RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #36

[dhsilv2]

Frazier he remains I think by far the best peak point guard left, his combination of elite defense and offense is huge. While there is a case someone like Kidd added more career value, the two titles push him over the top and then some.

An alt is difficult as I don't think Gilmore should be this high. The issue for me is I just don't trust the ABA as a metric here. He didn't do it in the nba post merger so I just can't see voting for him on this list all together. I think we're too early on Kidd, though longevity is his friend. Miller is another guy in that light who I think will go sooner than his peak would justify. \

I will try and get on after work and think this over more but I'll put in a place holder. One of the last MVP's and a two time finals MVP (for the zero cents that's worth).

Alt Reed

[pandrade83]

wrt Bob Cousy, he's sustained some criticisms regarding strength of league (as related to size of player pool, as well as lack of integration). And they're valid concerns. I'm going to post this data/info again relating to integration, player pool, etc.

I'd also refer/recommend the book Cages to Jump Shots: Pro Basketball's Early Years by Robert W. Peterson for some info on just how rapidly the popularity of basketball was rising in the 40's and early 50's.
One poster had stated that the size of the player pool in the 60's was only slightly bigger than that of the 50's. But unless comparing 1959 to 1960 or '61, it's just not true.

In 1962, Russell/Wilt/Oscar/Baylor were all in their peaks.

These players continued to be dominant 5 years later, with absolutely no challengers to their heights at their peak. Even past their primes, they were the elite in the NBA. But, most of them joined the NBA in the 50s.

Thus, we can infer that basketball wasn't changing incredibly rapidly in terms of player pool. The reason player pools change is because of TV contracts and popularity - and that change takes almost 15 years to go into effect, as kids and future NBA players need to start practicing very early for the exposure to be meaningful. So, the boom in popularity would effect the late 70s.

Late 70s stars: Larry Bird, Magic, Moses, Dr J. These are players who came from a larger pool.

The 80s had increased exposure because of them. But again, the increase in league player pool wasn't apparent until the late 90s, when KG/Nash/Kobe/Dirk/VC/TMac/Kidd/etc. joined the league.

15 years after space jam - 2010s - the exposure to children gave rise to "unicorns". Players who played basketball since they were young, and were able to maintain their ball-handling with increased growth. the increase in depth at Guard and Forward that can handle the ball and shoot is quite noticeable in ways it wasn't in the 2000s, because of their constant access to NBA games that most kids before Space Jam weren't as excited for.

Thus, in 12 year spans there may be significant player pool increase - but not in single digit year counts between 1956 and 1962.

An influx of talented players in the late 50s makes the early 50s era look bad, but these players brought new techniques that are the source of these players looking bad - not the increased player pool. Cousy was the first one to bring new techniques into the NBA with his special passing.Baylor's acrobatics at the rim. Russell's defense. Wilt's athleticism. Oscar's all-around play and rebounding at point. These are things the league never saw before, and they became essential parts of the league. Just like Cousy's playmaking. However, Cousy was in an era before them and they saw his skills and saw him develop the game in a new direction, and learned from him. If Cousy got to learn from all these players, it would be different. But, Cousy's passing and creativity effected the league far more than these players, and he shouldn't be ranked so low.

Couple brief things:

1) What are thoughts on Bob Davies? Most of your posts talks about how Cousy was a pioneer in this era but wasn't Davies doing most of the same things?

2) TRex's data is pretty convincing - and when you look at league rosters over time, the influx of talent is pretty obvious. The technique issue you touch on has some merit but it's most likely a combination (and the fact that Baylor, Wilt, Russell, etc. had athletic capabilities that were way beyond what was in the league at the time).

[MrIrrelevant]

It's tough to vote in Artis Gilmore without him making a single All-NBA first or second team from '76-'88. George Gervin made 5 first teams and 2 second teams in that time frame. You can play the "stuck behind all-timers card", but everybody is, and if you're the 36th best player of all time, you find a way to make a single 2nd team. All IMO.

[mischievous]

Kevin Garnett should not be ahead of Karl Malone or Dirk Nowitzki. Almost every ranking by the experts on all time greatest PF's has

1. Duncan
2. Malone
3. Dirk

Which I'd tend to agree with, don't see the argument for KG being better than either.

Who are these "experts"? Charles and Shaq? Or Stephen A and Skip? Lol.

