RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #29 (James Harden)

[trelos6]

Spoiler:

So this enters an interesting discussion, because Pippen obviously grades out as a more efficient scorer than Havlicek and also wasn't a high-usage guy in that regard. He wasn't as durable, didn't log as many MPG, but he was also at worst a comparable passer and in a similar tier defensively.

I'm very curious to see how this conversation unfolds.

Are Pippen and Hondo really in "a similar tier defensively"? I feel like a lot of people would grade Pippen as the greatest wing defender of all-time. In fact, isn't that a consensus opinion? He led the NBA in all-defensive shares 4 years in a row from '94-'97. He was an elite impact player defensively. Havlicek was very good and even was voted first team all-defense several years, but I don't think anyone has him on an all-time list. There's a big difference between very good and all-time great.

I think the difference is more like "elite" vs "all-time great". Very good undersells Havlicek, especially for career value.

I think you could make the argument for Havlicek being 2nd all time behind Pippen for career value.

[OhayoKD]

[spoiler]

Are Pippen and Hondo really in "a similar tier defensively"? I feel like a lot of people would grade Pippen as the greatest wing defender of all-time. In fact, isn't that a consensus opinion? He led the NBA in all-defensive shares 4 years in a row from '94-'97. He was an elite impact player defensively. Havlicek was very good and even was voted first team all-defense several years, but I don't think anyone has him on an all-time list. There's a big difference between very good and all-time great.

I think the difference is more like "elite" vs "all-time great". Very good undersells Havlicek, especially for career value.

I think you could make the argument for Havlicek being 2nd all time behind Pippen for career value.

I could see him at 3rd accumulatively but there's a guy who played longer and peaked alot higher

[AEnigma]

I wouldn't consider Havlicek's case over Pippen defensively, but keep in mind that Russell-less Celtics were less talented defensively than Jordan-less Bulls.
…
Again, the problem is that this assumes that Jordan-less Bulls were roughly as talented as Russell-less Celtics, which is not true.

????

Well, okay, removing Havlicek and Pippen from their teams, I do not see how the first statement is remotely tenable. The late Celtics were a defensive roster which never had a better offence than defence, or at least not until deeper into the 1970s when JoJo White had more primacy and their top defenders had dropped off.

In 1970, they had Satch Sanders as a defence only guy. Larry Siegfried and Em Bryant, defensive guards. Hank Finkel was not good but was a body at the position, and the year after he would be replaced with Cowens. The “offence-first” pieces were Don Nelson, Bailey Howell, and a rookie JoJo as their eighth man… but Howell by that point was a capable enough defensive player, so really we are only talking two clear rotational negatives, and one is the eighth man.

Where this becomes messier is they did miss Satch for a third of the season, and they were defensively bad without him — but they also saw a substantial offensive improvement. Still, on balance, a very fine defensive roster, and in the games Satch played, they were a top three or four defence.

They lose Satch the following year (as well as Howell), and JoJo is given more primacy, but now they have Cowens and an elevated Chaney. Again, better defence than offence. Satch returns in 1972 as a rotation piece, and then he is functionally replaced by Paul Silas (another outstanding defender) in 1973.

Contrast with the Bulls, who had Grant, yes… but then Kerr and Armstrong as guards, Kukoc as the sixth man, and a dreadful Pete Myers who admittedly was better on defence than offence (but boy does that damn with faint praise), plus a similarly underwhelming centre rotation (better overall compared the to 1970 Celtics, but on defensive specifically I am less sure). 1995 they replace Grant with Ron Harper and Cartwright with Purdue; not exactly shifts akin to Cowens or Silas.

Now, overall talent? Sure, the 1970 team was woeful in a way the 1994 Bulls were not. I think that was no longer true by 1972 as Cowens and JoJo settled in, but we are talking a period under two years for the Bulls, so I do not mind doing the same for the Celtics. The main difference though is that they had more talented guards and that Kukoc was in an absolute sense more talented than someone like Nelson. It has little to do with the idea that they had a better defensive roster outside of Pippen.

[70sFan]

Well, okay, removing Havlicek and Pippen from their teams, I do not see how the first statement is remotely tenable. The late Celtics were a defensive roster which never had a better offence than defence, or at least not until deeper into the 1970s when JoJo White had more primacy and their top defenders had dropped off.

Just to be clear, I specifically meant 1970 team (not Cowens rosters), maybe I wasn't clear with that. Now, let's go to the direct comparison...

In 1970, they had Satch Sanders as a defence only guy. Larry Siegfried and Em Bryant, defensive guards. Hank Finkel was not good but was a body at the position, and the year after he would be replaced with Cowens. The “offence-first” pieces were Don Nelson, Bailey Howell, and a rookie JoJo as their eighth man… but Howell by that point was a capable enough defensive player, so really we are only talking two clear rotational negatives, and one is the eighth man.

Where this becomes messier is they did miss Satch for a third of the season, and they were defensively bad without him — but they also saw a substantial offensive improvement. Still, on balance, a very fine defensive roster, and in the games Satch played, they were a top three or four defence.

They lose Satch the following year (as well as Howell), and JoJo is given more primacy, but now they have Cowens and an elevated Chaney. Again, better defence than offence. Satch returns in 1972 as a rotation piece, and then he is functionally replaced by Paul Silas (another outstanding defender) in 1973.

Contrast with the Bulls, who had Grant, yes… but then Kerr and Armstrong as guards, Kukoc as the sixth man, and a dreadful Pete Myers who admittedly was better on defence than offence (but boy does that damn with faint praise), plus a similarly underwhelming centre rotation (better overall compared the to 1970 Celtics, but on defensive specifically I am less sure). 1995 they replace Grant with Ron Harper and Cartwright with Purdue; not exactly shifts akin to Cowens or Silas.

