RealGM Top 100 List #20

[Fencer reregistered]

Does anybody have video of these great post moves of Barkley's? All I can find is him running (good handle for a big who isn't Larry Bird), jumping, dunking, etc.

He basically worked with his great quickness and big ass, putting guys on his backside then spinning by them so, yeah, you saw Barkley's great post moves. Who cares . . . they worked!

Does anybody have video of these great Jump Shots of Shaq's? All I can find is him running (good handle for a big), jumping, dunking, etc.

Thank you for your contribution. As always, I will be sure to give it the attention it deserves.

[Baller 24]

Interesting fact about Drexler, in '93 when he only played in 49 games. The Blazers were 21-12 in games without him, note this is directly AFTER his best season according to the metrics of MVP voting.

[Fencer reregistered]

Does anybody have video of these great post moves of Barkley's? All I can find is him running (good handle for a big who isn't Larry Bird), jumping, dunking, etc.

He basically worked with his great quickness and big ass, putting guys on his backside then spinning by them so, yeah, you saw Barkley's great post moves. Who cares . . . they worked!

Fair enough. A single move that happens fast enough and goes in can suffice.

[penbeast0]

It's been claimed in other threads that Barkley was competitive with McHale and Hakeem for best post moves ever. . .

I was wondering what I had missed ...

Heck, watch Adrian Dantley videos. F/G sized, shorter than Barkley, not heavily built, not great quicks, could barely dunk, and yet arguably the most efficient post player of all time -- and he doesn't look that overpowering, just whatever the defender does, he has a countermove and usually draws a foul.

[ElGee]

The Blazers performed *better* in 1993 without Drexler than with. Here are his with/withouts:

Drexler 1990 (9g) 8.3 to 7.2
Drexler 1996 (30g) 1.4 to 0.5
Drexler 1994 (18g) 0.4 to 2.6
Drexler 1993 (33g) -1.0 to 2.7

It's more than a little concerning to me that in 3 of his "prime" (96 is slightly past) he missed large chunks of games and his teams really didn't miss a beat.

Someone asked what makes Pippen better than Drexler? I'm not sure who I'd take at their peak -- it's a fair argument either way. But I think Pippen's versatility/fit that I outlined earlier is a nice mark in his favor. I also give Pippen a really clear career-value edge, because he had more seasons that were closer to that peak.

Drexler doesn't exactly have longevity in his career. I see 88-95, with most years not close to that 92 season. Whereas Pippen was right there with Drexler in 92...and then produced similar seasons in 94-96. Big difference to me.

[colts18]

Vote: Robinson (I think his impact was greater than Barkley)
Nominate: Drexler. Pippen wasn't a #1 option like Drexler. Drexler put up some amazing stats like a season where he averaged 27-8-6 with 3 steals.

[ElGee]

Does anybody have video of these great post moves of Barkley's? All I can find is him running (good handle for a big who isn't Larry Bird), jumping, dunking, etc.

He basically worked with his great quickness and big ass, putting guys on his backside then spinning by them so, yeah, you saw Barkley's great post moves. Who cares . . . they worked!

It's been claimed in other threads that Barkley was competitive with McHale and Hakeem for best post moves ever. Also, ElGee wrote

Barkley was an offensive genius -- a true savant

I was wondering what I had missed ...

Oh, I never think of Barkley as having some potpourri of post moves. It was more his innate flow within the intricacies of the game. His spin move, offensive rebounding, little step back, whatever...it was all based on subtle angles and strength and he just made it look simple in many ways. He could use the dribble, he could use his ass, he'd use whatever. THEN add in that he never really looked out of sync in the team model, as in he seemed to have this nice incorporation with his other guys and he was just an absurdly good/smart passer, and that's why I say he's a savant on offense.

Consider this: Barkley was undersized. When he became overweight, he basically developed this back-down move that was so boringly efficient that the league outlawed it (sometimes referred to as the Mark Jackson rule - spare me). He lost his explosiveness and open court prowess and still was awesome on offense with very simple, instinctive approaches.

