DannyNoonan1221 wrote:I will probably vote pettit here but need more time to compare.
For Barkley supporters, what makes him better than Artis Gilmore? No one wanted to respond to my post earlier with per100 stats that (taken completely by themselves) would indicate that maybe Artis was better than Barkley offensively?
And then you can throw in the fact that Artis was a 7'2" Center who is 4th in all time blocks. I don't think it takes any bit of stretching to say he had more impact on the defensive end than Barkley.
Again, don't think I would vote for Gilmore here, just trying to figure out what it is that makes Barkley the better player?
Barkley was much better at creating his own shot, could be a threat from more areas on the floor, was a much better passer.
DannyNoonan1221 wrote:I will probably vote pettit here but need more time to compare.
For Barkley supporters, what makes him better than Artis Gilmore? No one wanted to respond to my post earlier with per100 stats that (taken completely by themselves) would indicate that maybe Artis was better than Barkley offensively?
And then you can throw in the fact that Artis was a 7'2" Center who is 4th in all time blocks. I don't think it takes any bit of stretching to say he had more impact on the defensive end than Barkley.
Again, don't think I would vote for Gilmore here, just trying to figure out what it is that makes Barkley the better player?
Here's my response to your post comparing Barkley's and Gilmore's per 100 numbers:
Obviously these are just numbers and there isn't much context but this is someone who has had very little to no attention paid to him. I may have given it away in my last thread but wanted to see what people thought before they saw the name.
Also, in no way am I saying I am voting for the unnamed player. Just came across it while trying to figure out who I wanted to vote for here.
SactoKingsFan wrote:Pretty sure the unnamed player is Artis Gilmore. His career numbers at bbr are off. It shows ABA per 100 of 42 PTS, 32 TRB, 29.6 2PA, 18 FGA
When it comes to ranking Barkley over Gilmore, I value Barkley as an offensive anchor (scoring, passing/playmaking, etc.) and playoff performer more than Gilmore's overall impact.
As for Wade, I'm thinking Wade should get the 20th spot over Barkley. It is interesting to notice that Wade never really lead a highly rated offense, though by the time Wade really started putting up gaudy numbers the Heat had already self destructed. Wade never had a great offense that was actually built for him. The closest thing might be 2011 where him and James shared the ball, and that was obviously an effective offense though not optimal of their supreme talents.
It's interesting that Chuck could lead much better offenses than Wade could when they had depleted squads, but I think Wade's bad teams might even be worse than Chucks. I mean Beasley's first run on the Heat kinda showed how terrible that roster really was from head to toe, it made James Cav's look good.
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if there is a better player than Wade who never got MVP. He was pretty much at the same level as Cavs Lebron James for along time, and I think if James and Wade didn't team up, Wade would probably put up 1 or 2 more freakish seasons boxscore stat wise.
I think Barkley being a cancer and a legit defensive concern many seasons kinda seals the deal for me with Wade.
Doctor MJ wrote:Okay so I'll make this my vote, but my mind is still open.
Vote: Charles Barkley ... So how do I choose between Barkley and Ewing?
Well I'll say up front that it is hard to choose against a 2-way big, which is the holy grail of prospects even today where bigs seem less important. My concern with Ewing is about how 2-way he typically was.
Just taken with more basic stats, this was a guy typically scoring well above 20 PPG with meh efficiency on teams that weren't really killing it on offense. Right there if you think like I do that most bigs shouldn't be shooting that much, you have to question whether Ewing was being used correctly. And of course Ewing theory doesn't help there.
Were Barkley's teams killing it on efficiency? Barkley had better offensive players (and worse defensive) ones around him. His second option before the trade to Phoenix was Hersey Hawkins who is better than Ewing's John Stark. His offensive options in Phoenix were excellent with guys like KJ, Ceballos, etc. Did his spectacular individual numbers translate into great team offense? . . . because the case for Barkley is pretty much all offense.
You talk about Ewing's team offense but posters have shown Ewing's team defense was certainly top 20 all-time.
If I go a bit more advanced and look at Offensive Win Shares, let's compare him, Barkley and their recently voted in peer:
Barkley 123.3 Robinson 98.5 Ewing 45.0
Pretty massive gap here between Ewing & Robinson let alone Barkley. Of course people end up debating Robinson vs Ewing, but that's because they think Robinson got worse in the playoffs. Barkley on the other hand if anything became even more dominant in the playoffs.
I'm hammering all this in because y'all know Barkley was much better than Ewing on offense, but you probably don't think of Barkley being 2-3 times as impactful.
And if we go into RAPM, it may get even worse. With the ubiquitous caveat in place that we don't have the earlier years, here's the Offensive RAPM for these two guys as we have them:
This was what the guys looked like late in their career, with Ewing scoring a bit less than before, and Barkley outright NOT being his team's first option. Both almost certainly were better at their best, but holy crap, do you see the difference there? One guy is still an offensive superstar despite adjusting his role, while the other guy's impact is basically non-existent.
