RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #25 (Bob Pettit)

[Magic Is Magic]

Voting for the #25 spot:


1. James Harden
2. Bob Pettit
3. Scottie Pippen


1. Harden dropped 36 ppg in the modern era! He also accumulated three scoring titles, an MVP, and an assist title. Very few have won both an assist and scoring title in their NBA career. Not to mention he is an 8x all-star, but the thing holding him back the most is lack of Finals appearances and rings. He only has 1 Finals appearance, although I feel if the next guy below him (CP3) didn't get hurt in 2018 playoffs then Harden most likely wins his first title and possibly the FMVP. I can't count LeBron out completely in 2018 but if Chris Paul doesn't get hurt in 2018 then Harden likely wins his 1st ring (finally). Harden also has 6x all NBA 1st teams (more than some guys voted before him such as: Barkley, Erving, Dirk, KG, Moses, Robinson, Russell, & Curry/Wade/Nash/Pippen [if people are voting them in]).

2. At this stage in the game it is very hard to ignore the fact that Pettit has 10x All NBA 1st teams, 2x MVP, and 2x Scoring Titles. He doesn't have longevity, but everything else is within the realm of top 30 no doubt. 6x consecutive 25 ppg seasons as well, with 7 overall. Again the only major knock is his lack of longevity, that's what hurts his ranking the most. And while Bill Russell was injured in the 1958 Finals, nobody can discount Pettit's game 6 performance where he dropped FIFTY to close out the series and win his only ring and defeat Bill Russell's Celtics. I also find it pretty cool to note that he was the first player to ever score 20,000 points.

3. Talk about a true swiss army knife of basketball. The ultimate #2 option for a vast number of reasons. Capable of 20 ppg, a great rebounder, the team's playmaker (assist leader), the team's defensive anchor, and ultimate glue guy. His peak was 3rd in MVP voting (1994) so that matches Wade's best MVP run, but Pippen also has the 6 rings to Wade's 3. Additionally, Pippen's 8x all Defensive 1st teams is the second most all time and his 10 overall selections is 5th most in NBA HISTORY. He also has 3x 1st team all NBA selections, which is more 1st team all NBAs than: Wade, Stockton, Nash, Payton (2). Lastly, his ability to take a 57 win team after losing the greatest player in the world for lowly Pete Myers and only dropping off by 2 wins (to 55) was beyond incredible. I feel Pippen could have won a championship that year if he had someone good (but did not need Jordan) to win it. With a lesser talent than MJ like Reggie or Mitch Richmond and he could have easily won that year. Pippen also won over 30 playoff series which is good for 5th all time (if I'm not mistaken). Big time winner, big time longevity.

[Dutchball97]

1. Dwyane Wade - Not the longest prime and he has been hampered by injuries at times but he peaked very high. He was also part of multiple championships, first as the clear best player and later as second man to LeBron. There aren't a lot of guys out there with comparable peaks to Wade and especially not with a pretty full career to go with it.

2. Bob Pettit - I see Pettit as a guy who sometimes gets forgotten because of the players who came right after him. He was the best player of the late 50s in my eyes and held up very well against the stars of the 60s. A 2x MVP who won a ring and had a consistently elite career for a decade can't be ignored at this point.

3. Kawhi Leonard - Guys like John Stockton and Scottie Pippen are rightfully getting consideration but I'm not comfortable voting in guys who never really were close to being the best player in the league when we still got some guys with ridiculous peaks and decent longevity left. Elgin Baylor is also getting votes but he doesn't have the best longevity himself. I also don't think Kawhi's longevity is that much worse than Curry or Wade. Kawhi is 24th in play-off WS and 17th in play-off VORP. That should be longevity enough to be considered in the late 20s as he also has a top 20 peak. I can still be swayed from this pick as I expect some people to not even consider Kawhi yet but with his peak being as good as it is with not terrible longevity at this point I think it makes sense to at least consider him.

You realize Curry has 7000 more minutes than Kawih in the RS right? So it's not actually the same. Playoffs the thing is leveled, but man I can't say 7000 more RS minutes is not significant.

But to put things into perspective...
Stockton has 30000 more minutes than Kawih in the RS.
Stockton has 2000 more minutes than both of them in the PS.

Let this be put into perspective when we consider the 3 of them... there is still a pretty big gap longevity wise.

While I already give Curry (a two time MVP, 3 time champion, game changer in this era the edge) I can't do the same with Kawih. e's in the mix... but he's not there yet. Can't justify Kawih getting a position here already just because Curry got in, Curry has more career value than Kawih so far.

Stockton played a whole lot more in the regular season but I've been consistent in how that matters very little to me. Even with more play-offs minutes he accomplished considerably less than Curry and even Kawhi. He was also barely ever a top 10 player, let alone top 5. I'm not going to discuss this too much as I've already exhausted myself trying to get KD voted in for about 10 spots. It's clear some people really put a premium on regular season longevity but even if Stockton played 50 seasons I'm not sure I'd take him over some guys that give your team much better championship chances.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Steve Nash
2. John Stockton
3. Dwyane Wade

With Curry in, Nash & Stockton move up a spot. Plucking Wade from the list of guys who have votes for the 3rd spot - not excluding guys from consideration just because they don't already have votes, but I've been debating Stockton vs Wade quite a bit.

Y'all know how I see Nash by this point I think:

He was a revolutionary player.

Now, I don't advocate for guys merely on the basis of historical significance here. I championed Louie Dampier in the Hall of Fame project and would do so again, but he didn't dominate when he played. But Nash is significant because his dominance proved to be a path forward for basketball.

It's hard for me to put him below a guy seen as being in the same mold, like Stockton, who just wasn't a revolutionary player.
It's hard for me to put a nothing-close-to-MVP guy above an MVP guy.