To be clear, this is top 8 players in terms of minutes played in 1970 Celtics:

John Havlicek
Don Nelson
Larry Siegfried
Bailey Howell
Hank Finkel
Em Bryant
Tom Sanders
JoJo White

Let's start with the fact that Nelson was "offense-first" forward who wasn't much of a defender. Siegfried was a capable defender, but I wouldn't call him "defensive guard", as his main job was to provide shooting and spacing. He was decent, but I wouldn't call him a defensive specialist. It's also worth mentioning that Larry played out of his nominal position during that year a lot. Howell was nothing special again and he reached the end of his prime at that point. Finkel was horrible from what I have seen and I don't think you can give him any credit for his defense. Bryant was undersized PG who has some reputation, but it's not backed up with anything I have seen from him on the tape (just a pesky guy who actually didn't provide much impact - not even Beverly type pesky). Sanders is legit, but he missed many games, JoJo was a rookie. Overall, I see a cast with two strong defenders, a few hovering around average and a few weak ones. They also have no inside pressence unfortunately (especially without Tom).

Now, let's go to the Bulls:

B.J. Armstrong
Scottie Pippen
Horace Grant
Steve Kerr
Pete Myers
Toni Kukoč
Bill Wennington
Bill Cartwright

Firstly, I struggle to understand why you put Bryant and Siegfried into "defensive specialists" box but you mention Armstrong like he was a bad guard. I think he was more capable defender than Bryant for sure. Then Grant is arguably better defensively than Pippen and unlike Sanders, he didn't miss time. Kerr wasn't good and Myers was "defensive specialist" because he couldn't do anything on offense, but Cartwright was a solid amount better than Finkel in my opinion (can be wrong, limited sample on Finkel).

I don't know, to me this roster looks clearly more talented on defensive end. Of course Pippen being better than Havlicek defensively makes the gap bigger than it may look, but I still think Kerr/Armstrong/Grant/Cartwright is a better core than Bryant/Siegfried/Sanders/Finkel.

[Gibson22]

VOTING
Pettit for the reasons i've been saying for quite a bit of time
Stockton for consistency and durability and reliability while providing very good two way play

[Clyde Frazier]

VOTING
Pettit for the reasons i've been saying for quite a bit of time
Stockton for consistency and durability and reliability while providing very good two way play

You'll need to add your reasoning here for your vote to count and remember to bold your votes.

[trex_8063]

.

To be clear, this is top 8 players in terms of minutes played in 1970 Celtics:

John Havlicek
Don Nelson
Larry Siegfried
Bailey Howell
Hank Finkel
Em Bryant
Tom Sanders
JoJo White

Let's start with the fact that Nelson was "offense-first" forward who wasn't much of a defender. Siegfried was a capable defender, but I wouldn't call him "defensive guard", as his main job was to provide shooting and spacing. He was decent, but I wouldn't call him a defensive specialist. It's also worth mentioning that Larry played out of his nominal position during that year a lot. Howell was nothing special again and he reached the end of his prime at that point. Finkel was horrible from what I have seen and I don't think you can give him any credit for his defense. Bryant was undersized PG who has some reputation, but it's not backed up with anything I have seen from him on the tape (just a pesky guy who actually didn't provide much impact - not even Beverly type pesky). Sanders is legit, but he missed many games, JoJo was a rookie. Overall, I see a cast with two strong defenders, a few hovering around average and a few weak ones. They also have no inside pressence unfortunately (especially without Tom).

Now, let's go to the Bulls:

B.J. Armstrong
Scottie Pippen
Horace Grant
Steve Kerr
Pete Myers
Toni Kukoč
Bill Wennington
Bill Cartwright

Firstly, I struggle to understand why you put Bryant and Siegfried into "defensive specialists" box but you mention Armstrong like he was a bad guard. I think he was more capable defender than Bryant for sure. Then Grant is arguably better defensively than Pippen and unlike Sanders, he didn't miss time. Kerr wasn't good and Myers was "defensive specialist" because he couldn't do anything on offense, but Cartwright was a solid amount better than Finkel in my opinion (can be wrong, limited sample on Finkel).

I don't know, to me this roster looks clearly more talented on defensive end. Of course Pippen being better than Havlicek defensively makes the gap bigger than it may look, but I still think Kerr/Armstrong/Grant/Cartwright is a better core than Bryant/Siegfried/Sanders/Finkel.

Just throwing a third opinion into the mix, fwiw.....

Re: Armstrong vs Bryant
I don't agree that Armstrong was a stronger defensive guard than Em Bryant. Em was small, yes (so was BJ), but I do feel like his ability to be a pest is largely what allowed him an NBA career at all ('cause he offered precious little on offense). He wasn't a Mo Cheeks, but he was kinda pesky to my limited eye-test. And he wasn't a terrible rebounder from the PG, fwiw, despite his size (career 5.0 reb/36).

BJ......
Well, for starters I'm going to point out that in 747 games [nearly 18k minutes] he blocked 47 shots. Total. He doesn't have a single season of double-digit blocked shots, and that career average is <0.1/game (even per 48 minutes it's just 0.127). You'd think that just within the context of contesting shots [at least aggressively] you'd chance upon a few more blocks than that.
Nor did BJ generate many turnovers. Nor did he rebound well (just 2.7 reb [2.3 drebs]/36 minutes for his career).
On top of that, he had difficulty staying in front of quicker guards because his lateral footspeed was actually kinda poor for a PG; and he had a tendency to die [or at least be severely lamed] on a screen.
None of this is suggestive of being a particularly capable defender.

