RealGM

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:43 am**

CENTERS
George Mikan who is the only player left that was the undisputed best player in basketball for a reasonably long stretch of time (5 years +). But, his era was the last vestige of white only, no shot-clock basketball, and he started to decline well before reaching age 30. Patrick Ewing and Artis Gilmore should get mentioned here as well; I used to favor Gilmore over Ewing but have been having second thoughts though I still think he peaked higher.

FORWARDS
Pettit, Barkley, Baylor, McHale, Pippen, Havlicek, Rodman, and even Kevin Durant. For Barkley to go over the likes of Pettit or Baylor, he'd have to have a clear statistical edge. Since I have many times compared Pettit to Baylor, and it always comes out Pettit, I will compare the numbers for Pettit, Barkley, and throw in George Mikan -- all regularized to a standard year (I usually use 2000).

GUARDS
Wade or Frazier. Wade is the most explosive scorer and plays excellent defense, Frazier didn't score as much but was an even better defender and playmaker, and even more known for stepping up and dominating 2 NBA finals. This one is very close; I lean Frazier over Wade but willing to be convinced. I see Clyde as a step up over Nash and Stockton for his ability to take over games with both his scoring and defense, over Payton, Kidd, or Isiah for his scoring efficiency and superior all around game. Both Wade and Frazier do suffer a little from short or injury riddled primes.

To get an idea of Mikan and Pettit's impact, I am going to bring their numbers from one of their prime seasons up to the year 2000 by taking simple ratios. So, their points, rebounds, assists, and ts% will all be adjusted to numbers that would approximate their impact in year 2000 numbers (I will also add in Barkley for comparison).

Mikan
1951 28.4pts 14.1reb 3.0ast .428efg
2000 32.8pts 12.3reb 3.2ast .578efg Mikan's offensive dominance was Wilt like; more dominant than Shaq! Note that both Mikan and Pettit had massive foul draws of over 10/g with very good FT shooting so the ts% is even greater.

Pettit
1959 29.2pts 16.4reb 3.1ast .438efg
2000 26.3pts 10.4reb 3.5ast .530efg Pettit's rebounding numbers come down to earth while his efficiency shows as pretty decent. The key is that he was able to maintain them his whole career from the 50s all the way through the mid 60s while the NBA changed drastically around him. He's basically a nice guy predecessor of Karl Malone.

Barkley
1988 28.3pts 11.9reb 3.2ast .604efg
2000 25.5pts 11.8reb 2.8ast .590efg The average ppg for a team in 1988 was exactly the same as it was in 1959 interestingly enough. Mikan and Pettit both also had decent defensive reps; though playing in the 50s is the weakest era in NBA history.

Pettit and Barkley are close enough that I go with the classy team leader who worked hard on defense and has possibly the greatest finals game 7 4th quarter ever played rather than the more efficient but lazy and often obnoxious modern player. However, looking at Mikan's numbers, they are even stronger than I had thought and really do put him into play even with his play in a weaker era and issues with the shot clock.

Vote: Bob Pettit (though subject to change)

Extra note on Pettit. Saw a factoid, not only is Pettit one of only 5 players to average 20 rebounds a game for a season (all from the 60s though), but he's also the only players to average over 20ppg in every season of his career (Jordan averaged "only" 20.0 in his final year). How did he score? Bill Simmons says: “Pettit had three go-to moves: a don’t-leave-me-alone 18-footer, a leaning jumper coming off screens and a reliable turnaround that Bob Ryan once called ‘monotonous.’" So he was more a stretch 4, though those ridiculous foul draw rates show that he also liked scoring in traffic.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:54 am**

Barkley should get in, his 1993 season is underrated. People say the suns were a 53 team win before he came, but kevin johnson missed 33 games in 1993 and they still won more games that year than the rockets and bulls. As a matter of fact, dumas was out for 35 games and several bench players were injured, chambers played sheltered minutes, and the team still went 62-20. Barkley was the difference maker here. If Kevin Johnson plays a full season, that 1993 suns team wins 67-70 games IMO.

Moses Malone got injured in 1986 and Barkley stepped up and took over as the man in the 86 playoffs.I am of the opinion that several players in the top 20 like david robinson, kevin garnett & karl malone would have folded and chocked badly if they had to be put in that position.

If Barkley took out houston in game 7 of 1994 and game5 of 1995, he most likely wins a championship and gets voted in before KG. But no we are going to debate if hes even as good as steve nash and ben wallace.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 4:57 am**

I vote Barkley. Mikan has no portability and faced the inferior competition most say Wilt faced, and declined with the widened lane.

We need a bit more from you than this.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:02 am**

I just missed the last vote, so I'll repeat my post from last thread.

