RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #24 (Stephen Curry)

[Jordan Syndrome]

Well, if we reached Drexler vs Miller comparison then I'd also suggest to look at George Gervin who was also a better player at his best than Clyde.

I agree, I just wanted to highlight how one of my favorite players (Reggie Miller) isn't yet considered and has strong arguments ahead of Clyde. I like Clyde but #24 just seems too high for me.

Gervin should be coming up in the next 15 for me and I expect Drexler/Miller/Gervin to be bunched up.

[sansterre]

I'm hearing all of these arguments and many of them contain good points. But most of what I hear (perhaps incorrectly) is "Clyde Drexler wasn't this good because we *know* he wasn't this good." And unfortunately that does nothing for me given that I'm trying to go by data. I'm sure that you all are right and that I am wrong, but it is my vote to be wrong with.

However, I have been persuaded that a vote for Drexler at this point is wasted, so I'll change my votes to:

1. John Stockton
2. Scottie Pippen
3. James Harden

Won't make much of a difference, but at least Harden is showing up here.

[DQuinn1575]

So I'm between Harden and Curry, so I figured I'd look season by season:

Year Retro mvp winshares playoff plus/minus
2012 x/9 x/x 2.2/9.3
2013 4/6 11/8 11.2/12.8
2014 5/x 6/5 13.4/12.8 JH playoff .111 ws/48
2015 1/3 1/2 15.7/16.4 SC playoff .228/ws 48
2016 2/x 1/9 17.9/13.3 JH playoff .106 ws/48
2017 2/7 6/2 12.6/15.0 SC playoff .272/48
2018 2/6 10/1 9/1/15.4
2019 5/3 5/2 9.7/15.2
2020 x/3 x/3 x/13.1


So Curry probably wins 2014-2017, with Harden getting 2012, 2018-2020, and let's call 2013 a push, or let's say
the tiebreaker of 4-4 isn't going to be decided by their difference that year. So counting each season equal it's a tie.

But the seasons aren't the same. And I think the issue I have is that Curry has only 5 very good/great seasons, Harden has 8.
So in total there are 13 seasons with 11 or above win shares, let's call them great - Curry may have the best 2 seasons overall, but Harden
has 8 seasons that rank with Curry's next best. So I'm calling it for Harden; I think I need Curry to have one or two more years as good
as 2013 to pass Harden, even if Harden does the same so it is 10-7 rather than 8-5; as I said it's a close call.

THird I'm taking Wade - longer peak than either of these guys; more elite than Stockton was - longer peak than Walt Frazier, and in a tougher league
than Pettit

1. Harden
2. Curry
3. Wade

[eminence]

I'd have to look at more data, but in my memory, the Blazers did really well when Porter really stepped up and took over the offense (maybe this is trauma from being a Jazz fan) and that Drexler didn't really do anything all that similar. Just didn't seem to have the necessary skills to create offense when the heat turned up.

[DQuinn1575]

I'm hearing all of these arguments and many of them contain good points. But most of what I hear (perhaps incorrectly) is "Clyde Drexler wasn't this good because we *know* he wasn't this good." And unfortunately that does nothing for me given that I'm trying to go by data. I'm sure that you all are right and that I am wrong, but it is my vote to be wrong with.

However, I have been persuaded that a vote for Drexler at this point is wasted, so I'll change my votes to:

1. John Stockton
2. Scottie Pippen
3. James Harden

Won't make much of a difference, but at least Harden is showing up here.

I'd prefer you'd stay with your vote. THe second and third place votes make it so your vote still counts. I just put up Harden for 1st, which may wasted, but my second place vote will count. If you think Clyde > Stockton, Pippen, you should continue the argument. I'm at a different point right now with Stockton. Drexler, Pippen, and have them below my 3, but am not sure how i am going to rank the 3 - I have my eyeball rating right now, but want to look at numbers and make sure they dont change my opinion.

[Jordan Syndrome]

I'd have to look at more data, but in my memory, the Blazers did really well when Porter really stepped up and took over the offense (maybe this is trauma from being a Jazz fan) and that Drexler didn't really do anything all that similar. Just didn't seem to have the necessary skills to create offense when the heat turned up.

This is exactly what happened with Porter outscoring Drexler in both Utah series (1991 and 1992).

[eminence]

I'd have to look at more data, but in my memory, the Blazers did really well when Porter really stepped up and took over the offense (maybe this is trauma from being a Jazz fan) and that Drexler didn't really do anything all that similar. Just didn't seem to have the necessary skills to create offense when the heat turned up.

This is exactly what happened with Porter outscoring Drexler in both Utah series (1991 and 1992).

Do you mean more generally (Porter regularly carrying them in important series), or just vs Utah?

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd have to look at more data, but in my memory, the Blazers did really well when Porter really stepped up and took over the offense (maybe this is trauma from being a Jazz fan) and that Drexler didn't really do anything all that similar. Just didn't seem to have the necessary skills to create offense when the heat turned up.

This is exactly what happened with Porter outscoring Drexler in both Utah series (1991 and 1992).

