RealGM Top 100 List #6

[Purch]

Wow, someone didn't have KG in their top 20, tough critic right there.

JordansBulls's list:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem
4. Magic Johnson
5. Tim Duncan
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Shaquille O'neal
8. Larry Bird
9. Lebron James
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Wilt Chamberlain
12. Moses Malone
13. Julius Erving
14. Jerry West
15. George Mikan
16. Oscar Robertson
17. Karl Malone
18. Dwyane Wade
19. Dirk Nowitzki
20. David Robinson
21. Kevin Garnett
22. Bob Pettit
23. Charles Barkley
24. Isiah Thomas
25. John Stockton

I actually don't find any of those to weird except Wade's ranking, I'm curious as to what motivates him to hold him in such high regard. Especilly considering his longevity really doesn't seem all that good compared to the other stars in his draft class

[DQuinn1575]

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

1. You are saying Magic's offense is better because Nash's teams played bad defense
2. Pretty well documented the west conference Magic played in the playoffs were weak.
3. Magic played on a loaded team on the Lakers. How much credit does he deserve versus his teammates?

1. No but Nash's teams put all focus into offense. They never trotted out defensive sets, used guys that couldn't at least hit jumpers at an elite level, etc. That leads to a boosted ORTG and a very good team overall but not a winning team (also this is a criticism I used to hate about Nash but I'm seeing where it works. You need a team that can get stops or you'll fail). If Nash ran with a more balanced team with better defensive capabilities his average ORTG would probably be under Magic's.

2. Notice the numbers are given in a +4.0 form. The opponents have been accounted for already. Without that Magic is first by far.

3. This is a great question and I think he deserves most of the credit. From 83 to 85 his supporting cast got noticeably weaker with Kareem hitting a hard decline, LA losing a starting PG, and Worthy not coming into his own yet but the Lakers stayed just as good as they were before overall and their offense was way better. It happens that 84 and 85 are Magic's first 2 years running point too. You can say the same thing with the late 80s teams compared to the early 90s teams. In 88 and 89 he had a better supporting cast than in 90 and 91 but those teams were around the same in strength anyway. For such a great dynasty Magic's teams had a ton of changes around him but at no time did the team drop in quality and he kept taking a bigger and bigger role.

1. They had the supporting cast they had and the offense they had. Nash may have been on a bad team, but they still had a good offense. If they used different players their offense would be different, but that holds true for everubody.
2. oops - my apologies
3. a) The Lakers added the #1 pick in the draft (Worthy) who got better and better.
b) They traded, not lost, a point guard, and they got a better fit in Scott, as it improved a weakness - outside shooting.
c) Kareem got older, but they added McAdoo, a scoring machine/supersub - and later Thompson
d) They also got 2 very good late picks in AC Green and Divac. Not many championship teams add this quality with a late round pick

The Lakers, Celtics, Sixers got better and better - the Sixers stopped getting better in 83, and couldnt keep up. The Celtics stopped getting better in 86, but the Lakers passed them in 87. The 88 team wasn't quite as good

It was a tremendous job by the organization to do what they did and add the talent that they did.

The best front office job in NBA history, and probably matches any in sport.

[andrewww]

I think this Magic vs Nash discussion on offense interesting.

Quick question, how do people think no handcheck rules in 04-05 or similar rules put in place 00-01 helped those Nash teams? Magic also played in an era of a higher Ortg, can that be due to higher pace or other factors?

Not picking a side just curious.

I dont have any stats to back my claim up, but my impression is that Nash's Suns were not big beneficiaries of the hand check rule.

Taking hand checkng away favours players who drive the ball a lot (eg. Lebron, Wade, etc) imho. Nash's Suns were flawed in regards to defense for the most part (2005-2010 seasons) but imho they were closest in 2007 if not for those suspensions.

On a side note, what's interesting is because those Suns played at such a high pace, opponent points per game is not an accurate barometer of how good or bad their defense was.

