RealGM Top 100 List: #21

[andrewww]

I value a high peak with sustained longevity over players with what I perceive as a clear lower peak at this point in the project.

It came down to the following guys for me:

Steve Nash - perhaps the third greatest offensive floor general ever after Magic and Big O. There was almost nothing he couldn't do on the offensive side of the ball. His 2007 and 2010 Suns were imo title worthy teams that really should have won it all in 2007. His overall career value longevity-wise in on par with the other 3 here.

Stephen Curry - best peak of these candidates, revolutionized the power of the 3pt shot as we know it and is what makes him special impact-wise similar to what Shaq had on the Lakers. I really wish we could have saw what he could've done in the 2016 playoffs at full strength.

Dwyane Wade - two way off guard with an offensive game the likes of which only MJ/Kobe/West could rival or surpass. Had a relatively short career with a lot of injury concerns, and questionable portability with the lack of a consistent 3pt shot.

Kevin Durant - the more i think about it, the more I see him playing the Kobe role to Curry as Shaq. Clearly the most naturally talented two way player on GSW now, and his portability and all around versatility on both ends of the court are being showcased. He is probably the weakest playmaker of those 4 candidates, and he almost seems to be anti-Lebron in that I see him as a player whose game is tailor made for raising the ceiling of an all time great team, while Lebron I see as the GOAT floor raiser.

In the end, I believe the player who is less prone to being taken out a ball game by an elite defense as more impactful. With certain players if you are physical with them, or can dare them to beat you by making FTs or the outside shot, then your impact is simply not as great relatively speaking. This is often seen in the form of titles as crazy at it may seem, especially if you have a large enough sample size.

Vote: Kevin Durant
Alternate: Stephen Curry

[Joao Saraiva]

I'll vote later today, in 8 hours. Hope the thread is still open.

Stockton will be my 1st vote. Then I'll have to check after that. Maybe Scottie Pippen.

[Senior]

In the end - Isiah obviously could've kept up his 22/11-whatever statline.

He is what his PPG/APG would have looked like from 84-87 if you declined the the Pistons stats to a pace of 95.0 (They were at 95.5 in 89 and 94.4 in 90)

84: 19.4 pts, 10.1 asts
85: 19.2 pts, 12.5 asts
86: 19.1 pts, 9.8 asts
87: 19.4 pts, 9.4 asts

So I disagree that he could have just kept up his 21-22ppg cause he wanted to. Part of the decline was natural because of pace decline. Isiah got to the FT line less in his late 20s, was that because he changed his role on the late 80s teams, or was it because like a lot of players he was more explosive when he was younger?

He could've kept up the statline because it was his call to decide how fast his team played. He could've played faster and racked up more stats, but the faster pace wouldn't have been to his team's strengths and they'd be worse overall. That's what I mean by "he could've kept up his statline if he wanted to" - the pace is decided by the floor general. But again, he played to his teams strengths, and slowed the game down...giving up a few points and assists. It had nothing to do with his capacity to score/pass.

I don't really feel like his athleticism would've diminished in the Bad Boys era - at their peak from 87-90 Isiah was 25-28 and he only missed significant time in 1991. Those are not ages that you would see a major decline in athleticism. Isiah averaged 6.2 FTA from 82-87, and then 4.7 FTA from 88-92, hardly a big difference. It's interesting to see Isiah's 3PA rise when his teams slowed down (not by much but still) even though he didn't really have that kind of range...lends credence to the idea that he was taking the bailouts.

[euroleague]

Current count (as of post #96):

John Stockton - 6
George Mikan - 5
Dwyane Wade - 4
Bob Pettit - 2
Chris Paul - 1

You're not counting my vote?

[dhsilv2]

Thank you Joe for that post, it helped me appreciate some of Isiah's strengths more and why he's revered today.

However if Isiah took a step back to help the team, shouldn't it be reflected in his shooting attempts? Per 100 possessions, Isiah from 84-87 averaged 22.3 FGA, 20.9 FGA, 20.6 FGA, 21.3 FGA. From 88-90 he averages 22.4 FGA, 21.1 FGA, 22.5 FGA. So Isiah shoots just as much and passes less as his team gets better, and actually increases his attempts per minute after they get a 30ppg .63 player in Dantley.

