Read GM Top 100 List #25

[ElGee]

^^^How highly should we regard 70-72 Barry and why? And you overlooked that his 1973 season was seriously lacking compared to the his following peak years. He basically wasn't on the MVP radar and then...what happened in the PS?

[ronnymac2]

Fencer Reregistered- Sorry for not responding to the McHale post from the last thread. Good video.

The thing is, it showed one very nice pass, and then some great scoring. I've never disputed that McHale was a great post scorer though.

Great passing is a prerequisite for being a great offensive anchor, because it allows you to directly help your teammates out. I'm not even talking about passing that directly leads to an assist, because hockey assists are just as valuable. But I haven't seen McHale display the willingness, creativity, or recognition of different defenses that I've seen other low-post scoring monsters show, the nice pass in the video notwithstanding.

I really value passing; it's the most important thing in basketball, and if you aren't supreme at using its potential on-court power, then, with few exceptions, you probably aren't an all-time level offensive anchor.

[ronnymac2]

^^^How highly should we regard 70-72 Barry and why? And you overlooked that his 1973 season was seriously lacking compared to the his following peak years. He basically wasn't on the MVP radar and then...what happened in the PS?

IIRC, he whooped ass as an individual in the postseason during those ABA years.

Straight up, he had a bad year in 1973.

Look at what he did from '74-'77. That peak is easily better than what Scottie gave you. He was phenomenal in '67, too.


How much longevity are you giving Scottie? 1990, '91, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97 were great years (I'm being a bit generous with '90). In '98, he missed a lot of games (and if I say you missed a lot of games, it must have been bad ), AND he wasn't himself in the playoffs, so I'm not sure if I can say that's elite.

Pick five years that you think were better than Barry's '67 and '74-'77. Personally, I don't see them, and Scottie doesn't have that much of a longevity advantage on Barry. I'd much rather have the superior player who could stand toe-to-toe with other top 20 peak players for five years than a player who doesn't belong in that rarefied air.

[Laimbeer]

Also, Laimbeer might have a heart attack when he reads this but:

Can you make the case for T-Mac over Isiah?

YOU will pay for that

[Fencer reregistered]

Fencer Reregistered- Sorry for not responding to the McHale post from the last thread. Good video.

The thing is, it showed one very nice pass, and then some great scoring. I've never disputed that McHale was a great post scorer though.

Great passing is a prerequisite for being a great offensive anchor, because it allows you to directly help your teammates out. I'm not even talking about passing that directly leads to an assist, because hockey assists are just as valuable. But I haven't seen McHale display the willingness, creativity, or recognition of different defenses that I've seen other low-post scoring monsters show, the nice pass in the video notwithstanding.

I really value passing; it's the most important thing in basketball, and if you aren't supreme at using its potential on-court power, then, with few exceptions, you probably aren't an all-time level offensive anchor.

In most discussions I'd say the great passer is the guy being underrated. But I think you're taking the point slightly too far. I think we'd agree that a guy can be hugely effective in a half-court offense if the primary thing he does is catch the ball and score. I think we can further agree that McHale was one of the greatest at that.

I think further that if you look at the videos, McHale was a complete offensive player on the break, finishing or passing (usually touch passes) as the situation required. So the challenge is whether McHale did enough "else" in the half-court offensive.

Well, he was excellent at offensive rebounding/putbacks. I don't recall anything noteworthy in his screen-setting for good or ill; he surely didn't suck at it, given how smart and effective a low post banger he was, but he didn't shine either. If he got the ball in his hands at a place on the floor he couldn't score from, he directed it effectively to where it would do more good.

I'm not sure how much it matters that Shaq or Duncan are more willing passers out of double-teams than McHale, given how well he scored when double-teamed. And if you're demanding Russell/Sixers Wilt/Walton kind of passing from your bigs -- well, I dispute your demand.

Also, just how much better than McHale was Moses Malone? Malone definitely got more offensive rebounds, but I think we agreed he paid a defensive price for doing so ...

[Laimbeer]

Seriously, this guy was an offensive genius. He lead some of the best offenses in the league, all without a really good secondary scoring option. AND they were excellent on the other side of the ball, too.

He was a great Finals performer and has as about as much longevity as Dwyane Wade (with a similar career resume).

