RealGM Top 100 List #23

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Dwyane Wade

He's got the best peak left, and anybody else I'm considering has issues with longevity, too. Wade over Nash is difficult, but I'd take peak Wade over Nash. I'd take Wade's best 6 years over Nash's best 6 years. And Wade's still got two more all-star seasons, plus 2007 and 2008 and a strong rookie campaign. It's enough to move Wade over Nash, but barely.

Wade incinerated some of the strongest defenses of the era, and when he went nuclear, he was a chaotic super event on both sides of the floor. Just a ball of havoc. Best change of direction ability I've ever seen when he was younger. It looked like he broke the laws of physics.

[The Infamous1]

I'm surprised so many people have stockton over Pippen.

[Jaivl]

Baylor seems to be out of the conversation suddenly. It seems he's comparable to Wade, except Baylor has a longevity edge of 127 more games. (Perhaps it's because his peak coincided with the primes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, and Pettit.)

Baylor 1960-63
RS: 33.8 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 26.7 PER
PS: 35.8 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 4.1 apg, 26.7 PER

My perception is that Baylor and Wade are in the same tier as scorers, with Baylor being a much better rebounder.

He should be conisdering he's a small forward and Wade is a guard. Wade is a far better playmaker and evidence suggets he's a better defender too.

Height
Baylor 6' 5" (1.95 m)
Wade 6' 4" (1.93 m)

(Wade in shoes)

And you should take account of pace and efficiency.

[Texas Chuck]

Dwayne Wade is an interesting cat for me personally. On the one hand he's one of my least favorite players in the league, due in large part of course to the two Finals matchups with the Mavs and the complete lack of class he showed both times in regards to my boy Dirk. And I'm not a fan of any of the modern wings(see Kobe, Truth etc) when they want to do the whole heroic dramatic return from a minor injury that they oversold to create this storyline.

But on the other hand, I love his game. Yeah he has some pretty noteworthy holes in it and he's hurt a lot, but man what he is good at--he's really really good at. Very few players can just take over a game in quite the way he does. We saw Westbrook do something similar this last year in the PS, but we've seen Wade do it time and again. He's not the most consistent playoff performer, but when he's on he can just take over a series(see the 2006 Finals as exhibit A).

Longevity:

11 seasons, 719 games, 26k+ minutes for Wade
16 seasons, 1270 games, 46k+ minutes for Hondo
19 seasons, 1504 games, 47k+ minutes for Stockton


So of a couple other perimeter guys I'm considering here I have to look at that and think do I really think Wade's peak is so much superior than these guys considering I've gotten 20k less minutes from him? That seems impossible to me.

Also look at Hondo there. Almost as many minutes as Stockton in 3 seasons less games. His ability to play bigger minutes than Stockton shouldn't be completely overlooked here either. And he was a really good player for all those minutes. There really isn't any he hung on too long or wasn't good early. That's 46k quality minutes.

So I appreciate that Wade is getting consideration and he's a tremendous player, but I'm still leaning Hondo here.

[ronnymac2]

Dwayne Wade is an interesting cat for me personally. On the one hand he's one of my least favorite players in the league, due in large part of course to the two Finals matchups with the Mavs and the complete lack of class he showed both times in regards to my boy Dirk. And I'm not a fan of any of the modern wings(see Kobe, Truth etc) when they want to do the whole heroic dramatic return from a minor injury that they oversold to create this storyline.

But on the other hand, I love his game. Yeah he has some pretty noteworthy holes in it and he's hurt a lot, but man what he is good at--he's really really good at. Very few players can just take over a game in quite the way he does. We saw Westbrook do something similar this last year in the PS, but we've seen Wade do it time and again. He's not the most consistent playoff performer, but when he's on he can just take over a series(see the 2006 Finals as exhibit A).

Longevity:

11 seasons, 719 games, 26k+ minutes for Wade
16 seasons, 1270 games, 46k+ minutes for Hondo
19 seasons, 1504 games, 47k+ minutes for Stockton


So of a couple other perimeter guys I'm considering here I have to look at that and think do I really think Wade's peak is so much superior than these guys considering I've gotten 20k less minutes from him? That seems impossible to me.

Also look at Hondo there. Almost as many minutes as Stockton in 3 seasons less games. His ability to play bigger minutes than Stockton shouldn't be completely overlooked here either.

So I appreciate that Wade is getting consideration and he's a tremendous player, but I'm still leaning Hondo here.

Who in your opinion is peak John Havlicek comparable to?

