RealGM Top 100 All-Time List

Baller 24 · Post #221 » by **Baller 24** » Thu Mar 5, 2009 1:42 pm

I agree with you there, IMO both Reggie and Ray should go ahead of Penny.

sp6r=underrated · Post #222 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Thu Mar 5, 2009 6:14 pm

Batronuj wrote:It will be ridiculous is Penny gets in ahead of Reggie Miller or Ray Allen.

Penny had a great start to his career, and could have been a good player, but he never accomplished all that much, he's getting overhyped for what could have been. You can't take him over proven guys like Ray and Reggie.

Reggie Miller is getting severely underrated, he was a winner, and took some not so great teams to some very good battles with the greatest player of all time.

No, those teams were very deep. They had a very good front court with Smits and the Davis brothers. They got decent production out of the three from schrempf and than McKey and than McKey/Schrempf.

Second, during the 90s there was essentially no consensus that Millers was there best player. This is forgotten now, but there were plenty people who felt Smits was as good as Miller.

I'm not sure what the judging criteria is for this list. Is it:
Single Season or two (Peak)
Prime
Longevity
Skillset

Depending upon what the criteria is Hardaway or Allen would be a better choice.

Finally, the Pacers meet the bulls a grand total of one time in the playoffs.

Baller 24 · Post #223 » by **Baller 24** » Thu Mar 5, 2009 6:21 pm

It's based on the entire career, I'd personally rather have Ray Allen ahead of both, but Reggie comes in second, Penny third (if it was Prime I'd argue Penny ahead, but it's based on career).

Post #224 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Mar 5, 2009 9:23 pm

I disagree. No one thought Smits was as good as Reggie; they felt he was as or more valuable than Reggie because it is much harder to make it with an average SG than with an average C.

sp6r=underrated · Post #225 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Thu Mar 5, 2009 9:43 pm

penbeast0 wrote:I disagree. No one thought Smits was as good as Reggie; they felt he was as or more valuable than Reggie because it is much harder to make it with an average SG than with an average C.

It may have been a minority opinion but I did from 92-94. Him being to play Ewing to a draw during those playoff series was just as important as Miller and why they had such good success against the Knicks. Also the Center position was much deeper than the two guard position throughout most of Reggie's good years in the 90s.

Miller at best, for the vast majority of his career, was a first amongst equals type player. Both Penny and Allen were better players at their peak.

carrottop12 · Post #226 » by **carrottop12** » Fri Mar 6, 2009 3:51 am

sp6r=underrated wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:I disagree. No one thought Smits was as good as Reggie; they felt he was as or more valuable than Reggie because it is much harder to make it with an average SG than with an average C.

It may have been a minority opinion but I did from 92-94. Him being to play Ewing to a draw during those playoff series was just as important as Miller and why they had such good success against the Knicks. Also the Center position was much deeper than the two guard position throughout most of Reggie's good years in the 90s.

Miller at best, for the vast majority of his career, was a first amongst equals type player. Both Penny and Allen were better players at their peak.

Yeah sp6r, you may have thought that, but you'd be one of a very very few. Reggie was clutch, was a killer scorer, and found ways to win big games.

Reggie was big time.

big123 · Post #227 » by **big123** » Fri Mar 6, 2009 11:59 pm

Iverson 20 spots below Drexler is a joke. You can make a case for either of them, but 20 spots difference is not waranted IMO. I think when Iverson is done his career, even without a title, hes a lock top 30 player.

Post #228 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 12:46 am

Iverson doesn't belong in the top 100, much less in the same breath with Drexler. What has he done in his career TO HELP HIS TEAM? All he has done is shoot a lot . . . period . . . he hasn't played defense, gone to practice, set up his teammates (his assist totals are mainly a function of his ball dominance), or created winning teams.

While he has been statistically MUCH better since they changed the rules to bar handchecking, a change that favored Iverson more than any other major player, he has still shown his problems by being traded twice (for Miller and Billups, neither of who are in the top 100 list yet) both of whom improved the teams that Iverson left and both of whom's former teams backslip with Iverson.

He is the prototype for an overrated player . . . big scoring numbers, mediocre efficiency, no defense, poor practice habits, and a selfish me-first attitude. He is only valuable to a bad team with little other scoring talent where his ability to create his own shot (his one great asset) can move them toward .500.

He was carried to his one final despite his poor play (shooting under .400 for the playoffs that year) by COY Larry Brown's schemes, DPOY Dikembe Mutombo's defense, plus good role players and the sixth man of the year having a career year. But, he is a spectacular and fun player to watch and, like Pete Maravich, that is a skill people value which got them both on this list.

