RealGM Top 100 List #23

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'll go with Elgin Baylor. He was a contemporary of greats like Wilt, Russell, Oscar and West and stood out as a dominant player himself. I looked into his '62 season and came away very impressed and it seems he was at a similar level from '61-'63. One of the great scorers, but by all accounts he was also a very good rebounder and a good passer.

[Doctor MJ]

...

Avg height in NBA during Baylor's career: 6'5.5"
Avg height in NBA during Wade's career: just a shade over 6'7".

So relative to league avg, the height diff is about 2.5".

Are you also taking into account that measuring in shoes adds an average of a little over 1.25 inches
So, Baylor would be listed today at 6'6 or 6'7
The average NBA height for Baylor's career would adjust to a shade under 6'7 so the difference would be about 1/4 inch

If you already did that adjustment, then ignore this

What you say is true, but it would have no bearing on trex's statement.

Relative to norms of the time, Baylor was effectively 2.5 inches taller relative to his competition than Wade was.

Still though, as long as you adjust for pace properly, I see no reason to refuse to give Baylor credit for superior rebounding. The edge was big enough for that even if it wasn't enough to make Baylor an all-time great rebounder.

[Clyde Frazier]

Also a quick look at my man Clyde and his stellar finals performances in 70, 72 and 73:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#NYK-LAL

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-NYK

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#NYK-LAL

He didn't have the longest career, but he was really a great playoff performer.

[Yeah, really just thinking my way through this one "outloud" as I'm crazy busy at work]

[Owly]

When George Mikan won his last title, he was facing a team with a 6' 7", 195 lbs starting center. The NBA changed quite a bit since his time. That's smaller than Kyle Korver and Rick Barry.

In 1971 Jabbar won his first title facing a 6'7 starting center.

In 1997 the Bulls won the NBA title. The tallest of the 5 players who had the most minutes was 6-8

In the RealGM Top 100 in 2008
Wes Unseld was voted 44th all-time and Dolph Schayes (Mikan's opponent) 73rd.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=830301&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1997.html

Wes Unseld is listed at 245 lbs. He is a big man. Ben Wallace has the same body type. You can't succeed in today's NBA as a center at 6-7, 195 lbs.

Look how skinny this guy is. That's not a center to me

You do realise that that image you posted lists Mikan at full 25 pounds heavier than the weight you're using (as well as a half inch taller). And that's before he was used at center.

And as we all know, he wasn't a center back then, either. Schayes was a PF forced to play C by circumstance (they didn't have a decent center) the rest of his career he played PF. And as noted above we can all play at anomolies. McAdoo is listed at 6'9 (though by this point I think we're getting in shoes height, and 210 (and whilst NBA.com does list 225, most places have 210 and given he played center from his first year he was probably actually playing center at around that weight). And this is a guy who played primarily (and best) at center. And was the best in the league (1x MVP winner, 2x 2nd in MVP vote/shares, 1x PER leader (once 2nd, once 3rd, once 4th), 1x WS leader (twice 2nd), 1 WS/48 leader (once 2nd, once 4th). And this puny 210 6'9 "center" got those accolades competing against a 26-28 year old Kareem so we know he can't have been any good. etc etc

The Chicago '97 point works pretty well too.

And the thing is there's a reasonable debate to be had about eras. But that isn't what's happening here. For what it's worth players are heavier now, but it seems that this is mainly a relatively modern development. The listed average player weight for the year of Mikan-Schayes encounter 205lbs; 1985: 212lbs; 1996-2001: 223-225lbs
http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html

Okay, I'll vote for George Mikan.

Screw poor longevity - I think he's simply the last available player who was the best in the league at any point, and

I don't see how you can put so much value on being the best player in the league when he literally played against scrubs. It seems so arbitrary to me. "Screw longevity"? You knock Wade for longevity but not Mikan?! Wade would've been the best in that era as well. I just don't think it makes sense to rank players that way when you sweep competition completely under the rug. Furthermore we don't know how good Mikan would be in today's game but i'm pretty sure Wade would be a top 5-10 player in any era.