Spoiler:

In my mind, this vote comes down to 5 candidates: Moses Malone, Charles Barkley, Bob Pettit, George Mikan, and Walt Frazier.

Mikan is the most difficult to judge. I think it's pretty clear that he was the most dominant relative to his era of anyone left (and more dominant than most who have already been voted in, actually), but his era was clearly a lot weaker. The league contracted from 17 teams to 11, then to 10 and to 9 across five seasons! To his credit, Mikan's Lakers were dominant, winning five of six titles. He clearly was the most important player of the era, but it's hard to pick him over the other candidates here for now. I think I have him behind a few other candidates like Wade, Nash, Baylor, etc., but I could be swayed more easily to vote for him given my uncertainty about how to place him, if that makes sense. I do think I'll vote for him before we get to place #30, though.

Pettit was a consistently prominent figure recognized as a top 5 player for almost his entire 11-year career, with 10 All-NBA First team nods and a All-NBA 2nd team place in his final season. My problem with putting him here is that at age 29, his team went from a 51-28 Finalist to a 29-51 non-playoff team with Pettit putting up similar stats in similar minutes. Furthermore, some of those early deep playoff runs seem to be by default, as his conference was considerably weaker, with the Hawks winning the conference in 1957 with a 34-38 record by beating the 34-38 Lakers. Still, he had an incredible career and maintained a very high level of play in a league that was changing very quickly, so I'll definitely be voting for him before we get to #25.

Walt Frazier is a tantalizing prospect for this vote. By all accounts he was the best player for a Knick team that consistently was a playoff threat from 1969-1974, winning two titles in that frame with great postseason play on both ends of the floor. The rub is that while he had another good year of play on either side of that time frame, his other seasons were rather lackluster, so he doesn't have great longevity. I tend not to value longevity as much as others, and that stretch of great play and deep playoff runs from 1969-1974 is more impressive than anyone else's I'm seriously considering for this spot. I could definitely be convinced to vote for him here.

Charles Barkley obviously has the remarkable production x efficiency, incredible rebounding (especially considering his size), and good playmaking. I had the pleasure of watching him during his heyday, and he was just a relentless aggressor that always looked better than others that I have voted higher, such as Karl Malone and David Robinson. He could be a bit of a knucklehead, and his defense was inconsistent. In the playoffs, he generally was as amazing as he was in the regular season. The quibble I have is similar to that with Pettit (and Moses) - once he established himself as a star, his teams were rather inconsistent. From 1987-89 when I'd say Barkley was in his statistical prime, his teams were bounced in the first round (1987, 1989) or missed the playoffs altogether (1988). 1990 and 1991 saw better success for Philly, but they missed the playoffs again in 1992 when Barkley was clearly unhappy about being there. Of course he was a monster in 1993 and led the Suns to the brink of a title, but they never again reached the conference finals. In fact, his teams reached the conference finals 3 times in total (1985, 1993, 1997).

Moses Malone was an incredible force inside, an unparalleled beast on the offensive boards, and also largely lived up to his regular season standards in the playoffs. It's also really hard to look past his role leading the amazing 1983 76er team. He also had impressive longevity, finishing in the top 10 in MVP voting 10 times. However, his teams were at least as maddeningly inconsistent than Barkley, only winning a playoff series in 5 seasons.

I'm going to really have to think about this one. It's a three-hat race between Frazier, Barkley, and Moses for me at the moment, with Moses probably holding an edge at this point, but I'll think about it a bit more before deciding.

Currently I'm torn between Frazier and Barkley, but I'd probably give the slight edge to Chuck.

I'll also have to see what I feel about some of the other contenders like Ewing, Nash, Pippen, Wade, etc.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:26 am**

I'm leaning Barkley, but could vote Wade if some strong arguments for him convince me to do so.

Longevity is why i lean Barkley over Wade, however Wade is the better defender, has the better peak and more accolades though. And there's the leadership thing that i hear Barkley get knocked for. I think he has enough quality seasons to be put over Wade though. So for now i'll just go ahead and vote Barkley. Am willing to change my vote like i said.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:30 am**

The players I'm considering now are Barkley, Pettit, Ewing and Wade.
I'd like to know more about Pettit, as he's a guy who mantained his production during the 60s, when there was no more segregation and 4 players already in this list were playing.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:45 am**

Wade vs Barkley is an interesting debate, but I think its debatable as to who had the better peak. Wade played his whole career under the new rules, which eliminated hand-checking and basically inflated the PER numbers for wing players. He would have been a great player under the old rules, but I think barkley would have matches his Peak PER numbers under the 'no hand checking era". Wade is a better defender, but barkley manaed to stay healthier and he seems more consistent in the playoffs. Outside of the 06 and 2011 finals, wade is a rather inconsistent playoff performer. I give barkley the edge because I dont feel wade would post the same PER numbers under the old rules and his longevity is worse.

