RealGM Top 100 List #30

[Warspite]

If Iverson had a winning playoff record vs Shaq, Duncan and MJ and won multiple titles playing in several others he would have my consideration as well. However since he doesnt he belongs with the Niques, Dantleys, Kings and C Webbs.

For others its HOW you succeed (having the right stats) but for me it is what you accomplish. Iverson could have been a great player and he could have been a winner but he chose not to so who am I to argue with him?

[Texas Chuck]

Iverson could have been a great player and he could have been a winner but he chose not to so who am I to argue with him?

I could have been swayed by this argument but I chose not to.....

[Warspite]

Iverson could have been a great player and he could have been a winner but he chose not to so who am I to argue with him?

I could have been swayed by this argument but I chose not to.....

You shouldnt be swayed. Stating a fact or truth has no ability to sway. Only lies have the ability to sway because men believe lies not the truth.

[trex_8063]

Iverson could have been a great player and he could have been a winner but he chose not to so who am I to argue with him?

I could have been swayed by this argument but I chose not to.....

You shouldnt be swayed. Stating a fact or truth has no ability to sway. Only lies have the ability to sway because men believe lies not the truth.

I'm sure that made sense in your head, maybe even sounded profound........But I'm seeing very little sense, logic, or truth in those words. Maybe it's meta, since we're talking about truth/lies???

[Owly]

IThe logic behind Isiah Thomas escapes me. He was the best player on the court who played for the best team. When he was outplaying MJ, Bird and Magic nobody told him that he still needed to play better because some kid in 20 yrs under totally different rules vs vastly inferior players was going to put up those stats. If those stats are so much more impressive am I to conclude that its much tougher to beat Steph Curry than Magic or Bird?

"When the 50 greatest players were honored I looked around and I noticed that every player who won a ring had at least 1 teammate with him who was also a 50 greatest. That is everyone but me and thats my legacy compared to the all time greats." Isiah Thomas

When he was outplaying MJ, Bird and Magic

Didn't happen. When did Isiah Thomas outplay any one of those guys? Or is this the way in which Gus Williams outplayed Kareem (except what he have of Gus's stats suggests that isn't as bad as saying Isiah outplayed any of those guys. Is a title requisite for this sort of outplaying or do you just have to be the percieved star and win a series. If so, remember that time Dolph Schayes outplayed Wilt? What kind outplaying is this?

If that quote is real then it shows a very poor grasp of history. Arizin won a title without a top 50 teammate. So to did George Mikan. As did Bob Pettit. Also Hakeem Olajuwon, Dolph Schayes and Bill Walton. So six out of 49. If it were one or two maybe but ...

In any case that's terrible reasoning on his part. 50 is arbitrary. The list was likely influenced by winners bias. And the implication that coaching and non top 50 players are of little importance are absurd.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #30 - Havlicek

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ijo01.html

- 16 year career
- 11x all NBA (4 1st, 7 2nd)
- 8x all defensive (5 1st, 3 2nd)
- 3 top 10 and 2 top 5 MVP finishes
- 8x NBA champion
- 1x finals MVP

I think Havlicek is one of the more interesting players in NBA history. His entire approach to the game can be summed up in one word: workhorse. Fatigue was never a factor as he played big minutes and made a living off moving without the ball. Even with that being his strength, he was still a great playmaker for his position and had a solid first step. Defensively, he was quick getting into passing lanes and fought over screens quite well.

I've somewhat unconsciously been favoring longevity a little more than the average voter, so I'm going to stick to it. Havlicek made an impact from the very start to end of his career. He won finals MVP at the age of 33 and still played a role in the 76 championship run in his 2nd to last season. His durability was top tier, playing in 80+ games in 11 of his 16 seasons, never missing significant time due to injury. He only missed 2.6 games per season for his career.

He made contributions to all 8 championships, but the below 4 are where he excelled the most in the finals:

66 (7 games) - ~23 PPG, 10 RPG, 4 APG, 43% FG, 89% FT (5.3 FTAs per game)

68 (6 games) - ~27 PPG, 8.7 RPG, 6.7 APG, 42% FG, 88.5% FT (8.7 FTAs per game)

69 (7 games) - ~28 PPG, 11 RPG, 4.4 APG, 46% FG, 85% FT (8.4 FTAs per game)

74 (7 games, FMVP) - ~26 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 4.7 APG, 1.9 SPG, 43% FG, 87% FT (6.7 FTAs per game)