Do you mean more generally (Porter regularly carrying them in important series), or just vs Utah?

Porter did lead those Blazers in ps win shares every year from 90-92(when they made two finals) which isn't the end all of the argument but usually I've found the best player on a team will lead them in ws for a given season or post season. He also led them in rs ws twice in that period. Clyde at his best imo was slightly below early 80's Dr. J but obviously without the 70's peak and mvps.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote same as last time.

Vote:

1. Steph Curry
2. Steve Nash
3. John Stockton

So I'm voting for 3 1's here which immediately raises alarms, but which is occurring simply because these other 1's have been being voted in.

I feel a need to emphasize that while Stockton now exists directly below Curry/Nash, I see a major difference between them and him. In a nutshell, Nash & Curry were guys who started revolutions. They are guys who should be talked about for as long as the game is played. And Stockton really doesn't need to be.

That statement surely feels like a slap in the face, but it is what it is, and I think people should understand that. As we talk about whether Stockton could conceivably have been a revolutionary in the right context, we are implicitly acknowledging that we're asking this because in his actual play, he did no such thing.

I was debating primarily between Stockton & Chris Paul for the 3rd spot, and that was tough because I think Paul has really been the better player, but his career has amounted to less because he's been moving from team to team and unlike LeBron, never really getting that far. It matters from a career achievement perspective that Stockton was a guy a franchise could count on to keep doing his best, stay happy, and not make others un-happy.

On the other hand, to me in a lot of ways Paul is what you get if you add a certain assertiveness into Stockton's personality. Paul is seen as a pass-first guy, but will move into volume scoring range without hesitance. Paul was a better shooter and more prolific which really puts Stockton's superior TS Add in perspective. The Jazz absolutely would have been better if Stockton said "Yes" to a bit harder shots than he did. And I'll add that despite the fact Stockton was on Malone's team, I don't really see much reason to look at the playoff Jazz offenses Stockton was apart of as being the equal of what we've seen from Paul.

I could really go either way there, and I'll also say this:

Paul's legacy likely will be profoundly shaped by what happens in Phoenix. Right now he's got a history of not really transforming his talented teammates the way a great point guard is supposed to do. Right now he's got a reputation as a ceiling raiser who tends to but heads when he plays with other talent. If he goes to Phoenix and the team blossoms into a contender with guys taking major leaps forward under Paul's wing, that's going to have a major effect on his legacy, and I expect, his long-term future on these lists.

I'm frankly not betting that Paul won't do this, just saying, he has a particular thing left to prove here, and if he doesn't prove it, the story of Paul will likely end up as a guy who ended up grinding the gears he was trying to lubricate and ended his career bouncing from irrelevant mediocrity to irrelevant mediocrity.

But if he succeeds, frankly it will be pretty easy to see him leaping Stockton and Nash. By that point he'll have the longevity edge over Nash and Stockton's longevity edge will dwindle to that point where it won't mean much to many.

A note on Nash & Paul longevity wise, for anyone thinking Paul has a massive edge there, do realize that to this point Nash is still 3rd an the all-time assists list while Paul is 7th. I'm certainly not one for ranking guys strictly by their APG numbers obviously, but for those thinking about Nash as a guy with a shorter prime do make sure you realize that Nash was an otherworldly passer from the time he was in college and despite not being handed the keys to the car from day 1 like Paul, there are still significant career longevity indicators that Nash has the edge on.

Then add on top of that Nash leads more potent offense in general with a style that actually makes players around him more confident and empowered whereas Paul's approach has not. Nash is a warm leader. Paul is a cold one. These things matters.

Regarding other guys:

I also thought a good deal about Dwyane Wade. I admire him a great deal, but I do think he's got some offensive scalability issues along with those longevity issues.

Among the old-timers, the next guy on my list is Bob Pettit, but I don't have any hard pull to vote for him over the guys above.

[Dr Positivity]

So I'm between Harden and Curry, so I figured I'd look season by season:

Year Retro mvp winshares playoff plus/minus
2012 x/9 x/x 2.2/9.3
2013 4/6 11/8 11.2/12.8
2014 5/x 6/5 13.4/12.8 JH playoff .111 ws/48
2015 1/3 1/2 15.7/16.4 SC playoff .228/ws 48
2016 2/x 1/9 17.9/13.3 JH playoff .106 ws/48
2017 2/7 6/2 12.6/15.0 SC playoff .272/48
2018 2/6 10/1 9/1/15.4
2019 5/3 5/2 9.7/15.2
2020 x/3 x/3 x/13.1


So Curry probably wins 2014-2017, with Harden getting 2012, 2018-2020, and let's call 2013 a push, or let's say
the tiebreaker of 4-4 isn't going to be decided by their difference that year. So counting each season equal it's a tie.

But the seasons aren't the same. And I think the issue I have is that Curry has only 5 very good/great seasons, Harden has 8.
So in total there are 13 seasons with 11 or above win shares, let's call them great - Curry may have the best 2 seasons overall, but Harden
has 8 seasons that rank with Curry's next best. So I'm calling it for Harden; I think I need Curry to have one or two more years as good
as 2013 to pass Harden, even if Harden does the same so it is 10-7 rather than 8-5; as I said it's a close call.

