2014 Anger General Geatest of All Time: #22 selection

[Yuh]

I'm not interested in moving your needle.

I've discussed the case for Wade in depth a couple times in these polls.

Well, thanks for the basketball discussion. I wasn't pushing your buttons. In all seriousness, I was hoping to learn more.

If you're kind enough to rehash what you wrote previously, or even want to copy and paste it... much obliged. I think it would add to the debate.

Well we were both a bit snarky there I think.

Anyway, yuh laid out some good accolades above.

Wade at his peak was unstoppable and he was at that level on the biggest stages deep in the playoffs and the Finals. People like to discount him because his "peak" was relatively short, but I think at this level you have to look at how good a guy was at his best. Some of this other guys had short, even shorter careers and dealt with injuries too. Mikan played roughly 62% of the number of games Wade played. He played fewer and shorter seasons and had bad injury problems as well, but that's not really held against him, not to the extent it is for Wade. Wade his going into his 12th year, and he's been a very high level almost the whole time. He's a better all around player at his position than a lot of these guys (in the area of assists, rebounds, steals, blocks) while being a top scorer.

People have used the PPG stat and PER to justify their votes for players already on the list. If you look at those, Wade is 8th all time in career PER, and 17th in career PPG. Dirk is 19th in career PER and 27th in career PPG. I don't see how Dirk is a better scorer or all around player than Wade and has one championship to three.

On the whole, I think Wade belongs on the list, certainly at this point, and definitely ahead of Dirk.

The difference between those is that Mikan was the man for his era, whereas Wade for the most part took a back seat to Kobe and LeBron. So I understand the placement of Mikan. However, at this point, I think we'd be really stretching for reasons to not put Wade in.

Isiah Thomas was a great player in his own right, but I think we'd be overstating his impact on those championship Pistons teams by putting him in ahead of Wade.

[elmouse03]

hmmm. I will go with the guy who beat Bird, Magic, and Jordan in the late 80s in Isiah Thomas.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Like I said, you actually have to look for reasons to not vote him in at this point.

You mentioned PER a couple of times touting Wade.

Do you think it's disconcerting that Wade's PER goes down in the playoffs from the regular season (25.3 - 22.7)... while Dirk Nowitzki's has gone up in the playoffs (23.5 - 24.2)?

Yeah, like... not at all. Kind of a ridiculous insinuation, to be honest. Like I said, we're looking for reasons here. If you honestly believe that Dirk upped his game for the playoffs more than Wade did I don't know what to tell you, but I think you know better than that. Wade's numbers in the playoffs only dropped after his knees started to really break down. At his peak, he carved up (like really carved up) some of the best defensive teams of his generation in the playoffs (teams like the Celtics and Pistons). I can post the numbers if you like.

Please do. Because it's critical that we compare both players (good and bad) for their careers in their entirety. Turns out Nowitzki has been one of the more noteworthy playoff performers of recent years.

He's averaged at least 23.4 ppg in the playoffs in 11 different seasons. He's been sneaky consistently good. Not quite at Duncan's level for longevity and quality... but pretty close.

And if we're taking the good AND the bad with each player... Wade played on a 67-loss team in his prime. Just saying...

[AbeVigodaLive]

Well we were both a bit snarky there I think.

Anyway, yuh laid out some good accolades above.

Wade at his peak was unstoppable and he was at that level on the biggest stages deep in the playoffs and the Finals. People like to discount him because his "peak" was relatively short, but I think at this level you have to look at how good a guy was at his best. Some of this other guys had short, even shorter careers and dealt with injuries too. Mikan played roughly 62% of the number of games Wade played. He played fewer and shorter seasons and had bad injury problems as well, but that's not really held against him, not to the extent it is for Wade. Wade his going into his 12th year, and he's been a very high level almost the whole time. He's a better all around player at his position than a lot of these guys (in the area of assists, rebounds, steals, blocks) while being a top scorer.

People have used the PPG stat and PER to justify their votes for players already on the list. If you look at those, Wade is 8th all time in career PER, and 17th in career PPG. Dirk is 19th in career PER and 27th in career PPG. I don't see how Dirk is a better scorer or all around player than Wade and has one championship to three.

On the whole, I think Wade belongs on the list, certainly at this point, and definitely ahead of Dirk.

I get that Mikan didn't play long.

But the guy won a title almost EVERY season he was healthy. Granted, you could hold him playing with a broken leg in the playoffs against him... but that could be a positive too. In any event... I get your point.