Most importantly, he was better than Scottie Pippen. He was a better basketball player. Shouldn't being a better basketball player count for something? Hell, it should count for everything...

Actually, I don't think Wade yet has Barry's complete resume. That will be a few years.

Your points are well taken - as far as I'm concerned he should be in the next 3-5 players to go.

[Fencer reregistered]

If the Barry over Baylor argument is "Passing over rebounding" and "Good team success WITHOUT Jerry West", I'm cool with those aspects. I'm also getting from RonnyMac "Whaddya mean he was a bad defender?"

Team-wrecking by jumping to the ABA is not an intangibles black mark; everybody has the right to change employer, and every hoops player should get a mulligan for doing that once, if he doesn't quit on his team while he's still playing games for them.

"His teammates hated him and that was bad for the team" apparently doesn't apply to his peak. But it's a concern for his off-peak years. I am going more for longevity in this project than many of you are, so I may not vote for Barry until he's already on the list anyway. (I.e., I may not vote for him at all.) Still, the arguments for him make some sense.

[ElGee]

^^^How highly should we regard 70-72 Barry and why? And you overlooked that his 1973 season was seriously lacking compared to the his following peak years. He basically wasn't on the MVP radar and then...what happened in the PS?

IIRC, he whooped ass as an individual in the postseason during those ABA years.

Straight up, he had a bad year in 1973.

Look at what he did from '74-'77. That peak is easily better than what Scottie gave you. He was phenomenal in '67, too.


How much longevity are you giving Scottie? 1990, '91, '92, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97 were great years (I'm being a bit generous with '90). In '98, he missed a lot of games (and if I say you missed a lot of games, it must have been bad ), AND he wasn't himself in the playoffs, so I'm not sure if I can say that's elite.

Pick five years that you think were better than Barry's '67 and '74-'77. Personally, I don't see them, and Scottie doesn't have that much of a longevity advantage on Barry. I'd much rather have the superior player who could stand toe-to-toe with other top 20 peak players for five years than a player who doesn't belong in that rarefied air.

The issue is I don't think you can just make a blanket statement like "the peak is easily better than what Scottie gives you." I think it was a better season relative to competition. I think there are thing Barry does that Pippen can't...but the same can be said the other way. 1975 NBA isn't exactly a year of sparkling play IMO. I don't see much of an overall difference.

Barry's best normalized scoring seasons:
1967 24.5 pts/75 on +3.8% TS
1971 23.2 pts/75 on +5.2% TS (*Early ABA)
1972 23.6 pts/75 on +3.1% TS (*Early ABA)
1974 22.7 pts/75 on +1.2% TS
1975 25.3 pts/75 on +0.7% TS

Pippen's best normalized scoring seasons:
1992 20.8 pts/75 on +2.4% TS
1994 22.5 pts/75 on +1.6% TS
1995 21.9 pts/75 on +1.9% TS
1996 20.9 pts/75 on +0.9% TS
1997 21.4 pts/75 on +1.8% TS

Those reflect what I believe: Barry's a better scorer. But I think there's a tendency to see high-paced numbers from those days, or even worse, the early ABA years, and overvalue the impact. I mean, Barry's a better offensive player. I argued vehemently for Barry in 1976 in the RPOY project with his ability to offensively anchor, and think he was underrated in 74 and 76 in that project and perhaps slightly overrated in 75 (Winning Bias). But Barry has a bunch of years that are down seasons, which leaves, as you said:

1967 - Close, but worse than all of Pippen's best years IMO, namely 91-92, 94-97
1974 - Close, but again, I'll take all of Pip's top years
1975 - Here you can argue a better peak.
1976 - I'l only take 92, 94-96, if we're splitting hairs.
1977 - Not quite as close, I'm taking all the good Pip years

Maybe that's just my slight downgrade of those early 70s seasons. Maybe I'm just not as overly impressed with a little of Barry's tendency to become a gunner on offense. Maybe you love his defense and I only kind of like it (great hands). Maybe you don't value the other parts of Pip's game like rebounding and defense. Barry was every the offensive player Kobe Bryant was. He was a fantastic passer, but limited by questionable decision-making at times and probably by not having the 3-point shot in the NBA.

And in 1967, Barry's first time at the Adult Table, in the Finals he shot 40% in the Finals on 39.1 FGA's per game. That's not a typo. Low-efficiency gunning on super high volume can actually be detrimental to a team (http://www.backpicks.com/2011/01/08/wha ... ting-mean/), and I think it was that gene in Barry that curbed some of the positive impact you are alluding to.

