RealGM Top 100 List #18

[Baller 24]

How is Nash getting nominations over Stock, Kidd, Isiah, and even Payton? He didn't even become an elite player until 2005, and played in an extremely PG friendly system. He's non-existent on the defensive side of the court, and the only one of the group to never even have made the FInals.

1) We've already explained peak/the better basketball player criteria is valued over everything else, peak trumps everything.

2) Nash has utilized the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th, & 11th greatest offensive teams ever in the history of the league. Did it under three different systems, coaches, and with various players. Only one thing remained certain and that's Steve Nash was the center piece of it all.

3) John Stockton was on the decline when Utah was at its most ultimate peak in terms of domination, his production was nowhere near peak form, where his team underperformed at his ultimate peak.

4) MVP correlation states Kidd, Isiah, Payton & Nash all were elite in various seasons throughout their most elite peak. John Stockton was a great PG for many many years, but Nash, Kidd, Payton, & Isiah give you elite seasons where you not only are they great, but they're amongst the top 7 elite.

[Baller 24]

No one- except for JordansBulls- has been as blatant and obvious about it as you've been. How about you rate players on how they play, not whether or not they and 11 other dudes coached by another dude, all hired by another dude, made it to the Finals? This really isn't that hard.

Yeh, I already have been rating players by how they play. BUT basketball is a team sport, so how a player impacts that team's success is a factor too.

You should go back to 2008, your thinking style would fit better there. My opening post also says "better" basketball player, you can only value that off of peak play, aside from you & JordanBulls who seem utterly confused, the members involved in this project have strictly been limiting "team success", it's a team game, critical moments, plays, and schemes in a basketball impact that by numerous individuals, it's hard to take that into account when you're ranking an individual player.

[An Unbiased Fan]

No one- except for JordansBulls- has been as blatant and obvious about it as you've been. How about you rate players on how they play, not whether or not they and 11 other dudes coached by another dude, all hired by another dude, made it to the Finals? This really isn't that hard.

Yeh, I already have been rating players by how they play. BUT basketball is a team sport, so how a player impacts that team's success is a factor too.

It's hard enough to rate players, how are you going to rate the rest of their teams, and the competition, and then figure out what the players role in it was? It's nonsensical; just rate them based upon how they played.

At the end of the day, that's what a Top 100 list is. You have to parse out a player's individual impact, along with his impact within the team dynamic. You have to take into account the strength of surrounding support, and the strength of his opposition. The rules he played under, and the overall style of his era also factor in. Era dominance, and how his abilities translated across to differing eras is important too, because the player pool ranges 60 years.

[fatal9]

Fatal, are you saying that if you were starting a team in any era of the NBA (not just in the modern one), you would pick the great shooting, flashy passing, weak defense PG over the superefficient, good scoring and rebounding, two way 7'2" center? . . . really?

Yesss. I'd take one of the 10 greatest offensive players over him.

Nash aside, there are a lot of centers I'd pick over Gilmore. Mourning, Howard and Parish right off the bat. Probably Thurmond as well because I really respect his defense, guys like Cowens, Reed and Mutombo maybe as well. Then other C/F guys like Gasol, McHale, McAdoo etc etc, as well.

I've tried to be impressed by Artis but I just can't get myself to.

I've watched a decent bit of his game footage, he's good on offense in that he could finish extremely well (left hand went up and it was over), had a good touch around the basket especially with a little baby hook, but let him just post up? His footwork was awful/awkward, he didn't really read defenses well, seems like every turnover he had was because he kept traveling when he was posting up (this is the reason why his TO numbers are so high). Lot of things he brought with his efficiency are taken away by the fact he was so turnover prone at a relatively low usage. Even then, being super efficient is nice and all but it doesn't mean you could feed him the ball in the post and ask him to score. Speaks more to his shot selection than scoring/offensive ability.

His defensive impact in the NBA is questionable at best. ONE season where the team was above league average, but most seasons they were in the cellar defensively. Maybe it's possible to track from missed games (in '80 and '84), if he was just around horrific defensive rosters (he did play with Theus who was an absolute sieve) or if he really had such little impact. He was a good post defender from what I've gathered though, could give KAJ problems sometimes due to his strength/length. Averaging around 2 blks a game in that era is really not that impressive though, almost confusing to me how he averaged so little considering his length/athleticism and role with the team (not like he was asked to score 25+ ppg, though due to his foul prone-ness he'd rarely play 36+ minutes).

