RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #26

[JoeMalburg]

Concerns about Kevin Durant

1) The Bandwagon Factor. This is far too simple an argument, but somewhere in here there is a good point. I don’t fault him, I don’t think he’s ruining basketball, but still something doesn't sit quite right with KD’s move to Golden State. And while he was sensational in the Finals, I don’t think he was essential to their title nor was going to Golden State essential to him being a Champion. Im showing my age and generational bias, but those type of moves are supposed to come after 30 in my old-ass opinion.

2) Less than meets the eye (test). This, I think, is a far more legitimate concern. A lot of super smart folks here have pointed out that Curry, not Durant seemed to have the most impact on the Warriors fortunes by a discernable margin. Additionally we previously witnessed Russell Westbrook playing a more assertive and arguably more impactful role in the postseason with the Thunder over the 2015 and 2016 seasons and Durant posted some rather inefficient numbers in big games and overall in those playoffs. Add in his limited impact in his first two seasons slightly less than superstar impact numbers during the regular season and I have to admit I am questioning if it’s just a bias towards his size and style and the much longer tradition of seeing players who look like him and not Steph Curry dominate the NBA. I’m open to arguments here from both sides.

I'm glad that many see that Durant didn't need to join GS just to become a champion. I don't hold it against him because when the generational GOAT is basically trying to create a new superteam everytime his current squad gets old, what are you supposed to do?

As to overall impact, we're talking about a guy who through 10 seasons is an MVP, a FMVP (and deservedly so), 7 time All NBA Performer and put up an absurd playoff line of 29-8-4-2.2 blk + Steal, < 12% TO Rate & 59% TS. Everyone else on his 10 year similarity score is already in except Adrian Dantley.

No one left has such a strong & efficient 10 year run. If you'd rather take Steph's peak over KD and give back a couple years where KD is providing a lot of value for nothing in return (so far), I respectfully disagree with you but don't think it's completely unreasonable.

Are there times where he could've been more assertive? Sure. Has his defensive impact been average to above average until this year? Fair criticism. Could his ball handling use a little work? Yep. But we're not at #6 or #16 - we're at pick #26 and for prime performance, no one else has accomplished what he has done already and others have bigger warts that have a bigger impact on the results.

I'm leaning towards Durant as my vote. I know what the numbers say defensively, but I feel like he's been changing games with his defense in the playoffs for years. He doesn't do it all season, he picks his spots, he had the luxury of picking a lot more this year on such a great team and it showed.

He makes defenses adjust to him like Dirk did. (except Cleveland in the finals and how'd that go for them) he makes everyone else better. I firmly believe I saw that this postseason. To me he's clearly better than Steph by what I see, but I can see the numbers too and admit a novice level understanding there, so I am hesitant to commit.

Is your stance that even if Curry was more valuable to the Warriors this season, Durant belongs above him all-time?

[JoeMalburg]

Concerns about Kevin Durant

1) The Bandwagon Factor. This is far too simple an argument, but somewhere in here there is a good point. I don’t fault him, I don’t think he’s ruining basketball, but still something doesn't sit quite right with KD’s move to Golden State. And while he was sensational in the Finals, I don’t think he was essential to their title nor was going to Golden State essential to him being a Champion. Im showing my age and generational bias, but those type of moves are supposed to come after 30 in my old-ass opinion.

2) Less than meets the eye (test). This, I think, is a far more legitimate concern. A lot of super smart folks here have pointed out that Curry, not Durant seemed to have the most impact on the Warriors fortunes by a discernable margin. Additionally we previously witnessed Russell Westbrook playing a more assertive and arguably more impactful role in the postseason with the Thunder over the 2015 and 2016 seasons and Durant posted some rather inefficient numbers in big games and overall in those playoffs. Add in his limited impact in his first two seasons slightly less than superstar impact numbers during the regular season and I have to admit I am questioning if it’s just a bias towards his size and style and the much longer tradition of seeing players who look like him and not Steph Curry dominate the NBA. I’m open to arguments here from both sides.


Concerns about Steph Curry

1) He has fewer all-NBA first team selections and total all-NBA selections than any player selected so far. And while by no means am I implying this should be the standard or is the be-all-end-all, it does suggest that maybe we’d be jumping the gun to put Curry up so high. It’s not as if the argument would be he got stiffed on what should have been All-NBA quality seasons, the reality is he’s been an elite player for 3-3.5 years, that’s it and that’s what the numbers reflect. That’s not even two Bill Walton’s. Additionally, as I noted, in half of those seasons and specifically the one’s where he shouldered the lion's-share and then some of the primacy on offense during FInals runs, he wore down enough that it impacted his play. As great as Curry is right now, he’s a bad landing or rolling post player away from never being the same elite guy again. I’m bearing that in mind as I consider his position in these rankings.

2) Durability is a question. Following up in some way on what I ended on in the last point, he was injured in the 2013 playoffs, wore down in the 2015 playoffs and was injured in the 2016 playoffs. While his impact when healthy is absolutely elite by the numbers and the eye test, because of how he plays, his impact can fall off a cliff if he isn’t right. The Warriors went from looking unbeatable to looking downright pedestrian in parts of the 2015 and 2016 Finals, this is concerning for me when considering a player among the top 30 all-time when we are nearly 75 years into the league's history.



Concerns about Rick Barry

1) Dependability/Consistency. It’s hard to believe I am going to find fault in this regard with one of the most fundamentally sound, well practiced and disciplined players of all-time. But Barry was so hyper-competitive that he often let his emotions get the best of him and it seems to have, potentially at least, cost him a lot in terms of individual and team success over his career.
He was a superstar at 21, an elite scorer and by his second season he was on an elite team. Then, he quit, sort of. His departure from the NBA for the fledgling ABA in 1968, just more than a year after reaching an NBA Finals he still contends was winnable, was part petulance and part easy way out. Not exactly the stuff superstars are traditionally made of. After sitting a season in his prime, he got hurt in his first season with the Oakland Oaks. They went on to win the title behind Warren Jabali, formerly Warren Armstrong. He never won a title in the ABA, made first team every year, even when he missed time with injury, but was never MVP and his stats, while impressive weren't jaw dropping like some other guys in the run and gun league. Upon returning to the Warriors, they improved Year by Year and were the surprise Champions in 1975 when they swept a stunned Bullets team. But the next year, an even better Warriors team went into the Western Finals as heavy favorites and fell to the Suns with Barry throwing a personal pity party after teammates didn't adequately have his back when the prickly Rick got into a first half tussle. And that's The Issue with Barry for me, some guys never had great opportunities to win, Barry gave some of those opportunities away, not because he failed, but because he didn't try.

2) Strength of Competition. Not because it’s worse than any other era per se, but because there is just so much uncertainty during this era of extensive expansion and competing pro leagues.
Barry entered an expanding NBA, left for a start-up ABA and returned to the NBA right as the talent pools were starting to have relatively similar depth. That's when he won his title and had his most exceptional seasons.


Concerns about Elgin Baylor

1) Quite frankly, was he as great as 10 all-NBA first team selections and the tales of his aerial majesty suggest, or was he more a rely on his reputation low efficiency, high volume chucker? Surely the answer is somewhere in the middle, but to which side are the scales tipped? The biggest problem is the lack of film. I love 1960’s NBA game film, I’ve searched far and wide for whatever I can find and I’ve only got 13 games worth of notes on Elgin. A lot of them, sadly, after his knees failed him. So, while I am mostly comfortable relying on the assessments and anecdotes of peers contemporary to Baylor, I must admit I’ve started to see their conclusions as more and more tinted by nostalgia and the natural bias to one’s own experience.

2) The sore thumb that is no MVP and no title. It’s why I cringe at the preemptive inclusion of Stockton and Paul and it's why ranking Baylor troubles me. Baylor is the highest ranked player on my list not to have won the MVP or a World Championship. These are somewhat arbitrary criteria I admit, but there is a pattern that emerges predominantly in any pro basketball list of this sort that an educated person or panel constructs: The guys who win MVP’s and win titles in primary roles make their way to the top of the list. And so I put a good deal of stock in it, or at least more so that I would most other seemingly isolated occurrences.


Concerns about John Havlicek

1) Was he elite? He was never an MVP candidate. That could be explained by looking at the voting history and how rarely non-centers were top contenders for the prize. He was always a part of very balanced teams when they were contenders. His best statistical seasons came on bad teams and a lot of his greatest moments came when he was a sixth man, albeit the very best in that capacity. Once it was his team (along with Dave Cowens, the 1973 MVP) they were an ultra balanced team that won based on that balance. Not a fault, but distinguishable from most of the guys were looking at here. His defense helps his case, being a great two way player is always attractive, he was the stylistic ancestor of Scottie Pippen who perfected the Havlicek role as a “I'll do whatever it takes whenever it takes it, but I'll never do it all.” Super not quite superstar. He got more chances than Pip to lead a team, but I'm no more convinced that was his ideal role.

