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

[eminence]

Don't worry, I'll get there, just having a tough time picking #3 this time

[freethedevil]

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.

Reminder that relative to era commplishment tells you NOTHING about how 'talented' an era is.

If a decade had the 10 most dominant players relative to era as opposed to a decade which had 0, it could be a result of going against a shallow talent pool or an exceptonal explosion of talent at the top.

This is just circular reasoning.

[DQuinn1575]

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.

Sorry, the caps were my own surprise that his best 5 year period by win shares was the 60s, I really consider him a 50s player, and have no problem calling him that.

My bigger point is that we would now have 5 guys from 60-64 which makes that time period as represented as any in the Top 25 (presuming Pettit makes it), which to me, seems too high - it's like we era adjusted Mikan, didn't for Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, and now are slightly adjusting Pettit for era, then probably will for Arizin, Baylor, Cousy, whoever else might make Top 100 that starred pre 1970. Pettit was a great player, if he had the same credentials and played recently he would probably be ahead of Dirk. So, like Mikan, it's a question of how much you make the adjustment factor. And of course there is no right answer, just something to consider.

[colts18]

You can't really compare Pettit's competition to modern players. When he entered the NBA, black players weren't even allowed to play. He never played in a fully integrated NBA.

[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

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

No idea how that's the conclusion you draw from my post. Might want to read it again - in its entirety.

FWIW, I did not vote for Mikan in this project - he got voted in before I had the chance. And I'm voting for Pettit no. 2 in this thread, and since this is the no. 25 thread that would put Pettit in the no. 26 slot for me.

[Hal14]

You can't really compare Pettit's competition to modern players. When he entered the NBA, black players weren't even allowed to play. He never played in a fully integrated NBA.

1) Pettit led his team to the 1958 NBA championship over Bill Russell's Celtics team.
2) Mikan got voted in for this poll in the no. 19 slot. Seems more than fair that Pettit could be voted in, since we're not several spots past 19, Pettit came in a few years after Mikan so Pettit faced better competition than Mikan, Pettit's rookie year was 54-55, which is the first year of the shot click, so Pettit played his whole career with a shot clock, Mikan played most of his career (and all of his best years) with no shot clock so was a very different game. Pettit also had better longevity than Mikan.
3) As others have mentioned, Pettit's stats stayed strong into the 60s, when the league was fully integrated.

[penbeast0]

...
Or, the 5th best player in 1964 shouldnt be ahead of the 6th best player in years of the 1990s or 2000s.

I don't think the quota system works that well or else maybe the 6th best player of 1990s or 2010s (whose careers aren't even complete) shouldn't be ahead of the 4th best player of the 80s. Again, the 60s was really top heavy in terms of talent. Once Baylor gets in, there probably won't be another 60s player (Havlicek being 70s talent by your standard I think) until Thurmond or Sam Jones get in toward the end of the top 100. I don't think any other era after the 60s will have that kind of gap.

[Odinn21]

I ran some simple numbers in the last half hour or so.
It was about vorp share on a team. Looking at vorp share is more about to see how hard a player carried his team, instead of making a claim about saying directly "he's the best since he has the highest numbers".

And I also looked at a small pool of title winning runs.

(vorp share in regular season / vorp share in playoffs / vorp share in total / season, player)

46.50% / 44.74% / 46.15% / 1980 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
43.20% / 55.56% / 46.19% / 1984 Larry Bird
41.67% / 39.58% / 41.25% / 1987 Magic Johnson
54.27% / 52.73% / 53.94% / 1991 Michael Jordan
58.29% / 51.92% / 56.83% / 1993 Michael Jordan
48.34% / 50.98% / 49.01% / 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
45.23% / 42.62% / 44.62% / 2000 Shaquille O'Neal
45.56% / 50.82% / 46.96% / 2003 Tim Duncan
48.97% / 49.09% / 49.00% / 2006 Dwyane Wade
31.72% / 41.27% / 34.14% / 2009 Kobe Bryant
55.07% / 43.66% / 51.20% / 2012 LeBron James
52.66% / 46.88% / 51.19% / 2013 LeBron James
37.09% / 34.92% / 36.59% / 2015 Stephen Curry

