RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #20

[Pablo Novi]

Well the question of how objective/subjective any of is, is one tough question to answer.

Otoh, I'd bet most people would agree that Wilt improved more from 1960 to 1961 and 1962 than Russell did over those same three years. Given that, with Wilt getting both the MVP AND the 1st-Team ALL-NBA selection in 1960; wouldn't it be pretty logical to assume that he should have gotten them both (INCLUDING the MVP) over Russell the latter two years?

idk. It's "logical" based on the presupposition that him getting those accolades in '60 was justified or correct.

No I don't think so.
I'm working under the assumption (something I have NOT seen anybody here (or elsewhere for that matter) oppose) that Wilt & Russell were the #1 and #2 Centers in the NBA all those 9 years they were voted ALL-NBA 1st-Team or 2nd-Team.

I THINK (but am far from sure) that seeing as Wilt was just coming off his 1st season, while Russell already had a few under his belt, that NATURALLY (as well as what we all saw back then) in the next two years, Wilt DID improve MORE over 1960 than Russell did.

Are YOU yourself questioning that: "him getting those accolades in '60 was justified or correct"?

Are there many (or even any) years in which the same player got both the MVP and the 1st-Team selection; that in your opinion were not justified? For me, in most cases, when this was the case, the ALL-League selection was closer-to-what-actually happened than was the MVP selection.

I'd bet most of us here on RealGM and in these GOAT threads in particular, would rate the ALL-League selections as closer to what really happened than the MVP selections have been (where they differ of course).

[wojoaderge]

Walton had ONE, count them ONE, season where he made it to the playoffs as a starting caliber player plus one season as a top reserve. That season was amazing BUT, otherwise Walton was a guy who demanded to be paid as one of the top stars in the league and yet never helped his teams in the playoffs and this went for a decade where he screwed over Portland, then San Diego (who had to give their best player as compensation for signing him).

Two actually. Kermit Washington? Give some love to All-World. I can certainly see why someone wouldn't put him in their Top 100. It might be weird for me to keep repeatedly voting for him for threads and threads and threads, but I still probably will.

[Pablo Novi]

I have him in the 30s

Imo, at least 15 of the following 22 Centers easily had better CAREERS than did Walton - thus why I have him that "low".

Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
O'Neal, Shaquille
Olajuwon, Hakeem
Chamberlain, Wilt
Robinson, David
Malone, Moses

Russell, Bill

Mikan, George

Daniels, Mell

I agree with these guys. DeAndre Jordan? That's why I account for MVPs more than All-League selections

IF you have the gaps between: Shaq, Hakeem & Wilt as small - then you and I are in great agreement (I have it: Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem but have the gaps small).

Keep in mind I DID say "at least 15 of the following Centers ..."
So let's agree that DeAndre Jordan has not had a better career than Bill Walton,
we still already agree, based on both our lists, that 9 Centers did. (Assuming that the 9 you listed are all above Walton on your list).

Keeping in mind that Walton played in only 468 Reg. Season games (the equivalent of 6~ full seasons! worth of games spread over 10 seasons, or 47 games per year on average) and 49 Playoff games:

Wouldn't you say that at least an additional SIX of the following had better CAREERS than Walton? :

Howard, Dwight
Ewing, Patrick
Gilmore, Artis
Ming, Yao
Johnston, Neil (dominant among the real old-timers)
Parish, Robert
Gasol, Marc
Issel, Dan
Mourning, Alonzo
Mutombo, Dikembe
Horford, Al
Macauley, Ed (dominant among the real old-timers)

[wojoaderge]

Imo, at least 15 of the following 22 Centers easily had better CAREERS than did Walton - thus why I have him that "low".

Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
O'Neal, Shaquille
Olajuwon, Hakeem
Chamberlain, Wilt
Robinson, David
Malone, Moses

Russell, Bill

Mikan, George

Daniels, Mell

I agree with these guys. DeAndre Jordan? That's why I account for MVPs more than All-League selections

IF you have the gaps between: Shaq, Hakeem & Wilt as small - then you and I are in great agreement (I have it: Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem but have the gaps small).