As such, and as a tribute to the running theme of this project, his game probably never suffered in the postseason. I mean, was there ever a really a series/defense that gave Barkley fits?

[colts18]

If Barkley was 6' 8 he would have been T-Mac with a post game. I think being undersized was a blessing for Barkley. We know he was a lazy player, he would have been extremely lazy if he had height. Instead, he had to work on his game because he was short.

[Baller 24]

I'm seeing tons of arguments for Payton, and similarly regarding defense, Stockton's been getting some kindly love too, but no mention of Kidd at the same time?

We're talking about a player that clearly had more a defensive impact than Stockton, and I'd go as far as saying maybe even on par with that of Gary Payton. Check out starting from his seasons with the Suns, their overall DRtg goes from elite to average when he's shipped to the Nets for Marbury, and with that stated so does their overall record.

Progress onwards, you've got the Nets with Marbury coming off as one of the worst teams in the league, their primary players were Keith Van Horn, Stephen Jackson, rookie season Kenyon Martin, Evan Eschmeyer, Kendall Gill, and Luscious Harris. They're unable to retain Jackson & Gill, draft a rookie Richard Jefferson, Kittles is back, & Kenyon Martin is just a sophomore. Yet the Nets defense with the key addition of Jason Kidd bursts from being one of the worst in DRtg to #1. They make it to the finals, there's 0 All-NBA Team caliber players, there's 0 All-Stars.

I've heard the arguments of "oh the East was at its weak point", but take a closer look at how they did against both conferences, the East was obviously a bit better (64% winning percentage) compared to the West (60% winning percentage), but still an argument to be known and given.

You look deeper at that team, they had 0 defensive anchors, it's hard to say that Todd MacCulloch or Keith Van Horn, or even a 2nd season Kenyon Martin had much of an impact to add significant leaps defensively. You go onto the following season, they sustain their level of play, they dominate the eastern conference playoffs, they are still elite defensively, Jason Collins is now handling big minutes as a C, yet they're still sustaining their elite level of defensive player.

And I'll go on further he's facilitating and running an offense in both the half & open court consistently distributing 9+ APG while still playing next to 0 All-NBA caliber teammates. Even in significant amount of games Kerry Kittles doesn't play in, the Nets are still very much so elite (75% winning percentage without him). Go onto the following season, similar team, you notice Kidd missing a few games, Nets go 6-9 without him, his impact is still very much so alive, you notice Jefferson & Martin making large strides offensively.

Continue onto the following season, you've got Jefferson out with a serious injury, Martin traded, Kittles traded, Mourning hurt, Kidd starting out hurt. It seemed like there was no chance in hell they'd even make it to playing .500 ball, but once he's back the offense is kicking like no other, the Nets won just 2 games without Jason. With him they're a flying 38-28 record, obviously Carter gave him a lethal offensive weapon, but still, remember they're still a top 7 defense in the entire league. Just saying, we're hearing this Stockton love too much, when I'm not seeing anything to contradict him being a better player than even Jason Kidd at peak form, and rightfully given so, his impact goes down as his team success goes up, it's completely opposite for Kidd, and we're talking about a triple-double machine, we're talking about defensive impact, not just longitivtiy. You can even argue this past season a 38-yr old kid did some major key moments defensively against Bryant, James, & Wade.

[therealbig3]

I'm seeing tons of arguments for Payton, and similarly regarding defense, Stockton's been getting some kindly love too, but no mention of Kidd at the same time?

We're talking about a player that clearly had more a defensive impact than Stockton, and I'd go as far as saying maybe even on par with that of Gary Payton. Check out starting from his seasons with the Suns, their overall DRtg goes from elite to average when he's shipped to the Nets for Marbury, and with that stated so does their overall record.

Progress onwards, you've got the Nets with Marbury coming off as one of the worst teams in the league, their primary players were Keith Van Horn, Stephen Jackson, rookie season Kenyon Martin, Evan Eschmeyer, Kendall Gill, and Luscious Harris. They're unable to retain Jackson & Gill, draft a rookie Richard Jefferson, Kittles is back, & Kenyon Martin is just a sophomore. Yet the Nets defense with the key addition of Jason Kidd bursts from being one of the worst in DRtg to #1. They make it to the finals, there's 0 All-NBA Team caliber players, there's 0 All-Stars.

