Dr Mufasa wrote:@ drza: It seems to me like a lot of voters are in the mindset that Walt Frazier was a superstar player. I mean on the list so far, #21-#24 were all players with 5-7 year primes ie 70% of normal stars - 3 of those players are David Robinson, Dwyane Wade and Steve Nash and the other is Walt Frazier. So if people think Frazier was at a prime Robinson/Wade/Nash level, it's understandable Reed would get a short stick.
If you ask me, I'm not buying Frazier's ranking on this list nor the bizarre gap between him and Willis Reed, when Reed was more highly regarded at the time, has as impressive stats at his peak, and has a marginal gap in longevity. They were 1a and 1b, clearly - and Frazier couldn't help the Knicks above mediocrity without him. I really think he was Billups offensively. While his elite d and rebounding matters, I do think people can get a little crazy for defense at PG when clearly it's the least important defensive position - almost the basketball version of going nuts for MLB players who steal bases or are great fielders. It's really nice to have, but give me the elite hitting before any of that
But even with that said, I had Frazier at 27 and Reed at 39 on my personal list which is a bigger gap than I would've expected. All those players between them were pretty close together so I suppose those few things Frazier has more, mattered. Same thing will happen with Miller vs Allen and Nique vs English
I can see the sense in this. Let me make a few comments though:
-"marginal gap in longevity". Reed had 4 10+ WS years, Frazier had 7. That's not a marginal difference in my book. To me if you've got a prime that lasts less than 5 years that's a serious short coming. 7 on the other hand is basically normal particularly for that era.
-"couldn't help the Knicks above mediocrity with Reed". Um, they made the finals without Reed trouncing a strong Boston team along the way and losing only to one of the greatest teams in history. I'll grant they weren't a top 2 team that season (Milwaukee was #2), but having a good case for 3rd in a year with 2 such great teams and doing it without Reed is really something.
Then there's the matter of when exactly these two guys had their primes. Reed's last season as a big star really happened in '69-70, and 2 years into a 6 year run as a scary-as-hell team. Frazier on the other hand was in his prime for that entire duration.
I know people knock Frazier for saying "well when the supporting talent started disappearing, so did Frazier", but how can that be as unimpressive as the Reed story which was one where the team kept on going without him? Granted they were at their best when both Reed & Frazier were at the top of their game in '69-70, but if we were to attach one player to be the face of the Knicks' run, I don't see how it can rationally be anyone but Frazier.
Last, as far as the gap between the players on this list, any time people start talking like that it worries me. Voting someone in because you don't want him to be too far away from someone else, rather than because he deserves the spot more than the current group of nominees corrupts thinking. It's true that it's good to periodically do sanity checks and make sure you haven't drifted from your intended criteria, but the reality is that the nature of this list is a very inexact science, and two wrongs don't make a right.
Awesome.