I disagree the longevity wise is that big. They were both in the same draft, and they both became stars in the same season, 2013. I don't think 2013 and 2014 Harden is better than 2013 and 2014 Curry. The main difference is Curry was injured in 2020.

When it comes to their first three years you could argue Curry was better their first 2 seasons, Harden's 3rd season was clearly more valuable because Curry was injured and he broke out as 6MOY.

I prefer Curry's game because he is harder to stop due to his off the ball ability, while Harden has 0 interest in playing off the ball on either end. Harden's average conditioning combined with taxing style of play has let him down in the playoffs and I would take Curry's leadership all day over his.

[DQuinn1575]

So I'm between Harden and Curry, so I figured I'd look season by season:

Year Retro mvp winshares playoff plus/minus
2012 x/9 x/x 2.2/9.3
2013 4/6 11/8 11.2/12.8
2014 5/x 6/5 13.4/12.8 JH playoff .111 ws/48
2015 1/3 1/2 15.7/16.4 SC playoff .228/ws 48
2016 2/x 1/9 17.9/13.3 JH playoff .106 ws/48
2017 2/7 6/2 12.6/15.0 SC playoff .272/48
2018 2/6 10/1 9/1/15.4
2019 5/3 5/2 9.7/15.2
2020 x/3 x/3 x/13.1


So Curry probably wins 2014-2017, with Harden getting 2012, 2018-2020, and let's call 2013 a push, or let's say
the tiebreaker of 4-4 isn't going to be decided by their difference that year. So counting each season equal it's a tie.

But the seasons aren't the same. And I think the issue I have is that Curry has only 5 very good/great seasons, Harden has 8.
So in total there are 13 seasons with 11 or above win shares, let's call them great - Curry may have the best 2 seasons overall, but Harden
has 8 seasons that rank with Curry's next best. So I'm calling it for Harden; I think I need Curry to have one or two more years as good
as 2013 to pass Harden, even if Harden does the same so it is 10-7 rather than 8-5; as I said it's a close call.

I disagree the longevity wise is that big. They were both in the same draft, and they both became stars in the same season, 2013. I don't think 2013 and 2014 Harden is better than 2013 and 2014 Curry. The main difference is Curry was injured in 2020.

When it comes to their first three years you could argue Curry was better their first 2 seasons, Harden's 3rd season was clearly more valuable because Curry was injured and he broke out as 6MOY.

I prefer Curry's game because he is harder to stop due to his off the ball ability, while Harden has 0 interest in playing off the ball on either end. Harden's average conditioning combined with taxing style of play has let him down in the playoffs and I would take Curry's leadership all day over his.

I did say Curry was better in 2014 then Harden, And I called 2013 pretty close, and didnt use that as a tie-breaker. And I agree that Curry has been at his best the better player. I basically gave it to Harden because he had more very good seasons than Harden. I also think their first 2 years are pretty irrelevant when we are evaluating them all-time.

I'm not locked into Harden > Curry; I see a case for both sides, and Curry is going to win this slot either way. I have no problem with that at all, and I don't have a compelling argument to make people change their mind and their vote here. Everyone here knows these players as well as I do.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Stephen Curry
Vote 2 - John Stockton
Vote 3 - Bob Pettit

I'm kinda surprised by paul getting in last round, but I guess the PG votes are now being split between him, curry and stockton so he just edged them out. With paul having the longevity edge over curry, his durability still pales in comparison to stockton. He's missed 20+ games 5 times in his career, which is partially why I wouldn't have had him so high.

Curry has played long enough that he now fits into the Magic/Bird mold of truly exemplary play despite so so longevity. His 2016 season is arguably the GOAT offensive regular season, top 5 at worst. The warriors were appointment television every night and it all hinged on steph's gravity pulling the defense in. It got to the point where some teams were checking him once he stepped inside half court. His hyper efficient volume scoring was as good as we'd ever seen post-merger.

He carried that play to truly impressive team impact throughout his career, and you can't argue with the results. With durant having already been voted in, let's take a look at how well he played without him in their time together. Regular season ON/OFF nubmers from 16-17 to 18-19 via pbpstats.com:

Curry/Klay/Draymond ON, Durant OFF: 808 min, 119.45 ORtg, 105.91 DRtg, 13.54 Net Rtg

Durant/Klay/Draymond ON, Curry OFF: 639 min, 111.94 ORtg, 110 DRtg, 1.94 Net Rtg

Klay/Draymond ON, Curry/Durant OFF: 184 min, 106.18 ORtg, 102.54 DRtg, 3.64 Net Rtg

When you realize finals MVP is voted on by 11 random media members, it loses a lot of its significance. I don't fault curry for not winning one at all. His overall body of work speaks for itself.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #172:

Stephen Curry - 6 (Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, Dutchball97, Joao Saraiva, Magic Is Magic, penbeast0)
Steve Nash - 3 (eminence, Jordan Syndrome, Whopper_Sr)
Bob Pettit - 2 (Cavsfansince84, Dr Positivity)
John Stockton - 2 (sansterre, trex_8063)
Dwyane Wade - 1 (Joey Wheeler)
Elgin Baylor - 1 (Hal14)
James Harden - 1 (DQuinn1575)


16 counted votes, so 9 is required for a majority.
We'll start by eliminating those bottom three; that turns into one for Curry, one for Pettit, and one is ghosted (possibly because no 3rd pick listed).....

