RealGM Top 100 List #35

[Texas Chuck]

I think Doc was referring (at least in part) to perception by his (Artis's) professional peers, and not just fan-base.

My apologies if I misunderstood that, but his wording in my eyes leaves it wide open to interpretation. I certainly didn't interpret it as a peer-review. I would have thought he would have specified that.


And I'd love more of your thoughts on Gilmore's offense. I agree he is the better offensive player, but I'd like to get a handle on exactly people judge him to be. As I stated, I'm not as up to speed on Gilmore as any of the players to this point in the project. He's just never a player whose held much interest to me for whatever reason. My mind is wide open on him. Kinda like I was on Dr J only magnified.

[trex_8063]

What are some thoughts and opinions of GP?

See post #1 and post #31 itt; otherwise there was actually a fair bit of discussion about him in the previous (#34) thread, iirc.

[ChiTown6rings]

What are some thoughts and opinions of GP?

See post #1 and post #31 itt; otherwise there was actually a fair bit of discussion about him in the previous (#34) thread, iirc.

I'll backtrack and look at #34.

[DQuinn1575]

Official vote - Artis Gilmore.

Why? Mainly because of his elite defense for the first 6 seasons of his career, when he anchored the best or second best defense in the ABA (first 5 in the ABA, then one in the NBA), but he was still an All-Defensive 2nd team member in 1978, when Chicago's DRtg dropped by a ton - it may be a sign of him getting that recognition due to reputation, like for example Kobe's All-Defense selections in the late 2000s/early 2010s, but it may also be similar to Ewing's 1990 and 1991 season, KG's seasons in Minnesota (except 2004), or 2014 Dwight, who we know were great individual defenders, but just didn't have a lot of defensive talent around them, and as a result, didn't anchor top 10 defensive teams.

Gilmore's longevity/durability was amazing - he had 15 All-Star caliber seasons, and despite his offensive limitations (poor hands, poor passer, turnover prone), he was still a very competent scorer - averaged over 20 PPG in 6 different seasons, all on very high efficiency. He's also second all-time in career TS%, and third in career field goal percentage - with USG% over 20, and 18.8 PPG for his career, that's a very impressive accomplishment.

He was also a great rebounder (for example his career TRB% is higher than Shaq's, D-Rob's and Ewing's.

Also a pretty good playoff performer (just -1.1 PPG, -1.0 PER, -2.1% TS and -1.9 WS/48, compared to his career regular season numbers, so he was definitely reliable in the postseason).

Playoff career, scoring efficiency and longevity (just by a bit in terms of longevity) are his arguments over Payton.
Longevity (huge edge) and defense are his arguments over Durant.
All-around play (scoring + defense + rebounding) are his arguments over Reggie.
Scoring, defense and longevity are his arguments over Isiah.

Where is this meme coming from that Artis had "poor hands, poor passer, turnover prone" -- he didn't and wasn't. He wasn't particularly elite at any of these facets but he had decent hands, was a better passer and less turnover prone than the likes of Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo, or Dwight Howard. What is accurate is that he tended to be passive in the post rather than actively calling for the ball and that he did not have a tremendous b-ball IQ. But then, neither did any of those I already mentioned.

Gilmore having bad hands came from me, I am from Chicago and I'm sure I saw more Bulls games with Gilmore then anyone else on this board; although I admit I like most everyone saw very few aba games.


Artis was very strong, and a good leader. He was pretty solid defensively- maybe top 10 all-time defense. But he was not a player you could build an offense or team around.

He dominated a weak center league in the aba where a past prime Beaty was the second best center.

He was a good center in Chicago, but barely a top 10 player in the league at best.

Then he went to San Antonio where the star of the team was george gervin. I think gervin ranks higher than Gilmore or Reggie miller.






Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[john248]

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.

That's versatillity. Portability is not whether one can adapt to the new situation, but whether he can be valuable in it. Being more versatile helps, but some roles are inherently more portable than others.

Thanks for the explanation. Isn't there a downside if he is paired with a similar player- say Ray Allen or Steve Kerr

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

If it interests you, watch Portland games and see what they do with their shooters.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Doc was referring (at least in part) to perception by his (Artis's) professional peers, and not just fan-base.

My apologies if I misunderstood that, but his wording in my eyes leaves it wide open to interpretation. I certainly didn't interpret it as a peer-review. I would have thought he would have specified that.


