RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #27 (Dwyane Wade)

[iggymcfrack]

Current vote count:
Barkley 5, Wade 4, Harden 2, Ewing 1, Pettit 1

With second place votes added:
Barkley 6, Wade 5

Current nomination count:
Stockton 5, Miller 2, Kawhi 2, Pippen 2, Frazier 1

With second place votes added:
Stockton 6, Miller 2, Kawhi 2, Pippen 2

While Stockton has a big lead, he’s not really out of range yet since he has zero second place preferences among the remaining candidates. The induction vote is clearly a 2 man race that could go either way here between Wade and Barkley.

[tsherkin]

On the bolded ... why?

He's big on long-term RAPMs. He's great in that year's single season RAPM. That first place comes because they're really good with him on. They were bad with him off. Why would good overall offense hurt him if the math suggests he's driving it.

He missed 18 games and played reduced minutes and their overall efficacy was still high end. I like Stockton, but as a consistent playoff dropper who couldn't step effectively into a scoring role when the team needed it, I think he's overrated by stuff like RAPM. Especially as he aged, he gets a lot of credit for assists he didn't actually generate by doing anything but making a basic chest pass to an open guy for a J. That gains him statistical credit but isn't a meaningful add from the perspective of anything he did.

Regarding "MVP territory" generally ...
Regarding MVP ballot as a measure of quality ... it's very indirect and often quite wrong. I would suggest efficiency, spacing, defense and many non-scoring aspects (that aren't on a physically dominant big man) are often undervalued.
Regarding "MVP territory" specifically ... this isn't a peaks list. MVP territory based just on actual MVPs (per above, often flawed, not a direct measure) extends beyond 100 where the likes of Rose, Wanzer and Walton have sometimes/often resided. If you don't like the Wanzer MVP and want to use All-NBA vote leader for that era we can substitute Johnston in.

You're welcome to look at it that way. For me, I value guys who were primary drivers on their teams and I feel Malone meant more to Utah than did Stockton.

[trex_8063]

1. Yes, and I can feed you extended datasets extolling the brilliance of Amir Johnson and Patrick Beverley. They are a measure of impact in role, not a player ranking.

2. Cool, someone should let Engelmann know iggymcfrack thinks his data is garbage.

3/4. “I am not trying to say he was a top five player, but I think he may have double digit seasons as a top five player because ‘box numbers’ say he is consistently top five and that is his floor.”

He was not a secret MVP candidate. If that is how you want to interpret whatever aggregated numbers you see, suit yourself, but there is a reason even people who think highly of him stop well short of that, and it is not because you alone appreciate the objective truth hidden in those impact indicators.

fwiw [only my opinion], but I'll again reference that project I'd started where I ranked players season-by-season. I did 13 years of Stockton's career ('87, '88, ALL of the 90's, and '01) before I abandoned the project. I'll share where I ranked Stockton for those years.

I'm pretty high on Stockton, though my criteria/philosophy hinges on meaningful longevity. My ranking of him is actually probably marginally LOW-balling him some relative to what his box and/or impact numbers suggest, however (at least for the rs).....

'87 - not ranked [in the top 40] (though I did list him among my "Honouble Mentions" for the year)
'88 - 7th
'89 - ??? (one of his best years, though, so almost assuredly top-10, and maybe even top 5-6(ish))
'90 - 8th
'91 - 6th
'92 - 7th
'93 - 9th
'94 - 7th
'95 - 7th
'96 - 7th
'97 - 6th
'98 - 17th (this is the year he actually missed 18 games, which might have played into the ranking, marginally)
'99 - 15th
'00 - ????
'01 - 18th (which, at a glance, feels like I may have undercredited him)
'02-'03 - ????


So yeah, I never truly considered him an "MVP-candidate" (whatever that means.....top 4-5??), but I have him in the top 10 for literally a decade solid (usually 7th [give or take], 'cause he was so bloody consistent), plus at least four other seasons where he was top-20.
Even in his 19th and final season I speculate I'd still have him in the top 30, at least.

