from the general board: most talented in past 30

[fatlever]

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1007033

i just had to comment over here... its crap like this that really scares me about the next generation of basketaball fans who think they can just take some formulas to generate discussion about "most talented" players etc... I know PER has its place in discussing players but to apply PER in the context of a most talented discussion that spans 30 years... ugh and to suggest that if you didnt finish in the top 2 in a given year then you werent one of the most talented, thats ridiculous. /rant

so i thought i would make my own list based on my eyeballs (with some stats, common sense, killer instinct and winning when it counts mixed in). What people forget is many of these superstars could have put up much bigger numbers if they werent playing for rings, playing next to 2 other hall-of-famers etc...

past 30 years 1980 to 2010 (off the top of my head)

PG: M Johnson, I Thomas, J Stockton, J Kidd, G Payton, C Paul
SG: M Jordan, K Bryant, C Drexler, D Wade, A Iverson, J Dumars
SF: L Bird, L James, B King, J Erving, S Pippen, J Worthy
PF: T Duncan, K Malone, K Garnett, K McHale, C Barkley
C: H Olajuwon, S ONeal, K Abdul Jabaar, M Malone, D Robinson, P Ewing

Edit: i forgot Dr J. he wasnt quite washed up in the 80s. still good enough to anchor some great sixers teams. he moves nique to the bubble list for me

Edit2:

on the bubble

PGs: S Nash, D Williams, D Johnson, K Johnson, M Price, T Hardaway
SGs: V Carter, G Gervin, T McGrady, R Miller, S Moncrief, A Hardaway, R Allen
SFs: D Wilkins, A Dantley, A English, G Hill, P Pierce
PF: D Nowitzki, S Kemp, C Webber, D Rodman
C: D Howard, A Mourning, B Daugherty, R Parish

Edit 3: i forgot to add dennis johnson. he was the best or 2nd best defensive pg in the past 30 years (payton being the other).

[dmutombo321]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1007033

i just had to comment over here... its crap like this that really scares me about the next generation of basketaball fans who think they can just take some formulas to generate discussion about "most talented" players etc... I know PER has its place in discussing players but to apply PER in the context of a most talented discussion that spans 30 years... ugh and to suggest that if you didnt finish in the top 2 in a given year then you werent one of the most talented, thats ridiculous. /rant

so i thought i would make my own list based on my eyeballs (with some stats, common sense, killer instinct and winning when it counts mixed in). What people forget is many of these superstars could have put up much bigger numbers if they werent playing for rings, playing next to 2 other hall-of-famers etc...

past 30 years 1980 to 2010 (off the top of my head)

PG: M Johnson, I Thomas, J Stockton, J Kidd, G Payton, C Paul
SG: M Jordan, K Bryant, C Drexler, D Wade, A Iverson, J Dumars
SF: L Bird, L James, B King, S Pippen, J Worthy, D Wilkins
PF: T Duncan, K Malone, K Garnett, K McHale, C Barkley
C: H Olajuwon, S ONeal, K Abdul Jabaar, M Malone, D Robinson, P Ewing

What's up with Diop's glaring omission from your center rotation!?

I share your sentiments though. Paydro, et al know my feelings regarding the application of PER (designed only to be a barometer of raw productivity) as a barometer of talent (which I contend no formula can accurately measure.)

I think your roster pretty closly mirrors how mine would be composed, some minor differences in my depth chart notwithstanding. In terms of the starting lineup, the only swapout I'd make would be James for Bird. In crunch time where clutch scoring is needed however, Bird's on the floor.

[fatlever]

people forget bird was a 1st/2nd team defender his first handful of seasons in boston in the early 80s. plus bird has rings and to me that counts for something. it proves he did what it took to win it all. granted his teams were loaded. once lebron wins a few rings i'd consider him equal or above bird, maybe.

[dmutombo321]

^

Its definitely a tough call. Bird's defensive credentials are even more impressive when you consider how he earned them without being an elite athelete. He did it being tough as nails and cerebral.

