RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[Jaivl]

Not that Isiah doesn't have an advantage in the playoffs (on offense, though WS/48 is substantially over generous in crediting him with Detroit's D because he gambled to accumulate steals, whilst no stats defenders like Dumars especially but also Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn are under-credited and Isiah took the majority of his win shares on defense), but it should be noted that Isiah's worst years (rookie, and final two years) are conveniently the ones in which he didn't play in the playoffs, his longest playoff runs in his mid to late 20s, typically a player's prime. Meanwhile Parker is punished heavily for a long (but poor) playoff run as a 20 year old.

Thomas' DWS may very well be inflated due to playing in a strong defensive team. But I think his offensive impact is understated by OWS. Here is some with-without data I found quite significant. I used prime seasons where the players missed 5 or more games.

Isiah:
'86: With 45-32 (58%). Without 1-4 (20%).
'91: With 31-17 (65%). Without 19-15 (56%).

Parker:
'08: With 48-21 (70%). Without 8-5 (62%).
'09: With 47-25 (65%). Without 7-3 (70%).
'10: With 34-22 (61%). Without 16-10 (62%).
'12: With 47-13 (78%). Without 3-3 (50%).
'14: With 51-17 (75%). Without 11-3 (79%).

It's a shame we don't have play-by-play data from before '97, but that w/o numbers are quite bad and suggest a quite strong impact even with mediocre boxscore numbers, à la Ricky Rubio/Jrue Holiday. I could argue too that Parker's offensive numbers are inflated due to playing next to the GOAT coach and the GOAT PF, the Spurs don't seem to lose much production without him. And even without his first 2 years, Parker's WS/48 are below average (0.095). It changes nothing.

If playoff performance is what is important how do Amare Stoudemire, Baron Davis, Shawn Kemp, Gus Williams, Derrick Coleman and Johnny Moore fare in the all time rankings? How about Frank Ramsey, Cliff Hagan and Bobby Wanzer?

Regular season matters a lot, of course. But if you have a massive dropoff from the regular season to the playoffs, becoming an average player, something happens. And you have to be penalized. You also should bear in mind that the sample size for Thomas's playoff play is clearly significant, whilst Derrick Coleman's, for example, is a lot shorter (and Johnny Moore... are you serious?). And the playing levels aren't the same either. PD: Stat (who didn't improve in the postseason) and Kemp are in the same level as Parker in my ATL. Williams is slightly higher (HE is really underrated).

Isiah as the number one option on O wheras Parker is 2/3 is at very least misleading. Isiah scored less than Dantley per game in '89 and than others both years on a per minute basis. He wasn't scoring 20 points per 36 minutes even in the '90 playoffs (clearly his best run in the title years). Detroit's offense shared the load quite a bit, whilst Parker has had to carry a larger load as a shot creator because of the likes of absolute non-scorers like Bowen. If you're going to criticize (playoff) Parker for something (and win shares, with it's focus on shooting efficiency does) it can't be for insufficient willingness to carry the load.

Dantley scored more per-game because Dantley is Dantley and does Dantley things with Dantley efficiency. Isiah shot more, and by all accounts was the #1 offensive hub (easily leading the team in assists and turnovers). If not always, he was most of the time (And the Pistons were better after trading Dantley and giving Isiah the reins once again).

Parker did lead the team in shot attempts at times, but until two or three years ago he had no real ballhandling duties, he was just a penetrator.

Usage% since Parker joined the Spurs:

Duncan 27.5%
Parker 25.8%
Ginóbili 25.0%

Considering Duncan is flat-out better and Ginóbili is just more efficient with nearly the same usage (59 TS%, 114 ORtg and 14.4 TOV% against 55 TS%, 109 ORtg and 13.9 TOV%), I can't see Parker as more than a 2/3 option.

[Quotatious]

For what it's worth, when I watched the Badboys' games, it often looked like Isiah was the worst defender on the team, of players who got significant playing time. I don't think praising him for his D makes sense - he was just about average, and if anything, his great defensive teammates (Dumars in particular, as a backcourt partner) and strong defensive culture imposed by Chuck Daly, made him look better than he actually was - kinda like Reggie Miller in Indiana.

