RealGM Top 100 List #19

[penbeast0]

Aside from defense, what exactly was Pettit better at than Barkley?
Rebounding? Nope. About even, if not an advantage for Barkley.
Scoring? Nope. I'm going with Barkley, even with penbeast's adjusted numbers.
Passing? Nope. Clearly Barkley.
Longevity? Nope. Pettit played a total of 11 years, Barkley's prime alone was 11 years long.

Then you get to the fact that Barkley's competition was much greater. Pettit dominated a pre-Russell and pre-Wilt era. Barkley won one less MVP in a league with a lot more star talent. He was better in the playoffs too.

I just think it's blatantly stretching it to say that Pettit was a better player than Barkley. To do so would be to overrate Pettit's defense by a lot. From what I've read, he wasn't even a highly regarded defensive player anyway.

That's what we look at statistics adjusted to things like pace and era because most of us weren't there to see Pettit so we use the best evidence we have:

Rebounding -- Even pace adjusted, Pettit averaged 1/2 a rebound better in their primes and over a full rebound a game better over their careers.

Scoring -- Even pace adjusted, Pettit averaged around 2.5 pts/game better in their primes and more than that over their careers. Now EFFICIENCY is the one area Barkley still has a clear edge but not by a ridiculous amount relative to league.

Passing -- Barkley got more assists but it's not clear he was the better passer as he was a bit turnover prone and we don't have turnovers recorded for Pettit's era

Longevity -- clearly Barkley BUT Playing every game during peak years is Pettit who never missed more than 3 games in a season until his final retirement year

Defense -- we saw Barkley and he was a terrible defender plus the whole height issue; Pettit by reputation was a bit better than average -- not great evidence but again, the best we have

Leadership/Off-court or Locker room issues -- Again, from the anecdotes and evidence, huge edge to "Mr. Pettit" over "Mr. Party Animal"

Era -- this is really all your argument comes down to, you can't see putting a player from the 50s/60s who you don't know much about over someone you grew up thinking of as one of the all time greats.

[Sedale Threatt]

To me, the weaker efficiency of older players has more to do with the era than the players themselves. Coaches hadn't learned to value possessions the way they do now. Indeed, the offensive strategy of the most successful team of the era was to jack up as many shots as humanly possible.

It's not unlike QBs in the NFL. In comparison to modern guys, the stats for players like Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw look atrocious. That's because the emphasis was on big plays and risky downfield passing. Enter Bill Walsh, and 30-40 years later it's all about completion % and minimizing turnovers, aided by more sophisticated systems.

I don't see a huge difference in the way basketball has developed. As such, I don't hold consider that's a huge detriment for Pettit.

I'm going with him. Looking at the numbers he seems pretty damn comparable to Chuck, even with Barkley's unique facet as a ballhandler/playmaker. Defensively, he simply can't be worse than Barkley was. And then the lack of conditioning and attitude issues and injuries...I'm confident in Bob.

Vote: Pettit
Nominate: Pippen

[ElGee]

re: Pippen's value

I agree his value on offense is as big as top playmakers.
But on defensive end it doesn't look so good - when he missed a lot of games Bulls defense without him slightly decrased (1994) or even improved! (1998):

1994: drtg with Pippen better only by 0.8

1998: drtg with Pippen worse (!) by 3.9 (!)

(The 98 team was the 13th best offense relative to league, the 95 team 18th).

19/20th (1998) and 21/22nd (1995):

Code: Select all

year   team   ortg
2004   Dallas Mavericks*    9,2
2005   Phoenix Suns*     8,4
1997   Chicago Bulls*     7,7
2002   Dallas Mavericks*    7,7
2010   Phoenix Suns*    7,7
1998   Utah Jazz*     7,7
1996   Chicago Bulls*     7,6
1988   Boston Celtics*    7,4
2007   Phoenix Suns*    7,4
1982   Denver Nuggets*    7,4
2004   Sacramento Kings*    7,4
1992   Chicago Bulls*     7,3
1987   Los Angeles Lakers*     7,3
2003   Dallas Mavericks*     7,1
1998   Los Angeles Lakers*    6,9
1997   Utah Jazz*    6,9
1995   Orlando Magic*    6,8
1991   Chicago Bulls*    6,7
1987   Dallas Mavericks*    6,6
1998   Seattle Supersonics*    6,6
1999   Indiana Pacers*    6,5
1995   Seattle Supersonics*    6,5



I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but I provided detailed analysis of his with/without in 1994 and what you posted is (again) incorrect. And the Sonics numbers are based off z-score from Neil's method.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I want to see the argument that puts Wade ahead of Nash right now, it must be just silly. If Wade had such a high peak why did he never win MVP? Why did his teams never reach regular season greatness until Lebron took over?

