Post#15 » by JoeMalburg » Wed Aug 9, 2017 1:06 am
Concerns about Kevin Durant
1) The Bandwagon Factor. This is far too simple an argument, but somewhere in here there is a good point. I don’t fault him, I don’t think he’s ruining basketball, but still something doesn't sit quite right with KD’s move to Golden State. And while he was sensational in the Finals, I don’t think he was essential to their title nor was going to Golden State essential to him being a Champion. Im showing my age and generational bias, but those type of moves are supposed to come after 30 in my old-ass opinion.
2) Less than meets the eye (test). This, I think, is a far more legitimate concern. A lot of super smart folks here have pointed out that Curry, not Durant seemed to have the most impact on the Warriors fortunes by a discernable margin. Additionally we previously witnessed Russell Westbrook playing a more assertive and arguably more impactful role in the postseason with the Thunder over the 2015 and 2016 seasons and Durant posted some rather inefficient numbers in big games and overall in those playoffs. Add in his limited impact in his first two seasons slightly less than superstar impact numbers during the regular season and I have to admit I am questioning if it’s just a bias towards his size and style and the much longer tradition of seeing players who look like him and not Steph Curry dominate the NBA. I’m open to arguments here from both sides.
Concerns about Steph Curry
1) He has fewer all-NBA first team selections and total all-NBA selections than any player selected so far. And while by no means am I implying this should be the standard or is the be-all-end-all, it does suggest that maybe we’d be jumping the gun to put Curry up so high. It’s not as if the argument would be he got stiffed on what should have been All-NBA quality seasons, the reality is he’s been an elite player for 3-3.5 years, that’s it and that’s what the numbers reflect. That’s not even two Bill Walton’s. Additionally, as I noted, in half of those seasons and specifically the one’s where he shouldered the lion's-share and then some of the primacy on offense during FInals runs, he wore down enough that it impacted his play. As great as Curry is right now, he’s a bad landing or rolling post player away from never being the same elite guy again. I’m bearing that in mind as I consider his position in these rankings.
2) Durability is a question. Following up in some way on what I ended on in the last point, he was injured in the 2013 playoffs, wore down in the 2015 playoffs and was injured in the 2016 playoffs. While his impact when healthy is absolutely elite by the numbers and the eye test, because of how he plays, his impact can fall off a cliff if he isn’t right. The Warriors went from looking unbeatable to looking downright pedestrian in parts of the 2015 and 2016 Finals, this is concerning for me when considering a player among the top 30 all-time when we are nearly 75 years into the league's history.
Concerns about Rick Barry
1) Dependability/Consistency. It’s hard to believe I am going to find fault in this regard with one of the most fundamentally sound, well practiced and disciplined players of all-time. But Barry was so hyper-competitive that he often let his emotions get the best of him and it seems to have, potentially at least, cost him a lot in terms of individual and team success over his career.
He was a superstar at 21, an elite scorer and by his second season he was on an elite team. Then, he quit, sort of. His departure from the NBA for the fledgling ABA in 1968, just more than a year after reaching an NBA Finals he still contends was winnable, was part petulance and part easy way out. Not exactly the stuff superstars are traditionally made of. After sitting a season in his prime, he got hurt in his first season with the Oakland Oaks. They went on to win the title behind Warren Jabali, formerly Warren Armstrong. He never won a title in the ABA, made first team every year, even when he missed time with injury, but was never MVP and his stats, while impressive weren't jaw dropping like some other guys in the run and gun league. Upon returning to the Warriors, they improved Year by Year and were the surprise Champions in 1975 when they swept a stunned Bullets team. But the next year, an even better Warriors team went into the Western Finals as heavy favorites and fell to the Suns with Barry throwing a personal pity party after teammates didn't adequately have his back when the prickly Rick got into a first half tussle. And that's The Issue with Barry for me, some guys never had great opportunities to win, Barry gave some of those opportunities away, not because he failed, but because he didn't try.
2) Strength of Competition. Not because it’s worse than any other era per se, but because there is just so much uncertainty during this era of extensive expansion and competing pro leagues.
Barry entered an expanding NBA, left for a start-up ABA and returned to the NBA right as the talent pools were starting to have relatively similar depth. That's when he won his title and had his most exceptional seasons.
