw yours but you weirdly asked about the exact same thing:

2018-20 Rockets outside of Harden (edited to include 2017)

3 Point Makes
2017 - 4th
2018 - 2nd
2019 - 11th
2020 - 19th

3 Point %
2017 - 14th
2018 - 14th
2019 - 20th
2020 - 26th

the rockets during harden's peak ranged from average to terrible at 3 point shooting outside of harden. and that's with all the open shots harden got them. and once you take out harden's own prolific 3 point shooting, they suddenly don't even seem quite so crazy in terms of makes. granted, if harden was using fewer shooting possessions like nash, the rockets might take and make something like 2.5 out of 7 more 3's so that would bump up the makes, but it wouldn't changed the percentages. nash had league-leading shooting around him. harden had guys you hoped would hit 35% because they were known more for defense and sometimes he had practically the worst 3 point shooting around him.

also, the 2010 suns outside of nash would only be 7th with 7.4 3PM/gm but they would have been first in percentage by 3 points! 41.0% to 38.2% for 2nd place. some of the most outlier 3 point shooting you'll ever see. even the guys who played for the suns the next few seasons (frye, dudley, hill, dragic, etc) all dropped way off from 2010.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Looks like Barkley might get blocked again. This is incredibly frustrating, especially since practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff.

I really hope some votes show up in the final hours.

[Doctor MJ]

Calling the Induction vote for Wade.

Dwyane Wade is Inducted at #27.

[WestGOAT]

Again, this is a completely different dataset than the one I was bringing up and it ALSO shows Stockton to be a top 11 player of the last 25 years in his decline years. Now I’d agree that a “whole career RAPM” approach isn’t very fair to Dwyane Wade since he had a lengthy decline phase where he wasn’t very good from 2014-2019, and in fact I’m voting for him now despite that due to his high peak. But if Wade can get brought down that much that his overall numbers look pedestrian because he was so poor from age 32-37, doesn’t that make it even more impressive that Stockton was showing MVP level impact from ages 34-40? We don’t even have play-by-play data for Stockton’s prime years. I imagine if we did, he’d look even better. Yeah, he was never gonna be MVP over Jordan, but if he was judged fairly, he might have more top 5 years than any player except LeBron or Kareem.

It's definitely impressive if it where true and generally accepted, but is it though? Do you factor in how many possessions Stockton played from age 34-40 compared to contemporaries that might have a lower relative impact per 100 possessions, but played way more minutes/possessions?

If Stockton was at MVP-level impact those years, why was Stockton only in the top 10, and never even top 5, of the Retro POY project once?

'02-03 NA (No votes)
'01-02 NA (No votes)
'00-01 NA (No votes)
'99-00 NA (No votes)
'98-99 NA (No votes)
'97-98 NA (No votes)
'96-97 9th place (one 3rd place vote)

Looking at the dates of these topics you can argue that RAPM wasn't available, but having a quick look I do see posters mentioning and using Adjusted +/-.

[OhayoKD]

Looks like Barkley might get blocked again. This is incredibly frustrating, especially since practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff.

I really hope some votes show up in the final hours.

yeah still not seeing why barkley should be taken over harden

[Doctor MJ]

Looks like Barkley might get blocked again. This is incredibly frustrating, especially since practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff.

I really hope some votes show up in the final hours.

Your feeling of frustration is quite understandable. I'm surprised Barkley's dropped this much. Not looking to this shouldn't or should've happened, but I wasn't expecting this, and when this sorta thing happen, it can really driving champions nuts. I would just urge you to hold the course and I'm sure he'll be in soon.

Re: practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff. Yeah, this bummed me out. Previous instances worked better. I don't think there's anything that can prevent this from happening, but I'll keep reaching out to those I got no response from and hope things get a bit better as we get closer to the season.

[Doctor MJ]

Looks like Barkley might get blocked again. This is incredibly frustrating, especially since practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff.

I really hope some votes show up in the final hours.

Your feeling of frustration is quite understandable. I'm surprised Barkley's dropped this much. Not looking to this shouldn't or should've happened, but I wasn't expecting this, and when this sorta thing happen, it can really driving champions nuts. I would just urge you to hold the course and I'm sure he'll be in soon.

Re: practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff. Yeah, this bummed me out. Previous instances worked better. I don't think there's anything that can prevent this from happening, but I'll keep reaching out to those I got no response from and hope things get a bit better as we get closer to the season.

So I've now done a bit more analysis as to what's gone on with Barkley. Just to lay things out:

- There have been 12 voters who have voted for Barkley to this point - if we include both 1st votes and counted 2nd votes. Which means if they were all voting consistently for him, he'd be in by now.

- Some of this is about posters not reliably participating. In the last thread, 3 of the former Barkley voters did not vote.

- But there's also a thing where people are changing their votes from one thread to the other. In theory, Barkley should have gotten voted in at #23 based on when he got Nominated, but while all 8 of the voters who contribute to Barkley's Nomination voted in that thread, only 1 of them (trex) actually voted for Barkley there. Pretty remarkable actually.

