RealGM Top 100 List #17

[Owly]

Again I am voting for Moses

I believe his 'throwing up shots' to get OReb does not account for the large gap he has on the #2 all time OReb. Not a defensive anchor but a tough one-on-one match up, which means he is not a liability at that end. As DQuinn has pointed out along with Naismith, he was the best player for a 4 year stretch, winning MVPs, FMVPs and a team title. I get that people want to argue those 4 years were in between other player's primes, but I think that reasoning is a stretch. First of all not every player's prime can even be agreed upon, and secondly how many players that have been voted in match up their prime perfectly with another guy who has received votes? If Moses won 3 MVPs and was the only superstar in the league, fine. But he had Kareem (who Moses' play against has been documented here in his favor), Magic and Bird- Bird who was only one year younger than Moses.

To me, he showed his dominance during those 4 guys who were voted #2, #8 and #10.

Because it was basically me putting the "Moses wasn't putting up his consensus PoTY seasons against peak or near Jabbar or Magic, and only marginally prime Erving (one year) and Bird so don't invoke their names to say he was dominating them" point, I'll briefly respond though most of it is covered previously.

Sure players primes can't be agreed upon. It's a loose term. But in Johnson's three best years he had PERs between 26.6 and 27 and WS/48 between .263 and .270. In the seasons in question sure he's very good, by any normal standard, he's not the Magic that makes him .... Magic. That makes him easy, no thought required top 10 all-time pantheon, legend Magic. Kareem ditto (except he's considerably further away from his apex in '82 and '83; and '79 is another discussion and you'd have to persuade me he was better than Jabbar in '79). Erving has one late prime year as "best player" competition for Moses, and Bird a couple of early prime years. I don't mind so much with the latter two, if it's acknowledged that they're not at the peak of their powers (though there's no way you can argue Moses is only one year older http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duratio ... 12&y2=1956 ) but to invoke their names as though he was head and shoulders above top tier legends at their apex (imo)

(a) Does a disservice to those legends (because it isn't true).
and
(b) Does a disservice to Moses (because he's a legitimate contender so make a case built on his game, rather than overhyping accolade-opinions).

And as with previous discussions head to head is of very little importance to me (in part because in general we can't be sure they matched up and in some instances in this particular case know that they didn't; but also) because this relies on small samples, is unlikely to feature coinciding primes and will tell us more about matchups (at both a team and individual level) than it does about their overall impact on basketball games over their career.

[Notanoob]

To the Walton voters:

Do you realize he only played 14447 minutes in his entire nba career (regular season + playoffs)? David Robinson played almost 3 times as many minutes and Karl Malone played more than 4 times as many. Walton had exactly ONE season between ages 24-29 (the age range of most players' prime) where he was healthy for the playoffs! He played over 2000 minutes (rs + playoffs) exactly once in his career! What he actually did is probably close to his ceiling (one title as the man, one title as a bench player), and that took some serious strokes of luck.

I understand why people would disagree, but to me, this list should be "who was the best basketball player?", and how long you played has nothing to do with how good a basketball player you actually were.

Robinson would be my runoff vote.

If we were to do a project about peaks again, we'd have to get a lot of stuff done ahead of time- mostly determining what year was each player's peak. It might also make life easier if we broke things down by position instead of trying to compare the impact of guards to centers, especially concerning older guys whom we have a lot less film and data on.

[Sasaki]

To the Walton voters:

Do you realize he only played 14447 minutes in his entire nba career (regular season + playoffs)? David Robinson played almost 3 times as many minutes and Karl Malone played more than 4 times as many. Walton had exactly ONE season between ages 24-29 (the age range of most players' prime) where he was healthy for the playoffs! He played over 2000 minutes (rs + playoffs) exactly once in his career! What he actually did is probably close to his ceiling (one title as the man, one title as a bench player), and that took some serious strokes of luck.

I understand why people would disagree, but to me, this list should be "who was the best basketball player?", and how long you played has nothing to do with how good a basketball player you actually were.

Robinson would be my runoff vote.

If we were to do a project about peaks again, we'd have to get a lot of stuff done ahead of time- mostly determining what year was each player's peak. It might also make life easier if we broke things down by position instead of trying to compare the impact of guards to centers, especially concerning older guys whom we have a lot less film and data on.