I've heard the arguments of "oh the East was at its weak point", but take a closer look at how they did against both conferences, the East was obviously a bit better (64% winning percentage) compared to the West (60% winning percentage), but still an argument to be known and given.

You look deeper at that team, they had 0 defensive anchors, it's hard to say that Todd MacCulloch or Keith Van Horn, or even a 2nd season Kenyon Martin had much of an impact to add significant leaps defensively. You go onto the following season, they sustain their level of play, they dominate the eastern conference playoffs, they are still elite defensively, Jason Collins is now handling big minutes as a C, yet they're still sustaining their elite level of defensive player.

And I'll go on further he's facilitating and running an offense in both the half & open court consistently distributing 9+ APG while still playing next to 0 All-NBA caliber teammates. Even in significant amount of games Kerry Kittles doesn't play in, the Nets are still very much so elite (75% winning percentage without him). Go onto the following season, similar team, you notice Kidd missing a few games, Nets go 6-9 without him, his impact is still very much so alive, you notice Jefferson & Martin making large strides offensively.

Continue onto the following season, you've got Jefferson out with a serious injury, Martin traded, Kittles traded, Mourning hurt, Kidd starting out hurt. It seemed like there was no chance in hell they'd even make it to playing .500 ball, but once he's back the offense is kicking like no other, the Nets won just 2 games without Jason. With him they're a flying 38-28 record, obviously Carter gave him a lethal offensive weapon, but still, remember they're still a top 7 defense in the entire league. Just saying, we're hearing this Stockton love too much, when I'm not seeing anything to contradict him being a better player than even Jason Kidd at peak form, and rightfully given so, his impact goes down as his team success goes up, it's completely opposite for Kidd, and we're talking about a triple-double machine, we're talking about defensive impact, not just longitivtiy. You can even argue this past season a 38-yr old kid did some major key moments defensively against Bryant, James, & Wade.

Great post, I'm a Nets fan and I love Kidd. I think his defensive impact is overlooked, because people say "Well, he was just a PG"...I think he probably had a defensive impact closer to a SF. Even so though, I don't think it makes up for his offensive deficiencies, which is why I have Payton and Stockton ahead of him. It's something to hold against him that he's never really led an elite offense...in fact, most of the time, his offenses were mediocre. Payton and Stockton have led top tier offenses, while Nash is on another level. I do have Kidd ahead of Isiah though...Isiah reminds me more of Billups than truly elite PGs like Kidd, Payton, and Stockton...I think his reputation is based off a lot of narrative.

EDIT: Your post has really got me thinking...Payton vs Kidd has always been a toss-up to me, while I always thought Stockton was clearly better, due to the superior numbers and the longevity. But from what I've learned from all the Stockton debates I've seen is that his stats were probably inflated due to high pace and a hugely assists friendly situation, and his overall offensive impact wasn't close to what the numbers suggest. When he took on a reduced role and his numbers became "normal", that's when the Jazz played their best.

Meanwhile, Kidd's overall impact has probably been pretty underrated...I think he's a little better offensively than people give him credit for, and I think he definitely has more of a defensive impact than people give him credit for.

I think considering everything, I'd rank my "2nd tier" PGs the following way:

1. Kidd
2. Payton
3. Stockton
4. Isiah

[Gongxi]

I'm seeing tons of arguments for Payton, and similarly regarding defense, Stockton's been getting some kindly love too, but no mention of Kidd at the same time?

We're talking about a player that clearly had more a defensive impact than Stockton, and I'd go as far as saying maybe even on par with that of Gary Payton. Check out starting from his seasons with the Suns, their overall DRtg goes from elite to average when he's shipped to the Nets for Marbury, and with that stated so does their overall record.

