RealGM Top 100 List #20

[Laimbeer]

Hard to understand the claim Frazier is a serious contender, but Isiah isn't. Consensus all-time list ranks Isiah higher.

The claim the Pistons were stacked is dubious. Dumars, Laimbeer, and baby Rodman don't compare to Frazier's teammates, who included four HOFers IIRC. I also opened up the question of Isiah's support versus Bird, Magic, and Jordan, and the consensus seemed to be he had the least support.

Competition, Isiah encountered and had a winning playoff record against Bird's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, and Showtime. Frazier faced a stacked Laker's team, but we all know any series involving Wilt was pretty much an exercise of waiting for his ultimate failure. The guy found a way to lose.

The Billups comparison is unfair to either player, they're both markedly superior. But Frazier's style of play - big defensive point that makes entry and hockey type passes - is more similar. Isiah was GOAT or near GOAT at getting to the hole. The Piston offensive talent was pretty average offensively without him. He was more of a true point offensively. And contrary to popular belief, very good defensively.

[Laimbeer]

Drexler is more of a rich man's Worthy than a poor man's Jordan.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote: DRob

Nomination: Stockton

Not really feeling the Pippen love. There have been some great arguments on his behalf, but I think his talents are winning out over his actual play. I don't view him as having a PG effect(and using an argument from earlier, how many great offenses did he lead?), he was more the Odom of the 90's Bulls. And defensively, people have been arguing bigman defense over perimeter defense endlessly, so how did Pippen have the same impact? His team's defensive ratings are nothing special, even though he played next to guys like MJ & Rodman. And that seems to be a big part of how people evaluate whether his play "translates on court". There is definitively a KG-like effect where his impact on D isn't supported by team ratings. And if that hurts guys like Isiah, Stock, and Barkley, then why not him? Nevermind Pippen's lack of leadership ability which hurt other guys too. I'm not even talking about just the infamous 94' playoff game. Pippen would turn Casper plenty of times during those Bull title runs in the playoffs. In the 00' game 7 debacle, where was Pippen? He had 12 points on 3-10 FG, which is typical of how Pippen was in big gmaes throughout his career.

[Baller 24]

Vote: Wade

Nominate: Scottie Pippen


Yeah, the job of the PG is to facilitate the best offense as possible, sure. But are we going to just "blow-off" the impact Jason Kidd provides? I mean the main goal of a team in basketball is the WIN as many games as possible in the R/S, correct? Kidd's impact ALONE provided that, and it even continued on even AFTER the departure of the core of that team. While continuing to be a top 7 defense.

[Doctor MJ]

Hard to understand the claim Frazier is a serious contender, but Isiah isn't. Consensus all-time list ranks Isiah higher.

The claim the Pistons were stacked is dubious. Dumars, Laimbeer, and baby Rodman don't compare to Frazier's teammates, who included four HOFers IIRC. I also opened up the question of Isiah's support versus Bird, Magic, and Jordan, and the consensus seemed to be he had the least support.

Competition, Isiah encountered and had a winning playoff record against Bird's Celtics, Jordan's Bulls, and Showtime. Frazier faced a stacked Laker's team, but we all know any series involving Wilt was pretty much an exercise of waiting for his ultimate failure. The guy found a way to lose.

The Billups comparison is unfair to either player, they're both markedly superior. But Frazier's style of play - big defensive point that makes entry and hockey type passes - is more similar. Isiah was GOAT or near GOAT at getting to the hole. The Piston offensive talent was pretty average offensively without him. He was more of a true point offensively. And contrary to popular belief, very good defensively.

I don't have a problem with someone saying they are in the same tier, but to me Frazier is the clear choice between the two.

Frazier scored more, and more efficiently, rebounded better, was a drastically better defender, and played in an offense that really didn't let you rack up big assists yet developed a reputation as a top tier playmaker (not that that last gives him an edge over Isiah).

Frazier has better All-NBA accolades than Isiah, and this is despite the fact that after the RPOY I'm firmly on the side that says that contemporaries underrated Frazier due to overrating Reed.

Re: "Pistons stacked dubious". Well, obviously you know the Pistons won due to defense primarily. Having just gone through all playoff years with data (through mid-70s), I can tell you that the Bad Boy Pistons are the only team in that history that 4-peated as the best defensive team of the playoffs. I was kind of amazed to be honest - I didn't realize they were THAT dominant.

So we're talking about a team that's arguably the best defense in modern history, and Isiah is not even close to being the best defensive player on that team. I don't understand how that doesn't scream STACKED to you. Suffice to say that telling an offensive player that his teammates will create a historically great defense that will let the team win titles with good but not great offense and star but not superstar production from him is the ultimate fantasy for any such player.