- Further, there are posters who seem to have gone away from Barkley not just more than one thread, but in favor of more than one guy who they'd previously Nominated Barkley over.

This strikes me as something explained by strategic voting. People making decisions based on which guy they think their vote can put over the top. I'd have thought that having the 2 vote system would have kept this from being much of a thing, but it is what it is.

So then, likely what's happening is that in any given thread, those who vote quickly are effectively dictating the field of play. People either decide they can get behind that guy who has the early lead, or cast their lost with someone has a chance to top him.

I've done this sort of thing before, and will surely feel compelled to do it again, but I do think it's a recipe for frustration.

[lessthanjake]

I missed the runoff vote, but for what it’s worth, I would’ve voted for Wade too.

[OhayoKD]

Looks like Barkley might get blocked again. This is incredibly frustrating, especially since practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff.

I really hope some votes show up in the final hours.

Your feeling of frustration is quite understandable. I'm surprised Barkley's dropped this much. Not looking to this shouldn't or should've happened, but I wasn't expecting this, and when this sorta thing happen, it can really driving champions nuts. I would just urge you to hold the course and I'm sure he'll be in soon.

Re: practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff. Yeah, this bummed me out. Previous instances worked better. I don't think there's anything that can prevent this from happening, but I'll keep reaching out to those I got no response from and hope things get a bit better as we get closer to the season.

So I've now done a bit more analysis as to what's gone on with Barkley. Just to lay things out:

- There have been 12 voters who have voted for Barkley to this point - if we include both 1st votes and counted 2nd votes. Which means if they were all voting consistently for him, he'd be in by now.

- Some of this is about posters not reliably participating. In the last thread, 3 of the former Barkley voters did not vote.

- But there's also a thing where people are changing their votes from one thread to the other. In theory, Barkley should have gotten voted in at #23 based on when he got Nominated, but while all 8 of the voters who contribute to Barkley's Nomination voted in that thread, only 1 of them (trex) actually voted for Barkley there. Pretty remarkable actually.

- Further, there are posters who seem to have gone away from Barkley not just more than one thread, but in favor of more than one guy who they'd previously Nominated Barkley over.

This strikes me as something explained by strategic voting. People making decisions based on which guy they think their vote can put over the top. I'd have thought that having the 2 vote system would have kept this from being much of a thing, but it is what it is.

So then, likely what's happening is that in any given thread, those who vote quickly are effectively dictating the field of play. People either decide they can get behind that guy who has the early lead, or cast their lost with someone has a chance to top him.

I've done this sort of thing before, and will surely feel compelled to do it again, but I do think it's a recipe for frustration.

Could it not also be explained by people changing their minds?

[OhayoKD]

Spoiler:

i mean it's not even close in terms of who played with more offensive talent in terms of it being nash. stockton played almost every year of his career with either an eaton, spencer, donaldson, or ostertag. that alone is a massive hit to offense. nash played with dirk, who is a better offensive talent than malone, and then got an exceptional pick-and-roll/pick-and-pop counterpart in amare. and his teams were purposely slanting hard towards offense while sacrificing defense. don nelson was running small ball lineups with heavy does of van exel and finley and jamison and lafrentz, and that's obviously in addition to dirk. the 2004 mavs were practically a gimmick team, stretching the limits of ignoring defense in favor of offense.

in phoenix, they had maybe the fastest C and fastest PF in the game to get out and run against anybody and were openly willing to do things like let teams have layups to avoid potential fouls because they could get out and run after the make and they couldn't after free throws. then they had tons of shooters. even if you take out steve nash's own 3 point shooting (to not influence the results), here's how the suns ranked in 3 point shooting. again, nash's shots entirely removed:

3 Point Makes
2005 Suns - 1st
2006 Suns - 1st
2007 Suns - 3rd

3 Point %
2005 Suns - 1st
2006 Suns - 1st
2007 Suns - 1st

now some people will say nash is the reason they shot so well, but either way, that is a bevy of shooters for the halfcourt, with 2 gazelles for the fastbreak in the frontcourt, with offensive slanted coaching. and that was arguably the more "defensive" of his 2 teams compared to dallas. and even old nash was playing on teams with channing frye as the center.

Relative 3 Point Attempt-Rate
2017 Rockets: +15.4%
2018 Rockets: +16.5%
2019 Rockets: +16.0%
2020 Rockets: +11.7%

2005 Suns: +9.3%
2006 Suns: +9.1%
2007 suns: +7.4%

What do you think of these numbers?

i made my post before i saw yours but you weirdly asked about the exact same thing:

2018-20 Rockets outside of Harden (edited to include 2017)

3 Point Makes
2017 - 4th
2018 - 2nd
2019 - 11th
2020 - 19th

3 Point %
2017 - 14th
2018 - 14th
2019 - 20th
2020 - 26th

the rockets during harden's peak ranged from average to terrible at 3 point shooting outside of harden. and that's with all the open shots harden got them. and once you take out harden's own prolific 3 point shooting, they suddenly don't even seem quite so crazy in terms of makes. granted, if harden was using fewer shooting possessions like nash, the rockets might take and make something like 2.5 out of 7 more 3's so that would bump up the makes, but it wouldn't changed the percentages. nash had league-leading shooting around him. harden had guys you hoped would hit 35% because they were known more for defense and sometimes he had practically the worst 3 point shooting around him.

also, the 2010 suns outside of nash would only be 7th with 7.4 3PM/gm but they would have been first in percentage by 3 points! 41.0% to 38.2% for 2nd place. some of the most outlier 3 point shooting you'll ever see. even the guys who played for the suns the next few seasons (frye, dudley, hill, dragic, etc) all dropped way off from 2010.

