RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #38

[JordansBulls]

1st Vote: Isiah Thomas (Led organization that never won to back to back titles and to 3 finals in a row. Also had to deal with 3 of the greatest prime players in NBA History and won series against them with HCA)

2nd Vote: Dominique Wilkins.

[euroleague]

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Isiah Thomas
HM: Kevin McHale

Pick: Cousy - Cousey's passing influenced the way the game was played hugely, and he did so in an unconventional way that didn't gain any unfair advantage a la goaltending. He won an MVP as his prime was ending, and his offensive style lives on far past his retirement and beyond his success leading the Celtics pre-Russell (questionable how Russell's passing would've developed without Cousey).

When Cousy joined the league, the Celtics were a 20 win team, and he immediately brought them to 40 his rookie year. He changed a bottom dwelling team to an immediate contender, and went on to contend with an elite offense in the eastern conference before Russell ever joined. He won MVP, and led the league in assists many times on his way to 10 all-nba first teams.

Alt: isiah Thomas: In 1988 he led the league in VORP for the post-season. In this post-season, MJ was playing on a team with no back-up, Magic was in his prime, Bird was beasting still. And Isiah Thomas led the league in VORP on a "deep" team that had other guards who were legit. The Pistons wouldn't be close to the team they were without Isiah, and even with him on the bench they immediately suffered more than the Lakers without Magic.

In 1988 he also led the league in DWS for the PS.

From 1987-1990, Isiah Thomas was never lower than 3rd in Post-Season VORP. His team is often called "the deepest of the 80s", in terms of talent across the board, but Isiah's impact was consistently on the tier of MJ/Bird/Magic (these 4 dominated the VORP rankings).

Isiah Thomas was also 3rd in playoff box-score plus-minus in 87 and 88, and 2nd in 90.

As a floor general, his impact went far beyond volume statistics. When IT wasn't in the game, the Pistons were suffering. He was capable of scoring if needed, evidenced by the 55 point outing that should've sealed a Pistons championship in 88 (except for a bad call from a ref in the last seconds) WHILE he was injured.

IT had his teammates back, and would throw himself under the fire to keep them alright. Isiah embraced the "bad boy" role even though he himself was obviously far from a bad boy image, with his clean smile and baby face, and his impact was equal to GOAT level players in the late 80s.


HM2: McHale is possibly the greatest m2m PF defender in NBA history, and one of the greatest individual scorers in the post in NBA history. His playstyle is similar to Hakeem for most of Hakeem's career in terms of scoring and man2man defense, except McHale may be the superior post scorer and the superior man 2 man defender. He was, however, even worse at passing (basically a black hole on offense) and not a rim protector so these two aspects give Hakeem the edge on both ends in the end. But, McHale's scoring is getting very underrated.

McHale averaged 26ppg on 65% TS in 1987. He had a 24 PER, 10rpg and 2.2 bpg. His ws/48 was .232 and he played more minutes than Larry Bird, resulting in 14.8 WS.

To compare with MJ that year, MJ had a league leading 16.9 WS and a 29.8 PER.

Larry Bird led the league in PER in 85 and 86 with 26.5 and 25.8.

McHale was 5th in the league in PER, behind only MJ/Bird/Barkley/maybe Magic didn't look. He was 4th in WS and WS/48. He was top 10 in VORP/BPM, but didn't have the same impact coming off the court as he would have if he was the team captain (obviously) because Bird was the leader of the team, so these numbers are lessened.

His PER/WS/WS/48 were all ahead of Hakeem, Moses, Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, and many other stars in their heyday.

[euroleague]

Bob Cousy - Case for: Superb longevity. He is still a 2nd team All-NBA level, all-star in his 13th season. Highly regarded by his peers with all his All-NBA, wins MVP, and in 1980 which is about the halfway point for this project is one of 11 players selected for the 35th anniversary team ahead of some contenders here like Barry and Frazier. Being one of the best slashers of his era and the best passer are both high value offensive roles. Helped Boston to 1st ORTGs when he was the best player. Case against: Played against mostly segregated players in his prime. Being the best guard passer in a poor passing league doesn't necessarily mean he was better at it than future players. Weak TS leads to disappointing OWS and WS production, never finishes higher than 8th/9th in WS. The Celtics dynasty was predicted to collapse without him but they did just fine. Likely overcredited in his time for Boston's offensive success, noting that this was a time where they didn't know any better than to think whoever scored the most points had the best offense, eg. in Cousy's MVP year they had the 5th highest ORTG but scored the most points easily so they may have credited the offensive player as the driving force.

