RealGM Top 100 List #26

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Scottie Pippen

His pre-91 years get underrated, and he was the best player on a 6+ SRS team in 2000. You add all that with his stellar 1991-1998 period of GOAT perimeter defense and excellent all-around offense, and you get an incredibly valuable player. I agree with drza that he kind of has pseudo-point guard impact with pseudo-big man impact on defense. Incredibly portable. KG is the most portable player ever in my opinion, and Scottie has always been seen as a mini-version of KG. Makes sense to me.

Lot of great players here though. I really like the Durant, Frazier, and Stockton picks. Elgin is tremendous. Rick Barry. CP3. Isiah Thomas. Very difficult at this point. I'll be posting about Alex English soon as well. Dude was a beast in the 80s.

[E-Balla]

Vote: Scottie Pippen

His pre-91 years get underrated, and he was the best player on a 6+ SRS team in 2000. You add all that with his stellar 1991-1998 period of GOAT perimeter defense and excellent all-around offense, and you get an incredibly valuable player. I agree with drza that he kind of has pseudo-point guard impact with pseudo-big man impact on defense. Incredibly portable. KG is the most portable player ever in my opinion, and Scottie has always been seen as a mini-version of KG. Makes sense to me.

Lot of great players here though. I really like the Durant, Frazier, and Stockton picks. Elgin is tremendous. Rick Barry. CP3. Isiah Thomas. Very difficult at this point. I'll be posting about Alex English soon as well. Dude was a beast in the 80s.

Sheed played more minutes, had a higher scoring average and PER, a higher on/off, and a higher RAPM. There isn't a single metric going for Scottie.

And what about Scottie's postseason performances? I just don't trust him as much as the rest contending for this spot.

[Doctor MJ]

[So altogether now:

Gilmore had the better peak by the estimation of most
And he had a longer duration as a big minute player, continuing to play in a way signaling likely impact
And overall he just played a lot more racking up a lot o' numbers.

So yeah, at least among these guys, Gilmore's definitely the next pick.

McAdoo - mvp
Cowens- mvp
Reed - mvp
Walton - mvp
Unseld - mvp
Lanier - 3rd in mvp voting - behind Jabbar and Cowens
Gilmore - 8th in mvp voting

Highest peak by most ??- not anyone watching at the time.

I just have a hard time taking a guy who was top 10 player in the league 3 times and considering him for Top 30 of all-time.

Played a long time - yes, 2nd to the Chief in guys that are left. If the goal is simply to reward guys who played a long time at a good level, the Artis and Parish are your guys.

Artis has these impressive numbers -
62% TS, 18% Reb, 3.6% Block %

So does Tyson Chandler -

http://bkref.com/tiny/fUTUl

First, you're bring up a bunch of guys who weren't in the post I was responding to. It's absolutely fine for you to bring up other guys - in fact that's what I was essentially asking for people to do - but it was crystal clear that I wasn't saying that Gilmore had a higher peak than Walton.

Second, it's clear time and again that you just don't respect the ABA. It's interesting because you lived through the era. It's not the typical stance we get from people of that age - typically they are the ones convincing younger people to take it seriously. In the end, I doubt I'll be able to sway your opinion of the ABA given your long held beliefs, and if that's the case I certainly don't expect you to be voting for Gilmore as the next big.

For my part, I do consider Gilmore's peak to be above all those guys except Walton. No great mystery. If you simply take what the ABA seriously, you'll think such a belief is at least defensible.

Re: Top 10 player 3 times. So it's more clear where I'm coming from, here's how many years I have the guys you listed ranked as Top 10 players in their career (note pre-merger, that's the Top 10 between the two leagues):

Gilmore 8
Unseld 5
Reed 4
Cowens 4
McAdoo 3
Lanier 3
Walton 2

So yeah, between that and his peak play, he beats these others guys so, so easily in my book.

