What's the highest possible ranking for Pau Gasol, all-time?

[Paddy Brosso]

I think Pau Gasol is in the 50th - 55th range, I don't see him any higher. I think he would be in the same tier than Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Alex English, Robert Parish, Bernard King, Wes Unseld, etc.

[Hal14]

I think Pau Gasol is in the 50th - 55th range, I don't see him any higher. I think he would be in the same tier than Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Alex English, Robert Parish, Bernard King, Wes Unseld, etc.

I've got all those guys ranked comfortably ahead of Pau.

[trex_8063]

Also you can't really ignore that even if the bucks were fringe contenders, Allen had a lot do with getting them within that range and again can't be discounted.

Bucks have one year of 3.14 SRS (bookended by two mildly negative SRSes).

Since 1980 there have been 3 champs with an SRS under 4.
2006 Heat (3.59) Shaq plays 59 games (Zo 65, Jason Williams 59)
2001 Lakers (3.74) Coasting defending champs (Fisher plays 20 games, Bryant 68, O'Neal 74)
1995 Rockets (2.32) Defending champs (Olajuwon plays 72, Thorpe+Drexler combine for 71, Horry 62)

In the post-80 era calling a team under 4 SRS, and especially below 3.5, without some significant mitigating circumstances any sort of contender is probably misleading, though I suppose it depends what percentage title probability you're willing to go down to and still call teams a fringe contender (and perhaps whether you're willing to give a team credit of being worthy of the title contender [or fringe contender] just because they play in a terrible conference and based on the idea that if they were to emerge and one of the opponents top two players gets injured then maybe they have a chance).

I'm all for calling 01 Ray Allen great based on how he played. I don't think - barring mitigating circumstances - a 3.5 or worse SRS team is any kind of contender.

Which is fine, but again it’s much better than any team Gasol led. I don’t see why it’s fair to totally discount what they did as 1st options which is what Heartbreakkid is saying we should do.

I would argue it's debatable that the '01 Bucks were better than any Gasol-led team at all, and certainly they were NOT "much" better.

The '01 Bucks won 52 games (in a super-soft conference) with a +3.13 SRS.
The '06 Grizzlies won 49 games (in a tough conference) with a +3.74 SRS. Yeah, they lost in the first round, but again: tough conference [and bad seeding....read on]. They were facing a legit contender (the eventual WC champ) in the 1st round--->which, historically speaking, was sort of a fluke of seeding because of the [dumb] playoff structure at that time which dictated that the conference champs got the #1-3 seeds [regardless of record]. In today's playoff structure the '06 Grizzlies would have been the 4th seed (and thus have HCA in 1st round) and been facing a 47-win +1.75 SRS Clippers team. But because of the idiotic playoff structure, they didn't get HCA as they faced a contender-level Dallas team; meanwhile a 44-win (+0.36 SRS) Nuggets team was awarded the #3 seed.

[JordansBulls]

Because of leading team in win shares on title teams at least top 35 all time.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Consider Pau a bit overrated. Pure 2nd banana even in his prime. For me he's not Top 50. Might not be Top 60, although it's possible, would have to tease that out. But highest possible, if I had different priorities than actual oncourt dominance...low 40s feels like about it. In the 30s you're going to be running into guys like Patrick Ewing and Clyde Drexler and just...no. But if you want to value what Pau brought more than what Dwight brought, or Reggie brought...I think that's at least a conversation.

[Jaivl]

I think Pau Gasol is in the 50th - 55th range, I don't see him any higher. I think he would be in the same tier than Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Alex English, Robert Parish, Bernard King, Wes Unseld, etc.

I've got all those guys ranked comfortably ahead of Pau.

What's the argument for King over Pau all-time wise? Can't really see one.

[No-more-rings]

Bucks have one year of 3.14 SRS (bookended by two mildly negative SRSes).

Since 1980 there have been 3 champs with an SRS under 4.
2006 Heat (3.59) Shaq plays 59 games (Zo 65, Jason Williams 59)
2001 Lakers (3.74) Coasting defending champs (Fisher plays 20 games, Bryant 68, O'Neal 74)
1995 Rockets (2.32) Defending champs (Olajuwon plays 72, Thorpe+Drexler combine for 71, Horry 62)

In the post-80 era calling a team under 4 SRS, and especially below 3.5, without some significant mitigating circumstances any sort of contender is probably misleading, though I suppose it depends what percentage title probability you're willing to go down to and still call teams a fringe contender (and perhaps whether you're willing to give a team credit of being worthy of the title contender [or fringe contender] just because they play in a terrible conference and based on the idea that if they were to emerge and one of the opponents top two players gets injured then maybe they have a chance).

