RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #26 (Nikola Jokic)

[Doctor MJ]

I wasn't arguing against the guy with less games played. I was pointing out that despite Ewing's longevity advantage here, Frazier still has a better cume by this stat, while also noting that Ewing's longevity advantage by playoff games played overstates things due to there being less playoff series back in Frazier's time.

Yeah but at the end of the day, supporting cast = wins, and Win Shares are derived from total wins, no? One win = 3 win shares, and all that. So the more you win, the more win shares there are to divvy up among participants. Crappier casts, crappier win share results.

Eh well, Ewing was in 72 playoff wins to Frazier's 54. Pointing that out doesn't necessarily help Frazier's case though. It does speak to the truth that Frazier has numbers that seem to considerably favor him as a player compared to Ewing, for whatever those numbers are worth.

[Doctor MJ]

I mean, supporting cast does matter in this. Frazier literally played with Reed, while the best teammate Ewing had in his prime was who - Oakley or Rivers? These two weren't even on DeBusschere level.

Ewing definitely had a better longevity than Frazier. Judging longevity by postseason sample is very flawed, otherwise players like Garnett should be treated as guys with very mediocre longevity for top 20 players.

Not sure how closely you read my post.

I didn't say supporting cast didn't matter, though I did question it's relevance when specifically talking about longevity.

I wasn't arguing against the guy with less games played. I was pointing out that despite Ewing's longevity advantage here, Frazier still has a better cume by this stat, while also noting that Ewing's longevity advantage by playoff games played overstates things due to there being less playoff series back in Frazier's time.

I read it fine Doc, but I don't find using playoff WS as a good approximation for longevity. That's why I focused on supporting cast in my response, despite your statement that:

"I think it's fine to point out that supporting cast matters in this"

Playoff can be a nice addition to your longevity, but it's RS where you truly rack up longevity.

Okay. I respect your perspective but see things a bit differently.

To me it's reasonable to talk about a player's "playoff longevity". Of course, caveat that you wouldn't want to use this to imply a guy who played a ton lacked longevity simply because his team's weren't that good, but when I'm using it to make a point on behalf of the guy we know to have the longevity disadvantage, this is not a relevant concern as it's pointing 180 degrees in the other direction.

I find it to be relevant when a cumulative statistical measure is shows a player with lesser longevity over a guy with greater longevity. To the extent that such a measure can be taken seriously as proxy for accomplishment, it implies quality overwhelmed quantity in this case.

I'm not claiming this as any kind of definitive assertion here, but it's still a threshold I find meaningful to have salient.

[lessthanjake]

Vote for #26: Nikola Jokic
Alternate Vote: Dwyane Wade
Nomination: Kawhi Leonard
Alternate Nomination: Rick Barry

Jokic

I provided an explanation about Jokic in the last thread, so I’ll refer back to that: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108214417#p108214417. To me, Jokic is just clearly the best player left. I don’t care about lesser longevity when we’re at a point where we’re at #26 and a guy who I think plausibly might have the #1 all-time peak is still left to be voted in.

Wade

Now that Giannis is voted in, my alternate vote goes to Wade. I think he accomplished more as a player than the others, and am especially persuaded by how dominant he was in the 2006 championship run. Wade is the only player on the board except for Jokic that actually won a title as his team’s best player. Barkley and Harden never did so at all, while Pettit won a title but Cliff Hagan was the superior player in the playoffs (and also I just don’t weigh stuff from 1958 very highly anyways). And that’s not even getting into what he did as a second-fiddle with LeBron. And it’s not just playoff accomplishment—this is also one of the few guys in history with a season with 30+ PER. Guys like Barkley and Harden may well have been as good of players as Wade. And they’ve got longevity over Wade. But there’s such a vast gulf in concrete achievement in the league that Wade has to go above for me. It’s a “ringz” argument to a large degree, but to me that’s part of greatness and it’s not like Wade is actually an inferior player. I don’t see way better impact signals or box numbers from Barkley or Harden. What I see is greater longevity from them. And in a battle between higher longevity and significantly greater concrete achievement, I’ll choose the latter.

Kawhi

As for the Kawhi nomination, I explained that in the above-linked post as well.

Rick Barry

On my alternate nomination, I just want to get people thinking about this.

