2014 Anger General Geatest of All Time: #20 selection

[elmouse03]

So is Malone. I'm just saying all five guys have pretty impressive resumes in slightly different ways. None stand out too much from the others... each has a lot of strengths and a flaw or two too.

but what about Rick Barry?

Just had to go there for ya.

[AbeVigodaLive]

So is Malone. I'm just saying all five guys have pretty impressive resumes in slightly different ways. None stand out too much from the others... each has a lot of strengths and a flaw or two too.

but what about Rick Barry?

Just had to go there for ya.

Yeah, Rick Barry. He'll be coming up here in a bit. He's in that list above... before the Drexlers and Ewings and that ilk. How high depends on how much you value the ABA/NBA split era I'm always railing on about.

[elmouse03]

So is Malone. I'm just saying all five guys have pretty impressive resumes in slightly different ways. None stand out too much from the others... each has a lot of strengths and a flaw or two too.

but what about Rick Barry?

Just had to go there for ya.

Yeah, Rick Barry. He'll be coming up here in a bit. He's in that list above... before the Drexlers and Ewings and that ilk. How high depends on how much you value the ABA/NBA split era I'm always railing on about.

Well he has that 1 ring why Ewing and others who we might end up putting ahead of him do not.

Robert Horry has 7 rings though so Horry > Barry?

[AbeVigodaLive]

but what about Rick Barry?

Just had to go there for ya.

Yeah, Rick Barry. He'll be coming up here in a bit. He's in that list above... before the Drexlers and Ewings and that ilk. How high depends on how much you value the ABA/NBA split era I'm always railing on about.

Well he has that 1 ring why Ewing and others who we might end up putting ahead of him do not.

Robert Horry has 7 rings though so Horry > Barry?

I will argue day and night before I concede Ewing is better than Barry. There's no way Ewing is finishing higher than Barry on this list.

And Barkley doesn't have a ring. He lost against one of the best teams of all time in the Finals. Barry beat one of the worst teams of all time for his title. Luck and circumstance has a lot to do with titles sometimes.

[elmouse03]

Yeah, Rick Barry. He'll be coming up here in a bit. He's in that list above... before the Drexlers and Ewings and that ilk. How high depends on how much you value the ABA/NBA split era I'm always railing on about.

Well he has that 1 ring why Ewing and others who we might end up putting ahead of him do not.

Robert Horry has 7 rings though so Horry > Barry?

I will argue day and night before I concede Ewing is better than Barry. There's no way Ewing is finishing higher than Barry on this list.

And Barkley doesn't have a ring. He lost against one of the best teams of all time in the Finals. Barry beat one of the worst teams of all time for his title. Luck and circumstance has a lot to do with titles sometimes.

That is what I tried to make for Baylor with the Selvy missed shot at the end of game 7 which would have won the game and title for the Lakers in 62. Well there is a reason why Ewing hasn't been nominated yet over the players that have been and y2k probably wants to wait till that list gets trimmed some before nominating anybody else.

[americaninfidel]

Lots of discussion here, but it seems like nobody's going to catch Mr. Baylor. I think we should move on to #21, though I defer to y2ktors on that.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I find it interesting that with so many guys ripping "ring chasers" today... nobody gave Baylor credit for doing the complete opposite. He walked away from a ring because he didn't meet his personal standards and he felt it wasn't best for the team.

Do you think any prominent NBA players would do that today?



[Note: It's obviously conjecture, but I can see Duncan doing that... but he already has all the rings. For a guy who never won one yet came so close to just walk away...]

[elmouse03]

I find it interesting that with so many guys ripping "ring chasers" today... nobody gave Baylor credit for doing the complete opposite. He walked away from a ring because he didn't meet his personal standards and he felt it wasn't best for the team.

Do you think any prominent NBA players would do that today?



[Note: It's obviously conjecture, but I can see Duncan doing that... but he already has all the rings. For a guy who never won one yet came so close to just walk away...]

hmmm. Can't think of anybody.

[dwcmwa]

Yeah even though my pick was for Scottie Pippen, it appears Baylor will be taking this spot.

Pippen should take 21 in a landslide.

[elmouse03]

Yeah even though my pick was for Scottie Pippen, it appears Baylor will be taking this spot.

Pippen should take 21 in a landslide.

Just don't see that happening but we will see.

[876Stephen]

Yeah, Rick Barry. He'll be coming up here in a bit. He's in that list above... before the Drexlers and Ewings and that ilk. How high depends on how much you value the ABA/NBA split era I'm always railing on about.

Well he has that 1 ring why Ewing and others who we might end up putting ahead of him do not.

Robert Horry has 7 rings though so Horry > Barry?

I will argue day and night before I concede Ewing is better than Barry. There's no way Ewing is finishing higher than Barry on this list.