A lot is made of his scoring efficiency, so I decided to take a look at how he compared to the league average TS% during his highest volume scoring seasons (67-74):

YEAR / LEAGUE AVG / HAVLICEK

67 / 49.3 / 50
68 / 49.8 / 48.6
69 / 49.1 / 45.9
70 / 51.1 / 53.3
71 / 50 / 51.3
72 / 50.4 / 51.2
73 / 49.8 / 50.2
74 / 50.3 / 50.9

League average over that span was 49.9% vs. 50.2% for havlicek at 23.8 PPG. His TS% in the playoffs during that span was 52.3% at 26 PPG. Looking at how he consistently contributed in all areas of the game, scoring at average efficiency at that volume doesn't bother me. It's also encouraging that his volume and efficiency went up considerably in the playoffs.

I haven't found any detailed info on the celtics gameplan of getting up as many shots as possible early in the shot clock, which may partially be responsible for havlicek's so so efficiency. For what it's worth, the celtics ranked in the middle 3rd of the league in pace from 67-70, and top 3rd from 71-74, so there isn't a direct correlation there. I'd say havlicek just became a more polished player as his career went on.

Even with paul having an elite peak and impressive prime, I just can't give him the edge with his lack of overall longevity and so so health over the years. I give him the benefit of the doubt more than some on his playoff career as he hasn't played with a ton of talent until coming to LA. Even then, I think this was the first season where he really had championship expectations. What effect the whole sterling situation had on the team is at least questionable. I just feel his legacy is too incomplete to warrant this slot.

Kidd is clearly hard to judge as he had an up and down playoff career along with poor efficiency, but anyone who watched him enough knows his impact goes beyond the box score. I said in a previous thread that he's easily a top 5 on the fly decision maker in NBA history. I don't think we've seen many players with his kind of impact when they were past their prime. He continued to be a decent defender in his later days in dallas, partially based on instincts and size. By the time he finished his career in NY, he was basically a coach on the court directing others to be in the best position to succeed.

I had baylor next in line, but I wouldn't call him a lock. He has lack of longevity and questionable efficiency along with an uneven post season career going against him. He was still one of the best players of his generation, and had some impressive finals performances even when you adjust for pace. I give havlicek the overall edge due to longevity and being a more complete player, though.

I'm going to strongly start considering drexler over the next few votes. Seems people are overly critical of a guy who couldn't get over the hump in the finals twice against great competition, yet still performed well. Then he teams up with hakeem in his first year, and as we all know it's very hard to win a championship in your first year with a new team. He played quite well in the finals demolishing the magic. When you look at his great all around skill set and size at SG, i think he deserves to be coming up soon.

[Clyde Frazier]

If Iverson had a winning playoff record vs Shaq, Duncan and MJ and won multiple titles playing in several others he would have my consideration as well. However since he doesnt he belongs with the Niques, Dantleys, Kings and C Webbs.

For others its HOW you succeed (having the right stats) but for me it is what you accomplish. Iverson could have been a great player and he could have been a winner but he chose not to so who am I to argue with him?

…Why make such blanket statements all the time? Winning just 1 championship is very difficult. Getting to the finals just once is very difficult. Some players are more fortunate than others as far as the trajectory of their career is concerned. Iverson has clear flaws, and I haven't thought about where I'm going to rank him yet, but confidently saying "iverson chose not to be a winner" is simply unfounded.

[Basketballefan]

How do you guys think KD and Pierce stack up against each other? Do you take Pierce's good prime and longevity or KD's 2-3 monster years that are better than any of Pierce's? I wouldnt pit either in the top 35 though.

[D Nice]

So I'm catching up on reading in reverse (from #29-#23) and I'm seeing a lot of trumpeting of Paul, who certainly has been a fantastic player up until this point, but can one of his pundits explain why his postseason failings should be overlooked? Because his statistics by and large look great, more specifically, why should it be ignored that every single time he has faced a team that is either evenly matched, inferior (talent-wise), or superior but only slightly, he has lost? Every. Single. Time.

2008 vs. the Spurs. He put up some great numbers but NOH was the better/more talented team given Manu's injury. West & Parker were a virtual wash at that point, Duncan was no longer '99-'07 Duncan, and Chandler was the most useful supporting piece on either team. Lose in 7 with homecourt.

2009 vs. the Nuggets. Maybe you could say that his team was outcoached? Or lacked a bench? Because 1-4 NOH was equally, if not superiorly talented.