2007 Points per 100 Possession (Offense)

Suns ranked 1st at 97.2
Spurs ranked 5th at 92.7

Opponent Points per 100 Possession (Defense)

Suns ranked tied for 16th at 89.8
Spurs ranked 3rd at 84.4

In other words, the Suns had an average defense but by no means as horrible as many insinuate.

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/defensiveEff/order/false/year/2007

[An Unbiased Fan]

Well I don't know where you have been living the past few years but yes..yes poster's do. That was the point of me bringing it up. But I was clear in stating that once you're in the league and a free agent, you can chose whichever destination you want. And of course, the other part of why you won't place stock into it is because your boy did the same thing. So again, as I've made it perfectly clear and I will again.

Threatening to go back to college unless drafted to LA who happened to have the leagues best player on it, deserves mention. I am not saying that this takes away from what he did on the court but to me he avoided what could have been a much different career than the one he had.

And I am perfectly fine if you don't see it that way or don't agree. To me, it's all part of 'attitude' that we've been discussing.

This is absurd. So Shaq can leave from Orlando to a 50+ win Laker team...then demand a trade and go to Miami....then burn that bridge and go to Phoenix....then ring chase with the Cavs...and eventually Boston. But god forbid Magic say he would stay in college(as if that's a bad thing) if he feels he might be drafted by the Lakers.

I mean, really?? Let's skip over actual on court play, and downgrade Magic for this. Unbelievable.

This is an odd post in terms of consistency. It's raking O'Neal over the coals for percieved off-court failures than seems to conclude that it's silly to "skip over actual on court play". Is it part of the argument or not.

If you think not, then fine mention the Shaq things briefly in passing (or not at all, we all know the situation anyhow, and you'd be arguing it isn't relevent) but the above is quite a partial take on things.

If off court is in play then why moan about it being applied to Magic.

And if it is in play you'd have to take issue with

(a) Skipping to a 50 win team. A highly partial picture. The team Shaq arrived on would miss many of the stars of that campaign (Ceballos swiftly traded for Horry, a role player; Divac traded; Magic retired) indeed their of their top 9 in minutes only Jones, Campbell and van Exel remained (Peeler, Lynch and Threatt also left). On paper, at that time Grant, Scott, Anderson and Hardaway (coming off a magnificent year) was probably the safer bet. Whether that makes his move better or worse (if we care at all) is up for questioning but it's oddly framed here.

(b) Demand a trade (from LA)? Is that what happened? LA probably made the right choice in terms of wanting Kobe of the two because he was younger, but did Shaq demand a trade? Or were they just looking to appease Kobe.

(c) The "ring-chasing" stuff, who cares? Are Cleveland and Boston a factor for anyone in evaluating Shaq's career?

I understand criticisms for his behaviour "off-court" (using inverted commas because one might include "Pay me!" in this category) but the framing of it here seems unusual.

Reread my post and MacGill's post because I have no idea how your reply applies to my post.

I didn't rake Shaq over the coles. I went right at the absurd idea that Magic should be downgraded because he talked about staying in college, which helped put him in LA, yet Shaq's moving to better situations isn't being used against him by MacGill.

The whole notion that draft day politics are being used in a Top 100 list is just baffling on multiple levels. it's literally has nothing to do with anything. I don't care whether Bron bolted to Miami, just his actual play. I don't care if Shaq jumped from team to team, just his play.

[penbeast0]

Updated -- Shaq v. Magic
Today 4:00 pm by andrewww
Tally update:

Shaq (28)
Colts18
RSCD3_
HeartBreakKid
Therealbig3
Penbeast0
MacGill
Narigo
Batmana
Ronnymac2
DQuinn1575
Rayban-Sematra
Rich316
Mutnt
Notanoob (late vote)
DannyNoonan1221 (late vote)
*Magicmerl
*SactoKingsFan
*Trex_8063
*Fpliii
*Doctor MJ
*Chuck Texas
*Quotatious
*Rico381
*PCProductions
*Greatness
*90sAllDecade
*0_6

Magic (11)
Andrewww
Basketballefan
Baller2014
TrueLAfan
JordansBulls
GC Pantalones
Clyde Frazier
Ardee
Dhodgkins (late vote)
*Gregoire
*An Unbiased Fan

[shutupandjam]

The top 3 ORTGs in playoff history belong to Magic led Lakers teams (87, 85, 89) and on 2 of those teams he was the main scoring threat.

