RealGM Top 100 List #13

[colts18]

[cpower]

Vote : Jerry West
Nomination: John Havlicek

Had West voted before so I will stick with my pick. Havlicek is very underated in my opinion, he is one of the best defensive guard ever, and his offense is better than Russell and he's got 8 rings. if Russell is the second, Havlicek should be an easy top 10 player of all time.

[Rupert Murdoch]

Same as the last time.

Vote : Oscar Robertson
Nomination: Walt Frazier

[Wavy Q]

Vote: Jerry West
Nominate: Hondo

[WhateverBro]

Clutch stats from 2008-2011 (all per 48 minutes):
LeBron: 56 PPG, 12.4 Reb, 8.3 AST, .626 TS%, +31.7, 23.2 FTA
Nowitzki: 44 PPG, 11.1 Reb, 4.4 AST, .584 TS%, +25.1, 18.1 FTA
Wade: 38.8 PPG, 6.2 Reb, 7.9 AST, .518 TS%, -3.0, 17.7 FTA
Garnett: 21.3 PPG, 12.4 Reb, 3.1 AST, .529 TS%, +5.2, 6.9 FTA

As you can clearly see, KG lags way behind the competition. This is a constant theme I've noticed. You can't trust KG in the clutch because he can't create his own shot. He only shot 17.1 FGA/48 that is over 12 behind Wade and Dirk and less than half of what LeBron shot. So not only is KG not scoring, he is doing it inefficiently. And his best asset (Rebounding) isn't all that great when you consider that LeBron actually averages just as much clutch Rebounds and KG does. Some KG fans here argue that KG had more impact the past 4 years than Wade somewhat similar to Nowitzki and a little behind LeBron.

Let's look at 2008 when all 4 of these players were in their prime:
Garnett: 21.1 PPG, 13.2 Reb, 2.5 AST, -12, .467 TS%, 7.9 FTA
Nowitzki: 46 PPG, 13.6 Reb, 4.4 AST, .586 TS%, +17, 19.9 FTA
LeBron: 56 PPG, 9.6 Reb, 8.2 AST, .609 TS%, +31, 22.5
DWade: 35.4 PPG, 5.8 Reb, 8.2 AST, .450 TS%, -30, 20.3

Notice that KG is still lagging behind and this is supposed to be a historical season for KG. If I had to bet, you would see the same trend during his Minnesota career. Why are people ignoring the fact one of the reasons that KG didn't win might have been his finesse style of play. Guys like LeBron, Robinson, and Dirk can take mediocre teams far because they help their teams by drawing fouls. KG doesn't do that and never did that.

So Garnett was in his prime in 2008? Gotcha!

Garnett can't be trusted in the clutch is such a played out argument. There is no evidence of it and you throwing out numbers, comparing him to players who are primarily seen as scorers doesn't help your case. And the fact that you choose Garnetts numbers for a season where he's past his prime makes it even more ridiculous.

[therealbig3]

Clutch stats from 2008-2011 (all per 48 minutes):
LeBron: 56 PPG, 12.4 Reb, 8.3 AST, .626 TS%, +31.7, 23.2 FTA
Nowitzki: 44 PPG, 11.1 Reb, 4.4 AST, .584 TS%, +25.1, 18.1 FTA
Wade: 38.8 PPG, 6.2 Reb, 7.9 AST, .518 TS%, -3.0, 17.7 FTA
Garnett: 21.3 PPG, 12.4 Reb, 3.1 AST, .529 TS%, +5.2, 6.9 FTA

As you can clearly see, KG lags way behind the competition. This is a constant theme I've noticed. You can't trust KG in the clutch because he can't create his own shot. He only shot 17.1 FGA/48 that is over 12 behind Wade and Dirk and less than half of what LeBron shot. So not only is KG not scoring, he is doing it inefficiently. And his best asset (Rebounding) isn't all that great when you consider that LeBron actually averages just as much clutch Rebounds and KG does. Some KG fans here argue that KG had more impact the past 4 years than Wade somewhat similar to Nowitzki and a little behind LeBron.

