Image ImageImage Image

SI: NBA top 100 rankings

Moderators: HomoSapien, GimmeDat, AshyLarrysDiaper, Payt10, RedBulls23, dougthonus, fleet, kulaz3000, Tommy Udo 6 , Ice Man, DASMACKDOWN

User avatar
bearadonisdna
RealGM
Posts: 12,195
And1: 1,989
Joined: Jul 07, 2012

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#21 » by bearadonisdna » Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:28 am

Usually your number 1 scorer is your best player. In the modern era it’s hard to get away from that.
Yeah the winning is a new hipster narrative trying to quantify subjective production, aka production you cant particular quantify without a dose of mental gymnastics.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 33,497
And1: 8,102
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#22 » by dice » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:27 am

Michael Jackson wrote:
meekrab wrote:350 NBA players should be upset they're ranked below Andrew Wiggins.



Wiggins at 100is fine. By no means does he live up to his contract or the hype he had. He also doesn’t live up to his just god given skill, but it isn’t as if he is Blakeney or Felicio. He is #25 in salary in the league which is just mind boggling bad but his production is still of some value. As remarkable as a bust that he is he still isn’t Markelle Fultz.

he's a chucker who plays bad defense. he "produces" garbage, is as bad as he was as a rookie and shouldn't be in the league. he's even a poor FT shooter now. but if you want a guy who can create his own shot and miss it, andrew wiggins is your guy

the league had the good sense to effectively give up on "baby jordan" harold miner after 3 seasons. fellow highlight reel "maple jordan" hasn't been much better, yet is still getting big minutes heading into season 6
harden '17-18: 30p 62%ts
MJ chi: 32p 58%ts

me: "JH almost the scorer MJ is"
notorious MJ water carrier/sack shaver: "dur, MJ have much more bigger career playoff PPG"

wasn't a career comparison, clown. you dishonor MJ's legacy
dice
RealGM
Posts: 33,497
And1: 8,102
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#23 » by dice » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:32 am

kulaz3000 wrote:
SHO'NUFF wrote:
logical_art wrote:I'm not the biggest Zach fan, but 's no way that there's 89 players I'd rather have.


There's a few posters here that'll disagree with you.


Yeah, I'm going to be honest, he has his faults but that's a major disrespect.

He is the best player on the Bulls roster, it's as simple as that. Is the he the most valuable, considering what Lauri could become? Perhaps not, but as it currently stands, he is the best player.

there's a reason the team got so much better when otto came over. when he's on his game he's quite easily better than lavine. this is just one more instance of the guy who scores significantly more points getting the benefit of the doubt as the better player when every single other factor points in the other direction and defense is largely ignored
harden '17-18: 30p 62%ts
MJ chi: 32p 58%ts

me: "JH almost the scorer MJ is"
notorious MJ water carrier/sack shaver: "dur, MJ have much more bigger career playoff PPG"

wasn't a career comparison, clown. you dishonor MJ's legacy
User avatar
SHO'NUFF
Head Coach
Posts: 6,356
And1: 1,185
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: ★ ★ ★ ★
Contact:
 

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#24 » by SHO'NUFF » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:47 am

dice wrote:
kulaz3000 wrote:
SHO'NUFF wrote:
There's a few posters here that'll disagree with you.


Yeah, I'm going to be honest, he has his faults but that's a major disrespect.

He is the best player on the Bulls roster, it's as simple as that. Is the he the most valuable, considering what Lauri could become? Perhaps not, but as it currently stands, he is the best player.

there's a reason the team got so much better when otto came over. when he's on his game he's quite easily better than lavine. this is just one more instance of the guy who scores significantly more points getting the benefit of the doubt as the better player when every single other factor points in the other direction and defense is largely ignored


When teams get good players they get better overall. That doesn’t necessarily mean that specific player all of a sudden is their best player. Bulls got Rodman....they became a better team.

If Lavine or Markkanen weren’t playing in those games with OPJ would we have the same outcome? Highly unlikely. They too were big factors in that stretch.
I CAN'T STAND listening to Kristen Ledlow...Image
User avatar
kulaz3000
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 35,988
And1: 15,837
Joined: Oct 25, 2006

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#25 » by kulaz3000 » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:52 am

SHO'NUFF wrote:
dice wrote:
kulaz3000 wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to be honest, he has his faults but that's a major disrespect.

