RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #22 (Kevin Durant)

[One_and_Done]

When Gilmore won a title in 75 the ABA was the stronger league probably, something I've outlined in earlier threads, focusing particularly on how the Nuggets & Spurs basically didn't miss a beat when they transitioned (despite losing star players(.

[One_and_Done]

Would you vote AC Green over Bill Walton due to superior longevity though?

Green isn't a good counterpoint to this as, certainly in Phoenix the "make whole" contract was a bit rich iirc ... but how far one might consider such a proposition might be somewhat contingent on if/how much one factors the cost of paying a hobbling (or even absent) Walton for the best part of decade to a franchise.

On your side Green isn't a good analogy for Stockton. The value of a solid starter (I think the typical level for Green) depends very much on the contract and fit. The value of 42481 minutes (16 seasons, '88-'03) at an average 22.5 PER, .217 WS/48, 7.3 BPM with very healthy impact signals where available ... is less contingent. Stockton isn't, I think for most, a beneficiary of advocacy for longevity but implicitly for longevity of quality because of the value that provides.

AC Green is an illustration of the principle, not a direct comparison. But nor is Walton a fair comp for Harden or Butler or Lillard or Davis, as they have vastly more longevity.

[Doctor MJ]

Paul wasn't the same after his 2018 injury. That was why he was traded. Still very good of course, but hardly a top 30 player.

Well, he wasn't the same after his injury, but that's not really why he was traded.

He was traded because Harden was sick of Paul nagging him, and using a power play to force the Rockets to get rid of the nagger even if it meant destroying any chance of the Rockets ever being a contender again - which is what Westbrook's arrival clinched.

[Owly]

Would you vote AC Green over Bill Walton due to superior longevity though?

Green isn't a good counterpoint to this as, certainly in Phoenix the "make whole" contract was a bit rich iirc ... but how far one might consider such a proposition might be somewhat contingent on if/how much one factors the cost of paying a hobbling (or even absent) Walton for the best part of decade to a franchise.

On your side Green isn't a good analogy for Stockton. The value of a solid starter (I think the typical level for Green) depends very much on the contract and fit. The value of 42481 minutes (16 seasons, '88-'03) at an average 22.5 PER, .217 WS/48, 7.3 BPM with very healthy impact signals where available ... is less contingent. Stockton isn't, I think for most, a beneficiary of advocacy for longevity but implicitly for longevity of quality because of the value that provides.

AC Green is an illustration of the principle, not a direct comparison. But nor is Walton a fair comp for Harden or Butler or Lillard or Davis, as they have vastly more longevity.

Well yes, the comparison doesn't really work on that second level also. And this is implicitly acknowledged in discussing the years Walton demands the huge salary with little output, killing his teams chances ... this clearly wouldn't be the case for aforementioned 3 (though I have noted concerns regarding Davis's health).

But those selecting Green or Oakley or whoever people choose, and others have made this (flawed) argument, do miss the point. It's not longevity in and of itself that is compelling for Stockton, it's value via longevity of quality.

Sam Cassell, Terry Cummings, Bill Russell, Spencer Haywood, Chris Mullin, Stephon Marbury, Mark Price, Sidney Moncrief, Dave Bing, Jason Kidd, Larry Nance (Sr) and Isiah Thomas have their regular season PER box peak at a level around where Stockton averaged for 16 years. Spoiler for a less selective long list through circa 2011 or 2012 for WS/48 whose peak is in the vicinity of Stockton's 16 year prime average level.

Spoiler:

Anfernee Hardaway
Robert Parish
Bob Lanier
Willis Reed
Elgin Baylor
Bailey Howell
Brad Daugherty
Alonzo Mourning
Steve Nash
Kobe Bryant
Joakim Noah
Kevin Love
Grant Hill
Brandon Roy
Clyde Drexler
Clifford Ray
Sam Jones
Clyde Lovellette
Tyson Chandler
Kevin Johnson
Cliff Hagan
Yao Ming
Jameer Nelson
Ryan Anderson
Bobby Jones
Bobby Wanzer
Rick Barry
Bernard King
John Drew
Shawn Kemp
Bill Walton
Detlef Schrempf
Bob Houbregs
Shawn Marion
Cedric Maxwell
Reggie Miller
Brian Cardinal
Kenneth Faried
Johnny Green
Marques Johnson
Derrick Rose
Patrick Ewing
Ray Allen

Changing the goodness of the player so wildly changes the question as to make it, to my mind at least, of little relevance. That longevity was also significantly wildly changed may have been to make it "fairer" (whilst also utilizing Walton's cachet?) but I think it just means another way the analogy doesn't work.