Curry - 7
Nash - 3
Pettit - 3
Stockton - 2
(ghosted) - 1

So we'll eliminate Stockton next, which actually ghosts both of those votes....

Curry - 7
Nash - 3
Pettit - 3
(ghosted) - 3

I'd contacted two of the ghost votes (and I'm the third)......this would transfer two votes to Nash, one to Curry:

Curry - 8
Nash - 5
Pettit - 3

So next out is Pettit which would transfer one to Nash, one to Curry, and ghost one (though I'd already contacted this "ghost" as well, and he'd favour Curry), so.....

Curry - 10
Nash - 6

Curry wins this spot [thank God]. I'll get the next up in a moment....

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Joao Saraiva]

Glad Curry made it. On to vote on John Stockton!!!!!!! Can't wait for next thread!

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote 1 - Stephen Curry
Vote 2 - John Stockton
Vote 3 - Bob Pettit

I'm kinda surprised by paul getting in last round, but I guess the PG votes are now being split between him, curry and stockton so he just edged them out. With paul having the longevity edge over curry, his durability still pales in comparison to stockton. He's missed 20+ games 5 times in his career, which is partially why I wouldn't have had him so high.

Curry has played long enough that he now fits into the Magic/Bird mold of truly exemplary play despite so so longevity. His 2016 season is arguably the GOAT offensive regular season, top 5 at worst. The warriors were appointment television every night and it all hinged on steph's gravity pulling the defense in. It got to the point where some teams were checking him once he stepped inside half court. His hyper efficient volume scoring was as good as we'd ever seen post-merger.

He carried that play to truly impressive team impact throughout his career, and you can't argue with the results. With durant having already been voted in, let's take a look at how well he played without him in their time together. Regular season ON/OFF nubmers from 16-17 to 18-19 via pbpstats.com:

Curry/Klay/Draymond ON, Durant OFF: 808 min, 119.45 ORtg, 105.91 DRtg, 13.54 Net Rtg

Durant/Klay/Draymond ON, Curry OFF: 639 min, 111.94 ORtg, 110 DRtg, 1.94 Net Rtg

Klay/Draymond ON, Curry/Durant OFF: 184 min, 106.18 ORtg, 102.54 DRtg, 3.64 Net Rtg

When you realize finals MVP is voted on by 11 random media members, it loses a lot of its significance. I don't fault curry for not winning one at all. His overall body of work speaks for itself.

When Curry was on the bench, the Warriors played who at the PG spot?

When KD was on the bench, the Warriors had lineups with Curry, Klay, Green, Iguodala.

That speaks a lot on those on and off numbers, that should be considered but taken with context. Dangerous to do that.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Stephen Curry
Vote 2 - John Stockton
Vote 3 - Bob Pettit

I'm kinda surprised by paul getting in last round, but I guess the PG votes are now being split between him, curry and stockton so he just edged them out. With paul having the longevity edge over curry, his durability still pales in comparison to stockton. He's missed 20+ games 5 times in his career, which is partially why I wouldn't have had him so high.

Curry has played long enough that he now fits into the Magic/Bird mold of truly exemplary play despite so so longevity. His 2016 season is arguably the GOAT offensive regular season, top 5 at worst. The warriors were appointment television every night and it all hinged on steph's gravity pulling the defense in. It got to the point where some teams were checking him once he stepped inside half court. His hyper efficient volume scoring was as good as we'd ever seen post-merger.

He carried that play to truly impressive team impact throughout his career, and you can't argue with the results. With durant having already been voted in, let's take a look at how well he played without him in their time together. Regular season ON/OFF nubmers from 16-17 to 18-19 via pbpstats.com:

Curry/Klay/Draymond ON, Durant OFF: 808 min, 119.45 ORtg, 105.91 DRtg, 13.54 Net Rtg

Durant/Klay/Draymond ON, Curry OFF: 639 min, 111.94 ORtg, 110 DRtg, 1.94 Net Rtg

Klay/Draymond ON, Curry/Durant OFF: 184 min, 106.18 ORtg, 102.54 DRtg, 3.64 Net Rtg

When you realize finals MVP is voted on by 11 random media members, it loses a lot of its significance. I don't fault curry for not winning one at all. His overall body of work speaks for itself.

When Curry was on the bench, the Warriors played who at the PG spot?

When KD was on the bench, the Warriors had lineups with Curry, Klay, Green, Iguodala.

That speaks a lot on those on and off numbers, that should be considered but taken with context. Dangerous to do that.