Furthermore even mid 80s Isiah was the real version, it's still on the low end for peaks among players contending at this spot. From 84-87 he finishes 5th, 9th, 9th, 8th in MVP. He finishes 18th, 7th, 19th, 35th in WS and 8th, 4th, 11th and 16th in VORP. This is all very good but there is a better case for players like Paul and Nash being MVP caliber at their peak. Paul has both the better boxscore and MVP vote, Nash has MVP and RAPM support. The argument for them isn't just over late 80s Isiah but includes their peak over mid 80s Isiah as well. Isiah is a terrific playoff performer and has better intangibles than CP3 which is why I may vote for him first still.

I'm not sure he is that revered today.

I'm old. Old enough to remember the Isiah moment in the league, and I remember the hype. I remember the debates about Isiah v. Stockton at the time. At the time, there was a major Isiah cult. And part of it, a MAJOR part of it, was this: he was called the "best little guy of all time". That was a big part of it. It was era specific. Little guards were not as valuable as bigger players and had a hard time being big scorers finishing inside against the giant shotblockers and flying elbows of the era. You only have to look at some tapes from the early 60s to see how much dribbling skills had improved in the 20+ years before Isiah came around, and so he was basically given pioneering credit as the best player of his size to have played in the league.

But the thing is, in the decades SINCE Isiah was around, high impact little guards have become completely standard. Guys like Timmy, KJ and Stockton were challenging Isiah on that front even during his later days, and then A.I. came around and largely stole Isiah's "best little man crown" -- and I know we're going to rate Iverson too low on this project because it's the norm on this board, but he was absolutely considered the best little man ever during his playing days. And today the league is flooded with twerpy guards taking advantage of the no handchecking and 3pt spamming nature of the current league (indeed the change in handchecking rules make a good argument for guys like Isiah and Iverson through the first half of his career playing through tougher conditions).

And so the big bonus that Isiah got, the "best little guy of all time" bonus, is long gone. And once you remove that narrative boost, the numbers really don't hold up well at all. There are intangible arguments to be made -- leadership, toughness (imo being a punk is more like it, but whatever), and he was a major clutch player that we don't talk about much today. But it's not there statistically, and the narrative bonus of being this unique fun best/first pioneering player has long been forgotten.

Can you compare him with Tiny Archibald? Tiny is listed at 6'1 150 on basketball reference (I assume the weight went up over time). 34 and 11.4 peak per game numbers (better than Thomas imo). Sporting new MVP, better MVP award share (just at a glance), 5 time all NBA (identical to thomas). I got into basketball with thomas leaving the game so I just got the narrative which was spectacular. But tiny seems every bit as good an example of a pioneering point guard who could score. He doesn't have the playoff success, but thomas didn't have much success as an all nba player. Certainly Thomas is going to be ahead of him career and ranking, but I'm asking more about the pioneering aspect.

[penbeast0]

For pioneering, look at Calvin Murphy who was a minimax in the land of giants long before either.

[dhsilv2]

For pioneering, look at Calvin Murphy who was a minimax in the land of giants long before either.

He literally entered the league the same year as tiny. He is smaller though and certainly a good example. Unless you mean he was drafted 1 spot ahead of tiny, lol. Then yes he was first!

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote - John Stockton

According to my formula this is how some of the players that have been talked are rated:
John Stockton 267,0365139
Kevin Durant 258,0389825
Dwyane Wade 257,1949469
Chris Paul 255,8396161
Dwight Howard 250,9882339
Steve Nash 229,1123135
Steph Curry 224,8298183


I divide my formula into peak, prime and lognevity. And yes, the other 3 have an advantage over Stockton on peak and prime.

Haven't updated all of them in the peak and prime list because I'm doing as the project runs so I usually calculate only the career value, I'll put the others in the other categories after we're done in the top 100 project.

However, even in prime and peak Stockton is ahead of Nash according to the formula.


Taking it into context:
- Stockton has a lognevity advantage over the other guys that is damn big. According to my formula Stockton is ahead of Shaq, Hakeem or MJ in that regard. So as long as we're not even talking about the top 15 anymore, that advantage is damn big.

