RealGM

Doctor MJ wrote:the Lakers didn't really get great on offense until West showed up

The Lakers only had Baylor for 2 seasons before West showed up and 1 of those 2 seasons Baylor led the Lakers to the NBA finals. Also, In Baylor's rookie year (before they got West), the Lakers went from being a 19 win team to 33 wins (a 14 win improvement), yet they only improved by 11 wins after drafting West. In Baylor's rookie year (without West), the Lakers went from 6th in the league in points per game to 5th and from 6th in offensive rating to 4th.

Doctor MJ wrote:What about Baylor's passing? Ah well this is the devil of highlights. Show footage of Baylor & Oscar passing the ball like what you showed above to anyone without access to data and reputation and they'll conclude Baylor was the better passer. Why? Because Baylor was big on circus passes while Oscar's passes were mostly pretty boring.

And this is why it's understandable why people would look at Magic Johnson and Pete Maravich as if they were the same type of player but the data tells us that while Magic may have been the greatest playmaker in history, Maravich was largely wasting everyone's time.

There's a long history of razzle-dazzle playmaking in basketball that comes in the wake of the Rens/Globetrotters that I don't want to bash at all, but you can't judge the effectiveness of players with such approaches by highlights because the highlights don't show you what it looks like when it goes wrong, nor give you a sense for how often it actually went right.

So you've got to watch the full games and not just the highlights - got it. Chick Hearn started broadcasting Lakers games in 1961. He saw as many of Baylor's full games as anybody. You yourself said that Hearn said Baylor is the best player he ever saw. Dr. J is quoted saying that Baylor is one of the 5 greatest players ever.

Baylor went to 8 NBA finals (1 of them before West joined the team), Maravich went to 0 NBA finals. Baylor was all NBA 1st team 10 times, compared to just 2 times for Maravich. Baylor scored 61 points in a game plus 22 rebounds to lead the Lakers to a win over Russell-led Celtics during their 60's dynasty. You're trying to say that Baylor was all flash and no substance, comparing him to Maravich but it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Then you say how Oscar and Magic are better passers than Baylor - so what? Did I say Baylor was a better passer than Magic or Oscar? Nope. I simply said that Baylor was a very good passer (especially for a forward) and a very good defender (with the versatility to cover both guards and forwards). Magic, Oscar and West have already been voted into this poll, a long time ago.

What I'm saying, is that compared to the players who are still on the board - who have not yet been voted onto this poll, Baylor is the best all-around player left. When you look at what Baylor did and how good he was scoring (inside scoring, scoring on drives and scoring with his mid range/outside shot), rebounding, passing, defense, ball handling, his speed, athleticism and strength (a combination which was off the charts and simply had never been seen before by an NBA player), and his ability to attack the basket, keep pressure on a defense, push the ball in transition, finish in transition or in the half court.

Doctor MJ wrote:Relative to the other guys in the Big 6 of his early years when he was actually at his best, his efficiency still wasn't that great. I just made a spreadsheet that I made a thread for using bkref's new TS Add. Here's the spreadsheet:

Historical TS Add

Okay so ranking that Big 6 by peak TS Add:
1. Wilt Chamberlain 430.3
2. Oscar Robertson 392.5
3. Jerry West 374.3
4. Bob Pettit 250.6
5. Elgin Baylor 148.2
6. Bill Russell 88.2

Same guys by the number of times they surpassed Baylor's 148.2 peak:
Wilt Chamberlain: 13
Oscar Robertson: 11
Jerry West: 10
Bob Pettit: 8

Worth noting also that Pettit was older than Baylor, and Pettit surpassed Baylor's peak 5 times while Baylor was in the league.

What I'm trying to emphasize here is that it's not just that Baylor was weak on the back end of his career compared to these other guy, the gap between the Big 4 offensive players of the era was massive, and while Wilt/Oscar/West is moot because they're already in (as is Russell), to my knowledge no one's voted for Pettit yet despite the fact he was a glaringly better scorer with a better defensive reputation. I don't think Baylor should be really even seriously considered until Pettit is voted in.

