RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[Purch]

I'm beginning to feel corners of this forum are getting bit too shooting efficiency-centric.

A "bit too" was putting it charitably. The uber-nerd contingent has absolutely overdosed on the significance/primacy of shooting efficiency. So far that seems to be the one big, recurring prejudice behind most of the list's weirdness.

Realgm is a very hard place to conceptualize..

[Reservoirdawgs]

I hope you all make a separate thread to discuss what went well, what could be improved, etc. With that said...

a gigantic CONGRATS to everyone who stuck with it from beginning to end. My knowledge of basketball and the NBA has increased by leaps and bounds due to the great discussion. My own preconceived beliefs were challenged and I have changed my rankings due to some incredibly convincing arguments brought forth by the posters. Huge props go to Penbeast for throwing together a well-organized and well run event for the PC Board.

[CalathesD]

Kobe at 13...hehehehe.

Stopped reading.

[bwgood77]

The one that jumps out to be as being quite overrated on this list is Shaq. He was awesome in his prime, but he also only played like half the season (in shape) even in much of his prime. I can't for the life of me understand how he could be ahead of guys like Magic and Bird who were all about winning all the time, no matter what, did all the little things to help their team win, would never come into the season not ready to play basketball and have to work themselves into shape half the year. Those guys seem like they should be in a completely different tier than Shaq. It was a huge upset any year either one of those guys didn't make the finals...it was just expected until they were well past their primes.

[Quotatious]

The one that jumps out to be as being quite overrated on this list is Shaq. He was awesome in his prime, but he also only played like half the season (in shape) even in much of his prime. I can't for the life of me understand how he could be ahead of guys like Magic and Bird who were all about winning all the time, no matter what, did all the little things to help their team win, would never come into the season not ready to play basketball and have to work themselves into shape half the year. Those guys seem like they should be in a completely different tier than Shaq. It was a huge upset any year either one of those guys didn't make the finals...it was just expected until they were well past their primes.

It's actually pretty simple - Shaq was clearly more dominant when he actually played, and he usually came up big in the playoffs. Unlike Magic and Bird, Shaq was also a big defensive presence at his peak (strong DPOY candidate in 2000) in addition to his unstoppable offense. Also, Larry and Magic played on very stacked teams (and Magic had a very easy path to the finals almost every year, because of how loaded the Lakers were compared to other Western conference teams in the eighties). Obviously Shaq also had some good help (Penny, Kobe, Wade), but his teams were basically never as talented as Magic's and Bird's.

I don't know why we should penalize Shaq for supposedly not squeezing 100% of his potential. I think it's always better to focus on what a player actually did, than what more he could've done, because the latter is often just a pure speculation. Shaq's teams were making the playoffs almost every year (other than his rookie year, but even then, they just barely missed it), so him playing just 50-60 regular season games wasn't a big deal. I think we should also take the fact that Shaq had some natural limitations, into account - I mean, for a man as huge as O'Neal, he was remarkably durable, and his longevity was pretty great (he was more or less in his prime between 1993 and 2006, so 14 seasons, and even in 2009, he had a very good season in Phoenix).

[bwgood77]

The one that jumps out to be as being quite overrated on this list is Shaq. He was awesome in his prime, but he also only played like half the season (in shape) even in much of his prime. I can't for the life of me understand how he could be ahead of guys like Magic and Bird who were all about winning all the time, no matter what, did all the little things to help their team win, would never come into the season not ready to play basketball and have to work themselves into shape half the year. Those guys seem like they should be in a completely different tier than Shaq. It was a huge upset any year either one of those guys didn't make the finals...it was just expected until they were well past their primes.

It's actually pretty simple - Shaq was clearly more dominant when he actually played, and he usually came up big in the playoffs. Unlike Magic and Bird, Shaq was also a big defensive presence at his peak (strong DPOY candidate in 2000) in addition to his unstoppable offense. Also, Larry and Magic played on very stacked teams (and Magic had a very easy path to the finals almost every year, because of how loaded the Lakers were compared to other Western conference teams in the eighties). Obviously Shaq also had some good help (Penny, Kobe, Wade), but his teams were basically never as talented as Magic's and Bird's.

I don't know why we should penalize Shaq for supposedly not squeezing 100% of his potential. I think it's always better to focus on what a player actually did, than what more he could've done, because the latter is often just a pure speculation. Shaq's teams were making the playoffs almost every year (other than his rookie year, but even then, they just barely missed it), so him playing 50-60 games wasn't a big deal. I think we should also take the fact that Shaq had some natural limitations, into account - I mean, for a man as huge as O'Neal, he was remarkably durable, and his longevity was pretty great (he was more or less in his prime between 1993 and 2006, so 14 seasons, and even in 2009, he had a very good season in Phoenix).

