Pre-RealGM 100 Personal Lists, 2023 edition

Colbinii · Post #41 » by **Colbinii** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:49 am

Lou Fan wrote:
Colbinii wrote:
Lou Fan wrote:These are the 4 greatest players ever of course they'll have accomplished things like multiple championships and finals appearances. Cap won chips in different cities and participated in one of the most successful sustained dynasties in NBA history do you think he was a positive culture builder?

Short answer is no I don't think LeBron or Kareem were positives in this aspect and none of the 3 (MJ included here) even sniff Russell who literally coached his own team to the championship. No matter how high you are on Mike, LBJ, and Cap as locker room presences no way you think they approached that level of value. I'd like to leave it at this for now because I'm concerned this may end up taking over the thread which I do not want. Feel free to respond to this but just so you know this will be my last post on this for this thread.

I think to be consistent you need to have Duncan ahead of Cap then.

How does that track? Do you know my criteria/evaluations well enough to make that claim? I think MJ, Cap, and LBJ separated themselves from Duncan enough with on the court value that Duncan's greatness as a culture builder can't make up that gap. I'd be open to hearing arguments against that though. I do think there's a real case that Duncan was so great in this way that it's more important than his comparatively inferior game.

Here is my post about peak Tim Duncan being arguably the #1 peak. If you have time before the project, it may allow you to think differently about just how good Duncan was.

The Case for The Big Fundamental

Spoiler:

OhayoKD · Post #42 » by **OhayoKD** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:51 am

Lou Fan wrote:
Colbinii wrote:
Lou Fan wrote:I don't want to start a flame war over the top few guys because that's how this always ends up but I'll just say for now I'm big on portability and the culture stuff I was talking about (which Russ is the absolute king of) in the other thread. That on top of me not placing as big an emphasis on longevity as most (of which MJ and Russ have less) are a preview of the reasons for that ordering.

Is there not culture setting by leading 3 distinct casts [with different GM's, Coaches and in different cities] to NBA Championships [and leading 4 distinct casts/GM's/Coaches to NBA Finals]?

Do you not think a culture is set when you go to 8-straight NBA Finals?

These are the 4 greatest players ever of course they'll have accomplished things like multiple championships and finals appearances.

Yeah but that isn't actually addressing colibi's point which is that Lebron has demonstrated he can replicate the success with different teams/rosters(as has Kareem). Russell has not(though tbf he did do it with a completely different core and as a player-coach). Jordan has not and had one of the worst cases of culture-killing when he left Chicago.

Just like with impact data, the "doing it in different situations" makes it more likely the success is a matter of the player in question and not simply circumstantial. Also would love to hear the justification for Lebron not being a positive off-the-court when he is using klutch/the power of friendship to add pieces like AD. "Coach killer" sound nice, but the idea his teams have suffered more than they have benefitted from Lebron's coaching input doesn't lineup with reality(his teams have always improved after a coaching change).

Lou Fan · Post #43 » by **Lou Fan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 2:52 am

Colbinii wrote:
Lou Fan wrote:
Colbinii wrote:
I think to be consistent you need to have Duncan ahead of Cap then.

How does that track? Do you know my criteria/evaluations well enough to make that claim? I think MJ, Cap, and LBJ separated themselves from Duncan enough with on the court value that Duncan's greatness as a culture builder can't make up that gap. I'd be open to hearing arguments against that though. I do think there's a real case that Duncan was so great in this way that it's more important than his comparatively inferior game.

Here is my post about peak Tim Duncan being arguably the #1 peak. If you have time before the project, it may allow you to think differently about just how good Duncan was.

The Case for The Big Fundamental

Spoiler:
2003 Tim Duncan was one of the greatest NBA seasons of all-time. The combination of elite offense with GOAT-level defense makes this season worthy of consideration for one of the highest impact [and best] seasons not only in the modern-era but of all-time. Although Timmy is routinely regarded as a top 10 player of all-time, many contributors on this board don’t see his peak in the same light as most other “top 10 contenders”. I hope with a deep-dive into this spectacular season others can see just how great Tim Duncan was in 2003.

This season starts as a follow-up to what many believe as Tim Duncan’s “real peak”, circa 2002. Duncan came off a productive regular season in 2002 and a great playoff run which resulted in an unfortunate [for non-Laker fans] end in only the Western Conference Semi-Finals where Duncan showed why he was worthy of the MVP trophy by outplaying the dynamic duo of Shaq and Kobe. While Duncan and the Spurs lost in 5 games to the eventual NBA-Champions, the ever-silent Tim Duncan put on a showcase while missing his career-long running mate David Robinson to injuries while his second option Tony Parker experienced major growing pains as a 19-year old Rookie. Duncan showcased an ability in 2002 to carry an offensive load many doubted while still being the best defender in the league.