The only thing Wade has over Nash is a ring, which is won by teams not individuals. Not to mention Wades team came out of the weak conference and is probably the worst NBA champion in the last 30 years or ever.
At least I can confidently say that the Heat were in no-way a better team than the Suns that year (even the Amare-less Suns) regardless of the finals.

I really don't understand this logic. How can you first point out the lack of regular season greatness Wade's teams have had relatively, and yet then point out that rings are won "by teams not individuals". That's fairly inconsistent.

1) Wade's teams didn't have as much RS success because.......he didn't have the same amount of support around him that Nash did.

2) The fact that Wade has actually carried a team to a title, including against a great defensive team in the ECF(something Nash has never done), speaks highly of his ability to overcome odds.

Nash on the otherhand never beat the odds, and in fact lost with HCA to the Spurs during that PHX run, and the same 2006 Mavs team that Wade led Miami back from a 0-2 deficit.

3) Wade is just as great a combo guard(3rd best behind West/Oscar) as Nash is a PG. And Wade's production on offense & defense dwarfs Nash's.

[JordansBulls]

Great points. My big issue with Pippen however, is that he was seriously lacking on the mental side of the game. The "migrane' episodes, his disappearing acts in the playoffs, and his compelte lack of leadership really drop him in my eyes. Talent-wise he could have been a beast, but he was so damn weak-minded.

Back in that era, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Pippen > Drexler/Isiah/Stockton.

No one ever thought John Stockton was better than Scottie Pippen.

Most do actually. they use that he is the all time leader in steals and assists to prove it. Also if half the people think Stockton is better than Isiah then I'm sure they think Stockton better than Pippen.

[Laimbeer]

Consensus of major all-times lists -

21 Isiah
26 Stockton
30 Pippen

I tend to agree with the order - second banana players are a different type.

[Baller 24]

Most do actually. they use that he is the all time leader in steals and assists to prove it.

So that makes him automatically the better basketball player? How does that make any sense? Mark Jackson is 2nd all-time, I'm guessing he should also be in consideration? What about how well they played their respective positions at peak form?

Also if half the people think Stockton is better than Isiah then I'm sure they think Stockton better than Pippen.

Pippen even as a second option had seasons where he was consistently a top 5 MVP vote getter, and considering we've seen Pippen at his finest without Jordan in '94, we know exactly what kind of production we'd be getting from him.

ElGee's post pretty much stated his true impact, especially from a defensive form, and noted some very spectacular games.

[Baller 24]

Consensus of major all-times lists -

21 Isiah
26 Stockton
30 Pippen

I tend to agree with the order - second banana players are a different type.

Can you elaborate on the "different type", and also given some explanations on why Stockton is remotely even considered close to Pippen?

[penbeast0]

Pippen is coming on as a challenger to Isiah . . . and yet there is not real comparisom between them for some reason (unless I forgot one).

Same 5 years for Isiah, 92-96 for Pippen which includes 2 years of the first 3peat, 2 years without Jordan, 1 year of the 2nd 3peat . . .

