RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #23 (Moses Malone)

[OhayoKD]

I don't really agree with all these Wade nomination votes.

If you're going by peak, I think Jokic's last three years surpass any three-year streak Wade had. Jokic's last three seasons:

2021 RS: .301 WS/48, 12.1 BPM
2021 PO: .181 WS/48, 9.0 BPM
2022 RS: .296 WS/48, 13.7 BPM
2022 PO: .202 WS/48, 10.7 BPM
2023 RS: .308 WS/48, 13.0 BPM
2023 PO: .305 WS/48, 12.8 BPM

Wade has no three-year run like that. His 09-11 is pretty darn good, but it doesn't top the above.

Because he wasn't a very good shooter, Wade had to kill himself physically to score the way he did in his earlier years, and it's part of the reason he broke down early. Jokic's game projects to age better.

If you're going by total career value, I think Pettit has it, seeing as he was remarkably consistent for all eleven of his seasons. Wade had six, maybe seven elite seasons. Pettit went to four Finals and was the #1 option on all four teams(if I'm wrong about that, please correct me...I know Hagan was on those teams too). Wade was the #1 option in 2006, the #2 option in 2011 and 2012, and by 2013 and 2014 there wasn't a whole statistically separating him from Bosh, so they were more like 2A and 2B in those years.

I don't know...we're in the right general range for Wade, I'm just not enamored with his game and if it were up to me, I probably wouldn't vote Wade in until 28-30.

I think petit is an interesting option, but I want an impact orientated case first. I'm not that interested in ts add in a league where defense was supreme.

[penbeast0]

...
I think petit is an interesting option, but I want an impact orientated case first. I'm not that interested in ts add in a league where defense was supreme.

Since TS ADD is relative to league averages for that year, not sure why it's not relevant in a more defensive oriented era.

[rk2023]

Okay, can you elaborate on how you're evaluating impact/winning to reach this conclusion?

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108158218#p108158218

For reference, this was what was cited in response to my vote / choice for Nash and Wade (whom probably would be my runner-up, were he to be a nominee already) against Harden. Been a bit busy throughout the week with some work and NFL kick-off week / CFB gameday looming. With the time I have, the biggest counter-arguments for my $.02 are that:

(1) The BBR portfolio of "advanced" stats has a tendency to undersell some players, and I feel pretty confident alluding to Nash (Russell included here too) as a prominent textbook example of this notion. I've cited the 02-11 samples of JE's RAPM where Nash looks incredible in O-RAPM and looks pretty much in the same range across different time spans as other players whom have already been voted in. I'm pretty sure Doc's Chronology Sheet and Ben Taylor's scaled APM sheet - ending at 2012 and 2016 respectively, however - paint a similar picture. It is worth noting how there is such a disparity between how impact and box scores grade Nash, but I think understanding how both play would be a great connector in this context (more on this to come).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h20JYcZJu2tGNIyOwVbNfez0-zXXy5ItLyXC4qTE5D8/edit#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ukBETcjKmDbABCnlfz8LoHeQFmu7nq4pOAqns9KkfBk/edit#gid=1551635931

Well it's not unanimous. Cheema's favors Harden over nash and even steph who no one seemed interested in discussing nash against.

And if a hybrid like AUPM is fair-game, then we can throw in RPM where Harden looks better or even metrics like RAPTOR where harden matches/exceeds curry via the times led/gap method both with the hybrid and the on/off component.

Not really as one-sided as you're making it out to be.

There seldom is going to be a one-sided case using data, with obvious exceptions like comparing Dillion Brooks to Nikola Jokic.

I’ve seen a fair share of your criteria look into more of the impact side of things as well as granular information (especially honing in on playoff team offenses and Ben’s passer rating as a means of arguing one player to be better than the other at offensive acumen). So with that, may I ask what evidence under each of those categories you have for Harden over Nash? I’ve laid mine out, and feel pretty confident Nash is a more valuable offensive player - so am curious to hear your process out.