2. Product of the System? If Chet Walker and John Havlicek trade places, what happens? Both enter the league 1962, both have good rookie years as role players and for the rest of the 60s Havlicek gives you 20 and six and Walker give you 18 and eight, both as one of two primary perimeter options in support of Bill Russell and aless ball-dominant Wilt Chamberlain respectively. Havlicek famously steals Walkers pass in 1965 and is also on the winning side of epic matchups in ‘66 and ‘68. Then while Havlicek hangs on with a rebuilding Boston, the league's premier top to bottom organization in the 70’s, Walker joins the third year franchise, the Chicago Bulls, a very good, but perpetually one piece away team. Both guys are arguably the best player on balanced teams, but Boston is always a player or two deeper and as a result Hondo adds two more titles sans-Russell to his legacy.

I don't doubt that Hondo was a greater player than Chet Walker, but switch them spots in 1962 and I'm not sure they're even close to 50 spots apart as they are now.


Concerns about Isiah Thomas

1) Here’s a huge dose of catharsis after a very deep dive into a player I already had a deep appreciation for and understanding of, first concern, he needed the situation he was in, to achieve what he did. Kudos to Zeke for being willing to do what was best for the team, but it is undeniable (especially after rewatching 87 playoff third and/or fourth quarters) that the Pistons were an ideally constructed team that arrived at the perfect time. Isiah benefitted from being an offensive star on a team that was most dependent on and dedicated to defense. It allowed him to pick his spots and not have to carry the offensive burden all game. Additionally, the scoring of Dantley/Aguirre/Edwards in the post and Vinne/Dumars on the perimeter gave the Pistons several other options with the capability of getting hot to help balance the Pistons attack. Finally, their frontcourt depth and athleticism were far better than that of Boston, LA or Chicago, their three primary rivals and often times that would be the difference in the war of attrition that is the later rounds of the NBA playoffs. They win games at times by getting every nearly rebound in the fourth quarter. Rodman, Salley with Fresh legs playing 20-24 mpg were terrors in the fourth against exhausted front lines asked to log 40 mpg all series. That's the main argument against Isiah and some here have made it well. I get it, and to a large extent, I concede.

2) Less than overwhelming resume. Only five all-NBA selections, only 9 or 10 prime seasons. Was never a definitive top 3-5 player. So he doesn’t have the peak or longevity a lot of the guys listed above him and in competition with him for this spot do. That’s mildly concerning for me, especially in the interest of avoiding a personal bias due to my extensive familiarity with his career.
Isiah also doesn't have much of a case based on advanced stats or impact stats. Role players Laimbeer and Rodman garner more win shares, his efficiency kills him a lot more by the numbers than it ever did on the court, but to a large extent, in a believer that numbers don't lie, people just use them to support their lies. So Zeke is rightly criticized here too. He's not going yet, but I'll be pushing for him soon,


Concerns about Scottie Pippen

1) Could he have been the man? He had a crack at it for a little over one season and he showed very well, but there were flaws and things that he’d need to change. Add things to his game, change his approach, change his personality, that may have been easier said than done. How much of the greatness of Scottie Pippen, the ultimate number two guy, do you lose when he has to become the number one guy?
Before Bird and Magic, the 1 and 3 positions were probably the most synonymous with complimentary players. Pippen had the size/athleticism/skill to play the part of alpha, but so many players who fit that mold were wrongly cast in it for us to assume success. It comes down to personality, Pippen didn't seem to have it, Phil Jackson, in his book Sacred Hoops, concludes that it was “unfair” to ask Scottie to assert himself as Michael previously had after being asked exclusively to defer to Michael and the team concept previously. Especially after he had thrived so much. I tend to agree with Phil.


2) Is it time for elite support players yet? Rather or not Pippen could have been a career alpha, he wasn’t. He spent the vast majority of his career is a supporting role and was exceptional at it. His diverse., extensive skill set and unique combination of speed, length and instincts made him the ultimate wildcard in any crucial game. He could be the difference on offense or defense, in the half court of full court in the post or on the perimeter. Pippen was truly a jack of all trades, master of none. But is it time to start including that type of player. I’d say Pippen and Stockton are the two best all-time in this capacity, I’d have Scottie before John, but that’s out of the question for our purposes now. Still it’s a question that I am mulling over as Pippen should be involved in the next 2-5 votes at least.

Concerns about Clyde Frazier

1) Was he Elite? Largely the same question with Isiah. How much was Clyde’s greatness elevated by the great players he got to play with? He deserves a lot of credit for being the type of play who gets better around great players and not the type who needs the spotlight to shine, but again, as is always so challenging with intangible matters like this, to what extent?


2) Longevity. Bob Pettit and George Mikan are the only players we’ve ranked thus far that I credit with fewer than ten prime seasons. I have Frazier with nine. As great as he was he doesn’t have the resume that Pettit or Mikan do, nor had his career began in the NBA’s infancy, so it’s less easy to look past.

Concerns About Bob Cousy

1) Declining play during second half of career casts him as a much different player than the one who made 10 all-NBA teams and won the 1957 MVP. Cousy probably wasn't the second best player on the Celtics from 1958-1961. He certainly wasn't ever after that, but his reputation persisted as such to be sure. Why did the media and many of his peers hold such reverence for Cousy? The cynic in me says it's 80% race related and 20% style related. He did make the game fun, but sometimes to the detriment of the team. Bad shots, careless passes, unnecessary fakes or flash, there is a great irony that isn't lost on me in how much every coach or gym teacher I had who was old enough to remember seeing Cousy both loved him and hated when we emulated his behind the back and no look passes. Make sense of that…

Cousy and Baylor are both falling in my list and I think it's the right choice, but I'm conflicted. 20 some years ago, when I started doing this in earnest, they were in the same class as Pettit, West and Oscar. That had to change some, but the divide is growing at an accelerating rate and my only concern is I'm applying too much of today's standard to that era. Would love thoughts from others who've wrestled with this.


2) How much of an issue is the terrible shooting? It didn’t hurt the Celtics very much once Russell showed up, but I think it did, quite a bit, before than. The Celtics won just one playoff series pre-Russell and often got upset in the playoffs. They were the only team in the league so heavily dependent on guards offensively. I think that was a bad choice for the era. The fast break was too far ahead of its time. Russell made it click, not Cousy.

Edit/note: Apologies for grammar, punctuation, spelling errors and strange out of place words, done almost exclusively with talk and type.

A ton of great points and questions raised!
A few responses (in the order in which you referred to them ...)

Durant: I have him 27th so, imo, he should go right after the guys I have ahead of him: Cousy, Baylor & Barry.

Stephen Curry: Imagine the "unimaginable" that Curry gets injured early this coming season and never is great again. (Could happen). Then his less than 4 great seasons would NEVER be near enough, despite their GOAT PEAK-ishness; to merit inclusing in an overall GOAT list this high up. btw, in my system based primarily on ALL-League selections, he has 16 points in 55th place! (15th PG). For me ranking him in the GOAT top 30 is terrible RECENCY bias. (Give him time to accumulate a few more Great Years and he's challenging for top-tier bragging rights; but not nearly yet.)

Rick Barry, Elgin Baylor & Bob Cousy: Cousy DOMINATED his position for 12 seasons: 10 as a ALL-NBA 1st-Teamer (same as Baylor) and 2 more as a 2nd-Teamer. I don't get why you say that he slowed down in the second half of his careere. After those 12 Great Years, his career was just about over (few All-Time greats back then played more than 12 years). Baylor too DOMINATED his position for 10 years - these two are the only not-yet-selected players with double-digit ALL-League 1st-Team selections - for me, that's THE BEST argument there could be. Cousy & Baylor also revolutionized their respective positions - being FAR ahead of their times. Baylor "invented" hang-time; and though it was often "below-the-rim"; his excellent wrist-strength enabled him to wait til his opponent had landed and still flip the ball in. Barry is just behind them in this regard. He got NINE ALL-League 1st-Team selections; and would surely have gotten a 10th if the NBA hadn't of legally stopped him from playing that year in the ABA.

Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.

I have: Pippen, Isiah & Clyde all in my GOAT late 30s; with Hondo a bit behind. Again, mostly because that's about where they rank, position-wise in my system based mostly on "Great Years"; and where, in each descending set of FIVE GOAT spots, one player per position is selected.

Thanks Pablo!

I think this is a good example of why your system has flaws, though overall I like the subjectivity of it a lot.

Cousy was flat out bad in the playoffs shooting 30-35% frequently in the Russell era. Everyone else on the team was markedly better.

The Celtics offense went from average (57-59) to one of the leagues worst (60-63) with Cousy at the helm.

He probably deserved all-NBA recognition some years, most even, but it was because the guard position was down and devalued overall. He was a dominate guard who changed the position, but when he won his contribution was that of s 3rd/4th option.

He clearly declined and it hurt the team but he kept getting respect because if reputation. Watch any Celtics game available from 1960 on and Cousy struggles.

With Baylor I'm less certain, but his numbers post knee injury suggest he was shooting too much. The team lost s lot of close games when he struggled shooting and still took 20+ shots.

Plus he never broke through. No MVP or Title, as you say, MVP vote is far from perfect, but when did Baylor get robbed? I don't see it.