[Owly]

Not that Isiah doesn't have an advantage in the playoffs (on offense, though WS/48 is substantially over generous in crediting him with Detroit's D because he gambled to accumulate steals, whilst no stats defenders like Dumars especially but also Rodman, Laimbeer and Mahorn are under-credited and Isiah took the majority of his win shares on defense), but it should be noted that Isiah's worst years (rookie, and final two years) are conveniently the ones in which he didn't play in the playoffs, his longest playoff runs in his mid to late 20s, typically a player's prime. Meanwhile Parker is punished heavily for a long (but poor) playoff run as a 20 year old.

Thomas' DWS may very well be inflated due to playing in a strong defensive team. But I think his offensive impact is understated by OWS. Here is some with-without data I found quite significant. I used prime seasons where the players missed 5 or more games.

Isiah:
'86: With 45-32 (58%). Without 1-4 (20%).
'91: With 31-17 (65%). Without 19-15 (56%).

Parker:
'08: With 48-21 (70%). Without 8-5 (62%).
'09: With 47-25 (65%). Without 7-3 (70%).
'10: With 34-22 (61%). Without 16-10 (62%).
'12: With 47-13 (78%). Without 3-3 (50%).
'14: With 51-17 (75%). Without 11-3 (79%).

It's a shame we don't have play-by-play data from before '97, but that w/o numbers are quite bad and suggest a quite strong impact even with mediocre boxscore numbers, à la Ricky Rubio/Jrue Holiday. I could argue too that Parker's offensive numbers are inflated due to playing next to the GOAT coach and the GOAT PF, the Spurs don't seem to lose much production without him. And even without his first 2 years, Parker's WS/48 are below average (0.095). It changes nothing.

His OWS might undersell his shot creation a little but I would suggest it does so far less than DWS overrates his D, especially if we are focusing on the years Detroit was a contender.

I'm going to throw '86 out because bluntly 5 games isn't nearly big enough a sample. For what it's worth, I think Isiah circa '86 was really good and replacing his minutes with a non-pg probably would have a large impact.

So what you've got left is Isiah in 91' was on a 3.27 MOV team and without him it was a 2.5 MOV team. I haven't checked the schedule strengths, but he wasn't quite adding a point a game over a 35 year old Gerald Henderson, or sometimes Lance Blanks, John Long and few extra (more tired) minutes for Dumars.

You "could argue ...that Parker's offensive numbers are inflated due to playing next to the GOAT coach and the GOAT PF" and I could argue that the Spurs Popovich's masterful coaching allowed him to mask short term absences well and the fact that he rested players so frequently allowed them to remain fresh and take on larger roles when a player went down. I don't think one could prove or disprove either. They'd be opinions. And for what it's worth Chuck Daly wasn't a bad coach.

I'm not going to look into schedule's but I see that Parker's impact does look disappointing (with albeit a fairly crude tool, then again I'm not sure many +/- variants like him), I'm just not sure Isiah's looks much better by that measure.

If playoff performance is what is important how do Amare Stoudemire, Baron Davis, Shawn Kemp, Gus Williams, Derrick Coleman and Johnny Moore fare in the all time rankings? How about Frank Ramsey, Cliff Hagan and Bobby Wanzer?

Regular season matters a lot, of course. But if you have a massive drop-off from the regular season to the playoffs, becoming an average player, something happens. And you have to be penalized. You also should bear in mind that the sample size for Thomas's playoff play is clearly significant, whilst Derrick Coleman's, for example, is a lot shorter (and Johnny Moore... are you serious?). And the playing levels aren't the same either. PD: Stat (who didn't improve in the postseason) and Kemp are in the same level as Parker in my ATL. Williams is slightly higher (HE is really underrated).

Wait Moore's sample size isn't big enough but Isiah's 5 game absence in '86 is? And if sample size is what's important why judge Isiah on a playoff career when his RS minutes is more than eight times larger and substantially more indicative of the quality of play you could expect from him.

Then too it's hardly as though a player's playoff minutes are under their own control. They are one of 10 players on the court. Should Coleman have done more to defeat a vastly superior Cavaliers team in '93. Should he have magically made Dwayne Schintzius (their leading minute getter at center) a real basketball player? Furthermore, earlier era players had shorter playoffs and thus fewer opportunities to accumulate a large minute sample. Are they to be ignored too?

