RealGM Top 100 All-Time List

Anklebreaker702 · Post #141 » by **Anklebreaker702** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:53 am

Count me in

Baller 24 · Post #142 » by **Baller 24** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:58 am

Welcome aboard, new threads start every 3 days, so simply vote and nominate a player. Number 58 is open right now, and is sticky'd.

TheSheriff · Post #143 » by **TheSheriff** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:09 pm

Anyway i can get in on the voting?

Baller 24 · Post #144 » by **Baller 24** » Thu Dec 25, 2008 6:48 pm

shawngoat23 · Post #145 » by **shawngoat23** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:05 am

Thread needs updating.

Baller 24 · Post #146 » by **Baller 24** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:41 pm

Updated.

big123 · Post #147 » by **big123** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 8:23 am

Iverson at 50 is a **** travesty.

writerman · Post #148 » by **writerman** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:39 pm

No offense to many of the sincere and knowledgeable posters here--I respect the judgement of many (though not all) of them--but all this is going to be is a boring and predictable (and IMO, unwarranted) coronation parade for Michael Jordan, which is why I wouldn't participate, even if I had been invited.

Even among the few old enough to have seen Baylor, Robertson, Russell, Wilt, West, the Doctor, the Skywalker, etc., the fact is what is more recent is what stands out in your mind, so there's also an automatic bias toward what is more recent, while memories of earlier things pale in comparison.

Wilt said before he died "don't let them forget how good we were." Forget? Most of the people who are making these judgements here have nothing to forget, because they weren't even born yet to see anything to forget. Not their fault, but it fatally biases the result and that's the futility of this effort.

Post #149 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:27 pm

writerman wrote:No offense to many of the sincere and knowledgeable posters here--I respect the judgement of many (though not all) of them--but all this is going to be is a boring and predictable (and IMO, unwarranted) coronation parade for Michael Jordan, which is why I wouldn't participate, even if I had been invited.

Writerman, you were invited and chose not to participate. No problem. But still complaining about Jordan over Wilt (I have Russell as GOAT personally since he beat Wilt head to head consistently) several months later adds nothing. If you want to complain about Chris Webber over Dolph Schayes or Mel Daniels over Jack Sikma and back it up with reasoned argument . . . that would add something to the thread.

bringinhinkie · Post #150 » by **bringinhinkie** » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:12 pm

omg is this awful.. steve nash at 39? he isnt even top 75 maybe even 100.. tmac???????? dirk in the top 50? LOL wow.. dave d and earl the pearl not in the top 50????????? i can go on and on cmon now this is awfulllllll

better idea.. since half this board is under age 25 and some are like 12years old, do an all 1995-current team or something.. for real dont disrespect all time greats like this

Baller 24 · Post #151 » by **Baller 24** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:07 am

KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:omg is this awful.. steve nash at 39? he isnt even top 75 maybe even 100.. tmac???????? dirk in the top 50? LOL wow.. dave d and earl the pearl not in the top 50????????? i can go on and on cmon now this is awfulllllll

better idea.. since half this board is under age 25 and some are like 12years old, do an all 1995-current team or something.. for real dont disrespect all time greats like this

Its based off of career achievements, Nash and Dirk have every right to be in the top 50 at the very least. He isn't top 100? come on, give the hate a break. Its ridiculous how much hate Nash and Dirk get for their playoff woes, despite being a dominating force in the league.

TheSheriff · Post #152 » by **TheSheriff** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:49 am

KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:dave d and earl the pearl not in the top 50?????????

Some people are too low/ high imo, but Earl Monroe's career was not as good as Nash's career

abcdef · Post #153 » by **abcdef** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:40 am

TheSheriff wrote:
KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:dave d and earl the pearl not in the top 50?????????

Some people are too low/ high imo, but Earl Monroe's career was not as good as Nash's career

He probably wants John Starks and Charles Oakley in the top 100.

bringinhinkie · Post #154 » by **bringinhinkie** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:15 am

abcdef wrote:
TheSheriff wrote:
KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:dave d and earl the pearl not in the top 50?????????

