HeartBreakKid wrote:I'm not sure if I fully grasp the skepticism about Rick Barry.
Yes, the ABA was not as competitive - but why is this relevant? It's not like Barry had a mediocre season, he did incredibly well in it - was up there with other guys who would be all-stars in the NBA if not superstars.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.htmlhttps://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_top_10.htmlI think some it's possible to question if Donnie Freeman or Willie Wise were necessarily NBA all-stars.
HeartBreakKid wrote:He was 27 years old, so he was in the middle of his prime, if not peaking. He was already one of the top players in the NBA in his first 2 seasons (he averaged 35 PPG in his 2nd season) - this is him now 5 years later, so it's safe to say that his stats are that good because he's really damn good, not because the guys he's playing are jabronis.
He would then go on to be a top player in the NBA after, and would win a title without any star teammates 3 years later.
I suppose the logic I am trying to use is this - Michael Jordan was the best player in the world in 1991. If he goes to play for Real Madrid in 1992 and plays at the same level he would have as a Bull in 1992, does this mean that he is still not the top player in the world? His competition may have gotten worse, but his level of play is still the same.
I don't love "he's 27, so he was in the middle of his prime". I think he peaked later than most when his passing developed. So maybe depending on how one measures prime etc one could argue he's at the mean chronological point of it, but I think invoking 27 ... well some guys get better later. Barry seems to have been one of those guys.
I don't love MJ going after 1 year that some might argue as the greatest peak as the analogy for Barry sitting out one year, playing in a lesser league, missing a bunch of time and not being MJ to begin with.
HeartBreakKid wrote:Level of competition skepticism makes more sense for players who played in the ABA but weren't very good outside of it. Rick Barry has a really large sample size (full career) of being good before, during and after his ABA career.
Furthermore, I would find it a bit odd if Rick Barry placed below 3rd on the Nets all time list (or not making rank at all), but has a similar ranking in a better/top heavy franchise like the Warriors - simply because he won an NBA title (during the ABA period no less).
He was very good. How good is the matter in question, I think how good the ABA is a fair matter for debate (though I do like it better for wings). I think it would be sad if he ranked higher on one list because of a title, but the other list hasn't been done yet and would hope no one is voting like that.
HeartBreakKid wrote:Also, another thing to keep in mind in Regard's the Rick Barry Nets - the Nets did not have an easy time in the playoffs. They had a major upset against Art Gilmore's Kentucky Colonels who had won 68 games that season in 6 games. They were also down 0-2 against Dr.J's Virginia Squires and came back for a win. They ultimately lost 6 games against the Pacers who at the time could challenge any top team in the NBA.
So while Rick Barry's 75 title run is often seen as the most dramatic event of his career, what happened with the Nets in 72 was legendary in its own right. If something like that happened today (let's say conferences were split up into leagues and Rick played in the East and upset the Nets and beat the Bucks coming from 0-2) it would be very heavily imprinted in fans minds
Big picture level of competition in playoffs is fair.
68 games overrates Kentucky (63 pythag wins over an 84 game schedule).
"Dr J's Squires ..." okay but an 0.56 SRS team with a rookie Erving whose 33.1 usage% first option has jumped to the other league (now Scott looks quite empty calories but that leaves a large hole in your gameplans late in the season). Comparing this team to the Bucks coming off two years with an SRS north of 8 ... might be a stretch.
Not sure if "coming back" is raised as an intended positive? If so, I'm unclear on the merits of going down two versus any other route to the same result.
And all of this is team level and arguably none of it happens if John Roche isn't, at a
very preliminary glance, circa as productive as Barry in round 1 (I think one can argue for Barry on his overall playoff production but as far as it is based on team performance, I think it's fair to point out luck).
HeartBreakKid wrote:One more point - The Nets won on the backs of an elite offense which was anchored by a 30 PPG scorer in Rick Barry in 1972, their defense was 8th/11, and considering the worst clubs in the ABA were probably really bad this means that the Nets effectively were a bottom defense compared to other NBA level clubs.
The Nets in 2006 had an AWFUL offense (25th/30) but they had a top 5 defense (as per usual with Kidd).
So are their playoff runs really "equal"? Not only was Rick Barry's teams out matched, the games were higher stake but there was more correlation with a positive performance from Rick Barry and his team winning than Vince Carter's.
Again we are talking about a team that upset a 68 win team lead by Artis Gilmore (a superior player to both Kidd and Carter) in the first round. That team was deep, it had Dan Issel (a top 100 player all time, scoring champ over Barry) and Louie Dampier (the original 3 point bomber).
Then they beat Virginia in 7 games, again, lead by Dr.J who is the best player in the league at the time and is the best player this entire franchises history.
And then they take the Pacers, who were the best franchise in ABA history to 6 games. That Pacer team had Roger Brown, Mel Daniels (2x mvp), George McGuinness (average 27 next season, future mvp/scoring champ), Bob Netolicky and Freddie Lewis (a guy who could shoot 3 pointers at 35% in an era that had no 3 point line to even practice with) all on one team.
The Nets were the 3rd in offense and 8th on defense (out of 11 teams), if they were winning it HAD to be because Rick Barry was contributing a lot (they did have a miracle win with him sitting out a game, but that's also why it was considered a miracle win). They were an underdog against 3 teams, two of which could have contended for an NBA title.
Is this why you believe or pushing a case ...
68 wins again overrates the Colonels.
Erving as best player in the league from rookie isn't clear and the team is in any case average for the ABA before losing C Scott. And the Nets get significantly outscored in the series.
Netolicky was a good early ABA player, he's hardly a prize in this finals. The Pacers were consistent and did well in those (small sample) playoffs, this wasn't a powerhouse team (2.72 SRS in the ABA, maybe you could argue as established contenders not maxing RS performance, but even so).
Remembering the NBA title contenders of the era, even if SRSes were inflated by expansion, I really struggle to see any team other than the Colonels besting that eras Lakers or Bucks by anything other than considerable luck. I really struggle to see the case that any other team would generate an SRS in the NBA that would see them be considered "contenders" in general, and especially at that time. Re: Arguing for him based on team playoff performance and because "they were an underdog" ... wouldn't that mean he carries the can for them being a 0.21 SRS team.
Look Barry's one of 3 guys on all the ballots so far, and I'd guess he'll land in the vicinity you have him. Otoh that seems about right. I'm just not sure about some of the angles offered here that seem like forcing a case or just too bearish for my taste, where a lighter version of some of those points (improved in the playoffs against solid competition) combined with the basic easily visible productivity and minutes load might be more persuasive imo, with less hyperbole.