Cousy is the reason future leagues were good at passing.

Cousy actually had a very high TS% compared to most, because of his high FT efficiency and proclivity in getting to the line.

In Cousy's MVP year, high high placement wasn't a fluke. He was 3rd in 1956, then he got a great supporting defensive player in Russell (although their ORTG dropped).

When cousy joined the Celtics, their record improved more than 15 wins. That's a big impact, regardless of WS.

[penbeast0]

...
Cousy actually had a very high TS% compared to most, because of his high FT efficiency and proclivity in getting to the line.

In Cousy's MVP year, high high placement wasn't a fluke. He was 3rd in 1956, then he got a great supporting defensive player in Russell (although their ORTG dropped)....

Cousy in 1957 was almost exactly at league average for ts% (.452 v. .449) and prior to Russell's entry into the league, he was the best guard in the league. OF course in 57, he also set the pattern for the next few years shooting only a ts% of .409 in the playoffs and that was reasonably close to the playoff efficiency he showed for the rest of his career as the league playoff efficiency rapidly and significantly increased. That includes his foul shooting of course.

Cousy prior to 1957 had some terrific (though short) playoff runs; it's only the championship years that he shot so poorly. If you make a case that Cousy from 52-56 was a truly great player for his league, I agree with you. After that, the league moved on and he started to slip though he remained a good playmaker plus he had the playoff failures.

[dhsilv2]

1. Frazier. Best defensive guard left imo. Was a top 2 player on 2 title teams.
2. Reed. MVP, 2 x finals MVP. The other number two guy on two titles teams.

Both should get a HUGE boost for winning on the worst franchise in nba history, in the knicks. For some reason that franchise just can't seems to win. I'm open to changing reed, but frazier is lacked.

Players i don't get. Thomas...at least 12 spots too soon. Wilkins not even a top 55 guy. I don't even need to defend this imo, they're so out of line here at this point.

[euroleague]

...
Cousy actually had a very high TS% compared to most, because of his high FT efficiency and proclivity in getting to the line.

In Cousy's MVP year, high high placement wasn't a fluke. He was 3rd in 1956, then he got a great supporting defensive player in Russell (although their ORTG dropped)....

Cousy in 1957 was almost exactly at league average for ts% (.452 v. .449) and prior to Russell's entry into the league, he was the best guard in the league. OF course in 57, he also set the pattern for the next few years shooting only a ts% of .409 in the playoffs and that was reasonably close to the playoff efficiency he showed for the rest of his career as the league playoff efficiency rapidly and significantly increased. That includes his foul shooting of course.

Cousy prior to 1957 had some terrific (though short) playoff runs; it's only the championship years that he shot so poorly. If you make a case that Cousy from 52-56 was a truly great player for his league, I agree with you. After that, the league moved on and he started to slip though he remained a good playmaker plus he had the playoff failures.

Cousy's efficiency increased dramatically in the Post-season, and he shot a very high TS. Ignoring that, and saying he was league average, is wrong.

Cousy was a lead playmaker with devastating scoring ability who didn't have the team-strength of several other stars to get over the hump. He regularly led his team to league-best ORTG scores, and while he wasn't great defensively, hiding slightly weak defensive PGs has been a staple of every championship team since the league began (Cousy, Magic, Oscar, Curry, Irving, should've been Nash too, Derek Fischer, etc...)

When he finally did get elite teammates, one of them was inept offensively and could only get points from what were probably put-backs and offensive rebounds. The fact that every other year in the league Cousy was an elite MVP level candidate based off of his offensive play-making shouldn't be disregarded because of one incompetent offensive player.