I'm all for calling 01 Ray Allen great based on how he played. I don't think - barring mitigating circumstances - a 3.5 or worse SRS team is any kind of contender.

Which is fine, but again it’s much better than any team Gasol led. I don’t see why it’s fair to totally discount what they did as 1st options which is what Heartbreakkid is saying we should do.

I would argue it's debatable that the '01 Bucks were better than any Gasol-led team at all, and certainly they were NOT "much" better.

The '01 Bucks won 52 games (in a super-soft conference) with a +3.13 SRS.
The '06 Grizzlies won 49 games (in a tough conference) with a +3.74 SRS. Yeah, they lost in the first round, but again: tough conference [and bad seeding....read on]. They were facing a legit contender (the eventual WC champ) in the 1st round--->which, historically speaking, was sort of a fluke of seeding because of the [dumb] playoff structure at that time which dictated that the conference champs got the #1-3 seeds [regardless of record]. In today's playoff structure the '06 Grizzlies would have been the 4th seed (and thus have HCA in 1st round) and been facing a 47-win +1.75 SRS Clippers team. But because of the idiotic playoff structure, they didn't get HCA as they faced a contender-level Dallas team; meanwhile a 44-win (+0.36 SRS) Nuggets team was awarded the #3 seed.

I mean whatever on the regular season records or SRS. Do you really think any of those Grizz teams would beat the 01 Bucks in a series? I doubt it and Allen's play was better and more sustained than anything we really saw from Pau during those years.

If people think Pau is better fine, but no one in this thread has come up with a good argument for it aside from him being bigger or something. Memphis Pau was not a strong defender as impact stats back up so it shouldn't be an argument.

[laika]

Basketball reference ranks Pau 77th- irrelevant.
He primarily gets mentioned here as a way to discredit Kobe.

[trex_8063]

He primarily gets mentioned here as a way to discredit Kobe.

Ultra-generic rhetoric by which one feels justified in disregarding any counterpoint views. Also entirely untrue in most instances.

[laika]

He primarily gets mentioned here as a way to discredit Kobe.

Ultra-generic rhetoric by which one feels justified in disregarding any counterpoint views. Also entirely untrue in most instances.

This forum is obsessed with bashing Kobe. He is the undisputed GOAT when it comes to Forum mentions/Supposed Player Ranking ratio. Kobe is also by far the most underrated player here when you look at the basketball reference rankings or look at championships won by superstars.
But we're supposed to pretend that a huge overranking of Pau is just another coincidence.

[Jaivl]

He primarily gets mentioned here as a way to discredit Kobe.

Ultra-generic rhetoric by which one feels justified in disregarding any counterpoint views. Also entirely untrue in most instances.

This forum is obsessed with bashing Kobe. He is the undisputed GOAT when it comes to Forum mentions/Supposed Player Ranking ratio.

Not significantly higher, if at all, than KG, LeBron or Jordan.

[Hal14]

I think Pau Gasol is in the 50th - 55th range, I don't see him any higher. I think he would be in the same tier than Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Alex English, Robert Parish, Bernard King, Wes Unseld, etc.

I've got all those guys ranked comfortably ahead of Pau.

What's the argument for King over Pau all-time wise? Can't really see one.

While he lacks durability (with better durability and longevity he'd be top 40 all-time, easily), it's hard to deny how dominant King was in his prime. King had multiple seasons where he was a top 10...possibly even top 5 player in the league during the 80's a.k.a. the most competitive decade in league history while going up against legends like Bird, Wilkins, Worthy and English on a nightly basis.

Watch on YouTube

[Texas Chuck]

Ultra-generic rhetoric by which one feels justified in disregarding any counterpoint views. Also entirely untrue in most instances.

This forum is obsessed with bashing Kobe. He is the undisputed GOAT when it comes to Forum mentions/Supposed Player Ranking ratio.

Not significantly higher, if at all, than KG, LeBron or Jordan.

I'd probably take Mike off that list, but yeah you named the big 3 for sure.

And maybe I'm reading it wrong but I see Kobe supporters creating far more of the negative posts on Kobe than Lebron supporters or KG supporters. More of those "attacks" seem unprovoked. Whereas more of the Kobe stuff seems started by Kobe supporters trying to elevate him above his proper station. But again that could maybe be just my perception?

[pandrade83]

I've got a contrarian view here that's got him at #32 (excluding potential big jumps from Kawhi/Giannis).

He gets to that spot by the following:

1) Of the guys who entered the league between '55-'65, I've got a really steep drop-off from West/Oscar to the next highest guy & I don't have anyone who entered the league pre-shot clock very high at all.

