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

[Doctor MJ]

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
eminence
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
ljspeelman
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
One_and_Done
penbeast0
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
ZeppelinPage

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):


Patrick Ewing


James Harden


Bob Pettit


Scottie Pippen


John Stockton

[tsherkin]

I would have to think that Harden and Pettit are the front runners for the next two slots. Pippen vs Stockton would be quite an interesting follow-up, as well.

It seems like era is penalizing Pettit more than Mikan, which is a little brutal on a guy with his resume. Were I voting, he'd have to be the guy here. A title, two scoring titles, 2 MVPs, 8 years as a top-5 MVP candidate in 11 seasons played (and another at 6th). Kept up his key traits even in his final season, into his early 30s with a heavy mileage log already behind him. Big regular season scorer with strong in-era efficiency, maintained reasonably well into the playoffs.

The resume suggests he should already be in several spots ago but playing in the 50s and early/mid 60s is clearly hurting him, despite other guys who have already gone in. Almost a lost star at this point. Triple threat action, a jump shot, great at drawing fouls, excellent rebounder. Dude had the whole package, and the accomplishments and accolades to boot.

[AEnigma]

My “problem” with Pettit (if he makes the top thirty I will not be bothered) is that as a player type I do not hold him in too high regard, and relative to his own era I do not see him as a particular standout as the league develops. Still a good player, but no longer the MVP performer he was in the 1950s.

We look at his record/results, and I would say 1955 and 1956 are uninspiring. 1957 they go to a tight seventh game against the Celtics, but it is one of Russell’s two worst teams. Then they win against the other worst team as Russell is injured. Has maybe his best season in 1959, but then his team exits the postseason early against an underwhelming Lakers team. Back to game 7 of the Finals in 1960, yet in a series where the Celtics were never at risk, with all four wins by at least sixteen points and all three losses by ten or fewer points. Uncompetitive in the Finals the following year. A 29-49 record in 1962. A pair of close western finals losses in 1963 and 1964, and then exits on a somewhat ignominious loss to a weak Bullets team. Never manages a 3-SRS result, despite playing with consistently decent to good support. No strong impact profile the way you see with other stars of the era. Not exactly Mikan in my eyes, no — although yes, he proved he could translate to the 1960s as a star in a way Mikan never did.

VOTE: James Harden
Alternate: Patrick Ewing
NOMINATE: Reggie Miller
AltNom: Walt Frazier (I think Barry and Havlicek had better careers but I am going to side with him over Stockton when we get there)

[Rishkar]

I second tsherkin on this. If I were a voter, I would have been championing Pettit for the last 10 votes or so. He was so dominant relative to his era, and seems like a player who would translate well to the modern game for those who care about that (as he was the first real stretch 4 and rebounding/drawing fouls is incredibly valuable in any era). To quote my last post, "I feel Pettit is the only player remaining without many flaws in his resume. From what I've read, he seems to have a reputation as a solid defender, great rebounder, and good outside scorer. His flaws seem to be that he played in a weaker era and had trouble handling the ball. One often overlooked part of Pettit's skillset was his ability to draw fouls, where teams in the playoffs gave him 10.4 Free throw attempts per game second all time to Shaq and 10.3 in the regular season which is second all time to Wilt. Unlike those other players, Pettit converted at a 76% rate throughout his career. Combining the all time ability to draw fouls with his jumpshooting (and therefore spacing) ability, I think Pettit would be a player who might have an even greater impact than the boxscore numbers would indicate. I guess one could believe that his defense was subpar and thus holding back his value, but I see him as a kinda lesser version of Karl Malone on that end (and probably on offense). He only played 11 seasons, but was an all star in all of them 91st all NBA for his first 10 years, and 2nd All NBA his last)." He played against Wilt and Russell, so he isn't some prehistoric type player. I guess one could dock him for having Hagan on his team (who was a fantastic player in his own right), but most of the candidates have played with really high end talent besides Patrick Ewing. My second vote is a toss up between Harden and Stockton. I think Stockton was a significantly better passer, help defender, team defender, and teammate. Harden was a much better scorer, had a tighter handle, and was slightly less prone to turnovers. Harden clearly peaked higher, but Stockton was all NBA for an additional 4 years. Both players are elite offensively, had slower starts to their career, and have played for a lot of seasons. I think I lean slightly towards Stockton because of his defense, leadership, and elite impact data we have from the tail end of his career.

