RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[WorldBeFree]

If you have an intelligent argument for Iverson, make it. If that's all you've got, please don't bother to post in this project.

Iverson is the best player of all time for his size. He carried a bad sixers team to the finals and provided the only loss for the lakers. Why is Howard ranked before him? Iverson could take everyone and every night, he had his problems, but from a playing state point he was at least on the level of Wade and better then nash or some others. He has no rings i know, but he was a great player and to leave him out i just dont get it. I wont argue with the older guys who are listed infront him, i never saw them play. Miller also a all time great but i dont believe he is better then iverson infact miller himself said he wouldnt put himself in the next 10 list (next guys who.make the all time greatest list of the mvp) on opener court. So clearly the players know how great iverson was, i was expecting him in the top 30 at least. No.one could stop this guy....
Edit: i mean what did a guy like Durant do better then guys like iverson or t-mac to this point of his career. I dont hate on Durant, he is pretty damn good just explain it to me, imagine he will not ever win a Ring. Then he has scoring titles a mvp, what did he more until this point of his career. Iverson could score at his rate. Again not hating on Durant, just asking.
Why is nash so high? For worst D ever? Yes he has 2 mvp 's, again I dont hate on any guy on this list. Ray allen is great, but he never carried a team like iverson did.

Btw love the love for payton, usually i dont see him on this type of lists

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I don't give extra points to a player just because he's short relative to his peers. Stockton doesn't get extra love just because he's 6'1".

In short...I think Iverson had good value for that 01 Sixers team. He was the volume scorer with a 106 ORTG that year. When he's in there, the team does draw more fouls, shoot more 3's, and that team was better off for it since the defense was a 99 DRTG team (iirc 99 ORTG without AI). But his offense doesn't compare to Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Allen, and some other guys aside from huge volume. I don't have a list past 50, but I think he would fall in the mid-50s range. The Iverson discussion will come up.

Hahaha allen's offense is better haha. Dude iverson could go everywhere he wants and could score anyway he wants. What can Durant do so good on offense (he is a great offensive player), that makes him 31 on the list? He hardly ever goes down to the post, Tony allen killed him. Iverson would go on anyone any time. Again to put allen over iverson is the most stupid thing i ever saw. Your arguments to prove me wrong, are bad.

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[john248]

Iverson is the best player of all time for his size. He carried a bad sixers team to the finals and provided the only loss for the lakers. Why is Howard ranked before him? Iverson could take everyone and every night, he had his problems, but from a playing state point he was at least on the level of Wade and better then nash or some others. He has no rings i know, but he was a great player and to leave him out i just dont get it. I wont argue with the older guys who are listed infront him, i never saw them play. Miller also a all time great but i dont believe he is better then iverson infact miller himself said he wouldnt put himself in the next 10 list (next guys who.make the all time greatest list of the mvp) on opener court. So clearly the players know how great iverson was, i was expecting him in the top 30 at least. No.one could stop this guy....
Edit: i mean what did a guy like Durant do better then guys like iverson or t-mac to this point of his career. I dont hate on Durant, he is pretty damn good just explain it to me, imagine he will not ever win a Ring. Then he has scoring titles a mvp, what did he more until this point of his career. Iverson could score at his rate. Again not hating on Durant, just asking.
Why is nash so high? For worst D ever? Yes he has 2 mvp 's, again I dont hate on any guy on this list. Ray allen is great, but he never carried a team like iverson did.

Btw love the love for payton, usually i dont see him on this type of lists

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I don't give extra points to a player just because he's short relative to his peers. Stockton doesn't get extra love just because he's 6'1".

In short...I think Iverson had good value for that 01 Sixers team. He was the volume scorer with a 106 ORTG that year. When he's in there, the team does draw more fouls, shoot more 3's, and that team was better off for it since the defense was a 99 DRTG team (iirc 99 ORTG without AI). But his offense doesn't compare to Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Allen, and some other guys aside from huge volume. I don't have a list past 50, but I think he would fall in the mid-50s range. The Iverson discussion will come up.

Hahaha allen's offense is better haha. Dude iverson could go everywhere he wants and could score anyway he wants. What can Durant do so good on offense (he is a great offensive player), that makes him 31 on the list? He hardly ever goes down to the post, Tony allen killed him. Iverson would go on anyone any time. Again to put allen over iverson is the most stupid thing i ever saw. Your arguments to prove me wrong, are bad.

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I never expected you to understand. This was the type of response anyone would expect from you. If by anytime you mean a guy who didn't even break 50% TS in some years, then HAHAHA, you'd be wrong.

[WorldBeFree]

I don't give extra points to a player just because he's short relative to his peers. Stockton doesn't get extra love just because he's 6'1".

In short...I think Iverson had good value for that 01 Sixers team. He was the volume scorer with a 106 ORTG that year. When he's in there, the team does draw more fouls, shoot more 3's, and that team was better off for it since the defense was a 99 DRTG team (iirc 99 ORTG without AI). But his offense doesn't compare to Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Allen, and some other guys aside from huge volume. I don't have a list past 50, but I think he would fall in the mid-50s range. The Iverson discussion will come up.