Let's look at 2008 when all 4 of these players were in their prime:
Garnett: 21.1 PPG, 13.2 Reb, 2.5 AST, -12, .467 TS%, 7.9 FTA
Nowitzki: 46 PPG, 13.6 Reb, 4.4 AST, .586 TS%, +17, 19.9 FTA
LeBron: 56 PPG, 9.6 Reb, 8.2 AST, .609 TS%, +31, 22.5
DWade: 35.4 PPG, 5.8 Reb, 8.2 AST, .450 TS%, -30, 20.3

Notice that KG is still lagging behind and this is supposed to be a historical season for KG. If I had to bet, you would see the same trend during his Minnesota career. Why are people ignoring the fact one of the reasons that KG didn't win might have been his finesse style of play. Guys like LeBron, Robinson, and Dirk can take mediocre teams far because they help their teams by drawing fouls. KG doesn't do that and never did that.

So Garnett was in his prime in 2008? Gotcha!

Garnett can't be trusted in the clutch is such a played out argument. There is no evidence of it and you throwing out numbers, comparing him to players who are primarily seen as scorers doesn't help your case. And the fact that you choose Garnetts numbers for a season where he's past his prime makes it even more ridiculous.

I think KG was in his prime in 08...he just came off a season where he was dropping 22/12 or something like that, his numbers suffered only because he now had an actual team around him, so he didn't have to put up monster numbers anymore. But then injuries hit in 09 and 10, and he got older, so I think that was his last prime year. I think his prime was 00-08. He has some really good non-prime years though, like 97-99, 09, and 11.

But I agree, constantly comparing KG to guys whose main value is scoring doesn't tell you anything. KG impacts the game in different ways, that in most cases, ends up being equal or greater than the impact that volume scorers bring to the table.

[colts18]

Clutch stats from 2008-2011 (all per 48 minutes):
LeBron: 56 PPG, 12.4 Reb, 8.3 AST, .626 TS%, +31.7, 23.2 FTA
Nowitzki: 44 PPG, 11.1 Reb, 4.4 AST, .584 TS%, +25.1, 18.1 FTA
Wade: 38.8 PPG, 6.2 Reb, 7.9 AST, .518 TS%, -3.0, 17.7 FTA
Garnett: 21.3 PPG, 12.4 Reb, 3.1 AST, .529 TS%, +5.2, 6.9 FTA

As you can clearly see, KG lags way behind the competition. This is a constant theme I've noticed. You can't trust KG in the clutch because he can't create his own shot. He only shot 17.1 FGA/48 that is over 12 behind Wade and Dirk and less than half of what LeBron shot. So not only is KG not scoring, he is doing it inefficiently. And his best asset (Rebounding) isn't all that great when you consider that LeBron actually averages just as much clutch Rebounds and KG does. Some KG fans here argue that KG had more impact the past 4 years than Wade somewhat similar to Nowitzki and a little behind LeBron.

Let's look at 2008 when all 4 of these players were in their prime:
Garnett: 21.1 PPG, 13.2 Reb, 2.5 AST, -12, .467 TS%, 7.9 FTA
Nowitzki: 46 PPG, 13.6 Reb, 4.4 AST, .586 TS%, +17, 19.9 FTA
LeBron: 56 PPG, 9.6 Reb, 8.2 AST, .609 TS%, +31, 22.5
DWade: 35.4 PPG, 5.8 Reb, 8.2 AST, .450 TS%, -30, 20.3

Notice that KG is still lagging behind and this is supposed to be a historical season for KG. If I had to bet, you would see the same trend during his Minnesota career. Why are people ignoring the fact one of the reasons that KG didn't win might have been his finesse style of play. Guys like LeBron, Robinson, and Dirk can take mediocre teams far because they help their teams by drawing fouls. KG doesn't do that and never did that.