[Texas Chuck]

Clyde Drexler, Scottie Pippen, Rick Barry

[Quotatious]

Okay, I'll vote for George Mikan.

Screw poor longevity - I think he's simply the last available player who was the best in the league at any point, and not only that - he was clearly the best basically every year of his prime. Really, now I feel like penalizing him for playing in the era when the NBA (or even the BAA, in his rookie season) was still in its infancy, would be unfair. He was really a lot like Wilt when he entered the league in 1959-60 - he was an absolutely revolutionary player, just such a dominant force inside. Also, if the league changed its rules because of your dominance, that has to count for something.

I think there are several players at this point who really deserve to be selected, and I feel like no one's really able to tell where Mikan really belongs on the list, and on my pre-list, I had Mikan on 24, now we're voting for #23, so with Mikan getting serious consideration even at 22, knowing that he made the run-off against Ewing, it kinda means that I was right...Sort of.

So, I think we can just as well vote him in, if nobody can really tell if his case is better or worse than the other guys' here.

Well, FWIW, I think we'll have one less "problem" to deal with, once Mikan is in, as he's just so difficult to rank.

In my previous post in this thread, I said that I would probably vote for Nash, but it was based on my pre-list - I just didn't want to second guess myself, to avoid getting stuck with my list again, but I just couldn't resist re-evaluating it, and now Mikan really seems worthy of getting my vote here.

[ceiling raiser]

The dismissal of wade is unjustifiable. If you dont think he deserves the spot fine but to say hes not even worthy of mention is ridiculous. Wade is getting criminally underrated in this project.

Wade is very difficult to evaluate. He was a monster in his prime (probably my favorite player to watch after Shaq started to decline), but longevity is a real concern here. I used to have him above a few guys who already have been selected, but I don't know if that's reasonable anymore.

Let me ask you this...how many quality seasons are we crediting him with here?

04 - rookie season
05 - solid year, got hurt in the playoffs after looking amazing
06 - great year
07 - looked great before going down (not a big box score stats guy, but he was at 28.8/4.8/7.9 on 58.9 TS% pre-injury)
08 - injuries
09 - great year
10 - great year
11 - great year
12 - solid year
13 - solid year, hurt in playoffs
14 - injuries, had nothing left in the Finals

It's a tough call IMO.

Not questioning your reasoning, just trying to sort this out. Who did you have him over that has already been selected? Did it change because of what the other player did or because Wade started getting hurt?

I meant a while back (several years), not before beginning the project. Mostly Ewing and Barkley. I wasn't as high on Dirk either back then and had them pretty close (Nowitzki, who already had the longevity advantage, has since added more quality seasons, while Wade hasn't been able to stay on the court).

[DannyNoonan1221]

Dwayne Wade is an interesting cat for me personally. On the one hand he's one of my least favorite players in the league, due in large part of course to the two Finals matchups with the Mavs and the complete lack of class he showed both times in regards to my boy Dirk. And I'm not a fan of any of the modern wings(see Kobe, Truth etc) when they want to do the whole heroic dramatic return from a minor injury that they oversold to create this storyline.

But on the other hand, I love his game. Yeah he has some pretty noteworthy holes in it and he's hurt a lot, but man what he is good at--he's really really good at. Very few players can just take over a game in quite the way he does. We saw Westbrook do something similar this last year in the PS, but we've seen Wade do it time and again. He's not the most consistent playoff performer, but when he's on he can just take over a series(see the 2006 Finals as exhibit A).

Longevity:

11 seasons, 719 games, 26k+ minutes for Wade
16 seasons, 1270 games, 46k+ minutes for Hondo
19 seasons, 1504 games, 47k+ minutes for Stockton


So of a couple other perimeter guys I'm considering here I have to look at that and think do I really think Wade's peak is so much superior than these guys considering I've gotten 20k less minutes from him? That seems impossible to me.

Also look at Hondo there. Almost as many minutes as Stockton in 3 seasons less games. His ability to play bigger minutes than Stockton shouldn't be completely overlooked here either. And he was a really good player for all those minutes. There really isn't any he hung on too long or wasn't good early. That's 46k quality minutes.

So I appreciate that Wade is getting consideration and he's a tremendous player, but I'm still leaning Hondo here.

Looking at those numbers, you can have stockton for TWICE as long as Wade (obviously not accounting for Wade's future seasons but personally don't think he will ever be a top 5, probably even top 8 player in the league again now that he lost LeBron). To me, I am taking my chances with Stockton because he gives me so much more time to fit the right pieces around him, where as Wade is giving you a smaller window to figure it out. In his case he/the heat were lucky enough to have free agents at the right time. But Stockton, man, more than twice as much gaming as wade. That's A LOT of more playing.