1990 Barkley won over 50 games with a mediocre team and lead the sixers to the 2nd round in 1990 and 1991. Wade from 07-10 had a rather poor track record in the playoffs when he wasnt with shaq or lebron. The eastern conference in 1990 and 1991 was much better than the 2009 and 2010 east and wade's win-loss record in those 4 years is worse than barkleys from 87-92. I am undecided as to who peaked higher between barkley and wade since barkley was able to win 62 games in 1993 with the suns, despite kevin johnson missing 35 games and several bench players were injured. Barkley has shown in 1990 and 1993, that he doesnt need to be surrounded by a great player to win over 50 games. If Wade spent 2011 and 2012 without lebron, then it would have been an interesting comparison to determine which player between wade & barkley can win more games for thier team. I just feel the rule changes in 2005 has inflated PER and barkley would have benefiited greatly from the removal of hand checking. Even though I like wade, his style of play would have been risky in the late 80s-early 90s era, I dont see his PER numbers translating the same way in that era, since it was much more physical and he would have been punished even more for trying to slash to the rim to score all of his buckets.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:05 am**

ushvinder88 wrote:Wade vs Barkley is an interesting debate, but I think its debatable as to who had the better peak. Wade played his whole career under the new rules, which eliminated hand-checking and basically inflated the PER numbers for wing players. He would have been a great player under the old rules, but I think barkley would have matches his Peak PER numbers under the 'no hand checking era". Wade is a better defender, but barkley manaed to stay healthier and he seems more consistent in the playoffs. Outside of the 06 and 2011 finals, wade is a rather inconsistent playoff performer. I give barkley the edge because I dont feel wade would post the same PER numbers under the old rules and his longevity is worse.

1990 Barkley won over 50 games with a mediocre team and lead the sixers to the 2nd round in 1990 and 1991. Wade from 07-10 had a rather poor track record in the playoffs when he wasnt with shaq or lebron. The eastern conference in 1990 and 1991 was much better than the 2009 and 2010 east and wade's win-loss record in those 4 years is worse than barkleys from 87-92. I am undecided as to who peaked higher between barkley and wade since barkley was able to win 62 games in 1993 with the suns, despite kevin johnson missing 35 games and several bench players were injured. Barkley has shown in 1990 and 1993, that he doesnt need to be surrounded by a great player to win over 50 games. If Wade spent 2011 and 2012 without lebron, then it would have been an interesting comparison to determine which player between wade & barkley can win more games for thier team.

I strongly disagree with Wade being an inconsistent playoff performer outside of the 06 & 2011 finals. And actually it's a bit uninformed to say.
Wade 05 playoffs 27 6 7 56 TS %
Wade vs Pistons 06 ECF 27 6 6 68 TS%
Wade vs Hawks 29 5 5 57 TS%
Wade vs Celtics 2010 33 6 7 65 TS%
Wade vs Celtics 2011 30 7 5 62 TS%

So, Wade when healthy has always been an excellent and consistent playoff performer. He's notorious for carving up the elite defenses in the playoffs. As for his 2007 & 2008 seasons it's foolish to knock him as he wasn't healthy. And he was playing with scrubs the seasons LbJ and Shaq weren't there. Look at his numbers against Boston in 2010, he did all he could there's no way he was going to beat them by himself.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:16 am**

Basketballefan wrote:
ushvinder88 wrote:Wade vs Barkley is an interesting debate, but I think its debatable as to who had the better peak. Wade played his whole career under the new rules, which eliminated hand-checking and basically inflated the PER numbers for wing players. He would have been a great player under the old rules, but I think barkley would have matches his Peak PER numbers under the 'no hand checking era". Wade is a better defender, but barkley manaed to stay healthier and he seems more consistent in the playoffs. Outside of the 06 and 2011 finals, wade is a rather inconsistent playoff performer. I give barkley the edge because I dont feel wade would post the same PER numbers under the old rules and his longevity is worse.

1990 Barkley won over 50 games with a mediocre team and lead the sixers to the 2nd round in 1990 and 1991. Wade from 07-10 had a rather poor track record in the playoffs when he wasnt with shaq or lebron. The eastern conference in 1990 and 1991 was much better than the 2009 and 2010 east and wade's win-loss record in those 4 years is worse than barkleys from 87-92. I am undecided as to who peaked higher between barkley and wade since barkley was able to win 62 games in 1993 with the suns, despite kevin johnson missing 35 games and several bench players were injured. Barkley has shown in 1990 and 1993, that he doesnt need to be surrounded by a great player to win over 50 games. If Wade spent 2011 and 2012 without lebron, then it would have been an interesting comparison to determine which player between wade & barkley can win more games for thier team.