Progress onwards, you've got the Nets with Marbury coming off as one of the worst teams in the league, their primary players were Keith Van Horn, Stephen Jackson, rookie season Kenyon Martin, Evan Eschmeyer, Kendall Gill, and Luscious Harris. They're unable to retain Jackson & Gill, draft a rookie Richard Jefferson, Kittles is back, & Kenyon Martin is just a sophomore. Yet the Nets defense with the key addition of Jason Kidd bursts from being one of the worst in DRtg to #1. They make it to the finals, there's 0 All-NBA Team caliber players, there's 0 All-Stars.

I've heard the arguments of "oh the East was at its weak point", but take a closer look at how they did against both conferences, the East was obviously a bit better (64% winning percentage) compared to the West (60% winning percentage), but still an argument to be known and given.

You look deeper at that team, they had 0 defensive anchors, it's hard to say that Todd MacCulloch or Keith Van Horn, or even a 2nd season Kenyon Martin had much of an impact to add significant leaps defensively. You go onto the following season, they sustain their level of play, they dominate the eastern conference playoffs, they are still elite defensively, Jason Collins is now handling big minutes as a C, yet they're still sustaining their elite level of defensive player.

And I'll go on further he's facilitating and running an offense in both the half & open court consistently distributing 9+ APG while still playing next to 0 All-NBA caliber teammates. Even in significant amount of games Kerry Kittles doesn't play in, the Nets are still very much so elite (75% winning percentage without him). Go onto the following season, similar team, you notice Kidd missing a few games, Nets go 6-9 without him, his impact is still very much so alive, you notice Jefferson & Martin making large strides offensively.

Continue onto the following season, you've got Jefferson out with a serious injury, Martin traded, Kittles traded, Mourning hurt, Kidd starting out hurt. It seemed like there was no chance in hell they'd even make it to playing .500 ball, but once he's back the offense is kicking like no other, the Nets won just 2 games without Jason. With him they're a flying 38-28 record, obviously Carter gave him a lethal offensive weapon, but still, remember they're still a top 7 defense in the entire league. Just saying, we're hearing this Stockton love too much, when I'm not seeing anything to contradict him being a better player than even Jason Kidd at peak form, and rightfully given so, his impact goes down as his team success goes up, it's completely opposite for Kidd, and we're talking about a triple-double machine, we're talking about defensive impact, not just longitivtiy. You can even argue this past season a 38-yr old kid did some major key moments defensively against Bryant, James, & Wade.

Monster post. I've always been a Kidd fan, not gonna lie. I could easily see the argument for Kidd over Stockton and Payton.

[Doctor MJ]

-Artis Gilmore, I continue to be amazed by his supporters. I was looking forward to learning about Artis in the RPOY project, and came away fairly underwhelmed. It's not simply the team DRTg's that we don't expect from as an "anchor," or how blah much of his NBA career was. It's that in learning about the ABA, size was an issue, and so was talent before 74-76. When a rookie Artis wins MVP and then seems to have less regard as the league fills in around him, that's not really a good sign. I really don't get the love for him. As others have suggested, it's debatable he wasn't the best big on his team...

See, I look at Gilmore vs Pippen, and it just seems like Gilmore's "blah" still seems to stack up quite well.

Gilmore played in the NBA from age 27 to 38. Pippen also played until he was 38. If we compared what each did in the NBA in that age range, Gilmore scores more peak & and in total while being drastically more efficient in terms of TS%, and I believe beating Pippen out in PER & WS.

Gilmore's raw scoring numbers in his 2nd & 3rd years in the NBA were right up there with what he did in the ABA, his rebounding rate stayed about the same as he went to the NBA his assist rate went up.

Pippen obviously has the advantage as a playmaker, but do you really think he deserves an edge at defense?

I look at all of this, and it just doesn't seem very obvious that even Gilmore's mildly disappointing run in the NBA should be judged below Pippen.

Now there is one big thing about Gilmore: Mind-blowing BPG numbers early in his rookie ABA season, that had become merely quite good afterward, and then remained about the same in the NBA. What do we make of that? Were those numbers simply a product of a weak ABA?