[penbeast0]

Dwayne Wade is an interesting cat for me personally. On the one hand he's one of my least favorite players in the league, due in large part of course to the two Finals matchups with the Mavs and the complete lack of class he showed both times in regards to my boy Dirk. And I'm not a fan of any of the modern wings(see Kobe, Truth etc) when they want to do the whole heroic dramatic return from a minor injury that they oversold to create this storyline.

But on the other hand, I love his game. Yeah he has some pretty noteworthy holes in it and he's hurt a lot, but man what he is good at--he's really really good at. Very few players can just take over a game in quite the way he does. We saw Westbrook do something similar this last year in the PS, but we've seen Wade do it time and again. He's not the most consistent playoff performer, but when he's on he can just take over a series(see the 2006 Finals as exhibit A).

Longevity:

11 seasons, 719 games, 26k+ minutes for Wade
16 seasons, 1270 games, 46k+ minutes for Hondo
19 seasons, 1504 games, 47k+ minutes for Stockton


So of a couple other perimeter guys I'm considering here I have to look at that and think do I really think Wade's peak is so much superior than these guys considering I've gotten 20k less minutes from him? That seems impossible to me.

Also look at Hondo there. Almost as many minutes as Stockton in 3 seasons less games. His ability to play bigger minutes than Stockton shouldn't be completely overlooked here either. And he was a really good player for all those minutes. There really isn't any he hung on too long or wasn't good early. That's 46k quality minutes.

So I appreciate that Wade is getting consideration and he's a tremendous player, but I'm still leaning Hondo here.

If you look at their shooting efficiency, Havlicek in the 70s was a much better scorer than in the 60s. A large part of it was role. In the 60s, Havlicek was an off-ball player most of the time, he would just run and run until his defender dropped off then get a pass and shoot . . . and make below league average in efficiency. His shot was not that good and dropped to poor when rushed. In the 70s, the Celtic offense had the ball in Havlicek's hands more to start the offense, with White and Chaney playing the off ball role. He seemed more comfortable with his and his shot looks better in most situations -- he's one of the few guys who kept improving right into his 30s without his athleticism dropping as fast as his skills improved. On the 70s teams with Dave Cowens, he was a legit star. On the 60s teams, he was a super role player who wasn't all that well suited for his offensive role. His defense was always good though some stuff posted by Dipper about Russell bringing backup Wayne Embry into the game so Russell could switch onto Chet Walker who (according to Russell), the Celtics had no one that could handle, makes me wonder since you have two HOF defenders in Hondo (SF/SG) and Sanders (SF/PF) available.

[SactoKingsFan]

Also, I believe Wade's peak is very high.

But a few people are focusing on an eleven game stretch. 11 games?! to me that is ridiculous. Yes it is impressive, but even as wade supporters you are doing him a disservice by shrinking his peak to 11 games. 11 games aren't going to have much pull here when trying to get traction for him. Talk about his peak in a single season, or 3 to 4 year stretch like the other players have been analyzed.

While impressive, 11 games is EXTREMELY small.

Baylor seems to be out of the conversation suddenly. It seems he's comparable to Wade, except Baylor has a longevity edge of 127 more games. (Perhaps it's because his peak coincided with the primes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, and Pettit.)

Baylor 1960-63
RS: 33.8 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 26.7 PER
PS: 35.8 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 4.1 apg, 26.7 PER

My perception is that Baylor and Wade are in the same tier as scorers, with Baylor being a much better rebounder.

I don't really think Wade and Baylor are in the same tier as offensive players. Wade's way more efficient and a superior passer/playmaker.

[Texas Chuck]

its a fair point, penbeast, but its clear to me the Celtics had a specific way they wanted to play in the 60's and Hondo was a big part of that. I think whether they would have expressed as such at the time or not, Red and the boys understood they were sacrificing some efficiency in order to play the game they wanted to play--a game they dominated the league playing.

Just like when I look at Stockton, I don't penalize him for not playing like Nash, like some guys here do. Nor do I hold it against Wade that his role had to change upon the arrival of Lebron. The bottom line for me will always be that its a team game and I judge a player on how he benefited his team or not even if doing so hurts his individual statistics.

edit: and that's an interesting point about Chet Walker. I'll be honest that I don't have an answer to that. Perhaps he was just a bad matchup for Hondo for some reason? We've seen other good defenders who for some reason just really struggle against certain guys. Or it could be that some of Hondo's defensive reputation is undeserved. Would love more insight from anyone who has some on that note.

