RealGM Top 100 List #22

[Basketballefan]

Vote Dwyane Wade

3 time champion
FMVP
10 time all star
2 time all First team
scoring title etc

8th all time in PER
23rd in playoff PER

All time great title run & Finals, 28 6 6 59 TS%, 35 7 4 57 TS% in the finals
5 finals appearence altogether dominating 2 of them

All time great peak 2009: 30 5 8 57 TS%

Known for tearing up elite defenses in playoff series in his prime

27 6 6 68 TS% against Detroit pistons 06 ECF
33 6 7 65 TS% against Boston Celtics 2010 first round
30 7 5 62 TS% against Celtics ecsf
ETC

[trex_8063]

You know, since Ewing (my likely vote again) and Frazier (who I'm high on as well) have received support, what do you guys think about Reed? Both of his FMVP's likely should go to Frazier from my understanding, but I wonder what kind of traction he should be getting here? Some questions I have on him:

1) How good was he defensively, and what degree of responsibility did he have on that end on his teams?

I've wondered about this as well. Certainly seemed strong, likely able to bang down low pretty well. I think I'll play around with the H2H finder later, fwiw.....

2) How skilled/effective was he in the post?

Another good question. From the limited amount I've seen he seems decent about getting nice position (again: that big body), and also: dat turnaround and face-up J look nice.
His numbers/volume is at no point in his career super-impressive, though I suspect a lot of that is product of playing on such an awesome and deep team for most of his career. Lots of scorers they spread it around to.
Another question wrt to his offense: how effective of a passer was Reed?

3) What was his effective shooting range? From how far out was he consistent?

Sure seemed like he was pretty reliable out to about 17-18. Would love to hear johnlac (I think?) chime in on these questions.

4) How would you guys compare him to Ewing and Dwight (who I think should be receiving consideration sooner than later as well)?

Speaking for myself, Ewing's got to get voted in quite a bit in advance of Reed. Reed might have been have been a good defender, but I don't think he can be of Ewing's tier in that regard. The Knicks had either the worst-rated or second-worst defense in the league EACH of Reed's first three seasons. They didn't start going on the up-tick defensively until Frazier arrived, then jumped to #1 the first full season DeBusschere was around (was the only year they were #1 defensively, though).
Offensively, I think he was likely a little better than Ewing, though I'm not convinced he's any sort of top-tier offensive big, either.

And then there's the injury concerns and general longevity (which is even worse than Wade's.....and actually by a pretty significant margin, which should give pause at this point). So unless someone can just make a monster case for him with loads of info that's brand new to me, Reed's not really even on my radar just yet.

Just for my own interest, what's your pitch for Walt Frazier?

[Texas Chuck]

Colts18,

Last time I'm going to try I guess since you have literally ignored every attempt I have made to discuss Steve Nash with you. But here goes again.

1. Why did you only post select PS series for Nash and completely leave off the Dallas years?

2. Why so much emphasis on team offense? If we are going to consider a team accomplishment, a Nash accomplishment, then shouldn't we ask more questions about why his teams never made a Finals? And if we are going to not hold him accountable for team playoff success then why so much credit for team offense. Especially in light of the offensive talent he played with and the coaches he played for.

3. What do you make of the 05 Mavs in light of losing a player you view this highly, both in terms of w/l and team offense. Does it make you question giving Nash so much credit for the 02-04 Mavs offense? I noticed you looked at the before and after in Phoenix so its clear you value this analysis. Was it an oversight that you didn't do so with Dallas?

4 Does it concern you at all that he didn't make the most of his early prime because he loved the NBA life more than he loved putting in the work to take care of his body to play more minutes and to not wear down every year in the playoffs while in his 20s?

I'd be a lot more interested in considering Nash this high if I felt like your case moved past your same talking points and addressed more of the questions I and others have raised about Nash.

[ceiling raiser]

You know, since Ewing (my likely vote again) and Frazier (who I'm high on as well) have received support, what do you guys think about Reed? Both of his FMVP's likely should go to Frazier from my understanding, but I wonder what kind of traction he should be getting here? Some questions I have on him:

1) How good was he defensively, and what degree of responsibility did he have on that end on his teams?

I've wondered about this as well. Certainly seemed strong, likely able to bang down low pretty well. I think I'll play around with the H2H finder later, fwiw.....

2) How skilled/effective was he in the post?

Another good question. From the limited amount I've seen he seems decent about getting nice position (again: that big body), and also: dat turnaround!
His numbers/volume is at no point in his career super-impressive, though I suspect a lot of that is product of playing on such an awesome and deep team for most of his career. Lots of scorers they spread it around to.
Another question wrt to his offense: how effective of a passer was Reed?

3) What was his effective shooting range? From how far out was he consistent?