I strongly disagree with Wade being an inconsistent playoff performer outside of the 06 & 2011 finals. And actually it's a bit uninformed to say.
Wade 05 playoffs 27 6 7 56 TS %
Wade vs Pistons 06 ECF 27 6 6 68 TS%
Wade vs Hawks 29 5 5 57 TS%
Wade vs Celtics 2010 33 6 7 65 TS%
Wade vs Celtics 2011 30 7 5 62 TS%

So, Wade when healthy has always been an excellent and consistent playoff performer. He's notorious for carving up the elite defenses in the playoffs. As for his 2007 & 2008 seasons it's foolish to knock him as he wasn't healthy. And he was playing with scrubs the seasons LbJ and Shaq weren't there. Look at his numbers against Boston in 2010, he did all he could there's no way he was going to beat them by himself.

I am a fan of both players, so I dont have a particular horse, but lets state some facts here. Wade in 2009 and 2010 couldnt help his team win 50 games. Barkley's 1990 76ers were very mediocre and he won them 53 games. The east in 1990 and 1991 was clearly better than the east in 2009 and 2010.

2006, 2009 and 2010 are the only full seasons with wade as the clear cut best player on his team. Compare those 3 seasons with barkley in 1990, 1991 and 1993. Barkley's teams are winning more games, despite the fact that barkley is playing in the stronger conferences. It is very debatable as to who actually peaked higher.

The suns were an injured team during the 1993 regular season and they still finished 1st in a loaded western conference. In order to suggest wade peaked higher, I would have to say that wade on the 1990 76ers or the 1993 pheonix suns would have won those teams more games if he replaced barkley and there is nothing about wade's win-loss record that suggests that.

In 2006, the heat only won 52 games despite the fact that wade got to play with shaq, jay-will, walker and alonzo mourning. Barkley went 62-20 in 93, despite kevin johnson missing 35 games, and several bench players getting injured. That team likely wins 67-70 games if kevin johnson played the whole season and the bench was healthy.

Wade vs Barkley is a legit debate for peak, wade was just given more lucky circumstances.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:37 am**

ushvinder88 wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:
ushvinder88 wrote:Wade vs Barkley is an interesting debate, but I think its debatable as to who had the better peak. Wade played his whole career under the new rules, which eliminated hand-checking and basically inflated the PER numbers for wing players. He would have been a great player under the old rules, but I think barkley would have matches his Peak PER numbers under the 'no hand checking era". Wade is a better defender, but barkley manaed to stay healthier and he seems more consistent in the playoffs. Outside of the 06 and 2011 finals, wade is a rather inconsistent playoff performer. I give barkley the edge because I dont feel wade would post the same PER numbers under the old rules and his longevity is worse.

1990 Barkley won over 50 games with a mediocre team and lead the sixers to the 2nd round in 1990 and 1991. Wade from 07-10 had a rather poor track record in the playoffs when he wasnt with shaq or lebron. The eastern conference in 1990 and 1991 was much better than the 2009 and 2010 east and wade's win-loss record in those 4 years is worse than barkleys from 87-92. I am undecided as to who peaked higher between barkley and wade since barkley was able to win 62 games in 1993 with the suns, despite kevin johnson missing 35 games and several bench players were injured. Barkley has shown in 1990 and 1993, that he doesnt need to be surrounded by a great player to win over 50 games. If Wade spent 2011 and 2012 without lebron, then it would have been an interesting comparison to determine which player between wade & barkley can win more games for thier team.

I strongly disagree with Wade being an inconsistent playoff performer outside of the 06 & 2011 finals. And actually it's a bit uninformed to say.
Wade 05 playoffs 27 6 7 56 TS %
Wade vs Pistons 06 ECF 27 6 6 68 TS%
Wade vs Hawks 29 5 5 57 TS%
Wade vs Celtics 2010 33 6 7 65 TS%
Wade vs Celtics 2011 30 7 5 62 TS%

So, Wade when healthy has always been an excellent and consistent playoff performer. He's notorious for carving up the elite defenses in the playoffs. As for his 2007 & 2008 seasons it's foolish to knock him as he wasn't healthy. And he was playing with scrubs the seasons LbJ and Shaq weren't there. Look at his numbers against Boston in 2010, he did all he could there's no way he was going to beat them by himself.

I am a fan of both players, so I dont have a particular horse, but lets state some facts here. Wade in 2009 and 2010 couldnt help his team win 50 games. Barkley's 1990 76ers were very mediocre and he won them 53 games. The east in 1990 and 1991 was clearly better than the east in 2009 and 2010.

2006, 2009 and 2010 are the only full seasons with wade as the clear cut best player on his team. Compare those 3 seasons with barkley in 1990, 1991 and 1993. Barkley's teams are winning more games, despite the fact that barkley is playing in the stronger conferences. It is very debatable as to who actually peaked higher.

