RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[Doctor MJ]

drza's response said the bulk of what needs to be said here, but also: You equating Duncan's defense with Russell & Hakeem is amusing to me. Forget about overall quality of player for a second, Duncan isn't at all the same type of defender that the other two are. For you to imply that you could just plug Duncan into Russell's role is just silly. Everything was predicated on Russell's freakish build which Hakeem is one of the few players in history that's similar.

I'm assuming you're saying Duncan isn't really close to being the defender that Hakeem was (forget Russell, I don't think anyone is comparable defensively)?

Why is that? I know Duncan doesn't fit the Russell mold like Hakeem...but to be honest, he wasn't all that far off when he was younger. Pretty agile, covered a lot of court, good shot blocker, high defensive IQ, great positioning, great rebounding, etc.

It's fine to say he's not Hakeem, but you're making it seem like he's not even close, and I don't buy that. I have been convinced that KG is the better defender between him and Duncan (your explanation about covering large areas of the court makes a lot of sense), but it's not like Duncan was slow footed in his prime. I see KG being the #1 defender of this era, Duncan a close #2. If Hakeem/Russell/KG are the cream of the crop defensively, I think Duncan is just below that tier.

Basically, my long winded way of saying that I don't agree that it's ridiculous to include Duncan in this conversation as a defensive anchor, lol.

Totally understand the confusion, but I was hoping to be clear that I wasn't laughing at the notion that Duncan was the equal of the other two, but merely objecting strenuously to the idea that they were the same type of defender, and hence any notion that you could simply plug Duncan into Russell's role was DOA. Adjustments would have to be made, period, and any statement along the lines of what I replied to that doesn't talk about them is implicitly stating that the speaker is a bit of his depth.

[ElGee]

Question that I've been debating, and I don't really want to make a new thread about it:

Why is Barkley ranked over Nash, even by the guys that love Nash (ElGee, Doctor MJ)?

Barkley seems to be worse on either side of the ball, so what is the argument for Barkley over Nash?

Length of prime basically. Although it's an interesting question because really what you are asking is do I just underrate Steve Nash? Let's look at this way before bringing Barkley into the picture:

My all-time PG rankings are basically:
1. Magic
2. Oscar
3. Nash

(That's reflected in my top 100 GOAT ballot)

My all-time offensive peaks are probably:
1. Magic
2. Bird
3. Oscar
4. Jordan
5. Nash/Barkley

At least that's the list I sketched in the top 100 project last year. But Barkley is clearly ahead of Nash for me because, while Nash is marveling along the last two years, you've basically got 05 to 07 at his peak, and 2008 and 2010 as two more really good years. That's a difference in prime longevity that Barkley has on him.

Which again, begs the question (independent of Barkley), am I underrating Nash in Dallas or in his twilight years? I don't think I am...

[ronnymac2]

He was just as good in '09 as in '08 and '10.

[lorak]

At least that's the list I sketched in the top 100 project last year. But Barkley is clearly ahead of Nash for me because, while Nash is marveling along the last two years, you've basically got 05 to 07 at his peak, and 2008 and 2010 as two more really good years. That's a difference in prime longevity that Barkley has on him.

Which again, begs the question (independent of Barkley), am I underrating Nash in Dallas or in his twilight years? I don't think I am...

But in "Drob vs Bird" it was said skillset matters and Nash in Phoenix and Dallas was basically the same player, just differently used by coaches.

[ElGee]

At least that's the list I sketched in the top 100 project last year. But Barkley is clearly ahead of Nash for me because, while Nash is marveling along the last two years, you've basically got 05 to 07 at his peak, and 2008 and 2010 as two more really good years. That's a difference in prime longevity that Barkley has on him.

Which again, begs the question (independent of Barkley), am I underrating Nash in Dallas or in his twilight years? I don't think I am...

But in "Drob vs Bird" it was said skillset matters and Nash in Phoenix and Dallas was basically the same player, just differently used by coaches.

True to an extent. I think evaluating players involve some balance between those two ideas. My GOAT list took into account injury and circumstances, and in the case of Nash, the rule changes. If you don't think this is the best way to do it, I understand. I'm certainly not sold it, as last summer was the first time I've ever put together a list of that kind.

[ardee]

At least that's the list I sketched in the top 100 project last year. But Barkley is clearly ahead of Nash for me because, while Nash is marveling along the last two years, you've basically got 05 to 07 at his peak, and 2008 and 2010 as two more really good years. That's a difference in prime longevity that Barkley has on him.

