RealGM Top 100 List #20

[colts18]

I think we have enough great white defenders that we don't need to make this a racial issue:

Bobby Jones
Kevin McHale
Bill Walton
John Stockton
Sloan
West
DeBusschere
Hondo

Even guys like Ehlo, Marc Gasol, Bogut, Bradley, Thunder Dan, AK47 etc.

I said defensive bigs so most of the guys you mentioned don't apply. I guess McHale could be mentioned, but he was not a big man defensive player. He was more of a perimeter defender in his prime. Walton only played 1.5 seasons so we don't really know how good he was defensively.

Gasol and Bogut are "white" but not really "white". This discussion refers to American Whites. Bogut and Gasol are international players and they wouldn't have played in Mikan's era because his era didn't have international players.

[90sAllDecade]

For Barkley, Pettit and Wade supporters what is the argument against him besides a traditional pick or personal fan base favorite?

Pettit dominated his era to a greater degree.

He led his team to a championship (and 3 other Finals appearances).

He was the best player in the league, winning the MVP twice and leading the league in PER 4 times.

He was a top-5 player for 10 years, essentially his entire career.

This goes into how people view competition levels. With much less black integration, no international players, very few players lifting weights (something Pettit was known for over players in his era) and increased skill/athletic ability, Pettit wouldn't dominate Ewing's era to that degree imo.

He did win a championship, but Russell was injured after game 3. Injuries happen though and I'll still give Pettit that credit and he did come through in the finals. But Jordan didn't get injured in a series against Ewing and had to stop playing afterwards as far as I know. Ewing also didn't have anyone like Cliff Hagan, who was the overall lead scorer for the Hawks that playoffs.

It was also much easier to reach the finals in that era, with only two rounds against usually weaker teams with worse won/loss records and SRS. I may do an analysis later of it.

Many of the players we've already voted in like, Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Magic, Moses and Karl Malone all are ranked above Pettit, Barkely and Wade. Imo Pettit wouldn't have been the best player in a league with that competition. The same with being a top 5 player in Ewing's era.

I'll repost why PER and winshares are flawed:

Spoiler:

This I disagree with for comparison purposes as PER is a flawed stat used primarily for grading offensive players and is especially poor when comparing great defensive players.

Problems With PER

PER largely measures offensive performance. Hollinger freely admits that two of the defensive statistics it incorporates -- blocks and steals (which was not tracked as an official stat till 1973) -- can produce a distorted picture of a player's value and that PER is not a reliable measure of a player's defensive acumen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_efficiency_rating

Win-shares are also bad because they are team based stats that can be dependent of roster strength to increase total team wins and boost win-share totals. They also don't account for beating lesser competition.

WS/48
Win Shares Per 48 Minutes (available since the 1951-52 season in the NBA); an estimate of the number of wins contributed by the player per 48 minutes (league average is approximately 0.100).

Please see the article Calculating Win Shares for more information.

Calculating Win Shares
1.In James's system, one win is equivalent to three Win Shares. In my system, one win is equivalent to one Win Share.

2.James made team Win Shares directly proportional to team wins. In his system, a baseball team that wins 80 games will have exactly 240 Win Shares, a baseball team that wins 90 games will have exactly 270 Win Shares, etc. In my system, a basketball team that wins 50 games will have about 50 Win Shares, give or take.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html

Criticism of win shares
One criticism of this metric is that players who play for teams that win more games than expected, based on the Pythagorean expectation, receive more win shares than players whose team wins fewer games than expected. Since a team exceeding or falling short of its Pythagorean expectation is generally acknowledged as chance, some believe that credit should not be assigned purely based on team wins. However, team wins are the bedrock of the system, whose purpose is to assign credit for what happened.

Win shares are intended to represent player value (what they were responsible for) rather than player ability (what the player's true skill level is).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Win_shares

In other words they can be inaccurate with the playoffs especially bad. Look at the yearly playoff win-share leaders below, they clearly don't indicate the best player accurately every year. ex. Jamaal Magloire in 02', Marcus Camby 99' , Hardaway and Smith over Jordan in 97'-98' etc.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_yearly_p.html

Another example is Tiago Splitter is 5th in the league for WS48 over Blake Griffin, James Harden and Duncan himself. Chauncey Billups was over LeBron in 07-08', I could go on. Check the top 10 yearly RS WS48 link below.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.html

Advanced stats are often based on weighted box score stats too (which weighting is of the creators subjective discretion), so box scores while flawed can actually be more accurate at times and vice versa. Basketball has so many more variables per play than Baseball where win shares originated from.