[Hornet Mania]

I'll stick with my guys from the last few threads

36. Jason Kidd
alt: Walt Frazier

Next man up: Reggie Miller? Artis Gilmore? Lots of good options.

To be honest I couldn't fit a hair between these PGs, they're all basically equal in my eyes. Kidd gets a slight longevity nod.

[Purch]

Kidd's history was

Mavs---> Suns--->Nets----->Mavs--->Knicks

Compare that to Nash

Suns---->Mavs----Suns----->Lakers

[70sFan]

It's tough to vote in Artis Gilmore without him making a single All-NBA first or second team from '76-'88. George Gervin made 5 first teams and 2 second teams in that time frame. You can play the "stuck behind all-timers card", but everybody is, and if you're the 36th best player of all time, you find a way to make a single 2nd team. All IMO.

He faced bruta competition though. In 1977 and 1978 Walton was GOAT-caliber player. Then in 1979-83 Moses hit his peak. Of course there was always Kareem who even beat Hakeem as late as in 1986.

Also, he had poor teams during his prime in NBA. He waited for first good NBA team until 1983 when he was still great, but old (already played 11 seasons of pro basketball). Poor teams doesn't help individual accolades as you should know.

Gervin had 2 available spots for him and he faced less competition. Say all you want, but for centers it's harder to make all-NBA team, especially with only 2 teams.

[mikejames23]

I disagree that Pierce shows equal defensive capacity. He was certainly a capable defender, but never elite (as Kidd was several years of his career). I don't feel Pierce as equal to Kidd defensively is reflected anywhere, either. Although I think individual DRtg and DBPM are rotten as far as their accuracy in assessing individual defense (at least for perimeter players): Kidd's career DRtg is 102 (Pierce's is 103), Kidd's career DBPM is 1.8 (Pierce's is 0.5).

Then we have honors: Kidd was NINE times All-Defensive Team (four of those 1st team), Pierce I don't believe had any (right or wrong). Kidd also made at least a couple appearances in the DPOY vote (I don't believe Pierce ever did).

Then there's DRAPM, which is close, though again favors Kidd. Avg DRAPM from '99-'10 for Kidd is +1.265 vs. +0.833 for Pierce.
And lastly there's my eye-test, which [for me] suggests the same thing that EVERYTHING else [as noted above] appears to be telling me: that Pierce was respectable/good defensively, but Kidd was excellent.


I do think they're roughly similar-tiered players overall. I would generally give Pierce the small edge offensively, though fwiw, impact data suggests Kidd was basically Pierce's equal offensively (and thus marginally more impactful overall during their respective primes).

Also has Kidd beat in longevity with Career NBA W/S of 22nd.

Don't agree with the bolded statement. WS/48, like all metrics, has its flaws and biases. It will underrate some players (like Kidd---as I elaborated on previously---or probably Isiah Thomas as another example), will overrate others (e.g. Chris Andersen in Miami, or Amar'e Stoudemire); others it will rate pretty fairly/accurately. Pierce, imo, falls into this latter category (whereas Kidd gets underrated by it). As result, Pierce has nabbed a slim career edge in total WS (25th all-time in ABA/NBA vs. 31st for Kidd).

You're mistaking Pierce rating out as a better player (as measured specifically by WS and WS/48) as him having better longevity. David Robinson also has Kidd soundly beat in career WS; so does he have superior longevity? EDIT (because I realized this sounded condescending): The DRob comparison isn't exactly fair as he's clearly on another tier from Kidd, whereas Kidd and Pierce are roughly (as I myself stated) similar-tiered players; and from that standpoint I can see where a cumulative stat [like WS] might suggest better longevity for Pierce. But it's just that the metric itself favors him. As a counter, I could point out a different cumulative measure, such as VORP (where Kidd ranks #11 all-time and Pierce is #23, with Kidd ahead by a proportion that is larger than Pierce's WS edge).


In actual longevity, Kidd has the small but clear edge. Both guys played 19 seasons, but Kidd played 48 more games, >4,000 more minutes, and was a useful player ALL nineteen of his seasons (whereas Pierce was pretty clearly a total non-factor his last two seasons).

