RealGM Top 100 List #20

[Doctor MJ]

He wasn't a bit better, he was clearly better and way ahead of others. WS/48 doesn't even capture his whole dominance as it's a measure flawed even in current era, when we have full box score. From mid 50s we have very limited data, so WS/48 is even more flawed. When we talk about his impact you can't ignore his defensive dominance AND three peat (it's not winning bias as Lakers were winning because of Mikan, he was driving force behind their titles) - no one from that time matched that or even came close. What you are saying is the same as saying that MJ doesn't deserve to be no 1, because he wasn't clearly ahead of others in WS/48 from '96 to '98 and no one from his peers was discussed as no 1 candidate. That's flawed logic.

And to be clear - I'm not arguing Mikan, because I want him to be voted now (or soon). According to my criteria he doesn't belong here. But some people look only at era impact, so they should consider him now, especially if they were voting for Russell, because as I showed pre shot clock players weren't much worse post shock clock, especially if we consider age.

I really don't see what basis you have for saying Mikan in 1954 was "way ahead of others". Saying he was the best is fine, but there's literally nothing to point to MIkan being an order of magnitude ahead of everyone else.

Re: WS/48 is flawed. You're the one who brought it up, and I don't recall you saying it was flawed then. I don't doubt you believe it's flawed, and I'm certainly not disagreeing with you there, but it's frustrating at this stage in the conversation after you've gotten me referencing the stat for you to pull the rug out.

Re: Like saying Jordan not way ahead of others. But he wasn't. As with Mikan, calling Jordan in those years #1 is pretty reasonable, but he wasn't way out in front of everyone. That's why Malone won an MVP, and frankly if Shaq hadn't been injured he had a good case over Jordan too.

Re: You're not arguing Mikan. Hmm, okay, well I don't even remember how we got in this conversation, but I really don't feel much pull to keep it going at this point.

I am going to point one thing out though:

I think it's useful to look at the Lakers year by year:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/

A few things to notice:
1. The Lakers are getting clearly less dominant as Mikan's career progressed.
2. In those later years, there's no reason at all to think that MIkan was doing great things on offense given that the offense was meh, and actually improved after he retired.
3. Mikan's impact was on defense as we suspect, but the team still had the #2 defense in the league the year after he left.
4. Ai I say that last part you might be impressed because you realize that a defense 4 points better than average back then was extremely dominant compared to norms. Consider though that that has everything to do with why these teams couldn't win 50 games. There was extreme parity...among a bunch of players who basically just got off the bust and had nowhere near the professional skill that guys would have a few years later. Mikan was standing out relative to that novice-induced parity, and all signs were that that was going away pretty quickly as the league improved.

[lorak]

I really don't see what basis you have for saying Mikan in 1954 was "way ahead of others". Saying he was the best is fine, but there's literally nothing to point to MIkan being an order of magnitude ahead of everyone else.

Defensive dominance + three peat.

Re: WS/48 is flawed. You're the one who brought it up, and I don't recall you saying it was flawed then. I don't doubt you believe it's flawed, and I'm certainly not disagreeing with you there, but it's frustrating at this stage in the conversation after you've gotten me referencing the stat for you to pull the rug out.

On multiple occasion I've said that WS/48 is flawed, but we don't have anything better for the 50s to use as one aggregate stat. (And I think I don't have to explain to you why it's good to have such stat when whole leagues are compared like in pre shot clock vs post shot clock study I presented.) But that doesn't mean it's end of the story and we shouldn't look at other things - like for example Lakers three peat and Mikan as their clear the best player.

I am going to point one thing out though:

I think it's useful to look at the Lakers year by year:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/

A few things to notice:
1. The Lakers are getting clearly less dominant as Mikan's career progressed.

?
The most dominant Lakers team until '72 was '50 squad - right when Mikan was at his peak. And post '51 Lakers were worse, as Mikan was worse, co seems like pretty good correlation between Mikan and Lakers dominance.

4. Ai I say that last part you might be impressed because you realize that a defense 4 points better than average back then was extremely dominant compared to norms. Consider though that that has everything to do with why these teams couldn't win 50 games. There was extreme parity...among a bunch of players who basically just got off the bust and had nowhere near the professional skill that guys would have a few years later. Mikan was standing out relative to that novice-induced parity, and all signs were that that was going away pretty quickly as the league improved.

