RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[penbeast0]

For people wanting to get in, PM me and ask. If I know you as a decent poster like fatal9, I will add you. If I don't know your body of work, I will forward your PM to Baller and Dr MJ to see if they want to recomment you and if they know and approve you, they will PM me back and you will be added.

But no, we aren't adding people just for the project who haven't posted here before. It's sort of an off season fun survey to keep our regulars off the streets and out of the bars.

[Jimmy76]

unfortunately I don't have the time/access to really invest like I need to so I won't be voting since I don't feel like I can really contribute or make a fully informed decision but I'll definitely be keeping my eye on the project as much as I can

[Laimbeer]

unfortunately I don't have the time/access to really invest like I need to so I won't be voting since I don't feel like I can really contribute or make a fully informed decision but I'll definitely be keeping my eye on the project as much as I can

I'm not letting that stop me.

[Dezmondballins3]

Russell isn't better then magic johnson.

[Baller 24]

Russell isn't better then magic johnson.

Please read the discussions taken place in each of the threads and the criteria, before coming into this thread and giving personal opinion/feedback.

Thanks

[ThaRegul8r]

Russell isn't better then magic johnson.

Please read the discussions taken place in each of the threads and the criteria, before coming into this thread and giving personal opinion/feedback.

Thanks

You're expecting people of that ilk to read intelligent discussion by people who've actually put great thought into the matter rather than spouting uninformed preconceptions?

[Dezmondballins3]

i have read the thread doesn't mean i agree! Russell is a great winner but that era was not as competitive as the 80's.
Magic was able to run the team and was so versatile he even played center in the finals and scored 40+ points he's a point guard. even though he was tall for a point guard no one has been able to play all 5 position and play them all well like magic could.
Bill is defensive god but he didn't physically lead his team like magic did magic is the 2nd best of all time in my eyes.

[Dezmondballins3]

You're expecting people of that ilk to read intelligent discussion by people who've actually put great thought into the matter rather than spouting uninformed preconceptions?

And what ilk are you referring to?

[rrravenred]

At a guess, he was referring to one-line drive-by posters rather than those who actively argue their case, consider other people's positions and then put forward evidence to demonstrate their points.

At a guess.

[ElGee]

At a guess, he was referring to one-line drive-by posters rather than those who actively argue their case, consider other people's positions and then put forward evidence to demonstrate their points.

At a guess.

My problem with the last thread was that I thought it was dominated by that (literally, changed the vote). It's quite a turn off to have discussion spanning multiple threads and have voters come in and one-line vote without reading the information (much of which they probably didn't know/remember).

Then again, I think the No. 5 reflected 2 things:

(1) Larry Bird is totally underrated on these boards (old news)
(2) People are slow to adapt to change (older news)

I really sensed that a number of Wilt votes were "I just can't move him *that* far down at once," whereas if we did this in 3 years then it would be OK for him to say, be 7th in their mind. The rationale for some of his votes smacked of anchoring ("He's just too talented to go lower" -- OK, so I assume Ricky Davis is in our top 100? Bill Walton in the top 12? Why no vote for LBJ yet?)

It's understandable, and as of now not a big issue, although perhaps there was an overwhelming meta-element to the last thread; Whenever someone has a bias for/against a guy, they default to serious double standards without realizing it. I mean seriously, listing out Larry Bird's playoff failures? I've asked before, but why on earth wouldn't you start by listing out playoff successes? Or better yet, simply comparing quality of play between the guys at hand year by year if you are a looking at the sum of the parts?

[rrravenred]

At a guess, he was referring to one-line drive-by posters rather than those who actively argue their case, consider other people's positions and then put forward evidence to demonstrate their points.

At a guess.

My problem with the last thread was that I thought it was dominated by that (literally, changed the vote). It's quite a turn off to have discussion spanning multiple threads and have voters come in and one-line vote without reading the information (much of which they probably didn't know/remember).