It's a lot of career value. I simply disagree with the notion that a few seasons top 4-5 in the league (and thus, presumably, an "MVP candidate") must automatically carry more value than being #6-9 for a decade straight (with more than a handful of other high-level seasons besides).

[AEnigma]

I do not disagree, but that is closer to how I assess Ewing (with two or three top five finishes, albeit probably no top three finishes) than how I assess Stockton (two or three fringe top ten finishes).

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Barkley got the Suns to the Finals and went toe to toe with Jordan. They won 62, 56, 59 and 41 games with him in Phoenix and later got cheated out of the Finals in Houston in 97.

Is this referring to Malone's illegal screen at the end of Game 6 before Stockton's shot, or something else?

[trex_8063]

On the bolded ... why?

He's big on long-term RAPMs. He's great in that year's single season RAPM. That first place comes because they're really good with him on. They were bad with him off. Why would good overall offense hurt him if the math suggests he's driving it.

He missed 18 games and played reduced minutes and their overall efficacy was still high end.

I've heard this critique (Stockton missed 18 games and played fewer minutes [in '98] and they didn't skip a beat) levelled at him more than once. I realize YOU specifically didn't say "didn't skip a beat", rather only pointed out "their overall efficacy was still high end".

Yeah, they were. And +12.3 better with Stockton on than when he was off, fwiw.


Anyway, the "didn't skip a beat" [again: wasn't you] is not exactly true. And as far as downplaying the impact of his reduced time on court, people levelling this criticism are failing to look at all the moving parts, as it were.

Greg Ostertag has a dipped [poor] season in '98, and an aging Antoine Carr is also declined relative to '97.
However, 2nd-year Shandon Anderson improves substantially (peaking early, having probably the best season of his career). Adam Keefe improves some as well, his probably peak season in fact (not uncommon for guys to peak at age 27). And Chris Morris bounces back from what is a singularly bizarre down year that he had in '97 (seriously look at that relative to the rest of his career, where he was actually quite consistent; don't know that I've seen such an out-of-step [with everything around it] season); granted he's a very limited playing time in '98, but jsia.

Point being, I think dips by Ostertag and Carr are essentially balanced out by improvements in Keefe, Anderson, and Morris.


Additionally, Howard Eisley improves substantially compared to '97 (this is, after all, the primary guy filling Stockton's shoes), having what has to be considered the 2nd-best season of his entire career. So this should somewhat cushion the blow of Stockton's reduced time. Well.....

In 18 games without him, they were 11-7 (.611), on pace for 50.11 wins, and avg MOV of +3.9. So yeah, pretty good without him.

In the 64 games Stockton played, they were 51-13 (.797), on pace for 65.34 wins, and having an average MOV of +7.3. And what's that saying about it being more difficult to be additive the further from the floor you're starting from?

SRS gap gets marginally bigger (than 7.3 vs 3.9), fwiw, because 10 of the 18 games without him were played at home (vs 31 home, 33 away with him), and because while they played 10 winning records and 8 losing records without Stockton, those losing teams were essentially ALL of the worst teams in the league (including TWO games against the single-worst team).
And I already mentioned his on/off was +12.3 in the rs.

So even though Eisley improved a lot, a reduced-minutes Stockton is still such a dramatic upgrade over him that they improve (from an already pretty good starting point) by ~3.5 SRS and >15 additional wins.


Compared to '97, outside of the "big three", the team saw a very small net-gain in the supporting cast: Ostertag and Carr decline, but Keefe, Anderson, Morris, and Eisley all get better.
But nonetheless the effect of Stockton missing just a little bit of time results in their SRS dropping from +7.97 to +5.73.

That is: Stockton playing 1048 fewer minutes resulted a 2.24 SRS drop despite slight improvement overall in their bench core (including in his principle replacement).

And again acknowledging that it's [generally] harder for most players to have an additive effect on an already very good starting point........I just don't see how '98 is this glaring indictment the way some people pretend.

[Doctor MJ]

Nah jokic 4 positions below kd after 5 seasons of real basketball (didn't make the playoffs before that) is wild

So, believing that Jokic's relatively weak longevity means that he's too high here is a pretty reasonable belief.