About the only positive things I can say wrt his defense is he tried (he just lacked the tools to be any good), and he didn't commit an excessive number of fouls.

And fwiw, the four years of his career we have RAPM for, his DRAPM was as follows:
'97 (NPI): -1.63
'98: -2.04
'99: -1.64
'00: -1.04

So between the two, I'd have to comfortably give the edge to Em Bryant [defense only]. I'd likewise give him the edge over Kerr defensively.


Re: Pete Myers (vs Larry Siegfried)
I don't know if I'd go as far as calling him a "defensive specialist" (simply because he sucked on offense). I don't know that I agree with AEnigma's tone either, that suggests he was just a body out there on defense. He was OK/fair/decent [on defense], imo.

I think Siegfried was at least that good, too.


Re: Toni Kukoc (general thoughts; or take it in a "vs Howell or Nelson" context, if you like)
imo, Toni's biggest weakness was a lack of physicality in the post. So if he was defending a big/strong more "bullish" PF in the post, he would more or less give way like a swinging door.

However, he was surprisingly [for a man his size, at least] decent on perimeter defense, being quicker than expected in terms of staying in front of smaller wings, while his length gave a little trouble to shooters. And he generated some turnovers, blocked an occasional shot, committed very few fouls.

And fwiw, I noted he has surprisingly respectable DRAPM's in the years we have figures for:
'97 (NPI): +1.29
'98: +3.11
'99: +2.49 (note this is after the dynasty blew up; the Bulls fell to putrid overall, though were still ranked 16th of 29 defensively with Kukoc playing more minutes on the team than anyone [2nd was Dickey Simpkins......yikes]; priors may still be swaying it, but still.....)
'00: +1.14
'01 (NPI): +0.47
'02 (NPI): -0.79
'03 (NPI): +1.06
'04 (NPI): -0.55 [but he's 35 years old by this point]


Re: Cartwright vs Finkel
Cartwright is always a tough one to figure, unless you've seen him. Certainly his box-based numbers are unimpressive [even defensively]. However, his offensive ones are worse, and there was a reason Phil had him on the court. Jackson's praise of Cartwright's defensive toughness is actually a pinch outspoken in places. Certainly Cartwright was a solid low-post defender, with a reputation for "sharp elbows", and a sort of tone-setting toughness. Was "smart" in terms of knowing where to be, even if his mobility was mostly fairly awful by those dynasty years.

Finkel.......well, he was no prize, but I think he was worth more defensively than 70sFan has given him credit for, at least within the league context of the time period. The floor was not much spread, and simply having a 7-footer in there around the rim was a plus; he rebounded OK, fwiw.

Overall, I'm inclined to give the defensive edge to Cartwright, but not by a big margin.


That's about all I got. In terms of defensive value between Grant and Sanders........idk; other than to note Sanders missed more time, played less in general.
I think Grant is an oft-underrated player in general, btw.


Overall, comparison of the sans-Havlicek/Pippen casts in '70/'94 [defense only], I think the backcourt favours the Celtics (Bryant/Ziegfried/White > BJ/Kerr/Myers), but the frontcourt favours the Bulls (Grant/Kukoc/Cartwright/Wennington > Howell/Nelson/Finkel/Sanders).

[trex_8063]

VOTING
Pettit for the reasons i've been saying for quite a bit of time
Stockton for consistency and durability and reliability while providing very good two way play

You'll need to add your reasoning here for your vote to count and remember to bold your votes.

Yeah, I mean it's not made explicitly clear who's your main vote and who's the alternate.
Also no nomination listed.

[trex_8063]

If anyone is interested, a quick scan of 1st votes only, I have Harden running away with it so far:

Harden - 8
Pettit - 2 (or 3 if Gibson's vague vote post is counted)
Stockton - 2

Which seems fitting [to me, at least], given Barkley just went in.
iirc, Pippen had several alternate votes, so the next few rounds should be tight.
Didn't pay much attention to noms on this pass; seemed fairly spread out. I think Kawhi had quite a few, but again, I wasn't really paying attention.

[ZeppelinPage]

Vote: Patrick Ewing
Alternate Vote: Scottie Pippen

Nomination: John Havlicek
Alternate Nomination: Walt Frazier

Ewing and Pippen are neck and neck because of my emphasis on defensive play and the impact it has in the playoffs. Ewing's valuable rebounding ability here might give him a slight edge for me. Total shame the Knicks were unable to acquire a better 2nd option than John Starks. In terms of overall impact to a basketball team, having the ability to rim protect and rebound at an elite level while being able to handle a heavy offensive load is immensely valuable. I rate guys like Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace highly, so it makes sense that Ewing, who can provide offense with his ability to score and shoot from the mid range, is rated above them.

I put an emphasis on playoff performance and Havlicek is an 8x champion that consistently played better in the playoffs on heavier volume. He was a well-rounded player and he rarely ever missed games throughout his career. I think there are some other players being talked about here that one could certainly make an argument for but the level to which Havlicek one before and after Russell does show his value. I'm surprised to see mention of Havlicek as a "chucker" because I think that undersells what he was doing. The Celtics rarely had many players that could handle a high volume of shots so he was having to shoot because few others on the team would. Havlicek shooting takes pressure off his teammates and allows a defensively focused team to do what they do best. I could easily go another big here with how much I value what they bring, but Frazier does have the ability to score, pass, brings playoff resiliency, along with some of the best perimeter defense of his time.