Concerns about Elgin Baylor
1) Quite frankly, was he as great as 10 all-NBA first team selections and the tales of his aerial majesty suggest, or was he more a rely on his reputation low efficiency, high volume chucker? Surely the answer is somewhere in the middle, but to which side are the scales tipped? The biggest problem is the lack of film. I love 1960’s NBA game film, I’ve searched far and wide for whatever I can find and I’ve only got 13 games worth of notes on Elgin. A lot of them, sadly, after his knees failed him. So, while I am mostly comfortable relying on the assessments and anecdotes of peers contemporary to Baylor, I must admit I’ve started to see their conclusions as more and more tinted by nostalgia and the natural bias to one’s own experience.
2) The sore thumb that is no MVP and no title. It’s why I cringe at the preemptive inclusion of Stockton and Paul and it's why ranking Baylor troubles me. Baylor is the highest ranked player on my list not to have won the MVP or a World Championship. These are somewhat arbitrary criteria I admit, but there is a pattern that emerges predominantly in any pro basketball list of this sort that an educated person or panel constructs: The guys who win MVP’s and win titles in primary roles make their way to the top of the list. And so I put a good deal of stock in it, or at least more so that I would most other seemingly isolated occurrences.
Concerns about John Havlicek
1) Was he elite? He was never an MVP candidate. That could be explained by looking at the voting history and how rarely non-centers were top contenders for the prize. He was always a part of very balanced teams when they were contenders. His best statistical seasons came on bad teams and a lot of his greatest moments came when he was a sixth man, albeit the very best in that capacity. Once it was his team (along with Dave Cowens, the 1973 MVP) they were an ultra balanced team that won based on that balance. Not a fault, but distinguishable from most of the guys were looking at here. His defense helps his case, being a great two way player is always attractive, he was the stylistic ancestor of Scottie Pippen who perfected the Havlicek role as a “I'll do whatever it takes whenever it takes it, but I'll never do it all.” Super not quite superstar. He got more chances than Pip to lead a team, but I'm no more convinced that was his ideal role.
2. Product of the System? If Chet Walker and John Havlicek trade places, what happens? Both enter the league 1962, both have good rookie years as role players and for the rest of the 60s Havlicek gives you 20 and six and Walker give you 18 and eight, both as one of two primary perimeter options in support of Bill Russell and aless ball-dominant Wilt Chamberlain respectively. Havlicek famously steals Walkers pass in 1965 and is also on the winning side of epic matchups in ‘66 and ‘68. Then while Havlicek hangs on with a rebuilding Boston, the league's premier top to bottom organization in the 70’s, Walker joins the third year franchise, the Chicago Bulls, a very good, but perpetually one piece away team. Both guys are arguably the best player on balanced teams, but Boston is always a player or two deeper and as a result Hondo adds two more titles sans-Russell to his legacy.
I don't doubt that Hondo was a greater player than Chet Walker, but switch them spots in 1962 and I'm not sure they're even close to 50 spots apart as they are now.
Concerns about Isiah Thomas
1) Here’s a huge dose of catharsis after a very deep dive into a player I already had a deep appreciation for and understanding of, first concern, he needed the situation he was in, to achieve what he did. Kudos to Zeke for being willing to do what was best for the team, but it is undeniable (especially after rewatching 87 playoff third and/or fourth quarters) that the Pistons were an ideally constructed team that arrived at the perfect time. Isiah benefitted from being an offensive star on a team that was most dependent on and dedicated to defense. It allowed him to pick his spots and not have to carry the offensive burden all game. Additionally, the scoring of Dantley/Aguirre/Edwards in the post and Vinne/Dumars on the perimeter gave the Pistons several other options with the capability of getting hot to help balance the Pistons attack. Finally, their frontcourt depth and athleticism were far better than that of Boston, LA or Chicago, their three primary rivals and often times that would be the difference in the war of attrition that is the later rounds of the NBA playoffs. They win games at times by getting every nearly rebound in the fourth quarter. Rodman, Salley with Fresh legs playing 20-24 mpg were terrors in the fourth against exhausted front lines asked to log 40 mpg all series. That's the main argument against Isiah and some here have made it well. I get it, and to a large extent, I concede.
