Basketballefan wrote:Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??
I'd vote him in right now if somebody can convince me Wade holds significant value in 2007 and 2008. He had major issues with durability in those seasons, and I don't think we would have seen our usual dominant playoff performer Dwyane Wade if he had made it with a good team.
But I'm open to a convincing argument. As I said before, Wade's got the best peak left (arguably the best peak after the top-10 on our list) and has a dominant 5-6 year stretch.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Basketballefan wrote:Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??
I'll be there soon. Just don't have time for the monster posts. Classes start Monday so I'll be way less active (might have to drop if I can't at least follow the threads. I'll feel like I'm voting uninformed).
Basketballefan wrote:Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??
I am lurking but don't see a point in getting involved because he isn't getting any serious consideration for this spot. When he does over the next 2-3 spots I will probably present my arguments then.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
Basketballefan wrote:Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??
I am lurking but don't see a point in getting involved because he isn't getting any serious consideration for this spot. When he does over the next 2-3 spots I will probably present my arguments then.
No one has more than 2 votes. The field is wide open to anyone right now.
Basketballefan wrote:Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??
I am lurking but don't see a point in getting involved because he isn't getting any serious consideration for this spot. When he does over the next 2-3 spots I will probably present my arguments then.
No one has more than 2 votes. The field is wide open to anyone right now.
Yeah, I saw that but most of the people who haven't voted yet aren't even discussing him for the most part.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
Basketballefan wrote:Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??
I'd vote him in right now if somebody can convince me Wade holds significant value in 2007 and 2008. He had major issues with durability in those seasons, and I don't think we would have seen our usual dominant playoff performer Dwyane Wade if he had made it with a good team.
But I'm open to a convincing argument. As I said before, Wade's got the best peak left (arguably the best peak after the top-10 on our list) and has a dominant 5-6 year stretch.
I can't say much for 07 & 08.
It just comes down to how much you value his peak, and what he's accomplished. He was a top 5 player for at least 4 seasons(06,09,10,11) and arguably top 2 in each of those seasons and he could be argued as the best in 06 and 2011 even though it's a little bit of a stretch.
I just put a lot of value in what he typically did to the elite defense in the playoffs like Celtics and Pistons.
Doctor MJ wrote:[ What I see: Basically from '64 on Baylor was playing in a way he should not have. The team would have been better if he'd played a different role letting the vastly more effective Jerry West score more, but he didn't. I think there were clearly two main results to this as far as what Baylor was:
1) Baylor was less valuable than he would have been if he played smarter. 2) Baylor was more highly rated than he should have been because he scored a lot.
Sadly, Baylor was probably more highly rated playing the dumb way than he would have been playing the smart way because people were so fixated on how much he scored.
Part of the reason that Elgin looks bad because of the team is that the team includes West. Let's make it a 3 part equation
Ewing and Frazier just weren't in the top echelon of players for me to pick them here.
Mikan 1952-1954 ws/48 is .264 which is only about 10% higher than Johnston (.238), Schayes (.238), and Macauley (.247).
Unfortunately our time frame starts in 1950, giving Mikan only 2 dominant years, and then 3 years where he is a little ahead of 3 guys who look to be second 50 guys.
Also, we have the era adjustment - Pettit is .213 ws/48 1957 to 1963 - better than Russell, similar to Oscar 1961-1963 of .218 - if he was in segregated league, Pettit would stand out like Mikan.
With longevity an issue, I give Pettit the edge over Mikan,
Wade is .192 ws/48 versus Pettit.
I think they each have some great playoff performances, and some average ones - I'll call the playoffs even.
This is tough for me to pick, and in a way unfair to Wade - if he has a great year in 2015 then I would give it to him, but I can't do that.
In the end due to injuries I give this to Pettit - he had more top 5 seasons than Wade. He might be the top overall player in the 2nd half of the decade; at a certain point I have to say the top guy in 55-59 deserves a spot over a top x guy from 2006-2010. -I'm doing it here.
Basketballefan wrote:Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??