Tough to know. Had his rebounding numbers shown a striking similar fall, I think it would make sense to argue that rookie Gilmore was just in a league with weak big men. However, quite literally he became better at rebounding by TRB% after his rookie season. Do we really think that players just weren't aware that players could block shots in the ABA until Gilmore's 2nd year?

I'm inclined to really believe that Gilmore's athleticism decayed early, which resulted in him going from being a truly all-time shot blocker to merely solid. However, he proved quite good at adding smart skills, which was why his rebounding maintained, and eventually his shooting efficiency became so obscenely good.

[Doctor MJ]

So anyway, Nomination: Artis Gilmore

I'm going to hold off on my vote - Barkley vs Robinson is tough for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Great post, I'm a Nets fan and I love Kidd. I think his defensive impact is overlooked, because people say "Well, he was just a PG"...I think he probably had a defensive impact closer to a SF.

Just because I see it as relevant, here's Engelmann's RAPM ratings on offense & defense for Kidd over the years:

Year Offense Defense
'01-02 +1.7 +1.0 (partial season)
'02-03 +2.4 +1.4
'03-04 +2.4 +2.1
'04-05 +3.1 +2.3
'05-06 +4.1 +1.1
'06-07 +2.4 +0.0
'07-08 +1.3 +1.5
'08-09 +1.9 +2.3
'09-10 +0.9 +2.7
'10-11 -0.1 +0.2

The specific scales of the numbers from year to year don't get too carried away with, but what does seem to be clear:

1) In Kidd's prime, his offense was clearly better than his defense
2) But his defense was always good
3) Late in his career, this seems to have switched - arguably due to offense falling off and defense staying similar

[Doctor MJ]

Great post, I'm a Nets fan and I love Kidd. I think his defensive impact is overlooked, because people say "Well, he was just a PG"...I think he probably had a defensive impact closer to a SF.

Just because I see it as relevant, here's Engelmann's RAPM ratings on offense & defense for Kidd over the years:

Year Offense Defense
'01-02 +1.7 +1.0 (partial season)
'02-03 +2.4 +1.4
'03-04 +2.4 +2.1
'04-05 +3.1 +2.3
'05-06 +4.1 +1.1
'06-07 +2.4 +0.0
'07-08 +1.3 +1.5
'08-09 +1.9 +2.3
'09-10 +0.9 +2.7
'10-11 -0.1 +0.2

The specific scales of the numbers from year to year don't get too carried away with, but what does seem to be clear:

1) In Kidd's prime, his offense was clearly better than his defense
2) But his defense was always good
3) Late in his career, this seems to have switched - arguably due to offense falling off and defense staying similar

[JordansBulls]

Wait, so now we say Kidd is better than Isiah and Stockton because he led teams to the finals, but we don't say the same for Drexler over Pippen?

[ElGee]

-Artis Gilmore, I continue to be amazed by his supporters. I was looking forward to learning about Artis in the RPOY project, and came away fairly underwhelmed. It's not simply the team DRTg's that we don't expect from as an "anchor," or how blah much of his NBA career was. It's that in learning about the ABA, size was an issue, and so was talent before 74-76. When a rookie Artis wins MVP and then seems to have less regard as the league fills in around him, that's not really a good sign. I really don't get the love for him. As others have suggested, it's debatable he wasn't the best big on his team...

See, I look at Gilmore vs Pippen, and it just seems like Gilmore's "blah" still seems to stack up quite well.

Gilmore played in the NBA from age 27 to 38. Pippen also played until he was 38. If we compared what each did in the NBA in that age range, Gilmore scores more peak & and in total while being drastically more efficient in terms of TS%, and I believe beating Pippen out in PER & WS.

Gilmore's raw scoring numbers in his 2nd & 3rd years in the NBA were right up there with what he did in the ABA, his rebounding rate stayed about the same as he went to the NBA his assist rate went up.

Pippen obviously has the advantage as a playmaker, but do you really think he deserves an edge at defense?

I look at all of this, and it just doesn't seem very obvious that even Gilmore's mildly disappointing run in the NBA should be judged below Pippen.

