RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #25

[Pablo Novi]

Essentially the same post as in last thread - just updated to remove Pettit and add Rick Barry to the discussion.

It's pretty weird for me. Of all the players remaining, Cousy is both my highest ranked AND the one I care the least about. imo, he was the #3 PG of all time (after Magic & "O" - and treating Jerry West as a SG). He's tied for THE highest ranking remaining player in terms of ALL-NBA 1st-Team (with 10, along with Elgin Baylor) (and if we include 2nd-Team selections - he's the #1 remaining player) and even though I penalize him significantly for most of his greatness playing out in the 1950's - he still comes in 3rd of the remaining players (after Baylor & Rick Barry - both of whom I liked a good deal more than Cousy).

I've said before in these threads that I attended a number of Celtics' games in the mid-1960s at the Gaaaden - and the racist nastiness of the fans towards even the great Bill Russell - just killed my love for that team. So, fighting for Cousy over everybody else is not easy for me - still, I DO think he's the best remaining player, vis-à-vis his own position, PG - and we've only picked two so far - so this is overdue." [N.B. We've recently taken Stockton who I have just below Cousy on my GOAT PG list]
-----
Vote: Bob Cousy (TEN ALL-NBA 1st-Team and 2 2nd-Team selections - most "Great Years" of all remaining players)
Alt: Elgin Baylor (TEN ALL-NBA 1st-Team selections - tied with Cousy for most 1st-Team selections of all remaining players)
H.M. Rick Barry (NINE ALL-League 1st-Team selections (prevented by NBA from playing 1 peak year too); 1 2nd-Team selection)
N.B. It can't happen this year; but, imo, both Cousy & Baylor should both be in our GOAT Top 25.

My #1 criteria is the number of "Great Years" each player accumulated in their careers; "Great Years" defined as: getting selected ALL-League 1st-Team or 2nd-Team. Accumulating several of these says that you dominated YOUR position in YOUR era.

These are the only two guys with 10 ALL-League 1st-Team selections not yet chosen for our GOAT list.
A "decade's" worth of domination of the players at their position is a tremendous achievement (only achieved by a total of 10 players in the 80 years of 1938 season to 2017 season!) Of those ten, only three (K.Malone, Kobe & LeBron) have 11 1st-Team selections. In other words, these two could hardly have done more.

Besides, each of them revolutionized their respective positions. We've been (collectively) putting players on our GOAT list with FAR LESS positional-era-dominance. I don't much see what more they could have done to "satisfy" this board?

Imo, both of these guys should go next.

Permit me to add: the selectors are IDEALLY suited - it was/is their job to report on the sport; and COLLECTIVELY, there are enough of them to override pretty much any and all personal, "homerist" biases. Imo, their selection process TRUMPS all stats or combinations of them. I'd also note, that over the last 58 years of NBA-NBL-ABA "rabidity", I've never once had a MAJOR objection to their selections.

Further, there are only 22 players in total who even accumulated at least 6 1st-Team ALL-League selections - showing just how difficult getting TEN is.

btw, I consider Elgin Baylor (and Rick Barry) to have been superior players to Cousy (and, along with Jerry West, Baylor's my co- All-Time favorite player - because of their bi-racial harmony and artistry (and pretty equal in skills). I have been voting Pettit & Cousy OVER Elgin because I consider it more important that there be more POSITIONAL balance in a GOAT list. I accomplish that balance by selecting one player per position per descending set of 5 GOAT spots. (Example, my GOAT Top 5: KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ & TD).

Surely, bigs, especially Centers have historically (especially until about the turn of the century) a bigger influence on Defense. But, generally speaking, the smaller the position / player the more they: run around, cut, stop-and-go, dribble, pass, etc. For me, this almost equals the bigs' defensive advantage. Combining the two factors, while I have, as I said, one player form each position in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots; I always have the Center as the highest ranked.

[Bad Gatorade]

Kind of undecided atm. Both of my choices made it in since the last time I voted, so I'll need some more time to think about it.

