RealGM Top 100 List #21

[shawngoat23]

I really can't grasp how people can seriously vote here for Dwayne Wade or Walt Frazier over Steve Nash. These guys have nothing on Nash except one or 2 championships which also comes down to competition, teammates and some luck. Their playing primes were not as good as Nashs run of 2 MVPs almost 3, probably should have been 3.

Were you the one who said you'd take Steve Nash over Magic Johnson?

[Gongxi]

I really can't grasp how people can seriously vote here for Dwayne Wade or Walt Frazier over Steve Nash. These guys have nothing on Nash except one or 2 championships which also comes down to competition, teammates and some luck. Their playing primes were not as good as Nashs run of 2 MVPs almost 3, probably should have been 3.

I notice you can't believe virtually anything anyone believes about Nash.

Still Robinson, still Gilmore.

[Gongxi]

I really can't grasp how people can seriously vote here for Dwayne Wade or Walt Frazier over Steve Nash. These guys have nothing on Nash except one or 2 championships which also comes down to competition, teammates and some luck. Their playing primes were not as good as Nashs run of 2 MVPs almost 3, probably should have been 3.

Were you the one who said you'd take Steve Nash over Magic Johnson?

Yes, that was him. He also if people take Magic over Nash, it's basically because Nash is white.

[penbeast0]

I really can't grasp how people can seriously vote here for Dwayne Wade or Walt Frazier over Steve Nash. These guys have nothing on Nash except one or 2 championships which also comes down to competition, teammates and some luck. Their playing primes were not as good as Nashs run of 2 MVPs almost 3, probably should have been 3.

I don't see how anyone can vote for Steve Nash over Walt Frazier. This guy has nothing on Frazier except one or 2 MVPs which comes down to a narrative, team improvement, and some luck. His playing prime was not as good as Frazier's run taking two teams to a title, probably should have had 2 Finals MVPS.

To say nothing of defense which JJ carefully ignores.

[koogiking]

Vote: Walt Frazier
Nominate: Willis Reed

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote: DRob

Nomination: Stockton

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote: Walt Frazier
Nominate: Willis Reed

This is an interesting dynamic. Willis Reed peaked higher than Frazier and was the guy who won a MVP on those Knick teams, and the Finals MVP during the 2 title runs. I'm still not sold on Mr. Grey being this high. For much of that run, he(Reed) was NY's best player, and DeBusschere their best defender.

EDIT - Cleaned up some grammar errors.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Walt Frazier
Nominate: Willis Reed

This is an interesting dynamic. Willis Reed peaked higher than Frazier and was the guy who won a MVP on those Knick teams, and the Finals MVP during the 2 title runs. I'm still not sold on Mr. Grey being this high. For much of that run, he was MY's best player, and DeBusschere their best defender.

Well, that kind of skips over the whole debate.

I'd say the belief of most of us who clearly have Frazier ahead of Reed is that Frazier's peak was at least comparable to Reed's. Any look at the advanced stats bears that thought out, and Frazier had the better rep on defense, and superior health.

Obviously the hang up is that Reed got much more MVP consideration and the 2 Finals MVPs. I'm someone who takes contemporary opinions seriously, and doesn't deviate from them without reason. However, I believe there is good reason to deviate here. With accolades like these, there is a tendency to single a particular teammate out and judge other players based on that assumption. Reed was older than Frazier and became a star first, he also played center, which was the position that had completely dominated basketball up to that point. TrueLAfan and others also believe that there was a bias in this era against flashy black players like Frazier.

To me the first thing you anyone needs to look at when talking about whether Frazier got screwed out of any accolades is the '70 Finals MVP. There's literally no reasonable argument for Reed winning that award. He basically didn't play in games 5 or 6 (and they won game 5), and anyone saying Reed was the MVP of game 7 is crazy (Reed went for 4/3/1 in 27 minutes, Frazier went for 36/19/7 in 44 minutes in a game really clinched by NY's offense). This gives us clear cut proof that people had a tendency to romanticize Reed's impact.

Of course, that doesn't mean the other accolades were crazy. Everyone should look at that for themselves. In my opinion Frazier should have had both Finals MVPs, and neither of them should have won the '70 regular season MVP.

[andrewww]

Vote: Walt Frazier
Nominate: Willis Reed

This is an interesting dynamic. Willis Reed peaked higher than Frazier and was the guy who won a MVP on those Knick teams, and the Finals MVP during the 2 title runs. I'm still not sold on Mr. Grey being this high. For much of that run, he was MY's best player, and DeBusschere their best defender.

Well, that kind of skips over the whole debate.

I'd say the belief of most of us who clearly have Frazier ahead of Reed is that Frazier's peak was at least comparable to Reed's. Any look at the advanced stats bears that thought out, and Frazier had the better rep on defense, and superior health.