I assume you're going back to raw ortg for the playoff numbers (i.e., not adjusting for opponent avg drtg)?

The numbers are compared to who he played. He's +4.0 against the average defense he played.

I was referring to the sentence "The top 3 ORTGs in playoff history belong to Magic led Lakers teams." Those are unadjusted Ortgs, no?

I also think Oscar, Nash, and Magic are on a different level than everyone else offensively (maybe Jordan is at level 1.5) because they could lead any scrub team to a top 5 offense (the defense would be beyond ugly though).

What exactly elevates these guys a level above everyone? Why, for example, do you think Magic is a level above LeBron? Didn't LeBron lead "scrub" teams to top 5 offenses in 09 and 10? Did Magic ever have the chance to lift a scrub team? Again, I'm not saying Magic isn't the GOAT offensive player, just trying to tease out more evidence than "his team had all time high O ratings"

[andrewww]

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

1. You are saying Magic's offense is better because Nash's teams played bad defense
2. Pretty well documented the west conference Magic played in the playoffs were weak.
3. Magic played on a loaded team on the Lakers. How much credit does he deserve versus his teammates?

1. No but Nash's teams put all focus into offense. They never trotted out defensive sets, used guys that couldn't at least hit jumpers at an elite level, etc. That leads to a boosted ORTG and a very good team overall but not a winning team (also this is a criticism I used to hate about Nash but I'm seeing where it works. You need a team that can get stops or you'll fail). If Nash ran with a more balanced team with better defensive capabilities his average ORTG would probably be under Magic's.

2. Notice the numbers are given in a +4.0 form. The opponents have been accounted for already. Without that Magic is first by far.

3. This is a great question and I think he deserves most of the credit. From 83 to 85 his supporting cast got noticeably weaker with Kareem hitting a hard decline, LA losing a starting PG, and Worthy not coming into his own yet but the Lakers stayed just as good as they were before overall and their offense was way better. It happens that 84 and 85 are Magic's first 2 years running point too. You can say the same thing with the late 80s teams compared to the early 90s teams. In 88 and 89 he had a better supporting cast than in 90 and 91 but those teams were around the same in strength anyway. For such a great dynasty Magic's teams had a ton of changes around him but at no time did the team drop in quality and he kept taking a bigger and bigger role.

The 2005 Suns emphasized offense to the detriment of their defense, hence they got spanked by the Spurs.

Having said that, in 2007 and 2010, they were much better defensively with the addition and emergence of defensive stalwarts in Raja bell/Shawn Marion(their best defender), and even Grant Hill/Robin Lopez in 2010.

Had they been able to use Amare's services in game 6 against the Spurs (which were the real NBA Finals that year and why the NBA changed their seeding format immediately for the season after) and gone on to win the title, would we still be saying the Suns couln't muster enough defense?

Ditto for the 2002 Kings (those Kings teams had a reputation of poor defense but the trading away of Jason Williams for Mike Bibby and the addition of a premier perimeter defender in Doug Christie really rounded out that team well).

[Jim Naismith]

Wow, someone didn't have KG in their top 20, tough critic right there.

JordansBulls's list:

...
18. Dwyane Wade
19. Dirk Nowitzki
20. David Robinson
21. Kevin Garnett
...

I actually don't find any of those to weird except Wade's ranking, I'm curious as to what motivates him to hold him in such high regard. Especilly considering his longevity really doesn't seem all that good compared to the other stars in his draft class

Wade did lead a team to its first championship. That's pretty important for JordansBulls.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I don't know how I can simplify this anymore for you.