After Pettit it becomes more debatable, but here are other players who also produced bigger TS Add years in the NBA during Baylor's career:

Paul Arizin
Dolph Schayes
Cliff Hagan
Kenny Sears
Clyde Lovellette
George Yardley
Richie Guerin
Bailey Howell
Jack Twyman
Larry Costello
Terry Dischinger
Dick Barnett
Jerry Lucas
Rick Barry
Zelmo Beaty
Willis Reed
Bob Boozer
Lou Hudson
Dick Van Arsdale
Connie Hawkins
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Johnny Green
Archie Clark
Dave Bing
Walt Frazier
Tiny Archibald
Chet Walker
Gail Goodrich
Dick Snider

Chet Walker, Johnny Green, Dick Van Arsdale, Kenny Sears, Bob Boozer and Dick Snyder..really? The fact that all of those guys rank above Baylor, tells me that TS Add is a flawed statistic and should be taken with a grain of salt. Not to mention that some of the guys you listed, their careers barely overlapped with Baylor - and much of that overlap came during Baylor's final 2 injury-riddled seasons. A lot of these guys you listed played later on during Baylor's career - when league-wide shooting percentages were rising. Or you listed bigs who are naturally going to have a higher shooting percentage since more of their shots are taken in close to the basket and some of their shots are taken over much smaller defenders. Plus, Bill Russell has such a low rating, which is 3x lower than Pettit and 5x lower than Wilt? C'mon.

Doctor MJ wrote:To my knowledge no one's voted for Pettit yet despite the fact he was a glaringly better scorer with a better defensive reputation. I don't think Baylor should be really even seriously considered until Pettit is voted in.

Baylor and Pettit is a good debate. I think both have a strong case to be top 20 of all time.

You say Pettit was a glaringly better scorer than Baylor. I'm not so sure about that. Scoring efficiency-wise, sure Pettit has an edge there. Overall scoring, I think it's close. Both were exceptional scorers. Defensively, Pettit might have a slight edge. But Baylor was faster, better passer and better ball handler. And in terms of impact, Baylor was Dr. J before Dr. J. Baylor was Connie Hawkins before Connie Hawkins. Jordan modeled his game after Dr. J, as did Dominique Wilkins. Kobe and LeBron modeled their game after Jordan. Baylor was a pioneer. He paved the way for all of the explosive, big, strong, athletic wings to come later. He came in to the league before Oscar, before Wilt and right after Russell, at a time when black players faced a lot of racism. Pettit didn't have to deal with that, and Pettit also had the advantage of being 4 inches taller.

And speaking of impact, you could also make the argument that Baylor is the one who invented the euro-step:

therealbig3 wrote:As someone not taking part and observing in the background, I personally don't understand a Curry>Nash case, if we're looking beyond a ring count.

Nash has clearly demonstrated imo he's more "unguardable" against a wide variety of defenses in a playoff situation. He didn't need Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green around him to lead playoff offenses that were comparable to the 2017 Warriors playoff offense, and he's led multiple playoff offenses that are crystal clearly better than any other year of the Warriors dynasty under Curry.

I'm just not seeing the case for Curry over Nash offensively, at all...not in terms of team offense, not in terms of enabling teammates, not in terms of individual ability against elite defenses. And unless Curry is secretly a DPOY caliber player, any difference between them defensively is marginal at best and this pretty much gives Nash the victory in this comparison, no?

By the distinct measure of 'playoff offense' Nash is the untouchable offensive GOAT, everyone else is left in the dust. They were running something like +11.5/+3 (negative good for defense) over his second Phoenix stint in the playoffs (bit of a tragedy they never made it out of the West).

Your last paragraph could just as easily apply to Nash vs Magic/MJ/Oscar/West/Kobe/Bird/etc if you don't believe Phoenix was intentionally tanking the defense to power the offense. If so, why weren't you (and others, as I get you're mostly following along) arguing for Nash far far earlier than this?

Hal14 wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:the Lakers didn't really get great on offense until West showed up

The Lakers only had Baylor for 2 seasons before West showed up and 1 of those 2 seasons Baylor led the Lakers to the NBA finals. Also, In Baylor's rookie year (before they got West), the Lakers went from being a 19 win team to 33 wins (a 14 win improvement), yet they only improved by 11 wins after drafting West. In Baylor's rookie year (without West), the Lakers went from 6th in the league in points per game to 5th and from 6th in offensive rating to 4th.

