ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #8 - Dwyane Wade vs. Walt Frazier

[G.O.A.T]

Close but no cigar for Clyde

Wade advances 10-9

[Kblaze8855]

This being over and me needing to get ready for work I dont feel like a point by point thing there...but ill say this...

With me giving Walt credit for being elite in 38 win seasons where he was out big chunks and you saying Wade has only had 3 elite healthy years makes me feel you are being more unfair to wade than I was to Walt. If 09 doesnt count for Wade...nothing should count for anyone. Being nicked up during a 78 game season doesnt mean you are too hurt to count it.

Wade has been near the top of the league in 05, 06, 09, 10, and 11 at least. Having a tight hamstring or something in May doesnt mean the season didnt happen or wasnt a full season on a high level.

And giving clyde personal credit for winning more on those teams just is not fair. No he didnt have Shaq or Lebron. But he had teams with 5 or 6 all stars at once. He had teams with 4 hall of famers in or near their primes at once. That team would have been good to great minus any single person on it.


And dont give me all D teams like it makes the guy with more factually superior on D. Battier only has 2....both second teams. In like 10 years. Hes better than a number of guys who make it over him right now. But who makes it 40 years apart makes one better for sure? I dont...know...that Walt will stop the same player at the same rate. Ive not seen him vs enough players. Ive probably seen him play 4-5 teams. Tops. More games than that but mostly finals games and a few ECF games. So a lot of games vs the same teams.

I dont know what happens with Walt on Kobe or Wade on West.

Ive not seen Walt play the kind of defense I know translates. Its hard for a guard to do that in his time really. Players were not attacked one on one out on islands the same way they are now. Not as often at least.


And its not misleading to say they won 38 games without the bigmen. That was the whole point. I mentioned the lack of the bigmen during that stretch. But they still had 2 or 3 all stars. Just how it is.

Walt never did a thing without a team with epic talent. To compare his winning to Wade with Beasley and Chalmers or...whoever?

Just doesnt strike me as fair.

Ive seen little visual evidence Frazier was as good as Wade and no evidence at all he could carry a poor team anywhere. His less talented teams were just him and "only" 2 or 3 hall of famers winning a lot of games or him going sub .500 for years in a row.

But to me all it comes down to...

give me Wade or Frazier?

I take wade. And I dont believe for a second that you wouldnt either. You might give me some "If he were born in 1980 and..." hypothetical but...as the players they are.....I dont see evidence Wade isnt better.

i cant say that of everyone from Walts era. But alot of people in Walts era were more dominant than he was and didnt need 5 hall of famers to do anything we remember.

Walt was hardly Rick Barry dragging Wilkes and a bunch of guys few even know existed to success or anything.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't think you understood most of my post, let me try to bring us together and be more cleare here.

With me giving Walt credit for being elite in 38 win seasons where he was out big chunks and you saying Wade has only had 3 elite healthy years makes me feel you are being more unfair to wade than I was to Walt. If 09 doesnt count for Wade...nothing should count for anyone. Being nicked up during a 78 game season doesnt mean you are too hurt to count it.

Wade has been near the top of the league in 05, 06, 09, 10, and 11 at least. Having a tight hamstring or something in May doesnt mean the season didnt happen or wasnt a full season on a high level.

First in regards to Frazier; I told you I think '69 not '76 is his seventh prime season, so you "crediting" him with that as an elite season doesn't compel me to think you have a better understanding of his career. He was healthy in '69 and the only reason his numbers aren't better is because he only played that prime role for about 60 games. He started the season splitting time with Komives.

You also misunderstood my position on Dwyane Wade. I said Wade had seven elite years and that he was only healthy throughout three of those seasons. I still count them as elite years but in factoring in which seven year prime I'd rather have, it is significant to me that Wade's being injured during the playoffs cost his team at least one series in 2005 and 2009 and his accumulation of injuries over the course of 2007 and 2008 never allowed his team to get on track. That only gives me three chances to win a title even if I have a quality roster around him all seven years.

And dont give me all D teams like it makes the guy with more factually superior on D.

When it's seven straight first team selections you can. That tells me, and what I've read and seen on my own reinforces it, that he had the reputation as the premier defensive guard of his day. Wade is not in that conversation for his era, so that seals it if your going to be objective about it. Start adding hypothetical and you can make a case for Wade, but if someone doesn't agree with your assumptions/conclusions than it is meaningless to them.

I dont know what happens with Walt on Kobe or Wade on West.

No one knows, and it doesn't matter because it isn't a realistic scenario. You can't objectively judge a player based on your opinion of something that couldn't happen.

Ive not seen Walt play the kind of defense I know translates. Its hard for a guard to do that in his time really. Players were not attacked one on one out on islands the same way they are now. Not as often at least.

So why would this factor in to your thinking? How is it fair to conclude he couldn't do something that he didn't need to do. Should he work on a part of his game that won't make him a better player?