Rick Barry has, as far as I’ve seen, not been discussed at all. But this is a guy who was the best player on an NBA championship team (an increasingly rare thing at this point in the project). Before moving to the ABA, he also took his team to the NBA Finals and, while they lost, they gave one of the greatest teams of all time (the 1967 Sixers), their hardest series (harder than their series against Russell’s Celtics), while Barry put up 41 points a game in the Finals. In the ABA, Rick Barry also went to the finals once and lost, this time putting up 32/6/5 stats in the finals, after having beaten the Julius-Erving-led Virginia Squires in 7 games in the prior round. So this is a guy with a lot of playoff success and deep runs as his team’s best player. He averaged 27/6/4 in the playoffs for his career (between NBA and ABA). Maybe I’m missing someone, but I don’t actually think there’s much of anyone left who has that kind of playoff resume, besides my main nomination vote.

And, in terms of regular seasons, we’re talking about a player who, between NBA and ABA, was voted to the all-league first team 9 times (along with a 2nd team another year). So he was consistently an elite player in the regular season for like a decade. Not a lot of players left to be nominated can say that.

It must be said of course that he played in a weak era, since his era coincided mostly with the ABA having split the talent. But, in 1967, right before the ABA started, he averaged 36/9/4 in the regular season, followed by 35/8/4 in the playoffs and took his team to the Finals and played one of the best teams ever fairly close (and closer than the Russell Celtics did). So I don’t think this is really someone who was just a product of the ABA era.

[tsherkin]

I wasn't arguing against the guy with less games played. I was pointing out that despite Ewing's longevity advantage here, Frazier still has a better cume by this stat, while also noting that Ewing's longevity advantage by playoff games played overstates things due to there being less playoff series back in Frazier's time.

Yeah but at the end of the day, supporting cast = wins, and Win Shares are derived from total wins, no? One win = 3 win shares, and all that. So the more you win, the more win shares there are to divvy up among participants. Crappier casts, crappier win share results.

Eh well, Ewing was in 72 playoff wins to Frazier's 54. Pointing that out doesn't necessarily help Frazier's case though. It does speak to the truth that Frazier has numbers that seem to considerably favor him as a player compared to Ewing, for whatever those numbers are worth.

Frazier was very good and is worth his presence in the discussion, that wasnt my point

[HeartBreakKid]

I decided to switch my alternate nomination from Walt Frazier to Patrick Ewing.

I think I let winning bias get in the way and have always held that over Ewing in the comparison between him and Clyde.

[rk2023]

Vote for #26 - Charles Barkley
Alternate - Dwyane Wade
Nomination - Reggie Miller
Alternate Nomination - Patrick Ewing

With Barkley, I'm not as impressed as others may be with his peak / best season(s). With that said, he has the most career value out of the candidates in the nominee pool by a considerable margin. I'd say all of 1985-99 are all-star+ seasons, with a pretty solid stockpile of All-NBA level ones and a fringe-MVP level apex. Tremendous rebounder (put-back machine), paint and 2p scorer, finisher, and transition player - per Dipper's data I posted and what's discernible on film. With that said, I don't think his playmaking is doing too much ITO improving team offense. OSNB posted TO:AST data showing Barkley to be >= Malone and a clear step above Kemp, where I think Box Creation *may* be underselling him because of the sheer pressure he puts on defenses at his position however - FWIW. Barkley certainly taketh's some while he gives it, being a poor effort defender and undersized for his position. I think his scoring package / blistering ability to get downhill catalyzed an attack that makes him the second best all-time on offense for his position behind Dirk (I'm not cheating and considering LBJ/Bird here), but the other lesser-strengths (framing it more positively) set his ceiling back. I'd reckon this could be a thing in the AuPM/Raw PM/WOWY stuff we have for him - though far from the end-all, be-all. Nonetheless, how impressive Barkley's longevity looks while he still is a very solid player capable of leading solid PS offenses gives him the nod for me here.