That's a fair point. If I have time i'll parse out the lineup combos further. I don't think it necessarily changes the premise of curry being an elite impact player, though.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote 1 - Stephen Curry
Vote 2 - John Stockton
Vote 3 - Bob Pettit

I'm kinda surprised by paul getting in last round, but I guess the PG votes are now being split between him, curry and stockton so he just edged them out. With paul having the longevity edge over curry, his durability still pales in comparison to stockton. He's missed 20+ games 5 times in his career, which is partially why I wouldn't have had him so high.

Curry has played long enough that he now fits into the Magic/Bird mold of truly exemplary play despite so so longevity. His 2016 season is arguably the GOAT offensive regular season, top 5 at worst. The warriors were appointment television every night and it all hinged on steph's gravity pulling the defense in. It got to the point where some teams were checking him once he stepped inside half court. His hyper efficient volume scoring was as good as we'd ever seen post-merger.

He carried that play to truly impressive team impact throughout his career, and you can't argue with the results. With durant having already been voted in, let's take a look at how well he played without him in their time together. Regular season ON/OFF nubmers from 16-17 to 18-19 via pbpstats.com:

Curry/Klay/Draymond ON, Durant OFF: 808 min, 119.45 ORtg, 105.91 DRtg, 13.54 Net Rtg

Durant/Klay/Draymond ON, Curry OFF: 639 min, 111.94 ORtg, 110 DRtg, 1.94 Net Rtg

Klay/Draymond ON, Curry/Durant OFF: 184 min, 106.18 ORtg, 102.54 DRtg, 3.64 Net Rtg

When you realize finals MVP is voted on by 11 random media members, it loses a lot of its significance. I don't fault curry for not winning one at all. His overall body of work speaks for itself.

When Curry was on the bench, the Warriors played who at the PG spot?

When KD was on the bench, the Warriors had lineups with Curry, Klay, Green, Iguodala.

That speaks a lot on those on and off numbers, that should be considered but taken with context. Dangerous to do that.

That's a fair point. If I have time i'll parse out the lineup combos further. I don't think it necessarily changes the premise of curry being an elite impact player, though.

Well I don't think anybody can dispute that. I just think those on and off numbers put him at a level KD is not when I see them at similar level.

[Im Your Father]

3) People loooove when a single player uses a ton of possessions to lift a team to the title. Wade did it in '06. Neither Drexler or Pippen did it.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing? I would've thought a player being able to win a title carrying a big load was a good thing. Lebron's done it in every single one of his titles.

1) People love scoring. Wade was a better scorer than Drexler and Pippen. At his peak, his volume was incredible.

1) Things that aren't scoring. Wade was a strong passer, but he was a weaker rebounder than Pippen and Drexler (despite being quite good himself).

I lumped these two together to make an overall point.

Even if you wanted to argue that scoring is the only major category Wade was better at, that doesn't mean his overall impact was worse. You can argue scoring is the only thing that Jordan does better than KG, yet he's universally seen as better even despite clearly worse longevity. Scoring is arguably the only thing Kareem does better than KG, and he's universally regarded as the better player.

And he looks like a weaker defender than them (which may have been a byproduct of his offensive usage, but that still counts).

I don't think there's much of a difference between Drexler and Wade defensively, they seem around the same.

And he spaced the floor worse.

Not really actually. Pippen's jumper is far from reliable in the postseason, that's a big reason why his scoring was never super hot.

Check this out, Wade's 3 point shooting his only major weakness he's not really worse than Pippen and Drexler in the playoffs.

Wade from 06-2012: 83 games- 33% on 2.6 3PA

Drexler from 87-95: 98 games- 27.1% on 3.2 3PA

Pippen from 91-98: 136 games- 28.8% on 3.2 3PA

These guys certainly do not add more spacing than Wade, unless you think Wade is just left alone off ball, which he wasn't obviously.

2) Sustained Value. Wade has three really strong seasons ('05-07) and then another five really strong seasons ('09-13). His career besides those years is fairly negligible. Compare that with Drexler who played at a high level from '87 to '97.

That's fair, but it seems a little lazy to me to just lump all those seasons together, put them side by side and call Drexler better because he played more. If it were that simple, Karl Malone should've been easily in the top 10. We're getting to the point, where i think longevity should honestly be less of an issue because Wade is one of the few left who has true 1st option championship ability. Drexler doesn't quite have that, and Pippen certainly doesn't. Curry has it, Nash to a lesser degree i think does, Stockton i don't think so.

Riddle me this Batman: if the '06 Heat lose to the Mavericks, do we still have this discussion? I feel like a particular selling-point for Wade is that he "lifted his team to the championship" even though the '06 Heat were probably the weakest title-winner in the last two decades.

I mean why wouldn't we? Even if he loses that one championship as the 1st option, you have multiple guys already voted in who never won one anyway, Cp3, Karl and Barkley.

They were a weak title winner because Wade's cast was nothing special, not because Wade wasn't all time great he clearly was by all metrics.

Do you knock Hakeem for the 94 Rockets being weak title winners?