And I'm certainly not ready to argue Jokic should be above Durant, so it's a pretty reasonable comparison to present to make a point.

But I will pull out one of my pet stats: Team +/- Leader.

How many more times has Durant, with his much greater longevity, led his team in +/- compared to the wet-behind-the-ears Jokic?

Answer: Negative one.

Durant's done it 5 times. Jokic has done it 6 times.

Not trying to blow that one stat out of proportion here, but I doubt most would have expected it.

[rk2023]

Nah jokic 4 positions below kd after 5 seasons of real basketball (didn't make the playoffs before that) is wild

So, believing that Jokic's relatively weak longevity means that he's too high here is a pretty reasonable belief.

And I'm certainly not ready to argue Jokic should be above Durant, so it's a pretty reasonable comparison to present to make a point.

But I will pull out one of my pet stats: Team +/- Leader.

How many more times has Durant, with his much greater longevity, led his team in +/- compared to the wet-behind-the-ears Jokic?

Answer: Negative one.

Durant's done it 5 times. Jokic has done it 6 times.

Not trying to blow that one stat out of proportion here, but I doubt most would have expected it.

Out of curiosity, what are the 5 years for Durant?

[Doctor MJ]

Nah jokic 4 positions below kd after 5 seasons of real basketball (didn't make the playoffs before that) is wild

So, believing that Jokic's relatively weak longevity means that he's too high here is a pretty reasonable belief.

And I'm certainly not ready to argue Jokic should be above Durant, so it's a pretty reasonable comparison to present to make a point.

But I will pull out one of my pet stats: Team +/- Leader.

How many more times has Durant, with his much greater longevity, led his team in +/- compared to the wet-behind-the-ears Jokic?

Answer: Negative one.

Durant's done it 5 times. Jokic has done it 6 times.

Not trying to blow that one stat out of proportion here, but I doubt most would have expected it.

Out of curiosity, what are the 5 years for Durant?

'09-10 Thunder
'12-13 Thunder
'13-14 Thunder
'21-22 Nets
'22-23 Nets

[Rishkar]

Out of the remaining candidates, I like Dwyane Wade's peak over Barkley. While he was less consistently healthy, I think his value on the defensive end helps bridge that gap. Barkley was incredibly efficient from anywhere around the rim and a great rebounder, but his poor shot selection concerning taking threes worries me. While Wade missed a lot of time because of injury, Barkley was inconsistent in his effort and often a negative defender. I feel more confident in my ability to construct a contending team around Wade's ball dominance and decent shooting rather than the defensive liabilities of Charles. This makes it a close race for me between Pettit and Wade. While I think Wade was a better player, I tend to take an era-relative approach to ranking players (I have Mikan in my top 10). And while I would draft Wade before Pettit in an all time draft, I feel this spot should go to Petitt. This board's POY shares have him at 12th all time, with a large lead over anyone not yet inducted. The league was weaker, but that's why we're discussing Pettit in this range instead of 11-15. To summarize, I feel this spot should go to either Pettit or Wade (I lean Pettit).

In terms of nominations, I have Stockton in the same tier as Chris Paul and Steve Nash (I really struggle to rank these point guards as I feel Steve peaked higher than everyone else, but wasn't as impactful as the other two in his non-prime years. Chris Paul might be the objective choice here which is reflected in his placement in this year's project). However, his injuries and leadership style raise a few concerns for me. Regardless of how you rank these three, I feel very little reason to have them 8 or more spots apart on a list like this given Stockton's longevity advantage over Nash and Durability advantage over Paul. His impact profile is fantastic, and I think he is also clearly the best help defender of the group, capable of generating the most steals in NBA history with very little gambling. Those extra possessions often led to high efficiency transition looks. A couple of posters have raised legitimate concerns about why a roster with a top 20 player ever and a top 30 player ever struggled so hard in the playoffs and never won a ring. This bothers me, but in rereading Sansterre's top 100 teams project it seems to me that they have a historically bad bench to work with for most of their prime. Anyway, I think Stockton should be nominated and subsequently voted in very soon. Frazier, Pippen, Kawhi, and Rick Barry are other candidates I'm beginning to consider as well.

