RealGM Top 100 List: #19

[Lou Fan]

1st Vote: Charles Barkley
I'm giving the edge to Barkley over Moses in this one mostly because of his playmaking ability. Barkley could handle the ball in the fast break very well for a big. It can create mismatches when a big can get the rebound and bring the ball up and Barkley had good enough handles to do that from time to time. He is also one of the best passing power forwards of all time. During his peak years his assist % got up to the low 20s (21.2 was his best year). Moses was never a good passer. I wouldn't call him a black hole but he was pretty close to one. I also give Sir Charles the edge as a scorer (barely) because he was efficient and versatile. Chuck also clearly has the advantage in peak and prime. Moses's top season in ws/48 was .248 while Chuck had 4 seasons above that mark. Chuck was 11 time all nba to Moses's 8. I think Moses has the edge in longevity but not a very large one. Moses had 3 seasons at the end of his career where he was 5 ppg player and those seasons don't count for much if at all in my eyes. The gap between Chuck and Moses in defense is not as big as most people are saying. They were both poor defenders and Moses was clearly better, but he played a more important and bigger role in his defenses. Malone was asked to be a rim protector and at times an anchor, and Chuck never had those responsibilities. This closes the gap between them because Moses was bad in a much more important role. This shows in the defensive box +-. Moses only had 3 seasons above 0 and never was more than +.8. Chuck was positive every single year of his career and his highest was +3.9. An analogy I'll use for this is would you have rather have Rudy Gay as your volume scorer and primary ball handler (a role he can play but is not very effective/efficient at) or Iman Shumpert as an off-ball player.
Alternate: Moses Malone

[Dr Positivity]

Since this will likely come down to Moses and Barkley

Moses big advantages would be defense and intangibles. With more talent to help him save energy in PHI Moses appears to have been very good and makes 1st team All-D. At most defensive position, very good D even if not ATG, has value, and a lot of value over presumable Barkley defense at worse defensive position PF. High effort level and toughness makes leadership by example.

Barkley is clearly more valuable offensively. He plays the more offensive position and is better at it, with elite efficiency, is a playmaker which is one of Moses biggest weaknesses building a team around him, and has more floor spacing. While his DRAPM hurts his overall rating at the time, Houston Barkley still has best in the league level ORAPM. With far better boxscore stats in his prime it likely means his ORAPM would be at the top.

Longevity and playoff performance seems close to a wash. Moses wins 3 MVPs but that probably overstates the difference between his and Barkley's record. Barkley has the most impressive MVP loss ever (most 1st place votes in 1990 with Jordan/Magic) and Moses has one of the least impressive wins imo (winning 79 with Gervin and Hayes as 2nd/3rd place, Kareem was there but in enough of an off year to voters to be bored and put him 4th)

My biggest concern with Moses is the Houston version if he was indeed in “All Offense” mode, as shown by Houston DRTGs. I don’t like an all offense Moses as much as Barkley. Taking advantage of the defensive advantages of his position seems like a better fit. With that said I’ve been siding with intangibles as a tiebreaker all project. And in this case it seems close enough to go with that again and pick Moses. Calling Houston Moses a bad defender is somewhat speculation as well based on team results. Note the 3 years before Moses got there the Rockets were 3rd, 1st and 1st on offense and 15/17, 14/18, 18/18 on defense. They may have already set a culture of all offense play.

Vote: Moses

2nd: Barkley

[wojoaderge]

Not much more to say about George Mikan other than he's my first vote once again. To repeat, no one left on the board was as dominating in his particular time or served as the go-to guy on as championship teams as he did.

Now for my alternate. Moses - I just have no idea why he's so underrated. He's easily more dominating, more overpowering, and more impossible to stop than any of 5s or 4s remaining. 3 MVPs. He led a 65-17 team to the championship as its best player and led a sub-.500 team to the NBA Finals (only the 2nd one to date). If you want to talk longevity, he had at least 16 straight good to awesome seasons. So, I don't know the problem is here.