Using the framework you presented:
```-> progressive passes -> Nash
-> progressive carries -> Nash
-> chances created -> Nash
-> long-passes -> Nash
-> crosses completed -> Nash
-> passes completed -> Nash
-> dribbles completed -> Harden
-> assists -> Nash
-> touches -> Harden
xT -> Nash
xA -> Nash
shots per score -> Nash
-> less turnovers -> even
-> scores per game -> Harden

[OhayoKD]

...
I think petit is an interesting option, but I want an impact orientated case first. I'm not that interested in ts add in a league where defense was supreme.

Since TS ADD is relative to league averages for that year, not sure why it's not relevant in a more defensive oriented era.

Hmm fair.

Do you have an idea of what petit's signals/potential impact on winning cases

[OhayoKD]

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108158218#p108158218

For reference, this was what was cited in response to my vote / choice for Nash and Wade (whom probably would be my runner-up, were he to be a nominee already) against Harden. Been a bit busy throughout the week with some work and NFL kick-off week / CFB gameday looming. With the time I have, the biggest counter-arguments for my $.02 are that:

(1) The BBR portfolio of "advanced" stats has a tendency to undersell some players, and I feel pretty confident alluding to Nash (Russell included here too) as a prominent textbook example of this notion. I've cited the 02-11 samples of JE's RAPM where Nash looks incredible in O-RAPM and looks pretty much in the same range across different time spans as other players whom have already been voted in. I'm pretty sure Doc's Chronology Sheet and Ben Taylor's scaled APM sheet - ending at 2012 and 2016 respectively, however - paint a similar picture. It is worth noting how there is such a disparity between how impact and box scores grade Nash, but I think understanding how both play would be a great connector in this context (more on this to come).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h20JYcZJu2tGNIyOwVbNfez0-zXXy5ItLyXC4qTE5D8/edit#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ukBETcjKmDbABCnlfz8LoHeQFmu7nq4pOAqns9KkfBk/edit#gid=1551635931

Well it's not unanimous. Cheema's favors Harden over nash and even steph who no one seemed interested in discussing nash against.

And if a hybrid like AUPM is fair-game, then we can throw in RPM where Harden looks better or even metrics like RAPTOR where harden matches/exceeds curry via the times led/gap method both with the hybrid and the on/off component.

Not really as one-sided as you're making it out to be.

There seldom is going to be a one-sided case using data, with obvious exceptions like comparing Dillion Brooks to Nikola Jokic.

I’ve seen a fair share of your criteria look into more of the impact side of things as well as granular information (especially honing in on playoff team offenses and Ben’s passer rating as a means of arguing one player to be better than the other at offensive acumen). So with that, may I ask what evidence under each of those categories you have for Harden over Nash? I’ve laid mine out, and feel pretty confident Nash is a more valuable offensive player - so am curious to hear your process out.

Using the framework you presented:
```-> progressive passes -> Nash
-> progressive carries -> Nash
-> chances created -> Nash
-> long-passes -> Nash
-> crosses completed -> Nash
-> passes completed -> Nash
-> dribbles completed -> Harden
-> assists -> Nash
-> touches -> Harden
xT -> Nash
xA -> Nash
shots per score -> Nash
-> less turnovers -> even
-> scores per game -> Harden

Nash is probably a better offensive player. Harden is a better defender which is why not exceptional defensive personell have been able to form strong defenses around him. Harden has no bird like turnaround, but his houston teams got 7.8 points better with him by net.

Harden obviously leads better teams so those offeensive ratings(which become merely 4th in the league offenses with typical construction) aren't that compelling.

[lessthanjake]

A comparison of Reggie and Klay seems odd when Reggie was actually elite at getting himself to the FT line, while Klay can barely do that at all (not to mention they go different directions in the playoffs). Neither one is relevant at this stage though, IMO (Klay I wouldn’t even have in the top 100, but even Reggie isn’t relevant quite yet).