- Stockton never won a ring. But that doesn't bother me. As a PG he made the Jazz successfull and produced a ton of chances to score even without having great scorers (besides Karl) and without having any kind of spacing. That takes something really special, and playmaking wise his AST numbers reflect his playmaking.

- He had several very good runs in the playoffs. So I wouldn't say at this point that he can't be considered a very good playoff performer (of course he had some failures, but at this point all the players do).

Stockton could lead the team when needed with points and playmaking (see the 88 series vs the Lakers or the 97 vs Houston).

On defense he was very good. A tough guy for his size. He wouldn't back down against taller guards, even if the task was indeed difficult for him. He was also a great reader of the passing lanes, and that's why he's among the best stealers ever in the NBA.

I think playmaking wise he's 1a and 1b with Magic for the GOAT spot.

On top of that, I think he's a very good fit for almost any player in NBA history. Passing 1st mentality, ability to space the floor, good defender. And his prime was really really long. In the late 90s he decreased his minutes, but certainly not much his impact in those minutes.

For people saying Curry or something let me say this... even if one average Stockton year was worth 75% of an average Curry year, think about it in a cumulative sense... Stockton is still miles ahead of Steph.

My 2nd vote goes to Kevin Durant.

HM: Scottie Pippen. Still haven't had the time to work on him. Will look into that before the next spot on the all time list.

[JoeMalburg]

This here's a story bout Big George and Bobby Lee.
Two old time Stars getting a vote of approval from me.
One win seven Championships, the other two MVP's
Both both are overlooked now since they were born in the twenties and the thirties.

I apologize.

Primary Vote: George Mikan

Reasons:
1) 7 Championship in Eight prime seasons
2) Best player of pre-shot clock era
3) His dominance helped fast track the sports evolution by forcing rules and strategic changes.
4) Tough as hell, super durable. Almost never missed a game played 1951 postseason with broken leg.
5) He won't raise taxes
6) Was frequently the top scorer or rebounder in the postseason.
7) Better shooting touch and passing skills then you'd expect for a player so big and so ahead of his time.
8) Top 10 all-time in coolest Googles, Worthy is Goggle Goat.

Alternate Vote: Bob Pettit

Reasons:
1) Dominant player pre-Russell remained elite into the 60's
2) Multiple MVPs and a title as the alpha ('58) Only he and Curry remain on the board with an argument for having done that.
3) Combination of face up and back to basket scoring ability, plus solid range makes him effective in any offense in any era
4) A decade of All-NBA selections
5) More hair on his shoulders than on top his head
6) turned the Hawks franchise into a consistent winner, something they've never been before or since
7) He smells terrific.
8) Give him a slight edge over Durant for now but it's close. Feel like Durant is one year of quality play away from overtaking him.

[penbeast0]

For pioneering, look at Calvin Murphy who was a minimax in the land of giants long before either.

He literally entered the league the same year as tiny. He is smaller though and certainly a good example. Unless you mean he was drafted 1 spot ahead of tiny, lol. Then yes he was first!

Thanks, I had thought he preceded Tiny by around 5 years, my mistake.

[penbeast0]

1st vote - John Stockton

According to my formula this is how some of the players that have been talked are rated:
John Stockton 267,0365139
Kevin Durant 258,0389825
Dwyane Wade 257,1949469
Chris Paul 255,8396161
Dwight Howard 250,9882339
Steve Nash 229,1123135
Steph Curry 224,8298183


I divide my formula into peak, prime and lognevity. And yes, the other 3 have an advantage over Stockton on peak and prime.

Haven't updated all of them in the peak and prime list because I'm doing as the project runs so I usually calculate only the career value, I'll put the others in the other categories after we're done in the top 100 project.

However, even in prime and peak Stockton is ahead of Nash according to the formula.


Taking it into context:
- Stockton has a lognevity advantage over the other guys that is damn big. According to my formula Stockton is ahead of Shaq, Hakeem or MJ in that regard. So as long as we're not even talking about the top 15 anymore, that advantage is damn big.