[iggymcfrack]

I mean the fact that we’re even nitpicking Stockton’s age 35 season in the first place is ridiculous since the team DID get worse with him missing time and he had a top 5 RAPM in the entire league that year. Let’s see how some other top guards did at age 35:

Harden- hasn’t reached that age yet
Curry- hasn’t reached that age yet
West- played 31 games in his final season, team was 16-15 when he played and 31-20 when he didn’t
Oscar- Had a 14.2 PER and a -0.1 BPM, team was 50-20 when he played and 9-3 when he didn’t
Wade- joined the Bulls who won 41 games after winning 42 the previous season. Team was 29-32 in games he played and 12-9 in games he missed.
Nash- On/off drops to +3.9 in the regular season and +0.1 in the postseason.
Paul- Makes an impressive Finals run, but on/off drops to +2.1 in the regular season and -1.4 in the postseason
Kobe- played 6 games following an Achilles tear
Jordan- retired for the second time

So all Stockton did in 1998 was have possibly the most impactful season ever for a 35 year old guard and it’s being used against him like it’s a criticism or something.

[AEnigma]

Nash- On/off drops to +3.9 in the regular season and +0.1 in the postseason.
Paul- Makes an impressive Finals run, but on/off drops to +2.1 in the regular season and -1.4 in the postseason
Jordan- retired for the second time

So all Stockton did in 1998 was have possibly the most impactful season ever for a 35 year old guard and it’s being used against him like it’s a criticism or something.

The funniest part is I know you are stone-cold serious about all three.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: Dwyane Wade



Repeating vote:

Spoiler:

Well, this one wasn't hard for me. Voted for him before, voting for him again. To put it in a new way:

Can we agree that Wade did more for the Heat than any of the other Nominees did for any of their teams? Not saying this alone clinches him the spot for me, but yes, I think Wade did more for the Heat in total than Giannis & Jokic have done for their respective teams to this point, as well as more than what Barkley & Harden did for any of their teams.

And yes, this is a perspective that values his role in forming the Heatles around himself, not in spite of one of those guys being better than himself, but very much helped by this fact. Understandable anyone who would choose not to consider something like this.

As I say that, I don't think it's clear cut that, say, Giannis has a higher peak than Wade in terms of how they dominated in their era. Giannis is the greater regular season player sure, but he's very much known for his playoff stumbles at this point. Wade by contrast was consistently a playoff "overachiever" in his early years to the point where the term became absurd. Dude was just a buzzsaw that was exceptionally resilient against playoff defense. And when he had that playoff motor going, I do believe that Wade had some serious defensive impact too. As much as Giannis? Eh, I won't make that claim, but impressive to the viewer and intimidating to opponents.

I won't say it's even necessarily clear cut that Jokic peaks higher than Wade, though I wouldn't want to try to make a case against Jokic at this point. What he did last season is just unreal to me.

Over to Barkley & Harden. There's something of a lost-benefit-of-the-doubt thing for both of these guys in a comparison with Wade with my criteria. I'm not going to put them below every guy who led a team to a chip because luck aside, some supporting casts are better than others. But the thing that is Heat Culture is built on the solid rock foundation of Wade, and there's a lack of professionalism in Barkley & Harden that to me makes it hard to imagine such positive aftershocks.

I do see a serious argument for Barkley over Wade on the back of his utterly unique physical talent. If you see him as having both the stronger peak and longer longevity, makes sense why you'd pick him.

I do see a serious argument for Harden over Wade based on a more 2020s-oriented criteria. I'm on record being concerned with Wade's limited shooting. But I also have concerns with Harden's reliance on trickery for foul calls, as that seems to cause his dominance to tend to decrease over the course of tight playoff series...which is not remotely how I see Wade. Wade didn't always peak late in the series, but it was like he had the ability to spike at particular moments when needed, making the gap between his outlier athleticism and mere mortal NBA playoff players all the more jaw-dropping. I don't know if this difference would be enough to make Wade better than Harden in today's league, but that's not my criteria.

