RealGM Top 100 List 2017: #12

[Pablo Novi]

I think it's more useful to look past the specific strengths and weaknesses in a players game and instead focus on how much success they had given the circumstances they had to work with.

That explains my support of Mikan this round, but moreover I think it simplifies a complex pursuit. There is great value in the wealth of knowledge and analytical ability here, but once we are splitting hairs between guys we rank 1,2 or maybe 10 spots apart, I think it's better to focus on what happened than what could have if...

I see Mikan as having far easier circumstances to work with than other players in contention here. Dominating a league without black players is not the same.

Having been raised by a dad who swore by all-things-Mikan; (back then ALL NBL/NBA fans KNEW there'd NEVER be anyone to surpass Mr Basketball); I find it harder (personally) to criticize Mikan than any other player.

BUT, not only were there no black players; the level of play back then is just INFERIOR generally. You watch clips and it's embarrassing, to tell the truth. Set shots ruled, watching your every dribble. Offensive and defensive schemes? Nah, NOT Modern Era at all.

Sorry, George.

[JoeMalburg]

I judge players based on the level of play they achieved in achieving those team and individual accomplishments. It's subjective but there's no way around this.

In general, things in human society follow S-curves of growth.



What I would say is that the step part of basketball's performance graph came with the arrival of the NBA. If you look at data from the late '40s in the NBL/BAA, you see horrible, horrible shooting efficiency. It's not cause the defense was great. It's because these were guys who had spent far less time practicing their shot than, say, Steph Curry had done by the time he was done with high school, and possible less than Curry had done by the end of middle school.

How you tend to know that you've reached the end of the rapid growth is that people tend to be older before they learn to dominate and they tend to be able to maintain their domination at a longer age.

Mikan was the best pro in the world the moment he went pro, and his peak came in '50-51 when he was still only 26, after that he fell of rapidly. One player is just an anecdote, but such a young player dominating is precisely what we'd expect from someone in a "young" sport.

Within a decade, you'd have Russell arrive an instantly be the best defensive player, and Oscar arrive and be the best offensive player, and both of those guys were able to dominate consistently for more than a decade despite the fact the league was going through massive changes.

Combine that with the weirdness of expansion and your rapidly maturing league quality hits a plateau around 1970. It's grown since then, but not enough to keep old guys from being awesome.

If Steve Nash can still dominate the league offensively today at the age of 35, it's pretty clear to me that the big changes since that time are less about talent quality and more about strategic change, and to the extent those are brought by league, management, and coach, players should largely have that adjusted for.

So, I find it very hard to take seriously guys who peaked at an early age in the 50s and showed no signs of "figuring stuff out" as new guys came in and played the game smarter. With Mikan, it's possible that it was just bad luck we didn't get to see him more, but on the other hand, he wasn't an efficient volume scorer, and it's hard for me to see him as a specimen capable of Russell/Nate/Wilt defense.

You have an exceptional way of expressing yourself and your opinions. I've greatly enjoyed learning from a number of the things you've posted here.

I've rarely heard the argument made that you just made about players from the dawn of modern professional basketball. I do think it is the one legitimate argument I've heard.

So Having qualified my response, perhaps I'm a bit of a romantic in that I still think the contributions of big George are significant enough to overlook the fact that he obviously was not able to adapt to the quickening pace and more skill-based game that would emerge.

While he unquestioningly benefited from arriving in a league during its infancy stages, I also think it's reasonable to assume he'll have benefited from the improved strategy and physical conditioning in evolution that players foreign a decade or two later on questionably did.

For all his physical advantages, it seems the defining characteristic of Mikan what's his tenacity and competitive spirit. These traits he shares with almost every great player we've talked about already and will talk about among the top 50 players.

And in a bubble or perhaps better a vacuum, I will take a run of shortsighted, but absolute dominance over a gradual progression to temporary excellence.

Thank you for your kind words. They themselves were quite well constructed.

I also apologize if I came across as aggressive earlier, and I do get the pull to include what we might call influence into this list. It's tricky.

George MIkan is one of a handful of the most important players to ever play the game, and that's a legit list. We could make a list that's basically "Draft your own Hall of Fame" one player at a time based on the idea of what should be there for kids to see from now until the end times when ball do lie.

But this isn't that list.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that being a spearhead is irrelevant to the discussion, it's just that only the consequences of the spearhead with direct impact on the court should be considered.

Of course, therein lies the rub. What constitutes direct impact? I tend to think of things from a franchise perspective, so if a guy comes up with something that benefits the whole league, that's could be said to cancel out franchise benefit.

However, to the extent the spearhead spearheads something of great advantage that cannot be emulated rapidly or entirely, it is quite plausible to think on that impact as a predictor of intelligent action in any era.

All this basically means that I think as long as you know that this is not a Rushmore project, and don't try to make it one, your perspective is probably distinct only enough to add dimension to our conversation.

Fair enough, I get it.

Here's my last objection/suggestion: Eliminate players whose career started before the shot clock. Essentially you're ruling out Mikan, Cousy, Schayes, Arizin and maybe a few more whose impact are truly hard to quantify relative to where the league went and was going.