2003 Featured a new strategy for Popovich, Duncan and the rest of the San Antonio Spurs. After David Robinson’s body ended 2002 on the pavement the Spurs decided to rest Robinson during the season [78 GP in 2002, 64 in 2003] while actively grooming Tony Parker and featuring him more offensively as he buds into an NBA-level Point Guard. Knowing the aforementioned changes, the Spurs decided to “run it back” with a similar roster while bolstering the bench with the addition of Steve Kerr to add much needed spacing and a veteran presence; an aspect Antonio Daniels failed to deliver on in 2002. Ultimately this deal doesn’t show up in the box-score as Kerr was a DNP for a majority of the playoffs [averaging a mere 4.6 MPG in 10 games] while young players like Tony Parker (20), Manu Ginobili (25) and Stephen Jackson (24) took on larger roles on both ends of the court.

Enough story time, let’s look at the numbers.

Regular Season Stats:

Per Game: 23.3 Points, 12.9 TRB, 3.2 ORB, 3.9 AST, 0.7 STL, 2.9 BLK, 3.1 TOV

Per 100: 31.6 Points, 17.5 TRB, 4.3 ORB, 5.3 AST, 1.4 STL, 4.0 BLK, 4.2 TOV

Individual Ortg/Drtg: 112/94; +18

Advanced: 26.9 PER, 56.4 TS% [+4.5 Rel League Avg], 45.5% FTR, 19.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 28.0 USG%, 16.5 WS [.248 WS/48], 7.4 BPM, 7.6 VORP

On/Off (Offense then Defense): 107.9/97.5 +9.7; 98.1/103.2 -5.1; Net: +9.1 On Court, +14.8 On/Off

Post Season Stats:

Per Game: 24.7 Points, 15.4 TRB, 4.0 ORB, 5.3 AST, 0.6 STL, 3.3 BLK, 3.2 TOV

Per 100: 30.6 Points, 19.1 TRB, 5.0 ORB, 6.6 AST, 0.8 STL, 4.1 BLK, 3.9 TOV

Individual Ortg/Drtg: 116/92; +24

Advanced: 28.4 PER, 57.7 TS% [5.8 Rel League Avg], 56.3% FTR, 25.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 26.4 USG%, 5.9 WS [.279 WS/48], 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP

On/Off (Sample too Small): 105.3/90.0 +15.3; 96.2/104.0 -7.8; Net: +9.1 On Court, +23.1 On/Off

Statistical Comparison

RS Per Game: 23.3 Points, 12.9 TRB, 3.2 ORB, 3.9 AST, 0.7 STL, 2.9 BLK, 3.1 TOV

PS Per Game: 24.7 Points, 15.4 TRB, 4.0 ORB, 5.3 AST, 0.6 STL, 3.3 BLK, 3.2 TOV

RS Per 100: 31.6 Points, 17.5 TRB, 4.3 ORB, 5.3 AST, 1.4 STL, 4.0 BLK, 4.2 TOV

PS Per 100: 30.6 Points, 19.1 TRB, 5.0 ORB, 6.6 AST, 0.8 STL, 4.1 BLK, 3.9 TOV

RS Individual Ortg/Drtg: 112/94; +18

PS Individual Ortg/Drtg: 116/92; +24

RS Advanced: 26.9 PER, 56.4 TS% [+4.5 Rel League Avg], 45.5% FTR, 19.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 28.0 USG%, 16.5 WS [.248 WS/48], 7.4 BPM, 7.6 VORP

PS Advanced: 28.4 PER, 57.7 TS% [+5.8 Rel League Avg], 56.3% FTR, 25.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 26.4 USG%, 5.9 WS [.279 WS/48], 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP

RS On/Off (Offense then Defense): 107.9/97.5 +9.7; 98.1/103.2 -5.1; Net: +9.1 On Court, +14.8 On/Off

PS On/Off (Sample too Small): 105.3/90.0 +15.3; 96.2/104.0 -7.8; Net: +9.1 On Court, +23.1 On/Off

When doing a side-by-side comparison it is quite evident [and clear] that Duncan performed even greater in the post-season than he did during his MVP-level Regular Season. This alone should be a tell-tale sign that Duncan performed at his highest level against the highest level of competition. Duncan’s ability to be an elite playmaker from the post in combination with his elite rim protection has never been duplicated since the merger. Only 4 other times has a player averaged 5+ Assists and 3+ Blocks in a series: 1977 Walton and 2002 Tim Duncan and then two other times in 3 game series from Chris Webber and Bob Lanier. Duncan’s gigantic scoring advantage over Walton [24.7 PPG on +5.8 TS% vs 18.2 PPG on +1.6 TS%] makes Duncan’s run one of the most statistically unique Playoff Runs in NBA History.