2011 vs. the Lakers. EDIT - Forgot David West had a season-ending injury here. Apologies.

2012 vs San Antonio. This is the most inexcusable series of his career. How does a supposed top 5 player get this badly outplayed by a not even top 10 player who plays the same position. I can't think of a comparable situation throughout history. Even on the rare occasion an MVP candidate gets outplayed by another player playing the same position, that guy is himself a superstar and the margin is never this big. And this time Paul DID have the more talented team

2013 vs Mempis. It's Blake's fault? Even though BG was his P&R partner, the best catch-and-finish player in the league, and got almost no easy looks at the basket (Chris's responsibility)? I'm asking more than chiding, really, because Griffin's 14/6 is obviously hugely disappointing. I just want to ascertain if the people trumpeting Paul totally absolve him of responsibility for this loss due to box score stats. For example I hold the '07 first round against Kobe (should have been more competitive) despite him putting up great numbers, but other Lakers fans do not. Is this the same thing going on here?

2014 I don't have many complaints, I thought they got jobbed in the OKC series but even losing in 7 isn't a letdown when both teams have 2 of the top 6 or 7 players on the planet and the other squad has the most useful supporting piece in the series (Ibaka). I would conjecture though that at this point Paul wasn't even the best player on his own team.

This, to me, is NOT the resume of a top 30 player ever, not yet. I read comparisons to Wade, but Wade actually does still hold a strong longevity adantage of ~ 2 productive seasons, and MORE importantly is in the habit of having his teams overachieve, not underperform, their talent. This is HUGE, because winning is what matters. Obviously Post '12 Wade is a different story, but I'm talking prime for prime here. '05, '06, '09, '10, '11 Wade I'd take [playoffs only] over any rendition of Paul. I trust him a lot more.

[penbeast0]

VOTES TO THIS POINT:

John Havlicek - Clye Frazier, lukecarts, Warspite, FJS (I think), Basketballefan,

Chris Paul -- DQuin1575, Doctor MJ, Owly,



Jason Kidd -- GC Pantalones, Chuck Texas

Elgin Baylor -- trex_8063, Jim Naismith

Isiah Thomas -- ronnymac2, JordansBulls

Bill Walton - batmana

I keep looking for a wagon to hitch my vote to but keep coming up just a bit short everywhere. Half these candidates were not efficient, half (Walton!) had no longevity, I think we have arguably the best matchup of peak v. career value here.

As I think Havlicek was not really a difference maker until 66 at the earliest and maybe later, I don't see his "goodness" lasting much longer than Paul's and I see Paul's "goodness" as being stronger at its peak. So, I join the forces of peakdom and put my runoff vote for Chris Paul.

Vote for Paul (Ah, it's like being back out on the libertarian campaign trail.)

[Warspite]

I could have been swayed by this argument but I chose not to.....

You shouldnt be swayed. Stating a fact or truth has no ability to sway. Only lies have the ability to sway because men believe lies not the truth.

I'm sure that made sense in your head, maybe even sounded profound........But I'm seeing very little sense, logic, or truth in those words. Maybe it's meta, since we're talking about truth/lies???

Its the 1st chapter of the book of Romans.

Its also found in Mien Kempf and was stated by Joseph Goebbels in his diary.

Truth is truth it has no ability nor need to sway you.

[colts18]

2011 vs. the Lakers. Here LA is not more talented the way the names would suggest. Bryant's body fell apart to the point he considered retiring that off-season (he went on to be just as pedestrian in the following series). West was > Pau who was completely useless after Shannon stuck his girl. Bynum/Odom/MWP certainly didn't outstrip Ariza/Landry/Okafor, so what is the excuse here exactly?

If you think that the Hornets cast was comparable to the Lakers cast that season, I can't help you. The 2011 Lakers were loaded. They were on a much higher tier than the Hornets.

[Warspite]

If Iverson had a winning playoff record vs Shaq, Duncan and MJ and won multiple titles playing in several others he would have my consideration as well. However since he doesnt he belongs with the Niques, Dantleys, Kings and C Webbs.

For others its HOW you succeed (having the right stats) but for me it is what you accomplish. Iverson could have been a great player and he could have been a winner but he chose not to so who am I to argue with him?

…Why make such blanket statements all the time? Winning just 1 championship is very difficult. Getting to the finals just once is very difficult. Some players are more fortunate than others as far as the trajectory of their career is concerned. Iverson has clear flaws, and I haven't thought about where I'm going to rank him yet, but confidently saying "iverson chose not to be a winner" is simply unfounded.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGDBR2L5kzI[/youtube]

[drza]

I'll vote Jason Kidd in this thread.