I just disagree. Did you watch Magic and Bird? Their skill level was on another level. And I think in general people don't give premier players sometimes enough credit when they personally elevate their teams to another level...I mean elevate the rest of the players to make them look like a better surrounding cast than they would be without them. Magic did have a stacked team at the beginning with Kareem...just the two of them was pretty much enough....but he was still on his last legs, and Magic, as a rookie, had to play huge roles in the playoffs, which you never see these days. And of course Magic had Worthy too, so they were stacked, but so was Jordan with Pippen....and they didn't have a team as good as Boston and Bird battling them in the finals every year to diminish each of their numbers of championships. Magic and Bird both willed their college teams to the NCAA finals...Bird played for Indiana St! Some of the stuff these guys did was uncanny. There is no denying Shaq was awesome but his finals wins didn't come against terribly impressive teams...not like Bird's Celtics. They luckily beat Portland the first year and Sacramento the next and barely got out of the west. I just don't see it....and I am not a fan of the Celtics or the Lakers especially, but those teams were juggernauts for a decade straight because of those guys.

[Owly]

The one that jumps out to be as being quite overrated on this list is Shaq. He was awesome in his prime, but he also only played like half the season (in shape) even in much of his prime.

As Q has already covered the competition for Shaq isn't hypothetical Shaq. It's his actual career versus other actual careers. He gets penalised for "healing on company time" and that nonsense. But just from his '94 campaign to '05 he averaged a 28.5 PER and .234 WS/48 in 29914 minutes. There's a fairly substantial chunk of production there. And he then was healthy for the playoffs each year and played well in them each year until '05 (with a '94 questionable in a small sample).

I can't for the life of me understand how he could be ahead of guys like Magic and Bird who were all about winning all the time

What does this mean in terms of actual production and influencing outcomes. Rather than abstract winner labels. Fwiw, I've seen it alleged (iirc by Boston homer Bill Simmons) that Bird (and the Celtics) were unmotived against lousy opposition which prevented them from breaking the 70 win barrier in '86. If true that would suggest he wasn't "all about winnning all of the time" (which isn't to say Larry is/wasn't massively competitive). But that is a side point, the main point is vague abstactions didn't tend to win backing in the project and I suspect it won't win people over now.

no matter what, did all the little things to help their team win

Elements of hyperbole here. Whilst they are clearly more "complete" than Shaq and can help in more different ways, did they do "all the little things". Magic was a pretty average defender and often forced two or three teammates to guard a position below their nominal position.

would never come into the season not ready to play basketball and have to work themselves into shape half the year.

Main point: As covered Shaq is rated on his actual career, versus others not versus a hypothetical one.
Side points: Fwiw wouldn't Bird's (apparently somewhat concealed) softball injury constitute him risking his readiness to play basketball (some, wrongly IMO, even suggest it harmed his shooting, and thereby implicitly his entire career).

Bird even went so far as to hide the injury from the Celtics for fear it might hurt his contract negotiating strength.

Similarly misfortune aside, it's hard to say anyone other than Magic was responsible for Magic not being "fit"/healthy to take the court from '91 on.

Those guys seem like they should be in a completely different tier than Shaq.

Because ...

It was a huge upset any year either one of those guys didn't make the finals...it was just expected until they were well past their primes.

Magic didn't play well past his prime (apart from the breif '96 comeback). Bird didn't make a finals after his prime.

It was a surprise when the Lakers didn't make the finals, but then they played some of the worst competition, conference wise, ever (see the strength of schedule on basketball-reference). And alongside Magic there was arguably the greatest center ever (post peak but still an MVP contender through '85) and generally a pretty strong supporting cast.

[bwgood77]

Oh yeah, if these rankings are more based on PER rankings, then the rankings make more sense.

[Quotatious]

Oh yeah, if these rankings are more based on PER rankings, then the rankings make more sense.

No, PER wasn't really a big factor, otherwise Bill Russell wouldn't even sniff the top 10, and he's actually ranked third (several posters even voted for him as the GOAT, over Jordan and Kareem).

[penbeast0]

They weren't . . . as you would know if you had read the threads rather than just looked at the list.

[bwgood77]

Oh yeah, if these rankings are more based on PER rankings, then the rankings make more sense.

No, PER wasn't really a big factor, otherwise Bill Russell wouldn't even sniff the top 10, and he's actually ranked third (several posters even voted for him as the GOAT, over Jordan and Kareem).

Yeah, I figure Russell makes it so high primarily because of the number of rings, but when there were 8 or 9 teams in the league and two playoff series to win a ring, it was significantly easier to win a ring in those days if you had two stars.

But I didn't watch him, so I can't really make a statement based on the eye test, like I can with the other guys I mentioned.

[Owly]

Oh yeah, if these rankings are more based on PER rankings, then the rankings make more sense.