What sings exactly? Because all I see is that players from '54 were doing just fine (remember about adjusting for age) with shot clock, so if players inferior to Mikan were still productive in allegedly superior era, there's no reason to think Mikan also wouldn't be close to his '54 level. Hell, Mikan's backup from '54 team was 22-10-2.5 player in '61.

[ceiling raiser]

What sings exactly? Because all I see is that players from '54 were doing just fine (remember about adjusting for age) with shot clock, so if players inferior to Mikan were still productive in allegedly superior era, there's no reason to think Mikan also wouldn't be close to his '54 level. Hell, Mikan's backup from '54 team was 22-10-2.5 player in '61.

To be fair, not all players translate equally well. I don't know enough about Mikan's skills, athleticism, strengths/weaknesses, etc. to comment on how he'd translate exactly. So it is conceivable his backup could would translate better due to whatever reasons (though I don't know if this is the case).

I'm not sure how I feel about the issue. I'm still very skeptical of the league before the late 60s/early 70s (and even from then through the 90s, different players would translate differently into today's game), the mid 60s at the very least, mostly due to the racial composition of the league. I don't want to make that a larger point than it needs to be, but it's not something I can ignore. It's something I'm really struggling with for Pettit, since he retired in 65 (though there seem to be some modern elements to his game, so it's a very tough decision).

[lukekarts]

I still haven't seen a reason to convince me to vote Barkley, or Pettit, over Wade. Appreciably I could get labelled a homer/fanboy, but you will note from my other posts I'm a big advocate for players who have fantastic playoff runs, Hakeem and Dirk being two particular favourites of mine in that regards.

I just think, that for all Barkley's strengths, he never had an absolutely dominant streak in him that meant his teams won a title. Wade stepped up a gear in 06 and just dominated the conference finals and finals. Hakeem stepped up and dominated two seasons in a row. Dirk stepped up in 2011. Even Pettit, who I'd be more convinced of here, stepped up and lead Atlanta to a title with phenomenal performances. It's why I shied away from voting for (Karl) Malone for so long.

The knocks on Wade are clear, but somewhat circumstantial too. Yes, he's had injuries, but he still won either side of those injuries and if anything it just cost him more titles. And yes, his physical prime (07-09) was wasted on bad teams. But despite these, he's been a very successful player, instrumental in one title and the second most important player for a further two. Unlike Barkley and Pettit, he's also been a very good defensive player - quite a clutch one, too, though that's difficult to measure (but I can certainly remember a lot of key moments). Like many stars, he does sometimes lack effort at that end, but even his raw statistical output outshines most guards - he's got a phenomenal blocking record, always racked up a lot of steals and has been one of the best rebounding guards over the past decade.

VOTE: Dwyane 'my mum spelled my name wrong' Wade

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I would love if you would respond to the post I made earlier itt showing how effective opposing PGs tended to be against Nash? I've tried engaging you for several threads in Nash discussion, but mainly you just posted your talking points and that was it. I'd love to hear more of your take on Nash and maybe address some of my concerns.

Both in Dallas and Phoenix, Nash was on the the least offensive minded guard/sf while Bell/Finley/Marion on Bibby or Parker.
It's a dangerous adjustment, I agree, but those teams were also putting Bowen and Christie on Nash to protect their PG's...
To me the main issue is that both Nelson and D'Antoni didn't have proper defensive schemes against PG play, putting a guy like Nash in the the very worst spot for him when not hidden on a lesser player.
Nash was not a positive defender for sure, but he knew how to execute an rotate. If Pop could build a great defense with Avery Johnson why you shouldn't with Nash?

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #20 - The Round Mound of Rebound

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... lch01.html

- 16 year career
- 11x all NBA (5 1st, 5 2nd, 1 3rd)
- 1x reg season MVP (3 other top 5 finishes)
- Finished 2nd in RPG and TRB% at 35 yrs old

From 87-94, Barkley was pretty much unstoppable:

~25 PPG, 12 RPG, 4 APG, 1.6 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.4 TOPG
~56% FG, 74% FT, 63% TS, 122/106 OFF/DEF RTG, .236 WS/48

His playoff production during that period dipped slightly in certain areas, but overall he was a great playoff performer:

~26 PPG, 13 RPG, 4.5 APG, 1.6 SPG, 1 BPG, 2.8 TOPG
~52% FG, 72% FT, 58% TS, 120/108 OFF/DEF RTG, .202 WS/48

93 finals stats - http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... #PHO::none (Yes, I give him the benefit of the doubt having to face the bulls in the finals. They were that good.)