I don't think Wade is a bad choice. At all. But Nowitzki CAN make a case too. (See above)

What's the case for Nowitzki over Wade? He does nothing statistically better than Wade except shoot threes and rebound (even though 8.1 rpg for a 7ft tall PF is not impressive compared to 5.0 rpg for a 6'4" SG.)

His PER being a bit higher in the playoffs doesn't out outweigh everything else, and it didn't translate to more success.

In the playoffs, Nowitzki averages almost 3 ppg more per game than Wade. And, he averages 10.1 rebounds per game in the playoffs.

[ripper76]

You mentioned PER a couple of times touting Wade.

Do you think it's disconcerting that Wade's PER goes down in the playoffs from the regular season (25.3 - 22.7)... while Dirk Nowitzki's has gone up in the playoffs (23.5 - 24.2)?

Yeah, like... not at all. Kind of a ridiculous insinuation, to be honest. Like I said, we're looking for reasons here. If you honestly believe that Dirk upped his game for the playoffs more than Wade did I don't know what to tell you, but I think you know better than that. Wade's numbers in the playoffs only dropped after his knees started to really break down. At his peak, he carved up (like really carved up) some of the best defensive teams of his generation in the playoffs (teams like the Celtics and Pistons). I can post the numbers if you like.

Please do. Because it's critical that we compare both players (good and bad) for their careers in their entirety. Turns out Nowitzki has been one of the more noteworthy playoff performers of recent years.

He's averaged at least 23.4 ppg in the playoffs in 11 different seasons. He's been sneaky consistently good. Not quite at Duncan's level for longevity and quality... but pretty close.

And if we're taking the good AND the bad with each player... Wade played on a 67-loss team in his prime. Just saying...

And Dirk led his number 1 seed to a first round loss to an 8th seed in the same year he won MVP. Both players have had horrible failures, but Wade has had a lot more success.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Yeah, like... not at all. Kind of a ridiculous insinuation, to be honest. Like I said, we're looking for reasons here. If you honestly believe that Dirk upped his game for the playoffs more than Wade did I don't know what to tell you, but I think you know better than that. Wade's numbers in the playoffs only dropped after his knees started to really break down. At his peak, he carved up (like really carved up) some of the best defensive teams of his generation in the playoffs (teams like the Celtics and Pistons). I can post the numbers if you like.

Please do. Because it's critical that we compare both players (good and bad) for their careers in their entirety. Turns out Nowitzki has been one of the more noteworthy playoff performers of recent years.

He's averaged at least 23.4 ppg in the playoffs in 11 different seasons. He's been sneaky consistently good. Not quite at Duncan's level for longevity and quality... but pretty close.

And if we're taking the good AND the bad with each player... Wade played on a 67-loss team in his prime. Just saying...

And Dirk led his number 1 seed to a first round loss to an 8th seed in the same year he won MVP. Both players have had horrible failures, but Wade has had a lot more success.

So winning 67 and then losing in the 1st round of the playoffs is as bad as losing 67 games and not making the playoffs at all?

[Y2K]

Well we were both a bit snarky there I think.

Anyway, yuh laid out some good accolades above.

Wade at his peak was unstoppable and he was at that level on the biggest stages deep in the playoffs and the Finals. People like to discount him because his "peak" was relatively short, but I think at this level you have to look at how good a guy was at his best. Some of this other guys had short, even shorter careers and dealt with injuries too. Mikan played roughly 62% of the number of games Wade played. He played fewer and shorter seasons and had bad injury problems as well, but that's not really held against him, not to the extent it is for Wade. Wade his going into his 12th year, and he's been a very high level almost the whole time. He's a better all around player at his position than a lot of these guys (in the area of assists, rebounds, steals, blocks) while being a top scorer.

People have used the PPG stat and PER to justify their votes for players already on the list. If you look at those, Wade is 8th all time in career PER, and 17th in career PPG. Dirk is 19th in career PER and 27th in career PPG. I don't see how Dirk is a better scorer or all around player than Wade and has one championship to three.

On the whole, I think Wade belongs on the list, certainly at this point, and definitely ahead of Dirk.

I get that Mikan didn't play long.

But the guy won a title almost EVERY season he was healthy. Granted, you could hold him playing with a broken leg in the playoffs against him... but that could be a positive too. In any event... I get your point.

I don't think Wade is a bad choice. At all. But Nowitzki CAN make a case too. (See above)

What's the case for Nowitzki over Wade? He does nothing statistically better than Wade except shoot threes and rebound (even though 8.1 rpg for a 7ft tall PF is not impressive compared to 5.0 rpg for a 6'4" SG.)