Wade was obviously the best floor-raiser of the three. But I think the other two have arguments that they added value in ways that Wade did not. And in order to push Wade here you've got to believe that his floor-raising during his peak was so good that it overcomes the defense/scalability over more years for the other two.

This nonsense about Wade's scalability has been debunked countless times. I don't mean to come off as aggressive, but i don't know how many times it has to be repeated before people stop falsely claiming it.

Wade's scalability worked just fine when he co led a finals team as 1a/1b, and then was a good 2nd option on two championship teams.

What's more scalable about Drexler and Pippen? They had better health, that's pretty much it.

My rankings are built on a BPM->CORP converter for career value that uses half regular season BPM and half postseason BPM. I'm not saying that the rankings are proven or anything. But Wade fits the profile of a player that would be very easy to overrate.

That's an ironic thing to say about Wade, when the guy you pushed for(Cp3), is already in. For all his great impact metrics, it translated to the least playoff success of anyone else already voted it. I'm not saying he's undeserving necessarily, but i raised a lot of concerns earlier about his very shaky postseason health and no one seemed to have a good rebuttal for it as far as I'm concerned.

Wade's prime when healthy(05-12), was a clear level or two above Drexler or Pippen's, and like Trex said he has the best peak left aside from possibly Curry or Walton, so i think his amount of longevity along with high level superstar seasons is more than enough to get him somewhere in the 25-28 range. I mean if we're going to misuse longevity this much where does it end? We may as well start voting for Miller and Ray Allen over him too.

I appreciate your take on this, though you i think you seem to underestimate the force that Wade was in the league at his healthy best(06-11).

I'm not participating in the project, but just wanted to chime in to say I agree with basically all of this.

There is something to be said for trying to avoid winning bias and accounting for luck etc., but I think people occasionally take that too far on this board.

I understand the points that have been made about the 06 finals and the Heat winning largely with defense and they aren't without merit, but also the "what if the Heat lost those finals?" angle is harder for me to swallow when he came up absolutely huge down the stretch, particularly when their backs were against the wall down 0-2. The Heat were **about** to lose that series and then Wade happened and it's hard for me to just dismiss that as variance (to be fair I don't necessarily think most people do that on RealGM).

I think the "what-if" game is especially weird to play with Wade because it can so easily cut the other way in terms of injuries (as with someone like Chris Paul).

What-if Wade didn't hurt his rib in Game 5 against the Pistons in 05, where he had an otherwise dominant series and where the Heat were up 3-2 on the Pistons team that took the Spurs to 7 in the finals?

What-if Wade didn't dislocate his shoulder in 07 when he looked like the best player in basketball for the first half of the season coming off his finals MVP? This one seems particularly relevant because Wade made clear that his finals MVP performance wasn't just some fluke hot streak.

I get it that longevity is a big factor here and I feel like I've read someone bring up that his "fall down 7 get up 8" style (man did I love that commercial though!) likely made him more injury prone, which I think is fair.

Ultimately though, I just think I see Wade (much like Curry) as a genuine #1 championship option and I don't think there are many of those left on the board.

In terms of Wade not leading elite offenses 08-10 I suppose that just doesn't resonate with me. If you look at those rosters, they're not only devoid of all-star offensive talent, but they are really just lacking in shooting, passing etc. Wade wasn't Magic or Nash, but I guess I just have little doubt that if you give him a modern team with shooters that he could lead a strong offense and consistently make strong reads. For example, I think he'd do great with a Bucks-type roster with a 4 with some range in place of Giannis (obviously couldn't anchor the defense in the same way though).

[sansterre]

3) People loooove when a single player uses a ton of possessions to lift a team to the title. Wade did it in '06. Neither Drexler or Pippen did it.

And this is supposed to be a bad thing? I would've thought a player being able to win a title carrying a big load was a good thing. Lebron's done it in every single one of his titles.

1) People love scoring. Wade was a better scorer than Drexler and Pippen. At his peak, his volume was incredible.

1) Things that aren't scoring. Wade was a strong passer, but he was a weaker rebounder than Pippen and Drexler (despite being quite good himself).

I lumped these two together to make an overall point.

Even if you wanted to argue that scoring is the only major category Wade was better at, that doesn't mean his overall impact was worse. You can argue scoring is the only thing that Jordan does better than KG, yet he's universally seen as better even despite clearly worse longevity. Scoring is arguably the only thing Kareem does better than KG, and he's universally regarded as the better player.

And he looks like a weaker defender than them (which may have been a byproduct of his offensive usage, but that still counts).

I don't think there's much of a difference between Drexler and Wade defensively, they seem around the same.

And he spaced the floor worse.

Not really actually. Pippen's jumper is far from reliable in the postseason, that's a big reason why his scoring was never super hot.

Check this out, Wade's 3 point shooting his only major weakness he's not really worse than Pippen and Drexler in the playoffs.