This sticks with me. It's be tough to vote for a true two-way superstar below Barkley, but I don't think that's what Ewing was. He might have been there briefly, but that's about it.
Now as I say all this I have to point out, if I gave the overall RAPM for these guys in those years Ewing's numbers are better than Barkley's.
I'll pause there to emphasize it.
You might be thinking, "Bloody hell Doc, how can you possibly go against Ewing if even in those circumstance he comes out on top?"
Thing is, late Barkley truly was awful on defense, and that's was gives Ewing the edge. If Barkley can be anywhere near neutrality, he wins this easily with that offensive edge, and in the end, I have trouble accepting that in his prime when things were truly on the line, Barkley was a major net negative on defense. He was just such an aggressive player getting boards, and steals, and even blocks. I'm not going to say he was great, but to truly claim that he was a millstone on defense and THAT is why I pick some offense-neutral big over him seems really, really bold to me.
OK, Barkley had a really bad rep on defense. The eye test says he frequently misses defensive switches and often doesn't try. He gets blocks and steals with his athleticism but then Gervin is one of the alltime leaders in blocks and steals as a 2 as well. His peers often refer to his poor defense and he himself says that when an ailing, injured Larry Bird retired that left no one in the league worse on defense than himself. OK, well, let's look at what defensive stats we have other then block/steal (which favor JaVale McGee as well). We only have RAPM for his late career; by that time he may have matured and gained a little more focus and understanding of team basketball . . . SURPRISE! By RAPM, his late season also show the remains of his great individual offensive game AND that he is truly awful defensively. So . . . your conclusion . . . well, Barkley probably was an average defender. WHAT? According to every piece of evidence we have except for block/steal numbers (where I keep pointing out bad but athletic defenders posting high b/s), Barkley was a complete and utter dog defensively. Where do you get any support for the idea that he was close to average?
Here's a quick and dirty team efficiency timeline for the Barkley years
Spoiler:
1985 6/23, 10/23 Barkley is a rookie in a lesser role. Including as a comp. 1986 9/23, 11/23 defensively. Barkley's first year as a 20ppg player alongside the aging core of Moses, Erving, Bobby Jones, and Cheeks. I 1987 13/23, 12/23 Moses traded away, Bobby Jones retires, Erving goes to part time, they do have the first pick in the NBA draft and deal it for Roy Hinson to play center next to Barkley 1988 10/23, 19/23 defensively. Erving gone, definitely Charles's team. Hinson career injury. 1989 3/23!, 24/25 defensively! (Barkley individually is terrific but Philly is swept by the Knicks) 1990 2/27, 16/27 (notice the expansion, you can expect a boost in everyone's numbers in 89 and 90 though that doesn't explain Philly's relative improvement strength) Rick Mahorn at C. 1991 13/27, 16/27 1992 11/27. 18/27 1993 -- traded to Phoenix. Philly tried to play 2 wings using Hornacek at point and the zero spacing of Weatherspoon, Perry, Lang, and Gilliam up front and, unsurprisingly, drops to 20th Phoenix is already an outstanding offensive team (3rd and 5th the previous two years) but with Barkley they are even better finishing 1st/27. They are even above average 9/27 defensively. 1994 -- 1/27 again, but drop to 16/27 defensively despite Thunder Dan Majerle and AC Green leading the team in minutes 1995 3/27 but even worse defensively 19/27 1996 7/29, 23/29 defensively 1997 Barkley is gone, the team improves to 6/29 and 20/29 defensively Barkley has finished his run as a prime time player, he plays third banana in Houston so not fiar to credit/blame him for their team.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Some of the Ewing stuff is pretty interesting. I had been leaning towards Chuck or Hondo--a player Im surprised isn't getting more mention yet. But some of the Ewing stuff is pretty compelling as is some of the Bob Petit stuff.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
As for Wade, I'm thinking Wade should get the 20th spot over Barkley. It is interesting to notice that Wade never really lead a highly rated offense, though by the time Wade really started putting up gaudy numbers the Heat had already self destructed. Wade never had a great offense that was actually built for him. The closest thing might be 2011 where him and James shared the ball, and that was obviously an effective offense though not optimal of their supreme talents.
It's interesting that Chuck could lead much better offenses than Wade could when they had depleted squads, but I think Wade's bad teams might even be worse than Chucks. I mean Beasley's first run on the Heat kinda showed how terrible that roster really was from head to toe, it made James Cav's look good.
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if there is a better player than Wade who never got MVP. He was pretty much at the same level as Cavs Lebron James for along time, and I think if James and Wade didn't team up, Wade would probably put up 1 or 2 more freakish seasons boxscore stat wise.
I think Barkley being a cancer and a legit defensive concern many seasons kinda seals the deal for me with Wade.
My vote goes to Dwyane Wade.
I have some things to say about wade that i'll hold my tongue on until he really starts getting traction. I've always been really impressed with his 09 resurgence, though. It was incredible.