His PER being a bit higher in the playoffs doesn't out outweigh everything else, and it didn't translate to more success.

Dirk also didn't "stack the deck" in his favor like Wade, Lebron and Bosh did these past 4 years.

Dirk never had anyone to take a backseat to as a teammate.

Dirk usually played in the tougher conference.

Look at the resume after 2005-06 thru pre-Lebron:

2007: 51 regular season games (27-14), struggled in playoffs in 4 game sweep By the Bulls

2008: 51 regular season games (10-41 team record)

2009: Peak Wade: 79 regular season games (42-37), first round exit

2010: Another excellent season by Wade: 77 regular season games (45-32), excellent playoff series but team lost 4-1

I Wouldn't exactly call this better team success than what Dirk Nowitzki accomplished. Only including games that Dirk Nowitzki played in, Dallas had 9 seasons of 50+ wins.

[elmouse03]

Some nuggets for Isiah is that from 84-91 he went toe to toe with the likes of Bernard King, Bird, Jordan, Magic, Drexler, etc. and pretty much beat them all.

Won the assist title in 85 with a 13.9 average. 12 time all star. 1990 finals mvp along with back to back titles.

[ripper76]

Please do. Because it's critical that we compare both players (good and bad) for their careers in their entirety. Turns out Nowitzki has been one of the more noteworthy playoff performers of recent years.

He's averaged at least 23.4 ppg in the playoffs in 11 different seasons. He's been sneaky consistently good. Not quite at Duncan's level for longevity and quality... but pretty close.

And if we're taking the good AND the bad with each player... Wade played on a 67-loss team in his prime. Just saying...

And Dirk led his number 1 seed to a first round loss to an 8th seed in the same year he won MVP. Both players have had horrible failures, but Wade has had a lot more success.

So losing 67 games and missing the playoffs is as bad as winning 67 and then losing in the 1st round?

An argument could be made that's the Mavs result that season was worse in the greater scheme of things.

Miami lost 67 games in a rebuilding year where their 2nd best player player was Ricky Davis. The old players showed their age and broke down after winning the championship, Shaq was hurt and decided he didn't want to be there anymore, Wade was hurt and played 51 games. Every team goes through down years and once it was clear that team was done they pulled the plug.

Dirk just had an MVP season, his team was the number 1 seed and everyone thought it was finally their year to win it all. They got destroyed by the 8th seed in the first round.

Both are pretty bad.

[Master Spade]

Isiah Thomas



I HATED him on the BBoy Pistons, but I give credit where credit is due. That man could Play!!! He was the "Superstar" player on that back to back winning Pistons teams. He stepped up his game when he had to.

But the biggest reason for the Vote, COMPETITION!!! He had to go up against some of the Greatest Players, AND some of the Greatest Teams of ALL TIME!! And he won back to back titles!!! He beat Magic, Bird, Air Jordan, among other players. As for Teams, The Showtime Lakers, the Bird led Celtics, the Sixers, and eventually when Jordan FINALLY got some help, the Jordan led Bulls!! Among others!!


So, Thomas gets my vote.

[AbeVigodaLive]

And Dirk led his number 1 seed to a first round loss to an 8th seed in the same year he won MVP. Both players have had horrible failures, but Wade has had a lot more success.

So losing 67 games and missing the playoffs is as bad as winning 67 and then losing in the 1st round?

An argument could be made that's it's worse.

Miami lost 67 games in a rebuilding year where their 2nd best player player was Ricky Davis. The old players showed their age and broke down after winning the championship, Shaq was hurt and decided he didn't want to be there anymore, Wade was hurt and played 51 games. Every team goes through down years and once it was clear that team was done they pulled the plug.

Dirk just had an MVP season, his team was the number 1 seed and everyone thought it was finally their year to win it all. They got destroyed by the 8th seed in the first round.

Both are pretty bad.

No. In no universe is being on any team that loses 67 games considered better than winning 67 games and then losing in a small sample size of games in the playoffs vs. a team coached by your former team.

Sorry.

I'll take the 82 game sample that says is the only guy considered in the top 30 who has been on a team that lost 67 games... vs. the 88 game sample that says Dirk and Dallas played great for almost the entire season and then played poorly in the playoffs as the #1 seed for 6 games.

6 games of .333 ball doesn't overshadow 82 games of .18 ball.

[AbeVigodaLive]

And Dirk led his number 1 seed to a first round loss to an 8th seed in the same year he won MVP. Both players have had horrible failures, but Wade has had a lot more success.