And I'd love more of your thoughts on Gilmore's offense. I agree he is the better offensive player, but I'd like to get a handle on exactly people judge him to be. As I stated, I'm not as up to speed on Gilmore as any of the players to this point in the project. He's just never a player whose held much interest to me for whatever reason. My mind is wide open on him. Kinda like I was on Dr J only magnified.

I suppose I'm a bit guilty of hiding behind language that I thought would be unobjectionable because I wasn't looking to really get into it.

But yeah, when I talk about perception of Gilmore, what I"m really saying is that Mutombo being flat out better than Gilmore is not a belief that should be seen well within normal expectations.

Mutombo got MVP votes once in his entire career, and in that year he got 0.003 MVP shares while guys like Tim Hardaway and Glen Rice each racked up on the order of 50 times as many shares. Gilmore's relative low-profile NBA career, relative that is to what expectations were, still saw him get more respect than Mutombo before we even factor in the ABA years where you can very easily making a case for him as a Top 5 player in the world.

None of that means you can't think Mutombo is better. It's just that if you think that, you should be thinking that you are going WAY against the grain. And then to actually vote for Mutombo here, you're going way further than that because Gilmore's longevity kills Mutombo's.

I want to make clear: I don't think your opinion is crazy in the slightest. It's a very legit debate to me between the two, and Mutombo is one of the guys who keeps rising in my estimation as I learn more. So if you fall on the Mutombo side here, that's fine. I just said for myself, I couldn't go that far.

And it's because I have a lot of respect for Gilmore. While I don't think his defense was Mutombo-good, I think that at his athletic best he was a DPOY level guy. I also think that a lot of the knocks on Gilmore's offense have roots in thought based on the now obsolete thinking that he should have been scoring at big volume rather than working so efficiently. On the contrary, I think his approach is precisely what was needed in order to continue to have significant offensive impact LONG after a guy like Patrick Ewing saw his offensive impact basically die...and circling back to Mutombo, Gilmore seems to me to have a far great offensive impact well over a decade into his career than Mutombo ever had in any year.

But still, I get the debate. Not saying it's crazy

[Doctor MJ]

How can a guy who played one role for one team be considered far more portable?

A great player, but portable should apply to someone who could fill different roles or adapt.

That's versatillity. Portability is not whether one can adapt to the new situation, but whether he can be valuable in it. Being more versatile helps, but some roles are inherently more portable than others.

Thanks for the explanation. Isn't there a downside if he is paired with a similar player- say Ray Allen or Steve Kerr


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

A player's portability will never be perfect in the sense that it's equal in all situations, but when we get to the level where we're talking about an all-time great off-ball scorer's redundancy with a bench player, we're splitting hairs I think.

Talking a bit more seriously on Miller & Allen. Miller being putatively paired with Allen to me falls in the category of "similar players, one better than the other". In such a situation you're basically guaranteed poor fit, because it will never make optimal fit-sense to have two identical players out there on the court. So to me it only really makes sense to talk about such things when:

1) we're considering a talent superior to the player we're considering...which I don't believe is the case here (If I have Miller & Allen, and they both don't work off ball, Allen's the one who's going to need to find a new role.

2) the role in question has particularly ugly fit issues...which I don't believe is the case here. The role of off-ball scorer is actually noteworthy I think for being less problematic on that front as most.

[Moonbeam]

I'm sorry to have missed the past few topics. Glad to see Gilmore and Miller getting some steam, as they were my main two contenders (along with Elgin Baylor).

I'll cast my vote for Artis Gilmore here. His ABA years were fantastic, and although the league was not as strong as the NBA, I think it was clearly stronger during the time Artis was playing than in its infancy. My preferred incarnation of Weighted Prime Win Shares Per Game has him next (with Paul Arizin, Dolph Schayes, Reggie Miller, Chauncey Billups and Kevin McHale next up), and TrueLAFan's wonderful post was enough to give him the edge over Reggie for me, as Gilmore was both incredible and durable during his first eight years (giving him an edge in peak over Miller in my view) and still remained a very good player for several more years after that, so Reggie doesn't have enough of a longevity edge to pass him in my view.

I also really like Gary Payton, but I think I have him in the next group with the likes of McHale, Durant, Pierce and a few others.

Mutombo is an interesting candidate - he's my second favorite player ever so I'm keen to throw support his way, although his defense is obviously elite, I don't feel that he ever was truly a dominant force overall capable of wreaking havoc on the league in the way Durant, Bill Walton or Howard. His longevity is worth mentioning, but as DoctorMJ has rightly pointed out, he only played big minutes in 11 seasons - during his final 7 years, he never cracked 24 MPG. Still an incredible career that I loved witnessing, and I will cheer his entry into the list wherever it comes.