Doctor MJ wrote:What about Baylor's passing? Ah well this is the devil of highlights. Show footage of Baylor & Oscar passing the ball like what you showed above to anyone without access to data and reputation and they'll conclude Baylor was the better passer. Why? Because Baylor was big on circus passes while Oscar's passes were mostly pretty boring.

And this is why it's understandable why people would look at Magic Johnson and Pete Maravich as if they were the same type of player but the data tells us that while Magic may have been the greatest playmaker in history, Maravich was largely wasting everyone's time.

There's a long history of razzle-dazzle playmaking in basketball that comes in the wake of the Rens/Globetrotters that I don't want to bash at all, but you can't judge the effectiveness of players with such approaches by highlights because the highlights don't show you what it looks like when it goes wrong, nor give you a sense for how often it actually went right.

So you've got to watch the full games and not just the highlights - got it. Chick Hearn started broadcasting Lakers games in 1961. He saw as many of Baylor's full games as anybody. You yourself said that Hearn said Baylor is the best player he ever saw. Dr. J is quoted saying that Baylor is one of the 5 greatest players ever.

Baylor went to 8 NBA finals (1 of them before West joined the team), Maravich went to 0 NBA finals. Baylor was all NBA 1st team 10 times, compared to just 2 times for Maravich. Baylor scored 61 points in a game plus 22 rebounds to lead the Lakers to a win over Russell-led Celtics during their 60's dynasty. You're trying to say that Baylor was all flash and no substance, comparing him to Maravich but it's an apples to oranges comparison.

Then you say how Oscar and Magic are better passers than Baylor - so what? Did I say Baylor was a better passer than Magic or Oscar? Nope. I simply said that Baylor was a very good passer (especially for a forward) and a very good defender (with the versatility to cover both guards and forwards). Magic, Oscar and West have already been voted into this poll, a long time ago.

What I'm saying, is that compared to the players who are still on the board - who have not yet been voted onto this poll, Baylor is the best all-around player left. When you look at what Baylor did and how good he was scoring (inside scoring, scoring on drives and scoring with his mid range/outside shot), rebounding, passing, defense, ball handling, his speed, athleticism and strength (a combination which was off the charts and simply had never been seen before by an NBA player), and his ability to attack the basket, keep pressure on a defense, push the ball in transition, finish in transition or in the half court.

Doctor MJ wrote:Relative to the other guys in the Big 6 of his early years when he was actually at his best, his efficiency still wasn't that great. I just made a spreadsheet that I made a thread for using bkref's new TS Add. Here's the spreadsheet:

Historical TS Add

Okay so ranking that Big 6 by peak TS Add:
1. Wilt Chamberlain 430.3
2. Oscar Robertson 392.5
3. Jerry West 374.3
4. Bob Pettit 250.6
5. Elgin Baylor 148.2
6. Bill Russell 88.2

Same guys by the number of times they surpassed Baylor's 148.2 peak:
Wilt Chamberlain: 13
Oscar Robertson: 11
Jerry West: 10
Bob Pettit: 8

Worth noting also that Pettit was older than Baylor, and Pettit surpassed Baylor's peak 5 times while Baylor was in the league.

What I'm trying to emphasize here is that it's not just that Baylor was weak on the back end of his career compared to these other guy, the gap between the Big 4 offensive players of the era was massive, and while Wilt/Oscar/West is moot because they're already in (as is Russell), to my knowledge no one's voted for Pettit yet despite the fact he was a glaringly better scorer with a better defensive reputation. I don't think Baylor should be really even seriously considered until Pettit is voted in.