- Stockton never won a ring. But that doesn't bother me. As a PG he made the Jazz successfull and produced a ton of chances to score even without having great scorers (besides Karl) and without having any kind of spacing. That takes something really special, and playmaking wise his AST numbers reflect his playmaking.

- He had several very good runs in the playoffs. So I wouldn't say at this point that he can't be considered a very good playoff performer (of course he had some failures, but at this point all the players do).

Stockton could lead the team when needed with points and playmaking (see the 88 series vs the Lakers or the 97 vs Houston).

On defense he was very good. A tough guy for his size. He wouldn't back down against taller guards, even if the task was indeed difficult for him. He was also a great reader of the passing lanes, and that's why he's among the best stealers ever in the NBA.

I think playmaking wise he's 1a and 1b with Magic for the GOAT spot.

On top of that, I think he's a very good fit for almost any player in NBA history. Passing 1st mentality, ability to space the floor, good defender. And his prime was really really long. In the late 90s he decreased his minutes, but certainly not much his impact in those minutes.

For people saying Curry or something let me say this... even if one average Stockton year was worth 75% of an average Curry year, think about it in a cumulative sense... Stockton is still miles ahead of Steph.

My 2nd vote goes to Kevin Durant.

HM: Scottie Pippen. Still haven't had the time to work on him. Will look into that before the next spot on the all time list.

AGAIN, when I see formulas rating all the players being talked about and it leaves off Mikan AND Pettit; are you considering players from the 50s at all?

[Winsome Gerbil]

Thank you Joe for that post, it helped me appreciate some of Isiah's strengths more and why he's revered today.

However if Isiah took a step back to help the team, shouldn't it be reflected in his shooting attempts? Per 100 possessions, Isiah from 84-87 averaged 22.3 FGA, 20.9 FGA, 20.6 FGA, 21.3 FGA. From 88-90 he averages 22.4 FGA, 21.1 FGA, 22.5 FGA. So Isiah shoots just as much and passes less as his team gets better, and actually increases his attempts per minute after they get a 30ppg .63 player in Dantley.

Furthermore even mid 80s Isiah was the real version, it's still on the low end for peaks among players contending at this spot. From 84-87 he finishes 5th, 9th, 9th, 8th in MVP. He finishes 18th, 7th, 19th, 35th in WS and 8th, 4th, 11th and 16th in VORP. This is all very good but there is a better case for players like Paul and Nash being MVP caliber at their peak. Paul has both the better boxscore and MVP vote, Nash has MVP and RAPM support. The argument for them isn't just over late 80s Isiah but includes their peak over mid 80s Isiah as well. Isiah is a terrific playoff performer and has better intangibles than CP3 which is why I may vote for him first still.

I'm not sure he is that revered today.

I'm old. Old enough to remember the Isiah moment in the league, and I remember the hype. I remember the debates about Isiah v. Stockton at the time. At the time, there was a major Isiah cult. And part of it, a MAJOR part of it, was this: he was called the "best little guy of all time". That was a big part of it. It was era specific. Little guards were not as valuable as bigger players and had a hard time being big scorers finishing inside against the giant shotblockers and flying elbows of the era. You only have to look at some tapes from the early 60s to see how much dribbling skills had improved in the 20+ years before Isiah came around, and so he was basically given pioneering credit as the best player of his size to have played in the league.

But the thing is, in the decades SINCE Isiah was around, high impact little guards have become completely standard. Guys like Timmy, KJ and Stockton were challenging Isiah on that front even during his later days, and then A.I. came around and largely stole Isiah's "best little man crown" -- and I know we're going to rate Iverson too low on this project because it's the norm on this board, but he was absolutely considered the best little man ever during his playing days. And today the league is flooded with twerpy guards taking advantage of the no handchecking and 3pt spamming nature of the current league (indeed the change in handchecking rules make a good argument for guys like Isiah and Iverson through the first half of his career playing through tougher conditions).

And so the big bonus that Isiah got, the "best little guy of all time" bonus, is long gone. And once you remove that narrative boost, the numbers really don't hold up well at all. There are intangible arguments to be made -- leadership, toughness (imo being a punk is more like it, but whatever), and he was a major clutch player that we don't talk about much today. But it's not there statistically, and the narrative bonus of being this unique fun best/first pioneering player has long been forgotten.