Cousy was a great player until 1960, and if he were traded he would've continued his playoff success (as did Dolph Schayes, Bob Pettit, Arizin, and every other player who was successful the year before Russell joined). Russell is often lauded as "the perfect team player", but clearly his skill set didn't mesh well with Cousy and wasted much of Cousy's skill. Imagine Cousy running a transition offense with Wilt...

[Lou Fan]

[b]
2nd Vote: Dominique Wilkins.

I can't see the rationale for Nique over Gervin (as well as many others but the comparison is stronger here). Please explain.

[dhsilv2]

[b]
2nd Vote: Dominique Wilkins.

I can't see the rationale for Nique over Gervin (as well as many others but the comparison is stronger here). Please explain.

great question, I was wondering about that as well.

[dhsilv2]

HM2: McHale is possibly the greatest m2m PF defender in NBA history, and one of the greatest individual scorers in the post in NBA history. His playstyle is similar to Hakeem for most of Hakeem's career in terms of scoring and man2man defense, except McHale may be the superior post scorer and the superior man 2 man defender. He was, however, even worse at passing (basically a black hole on offense) and not a rim protector so these two aspects give Hakeem the edge on both ends in the end. But, McHale's scoring is getting very underrated.

McHale averaged 26ppg on 65% TS in 1987. He had a 24 PER, 10rpg and 2.2 bpg. His ws/48 was .232 and he played more minutes than Larry Bird, resulting in 14.8 WS.

To compare with MJ that year, MJ had a league leading 16.9 WS and a 29.8 PER.

Larry Bird led the league in PER in 85 and 86 with 26.5 and 25.8.

McHale was 5th in the league in PER, behind only MJ/Bird/Barkley/maybe Magic didn't look. He was 4th in WS and WS/48. He was top 10 in VORP/BPM, but didn't have the same impact coming off the court as he would have if he was the team captain (obviously) because Bird was the leader of the team, so these numbers are lessened.

His PER/WS/WS/48 were all ahead of Hakeem, Moses, Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, and many other stars in their heyday.

What puts McHale over Dave Cowens? Or Willis Reed?

Cowens 8x allstars, 3x all nba, 3x all defense, 1973 MVP, ROY, AS MPV(some people value that). 2x champion. 4x top 10 VORP (vorp started after his MVP season). 3x top 10 WS.

McHale 7x allstar, 1 all nba, 2x sixth man, 6x all defensive team. 1 top 10 VORP season, 5 top 10 WS, 3x top 10 PER.

Reed 7x allstar, 5x all nba, 1970 MVP, 2x finals MVP, ROY, AS MVP, 1 all defense, 4x top 10 in WS (first one year), 4x top 10 PER.

Sure both of the 70's guys had shorter careers, but they both match McHale in terms of allstar seasons and both peaked as MVP's where as McHale didn't.

[penbeast0]

What puts McHale over Dave Cowens? Or Willis Reed?

Cowens 8x allstars, 3x all nba, 3x all defense, 1973 MVP, ROY, AS MPV(some people value that). 2x champion. 4x top 10 VORP (vorp started after his MVP season). 3x top 10 WS.

McHale 7x allstar, 1 all nba, 2x sixth man, 6x all defensive team. 1 top 10 VORP season, 5 top 10 WS, 3x top 10 PER.

Reed 7x allstar, 5x all nba, 1970 MVP, 2x finals MVP, ROY, AS MVP, 1 all defense, 4x top 10 in WS (first one year), 4x top 10 PER.

Sure both of the 70's guys had shorter careers, but they both match McHale in terms of allstar seasons and both peaked as MVP's where as McHale didn't.

For me it's mainly the numbers. McHale was just a superior scorer with superior efficiency playing in a tougher era. Now, how much of that was Larry Bird drawing defensive attention? That's where we get into questions; I can certainly see making an argument the other way.

[penbeast0]

...
Cousy actually had a very high TS% compared to most, because of his high FT efficiency and proclivity in getting to the line.

In Cousy's MVP year, high high placement wasn't a fluke. He was 3rd in 1956, then he got a great supporting defensive player in Russell (although their ORTG dropped)....

