2014 Anger General Geatest of All Time: #24 selection

[Y2K]

We get it. "at any time" was a hyperbolic statement. Gawd forbid Abe uses one hyperbole one time. Thanks for driving this point home repeatedly.

No, I'm saying you are overvaluing his peak performance, relative to his usual and standard performance.

That is a different issue altogether, and related to cognitive bias.

There is nothing wrong with remembering and valuing those 16/90 type moments, so long as you are remembering and discrediting him for all the 5-16 games along the way.

We remember the 16/90 moments much more than the 5-16 because they are more unique to our general experiences. It's just a bias. No big deal. But it's the job of superior intellgent beings like myself to remind the normies of such things.

And for all of the deferring that he did and was willing to do, he still led the team in FGAs from 1987-90. And looking at his FGAs per 100 possessions, he's between 20 and 22 FGAs his entire career.

[Bush4Ever]

And for all of the deferring that he did and was willing to do, he still led the team in FGAs from 1987-90. And looking at his FGAs per 100 possessions, he's between 20 and 22 FGAs his entire career.

Yeah.

Isiah is sort of hard for me to get a handle on. His best individual years were definitely before he won titles, and definitely lead dog worthy. Then he goes and wins titles as a guy who is probably closer to a first amongst equals type guy than a pure lead dog.

He was quite modest on an individual front in the latter half of his career...but his peak performance in short spurts was stupidly high.

Sort of unusual. I just checked, and his PER during his famous time frame was about 17-18 or so. That is really, really low for someone with his reputation and for someone that high on this list, considering he wasn't a standout defensive player.

I'm comfortable waiting on Isiah for several more picks. Maybe there will be a Stockton/Isiah argument down the road O_O

[Y2K]

And for all of the deferring that he did and was willing to do, he still led the team in FGAs from 1987-90. And looking at his FGAs per 100 possessions, he's between 20 and 22 FGAs his entire career.

Yeah.

Isiah is sort of hard for me to get a handle on. His best individual years were definitely before he won titles, and definitely lead dog worthy. Then he goes and wins titles as a guy who is probably closer to a first amongst equals type guy than a pure lead dog.

He was quite modest on an individual front in the latter half of his career...but his peak performance in short spurts was stupidly high.

Sort of unusual. I just checked, and his PER during his famous time frame was about 17-18 or so. That is really, really low for someone with his reputation and for someone that high on this list, considering he wasn't a standout defensive player.

I'm comfortable waiting on Isiah for several more picks. Maybe there will be a Stockton/Isiah argument down the road O_O

I'm thinking around pick 28, this will definitely take place.

[Y2K]

So here's my thoughts: It's barkley vs Robinson

Spoiler:

career averages:

Points 23,757 (22.1 ppg)
Rebounds 12,546 (11.7 rpg)
Assists 4,215 (3.9 apg)

Accolades:

NBA Most Valuable Player (1993)
11× NBA All-Star (1987–1997)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1991)
5× All-NBA First Team (1988–1991, 1993)
5× All-NBA Second Team (1986–1987, 1992, 1994–1995)
All-NBA Third Team (1996)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1985)
NBA rebounding leader (1986–87)
- Shortest player ever to win NBA rebounding title

His biggest knock(s):

-zero rings
-twice lost a series in which his team was up 3-1
-defensive effort was very subpar throughout his entire career

Defensive rating for 76ers:

88: 19th of 23
89: 24th of 25
90: 16th of 27
91: 16th of 27
92: 18th of 27

later in his career, he became a bit of a ball-stopper, which is partially why his #s didn't tail off too much.


All in all, his #s may look better than some of Robinson's #s but D-Rob was a legit two way player who's offensive and defensive prime overlapped. My vote is for David Robinson.

[Bush4Ever]

I don't think Barkley has much of a case over D-Rob, honestly.

D-Rob's defensive magnificence and Barkley's modest defense is a huge gap to overcome, considering they are both "bigs".

I don't think Barkley's relative advantages make up the differece on balance.

[Havlicekstealsit]

[AbeVigodaLive]

I don't think Barkley has much of a case over D-Rob, honestly.

D-Rob's defensive magnificence and Barkley's modest defense is a huge gap to overcome, considering they are both "bigs".

I don't think Barkley's relative advantages make up the differece on balance.

This is a take that's become a lot more popular 15 years or so after each guy played.

If this question was asked at the tail end of each guy's career... I'm very confident the answer is different.

[Bush4Ever]

This is a take that's become a lot more popular 15 years or so after each guy played.

If this question was asked at the tail end of each guy's career... I'm very confident the answer is different.

Really? How so?

[kobeunderbite]

Barkley was the greater player, to me it's not even remotely questionable, and no I would not like to expand on this.

[ripper76]

Robinson was a big underachiever considering his amazing natural gifts. Barkley was kind of the opposite.

Isiah Thomas doesn't really belong in the discussion. I'd consider him maybe some time in the 40s.

[Bush4Ever]

Barkely had AMAZING physical gifts.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. He was super strong, especially in his core, and was an astoundingly *quick* leaper, which is probably even more important to rebounding than how high one can jump.