He is the best player on the Bulls roster, it's as simple as that. Is the he the most valuable, considering what Lauri could become? Perhaps not, but as it currently stands, he is the best player.

there's a reason the team got so much better when otto came over. when he's on his game he's quite easily better than lavine. this is just one more instance of the guy who scores significantly more points getting the benefit of the doubt as the better player when every single other factor points in the other direction and defense is largely ignored


When teams get good players they get better overall. That doesn’t necessarily mean that specific player all of a sudden is their best player. Bulls got Rodman....they became a better team.

If Lavine or Markkanen weren’t playing in those games with OPJ would we have the same outcome? Highly unlikely. They too were big factors in that stretch.


Jordan got Pippen. So on and so forth.
Why so serious?
dice
RealGM
Posts: 33,497
And1: 8,102
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#26 » by dice » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:46 am

kulaz3000 wrote:
SHO'NUFF wrote:
dice wrote:there's a reason the team got so much better when otto came over. when he's on his game he's quite easily better than lavine. this is just one more instance of the guy who scores significantly more points getting the benefit of the doubt as the better player when every single other factor points in the other direction and defense is largely ignored


When teams get good players they get better overall. That doesn’t necessarily mean that specific player all of a sudden is their best player. Bulls got Rodman....they became a better team.

If Lavine or Markkanen weren’t playing in those games with OPJ would we have the same outcome? Highly unlikely. They too were big factors in that stretch.


Jordan got Pippen. So on and so forth.

1) of course lavine and markkanen were factors. so were other guys. doesn't mean any of them are as good as otto. ALL of the other factors combined didn't amount to squat before otto got there. while chemistry surely played a part, the improvement was in large part because otto was so good
2) comparing zach lavine to MJ doesn't exactly advance the conversation. first of all, it wasn't JUST scottie that turned the bulls from mediocre into contenders. it was a three headed monster. and everyone knew MJ was great before the help arrived. not so of zach lavine. MJ had no supporting cast and almost single-handedly made the bulls respectable. lavine, on the other hand...
harden '17-18: 30p 62%ts
MJ chi: 32p 58%ts

me: "JH almost the scorer MJ is"
notorious MJ water carrier/sack shaver: "dur, MJ have much more bigger career playoff PPG"

wasn't a career comparison, clown. you dishonor MJ's legacy
User avatar
kulaz3000
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 35,988
And1: 15,837
Joined: Oct 25, 2006

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#27 » by kulaz3000 » Thu Sep 12, 2019 5:49 am

dice wrote:MJ had no supporting cast and almost single-handedly made the bulls respectable. lavine, on the other hand...


Now I'm not saying Zach is great, hell, let's be real, he hasn't even be an All-Star yet, but if you think him playing with a majority of D-league players was help, then I don't know what to tell you.
Why so serious?
dice
RealGM
Posts: 33,497
And1: 8,102
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#28 » by dice » Thu Sep 12, 2019 6:13 am

kulaz3000 wrote:
dice wrote:MJ had no supporting cast and almost single-handedly made the bulls respectable. lavine, on the other hand...


Now I'm not saying Zach is great, hell, let's be real, he hasn't even be an All-Star yet, but if you think him playing with a majority of D-league players was help, then I don't know what to tell you.

that's not what i said at all. i said that truly excellent players can drag nothing supporting casts to respectability. zach couldn't get the bulls out of the gutter. because he's one-dimensional. porter is good at everything except the one (admittedly most important) thing that zach is good at
harden '17-18: 30p 62%ts
MJ chi: 32p 58%ts

me: "JH almost the scorer MJ is"
notorious MJ water carrier/sack shaver: "dur, MJ have much more bigger career playoff PPG"

wasn't a career comparison, clown. you dishonor MJ's legacy
User avatar
SHO'NUFF
Head Coach
Posts: 6,356
And1: 1,185
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: ★ ★ ★ ★
Contact:
 

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#29 » by SHO'NUFF » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:19 am

dice wrote:
kulaz3000 wrote:
SHO'NUFF wrote:
When teams get good players they get better overall. That doesn’t necessarily mean that specific player all of a sudden is their best player. Bulls got Rodman....they became a better team.

If Lavine or Markkanen weren’t playing in those games with OPJ would we have the same outcome? Highly unlikely. They too were big factors in that stretch.


Jordan got Pippen. So on and so forth.