Cousy in 1957 was almost exactly at league average for ts% (.452 v. .449) and prior to Russell's entry into the league, he was the best guard in the league. OF course in 57, he also set the pattern for the next few years shooting only a ts% of .409 in the playoffs and that was reasonably close to the playoff efficiency he showed for the rest of his career as the league playoff efficiency rapidly and significantly increased. That includes his foul shooting of course.

Cousy prior to 1957 had some terrific (though short) playoff runs; it's only the championship years that he shot so poorly. If you make a case that Cousy from 52-56 was a truly great player for his league, I agree with you. After that, the league moved on and he started to slip though he remained a good playmaker plus he had the playoff failures.

Cousy's efficiency increased dramatically in the Post-season, and he shot a very high TS. Ignoring that, and saying he was league average, is wrong.
...

Check the numbers, I used B-R.com. If you have other numbers than the ones I posted above let's see them. Cousy pre57 had good to great playoff efficiency relative to league as I said. Cousy from 57 on (Russell years) was well below average trending to awful in the post-season (and average trending to bad in the regular season).

[dhsilv2]

What puts McHale over Dave Cowens? Or Willis Reed?

Cowens 8x allstars, 3x all nba, 3x all defense, 1973 MVP, ROY, AS MPV(some people value that). 2x champion. 4x top 10 VORP (vorp started after his MVP season). 3x top 10 WS.

McHale 7x allstar, 1 all nba, 2x sixth man, 6x all defensive team. 1 top 10 VORP season, 5 top 10 WS, 3x top 10 PER.

Reed 7x allstar, 5x all nba, 1970 MVP, 2x finals MVP, ROY, AS MVP, 1 all defense, 4x top 10 in WS (first one year), 4x top 10 PER.

Sure both of the 70's guys had shorter careers, but they both match McHale in terms of allstar seasons and both peaked as MVP's where as McHale didn't.

For me it's mainly the numbers. McHale was just a superior scorer with superior efficiency playing in a tougher era. Now, how much of that was Larry Bird drawing defensive attention? That's where we get into questions; I can certainly see making an argument the other way.

McHale was certainly a better scorer than Cowens. Though Cowens seems to be the better passer and based on what I've read (haven't seen enough thus asking the questions here and not stating a strong opinion) he peaked as a better overall defender. Though i know mchale gets major credit for his man to man defense.

But Reed's jump shot certainly should make calling McHale a clear better scorer a bit more difficult. A big guy who can stretch the floor should get a bit of slack on a shooting a lower percentage because of the other value that it added, opening the lane for others.

Also should be pointed out McHale didn't just have bird but also Parrish so it was all the more difficult to put a big body on him to stop his post game.

As it stands I have all 3 of these guys coming up soon and I tend to value the MVP more than most here, it isn't perfect but it's the closest tool we have to non biased measure of peak greatness (non biased in that it's not my opinion but a group though from the era, which we know is certainly biased in a different way). Thus me having Reed as my alt right now, and I'm heavily leaning towards Bringing Cowens in soon. McHale might be back a few more spots as I am ready to start talking D Howard and A Iverson pretty soon.

[Winsome Gerbil]

As I've mentioned with Walt. Impressively well rounded game, but

1) not his team's clear #1
2) short career

And in particular a huge question has to be raised. Apart from nostalgia, why would Walt Frazier end up ranked above Russell Westbrook?:

WFrazier career (12yrs): 37.5min 18.9pts (.542TS%) 5.9reb 6.1ast 19.1PER
Westbrook career (8yrs): 34.1min 22.7pts (.533TS%) 6.2reb 7.9ast 23.8PER

WFrazier career (12yrs): 15581pts 4830reb 5040ast 7x All Star, 6x All NBA (4/2), 7x All Defense
Westbrook career (8yrs): 15156pts 4149reb 5293ast 6x All Star, 6x All-NBA (2/4/0), 2x Scoring Champ, 1x MVP

Westbrook has already caught up to Walt Frazier's entire career of accolades and statistics, he's obviously peaked much higher, and he's still sitting here in mid career with only about 2 seasons less worth of games (668 to 825). How much more proof would we need? do we pedantically need Westbrook to actually play in his 826th game before we suddenly get a lightbulb over our heads and go, ohhhh, nowwwwww he's better?