So Garnett was in his prime in 2008? Gotcha!

Garnett can't be trusted in the clutch is such a played out argument. There is no evidence of it and you throwing out numbers, comparing him to players who are primarily seen as scorers doesn't help your case. And the fact that you choose Garnetts numbers for a season where he's past his prime makes it even more ridiculous.

Now KG isn't in his prime in 2008? Some KG fans here argue that he was in his prime in 2008 and say that he had more impact the past 4 years than Kobe or Wade. If he wasn't in his prime and was better than Prime Kobe, than he must have been Superman in his prime. Anyways, the previous page has KG's clutch numbers during his "prime" compared to Dirk. Look at KG's clutch numbers in his 2 best years in the playoffs.

[penbeast0]

Voting -- Basically it seems to be Moses, Garnett, or West. This is NOT a slam against any of them, they are all great players but let's compare them.

Scoring explosiveness -- Moses might have the best prime playing on a team with no other options but West was easily the most explosive scorer throughout his career, then Moses, Garnett is well back in this area.

Scoring efficiency -- Again, Moses in his prime might be the best but West continued at a terrifically high level for 10+ years while Moses fell off badly. Garnett again trails in this area as he doesn't draw fouls at the ridiculous rate of the other two stars.

Defense -- Garnett was easily the best, West and Moses were both solid with West getting a lot more love from his peers for his defense, particularly his ballhawking while Moses was not a good shotblocker for a superstar center.

Rebounding relative to position -- All terrific but the edge goes to Moses as the all time great offensive rebounder ever. Garnett gets the runnerup slot but West averaged 6 rebounds a game for his career which is pretty spectacular for a PG.

Playmaking relative to his position -- Moses is the dog here with a poor assist to turnover rate and little court vision. Basically, once he got the ball, it was going up. Garnett was a good passer for a big man though not a Russell/Walton/Unseld type. West is not here for his playmaking but he did lead the league in assists and was a solid to outstanding playmaker throughout his career. so he gets the nod for playmaking.

Leadership/Intangibles -- All solid. Garnett led that great Celtics turnaround after those poor years in Minnesota. Moses led a mediocre Houston team to the finals then blended his talents with a supertalented Philly team enough to get a ring (though only one). But again, easily West here. Both anecdotal evidence from teammates and observers and team results favor the Logo despite his continual struggles against Russell and the Celtics (of course, everyone struggled against Russell and the Celtics) as he led his team to the finals regularly for almost a decade and was the leading scorer (and playmaker) on the championship team though it was his career worst playoff performance.

So, while it is difficult to compare different positions and eras, West was the most explosive scorer, the most efficient, and has an edge in leadership, team results, and playmaking. Moses's great rebounding and Garnett's great defense to me aren't enough to overcome these many areas of strength since West was also a very good rebounder and defender. VOTE JERRY WEST

[penbeast0]

For the nomination, it is a bit more interesting.

At center, people are supporting Patrick Ewing but I think Artis Gilmore was a little better.

Ewing
5 year prime 88-9 PTS 24.4 TS% .585 Reb% 15.7 Blk% 5.5
Career 1183G PTS 21.0 TS% .553 Reb% 16.4 Blk% 4.8

Gilmore
5 year prime 75-79 PTS 22.7 TS% .600 Reb% 18.9 Blk% 3.4
Career 1329G PTS 18.8 TS% .623 Reb% 18.0 Blk% 3.7

Ewing scores about 2 pts a game better but at an appreciably lower efficiency over his career (the gap is considerably narrower in prime as Artis played a much more active game and further away from the basket. It wasn't until he went to the NBA after the knee injury that he started setting all-time efficiency records though he was always efficient).

Defensively, Artis got more respect as a man defender with his strength forcing men off their sweet spot while Ewing was more aggressive and quicker making him the better help defender (though both are very good at both areas).

Both stunk as playmakers with more turnovers than assists and neither were known for court vision.