Then again, I think the No. 5 reflected 2 things:

(1) Larry Bird is totally underrated on these boards (old news)
(2) People are slow to adapt to change (older news)

I really sensed that a number of Wilt votes were "I just can't move him *that* far down at once," whereas if we did this in 3 years then it would be OK for him to say, be 7th in their mind. The rationale for some of his votes smacked of anchoring ("He's just too talented to go lower" -- OK, so I assume Ricky Davis is in our top 100? Bill Walton in the top 12? Why no vote for LBJ yet?)

It's understandable, and as of now not a big issue, although perhaps there was an overwhelming meta-element to the last thread; Whenever someone has a bias for/against a guy, they default to serious double standards without realizing it. I mean seriously, listing out Larry Bird's playoff failures? I've asked before, but why on earth wouldn't you start by listing out playoff successes? Or better yet, simply comparing quality of play between the guys at hand year by year if you are a looking at the sum of the parts?

I agree to an extent that's it's a running assessment and people are generally reluctant to have the same argument three of four times. It's not fair that people should have to re-state their case in detail each time thier advocated player comes up. .

Having said that there's a lot of info-dump by passionate advocates which makes those threads NOT PLEASANT to read. I can understand some poeple wanting to short-circuit that tortuous path. I tend to believe that the current voting and discussion structure may not be the best, although I understand the desire for simplicity and let's get this damn thing rolling.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm fine with Wilt making it over Bird, even though I would've voted the opposite. Wilt and Bird ultimately have extreme highs like 84/86 and 67/72 and some years where they shoot questionably and some years where they just got beat by an epic team. Success wise, the only thing separating them is Bird's 81 title where he had a Wilty 8 pt, 8 pt, 12 pt stretch in Games 3-5, hard to put too much into that, Wilt's teams could never get away with it when he had series like that just because of the competition

Wilt ultimately is the most underrated winner. Has 2 titles and GOAT teams, made 6 Finals and some other "pretty much Finals" ECFs against the Russ Celts, averaged 54 Ws. I'm not a big fan but he's not Adrian Dantley compared to Bird.

All these guys have such good careers that it's hard to really belittle them. Top 10 of all time is pure win. But that's why a lot of us are concentrating on the weaknesses they did have. A David with 3 minor cracks is still less perfect than a David with 1

[SDChargers#1]

At a guess, he was referring to one-line drive-by posters rather than those who actively argue their case, consider other people's positions and then put forward evidence to demonstrate their points.

At a guess.

My problem with the last thread was that I thought it was dominated by that (literally, changed the vote). It's quite a turn off to have discussion spanning multiple threads and have voters come in and one-line vote without reading the information (much of which they probably didn't know/remember).

Then again, I think the No. 5 reflected 2 things:

(1) Larry Bird is totally underrated on these boards (old news)
(2) People are slow to adapt to change (older news)

I really sensed that a number of Wilt votes were "I just can't move him *that* far down at once," whereas if we did this in 3 years then it would be OK for him to say, be 7th in their mind. The rationale for some of his votes smacked of anchoring ("He's just too talented to go lower" -- OK, so I assume Ricky Davis is in our top 100? Bill Walton in the top 12? Why no vote for LBJ yet?)

It's understandable, and as of now not a big issue, although perhaps there was an overwhelming meta-element to the last thread; Whenever someone has a bias for/against a guy, they default to serious double standards without realizing it. I mean seriously, listing out Larry Bird's playoff failures? I've asked before, but why on earth wouldn't you start by listing out playoff successes? Or better yet, simply comparing quality of play between the guys at hand year by year if you are a looking at the sum of the parts?

Personally I think your point #2 applies to Bird. People remember him being compared to Magic as his equal and even superior when Bird was winning 3 MVPs in a row, and now feel that they have to be right next to each other in any ranking. They forget that essentially from '87 to Magic's retirement Magic's accomplishments absolutely dwarfed Bird's (Bird's last great statistical years were '87 and '88, but then he dropped off, while Magic had maybe he best 4 year stretch of his career statistically won 2 titles (including against the Celtics) and went to four finals (compared to the one for Bird)) and pretty much answered the question of who had the greater career.