So losing 67 games and missing the playoffs is as bad as winning 67 and then losing in the 1st round?

An argument could be made that's the Mavs result that season was worse in the greater scheme of things.

Miami lost 67 games in a rebuilding year where their 2nd best player player was Ricky Davis. The old players showed their age and broke down after winning the championship, Shaq was hurt and decided he didn't want to be there anymore, Wade was hurt and played 51 games. Every team goes through down years and once it was clear that team was done they pulled the plug.

Dirk just had an MVP season, his team was the number 1 seed and everyone thought it was finally their year to win it all. They got destroyed by the 8th seed in the first round.

Both are pretty bad.

Yeah. Every team does. But even when Nowitzki is hurt... and the Mavs are down... he still wills them to at least a .500 record. Wade as THE guy couldn't get his team to win even 20% of the time.

[Y2K]

Well, thanks for the basketball discussion. I wasn't pushing your buttons. In all seriousness, I was hoping to learn more.

If you're kind enough to rehash what you wrote previously, or even want to copy and paste it... much obliged. I think it would add to the debate.

Well we were both a bit snarky there I think.

Anyway, yuh laid out some good accolades above.

Wade at his peak was unstoppable and he was at that level on the biggest stages deep in the playoffs and the Finals. People like to discount him because his "peak" was relatively short, but I think at this level you have to look at how good a guy was at his best. Some of this other guys had short, even shorter careers and dealt with injuries too. Mikan played roughly 62% of the number of games Wade played. He played fewer and shorter seasons and had bad injury problems as well, but that's not really held against him, not to the extent it is for Wade. Wade his going into his 12th year, and he's been a very high level almost the whole time. He's a better all around player at his position than a lot of these guys (in the area of assists, rebounds, steals, blocks) while being a top scorer.

People have used the PPG stat and PER to justify their votes for players already on the list. If you look at those, Wade is 8th all time in career PER, and 17th in career PPG. Dirk is 19th in career PER and 27th in career PPG. I don't see how Dirk is a better scorer or all around player than Wade and has one championship to three.

On the whole, I think Wade belongs on the list, certainly at this point, and definitely ahead of Dirk.

The difference between those is that Mikan was the man for his era, whereas Wade for the most part took a back seat to Kobe and LeBron. So I understand the placement of Mikan. However, at this point, I think we'd be really stretching for reasons to not put Wade in.

Isiah Thomas was a great player in his own right, but I think we'd be overstating his impact on those championship Pistons teams by putting him in ahead of Wade.

Isiah Thomas was a great individual talent who earned his props. But here's what I see:

-1989 FMVP: Joe Dumars

-shot under .450 6 times in the regular season during a time where FG% was usually higher than in today's game

-total of FIVE career ALL-NBA selections


I'm not that impressed even with the 2 rings

[ripper76]

So losing 67 games and missing the playoffs is as bad as winning 67 and then losing in the 1st round?

An argument could be made that's it's worse.

Miami lost 67 games in a rebuilding year where their 2nd best player player was Ricky Davis. The old players showed their age and broke down after winning the championship, Shaq was hurt and decided he didn't want to be there anymore, Wade was hurt and played 51 games. Every team goes through down years and once it was clear that team was done they pulled the plug.

Dirk just had an MVP season, his team was the number 1 seed and everyone thought it was finally their year to win it all. They got destroyed by the 8th seed in the first round.

Both are pretty bad.

No. In no universe is being on any team that loses 67 games considered better than winning 67 games and then losing in a small sample size of games in the playoffs vs. a team coached by your former team.

Sorry.

I'll take the 82 game sample that says is the only guy considered in the top 30 who has been on a team that lost 67 games... vs. the 88 game sample that says Dirk and Dallas played great for almost the entire season and then played poorly in the playoffs as the #1 seed for 6 games.

6 games of .333 ball doesn't overshadow 82 games of .18 ball.

Yes.

It does when the expectation is a championship. The Mavericks failure that year was historic because the expectation was so high. That was the worst loss by a number 1 seed in the first round in NBA history.

The expectation wasn't there for the Heat that year and once it became clear the team needed to be rebuilt, Riley put it in tank mode. Ricky Davis played nearly 3000 minutes for the Heat that year, more than 1000 more than Wade, and they ended up getting the 2nd pick in the draft (which was a bust, but that's neither here nor there.)

[AbeVigodaLive]

An argument could be made that's it's worse.

