RealGM Top 100 List #21

[RSCD3_]

How good was Pettit's athleticism and length

Would he be able to get off shots in today's era against modern power forwards and center


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Warspite]

Vote Bob Pettit

his play, results, accolades and leadership give him my vote. One of the true superstars of any era.


The valid knock on Baylor is that he is a 1 trick pony who really doesnt understand the game or can adapt to different roles. he is the Allen Iverson of the 60s. Wilt in his book just exposed Baylor for what he was. Once he was asked to take a lesser role he simply retired. A stat whore who just wasnt about winning.

[penbeast0]

Early votes (and not many of them one day in . . . )

Pettit – penbeast0, Jim Naismith, Warspite
Ewing – ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234,
Wade – Basketballefan
Mikan - Owly

Are you and I the only ones with votes at all 21 spots?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I think there was at least 1 vote where the outcome was decided while I was still unsure so I didn't vote. It might be just you.

[penbeast0]

How good was Pettit's athleticism and length

Would he be able to get off shots in today's era against modern power forwards and center


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

He was 6'9 barefoot, 6'10 to 6'11 in shoes, though slim. Pretty athletic (Dirk style, great coordination and stamina, not that much footspeed or jumping). He had excellent range when open, when covered, he tended to shoot into people seeking to draw fouls so he clearly shot a large percentage of his shots with guys hanging off him; I don't see him having much difficulty there. His game would translate extremely well to this era if his efficiency and strength increase with modern coaching, training, and weight work.

[trex_8063]

Early votes (and not many of them one day in . . . )

Pettit – penbeast0, Jim Naismith, Warspite
Ewing – ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234,
Wade – Basketballefan
Mikan - Owly

Are you and I the only ones with votes at all 21 spots?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I think there was at least 1 vote where the outcome was decided while I was still unsure so I didn't vote. It might be just you.

fwiw, not counting this one I believe I've voted in all except the #19 one (which I intentionally abstained because I couldn't decide between Charles and Moses).

[DQuinn1575]

The flaws in Win Shares (not that it shouldn't ever be used might skew against Mikan here.

Theres one area where it might boost him. It likes players on good teams, perhaps too much.

It works so a team with 50 wins gets about 50 win shares, and a team with 30 wins gets about 30 win shares.
So, yes it likes players on good teams, overall they should be better.

But with all boxscore composite stats there's an argument as to whether capturing what a player does is capturing what they can do. Basically redundancy (at an individual skill level and related issues about garbage time and diminishing returns/the increased difficulty of adding any more value to a team that is dominant). At a specific skill level Mikan was "competing" with Vern Mikkelsen for rebounds.

Agree - definitely not perfect by any means, just using it directionally.

His emergence might be one factor in explaining Mikan's "decline".

Mikkelsen's stats in 51, the last dominant season for Mikan, were about the same the following years.

Mikan's stats decline is in scoring AND fg% - both went down a fair amount starting in 1952.
Part of this is probably due from the consolidation from 16 teams in 1950 to 11 and then 10.
Besides playing in a 90%+ white league, up unto 1951 he played in an era with 16+ pro teams, and competition from AAU teams for players.

Returning to the defensive aspect, from what I can tell Ed Macauley was substantially overmatched on D at center and win shares won't capture that. Schayes said of himself that he was a poor defender though I don't know whether there's other sources to back that up (Robert Kalich's rating from 1970 give him a 9 out 10 in that area though that's some time after the fact, and we don't know how much he saw of Schayes).

Agreed Macauley poorly regarded on D - Mikan is regarded much more highly on D - Schayes versus Mikan, no good info for me.

Also, regarding Schayes as non-top 50, once Pettit is in isn't he the next power forward on the board? Whilst I like McHale a lack of sustained very high level performance ('87 clearly above the rest), the fact he never carried a team and concerns over whether he could (reluctant passing, and I've seen it suggested he should have done more when Bird was injured, whether that criticism is fair or not I'm not sure what with injuries and everything but worth considering).

He was 68 last time; that is my basis for calling him non top 50.

In any case (coming back to the main point) we've already Mikan's peak years prior to this spell when he was demolishing all comers both and an individual and team level. And then even after that he was still probably the best player and still winning titles. Then too, Mikan seems to have been dominant in the playoffs.

