RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #21 (Charles Barkley)

[Jordan Syndrome]

What he gave them was the ability to get buckets when that ball movement offense is bogged down against a great defensive team.

Did this ever happen from 2015-2016?

[BigBoss23]

What he gave them was the ability to get buckets when that ball movement offense is bogged down against a great defensive team.

Did this ever happen from 2015-2016?

He wasn't on GSW that season so I don't know how this is even a question.

[Jordan Syndrome]

What he gave them was the ability to get buckets when that ball movement offense is bogged down against a great defensive team.

Did this ever happen from 2015-2016?

He wasn't on GSW that season so I don't know how this is even a question.

You said the offense could bog down against great defenses. Did that ever happen over the course of a series or was Golden State always able to figure it out?

[Dutchball97]

Looks like this round will be a bit scuffed again with tactical voting. Barkley is definitely a strong candidate and I wouldn't mind if he's voted in (I have him 3rd on my ballot as well) but it's sad to see so many people keep KD off their ballot completely for seemingly personal reasons.

I just can't get over nobody downgrading Karl Malone for what he did but KD joining the Warriors makes him the devil. Could be a cultural difference or something but idk.

I don't think anyone here is holding KD out because he simply joined the Warriors. You're being delusional and seeing what you want to see rather than the truth if you think that is the case.

Could you explain the parallel with Karl Malone?

I kept the parallel vague because I'm not sure how the mods view people bringing up Karl Malone's off court history. I already got a warning for an unrelated outburst so I don't want to risk getting a ban or something. My point was that I've seen people argue that KD joining the Warriors is a reason for him to be ranked lower. It means he has a weak mindset, isn't a leader etc, while I find that a hyperbolic narrative. Who was better between KD and Curry on the Warriors is a discussion to be had but with the way people value his Warriors years you'd think he was a bench guy riding along instead of being the huge difference maker that he was. If Karl Malone being an actual terrible human isn't a reason for him to get ranked lower, then I don't see how KD joining the Warriors should be. I understand they're completely different situations but singling out KD doesn't sit right with me.

[BigBoss23]

Did this ever happen from 2015-2016?

He wasn't on GSW that season so I don't know how this is even a question.

You said the offense could bog down against great defenses. Did that ever happen over the course of a series or was Golden State always able to figure it out?

Did you not see the 2018 WCF vs Houston? Or games 3 of the 2017 and 2018 Finals? Clearly it sounds like you didnt.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Looks like this round will be a bit scuffed again with tactical voting. Barkley is definitely a strong candidate and I wouldn't mind if he's voted in (I have him 3rd on my ballot as well) but it's sad to see so many people keep KD off their ballot completely for seemingly personal reasons.

I just can't get over nobody downgrading Karl Malone for what he did but KD joining the Warriors makes him the devil. Could be a cultural difference or something but idk.

I don't think anyone here is holding KD out because he simply joined the Warriors. You're being delusional and seeing what you want to see rather than the truth if you think that is the case.

Could you explain the parallel with Karl Malone?

I kept the parallel vague because I'm not sure how the mods view people bringing up Karl Malone's off court history. I already got a warning for an unrelated outburst so I don't want to risk getting a ban or something. My point was that I've seen people argue that KD joining the Warriors is a reason for him to be ranked lower. It means he has a weak mindset, isn't a leader etc, while I find that a hyperbolic narrative. Who was better between KD and Curry on the Warriors is a discussion to be had but with the way people value his Warriors years you'd think he was a bench guy riding along instead of being the huge difference maker that he was. If Karl Malone being an actual terrible human isn't a reason for him to get ranked lower, then I don't see how KD joining the Warriors should be. I understand they're completely different situations but singling out KD doesn't sit right with me.

I agree that if you start holding players accountable for off-court actions outside the world of basketball then Karl Malone and Kobe Bryant--to name a few--get penalized.

However, what Kevin Durant did is within the scope of basketball and belongs in a GOAT discussion as it is a part of his basketball legacy. Questioning his Leadership or mindset within the framework of basketball is fair game if someone includes those aspects of a player into a GOAT ranking/discussion. I personally don't subject myself deeply to those attributes in a GOAT discussion as I don't have access to a locker room.