Of course how long you played has something to do with how good a basketball player you actually were. Health is not something you can just ignore when you're evaluating NBA players - it's why Yao and Amare probably won't make this list at all, it's why Roy was drafted 6th in 2006 and why his career fell apart, it's why Grant Hill likely won't be voted top 50.

Walton being voted this early would be ludicrous. Completely, totally ludicrous. If we're just going to go "He won a ring as a main guy, let's vote him in", are we going with Wade and Frazier before we deal with Karl?

[Notanoob]

To the Walton voters:

Do you realize he only played 14447 minutes in his entire nba career (regular season + playoffs)? David Robinson played almost 3 times as many minutes and Karl Malone played more than 4 times as many. Walton had exactly ONE season between ages 24-29 (the age range of most players' prime) where he was healthy for the playoffs! He played over 2000 minutes (rs + playoffs) exactly once in his career! What he actually did is probably close to his ceiling (one title as the man, one title as a bench player), and that took some serious strokes of luck.

I understand why people would disagree, but to me, this list should be "who was the best basketball player?", and how long you played has nothing to do with how good a basketball player you actually were.

Robinson would be my runoff vote.

If we were to do a project about peaks again, we'd have to get a lot of stuff done ahead of time- mostly determining what year was each player's peak. It might also make life easier if we broke things down by position instead of trying to compare the impact of guards to centers, especially concerning older guys whom we have a lot less film and data on.

Of course how long you played has something to do with how good a basketball player you actually were. Health is not something you can just ignore when you're evaluating NBA players - it's why Yao and Amare probably won't make this list at all, it's why Roy was drafted 6th in 2006 and why his career fell apart, it's why Grant Hill likely won't be voted top 50.

Walton being voted this early would be ludicrous. Completely, totally ludicrous. If we're just going to go "He won a ring as a main guy, let's vote him in", are we going with Wade and Frazier before we deal with Karl?

Consider it in the opposite direction though. Is Stockton a better player than Magic because he had an insanely long career and good stats to go with it? Of course not. So why shouldn't we apply similar logic to guys with even shorter careers?

Yao and Amar'e had significant flaws as players that would have held down their rankings regardless of their health, I don't think that they are good comparisons.

[john248]

To the Walton voters:

Do you realize he only played 14447 minutes in his entire nba career (regular season + playoffs)? David Robinson played almost 3 times as many minutes and Karl Malone played more than 4 times as many. Walton had exactly ONE season between ages 24-29 (the age range of most players' prime) where he was healthy for the playoffs! He played over 2000 minutes (rs + playoffs) exactly once in his career! What he actually did is probably close to his ceiling (one title as the man, one title as a bench player), and that took some serious strokes of luck.

I understand why people would disagree, but to me, this list should be "who was the best basketball player?", and how long you played has nothing to do with how good a basketball player you actually were.

Robinson would be my runoff vote.

If we were to do a project about peaks again, we'd have to get a lot of stuff done ahead of time- mostly determining what year was each player's peak. It might also make life easier if we broke things down by position instead of trying to compare the impact of guards to centers, especially concerning older guys whom we have a lot less film and data on.

There's no criteria though your's is shocking to me. So far, I've gotten the impression that its been, "Which basketball player gave you the best odds of winning a championship(s) over his career?" I haven't really used this myself. You'll probably have some people question your Walton choice because they don't feel he'll give better odds of more championships over his career vs say the longer careers of the Malones (using them since they are leading votes). Then you might find yourself debating your choice even though criteria differs which will ultimately go no where.

[magicmerl]

There's no criteria though your's is shocking to me. So far, I've gotten the impression that its been, "Which basketball player gave you the best odds of winning a championship(s) over their career?"

Yeah, I have a sort of nebulous 'expected championships' rubric that I'm using as a single number.

[Notanoob]

To the Walton voters:

Do you realize he only played 14447 minutes in his entire nba career (regular season + playoffs)? David Robinson played almost 3 times as many minutes and Karl Malone played more than 4 times as many. Walton had exactly ONE season between ages 24-29 (the age range of most players' prime) where he was healthy for the playoffs! He played over 2000 minutes (rs + playoffs) exactly once in his career! What he actually did is probably close to his ceiling (one title as the man, one title as a bench player), and that took some serious strokes of luck.

I understand why people would disagree, but to me, this list should be "who was the best basketball player?", and how long you played has nothing to do with how good a basketball player you actually were.

Robinson would be my runoff vote.