I wanted to have no duplicates on the list but couldn't deny Jordan's and James' multiple 50+ seasons.
Nowitzki's 2011 run is not on there because BPM (thus VORP) design doesn't like off-ball oriented Nowitzki. 2019 Leonard did not match my 30+% share requirement (his regular season share was 29.19%).

As you can see, Wade is the only player that performed a very significant carry job and is yet to make our list. Personally, I hadn't realized Wade's regular season also being a top notch carry job. His numbers are on the same level as 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon and only third to Jordan and James.

Wade was able to carry his team like a top 10 player ever (maybe even top 5), shame that his prime was hampered by many injuries and got cut short with another injury...

---

Some other notes about what I did; winning has its unique impact on these numbers, that's why I looked at only title winning runs and did not include runs like 1977 Abdul-Jabbar, 1990 Jordan or 2009 James. Being a one-man army as it can get while winning and being an entire one-man army are different things.

[Odinn21]

...
Or, the 5th best player in 1964 shouldnt be ahead of the 6th best player in years of the 1990s or 2000s.

I don't think the quota system works that well or else maybe the 6th best player of 1990s or 2010s (whose careers aren't even complete) shouldn't be ahead of the 4th best player of the 80s. Again, the 60s was really top heavy in terms of talent. Once Baylor gets in, there probably won't be another 60s player (Havlicek being 70s talent by your standard I think) until Thurmond or Sam Jones get in toward the end of the top 100. I don't think any other era after the 60s will have that kind of gap.

Yeah, when we look at top 10 players in each decade, the '60s will have a certain drop off. As scattered as it was, even the '70s will do better.

Unrelated, I'd have Hal Greer higher than Sam Jones.

[DQuinn1575]

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

No idea how that's the conclusion you draw from my post. Might want to read it again - in its entirety.

FWIW, I did not vote for Mikan in this project - he got voted in before I had the chance. And I'm voting for Pettit no. 2 in this thread, and since this is the no. 25 thread that would put Pettit in the no. 26 slot for me.

You were talking about relative to era, which is why i stated that if i voted relative to eta i would put Mikan 5th. I appreciate the highlights and videos people put together, and your opinions. As i have tried to state there is no right answer; but at a certain point it is harder to be the nth ranked player from a talent pool that is 2-3 times larger than another. The answer may not be 1, it might not be 5, but at a certain point that holds true given similar populations. I guess my tipping point is 5.

[colts18]

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 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.

Was Steve Nash really a revolutionary player? He only became revolutionary when he was 30 years and started playing with D' Antoni. And the NBA changed the rules for him too, don't forget that. No one was calling him revolutionary before that. He wasn't even in the MVP conversation. Zero top 10 MVP finishes before D' Antoni. All of a sudden he became a revolutionary player at 30? That's unlikely. What happened was he played for a coach who gave his PG's the most freedom in history.

In 2014, No one was calling Stephen Curry a revolutionary player. In fact, he wasn't even in the MVP conversation. 1 year later we are talking about whether Curry was the GOAT player ahead of MJ. What changed? Curry didn't. The system changed and allowed him to flourish.

James Harden wasn't a revolutionary player in 2016. In comes D' Antoni and all of a sudden he becomes an MVP player (4 straight top 3 finishes). No one had Harden in that category pre- D' Antoni. D' Antoni comes in and now Harden changed the game. We just witnessed Harden scoring 40 PPG and 8 Assists per game for a whole month. No one has done that before. We had threads on this forum early in the season asking whether Harden has broken the game of basketball.