I could stlil go another way with this (Pettit and Stockton most prominently on my radar) but I think I've talked myself into a provisional vote for

George Mikan

At this point his dominance is hard to overlook.

Good choice - I'm going to join you with Mikan within the next couple of slots.

[trex_8063]

I'm leaning somewhat toward either Pettit or Stockton. Since Stockton doesn't appear to have much traction with anyone else as of yet, I may as well go with Pettit. I'll make it official: my vote for #21 is Bob Pettit.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm leaning somewhat toward either Pettit or Stockton. Since Stockton doesn't appear to have much traction with anyone else as of yet, I may as well go with Pettit. I'll make it official: my vote for #21 is Bob Pettit.

I was actually thinking about stockton today, and surprised he hasn't been mentioned at all yet. Don't think i'll be voting for him, but a quick look at his 9 year prime is pretty damn impressive:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:per_game

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:advanced

Throw in the absurd longevity / durability and back to back finals appearances, and I'd say he at least deserves mention.

[ceiling raiser]

I'm leaning somewhat toward either Pettit or Stockton. Since Stockton doesn't appear to have much traction with anyone else as of yet, I may as well go with Pettit. I'll make it official: my vote for #21 is Bob Pettit.

I was actually thinking about stockton today, and surprised he hasn't been mentioned at all yet. Don't think i'll be voting for him, but a quick look at his 9 year prime is pretty damn impressive:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:per_game

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:advanced

Throw in the absurd longevity / durability and back to back finals appearances, and I'd say he at least deserves mention.

Just a note, lorak and someone else (maybe it was Doc or ElGee?) discussed Stockton a bit a couple threads ago I believe.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm leaning somewhat toward either Pettit or Stockton. Since Stockton doesn't appear to have much traction with anyone else as of yet, I may as well go with Pettit. I'll make it official: my vote for #21 is Bob Pettit.

I was actually thinking about stockton today, and surprised he hasn't been mentioned at all yet. Don't think i'll be voting for him, but a quick look at his 9 year prime is pretty damn impressive:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:per_game

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:advanced

Throw in the absurd longevity / durability and back to back finals appearances, and I'd say he at least deserves mention.

Just a note, lorak and someone else (maybe it was Doc or ElGee?) discussed Stockton a bit a couple threads ago I believe.

Right, right. I'll have to go back and check that out. I was just thinking more along the lines of being mentioned as a possible vote for #21.

[trex_8063]

I'm leaning somewhat toward either Pettit or Stockton. Since Stockton doesn't appear to have much traction with anyone else as of yet, I may as well go with Pettit. I'll make it official: my vote for #21 is Bob Pettit.

I was actually thinking about stockton today, and surprised he hasn't been mentioned at all yet. Don't think i'll be voting for him, but a quick look at his 9 year prime is pretty damn impressive:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:per_game

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:advanced

Throw in the absurd longevity / durability and back to back finals appearances, and I'd say he at least deserves mention.

fwiw, I made semi-extensive arguments for him in post #15 of this thread:

Congrats to Barkley. The next few get interesting all over again for me. I'm fairly undecided for #21, but I have four primary candidates:

John Stockton
Wicked prime; from '88 thru '97 (10 seasons in which he missed FOUR GAMES TOTAL).......
Per 100 rs: 21.8 pts, 4.1 reb, 17.9 ast, 3.6 stl, 4.7 tov on .619 TS%
22.7 PER, .221 WS/48, 122 ORtg/104 DRtg in 36.2 mpg
Per 100 ps: 21.4 pts, 4.8 reb, 16.2 ast, 2.8 stl, 4.5 tov on .574 TS%
20.4 PER, .163 WS/48, 117 ORtg/108 DRtg in 39.0 mpg