Team success favors Artis. The Colonels were always favorites and in 75, when they finally made Artis the primary offensive weapon for the first time, he carried them to the title earning playoff MVP and singlehandedly dominating the finals. Ewing's Knicks always came up a little short. On the other hand, Artis was never able to get Chicago to play as a team which speaks to his personality issues; he was extremely reserved and shy and, like Kareem, needed someone else to take the lockerroom leadership role. Ewing, on the other hand, was aggressive and outspoken and his teams fed off that (sometimes too much).

I can see people taking Ewing though it seems the case for Gilmore is a little stronger; mainly those who feel the 80s were THAT much stronger than the 70s. I think Gilmore was the better player and would draft him first (like Shaq over Zo).

At forward, people are starting to mention Rick Barry which seems a bit odd with Elgin Baylor not drafted. Yes, Barry had the one spectacular playoff run where he took a pretty weak team to the title out of a weak Western Conference. (I remember it well since he beat my Bullets). But Baylor and West were much more consistent and dominant contenders (Barry didn't have a Jerry West, though he did have Nate Thurmond much of his career).

The other knock on Baylor is his efficiency, .494 for his career to Barry's .525 (.510 NBA) however Baylor started his career in the 50s when efficiency was much lower and Barry padded his efficiency in the weaker early ABA. Both were monster scorers, both were good passers (Barry was better), neither were great defenders. The big difference comes in rebounding. Baylor was a consistent top 10 rebounder in the league, 9th all time (playing in an inflated number era though Barry's career overlapped a bit), Barry only managed 10th in the league once despite big minutes. Then add in that Baylor was respected by his teammates and peers while Barry was one of the least liked teammates ever and the edge is very clear. Baylor was better than Barry.

Finally at guard, people are putting Steve Nash and Isiah Thomas forward already. However, Walt Frazier, while not the GOAT competitive playmaker of a Nash, was a more explosive scorer than Nash and not that far behind in efficiency (especially relative to guards of his era!) while being competitive with Isiah in scoring and FAR more efficient. Then add in the dominant finals play of Frazier and Isiah while Nash has not gotten that far (not saying it is his fault, but they got chances Nash didn't and came up really big) -- Frazier and Isiah have two rings each and Frazier was the clear best player and 1A/1B best player in his two title teams. Frazier was also the best rebounder of the three. And, the final and most important difference, Frazier is a GOAT defensive PG (with Payton), while Isiah is well below that level though solid and Nash is at best average. Frazier is the guy I want scoring and defending, especially in big games, and is solid with the ball in his hands too. He is the best PG candidate left.

The SG and PF slots to my mind don't have equivalent candidates left though Drexler deserves a mention. Comparing Gilmore to Baylor to Frazier, I still have to stick with Clyde. He was such a great two way player and so key to those championships.

Nominate WALT FRAZIER

[Baller 24]

where does someone like Bill Walton come into play? His peak is amongst the best.

[ElGee]

Voting -- Basically it seems to be Moses, Garnett, or West. This is NOT a slam against any of them, they are all great players but let's compare them.

Scoring explosiveness -- Moses might have the best prime playing on a team with no other options but West was easily the most explosive scorer throughout his career, then Moses, Garnett is well back in this area.

Scoring efficiency -- Again, Moses in his prime might be the best but West continued at a terrifically high level for 10+ years while Moses fell off badly. Garnett again trails in this area as he doesn't draw fouls at the ridiculous rate of the other two stars.

Defense -- Garnett was easily the best, West and Moses were both solid with West getting a lot more love from his peers for his defense, particularly his ballhawking while Moses was not a good shotblocker for a superstar center.

Rebounding relative to position -- All terrific but the edge goes to Moses as the all time great offensive rebounder ever. Garnett gets the runnerup slot but West averaged 6 rebounds a game for his career which is pretty spectacular for a PG.