Looking back at the 2003 season as a whole the league was in a slow, grindy and defensive era. With League Average Offensive Rating at 103.6, True Shooting Percentage at 51.9% and Pace at 91 Possessions/Game the game was at it’s apex for defense [Post-Merger] while yet to adapt to the space provided by the 3-point line. This resulted in the post being cluttered offensively and big men to have a great impact on the defensive end.

The Spurs figured out how to capitalize on the Slow and defensive minded era; Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan was utilized in a way to generate 3 point shots and specifically the corner 3. The Spurs led the league in Percentage of Corner 3’s taken with 40% of their 3 point shots being corner 3’s. This was in large part due to the driving ability of a young Tony Parker [still 20 years old] and the gravity which Duncan encompassed offensively. The second most important part of the Spurs offense was the ability to generate lay-ups; again generated by the ability of Duncan’s passing from the high-post, low-block and free-throw area.

The Spurs offense in the post-season, with the catalyst Tim Duncan, was able to play the type of game [Spurs Ball] in all of the series they played in. The Pace in their 4 series were 90.8, 90.4, 92.6 and 87.8 [FWIW the Spurs Pace for the season was exactly 90.0, the average of the 4 series being 90.4]. This was in large part because of Tim Duncan’s ability to control the game as a PF/C; a rarity in the history of the NBA.

When the Spurs were unable to play at the exact pace they wanted they were able to adapt and outplay their opponents at what they did best; specifically the Nets and Mavericks. As you may know, the 2003 Mavericks and 2003 Nets were each the best in the league at one aspect of the game. The Mavericks were the best offense in the NBA while the Nets were the best Defense in the NBA. Ultimately both teams were dismantled by the Spurs by their own game.

Mavericks: 110.7 Ortg played at their pace [92.5 RS, 92.4 PS] and outscored by 30 points over the 6 game series. The Mavericks were held to a 104.0 Offense [-6.7] while the Spurs nearly matched Dallas’ season Offensive Rating in 109.4.

Nets: 98.1 Drtg played at the Spurs pace [91.6 RS, 87.8 PS] which took away the ability to run with Jason Kidd, one of the most dynamic playmakers in the open-court in NBA History. The Nets were unable to stop the Spurs as the Spurs eclipsed the 98.1 Drtg the Nets had in the regular season [Spurs put up 100.0 Ortg] but the slower pace affected the Nets greatly, posting a mere 93.3 Ortg in the lopsided; 6 game series.

When the Spurs had the opportunity to close out series they did so on Duncan’s back [in his backpack, which had a smaller back-pack in it, then a third back-pack inside of that with 37-year old David Robinson and Tony Parker squished in there like a Matryoshka Russian Doll].

During the span of 5 potential “Elimination Games”, the Spurs and Tim Duncan went 4-1, with the only loss coming to Dallas.

Duncan Stats: 22.8/16.4/6.8 with 3.6 BLK, 2.8 TOV

Duncan’s ability to close out elimination games with his scoring, rebounding, shot-blocking and playmaking [While taking care of the ball] is a combination of skill and talent that no other all-time great has combined throughout a single post-season. The fact the Spurs had no “easy series” says a lot about the run Duncan put on. An average SRS of 4.15, the lowest being 1.56 and highest being 7.90 shows how Dominant Duncan was. The ability for Duncan and the Spurs to adapt and play the best offense in the league in one series and then the best defensive team in the next series shows a chameleon-like team minus the skittish-ness.

NBA Finals Deep-Dive:

While the Spurs and Nets faced off in the 2003 Finals the biggest match-ups were Parker/Kidd and Collins/Duncan. The Nets were going to win if Collins could help keep Duncan in check [Collins is an all-time great post-defender] or if Kidd could run up-and-down the floor. While I highlighted earlier in my post about the Spurs [and Duncan’s] ability to slow down the Nets by eliminating transition opportunities, one often major aspect to the series was Collins inability to stay out of foul trouble while guarding Tim Duncan [and Kenyon Martin].

Kenyon Martin fell into Foul Trouble in Games 1, 2, 4, 5 while Collins fouled out in Game 3 and was routinely in foul trouble throughout the series. This was, in large part, due to Duncan’s post-presence [averaging 9 FTA/G and a 49.5% FTR].

