RealGM Top 100 List #7

[An Unbiased Fan]

Kobe didn't sabotage his teams, that's nonsense. He had a 40+ ppg month and that historic 40+ streak just to get LA to the playoffs in 2003. In 2004 Malone goes down and they meet an ATG defense. And Kobe didn't get Phil fired, everyone know Jim Buss pushed him out, how in the world can you put that on Kobe? Shaq has openly said Kobe had nothing to do with him getting traded, that was about his contract and Doc Buss. You are literally just throwing stuff out there that isn't true. Game 7's, go look up Kobe's record.

Well, you're just wrong. I made a post about this on page 3 that has pretty impressive documentation, and I've referred you to it multiple times. Kobe was looking out the door, and made it clear he didn't want to exist with Phil and Shaq anymore, so they got shown the door. There were, of course, other factors involved. But it'd be naïve to act like Kobe had no role in it.

First off, Kobe was heading to the Clippers when this stuff went down, he wasn't concerned about Phil or Shaq. Again, Shaq himself said Kobe had nothing to do with it, so i'm not sure where you're going with this.

Nevermind the fact that Phil return in 2006, which wouldn't have happened if Kobe had an issue with him. Phil's whole beef was with Jim Buss. Your Laker history is all wrong.

I don't understand you're even citing team SRS. I mean, I do, because you think it helps Kobe... but even if we cared about it as a stat, it would be inapplicable here because the team SRS is obviously effected by Lebron/Kobe being on the team. To use a hypothetical- if Lebron was worth +10 SRS by himself, and the rest of his team was worth -10 SRS, then that comes out to 0 SRS. It doesn't mean that Lebron's impact was therefore the same as the star of every 0 SRS team that year, because it is a statement with no context.

The claim Lebron won because he was in the East is plainly wrong. 09 and 10 Lebron, which is where he became the Lebron we know today, was destroying the West to the tune of a 49-11. You're just wrong on this.

Huh? Do you understand what SRS is? It measures a team's performance during the season in ways Win totals can't. And no, Lebron didn't have some +10 SRS impact, he wasn't even playing defense before 2009.

I just find it funny how you've completely brought in a new set of criteria, yet Kobe has outdone Lebron in that criteria and you refuse to admit it.

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Magic Johnson Below is the reasoning i have used in the previous threads.

I could definitely see the arguments for Lbj over Magic but i'm not ready to put LBJ ahead of him yet. Magic may not have a large edge in longevity but i think Magic was a more mature player his first few seasons and numbers show that clearly for his 1st season 18 8 7 60TS%, vs Lbj 21 6 6 49 TS%. Yeah Lbj didn't have Kareem, Nixon, Cooper etc but regardless i couldn't see Lbj performing the way Magic did in his playoffs his rookie year especially in the finals. I mean people can argue it all they want to but LBJ didn't have a good finals performance until he was 27 years old, that's not something i can just sweep under the rug. Magic was the better passer, while Lbj is the better scorer but Magic played point his whole career so his ppg wouldn't be as high, but if his role was to be a scorer i have no doubt he could've put up 25+ on decent efficiency in his prime seasons. Lbj is the better defender no doubt but his man to man D is vastly overrated. So again, i can see the arguments for LbJ as he had the better peak but Magic was more mature as an offensive player from the getgo and his prime was still longer as of today and has the better accolades by a clear margin.

Arguably the greatest offensive player of all time, great leader, great winner, made his teammates better than anyone ever imo.

5 time champion, 3 of which he was the undisputed best player, 3 time MVP, 12 time all star, 4 time assist leader, 9 All nba first team selection etc

Great playoff performer beat some all time great teams such as Bird's Celtics and the Bad boy pistons, Avged 20 8 12 over his 13 year playoff career. Wins his first championship and FMVP as a rookie putting up 18 11 9 in the playoffs, with an incredible 42 15 7 game 6 clinching performance as Kareem goes down with injury and he jumps center.

Had Magic not got HIV he would've had a longer career and could've been in discussion for top 2 or even GOAT.