If we were to do a project about peaks again, we'd have to get a lot of stuff done ahead of time- mostly determining what year was each player's peak. It might also make life easier if we broke things down by position instead of trying to compare the impact of guards to centers, especially concerning older guys whom we have a lot less film and data on.

There's no criteria though your's is shocking to me. So far, I've gotten the impression that its been, "Which basketball player gave you the best odds of winning a championship(s) over their career?" I haven't really used this myself. You'll probably have some people question your Walton choice because they don't feel he'll give better odds of more championships over his career vs say the longer career of the Malones (using them since they are leading votes). Then you might find yourself debating your choice even though criteria differs which will ultimately go no where.

Really, it's just for figuring out my vote. I'm happy to debate with people on their own criteria- if people disagree with my vote based on having different criteria, I won't try and change their criteria, I'll debate with them based on who I think should be their vote based on their criteria.

[john248]

Really, it's just for figuring out my vote. I'm happy to debate with people on their own criteria- if people disagree with my vote based on having different criteria, I won't try and change their criteria, I'll debate with them based on who I think should be their vote based on their criteria.

I don't even know where I was going with my reply to you anyways. I think Walton just caught me off guard. lol

I think that's why I finished my reply by saying I hope you don't get into these debates that go no where due to differing criteria. Nice to see Walton get a mention. If we're talking about a beast of a player, he's certainly one of them.

[E-Balla]

To the Walton voters:

Do you realize he only played 14447 minutes in his entire nba career (regular season + playoffs)? David Robinson played almost 3 times as many minutes and Karl Malone played more than 4 times as many. Walton had exactly ONE season between ages 24-29 (the age range of most players' prime) where he was healthy for the playoffs! He played over 2000 minutes (rs + playoffs) exactly once in his career! What he actually did is probably close to his ceiling (one title as the man, one title as a bench player), and that took some serious strokes of luck.

I understand why people would disagree, but to me, this list should be "who was the best basketball player?", and how long you played has nothing to do with how good a basketball player you actually were.

Robinson would be my runoff vote.

If we were to do a project about peaks again, we'd have to get a lot of stuff done ahead of time- mostly determining what year was each player's peak. It might also make life easier if we broke things down by position instead of trying to compare the impact of guards to centers, especially concerning older guys whom we have a lot less film and data on.

Of course how long you played has something to do with how good a basketball player you actually were. Health is not something you can just ignore when you're evaluating NBA players - it's why Yao and Amare probably won't make this list at all, it's why Roy was drafted 6th in 2006 and why his career fell apart, it's why Grant Hill likely won't be voted top 50.

Walton being voted this early would be ludicrous. Completely, totally ludicrous. If we're just going to go "He won a ring as a main guy, let's vote him in", are we going with Wade and Frazier before we deal with Karl?

Sorry to burst your bubble but Amare is almost guaranteed to make this list. He was too good for too long to not be at least top 100 (NBA has been around for 6 decades and he's top 10 for one of them).

[magicmerl]

Sorry to burst your bubble but Amare is almost guaranteed to make this list. He was too good for too long to not be at least top 100 (NBA has been around for 6 decades and he's top 10 for one of them).

In which decade was Amare a top10 player? If you're talking about the 00s, I would respectfully suggest that Shaq, Duncan, KG, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk, Nash, Durant, Howard and Wade were all better than him. I would also put Kidd, TMac and Big ben over him too, but concede that those guys are more debateable.

There are a bunch of guys that when they are free agents you just throw the max at them and you're still criminally underpaying them. Amare is not one of those guys.

[ronnymac2]

Interesting take on that Ronny. I guess you side with Dirk over KG then as well? Because just like Robinson more of his worth stems from the defensive side, but like David in the first half of his career he was asked to carry the load offensively and often failed to so in the postseason and when he matched Dirk, Dirk dominated him.

I think the forum was able to take a wider view of KG and thus he ended up pretty high. Im curious if you think that was a mistake or why you don't want to look broader at Admiral?

And I only compared their RS H2H numbers to see how they compared since you were stressing the playoff match so much. If I look at their entire RS performance, Admiral's peak and prime pretty clearly exceed that of Malone. He compares very favorably offensively despite that being the worse aspect of his game and dominates what Malone brings defensively.

I hate having to be an Admiral apologist here when Im not yet sure I'd take him over Malone, but Im confused a little by what you are emphazing in this particular comparison. But I have lots of respect for you so Im engaging in an attempt to better understand it.