[E-Balla]

He should be conisdering he's a small forward and Wade is a guard. Wade is a far better playmaker and evidence suggets he's a better defender too.

Height
Baylor 6' 5" (1.95 m)
Wade 6' 4" (1.93 m)

(Wade in shoes)

And you should take account of pace and efficiency.

Actually Wade is listed barefoot.

[Doctor MJ]

Height
Baylor 6' 5" (1.95 m)
Wade 6' 4" (1.93 m)

(Wade in shoes)

And you should take account of pace and efficiency.

Actually Wade is listed barefoot.

Interesting. So according to Draft Express Wade barefoot is 6 foot 3.75 and with shoes is 6 foot 4.75, which makes your statement make sense I think.

b-r wouldn't list the barefoot height, so the 6 foot 4 they list must be the shoed height, which it is if you refuse to round up.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Dwyane Wade

He's got the best peak left, and anybody else I'm considering has issues with longevity, too. Wade over Nash is difficult, but I'd take peak Wade over Nash. I'd take Wade's best 6 years over Nash's best 6 years. And Wade's still got two more all-star seasons, plus 2007 and 2008 and a strong rookie campaign. It's enough to move Wade over Nash, but barely.

Wade incinerated some of the strongest defenses of the era, and when he went nuclear, he was a chaotic super event on both sides of the floor. Just a ball of havoc. Best change of direction ability I've ever seen when he was younger. It looked like he broke the laws of physics.

While I'm on the opposite side of this one right now, I'll say up front that I can easily see the case for Wade over Nash. Please allow me to play devil's advocate though.

The added longevity you mention for Wade to me rings pretty hollow, much of it at least.

You're going to bring up an all-star appearance like last year where he absolutely wouldn't have gotten it if he were in the West, or even if he were in the East on a bad team?

You're going to bring up 2008 where the team fell off a cliff in no small part because of his falloff?

You're going to bring up his injury plagued rookie year during which no one talked about him as a future superstar?

Nash is 3rd all-time in assists, and has scored about as much as Wade, and you're going to try to brush away that longevity advantage based on these things?

You talk about them being enough to squeak by Nash, but that just doesn't make sense to me. If that peak over 6 seasons is enough for you that makes complete sense, but the notion that it wasn't quite enough until you remembered his rookie season makes it seem to me like you were already feeling Wade and you were just looking for enough to rebut something you imagined someone would argue against you.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, FWIW, I think we'll have one less "problem" to deal with, once Mikan is in, as he's just so difficult to rank.

You're right, and it's all good.

I've been arguing pretty hard against Mikan, but to be clear I'm all for his inclusion in this project, and I always expected him to get voted in before I thought he should.

[Doctor MJ]

Also, I believe Wade's peak is very high.

But a few people are focusing on an eleven game stretch. 11 games?! to me that is ridiculous. Yes it is impressive, but even as wade supporters you are doing him a disservice by shrinking his peak to 11 games. 11 games aren't going to have much pull here when trying to get traction for him. Talk about his peak in a single season, or 3 to 4 year stretch like the other players have been analyzed.

While impressive, 11 games is EXTREMELY small.

Baylor seems to be out of the conversation suddenly. It seems he's comparable to Wade, except Baylor has a longevity edge of 127 more games. (Perhaps it's because his peak coincided with the primes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, and Pettit.)

Baylor 1960-63
RS: 33.8 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 26.7 PER
PS: 35.8 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 4.1 apg, 26.7 PER

My perception is that Baylor and Wade are in the same tier as scorers, with Baylor being a much better rebounder.

Comparable except for a longevity edge...yet you only show stats here from '60 to '63? You don't see the problem with that?

Look, as I said before with Baylor it's helpful to look at him through his career. You first mention 1960, so I'll start there:

In '60 and '61, Baylor put up huge numbers, with an efficiency that was both good compared to the league and compared to any other serious scoring threat on his team. It probably made sense to use Baylor like they did. However, the team offense was a joke. They were the worst offense in the league the first year and second worst the next. That very much undermines what he did.

In '62 and '63, we get the other two years you saw as good enough to mention. And here we get good Laker offense for the first time. The Lakers leaped up to 4th in the league in '62. What changed? Well, Baylor missed half the season, and Jerry West leapt forward becoming a better player than Baylor had ever been with his new freedom.

