Rick Barry vs Scottie Pippen

[Narigo]

Who do you rank higher all time?

[Gideon]

I respect Pippen a lot, and feel like he was a really special player, but for me this is clearly Barry.

Rick Barry is often underrated. This is a guy who led a team to the title averaging 31-6-6-3/46-90 in 1975 (so late enough that individual stats weren't nearly as inflated as they were a few years before). Barry was an elite first option in his prime. He actually was probably the best player during the 67 Finals (41-9-3), despite his team losing 4-2 to a great Wilt/Hannum 76ers team.

If Rick Barry hadn't spent part of his prime in the ABA (and pissed many people off) he would be rated much higher on all-time lists. If you already had a major star you were building around, and were looking for a great supporting guy, I could see preferring Pippen, who had a really versatile and adaptable skill set. However, in any other situation, I would pick Barry and I wouldn't consider it close. A center was named MVP every single year from 1965 through 1980... there was a major big-man bias during that time period. This kept greats like Barry, Frazier, West and Hondo from getting MVPs they probably deserved. Barry was a MVP-level player at his peak, though, and a true superstar.

[Dr Positivity]

Pippen for his all around game. Think I have Barry below Paul Pierce on account of similar primes, but Pierce having more longevity and a better attitude.

[Gideon]

Pippen for his all around game. Think I have Barry below Paul Pierce on account of similar primes, but Pierce having more longevity and a better attitude.

Rick Barry played in 1125 games, with 1 title (NBA) and 3 Finals appearances (2 NBA, 1 ABA). He had 11 winning seasons vs. only 2 losing seasons and 1 41-41 year (his final season in HOU) over his career. His career averages are 25-7-5-2/46-89 in the RS and 27-6-4-2/45-87 in the PS. His peak is either 31-6-6-3/46-90 as best player on a title team (1975) OR 36-9-4/45-88 as best player on a NBA Finals team (1967) OR 32-8-4/46-88 as best player on an ABA Finals team (1971). His prime really lasted for 12 straight seasons (only his last two years in HOU were below star-level impact.. otherwise his absolute worst season was still 22-5-6-2/44-92 as the best player on a winning team).

Paul Pierce has played in 1238 games, with 1 title and 2 Finals appearances. He played on losing teams for much of his prime, and has had 9 winning seasons and 7 losing seasons in his career. His career averages are 22-6-4-1/45-37-81 in the RS and 21-6-4-1/42-34-83 in the PS. His peak could either be considered his best statistical year (but on a 33-49 team in 2006) which was 27-7-5-1/47-35-77 or a very good year as the #1 guy on a 62-win team that lost in the ECF in 2009 with a 21-6-4-1/46-39-83 line. His prime probably lasted for about 8 seasons (from 2001 to 2009) but he has still had a very good near-prime just below that level over the last four years.

So Pierce actually does not have a real longevity edge on Barry -- he has played about 10% more games, but actually had a shorter prime. I would also argue that Pierce's and Barry's respective primes and peaks aren't very similar at all. Any of the three possible peaks for Barry (each four years apart from the other) are considerably better than Pierce's best season, and Barry was close to his 67-71-75 level many other years as well. I just don't understand at all how Barry could be ranked below Paul Pierce. Ranking Pippen ahead of Barry I strongly disagree with, but I could sort-of see an argument... I just don't see the argument at all for Pierce.

[BattleTested]

Pippen for his all around game. Think I have Barry below Paul Pierce on account of similar primes, but Pierce having more longevity and a better attitude.

Rick Barry played in 1125 games, with 1 title (NBA) and 3 Finals appearances (2 NBA, 1 ABA). He had 11 winning seasons vs. only 2 losing seasons and 1 41-41 year (his final season in HOU) over his career. His career averages are 25-7-5-2/46-89 in the RS and 27-6-4-2/45-87 in the PS. His peak is either 31-6-6-3/46-90 as best player on a title team (1975) OR 36-9-4/45-88 as best player on a NBA Finals team (1967) OR 32-8-4/46-88 as best player on an ABA Finals team (1971). His prime really lasted for 12 straight seasons (only his last two years in HOU were below star-level impact.. otherwise his absolute worst season was still 22-5-6-2/44-92 as the best player on a winning team).

Paul Pierce has played in 1238 games, with 1 title and 2 Finals appearances. He played on losing teams for much of his prime, and has had 9 winning seasons and 7 losing seasons in his career. His career averages are 22-6-4-1/45-37-81 in the RS and 21-6-4-1/42-34-83 in the PS. His peak could either be considered his best statistical year (but on a 33-49 team in 2006) which was 27-7-5-1/47-35-77 or a very good year as the #1 guy on a 62-win team that lost in the ECF in 2009 with a 21-6-4-1/46-39-83 line. His prime probably lasted for about 8 seasons (from 2001 to 2009) but he has still had a very good near-prime just below that level over the last four years.