Well I voted for KG at #11, but I had a hard time voting KG over Karl Malone, and quite frankly, I have no problem with somebody saying Dirk Nowitzki is better than Karl Malone, so...yeah, KG and Dirk are super close.

In my opinion, KG is ahead of Dirk, but I 100% understand the rational behind Dirk > KG. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Honestly, if Dirk keeps having his 2014 season for another 5 years, there's a decent chance Dirk gets into my top-10 all-time.

My opinion of Kevin Garnett went up considerably thanks to this project. I think a rational argument can be made for him as a top-10 player all-time, and if portability is extremely important to you, then KG makes strides towards top-5 (Not that I agree, but I see it). That isn't happening with David Robinson, at least for me, because Garnett and Robinson are wildly different offensive players. They both carried a load too great and often failed scoring wise, but KG always had his superior passing, ball-handling, and spacing effect to fall back on. David Robinson did not. David Robinson's offensive value comes from his scoring production/efficiency, which crumble against better teams and players.

If either KG or D-Rob played with Michael Jordan or LeBron James, I'd very much prefer KG's offense as a superior fit with those superstar wings. KG is far more portable and a better number 2 option. Honestly, I don't see a scenario where David Robinson's offensive value is better than what KG or Karl Malone bring.

Re: Dirk outplaying KG. What Dirk did isn't really close to what Malone did to Robinson. You know that. You've explained that in this project IIRC. C'mon now. Malone bullied Robinson, forcibly made him play poorly.

Re: Using REG SEA H2H numbers. Totally fair to use that. I personally don't.

I haven't had to really bring up the negatives of a player in this project because I don't see a need, I don't care who gets voted in where, and it doesn't interest me. But I'm bringing up Robinson's failures because:

1. They are legitimate positives of Karl Malone's peak.
2. They are incredibly worrisome to me when evaluating Robinson as a player.

[DannyNoonan1221]

Again I am voting for Moses

I believe his 'throwing up shots' to get OReb does not account for the large gap he has on the #2 all time OReb. Not a defensive anchor but a tough one-on-one match up, which means he is not a liability at that end. As DQuinn has pointed out along with Naismith, he was the best player for a 4 year stretch, winning MVPs, FMVPs and a team title. I get that people want to argue those 4 years were in between other player's primes, but I think that reasoning is a stretch. First of all not every player's prime can even be agreed upon, and secondly how many players that have been voted in match up their prime perfectly with another guy who has received votes? If Moses won 3 MVPs and was the only superstar in the league, fine. But he had Kareem (who Moses' play against has been documented here in his favor), Magic and Bird- Bird who was only one year younger than Moses.

To me, he showed his dominance during those 4 guys who were voted #2, #8 and #10.

Because it was basically me putting the "Moses wasn't putting up his consensus PoTY seasons against peak or near Jabbar or Magic, and only marginally prime Erving (one year) and Bird so don't invoke their names to say he was dominating them" point, I'll briefly respond though most of it is covered previously.

Sure players primes can't be agreed upon. It's a loose term. But in Johnson's three best years he had PERs between 26.6 and 27 and WS/48 between .263 and .270. In the seasons in question sure he's very good, by any normal standard, he's not the Magic that makes him .... Magic. That makes him easy, no thought required top 10 all-time pantheon, legend Magic. Kareem ditto (except he's considerably further away from his apex in '82 and '83; and '79 is another discussion and you'd have to persuade me he was better than Jabbar in '79). Erving has one late prime year as "best player" competition for Moses, and Bird a couple of early prime years. I don't mind so much with the latter two, if it's acknowledged that they're not at the peak of their powers (though there's no way you can argue Moses is only one year older http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duratio ... 12&y2=1956 ) but to invoke their names as though he was head and shoulders above top tier legends at their apex (imo)

(a) Does a disservice to those legends (because it isn't true).
and
(b) Does a disservice to Moses (because he's a legitimate contender so make a case built on his game, rather than overhyping accolade-opinions).

And as with previous discussions head to head is of very little importance to me (in part because in general we can't be sure they matched up and in some instances in this particular case know that they didn't; but also) because this relies on small samples, is unlikely to feature coinciding primes and will tell us more about matchups (at both a team and individual level) than it does about their overall impact on basketball games over their career.