[Owly]

...
I think petit is an interesting option, but I want an impact orientated case first. I'm not that interested in ts add in a league where defense was supreme.

Since TS ADD is relative to league averages for that year, not sure why it's not relevant in a more defensive oriented era.

Hmm fair.

Do you have an idea of what petit's signals/potential impact on winning cases

Re: TS add, nearly made Pen's comment myself but ... you surely knew that already. Was there something beyond what was stated?
I wouldn't use it a holistic player measurer because it isn't one. But it's part of why he's "box" impressive.


Pettit isn't really gone for any length of time enough to get a good impact read until a diminished form final year.
One could look at on arrival but contraction and other turnover make that super muddy
of '54's top 10 minutes getters the next year they are
Hitch - down to 7th losing about 1000 minutes
Calhoun - remains similar level
Sunderlage - gone
Ratkovic - near gone (102 minutes)
Tosheff - gone
Bemoras -gone
Share - remains similar
Harrison - Nearly triples his minutes
Holzman - gone as player
Lofgran - fwiw (not high minutes in '54) gone
2 similar
1 substantially down
1 way, way up
5 (or if counting Lofgran 6) gone or nearly gone (mainly gone)

I can't see how there could be a good impact read on him at prime levels, I could be wrong.

[OhayoKD]

Since TS ADD is relative to league averages for that year, not sure why it's not relevant in a more defensive oriented era.

Hmm fair.

Do you have an idea of what petit's signals/potential impact on winning cases

Re: TS add, nearly made Pen's comment myself but ... you surely knew that already. Was there something beyond what was stated?
I wouldn't use it a holistic player measurer because it isn't one. But it's part of why he's "box" impressive.


Pettit isn't really gone for any length of time enough to get a good impact read until a diminished form final year.
One could look at on arrival but contraction and other turnover make that super muddy
of '54's top 10 minutes getters the next year they are
Hitch - down to 7th losing about 1000 minutes
Calhoun - remains similar level
Sunderlage - gone
Ratkovic - near gone (102 minutes)
Tosheff - gone
Bemoras -gone
Share - remains similar
Harrison - Nearly triples his minutes
Holzman - gone as player
Lofgran - fwiw (not high minutes in '54) gone
2 similar
1 substantially down
1 way, way up
5 (or if counting Lofgran 6) gone or nearly gone (mainly gone)

I can't see how there could be a good impact read on him at prime levels, I could be wrong.

Would it be fair to assume the team had worse support when Petit arrived? Because a 2 srs jump in a league where the best team is +1.55 srs is probably pretty great from a corp perspective

also how good is his longetivity? Giannis level, harden level, ect...

[OhayoKD]

Manu Ginobili - I expect to be championing Ginobili in the not too distant future. There are many good reasons to doubt him because of his limited minutes, but every more detailed look I get at Ginobili, the more convinced I am that he was an absolute top tier player who got miscategorized because Pop wasn't sure what to do with him on a team whose offense was built around Duncan.

Interesting to me that Draymond isn't on your list when Manu is. Perhaps it is a longetviity thing, but Draymond has
-> better looking raw on/off over the rs and playoffs over comparable time-frames and peaks
-> averaged significantly more minutes typically matching or coming close his more decorated teammates in minutes and sometimes exceeding him
-> looks alot stronger in rapm and lineup-adjusted metrics
-> looks vastly stronger in wowy
-> looks vastly stronger in wowy without steph
-> has won playoff series and games without his more decorated teammate
-> has outright won more in the rs and the playoffs
-> is more tied to the dynasty he's associated with than manu is(manu not a member in 1999 while draymond's primacy increasing correlates with the warriors improvement and steph's on/off spiking by the end of 2013)
-> a unique archetype that maps out to all-time peaks(russell goat era-relative, walton a rival for kareem)
-> team is more affected by his absence from games even with the more decorated player

If manu is going to be considered very soon, then where is draymond finishing?

