RealGM Top 100 List #50

[penbeast0]

Criteria: Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball.

Voting Will End In 2 Days -- Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Dennis Rodman

2x All-NBA 3rd Team
5x NBA Champion
2x Defensive Player of the Year
7x All-Defense 1st Team
1x All-Defense 2nd Team
2x All-Star


Grant Hill

1x 1st Team All-NBA
3x 2nd Team All-NBA
7x All-Star
Rookie of the Year


Wes Unseld

Hall of Fame 1988
MVP 1969
All-NBA 1st 1969
NBA Champion 1978
Finals MVP 1978
5x All-Star


Bob Lanier

HOF 1992
8x All-Star

Ray Allen

1x All-NBA 2nd
1x All-NBA 3rd
NBA Champion 200
10x NBA All-Star


Alex English

Hall of Fame 1997
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
8x All-STar

Bob McAdoo

Hall of Fame 2000
MVP (1975)
1x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x NBA Champion (LAL)
5x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1973)


Kevin Johnson

4x2nd Team All-NBA
1x3rd Team All-NBA
NBA Most Improved Player 1989
3xAll-Star

Sidney Moncrief

1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x Defensive Player of the Year
4x All-Defense 1st Team
1x All-Defense 2nd TEam
5x All-Star


Chris Paul

1x1st Team All-NBA
1x2nd Team All-NBA
1x3rd Team All-NBA
1x1st Team All-Defense
2x2nd Team All-Defense
Rookie of the Year 2006
5xAll-Star

[penbeast0]

Voting Candidates
We have two PGs on the board. Chris Paul has only played 5 years in the NBA and only 2 really peak years but those two were as impressive as any small guard who has ever played in the NBA. Kevin Johnson had great numbers and played on some very good Phoenix teams although he never won a title but he has less accolades than Paul. Paul has better peak numbers than KJ but when you look at how elite the teams are, KJ's Phoenix teams were far more likely to be elite, even before Barkley joined them so I lean to KJ over Paul.

Moncrief has the peak advantage with equal offense and all-time GOAT man defense among the wings; but for only 5 seasons. Still, his 5 seasons were more dominant than Chris Paul's both on an individual and a team level. English and Allen give you a long consistent run on the wing with good efficiency and team values; Grant Hill played at the same peak level as English or Allen (less efficient scorer, more of a do everything guy) but injuries cut him down to a role player after his short peak as they did Moncrief (only Hill has lasted longer as a role player).

Then you have the bigs. Bob Lanier was the Amare Stoudamire of his era, good offense, weak defense, but without the accolades (never made a single All-NBA team). Wes Unseld is the opposite, MVP and Finals MVP without great stats but does all the things tht didn't show up in the stats (outlet passing, GOAT picks, leadership). Bob McAdoo had the best numbers of the bunch (peak numbers anyway) but gives you little defense, didn't win as a star, and had major substance abuse and coachability issues. And then there is Dennis Rodman, GOAT rebounding, at times great defense, no scoring and maybe the flakiest player to ever lace up.

Vote: So, short peak, it's Moncrief over McAdoo -- both more dominant than Chris Paul; KJ had slightly longer but less dominant peak; long career at a high level would indicate Alex English. Moncrief's team was good offensively (2 top 6 years in his 5 year prime) and elite defensively (4 times out of 5 in top 2 defensively) despite rotating big men so I will vote for Sidney Moncrief, he was just that terrific for his short 5 year stretch. Willing to switch to Alex English if the competition heats up.

Moncrief v. Paul (short version, hope to put longer one up). Moncrief scored as much with better efficiency in a more balanced but faster paced offense. Moncrief is arguably the GOAT wing defender; Paul is good but nowhere near that class. Paul is a terrific playmaker; Moncrief was a good one for a wing but not in Paul's class. Individually, I value Moncrief's defense more than Paul's playmaking. Looking at team success, Paul's playmaking should make his team elite if he is really in the Steve Nash realm of impact (Nash's MVPs and rank on our list come from his team impact) -- but it doesn't. Paul has a definite impact but Moncrief's Bucks are actually the better offensive team over each's 5 year peak -- and Paul's debut coincides with New Orleans's second best offensive player over that stretch starting, David West. Now let's look at defense -- Paul's team isn't bad but not great; Moncrief's team is just that, GREAT. They finish first or second four of Moncrief's 5 full years during his peak plus moved up from 13th to 8th, then 3rd in his first two part time seasons. When he was injured, they stayed high for a year as Paul Pressey and Ricky Pierce had their career years then fell back to 13th. Moncrief had a sort of comeback for a year leading the Bucks back to 6th defensively then went to Atlanta with Milwaukee dropping back to 14th. This is the kind of defensive impact you expect from a game changing, difference making, DPOY -- the award that Moncrief won the first two years of it's existence.