Now there is one big thing about Gilmore: Mind-blowing BPG numbers early in his rookie ABA season, that had become merely quite good afterward, and then remained about the same in the NBA. What do we make of that? Were those numbers simply a product of a weak ABA?

Tough to know. Had his rebounding numbers shown a striking similar fall, I think it would make sense to argue that rookie Gilmore was just in a league with weak big men. However, quite literally he became better at rebounding by TRB% after his rookie season. Do we really think that players just weren't aware that players could block shots in the ABA until Gilmore's 2nd year?

I'm inclined to really believe that Gilmore's athleticism decayed early, which resulted in him going from being a truly all-time shot blocker to merely solid. However, he proved quite good at adding smart skills, which was why his rebounding maintained, and eventually his shooting efficiency became so obscenely good.

Well, Gilmore finished 8th in MVP voting two times. Pippen was top-10 5 times, despite that old narrative problem of playing next to Michael Jordan. Not actually saying that proves anything, but just from a ballpark standpoint, you'd have to provide some really nice evidence that it was Gilmore who had the better peak (I don't think he did, personally, so I'd need swaying).

More to your points, he has a fairly negligible statistical change in 1978 in his first NBA year. You say his assists go up, but his TOV go way up. His blck% is pedestrian. HIs scoring rate is 20.8 pts/75, but of course that team's ORtg was near the bottom of the league, so it's not like his offense was able to give a nice boost to a really weak offensive team.

You may want to point to 1982. He's still rebounding well (above avg. for center) and drops the old 70% TS...but the ast are way down so I assume that's a selectivity issue in changing his role/shot selection with the ball. (Anyone here follow the 82 Bulls??) His scoring rate was 19.7 that year.

Pippen, OTOH, well I've outlined in detail what he can give you with defensive-oriented teammates on offense. I'll say this about them defensively -- I don't see any clear evidence that Artis Gilmore was clearly a better defender. Maybe in the ABA, in which case we'd have to buy that his athleticism eroded quickly, which is not a good argument for him ranking this high on a GOAT list.

Btw, Pippen's scoring rate in 1994 was 22.5/75 pos. And 21.9, 20.9 and 21.4 in the ensuing seasons. Artis was absolutely more efficient...but was it from Tyson Chandler shot selection, if you know what I mean? THere's a massive difference in offensive value between a point-creator and primary scorer/self-creator and someone only taken what they are given.

[ElGee]

Btw, more on Drexler v Pippen:

Clyde Drexler was never the rebounder Scottie Pippen was. Pip could crank his rebounding rate up into the 13s - and from a truly natural position of wing defender/pointish triangle role. That's sick. That provides huge team rebounding value. Drexler is a 10s guy...lagging well behind.

[ElGee]

Great post, I'm a Nets fan and I love Kidd. I think his defensive impact is overlooked, because people say "Well, he was just a PG"...I think he probably had a defensive impact closer to a SF.

Just because I see it as relevant, here's Engelmann's RAPM ratings on offense & defense for Kidd over the years:

Year Offense Defense
'01-02 +1.7 +1.0 (partial season)
'02-03 +2.4 +1.4
'03-04 +2.4 +2.1
'04-05 +3.1 +2.3
'05-06 +4.1 +1.1
'06-07 +2.4 +0.0
'07-08 +1.3 +1.5
'08-09 +1.9 +2.3
'09-10 +0.9 +2.7
'10-11 -0.1 +0.2

The specific scales of the numbers from year to year don't get too carried away with, but what does seem to be clear:

1) In Kidd's prime, his offense was clearly better than his defense
2) But his defense was always good
3) Late in his career, this seems to have switched - arguably due to offense falling off and defense staying similar

I love Kidd's defense, especially as his career unfolded. But his offensive impact is overrated. He very rarely played on good offensive teams for the prime of his career. His Nets turnaround was a defensive one, and people at the time were confused in narrative. ("In narrative" is now clearly a phrase.)

Hard for me to see Kidd in the ballpark of the guys were discussing right now like Pippen and Payton and Isiah.