[tsherkin]

My “problem” with Pettit (if he makes the top thirty I will not be bothered) is that as a player type I do not hold him in too high regard, and relative to his own era I do not see him as a particular standout as the league develops. Still a good player, but no longer the MVP performer he was in the 1950s.

We look at his record/results, and I would say 1955 and 1956 are uninspiring. 1957 they go to a tight seventh game against the Celtics, but it is one of Russell’s two worst teams. Then they win against the other worst team as Russell is injured. Has maybe his best season in 1959, but then his team exits the postseason early against an underwhelming Lakers team. Back to game 7 of the Finals in 1960, yet in a series where the Celtics were never at risk, with all four wins by at least sixteen points and all three less by ten or fewer points. Uncompetitive in the Finals the following year. A 29-49 record in 1962. A pair of close western finals losses in 1963 and 1964, and then exits on a somewhat ignominious loss to a weak Bullets team. Never manages a 3-SRS result, despite playing with consistently decent to good support. No strong impact profile the way you see with other stars of the era. Not exactly Mikan in my eyes, no — although yes, he proved he could translate to the 1960s as a star in a way Mikan never did.

Mmm. 59 Lakers had Baylor blowing up all over the Hawks after his horrid shooting against the Pistons, and then exploding in Game 6 in particular. Pettit didn't have an amazing performance that game, to be fair.

As far as 62, their O was 2nd in the league (of 9). They dropped from the 2nd-ranked D to the 9th ranked. Half a season from Clyde L, 20 games from Lenny Wilkens. Some issues there to consider before dropping all of that on Pettit. That was also Wilt's 50 ppg season, and Wilt had his second-highest per-team PPG average against the Hawks that year. 9 games against Boston, 9 games against the Warriors, 12 games against a Lakers squad featuring a second-year Jerry West... 11 games against the best offense in the league (Cinci) in Oscar's second season as he averaged a triple-double.

Is it that surprising that the Hawks got smashed? There were good teams and bad teams in a league that small. No place to hide if you're dealing with roster issues, and a bunch of high-end talent into the league over that three-year stretch.

[rk2023]

Vote for #29 - James Harden
Alternate - TBD
Nomination - Reggie Miller
Alternate Nomination - Kawhi Leonard

Harden certainly could rub some people the wrong way (myself included to an extent), but I think it's important to not really cloud judgment in the process. F4p (whom I have pushed back against at times) has done a great job making the case why Harden could be - for lack of a better word - 'over-hated'. I think he has been a solid All-NBA level+ player since 2012? when he did his best Manu 6th-man impression, through all of his Houston tenure and year 1, and maybe 22/23 - though I am not as high on either of the lattermost. I guess the main things concerning me with Harden are (1) that his box numbers seem to trump his offensive impact & case as a floor raiser and (2) that, in an era where players - eg. LBJ, Paul, Durant, Curry, Dame? are tending to age well - Harden's aging curve hasn't been great. Nonetheless, he was a phenomenal player well before turning 25 and he's a sure-fire top 20 offensive player across his prime with a case for top 15.

I don't know about an alternate nomination yet. I feel that I could have been underrating Pettit from more of an era-relative angle. One of him, Pippen, or Ewing would be my selection here - where I'm feeling it'll come down to one of the respective PF/Cs here. Am in need of time to think some more.

Have been nominating Miller for a fair-share of threads now, same rhetoric holds:

Since he's garnering discussion in this thread and perhaps would be my next nomination after Wade/Joker, I'll put it out there that I think it's understated in the mainstream how damn good Reggie Miller was! He probably never reached an MVP-level of play, but 13 years of Miller being an offensive force (and one that ramped up insurmountably in the playoffs) is very impressive.

Here's some good for thought how good Reggie was, even at older ages:

Spoiler:

Reggie Miller in the Playoffs from 1990-99:
• 27.0 Points/75 on +11.3 rTS%

Kevin Durant in the playoffs from 2012-19:
• 29.0 Points/75 on +6.2 rTS%

Steph Curry in the playoffs from 2014-19:
• 28.0 Points/75 on +9.0 rTS%

James Harden in the playoffs from 2015-21:
• 28.1 Points/75 on +5.5 rTS%


3-year playoff stretches above +2 in ScoreVal (basically all-time level stuff)

Kareem 7x
Jordan 7x
Shaq 7x
Miller 7x
West 7x


The Pacers offenses were also typically spectacular with Miller, as he is one of 3 people ever in history to play on two separate teams with five-year stretches of +5 playoff offenses (Magic and Kobe are the other 2).