What happens if James Harden stayed with OKC and played with KD/Westbrook. He would be looked at similar to Ginobili. Everyone would say he was the 3rd option for the championship teams. "He couldn't lead a team on his own". "He plays 32 MPG, not the full game." "He's not the first option." He probably wins 3 titles with them but no one would be discussing Harden as the #25 best player in history. He is only in that discussion because he was given an opportunity away from his MVP teammates.

Stockton never got that opportunity. The closest he had was 1 year with Frank Layden. Frank Layden let young John Stockton push the temp and do his thing. That's why Stockton was outplaying Magic Johnson in the 1988 playoffs. He had games of 23 points, 24 assists and 29 points, 20 assists in a series against the Champion Showtime Lakers. Then Jerry Sloan comes in and takes the air out of Stockton. Stockton never again played on a team with an above average pace for the rest of his 15 years in the NBA. If you gave Stockton more freedom, he is looked at differently.

Let's imagine a hypothetical in 1997 where Karl Malone, the MVP of the league, tears an ACL in the preseason. Stockton could have led to 54 wins (they won 64 that year). All of a sudden, the media would be talking Stockton as the MVP despite being the same player. He finished 15th in MVP voting that year. If Malone was out of the picture, I guarantee he would be in the top 5 in MVP voting. MVP voting is all about narratives, not your actual play. That's why Nash won MVP when he didn't deserve to win it in any of those years. I feel like Stockton would get boosted the same way Harden was boosted when he got his own team.

[Joao Saraiva]

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 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.

Was Steve Nash really a revolutionary player? He only became revolutionary when he was 30 years and started playing with D' Antoni. And the NBA changed the rules for him too, don't forget that. No one was calling him revolutionary before that. He wasn't even in the MVP conversation. Zero top 10 MVP finishes before D' Antoni. All of a sudden he became a revolutionary player at 30? That's unlikely. What happened was he played for a coach who gave his PG's the most freedom in history.

In 2014, No one was calling Stephen Curry a revolutionary player. In fact, he wasn't even in the MVP conversation. 1 year later we are talking about whether Curry was the GOAT player ahead of MJ. What changed? Curry didn't. The system changed and allowed him to flourish.

James Harden wasn't a revolutionary player in 2016. In comes D' Antoni and all of a sudden he becomes an MVP player (4 straight top 3 finishes). No one had Harden in that category pre- D' Antoni. D' Antoni comes in and now Harden changed the game. We just witnessed Harden scoring 40 PPG and 8 Assists per game for a whole month. No one has done that before. We had threads on this forum early in the season asking whether Harden has broken the game of basketball.

Stockton never got that opportunity. The closest he had was 1 year with Frank Layden. Frank Layden let young John Stockton push the temp and do his thing. That's why Stockton was outplaying Magic Johnson in the 1988 playoffs. He had games of 23 points, 24 assists and 29 points, 20 assists in a series against the Champion Showtime Lakers. Then Jerry Sloan comes in and takes the air out of Stockton. Stockton never again played on a team with an above average pace for the rest of his 15 years in the NBA. If you gave Stockton more freedom, he is looked at differently.

Let's imagine a hypothetical in 1997 where Karl Malone, the MVP of the league, tears an ACL in the preseason. Stockton could have led to 54 wins (they won 64 that year). All of a sudden, the media would be talking Stockton as the MVP despite being the same player. He finished 15th in MVP voting that year. If Malone was out of the picture, I guarantee he would be in the top 5 in MVP voting. MVP voting is all about narratives, not your actual play. That's why Nash won MVP when he didn't deserve to win it in any of those years.

Well, you say Nash flourished under the system... I can understand that. But giving him so much freedom could have resulted in a very bad outcome if he wasn't up for the task.

You can say Stockton could do it, and like you said the 88 series against the Lakers shows you that might be true.

But Nash DID IT. I don't think we should go into what ifs... but I'll take it better because of your reference to 88.