After Pettit it becomes more debatable, but here are other players who also produced bigger TS Add years in the NBA during Baylor's career:

Paul Arizin
Dolph Schayes
Cliff Hagan
Kenny Sears
Clyde Lovellette
George Yardley
Richie Guerin
Bailey Howell
Jack Twyman
Larry Costello
Terry Dischinger
Dick Barnett
Jerry Lucas
Rick Barry
Zelmo Beaty
Willis Reed
Bob Boozer
Lou Hudson
Dick Van Arsdale
Connie Hawkins
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Johnny Green
Archie Clark
Dave Bing
Walt Frazier
Tiny Archibald
Chet Walker
Gail Goodrich
Dick Snider

Chet Walker, Johnny Green, Dick Van Arsdale, Kenny Sears, Bob Boozer and Dick Snyder..really? The fact that all of those guys rank above Baylor, tells me that it's a flawed statistic and should be taken with a grain of salt. Not to mention that some of the guys you listed, their careers barely overlapped with Baylor - and much of that overlap came during Baylor's final 2 injury-riddled seasons. A lot of these guys you listed played later on during Baylor's career - when league-wide shooting percentages were rising. Or you listed bigs who are naturally going to have a higher shooting percentage since more of their shots are taken in close to the basket and some of their shots are taken over much smaller defenders. Plus, Bill Russell has such a low rating, which is 3x lower than Pettit and 5x lower than Wilt? C'mon.

Doctor MJ wrote:To my knowledge no one's voted for Pettit yet despite the fact he was a glaringly better scorer with a better defensive reputation. I don't think Baylor should be really even seriously considered until Pettit is voted in.

Baylor and Pettit is a good debate. I think both have a strong case to be top 20 of all time.

You say Pettit was a glaringly better scorer than Baylor. I'm not so sure about that. Scoring efficiency-wise, sure Pettit has an edge there. Overall scoring, I think it's close. Both were exceptional scorers. Defensively, Pettit might have a slight edge. But Baylor was faster, better passer and better ball handler. And in terms of impact, Baylor was Dr. J before Dr. J. Baylor was Connie Hawkins before Connie Hawkins. Jordan modeled his game after Dr. J, as did Dominique Wilkins. Kobe and LeBron modeled their game after Jordan. Baylor was a pioneer. He paved the way for all of the explosive, big, strong, athletic wings to come later. He came in to the league before Oscar, before Wilt and right after Russell, at a time when black players faced a lot of racism. Pettit didn't have to deal with that, and Pettit also had the advantage of being 4 inches taller.

And speaking of impact, you could also make the argument that Baylor is the one who invented the euro-step:

Watch on YouTube

Great post. I look at Elgin vs Doctor J, and I think Elgin is better rebounder and passer. I think both are above average defenders, and don’t know enough to give either one the edge over the other here. I’m not sure the Doc’s somewhat better efficiency on lower volume really is enough to give him the edge over Baylor.

eminence wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:As someone not taking part and observing in the background, I personally don't understand a Curry>Nash case, if we're looking beyond a ring count.

Nash has clearly demonstrated imo he's more "unguardable" against a wide variety of defenses in a playoff situation. He didn't need Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green around him to lead playoff offenses that were comparable to the 2017 Warriors playoff offense, and he's led multiple playoff offenses that are crystal clearly better than any other year of the Warriors dynasty under Curry.

I'm just not seeing the case for Curry over Nash offensively, at all...not in terms of team offense, not in terms of enabling teammates, not in terms of individual ability against elite defenses. And unless Curry is secretly a DPOY caliber player, any difference between them defensively is marginal at best and this pretty much gives Nash the victory in this comparison, no?

By the distinct measure of 'playoff offense' Nash is the untouchable offensive GOAT, everyone else is left in the dust. They were running something like +11.5/+3 (negative good for defense) over his second Phoenix stint in the playoffs (bit of a tragedy they never made it out of the West).

Your last paragraph could just as easily apply to Nash vs Magic/MJ/Oscar/West/Kobe/Bird/etc if you don't believe Phoenix was intentionally tanking the defense to power the offense. If so, why weren't you (and others, as I get you're mostly following along) arguing for Nash far far earlier than this?

I do think there's an element of Phoenix emphasizing offensive personnel over defensive personnel. That matters in the sense that other offensive greats didn't have the luxuries that Nash played with in Phoenix.