They are useful for comparing players within a team within a season, but not different team players in different seasons imo.

[ronnymac2]

As far as Ewing being able to do better in a different role, well clearly I think you're right, but what's to be done about that? Would have been great to have Nash play SSOL style from day one...but he didn't. Here's where the criteria in this project is blurry to me as I know some leeway is granted. I try to keep focused on what the guy actually did - or at the most abstract, what he would likely have done if he played roughly the same way in a different era.

That's a good point about Nash and Ewing. As potentially dangerous as it may be, I probably go a little more abstract in an attempt to extract a player's skillset and then evaluate how useful it could be in building a championship team, independent of era.

It gives me a better handle on career value because it takes into account how a player interacted with his environment yet separates the player's results (both team and individual results) from his circumstances.

And FWIW, I'm close to voting for Steve Nash here, in part because I think his longevity is underrated. He probably was the best offensive point guard in the league from 2002-2004.

[tsherkin]

How high do you rate Amare Stoudamire? Similar defensive rep, lesser rebounder, slightly higher scoring volume per 38 or per 100 possession for career, slightly lower efficiency but in the playoffs, Amare maintains his volume scoring edge and closes the efficiency to a virtual tie. Barkley passes better but turns it over a lot more as well. Barkley shoots more 3's but generally scores much closer to the basket. Offensively, I'd say their numbers were very close (Barkley owns him on the boards and seems to have a stronger team impact so higher overall).

Amare Stoudemire in Phoenix with Nash:

23.2 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 56.5% FG, 379 G
62.8% TS, 14.7% TRB, 6.6% AST, 119 ORTG

Noticeably less effective without a strong PG feeding him.

Barkley from 87-97:

24.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 54.5% FG, 781 G
61.9% TS, 17.9% TRB, 18.1% AST, 121 ORTG

Very similar. This includes Barkley's Phoenix years and some time in Houston as well, of course.

Keep in mind that Amare's career-high TS% is 65.6%, and that Barkley matched or exceeded that 3 times in a four-year span. Amare's career-high is 121 ORTG, the only season he was over 118, and that was in 05. Barkley matched or exceeded that in four straight seasons (126, 127, 128 and then 123, with another 120 in his MVP season).

The numbers are similar over a period of time twice as long, and Barkley's peak on offense was CONSIDERABLY higher, and he was a far better rebounder, despite being a combo forward as opposed to a PF/C. He also had 60%+ TS in 7 straight years, then 59.6% the year after. Amare stopped being a 60% TS player as soon as he left Phoenix until his 29-game season in 2012-2013, as a 23.5 mpg player coming off of the bench.

There's definitely a pretty dramatic difference between their respective efficacy on the offensive end of the floor, and that's even without pausing to factor in things like how the Rockets didn't have fantastic offensive synergy with their three post players, or KJ's continuous absence due to health issues in Phoenix, etc.

Then you go to the PS in those same stretches:

Amare: 25.5 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 52.3% FG, 59.1% TS, 14.4% TRB, 4.4% AST, 116 ORTG

29.0% USG, .187 WS/48

Very good stuff, right? 46 games of very impressive play on the offensive end, even considering what limitations he had. Very good at freeing himself for baseline and elbow jumpers around screens, very good at popping or rolling out of the PnR, and very good at driving when he was able to go right in isolation from the mid-post. Had a nice baseline spin. Didn't have a ton of other counters, wasn't nearly as effective from the right side, but damned fine on offense regardless. Rare were the games where he couldn't deliver on O. Generally speaking, a more athletic version of Karl Malone's scoring game, just without the passing acumen (and not awesome handling doubles on the block). His 2011 New York season should be mentioned as a major point in his favor because he was still VERY effective on offense, even if less so than in Phoenix, and he improved his passing game (something we continue to see in his diminished role these days).