I think the prime sample of Stockton makes me see him as a player that is not really below Nash in what he brings to the table. Less flashy, and less of a scorer perhaps. Not a worse playmaker, I think Stockton was actually better.

I'll give Stockton a big edge longevity wise and also in defense. That's the great case I see for him.

[Owly]

You can't really compare Pettit's competition to modern players. When he entered the NBA, black players weren't even allowed to play. He never played in a fully integrated NBA.

If this is meant to mean all black players weren't allowed to play, this is not true.

The NBA integrated in 1950 (prior to the 50-51 season) with Lloyd, Cooper, Clifton et al. The NBL, which merged with the BAA, had black players too at least on one franchise, the Dayton Rens (i.e. the New York Rens), for part of one season (48-49). Pettit joined the league in 1954.

[colts18]

You can't really compare Pettit's competition to modern players. When he entered the NBA, black players weren't even allowed to play. He never played in a fully integrated NBA.

If this is meant to mean all black players weren't allowed to play, this is not true.

The NBA integrated in 1950 (prior to the 50-51 season) with Lloyd, Cooper, Clifton et al. The NBL, which merged with the BAA, had black players too at least on one franchise, the Dayton Rens (i.e. the New York Rens), for part of one season (48-49). Pettit joined the league in 1954.

The NBA wasn't close to fully integrated even during Russell's time. When he came into the league, they had a total of 15 black players in the league. During his career, teams had an unofficial quota of 4 black players per team. It wasn't until the early 70's that the NBA was fully integrated.

1963 Celtics with 4 black players, 9 white players.



Here is Bob Pettit's championship team. Zero Black players on the squad

[eminence]

Edited.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - John Stockton
Vote 2 - Bob Pettit
Vote 3 - Patrick Ewing

I know everyone values durability and longevity differently, but stockton was simply in a different stratosphere. In 17 of his 19 seasons, he played in 100% of possible games played. In the 2 seasons in which he missed games, he missed 4 and 18 respectively. While nash was pretty durable during his prime (played in 70+ games per season from 01-11), he really doesn't compare when looking at his career as a whole.

From 97-2000 and 2012-14 (7 seasons), Nash only played in 69% of possible games played. Given the length of their careers, I find this contrast to be significant. For those who point to the suns not being able to function without nash on the court, missing games could be thought of as more of a detriment than your average star player.

Nash is praised for his 50/40/90 seasons (that isn't to say people ignore stockton as an efficient scorer), yet both players are nearly identical in career TS% on similar output:

Stockton - 1504 games, 60.8% TS on 13.1 PPG, 21 PPG per 100, 216.8 peak TS Add, 2465.6 career TS Add
Nash - 1217 games, 60.5% TS on 14.3 PPG, 23.3 PPG per 100, 242.8 peak TS Add, 2127.5 career TS Add

Stockton is right there with nash, and the fact that he did this for nearly 300 more games and didn't fall off is really impressive.

On Stockton playing through injury and his standard for others:

“That was all it took,” former Jazz center Mark Eaton said. “A guy would come limping into the locker room and he would get that look from John. All the sudden, the limp would go away. He didn’t need to say anything. But you knew the way things were in John’s eyes. If you could walk, you could play, and if you could play, you were 100 percent.”

- - - - - - - - - -

He played through sore knees. He played through illness. He even played for the Dream Team in the 1992 Olympics despite a stress fracture in his leg.

“I will tell you, there was one year in the early ’90s and we were playing Seattle in the playoffs,” said Jazz assistant coach Phil Johnson. “John had an elbow injury, and he could not lift his right arm. He spent most of the series dribbling with his left hand. He even considered shooting free throws with his left hand, but he did not want to let the Sonics know that he was hurt. He never told the press, never told anyone. After the season, he had surgery on his elbow. No one ever knew. We knew in the locker room only because he didn’t want to hurt the team.”