In the comparison to Curry though, Curry doesn't get to play that card, he happened to have a ton of talent on both sides of the ball around him. And we've seen Nash in more balanced lineups still maintain ridiculous offensive impact, even when playing with a defensive big like Kurt Thomas and without Amare Stoudemire. GS's success is basically objective proof to me that you could surround Nash with two-way players instead of one-way offensive-minded players and I do think he would have replicated the offensive success we saw in Phoenix while playing on a good defensive team. It's possible to be an uptempo high scoring team that still manages to play great defense, if you have the personnel.

I do think Nash is on the short list of offensive GOATs though, while I do not think Curry is on that list. I think longevity and lack of defense hurts Nash in an overall GOAT list, which is why other high-level perimeter players can be ranked ahead of him all-time.

Also, we don't have as much specific detail about the playoff offenses that Magic/Bird/Jordan/Oscar/West were running, in terms of on/off numbers, so it's hard to say they're definitely left in the dust.

therealbig3 wrote:

eminence wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:As someone not taking part and observing in the background, I personally don't understand a Curry>Nash case, if we're looking beyond a ring count.

Nash has clearly demonstrated imo he's more "unguardable" against a wide variety of defenses in a playoff situation. He didn't need Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green around him to lead playoff offenses that were comparable to the 2017 Warriors playoff offense, and he's led multiple playoff offenses that are crystal clearly better than any other year of the Warriors dynasty under Curry.

I'm just not seeing the case for Curry over Nash offensively, at all...not in terms of team offense, not in terms of enabling teammates, not in terms of individual ability against elite defenses. And unless Curry is secretly a DPOY caliber player, any difference between them defensively is marginal at best and this pretty much gives Nash the victory in this comparison, no?

By the distinct measure of 'playoff offense' Nash is the untouchable offensive GOAT, everyone else is left in the dust. They were running something like +11.5/+3 (negative good for defense) over his second Phoenix stint in the playoffs (bit of a tragedy they never made it out of the West).

Your last paragraph could just as easily apply to Nash vs Magic/MJ/Oscar/West/Kobe/Bird/etc if you don't believe Phoenix was intentionally tanking the defense to power the offense. If so, why weren't you (and others, as I get you're mostly following along) arguing for Nash far far earlier than this?

I do think there's an element of Phoenix emphasizing offensive personnel over defensive personnel. That matters in the sense that other offensive greats didn't have the luxuries that Nash played with in Phoenix.

In the comparison to Curry though, Curry doesn't get to play that card, he happened to have a ton of talent on both sides of the ball around him. And we've seen Nash in more balanced lineups still maintain ridiculous offensive impact, even when playing with a defensive big like Kurt Thomas and without Amare Stoudemire. GS's success is basically objective proof to me that you could surround Nash with two-way players instead of one-way offensive-minded players and I do think he would have replicated the offensive success we saw in Phoenix while playing on a good defensive team. It's possible to be an uptempo high scoring team that still manages to play great defense, if you have the personnel.

I do think Nash is on the short list of offensive GOATs though, while I do not think Curry is on that list. I think longevity and lack of defense hurts Nash in an overall GOAT list, which is why other high-level perimeter players can be ranked ahead of him all-time.

Also, we don't have as much specific detail about the playoff offenses that Magic/Bird/Jordan/Oscar/West were running, in terms of on/off numbers, so it's hard to say they're definitely left in the dust.

So Nash had 5 playoff runs in his second Phoenix stint.

2005: +17.3/+6.8/+10.5 (Amar'e main big)
2006: +9.4/+4.6/+4.8 (Tim Thomas)
2007: +7.3/-3.2/+10.5 (Amar'e/Kurt Thomas)
2008: +2.7/-0.6/+3.3 (Amar'e/Shaq)
2010: +13.1/+2.6/+10.5 (Amar'e/Frye)

He did not maintain that otherworldly offense without Amar'e at C as the defense improved.

05/06/10 as 'small-ball' seasons
+13.3/+4.7/+8.6

07/08 as traditional C ball seasons
+5.8/-2.3/+8.1

The tradeoff aspect is just glaringly obvious.