I'm sorry if you took it as that, but I did not mean to say that he was dominant over those three guys and their primes. I mean that while his 4 year dominance did not coincide with peak KAJ/Magic/Bird/Dr.J, the parts of those careers that he did match up with are strong enough, in my opinion, to make him an easy choice for the 17th spot. Where as prior anti-moses posts have said his 4 year stretch isn't that impressive because they were all either a 1 or 2 seasons post or pre peak, I think for the 17th spot it was damn impressive.

As for Bird's age difference. yes, I did not look at the month they were born. Honest mistake. However, Malone was 23 when he won his first MVP, bird was 27 when he won his. They clearly peaked at different stages in their career. My point being that one could argue for Moses for developing sooner, but at the same time could also argue for Bird for continuing to develop his game at a later age.

[Clyde Frazier]

Sorry to burst your bubble but Amare is almost guaranteed to make this list. He was too good for too long to not be at least top 100 (NBA has been around for 6 decades and he's top 10 for one of them).

In which decade was Amare a top10 player? If you're talking about the 00s, I would respectfully suggest that Shaq, Duncan, KG, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk, Nash, Durant, Howard and Wade were all better than him. I would also put Kidd, TMac and Big ben over him too, but concede that those guys are more debateable.

There are a bunch of guys that when they are free agents you just throw the max at them and you're still criminally underpaying them. Amare is not one of those guys.

Durant is a 2010s guy pretty clearly.

[Witzig-Okashi]

I was (and still am to an extent) impressed with Robinson's play during his first six seasons, in large part with his consistency (in the RS at least) with the revolving door of coaches he had to deal with (LB, Tark, Bass, Lucas II, Hill, etc). However, this is a top players list, and I'm quite impressed with the focus on his positives and negatives, and the misconceptions on some of his performances.

I have no vote on this list, but I'm personally torn between Barkley and Malone. Malone's playoff performances have been noted quite a bit, but has anyone taken the time to do the same for Chuck? I would like to see a breakdown of his playoff performances year-by-year. Of course, I'll look up some myself, but I don't have the context and insight that some other users may have due to age...

[Clyde Frazier]

I understand why people would disagree, but to me, this list should be "who was the best basketball player?", and how long you played has nothing to do with how good a basketball player you actually were.

Robinson would be my runoff vote.

If we were to do a project about peaks again, we'd have to get a lot of stuff done ahead of time- mostly determining what year was each player's peak. It might also make life easier if we broke things down by position instead of trying to compare the impact of guards to centers, especially concerning older guys whom we have a lot less film and data on.

Of course how long you played has something to do with how good a basketball player you actually were. Health is not something you can just ignore when you're evaluating NBA players - it's why Yao and Amare probably won't make this list at all, it's why Roy was drafted 6th in 2006 and why his career fell apart, it's why Grant Hill likely won't be voted top 50.

Walton being voted this early would be ludicrous. Completely, totally ludicrous. If we're just going to go "He won a ring as a main guy, let's vote him in", are we going with Wade and Frazier before we deal with Karl?

Consider it in the opposite direction though. Is Stockton a better player than Magic because he had an insanely long career and good stats to go with it? Of course not. So why shouldn't we apply similar logic to guys with even shorter careers?

Yao and Amar'e had significant flaws as players that would have held down their rankings regardless of their health, I don't think that they are good comparisons.

Because magic played 10+ seasons of elite basketball. Stockton's great longevity realistically doesn't trump that. We can't just equally extrapolate backwards as the sample size becomes much smaller. Really isn't the same thing.

[DQuinn1575]

Vote: Moses Malone

...

I wasn't around to watch Moses play, so i can't give much detail on his defense, most are saying he wasn't very good in that regard but he wasn't worse than Barkley i can say that.

Barkley stunk; Moses was decent, just not comparable to David Robinson.

His defense was close to Karl Malone level; big, physical, punishing but not a great shotblocker/help defender. Better in that regard than Karl Malone but weaker going out on the floor or dealing with pick and roll. Not sure why the team numbers were so bad in Houston; have been looking for some information on that but not coming up with a lot of good reasons other than teammates not playing well.

Houston was last in league in defense the year before Moses joined them. They added players like a34yo Rick Barry, who at that point wasn't good on defense, plus maybe the slowest guy in league history- the whopper, billy pault. Moses was surrounded by terrible defenders while in Houston.

