RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[john248]

Depends on how you define role player. It's usually a player who has 1 or 2 skills in a complimentary role or a player with a solid skill set who can at least stay on the floor. I don't really see Mutombo or Rodman as role players since their value was great and harder to replace.

[Jaivl]

Well, I've been away from the project and the whole forum for a couple of months (and I will be another month more, until I finish my finals...). Just dropped by to give you guys a shoutout, I really thought the project would already be finished (and Pau is nearly top 50, nice ).

I guess I'll be back by the 85-90s or so. See ya guys!

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

We love people coming in and posting intelligent comments even if they don't want to commit longterm.

I am officially asking to join the project now and be a voter. I noticed that there are 49 voters but there seems to only be about 15 votes cast per round lately.

Celtics fan first. I lost the ability to watch Celtics regular season games in 1991 and have been Watching the Warriors since 1991. Now a Warriors / Celtics fan.

[penbeast0]

you have been active and involved for a while, welcome

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Thanks

[splashbrothers]

Surprised to not see Amare Stoudemire crack the top 100

[SactoKingsFan]

Surprised to not see Amare Stoudemire crack the top 100

He's on my short list of bigs that haven't been voted in, but I'd like to see Bosh and Kemp get in before Amar'e.

[splashbrothers]

Surprised to not see Amare Stoudemire crack the top 100

He's on my short list of bigs that haven't been voted in, but I'd like to see Bosh and Kemp get in before Amar'e.

Yeah good point.. I would put both Bosh and Kemp in there. Also, didnt see Melo in there or maybe I just missed him.

[penbeast0]

Nope, he's been very much in the mix the last few threads. Personally, I'm a bit surprised not to see any of the Run TMC trio with any support yet.

[TRNBA12]

I'm confused by the lack of Bosh support as well considering Elton Brand, Sheed and Horace Grant getting him over him and Pau Gasol at #53

[Joao Saraiva]

Imagine the run off ends in a tie, how do you decide who gets in?

[penbeast0]

Leave it open for sudden death voting.

[Joao Saraiva]

I didn't vote for a long time but I didn't feel in a good position to keep voting. At 1st I didn't ask to be included on the thread because I didn't watch so many basketball players in 60s and 70s, and that was actually the right call from me. I gotta work on that if I want to be involved on a project like this one. Still it's been a pleasure to read your posts guys, keep up the great work!

[wigglestrue]

I'm sure the discussions have been rich with detail and logic, but holy ******* **** is that list weird and awful.

[Clyde Frazier]

I'm sure the discussions have been rich with detail and logic, but holy ******* **** is that list weird and awful.

Thanks for that hard hitting analysis. You'd make magic johnson proud.

[wigglestrue]

I'm sure the discussions have been rich with detail and logic, but holy ******* **** is that list weird and awful.

Thanks for that hard hitting analysis. You'd make magic johnson proud.

You're welcome.

I wouldn't even know where to begin. The stench of recency bias? The baffling inconsistency of how the old timers who still made the list are rated? The radical surging-up of borderline players and sinking-down of great players?

Oh wait, I know where to begin, per usual: The one-note wonder of the world, Reggie ******* Miller. By the year 2020, will he be cracking the Top 30? Top 20? I note he is basically tied with Isiah Thomas here, an abomination which would singlehandedly ruin the credibility of this list if there weren't also a dozen other equally mindblowing fails.

I think you guys ought to institute an age minimum or something, if this is supposed to be a serious recurring project. Again, I'm sure the debates featured a dazzling array of fine-tuned arguments from several world-class basketball minds, etc. But the product -- the list -- it's starting to verge on random, misinformed Bleacher Report territory. Pitiful.

[Owly]

I'm sure the discussions have been rich with detail and logic, but holy ******* **** is that list weird and awful.

Thanks for that hard hitting analysis. You'd make magic johnson proud.

You're welcome.

I wouldn't even know where to begin. The stench of recency bias? The baffling inconsistency of how the old timers who still made the list are rated? The radical surging-up of borderline players and sinking-down of great players?

Oh wait, I know where to begin, per usual: The one-note wonder of the world, Reggie ******* Miller. By the year 2020, will he be cracking the Top 30? Top 20? I note he is basically tied with Isiah Thomas here, an abomination which would singlehandedly ruin the credibility of this list if there weren't also a dozen other equally mindblowing fails.

I think you guys ought to institute an age minimum or something, if this is supposed to be a serious recurring project. Again, I'm sure the debates featured a dazzling array of fine-tuned arguments from several world-class basketball minds, etc. But the product -- the list -- it's starting to verge on random, misinformed Bleacher Report territory. Pitiful.

I'm going to start by pointing to my first post on this board (and, apparently, my most and 1-ed).