1st offense = 5th defense
3rd offense = 4th defense
4th offense = 1st defense
5th offense = 2nd defense
2nd offense = 3rd defense

Hal14 wrote:Chet Walker, Johnny Green, Dick Van Arsdale, Kenny Sears, Bob Boozer and Dick Snyder..really? The fact that all of those guys rank above Baylor, tells me that TS Add is a flawed statistic and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Man. I'm just going to say this and leave it:

You're approaching stats wrong when you talk like this. "flawed", "grain of salt". I'm not looking to make my entire ranking of these players based on this stat because I'm not an idiot. And you shouldn't be looking to throw the stat out because you see that Johnny Green ranks higher to Baylor because you're not one either.

This is a stat that speaks to both volume and efficiency. Baylor is a player we know to have mediocre efficiency. How mediocre? Enough that he ranks below Johnny Green and a host of others by the specific criteria I mentioned. Deal with it. Understand precisely what it means and what it doesn't, and do others the courtesy of considering that they already get this because this is all pretty basic stuff.

It doesn't mean that Green was a better player than Baylor and I'm not saying it does. But the idea that, essentially, you'd take what I'm saying here more seriously if Baylor were more efficient, means you're going about things backwards.

therealbig3 wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Given all of this you might think, "Okay, so why don't you have him over Curry then?", and I'll tell you, I can see the argument. It matters that Curry isn't just the best shooter in history but better than we ever expected to see. It also matters that Curry has developed a game that's arguably more noteworthy for his off-ball game, particularly given that Curry will never be the on-ball thinker that Nash was. In the end I think Curry is the template that future generations should be following more so than Nash.

I'm not convinced by the logic here.

I think playing like Nash is great. I think playing like Curry is great. There is no "right" way. There is no way that future generations "should" play. I think they should play as effectively as possible.

If you're as good on-ball as Nash, that's the right way to play and it should be emulated...if you're that good. Playing like Curry is maybe how most players should play, since they're not going to be as good as Nash on the ball. But when you do have a player like Nash, I've seen no evidence that there is a difference in terms of team performance or effectiveness that comes from his style of play vs Curry's style of play. In fact, offensive performance for on ball guys at that level like Nash and LeBron are demonstrably superior to Curry's. I feel like that point keeps getting lost, when it's literally the most important thing to talk about.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate your points here.

I have to be honest: I'm concerned with putting Nash too high out of my own personal bias. After I posted my vote my thought wasn't "Maybe I should have Nash above Curry?" but "Am I just being a Nash homer?".

I'll be looking forward to more commentary about this from folks, both the pros and the cons on Nash.

70sFan wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:BTW if you just do a correlation study over NBA history with team offensive ratings v. team defensive ratings, you will see a higher correlation with higher defense ratings and winning the NBA championship than with offense.

Yeah, this should be a well-known fact. There are more examples of mediocre offensive teams winning though their defense than mediocre defensive teams winning through their offense - even when you exclude Russell's Celtics.

You don't even have to go that far back to see the trend. Defense is what wins championships. The last NBA champion that was non-elite defensively was what? The Cavs? And even that was on the back of an all-time individual defensive postseason performance

eminence wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:As someone not taking part and observing in the background, I personally don't understand a Curry>Nash case, if we're looking beyond a ring count.

Nash has clearly demonstrated imo he's more "unguardable" against a wide variety of defenses in a playoff situation. He didn't need Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green around him to lead playoff offenses that were comparable to the 2017 Warriors playoff offense, and he's led multiple playoff offenses that are crystal clearly better than any other year of the Warriors dynasty under Curry.

I'm just not seeing the case for Curry over Nash offensively, at all...not in terms of team offense, not in terms of enabling teammates, not in terms of individual ability against elite defenses. And unless Curry is secretly a DPOY caliber player, any difference between them defensively is marginal at best and this pretty much gives Nash the victory in this comparison, no?

By the distinct measure of 'playoff offense' Nash is the untouchable offensive GOAT, everyone else is left in the dust. They were running something like +11.5/+3 (negative good for defense) over his second Phoenix stint in the playoffs (bit of a tragedy they never made it out of the West).