So I'll vote for George Mikan - he's the last truly dominant player to not make it in, and we're at #25. Even after the lane changes, he was still arguably the best player in the league (Neil Johnston and perhaps Paul Arizin being some primary contenders at this time).

I'm still not entirely certain about Mikan's true status within NBA hierarchy, but I'd feel uncomfortable placing him much lower than this point in the project, more so than the other contenders, and that's enough of a tiebreaker given how orthogonal Mikan's case is compared to everybody else's.

Second vote is for Steve Nash - I've got some questions about Nash's impact, but he was an offensive savant. His 2005-2010ish period, he was building a monopoly on both ORAPM and team ORTGs - demonstrating not only incredible individual impact, but the capacity to maintain + facilitate this on a team wide level. His combination of shooting + passing is one of the best in league history - one can make a feasible case that he's a top 5 shooter and passer ever. That's a recipe for incredible offensive impact, and it's why he arguably monopolised team offence better than anybody else in history.

1. I think he gives his teams a higher ceiling. People call Nash's style of play "risky", but I don't see that it didn't provide results. Meanwhile, I think Paul didn't take enough risks. He always made the "safe" play, while this limited his turnover numbers, I think at times his overdribbling may have capped his team's offense. Not that he wasn't a great player but at this level it makes a difference.

Philosophical thinking moment here.

From your post, point #1 intrigued me in particular, because it's something I've heard before. In isolation, I think Nash is a better offensive player, and his risk-taking factor is absolutely integral, i.e. if we're strictly looking at impact on offence, I'd place Nash as having a higher impact than Paul.

However, this makes me wonder - do we often downplay the effect that offence and defence can have one another?

Paul's style of offence is more "safe" than Nash's - Nash aims for the groundbreaking interior pass, whereas Paul, if he doesn't see a clear opening, often throws the ball back to Blake/JJ for the jump shot. This means that Nash is giving his teammates more "good" shots, but it also leaves him more susceptible to turnovers, which leads to more fast breaks, worse spacing on defence and a worse DRTG as a result. And IMO, Paul's propensity to go for the "safe" play might not increase the team's offensive output as much as Nash's (although to be fair, he's held the #1 ORTG in the league multiple times anyway...) but I think that his style of offence may actually lead to improved defences (and explain why the Clippers play worse on D without him, and how his DRAPM is so high despite being a 6'0 PG). Based on what I have studied, there is a link between more interior shot attempts, and worse DRTGs.

This isn't about Nash vs Paul at all (heck, on offence, I'd happily state that I think Nash had a higher impact), but rather the underlying concept that I've postulated.

Dirk is another case of this - his propensity to get back on defence (rather than crashing the offensive boards), take jumpers and be a low turnover player means that even if his individual defensive capacity is much lower than other PFs, the fact that his offensive style lends to Dirk being in good position + he doesn't make many passing/ball handling errors means that his DRAPM is probably historically higher than one would expect simply looking at his defensive capacity.

So, my thought process here is - are we too frequently deciding to handwave the defensive impact that offensive plays can cause? I say this not as an accusatory thought towards any poster, but a philosophy that's worth considering when assessing the merits of offensive and defensive impact.

[mikejames23]

So, my thought process here is - are we too frequently deciding to handwave the defensive impact that offensive plays can cause? I say this not as an accusatory thought towards any poster, but a philosophy that's worth considering when assessing the merits of offensive and defensive impact.

Nash does have a nutty TO rate.

BTW, team turnover rate for Suns was...

#3 in 05
#2 in 06
#5 in 07
#16 in 08. Their D - Rating is still #16 so middle of pack.
#26 in 09. Woah. Suns are also rated #26 D as a team.
#18 in 10. Defense is #23.

Mavs

#1 in 04
#1 in 03
#1 in 02


You could draw all kinds of conclusions based on this I think. I would hazard a guess Shawn Marion's exit had to do with the immediate decline. IIRC, Dinosaur Grant Hill was the best defender on Suns in 2010. So I would imagine you still need good enough defensive personnel to get back on D.

Mavs Nash had a TOV % of 15-18 while Suns Nash was around 19-21.