Obviously the hang up is that Reed got much more MVP consideration and the 2 Finals MVPs. I'm someone who takes contemporary opinions seriously, and doesn't deviate from them without reason. However, I believe there is good reason to deviate here. With accolades like these, there is a tendency to single a particular teammate out and judge other players based on that assumption. Reed was older than Frazier and became a star first, he also played center, which was the position that had completely dominated basketball up to that point. TrueLAfan and others also believe that there was a bias in this era against flashy black players like Frazier.

To me the first thing you anyone needs to look at when talking about whether Frazier got screwed out of any accolades is the '70 Finals MVP. There's literally no reasonable argument for Reed winning that award. He basically didn't play in games 5 or 6 (and they won game 5), and anyone saying Reed was the MVP of game 7 is crazy (Reed went for 4/3/1 in 27 minutes, Frazier went for 36/19/7 in 44 minutes in a game really clinched by NY's offense). This gives us clear cut proof that people had a tendency to romanticize Reed's impact.

Of course, that doesn't mean the other accolades were crazy. Everyone should look at that for themselves. In my opinion Frazier should have had both Finals MVPs, and neither of them should have won the '70 regular season MVP.

good points i must say, frazier getting screwed out of the 70 finals MVP was somewhat similar to kareem getting screwed for the 80 finals MVP because of magic's series clinching 42/15/7 for the injured kareem while starting at center.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Vote: Walt Frazier
Nominate: Willis Reed

This is an interesting dynamic. Willis Reed peaked higher than Frazier and was the guy who won a MVP on those Knick teams, and the Finals MVP during the 2 title runs. I'm still not sold on Mr. Grey being this high. For much of that run, he was MY's best player, and DeBusschere their best defender.

Well, that kind of skips over the whole debate.

I'd say the belief of most of us who clearly have Frazier ahead of Reed is that Frazier's peak was at least comparable to Reed's. Any look at the advanced stats bears that thought out, and Frazier had the better rep on defense, and superior health.

Obviously the hang up is that Reed got much more MVP consideration and the 2 Finals MVPs. I'm someone who takes contemporary opinions seriously, and doesn't deviate from them without reason. However, I believe there is good reason to deviate here. With accolades like these, there is a tendency to single a particular teammate out and judge other players based on that assumption. Reed was older than Frazier and became a star first, he also played center, which was the position that had completely dominated basketball up to that point. TrueLAfan and others also believe that there was a bias in this era against flashy black players like Frazier.

To me the first thing you anyone needs to look at when talking about whether Frazier got screwed out of any accolades is the '70 Finals MVP. There's literally no reasonable argument for Reed winning that award. He basically didn't play in games 5 or 6 (and they won game 5), and anyone saying Reed was the MVP of game 7 is crazy (Reed went for 4/3/1 in 27 minutes, Frazier went for 36/19/7 in 44 minutes in a game really clinched by NY's offense). This gives us clear cut proof that people had a tendency to romanticize Reed's impact.

Of course, that doesn't mean the other accolades were crazy. Everyone should look at that for themselves. In my opinion Frazier should have had both Finals MVPs, and neither of them should have won the '70 regular season MVP.

Those are some solid points. Honestly, I'm not overly impressed by either player. Reed was an inefficient bigman, who was nothing special on defense. Walt wasn't a great playmaker, even outside of the NY system. And his defense is a tad overrated when you consider how NY's DRtg dropped dramatically once DeBusschere retired. Those Knick teams remind me of the Mid-00's Piston teams.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Walt Frazier
Nominate: Willis Reed

This is an interesting dynamic. Willis Reed peaked higher than Frazier and was the guy who won a MVP on those Knick teams, and the Finals MVP during the 2 title runs. I'm still not sold on Mr. Grey being this high. For much of that run, he was MY's best player, and DeBusschere their best defender.

Well, that kind of skips over the whole debate.

I'd say the belief of most of us who clearly have Frazier ahead of Reed is that Frazier's peak was at least comparable to Reed's. Any look at the advanced stats bears that thought out, and Frazier had the better rep on defense, and superior health.

Obviously the hang up is that Reed got much more MVP consideration and the 2 Finals MVPs. I'm someone who takes contemporary opinions seriously, and doesn't deviate from them without reason. However, I believe there is good reason to deviate here. With accolades like these, there is a tendency to single a particular teammate out and judge other players based on that assumption. Reed was older than Frazier and became a star first, he also played center, which was the position that had completely dominated basketball up to that point. TrueLAfan and others also believe that there was a bias in this era against flashy black players like Frazier.