1) of course lavine and markkanen were factors. so were other guys. doesn't mean any of them are as good as otto. ALL of the other factors combined didn't amount to squat before otto got there. while chemistry surely played a part, the improvement was in large part because otto was so good
2) comparing zach lavine to MJ doesn't exactly advance the conversation. first of all, it wasn't JUST scottie that turned the bulls from mediocre into contenders. it was a three headed monster. and everyone knew MJ was great before the help arrived. not so of zach lavine. MJ had no supporting cast and almost single-handedly made the bulls respectable. lavine, on the other hand...



OPJ could have been on the Bulls minus Zach Lavine & they would have been just as bad. Trade for Zach Lavine & the Bulls play better. All of a sudden your argument can go the other way.

You’re basing all this off of 15 games where the bulls went 7-8. I don’t know what type of player you think OPJ is since you feel like he’s so good for the small sample size games you saw him play for the Bulls. He was a good role player for the Wizards for 5 1/2 years. Nothing crazy. Very good complimentary player.

Of course I want OPJ to continue to be good....but I feel like you’re giving him way too much credit when in the past he’s been a #3 for many years yet you’re basing his greatness off of 15 games.

No single person could have made that Bulls team good... plus the injuries & coaching change, etc...
I CAN'T STAND listening to Kristen Ledlow...Image
BigRedDog
Junior
Posts: 260
And1: 213
Joined: Jul 21, 2019
 

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#30 » by BigRedDog » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:45 am

SHO'NUFF wrote:
dice wrote:
kulaz3000 wrote:
Jordan got Pippen. So on and so forth.

1) of course lavine and markkanen were factors. so were other guys. doesn't mean any of them are as good as otto. ALL of the other factors combined didn't amount to squat before otto got there. while chemistry surely played a part, the improvement was in large part because otto was so good
2) comparing zach lavine to MJ doesn't exactly advance the conversation. first of all, it wasn't JUST scottie that turned the bulls from mediocre into contenders. it was a three headed monster. and everyone knew MJ was great before the help arrived. not so of zach lavine. MJ had no supporting cast and almost single-handedly made the bulls respectable. lavine, on the other hand...



OPJ could have been on the Bulls minus Zach Lavine & they would have been just as bad. Trade for Zach Lavine & the Bulls play better. All of a sudden your argument can go the other way.

You’re basing all this off of 15 games where the bulls went 7-8. I don’t know what type of player you think OPJ is since you feel like he’s so good for the small sample size games you saw him play for the Bulls. He was a good role player for the Wizards for 5 1/2 years. Nothing crazy. Very good complimentary player.

Of course I want OPJ to continue to be good....but I feel like you’re giving him way too much credit when in the past he’s been a #3 for many years yet you’re basing his greatness off of 15 games.

No single person could have made that Bulls team good... plus the injuries & coaching change, etc...


Otto Porter was the best player on a 50+ win team in Washington. That would have porbably beaten the Celtics and advanced to the ECF had Morris not gotten hurt in game 1 and swung the series. And washington was a tough matchup for the Cavs. Otto is easily better than Lavine, its not really close. lavine is still just a role player at this stage of his career.
User avatar
SHO'NUFF
Head Coach
Posts: 6,356
And1: 1,185
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: ★ ★ ★ ★
Contact:
 

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#31 » by SHO'NUFF » Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:14 am

BigRedDog wrote:
SHO'NUFF wrote:
dice wrote:1) of course lavine and markkanen were factors. so were other guys. doesn't mean any of them are as good as otto. ALL of the other factors combined didn't amount to squat before otto got there. while chemistry surely played a part, the improvement was in large part because otto was so good
2) comparing zach lavine to MJ doesn't exactly advance the conversation. first of all, it wasn't JUST scottie that turned the bulls from mediocre into contenders. it was a three headed monster. and everyone knew MJ was great before the help arrived. not so of zach lavine. MJ had no supporting cast and almost single-handedly made the bulls respectable. lavine, on the other hand...



OPJ could have been on the Bulls minus Zach Lavine & they would have been just as bad. Trade for Zach Lavine & the Bulls play better. All of a sudden your argument can go the other way.

You’re basing all this off of 15 games where the bulls went 7-8. I don’t know what type of player you think OPJ is since you feel like he’s so good for the small sample size games you saw him play for the Bulls. He was a good role player for the Wizards for 5 1/2 years. Nothing crazy. Very good complimentary player.

Of course I want OPJ to continue to be good....but I feel like you’re giving him way too much credit when in the past he’s been a #3 for many years yet you’re basing his greatness off of 15 games.

No single person could have made that Bulls team good... plus the injuries & coaching change, etc...