I don't agree with Kidd's defense vs Pierce. Pierce has a significant advantage in size which likely makes him equal and at times better impact defender. With the RAPM studies, things switch from study to study. This one that makes the top from a simple google search -

02-11
Kidd - Offense +4 Defense + .7
Pierce - Offense +3.3 Defense +1.6

Generally Kidd's defensive +/-'s oscillated depending on the load of responsibility. I agree he was a great defender, but when discussing players of different size Kidd's advantage doesn't necessarily make him better. Pierce's peak ratings were generally higher than Kidd's as well. Overall, I would expect them to be next to each other and not too far apart, yes.

Yeah, I agree Kidd made a whole bunch of defensive teams. He also was competing with other Point Guards. Defensive teams are built with position consideration, not so much of a pure impact consideration.

Overall impact wise, I can see Kidd and Pierce being *generally* equal on offense, but that would change in the playoffs when role players are a little less reliable and where great volume scorers are more valuable. Kidd's offense here falls short of what Pierce is able to do.

With W/S and VORP I am not super into either of them, but they are more easy statistics to consider when looking at a player's career. Kidd has VORP advantage while Pierce is better with W/S 48. Pierce's overall closest comparison in W/S is Havlicek who is already in. With Kidd, it's Ray Allen - who won't be in for another 10-15 spots I'm thinking.

Finally, for longevity there's a slight advantage with late late career, but I don't know if those years were all that meaningful.

I don't think the numbers prove either or to be certainly superior, overall. And Kidd's chemistry in first half of career bother me somewhat. As far as who is the better player, I think it depends on how they're employed within the team system.

*shrug*

Overall, I think there's a case to be made for Pierce at this point and Kidd's superiority is unclear.

[mikejames23]

Thought I'd start some Gervin discussion.

He figures to be Durant before Durant in many ways.

Great article.

https://historyrat.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/george-gervin-how-the-iceman-became-the-iceman/

Over the next 12 seasons, George was the face of the San Antonio franchise. In 12 seasons in San Antonio, the Spurs made the playoffs 11 times including 10 straight. When the ABA merged with the NBA, television was made for George and his smooth, silky game. Former Bulls and Mavericks coach Dick Motta said of George,

" You don’t stop George Gervin. You just hope that his arm gets tired after 40 shots. I believe the guy can score any time he wants to. I wonder if he gets bored out there? "

More:

https://airalamo.com/2017/08/10/san-antonio-spurs-trade-george-gervin-aba/

Trade article for some entertainment.

https://www.si.com/vault/1978/03/06/822433/iceman-cometh-and-scoreth-san-antonios-spurs-are-burning-up-the-nba-central-and-the-main-reason-is-ultra-cool-guard-george-gervin

This one's really cool and really captures the feel of the 70s Spurs. Deep Coma Expressionless Face with Eyelids Dropping. The Icemand. He was basically the original Whitewalker. I can't seem to quote out of here but it's worth a click and scroll.

Total of 5 MVP finishes where he was a good candidate. Two of them he lost out to Bill Walton and Moses Malone. Had a really high rep in this era.

Had some absurd scoring numbers and appears to show up in the playoffs just as strongly as in the RS. He played in an era where he had to take a real pounding for his ability and style of play, and that's probably why his career was a little shorter than it should've been. He was done at 33 on the Bulls. That being said he appears to have around 9 seasons or so of star material play where he was All-NBA First Team many times, MVP candidate and overall well respected as the top scorer of his time.

[trex_8063]

Trex, can you speak on the number of teams that Kidd played for? Call me old fashioned or whatever else but that has always concerned me about him. I *think* he'll be the top teams guy we've put in. A top 40 guy on 3 teams (though I'd almost want to call dallas 2 teams given the time between and change in ownership) +1 (knicks don't really count) just seems off. And btw I am counting dallas as 2 in my head which might be silly.

Absolutely Dallas should be counted as two teams here. Just as Cleveland is two teams for Lebron, imo.

I don't feel like Kidd is much of an outlier in this regard. Lebron has played for three teams in 14 seasons; Chris Paul (now going into his 13th season) is now on his third team. Dwight Howard (now going into his 14th season) is joining his 5th team.
Even for some guys who play mostly for one team, it's not always a spotless record. Kobe Bryant, though only ever playing for one team, forced another superstar off the team ("him or me", essentially) and also had stated intention to NOT play for the team that drafted him (or any team but the Lakers) when first coming into the league.