[Jaivl]

I can't tell you how annoying it is that you cut off my post halfway when the other half includes "and of course Gilmore at his best was considered the better player".

It's fine if you believe Mutombo was a better player and think his peak play is enough to overcome the longevity, but hackishly trying to make me look like a hypocrite is pretty pathetic.

And of course, if that wasn't your intent, maybe read a bit more carefully.

Hey, hey, first of all please calm. I quoted that part of your post because it's the only part I'm answering to.

Of course I know I'm going against peer-review here, but don't care that much about the "seems". Don't think I should choose an all-star offensive center, maybe DPOY caliber over who I think can be the post-Russell defensive GOAT. The offensive edge exists, but depending on how the team plays it's gonna be more or less noticeable, while the defensive edge is still there.

I think unless you are Shaq, Dirk, Karl or Barkley, building a offense around your bigs usually isn't the best option. Other players like KG, Tim, even Pau or Bosh produce great results. But it's not the norm. Usually you have to be a floor spacer (Dirk, Bosh are, Gilmore isn't), a ridiculously good volume scorer (Shaq, Barkley are, Gilmore is really really efficient but not a volume scorer), or a truly gifted passer and good enough scorer (Tim, Garnett, Pau are, Gilmore is a turnover machine). So in my opinion any other offensive big gets penalized because of the cost of opportunity. I see Artis Gilmore and I think "taller Dwight Howard".

[Texas Chuck]

I suppose I'm a bit guilty of hiding behind language that I thought would be unobjectionable because I wasn't looking to really get into it.

But yeah, when I talk about perception of Gilmore, what I"m really saying is that Mutombo being flat out better than Gilmore is not a belief that should be seen well within normal expectations.

None of that means you can't think Mutombo is better. It's just that if you think that, you should be thinking that you are going WAY against the grain. And then to actually vote for Mutombo here, you're going way further than that because Gilmore's longevity kills Mutombo's.


And it's because I have a lot of respect for Gilmore. While I don't think his defense was Mutombo-good, I think that at his athletic best he was a DPOY level guy. I also think that a lot of the knocks on Gilmore's offense have roots in thought based on the now obsolete thinking that he should have been scoring at big volume rather than working so efficiently. On the contrary, I think his approach is precisely what was needed in order to continue to have significant offensive impact LONG after a guy like Patrick Ewing saw his offensive impact basically die...and circling back to Mutombo, Gilmore seems to me to have a far great offensive impact well over a decade into his career than Mutombo ever had in any year.

First, I have no objections to your language. I was just mentioning to trex that I interpreted that section differently in regards to who you were referring to. It appears clear the error was mine.

And yeah I'm not comfortable saying Deke is flat out better than Gilmore. I have tried to be clear that I feel a certain about of ignorance in regards to Artis. My vote for Deke is in no way meant to be an indictment of Gilmore and as I mentioned I'm open to changing my vote if as I learn more about Gilmore I think he should be above Deke.

And I have been pretty consistent on the importance of longevity in my ranking of players. If a player is still making positive contributions to his team I could care less how far removed from peak or prime people think he is. Obviously how good you are in those years changes things. Karl Malone gets more credit than Jason Kidd for example. So yeah I wish Deke had more longevity. It's another reason I've waited this long to vote for him despite having considered him since the late 20's.

And, yes, I am fully aware that my view of Deke is higher than the norm. I agree that were I trying to convince others to vote for Deke(and I am not to the point where I am ready to do that yet) that the onus would certainly be on me to "prove" my case.

Deke is one of the few players in the project that I was leery about going in. He is a guy I am a big fan of despite my loathing of Georgetown centers in general(I recognize their talent but just never a fan). And if I have a bias to a player-type it would be the elite defensive anchor. My guess is part of that stems from 35 years of being a fan of a franchise whose best centers have been James Donaldson, Bradley, Dampier, and a year of Tyson Chandler. That experience can make you pretty center-aware. I personally like Deke more than several guys already voted in, but have delayed trying to make a case because I'm trying to account for my own bias.

And finally, while I'm still very open on Gilmore, I'll tell you the same thing I told beast in the Kidd/Payton debate: I don't like using offense here to push a guy that even his supporters think isn't the defensive factor Deke is above him. Again if I can get more information other than his high FG% to suggest that his offense is really valuable that could change, but I haven't seen that yet.