[Doctor MJ]

I like Artis, but the ABA was still well behind the NBA when he won MVP and after a weak first round flameout, he was voted 8th in POY on the project here that season. That’s not any better of a peak than Stockton. Artis actually never made all-NBA once (was all-ABA five times) and Stockton made it 11 times. The analytics would show that even at an age where Gilmore was forced to retire due to not being good enough that Stockton was still one of the best players in the league. And when Gilmore led his team to an ABA title the teams he faced in the playoffs had SRSes of -4.9, -4.0, and +1.1. Is that really better than Stockton going through a loaded West and barely losing to Jordan’s Bulls?

So, I think I'll respond here, responding to both on this particular topic.

I currently rank Stockton ahead of Gilmore, and it's because of how valuable I think Stockton was for so long. I have an affinity for Gilmore, but there's frankly a weirdness at how meh his impact is in the NBA from all the measures I see. So even though I believe Gilmore's peak impact was greater than Stockton's - and I believe this would have been so had he debuted in the NBA instead of the ABA - I see him as a guy who gets effectively mitigated against by the league over time.

But with that said, when Iggy says "Artis never made All-NBA, Stockton made it 11 times", consider this alternative perspective:

Artis was never voted as a Top 2 player at his position (center) in the NBA, while Stockton was voted Top 2 twice.

Still an advantage for Stockton, but shouldn't act as if they were competing for the same accolade against each other and Stockton dominated over Gilmore.

Are you trying to compare how many times Gilmore was a top 2 center to how many times Stockton was a top 2 guard when there are twice as many guards on the floor as centers? That's not remotely fair. If you're just looking at how many times, Stockton was a top 2 point guard by all-NBA voting, it would be '88, '89, '90, '93, '94, and '95. That's six seasons. And if we're being real, the talent pool grew enough over time that Stockton competing for more spots in the later part of his career is probably fair.

Others already responded to this effectively but I'll put it like this:

The whole G-G-F-F-C designation was always arbitrary and hasn't been accurate in a very long time.

A better approach would be a model like P-W-W-B-B, where there is one point guard, two wings, and two bigs. Even that's far two rigid approach as you can have things like P-W-W-W-B, but the idea that you need two guards really only ever made sense if you had one league guard and one off guard, and typically All-NBA teams feature two lead guards.

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

[OhayoKD]

So, I think I'll respond here, responding to both on this particular topic.

I currently rank Stockton ahead of Gilmore, and it's because of how valuable I think Stockton was for so long. I have an affinity for Gilmore, but there's frankly a weirdness at how meh his impact is in the NBA from all the measures I see. So even though I believe Gilmore's peak impact was greater than Stockton's - and I believe this would have been so had he debuted in the NBA instead of the ABA - I see him as a guy who gets effectively mitigated against by the league over time.

But with that said, when Iggy says "Artis never made All-NBA, Stockton made it 11 times", consider this alternative perspective:

Artis was never voted as a Top 2 player at his position (center) in the NBA, while Stockton was voted Top 2 twice.

Still an advantage for Stockton, but shouldn't act as if they were competing for the same accolade against each other and Stockton dominated over Gilmore.

Are you trying to compare how many times Gilmore was a top 2 center to how many times Stockton was a top 2 guard when there are twice as many guards on the floor as centers? That's not remotely fair. If you're just looking at how many times, Stockton was a top 2 point guard by all-NBA voting, it would be '88, '89, '90, '93, '94, and '95. That's six seasons. And if we're being real, the talent pool grew enough over time that Stockton competing for more spots in the later part of his career is probably fair.

Others already responded to this effectively but I'll put it like this:

The whole G-G-F-F-C designation was always arbitrary and hasn't been accurate in a very long time.

A better approach would be a model like P-W-W-B-B, where there is one point guard, two wings, and two bigs. Even that's far two rigid approach as you can have things like P-W-W-W-B, but the idea that you need two guards really only ever made sense if you had one league guard and one off guard, and typically All-NBA teams feature two lead guards.

