RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #27 (Dwyane Wade)

[trex_8063]

VOTE: Dwyane Wade
Alternate: Patrick Ewing
NOMINATE: Scottie Pippen
AltNom: Reggie Miller

Odd spot here because I have largely been chasing consensus, but I really have no stakes in Barkley versus Pettit. I think Barkley was a better and more valuable player, but Pettit was more accomplished in his time, so between those two I am willing to sit out. And I also expect Barkley will ultimately win this vote regardless.

That gives me a much freer ballot and makes me give more direct attention to ordering Wade and Ewing. I backed Wade well before Ewing, but again, more a product of chasing consensus than of seeing a significant career value gap. Wade has three seasons better than any from Ewing, and 1990 is the only year I have Ewing being particularly close. However, I also think Ewing was a pretty consistent top ten player for a decade, and Wade famously was not. Ewing lost to the eventual champions six times in seven years — two with a serious shot to win the title himself — and I think but for those suspensions would have added a seventh in 1997. Wade only did twice, but his opportunity to do so was a smaller by virtue of winning three titles. Wade won one title as his team’s best player; Ewing was a shot away from doing so, with the acknowledgment that Wade’s performance through four rounds was also much more impressive outside of team results.

Ewing, Harden, and Barkley are all tiered together for similar reasons, with Wade as more of an outlier because of his higher peak, superior success, and shortened prime. I suppose falling back on the old rule, while I can entertain an argument for Harden over Ewing, I really cannot move past wanting to keep Wade above Harden for at least one more project.

Was Ewing really a top 10 player for a decade? The only years he ranked top 10 in BPM were 1990 and 1994 (10th both years). He ranked in the top 20 for 7 years from ‘88-‘94. Wade actually has 8 seasons ranking in the top 20 by BPM and 7 in the top 10. Granted one of those is the ‘07 season where he got hurt and then didn’t have it in the playoffs, but I think the meaningful longevity gap might be a little overblown, especially compared to the massive gap in 5 year peak between the two.

I mean, ultimately you voted Wade anyway so it’s not like there’s something to really change your mind about, but you said you were interested in your own personal ordering between the two so I think it’s still worth looking at. Personally, I’ll be voting for Wade until either he goes in or Stockton gets nominated.

I had started (did not finish) a project to rank/order the top 15 to 50 (depending on size of league) players for EACH season (factoring missed time and such into the picture, fwiw), and then using a point-system (based on rank) to see where that would rank players in an all-time sense. I never finished (or even close, really); however, I did do this for most of Ewing's career.

Here's where I had him in the years I did (for whatever it's worth, and I have not reviewed/revised prior to posting here; I might hedge slightly toward a bullish opinion of him)....
'88 - 12th
'90 - 4th (arguably peak season; I think he could be argued as low as 6th or 7th that year; though on the flip-side, you could make a dark-horse case for 3rd, considering his defensive imprint. For me, Jordan and Magic are the only two clearly above that year.)
'91 - 10th
'92 - 6th
'93 - 6th
'94 - 5th (another arguable peak-season, imo; not as dynamic and resilient offensively as in '90, but this was his peak defensive year for me [though '93 also amazing]. Jordan has exited the league, however this is also [arguable] peak seasons for Hakeem, Robinson, as well as Pippen)
'95 - 11th
'96 - 22nd (I'd have to review that to see if I still agree; that feels like a big drop in one year [and bounces back the next]. However, his shooting efficiency does dip substantially, and it's one of his lesser playoff offerings within his prime.)
'97 - 11th
'98 - not ranked (missed most of the year)
'99 - 31st (decidedly out of his prime by this point)
'01 - not ranked (into the twilight of his career here; not a relevant season)


So I have him as a top-10 player FIVE times, though top-12 EIGHT times (and NOTE: I haven't yet done '89, and at a glance it looks likely to rank top 10-12 that year).
So it's at least kinda close to an accurate statement, imo.


EDIT: fwiw, he has SEVEN finishes within the top-8 in the MVP vote, EIGHT in the top 11. By comparision, I actually don't look all that bullish in my ranking of him.

[One_and_Done]

As discussed last thread, I feel Ewing is getting overrated a bit here. He's way better than Reggie & Stockton though, and on another planet to Pettit.

[HeartBreakKid]

My vote is for is for Wade - I did not notice Wade is now on the official nominees. I feel like Wade's ability as a combo guard may lead to him being able to consistently put his will on teams in the post season. He isn't a liability like Chucky is on defense as well.

While Wade has two injury plagued seasons I feel like the placement of those seasons make his career look more disjointed than it is. He was a top player from 2005-2012, maybe more conservatively you can say until 2011. That is a long time.

I always said it is strange how Wade played 55 games in 2007 and 2008, but the way people talk about those seasons he may as well have played 0. They're not totally empty seasons. They're really stellar seasons even on a medium sample size. They're not nothing.