And we haven't mentioned Barry's personality issues, which may have been relevant in 76 and might be a minor concern for team-building purposes.

[therealbig3]

Also, Laimbeer might have a heart attack when he reads this but:

Can you make the case for T-Mac over Isiah?

YOU will pay for that

That's an awesome picture

[Fencer reregistered]

Wrong thread.

[Fencer reregistered]

Sports Illustrated has a current players ranking. http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/08 ... nos-11-20/ The Pierce section reads, in part:

It has been a bizarre half-decade in the relationship between Boston fans and Pierce. ...

Through it all, it is Pierce who has sustained as Boston’s best two-way player. He has become an elite three-point shooter, and though Rondo has a lot to do with that, Pierce deserves credit for honing the one aspect of a superstar’s game that can remain somewhat intact with age. He is still Boston’s best option in isolation and in the post — an option this team absolutely must have to avoid total meltdowns on offense — and he can still get to the line in a pinch.

Pierce doesn’t do this one-on-one stuff as much — he’s not young anymore, he has better teammates than he did five or six years ago and he has to conserve his energy for the most important spots — but the inconsistency of Rondo and Garnett as scoring options has made it clear how valuable it is to have someone who can create, draw attention and finish when the shot clock is running down and a team’s options are exhausted. Pierce can do that every night. No other Celtic can.

On the other end, Pierce has turned into such a good defender that he would not look totally out of place on the All-Defensive team. His one-on-one opponents shot below 40 percent against him on every half-court play type that Synergy tracks — isolations, pick-and-rolls, spot-up chances, in the post, etc. It has obviously helped Pierce to play with Garnett and Rondo and under former assistant coaches Tom Thibodeau and Lawrence Frank, but Pierce has been carrying his own weight on defense for at least two or three seasons now. He’s not LeBron or Andre Iguodala, but he’s much closer to them than to his 2004-05 self.

The Celtics were nearly 18 points better, per 100 possessions, with Pierce on the floor last season than with him on the bench, the biggest positive impact of any player, according to Basketball Value. The site’s adjusted plus/minus system, which factors in the quality of an individual player’s teammates and opponents, also painted Pierce as one of the dozen most impactful players in the league last season, at age 33.

[Doctor MJ]

@Doctor MJ

As I mentioned elsewhere, current players like Garnett, Wade, and Nash seemed to take undeserved leaps and rate well above where most major lists have them. Pierce seems to be part of that trend. I guess players are easier to appreciate if their performances are fresher in your mind.

Yeah, it's interesting, and recency is part of it, but it's certainly more complicated.

Kidd vs Pierce for example. 5 years ago they were at 35 & 94, now Pierce may get the edge. Yes Pierce has had a better 5 years, I don't think it makes sense to say "This time we've all decided to put TONS of weight in the last 5 years".

Clearly a big chunk of that has nothing to do with Kidd or modern-bias, but just people re-thinking Pierce.

But also part of the thing is that by going away from accolades somewhat, we've ran toward stats a bit. There are just as many Top 5 MVP finishers now as there was 50 years ago (that's 5 for those of you scoring at home), but whereas there were 7 guys with a PER of 20 then, there are 28 now, and they are playing in an era with greater offensive effectiveness. So that's going to push things toward the modern a bit.

I know that you think Nash is overrated, and I get where you're coming from. Obviously, I think he's freaking amazing so it just makes sense we'd disagree on his placement.

The thing about Pierce is that I just never thought he was *that* special. If anyone wants to say I wrongly took him for granted, you're at least right to at least some degree. But it's also a case where it's not like Gervin got singled out for some bizarre reason that Pierce didn't. Pierce just didn't stand out that much compared to his peers. Yes, it would have been different if he was putting up those same numbers on a 60 win team, but of course part of the reason he was putting up 25 PPG was because he was on a bad team. When we put him on a team with the talent to win 60, it's made more sense for him to be a 20 PPG guy with someone else as the quarterback.

I dunno. I think the points people are pushing against me are good, and I'm posting because I want such rebuttals, but I'm guessing a lot of people also feel some of what I'm feeling.