Chuck: 24.5 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 50.3% TS, 90 G, 57.9% TS, 18.5% TRB, 17.5% AST, 120 ORTG, 25.9% USG

.196 WS/48

So there are a couple of ways to look at this. Chuck scored a point less per game, or 4 fewer points per 100 possessions, compared to Amare in the postseason, and at lower scoring efficiency. But he was a dramatically more effective passer, STILL a highly efficient scorer, and he was shooting the ball a lot less because of his passing, which lead him to a greater offensive impact (reflected in both individual ORTG, as well as WS/48).

Given that and his significantly superior rebounding, I don't really think there's any point of contest between the two: Amare isn't a guy who should be mentioned in the same breath as Chuck unless you're solely discussing pretty stat lines. While he was very effective in some regards, Chuck did enough other things that he really gains serious distance between himself and Amare in terms of performance in both the RS and the PS. Amare was the chosen finisher for a team without another major, consequential volume scorer (unless you count Marion's wicked off-ball opportunism), so it's hardly surprising that he has something of a playoff volume advantage, especially given Chuck's greater playmaking ability (and thus divesting himself of a scoring opportunity for the betterment of the offense).

In any case, food for thought.

[Jim Naismith]

This goes into how people view competition levels. With much less black integration, no international players, very few players lifting weights (something Pettit was known for over players in his era) and increased skill/athletic ability, Pettit wouldn't dominate Ewing's era to that degree imo.

In the early sixties, Pettit was on All-NBA teams with Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, and Baylor.

So at the top end, the competition is both elite (4 top-15 players) and integrated (4 blacks).

[DQuinn1575]

I'll repost why PER and winshares are flawed:
.....


Win-shares are also bad because they are team based stats that can be dependent of roster strength to increase total team wins and boost win-share totals.

The better roster wins more games.If you contribute to winning, you get win shares. Why is that bad?

They also don't account for beating lesser competition.

But overall in a season competition level/strength of schedule in the NBA balances out to pretty much zero.

One criticism of this metric is that players who play for teams that win more games than expected, based on the Pythagorean expectation, receive more win shares than players whose team wins fewer games than expected.

Since a team exceeding or falling short of its Pythagorean expectation is generally acknowledged as chance, [size=110]some believe that credit should not be assigned purely based on team wins. However, team wins are the bedrock of the system, whose purpose is to assign credit for what happened.

You have this backward - teams that win more games than expected receive less win shares, and vice versa. Your chance element is eliminated.

In other words they can be inaccurate with the playoffs especially bad. Look at the yearly playoff win-share leaders below, they clearly don't indicate the best player accurately every year. ex. Jamaal Magloire in 02', Marcus Camby 99' , Hardaway and Smith over Jordan in 97'-98' etc.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_yearly_p.html

Agree - usually it is a sample size issue where Smith played 4 games in 1998, and got a higher WS/48 than Jordan. But Jordan wasn't player of the week every single week in 1998, and there were probably
weeks where Smith outperformed Jordan.

Advanced stats are often based on weighted box score stats too (which weighting is of the creators subjective discretion), so box scores while flawed can actually be more accurate at times and vice versa. Basketball has so many more variables per play than Baseball where win shares originated from.

Win shares for the most part are based on Dean Oliver's Off and Def Ratings, which he did tie out to results - they get worse when you go back to the time steals, turnovers, etc. weren't tracked.



Win Shares are far from perfect -
it doesn't account for the non box score items on offense,
it smooths a good portion (peanut butter approach) defensive credit to the team overall.
it doesn't take into account Strength of Schedule, which it should at least for playoffs/college,etc.
it has sample size issue when computing WS/48.

[DQuinn1575]

Anybody got a vote count?

Near the end of two days.

[drza]

Anybody got a vote count?

Near the end of two days.

When is the expected "end" for this thread? It didn't get posted until after midnight, so in theory there'd still be about 7 hours left if we really wanted it to go 2 days. Or are we going with the more 5 - 6 pm default, in which case I'd better get my vote in soon?

[90sAllDecade]

This goes into how people view competition levels. With much less black integration, no international players, very few players lifting weights (something Pettit was known for over players in his era) and increased skill/athletic ability, Pettit wouldn't dominate Ewing's era to that degree imo.