Some people are too low/ high imo, but Earl Monroe's career was not as good as Nash's career

He probably wants John Starks and Charles Oakley in the top 100.

considering dave d and earl the pearl are already on the original list of the 50 greatest i think you should check yourself.. maybe if you weren't 11 years old and knew a sh*t about nba history, earl the pearl would have been a 20,000+ point scorer had he not sacrificed his offense for the good of working with clyde to a win a championship.. you know - something steve nash never won?

anyone who wouldn't put dave in the top 50 is a complete moron, he is arguably a top 5 defender ever, 6 time all nba defense, 8 time all star, 2 time nba champ, and was a player coach at AGE 24..

you are gonna tell me that some jackass like you knows more about basketball than guys like kareem, red auerbach, larry bird, isiah thomas, and other legends who made the original 50 greatest players? really? this list is pathetic as are some (not all) of you in terms of the history of the game.. i still cant believe tmac, dirk and some others are on here.. nash is understandable, but tmac and dirk? holy f**ck some of you are clueless

abcdef · Post #155 » by **abcdef** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:20 am

KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:
abcdef wrote:He probably wants John Starks and Charles Oakley in the top 100.

considering dave d and earl the pearl are already on the original list of the 50 greatest i think you should check yourself.. maybe if you weren't 11 years old and knew a sh*t about nba history, earl the pearl would have been a 20,000+ point scorer had he not sacrificed his offense for the good of working with clyde to a win a championship.. you know - something steve nash never won?

anyone who wouldn't put dave in the top 50 is a complete moron, he is arguably a top 5 defender ever, 6 time all nba defense, 8 time all star, 2 time nba champ, and was a player coach at AGE 24..

you are gonna tell me that some jackass like you knows more about basketball than guys like kareem, red auerbach, larry bird, isiah thomas, and other legends who made the original 50 greatest players? really? this list is pathetic as are some (not all) of you in terms of the history of the game.. i still cant believe tmac, dirk and some others are on here.. nash is understandable, but tmac and dirk? holy f**ck some of you are clueless

The fact that I know who John Starks and Charles Oakley are proves that I'm not 11.

Just because your favorite Knicks are not as high as you want doesn't mean the list is garbage.

There are several players who have been slighted on the list most prominently Wilt Chamberlain at #4, and Rick Barry/Elgin Baylor outside the top 20. The fact that you don't even bother bring them up and instead bring up your Knicks means that your motivations are completely homeristic.

bringinhinkie · Post #156 » by **bringinhinkie** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:33 am

abcdef wrote:
KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:
abcdef wrote:He probably wants John Starks and Charles Oakley in the top 100.

considering dave d and earl the pearl are already on the original list of the 50 greatest i think you should check yourself.. maybe if you weren't 11 years old and knew a sh*t about nba history, earl the pearl would have been a 20,000+ point scorer had he not sacrificed his offense for the good of working with clyde to a win a championship.. you know - something steve nash never won?

anyone who wouldn't put dave in the top 50 is a complete moron, he is arguably a top 5 defender ever, 6 time all nba defense, 8 time all star, 2 time nba champ, and was a player coach at AGE 24..

you are gonna tell me that some jackass like you knows more about basketball than guys like kareem, red auerbach, larry bird, isiah thomas, and other legends who made the original 50 greatest players? really? this list is pathetic as are some (not all) of you in terms of the history of the game.. i still cant believe tmac, dirk and some others are on here.. nash is understandable, but tmac and dirk? holy f**ck some of you are clueless

The fact that I know who John Starks and Charles Oakley are proves that I'm not 11.

Just because your favorite Knicks are not as high as you want doesn't mean the list is garbage.

There are several players who have been slighted on the list most prominently Wilt Chamberlain at #4, and Rick Barry/Elgin Baylor outside the top 20. The fact that you don't even bother bring them up and instead bring up your Knicks means that your motivations are completely homeristic.

homeristic? thats why i brought up tmac and dirk? this has ZERO to do with the knicks, in fact earls best statistical years werent even on the knicks.. even more criminal is nash, dirk, payton infront of mchale and walton who could easily be top 25.. earl and dave are BOTH IN THE REAL TOP 50.. and you claim im being homeristic? get your **** together, this has nothing to do with the knicks your list just blows.. i didnt comment on top 20 because saying wilt is 4th is alot more reasonable than having dirk and tmac and some others in the top 50, whether you think he was 2nd or 3rd or w/e.. tmac and dirk? :rofl:

i still cant get over it.. also wade at 52? already? this is criminalllllllllllllllll im surprised you clowns dont have derrick rose in there already

bringinhinkie · Post #157 » by **bringinhinkie** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:43 am

oh and for the record, id take a prime charles oakley on my team before dirk or tmac any day

basketball takes offense and defense, something neither of those 2 play.. oakley on the other hand? first 15 nba seasons... made the playoffs every year..