As an undersized PF, Barkley was still one of the most efficient and dynamic volume scorers the game has ever seen.  He used an uncanny combination of bulk and speed to beat larger defenders off the dribble, and finish above the rim. From 86-92, he put up ~25 PPG on an absurd TS% of 64.4%.  He shot over 60% TS in each of those 7 seasons, leading the league in TS% for 4 years straight during that span.

Barkley's physicality early in his career could almost be thought of as a big man version of westbrook (i'm really thinking from a visual standpoint here). He used sheer force to take over games, and it carried over into other areas in addition to scoring. He ranked 7th in the league in steals at 2.2 per game in only his 2nd year, extremely impressive for a 250+ pound player. A year later, barkley led the league in boards at 14.6 per game.

It's important to note that every team barkley was on immediately improved when he got there (edit - added SRS):

Philly
- 83-84: 52-30, 2.39 SRS
- 84-85: 58-24, 4.17 SRS (barkley's rookie year)

Phoenix
- 91-92: 53-29, 5.69 SRS
- 92-93: 62-20, 6.27 SRS (barkley's first year with the suns, taking them to the finals)

Houston
- 95-96: 48-34, 1.63 SRS
- 96-97: 57-25 3.85 SRS (barkley's first year with the rockets)

While the suns finals appearance in 93 would be their best finish after acquiring barkley, they had 3 straight seasons of 56+ wins in his 4 years there. One of the main culprits here was injuries to his best teammates. In barkley's 4 years in PHX, kevin johnson only played in 49, 67, 47, and 56 games respectively. In 95-96, barkley's last season in phoenix, danny manning only played 33 games, and their 3rd leading scorer was a rookie michael finley.

As an aside, I don't put huge value in career totals when it comes to the NBA, but this is impressive nonetheless: barkley is 1 of 5 players in NBA history to post career totals of 20,000+ points, 10,000+ boards, and 4,000+ assists (wilt, kareem, malone and garnett being the other 4). At the end of the day, I think he's very clearly a top 20 player of all time.

Looking at Pettit, he had a stellar career, and almost has the prototypical resume for someone in this range. With less teams and the talent pool being smaller, I value his accomplishments slightly less than I would say barkley. That isn't a comment on how good he was relative to his era, but just that context needs to be applied when looking at what he accomplished. That said, I think very highly of him, and don't see an argument for him being ranked any lower than 6th on the all time PF list.

Pace adjusted stats for pettit from 60-65:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 2YlE#gid=0

Bob Pettit – I actually called the comparison on Pettit before I even looked. Part of the reason was that Pettit’s age range was shorter than the others, and I knew who I would have to work with in the 27-32 years old range. Patrick Ewing is the guy. A moderately efficient high scoring big man who didn’t pass much and rebounded well but not at an absolutely elite Russell / Wilt level. Defensively I went with the more mobile but less block-happy Kevin McHale.

http://doubledribble.wordpress.com/2012 ... ted-stats/

This evaluation suggests that Pettit belongs in the discussion, but may not be a clear cut favorite. When the hawks won the championship in 57, there were only 8 teams, and they finished with a reg season record of 34-38. 6 of the 8 teams made the playoffs. I'm not taking anything away from pettit's championship. Just pointing out that these smaller sample sizes and circumstances make it more difficult to evaluate his career. I'm not sure if I'll be voting for him right after barkley, but it's certainly close.

Barkley's notable playoff games:

94 Playoffs G1 vs. GSW — 36 PTS, 19 REB, 7 AST, 4 STL, 1 BLK, 3 TO, 14/24 FG, 1/3 3PT, 7/11 FT, 62% TS, 133/100 OFF/DEF RTG

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 90PHO.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGAzDx93AKA[/youtube]

94 Playoffs G3 vs. GSW -- 56 PTS, 14 REB, 4 AST, 3 STL, 1 BLK, 2 TO, 23/31 FG, 3/4 3PT, 7/9 FT, 80% TS, 163/123 OFF/DEF RTG

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 40GSW.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTMFTQFvO_8[/youtube]

93 WCF G5 vs. SEA (series tied 2-2) -- 43 PTS, 15 REB, 10 AST, 2 STL, 2 BLK, 3 TO, 16/22 FG, 11/11 FT, 80% TS, 166/121 OFF/DEF RTG

