Pre-RealGM 100 Personal Lists, 2023 edition

[Colbinii]

I'd rather have 7 prime years of a star like David Robinson than 12 years of a hugely inferior player like I.Thomas or J.Stockton.

Are you putting Kobe in the Isiah and Stockton category? I agree with you on those examples but the analogy doesn't fit on Curry/Kobe and I'm one of the few who does actually rank Steph higher.

Robinson [90-96]: 114.8 WS [.260 WS/48], 8.7 BPM [57.4 VORP], 1348 TS+
Curry [14-22]: 95.5 WS [.238 WS/48], 8.2 BPM [49.5 VORP], 2066.7 TS+

Kobe [00-13]: 160.1 WS [.190 WS/48], 5.4 BPM [75.2 VORP], 1268.8 TS+
Thomas [83-91]: 68.8 WS [.129 WS/48], 3.6 BPM [36.3 VORP], -362.2

Nothing like comparing Kobe to Thomas

[iggymcfrack]

It's not even about his playoffs failures, Embiid has so few relevant seasons and such a short career (even worse in his case because of missed games) that putting him inside top 30 would require GOAT-level peak to me... and Embiid wasn't really in conversation for the best player in the league at any point of his career - including this year when he got the MVP.

I understand that some people are willing to put Jokic over someone like Ewing, because he peaked much higher and has this title run and all the boxscore stats some people love. In Embiid's case though, I am not even comfortable that he's a better basketball player than Ewing and his career doesn't touch Pat's - and Ewing isn't a lock top 30 player himself either.

Well as you know, I tend to weight peak more highly than you so if someone had legit GOAT level impact for Embiid’s career length I’d have them much higher. I think the case for Embiid is clear though. In addition to the incredible RAPM numbers, he’s #2 all-time in career PER behind Jordan. His playoff numbers, disappointing as they’ve been, still compare favorably with Ewing’s.

I know Ewing peaked higher defensively, but was he ever a top 5 player outside of 1990? I feel like the answer’s probably no. Embiid is on a run now where he’s been solidly top 5 three years in a row. I mean Ewing would probably be in my 31-40 range here so it’s not like he’s far off, but when 2 completely different measures have Embiid top 2 all-time or top 2 since 1997, I think throwing him a bone in the top 30 is fair.

Yeah, I guess we won't find a common language. You said you considered Tatum for top 30, while he's out of my top 150 most likely. Completely different criteria and values.

I just have a different view of longevity for active players than you do. If a guy’s established a certain level for a few years, I’m fine with assuming at least a 10-15th percentile career of him maintaining that level (NOT improving!) until he shows otherwise. I’d rather recognize a guy when he reaches a certain level than just be like “OK, well he made it though his career without suffering a catastrophic injury, now we’ll say he’s accomplished something.” Occasionally someone like Kawhi or D-Wade will collapse and drop a few spots, but with a peak-heavy approach I think it’s reasonable.

Tatum’s been at a very high level for 4 years now, a clear top 5 player since 2020 in the most competitive era in the history of the NBA. At least one of my most trusted metrics would have him as a top 5 player period on a rate basis over the last 26 years. I’m not saying I have it very dialed in whether he’s #30 or #40 or #55, but I definitely think he warrants consideration in that circumstance. If he suffered a career-ending injury tomorrow, his range would drop, but I’m fine with basically giving him the same score as if his next 4 years were the same as his previous 4 years and then he declined to the point where he wasn’t producing significant value afterwards.

[lessthanjake]

Well as you know, I tend to weight peak more highly than you so if someone had legit GOAT level impact for Embiid’s career length I’d have them much higher. I think the case for Embiid is clear though. In addition to the incredible RAPM numbers, he’s #2 all-time in career PER behind Jordan. His playoff numbers, disappointing as they’ve been, still compare favorably with Ewing’s.

I know Ewing peaked higher defensively, but was he ever a top 5 player outside of 1990? I feel like the answer’s probably no. Embiid is on a run now where he’s been solidly top 5 three years in a row. I mean Ewing would probably be in my 31-40 range here so it’s not like he’s far off, but when 2 completely different measures have Embiid top 2 all-time or top 2 since 1997, I think throwing him a bone in the top 30 is fair.

Yeah, I guess we won't find a common language. You said you considered Tatum for top 30, while he's out of my top 150 most likely. Completely different criteria and values.

I just have a different view of longevity for active players than you do. If a guy’s established a certain level for a few years, I’m fine with assuming at least a 10-15th percentile career of him maintaining that level (NOT improving!) until he shows otherwise. I’d rather recognize a guy when he reaches a certain level than just be like “OK, well he made it though his career without suffering a catastrophic injury, now we’ll say he’s accomplished something.” Occasionally someone like Kawhi or D-Wade will collapse and drop a few spots, but with a peak-heavy approach I think it’s reasonable.

Tatum’s been at a very high level for 4 years now, a clear top 5 player since 2020 in the most competitive era in the history of the NBA. At least one of my most trusted metrics would have him as a top 5 player period on a rate basis over the last 26 years. I’m not saying I have it very dialed in whether he’s #30 or #40 or #55, but I definitely think he warrants consideration in that circumstance. If he suffered a career-ending injury tomorrow, his range would drop, but I’m fine with basically giving him the same score as if his next 4 years were the same as his previous 4 years and then he declined to the point where he wasn’t producing significant value afterwards.