In the early sixties, Pettit was on All-NBA teams with Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, and Baylor.

So at the top end, the competition is both elite (4 top-15 players) and integrated (4 blacks).

With the exception of Baylor, who was often listed as a SF, none of those players are PFs who Pettit played against in position.

That isn't the main point though imo, as with the higher levels of modern integration you have rotational players affecting offenses and defenses. In the modern era a young non white player can know he has a potential future in basketball and make much more money compared to the median income in this era.

But beyond that, the talent pool has skyrocketed regardless of color.

Another huge boost to competition is the much larger modern financial incentive motivates more talent to develop their games from a young age and attempt to enter the league. This combined with the sheer increase in feeder college programs and world wide talent pool greatly increases not only top end talent, but talent at every level competing for spots.

[drza]

Jumping in with my vote, in case the deadline is approaching:

Vote: Charles Barkley

This is certainly a transition point in the project for me. Back in threads 10 and 11 I made a list comparison on the players I expected to go in the next 10 slots. Barkley's the only one left from that crew that I made the stats on, so it's about time that I do it for the next group.

There've been some interesting points brought up about Ewing, and I wish I'd have been able to explore them more. But my default was that Barkley's overall impact on games was larger than Ewing's, even if Barkley's was primarily offensive while Ewing's was mainly defensive. Interestingly, I didn't find Doc MJ's RAPM comparison to be very convincing in Barkley's favor since at that attenuated point in their careers Ewing's total was higher than Barkley's. But I feel like Barkley's offense may have very well broke the ORAPM scale for a big/forward at his peak, and I need to still get a better handle on whether I think Ewing's defense + offense scales up to the same level. At this point I believe 'no', but in a thread or two once I've put in work on Ewing that could change. But for now, Charles takes this comp.

Wade is interesting, because he did have times when he just seemed to be the closest that we've seen to Jordan since Jordan. But due to health, we just didn't see it a whole lot. And for now, I still value Barkley's body of work higher.

Petit...I still am not there yet with Petit. I went into the RPoY project really expecting to be wowed by him, but I just wasn't as impressed as I thought to be. He seems to be primarily an offensive star, but his offense seemed to suffer to a noticeable degree in the postseason and no one ever really addresses it. He was a 2-time MVP, but in both MVP seasons his playoffs were questionable. At the height of his powers (1958 and 59), Hagan seemed to be CLEARLY the better player in the postseason. When I factor this in to the questions about era caliber, I just can't see Petit over Barkley. Or, said another way, I believe that Barkley is the better scoring/rebounding option (especially in the postseason) and that his overall impact on offense is even larger when you factor in his playmaking ability and the ways that he could operate as offensive engines from pretty much anywhere in the half-court. I think Barkley was just better.

Vote: Charles Barkley

[DQuinn1575]

Anybody got a vote count?

Near the end of two days.

When is the expected "end" for this thread? It didn't get posted until after midnight, so in theory there'd still be about 7 hours left if we really wanted it to go 2 days. Or are we going with the more 5 - 6 pm default, in which case I'd better get my vote in soon?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be pushy - up to the man in charge, not me.

[lukekarts]

I still haven't seen a reason to convince me to vote Barkley, or Pettit, over Wade. Appreciably I could get labelled a homer/fanboy, but you will note from my other posts I'm a big advocate for players who have fantastic playoff runs, Hakeem and Dirk being two particular favourites of mine in that regards.

I just think, that for all Barkley's strengths, he never had an absolutely dominant streak in him that meant his teams won a title. Wade stepped up a gear in 06 and just dominated the conference finals and finals. Hakeem stepped up and dominated two seasons in a row. Dirk stepped up in 2011. Even Pettit, who I'd be more convinced of here, stepped up and lead Atlanta to a title with phenomenal performances. It's why I shied away from voting for (Karl) Malone for so long.

The knocks on Wade are clear, but somewhat circumstantial too. Yes, he's had injuries, but he still won either side of those injuries and if anything it just cost him more titles. And yes, his physical prime (07-09) was wasted on bad teams. But despite these, he's been a very successful player, instrumental in one title and the second most important player for a further two. Unlike Barkley and Pettit, he's also been a very good defensive player - quite a clutch one, too, though that's difficult to measure (but I can certainly remember a lot of key moments). Like many stars, he does sometimes lack effort at that end, but even his raw statistical output outshines most guards - he's got a phenomenal blocking record, always racked up a lot of steals and has been one of the best rebounding guards over the past decade.