Thomas - Min Reb Ast St To Pts ts% (Team Pace, league efg, def rating)
1986-87 37.2 3.9 10.0 1.9 4.2 20.6 .528 (101.0, .488, 105.8)
1987-88 36.1 3.4 8.4 1.7 3.4 19.5 .521 (98.3, .489, 105.3)
1988-89 36.6 3.4 8.3 1.7 3.7 18.2 .528 (95.5, .489, 104.7)
1989-90 37.0 3.8 9.4 1.7 4.0 18.4 .501 (94.4, .489, 103.5)
1990-91 34.5 3.3 9.3 1.6 3.9 16.2 .507 (91.9, .487, 104.6)

Playoffs Min Reb Ast Pts
1986-87 37.5 4.5 8.7 24.1
1987-88 39.6 4.7 8.7 21.9
1988-89 37.2 4.3 8.3 18.2
1989-90 37.9 5.5 8.2 20.5
1990-91 33.5 4.2 8.5 13.5
5 Year Playoff ts% .518

Pippen - Min Reb Ast St To Pts ts% (Team Pace, league efg, def rating)
1991-92 38.6 7.7 7.0 1.9 3.1 21.0 .555 (94.4 .487 104.5)
1992-93 38.6 7.7 6.3 2.1 3.0 18.6 .510 (92.5 .491 106.1)
1993-94 38.3 8.7 5.6 2.9 3.2 22.0 .544 (91.9 .485 102.7)
1994-95 38.2 8.1 5.2 2.9 3.4 21.4 .559 (92.0 .500 104.3)
1995-96 36.7 6.4 5.9 1.7 2.7 19.4 .551 (91.1 .499 101.8)

Playoffs Min Reb Ast Pts
1991-92 40.9 8.8 6.7 19.5
1992-93 41.5 6.9 5.6 20.1
1993-94 38.4 8.3 4.6 22.8
1994-95 39.6 8.6 5.8 17.8
1995-96 41.2 8.5 5.9 16.9
5 Year Playoff ts% .518

A few things to notice. Despite playing in a slower paced offense and even when next to Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen still outscored Isiah on the average (though not by a huge amount) which surprised me . . . Pippen has the regular season efficiency but Isiah catches up and ties him in the playoffs, passes him when you adjust for leaguewide efficiency improvement in the mid 90s.

I think Pippen, with his defense and 6 titles, also should be ahead of Isiah who seems to be losing every statistical analysis so far (Frazier, Nash, Stockton, Payton, and now Pippen – and of course Havlicek was better than Pippen is adjusted statistical impact too). Isiah has a great mystique and I think it is causing people to overrate him – and the stats tend to say so too.

[lorak]

re: Pippen's value

I agree his value on offense is as big as top playmakers.
But on defensive end it doesn't look so good - when he missed a lot of games Bulls defense without him slightly decrased (1994) or even improved! (1998):

1994: drtg with Pippen better only by 0.8

1998: drtg with Pippen worse (!) by 3.9 (!)

(The 98 team was the 13th best offense relative to league, the 95 team 18th).

19/20th (1998) and 21/22nd (1995):

Code: Select all

year   team   ortg
2004   Dallas Mavericks*    9,2
2005   Phoenix Suns*     8,4
1997   Chicago Bulls*     7,7
2002   Dallas Mavericks*    7,7
2010   Phoenix Suns*    7,7
1998   Utah Jazz*     7,7
1996   Chicago Bulls*     7,6
1988   Boston Celtics*    7,4
2007   Phoenix Suns*    7,4
1982   Denver Nuggets*    7,4
2004   Sacramento Kings*    7,4
1992   Chicago Bulls*     7,3
1987   Los Angeles Lakers*     7,3
2003   Dallas Mavericks*     7,1
1998   Los Angeles Lakers*    6,9
1997   Utah Jazz*    6,9
1995   Orlando Magic*    6,8
1991   Chicago Bulls*    6,7
1987   Dallas Mavericks*    6,6
1998   Seattle Supersonics*    6,6
1999   Indiana Pacers*    6,5
1995   Seattle Supersonics*    6,5



I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but I provided detailed analysis of his with/without in 1994 and what you posted is (again) incorrect.

Well, I think it's correct. I'm using possessions formula from b-r and team game logs also from b-r. Maybe you are using different formulas or data sources?

And these ortg numbers are simply ortg relatively to LA - in your first post you didn't say it's something different, but ok if it's Nei's.

[JordansBulls]

Pippen is coming on as a challenger to Isiah . . . and yet there is not real comparisom between them for some reason (unless I forgot one).

Same 5 years for Isiah, 92-96 for Pippen which includes 2 years of the first 3peat, 2 years without Jordan, 1 year of the 2nd 3peat . . .