Can you compare him with Tiny Archibald? Tiny is listed at 6'1 150 on basketball reference (I assume the weight went up over time). 34 and 11.4 peak per game numbers (better than Thomas imo). Sporting new MVP, better MVP award share (just at a glance), 5 time all NBA (identical to thomas). I got into basketball with thomas leaving the game so I just got the narrative which was spectacular. But tiny seems every bit as good an example of a pioneering point guard who could score. He doesn't have the playoff success, but thomas didn't have much success as an all nba player. Certainly Thomas is going to be ahead of him career and ranking, but I'm asking more about the pioneering aspect.

Oh sure, yeah. Tiny and the Calvin Murphy mention are obvious comparisons and good mentions and would have held that kind of title before Isiah.

[Outside]

Vote: Baylor
Alternate: Stockton

Next up: Mikan, Havlicek, Nash, Pettit, Barry

Baylor was the original spectacular basketball player, the progenitor of Dr. J, Jordan, and all the high-fliers who came after. His stats are inflated by the fast pace of the time, but his per-36-minute career averages of 24.6 points/12.2 rebounds/3.9 assists (RS) and 23.7 points/11.3 rebounds/3.5 assists (PS) are impressive for any era.

I said this in the #20 thread: Baylor's primary faults are being part of Laker teams that couldn't beat the Celtics and playing in an early era so that most people don't know how good he was.

To which Doctor MJ responded:

Baylor's primary faults are being on a team with Jerry West that seemed to underachieve when both were healthy and overachieve when Baylor was hurt, along with continuing to play with first option primacy when all the data we have says that that should have been West.

The notion that West was the more efficient scorer is true, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss Baylor because West was better. West is higher on the list (no. 15), which is appropriate. But each benefited from having the other to share the offensive load, not exactly an inside-outside combo but essentially working the same way by not allowing the defense to concentrate on just one of them. Baylor usually averaged more shots than West, but the margin wasn't huge most years, and while West's efficiency was excellent for the era considering the type of shots he took, Baylor's FG% and eFG% were above league average almost every year, so it's not like he was an inefficient option, especially considering his volume.

Baylor does fall short in longevity. His playoff total of 134 games is very good, especially considering that the PS had fewer rounds in that era, but his RS total of 846 games is low (West played in 932 RS games). He also wasn't the same player once he had issues with knee injuries, though he was still productive.

Stockton, on the other hand, was a paragon of longevity, with his 1,504 RS games being 3rd all time and 47,764 minutes being 10th all time. I'd have no problem putting Stockton above Baylor, but I gave Baylor the nod because his peak years were so high.

[Joao Saraiva]

1st vote - John Stockton

According to my formula this is how some of the players that have been talked are rated:
John Stockton 267,0365139
Kevin Durant 258,0389825
Dwyane Wade 257,1949469
Chris Paul 255,8396161
Dwight Howard 250,9882339
Steve Nash 229,1123135
Steph Curry 224,8298183


I divide my formula into peak, prime and lognevity. And yes, the other 3 have an advantage over Stockton on peak and prime.

Haven't updated all of them in the peak and prime list because I'm doing as the project runs so I usually calculate only the career value, I'll put the others in the other categories after we're done in the top 100 project.

However, even in prime and peak Stockton is ahead of Nash according to the formula.


Taking it into context:
- Stockton has a lognevity advantage over the other guys that is damn big. According to my formula Stockton is ahead of Shaq, Hakeem or MJ in that regard. So as long as we're not even talking about the top 15 anymore, that advantage is damn big.

- Stockton never won a ring. But that doesn't bother me. As a PG he made the Jazz successfull and produced a ton of chances to score even without having great scorers (besides Karl) and without having any kind of spacing. That takes something really special, and playmaking wise his AST numbers reflect his playmaking.

- He had several very good runs in the playoffs. So I wouldn't say at this point that he can't be considered a very good playoff performer (of course he had some failures, but at this point all the players do).

Stockton could lead the team when needed with points and playmaking (see the 88 series vs the Lakers or the 97 vs Houston).