I will say my reasoning for Durant being lower than others is he wasn't an offensive catalyst like a Nash, Curry, Barkley or Paul for an extended period of time during his career. As a player whose primary value is offense, I value this greatly.

[Franco]

I'll edit with some reasoning in an hour (give or take), but as of now my choices are:

1) Stephen Curry
2) Charles Barkley
3) Kevin Durant

[Jordan Syndrome]

He wasn't on GSW that season so I don't know how this is even a question.

You said the offense could bog down against great defenses. Did that ever happen over the course of a series or was Golden State always able to figure it out?

Did you not see the 2018 WCF vs Houston? Or games 3 of the 2017 and 2018 Finals? Clearly it sounds like you didnt.

You aren't answering my question. Don't hit the moving goal posts.

Cheers.

[Doctor MJ]

I just can't get over nobody downgrading Karl Malone for what he did but KD joining the Warriors makes him the devil. Could be a cultural difference or something but idk.

Seems to me you're confused to be honest. And to be fair, we are coming from different cultures and different mother tongues, so I don't want to be super-sanctimonious here.

A couple points and then I'm going to get into some quotes and stuff because frankly, despite the fact I don't enjoy getting into this stuff, I don't really feel like people get it yet.

1. I'm really trying to emphasize that the big issue is what happened AFTER Durant was in GS not his decision to leave OKC, but both things come up because they are related and to understand Durant's mindset, you really need to have everything in mind. Am I claiming to perfectly understand Durant's mindset? No, but there's information out there if you look for it.

2. I'm not actually sure what you're referring to relating to Malone but others have brought up him impregnating an underage girl so I'll address that. I cannot emphasize enough that I'm not referring to some "Morality rating" that then has some weight in how I judge a player. I'm talking about a) actual damage done to the team that's paying the player as well as b) personality traits that showed up along the way that indicates the player is problematic in a team setting. If you personally want to knock Malone by saying "If you draft him, he may end up in jail and you gotta factor that in", but I have to be honest and say that the incident in question hasn't really been on my mind at all.

Okay now:

Ethan Strauss wrote a book called "The Victory Machine" you may have heard about. In that book Strauss mentions Durant incidents both relating to the press and to his teammates. I think a particular telling quote, comes from another beat writer relaying an incident where KD confronted him:

KD said, "I hear and I read everything. And don't forget that." He said it multiple times.

Durant may well have the most sensitive rabbit ears of any player in NBA history with the aid of the internet. He's a guy who is looking at what everyone is saying about him, and if anything feels like a sleight, he gets obsessed.

Strauss is writing this book in part because Durant did the same thing to him. You might also remember the sock puppet incident where Durant was caught trying to argue for "KD" on the internet under the guise of being a fan. You may also remember Durant bashing "blog boys" in one of his many rants about the media.

And you may think, "Why do I care about Durant's relationship with the media?"

Because it's related to his jealous toward his rivals, which it turns out very much includes his teammates.

Durant, according to Strauss, believed that the local press was basically against him because they were pro-Curry. But Durant didn't just have issues with the credit Curry got. Here are a couple quotes about teammates:

How can you call yourself 'Mo Buckets' when you never averaged twenty points a game?

You guys gonna write about that? You're not, are you, because anything Klay does is okay because it's Klay. But anything I do is not okay because I'm Kevin Durant'.

I'm sorry if this seems slimy me talking about this stuff, but folks have asked for examples and I think they are clearly necessary.

We don't just know THAT Durant turned Golden State's Joy culture in an ugly, uncomfortable place, we really seem to know how it happened.

Durant was disappointed with the reactions he saw online beginning in the aftermath of the 2017 title. He really thought that if he won a title by outplaying LeBron head to head that all the critics would shut up, and they didn't. As I've said, Durant's misunderstanding here was something some of us raised the red flag on when he signed with Golden State - my statement at the time was not that I was damning Durant for going there but that Durant almost certainly was doing this thinking he would get a legacy win from it that he wasn't likely to get, and the question was always how he'd respond when he realized he was deluded.