I'm always bumped when I see Mikan at an obviously "honorary" #30 or #50 all-time where the list maker(s) abandon the criteria that determined the rest of the list to pay homage to a spearhead, as you put it.


Babe Ruth is the obvious cross sport comparison, Otto Graham is maybe the better, if less obvious comparison.

I think that's where our difference in approach is really highlighted.

Still, my goal is solely to contribute, not disrupt, so I won't dwell on my own narratives.

[Dr Positivity]

I could just as easily see it argued that Wilt is Ruth but Mikan is like, Cap Anson

[Pablo Novi]

A General Comment On This Series, and especially This Thread.
A tremendous amount of quality posts! (With very little flame-warring).

Whether you THOUGHT you knew a lot about the game; you could hardly find a better summation of it than in this series.

All credit due to RealGM and its marvelous band of NBA-ABA-NBL thinkers/writers.

[Doctor MJ]

You have an exceptional way of expressing yourself and your opinions. I've greatly enjoyed learning from a number of the things you've posted here.

I've rarely heard the argument made that you just made about players from the dawn of modern professional basketball. I do think it is the one legitimate argument I've heard.

So Having qualified my response, perhaps I'm a bit of a romantic in that I still think the contributions of big George are significant enough to overlook the fact that he obviously was not able to adapt to the quickening pace and more skill-based game that would emerge.

While he unquestioningly benefited from arriving in a league during its infancy stages, I also think it's reasonable to assume he'll have benefited from the improved strategy and physical conditioning in evolution that players foreign a decade or two later on questionably did.

For all his physical advantages, it seems the defining characteristic of Mikan what's his tenacity and competitive spirit. These traits he shares with almost every great player we've talked about already and will talk about among the top 50 players.

And in a bubble or perhaps better a vacuum, I will take a run of shortsighted, but absolute dominance over a gradual progression to temporary excellence.

Thank you for your kind words. They themselves were quite well constructed.

I also apologize if I came across as aggressive earlier, and I do get the pull to include what we might call influence into this list. It's tricky.

George MIkan is one of a handful of the most important players to ever play the game, and that's a legit list. We could make a list that's basically "Draft your own Hall of Fame" one player at a time based on the idea of what should be there for kids to see from now until the end times when ball do lie.

But this isn't that list.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that being a spearhead is irrelevant to the discussion, it's just that only the consequences of the spearhead with direct impact on the court should be considered.

Of course, therein lies the rub. What constitutes direct impact? I tend to think of things from a franchise perspective, so if a guy comes up with something that benefits the whole league, that's could be said to cancel out franchise benefit.

However, to the extent the spearhead spearheads something of great advantage that cannot be emulated rapidly or entirely, it is quite plausible to think on that impact as a predictor of intelligent action in any era.

All this basically means that I think as long as you know that this is not a Rushmore project, and don't try to make it one, your perspective is probably distinct only enough to add dimension to our conversation.

Fair enough, I get it.

Here's my last objection/suggestion: Eliminate players whose career started before the shot clock. Essentially you're ruling out Mikan, Cousy, Schayes, Arizin and maybe a few more whose impact are truly hard to quantify relative to where the league went and was going.

I'm always bumped when I see Mikan at an obviously "honorary" #30 or #50 all-time where the list maker(s) abandon the criteria that determined the rest of the list to pay homage to a spearhead, as you put it.


Babe Ruth is the obvious cross sport comparison, Otto Graham is maybe the better, if less obvious comparison.

I think that's where our difference in approach is really highlighted.

Still, my goal is solely to contribute, not disrupt, so I won't dwell on my own narratives.

I should check myself here. This isn't my project. All I'll say is that I've seen it done with a few different cutoffs, and all of them have been fine by me.

I love your Otto Graham mention dude. It's mind blowing to me how unknown he is in football circles given that he's a contemporary of Bill Russell. I think it really goes to show how sports bloomed as pop culture came of age in the '60s.

For the record, I've made Graham GOAT arguments before. I don't know if that makes me easier to understand or just a potential hypocrite.

[Winsome Gerbil]

The thing is, WHENEVER Mikan is added, it's always going to have to be on some sliding scale of "dominating the early inferior league for x years = being a lesser player in the modern league for y years" sort of formula. It just depends on the values you fill in. There's never a point you're going to reach where you can say "well Mikan would do better than this player in the modern era". If you sent Demarcus Cousins (career 487gms 10308pts 5267reb) back to the mid-1950s in place of Mikan (career 439gms 10156pts 4167reb) it would be a slaughter of epic proportions and yet I know this board's tenor well enough to know that squeezing Cousins in at the back of the 100 is going to be a chore. Mikan will, or should, place much higher. But it can't be on basketball talent, or on long career value, or anything like that. We're all going to be using some sort of fuzzy formula to give credit to a primitive player for dominating his primitive era as the first and earliest GOAT. I can't really say that somebody who wants to do it so soon is "wrong" per se, anymore than I can say somebody putting him #25, or #35 is "wrong". Just subjectively inserting different values in those x and y slots.