Otto Porter was the best player on a 50+ win team in Washington. That would have porbably beaten the Celtics and advanced to the ECF had Morris not gotten hurt in game 1 and swung the series. And washington was a tough matchup for the Cavs. Otto is easily better than Lavine, its not really close. lavine is still just a role player at this stage of his career.


50+ win including playoffs. 2016-17 they went 49-33

OPJ Reg season averages: 13.4 ppg 6.4 reb 1.5 stl

OPJ Playoffs averages: 12.2 ppg 7 reb 1.6 stl

He had top Win Share of (9.4)

The years prior when they went 44-38; 46-38; 41-41 ... Marcin Gortat had top WS all 3 seasons with his highest being (8.6) with them losing in the Eastern Conference Semis 2 out of 3 seasons (Randy Wittman was their coach before Scott Brooks took over in 2016-17)
I CAN'T STAND listening to Kristen Ledlow...Image
dice
RealGM
Posts: 33,497
And1: 8,102
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#32 » by dice » Thu Sep 12, 2019 4:21 pm

SHO'NUFF wrote:
BigRedDog wrote:
SHO'NUFF wrote:

OPJ could have been on the Bulls minus Zach Lavine & they would have been just as bad. Trade for Zach Lavine & the Bulls play better. All of a sudden your argument can go the other way.

You’re basing all this off of 15 games where the bulls went 7-8. I don’t know what type of player you think OPJ is since you feel like he’s so good for the small sample size games you saw him play for the Bulls. He was a good role player for the Wizards for 5 1/2 years. Nothing crazy. Very good complimentary player.

Of course I want OPJ to continue to be good....but I feel like you’re giving him way too much credit when in the past he’s been a #3 for many years yet you’re basing his greatness off of 15 games.

No single person could have made that Bulls team good... plus the injuries & coaching change, etc...


Otto Porter was the best player on a 50+ win team in Washington. That would have porbably beaten the Celtics and advanced to the ECF had Morris not gotten hurt in game 1 and swung the series. And washington was a tough matchup for the Cavs. Otto is easily better than Lavine, its not really close. lavine is still just a role player at this stage of his career.


50+ win including playoffs. 2016-17 they went 49-33

OPJ Reg season averages: 13.4 ppg 6.4 reb 1.5 stl

OPJ Playoffs averages: 12.2 ppg 7 reb 1.6 stl

He had top Win Share of (9.4)

The years prior when they went 44-38; 46-38; 41-41 ... Marcin Gortat had top WS all 3 seasons with his highest being (8.6) with them losing in the Eastern Conference Semis 2 out of 3 seasons (Randy Wittman was their coach before Scott Brooks took over in 2016-17)

instead of nibbling around the edges, why don't we get to the heat of the meat. best single season stat is RPM. 0=avg. nba player or borderline starter:

lavine:

-6.87 (rookie)
-3.71
-2.97
[terrible coming off injury]
-0.49 (probably became a + player in calendar 2019)

porter:

[barely played as rookie]
1.23 (off bench)
1.51
3.56
4.96
1.24

2nd best stat (and quite a bit inferior given no play-by-play data) is VORP. 0=borderline nba player/D-leaguer:

lavine:

-1.2 (rookie)
0.4
0.8
-0.1
1.1

porter:

-0.4 (rookie)
0.6
2.2
3.9
3.4
1.0

again, when porter is on his game it's simply no contest who the better player is. or HAS been, anyway
harden '17-18: 30p 62%ts
MJ chi: 32p 58%ts

me: "JH almost the scorer MJ is"
notorious MJ water carrier/sack shaver: "dur, MJ have much more bigger career playoff PPG"

wasn't a career comparison, clown. you dishonor MJ's legacy
meekrab
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,654
And1: 2,479
Joined: Dec 15, 2014

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#33 » by meekrab » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:17 am

Michael Jackson wrote:
meekrab wrote:350 NBA players should be upset they're ranked below Andrew Wiggins.



Wiggins at 100is fine. By no means does he live up to his contract or the hype he had. He also doesn’t live up to his just god given skill, but it isn’t as if he is Blakeney or Felicio. He is #25 in salary in the league which is just mind boggling bad but his production is still of some value. As remarkable as a bust that he is he still isn’t Markelle Fultz.

At least Fultz stays off the court, and in that respect is better for his team than Wiggins, who despite getting worse each season in the league (after starting out as merely quite poor at NBA basketball), has still played 73% of the available minutes over the last 3 seasons.