And he responded by being jealous toward his teammates. Even the role players. Durant thought the media was treating him unfair compared to his teammates, and this led him to be bitter and lash out against all sorts of people around him. Journalists, teammates, coaches - they all walked on eggshells around Durant and simply took it when he disrespected them either in the press (teammates) or directly to their fact (Steve Kerr).

Well not all of them. Draymond obviously didn't give an F about all that and escalated the situation, for which I do put blame on Draymond, but it does not absolve Durant.

I can't emphasize enough that when we're talking about the tendency to view the people on your team as your rivals, THAT is what kills great teams. That is precisely why Shaq kept changing teams, for example. We're not talking about a random, obscure danger here when it comes to locker room issues, we're talking about THE issue that you should be looking out for in basically every locker room in the NBA.

But while Shaq's issues were about face-to-face stuff like Kobe literally being antagonistic to Shaq in person, the disturbing thing about Durant is that this was about Durant paying attention to the internet. His teammates didn't start this crap, if anyone other than Durant could be said to start it, it was journalists.

For this reason, while I see Durant's behavior toward the journalists as disturbing, if it didn't spread to the team, quite frankly I wouldn't even bring it up here. But Durant did take it out on teammates. The jealousy he displayed shows us part of how that came about, but in the end on a daily basis what we're really talking about is Durant having a propensity to act like a sarcastic teenager mocking those around him. The thing that set Draymond Green off was Durant mocking him mid-game, and Kerr endured quite a bit more of that while turning the other cheek.

And what all this means is that if Durant was going to take things this way, long-term sustainability for him on Golden State was literally impossible. Durant put himself in a situation where he could have been a part of a long-term dynasty (and btw, if GS wins like 5 rings with Durant, he would have gotten the fawning press he was aching for) playing for the best team culture he'd ever seen, and by his 2nd year there could only see the negatives.

I don't want to make it sound like I think Durant should be in jail for this. Not understanding what will actually make you happy is something many of us have, and have a considerably more advanced ages than Durant.

But if I'm looking to build an NBA team around guys who will allow me to build and sustain a great culture, THIS is the sort of thing I'm looking at with regards to intangibles. It's a big deal, and quite frankly there's a massive spectrum of "cultural force" that goes from positive to negative, and while I'd have given Curry a significant edge before Durant imploded the Warriors' culture, now I see them as about as far apart as any two players can get.

I honestly don't know of player that took a super-positive culture like this and flushed it down the toilet so rapidly despite winning like crazy. We always say "winning cures everything", and even for Shaq-type of pettiness, it basically does keep the toxicity from boiling over. But for Durant, it's not just that it didn't, it's that he was actively pissed off that the team won and he was still getting criticism. This was always going to be what happened, and thus Durant was absolutely doomed to ruin the good thing he had.

This stuff matters to all coaches and GMs, and it should matter to you if you're trying to rank guys like those whose livelihood actually requires they do so.

Two last things:

1. What about the fact other teams still want Durant? Durant is an exceptionally talented basketball player, and for most teams, giving him whatever he wants is still probably the best option. I'm not saying we should rank Durant as a zero by any stretch of the imagination, but we have a stark contrast here with Curry where if you're picking Durant, you're literally choosing the guy who just ruined the best thing in the NBA because of his own neuroticism over the guy who handled everything about perfectly while being more impactful on the court.

2. I'm going to look at the votes, and then there's a good chance I'm going to vote for Durant in the last spot. How can I say all this stuff and still vote for Durant? Well first, I'm not going to consider guys for the 3rd spot that don't seem to have a chance to be around after my top 2 choices are ghosted. But more significantly, Durant is very good at basketball and he's not the only knucklehead around.

[BigBoss23]

You said the offense could bog down against great defenses. Did that ever happen over the course of a series or was Golden State always able to figure it out?

Did you not see the 2018 WCF vs Houston? Or games 3 of the 2017 and 2018 Finals? Clearly it sounds like you didnt.