So Pierce actually does not have a real longevity edge on Barry -- he has played about 10% more games, but actually had a shorter prime. I would also argue that Pierce's and Barry's respective primes and peaks aren't very similar at all. Any of the three possible peaks for Barry (each four years apart from the other) are considerably better than Pierce's best season, and Barry was close to his 67-71-75 level many other years as well. I just don't understand at all how Barry could be ranked below Paul Pierce. Ranking Pippen ahead of Barry I strongly disagree with, but I could sort-of see an argument... I just don't see the argument at all for Pierce.

Not everybody values the ABA that much though. Barry only had 10 years in the NBA and two of them he wasn't the same player as he was before.

[Gideon]

Not everybody values the ABA that much though. Barry only had 10 years in the NBA and two of them he wasn't the same player as he was before.

Barry had 8 prime seasons in the NBA, including a title, a Finals appearance, and top 5 in MVP voting 3 times. I believe he was picked as the Retro-Player-of-the-Year for 1975 in this site's voting, and he likely would have at least one real MVP if a significant big-man bias hadn't pervaded the league when he played, leading to a center literally winning every single NBA MVP award from 1965-1980. Barry's prime in the NBA alone was actually the same length as Pierce's prime (although Pierce also has a few very good years just below prime level, to be fair) and slightly longer than Pippen's prime.

If somebody truly places very little value on the ABA and values longevity (and longevity during non-prime) so much that they prefer Pierce (or, to a lesser extent, Pippen) to Barry, I guess all I could say is that I have extremely different criteria for rating players than that person... especially about the longevity, as I don't generally value the ABA as highly as I value the NBA (although I don't dismiss the ABA either).

[BattleTested]

Not everybody values the ABA that much though. Barry only had 10 years in the NBA and two of them he wasn't the same player as he was before.

Barry had 8 prime seasons in the NBA, including a title, a Finals appearance, and top 5 in MVP voting 3 times. I believe he was picked as the Retro-Player-of-the-Year for 1975 in this site's voting, and he likely would have at least one real MVP if a significant big-man bias hadn't pervaded the league when he played, leading to a center literally winning every single NBA MVP award from 1965-1980.

If somebody truly places very little value on the ABA and values longevity so much that they prefer Pierce to Barry, I guess all I could say is that I have extremely different criteria for rating players than that person... especially about the longevity, as I don't generally value the ABA as highly as I value the NBA (although I don't dismiss the ABA either).

I don't have Pierce over Barry. I'm just saying the numbers you used value the ABA equally to the NBA which isn't really the case.

[Gideon]

That's a fair point about bundling ABA and NBA numbers together, when the NBA was probably a tougher league. I don't think the difference between NBA and ABA is huge, though, and it doesn't seem right to completely discount the ABA either.

It's also worth considering that Barry played in the ABA during his prime, coming off a season in which he averaged 36 ppg and was 5th in MVP voting in the NBA, so it's not like he took advantage of weaker competition at a time when he couldn't succeed as well in the NBA or anything like that. Two of the three possible peak seasons I cited for Barry were also NBA seasons. Ultimately, Barry only played 257 games in the ABA (just over 20% of his career total) so, considering all of that, I don't think it's really a significant negative for him. Maybe others disagree.

[Warspite]

Not everybody values the ABA that much though. Barry only had 10 years in the NBA and two of them he wasn't the same player as he was before.

Barry had 8 prime seasons in the NBA, including a title, a Finals appearance, and top 5 in MVP voting 3 times. I believe he was picked as the Retro-Player-of-the-Year for 1975 in this site's voting, and he likely would have at least one real MVP if a significant big-man bias hadn't pervaded the league when he played, leading to a center literally winning every single NBA MVP award from 1965-1980.

If somebody truly places very little value on the ABA and values longevity so much that they prefer Pierce to Barry, I guess all I could say is that I have extremely different criteria for rating players than that person... especially about the longevity, as I don't generally value the ABA as highly as I value the NBA (although I don't dismiss the ABA either).

I don't have Pierce over Barry. I'm just saying the numbers you used value the ABA equally to the NBA which isn't really the case.

The ABA actualy has more value than the NBA.

[BattleTested]

Barry had 8 prime seasons in the NBA, including a title, a Finals appearance, and top 5 in MVP voting 3 times. I believe he was picked as the Retro-Player-of-the-Year for 1975 in this site's voting, and he likely would have at least one real MVP if a significant big-man bias hadn't pervaded the league when he played, leading to a center literally winning every single NBA MVP award from 1965-1980.

If somebody truly places very little value on the ABA and values longevity so much that they prefer Pierce to Barry, I guess all I could say is that I have extremely different criteria for rating players than that person... especially about the longevity, as I don't generally value the ABA as highly as I value the NBA (although I don't dismiss the ABA either).

I don't have Pierce over Barry. I'm just saying the numbers you used value the ABA equally to the NBA which isn't really the case.

The ABA actualy has more value than the NBA.

How so?

[Warspite]

The ABA had about 30 of the top 50 players in the world in a league with 25% fewer teams. More importantly the ABA had all the young talent. If the NBA went back to the 22yr old rule we very well could see a ABA type league crop up with players who were 18-22 yrs old.