[mdonnelly1989]

I agree - the Big "O" was about as good a PG as was Magic. (He averaged a triple-double over the first FIVE years of his career.

I also agree about Jerry West - he was the original Curry - virtually unlimited range (if they'd have had the 3-point shot back then!). Back then we all knew about his defensive prowess. He certainly earned his nickname, "Mr Clutch".

Here's a sample from my Reg. Seas. GOAT list. Col. 1 is their Over-All GOAT rank (based on their "Points", in Col 2. Those "Points" are based on their number of selections to ALL-League 1st-Teams, 2nd-Teams, etc. A player gets 5 "Points" for each 1st-Team selection; 3 "Points" for each 2nd-Team selection.

My basic criteria for my GOAT rankings is based on the NUMBER of Great Years each player had. All these guys had at least 10 such Great Years.

..8 ! 55.. ! 3 ! West, Jerry ............ !! 2
..9 ! 54.. ! 2 ! Erving, Julius .......... !! 3
10 ! 51.. ! 1 ! Robertson, Oscar ...... !! 1
11 ! 50.. ! 2 ! Johnson, Magic ......... !! 1

I never thought as highly of Dr. J as Jerry West or Oscar Robertson.

Jerry West and Oscar both seem to be much better playmakers than Dr. J and possibly even better scorers. It's hard to say though because Dr. J played a lot of his prime in the ABA.

I just feel like The Big O and West were flat out better.

It's just such a pity that Dr J (and the ABA) played to such small audiences (and, much worse) had minuscule TV coverage.

There was nothing on offense that Dr J wasn't the best ever up to that point in history, imo. His handle was just phenomenal.
Picture squeezing between two defenders with no room to spare; yet dribbling between his legs to do so.

The "world would go silent and gawky-eyed" when it was time for him to go iso. No defender had a chance to stop him. Entire teams couldn't stop his drives to the basket - where he often made spectacularly delicious dunks; or truly unbelievable moves.

Except for one dunk by Elgin Baylor over Wilt (where he floated across the key, Wilt came in to squash his shot - and Elgin flipped the ball to his other hand and hammered it home); ALL my All-Time favorite dunks are Dr J's - he was that flashy, that skilled, that athletic, that gifted, that ... aesthetically pleasing an artist.

Against the definitely favored Nuggets in the last ABA Finals, led on defense by arguably THE best defender in either League in Bobby Jones, Dr J just went off, iirc, 37.7 ppg (and played killed D to boot).

I applaud you on your knowledge of those ERA's. Basically the way you explained Dr. J sounds identical to MJ.

Dr. J has been known quite often to be the original MJ from what I've heard as well.

You have shined a new light on me with Dr. J and I suppose he was better than his stats would suggest relative to Jerry West and Oscar because as 27 year that and what I've heard/read are the only things that I can go on.

[scrabbarista]

We did it! The Top Eleven are the right eleven players!

Indeed we did.



The great injustice of 2014 has been avenged in the last thread.

Cut it out, both of you. trex

Got it.

[THKNKG]

Same as last thread:

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Dirk Nowitzki

I'll expound soon

Others in consideration post-KG:
Malone^2, Nash, CP3, Erving, West, Robertson, Mikan, DRob, Barkley, Stockton, Ewing, Pettit

Dirk, Oscar, West, DRob are my strongest candidates for the next spot

[therealbig3]

I agree Malone's defense is better than Dirk's. Malone had better accolades (1st team All-Defense from 97-99) had better boxscore defensive stats and his post defense and his intimidation factor are things we can confidently say are better than Dirk while it's hard to find what Dirk is better than Malone at on D

I think we're all forgetting that Dirk is a 7 footer and was certainly more of a deterrent at the rim than K. Malone. I mean, rim protection has been referenced as a "weakness" for KG in this project, and why he can't be a GOAT-level defender, but if blocks are so important, then certainly that's a pretty big deal when it comes to Dirk vs K. Malone, no?

Furthermore, in the playoffs, Dirk really upped his defensive rebounding and was absolutely elite in that regard.

If we look at K. Malone's best 11-year stretch in terms of defensive rebounding and blocked shots (so that we can fairly compare it to Dirk's 01-11 prime):

RS, K. Malone (90-00): 24.5 DRB%, 1.6 BLK%
RS, Nowitzki (01-11): 22.8 DRB%, 2.0 BLK%

PS, K. Malone (90-00): 24.4 DRB%, 1.6 BLK%
PS, Nowitzki (01-11): 24.8 DRB%, 1.8 BLK%

Dirk is the better shot blocker, and was slightly better as a defensive rebounder in the playoffs. And mysticbb made some great posts in the past about how Dirk focusing on getting back on defense vs crashing the offensive glass meant that it really cut down on transition opportunities for opposing teams. Furthermore, Dirk's range meant that he was naturally able to more easily get back on D due to being on the perimeter, as well as the fact that he took excellent care of the basketball (his TOV% in the years discussed was also slightly better than K. Malone's). That stuff matters a lot with regards to defense as well.