You're entitled to your own criteria but you're ignoring the main argument posted here, that he's the last long term dominant, clear cut league's best player for an extended period not yet ranked. Wade is certainly talented enough to play well in any era. But playing at a time when leaping at the basket was inviting getting knocked on your ass very, very hard and fouls resulted in just a single free throw (correct me if I'm wrong here), and floors were often very much less forgiving (see previous posts on Mikan) there's a fair chance Wade's longevity gets worse. Oh and his crossover and pretty much every dribble move he has gets called for palming.

Also regarding those "literally" scrubs? It's been made clear that the center postion far more than any other was competitive at that time (Mikan, Johnston, Foust, Risen, Macauley, Lovellette, Groza etc).

[trex_8063]

...

Avg height in NBA during Baylor's career: 6'5.5"
Avg height in NBA during Wade's career: just a shade over 6'7".

So relative to league avg, the height diff is about 2.5".

Are you also taking into account that measuring in shoes adds an average of a little over 1.25 inches
So, Baylor would be listed today at 6'6 or 6'7
The average NBA height for Baylor's career would adjust to a shade under 6'7 so the difference would be about 1/4 inch

If you already did that adjustment, then ignore this

I thought of this, but I assume the same method applies to ALL players in Baylor's era. e.g. he's listed at 6'5---even if he's 6'6" in shoes---in a time when the average player is listed as ~6'5.5"---even if they're 6'6.5" in shoes. In other words, he's only ~0.5" short of the league average for his time, whereas Wade is a around 3" shorter than league average for his time (hence the effective 2.5" difference in height).

[DannyNoonan1221]

Also, I believe Wade's peak is very high.

But a few people are focusing on an eleven game stretch. 11 games?! to me that is ridiculous. Yes it is impressive, but even as wade supporters you are doing him a disservice by shrinking his peak to 11 games. 11 games aren't going to have much pull here when trying to get traction for him. Talk about his peak in a single season, or 3 to 4 year stretch like the other players have been analyzed.

While impressive, 11 games is EXTREMELY small.

Did you read the entire post? It's not about 11 games . The post explains his entire 09 season which is his peak. The 11 games is the first set of numbers, that's all.

Yes, your post looks at the whole season. But in all of your analysis, it still pulls out an 11-13 game stretch which makes that stretch the focal point of the post, which is why I said anything. Even one season, based on threads 1-22, has been considered a short prime. For someone who has such longevity issues, I think a 3 to 4 year prime will be needed for Wade ( I think he has it ). But again, to focus on one year and really highlight 11-13 game stretch is not going to be enough to override his SEVERE lack of longevity when compared to a player like Stockton who literally has played more than twice the minutes and games as he has.

[PaulieWal]

Yes, your post looks at the whole season. But in all of your analysis, it still pulls out an 11-13 game stretch which makes that stretch the focal point of the post, which is why I said anything. Even one season, based on threads 1-22, has been considered a short prime. For someone who has such longevity issues, I think a 3 to 4 year prime will be needed for Wade ( I think he has it ). But again, to focus on one year and really highlight 11-13 game stretch is not going to be enough to override his SEVERE lack of longevity when compared to a player like Stockton who literally has played more than twice the minutes and games as he has.

This is a very funny post. That statistical analysis by SideShowBob breaks down his entire season, not only 11 games. Not sure why you are focusing on those 11 game numbers when his entire season has been broken down. It's strange that you continue to say that I am highlighting Wade's peak with a 11 game stretch. That is not the focal point, only you are making it out to be for no reason.

Edit: For the record that post is discussing his 1 year peak, not his entire prime. I thought it was very clear when I presented the information that I was specifically talking about his peak and how it was comparable to and arguably better than guys like Kobe, LeBron, KD.

[DannyNoonan1221]

Yes, your post looks at the whole season. But in all of your analysis, it still pulls out an 11-13 game stretch which makes that stretch the focal point of the post, which is why I said anything. Even one season, based on threads 1-22, has been considered a short prime. For someone who has such longevity issues, I think a 3 to 4 year prime will be needed for Wade ( I think he has it ). But again, to focus on one year and really highlight 11-13 game stretch is not going to be enough to override his SEVERE lack of longevity when compared to a player like Stockton who literally has played more than twice the minutes and games as he has.