2) Less than overwhelming resume. Only five all-NBA selections, only 9 or 10 prime seasons. Was never a definitive top 3-5 player. So he doesn’t have the peak or longevity a lot of the guys listed above him and in competition with him for this spot do. That’s mildly concerning for me, especially in the interest of avoiding a personal bias due to my extensive familiarity with his career.
Isiah also doesn't have much of a case based on advanced stats or impact stats. Role players Laimbeer and Rodman garner more win shares, his efficiency kills him a lot more by the numbers than it ever did on the court, but to a large extent, in a believer that numbers don't lie, people just use them to support their lies. So Zeke is rightly criticized here too. He's not going yet, but I'll be pushing for him soon,
Concerns about Scottie Pippen
1) Could he have been the man? He had a crack at it for a little over one season and he showed very well, but there were flaws and things that he’d need to change. Add things to his game, change his approach, change his personality, that may have been easier said than done. How much of the greatness of Scottie Pippen, the ultimate number two guy, do you lose when he has to become the number one guy?
Before Bird and Magic, the 1 and 3 positions were probably the most synonymous with complimentary players. Pippen had the size/athleticism/skill to play the part of alpha, but so many players who fit that mold were wrongly cast in it for us to assume success. It comes down to personality, Pippen didn't seem to have it, Phil Jackson, in his book Sacred Hoops, concludes that it was “unfair” to ask Scottie to assert himself as Michael previously had after being asked exclusively to defer to Michael and the team concept previously. Especially after he had thrived so much. I tend to agree with Phil.
2) Is it time for elite support players yet? Rather or not Pippen could have been a career alpha, he wasn’t. He spent the vast majority of his career is a supporting role and was exceptional at it. His diverse., extensive skill set and unique combination of speed, length and instincts made him the ultimate wildcard in any crucial game. He could be the difference on offense or defense, in the half court of full court in the post or on the perimeter. Pippen was truly a jack of all trades, master of none. But is it time to start including that type of player. I’d say Pippen and Stockton are the two best all-time in this capacity, I’d have Scottie before John, but that’s out of the question for our purposes now. Still it’s a question that I am mulling over as Pippen should be involved in the next 2-5 votes at least.
Concerns about Clyde Frazier
1) Was he Elite? Largely the same question with Isiah. How much was Clyde’s greatness elevated by the great players he got to play with? He deserves a lot of credit for being the type of play who gets better around great players and not the type who needs the spotlight to shine, but again, as is always so challenging with intangible matters like this, to what extent?
2) Longevity. Bob Pettit and George Mikan are the only players we’ve ranked thus far that I credit with fewer than ten prime seasons. I have Frazier with nine. As great as he was he doesn’t have the resume that Pettit or Mikan do, nor had his career began in the NBA’s infancy, so it’s less easy to look past.
Concerns About Bob Cousy
1) Declining play during second half of career casts him as a much different player than the one who made 10 all-NBA teams and won the 1957 MVP. Cousy probably wasn't the second best player on the Celtics from 1958-1961. He certainly wasn't ever after that, but his reputation persisted as such to be sure. Why did the media and many of his peers hold such reverence for Cousy? The cynic in me says it's 80% race related and 20% style related. He did make the game fun, but sometimes to the detriment of the team. Bad shots, careless passes, unnecessary fakes or flash, there is a great irony that isn't lost on me in how much every coach or gym teacher I had who was old enough to remember seeing Cousy both loved him and hated when we emulated his behind the back and no look passes. Make sense of that…
Cousy and Baylor are both falling in my list and I think it's the right choice, but I'm conflicted. 20 some years ago, when I started doing this in earnest, they were in the same class as Pettit, West and Oscar. That had to change some, but the divide is growing at an accelerating rate and my only concern is I'm applying too much of today's standard to that era. Would love thoughts from others who've wrestled with this.
2) How much of an issue is the terrible shooting? It didn’t hurt the Celtics very much once Russell showed up, but I think it did, quite a bit, before than. The Celtics won just one playoff series pre-Russell and often got upset in the playoffs. They were the only team in the league so heavily dependent on guards offensively. I think that was a bad choice for the era. The fast break was too far ahead of its time. Russell made it click, not Cousy.
Edit/note: Apologies for grammar, punctuation, spelling errors and strange out of place words, done almost exclusively with talk and type.