[oldschooled]

I just think its hard to argue against Mailman's career value and RELEVANT longevity. Him playing at an elite level at an insane amount of time is on par with the first 11 guys voted here (see previous post).

Vote : Karl Malone
Alt : considering Admiral, Dr. J, Sir Charles, Dirk, KG

[Dr Positivity]

I agree Malone's defense is better than Dirk's. Malone had better accolades (1st team All-Defense from 97-99) had better boxscore defensive stats and his post defense and his intimidation factor are things we can confidently say are better than Dirk while it's hard to find what Dirk is better than Malone at on D

I think we're all forgetting that Dirk is a 7 footer and was certainly more of a deterrent at the rim than K. Malone. I mean, rim protection has been referenced as a "weakness" for KG in this project, and why he can't be a GOAT-level defender, but if blocks are so important, then certainly that's a pretty big deal when it comes to Dirk vs K. Malone, no?

Furthermore, in the playoffs, Dirk really upped his defensive rebounding and was absolutely elite in that regard.

If we look at K. Malone's best 11-year stretch in terms of defensive rebounding and blocked shots (so that we can fairly compare it to Dirk's 01-11 prime):

RS, K. Malone (90-00): 24.5 DRB%, 1.6 BLK%
RS, Nowitzki (01-11): 22.8 DRB%, 2.0 BLK%

PS, K. Malone (90-00): 24.4 DRB%, 1.6 BLK%
PS, Nowitzki (01-11): 24.8 DRB%, 1.8 BLK%

Dirk is the better shot blocker, and was slightly better as a defensive rebounder in the playoffs. And mysticbb made some great posts in the past about how Dirk focusing on getting back on defense vs crashing the offensive glass meant that it really cut down on transition opportunities for opposing teams. Furthermore, Dirk's range meant that he was naturally able to more easily get back on D due to being on the perimeter, as well as the fact that he took excellent care of the basketball (his TOV% in the years discussed was also slightly better than K. Malone's). That stuff matters a lot with regards to defense as well.

Very good points

[Winsome Gerbil]

I agree Malone's defense is better than Dirk's. Malone had better accolades (1st team All-Defense from 97-99) had better boxscore defensive stats and his post defense and his intimidation factor are things we can confidently say are better than Dirk while it's hard to find what Dirk is better than Malone at on D

I think we're all forgetting that Dirk is a 7 footer and was certainly more of a deterrent at the rim than K. Malone. I mean, rim protection has been referenced as a "weakness" for KG in this project, and why he can't be a GOAT-level defender, but if blocks are so important, then certainly that's a pretty big deal when it comes to Dirk vs K. Malone, no?

Furthermore, in the playoffs, Dirk really upped his defensive rebounding and was absolutely elite in that regard.

If we look at K. Malone's best 11-year stretch in terms of defensive rebounding and blocked shots (so that we can fairly compare it to Dirk's 01-11 prime):

RS, K. Malone (90-00): 24.5 DRB%, 1.6 BLK%
RS, Nowitzki (01-11): 22.8 DRB%, 2.0 BLK%

PS, K. Malone (90-00): 24.4 DRB%, 1.6 BLK%
PS, Nowitzki (01-11): 24.8 DRB%, 1.8 BLK%

Dirk is the better shot blocker, and was slightly better as a defensive rebounder in the playoffs. And mysticbb made some great posts in the past about how Dirk focusing on getting back on defense vs crashing the offensive glass meant that it really cut down on transition opportunities for opposing teams. Furthermore, Dirk's range meant that he was naturally able to more easily get back on D due to being on the perimeter, as well as the fact that he took excellent care of the basketball (his TOV% in the years discussed was also slightly better than K. Malone's). That stuff matters a lot with regards to defense as well.

You might be surprised just how effective the threat of a flying knee or elbow to the head can be at discouraging penetration.

Shawn Bradley and Raef LaFrentz blocked a lot of shots for the Mavs, but there's got to be some intimidation with it or guys are still going to like going at you.

P.S. Career block% for Dirk? 1.9%. For Karl? 1.5% Again, one of the really notable traits about Mailman was how he had almost no weaknesses. Not everything was an overwhelming strength, but even the things you don't normally think of first with him he actually did at a solid level. As a shotblocker he was a bit like Lebron, he'd chase guys down on the break and swat things away, and if he could accidentally land a knee and knock you into the basket stanchion for your trouble, he'd do that too.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

Alt: Oscar Robertson

So Kobe beat KG? Cool, maybe people can be a little more open now?

Ah well, I can't claim to have anything great that I haven't already said so here's just what comes to mind:

I think people need to really consider that that long, lithe frame Garnett has is basically what has always been the optimal for maximum defensive impact. The game has changed and conceivably that could have changed, but it hasn't.

People seem to want to think that a bigger guy is also an advantage, and they imagine specific scenarios where this is the case. Those scenarios aren't wrong, but they get blown out of proportion.