[drza]

I went back to post 66 and made my official vote for Scottie Pippen this thread. I'm still evaluating, but at the moment he's more impressive to me than Stockton or Frazier. I'm really interested in comparing those 2 PGs with Zeke and Kidd, if the time arises.

But for now, I think Scottie's combo of point guard-like offense and big man-like defense is enough to take it

[penbeast0]

Only 9 votes so far.

Stockton: 5 (FJS, trex_8063, Owly, Clyde Frazier, SactoKingsFan)
Frazier: 2 (penbeast, batmana)
Durant: 1 (DQuinn1575)
Isiah: 1 (JordansBulls)

Counting drza's changed vote and ronnymac2,

Stockton 5
Frazier 2
Pippen 2
Durant 1
Isiah 1

I will change my vote to John Stockton so that we have a majority and avoid the runoff. Lots of new talent showing up this time!

[E-Balla]

I'm voting for Clyde Frazier. I was trying to keep an open mind and reevaluate who I had at this spot but Walt is the easy answer for me. His postseason performance along with his ability to takeover games in many ways makes him in a class with few other guards and all those guys are off the board.

[Doctor MJ]

My biggest issue with regards to Artis is how much his performance seems to drop after the merger. Some of that I guess is to be expected, but its a factor for me currently. I'd listen to arguments for why I shouldn't be as bothered by it tho.

Really? In the 2nd year after the merge his scoring was better than his last year in the ABA by both volume (pace adjusted) and efficiency. Similarly with his rebounding & blocking. He played less minutes sure, but he still played plenty big minutes so that's not really damning - relevant if you want to rank it below his ABA play, but not something to be used to knock his quality.

His big shift to low volume, ultra efficiency didn't happen until after he established he could do his ABA thing in the NBA, and even then it wasn't a true low volume until he got really old.

I'll also add that when he came to the NBA, he was clearly a defensive force. The Bulls defense became really dang strong.

My two concerns with Gilmore are these:

1) He does seem like he peaked as a rookie. As someone who doesn't see rookies as impressive basketball player in most cases unless they are extremely precocious in their BBIQ, this bothers me. Makes you question whether it was due to weak competition.

However, it's not like there's any doubt about Gilmore's physical talent. If you looked at the bigs that existed between the NBA & ABA, just pure eye ball off the court, Gilmore's possibly the only one who would rank ahead of Wilt & Kareem, and from the photos we see from the time that accompany the stories, it's clear that in terms of raw jumping attributes, Gilmore was right there with the best that we've ever seen from anyone of that size.

The question with Gilmore was not how he could be that good, but rather why he wasn't even better. So when we see data indicating he was a force of nature to start, I'm inclined to believe.

And I think the big issues afterward were simply that he wasn't one of those guys whose BBIQ rose enough to offset that he lost physically as he aged. There's also his passive personality to consider, and that certainly had an effect, but that's what contributed to his less-volume, more-efficiency approach to offense, which I'm not at all sure is a bad thing. I wouldn't have wanted Kareem to do that, but Gilmore never had a touch anything like Kareem.

[Doctor MJ]

Assuming that ABA counts for absolutely nothing sure. But he does have an MVP over (rookie) Erving and Rick Barry (at 27; also Zelmo Beatty and Mel Daniels at the C position)

Artis was a real good player in the ABA in 1972 - but the league wasn't anywhere near as strong as the NBA, ESPECIALLY the center position.

32 year old Zelmo Beaty, a good NBA player was the 2nd best center in the league.

Doctor J was a rookie, 2nd team all-league - did no lead his team in scoring. - Charlie Scott did.

A NBA reject - Donnie Freeman, and sub - Bill Melchionni were 1st team all-league.
The league was getting great young talent - Charlie Scott, Willie Wise, Issel, Gilmore -

Jim McDaniels, was the 4th all-star center - he was a rookie who never was a starter again. A stretch-4 before his time.