Note that I never stated the above players raised their game in the playoffs (though typically they did). To me performance relative to RS is irrelevant. Why would you punish someone for playing really well in the RS. The relevance is in their strong playoff performance in absolute terms. And the players listed were very strong postseason performers (and many have better RS metrics than Isiah).

For a list to be internally coherent/consistent it would be difficult to have Isiah where many do without having the players listed high. Yet that wouldn’t look credible in many cases.

Isiah as the number one option on O wheras Parker is 2/3 is at very least misleading. Isiah scored less than Dantley per game in '89 and than others both years on a per minute basis. He wasn't scoring 20 points per 36 minutes even in the '90 playoffs (clearly his best run in the title years). Detroit's offense shared the load quite a bit, whilst Parker has had to carry a larger load as a shot creator because of the likes of absolute non-scorers like Bowen. If you're going to criticize (playoff) Parker for something (and win shares, with it's focus on shooting efficiency does) it can't be for insufficient willingness to carry the load.

Dantley scored more per-game because Dantley is Dantley and does Dantley things with Dantley efficiency. Isiah shot more, and by all accounts was the #1 offensive hub (easily leading the team in assists and turnovers). If not always, he was most of the time (And the Pistons were better after trading Dantley and giving Isiah the reins once again).

Parker did lead the team in shot attempts at times, but until two or three years ago he had no real ballhandling duties, he was just a penetrator.

Usage% since Parker joined the Spurs:

Duncan 27.5%
Parker 25.8%
Ginóbili 25.0%

Considering Duncan is flat-out better and Ginóbili is just more efficient with nearly the same usage (59 TS%, 114 ORtg and 14.4 TOV% against 55 TS%, 109 ORtg and 13.9 TOV%), I can't see Parker as more than a 2/3 option.

Being the number one option is all about consuming possessions be they turnovers or misses? Hmm. Then I’m not to sure in the relevance or value of being a “first option”.

And FWIW Detroit were on an active (i.e. you don’t get to choose the end point, it could have gone on for a while) 6 game win streak including a defeat of the Lakers in LA when Dantley was traded (some big margins too, Sacramento by 25, @ Bulls by 6, @ Philly by 18, Bulls by 11, Bucks by 11, @ Lakers by 8). During that spell Dantley was averaging 37 minutes and 22.333 points, rather than the 31.1 and 17.7 he had offered up to that point, so I'm not sure about crediting improvement with giving Isiah the reins. Note also that Detroit got off to a 9-1 start before injuries to the likes of Edwards, Dumars and Mahorn, not huge ones sure but enough to screw with their rotation. Given injuries and rotation changes it’s entirely plausible that the Aguirre-Dantley swap was not the catalyst for their improvement, and infact it had already happened (if you consider there was an improvement rather than reaching their expected standard).

But all of that is beside the point which is the “first option” “2/3 option” stuff is at best misleading. The relevant point is the burden you take. Parker as you note is 25.8% usage, Thomas was 25.3% (playoffs Parker 27.9%, Thomas 26.2%).

[Laimbeer]

Planning on it

The one player I will be most interested in watching - Wilt. He could fall from the top ten.

[Baller2014]

There is a big myth that:
a) Isaiah somehow showed leadership by getting Dantley traded (assuming he even did so), and
b) Dantley being traded was the secret ingredient to winning a title.
In truth, the Pistons would have won the title with Dantley anyway. They had been held back by the existence of superior teams, and as time passed those teams succumbed to injuries and age, leaving a 2 year window for the Pistons to get some titles (before the Bulls got MJ the support cast help he badly needed). Dantley was robbed of 2 rings, and has been demonised ever since.

[eliasrapp98]

I think if Duncan wins this championship, he jumps into my top 5.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Lebron
5. Duncan
6. Russell
7. Wilt
8. Hakeem
9. Shaq
10. Bird
11. Kobe
12. Dr J
13. Garnett

Off the top of my head


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PaulieWal]

I think if Duncan wins this championship, he jumps into my top 5.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Lebron
5. Duncan
6. Russell
7. Wilt
8. Hakeem
9. Shaq
10. Bird
11. Kobe
12. Dr J
13. Garnett

Off the top of my head


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wanna ask how do you have LeBron at 4 already? I have him tied 8th with Bird right now. Just curious to know why do you rank him that high already.