A big wide guy is great for preventing a guy from backing down...but this was never the most dangerous offensive attack of the game, and it's become less valuable with time. For basically any team who has a better team strategy than forcing the ball in to the 5 to go to work, a defender has a higher ceiling playing help defense than man defense, and in the modern game, that's EVERY team.

Where more mass helps is on offense. Power on offense is more important, quickness on defense is more important. This is the fundamental asymmetry of the two sides of basketball so far as it applies to 5's, and the thing is that only the defensive side is scaling well to the modern game.

Now, I'm not saying you have to knock Karl Malone based on the assumption that he's be worse today, but I do want people to understand how their expectations for what a big man was might be biasing them against Garnett, who in a lot of ways has defined what it means to be a big in the modern game.

[therealbig3]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

Alt: Oscar Robertson

So Kobe beat KG? Cool, maybe people can be a little more open now?

Ah well, I can't claim to have anything great that I haven't already said so here's just what comes to mind:

I think people need to really consider that that long, lithe frame Garnett has is basically what has always been the optimal for maximum defensive impact. The game has changed and conceivably that could have changed, but it hasn't.

People seem to want to think that a bigger guy is also an advantage, and they imagine specific scenarios where this is the case. Those scenarios aren't wrong, but they get blown out of proportion.

A big wide guy is great for preventing a guy from backing down...but this was never the most dangerous offensive attack of the game, and it's become less valuable with time. For basically any team who has a better team strategy than forcing the ball in to the 5 to go to work, a defender has a higher ceiling playing help defense than man defense, and in the modern game, that's EVERY team.

Where more mass helps is on offense. Power on offense is more important, quickness on defense is more important. This is the fundamental asymmetry of the two sides of basketball so far as it applies to 5's, and the thing is that only the defensive side is scaling well to the modern game.

Now, I'm not saying you have to knock Karl Malone based on the assumption that he's be worse today, but I do want people to understand how their expectations for what a big man was might be biasing them against Garnett, who in a lot of ways has defined what it means to be a big in the modern game.

So I mentioned it before, and I am kind of open to the idea that KG's lack of blocks compared to say, Duncan or Hakeem or Robinson, is something to consider. I know that you view KG as the ideal kind of defensive anchor, because of how he covers ground and reads offenses and blows up the PnR, and I agree with that, and I am of the opinion that he's the best defender post-Russell...but what is your view on his lack of blocked shots relative to his defensive peers, not just the guys I mentioned, but guys like Ben Wallace and Mutombo as well (who both rank quite highly in DRAPM if I'm not mistaken)?

Is it just not a big deal to you, in the sense that, the results are there, so why do we care HOW he does it? Or is it something to consider in terms of how his abilities translate to most teams and if his lack of shot blocking would be a bigger deal in certain team makeups?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Kevin Garnett

Alt: Oscar Robertson

So Kobe beat KG? Cool, maybe people can be a little more open now?

Ah well, I can't claim to have anything great that I haven't already said so here's just what comes to mind:

I think people need to really consider that that long, lithe frame Garnett has is basically what has always been the optimal for maximum defensive impact. The game has changed and conceivably that could have changed, but it hasn't.

People seem to want to think that a bigger guy is also an advantage, and they imagine specific scenarios where this is the case. Those scenarios aren't wrong, but they get blown out of proportion.

A big wide guy is great for preventing a guy from backing down...but this was never the most dangerous offensive attack of the game, and it's become less valuable with time. For basically any team who has a better team strategy than forcing the ball in to the 5 to go to work, a defender has a higher ceiling playing help defense than man defense, and in the modern game, that's EVERY team.

Where more mass helps is on offense. Power on offense is more important, quickness on defense is more important. This is the fundamental asymmetry of the two sides of basketball so far as it applies to 5's, and the thing is that only the defensive side is scaling well to the modern game.

Now, I'm not saying you have to knock Karl Malone based on the assumption that he's be worse today, but I do want people to understand how their expectations for what a big man was might be biasing them against Garnett, who in a lot of ways has defined what it means to be a big in the modern game.

So I mentioned it before, and I am kind of open to the idea that KG's lack of blocks compared to say, Duncan or Hakeem or Robinson, is something to consider. I know that you view KG as the ideal kind of defensive anchor, because of how he covers ground and reads offenses and blows up the PnR, and I agree with that, and I am of the opinion that he's the best defender post-Russell...but what is your view on his lack of blocked shots relative to his defensive peers, not just the guys I mentioned, but guys like Ben Wallace and Mutombo as well (who both rank quite highly in DRAPM if I'm not mistaken)?

Is it just not a big deal to you, in the sense that, the results are there, so why do we care HOW he does it? Or is it something to consider in terms of how his abilities translate to most teams and if his lack of shot blocking would be a bigger deal in certain team makeups?

'07-08 Boston is one of these case study canon seasons that everybody should spent time analyzing. I sure as hell didn't predict it as you, I think, know.

One of the thing that blew my mind about that season was that one of the great defensive improvements in history to become the best defense in the league and win the title...while having their blocks go down from one season to the next.

Shot blocking just didn't seem to be a part of their strategy in particular, and their strategy was certainly delivering value.