[pandrade83]

For those of you with at least 1 foot in the Patrick Ewing camp, I would like you to reconcile a few things for me. Don't look at this as a challenge, but merely a question in need of an answer…

The Knicks became elite defensively in 1992 when Pat Riley took over his coach and remain so through the Jeff Van Gundy era. During that time they declined from slightly above average to below average offensively. In that time, they swapped a lot of offensive players (Gerald Wilkins, Xavier McDaniel etc) for better all-around players, especially physical defensive guys. They remained very good to elite and defense even after Ewing declined in the late 90s. Why then does Patrick Ewing get the lion share of the credit? And, consequently, shouldn't he also absorb some of the blame for the teams failings on offense, or in the least, should his defense of impact be considered less then because so many other Knicks players during the Riley/JVG era were defensive oriented?

And at the end of the day, how much does it matter that he never got the team over the top?

On the defensive piece: There was a rotating cast of characters in there and not all were good at defense:

Allan Houston eventually replaced Starks, Larry Johnson replaced Mason & Spree/John Wallace replaced Charles Smith/Anthony Bonner - that's a downgrade of several players who ate a lot of minutes, they generally had aging point guards or weak defensive point guards until Ward showed up, the head coach changed and still - the defense remained strong during all those years. Many of the roster moves were made with offensive firepower in mind. His offense fell off before his D - his D rebounding rates & block rates remain strong. The '98 & '99 defensive ratings are partially propped up by Dudley & Gumby to be fair. While he was still a strong defender when on the court, he missed a lot of time both years.

I called out his offensive shortcomings for sure in my post on him - so I'll be the first to acknowledge it. At the same time, it's worth remembering that he did not play with another player in their prime who will even sniff this list. That creates a lot of additional pressure. The Larry Johnson move was shortsighted in general - he was inferior to Mason and his athletic explosiveness was gone by the time the Knicks got him. He was reasonably efficient, but benefited from Ewing/Houston soaking up attention.

The fact that Houston had a worse TS% than Ewing during their years together speaks to weak offensive point guard play - but also the fact that he was not an adequate offensive anchor. He was more of a volume scorer. While the Knicks tried to address the issue, they never truly did solve for it.

Ultimately Ewing deserves some of the blame - he was the offensive anchor after all - but the context matters as well - and the fact that he never played with another guy who will sniff this Top 100. But I don't see anyone left - other than Durant - who you put in his shoes and Ewing goes in theirs year for year who does better.

It wasn't a total defense of Ewing - but it's where I stand on the issue.

[JoeMalburg]

For those of you with at least 1 foot in the Patrick Ewing camp, I would like you to reconcile a few things for me. Don't look at this as a challenge, but merely a question in need of an answer…

The Knicks became elite defensively in 1992 when Pat Riley took over his coach and remain so through the Jeff Van Gundy era. During that time they declined from slightly above average to below average offensively. In that time, they swapped a lot of offensive players (Gerald Wilkins, Xavier McDaniel etc) for better all-around players, especially physical defensive guys. They remained very good to elite and defense even after Ewing declined in the late 90s. Why then does Patrick Ewing get the lion share of the credit? And, consequently, shouldn't he also absorb some of the blame for the teams failings on offense, or in the least, should his defense of impact be considered less then because so many other Knicks players during the Riley/JVG era were defensive oriented?

And at the end of the day, how much does it matter that he never got the team over the top?

On the defensive piece: There was a rotating cast of characters in there and not all were good at defense:

Allan Houston eventually replaced Starks, Larry Johnson replaced Mason & Spree/John Wallace replaced Charles Smith/Anthony Bonner - that's a downgrade of several players who ate a lot of minutes, they generally had aging point guards or weak defensive point guards until Ward showed up, the head coach changed and still - the defense remained strong during all those years. Many of the roster moves were made with offensive firepower in mind. His offense fell off before his D - his D rebounding rates & block rates remain strong. The '98 & '99 defensive ratings are partially propped up by Dudley & Gumby to be fair. While he was still a strong defender when on the court, he missed a lot of time both years.

I called out his offensive shortcomings for sure in my post on him - so I'll be the first to acknowledge it. At the same time, it's worth remembering that he did not play with another player in their prime who will even sniff this list. That creates a lot of additional pressure. The Larry Johnson move was shortsighted in general - he was inferior to Mason and his athletic explosiveness was gone by the time the Knicks got him. He was reasonably efficient, but benefited from Ewing/Houston soaking up attention.

The fact that Houston had a worse TS% than Ewing during their years together speaks to weak offensive point guard play - but also the fact that he was not an adequate offensive anchor. He was more of a volume scorer. While the Knicks tried to address the issue, they never truly did solve for it.

Ultimately Ewing deserves some of the blame - he was the offensive anchor after all - but the context matters as well - and the fact that he never played with another guy who will sniff this Top 100. But I don't see anyone left - other than Durant - who you put in his shoes and Ewing goes in theirs year for year who does better.

It wasn't a total defense of Ewing - but it's where I stand on the issue.

When they were great defensively with Oakley, Charles Smith, The Anthony's Mason and Bonner off the bench, and a rotating cast of solid two excellent defense PGs including Doc Rivers, Derek Harper and Mo Cheeks, that was comparable to the Bad Boys as was Rileys design. VanGundy inherited the system, and largely for players to fit in the system in place. Not saying every move was the right move, but it's not like they made huge mistakes either.

You're right that none of Ewing's teammates are likely to appear in the top 100, but how many of them are bad players? From 1991 through the rest of the decade Ewing always had a very strong starting lineup and typically Starks is one of the premier six man off the bench. Not a dominant team necessarily, but always good enough to contend.

How much, if at all, does Ewing suffer from being a notch below the elite (Barkley, MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Robinson) during his era? We're passing up guys who were closer to elite when they played and achieved more in terms of all-NBA and MVP attention.

[pandrade83]

Concerns about Kevin Durant

1) The Bandwagon Factor. This is far too simple an argument, but somewhere in here there is a good point. I don’t fault him, I don’t think he’s ruining basketball, but still something doesn't sit quite right with KD’s move to Golden State. And while he was sensational in the Finals, I don’t think he was essential to their title nor was going to Golden State essential to him being a Champion. Im showing my age and generational bias, but those type of moves are supposed to come after 30 in my old-ass opinion.

2) Less than meets the eye (test). This, I think, is a far more legitimate concern. A lot of super smart folks here have pointed out that Curry, not Durant seemed to have the most impact on the Warriors fortunes by a discernable margin. Additionally we previously witnessed Russell Westbrook playing a more assertive and arguably more impactful role in the postseason with the Thunder over the 2015 and 2016 seasons and Durant posted some rather inefficient numbers in big games and overall in those playoffs. Add in his limited impact in his first two seasons slightly less than superstar impact numbers during the regular season and I have to admit I am questioning if it’s just a bias towards his size and style and the much longer tradition of seeing players who look like him and not Steph Curry dominate the NBA. I’m open to arguments here from both sides.

I'm glad that many see that Durant didn't need to join GS just to become a champion. I don't hold it against him because when the generational GOAT is basically trying to create a new superteam everytime his current squad gets old, what are you supposed to do?

As to overall impact, we're talking about a guy who through 10 seasons is an MVP, a FMVP (and deservedly so), 7 time All NBA Performer and put up an absurd playoff line of 29-8-4-2.2 blk + Steal, < 12% TO Rate & 59% TS. Everyone else on his 10 year similarity score is already in except Adrian Dantley.

No one left has such a strong & efficient 10 year run. If you'd rather take Steph's peak over KD and give back a couple years where KD is providing a lot of value for nothing in return (so far), I respectfully disagree with you but don't think it's completely unreasonable.

Are there times where he could've been more assertive? Sure. Has his defensive impact been average to above average until this year? Fair criticism. Could his ball handling use a little work? Yep. But we're not at #6 or #16 - we're at pick #26 and for prime performance, no one else has accomplished what he has done already and others have bigger warts that have a bigger impact on the results.

I'm leaning towards Durant as my vote. I know what the numbers say defensively, but I feel like he's been changing games with his defense in the playoffs for years. He doesn't do it all season, he picks his spots, he had the luxury of picking a lot more this year on such a great team and it showed.

He makes defenses adjust to him like Dirk did. (except Cleveland in the finals and how'd that go for them) he makes everyone else better. I firmly believe I saw that this postseason. To me he's clearly better than Steph by what I see, but I can see the numbers too and admit a novice level understanding there, so I am hesitant to commit.

Is your stance that even if Curry was more valuable to the Warriors this season, Durant belongs above him all-time?

I know that this sounds like such a cop-out but:

Regular Season - Durant more effective while on court - but missed a little bit of time. Steph not quite as effective, but still hugely impactful.

Playoffs: Steph more effective rounds 1-3 - partially as a function of who they played - partially because KD appeared to be shaking off rust initially. KD more effective in the only round where they were even remotely threatened (Finals).

So, I call this year a wash. Im willing to give up a little bit - not gigantic - but a little bit of edge to Steph in terms of peak - but in exchange, you have to give up two very high impact years of All-NBA years from Durant for nothing. That's a tough pill to swallow. I'm not saying Steph can't get there - but I'm not willing to make that exchange at this time.