1-George Mikan
2-Moses Malone

[Lou Fan]

I would nominate KD for some consideration. He's been in the league 10 years, with a career average of 27/7/4 and an 8 year average PER of 27, which beats anything moses/barkley have done. defensively, he also is far better than them. if LBJ can be ranked #3 of all time (and LBJ is arguably at his playoff peak in recent years), and KD just beat him in their 1v1 matchup, KD deserves some consideration here.

I don't know if I can vote, but I would vote: 1. Moses, 2. KD

I don't think it is remotely accurate to say KD won his 1v1 matchup with Lebron. First of all KD before this finals was 5-18 against Lebron despite having a very good team the majority of his career. Let's disregard the fact that KD had far superior help and just look at the box score numbers. KD averaged 35/8/5. Lebron averaged 34/12/10. No one in their right mind would say Durant's stats are better. Now let's take into account that Durant has 3 other All-NBA level players and an all time great pg. They all pull focus away from Durant and give him plenty of 1 on 1 opportunities and space the floor for him. Curry creates so many openings for his teammates and if Lebron had Curry his stat line would be even better. Lebron was also asked to be his teams best defensive player and he guarded KD 1 on 1 for much of the game. Igoudala, Draymond, and Klay Thompson are all better defensive players than KD and their work on the defensive allowed KD to rest at times on defense. Saying KD beat Lebron 1 on 1 is highly questionable once you consider all factors and context. I hate defending Lebron because I really don't like him but let's be realistic please. sry trex i didnt intend to be inflammatory

[2klegend]

At #19, I'm going to rely on my personal GOAT formula to determine because both are extremely close.

Peak:

Code: Select all

      
                        Peak Year   Reg       Pos       Peak(Reg+Playoff)
17   Charles Barkley      1993      120.514   108.399   114.457
30   Moses Malone         1983       96.730   110.072   103.401



Prime:

Code: Select all

      
                               Prime Years               7 years Prime
6    Charles Barkley       87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93      125.158
61   Moses Malone          79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85       87.323



Longevity:

Code: Select all

      
                       #of YRS 17+PER   Longevity
3    Moses Malone             18         180
11   Charles Barkley          15         150


Award:

Code: Select all

               
                     Ring 1st  Ring 2nd  MVP  FMVP  AS 1st ALL  2nd ALL  1st D  2nd D Total
14  Moses Malone        10         0      30    5   12    8        4         2     1     72
38  Charles Barkley      0         0      10    0   11   10        5         0     0     36



Code: Select all

      
                        Peak (20%)   Prime (35%) Longevity (10%)   Award (35%) GOAT TOTAL

16   Moses Malone          20.680    30.563      18.000            25.200       94.443
17   Charles Barkley       22.891    43.805      15.000            12.600       94.297



Given how extremely close they were in GOAT point accumulation, I have a hard time determining. I favor Barkley but Mose superior longevity along with his accomplishment rank him slightly higher. However, I have to do a re-evaluation so I might change my vote later.

1st Pick: Mose
2nd Pick: Barkley

I have to revise this a bit after doing my evaluation. As much as I love Moses, his longevity is overvalued. He shouldn't be reward for 18 quality seasons. Even with being very conservative in counting his season, he played at above average level from '77-92, which is about 16 seasons. From 93-95, he was a role player playing less than 20mpg and having a negative impact production (-BPM). I don't count ABA career.

Barkley having superior peak and his prime is GOAT level make this argument rather easy now. Moses inconsistency and inferior statistical dominance play against him despite winning 3x MVP. Worth noting that his MVP in '79 and '82 were weak. '79 Rockets rank 4th in the division and '82 Rockets rank 6th in conference. How he got those MVP is beyond me. Only explanation is the weak candidates from those seasons.