FWIW, Jason Collins was absolutely dominant in the post-season as a defender. In his 529 minutes on the court the Nets posted a 92.2 Defensive Rating [Absurd] but in his 446 minutes on the bench the Nets were a measly 106.1 [A difference of 13.1 Points per 100]. I understand it is a small sample size, but the fact remains that Jason Collins was a key part for a Nets victory in 2003 and Duncan single handedly took him out of the game [as well as Kenyon Martin].

Individual Offensive/Defensive Ratings: I know many people love these, I have been more interested in these statistics lately [in part because of E-Balla calling me out on not understanding them fully] and re-analyzing them with-in the statistical landscape and scope. They often line-up with my personal eye-test [though I do wear glasses] and they happen to capture a good part of the game.

Duncans in the 2003 NBA Finals: 109 Ortg/83 Drtg [Net + 26]

Jordan 1991: 125/102 [Net +23]

James 2012: 117/109 [Net +8]

Shaq 01: 115/101 [Net +14]

Scoring: Duncan was able to score 27.5% of his teams points in the post-season.

Jordan 1991: 30.8%

LeBron 2012: 28.0%

Shaq 01: 32.8%

While Duncan’s scoring isn’t as impressive as some of the other notable candidates for “GOAT PEAK”, his scoring is not far off. Considering the major defensive advantage Duncan has on the other candidates listed above I see little to no reason for these players to be considered over Duncan in the grand scheme of things.

Thanks I'll definitely take a look sometime tomorrow

70sFan · Post #44 » by **70sFan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 5:54 am

One_and_Done wrote:I'm always baffled by Bill Russell being ranked as the GOAT. In today's game he wouldn't be the best player or even top 5, and that's understating it.

You don't know that.

But the best players today would crush it in Russell's era.

You don't know that either.

If you're ranking Russell because it's all 'relative to era' why isn't Mikan in your top 5? Once you start parsing out eras and applying context to them, you've opened the floodgates and might as well apply context to everything, including how weak the league was.

Because Mikan's career was destroyed by the injury during his prime and it made his longevity considerably less impressive. Mikan of course played in an era with very few black players, while during Bill's prime the league was fully integrated.

I don't mind having Mikan in top 5, but to me his longevity isn't good enough. He was a fantastic talent and he deserved to be talked about like one of the GOATs of the league.

One_and_Done · Post #45 » by **One_and_Done** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:04 am

Fully integrated by the 60s? Come on bro. That's not true at all. The NBA at the start of Russell's career had relatively few black players, and even by the end was far from the integrated league of today.

70sFan · Post #46 » by **70sFan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:09 am

One_and_Done wrote:Fully integrated by the 60s? Come on bro. That's not true at all. The NBA at the start of Russell's career had relatively few black players, and even by the end was far from the integrated league of today.

The league was half black in 1965, which was far from the end of Russell's career.

One_and_Done · Post #47 » by **One_and_Done** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:24 am

And it's about 80% black now.

70sFan · Post #48 » by **70sFan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 6:29 am

One_and_Done wrote:And it's about 80% black now.

It was 71% in 2021/22 season, so closer to 70%.

The league was integrated by 1965, more black players in future eras are caused by cultural differences.

Jaivl · Post #49 » by **Jaivl** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:03 am

Not my top 100 list but my CORP list, which is pretty close. Would like to do a re-evaluation sometime soon and make something about era differences vs championship probabilities. Feel free to nitpick. There may be some players I forgot to rate.

Spoiler:

One_and_Done · Post #50 » by **One_and_Done** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:09 am

70sFan wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:And it's about 80% black now.

It was 71% in 2021/22 season, so closer to 70%.

The league was integrated by 1965, more black players in future eras are caused by cultural differences.

Doesn't include mixed race. Anyway, you can have 100% black and not have a fully integrated league.

70sFan · Post #51 » by **70sFan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:18 am

One_and_Done wrote:
70sFan wrote:
One_and_Done wrote:And it's about 80% black now.

It was 71% in 2021/22 season, so closer to 70%.

The league was integrated by 1965, more black players in future eras are caused by cultural differences.

Doesn't include mixed race. Anyway, you can have 100% black and not have a fully integrated league.

