Vote for #28 - Charles Barkley Alternate - James Harden Nomination - Reggie Miller Alternate Nomination - Kawhi Leonard
Same spiel as usual when it comes to Barkley and Reggie. This is my first time balloting Harden, so can talk about them briefly. Harden certainly could rub some people the wrong way (myself included to an extent), but I think it's important to not really cloud judgment in the process. F4p (whom I have pushed back against at times) has done a great job making the case why Harden could be (for lack of a better word) 'over-hated'). I think he has been a solid All-NBA level+ player since 2012? when he did his best Manu 6th-man impression, through all of his Houston tenure and year 1, and maybe 22/23 - though I am not as high on either of the lattermost. I guess the two things concerning me with Harden are (1) that his box numbers seem to trump his offensive impact & case as a floor raiser and (2) that, in an era where players - eg. LBJ, Paul, Durant, Curry, Dame? are tending to age well - Harden's aging curve hasn't been great. Nonetheless, he was a phenomenal player well before turning 25 and he's a sure-fire top 20 offensive player across his prime with a case for top 15.
As for Kawhi, everything' that has been said so far to preface is valid in my eyes - so I don't have too much to add. I'm not as keen at dinging for injuries as other may be (hence higher on CP3 and West than the pack), so I reckon I'd be higher on Kawhi than most - sans the posters whom have nominated him already. Great (though over-statedly so) scorer, very impressive improvement/development through his career on offense, up until 2016 has a case at being the GOAT non-big defender, and he has his fair share of solid years even with being injury riddled / needing to be load managed since 2019.
rk2023 wrote: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.
rk2023 wrote: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:
LukaTheGOAT wrote: 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%
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.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
For those considering Pettit and Pippen (or either one of them), how far do you see Pettit from Elgin Baylor and how far do you see Pippen from Walt Frazier? I regard both as interesting debates from what I have looked into, so would love to get some intel from those whom may be more well-versed than me.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
Samurai wrote:Vote for #28: 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..
So why exactly does it matter petit played in the weakest era?
Do you think he would do worse if he played in a later era?
What even makes it the weakest era? Surely you aren't assuming that the players of that era would do worse today than vice versa?
Becuase if the answer to that is yes, then you do care about science fiction time machines and are part of the sci-fi crowd.
It's funny that you always come up that argumentation to bold the inconsistencies in voter's methodology, but it was discussed long before this post - understanding that the league was less sophisticated and talent pool was smaller is not "time machine argument".
It's great that it was discussed, but that doesn't answer my questions.
But here, let's make this simpler.
Why does it matter player a was in a less developed league with a smaller talent pool?
Im going to guess that buried under the answer to that, is a team machine.
OhayoKD wrote:So why exactly does it matter petit played in the weakest era?
Do you think he would do worse if he played in a later era?
What even makes it the weakest era? Surely you aren't assuming that the players of that era would do worse today than vice versa?
Becuase if the answer to that is yes, then you do care about science fiction time machines and are part of the sci-fi crowd.
It's funny that you always come up that argumentation to bold the inconsistencies in voter's methodology, but it was discussed long before this post - understanding that the league was less sophisticated and talent pool was smaller is not "time machine argument".
It's great that it was discussed, but that doesn't answer my questions.
But here, let's make this simpler.
Why does it matter player a was in a less developed league with a smaller talent pool?
Im going to guess that buried under the answer to that, is a team machine.
There are other explainations to that as well I'm afraid.
70sFan wrote:For what it's worth, Wilt is seen as the better rebounder in terms of TRB% when you look at the estimates:
1960-65 Bill Russell: 19.7% in RS, 20.9% in PS 1962-68 Wilt Chamberlain: 20.4% in RS, 22.6% in PS
I am open to discussion, but per36 actually inflates Russell's averages because he played a part of his career without Wilt in the league in much faster paced era than Wilt without Russell (1957-59 vs 1970-73).
Also, Rodman is the clear leader (excluding Drummond due to sample issue) in RS, but his rebounding rate in postseason is actually less impressive than Wilt's.
Wilt being a center makes it less likely to "steal rebounds" than a 4
One could argue that adjusting to positional average rodman was still a more valuable rebounder than a center like wilt, but like you say the possibility that rodman was overhunting for rebounds give me pause
Centers are not substantially more dedicated to rebounding than power forwards. It is entirely circumstantial who will be the better rebounder on a team. The center's primary purpose and distinction is shot blocking (traditionally).
I've never heard anyone say "wow he rebounds so much for a power forward". I think there is this misconception that tallest guys = best rebounders which is not true.
What i was talking about is that a power forward will more often be guarding a player outside the paint than a center(and hence out of rebounding position)
A center in wilt era will more often than not be inside the paint
What this means is that the former will have more "chances" to leave his man to go inside for rebounding position
Wilt will rarely even be even -able- of leave his man for rebounding, cause his position defensively will already be under the hoop
70sFan wrote:It's funny that you always come up that argumentation to bold the inconsistencies in voter's methodology, but it was discussed long before this post - understanding that the league was less sophisticated and talent pool was smaller is not "time machine argument".
It's great that it was discussed, but that doesn't answer my questions.
But here, let's make this simpler.
Why does it matter player a was in a less developed league with a smaller talent pool?
Im going to guess that buried under the answer to that, is a team machine.
There are other explainations to that as well I'm afraid.
Okay then lets see one
Genuinely curious what explanation SGI-fi naysayers are willing to use that doesn’t somehow tie to An assumption that player or set of players x would have done worse than player or set of players y
OhayoKD wrote:It's great that it was discussed, but that doesn't answer my questions.
But here, let's make this simpler.
Why does it matter player a was in a less developed league with a smaller talent pool?
Im going to guess that buried under the answer to that, is a team machine.
There are other explainations to that as well I'm afraid.
Okay then lets see one
Genuinely curious what explanation SGI-fi naysayers are willing to use that doesn’t somehow tie to An assumption that player or set of players x would have done worse than player or set of players y
Taking strength of era into account when ranking players doesn't automatically mean one is speculating how they'd play/fit in other eras.
rk2023 wrote:For those considering Pettit and Pippen (or either one of them), how far do you see Pettit from Elgin Baylor and how far do you see Pippen from Walt Frazier? I regard both as interesting debates from what I have looked into, so would love to get some intel from those whom may be more well-versed than me.
During their contemporary period in the league, Pettit v. Baylor was very close (and hotly debated). Baylor was the casual fan's choice as his style of play was more exciting but the numbers are very close.
(a)Before Baylor came into the league, however, Pettit had 4 years where he was arguably the best player in the league pre-Russell and won a title; after Pettit retired, Baylor still had 3 great years but also 3 lesser ones and his team won when Baylor retired. Also, the league changed drastically, more than any equivalent era other then the introduction of the shot clock and possibly the switch to modern 3 point spamming offense and despite Pettit being behind that curve, he stayed relevant and equal to Baylor in an era when the rest of the league was improving rapidly.
(b) Pettit also seemed the better defender though I have no numbers on that and Baylor didn't have a defensive anchor behind him until Wilt.
(c) Finally, Pettit seemed more willing to give up primacy to Hagan when Hagan was playing better; Baylor played with Jerry West who was clearly the more efficient scorer but never really seemed to be willing to take a back seat then had problems fitting with Wilt. To counter that, Pettit was more of a playoff backslider except for arguably the greatest 4th quarter in NBA finals history to give the Hawks their only title.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
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
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.
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.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote: No, the main problem is that several Barkley backers didn't show up to vote the last couple threads. I can think of three people who have been pretty consistent voters up to this point who just didn't vote the last couple threads who in all likelihood would've been Barkley voters. I don't want to name names because that never goes anywhere good, but you can go back and see them voting for Barkley two, three threads ago and see them letting him down the last couple threads with their no-shows. Had they shown, he would've gotten in #26.
I have in the past made very detailed arguments for Barkley, it's just when it's like the tenth time in a row, I lose the motivation to do anything beyond vote and give a one-sentence explanation.
And did any of those detailed arguments actually explain what makes him greater than Harden who actually was on pace to beat the greatest team ever and still got closer with a weaker cast the next year than barkley did vs a much weaker champion in 1993?
This is a ranking. In otherwords you'll have a much better shot at swinging the anti-barkley block if you are making a comparative case. It doesn't really matter what barkley's numbers or skillset is if you can't justify the bit where those number make barkley better than everyone else on the board.
I have yet to see anyone do that bit vs Harden who also is a mvp winner, also lost to an eventual champion, also has impressive slashlines, and actually came closer to a 2nd mvp win multiple times than barkley ever did. In fact when i asked someone who was picking barkley over harden why they favored barkley over harden, their response was, "uh i don't really know why"
I didn't specifically compare him to Harden because Harden wasn't on the board back then.
For starters, I'd take issue with "weaker cast". If you're talking about 2017-18, Harden had CP3, Capela(who was putting 24.8/19.4 per 100 on +9.4 rTS), two elite 3D guys in Ariza and Tucker, and Gordon off the bench with 18ppg on +2.2 rTS. I don't know that that's so much worse than KJ/Majerle/Ceballos/Dumas/West/Chambers/Ainge/etc. If anything, a lot of the coverage of the team for those couple years(16-17 and 17-18) was focused, in addition to Harden's individual offensive accomplishments, on the job Morey had done constructing that team.
that part of what Ohayo wrote was talking about the 2019 rockets, who were a big step down from 2018. cp3 was much worse and basically the entire bench got traded away for "luxury tax savings". which is why 2 of the 4 rockets bench players in the 2019 series against the warriors (green and nene) never played in the nba again and a 3rd (shumpert) played all of 15 more games despite only being 28 years old. and the 4th was austin rivers, whose 8.4 PER and -2.0 BPM were actually his best playoff showing of his last 6 appearances. which is saying something. LTS, a fine entry on a balance sheet, pretty bad for helping you win a playoff series.
Anyway - it might surprise you to learn that I don't think the gap between Barkley/Harden is big. They're very similar.
so i'm also not going to die on the hill that harden is better than barkley. i think i might even be one of the people you mentioned who voted for barkley earlier before he lost traction. but just to push back on a few things:
Scoring dynamos with other dimensions(Barkley's rebounding, Harden's playmaking/running of offense) who didn't play much defense and who maybe weren't the best locker room guys(though like I said in the last thread, I think that's overblown for Barkley), and who got close but couldn't get the ring.
I can compare them statistically, broadly speaking, and draw the conclusion that it's close.
Barkley is +6.9 rTS for his career in the RS; Harden is +5.7. Barkley is +4.8 rTS(over RS league average) for his career in the PO; Harden is +3.4. Barkley is a career 6.1 BPM RS and 6.3 BPM PO; Harden is 6.7 and 6.2. Barkley is a career .216 WS/48 RS and .193 WS/48 PO; Harden is .218 and .172.
There is much more impact data available for Harden, but based on J.E.'s set, Barkley's late-career RAPMs are in the ballpark of many of Harden's prime RAPMs.
Harden had one outlier year - 2014-15 - where he had a 4.58 RAPM, and one outlier in the opposite direction - 1.65 in 2012-13 - but for the rest of his career(through 2018-19, that's where JE's set ends), it's always between 2.5 and 3.63. Barkey's RAPMs for the four seasons we have - 1996-97 through 1999-00 - range from 2.45 to 3.51. It is reasonable to think Barkley's RAPMs may have been higher than that in early years, but that's much too speculative so I won't push that.
are these RS or PS or combined RAPM's? based on Cheema RAPM and just plain plus/minus, harden's numbers seem to go up in the playoffs, despite his box numbers going down.
Let's look at how they did in the two series you referenced - the 2018 WCF and the 1993 Finals.
Barkley: 21.3 pp36, 10.1 rp36, 4.3 ap36(vs 1.3 to p36) 54.4% TS(the 93 Bulls held opponents to 53.9% TS)
Harden: 27 pp36, 5.3 rp36, 5.7 ap36(vs 4.6 to p36) 53.8% TS(the 18 Warriors held opponents to 53.9% TS)
I'm using per36 because Barkley played a lot more minutes so the numbers would be too skewed otherwise.
Barkley was +0.5% over the opponent's allowed TS, Harden was -0.1% below. Barkley had a much better a/t ratio.
well, the warriors didn't try on defense in the regular season. then they had the #1 defense in the playoffs. for the playoffs, it would be bulls 53.6 TS% and warriors 51.9 TS%. so harden would have the advantage. and i would argue the warriors had better personnel to guard harden than the bulls did to guard barkley, with pippen and jordan not really being options for chuck.
If these are the highest-profile playoff series of their respective careers, one can make the argument that Barkley played a better series(you can point out that the <1% lower TS is worth the extra six points of volume for Harden, but he gives those points back with the additional turnovers).
perhaps, but again the bulls finished 10th in DRtg in the playoffs and the warriors 1st. and the suns biggest advantage was arguably going to be chuck against an overmatched frontline (note KJ didn't play well at all) while the warriors were basically designed to guard perimeter helios like harden. and harden was playing a better overall team and his team actually got the lead in the series and has a pretty good excuse for losing, while the suns immediately set themselves on a bad course by losing games 1 and 2 at home.
So I can say that Barkley was the more efficient scorer and that he has small playoff edges in BPM and WS/48, and I can also say that Harden has small edges in the regular season equivalents of the latter two, but really the conclusion is that they're pretty close. I can't really make the argument that Barkley is significantly ahead of Harden, but by that token, I don't think you can argue the opposite either.
Zooming out a bit - I wouldn't undersell how close the Suns were in that series and how tough they were. It was a crushing loss for them.
They worked all season to earn the homecourt advantage, and then blew it by losing the first two games at home. Game 2, Barkley goes 42/13 on 61.5% FG, but the Suns still lose by 3 to go down 0-2 at home. A lot of players, a lot of teams, would be mentally done right then. Barkley and the Suns came to Chicago and freaking took 2 out of 3 to force it back to Phoenix when no one though they would. And they came damn close to making it 3 out of 3. Game 4, Barkley records a 32 point, 12 rebound, 10 assists triple double on 52.6% FG with 3 steals to boot, does everything you could possibly ask of him, and the Suns still lose by 6 to a herculean 55-point effort by MJ. Just absolutely soul-crushing. Game 6 in Phoenix was close all the way, and were it not for a poor defensive decision by Danny Ainge leaving John Paxson wide open, they were one possession from forcing the Bulls into Game 7 in Phoenix.
The games the Suns lost to the Bulls in their series were lost by 8, 3, 6, and 1.
It was a much closer series than one might think at first glance.
it was very close. in fact, the point differential was exactly 0. definitely a feather in barkley's cap and a very good series by him. what i would argue is less so is his 2 rockets series the next 2 years. these are years that were wide open for the suns to win. where harden had a great 2019 series against the warriors, barkley got a 2-0 lead on the road against the 1994 rockets and then lost the series. the suns were even up 14 at the end of the 1st quarter in game 3. even today, very few teams have ever lost a series after winning the first 2 games on the road. in games 3 and 4, barkley shot 9-22 with 4 TO's and 7-21 with 4 TO's. he was fine enough but not spectacular in the last 3 games.
and then in 1995, they went up 3-1, with games 5 and 7 at home. in game 5, clyde drexler had the flu. and unlike jordan, he played like it. 4 points on 0-6 shooting and 4-8 from the line (21 TS%). this is their chance. up 3-1, at home, drexler a non-factor or arguably even a negative, and barkley goes 8-22 with 6 TO's. and maybe worse, goes 1-6 from the line. missing several free throws near the end of the 4th quarter and then missing a free throw with 15 seconds left and the suns up 2 that would have forced the rockets to make a 3. instead, they got the ball to hakeem and he made a tough 2 to force OT and then the rockets won. barkley played well (34/14) in game 6 but then went only 7-16 with 7 TO's in game 7, though he collected a lot of rebounds. that game 7 ended a streak of 20 straight home teams to win game 7's.
and of course in 1997, while hakeem had a great 27/9/4/3/2, 64 TS% WCF (24.6 Game Score), barkley was still feeling the effects of his regular season injury and only had 16/11/4 and a 14.0 Game Score.
For me the edge between these two in particular comes down to A)I just think Barkley was a better playoff performer, as evidenced by some of the stuff above, B)As great of a scorer as Harden is, I think Barkley was better, C)For the moment, has a bit more longevity, and D)He didn't play with as much talent as Harden did(Harden had early-prime KD, early-prime Westbrook, late-prime CP3, prime Kyrie, and prime Embiid; Barkley had late-prime Moses, almost-done Dr. J, late-prime KJ, late-prime-to-almost-done Hakeem, and almost-done Drexler)
so, these are just names though. you'll notice almost all of harden's best teammates are from when he's 22 and younger or 32 and older. the one that isn't, late-prime CP3, resulted in a much, much better team than barkley ever had (see my post above). and by year 2 CP3 was post-prime. and as for the others:
he played with pre-prime KD and early-prime westbrook when harden was also pre-prime. and yet the results were great. they made a WCF and a Finals, with harden basically putting up prime ginobili playoff stats.
even if one thinks "prime Kyrie" is a good thing, they played 40 seconds together in their biggest playoff series. it's not like they lost because they weren't good enough as basketball players. and the fact kyrie has been swept in the 1st round with KD and missed the playoffs with Luka since parting company with harden makes it hard to argue prime Kyrie is much of a great thing.
and embiid, i know he won the mvp, but what is he in the playoffs? in my resiliency spreadsheet, there are 416 playoff runs. 2022 embiid is 414th out of 416. there are only 2 playoff runs worse. 1972 kareem and...2023 embiid. he's 2 of the worst 3! and both with harden (he's got 281st and 334th without harden before someone says harden is causing it). harden actually beat him in game score in the celtics series this year, even winning a road game without embiid. notice up above that older barkley in 1997 got an amazing series from hakeem in the 1997 WCF. harden got a somewhat trash 2nd round series from embiid and embiid missed a game this year (and also missed 2 games in their 2nd round series they lost last year).
barkley got drafted to a 52 win team 1 year removed from being the dominant '83 Sixers. they weren't what they were, but that's better than getting drafted to a 23 win team. and his suns teams were pretty talented and were a 5.7 SRS team before he got there (the 2021 rockets were just a smidge below 5.7 SRS after harden left). his mid-career sixers teams weren't great but they also missed the playoffs twice and got swept in the 1st round another time so it's not like the results were great either.
Your apparent justification seems to be that barkley was voted higher in the last project. If that is all the justification that can be offered here, then perhaps you should be taking issue with the previous project for overrating a player so drastically and praising this one for finally evaluating him properly. ... Barkley not dropping lower is contingent on voters thinking he's better than everyone. Why not start there instead of some tangent about how he was voted last time
It's not a justification of anything. I wasn't saying vote for him because he was that high before, I was just pointing out that it's strange that he's falling that much. And it's not just the last project, it's all of them. In 2006/2008/2011/2014/2017/2020, he was always between 19 and 23(5 times between 19 and 21). Yeah, Steph/Giannis/Jokic moved up, but that doesn't explain the rest. This is going to be the lowest Barkley has ever been by at least five spots, and by at least 7-9 spots from most his previous rankings. It's a dramatic fall no matter how you look at it.
i do agree that barkley falling is a bit weird. it seems to be too much of an aesthetic choice for my taste.
Spoiler:
He wasn't a goat-tier rebounder, assuming we agree "goat-tier" means you have a legitimate argument as the goat. For one, he, like pretty much any non-big, had his numbers juiced by having bigger teammates boxing out. For another, even if we just looked at offensive rebounding, he was still not racking up as many as Wilt.
Okay so you want us to curve up barkley's rebounding because even though he wasn't actually goat level he was skilled for his height?
Do you also penalize chuck for not being that good of a passer or ball-handler for a 6'4 guy?
HeartBreakKid wrote:Wilt Chamberlain is commonly referred to as the goat rebounder, and he very much is not a short person.
Dennis Rodman actually has top tier RBG and RB%. He is statistically close enough that you could argue his numbers are only worse due to era/circumstance etc. If Dennis Rodman was 7 feet tall and his numbers were the same he would still be considered the GOAT rebounder. Him being short just makes it "weird", it isn't the primary reason.
Rodman and Barkley's numbers are not close at all for comparisons sake.
It sounds like you're just saying he is the GOAT rebounder because he got a lot of rebounds for his height (not even his size, which was not all that small).
You should likely make that distinction because I actually was not sure if I was missing something crucial for Chucky's rebounding stats. Last thread Wade got in over Chuck; it would be a bit misleading if someone said Wade was one of the GOAT shot blockers.
Firstly, I don't disagree that Rodman was better. Rodman is one of my favorite players ever, you won't get any pushback on that from me.
To be clear, when I say goat-tier, it means exactly that - in a tier. If you look at all-time career rpg in the NBA/ABA, Barkley is #23 all time, and that moves up to #20 if you look at only NBA. And the top 5 are all 60s guys whose numbers are pace-inflated.
Here are some relevant names to this discussion that are below Barkley on the NBA/ABA list:
Kareem - #29 Shaq - #38 David Robinson - #42 Nikola Jokic - #44 Karl Malone - #58 Kevin Garnett - #60 Giannis - #78 Patrick Ewing - #68
To me, for Barkley to be in the Top 25 all-time at his height is enough for me to call him a GOAT-tier rebounder.
And while he was a better rebounder, he is at a big disadvantage as a ballhandler/progressor, and also disadvantaged as a raw chance creator. What is your basis for Barkley's advantages trumping his disadvantages here?
Perfectly willing to concede Harden's advantage as a creator. I just think Barkley has an equally large advantage as a rebounder(on both ends of the court).
rk2023 wrote:For those considering Pettit and Pippen (or either one of them), how far do you see Pettit from Elgin Baylor and how far do you see Pippen from Walt Frazier? I regard both as interesting debates from what I have looked into, so would love to get some intel from those whom may be more well-versed than me.
Pettit vs Baylor: Big difference for me is based on scoring efficiency and implied impact. Many scorers in those early years saw themselves go from efficient to inefficient not because their numbers went down but because the league's went up. This implies a static technique in the player and an inability to recognize that optimal approach has shifted. Baylor is one of these with the added issue that he wasn't on some random team - he was on a team with much stronger scorer, and his own inefficiency was thus most relevant in comparison to his teammate, which is really not good.
Pettit on the other hand is of the mold that seems to gain efficiency as systems allow for it, and this meant efficiency improvement even when new talent flooded in.
I do think you can make the case that Baylor had the higher peak, but career-wise I see a significant gap. For perspective, by POY shares I have them as:
Pettit 4.0 Baylor 1.4
A 1.4 tally is a Top 50 tally, which means it's still excellent by all normal standards, but obviously it's a far cry from 4.0.
Pippen vs Frazier: Well, since I've been voting Frazier ahead of Pippen in my Nominee vote, I think that answers that question.
70sFan wrote:There are other explainations to that as well I'm afraid.
Okay then lets see one
Genuinely curious what explanation SGI-fi naysayers are willing to use that doesn’t somehow tie to An assumption that player or set of players x would have done worse than player or set of players y
Taking strength of era into account when ranking players doesn't automatically mean one is speculating how they'd play/fit in other eras.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Just want to say again how incredibly frustrating it is that Barkley has fallen a minimum of 7 spots from last time. He just keeps getting blocked over and over and over by a voting population that appears to simply not like him very much.
5 of the players that passed him are currently active (Durant, Curry, Paul, Giannis, Jokic). Three of those previously occupied the three spots behind him and two have had meteoric rises winning the last 3 POYs. The only players that really passed him based on changing opinions of the voter base are Nash and Wade.
Stockton’s a much more puzzling case to me as he was also ahead of Nash and Wade last time and he hasn’t even been nominated yet even though the increase in play-by-play data and multi-year RAPM samples should actually make his case much stronger. I don’t get it. He was already borderline top 5 all-time in cumulative career box score metrics, now we get data showing him to display all-time player at ages when even Michael Jordan was meh, and he…. sinks like a stone? Makes no sense to me. You’d think new data and an emphasis on analytics would see Stockton pushing to enter the top 20, not exit the top 30.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Just want to say again how incredibly frustrating it is that Barkley has fallen a minimum of 7 spots from last time. He just keeps getting blocked over and over and over by a voting population that appears to simply not like him very much.
5 of the players that passed him are currently active (Durant, Curry, Paul, Giannis, Jokic). Three of those previously occupied the three spots behind him and two have had meteoric rises winning the last 3 POYs. The only players that really passed him based on changing opinions of the voter base are Nash and Wade.
Stockton’s a much more puzzling case to me as he was also ahead of Nash and Wade last time and he hasn’t even been nominated yet even though the increase in play-by-play data and multi-year RAPM samples should actually make his case much stronger. I don’t get it. He was already borderline top 5 all-time in cumulative career box score metrics, now we get data showing him to display all-time player at ages when even Michael Jordan was meh, and he…. sinks like a stone? Makes no sense to me. You’d think new data and an emphasis on analytics would see Stockton pushing to enter the top 20, not exit the top 30.
I don't want to talk as if I have any definitive answer here - I'm surprised by Stockton falling too.
I will say: Us having access to Stockton's +/- isn't a new thing. We've had access to most of what we currently have for more than a decade, and it's been factored in by folks who want to factor it in several projects ago.
To the extent there's new information, it's the older stuff. We got access to '90s stuff after the '00s stuff, and our early '90s & '80s stuff is still very small sample. I don't know how much this is striking any specific posters as new, but what I will say is that while the '00s stuff supported a case for Stockton > Malone, I'd say that the '90s stuff favors Malone. One might think this is irrelevant because Malone was ahead of Stockton always in this list, but speaking as someone trying to keep an open mind on stuff, I was very much looking to see whether Stockton would continue to have the edge as we went back into the Jazz Golden Age. Had I see data in a glaringly pro-Stockton direction I'd have him ahead of Malone now. Instead I'm all the more settled on Malone being the clear MVP of the team in their contending years.
OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Just want to say again how incredibly frustrating it is that Barkley has fallen a minimum of 7 spots from last time. He just keeps getting blocked over and over and over by a voting population that appears to simply not like him very much.
5 of the players that passed him are currently active (Durant, Curry, Paul, Giannis, Jokic). Three of those previously occupied the three spots behind him and two have had meteoric rises winning the last 3 POYs. The only players that really passed him based on changing opinions of the voter base are Nash and Wade.
Stockton’s a much more puzzling case to me as he was also ahead of Nash and Wade last time and he hasn’t even been nominated yet even though the increase in play-by-play data and multi-year RAPM samples should actually make his case much stronger. I don’t get it. He was already borderline top 5 all-time in cumulative career box score metrics, now we get data showing him to display all-time player at ages when even Michael Jordan was meh, and he…. sinks like a stone? Makes no sense to me. You’d think new data and an emphasis on analytics would see Stockton pushing to enter the top 20, not exit the top 30.
I don't want to talk as if I have any definitive answer here - I'm surprised by Stockton falling too.
I will say: Us having access to Stockton's +/- isn't a new thing. We've had access to most of what we currently have for more than a decade, and it's been factored in by folks who want to factor it in several projects ago.
To the extent there's new information, it's the older stuff. We got access to '90s stuff after the '00s stuff, and our early '90s & '80s stuff is still very small sample. I don't know how much this is striking any specific posters as new, but what I will say is that while the '00s stuff supported a case for Stockton > Malone, I'd say that the '90s stuff favors Malone. One might think this is irrelevant because Malone was ahead of Stockton always in this list, but speaking as someone trying to keep an open mind on stuff, I was very much looking to see whether Stockton would continue to have the edge as we went back into the Jazz Golden Age. Had I see data in a glaringly pro-Stockton direction I'd have him ahead of Malone now. Instead I'm all the more settled on Malone being the clear MVP of the team in their contending years.
So my thoughts regarding the last two comments here and Stockton generally without too deep a dive...
Big picture late career Stockton as great impact isn't new: 97-14 had him really strong.
Think I may have done the gist of this before but: Regarding the later "90s" data as a blow for Stockton AScreaming ... RAPM 97 NPI Hornacek 9th 4.98 Malone 14th 4.42 Stockton 19th 3.88
Stockton first all but once, though some are negligible ... but then '97 isn't huge. These are all rate, Stockton plays less minutes.
Mid 90s does give an advantage to Malone, but Stockton's gulf in the small sample versus 76ers data takes a big chunk out of that lead in terms of on-off across the total Pollack dataset [my calcs had JS: 10.12111492 on-off KM: 11.56766594, I can't guarantee that I didn't err there]. (and if generalized from, in a regressed to sustainable way ... and depending where your "mean" is ... could see a big boost to earlier Stockton).
Rise and fall is noisy and subject to voting pool, voting system etc. Stockton had been as low as 31st in 2011 (which would be lower in real terms now) and as high as 21st in '17 [17th in '03 isn't real terms better, I shouldn't think].
Fwiw I lean bullish versus present norms and think the rank upside could be pretty high if one is nudging him up a bit for several years.
AGAIN!......Barkley, I am supporting for similar reasons to why I voted for Durant previously: 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 (made a little easier now that Moses is off the table [and Stockton is not yet on the table]). Giannis and Jokic simply lack the full career value for me yet (though super-close: I would say ONE prime season away for both). Wade is a somewhat intriguing option for alternate, but he suffers a pinch from similar concerns.
However Harden, at this point, is also intriguing for me. 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.
Though Ewing is an intriguing option now, and the ONLY other one among the current nominees who I'd strongly consider. The trio of Barkley/Harden/Ewing sit #(23?)/24-26 on my own ATL (Barkley occasionally bumping up to #23 [Stockton]; all very close, and it feels like a semi-fluid range, though I generally lean toward Stockton and Barkley at the front. And fwiw, Wade sits #27; so it's all a close race for me here. Even Pettit doesn't languish, sitting either 30 or 31 on my ATL.
Pettit suffers for lack of meaningful longevity compared to Barkley, Harden, and Ewing, and in concerns/reservations regarding era vs all of them. He doesn't reside far behind any of them on my ATL, however (I presently have him #30 or 31). I could see going higher with him if we had some more tangible suggestions of large(ish) defensive impact.
Nomination: John Stockton (again!!!?!?!) Alt Nom: ......Elgin Baylor I guess (also strongly considering Jason Kidd, Kawhi Leonard, and Artis Gilmore [might switch, we'll see])
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Genuinely curious what explanation SGI-fi naysayers are willing to use that doesn’t somehow tie to An assumption that player or set of players x would have done worse than player or set of players y
Taking strength of era into account when ranking players doesn't automatically mean one is speculating how they'd play/fit in other eras.
Yeah, I don't get why it's even questioned...
Because if you don't think players would do better in a league where the league is weaker, then what exactly is the point of one league being weaker than the other? Would you be able to say that league is weaker than another if those all leagues players play just as well in the future?
The concept is hinged on cross-temporal projection, aka "time-machine". Why are people using sci-fi then complaining about other people using sci-fi
rk2023 wrote:For those considering Pettit and Pippen (or either one of them), how far do you see Pettit from Elgin Baylor and how far do you see Pippen from Walt Frazier? I regard both as interesting debates from what I have looked into, so would love to get some intel from those whom may be more well-versed than me.
I had Pippen at 28 on my list. Frazier is 33. I have Pippen a tier above Frazier.
I had Pettit at 36, Baylor 48. Same tier though. It's a big tier.