I don't think it's accurate to just throw out the word "cancer" when describing a player of barkley's caliber. Let's look at some of his better teammates on the post Dr. J philly squads:
Post prime Cheeks Mike Gminski Cliff Robinson (not to be confused with headband wearing Clifford) Hersey Hawkins Johnny Dawkins Post prime Rick Mahorn Armen Gilliam
This could certainly be looked into further, but I don't really think his teams performed below expectations with that kind of support. There's some talent there, sure, but nothing overly noteworthy.
Chuck Texas wrote:Some of the Ewing stuff is pretty interesting. I had been leaning towards Chuck or Hondo--a player Im surprised isn't getting more mention yet. But some of the Ewing stuff is pretty compelling as is some of the Bob Petit stuff.
I'm not sure what to make of Pettit. I'd love to hear what Samurai/johnlac1 have to say about him, but he might've played before their time.
My biggest question is about his shooting range. He seems to have been a smart defender and by a few accounts he was a GOAT-level offensive rebounder. I know this is a highlight mix, and the footage on him is limited, but does anyone want to guess as to what his range might have been based on this video?
DannyNoonan1221 wrote:I will probably vote pettit here but need more time to compare.
For Barkley supporters, what makes him better than Artis Gilmore? No one wanted to respond to my post earlier with per100 stats that (taken completely by themselves) would indicate that maybe Artis was better than Barkley offensively?
And then you can throw in the fact that Artis was a 7'2" Center who is 4th in all time blocks. I don't think it takes any bit of stretching to say he had more impact on the defensive end than Barkley.
Again, don't think I would vote for Gilmore here, just trying to figure out what it is that makes Barkley the better player?
Here's my response to your post comparing Barkley's and Gilmore's per 100 numbers:
Obviously these are just numbers and there isn't much context but this is someone who has had very little to no attention paid to him. I may have given it away in my last thread but wanted to see what people thought before they saw the name.
Also, in no way am I saying I am voting for the unnamed player. Just came across it while trying to figure out who I wanted to vote for here.
SactoKingsFan wrote:Pretty sure the unnamed player is Artis Gilmore. His career numbers at bbr are off. It shows ABA per 100 of 42 PTS, 32 TRB, 29.6 2PA, 18 FGA
When it comes to ranking Barkley over Gilmore, I value Barkley as an offensive anchor (scoring, passing/playmaking, etc.) and playoff performer more than Gilmore's overall impact.
Well those numbers being off changes a lot and explains a whole hell of a lot more haha.
Okay Brand, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did.
As for Wade, I'm thinking Wade should get the 20th spot over Barkley. It is interesting to notice that Wade never really lead a highly rated offense, though by the time Wade really started putting up gaudy numbers the Heat had already self destructed. Wade never had a great offense that was actually built for him. The closest thing might be 2011 where him and James shared the ball, and that was obviously an effective offense though not optimal of their supreme talents.
It's interesting that Chuck could lead much better offenses than Wade could when they had depleted squads, but I think Wade's bad teams might even be worse than Chucks. I mean Beasley's first run on the Heat kinda showed how terrible that roster really was from head to toe, it made James Cav's look good.
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure if there is a better player than Wade who never got MVP. He was pretty much at the same level as Cavs Lebron James for along time, and I think if James and Wade didn't team up, Wade would probably put up 1 or 2 more freakish seasons boxscore stat wise.
I think Barkley being a cancer and a legit defensive concern many seasons kinda seals the deal for me with Wade.
Chuck Texas wrote:Some of the Ewing stuff is pretty interesting. I had been leaning towards Chuck or Hondo--a player Im surprised isn't getting more mention yet. But some of the Ewing stuff is pretty compelling as is some of the Bob Petit stuff.
I'm not sure what to make of Pettit. I'd love to hear what Samurai/johnlac1 have to say about him, but he might've played before their time.
My biggest question is about his shooting range. He seems to have been a smart defender and by a few accounts he was a GOAT-level offensive rebounder. I know this is a highlight mix, and the footage on him is limited, but does anyone want to guess as to what his range might have been based on this video?
His range was about 15-20 feet which he'd shoot if you were stupid enough to leave him open (I posted a quote on this in the OP), if you came out on him, he'd put it on the floor and drive on you pulling a double and usually shooting into it trying to draw the foul (not a particularly good passer).
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
Perhaps a sense of his career being truncated is what keeps Bob Pettit chronically underrated these days. At just 32, the man who served as the first archetype for the prototypical power forward ended his 11-year career as the NBA’s all-time leading scorer with 20,880 points, having become the first to surpass 20,000. But, alas, he was a guy who NBA.com and various encyclopedias list as having no nickname (St. Louis Hawks broadcaster Buddy Blattner dubbed Pettit “Big Blue,” a moniker that not surprisingly failed to catch on) and whose go-to move—pulling larger defenders out to 20 feet with a modest, one-handed jumper—was revolutionary but unexciting. So it’s no surprise that Pettit holds little currency in the present era, when nicknames and signature moves do most of the talking while the game often comes second.