On defense he was very good. A tough guy for his size. He wouldn't back down against taller guards, even if the task was indeed difficult for him. He was also a great reader of the passing lanes, and that's why he's among the best stealers ever in the NBA.

I think playmaking wise he's 1a and 1b with Magic for the GOAT spot.

On top of that, I think he's a very good fit for almost any player in NBA history. Passing 1st mentality, ability to space the floor, good defender. And his prime was really really long. In the late 90s he decreased his minutes, but certainly not much his impact in those minutes.

For people saying Curry or something let me say this... even if one average Stockton year was worth 75% of an average Curry year, think about it in a cumulative sense... Stockton is still miles ahead of Steph.

My 2nd vote goes to Kevin Durant.

HM: Scottie Pippen. Still haven't had the time to work on him. Will look into that before the next spot on the all time list.

AGAIN, when I see formulas rating all the players being talked about and it leaves off Mikan AND Pettit; are you considering players from the 50s at all?

Been updating as much as I can. Gotta tell you I didn't study Petit much. With Mikan it's a matter of longevity, that makes him not be nearly as on top as you'd expect. I can make my rank of him if that's interesting.

[penbeast0]

[b]Vote: Baylor

One problem with Baylor is why is he over Pettit? Pettit started a few years earlier, dominated those leagues more, then was at least as good statistically as Baylor up until the middle of the 60s when he retired (Baylor went on for a few more years). Pettit also won MVP and beat Russell and the Celtics, things Baylor never accomplished. Why Pettit over Baylor?

(a) PAR -- Pettit was slightly more efficient, got more rebounds, and did it in a way (foul draw) that did extra damage to the opponents. Baylor was the flashier player and the better passer/ballhandler. Pettit seems to have had a bit more range to stretch the defense even though Baylor was the 4/3 to Pettit's 4/5.

(b) Defense -- Pettit has a rep for being a relentless player who never gave an inch or took a play off on either side of the floor; Baylor was a guy with stretches of brilliance but not as much of a defensive rep. Pettit had height and length, Baylor had leaping ability and athleticism.

(c) Leadership -- DoctorMJ talks about how Baylor didn't adjust particularly well either to Jerry West's game developing beyond Baylor's or to Wilt's joining the team. Pettit was so respected that Tommy Heinsohn once said he quit arguing foul calls against him because even the referees were referring to the Hawks star as "Mr. Pettit." Baylor and West were a shining example of interracial harmony but Lenny Wilkens also talked about how Pettit was the first guy to immediately make him feel part of the team when he was drafted by the Hawks despite his breaking the color barrier.

Baylor and Pettit were reasonably close in impact and accolades through that 59-65 stretch but Pettit did more in the rest of his career and had a slight edge in their overlapping careers even though he came into the league at a point where the game started changing rapidly. He changed and adapted his game to stay a top 5 player up until the injury in his final year. Baylor seems to be just a bit below him even as contemporaries.

[2klegend]

1st vote - John Stockton

According to my formula this is how some of the players that have been talked are rated:
John Stockton 267,0365139
Kevin Durant 258,0389825
Dwyane Wade 257,1949469
Chris Paul 255,8396161
Dwight Howard 250,9882339
Steve Nash 229,1123135
Steph Curry 224,8298183


I divide my formula into peak, prime and lognevity. And yes, the other 3 have an advantage over Stockton on peak and prime.

Haven't updated all of them in the peak and prime list because I'm doing as the project runs so I usually calculate only the career value, I'll put the others in the other categories after we're done in the top 100 project.

However, even in prime and peak Stockton is ahead of Nash according to the formula.


Taking it into context:
- Stockton has a lognevity advantage over the other guys that is damn big. According to my formula Stockton is ahead of Shaq, Hakeem or MJ in that regard. So as long as we're not even talking about the top 15 anymore, that advantage is damn big.

- Stockton never won a ring. But that doesn't bother me. As a PG he made the Jazz successfull and produced a ton of chances to score even without having great scorers (besides Karl) and without having any kind of spacing. That takes something really special, and playmaking wise his AST numbers reflect his playmaking.