[colts18]

Vote: Kevin Johnson

Nominate: Pau Gasol

[penbeast0]

Point Guards -- Chauncey Billups was suprisingly efficient and solid on both ends of the court once he got established in Detroit. Nate Archibald was the most dominant PG left for 4 years, but was neither terribly efficient nor played any defense. Penny was similarly flashy in his short peak but without Tiny's superior playmaking and less dominant overall.

Wings -- On the wings, there are still great scorers left . . . the more spectacular but less consistent Bernard King, Mark Aquirre, or David Thompson, or the statistically most efficient Adrian Dantley or the early NBA stars like Paul Arizin, Sam Jones, and Hal Greer -- I lean to Sam Jones. James Worthy got some mention too but like Cedric Maxwell (though for much longer), he basically was a third option who fattened off being a single covered postup player with a Finals MVP. Very good player, not great on the level of some of the previously mentioned stars.

Big Men -- Bobby Jones came up as a PF but won 1st team all-defense awards during years where he played PF/C (Denver), PF/SF (most of career), and even SF/SG (Philly when they added Barkley) plus he was a consistent top 10 in the league in fg% while scoring in the 10-15ppg range; his disadvantage is that he was an energizer bunny type player whose coaches consistently limited his minutes to about 30/g after his first couple of years. On the offensive end, Amare Stoudamire and Chris Webber just have too many issues to rank above Jones or Rodman. Pau Gasol may be the best alternative to Bobby Jones -- championships do matter and both are more great second bananas than primary stars though both were the best player on their teams early in their careers (Bobby Jones's 75 Denver team had the best record in either league with him as top star).

The centers left all have some issue with their games. Neil Johnston and Mel Daniels played against inferior competition during their primes and were more limited besides. Dikembe Mutombo wasn't a scorer but brings great shotblocking. Dikembe Mutombo

Playoffs between these. Billups had the big playoff run and earned the nickname Mr. Big Shot, Sam Jones was the lead scorer on a lot of those Celtics champions, Bobby Jones led Denver to the best record in either league in 75 as the best player then was the glue guy on those great Philly teams that competed with the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics for league dominance. Mutombo helped get Allen Iverson to a title game and upset 1st seed Seattle as an 8th seed in Denver.

Willing to go with any of these 4 and open to arguments for others as well. For now, will throw a tentative vote for Sam Jones as the go to guy offensively for most of the Celtics championship run (yes, over Havlicek or Cousy).

[penbeast0]

From a list:

David Stern votes for Bob Lanier, nominates Marques Johnson.

Commish, if you are back and I don't need to post these anymore, let me know. Thanks.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Kevin Johnson

Nominate Bernard King

Was sold on King after looking at it, slightly over Pau and Parish. And especially in comparison to Marques

- Both players have one big year, but King's is clearly bigger, the statistics are better, he's more lauded (though NY vs Milwaukee obviously had something to do with that) and most importantly, he drops a 35ppg .62 TS% in 12 Gs in the playoffs which is on the short list of holy crap runs. Of what I've watched of that King, he passes the eye test of a player you can't really guard. This is a complete superstar, can win a title as the clear man year, which there is few left.

- Aside from that both players settle in 21-22ppg 50-53% players. Considering how closely their scoring statistics line up and they play the same position, it's hard for me to think that tier 2 King, at least in his younger days, can have that much less impact than Marques Johnson's not big years. In years alone, King actually lasts longer than Marques does. The Washington impact looks weak to me considering that team had talent and failed, but he takes the Warriors to 39 and 45 Ws and the Knicks to 44 in 83. After King is traded for 80-82 all-star MRR (and to prove GSW King had respect, the Knicks had to add a draft pick to that trade) the Knicks go from 33 to 44 Ws, I counted the Warriors being at 20-27 on bballref's page before trading MRR, though he plays 33 Gs of 47 and isn't the same player