Wade was up there with many of the greats of the 00s and probably better than some of them, all of them have been added to the list at this point.

Alternate Nomination 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.


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.

[trex_8063]

Well, we're not the only ones.

I even thought I was a pinch bullish on him, but I don't look like it in comparison to the media pundits voting for the league MVP each year.
Ewing ranks 37th all-time (ABA/NBA combined) in MVP award shares, though 8-10 of the guys ahead of him are of eras/leagues you've been largely dismissive of (and presumably could then be disregarded); and here we are at #27, so.....

[Samurai]

Vote for #27: Bob Pettit. To state this upfront: 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 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: Charles Barkley. This was very tough for me since there are a number of people not nominated yet that I would prefer over the choices available. Kind of like an election where you don't like any of the candidates and would prefer to vote for none of the above. But since I can only vote for someone who has been nominated, I will give Sir Charles my vote. Elite offensive player with longevity. 1993 MVP and 11-time All NBA (5 first teams, 5 second teams and 1 third team), and led the league in TS% 4 times. Also an excellent rebounder in his prime, leading the league once and finishing in the top ten 9 times.

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 Stockton. For me this was between Stockton and Havlicek and it is very close. I think Hondo peaked a tad higher and while Stockton had greater longevity, that is somewhat offset by the difference in eras. But I struggle with how Hondo in his 20's could not/did not achieve the heights he achieved in his early 30's. Very close between the two but the tie-breaker for me was the overall league strength in Stockton's era va Hondo's.

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.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Jesus Christ wait Wade isn’t on the board yet?

[One_and_Done]

Jesus Christ wait Wade isn’t on the board yet?

I'd have voted him in by now, but his spot got pushed back by the inclusion of old timers like West, Oscar, Mikan & Moses.

[Samurai]

Jesus Christ wait Wade isn’t on the board yet?

I'd have voted him in by now, but his spot got pushed back by the inclusion of old timers like West, Oscar, Mikan & Moses.

As well as active players like CP3, KD, Giannis and Jokic. To be precise, there are 26 players who have pushed him back thus far; no need to single out the ones you didn't vote for.

[falcolombardi]

Vote dwayne wade

I think i take his average prime year clearly above any other player in the running and maybe even in general (with due respect to some great players who i see as great but a step below flash)

His prime longevity is in the same wavelenght to nash (or for that matter jokic and giannis) with imo comparable levels of impact.

Longevity hurts but at this stage the list of all time-ish peaks is short, the list of long star careers is short and the combination of both doesnt exist so we start inducting flawed or young careers

Wade game had some rough edges due to lack of shooting portability wise but more than made up for it with incredible offensive impact that stood well in the playoff settings against the toughest defensive rivals and could elevate well designed 1 star teams like the 2006 heat into contenders/champions to a degree in the databall era up there with anyone not named lebron james.

The profile impact agrees with the reputation too. There is just not many, if any now that giannis and jokic are off the board, players left i would trust more to lead my team to a title run, maybe even above prime kawhi

Alternative: patrick ewing. Him and barkley are both flawed superstars but i like ewing intangibles more, both are pretty much second tier all timers in different halfs of the court, albeit ewing could provide more in a secondary offensive role than barkley in defense, who had physical tools but lacked defensive basketball intelligence or drive to be a plus defender

Nominate: reggie miller, low key may have been the second best offensive player of the 90's. Playoffs monster who showes capability of leading legitemely great offense. I would vote him above barkley and ewing if he was nominated. Great longevity too

Alternate nomination: scottie pippen. Monster defensive value add from a non interior position is a really rare and valuable thingh. As is the ability to have a defensive anchor who can also floor raise a offense decently through creation and add lots of value while using few scoring opportunities. Played at a near/lite mvp level as a first option leading jordan less bulls to a contender season, decent longevity

Kawhi also someone who needs to be on everyone radar too, as his prime is in the same tier as jokic and giannis with overall similar ish amount of prime complete seasons

[HeartBreakKid]

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: Wade

Short peak, but 3 legit MVP level seasons. Pretty good guard defender also.

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

Alternate nomination. Frazier. Outlined Frazier v Stockton in the last thread. It’s close.

Make sure to bold your picks to lessen the chance Doc MJ misses it.

[Doctor MJ]

As discussed last thread, I feel Ewing is getting overrated a bit here. He's way better than Reggie & Stockton though, and on another planet to Pettit.

One_and_Done, I'm sending you a PM. ~Doc

[f4p]

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.

[penbeast0]

Excellent post f4p. I am one of those with a negative impression of Harden from watching him dial in his defensive assignments and from his trying to force his way on/off multiple teams the last few years but I may be holding that too strongly against him. I will think about it, and what more can you ask from a post.

