RealGM Top 100 List #14

[DQuinn1575]

It's been long established that the ABA gets included in these things. The differences between the ABA and random Euroleagues is quite clear cut:

1. Higher quality.
2. Far better data and coverage.
3. Most importantly - the ABA merged with the NBA. The fact they kept the name NBA doesn't change the fact that this means both leagues' history is a part of the new NBA's history.

All that said, I'd actually have to look up where we stand on non-NBA/ABA stuff this time. The assumption that we can't possibly include it is wrong. Sabonis made the Top 50 of the 2006 project because we factored that stuff in. Obviously the reason why you think it can't be has some basis: We can't have much certainty about it. Lack of certainty in and of itself though doesn't mean we can't give our best shot at it.

Definitely agree with 1, and not really arguing, but
2
should not be relevant

and 3 - we should then count the old NBL and BAA - or if not then do shot clock as start time.

I don't know how many voters realize our technical start date is 1950 - the merger of the BAA and NBL into the NBA.

Re: 2. Realistically if people feel like they don't have information to make educated estimates of players from other leagues, one can make a very good argument that the end list will be less meaningful if we're forced to include them.

Re: 3. I basically do count the NBL & BAA personally in the sense that it's one more reason not to count MIkan's longevity against him. Other than Mikan though, who from those eras is seriously relevant to a Top 100 project?

The only other player for top 100 off the top of my he'd would be Joe fills. To me. The nbl exclusion limits Mikan longevity to the point that I don't have him as a viable candidate yet. There are about 5-6 guys here, and I think Milan's longevity the way this project is defined puts the behind all of them.


That's fine; I don't care that much what time period we use as long as we follow it.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[FX20014]

Re: RAPM list. I'm fine with you bringing this up. People should know it. Wade had huge impact on offenses, and that's a real thing, but for example, that #2 on the list, the '10 Wade? That happened on a below average offense. It stands reasonable to ask whether the unipolar Wade offense could really be expected to scale into elite range.

I don't get how you criticize Wade's offense in 2010. You have to have a good offensive cast to have a good offensive team and Wade simply didn't have that. It's common sense. Chalmers, past prime Jermaine and Beasley weren't very good offensive players. Kind of like how some of KG's team defenses in Minnesota weren't that great, they didn't have a good defensive supporting cast. It works both ways.

This is one of those situations where you're literally making me say the same things I already said:

I'm not saying Wade absolutely couldn't do it, i'm saying we shouldn't assume he could do it, or worse that he essentially did it.

But what about KG in that situation? The same could have been said about KG - and was - before he went to Boston. Once he did his thing leading an elite defense most questions were answered.

People fail to realize time after time is that Garnett's Minnesota teammates was statistically terrible throughout his 12 yrs. He never had Twolves teammates that could defend with the exception of maybe Anthony Peeler. As far as anchoring Minnesota's mediocre defense, that mostly had a lot do with Flip Saunders flawed zone-defensive schemes, instead of playing man-to-man defense. When KG got to Boston, he was surrounded by better defenders such as Rondo, Posey, Perkins and House.

The 2011, Dallas Mavericks team is a good example. Mavs were 10th ranked Defense Opponent Points Leaders, Dirk is not a good defender, but he was surrounded by guys like Chandler, Marion, Kidd, Butler, Brewer, Hayword, Stevenson and Mahinmi to cover up his defensive deficiencies.

[Moonbeam]

I'll try to address the main candidates here.

Dirk Nowitzki: Dirk has carved himself an incredible career, capped by that great postseason run in 2011. For well over a decade, he has been one of the top 5 offensive players in the league, and it's good to see that his defense has gotten a fair bit of respect here. Dirk stands out in this list in that his level of play does not generally drop off in the postseason, and in some cases (the stretch from 2009-2011 in particular), his postseason play is notably superior. Best of all, I still think Dirk has a lot left in the tank, and with the moves Dallas made this offseason, I'm looking for another monster season from him.