When it comes to his NBA career, there's really nothing to speak of other than FG% titles and all-star selections. No all-NBA teams, irrelevant playoff career, ONE defensive second team in a year he was on the 20th worst defensive team out of 22 teams, no recognition as MVP caliber player (0 top 5 finishes, not like they were opposed to voting for players on .500 teams back then either), there's nothing there to indicate he is one of the 30 best players ever.

I guess it depends on how you look at his ABA career. I personally don't respect ABA accomplishments/stats as much as most people (just too many ABA players dropped off after merger), though I do consider it.

But even a closer look at his ABA career reveals some serious flaws that lead me to question him more. His MVP for one thing came in 1972, which is before you can even begin to even argue that ABA belonged on a similar plane as the NBA. ABA was noted for its weak center crop. His teams in the ABA chronically underachieved after usually stellar regular seasons (teams seemed like they were loaded with talent, had Issel who I think is considered top 10 player in ABA history). In '72 they won 68 games, had the best record/SRS in the league but lost in first round to a team that won 24 less games (this is like Dallas-GSW bad). Next couple of years, again best or second best record/SRS but didn't manage to win. They did finally win in '75 but only because they avoided matching up with the best teams (beat teams that won 32 games or less to get to finals) and then a 45 win team in the finals. Then the following year with Issel gone, they were a middle of the pack ABA team. His two best statistical years in the ABA were his first two ('72 and '73), PER of 26.6 and 24.4 respectively in the two years, and between 21-23.5 over the next three years. I also have a hard time accepting that he peaked before 27 and that he was never the same player in the NBA.

But if we're going to throw in Artis this high for his ABA accomplishments, why not say George McGinnis for example (2X ABA Champion, MVP in 1975, some crazy statistical seasons in the ABA, actually finished as a top 5 MVP candidate in NBA, 21/11/4 player in his first few NBA seasons)?

There's a place for him somewhere on the list but top 30 is way too early.

[Baller 24]

At the end of the day, that's what a Top 100 list is. You have to parse out a player's individual impact, along with his impact within the team dynamic. You have to take into account the strength of surrounding support, and the strength of his opposition. The rules he played under, and the overall style of his era also factor in. Era dominance, and how his abilities translated across to differing eras is important too, because the player pool ranges 60 years.

Robert Horry will surely be in the top 50 then, he's had a key impact/big moments in each of his 7 championships. Out of them all, 6 championships wouldn't have happened without the "impact" or pivotal play carried out by Robert Horry. It's as simple as if he's not on the team, Lakers three-peat doesn't happen, Rockets back-to-back championships don't happen, Spurs don't beat the Pistons.

[Laimbeer]

If you throw out titles, Russell at 2 is inexplicable.

[Baller 24]

If you throw out titles, Russell at 2 is inexplicable.

But we're not "throwing" them out to say the least, we're looking for players that have had the highest peak impact, just because a player "didn't" get to the finals, doesn't mean he should be discounted and stripped of their overall impact.

[An Unbiased Fan]

No one- except for JordansBulls- has been as blatant and obvious about it as you've been. How about you rate players on how they play, not whether or not they and 11 other dudes coached by another dude, all hired by another dude, made it to the Finals? This really isn't that hard.

Yeh, I already have been rating players by how they play. BUT basketball is a team sport, so how a player impacts that team's success is a factor too.

You should go back to 2008, your thinking style would fit better there. My opening post also says "better" basketball player, you can only value that off of peak play, aside from you & JordanBulls who seem utterly confused, the members involved in this project have strictly been limiting "team success", it's a team game, critical moments, plays, and schemes in a basketball impact that by numerous individuals, it's hard to take that into account when you're ranking an individual player.

1) I'm not sure what you're referring to. I have hardly referenced team success at all in this project. I do talk about team impact(because that's vital), but so did everyone else in regards to Russell & Hakeem, for example.

2) The "criteria" in every thread says, "Take into account both peak and career play". So am I to understand that this is wrong now? Because people having been voting this way since the start. I don't remeber any disucssion saying that we only look at "peak" play.

[Gongxi]

If you throw out titles, Russell at 2 is inexplicable.

Is it? I think there was something rather painstaking posts that did away entirely with that idea. No reason to continue to profligate that as if you didn't read them.

[Baller 24]

2) The "criteria" in every thread says, "Take into account both peak and career play". So am I to understand that this is wrong now? Because people having been voting this way since the start. I don't remeber any disucssion saying that we only look at "peak" play.