You aren't answering my question. Don't hit the moving goal posts.

Cheers.

Considering GSW was down 3-2 to Houston and were down by 15pts in each of games 6 and 7 of the 2018 WCF, I'd say they did bog down. Personal comment edited out.

Jordan Syndrome needs to read others comments properly first before attempting to make a mockery of someone who answered their question in good faith.

[eminence]

I've never been particularly mad at KD for going to GS, heck the maddest I got with him was for gunking up their beautiful system, not for destroying parity. Simply put I don't think he's good enough to include yet. Obviously he's not far off and he'd make my ballot soon, but not yet (I think he'd be 2nd in line to make my ballot after CP3).

Everyone has their own feelings on his decision, but the one misinformation I keep hearing is how he gunked up their beautiful system or team ball, and that's simply not true.

GSW still led the league in assists every single season from 2017-2019 so that should tell you his scalability is superb and the team didn't abandon its identity. What he gave them was the ability to get buckets when that ball movement offense is bogged down against a great defensive team. The key was having balance and with the results we saw, I think that balance was indeed found.

They zipped it around less with KD on the floor than when he wasn't, yes, the Warriors still moved the ball a lot regardless. This was most apparent in the '19 playoffs when his passing dipped to near Klay levels (.73 passes/received ratio).

[Doctor MJ]

A few notes on strategic voting as someone who has thought a lot about this in American politics for the past 20 years:

1. I don't blame voters for using strategic voting. To me this is something that you should be trying to mitigate with the system you put in, and my hat is off to trex for doing more than I'd have likely done to mitigate.

2. My immediate take on trex's Top 3 system was that I would consider using the 3rd or even the 2nd slot to maintain voting relevance if my top choices get eliminated. This is strategic voting, but it's a very mild form because it's effectively allowing me to use trex' system as if it was a Top X system, which would be the true ideal (and which I would never in a million years ask trex to try to implement). If I see that the runoff is likely to come down to my #6 choice and my #8 choice, shouldn't I be able to have a say in that?

3. I get worried when people start looking to change their #1 vote. To me that's the line I would ask people note to cross. I can go into why in more detail here if people want, but I would want people to understand that...

4. While it is within the realm of possibility that choosing someone other than your #1 as your #1 skews the final results so that a guy you're higher on wins the vote, the odds of this occurring is very, very low. Like seriously, if you're not doing some serious mathwork here, you're almost certainly wasting your time and skewing perception away from the viability of your #1 guy. It's easy to end up doing more harm than good for your cause.

For the record, to this point I've not seen a case where it makes sense for me to use my #2 vote strategically. I expect that mostly I'll just be doing this with my 3rd vote.

[Doctor MJ]

I've never been particularly mad at KD for going to GS, heck the maddest I got with him was for gunking up their beautiful system, not for destroying parity. Simply put I don't think he's good enough to include yet. Obviously he's not far off and he'd make my ballot soon, but not yet (I think he'd be 2nd in line to make my ballot after CP3).

Everyone has their own feelings on his decision, but the one misinformation I keep hearing is how he gunked up their beautiful system or team ball, and that's simply not true.

GSW still led the league in assists every single season from 2017-2019 so that should tell you his scalability is superb and the team didn't abandon its identity. What he gave them was the ability to get buckets when that ball movement offense is bogged down against a great defensive team. The key was having balance and with the results we saw, I think that balance was indeed found.

They zipped it around less with KD on the floor than when he wasn't, yes, the Warriors still moved the ball a lot regardless. This was most apparent in the '19 playoffs when his passing dipped to near Klay levels (.73 passes/received ratio).

I want to second this point.

Both eye-ball test and various data points (which I'm afraid I don't have time to dig up, so make of it what you will):

1. Kerr's offensive system is a classic read & react system where quick thinkers are very valuable. This is why Draymond came from out of nowhere to being incredibly valuable - he's among the quickest thinkers in the entire league.

2. Durant struggled to make reads as fast as his Warrior teammates. Part of that was him being new, part of that I'd argue relates to Durant learning to play the game in a very different way based around his individual attack, but also...