Heck, in 1999 the Pacers were the best offense in the NBA (+6.5 rORTG) as well as the best in 2000 (+4.4 rORTG) This is at 33 and 34 years old and Reggie was the best offensive player on those teams.


Reggie Miller in the 2000s Finals against an all-nba talent in Kobe (whose ankle injury might have him perform worse than his averages):

• 24.2 PPG
• 4.5 REB
• 3.7 AST
• 0.8 STL
• 58.8 TS%
• 37% From 3
• 98% From the Line (45-46)


And those numbers only cover the 90's decade. He was the best offensive player and player on a team that made to the Finals in 2000, despite not being close to his peak years.

In the Finals game 1:

Reggie Miller in G1 vs the Lakers of the 2000 finals: 7pts 1/16 FG (6.3%)


After the worse playoff game of his life he rebounded really well:

Reggie Miller in G2-G6: 27.8ppg on 47.7/40.5/97.6 shooting.


In the end:

Reggie Miller in the 2000s Finals against an all-nba talent in Kobe (whose ankle injury might have him perform worse than his averages):

• 24.2 PPG
• 4.5 REB
• 3.7 AST
• 0.8 STL
• 58.8 TS%
• 37% From 3
• 98% From the Line (45-46)

Kobe in the Finals in 2000 (Once again his ankle injury maybe made things significantly worse)

15.6 PPG
4.6 RPG
4.2 AST
1 Steal
41.1 TS%

Chasing Reggie around, probably was incredibly taxing for Kobe...

That's insanely impressive for a 34-year-old man. Reggie is the definition of consistency year after year.
The consistency for so long is just too much to pass over here.

I think his lesser volume playmaking and shot-creation holds him back from top-20 or so offensive players in NBA History for example (I think on-off reflects that - from what I've seen).. but the scoring potency Miller displayed from 1990-2002 (with a significant ramp up in PS goodness, as Colbinii pointed out earlier) made him a very good centerpiece to build around in that era. The Pacers became a solid offense upon Miller's breakout and didn't tail-off too much as they got defensive pieces and became a more serious playoff threat. Here's some more data significantly in Miller's favor once the calendar flips to April:
https://imgur.com/a/J4EMJ9h

Even as we got a more stable, more holistic sample - Reggie's scoring production and impact didn't show any significant dip with excellent team offensive data (not even a case of gimmicky rORTGs) to show for it. It's worth keeping in mind that we are analyzing within an era where outlier shot-making can hold more value ITO offensive separation because the league average efficiency marks would be lower than that of the modern-day. I still might not be as confident with Miller as the best player on a championship team, but he would be an absolute dynamite offensive co-pilot alongside a two-way force (eg. Hakeem, Duncan, KG) or a secondary offensive option - because of how well his scoring approach scales down.

As for Kawhi, everything' that has been said so far to preface is valid in my eyes - so I don't have too much to add. I'm not as keen at dinging for injuries as other may be (hence higher on CP3 and West than the pack), so I reckon I'd be higher on Kawhi than most - sans the posters whom have nominated him already. Great (though over-statedly so) scorer, very impressive improvement/development through his career on offense, up until 2016 has a case at being the GOAT non-big defender, and he has his fair share of solid years even with being injury riddled / needing to be load managed since 2019.

[HeartBreakKid]

My vote is for Bob Pettit - I have him and Barkley pretty close to each other. I can't really think of many bad things to say about Pettit, but I can think of a few things to say about Barkley.

I think Bob shared his career with some real titans just as Chuck did and more than held his own, just like Chuck did. I have very little doubt about Pettit's playing ability, and while he isn't the hyper efficient scoring beast chuck is, I do think he is the type of guy that can do what is needed when it is called.

Alternate vote is for Patrick Ewing - Very close between him and Bob, I could be swayed to give Patrick the #1 vote. Chuck is right up there with them but my gut feeling tells me the other two were better.


My nomination is for Kawhi Leonard - At two different points he was an awesome defender and an awesome scorer. His health and priorities never made them line up at least not for a long time, but I think his dominance as a scorer and defender depending on the year is truly special.


My alternate nomination is for Walt Frazier - As you could likely tell with the 3 other players I gave votes too (Jokic, Wade, Leonard) I am not much of a longevity guy, which leads a perfect excuse to give Frazier an alternate nomination. I really love watching him play, seems to be the type of guy who would have benefited a lot from impact stats. He was in a system that suppressed his APG because it does seem like to me he is a "pass first" type of PG. Great shooter, legendary defender, was the best player on 1 if not 2 championship teams (over Reed which is no small task). Actually I think the Knicks trifecta of Ewing/Reed/Frazier is very hard to find separation between them, albeit Ewing obviously was a lot healthier in comparison. I think lack of meaningful data to analyze Frazier's defense and passing ability hurts him and prevents him from going higher, but with the level of players left I think he is not a terrible pick if longevity is not a crutch.