My sense has always been that people tend to fall into two categories about revolutionaries in basketball: Either they tend to rate the player higher because of this, or they tend to rate the player lower because of this. I've lost my cool in a couple thread in the not too recent past with people advocating that Iverson should be rated above Nash because they blame Iverson's inefficiency on being in the wrong era. never mind the fact that Iverson was the one literally taking shots he wasn't a good enough shooter to justify taking the shots he was taking in either era.

People don't realize it, but even as they can acknowledge an issue in a guy's game that cripples his impact, they still tend to peg a guy's capacity for impact based on particular box score stats. In the case of Iverson, we're talking about PPG.

In the case of a guy like Stockton, we're really talking about other more sophisticated stats with a player whose limitations are minor enough I have him on my list above, but we're still talking about the same thrust:

The fact that Nash had more impact while being worse based on certain other stats has people thinking that Stockton could do roughly what Nash did. Some actually think he could do more, but more just think it would be close enough that Stockton's defense would carry the day.

But Nash won MVPs, and Stockton was never close. It's important not to forget this. It's important to understand why the difference, and what it was about Nash's play that made him have that transformative impact.

And I believe it's important to tread very carefully in assuming that another player could do what another guy did when he never himself actually did it.

I just wrote a post on the Thinking Basketball - Walton thread talking about the nature of how Walton was having the impact he was. In it I tried to avoid really trying to make comparisons because I think there's a more important point here to understand each player. The question of Walton vs Kareem on peak is less interesting than the fact that they couldn't fill each other's shoes. Kareem had gifts Walton did not, and Walton had gifts Kareem did not. That's what's really beautiful about all of this to me.

I don't feel comfortable saying Nash could play Stockton's role as well as Stockton, and I don't feel comfortable saying Stockton could do what Nash did. And what Nash did, was more of an outlier.

Alright, given all that, why Stockton over Wade? Honestly longevity is a big part of it for me. That might sound ridiculous given some of the statements I've made recently, but there's a particular thing here that bothers me:

I think in the end that Wade was probably at his best in his 3rd year in the league, when he could just be relentless with his motor. Wade wasn't a dumb player, but when you have a game so much based on explosion and motor, you're kind of like a running back just using yourself up.

I'm skeptical that longevity should really be seen as that big of a deal beyond a certain tenure, but there's enough daylight here that I honestly think I should take Stockton.

Wade vs Pettit. I'm tempted to pick Pettit. I'm very impressed by the way he kept growing as the game evolved from the '50s into the '60s. But it is hard for me to pick an offensive-oriented big whose absolute TS% is weak by today's standards over someone I saw lead a modern team to a championship and leave an incredible legacy on his franchise.

Okay, on some other players:

I think I clearly have a philosophical disagreement with Harden supporters. Guys, I'm largely going to leave you to it, but I really think you should think about how you'll see Harden if he completes the arc and utterly crashing the Rockets with trade demands of various stripes. I can respect it if you're withholding judgment to this point, but you've got to acknowledge that Harden doing stuff like this has the potential to massively change the future success of his franchise. If you're ignoring that when GMs & coaches have to factor that in, why? Why aren't you looking to emulate a role that is in sync with how actual teams get built?

I have Wade above Harden, because Wade's just had a hell of a lot more positive overall effect on the Heat than I think Harden's done with either of his franchises. I'd love for Harden to change the truth of that statement - honestly I'm pulling for him - but you've got to play nice with other talent and you've got to inspire role players to want to play with you if you want to max out to your potential.

The next guy I'm thinking about the most after that is Reggie Miller. I've never voted for him this high before, and I think it's clear we shouldn't be talking about his impact as near-Steph even though he really was the proto-Steph even more than Nash, but he was the future. I also have always been struck that his efficiency-based game got stronger rather than weaker in the playoffs, and that was long into his career at a time when he was supposed to be a role player, when Ron Artest touched the 3rd rail, it was Reggie who carried the team once again. Someone mentioned that they have Miller above Stockton and y'know, I can definitely see the argument, haven't yet been convinced to pull that particular trigger.

Rick Barry - I've got a lot of respect for Barry's capabilities. I do think that he'd be able to play helio really well today, and be able to do so for many years. He was a high BBIQ player. I do wish he would have been more efficient though. It's strange the way a guy can be so smart in so many ways, but just be calibrated a bit off efficiency-wise.

Walt Frazier - I always go back & forth on Barry vs Frazier, but I will say that I think Wade vs Frazier is a more similar comparison, and I'd be inclined to ever so slightly to with Wade.

John Havlicek - less impressed with him than Barry or Frazier prime vs prime, always a question of how much longevity means.

Scottie Pippen - I struggle to put Pippen above Havelicek. It just seems like Pippen is the kind of guy you're hoping has killer longevity because it seems like he should be able to, but instead he goes gently into that night.

[Joao Saraiva]

1. Dwyane Wade - Not the longest prime and he has been hampered by injuries at times but he peaked very high. He was also part of multiple championships, first as the clear best player and later as second man to LeBron. There aren't a lot of guys out there with comparable peaks to Wade and especially not with a pretty full career to go with it.

2. Bob Pettit - I see Pettit as a guy who sometimes gets forgotten because of the players who came right after him. He was the best player of the late 50s in my eyes and held up very well against the stars of the 60s. A 2x MVP who won a ring and had a consistently elite career for a decade can't be ignored at this point.

3. Kawhi Leonard - Guys like John Stockton and Scottie Pippen are rightfully getting consideration but I'm not comfortable voting in guys who never really were close to being the best player in the league when we still got some guys with ridiculous peaks and decent longevity left. Elgin Baylor is also getting votes but he doesn't have the best longevity himself. I also don't think Kawhi's longevity is that much worse than Curry or Wade. Kawhi is 24th in play-off WS and 17th in play-off VORP. That should be longevity enough to be considered in the late 20s as he also has a top 20 peak. I can still be swayed from this pick as I expect some people to not even consider Kawhi yet but with his peak being as good as it is with not terrible longevity at this point I think it makes sense to at least consider him.