Everyone who hasnt seen it should be required to watch the famous Bird/Wilkens scoring exchange

[fatlever]

yeah, the bird vs nique dual is insane. too bad nique never payed much attention to defense, dribbling or passing. he really could have been one of the all-time greats. another of my fave 80s moments is the game where bernard king goes for 50. he was a freaking monster.

[BeesWax]

I think you have to look at Carter still though. He has put up almost the same numbers as Kobe but has been on weak teams until now. If he helps lead this Orlando team to a championship he can't be left off this list. Averages wise it would be hard to pick a better player between him and Kobe if you just look at the numbers. The rings make the difference but Kobe has proven without help you can't win.

[fatlever]

i cant look at vince until he wins more than one playoff series. the guy has been a perennial loser. he's never carried a team deep into the playoffs as the main guy. even if the magic make it to the finals again, vince will be at best the 2-4 best players on a given night. not to mention all the crap he pulled in toronto. he has proven to be a selfish player who still doesnt quite get what it takes to be the man and carry a team and lead. OH... AND he just recently started playing defense and even now he is more part of a good team defense rather than a good individual defender. i'd put vince maybe 7th after the guys i listed, but you could also make a case for tmac and reggie miller in that spot.

[countryboi]

nique is top 50 he was a beast....but if you look at the nba list mean you cant complain about anyone on it...maybe he is 51

[fatlever]

on the bubble

PGs: S Nash, D Williams, K Johnson, M Price, T Hardaway
SGs: V Carter, G Gervin, T McGrady, R Miller, S Moncrief, A Hardaway, R Allen
SFs: D Wilkins, A English, A Dantley, G Hill, P Pierce
PF: D Nowitzki, S Kemp, C Webber, D Rodman
C: D Howard, A Mourning, B Daugherty, R Parish

[countryboi]

damn penny hardaway and g.hill man they looked like locks

[Paydro70]

It really depends on what you mean when you say "talented." It seems to mean different things to different people... Fats' list seems like it might be taken as synonymous with "best." Then there are the inevitable questions about peak vs. longevity and productivity vs. potential.

That GB thread is really just pointing out the players who have had the highest peak productivity vs. league average. The top 2 thing is obviously quite arbitrary though, since PER is comparative already. It's not a player's fault if he finishes 3rd if any other year his PER would have been the best. It ought to just be people who had seasons of 27 PER. That list would be 17:

Paul, Magic
Kobe, Wade, Jordan
LBJ, Dr.J, McGrady, Bird
Dirk, KG, Malone, Amare, Duncan
Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem

[Walt Cronkite]

Watch teh games, nerds.

[fatlever]

It really depends on what you mean when you say "talented." It seems to mean different things to different people... Fats' list seems like it might be taken as synonymous with "best." Then there are the inevitable questions about peak vs. longevity and productivity vs. potential.

That GB thread is really just pointing out the players who have had the highest peak productivity vs. league average. The top 2 thing is obviously quite arbitrary though, since PER is comparative already. It's not a player's fault if he finishes 3rd if any other year his PER would have been the best. It ought to just be people who had seasons of 27 PER. That list would be 17:

Paul, Magic
Kobe, Wade, Jordan
LBJ, Dr.J, McGrady, Bird
Dirk, KG, Malone, Amare, Duncan
Shaq, Robinson, Hakeem

your list is much closer to the truth... and yeah, i know lots of grey area in this one, talented vs best, one year vs career, top 2 in per any given year etc... its not really the list that got me riled up, it was the morons discussing the list, suggesting who and who should not be considered the best in the past 30 years. the discussion quickly moved from the original post, which was just a list of top 2 pers in a given season to a list of the 19 best in the past 30. there were actually people suggesting that kobe didnt belong in the top 19. stuff like that. it got me fired up. so i decided to make a semi-related post that showed my top players from the past 30 years to show the difference/similarities between the PER list based on one year peaks and the players i consider to be the best in the past 30 based on what ive seen, read, stats, winning, rings etc... plus, as you guys know (since i wont shut up about it), i have been inhaling the simmons book the past month, and this discussion is right on par with that book. its fantastic.