[ronnymac2]

Why is Pippen better than Drexler? What exactly did Scottie do that Clyde didn't? Why is he the superior basketball player?

Comparable playmaker, better rebounder, better defender. Clyde has a clear edge as a scorer, but not by that much, really. I think offensively, Pippen is just a little bit behind him, while his defense more than makes up for it.

Why is Pippen better than Drexler? What exactly did Scottie do that Clyde didn't? Why is he the superior basketball player?

Exceptional defense.

The main argument appears to be defense then.

Well, I agree that Scottie holds a clear edge as a defensive player. He's my GOAT perimeter defender, while Clyde was just a very good piece.

But Drexler has a really nice edge as total offensive player. Just looking at their respective offensive games holistically, Drexler is superior- in a really important way.

Scottie never proved himself as an offensive Constant- an offensive Constant meaning a guy who can put up consistently great production throughout a regular season and playoff run (against playoff defenses), constantly effect defenses regardless of context (meaning any defense must submit to this player's pressure by doing things it may not want to do), and give his team something to go to the well with in a crucial second quarter situation with his team on the bottom end of an 8-0 run. Just give me two points and we'll figure it out from there.

Scottie never proved he could do this like Clyde did. Scottie had a top-3 GOAT offensive player and arguably greatest volume scorer in history taking pressure off of him and he still saw his fair share of playoff runs and series where his production and efficiency were unimpressive.

The only meaningful time he didn't have Jordan was in 1994. Now I'll admit that he had his hardest time this season against a truly dominant defense in NY, so it's understandable, but still...he clearly wasn't an offensive Constant here.

Meanwhile, we have Clyde Drexler, who was the first option for many years on Portland. This guy was one of the most athletic guards in history with a raw yet effective post game, excellent driving game, good jumper with decent 3-point range, and a creative passer/playmaker who was unselfish and allowed other peripheral players to rack up volume statistics as well. Check out Terry Porter's assists averages.

Admittedly, Drexler wasn't always the peak Drexler I'll talk about. That doesn't change the fact that he at times reached offensive levels Scottie never got to.

Scottie never was able to average the peak scoring numbers of Drexler (and still rarely was as efficient as Drexler!), Jordan or no Jordan.

If you guys truly think Scottie is better than Drexler, then why don't you think Sidney Moncrief is better than Dwyane Wade? Moncrief has a defense and rebounding edge, and I believe he also has an efficiency edge (probably better than all four player as he shot 60 true shooting at times) while providing comparable playmaking. The difference between his peak scoring averages and Wade's is similar to the difference between Drexler and Pip.

In the NBA Finals against the Bad Boy Pistons- the team that boasted Dennis Rodman and Joe Dumars on the wing and at times gave peak MJ a hard time- Drexler dropped 26 points and 6 assists per game while shooting 54 percent from the field and getting to the line 7 times per game. Pretty damn good as a first option.

And I honestly don't see how Pippen is that much better at being a second option type of player either. Scottie is one of my favorite player to watch because he's on the short list of best all-around player ever, but Drexler is right behind him. Drexler was unselfish (admittedly almost to a fault), was a monster rebounding wing, was a good defensive piece, improved his jumper over the course of his career, could play on or off the ball, and could handle the rock.

When Clyde became a second option offensive player to a high-volume shooting superstar (Olajuwon shot the ball a lot in the 1995 playoffs), they found success. They fit.

Drexler has a clear edge as a first-option offensive player, and he's above average defensively. I'm not saying he's Wade or Kobe, but he could carry a successful offense and successful team. Hell, he was even a piece on some excellent defensive teams, too. It isn't as simple as saying Scottie's defense is just a tad below Drexler's offense, but Scottie's offense is more valuable than Drexler's defense. Or that since their offense is comparable, Scottie's D advantage gives him the edge (mainly because Drex has a clear edge on offense). Concentrations in important areas such as total offensive impact matter when we're comparing top-level superstars like this. Scottie isn't the defensive dominator or big-game player that Bill Russell was, so the fact that his offense isn't up to par with the competition shouldn't be glossed over.