[penbeast0]

If you knew you could keep the player for his whole career, no GM would opt to build around Stockton over say Harden or Kawhi or AD. And that's what we're judging here, their whole careers. Harden is an MVP type player, so were those other guys. Stockton isn't. He shouldn't be close to nomination yet.

Given health, workload, and intangibles, you are just plain wrong here. What GM would take a maybe like Kawhi, as great as he is when he actually brings it, over someone who can create a good offense with the likes of Greg Ostertag and Byron Russell while also bringing defense, toughness, leadership, and playing every game, every day, every year for over a decade.

[rk2023]

Harden is my next guy up after Wade and Chuck.

[rk2023]

Jesus Christ wait Wade isn’t on the board yet?

I'd have voted him in by now, but his spot got pushed back by the inclusion of old timers like West, Oscar, Mikan & Moses.

West and Oscar have gone well ahead of Wade for ages in these projects due to comparable peaks/primes, and outright better longevity. There have been great arguments for both of them laid out time after time, many of which are accessible to look at yourself rather than babbling into an echo chamber

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Dwyane Wade
Incredible 5 year peak where I believe he provided more ring equity than any of the other nominees did throughout their entire careers including an all-time carry job of a weak supporting cast to a ring in 2006, all-time impact and box statistical seasons in 2009 and 2010, plus more very good contributions to a ring in 2012. His longevity while a weakness is still comparable to other players currently nominated.

Alternate: Charles Barkley
Barkley had a good combination of peak and longevity with 12 seasons with a BPM over 5 including an incredible 1993 campaign where he came very close to being the best player in the league and was also very close to beating Jordan in the Finals.

Nominate: John Stockton
Simply insane he hasn't even been nominated yet. A god by both box and impact stats who was also an all-time winner with a career record of 1042-642 between the RS and playoffs. He may not be the flashiest or most skilled player, but his dedication to team basketball as well as his iron man health made him a more valuable player than much bigger names like Wilt, Kobe, and Bird IMO.

[70sFan]

I had started (did not finish) a project to rank/order the top 15 to 50 (depending on size of league) players for EACH season (factoring missed time and such into the picture, fwiw), and then using a point-system (based on rank) to see where that would rank players in an all-time sense. I never finished (or even close, really); however, I did do this for most of Ewing's career.

That sounds like a very good idea to go deeper and further with era-relative career evaluations. Would you like to share your results in a separate thread? I would really appreciate it and maybe I'll do something similar in the future.

[iggymcfrack]

Well, we're not the only ones.

I even thought I was a pinch bullish on him, but I don't look like it in comparison to the media pundits voting for the league MVP each year.
Ewing ranks 37th all-time (ABA/NBA combined) in MVP award shares, though 8-10 of the guys ahead of him are of eras/leagues you've been largely dismissive of (and presumably could then be disregarded); and here we are at #27, so.....

If you'd like to know where we're at with POY shares among players yet to be selected (better judge of player value than MVP shares since they include playoffs), this is it:

(nominees in bold)
Pettit 4.467
Wade 2.60
Baylor 2.223
Schayes 2.176
Harden 2.087
Frazier 2.061
Barkley 2.029
Gervin 1.582
McAdoo 1.402
Walton 1.373
Kawhi 1.315
AD 1.245
Barry 1.187
Cousy 1.115
Dwight 1.104
Johnston 1.095
Ewing 1.087

[trex_8063]

Well, we're not the only ones.

I even thought I was a pinch bullish on him, but I don't look like it in comparison to the media pundits voting for the league MVP each year.
Ewing ranks 37th all-time (ABA/NBA combined) in MVP award shares, though 8-10 of the guys ahead of him are of eras/leagues you've been largely dismissive of (and presumably could then be disregarded); and here we are at #27, so.....

If you'd like to know where we're at with POY shares among players yet to be selected (better judge of player value than MVP shares since they include playoffs), this is it:

(nominees in bold)
Pettit 4.467
Wade 2.60
Baylor 2.223
Schayes 2.176
Harden 2.087
Frazier 2.061
Barkley 2.029
Gervin 1.582
McAdoo 1.402
Walton 1.373
Kawhi 1.315
AD 1.245
Barry 1.187
Cousy 1.115
Dwight 1.104
Johnston 1.095
Ewing 1.087

It's interesting to look at, but in the RPOY projects participants are asked to put in ONLY their top 5. Even in my own [I thought bullish] rankings I rarely have him in the top 5. However, he otherwise consistently ranks 6-12.

In the POY project, a guy who was consensus 5th ONCE, had a couple seasons in the top 12-15, and then got injured and career ended.......would theoretically have MORE POY shares than someone who's 6th-12th range for a decade and top 25-30(ish) for another 3-4 seasons (as long as he was never top 5).

EDIT: Perhaps a similar(ish) case-in-point example is Walton's placement.