[Reservoirdawgs]

I think if Duncan wins this championship, he jumps into my top 5.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Lebron
5. Duncan
6. Russell
7. Wilt
8. Hakeem
9. Shaq
10. Bird
11. Kobe
12. Dr J
13. Garnett

Obviously this is your list, but how in the world is Lebron already #4 (ahead of Duncan) and Russell #6? I am of the opinion that Lebron is projecting very nicely for Top 3-4 All Time, but I can't see how anyone could put Lebron already at #4 (particularly ahead of Duncan AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME).

[eliasrapp98]

I think if Duncan wins this championship, he jumps into my top 5.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Lebron
5. Duncan
6. Russell
7. Wilt
8. Hakeem
9. Shaq
10. Bird
11. Kobe
12. Dr J
13. Garnett

Obviously this is your list, but how in the world is Lebron already #4 (ahead of Duncan) and Russell #6? I am of the opinion that Lebron is projecting very nicely for Top 3-4 All Time, but I can't see how anyone could put Lebron already at #4 (particularly ahead of Duncan AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME).

It's assuming I guess. At the moment, you are right. He's not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EJaggit]

Would you guys update this list because TD and 5 rings? Better than Shaq? What do you guys think?

[therealbig3]

Would you guys update this list because TD and 5 rings? Better than Shaq? What do you guys think?

I would say most people that vote don't care about rings, so if people didn't have TD over Shaq already, they're probably not going to take him just because Duncan was a role player for a championship in possibly his last season.

Well, role player is probably selling him short, he was more than that...16/9 with strong defense isn't anything to scoff at, and he was probably their best overall player during this run, but people really shouldn't be changing their opinion based off 1 season with Duncan way past his prime, on a team where the coach was the MVP anyway.

[Baller2014]

Pop is the first one to say players play, there's only so much coaching can do. To call Pop the MVP is ridiculous, as ridiculous as calling Doc Rivers the Celtics MVP in 08. It's absurd. Duncan was the best player. I already had him higher than this list does, but adding more longevity sure won't hurt him.

[therealbig3]

Difference is, Rivers had a top 5 player on his team in 2008, who was the clear MVP for them (Garnett).

The Spurs this year didn't have a single top 5 player, probably not even a top 10 player...I'm not sure if they even had a top 15 player. This was a perfect ensemble cast that featured great ball movement, great player movement, great reads, great shooting, and a strong defensive system that protected the rim, closed out on 3pt shooters, forced TOs, and controlled the defensive glass. That's all instilled by the coach.

There's really nothing else to say, Popovich was very obviously the MVP of the 2014 Spurs...heck, he's been the MVP of their team since 2011.

[Baller2014]

Duncan was on the all-nba first team last year, and I don't think he was noticeably worse this year, he just played a little less. Parker was an all-nba 2nd teamer. If you don't like the Rivers comparison, compare it to the 2004 Pistons, who were further off from having a top 5 player than the Spurs were. It's an insult to those players to say "Larry Brown was their MVP". It's also absurd.

[therealbig3]

Duncan was on the all-nba first team last year, and I don't think he was noticeably worse this year, he just played a little less. Parker was an all-nba 2nd teamer. If you don't like the Rivers comparison, compare it to the 2004 Pistons, who were further off from having a top 5 player than the Spurs were. It's an insult to those players to say "Larry Brown was their MVP". It's also absurd.

Except the 2004 Pistons won through dominant defense, which is much easier to build without a top 5 player. But the 2014 Spurs won through GOAT-level offense despite not having a single superstar on the team...that's ridiculously difficult to do, and it was achieved because Pop is a genius. Rules be damned, he should have been awarded the FMVP award.

[Baller2014]

Great offensive and defensive schemes require great coaching, there's a reason Thibs gets so much love. The Spurs were greatly aided by having Pop, but they were also aided by having 2 arguably top 10 players (irrespective of what the MVP voting said) and a super deep team to go along with that, the most talented Spurs support cast Duncan has ever had.

[Owly]

Duncan was on the all-nba first team last year, and I don't think he was noticeably worse this year, he just played a little less. Parker was an all-nba 2nd teamer. If you don't like the Rivers comparison, compare it to the 2004 Pistons, who were further off from having a top 5 player than the Spurs were. It's an insult to those players to say "Larry Brown was their MVP". It's also absurd.