I'll go back and edit post #42 to put the vote there, since that's where I've got reasoning.

ETA: I see that Pen's already swapped it to a run-off, and my vote wouldn't have mattered anyway. But at least it's here for posterity

[D Nice]

2011 vs. the Lakers. Here LA is not more talented the way the names would suggest. Bryant's body fell apart to the point he considered retiring that off-season (he went on to be just as pedestrian in the following series). West was > Pau who was completely useless after Shannon stuck his girl. Bynum/Odom/MWP certainly didn't outstrip Ariza/Landry/Okafor, so what is the excuse here exactly?

If you think that the Hornets cast was comparable to the Lakers cast that season, I can't help you. The 2011 Lakers were loaded. They were on a much higher tier than the Hornets.

I'm not asking for "help" from you, you could read what I wrote a bit more clearly. The names belie the actual talent on that team. Kobe by the last few weeks of the season was NOT a top 5 or even top 10 player, Pau Gasol was NOT an all-star type of player, so if you are calling us "loaded," you are doing so on the backs of Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom (who to his credit had the best season of his career that year). If you are doing so on the basis of an assumption that Bryant and Gasol were even the slightest bit comparable to their '08-'10 selves, you had no idea what was going on (which, of course, coming from someone who loves referencing the Mavs spectacular job of "shutting down Kobe" on the way to a GOAT playoff run, is completely unsurprising).

For reference the last 18 games of the season (RS & POs) Kobe averaged 24/4/4 playing the worst defense he had in years shooting 43% from the floor. In the series again NOH he averaged 22/4/4 shooting 44% from the field. Gasol during the same series put up 13/7/4 shooting 42% from the floor.I did however go back and realize that West didn't play that series which changes EVERYTHING. Can't believe I didn't recall that, so that part of my post SHOULD be disregarded, though not for the "reasons" you cite.

[tsherkin]

I vote for Chris Paul.

I think he's better than Isiah, but hasn't had the advantage of teammates coming through for him. I think the same thing of him relative to Havlicek, though I respect both Thomas and Hondo. Baylor isn't really on my radar yet, he's in that Nique/Melo zone for me.

I'm gaining more of an appreciation for Kidd; not enough to vote for him here, but enough to at least pause and think about it. I would still generally consider it wiser to build around a more skilled offensive PG than someone like Kidd because you're creating a fault that you don't necessarily need in order to gain a strength you can find elsewhere more easily, but when it's more his time, we'll get back into that.

Paul hasn't had the team performance to go before this, but now seems a good time for him. Statistical monster, has had SOME playoff success despite mostly running into really big-gun squads, and I don't feel it fair to keep penalizing for lack of team success when most (not all, but most) of his playoff shortcomings have been from inadequate support. Or him being injured, and his longevity has also factored into me leaving him off of some earlier spots.

[Basketballefan]

Contribute without baiting other posters.

[ronnymac2]

Runoff Vote: Chris Paul

Durability is an issue with Paul, but his peak and prime are superior enough to Hondo that I'll take him. The only times Paul could conceivably have gotten to the WCF is 2008 and 2014 to me. Paul was a top-5 player in 2008 and nearly beat San Antonio with a crap bench, inferior coach, and poor ball-handling wings beside him. That series was super close btw.

Then in 2014, Clippers are legit title contenders, but narrowly lost to legit title contenders (with the second best player on earth in Kevin Durant and top-end talent as impressive as LAC) in the second round. You could argue a healthy OKC is the best team in basketball last season, and they had a huge matchup advantage against LAC, which incidentally, Paul did a decent of job of covering up for a game or 2.

I'm voting for Paul, but I kind of hope Hondo gets in. I want to live life like John Havlicek played basketball: perpetual motion, everlasting energy to get things done, simple, not flashy, help teammates, work hard, win a lot, and be happy with your contribution at the end of the day.

[Jim Naismith]

Vote John Havlicek

Proved himself both as sixth man and starter.

Epitome of offensive and defensive versatility

Winner of eight championships

FMVP, 4x 1st Team, 7x 2nd Team, 5x Defense 1st Team, 3x Defense 2nd Team, 13x All Star

[Narigo]

vote: Hondo

While, I think Chris Paul has the potential to be the 3rd greatest point guard ever after Magic and Oscar, I dont think he has the longevity to beat out Hondo just yet.