I'd vote him in right now if somebody can convince me Wade holds significant value in 2007 and 2008. He had major issues with durability in those seasons, and I don't think we would have seen our usual dominant playoff performer Dwyane Wade if he had made it with a good team.
But I'm open to a convincing argument. As I said before, Wade's got the best peak left (arguably the best peak after the top-10 on our list) and has a dominant 5-6 year stretch.
I can't say much for 07 & 08.
It just comes down to how much you value his peak, and what he's accomplished. He was a top 5 player for at least 4 seasons(06,09,10,11) and arguably top 2 in each of those seasons and he could be argued as the best in 06 and 2011 even though it's a little bit of a stretch.
I just put a lot of value in what he typically did to the elite defense in the playoffs like Celtics and Pistons.
This era-dominance argument puts Wade above Ewing, but not Pettit. Pettit was a top-6 player for ten consecutive years.
Basketballefan wrote:Where are the Wade supporters when they're needed!??
I'd vote him in right now if somebody can convince me Wade holds significant value in 2007 and 2008. He had major issues with durability in those seasons, and I don't think we would have seen our usual dominant playoff performer Dwyane Wade if he had made it with a good team.
But I'm open to a convincing argument. As I said before, Wade's got the best peak left (arguably the best peak after the top-10 on our list) and has a dominant 5-6 year stretch.
I can't say much for 07 & 08.
It just comes down to how much you value his peak, and what he's accomplished. He was a top 5 player for at least 4 seasons(06,09,10,11) and arguably top 2 in each of those seasons and he could be argued as the best in 06 and 2011 even though it's a little bit of a stretch.
I just put a lot of value in what he typically did to the elite defense in the playoffs like Celtics and Pistons.
Wade was also a top 10 player in 2012. That should definitely be counted as a part of his prime.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
ronnymac2 wrote: I'd vote him in right now if somebody can convince me Wade holds significant value in 2007 and 2008. He had major issues with durability in those seasons, and I don't think we would have seen our usual dominant playoff performer Dwyane Wade if he had made it with a good team.
But I'm open to a convincing argument. As I said before, Wade's got the best peak left (arguably the best peak after the top-10 on our list) and has a dominant 5-6 year stretch.
I can't say much for 07 & 08.
It just comes down to how much you value his peak, and what he's accomplished. He was a top 5 player for at least 4 seasons(06,09,10,11) and arguably top 2 in each of those seasons and he could be argued as the best in 06 and 2011 even though it's a little bit of a stretch.
I just put a lot of value in what he typically did to the elite defense in the playoffs like Celtics and Pistons.
Wade was also a top 10 player in 2012. That should definitely be counted as a part of his prime.
That's true.
I think 2013 he was top 10 for the regular season. People typically sweep his 2012 and 2013 seasons under the rug. They weren't all time great seasons or anything but i don't know why they are so quickly overlooked.
PaulieWal wrote:Wade was also a top 10 player in 2012. That should definitely be counted as a part of his prime.
That's true.
I think 2013 he was top 10 for the regular season. People typically sweep his 2012 and 2013 seasons under the rug. They weren't all time great seasons or anything but i don't know why they are so quickly overlooked.
Yeah, he was good during the RS in 2013 but the playoffs were not that kind to him. In 2012 he maintained his play in the RS and the PS. He was a bit inconsistent in the PS but still a solid #2. 2012 is the last year of his prime, 2013 could have been another late prime year had he not played that bad against Indy.
Looking at the 2012 RealGM PoY project, Wade is at #7 which makes sense to me.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
I have a hard time with his TS%. For me it was between he and Baylor, who I also have a very hard time with because of his shooting percentages. Some people like to compare them to the other players of the era but to me shooting is shooting- either you made the basket or didn't, whether it was in the 1930s or 2014. If the defense was significantly better that's something to consider, but I can't imagine the overall defensive ability during the 50s making that much of a difference.
Overall though, Pettit was someone right up the Barkley/Malone alley who had one of the all time greats individually and as a team standing in his way and hurting where he stands on this list. I also think that you start reaching into the 50s and 60s and people have too many questions/concerns with quality of era to vote for him. For me, Malone and Barkley were voted in and Pettit is AT LEAST right on the back end of that cluster.