[Bad Gatorade]

Nash does have a nutty TO rate.

BTW, team turnover rate for Suns was...

#3 in 05
#2 in 06
#5 in 07
#16 in 08. Their D - Rating is still #16 so middle of pack.
#26 in 09. Woah. Suns are also rated #26 D as a team.
#18 in 10. Defense is #23.

Mavs

#1 in 04
#1 in 03
#1 in 02


You could draw all kinds of conclusions based on this I think. I would hazard a guess Shawn Marion's exit had to do with the immediate decline. IIRC, Dinosaur Grant Hill was the best defender on Suns in 2010. So I would imagine you still need good enough defensive personnel to get back on D.

Mavs Nash had a TOV % of 15-18 while Suns Nash was around 19-21.

I don't think Nash is actually that bad with turnovers - he was actually quite good given his passing distribution and ball dominance. Just that compared to CP3 (who is GOAT level at turnover resistance), Nash's ability to increase team offence should also be discussed in accordance with the risks taken on a defensive level. FWIW, I do think Nash played in the right way to maximise his skillset given his teammates, and that on a purely offensive impact level, he's a better player than CP3, but the idea of rewarding one based on taking risks, but ignoring the benefits of risk aversion of the other just doesn't seem right to me.

This isn't even about CP3 vs Nash, really, but rather a philosophical effect to consider for other players. Eg Harden - great offensive player, but does the combination of his porous individual defence coupled with his turnover propensity place a cap on how much he helps a team? Or even notoriously turnover-prone bigs such as Dwight. These guys will come up later in the project and the interactive effects of their offence/defence should absolutely be considered when making an assessment.

I do agree though - personnel absolutely exacerbates/mitigates this effect.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #24:

George Mikan - 6 (Bad Gatorado, Joao Saraiva, janmagn, JordansBulls, penbeast0, wojoaderge)
Steve Nash - 4 (micahclay, ardee, dhsilv2, Dr Positivity)
Patrick Ewing - 2 (Hornet Mania, trex_8063)
Kevin Durant - 1 (pandrade83)
Stephen Curry - 1 (oldschooled)
John Havlicek - 1 (scabbarista)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Pablo Novi)


This thread will be open about 18 hours longer.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[RCM88x]

Vote: Scottie Pippen

In my opinion the GOAT perimeter defender, and one of the best passing Forwards of all time. Pippen posted an impressive prime run of 9 seasons from '90 to '98, averaging a BPM of 6.1 and a WS/48 of .173. He ranks an impressive 13th all time in career playoff WS, 18th in career average playoff BPM, and an insane 5th all time in playoff VORP.

In my opinion, probably the idea 2nd option. Doesn't need the ball to have an impact and when he does, is a 3 way threat to drive, pass or shoot.

2nd Vote: George Mikan

[andrewww]

Vote: Kevin Durant
Alternate: Steve Nash

Once again, given the serious candidates at this spot (Durant/Mikan/Nash/Curry/Ewing/Pippen/Baylor/Isiah), I am of the opinion that KD was simply the best player in the group. Ewing was a poor man's Admiral, Curry's impact is simply on another level compared to Pettit/Mikan/Ewing once he puts together a few more prime years.

Nash has a peak superior to that of Paul imo. More legendary performances in big moments from Nash resonate with me as he had the misfortune of missing what I felt was a due championship in 2007. I dont think any other PG in history could have done what he did with that cast other than Magic/Oscar/Paul when discussing skill set. Not once did I think Nash cost his team a playoff series during those prime years.

[Lou Fan]

Curry 1st Nash 2nd again though I'm strongly considering Ewing.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote Steve Nash

havent had mental space to decide on my next Alt so just doing the primary vote this time.

I see Nash as an offensive GOAT candidate based on team offensive performance and +/- data as I've made no secret of through the years.

[euroleague]

Finally Mikan's time. Just hope Steve Nash isn't #26.