[homecourtloss]

Vote: Harden
Alternate: Scottie Pippen
Nomination: Reggie Miller

Harden’s RS+PS impact signals look good:



I’m pretty sure prime Harden with some spare parts can create a contending type of offensive team. He could score with basically zero help with the absolutely absurd ISO numbers:

Harden ISO Points per Possession

2018: 1.22 PPP on 10 possessions per game, 55% eFG (shot 39% on pull up threes), 20% FT frequency, 5% TOV
2019: 1.10 PPP on 16 possessions per game, 51% eFG, 16% FT frequency, 7% TOV
2020: 1.12 PPP on 14 possessions per game, 52% eFG, 16% FT frequency, 7% TOV
2021 (BKN) 1.09 PPP on 8 possessions per game, 53% eFG, 15% FT frequency, 9% TOV

That 2018 season Probably one of the most underrated achievements in the past 25 years. He was basically making like three stepback threes per game. He shot 40% on threes after touching the ball for 6+ seconds (5 attempts a game ), 40% on threes after 7+ dribbles (4 attempts per game) something you just don’t see.

1.22 PPP would be in the 89th %ile for SPOT UP PPP, and nobody who played a lot of games and had 4+ spot up possessions per game broke 1.14 PPP in 2018. 84% of all his FGs were made unassisted.

—The 2017 GS Warriors scored 1.15 points per possession
—With Steph, KD, Klay, and Draymond on court, it was an incredible 1.26 points per possession.
—2018 Harden generated 1.22 in ISO. League average points in ISO in 2017–2019 has been between .86 and .87 points per possession. Harden’s scoring in ISO generated about 42% more points per possession than league wide average AND 6% more points per possession than the 2017 Warriors as a team did per possession. Steph/KD/Klay/Draymond on court in 2017 produced only 3% more points per possession than Harden did in 2018 dribbling the ball around and taking stepbacks. This is absolutely wild.

[Mogspan]

Interesting that each of the 5 nominees plays at a different traditional position. Pippen is the choice for me here. He's a 6x champion with truly all-time great defense and great playmaking. During the one season in his prime without Jordan, he was 8th in scoring on +3 efficiency and arguably could have won a title as the alpha of his team if not for a suspiciously officiated game 7 loss to the Knicks, who themselves lost in the Finals in a 7-game series. All of these guys' career achievements sections pages on Wikipedia are ridiculous, but when you contextualize, I think Pippen's is the most impressive and easily the most memorable.

A close second for me would be John Stockton, who had incredible longevity and all-time impact stats even at an advanced age. Pettit played in a weak era, and Harden's postseason drop-off is about as prominent as anyone's in history. Ewing I don't think is even in the conversation since as a center, while a super competitive position in the 90s, he was probably the 4th-best of the decade. All of the other guys have strong cases as the most accomplished at their positions for their respective decades.

[AEnigma]

As far as 62, their O was 2nd in the league (of 9). They dropped from the 2nd-ranked D to the 9th ranked. Half a season from Clyde L, 20 games from Lenny Wilkens. Some issues there to consider before dropping all of that on Pettit. That was also Wilt's 50 ppg season, and Wilt had his second-highest per-team PPG average against the Hawks that year. 9 games against Boston, 9 games against the Warriors, 12 games against a Lakers squad featuring a second-year Jerry West... 11 games against the best offense in the league (Cinci) in Oscar's second season as he averaged a triple-double.

Is it that surprising that the Hawks got smashed? There were good teams and bad teams in a league that small. No place to hide if you're dealing with roster issues, and a bunch of high-end talent into the league over that three-year stretch.

Right, but that is part of the problem with talking about his impact relative to those talent influxes, no? Being a top ten player, and quite a ways short of the top two or three, is not as noteworthy an accomplishment to me in those years as it would be in most subsequent years (enter Ewing and Harden).

[tsherkin]

Right, but that is part of the problem with talking about his impact relative to those talent influxes, no? Being a top ten player, and quite a ways short of the top two or three, is not as noteworthy an accomplishment to me in those years as it would be in most subsequent years (enter Ewing and Harden).