Baller 24 · Post #158 » by **Baller 24** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:19 am

KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:oh and for the record, id take a prime charles oakley on my team before dirk or tmac any day

basketball takes offense and defense, something neither of those 2 play.. oakley on the other hand? first 15 nba seasons... made the playoffs every year..

And this is why your opinion will never have any relevance nor will be given any credibility.

Knicks were great, I loved the Ewing and Fraizer/Reed led Knicks, but you're starting to get a little homeristic there, Oakley was never EVER a first option, never mind that, he wasn't even the 2nd scoring option on the best Knicks team, and again this is a career achievement list, Dirk is an MVP, Wade led his team to the finals and is a Finals MVP, Nash is an MVP, its all about accomplishments. LOL at picking Oakley over two players that dominated the league as a superstar.

And another note to take, why don't you go and click on the links of each player and look at the arguments that were taken into consideration, the face that you come here opinionated and biased shows pure ignorance, and behind that you can no logic or understanding to make your claim up.

bringinhinkie · Post #159 » by **bringinhinkie** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:27 am

Baller 24 wrote:
KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:oh and for the record, id take a prime charles oakley on my team before dirk or tmac any day

basketball takes offense and defense, something neither of those 2 play.. oakley on the other hand? first 15 nba seasons... made the playoffs every year..

And this is why your opinion will never have any relevance nor will be given any credibility.

Knicks were great, I loved the Ewing and Fraizer/Reed led Knicks, but you're starting to get a little homeristic there, Oakley was never EVER a first option, never mind that, he wasn't even the 2nd scoring option on the best Knicks team, and again this is a career achievement list, Dirk is an MVP, Wade led his team to the finals and is a Finals MVP, Nash is an MVP, its all about accomplishments. LOL at picking Oakley over two players that dominated the league as a superstar.

And another note to take, why don't you go and click on the links of each player and look at the arguments that were taken into consideration, the face that you come here opinionated and biased shows pure ignorance, and behind that you can no logic or understanding to make your claim up.

takes a team to win.. while oak isnt 1/10 the talent of dirk and tmac, he is way more valuable to a winning team.. obviously if you took 4 scrubs and put them with tmac or dirk, theyd win more games, but if you take a legit team even without superstars and add a top defender and rebounder and leader in oak, the comparison isnt even close - its oakley ina heartbeat and i know im not alone on this (well maybe in this sad sad thread).. im showing ignorance? more like common sense, you guys are taking a shyt on all time greats like mchale, walton, pearl, dave d in favor of one dimensional ringless "superstars" who play in a weak era.. i think you guys are the ones being ignorant, not me

Baller 24 · Post #160 » by **Baller 24** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:12 am

KnicksMetsJetsNova wrote:takes a team to win.. while oak isnt 1/10 the talent of dirk and tmac, he is way more valuable to a winning team.. obviously if you took 4 scrubs and put them with tmac or dirk, theyd win more games, but if you take a legit team even without superstars and add a top defender and rebounder and leader in oak, the comparison isnt even close - its oakley ina heartbeat and i know im not alone on this (well maybe in this sad sad thread).. im showing ignorance? more like common sense, you guys are taking a shyt on all time greats like mchale, walton, pearl, dave d in favor of one dimensional ringless "superstars" who play in a weak era.. i think you guys are the ones being ignorant, not me

So again replying to the Walton, McHale, etc. give some thought on why? Still have yet to see ANY logical arguments, its a list based off of "career", where else would an injury prone center rank? If this were peak I'd understand, but awards, longevity, and team impact are all factored in making a decision as one of the main criteria.

Copying the 50 Greatest Players of All-Time is useless since that was done about 12 years ago, where a lot of players have been knocked out of that top 50 since the arrival of some big named players this era. Its a career list, and I've said this about 3 times now, are you not incoherently understanding what I'm saying?

This next statement is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard...
Oakley over Dirk and Tmac? What else is it to basketball than winning? I don't understand the logic here behind picking a player that was merely a 3rd string player on a very good team over two players that have more team value than Oakley while being more dominant players and first options. Winning the most important thing, and if that isn't important to you (obviously it isn't) than there really isn't much for you to discuss.