Spoiler:

I wasn't here for the top 100 list (see my postcount) but it's a lot easier to knock a list than come up with a coherent one of your own.

Elton Brand? ROTFL.

Well a peak where you're playing the same position as three top 20 all time guys and you're roughly as good as each of them (around their primes) is certainly laughable. Seriously check Brand in '06 versus Nowitzki, Garnett and Duncan. The numbers are worse than Nowitzki's (but with better D); roughly equal to, possibly slightly worse than, Garnett's and substantially better than Duncans (Duncan had a down year).

Dwight Howard isn't ahead of Reed until he wins a title period.

Is your opinion. Justify it. As the people did when casting their votes. And to say a team achievement (regardless of individual performance) is a requisite to a certain position on these sort of lists always seems arbitrary and have little to with how that person actually played/plays basketball.

Is there a short answer for how Jerry Lucas and Dave DeBusschere finish behind Mark Price, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Elton Brand, and...well, I love Gus Williams, but, come on. Edit: Jesus chrrr...is this right, DJ didn't make it?

The short answer would be that's how the people who took part voted. The long answer would be reading their rationales.

But my quick take (besides the fact that it makes more sense to do a proper list and defend it rather than pitting guys you think are too high versus those you think are too low) is ...

Lucas: Could legitimately be higher but ... had poor playoff performances (significantly below his norms on average, and two in particular seem to be just bad); doesn't have a strong reputation as a defender; is regarded as caring too much about his stats (perhaps what some would call "empty stats).

DeBusschere: Look at his numbers, look at how teams did with him as their best player (or close to their best), look at the accolades (great defender, but only one All-NBA 2nd team appearance).
Tangent warning: That Knicks team gets to be a great example of teamwork and being better than the some sum of their parts, or it can be the sum of legendary individual parts, it can't be both. For every bit of one that it is it has to be less of the other otherwise the team would be better than it was. We've just heard Willis is too (low as in underrated: low-high language can be confusing when low numbers = "high" ratings), now DeBusschere is too low, a guy published a book with Bill Bradley as a way better forward than Dirk Nowitzki (after Dirk had won his MVP). If Frazier is a legit top 5 pg and a lock for top 35 or 40 (23rd here) and all these other guys are elite historical guys (plus Barnett and Russell who weren't slouches, or later Lucas and Monroe) then even with injuries the Knicks would have to have been somewhat less than the sum of their parts to have not maintained a dynasty.

DJ: Again look at the numbers the most visible advanced metrics suggest he was a little above average (admittedly with limited ability to quantify D). Again a very good defender and a very nice complementary piece. Unlike Dave D, traded for cents on the dollar because he was considered a malcontent and disruptive locker room presence by coaches. Again the overall accolades (again with strong D, say 1 1st Team All-NBA and one 2nd Team) probably suggests around the 100 ballpark would be fair.

I mean if you want to make a case for these guys then make a case; don't just turn up late to the meeting and then just tell everyone that their decisions were garbage.

TL;DR I said (to wiggles) it's easier to whine than to take part, make your voice heard, participate in the coming project. And if you want to know why people voted as they did, read it.

And what we get is ... an admission that the debate hasn't even been read, and a complaint about the rankings.

Grrrr

Still if you still don't want to read what happened from the horses mouth ...

On inconsistency in general that's something that happens with the voting process chosen (though there are significant positives too), and to a large degree with any process with multiple voices, and this is something those involved in pre-discussion know. In terms of specifics it really depends on which old-timers you mean (I'm guessing Cousy).

In terms of Isiah, I have literally no idea what to tell you. Look at where he was in terms of MVP voting at the time. Look at where he's been in terms of the RealGM Retro Player of the Year project. Look at his advanced metrics. Look at contemporary opinions of how good he was through his prime, before his career was distorted by being viewed excessively through rose-tinted spectacles of being the "star" of two title teams.

In terms of Reggie, personally I wouldn't have had him that high, but on the most recent published lists he went at 52 (Pat Williams, 2012), 54 (Slam 2011) and 49 (Beckett 2011). He got in at 40 here. You make it sound like the ranking was vastly out of tune with the conventional "mainstream" opinion and it isn't, not that the purpose of the project was to parrot such thinking anyway.

But the main point I'd make is, not having participated (which is fine, it's your time, your life, entirely understandable) rather than the platitudes (between the insults) read the arguments given. And if you aren't persuaded by them start a thread on them and respond to the specific points made.

But I struggle to comprehend the motivation behind, what is essentially "You guys did a terrible job". Post your list. Make your arguments, tell people why you believe they were wrong. Because as it is, it's like saying "You're wrong. You're dumb." Assuming you're right, and you've got it all figured out, if you were a teacher would you put it to a child like that, or would you look at why they've reached the conclusions and seek to correct specific errors.