Another time when you bring up no specifics. You created a hypothesis and decide to bend facts to prove it.

iggymcfrack · Post #52 » by **iggymcfrack** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:21 am

Might as well put my current list out since I've been messing with it a bit lately:

1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Tim Duncan
4. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Stephen Curry
9. David Robinson
10. Giannis Antetokounmpo
11. Chris Paul
12. Magic Johnson
13. Bill Russell
14. Nikola Jokic
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dirk Nowitzki
17. John Stockton
18. Karl Malone
19. Dwyane Wade
20. Oscar Robertson
21. Kawhi Leonard
22. Larry Bird
23. Kobe Bryant
24. Jerry West
25. Kevin Durant
26. Charles Barkley
27. Steve Nash
28. Anthony Davis
29. Julius Erving
30. Joel Embiid

70sFan · Post #53 » by **70sFan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:26 am

iggymcfrack wrote:Might as well put my current list out since I've been messing with it a bit lately:

1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Tim Duncan
4. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Stephen Curry
9. David Robinson
10. Giannis Antetokounmpo
11. Chris Paul
12. Magic Johnson
13. Bill Russell
14. Nikola Jokic
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dirk Nowitzki
17. John Stockton
18. Karl Malone
19. Dwyane Wade
20. Oscar Robertson
21. Kawhi Leonard
22. Larry Bird
23. Kobe Bryant
24. Jerry West
25. Kevin Durant
26. Charles Barkley
27. Steve Nash
28. Anthony Davis
29. Julius Erving
30. Joel Embiid

I have to say it, Embiid inside top 30 amused me :lol:

iggymcfrack · Post #54 » by **iggymcfrack** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:35 am

70sFan wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:Might as well put my current list out since I've been messing with it a bit lately:

1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Tim Duncan
4. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Stephen Curry
9. David Robinson
10. Giannis Antetokounmpo
11. Chris Paul
12. Magic Johnson
13. Bill Russell
14. Nikola Jokic
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dirk Nowitzki
17. John Stockton
18. Karl Malone
19. Dwyane Wade
20. Oscar Robertson
21. Kawhi Leonard
22. Larry Bird
23. Kobe Bryant
24. Jerry West
25. Kevin Durant
26. Charles Barkley
27. Steve Nash
28. Anthony Davis
29. Julius Erving
30. Joel Embiid

I have to say it, Embiid inside top 30 amused me

I moved him down from #29 after this year's playoffs.

I was actually thinking about finding someone to replace him with altogther for a sec, but he is #2 behind LeBron on of those 25-year RAPM samples. I gotta give him credit for that even if he's had some rough playoffs. Plus is it even fair to grade him harshly on playoff failures in years when Doc Rivers is his coach?

One_and_Done · Post #55 » by **One_and_Done** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:52 am

To be fair to Iggy, if Embiid had just played in the 60's he'd be everyone's GOAT. Just like when we get APM data from before 1997, He and the stat patrol will drop Jordan out of the top 10, and Magic out of the top 20, because APM loved John Stockton more.

70sFan · Post #56 » by **70sFan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 7:59 am

Doctor MJ wrote:I think probably only Mikan gets in the Top 100, but I'll advocate for Davies if the 100 aligns enough with my own thoughts to give me the opportunity.

I think Davies has a very reasonable case - especially if the project will include pre-NBA years.

Yup, I'm high on Cervi and low on Lovellette.

Would you like to expand your thoughts on Lovellette?

I'm impressed by Braun's career. The Knicks through the '50s had a lot of good years, and out of all their players, it seems that Braun - when he was available (military service) - was the one who they swore by. Fundamentally solid, capable of being higher or lower primacy, good attitude, fantastic height for a guard.

I agree, Braun is one of the most underrated players of his era. I also like what I have seen from him on the tape - great size, excellent athleticism, very deep range ("swish" for a reason), capable passer. Just a great all-around player who isn't respected enough because NY didn't win the title in the 1950s.

Heinsohn is really tricky because he was a major part of those Celtic teams, but the thing that was his job, he did inefficiently. It raises the question of whether a lot of other guys could have done what he did.

In the end, the fact that Heinsohn actually did it - that Auerbach swore by him - counts for a good deal, but I tend to put him below other "swore by" guys with less obvious issues.

Yeah I am also undecided on Heinsohn. He definitely had value as a volume scorer on Boston team, but wasn't great in that role due to inefficiency. On the other hand, he seems to be quite good all-around player in footage we have (smart defender, though certainly not elite, good at making quick passes, decent rebounder). He's tough to evaluate for me, but I'd have him firmly below other Celtics greats from that era so we agree on that part.

I expect the Top 3 guys here will make the 100. I also love Sharman and am not opposed to him making it. I doubt Cervi has a shot, and so much of what he did is in the NBL, I don't know if I'll even try to get him nominated...but he's arguably the second best player of his era.