[rk2023]

Doc mentioned having Green is his rough draft T-40 FWIW ^

[OhayoKD]

VOTE: Charles Barkley
Alternate (throws dart between Moses and Harden...): Moses Malone, I guess

Moses' record of accomplishment, even in a slightly lesser [imo] era is hard to argue with. The value of elite offensive rebounding is sometimes underappreciated, and as 70sFan has frequently stated: he's a better all-around scorer than he's often credited with.

I'd feel more bullish about him if he had any notable playmaking skills, or if he wasn't so turnover-prone. Or if he was consistently putting in the defensive effort like he was in '83. Of course, if ALL of those things were true, I'd have supported him a long time ago.


Barkley, I am supporting for similar reasons to why I voted for Durant the last couple threads: I've the most confidence in his combined box-production/efficiency profile, impact profile, longevity, and career accomplishment (in a tough era) of those players listed.

Harden, at this point, is a strong consideration for my alternate. Honestly, I think his player type [vaguely: offensive power-house, weak defensively], effective longevity, career accomplishment and accolades all closely parallel that of Charles Barkley. I consequently feel that wherever you have Barkley on your list, Harden should not be far away. Their respective careers just have too much in common, imo.

Nomination: John Stockton
Alt Nom: Dwyane Wade

Would you be willing to elaborate on what made you favor Charles over the other two?

Moses obviously won and while both Charles and James are ringless, Harden was more competitive against a much better eventual champion and came closer to replicating that success. Perhaps their is a statistical argument to be made here, but I haven't seen it yet

[rk2023]

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.

[cupcakesnake]

Vote: Steve Nash
Alternate: Giannis
Nominate: Jokic

I get that it's easy to make a box score derived argument against Nash. Ultimately we're always going to be talking about a guy who won MVP, entirely for his offensive impact, while averaging 15.5ppg. He's also not adding any box score value with steals, blocks, rebounds etc. So if you're using the boxscore (a perfectly reasonable thing to do), of course you're going to be able to make an airtight case for Stockton, Wade, Harden or whoever over Nash. I just can't really care about what the boxscore is telling me about Nash at the end of the day when I watch him play or look at his impact on the team's results. We have other ways of extracting Nash's impact using numbers, and while that comforting in that it helps me believe what I see with my eyes, I'd probably hold onto the notion of Nash's offensive impact even with more statistical doubt in the way. I think Nash's impact doesn't need much overthinking: his handles allowed him to move anywhere he wanted to go on the court (even against elite defenses), his shooting/finishing made him a scoring threat everywhere/everything/all at once, and his passing ability allowed him to put the ball wherever it needed to be to generate a rich scoring opportunity. No one else in NBA history has been like this (until recently, when Big Honey came along and swapped out Nash's mobility for brute strength). He's in the 99th or 100th percentile in so many key skills and decision making abilities. Until Joker came along, I've never trusted a possession more than in Nash hands (I include Lebron or MJ or whoever in that). Nash moved around like a ghost. Despite no obvious physical strength, it seemed like no one could ever impede his movement (not even Bruce Bowen being allowed to constantly foul him). On the flipside, this ghost ability meant Nash really could not impact the game physically or draw many fouls.

His box score makes him seem closer offensively to lots of players that I don't consider anywhere near him offensively. He doesn't bring extra value defensively (good iq but basically no physical tools), he doesn't have great longevity (so I do see a fair argument for Stockton and others in this way). But I find a lot of efforts to diminish Nash's offensive excellence come across as overthinking it.

Giannis' physical domination of the league over the past 5 years has been quite a thing to behold. There's tons of holes in his game, and those holes have been exploited just enough times in the playoffs to chip away at his value. But we're looking at the most weaponized combination of speed, mobility, and length we've ever seen. If he doesn't make his midrange shooting counters more consistent and real, I think Giannis's prime could be short and he wont continue to climb up this list much higher. But the production has been insane. His worst playoff series are still him putting up 20/10/5 with his efficiency falling to average. He's had moments of being completely unguardable and accessing plays that only Bill/Wilt have ever been able to pull off. I'm not quite as high on Giannis' defense as some are (some people seem to think he's an excellent perimeter defender and a capable solo rim protector), but still see that mobility and length being a silly advantage as a constant disruptor and something that boosts any kind of defense in most situations.