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 10PHO.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs-XO5h5bAg[/youtube]

93 WCF G7 vs. SEA -- 44 PTS, 24 REB, 1 AST, 1 STL, 1 BLK, 1 TO, 12/20 FG, 1/1 3PT, 19/22 FT, 74% TS, 167/117 OFF/DEF RTG

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 50PHO.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi-oVrsJ_20[/youtube]

93 Playoffs G2 vs. SAS -- 35 PTS, 10 REB, 2 AST, 7 STL, 3 BLK, 0 TO, 12/18 FG, 1-2 3PT, 10/14 FT, 72% TS, 144/85 OFF/DEF RTG

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 30PHO.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1DVKWo_tBs[/youtube]

95 Playoffs G3 vs. POR (clincher) — 47 PTS, 12 REB, 2 AST, 2 STL, 2 BLK, 4 TO, 16/26 FG, 4/8 3PT, 11/13 FT, 74% TS, 134/109 OFF/DEF RTG

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 20POR.html

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EyJ0_iA3Rs[/youtube]

[Texas Chuck]

Both in Dallas and Phoenix, Nash was on the the least offensive minded guard/sf while Bell/Finley/Marion on Bibby or Parker.
It's a dangerous adjustment, I agree, but those teams were also putting Bowen and Christie on Nash to protect their PG's...
To me the main issue is that both Nelson and D'Antoni didn't have proper defensive schemes against PG play, putting a guy like Nash in the the very worst spot for him when not hidden on a lesser player.
Nash was not a positive defender for sure, but he knew how to execute an rotate. If Pop could build a great defense with Avery Johnson why you shouldn't with Nash?

I can agree with much of what you say, but Avery Johnson was a much better defender than Steve Nash so I'm not sure the relevance of introducing him. Not to mention much of Avery's career was pre-Pop and he had already established himself as a good defensive PG.

And I promise you Nash was the guy guarding Mike Bibby because I still have nightmares about it. Finley couldn't guard PGs to save his life and it might well have been worse than just leaving Nash on him.

And while Marion spent much time in Dallas guarding PG's I don't think he actually did that much in Phoenix because he was having to guard the best forward every night already. Raja may have taken some turns on opposing PGs, but I doubt Marion did it for any meaningful stretches at all as a Sun.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I can agree with much of what you say, but Avery Johnson was a much better defender than Steve Nash so I'm not sure the relevance of introducing him. Not to mention much of Avery's career was pre-Pop and he had already established himself as a good defensive PG.

time passed since Johnson retired, but I actually remember him as a very bad defender, at least in his later years. Don't have any data to support, though

[Moonbeam]

Vote for Charles Barkley based on my post in page 1.

[Jim Naismith]

Also your last bit is a little odd to me. You leave just one sentence to say, "Except of course when it actually mattered, when Barkley beat Pettit by these measurements I've spent time using to support Pettit."

All I'm saying is that there is enough evidence to suggest that Barkley and Pettit are roughly in the same tier, with some evidence actually favoring Petit.

And even the most favorable pro-Barkley evidence does not overturn this. (The two-point difference in playoff PER is clear but not huge.)

Bob Pettit actually was pretty good in the playoffs, especially in his best six playoff runs.

Pettit playoffs

Career: 25.5 ppg / 14.8 rpg
1957-63: 28.0 ppg / 16.0 ppg

Barkley playoffs

Career: 23.0 ppg / 12.9 rpg
1989-95: 26.1 ppg / 13.3 rpg

Kareem playoffs

Career: 24.3 ppg/ 10.5 ppg
1970-77: 30.5 ppg / 16.9 rpg

[penbeast0]

Just a curious question Doc, you've said a lot recently that you don't think a volume scoring big is a good way to build an offense. You said it with Moses, with Ewing, I think with DRobinson . . . why is it a good thing with Barkley?

I'm assuming it's efficiency but that hasn't been the narrative I've been understanding (to be fair, I don't always understand things correctly).

[Texas Chuck]

I'd like mor of an explanation of why people think a volume scorer isn't of value period. I think people underrate the ability to score in volume even on just average efficiency. Im not sure you can easily move 10-15 shots or more to the other players on most teams and do better. I hear this a lot around here and while I agree that its better to sacrifice maybe a little volume for efficiency, you can go too far in the other direction as well.