[oldschooled]

Code: Select all

Rank                   Player    MVP Shares
14.              Kevin Durant      3.119
22.                Steve Nash      2.429
23.             Stephen Curry      2.028
29.              James Harden      1.568
30.            Allen Iverson*      1.567
31.         Russell Westbrook      1.532
33.            Patrick Ewing*      1.424

Peak
Curry
Pat
KD
Nash

Prime
I'll give a small advantage to Curry even KD was playing at an elite level at a longer time (see MVP shares). Curry's 4-year run is more impressive than KD's 7+ run due to value and what Curry achieved in that short span of time.

Accolades
Curry
KD
Nash
Pat

Vote: Curry
Alt: KD

[Lou Fan]

26. John Havlicek

27. Kevin Durant

I have these two at 21st and 22nd.

Career points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks (RS):

Havlicek: 41,109 (more than John Stockton, David Robinson, or Jerry West)
Durant: 28,393
Curry: 20,656

(PS):
Havlicek: 5,862 (more than Nowitzki, Barkley, or Garnett)
Durant: 4,539
Curry: 2,989

I. Havlicek has 1.5 "Best on Champs," putting him in elite company among remaining players, as only three others match this total (and none of the above group of Nowitzki, Barkley, and Garnett). Among those players (Isiah Thomas, Dave Cowens, Steph Curry), Havlicek's career totals in both the regular season and the playoffs are first by a huge margin.

II. Durant has a very balanced resume. What stands out most is that he is first among remaining players in my MVP voting metric and ranks above five or six players who are already on the list.

Can you explain Hondo over Pippen. They had similar roles as the Robin to Jordan's/Russell's Batman and Pippen just did it better imo. In my eyes he's like an upgraded Hondo.

[trex_8063]

Concerns about Kevin Durant

1) The Bandwagon Factor. This is far too simple an argument, but somewhere in here there is a good point. I don’t fault him, I don’t think he’s ruining basketball, but still something doesn't sit quite right with KD’s move to Golden State. And while he was sensational in the Finals, I don’t think he was essential to their title nor was going to Golden State essential to him being a Champion. Im showing my age and generational bias, but those type of moves are supposed to come after 30 in my old-ass opinion.

2) Less than meets the eye (test). This, I think, is a far more legitimate concern. A lot of super smart folks here have pointed out that Curry, not Durant seemed to have the most impact on the Warriors fortunes by a discernable margin. Additionally we previously witnessed Russell Westbrook playing a more assertive and arguably more impactful role in the postseason with the Thunder over the 2015 and 2016 seasons and Durant posted some rather inefficient numbers in big games and overall in those playoffs. Add in his limited impact in his first two seasons slightly less than superstar impact numbers during the regular season and I have to admit I am questioning if it’s just a bias towards his size and style and the much longer tradition of seeing players who look like him and not Steph Curry dominate the NBA. I’m open to arguments here from both sides.

The Bandwagon Factor isn't a huge issue to me. My criteria and how I grade players isn't HUGELY influenced by the presence/absence of a single title anyway. Do I kinda look at this particular title a little differently than others? I suppose so, but it's not something that shifts things much.

Regarding #2, I'm always extremely impressed by what I see ("eye-test") with Kevin Durant (and perhaps especially this past season); and then subsequently am surprised if his impact metrics don't quite stack up to what I feel like I was watching (I'm not referring to a direct comparison to Steph Curry this past season, btw, but more broadly across most of Durant's career).

I'm not sure how to reconcile the divide, tbh. It's one I've struggled with; was part of why I supported Ewing and Pettit before him in this project.

Concerns about Steph Curry

1) He has fewer all-NBA first team selections and total all-NBA selections than any player selected so far. And while by no means am I implying this should be the standard or is the be-all-end-all, it does suggest that maybe we’d be jumping the gun to put Curry up so high. It’s not as if the argument would be he got stiffed on what should have been All-NBA quality seasons, the reality is he’s been an elite player for 3-3.5 years, that’s it and that’s what the numbers reflect. That’s not even two Bill Walton’s. Additionally, as I noted, in half of those seasons and specifically the one’s where he shouldered the lion's-share and then some of the primacy on offense during FInals runs, he wore down enough that it impacted his play.

I totally agree. Keeping consistent with the high-value I place on meaningful longevity, Curry's not someone I'm yet considering. His going here would be at least 7-8 places too high for my preference.

Concerns about Rick Barry

1) Dependability/Consistency. It’s hard to believe I am going to find fault in this regard with one of the most fundamentally sound, well practiced and disciplined players of all-time. But Barry was so hyper-competitive that he often let his emotions get the best of him and it seems to have, potentially at least, cost him a lot in terms of individual and team success over his career.
He was a superstar at 21, an elite scorer and by his second season he was on an elite team. Then, he quit, sort of. His departure from the NBA for the fledgling ABA in 1968, just more than a year after reaching an NBA Finals he still contends was winnable, was part petulance and part easy way out. Not exactly the stuff superstars are traditionally made of. After sitting a season in his prime, he got hurt in his first season with the Oakland Oaks. They went on to win the title behind Warren Jabali, formerly Warren Armstrong. He never won a title in the ABA, made first team every year, even when he missed time with injury, but was never MVP and his stats, while impressive weren't jaw dropping like some other guys in the run and gun league. Upon returning to the Warriors, they improved Year by Year and were the surprise Champions in 1975 when they swept a stunned Bullets team. But the next year, an even better Warriors team went into the Western Finals as heavy favorites and fell to the Suns with Barry throwing a personal pity party after teammates didn't adequately have his back when the prickly Rick got into a first half tussle. And that's The Issue with Barry for me, some guys never had great opportunities to win, Barry gave some of those opportunities away, not because he failed, but because he didn't try.

2) Strength of Competition. Not because it’s worse than any other era per se, but because there is just so much uncertainty during this era of extensive expansion and competing pro leagues.
Barry entered an expanding NBA, left for a start-up ABA and returned to the NBA right as the talent pools were starting to have relatively similar depth. That's when he won his title and had his most exceptional seasons.

I again agree.
Barry was somewhat a mediocre defensive talent, too, no? Meanwhile, his offense was never up to the level of guys like Curry, Nash, or Durant. Thus, even in his best seasons, I don't feel like Barry was ever the level of talent that guys like Durant, Curry, Nash, or Ewing were.
His longevity is very good, but not great; and as you elaborated on there are multiple instances illustrating highly questionable leadership qualities.
As a result of all this, he is another I'm really not even ready to consider until at least 4-6 specific individuals are off the table.

Concerns about Elgin Baylor

1) Quite frankly, was he as great as 10 all-NBA first team selections and the tales of his aerial majesty suggest, or was he more a rely on his reputation low efficiency, high volume chucker? Surely the answer is somewhere in the middle, but to which side are the scales tipped? The biggest problem is the lack of film. I love 1960’s NBA game film, I’ve searched far and wide for whatever I can find and I’ve only got 13 games worth of notes on Elgin. A lot of them, sadly, after his knees failed him. So, while I am mostly comfortable relying on the assessments and anecdotes of peers contemporary to Baylor, I must admit I’ve started to see their conclusions as more and more tinted by nostalgia and the natural bias to one’s own experience.

2) The sore thumb that is no MVP and no title. It’s why I cringe at the preemptive inclusion of Stockton and Paul and it's why ranking Baylor troubles me. Baylor is the highest ranked player on my list not to have won the MVP or a World Championship. These are somewhat arbitrary criteria I admit, but there is a pattern that emerges predominantly in any pro basketball list of this sort that an educated person or panel constructs: The guys who win MVP’s and win titles in primary roles make their way to the top of the list. And so I put a good deal of stock in it, or at least more so that I would most other seemingly isolated occurrences.

Again, the "top dog on a title team" narrative isn't one that sits heavily upon my mind-set when ranking players. So that particular concern doesn't carry much weight for me, though sure: the absence of certain "achievements" doesn't exactly help his case vs other candidates.
Your other concerns are valid, and as you say: the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.
His shooting form is a touch awkward in a manner characteristic for the time; I do think his efficiency could potentially improve substantially if he were born a little later. His rebounding instincts are second to none, imo, and his playmaking is something that is frequently underrated as well.

The other factor he takes a little bit of a hit on (for me) is again his longevity, which sits behind basically everyone else we're presently considering except for Curry (by quite a lot) and Durant (by very little).

Concerns about John Havlicek

1) Was he elite? He was never an MVP candidate. That could be explained by looking at the voting history and how rarely non-centers were top contenders for the prize. He was always a part of very balanced teams when they were contenders. His best statistical seasons came on bad teams and a lot of his greatest moments came when he was a sixth man, albeit the very best in that capacity. Once it was his team (along with Dave Cowens, the 1973 MVP) they were an ultra balanced team that won based on that balance. Not a fault, but distinguishable from most of the guys were looking at here. His defense helps his case, being a great two way player is always attractive, he was the stylistic ancestor of Scottie Pippen who perfected the Havlicek role as a “I'll do whatever it takes whenever it takes it, but I'll never do it all.” Super not quite superstar. He got more chances than Pip to lead a team, but I'm no more convinced that was his ideal role.