Keep in mind I DID say "at least 15 of the following Centers ..."
So let's agree that DeAndre Jordan has not had a better career than Bill Walton,
we still already agree, based on both our lists, that 9 Centers did. (Assuming that the 9 you listed are all above Walton on your list).

Keeping in mind that Walton played in only 468 Reg. Season games (the equivalent of 6~ full seasons! worth of games spread over 10 seasons, or 47 games per year on average) and 49 Playoff games:

Wouldn't you say that at least an additional SIX of the following had better CAREERS than Walton? :

Howard, Dwight
Ewing, Patrick
Gilmore, Artis
Ming, Yao
Johnston, Neil (dominant among the real old-timers)
Parish, Robert
Gasol, Marc
Issel, Dan
Mourning, Alonzo
Mutombo, Dikembe
Horford, Al
Macauley, Ed (dominant among the real old-timers)

Those gaps don't represent tiers. They only represent the names of the guys on your list I deleted. If you mean CAREERS=longevity, than yes. But once again I am not big on longevity when it comes to my Top 100

[Pablo Novi]

For myself, I can't rank Walton's CAREER any higher than about GOAT #50.

I have him in the 30s

I don't have him in my top 100, here's why. To me, the key is how much a guy can contribute to winning a championship (I don't detract based on teams but how much he could have). Walton had ONE, count them ONE, season where he made it to the playoffs as a starting caliber player plus one season as a top reserve. That season was amazing BUT, otherwise Walton was a guy who demanded to be paid as one of the top stars in the league and yet never helped his teams in the playoffs and this went for a decade where he screwed over Portland, then San Diego (who had to give their best player as compensation for signing him). To me that's negative value for about 8 years.

I can't really disagree with this.
The ONLY reason I have Walton at GOAT #50 is, contrary to my general evaluation system, I rank his almost-two great years at Portland super-high (plus his one top-reserve year at Boston; where I THINK he was about as good as Parish) - so I give him (much as I do Mikan's dominance in a super-weak era) an "Honorary" ranking.

[Lou Fan]

Well the question of how objective/subjective any of is, is one tough question to answer.

Otoh, I'd bet most people would agree that Wilt improved more from 1960 to 1961 and 1962 than Russell did over those same three years. Given that, with Wilt getting both the MVP AND the 1st-Team ALL-NBA selection in 1960; wouldn't it be pretty logical to assume that he should have gotten them both (INCLUDING the MVP) over Russell the latter two years?

idk. It's "logical" based on the presupposition that him getting those accolades in '60 was justified or correct.

No I don't think so.

Are there many (or even any) years in which the same player got both the MVP and the 1st-Team selection; that in your opinion were not justified? For me, in most cases, when this was the case, the ALL-League selection was closer-to-what-actually happened than was the MVP selection.

I'd bet most of us here on RealGM and in these GOAT threads in particular, would rate the ALL-League selections as closer to what really happened than the MVP selections have been (where they differ of course).

Just because they are "closer" doesn't mean they are accurate. I know with 99% certainty that if all of us looked at every all-NBA team in the history of the NBA we would probably disagree with at least one selection every year. For example: this year Anthony Davis was all-NBA first team Center despite clearly being a forward. Karl Anthony Towns didn't make any of the All-NBA teams (I had him on my first team). If not KAT surely Boogie Cousins deserved the nod over Deandre Jordan. Steph Curry should've been first team over either Westbrook or Harden. Chris Paul was better in less games than Demar Derozan and I would have Lillard and Klay ahead of him too. I'm not sure Derozan is better than his partner in crime Kyle Lowry (though Lowry only played 60 games). I would also have PG13 ahead of Draymond. I'm sure many of you disagree with a lot of my selections, but I'm sure most of you agree with me that their selections wouldn't have been the same as your selections. Point is I have this many gripes with the selections this year, now imagine if we looked back and did that every year. Imagine how many disparities we would find.