***Worth noting this was copied in from last rounds' voting. Of course, Giannis was enshrined - so now all of this goes for Wade whom I see as not *too* far from him - prime for prime***

As for my alternate vote, I'm between Giannis and Wade. I've gone over Wade in-depth to make his case for a nominee - and the same logic holds true in the context of making the case to vote him in.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2317776&p=108153100&hilit=wade#p108153100

Anyhow - want to think this out. Giannis, as it stands, has 10 years of his career - whereas Wade's pre-injury / steep decline span was the same in 10 years of 2004-13. Between the two, I think 2004/08/14-16 are essentially moot. How I'd rank the remaining is as follows:

22 and 21 Giannis > 2009 and 10 Wade > 2006 Wade >= 2019 and 20 Giannis > 2011 Wade > 2023 and 18 Giannis >= 2005/12 Wade > 2017 Giannis > 2007/13 Wade

Scoring this ranking from 15-1 (120 total):
Giannis: 64
Wade: 56

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.

[rk2023]

After Miller and Ewing, my top nominees - JFTR - are Pippen, Leonard, and Frazier. I'm certainly not as high on Stockton as some here - but reckon he would be next for me.

[trelos6]

Obv. I have Pippen and Ewing as my nominations for last 2 rounds.

After that is Frazier, Stockton.

[trelos6]

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.

[One_and_Done]

I really do have to wonder if Stockton fans think Malone is overrated, or Jerry Sloan somehow misused them. Because otherwise the team results make no sense. If you're a 'secret star' then the team should play like it consistently. As I outlined on page 1; that was far from the case.

[iggymcfrack]

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.

Having ‘71 Frazier a whole level above peak Stockton is wack. Stockton has 16 seasons better than that year by PER and it wasn’t much of a playoff run either. I could see giving Frazier credit for a slightly higher peak than Stockton due to the championship years, but I feel like any edge Frazier might gain for his top 2 seasons is easily made up for in years like 3-7, let alone the chasm of value in years 8-18.

Honestly, I’d say Stockton should be all-NBA all the way through 2001 with 2002 and 2003 both being all star seasons. Steve Nash only had one year his entire career with a higher BPM than Stockton in ‘98, ‘02, and ‘03. He has zero better than ‘97, ‘99, ‘00, and ‘01. Stockton was still posting insane impact numbers all the way through at least 2001 too. We only have BPM for Frazier in his final 7 seasons, but he ranges from -3.3 to 3.2 while Stockton was at least 5.0 for 17 consecutive seasons. Stockton has almost twice as many career win shares. And he did it in a tougher era too. I’m higher on Frazier than I am on a lot of older players, but I still don’t see how this is even a comparison.

[iggymcfrack]

I really do have to wonder if Stockton fans think Malone is overrated, or Jerry Sloan somehow misused them. Because otherwise the team results make no sense. If you're a 'secret star' then the team should play like it consistently. As I outlined on page 1; that was far from the case.

They were the second best team in the NBA over the course of one of the most competitive and star studded decades in NBA history. The refs **** them out of if not a Finals win over Jordan, at least a Game 7 at home where they would have been favored in a year where Malone and Stockton were older than Jordan and Pippen. And Malone’s only a top 20 player because of his longevity. I don’t get why you keep acting like Utah was bad or something.

[iggymcfrack]

Career playoff series won for guards either recently selected or under consideration:

Wade 22
Stockton 17
West 16
Harden 15
Paul 12
Nash 11
Frazier 11
Oscar 8

So yeah, spare me this BS about “why didn’t Stockton win more?”

[AEnigma]

Cool statistic. Here is another one for Stockton:

Postseasons played with a first-team all-NBA teammate = 11

[Owly]

I really do have to wonder if Stockton fans think Malone is overrated, or Jerry Sloan somehow misused them. Because otherwise the team results make no sense. If you're a 'secret star' then the team should play like it consistently. As I outlined on page 1; that was far from the case.

Some may.

Others may be lower than you on Bobby Hansen or Mark Eaton or Thurl Bailey or Ty Corbin or Jeff Malone or Felton Spencer or David Benoit or the Gregs or Carr, Keefe, Russell, Morris, Anderson, Eisley ...

Two players and a coach doesn't have to be zero-sum.

I've also discussed Stockton at length, and why I feel his nomination is completely inappropriate. We're in the MVP stage still, and Stockton was nowhere near that sort of player.