Bob Cousy is my vote.
Havlicek is my alt.
HM: Curry

Didn't realize Hondo was still up. A key piece on many championship teams, he didn't have the star-power of Elgin Baylor/Jerry Lucas but he consistently brought teams to championship level. Whether his center was Dave Cowens or Bill Russell, his teams were winners. Probably should've had 3 FMVPs (69, 74, 76) except Jerry West won on the losing side.

He won against Wilt and kareem, and defended Oscar/Elgin Baylor/Jerry West. His defense was key in every championship, and his offense in the clutch often decided games. He was the leader of those boston teams since 1967, arguably, and won the most rings of anyone who didn't solely win in that Celtics dynasty with his 8 championships.

He is 15th in total points scored, and was a great all-around player who impacted both ends. Havlicek stole the ball, but his place in the top 25 definitely got stolen.

[penbeast0]

Vote: Kevin Durant
Alternate: Steve Nash

Once again, given the serious candidates at this spot (Durant/Mikan/Nash/Curry/Ewing/Pippen/Baylor/Isiah), I am of the opinion that KD was simply the best player in the group. Ewing was a poor man's Admiral, Curry's impact is simply on another level compared to Pettit/Mikan/Ewing once he puts together a few more prime years....

No, Curry's impact was not on another level compared to Mikan, unless you mean a lower one. Mikan dominated the league at a LeBron plus level for more than 5 years. Curry's impact is at a Pettit level. What you CAN say accurately is Curry dominated a much tougher league than Mikan or Pettit, that would be true.

[drza]

Traveling today, no time to add new thoughts. So:

Some Patrick Ewing thoughts

So, when I was a kid, he Lakers vs the Celtics was the magical match-up, and Magic vs Bird was the greatest rivalry in the world. In the NBA.

In the NCAA, on the other hand, Patrick Ewing vs Chris Mullin was every bit as magical. Ewing was a monster in college, in my eyes. He used to wear those gray t-shirts under the gray Georgetown jerseys, and he just looked like a man among boys. Mullin was the shooter, the scorer, the offense...but Ewing was the wall. The last line of defense. I didn't think anyone could score on him, and I didn't think that anyone could stop him from scoring at the rim. I was flatly flabbergasted when Villanova pulled the upset of the Hoyas in the Finals...when Mullin couldn't do it, it didn't seem possible that anyone would be able to stop Ewing and the Hoyas that year.

I remember that the hype was just off-the-charts absurd for the draft before Ewing's rookie year. The whole thing about the frozen envelope, then the Knicks got the first pick. Ewing was going to be the player to lead the Knicks back to glory.

Only, he didn't. He led them to a consistent very good. He was a great defender in the pros, and he was a strong scorer as well. But he wasn't an isolated monster, the way that he was in college. He also didn't pass the way that I would later learn that great offensive big men did. He could score, though, and over the first five years of his career he continued to get better and better at putting the ball in the hoop. From 20 points on 53% TS as a rookie, up to a peak of 28.6 points on 60% TS in 1990. That can safely be considered elite scoring, but his passing never came close to catching up (2.2 assists, 3.4 turnovers per game in 1990...he had fewer assists than turnovers in literally every year of his career).

By the time we got to the 90s, Ewing was having clear and noticeable trouble in his knees. My dad used to say that he ran like both his legs were hurting all the time...and they probably did. He lost a good bit of his mobility, and also lost a lot of his quick movements and explosiveness when making offensive moves around the rim. He leaned more and more on his jumper, which makes people remember him as primarily a jump shooter. This was a criticism of Ewing in his day. However, databall analytics tell us that bigs that can shoot from midrange or beyond create a nice spacing effect that can help increase their offensive impact. Thus, even though Ewing couldn't pass to save his life, his face-up/jump-shooting style could have bolstered his scoring prowess and allowed him to be a solid plus offensively.

