RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[Dr Positivity]

We sure flipped in a hurry from "How is he being voted on so low?" to "How is he being voted on so high?" somewhere in the early-mid 30s.

I'm sure we all have our exceptions (Cousy and to some extent McHale for me, Squid for Penbeast, etc.), but that's the general vibe right now.

Maybe the dark-period MVPs -- Cowens, Reed, Unseld, et al. -- were better than we're giving them credit for right now.

Yeah, I think we hit a tier shift somewhere in there. On my personal list I had 21 to 34 all on one tier so the players near the bottom were bound to look jobbed. I think we're going to hit a "How is he so low?" wave again in the mid 40s to early 50s. Eg. Dominique and Miller look like 41 and 42, and at this rate English and Allen are on pace for something like 54 and 55. Even though at least in my books, you can't get any closer than Dominique vs English and Miller vs Allen if valuing careers (they'll be closer on my personal list than the main one though)

[ronnymac2]

This is harder than last time.

[Doormatt]

Not enough love for earlier players imo. Too heavily weighted in favor of the 90's.

The criteria used doesn't appear to be all that consistent. If you put Wilt 5th, it does not make sense to also put Havlicek, Isiah Thomas, and Barry after Patrick Ewing.

I don't get it. Ewing is ahead of them because he was better at the game of baskeball. Their rankings are not relative to Wilt, as their impact wasn't relative to him either.

[jman3134]

I apologize, maybe I wasn't clear. If a major criterion is winning championships (as evinced by the fact that arguably the most statistically dominating player is ranked 5th), then why are proven winners ranked beneath Ewing? Isiah Thomas, in particular, was statistically impressive in probably the most competitive era in basketball history. (not here to argue about the strength of the 80's though) Rick Barry once averaged the most points in a finals series and has a ring.

[Doormatt]

Well your assuming that Wilts supposed statistical dominance helped his team, but really, Wilt as a volume scorer didn't help his teams offense as much as you would seem to think. I reccomend actually reading through the arguments, they are interesting and informative. People didn't vote for somebody like Russell because of titles, they voted for him because he was a GOAT rebounder/defender with a nice offensive game and some amazing intangibles (won a title as a player/coach). He just made the celtics a great team with his on court impact, and the titles were a result of that.

And Isiah was anything but statistically impressive, in fact, most people seemingly voted for him for things outside of stats.

The list was actually made, for the most part, to discount things like accolades and titles, as they aren't accurately correlative to how good a basketball player actually was on the court.

[jman3134]

Not saying Wilt should be ranked ahead of Russell. In mentioning Wilt, I was trying to bring out the fact that you are focusing on team impact. And, (prior to looking at any statistical metrics) I can assert with some certainty that there were periods in Wilt's career where his statistical dominance did help his team. In other instances, it did not. I am sure that there would be some surprises if I were to analyze statistics of all time greats and rank them accordingly.

Yes, Isiah Thomas was a rather inefficient shooter, particularly when one compares him to all-time greats. However, as a distributor and defender, Thomas was excellent. (less so as a defender than as a floor general) I'm sure you already know this. But, when you are looking at team impacts, Thomas has to be up there. The fact that his Pistons were as competitive as they were at the height of the Lakers-Celtics rivalry is a testament to Thomas' greatness imo. Further, Ewing was never able to win a title, even when Jordan was out of the league. When Thomas came into the league, he immediately led Detroit to an 18-game turnaround from the previous season. He posted 43 points on a bum ankle against the Lakers, setting the single quarter record in the finals. Thomas stepped up at the right times.

Lastly, with the loss of shawngoat, could I possibly join in the voting?

[Doormatt]

Well I think the Pistons competitiveness is more a testament to how great that TEAM was (isiah included).

Wilt is tricky IMO. His stats are impressive, but his teammates were actually better (and the team) when Wilt wasnt trying to volume score. Were not analyzing stats in a vacuum, were looking at how a players impact/stats helped his team, and simply put, Wilts big numbers weren't always for the better of his team. Of course their are other instances where Wilt was a beast and did help his team, and it's why hes regarded as a top 10 player and not looked at like say, Adrian Dantley.

[jman3134]

The trickiness that I see here is that Thomas was a go-to option and had to provide volume scoring for his squad. I think that the Knicks were vastly underrated- they had considerable talent, but largely underachieved imo. There's no clear cut favorite between Ewing and Thomas, but I think that Thomas should be selected based on team success because of the huge disparity there.