Kidd played for three teams in his first 13+ seasons; that just doesn't seem like an outlier occurrence. The circumstances surrounding his departure could [at times] call in some misgivings, as you and fundamentals21 have posted article links to. Those criticisms he must sustain. fwiw, I think Rick Barry (voted #34) has easily as bad "intangible" concerns, though, as do characters like Dwight Howard and Elvin Hayes (who are likely to have support soon).

I can't really see how the cavs are two teams for lebron. The same owner was there both times, and the time lag was tiny.

Is four full seasons away really a "tiny" time lag?
And owner aside.....
*The backcourt he left was Mo Williams, Delonte West, Anthony Parker, and Boobie Gibson; the primary backcourt upon his return was Kyrie Irving, JR Smith, Matthew Dellavedova, Iman Shumpert (+ James Jones and Dion Waiters).
**The frontcourt he left was Anderson Varejao, Shaq, Big Z, and Antawn Jamison; the frontcourt he had on his return was Kevin Love, Tristan Thompson, Timofey Mosgov, and Anderson Varejao (+ one season of old Shawn Marion).
***The coach and executive he left were [respectively] Mike Brown and Danny Ferry; the coach and executive he returned to were David Blatt and David Griffin.

Anderson Varejao is almost literally the only familiar face (and he was only there that first season back, iirc). Even the assistant coaching staff was all different. I can't really call those the same team.

More importantly is that all the moves were Lebron's choice. Kidd was traded which is very different.

True. Although Lebron (and others, e.g. Durant) are criticized for leaving their teams; Kidd is criticized for getting traded. They're often damned either way, apparently. So from that standpoint, changing teams is changing teams.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #50:

Jason Kidd - 5 (Dr Positivity, drza, Hornet Mania, trex_8063, twolves97)
Artis Gilmore - 4 (Doctor MJ, LABird, pandrade83, penbeast0)
Walt Frazier - 2 (Clyde Frazier, dhsilv2)
Bob Cousy - 2 (Pablo Novi, euroleague)
Isiah Thomas - 2 (scabbarista, JordansBulls)

Will leave it open another hour or two.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[janmagn]

Vote: Isiah Thomas
2nd vote: Artis Gilmore

Isiah gets my vote for many reasons. Firstly, he had that swagger in him and flashiness with that crossover and such. He wouldn't give you any easy time on the floor. Secondly, he was a leader, a successful leader, who led his team to two championships. He of course had a great team but if you look at the facts he might suprise you.

-led his team to win the peak 80s Celtics, a job only one other team could do
-the last guy who led his team to a victory against Jordan

Isiah was a guy who could do many things. He could score, as he showed scoring over 20ppg multiple times. He could pass, as he showed by leading the league with 14apg one year. He was a decent defender who didn't have to be hidden on defense. His quick crossover embarrased many of his peers.

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[trex_8063]

Thru post #52 (16 votes, requires 9 for true majority):

Jason Kidd - 5 (Dr Positivity, drza, Hornet Mania, trex_8063, twolves97)
Artis Gilmore - 4 (Doctor MJ, LABird, pandrade83, penbeast0)
Isiah Thomas - 3 (scabbarista, JordansBulls, janmagn)
Walt Frazier - 2 (Clyde Frazier, dhsilv2)
Bob Cousy - 2 (Pablo Novi, euroleague)


Cousy and Frazier are eliminated. One vote transfers to Isiah, one to Gilmore. The other two become ghost votes (were for Gervin and Reed).

Kidd - 5
Gilmore - 5
Isiah - 4

So Isiah is next eliminated. One more vote transfers to Gilmore, another two become ghost votes (Hayes, Wilkins).

Gilmore - 6
Kidd - 5

So I guess this spot goes to Artis Gilmore. This is another one that feels kinda gross, given Kidd had more 1st place votes and also TWO of the Gilmore 1st ballots had Kidd as their 2nd choice (whereas only ONE of the Kidd 1st ballots had Gilmore as his 2nd choice). So although it feels a pinch icky, sticking with the system we've selected, and Gilmore takes this spot. Will have the next one up in a moment.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I find it hard to object too much to Payton at #35 as he might be my favorite non-all time PG. But that said, I watched him, and he wasn't clearly better than any of this pack of guys.