2. Product of the System? If Chet Walker and John Havlicek trade places, what happens? Both enter the league 1962, both have good rookie years as role players and for the rest of the 60s Havlicek gives you 20 and six and Walker give you 18 and eight, both as one of two primary perimeter options in support of Bill Russell and aless ball-dominant Wilt Chamberlain respectively. Havlicek famously steals Walkers pass in 1965 and is also on the winning side of epic matchups in ‘66 and ‘68. Then while Havlicek hangs on with a rebuilding Boston, the league's premier top to bottom organization in the 70’s, Walker joins the third year franchise, the Chicago Bulls, a very good, but perpetually one piece away team. Both guys are arguably the best player on balanced teams, but Boston is always a player or two deeper and as a result Hondo adds two more titles sans-Russell to his legacy.

I don't doubt that Hondo was a greater player than Chet Walker, but switch them spots in 1962 and I'm not sure they're even close to 50 spots apart as they are now.

Some valid concerns again. I've seen Chet Walker completely left OFF of top 100 lists before, so sometimes the gap is more like 75 spots......and I agree that's far too large (though probably more a function of Walker being underrated than Hondo being overrated, imo).

Walker seems like his generation's Paul Pierce. Similar size/build/athleticism, similar mid-range game and clever means of drawing fouls from time to time. Both respectable, but not great defenders. Pierce was a better passer/play-maker, has more "achievements" to his credit, and a little better longevity, too. But I digress, let's get back to Havlicek....

Compared to Walker, I think Havlicek was definitely the better ball-handler and passer, and really not overly close from what I've seen. Although Walker appears capable, Havlicek was clearly the better defensive player. Walker was the better rebounder, and a much more efficient scorer, though a sizable chunk of Havlicek's career was played on the "hurry the hell up and shoot!" Celtics of the Russell era.
This pertains to Bob Cousy as well, but I believe the Celtics were by design sacrificing shooting efficiency in order to hurry the pace. I can share more, but I'd actually looked into the relationship between rPace and rORTG, and found a fairly strong correlation between an increasing pace and a DECREASING ORtg (correlation coefficient was -0.328 for all seasons in which league avg pace was >115; that's a fairly strong correlation, considering all the myriad of factors omitted).

Note how Havlicek's best TS% with Russell was 50.0%, and was 45.3% in '69. Then in '70 (first season without Russell), it jumps to 53.3% (the best of his career to that point, by more than 3%; would never fall to those Russell-era levels again until toward the end of his career).

The other thing I'd note in comparing Havlicek to Walker, is that Havlicek (at least in the post-Russell) era was doing what he did for an insane number of minutes, whereas Walker almost seemed to be utilized in a limited minute role (especially for the era).

And I know I beat this drum a lot but.....Havlicek has superior longevity to Walker.

Concerns about Isiah Thomas

1) Here’s a huge dose of catharsis after a very deep dive into a player I already had a deep appreciation for and understanding of, first concern, he needed the situation he was in, to achieve what he did. Kudos to Zeke for being willing to do what was best for the team, but it is undeniable (especially after rewatching 87 playoff third and/or fourth quarters) that the Pistons were an ideally constructed team that arrived at the perfect time. Isiah benefitted from being an offensive star on a team that was most dependent on and dedicated to defense. It allowed him to pick his spots and not have to carry the offensive burden all game. Additionally, the scoring of Dantley/Aguirre/Edwards in the post and Vinne/Dumars on the perimeter gave the Pistons several other options with the capability of getting hot to help balance the Pistons attack. Finally, their frontcourt depth and athleticism were far better than that of Boston, LA or Chicago, their three primary rivals and often times that would be the difference in the war of attrition that is the later rounds of the NBA playoffs. They win games at times by getting every nearly rebound in the fourth quarter. Rodman, Salley with Fresh legs playing 20-24 mpg were terrors in the fourth against exhausted front lines asked to log 40 mpg all series. That's the main argument against Isiah and some here have made it well. I get it, and to a large extent, I concede.

Agree.

2) Less than overwhelming resume. Only five all-NBA selections, only 9 or 10 prime seasons. Was never a definitive top 3-5 player. ,

The same can be said of Stockton, but [again!] the longevity factor is the principle distinguishing feature between Isiah and Stockton to me.

Concerns about Scottie Pippen

1) Could he have been the man? He had a crack at it for a little over one season and he showed very well, but there were flaws and things that he’d need to change. Add things to his game, change his approach, change his personality, that may have been easier said than done. How much of the greatness of Scottie Pippen, the ultimate number two guy, do you lose when he has to become the number one guy?

idk, not a big issue to me (again, that being the #1 guy on a contender narrative isn't important to me).
fwiw, much the same as Havlicek, I think Pippen certainly could have been the best player on a title team; but like the '74 Celtics (or a team like the '04 Pistons, or the Bad Boy Pistons) it would have to be an extraordinarily balanced team (+/- decent depth, too).

Concerns about Clyde Frazier

1) Was he Elite? Largely the same question with Isiah. How much was Clyde’s greatness elevated by the great players he got to play with? He deserves a lot of credit for being the type of play who gets better around great players and not the type who needs the spotlight to shine, but again, as is always so challenging with intangible matters like this, to what extent?


2) Longevity. Bob Pettit and George Mikan are the only players we’ve ranked thus far that I credit with fewer than ten prime seasons. I have Frazier with nine. As great as he was he doesn’t have the resume that Pettit or Mikan do, nor had his career began in the NBA’s infancy, so it’s less easy to look past.

I'm not ready for Walt either. He falls somewhere very close to Curry for me. Longevity not fantastic, and I also think his defense gets lauded more than is earned, perhaps because he'd come up with some great steals (and happened to do that a lot in a crucial finals game). But in watching a handful of Knicks game from '69-'73, it's not entirely uncommon for him to lose his man in the half-court, or otherwise make some defensive errors that indicate a less than stellar defensive awareness. Not saying he's poor on this end, just not as good as is often claimed.

Concerns About Bob Cousy

1) Declining play during second half of career casts him as a much different player than the one who made 10 all-NBA teams and won the 1957 MVP. Cousy probably wasn't the second best player on the Celtics from 1958-1961. He certainly wasn't ever after that, but his reputation persisted as such to be sure. Why did the media and many of his peers hold such reverence for Cousy? The cynic in me says it's 80% race related and 20% style related. He did make the game fun, but sometimes to the detriment of the team. Bad shots, careless passes, unnecessary fakes or flash, there is a great irony that isn't lost on me in how much every coach or gym teacher I had who was old enough to remember seeing Cousy both loved him and hated when we emulated his behind the back and no look passes. Make sense of that…

Cousy and Baylor are both falling in my list and I think it's the right choice, but I'm conflicted. 20 some years ago, when I started doing this in earnest, they were in the same class as Pettit, West and Oscar. That had to change some, but the divide is growing at an accelerating rate and my only concern is I'm applying too much of today's standard to that era. Would love thoughts from others who've wrestled with this.

I've wrestled with it, too. I think many are too quick to completely revise the records on basis of "poor shooting efficiency; low WS/48". I can rattle off several PG's with poor shooting efficiency (on high volume) who nonetheless were good (or even elite) in impact (as based on RAPM, and perhaps even still elite in OFFENSIVE RAPM): Baron Davis, Mookie Blaylock, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, just to name a few.

But because we don't have quick-reference impact indicators for guys like Cousy (or Zeke), people want to draw solid conclusions based on what we DO have (that is: WS/48, etc)......and sometimes the conclusion drawn from that is sort of re-writing the history books a tad.
I'm a little reluctant to do that; I almost feel awards/honors have a touch more value in evaluating some of these old-era guys, as maybe it gives some impression of was perceived at the time (but not captured in the box). Also, I don't think the fans were voting for the All-Stars back then (so you don't get ridiculous things like Kobe being an All-Star '14-'16, etc).

There are some indications of impact beyond Cousy's box-based advanced metrics, imo, which I'll share at a later time (perhaps when he's gaining traction).

2) How much of an issue is the terrible shooting? It didn’t hurt the Celtics very much once Russell showed up, but I think it did, quite a bit, before than.

Was his shooting terrible relative to time and place? And was he "hurting them"? Here is his individual rTS% by year, along with team rORTG (and league rank) prior to Russell's arrival (upon which the offense takes a dramatic downward turn, fwiw; I'd imply it was primarily for reasons of strategy [read: pace]):
'52: +0.65%, +3.5 (2nd/10)
'53: +0.06%, +3.7 (1st/10)
'54: +2.12%, +5.0 (1st/9)
'55: +2.47%, +3.2 (1st/8)
'56: +0.29%, +1.9 (3rd/8)


Anyway, I'm not ready to lend support to Cousy yet either. But I'm sure I'll end up defending him multiple times in this project, as I do feel he comes under somewhat one-sided and potentially unfair criticisms at times.

[andrewww]

Vote: Kevin Durant
Alternate: Steve Nash

The four players I'm considering here are Durant/Curry/Nash/Baylor/Ewing. Quite simply, I think KD is the best remaining combination of talent, peak and career value to date. Curry has the highest peak but perhaps shortest career value, though I would consider his prime to begin with the 2012-13 season (5 prime seasons).