Stop focusing on one line like "he's too talented to be moved that far down," and act like it is the only argument. Wilt was talented AND produced. Bill Walton was healthy for all of 3 seasons. Ricky Davis never used his talents for anything that mattered. They are horribly comparisons. It's like when people bring up Robert Horry when the titles argument comes up. It is comparing apples to oranges.

People are bringing up Bird's failures because every players failures have been brought up. Jordan quit on the game for 2 years, Russell wasn't good offensively, Kareem didn't win championships in the 70s, Magic didn't play great defense and lost to inferior Houston teams, Wilt (dear god he has so many failures listed it is kind of a joke), Shaq is terrible at free throws and gets dumped by his teams, Duncan is boring and has no flash, Kobe was selfish and started fueds, etc. Every player has had their failures brought up and analyzed. Bird should not be an exception. What bugs me are the people who think that Bird has no failures or flaws, which he absolutely did.

[ElGee]

At a guess, he was referring to one-line drive-by posters rather than those who actively argue their case, consider other people's positions and then put forward evidence to demonstrate their points.

At a guess.

My problem with the last thread was that I thought it was dominated by that (literally, changed the vote). It's quite a turn off to have discussion spanning multiple threads and have voters come in and one-line vote without reading the information (much of which they probably didn't know/remember).

Then again, I think the No. 5 reflected 2 things:

(1) Larry Bird is totally underrated on these boards (old news)
(2) People are slow to adapt to change (older news)

I really sensed that a number of Wilt votes were "I just can't move him *that* far down at once," whereas if we did this in 3 years then it would be OK for him to say, be 7th in their mind. The rationale for some of his votes smacked of anchoring ("He's just too talented to go lower" -- OK, so I assume Ricky Davis is in our top 100? Bill Walton in the top 12? Why no vote for LBJ yet?)

It's understandable, and as of now not a big issue, although perhaps there was an overwhelming meta-element to the last thread; Whenever someone has a bias for/against a guy, they default to serious double standards without realizing it. I mean seriously, listing out Larry Bird's playoff failures? I've asked before, but why on earth wouldn't you start by listing out playoff successes? Or better yet, simply comparing quality of play between the guys at hand year by year if you are a looking at the sum of the parts?

Personally I think your point #2 applies to Bird. People remember him being compared to Magic as his equal and even superior when Bird was winning 3 MVPs in a row, and now feel that they have to be right next to each other in any ranking. They forget that essentially from '87 to Magic's retirement Magic's accomplishments absolutely dwarfed Bird's (Bird's last great statistical years were '87 and '88, but then he dropped off, while Magic had maybe he best 4 year stretch of his career statistically won 2 titles (including against the Celtics) and went to four finals (compared to the one for Bird)) and pretty much answered the question of who had the greater career.

Stop focusing on one line like "he's too talented to be moved that far down," and act like it is the only argument. Wilt was talented AND produced. Bill Walton was healthy for all of 3 seasons. Ricky Davis never used his talents for anything that mattered. They are horribly comparisons. It's like when people bring up Robert Horry when the titles argument comes up. It is comparing apples to oranges.

People are bringing up Bird's failures because every players failures have been brought up. Jordan quit on the game for 2 years, Russell wasn't good offensively, Kareem didn't win championships in the 70s, Magic didn't play great defense and lost to inferior Houston teams, Wilt (dear god he has so many failures listed it is kind of a joke), Shaq is terrible at free throws and gets dumped by his teams, Duncan is boring and has no flash, Kobe was selfish and started fueds, etc. Every player has had their failures brought up and analyzed. Bird should not be an exception. What bugs me are the people who think that Bird has no failures or flaws, which he absolutely did.

What new information applies to Larry Bird that would cause people to change their mind on him? The "change" with Wilt is that he had a mythical legend of feats and dominance that was driven by his gaudy statistics, and frankly, some of his own self-aggrandizing. But time has treated him well -- he wasn't considered better by the majority in the 60s, or in the 70s, but as time as passed, Russell has become Ben Wallace (and totally misunderstood) and Wilt has become regarded as some sort of GOAT offensive player. History and examination shows that's not really true. *That's* the change.