Ultimately, Pettit’s legacy can’t be accurately measured by eschewed career-leader lists, signature moves or slick nicknames; it’s borne of his and the Hawks lone championship in ’58, a rematch with the dynasty-bound Celtics. Admittedly taking advantage of Bill Russell, hobbled by a sprained ankle, the Hawks knocked off Boston in six games, the only time over the course of a decade that the Russell-led Celtics would be denied a ring. Tied 2-2 in ’58, the Hawks stole a win in Boston and came home to Kiel Auditorium to try and wrap up the title. It was there that Pettit’s legend was forever forged.
“I didn’t notice I was having a good game,” Pettit says nonchalantly. “But through three quarters, I had scored 31 points.”
The dramatic game—78-77 entering the fourth—was about to be dominated by the best player in basketball. Pettit went on to score 19 of St. Louis’ last 21 points and notch a record 50 for a regulation postseason game, breaking George Mikan’s former scoring mark of 47. The Hawks had secured the world title, 110-109, on the shoulders of the player who remains the greatest in franchise history.
“That game was once in a lifetime,” Pettit says. “I know I scored more points in other games, but I never had such a great game at such a big moment. I don’t recall how I got back to the dressing room, I was so exhausted.”
“That 50-point game, I’ve never seen anything like it in my life,” adds Ed Macauley, Hawks teammate and fellow Hall-of-Famer. “Bob scored that last 19 of 21 against constant pressure, double- or triple-teaming. He made everything and delivered us that championship.”
This career-defining performance came amid a stretch of statistical greatness unparalleled among power forwards. In fact, short of Wilt Chamberlain, it can be argued that no NBA player had a 10-year stretch of domination like Pettit. He was First Team All-NBA and an All-Star every year, and in those first 10 seasons, Pettit never finished lower than fifth in the League in rebounding and fourth in scoring. His career averages rank third all-time in rebounding at 16.2 rpg and sixth in scoring at 26.4 ppg, trailing only Jordan, Chamberlain, Allen Iverson, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West.
To predict that Pettit would churn out such a prolific pro career would have been a ludicrous notion when he was a teen. He’d fallen in love with the game as a kid but had no one to instruct him. In fact, the tall, thin youngster didn’t even play high school basketball until his junior year. Before summer leagues, AAU ball and year-round coaching for players with promise, the Baton Rouge-born Pettit honed his craft alone, on a homemade, backyard court, his sole competitive experience coming in a modest church league.
“All I did was practice, practice, practice,” says Pettit, who estimates he ran drills for three hours per day well into his pro career. “I didn’t know any better. I wanted to play, so I practiced. I didn’t know proper form, so I shot how it felt right. I shot one-handed simply because the ball went in most often when I did.”
Pettit made a swift adjustment to prep ball, and by the end of his senior year, which ended with Baton Rouge High’s first state championship in more than 20 years, he’d grown to 6-8 and developed a unique repertoire of hook shots, jumpers, turnarounds and post moves.
Louisiana State University was anything but a basketball powerhouse back then, but the school was in Pettit’s backyard and provided his first national shine of any sort. He didn’t miss a beat: 25.6 ppg and 13.7 rpg in his Tigers varsity debut as a sophomore blossomed into 31.4 ppg and 17.3 rpg as an All-American senior. And as a junior, Pettit averaged 24.7 ppg and 12.5 rpg, leading LSU to its first SEC title in almost 20 years and its first-ever NCAA Final Four. Pettit finished his LSU career as a three-time All-SEC member and conference scoring champ. The once-raw recruit had become the pre-eminent amateur player in the country.
The Hawks were still in Milwaukee when they plucked Pettit with the No. 2 pick in the 1954 Draft. It’s hard to imagine anyone doubting Pettit’s ability at the time, but there remained some question as to whether the tall, lanky center could survive on the pro wrestling circuit that was the NBA in the ’50s.
Pettit caught one break immediately by shifting to power forward from center, as the Hawks already had Chuck Share in the post and soon would add 1954’s No. 1 overall choice, Frank Selvy, when the Baltimore Bullets folded just 14 games into the ’54-55 season.
But Pettit created another “break” of sorts for himself with his continued willingness to work. He made an immediate impact, racking up both Rookie of the Year and All-NBA First Team honors, and he would have finished second or third in MVP voting if the NBA had issued the award at the time. However, standing 6-9 and a skinny 215 pounds, Pettit sensed a short career playing kite to all the frontcourt trees in the League and quickly enlisted the help of LSU strength coach and US Olympic team trainer Alvin Roy.
“I was one of the first NBA players to go on a weight program,” Pettit says. “We were always taught not to go near weights because they’d ruin our shooting touch. But getting pounded hard as a rookie was enough. I wanted to start doing some of the pounding.”
The growth of Pettit’s already-prodigious game was nearly instantaneous despite Hawks owner Ben Kerner’s dismay over seeing Pettit arrive at training camp bolstered by 20 pounds of muscle. The Hawks moved to St. Louis for Pettit’s second season, whereupon the power forward won both the scoring and rebounding titles and was named the NBA’s inaugural Most Valuable Player.