Now of course it's not Wiggins' choice to play that much. The coaching staff and ownership of the Wolves clearly want him on the court, but he plays so badly it's hard to understand why.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 33,497
And1: 8,102
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#34 » by dice » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:34 am

meekrab wrote:
Michael Jackson wrote:
meekrab wrote:350 NBA players should be upset they're ranked below Andrew Wiggins.



Wiggins at 100is fine. By no means does he live up to his contract or the hype he had. He also doesn’t live up to his just god given skill, but it isn’t as if he is Blakeney or Felicio. He is #25 in salary in the league which is just mind boggling bad but his production is still of some value. As remarkable as a bust that he is he still isn’t Markelle Fultz.

At least Fultz stays off the court, and in that respect is better for his team than Wiggins, who despite getting worse each season in the league (after starting out as merely quite poor at NBA basketball), has still played 73% of the available minutes over the last 3 seasons.

Now of course it's not Wiggins' choice to play that much. The coaching staff and ownership of the Wolves clearly want him on the court, but he plays so badly it's hard to understand why.

the amazing thing is that they gave him a max extension a year before they had to. after regressing in his third season! they could have matched any offer the FOLLOWING year after proving (perhaps with the help of new teammate jimmy butler) that he could be a force in the league. instead he played out the final year of his rookie deal alongside jimmy and didn't improve. then jimmy forced his way out of town in part because wiggins was such a bum. and so the wolves were forced to stare blankly into the future as wiggins was set to begin his crippling new deal. he then proceeded to regress AGAIN last season as his direct deposits more than tripled. if he wants to regress any more he'll have to find a way to crawl back into the womb. either way he'll be starting again, as the wolves aren't good enough to take the PR hit associated with giving up on him in year 2 of a 5 year deal
harden '17-18: 30p 62%ts
MJ chi: 32p 58%ts

me: "JH almost the scorer MJ is"
notorious MJ water carrier/sack shaver: "dur, MJ have much more bigger career playoff PPG"

wasn't a career comparison, clown. you dishonor MJ's legacy
User avatar
nomorezorro
General Manager
Posts: 9,568
And1: 5,519
Joined: Jun 22, 2006
Location: GARPAX FOREVER

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#35 » by nomorezorro » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:06 am

i kind of get a perverse joy out of how bad wiggins is, just because the timing of that extension baffled me when it happened. it feels good to know that not only was i right, but it was somehow a much worse idea than i thought it was at the time!
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
dice
RealGM
Posts: 33,497
And1: 8,102
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#36 » by dice » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:07 pm

nomorezorro wrote:i kind of get a perverse joy out of how bad wiggins is, just because the timing of that extension baffled me when it happened. it feels good to know that not only was i right, but it was somehow a much worse idea than i thought it was at the time!

i went back and looked at the wiggins signing thread on the wolves board. it's amazing how panicked they were when he didn't immediately sign the offer. one guy saying that he guaranteed it would be worthwhile, another trashing the "sheep" on the general board who disliked the deal
harden '17-18: 30p 62%ts
MJ chi: 32p 58%ts

me: "JH almost the scorer MJ is"
notorious MJ water carrier/sack shaver: "dur, MJ have much more bigger career playoff PPG"

wasn't a career comparison, clown. you dishonor MJ's legacy
User avatar
Michael Jackson
RealGM
Posts: 13,486
And1: 1,040
Joined: Jun 15, 2001

Re: SI: NBA top 100 rankings 

Post#37 » by Michael Jackson » Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:50 pm

meekrab wrote:
Michael Jackson wrote:
meekrab wrote:350 NBA players should be upset they're ranked below Andrew Wiggins.



Wiggins at 100is fine. By no means does he live up to his contract or the hype he had. He also doesn’t live up to his just god given skill, but it isn’t as if he is Blakeney or Felicio. He is #25 in salary in the league which is just mind boggling bad but his production is still of some value. As remarkable as a bust that he is he still isn’t Markelle Fultz.

At least Fultz stays off the court, and in that respect is better for his team than Wiggins, who despite getting worse each season in the league (after starting out as merely quite poor at NBA basketball), has still played 73% of the available minutes over the last 3 seasons.

Now of course it's not Wiggins' choice to play that much. The coaching staff and ownership of the Wolves clearly want him on the court, but he plays so badly it's hard to understand why.



I heard a Ryan Saunders podcast I think it was with Lowe... he was so obliged to say that this year they expect Andrew to get it. It isn’t so much his hype... it’s that stupid contract. WTF why was Glen Taylor so in love? Everyone advised him against it.

Return to Chicago Bulls