VOTE: Dwyane 'my mum spelled my name wrong' Wade

Frankly the big issues with Wade, I have trouble understanding how you don't understand.

You say "yes he's had injuries" like it's not a big thing. Dude, here's the number of years the 3 guys you mention had 10 Win Shares or more:

Pettit 10
Barkley 10
Wade 5

Not trying to say Win Shares are some be-all end-all stat or anything, but they were a star Wade did great with and when he missed the 10 threshold it was because something was seriously off about him. So 5 seasons plus at most with Wade you can add one more "good" season based on '11-12 where he came back from injury and did great through the playoffs, but still that's indicative of a rather serious longevity problem.

As I often say, peak vs longevity is something that for me mostly goes into the category of personal philosophy. I see people voted Wade here, it doesn't particularly bother me, but the way you said it here it was like you were picking Wade because you saw Wade's injuries were some small thing. They aren't. If Wade had a normal aging curve, LeBron wouldn't have left Miami this off-season.

The difference between Wade and Barkley (not Pettit, though) is that, despite injuries, when he was great he put a team on his back and won a title. Barkley never had that in him.

The argument, in short, is do I want a 5-6 year peak with a title, or a very good team but no title for 10 years?

My preference is for titles.

[Texas Chuck]

Offical Vote: Bob Petit

Not really ready for the guards getting most of the mention. Did consider Chuck and Ewing.

Dominant scorer, rebounder and had a well-rounded game
Took a title from the dynastic Russell Celtics
Was an elite player in an era that many call weak, but that at the top was as good as any era ever and the fewer teams means you are facing the best players a lot more often. Non-issue for me.

His worst ever season(rookie year no less) is 20/14/3.

Longevity hurts which is part of why he drops this far, but he gets my vote here.

As always this is my explanation, never my attempt to convince.

[tsherkin]

The difference between Wade and Barkley (not Pettit, though) is that, despite injuries, when he was great he put a team on his back and won a title. Barkley never had that in him.

The argument, in short, is do I want a 5-6 year peak with a title, or a very good team but no title for 10 years?

My preference is for titles.

This is a pretty limp argument, as it is based on an outcome which extends beyond the player. Wade's ability to win in 06 was based in part on the rules changes, in part on Shaq's presence, in part on coaching quality (even before Riley took over, really) and in part due to the savage failure of Dallas' roleplayers, as well as Dirk's collapse against quick wing defenders. Josh Howard and Jason Terry collectively crapped themselves, and not just because of Miami's defense.

The notion that Wade's victory in 06 is somehow miraculously superior to Chuck losing to the GOAT on the 93 Bulls is also a tenuous argument at best. Meantime, you advance the implicit assumption that Wade would always title, with all teams and in all eras, during his peak, and that's not true at all. He was very good and his presence at this stage of the discussion is fitting, but the way you present this argument really isn't effective or substantive.

"Titles" does not equate to a meaningful defense of a player's potential ranking, particularly when there remains some obvious gap in their offensive abilities. For everyone wanting to say Wade put the Heat on his back and took them home to a title, let's not forget that Barkley lofted 27.3 ppg, 13.0 rpg and 5.5 apg on a 123 ORTG in that Finals series over 46.2 mpg. He was doing work on the Bulls, but lost G6 by a single point. KJ had a rough series, and of course Barkley shot like stank in G6 himself, but he was definitely the major factor in them getting there in the first place and played very well through the majority of the series.

Wade exploded all over the Mavs, but he had a sight more actual help in fighting off the Mavs in that 06 series than you seem ready to admit, even if it didn't come through in the form of flashy box score numbers.

You can't equate a title to individual player efficacy without considering the full context of how that title was won, and if you do that, it's a lot harder to leverage that title as a major plus for Wade over Barkley. It's pretty clear even from his Philly years that despite his multitude of issues, Barkley was a player around whom a title-contending squad could be built if management could be capable talent around him. He caught the fading decline years of the Sixers and then had little thereafter, which is what ultimately prompted his move to Phoenix anyway... where he won an MVP in the middle of Jordan's dominance, and that was far from simple voter fatigue. 93 Barkley was absurdly good, and the way you're dismissing him based on an event heavily rooted in factors beyond Wade's control is a little baffling to me.