And Barkley doesn't have a ring. He lost against one of the best teams of all time in the Finals. Barry beat one of the worst teams of all time for his title. Luck and circumstance has a lot to do with titles sometimes.

Im done with this debate, but i have to respond to this point. He swept a 60 win Bullet team with 2 20 point scorers and Wes Unseld in the finals with Clifford Ray as best teammate. Even in the weakened split league Barry still had one of the worst teams compared to the other stars. He literally had the worst of the worst and still won a title.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Well he has that 1 ring why Ewing and others who we might end up putting ahead of him do not.

Robert Horry has 7 rings though so Horry > Barry?

I will argue day and night before I concede Ewing is better than Barry. There's no way Ewing is finishing higher than Barry on this list.

And Barkley doesn't have a ring. He lost against one of the best teams of all time in the Finals. Barry beat one of the worst teams of all time for his title. Luck and circumstance has a lot to do with titles sometimes.

Im done with this debate, but i have to respond to this point. He swept a 60 win Bullet team with 2 20 point scorers and Wes Unseld in the finals with Clifford Ray as best teammate. Even in the weakened split league Barry still had one of the worst teams compared to the other stars. He literally had the worst of the worst and still won a title.

I didn't write that Barry had very talented teammates. Granted, many would claim Jamal Wilkes was his best teammate, even as a rookie. He was the team's second leading scorer and rebounder and would become a HOF player. But... yes... we agree along with everybody else that Barry carried a subpar team to the title.

The rub is that it beat a subpar team too, historically speaking. Sure, Washington won 60 games. But the league was split in half with half the best players in the rival ABA. Elvin Hayes was its best player. A HOF player sure... but a proven winner? Not so much.
Let's not forget that something called Phil Chenier was Washington's leading scorer in the Finals. Seriously... who?

[Bush4Ever]

I still don't get what is so hard about understanding that talent should be evaluated relative to the competition/peers at the time. Or I'm not understanding what the argument actually is.

A 60 win team is elite, relative to the competition.

Yes, the Bullets felt the effects of the split, but so did the Warriors, which makes that a non-issue and moot point if you frame these things relative to the competition.

Like I said before, I would rather have 1 all-star and go against 0 all-stars, than have 3 all-stars and have to go against 3 all-stars, all else being equal.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I still don't get what is so hard about understanding that talent should be evaluated relative to the competition/peers at the time. Or I'm not understanding what the argument actually is.

A 60 win team is elite, relative to the competition.

Yes, the Bullets felt the effects of the split, but so did the Warriors, which makes that a non-issue and moot point if you frame these things relative to the competition.

Like I said before, I would rather have 1 all-star and go against 0 all-stars, than have 3 all-stars and have to go against 3 all-stars, all else being equal.

And, we're comparing guys like Barry to Barkley. How relevant are they?

Barkley had the misfortune of playing against Pippen and Jordan. Barry had the fortunate opportunity to go for a title against Elvin Hayes and Phil Chenier.

Some see all titles being equal... and any team that doesn't win a title (whether 2nd place or 30th) being equal.

[Bush4Ever]

And, we're comparing guys like Barry to Barkley. How relevant are they?

Barkley had the misfortune of playing against Pippen and Jordan. Barry had the fortunate opportunity to go for a title against Elvin Hayes and Phil Chenier.

Some see all titles being equal... and any team that doesn't win a title (whether 2nd place or 30th) being equal.

I agree with that.

I'm simply saying the fact that the league was split doesn't have anything to do with the above, because the league was split for all teams that compete against each other.

It's not like we had a regular NBA, and before the Finals, the ABA swooped in and snatched half of the Bullets, while leaving the Warriors unmolested.

The way I see it is this:

1. Take some index or estimate of the supporting talent a player played with.
2. Take some index or estimate of the talent they faced in their era (or in the playoffs, finals, whatever).
3. Divide number 2 by number 1.

The larger the number, the more impressive the accomplishment. To give a really quick and dirty example, a guy playing with B- level teammates and beating an B+/A- team is more impressive to me than a guy playing with A-level teammates beating an A level team (all else equal).

That is my heuristic for this question, even if it's not perfectly quantified or even perfectly quantifiable (it's not). But that's the idea.

That's why I don't see the league split as being particularly relevant for this question. The effect "docks" everyone equally (I think), sort of like if we made everyone in a 100 yard dash run with a 5 pound weight vest. Yes, they will run slightly slower times than they otherwise would have, but their standing *against each other* shouldn't change much, if at all.

[AbeVigodaLive]

And, we're comparing guys like Barry to Barkley. How relevant are they?

Barkley had the misfortune of playing against Pippen and Jordan. Barry had the fortunate opportunity to go for a title against Elvin Hayes and Phil Chenier.