And fwiw, the only reason I'm declaring '97 the end to his prime is because '97 was the final season in which he was playing "star level" minutes. His level of play otherwise didn't really decline significantly: from '88 on (the last SIXTEEN seasons of his career, right down to the bitter end), he NEVER had a season with a PER <21; he had only 2 seasons out of 16 with a WS/48 <.200; he had TWO seasons in his post-prime with the league's best ORtg (while also only having TWO seasons of his final six which I am calling his "post-prime" in which his DRtg was worse than league average). For impact stats, we only have data for these years that I am classifying as his post-prime, and yet the results could be construed as "eye-opening" to say the least. Here is his league rank in combined PI RAPM for each year:
'98--->7th
'99--->8th
'00--->8th
*'01--->3rd (*NPI)
'02--->12th
'03--->13th

Dude has left a massive statistical footprint on the game......
#1 all-time in career rs assists and steals, and has such a sizable lead in both that these are records none of us are likely to see broken in our lifetimes: has 3,715 more assists than the 2nd-place guy, 581 more steals than the 2nd-place guy. Is #5 all-time in career rs win shares.
Is #2 all-time in career playoff assists and #4 in career playoff steals, too; #16 all-time in career playoff WS. He's also inside the top 50 all-time in career rs points, inside top 40 in career playoff points.

Anyway, he's got a more than credible resume for the spot, and really should be gaining a lot of traction now that we're out of the top 20, imo......

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

I'm leaning somewhat toward either Pettit or Stockton. Since Stockton doesn't appear to have much traction with anyone else as of yet, I may as well go with Pettit. I'll make it official: my vote for #21 is Bob Pettit.

I was actually thinking about stockton today, and surprised he hasn't been mentioned at all yet. Don't think i'll be voting for him, but a quick look at his 9 year prime is pretty damn impressive:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:per_game

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:advanced

Throw in the absurd longevity / durability and back to back finals appearances, and I'd say he at least deserves mention.

fwiw, I made semi-extensive arguments for him in post #15 of this thread:

Congrats to Barkley. The next few get interesting all over again for me. I'm fairly undecided for #21, but I have four primary candidates:

John Stockton
Wicked prime; from '88 thru '97 (10 seasons in which he missed FOUR GAMES TOTAL).......
Per 100 rs: 21.8 pts, 4.1 reb, 17.9 ast, 3.6 stl, 4.7 tov on .619 TS%
22.7 PER, .221 WS/48, 122 ORtg/104 DRtg in 36.2 mpg
Per 100 ps: 21.4 pts, 4.8 reb, 16.2 ast, 2.8 stl, 4.5 tov on .574 TS%
20.4 PER, .163 WS/48, 117 ORtg/108 DRtg in 39.0 mpg

And fwiw, the only reason I'm declaring '97 the end to his prime is because '97 was the final season in which he was playing "star level" minutes. His level of play otherwise didn't really decline significantly: from '88 on (the last SIXTEEN seasons of his career, right down to the bitter end), he NEVER had a season with a PER <21; he had only 2 seasons out of 16 with a WS/48 <.200; he had TWO seasons in his post-prime with the league's best ORtg (while also only having TWO seasons of his final six which I am calling his "post-prime" in which his DRtg was worse than league average). For impact stats, we only have data for these years that I am classifying as his post-prime, and yet the results could be construed as "eye-opening" to say the least. Here is his league rank in combined PI RAPM for each year:
'98--->7th
'99--->8th
'00--->8th
*'01--->3rd (*NPI)
'02--->12th
'03--->13th

Dude has left a massive statistical footprint on the game......
#1 all-time in career rs assists and steals, and has such a sizable lead in both that these are records none of us are likely to see broken in our lifetimes: has 3,715 more assists than the 2nd-place guy, 581 more steals than the 2nd-place guy. Is #5 all-time in career rs win shares.
Is #2 all-time in career playoff assists and #4 in career playoff steals, too; #16 all-time in career playoff WS. He's also inside the top 50 all-time in career rs points, inside top 40 in career playoff points.

Anyway, he's got a more than credible resume for the spot, and really should be gaining a lot of traction now that we're out of the top 20, imo......

Whoops! Totally missed this. Great work, thanks.

[The Infamous1]

Stockton kind off opens up a can of worms especially this early and so close to Malone. Let's say he was voted at 21 or the next list at 22. The jazz would've had according to realgm the 17th and 21st/22nd best players to ever play this game(and people were trying to get Malone in much earlier) for their entire peaks/primes(and basically their entire careers) but had relatively mediocre postseason success. 1st round exits, multiple upsets, only 2 finals in 20 seasons and of course no titles.