Jokic to me is looking like Nash except he's accepted the importance of his scoring aggression earlier, and he's also able to impact the game more physically.

[Owly]

Hmm fair.

Do you have an idea of what petit's signals/potential impact on winning cases

Re: TS add, nearly made Pen's comment myself but ... you surely knew that already. Was there something beyond what was stated?
I wouldn't use it a holistic player measurer because it isn't one. But it's part of why he's "box" impressive.


Pettit isn't really gone for any length of time enough to get a good impact read until a diminished form final year.
One could look at on arrival but contraction and other turnover make that super muddy
of '54's top 10 minutes getters the next year they are
Hitch - down to 7th losing about 1000 minutes
Calhoun - remains similar level
Sunderlage - gone
Ratkovic - near gone (102 minutes)
Tosheff - gone
Bemoras -gone
Share - remains similar
Harrison - Nearly triples his minutes
Holzman - gone as player
Lofgran - fwiw (not high minutes in '54) gone
2 similar
1 substantially down
1 way, way up
5 (or if counting Lofgran 6) gone or nearly gone (mainly gone)

I can't see how there could be a good impact read on him at prime levels, I could be wrong.

Would it be fair to assume the team had worse support when Petit arrived? Because a 2 srs jump in a league where the best team is +1.55 srs is probably pretty great from a corp perspective

also how good is his longetivity? Giannis level, harden level, ect...

Longevity will depend on if you curve for era.
30690 RS minutes, but nearly half of that is in 72 game seasons (goes to 75 in '60, then 79, then 80, 80, 80, 80).
Production wise nearly all (i.e. all bar final season) would be "prime", I think.

Like I say probably too much movement to get a good read on one player. Removal of a bad Bullets team makes the average higher. In terms of "names" as players the co-arrival of Selvy is probably helpful, he's productive for a guard at the time (at least for that season ... had armed service obligations ... then never seems to get back to early creation levels).

[lessthanjake]

Manu Ginobili - I expect to be championing Ginobili in the not too distant future. There are many good reasons to doubt him because of his limited minutes, but every more detailed look I get at Ginobili, the more convinced I am that he was an absolute top tier player who got miscategorized because Pop wasn't sure what to do with him on a team whose offense was built around Duncan.

The best compliment I can give Manu is that, as someone who absolutely *hated* that era’s Spurs and rooted against them more than I’ve ever rooted against any other NBA team, Manu was the Spur that I just actually instinctively hated the most (even above Duncan). And this had nothing to do with anything off the court (I even recognized at the time that he was seemingly a very nice guy). My hatred of him was earned by him over years of watching him torch teams that I really wanted the Spurs to lose to and seeing the Spurs do really well with him on the court. At the time I hated him for it so much, but in retrospect I actually really respect it because I know my hatred of him was a result of being able to instinctively feel the immense impact he was having. At this point, I just feel like he was obviously incredibly good to make me feel like I did about him.

[Owly]

-> looks alot stronger in rapm and lineup-adjusted metrics

Granting that I'm very much not a RAPM expert
looking at ones I've got saved
97-14 looks awesome (4th rate behind LeBron, Duncan, O'Neal; 8th RAPM points above average ... add KG, Dirk, Bryant, Wade)
97-17 Manu's 5th (Curry's 6th, Draymond is 24th incomplete on Draymond but with a curve much more pro-Curry whilst still enough sample for Warriors to look strong ... in contrast to)
97-22 with Green 10th 6.6; Curry 11th 6.5; Manu 15th 6.0
Can't speak to other sources.

From these ... even just off the one larger dataset for Green (which I could understand on the Green side) ... which is the least bullish for Manu ... I wouldn't say he looks "a lot stronger."