[Rishkar]

I have Frazier as the only top 30 player all time nominated, so I think he is definitely the most deserving. I think Hondo, Barry, Thurmond, Miller, Kidd, Kawhi, and Gilmore are next up for me, and I really struggle to distinguish between them. As someone who only started watching basketball in the 2022 season, I haven't seen enough to really distinguish these players who didn't peak as high as most of the others voted in but were consistently great. So far, I have Miller, Hondo, Barry, and Kidd as the frontrunners. Additionally, I'm starting to look at Schayes, but don't know enough about him to be sure if he belongs in nomination conversation yet.

[Doctor MJ]

Repeating all votes from last time - though continuing to chew on Hondo.

Induction Vote 1: Bob Pettit

Spoiler:

So the essence of the situation here is that I have Pettit considerably higher on in-era achievement than the guys he's competing with. That doesn't clinch he gets the nod from me - I'm also factoring in the level of the league - but I'd really have to be chopping the old league down a lot before a player of Pettit's prominence could fall below the other candidates.

Do I see the argument for Barkley as a guy who played the same position but was a greater talent? Sure, and I'd side with Barkley's peak here, but I don't have Barkley's career as a guy who was a serious MVP candidate year-in and year-out like I have Pettit.

Additionally, I'd feel more uncomfortable picking Pettit here if I wasn't knowledgeable of how Pettit's game aged - like win - in the era of Russell & Chamberlain. No, Pettit wasn't just a guy doing his thing against plumbers, he was a talent which no one was able to simply dismiss.

Scottie Pippen

Spoiler:

So yeah, Pippen jumps straight up into the #2 spot for me. Debated about voting for one of the more major contenders. but honestly while I was typing up the chart below, it just made it really hard to justify voting for the other candidates even though I don't want to look as if I'm taking some stubborn stand here.

I'm not a huge Pippen fan really...but dammit if he wasn't an incredibly well-round robust player the type you're dying to have if you want to sustain a contending core for many years. His role as the Beta Bull ain't enough to get him in GOAT competition, but I very much venerate guys who cultivate games that can fit like a keystone to a dynastic core.

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: Reggie Miller

Spoiler:

As is proving the case often, the 2nd Nomination position is the one I'm agonizing over.

I'll tell you that I have 3 guys primarily on my mind right now: Miller, John Stockton & Manu Ginobili.

Of the 3, the guy I most feel like championing at this point is actually Ginobili - and I'm doing so some in that '04-05 thread. But championing him doesn't necessarily mean I see him as needing to be ranked at least as high as X. The minutes thing absolutely holds him back, just a question of how much. The thing I'm more passionate about is making people take seriously that when he did play his impact was just plain massive and scaled to top playoff competition like nobody's business.

I can see the case for him over Reggie & John, but can definitely see it the other way around, and those two are big in the debate right now.

I've bee going back & forth between Stockton & Miller for a while now. I really do hold Stockton in quite high regard and am not trying to make him fall lower, but as some know, I've always been high Reggie.

Still though something changed for me, and I can tell you that it happened in my last pass through POY shares where Miller really stood out. Here's a lens to consider the scale of it:

Among '80s draft guys, most times in my Top 5:

Michael Jordan 11
Hakeem Olajuwon 8
Karl Malone 8
David Robinson 7
Reggie Miller 5
Patrick Ewing 4
Scottie Pippen 4
Charles Barkley 3
Kevin McHale 3
Kevin Johnson 1
John Stockton 1

Miller's not seen like a Top 5 guy in general so this is bound to shock folks, but I really think his playoff performances warranted this.

As for Stockton only making it once, well he was certainly consideration many years. In the end, just hard to sneak him up that high for me in practice. Maybe he was capable of it, maybe no, but I think Reggie with the primacy he took in practice was the player demonstrating something quite rare.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Vote: Bob Pettit

I still believe he has the best era-relative case on the current ballot in terms of team success and individual box stats.

Secondary Vote: James Harden

He's winning this in a landslide so I may as well pile on. He was just quite an offensive basketball player at his peak. I don't even like the guy that much but to score as much as he was at his peak, as efficiently as he was, while creating for his teammates as much as he was, is a rare feat. It helps that the Rockets did as well as they did against the 18 Warriors.

Nomination: Walt Frazier

I really struggled with this nomination. Looks like a three-way race between Kawhi, Frazier, and Reggie, and I love all three guys.

All three are/were excellent playoff performers and had ample team success. Reggie has by far the best longevity, but his lack of rings where the other two have two apiece pushes him aside for now.

Kawhi is probably my favorite player of his era. I absolutely love the guy. Old-school, low-key attitude, high efficiency, elite defense, elite rebounding for his position, clutch. Everything you could want. I think he is pretty clearly the highest peak of these three. His only weakness is that he can't stay on the floor. If he could, he would've been inducted already. I watched nearly every minute of that 2019 Toronto run and I'll never forget it. At his peak, he is a genuine Top 20 type talent who is slowly becoming an injury casualty.

Frazier is one of the underappreciated stars in the league's history. Those Knicks teams are sometimes portrayed in a similar light to the 2004 Pistons, i.e. a no-star team. I don't think that's true. I think Reed and Frazer were 1A/1B in 69 and 70, and then Reed declined pretty quickly and Frazier was the star for the rest of the time. Similar to Kawhi, Frazier was an efficient scorer, an elite defender, and a very good rebounder for his position.

I had a hell of a time deciding between Kawhi and Frazier. Two two-way stars who had a fair bit of postseason team success, and they both beat some notable teams...Heatles and Steph Warriors for Kawhi and the Wilt/West Lakers for Frazier.