- He had several very good runs in the playoffs. So I wouldn't say at this point that he can't be considered a very good playoff performer (of course he had some failures, but at this point all the players do).

Stockton could lead the team when needed with points and playmaking (see the 88 series vs the Lakers or the 97 vs Houston).

On defense he was very good. A tough guy for his size. He wouldn't back down against taller guards, even if the task was indeed difficult for him. He was also a great reader of the passing lanes, and that's why he's among the best stealers ever in the NBA.

I think playmaking wise he's 1a and 1b with Magic for the GOAT spot.

On top of that, I think he's a very good fit for almost any player in NBA history. Passing 1st mentality, ability to space the floor, good defender. And his prime was really really long. In the late 90s he decreased his minutes, but certainly not much his impact in those minutes.

For people saying Curry or something let me say this... even if one average Stockton year was worth 75% of an average Curry year, think about it in a cumulative sense... Stockton is still miles ahead of Steph.

My 2nd vote goes to Kevin Durant.

HM: Scottie Pippen. Still haven't had the time to work on him. Will look into that before the next spot on the all time list.

AGAIN, when I see formulas rating all the players being talked about and it leaves off Mikan AND Pettit; are you considering players from the 50s at all?

I did evaluated a few late 50s to early 60s player. John Havlicek, Bob Pettit, Bob Cousy fair well and on my GOAT list for #22-24 respectively. Mikan is a pioneer and his game is not very portable so hard to rate him. But right now at #21, Wade is just a better player than those 3 mentioned. And neither of those guys have an advantage in longevity. It comes down to peak/prime vs accomplishment for those guys. Wade blow everyone currently on prime and peak. It's now about how people view his missed game, especially in '07 and '08. But when he played, he is an elite level player from 06'-'11.

[2klegend]

For those voting for Stockton, I like to ask a question. For his 20 years in the league, what did he accomplished to warrant being higher than Wade? Stockston didn't win any MVP, never came close to a Top 5 in MVP winshare. Didn't win any title. Only 2x all NBA 1st. Those resume fell short of Wade despite his short prime. Basically he voted #21 for playing really long, accumulating career stat rather than based on major accomplishment and impact ratio.

[Joao Saraiva]

For those voting for Stockton, I like to ask a question. For his 20 years in the league, what did he accomplished to warrant being higher than Wade? Stockston didn't win any MVP, never came close to a Top 5 in MVP winshare. Didn't win any title. Only 2x all NBA 1st. Those resume fell short of Wade despite his short prime. Basically he voted #21 for playing really long, accumulating career stat rather than based on major accomplishment and impact ratio.

He is the all time assist leader in the NBA.
All time steals leader in the NBA.
He's the guy with most assists in a single season. Most APG in a single season.
He lead the league in APG 9 times and in SPG 2 times.
He lead the playoffs in APG 10 times and in SPG 2 times.
13 seasons equal or above 120 ORTG.
He has 16 seasons above 20 PER.

He's the 9th player with most minutes in the NBA. And most of them are quality minutes.
He has 17 seasons playing all the games.

4th in ORTG career wise. And with such a long career.
5th in Win Shares career wise.

Just to say a few things.

He didn't peak as high or had as good of a prime but Stockton definitely added more value to his career than D. Wade. And it's not like his peak and prime are that far away from D. Wade.

[Outside]

One problem with Baylor is why is he over Pettit? Pettit started a few years earlier, dominated those leagues more, then was at least as good statistically as Baylor up until the middle of the 60s when he retired (Baylor went on for a few more years). Pettit also won MVP and beat Russell and the Celtics, things Baylor never accomplished. Why Pettit over Baylor?

[snip]

Baylor and Pettit were reasonably close in impact and accolades through that 59-65 stretch but Pettit did more in the rest of his career and had a slight edge in their overlapping careers even though he came into the league at a point where the game started changing rapidly. He changed and adapted his game to stay a top 5 player up until the injury in his final year. Baylor seems to be just a bit below him even as contemporaries.

They're very close, and I have no problem with anyone choosing Pettit over Baylor. As others have mentioned, we're entering a tier of players who are all very close and can be shuffled up or down based on the criteria each person emphasizes. I'd be perfectly fine with saying it's a 10-way tie for 21st, but that's not how this goes.