Code: Select all

      
                        Peak (20%)   Prime (35%) Longevity (10%)   Award (35%) GOAT TOTAL
19   Charles Barkley       22.891    43.805      15.000            12.600       94.297
20   Moses Malone          20.680    30.563      16.000            25.200       92.443



1st Vote: Barkley
2nd Vote: Moses

I think your formula is very solid except for the weight it puts on awards. This is definitely one of the cases where it might put the wrong guy ahead based on lesser MVP awards.

I noticed that immediately when looking at your post for these two guys.

I don't see much issue. I put equal weight to winning an MVP as winning title as best player. A major highlight of a player career is based on his title and MVP. Other small tidbits like all-nba and all-star are extra positive on their resume but make no mistake MVP and title determine how successful they were in their career.

[2klegend]

Why don't you count ABA career?

Because I don't consider it an equal league to the NBA and it wouldn't be fair to use ABA career vs full NBA player. That's like I have to count D-Rob navy career or college career. We should stick mainly to NBA discussion and that's where GOAT career should be the focal point. This is NBA GOAT list after all.

You are incorrect. As stated in the rules for this project, it specifically includes late NBL, 1950s NBA, and ABA seasons as well as NBA seasons. It does not include European, Olympic, college, or playground basketball (or the ABL). For what it's worth, by 1975, the ABA was pretty much equal to the NBA and with a more modern style of basketball.

If we are to count the ABA, then Moses may come ahead of Barkley. I may have to flip flop between crediting Moses for 18 quality (above average, productive player) or 16 seasons (based on NBA only). So if someone can help me explain Moses longevity, that would be appreciated. How many seasons did he really play above average?

[LA Bird]

1. Charles Barkley
One of the best offensive players ever with his combination of efficiency in the paint, offensive rebounding, passing and a servicable free throw percentage to counter any hacking strategy (see Shaq). A bit of a turnover machine in his first few seasons but solved that problem pretty quickly. Poor defense in the 90s is a shame since he had shown the ability to play at least league average defense in his earlier seasons. Longevity isn't too bad either with multiple seasons as the best player in Houston even when past his prime.

2. John Stockton
Excellent longevity and high quality consistency throughout career (even if not as good as the advanced stats would indicate).

[wojoaderge]

If we are to count the ABA, then Moses may come ahead of Barkley. I may have to flip flop between crediting Moses for 18 quality (above average, productive player) or 16 seasons (based on NBA only). So if someone can help me explain Moses longevity, that would be appreciated. How many seasons did he really play above average?

I'd say 15 years, 1974-90, minus 75-76

[2klegend]

If we are to count the ABA, then Moses may come ahead of Barkley. I may have to flip flop between crediting Moses for 18 quality (above average, productive player) or 16 seasons (based on NBA only). So if someone can help me explain Moses longevity, that would be appreciated. How many seasons did he really play above average?

I'd say 15 years, 1974-90, minus 75-76

What about '91 and '92? His production says he's an above average and he was playing above 20+min per 82 games in those years. It really come down to 16 NBA or 18 seasons (NBA + ABA). Clearly his 1st two seasons in the ABA, he was an impact, productive player. But his last 3 NBA seasons were the typical role player sticking around to collect paycheck.

[Dr Positivity]

KD has been in the league 10 years, but one was his rookie season and the other was his foot injury year. His 2nd season has lower level all-star numbers, but his impact appears to be horrendous, he finishes 434th in RAPM and is -8.6 on/off (he was just as bad in both stats as a rookie). That leaves 7 other seasons, which is reasonable to consider soon with players like Wade, Paul, Nash, Mikan coming up, but Moses and Barkley longevity advantage look too strong to me for him to get over either considering they have a good case against him at peak as well

[Pablo Novi]

SUGGESTED MIKAN COMPROMISE: GOAT #25
I have a suggestion re. our collective GOAT ranking of George Mikan:
Why not have him be GOAT #25 ?