Ultimately, what tilted it enough for Frazier for me is that I just think he was more important to his team for longer. Frazier's Knicks went to the ECF six times and the finals three times, winning two titles. Kawhi went to the ECF/WCF five times and the finals three times, winning two titles. The difference is that Kawhi wasn't the same guy when the Spurs went to the WCF in 2012 and the finals in 2013 and 2014(I know some feel like his Finals MVP that year was a bit dubious). He was a very good player, but he made big jump around 2016. So he was really only peak ATG Kawhi for his 2017 ECF run and 2019 championship run(looking at seasons where he made the conference finals or better). Frazier was pretty much at the same level for all of his team's runs. His overall longevity is not really too much better than Kawhi, but he just reached his peak sooner(even though Kawhi's peak was higher).

(OTH, Kawhi's doing it in multiple context impresses me too.)

Ok, I've changed my mind about five times while writing this, but I'm sticking with Frazier for now. He already has a two-vote lead, so he was probably going to win the nomination anyway.

Secondary Nomination: Kawhi Leonard

For all the reasons above.

If you ask me again in ten minutes, I might flip them.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Bob Pettit
Vote 2 - John Stockton
Nomination - Walt Frazier

I think Pettit deserves recognition is this range for an impressive overall career, decent longevity relative to era and creating the blueprint for later PFs. The first two things that stick out are his incredible FT rate and TS Add for that time (career .481 and 1,758 respectively, career highs .536 and 250.6 in ’59). In the ’58 finals yes Russell missed 2 games, but you can only play who’s in front of you and Pettit stepped up. In the game 6 championship win he put up 50 points (19-34 FG, 12-15 FT), 19 boards and scored 18 of the Hawks’ final 21 to close out the game. Russell did play 20 minutes in that game.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote John Stockton
Alternation James Harden
Nomination Walt Frazier

I guess Stockton doesn't have the highest peak available. But he's somewhat underrated in that regard too. Dude was dropping 15 APG, scoring near 20 PPG with great efficiency, playing great defense and even outplaying Magic Johnson in 88.

Two decades of excelence on both sides of the court. The major contributor at times, the 2nd option, and even a player with less minutes but high impact. Always knew his role and usually didn't play bad - even when not playing great he did play well enough.

This is what separates him from James Harden, who reportedly became less coachable when he ascended to star level. Yes Harden's peak is high. But how much higher? Enough to justify ignoring the longevity, intangibles, defense, coachability and consistency of Stockton? Not in my book. At least not yet.

Another thing that concerns me is that Harden struggled a ton to replicate his imact in the playoffs. I think Stockton's game translates better to longer series and teams adapting than Harden's.

Anyway this is my two cents on Stockton. Feel free to disagree, obviously.

[OhayoKD]

Another thing that concerns me is that Harden struggled a ton to replicate his imact in the playoffs. I think Stockton's game translates better to longer series and teams adapting than Harden's.

Then why did the Jazz translate worse than Houston in the postseason

[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. Pippen

A. Skillset

-> excellent creator, even when we limit creation to passing:

While he was a phenomenal finisher and transition player, Pippen’s best offensive attribute was his passing. By my estimates, he dolled out “good” or “great” passes on about 3 plays per 100, which, for comparison, was slightly behind John Stockton’s rate.

-> unlike Stockton, he also broke defenses down as a penetrator with a legitimate scoring threat
-> unlike Stockton, he directed teammates where to go as the bulls primary on-court decision-maker
-> unlike Stockton, led good offenses without the best offensive players of the 90's

Also unlike Stockton was arguably the best ever non-big defensively, coordinating teammates as a floor-general, making more plays on the perimeter than anyone, being the bulls primary help defender and also functioning as a co-primary paint protector:

Spoiler:

I did 40 possessions from the 4th game of the 91 ECF today just looking at the distribution of, as 70's calls it, "load as a paint-protector":
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]
(if you want to check, 20 possessions are finished through 19:42 amd 40 are finished through 49:52)

Note it was very hard to make out players(besides pippen whose got a nasty case of roblox head), so i could be misattributing here and there though I used jersey numbers, names, commentators, and head/body shapes the best i could. I also counted "splits" for both parties(which is why the numbers don't add up to 40)


Distribution went

Pippen/Grant
14 each

Purdue
6 or 7

Cartwright
4

Armstrong/Jordan
1 each

FWIW, Grant seemed more significantly more effective than Pippen but otoh, Pippen was trusted to deal with laimbeer far more than anyone else

All that aside, what's notable here is that it's the non-bigs who are checking rim threats the most. Not the centres. With one of the two deterring attempts, sometimes on an island, the rest of the team was enabled to try and force turnovers with suffocating pressure.

Chicago's defense was average before Pippen(and grant's) ascension in the second half of 1990. Their offense was good but not historic. At his apex, doing as much as he could, Jordan had done a commendable job(or at least most of the commendable job) turning a 27-win team into a 53-win one(full-strength ratings here), but it was the help that elevated the Bulls into a legitimate title threat in 1990 and then a dynasty for near the next decade with Pippen as the guy seeing the biggest jump in raw-production and the biggest jump in load/responsibility(on both ends).

He proceded to lead a contender in 1994 in spite of intense internal conflict and the bulls stayed very good in 1995 despite the best and 3rd best players missing(with Scottie filing a trade request).

Notably the Bulls defense consistently elevated in the postseason, something which was not happening when it was just micheal/oakley/sam vincient. Using san's rolling srs, there were years where the defense outpaced the offense. Consider playoff scottie also saw a general "simple box" improvement, proceeded to lead the bulls to an elevated post-season outing in 1994, and then played a signficant role nearly knocking off the 67-win Lakers post-prime, and the notion Scottie wasn't also a playoff elevator seems detached from reality.