Thomas - Min Reb Ast St To Pts ts% (Team Pace, league efg, def rating)
1986-87 37.2 3.9 10.0 1.9 4.2 20.6 .528 (101.0, .488, 105.8)
1987-88 36.1 3.4 8.4 1.7 3.4 19.5 .521 (98.3, .489, 105.3)
1988-89 36.6 3.4 8.3 1.7 3.7 18.2 .528 (95.5, .489, 104.7)
1989-90 37.0 3.8 9.4 1.7 4.0 18.4 .501 (94.4, .489, 103.5)
1990-91 34.5 3.3 9.3 1.6 3.9 16.2 .507 (91.9, .487, 104.6)

Playoffs Min Reb Ast Pts
1986-87 37.5 4.5 8.7 24.1
1987-88 39.6 4.7 8.7 21.9
1988-89 37.2 4.3 8.3 18.2
1989-90 37.9 5.5 8.2 20.5
1990-91 33.5 4.2 8.5 13.5
5 Year Playoff ts% .518

Pippen - Min Reb Ast St To Pts ts% (Team Pace, league efg, def rating)
1991-92 38.6 7.7 7.0 1.9 3.1 21.0 .555 (94.4 .487 104.5)
1992-93 38.6 7.7 6.3 2.1 3.0 18.6 .510 (92.5 .491 106.1)
1993-94 38.3 8.7 5.6 2.9 3.2 22.0 .544 (91.9 .485 102.7)
1994-95 38.2 8.1 5.2 2.9 3.4 21.4 .559 (92.0 .500 104.3)
1995-96 36.7 6.4 5.9 1.7 2.7 19.4 .551 (91.1 .499 101.8)

Playoffs Min Reb Ast Pts
1991-92 40.9 8.8 6.7 19.5
1992-93 41.5 6.9 5.6 20.1
1993-94 38.4 8.3 4.6 22.8
1994-95 39.6 8.6 5.8 17.8
1995-96 41.2 8.5 5.9 16.9
5 Year Playoff ts% .518

A few things to notice. Despite playing in a slower paced offense and even when next to Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen still outscored Isiah on the average (though not by a huge amount) which surprised me . . . Pippen has the regular season efficiency but Isiah catches up and ties him in the playoffs, passes him when you adjust for leaguewide efficiency improvement in the mid 90s.

I think Pippen, with his defense and 6 titles, also should be ahead of Isiah who seems to be losing every statistical analysis so far (Frazier, Nash, Stockton, Payton, and now Pippen – and of course Havlicek was better than Pippen is adjusted statistical impact too). Isiah has a great mystique and I think it is causing people to overrate him – and the stats tend to say so too.

How about the fact that Isiah took a franchise that never won anything and turned it into a winning organization. That has to account for a lot. Also how they performed in the playoffs.
I agree in the season Pippen has Isiah beat, but in the playoffs it is a different story. Isiah was a much better leader come postseason and even if Isiah wasn't the best on his team in the playoffs, it wasn't as drastic as Pippen having a player a lot better than he was on his team come postseason to take pressure off of him.

[JordansBulls]

Most do actually. they use that he is the all time leader in steals and assists to prove it.

So that makes him automatically the better basketball player? How does that make any sense? Mark Jackson is 2nd all-time, I'm guessing he should also be in consideration? What about how well they played their respective positions at peak form?

No that is not what I was saying, I just mentioned most or many thought of Stockton as better because of those career records. I actually think they are pretty much the same just in a different way and it could go either way.

[Laimbeer]

Consensus of major all-times lists -

21 Isiah
26 Stockton
30 Pippen

I tend to agree with the order - second banana players are a different type.

Can you elaborate on the "different type", and also given some explanations on why Stockton is remotely even considered close to Pippen?

Isiah was the lead guy on title teams. Pippen wasn't and Stockton didn't win one. If he had, I might consider that to be Malone, anyway.

Those other major lists are more career oriented, as I tend to be. He had longevity and is the all-time leader in two major statistical categories, which is a pretty big deal.

There's also the matter of position. You can say Stockton was a better point than Pippen was a forward, but still consider Pippen more impactful.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Consensus of major all-times lists -

21 Isiah
26 Stockton
30 Pippen

I tend to agree with the order - second banana players are a different type.