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

shooting guards being grouped with forwards seems less useful than grouping them with pg's

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Moses Malone
Vote 2 - Charles Barkley
Nomination - Bob Pettit

The first thing that stands out is Moses' rebounding prowess. He led NBA in RPG for 6 of 7 seasons from '79-'85 (top 3 in TRB% as well). The way Moses was able to come in and put the Sixers over the top in '83 was really impressive. He didn't come in with a me mentality, respecting what Dr. J had built over many years there. That didn't stop him from continuing to be the dominant force he had been for much of his career up to that point.

Moses had solid longevity albeit a bit uneven. He had impressive durability playing in 70+ games in 16 of his first 18 seasons (80+ in 10). From '79-'89 in the NBA he put up 24.6 PPG, 13.6 RPG, 1.6 APG, .9 SPG, 1.4 BPG on 49.5% FG, 77.2% (9.9 FTA), 57.3% TS. He notoriously tipped balls off the backboard to get the offensive rebound for a better shot at the rim which explains his somewhat lower FG% than expected. He made up for that being a solid FT shooter on volume.

I can get behind the idea that being an average defender as an ATG center is more detrimental than other positions. I still think his overall body of work puts him in this range. There's some talk about his MVPs being over-valued without looking at context, which is entirely possible. Decided to take a quick look at who finished in the top 5 after him in those years:

'79 - Gervin, Hayes, Kareem, Dandridge
'82 - Bird, Dr. J, Parish, Gus Williams
'83 - Bird, Magic, Moncrief, Dr. J

We were definitely in that changing of the guard stage in the late 70s to early 80s, but overall, he finished over some great players. The only landslide was in '83 where he seemed to be the clear choice. I think Moses was still pretty deserving in '79 and '82, though.

'83 finals: 25.8 PPG, 18 RPG, 2 APG, 1.5 SPG, 1.5 BPG on 50.7% FG and 66% FT (11.75 FTA)

On Malone joining the Sixers and his play in the finals win via Sports Illustrated:

Whomever the 76ers belonged to last week, they were no longer the exciting—if unpredictable—high-wire act they had once been. "We used to be a pretty team that looked good winning games," Erving said. "Now we win games without looking that good. If we put together a perfect game we probably still wouldn't look good, because we have an imperfect approach to playing. Bodies are flying all over the place out there." Malone has changed the Sixers' emphasis from finesse to the physical with his sledgehammer work under the boards. "When we got Moses, he put a little more aggressiveness in everybody's game," says Point Guard Maurice Cheeks.

Malone, who was the unanimous choice for MVP in the finals, was a consistently slow starter throughout the series, but as the games wore on and the other players wore out, Malone just kept getting stronger. "Let's not play make-believe," Cunningham said. "When you talk about defending against Moses Malone, you have to give something up." First the Lakers gave up the outside shot to the Sixers, trying to double-team Malone. Then they gave up the pretense that they could match him with their 7'2" center, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, choosing instead to alternate forwards Kurt Rambis and Mark Landsberger against him. "There are a lot of forces in nature you don't stop," Rambis said. "And he's one of them."

https://vault.si.com/vault/1983/06/13/thou-shalt-rejoice-said-moses

[Owly]

So, I think I'll respond here, responding to both on this particular topic.

I currently rank Stockton ahead of Gilmore, and it's because of how valuable I think Stockton was for so long. I have an affinity for Gilmore, but there's frankly a weirdness at how meh his impact is in the NBA from all the measures I see. So even though I believe Gilmore's peak impact was greater than Stockton's - and I believe this would have been so had he debuted in the NBA instead of the ABA - I see him as a guy who gets effectively mitigated against by the league over time.

But with that said, when Iggy says "Artis never made All-NBA, Stockton made it 11 times", consider this alternative perspective:

Artis was never voted as a Top 2 player at his position (center) in the NBA, while Stockton was voted Top 2 twice.

Still an advantage for Stockton, but shouldn't act as if they were competing for the same accolade against each other and Stockton dominated over Gilmore.

Are you trying to compare how many times Gilmore was a top 2 center to how many times Stockton was a top 2 guard when there are twice as many guards on the floor as centers? That's not remotely fair. If you're just looking at how many times, Stockton was a top 2 point guard by all-NBA voting, it would be '88, '89, '90, '93, '94, and '95. That's six seasons. And if we're being real, the talent pool grew enough over time that Stockton competing for more spots in the later part of his career is probably fair.