David Robinson: The Admiral has the best statistical argument for this spot based on the regular season, in my opinion. Tim Duncan often (rightly) gets a lot of credit for the consistent excellence that the Spurs have enjoyed throughout his career, but that streak really started with Robinson. Prior to his arrival, the Spurs posted 6 straight seasons with records of .500 or less. But once Robinson came aboard, the immediately emerged as a playoff lock, and the way the Spurs fell off after his injury in 1996-97 is telling even including their tanking efforts. It's hard to say for sure given the era comparison, but I feel that he is the best defender of this group of players, anchoring consistently strong and sometimes elite defenses. The big concern is with his dropoff in the postseason during his peak. His contributions to the 1999 and 2003 titles were important, but he suffered a clear decline in playoff performance in general.

Karl Malone: Karl was an immovable, intimidating force throughout his career. His ironman abilities and his incredible longevity stand out in this group. I'd say he definitely has the most seasons as a top 10 player, and like Robinson, his presence with Utah guaranteed a playoff spot. His synergy with Stockton sometimes is used to diminish his performance, but I think their success as a tandem should only be viewed as a positive on both players - many, many other dynamic duos have led to far worse outcomes, so it seems unjust to discredit Malone (or Stockton) because he played particularly well with his other star. The playoff shortcomings are the knock, as they are with Robinson. Ultimately, I feel his peak level of play was among the lowest of this group, but he maintained that high level the longest.

Julius Erving: The more I red about Dr. J, the more I like him. I'd venture to say that he has the highest peak of any of the remaining players, with his 1974 and 1976 seasons an incredible combination of insane regular season play elevated further in postseason championship runs. His presence turned the 76ers into immediate contenders, and though they fell short 3 times of the title, he clearly was a top 5 player in the league. He gracefully became a complementary piece to Moses Malone, leading to one of the best team performances ever. Both his style of play and his character truly transcended the sport, and he is a well-deserving icon. I had him around 13 before this project, and my esteem for him has only grown - I'd probably have him at 10 or 11 now.

Jerry West: I've been voting for Jerry West since spot #10. His peak nearly matches Dr. J, but his ability to lift his game in the playoffs is particularly extraordinary. While his lone title came in one of his worst playoff runs (though he seemed to excel as a facilitator). Still, those incredible runs to the Finals are hard to ignore, even if he fell short against the Celtics every time. Despite their defensive prowess, Boston couldn't slow West down:

33.8 PPG in 1965
33.9 PPG in 1966
31.3 PPG in 1968
37.9 PPG in 1969

I don't have access to the data from the 61-63 runs, but I'd like to see them if anyone has them! Like Dr. J, he also transcended the sport to become the logo. His reputation as a defender only elevates his case.

Ultimately, it's between Jerry West and Dr. J at this point. I don't want to miss out on voting due to gathering info like last time, so I'll cast my vote for Jerry West, though I still can be swayed.

[FX20014]

03 you have Duncan/Shaq/Garnett/Kobe that are all clearly better. After that it's.... TMac? Yeah, I could see Dirk over TMac there.
04 is the same as 03.
05 keeps the 'big 4', but I think Steve Nash edges Dirk here. So not top5.
06 is the changing of the guard. LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Nash and Dirk are best here.
07 is Duncan's comeback. He joins LeBron, Kobe, Dirk and Nash.
11 is I think biased by the playoffs. Dirk was nowhere near the top 5 based on the regular season. I think that LeBron, Howard, Paul, Wade and Gasol were the top 5 this year.
12 LeBron, Durant and Paul are the standouts. Love (sigh) is probably top5 this year. And then... James Harden? There are a lot of candidates for the 5th slot. But I don't think Dirk gets in.

So I get 03, 04, 06, 07 as the only years Dirk was top5, if we are voting on the awards before the playoffs happen.

2005 big 4? Who are they?

2011- Dirk was definitely top 5 in the RS. The only reason no one recognized it was that the voters were stupid. The Mavs went 2-7 in the games he missed. He was clearly the most valuable piece on that team.

Of course he was their most valuable piece, but as great as he was in the 2011, Dirk doesn't win his first chip without teammates like Chandler.

[Texas Chuck]

Dirk really rose to greatness in 2005, and continued that level of player until 2011. That's about 7 elite prime years. Pre-2005, Dirk didn't play much defense, and didn't operate in the post on offense like he should. Avery's arrival, and Nash's departure changed his approach to the game. .