I have not researched Wilt's statistics recently or done any sort of analysis, so I'm not willing to put my opinion out there yet. From film though, I got the impression that Wilt was extremely valuable because he could adapt his game and focus on defense. With that said, he did not consistently focus on all aspects of the game, and therein, I can understand if his team contribution stats do not wholly reflect his ability. I think that the lack of a team mentality at times had more to do with character flaws than anything.

[ronnymac2]

Unfortunately, I'm probably going to discontinue voting on this project. I've lost a lot of time at work with my injury, and between trying to catch up and perform rehab, I haven't had the chance to spend time on RealGM.

I also don't feel like I was contributing much to the discussion even before my injury. Unlike last time (2008), when I went through all the arguments carefully when considering my ballot, I haven't been dedicating too much time this time around (which is unfortunate because the discussion has been excellent!). Because of this, and the understanding I'll be able to dedicate less time going forward, I thought it would be better if I just withdrew so that I wouldn't dilute the vote.

Thanks for letting me participate again, and sorry for flaking out!

Get well, man. Come back when you feel it's right.

[Dr Positivity]

The more I think of it, the more insane it is to me that Frazier beat Nash and Pippen

Frazier vs Nash - It's the Nash vs Kidd corrolary for me. Defense and rebounding at PG is a luxury, offense is what they're there for. It's taking .850 OPS with stolen bases and fielding over 1.050 OPS out of a big 1B. Hitting matters more. Lots of +/- stats and etc. have shown the gap between the best and worst defensive PGs is much much smaller than the offensive one. I think you pretty clearly take the best offensive player here. And if someone prefers Frazier to Nash because of the latter's defense, how can they possibly prefer Nash to Stockton?

Frazier vs Pippen - Is Pippen not just a bigger version of Frazier? Seems like about the same scoring in the same way, about the same passing. But we know the bigger you are and the more ground you can cover, the most dominant a help defender you can be. Pippen is the best perimeter defender ever because he can rotate and cover ground like a big man. Frazier, Pippen, KG = Baby Bear, Mama Bear, Papa Bear. I really think that in retrospect, Pippen is almost inarguably the more valuable player here because of how direct a comparison it is

On top of that, Nash and Pippen have easily better than longevity than Frazier

[therealbig3]

The more I think of it, the more insane it is to me that Frazier beat Nash and Pippen

Frazier vs Nash - It's the Nash vs Kidd corrolary for me. Defense and rebounding at PG is a luxury, offense is what they're there for. It's taking .850 OPS with stolen bases and fielding over 1.050 OPS out of a big 1B. Hitting matters more. Lots of +/- stats and etc. have shown the gap between the best and worst defensive PGs is much much smaller than the offensive one. I think you pretty clearly take the best offensive player here. And if someone prefers Frazier to Nash because of the latter's defense, how can they possibly prefer Nash to Stockton?

Frazier vs Pippen - Is Pippen not just a bigger version of Frazier? Seems like about the same scoring in the same way, about the same passing. But we know the bigger you are and the more ground you can cover, the most dominant a help defender you can be. Pippen is the best perimeter defender ever because he can rotate and cover ground like a big man. Frazier, Pippen, KG = Baby Bear, Mama Bear, Papa Bear. I really think that in retrospect, Pippen is almost inarguably the more valuable player here because of how direct a comparison it is

On top of that, Nash and Pippen have easily better than longevity than Frazier

Taking era into account, Frazier was a far superior scorer to Pippen, because he was very efficient compared to his contemporaries. Pippen was around league average, or a little higher. I think you can make the case that Frazier was the better offensive player, while Pippen was the better defensive player. Whichever gap is bigger is up to whoever's ranking them, and I think they're extremely close...I have them back to back on my personal list, and I've been flip-flopping them ever since I ranked them.

[ElGee]

The more I think of it, the more insane it is to me that Frazier beat Nash and Pippen

Frazier vs Nash - It's the Nash vs Kidd corrolary for me. Defense and rebounding at PG is a luxury, offense is what they're there for. It's taking .850 OPS with stolen bases and fielding over 1.050 OPS out of a big 1B. Hitting matters more. Lots of +/- stats and etc. have shown the gap between the best and worst defensive PGs is much much smaller than the offensive one. I think you pretty clearly take the best offensive player here. And if someone prefers Frazier to Nash because of the latter's defense, how can they possibly prefer Nash to Stockton?