[Quotatious]

I'd like mor of an explanation of why people think a volume scorer isn't of value period. I think people underrate the ability to score in volume even on just average efficiency. Im not sure you can easily move 10-15 shots or more to the other players on most teams and do better. I hear this a lot around here and while I agree that its better to sacrifice maybe a little volume for efficiency, you can go too far in the other direction as well.

I agree. Volume scorers are basically always elite in terms of creating their own shot, which IMO has a lot of inherent value in itself, especially in the postseason, when your team gameplan may not work nearly as well as it did in the RS, and that's when having an elite shot creator/volume scorer, just a guy you can go to, and let him go 1 on 1, is crucial. Also, these guys are usually good enough passers/have good enough court vision that they can create some open looks for their teammates, if the pressure is too high to create a decent look for a shot.

I guess that's why I value Iverson more than most of you guys.

[penbeast0]

If you, as a team, are actually sacrificing volume for efficiency (efficiency being points per possession), I can't think of any possible world in which that would be a bad thing. Maybe if you have such a massive rebounding edge that you will get enough extra possessions to more than compensate for less production per possession or if it leads to an advantage on the defensive end. I think the issue is that trying to sacrifice volume for efficiency sometimes produces less efficiency as your offense stagnates and you lose efficiency on turnovers and the like while arguably your shooting percentages go up, but that's a different question.

As an individual, the case is a bit different but the principles are the same. The case for a high volume, low efficiency scorer is that even with that low individual efficiency, the ability to create shots and draw doubles helps the overall offensive efficiency even while the high scorer's individual numbers aren't as good.

I saw an study that I used to have saved that looked at this question with lineups -- lineups made up of high efficiency, low volume players v. lineups where there was less average efficiency but greater volume. In this situation, they found there was a correlation between high volumes and better lineup efficiency. I think it worked out to a 1.25 to 1 ratio between average lineup scoring volume and average lineup scoring efficiency but those numbers may be reversed. There also may have been outside factors involved -- higher volume/lower efficiency lineups may have had more outside shooting and floor spacing for example. Still, even if the correlation for individuals matches, it still means a 30ppg scorer with a .520ts% (like prime Iverson) is an appreciably worse offensive player than a 20ppg scorer with a .600ts% (like prime Moncrief) and even a bit worse than a 20ppg scorer with a .550ts% (career Mitch Richmond, his prime would be higher) -- again, if this works for individuals which is not something that the study looked at. And that ignores defense, practice habits, leadership, turnover ratio, etc. That's why I don't value Iverson as highly as many posters do.

[Jim Naismith]

From 2011 thread: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1128005

Aside from defense, what exactly was Pettit better at than Barkley?
Rebounding? Nope. About even, if not an advantage for Barkley.
Scoring? Nope. I'm going with Barkley, even with penbeast's adjusted numbers.
Passing? Nope. Clearly Barkley.
Longevity? Nope. Pettit played a total of 11 years, Barkley's prime alone was 11 years long.

Then you get to the fact that Barkley's competition was much greater. Pettit dominated a pre-Russell and pre-Wilt era. Barkley won one less MVP in a league with a lot more star talent. He was better in the playoffs too.

I just think it's blatantly stretching it to say that Pettit was a better player than Barkley. To do so would be to overrate Pettit's defense by a lot. From what I've read, he wasn't even a highly regarded defensive player anyway.

That's what we look at statistics adjusted to things like pace and era because most of us weren't there to see Pettit so we use the best evidence we have:

Rebounding -- Even pace adjusted, Pettit averaged 1/2 a rebound better in their primes and over a full rebound a game better over their careers.

Scoring -- Even pace adjusted, Pettit averaged around 2.5 pts/game better in their primes and more than that over their careers. Now EFFICIENCY is the one area Barkley still has a clear edge but not by a ridiculous amount relative to league.

Passing -- Barkley got more assists but it's not clear he was the better passer as he was a bit turnover prone and we don't have turnovers recorded for Pettit's era

Longevity -- clearly Barkley BUT Playing every game during peak years is Pettit who never missed more than 3 games in a season until his final retirement year

Defense -- we saw Barkley and he was a terrible defender plus the whole height issue; Pettit by reputation was a bit better than average -- not great evidence but again, the best we have

Leadership/Off-court or Locker room issues -- Again, from the anecdotes and evidence, huge edge to "Mr. Pettit" over "Mr. Party Animal"

Era -- this is really all your argument comes down to, you can't see putting a player from the 50s/60s who you don't know much about over someone you grew up thinking of as one of the all time greats.