This doesn't make sense. Either one would have to argue either

A. the jazz had historically poor coaching/supporting casts teammates
Or
B. One or both of them is not as good as we think.

What if we for example had other combinations of some players voted in that range for the same amount of time as that jazz duo.


Kobe/Drob
Barkley/Dr J
Dirk/Bird
M. Malone/Oscar

but had the same amount of success in the PS?

[Basketballefan]

Stockton kind off opens up a can of worms especially this early and so close to Malone. Let's say he was voted at 21 or the next list at 22. The jazz would've had according to realgm the 17th and 21st/22nd best players to ever play this game(and people were trying to get Malone in much earlier) for their entire peaks/primes(and basically their entire careers) but had relatively mediocre postseason success. 1st round exits, multiple upsets, only 2 finals in 20 seasons and of course no titles.

This doesn't make sense. Either one would have to argue either

A. the jazz had historically poor coaching/supporting casts teammates
Or
B. One or both of them is not as good as we think.

What if we for example had other combinations of some players voted in that range for the same amount of time as that jazz duo.


Kobe/Drob
Barkley/Dr J
Dirk/Bird
M. Malone/Oscar

but had the same amount of success in the PS?

Yeah, Stockton this high doesn't make much sense to me. He was never a top 5 player in the league at any point.

[The Infamous1]

Stockton kind off opens up a can of worms especially this early and so close to Malone. Let's say he was voted at 21 or the next list at 22. The jazz would've had according to realgm the 17th and 21st/22nd best players to ever play this game(and people were trying to get Malone in much earlier) for their entire peaks/primes(and basically their entire careers) but had relatively mediocre postseason success. 1st round exits, multiple upsets, only 2 finals in 20 seasons and of course no titles.

This doesn't make sense. Either one would have to argue either

A. the jazz had historically poor coaching/supporting casts teammates
Or
B. One or both of them is not as good as we think.

What if we for example had other combinations of some players voted in that range for the same amount of time as that jazz duo.


Kobe/Drob
Barkley/Dr J
Dirk/Bird
M. Malone/Oscar

but had the same amount of success in the PS?

Yeah, Stockton this high doesn't make much sense to me. He was never a top 5 player in the league at any point.

I never had him top 5 either. These were good threads which expands on my point

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1251775
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=977550

[Clyde Frazier]

Stockton kind off opens up a can of worms especially this early and so close to Malone. Let's say he was voted at 21 or the next list at 22. The jazz would've had according to realgm the 17th and 21st/22nd best players to ever play this game(and people were trying to get Malone in much earlier) for their entire peaks/primes(and basically their entire careers) but had relatively mediocre postseason success. 1st round exits, multiple upsets, only 2 finals in 20 seasons and of course no titles.

This doesn't make sense. Either one would have to argue either

A. the jazz had historically poor coaching/supporting casts teammates
Or
B. One or both of them is not as good as we think.

What if we for example had other combinations of some players voted in that range for the same amount of time as that jazz duo.


Kobe/Drob
Barkley/Dr J
Dirk/Bird
M. Malone/Oscar

but had the same amount of success in the PS?

It's a fair point. All those guys you picked were already in the top 20, though. It would be a little more substantial. I don't think i'm going to vote for him here, though, and i'm leaning toward pettit. I do think he belongs in the conversation soon, though. I see he got voted in at 31 in 2011, and i think that's too late.

[90sAllDecade]

It turns out that one bad year the Knicks played defense, was not only because Ewing and Cartwright were injured; but Hubie Brown was misusing Ewing.

He tried to make him a power forward (despite being a dominant anchor at center for Georgetown in college) and copy Houston's Twin Towers and was later fired mid season:

So, Bernard King is hurt, plays 6 games - what was Hubie supposed to do with Cartwright and Ewing?

Cartwright was 2nd/3rd best player on team, with ts% of .617 - was #3 pick in draft and good enough to be starting center on NBA champ team 13 years later.

He was coming off 2 years of injuries, so he didn't have much trade value.

I'm not saying Ewing was used well here, but is it really Hubie's fault that he tried to put his 2 best players on the floor?