Playmaking relative to his position -- Moses is the dog here with a poor assist to turnover rate and little court vision. Basically, once he got the ball, it was going up. Garnett was a good passer for a big man though not a Russell/Walton/Unseld type. West is not here for his playmaking but he did lead the league in assists and was a solid to outstanding playmaker throughout his career. so he gets the nod for playmaking.

Leadership/Intangibles -- All solid. Garnett led that great Celtics turnaround after those poor years in Minnesota. Moses led a mediocre Houston team to the finals then blended his talents with a supertalented Philly team enough to get a ring (though only one). But again, easily West here. Both anecdotal evidence from teammates and observers and team results favor the Logo despite his continual struggles against Russell and the Celtics (of course, everyone struggled against Russell and the Celtics) as he led his team to the finals regularly for almost a decade and was the leading scorer (and playmaker) on the championship team though it was his career worst playoff performance.

So, while it is difficult to compare different positions and eras, West was the most explosive scorer, the most efficient, and has an edge in leadership, team results, and playmaking. Moses's great rebounding and Garnett's great defense to me aren't enough to overcome these many areas of strength since West was also a very good rebounder and defender. VOTE JERRY WEST

I don't quite understand why we continue to discuss these parts of the game up in such arbitrary ways. What we really want to know is impact on offense and defense, and there are different ways to skin a cat. Steve Nash doesn't have typical "scoring explosiveness" but he uses the threat of his dribble and shot to basically be one of the best offensive players in NBA history. *That's* what's important.

In this case, describing Garnett as "way behind" in scoring feels like a little much -- and fairly disingenuous -- because I don't thinkhe was really "way behind" Jerry West as overall offensive player.

Furthermore, while I don't really take issue with your analysis, I again question what kind of criteria people are using in reaching their conclusions. Are you just comparing peak seasons? That seems like a fine place to start, but why do we stop there? Why not compare 2nd-best seasons. 3rd-best seasons. And Nth-best seasons?

Personally, I could never vote Jerry West here in a million years because KG clearly has a better peak, and perhaps even more germane, West missed the playoffs in 2 of his best seasons! Making those playoffs would make it close (or edge to West?)...but I consider those spectacularly less valuable seasons and therefore KG gives me way more value in the long run (1967 and 1971.)

Now, if one gives a mulligan for timeliness of injuries or something (does anyone?), then I could see West tucking in behind Garnett (or arguably ahead), but I also would have to suggest that Larry Bird be much higher and Magic Johnson take consideration for GOAT.

[penbeast0]

A bit confused. West was injured in 67 and 71 and so didn't play in the playoffs plus he lost ONCE in the first round in another year while making TEN finals and that makes him impossible to vote ahead of Garnett who missed the playoffs 5 times because his team sucked and lost another 7 times in the first round . . .

That's your logic?

[ElGee]

Players don't lose in rounds -- teams do. But individual players are injured. If you can't play, you can't contribute to *any* team's likelihood of winning a title. Garnett could have helped another team immensely in the years Minnesota missed the PS...that's precisely his value.

[Dr Positivity]

West has 9 years where he's in his statistical prime and healthy in the playoffs, then his rookie year and 72 and 73. Garnett has 10 if you start in 99 + his first 3 seasons + the last 2. The difference between them is roughly 1 All-NBA season + 2 extra formative years for Garnett. Overall I voted for Garnett because I prefer him as a player but I could see one taking West there if they prefer him as a player

[Fencer reregistered]

As for Baylor and Ewing: I think it's a little early to nominate guys who won neither an MVP nor a championship. I think everybody now nominated gets on the list before somebody who lacks both those credentials, and the same is true of most of the other guys being suggested for nomination -- Havlicek, Pippen, Barry, Frazier, et al.

Now, I expect that Ewing and Baylor will both be on the list before certain guys who have BOTH an MVP and a championship -- but IMO it's not yet their time.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong about Baylor, who had amazing statistical accomplishments, and started the Baylor/Erving/Jordan line of transforming the game. But for now, I'm sticking by my story.