At the end of it states "the better basketball player", that gets weighed and valued most based on peak-play, THEN you can dig deeper in the other categories.

Nothing correlates to state John Stockton was "more" elite than Nash, while his individual statistics do, his impact surely didn't transition in an elite phase like Nash's (all-time historic offenses). Nothing correlates to even state he's better than Pippen. Disturbing how misinformed many are of Stockton.

[An Unbiased Fan]

At the end of the day, that's what a Top 100 list is. You have to parse out a player's individual impact, along with his impact within the team dynamic. You have to take into account the strength of surrounding support, and the strength of his opposition. The rules he played under, and the overall style of his era also factor in. Era dominance, and how his abilities translated across to differing eras is important too, because the player pool ranges 60 years.

Robert Horry will surely be in the top 50 then, he's had a key impact/big moments in each of his 7 championships. Out of them all, 6 championships wouldn't have happened without the "impact" or pivotal play carried out by Robert Horry. It's as simple as if he's not on the team, Lakers three-peat doesn't happen, Rockets back-to-back championships don't happen, Spurs don't beat the Pistons.

Team impact =/= Rings

I thought I laid it out there pretty clearly. You have to take into account a player's role on the team, his support, his opposition, and how big his individual impact was, along with his impact on his team's system. This was a fairly important part of the argument for Russell at the very beginning of this project. It also hurt Wilt and dropped him in the rankings.

[lorak]

If you throw out titles, Russell at 2 is inexplicable.

We didn't pick Russell 2nd because he have 11 titles. He is so high on this list because his impact (value as player) was so big.

[Gongxi]

I think Stockton has to get bonus points on the JB scale of importance to a franchise, though.

That's facetious in that I think that thinking is ridiculous, but serious in that I bet he thinks that and will vote him a little higher accordingly. Which goes back to my comment about why people are using resumes. If someone said "Hey Gongxi, you wanna participate in a project where we rank players based upon their resumes and then call it a list of greatest basketball players ever?" I'd respond "No, that sounds pretty stupid, I'd rather just be over here hitting myself in the head with a hammer."

But it seems some people, knowing that resumes were supposed to either be ignored or marginalized to a great extent, have decided not only to participate, but also to prominently use resumes and rings and such. Why? Why would you even participate if you didn't like the criteria that was going to be used? Anyway, I think I've derailed the #18 thread enough, if anything this should've went in the main topic, my bad.

[cpower]

Vote: Bob Pettit
Nominate: Thomas

[An Unbiased Fan]

2) The "criteria" in every thread says, "Take into account both peak and career play". So am I to understand that this is wrong now? Because people having been voting this way since the start. I don't remeber any disucssion saying that we only look at "peak" play.

At the end of it states "the better basketball player", that gets weighed and valued most based on peak-play, THEN you can dig deeper in the other categories.

Nothing correlates to state John Stockton was "more" elite than Nash, while his individual statistics do, his impact surely didn't transition in an elite phase like Nash's (all-time historic offenses). Nothing correlates to even state he's better than Pippen. Disturbing how misinformed many are of Stockton.

Stockton was an equal offensive player to Nash, and better defender. His production DWARFS Nash's in their primes. How exactly was Nash "the better basketball player" than Stockton? Or Kidd? Or Isiah? Or Payton?

The only thing you seem to bring up is his MVPs, which were largely narrative-based.

[Baller 24]

Stockton was an equal offensive player to Nash, and better defender. His production DWARFS Nash's in their primes. How exactly was Nash "the better basketball player" than Stockton? Or Kidd? Or Isiah? Or Payton?

Uhh, because despite Stockton's similarity statistically his impact never translated anything close to Nash's (historic offensive teams (1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th, 11th all-time) under various coaches, different players, and different offensive schemes). The definition of a point-guard describes Steve Nash, and he did it on historical levels that John Stockton never came close to anchoring & facilitating an offensive system.

The only thing you seem to bring up is his MVPs, which were largely narrative-based.

Go through it, where did I bring up his MVPs. There goes the flip-flopping cases, "dismantle" MVPs because it doesn't support Stockton's case over Isiah, Kidd, Nash or Payton. Stockton in any given season has or was never a impacted top 5 player in the league. There's a reason guys like Tim Hardaway, Terry Porter & Mark Price would routinely place ahead of him in MVP voting.