Now as for the remaining grouping, from which my choices will come:

Allen Iverson
Walt Frazier
Bob Cousy
Jason Kidd
Isiah Thomas
Russel Westbrook

Kidd -- so there seems to be some tepid support for Kidd in this spot. But I'm not sure it is justified for anything more than just hanging around for a real long time. The guy scored more than 15ppg in a grand total of 4 seasons (out of 18) in the NBA and yet has a career FG% of .400. That's not the Stockton situation. That's not bein pass first. That's being offensively incompetent. And this from a guy who was running fastbreak offenses generating lots of layups in his prime. Through pure longevity he leads all these guys in total assists, but over his career he barely managed three double figure assist years. He finally of course was the PG on Dirk's title team, but as a great player/team leader his teams were pretty much capped at about 50 wins. And yeah, in the Least that was enough, but let's be serious here, there were half a dozen West teams as good.

Frazier remains enticing because of his well rounded game, but unenticing because of his short career. And the concerns that he wasn't clearly his team's #1 guy only grow stronger when you look at his per possession stats. The first 3 years we have Frazier's per 100 possession stats were 73-74/74-75/75-76, the last 3 seasons of his All-Star prime, and his per 100 stats each season were:

73-74 22.8pts 7.4reb 7.7ast
74-75 24.3pts 6.8reb 6.9ast
75-76 21.4pts 7.6reb 6.7ast

Compare that to Westbrook's CAREER per 100s:
Westbrook: 33.8pts 9.2reb 11.8ast

And how can I possibly put Frazier > Westbrook?

Isiah remains hard to quantify. Even the advanced stats do him no favor. But I just have a very hard time with the idea that JKidd > Isiah Thomas. It rankles somehow. I am no Isiah Thomas fan, but he was a big time star and true leader of a mini-dynastic team, and his very *******ness actually helped power it. The punk in chief.

The only thing holding Westbrook back is lack of longevity as a #1 guy. In fact when you look at per possession scoring numbers, Westbrook and Iverson look almost identical:

Per 100 possessions:
Iverson 33.7pts (27.5FGA .425FG% + 4.7ThrA .313Thr% + 11.3FTA .780FT%)
Westbr 33.8pts (26.9FGA .433FG% + 5.0ThrA .313Thr% + 10.9FTA .823FT%)

And Westbrook adds in the rest of the triple double package too. His problem? He's played 22786 career minutes and this past season was the first time we got to see him blow up as the main man. Iverson racked up 37584 career minutes, and his late career seasons pulled those per 100 numbers down within Westbrook's range. We'll see where Russel ends up after age starts stealing his athleticism too.

So, I am sticking with:
#36 Allen Iverson
#37 Bob Cousy

[dhsilv2]

Absolutely Dallas should be counted as two teams here. Just as Cleveland is two teams for Lebron, imo.

I don't feel like Kidd is much of an outlier in this regard. Lebron has played for three teams in 14 seasons; Chris Paul (now going into his 13th season) is now on his third team. Dwight Howard (now going into his 14th season) is joining his 5th team.
Even for some guys who play mostly for one team, it's not always a spotless record. Kobe Bryant, though only ever playing for one team, forced another superstar off the team ("him or me", essentially) and also had stated intention to NOT play for the team that drafted him (or any team but the Lakers) when first coming into the league.

Kidd played for three teams in his first 13+ seasons; that just doesn't seem like an outlier occurrence. The circumstances surrounding his departure could [at times] call in some misgivings, as you and fundamentals21 have posted article links to. Those criticisms he must sustain. fwiw, I think Rick Barry (voted #34) has easily as bad "intangible" concerns, though, as do characters like Dwight Howard and Elvin Hayes (who are likely to have support soon).

I can't really see how the cavs are two teams for lebron. The same owner was there both times, and the time lag was tiny.

Is four full seasons away really a "tiny" time lag?
And owner aside.....
*The backcourt he left was Mo Williams, Delonte West, Anthony Parker, and Boobie Gibson; the primary backcourt upon his return was Kyrie Irving, JR Smith, Matthew Dellavedova, Iman Shumpert (+ James Jones and Dion Waiters).
**The frontcourt he left was Anderson Varejao, Shaq, Big Z, and Antawn Jamison; the frontcourt he had on his return was Kevin Love, Tristan Thompson, Timofey Mosgov, and Anderson Varejao (+ one season of old Shawn Marion).
***The coach and executive he left were [respectively] Mike Brown and Danny Ferry; the coach and executive he returned to were David Blatt and David Griffin.

Anderson Varejao is almost literally the only familiar face (and he was only there that first season back, iirc). Even the assistant coaching staff was all different. I can't really call those the same team.