“Bob was the easiest guy I ever dealt with,” says Macauley, who played three seasons with Pettit and coached him for two. “He had all his goals set straight out and knew exactly how he would achieve them. I didn’t have to tell him anything.”
As a master of focus, positioning, floor spacing and timing, Pettit can also be considered the forefather of other crafty and prolific rebounders like Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace. Offensive rebounding, a true measure of the heart and effort of a player, was a particular Pettit specialty, although separate offensive and defensive rebounding statistics were not recorded in Pettit’s day.
“My offensive rebounds were no accident,” Pettit says. “I never watched the ball, I watched the defensive rebounder I was fighting. I looked at rebounding as a science and came to believe that no player could block me out.”
“Bob was the greatest offensive rebounder I ever saw,” premier pivot Johnny “Red” Kerr recalls. “He was strong and quick, and smart. He knew all the tricks. He was a master at staying alongside me rather than trying to jump over me. His effort was just relentless.”
Pettit also applied a common defensive strategy to clean the offensive glass: keeping his arms raised to block passing lanes and disrupt an opponent’s line of sight. “My arms were always raised when I was under the rim,” he says. “That way, when an opponent jumped he took me up with him. They did all the work, and I rebounded the ball.”
But Pettit wasn’t mere finesse and flair. In his first 10 seasons, he missed only 15 games, playing in more than 98 percent of Hawks contests. By the time he retired in 1965, Pettit had endured four broken bones in his back, badly torn cartilage in his knee, 125 stitches from several injuries to his face and a recurring upset stomach that found him gobbling antacids by the case.
“I was really my own biggest opponent,” Pettit says. “With every accomplishment, I drove myself harder. When I fell below what I considered my minimum expectations, my belly growled and ached.”
It was that kind of drive that led Pettit to his loftiest achievements in what may seem today like the unlikeliest of places: the All-Star Game. Pettit was three times the Game’s MVP and shared one other MVP with Elgin Baylor—more such honors than any player in history. And those MVPs didn’t come cheap. In 1956, Pettit went for 20 points, 24 boards and seven assists; in 1958, he turned in an amazing 28 points and 26 rebounds (establishing All-Star records) while wearing a cast on his shooting hand; and his last of the solo MVPs, in 1962, was a result of 25 points and 27 rebounds in just 37 minutes.
“All-Star Games were different then. They weren’t the exhibition games you see today,” says Lenny Wilkens, Pettit’s Hawks teammate who joined him on three All-Star squads. “We looked at them as a test, and for a guy like Bob who was so driven anyway, playing the best of the best drove him to some great heights.”
Pettit won championships, set records and played a key role in developing the way modern basketball is played. Yet, despite these victories, it was his missed shot in the 1957 Finals that serves as, perhaps, one of the most pivotal moments in NBA history. The ‘57 Finals ended in a very unusual way, a fitting cap to the strangest season in basketball history. To think of it another way, it was two seconds of an April 13 overtime game that would change the course of the NBA forever.
That season—the struggling NBA’s eighth in existence—kicked off with a blockbuster trade, when Bill Russell’s Draft rights were dealt to the Boston Celtics by the St. Louis Hawks, who received future Hall-of-Famers Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan in return. The legendary Mikan’s retirement from the Minneapolis Lakers had inflicted parity on the eight-team league, with only 13 wins separating the best and worst clubs. The entire Eastern Division had finished with a better record than the four Western teams. The NBA’s best team, Boston, would end up facing off for the title against a Hawks club that had slipped into a first-place tie on the last day of the regular season with a 34-38 record.
Despite spotting the Celtics 10 regular season wins, St. Louis fought hard in the Finals, forcing a Game 7 in Boston Garden—a contest that was tied at the half, the end of regulation and first overtime, and featured 38 lead changes and 28 ties. To force a third overtime, the Hawks needed one last bucket to tie.
Hawks player-coach Alex Hannum had just checked himself into the game and outlined a sandlot play straight out of a Bill Cosby sketch. With two seconds left, Hawks third-year star Pettit, still recovering from a broken shooting arm suffered at the hands of the Celtics two months earlier, stood on the free-throw line, awaiting Hannum’s inbounds pass from 80 feet away. Pettit recalls: “He said, ‘I’m going to take the ball out and throw it the length of the court, and it’s going to hit the backboard and the rim. Pettit, stand on the foul line and get the rebound. Make the shot.’”
The only thing crazier than Hannum’s confidence was the fact that his play nearly worked. The 6-7 Hannum threw a touchdown pass that hit the opposite backboard and rim, and the ball bounced to Pettit exactly as it was drawn up. “I jumped up, caught the rebound, and shot it still in the air,” Pettit says. “The ball rolled around the rim a few times, then fell out.”
“I’ve never seen that done, before or since,” says Tom Heinsohn, then a Celtics rookie who was on the sideline, having fouled out with 37 points and 23 rebounds. “I defy anybody to try and do that under those circumstances. Alex caught us all by surprise.”
The horn sounded on Boston’s first title in its 11-year history and kicked off a run of 10 more in the next 12 seasons. Almost a year before the NFL burned itself into the American consciousness with its own sudden-death overtime championship, a large, national audience, hungry for baseball’s Opening Day, watched the Celtics and Hawks extend themselves for three hours. In the most visible game yet in pro basketball history, the battling Celtics and Hawks had forever erased any doubt over the viability of the NBA.
Deftness, unyielding drive and ingenuity, all Pettit trademarks, were capable of producing one of the most memorable two seconds—and 10 years—in basketball history.
While named as a no-brainer member of the NBA’s 50 Greatest Players in 1996, the power forward pioneer is too easily overlooked today. Take a 2005 survey of ESPN experts, please: Pettit was ranked as the fifth-best power forward of all time behind Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Kevin McHale. Among the 11 ESPN experts, only überstatistician John Hollinger had the sense to rank Pettit No. 1, while a mere two others placed him in their top three.
Hollinger, however, offers a much-needed perspective on a storied career: “Pettit is, without a doubt, the most underrated player of all time. His amazing credentials don’t get nearly enough attention when folks talk about great players. He was the first ‘true’ power forward, and quite possibly still the best.”
Dominant offensive player, gladly took the role of "the man" on any team he played for, won an MVP over prime MJ, just an unguardable enigma. Strongly considered Pippen and Stockton here, but gotta go with Sir Charles.
DannyNoonan1221 wrote:I will probably vote pettit here but need more time to compare.
For Barkley supporters, what makes him better than Artis Gilmore? No one wanted to respond to my post earlier with per100 stats that (taken completely by themselves) would indicate that maybe Artis was better than Barkley offensively?
And then you can throw in the fact that Artis was a 7'2" Center who is 4th in all time blocks. I don't think it takes any bit of stretching to say he had more impact on the defensive end than Barkley.
Again, don't think I would vote for Gilmore here, just trying to figure out what it is that makes Barkley the better player?
Gilmore had terrible hands, couldn't catch the ball in the post, lousy ball handler, and wasn't a good passer. There are a bunch of centers better than him including reed, cowens, Ewing, probably mourning, Howard, and Lanier.
Doctor MJ wrote:Just taken with more basic stats, this was a guy typically scoring well above 20 PPG with meh efficiency on teams that weren't really killing it on offense. Right there if you think like I do that most bigs shouldn't be shooting that much, you have to question whether Ewing was being used correctly.
Patrick Ewing was definitely used incorrectly on offense. This was a guy who came into the league hyped as the next Bill Russell, of course based on defensive potential. He came in raw on offense, but he developed into a 20 PPG scorer based on team need. Unfortunately, NY never had a great offensive team in terms of spacing, creators, or scheme/coaching.
The irony now is that Ewing is being dinged for possible offensive shortcomings when his offensive development exceeded expectations and can be seen as a bonus, all the while Ewing succeeded as a defender by anchoring the greatest defensive dynasty in history post-Russell.
You mention Russell and the tendency to let that kick the conversation in one direction. Question though: What if we talked about it in terms of Mutombo instead?
When I factor everything in I certainly pick Ewing over Mutombo so that's not the argument I'm making here. It's more along the lines of: Well, would you rank Mutombo ahead of Barkley? Most of the arguments really still hold true. Ewing & Mutombo are both player who largely matter because of their defense. Ewing's better on offense, Mutombo's better on defense. So then, presuming you rank Ewing > Barkley > Mutombo pretty easily, what exactly makes room to allow Barkley to be so neatly in between these other two guys?
In one sense the answer is obvious: Ewing's offense. And yet the gap between Ewing & Mutombo on offense is plain tiny compared to the gap between Barkley & Mutombo.
Now full disclosure: I'm not entirely convinced that one can't make a good argument for Mutombo over Barkley, so by no means do I see the dilemma I've posed as QED for Barkley's superiority to Ewing. I do think though that even when people say the words agreeing that Ewing's offense wasn't so huge, they probably aren't going back and thinking through how that makes him like players traditionally not talked about anywhere near the 20th spot.
And so yeah, my recognition about volume scoring bigs means some of them are going to take quite a hit in the "2-way star" argument that is often made for them. Mostly Ewing's a defensive guy like Barkley's an offensive guy, and on average the offensive guy is probably going to win more of those comparisons than he loses.
Doctor MJ wrote: Now as I say all this I have to point out, if I gave the overall RAPM for these guys in those years Ewing's numbers are better than Barkley's.
I'll pause there to emphasize it.
You might be thinking, "Bloody hell Doc, how can you possibly go against Ewing if even in those circumstance he comes out on top?"
Thing is, late Barkley truly was awful on defense, and that's was gives Ewing the edge. If Barkley can be anywhere near neutrality, he wins this easily with that offensive edge, and in the end, I have trouble accepting that in his prime when things were truly on the line, Barkley was a major net negative on defense. He was just such an aggressive player getting boards, and steals, and even blocks. I'm not going to say he was great, but to truly claim that he was a millstone on defense and THAT is why I pick some offense-neutral big over him seems really, really bold to me.
I see from where are you coming from, but I disagree with conclusion, because Ewing earlier also was better on offense than from '98 to '00, so his prime RAPM numbers also would look much better. And even at the end of his career he wasn't bad offensive player. To use RAPM:
YEAR TYPE PLAYER ORAPM RANK ORAPM DRAPM RANK DRAPM RAPM RANK RAPM 1998 PI PE 0,3 161 4,1 4 4,4 24 1998 PI CB 5,1 2 -1,7 379 3,4 36 1999 PI PE 0,4 143 3,7 11 4,1 25 1999 PI CB 6,2 1 -2,6 419 3,5 31 2000 PI PE 0,4 141 3,7 12 4,1 26 2000 PI CB 5,0 7 -2,0 385 3,1 45
So slightly above average offensive player, that's not bad for someone, who according to box score averaged 51.8 TS%, 99 ortg, 2.1 OWS in 4183 minutes from '98 to '00. During early 90s (from '90 to '92): 57.6 TS%, 112 ortg, 18.8 OWS in 9419 minutes, so really BIG difference and there's no reason to not think that his ORAPM also would be higher, probably more than Barkley's DRAPM, because it's very unlikely Charles was more than slightly positive on defense in his prime.
The first year of PI RAPM we have is '97-98, and of course informed by '96-97. In those years he was shooting about 55% TS and scoring about 32-34 points per 100 possessions. That was basically the level he performed at in his prime. Yes he had a brief bump around 1990 that was better, and so yeah, for 1-3 years I bet his offensive impact was significantly better, but for the rest there's no particular reason to think he was drastically superior than he was in that year. So yeah, we've got ourselves a problem there.
Now, you focus more on Ewing in subsequent years as his box score really fell and yet his PI RAPM stayed about the same. Frankly there are reasons to be skeptical about that, but even if we accept them, it only seems to indicate him DECREASING his primacy helped MAKE UP for his DECREASING efficacy. That ain't really such a compliment.
lorak wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote: Re: Mikan. The thing I keep pointing to is that the only time when Mikan was clear cut way ahead of all contemporaries was through '51. Afterwards while he was still good, he's in the same tier with the other best players of his day...none of which do I take very seriously when talking about the #20 player of all-time.
First of all, no one from '52 to '54 produced at the level of Mikan. His WS/48 over that period is 0.264. Second best player (minimum 100 games played), Macauley averaged 0.247 (remember, the bigger the number, the more importance of even small gap) and Johnston with Schayes were 3rd/4th with 0.238 each.
But WS/48 is just one angle to look at production and in the case of 50s even more limited than in current era (unfortunately, because of lack of data from the 50s we have to use everything we have, even limited tools). In Mikan's case we also know that what separates him from his peers is his defensive dominance (one of his Lakers teams was GOAT level on defense, others very good) and that he led Minneapolis to three straight titles in his last three seasons pre shot clock. Really no one from that era comes even close to such overall impact.
Well first off, my whole allegation is simply that he's on the same tier with other players in those years, not that he's worse than them. Even if you can argue that he's still a bit better than them, the fact that none of them are worth talking about right now anyway means it's not really worth talking about MIkan.
Second, you're cherry picking with the Win Shares man. He didn't lead the league in Win Shares is any of those 3 years, and it's not like he missed much time to injury.
Re: defensive dominance. Well certainly, and of course that's why he has the great Win Share numbers. If we only look at Offensive Win Shares we see Mikan nearly getting doubled by Neil Johnston and Ed Macauley in 1953...two guys everyone in the project might as well forget they ever heard their names mentioned since they probably don't get seriously consideration before we're through. (Though note: Johnston did squeak into the Top 100 in 2008.)
But yeah MIkan dominated with dominance, and if you think he'd be good enough today to dominate, then that's a big deal. I personally think MIkan warrants a place on this list, but no I don't think it's any time soon.
Peak: Wade 06 RS: 27.2 PPG 6.7 APG 5.7 RPG 1.9 SPG 0.8 BPG 27.6 PER 57.7ts% 23.9 WS/48 PS: 28.4 PPG 5.7 APG 5.9 RPG 2.2 SPG 1.1 BPG 26.9 PER 59.3ts% 24 WS/48
Wade's post season ended up with him beasting in the ECF, scoring 26.7 PPG on 68.4ts% and with him having the best finals ever in PER at 33.8. MJ's best PER ever in the finals is 31.5. I'm not saying Wade is a better finals performer, but he came back by himself from 2-0 vs Dallas to win a championship. He played at GOAT level in the NBA finals.
Barkley 93 RS:25.6 PPG 12.2 RPG 5.6 APG 1.6 SPG 1.0 BPG 25.9 PER 59.6ts% 24.2 WS/48 PS: 26.6 PPG 13.6 RPG 4.3 APG 1.6 SPG 1.0 BPG 24.9 PER 55.2 ts% 21.5 WS/48
Barkley took the Suns to the NBA finals and played amazing in the playoffs. He also won the MVP that season, and his competition was "only" peak Jordan - the best player ever at the best time of his career.