The suns were an injured team during the 1993 regular season and they still finished 1st in a loaded western conference. In order to suggest wade peaked higher, I would have to say that wade on the 1990 76ers or the 1993 pheonix suns would have won those teams more games if he replaced barkley and there is nothing about wade's win-loss record that suggests that.

In 2006, the heat only won 52 games despite the fact that wade got to play with shaq, jay-will, walker and alonzo mourning. Barkley went 62-20 in 93, despite kevin johnson missing 35 games, and several bench players getting injured. That team likely wins 67-70 games if kevin johnson played the whole season and the bench was healthy.

Wade vs Barkley is a legit debate for peak, wade was just given more lucky circumstances.

The 1990 76ers's supporting cast around Barkley was way better than Wade's 09 Cast. After Barkley their leading scorers were Hawkins 19 ppg, Dawkins 14 ppg, and Gminski 14 ppg, Wade's help that year Beasley 14 ppg, a washed up Jermain Oneal who only played 27 games and Marion only played 42 games each put up 13 ppg. So i don't see how supporting casts are even comparable. The same goes for his 1993 team clearly better than the 09 or 2010 heat.

Again, uninformed.

I mean i did vote for Barkley so i have no problem if you think he's better, but to think Wade's supporting casts were as good as Barkley's those years is just laughable.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:38 am**

I'm going Barkley. Great peak in the early 90's, top 5 player in his prime, possibly one of the 10 best offensive players ever, one of the great rebounders, one of the most versatile forwards and most unstoppable players 1 on 1 in NBA history. With Moses voted in, my toughest decision is now gone.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:44 am**

Basketballefan wrote:
ushvinder88 wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:I strongly disagree with Wade being an inconsistent playoff performer outside of the 06 & 2011 finals. And actually it's a bit uninformed to say.
Wade 05 playoffs 27 6 7 56 TS %
Wade vs Pistons 06 ECF 27 6 6 68 TS%
Wade vs Hawks 29 5 5 57 TS%
Wade vs Celtics 2010 33 6 7 65 TS%
Wade vs Celtics 2011 30 7 5 62 TS%

So, Wade when healthy has always been an excellent and consistent playoff performer. He's notorious for carving up the elite defenses in the playoffs. As for his 2007 & 2008 seasons it's foolish to knock him as he wasn't healthy. And he was playing with scrubs the seasons LbJ and Shaq weren't there. Look at his numbers against Boston in 2010, he did all he could there's no way he was going to beat them by himself.

I am a fan of both players, so I dont have a particular horse, but lets state some facts here. Wade in 2009 and 2010 couldnt help his team win 50 games. Barkley's 1990 76ers were very mediocre and he won them 53 games. The east in 1990 and 1991 was clearly better than the east in 2009 and 2010.

2006, 2009 and 2010 are the only full seasons with wade as the clear cut best player on his team. Compare those 3 seasons with barkley in 1990, 1991 and 1993. Barkley's teams are winning more games, despite the fact that barkley is playing in the stronger conferences. It is very debatable as to who actually peaked higher.

The suns were an injured team during the 1993 regular season and they still finished 1st in a loaded western conference. In order to suggest wade peaked higher, I would have to say that wade on the 1990 76ers or the 1993 pheonix suns would have won those teams more games if he replaced barkley and there is nothing about wade's win-loss record that suggests that.

In 2006, the heat only won 52 games despite the fact that wade got to play with shaq, jay-will, walker and alonzo mourning. Barkley went 62-20 in 93, despite kevin johnson missing 35 games, and several bench players getting injured. That team likely wins 67-70 games if kevin johnson played the whole season and the bench was healthy.

Wade vs Barkley is a legit debate for peak, wade was just given more lucky circumstances.

The 1990 76ers's supporting cast around Barkley was way better than Wade's 09 Cast. After Barkley their leading scorers were Hawkins 19 ppg, Dawkins 14 ppg, and Gminski 14 ppg, Wade's help that year Beasley 14 ppg, a washed up Jermain Oneal who only played 27 games and Marion only played 42 games each put up 13 ppg. So i don't see how supporting casts are even comparable. The same goes for his 1993 team clearly better than the 09 or 2010 heat.

Again, uninformed.

I mean i did vote for Barkley so i have no problem if you think he's better, but to think Wade's supporting casts were as good as Barkley's those years is just laughable.

Way better? I think thats a bit of a hyperbole. Those guys averaged those numbers because they were playing with barkley, that 76ers team is likely 20-62 without barkley. The fact that he won them 53 games is insane. Shawn Marion was easily a better player than the guys barkley was playing with. As a matter of fact, shawn marion's name is going to be mentioned at the end of the top 100 project. I dont think anyone will bring up those teammates of barkley.