By all means choose Wade over Barkley if you are so inclined, it's a defensible position, but not in that way; that's just a tragedy of an argument. "I prefer titles," really? That's the distillation of "RINGZZZZ," passed through a filter of linguistic proficiency.

[90sAllDecade]

The better roster wins more games.If you contribute to winning, you get win shares. Why is that bad?

Because some are ranking individual players across eras or seasons which even despite it's flaws is a poor stat to use imo.

Just looking at recent examples of inaccuracies, Pau Gasol is #2 in total WS in the 10-11 over Kobe, Durant, Howard, Paul and even MVP Rose.

Elton Brand is #2 in total WS over Shaq in 01-02. It gets worse in the playoffs.

But overall in a season competition level/strength of schedule in the NBA balances out to pretty much zero.

But that is the inaccuracy itself: competition isn't balanced. If a team beats a D league level competition and a player dominates a terrible one, he receives a huge boost in WS.

Just ask George Mikan the king of Winshares.



http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... nge01.html

This is why it's a flawed stat to compare individual players across seasons or eras imo.

You have this backward - teams that win more games than expected receive less win shares, and vice versa. Your chance element is eliminated.

Hmm, this part isn't sourced in the winshares wiki, you may be right.

Agree - usually it is a sample size issue where Smith played 4 games in 1998, and got a higher WS/48 than Jordan. But Jordan wasn't player of the week every single week in 1998, and there were probably
weeks where Smith outperformed Jordan.

Good point. But even in the RS larger sample size, some players are inaccurately ranked above others due to team boost.

Win shares for the most part are based on Dean Oliver's Off and Def Ratings, which he did tie out to results - they get worse when you go back to the time steals, turnovers, etc. weren't tracked.



Win Shares are far from perfect -
it doesn't account for the non box score items on offense,
it smooths a good portion (peanut butter approach) defensive credit to the team overall.
it doesn't take into account Strength of Schedule, which it should at least for playoffs/college,etc.
it has sample size issue when computing WS/48.

I agree.

[Clyde Frazier]

The difference between Wade and Barkley (not Pettit, though) is that, despite injuries, when he was great he put a team on his back and won a title. Barkley never had that in him.

The argument, in short, is do I want a 5-6 year peak with a title, or a very good team but no title for 10 years?

My preference is for titles.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, but did you actually watch the majority of barkley's 93 finals run? I'm not sure how any objective observer could fault him for his playoff performance that season. He was every bit as good as wade, and faced a tougher opponent in the finals, period. I'm not about to go into a diatribe about the way the 06 finals was officiated, because even regardless of that, it's a slap in the face to barkley to put wade on a higher level. You're essentially ignoring context and just looking at results. That's a haphazard evaluation of both players as far as i'm concerned.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Patrick Ewing

Came down to Ewing, Charles Barkley, Dwyane Wade, and Steve Nash for me. Wade clearly has the best peak out of anybody left (and I mean anybody), but he's only got 6 years of his peak/prime. I've included 2012 in that. 2013 and 2014 are good years. 2007 and 2008 are question marks. I don't think he'd be able to be prime Wade in the playoffs during those 2 years because of injury, and that really hurts his value. He did have a great rookie season. Probably better overall than LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony.

Nash is right there, too. His 2010 season is extraordinary, maybe his best ever. 2005 we saw him go supernova in the playoffs. 2002-2004 Nash was still probably the best offensive PG in the league. 2007 was probably his actual best year. Tremendous player with underrated longevity.

The reason I went with Ewing over Barkley is because of my realization that I do believe Ewing's defense + offense (combined impact) scales up on a strong title contender at his peak/prime, to use Drza's verbage. We really are talking about one of the great defenders in NBA history, a guy who anchored GOAT-level team defenses at his peak, and top-line defenses for nearly a decade. It is incredibly close between the two, because I can see the argument for Barkley's peak being superior, his prime lasting a season longer, and Ewing not blowing Barkley away in terms of longevity. It's very close.