[trex_8063]

I'd like mor of an explanation of why people think a volume scorer isn't of value period. I think people underrate the ability to score in volume even on just average efficiency. Im not sure you can easily move 10-15 shots or more to the other players on most teams and do better. I hear this a lot around here and while I agree that its better to sacrifice maybe a little volume for efficiency, you can go too far in the other direction as well.

1000% agree. I attempted to hammer this point a few threads ago in a push against this apparent notion that dropping ~30 ppg on avg efficiency somehow = average scorer/offensive player.

Particularly against a good or elite defense (like generally faced in the playoffs), that is stifling your set plays, has excellent defensive rotation, and also not allowing much transition.....if you have a player who you can then simply give the ball to and he can still drop big volume on average efficiency despite drawing so much of the attention of this good/elite defense: that's a pretty damn valuable offensive player.

[RSCD3_]

I think the ends are being used as a way to the means to state that good scoring offensive centers don't have an impact

I think the average offensive worth of center is lower than other positions but I'm not sure the same is true for high volume scoring center on decent to good volume.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

I'd like mor of an explanation of why people think a volume scorer isn't of value period. I think people underrate the ability to score in volume even on just average efficiency. Im not sure you can easily move 10-15 shots or more to the other players on most teams and do better. I hear this a lot around here and while I agree that its better to sacrifice maybe a little volume for efficiency, you can go too far in the other direction as well.

1000% agree. I attempted to hammer this point a few threads ago in a push against this apparent notion that dropping ~30 ppg on avg efficiency somehow = average scorer/offensive player.

Particularly against a good or elite defense (like generally faced in the playoffs), that is stifling your set plays, has excellent defensive rotation, and also not allowing much transition.....if you have a player who you can then simply give the ball to and he can still drop big volume on average efficiency despite drawing so much of the attention of this good/elite defense: that's a pretty damn valuable offensive player.

I don't think you need a 30 ppg scorer for that; many players who score 12-15ppg can create their own shot though generally the 20ppg+ scorer is better. I think the idea was that an offense where one player is getting the ball every time to create offense is more predictable and easier to shut down, particularly if that player is a big who needs to establish post position and get the ball thrown in to him.

And a 30ppg scorer on average efficiency may be a good thing (if you have a team like the Bad Boy Pistons where the team scores at below average efficiency) or a bad thing (if you have an appreciably more efficient team offense predicated on spreading the shots around and ball movement like San Antonio or the old Frazier led Knicks teams). Throwing a Carmelo on last year's Spurs and having him trying to score 30 a night in the playoffs would have been a bad thing for them offensively; I didn't see them getting shut down by even good/elite defenses although they are probably one of the least individual star oriented offenses in the league.

[PCProductions]

Vote: Charles Barkley

He's the best or 2nd best offensive player left in the pool, I believe. His 11-year, all star prime is incredibly reliable and consistent and his non-prime years were excellent and would be career seasons for most NBA players.

He's an incredibly efficient volume scorer with an eye-popping skill for passing. He's probably the best transition player left in the pool of guys not voted in yet. His rebounding ability for his size is borderline unfathomable, and nobody utilized their strengths quite like Chuck.

Defensively, he's bad, and this is a big reason why he's fallen this low. But I think he's fallen low enough to warrant the punishment for his effort on that end, and I feel safe in voting him this high.

[Doctor MJ]

Just a curious question Doc, you've said a lot recently that you don't think a volume scoring big is a good way to build an offense. You said it with Moses, with Ewing, I think with DRobinson . . . why is it a good thing with Barkley?

I'm assuming it's efficiency but that hasn't been the narrative I've been understanding (to be fair, I don't always understand things correctly).

The issue with the typical "big" is that he must live by the basket because he can't handle the ball. Barkley is not one of those bigs. It's not hard to find highlights of a young Barkley going coast to coast doing a Magic impression with fancy dribbles and a behind the back pass, and he shot from range.

Frankly it's rather astonishing to consider the efficiency you mention on top of that: Barkley lacked that crippling aspect of being an offensive big, and yet he still destroyed all the other bigs when it came to efficiency. I voted Malone over Barkley because of the other issues involved, but it's rather amazing that despite the fact Malone had Stockton feeding him he couldn't touch Barkley's efficiency numbers.

Were we making a GOAT offesnive "big" list that included all 4s and 5s, it's hard for me to imagine picking anyone over Barkley.