IF post-play is your requirement for Dirk's prime it can't really start until 08.

Dirk changed very little about his play in the immediate aftermath of Nash leaving. You have to look beyond the stats of both Nash and Dirk in 04 because that was the terrible Antoine/Antawn experiment. Dirk was absolutely a superstar and in his prime well before 05 and you could make the argument its continued past 2011.

But no matter where you put reasonable boundaries(03 being the latest possible year you could start it, and 11 the latest possible year you could end it) his prime goes more than 7 years.

Plenty of arguments to make for West over Dirk, but don't just erase prime years please.

[Texas Chuck]

Of course he was their most valuable piece, but as great as he was in the 2011, Dirk doesn't win his first chip without teammates like Chandler.

How is this really relevant to how good a player Dirk is? Obviously he needed his teammates to play well in order to win the championship--if you look at how Dirk has played in series the Mavs have been eliminated in you will typically see Dirk playing well enough to advance and being let down by his teammates.

So the fact that in 2011 Donnie and Mark assembled a really well-put together team and those teammates all contrbuted in the PS absolutely has something to do with Dallas winning the title, but it should do absolutely nothing to diminish Dirk and if you really take a closer look at it--it should raise your opinion of Dirk because of it was his presence that was creating all those open 3s they were hitting. And it was his presence that let Dallas start this lineup: Chandler, Dirk, Marion, DeShawn, and Kidd. A great defensive quartet to be sure, but one that absolutely wouldn't have been able to score without Dirk.

A lot of teams could assemble defenders like that, but none of them could win because they didn't have Dirk to destroy offenses with his ability to score, his ability to draw tons of coverage, and his willingness to make the right pass every single time. Dallas was getting tons of wide open shots all season long and that's on Dirk because when he sat the offense collapsed.

Tyson was a big part of the team, but he played <30 mpg and Dallas had another pretty good defense center in Haywood and another decent back-up in Ian. Hardly as indispensable as Dirk. Or really even close to it.

[90sAllDecade]

If we are talking about NBA, I think Dr J. don't have a better career than Karl Malone.

Dr J. peak was in ABA, and ABA was a different league, more offensive oriented and weaker than NBA. In only 5 years in ABA he made 2/5 of his total points. When he entered in NBA his averages drop big time. Altough he recovered by 79-80.

I know it's different, but we cannot rate Arvydas Sabonis or Drazen Petrovic for what they did in other leagues, because their position in the top 100 would change drastically. Maybe Drazen or Sabonis won't made this top 100 based in his NBA carreer. So I don't know why we should take ABA accolades as the same rating than NBA accolades.

It's been long established that the ABA gets included in these things. The differences between the ABA and random Euroleagues is quite clear cut:

1. Higher quality.
2. Far better data and coverage.
3. Most importantly - the ABA merged with the NBA. The fact they kept the name NBA doesn't change the fact that this means both leagues' history is a part of the new NBA's history.

All that said, I'd actually have to look up where we stand on non-NBA/ABA stuff this time. The assumption that we can't possibly include it is wrong. Sabonis made the Top 50 of the 2006 project because we factored that stuff in. Obviously the reason why you think it can't be has some basis: We can't have much certainty about it. Lack of certainty in and of itself though doesn't mean we can't give our best shot at it.

Not trying to derail, but I find this interesting.

Would a small international player project be something to start with?

Perhaps a top 10 international player ranking so people like myself have a foundation to work with?

It would be a good side project to help provide a base for people to factor in with other larger ones. Like Dirk or Sabonis, I'm sure there were international players who would rank but unlike them they never played NBA ball. This would take us into Olympic and world championship games to review as well, it would be different and people would learn a lot of new things.

[E-Balla]

I was originally picking between West and Dr. J at this spot but the arguments of a few posters in the last few threads have convinced me to vote Dirk.

I'm holding my vote though because in explaining why Dirk is my pick I convinced myself to pick Dr. J. I'll be on standby for now.