From what I see in the +/- data, there's no doubt that Garnett contributed defensive value on par with other all-time great defensive anchors. What's unclear is whether that's because there was no loss of value due to shot blocking threat, or whether there was and Garnett just made up for it by other means.

I don't like the idea of assuming that Garnett could block tons of shots because it feels like I'm homering for a guy I tend to argue for, but given his length, agility, and understanding of the game, I just have a hard time stating how it would make sense that he couldn't do it. But of course that indicates that Garnett had a reason why he not only didn't do it when he was in Boston under an optimal strategy, but when he was younger with questionable contexts. Given KG"s aggression i general, it's surprising that he never blocked a ton of shots to me.

So all this is to say I'm open to more discussion on this point.

[Pablo Novi]

I never thought as highly of Dr. J as Jerry West or Oscar Robertson.

Jerry West and Oscar both seem to be much better playmakers than Dr. J and possibly even better scorers. It's hard to say though because Dr. J played a lot of his prime in the ABA.

I just feel like The Big O and West were flat out better.

It's just such a pity that Dr J (and the ABA) played to such small audiences (and, much worse) had minuscule TV coverage.

There was nothing on offense that Dr J wasn't the best ever up to that point in history, imo. His handle was just phenomenal.
Picture squeezing between two defenders with no room to spare; yet dribbling between his legs to do so.

The "world would go silent and gawky-eyed" when it was time for him to go iso. No defender had a chance to stop him. Entire teams couldn't stop his drives to the basket - where he often made spectacularly delicious dunks; or truly unbelievable moves.

Except for one dunk by Elgin Baylor over Wilt (where he floated across the key, Wilt came in to squash his shot - and Elgin flipped the ball to his other hand and hammered it home); ALL my All-Time favorite dunks are Dr J's - he was that flashy, that skilled, that athletic, that gifted, that ... aesthetically pleasing an artist.

Against the definitely favored Nuggets in the last ABA Finals, led on defense by arguably THE best defender in either League in Bobby Jones, Dr J just went off, iirc, 37.7 ppg (and played killed D to boot).

I applaud you on your knowledge of those ERA's. Basically the way you explained Dr. J sounds identical to MJ.

Dr. J has been known quite often to be the original MJ from what I've heard as well.

You have shined a new light on me with Dr. J and I suppose he was better than his stats would suggest relative to Jerry West and Oscar because as 27 year that and what I've heard/read are the only things that I can go on.

Thanx for the compliments.
Before Dr J, the "original" creator of hangtime was Elgin Baylor - although seemingly (as I remember things) a lot of his hanging didn't end in dunks as much as in late-shot flip-ins - he was noted for unusually strong wrists - so he could get those shots off and in really late. He "invented" all kinds of moves and shots approaching the rim.

btw, my All-Time FAVORITE players were/are Jerry West & Elgin Baylor - who are why I've been a life-time (58 years) Lakers fan.

Back then, it was a horribly nasty racist age - as a young man, raised in the home of an exceptionally TOLERANT dad; the nastiness just shocked the bleep out of me. (I went to high school outside of Boston and got to attend a number of C's games at the Gaaaden - that THEIR fans would boo the great Bill Russell (screaming out the "N" word at him and the other C's black players) turned me into a non-Celtics fan for life.

During highschool, I had almost "negative" "leaping" ability; so at 5'8" I was never gonna make the varsity team (although I played for several hours EVERY day. I'd go with the team to all our away games. At EVERY away game there'd be:
TWO sets of cheerleaders, leading two SEPARATE sets of fans, seated in two SEPARATE seating sections.

When a black player scored, the black cheerleaders would rise and lead the black fans. Meanwhile, the white cheerleaders and fans remained silent (if not scowling). Then, when a white player scored; it'd be the exact same thing but in reverse.

My dad would take our family some 2-4 times a year on trips into the Deep South. He'd take me off to the side before EVERY trip (as his eldest son); and he'd say to me, "Son, you know the routine; but here we go again. You will see stuff that will enrage the bleep out of you, scandalize you. But you will say NOTHING and do NOTHING - or you'll get us all killed. So, you either agree or you're not going with us.

And what we saw was just horrible. Gang bangs of 5 or more cowards on one or two black guys. Segregation EVERYWHERE.

And perhaps the worst, was what I called the "3 Bathroom 'System'": one for "men"; one for "women" and one labeled "Colored" - which was an absolute abomination: no running water, no electricity, never cleaned. These were as far removed into the far corner of the lot as was possible because of the stench and the huge black swarm of flies.

I had pretty much given up hope that the two races would ever get along.

I had had the great fortune to have seen the Harlem Globetrotters LIVE a number of times during the 1959-60 season; so I "experienced" their incredible Point Guard, Wilt Chamberlain. I "followed" him into the NBA (which was not nearly the draw the 'Trotters were back then.