3. Durant didn't get better at this after the first year, he got worse. And this wasn't a random worse thing, this happened while he was grousing about media criticism, and while he began talking back at Kerr after being on his absolute best behavior during the first year.

None of this stuff was a big enough deal to keep the Warriors from being the best team in the world and so it on the face of it doesn't seem to matter that much...but it's part of the story of KD falling out with the Warriors, and it also happens to coincide with his Warrior teammates getting more passive.

I can understand anyone taking umbrage at the idea that we should blame KD for Curry getting passive, and I think it's fine to criticize Curry for that, but it has to be noted that there's basically zero reason to think that Curry stopped being Curry in this time frame given that when Durant went out in the 2019 playoffs, Curry began volume scoring like crazy again.

I think we need to think about what we'd do in Curry's situation. You literally have a teammate you know is jealous of you and whose emotional state is getting worse. Might you just take a step back to let that teammate get all the buckets he wants if you can win that way? If you say "No", why the hell wouldn't you? Seems the smart play to me in all honesty.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #152:

Charles Barkley - 4 (Cavsfansince84, Hornet Mania, Odinn21, trex_8063)
Kevin Durant - 4 (DQuinn1575, Dutchball97, Joey Wheeler, Joao Saraiva)
Chris Paul - 3 (LA Bird, sansterre, Whopper_Sr)
Steve Nash - 2 (eminence, Jordan Syndrome)
Stephen Curry - 1* (penbeast0)
Bob Pettit - 1 (Dr Positivity)
Elgin Baylor - 1 (Hal14)


This is the vote count (with about 5 hours remaining). *Franco has cast a ballot for Curry, but not yet provided reasons (without which his vote will not be counted).

In response to Doc's comments on strategic voting and use of your 3rd pick:
Sure, you can use your 3rd pick as a "strategic pick" to ensure you have a counted vote.......or you could literally just vote for your own personal top 3 for a spot [it's what I've been doing, fwiw], because you'll have noticed that I require a majority among the total ORIGINAL number of votes cast. So if we get down to two individuals and neither has a majority (because too many were "ghosted"), I've still been going back and asking those ghost votes to pick between those two individuals. So one way or another you typically have a counted vote, and there's little need to be strategic.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote:

1. Steph Curry
2. Steve Nash
3. Kevin Durant

I've spoken a ton in this thread already, so I'll try to keep this (somewhat) short.

In Curry I see a guy whose game is maybe better suited to being valuable with great teammates than anyone else in history, and whose maturity seems to be an outlier in its own right. When you can get a guy who can be the most valuable player in the entire world, but will also willingly take a backseat to someone with an ego without displaying even a trace of resentment, you're talking about someone very special.

Of course, I could say something similar about Nash. I wouldn't quite say that Nash is as suited to playing with great teammates as Curry is. If you want to use Nash right, you put the ball in his hands. While I'm sure Nash and LeBron could do great things together, fit would always be something of an issue there because both are indisputably better when they are the one making the decisions. Curry? On LeBron's team, you let LeBron run the show and Curry yields massive value through his off-ball play. Need Curry to run the point? He can do that effectively and it will give him even more chances to shoot the ball.

But I will say that Nash is probably the best on-ball mind the game has ever seen. Curry is the best off-ball gravity manipulator in the history of the game (runner up Reggie), Bird is the best at causing impact at any moment on the floor, but no one attacked the defense with a better combination of vision, aggression, and improvisation than Nash. I consider that a big deal.

An interesting note though: While I'm ranking both Curry & Nash ahead of Durant, it's really only the Curry vs Durant comparison that gets my back up because they were literally just on the same team that last time they were playing in the playoffs and I struggle to grasp why people didn't see what I saw. I'm sorry if that sounds condescending. I'm not looking to demean others when I say it, I'm just expressing my frustration at the roots of the impasse.

Nash & Durant are guys who were largely from two different eras. There are myriad reasons why you might rank Durant ahead of Nash, and I can see plenty of good arguments myself. While I end up siding with Nash to this point in Durant's career, I frankly hope that Durant has enough success going forward to change that down the road, and I respect those who think he's already done enough.