Hahaha allen's offense is better haha. Dude iverson could go everywhere he wants and could score anyway he wants. What can Durant do so good on offense (he is a great offensive player), that makes him 31 on the list? He hardly ever goes down to the post, Tony allen killed him. Iverson would go on anyone any time. Again to put allen over iverson is the most stupid thing i ever saw. Your arguments to prove me wrong, are bad.

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I never expected you to understand. This was the type of response anyone would expect from you. If by anytime you mean a guy who didn't even break 50% TS in some years, then HAHAHA, you'd be wrong.

You still didnt explain why Durant, Howard, allen, Pierce, Miller, nash and some others are all in it and iverson. He got season mvp when the likes of shaq, Kobe and some other were in their prime.
This here is not objective, you guys clearly dont like philly or the answer and some of you should be Boston fans. Since you just put allen over niqe. Dont border to respond.

Sent from my D2303 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Laimbeer]

How about starting at the bottom next time? Use other ratings or participant pre-project lists to develop the pool of 100 and work your way up. The momentum of the project will build instead of wane, and perhaps participants could be required to be around in the early going if they wanted to participate at the top.

[Texas Chuck]

How about starting at the bottom next time? Use other ratings or participant pre-project lists to develop the pool of 100 and work your way up. The momentum of the project will build instead of wane, and perhaps participants could be required to be around in the early going if they wanted to participate at the top.

Surely you can see the inherent difficulties in this approach? Some guys who should be in the top 20 or 30 will get left completely out if you use this approach. Maybe higher than that. The advocates will be pushing so hard to keep their guy from hitting the list that at some point you will have too many qualified guys and not enough slots left. And guys like Wade, Kobe, NAsh, and KG would be in the most danger ironically because they have the strongest advocates. What do you do if the Kobe and KG blocks are able to keep their guys from getting voted in 100-11, but they can't round up enough support to get them voted in the top 10?

[Laimbeer]

How about starting at the bottom next time? Use other ratings or participant pre-project lists to develop the pool of 100 and work your way up. The momentum of the project will build instead of wane, and perhaps participants could be required to be around in the early going if they wanted to participate at the top.

Surely you can see the inherent difficulties in this approach? Some guys who should be in the top 20 or 30 will get left completely out if you use this approach. Maybe higher than that. The advocates will be pushing so hard to keep their guy from hitting the list that at some point you will have too many qualified guys and not enough slots left. And guys like Wade, Kobe, NAsh, and KG would be in the most danger ironically because they have the strongest advocates. What do you do if the Kobe and KG blocks are able to keep their guys from getting voted in 100-11, but they can't round up enough support to get them voted in the top 10?

You establish the pool of 100 before you start.

[john248]

just no...

[Joao Saraiva]

Is it too late to join the project? I'd like to vote from now on! Is it necessary to vote in every round?

[john248]

Is it too late to join the project? I'd like to vote from now on! Is it necessary to vote in every round?

just pulling the quote from the other thread

Tracy McGrady - ronnymac2, E-Balla, DQuinn1575, Basketballefan, trex_8063, Notanoob, HeartbreakKid


Dikembe Mutombo - Chuck Texas, Doctor MJ, tsherkin, Moonbeam,



For those asking about participants joining us, (a) they have to ask, then (b) they have to have been active for 3 or 4 consecutive threads. DNice, Gatling, or other posters are certainly welcome.

fwiw, Joao Saraiva just formally asked if he could join in the Metathinking thread. Not sure if he's been active 3-4 consecutive threads, but he's been periodically active in the discussion of this project pretty much since the beginning.

[Doctor MJ]

How about starting at the bottom next time? Use other ratings or participant pre-project lists to develop the pool of 100 and work your way up. The momentum of the project will build instead of wane, and perhaps participants could be required to be around in the early going if they wanted to participate at the top.

Surely you can see the inherent difficulties in this approach? Some guys who should be in the top 20 or 30 will get left completely out if you use this approach. Maybe higher than that. The advocates will be pushing so hard to keep their guy from hitting the list that at some point you will have too many qualified guys and not enough slots left. And guys like Wade, Kobe, NAsh, and KG would be in the most danger ironically because they have the strongest advocates. What do you do if the Kobe and KG blocks are able to keep their guys from getting voted in 100-11, but they can't round up enough support to get them voted in the top 10?

You establish the pool of 100 before you start.

And argue for who was worst every time? No, the negativity would get out of control.

I appreciate you thinking about different options though.

[penbeast0]

Is it too late to join the project? I'd like to vote from now on! Is it necessary to vote in every round?

You've been a consistent poster for a while. I will add you to the list and your vote will start counting in thread 49. WELCOME!