The 1993 team won more games than wade's 2006 heat team. However barkley had to run into jordan in the nba finals and he didnt have shaq to help him out. He did this in the loaded west, not the garbage east. Anyways, who has the higher peak is debatable, but barkley in 1990, 1991 and 1993 finished higher in mvp voting than 2006, 2009 and 2010 wade did.

Dwayne Wade's small edge in peak per is based on him having a higher usage percentage and taking more shots. Barkley has the edge in win shares though and his per would have gone up if he took more shots. I would say thier peaks are on the same level. PER gives wade the edge, win shares give barkley the edge.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 7:40 am**

I'm picking between Chuck, Wade, Walt, Nash, Ewing, and Pettit right now. Wade is the best player but has major health issues, Chuck is great but he played no defense, Nash played no defense and outside of 6 years was never that great (he also benefitted greatly from rule changes), Walt has a major longevity issue to me, Ewing has the worst playoff performance of these guys even when accounting for his great defense, and Pettit's career seems impressive but not too impressive. Basically its wide open for me right now (that's what she said).

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 8:49 am**

ushvinder88 wrote: Wade from 07-10 had a rather poor track record in the playoffs when he wasnt with shaq or lebron.

It's hard to blame Wade for this. Miami built a contender, tore it down, then 3 years later had built another. Whereas a lot of players (Barkley included) tend to go through more gradual cycles with their teams, playing with good players throughout, Wade has basically played with Shaq, LeBron, Bosh and scrubs, for much of his career.

If we take the 06/07 season out of the equation (Wade played with 31 yo Williams, 35 yo Jones, 34 yo Shaq with an equally antique bench plagued by injuries and lacking motivation following their title), Wade spent another 3 years with:

07/08 - Ricky Davis, Udonis Haslem, half of Shaq, 16 games of Marion, and a largely D-league bench. We all know what happened.

08/09 - with some incentive to play well (#2 pick, Beasley), Miami bounced back to 43 wins. Rookie Beasley, rookie Chalmers, Haslem and Daequan Cook were Miami's biggest contributors, with Marion traded for O'Neal mid-season. Remember JO at this point was 13/6/2 in terms of production. Guys like Chris Quinn, Jamario Moon and Yakhouba Diawara gained significant minutes that year...

09/10 - Miami notched 47 wins, again largely on the back of Wade being amazing. Miami were 6th in DRtg and 2nd in Opponent PPG, impressive considering a starting lineup of Chalmers/Wade/Q-Rich/Beasley/JO, again with significant bench contributions from Haslem, Arroyo, Dorell Wright and Joel Anthony.

Wade's peformances

It did waste 3, maybe 4 years of Wade's prime. But let's look at his performances during that stretch. Whether you feel he was helped by greater usage as a result of bad team-mates, or hindered by nobody to share the load, his performances were great:

07/08 RS - 24.6 points (46.9% / 54.9 TS%), 4.2 TRB, 6.9 AST, 1.7 STL, 0.7 BLK
07/08 PS - N/A

08/09 RS - 30.2 points (49.1% / 57.4% TS%), 5.0 TRB, 7.5 AST, 2.2 STL, 1.3 BLK
08/09 PS - 29.1 points (43.9% / 56.5% TS%), 5.0 TRB, 5.3 AST, 0.9 STL, 1.6 BLK

09/10 RS - 26.6 points (47.6% / 56.2% TS%), 4.8 TRB, 6.5 AST, 1.8 STL, 1.1 BLK
09/10 PS - 33.2 points (56.4% / 65.0% TS%), 5.6 TRB, 6.8 AST, 1.6 STL, 1.6 BLK

The narrative behind both 09 and 10 post-seasons is pretty interesting. In 09, Miami faced Atlanta, who were very solid (if perennially a good but not great team) with a reasonable Mike Bibby, Joe Johnson, good Josh Smith and Al Horford. Much deeper and more balanced than Miami overall. Miami took them to 7 games on the back of strong performances from Wade.

In 2010 Miami bumped into the Celtics, former champions who took LA to 7 games, with one of the best defenses in the league. The big 3, plus Perkins (still good), Rondo, Sheed, Tony Allen. Capped by a 46 point game, Boston had no answer for Wade despite having Tony Allen to throw at him and a basket protected by KG and Perkins. Wade had a point to prove in these playoffs, and delivered all he could with the supporting cast he had.

The biggest knock on Wade's career is that injuries have stopped him being better. But irrespective of this, he's still finishing his career with 3 rings, one of which he earned with one of the greatest Conference Finals and NBA Finals performances of all time, one of which he earned by supporting (and at times, outplaying) LeBron James. In the interim he torched an all time great defensive team, he got injured on a potential 05 championship run, he proved to be the best shot-blocking guard of the last 20 years, with a pretty versatile overall game (at times, Wade has been the most efficient guard, at times he's been the highest volume scorer, at times he's been the best rebounding guard, at times he's racked up the most blocks and steals).