He wasn't great so he didn't help a lot, but it wasn't really his fault they were so bad


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Notanoob]

Of course how long you played has something to do with how good a basketball player you actually were. Health is not something you can just ignore when you're evaluating NBA players - it's why Yao and Amare probably won't make this list at all, it's why Roy was drafted 6th in 2006 and why his career fell apart, it's why Grant Hill likely won't be voted top 50.

Walton being voted this early would be ludicrous. Completely, totally ludicrous. If we're just going to go "He won a ring as a main guy, let's vote him in", are we going with Wade and Frazier before we deal with Karl?

Consider it in the opposite direction though. Is Stockton a better player than Magic because he had an insanely long career and good stats to go with it? Of course not. So why shouldn't we apply similar logic to guys with even shorter careers?

Yao and Amar'e had significant flaws as players that would have held down their rankings regardless of their health, I don't think that they are good comparisons.

Because magic played 10+ seasons of elite basketball. Stockton's great longevity realistically doesn't trump that. We can't just equally extrapolate backwards as the sample size becomes much smaller. Really isn't the same thing.

I don't see why Magic wouldn't be ahead of Stockton if he only played 5 years- he was a better basketball player than Stockton, period. Who cares that Stockton played forever? He never was as good as Magic.

It's just my opinion that this should be a ranking of the best basketball players, and Walton getting hurt a lot doesn't make him a worse basketball player than someone who stayed healthy.

Of course, I don't expect to convince you to change the way you vote, but whatever. I'll just try to explain my reasoning.

[HeartBreakKid]

Of course how long you played has something to do with how good a basketball player you actually were. Health is not something you can just ignore when you're evaluating NBA players - it's why Yao and Amare probably won't make this list at all, it's why Roy was drafted 6th in 2006 and why his career fell apart, it's why Grant Hill likely won't be voted top 50.

Stat, Yao and Grant all have good chances of making the list, and I don't understand how they compare to Bill Walton. I don't know if I've ever considered STAT to be a top ten player, so if he doesn't make the top 100, it doesn't necessarily have to do with his longevity or lack of it, he was never an elite player to begin with.

Walton being voted this early would be ludicrous. Completely, totally ludicrous. If we're just going to go "He won a ring as a main guy, let's vote him in", are we going with Wade and Frazier before we deal with Karl?

[/quote][/quote] Oh, I'm sorry, should I just change my vote because you don't like it?

Bill Walton isn't being voted because he has a ring, I'm voting for him because he's a great player. Unless you're going to actually critique his game, then you might as well save your breath.

As for Wade and Frazier vs Karl Malone, I certainly think it is an argument, was some how making it seem like Wade is not comparable to Malone supposed to sway me? And we do apply this logic to people with shorter careers, hence why Magic, Bird and James have all went in the top ten when there are franchise players who have had longer careers than them who went later.

I don't appreciate the whole "this guys crazy!!!" talk. Sorry I don't rate players the way you do, I mean unless you plan to hold my hand and guide me through out the project, I don't get the argument here.

I couldn't careless how pretty or not my list looks, which is honestly why I think people don't like rating by peaks, because they're scared players with less prestigious names will go over more canon picks. Makes no difference to me.

[Clyde Frazier]

Oh, I'm sorry, should I just change my vote because you don't like it?

Bill Walton isn't being voted because he has a ring, I'm voting for him because he's a great player. Unless you're going to actually critique his game, then you might as well save your breath.

As for Wade and Frazier vs Karl Malone, I certainly think it is an argument, was some how making it seem like Wade is not comparable to Malone supposed to sway me? And we do apply this logic to people with shorter careers, hence why Magic, Bird and James have all went in the top ten when there are franchise players who have had longer careers than them who went later.

Did you just quote me accidentally? Because I clearly never said what you wrote in bold, and you cut off what I wrote.

[HeartBreakKid]

Oh, I'm sorry, should I just change my vote because you don't like it?

Bill Walton isn't being voted because he has a ring, I'm voting for him because he's a great player. Unless you're going to actually critique his game, then you might as well save your breath.

As for Wade and Frazier vs Karl Malone, I certainly think it is an argument, was some how making it seem like Wade is not comparable to Malone supposed to sway me? And we do apply this logic to people with shorter careers, hence why Magic, Bird and James have all went in the top ten when there are franchise players who have had longer careers than them who went later.

Did you just quote me accidentally? Because I clearly never said what you wrote in bold, and you cut off what I wrote.

Yes, it was an accident.