Knocks on magic usually consist of his longevity and his defense. Magic wasn't a great defender but i don't think he was a negative on that end and for his longevity its not great but not horrible, 13 years and he accomplished so much in that span and changed the game.

Solid points, although I`d like to say that in truth, Kareem was robbed of the 1980 Finals MVP despite the clinching game 6 performance. But that game punctuated just what Magic was capable of in just his rookie season. Much more impactful player from the get-go than LeBron.

Yeah, you could certainly make that case but it was earned nonetheless. I feel like people are going with LBJ over Magic based on the fact that LbJ has peaked higher and is already close longevity wise. But if their careers ended today would LBJ be portrayed as having the better career by the media and bulk of fans? I highly doubt it. I mean just 2-3 years ago LBJ wouldn't have even been discussed in the same ball park as Magic, so in other words him having 2 or 3 fantastic seasons since then shouldn't be enough for him to Leapfrog Magic.

[SactoKingsFan]

2000-2003 Kobe is better than 2005-2008 Lebron. 06-10 Kobe is on par with 09-14 Lebron

Is 00-03 Kobe clearly better than 05-08 LeBron? I don't see it at all.

And how exactly is 06-10 Kobe on par with 09-14 LeBron? I have 09, 10, 12 and 13 LeBron above Kobe's peak season (06).

[Baller2014]

First off, Kobe was heading to the Clippers when this stuff went down, he wasn't concerned about Phil or Shaq. Again, Shaq himself said Kobe had nothing to do with it, so i'm not sure where you're going with this.

I cited sources such as Phil Jackson and Jerry West, who themselves cite others. Kobe's "me-first" attitude was a huge issue that the Lakers had to battle against all through their 3 titles and afterwards. That counts against him like crazy. The fact you need to make hasty and sub-optimal management moves in order to placate your stars ego and prevent him leaving to the Clippers is similarly bad.

Nevermind the fact that Phil return in 2006, which wouldn't have happened if Kobe had an issue with him. Phil's whole beef was with Jim Buss. Your Laker history is all wrong.

The source I cite in that instance is Phil himself, in his book 11 Rings (which I have next to me as we speak). It's quite extensive, he clearly believes (correctly) that Kobe was the trigger for him being fired (and given his girlfriend had access to the inner circle of the Lakers at the time it'd be pretty astonishing if he didn't know, given all the other stuff he cites as evidence). Even if Kobe wasn't the main factor, the fact he went and bragged about how their coach was going to be fired to his team mates, and told the media he "didn't care", is appalling. What do you think that did to team morale?

Huh? Do you understand what SRS is? It measures a team's performance during the season in ways Win totals can't. And no, Lebron didn't have some +10 SRS impact, he wasn't even playing defense before 2009.

I just find it funny how you've completely brought in a new set of criteria, yet Kobe has outdone Lebron in that criteria and you refuse to admit it.

SRS is an indicator of team performance... the whole team, not just Lebron. Lebron's teams had bad SRS's because they were horrible teams. As Lebron continued to improve, and as the team made a marginal improvement, the team SRS went up. Why on earth would we be looking at team SRS to determine who the better individual is? Lebron's teams having a worse SRS isn't because he's a worse player than Kobe. I also have no idea why you're citing Lebron's team SRS's out of high school... nobody has said rookie Lebron was better than Kobe. But by 2008 Lebron was better than any version of Kobe that existed, and in 2009 he hit another level entirely.

[Basketballefan]

Kobe did with just Pau, what Lebron needed Wade/Bosh/Allen to do. The only answer you seem to have is that "oh, Lebron's cast sucked", which of course it didn't. When both had weak casts, Kobe did no worse, When they both had decent squads, Kobe did better.

In terms of sheer impact, where has Lebron proven to be better? Kobe's pre-prime during the 3peat was superior to Lebron's pre-prime 05-08. Kobe's prime is 30/6/5 57% TS, and more playoff success than Prime Lebron. Lebron's whole thing is his box scores, but they don't correlate to better SRS during the season, nor better playoff runs.