2) The "tier" I've got him on is quite large & I've sorted alphabetically of just "bigs" - & let's focus on that group for now with wings/forwards & point guards split into their own buckets below - it's easier to compare him to this group & compare how Gasol stacks up.

Cowens
Gasol
Howard
Lanier
McAdoo
McHale
Mikan
Mourning
Mutombo
Parish
Reed

Meaningful Longevity
Gasol is 2nd amongst this group in career win shares; 1st in VORP (although to be fair, several members of this group didn't have it for their entire career. Regardless, Gasol comes out well from a meaningful longevity perspective for those who care.

Impact on winning

For those who value playoff team success, only Cowens, Gasol & Mikan led a champion in WS & RS VORP; Gasol did this feat in the '10 playoffs as well. Now - impact metrics aren't as kind to Gasol as the Box is - but impact metrics for the latter two clearly show a gap. Moreover, Mikan did so in a league that was in it's infancy & largely only competed against white players; Cowens pulled this off in a split league situation pre-merger. While I wouldn't say that Pau was the best player on the '09 or '10 Lakers, box metrics do view him quite favorably. While impact metrics aren't incredibly high on Pau, they do paint him in a positive light.

Biggest knock on Pau

If there's a case to be made against Pau it's this:

1) He's soft in accolades, making just 6 all-star teams & never making a 1st team all-nba appearance. He has no MVP shares. He's the only player on this list to not have any MVP Shares; his all-star team count is low amongst this group & about 1/2 this list has at least one 1st Team All-NBA to their name. I'm not a big accolade guy, but I know most aren't.

2) Intertwined with #1 - one could argue he has a soft peak. As mentioned above, some of this group won MVPs (McAdoo, Cowens, Mikan would've). Mourning made 1st Team All-NBA & DPOY in the same season as did Howard, Lanier came in Top 5 in MVP voting twice, etc.

3) The "2nd banana label". I disagree with this one. He was pretty clearly the best (by both box & impact) metrics on a 57 win SRS +6 team - leading it in WS/VORP, having the best RPM & the best on/off. He led the '10 Lakers in Post-season WS & VORP & imo should've won the '10 Finals MVP. Eye test & Impact metrics indicate Kobe was better in '10 (and especially '09), but it's closer than a lot of people give Pau credit for.

I need to get to bed, so I'll wrap up with this.

1) No, Pau never took Memphis anywhere. He had no other All-Stars on his team & played in the harder conference and won around 50 games for 3 straight years, but guess what? A lot of those guys listed above never took anyone anywhere either - oftentimes in a diluted league. Where did Parish take anyone? How about Lanier? McHale? Mourning? Mutombo?

2) Being the best player on a 57 win SRS +6 team is nothing to sneeze at. I know Dallas buried them in the 2nd round & Pau wasn't great - but that's still a hefty team accomplishment.

3) I get the 2nd banana label, but Pippen was a 2nd banana. Hondo was a 2nd banana for most of his rings. Drexler was brought up earlier in the thread - he's a 2nd banana. It's OK if you can't be the best player on a title team as Option #1. The vast majority of the guys in my list (across all positions) can't. Once you get past the mid 20's, the pickings get pretty slim in that regard - unless you're doing it in a segregated era or during a talent diluted dual league era.

4) I'm not a Kobe hater. I have him #12 - that's well within the "normal" range of a Kobe ranking; I'm not elevating Pau at the expense of Kobe - I find a lot of value in being a VERY strong #2 on back to back title teams - one of which won 65 games & a VERY strong #2 on another Finals team - PLUS winning 50 games in a challenging conference with no other all-stars.






Wings/Forwards

Spoiler:

Allen
Barry
Carter
Drexler
Gervin
Hondo
Marion
Miller
Nance
Pettit
Pierce
Pippen
Wilkins

Point guards

Spoiler:

Billups
Frazier
Harden
Kidd
Nash
Payton
Westbrook

[Leslie Forman]

I don't really see how his Memphis period is a knock on him. He was dragging a team with Shane Battier and Mike Miller as his two best teammates to 45-50 wins in the brutal West. The list of big men in history who could have done that is very, very short. If he had simply been in the East his entire career, he probably would have made at least a dozen All-Star games - just look at his two years in Chicago, where he made the All-Star game both years even though he had the quickness of an oil tanker by then.

He just had the really unfortunate luck of playing at the same time, in the same conference, as three pretty alright guys who played the same position as him.

[Jaivl]

From 2004 and on, Pau Gasol was probably the best teammate of Battier, and not the other way around.