Alright so 3rd spot came down to Durant & Barkley because those are the two lead vote getters, and here I'll side with Durant.

I'll say up front, I enjoy Sir Charles. He's lazy, petulant, and capricious, and that absolutely had an effect on his career, but as a basketball fan, I love him anyway. I can't quit you Chuck! Part of that is that most of the time, he's a pretty fun guy. Part of that is that he doesn't really seem to hold grudges Part of that is that I just think the Round Mound of Rebound is a kick to watch. He has a case for having the most unique body in basketball history. Zion may be the guy who changes that thinking, but we'll see about that. The way Zion seems to get tired so, so quickly makes a ton of sense. The mystery is why this wasn't the case for Barkley.

But of course as I say that, Barkley might be the Hall of Famer most known for taking defensive possessions off. It's one thing to be a superstar-leader who is weak on defense because of physical limitations, it's another thing when you're obviously coasting and whenever you talk you're talking like a wise ass. If I'm trying to build a team that will have a helpful culture for a long time, I have serious concerns about Barkley.

And I'm sure surprisingly, I don't necessarily have those same concerns about Durant. I see Durant as a hard-worker with an exceptional set of talents. So long as I feature him like he wants to be featured - which I would do on most teams - I think I can expect to be leading by example, and while he'll certainly coast some on defense, I don't think he'll make a show of it.

Add on top of that that as much as I marvel at Barkley, 3-point shooting matters a lot, and Durant being a super-long guy with a great shot makes me a smidge more confident in Durant's alpha game than Barkley's - and that length certainly is a nice thing on defense too.

[colts18]

Here are the Plus/Minus numbers for Curry and Durant during KD's 3 years in Golden State (includes playoffs)

Code: Select all

                     OffRtg   DefRtg   NetRtg
Both On               123.3   107.6   15.7
KD in, Curry Out      112.8   109.6   3.1
Curry in, KD out      117.1   106.2   10.9
Both off              102.1   106.0   -4.0

[Odinn21]

Add on top of that that as much as I marvel at Barkley, 3-point shooting matters a lot,

Why is that?.. Another pro-modern biased portability thinking right there.

Barkley from '86 to '93;
24.8 pts per game on .586 efg, .638 ts in 604 regular season games (+2375.3 ts add, +3.93 per game)
25.6 pts per game on .541 efg, .594 ts in 62 playoff games

Durant from '12 to '19;
27.7 pts per game on .569 efg, .635 ts in 535 regular season games (+2132.7 ts add, +3.99 per game)
29.4 pts per game on .538 efg, .604 ts in 116 playoff games

Why does it matter that Barkley's efficiency didn't come from an underutilized method in his time?

And those numbers for Durant has 3 seasons of Curry creating space. Durant's efficiency in the playoffs without Curry in that time frame; 29.2 ppg on .513 efg, .579 ts.

[Dutchball97]

Add on top of that that as much as I marvel at Barkley, 3-point shooting matters a lot,

Why is that?.. Another pro-modern biased portability thinking right there.

Barkley from '86 to '93;
24.8 pts per game on .586 efg, .638 ts in 604 regular season games (+2375.3 ts add, +3.93 per game)
25.6 pts per game on .541 efg, .594 ts in 62 playoff games

Durant from '12 to '19;
27.7 pts per game on .569 efg, .635 ts in 535 regular season games (+2132.7 ts add, +3.99 per game)
29.4 pts per game on .538 efg, .604 ts in 116 playoff games

Why does it matter that Barkley's efficiency didn't come from an underutilized method in his time?

And those numbers for Durant has 3 seasons of Curry creating space. Durant's efficiency in the playoffs without Curry in that time frame; 29.2 ppg on .513 efg, .579 ts.

Barkley is one of the best offensive players ever. His efficiency is absolutely elite and nobody can take that away from him but it's not like the 3 point shot was almost never used in the 80s/90s. Barkley himself took enough 3s but him being bad at it limited his offense somewhat. Compared to someone like KD, who has one of the most complete scoring skillsets ever, it's definitely a factor.