Yeah, to me, that seems like the most reasonable way to deal with the longevity question for active players. Basically, assume that they will have a somewhat normal career arc in terms of timing and speed of decline and injuries, but not assume that they will get better than they currently are or that they’ll have any major achievements in the future that might affect the ranking (titles, awards, etc.). That’ll end up overrating some players—i.e. guys who end up having some career-destroying injury. And it’ll end up underrating other players—i.e. guys who end up having major improvements in their game, or who end up having abnormally high longevity. But I think it’s a more sensical way of doing it than taking a view that essentially results in active players being ranked much below their actual level as a basketball player until they’ve played out that career arc. Doing it the way I prefer seems like the way to be ranking active players as accurately as possible while they’re playing (i.e. it’ll result in the lowest possible level of adjustments as the player’s career goes on and then finishes). But, of course, the counterpoint is that it basically amounts to ranking based on speculation and that we should only rank based on real things that have actually happened. Definitely a philosophical difference that will result in very different rankings for active players.

[Texas Chuck]

I think the most reasonable thing is to simply not credit them for what you project them to do and accept they will make the 2029 list if they have the career you project.

Note: Not telling anyone else not to do it their way, mind you. Just I think for a career ranking, it should be about the actual career, rather than a projection personally. It's okay if that means some of our current favs don't make the cut yet.

[Doctor MJ]

I think the most reasonable thing is to simply not credit them for what you project them to do and accept they will make the 2029 list if they have the career you project.

Note: Not telling anyone else not to do it their way, mind you. Just I think for a career ranking, it should be about the actual career, rather than a projection personally. It's okay if that means some of our current favs don't make the cut yet.

Good points Chuck! (Chuck didn't see you asking to be a voter, do let me know if you want to be added.)

So yeah, to be clear folks, it's my expectation that you're not crediting a guy with stuff that hasn't happened yet, and I would point to the Trajectory sheet of the RealGM 100 spreadsheet to see how active players have climbed the list over time both as precedent and as a source of useful historical information.

Now, the reality is that if you vote for a guy like Tatum at a certain spot in part because you're projecting into the future, but you're not explicitly crediting him with the future, I can't stop you and I'm not particularly bothered by that.

But just remember that we have an analogous project for Peaks which allows for young guys to reach high heights even without longevity. The expectation is that actual longevity will help players over time in this project, but not in the Peaks project. If it's not helping either one, then it raises the question of why we bother having two different types of projects like this.

While you personally might have a very small difference between how you vote in the two projects because you don't care much about longevity, my expectation is that there is a non-zero difference between what you'd do on the two projects even if I'm not going to quiz you on the specifics.

[DQuinn1575]

I'd rather have 7 prime years of a star like David Robinson than 12 years of a hugely inferior player like I.Thomas or J.Stockton.

Are you putting Kobe in the Isiah and Stockton category? I agree with you on those examples but the analogy doesn't fit on Curry/Kobe and I'm one of the few who does actually rank Steph higher.

Robinson [90-96]: 114.8 WS [.260 WS/48], 8.7 BPM [57.4 VORP], 1348 TS+
Curry [14-22]: 95.5 WS [.238 WS/48], 8.2 BPM [49.5 VORP], 2066.7 TS+

Kobe [00-13]: 160.1 WS [.190 WS/48], 5.4 BPM [75.2 VORP], 1268.8 TS+
Thomas [83-91]: 68.8 WS [.129 WS/48], 3.6 BPM [36.3 VORP], -362.2

Nothing like comparing Kobe to Thomas

Playoffs
Kobe (00-13) .166 WS/48 5.8 BPM
Isiah (84-90) .161 WS/48, 6.9 BPM

How come Isiah gets no credit for raising his game in the playoffs?

[Taj FTW]

It's been requested we make a thread for our personal lists before we do the RealGM 100, so here it is.

Feel free to post or not to post.
Feel free to give a complete list or just a partial list.
Feel free to post whether or not you're likely to participate in the project.

Can i still be included on this? Thanks Doc

[OhayoKD]

It's been requested we make a thread for our personal lists before we do the RealGM 100, so here it is.

Feel free to post or not to post.
Feel free to give a complete list or just a partial list.
Feel free to post whether or not you're likely to participate in the project.

Can i still be included on this? Thanks Doc

I believe techincally speaking you're supposed to express interest in the general thread at the top of the page

[OhayoKD]

Also late but..

With all that considered, I'm going to offer my own peak/prime/career val in case you're wondering how this can shape out. You are welcome to scrutinize/challenge anything here. Keep in mind this is purely era-relative and post shot-clock.


Prime
1.Russell
(Gap)
2. Lebron
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
(Gap)
5. Jordan
6. Hakeem
7. Duncan
8. Magic
(Gap)
9. Bird
T-10. KG/Curry

Peak
1. Russell
(gap)
2. Wilt/Lebron(1 year lens produces outliers of russell-level rs and playoff value arguably)
(gap)
4. Kareem
(gap)
5. Duncan
T-6. Jordan/Hakeem
T-7. Shaq/KG(1-year would be at t-6 or t-5 FWIW)
T-9. Bird/Magic
T-11. Giannis/Curry

Career Val.
T-1. Lebron/Kareem(i consider how good players were pre-nba relative to the nba)
2. Russell
(Gap)
3. Wilt
T-4. Jordan/Duncan/Hakeem
T-7. Shaq/KG
(Gap)
9. Kobe
10. Magic
T-11. Dirk/Bird

Tell me what you think!
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL

This is several months old and not completely up-to-date(am on the verge of moving hakeem up, have moved wilt down, ect.), but this should give you a decent idea of where I'm at

[One_and_Done]

Interesting to see how these look now. This thread should probably be linked to in the top 100 project.