[fatlever]

certainly longevity plays a role, which is why i dont have durant listed and why i have guys like paul listed lower than he will probably end up if i did the same list in 5 years.

also, winning plays a big part for me, which is why i dont have melo on my list yet, despite his immense talent. melo would be the most glaring omission that i can see so far.

and of course we can argue all day about whether PER can measure someones intangibles. you can have superstars that put up the best stats are efficient etc... but if they cant win big games, make clutch baskets, get stops in the last 5 mins of a playoff game, lead their teammates on and off the court etc... then, how do you grade that? as we've discussed many times, PER can only take you so far. its only one of many ways to evaluate a players total ability. some guys are simply winners. they know how to win, they make huge shots and the carry teams on their backs when it matters most and that kind of stuff can rarely be measured in stats. to me, manu ginobili is the ultimate example. statistically he is very good, but in reality i would argue his impact to the spurs is MUCH MUCH greater than his stats would ever indicate.

and you also had guys like isiah thomas, who could have put up stats why beyond what he really did. the guy could have averaged 30 and 12 if he felt his teams needed him to do that to win. thomas sacrificed his numbers for the betterment of the pistons since that team was so deep. he knew how to keep all those guys happy, which is what allowed that team to play at a high level for many seasons.

[Paydro70]

Well, I don't really believe in clutch, so I'm not so concerned about that. I believe that virtually everyone "chokes," but some choke less than others. The closest thing to "clutch" I believe in is a guy like Robert Horry, who doesn't bother to raise his game until the last few minutes in the playoffs.

Obviously things like leadership and team camaraderie matter... but they're so situational and difficult to assess that I find it hard to take them seriously in evaluating players. Take, for example, MJ. He was horrible to his teammates... horrible. In some circumstances, having the best player in the world be a total **** to his teammates works out, where everybody gets motivated by it and plays extra hard. In other circumstances, that would lead to a team falling apart and throwing punches in the locker room. So is MJ really a great leader? Or just A leader who ended up in a situation where his style was effective? Is Kobe a great, intense leader who motivates those around him? Or a total jerk everybody on the Lakers hates but manages to get along with because he's great?

Regardless, I can't pretend that PER covers everything, the inclusion of Amare in the above list is all that really needs to be pointed to to show PER's greatest failing as a measure of overall value.

Personally, when creating lists of "best," I am most interested in tip-top peak performance, or to pick a favorite example, if you had to choose a team of individual player-seasons to do battle against the MonStars (or aliens, or robots from the future), who would you choose? This is why I actually do like that PER list for the most part, it is filled with players who achieved a very rare degree of dominance for that single season. But of course, if I were to list players in terms of greatness, someone like McGrady wouldn't be anywhere close to the top.

PS - not related to anything, but Dr. J should come off my list, he only hit that PER figure in the 70s.

[fatlever]

how can you not believe in clutch?

call it what you want, "clutch", "ice in veins", "choking less than peers in important games or situations", "rising to occasion"

there are players who have historically played well when it matters most. there are players who love to take big shots, who dont get scared or tense when the stakes are high. there are players who seem to have a knack for making huge shots at the end of games. there are players who played their best in big games.

who cares if you can average 30 points against the crappy teams in january if you can produce similar results in the playoffs or even more specifically deciding games of playoffs. you cant be a superstar if you routinely score 25 pts in the first 3 quarters only to disappear in the 4th. you cant be considered an all-time great if you cant produce when it matters most.

[SWedd523]

There is actually a scientific basis behind the "clutch" factor. I remember seeing it on some sports science show where they analyzed the brain/chemical reactions certain athletes made to pressure situations

[Paydro70]

Statistically, there is not clutch. It was documented by Bill James in a sport that is far more conducive to clutch than basketball is. In the NBA, it varies wildly, but nearly everyone significant shoots worse in the clutch than in their general gameplay.

The reality is that if you are the best basketball player in the NBA, you are doing it by playing very near to your top capacity all the time. In the playoffs, is LeBron not going all-out all the time? If he is, then what special magic power is he activating late in the 4th? The reality is that virtually everyone gets worse on last-second shots and what not. The most you can say is that some players legitimately do shrink from the situation and fail regularly. Most, however, are simply on a spectrum by how badly the situation affects their play. Almost no one raises it when it counts.... and if they do, it's a Robert Horry situation.