Others already responded to this effectively but I'll put it like this:

The whole G-G-F-F-C designation was always arbitrary and hasn't been accurate in a very long time.

A better approach would be a model like P-W-W-B-B, where there is one point guard, two wings, and two bigs. Even that's far two rigid approach as you can have things like P-W-W-W-B, but the idea that you need two guards really only ever made sense if you had one league guard and one off guard, and typically All-NBA teams feature two lead guards.

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

So ... re bolded
1) Could easily be flipped to Stockton's first (main) box peak at a smidge under 24, .240, 9 in the Reference composites gets better recognized if not in the shadow of two of the greatest guards at or around their apex.
2) I'm not sure it's a given Magic is by '94, '95 ahead of Stockton [I'm not sure the actually playing version of MJ '95 was, either otoh, come to think of it] - especially '95 where his box hits a secondary peak. IRL without competitive play he aged well. Still, he may well haven burnt out by then, physically or mentally or both and retired or declined.
3) I'm open to talent pool questions but two people choosing not to play ... that's their choice.
4) Sprewell ... maybe the pool is drained and maybe the the state of the guards helped. But ... Sprewell getting into 1st team on a weak vote share shows that voters liked per game totals, didn't understand pace, couldn't aggregate info etc ... it is a thinner top end pool with some injuries etc but Stockton comes first (and is 2nd non-big in MVP shares) and Sprewell was a shocking choice and isn't touching it the next year when Stockton remains, is even more productive and is the second highest non-big (to an "alpha"-Pipppen) in MVP shares, for whatever that's worth.

[Doctor MJ]

Are you trying to compare how many times Gilmore was a top 2 center to how many times Stockton was a top 2 guard when there are twice as many guards on the floor as centers? That's not remotely fair. If you're just looking at how many times, Stockton was a top 2 point guard by all-NBA voting, it would be '88, '89, '90, '93, '94, and '95. That's six seasons. And if we're being real, the talent pool grew enough over time that Stockton competing for more spots in the later part of his career is probably fair.

Others already responded to this effectively but I'll put it like this:

The whole G-G-F-F-C designation was always arbitrary and hasn't been accurate in a very long time.

A better approach would be a model like P-W-W-B-B, where there is one point guard, two wings, and two bigs. Even that's far two rigid approach as you can have things like P-W-W-W-B, but the idea that you need two guards really only ever made sense if you had one league guard and one off guard, and typically All-NBA teams feature two lead guards.

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

shooting guards being grouped with forwards seems less useful than grouping them with pg's

Why?

I'll say: The historical reason this once made sense is clear, but I'd suggest that the modern game is largely split between perimeter & interior with "small forwards" playing the perimeter and thus playing much the same position as "shooting guards" on offense?

[trex_8063]

again, is 22 instead of 23 supposed to be a failure? again, what's doing better? you can't just object with nothing to replace. and, yes, it is better. R^2 went from a little over 0.5 with purely using prime box (which obviously was never going to be perfect without including longevity) and is now up to R^2=0.77 with just longevity (so basically cumulative career box production) and weightings for FMVP/Titles. remember, plenty of people here will say they barely look at the box score and that rings mean nothing and it's just how a player plays. and yet, do you know what actually produces the best R^2 of 0.81 so far? ignoring FMVP and just doing cumulative box score plus titles. box score + ringz. no context, no consideration for how good your teammates are, how good your opponents are, how well you played (outside of the box score), just box score plus pure titles won. an R^2 of 0.81 means people are caring about it a lot, whether they think they are or not.

Interesting.

I suspect that, for many here, rather than this indicating they "care about" those things, it's perhaps more accurate to say those things just happen to do a pretty good job of capturing the "player/career goodness" that they are gleaning from other sources and methodologies (whether they would wish to acknowledge this or not). Though this is perhaps just different semantics of saying the same thing.
Interesting, though.

[penbeast0]

...

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

I don't think it should seriously affect someone's placement because they happened to play at the same time as the two greatest guards in NBA history. No one is saying Stockton should be above MJ and Magic; we are comparing him to the likes of Steve Nash and it's like asking how many MVPs would Nash have if playing at the same time that Jordan and Magic were winning titles?

[OhayoKD]

Others already responded to this effectively but I'll put it like this:

The whole G-G-F-F-C designation was always arbitrary and hasn't been accurate in a very long time.