No, PER wasn't really a big factor, otherwise Bill Russell wouldn't even sniff the top 10, and he's actually ranked third (several posters even voted for him as the GOAT, over Jordan and Kareem).

Yeah, I figure Russell makes it so high primarily because of the number of rings, but when there were 8 or 9 teams in the league and two playoff series to win a ring, it was significantly easier to win a ring in those days if you had two stars.

But I didn't watch him, so I can't really make a statement based on the eye test, like I can with the other guys I mentioned.

Argh!

No he wasn't. I'm not typically a Russell advocate but I'm not so naive as to think think his case is on something so flimsy as being on team that won titles (the one that is met by a Horry, Salley, Edwards, Kerr, Charles Johnson etc response).

Regarding Shaq, as should now be abundantly clear PER wasn't a major factor in voting; it is (and was - along with other basketball-reference metrics) a convenient and accessible (both in the sense of available and widely known) shorthand for remarkable boxscore productivity. It's imperfections are widely known but is a sight better than a case on vague abstractions about "willing teams to success". Or indeed diminshing Shaq's career because, at his apex, his teams had to go through a tougher conference so the finals were typically comparatively easy.

The first page of the thread contains links to voting threads. If you want to know people's reasoning for voting for any player, it's there.

[bwgood77]

I never said PER was used for voting, but thought his (Shaq's) ranking would make more sense to me if PER DID play a large part in the rankings. It appeared he was a bit lower in earlier versions of the rankings, which in my opinion is about where I would put him, and I can't see what he could have done since those earlier versions to move up, unless we just had an influx of fans coming in to vote with a significantly different opinion about him than those who voted prior.

This is just my personal opinion though. No need to be frustrated about it. I think the list, as a whole, is pretty accurate. As far as Russell, I don't think he is overrated on the list...it's probably about right, but I do think on occasion people rank him a bit higher because there is a fairly significant portion of fans who put more weight on number of rings than maybe is deserved, because of lot of that is based on teammates, injuries, luck, number of teams in league, strength of teams in league, number of superstars in an era, etc.

And I'm not saying the above paragraph describes anyone who has posted in this thread since I posted. It's just a general opinion I feel. And I would never equate Russell to Horry, Kerr etc...obviously the leader and star (or one of two stars) is different than a role player.

[CurryUpNow]

Webber rated too low.. Look at his stats.. He should be top 60

[SactoKingsFan]

Webber rated too low.. Look at his stats.. He should be top 60

I'm pretty high on Webber and was one of his main advocates during the project, however I don't think he should be in the top 60. Even though Webber was extremely skilled, had an impressive peak and was a solid defender, he had enough significant issues (poor prime durability/longevity, inefficient scorer for a big, pre-Sacto maturity problems) to keep him out of top 60. I'm more comfortable with him in the top 75.

[Witzig-Okashi]

I never said PER was used for voting, but thought his (Shaq's) ranking would make more sense to me if PER DID play a large part in the rankings. It appeared he was a bit lower in earlier versions of the rankings, which in my opinion is about where I would put him, and I can't see what he could have done since those earlier versions to move up, unless we just had an influx of fans coming in to vote with a significantly different opinion about him than those who voted prior.

This is just my personal opinion though. No need to be frustrated about it. I think the list, as a whole, is pretty accurate. As far as Russell, I don't think he is overrated on the list...it's probably about right, but I do think on occasion people rank him a bit higher because there is a fairly significant portion of fans who put more weight on number of rings than maybe is deserved, because of lot of that is based on teammates, injuries, luck, number of teams in league, strength of teams in league, number of superstars in an era, etc.

And I'm not saying the above paragraph describes anyone who has posted in this thread since I posted. It's just a general opinion I feel. And I would never equate Russell to Horry, Kerr etc...obviously the leader and star (or one of two stars) is different than a role player.

The links of the debates that went into the decisions of the rankings would clear up your skepticism, assuming that you haven't read some of them already. I personally wanted to partake, but was concerned about not being partisan to all of the players flaws and strengths....

[ciregno]

you voters seriously overrate kg on these boards. kobe over kg? haters.

[Palma Dutch]

Why the f--- is Bill Walton not in the top 100?

[Quotatious]

Why the f--- is Bill Walton not in the top 100?

His peak is clearly top 20 of all-time, but his career was extremely short, and most voters decided to vote for players who had long, consistent careers, even if they didn't have nearly as high peaks as Walton.

[Palma Dutch]

Why the f--- is Bill Walton not in the top 100?

His peak is clearly top 20 of all-time, but his career was extremely short, and most voters decided to vote for players who had long, consistent careers, even if they didn't have nearly as high peaks as Walton.

bull.

That's an awful counter argument, but there's no way in hell Walton's career isn't in the top 100.