Moreover, a quick google search places his vertical at 37 inches. As a fat guy.

Barkley definitely had extremely physical gifts. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have even been in the league.

[ripper76]

Barkely had AMAZING physical gifts.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. He was super strong, especially in his core, and was an astoundingly *quick* leaper, which is probably even more important to rebounding than how high one can jump.

Moreover, a quick google search places his vertical at 37 inches. As a fat guy.

Barkley definitely had extremely physical gifts. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have even been in the league.

Certainly, but I don't think he and Robinson were particularly close in that area. Robinson had the perfect basketball body. Barkley was very imperfect, but also uniquely gifted.

[Bush4Ever]

Certainly, but I don't think he and Robinson were particularly close in that area. Robinson had the perfect basketball body. Barkley was very imperfect, but also uniquely gifted.

I think you are really, really, really underestimating how insane Barkley's physical attributes actually were. His combination of strength, speed, and explosive leaping ability is virtually unequaled in NBA history.

I believe Tim Grover has gone on record as saying Barkley was a better athlete than Jordan. Barkley also had freakishly long arms as well.

In any event, I can't understand how any "accomplishment to raw talent ratio" could conclude with dramatically different results for Robinson and Barkley, let alone different results in favor of Barkley.

They accomplished roughly the same, and both had 99+ percentile athletic ability (even normed to NBA standards).

Edit: How many guys in history can play amongst the trees...grab rebounds (at an elite level) in that mix...then push the ball on the break with the explosiveness of a guard...*then* leap 35+ inches in the air for a dunk?

Lebron? Even he doesn't battle "the trees" or possess the raw bullying strength of Sir Charles (although he can jump a little higher and is a little faster as well).

[ripper76]

Ok.

Barkley was amazing, very unique. I just feel like Robinson had a perfect basketball body compared to Barkley. I don't see how anyone could argue that. I'm not particularly invested either way.

Barkley is still my vote.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Ok.

Barkley was amazing, very unique. I just feel like Robinson had a perfect basketball body compared to Barkley. I don't see how anyone could argue that. I'm not particularly invested either way.

Barkley is still my vote.

Yeah. Suck on that Bush!!!

[Bush4Ever]

Ok.

Barkley was amazing, very unique. I just feel like Robinson had a perfect basketball body compared to Barkley. I don't see how anyone could argue that. I'm not particularly invested either way.

Barkley is still my vote.

How did D-Rob have a perfect basketball body in a way that was noteable better than Barkley's?

Barkely definitely had physical advantages over D-Rob (and vice versa). But my point is that we are both talking about guys with physical attributes in the upper 99th percentile.

So unless you think their accomplishments were radically different, it doesn't make much sense to say one overachieved and one underachieved. IMO, they had about the same amount of accomplishment and natural talent.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Ok.

Barkley was amazing, very unique. I just feel like Robinson had a perfect basketball body compared to Barkley. I don't see how anyone could argue that. I'm not particularly invested either way.

Barkley is still my vote.

How did D-Rob have a perfect basketball body in a way that was noteable better than Barkley's?

Barkely definitely had physical advantages over D-Rob (and vice versa). But my point is that we are both talking about guys with physical attributes in the upper 99th percentile.

So unless you think their accomplishments were radically different, it doesn't make much sense to say one overachieved and one underachieved. IMO, they had about the same amount of accomplishment and natural talent.

Hmmm, gives you something to think about, huh Ripper?

[ripper76]

You don't see the difference in basketball bodies between a guy 7'1", 230, lean and muscular, and a guy who is 6'4", 260, and fat?

Few people thought Barkley would be as good as he was. Robinson should have been better.

The only time I remember them facing off in the playoffs I remember Barkley iso'ing on Robinson and hitting a long jumper over him to win the series.

Barkley deserves to be ranked ahead of Robinson.

[AbeVigodaLive]

You don't see the difference in basketball bodies between a guy 7'1", 230, lean and muscular, and a guy who is 6'4", 260, and fat?

Few people thought Barkley would be as good as he was. Robinson should have been better.

The only time I remember them facing off in the playoffs I remember Barkley iso'ing on Robinson and hitting a long jumper over him to win the series.

Barkley deserves to be ranked ahead of Robinson.

Wow. That might be the death blow. In your face, Bush.

[ripper76]

Ok.

Barkley was amazing, very unique. I just feel like Robinson had a perfect basketball body compared to Barkley. I don't see how anyone could argue that. I'm not particularly invested either way.

Barkley is still my vote.

How did D-Rob have a perfect basketball body in a way that was noteable better than Barkley's?

Barkely definitely had physical advantages over D-Rob (and vice versa). But my point is that we are both talking about guys with physical attributes in the upper 99th percentile.

So unless you think their accomplishments were radically different, it doesn't make much sense to say one overachieved and one underachieved. IMO, they had about the same amount of accomplishment and natural talent.

Hmmm, gives you something to think about, huh Ripper?

Not particularly. Arguing a fairly silly point for the sake of showing you can, isn't all that thought provoking.