[Sedale Threatt]

Had LeBron as a lock coming in, but I'm going to give serious consideration to the great Bob Pettit here. These are the next two slots, for me, in whatever order they end up.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Stockton was an equal offensive player to Nash, and better defender. His production DWARFS Nash's in their primes. How exactly was Nash "the better basketball player" than Stockton? Or Kidd? Or Isiah? Or Payton?

Uhh, because dispute Stockton's similarity statistically his impact never translated anything close to Nash's (historic offensive teams (1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th, 11th all-time under various coaches, different players, and different offensive schemes). The definition of a point-guard describes Steve Nash, and he did it on historical levels that John Stockton never came close to anchoring & facilitating an offensive system.

I find it perplexing how you can use team offensive results in regards to Nash, yet dismiss individual results. Didn't you just get through saying that you didn't put much into "team success".

I would point out again, that Nash has always played on offensively minded teams, and had coaches like Nelson & D'Antoni who filled those teams with offensive weapons. i could also point out again that Dallas stayed a great offensive team even after Nash left.

Stockton on the other-hand, played under Sloan, had far less weapons, yet still out produced Nash bigtime in production. Stockton was the better off the ball player, and one of the best PGs ever at setting screens. His scoring efficiency was actually higher than Nash's, and he is perhaps the best ever at controlling the offensive tempo of a game.

Go through it, where did I bring up his MVPs. There goes the flip-flopping cases, "dismantle" MVPs because it doesn't support Stockton's case over Isiah, Kidd, Nash or Payton. Stockton in any given season has or was never a impacted top 5 player in the league. There's a reason guys like Tim Hardaway, Terry Porter & Mark Price would routinely place ahead of him in MVP voting.

I already pointed out how Nash wasn't a consensus Top 5 player either. You referenced MVP voting in the last thread. I reminded you that Stockton was playing next to Malone. How many Top 10 MVP votes did Nash get playing next to Dirk?

[Sedale Threatt]

The proof is in the pudding for Nash in the sense that he was the constant across all those teams. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better playmaker/shooter combo in NBA history. But I also find the team rankings a bit disingenuous considering he was almost always surrounding with quality offensive players. Then again, it's pretty telling how hugely the Suns jumped when he showed up. It's an interesting debate, for sure.

[Baller 24]

I find it perplexing how you can use team offensive results in regards in regards to Nash, yet dismiss individual results. Didn't you just get through saying that you didn't put much into "team success".

?

You were talking about total championship rings. I'm talking about his IMPACT strictly given to his offensive teams despite DIFFERENT teammates, coaches, & schemes his impact has remained CONSISTENT. Didn't we just have a whole thread about this over Russell? I'm not sitting here stating "oh he didn't even make the finals", I'm going by how well he maintined his impact through various systems.

I would point out again, that Nash has always played on offensively minded teams, and had coaches like Nelson & D'Antoni who filled those teams with offensive weapons.

Yet even where the Suns were off the playoffs he maintained that impact under Porter in '09, then did it again in historic sense offensively in '10 (4th all-time) under Gentry. If you're talking about offensively minded teams, then why haven't other players done under D'Antoni? Marbury hasn't….Duhon hasn't..Billups hasn't..

Offensive weapons you say? What about '06? Joe Johnson, Q. Richardson, & Amar'e all gone---three of the most contributing players offensively, yet the team still maintains it's consistency offensively (10th all-time ranked offensive team statistically), replaced by Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Eddie House, James Jones, Tim Thomas, and Kurt Thomas. 6 new players utilized as key players for production in a 82 games season span. Diaw coming from a team that didn't trust him, never showcased his full potential where he was drafted upon, Bell playing off the bench in Utah (12 PPG on. 527 TS%), and I can go on about Eddie House & James Jones being appalling chuckers.

i could also point out again that Dallas stayed a great offensive team even after Nash left.

Nope, in '04 they hit historic marks (6th all-time), after they weren't even close after that.

Stockton on the other-hand, played under Sloan, had far less weapons, yet still out produced Nash big time in production. Stockton was the better off the ball player, and one of the best PGs ever at setting screens.

Who do you think benefited more in the relationship? Stockton did from Malone, or Malone did from Stockton? It's pretty clear everyone knows the answer to that question. ElGee's already pointed out how big of an offensive monster Karl Malone was, and I frankly could give a half a rats ass about how well Stockton produced similarly or out-produced him, it didn't TRANSITION onto the court in terms of impact. Nash's did, in an all-time historic sense statistically.

His scoring efficiency was actually higher than Nash's

Nope, not at prime/peak form.