You realize Curry has 7000 more minutes than Kawih in the RS right? So it's not actually the same. Playoffs the thing is leveled, but man I can't say 7000 more RS minutes is not significant.

But to put things into perspective...
Stockton has 30000 more minutes than Kawih in the RS.
Stockton has 2000 more minutes than both of them in the PS.

Let this be put into perspective when we consider the 3 of them... there is still a pretty big gap longevity wise.

While I already give Curry (a two time MVP, 3 time champion, game changer in this era the edge) I can't do the same with Kawih. e's in the mix... but he's not there yet. Can't justify Kawih getting a position here already just because Curry got in, Curry has more career value than Kawih so far.

Stockton played a whole lot more in the regular season but I've been consistent in how that matters very little to me. Even with more play-offs minutes he accomplished considerably less than Curry and even Kawhi. He was also barely ever a top 10 player, let alone top 5. I'm not going to discuss this too much as I've already exhausted myself trying to get KD voted in for about 10 spots. It's clear some people really put a premium on regular season longevity but even if Stockton played 50 seasons I'm not sure I'd take him over some guys that give your team much better championship chances.

A great PG can do wonders for your team. Just ask last year Clippers' about it. Stockton has some qualities that Kawih doesn't, and vice-versa. In some rosters, Stockton can be taken over Kawih. Lowry was super important to the Raptors in 18 for example, and there is a reason why their +/- was very affected by Lowry not being on the court.

If you put young Stockton with Duncan, Ginobili and the shooters the Spurs had... I think he adds more to that squad than Kawih did. Even in last year Clippers I'd say that is up for debate too.

Raptors no because they lacked a 1st scoring option and that suits Kawih better.

[Joao Saraiva]

I guess it gives you 5 guys in the 60s - Pettit, West, Oscar, Wilt, Russell
and 5 guys in the 00s - Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, KG
as well as 5 in the 90 - MJ, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Robinson
with the 70/80s having 5 combined - Kareem, Doc, Moses, Bird, Magic
And 4 guys in the 10s with Paul, LBJ, Durant, Curry - even if one guy makes it in future

still have 60s top tier talent same as any other decade.

Which is fine imo. More so since Pettit would be the only guy along with Mikan and Russell who represent the 50's to some degree. In terms of decade they came into the league it would look like this:

40's: Mikan(1)
50's: Russell, Pettit(2)
60's: Wilt, West, Oscar(3)
70's: Kareem, Doc, Moses(3)
80's: Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Charles, MJ, Karl(6)
90's: Robinson, KG, Dirk, Kobe, Duncan(5)
00's: LeBron, KD, Steph, CP3(4)

Which means 15 out of 25 spots(60%) came into the league after 1980.

Talent pool got deeper, also more players per squad. The 40s and 50s hardly count for obvious reasons, very few players will make a top 100.

[Odinn21]

The top end talent doesn't change much.

Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain played against each other.
Old Wilt Chamberlain played against young Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
Old Kareem Abdul-Jabbar played against young Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing.
[in the 3 games Olajuwon tried to defend Abdul-Jabbar 1v1 in 1985-86 regular season, when Abdul-Jabbar was 1 or 2 month away from turning 39, he dropped 41 points per game (.675 fg) on young Olajuwon, after those games Fitch put Sampson on Abdul-Jabbar in the last 2 games in regular season and also in the playoffs and that's how the Rockets upset the Lakers in the playoffs.]
Old Hakeem Olajuwon played against young Shaquille O'Neal.
Shaquille O'Neal spent majority of his prime competing with Tim Duncan who was still a powerhouse in the '10s.

There's still Oscar Robertson, Moses Malone, David Robinson, Kevin Garnett and many more names I did not mention to keep it short.

After a certain level of athleticism which always has been there, it's down to talent. (Athleticism is the reason why I don't have Bob Pettit on that timeline.)

Athleticism and talent of an average player has been progressing. But we're not out of the woods, top end talents are still there.

---

BTW, I think Elgin Baylor should be getting some traction. I'd say he's definitely above some mentioned players (Pippen for example) for me.

[WestGOAT]

Get out of here with the nonsense that Kenny Smith torched John Stockton. That's not what happened at all. Kenny Smith was the weak link of the Rockets team. It's like saying Mike Miller "torched" Kevin Durant in the 2012 finals. Hakeem Olajuwon was the engine of the Rockets. Everything revolved around him. He won the MVP in 1994. The Jazz had Felton Spencer and 34 year old Tom Chambers guarding Olajuwon in 1994. Then had 37 year old James Donaldson guarding him in 1995. The logical conclusion from that was the Jazz decided they were going to double Olajuwon and not let him beat them. They doubled off the weak link, Kenny Smith, and let him take 3's. That has nothing to do with Stockton's man defense on Olajuwon.

Watch on YouTube

1st play- Kenny Smith makes a 3 after Stockton doubles Olajuwon in the post.
2nd play- Kenny Smith gets a rebound and makes an open jumper on a possession where Stockton wasn't guarding him
3rd play- Kenny Smith makes a 3 pointer on Hornacek
4th play- Fouled on a jumper by Jay Humphries
5th play- Kenny Smith gets a steal and makes a fastbreak layup
6th play- Stockton is guarding Cassell. Cassell kicks it to Smith who drives to the basket for an easy 2
7th play- Maxwell drives to the basket and Stockton commits to the help. He dishes it out to Smith who hits a wide open 3
8th play- Smith runs a pick and roll. Stockton goes under the pick. Smith hits a 3. Malone should have helped on Smith
9th play- Smith hits a 3. Stockton is not even on the court
10th play- Kenny Smith drives to the basket and gets fouled. Stockton is not even on the court
11th play- Stockton goes under the screen and Smith hits a 3 pointer. Malone doesn't help at all.

