RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #20

[SactoKingsFan]

Not close to voting for Mikan. There's quite a few bigs from Moses, Ewing and Pettit to Thurmond, Gilmore, Mutombo, Mourning, Howard, etc I'd have clearly over Mikan. I just don't see his era dominance as enough to make up for his lack of longevity and playing in a super weak era. Also not willing to give Mikan bonus points for pioneer status.

Much more impressed with what Moses accomplished against much tougher competition. Would have voted for Moses over Barkley. Moses had his flaws (black hole on offense, limited skill-set) but I see him as a less problematic franchise cornerstone than Barkley who was a lazy defender and had character issues.

Vote# 1: Moses Malone
Vote #2: John Stockton


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[pandrade83]

I always think there's no right way to weigh peak vs longevity. You can't even say "What would a GM do?" because that depends on context.

Let's take Curry because he represents an extreme:

In his short career he has had the GOAT regular season and led quite possibly the GOAT team (the mainstream thinks Durant did it, but that's not what the data says, and it's not how the team's approach was built).

What this means is that he's actually what you might call a Rushmore candidate. Someone whose significance is so huge that he could be one of slightly more than a handful of guys in history that you absolutely have to talk about if you were teaching Basketball History 101.

On the other hand, longevity is quite short. I wouldn't really object to someone having him way further down.

It's worth noting that to the extent you care about historical prioritization of peak vs longevity, basketball has been quite peak heavy compared to, say, baseball. Walton was a no-brainer HOFer, and Shaq was named Top 50 in history after only playing a few years. If you were to use that type of peak/longevity weighting, Curry deserves to a major, major candidate for you at the current spot.

And once again, on the other hand, when Shaq left Orlando shortly after that Top 50 spot was given to him, I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince an Orlando Magic fan that he'd contributed enough to their franchise to warrant that level of praise.

One more thing:

It's really tricky factoring in innovation and spearheading in general. Mikan is the most important historical player left on the boards, and I think we all agree about that, but when you look at more modern guys it gets trickier.

I'm sure others would disagree, but I'll come right out in say it: Nobody needs to learn about Stockton, everyone needs to understand Nash, and the reason is that Nash was a spearhead that was instrumental to the NBA changing offensive strategy on a level arguably not seen in generations, and Stockton just wasn't.

Nash deserves some credit for his spearheadedness, but how much given that in future generations whatever edge Nash had over Stockton will be less, and already career impact-wise with no extra weight toward prime, Stockton has the franchise value contributed edge easily.

You just have to figure it out for yourself.

Here's how I view the Stockton vs. Nash thing:

Stockton was the ultimate craftsmen. He maximized whatever god given talents he had - there was nothing left to squeeze out of that orange.

Nash was an innovator. He had a stylistic impact and I'll remember watching Nash much moreso than Stockton.

Stylistic impact and who I will remember - the edge goes to Nash hands down, not that close.

But in terms of impact on winning - Stockton's offensive impact metrics pan out roughly equal to Nash's, he did it for a longer sustained time period and was one of the better players (at his position) on the defensive side of the ball than Nash. And that's why Stockton gets my vote over Nash.

I'm not sure what data you're using to make the judgment. It would be good if you shared.

APM/RAPM data in my experience puts Nash as the top offensive player of his generation and better than Stockton appears to be in the limited data we have.

On the other hand, the defensive data for Stockton if memory serves was actually spooky strong. Like, the type of impact you just can't have as a point guard nowadays.

Regardless, rating Stockton ahead based on cumulative impact is a pretty unassailable position.

I think you're speaking to my offensive impact comment - if not, let me know & I can address for sure.

Because of the limited sample size (and we're looking at 38-40 yr old Stockton), I stayed away from RAPM for Stockton vs. Nash

Stockton's advanced stats I'm looking at on the offensive end from '88-'97:
ORtg above League Average: 14.81
Cumulative OBPM: +52.1

Nash's from '01-10:
Ortg above League Average: 14.38
Cumulative OBPM: +48.9

That looks really close to me - and slight edge for Stockton if anything.

[Pablo Novi]

[quote="Dr Positivity"]I don't have a problem with Pablo's criteria if it's what he believes in ...

/quote]
Me too. lol

[Narigo]

Vote: Moses Malone
Second Vote: John Stockton

What do you guys think about Artis Gilmore? I feel like he like should be coming up soon. His peak is probably as good as Ewing or at least close to it. Also, he has amazing longevity.

Also, he was the best player on the 1983 Spurs if we go by advanced metrics. Also he was tied in MVP voting with Gervin that year also.

[trex_8063]

Finally going to present some tidbits and data pertaining to the growth in national popularity of basketball from the mid-50's thru the 1970's, as well as a little data pertaining to integration (as I believe these things bear direct relevance to size/quality of player pool that the pro league can draw upon).
Will preface with the size of the BAA/NBA in # of teams (just noting the years in which it changed), since talent concentration/dilution is something that people often bring up. You can make judgments for yourself regarding the size of the league vs the likely size of the player pool (as judged by popularity indicators provided below).....


Size of League
'47 - 11 teams
'48 - decreased to 8 teams
'49 - increased to 12 teams
'50 - increased to 17 teams with the merger
'51 - decreased to 11 teams
'52 - decreased to 10 teams
'54 - decreased to 9 teams
'56 - decreased to 8 teams
'62 - increased to 9 teams
'67 - increased to 10 teams
'68 - increased to 12 teams (ABA comes into existence)
'69 - increased to 14 teams
'71 - increased to 17 teams
'75 - increased to 18 teams
'77 - increased to 22 teams with the merger
'81 - increased to 23 teams
'89 - increased to 25 teams
'90 - increased to 27 teams
'96 - increased to 29 teams
'05 - increased to 30 teams


Integration
The first black person played in an NBA game in the '51 season (though obviously league was still almost exclusively white, pretty much throughout the pre-shotclock era).