Spoiler:
Apparently the Jazz had 2 true MVPs on their team from 88-94, and usually a 3rd all-star too, yet somehow managed to win 51 games on average and lose in the 1st round 3 times. They only got out of the 2nd round twice in that 7 year stretch. Losing to giants like the 43 win 1989 Warriors (who swept them in the 1st round), or the Kevin Johnson led Suns (also in the 1st round), or Drexler's Blazers (a 4-1 curbstomping in the 2nd round), or Gary Payton & Kemps Sonics in the 1st round in 1993 (GP & Kemp were in their 2nd and 3rd yrs in the league!), is a record that's basically imposible to reconcile with this claim. It would basically be unprecedented for such circumstances to align.

A simpler explanation is that Stockton wasn't MVP calibre, which aligns with pretty much all the other evidence except some advanced stats from the tail end of Stockton's career which people shouldn't overemphasise. Advanced stats can be wrong, and often are, for a whole host of reasons


On Reggie and Stockton more generally:
Spoiler:
Reggie and Stockon are a perfect example of how guys with advanced stats, who were not rated super highly in their day, get overrated today.

Just granting that their advanced stats were taken at face value; you then need to join the dots and ask why their impact might (and I say only might) have been bigger than it seemed back then. The answer for both is largely due to the fact that they were good 3pt shooters in a league that didn't care too much about stopping 3pt shots. In today's league defence is geared around stopping easy 3s, so they'd be far less impactful because unlike Harden or even Nash to a lesser extent they can't blow by you in iso to punish overguarding the 3. They'd be nice all-star level players today, but if anything their impact would be lower because the league has wised up.

I don't know what "true MVP" is and haven't seen people making this claim. Fwiw, if one was making a case for Stockton at MVP level, I suspect it (for the most part, depending on how one rate the two, how loose one is with "MVP" level or "true MVP" level stature) wouldn't be at the same time as the years case for Malone, with Stockton peaking earlier, Malone later.
Kemp and Payton's years are wrong. Kemp would be a fourth year pro (drafted '89), Payton third (drafted '90).
See above regarding zero-sum.
The arguments generally don't pertain to Stockton's standard of play ... this is particularly noticeably the case in '89 where he is highly productive whilst his counterpart, Garland, is low efficiency and does not seem to be creating much for himself or others.

The notion that Stockton is akin to Miller with regard to leveraging the 3 in an outlier manner is curious. Even if one does accept this argument of "worse today" and "worse today so ranked worse" ... Dale Ellis's 3PAr+ (how much more than peers you're attempting the 3, 100 means in line with peer) is 304, Reggie is 281, Stockton's is 138 (or ... pretty close to normal).

[70sFan]

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.

Having ‘71 Frazier a whole level above peak Stockton is wack. Stockton has 16 seasons better than that year by PER and it wasn’t much of a playoff run either. I could see giving Frazier credit for a slightly higher peak than Stockton due to the championship years, but I feel like any edge Frazier might gain for his top 2 seasons is easily made up for in years like 3-7, let alone the chasm of value in years 8-18.

Honestly, I’d say Stockton should be all-NBA all the way through 2001 with 2002 and 2003 both being all star seasons. Steve Nash only had one year his entire career with a higher BPM than Stockton in ‘98, ‘02, and ‘03. He has zero better than ‘97, ‘99, ‘00, and ‘01. Stockton was still posting insane impact numbers all the way through at least 2001 too. We only have BPM for Frazier in his final 7 seasons, but he ranges from -3.3 to 3.2 while Stockton was at least 5.0 for 17 consecutive seasons. Stockton has almost twice as many career win shares. And he did it in a tougher era too. I’m higher on Frazier than I am on a lot of older players, but I still don’t see how this is even a comparison.

I have Stockton definitely ahead of Frazier due to longevity advantage, but it's strange to consider 1972 or 1973 Frazier over peak Stockton, but shouting at anyone who has 1971 Frazier ahead as well. Frazier was basically the same player in that season, with the exception that they lost very close ECF series with Reed playing horribly through injury.

I'd take 1971-73 Frazier over any version of Stockton and I'd consider 1970 as well. PER isn't the end of argumentation, I'd like to know what you think Stockton did so much better to bring more value in postseason than peak Walt.