[trex_8063]

Additonally, using anything else other than ALL-Leagues selections, except MVP selections, is far more cumbersome in general. I've said why I don't value MVPs as highly as most everybody else does. Leaving that to the side, how often is a GOAT- or career- evaluator gonna have AT HAND a combination of one or several stats PLUS an analysis of them PLUS all the other considerations.....

People are of course free to use any means they wish (whether very broad or very narrow in focus). However, I kinda feel one would be giving a false impression in calling himself a serious career-evaluator if he doesn't have "at hand" (or at least know where to find them easily here in the information age) various stats and measures, hasn't done some at least cursory analysis of much/most of the available information (if not multiple method studies), and doesn't have at least some minimal familiarity with their "player attributes" (i.e. the eye test).

[Outside]

Here's how I view the Stockton vs. Nash thing:

Stockton was the ultimate craftsmen. He maximized whatever god given talents he had - there was nothing left to squeeze out of that orange.

Nash was an innovator. He had a stylistic impact and I'll remember watching Nash much moreso than Stockton.

Stylistic impact and who I will remember - the edge goes to Nash hands down, not that close.

But in terms of impact on winning - Stockton's offensive impact metrics pan out roughly equal to Nash's, he did it for a longer sustained time period and was one of the better players (at his position) on the defensive side of the ball than Nash. And that's why Stockton gets my vote over Nash.

I see this stylistic distinction between them as well -- Nash is the artist, Stockton the technician. That's overly simplistic, but I do think there's an element of truth to the characterization.

But beyond that, understanding that I have that opinion means I have to check myself on Nash, because my appreciation for Nash's playing style doesn't necessarily mean that Nash was the better player or should be higher on this list. For many of these players, one of the steps I take is to set aside my preference for their style of play or them as players as a factor for evaluating them for this list.

I'm also confronted with the opposite with Dwyane Wade -- I appreciate what he's done, but I don't like the guy as a player. In particular, I think he's a cheapshot artist. But I need to set that aside and evaluate his career as fairly as I can.

That's not to say that I eliminate those preferences completely from my evaluation. Nash's style wasn't worth just style points; the way he carved up defenses was both beautiful and effective. But in the end, I have Stockton over Nash on my list. Stockton's longevity, sustained peak, and defense give him the edge.

The same with Wade. I'll ding him for his cheapshottery, but it will be a minor ding. He's got more significant issues on his resume (durability, range, and poor defense for the second half of his career).

[trex_8063]

My basic point: for an INITIAL (and that's ALL this is an attempt at doing - suggesting an INITIAL criteria for putting hundreds of players in APPROXIMATE FIRST ball-park groupings) ... for an INITIAL basis for GOAT thinking; imo, the "points" each player accumulated in their career vis-à-vis ALL-League selections (prorated for strength of "decade" and for Dual-League periods) - this is a WORTHY INITIAL basis.

fwiw, I don't disagree with this. And probably most of us started in this endeavor of evaluating and ranking careers in a similar fashion. When my interest in ranking players first began (~12-13 years ago, I think), this was sorta (partly, anyway) how I began shuffling them into approximate hierarchies.

As far as never looking much deeper than this or going far beyond these crude hierarchies (which is what I thought you were suggesting), THAT'S where I disagree.
Even if you want to continue using them as a major component of your criteria, I still think it's necessary to reconcile this against other considerations (the numbers, indicators of impact, eye-test, etc).

[THKNKG]

Voting based on accolades is circular reasoning based upon an appeal to authority, and with as much as we like to throw shade at media analysts, it's advisable not to stake a large portion of your rankings on accolades like MVP/all-NBA/all-star.

[Outside]

Vote: Moses
Alternate: Baylor

I'll be out the next couple of days and have limited availability today, so thanks to others who will carry the conversation.

I beat up Moses in comparison to Barkley in the last thread, so now it's time to walk that back a bit. Moses is 3rd in career rebounds, 6th in career games, and 7th in career points. Despite his limitations, that's an impressive career. Not only did he accumulate impressive totals, he was dominant at his position for many years. However you measure his peak, it was incredibly long. He deserves this spot.