Can you elaborate on the "different type", and also given some explanations on why Stockton is remotely even considered close to Pippen?

Well, for one thing, Stockton was the more productive & efficient player using both conventional and "advanced" metrics, by a good margin.

Certainly, this shouldn't be the only factor in the comparison, but it does point out one of the reasons why Stockton was viewed higher than Pippen back then. I think people also viewed Stockton as being a lot closer to Malone, than Pippen was to MJ. So the "2nd banana" effect was lessened.

[Gongxi]

Pippen is coming on as a challenger to Isiah . . . and yet there is not real comparisom between them for some reason (unless I forgot one).

Same 5 years for Isiah, 92-96 for Pippen which includes 2 years of the first 3peat, 2 years without Jordan, 1 year of the 2nd 3peat . . .

Thomas - Min Reb Ast St To Pts ts% (Team Pace, league efg, def rating)
1986-87 37.2 3.9 10.0 1.9 4.2 20.6 .528 (101.0, .488, 105.8)
1987-88 36.1 3.4 8.4 1.7 3.4 19.5 .521 (98.3, .489, 105.3)
1988-89 36.6 3.4 8.3 1.7 3.7 18.2 .528 (95.5, .489, 104.7)
1989-90 37.0 3.8 9.4 1.7 4.0 18.4 .501 (94.4, .489, 103.5)
1990-91 34.5 3.3 9.3 1.6 3.9 16.2 .507 (91.9, .487, 104.6)

Playoffs Min Reb Ast Pts
1986-87 37.5 4.5 8.7 24.1
1987-88 39.6 4.7 8.7 21.9
1988-89 37.2 4.3 8.3 18.2
1989-90 37.9 5.5 8.2 20.5
1990-91 33.5 4.2 8.5 13.5
5 Year Playoff ts% .518

Pippen - Min Reb Ast St To Pts ts% (Team Pace, league efg, def rating)
1991-92 38.6 7.7 7.0 1.9 3.1 21.0 .555 (94.4 .487 104.5)
1992-93 38.6 7.7 6.3 2.1 3.0 18.6 .510 (92.5 .491 106.1)
1993-94 38.3 8.7 5.6 2.9 3.2 22.0 .544 (91.9 .485 102.7)
1994-95 38.2 8.1 5.2 2.9 3.4 21.4 .559 (92.0 .500 104.3)
1995-96 36.7 6.4 5.9 1.7 2.7 19.4 .551 (91.1 .499 101.8)

Playoffs Min Reb Ast Pts
1991-92 40.9 8.8 6.7 19.5
1992-93 41.5 6.9 5.6 20.1
1993-94 38.4 8.3 4.6 22.8
1994-95 39.6 8.6 5.8 17.8
1995-96 41.2 8.5 5.9 16.9
5 Year Playoff ts% .518

A few things to notice. Despite playing in a slower paced offense and even when next to Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen still outscored Isiah on the average (though not by a huge amount) which surprised me . . . Pippen has the regular season efficiency but Isiah catches up and ties him in the playoffs, passes him when you adjust for leaguewide efficiency improvement in the mid 90s.

I think Pippen, with his defense and 6 titles, also should be ahead of Isiah who seems to be losing every statistical analysis so far (Frazier, Nash, Stockton, Payton, and now Pippen – and of course Havlicek was better than Pippen is adjusted statistical impact too). Isiah has a great mystique and I think it is causing people to overrate him – and the stats tend to say so too.

How about the fact that Isiah took a franchise that never won anything and turned it into a winning organization. That has to account for a lot.

:facepalm:

[penbeast0]

And yet Pippen scored more (and led Chicago in assists on the Bulls title teams) than Isiah did on the Pistons team despite the faster pace of the Pistons teams . . . 1st banana/2nd banana doesn't really seem to apply as much when the "2nd banana" plays as or more important a role in the offense than the "1st banana."

[ThaRegul8r]

Most do actually. they use that he is the all time leader in steals and assists to prove it.

So that makes him automatically the better basketball player? How does that make any sense? Mark Jackson is 2nd all-time, I'm guessing he should also be in consideration? What about how well they played their respective positions at peak form?