Your last paragraph could just as easily apply to Nash vs Magic/MJ/Oscar/West/Kobe/Bird/etc if you don't believe Phoenix was intentionally tanking the defense to power the offense. If so, why weren't you (and others, as I get you're mostly following along) arguing for Nash far far earlier than this?

I do actually believe D'Antoni tanked the defense to power the offense, deliberately going small to create mismatches all over the court. (And now most of the league is doing it.) So, Nash's offenses may have been a little overrated; they were still truly great and he's in my mix for the next PG spot. The trouble is that there are so many great players, and even great PGs left . . . Stockton (offenses not as great as Nash's but then he was playing with weaker offensive teammates outside of the Mailman and late career Hornacek), Frazier (almost everyone's top 3 defensive point as well as one of the best shooting guards of his era and led the legendary Knicks offense of the 70s), Chris Paul (the king of turnover economy among the greats), Curry (my vote here so far). It's a much tougher job at this point to bring out the standouts than it was in the top few picks as the differences are less dramatic and obvious and the candidates multiply).

In terms of Curry over Nash, I think Curry's effect on a championship capable offense is greater than Nash's. The ridiculous shooting ability that he demonstrates has a gravity that gives guys like Klay Thompson and Draymond Green (and even Harrison Barnes) more room to work and less attention defensively in a way that Nash's (also great) shooting doesn't. I do think the stats tend to support Stockton here the most, then Paul, but watching them makes me appreciate Curry more than the numbers indicate. I do appreciate I may be dead wrong and may change my mind either here or in the next project but that's how I see it at the moment.

Edit: Ok, so now that I have a bit more time I'll elaborate on my votes.

I'm sticking with Mikan once again for the same reasons. His in-era dominance is unmatched by anyone else left in this discussion, and although his era is doubtless weaker than any other I do appreciate his performance relative to his peers and feel it's fitting to place him just behind the other similarly dominant players from later eras.

I flipped on Dr. J/Moses thanks to analysis in the previous thread and a bit of research. Dr. J is so much more aesthetically pleasing to me personally, but Moses at his best was a real force of nature. When he was locked in he was capable of pushing his team to great heights. I could easily flip back next round, but for now I give Moses a very slight edge over Dr. J due to what I perceive as a higher peak and more unstoppable style of play.

My vote
1. George Mikan
2. Moses Malone
3. Julius Erving

1. Durant
2. Durant
3. Durant

The continued disrespect of this guy is ridiculous. He is a better talent than most of the guys above him in 11-20 ranges and accomplished a lot more in his careers thus far. 1 MVP, 2 Final MVP, 2 titles along with multiple all-stars selection. Also a beast in the playoff and can play on and off ball extremely well. One of the best scorer ever.

2klegend wrote:1. Durant
2. Durant
3. Durant

The continued disrespect of this guy is ridiculous. He is a better talent than most of the guys above him in 11-20 ranges and accomplished a lot more in his careers thus far. 1 MVP, 2 Final MVP, 2 titles along with multiple all-stars selection. Also a beast in the playoff and can play on and off ball extremely well. One of the best scorer ever.

We will be counting only your third place vote for Durant.

2klegend wrote:1. Durant
2. Durant
3. Durant

The continued disrespect of this guy is ridiculous. He is a better talent than most of the guys above him in 11-20 ranges and accomplished a lot more in his careers thus far. 1 MVP, 2 Final MVP, 2 titles along with multiple all-stars selection. Also a beast in the playoff and can play on and off ball extremely well. One of the best scorer ever.

I think in about 2 years I will completely agree with you, but for now he needs a little more longevity to be this high, and I don't value longevity as much as the average voter

2klegend wrote:1. Durant
2. Durant
3. Durant

The continued disrespect of this guy is ridiculous. He is a better talent than most of the guys above him in 11-20 ranges and accomplished a lot more in his careers thus far. 1 MVP, 2 Final MVP, 2 titles along with multiple all-stars selection. Also a beast in the playoff and can play on and off ball extremely well. One of the best scorer ever.

So Durant is disrespected because people don't rank him as high as you? Doesn't sound like a good argument at all...

Who from the 11-20 range is clearly worse than Durant and why?