Baylor was the original spectacular basketball player, the progenitor of Dr. J, Jordan, and all the high-fliers who came after. His stats are inflated by the fast pace of the time, but his per-36-minute career averages of 24.6 points/12.2 rebounds/3.9 assists (RS) and 23.7 points/11.3 rebounds/3.5 assists (PS) are impressive for any era.

Baylor's primary faults are being part of Laker teams that couldn't beat the Celtics and playing in an early era so that most people don't know how good he was.

[penbeast0]

Walton had ONE, count them ONE, season where he made it to the playoffs as a starting caliber player plus one season as a top reserve. That season was amazing BUT, otherwise Walton was a guy who demanded to be paid as one of the top stars in the league and yet never helped his teams in the playoffs and this went for a decade where he screwed over Portland, then San Diego (who had to give their best player as compensation for signing him).

Two actually. Kermit Washington? Give some love to All-World. I can certainly see why someone wouldn't put him in their Top 100. It might be weird for me to keep repeatedly voting for him for threads and threads and threads, but I still probably will.

One as a starter, one as a SMOY caliber reserve, one as a lesser reserve playing only 8 minutes a game if you wish. He also played 2 half games (24.5 min) one year in Portland. And it was injuries, not any fault of his or failure by his teams each time. But still, injuries are part of the game and they hurt Walton AND HIS TEAMS very consistently over the years.

And maybe Free was better (loved to watch him play), but Kermit was the guy who had just stepped up his game and probably had the most trade value.

[Pablo Novi]

My basic point: for an INITIAL (and that's ALL this is an attempt at doing - suggesting an INITIAL criteria for putting hundreds of players in APPROXIMATE FIRST ball-park groupings) ... for an INITIAL basis for GOAT thinking; imo, the "points" each player accumulated in their career vis-à-vis ALL-League selections (prorated for strength of "decade" and for Dual-League periods) - this is a WORTHY INITIAL basis.

fwiw, I don't disagree with this. And probably most of us started in this endeavor of evaluating and ranking careers in a similar fashion. When my interest in ranking players first began (~12-13 years ago, I think), this was sorta (partly, anyway) how I began shuffling them into approximate hierarchies.

As far as never looking much deeper than this or going far beyond these crude hierarchies (which is what I thought you were suggesting), THAT'S where I disagree.
Even if you want to continue using them as a major component of your criteria, I still think it's necessary to reconcile this against other considerations (the numbers, indicators of impact, eye-test, etc).

I may very well NOT have made it clear enough; and/or it may be that I've come across representing that one (major) part to seem as if it's the ONLY part.

An example: MJ has 10 ALL-NBA 1st-Teams, Magic has 9. But I have Magic as GOAT #2 (behind KAJ) and MJ as GOAT #3 - MOSTLY because in a TEAM sport, imo, Magic was the FAR better TEAM-mate. (For me the GOAT TEAM-mate is between Magic & LeBron; for me, MJ's maniacal attitude / personality is not something I either admire or ever try to instill in my kids).

The main reason I'm participating in these threads is not to "push my agenda"; but instead to be a small part of this sports-specific "grand" debate & learn as much as I can from a bunch of people who clearly have much better grasps of any number of aspects and stats of the game than I do. (When most significant controversies break out here in these threads, I often just don't feel qualified enough to weigh in on either side). Given that, I "push" the ALL-League / "Great Years" thing basically and only when I THNK that people are under-valuing this KEY (but far from only) indicator of relative career-value.

To your last paragraph in particular: absolutely!

[Pablo Novi]

Voting based on accolades is circular reasoning based upon an appeal to authority, and with as much as we like to throw shade at media analysts, it's advisable not to stake a large portion of your rankings on accolades like MVP/all-NBA/all-star.

"Voting based on accolades is circular reasoning based upon an appeal to authority ... it's advisable not to stake a large portion of your rankings on accolades like MVP/all-NBA/all-star."

I don't agree with either of these statements.
a) It does not have to be circular reasoning IF, as I believe I am, INFORMING / Reminding oneself of what each year was like - based on the collective opinion of a large number of people whose very jobs it was to report on it;
b) it is not necessarily an appeal to authority (no more so (actually, imo, LESS SO) than an appeal to the "authority" of one or several stats);
c) it IS advisable to take ALL-League selections (but not nearly as much, MVP selections) into serious consideration.

