RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[Sports Realist]

I don't get this RGM obsession with KG either...

Here, just for fun:

Dirk vs KG year-for-year:
2000: KG
2001: KG
2002: KG
2003: Dirk
2004: KG
2005: Dirk
2006: Dirk
2007: Dirk
2008: KG
2009: Dirk
2010: Dirk
2011: Dirk
2012: Dirk
2013: Wash
2014: Dirk

Why does KG even top Dirk? 4th place votes are direspectful, and I think landing at 11 is too high... He shouldn't be above West, Oscar, and probably Kobe... Moses would be there too, although he's lower here so i won't get into that..

Well first, careful about using a phrase like "disrespectful" when we talk about an opinion that's if anything too positive. Obviously no one is praising KG in order to spite a bunch of other players.

As far as your year by year assessment, well many would disagree with you on some of those years. I think though the more informative points would be these:

1) I typically find it more useful to start by getting a sense for how good a player is in his prime, and from there consider longevity, as oppose to an approach like this one. Reason being that we have no idea how big the yearly edges are in a list like your, and also you can get the impression one guy dominated over the other when in fact the players in question just peaked at different times.

2) Note your choice of Garnett in '08 after him losing out in the years surrounding. Obviously Garnett wasn't literally a superior player then inferior then superior then inferior. It was just circumstances getting in the way. I would recommend not letting such circumstances dominate your assessment of the players.

He actually WAS literally a better player... Garnett became a defensive beast in Boston, he wasn't much known for "DPOY D" before... Only one of his Minnesota teams was top 10 in Drtg, an important stat for defensive anchors... Also he brought great all-around and clutch game, the latter something he wasn't known for.

I understand your nr.1 point, but I would say the edges in this care are generally equal, if not larger in Dirk's favor in seasons like 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011.. Dirk was top 3-5 every one of those years.

[Sports Realist]

Dirk vs KG year-for-year:
2000: KG
2001: KG
2002: KG
2003: Dirk
2004: KG
2005: Dirk
2006: Dirk
2007: Dirk
2008: KG
2009: Dirk
2010: Dirk
2011: Dirk
2012: Dirk
2013: Wash
2014: Dirk

Why was Dirk better in 2003 and 2012? I think that Garnett was rather clearly better in '03 (and Nowitzki was amazing, as well, but Garnett was arguably at his peak that year), and I think that 2012 should called a wash.

Except it wasn't arguable at all, KG's peak was '04...

Dirk was amazing in the playoffs, and would have probably won the title had he not gone down...

But I'm fine with as wash.. You probably wouldn't, though..

[Doctor MJ]

He actually WAS literally a better player... Garnett became a defensive beast in Boston, he wasn't much known for "DPOY D" before... Only one of his Minnesota teams was top 10 in Drtg, an important stat for defensive anchors... Also he brought great all-around and clutch game, the latter something he wasn't known for.

I understand your nr.1 point, but I would say the edges in this care are generally equal, if not larger in Dirk's favor in seasons like 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011.. Dirk was top 3-5 every one of those years.

Think about it though: Garnett became a defensive beat in Boston in 2008. Do you really think that the year 2008 is the important thing, or could Garnett have done that in 2006 or 2004, etc. When Garnett went to Boston, his role shifted. He was now playing with Pierce and Allen who were offensive-oriented players, and so he was able to focus more on defense. He had a lot of impact playing that way, but fundamentally he was still the same guy. Same body, a little bit older, same brain, a tad wiser.

[G35]

He actually WAS literally a better player... Garnett became a defensive beast in Boston, he wasn't much known for "DPOY D" before... Only one of his Minnesota teams was top 10 in Drtg, an important stat for defensive anchors... Also he brought great all-around and clutch game, the latter something he wasn't known for.

I understand your nr.1 point, but I would say the edges in this care are generally equal, if not larger in Dirk's favor in seasons like 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011.. Dirk was top 3-5 every one of those years.

Think about it though: Garnett became a defensive beat in Boston in 2008. Do you really think that the year 2008 is the important thing, or could Garnett have done that in 2006 or 2004, etc. When Garnett went to Boston, his role shifted. He was now playing with Pierce and Allen who were offensive-oriented players, and so he was able to focus more on defense. He had a lot of impact playing that way, but fundamentally he was still the same guy. Same body, a little bit older, same brain, a tad wiser.

Now see this sentence is how I feel about player evaluation. I don't see players being significantly different year to year beyond things like motivation/desire or some emotional factor.

But people seem to value peak play as the player being somehow different than any other year.

How is 2004 KG different than 2008 KG? Probably not much different OTHER THAN ROLE.

To me the role a player plays on a team is the primary factor in production e.g. RAPM and all the other impact stats.

We have a ton of examples Wilt vs Russell. Russell goes to a team that only needed him to be a defensive anchor, while perhaps facilitating on offense whereas Wilt was on a team that needed him to provide a lot more. That is why I have a problem with the perception of Hakeem; he really was not much different from 1986-1995 besides his role on the team. He increased his volume and he got wiser or you could say his attitude changed. I don't think Shaq really changed all that much even though people want to conveniently say, "Shaq's peak was during 2000 and 2001.", conveniently when he won titles. Do people think Shaq was not a beast before then? Nash is a prime example, do people really think he became an MVP caliber player in 2005 after never being one the eight years prior? What changed was his role on the team and supporting cast. Look at Karl Malone and his two MVP seasons, was he really that different a player? Not really, and his role did not change, they added Hornacek and it made the entire team better.