Free Agent = Go wherever you want to go too

What I am saying with respect to Magic is that he didn't end up on LA in the traditional way so because of that I hold it against him to a degree. Look I had Magic #3 all-time before this project started, but this and the Nixon incident hold water to me. You're making it sound like I am trying to say don't vote for Magic, or he shouldn't be talked about here etc. I don't really care what the team wins are when you're a free agent because you have the right to go anywhere you wish. It doesn't work the same on draft night, usually

So again, I'll ask you this and you give me your response and I am done with this point. If LBJ and agent in 03 did the same thing as Magic did with KAJ, to play with Duncan, you're going to tell me that you wouldn't be saying anything about it because it was off-court?

Why would I hold it against Lebron? Draft day stuff, free agency, trades, none of that should be a factor in the Top 100 players ever. If MJ forced his way to the Knicks and had the same on court play/impact....he'd still be the GOAT. Would you say, "Oh that MJ was great, but he forced his way to NY, so I'm downgrading him".

Actual on court play/impact is what should be the issue. Anything else is nothing but targeted distractions.

[E-Balla]

1. You are saying Magic's offense is better because Nash's teams played bad defense
2. Pretty well documented the west conference Magic played in the playoffs were weak.
3. Magic played on a loaded team on the Lakers. How much credit does he deserve versus his teammates?

1. No but Nash's teams put all focus into offense. They never trotted out defensive sets, used guys that couldn't at least hit jumpers at an elite level, etc. That leads to a boosted ORTG and a very good team overall but not a winning team (also this is a criticism I used to hate about Nash but I'm seeing where it works. You need a team that can get stops or you'll fail). If Nash ran with a more balanced team with better defensive capabilities his average ORTG would probably be under Magic's.

2. Notice the numbers are given in a +4.0 form. The opponents have been accounted for already. Without that Magic is first by far.

3. This is a great question and I think he deserves most of the credit. From 83 to 85 his supporting cast got noticeably weaker with Kareem hitting a hard decline, LA losing a starting PG, and Worthy not coming into his own yet but the Lakers stayed just as good as they were before overall and their offense was way better. It happens that 84 and 85 are Magic's first 2 years running point too. You can say the same thing with the late 80s teams compared to the early 90s teams. In 88 and 89 he had a better supporting cast than in 90 and 91 but those teams were around the same in strength anyway. For such a great dynasty Magic's teams had a ton of changes around him but at no time did the team drop in quality and he kept taking a bigger and bigger role.

1. They had the supporting cast they had and the offense they had. Nash may have been on a bad team, but they still had a good offense. If they used different players their offense would be different, but that holds true for everubody.
2. oops - my apologies
3. a) The Lakers added the #1 pick in the draft (Worthy) who got better and better.
b) They traded, not lost, a point guard, and they got a better fit in Scott, as it improved a weakness - outside shooting.
c) Kareem got older, but they added McAdoo, a scoring machine/supersub - and later Thompson
d) They also got 2 very good late picks in AC Green and Divac. Not many championship teams add this quality with a late round pick

The Lakers, Celtics, Sixers got better and better - the Sixers stopped getting better in 83, and couldnt keep up. The Celtics stopped getting better in 86, but the Lakers passed them in 87. The 88 team wasn't quite as good

It was a tremendous job by the organization to do what they did and add the talent that they did.

The best front office job in NBA history, and probably matches any in sport.

1. Well looking at just offensive talent Nash had the best supporting cast ever. 3 of those guys were 20+ scorers without him and everyone else could shoot insanely well. In Dallas too he played with 4 20 point scorers at times. What I'm saying is that I give Nash less credit for those teams because offensively I feel they could be top 5 without him but with him they were top 5 all time.

2. Its all good I should've specified how the numbers were gotten.

3. Worthy didn't immediately come in great. He developed for like 3 years before becoming a great second option.

Scott was great but in 84 he was a rookie that didn't play all too well.

McAdoo definetly helped the transition though. Great pickup by the Lakers.