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2009-09-10/stockton-always-came-ready-play

A few playoff series where PGs struggled against stockton and the Jazz (all series wins):

91 Kevin Johnson (4 games) - 12.8 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 9.8 APG, .5 SPG, 39% TS
Reg season - 22 PPG, 3.5 RPG, 10 APG, 2 SPG, 60% TS

94 Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf (7 games) - 15.7 PPG, 2 RPG, 2.9 APG, .4 SPG, 49% TS
Reg season - 18 PPG, 2 RPG, 4.5 APG, 1 SPG, 52% TS

94 Vinny Del Negro (4 games) - 7.3 PPG, 1 RPG, 4.5 APG, .3 SPG, 49.7% TS
Reg season - 10 PPG, 2 RPG, 4.2 APG, .8 APG, 54.5% TS

96 Avery Johnson (6 games) - 10.8 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 7 APG, 2.5 SPG 44% TS
Reg season - 13 PPG, 2.5 RPG, 9.6 APG, 1.5 SPG, 53% TS

I know we have to take these "hardest to guard" quotes from players with a grain of salt, but I think this is noteworthy. Payton on stockton:

Q: Did John Stockton ever talk trash back to you?

A: "Never. That is the reason I really respected him because you never could get in his head. He's the hardest person I ever had to guard. I tried to talk to him, try to do something and he'd just look at me, set a pick and cause me [to get mad and] get a tech. And then all of the sudden it was over. There was much respect to him doing that to me. It taught me a lot."

Q: You say Stockton was the hardest to guard, but what about guarding Michael Jordan?

A: "Those battles were a little easier. I would have Jordan get mad at me and go back at me. He knew he was really talented and could do whatever he wanted to. But [Stockton] was more of a challenge to me than guarding someone that would talk back to me. When you talk back to me and say something to me it made my game go to another level. John was one who wouldn't say nothing and you couldn't figure him out. He'd keep going in the pick and rolls and he and Karl Malone would score a big bucket. At times I would guard Jordan and get him mad and into other things."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--gary-payton-might-cry-at-hall-of-fame-induction-202019084.html

This exemplifies stockton's style of play as a guy who couldn't be rattled and had excellent decision making. You weren't going to throw him off course by getting into his head.

Stockton in series clinchers during deep playoff runs

92 vs. SEA - 18 PTS, 6 REB, 17 AST, 5 STL, 1 BLK, 3 TO, 52% TS, 132 ORtg

94 vs. SAS - 13 PTS, 18 AST, 3 STL, 1 BLK, 2 TO, 70% TS, 145 ORtg

96 vs. POR - 21 PTS, 4 REB, 11 AST, 2 STL, 4 TO, 80% TS, 137 ORtg

97 vs. LAL - 24 PTS, 1 REB, 10 AST, 1 STL, 4 TO, 70% TS, 138 ORtg

I know this has been semi-touched upon from a gameplan standpoint, and it's a pretty simple notion, but stockton played with a guy who averaged 27 PPG on 59% TS over a span of 13 seasons. I just don't know that stockton was ever asked to step up his game scoring-wise (even throwing out sloan's rigid system).

He spent his time facilitating to an elite volume scorer and scoring when the opportunities presented themselves. At the very least, it seems logical, especially for the time. And that isn't to say he would have equaled nash in scoring output in the playoffs, but I think he'd come closer if the situation was different.

[eminence]

Apologies for my last post, it was small of me.

[DQuinn1575]

I ran some simple numbers in the last half hour or so.
It was about vorp share on a team. Looking at vorp share is more about to see how hard a player carried his team, instead of making a claim about saying directly "he's the best since he has the highest numbers".

And I also looked at a small pool of title winning runs.