Sure seemed like he was pretty reliable out to about 17-18. Would love to hear johnlac (I think?) chime in on these questions.

4) How would you guys compare him to Ewing and Dwight (who I think should be receiving consideration sooner than later as well)?

Speaking for myself, Ewing's got to get voted in quite a bit in advance of Reed. Reed might have been have been a good defender, but I don't think he can be of Ewing's tier in that regard. The Knicks had either the worst-rated or second-worst defense in the league EACH of Reed's first three seasons. They didn't start going on the up-tick defensively until Frazier arrived, then jumped to #1 the first full season DeBusschere was around (was the only year they were #1 defensively, though).
Offensively, I think he was likely a little better than Ewing, though I'm not convinced he's any sort of top-tier offensive big, either.

And then there's the injury concerns and general longevity (which is even worse than Wade's). So unless someone can just make a monster case for him with loads of info that's brand new to me, Reed's not really even on my radar just yet.

Just for my own interest, what's your pitch for Walt Frazier?

Thanks for the response.

Well, the Knicks played a ton of pressure defense (they were the inspiration for the Bulls), so your perimeter players are very important. They had a ton of talent on that end, but Frazier seemed to be the lead defender (and had plenty of size).

Seemed to be a quality scorer, passer and ball-handler, and improved in the playoffs, but really his D (which I may be overrating) his valuable here. I'm fairly high on Kidd as well for similar reasons.

Of course I'll defer to poster who watched him a ton, just some quick thoughts.

[DQuinn1575]

Shouldn't be anytime soon. 7 seasons isn't enough.

That's true but a few things

A. No left is clearly a better basketball player than Durant has been the last 2 seasons.
B. He's got 5 top 5(more like top 2) player level seasons from 10-14.
C. As a franchise centerpiece he's led OKC to 3 conference finals and one finals appearance playing in a loaded west.

A. Since you said "Clearly", I agree. He's had one hell of a peak already.
B. He wasn't that great in 2010. Other than that, sure.
C. Agreed.

Reason why I personally can't vote for him yet is because I don't see an argument over D-Wade. I'd put 2009 Wade over any version of KD so far, and Wade has better longevity in terms of prime seasons AND overall career. If Dwyane Wade beats you in longevity, it's hard to come back from that (on my list).

If one thinks KD is better peak-wise and values peak highly, it's understandable to begin voting for Durant soon.

The next time a top 100 gets picked Durant is the guy most likely to move up his ranking.

So assume he's healthy and has a normal progression.

What's his highest ranking with zero rings?

What does he have to do / rings, be best player in league x number of years - to be 10th

What's his highest possible ranking- assuming he doesn't get another level better


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[penbeast0]

I think ewing is deserving here, and like I said last thread, i'm surprised by how much traction he already got. That said, i'll go back and check out some other players before submitting my vote.

FORWARDS

I remember you saying something about not rating barry all that highly, and then noticed he wasn't mentioned here. I'm well aware of the criticism of his off the court personality. Do you feel that personality actually prevented him from being more successful as a player? I'm not sure that it did.

Yes, I do. I think he had a higher usage than he should have due to his ego and although he was a terrific passer, think he shot too much; especially since he wasn't all that efficient (not terrible but not great). He also frequently seemed to feel that playing defense was beneath him, certainly not a floor burn player like West or Pettit. Further, I think his arrogance caused him to slam teammates; in a free agency era, a lot of people would just plain not want to play with him.

I realize it's a lot of "intangibles" arguments except maybe the defense; but I place a high value on being a good teammate.

[ronnymac2]

4) How would you guys compare him to Ewing and Dwight (who I think should be receiving consideration sooner than later as well)?

I see Dwight Howard's situation as being similar to Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan when it comes to offense, except that when Jordan and Bryant actually had a coach that was able to use them correctly and maximize the full effect of their considerable offensive talents, they won titles with him. When Dwight got a coach that was able to use him correctly and maximize the full effect of his considerable offensive talents, he got his coach fired and was only happy when he found another coach willing to give him carte blanche to post up and become a neutral offensive player.

Despite playing in the strongest era for strategy, analytics, and efficiency optimization, Howard puts his head down and covers his ears and thinks he's the best offensive option for any team he's on. This shows both a lack of smarts and an on-court arrogance that can at times hurt his teams.

Guys like Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Artis Gilmore, Nate Thurmond, and Patrick Ewing never showed any of this arrogance as far as I can tell. Thurmond's terrible FG% is more era-related than anything else. Cowens is more about a jump-shooting style. Reed was pretty efficient.

For me, Reed just lacks longevity. Very good prime player.

Thurmond vs. Howard, defense only: that's a good argument.