Divac was great for LA in 91 but if I'm not mistaken he was still a took and he definetly wasn't the player he'd become later. AC was great too but he's just a role player.

In the few transition seasons LA had like 84 where they retooled in 2 years the team still never fell off because of Magic. 3 years prior to 84 they lost Magic and went along just fine but in 84 they lost Magic for 15 games and looked very mediocre. Those teams didn't drop in overall quality and he never played on a bad team but those supporting casts were getting worse around him (very slowly) at points but the team didn't skip a beat.

[O_6]

Shaq was a poor teammate and leader
Magic was one of the great leaders in sports history

Those two facts just keep flashing in my head like a sign with neon lights. But I'm still going to go with Shaquille O'Neal because I simply think he made a greater impact than Magic did.

Magic may be the Offensive GOAT but Shaq isn't far behind. I think Peak Shaq is the Offensive GOAT among frontcourt players. Kareem, Barkley, and Wilt are really the only peak bigs that have an argument imo. But I'd still choose Peak Shaq over all of them because his offensive impact was the toughest to limit among that group imo. I think Kareem is the overall Offensive GOAT among bigs due to his longevity which is why I chose him over Shaq, but Shaq had plenty of longevity too and he's one of the GOAT offensive players ever who made a unique and epic impact.

Despite all the negative talk about Shaq's defense, he was still clearly a positive defender for his team and occasionally an extremely valuable defender for stretches. Magic just isn't a great defender, if he were then I'd think about choosing him here but his impact is almost entirely about his offense. I enjoyed reading the Magic defense posts talking about his trapping skills and maybe he's a better defender than I had imagined. He's clearly not a Steve Nash-type of defender. But he's just not a good enough defender for me to take him over Shaq here. Especially since Shaq has the longevity edge.

Magic vs. LeBron is going to be fascinating. If Magic defended like LeBron, I would've picked him over Shaq. So it's really about Magic's offense, was it really that much greater than LeBron's? But then at the same time I look at LeBron and wonder, did he really make more of a career impact than Kevin Garnett? But then I look at Garnett and think, there's no way I can choose KG over Hakeem who was a far superior scorer. After the top 3, this has felt like a giant Rock-Paper-Scissors argument.

[ardee]

I still want to engage the KG supporters on why they think KG is such a tier above Dirk and deserves to be discussed in the top 5 while Dirk doesn't.

Let me show you some numbers.

...

So here's my case: Dirk is basically providing you more volume (6 more ppg/100 poss over their primes), on VASTLY superior efficiency. I mean look at the numbers, the gap is gigantic. Dirk has an edge of 14 ORtg points over their primes, and 8 TS% on better volume.

Ah, so you think Dantey is better than Duncan? You will be championing Reggie Miller right after Dirk?

I'm going to assume that you aren't being intellectually dishonest here and this kind of information is paramount to how you evaluate players. I see this as perhaps THE single most fundamental element in player (and team) evaluations in basketball: Scoring is not replaced in basketball, it's redistributed.

These ideas -- volume scoring, volume relation to efficiency, etc. -- that lead to a side-by-side comparison would be great in baseball where we are analyzing discrete events. In basketball, because of the interactive nature of the game (and only 1 ball), you can't say "Dirk's 'used' possessions (scoring attempts + TOV) are X points better than Garnett's...how does he make up those points!?"

There's no "making up points" in those categories. Simply put, this is because when you put Garnett on the floor instead of Dirk, the team will redistribute the possessions around Garnett's game. That means completely different possessions for the entire team. It's the reason why replacing Michael Jordan with Pete Myers doesn't cause the Bulls to lose 21 points on their offense.

(I'm going to sell my explanation short there because I go into great detail on this topic in something I'll be publishing in the future.)

Come on ElGee...

You and I both know that a scorer who's that efficient has impact that far transcends scoring.

Just watch a game from peak Shaq or Kobe. These kind of offensive players warp the entire court by just being on the court. Every player is paying attention to them even if they don't have the ball. Just the psychological threat of a guy like that is a constant distraction to defenders.