And then, a couple of years later, I experienced West-Baylor. (There was also "O"-Jerry Lucas; but they were not equals on the court in terms of ability - so those two didn't move me nearly as much as did Jerry & Elgin). It was the virtual equality of skills of Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside, their TEAM-work, their artistry, their "bi-racial" harmony that pulled me out of my youthful "desperation" of thinking things would never change.

Those two caused me to decide to dedicate ALL my free time for the rest of my life to heavy-duty peace-justice activism.

So that's both why I've been a Lakers fan ever since West came into the League and joined Baylor; and why, they are really the only two players for whom I have a personal bias in favor of.

Which makes it not easy for me to argue ANYONE over either of them - even Dr J; but he really was a phenom.

[Pablo Novi]

I never thought as highly of Dr. J as Jerry West or Oscar Robertson.

Jerry West and Oscar both seem to be much better playmakers than Dr. J and possibly even better scorers. It's hard to say though because Dr. J played a lot of his prime in the ABA.

I just feel like The Big O and West were flat out better.

It's just such a pity that Dr J (and the ABA) played to such small audiences (and, much worse) had minuscule TV coverage.

There was nothing on offense that Dr J wasn't the best ever up to that point in history, imo. His handle was just phenomenal.
Picture squeezing between two defenders with no room to spare; yet dribbling between his legs to do so.

The "world would go silent and gawky-eyed" when it was time for him to go iso. No defender had a chance to stop him. Entire teams couldn't stop his drives to the basket - where he often made spectacularly delicious dunks; or truly unbelievable moves.

Except for one dunk by Elgin Baylor over Wilt (where he floated across the key, Wilt came in to squash his shot - and Elgin flipped the ball to his other hand and hammered it home); ALL my All-Time favorite dunks are Dr J's - he was that flashy, that skilled, that athletic, that gifted, that ... aesthetically pleasing an artist.

Against the definitely favored Nuggets in the last ABA Finals, led on defense by arguably THE best defender in either League in Bobby Jones, Dr J just went off, iirc, 37.7 ppg (and played killed D to boot).

I applaud you on your knowledge of those ERA's. Basically the way you explained Dr. J sounds identical to MJ.

Dr. J has been known quite often to be the original MJ from what I've heard as well.

You have shined a new light on me with Dr. J and I suppose he was better than his stats would suggest relative to Jerry West and Oscar because as 27 year that and what I've heard/read are the only things that I can go on.

The other thing that I failed to mention in the post I just made about Dr J (in response to yours) was about "... he was better than his stats would suggest...". There were two outstanding reasons for this. Unless you go to a source like Basketball-Reference, you'll only see Dr J's NBA stats. When he came over with the merger, he was still just as capable a scorer - but the coach of his new team asked him to tone his offensive game way down. Dr J, EVER the classiest guy, did what was asked of him (and we fans got deprived of some years of his other-wordliness). So it was the combination of his DELIBERATELY toning down his offensive attack AND his ABA stats not being included, that make it APPEAR that such as West & "O" both outshined him as scorers; and, generally, as offensive starts.

Dr J's influence generally was tremendous. He was, by far, the biggest reason there even was a merger. There had been talks of a merger from soon after the ABA was set up - but it kept getting postponed. The NBA aggressively tried to outmaneuver the ABA thru any number of means, including rapid NBA expansion. The ABA owners were taking a beating - because of the lack of ticket sales and the mutually-affecting lack of TV coverage. Yet to compete (and compete they did, more and more, each year) they had to pay equal dollar to their top stars.

There's a decent chance that had Dr J not been in the ABA that it would have folded instead of being merged (and "raped") into the NBA.

The ABA was rightfully known as a "Forward's League" - a higher percent of its top players were Forwards. Generally, for the last SIX years (of those 9 Dual-League years) I rate the ABA Forwards higher than the NBA Forwards.

As to the relative strengths of the two Leagues ...

They played a large number of pre-season exhibition games. After the ABA initially got its collective butt handed to it; what with it recruiting NBA-ineligible under-grads; it rapidly narrowed the gap. It caught up enough to win the majority not only of the later-years exhibition games; but enough of them so that the ABA won the "multi-seasons series" of exhibition games. And, despite those games being exhibition games; both Leagues (from the top brass, thru the execs. thru the players) took those games extra-seriously. A lot WAS at stake.

Further, 3 of the 4 former-ABA teams held their own in the merged NBA; and the 4th, the Nets, didn't only because it (and the former-ABA teams that were not included) was "raped" by the NBA.

Further still, ex-ABA players got their "fair share" of NBA All-Star births and ALL-NBA selections.

So, given all three of: many, many exhibition games; the success of the former-ABA teams and the success of the former-ABA players - I feel sure that (not counting the ABA's first 2-3 years), the level of play, of top players and of teams was approximately equal over the last 6 years of Dual-League existence.

Given that, Dr J, and the other ABA greats, should be given full credit for their accomplishments in the ABA.

JUST LIKE THE NFL does for the AFL; the NBA SHOULD treat the ABA years (and the NBL years earlier still) with full, due respect.

Imo, it absolutely sucks that the NBA was and remains so PETTY vis-à-vis such history; it's OWN history (seeing as not only 4 current NBA teams started in the ABA; but a number of current NBA teams started in the NBL).