[penbeast0]

Why isn't Rick Barry being voted in here!!!??? Why isn't he even getting votes??!!

Other than not playing defense and being a complete tool, Barry isn't quite as good as Elgin Baylor who was a slightly superior scorer and slightly more efficient than Barry while being a much superior rebounder and a decent, though not in Barry's class, playmaker. Also Baylor didn't have as bad a defensive rep and was a pretty classy guy but basically it's that Baylor was a superior player and even he isn't in yet.

[Eagle24]

[

Barry was every the offensive player Kobe Bryant was.

[penbeast0]

As for other players, I never though Pippen was that impressive a rebounder nor that Pierce was much more than an average defender. People are selling them as "Pippen was an amazing rebounder" (good for a SF but amazing?) and Pierce is playing defense at a close to All-D level .(he sure wasn't when I used to watch him so if he is, it's a relatively recent phenomenon).

I'm not convinced yet of either of these points, if they are true, they might move Pippen above Havlicek (and Baylor?) and Pierce above Drexler (and Gervin who I have serious doubts whether he could be effective on a true championship contender).

[ElGee]

[

Barry was every the offensive player Kobe Bryant was.

What's funny, actually, is that the sentence is supposed to read "I don't think Barry was EVER the offensive player Kobe Bryant was."

Maybe you'll find that even funnier.

[ElGee]

As for other players, I never though Pippen was that impressive a rebounder nor that Pierce was much more than an average defender. People are selling them as "Pippen was an amazing rebounder" (good for a SF but amazing?) and Pierce is playing defense at a close to All-D level .(he sure wasn't when I used to watch him so if he is, it's a relatively recent phenomenon).

I'm not convinced yet of either of these points, if they are true, they might move Pippen above Havlicek (and Baylor?) and Pierce above Drexler (and Gervin who I have serious doubts whether he could be effective on a true championship contender).

Not sure what more you want from Pippen on the glass. How many true SF/perimeter players have rebounded like him statistically? Impact rebounding is tricky to pinpoint...he seems to have it. The average SF grabs 8.8% of rebounds...Pippen has four postseasons over 13%.

As for Pierce's defense, it was totally underrated in 2002 under O'Brien. Not saying it was great, but it was definitely good when O'Brien was able to engage him on that end.

In 2008, Pierce's defense was awesome IMO. I wrote about in the RPOY. I thought he deserved strong all-D consideration, and thought so in 09 as well. Whether he made the team or not isn't important (have to look at who is in front of him), but his defense was waaay above average in recent years. He used length and positioning very well, and as I've pointed out, did a number on Kobe Bryant in the Finals when he guarded him. Tracy McGrady also called the 08 Celtics the best D he's ever seen...who do you think guarded him right before he said that?

[Fencer reregistered]

As for other players, I never though Pippen was that impressive a rebounder nor that Pierce was much more than an average defender. People are selling them as "Pippen was an amazing rebounder" (good for a SF but amazing?) and Pierce is playing defense at a close to All-D level .(he sure wasn't when I used to watch him so if he is, it's a relatively recent phenomenon).

I'm not convinced yet of either of these points, if they are true, they might move Pippen above Havlicek (and Baylor?) and Pierce above Drexler (and Gervin who I have serious doubts whether he could be effective on a true championship contender).

The best SF Pierce plays is LeBron, and without checking the stats I'd say LeBron has had quite a few struggles vs. the Celtics. Pierce didn't come up against Melo that much until this postseason, and that series went pretty badly for the Knicks, although Melo did grab a bunch of boards. Pierce hasn't gone up against Durant that much, period, and frankly I don't recall exactly how that went. Artest did go off on him in one playoff game, but I think that was more a matter of rotating away from him a lot.

Earlier in his career, I saw the awesome crunch time defense I've mentioned before on a consistent basis.

But again, like almost every other player in the league, Pierce has rarely truly excelled at offense and defense at the same time. Most players don't have the energy to pull that off more than occasionally, and the exceptions are special.