He played 11 tough ass seasons, some with some serious injuries. (On a side note, is my argument against Wade. Sure he had those amazing individual seasons on a **** team, but it absolutely crushed him physically and his durability is a real big question mark for me. I don't think we see from him what we did the last four years without one of the greatest players ever at his side.) He developed a jumper as his career progressed, adjusted his weight lifting regime (simply by starting one) in order to keep up with the physical play of defenses. I think he had the right mind and skill set to adjust his game, for those who like portability. He demonstrated that in his 11 year career in my opinion.
These next few guys, including Pettit, are very close in my opinion. You start to get guys with very different points of support and it makes it hard to compare. I am not stuck with pettit- but from where the conversation has been, no one has done much to persuade me in any other direction than what I originally thought.
Okay Brand, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did.
So Ewing looks like a much better and more efficient scorer on a per100poss basis, even though Pettit is still a handily better rebounder, and a better passer.
I'll continue to read arguements, I think I could be convinced either way.
DQuinn1575 wrote:Okay, we have Mikan, Pettit, and Wade.
Ewing and Frazier just weren't in the top echelon of players for me to pick them here.
Mikan 1952-1954 ws/48 is .264 which is only about 10% higher than Johnston (.238), Schayes (.238), and Macauley (.247).
Unfortunately our time frame starts in 1950, giving Mikan only 2 dominant years, and then 3 years where he is a little ahead of 3 guys who look to be second 50 guys.
Also, we have the era adjustment - Pettit is .213 ws/48 1957 to 1963 - better than Russell, similar to Oscar 1961-1963 of .218 - if he was in segregated league, Pettit would stand out like Mikan.
With longevity an issue, I give Pettit the edge over Mikan,
The flaws in Win Shares (not that it shouldn't ever be used might skew against Mikan here.
Theres one area where it might boost him. It likes players on good teams, perhaps too much. So maybe its favouring him there (though it might be argued that its issue is that it disproportionately splits credit across teams in a way that hurts the best players on all teams, particularly through DWS).
But with all boxscore composite stats there's an argument as to whether capturing what a player does is capturing what they can do. Basically redundancy (at an individual skill level and related issues about garbage time and diminishing returns/the increased difficulty of adding any more value to a team that is dominant). At a specific skill level Mikan was "competing" with Vern Mikkelsen for rebounds. His emergence might be one factor in explaining Mikan's "decline".
Returning to the defensive aspect, from what I can tell Ed Macauley was substantially overmatched on D at center and win shares won't capture that. Schayes said of himself that he was a poor defender though I don't know whether there's other sources to back that up (Robert Kalich's rating from 1970 give him a 9 out 10 in that area though that's some time after the fact, and we don't know how much he saw of Schayes).
Also, regarding Schayes as non-top 50, once Pettit is in isn't he the next power forward on the board? Whilst I like McHale a lack of sustained very high level performance ('87 clearly above the rest), the fact he never carried a team and concerns over whether he could (reluctant passing, and I've seen it suggested he should have done more when Bird was injured, whether that criticism is fair or not I'm not sure what with injuries and everything but worth considering).
Spoiler:
Playing devil's advocate here was he (substantially?) better than Larry Nance? If so how?
Hayes? The metrics suggest his inefficiency meant his peak was far from spectacular, his accolades are partly a result of a split league (in a unified league he isn't taking an all-NBA spot over a healthy, peak Dr J, and Cunningham and McGinnis would have provided addition competition) and partly just reputation cf: http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.p ... 028#p17026 . Some of those metrics might short change him on D, but they also don't factor in the quality of teammate he was (bad).
Maybe there is a gap 30 or so from now or from Pettit (who I'd guess is in soon) and the next PF in (we got a lot in already so maybe it balances out). Despite outdated shooting form, Schayes has some portability advantages (shooting range and a reasonable ability to draw fouls - and then convert from the line - fits nicely with modern thinking).
In any case (coming back to the main point) we've already Mikan's peak years prior to this spell when he was demolishing all comers both and an individual and team level. And then even after that he was still probably the best player and still winning titles. Then too, Mikan seems to have been dominant in the playoffs.