[drza]

You're trying too hard, and in doing so obviously snipping data to fit the story that you wish you could tell. For example, in the very article where you quoted this information, the author makes a direct comparison between Duncan and Garnett in crunchtime that you ignore, apparently because including it would show that KG's crunch performance is just fine compared to other all-timers that actually, you know, play something like he does. Here is what the author wrote:

"Garnett and Duncan

A criticism often volleyed toward Kevin Garnett is his reluctance to take over games down the stretch. Of course, most bigs are hampered by this. And, with regards to his chief rival, Tim Duncan, KG’s clutch performance is quite similar. He’s nearly identical with TD over the last 8+ seasons, and outperformed him in his 3-year peak. Garnett actually shot it 21% more in his three-year peak (18.0 FGA’s per 36, 618 minute sample) than Duncan did in his (14.9 FGA’s per 36, 473 minute sample)."

http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/10/the ... ince-2003/

KG, like Duncan, plays his role very well in crunch time. Dirk is more like the perimeter players that you named, more heavily focused on scoring late. That isn't KG's role, but when called upon he is very good late.

Now KG isn't in his prime in 2008? Some KG fans here argue that he was in his prime in 2008 and say that he had more impact the past 4 years than Kobe or Wade. If he wasn't in his prime and was better than Prime Kobe, than he must have been Superman in his prime. Anyways, the previous page has KG's clutch numbers during his "prime" compared to Dirk. Look at KG's clutch numbers in his 2 best years in the playoffs.

Again, trying too hard. I've been pointing out for years that Garnett led those '08 Celtics not only in scoring, but also in 4th quarter scoring in the playoffs. But recently I had a conversation and realized that in crunch time, it was even more pronounced. In the playoffs, in the last 5 minutes of games within 5 points, this is what the main 3 Celtics did:

KG made 9 of 21 shots and drew 3 shooting fouls. He also had 0 assists and 1 turnover total in those minutes.

Ray made 5 of 15 shots and drew 2 shooting fouls. He also had 3 assists and 1 TO.

Pierce made 1 of 14 shots and drew 3 shooting fouls. He also had 4 assists and 6 TOs.

It's no contest. In the '08 playoffs, when the Celtics needed a bucket late they went to KG to score and he hit more shots than Pierce and Ray combined. You can make the case that Pierce was more of the offense initiator than KG in crunch time, and I can buy that, but when the Celtics actually went to Pierce to shoot at crunch time, he made only 1 out of his 14 shots. If the '08 Celtics had a closer, it was KG or it was nobody. And this was on a championship team.

Context is everything. KG has been very good in crunch time in his career, and when called upon has stepped up. His role is different from perimeter players, but he's always played his role very well.

[penbeast0]

Players don't lose in rounds -- teams do. But individual players are injured. If you can't play, you can't contribute to *any* team's likelihood of winning a title. Garnett could have helped another team immensely in the years Minnesota missed the PS...that's precisely his value.

Then again he might have gotten injured or choked. Therefore, guys who have actually been there and done that are valued higher than guys who potentially could have been valuable by most posters. I am not trying to rip KG for his playoff performance, just have to give some extra credit to West for the actual extra playoff value he really did add during his great playoff career.

[ElGee]

Players don't lose in rounds -- teams do. But individual players are injured. If you can't play, you can't contribute to *any* team's likelihood of winning a title. Garnett could have helped another team immensely in the years Minnesota missed the PS...that's precisely his value.

Then again he might have gotten injured or choked. Therefore, guys who have actually been there and done that are valued higher than guys who potentially could have been valuable by most posters. I am not trying to rip KG for his playoff performance, just have to give some extra credit to West for the actual extra playoff value he really did add during his great playoff career.

You've lost me. I don't see where the "potential" value is. If the dude's healthy when the playoffs start, you get Kevin Garnett on your basketball team. Depending on how good Kevin Garnett at is at basketball, that's how much he helps your team. That's his value. There's nothing hypothetical about it.