Please keep in mind that, at least in my case (and my posts on this are getting some likes - so in the case of some others here) referring to ALL-League selections is JUST ONE, the basic INITIAL one of a whole series of factors being considered.

Do you personally have MAJOR problems with the year-to-year ALL-League (NBA, ABA, NBL) selections?

Even if some people think that an occasional 1st-Team-er should have been a 3rd-Team-er (or vice versa); these quite large panels of selectors, imo, in the great majority of cases; pretty much nail what really happened each Reg. Season. So, even if we allow for some mistakes on their part - that seems to me to be a tiny flaw in a majorly correct & useful yearly player-performance evaluation system. AND, (far) superior to any other "metric" - which is kind of proved by there being less disagreement with the ALL-League selections than there is over which stat or stats to use; what they mean; how "universally-applicable" they are, etc.

[Pablo Novi]

Vote: Moses
Alternate: Baylor

...

Baylor was the original spectacular basketball player, the progenitor of Dr. J, Jordan, and all the high-fliers who came after. His stats are inflated by the fast pace of the time, but his per-36-minute career averages of 24.6 points/12.2 rebounds/3.9 assists (RS) and 23.7 points/11.3 rebounds/3.5 assists (PS) are impressive for any era.

Baylor's primary faults are being part of Laker teams that couldn't beat the Celtics and playing in an early era so that most people don't know how good he was.

Baylor's contemporary, the Big "O" himself, when asked, would say that for him Elgin was the GOAT.
I became a "rabid" NBA (NBL, & later, ABA) fan at the start of the 1959-60 season and followed him closely; because of his tremendous variety of nifty moves &, then even more so after West joined him as Mr Outside to his Mr Inside on the Lakers. (Their bi-racial artistry, about-equal-skill & Teamwork inspired me enough, that very intolerant age, to change my life.) Elgin invented all kinds of "hang-time" moves / drives. My GOAT dunk was by him - floating across the lane, facing Wilt about to swat both him and the ball, flipping it to his other hand and powering it home.

A big part of the reason he was so effective was not so much that he dunked but because he could hang longer than most opponents and had very strong wrists - so he could glide past them and/or wait and then flip the ball in.

I believe he had enough skills and creativity that he'd have been about equally an All-Time great in any other decade.

[wojoaderge]

He also played 2 half games (24.5 min) one year in Portland.

That was a pretty a big year for him. I do see your point though. I'm not gonna change my vote, but i see the argument against

[Doctor MJ]

Well, I do get that part, but we don't have only guys who are "one step below that" left. Guys like Wade/CP3/Nash have played at an incredibly high level for longer at this point, though not as high at peak. I do think he's approaching fast, just not there yet. Wade has 05-11 as strong prime, for example, whereas Curry has only 5 years. 2 years is a pretty big gap, but like you said, the peak/impact gap is definitely in Curry's favor.

I always think there's no right way to weigh peak vs longevity. You can't even say "What would a GM do?" because that depends on context.

Let's take Curry because he represents an extreme:

In his short career he has had the GOAT regular season and led quite possibly the GOAT team (the mainstream thinks Durant did it, but that's not what the data says, and it's not how the team's approach was built).

What this means is that he's actually what you might call a Rushmore candidate. Someone whose significance is so huge that he could be one of slightly more than a handful of guys in history that you absolutely have to talk about if you were teaching Basketball History 101.

On the other hand, longevity is quite short. I wouldn't really object to someone having him way further down.

It's worth noting that to the extent you care about historical prioritization of peak vs longevity, basketball has been quite peak heavy compared to, say, baseball. Walton was a no-brainer HOFer, and Shaq was named Top 50 in history after only playing a few years. If you were to use that type of peak/longevity weighting, Curry deserves to a major, major candidate for you at the current spot.

And once again, on the other hand, when Shaq left Orlando shortly after that Top 50 spot was given to him, I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince an Orlando Magic fan that he'd contributed enough to their franchise to warrant that level of praise.