Artis was good, but you have to deflate the stats a fair amount here.

This is great stuff to point out. I'll say some things in turn:

-Scott didn't actually lead Erving's team in scoring, because he moved to another team toward the end of the year, which had everything to do with Erving's breakout in the playoffs. Scott was much less efficient than Erving, and the team offense was weak with him as the 1st option, and improved with him gone. Scott incidentally left not for another ABA team but for an NBA team, and while that misguided scoring volume went away, his overall stats by PER were in the same ballpark as before. He was arguably more effective in the NBA than in the ABA even if he was never as prominent a figure.

-Both the guards you mention making All-ABA after not starring in the NBA were drafted by the 76ers in 1966...the off-season before the team pivoted under Hannum and became the GOAT team the NBA had ever seen with the GOAT offense, which didn't even start Billy Cunningham. For one to ride the pine, and the other to get cut, isn't actually that damning to me. Neither was a super-hyped prospect, and certainly neither was the focus of Hannum's scouting and development in the pre-season.

Not saying those guys were anything like what we'd now expect from an All-NBA 1st team guy, but I think they clearly proved that that had developed into NBA-worthy guys. Also they were guards, and it's not like they were considered serious ABA superstars at the time, so to me that doesn't really affect how I see ABA front court men. It's interesting for all the ABA's flashy reputation, the focus of the play was on the front court rather than the back.

What about the bigs? What about Zelmo? Nice NBA player, then 2 superstar ABA years (then he fell back to earth, but he was getting old). Whatever else we look at, how can Zelmo get so good when he joins the ABA unless the quality of competition is weaker?

I think that has to be the answer to some degree, but I'll point out that his ABA coach was Bill Sharman, and Zelmo's shooting volume actually went DOWN when he went to the ABA. His scoring just stayed similar because his efficiency skyrocketed.

So then, his efficiency skyrockets, his rebounding goes up, and he's seen as way more effective than he'd been before...under Sharman. Sound familiar?

It should. The Lakers hired him based on that coaching performance, and a similar thing happened to Wilt as the Lakers instantly went from a multi-year disappointment (relative to expectations) to becoming a legendary team.

What about McDaniels? Well he was a volume scoring big on a bad offense in the ABA, who left to join another team (in the NBA) that already had a volume scoring big, and then by his own admission was too young & immature to handle the adversity when they didn't hand the team over to him (his petulance was why he left his ABA team too).

[penbeast0]

I would say it isn't until 75 when the ABA fully catches up to the NBA; 71 they probably come within 10% but no closer. I like to say that the ABA was the botched signing of Kareem from being equal to the NBA from 72 on but that's more a statement of how incredible Kareem was talent-wise; he was head and shoulders over anyone in the NBA from Wilt's retirement on too.

[magicmerl]

Durant voters,

I'd like to hear about how he compares with two other small forwards: Elgin Baylor and Rick Barry.

The tie breaker for me was efficiency. Baylor started out well but took a dive, playing in a less competitive era.
Barry has some pretty good highs, but faded quick so doesn't get much longevity in Durant.
Both Barry and Baylor passed well, but Barry gets a okay at best on defense.

I think Durant as #2 player in league behind lbj is much better peak than Baylor.
Barry versus Durant is tough call; Barry missed year to aba switch, had injuries and didn't get much extra time in with longevity.

I know about the decreased efficiency, but still peak Baylor is 38.3 ppg / 18.6 rpg . He was only #3 in the league because of Wilt and Russell.

Baylor was elite for 4 years (1960-63), plus 7 other all-star seasons.

Durant was elite for 5 years, plus 2 other non-all-star seasons.

The gap in longevity is considerable.

The years that Baylor looks his best is the highest pace in league history. They are more pedestrian when converted into per100 values.

[Quotatious]

I'll be posting about Alex English soon as well. Dude was a beast in the 80s.