Wade from 06-2012: 83 games- 33% on 2.6 3PA

Drexler from 87-95: 98 games- 27.1% on 3.2 3PA

Pippen from 91-98: 136 games- 28.8% on 3.2 3PA

These guys certainly do not add more spacing than Wade, unless you think Wade is just left alone off ball, which he wasn't obviously.

2) Sustained Value. Wade has three really strong seasons ('05-07) and then another five really strong seasons ('09-13). His career besides those years is fairly negligible. Compare that with Drexler who played at a high level from '87 to '97.

That's fair, but it seems a little lazy to me to just lump all those seasons together, put them side by side and call Drexler better because he played more. If it were that simple, Karl Malone should've been easily in the top 10. We're getting to the point, where i think longevity should honestly be less of an issue because Wade is one of the few left who has true 1st option championship ability. Drexler doesn't quite have that, and Pippen certainly doesn't. Curry has it, Nash to a lesser degree i think does, Stockton i don't think so.

Riddle me this Batman: if the '06 Heat lose to the Mavericks, do we still have this discussion? I feel like a particular selling-point for Wade is that he "lifted his team to the championship" even though the '06 Heat were probably the weakest title-winner in the last two decades.

I mean why wouldn't we? Even if he loses that one championship as the 1st option, you have multiple guys already voted in who never won one anyway, Cp3, Karl and Barkley.

They were a weak title winner because Wade's cast was nothing special, not because Wade wasn't all time great he clearly was by all metrics.

Do you knock Hakeem for the 94 Rockets being weak title winners?

Wade was obviously the best floor-raiser of the three. But I think the other two have arguments that they added value in ways that Wade did not. And in order to push Wade here you've got to believe that his floor-raising during his peak was so good that it overcomes the defense/scalability over more years for the other two.

This nonsense about Wade's scalability has been debunked countless times. I don't mean to come off as aggressive, but i don't know how many times it has to be repeated before people stop falsely claiming it.

Wade's scalability worked just fine when he co led a finals team as 1a/1b, and then was a good 2nd option on two championship teams.

What's more scalable about Drexler and Pippen? They had better health, that's pretty much it.

My rankings are built on a BPM->CORP converter for career value that uses half regular season BPM and half postseason BPM. I'm not saying that the rankings are proven or anything. But Wade fits the profile of a player that would be very easy to overrate.

That's an ironic thing to say about Wade, when the guy you pushed for(Cp3), is already in. For all his great impact metrics, it translated to the least playoff success of anyone else already voted it. I'm not saying he's undeserving necessarily, but i raised a lot of concerns earlier about his very shaky postseason health and no one seemed to have a good rebuttal for it as far as I'm concerned.

Wade's prime when healthy(05-12), was a clear level or two above Drexler or Pippen's, and like Trex said he has the best peak left aside from possibly Curry or Walton, so i think his amount of longevity along with high level superstar seasons is more than enough to get him somewhere in the 25-28 range. I mean if we're going to misuse longevity this much where does it end? We may as well start voting for Miller and Ray Allen over him too.

I appreciate your take on this, though you i think you seem to underestimate the force that Wade was in the league at his healthy best(06-11).

I'm not participating in the project, but just wanted to chime in to say I agree with basically all of this.

There is something to be said for trying to avoid winning bias and accounting for luck etc., but I think people occasionally take that too far on this board.

I understand the points that have been made about the 06 finals and the Heat winning largely with defense and they aren't without merit, but also the "what if the Heat lost those finals?" angle is harder for me to swallow when he came up absolutely huge down the stretch, particularly when their backs were against the wall down 0-2. The Heat were **about** to lose that series and then Wade happened and it's hard for me to just dismiss that as variance (to be fair I don't necessarily think most people do that on RealGM).

I think the "what-if" game is especially weird to play with Wade because it can so easily cut the other way in terms of injuries (as with someone like Chris Paul).

What-if Wade didn't hurt his rib in Game 5 against the Pistons in 05, where he had an otherwise dominant series and where the Heat were up 3-2 on the Pistons team that took the Spurs to 7 in the finals?

What-if Wade didn't dislocate his shoulder in 07 when he looked like the best player in basketball for the first half of the season coming off his finals MVP? This one seems particularly relevant because Wade made clear that his finals MVP performance wasn't just some fluke hot streak.

I get it that longevity is a big factor here and I feel like I've read someone bring up that his "fall down 7 get up 8" style (man did I love that commercial though!) likely made him more injury prone, which I think is fair.

Ultimately though, I just think I see Wade (much like Curry) as a genuine #1 championship option and I don't think there are many of those left on the board.

In terms of Wade not leading elite offenses 08-10 I suppose that just doesn't resonate with me. If you look at those rosters, they're not only devoid of all-star offensive talent, but they are really just lacking in shooting, passing etc. Wade wasn't Magic or Nash, but I guess I just have little doubt that if you give him a modern team with shooters that he could lead a strong offense and consistently make strong reads. For example, I think he'd do great with a Bucks-type roster with a 4 with some range in place of Giannis (obviously couldn't anchor the defense in the same way though).

Those are all fair points.

But implicit in your post (actually, fairly explicit) is the thesis "I am looking for Championship-level #1 option on offense, and Wade fits the bill".