Frazier vs Pippen - Is Pippen not just a bigger version of Frazier? Seems like about the same scoring in the same way, about the same passing. But we know the bigger you are and the more ground you can cover, the most dominant a help defender you can be. Pippen is the best perimeter defender ever because he can rotate and cover ground like a big man. Frazier, Pippen, KG = Baby Bear, Mama Bear, Papa Bear. I really think that in retrospect, Pippen is almost inarguably the more valuable player here because of how direct a comparison it is

On top of that, Nash and Pippen have easily better than longevity than Frazier

Glad to see we strongly agree on something here. I have Frazier at 30 and found his vote to be shaky, at best. (It was an 8-7 count in that thread.) I STILL don't understand how those voting for him reconcile the major issues compared to the players you just brought up, namely peak -- it ain't *that* good -- and longevity -- it doesn't hold against many of the players at that level.

If one of the 8 voters there honestly thinks Frazier had a peak on the level of Dwyane Wade I really don't know what to say. (And I was under the impression I loved his peak since I have it top-40.)

[Dr Positivity]

I don't know if there's a big difference between prime Moncrief and prime Frazier tbh (though that proves how marginal the gap is between most of these players, since even on my list Frazier is 20 spots ahead)

[penbeast0]

Eye test (well, fan test), I remember when we played NY back in the 70s, we worried more about Frazier destroying us than I ever have about Nash destroying us in this decade. Plus, I do believe in PG defense; if you can force the ball out of the hands of a Nash or Magic and into someone else's to initiate the offense all that offensive stuff they bring other than shooting is negated. I remember Magic saying Gary Payton was the only defender that could force him to turn and back the ball in (lessening his court vision and slowing down the Showtime offense) -- Frazier had that kind of impact plus he was a 20ppg scorer who could embarass weak defenders and run one of the smartest offenses ever seen before Chicago and the triangle.

Was his peak better than Wade's? No, but it was longer. Was it better than Nash or Pippen, yes, though it wasn't as long. But it was a solid 8 seasons with few injury concerns and that's about where I expect an average great player to have a peak, I give bonuses for significantly more and minuses for less but 8 season peak v. 10 season peak . . . meh.

[ElGee]

90% sure that Magic said that about Scottie Pippen (turning his back).

[PTB Fan]

Hi guys. I'm new around here. I saw someone mentioned that he cannot believe that he heard Frazier being better than both Pippen and Nash. Well, Walt was the best of them 3 by by far.

Vs Nash: Now, offensively Nash is much better (one of the best ever), but Frazier was the more all-around player, took over better, performed better in the clutch, was a better leader, scored more and shone at his brightest when it mattered most.

Defensively, it's not even worth to debate this part. Add to this that Nash became superb when he got somewhat in Phoenix which leaves questions is he playing great because of the system or that he truly became what he's now.

Frazier got to be the best with the likes of Wilt, Baylor and West on the same floor. Unbelievable thing. His stats were limited because he played on an unselfish team and in triangle offense. But it was Walt who got the Knicks back to life in the Finals and led them to title as the leader of those teams.

I'd say that Nash's offense is much better, he made the likes around better, but he's not worth to be argued over Walt, period.



Vs Pippen: Difference here is clearly. Both played in the triangle. Scottie was the better all-around player, was a better playmaker but he wasn't the better overall player. First of all, Walt was the best player on his team, something that Scottie never was.

He was the one who took over when it mattered, as he performed better in the clutch, was better on the boards, scored better, achieved more, had a better peak and was a better leader. He got the Knicks to those wins, which wasn't the case with Pippen.

[PTB Fan]

By the way, for my personal list, i don't have a clear No.1

IMO, there are plenty of guys with good cases for #1 besides Jordan

-Russell
-Jabbar
-Magic
-Bird
-Shaq
-Hakeem
-Timmy
-West
-Big O
-Wilt
-Erving
-Baylor

Now of all these guys, there are guys with terrific cases but there are some with weak cases.

[Doormatt]

Baylor has absolutely NO case for #1, neither do a handful full of those guys. Hell, Baylor isn't even in my top 20. Only people that can legitimately be considered GOAT are Russell, MJ, and KAJ, with Magic and Bird on the outside looking in. Everybody else either has a flaw preventing them (Shaqs attitude/leadership/defense), or just didn't have the impact.

[ThaRegul8r]

There are not 12 players in the history of the game with an argument for #1. That's ridiculous.

[JordansBulls]

By the way, for my personal list, i don't have a clear No.1

IMO, there are plenty of guys with good cases for #1 besides Jordan

-Russell
-Jabbar
-Magic
-Bird
-Shaq
-Hakeem
-Timmy
-West
-Big O
-Wilt
-Erving
-Baylor

Now of all these guys, there are guys with terrific cases but there are some with weak cases.

All of those in bold have no case whatsoever.