He does get traded for Oakley, which worked out for both teams.

Maybe this should be a knock on Ewing, since others adapted to this type of situation, and he did not.

You do exactly what Rick Pitino did the next year after Hubie was fired.

You make Cartwright the backup center, try to get him as much time on the floor as you can in that role and lobby management to trade him for a better fit around your franchise cornerstone/heralded #1 draft pick and much better center in Ewing with Oakley.

Shaq wasn't a PF, Kareem was a true center, so was Wilt, all got voted in already. Ewing is a textbook traditional center imo, being as hyped as he was in college at his natural position and trying to make him into something he wasn't cost the Knicks games, and Hubie his job imo (who I like as a commentator though).

Now, on the other side of the coin; is it a knock on Pettit that Cliff Hagan often carried him and the Hawks in the postseason? And is there any evidence Pettit held a candle to Ewing on defense?

Aside from era dominance, like Mikan who was much better in that regard, individually how is Pettit better than Ewing in combined offensive & defensive impact?

Per100 evidence was posted that offensively Ewing is a better scorer and more efficient, Pettit is a better rebounder (but against many who didn't lift weights, not to mention other factors weakening competition) and they are about a wash as passers in the regular season.

But let's look at their numbers in the playoffs as well.

Pettit played his entire career over 100 possessions going from a range of 100.5 to 129.1 in pace. If we adjust for pace and put Ewing at just per100 possessions (which is still a disadvantage to Ewing) he's better than Pettit:

Bob Pettit raw Playoff numbers 100-129 pace:



Patrick Ewing Playoff numbers Per100 pace:



It looks like, adjusting for pace, Ewing is better offensively and defensively in just about every category than Pettit in the playoffs.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't think Ewing's offensive and defensive peak aligning are a problem. Ewing's offensive peak was obviously 1990, but he was very mobile, athletic and active defensively as well. I've seen games, particularly one vs Chicago where he was incredibly dominant defensively. He was 2nd to only Hakeem with 4 bpg that year and if you look at his BLK%, it was 5.9%, his best outside of the 6.0% in '88, when he was limited by foul trouble(4 PF in 31 mpg) and '99, when he played just 36 games in the lockout year.

[drza]

Alright. Time to do my basic building-block background for comparing the next wave of players. I can't say that this list is exhaustive or that I'll definitely be voting for all of these players before anyone else, but at least these are a bunch of the names that I'm thinking about and have started seeing others mention. As before, this is a box-score only basic category comp in per-100 possessions (where available) to do some basic pace adjustments. For the early players (Mikan, Pettit, Baylor, Hondo and Frazier) it's their actual stats so if their pace was faster than 100 poss/game then they may still have an advantage. Then, a few thoughts afterwards.

Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions (Isiah and after)
George Mikan 1949 - 1954: 24.3 pts (48.4% TS), 14.1 reb, 3.0 ast (TO not kept)
Bob Pettit 1956 - 1965: 27 pts (51.3% TS), 16.5 reb, 3.0 ast (TO not kept)
Elgin Baylor 1959 - 1968: 28.1 pts (49.1% TS), 14.2 reb, 4.2 ast (TO not kept)
John Havlicek 1966 - 1975: 22.9 pts (49.8% TS), 7.1 reb, 5.6 ast (TO not kept)
Walt Frazier 1969 - 1978: 20.1 pts (54.5% TS), 6.1 reb, 6.4 ast (2.2 TO, partial)
Isiah Thomas 1983 - 1992: 26.1 pts (52.3% TS), 4.9 reb, 12.6 ast (4.9 TO)
Pat Ewing 1988 - 1997: 33 pts (56.3% TS), 14.6 reb, 3.0 ast (4.5 TO)
John Stockton 1988 - 1997: 21.8 pts (61.9% TS), 4.1 reb, 17.9 ast (4.7 TO)
Scottie Pippen 1990 - 1999: 26.2 pts (54.4% TS), 9.8 reb, 8.0 ast (4.1 TO)
Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (50.8% TS), 9.6 reb, 12.9 ast (4.4 TO)
Steve Nash 2002 - 2011: 24.9 pts (61.3% TS), 4.9 reb, 14.9 ast (4.8 TO)
Dwyane Wade 2005 - 2014: 36.1 pts (57.1% TS), 7.4 reb, 8.8 ast (5.0 TO)

Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions (Isiah and after)
George Mikan 1949 - 1954: 24.5 pts (49.4% TS), 14.2 reb, 2.2 ast (TO not kept)
Bob Pettit 1956 - 1965: 25.5 pts (50.1% TS), 14.8 reb, 2.7 ast (TO not kept)
Elgin Baylor 1959 - 1968: 30.7 pts (50.3% TS), 14.1 reb, 3.9 ast (TO not kept)
John Havlicek 1966 - 1975: 25.3 pts (51.7% TS), 7.8 reb, 5.5 ast (TO not kept)
Walt Frazier 1969 - 1975: 21.2 pts ( 55.9% TS), 7.2 reb, 6.4 ast (TO not kept)
Isiah Thomas 1984 - 1992: 27.6 pts (52% TS), 6.4 reb, 12.1 ast (4.5 TO)
Pat Ewing 1988 - 1997: 30.6 pts (52.8% TS), 14.8 reb, 3.3 ast (3.8 TO)
John Stockton 1988 - 1997: 21.4 pts (57.4% TS), 4.8 reb, 16.2 ast (4.5 TO)
Scottie Pippen 1990 - 1999: 25.9 pts (52.3% TS), 10.7 reb, 7.4 ast (4.1 TO)
Jason Kidd 1998 - 2007: 20.6 pts (49% TS), 9.9 reb, 11.8 ast (4.3 TO)
Steve Nash 2002 - 2010: 25.5 pts (58.9% TS), 5.1 reb, 13.3 ast (4.7 TO)
Dwyane Wade 2005 - 2014: 32.8 pts (55.6% TS), 7.5 reb, 7.0 ast (4.8 TO)

Quick observations

*One, these notes will be primarily from box score evaluation. Thus, they will be more superficial than actual voting-level analysis. This is still just getting some initial thoughts together

*This is one DIVERSE, eclectic group of players and it's crazy to try to rank them all against each other. But that's the project we set out to do, so...so be it.

*There are some obvious places to split to group for comparison sake. Everyone that played in the 50s is one group; there's a bunch of point guards; then there's three great wings, then one lone modern center that kind of stands alone here

*50s players. All three of Mikan, Pettit and Baylor have similar statistical envelopes. All three were scoring/rebounding machines with low efficiency by today's standards. In the regular season Baylor had slightly the highest scoring volume while Pettit had the slightly highest scoring efficiency and rebound totals.

Mikan...I don't know what to do with him. He's the only player I couldn't come close to 10 years of NBA prime, so he's only got 5 years here. And while his box score stats are the least impressive, he was the best defender with respect to his time and his team enjoyed by far the most success as the first dynasty so...yeah. No idea what to do with him.

The interesting thing to note for me is what happens in the playoffs with Pettit vs Baylor. In the regular season Pettit's numbers looked better, but in the playoffs Pettit's scoring volume, rebounding and scoring efficiency all dropped while Baylor's scoring volume and efficiency went up. The end result is that in the playoffs, Baylor looks like the significantly better player according to the boxes...clearly higher scoring volume on equivalent efficiency with equivalent rebounding (but from the SF slot instead of PF, so possible position advantage) and even an extra assist. So if I'm just looking at the boxes, I might give Pettit the regular season nod but Baylor looks better overall due to his stronger postseasons.

*The point guards. This is by-far the richest area of comparison to me in this group of players. Clyde, Zeke, Stockton, Kidd and Nash are five of the best point guards in history, span almost 50 years, and play the game entirely different ways. Clyde's numbers look more like the wings under consideration than the other 4 PGs, with FAR fewer assists and actually the lowest scoring rate (obvious caveat to the per-100 estimates for the modern players), but of course he's known as one of the best defensive guards in NBA history.

Zeke is the biggest scorer among the point guards, but he still has huge assist totals marking him as the highest usage player. His scoring efficiency wasn't that great, but he does increase his scoring volume on similar efficiency in the playoffs, and his assist/TO ratio is also higher in the postseason which jives with his rep as a playoffs warrior.