If someone is injured, they can't play in the PS. We know that. It's not hypothetical.

Saying "he might have gotten injured or choked" IS hypothetical. ???

[ronnymac2]

All right, here's my argument for Rick Barry. These Havlicek nominations are worrying me a little bit. Rings are getting in the way of who the better player is...


All right, so what are Barry's weaknesses? His offensive efficiency gets called into question, and with good reason. He lacked the percentages that The Big O and The Logo bandied, though at times he reached volumes that neither of those two ever reached. But he isn't being compared to those two players- they are clearly superior.

Barry started off in his rookie year as a 26/10 player with average efficiency. In just his second year, his offensive responsibility increased, and he flourished, averaging 35 points per game (Won the scoring title) and placed 9th in the league in TS percentage (53 percent). He also averaged 3.6 assists. His team made the Finals that year. His efficiency did drop in just his first playoff appearance, but he did score about 35 per game, and his team only lost in six to a GOAT team, the 1967 Sixers.

Then he moved to the ABA. Admittedly, this version of the ABA isn't as strong as that league would become in the mid-70's. Barry lost an entire year of playing ball because of the league switch, and he didn't play in many REG SEA games when he got there (87 through first two seasons). However, he scored at a crazy volume and led the league in TS percentage.

His 1970, 1971, and 1972 playoffs were individually dominant. He averaged 40/10/3 on 60 percent TS in the 7 games in 1970. He averaged 34/12/4 on over 62 percent TS in 6 games in '71. Then he dropped 31/6/4 on 56 percent TS in 18 games as his team went to the Finals.

He had a sub-par year in 1973 during his return to the NBA, but bounced back with a strong 1974 campaign, averaging 25/7/6/2 (no three-point line anymore like there was in the ABA). He shot over 45 percent from the field.

Everybody knows about 1975. After this post, I'm going to copy and paste stats from the 1975 playoffs that ElGee was kind enough to post in the 1975 RPOY thread. He was amazing. He averaged 30/6/6 while leading the league in steals. In the playoff he dropped 28/5/6/3.

In 1976 and 1977, he had excellent years of well-rounded play as well and was a dominant playoff performer.




Now, this is important. From 1974-1977 (we have offensive ratings from '74 on), Rick Barry's Warriors finished 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, and 4th in offensive rating. Barry's abilities as a passer/playmaker and role as a floor spacer and attention-getter should not be overlooked here. Barry didn't have reliable secondary scorers (though his help does get underrated at times). Barry also played a key role on his team's 5th place finish in defensive rating in 1975 (Barry was the guy who forced turnovers in GS's vaunted trapping defense that year), and they placed 1st in 1976 in defensive rating.


The guy was tough. He averaged over 12 FTAs per game in 1967 Finals while prime Wilt and one of the strongest enforcers in the league, Luke Jackson, patrolled the paint. He averaged 8 FTAs per game in the 1975 Finals while Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes patrolled the paint.

I wrote this description of Barry's game in the 1975 RPOY project:

Barry is amazing. He's like a combination of Kobe and Ray Allen. He has Ray's quick release and ability to move without the ball/off screens to spread the floor. He has 2010 Kobe's ability to drive and draw fouls on the perimeter despite average athletic ability. He also takes questionable shots sometimes like Kobe- and like Kobe, he makes some unbelievable ones. He's got great vision for playmaking. His touch passes are amazing; the Bird comparisons make sense to me now. Rick has a nice mid-range game and an effective driving hook shot.

Now, with his penchant for at times taking Kobe-like shots, his efficiency doesn't look amazing considering the era (though he did shoot about 45 percent for his NBA career, a similar percentage that Kobe has). However, he didn't have the 3-point line in his best NBA years to lift his TS percentage up.