Stockton was guarding Kenny Smith on just 4 out of the 11 plays. He spent a lot of time guarding Sam Cassell instead of Kenny Smith. Smith makes 2 3 pointers on Stockton when he Stockton helps in the paint. His other 2 3s on Stockton are on screens where Stockton receives no help. That's not a torching whatsoever. Not one play where Kenny Smith beats Stockton 1 on 1, beats him on a cut, drives to the baskets, spots up and shoots in Stockton's face.

1st play: okay, this should send a warning to the Jazz for rest of the game right? Kenny Smith shot 50% on 3-pointers the previous post-season, perhaps a player with his shooting touch should not be provided with such open looks?
2nd play: Who was guarding Kenny Smith then? Who is Stockton trying to box-out, if at all? He is literally in the middle of nowhere. Not sure why Stockton is completely blameless here.
3rd play: okay
4th play: okay
5th play: So, Stockton is not to blame here for Kenny Smith scoring here? I think he gifted him the ball.
6th play: okay
7th play: So Stockton committing to the help (not even on Olajuwon) and leaving Kenny Smith open was the right play? See my comment of the first play.
8th play: Stockton tough-as-nails and supposedly always fighting through screens, goes under the pick and leaves Kenny open, who’s been on fire so far. But it’s not his fault, it’s the same old familiar story: blame Malone.
9th play: okay. Kenny Smith hits his 5th three, this should make it even clearer he should not be left open.
10th play: okay
11th play: see my comments for play 8th and 9th. Yet it is not Stockton who is at fault, but Malone of course.

You say he was guarding Kenny on 4 of these 11 plays, but of these 11 Stockton was actually involved in the majority (6) of them, and how much blame Stockton deserves is a matter of perspective. The 1st play should be a warning of things to come. Kenny Smith shot 50% on 3-pointers the previous post-season. Why is Stockton in the middle of nowhere of the 2nd play, who is he supposed to be guarding? On the 5th play he threw the ball away to Kenny giving him an easy score. On the 7th play he was not even committing help to Olajuwon, Spencer was right there to contest Maxwell, so is leaving Kenny Smith open the correct decision? Again Kenny Smith is on fire, why go under the pick on the 8th play, especially since Stockton is so well-known for his commitment to fight through screens. Same story for the 11th play, Stockton goes under the pick instead of fighting through it, while Kenny is shooting lights out. How is that the correct decision?
Sure this is one game, but it wasn’t even arguably Kenny’s best/most important game against the Jazz in this series. What about his 25-point game performance in game 4 in which the Rockets only beat the Jazz by 2-points, giving them a commanding 3-1 series lead? Not to mention he would go play well-above his standards again, and even better, the next year.

[penbeast0]

I guess it gives you 5 guys in the 60s - Pettit, West, Oscar, Wilt, Russell
and 5 guys in the 00s - Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, KG
as well as 5 in the 90 - MJ, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Robinson
with the 70/80s having 5 combined - Kareem, Doc, Moses, Bird, Magic
And 4 guys in the 10s with Paul, LBJ, Durant, Curry - even if one guy makes it in future

still have 60s top tier talent same as any other decade.

Pettit played into the 60s but peaked and played more in the 50s so I would have it:

2 50s: Mikan, Pettit (weak era, segregated)
4 60s: Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West (1st modern era, talent concentrated)
2 70s: Kareem, Erving (era weakened by expansion, cocaine, selfish play for first big contracts)
3 80s: Magic, Bird, Moses
5 90s: MJ, Hakeem, DRob, Mailman, Barkley
5 00s: Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, Kobe, Dirk
4 10s: James, Curry, Durant, Paul (some of this eras stars have not finished their career)

Still probably one player overrepresented from 60s though all the stars certainly belong (very top heavy league), probably one player underrepresented from 80s.

[Hal14]

Just popped in and see Pettit with lots of support. Obviously a great player, but with Wilt, Russell, West. Oscar, MIkan already Pettit would give us 6 guys who started career in first 20% of the time frame, so this would over represent an era which I think we all agree is less competitive and with a lower talent base, I really have him targeted after the next 6-8-10 guys. He does have one title, played well against the others already in, but I'm not sure his resume is a lot better than Harden, Frazier, Stockton, Wade, Pippen. Even if he doesn't get in this time, he will real soon with this support. I just dont think he is getting very much penalty for his era.

I'm not so sure that we would all agree with that.

You say that the league was less competitive back then and lower talent base. Perhaps, but what about the other side of the argument? Sure, there's more people in the world today, but a) there's also way more teams in the league today (8 teams when Pettit led the Hawks to the title in 1958, 30 teams today) which means the talent is spread out across more teams which means less talent on each team. and b) more people does not necessarily = more people who are better at basketball than the players from previous eras

Also, you say Pettit faced lesser competition than someone like Harden? Ok, but take into account:
a) Everyone in Pettit's era was facing the same competition as Pettit, just like everyone in Harden's era is facing the same competition as Harden. Why not judge them for what they did in their era?
b) What about all of the advantages that Harden (as well as the rest of the player's in Harden's era) have enjoyed? Such as 60+ years of advancements in basketball training, basketball development, basketball strategy. Better facilities, better, the basketball itself is different today than it was in 1958. Do you realize how much more difficult it was to dribble and shoot the ball that Pettit played with than the ball Harden plays with? The sneakers Pettit had to wear, they would make any modern player's feet hurt so badly they would throw them in the trash! Modern players enjoy more days off in between games, better nutrition, more advancements in breaking down film of their opponents to gain an advantage, they make way more $, better weight training and strength and conditioning programs. Do you realize that if Harden played in 1958, most of his moves would be called for a travel? And he would score way less points because there was no 3 point line back then. Not to mention more spacing in modern era which makes it easier for a guy like Harden to get open looks and open lanes to the basket.