Induction Vote 2: Bob Pettit

Spent most of my time really focused on Petti vs Barkley. Siding with Pettit at this time. I don't think era-talent differences are enough to explain away the difference era success.

Nomination Vote 1: Walt Frazier



Repeat vote:

Spoiler:

I'm going to re-post what I said last time for Frazier without spoilers because I still feel unsettled on the matter:

Yeah, so I've been agonizing over this one. Makes sense given that this is where the the structure that narrows the field in Induction stops. It's the place to consider all of the players not yet Inducted or Nominated, and of course that's the vast majority of'em.

With Frazier, the pros and cons are clear. I think his prime was really damn strong, and I think he was the keystone of the Red Holzman Knicks more so than any other player. In comparison with contemporary rivals like John Havlicek, Rick Barry & Wes Unseld, I just think Frazier was better than any of them.

He didn't last all that long though, so there's a major question of whether longevity should favor someone else. To be honest, I kinda felt myself thinking that I should pick someone other than Frazier here...but I couldn't make myself anoint any particular guy.

I probably spent the most time considering Mr. Guard longevity John Stockton, and so that means that next time he might be the most likely for me to switch my vote to.

I'll tell you though, I'm really not sure about Stockton over Reggie Miller. I kinda think Reggie was the better playoff player and extreme longevity himself.

And then there's a guy I'm already soft-championing in Manu Ginobili. On a per minute basis, I'd definitely take Manu over Reggie (or Stockton). I'm seriously considering him over them.

I'd be remiss not to mention Scottie Pippen. I rank his prime play ahead of Stockton & Miller...but his career fell off abruptly somewhat like Frazier's did. It really doesn't seem right to me to favor Pippen over Frazier based on longevity. Feels like you have to prefer Pippen to Frazier, and I just don't. I think we see a gap in shooting ability that puts them in fundamentally different tiers as scorers, and I think Frazier stacks up pretty dang well in the rest of the game too.

That's me mentioning a lot of guys I could see possibly Nominating over Frazier, and there are others as well, but Frazier's the one still standing out most as I look at this right now.

Nomination Vote 2: Scottie Pippen

Repeat vote;

Spoiler:

So, this is me continuing with something of a quality over quantity theme in this current discussion. Like Frazier, Pippen doesn't have as good longevity as others being discussed, but I feel strong enough about his prime to - at least possibly - prefer him over the guys with longevity advantages.

An outstanding 9 years run may not sound like that much compared to what others can claim, but realistically if you're a franchise, you're going to prioritize that 9 years over anything that would come outside of it.

I will say as I select Pippen here, there's always a case for Havlicek over Pippen based on him being a similar player with much greater longevity. I've gone back and forth on this myself. I'll say two main things here:

1. When I did my recent POY Share consideration, Pippen just ended up well ahead of Havlicek. I think so much of this comes down to how impressed you are by Hondo's post-Russell years as an MVP/POY candidate. If you're placing him extremely high there, then I absolutely get coming away with an extremely high evaluation of his career holistically. I have him as a guy making the back end of my Top 5 a couple of those years and giving Cowens a bit more love than Hondo for that era.

2. I'm not that high on the '70s Celtics. They broke through winning 2 chips and that's a big deal to be sure, but I don't think beat the competition that, say, their contemporary rivals the Knicks took down. If you had a perspective that these two runs were roughly as good, then I think Hondo over Frazier starts to look like a pretty clear cut thing, but I just think the Knicks were something special in comparison. And of course, the '90s Bulls are an entirely differently. Yes Pippen had Jordan leading the way, but the Jordan-Pippen 1-2 punch was arguably the most dominant in history, and it had everything to do with the diverse package of skills Pippen brought with him.

[70sFan]

The point is that the evidence we have from impact stats shows that Stockton is actually MORE valuable than BPM shows which makes sense since he was such an excellent defender who didn’t need to gamble to put up his incredible steal totals. What’s not objective is a bunch of people looking at traditional newspaper box scores in the ‘90s and deciding Stockton’s PPG were too low for him to be an MVP candidate.