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

For those asking about participants joining us, (a) they have to ask, then (b) they have to have been active for 3 or 4 consecutive threads. DNice, Gatling, or other posters are certainly welcome.

I am glad I am welcome. I get busy from time to time and disappear from realgm for a month or more sometimes so I am thinking that I should not ask to be a voter.

Something I missed and could not quickly find any guidance for was the definition of "top" Maybe the definition of "top" was purposefully undefined giving the voters freedom to define top as they see fit. The usual questions in defining top is peak vs longevity, regular season vs post season, and dominance in their own era vs dominance in any era.

I do like the cross era historical comparisons and hope nobody minds me occasionally jumping into these threads as a lobbyist.

[penbeast0]

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

[tsherkin]

Speaking of "busy from time to time," excuse my weak posting in the project lately. Deadline coming up and tons of crazy work... Good pay but damn.

[Owly]

...
I just wonder how many run-offs will Iverson lose. He had a ton more votes than Dantley for #49, for #50 and now he's about to lose to Dantley for #51. I don't really know if I like this kind of run off vote but it's necessary. I just don't think it's accurate, but I don't see an alternative of which I'm 100% sure. Should there be a limit of times a player goes into the run off?

Well firstly this is getting meta so I'm responding here (though Texas Chuck has already responded in thread).

To the point

1) (I suspect) We're not changing how we did it half way through.
2) It's not the first time someone has been losing in the runoff multiple times (including Kobe x2, Mikan x2, Schayes x3).
3) On the merit of the voting system, it can be considered a positive or a negative that a candidate with strong first choice preference, but not a majority can be passed on. I think all systems will have flaws tbh (and most will have advantages), but limiting the number of runoffs at this point doesn't seem likely or "fair" (from a continuity standpoint).

[john248]

...
I just wonder how many run-offs will Iverson lose. He had a ton more votes than Dantley for #49, for #50 and now he's about to lose to Dantley for #51. I don't really know if I like this kind of run off vote but it's necessary. I just don't think it's accurate, but I don't see an alternative of which I'm 100% sure. Should there be a limit of times a player goes into the run off?

Well firstly this is getting meta so I'm responding here (though Texas Chuck has already responded in thread).

To the point

1) (I suspect) We're not changing how we did it half way through.
2) It's not the first time someone has been losing in the runoff multiple times (including Kobe x2, Mikan x2, Schayes x3).
3) On the merit of the voting system, it can be considered a positive or a negative that a candidate with strong first choice preference, but not a majority can be passed on. I think all systems will have flaws tbh (and most will have advantages), but limiting the number of runoffs at this point doesn't seem likely or "fair" (from a continuity standpoint).

Heck, I think Isiah was in a run off then didn't show up in a run off for a couple threads.

[penbeast0]

It sometimes takes as little as 3 votes to get someone into a runoff. Generally, guys have gone in within 5 spots of their first runoff, i don't think anyone has taken longer, but especially for a player like an Iverson, Maravich, or a Ben Wallace, I could see it. 3 guys convinced that their guy is the best, most others thinking it's way too early for a player of that ilk. I don't see Iverson over English, Sam Jones, or Vince Carter to pick 3 long consistent scorers from the 60s, 80s, and 00s; I am open to arguments that he's better than a Nique or Hal Greer. I'm also open to arguments that Sidney Moncrief or Manu Ginobili should go in ahead of him and that's just looking at great wing scorers. Then you get defenders (Sid, of course, was a great defender too), rebounders, playmakers, guys from the 50s like Paul Arizin or Bill Sharman . . . the possibilities are large and the differentials are much smaller than the top 10 guys so people's style and team building preferences become more of a factor. Combine that with a smaller pool of voters and it's not surprising that there are guys losing runoffs who the majority aren't ready to put onto our list.

[john248]

I'll probably won't be able to vote for the next several days.

[ThunderDan9]

I'm just curious... is there any chance that a supah-dupah role-player like Robert Horry might crack the Top100?

OK, Horry is obviously a big stretch... but what about someone like Horace Grant?

[Owly]

I'm just curious... is there any chance that a supah-dupah role-player like Robert Horry might crack the Top100?

OK, Horry is obviously a big stretch... but what about someone like Horace Grant?

Well I guess that would depend on how we define role-player. If it's players who added a limited (if any) portion of their value through scoring we have one at 3, (and then one could argue about say, a Pip). Do defensive/rebounding specialists count (Mutombo in, Rodman presently being voted for, Ben Wallace getting mentions). Or do they have to not have any sort of star status?

But basically yes I would expect we will. Penbeast has mentioned Bobby Jones and I suspect I'll be supportive of him fairly soon. Is Larry Nance a role-player? Is Shawn Marion? I think I'll be backing them. I'd think Divac, Ho Grant, Eddie Jones, Terry Porter, Schrempf, Hornacek types might be in the discussion for the last 20-odd spots. These guys aren't "alpha" scorers, but most aren't (otoh) as low volume or adding as large a proportion of their value on D as Grant.