(vorp share in regular season / vorp share in playoffs / vorp share in total / season, player)

46.50% / 44.74% / 46.15% / 1980 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
43.20% / 55.56% / 46.19% / 1984 Larry Bird
41.67% / 39.58% / 41.25% / 1987 Magic Johnson
54.27% / 52.73% / 53.94% / 1991 Michael Jordan
58.29% / 51.92% / 56.83% / 1993 Michael Jordan
48.34% / 50.98% / 49.01% / 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon
45.23% / 42.62% / 44.62% / 2000 Shaquille O'Neal
45.56% / 50.82% / 46.96% / 2003 Tim Duncan
48.97% / 49.09% / 49.00% / 2006 Dwyane Wade
31.72% / 41.27% / 34.14% / 2009 Kobe Bryant
55.07% / 43.66% / 51.20% / 2012 LeBron James
52.66% / 46.88% / 51.19% / 2013 LeBron James
37.09% / 34.92% / 36.59% / 2015 Stephen Curry

I wanted to have no duplicates on the list but couldn't deny Jordan's and James' multiple 50+ seasons.
Nowitzki's 2011 run is not on there because BPM (thus VORP) design doesn't like off-ball oriented Nowitzki. 2019 Leonard did not match my 30+% share requirement (his regular season share was 29.19%).

As you can see, Wade is the only player that performed a very significant carry job and is yet to make our list. Personally, I hadn't realized Wade's regular season also being a top notch carry job. His numbers are on the same level as 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon and only third to Jordan and James.

Wade was able to carry his team like a top 10 player ever (maybe even top 5), shame that his prime was hampered by many injuries and got cut short with another injury...

---

Some other notes about what I did; winning has its unique impact on these numbers, that's why I looked at only title winning runs and did not include runs like 1977 Abdul-Jabbar, 1990 Jordan or 2009 James. Being a one-man army as it can get while winning and being an entire one-man army are different things.

I reallly like this and like the point about Wade. For rings, i think you also make it a higher floor, as being replacement level doesnt help you get a championship; its really wins above championship, which I think should maybe .571 (winning 4 games out of 7). THought being that being a little better than replacement doesnt help you win the title.

[eminence]

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

Yep, Steve Nash deserved those MVPs. And he played at a level that could've won one for a couple of other seasons. Offensive GOAT candidate. The best offensive decision maker ever imo. Had the skill to back it up too, great shooter, talented passer, creative/skilled handle. Longevity better than I think many would first credit him for ('01-'12). Sick of hearing folks complain about MDA.

Stockton.

Wade, wound up narrowly edging him over Harden for now (expected to change). Do think the intangibles edge is real. Slightly prefer Wade at his peak. For now at least am leaning towards others interpretation of his last years, which turns his longevity up to mediocre.

[ccameron]

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.

Hardly anyone will win a longevity contest with Stockton. But setting aside the difference at their best, which I think is enough to overcome the longevity disadvantage, I want to know what you mean by longevity, because I still don't understand what you mean by it. In an earlier thread you said that it was viewing longevity abnormally to say Chris Paul had more longevity than Curry. The only possible explanation for that is that you believe longevity has to do with how long you can stay with a franchise and how much you contribute to that franchise, because clearly CP3 had more prime seasons than Curry. If you think Curry at this point shouldn't be knocked for longevity, how do you see that with Wade? Loosely defined, Curry had 6-7 years at superstar level ('14, '15, '16, '17, '18, '19, maybe '13). Wade had 5-6 years at superstar level ('06, '09, '10, '11, probably '12 and '05). for neither of them were those injury free years, however. But beyond that, Wade had at least another half a season of all time level ('07), and 4 or so years of all star level ('13, '14, '15, '16). Both of them have stayed with the same franchise (except Wade for a year and a half at the end), and have contributed majorly to their organizations. If anything, Wade arguably still has the longevity edge over Curry. Why is it that you think Wade should be knocked for longevity but not Curry?

And most people have Wade's peak at '09, so I don't think he peaked 3 years into the league. He was clearly just as fast but stronger in '09.'10 and '11 he barely lost any speed but was even stronger. His defense was also better in his later years.