[Lou Fan]

A ton of great points and questions raised!
A few responses (in the order in which you referred to them ...)

Durant: I have him 27th so, imo, he should go right after the guys I have ahead of him: Cousy, Baylor & Barry.

Stephen Curry: Imagine the "unimaginable" that Curry gets injured early this coming season and never is great again. (Could happen). Then his less than 4 great seasons would NEVER be near enough, despite their GOAT PEAK-ishness; to merit inclusing in an overall GOAT list this high up. btw, in my system based primarily on ALL-League selections, he has 16 points in 55th place! (15th PG). For me ranking him in the GOAT top 30 is terrible RECENCY bias. (Give him time to accumulate a few more Great Years and he's challenging for top-tier bragging rights; but not nearly yet.)

Rick Barry, Elgin Baylor & Bob Cousy: Cousy DOMINATED his position for 12 seasons: 10 as a ALL-NBA 1st-Teamer (same as Baylor) and 2 more as a 2nd-Teamer. I don't get why you say that he slowed down in the second half of his careere. After those 12 Great Years, his career was just about over (few All-Time greats back then played more than 12 years). Baylor too DOMINATED his position for 10 years - these two are the only not-yet-selected players with double-digit ALL-League 1st-Team selections - for me, that's THE BEST argument there could be. Cousy & Baylor also revolutionized their respective positions - being FAR ahead of their times. Baylor "invented" hang-time; and though it was often "below-the-rim"; his excellent wrist-strength enabled him to wait til his opponent had landed and still flip the ball in. Barry is just behind them in this regard. He got NINE ALL-League 1st-Team selections; and would surely have gotten a 10th if the NBA hadn't of legally stopped him from playing that year in the ABA.

Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.

I have: Pippen, Isiah & Clyde all in my GOAT late 30s; with Hondo a bit behind. Again, mostly because that's about where they rank, position-wise in my system based mostly on "Great Years"; and where, in each descending set of FIVE GOAT spots, one player per position is selected.

This is exactly my problem with your "Great Years" system. Having Curry 55th is way way to low and it's not recency bias. Your system puts the like of Dominique Wilkins, Sidney Moncrief, Dwight Howard, Chris Webber, and quite a few others ahead of Curry which is clearly absurd. It doesn't take into account how great those seasons were and whether they were actually deserved or not. In Cousy's case I'd say those 10 1st team All-NBAs are way better than he actually was as a player. Curry has had 4 years of GOAT impact and he has changed the game forever. His 3 year peak is top-10 all time at least. He has had 3 years of dominance and one of the greatest seasons ever in 2016. He has two best on champs which Cousy was never even close to capable of that and relied on Russell for his rings. I have said this before and I'll say it again would you rather have a guy who can lead you to a title for 4 years and is a good starter the rest of his career or a guy who can lead you to 1st and second round exits and is not capable of winning a championship without a lot of help for 10 years. It's a no brainer if championships are the goal (which they should be). Your system overvalues longevity and the less dominant positions and undervalues greatness and more dominant positions especially centers. For crying outloud at least four of these 6 people are outside your top 10 and two are outside your top 20, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Duncan(unless you consider him a PF which he isnt). I really think you need to tinker with your system somehow to change this. Or at least make exceptions for guys like Shaq and Hakeem who probably fall to 16th and 21st on your list which is pretty crazy. Meaning no offense just a suggestion that I really hope you listen to.

[dhsilv2]

Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.

What about MVP award share? I think any "all or nothing" selection is an issue and that is an issue with first team all nba.

[Clyde Frazier]

For those of you with at least 1 foot in the Patrick Ewing camp, I would like you to reconcile a few things for me. Don't look at this as a challenge, but merely a question in need of an answer…

The Knicks became elite defensively in 1992 when Pat Riley took over his coach and remain so through the Jeff Van Gundy era. During that time they declined from slightly above average to below average offensively. In that time, they swapped a lot of offensive players (Gerald Wilkins, Xavier McDaniel etc) for better all-around players, especially physical defensive guys. They remained very good to elite and defense even after Ewing declined in the late 90s. Why then does Patrick Ewing get the lion share of the credit? And, consequently, shouldn't he also absorb some of the blame for the teams failings on offense, or in the least, should his defense of impact be considered less then because so many other Knicks players during the Riley/JVG era were defensive oriented?

And at the end of the day, how much does it matter that he never got the team over the top?

On the defensive piece: There was a rotating cast of characters in there and not all were good at defense:

Allan Houston eventually replaced Starks, Larry Johnson replaced Mason & Spree/John Wallace replaced Charles Smith/Anthony Bonner - that's a downgrade of several players who ate a lot of minutes, they generally had aging point guards or weak defensive point guards until Ward showed up, the head coach changed and still - the defense remained strong during all those years. Many of the roster moves were made with offensive firepower in mind. His offense fell off before his D - his D rebounding rates & block rates remain strong. The '98 & '99 defensive ratings are partially propped up by Dudley & Gumby to be fair. While he was still a strong defender when on the court, he missed a lot of time both years.

I called out his offensive shortcomings for sure in my post on him - so I'll be the first to acknowledge it. At the same time, it's worth remembering that he did not play with another player in their prime who will even sniff this list. That creates a lot of additional pressure. The Larry Johnson move was shortsighted in general - he was inferior to Mason and his athletic explosiveness was gone by the time the Knicks got him. He was reasonably efficient, but benefited from Ewing/Houston soaking up attention.

The fact that Houston had a worse TS% than Ewing during their years together speaks to weak offensive point guard play - but also the fact that he was not an adequate offensive anchor. He was more of a volume scorer. While the Knicks tried to address the issue, they never truly did solve for it.

Ultimately Ewing deserves some of the blame - he was the offensive anchor after all - but the context matters as well - and the fact that he never played with another guy who will sniff this Top 100. But I don't see anyone left - other than Durant - who you put in his shoes and Ewing goes in theirs year for year who does better.

It wasn't a total defense of Ewing - but it's where I stand on the issue.

When they were great defensively with Oakley, Charles Smith, The Anthony's Mason and Bonner off the bench, and a rotating cast of solid two excellent defense PGs including Doc Rivers, Derek Harper and Mo Cheeks, that was comparable to the Bad Boys as was Rileys design. VanGundy inherited the system, and largely for players to fit in the system in place. Not saying every move was the right move, but it's not like they made huge mistakes either.

You're right that none of Ewing's teammates are likely to appear in the top 100, but how many of them are bad players? From 1991 through the rest of the decade Ewing always had a very strong starting lineup and typically Starks is one of the premier six man off the bench. Not a dominant team necessarily, but always good enough to contend.

How much, if at all, does Ewing suffer from being a notch below the elite (Barkley, MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Robinson) during his era? We're passing up guys who were closer to elite when they played and achieved more in terms of all-NBA and MVP attention.

You can go back and look at my ewing vote in the last thread for detail, but I can't stress this enough: if starks simply has a bad game in game 7 of the 94 finals as opposed to the worst game of his career, ewing gets his ring and these questions aren't asked. Not to mention that very simply, he never had a consistent second option in his prime. If the knicks even had say an eddie jones level player during his best seasons, they very likely could've taken down jordan at least once.

[Dr Positivity]

Nash, Ewing, Durant, Curry, Baylor seem to have the best shot here so I'll stick to those for now

Steve Nash: Case for - Elite peak as shown by MVP wins and supported by impact stats where his league best offensive impact makes up for defense. Decent enough 8 year run longevity in Phoenix plus Dallas years. Good intangibles and portability. Case against: Poor defender, at least important defensive position but still minimal impact on that end. Not an elite boxscore player - see disappointing WS and BPM. Got to play with highly beneficial offensive system, players and spacing to his game. Did his role just correlate with his system's success, or was it the cause of it?

Patrick Ewing: Case for - Defense alone gives him a high baseline of value, as all time great defensive center at most important defensive position. His DRAPM in late 90s looks like it supports this. Still a good mid 20s point a game offensive player with some floor spacing. Nobody in history has had his legacy suffer more from 1 loss, a 94 title win with a mediocre supporting cast would have changed entire view of career. Good longevity considering the cases here. Left his heart on the court. Highly portable. Case against - Poor passer and assist/turnover player, not a "natural" offensive player. Mediocre ORTGs during his prime due to TOVs. Knicks DRTGs could have been related to playing a defensive style of game as much as attributed to his anchoring. Neither MVP votes or Win Shares supports him as MVP caliber player in his time, suggests closer to Stockton, Pippen and Havlicek status as the next group down.

Kevin Durant: Case for - Elite MVP caliber peak in both boxscore and MVP voting and considered 2nd best player in the league for major portions of his career. More than the sum of his boxscore as a defender and floor spacer. Outstanding portability as non ball dominant elite offensive weapon. Finals MVP and has other playoff highs. Good intangibles. Case against - Mediocre longevity among options here. Impact stats not over the moon with him, did he control the game in OKC or did Westbrook? Followed by likely being 2nd best player in GSW.