[john248]

I can't tell you how annoying it is that you cut off my post halfway when the other half includes "and of course Gilmore at his best was considered the better player".

It's fine if you believe Mutombo was a better player and think his peak play is enough to overcome the longevity, but hackishly trying to make me look like a hypocrite is pretty pathetic.

And of course, if that wasn't your intent, maybe read a bit more carefully.

Hey, hey, first of all please calm. I quoted that part of your post because it's the only part I'm answering to.

Of course I know I'm going against peer-review here, but don't care that much about the "seems". Don't think I should choose an all-star offensive center, maybe DPOY caliber over who I think can be the post-Russell defensive GOAT. The offensive edge exists, but depending on how the team plays it's gonna be more or less noticeable, while the defensive edge is still there.

I think unless you are Shaq, Dirk, Karl or Barkley, building a offense around your bigs usually isn't the best option. Other players like KG, Tim, even Pau or Bosh produce great results. But it's not the norm. Usually you have to be a floor spacer (Dirk, Bosh are, Gilmore isn't), a ridiculously good volume scorer (Shaq, Barkley are, Gilmore is really really efficient but not a volume scorer), or a truly gifted passer and good enough scorer (Tim, Garnett, Pau are, Gilmore is a turnover machine). So in my opinion any other offensive big gets penalized because of the cost of opportunity. I see Artis Gilmore and I think "taller Dwight Howard".

Gilmore doesn't need to be a floor spacer, so comparing him to one doesn't make sense here. He could easily fill an offensive role similar to what we see in Dwight with some touches to keep the defense a little more honest. Even Dwight played next to a spacer in Ryan Anderson or Dirk played with a finisher in Chandler, so Gilmore doesn't need to have great range since someone else can do that. You're also comparing guys who's usage fall in the 23 to 29% range to Gilmore who fell between 20-23% while taking a backseat to Issel, Theus, and Gervin at some point in his career. If Gilmore was as good offensively as Shaq, KAJ, or Barkley, we'd be voting him far earlier. As it is, he's being mentioned here. So really, the cost of opportunity is a guy who took 16 attempts and scoring 23 early in his career to taking 10 attempts and scoring 18...hardly an opportunity cost. I agree with your general idea, but it's far too rigid.

[SactoKingsFan]

I can understand why Durant has been gaining significant traction. He’s been an amazing player over the last two seasons and has had a great five year run, but I still don’t think he has the longevity to be in the top 35. I would have voted him in the top 30 if he had two more elite seasons or if he had 5-6 ATG seasons. I’ll stick with Gary Payton, who I consider the best two-way player yet to be voted in. With his combination of GOAT level PG defense, very good longevity and his overall offensive game (playmaking, consistently creating his own shot, backing down smaller/weaker guards and finishing at the rim), I don’t see any remaining players that should clearly be ranked higher than GP.

Vote: Gary Payton

[penbeast0]

Gary Payton – penbeast0, SactoKingsFan
Reggie Miller – john248, Doctor MJ
Kevin Durant -- RSCD3_, DQuinn1575
Isiah Thomas – ronnymac2, Warspite, JordansBulls
Artis Gilmore – trex_8063, Quotatious, Moonbeam,
Dikembe Mutombo -- CHuck Texas

So, it looks like a runoff between Artis Gilmore and Isiah Thomas. That said, I cast my runoff vote for Artis Gilmore for his defensive presence, his efficient scoring, his ABA dominance and because I think you have a better chance to win a title with Gilmore and a team of roughly equal power than you do with Isiah; magnified by the fact that a great center tends to have a bigger differential over the average center than a great small guard over an average small guard.

Isiah Thomas – ronnymac2, Warspite, JordansBulls
Artis Gilmore – trex_8063, Quotatious, Moonbeam, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #35 - Artis Gilmore

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... oar01.html

- 17 year career
- 5x all ABA 1st team
- 4x ABA all defensive 1st team
- 1x NBA all defensive 2nd team
- 1x ABA MVP (3 other top 10 finishes in NBA)
- 1x ABA champion

Some great posts about gilmore already in this thread, so i'll just highlight some of the things that impressed me with him. My earlier comment about gilmore offensively:

He used his size very well to create space, but it was more about agility than just sheer power. Far more athletic than you'd expect from someone his size as a finisher. As athletic as dwight is, he doesn't have the touch around the rim that gilmore had. He could go up in one fluid motion, absorb contact, and finish off balance without being right at the rim. Dwight had a good series statistically against POR last season, but he was still limited as far as what he was able to do offensively. That bothers me when evaluating him.