By "his era" you mean pre-NBA years?

So Cousy vs (Sam) Jones is a tricky one, and a tricky one specifically based on the new criteria I'm using.

Based on my own personal POY shares, Cousy is a considerably bigger deal than Jones. That's a good reason to put him ahead.

But I literally think Jones was the 2nd most important player in the great Celtic dynasty, and while the pre-Russell years could be argued to put Cousy ahead of Jones, I don't really think Cousy's issue here is that he aged out. Jones was a more valuable player in his 30s than Cousy was in his 30s, and it's not because Jones was taking on a small role. It was because his 20+ PPG style of play worked against contemporary competition, and Cousy's didn't.

That's fair, although I wouldn't say that Cousy style didn't work - he wasn't a great scorer by any means, but he still provided value with his playmaking and Celtics definitely missed his creation after the retirement (though they got even better on defense).

Re: Barnett vs Lucas. I think Barnett needs to be understood as the #3 Knick on the '70 Knicks champion as 33 year old much older than the rest of the core. Had he maintained this prominence in their 2nd chip I think he'd be much more celebrated today...but he was 36, so it's understandable why he was a low minutes guy at this point.

By #3 Knick, you mean the 3rd best player on that team? I'm not sure I'd go that far (even though I am quite high on Dick), he's not better than Frazier and Reed, then Dave was also on that team. I think I'd take DeBusschere over Barnett quite easily for 1970.

I also think people should at least be aware that in the renegade ABL, Barnett was the star of the championship team. This wasn't a guy who only excelled as a role player, he just had an NBA team decide to use him as their star. He started in Syracuse during the Schayes years and can be said to have "lost out" to Hal Greer as the franchise player going forward (I don't know how that played out, but I'm not trying to argue for Barnett over Greer), then he went to the ABL and was a star, then he went to the Lakers with West & Baylor, then the Knicks.

Yeah, Barnett is a fascinating player. It's clear he had a huge potential when you watch him and he proved to be extremely valuable in various contending teams. Interesting thoughts about him vs Greer by the way, it would be interesting to see Nats going for him instead (though I do think Greer was a bit better prospect overall and finished his career stronger).

People have a tendency to say Lucas proved himself on the Knicks, but he was a bench guy on the '73 chip despite being younger than Barnett was on the superior '70 champion. Lucas deserves credit for what he did, but I don't think people would see it as that big of a deal if Lucas wasn't this mega-pre-NBA prospect.

I agree, people overrate Lucas because of his NCAA career. He wasn't someone I'd consider for top 100, even though he still had a nice career overall.

Re: Bellamy. Yeah, I may have him too low. He was a very capable volume scorer, and maybe he just got unlucky playing on bad teams.

I don't love players of his profile either, but he seems to be very talented and very unfortune with teams he played in. I wonder how Atlanta would fare in the early 1970s had they not decide to change much better player to rookie Pete Maravich.

Yeah, we've got a big disagreement with Thurmond.

I do see Thurmond as the #3 defensive big of his era comparing peak, probably the #1 big man individual defender, and quite possibly the #2 consistent-prime defender of his era. That seems like that should make him rank pretty high.

Offensively of course, he's not great. Had he played in another era I think we know he'd shoot a lot less, and this would be more valuable. Not looking to be super puritanical punishing him for that inefficiency, but what it does mean is that I just never end up seeing him as much of a candidate for POY shares. Now, I have a bunch of guys ahead of him here who also aren't really POY share guys, but a lot of these guys have key roles on champion teams and have signs of more all around basketball playing talents.

Something I'll acknowledge here is that while I'm not trying to punish Thurmond for the Warriors winning the title without him, I'm sure I'd see Thurmond differently if I saw him as one of the two stars on that championship team.

I think it depends on how you look at 1967 finals run - if you think Barry was the key reason why Warriors made that run, then I can understand why you held Nate in lower tier than me. I personally believe that Thurmond was clearly the most valuable player of that team and I don't think it's that controversial when you look at WOWY splits, as well as watch all the tape we have.

I think Thurmond had a very legitimate case for top 3 player in 1967-69 period when healthy (which unfortunately wasn't the case in 1968) and I like his 1971-73 run a lot as well. He didn't have a lot to work with after Barry changed the league and yet the Warriors consistently made playoffs as long as Thurmond played more than half of the season.