I don't think 25 is unreasonable, though it's slightly higher than I presently have him on my ATL. It depends a lot, again, on how you rate that era, and also on how much you value longevity (I sorta value it a lot). Mikan's longevity, it should be stated, is not bad at all for the time period (especially if we consider those NBL seasons). However, it's not exceptional either.

About Cousy vs such as: Stockton, Nash, Paul, Frazier (or Kidd, Payton, Isiah, Curry.

I was never a huge fan of Cousy's (mostly because his great years happened before I started watching). Still, assuming our main criteria is how a player played AGAINST HIS COMPETITION IN HIS ERA; Cousy was ALL-NBA 1st-Team 10 years - twice as many as Kidd; 2.5 times as many as: CP3, Walt Frazier & Sharman; and at least 3+ times as many as the rest of these other otherwise quite-worthy PGs). That's a tremendous amount more position-wise domination.

Also, we have not as yet included any players who played mostly in the 1950s - that strikes me as a bit unbalanced.

N.B. I treat Jerry West as a SG rather than as a PG. Gail Goodrich, who played with Jerry about half of Jerry's career, said that Gail was the PG and Jerry the SG. Also, Jerry, particularly early on, was not a great assists man (less than 5 apg for his first 5 years, still less than 7 during his next 4 years); but what a shooter!

GOAT PGs:
by Pablo's "GREAT YEARS" "POINTS" Rankings:

#. "PTS"; Name; 1st-Teams; 2nd-Tms (ALL-NBA)
. 1. 49.8 Magic ..... 9 (1st-Tm) - 1 (2nd-Tm)
. 2. 49.0 Big "O" .... 9 - 2
. 3. 40.0 Cousy ... 10 - 2 N.B. Despite Cousy's TEN 1st-Tms, he only has 40 "Pts"; because I've discounted heavily his era.
. 4. 37.8 Stockton .. 2 - 6
. 5. 35.0 Kidd ....... 5 - 1
. 6. 33.8 Paul ....... 4 -3
. 7. 29.8 Payton .... 2 - 5
. 8. 29.3 Nash ...... 3 - 2
. 9. 28.5 A.I. ........ 3 - 3
10. 24.5 Isiah ....... 3 - 2
11. 23.3 Westbrook 2 - 4
12. 22.5 Frazier ... 4 - 2
13. 19.0 Tiny ...... 3 - 2
14. 19.0 Sharman . 4 - 3
15. 17.5 Curry ..... 2 - 2

fwiw, I disagree with how you've chosen to arrange your all-time hierarchy (with roughly the same number of players from each position represented within your list).

I mean it's no mystery that being tall is an advantageous feature for the sport of basketball and that, historically, this has been a "big man's game". Thus, I can't justify a strategy of trying to level the playing field to have equal numbers of PGs, SGs, SFs, PFs, and Cs within my top [insert whatever multiple of 5]. To me, that's just a small step from basing your my list order on who I think are inch-for-inch the best ball-players (and by that standard or philosophy, maybe someone like Muggsy Bogues would be in the top 20 or even top 10).


Within the confines of comparing a player only to his same-position peers, I do agree awards/honors/accolades have their place in analysis (wrt to seeing how someone related to his same-position contemporaries). otoh, I don't believe they should simply be taken at face-value, and/or serve as a substitute for more granular player analysis.

Where Cousy is concerned, there are other considerations that should be looked at. For one (as with Mikan), strength of era during which he had his best years is a factor. And where all his awards/honors are concerned, strength of competition among the guard positions at the time is a major factor. Cousy did appear to be THE most dominant guard of the 1950's; however, one could again point to strength of era and relative lack of integration, etc, as well as suggest a lack of true superstar level guards (wrt competition for those award). I don't feel we can brush this concern off by arbitrarily declaring game circumstances did not allow for REALLY dominant guards.
I mean we see within Cousy's own career (even within the tail-end of his prime) that game circumstances DID allow for truly transcendent level of dominance from a guard--->we saw this in '61 and '62 with the emergence of Oscar Robertson and Jerry West. They dominated the game to a degree that Cousy NEVER had, even in the 1950's. I can't think of a game circumstance that fully accounts for this. My conclusion for why this occurred was simply: West and Robertson were much better players.

As such, I'm not ready to consider Cousy at this stage of the project.

I. ABOUT "MY" RELATIVE EQUALITY OF POSITIONS:
What nobody else seems to even mention is that the smaller guys do a lot more: running around, cutting, chasing, dribbling & passing. Except for direct assists then, all that offensive & defensive extra effort doesn't show up in the box scores - but it DOES make a difference - I'd say it'd be in the "ball park" as as big a contribution (over the bigs) as the bigs' defensive is (over the smalls).

II. ABOUT COUSY'S DOMINANCE (or lack thereof):
Cousy ran off TEN straight seasons (1952-1961) of ALL-NBA 1st-Teams. So this includes 1961 where he was a 1st-Team-er along with the Big "O". (He was also the very FIRST player to rack up 9 and then 10 ALL-League 1st-Team selections.)

Cousy dominated his position during a period where the level of play was better than it had been during Mikan's domination of his position - and for decidedly more games. For me this argues for Cousy to YES be considered this high on our GOAT list.

That he fell to 2nd-Team ALL-NBA the next two seasons behind "O" & Jerry West; doesn't NECESSARILY tell us all that much. Only THREE players in all of NBA-ABA-NBL history had 11 ALL-League 1st-Team selections (K.Malone, Kobe & now LBJ). So Cousy FINALLY coming off his solid 10-year PRIME to a level still good enough for TWO additional seasons as a 2nd-Team-er - this is not only not any proof IN ITSELF that he was as much surpassed as he was getting old (in NBA (PRIME) years). Of course, almost no one, myself included, puts Cousy in the same tier as the Big "O" and Jerry West - but that's besides the point HERE - I'm simply addressing his DECADE's worth of positional DOMINANCE.

III. A WEAKNESS IN OUR COLLECTIVE GOAT TOP 25
Cousy won't be getting chosen in this GOAT #19 thread; and it seems almost as unlikely that he'll be chosen in the next one either. So in our GOAT Top 20 (perhaps even GOAT Top 25), we'll end up with FIVE Guards; when, just based on the number of positions, proportionally there should be about 8 (10 for a GOAT Top 25). Depending on if you classify Jerry West as a PG or as a SG, we've picked 2-3 SGs and 3-2 PGs.

Of the remaining Guards, none (has) had the record of positional-dominance CLOSE to that of Cousy's - NONE of them. Only Gervin (SG) and Kidd (PG) had even half as many ALL-League 1st-Team selections. That's a HUGE gap Cousy has over the remaining "field". Again, if people want to try to make the case that Cousy "only dominated in a weak era against weak positional-players" - that same argument rings truer stronger for ALL the other players (including Mikan) whose careers were simultaneous or earlier to his career.

IV. MY ANTI-PERSONAL BIAS "FOR" COUSY.

LET ME ADD, ALL The Players I most cared about have already been selected (except Elgin Baylor) - so my arguments in Cousy's favor are not driven by any personal bias towards him whatsoever. In fact, becoming a "rabid" NBA (-NBL-ABA) fan starting with the 59-60 season, and not being in the Boston area in the earliest '60s, I was only aware of Cousy due to reputation. Then, having attended C's games at the Gaaaden (1963-1967) and experiencing the nasty racism of the fans there towards their own black players (#1 target was the great Bill Russell himself) - I came to dislike that franchise more than any other.

In other words, I couldn't have less personal stake in Cousy being selected in our GOAT Top 25 - I just think, based on dominance of one's position; no one remaining (except Pettit & Baylor - who I have in his same tier, ALL GOAT Top 25-ers); he SHOULD be in the GOAT Top 25.