[DannyNoonan1221]

I know this process already takes a lot of time and we are trying to get through it, but is there any time in the near future where we could take a few days off and give some time for research? It feels really wide open right now and I know I would benefit a lot from a chance to compare guys.

At this pace, it will just turn into (for me) voting between the two or three guys everyone else is talking most about rather than who I think is the best player at that position.

[Doctor MJ]

I must certainly have missed the discussion if there has been any, but has anyone brought up Elvin Hayes yet?

Others are higher on him than me. To me the context of him relates to him vs Wes Unseld, where I think a lot of people felt "C'mon Unseld can't really be better than Hayes, look at how Hayes is asked to carry the scoring load!", but truly when you're as inefficient as Hayes was that should be something you're credited with. I'm willing to give Hayes a pass on scoring in that comparison, but if he's going to be above Unseld he has to win the comparison based on everything else. And that's tough because Unseld beats him at every other facet of offense (passing, rebounding, movement), was always seen as drastically superior in all intangibles, and he was highly regarded on defense.

And for the record, I don't expect myself to be championing Unseld any time soon, so the fact that I don't see Hayes as any kind of given over Unseld indicates he's not on my radar right now.

[Doctor MJ]

Gilmore v. Ewing

Scoring -- EDGE GILMORE, especially in the playoffs
Ewing scores at greater volume and range, Gilmore with greater efficiency
Per 36 minutes, career Gilmore is 19.0 on .623ts% (more efficient in NBA than ABA), peaking at 26.3 on .702ts% in 1982 (part of 5 straight years leading the NBA in fg%), playoffs 17.5 on .602 (his years in Chicago were on weak teams but except in 1976, he was never a dominant playoff scorer)
Per 36 minutes, career Ewing is 22.0 on .553ts%, peaking at 26.7 on .599ts% in 1990. Playoffs 19.4 on .517 (but Patrick really got inefficient in the playoffs)

Rebounding -- With Gilmore's lesser competition at his mid 70s peak but stronger numbers -- even
Gilmore 18.0 reb %, 18.0 playoffs
Ewing 16.5 reb%, 16.7 in playoffs

Passing -- Ewing for his career is 2.0ast/3.1to, Gilmore is 2.3ast/3.2to, neither were particularly strong -- even

Defense -- Gilmore at his peak was more visible and feared; Ewing's teams had consistently superior defenses (with stronger personnel around him). Gilmore in the NBA was much more stationary, staying in the low post while Ewing was more aggressive. EDGE EWING

Intangibles -- Neither was a cerebral player, neither had a high basketball IQ, but Ewing was a fighter and aggressive player while Gilmore, with the possible exception of 75 and 76, was often criticized for his passivity. EDGE EWING

The numbers say Gilmore was better but while I don't think the mid 70s ABA was that much below the mid 70s NBA (take Kareem out of the NBA and Virginia out of the ABA and I'd say even improving to ABA superiority in 75 and 76), I do think the mid 70s were weaker than the 80s. However, the big key for me is the star mentality setting the tone for the players. Ewing's aggression sets a more winning team tone than Gilmore's more passive star personality. When Gilmore stepped up and took more responsibility (75 and 76), you saw a more positive team response (75 title run was all Artis), but then he got to a dysfunctional Chicago team and instead of taking a leadership role, he just seemed to set up for his own statistics.

Although I vote Frazier over Ewing for the playoff heroics and leadership, I would prefer Ewing over Gilmore for his fire and aggression though Artis is the more talented.

So this is a good thing to see. As beast might remember, I've argued for Artis over Ewing in the past. Quite fond of that ABA era, and any of'em with the whole afro & beard look.



Lookin' good!

I've been leaning Ewing over Gilmore here though as beast is.

In the end with Gilmore, there's a falloff that's really problematic. If it were just in scoring volume I'd actually praise it - I think the Gilmore approach of scoring less but doing it with hyper efficiency is something that would have benefitted Ewing - but in general Gilmore just turned into a pretty passive guy. With his size I'd expect he could be a dominant defender basically until he dropped. I don't think he was terrible, but he didn't seem to be scaring anyone in the '80s with his D.

Still, once Ewing is in, Gilmore should probably be the next big that gets in. I know his early career was in the young ABA, but the guy was an absolute force, and his fall toward something less than that is still pretty graceful when you consider how long he played.

[E-Balla]

My vote is going to be for Walt Frazier. Basically I think he's the best perimeter defender of the people contending at this spot while also being the second/third best playoff performer offensively of the bunch (Wade and Nash over him). With Clyde you have no weaknesses but with Nash you have his defense (which isn't too terrible but its bad) and (this is going to sound crazy) his bad luck. With Wade you have little longevity and a ton of injuries in his good years.