[lessthanjake]

I want to talk about rick barry. I think barry is right outside, like between 25 and 30. As far as body of work, we can't put him much higher than that, but I'm not sure if we are not underrating him. Barry was 6'7, he had athleticism, he was one of the best shooters ever, a great great scorer, but also a very good passer and defender. His first season in the league, he was already 1st team all nba. by his 2nd season, this guy was averaging 36/9 on +4rts, and lost in the ecf 4-2 against an historically good team in 67 wilt's sixers, averaging 41. he has to sit out a year, he comes back averaging 34 on 123 TS+ in the aba. his career is not perfect, i mean, he doesn't have an mvp and he didn't win a playoff series in his career, beside his 2nd year, until his 7th season, when he made the finals in his last aba season. then, his first season in the nba isn't the best (still 2nd team all nba), but then his 74-76 stretch is really good, obviously he's the best player in the world in 75, winning the title and averaging 30. He is 9 times 1st team, 1 team 2nd team. 12x all star, steals champ, scoring champ. i also wondered how his career would have turned out if he stayed in the nba

I agree with this, and have posted a bit above about Rick Barry (who I have listed as my alternate nomination).

Just one quick thing I want to correct: In 1967, Barry didn’t lose to Wilt’s 1967 Sixers in the ECF. He took the Warriors to the Finals, and that’s where they lost to the Sixers.

And it’s perhaps worth noting that Rick Barry’s Warriors played the 1967 Sixers closer than either of their other two playoff opponents did. Who were those other playoff opponents? Well, Bill Russell’s Celtics and Oscar Robertson’s Royals. Of course, not all that is because of Barry. He did have Nate Thurmond as well, who was a very good player. But the fact remains that in just his second season, Barry was averaging 41 points a game in the finals, playing an all-time-great team closer than Russell’s Celtics or Oscar’s Royals could. He then went to the ABA, almost won a title there (lost in the Finals his last year in the ABA), and then came back to the NBA and won a title within a few years as the best player on his team. His team then came back the next season and were by far the best team in the league in the regular season, but managed to lose a wild 7-game series against the Suns where they outscored the Suns by a lot and Barry played very well. Basically, Barry had a lot of team success and a lot of really good signals.

Another signal is his effect on the Warriors—which was very strong IMO. The year before Barry showed up, the Warriors were by far the worst team in the league, going 17-63 with a -5.49 SRS. Within 2 years, Barry had the Warriors in the Finals, giving the 1967 Sixers their biggest test. Barry then leaves the Warriors and they immediately become a negative-SRS team again for years. The year before Barry arrived again, the Warriors had finally barely dug out of negative-SRS land (with a +0.92 SRS), but with Barry they immediately improve to 3.12 SRS, and then within two more years they were NBA champions and then putting up a league-leading 6.23 SRS the year after that. The impact of Barry on the Warriors was clearly pretty impressive IMO.

His effect in the ABA is harder to gauge, in part since roster turnover/changes in the ABA year to year was often quite large. But it’s worth noting that in his last year in the ABA, he got the Nets to the ABA finals (beating Dr. J’s team in a hard-fought 7-game series along the way), and then without him the next year the Nets had a -5.80 SRS with a similar roster (mostly just replacing Barry with a guy who’d been an ABA all star just a couple years earlier). So I’d say that’s a pretty strong signal as well.

[Owly]

I want to talk about rick barry. I think barry is right outside, like between 25 and 30. As far as body of work, we can't put him much higher than that, but I'm not sure if we are not underrating him. Barry was 6'7, he had athleticism, he was one of the best shooters ever, a great great scorer, but also a very good passer and defender. His first season in the league, he was already 1st team all nba. by his 2nd season, this guy was averaging 36/9 on +4rts, and lost in the ecf 4-2 against an historically good team in 67 wilt's sixers, averaging 41. he has to sit out a year, he comes back averaging 34 on 123 TS+ in the aba. his career is not perfect, i mean, he doesn't have an mvp and he didn't win a playoff series in his career, beside his 2nd year, until his 7th season, when he made the finals in his last aba season. then, his first season in the nba isn't the best (still 2nd team all nba), but then his 74-76 stretch is really good, obviously he's the best player in the world in 75, winning the title and averaging 30. He is 9 times 1st team, 1 team 2nd team. 12x all star, steals champ, scoring champ. i also wondered how his career would have turned out if he stayed in the nba

I agree with this, and have posted a bit above about Rick Barry (who I have listed as my alternate nomination).