It's not always a bad thing, but Stockton definitely gambled a lot - he was just so smart he usually could make it work. He was also very active and could recover really quickly despite the size.

Yeah, my impression was that he gambled a fair bit, too. Though for whatever it's worth, he did less gambling on shooting passing lanes and more gambling on impromptu double-teams and ball-hawking (just my opinion, but I think gambling on passing lanes leaves your team hanging out to dry [when you miss] more than the other) .

Good point, Stockton gambled "in a smart way". He often helped his teammates when the ball-handler was unaware and he rotated freely to take charges and swipes. That's not the same as running around passing lanes and leaving potential open paths to score.

I am fairly high on young Stockton defense, though his size was a serious limitation (especially as a man defender).

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Over to Barkley & Harden. There's something of a lost-benefit-of-the-doubt thing for both of these guys in a comparison with Wade with my criteria. I'm not going to put them below every guy who led a team to a chip because luck aside, some supporting casts are better than others. But the thing that is Heat Culture is built on the solid rock foundation of Wade, and there's a lack of professionalism in Barkley & Harden that to me makes it hard to imagine such positive aftershocks.

This is, imo, overblown. Unless I'm forgetting something, this narrative is mostly concentrated on the 1991-92 season(which is probably one of the reasons why the "I am not a role model" commercial came out in 1993) - Barkley's last in Philly, where he really didn't want to be there anymore and was trying to force himself out, perhaps giving less effort on the floor, and getting in that barfight. And then there was 1998-99 in Houston when Pippen was complaining about Barkley being out-of-shape despite Barkley's box stats being better and their RAPMs being identical.

Beyond this, I can't think of Barkley ever being unprofessional, at least to a point where it hurt his team.

And I've said this before, but let's not go overboard with giving Wade credit for "Heat Culture". He was a good leader during his prime years, no doubt, but Riley built every team he played on, Spo coached most his career, and those two guys are the ones who are still around running the Butler-era Heat.

[70sFan]

Since Gilmore got some interest and it's his birthday now, is anyone interested in some tracking data for him?

Yeah, of course. You have some?

I do have:

- shot chart and shooting data,
- post up breakdown,
- offensive rebounding scoring,
- number of shots contested (and bad contests).

I can also make a breakdown of the nature of his turnover numbers (how much of them were caused by bad passes, offensive fouls etc.).

[tsherkin]

Yeah, they were. And +12.3 better with Stockton on than when he was off, fwiw.

Stockton was a very good player. This shouldn't surprise. My point was mostly a response to this idea that some keep advancing that Stockton wasn't working with a lot of help, especially relative to someone like Steve Nash. The Jazz were a very good team. And of course, in the RS, when he was shooting well and offering assists and such, he looked good. I think somewhat inflated relative to his actual value in terms of what he was doing to create shots (particularly in that season), but he was still a good player and it was inevitable that they'd be worse with him off than on.

I'd be careful calling it a "glaring indictment," myself, because that implies that I believe it to be a big deal for Stockton as opposed to one more little thing which off-sets the point to which I was responding, you know?

Understand, I think Stockton was a very good player. That's my baseline. I think RAPM and other plus-minus overrates him and I think we don't speak of his postseason performances as much as we could when evaluating him against others, but ultimately, he's a guy who maxed himself out and was part of good teams. He had good skills, he made sound plays, he was an excellent passer, he mastered the PnR at a volume that we wouldn't really see again [i]until[/] Nash, I mean dude was a master at the pocket pass. He was without a doubt an exceptionally skilled guy. But we're still talking about top 30 guys. Guys who could shoulder franchises on their own. Some of them are guys who elevated in the postseason. Most/all of them enjoyed physical tools whose absence held Stockton back. And while Stockton had legendary durability and longevity, that means only so much to me because the back end of his career wasn't littered with contention, but impressive performance for a guy of that age in the NBA against all the young guns. That isn't championship-contending value added, that's nice to have and a graceful decline (IMHO), so it means only so much to me against, say, a guy who has a 15-year career with a 7- or 8-year prime who managed to be That Guy, you know?