If that is the heuristic we're using then fine, Wade is a good fit (though Curry's a better fit).

And my position is simply:

There is simply way, way, way more to players than who can be the highest load player on an offense that happens to win a championship.

I feel like your rebuttal is basically: "Yeah yeah, we know all about winning bias and the desire to look at things besides scoring. That said, here's a guy that scored and won, so we obviously know the he's one of the best available."

And your point about Wade saving them down 0-2 is cognitively weird to me. What the heck was Wade doing in the first two games? How is it that the Heat find themselves down by two games (and it has nothing to do with him) and suddenly he hits the jets and saves the day, but only gets credit for those games, not blame for the first two? Isn't that blatant winning bias? Isn't his job to perform in all the games, not just the games later in the series? Isn't this the sort of thing that goes from "Down 0-2, Wade turned it on and saved the series" to "Wade coasted early and ultimately failed his teammates" if they had lost?

I'm just saying, fall out of bed, scratch yourself, and without any effort you can come up with the "Wade was great" at the intersection of:

1) He scored a lot of points
2) He used a lot of possessions
3) His team won a championship while he was the #1 scoring option

All of the above three points are true. I'm just saying that they *scream* cognitive bias.

And given that many people vote consistent with that heuristic, there is value to having it balanced out with the opposite. Because #1 scoring options that happened to win championships tend to be overrated on these boards (just like they're overrated everywhere) which makes players that *didn't* win a championship and also had lots of non-scoring skills to offer become underrated. And since the goal of this exercise (I infer) isn't "which list is the most consistent with our knee-jerk heuristics?" but instead "which players were actually the most valuable?" there may be value to having somebody who says "Hey, this player has all the signals of value, but none of the cognitive-bias advantages that lead to him getting attention, isn't it possible that this guy is underrated?"

I hope you'll forgive me, but when I suggest that Drexler may be underrated because he wasn't a #1 scoring option on a championship team, and your counter is "but he wasn't a #1 scoring option on a championship team" . . . you're kind of making my point for me.

[No-more-rings]

Those are all fair points.

But implicit in your post (actually, fairly explicit) is the thesis "I am looking for Championship-level #1 option on offense, and Wade fits the bill".

If that is the heuristic we're using then fine, Wade is a good fit (though Curry's a better fit).

And my position is simply:

There is simply way, way, way more to players than who can be the highest load player on an offense that happens to win a championship.

But how many can perform the way Wade did? The list is undeniably limited at this point.

I feel like your rebuttal is basically: "Yeah yeah, we know all about winning bias and the desire to look at things besides scoring. That said, here's a guy that scored and won, so we obviously know the he's one of the best available."

You can't seem to comprehend for some reason that Wade does way more than just score at a high level. He typically rated out near the top of the league in impact metrics, and in some cases like 06 rated 1st in RAPM. If you're going to say that Wade's scoring doesn't mean his overall impact was high, then you'd be wrong obviously.

And your point about Wade saving them down 0-2 is cognitively weird to me. What the heck was Wade doing in the first two games? How is it that the Heat find themselves down by two games (and it has nothing to do with him) and suddenly he hits the jets and saves the day, but only gets credit for those games, not blame for the first two? Isn't that blatant winning bias?

So a player isn't allowed to have a few bad games? Lebron's 2016 finals gets propped up as the goat series by a lot of people, while they ignore how he underpeformed in the first 4 games to go down 3-1.

I'm not saying Wade's series was that kind of level, but we're comparing him to guys in the top 25 and 30, not goat guys.

I'm just saying, fall out of bed, scratch yourself, and without any effort you can come up with the "Wade was great" at the intersection of:

1) He scored a lot of points
2) He used a lot of possessions
3) His team won a championship while he was the #1 scoring option

All of the above three points are true. I'm just saying that they *scream* cognitive bias.

You still haven't shown how this isn't a good thing lol. Funny that scoring a ton of points and using a lot of possessions is exactly what Harden does, and you have no problem voting Harden ahead? To me that sounds like cognitive bias, because I'm sure your response if you have one will be something like "Harden shoots 3zzz, and leads great ORTGzz".

And given that many people vote consistent with that heuristic, there is value to having it balanced out with the opposite. Because #1 scoring options that happened to win championships tend to be overrated on these boards (just like they're overrated everywhere) which makes players that *didn't* win a championship and also had lots of non-scoring skills to offer become underrated. And since the goal of this exercise (I infer) isn't "which list is the most consistent with our knee-jerk heuristics?" but instead "which players were actually the most valuable?" there may be value to having somebody who says "Hey, this player has all the signals of value, but none of the cognitive-bias advantages that lead to him getting attention, isn't it possible that this guy is underrated?"

I hope you'll forgive me, but when I suggest that Drexler may be underrated because he wasn't a #1 scoring option on a championship team, and your counter is "but he wasn't a #1 scoring option on a championship team" . . . you're kind of making my point for me.

So basically you're saying that being a not so good 1st offensive option is better than a good one. Got it.