From '64 to '68 - 5 years which you chose not to mention in your stat totals - what we saw was Baylor playing at a level lower. Good reason of course, injuries did it. Not a good reason though for him to keep shooting the ball more than West, but with West out there the team was still able to basically guarantee a great offense every year.

I'll bring up '69 specifically because it's been on my mind. Here's a Wilt quote that fpliii posted recently:

Unfortunately, our on-the-court styles only exacerbated the tension between us. Elgin was almost exclusively an offensive player. Defense was something Elg did only to help pass the time between shots—like Ted Williams thinking about his next time at bat when he was supposed to playing the outfield. Elgin was not a great outside shot, but he had incredibly moves and body control, and he loved to drive toward the basket, go up into the air, stay there until everyone else came down, then do a corkscrew and a double pirouette and drop the ball in the basket. He was fantastic at that, the best I ever saw. There was only one problem; I, too, was most effective under the basket on offense, so I could rebound and dunk and get tap-ins. That meant Elg’s maneuvering room there was severely constricted. Instead of driving in there with just one man to beat, he had to worry about my man switching off, too—and about me and both defenders getting in his way.

Now, by no means am I in favor of letting Wilt off the hook here - I think y'all know that given how hard I argued against Wilt, but consider what this says about Baylor for a second.

Baylor was a guy whose offense depending on space around the basket, which meant he struggled with a legitimate big.

But even if he had that space, he wasn't as effective as the playmaking perimeter player next to him, and his efficiency didn't go up with that other guy's presence.

So when we look back at Baylor's career and only see what he was doing as being the clear cut right thing on '60 & '61, it make sense. This is what many volume scorers are known for: Give me a team of guys who can't do anything, and I'll look amazing, even if the actual team offensive efficacy still sucks.

In fact I've used this to a degree against Wade, but it's not nearly so bad there. Wade cut his teeth driving to success with Shaq & Zo around him, and the moment he played with a superior talent in LeBron, he was smart enough to play second fiddle. These things make a very big difference to me.

So no, I don't see there scoring as remotely similar.

[FJS]

I'm surprised so many people have stockton over Pippen.

Stockton has two major records unbreakables in totals, and others in apg.
Since we are talking about careers, I don't think you should be surprise. I'm not surprise if someone choose Pippen over Stockton, altough I don't agree.

[Jim Naismith]

Also, I believe Wade's peak is very high.

But a few people are focusing on an eleven game stretch. 11 games?! to me that is ridiculous. Yes it is impressive, but even as wade supporters you are doing him a disservice by shrinking his peak to 11 games. 11 games aren't going to have much pull here when trying to get traction for him. Talk about his peak in a single season, or 3 to 4 year stretch like the other players have been analyzed.

While impressive, 11 games is EXTREMELY small.

Baylor seems to be out of the conversation suddenly. It seems he's comparable to Wade, except Baylor has a longevity edge of 127 more games. (Perhaps it's because his peak coincided with the primes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, and Pettit.)

Baylor 1960-63
RS: 33.8 ppg, 17.1 rpg, 4.5 apg, 26.7 PER
PS: 35.8 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 4.1 apg, 26.7 PER

My perception is that Baylor and Wade are in the same tier as scorers, with Baylor being a much better rebounder.

Comparable except for a longevity edge...yet you only show stats here from '60 to '63? You don't see the problem with that?

I posted those numbers because DannyNoonan1221 mentioned comparing 3-4 year stretches.

So Baylor has 4 prime years, and the rest aren't as good or healthy.

The same could be said of Wade with 4 prime years ('06, '09, '10, '11) and the rest not as good or healthy.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm surprised so many people have stockton over Pippen.

If Stockton beats out Pippen, that's a definite shift. Interestingly, Stockton beat Pippen in 2003 & 2006 before Pippen got in just before Stockton in 2008, and then got in well before Stockton in 2011.

When I first got on RealGM to me there was a statistical revisionism going on where people were looking at his assists & efficiency and raising him up way higher than he'd been considered in his era, and that faded and faded over time on these boards in part because some of us were actively fighting it.

As we get more +/- data though, the trend is coming back, and this time I can't so much say that I think it's wrong so much as it might be premature. Stockton looks fantastic in all the data we have along these lines, which fits along with the narrative that he was the epitome of fundamentals...even if the data doesn't actually support arguments saying he was the best floor general out there.

I've been arguing Nash > Stockton for years, but now I'm at least to the point where I'll say "well, maybe".