Lebron played elite defense for 4-5 years 09-13, but Kobe did it from 00-09. Kobe has more great scoring years, better longevity.

How do you say it was "just Pau" when he had a the 6th man of the year in Odom, Bynum(to a lesser degree), a soild point guard in Fisher and Artest/Ariza with Phil Jackson coaching. Are you forgetting that Bosh missed basically half the playoffs in 2012? That Bosh played like garbage throughout the 2013 playoffs and Wade was basically trash up until the Finals that year too? Ray Allen was a 10 ppg role player i have no idea why he was even mentioned.

As for the second part, i give you Kobe's 2001 season was probably better than Lbj from 05-08 but let's not ignore he had Peak Shaq and Phil Jackson coaching. However 2000 Kobe and 2002 Kobe are not better than 07 & 08 LBJ sorry. Using playoff success to justify it makes no sense.

[An Unbiased Fan]

2000-2003 Kobe is better than 2005-2008 Lebron. 06-10 Kobe is on par with 09-14 Lebron

Is 00-03 Kobe clearly better than 05-08 LeBron? I don't see it at all.

Kobe was better offensively and defensively during those years. Lebron didn't even start playing defense til 2009.

And how exactly is 06-10 Kobe on par with 09-14 LeBron? I have 09, 10, 12 and 13 LeBron above Kobe's peak season (06).

I have both spans on par. With Kobe/Lebron its hard to even say what their best seasons were. I tend to favor a consistent and exceptional period of 4-6 years and both have that. Both peaks are a function of their team's needs, similar to Bird/Magic. I prefer 2009 Kobe to 2009 Lebron, but like 06 Kobe over 09 Kobe, and 12 Lebron over 09 Lebron.

The separation for me is that Kobe's pre-prime was better, and he's got a little more post-prime at this time. In a few years that will likely shift though as Lebron's longevity gets in Kobe's range.

[An Unbiased Fan]

First off, Kobe was heading to the Clippers when this stuff went down, he wasn't concerned about Phil or Shaq. Again, Shaq himself said Kobe had nothing to do with it, so i'm not sure where you're going with this.

I cited sources such as Phil Jackson and Jerry West, who themselves cite others. Kobe's "me-first" attitude was a huge issue that the Lakers had to battle against all through their 3 titles and afterwards. That counts against him like crazy. The fact you need to make hasty and sub-optimal management moves in order to placate your stars ego and prevent him leaving to the Clippers is similarly bad.

No, you took quotes out of context to create a narrative. Kobe was a free agent and headed tot he Clips. Shaq had contract issues with Kupchak/Buss and could have signed an extension earlier that season. Phil had problems with West, and the Busses. This was known for years. The fact that you're trying to blame Kobe for it is baffling. What does any of this even have to do with on court play?

SRS is an indicator of team performance... the whole team, not just Lebron. Lebron's teams had bad SRS's because they were horrible teams. As Lebron continued to improve, and as the team made a marginal improvement, the team SRS went up. Why on earth would we be looking at team SRS to determine who the better individual is? Lebron's teams having a worse SRS isn't because he's a worse player than Kobe. I also have no idea why you're citing Lebron's team SRS's out of high school... nobody has said rookie Lebron was better than Kobe. But by 2008 Lebron was better than any version of Kobe that existed, and in 2009 he hit another level entirely.

YOU brought up team record, remember? I love how you're acting confused as to why SRS is being brought up.

And no, Pre-Prime Kobe had better offense/defense than 2008 Lebron.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Kobe did with just Pau, what Lebron needed Wade/Bosh/Allen to do. The only answer you seem to have is that "oh, Lebron's cast sucked", which of course it didn't. When both had weak casts, Kobe did no worse, When they both had decent squads, Kobe did better.

In terms of sheer impact, where has Lebron proven to be better? Kobe's pre-prime during the 3peat was superior to Lebron's pre-prime 05-08. Kobe's prime is 30/6/5 57% TS, and more playoff success than Prime Lebron. Lebron's whole thing is his box scores, but they don't correlate to better SRS during the season, nor better playoff runs.