[magicmerl]

03 you have Duncan/Shaq/Garnett/Kobe that are all clearly better. After that it's.... TMac? Yeah, I could see Dirk over TMac there.
04 is the same as 03.
05 keeps the 'big 4', but I think Steve Nash edges Dirk here. So not top5.
06 is the changing of the guard. LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Nash and Dirk are best here.
07 is Duncan's comeback. He joins LeBron, Kobe, Dirk and Nash.
11 is I think biased by the playoffs. Dirk was nowhere near the top 5 based on the regular season. I think that LeBron, Howard, Paul, Wade and Gasol were the top 5 this year.
12 LeBron, Durant and Paul are the standouts. Love (sigh) is probably top5 this year. And then... James Harden? There are a lot of candidates for the 5th slot. But I don't think Dirk gets in.

So I get 03, 04, 06, 07 as the only years Dirk was top5, if we are voting on the awards before the playoffs happen.

2005 big 4? Who are they?

2011- Dirk was definitely top 5 in the RS. The only reason no one recognized it was that the voters were stupid. The Mavs went 2-7 in the games he missed. He was clearly the most valuable piece on that team.

Duncan/Shaq/Garnett/Kobe.

And I listed who I thought was the top5 in 2011. It's not enough to assert that someone is top5, you also have to say who you think should be displaced by them. Who did you think was less deserving than Dirk out of LeBron, Howard, Paul, Wade and Gasol in 2011?

[colts18]

Duncan/Shaq/Garnett/Kobe.

And I listed who I thought was the top5 in 2011. It's not enough to assert that someone is top5, you also have to say who you think should be displaced by them. Who did you think was less deserving than Dirk out of LeBron, Howard, Paul, Wade and Gasol in 2011?

In 2005 Kobe was below his standards. He wasn't even on the same tier as Dirk that year. His defense was horrible and he was ironing out the kinks of his Post-Shaq hero ball style of play.

In 2011 Dirk was better than all of those guys listed. In the playoffs, Dirk straight up murdered Gasol head to head. He was clearly better. Dirk in the playoffs proved he was the best player that year. If Wade/LeBron were better, why were the Mavs a better team?

[Jim Naismith]

A repost from a few threads ago:

Jerry West and Karl Malone seem to be the frontrunners here.

Both are sometimes criticized (and often excused) for their repeated failures to beat their nemeses: the 1960s Celtics and 1990s Bulls.

The Kareem-Magic Lakers of the 1980s likewise dominated their decade.

Yet Moses Malone beat them — twice.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Dirk really rose to greatness in 2005, and continued that level of player until 2011. That's about 7 elite prime years. Pre-2005, Dirk didn't play much defense, and didn't operate in the post on offense like he should. Avery's arrival, and Nash's departure changed his approach to the game. .

IF post-play is your requirement for Dirk's prime it can't really start until 08.

Dirk changed very little about his play in the immediate aftermath of Nash leaving. You have to look beyond the stats of both Nash and Dirk in 04 because that was the terrible Antoine/Antawn experiment. Dirk was absolutely a superstar and in his prime well before 05 and you could make the argument its continued past 2011.

But no matter where you put reasonable boundaries(03 being the latest possible year you could start it, and 11 the latest possible year you could end it) his prime goes more than 7 years.

Plenty of arguments to make for West over Dirk, but don't just erase prime years please.

I have Dirk's prime as 02-11, the problem for me is that he didn't become elite until 2005, and really was only a Top 5 player from 05-07,11. I just don't see his career arc as high as a Dr. J, West, or Malone. At his own position, both Barkley and Pettit were elite for longer periods.

Also, offensively Dirk's playmaking is still underwhelming, which is something i touched on last thread. Yes, he's an efficient scorer, but his volume is not all that exceptional, AND he was assisted on a large number of his FGs.

Dirk
2002 - 69.2% FGM assisted
2003 - 65.5%
2004 - 71.9%
2005 - 53.4%
2006 - 50.7%
2007 - 50.1%
2008 - 54.6%
2009 - 55.6%
2010 - 61.5%
2011 - 63.1%
2012 - 63.6%
2013 - 66.2%
2014 - 59.2%
^
So yes, Dirk has high efficiency, but he's getting setup for quite a large percentage of his shots. Much more than what you typically see for a volume scorer. Couple this with Dirk's low AST% numbers, and I do think his offense while great, is a bit overstated. Especially when quite a few other candidates were great on offense too, while also having either better defense or longevity.