The comparison to Walton or Ricky Davis is precisely the point, as is Robert Horry. If you think Wilt should be higher for certain reasons, like longevity or producing a few years at a level few have matched, then say that. Don't say "he's talented" because it doesn't mean that he's good. Just like it's hollow to say "he has rings" -- they are not a reflection of individual success, which is why Robert Horry has 7.

The framing of Bird vs. Magic is revisionism. Bird was a better player from 1980-1986. The difference between them in 1987 is small, at best. 88-91 is obviously where Magic catches him...and maybe, just barely, passes him.

But this notion that they aren't super close at peak, and over what you get in their career, just seems baseless. How can people differentiate these players enough to sandwich one (or more) guys in between them??? Magic doesn't seem to be denigrated as time goes on (maybe on D a little). Yet I hear complaints about Bird's athleticism constantly. It smacks of major prejudice, as if athleticism has changed much in the last 30 years, and as if un-athletic players don't dominate today.

Everyone has flaws. But it's a backwards way to judge a player. Literally. If Bird has 2 flaws and Magic 1, Bird can still be much better. What everyone needs to figure out is how much positive impact a player has. It doesn't matter if that's done like Shaq -- no outside game, no dribble, no free throws -- or like Kevin Garnett, who has probably done everything at one point. It doesn't matter if Bird averaged 0 ppg in 5 Finals and Magic 30 in 5 Finals, if Bird played 10 extra years and averaged 100 ppg in every one of those games.

I've never seen anyone suggest any player was free of flaws, except Michael Jordan. It's not really hard to dispute, as Jordan missed almost 3 full years. But that doesn't tell us anything about how good he was when he played.

Similarly, noting a TS% drop or some team result tells us almost nothing about how Larry Bird played. The use of statistics by some has ranged from totally naive to misunderstood. (eg, no one seems to understand Bird was on a strong multipolar team, whereas someone like Duncan was on a unipolar team for a few years.)

[Dr Positivity]

Frankly I consider Duncan/Hakeem as inseperable as Magic/Bird. How can you choose between Duncan and Hakeem? It comes down to Duncan having a bit more intangibles and never having the low points success wise that Hakeem did and thus deserving the benefit of the doubt... but still. Nobody can really definitively say one was the better player, I don't believe. And then Shaq/Duncan is pretty hard to pick apart. In the future I suspect West and Oscar may have a few guys sandwiched in between them when they're also hard to separate.

"Can't seperate" Magic and Bird is not what makes my vote, it's why they would be or not. It's real close, but so is either of those 2 vs Duncan/Hakeem/Shaq on my list. It's a pretty big cluster **** between those 5 champions

Our job of judges is not to pay attention to previously held notions of places players have to go, it's to judge it as a blank slate. I'm not convinced Magic/Bird *have* to go together. Magic has advantages over Bird, the question is whether someone else does too

[Dr Positivity]

Also, very interesting, check out the RPOY top 10

1. Bill Russell
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Magic Johnson

6. Tim Duncan
7. Larry Bird
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Julius Erving
10. Karl Malone

So this isn't the first time Magic and Bird have been separated

[Vinsanity420]

Duncan and Hakeem are pretty easily separable. There is nothing Duncan did better than Hakeem, outside of having a slight rebounding advantage. But that's for the next thread.

[semi-sentient]

Although I'm not taking part in this project I'm thrilled about Magic getting that #4 spot over Wilt. I'm a bit surprised that Kareem is at #3 though, but also glad to see that Russell is finally getting some respect (and above Wilt as he should be).

[Dezmondballins3]

Duncan and Hakeem are pretty easily separable. There is nothing Duncan did better than Hakeem, outside of having a slight rebounding advantage. But that's for the next thread.

i think Duncan has a better mid range shot that bank shot is money.

[Dr Positivity]

Duncan and Hakeem are pretty easily separable. There is nothing Duncan did better than Hakeem, outside of having a slight rebounding advantage. But that's for the next thread.

i think Duncan has a better mid range shot that bank shot is money.

IMO it's the opposite. Hakeem is the most underrated big man jumpshooter. From what I've seen, his best shot not was the Dreamshake, it was his turnaround jumper.