It's exactly the same as KG or Russell causing opposing offensive players to make a different play then the one they would have otherwise made.

And with Dirk, we saw this effect. Anyone who watched the '11 Playoffs saw him become a virtual blackhole, defenders sagging off their men, giving that extra half-yard that was needed for the point guard to find a shooter or for Chandler to catch a lob.

That kind of attention-drawing was what won the Mavs a title, and it wouldn't have come unless Dirk scored as much as he did and as efficiently as he did. Which is something KG could never ever do and he'd never be able to come close to Dirk's offensive impact, because nothing impacts an offense more than drawing every single opposing defender away from their men.

[E-Balla]

I assume you're going back to raw ortg for the playoff numbers (i.e., not adjusting for opponent avg drtg)?

The numbers are compared to who he played. He's +4.0 against the average defense he played.

I was referring to the sentence "The top 3 ORTGs in playoff history belong to Magic led Lakers teams." Those are unadjusted Ortgs, no?

Ah yes they are. My bad.

I also think Oscar, Nash, and Magic are on a different level than everyone else offensively (maybe Jordan is at level 1.5) because they could lead any scrub team to a top 5 offense (the defense would be beyond ugly though).

What exactly elevates these guys a level above everyone? Why, for example, do you think Magic is a level above LeBron? Didn't LeBron lead "scrub" teams to top 5 offenses in 09 and 10? Did Magic ever have the chance to lift a scrub team? Again, I'm not saying Magic isn't the GOAT offensive player, just trying to tease out more evidence than "his team had all time high O ratings"

Well I feel they made their teammates better. With wings they're always going to dominate the ball and the team is going to run through them on a score first - help the team second type offense. These can be amazingly successful when you have a Lebron or a Jordan but with Magic/Nash/Oscar they understand setting up teammates is what makes an offense more balanced and greater. Its no coincidence that outside of the 96 Bulls and the 04 Kings (who had a great system to spread the wealth) all the top 25 offenses ever weren't led by wings. And in the case of the 04 Kings Bibby put in work.

[Owly]

The 1987 Lakers had the highest O rating in history for the regular season.

But that season is 19th(!) in relative O rating. The 2004 Mavs have the best relative O rating of all time, so why not call Dirk or Nash the greatest offensive player ever? In fact, if we're attributing team offensive success to the guy who runs the offense, Nash would be the clear favorite here - 5 of his teams are in the top ten relative O ratings ever.

They're 8th in standard deviations which is the best way to measure. The 07 Suns are on extreme not expected to be replicated level (3.25 standard deviations putting them in the 99.88th percentile). The top 3 ORTGs in playoff history belong to Magic led Lakers teams (87, 85, 89) and on 2 of those teams he was the main scoring threat.

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

The 8th in standard deviations is from 1974 to 2002. I don't know if James has standard deviations for his top 20 teams but 5 of his top 10 (http://shutupandjam.net/2013/04/10/pre- ... -and-more/) are outside the time span in question and my suspicion is that at least those 5 will come out superior to the '87 Lakers.

And with regard to defense that doesn't matter within the context of this thread of discussion (of the best offensiv player ever) unless you are specifically contending that the team (or especially the percieved leader) deliberately traded defense for offense (stuff like leaking out, perhaps low defensive effort) which might make the offense somewhat artificial.

[ardee]

I don't know how I can simplify this anymore for you.

Free Agent = Go wherever you want to go too

What I am saying with respect to Magic is that he didn't end up on LA in the traditional way so because of that I hold it against him to a degree. Look I had Magic #3 all-time before this project started, but this and the Nixon incident hold water to me. You're making it sound like I am trying to say don't vote for Magic, or he shouldn't be talked about here etc. I don't really care what the team wins are when you're a free agent because you have the right to go anywhere you wish. It doesn't work the same on draft night, usually

So again, I'll ask you this and you give me your response and I am done with this point. If LBJ and agent in 03 did the same thing as Magic did with KAJ, to play with Duncan, you're going to tell me that you wouldn't be saying anything about it because it was off-court?