More importantly is that all the moves were Lebron's choice. Kidd was traded which is very different.

True. Although Lebron (and others, e.g. Durant) are criticized for leaving their teams; Kidd is criticized for getting traded. They're often damned either way, apparently. So from that standpoint, changing teams is changing teams.

well a think teams are 99% owners and 1% other. Dallas was a new team in my view, the cavs are still the cavs. It's gilbert's team, franchise, and all cavs fans must love gilbert. That is how I, a sports "atheist", sees them at least. But I've never lived in a city with an NBA team so perhaps I don't get "it".

I know fans criticize people for leaving, but to be blunt that's idiotic. I can understand criticizing them for choosing the easy path. That however is a different argument, it is much more to me like Magic being drafted by the lakers or anyone who played with Russell. Kidd being traded after 2-3 years from the mavs was pretty amazing given I *think* at the time he was seen as the super star future of the team by most. Teams don't trade future super stars that young, especially ones already showing their talent off. Thus there being some "issues" with his personality are pretty telling. It's a different issue than leaving. I don't feel the two should be talked about as the same thing. I'd say they're more like one guard who can't shoot and another who can't finish at the rim. Both are issues but they create completely game plans (sorry annology is from defending, not our rankings, I wasn't thinking that through before I typed it).

[dhsilv2]

I find it hard to object too much to Payton at #35 as he might be my favorite non-all time PG. But that said, I watched him, and he wasn't clearly better than any of this pack of guys.

Now as for the remaining grouping, from which my choices will come:

Allen Iverson
Walt Frazier
Bob Cousy
Jason Kidd
Isiah Thomas
Russel Westbrook

Kidd -- so there seems to be some tepid support for Kidd in this spot. But I'm not sure it is justified for anything more than just hanging around for a real long time. The guy scored more than 15ppg in a grand total of 4 seasons (out of 18) in the NBA and yet has a career FG% of .400. That's not the Stockton situation. That's not bein pass first. That's being offensively incompetent. And this from a guy who was running fastbreak offenses generating lots of layups in his prime. Through pure longevity he leads all these guys in total assists, but over his career he barely managed three double figure assist years. He finally of course was the PG on Dirk's title team, but as a great player/team leader his teams were pretty much capped at about 50 wins. And yeah, in the Least that was enough, but let's be serious here, there were half a dozen West teams as good.

Frazier remains enticing because of his well rounded game, but unenticing because of his short career. And the concerns that he wasn't clearly his team's #1 guy only grow stronger when you look at his per possession stats. The first 3 years we have Frazier's per 100 possession stats were 73-74/74-75/75-76, the last 3 seasons of his All-Star prime, and his per 100 stats each season were:

73-74 22.8pts 7.4reb 7.7ast
74-75 24.3pts 6.8reb 6.9ast
75-76 21.4pts 7.6reb 6.7ast

Compare that to Westbrook's CAREER per 100s:
Westbrook: 33.8pts 9.2reb 11.8ast

And how can I possibly put Frazier > Westbrook?

Isiah remains hard to quantify. Even the advanced stats do him no favor. But I just have a very hard time with the idea that JKidd > Isiah Thomas. It rankles somehow. I am no Isiah Thomas fan, but he was a big time star and true leader of a mini-dynastic team, and his very *******ness actually helped power it. The punk in chief.

The only thing holding Westbrook back is lack of longevity as a #1 guy. In fact when you look at per possession scoring numbers, Westbrook and Iverson look almost identical:

Per 100 possessions:
Iverson 33.7pts (27.5FGA .425FG% + 4.7ThrA .313Thr% + 11.3FTA .780FT%)
Westbr 33.8pts (26.9FGA .433FG% + 5.0ThrA .313Thr% + 10.9FTA .823FT%)

And Westbrook adds in the rest of the triple double package too. His problem? He's played 22786 career minutes and this past season was the first time we got to see him blow up as the main man. Iverson racked up 37584 career minutes, and his late career seasons pulled those per 100 numbers down within Westbrook's range. We'll see where Russel ends up after age starts stealing his athleticism too.

So, I am sticking with:
#36 Allen Iverson
#37 Bob Cousy

Kidd played in a pretty low pace era, that should at least be factored in when talking about arbitrary per game values like 10 assists per game. Just adding that in since it's a rather glaring problem we see often with people not accounting for the era and team when talking about per game values. Completely agree with your message though.