I'm not saying Pettit's era was better or worse than Harden's era. I'm just saying that we need to take everything into account, look at the big picture and not simply make a blanket statement that "we all agree" one era is worse than another so all players from a certain era should get a "penalty for their era"

In closing, these are a couple vids which might be helpful:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. Steve Nash
2. Dwyane Wade
3. Reggie Miller

-Steve Nash has the highest CORP left, one of the highest offensive peaks and helped revolutionize the game. His impact offensively can never be overstated as he was comparable to Magic Johnson on this front.

-Dwyane Wade had an insanely high peak, 5-6 all-time seasons and a handful more seasons of all-star level. Injury plagued career but he proved to me he can fit in with other stars and has a scoring resiliency many others at this point do not.

-I'll kick the can with Reggie Miller. Huge CORP, great offensive player who had a high peak, long prime and anchored top offenses for over a decade. Many players are now in this tier and as I have often voted for Bob Pettit I want to switch it up to potentially generate some discussion.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #50:

Bob Pettit - 4 (Cavsfansince84, Dr Positivity, Odinn21, penbeast0)
Steve Nash - 2 (Doctor MJ, Jordan Syndrome)
James Harden - 2 (DQuinn1575, Magic Is Magic)
John Stockton - 2 (Joao Saraiva, trex_8063)
Dwyane Wade - 1 (Dutchball97)
Elgin Baylor - 1 (Hal14)


About 7 hours left for this one.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Cavsfansince84]

Which is fine imo. More so since Pettit would be the only guy along with Mikan and Russell who represent the 50's to some degree. In terms of decade they came into the league it would look like this:

40's: Mikan(1)
50's: Russell, Pettit(2)
60's: Wilt, West, Oscar(3)
70's: Kareem, Doc, Moses(3)
80's: Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Charles, MJ, Karl(6)
90's: Robinson, KG, Dirk, Kobe, Duncan(5)
00's: LeBron, KD, Steph, CP3(4)

Which means 15 out of 25 spots(60%) came into the league after 1980.

Talent pool got deeper, also more players per squad. The 40s and 50s hardly count for obvious reasons, very few players will make a top 100.

My point was just that Pettit getting in at 25 wouldn't be some drastic over representation of his era in this project imo.

[eminence]

-Dwyane Wade had an insanely high peak, 5-6 all-time seasons and a handful more seasons of all-star level. Injury plagued career but he proved to me he can fit in with other stars and has a scoring resiliency many others at this point do not.

This seems like a bit of an overstatement for Wade's longevity imo. Which seasons are you thinking of at each level? Maybe there's a case for later career Wade at a higher level than I currently think of him as.

[Jordan Syndrome]

-Dwyane Wade had an insanely high peak, 5-6 all-time seasons and a handful more seasons of all-star level. Injury plagued career but he proved to me he can fit in with other stars and has a scoring resiliency many others at this point do not.

This seems like a bit of an overstatement for Wade's longevity imo. Which seasons are you thinking of at each level? Maybe there's a case for later career Wade at a higher level than I currently think of him as.

All-time: 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011
All-star: 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016

[DQuinn1575]

I guess it gives you 5 guys in the 60s - Pettit, West, Oscar, Wilt, Russell
and 5 guys in the 00s - Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk, KG
as well as 5 in the 90 - MJ, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Robinson
with the 70/80s having 5 combined - Kareem, Doc, Moses, Bird, Magic
And 4 guys in the 10s with Paul, LBJ, Durant, Curry - even if one guy makes it in future

still have 60s top tier talent same as any other decade.

Pettit played into the 60s but peaked and played more in the 50s so I would have it:

2 50s: Mikan, Pettit (weak era, segregated)
4 60s: Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West (1st modern era, talent concentrated)
2 70s: Kareem, Erving (era weakened by expansion, cocaine, selfish play for first big contracts)
3 80s: Magic, Bird, Moses
5 90s: MJ, Hakeem, DRob, Mailman, Barkley
5 00s: Duncan, Shaq, Garnett, Kobe, Dirk
4 10s: James, Curry, Durant, Paul (some of this eras stars have not finished their career)

Still probably one player overrepresented from 60s though all the stars certainly belong (very top heavy league), probably one player underrepresented from 80s.

Athleticism and talent of an average player has been progressing. But we're not out of the woods, top end talents are still there.

---

BTW, I think Elgin Baylor should be getting some traction. I'd say he's definitely above some mentioned players (Pippen for example) for me.

So I put Pettit in the 60s because
1. I did it primarily based on best 5 year consecutive streak by Win SHares, which for Pettit STARTS in 1960,
2. His play in the 60s against that competition really makes his case, if he didnt compete here I dont think he would be as high

or put another way, with Pettit we have the top 5 players in 1964 in the top 25, and I dont think there are very many if any years we can say that about.

I agree about Top Tier talent to a point, but the top 5 out of a pool of (making up a number) 50 million people isnt the same as being top 5 out of a pool 2 times bigger - I agree there should be some players, heck I voted for Mikan early-iish, but not at #5, but in the teens - I think the same as Pettit - non era adjusted he may be 15 or so, but considering the era I would put him around 30 or so, behind the current wave of players we are considering.
Or, the 5th best player in 1964 shouldnt be ahead of the 6th best player in years of the 1990s or 2000s.