To me the first thing you anyone needs to look at when talking about whether Frazier got screwed out of any accolades is the '70 Finals MVP. There's literally no reasonable argument for Reed winning that award. He basically didn't play in games 5 or 6 (and they won game 5), and anyone saying Reed was the MVP of game 7 is crazy (Reed went for 4/3/1 in 27 minutes, Frazier went for 36/19/7 in 44 minutes in a game really clinched by NY's offense). This gives us clear cut proof that people had a tendency to romanticize Reed's impact.

Of course, that doesn't mean the other accolades were crazy. Everyone should look at that for themselves. In my opinion Frazier should have had both Finals MVPs, and neither of them should have won the '70 regular season MVP.

Doc,

Willis Reed averaged 23/11/3 in that finals and only missed one game.
Frazier averaged 18/8/10 in that finals

[Doctor MJ]

good points i must say, frazier getting screwed out of the 70 finals MVP was somewhat similar to kareem getting screwed for the 80 finals MVP because of magic's series clinching 42/15/7 for the injured kareem while starting at center.

Actually, while you're far from alone in saying that, I see Frazier & Magic being analogous in roles. Both were in the shadows of a big man. Both big men missed time in the series. Both guards played a series clinching game that was more impressive than any game the big men had played in the series.

I've always been ambivalent about the '80 Finals MVP as a result. Kareem was a hell of a lot better than Reed and missed less time, so he has a much better case, however being the #2 guy on the team through through 5 games, and then taking the #1 guys role and doing it better than him as he sits at home is impressive as hell. Kareem deserved regular season MVP and overall POY, but in the Finals, I'd like to give a co-MVP.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc,

Willis Reed averaged 23/11/3 in that finals and only missed one game.
Frazier averaged 18/8/10 in that finals

You say that like that's an argument for Reed. I consider 18/8/10 to be the more impressive set of numbers, and then when you add in Frazier's drastic efficiency advantage and far greater defensive impact (which becomes indisputable given Frazier playing 302 minutes vs Reed's 226, and when you watch what the Knicks' D did to the Lakers in Game 5 after Reed went down).

[JordansBulls]

Doc,

Willis Reed averaged 23/11/3 in that finals and only missed one game.
Frazier averaged 18/8/10 in that finals

You say that like that's an argument for Reed. I consider 18/8/10 to be the more impressive set of numbers, and then when you add in Frazier's drastic efficiency advantage and far greater defensive impact (which becomes indisputable given Frazier playing 302 minutes vs Reed's 226, and when you watch what the Knicks' D did to the Lakers in Game 5 after Reed went down).

The game Reed missed, Wilt went off. He held Wilt in check when he played.

[colts18]

I really can't grasp how people can seriously vote here for Dwayne Wade or Walt Frazier over Steve Nash. These guys have nothing on Nash except one or 2 championships which also comes down to competition, teammates and some luck. Their playing primes were not as good as Nashs run of 2 MVPs almost 3, probably should have been 3.

Wade's prime started in 2005, the same year Nash's prime started. They have basically the same longevity in prime, with Nash having a slight longevity edge, but Wade was better in his prime and peak. Plus he carried his team to a title in 2006 against a team that Nash couldn't beat.

[ThaRegul8r]

This is an interesting dynamic. Willis Reed peaked higher than Frazier and was the guy who won a MVP on those Knick teams, and the Finals MVP during the 2 title runs. I'm still not sold on Mr. Grey being this high. For much of that run, he was MY's best player, and DeBusschere their best defender.

Well, that kind of skips over the whole debate.

I'd say the belief of most of us who clearly have Frazier ahead of Reed is that Frazier's peak was at least comparable to Reed's. Any look at the advanced stats bears that thought out, and Frazier had the better rep on defense, and superior health.

Obviously the hang up is that Reed got much more MVP consideration and the 2 Finals MVPs. I'm someone who takes contemporary opinions seriously, and doesn't deviate from them without reason. However, I believe there is good reason to deviate here. With accolades like these, there is a tendency to single a particular teammate out and judge other players based on that assumption. Reed was older than Frazier and became a star first, he also played center, which was the position that had completely dominated basketball up to that point. TrueLAfan and others also believe that there was a bias in this era against flashy black players like Frazier.

To me the first thing you anyone needs to look at when talking about whether Frazier got screwed out of any accolades is the '70 Finals MVP. There's literally no reasonable argument for Reed winning that award. He basically didn't play in games 5 or 6 (and they won game 5), and anyone saying Reed was the MVP of game 7 is crazy (Reed went for 4/3/1 in 27 minutes, Frazier went for 36/19/7 in 44 minutes in a game really clinched by NY's offense). This gives us clear cut proof that people had a tendency to romanticize Reed's impact.

Of course, that doesn't mean the other accolades were crazy. Everyone should look at that for themselves. In my opinion Frazier should have had both Finals MVPs, and neither of them should have won the '70 regular season MVP.