Which again, begs the question (independent of Barkley), am I underrating Nash in Dallas or in his twilight years? I don't think I am...

But in "Drob vs Bird" it was said skillset matters and Nash in Phoenix and Dallas was basically the same player, just differently used by coaches.

True to an extent. I think evaluating players involve some balance between those two ideas. My GOAT list took into account injury and circumstances, and in the case of Nash, the rule changes. If you don't think this is the best way to do it, I understand. I'm certainly not sold it, as last summer was the first time I've ever put together a list of that kind.

Btw, ElGee, what IS your GOAT list? I'd be curious to see what your top 20 looks like.

[ElGee]

Btw, ElGee, what IS your GOAT list? I'd be curious to see what your top 20 looks like.

The one from last summer is on page 12 of this thread I believe. If there are any changes to that now, they'd be small, so that will give you a good idea.

[JordansBulls]

Where will guys like Durant and Rose be on this list at the end of this season?

[ardee]

Where will guys like Durant and Rose be on this list at the end of this season?

Durant should definitely crack the top 80 if he has a good postseason. Rose really hasn't done enough yet, he's only had one truly impactful season.

[wigglestrue]

Reggie Miller at Forty-freaking-twoooooooooo? 42???????????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!

That is a disgrace to RealGM.

[Wone]

Reggie Miller at Forty-freaking-twoooooooooo? 42???????????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!

That is a disgrace to RealGM.

where you would rank him?

[wigglestrue]

Reggie Miller is well behind, at absolute very least, half of these players. Probably more like 75%. Possibly 95%. I have him in the top 100, which is no mean feat, but way down the bottom. I mean, for the love of christ, take some of these guys ranked behind him on this list and form a sentence, literally utter the sentence "RealGM collectively thinks Reggie Miller was better than _______":

43) Willis Reed
44) Bob Cousy
45) Dave Cowens
46) Allen Iverson
47) Bill Walton
48) Alonzo Mourning
49) Elvin Hayes
50) Chris Paul
51) Kevin Johnson
52) Bob McAdoo
53) Sidney Moncrief
54) Ray Allen
55) Bob Lanier
56) Alex English
57) Wes Unseld
58) Paul Arizin
59) Sam Jones
60) Manu Ginobili
61) Marques Johnson
62) Pau Gasol
63) Bernard King
64) Dennis Rodman
65) Penny Hardaway
66) Nate Thurmond
67) Robert Parish
68) Dolph Schayes
69) Grant Hill
70) Vince Carter
71) Dikembe Mutombo
72) Billy Cunningham
73) James Worthy
74) David Thompson
75) Nate Archibald
76) Chris Webber
77) Bobby Jones
78) Hal Greer
79) Mark Price
80) Connie Hawkins
81) Ben Wallace
82) Shawn Kemp
83) Chauncey Billups
84) Adrian Dantley
85) Deron Williams
86) Elton Brand
87) Bill Sharman
88) Jack Sikma
89) Mel Daniels
90) Larry Nance
91) Joe Dumars
92) Gus Williams
93) Carmelo Anthony
94) Tim Hardaway
95) Jerry Lucas
96) Chris Mullin
97) Dave DeBusschere
98) Brad Daugherty
99) Bob Dandridge
100) Bill Laimbeer

"RealGM thinks Reggie Miller was better than Elvin Hayes."
"RealGM thinks Reggie Miller was better than Dave Cowens."
"RealGM thinks Reggie Miller was better than Nate Archibald."
"RealGM thinks Reggie Miller was better than Jerry Lucas."
"RealGM thinks Reggie Miller was better than Chris Webber."
"RealGM thinks Reggie Miller was better than Joe Dumars."

etc.

(The most disgusting example IMO would be Bob Cousy, but apparently the collective stat-trapped mind of the RealGM PC board is twisted about Cousy. Goes without saying -- to anyone whose mind isn't warped -- that approximately 70-80 spots should separate Cousy from Reggie Miller. How it is, on this list, is as close to an abomination as you can get for something as ultimately insignificant as an internet message board ranking of basketball players.)

Anyway, almost every reasonable basketball fan with a modicum of knowledge listening to any of those sentences would assume that "RealGM" stands for some clueless 13-year-old Pacers fan. That's how this list represents RealGM. For the sake of RealGM's reputation, this thread should be quarantined in a hidden forum or deleted, seriously.