[daoneandonly]

Kevin Garnett should not be ahead of Karl Malone or Dirk Nowitzki. Almost every ranking by the experts on all time greatest PF's has

1. Duncan
2. Malone
3. Dirk

Which I'd tend to agree with, don't see the argument for KG being better than either.

I agree that they have strong arguments for being better than KG. However, "experts" don't really mean anything. Nba experts in particular are really bad lol. You know how high some experts rank Reggie Miller

Haha good point, but I think if you look at body of work, stats, success, you have to give the nod to Malone & Dirk. I'm surprised it turned out this way, I know it's just a poll and prob small sample size, but recently Mike & Mike did a poll on in the past NBA generation, who was the next best player after Duncan and Kobe, the choices were KG, AI, and Dirk, Dirk won decisively if I remember correctly.

[daoneandonly]

Kevin Garnett should not be ahead of Karl Malone or Dirk Nowitzki. Almost every ranking by the experts on all time greatest PF's has

1. Duncan
2. Malone
3. Dirk

Which I'd tend to agree with, don't see the argument for KG being better than either.

Who are these "experts"? Charles and Shaq? Or Stephen A and Skip? Lol.

Ha just google greatest PF's of all time, pretty much every list I saw has Duncan, Malone, and Dirk as the consensus 1-3. Even if they didn't, most still have those 2 over KG.

[Purch]

I find it hard to object too much to Payton at #35 as he might be my favorite non-all time PG. But that said, I watched him, and he wasn't clearly better than any of this pack of guys.

Now as for the remaining grouping, from which my choices will come:

Allen Iverson
Walt Frazier
Bob Cousy
Jason Kidd
Isiah Thomas
Russel Westbrook

Kidd -- so there seems to be some tepid support for Kidd in this spot. But I'm not sure it is justified for anything more than just hanging around for a real long time. The guy scored more than 15ppg in a grand total of 4 seasons (out of 18) in the NBA and yet has a career FG% of .400. That's not the Stockton situation. That's not bein pass first. That's being offensively incompetent. And this from a guy who was running fastbreak offenses generating lots of layups in his prime. Through pure longevity he leads all these guys in total assists, but over his career he barely managed three double figure assist years. He finally of course was the PG on Dirk's title team, but as a great player/team leader his teams were pretty much capped at about 50 wins. And yeah, in the Least that was enough, but let's be serious here, there were half a dozen West teams as good.

Frazier remains enticing because of his well rounded game, but unenticing because of his short career. And the concerns that he wasn't clearly his team's #1 guy only grow stronger when you look at his per possession stats. The first 3 years we have Frazier's per 100 possession stats were 73-74/74-75/75-76, the last 3 seasons of his All-Star prime, and his per 100 stats each season were:

73-74 22.8pts 7.4reb 7.7ast
74-75 24.3pts 6.8reb 6.9ast
75-76 21.4pts 7.6reb 6.7ast

Compare that to Westbrook's CAREER per 100s:
Westbrook: 33.8pts 9.2reb 11.8ast

And how can I possibly put Frazier > Westbrook?

Isiah remains hard to quantify. Even the advanced stats do him no favor. But I just have a very hard time with the idea that JKidd > Isiah Thomas. It rankles somehow. I am no Isiah Thomas fan, but he was a big time star and true leader of a mini-dynastic team, and his very *******ness actually helped power it. The punk in chief.

The only thing holding Westbrook back is lack of longevity as a #1 guy. In fact when you look at per possession scoring numbers, Westbrook and Iverson look almost identical:

Per 100 possessions:
Iverson 33.7pts (27.5FGA .425FG% + 4.7ThrA .313Thr% + 11.3FTA .780FT%)
Westbr 33.8pts (26.9FGA .433FG% + 5.0ThrA .313Thr% + 10.9FTA .823FT%)

And Westbrook adds in the rest of the triple double package too. His problem? He's played 22786 career minutes and this past season was the first time we got to see him blow up as the main man. Iverson racked up 37584 career minutes, and his late career seasons pulled those per 100 numbers down within Westbrook's range. We'll see where Russel ends up after age starts stealing his athleticism too.

So, I am sticking with:
#36 Allen Iverson
#37 Bob Cousy

Those nets teams were not fast break offenses at all by Byron's design