During gilmore's prime in the ABA, I think he had the best combination of offense and defense left on the board. As a rookie, he took the league by storm, winning MVP and leading kentucky to a league best 68-16 record. They finished 44-40 in the prior season. In his 75 championship run, he put up the following:

~24 PPG, 17.6 RPG, 2.5 APG, 1 SPG, 2 BPG, 54% FG, 77% FT, 60% TS, 114/95 OFF/DEF RTG, .213 WS/48

He also had an absurd 28 points and 31 boards in the title clincher. Even if we adjust for pace and a marginally lower overall talent level in the ABA, he still comes out looking rather impressive. And at the end of the day, I value his contribution to that championship highly regardless of any variables you want throw in there. Per David Friedman of 20 Second Timeout:

ABA Commissioner Dave DeBusschere challenged the NBA champion Golden State Warriors to play a three game series against Kentucky but, not surprisingly, the established league declined, realizing that it had nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose in staging such a matchup.

I don't quite know where I fall on the "you shouldn't run your offense through a big man" debate, but I think if you have someone as talented as gilmore, it makes sense. I don't doubt at some point you'd make that cut off depending on the big in question. Dwight is weird in that on the surface he still looks like he's in his prime, but most who've watched him enough over the years realize he's in decline. He's a far cry from his dominance in 2011. And while I'm definitely starting to value mutombo more as the dicussion goes on, I'm deterred by his adequate at best offensive game in this spot.

I'm trying to keep consistent with my valuing of longevity in this project, and i think it's especially notable when looking at players who split their career between the ABA and NBA.

Post ABA longevity from 77-86 (age 27-36)

~19 PPG, 11 RPG, 2 APG, .6 SPG, 2 BPG, 60% FG, 72% FT, 64.6% TS, 118/103 OFF/DEF RTG, .183 WS/48

That's 10 seasons of consistent production well into his 30s. While he may get knocked for being a passive scorer as his career went on, I appreciate his ability to still be an effective second option with a volume scorer like gervin. He didn't have as much playoff success in the NBA as he did in the ABA, but also faced tough competition along the way. In 77, 81, and 83, his teams would lose to the eventual NBA champs.

[DQuinn1575]

Gary Payton – penbeast0, SactoKingsFan
Reggie Miller – john248, Doctor MJ
Kevin Durant -- RSCD3_, DQuinn1575
Isiah Thomas – ronnymac2, Warspite, JordansBulls
Artis Gilmore – trex_8063, Quotatious, Moonbeam,
Dikembe Mutombo -- CHuck Texas

So, it looks like a runoff between Artis Gilmore and Isiah Thomas. That said, I cast my runoff vote for Artis Gilmore for his defensive presence, his efficient scoring, his ABA dominance and because I think you have a better chance to win a title with Gilmore and a team of roughly equal power than you do with Isiah; magnified by the fact that a great center tends to have a bigger differential over the average center than a great small guard over an average small guard.

Isiah Thomas – ronnymac2, Warspite, JordansBulls
Artis Gilmore – trex_8063, Quotatious, Moonbeam, penbeast0, Clyde Frazier

Isiah led an NBA team to two titles.
Artis led an team to one playoff miniseries win.

It's not even close.

Vote for Isiah

[SactoKingsFan]

I'll go with Gilmore in the run-off. I value his more impressive peak and prime, defensive impact and longevity more than Isiah's scoring, playmaking and playoff performances.

Run-off vote: Artis Gilmore

[Owly]

Vote: Artis

NBA peak: by PER: Gilmore 23.5, Thomas 22.2; by WS/48: Gilmore.208; Thomas .173.

NBA prime: 20+ PER seasons: Gilmore 7, Thomas 3; .180+ WS/48 seasons Gilmore 7, Thomas 0

NBA Career: by PER: Gilmore 20.2 over 29685 minutes; Thomas 18.1 over 35516 minutes; Win Shares: Gilmore 107.4, Thomas 80.7

NBA Defense: Gilmore

Gilmore's better just on his NBA years. Then that's ignoring his peak, ABA years. I think those ABA years, whilst certainly less than the same numbers in NBA years, are still very impressive. He dominated a competent (and sometimes slightly underrated ABA class of centers). And just in case you're hugely discounting the ABA as though it were nothing there's already guys in with significant ABA careers. Barry in particular is interesting. Barry who wasn't the defender Gilmore is and has worse metrics is in and he is missed out on the peak-prime of Havlicek, Cunningham, Walker, Bradley, Bob Love. That's quite a lot of the top SFs of the 70s (including basically all the old non-Barry, non-Erving top tier SFs and then he moved away from Erving after one year and the arriving Cunningham. So if you're annoyed at Gilmore seemingly having ducked a lot of very good rivals, it's not like there's not a precedent for a guy getting in like this. To be clear I'm not saying either ducked rivals, but if the notion is low competition, not playing your best rivals theres others already in like that (and Barry's years the ABA was a bit further behind the NBA).

Ewing too makes an interesting comparison that has been raised, he's now long in, and it's certainly not clear that he was better.

I didn't have time to come to a decision on Durant versus Gilmore. But in this head to head I'm very clear. It's Gilmore. By just about every measure.

Even playoff numbers Isiah's forte, Gilmore has better career playoff numbers. His NBA numbers skew low because of playoff runs in his mid-late 30s, but I'm not penalizing Gilmore for that when Isiah was long out of the league.

[Doctor MJ]

I can't tell you how annoying it is that you cut off my post halfway when the other half includes "and of course Gilmore at his best was considered the better player".

It's fine if you believe Mutombo was a better player and think his peak play is enough to overcome the longevity, but hackishly trying to make me look like a hypocrite is pretty pathetic.

And of course, if that wasn't your intent, maybe read a bit more carefully.

Hey, hey, first of all please calm. I quoted that part of your post because it's the only part I'm answering to.

Your statement about Nash had nothing to do with the first part of my post. Whether you were fully conscious of it or not, part of your argument was calling me inconsistent in my approach by pointing to a player I'm often called a homer of. This is implying someone is being biased or hypocritical.

On the face of it it would be a reasonable thing to bring up, but when the point only makes sense specifically because you cut out the rest of my post, it becomes something else entirely. When you manipulate someone's words in such a way that you can then call them a hypocrite, you're not going to get happy responses.

There's also the matter of, minus the vitriol, any reasonable response on my part required my to then re-type the stuff you deleted, which means you're wasting my time. So, perhaps I could respond in more of a zen fashion, but which is going to make you think twice about such posting patterns again, me being zen, or me making clear what a faux pas that was more stridently?

But look, I spoke out with force, but at this stage of things I'm not at all judging you on this in the long term. We all make mistakes. The moment passed, I'm chill.

Of course I know I'm going against peer-review here, but don't care that much about the "seems". Don't think I should choose an all-star offensive center, maybe DPOY caliber over who I think can be the post-Russell defensive GOAT. The offensive edge exists, but depending on how the team plays it's gonna be more or less noticeable, while the defensive edge is still there.

I think unless you are Shaq, Dirk, Karl or Barkley, building a offense around your bigs usually isn't the best option. Other players like KG, Tim, even Pau or Bosh produce great results. But it's not the norm. Usually you have to be a floor spacer (Dirk, Bosh are, Gilmore isn't), a ridiculously good volume scorer (Shaq, Barkley are, Gilmore is really really efficient but not a volume scorer), or a truly gifted passer and good enough scorer (Tim, Garnett, Pau are, Gilmore is a turnover machine). So in my opinion any other offensive big gets penalized because of the cost of opportunity. I see Artis Gilmore and I think "taller Dwight Howard".

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but the prolonged two-way nature of Gilmore's play is not something you see every day. I'm quite smitten with Mutombo, but it's tough for me to move him up quite to this level.

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Thomas

I'm not convinced Gilmore has done more in the NBA than Thomas has. Excluding his ABA seasons he was elite in the NBA for only about 7 or 8 seasons. Thomas was the leader and go to guy on an all time great team, and would've 3-peated had it not been for a bogus call. Thomas could've very easily been sitting on 3 rings and 2 FMVPS.

[RayBan-Sematra]

VOTE : A-Train

I think Thomas gets underrated by some on this board.
His Prime offensive stats in the playoffs are pretty solid and he endured several long runs.
He was also the clear leader of the Bad Boys back then.

Still Gilmore in a more supporting role offensively was pretty good (turnovers aside) and he was an elite rebounder Plus from what certain posters have said he appears to have been a pretty good defensive anchor and he has a clear edge in longevity.

So yeah I think taking Gilmore here is the right choice but in fairness I don't know enough about him yet to really feel confident about it but that isn't surprising given how far along in the project we are.