He's achieved more than Barlkey ever could.

He's definitely worth consideration, at this point.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:25 am**

Okay, so with Moses now voted in, it really becomes interesting.

For me, it's between Barkley and Nash at 20. I think these two are pretty much even, so I'll be extremely interested in everything about them. I suppose that Chuck will have more backers than Steve, but colts18 has been supporting Nash since #16, IIRC, and there are certainly good arguments to be made about his offensive impact.

I have Nash ahead by the slightest of margins, and it all really comes down to the fact (IMO) that a guard who's poor defensively is less harmful for his team than a poor defensive big.

Wade would be a great candidate if he had better longevity, because I think that his peak seasons (not just one, but three - 2006, 2009 and 2010) were better than Barkley's or Nash's peak. He's worse offensively (but still pretty damn close), and clearly better defensively, however I feel like it's close enough in terms of prime play that Barkley's/Nash's superior longevity should put them over Wade.

To me, Pettit and Mikan would come after the Nash/Barkley/Wade group.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:18 pm**

From previous thread:

Moonbeam wrote:Thanks for posting this! The one thing that I have a question about is the sample size - in 1955 the drop in WS/48 is pretty sharp at .027, but it seems to improve after that in 1956 and 1957. However, A further 9 and 10 players were not playing, so perhaps that elevation is because the worst players were no longer included, either because they retired or because they were no longer good enough to stick with a team?

First of all there were some mistakes in the data. Table below should be correct, but I encourage everyone to also do calculations and check if my results are right. Anyway, this time table is complete, so until last shot clock era player played in the NBA:

Code: Select all

year   players   WS/48   AGE   WS/48 diff
1954   72       0,112   26,1   ;---
1955   67       0,098   27,2   -0,013
1956   49       0,106   27,9   -0,025
1957   39       0,106   28,9   -0,029
1958   34       0,111   29,5   -0,029
1959   20       0,102   30,2   -0,056
1960   18       0,109   31,1   -0,034
1961   10       0,125   31,6   0,014
1962   6        0,116   32,7   -0,068
1963   3        0,111   33,7   -0,088
1964   2        0,073   34,5   -0,172

So in first shot clock season drop off is really small, then rises and is steady until 1959 and then again rises for one year and goes back to lower level in 1960 and in 1961 production of “pre shot clock players” is even better than in 1954! Of course at that point of time it’s small sample of only 10 players. But on the other hand they were 31-32 years old at the time and only one of them in 1954 had better production than Mikan – so I’m asking again: if Mikan’s peers (and most of them inferior to him) were able to produce at such high level in the 60s, then why it’s so difficult to believe Mikan would also be able to do so?

Anyway, that data shows that pre shot clock players were playing at good level in shot clock era. In every season expect last one (when only two of them were left and were 34 and 35 years old) their production was above 0.100 WS/48 level. Sure, they produced at lover level than in 1954, but doesn’t seem that difference is that big, especially if we consider age (and I think it’s fair to assume players back then aged quicker).

Random fact: last two remaining shot clock players in 1964 were Schayes and Lovellette. Clyde at age of 34 was still 0.145 WS/48 player in 1964. And what’s really interesting is that in 1954 he was Mikan’s backup! Lovellette was also a center, but probably better shooter than Mikan. Still, it’s another example of someone, who was inferior to Mikan and was able to adjust in shot clock, so why George wouldn’t be able to do it?

Doctor MJ wrote:If others could improve, why not MIkan? Well, aside from what I've already talked about physically, look at when he peak. '50-51 at an age most guys often aren't in their prime yet. So we don't need to consider the '60s when asking about whether we'd start to see Mikan appear to struggle with tougher competition, he was falling backward several years before the shot clock era.

1. Physicality didn’t prevent Covellette, Schayes and many others to doing very good in shot clock era, so why it would be problem for Mikan, who was better physically suited than them?

2. In ’51 Mikan was 26 years old, so basically at age when players hit their primes, especially back then, when they aged quicker.

3. It’s odd to say “falling backward” about player who during his three “falling” seasons averaged 0.264 WS/48, was the best rebounder in the game, top 2 scorer, the best defender and led his team to three peat… additionally to that he dominated ASG competition (back then it mattered a lot) and the only game vs Harlem during that period of time.

4. You are looking at PPG when you are saying “falling backward”, but underrated aspect of Mikan’s game is his defense. In seasons DRTG is available Lakers with Mikan were -4.4, -7.6 (yeah, one of GOAT defenses was anchored by George). -4.1 and -4.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:29 pm**

tsherkin wrote:I vote Barkley. Mikan has no portability and faced the inferior competition most say Wilt faced, and declined with the widened lane.