This is a very funny post. That statistical analysis by SideShowBob breaks down his entire season, not only 11 games. Not sure why you are focusing on those 11 game numbers when his entire season has been broken down. It's strange that you continue to say that I am highlighting Wade's peak with a 11 game stretch. That is not the focal point, only you are making it out to be for no reason.

Edit: For the record that post is discussing his 1 year peak, not his entire prime. I thought it was very clear when I presented the information that I was specifically talking about his peak and how it was comparable to and arguably better than guys like Kobe, LeBron, KD.

Maybe you are misinterpreting my post. again, yes, the post discusses the year as whole. But even after the specific mention of the 11 game period, the other analysis still discusses a 13 game stretch from Feb-Mar alongside season averages/per75, etc. Yes, that covers the year. But the manner that it is presented really puts an extra bright light on "look at the 11 to 13 game stretch he had!" Even if the full season stuff is there, it's about presentation and how it's perceived by the reader. I think the way the post is presented brings a very short sample size to the forefront of the discussion.

And again, as I am trying to just make you aware, VERY few guys already voted in have benefited from a one year prime analysis, especially when that player is already facing serious longevity issues.

I get the feeling you are angry with me because you think I am attacking your post because I don't want Wade here. As of right now I don't know who I am going to vote for. I do think Wade's peak- 3 to 4 best years- is obviously what is giving him such pull at #23. But limiting your post to one season is not helping your cause in swaying others who continue to bring up his longevity issues. You need to argue that his 3 to 4 year prime, while maybe highlighted by the season you discussed, is enough to make up for his durability/longevity/taking games off issues.

[PaulieWal]

I get the feeling you are angry with me because you think I am attacking your post because I don't want Wade here. As of right now I don't know who I am going to vote for. I do think Wade's peak- 3 to 4 best years- is obviously what is giving him such pull at #23. But limiting your post to one season is not helping your cause in swaying others who continue to bring up his longevity issues. You need to argue that his 3 to 4 year prime, while maybe highlighted by the season you discussed, is enough to make up for his durability/longevity/taking games off issues.

Naw, I am not angry and it certainly has nothing to do with you not voting for Wade (if you choose not to). I don't have a vote and I am not following the project for the rankings of players I like. I am simply saying that I am not highlighting his peak with a 11 game stretch. That's a little absurd accusation to begin with. I didn't do the breakdown, SSB did (full credit to him). I posted the breakdown partly in response to some posters suggesting that Wade was some second fiddle his entire career. That's why I wanted to show his peak and make the point that his peak is comparable to and arguable better than LBJ (09/13), Kobe (06), KD (last year). Once I have more time I may do a breakdown of his entire prime. That post was to only show the peak and you are getting lost in the first set of numbers when in a project like this you should focus on the entire post. The grander point was that during his peak and prime he was a top 3-5 player in the league not some second fiddle.

[Basketballefan]

If people are really going to use to longevity to put Stockton over Wade, then those same exact people need to put Kidd over Frazier and Pierce over Barry otherwise the logic is inconsistent.

[DannyNoonan1221]

I get the feeling you are angry with me because you think I am attacking your post because I don't want Wade here. As of right now I don't know who I am going to vote for. I do think Wade's peak- 3 to 4 best years- is obviously what is giving him such pull at #23. But limiting your post to one season is not helping your cause in swaying others who continue to bring up his longevity issues. You need to argue that his 3 to 4 year prime, while maybe highlighted by the season you discussed, is enough to make up for his durability/longevity/taking games off issues.

Naw, I am not angry and it certainly has nothing to do with you not voting for Wade (if you choose not to). I don't have a vote and I am not following the project for the rankings of players I like. I am simply saying that I am not highlighting his peak with a 11 game stretch. That's a little absurd accusation to begin with. I didn't do the breakdown, SSB did (full credit to him). The breakdown also ends with explaining that Miami with Wade was a +7.5 on offense when he was on the floor. I posted the breakdown partly in response to some posters suggesting that Wade was some second fiddle his entire career. That's why I wanted to show his peak and make the point that his peak is comparable to and arguable better than LBJ (09/13), Kobe (06), KD (last year). Once I have more time I may do a breakdown of his entire prime. That post was to only show the peak and you are getting lost in the first set of numbers when in a project like this you should focus on the entire post. The grander point was that during his peak and prime he was a top 3-5 player in the league not some second fiddle.

I would argue, in addition to your repost, points such as that Wade has 3 seasons with a higher PER than Mikan's top PER season, 3 before Baylor's top and 4 before Baylor's 2nd, as well as his 3 PS with a WS/48 higher than .210, where as stockton only has 2, baylor has 2 and Nash has 0. That type of argument is touching on his peak/prime and giving people reason to re-think the longevity issues. Yes his peak is waaaayyy up there. But if it is very short lived it will never help him pass Stockton who played so many more games at such a high level. But if you can show that his peak maybe wasn't so short lived, it starts to knock down those longevity arguments.

[PaulieWal]

Yes his peak is waaaayyy up there. But if it is very short lived it will never help him pass Stockton who played so many more games at such a high level. But if you can show that his peak maybe wasn't so short lived, it starts to knock down those longevity arguments.

Right, but I wasn't posting those numbers in comparison to Stockton. Those were posted in response to the implications that Wade was never that good and some second fiddle who got lucky to win a title as the best player. Peaks are short-lived though. Primes are supposed to be longer. Peak and prime are two different things, when I got more time I may breakdown his prime stats.

[Basketballefan]

I get the feeling you are angry with me because you think I am attacking your post because I don't want Wade here. As of right now I don't know who I am going to vote for. I do think Wade's peak- 3 to 4 best years- is obviously what is giving him such pull at #23. But limiting your post to one season is not helping your cause in swaying others who continue to bring up his longevity issues. You need to argue that his 3 to 4 year prime, while maybe highlighted by the season you discussed, is enough to make up for his durability/longevity/taking games off issues.

Naw, I am not angry and it certainly has nothing to do with you not voting for Wade (if you choose not to). I don't have a vote and I am not following the project for the rankings of players I like. I am simply saying that I am not highlighting his peak with a 11 game stretch. That's a little absurd accusation to begin with. I didn't do the breakdown, SSB did (full credit to him). The breakdown also ends with explaining that Miami with Wade was a +7.5 on offense when he was on the floor. I posted the breakdown partly in response to some posters suggesting that Wade was some second fiddle his entire career. That's why I wanted to show his peak and make the point that his peak is comparable to and arguable better than LBJ (09/13), Kobe (06), KD (last year). Once I have more time I may do a breakdown of his entire prime. That post was to only show the peak and you are getting lost in the first set of numbers when in a project like this you should focus on the entire post. The grander point was that during his peak and prime he was a top 3-5 player in the league not some second fiddle.

I would argue, in addition to your repost, points such as that Wade has 3 seasons with a higher PER than Mikan's top PER season, 3 before Baylor's top and 4 before Baylor's 2nd, as well as his 3 PS with a WS/48 higher than .210, where as stockton only has 2, baylor has 2 and Nash has 0. That type of argument is touching on his peak/prime and giving people reason to re-think the longevity issues. Yes his peak is waaaayyy up there. But if it is very short lived it will never help him pass Stockton who played so many more games at such a high level. But if you can show that his peak maybe wasn't so short lived, it starts to knock down those longevity arguments.

Well if longevity is all there is then i guess we should go ahead and put Ray Allen and Reggie Miller over Wade too. What about Bernard King and Allen Iverson? They have better longevity so let's put them over WAde. Your logic has got to be better than this. Unless you can prove that Stockton gives you more chances at a championship than i don't think it holds much weight. Playing with Karl Malone your whole career and you only go to 2 Finals??

[RayBan-Sematra]

Probably gonna vote for Wade here.
Before the project I had him mentally slotted in my Top 20.
Not sure if I even wanted him to fall this low but upon review may be that I overrated his career.

Anyway Wade is an awesome player.
Started in 04 where he had an impressive (arguably All-Star level) showing in the playoffs.
Then he exploded in 05 and if not for unfortunate injuries to both him and O'neal he would have had a strong chance at a Championship.
Then he had 06 where he roasted everyone in the playoffs and had an epic Finals performance.
Then there is 09 where he may have had the best regular-season ever for a SG not named Jordan.
Then there is 2010 where he had another very good regular-season followed by a legendary playoff series VS Boston who were effective that year at nerfing both LBJ & Kobe (but they couldn't contain Wade).
2011 is another solid year. His numbers were down due to co-existing with Lebron but he was still a beast. May have won FMVP that year if Lebron had performed slightly better.
Then there is 2012. Solid All-Star level year. Comparable to a 2002 Kobe.

So while Wade lacks longevitiy he still had a couple of really high Super-Star level years (06, 09, 10, 11) to go with 2-3 other All-Star level years (04, 05, 12).

Really a shame that he lost 2007-2008 to injuries.

[Clyde Frazier]

Baylor had 2 great finals in 62 and 63:

62 FINALS -- 7 GAMES
~41 PPG, 18 RPG, 3.7 APG, 43% FG, 83% FT (14 FTAs per game)
Rough pace adjustment to 2014: ~31 PPG, 13.7 RPG, 2.8 APG (10.7 FTAs per game)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#BOS-LAL

63 FINALS -- 6 GAMES
~34 PPG, 15 RPG, 4.3 APG, 47% FG, 84% FT (10 FTAs per game)
Rough pace adjustment to 2014: ~27 PPG, 12 RPG, 3.4 APG (8 FTAs per game)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#BOS-LAL

There are definitely some blemishes on his career as he gets older, but it's not necessarily a consistent trend.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Dwyane Wade

He's got the best peak left, and anybody else I'm considering has issues with longevity, too. Wade over Nash is difficult, but I'd take peak Wade over Nash. I'd take Wade's best 6 years over Nash's best 6 years. And Wade's still got two more all-star seasons, plus 2007 and 2008 and a strong rookie campaign. It's enough to move Wade over Nash, but barely.

Wade incinerated some of the strongest defenses of the era, and when he went nuclear, he was a chaotic super event on both sides of the floor. Just a ball of havoc. Best change of direction ability I've ever seen when he was younger. It looked like he broke the laws of physics.

While I'm on the opposite side of this one right now, I'll say up front that I can easily see the case for Wade over Nash. Please allow me to play devil's advocate though.

The added longevity you mention for Wade to me rings pretty hollow, much of it at least.

You're going to bring up an all-star appearance like last year where he absolutely wouldn't have gotten it if he were in the West, or even if he were in the East on a bad team?

You're going to bring up 2008 where the team fell off a cliff in no small part because of his falloff?

You're going to bring up his injury plagued rookie year during which no one talked about him as a future superstar?

Nash is 3rd all-time in assists, and has scored about as much as Wade, and you're going to try to brush away that longevity advantage based on these things?

You talk about them being enough to squeak by Nash, but that just doesn't make sense to me. If that peak over 6 seasons is enough for you that makes complete sense, but the notion that it wasn't quite enough until you remembered his rookie season makes it seem to me like you were already feeling Wade and you were just looking for enough to rebut something you imagined someone would argue against you.

Wade's uneven performance in 2014 makes it hard to properly value that year for him, especially when the presence of LeBron allows him to go on a maintenance program. Wade sucked in the 2014 Finals, but he played like a championship-caliber second option against the best defense in the league the week before. Again, an uneven performance.

Personally, I think Wade had the best overall rookie year of anybody from his draft class. Strong playoffs against DPOY Panda World Peace, comparable efficiency in the REG SEA to LBJ and Melo as arguably the best player of an ensemble cast. I don't like rookies, but 2004 does add to Wade's career value.

Fair point about 2008. That team was a wreck, but Wade didn't seem like Wade that year.