[GrangerDanger]

Did you even read the discussion threads? And you really didn't aruge why he shouldn't be at 42, so it's not like you are going to change anyone's opinion

[Wone]

oh i thought you meant he's too low.

[StateOfThunder]

I hate how people refer to this list constantly. There is obviously bias in this list especially recency bias.

I disagree with a lot on this list specifically Tmac being top 40 and Reggie being in the top 45.

[wigglestrue]

Did you even read the discussion threads? And you really didn't aruge why he shouldn't be at 42, so it's not like you are going to change anyone's opinion

Let me guess, points-per-shot blah blah blah, true shooting percentage blah blah blah blah, blah blah clutch blah. Maybe something about win shares and offensive rating, as if Miller's presence near the very top of those lists isn't a prime example of a composite stat inevitably failing to portray reality 100% accurately. There is absolutely nothing else to commend Reggie Miller to the top 100 besides shooting, and I guess longevity if you value sheer longevity. Not defense, not passing, not rebounding, nothing. Just shooting. And staying in the league for a long while. He was such a great shooter and was clutch enough often enough and did compile enough career totals that I think he still makes it, if barely.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ere01.html

There. That's all the statistical argument I need. Three All-NBA 3rd teams is nice, finished 13th and 16th in MVP voting is meh, never placed in the top 10 in anything except for shooting. There've been a lot of great shooters in NBA history. The only thing separating Miller from most of them is that he was a little better at it than most of them and hit a bunch of memorable late-game shots. To put him over multiple All-NBA 1st and 2nd teamers, over MVP winners, over some of the greatest all-around players ever, over some of the greatest all-around defenders ever, over undisputed leaders of championship teams, is a travesty that really doesn't need or deserve further explanation. People who put Miller in the top 50 have an opinion which I have no desire to change, because either they are so pot-committed to a handful of pet stats or one overriding statistical priority ("Efficiency!", "Longevity!") that they won't budge -- or they are incurable homers, like you. I don't mind homers. I'm one myself. But I'd like to think I have perspective enough to judge Celtics within a reasonable realm of accuracy. Miller in the top 50, at FORTY-FRIGGING-TWO, over players like Unseld, Cunningham, KJ, Moncrief, Reed, Debusschere, Mourning, McAdoo...there is no reasonable argument for that. None.

[rrravenred]

Did you even read the discussion threads? And you really didn't aruge why he shouldn't be at 42, so it's not like you are going to change anyone's opinion

Let me guess, points-per-shot blah blah blah, true shooting percentage blah blah blah blah, blah blah clutch blah.

Maybe participate next time, so we can benefit from your... um.... wisdom.

[AnaheimRoyale]

Reggie Miller is a pretty ridiculous rank here. I think the quality of analysis, with a few exceptions, was very high until about 25-30... then the participation seemed to drop alot, and more and more random and ridiculous players were added. In the top 25, there'd only be a handful of selections I'd have a real issue with, and even there it's more like "Kobe 10th! Come on dude, he's more like 13th", so this isn't a major issue.

[therealbig3]

Reggie Miller is a pretty ridiculous rank here. I think the quality of analysis, with a few exceptions, was very high until about 25-30... then the participation seemed to drop alot, and more and more random and ridiculous players were added. In the top 25, there'd only be a handful of selections I'd have a real issue with, and even there it's more like "Kobe 10th! Come on dude, he's more like 13th", so this isn't a major issue.

Who do you have major problems with outside of Reggie Miller?

[AnaheimRoyale]

Well, let's see. Pettit stands out as a huge error. That guy would not even be a top 20 player in todays NBA, yet he's 19th all time? Ridiculously bad ranking. The rest of the top 25 is basically defensible. Not always where I'd put them, but they all belong roughly where they are.

After that alot of "reputation" rankings start to come hard and fast; Stockton, Hondo, Isiah... these are guys more than 10 places too high, in some cases alot more than 10. Baylor is as bad, his team is well documented to have done better without him, and he put up inflated volume numbers in a different era.

Pierce is too high. Cowens is too high. Cousy shouldn't be on this list at all. Dwight should be higher (Lebron too, but that's mainly a longevity thing). That's within the top 50. Alot more bad picks after 50. Like I said, it looks like it fell apart gradually after 25.