Over the RS he was. Not hugely in any one area but across the board. TS% down 1.9%; trb% just slightly (0.3%); block % substantially down (from 6.4% to 4.6%); usage down from 27.8% to 25.2% which comined with the shooting drop meant his points dropped (2.7 per game, 2.6 per36mins, 3.9 per 100 possessions) and his turnover percentage rose (up from 11.7 to 13.2). On their own each is small beer, but together they led to his worst metric campaign in his career, down from a mini revival last year.

Reasons why Brown and Popovich are different
1) Brown didn't build his team (well he didn't at all but ...) with the same level of cast offs as Pop. Pop was working with guys other teams couldn't use (right) like Mills, Green and Diaw.
2) Spurs were dominant champions. Their SRS of +8 ranks 24th all-time in NBA/BAA history. The Pistons were part of the pack who happened to play well at the right time. They weren't the very weakest of champs but they are in the lower half.

Given the above and the age of the Spurs' core, the Spurs exceeded what you might expect from the Spurs on paper substantially wheras the Pistons did so only relatively mildly. That would be the case for Popovich as their MVP.

[EJaggit]

So if TD stays another year and gets his sixth, he still is 8 on the list? In my opinion I feel he should already be over Shaq... But, oh well, that's just my opinion

[HeartBreakKid]

Big Timmy certainly did fall off from last year, still very good, but clearly worse, he started off extremely slow in the RS he could not buy a bucket.

[Baller2014]

Over the RS he was. Not hugely in any one area but across the board. TS% down 1.9%; trb% just slightly (0.3%); block % substantially down (from 6.4% to 4.6%); usage down from 27.8% to 25.2% which comined with the shooting drop meant his points dropped (2.7 per game, 2.6 per36mins, 3.9 per 100 possessions) and his turnover percentage rose (up from 11.7 to 13.2). On their own each is small beer, but together they led to his worst metric campaign in his career, down from a mini revival last year.

I'd mostly put that fractional drop down to coasting. In the minutes he played, Duncan was still a top 10 player, and in the playoffs he played more minutes whenever the game was close, so for all practical purposes they had a top 10 player in the playoffs (in some ways his playoff numbers this year are actually better in fact). The had two top 10 players really, because Parker is more or less a top 10 player (he made the all-nba 2nd team for a reason).

Reasons why Brown and Popovich are different
1) Brown didn't build his team (well he didn't at all but ...) with the same level of cast offs as Pop. Pop was working with guys other teams couldn't use (right) like Mills, Green and Diaw.
2) Spurs were dominant champions. Their SRS of +8 ranks 24th all-time in NBA/BAA history. The Pistons were part of the pack who happened to play well at the right time. They weren't the very weakest of champs but they are in the lower half.

Given the above and the age of the Spurs' core, the Spurs exceeded what you might expect from the Spurs on paper substantially wheras the Pistons did so only relatively mildly. That would be the case for Popovich as their MVP.

This is all just a false dichotomy people use to justify their narrative. Pop and Brown were different because of [insert faux explanation here]. The guys Larry Brown had were thought of as cast offs when they got to the Pistons. In reality of course they were great players who were either unknowns, or being misused. Brown used them properly, and the team flourished. Pop did the same thing. Duncan and Parker (and Manu) were far less cast offs than the guys Brown had. The Pistons SRS is also inadmissible because they didn't acquire Sheed until the end of the season (and promptly ripped it up once they did). They weren't the same team before they got him (and it was Brown's first year with them for heaven's sake, the team was still gelling), then the next year they coasted. After losing in 05 the Pistons got hungry again and tore it up in the regular season for 64 wins and an SRS of over 6. Don't get me wrong, I think the Spurs this year were better than the Pistons in 04, but these are all just paper thin excuses.

Players play, as Pop would be the first to say, and the coaches can only do so much. Pop is a great coach, but to call him the finals MVP is a joke, and the obvious silliness of it is highlighted by your unwillingness to extend the same honour to Larry Brown or Doc Rivers. You might as well call Buford or Holt the finals MVP by that logic. The Finals MVP was either Duncan, Kawhi or Lebron. I'd have been happy with any of those names, and they went with Kawhi, which was fair enough.