A better approach would be a model like P-W-W-B-B, where there is one point guard, two wings, and two bigs. Even that's far two rigid approach as you can have things like P-W-W-W-B, but the idea that you need two guards really only ever made sense if you had one league guard and one off guard, and typically All-NBA teams feature two lead guards.

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

shooting guards being grouped with forwards seems less useful than grouping them with pg's

Why?

I'll say: The historical reason this once made sense is clear, but I'd suggest that the modern game is largely split between perimeter & interior with "small forwards" playing the perimeter and thus playing much the same position as "shooting guards" on offense?

Offensively there's plenty of variance. Lebron is naturally a small-forward, would you say he's more perimiter than interior oritentated? Kawhi is closer to a "sg" i guess, but alot of his game is "interior". Would you say those two are closer to klay than they are to giannis?(who also has been used as a "small forward" offensively). Not everyone is KD(and KD is probably more interior than people realize)

And then there's defense where the roles haven't really changed. SG's and PG's are alot closer to each other than they are to any of the other groupings I think.

[70sFan]

...

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

I don't think it should seriously affect someone's placement because they happened to play at the same time as the two greatest guards in NBA history. No one is saying Stockton should be above MJ and Magic; we are comparing him to the likes of Steve Nash and it's like asking how many MVPs would Nash have if playing at the same time that Jordan and Magic were winning titles?

Of course, but no one should hold Artis losing spots against Kareem and Walton (two GOAT-level peaks) against Gilmore either, I think that's the whole point.

[OhayoKD]

...

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

I don't think it should seriously affect someone's placement because they happened to play at the same time as the two greatest guards in NBA history. No one is saying Stockton should be above MJ and Magic; we are comparing him to the likes of Steve Nash and it's like asking how many MVPs would Nash have if playing at the same time that Jordan and Magic were winning titles?

Of course, but no one should hold Artis losing spots against Kareem and Walton (two GOAT-level peaks) against Gilmore either, I think that's the whole point.

Wouldn't it be better to just look at mvp voting(ideally over a comparable time frame) and bypass this relative to position rabbit hole entirely?

What were their mvp finishes aged 27 to 38?

[Doctor MJ]

...

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

I don't think it should seriously affect someone's placement because they happened to play at the same time as the two greatest guards in NBA history. No one is saying Stockton should be above MJ and Magic; we are comparing him to the likes of Steve Nash and it's like asking how many MVPs would Nash have if playing at the same time that Jordan and Magic were winning titles?

Reasonable point, but keep in mind I'm bringing this up in relation to Artis Gilmore who was stuck behind Kareem, Moses, etc. Not entirely equivalent, but the point being that I don't think it's fair to talk about Gilmore as someone who wasn't at all in the running for All-NBA levels of conversation just because he couldn't quite nab one of the two slots available.

[Doctor MJ]

shooting guards being grouped with forwards seems less useful than grouping them with pg's

Why?

I'll say: The historical reason this once made sense is clear, but I'd suggest that the modern game is largely split between perimeter & interior with "small forwards" playing the perimeter and thus playing much the same position as "shooting guards" on offense?

Offensively there's plenty of variance. Lebron is naturally a small-forward, would you say he's more perimiter than interior oritentated? Kawhi is closer to a "sg" i guess, but alot of his game is "interior". Would you say those two are closer to klay than they are to giannis?(who also has been used as a "small forward" offensively). Not everyone is KD(and KD is probably more interior than people realize)

And then there's defense where the roles haven't really changed. SG's and PG's are alot closer to each other than they are to any of the other groupings I think.

So I'll clarify my stance here:

If you're leading your team in assists, I think you're almost always best described as a "point" on offense. Traditionally that's the smallest guy on the floor, but when the smallest guy doesn't do that, then he's a "wing".

So I'd call LeBron a clear cut point rather than a wing. Kawhi & Giannis are guys who has spent time both as wing and point, while Klay & KD are classic wings.

We can talk through the fine points here more, but if any of this seems arbitrary, the core idea is this:

There's only one ball, and so there's only one guy who can have the ball most of the time. Whoever that guy is, he's probably best described as your point, where the rare exception would be a guy who works slowly looking to volume score but basically doesn't look to playmake for others to any serious degree.

And I emphasize all of this because there's a tendency for All-NBA & all-star rosters to be dominated by guys who need to control the ball to play their game, which makes those "teams" absurd. American football has the same thing going when they place two half-backs on All-Pro teams in the running back spots when they should involve one halfback (rusher) and one fullback (blocker).