Lebron played elite defense for 4-5 years 09-13, but Kobe did it from 00-09. Kobe has more great scoring years, better longevity.

How do you say it was "just Pau" when he had a the 6th man of the year in Odom, Bynum(to a lesser degree), a soild point guard in Fisher and Artest/Ariza with Phil Jackson coaching. Are you forgetting that Bosh missed basically half the playoffs in 2012? That Bosh played like garbage throughout the 2013 playoffs and Wade was basically trash up until the Finals that year too? Ray Allen was a 10 ppg role player i have no idea why he was even mentioned.

You gotta remember that Bynum was hurt in every run. Odom was literally on crack, and had just as many bad games as good ones. Fisher was horrible on offense and even worse on defense. Ariza was a throwaway in a trade deal before teaming with the Lakers. I have no problem comparing the casts as a wash if you want, but Baller was making it seem like Kobe's LA cast was better than the Heatles.

As for the second part, i give you Kobe's 2001 season was probably better than Lbj from 05-08 but let's not ignore he had Peak Shaq and Phil Jackson coaching. However 2000 Kobe and 2002 Kobe are not better than 07 & 08 LBJ sorry. Using playoff success to justify it makes no sense.

Kobe's 03 & 01 are better than his 07/08 years. I would put his 02/04/00 seasons above 05/06.

[Baller2014]

No, you took quotes out of context to create a narrative. Kobe was a free agent and headed tot he Clips. Shaq had contract issues with Kupchak/Buss and could have signed an extension earlier that season. Phil had problems with West, and the Busses. This was known for years. The fact that you're trying to blame Kobe for it is baffling. What does any of this even have to do with on court play?

There is nothing remotely out of context about those quotes. I have the book in front of me. Phil identifies Kobe's me-first attitude as a problem the entire time he was there in his initial Laker run. The entire time. He also flat out blames Kobe for getting him fired, and for getting Shaq moved. West makes similar comments about Kobe's constant refusal to defer to Shaq.

I know you're not dumb, so you know exactly what it has to do with on the court play. Kobe was hurting his team, constantly, with his attitude. He was lucky enough to be on a team with Shaq and Phil, so they won 3/5 titles anyway, but his having a different attitude sure would have helped. They basically won in spite of his bad attitude, not because of it. Off the court stuff shouldn't count, unless it hurts on the court play. Kobe's off court stuff clearly hurt on court play (and I haven't even mentioned his rape trial). It also hurt the management of the team, because they had to do dumb things just to placate Kobe.

YOU brought up team record, remember? I love how you're acting confused as to why SRS is being brought up.

And no, Pre-Prime Kobe had better offense/defense than 2008 Lebron.

I brought up team record with context- i.e. "here are the teams Lebron was carrying to better results than Kobe ever got in 09 and 10, once he hit his true prime". You're trying to compare rookie Lebron out of high school to Kobe in his 4th year out of HS. It's bizarre. The SRS helps tell us how good the team is, but it doesn't tell us how much Lebron/Kobe were making that team good. Lebron was doing way more, because he had way less. Not complicated.

[penbeast0]

Lots and lots of questions but after LeBron goes in, Mikan is the only guy left who was the clear and undisputed best player in the league for any length of time.

How do you define length of time?

Roughly 5 years or so. Key word is "undisputed" however.

[Baller2014]

Roughly 5 years or so. Key word is "undisputed" however.

In a league where the 2nd best big opted to become a salesman rather than play pro-ball. Mikan played in an era that would disgrace the NDBL. He has no business being in the top 100 players.

[ardee]

Roughly 5 years or so. Key word is "undisputed" however.

In a league where the 2nd best big opted to become a salesman rather than play pro-ball. Mikan played in an era that would disgrace the NDBL. He has no business being in the top 100 players.

Says you.

We voted two 60s players in the top 4, so it's clear that your bias toward modern players hasn't permeated into the rest of the project.

[Baller2014]

Roughly 5 years or so. Key word is "undisputed" however.

In a league where the 2nd best big opted to become a salesman rather than play pro-ball. Mikan played in an era that would disgrace the NDBL. He has no business being in the top 100 players.