Stephen Curry: Case for - The best peak on the board and arguably as high offensive value as anyone who's played. Truly a "game changer" when it comes to giving a team to win the championship. Good intangibles. Case against - Minimal longevity as a superstar. There's a reason why Curry is 130th total in WS for NBA/ABA. Not GOAT level in 2016 playoffs like he was in regular season, and overall good but not great playoff career.

Elgin Baylor: Case for - Elite peak in early 60s as 35ppg monster who's an elite rebounder and good passer. Even if declines has value the rest of his career as a well rounded scorer, rebounder, passer. Continues to do well in MVP votes and runs his position for 1st team All-NBA the rest of the 60s. Case against: Doesn't perform well in TS and Win Share stats after his injury, and continues to shoot more than the better player in West. Misses 65 playoffs.

Overall:

Curry's longevity still looks too light to me and for Baylor, I'm not a fan of his post surgery version so his peak still also looks lighter in longevity compared to say Phoenix Nash and Ewing giving you a longer stretch of star play. Dallas Nash may be as valuable as post surgery Baylor.

That leaves Nash, Ewing, Durant. I'll cut off the one with the weakest longevity again in Durant since I'm not convinced he's a better player at his peak than the others.

Ewing doesn't necessarily have a longevity advantage over Nash, the bulk of his career is still 8 years ish and then he has some other pre prime and post prime years, but so does Nash have Dallas version. Ewing brings great defensive value at best defensive position, Nash great offensive value at best offensive position. Nash's defense looks worse than Ewing's offensive value. So does Nash's offense have more impact than Ewing defense because individual players can impact offense more? Possibly, but I'm uncertain enough. Ewing never got the MVP support Nash did but defense may have been underrated vs offense.

Vote: Patrick Ewing

2nd: Steve Nash

[lolathon234]

I can't believe someone could actually vote Curry over Durant....

Durant: MVP(3 x runner up to peak LeBron), FMVP, 4 scoring titles, 8x all star, ROY, 7 x all NBA
Career averages 27.2/7.2/3.8 60.8 TS%
Career playoff averages 28.8/8.0/3.5 58.8 TS%
Career Finals averages 32.9/7.0/3.8 68.4 TS%
Prime 2012-2017 28.3/7.8/4.9 64.0 TS% 28.5 PER .282 WSp48

What exactly has Steph done to earn a higher ranking than that? Have a great regular season in 2016 capped off by a terrible finals where he was badly oout played by his position counterpart? Win a title with a stacked cast vs a team decimated by injuries in a year where his primary in conference opposition missed the playoffs due to their own injury problems? Each of Durant's Finals are better than any playoff series Curry has ever had. Going to bring up RPM or On/Off? The same stats that say Draymond>Steph Curry these past 2 years?

Speaking of RAPM, you guys need to consider context. The Warriors run a motion offense, which requires the primary ball handler be able to space the floor. Curry's backup is LIvingston, who has 0 range outside of 15 feet. That's why their team struggles, well that and Draymond almost always sitting when Curry does.

[pandrade83]

For those of you with at least 1 foot in the Patrick Ewing camp, I would like you to reconcile a few things for me. Don't look at this as a challenge, but merely a question in need of an answer…

The Knicks became elite defensively in 1992 when Pat Riley took over his coach and remain so through the Jeff Van Gundy era. During that time they declined from slightly above average to below average offensively. In that time, they swapped a lot of offensive players (Gerald Wilkins, Xavier McDaniel etc) for better all-around players, especially physical defensive guys. They remained very good to elite and defense even after Ewing declined in the late 90s. Why then does Patrick Ewing get the lion share of the credit? And, consequently, shouldn't he also absorb some of the blame for the teams failings on offense, or in the least, should his defense of impact be considered less then because so many other Knicks players during the Riley/JVG era were defensive oriented?

And at the end of the day, how much does it matter that he never got the team over the top?

On the defensive piece: There was a rotating cast of characters in there and not all were good at defense:

Allan Houston eventually replaced Starks, Larry Johnson replaced Mason & Spree/John Wallace replaced Charles Smith/Anthony Bonner - that's a downgrade of several players who ate a lot of minutes, they generally had aging point guards or weak defensive point guards until Ward showed up, the head coach changed and still - the defense remained strong during all those years. Many of the roster moves were made with offensive firepower in mind. His offense fell off before his D - his D rebounding rates & block rates remain strong. The '98 & '99 defensive ratings are partially propped up by Dudley & Gumby to be fair. While he was still a strong defender when on the court, he missed a lot of time both years.

I called out his offensive shortcomings for sure in my post on him - so I'll be the first to acknowledge it. At the same time, it's worth remembering that he did not play with another player in their prime who will even sniff this list. That creates a lot of additional pressure. The Larry Johnson move was shortsighted in general - he was inferior to Mason and his athletic explosiveness was gone by the time the Knicks got him. He was reasonably efficient, but benefited from Ewing/Houston soaking up attention.

The fact that Houston had a worse TS% than Ewing during their years together speaks to weak offensive point guard play - but also the fact that he was not an adequate offensive anchor. He was more of a volume scorer. While the Knicks tried to address the issue, they never truly did solve for it.

Ultimately Ewing deserves some of the blame - he was the offensive anchor after all - but the context matters as well - and the fact that he never played with another guy who will sniff this Top 100. But I don't see anyone left - other than Durant - who you put in his shoes and Ewing goes in theirs year for year who does better.

It wasn't a total defense of Ewing - but it's where I stand on the issue.

When they were great defensively with Oakley, Charles Smith, The Anthony's Mason and Bonner off the bench, and a rotating cast of solid two excellent defense PGs including Doc Rivers, Derek Harper and Mo Cheeks, that was comparable to the Bad Boys as was Rileys design. VanGundy inherited the system, and largely for players to fit in the system in place. Not saying every move was the right move, but it's not like they made huge mistakes either.

You're right that none of Ewing's teammates are likely to appear in the top 100, but how many of them are bad players? From 1991 through the rest of the decade Ewing always had a very strong starting lineup and typically Starks is one of the premier six man off the bench. Not a dominant team necessarily, but always good enough to contend.

How much, if at all, does Ewing suffer from being a notch below the elite (Barkley, MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Robinson) during his era? We're passing up guys who were closer to elite when they played and achieved more in terms of all-NBA and MVP attention.

On Point Guards: You're pointing out point guards who had strong careers but were past their prime by the time they got to the Knicks and point guards lose it defensively before they lose it offensively. Harper - it's evident by how the Mavs completely fell off a cliff his last couple years there and how his #'s dropped quickly. Cheeks was 33 by the time he was a Knick and while he could still competently run an offense (albeit at a much lower level), his days of being any sort of defensive presence were done. Doc was 31 & at the end of his rope. These guys were not excellent defensive PGs by the time they got to the Knicks and they weren't "good" point guards by that time either.

On the rest: The Knicks rarely had bad players - but everyone was a role player in some form or fashion with no true "2 way" players. Prime Mason (15/9/4) or peak Starks is the closest they came - but Mason played over 40 minutes to get those #'s and Starks' efficiency is sub-par in the 3 years he broke 15 PPG.

And by the time the Knicks got better offensive players, Ewing was still highly valuable but only had one prime season left ('97) and was at the end of a decade long prime streak.

I'm not taking a crap on them - I loved those teams. I loved the heart, the intensity & the desire.

But when you compare it to a Bad Boys situation . . . that's a bridge way too far. More continuity for sure and better players.

I'd take peak Laimbeer, Dumars & Rodman over anyone that Ewing played with and Dantley - though he had his own issues - was a far greater offensive threat in '87 & '88 than anything Ewing ever had.

[euroleague]

Cousy and Baylor are both falling in my list and I think it's the right choice, but I'm conflicted. 20 some years ago, when I started doing this in earnest, they were in the same class as Pettit, West and Oscar. That had to change some, but the divide is growing at an accelerating rate and my only concern is I'm applying too much of today's standard to that era. Would love thoughts from others who've wrestled with this.

This is a common issue on RealGM and stats analysis based websites - how we judge prior eras. However, I advise caution against people who advocate that "Everything is clearer in retrospect" in a purely stats based fashion.

Basically: We can see far, because we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Take away those giants (cousy, mikan, etc.) and there's no way any of these players we see today have this type of skill.


You're judging them based off their winning, advanced stats, and win shares - how we judge modern players.

In the early age of the game, even more impactful than any of these was something simple: strategy and style. Shooting methods, half-court sets, transition offense, many of the things that LEAD to the stats we use to analyze players were invented in these early days of the game. We just ignore players strategic and team-work related impact on the actual game, and analyze statistics - which is not so terrible when new strategies aren't being born. But, in the 50s/60s, that's an ineffective method to analyze players.

My Votes are still:
Cousey
Alt: Hondo
HM: Curry

[LA Bird]

1. Steve Nash
One of the GOAT offensive peaks and pretty good longevity for a point guard although he does have quite a few negative seasons in the beginning/end of his career. I think Nash only deserved 1 MVP (2005) and him winning 2 is probably worse off for him in the long run since he gets unfairly targeted by other popular fanbases. Everybody knows about Nash's weak defense but it's not close to being the WOAT on a per possession basis since he still puts in the effort most of the time despite physical limitations. Nash played with two high scoring PFs but neither pairings were optimal with Dirk's offense not being very PG-reliant and Amare simply being too bad on defense. In hindsight, Marion appears to be the better PF for the Suns and it would have been interesting to see Nash/Marion with a good defensive center for a longer stretch than just half a season to evaluate the impact of Nash's offense on a more balanced team.