The guy had one of the most complete and effective offensive arsenals ever. During the mid 1970's, those offensive capabilities produced excellent team results despite unimpressive percentages and a lack of a secondary scorer on the team. I believe his passing/playmaking, volume-eating, ability to spread the floor, point-forward skills, and ability to make use of screens effectively (a la Ray Allen, though not to the same extent) had great effects on his team's offense. Positive ones.

Rick Barry was tough as hell and rarely disappointed individually in the playoffs. I'd want him on my side.

Career resume? He's got a scoring title (averaged over 35 ppg), a championship, a Finals MVP and 5 all-nba first teams (along with 4 all-ABA first teams and an All-NBA second team). That resume looks somewhat similar to Dwyane Wade actually.

[drza]

Voting -- Basically it seems to be Moses, Garnett, or West. This is NOT a slam against any of them, they are all great players but let's compare them.

Scoring explosiveness -- Moses might have the best prime playing on a team with no other options but West was easily the most explosive scorer throughout his career, then Moses, Garnett is well back in this area.

Like ElGee, I would argue that separating the players into categories might not be the best way to judge overall impact. That said, I would quibble with some of your characterizations per category. For instance, there's just no way you can directly compare raw scoring numbers from the 60s, 70s and 80s with scoring from the 2000s. The pace and point totals were just much lower in this generation than 30 or 40 years ago. For instance, I looked at Moses' 9 highest scoring seasons (1979 - 1987) and compared them with KG's 9 highest scoring seasons (1999 - 2007). While Moses averaged 25.5 ppg, his teams were averaging 109.7 ppg at a pace well over 100. KG was averaging 22.3 ppg, but his teams averaged only 96.1 ppg at a pace in the low 90s. All told, Moses scored exactly 23.2% of his team's points...and Garnett scored exactly 23.2% of his team's points over that 9 years. I just don't see how Garnett could be "well back" of Moses as a scorer.

Rebounding relative to position -- All terrific but the edge goes to Moses as the all time great offensive rebounder ever. Garnett gets the runnerup slot but West averaged 6 rebounds a game for his career which is pretty spectacular for a PG.

Playmaking relative to his position -- Moses is the dog here with a poor assist to turnover rate and little court vision. Basically, once he got the ball, it was going up. Garnett was a good passer for a big man though not a Russell/Walton/Unseld type. West is not here for his playmaking but he did lead the league in assists and was a solid to outstanding playmaker throughout his career. so he gets the nod for playmaking.

Moses was the all time great offensive rebounder, but Garnett as a forward had 6 seasons with a higher DReb% than Moses' career high despite defending a lot further away from the rim. Since you specify "relative to position", and technically centers are supposed to lead the team in rebounding, I'd think this one would be a draw.

Similarly with playmaking. West was an excellent playmaker, but he doesn't really stand out in this category compared to the best PGs across history. Garnett, on the other hand, is very arguably the best playmaking power forward that's ever played the game. If you specify "relative to position", I don't see how Garnett doesn't get at least a draw with West here.

Leadership/Intangibles -- All solid. Garnett led that great Celtics turnaround after those poor years in Minnesota. Moses led a mediocre Houston team to the finals then blended his talents with a supertalented Philly team enough to get a ring (though only one). But again, easily West here. Both anecdotal evidence from teammates and observers and team results favor the Logo despite his continual struggles against Russell and the Celtics (of course, everyone struggled against Russell and the Celtics) as he led his team to the finals regularly for almost a decade and was the leading scorer (and playmaker) on the championship team though it was his career worst playoff performance.

So, while it is difficult to compare different positions and eras, West was the most explosive scorer, the most efficient, and has an edge in leadership, team results, and playmaking. Moses's great rebounding and Garnett's great defense to me aren't enough to overcome these many areas of strength since West was also a very good rebounder and defender. VOTE JERRY WEST

The leadership category was another that, to me, I just don't know how you can declare a clear winner. I'm not going to argue with our bottom line, as we all have our opinions and our votes. But I don't agree with the reasoning in your explanation. For whatever that's worth.