I could stlil go another way with this (Pettit and Stockton most prominently on my radar) but I think I've talked myself into a provisional vote for George Mikan
Wade and longevity. 11 seasons is plenty of longevity, I don't think wade should be penalized for that. Injuries are a bigger issue, not longevity but durability. I think you can legitimately give an ironman player like Bob Pettit (he had 2 broken bones in his BACK and never played less than 70 games in a season until his final year?) a bonus for playing through injuries. But I'd rather have a good 8-10 year prime as a top 10 guy than a shorter prime filled out with a lot of years of being an average or below average player. Frazier gets an edge over Wade here too, no serious injuries his first 8 years in the league averaging almost 80g/season.
Baylor v. Pettit. Elgin was a terrific player but even in his prime, he was not clearly better than contemporary Bob Pettit and Pettit dominated more (as shown by 2 MVPs), stayed healthier, and was just a slightly superior team winner even in their shared prime years. As for Elgin's rebounding, it was terrific but Pettit is #3 all-time behind only Wilt and Russell. Got to give Elgin his props though. . . he's a local boy from Spingarn HS
Durability is basically a subset of longevity, and yes, that's where wade really falters. He may have already had 11 productive seasons, but to basically be on this "maintenance plan" for the last 2 at his age isn't a good sign. I'd consider it a knock against him along with his overall time missed due to injury. No, it isn't his fault, as I think he's a hard worker (although some have questioned his drive to be in great shape lately), but I think durability is important when comparing players at similar levels.
Some quick stats:
For his career, wade has missed an average of 15 games per season. He played in 70+ games for only 6 of his 11 seasons (this includes the lockout shortened season where he played in what would've been equivalent to 60 games in an 82 game season). This is borderline kevin martin territory, who was always one of the better scorers in this league when he was healthy, but we didn't get to see it that often.
Wade and longevity. 11 seasons is plenty of longevity, I don't think wade should be penalized for that. Injuries are a bigger issue, not longevity but durability. I think you can legitimately give an ironman player like Bob Pettit (he had 2 broken bones in his BACK and never played less than 70 games in a season until his final year?) a bonus for playing through injuries. But I'd rather have a good 8-10 year prime as a top 10 guy than a shorter prime filled out with a lot of years of being an average or below average player. Frazier gets an edge over Wade here too, no serious injuries his first 8 years in the league averaging almost 80g/season.
Baylor v. Pettit. Elgin was a terrific player but even in his prime, he was not clearly better than contemporary Bob Pettit and Pettit dominated more (as shown by 2 MVPs), stayed healthier, and was just a slightly superior team winner even in their shared prime years. As for Elgin's rebounding, it was terrific but Pettit is #3 all-time behind only Wilt and Russell. Got to give Elgin his props though. . . he's a local boy from Spingarn HS
Durability is basically a subset of longevity, and yes, that's where wade really falters. He may have already had 11 productive seasons, but to basically be on this "maintenance plan" for the last 2 at his age isn't a good sign. I'd consider it a knock against him along with his overall time missed due to injury. No, it isn't his fault, as I think he's a hard worker (although some have questioned his drive to be in great shape lately), but I think durability is important when comparing players at similar levels.
Some quick stats:
For his career, wade has missed an average of 15 games per season. He played in 70+ games for only 6 of his 11 seasons (this includes the lockout shortened season where he played in what would've been equivalent to 60 games in an 82 game season). This is borderline kevin martin territory, who was always one of the better scorers in this league when he was healthy, but we didn't get to see it that often.
Yeah with Wade you get 6 seasons including one where his postseason was cut short (I didn't give Magic credit for 89 so Wade gets no credit for 05 when it comes to what could've been). I will say Wade in those seasons was extremely good.
Great exchange here between you two, looking forward to reading more if you guys are so inclined to continue.
I'm likely going with Ewing here, Pettit seems to have been a tremendous player, but there are still too many question marks for which there doesn't seem to be enough tape to evaluate to resolve.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