My issue with this is you're basing this off a hypothetical....

Magic said he'd go back to college if the Bulls won the first pick, but did he? No. The Lakers won it.

Do you know if he'd actually follow through with it?

He didn't 'force his way' to the Lakers. He had no control over the process. If the Bulls won it and he returned to college, he'd probably never get a chance to play for LA again, so really, all he was doing was limiting the circumstances under which he'd go pro.

Nothing like 'forcing his way to a team' like you say, because there was no feasible way for him to 'force his way' to LA.

[Jim Naismith]

Magic vs. LeBron is going to be fascinating. If Magic defended like LeBron, I would've picked him over Shaq. So it's really about Magic's offense, was it really that much greater than LeBron's? But then at the same time I look at LeBron and wonder, did he really make more of a career impact than Kevin Garnett? But then I look at Garnett and think, there's no way I can choose KG over Hakeem who was a far superior scorer. After the top 3, this has felt like a giant Rock-Paper-Scissors argument.

I've broached this idea of circular rankings in another thread. http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1330524

It's a slightly heretical idea that could complicate (if not subvert) the entire concept of ranking players.

[MacGill]

I don't know how I can simplify this anymore for you.

Free Agent = Go wherever you want to go too

What I am saying with respect to Magic is that he didn't end up on LA in the traditional way so because of that I hold it against him to a degree. Look I had Magic #3 all-time before this project started, but this and the Nixon incident hold water to me. You're making it sound like I am trying to say don't vote for Magic, or he shouldn't be talked about here etc. I don't really care what the team wins are when you're a free agent because you have the right to go anywhere you wish. It doesn't work the same on draft night, usually

So again, I'll ask you this and you give me your response and I am done with this point. If LBJ and agent in 03 did the same thing as Magic did with KAJ, to play with Duncan, you're going to tell me that you wouldn't be saying anything about it because it was off-court?

My issue with this is you're basing this off a hypothetical....

Magic said he'd go back to college if the Bulls won the first pick, but did he? No. The Lakers won it.

Do you know if he'd actually follow through with it?

He didn't 'force his way' to the Lakers. He had no control over the process. If the Bulls won it and he returned to college, he'd probably never get a chance to play for LA again, so really, all he was doing was limiting the circumstances under which he'd go pro.

Nothing like 'forcing his way to a team' like you say, because there was no feasible way for him to 'force his way' to LA.

Thank you.

See, as part of the learning piece, I myself was providing some misinformation on the subject. I still think that it was a poor attitude to have in saying that but I was under the assumption that because of his comments, the draft ensured that LA won. I thought I read where KAJ was thinking about retiring etc.

Thank you for actually providing me with the correct information here, without going into other rants. And I apologize here for adding incorrect context to what I was saying.

[Owly]

This is absurd. So Shaq can leave from Orlando to a 50+ win Laker team...then demand a trade and go to Miami....then burn that bridge and go to Phoenix....then ring chase with the Cavs...and eventually Boston. But god forbid Magic say he would stay in college(as if that's a bad thing) if he feels he might be drafted by the Lakers.

I mean, really?? Let's skip over actual on court play, and downgrade Magic for this. Unbelievable.

This is an odd post in terms of consistency. It's raking O'Neal over the coals for percieved off-court failures than seems to conclude that it's silly to "skip over actual on court play". Is it part of the argument or not.

If you think not, then fine mention the Shaq things briefly in passing (or not at all, we all know the situation anyhow, and you'd be arguing it isn't relevent) but the above is quite a partial take on things.

If off court is in play then why moan about it being applied to Magic.

And if it is in play you'd have to take issue with

(a) Skipping to a 50 win team. A highly partial picture. The team Shaq arrived on would miss many of the stars of that campaign (Ceballos swiftly traded for Horry, a role player; Divac traded; Magic retired) indeed their of their top 9 in minutes only Jones, Campbell and van Exel remained (Peeler, Lynch and Threatt also left). On paper, at that time Grant, Scott, Anderson and Hardaway (coming off a magnificent year) was probably the safer bet. Whether that makes his move better or worse (if we care at all) is up for questioning but it's oddly framed here.