[wigglestrue]

Owly, you rock.

Again, I'm sure there's no shortage of reasoning behind the weirdness. This board features some of the world's brightest NBA history obsessives. There's just something amiss with the voting. The method, the criteria, the voting pool, something.

Miller being 40 is bad enough. I know there are sophisticated arguments for his one trick being super-valuable. Maybe in 2003 he had a better case for being Top 50 than I realized at the time, however I might still strenuously argue for more well-rounded players over him. He might have had a non-illegitimate case for Top 50 then. In the dozen years since several new players have entered the Top 50, e.g., Chris Paul. So, regardless of the mainstream consensus on Miller (which is based way more on the shallow impressions of crowdthink and way less on this board's signature rational deliberation) that now has Miller as a shoo-in Top 50 candidate, given how many new players have passed the longevity test and since established clearcut claims to Top 10/20/30/40/50 status, Miller should only be even further away from the Top 50, not closer within it. This board ought to be a rare place of sanity re: ranking Reggie Miller. Not a place where a wack consensus is reinforced. But not a place where a genuinely-illuminating next-level argument against the equally-reflexive anti-Miller anti-consensus (e.g., me at times, sorry) gives everyone the vapors, either.

There are many more players than before on this new list who Miller has no business outranking, even considering any deserved pro-Miller re-revisionism. There are also now players in Miller's vicinity who've within the last decade held very firm claims to Top 25 status, even Top 10-15. I have no idea what is happening to Isiah's reputation, but whatever it is, it's a damnable shame. I see Olajuwon now outranking Bird, in no small part because of the two titles he snagged while Jordan sat out. Isiah's two titles were gained only by conquering Bird, Magic, and Jordan. Ah, but so the new wrinkle is that it wasn't "Isiah's team" as much as people have thought, or that he wasn't really a first-tier star? Or maybe it has something to do with how basketball nerd-dom has decided that assists are overrated? Whatever it is, it's an instance of thinking about 50-75% too-damn-much. Anyway, the juxtaposition of Isiah and Reggie is just the epitome to me of what's wrong with the list, whatever that happens to be. I'll be glad to do a deep, error-by-error postmortem once the list is complete, diving into the discussions here pertaining to each. I need to know what the hell has happened to, say, Elgin Baylor. Or, for the love of all that is holy, Bob Cousy.

[Quotatious]

So, everything that wigglestrue said basically comes down to - "it's a shame that conventional wisdom hasn't prevailed" (honestly, to me it has prevailed TOO MUCH, rather than not enough - in fact, I often accuse myself of not being able to get rid of the "conventional" thinking, as much as I would like to).

The fact that wigglestrue admits that he hasn't read the discussion, but the list still sucks (especially considering that he actually seemed to praise the level of knowledge and analysis of the participants), is so illogical that it's totally hilarious (but on the other hand, it's also just sad, because it's pretty much the same thing as criticizing a book or a movie or whatever, without reading/watching it, based just on reading a review of it, or you can also say that it's similar to judging a book based solely on its cover).

I mean - come on, man.

Everybody had a chance to participate in the project, to try to convince others about certain players, to make an impact, so I really don't know why someone would just come here and whine about the results.

[Clyde Frazier]

So, everything that wigglestrue said basically comes down to - "it's a shame that conventional wisdom hasn't prevailed" (honestly, to me it has prevailed TOO MUCH, rather than not enough - in fact, I often accuse myself of not being able to get rid of the "conventional" thinking, as much as I would like to).

The fact that wigglestrue admits that he hasn't read the discussion, but the list still sucks (especially considering that he actually seemed to praise the level of knowledge and analysis of the participants), is so illogical that it's totally hilarious (but on the other hand, it's also just sad, because it's pretty much the same thing as criticizing a book or a movie or whatever, without reading/watching it, based just on a reading a review of it, or you can also say that it's similar to judging a book based solely on its cover).

I mean - come on, man.

Everybody had a chance to participate in the project, to try to convince others about certain players, to make an impact, so I really don't know why someone would just come here and whine about the results.

Yeah, i mean obviously there aren’t that many of us left who stuck it through til the end, but if you didn’t participate in the project at all (or even read it for that matter…), judging it so blatantly is just illogical. I’ll also fully admit there are around 10 players who I really disagreed with being selected when they did, but that doesn’t change the fact that the project as a whole has been a success.

And at the end of the day, it’s not so much about where the players land as it is about the discussion. Not to mention that as we had less voters, where players place falls a little more to chance. I personally liked the rules we had for voting, though. My biggest takeaway from the project was fine tuning how I evaluate a player’s career and becoming more cognizant of what I value most.