[No-more-rings]

With this slew of names being voted, Durant, Cp3, Curry, Steve Nash and Charles Barkley i'd really like to see Wade's name being brought up more. His longevity and durability isn't great, but I'd argue he's had more meaningful career value than Curry up to this point and more durability in the playoffs than Curry and Paul. Some things going for him:

-I think he has the best playoff run left out of candidates. 06 was something KD never managed in OKC, and Curry's runs prior to Durant arriving also don't quite stack up.

- Significant advantages over Curry and Steve Nash defensively.

-As mentioned, more durable in the postseason than Curry or Cp3. Wade missed only one game between 05 and 2012 in the playoffs, there's a lot of deep runs in there too.

- Had to spend his real peak and at least 2 of his healthy prime years with trash supporting casts.

-Recruited Bosh and Lebron to Miami, while in the process sacrificing individual numbers and load for a better chance at bringing titles to the franchise. Wade, along with Riley and other vets i believe helped mold Lebron into a better leader, player and person overall. I don't think that should be taken for granted.

-Showed he can win at a high level as both a clear 1st option, a 1a and a 2nd option. His "portability" that's so knocked is just fine actually.

I do think KD has a strong argument over Wade at this point, though I'm personally hesitant on it given he couldn't get it done with pretty good supporting casts in OKC on top of his postseason offense not holding as steady as Wade's usually did. Though with that said he does have more high level years so it's a plausible argument.

I think Nash's true superstar longevity is overstated, he has 05-10 where he was on that top 5 type level, i don't think that's more than Wade's really.

I don't know, i think Curry has the best case from a prime/peak level but his durability is probably even worse than Wade's at this point.

[Doctor MJ]

Folks voting for Pettit, what do you see as his separation from Schayes from a half a generation earlier? I don't see a huge gap in peak/prime, Pettit maybe a bit higher highs and lower lows, with the longevity edge to Schayes.

So, I'll take this moment to talk some about the older players as I see them.

First thing is that before we get to Pettit, I think it makes sense to compare Schayes and Paul Arizin who were born within about a month of each other.

In terms of basic player descriptions:

Schayes was 6'8" and mostly played the 4. Arizin was 6'4" and mostly played the 3.

Both were excellent shooters who loved to use the threat of their shot as an opening to drive.
Schayes used a set shot that he off the shot off of passes.
Arizin used a starkly modern looking jump shot that he typically took off the dribble, and was known for mid-air adjustments to his shots and "hang time".
Schayes was the superior free throw shooter.

Schayes was seen a soft early in his career but toughed up as he went.
Arizin was known for his leaping ability and long arms. Arizin had a positive reputation as a defender from what I've read.

On longevity, which is significant in this comparison:

Schayes played pro from age 20 to 35, being a star level player basically from the beginning through age 32 in '60-61 (he was named all-star the following year as well).

Arizin began pro ball at 22 and ended at 33. After his first two seasons, he was called into the Marines for two years during which he was a star within their basketball league, he came back in what would normally be his 5th season, but would not look like a superstar again until the year after. Arizin would continue to score at star-volume and be named all-star until the very end, though I will note that that was on Wilt's team, and it's interesting that that team's offense wasn't more effective than it was.

On peak scoring volume:

Schayes would not break 20 PPG until his 8th year in '55-56. His peak scoring year came in '57-58 with 24.9 PPG on 50.8% TS. He would score 20+ PPG in 6 seasons.

Arizin's first 20+ PPG season would be in his 2nd year in the league in '51-52. In that year he would lead the league in scoring at 25.4 PPG on 54.6% TS (3rd in the league). He would also that season win the all-star game MVP, and also the Metropolitan Sportwriters Sam Davis Memorial Award, which was intended as an MVP award for that season.