FWIW I have a preference towards players who have completed their careers unless the sheer accumulation of stats/accolades has reached an extraordinary level (like Lebron). Durant is an exceptional offensive player and I'll be considering him soon-ish, but even with his FMVPs and MVP he still has not yet accumulated the hardware or the career value of someone like Moses or Dr. J if we include ABA. (The same obstacles will apply for other contemporary greats like Curry, Harden and eventually Giannis)

At a certain point, probably a bit before or after #25, the fact Durant was simply a superior player in my eyes may overpower career value, but for the next few players at least I view them all as at least on the same level as Durant if not outright better at their peak. And all with more career value due to the fact Durant's career is in-progress.

I know it's tough because we are all passionate but it's best to try to keep an even keel about this whole process, especially when the ranks don't match our personal preferences. This is a committee process so some outcomes are going to be well outside the range of any individual voter's beliefs, we're just reaching an average. I for one don't consider Lebron better than either MJ or Kareem but it would have been pointless to bang the table about it. I just had to accept this list is not my personal preference, the best I can do is influence the ranking very slightly. I think that's the best perspective to keep in order to avoid being perpetually upset.

For Durant specifically it's hardly a slight because this is not his final ranking, he still has an opportunity to add significant value. This is a temporary spot for him with the chance to rise. Someone like D-Rob or Malone has little chance to improve their standing in comparison, if a fan of theirs feels that they are being disrespected that is more or less a permanent slight. Fans of Durant can at least hope for more great years to further prove his worth and improve his standing.

trex_8063 wrote:
Target stop time somewhere around 5pm EST on Thursday.

Hate to bug you. but do we have any vote on this yet?
Thanks for being the moderator!

Man, I'm kinda disappointed at how things have gone thus far. I didn't realize this had started or I would've gotten my votes in for the first 17. LBJ, Wilt, and Magic are too high and Shaq/Hakeem/KG are too low. Malone over Robinson is highly questionable. I'd probably have D-Rob like 13 and Malone like 19. Anyway, I'll get my vote in soon for this one it's probably between Curry, Dr. J, and Barkley. Definitely lean Curry but I could be convinced.

70sFan wrote:

2klegend wrote:1. Durant
2. Durant
3. Durant

The continued disrespect of this guy is ridiculous. He is a better talent than most of the guys above him in 11-20 ranges and accomplished a lot more in his careers thus far. 1 MVP, 2 Final MVP, 2 titles along with multiple all-stars selection. Also a beast in the playoff and can play on and off ball extremely well. One of the best scorer ever.

So Durant is disrespected because people don't rank him as high as you? Doesn't sound like a good argument at all...

Who from the 11-20 range is clearly worse than Durant and why?

KG
Malone
Dirk
West
Oscar
D-Rob

None of them accomplished a lick of things more than KD. All were 1st timer champ and statistically not superior to KD. Why are they ahead?

I love how always people complain that Wilt should have been lower, yet in discussions about his rating only few posters actually put any kind of effort to explain this statement...

2klegend wrote:

70sFan wrote:

2klegend wrote:1. Durant
2. Durant
3. Durant

The continued disrespect of this guy is ridiculous. He is a better talent than most of the guys above him in 11-20 ranges and accomplished a lot more in his careers thus far. 1 MVP, 2 Final MVP, 2 titles along with multiple all-stars selection. Also a beast in the playoff and can play on and off ball extremely well. One of the best scorer ever.

So Durant is disrespected because people don't rank him as high as you? Doesn't sound like a good argument at all...

Who from the 11-20 range is clearly worse than Durant and why?

KG
Malone
Dirk
West
Oscar
D-Rob

None of them accomplished a lick of things more than KD. All were 1st timer champ and statistically not superior to KD. Why are they ahead?

Because of number of things:

- all of them had clearly better longevity - even someone like West and Robinson,
- most of them peaked clearly higher,
- most posters here don't count rings as valuable criteria, had KD never joined to the Warriors he'd probably still be ringless but that wouldn't make him worse player at all,
- some of them have more accolades than him,
- most of them rank higher in historical impact analysis.

I mean, what's the case for Durant over West for example? 2 FMVPs is very weak one...