No that is not what I was saying, I just mentioned most or many thought of Stockton as better because of those career records.

I hate when people invoke argumentum ad populum in some form. Who cares what "most people" think when "most people" don't know anything? In March,

When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.

These are the "most people" whose opinion is supposed to be worth a damn?



If you're not knowledgeable, what you "think" means nothing. I know nothing about nuclear physics. Guess what? What I "think" about the subject means nothing. So I should shut up and not speak when people who do know something about the subject talk. Too many people appeal to ignorant people as if that's supposed to "prove" anything. I've said it before: argumentum ad populum is the refuge of people incapable of independent thought.

/rant

[Doctor MJ]

To me, the weaker efficiency of older players has more to do with the era than the players themselves. Coaches hadn't learned to value possessions the way they do now. Indeed, the offensive strategy of the most successful team of the era was to jack up as many shots as humanly possible.

It's not unlike QBs in the NFL. In comparison to modern guys, the stats for players like Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw look atrocious. That's because the emphasis was on big plays and risky downfield passing. Enter Bill Walsh, and 30-40 years later it's all about completion % and minimizing turnovers, aided by more sophisticated systems.

I don't see a huge difference in the way basketball has developed. As such, I don't hold consider that's a huge detriment for Pettit.

See, I feel like people aren't looking at this in enough detail. Let me try it like this, here are the career TS% for the power forwards we've already voted in, plus Pettit & Barkley:

Barkley 61.2
Nowitzki 58.3
Malone 57.7
Duncan 55.2
Garnett 54.9
Pettit 51.1

When I say that I take era in to account and hence don't penalize Pettit for his weak efficiency, what that means is that I think that later on he could have been right up there in the thick of those other guys.

That's a far cry from simply assuming he'd be up at Barkley's level. I mean, if you think he'd be up at Barkley's level, I have no idea why you haven't been voting for Pettit for weeks. You're saying that he'd have been an unparalleled volume/efficiency guy with great rebounding and intangibles, then to me you should be very reluctant to vote Malone over him.

Really though the crux is what I've said before: There was an efficiency improvement plateau. Guys like West & Oscar, they got to a certain point and their efficiency held steady at a right there with the top players from today. I don't think it makes any sense to take that and give them the nod over the Kobe's of the world based on an efficiency edge that only exists in theory.

I give old-timers some benefit of the doubt when it comes to efficiency, but that doesn't means I swear to never give any modern players the edge on that front. Barkley was an offensive force of nature who at his peak scored at an efficiency no volume scorer in history could touch. To assume others who weren't even the most efficient of their own era would be able to match that just seems crazy to me.

[JordansBulls]

When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.

These are the "most people" whose opinion is supposed to be worth a damn?



If you're not knowledgeable, what you "think" means nothing. I know nothing about nuclear physics. Guess what? What I "think" about the subject means nothing. So I should shut up and not speak when people who do know something about the subject talk. Too many people appeal to ignorant people as if that's supposed to "prove" anything. I've said it before: argumentum ad populum is the refuge of people incapable of independent thought.

/rant

ThaRegul8r you missed what was said. "Baller" said the following:

No one ever thought John Stockton was better than Scottie Pippen

I just mentioned that many in fact did feel Stockton was better. I didn't say he was better, I was answering his question on how he was perceived.

[ThaRegul8r]

When NEWSWEEK recently asked 1,000 U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29 percent couldn’t name the vice president. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar.

These are the "most people" whose opinion is supposed to be worth a damn?



If you're not knowledgeable, what you "think" means nothing. I know nothing about nuclear physics. Guess what? What I "think" about the subject means nothing. So I should shut up and not speak when people who do know something about the subject talk. Too many people appeal to ignorant people as if that's supposed to "prove" anything. I've said it before: argumentum ad populum is the refuge of people incapable of independent thought.

/rant

ThaRegul8r you missed what was said. "Baller" said the following:

No one ever thought John Stockton was better than Scottie Pippen

I just mentioned that many in fact did feel Stockton was better. I didn't say he was better, I was answering his question on how he was perceived.

It wasn't directed toward you or anything, just an in general rant, as it's a pet peeve of mine. "Popular perception" is often uninformed.