V. ONCE MORE ON A COMPROMISE-SOLUTION MAKING MIKAN OUR COLLECTIVE GOAT #25:
trex, you say that voting in Mikan at GOAT #25 is slightly higher than you have him on your AT list - same for me - as the years & decades have passed; I've moved him down from my GOAT #1 to GOAT #50 - and believe he should be permanently kept at GOAT #50 (at the lowest!). My suggestion for us collectively making him GOAT #25 is to some significant is a purely practical consideration - seeing as such worthy posters in these threads as penbeast0 keep voting for him (or saying he should go soon); while others see him a good deal further down the list - it SEEMS to me that APRIORI, mutually "agreeing" to have him go GOAT #25 - is a decent compromise AND frees up penbeast0 and several others from going round after round "wasting" their votes on a candidate that virtually nobody else is even mentioning yet for alternate.

[wojoaderge]

If we are to count the ABA, then Moses may come ahead of Barkley. I may have to flip flop between crediting Moses for 18 quality (above average, productive player) or 16 seasons (based on NBA only). So if someone can help me explain Moses longevity, that would be appreciated. How many seasons did he really play above average?

I'd say 15 years, 1974-90, minus 75-76

What about '91 and '92? His production says he's an above average and he was playing above 20+min per 82 games in those years. It really come down to 16 NBA or 18 seasons (NBA + ABA). Clearly his 1st two seasons in the ABA, he was an impact, productive player. But his last 3 NBA seasons were the typical role player sticking around to collect paycheck.

I could see '92, but in '76 and '91 he was a bench player. I would personally not count those seasons in a Top 100 arena.

[Dr Positivity]

A WEAKNESS IN OUR COLLECTIVE GOAT TOP 25
Cousy won't be getting chosen in this GOAT #19 thread; and it seems almost as unlikely that he'll be chosen in the next one either. So in our GOAT Top 25, we'll end up with FIVE Guards; when, just based on the number of positions, proportionally there should be about 10. Depending on if you classify Jerry West as a PG or as a SG, we've picked 2-3 SGs and 3-2 PGs.

I think you mean 5 in the top 20. Which is a little light as 40% would be 8 out of 20, but with Nash, Wade, Paul, Stockton, Isiah, Frazier, Curry, Cousy, Kidd in contention I'm going to say there will probably be more guards that go 21-30 than forwards/bigs

[Outside]

Interesting discussion regarding Cousy, Mikan, and Pettit. They are really hard to place on the list. I currently have Pettit at 23, Mikan at 26, and Cousy at 35, but I'm thinking now that I should move Mikan above Pettit.

I'm probably one of the older participants here, but my direct observation of the NBA doesn't extend far enough to include Cousy, Pettit, Mikan, or others prior to the mid-60s. It's difficult for most of us to properly assess those who played before we were old enough to remember them, but players of that early era have additional challenges to gaining traction on an all-time list. I think I've discussed some of these issues before, but I thought I'd address them again since we're at the point that more people are considering these players.

Reduced talent pool. In my view, this is the most significant argument against players of that era. The most glaring omission from the talent pool is black players, but that's not the only one. Pro basketball was a third-rate sport in those early days. Baseball was king, football (college and pro) were bigger sports in the U.S., and even boxing was arguably a bigger sport. College basketball was much more popular than pro basketball, but the college game took a huge hit with the point-shaving scandals of the early 50s and 60s, and NBA popularity rose to an extent because of that void, but the college game ruled the basketball scene in the early days. The fact that pro basketball was a lower-tier sport and paid so little compared to other sports meant that top athletes gravitated to other sports.

Low shooting percentages. There are several factors responsible here.

-- The style of play during that time was high pace with volume shooting, with the emphasis on getting as many good shooting opportunities as possible instead of fewer high-efficiency opportunities.

-- Rims were much "tighter." In the early days, dunking was considered unsportsmanlike, but Dr. J and others popularized dunking in the 70s, which was soon followed by players like Darryl Dawkins shattering backboards. The introduction of the breakaway rim prevented damage to backboards and rims, but it also had the side effect of increasing shooting percentages because the rim flexes downward when a shot hits it, resulting a softer bounce that is more likely to help the ball go in. Shooting percentages rose from the low- to mid-40s to the high-40s with the introduction of the breakaway rim.