Re: "Bird's Celtics...". Yeah, we've been here before. The Pistons snuck in as the Celtics & Lakers faded and the Bulls rose. When team arcs are so obviously skewed, it doesn't make sense to use head-to-head records.

[colts18]

One more thing about Barkley - I think he shouldn't be chosen over Nash.
Yeah, I said that ;]

Here's my reasoning. Both are valuable only on one end of floor and while Barkley was great offensive player, Nash simply is even greater (going by numbers, Barkley was around 5 most of his career and 7-8 at his peak, Nash +10). And when Nash's defensive flaws didn't affected overall team defense by much, Barkley was "big" man and defensive impact of PFs and Cs is very important. That's why Barkley's flaws on defensive end were much more significant and Barkley hurt team defense more than Nash.

Barkley made a bigger defensive impact simply on the basis of him being a top 4 rebounder of all-time. Nash never did that with rebounds, steals, or blocks.

[lorak]

Not really feeling the Pippen love. There have been some great arguments on his behalf, but I think his talents are winning out over his actual play. I don't view him as having a PG effect(and using an argument from earlier, how many great offenses did he lead?),

Enough
Looking at ortg relatively to league average he lead four of top 20 offenses of all time (since 1974)
number 3rd, 7th, 12th and 18th.

His team's defensive ratings are nothing special,

Huh?!
Not as good as offenses, but 1996 Bulls are no 22nd among all time best defenses. 1998 a little bit lower, but still great. Bulls 1997 also had near great defense. And Bulls 1992, 1994 and 1995 had very good defense.

[lorak]

One more thing about Barkley - I think he shouldn't be chosen over Nash.
Yeah, I said that ;]

Here's my reasoning. Both are valuable only on one end of floor and while Barkley was great offensive player, Nash simply is even greater (going by numbers, Barkley was around 5 most of his career and 7-8 at his peak, Nash +10). And when Nash's defensive flaws didn't affected overall team defense by much, Barkley was "big" man and defensive impact of PFs and Cs is very important. That's why Barkley's flaws on defensive end were much more significant and Barkley hurt team defense more than Nash.

Barkley made a bigger defensive impact simply on the basis of him being a top 4 rebounder of all-time. Nash never did that with rebounds, steals, or blocks.

That's not so simple. From PF position much more contribution to defense is needed. And that's why even if Barkley was individually better defender than Nash, his (Barkley's) overall value on defensive end was lower, he hurt his teams on defensive end much more than Nash.

[Dr Positivity]

The difference between Nash and Barkley for me is the longevity at a superstar level

[ronnymac2]

I still think Pippen's total offense is getting overrated.

Drexler was not a rich man's Worthy. Clyde was the best player on very good teams and created far more opportunities for the offense than Worthy ever did. Their style of play isn't even similar except for being freak athletes.

There have been some excellent posts on Paul Pierce. If Pierce is a viable candidate, what about T-Mac (just for an in-era comparison)?

[colts18]

My problem with Pierce is that he has an overrated clutch rep. If you look at him in the clutch, he is very disappointing.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Not really feeling the Pippen love. There have been some great arguments on his behalf, but I think his talents are winning out over his actual play. I don't view him as having a PG effect(and using an argument from earlier, how many great offenses did he lead?),

Enough
Looking at ortg relatively to league average he lead four of top 20 offenses of all time (since 1974)
number 3rd, 7th, 12th and 18th.

Not when the teams were Pippen centric. It's fairly clear that MJ, not Pippen was the driving force for those offense.

1993 - 112.9 ORtg (#2) with MJ
1994 - 106.1 ORtg (#14) no MJ
1995 - 109.5 ORtg (#10) only 17 g with MJ
1996 - 115.2 ORtg (#1) with MJ
^
So Chicago's offense was SIGNIFICANTLY worse without MJ, and it's fairly clear that he was the one respnsible for those ORtgs, not Pippen. I don't rememebr any great offense Pippen led post-MJ.

If team ratings is so important, then clearly Pippen wasn't any kind of special facilitator.

Huh?!
Not as good as offenses, but 1996 Bulls are no 22nd among all time best defenses. 1998 a little bit lower, but still great. Bulls 1997 also had near great defense. And Bulls 1992, 1994 and 1995 had very good defense.

You mean the 1996 Bulls that added Rodman.....

What great defense did Pippen anchor post 98'? Again, if we're going to use team ratings to show on court impact, Pippen falls short. And it has been argued by many that perimeter defense isn't even that impactful.