In any case, as usual I believe 2 guys had better overall careers than either, although Westbrook should be passing them soon too:
#38 Allen Iverson
#39 Bob Cousy

[pandrade83]

1st Vote: Isiah Thomas (Led organization that never won to back to back titles and to 3 finals in a row. Also had to deal with 3 of the greatest prime players in NBA History and won series against them with HCA)

2nd Vote: Dominique Wilkins.

That should say "2 of the greatest prime players". Bird - for sure. Jordan - definitely. WRT Magic - Detroit won Game 1 with him out there. The Lakers had a small lead when Magic pulled his hamstring in Game 2. Magic briefly tried to play in Game 3- did not go well - he lasted 5 minutes. Had the series gone to 5, 6 or 7 Magic might've came back.

Give Detroit credit for taking care of business against the opponent they faced, for sure but we have a tendency to lionize Isiah's playoff runs because Magic, Bird & Jordan were all in their primes. The '89 Laker team without Magic AND Scott is probably not a .500 caliber team anymore though.

[pandrade83]

Bob Cousy - Case for: Superb longevity. He is still a 2nd team All-NBA level, all-star in his 13th season. Highly regarded by his peers with all his All-NBA, wins MVP, and in 1980 which is about the halfway point for this project is one of 11 players selected for the 35th anniversary team ahead of some contenders here like Barry and Frazier. Being one of the best slashers of his era and the best passer are both high value offensive roles. Helped Boston to 1st ORTGs when he was the best player. Case against: Played against mostly segregated players in his prime. Being the best guard passer in a poor passing league doesn't necessarily mean he was better at it than future players. Weak TS leads to disappointing OWS and WS production, never finishes higher than 8th/9th in WS. The Celtics dynasty was predicted to collapse without him but they did just fine. Likely overcredited in his time for Boston's offensive success, noting that this was a time where they didn't know any better than to think whoever scored the most points had the best offense, eg. in Cousy's MVP year they had the 5th highest ORTG but scored the most points easily so they may have credited the offensive player as the driving force.

Cousy is the reason future leagues were good at passing.

Cousy actually had a very high TS% compared to most, because of his high FT efficiency and proclivity in getting to the line.

In Cousy's MVP year, high high placement wasn't a fluke. He was 3rd in 1956, then he got a great supporting defensive player in Russell (although their ORTG dropped).

When cousy joined the Celtics, their record improved more than 15 wins. That's a big impact, regardless of WS.

Cousy only has 2 years where his TS% relative to league average is very strong (54 & 55). '52 is good - the rest of the time he's at average or worse.

Year Schayes Diff Cousy Diff
1950 7
1951 4 -1.3
1952 3 0.7
1953 5 0.1
1954 5.6 2.2
1955 3.5 2.5
1956 3.9 0.3
1957 5.3 0.3
1958 5.9 -3.4
1959 3.1 -0.3
1960 3.3 -2.4
1961 1.3 -3.3
1962 -1.8 -3.6
1963 -2.2 -4.5


Boston's offense was in a slow decline that continued once they got Russell.
Relative to league averages:

'54: +5.0
'55: +3.2
'56: +1.9
'57: -0.4 (first year with Russell).

Russell basically saves the Celtics because of his defensive impact.

Even the Celtic improvement in his rookie year is over-stated. I think that having the addition of McCaulley helped just a bit - having a center who gets you 20-9-4 and is 2nd in TS% is hugely impactful. I know you've mentioned before that Cousy made McCauley but there's 2 reasons why Cousy isn't responsible for ALL of McCaulley's improvement.

1) He went from 21 to 22. Guys improve organically at that age especially vs. their rookie year.
2) He was still 6th in TS% the year prior - by the standards of the day, he was already an efficient offensive player. Playing with the best PG of the era undeniably helps, but his improvement is probably a combination of the two.