[DQuinn1575]

Just popped in and see Pettit with lots of support. Obviously a great player, but with Wilt, Russell, West. Oscar, MIkan already Pettit would give us 6 guys who started career in first 20% of the time frame, so this would over represent an era which I think we all agree is less competitive and with a lower talent base, I really have him targeted after the next 6-8-10 guys. He does have one title, played well against the others already in, but I'm not sure his resume is a lot better than Harden, Frazier, Stockton, Wade, Pippen. Even if he doesn't get in this time, he will real soon with this support. I just dont think he is getting very much penalty for his era.

I'm not so sure that we would all agree with that.

You say that the league was less competitive back then and lower talent base. Perhaps, but what about the other side of the argument? Sure, there's more people in the world today, but a) there's also way more teams in the league today (8 teams when Pettit led the Hawks to the title in 1958, 30 teams today) which means the talent is spread out across more teams which means less talent on each team. and b) more people does not necessarily = more people who are better at basketball than the players from previous eras

Also, you say Pettit faced lesser competition than someone like Harden? Ok, but take into account:
a) Everyone in Pettit's era was facing the same competition as Pettit, just like everyone in Harden's era is facing the same competition as Harden. Why not judge them for what they did in their era?
b) What about all of the advantages that Harden (as well as the rest of the player's in Harden's era) have enjoyed? Such as 60+ years of advancements in basketball training, basketball development, basketball strategy. Better facilities, better, the basketball itself is different today than it was in 1958. Do you realize how much more difficult it was to dribble and shoot the ball that Pettit played with than the ball Harden plays with? The sneakers Pettit had to wear, they would make any modern player's feet hurt so badly they would throw them in the trash! Modern players enjoy more days off in between games, better nutrition, more advancements in breaking down film of their opponents to gain an advantage, they make way more $, better weight training and strength and conditioning programs. Do you realize that if Harden played in 1958, most of his moves would be called for a travel? And he would score way less points because there was no 3 point line back then. Not to mention more spacing in modern era which makes it easier for a guy like Harden to get open looks and open lanes to the basket.

I'm not saying Pettit's era was better or worse than Harden's era. I'm just saying that we need to take everything into account, look at the big picture and not simply make a blanket statement that "we all agree" one era is worse than another so all players from a certain era should get a "penalty for their era"

In closing, these are a couple vids which might be helpful:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

So if i agree with you then i need to change my vote to number 5 to George Mikan and number 15 to Pettit

[Jordan Syndrome]

-Dwyane Wade had an insanely high peak, 5-6 all-time seasons and a handful more seasons of all-star level. Injury plagued career but he proved to me he can fit in with other stars and has a scoring resiliency many others at this point do not.

This seems like a bit of an overstatement for Wade's longevity imo. Which seasons are you thinking of at each level? Maybe there's a case for later career Wade at a higher level than I currently think of him as.

All-time: 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011
All-star: 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016

I want to add Wade's 2007 and 2008 are hard to guage and if you don't include them due to missed time it's fine--4 all-star and 5 great seasons.

[trex_8063]

Watch on YouTube

Really now?
0:22 Who's to supposed to out-box Porter?
0:27 Loses track of Porter and gives him enough space to shoot a 3
0:42 Porter left completely open for 3, who is supposed to cover him?
0:53 Stockton gambles for a steal and gives Porter an open lane to the basket
1:18 Stockton has no chance against Porter in the low post
1:35 Terry simply pulling up for a 3. I mean why not run him off the line at least, especially considering how hot he is from 3.
1:52 Again Porter not bothered at all by Stockton and just pulls up.
2:00 Stockton doesn't even bother to contest
2:15 Porter scores an and-1 on Stockton.
2:35 Bro wtf, how do you lose your man Porter and give him a corner 3 while he is on fire???

In your haste to paint Stockton in a bad light, I don't think you've really made an appropriate scouting attempt here^^^.

While sure, I cherry-picked some good plays from the game I’d previously cited, I didn’t have to look long [indeed: four plays in a row, and two in a row in another spot], and this was from [nearly] full-game footage of a contest I just happen to have been watching while I jogged on the treadmill the other day.

You’ve selected an offensive highlight reel for the opposition......which by its very nature is going to disproportionately select for poor(ish) defensive possessions. In essence, you’re cherry-picking before you even start cherry-picking.

Secondly, there are multiple plays in your video that are mere play fragments (so we can’t even tell the context of the play, and whether he did particularly wrong or not). The very first play you cite (0:22), for example: who’s supposed to box-out Porter? From what I can see on that clip, I would say David Benoit is probably the most culpable. He’s ahead of [or at least in line with] the fast-break [specifically: is ahead of Porter as the play starts], and can see Porter in his peripheral vision (but ignores him). Stockton is nowhere to be seen at the start of the play; for all we know he may have been knocked down below the baseline as this fast-break is ignited. We just don’t know based on this clip.

We’d have a much better idea of what’s happening on this play [and better general impression of his defense] from looking at the actual full-game footage:

Watch on YouTube

Thirdly, there are instances where he’s away from Porter for one reason or another [rotation, broken play, or yes: a gamble] that you’re labelling bad simply because he IS away from Porter (but it isn’t necessarily the wrong play in each and every instance).

And finally, there are at least 1 or 2 plays where the defense is pretty good [or at least fair/adequate], but you label it bad simply because Porter scores anyway. You’re basically reading these plays by a simple equation: Porter does ANYTHING good = Stockton must have done something bad.
An offensive player scoring does not automatically = bad defense; if that were the case, it would be possible for elite defenses to prevent opponents from scoring AT ALL (hence, the old “good defense, better offense” saying).

I’m not saying they’re all transformed into good [or even OK] defensive possessions with added context or scrutiny; but there are certainly instances where you’ve mislabeled them as bad.