Says you.

We voted two 60s players in the top 4, so it's clear that your bias toward modern players hasn't permeated into the rest of the project.

Even those 2 players were both post-shot clock players, in a way Mikan was clearly not. Mikan's dominance came before Russell arrived, and when Mikan left the league and came back a year later it had already changed so much he looked far worse. If you think I was harsh on the weakness of the segregated, unprofessional league of Russell's day, that pales in comparison to what I think of the pre-shot clock bush league Mikan played in. From what I understand, in the last top 100 project, Mikan and the pre-shot clock got wholly excluded, just to avoid embarrassing the guy (who was a nice person and an important historical footnote for the league, but a joke of a player by today's standards).

[Quotatious]

Frankly, I think the pre-shot clock/post-shot clock era thing is way overstated. Players like Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Dolph Schayes, Paul Arizin, Neil Johnston - pretty much every major star of that era, was able to translate just fine, actually all of them had their best seasons AFTER the introduction of shot clock. Why would Mikan be any different, considering that he was dominant in the league where some of these players were already playing?

[Baller2014]

None of those players should be in the top 100 either.

[Quotatious]

None of those players should be in the top 100 either.

I'm speechless...

Yeah, right, let's act like the NBA started in 1980...

Sorry for a non-contributing post, but I think it's hugely disrespectful of the history of the game to exclude those guys from consideration. The question that naturally comes to my mind right now is - what should be the starting point in this exercise, if we assume that the 50s players shouldn't be available? Then why should Russell, Baylor, Wilt, West, Oscar etc. be included? They all played in the league with some of those 50s players, as a matter of fact Cousy and Sharman were key players on some of the early Celtics championship teams with Russell.

It just doesn't make any sense for me.

[Baller2014]

Russell and Wilt were in my top 10, because the dominance they showed in their era demonstrated they transcended it. They also played more and more into the modern era than most of the guys you just named. The other guys you named were good players in their era, not transcendent ones. I stuck up for the NBA in the 70's already, I think it had grown a huge amount since the start of Russell's career, and various stats on this were posted (the % of black players, etc), so I'm not dissing the 70's. But the 50's were pretty much a joke, and it was in the late 50's and early 60's that the NBA started to transition into a modern pro-league. Not all at once, and not quickly. After Cousy and Sharman left the Celtics were fine btw.

[E-Balla]

To all the guys picking Lebron where's the David Robinson mentions? I mean if numbers are king Robinson should be in the top 10. I mean personally Robinson isn't in my top 20 (probably not my top 25 either) but statistically he could've been as high as 5th.

Also to the guys asking about Magic's offense outside of passing here's a breakdown (from me watching all of his Finals games pretty recently. All 50+):

80-84 - pre jumpshot Magic: He scored in 3 main ways: fast breaks, offensive boards, and posting up. He was insanely good an efficient at all three but another majorly underrated part of his game was his slashing.back then he was extremely quick for a forward and at 6-9 220 he moved like a 6-6 200 guy. He also had great handles (barely lost the ball) and he had to be as good of a finisher as Lebron (by 83 the man barely missed shots at the rim). Magic also didn't get many FGs on PGs usually he forced them to foul him or went right by them to get hacked by a big. He had an uncanny ability to take advantages of mismatches in a way where they either foul him or let him score.

85-88 - unstoppable inside the arc Magic: By this point inside the arc there was no stopping Magic. He primarily worked on postups and slashing in semi-transition (kinda like Rose did but using his length instead of ungodly speed). In real fast breaks he passed it way more often than before and he didn't crash the boards as much. The biggest change was that he developed a great jumper (he probably could've shot threes if he wanted to) and he used that strange set shot whenever someone gave him an inch of room or someone else created a shot for him. Was mostly used to keep defenses honest but it was wildly accurate. He also still made everything inside and in the paint.