[dhsilv2]

As I've mentioned with Walt. Impressively well rounded game, but

1) not his team's clear #1
2) short career

And in particular a huge question has to be raised. Apart from nostalgia, why would Walt Frazier end up ranked above Russell Westbrook?:

WFrazier career (12yrs): 37.5min 18.9pts (.542TS%) 5.9reb 6.1ast 19.1PER
Westbrook career (8yrs): 34.1min 22.7pts (.533TS%) 6.2reb 7.9ast 23.8PER

WFrazier career (12yrs): 15581pts 4830reb 5040ast 7x All Star, 6x All NBA (4/2), 7x All Defense
Westbrook career (8yrs): 15156pts 4149reb 5293ast 6x All Star, 6x All-NBA (2/4/0), 2x Scoring Champ, 1x MVP

Westbrook has already caught up to Walt Frazier's entire career of accolades and statistics, he's obviously peaked much higher, and he's still sitting here in mid career with only about 2 seasons less worth of games (668 to 825). How much more proof would we need? do we pedantically need Westbrook to actually play in his 826th game before we suddenly get a lightbulb over our heads and go, ohhhh, nowwwwww he's better?


In any case, as usual I believe 2 guys had better overall careers than either, although Westbrook should be passing them soon too:
#38 Allen Iverson
#39 Bob Cousy

Defense between the two is night and day different. Walt won 2 titles, westbrook had a shot, but the thunder came up short. I don't think westbrook is a positive on intangibles, I think he's a negative there. PER is a useless stat to compare both the eras with point guards. The game has opened up vastly more for point guards to score and do so efficiently.

For me westbrook hasn't proven himself as a number 1 at all. He won't be in my next 20, as I just don't see any scenario that he's at this level.

As for Frazier, I think the short career stuff a bit over stated. 800+ games is pretty good historically speaking. 7 star seasons is at this point again right in line when what I'd expect. Case and point 7 time allstar is the same as Pippen who we already brought in as a number 2.

And I still think westbrooks MVP will go down as maybe the worst MVP ever, but that's just me.

[pandrade83]

As I've mentioned with Walt. Impressively well rounded game, but

1) not his team's clear #1
2) short career

And in particular a huge question has to be raised. Apart from nostalgia, why would Walt Frazier end up ranked above Russell Westbrook?:

WFrazier career (12yrs): 37.5min 18.9pts (.542TS%) 5.9reb 6.1ast 19.1PER
Westbrook career (8yrs): 34.1min 22.7pts (.533TS%) 6.2reb 7.9ast 23.8PER

WFrazier career (12yrs): 15581pts 4830reb 5040ast 7x All Star, 6x All NBA (4/2), 7x All Defense
Westbrook career (8yrs): 15156pts 4149reb 5293ast 6x All Star, 6x All-NBA (2/4/0), 2x Scoring Champ, 1x MVP

Westbrook has already caught up to Walt Frazier's entire career of accolades and statistics, he's obviously peaked much higher, and he's still sitting here in mid career with only about 2 seasons less worth of games (668 to 825). How much more proof would we need? do we pedantically need Westbrook to actually play in his 826th game before we suddenly get a lightbulb over our heads and go, ohhhh, nowwwwww he's better?


In any case, as usual I believe 2 guys had better overall careers than either, although Westbrook should be passing them soon too:
#38 Allen Iverson
#39 Bob Cousy

Defense between the two is night and day different. Walt won 2 titles, westbrook had a shot, but the thunder came up short. I don't think westbrook is a positive on intangibles, I think he's a negative there. PER is a useless stat to compare both the eras with point guards. The game has opened up vastly more for point guards to score and do so efficiently.

For me westbrook hasn't proven himself as a number 1 at all. He won't be in my next 20, as I just don't see any scenario that he's at this level.

As for Frazier, I think the short career stuff a bit over stated. 800+ games is pretty good historically speaking. 7 star seasons is at this point again right in line when what I'd expect. Case and point 7 time allstar is the same as Pippen who we already brought in as a number 2.