So overall I would suggest the difference between 80, 82, 83, 84 Marques and 81, 82, 83 King isn't that large. King's rook/soph vs Marques rook and 16ppg 82 season looks close. And LAC Marques and Wash King probably deserve about the same respect except King has more years there to make up for Marques having an extra year in the first group. Marques hasn't proven enough in the rest of their careers to make up for Bernard King having the ace in the hole of that epic year, and even 1 or 2 epic years have a lot of value in this project, as shown by Walton and Paul's support. The value of a guy who can take you to a championship without outstanding help is really high

[Dr Positivity]

Also one more thing with Marques that makes me wary - Would you rather have him than Manu and Vince? I wouldn't. They're just more complete players by my discerning eye due to their playmaking ability and range. Not mentioning Melo who I would probably have ahead but I can understand the argument against

I like Marques and I think he was the holder of the most underrated ever title belt for a while (Mark Aguirre has it now), but I think taking a step back and looking at what he does on the court, it's hard for me to argue his function on the court makes him a better player than King, Vince or Manu who just have more game by my perspective

[therealbig3]

Vote: Chris Paul
Nominate: Marques Johnson

[lorak]

From a list:

David Stern votes for Bob Lanier, nominates Marques Johnson.

Commish, if you are back and I don't need to post these anymore, let me know. Thanks.

I'm back and my vote and nomination would be different, but I have to think about it ;]

[ElGee]

from last thread:

Could Hayes supporters explain why he's better than Lanier?

Defense and his teams won during his peak, best team of the 70s while Detroit was thorougly mediocre with Lanier and Bing over their decade . . . whether it's Hayes or Unseld, one of them should get credit since the rest of the team turned over.

...Big Bob was a very good player but there's a reason why someone else always got the All-NBA teams despite nice numbers.

That's a very dangerous mindset. A good front office can exchange value for value. Or draft value to replace exiting value. Phil Chenier was a very good player from my limited exposure to him. Clark and Riordan were good too. Jump to 76 and Dave Bing and Truck Robinson were there. Then of course Dandridge joins the team in 78 and 79 and they win the title and the ECF.

To further denigrate Bob Lanier by saying "there's a reason why someone else always got All-NBA" and not mention the reason is totally unfair. Lanier didn't get it because prime Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was in the league and there was one other spot...which in 1973 went to high-profile (and media darling) center Dave Cowens, in 1974 to Bob McAdoo (2nd in MVP) in 75 to McAdoo (MVP) and Cowens, 76 to Cowens, 77 and 78 were taken by PEAK Bill Walton and Kareem. 79-81 Moses and Kareem.

Meanwhile Lanier played in Detroit on teams that clearly weren't very good. I don't see how that knocks on Lanier at all.

[ElGee]

Also one more thing with Marques that makes me wary - Would you rather have him than Manu and Vince? I wouldn't. They're just more complete players by my discerning eye due to their playmaking ability and range. Not mentioning Melo who I would probably have ahead but I can understand the argument against

I like Marques and I think he was the holder of the most underrated ever title belt for a while (Mark Aguirre has it now), but I think taking a step back and looking at what he does on the court, it's hard for me to argue his function on the court makes him a better player than King, Vince or Manu who just have more game by my perspective

Umm, yes I'd rather have peak Marques Johnson than peak Vince Carter. "More complete player" means very little if the completeness isn't as good. Paul Pierce is a more complete player than peak King, but he wasn't better.

I really don't understand the shifting of criteria from people, other than my theory about people not thinking this far out and therefore being a bit lost on who should go where (instead of sticking with the same thought processes that generated the top of their list in the first place).

There was a slight tendency to talk in broad strokes about our top players, but clearly it didn't mean much (peak Wilt vs. struggling Wilt, Garnett's career micro-analyzed, Charles Barkley's ups and downs, Baylor's injuries, etc.) Now, with the player pool becoming much wider, I see people talk about guys like they were the same player year in and year out. That's obviously not the case. A second year is different from a 5th and from a 10th. And when injuries, drugs and inconsistencies are in play, I don't understand why anyone would suddenly talk about these players like were some constant throughout their career. Look at the current batch:

Marques: Big rookie year, injury year in 82, last good year in 84 (7th season)
King: Major issues early in career, little impact. Better in 82-83, 2 monster years, devastating injury (8th season)
Rodman: Goes from 6th man/small forward defensive specialist to rebounding specialist at the 4 and 5. Has years where he is a total headcase, is suspended, and totally limits his PT
Hill: 4 good years, another in 2000 in play, then devastating injury
Unseld: MVP as a rookie (!?) then a big injury in 3rd-year that slightly alter his game and role for the rest of the decade.
McAdoo: Basically a 3-year peak player. All kinds of issues after that and then a role player.