Look at Rick Barry seasons going from NBA to ABA and then back again. Where is the huge balloon in stats from jumping to the "inferior" league?


Furthermore how do you justify calling either the NBA or ABA watered down when they had about 20 teams combined and today we have 30?

The leagues merged in 1977. The best team in the Western Conferance was a ABA team. That of course was after the NBA teams had a draft and took all the ABA FAs.

[BattleTested]

The ABA had about 30 of the top 50 players in the world in a league with 25% fewer teams. More importantly the ABA had all the young talent. If the NBA went back to the 22yr old rule we very well could see a ABA type league crop up with players who were 18-22 yrs old.


Look at Rick Barry seasons going from NBA to ABA and then back again. Where is the huge balloon in stats from jumping to the "inferior" league?


Furthermore how do you justify calling either the NBA or ABA watered down when they had about 20 teams combined and today we have 30?

The leagues merged in 1977. The best team in the Western Conferance was a ABA team. That of course was after the NBA teams had a draft and took all the ABA FAs.

The ABA had some of the top talent (30 out of the top 50 players is a pretty baseless statement though) but are you really gonna tell me the average ABA player was as good as the average NBA player? That'd be a pretty strong claim that you would really need to back up to be taken seriously.

For the record, I think both leagues match up unfavorably against all other eras of shot clock era basketball. Not only did the NBA expand in the early 70's, but much of the top level talent like Erving, or Gervin, or Barry, or Malone was going to the ABA. It was a low point for the NBA in terms of talent level and that's why we saw weird things like the Lakers and Bucks breaking records for wins and winning streaks when they never won a chip otherwise. That's why we saw Barry's Warriors actually win a championship. Expansion/the ABA/drug problems caused the 70's to be the nadir of professional basketball. That's why I don't put as much stock into Barry winning titles as I would otherwise.

With that said, even though the NBA was at a low point, it was still better than the ABA.

[Warspite]

The ABA had about 30 of the top 50 players in the world in a league with 25% fewer teams. More importantly the ABA had all the young talent. If the NBA went back to the 22yr old rule we very well could see a ABA type league crop up with players who were 18-22 yrs old.


Look at Rick Barry seasons going from NBA to ABA and then back again. Where is the huge balloon in stats from jumping to the "inferior" league?


Furthermore how do you justify calling either the NBA or ABA watered down when they had about 20 teams combined and today we have 30?

The leagues merged in 1977. The best team in the Western Conferance was a ABA team. That of course was after the NBA teams had a draft and took all the ABA FAs.

The ABA had some of the top talent (30 out of the top 50 players is a pretty baseless statement though) but are you really gonna tell me the average ABA player was as good as the average NBA player? That'd be a pretty strong claim that you would really need to back up to be taken seriously.

For the record, I think both leagues match up unfavorably against all other eras of shot clock era basketball. Not only did the NBA expand in the early 70's, but much of the top level talent like Erving, or Gervin, or Barry, or Malone was going to the ABA. It was a low point for the NBA in terms of talent level and that's why we saw weird things like the Lakers and Bucks breaking records for wins and winning streaks when they never won a chip otherwise. That's why we saw Barry's Warriors actually win a championship. Expansion/the ABA/drug problems caused the 70's to be the nadir of professional basketball. That's why I don't put as much stock into Barry winning titles as I would otherwise.

With that said, even though the NBA was at a low point, it was still better than the ABA.

No the avg player in the NBA (6th or 7th man) was better. The NBAs adv was on the bench. The ABAs adv was having a better franchise player and most of the time a better 2nd option.


To create a modern ABA today you would

1. Take every under 22 yr player in the NBA
2. Take Durant, LBJ, Lopez and 11 other random allstars (none of them bigmen)
3. Bring in some former stars who want to play in there twighlight (G Hill, Nash, Marbury, TMac, AI, Kidd)
4. Bring in MLE bigmen who will no longer get paid under the new CBA (Pachuila, Tyrus Thomas ect)
5. Take the 3 best D league players from every team in the D.
6. Phill Jackson, Roy Williams, Tom Izzo and Doc Rivers coach teams.

Build a 8-10 team league and you have a very exciting wing dominated league with weaker interior defense but with some explosive scorers and heady vets.

Is it better than last yrs NBA? No
Is it better than the NBA that would be left? Maybe but most likey not
Would it be better in a few yrs as it continues to add every underclassmen that wants to go pro?

[Laimbeer]

The ABAs adv was having a better franchise player and most of the time a better 2nd option.

What year would be a good baseline to test that? Comparable, but I don't think there's the advantage you're imagining throughout the league.

[JordansBulls]

http://www.remembertheaba.com/ABAStatistics/ABANBAExhibitions.html

However, in the later years of the rivalry, the tide began to turn. Buoyed by younger, better talent and (in many cases) the home court advantage, ABA teams began winning most of the games. Over the last three seasons of the rivalry, the ABA steadily pulled ahead: 15-10 (in 1973), 16-7 (in 1974), and 31-17 (in 1975). The ABA won the overall interleague rivalry, 79 games to 76.