KG did not change when he went to Boston. He was a part of a great defensive system and great teammates allowing KG to fit into a specific role perfect for his talents. If KG had went to the Lakers I don't think he has the same impact defensively and people have a different perception of him all time. Role and support are the biggest factors when evaluating a player.....

[tsherkin]

even though people want to conveniently say, "Shaq's peak was during 2000 and 2001.", conveniently when he won titles. Do people think Shaq was not a beast before then?

This is a strange thought, because there are any numbers of indicators pointing to his play peaking from a variety of angles... and the narrative of Phil Jackson showing up, implementing the triangle and maximizing his efficacy is also worth mentioning. There are also the physical differences between 00 Shaq and his Orlando and earlier-LA incarnations to take into account. The peak phenomenon isn't a phantom event, it's a real thing that happens to players.

Role and support absolutely matter, but let's not pretend that physical maturation/changes and in-league experience don't matter.

[drza]

Spoiler:

I don't get this RGM obsession with KG either...

Here, just for fun:

Dirk vs KG year-for-year:
2000: KG
2001: KG
2002: KG
2003: Dirk
2004: KG
2005: Dirk
2006: Dirk
2007: Dirk
2008: KG
2009: Dirk
2010: Dirk
2011: Dirk
2012: Dirk
2013: Wash
2014: Dirk

Why does KG even top Dirk? 4th place votes are direspectful, and I think landing at 11 is too high... He shouldn't be above West, Oscar, and probably Kobe... Moses would be there too, although he's lower here so i won't get into that..

Well first, careful about using a phrase like "disrespectful" when we talk about an opinion that's if anything too positive. Obviously no one is praising KG in order to spite a bunch of other players.

As far as your year by year assessment, well many would disagree with you on some of those years. I think though the more informative points would be these:

1) I typically find it more useful to start by getting a sense for how good a player is in his prime, and from there consider longevity, as oppose to an approach like this one. Reason being that we have no idea how big the yearly edges are in a list like your, and also you can get the impression one guy dominated over the other when in fact the players in question just peaked at different times.

2) Note your choice of Garnett in '08 after him losing out in the years surrounding. Obviously Garnett wasn't literally a superior player then inferior then superior then inferior. It was just circumstances getting in the way. I would recommend not letting such circumstances dominate your assessment of the players.

He actually WAS literally a better player... Garnett became a defensive beast in Boston, he wasn't much known for "DPOY D" before... Only one of his Minnesota teams was top 10 in Drtg, an important stat for defensive anchors...

Garnett was absolutely a defensive beast in Minnesota, and was very much known for DPoY caliber D while there.

KG already had six All Defense 1st team selections while in Minnesota. He also had two 2nd place finishes and one 3rd in the DPoY vote, so accolades-wise he was considered super-elite.

Statistically, KG measured out among the top-8 defenders according to defensive RAPM 4 times, including two top-3 finishes and one #1 finish.

According to at least one NBA front office, Garnett measured out statistically as the best defensive player in the NBA by a big margin during his Minnesota playing days.

In Boston the Celtics finally put him in a situation where his team success was able to mirror his defensive prowess, and he also took on an even more defensive role, but prior to that time he was absolutely DPoY caliber with a mega defensive resume.

[JordansBulls]

We probably should stop the project after the top 50 are done. It is getting less and less participation now.

[ceiling raiser]

We probably should stop the project after the top 50 are done. It is getting less and less participation now.

Not sure.

I've been reading the past few threads and participating here and there, but I don't think I've voted since Ewing got in a few spots ago.

There is a run of PGs going on right now, but I'm not sure that bigs should be off the table. I'm pretty high on centers so maybe it's my bias, but I do think Dwight, Reed, and a few others could be part of the conversation at this point.

It's pretty tough IMO. It'd be great if we went all the way to 100, because there are a lot of players who aren't brought up on this board very often who deserve to be discussed. I'm also concerned that there's going to be a rush for people to try and get their guys in by 50 if we stop there, since the same thing happened with the top 10 (and to a lesser extent top 20). Not necessarily a good thing if agendas and strategic voting overtake the project.

[john248]

The Nash thread was a dozen pages and just prior we had the Mikan debate. Slowed down since the top 10, but not so bad. Still plenty of discussion.

[SactoKingsFan]

I'm hoping we make it all the way to 100. Top 50 project just doesn't sound right and there are several interesting players that we won't be able to discuss if we stop at 50.

[penbeast0]

What better things do we have to do in the offseason?

I'm still enjoying the discussion, some of the best discussions I've ever seen on this board and continuing to produce strong debate. The only problem is that I feel like I'm not always living up to the standard of analysis and proof the voters are looking for; I seem to be falling back on eyetest and the like while the RAPM numbers and statistical superstars take center stage. But I am more than happy to live with that. It doesn't stop me from talking a lot anyway.