89-91 - 3 point land Magic - athletically he couldn't finish like before or slash like before outside of transition. He basically lived by exploiting matchups. If the guy guarding him was small he took him inside for easy free throws or an easy finish and if the guy was big he easily drove past him or into the paint to get fouled. He also shot a lot more and improved his range. He basically only shot the three when defenses played off him or left him open and he shot it very well. Actually in 90 he made more threes than Chris Paul ever has and shot better from deep than any Lebron season outside of 2013. His 3 pointer wasn't hitting in the playoffs though because people knew not to leave him when the competition was more fierce and that set jumper was pretty slow.

Overall he was a great offensive player and I think he could've easily ramped up the shot attempts a bit and scored 25-27ppg while still maintaining high efficiency (like around 58-60 TS).

[Quotatious]

Russell and Wilt were in my top 10, because the dominance they showed in their era demonstrated they transcended it. They also played more and more into the modern era than most of the guys you just named. The other guys you named were good players in their era, not transcendent ones.

Not everyone here even agrees that Russell or Wilt were the best players of the 60s (for instance lorak has Oscar above both), and I struggle to see how these two centers were that much better than Robertson or West. All of them were superstars at the same time, which tells me that we could expect them to perform very similarly in the modern game. Baylor was putting up huge volume stats (just like Wilt) in the early 60s, so I'd be willing to include him more or less in the same category as well (I think he's the worst of the 5, rather clearly, but still great and a top 30-35 all-time level), Bob Pettit should be added to that group as well (he's an interesting player to analyze here because he was a superstar during both the 50s and 60s, first in the league that was almost all white (I hate to bring race into this discussion, but since you did, I will too), and in the early/mid 60s, there were quite a few athletic black players were already in the league (including guys who would be extremely athletic even by today's standards, like Wilt, Russell or Oscar).

I don't know what your notion of "transcendent" player is based on, but a guy like Robertson seemed to have as complete skillset as any player in NBA history, and in this regard he seems to be more "transcendent" than Russell, who couldn't even score that well in his own era (he was a decent, but not great scorer even in the late 50s, which your refer to as "pretty much a joke"). Russell's greatness was based in large part on his supreme mental capabilities and understanding of the game, which would likely evaporate more easily (with today's scouting and rule changes/changes in strategy, which would all lessen Russell's defensive impact), than Robertson's offensive skills like shooting, passing or post game, or West's shooting (his pull-up jumper would still be one of, if not THE quickest and most unguardable in the league)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPLt29tE3PI[/youtube]

After Cousy and Sharman left the Celtics were fine btw.

Yes, because they replaced them with other great players, just as good as them - Sam Jones and John Havlicek (that is, Jones improved his game enough to become an All-Star, as opposed to a reserve player when Sharman was still on the team).

[Baller2014]

Jerry West and Oscar weren't as good as Wilt or Russell, and IMO neither should be in the top 20 (though it's close). But even if we overlook that, West and Oscar got into the NBA in 1961. Gigantic changes had happened in the NBA since Mikan's time at this point. In Russell's rookie year he was the only black player on his title winning team, by 1969 61% of all minutes were being played by black players; not to mention the increasingly professional nature of the game attracted more and more players (so they didn't drop out to become salesman because basketball wasn't lucrative enough) and meant more and more coaching at a young age. To compare Mikan's era to the NBA in 1970 onwards is, IMO, misguided.

It's pretty obvious Russell and Wilt were transcendent. They put up godlike numbers nobody really got close to on a consistent basis, and Russell won all the rings. The two years he didn't were when he was hurt, and the Hawks Pettit fluked into one, and when Wilt finally started focusing on team basketball and took one off him. A bunch of other guys putting up grossly lesser stats in the semi-pro league that was the late 50's and mid-60's doesn't mean a whole lot, plenty of guys in NBA history put up big (empty) numbers, the only difference is these guys were HoFers for historical reasons, and so we pretend like it matters. It doesn't. I also don't really see how West and Oscar existing from 1961 either a) helps Mikan, or b) diminishes my point about Russell and Wilt. I mean, those guys were losing to Russell and Wilt, not Neil Johnston and Sharman and other outdated players who you named. Your point would only matter if guys like Bob Cousy were outplaying Oscar and West, which clearly never happned.