I am confused why you are sticking with rankings in favor of the actual improvement here

[Doctor MJ]

Your feeling of frustration is quite understandable. I'm surprised Barkley's dropped this much. Not looking to this shouldn't or should've happened, but I wasn't expecting this, and when this sorta thing happen, it can really driving champions nuts. I would just urge you to hold the course and I'm sure he'll be in soon.

Re: practically no one showed up to vote for the runoff. Yeah, this bummed me out. Previous instances worked better. I don't think there's anything that can prevent this from happening, but I'll keep reaching out to those I got no response from and hope things get a bit better as we get closer to the season.

So I've now done a bit more analysis as to what's gone on with Barkley. Just to lay things out:

- There have been 12 voters who have voted for Barkley to this point - if we include both 1st votes and counted 2nd votes. Which means if they were all voting consistently for him, he'd be in by now.

- Some of this is about posters not reliably participating. In the last thread, 3 of the former Barkley voters did not vote.

- But there's also a thing where people are changing their votes from one thread to the other. In theory, Barkley should have gotten voted in at #23 based on when he got Nominated, but while all 8 of the voters who contribute to Barkley's Nomination voted in that thread, only 1 of them (trex) actually voted for Barkley there. Pretty remarkable actually.

- Further, there are posters who seem to have gone away from Barkley not just more than one thread, but in favor of more than one guy who they'd previously Nominated Barkley over.

This strikes me as something explained by strategic voting. People making decisions based on which guy they think their vote can put over the top. I'd have thought that having the 2 vote system would have kept this from being much of a thing, but it is what it is.

So then, likely what's happening is that in any given thread, those who vote quickly are effectively dictating the field of play. People either decide they can get behind that guy who has the early lead, or cast their lost with someone has a chance to top him.

I've done this sort of thing before, and will surely feel compelled to do it again, but I do think it's a recipe for frustration.

Could it not also be explained by people changing their minds?

Sure, but note that I said this about people who seemed to go back & forth twice in a short period of time. It's unusual enough to be remarked upon when the question arises of how a player could seem to drop so much been Nomination & Induction. Maybe some killer arguments have been convincing voters to change their mind away from Barkley - and I'd love that to be the thing that explains everything - but I think there's a natural tendency for people to vote with the leaderboard in mind too.

[HeartBreakKid]

I gave a vote for Charles as soon as he was available. I've changed my mind and had no plans of voting for him any time soon after that.

[OhayoKD]

So I've now done a bit more analysis as to what's gone on with Barkley. Just to lay things out:

- There have been 12 voters who have voted for Barkley to this point - if we include both 1st votes and counted 2nd votes. Which means if they were all voting consistently for him, he'd be in by now.

- Some of this is about posters not reliably participating. In the last thread, 3 of the former Barkley voters did not vote.

- But there's also a thing where people are changing their votes from one thread to the other. In theory, Barkley should have gotten voted in at #23 based on when he got Nominated, but while all 8 of the voters who contribute to Barkley's Nomination voted in that thread, only 1 of them (trex) actually voted for Barkley there. Pretty remarkable actually.

- Further, there are posters who seem to have gone away from Barkley not just more than one thread, but in favor of more than one guy who they'd previously Nominated Barkley over.

This strikes me as something explained by strategic voting. People making decisions based on which guy they think their vote can put over the top. I'd have thought that having the 2 vote system would have kept this from being much of a thing, but it is what it is.

So then, likely what's happening is that in any given thread, those who vote quickly are effectively dictating the field of play. People either decide they can get behind that guy who has the early lead, or cast their lost with someone has a chance to top him.

I've done this sort of thing before, and will surely feel compelled to do it again, but I do think it's a recipe for frustration.

Could it not also be explained by people changing their minds?

Sure, but note that I said this about people who seemed to go back & forth twice in a short period of time. It's unusual enough to be remarked upon when the question arises of how a player could seem to drop so much been Nomination & Induction. Maybe some killer arguments have been convincing voters to change their mind away from Barkley - and I'd love that to be the thing that explains everything - but I think there's a natural tendency for people to vote with the leaderboard in mind too.

Perhaps, but we've seen several voters switch rapidly with giannis and jokic just a few threads ago, so i think it might have played some factor.

I wasn’t tracking the last 2 threads closely enough to know if that was also there for Barkley toa. Similar degree but one of the first posts in the new thread cites an argument shifting them to voting for harden after voting for Barkley several threads earlier.

As is Barkley was getting scrutinized as early as the Karl Malone thread, possible the nomination votes were a response to him being mentioned from very early on rather than a definitive endorsement for induction.

It’s been the case for me at least with a couple guys