Just one quick thing I want to correct: In 1967, Barry didn’t lose to Wilt’s 1967 Sixers in the ECF. He took the Warriors to the Finals, and that’s where they lost to the Sixers.

And it’s perhaps worth noting that Rick Barry’s Warriors played the 1967 Sixers closer than either of their other two playoff opponents did. Who were those other playoff opponents? Well, Bill Russell’s Celtics and Oscar Robertson’s Royals. Of course, not all that is because of Barry. He did have Nate Thurmond as well, who was a very good player. But the fact remains that in just his second season, Barry was averaging 41 points a game in the finals, playing an all-time-great team closer than Russell’s Celtics or Oscar’s Royals could. He then went to the ABA, almost won a title there (lost in the Finals his last year in the ABA), and then came back to the NBA and won a title within a few years as the best player on his team. His team then came back the next season and were by far the best team in the league in the regular season, but managed to lose a wild 7-game series against the Suns where they outscored the Suns by a lot and Barry played very well. Basically, Barry had a lot of team success and a lot of really good signals.

Another signal is his effect on the Warriors—which was very strong IMO. The year before Barry showed up, the Warriors were by far the worst team in the league, going 17-63 with a -5.49 SRS. Within 2 years, Barry had the Warriors in the Finals, giving the 1967 Sixers their biggest test. Barry then leaves the Warriors and they immediately become a negative-SRS team again for years. The year before Barry arrived again, the Warriors had finally barely dug out of negative-SRS land (with a +0.92 SRS), but with Barry they immediately improve to 3.12 SRS, and then within two more years they were NBA champions and then putting up a league-leading 6.23 SRS the year after that. The impact of Barry on the Warriors was clearly pretty impressive IMO.

His effect in the ABA is harder to gauge, in part since roster turnover/changes in the ABA year to year was often quite large. But it’s worth noting that in his last year in the ABA, he got the Nets to the ABA finals (beating Dr. J’s team in a hard-fought 7-game series along the way), and then without him the next year the Nets had a -5.80 SRS with a similar roster (mostly just replacing Barry with a guy who’d been an ABA all star just a couple years earlier). So I’d say that’s a pretty strong signal as well.

Given 41 points in has come up a few times ... it's on .459352032 TS%. Not that others were shooting better but how valuable is that.

Did the Celtics put up much resistance to the 76ers in a small sample that year, no, they don't seem to have. But didn't lose as bad in a small sample of one series isn't a great way of comparing teams (for instance Wilt shot about .200 better from the stripe versus the Celtics than versus the Warriors ... does that make the Warriors better at basketball) never mind individual players.

Invoking Robertson doesn't make the average Royals a threat. And somewhat in line with a career trend Lucas was less productive in the playoffs.

Honestly a mid-prime no cost (no trade) arrival with a team SRS movement of a little over 2 (in a context where champs [and other contenders] have been north of 10 SRS) ... assuming for the sake of argument that is an accurate measure of Barry ... I'm not sure it's a ringing endorsement at this stage in the project.

How much the Oaks title matters can vary and it could be nothing but if noting how teams missed him (and they were RS worse without him) ... that is sometimes omitted.

[One_and_Done]

I really do have to wonder if Stockton fans think Malone is overrated, or Jerry Sloan somehow misused them. Because otherwise the team results make no sense. If you're a 'secret star' then the team should play like it consistently. As I outlined on page 1; that was far from the case.

They were the second best team in the NBA over the course of one of the most competitive and star studded decades in NBA history. The refs **** them out of if not a Finals win over Jordan, at least a Game 7 at home where they would have been favored in a year where Malone and Stockton were older than Jordan and Pippen. And Malone’s only a top 20 player because of his longevity. I don’t get why you keep acting like Utah was bad or something.

The 90s was terrible compared to today. Stockton's career didn't begin in 95 either, before injuries forced him into a lesser role in 98. I noted the Jazz record from 88-94 on pg 1, which is totally incongruent with the idea of a 2 MVP team. It's also weird that the Jazz basically didn't miss a beat in 98, even as Stockton's role shrunk. If he's an MVP the team should have struggled without him alot more.

[rk2023]

For those who use PER as means of proclaiming a given Player A > Player B

https://www.cna.org/reports/2022/09/goodharts-law