Miami lost 67 games in a rebuilding year where their 2nd best player player was Ricky Davis. The old players showed their age and broke down after winning the championship, Shaq was hurt and decided he didn't want to be there anymore, Wade was hurt and played 51 games. Every team goes through down years and once it was clear that team was done they pulled the plug.

Dirk just had an MVP season, his team was the number 1 seed and everyone thought it was finally their year to win it all. They got destroyed by the 8th seed in the first round.

Both are pretty bad.

No. In no universe is being on any team that loses 67 games considered better than winning 67 games and then losing in a small sample size of games in the playoffs vs. a team coached by your former team.

Sorry.

I'll take the 82 game sample that says is the only guy considered in the top 30 who has been on a team that lost 67 games... vs. the 88 game sample that says Dirk and Dallas played great for almost the entire season and then played poorly in the playoffs as the #1 seed for 6 games.

6 games of .333 ball doesn't overshadow 82 games of .18 ball.

Yes.

It does when the expectation is a championship. The Mavericks failure that year was historic because the expectation was so high. That was the worst loss by a number 1 seed in the first round in NBA history.

The expectation wasn't there for the Heat that year and once it became clear the team needed to be rebuilt, Riley put it in tank mode. Ricky Davis played nearly 3000 minutes for the Heat that year, more than 1000 more than Wade, and they ended up getting the 2nd pick in the draft (which was a bust, but that's neither here nor there.)

No.

Maybe expectations were high because Dallas overachieved and won an incredible 67 games... unless you truly think that Dallas team was one of the better teams in NBA history? In either case, calling the entire season worse than a 15-67 team because of a bad 4 game stretch is reactionary reaching.

There is no excuse for playing in 51 games... and going 15 - 67. And, to say it's less damaging than going 69 - 19 in a season as the clearcut best player on a team and one of the best players in the league is laughably obtuse.

[ripper76]

No. In no universe is being on any team that loses 67 games considered better than winning 67 games and then losing in a small sample size of games in the playoffs vs. a team coached by your former team.

Sorry.

I'll take the 82 game sample that says is the only guy considered in the top 30 who has been on a team that lost 67 games... vs. the 88 game sample that says Dirk and Dallas played great for almost the entire season and then played poorly in the playoffs as the #1 seed for 6 games.

6 games of .333 ball doesn't overshadow 82 games of .18 ball.

Yes.

It does when the expectation is a championship. The Mavericks failure that year was historic because the expectation was so high. That was the worst loss by a number 1 seed in the first round in NBA history.

The expectation wasn't there for the Heat that year and once it became clear the team needed to be rebuilt, Riley put it in tank mode. Ricky Davis played nearly 3000 minutes for the Heat that year, more than 1000 more than Wade, and they ended up getting the 2nd pick in the draft (which was a bust, but that's neither here nor there.)

No.

Maybe expectations were high because Dallas overachieved and won an incredible 67 games... unless you truly think that Dallas team was one of the better teams in NBA history? In either case, calling the entire season worse than a 15-67 team because of a bad 4 game stretch is reactionary reaching.

There is no excuse for playing in 51 games... and going 15 - 67. And, to say it's less damaging than going 69 - 19 in a season as the clearcut best player on a team and one of the best players in the league is laughably obtuse.

Did you watch many Heat games that year? I did, I watched almost all of them. Wade was never right, he put up decent numbers, but he wasn't right all year and the rest of the team was horrid. Riley threw in the towel early on, they were in full tank mode. If they could have won fewer games they would have been happier because they wanted the number 1 pick.

[Y2K]

So who do you think deserves this selection the most, Abe?

[AbeVigodaLive]

So who do you think deserves this selection the most, Abe?

Still trying to work it out. I think Barkley has a case here too.

But this forum is very rings heavy and I know he'll be a tougher sell.

[Y2K]

So who do you think deserves this selection the most, Abe?

Still trying to work it out. I think Barkley has a case here too.

But this forum is very rings heavy and I know he'll be a tougher sell.

Yeah. I mean rings are most important BUT at this point there are too many similar resumes to disregard someone for having won zero rings.

[vcsgrizzfan]

I am a little bit puzzled with the overwhelming love for Thomas. I can see a case for him but I would have him a little lower down.

There have been a number of posts forgetting that it wasn't Thomas against the Celtics, Bulls etc and personalizing matchups. Those Pistons were deep and talented with big and versatile front courts and another HOFer in the back court with him in Dumars.

I prefer both Wade and Dirk here over Thomas.

I'll vote DIRK since it appears he has the best chance to overtake Thomas at this point.