One more thing:

It's really tricky factoring in innovation and spearheading in general. Mikan is the most important historical player left on the boards, and I think we all agree about that, but when you look at more modern guys it gets trickier.

I'm sure others would disagree, but I'll come right out in say it: Nobody needs to learn about Stockton, everyone needs to understand Nash, and the reason is that Nash was a spearhead that was instrumental to the NBA changing offensive strategy on a level arguably not seen in generations, and Stockton just wasn't.

Nash deserves some credit for his spearheadedness, but how much given that in future generations whatever edge Nash had over Stockton will be less, and already career impact-wise with no extra weight toward prime, Stockton has the franchise value contributed edge easily.

You just have to figure it out for yourself.

Here's how I view the Stockton vs. Nash thing:

Stockton was the ultimate craftsmen. He maximized whatever god given talents he had - there was nothing left to squeeze out of that orange.

Nash was an innovator. He had a stylistic impact and I'll remember watching Nash much moreso than Stockton.

Stylistic impact and who I will remember - the edge goes to Nash hands down, not that close.

But in terms of impact on winning - Stockton's offensive impact metrics pan out roughly equal to Nash's, he did it for a longer sustained time period and was one of the better players (at his position) on the defensive side of the ball than Nash. And that's why Stockton gets my vote over Nash.

I'm not sure what data you're using to make the judgment. It would be good if you shared.

APM/RAPM data in my experience puts Nash as the top offensive player of his generation and better than Stockton appears to be in the limited data we have.

On the other hand, the defensive data for Stockton if memory serves was actually spooky strong. Like, the type of impact you just can't have as a point guard nowadays.

Regardless, rating Stockton ahead based on cumulative impact is a pretty unassailable position.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Moses
Alternate: Baylor

I'll be out the next couple of days and have limited availability today, so thanks to others who will carry the conversation.

I beat up Moses in comparison to Barkley in the last thread, so now it's time to walk that back a bit. Moses is 3rd in career rebounds, 6th in career games, and 7th in career points. Despite his limitations, that's an impressive career. Not only did he accumulate impressive totals, he was dominant at his position for many years. However you measure his peak, it was incredibly long. He deserves this spot.

Baylor was the original spectacular basketball player, the progenitor of Dr. J, Jordan, and all the high-fliers who came after. His stats are inflated by the fast pace of the time, but his per-36-minute career averages of 24.6 points/12.2 rebounds/3.9 assists (RS) and 23.7 points/11.3 rebounds/3.5 assists (PS) are impressive for any era.

Baylor's primary faults are being part of Laker teams that couldn't beat the Celtics and playing in an early era so that most people don't know how good he was.

Baylor's primary faults are being on a team with Jerry West that seemed to underachieve when both were healthy and overachieve when Baylor was hurt, along with continuing to play with first option primacy when all the data we have says that that should have been West.

[Doctor MJ]

...

So Curry v. Durant, who do you have higher all-time?

Still looking for input from others but gun to my head right now I'd side with Curry:

-Better peak impact
-Better impact on franchise direction overall

I think a good raw number to look at is the raw RS +/- from '09-10 until now:

http://bkref.com/tiny/GRIzC

1. LeBron James +4513
2. Kevin Durant +3813
3. Steph Curry +3541

Now one might naively think, "Aha, Durant has the edge and that doesn't even include his first 2 years, so Durant much have a really big edge." He was terrible his first two years though and so over his entire career he's actually way behind Curry. But even if you ignore that poor start, and start from a year where Durant was already in prime playing with fantastic talent around him while Curry was a rookie playing 2nd fiddle to Monta Ellis, Durant's raw edge is tiny.

When you add that Curry has the more noteworthy peak and has the franchise that Durant came to play for, it's hard to argue that Durant's really accomplished more despite the fact we all agree that Durant's talent seems greater.

[Dr Positivity]

I don't have a problem with Pablo's criteria if it's what he believes in

Anyways at Moses - 9, Mikan - 2, Pettit - 1 I assume we can move on to the wide open debate of #21 pretty soon