Augmenting our view of these plays with the actual full-game footage, I’ll look at the cited plays and your comments one-by-one (this gets tl;dr, because when you really start paying attention there’s actually A LOT that happens on any given possession):

“0:22 Who's to supposed to out-box Porter?”
Again, I would say probably David Benoit based on what is visible in this clip; the clip starts in the middle of a fast-break, and Stockton is nowhere on screen. For all we know from your video, he could have fallen down below the baseline or similar, with no chance to recover into the play.
This corresponds to the play at 4:33 in the full game footage. There we see he DOES stumble on a drive [losing the ball while he goes nearly down to one knee around the block as the fast-break starts]; so he starts the break about 2 metres behind Porter.
I’ll admit he certainly could have hustled back harder, though Porter would have heard the steps; not sure he would have done any better than getting on Porter’s back.
Benoit, otoh, is about 4-5 feet AHEAD of Porter as the break starts [freeze-frame at 4:39 mark to see], Jeff Malone AND Mark Eaton are both back, and Drexler is basically attacking them 1-on-2. Benoit ignores the trailing Porter, though doesn’t commit to the trailing Kersey either [based on the pass that Drexler is able to deliver to Kersey, I don’t think Benoit even saw him]; he’s just sort of there but not really doing much of anything [despite being in a position to hard cover ONE of Porter or Kersey].

Is this a good defensive possession for Stockton? No, it certainly isn’t. But nor was it a situation where he could have reliably been expected to box out Porter.


“0:27 Loses track of Porter and gives him enough space to shoot a 3”
He doesn’t really lose track of him. This play corresponds to the 8:12 mark in the full-game footage. We see Stockton pick up Porter on-ball about 30’ from the hoop, bumping and generally making it difficult for him to get to his mark. Porter delivers the pass to Drexler on the wing and then tries for his weak-side cut.
While it’s apparent Stockton was not expecting that cut/pass, he is back-pedalling to catch up to the play, and was close enough to Porter that if the pass had been closer to the rim [for a “touchdown” catch-and-make lay-up], Stockton likely would have deflected it. But the pass goes long/wide [freeze-frame at 8:20--->Porter catches it about 11’ from the hoop, more or less rescuing it from going out-of-bounds]. And you can see Stockton basically stop rushing [in his wild back-pedalling] as the ball is mid-air: once he saw it was wide/long and not a danger to complete a lay-up (he was perhaps even expecting it to go out-of-bounds). So Stockton slows and collects himself, turns his body to square up to his man…..just as David Benoit runs into him, almost knocking him over [as Porter collects the pass and takes a dribble out to the corner]. Stockton still recovers enough to offer a reasonable contest [freeze-frame at 8:22 to see Stockton has closed out on him and is pressuring the shot], but it goes in anyway. Great play by Porter; the commentators go on at length about this shot, how you know you’re feeling it when you catch an over-the-shoulder pass, run out behind the line and heave up a turnaround trey (and how Porter had commented earlier that the hoop looked as big as a barrel to him recently).

This is not a particularly good defensive possession, but it is NOT a bad defensive possession by Stockton: He applies firm ball-pressure at the start of the play. He was near enough on the cut he’d likely have deflected a true “touchdown” pass; it’s only because the pass went wide (nearly out-of-bounds) that it was completed. He gets knocked off-balance by his own teammate, but still recovers enough to make a fair/OK contest on what was just a fantastic shot by Porter.


“0:38 Porter left completely open for 3, who is supposed to cover him?”
This is another where we can’t see the start of the play. It occurs at 9:11 in the full game video (though shown from a different camera angle, so may need to use both videos to capture the action). The pass to Duckworth is a little off-target and he fumbles it a bit. I suspect Stockton races over there as a gamble, thinking he can maybe beat the sluggish Duckworth to the loose ball [or perhaps snipe it out of his hands the second he recovers it]. It’s a bad gamble, fwiw, although it does have the added merit that it possibly prevents Eaton from coming out and defending in space (where he’s no good). Eaton caught behind a B.Williams screen, anyway; certainly Karl Malone is the closer Jazz player to rotate out on Duckworth, but he’s a little slow in committing. If you freeze-frame YOUR video at 0:39, take a look at where Jeff Malone is. He’s the closest Jazz player to Porter [Benoit is the only one even similar(ish) distance away], but he’s ball-watching, guarding no one, and seems to have no court awareness on this play:
He’s actually sagging further into the paint [to apparently TRIPLE-team Buck Williams off-ball? Or to provide help on a potential lightning-quick drive by Duckworth??]. He’s ~12-13’ from his own man, and [as the nearest Jazz player] at least 18’ from Terry Porter [the only fully “unguarded” Blazer] at this moment. Let the clip play ~1 second to around 0:40 [as the pass to Porter is in the air]......Jeff Malone STILL doesn’t react. If you go just a few frames at a time you can watch Malone’s head turn, tracking the progress of the ball as it goes over his head [still his feet are not moving], as if he’s saying to himself “I wonder where that pass is going” [because again, he seems to have no court awareness as to who is on the other side of the court on this possession]. The pass is over his head and fully past him before he finally seems to snap out of it and say “Oh ****! It’s going to Porter!” And even then he only puts in lukewarm effort to close out and give a tired contest.

Was this a good gamble by Stockton? No, I’m inclined to say it was a bad one. To some degree I think we have to allow him his discretion on gambling (the record would suggest his instincts in this regard were pretty good); and again we don’t want Eaton going out to the perimeter. Still, yeah….it was a bad gamble, so not a good defensive possession for him [though a clearly WORSE one for Jeff Malone].


“0:53 Stockton gambles for a steal and gives Porter an open lane to the basket”
Agree. He gambled and missed, and it directly contributed to a defensive break-down. Though again, his record (not just the steals totals, but also the solid DRAPM extending well into the twilight of his career) suggests we need to allow him to trust his instincts on these gambits. They don’t always work, but the evidence suggests they worked often enough for it to be a worthwhile habit.