[The Infamous1]

He actually WAS literally a better player... Garnett became a defensive beast in Boston, he wasn't much known for "DPOY D" before... Only one of his Minnesota teams was top 10 in Drtg, an important stat for defensive anchors... Also he brought great all-around and clutch game, the latter something he wasn't known for.

I understand your nr.1 point, but I would say the edges in this care are generally equal, if not larger in Dirk's favor in seasons like 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011.. Dirk was top 3-5 every one of those years.

Think about it though: Garnett became a defensive beat in Boston in 2008. Do you really think that the year 2008 is the important thing, or could Garnett have done that in 2006 or 2004, etc. When Garnett went to Boston, his role shifted. He was now playing with Pierce and Allen who were offensive-oriented players, and so he was able to focus more on defense. He had a lot of impact playing that way, but fundamentally he was still the same guy. Same body, a little bit older, same brain, a tad wiser.

Now see this sentence is how I feel about player evaluation. I don't see players being significantly different year to year beyond things like motivation/desire or some emotional factor.

But people seem to value peak play as the player being somehow different than any other year.

How is 2004 KG different than 2008 KG? Probably not much different OTHER THAN ROLE.

To me the role a player plays on a team is the primary factor in production e.g. RAPM and all the other impact stats.

We have a ton of examples Wilt vs Russell. Russell goes to a team that only needed him to be a defensive anchor, while perhaps facilitating on offense whereas Wilt was on a team that needed him to provide a lot more. That is why I have a problem with the perception of Hakeem; he really was not much different from 1986-1995 besides his role on the team. He increased his volume and he got wiser or you could say his attitude changed. I don't think Shaq really changed all that much even though people want to conveniently say, "Shaq's peak was during 2000 and 2001.", conveniently when he won titles. Do people think Shaq was not a beast before then? Nash is a prime example, do people really think he became an MVP caliber player in 2005 after never being one the eight years prior? What changed was his role on the team and supporting cast. Look at Karl Malone and his two MVP seasons, was he really that different a player? Not really, and his role did not change, they added Hornacek and it made the entire team better.

KG did not change when he went to Boston. He was a part of a great defensive system and great teammates allowing KG to fit into a specific role perfect for his talents. If KG had went to the Lakers I don't think he has the same impact defensively and people have a different perception of him all time. Role and support are the biggest factors when evaluating a player.....

This is so true

[ThaRegul8r]

We probably should stop the project after the top 50 are done. It is getting less and less participation now.

Now there's a surprise.

[Texas Chuck]

Seems like the people who have actually been engaged in discussion in most or all of the threads should be the ones with a right to complain about how the discussion is dropped off yet none of them are.

But the guys who aren't active--why do you even care? If it really mattered to you then you would participate.

So maybe don't criticize those guys carrying on? Still some really interesting discussion and some great posts by a number of guys.

[penbeast0]

Let's work on a good analogy:

Only the stronger posters survive the cuts, the rest are let loose after Kobe get in

Only the stronger teams go on to the playoffs, the rest go lick their wounds until the next time we run this (in 2017?)

[ChiTown6rings]

We probably should stop the project after the top 50 are done. It is getting less and less participation now.

Not sure.

I've been reading the past few threads and participating here and there, but I don't think I've voted since Ewing got in a few spots ago.

There is a run of PGs going on right now, but I'm not sure that bigs should be off the table. I'm pretty high on centers so maybe it's my bias, but I do think Dwight, Reed, and a few others could be part of the conversation at this point.

It's pretty tough IMO. It'd be great if we went all the way to 100, because there are a lot of players who aren't brought up on this board very often who deserve to be discussed. I'm also concerned that there's going to be a rush for people to try and get their guys in by 50 if we stop there, since the same thing happened with the top 10 (and to a lesser extent top 20). Not necessarily a good thing if agendas and strategic voting overtake the project.

I do a ton of reading throughout these threads. I'm not eligible to vote but I'd like to see this project go past 50.

[DQuinn1575]

Let's work on a good analogy:

Only the stronger posters survive the cuts, the rest are let loose after Kobe get in

Only the stronger teams go on to the playoffs, the rest go lick their wounds until the next time we run this (in 2017?)

I'm on it until 100 and plan to vote at every spot


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, we've done Top 100's 4 times before. I don't want to stop unless we really really find we really can't continue.

One thing I'm wondering is the speed though. It feels slow to me right now. If previously we've gone the same speed no worries, but if we're less far along than we were last time at this time of the year, might actually help to speed things up.

[tsherkin]

I'm in it til he end. Have been busier than I've liked, but them's the breaks, heh. I would like to see this make ot to 100, particularly now that we're wntering territory where Insuspect Inwill learn so much more than with respect to players we dosuss so commonly.

[Quotatious]

I wonder what happened to some of the guys who participated in the project early on, like Dr Spaceman or rico381. Both were IMO excellent posters, and neither seemed to have an agenda. I don't know if the answer is simply "life happens" or what, but both definitely seemed like they could contribute...