Kidd is probably the closest to Clyde on the defensive front, and his rebounding rate is pretty astounding as his per-100 numbers would round to a triple-double over a decade in both the regular and postseason. His scoring efficiency is trash, but his volume isn't that high so when we get into him that'll obviously play a big part in how he ranks out here.

Stockton and Nash seem to be tied together, as stylistically they are by far the most similar. They're 1-2 in both assists and scoring efficiency among the point guards. Stockton a bit higher assist volume, Nash the higher scoring volume. And Nash both increases his scoring volume and maintains his scoring efficiency a bit better than Stockton in the postseason. But of course Stockton was a much better defender.

*The wings: It's hard to compare Hondo with Pippen and Wade because of the era difference. All three had a well-rounded approach mixing scoring, rebounding and distributing. But frankly, Pippen's and Wade's per-100 numbers are significantly higher than Hondo's raw numbers. Again the pacing caveat, but I was pretty surprised to see Pippen's scoring rate look so much higher. And Hondo isn't helped as his scoring efficiency, like many other older-school players, is very low (of course, by now Oscar and West had shown that perimeter players could post much higher efficiencies and his peer Frazier had better scoring efficiency as well so that doesn't work in Hondo's favor). But Hondo was a strong defender by reputation, so that works for him.

Pippen looks exactly like the jack-of-all-trades that he was, coming closes to Kidd as far as near-triple-doubles go over his decade. His scoring efficiency was nothing to write home about, but of course he had big offensive presence with his point-forward skills. And also, Pippen has the rep as arguably the best defensive small forward in history that will be a huge part of his discussion.

Wade's scoring level is basically unfair compared to everyone discussed so far. His volume is about 10 pts/100 possession higher than everyone we've mentioned, and his scoring efficiency is good as well. While his assist-to-TO ratio is nothing to write home about for a point guard, for a wing it shows that he was creating quite a bit of offense for his team. And he was a plus defender for a guard as well. The big knock on Wade in this company, obviously, is his durability and how that affects his longevity.

*The only modern center. I suppose I could have tried to compare Ewing with Mikan as the only centers here, but again, every time I try to do something with Mikan my head starts hurting so I figured it was easier to group him with his (almost) peers. Which leaves Ewing alone. The biggest thing with him will be trying to figure out what his offensive impact really is. His scoring volume is very high, with only Wade above his. His regular season scoring efficiency was good, but his postseason efficiency makes it more questionable just how much help his high volume scoring really was. And his assist-to-TO ratio, especially in the regular season, is almost Moses Malonian which doesn't speak well to his ability to scale into an offensive anchor in a good offense. On the flip side, Ewing is an all history defensive player which is where he'll ultimately end up making his mark/ranking here.

[90sAllDecade]

Another match-up video, this time it's Ewing vs Philadelphia Sixers Barkley 1990.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGMdqY40S3o[/youtube]

One of the greatest NBA regular season games ever. Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing with a fantastic duel in MSG. A lot of trash talking, hard fouls, great dunks, great defense (Mark Jackson block on Charles Barkley is something to see) and even better offense; 90's basketball at its best.

Charles Barkley: 39 points, 15 rebounds (11 offensive), 3 assists, 12/23 FG.

Patrick Ewing: 37 points, 19 rebounds, 9 blocks, 17/24 FG.

In the first quarter, Ewing was twice knocked to the floor by the Sixers' Charles Barkley, and with 7:18 remaining in the period, Barkley was assessed a technical and injured Knick Charles Oakley was ejected after coming out on the floor during a brief Ewing-Barkley fight.

"I thought he (Ewing) cheap-shotted me a couple of times," Barkley said. ''I'm not going to let anyone do that to me."

In that same period, a fan in an end-court seat harassed Barkley to a point where Barkley tossed some liquid in the fan's direction.

And then Barkley reminded everyone that the Knicks were, in fact, still in third place.

"Don't make them out to be champions," he said. "We don't have to worry about facing them again, because if you know anything about sports, you know they won't get by Boston in the first round (of the playoffs)." (Knicks won the first round playoff series 3-2 after being down 2-0 against Boston and then lost to the eventual champions Pistons 4-1)

Knicks won this phenomenal game 114:104.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 60NYK.html