[Owly]

What sings exactly? Because all I see is that players from '54 were doing just fine (remember about adjusting for age) with shot clock, so if players inferior to Mikan were still productive in allegedly superior era, there's no reason to think Mikan also wouldn't be close to his '54 level.

...

The league in the pre shot clock era was still weak because black players weren't apart of it. Black players are the best basketball players in the world so a league with no black players is going to be inferior because you are ignoring around 75% of the best basketball players in the world. Mikan never had to face the best athletes (black players) so his numbers are inflated. He never had to face Russell, Mutombo, Wilt, Robinson, Ewing, Howard, Kareem, etc. Notice how all the great defensive bigs in history are black with the exception of Mark Eaton? Mikan didn't have to face them.

I don't think it's safe to assume that players with little incentive to develop their skills to a pro level, so in a substantial sense I suspect this 75% is consisting of hypothetical rather than real players.

But in any case as I think has been noted earlier in the project the Lakers decisively beat the Globetrotters in their series (at a time when the Globetrotters supposedly had the best of the black talent). The Dayton Rens (formerly, and primarily known as, the New York Rens, the next best black team though by this point lower status than the Globies) played a 14-26 record in the NBL in '49; a league Mikan had dominated the previous two season and which was considerably weaker since Mikan's Lakers and the Rochester Royals (also the Fort Wayne Pistons and Indianapolis Jets) the league's best teams, left for the BAA. The Lakers also beat the Rens in the 1948 World Professional Basketball Tournament.

So whilst you can perhaps hold hypothetical talent pool against him, you can't really say he didn't measure up against the blacks he faced or those who faced the same opponents as Mikan.

I think we have enough great white defenders that we don't need to make this a racial issue:

Bobby Jones 6'9 forward
Kevin McHale 6'10 power forward
Bill Walton center
John Stockton
Sloan
West
DeBusschere power forward
Hondo

Even guys like Ehlo, Marc Gasol, Bogut, Bradley, Thunder Dan, AK47 etc.

I said defensive bigs so most of the guys you mentioned don't apply. I guess McHale could be mentioned, but he was not a big man defensive player. He was more of a perimeter defender in his prime. Walton only played 1.5 seasons so we don't really know how good he was defensively.

Gasol and Bogut are "white" but not really "white". This discussion refers to American Whites. Bogut and Gasol are international players and they wouldn't have played in Mikan's era because his era didn't have international players.

Then of the secondary mentions three are centers, and AK a 6'9 combo forward.

Gasol and Bogut can be cited as part of hypothetical talent pool that wasn't there in Mikan's day. But I don't know whether that you could argue they don't belong in a discussion of whether blacks are superior post defenders.

Notice how all the great defensive bigs in history are black with the exception of Mark Eaton? Mikan didn't have to face them.

At the margin you could perhaps argue a distinct gene pool but I don't know that there's particularly evidence that North American whites are (or were) less athletic than other caucasians.

And the list offered wasn't comprehensive. Dave Cowens is a notable big omitted. Rudy LaRusso was supposed to a good defender. Jack Sikma. Laimbeer was a smart rugged defender. I think McIlvaine, Ostertag, Chris Dudley, Sabonis and Divac do well on defensive xRAPM (someone else could mine "better" +/- varients properly but thats from the former two off the top of my head and a cursory glance at '97 to confirm them and a bunch of other white bigs appeared), the top two were prolific shot blockers, and Dudley too had a very strong defensive reputation. And Walton was on the All-D team those two years ahead of a prime (some say peak) Jabbar whom you listed in your list of elite defenders. So it's a tad disingenous to then say "oh we don't know".

Then too, I suspect bigs is the area least affected by the influx of black talent, primarily because the pool of 7 foot (or 6'10+) blacks that might potentially play is that much smaller than the pool of 6'0 to 6'6 blacks.

I don't mind the smaller talent pool argument (white and black). And to be fair if this listing was just dominance Mikan would easily have been in now and he hasn't been getting votes. But I don't know that there's the evidence on the blacks are the best defensive bigs thing (particularly not any more so than any other position, e.g. wing scorer), and it would perhaps be better to try and tell the full picture rather than deny Walton could play D or ignore Mikan's success against actual black opponents.