[Dr Positivity]

Pippen, Barry, Baylor, and Havlicek is such a **** to sort out. My vote is for Ewing over all of them, but I'm going to try and give my opinion on the SF foursome since nobody loves Ewing

I'll start with Barry and Baylor. Both guys have efficiency questions, but score at a huge volume and open up the floor for their teammates by how dangerous they are, IMO. I would say Barry does more for his teammates by being a natural shooter and by being a better passer, though Baylor as a pure scorer is more dangerous is in his complete prime, most likely. Baylor is a better rebounder and has more trustworthy longevity. Baylor is a much better teammate. Barry has the title, but the difference between the Bullets in 75 and Russell's Celtics is so large that I can't put a ton into it, even if Barry had less help. I'm giving peak to Rick Barry. I think the value of a shooter vs a guy who attacks the rim is hard to capture in raw shooting stats. A shooter opens up the floor more - and Barry's passing advantage makes him a better offensive option in my mind anyways. Since you're taking both for their offense, I trust Barry more in that area. What about longevity? It looks pretty close to even to me, if you count Barry's ABA years. I'll take Rick Barry here... I think he was the better player, in spite of being the worse teammate. I don't mind a dick teammate as much if he's tough and competitive and a worker... it's when they're soft in those areas like Tmac or Vince that I get worried. Barry seems more like Jordan and Oscar than Tmac. IMO.

Havlicek vs Pippen. I think Hondo is getting underrated in regards to Pippen in this thread, mainly because it's easy to think Pippen is just more physically imposing. I'm not sure. Havlicek by most accounts is a devastating athlete, like Pippen. I would say Pippen is arguably the better defender just because he's bigger, but it can't be by much. Havlicek can guard a ton of positions too. Havlicek seems like the most complete offensive player to me skill wise, he looks like a poor man's Kobe when I see him play as an on ball player very good at pulling up for shots and finding his way to the rim. Manu isn't a bad comparison for him offensively for him either. I'd say that style of game is better offensively than Pippen's, regardless of what the ppg says. Skill matters. Anyways, IMO Havlicek has higher highs offensively in the playoffs than Pippen. But I do wonder if that's a matter of whom the two were playing with. Russell needed 27ppg+ Havlicek in the 68 and 69 Finals. Jordan needed a lesser FGA player. Still, I'll go with Havlicek here.

Barry vs Havlicek. I think stylistically, they're actually not that far apart. Havlicek, like Barry, has that shooter's range and able guard passing game. Just by looking at what they do on the court, I'm not convinced Barry is *that* much better at what he does offensively than Havlicek. Maybe it comes down to volume and a shoot first attitude. Havlicek did get up to Barry like numbers at one point. Of course he has the defensive and attitude advantage. I'll go Havlicek between them.

It's tricky because if I take it back to Havlicek and Baylor, it's a bit hard to ignore that the latter had greater recognition in their big periods (early 60s for Baylor, early 70s for Hondo) and in their overlapping secondary periods (mid late 60s for both). Still, I wonder if that's just the media talking and favoring a guy who came into the league as a superstar of superstars compared to Havlicek.

I'll say Havlicek of the 4 SFs. I prefer Ewing atm though

[therealbig3]

The thing about Pierce is that I just never thought he was *that* special. If anyone wants to say I wrongly took him for granted, you're at least right to at least some degree. But it's also a case where it's not like Gervin got singled out for some bizarre reason that Pierce didn't. Pierce just didn't stand out that much compared to his peers. Yes, it would have been different if he was putting up those same numbers on a 60 win team, but of course part of the reason he was putting up 25 PPG was because he was on a bad team. When we put him on a team with the talent to win 60, it's made more sense for him to be a 20 PPG guy with someone else as the quarterback.

I get where you're coming from, but I want to point out a couple of things:

-Yeah, Pierce's scoring went down when the Celtics became a title contender, but isn't that totally normal? KG's numbers went down, Allen's went down...it just means he doesn't have to do as much. The construction of the team also matters...if it was a team capable of winning 60 games, but he didn't have guys as good as Garnett and Allen to back him up in the scoring department, Pierce probably would have been asked to drop 25+.

-Who was the quarterback of the team offensively after 08? I get that KG was their MVP, and they won primarily on defense, but Pierce was still their best player offensively. He was still their offensive cornerstone. The article that Fencer reregistered posted made some great points about how Pierce is still the Celtics' most reliable scorer, and how he's pretty much the only guy who can consistently create offense for himself, in any situation.

-In a previous post, you mentioned that Pierce was the only one of the big 3 to have not changed his game that much...isn't that a testament to Pierce's game? It means that his game has always been conducive to championship basketball, the team just needed the right pieces in place.