-- The evolution of shooting mechanics. Video footage of those early days includes plenty of two-handed set shots and outside hook shots. Shooting mechanics that we take for granted now were still being developed then. Players shot the way they were coached to shoot, which often wasn't optimal by today's standards.

-- Lack of practice and training methods. Salaries were low in those days, and most players needed jobs in the off-season to make ends meet. Many players didn't touch a ball in the off-season and used training camp to get back into physical condition and refresh basic skills like shooting. The season itself was compressed, travel took a much bigger chunk of time, and there were few days to practice during the season. There was no such thing as shootarounds before games.

For purposes of ranking players of that era, it's important to look at their shooting percentages relative to the league average at that time, not the shooting percentages of today.

Ballhandling that looks stilted. This is often used to dismiss players of the era, that they're unathletic because they dribble like grade schoolers and don't exhibit the spectacular athletic plays with the ball of later players, but this is primarily due to rules enforcement -- any movement of the hand down the side of ball was whistled as carrying the ball. When you have to keep your hand on top of the ball, that eliminates a lot of the fancy ballhandling and side-to-side movement on drives. Top players of the era were great athletes, but they may not appear so compared to current players because they weren't allowed to do what players get away with now.

Players were short and skinny. A common perception is that players from the early days were much shorter and lightweights compared to today's players. While that's true to an extent, the difference isn't as much as many believe.

In the old days, players often listed their height as their actual height in bare feet. Bill Russell was variously listed as 6-9 or 6-10 when his actual height was something like 6-9 3/4. Today's players routinely exaggerate their height, so that Dwight Howard (6-9 w/o shoes) is listed at 6-11, Tristan Thompson (6-7 3/4) is listed as 6-9, and Draymond Green (6-5 3/4) is listed at 6-7. Kevin Durant (6-9) is listed at 6-11 and commonly referred to as a 7-footer, but look at him next to 83-year-old Bill Russell at the finals MVP trophy presentation.



I agree that players in the league are taller overall than in the early era, but using listed heights exaggerates the difference.

The same goes with weights. Many players in the early era used their weight entering the league as their listed weight throughout their career. Bill Russell, for example, was listed at 220 throughout his career, and Wilt Chamberlain was listed at a max of 275, but both players exceeded that substantially toward the ends of their careers.

Another factor is that the fast pace of play in those days favored athletes who were built more like distance runners. Big, bulky guys couldn't keep up. Players of today are generally heavier, but that's a reflection of the style of play. It's also a reflection of changed training methods and nutrition.


Overall, many of these factors are considered as strikes against players from the early era, but I don't think that's fair. Just something to consider as we assess the best players from the early days.

[Outside]

I know Havlicek isn't getting any traction here, but I'd like to point out why I think he's a valid choice compared to Moses and Barkley.

Havlicek isn't all-time elite in any one area but is a notch below that in almost EVERY area -- offense, defense, transition, PS performance, and longevity, and you could break that down into individual categories. He's one of the most complete players to ever play the game.

Charles is better offensively and as a rebounder, but he's bad defensively and doesn't have Havlicek's postseason resume.

Moses is a better rebounder and perhaps has more impact offensively (but that's debatable -- Havlicek's offensive versatility is a strong point). Moses has significant liabilities as a playmaker and in his postseason resume (a disturbing number of seasons out of the playoffs or one and done).

I'd be interested to know where others have Havlicek on their list.

[wojoaderge]

I'd be interested to know where others have Havlicek on their list.