The bigger (competition) issue might be that Mikan's biggest rival (the decidedly non-hypothetical Bob Kurland) decided to play semi-pro ball alongside a regular job.

[SactoKingsFan]

I'll go ahead and get my vote in since I'm not sure how much longer we have to vote.

Looks like Barkley, Pettit, Wade and Ewing are being discussed the most, so I’ll focus on why I prefer Barkley.

In addition to being a very efficient and dominant offensive anchor, Barkley was an all-time great playoff performer, an impressive passer/playmaker for a big, an elite rebounder and an absolute beast in the open court.

YouTube Video:

Spoiler:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvSI2DRvF0[/youtube]

Dipper 13’s shot chart which represents an 84 game sample from 88-96 shows Barkley as perhaps the greatest finisher of all-time (537/663 FG, 81% at rim) and a dominant scorer in the paint (600/862 FG, 69.6%).

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1244886


Barkley v Pettit:
My main issue with Pettit is his poor scoring efficiency. We’re talking about a big with a .436 career FG%. Even his adjusted eFG% (.530) doesn’t come close to being comparable to Barkley’s adjusted eFG% (.590). I just don’t see how Pettit compares to Barkley as an offensive force. Pettit would have to be an all-world defender to convince me that he should be ranked ahead of Barkley.

Barkley v Wade:
Some of the Wade posts have made me reconsider him as a top 20-25 candidate. Wade is the far superior defender, but he’s never really been a true defensive anchor. He may have also peaked a bit higher in 06 if we take his amazing 06 playoff run into account.

Wade’s durability and longevity are serious concerns. He only played 604 games and 22,430 minutes during his extended prime (05-13), while prime Barkley (87-97) played more games (781) and minutes (29,642) than Wade has played during the RS in his entire career. Extended prime Barkley (86-88) played 929 games and nearly 35,000 minutes.

Seeing how Barkley has a huge longevity edge, I’d have to think 05-13 Wade was a vastly superior player than 87-97 Barkley in order to give him my vote.

87-97 Barkley per 100: 32.0 PTS, 15.7 TRB, 5.5 AST, 3.2 STL+BLK, 4.3 TOV
87-97 Barkley: 25.8 PER, .619 TS%, .560 FTr, 121 ORtg, 105 DRtg, .229 WS/48

05-13 Wade per 100: 36.5 PTS, 7.4 TRB, 8.9 AST, 4.1 STL+BLK, 5.0 TOV
05-13 Wade: 26.3 PER, .569 TS%, .484 FTr, 112 ORtg, 103 DRtg, .204 WS/48

86-98 Barkley per 100: 31.0 PTS, 15.9 TRB, 5.5 AST, 3.2 STL+BLK, 4.3 TOV
86-98 Barkley: 25.2 PER, .616 TS%, .558 FTr, 120 ORtg, 105 DRtg, .222 WS/48

Extended prime (05-13) Wade doesn't look more impressive than prime (87-97) or extended prime (86-98) Barkley. Therefore, I can’t justify ranking Wade ahead of Barkley who has significantly greater longevity.

Barkley v Ewing:
Ewing has a significant edge as a defender since he was a legit defensive anchor for several seasons, however, I’m not as impressed with Ewing as a volume scorer. Barkley’s higher peak, better/longer prime, more efficient volume scoring and superior passing/playmaking ability are more than enough to give Barkley the overall edge.

Vote: Charles Barkley

[90sAllDecade]

I vote for Patrick Ewing as well for the reasons I described earlier.

His all time great defensive anchor impact, offensive ablities, lack of team support and competition against Jordan & Hakeem show how much he had to carry and how strong his combined individual two way impact was.

I think Ewing's defense is comparable to Barkley and Pettit's offense and his offense is better than their defense.

I'd be okay with Wade passing him in future years with more years of excellence and longevity as I do value playoff performance, but I think Ewing is better right now and in the foreseeable future unless Wade recovers his health to dominate again for more seasons.

Also I'd did a quick look at Ewing's playoff defense and he seems strong there and perhaps better some years than the RS.

I'll post something here later, but he may be really underrated for elevating his defensive game under pressure, as well as other analysis when I have time.