Baller 24 · Post #229 » by **Baller 24** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 1:05 am

Iverson I thought personally went very early, lol no he should be a lock at top 30.

sp6r=underrated · Post #230 » by **sp6r=underrated** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 3:41 am

penbeast0 wrote:Iverson doesn't belong in the top 100, much less in the same breath with Drexler. What has he done in his career TO HELP HIS TEAM? All he has done is shoot a lot . . . period . . . he hasn't played defense, gone to practice, set up his teammates (his assist totals are mainly a function of his ball dominance), or created winning teams.

While he has been statistically MUCH better since they changed the rules to bar handchecking, a change that favored Iverson more than any other major player, he has still shown his problems by being traded twice (for Miller and Billups, neither of who are in the top 100 list yet) both of whom improved the teams that Iverson left and both of whom's former teams backslip with Iverson.

He is the prototype for an overrated player . . . big scoring numbers, mediocre efficiency, no defense, poor practice habits, and a selfish me-first attitude. He is only valuable to a bad team with little other scoring talent where his ability to create his own shot (his one great asset) can move them toward .500.

He was carried to his one final despite his poor play (shooting under .400 for the playoffs that year) by COY Larry Brown's schemes, DPOY Dikembe Mutombo's defense, plus good role players and the sixth man of the year having a career year. But, he is a spectacular and fun player to watch and, like Pete Maravich, that is a skill people value which got them both on this list.

In fairness to Iverson, the NBA contrary to myth allowed more contact in the late 90s than at any point since the seventies. If you're going to somewhat depress his stats since the rule changes, I think you should inflate his efficiency a little for playing in the late 90s.

With the exception of that I am in basic agreement with everything else you wrote.

Post #231 » by **TMACFORMVP** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 4:20 am

big123 wrote:Iverson 20 spots below Drexler is a joke. You can make a case for either of them, but 20 spots difference is not waranted IMO. I think when Iverson is done his career, even without a title, hes a lock top 30 player.

20 spots is too little a separation.

TheSheriff · Post #232 » by **TheSheriff** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 10:50 am

big123 wrote:Iverson 20 spots below Drexler is a joke. You can make a case for either of them, but 20 spots difference is not waranted IMO. I think when Iverson is done his career, even without a title, hes a lock top 30 player.

The classic volume scorer. Doesn't belong any higher; in fact i would have put him lower.

big123 · Post #233 » by **big123** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 11:25 pm

TheSheriff wrote:
big123 wrote:Iverson 20 spots below Drexler is a joke. You can make a case for either of them, but 20 spots difference is not waranted IMO. I think when Iverson is done his career, even without a title, hes a lock top 30 player.

The classic volume scorer. Doesn't belong any higher; in fact i would have put him lower.

Since Iverson has been in the league, he has the most top 10 in 3 different statisical areas in a season and 1 season in the top 5 in those areas which hasn't been done in 30-40 years. Volume scorer he is, but he's more than that.

big123 · Post #234 » by **big123** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 11:34 pm

TMACFORMVP wrote:
big123 wrote:Iverson 20 spots below Drexler is a joke. You can make a case for either of them, but 20 spots difference is not waranted IMO. I think when Iverson is done his career, even without a title, hes a lock top 30 player.

20 spots is too little a separation.

He's higher than McGrady, at least that's right. :wink:

big123 · Post #235 » by **big123** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 11:37 pm

penbeast0 wrote: His assist totals are mainly a function of his ball dominance.

Who's isn't?

big123 · Post #236 » by **big123** » Sat Mar 7, 2009 11:53 pm

big123 wrote:
TheSheriff wrote:
big123 wrote:Iverson 20 spots below Drexler is a joke. You can make a case for either of them, but 20 spots difference is not waranted IMO. I think when Iverson is done his career, even without a title, hes a lock top 30 player.

The classic volume scorer. Doesn't belong any higher; in fact i would have put him lower.

Top 5 in those areas which hasn't been done in 30-40 years.

My fault, the only player in history since steals became a stat in ('73) to finish top 5 in a season in any 3 statistical categories. (PPG, assists and steals). ****, since Wilt there hasn't been many 2 categories.

Post #237 » by **TMACFORMVP** » Sun Mar 8, 2009 12:47 am

He's higher than McGrady, at least that's right.

No disagreements here, I didn't even vote for McGrady....Hell even I voted for AI, in my post above, I meant it's much easier to argue AI is 20 spots later, much rather than 20 spots earlier.

UDRIH14 · Post #238 » by **UDRIH14** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:09 am

wow i dont see billups on the lists....

his a very good pg who is underrated on these boards....

TheSheriff · Post #239 » by **TheSheriff** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:23 am

UDRIH14 wrote:wow i dont see billups on the lists....

his a very good pg who is underrated on these boards....

Billups is seeing some love in the nominations, he will make the list

Post #240 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:09 pm

Yeah, Billups has been in the top 3 in the nomination pool for about 5 spots now. We have been building up steam for a batch of PGs I think. . . Billups, Lenny Wilkens, Tim Hardaway, and Mark Price will probably all be within the next 10 nominations.