Here's what Arizin looked like in games against Mikan that season:

29 points, win
34 points, win
24 points, loss
27 points, win
26 points, win (all-star game)
36 points, loss
27 points, win

I don't want to overplay the W-L record there, but I think it's really clear from the awards that people were struck by the fact Arizin sure seemed to be able to do his thing just fine against Mikan, and meanwhile Mikan's TS% was down to 45.9%. They didn't know that number back then, but they could see that Arizin's scoring was seeming to work better than Mikan's.

Considering TS Add:

Make of it what you will, but this is the new bkref stat that estimates gain/loss due to having this guy make that bucket at that efficiency compared to league norms.

Schayes:
Total TS Add: 1321.9 (note that this doesn't include his first pro season in the NBL).
Best TS Add year: 206.0 in '57-58
Number of 200+ TS Add years: 1
Number of 100+ TS Add years: 7

Arizin:
Total TS Add: 1600.9
Best TS Add year: 329.7 in '51-52
Number of 200+ TS Add years: 4, all higher than Schayes best
Number of 100+ TS Add years: 6

Overall Team Success:
Schayes' won a championship in '54-55 with a team that went 43-29 and had an SRS of 1.23.

Worth noting that: Best Schayes' team was arguably the '52-53 team which had a 47-24 record or '53-54 with a 4.27 SRS.

A note on Team Offense
Schayes' best year by rORtg came in '52-53 with a +2.6, which came from an absolute ORtg of 90.6.
During the team's championship year in '54-55, they had a rORtg of -2.3 and an absolute of 87.5

Arizin's best year by all of these measures was '55-56. The team won the championship with a record of 45-27, an SRS of 3.82, a rOrtg of +4.3 and an absolute ORtg of 94.6. I'll note that this ORtg would remain the best in league history until Oscar Robertson came into the league a half decade later.



What should we think about all of this?

For me, I think it's pretty clear that Arizin was a better player with worse longevity. I don't begrudge anyone siding with Schayes based on longevity, but if we're having a debate about who was actually better, I really struggle to see arguments for Schayes.

In Arizin you're talking about someone who was seen as the best offensive player in the world in '51-52, got pulled away by the military, and by '55-56 was the best again, this time while leading his team to a championship. While I won't try to give Arizin "credit" for the gap in between, I would be so bold as to say that if you think Arizin wouldn't have been similarly dominant in the years in between had he been given the opportunity, I honestly don't understand where the skepticism comes from.

Aside from individual stats, it also matters to me that both of these guys can end up in the same bucket because they won rings back to back, but their role in those championships was starkly different. Schayes was an offensive player scoring less than 20ppg on a team winning with defense. Arizin was the leader of the best offense of the '50s, and absolutely carried his team in the playoffs which included a dominating performance against Schayes and the Nats.

Add in the fact that from what I can see, Arizin had a better defensive reputation (though granted, I'm open to whatever else comes to light in terms of this because I'm not going by a lot).

And then for those of you who are looking to compare between eras, I'll say that I have considerably more confidence in Arizin making his transition to the modern game than Schayes. To me Arizin reminds of Jerry West. Modern shot, long, driving-prone while being at a height that can still pull that off.

Schayes? I mean, I think if you're imagining him as a talent today, you're hoping he can be Dirk Nowitzki-like, but Dirk is 3-4 inches taller. At 6'8", the closer comparison might be Kyle Korver. I will say that Schayes was known for driving so he certainly had a far more complete game than Korver, but I don't trust that many 6'8" guys to dribble in from the perimeter in this day and age. Those who can do it are pretty special in my mind, and I question whether Schayes could really do it.

One last note on Arizin: It should be noted that he had a teammate Neil Johnston that was often more efficient than he was, but whose play didn't seem to correlate much with team success and who didn't extend his dominance in the playoffs as well as Arizin. A conversation about Johnston seems in order at some point too.

Okay, I think that's enough for now. Not avoiding talking about Pettit, but I think that since he comes in a bit later than Schayes & Arizin, it makes sense to bring him as a comparison to both guys. I will tell say that I've always had Pettit pretty cleanly ahead of both the other guys. I don't think it's a given that Pettit was better than Arizin, but he's got a good argument and his longevity kills Arizin. Pettit vs Schayes, I've just always seen Pettit as better.