I think it's too early for English, he's IMO a top 45 or top 50 player, MAYBE top 40 (35-40 range, that is), but it still seems a bit too high...Anyway, thanks a lot for mentioning him. I really hope that he won't get overlooked again, like he apparently was in 2011 (considering that Dominique was ranked 41st, and Alex 56th...there's no way the gap between them is that big - at best, Nique may be slightly better, but even then, I'd disagree with that - personally, I rank English a bit higher).


Surprised to see this thread ending so quickly, after only 10 votes or so. I'm totally fine with Stockton winning it though, I think he's very deserving (and he was the guy I was leaning towards as well).

[john248]

I'll be posting about Alex English soon as well. Dude was a beast in the 80s.

I think it's too early for English, he's IMO a top 45 or top 50 player, MAYBE top 40 (35-40 range, that is), but it still seems a bit too high...Anyway, thanks a lot for mentioning him. I really hope that he won't get overlooked again, like he apparently was in 2011 (considering that Dominique was ranked 41st, and Alex 56th...there's no way the gap between them is that big - at best, Nique may be slightly better, but even then, I'd disagree with that - personally, I rank English a bit higher).


Surprised to see this thread ending so quickly, after only 10 votes or so. I'm totally fine with Stockton winning it though, I think he's very deserving (and he was the guy I was leaning towards as well).

I prefer English to Nique too. Better defense, good off-ball. Nique did have a nice stretch from 86 to 93 in the playoffs and managed to get past the 1st round when the EC was tough which says a lot because the Hawks GM had no clue how to assemble players. Played during a time when efficiency was high, and well English edges him as does Aguirre.

[penbeast0]

Why do you say that about the Hawks GM. They never got a second superstar but did a nice job getting role players around Nique . . . other than John Koncak whom they seemed fond of.

Tree Rollins, Moses, Mutombo, Koncak, and Kevin Willis played center for them in this stretch
Dan Roundfield, Cliff Levinson, Antoine Carr played forward
Mookie Blaylock, Doc Rivers, Fast Eddie Johnson, Stacey Augmon, Johnny Dawkins, John Battle played guard

That's a bunch of solid players, some with a star potential. The problem Nique had was that (a) his prime coincided with the Bird led Celtics and the Erving led Sixers who were more talented (and the Squid led Bucks too) and (b) he scored well but not that efficiently (compare to peers Alex English, Adrian Dantley, Bernard King, Mark Aquirre, James Worthy, Marques Johnson, Bird and English -- to say nothing of Gervin) and he didn't seem to work hard at defense although the rest of the Hawks were generally very good (Tree, Moses, Mutombo, Roundfield, Eddie Johnson, and Blaylock all have at least some All-D awards).

[john248]

Tough EC and other SFs being more efficient are points I already made. Don't really consider the Sixers as they were falling off by the time Barkley took over though the Pistons were on the rise and had a nice stretch right in the middle of Nique's run in the playoffs. Then there was Chicago's 1st 3-peat.

I don't see much of a point in listing Rollins, who wasn't really around when Nique peaked and went on a nice playoff run from 86-93, and Koncak. Mutombo? He was upsetting the Sonics at the time. Roundfield then Willis were nice players. Not much change from 86 to 88 until Moses came though at the end of his prime. Lots of solid defensive guys who didn't offer much offensively and not much when it comes to shooters. Mookie came in a trade in 92 as did Plasticman in the draft. By the time this happens, Weiss is head coach, and Nique is out by 94.

[penbeast0]

I may have missed guys or been off a bit, it was off the top of my head. But I've had this discussion before. And that's what you want around Nique . . . good defenders, preferably with some shooting range since Nique like to work close to the basket.

I don't think you can say that's bad management. They didn't get a star next to him (maybe Moses but he wasn't really still a monster by that point) but they got a lot of good players and ones that fit with a defensive mentality -- sort of like the Philly team Larry Brown built around Iverson only with superior offensive play.