The trouble is you don't have any reason to vote Barkley over:

Ewing
Pettit
Pippen
Wade
Frazier
Nash

All of whom people are thinking about over Barkley, not just Mikan. Why should Barkley be in over any of these players considering their superiority defensively and in leadership and coachability? Is just scoring and rebounding enough without doing the things that don't get you on ESPN highlight show?

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:35 pm**

Reposting by request: Walt Frazier

Strengths:
One of the two best defensive PGs in history (I favor Payton at #1 but they are the consensus choices)
Extremely efficient scorer for his era -- more efficient than Havlicek for example
Monster finals performances in both 1970 and 1973 where he was clearly the best player out there despite Reed getting the awards (had more to do with marketing; Frazier's street style and look was something the NBA was trying to avoid a perception of).
Generally conceded to be an excellent floor general despite less than overwhelming assist numbers (Willis Reed's comment was something like: "It's Walt's ball, he just lets us play with it sometimes."
Leader of a Knicks team that is still used as an exemplar for team play.
(His longevity -- a 9 year prime -- is solid but not up to the standards of a Stockton/Malone type and his assist numbers were low for a PG since he was running the 70s equivalent of the triangle.)

Why Frazier is better than Nash and Stockton -- Defense obviously; took over games with both his scoring and his defense; led his team to 2 titles over Jerry West and the Lakers with great individual perfomances.
Peak Frazier numbers 1972 21pts 6reb 5ast .576ts% without a 3 point line, led NBA in playoff scoring (lost in finals)
Peak Nash numbers 2006 19pts 4reb 11ast .632ts% led playoffs in assist % (lost in WCF) MVP!
Peak Stockton numbers 1997 14pts 3reb 11ast led playoffs in assist % (lost in finals)

Why Frazier is better than Isiah or Kidd -- Defense and efficiency plus both had some issues with teammates where Clyde always pulled his teams together. Efficient scoring is the big one though; Frazier was far more individually efficient despite playing in the pre-3 point era and maximized the abilities of his teammates as much as any PG in history.

Why Frazier is better than Havlicek -- Scoring efficiency and outstanding offense throughout his career. Frazier was terrific from year one in the league; Hondo always had that great motor but was a below average shooter for his first few years. Frazier is able to guard either guard spot so Hondo doesn't have as big a versatility edge on him as on many PGS; even 70s Havlicek is probably a hair below prime Frazier though it is much closer.

Why Frazier is better than Dwyane Wade -- Defense, reliability, and portability. Wade is a very good defender, Frazier is a great one. Wade is more explosive but Frazier is injured less and has no seasons where his team imploded. Frazier also can be successful in a PG dominant system, in a triangle system, has an excellent long to midrange game as well as being a very good postup PG; generally a player with no weaknesses.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:03 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:Is just scoring and rebounding enough without doing the things that don't get you on ESPN highlight show?

If that scoring and rebounding propels your team to greater heights than the others can... yes, it is. And it seems Barkley could do so.

Posted: **Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:09 pm**

Just to sort of provide some data on Nash defense and how it might be more of a factor than people want to believe:

Steve Nash against opposing PG's he faced multiple times in the playoffs.

Mike Bibby:
02 vs Kings (Kings win series)

Against Dallas in the playoffs: 22/7 58%TS
Bibby's RS numbers that year: 14/5 51%TS

04 vs Kings (Kings win series)

Against Dallas in the playoffs: 24/5 60%TS
Bibby's RS numbers that year: 18/5 56%TS

Tony Parker:

03 vs Spurs (Spurs win series)

Against Dallas in PS Parker 16/4 49%tS
Parker's RS numbers: 9/4 50%TS

05 vs Spurs (Spurs win series)

Against Phoenix in PS Parker 20/4 49% TS
Parker's RS numbers: 17/6 53% TS

07 vs Spurs (Spurs win)
Against Phoenix in the PS Parker 21/6 49%TS
Parker in the RS: 19/6 57% TS

08 vs Spurs (Spurs win)

Against Phoenix in the PS PArker 30/7 58%TS
Parker in the RS 19/6 54% TS

10 vs Spurs(Suns win)
Against Phoenix in the PS 20/5 50% TS
PArker in the RS 16/6 54% TS

Jason Terry

05 vs Mavs (Phoenix wins)

Against Phoenix in the PS 17/5 55% Ts
Terry's RS numbers: 12/5 61%TS

06 vs Mavs (Dallas wins)

Against Phoenix in the PS 16/4 49%TS
Terry's RS numbers: 17/4 58%TS

Make of this what you will, but it seems a clear pattern of opposing PG's performing well offensively against Nash and the Suns in the playoffs.

RealGM

RealGM Top 100 List #20

RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #20