RealGM Top 100 List #19

[fatal9]

Vote: Barkley
Nominate: Pippen

[Baller 24]

Vote: D. Wade

I don't see anyone with the same level of peak play compared to this guy, he's got one of the more dominant and historical finals performances in league history.

Always "ups" his game in the playoffs, has been possibly the best all-around SG for the last three seasons. Just don't think anyone that's listed is better than him as an overall player, and even if we're comparing resumes he's just as decorated from an overall career perspective.

Nominate: Scottie Pippen
(ElGee's awesome posts have swayed me)

[therealbig3]

Vote: D. Wade

I don't see anyone with the same level of peak play compared to this guy, he's got one of the more dominant and historical finals performances in league history.

Always "ups" his game in the playoffs, has been possibly the best all-around SG for the last three seasons. Just don't think anyone that's listed is better than him as an overall player, and even if we're comparing resumes he's just as decorated from an overall career perspective.

Nominate: Scottie Pippen
(ElGee's awesome posts have swayed me)

At what point does his longevity play against him? Peak play is fine, but guys like Wade, and to a greater extent, Walton, have such short careers at this point that it's hard to rank them ahead of some guys. With that said, I have Wade as a top 25 player, but he only has 5 healthy prime seasons.

07 was just a disappointing season all around...he only played 51 games, the Heat were swept in the 1st round, and Wade had his worst playoffs by far. Even in 05, Wade getting injured towards the end of that playoff run probably cost them that series against the Pistons. At most, you can say that he only has 6 prime playoff runs to this point.

I don't see how he can go ahead of Barkley or Robinson at this point. I mean is Wade's peak really that much better (if it's better at all) that it compensates for 11 prime seasons from Barkley vs 5, maybe 6 for Wade? Not to mention Barkley's non-prime seasons, which were still very good, which Wade doesn't even have at this point.

EDIT: I see that you've said before that peak trumps everything else, but I don't think that's the case when "everything else" is 5-6 more prime seasons, with a peak that's arguably just as good.

Otherwise, where's T-Mac on your list? His peak was higher than Wade's or Kobe's imo. And it's not like he had terrible longevity. He was an excellent player from 01-08.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Pippen was a great defensive player. I'd easily buy him as having more impact than Jordan.

This is going to sound like ridiculous hyperbole, but with a consistent jumper, he might have been virtually flawless.

The aforementioned defensive prowess, freakish athlete, the ability to handle and distribute the ball, solid rebounder...he had so many strengths.

Great points. My big issue with Pippen however, is that he was seriously lacking on the mental side of the game. The "migrane' episodes, his disappearing acts in the playoffs, and his compelte lack of leadership really drop him in my eyes. Talent-wise he could have been a beast, but he was so damn weak-minded.

Back in that era, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Pippen > Drexler/Isiah/Stockton.

[Baller 24]

I'm well aware of McGrady (all-time fav), but we've got quite some time until he bares even a mention. As for the peak trumps everything argument, it doesn't apply to this group, I was just using that as an argument against players that were never even considered elite (Stockton).

1st, as for the Walton mention, I was just bringing him up saying he bares some mention as we enter the mid 30s. 2nd, as for the Wade mention, his '09 season is just slightly worse than LeBron's. He's had a season where he's shouldered the load of his team when they needed him the most and took over at an all-time historic and dominant fashion, something both Barkley & Robinson weren't capable of doing. All of which are factors I'm taking into account, we just voted LeBron James over both, I clearly do not see a reason to why Wade too shouldn't be mentioned, if we're taking hits on longitivtiy.

[penbeast0]

I don't think Wade has passed Frazier yet. Frazier was as explosive a scorer but he was more efficient (even without the 3 point shot and in a less efficient era), a better playmaker, a better defender, equally adept at raising his game on the big stage of the NBA championship, and -- unlike Wade -- put together a decent streak of healthy seasons for a nice 8 season peak. Wade was injured his rookie year, reasonably healthy in 05/06, a part time player missing over 30 games a year in 07 and 08, then has been healthy for the last 3 years. If he can put together 2 more healthy years at the same level, (or even steps up his game back to his peak level just next year with another great playoff performance) then I'll rank him over Frazier but he just hasn't been healthy enough for long enough yet.

[Baller 24]

Great points. My big issue with Pippen however, is that he was seriously lacking on the mental side of the game. The "migrane' episodes, his disappearing acts in the playoffs, and his compelte lack of leadership really drop him in my eyes. Talent-wise he could have been a beast, but he was so damn weak-minded.

Back in that era, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thought Pippen > Drexler/Isiah/Stockton.

No one ever thought John Stockton was better than Scottie Pippen.

[TMACFORMVP]

I remember playing an ATL a while back, and I had a matchup versus Payton. Obviously they stated he would shut down my backcourt, so I tried to look into how he did against whomever was on my backcourt at the time. While I didn't find anything staggering, I was surprised at how much success perimeter players had against Payton. I mean, outside of the Finals and his performance on MJ the latter part of the series; he hasn't really shown to lock down the opponents best player. In fact, if we look at the playoff series in which the Sonics lost, the opponents best perimeter players had HUGE series in terms of scoring the ball.

EDIT - Didn't include 96 obviously, because he did a real good on Jordan, we all know that.

95: Nick Van Exel (1st Round) - 24.7 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 5.0 APG on .500 from the field.
*Nick averaged 17/3/8 on 42% in the regular season. In the second round against the Spurs, Van Exel shot a combined 13-51 in the last three games of the series. So Nick, DOMINATED Payton in that matchup as well.

'97: Clyde Drexler (WCSF) - 20.1 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 4.8 APG on .452 from the field.
*Drexler averaged 18/6/5 on 44% in the regular season, and for the entire playoffs was similar, but slightly less efficient, so this was his best series in the entire playoffs.

98: Eddie Jones (WCSF) - 22.0 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 1.8 APG on .558 from the field.
*Jones was a 17/4/3 player on 48% in the regular season. In that playoffs, he ended up shooting an overall .466 from the field, and 17 PPG, so this is once again, another series where the perimeter player has completely gone above their averages to change the course of the series.

00: John Stockton (1st Round) - 13.0 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 12.2 APG on .510 from the field.
*Stockton was a 12/9 player in the regular season shooting 50% from the field. In the playoffs, he averaged an overall 11/10 on 46%, which would yet again imply that this was well above his averages, and by far his best playoff series as well.

02: Tony Parker (1st Round) - 17.2 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 2.1 APG on .500 from the field.
*This is a rookie Tony Parker, who averaged 9/2/4 in the regular season on 42% from the field. In the playoffs, he did 15.5/3/4 on nearly 46% from the floor. So, again, this would imply, he did worse in his next series. His two huge games in G1 and G3 were the difference. Steve Smith also had three very solid games as well.

Just interesting to note that these guys went well beyond their regular season averages, and were huge reasons for their teams advancing, and the Sonics losing. You'd normally think Payton would have more an effect on them, but I don't know the full context, so could anyone describe why this was the case?

In case anyone is interested, the main players I did look up were Jason Kidd from 96-99, and Iverson from 97-02. Kidd in 12 games averaged 17/6/12 on 43% from the field, and 38% from three (that's good shooting for Kidd, lol). And Iverson in only a 8 game sample size, averaged 27/5/4 on 46% with only 2.6 turnovers. Not really significant data in an All-Time rankings, but sort of interesting nonetheless.

Also should be worth noting, the Sonics missed the playoffs twice during GP's peak, and was no more efficient a scorer than Isiah during their seven best post seasons:

Gary Payton (94-02)

Code: Select all

62 GAMES: 21.7 PPG, 5.08 RPG, 6.96 APG on .456 from the field (.521 TS% average).


Isiah Thomas (84-90)

Code: Select all

93 GAMES: 21.6 PPG, 4.77 RPG, 9.02 APG on .448 from the field (.527 TS% average).

That's too eerily similar. Both score the same, rebound the same, on roughly the same efficiency. But over 30 games is nothing to sneeze at, and Isiah is the clearly better play-maker. I think that reflects in their game when watching them too, Isiah had control of the game, similar to how Paul does in the game today. Isiah's ability to create is huge, and something I did better, especially during the final moments of a game (though I have nothing to base this on, except we can point to rings, but that's more based on team).

But on the topic of the team basis, the Sonics definitely underachieved. In '94, they infamously lost in the first round to the Nuggets led by Mutombo. In '95, they lost in the first round again, losing to a team they won over 10 more games in the regular season. In '98, the Sonics gave away two home games to the Lakers in an easily winnable series (so in '97, and '98, while it might not be classified as a failure, they lost to similarly caliber teams in series which could have been won). Also.. Payton went 11-33 from the field in both those aforementioned games.

Kinda just throwing out food for thought..I don't have a problem with Payton over Isiah, better defense with comparable enough offense, and someone I'd take over Isiah in an ATL setting without hesitation. But I still think Isiah is a decently better offensive player..better play-maker, and similar caliber scorer with a better inclination to take over. And maybe I'm blinded by the two rings as the leader in a pretty competitive era.

[TMACFORMVP]

I actually like the Wade mention.

I have Robinson and Barkley over Pettit, potentially Wade as well. Why is Barkley ahead of DRob? Is it solely based on that he was a better playoff performer (and he was better offensively because of the passing/versatility, but doesn't it get made up in the defense)? And side note, a little bit unrelated to the Barkley debate but Robinson's impact in the Spurs first championship is GROSSLY underrated.

[penbeast0]

Gary Payton (94-02)

Code: Select all

62 GAMES: 21.7 PPG, 5.08 RPG, 6.96 APG on .456 from the field (.521 TS% average).


Isiah Thomas (84-90)

Code: Select all

93 GAMES: 21.6 PPG, 4.77 RPG, 9.02 APG on .448 from the field (.527 TS% average).

That's too eerily similar. Both score the same, rebound the same, on roughly the same efficiency. But over 30 games is nothing to sneeze at, and Isiah is the clearly better play-maker. I think that reflects in their game when watching them too, Isiah had control of the game, similar to how Paul does in the game today. Isiah's ability to create is huge, and something I did better, especially during the final moments of a game (though I have nothing to base this on, except we can point to rings, but that's more based on team).

Oddly enough, when I watched them I was more impressed with Payton as a playmaker. Isiah tended to put his head down, drive the lane, then throw bad passes out. He dominated the ball a lot more if that's what you mean, but that led to a lot more turnovers and, unlike Payton, he made a lot less of the hockey passes where you swing the ball around the perimeter to get your shooters a good shot without getting an assist. Payton had less assists but his assist to turnover ratio is 3/1 as opposed to Isiah who is just below 2.5/1 . . . a pretty significant difference. Turnover Differential is one of the 4 keys to winning (Wages of win) and that's an area where Payton has a significant advantage, both in not turning the ball over and in creating turnovers (steals and pressure defense).

Payton's playmaking is not only more efficient but it is also more adaptable to playing with other great players. Payton's style works with a playmaking 3 like Detlef Schrempf better than Isiah's and it would work better with a Dwyane Wade or LeBron type who needs the ball in their hands. So, more efficient and more versatile . . . Payton was the better playmaker.

[Snakebites]

Vote: Robinson
Nominate: Pippen

[TMACFORMVP]

Good point about turnovers, though I'm not sure it's a large enough advantage to justify a significant edge either way, when Isiah's assist totals are certainly greater. Payton's eight year peak gives you 2.95/1 turnover ratio, opposed to Isiah's from 84-90 with a 2.72/1 turnover ratio (peaking with the highest season as well). I can't really contest the "hockey" assists, since I wouldn't really able to quantify that, unless they are actually recorded somewhere. I'd agree Isiah is more ball dominant, which would be an easy conclusion to claim a lesser amount of those hockey assists, but that doesn't necessarily mean he pounded the shot clock to only pass at the last moment sort of thing either.

As for versatility, I won't argue that he was better than Payton in terms of versatility, but I'm not exactly sure it's their offensive versatility that really sets that apart. In theory, a big PG that plays defense, can shoot the three at a relatively solid % would be a good fit next to a Bron/Wade, but Isiah has shown underrated versatility within his offensive game as well. I'm not particularly a big fan of USG%, but Payton from 94-02 had a USG% of 25.4 as opposed to Isiah's USG% of 25.2 from 83-90. He's also shown he can anchor an elite run n' gun offense (as mentioned, one season where the Pistons were ranked #1 in ORTG), or still be successful in a slower paced, more half-court style team. He's also successfully played with reknown blackholes like Adrian Dantley, and went to the NBA Finals with him! And while Dumars is the last guy I'd call ball dominant, he transitioned very nicely with giving Dumars an extended role in the offense as well.

But I definitely understand where you're coming from, I just don't think one could definitively say that Payton was a better play-maker. I personally think Isiah's ability to break down a defense (to more an extent, IMO) to score, and create assist opportunities would give him the edge. Again, no real problem either way, my post was moreso thinking out loud.

[shawngoat23]

Vote: Charles Barkley (David Robinson is a close second. Not sure how Kevin Garnett got in over him--to pick a player with a similar career trajectory--and I like Garnett.)

Nominate: Isiah Thomas

[Gongxi]

Alright, my vote is for Robinson, but if a tiebreaker is needed between Pettit and Barkley, I'll switch my vote to Barkley.

[MarJJMar]

I want to see the argument that puts Wade ahead of Nash right now, it must be just silly. If Wade had such a high peak why did he never win MVP? Why did his teams never reach regular season greatness until Lebron took over?

The only thing Wade has over Nash is a ring, which is won by teams not individuals. Not to mention Wades team came out of the weak conference and is probably the worst NBA champion in the last 30 years or ever.
At least I can confidently say that the Heat were in no-way a better team than the Suns that year (even the Amare-less Suns) regardless of the finals.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Charles Barkley

I actually have a tough debate between Barkley and Robinson, but since Pettit seems the guy to beat hear, and the Barkley vs Pettit debate seems pretty clear in my mind, I'll discuss that.

beast mentioned before that Pettit was efficient relative to his contemporaries, and that's true. Because of that fact, I don't think it makes sense to look at Pettit as someone who scores inefficiently despite what the raw numbers indicate.

With that said, there's a pretty big difference between that, and somehow equating his efficiency to the most hyper-efficient volume scorer in history in Barkley.

Pettit was a contemporary of West & Oscar, and West & Oscar were more efficient. West & Oscar also didn't see any massive efficiency increase in the years following Pettit's retirement. The both leveled off at an efficiency in the vicinity of the Kobes of the world. I still think that's great, but I don't see any reason to think they'd have taken their efficiency up several more notches in future eras given the way they plateaued.

Now of course, I rank West & Oscar ahead of Barkley, so this single fact doesn't make it a given I'd pick Barkley over Pettit. I do think though that Barkley is a better scorer, rebounder, and playmaker than Pettit and that counts for quite a bit.

Nomination: Artis Gilmore

Tough one. Could see myself changing that one, but truly, Gilmore was a guy with an absolute superstar peak, who played had great longevity molding himself into a guy who just didn't take anything off the table. You just don't find many such players.

[therealbig3]

Aside from defense, what exactly was Pettit better at than Barkley?

Rebounding? Nope. About even, if not an advantage for Barkley.

Scoring? Nope. I'm going with Barkley, even with penbeast's adjusted numbers.

Passing? Nope. Clearly Barkley.

Longevity? Nope. Pettit played a total of 11 years, Barkley's prime alone was 11 years long.

Then you get to the fact that Barkley's competition was much greater. Pettit dominated a pre-Russell and pre-Wilt era. Barkley won one less MVP in a league with a lot more star talent. He was better in the playoffs too.

I just think it's blatantly stretching it to say that Pettit was a better player than Barkley. To do so would be to overrate Pettit's defense by a lot. From what I've read, he wasn't even a highly regarded defensive player anyway.

[lorak]

re: Pippen's value

I agree his value on offense is as big as top playmakers.
But on defensive end it doesn't look so good - when he missed a lot of games Bulls defense without him slightly decrased (1994) or even improved! (1998):

1994: drtg with Pippen better only by 0.8

1998: drtg with Pippen worse (!) by 3.9 (!)

(The 98 team was the 13th best offense relative to league, the 95 team 18th).

19/20th (1998) and 21/22nd (1995):

Code: Select all

year   team   ortg
2004   Dallas Mavericks*    9,2
2005   Phoenix Suns*     8,4
1997   Chicago Bulls*     7,7
2002   Dallas Mavericks*    7,7
2010   Phoenix Suns*    7,7
1998   Utah Jazz*     7,7
1996   Chicago Bulls*     7,6
1988   Boston Celtics*    7,4
2007   Phoenix Suns*    7,4
1982   Denver Nuggets*    7,4
2004   Sacramento Kings*    7,4
1992   Chicago Bulls*     7,3
1987   Los Angeles Lakers*     7,3
2003   Dallas Mavericks*     7,1
1998   Los Angeles Lakers*    6,9
1997   Utah Jazz*    6,9
1995   Orlando Magic*    6,8
1991   Chicago Bulls*    6,7
1987   Dallas Mavericks*    6,6
1998   Seattle Supersonics*    6,6
1999   Indiana Pacers*    6,5
1995   Seattle Supersonics*    6,5



[therealbig3]

re: Pippen's value

I agree his value on offense is as big as top playmakers.
But on defensive end it doesn't look so good - when he missed a lot of games Bulls defense without him slightly decrased (1994) or even improved! (1998):

1994: drtg with Pippen better only by 0.8

1998: drtg with Pippen worse (!) by 3.9 (!)

(The 98 team was the 13th best offense relative to league, the 95 team 18th).

19/20th (1998) and 21/22nd (1995):

Code: Select all

year   team   ortg
2004   Dallas Mavericks*    9,2
2005   Phoenix Suns*     8,4
1997   Chicago Bulls*     7,7
2002   Dallas Mavericks*    7,7
2010   Phoenix Suns*    7,7
1998   Utah Jazz*     7,7
1996   Chicago Bulls*     7,6
1988   Boston Celtics*    7,4
2007   Phoenix Suns*    7,4
1982   Denver Nuggets*    7,4
2004   Sacramento Kings*    7,4
1992   Chicago Bulls*     7,3
1987   Los Angeles Lakers*     7,3
2003   Dallas Mavericks*     7,1
1998   Los Angeles Lakers*    6,9
1997   Utah Jazz*    6,9
1995   Orlando Magic*    6,8
1991   Chicago Bulls*    6,7
1987   Dallas Mavericks*    6,6
1998   Seattle Supersonics*    6,6
1999   Indiana Pacers*    6,5
1995   Seattle Supersonics*    6,5



To be fair though, in the 10 games he missed in 94, the only elite offensive teams they faced were the Spurs and the Sonics. I guess you can say the Blazers and the Hawks were decent offensive teams (Blazers were 10th offensively, Hawks were 12th). Against the Spurs and the Sonics, they posted an average DRating of 112.3, or +9.6 what they averaged for the season. In the 4 games combined against the Spurs, the Sonics, the Blazers, and the Hawks, they posted an average DRating of 108.0, or +5.3 what they averaged for the season.

I think the reason why the DRating only slightly suffered without Pippen can be partly attributed to the fact that they faced some pretty bad offensive teams during the 10 games he missed, especially the Bucks, the Kings, and the Mavs, all of whom were outside the top 20 in ORating that year, and the Mavs were actually dead last. As you can see, they weren't really stopping the good offensive teams they faced without Pippen.

I really have no explanation for how the DRating improved so much without Pippen in 98, my only possible explanation could be maybe the injury hampered his game that year...I just can't believe that Pippen was a negative defensively, which is what those numbers suggest.

[lorak]

Your explanation of 1994 is good one, but in 1998 he improved Bulls offense by a lot (ortg with him better by +7.4) so I doubt injury was bothering him.