No, I don't think I'm with you there, given that the talent influxes are all rated above where he is on this list, to be honest. I don't think it demeans Pettit to have struggled against those guys. Oscar was running what were, at the time, the best offenses of all-time. Wilt was Wilt and West joined Baylor to give LA a nasty dynamic duo. Meantime, Pettit was working with less and less even as he himself aged and moved into the final years of his career. That doesn't sound like a problem to me at all.

[AEnigma]

I do not think Pettit was really working with less, no, and I see little to suggest he was. He just was not at the level of those other players to magnify his teams the way they did. Say we agree that Pettit is the next name up from that era (I probably do, although I think Barry can stand up well against him). That in itself is not any real argument for #29 (or higher).

[tsherkin]

I do not think Pettit was really working with less, no, and I see little to suggest he was.

I was talking about 62 specifically when I wrote that.

He just was not at the level of those other players to magnify his teams the way they did.

As Oscar, Wilt and West? No, I agree that he was not quite there. But that's why there are ahead of him.

[Samurai]

Vote for #29: Bob Pettit. I do not care about science fiction time machines whisking Pettit to 1923, 2023 or 2123. In fact, the sci-fi crowd still hasn't convinced me at all that such a time machine even exists. His era was also the weakest of the candidates currently eligible, which is why I am considering him now rather than much earlier spots. He was a 2-time MVP and 10-time All NBA First Team and Second Team once. I will also concede that I never saw him play live. But his adaptability is extremely impressive to me. His first season was 1955 and Neil Johnston was the big star then (a broken-down Mikan came out of retirement to play 37 games in 56). But by 1964, Pettit's second to last season, he was competing against the likes of Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor, Lucas and Havlicek. The league strength was much higher in 1964 than 1955 and yet Pettit was still All NBA First Team in 64. He was the bridge from the Mikan era to the Russell/Wilt/Oscar/West era and he was elite in both eras. He doesn't strike me as a flashy player at all, just a tenacious motor guy with solid fundamentals who can do whatever was needed.

Alternate vote: John Stockton. I acknowledge that Stockton's peak wasn't as high as some other nominees. But his longevity and consistency are offsetting factors for me. Stockton's consistency is just incredible; finishing in the top 10 in assists for nine straight seasons would be highly impressive but leading the league in assist % for 14 out of 16 seasons is near impossible to wrap my head around. Especially when you have guys like prime Magic Johnson running around at the beginning of that streak and Jason Kidd during the latter part of that streak. Throw in 8 seasons in the top 5 in TS % and his 5 seasons on the All Defensive 2nd team just becomes the cherry on top.

Nomination: Walt Frazier. Was always a fan of his and felt he was largely underrated since his role on the Knicks wasn't to be a dominant shooter. The Knicks were the epitome of a team-first emphasis in which the ball kept moving and resulted in guys like Frazier, Reed, DeBusschere, Barnett (then Monroe), Bradley, Lucas, etc. all getting their shots. Frazier was so good and efficient that if I were Red Holzman I probably would have wanted Frazier shooting more and DeBusschere and Bradley shoot a little less, but no one was asking me to coach the team. But within the parameters that Holzman wanted, Frazier played his part superbly. He took care of the ball, shot a very high percentage, and was a dominant man defender. 7-time All Defensive First Team, 4-time All NBA First Team (and 2-time second team), he was a guy who did everything very well with no glaring weakness.

Alternate nomination: John Havlicek. GOAT-level stamina and motor. Four time All NBA First Team and seven time All NBA Second team. Eight time champion and Finals MVP in 74. Great all-around swing man who was an all star as both a guard and a forward, he could score (finished in the top 20 in ppg 11 times; as high as 2nd in 71), pass (finished in the top 20 in assists/game 11 times; as high as 4th in 72), and defend (five time All NBA Defensive First Team and three time All NBA Defensive Second Team). Hondo was a terrific athlete - played baseball in college (hitting over .400 as a freshman), in 1962 he was drafted by both the Celtics and the NFL's Cleveland Browns. Former coach Rick Weitzman called Havlicek the best natural athlete he ever came into contact with. Teammate Dave Cowens was convinced that Hondo could have also excelled at track, particularly the 800 meters. Teammate Satch Sanders marvelled at how Hondo could just run forever without sweating or getting tired. Sanders told him "You're gifted as an athlete. But don't be looking at everyone else and expecting them to run with you. Because that's not going to happen!"