In fact, Pippen managed to anchor, by sans rolling ratings, the 7th and 22nd best playoff defenses ever in 96 and 98 respectively. He was arguably as close as any non-big has ever come to being a defensive superstar. And he was also someone who could lead good offenses in the absence of overwhelming talent. I think that combination demands induction sooner rather than later. Even if you pay no heed to the team-success, some of which came without Micheal. People speculate he lacked the intangibles of an alpha, but the results disagree.

[LA Bird]

Vote: James Harden
Nom: Reggie Miller

Copy pasting f4p's long post on Harden:

Spoiler:

I will copy and paste from the last thread.

Vote: James Harden

So I guess I'll write a Harden post, for whatever reason. It's sad people dislike him so much. For a guy who never got in trouble off the court, said anything bad, or punched people in the nether regions like Chris Paul, and who mostly just stayed to himself, people sure don't like that he drew a lot of fouls. For a guy who started his career coming off the bench for 3 seasons and then worked his way up to a 5-time MVP candidate, people sure do seem to think he's just a partier who didn't try very hard. For a 6'-5", moderately athletic, below average straight-line-speed shooting guard who isn't an all time elite shooter, he sure never gets the "How did he do it with his physical limitations?!!" praise that some other people get. Wonder why that is.

For a guy who averaged 30.7/6.7/5.9 against the 2015/18/19 Warriors, he sure gets a lot of "Worst playoff performer ever!" talk. In fact, I would struggle to name someone so great about whom so little positive is said as James Harden. LIke Lebron has probably gotten more negative attention than anyone in NBA history, but it's balanced with probably the 2nd most positive attention ever as well. But every James Harden story is either outright bad or starts with "He sucks in the playoffs, but man could he...". It's crazy, for a guy 12th all time in MVP shares. For a guy who hard carried a franchise for a decade of almost never missing a game and playing league-leading type minutes, only to have to bash up against a perennial 10 SRS (when they tried) dynasty year after year. Who had his best chance stolen by injury to a teammate. And 2nd best chance stolen by an injury to himself, that he still tried to play through.

MVP guys without an alpha championship - Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Harden, Nash, Paul

Is there any argument against Harden having the best "oh so close" championship case with the 2018 Rockets? 4 guys are already in and Barkley looks next. Why is Harden getting inducted behind all these guys? Or at least so far behind them?

Best Team (or best "oh so close" team)
Barkley - 1993 Suns
Malone - 1997 Jazz
Ewing - 1994 Knicks
Robinson - 1995 Spurs
Harden - 2018 Rockets
Nash - 2007 Suns
Paul - 2014 Clippers

Regular Season Quality
Harden: +8.2 SRS - Paul misses 24 games, Harden misses career-high 10 games, Rockets 44-5 with +11.0 SRS in games Harden/Paul play, so extremely good when healthy
Malone: +8.0 SRS - expansion inflated number maybe more like +7.2 or +7.5, no injuries (82 games from big 3)
Nash: +7.3 SRS - no real injuries, Nash missed 6 games and Diaw 9
Paul: +7.3 SRS - decent amount of injuries, Paul misses 20 games but team only plays at 58 win pace with him so not much difference, Redick misses half the season but team plays the same with or without him
Ewing: +6.4 SRS - lots of role players missed games but Ewing/Oakley play almost all games, Mason misses 9 games
Barkley: +6.3 SRS - injuries to KJ and Dumas (49 and 48 games played) but team has basically the same record with or without those 2
Robinson: +5.9 SRS - only Rodman missed games but he only played 49 and the team was 40-9 (67 wins pace) so very good when healthy, though MOV was only +6.4 (58 win pace) in Rodman's games so may have been some luck in that record

So Harden seems to have generated the best regular season team of any of them, by a significant margin when healthy

Toughest Team Who They Lost To
Harden: 2018 Warriors - maybe a small step below the 2017 Warriors, still GOAT level
Malone: 1997 Bulls - maybe a small step below the 1996 Bulls, still GOAT level
Nash: 2007 Spurs - +8.4 SRS, very good team, but a step down from the 2 above
Barkley: 1993 Bulls - 16-4 playoff run through 3 6+ SRS teams, equal to 2007 Spurs
Robinson: 1995 Rockets - terrible regular season, great playoffs, Hakeem going berserk makes them tougher than 1994 Rockets
Ewing: 1994 Rockets - a one-star title team without the confidence of having already won a title
Paul: 2014 Thunder - good +6.7 team but didn't even make finals

How Close They Came To Winning
Harden: Game 7
Ewing: Game 7
Malone: Game 6
Nash: Game 6
Barkley: Game 6
Robinson: Game 6
Paul: Game 6

Led the Series?
Harden: 3-2
Ewing: 3-2
Paul: 1-0 (not 2-0 for a change)
Malone: No
Nash: No
Barkley: No
Robinson: No

Mitigating Reason For Losing?
Harden: Best teammate injured for 2 games with series lead
Nash: Best teammate suspended for 1 game with tied series
Robinson: Rodman going crazy (also Hakeem going crazy)
Ewing: No (could say Starks shooting in Game 7 but Ewing shot horribly for the whole series so no room to talk)
Barkley: No
Paul: No
Malone: No

Harden has the best regular season team (yes, with the best teammate), lost to at least tied for the best opponent, got closer to winning than anyone but Ewing, had a series lead late unlike anyone but Ewing, and had the best mitigating reason for losing. He didn't lose the first 2 games at home like Barkley, didn't have a 39 TS% like Ewing, wasn't 1-4 with 3 points and 3 turnovers with 9 minutes to go in the closeout game like Nash (after going 1-8 in the 4th while losing a lead in the previous game), didn't get slaughtered by his counterpart like Robinson, didn't miss the potential series swinging free throws like Malone, and I can't remember but I think this was the series Chris Paul committed some huge crunch time error to lose one game.