[HeartBreakKid]

A repost from a few threads ago:

Jerry West and Karl Malone seem to be the frontrunners here.

Both are sometimes criticized (and often excused) for their repeated failures to beat their nemeses: the 1960s Celtics and 1990s Bulls.

The Kareem-Magic Lakers of the 1980s likewise dominated their decade.

Yet Moses Malone beat them — twice.

I dont see how this means anything as they faced totally different competition with different teammates. Also, the Lakers were not as dominant as the Bulls, and certainly were not as dominant as the 60s Celtics.

[Baller2014]

Literally stunned at these Jerry West votes.

West certainly peaked below Dr J, and Dr J has notably more longevity, so where is West's case over him? Everyone keeps citing West's big playoff performances. Do people understand what West did is still inferior to Erving, who put up 35-13-5-2-2 on a FG% of 53.3% in the 1976 playoffs, despite being guarded by great defenders like Bobby Jones, all while playing much better D? Where does West have any advantage over Dr J? Nor do I think Dr J played at a pace nearly as high as West's era.

Nor do I think West really peaks above Karl Malone. He scores more, but Karl Malone's actual impact is higher (not least of all because he's a crushingly effective defensive player). Not that Malone scores poorly, he's only a slightly worse offensive player than West anyway. Add in all that longevity and Malone should clearly be in front. Do people understand that West's numbers are highly distorted by the pace of the 60's? It's like these numbers are being take 100% literally. He would have posted notably worse numbers in the modern game. Karl Malone is basically being punished because we don't have pace numbers for West's era yet, so we can't compare him to Malone on a per possession basis. If we could though, West probably wouldn't have an argument.

Not to mention, Jerry West is the worst "eye test" player of those being discussed. I really worry that people are taking his impact in the 60's on face value here.

Anyway, only 17 out of about the usual 40+ have voted yet, so hopefully Dr J and Malone get some more love shortly.

[Jim Naismith]

A repost from a few threads ago:

Jerry West and Karl Malone seem to be the frontrunners here.

Both are sometimes criticized (and often excused) for their repeated failures to beat their nemeses: the 1960s Celtics and 1990s Bulls.

The Kareem-Magic Lakers of the 1980s likewise dominated their decade.

Yet Moses Malone beat them — twice.

I dont see how this means anything as they faced totally different competition with different teammates. Also, the Lakers were not as dominant as the Bulls, and certainly were not as dominant as the 60s Celtics.

But a big reason why the 1980s Lakers weren't as dominant is. . . Moses!

In a world without Moses Malone, the Lakers could have 7 rings instead of 5.

[magicmerl]

Duncan/Shaq/Garnett/Kobe.

And I listed who I thought was the top5 in 2011. It's not enough to assert that someone is top5, you also have to say who you think should be displaced by them. Who did you think was less deserving than Dirk out of LeBron, Howard, Paul, Wade and Gasol in 2011?

In 2005 Kobe was below his standards. He wasn't even on the same tier as Dirk that year. His defense was horrible and he was ironing out the kinks of his Post-Shaq hero ball style of play.

In 2011 Dirk was better than all of those guys listed. In the playoffs, Dirk straight up murdered Gasol head to head. He was clearly better. Dirk in the playoffs proved he was the best player that year. If Wade/LeBron were better, why were the Mavs a better team?

As I said, I was basing it on regular season results, not using the benefit of hindsight knowing what they produced in the playoffs. It's not surprising that we reached different conclusions because we were using different criteria.

[DQuinn1575]

I vote for Moses malone

He was best player in game from 79-83. Someone is going to argue Kareem was better one of those years, but if you're pretty even with Kareem in his prime then you're awesome

Someone else will argue the league wasn't as good- but bird in 81-83 was virtually at his peak and the doctor j voters are using this time as doc's prime


Twice beat a team with 2 of the top ten players. The fact that one was only 3 games wasn't Moses's fault; he just won by the rules and beat who he played

I'm looking at arguments for everyone left and it is how many years they were top 5.

For Moses it's how many years was he top 1

Vote for Moses malone




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[HeartBreakKid]

Literally stunned at these Jerry West votes.