So, how can I justify all of the above being included in a GOAT discussion thread?
Well, I feel quite strongly that ABA and NBL careers should not only be included; but should be weighed appropriately.

[drza]

I'll be out of internet access for the entirety of tomorrow, and I've got to get up early, so I'm voting now. I hope it's reasonable for me to not write very much here as justification.

Vote: Kevin Garnett

[ardee]

It's just such a pity that Dr J (and the ABA) played to such small audiences (and, much worse) had minuscule TV coverage.

There was nothing on offense that Dr J wasn't the best ever up to that point in history, imo. His handle was just phenomenal.
Picture squeezing between two defenders with no room to spare; yet dribbling between his legs to do so.

The "world would go silent and gawky-eyed" when it was time for him to go iso. No defender had a chance to stop him. Entire teams couldn't stop his drives to the basket - where he often made spectacularly delicious dunks; or truly unbelievable moves.

Except for one dunk by Elgin Baylor over Wilt (where he floated across the key, Wilt came in to squash his shot - and Elgin flipped the ball to his other hand and hammered it home); ALL my All-Time favorite dunks are Dr J's - he was that flashy, that skilled, that athletic, that gifted, that ... aesthetically pleasing an artist.

Against the definitely favored Nuggets in the last ABA Finals, led on defense by arguably THE best defender in either League in Bobby Jones, Dr J just went off, iirc, 37.7 ppg (and played killed D to boot).

I applaud you on your knowledge of those ERA's. Basically the way you explained Dr. J sounds identical to MJ.

Dr. J has been known quite often to be the original MJ from what I've heard as well.

You have shined a new light on me with Dr. J and I suppose he was better than his stats would suggest relative to Jerry West and Oscar because as 27 year that and what I've heard/read are the only things that I can go on.

Thanx for the compliments.
Before Dr J, the "original" creator of hangtime was Elgin Baylor - although seemingly (as I remember things) a lot of his hanging didn't end in dunks as much as in late-shot flip-ins - he was noted for unusually strong wrists - so he could get those shots off and in really late. He "invented" all kinds of moves and shots approaching the rim.

btw, my All-Time FAVORITE players were/are Jerry West & Elgin Baylor - who are why I've been a life-time (58 years) Lakers fan.

Back then, it was a horribly nasty racist age - as a young man, raised in the home of an exceptionally TOLERANT dad; the nastiness just shocked the bleep out of me. (I went to high school outside of Boston and got to attend a number of C's games at the Gaaaden - that THEIR fans would boo the great Bill Russell (screaming out the "N" word at him and the other C's black players) turned me into a non-Celtics fan for life.

During highschool, I had almost "negative" "leaping" ability; so at 5'8" I was never gonna make the varsity team (although I played for several hours EVERY day. I'd go with the team to all our away games. At EVERY away game there'd be:
TWO sets of cheerleaders, leading two SEPARATE sets of fans, seated in two SEPARATE seating sections.

When a black player scored, the black cheerleaders would rise and lead the black fans. Meanwhile, the white cheerleaders and fans remained silent (if not scowling). Then, when a white player scored; it'd be the exact same thing but in reverse.

My dad would take our family some 2-4 times a year on trips into the Deep South. He'd take me off to the side before EVERY trip (as his eldest son); and he'd say to me, "Son, you know the routine; but here we go again. You will see stuff that will enrage the bleep out of you, scandalize you. But you will say NOTHING and do NOTHING - or you'll get us all killed. So, you either agree or you're not going with us.

And what we saw was just horrible. Gang bangs of 5 or more cowards on one or two black guys. Segregation EVERYWHERE.

And perhaps the worst, was what I called the "3 Bathroom 'System'": one for "men"; one for "women" and one labeled "Colored" - which was an absolute abomination: no running water, no electricity, never cleaned. These were as far removed into the far corner of the lot as was possible because of the stench and the huge black swarm of flies.

I had pretty much given up hope that the two races would ever get along.

I had had the great fortune to have seen the Harlem Globetrotters LIVE a number of times during the 1959-60 season; so I "experienced" their incredible Point Guard, Wilt Chamberlain. I "followed" him into the NBA (which was not nearly the draw the 'Trotters were back then.

And then, a couple of years later, I experienced West-Baylor. (There was also "O"-Jerry Lucas; but they were not equals on the court in terms of ability - so those two didn't move me nearly as much as did Jerry & Elgin). It was the virtual equality of skills of Mr. Inside and Mr. Outside, their TEAM-work, their artistry, their "bi-racial" harmony that pulled me out of my youthful "desperation" of thinking things would never change.

Those two caused me to decide to dedicate ALL my free time for the rest of my life to heavy-duty peace-justice activism.

So that's both why I've been a Lakers fan ever since West came into the League and joined Baylor; and why, they are really the only two players for whom I have a personal bias in favor of.

Which makes it not easy for me to argue ANYONE over either of them - even Dr J; but he really was a phenom.

Mind if I ask how old you are?

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app