But 4 and about to be 5 of these guys are in and who knows, Ewing might make it yet before Harden.


But maybe they've got way better careers:

SRS defeated as a team alpha in the playoffs:
Malone: 41.9 (Top 35 teammate for 18 years)
Harden: 27.1
Ewing: 22.1
Nash: 21.3
Paul: 18.6 (32.2 if you counted 2021 but that seems iffy and all opponents injured)
Barkley: 14.9 (didn't count negative SRS opponent in 1986 1st round to be nice)
Robinson: 7.2 (!!, he is ranked so much lower without Duncan showing up)

Doesn't seem like a ton of winning from these guys to outpace Harden

What about standard career-long measures:

Win Shares - Regular Season
Malone: 234.6
Paul: 205.0
Robinson: 178.7
Barkley: 177.0
Harden: 158.0
Nash: 129.7
Ewing: 126.5

VORP - Regular Season
Malone: 99.0
Paul: 96.2
Robinson: 81.9
Barkley: 80.5
Harden: 76.0
Ewing: 50.0
Nash: 48.2

Win Shares - Postseason
Malone: 23.0 (7900 minutes, 0.143 WS48)
Paul: 21.2 (5442 minutes, 0.187 WS48)
Harden: 20.6 (5750 minutes, 0.172 WS48)
Barkley: 19.5 (4850 games, 0.193 WS48)
Robinson: 17.5 (4220 minutes, 0.199 WS48)
Ewing: 14.1 (5200 minutes, 0.130 WS48)
Nash: 11.9 (4300 minutes, 0.133 WS48)

VORP - Postseason
Malone: 12.1
Harden: 11.9
Paul: 11.9
Barkley: 10.2
Robinson: 8.7
Ewing: 6.7
Nash: 5.6

Definitely some regular season advantages for the others, but Harden jumps back up in the playoffs.

So Harden is the guy with the best championship case, beat more opponent SRS in the playoffs than anyone but the massive-longevity guy who had a hall of fame teammate for almost 2 decades, and look middle of the pack by the career measures. But maybe we shouldn't compare him to those guys.

James and the Giant Reach or James Harden is either way more like Steph Curry than you think or Steph Curry is way more like James Harden than you think

These guys end up next to each other a lot in different measures. And Harden doesn't always lose.

Normalized 10 Year Box Score (my calculation, nothing fancy)
22. Harden 0.593
24. Steph 0.576

2 peas in a pod. Only 2 spots apart.

Harden is terrible at playoff resiliency. But guess who else is:
Resiliency (my calculation, nothing fancy)
34th out of 41. Steph -0.1613
39th out of 41. Harden -0.1982

So small advantage for Steph, but once again right there in the same range (Harden would actually be ahead if it included 2011).

RAPM 97-22?
13. Steph 6.5
22. Harden 5.1

Okay, an advantage for Steph, but probably not as excessive as people would guess. But what if we just do the playoffs:
Playoff RAPM - Cheema
6. Steph 4.12
7. Harden 4.11

Well damn, that's about as close as it gets.

What about plain ol' playoff plus/minus for these BFF's
Steph 2013-23, (11 years, 9 playoffs): +12.0 on/off (all prime years)
Harden 2011-22 (12 years, 12 playoffs): +11.0 on/off (not all prime years)

So really close, even in the area where Steph dominates. But we included a little non-prime for Harden. What if we just do 2011-2021, still as many years and more playoffs than Steph:
Harden 2011-21 (11 years, 11 playoffs): +11.4 on/off

Even closer. What if we just do 2011-2020? Still more playoffs than Steph. +11.9. Practically a tie.

And just to show how disastrous the Milwaukee hamstring series was, what if we just do 2011 up until the end of the 1st round in 2021:
Harden 2011-21 1st Round: +12.9

So Harden spent a decade having every bit the playoff on/off impact that Steph did.

But f4p, they played 3 head to head series and Steph won them all, checkmate.

Stats from 2015/18/19 Series
Harden: 30.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 5.9 apg, 58.0 TS% (-3.4% from regular season), 21.9 Game Score
Steph: 26.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 59.5 TS% (-5.9% from regular season), 19.2 Game Score

But those are box score numbers, we know Steph is all about impact:

Harden On/Off: +16.2 per 48 (Harden with a hilarious +48.8 in 2015)
Steph On/Off: +5.3 per 48

But this isn't about how much better Harden is than Steph and how he seems to have definitely outplayed him in these series, it's about how similar they are. So let's try a little magic. I'll get rid of those garbage time minutes I always talk about in Game 2 and Game 3 in 2018. While they do make the series look a lot further apart than it was, they also seriously inflated Harden's plus/minus because they were disastrous "off" minutes. So now it's:

Harden +11.7
Steph +10.4

Wow, still not that different once again. And Harden still ahead. Of course, I'm a vengeful god, and I can't help but notice how well Steph did in Games 6 and 7 in 2018, after the talent advantage became overwhelming. Kind of like how 2017 was coincidentally his best playoffs ever. So what if we remove those (while still removing the garbage time):

Harden +13.0
Steph +5.5

Wow. So the guy who lost all 3 series had better box numbers and on/off numbers. I'm sure people are taking that into account in these rankings (feel free to check the on/off numbers in case I somehow botched them).

So Harden seems to look a lot more like Steph Curry than "rangz" would indicate and has plenty of reasons to be ahead of the non-alpha title guys. Why is he about to be outvoted by almost all of them (and maybe 6 spots behind Nash!) and somehow have Bob Pettit squished in between him and those guys?