Re: Hawkins. So I think everyone knows I'm high on Connie and I don't really expect to persuade many folks of anything drastic. I see Hawkins at his best as a serious candidate for the best offensive player in the world, and I think what he did leading the Pipers to the championship is astonishing. I completely understand people who aren't that impressed by the first year of the ABA, but what I see from Hawkins here is something far more than just a volume scorer.

Re: Hawkins, Cunningham, Brown. So these guys all grew up playing against each other in Brooklyn and I tend to associate them. Cunningham was respected by the Black ballers in the area (they even said he played Black, which they meant as a compliment), but I definitely didn't get the impression that Cunningham was seen as better than Brown, let alone Hawkins.

Yeah, I think it shows the difference between our ranking systems. I don't disagree that Hawkins was the best talent out of these 3 and I entertain the idea that he peaked the highest (definitely in ABA, arguable vs Billy in NBA), but I don't give him much credit for his pre-ABA seasons in this project. It's unfair, because that situation wasn't his fault, but the life sometimes is unfair.

I really like it that you always find a way to give him respect he deserves.

Lanier's always a tough one to peg. I think it's quite reasonable to have literally on top of the list, but with his limited team success it's iffy for me. Again not trying to penalize a guy based on winning bias, but when I go through year by year POY-style, he didn't get those spots. I welcome arguments to help me better understand what he was achieving.

I think when you start looking at how the Pistons fared when he missed time and you look at their rosters (especially after Bing's injury), it's very clear that Lanier didn't have anything to work with. Some of these WOWY numbers show Pistons supporting cast as almost the 1970s equivalent of 2000s Wolves, they were really bad.

Now, it's important to note that Lanier did miss a lot of games in his prime and that was one of the reasons why Pistons failed to win more games. Again though - I don't think his durability problems were that bad that you can't put him higher.

Dantley was a literal mistake. Somehow when I did the analysis I missed him. I tend to be a bit of a Dantley to be clear, but he definitely should be on the list.

That's better

Ah, now that's interesting given our disagreement on Thurmond. Eaton's a more extreme example.

I think Eaton has a real argument as being worthy of the Hall of Fame because of how singular he was, and how undeniably valuable he was a shot-blocker on defense, but in terms of career value-add, I think he's really far below the other guys here.

Don't get me wrong, he probably has the weakest career out of this group, but I think he's worth consideration for top 100. I don't think his career is much inferior to Ben Wallace.

Honestly, Miller was the surprise for me. I've been a champion of his for a very long time, but I think I always had him below the other 3. When I went through year by year, I was really amazed at the way he stood out to me with his playoff performances. I knew about these before, but when forcing myself to make a ranked list, he kept placing high.

For my last CORP evaluation, Miller finished the lowest out of these 3, but higher than Pippen. I think all 4 are in the same tier and you can make a reasonable argument for all the possible orders.

Re: Iverson vs Penny. I see Penny as the clear cut better player and while health hurts him, realistically he was relevant to contending basketball about as long as Iverson was.

Penny definitely peaked higher than Iverson (at least to me), but he had like 4 relevant seasons? Maybe 6 if you want to use his post-1999 years? I don't think Iverson was that bad.

Divac is tricky relative to these guys because he was never an MVP-candidate type. I certainly understand having him a lot lower, and would expect the fact majority to favor Webber over him. Divac impresses me more than Webber though.

I agree with Divac > Webber and I know it's not a popular opinion.

Most would have McGrady considerably higher so that's understandable. I don't really see his career amounting to much when all is said and done.

Lastly when I did CORP evaluation, Tracy finished around 70th spot. His career is very weak for someone that talented, but he still has a few very strong seasons accumulated. I think he'd make my top 100, although I don't rate him as high as some.

I can definitely see the case for Gobert over Embiid actually. Lowry & Horford are tricky like Divac because it's the lower peak, great long career thing.

I like the Divac and Lowry/Horford comparison.
I also wonder - have you considered Marc Gasol? I think he's at least worth mentioning.

70sFan · Post #57 » by **70sFan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:03 am

iggymcfrack wrote:I moved him down from #29 after this year's playoffs.

I was actually thinking about finding someone to replace him with altogther for a sec, but he is #2 behind LeBron on of those 25-year RAPM samples. I gotta give him credit for that even if he's had some rough playoffs. Plus is it even fair to grade him harshly on playoff failures in years when Doc Rivers is his coach?

It's not even about his playoffs failures, Embiid has so few relevant seasons and such a short career (even worse in his case because of missed games) that putting him inside top 30 would require GOAT-level peak to me... and Embiid wasn't really in conversation for the best player in the league at any point of his career - including this year when he got the MVP.