[LA Bird]

Dropping by for a quick vote since there seems to be a tie

Vote: Charles Barkley
Alt: James Harden
Nom: John Stockton
Nom2: Reggie Miller

Same votes as last time. Ewing and Pettit I have a bit lower than here. Wade has the strongest high end seasons but he is lacking in longevity. After 06/09/10/11, it's either 05 (which is nothing special for all timers) or 12/13/14 (where he suffered massive dropoff in the playoffs every year). This might be unpopular but I think Wade is closer to Kawhi than players with a full career. Harden's postseason reputation is exaggerated and while his box numbers do decline, his +/- numbers actually improve in the playoffs. Chris Paul played a big part in the success of the 2018 Rockets but he wasn't great in 2019 and they still almost beat the Warriors in the playoffs. I think Harden will end up ahead on my list when his career is over but at the moment, Barkley is still higher for now.

[OhayoKD]

Vote

1. James Harden, played the best team ever(-iggy) to a draw, did it again the next year with weaker support, and then had an all-time rs and playoff carry job in 2020 playing great against one of the best defenses ever with injury nuking his co-star and mediocre spacing.

Wierd that he's going to go multiple spots lower than Durant given KD+Curry+Klay+Dray was unable to gain seperation from his team when he had backend of his prime Chris Paul. Also excellent longevity dueling the westbrook-less +9 srs thunder to a draw the first year he had an opportunity to shine a year removed from being the opposing defenses' primary focus on a statistically all-time non-champion.

People have pushed for Barkley, but Harden's just seems like a stronger version. Charles probably shouldn't be voted in when contemporaries that looked similarly capable as #1's like Pippen and Ewing haven't even been nominated

2. Wade


Nominate

Scottie Pippen

Seems like a pretty clear upgrade to current nomination frontrunner stockton but i guess we can get into the weeds of that when they inevitably battle each other for induction

[tsherkin]

Barkley got the Suns to the Finals and went toe to toe with Jordan. They won 62, 56, 59 and 41 games with him in Phoenix and later got cheated out of the Finals in Houston in 97.

Is this referring to Malone's illegal screen at the end of Game 6 before Stockton's shot, or something else?

That specifically, yes. I'm being melodramatic about it.

Good point, Stockton gambled "in a smart way". He often helped his teammates when the ball-handler was unaware and he rotated freely to take charges and swipes. That's not the same as running around passing lanes and leaving potential open paths to score.

I am fairly high on young Stockton defense, though his size was a serious limitation (especially as a man defender).

Stockton was one of the best I've seen in how he chose to go after steals. Didn't often seem to be sacrificing fundamental D in order to do it. He was definitely smarter about it than Jordan (particularly as a younger guy), for example.

Stockton had trouble manning up on larger/more athletic guys (and especially on guys who were both, obviously) but he was an excellent team defender. Tight on his rotations, active hands, great situational awareness. I think he was about as good as his body would let him be at defense.

Nah jokic 4 positions below kd after 5 seasons of real basketball (didn't make the playoffs before that) is wild

So, believing that Jokic's relatively weak longevity means that he's too high here is a pretty reasonable belief.

And I'm certainly not ready to argue Jokic should be above Durant, so it's a pretty reasonable comparison to present to make a point.

But I will pull out one of my pet stats: Team +/- Leader.

How many more times has Durant, with his much greater longevity, led his team in +/- compared to the wet-behind-the-ears Jokic?

Answer: Negative one.

Durant's done it 5 times. Jokic has done it 6 times.

Not trying to blow that one stat out of proportion here, but I doubt most would have expected it.

How much does longevity matter with a guy like Jokic? 2 MVPs, probably should have had a third. Title with a Finals MVP. 8 seasons into his career. He's got a 5-year run right now that's absolutely absurd, and 6 where he's really been showing everyone that he's the best passing big we've seen. Three-year run of basically the best offensive impact we've seen, or near to it. He's a playoff riser, I'm it's all there.

At what point do entry-to-practice seasons and graceful-decline years stop mattering?