A Requiem for the 2018 Houston Rockets or "Are we sure Harden didn't play on a top 5 healthy team ever?" or "**** Chris Paul's hamstring"

Chris Paul's hamstring. **** that thing. Mike D'Antoni might be widely recognized as a genius coach forever if that that thing stays healthy. Daryl Morey's revolutionizing of the NBA and his team building might be cemented as legendary if that thing stays healthy. Chris Paul gets his championship. And James Harden might be considered the leader of a top 5 team ever if that thing stays healthy.

The 2018 Rockets were very good. 65-17 and +8.21 SRS. But that belies their real strength. James Harden and Chris Paul only played 49 games together. The Rockets were 44-5 with a +11.0 SRS. That's a 74 win pace. When Clint Capela also played, they were 42-3 with a +12.1 SRS. That's a 77 win pace (it was actually 41-2 before losing the 2nd to last game). Chris Paul missed 24 games. James Harden missed a career high (at the time) 10 games. Capela missed 8 games. And other than PJ Tucker, Capela's 74 games led the team. Gordon/Ariza/Mbah-a-moute/Anderson also missed a combined 65 games (13 to 21 each).

How does that compare?
1967 76ers (68-13): 6 best guys played 80 or 81 games
1972 Lakers (69-13): Jerry west played 77, rest of top 5 played 80+
1983 76ers (65-17): Erving played 72 and Jones off the bench played 74, but mostly 77-80 games
1996 Bulls (72-10): Rodman 64 games but basically no other major missed games (Longley missed some)
2016 Warriors (73-9): the big 3 missed 6 combined games

You win lots of game by being healthy. Or you are the 2018 Rockets and you just never lose when healthy. Now would the Rockets have really won 77 games if healthy? Obviously not. And can you expect absolutely perfect health? No. But what if they had 1983 Sixer or 1996 Bulls health? Chris Paul plays 74 games, Harden maybe 76, Capela 78. That team is at least winning 68 and takes on a new level of dominance only being behind the big 4 (69, 69, 72, 73). And honestly, 69 and 70 don't seem out of reach, especially since 70 wouldn't have the kind of pressure and teams gunning for you it did before the Warriors won 73 two years before.

Imagine a 69 or 70 win Rockets team goes into the playoffs. That's a team chasing an all-time legacy.

And that team was great in the 1st 2 rounds. In the 2018 Rockets/2020 Lakers thread, someone posted point differentials through 3 quarters. It was to boost the Lakers case, because they got outscored a lot during garbage time. But it turned out the Rockets were really good as well.

Through 2 rounds against teams who weren't top 5 all-time teams, against teams with an average +3.9 SRS, the Rockets MOV through 3 quarters was 11.2. That compares to (I didn't check these numbers except the 2017 Warriors, someone else posted them):

2020 Lakers +8.3 points (average SRS +1.9)
2017 Warriors +9.0 (average SRS +3.4 but much lower without Kawhi for the Spurs, other 3 opponents +2.2)
2014 Spurs +7.7 (average SRS +4.5)
2001 Lakers +9.8 (average SRS +5.5)
2018 Warriors 8.6 (average SRS +3.3)

The 2018 Rockets were extremely good. What if they had followed their +11.7 SRS 1st Round and +14.7 SRS 2nd Round and then somehow, some way taken down the 2018 Warriors with a healthy Chris Paul before smacking the Cavs around? Where is that team ranked all-time? Nothing about Harden has changed. He just has a healthy best teammate. And is 33 year old, never been out of the 2nd round Chris Paul really so good that 68+ wins and a dominant title is expected? I'm thinking no. Now the 1967 76ers did smack the 1967 Celtics around by 10 ppg but they lost 4 playoff games in 3 rounds. They were basically at the same regular season SRS completely healthy (+8.5) as the Rockets injured. Wilt gets a ton of credit (and should) for being on such a dominant team. And that's peak Wilt for most people.

And yet James Harden with a prime but not peak Chris Paul managed to be the best player on a team every bit as dominant, just not as healthy. And it wasn't Harden's health that was the problem. This isn't to knock Wilt. But to point to a proof of concept that you can create a really, really great, all-time type team with James Harden as the best player. A team better than the vast majority of champions throughout history. And significantly better than a number of champions. All that separated Harden from his ring and a much better legacy was either good health for his best teammate or not having a ridiculous opponent. And there's no reason to think 2019 or 2020 Harden couldn't have accomplished just as much if those were the years he got a great team around him. Anyway, **** Chris Paul's hamstring.

I've said enough on Pettit already but it still surprises me how much heavy lifting a single game can do for a player's reputation. Consistent playoff dropoff every year and he was averaging 21.6 ppg on 44.8% TS in the championship run before the last game (compared to Hagan's 29.0 ppg on 59.0% TS). One 50 point game should not put him above all criticism. If Pettit had consistently maintained his regular season level, I would be voting for him in the top 25 or even higher... but he didn't.

For nomination, the top candidates seem to be Frazier, Reggie, Kawhi and I am cool with any of them being up next. I also have Davis on my list coming up soon so I am kind of surprised MyUniBroDavis hasn't already started pushing for him

[penbeast0]

...
-> unlike Stockton, he directed teammates where to go as the bulls primary on-court decision-maker...

I love Pippen and am not going to denigrate him to try to prop up other players, but who do you think was directing Utah's offense?

[Doctor MJ]

VOTING
Pettit for the reasons i've been saying for quite a bit of time
Stockton for consistency and durability and reliability while providing very good two way play

Gibson I'm going to count this because you have been voting and elaborating, and you have some explanation for the Nomination, but in the future:

1. Don't tell us you told us before. Quote or copy/paste what you told us before.

2. Bold so I don't miss it.