Ewing's 1990 was chosen as the #21 peak in NBA history during the 2015 peaks project ( viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1404723 ). Bill Walton (#13) and Steph Curry (#17) are the only players with peak seasons voted higher in that project that aren't already voted onto this list. Curry is starting to get some mention, but both Curry and Walton clearly lack quite a bit of longevity compared to Ewing. This is the brief blurb that I wrote about Ewing's 1990 peak from that project:

"With Ewing, if I'm convinced that he's near the peak of his defensive powers here, he should be reasonably in the +5 to +6 range on defense (using Doc MJ's normalized RAPM scale as a base; for reference Duncan (+6.78), Robinson post '97 (+6.78), Ben Wallace (+6.8) and Zo Mouning post 97 (~+7) all peaked on defense around +7 on that scale, so peak Ewing should at least be within shouting distance of that). Meanwhile, high-volume/efficiency scoring bigs that aren't big assist men (using Dwight Howard and Amare Stoudemire as estimate models) tended to peak around + 3 to +4. Thus, I think +8 to +9 is a reasonable estimate for peak Ewing on this scale."

Generally speaking, I believe that Ewing was a borderline dominant defender over a long career. His offense varied in impact, peaking as a plus offensive player in a franchise role, but continued as a solid spacing big man even as his knees failed and his post-game waned. He had one of the strongest peaks left among the remaining players, but how does the total package compare to the other players under consideration?

*George Mikan. He's the great enigma, and the other great center on the board. Joe's post in the last thread was very convincing that he had a game that could have translated better than generally considered to other eras. He was convincing enough, in fact, that I'm likely to have Mikan as my second vote here. He has the most in-era dominance of anyone, but is probably the most polarizing player on the board. I think Ewing was just a better player, but Mikan's time is either in this thread or in the near future.

*Bob Pettit. I see his accolades and St. Louis' team accomplishments. Petit was one of the players that probably slipped the most in my estimation during the RPoY project. Before that project, I was familiar with him more on the basis of his highlights and B-R resume. In that project, as we tried to go a bit deeper, I found myself consistently underwhelmed by his playoff performances. During the team's glory years, when much of their accomplishments are generally ascribed to Pettit, I found Cliff Hagan to be the much more consistent and impressive postseason performer. Pettit's value as an offensive power forward that could shoot, perhaps the precursor to Dirk, I recognize. However, is what he contributed more valuable in his 11 years than What Ewing gave in his 15 years in New York? That's unclear to me. I tend to value big men that are defensive anchors, all things being equal. Pettit's scoring doesn't really look more impressive than Ewing's, and though we lack turnover numbers, Pettit's assist numbers don't suggest that he was necessarily that much more impressive than Ewing on that side of the ball.

*Steve Nash. The highest impact offense player of the databall era. He's also polarizing, as his impact didn't show until he re-joined the Suns in the SSoL era. I was not initially high on him, but posters such as Doc MJ, and my own look at the analytics have brought me around to seeing his value. I don't believe he was a system player. But again, if I was choosing between one of the great defenders of all time that was a plus offensive player as a franchise guy to an outstanding impact offensive point guard...again, stylistically, I'd tend towards Ewing.

None of those comps are in any way quantitative, which you all know is my wont. I could thus be swayed, if someone could show that what these or others contributed was clearly more valuable than what Ewing offered. I can be convinced. But listing accolades from a different era with much different situations isn't going to do it for me. Relate it to game play on the court, or even better an analytical approach of production, and you'd be more likely to get me to change my view. Until then:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: George Mikan

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: George Mikan

[andrewww]

No, Curry's impact was not on another level compared to Mikan, unless you mean a lower one. Mikan dominated the league at a LeBron plus level for more than 5 years. Curry's impact is at a Pettit level. What you CAN say accurately is Curry dominated a much tougher league than Mikan or Pettit, that would be true.

I should have elaborated that I believe Curry's peak is superior to that of any remaining candidate including Durant's or Mikan's. Relative to their era, sure Mikan was more dominant. But peak for peak with today's rules, I don't see Mikan's as superior's. Pettit wasn't even considered the clear cut better player than Baylor was back in the 60s if I'm not mistaken. If Curry's impact was at Pettit's level, then you'd have to have a pretty strong argument that Pettit changed the way a player is fundamentally defended (eg. Cavs players would rather give up the wide open dunk than an open 3 to Curry) which I just don't see.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Patrick Ewing

Vote 2 - George Mikan

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

[SactoKingsFan]

I’ll vote for Scottie Pippen. I think his elite perimeter defense, overall defensive versatility (could guard 1-4, excellent help defender), highly valuable offensive game, very portable skill-set and good enough longevity gives him the edge over the remaining top 30 candidates. Pippen was a all-time great secondary star but could also run the offense at high level and was capable of being a legit franchise cornerstone as shown by his 94 season without Jordan.