Late 20s

[Winsome Gerbil]

A WEAKNESS IN OUR COLLECTIVE GOAT TOP 25
Cousy won't be getting chosen in this GOAT #19 thread; and it seems almost as unlikely that he'll be chosen in the next one either. So in our GOAT Top 25, we'll end up with FIVE Guards; when, just based on the number of positions, proportionally there should be about 10. Depending on if you classify Jerry West as a PG or as a SG, we've picked 2-3 SGs and 3-2 PGs.

I think you mean 5 in the top 20. Which is a little light as 40% would be 8 out of 20, but with Nash, Wade, Paul, Stockton, Isiah, Frazier, Curry, Cousy, Kidd in contention I'm going to say there will probably be more guards that go 21-30 than forwards/bigs

The MVP award has been around for 61 years. Assuming that the next 2 guys to round out the Top 20 are Sir Charles and Moses, 46 of the 61 MVPs will be represented in the Top 20, with most of the leftovers being either older shaky 1 timers (Unseld, Cowens etc.) or current players who do not have the full careers to be considered so high. So maybe the problem with guards being underrepresented is more due to the sport itself than the list. Until very recently guards were the guys you used to get the ball to the important people. Rules changes and the near exploit of 3pt spamming may have nearly reversed that now that you can't play defense on them and they can spam a shot worth 50% more than other guys' shots, but through most of the league's history, it was the big guys powering winning or losing. Magic and Bird started to loosen that, but they were both still big 6'9" players. Jordan was really the first true guard to prove you could build a dynasty around a little guy.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I know Havlicek isn't getting any traction here, but I'd like to point out why I think he's a valid choice compared to Moses and Barkley.

Havlicek isn't all-time elite in any one area but is a notch below that in almost EVERY area -- offense, defense, transition, PS performance, and longevity, and you could break that down into individual categories. He's one of the most complete players to ever play the game.

Charles is better offensively and as a rebounder, but he's bad defensively and doesn't have Havlicek's postseason resume.

Moses is a better rebounder and perhaps has more impact offensively (but that's debatable -- Havlicek's offensive versatility is a strong point). Moses has significant liabilities as a playmaker and in his postseason resume (a disturbing number of seasons out of the playoffs or one and done).

I'd be interested to know where others have Havlicek on their list.

Normally somewhere in the 25-30 range.

Had a great little peak/prime, but notably that coincided with the closest thing the Cs had to a down period in those decades. And the rest of his career he spent a lot of time not being the top dog on his own team.

I think an appropriate place to start bringing him up in comparison numbers will be when we've got Wade and Pippen queued up. Both guys have somewhat of a similar profile.

[Dr Positivity]

I know Havlicek isn't getting any traction here, but I'd like to point out why I think he's a valid choice compared to Moses and Barkley.

Havlicek isn't all-time elite in any one area but is a notch below that in almost EVERY area -- offense, defense, transition, PS performance, and longevity, and you could break that down into individual categories. He's one of the most complete players to ever play the game.

Charles is better offensively and as a rebounder, but he's bad defensively and doesn't have Havlicek's postseason resume.

Moses is a better rebounder and perhaps has more impact offensively (but that's debatable -- Havlicek's offensive versatility is a strong point). Moses has significant liabilities as a playmaker and in his postseason resume (a disturbing number of seasons out of the playoffs or one and done).

I'd be interested to know where others have Havlicek on their list.

Havlicek has a lot going for him, two way play, longevity, playoffs. I think the biggest question mark would be how high his peak is. Never finishes top 3 in MVP voting... his 28-29ppg seasons are inflated by playing 45mpg at a crazy pace. I believe when adjusting for per 100, those seasons are actually sub Marion and Pippen's peak in scoring volume. I would argue the peak of Barkley and Moses on offense is a lot higher as the difference in scoring is bigger than the raw stats make it seem. Once they're in he seems like fair game though. I can see case for Havlicek over Stockton as he has more takeover moments in the playoffs and over Pippen as he has more longevity. His case is a little bit of a Pippen/Stockton hybrid

[wojoaderge]

His case is a little bit of a Pippen/Stockton hybrid

He's way superior as a go-to guy though