2. Patrick Ewing
Bigs who played strong defense with good longevity usually go high on my list and Ewing is no exception.

[scrabbarista]

26. John Havlicek

27. Kevin Durant

I have these two at 21st and 22nd.

Career points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks (RS):

Havlicek: 41,109 (more than John Stockton, David Robinson, or Jerry West)
Durant: 28,393
Curry: 20,656

(PS):
Havlicek: 5,862 (more than Nowitzki, Barkley, or Garnett)
Durant: 4,539
Curry: 2,989

I. Havlicek has 1.5 "Best on Champs," putting him in elite company among remaining players, as only three others match this total (and none of the above group of Nowitzki, Barkley, and Garnett). Among those players (Isiah Thomas, Dave Cowens, Steph Curry), Havlicek's career totals in both the regular season and the playoffs are first by a huge margin.

II. Durant has a very balanced resume. What stands out most is that he is first among remaining players in my MVP voting metric and ranks above five or six players who are already on the list.

Can you explain Hondo over Pippen. They had similar roles as the Robin to Jordan's/Russell's Batman and Pippen just did it better imo. In my eyes he's like an upgraded Hondo.

Actually, it was due to a typo. I've moved Hondo from 21st to 27th on my list. The difference between the two, though much smaller now, is probably that Hondo was the best player (imo) on one and a half title teams.

[scrabbarista]

To mod:

I changed my vote from Hondo and KD to now KD and Wade (edited in the original post already).

[Senior]

Sorry I missed the last few threads, not really sure who to look at now so I'll just post some thoughts on the contenders for this spot (using Dr Pos' post as a proxy)

Steve Nash: Case for - Elite peak as shown by MVP wins and supported by impact stats where his league best offensive impact makes up for defense. Decent enough 8 year run longevity in Phoenix plus Dallas years. Good intangibles and portability. Case against: Poor defender, at least important defensive position but still minimal impact on that end. Not an elite boxscore player - see disappointing WS and BPM. Got to play with highly beneficial offensive system, players and spacing to his game. Did his role just correlate with his system's success, or was it the cause of it?

He was the system. No other PG in the league could do what Nash did I think. I would say that the system built around Nash tended to break down defensively late in the playoffs against the likes of SA/DAL because they went small with Amare at C (or a similarly challenged defensive player). The Spurs big 3 and Dirk torched them. As with CP3, it's possible that the same situation that allowed Nash to produce absurd numbers was also the primary cause of his teams getting sent home. I'd take more balanced teams such as SA and DAL over insane offense/shaky defense every time.

Whether or not Nash needed that kind of smallball team construction is the big question to me - if the only way he can produce his all-time offensive impact is with a construction that's likely to get his team kicked out of the playoffs by more balanced teams then it's a big ding to him because impact is only useful for resulting in victory.

Patrick Ewing: Case for - Defense alone gives him a high baseline of value, as all time great defensive center at most important defensive position. His DRAPM in late 90s looks like it supports this. Still a good mid 20s point a game offensive player with some floor spacing. Nobody in history has had his legacy suffer more from 1 loss, a 94 title win with a mediocre supporting cast would have changed entire view of career. Good longevity considering the cases here. Left his heart on the court. Highly portable. Case against - Poor passer and assist/turnover player, not a "natural" offensive player. Mediocre ORTGs during his prime due to TOVs. Knicks DRTGs could have been related to playing a defensive style of game as much as attributed to his anchoring. Neither MVP votes or Win Shares supports him as MVP caliber player in his time, suggests closer to Stockton, Pippen and Havlicek status as the next group down.

I think Ewing gets slightly underrated - before his knee issues his mobility as an offensive player was impressive. His playoff performances against the 90 Celtics/Pistons are a testament to that. Decent jumper, limited post repertoire but effective nonetheless. Not a great passer. NY was absolutely loaded with defensive players starting in 92 too.

Can't agree with the 94 hypothetical though. Despite the Starks disaster in Game 7, the Knicks had quite a few breaks go for them - they pushed the series to 7 despite Ewing having a horrific offensive series (19 ppg, 12 assists/22 TO over the entire series, 39% TS on 23 FGA/game) and they were by far the best team in the East with MJ gone (ATL had same record but NY had a significantly better SRS and they avoided the Hawks anyway). And after all that they couldn't make it back to the Finals in any other year.

Kevin Durant: Case for - Elite MVP caliber peak in both boxscore and MVP voting and considered 2nd best player in the league for major portions of his career. More than the sum of his boxscore as a defender and floor spacer. Outstanding portability as non ball dominant elite offensive weapon. Finals MVP and has other playoff highs. Good intangibles. Case against - Mediocre longevity among options here. Impact stats not over the moon with him, did he control the game in OKC or did Westbrook? Followed by likely being 2nd best player in GSW.

Would say Durant has 2011-2017, minus 2015, and maybe 2010 although he was prone to being taken out of games through aggressive/physical ball-denial. This was a major issue against 2010 LA and 2012 MIA despite his amazing combination of volume/efficiency. His ball-handling is good for his size, but not on the level of your typical offensive anchor.

Really think efficiency is the big thing here. His offensive impact is lower than you'd expect given his box score because he's never been the primary initiator apart from 2014 (which iirc is the best impact year of his), and it's nice that he's such a great scorer in the flow of a game/so portable, but is it because he can't actually fill the lead initiator role? In the 2002-2011 ORAPM sample, guys like Manu, Baron Davis, and Jason Kidd outplaced guys like Paul Pierce despite Pierce's stronger combination of volume/efficiency, and it's because guard skills (penetration/ballhandling/passing/etc) are generally more conducive to raising the entire offense. How much should Durant's own efficiency matter in relation to a team offense?

Stephen Curry: Case for - The best peak on the board and arguably as high offensive value as anyone who's played. Truly a "game changer" when it comes to giving a team to win the championship. Good intangibles. Case against - Minimal longevity as a superstar. There's a reason why Curry is 130th total in WS for NBA/ABA. Not GOAT level in 2016 playoffs like he was in regular season, and overall good but not great playoff career.

Curry's longevity is by far the weakest out of all these guys but his 5 year stretch of 2013-2017 is better than everyone else's best 5 years. The Durant vs Curry thing has always been interesting because it seems that although Durant can do more things well (such as defend) the thing that Curry is better at is better for leading game-breaking offenses. Much like Shaq was an offensive titan despite not being able to shoot outside of 10 feet, it kind of doesn't matter that Durant can do more if what Curry does leads to better results. Throw in the fact that GS was an all-time team before Durant came on board and it gets even closer. I would rather have Curry's 2013-2017 stretch over Durant's 2011-2017 stretch. I don't really care about longevity when the years I do get outpace everyone else's.

Tiny bit concerned about mindset and jumpers can always go cold, but relatively minor flaws.

Elgin Baylor: Case for - Elite peak in early 60s as 35ppg monster who's an elite rebounder and good passer. Even if declines has value the rest of his career as a well rounded scorer, rebounder, passer. Continues to do well in MVP votes and runs his position for 1st team All-NBA the rest of the 60s. Case against: Doesn't perform well in TS and Win Share stats after his injury, and continues to shoot more than the better player in West. Misses 65 playoffs.

The main criticism against Baylor so far has been FGA and whether his mindset was why he was shooting so often. Even if West was the more efficient guy, you can't make a guy take shots he doesn't want to, and West seems like the kind of player who would strive to always make the smart play and play unselfishly. It's hard to condemn Baylor without knowing more about his mindset - and I'll give players the benefit of the doubt with regard to not making stupid plays.

Overall, it's hard for me to ignore Curry's overall impact on his teams - GS went up when he did, and even adding an MVP didn't shift the impact numbers much and then they dominated to a degree almost unseen. He was posting Nash-level numbers without needing to torpedo his defense - and it's not like Draymond could score like Amare either. GS kind of underperformed relative to expectations in 15/16, and I'm still not too sure what happened in the 2016 Finals - but that could just be a top 5 player of all-time putting his basketball soul on the line. The loss definitely stings a little, but relative to these guys? Not the worst blemish.

Tentatively going with Nash as the alt, he's Curry-lite but he seems closest to Curry's impact...and he kind of got shafted a little with the 05-07 Suns. I do have concerns about whether his impact can only realized through that SSOL-style system and his Dallas years kind of confound that idea a bit. Given his skillset/mindset, it's not impossible for him to lead an elite offense with a more traditional lineup (for example he'd probably be fine on the Dubs in place of Curry but Draymond...). Would it be to the same degree with a more limited scorer, despite Dray's superior passing and range?

Think Ewing's 80s years kind of get a little lost in the shuffle because his team got way better in the 90s, but I can't imagine Ewing being mid-tier player for 6 years and then turning into a elite player. He definitely took a huge jump in 1990 though. Definitely open to learning more about the 80s Knicks.

vote: steph
alt: steve