I understand that some people are willing to put Jokic over someone like Ewing, because he peaked much higher and has this title run and all the boxscore stats some people love. In Embiid's case though, I am not even comfortable that he's a better basketball player than Ewing and his career doesn't touch Pat's - and Ewing isn't a lock top 30 player himself either.

70sFan · Post #58 » by **70sFan** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:04 am

One_and_Done wrote:To be fair to Iggy, if Embiid had just played in the 60's he'd be everyone's GOAT.

If Embiid had just played in the 1960s, his career would have ended after the first 2 seasons due to injuries.

On a more serious note, I don't see any reason to believe that Embiid would dominate the 1960s more than Russell and Wilt did.

OhayoKD · Post #59 » by **OhayoKD** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 8:38 am

AEnigma wrote:
Colbinii wrote:
Lou Fan wrote:I don't want to start a flame war over the top few guys because that's how this always ends up but I'll just say for now I'm big on portability and the culture stuff I was talking about (which Russ is the absolute king of) in the other thread. That on top of me not placing as big an emphasis on longevity as most (of which MJ and Russ have less) are a preview of the reasons for that ordering.

Is there not culture setting by leading 3 distinct casts [with different GM's, Coaches and in different cities] to NBA Championships [and leading 4 distinct casts/GM's/Coaches to NBA Finals]?

Do you not think a culture is set when you go to 8-straight NBA Finals?

I would agree that neither Lebron or Kareem are particularly outstanding culture setters.

But of course it is about the players ahead.

I would not praise a player’s “portability” when that player only succeeded under some of the greatest coaches in the sport’s history, next to a co-star and roster perfectly complementing and arguably catered to that player’s insistence on maintaining the highest shot volume in the league every year.

And I certainly would not praise the “culture-setting” of a notoriously toxic individual who routinely berated, harassed, and even physically abused teammates all in service of some twisted “alpha” character assessment, and who grossly failed to establish culture in any circumstance outside of environments led by coaches famous for their unparalleled ego management.

(On that note, a “culture-setting” argument for Garnett over Duncan strikes me as similarly ludicrous considering Garnett’s initial Timberwolves tenure, but at least there you can hide behind the “portability” angle and give primary weight to Garnett’s locker-room effect after that initial exit from Minnesota.)

A refresher regarding the culture-setting we saw "Outside of enviroments led by coaches famous for their unparalleled ego management

According to one official, Hughes was explicitly told by Jordan to get him the ball if he wanted to play. When Hughes began passing it to Stackhouse as much as to Jordan, he was soon benched. Point guard Tyronn Lue, the official said, obliged and began finding Jordan every time he played. ''He was scared to death of what would happen to him in his career if he didn't,'' the player said of Lue. ''He was always looking at the bench at Michael.''

Late last fall, Richard Hamilton and Jordan got into an ugly shouting match. The two officials said it began when Hamilton told Jordan he was tired of being a ''Jordannaire,'' the term used for Jordan's role players in Chicago. ''Rip was a young, brash guy who threatened the idea of Michael being the guy here,'' the official said. ''He was promptly gotten rid of for Stackhouse.'' A person close to Jordan denied Hamilton was traded because of a personality conflict. He insisted contractual issues led to the Stackhouse deal.

In the season's final weeks, players openly complained about the double standards for Jordan. Promptly dressed and ready to speak with reporters after games, they were forced to wait in the locker room for 15 or 20 minutes while Jordan showered and dressed in a private room.

There’s coach-killing and then there’s Franchise killing. Even if there wasn’t plenty contradicting the former assertion and not much of anything contradicting the latter, Equating Jordan with Kareem and Lebron here is laughable

OhayoKD · Post #60 » by **OhayoKD** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 11:39 am

One_and_Done wrote:I could go to 10 probably. Guys in the same tier I could potential switch, I go back and forth on Shaq vs Magic for eg, or Duncan vs Kareem.

1. Lebron

2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Duncan

5. Shaq
6. Magic
7. Hakeem

8. Curry
9. KG
10. Bird

Then I guess I'd have some combination of guys like KD, K.Malone, D.Rob, Dirk, Giannis, Dr J, etc. Not sure where in that mix Wilt and Russell go, I'd have to think about them.

Since you're not going by era-relative goodness, I'm curious what the reasoning behind the different rankings here. Curry seems like a guy who you could push really high with that approach(2nd or 3rd seems fair tbh), there's some great "absolute" comparisons here for example:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2288393

Maybe as a tiebreaker for tier 2, the 2000's had a significantly larger talent pool than the 90's(nvm the 70's). The # of international players actually doubled between 97 and 2001.