Re: defense. Here I'd say the 1-5 number system remains the best approach for simplistic labels. Your placement is just about how big you are compared to your teammates. Sometimes that gets abused based on skillset where a guy gets called a 5 just because he's the best shot-blocker, but even then, that basically always means that that guy is taller/longer than his more massive partner big man.

[ZeppelinPage]

Vote: Moses Malone
Nomination: Bob Pettit

The more I research, the more I come to appreciate the ability to rebound the ball, and Moses is among the greatest ever at that. Possessions are so valuable in basketball and you cannot have the opportunities to score without rebounding. Coaches like Red Auerbach and Pat Riley had a strong belief in rebounding and conditioning during their careers and made it a staple of their culture.

I think the success Moses consistently had throughout his career in the playoffs showcases this. When teams can gameplan around how their opponent plays, it can be more difficult to be consistent on offense, and this is where the extra possessions that rebounding provides really pays off. We see this in the impact Moses has on the Rockets and later the 76ers. I also look at guys like Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace and notice something similar in what they were able to accomplish. I think rebounding specifically can be overlooked at times, as a team cannot win without possessions, and shooting more than the other team is a sound strategy that constantly paid off for teams like Auerbach's Celtics.

Pettit was just a fantastic all around player. Elite scorer, playoff performer, rebounder, and was a solid defender as well. His 1958 Finals performance is legendarily clutch. I do have guys like Pippen, Havlicek, and Baylor on my radar but Pettit slightly gets the nod here for me.

[One_and_Done]

...

There's then also the matter that realistically Stockton never makes All-NBA 1st team if Jordan & Magic don't retire pre-maturely...which is also what allowed Latrell Sprewell to make 1st team next to Stockton, and if Sprewell's making the 1st team, it means the talent pool is effectively drained.

I don't think it should seriously affect someone's placement because they happened to play at the same time as the two greatest guards in NBA history. No one is saying Stockton should be above MJ and Magic; we are comparing him to the likes of Steve Nash and it's like asking how many MVPs would Nash have if playing at the same time that Jordan and Magic were winning titles?

If you look at the players who made all-nba guard around that period you'll notice the 2 years Stockton made the first team were the product of a number of injuries and retirements, not just MJ and Magic.

[One_and_Done]

Paul wasn't the same after his 2018 injury. That was why he was traded. Still very good of course, but hardly a top 30 player.

Well, he wasn't the same after his injury, but that's not really why he was traded.

He was traded because Harden was sick of Paul nagging him, and using a power play to force the Rockets to get rid of the nagger even if it meant destroying any chance of the Rockets ever being a contender again - which is what Westbrook's arrival clinched.

If CP3 had been just as good, Harden would have put up with it, is the feeling I had.

[One_and_Done]

Vote: Moses Malone
Nomination: Bob Pettit

The more I research, the more I come to appreciate the ability to rebound the ball, and Moses is among the greatest ever at that. Possessions are so valuable in basketball and you cannot have the opportunities to score without rebounding. Coaches like Red Auerbach and Pat Riley had a strong belief in rebounding and conditioning during their careers and made it a staple of their culture.

I think the success Moses consistently had throughout his career in the playoffs showcases this. When teams can gameplan around how their opponent plays, it can be more difficult to be consistent on offense, and this is where the extra possessions that rebounding provides really pays off. We see this in the impact Moses has on the Rockets and later the 76ers. I also look at guys like Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace and notice something similar in what they were able to accomplish. I think rebounding specifically can be overlooked at times, as a team cannot win without possessions, and shooting more than the other team is a sound strategy that constantly paid off for teams like Auerbach's Celtics.

Pettit was just a fantastic all around player. Elite scorer, playoff performer, rebounder, and was a solid defender as well. His 1958 Finals performance is legendarily clutch. I do have guys like Pippen, Havlicek, and Baylor on my radar but Pettit slightly gets the nod here for me.

In today's game guys would be abusing Moses in the high pick and roll, and knocking down shot after shot if he tried to live in the paint and grab rebounds. It would be the easiest thing ever for offences to exploit, like Christmas came early. On the other end teams would be delighted at Moses team abandoning a 3pt shot to let Moses try and tip it to.himself repeatedly inside. They'd just send help and lick their lips gleefully at their opponents inefficient offense.