West certainly peaked below Dr J, and Dr J has notably more longevity, so where is West's case over him? Everyone keeps citing West's big playoff performances. Do people understand what West did is still inferior to Erving, who put up 35-13-5-2-2 on a FG% of 53.3% in the 1976 playoffs, despite being guarded by great defenders like Bobby Jones, all while playing much better D? Where does West have any advantage over Dr J? Nor do I think Dr J played at a pace nearly as high as West's era.

What does pace have to do with anything, this isn't fantasy basketball, people are not just rating West strictly because of boxscore stats, otherwise Dr.J would be the winner here. I find it odd that you are stressing that West' numbers are inflated due to the league he played in (which would make him no different than any player who has ever played). Dr.J played in a league that was different from today too, and not to mention his rebounding numbers were "inflated" - don't see anyone drawing to crazy conclusions about people just rating guys on their boxscore stats about him.


I'm not convinced that Dr.J actually peaked higher than West either. People talking about Dr.J having a goat peak, doesn't actually mean he does.

Nor do I think West really peaks above Karl Malone. He scores more, but Karl Malone's actual impact is higher (not least of all because he's a crushingly effective defensive player). Not that Malone scores poorly, he's only a slightly worse offensive player than West anyway. Add in all that longevity and Malone should clearly be in front. Do people understand that West's numbers are highly distorted by the pace of the 60's? It's like these numbers are being take 100% literally. He would have posted notably worse numbers in the modern game. Karl Malone is basically being punished because we don't have pace numbers for West's era yet, so we can't compare him to Malone on a per possession basis. If we could though, West probably wouldn't have an argument.

What does pace have to do with anything? Jerry West scored way above the league average on way better efficiency during the playoffs. Pace has nothing to do with efficiency. Also, you're ignoring that West had no 3 point line, so who is to say that a slower pacer would mean he would score less?

You said Malone's actual impact is higher, based on what? West scored more, was more efficient (while being a guard in an era where guys weren't efficient), he initiated the offensive and set his teammates up. I fail to see how Malone is a superior offensive player.

[Baller2014]

West would benefit from the 3pt line, sure, but his all around numbers would clearly drop from playing at a normal pace. Playing at a normal pace West would likely score at a similar (or lower) volume to Karl Malone IMO. We just don't have the pace numbers to prove it unfortunately. If people think West would have scored at a high volume than peak Karl Malone (say 1992) then how on earth did they vote for KG and Kobe over him? He should have gone top 10.

You're right that pace has nothing to do with efficiency... and West is less efficient at scoring than peak Karl Malone or Dr J. I've commented before on this, but it's just bizarre that some people are trying to measure efficiency only relative to what other players in the league did at the time. Why should Karl Malone be punished because he played his best years in an era where people had good midrange games? We shouldn't be trying to round everyone's FG/TS% upwards based on the extent to which it is above the average of their era. By that logic Wilt Chamberlain would shoot 75% in today's game. If you believe that you're welcome to.

[penbeast0]

Spoiler:

Definitely agree with 1, and not really arguing, but
2
should not be relevant

and 3 - we should then count the old NBL and BAA - or if not then do shot clock as start time.

I don't know how many voters realize our technical start date is 1950 - the merger of the BAA and NBL into the NBA.

Re: 2. Realistically if people feel like they don't have information to make educated estimates of players from other leagues, one can make a very good argument that the end list will be less meaningful if we're forced to include them.

Re: 3. I basically do count the NBL & BAA personally in the sense that it's one more reason not to count MIkan's longevity against him. Other than Mikan though, who from those eras is seriously relevant to a Top 100 project?

The only other player for top 100 off the top of my he'd would be Joe fills. To me. The nbl exclusion limits Mikan longevity to the point that I don't have him as a viable candidate yet. There are about 5-6 guys here, and I think Milan's longevity the way this project is defined puts the behind all of them.


That's fine; I don't care that much what time period we use as long as we follow it.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

When we were deciding on rules, I asked people if they wanted to include the pre-shot clock era. Last time we didn't which put Mikan outside the boundaries but the overwhelming amount of people who said something asked that we include pre-shot clock NBA. Later I realized I hadn't included the 2 years prior to the NBA where we have data in B-R.com (the site is so good that I probably overrely on it) but got no responses so I didn't change the rules.