Vote #1: Scottie Pippen

Vote#2: Steve Nash

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[penbeast0]

No, Curry's impact was not on another level compared to Mikan, unless you mean a lower one. Mikan dominated the league at a LeBron plus level for more than 5 years. Curry's impact is at a Pettit level. What you CAN say accurately is Curry dominated a much tougher league than Mikan or Pettit, that would be true.

I should have elaborated that I believe Curry's peak is superior to that of any remaining candidate including Durant's or Mikan's. Relative to their era, sure Mikan was more dominant. But peak for peak with today's rules, I don't see Mikan's as superior's. Pettit wasn't even considered the clear cut better player than Baylor was back in the 60s if I'm not mistaken. If Curry's impact was at Pettit's level, then you'd have to have a pretty strong argument that Pettit changed the way a player is fundamentally defended (eg. Cavs players would rather give up the wide open dunk than an open 3 to Curry) which I just don't see.

Baylor/Pettit was close in the 60s with a small but reasonably clear edge to Pettit in terms of stats (and Baylor in terms of style). Pettit in the 50s was Curry level of impact in terms of warping defenses and being the best offensive players.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #36:

George Mikan - 6
Steve Nash - 5
Patrick Ewing - 4
Kevin Durant - 2
Stephen Curry - 2
Scottie Pippen - 2
Bob Cousy - 2
John Havliceck - 1

Probably only leaving this one open another 2-3 hours.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Pablo Novi]

No, Curry's impact was not on another level compared to Mikan, unless you mean a lower one. Mikan dominated the league at a LeBron plus level for more than 5 years. Curry's impact is at a Pettit level. What you CAN say accurately is Curry dominated a much tougher league than Mikan or Pettit, that would be true.

I should have elaborated that I believe Curry's peak is superior to that of any remaining candidate including Durant's or Mikan's. Relative to their era, sure Mikan was more dominant. But peak for peak with today's rules, I don't see Mikan's as superior's. Pettit wasn't even considered the clear cut better player than Baylor was back in the 60s if I'm not mistaken. If Curry's impact was at Pettit's level, then you'd have to have a pretty strong argument that Pettit changed the way a player is fundamentally defended (eg. Cavs players would rather give up the wide open dunk than an open 3 to Curry) which I just don't see.

Baylor/Pettit was close in the 60s with a small but reasonably clear edge to Pettit in terms of stats (and Baylor in terms of style). Pettit in the 50s was Curry level of impact in terms of warping defenses and being the best offensive players.

I don't get your comment about Baylor/Pettit. During the 60s, Petti was ALL-NBA 1st-Team the first 5 years, then, 2nd-Team in 1965; Baylor was ALL-NBA 1st-Team for NINE of those ten seasons.

[Pablo Novi]

I've got a question (essentially the same one as a few threads ago).
For people (like myself) who have already voted in a thread BUT whose vote has clearly no chance of winning; is it "ethical" under our system to late-change such a vote to one of the seriously contending candidates?

IF SO, I'd change my Cousy (Vote) and Baylor (Alt) TO: Mikan (vote), no (Alt).
btw, why no alternate vote? Because I don't as yet feel super-strongly amongst the viable candidates in this thread - and wouldn't want to vote "politically" for an alternate so as to try to stop somebody else from winning.

The more general question: SHOULD our system here allow (even encourage) people to late-switch their votes based on viable-candidate issues?

[JoeMalburg]

My primary vote will be for Mikan once again.

My alternate vote is for Kevin Durant. This is based off him being the One of last of the players remaining within MVP, a finals MVP, and a championship as an elite player.