You're right about Nash's longevity though. It's strong enough that I'll reconsider Wade vs. Nash.

[Warspite]

Just a quick note on Baylor: He didnt miss games early in his career because he was hurt. That was military service. There isnt a current player in the NBA who could handle missing a season for a tour of Iraq or Afghanistan without soiling his pretty pink silk boxers every morning. Im impressed that Baylor while in the Army would spend his weekend passes to play for the Lakers without a practice or working out.

[john248]

Players I'm considering here are Nash, Wade, and Pippen though just mentioning Pippen mainly because I like his game.

I see Stockton getting some traction and disagree with it. The Nash vs Stockton has been beaten to death by both sides. Even still, I see both having similar skill sets except one was better able to use them. While both were pass 1st, Nash had the mentality to exploit holes in a defense better simply due his willingness to call his number to score; he viewed himself as having the advantage if he saw a mismatch and followed through. This isn't a knock on Stockton but rather giving extra praise for Nash.

I disagree with Mikan being in the last runoff too. While he did dominate his era, his era was weak and there was a noticeable offensive decline in the 4 years (injured in 51 WCF) of his available NBA years. Maybe his leg wasn't as strong after the fracture; maybe it was the lane getting wider; maybe it was the league contracting... or it was just his offense was good relative to the guys in the league, but the reality is that circumstances did change where his offense wasn't on a dominating level as perceived. So would I have voted for Ewing the last round? In all likelihood, yes, if mainly for the longevity advantage while Ewing also anchored a top defense for a number of years. Now that Ewing is in, I still don't see Mikan's case here. Era was weak and his offense didn't evolve. There are still transcendent types who gave more years. Anyways, not sure how accurate BBR's stats are for his era, but his teams were regularly at the top in defensive ratings while being middle of the pack on offense. 52 was an especially good year where his team's DRTG was -7.6 compared to league average and -5.3 better than the next team, For this season, it looks like Bill Russell impact though it was also the year the key widened until things fell back to normal in 53 and 54. In 54, which seems to be his worst year of the bunch, his team finished with the 2nd highest SRS to the Nationals but take the win in the Finals.

I like Wade even though he gives just 6 years. His peak is too much to ignore, and he doesn't have the era issue that Mikan has. Leaning towards Nash since he has good longevity, and his Phoenix years were awesome.

[Quotatious]

Question for those who consider Pippen - why Scottie over Hondo or Drexler (as far as wings)? I mentioned these two because they're probably the closest comparisons to Pip (Hondo because he was a pretty similar player in terms of what he brought to the table, and Drexler because he's the closest wing contemporary of Pippen). Drexler seems to be better offensively than Pippen, and Hondo might be comparable on both ends of the court (especially the early 70s Hondo, not as much the 60s version...well, maybe late 60s, like 67-69, but definitely not before that).

I'd probably take Pippen slightly over both of them, but I think the comparison may be close enough that I'd appreciate it if someone answered my question.

And there's obviously that Pippen vs Stockton comparison, which is a pretty interesting one, as well (I'd probably lean towards Stockton).

Honestly, now I feel like I'd probably take Frazier and Gilmore ahead of Pippen, but I definitely wouldn't be surprised if Scottie went at 24 or 25, considering that Ewing got voted in higher than I expected (Ewing/Pippen seemed like a pretty close comparison, to me).

And...For those who vote for Baylor at this point (admittedly, he's not even in my top 30) - why him over Barry?

[lukekarts]

Vote: Dwyane Wade

+ Incredible peak performer. 05-09 especially, but still good through to 2012.
+ Impact player on both ends.
+ Clutch defensively. Best shot-blocking guard since Jordan. Countless highlight plays with game winning defensive plays.
+ Successful career, rings, accolades, good international performances (Which I don't think have been mentioned yet)
+ efficient scorer
+ solid playmaker, can handle like #1 guard, though somewhat turnover prone when doing so.

- lots of injuries
- sharp, erratic, injury-influenced decline post-2012
- like many stars, sometimes a passive defender. Criticised for losing focus.
- never been able to shoot well from 3, which impacts his decline.