“1:18 Stockton has no chance against Porter in the low post”
Eh, I wouldn’t say that. Take a look at the play that begins at 4:19 in the full game footage. Sort of semi-transition and Stockton is forced to guard Drexler, who attempts to abuse him in the post. Despite the 6” height advantage he has on Stockton, he’s unable to get good post position, and ends taking the pass on the short corner instead. If the 6’7” Drexler has difficulty abusing Stockton in the post, it’s unlikely that the 6’3” Porter will be able to abuse him at will.
Anyway, the play in question is one the Blazers ran with some regularity (they actually do something similar on their very first possession in the full-game footage, though Porter doesn’t get the ball as result; half-assed attempt at the backpick on the following possession, too, for that matter).
You put a defender like Pete Maravich or Kyrie Irving [or maybe Nash] on him, and frequently they get caught by the backpick and it’s either a lay-up or a defensive switch and mismatch.
Not saying it’s a good defensive possession, but it’s not awful either.


“1:35 Terry simply pulling up for a 3. I mean why not run him off the line at least, especially considering how hot he is from 3.”
Nah, this is a bad read on this play. Stockton hedges toward helping on the Drexler drive [once again Jeff Malone beat--->actually crosses his feet over on this], who would otherwise be able to get right to the block on this drive and maybe put a runner off the glass at least, or get a trip to the line. It’s only to avoid the quick hands of Stockton that he aborts and passes out.
And Stockton does contest the shot, too.


“1:52 Again Porter not bothered at all by Stockton and just pulls up.”
Hmm…...here’s what I see:
Stockton is sagged just a little to provide potential help [no doubt knowing that ‘92 Mark Eaton is not exactly known for being quick on his feet]. Is he sagged a little too far, given it’s only Kevin Duckworth. Idk, maybe, but we’re splittin’ hairs.
Duckworth kicks it back to Porter as he immediately moves toward him to set a screen. Stockton jumps back out on Porter, slightly overplaying to the left [Porter’s right] because the screen is coming from that side. Porter responds by trying to make a quick drive LEFT before Stockton can even stop his forward motion. He is unsuccessful; Stockton is able to recover well enough to stay in front of him and prevent penetration. So Porter pulls up for a contested 16-17 footer.

Porter does look silky smooth and “not bothered” on the shot. Good on him. He’s a great player who’s really feeling it.
As to what Stockton did on the play:
Did he dissuade Duckworth from driving on the plodding Eaton? Hard to say for sure, but it’s certainly possible that played into Duckworth’s decision.
Did he dissuade Porter from using the screen by Duckworth? It would certainly seem so.
Did he still manage to prevent any deep penetration by Porter in the OTHER direction? Yes, he did.
Did he contest Porter’s shot? Yes, he did.

I’d rate this as an above average defensive possession overall. Not superb, but he did a number of positive things, so it’s hard for me to grade it poorly [or even average] simply because he was unable to block the shot at the end, or because Porter made it (seriously, if the shot had rimmed off, you’d never in a million attempt to use this evidence of inadequate defense by Stockton).


“2:00 Stockton doesn't even bother to contest”
True. It looks like he stumbled a little after rubbing off the Duckworth screen. I guess we’ll grade it a little poor on account of that.


“2:15 Porter scores an and-1 on Stockton.”
Hmm….this is a tricky one. Again, Stockton denies the penetration, forces him to settle for a [weakly] contested 16-17 footer (which we know now is basically the shot you’d LOVE your opponent to take every possession). I don’t really see the contact, and you can see Stockton arguing the call afterwards.
idk, but I’d grade this as more “passable/OK” defense, nice shot by Porter, and lucky as well to get a weaksauce call from the ref. But I guess “technically” I need to call it bad because we don’t foul jump-shooters [but the water is muddy because I don’t really see the foul].


“2:35 Bro wtf, how do you lose your man Porter and give him a corner 3 while he is on fire???”
Yeah, I’ll agree that one is kinda poor. Not so much him "losing" Porter [like "where'd he go?"], but rather stumbling slightly when Porter first leaves the post, and can't recover quick enough to avoid the screens. Nice play with good staggered double-screen by the Portland bigs, you’d have to admit [might be getting away with a pinch of a moving screen, too??].


So out of the 10 plays you cited, even making a concerted effort to not be too bullish on Stockton, I’d only grade his defense somewhat subpar on four of them (passable/fair on five of them, and actually notably above average [i.e. “good”] on one of them). And again this is in a highlight reel sample which will, by its very nature, be skewed against him.

[Owly]

So I put Pettit in the 60s because
1. I did it primarily based on best 5 year consecutive streak by Win SHares, which for Pettit STARTS in 1960

I think there's a case for Pettit in the 60s but this isn't necessarily it (at least in this form with the SHOUTY CAPS).

Pettit's WS totals 60-64 are higher than 54-60. But this seems to be a function of longer seasons (and compounded by WS's low "replacement" level). 72 games a year for all the "50s" spell, 72, 79, 80, 80, 80 for the "60s".

Multiply the earlier era by 1.086111111 (the latter era has that extra amount of available minutes, without checking overtimes) and the 50s spell marginally sneaks ahead (68.09916667 WS versus 67.1 - and has a slightly larger advantage in WS/48, larger still in other rate based box composites).

Given the stigma the 50s carries, and that he was very roughly as effective in the 60s (near enough) I can certainly see a reasonable case for considering him as 60s.

[trex_8063]

.

.

.

.

.

Had quoted the whole group just a few hours ago, now just quoting you all because you'd voted in the previous thread [so presumably still active in the project]. Haven't had votes from you this round (turn-out a little poor). Maybe just over 4 hours remain...