And I still think westbrooks MVP will go down as maybe the worst MVP ever, but that's just me.

I'm obviously taking Frazier over Westbrook at this point, so I'm more or less on your side. But the bolded quote is pretty funny to me. There's at least 7 or 8 worst MVP's than Westbrook's '17 campaign in my eyes.

[dhsilv2]

As I've mentioned with Walt. Impressively well rounded game, but

1) not his team's clear #1
2) short career

And in particular a huge question has to be raised. Apart from nostalgia, why would Walt Frazier end up ranked above Russell Westbrook?:

WFrazier career (12yrs): 37.5min 18.9pts (.542TS%) 5.9reb 6.1ast 19.1PER
Westbrook career (8yrs): 34.1min 22.7pts (.533TS%) 6.2reb 7.9ast 23.8PER

WFrazier career (12yrs): 15581pts 4830reb 5040ast 7x All Star, 6x All NBA (4/2), 7x All Defense
Westbrook career (8yrs): 15156pts 4149reb 5293ast 6x All Star, 6x All-NBA (2/4/0), 2x Scoring Champ, 1x MVP

Westbrook has already caught up to Walt Frazier's entire career of accolades and statistics, he's obviously peaked much higher, and he's still sitting here in mid career with only about 2 seasons less worth of games (668 to 825). How much more proof would we need? do we pedantically need Westbrook to actually play in his 826th game before we suddenly get a lightbulb over our heads and go, ohhhh, nowwwwww he's better?


In any case, as usual I believe 2 guys had better overall careers than either, although Westbrook should be passing them soon too:
#38 Allen Iverson
#39 Bob Cousy

Defense between the two is night and day different. Walt won 2 titles, westbrook had a shot, but the thunder came up short. I don't think westbrook is a positive on intangibles, I think he's a negative there. PER is a useless stat to compare both the eras with point guards. The game has opened up vastly more for point guards to score and do so efficiently.

For me westbrook hasn't proven himself as a number 1 at all. He won't be in my next 20, as I just don't see any scenario that he's at this level.

As for Frazier, I think the short career stuff a bit over stated. 800+ games is pretty good historically speaking. 7 star seasons is at this point again right in line when what I'd expect. Case and point 7 time allstar is the same as Pippen who we already brought in as a number 2.

And I still think westbrooks MVP will go down as maybe the worst MVP ever, but that's just me.

I'm obviously taking Frazier over Westbrook at this point, so I'm more or less on your side. But the bolded quote is pretty funny to me. There's at least 7 or 8 worst MVP's than Westbrook's '17 campaign in my eyes.

There might be worst MVP's but westbrook beat out far better imo other candidates, thus it's the worst. Not that he was the worst player to win MVP, perhaps I could have said it better the first time.

[dhsilv2]

I just went back and read why we ranked shaq at 8 which I thought was high. It's pretty depressing how many more people were voting back then vs now. I almost feel this work gets cheapened by having so many people at the start who dropped off already.

[Winsome Gerbil]

For me westbrook hasn't proven himself as a number 1 at all. He won't be in my next 20, as I just don't see any scenario that he's at this level.

Now that seems to be a fairly insupportable position. Especially when we are talking about Walt Frazier here who never truly WAS a #1. But in any case, Westbrook just won an MVP in what was basically considered impossible fashion in the modern era, he's a 6x All NBA guy and 2x scoring champ by the age of 28. He's in the HOF if he retires tomorrow, and barring sudden catastrophic injury he's going to stack up more great seasons than all but maybe the top half dozen or so guards. Maybe even them, although I think he will be impacted heavily by declining athleticism after 30.

Guards (500+ games) Career PER
1) Jordan 27.9 (taken #1)
2) Paul 25.7 (taken #23)
3) Wade 24.3 (taken #22)
4) Magic 24.1 (taken #7)
5) Westbrook 23.8 (won't be taken to #59 at least?)
6) Curry 23.4 (taken #29)
7) Robertson 23.2 (taken #13)
8) Bryant 22.9 (taken #11)
9) Harden 22.9
10) West 22.9 (taken #15)

that doesn't work