Some see all titles being equal... and any team that doesn't win a title (whether 2nd place or 30th) being equal.

I agree with that.

I'm simply saying the fact that the league was split doesn't have anything to do with the above, because the league was split for all teams that compete against each other.

It's not like we had a regular NBA, and before the Finals, the ABA swooped in and snatched half of the Bullets, while leaving the Warriors unmolested.

The way I see it is this:

1. Take some index or estimate of the supporting talent a player played with.
2. Take some index or estimate of the talent they faced in their era (or in the playoffs, finals, whatever).
3. Divide number 2 by number 1.

The larger the number, the more impressive the accomplishment. To give a really quick and dirty example, a guy playing with B- level teammates and beating an B+/A- team is more impressive to me than a guy playing with A-level teammates beating an A level team (all else equal).

That is my heuristic for this question, even if it's not perfectly quantified or even perfectly quantifiable (it's not). But that's the idea.

That's why I don't see the league split as being particularly relevant for this question. The effect "docks" everyone equally (I think), sort of like if we made everyone in a 100 yard dash run with a 5 pound weight vest. Yes, they will run slightly slower times than they otherwise would have, but their standing *against each other* shouldn't change much, if at all.

When you're being labeled the "very best" for your accomplishments in a season... it seems a bit disingenuous when you're receiving that honor without playing the very best. Consider that the ABA at the time boasted two players already seen on this list: Malone and Erving.

Barry didn't have to play them or other guys like Artis Gilmore, George Gervin, George McGinnis, et al.

So I won't give him as much credit for taking a collection of also-ran teammates to a title against another team of also-rans as I do a guy who won titles or even competed for titles while facing the very best competition. Barry and his B- team beating a B team in Washington... meh.

It's similar to guys like Kidd or Iverson getting more credit for going to the NBA Finals after beating 40 and 45 win teams and getting destroyed vs. a guy like Nash losing to the same team in the previous round in a more competitive conference.

[Deez]

Argument for David Robinson

21.1 ppg, 10.6 bds, 3.0 blks

2× NBA champion (1999, 2003)
NBA Most Valuable Player (1995)
10× NBA All-Star (1990–1996, 1998, 2000–2001)
4× All-NBA First Team (1991–1992, 1995–1996)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1994, 1998)
4× All-NBA Third Team (1990, 1993, 2000–2001)
NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1992)
4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1991–1992, 1995–1996)
4× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1990, 1993–1994, 1998)
NBA Rookie of the Year (1990)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1990)
NBA Sportsmanship Award (2001)
NBA scoring champion (1994)
NBA blocks leader (1992)
NBA rebounding leader (1991)
NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
No. 50 retired by San Antonio Spurs
USA Basketball Male Athlete of the Year (1986)
Consensus National Player of the Year (1987)
Consensus first team All-American (1987)
Consensus second team All-American (1986)
NCAA Silver Anniversary Award (2012)

[AbeVigodaLive]

Argument for David Robinson

21.1 ppg, 10.6 bds, 3.0 blks

2× NBA champion (1999, 2003)
NBA Most Valuable Player (1995)
10× NBA All-Star (1990–1996, 1998, 2000–2001)
4× All-NBA First Team (1991–1992, 1995–1996)
2× All-NBA Second Team (1994, 1998)
4× All-NBA Third Team (1990, 1993, 2000–2001)
NBA Defensive Player of the Year (1992)
4× NBA All-Defensive First Team (1991–1992, 1995–1996)
4× NBA All-Defensive Second Team (1990, 1993–1994, 1998)
NBA Rookie of the Year (1990)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1990)
NBA Sportsmanship Award (2001)
NBA scoring champion (1994)
NBA blocks leader (1992)
NBA rebounding leader (1991)
NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team
No. 50 retired by San Antonio Spurs
USA Basketball Male Athlete of the Year (1986)
Consensus National Player of the Year (1987)
Consensus first team All-American (1987)
Consensus second team All-American (1986)
NCAA Silver Anniversary Award (2012)

His number is retired?

He won sportsmen of the year? Did he make All-State in high school too? If so... put him at #20.

[Bush4Ever]

I don't see how you can dock them for facing worse competition while not at the same time adjusting for the fact that they played with worse teammates.

I think you have to do both, hence the ratio heuristic above.

As to whether or not that ratio works on balance for Iverson/Kidd whoever against Nash is another question.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I don't see how you can dock them for facing worse competition while not at the same time adjusting for the fact that they played with worse teammates.

I think you have to do both, hence the ratio heuristic above.

As to whether or not that ratio works on balance for Iverson/Kidd whoever against Nash is another question.

There's not quantitative way to measure if Barry > Erving, Moses and Gilmore or even GSW > Kentucky Colonels or NY Nets in 1975.

And that's where we stand when judging the all-time awesomeness of Barry in 1975.