You make good arguments for Pettit, but here are the main reasons why I still pick Baylor over him:

-- Longevity. It's not a strength for either of them, but Baylor had RS totals of 846 games and 33,863 minutes, compared to Pettit at 792 games and 30,690 minutes. Not a dramatic difference, but an edge to Baylor.

-- Playoff resume. Baylor and Pettit had similar sets of career PS averages (Baylor 27.0/12.9/4.0, 49.7 TS%; Pettit 25.5/14.8/2.7, 50.1 TS%), but Baylor did that over 134 playoff games compared to 88 for Pettit. Pettit has that win over the Celtics for the 1958 title, and Pettit was great, but it's noteworthy that Russell was hurt in game 3, missed games 4 and 5, and played hurt in game 6. With Pettit, the Hawks went to the finals four out of five years, but the Lakers went to the finals seven out of nine years and eight out of 12.

(a) PAR -- Pettit was slightly more efficient, got more rebounds, and did it in a way (foul draw) that did extra damage to the opponents. Baylor was the flashier player and the better passer/ballhandler. Pettit seems to have had a bit more range to stretch the defense even though Baylor was the 4/3 to Pettit's 4/5.

Baylor was also very good at drawing fouls -- 8.7 FTA vs 10.3 for Pettit in the RS, 8.2 vs 10.4 for Pettit in the PS. Pettit gets the edge here, but it's not as if Baylor didn't draw fouls.

As for range, once West arrived, both players shot from inside and outside, but West's range was better and he tended to shoot more outside while Baylor worked more inside. Pettit's FTAs also make me inclined to believe that Pettit spent a lot of time inside. I don't see this as a knock on Baylor.

(b) Defense -- Pettit has a rep for being a relentless player who never gave an inch or took a play off on either side of the floor; Baylor was a guy with stretches of brilliance but not as much of a defensive rep. Pettit had height and length, Baylor had leaping ability and athleticism.

Other than outliers like Russell, Chamberlain, and Thurmond, it's difficult to gauge the defensive impact of many players of that day. Based on reputation, I agree that Pettit was the better defender.

(c) Leadership -- DoctorMJ talks about how Baylor didn't adjust particularly well either to Jerry West's game developing beyond Baylor's or to Wilt's joining the team. Pettit was so respected that Tommy Heinsohn once said he quit arguing foul calls against him because even the referees were referring to the Hawks star as "Mr. Pettit." Baylor and West were a shining example of interracial harmony but Lenny Wilkens also talked about how Pettit was the first guy to immediately make him feel part of the team when he was drafted by the Hawks despite his breaking the color barrier.

I respectfully disagree with the notion that Baylor didn't adjust well to West's game. I'd say they developed a very successful synergistic relationship on the court, and I've never heard West speak of Baylor in anything other than the most glowing terms. If they'd won a few of those tossup battles with the Celtics, I think we'd look at this differently, but the Celtics winning 11 titles in Russell's 13 seasons tends to make others of that time look flawed, no matter how great they are.

As for how things went after Wilt's arrival, 1968-69 was about the dysfunction between Wilt and Van Breda Kolff more than anything, and that was Elgin's last full season. He played only 54 games in 1969-70 and only 11 games combined in the two seasons after that before retiring. It was about whether Baylor could play at all at that point.

As we've seen, integrating three stars together is no simple task, and it fails more often than it succeeds. Perhaps if Sharman had been the coach in 1968-69 instead of Van Breda Kolff, he would've worked it out and the story of Wilt, Baylor, and West would be different. Getting West and Wilt to fit together was the easy part because their games didn't conflict with each other, but figuring out how to get Baylor and Wilt's inside games to mesh harmoniously required a deft hand, and VBK wasn't up to the job. I don't see how the takeaway from that is leadership failure on Baylor's part.

[penbeast0]

Been updating as much as I can. Gotta tell you I didn't study Petit much. With Mikan it's a matter of longevity, that makes him not be nearly as on top as you'd expect. I can make my rank of him if that's interesting.

Mikan, Pettit, maybe even Arizin and Cousy should be looked at, yes.