(b) Demand a trade (from LA)? Is that what happened? LA probably made the right choice in terms of wanting Kobe of the two because he was younger, but did Shaq demand a trade? Or were they just looking to appease Kobe.

(c) The "ring-chasing" stuff, who cares? Are Cleveland and Boston a factor for anyone in evaluating Shaq's career?

I understand criticisms for his behaviour "off-court" (using inverted commas because one might include "Pay me!" in this category) but the framing of it here seems unusual.

Reread my post and MacGill's post because I have no idea how your reply applies to my post.

I didn't rake Shaq over the coles. I went right at the absurd idea that Magic should be downgraded because he talked about staying in college, which helped put him in LA, yet Shaq's moving to better situations isn't being used against him by MacGill.

The whole notion that draft day politics are being used in a Top 100 list is just baffling on multiple levels. it's literally has nothing to do with anything. I don't care whether Bron bolted to Miami, just his actual play. I don't care if Shaq jumped from team to team, just his play.

Well MacGill's on my block list but from your quoting of him ...

He says off court is relevent. You seem to be arguing it isn't then go into various percieved flawed moves by Shaq, which odd because if it isn't relevent to you then it isn't relevent. If you're arguing for him to be internally consistent then you'd be well advised to preface your anti-Shaq stuff with something like "whilst I don't factor this stuff in, would you not have to factor in ...". Then the stuff against Shaq, as per my original post is odd (representing the move to LA as an easy option), misleading (the same, plus suggesting Shaq demanded out of LA) or flat out irrelevent to everyone's evaluation of his career (ring chasing).

You seem to want to argue for internal consistency but by being unclear (and aggressive) in your anti-Shaq points (which, imo, do read as raking Shaq over the coals, particularly because demanding to be traded in 2004 doesn't seem to be true), to me, you ended up making your post read as less internally consistent.

[E-Balla]

But that season is 19th(!) in relative O rating. The 2004 Mavs have the best relative O rating of all time, so why not call Dirk or Nash the greatest offensive player ever? In fact, if we're attributing team offensive success to the guy who runs the offense, Nash would be the clear favorite here - 5 of his teams are in the top ten relative O ratings ever.

They're 8th in standard deviations which is the best way to measure. The 07 Suns are on extreme not expected to be replicated level (3.25 standard deviations putting them in the 99.88th percentile). The top 3 ORTGs in playoff history belong to Magic led Lakers teams (87, 85, 89) and on 2 of those teams he was the main scoring threat.

If you look at a list of who's played for the beat offenses Nash and Amare are 1 and 2 and Magic is third. This underrates Magic though because Nash's teams were completely one sided. I mean if you look at their playoff numbers Nash is first in average offensive rating (+4.5) with Magic at second (+4.0) but Magic's team were barely bad on defense (+0.4) while Nash has the worst playoff defenses ever for anyone looked at (+3.4). To get a feeling how bad that defense is the next closest is Drexler at +2.4 followed by Bird at +0.8.

The 8th in standard deviations is from 1974 to 2002. I don't know if James has standard deviations for his top 20 teams but 5 of his top 10 (http://shutupandjam.net/2013/04/10/pre- ... -and-more/) are outside the time span in question and my suspicion is that at least those 5 will come out superior to the '87 Lakers.

And with regard to defense that doesn't matter within the context of this thread of discussion (of the best offensiv player ever) unless you are specifically contending that the team (or especially the percieved leader) deliberately traded defense for offense (stuff like leaking out, perhaps low defensive effort) which might make the offense somewhat artificial.

As of 2011 they were still 8th.

[ardee]

Well MacGill's on my block list but from your quoting of him ...

Why block MacGill ? He's one of the nicest guys on the PC Board.