My next big I'm considering is Ewing and I think I'd take Walt's postseason performance over Ewing who's postseason dominance was usually one way outside of 90, 93, most of 94, and 97.

[Doctor MJ]

I wonder when people will start making an argument for Durant

I hope not before Chris Paul gets in.

[E-Balla]

4) How would you guys compare him to Ewing and Dwight (who I think should be receiving consideration sooner than later as well)?

Since So hasn't been mentioned I see no reason to mention Dwight. I mean in terms of longevity Dwight is about even with Zo. Zo has 93-00 with minimal injury concerns (not the least injury prone guy though) and high level play and Dwight has 07-13 with minimal injuries and high level play.

Statistically after adjusting for competition Zo comes out ahead in the regular season (21/10, 3 bpg, 59 TS, 109 ORTG, 22.4 PER vs 20/13, 2 bpg, 61 TS, 110 ORTG, 23.1 PER) and he was a better defender. Dwight looks better in the postseason until you remember how they got their offense (Zo creating shots and Dwight basically finishing).

I might lean either way but these two are close. I give Zo the regular season and character edge and Dwight the postseason edge.

[Texas Chuck]

why in the world would Dwight or Zo get consideration before Deke? If we are talking about the best defensive big man of the modern era left on the board, he' s got to be the guy. And while he's not the scorer the other 2 are, neither of them should be drawing consideration based on their offense.

[E-Balla]

why in the world would Dwight or Zo get consideration before Deke? If we are talking about the best defensive big man of the modern era left on the board, he' s got to be the guy. And while he's not the scorer the other 2 are, neither of them should be drawing consideration based on their offense.

But it helps. I'm not really getting this "he was primarily defensive so let's ignore a whole side of the ball" attitude many of you have. Zo and Dwight were way better than Deke offensively and as a result they were more successful. Now when including longevity Deke should be ranked right there with them. But I'm not ignoring one whole side of the ball.

[JordansBulls]

Wade 16-2 in series with HCA

Code: Select all

 
              HCA(50+)/non-50    Road(50+)/non-50
Tmac:         0-2 / 0-0          0-3 / 0-1
Wade:         3-2/ 13-0           3-4 /0-0
Durant:       4-2/ 3-0           1-2/0-0
Ewing          3-2/6-1            5-8/1-0


Wade: 34.7 pts/7.8 reb/3.8 ast/2.7 stl/1.0 blk/47% FG in the finals when he won it all

wade career in the finals: 26 pts / 6 reb / 4 ast on 48% shooting with 2 of the top 30 finals in history.

Vote: Wade

[RSCD3_]

Does Rick Barry deserve to be brought up soon.

Other than wade And Nash I feel he has the highest offensive peak


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[ronnymac2]

Does Rick Barry deserve to be brought up soon.

Other than wade And Nash I feel he has the highest offensive peak


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

100% in my opinion. Dude was an amazing offensive player. Only thing that holds him back for me is longevity, although I'd love if somebody can explain how Barry was in those early ABA years.

[Texas Chuck]

why in the world would Dwight or Zo get consideration before Deke? If we are talking about the best defensive big man of the modern era left on the board, he' s got to be the guy. And while he's not the scorer the other 2 are, neither of them should be drawing consideration based on their offense.

. I'm not really getting this "he was primarily defensive so let's ignore a whole side of the ball" attitude many of you have. But I'm not ignoring one whole side of the ball.

Im not ignoring one side of the ball mate, and Im not sure where you are getting that from my post? Disagree with me on how to rank Deke compared to them if you believe they should be higher, but please don't assign me a position Im not taking.

I freely acknowledge both guys superiority as scorers right in it. But just because they are better scorers doesnt mean they were better players or deserve to be ahead of Deke because imo they weren't and they don't.

[E-Balla]

why in the world would Dwight or Zo get consideration before Deke? If we are talking about the best defensive big man of the modern era left on the board, he' s got to be the guy. And while he's not the scorer the other 2 are, neither of them should be drawing consideration based on their offense.

. I'm not really getting this "he was primarily defensive so let's ignore a whole side of the ball" attitude many of you have. But I'm not ignoring one whole side of the ball.

Im not ignoring one side of the ball mate, and Im not sure where you are getting that from my post? Disagree with me on how to rank Deke compared to them if you believe they should be higher, but please don't assign me a position Im not taking.

I freely acknowledge both guys superiority as scorers right in it. But just because they are better scorers doesnt mean they were better players or deserve to be ahead of Deke because imo they weren't and they don't.

I'm sorry but is there other ways to interpret that bolded statement? You basically said Deke was better defensively and sure those guys were better scorers than Deke but forget that. They aren't drawing consideration off their offense but more on their overall game.

Also that statement isn't all on you Doc MJ said something similar about Ewing when I was arguing Ewing over Robinson.