Not a great margin but I would go with Wade here. His peak play really amazed me in 06, 09 and 10. I think his peak is really high on an all time list. (And Barkley's too, but I'll go with Wade)
Scorers: Seasons above 25 PPG: Wade 5 (one above 30 and he lead the league in scoring that season) Barkley 5 (his best at 28.3 and never lead the league in scoring)
Post seasons above 25 PPG (10 playoffs for Wade, 13 for Barkley) Wade 4 - Barkley's best was at 27.6 and Wade has beaten that mark 3 times in his career) Barkley 6
Not that Barkley can't score in volume, but I think Wade is the better volume scorer. He reaches higher PPG marks than Barkley.
Efficiency: Barkley's career average is at 61.8ts%. That is insane for any player. Wade is at 56.8ts%. So I'll go with Barkley.
Based on this I don't think there is a big gap between them but I'd still go with Barkley.
Rebounding Barkley is the best rebounding PF I've ever seen in my life. The amount of offensive boards is tremendous, and that's something that will give your team a lot of wins.
Wade is a good reobunder for a guard, but no way his impact on the boards, even for his position, can be compared to Barkley's.
This is Barkley and by a big margin.
Playmaking Both of them are great. Barkley has seasons arround 5 APG sometimes, and a lot above 4 APG. Wade has 2 seasons at 7.5 APG.
I'd give the edge to Wade, a solid one but that not that big.
Defense This is Wade and by a large large margin. His speed on the perimeter covers a lot of space, could stop some of the greatest players in the league and he's a machine at blocking for a guard. Also he has a ton of steals in his career. About Barkley... we all know he wasn't that good right there, even tough I think sometimes people exagerate and make it seem like he couldn't defend anyone.
Career Barkley had 1 MVP, Wade 1FMVP, both won in tremendous situations. Barkley never won a ring, D. Wade has 3. Both of them were recognized as top players in the league for a lot of seasons.
I'd go with Wade's career to be honest. I think he accomplished more and he'll be forever the face of the Heat franchise.
In the end, if I was voting, I'd go with Wade. Peaked a little higher, is a great all arround player and his D gives him the edge over Barkley. Sorry sir Charles, hope people will vote you in one of the next spots, but Wade might deserve more than you at this point.
Other good candidates: Mikan (can't talk a lot about it but I've been impressed with his spell of dominance in his era), Steve Nash.
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
Years with 1 All Star: x9 With 2 All Star: x4 With 3 All Star: x1 HOF Coach: 0
*Hakeem Olajuwon (All NBA 1st team x1, All NBA 3rd x1, Def. 2nd team x1) Moses Malone (All NBA 1st team x1) Kevin Johnson (All NBA 2nd team x1) Maurice Cheeks (Def. 1st team x2, Def. 2nd x1) Scottie Pippen (Def. 1st team x1) Bobby Jones (Def. 2nd team x1) Rick Mahorn (Def. 2nd team x1) Dan Majerle (Def. 2nd team x1) Steve Francis (Rookie of the Year)
Dwyane Wade 10 year career (2014)
Years with 1 All Star: x7 With 2 All Star: 4 With 3 All Star: 0 HOF Coach: x3
[Note: If Stan Van Gundy or Spolestra make the HOF, he’ll have HOF coaching for his entire career so far]
*LeBron James (MVP x2, FMVP x2, All NBA 1st team x4, Def. 1st team x3, Def. 2nd team x1) Shaq O’Neal (All NBA 1st team x2)
Bob Pettit 10 year career
Years with 1 All Star: x10 With 2 All Star: 5 With 3 All Star: 0 HOF Coach: x4
[Note: Bob Pettit’s HOF coaches are Red Holzman and Alex Hannum. There is a 3 all-star max and 1 all-star minimum back then to my understanding. Many defensive and other accolades are unavailable back then as well.]
*Slater Martin (All NBA 2nd team x3) Cliff Hagan (All NBA 2nd team x2)
Patrick Ewing 16 year career
Years with 1 All Star: x5 With 2 All Star: 1 With 3 All Star: 0 HOF Coach: x5
[Note: Ewings HOF coach is Pat Riley. He didn’t play with Payton or McGrady until his final two years at age 38 & 39]
*Charles Oakley (Def. 1st team x1, Def. 2nd team x1) John Starks (Sixth Man of the Year, Def. 2nd team x1) Anthony Mason (Sixth Man of the Year) Mark Jackson (Rookie of the Year) Gary Payton (All NBA 3rd team, Def. 1st team x1) Tracy McGrady (All NBA 1st team)
Ewing had some depth certain years, but I'm really suprised at how bad his supporting casts were. He may had one of the worst supporting cast help I've seen. I don't know why top flight bigs like, Robinson, Ewing, Garnett and Olajuwon never got much supporting help in their primes?
Honestly, the debate has become Barkley vs Ewing for me and I'm leaning Ewing. I'm also considering if I should have voted him over Moses or even as a challenger to Karl Malone?