[trelos6]

VOTE: Harden

Postseason stats per 75 possessions
15-20 Harden (73 G): 28.2 points, 7.3 assists, 4.4 turnovers, 58.6% TS
06-10 Kobe (79 G): 28.6 points, 5.2 assists, 3.2 turnovers, 57.0% TS

Say what you will about choking in playoffs, Harden’s stats show he was as valuable as Kobe in his prime. I hate how Harden plays the game, but I’m putting that aside.

His 5 year 15-19 RS run: 30.5 pp75, +6.2 rTS%, 14 FTA/100, team rOrtg from 5-6 in the last 3 years of that range.

alternate vote, Scottie Pippen . Solid 6 years as a weak MVP. Also probably the best perimeter defender of all time.

nomination. Frazier. Outlined Frazier v Stockton below. It’s close.

alt nom. Kawhi Leonard. I bumped his peak slightly, so he climbed above the pack coming up soon.

Spoiler:

Walt vs Stockton

Walt Frazier
Weak MVP Seasons (4): 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973
All NBA Seasons (3): 1969, 1974, 1975
All Star Seasons (1): 1976
All D level: 7 seasons

John Stockton
All NBA Seasons (9): 1988-1996
All Star Seasons (5): 1997-2001
All D level: 10 seasons

So what we have here are 2 very good defensive guards, with Frazier having the edge in peak, and Stockton the edge in longevity.

Frazier's peak was 18.8 pp75 +7.2 rTS%, although his 6 year stretch is 17.4 pp75 on +3.9 rTS%. He played well in the playoffs, with a 3 year peak of 20.4 pp75 on +8.4 rTS%. Stockton's 6 year stretch is 16.6 pp75 on +7.3 rTS%. With his best 3 year stretch producing 17.9 pp75 on +6.1 rTS%.

Stockton also has the clear edge in creation metrics, posting superior creation and passer rating numbers.

It's really a toss up, with my slight edge to Frazier as I think he achieved a higher peak, but I can probably be persuaded either way.

[HeartBreakKid]

Ewing I don't think is even in the conversation since as a center, while a super competitive position in the 90s, he was probably the 4th-best of the decade. All of the other guys have strong cases as the most accomplished at their positions for their respective decades.

Center's made up a large portion of his era's best players.

[LA Bird]

It seems like era is penalizing Pettit more than Mikan, which is a little brutal on a guy with his resume. Were I voting, he'd have to be the guy here. A title, two scoring titles, 2 MVPs, 8 years as a top-5 MVP candidate in 11 seasons played (and another at 6th). Kept up his key traits even in his final season, into his early 30s with a heavy mileage log already behind him. Big regular season scorer with strong in-era efficiency, maintained reasonably well into the playoffs.

The resume suggests he should already be in several spots ago but playing in the 50s and early/mid 60s is clearly hurting him, despite other guys who have already gone in. Almost a lost star at this point. Triple threat action, a jump shot, great at drawing fouls, excellent rebounder. Dude had the whole package, and the accomplishments and accolades to boot.

Pettit's points, rebounds, assists, shooting efficiency all fell in the postseason and his WS/48 decline (0.213 -> 0.159) is the worst of any MVP-level player besides Malone and Embiid. He is lucky he played so long ago that most people never bothered to look at the numbers and he gets a pass for his playoffs dropoff.

Also, Cousy has a comparable resume to Pettit (1x MVP, 6x Champion, 10x All NBA First) and he likely won't even be top 50. It's not an era thing when players both right before and after them have already been voted in. The difference is playoffs performance.

[Clyde Frazier]

Ewing I don't think is even in the conversation since as a center, while a super competitive position in the 90s, he was probably the 4th-best of the decade. All of the other guys have strong cases as the most accomplished at their positions for their respective decades.

I don't understand the logic. How is going against all time great competition at his position a ding *against* him? Those centers have already been voted in. It's not as if he was being heavily argued for in the top 20. He had a very good overall career considering the sheer lack of offensive help he had in his prime.

[iggymcfrack]

Any chance we can get Stockton in this vote? I’d have him at least 16 spots ahead of any of the other nominees. Doesn’t seem like a great start to the voting for that outcome, but I feel like he has the best resume by a mile. I think his peak is underrated because people ignore what an absolute BEAST he was on the defensive end and he was Kareem-like in his later years.

[f4p]

I will copy and paste from the last thread.

Vote: James Harden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


But maybe they've got way better careers:

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

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

What about standard career-long measures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 peas in a pod. Only 2 spots apart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harden +11.7
Steph +10.4

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

Harden +13.0
Steph +5.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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