Drexler actually led teams, while Pippen was clearly in the secondary role.

[Sedale Threatt]

Barkley, Pippen.

[Fencer reregistered]

Obviously, from 2008-11 Pierce is playing with a pretty good set of teammates -- but before that he isn't, and indeed is playing against defenses utterly stacked to stop him, sometimes driving into 3 or 4 defenders because the Celtics didn't have any other obvious way to score.

For comparison's sake, here's Pierce's and Drexler's efficiency compared to league average (TS%):

Pierce
01: +4.5
02: +5.0
03: +1.3
04: +0.1
05: +5.4
06: +4.7
07: +3.0
08: +5.9
09: +3.8
10: +7.0
11: +7.9

He's averaged 21.9 ppg over this stretch (878 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.2%. Pierce's TS% over this time was 57.1%, or +3.9.

Drexler
87: +1.4
88: +2.6
89: +1.8
90: +1.4
91: +2.9
92: +2.9
93: -1.9
94: -1.4
95: +3.4
96: +0.9
97: +1.2
98: +0.7

He averaged 22.1 ppg over this stretch (849 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.5%. Drexler's TS% over this time was 55.1%, or +1.6.

So Pierce scored on pretty much identical volume, with a good advantage in terms of efficiency, while being a comparable rebounder and was more durable.

Lol, I'm kind of ranting about a comparison that isn't even relevant yet, but for the people voting for Drexler, or one of the PGs that have been discussed...why not Pierce?

EDIT: I know that it seems a little weird that I'm using their numbers during years where they're no longer in their prime...but Pierce's highest efficiency seasons have been in the last two years, and he's still an 18-19 ppg scorer, so it seemed to be unfair to exclude those. Similarly, Drexler in 96 and 97 had pretty efficient scoring seasons and was still dropping 18+ ppg. It wasn't until 98 when his efficiency fell, but if we exclude that, and include 86, which some people might feel was his prime...you get identical results.

If we simply exclude Drexler's 98 season altogether (in which he's still dropping 18 ppg, mind you), it just makes Pierce's durability advantage even clearer...he would have played in significantly more games through the same amount of seasons...and Drexler's overall numbers probably don't change much at all.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm in on top 50 for Pierce, he had very underrated statistical run (4 and a half 25ppg+ with rebounds and assists seasons, 8 10 WS+ years and is top 40 overall in WS) and has been marvellous post KG. I think his lack of MVP and All-NBA love comes down to the SG boom in his generation. If Pierce was drafted in 2007 and had to compete with Ellis and Gordon for the best young SG in the league, he'd likely have more hype than he did sitting behind Kobe, Iverson, Vince, Tmac, etc. I think part of the value of a project like this is to notice what the people on the last page just did, that it looks like Drexler and Pierce should be grouped together. I'm not voting for Drexler yet either, though

[Laimbeer]

Does someone have a vote count?

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Charles Barkley

Nominate: Clyde Drexler

This isn't a guarantee that I'll be voting Drexler in before people who haven't been nominated yet.

[JordansBulls]

Drexler is more of a rich man's Worthy than a poor man's Jordan.

If Drexler is a rich man's Worthy than Scottie is a rich man's Antoine Walker

[lorak]

Not really feeling the Pippen love. There have been some great arguments on his behalf, but I think his talents are winning out over his actual play. I don't view him as having a PG effect(and using an argument from earlier, how many great offenses did he lead?),

Enough
Looking at ortg relatively to league average he lead four of top 20 offenses of all time (since 1974)
number 3rd, 7th, 12th and 18th.

Not when the teams were Pippen centric. It's fairly clear that MJ, not Pippen was the driving force for those offense.

1993 - 112.9 ORtg (#2) with MJ
1994 - 106.1 ORtg (#14) no MJ
1995 - 109.5 ORtg (#10) only 17 g with MJ
1996 - 115.2 ORtg (#1) with MJ
^
So Chicago's offense was SIGNIFICANTLY worse without MJ, and it's fairly clear that he was the one respnsible for those ORtgs, not Pippen.

Not really. And we could easily check that, because Pippen missed many games in 1998. He improved Bulls offense by 7.4 that year.
Also keep in mind that until Pippen became a starter in '90 season Bulls with Jordan had year after year offense barely above average.

BTW, do you know which Rockets team during Hakeem's prime had the best offense? That one with Pippen in 1999...
When he joined Blazers he also improved their offense.

What great defense did Pippen anchor post 98'?

None.
However 2000 Blazers were very good on defense.

[lorak]

Does someone have a vote count?

It's between Barkley and Robinson, very, very close... 11 to 10, but I'll not say who is leading right now