Doc,

Willis Reed averaged 23/11/3 in that finals and only missed one game.

That's ridiculous. Reed played eight minutes in Game 5. Frazier played 46, and had a team-high 21 points (one behind Wilt for the game high) on 68.5 percent true shooting, seven rebounds—tied with Bill Bradley, one behind Cazzie Russell for the team high—and a game-high 12 assists, and averaged 23.7 points on 62.8 percent shooting from the floor, 89.5 percent shooting from the line and 69.1 percent true shooting, 6.7 rebounds and 12.7 assists in 44.3 minutes per game in the three games after Reed went down, including the legendary Game 7. Frazier's the 1970 Finals MVP to anyone who takes more than a cursory glance at it. Reed contributed absolutely nothing—zero—in Games 5, 6, and 7. He was a non-factor performance wise for the last three pivotal games of the series (the series was tied after four and the result still up in the air before Reed's injury), yet somehow he's supposed to be MVP.

EDIT: Frazier - 54.1% FG, 75.6% FT, 59.7% TS
Reed - 48.4% FG, 58.8% FT, 50.4% TS

[Doctor MJ]

Doc,

Willis Reed averaged 23/11/3 in that finals and only missed one game.
Frazier averaged 18/8/10 in that finals

You say that like that's an argument for Reed. I consider 18/8/10 to be the more impressive set of numbers, and then when you add in Frazier's drastic efficiency advantage and far greater defensive impact (which becomes indisputable given Frazier playing 302 minutes vs Reed's 226, and when you watch what the Knicks' D did to the Lakers in Game 5 after Reed went down).

The game Reed missed, Wilt went off. He held Wilt in check when he played.

Reed only played about 8 minutes in Game 5. Wilt didn't go off. Also, the dominant factor of Game 7 was actually the Knicks amazing offense. They were just plain hot.

Reed did good work against Wilt, but it's wrong to buy into the narrative that Wilt was some unstoppable force that Reed shut down. Wilt was not the primary scorer for the Lakers generally, because they like the 76ers had come to realize that it wasn't healthy to have his scoring be a big part of your arsenal. With Reed going down, the Lakers changed strategies to try to take advantage of a mismatch, and in a classic erratice Wilt narrative, he had 1 really great game in 3 leaving everyone wondering what the hell happened in the other 2 games.

[rocopc]

I dont understand why so many votes for Payton and Kidd and no one for Cousy ....

[Doctor MJ]

I dont understand why so many votes for Payton and Kidd and no one for Cousy ....

Cousy was severely overrated in his own time. He was a horrendously inefficient point guard who had a tendency to shoot too much who got deified because he was on the greatest dynasty in history. However, their offense (Cousy's department) sucked, and when he retired, the team didn't get any worse.

[ThaRegul8r]

I dont understand why so many votes for Payton and Kidd and no one for Cousy ....

Cousy was severely overrated in his own time. He was a horrendously inefficient point guard who had a tendency to shoot too much who got deified because he was on the greatest dynasty in history. However, their offense (Cousy's department) sucked, and when he retired, the team didn't get any worse.

You know, since Russell doesn't fit the modern narrative for greatness, people have to find a way to explain the titles, and thus it's said that he was the beneficiary of a "stacked team," and that he gets too much credit. Yet every single person associated with the team gives him the credit, and I've always said that if it were indeed true that Russell got too much credit, someone would speak out and say, "Hey, wait a minute! You know, Russell's getting too much credit here. We had a little something to do with this, too!"

Yet this is exactly what happened when Cousy retired. If one looks at the '63-64 season, their first without Cousy (unfortunately I wasn't able to post in-depth about it during the RPoY Project), when people kept asking them how they'd do now that Cousy wasn't there anymore, it irritated them that people seemed to think that with Cousy gone they'd now be ripe to be overtaken, as people predicted Cincinnati would do. Tom Heinsohn, for one, said that while Cousy deserved the credit he got as a player, "he contributed, but so did all the rest of us." The feeling was that Cousy was getting so much attention that the rest of the team was overshadowed, and that was actually the impetus for the Celtics' franchise-record 20-3 start that year. You had Celtics saying they were actually a better team without Cousy because they were now playing better defense, and of course, Cousy wasn't a very good defender.

I just find it interesting, how I've always said that if Russell indeed got too much credit, as some of these people who were born decades after the fact assert, then the players themselves would have said so. None have. They continue to give him the credit. Yet these same players did speak up and say that Cousy was getting too much credit, and they went out and had a better record without him than they did with him the previous year, and won another title.

And that proves my point perfectly. These are professional athletes with the pride and ego that goes along with it. If someone's getting too much credit for their success as a team, they'll say so.