And so on. To me, talking about these guys from a career value/what they give you if you draft them perspective in broad terms makes very little sense, since they fluctuate so much in performance. If they were consistent, we would have talked about them 2 months ago. They aren't, and that's the crux of the issue. To determine how much you value a peak, what the prime looks like, how well he played RPOY style over his career, and if you want him on a team/franchise...some combination of those need to be figured out amidst the pros and cons. Ideally, it's the same weight/criteria you used at the top of the list too.

It's not as simple as "I just feel like he was more complete or just played better." And we know that from the definition of the project and precedent, or else Bill Walton would be in the top-15.

[ElGee]

vote: Chris Paul
nominate: Marques Johnson

Again, I haven't seen a single thing I've said about Marques rebutted, so it's just utterly confusing why he isn't nominated but Moncrief has been on the board forever (nominated 9 threads ago!). Marques was the catalyst for the Bucks turnaround at the end of the decade. Then, when Moncrief becomes the star, Marques IS STILL the key performer in the PS!

[lorak]

I think we all love King, his 1984 run was AMAZING, but was he overall better than Dantley?

[Chris435]

vote: Chris Paul
nominate: Marques Johnson

Again, I haven't seen a single thing I've said about Marques rebutted, so it's just utterly confusing why he isn't nominated but Moncrief has been on the board forever (nominated 9 threads ago!). Marques was the catalyst for the Bucks turnaround at the end of the decade. Then, when Moncrief becomes the star, Marques IS STILL the key performer in the PS!

this is off topic but..

i've got a question about one of your old articles on your blog. Can I PM, email, or something along those lines?

let me know..

[Dr Positivity]

Yes, but the point is I'm not convinced what makes Marques a better scorer than Vince and Manu. It seems like something we've lost in the discussion is not just how much these guys score, but how they do it. Marques seems to have more in common with James Worthy or a lesser volume Nique/Baylor to me, than Manu and Vince - as a really athletic SF you don't want anywhere near the basket and don't want to see on a fastbreak, and who will like to cut to get open for shots - and who can hit jumpshots, but it isn't a go to like it is for Manu or eventually Vince. He isn't a finesse skill guy, he's a physical cutting guy. Now it really depends on how good you are at the style of play you have than what it is, but as with Worthy, I generally have an inclination towards the on ball creators and playmakers who the offense is run through here than the efficient off ball finishers. Worthy vs Marques seems like a really, really solid comparison actually

@ Pierce vs King. Well the difference is prime King just scores at a higher level than Pierce and it shows up in the stats too. With Marques you can genuinely say Vince and Manu's scoring is not less impressive statistically. Marques a lot of the time is sitting around the 21-22ppg .56-.58 TS% range which is good and, but he doesn't knock the doors down

[Doctor MJ]

I think we all love King, his 1984 run was AMAZING, but was he overall better than Dantley?

I think that question is about how you view Dantley.

My opinion is that that the gap between his stats and his net impact is possibly the biggest of any player in NBA history. I don't look at Dantley at all as someone to build around as a result of this.

King on the other hand, has a peak way better than a lot of players I'd be happy to build around.

[ronnymac2]

I think we all love King, his 1984 run was AMAZING, but was he overall better than Dantley?

I think that question is about how you view Dantley.

My opinion is that that the gap between his stats and his net impact is possibly the biggest of any player in NBA history. I don't look at Dantley at all as someone to build around as a result of this.

King on the other hand, has a peak way better than a lot of players I'd be happy to build around.

How do you feel about Dantley's 1988 season?

[Doctor MJ]

How do you feel about Dantley's 1988 season?

I feel like the Pistons didn't see any major change when Dantley arrived or left, despite having no one in his league statistically. That doesn't make him a worthless player by any means, but we aren't having a discussion that includes players in the same stratosphere as Mark Aguirre.

[penbeast0]

Sure we are . . . Marques Johnson, Bernard King, Carmelo Anthony . . . these are players in the same stratosphere as Mark Aguirre. Although I intensely disliked Aguirre when he played, for 5 years he was a consistent 20+ppg on 50%+ fg% scorer who led a very good Dallas team to some fine years. I don't think he was quite as good as Marques Johnson, Bernard King, or Carmelo Anthony, but he's in that same stratosphere.

[FJS]

vote McAdoo
Nominate Worthy