On the Green side ... RAPM is looking for the best solution in terms of credit/distribution/cause of impact. Warriors are really good ... this number has him ahead of Curry. I think the consensus here and everywhere is that he isn't as good as Curry. They play a lot together. This isn't to make the Draymond isn't very good, he's less important than Thompson etc case. But I think most will be curving down or just mentally regarding that number on Draymond with at least some amount of pessimism.

Green's also still a bit behind Manu for career RS minutes and I would guess his later years are going to be weaker than thus far and so likely to pull big sample RAPMs down.

For those looking at that (this has been impact facing) Manu's box-side stuff might give him a boost (or greater certainty in impact, or greater confidence that an efficient creator for self and others has value everywhere) - which not to say Draymond's box is "bad".

[Gibson22]

vote count?

[Doctor MJ]

Either way, Wade has much more longevity.

I just don't know how true that is. Wade has six or seven all-NBA level seasons. Jokic's last three seasons are his best, but by WS/48, BPM, and even RAPM, Jokic looks really good for all but his rookie year, which means seven seasons.

So, I'd say Wade was a worthy all-star selection in 12 of his 13 appearances there. Jokic has just 5, and it's hard to argue he deserves more than 6. That's a significant longevity difference.

Interesting thing about each guy:

In retrospect, I think they both should have been handed the reins the moment they arrived on an NBA team, and both could have been all-stars as rookies. That would add one more all-star year for Wade, and 3 more for Jokic. But that's not what happened, so it's not what I'm focusing on in my vote here.

[Doctor MJ]

I’m tossing up between Nash and Giannis here. I’ll need to have a good think about it.

I’m reasonably happy to nominate Dwyane Wade. Had a good peak, 3 fantastic MVP level seasons. 10 all star level seasons, so just enough longevity (he’s getting here based off his peak), and had some good defensive seasons also.

Alternate nomination is Nikola Jokic. Single season peak ahead of anyone not already inducted. Longevity is starting to add up. Again, he’s here because my formula rates peaks as a significant component.

Random question for Doc,

If you do not vote but you nominate someone, is the nomination also void?

Just to be clear, I've been counting it when I see that. I don't remember if I said it was okay or not, but person to person, I get writing only the part you've made your mind up about well enough to feel ready to explain your thinking on...and then getting too busy to get back to the other part. I'd rather appreciate what each person can put in than find a reason to ignore effort.

[Owly]

Either way, Wade has much more longevity.

I just don't know how true that is. Wade has six or seven all-NBA level seasons. Jokic's last three seasons are his best, but by WS/48, BPM, and even RAPM, Jokic looks really good for all but his rookie year, which means seven seasons.

So, I'd say Wade was a worthy all-star selection in 12 of his 13 appearances there. Jokic has just 5, and it's hard to argue he deserves more than 6. That's a significant longevity difference.

Interesting thing about each guy:

In retrospect, I think they both should have been handed the reins the moment they arrived on an NBA team, and both could have been all-stars as rookies. That would add one more all-star year for Wade, and 3 more for Jokic. But that's not what happened, so it's not what I'm focusing on in my vote here.

It depends what one is trying to do here ...

But eliminating only the "they're retiring" Nowizki and Wade bonus slots ... 16 Wade is "worthy" (Ref composites 20.3 PER, .105 WS/48', 1.9 BPM ... worst on-off and on among rotation or rotation-ish players on the team) ... but Jokic is "not what happened" ... minutes aren't where they should be but his box and impact indicators, even without offensive primacy are pretty great from the off (though the box-side certainly takes a further leap the next year).

For me it wouldn't (I'm assuming you're just going most recent years) be at all tricky to argue he deserves '17 more than DeAndre Jordan did (or Wade the year before). I think I might be inclined to believe he was better than bigs that made it in 2016 but Cousins was putting up his stats, Aldridge was doing so on a really good team ... the minutes gap is bigger.