What makes great players great is that they identify what they need to do to be great against who they are competing against.

This is how they should be measured.

And its not misleading to say they won 38 games without the bigmen. That was the whole point. I mentioned the lack of the bigmen during that stretch. But they still had 2 or 3 all stars. Just how it is.

Frazier was their only all-star the year they won 38. That's actually how it is. In 1975 the He and Monroe made it. But the East had nine teams, so having two all-stars wasn't a huge deal. Their best big man was Phil Jackson, a career back-up. Just like Wade in from '08 to '10 that team could only go so far.

Walt never did a thing without a team with epic talent. To compare his winning to Wade with Beasley and Chalmers or...whoever?
Just doesnt strike me as fair.

Wade never did a thing with Beasley and Chalmers and Frazier never played a single prime season without what you consider epic talent. Which one of us is being unfair? At no point did I suggest that because Wade couldn't take those guys to a title that he wasn't as good as Frazier.

Ive seen little visual evidence Frazier was as good as Wade and no evidence at all he could carry a poor team anywhere. His less talented teams were just him and "only" 2 or 3 hall of famers winning a lot of games or him going sub .500 for years in a row.

You've maybe seen 1% of Fraziers career. Yet you'd rather go with your opinion on that sample size than the myriad of opinions from experts (take that title for what it's worth) who actually witnessed his career?

The second half of the sentence convinces me you no very little about Frazier's career.

But to me all it comes down to...

give me Wade or Frazier?

I take wade. And I dont believe for a second that you wouldnt either. You might give me some "If he were born in 1980 and..." hypothetical but...as the players they are.....I dont see evidence Wade isnt better.

Yes I am lying because of my pro-Knick/Side Burns agenda.

Of course I'd take Frazier that's why I voted for him. It's a pretty tough decision and one day I think Wade will have done enough that I will prefer him, but right now is not that time.

You taking Wade now is fine, there is a reason the vote was so close. Vut statements like the one below are crap arguments.

Walt was hardly Rick Barry dragging Wilkes and a bunch of guys few even know existed to success or anything.

Another example of a nothing statement. He never had the chance to try and Wade never accomplished it either.

[Kblaze8855]

I think all I need to know about how youy look at this was said right here:


"Of course I'd take Frazier that's why I voted for him. It's a pretty tough decision and one day I think Wade will have done enough that I will prefer him, but right now is not that time."


Wade is never going to be better than he was in 09. It will not happen. Hes not getting any better. But you would decide who to put on your team on increasing accomplishments as a worse player. Which makes it obvious what the problem is here...

You dont care about the ability to play basketball when you decide who plays basketball better. I do.

If Frazier is better for a team now hes always gonna be. wae has peaked. If you consider him better on the floor in the future(as suggested by who you want to have on a real team)...you just arent deciding tha on ability.

Knowing you dont care who plays better reduces my confusion on a number of your selections.

[G.O.A.T]

Wade is never going to be better than he was in 09. It will not happen. Hes not getting any better. But you would decide who to put on your team on increasing accomplishments as a worse player. Which makes it obvious what the problem is here...

You dont care about the ability to play basketball when you decide who plays basketball better. I do.

You're talking about evaluating a player at their peak here. And as I've said I would take a peak Wade over a peak Clyde. This isn't about peak though, it's about career. Wade's career isn't over, but if it was I would take Frazier's career.

Of course I care about "the ability to play basketball" but to me it's not a game where you can shut off injuries and fatigue and adjust the ratings year to year. I career about how they play basketball over the course of their career. How they play at their peak, how long their prime is, how they play when they are past their physical prime. All that matters because all of that happened.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not talking about peak. Im talking about ability to play this game. 05 Wade...07 Wade...this years Wade. 09 Wade.

You take Frazier at any point....I take Wade...I have a better player on my team far as I can tell.

Such things matter to me. Players are at no point...what they are on a career resume. Pluck Walt out of the 70s and Wade out of the 2000s....the guy plucking Wade gets the better player the extreme vast majority of the time. If not every time.

But if you are talking up Cousy vs Wade in the other topic that just isnt the issue to you. You can take Cousy or Walt...and my team can beat yours. Doesnt matter much because its hypothetical...but it would happen.

Guys just arent as good as their career accomplishments. They are as good as they can be expected to play at any given moment.

Walt isnt Wilt or even Elvin Hayes as a guy likely to do well no matter the setting. Hes not done a single thing to suggest that. Without epic talent hes proven nothing and even with it...it doesnt seem he was considered the best player on his team when it did its best.

[atljonesbro]

I know my vote doesn't matter but offense is more important than defense in basketball. Wade Offensively>Frazier. Also Wade is still a great defender.

[WillC]

Arguably the toughest matchup so far. Frazier is one of my all-time favourites. Walt Frazier gets my vote for leading the Knicks past Wilt and West's Lakers (Willis Reed won MVP but anyone who saw that series knows that Walt played better, especially in the final game when he was phenomenal).