'55 - 7.7% black
'61 - 28.0% black
'67 - 49.6% black

^^^The above is from my own count, simply tabulating every single player who played even a single game in the given season, and noting whether was white or black. I believe it crossed the 50% mark in either '68 or '69.

According to Wikipedia, the proportion of black players peaked in '95 (at 82% black). It has since declined (with the influx of [mostly white] European and other global talents), generally hovering somewhere in the 74-77% range.


Pertaining to Popularity of the Game (in the US)
Average Attendance for Franchises (50's and 60's)
Hawks - 3,588 in '55; 6,829 in '67 (increase of 90.3% in 12 years)
Celtics - 7,027 in '55; 10,409 in '67 (increase of 48.1% in 12 years)
Pistons - 3,717 in '55; 6,459 in '67 (increase 73.8% in 12 years)
Warriors - 5,878 in '55; 7,727 in '67 (increase of 31.5% in 12 years)
Lakers - 5,388 in '51; 4,494 in '56 (decrease of 16.6% in 5 years; note '56 is a mostly Mikan-less year in which they weren't very good, whereas the were a champion dynasty team in '51).
Avg 11,154 in '67 (more than double over either '51 or '56: a 148.2% increase from '56 (in just 11 years), 107.0% increase over their championship '51 team).
Knicks - 8,565 in '55; 11,716 in '67 (increase of 36.8%)
Nationals (Sixers) - 5,276 in '51; 4,539 in '56 (decrease of 14.0%); but then 8,224 in '67 (81.2% increase in 11 years)
Royals - 2,478 in '55; 4,755 in '67 (91.9% increase in 12 years).


TV Contracts and Ratings
Nielson Ratings of Televised NBA games: In '61 --> 4.8. In '65 --> 6.0. In '68 --> 8.2 (proportion of viewing public increased by >70% in 7 years).

*The NBA's first TV contract was for $39,000 in 1954 (adjusted for inflation, that's about $350,000 today).
*The first nationally televised NBA Finals game was in 1956.
*In the years circa-1960, there was a precipitous rise in TV ratings (especially after 1962), gate receipts, and player salaries (wish I had a few more of the specifics written in my notes).
*ABC paid $650,000 for NBA TV rights in 1964 (adjusted for inflation, that's nearly $5.1 million today). This is one of the little factoids I found so amazing: the price on TV contracts didn't double, didn't triple but rather increased by 14-15x in a span of one decade (even accounting for inflation). I realize the huge increase in the number of households that actually own a television could be a big contributor to this, but not enough to account for that big a hike on the price-tag.
*A November 1966 issue of Advertising Age reported that average TV audience size for the early '67 season was up 26% from the previous year.
*ABC's TV contract for the '68 season was almost $1 million (~$6.9 million, adjusted for inflation......that's nearly 20x what it had been just 14 years previously).
*TV ratings on NBA games rose steadily from when ABC first got rights to the NBA (in 1964) thru 1970. William Marsano of the TV Guide predicted basketball would be "the sport of the 70's" because it's popularity had been rising so fast and steadily in the 1960's.
*ABC's TV contract in 1969 cost $3 million (adjusted for inflation that's nearly $20 million today......well over 50x what was paid 15 years earlier).
*In 1974, CBC paid $27 million for a 3-year contract ($9 million per year, adjusted for inflation is ~$40 million per year).



Anyway, I'll let you process this information in any way you like. Just putting it out there....

[trex_8063]

Vote: Moses Malone
Second Vote: John Stockton

What do you guys think about Artis Gilmore? I feel like he like should be coming up soon. His peak is probably as good as Ewing or at least close to it. Also, he has amazing longevity.

Also, he was the best player on the 1983 Spurs if we go by advanced metrics. Also he was tied in MVP voting with Gervin that year also.

I'm not quite ready for Gilmore, but as we near ~30, I'd like him to get some buzz. Almost criminally underrated player, imo.

[andrewww]

Still looking for input from others but gun to my head right now I'd side with Curry:

-Better peak impact
-Better impact on franchise direction overall

I think a good raw number to look at is the raw RS +/- from '09-10 until now:

http://bkref.com/tiny/GRIzC

1. LeBron James +4513
2. Kevin Durant +3813
3. Steph Curry +3541

Now one might naively think, "Aha, Durant has the edge and that doesn't even include his first 2 years, so Durant much have a really big edge." He was terrible his first two years though and so over his entire career he's actually way behind Curry. But even if you ignore that poor start, and start from a year where Durant was already in prime playing with fantastic talent around him while Curry was a rookie playing 2nd fiddle to Monta Ellis, Durant's raw edge is tiny.

When you add that Curry has the more noteworthy peak and has the franchise that Durant came to play for, it's hard to argue that Durant's really accomplished more despite the fact we all agree that Durant's talent seems greater.

What's impact though, how do you define it?

For example, all stats point to Curry as the engine behind GSW's superiority as a team offensively, but then we've seen KD's seemingly superior individual overall talent allow him to dominate matchups and not get rendered against physical (dare I say illegal) defenses as much as Curry has?

Is this project about "who has accomplished more"? Because if so (and I'm just using this as an example because its an easy one) then even if you throw out who you think was the better player, there's almost certainly no question that Kobe accomplished more than KG did (two of the more polarizing players in this project).

[wojoaderge]

What do you guys think about Artis Gilmore? I feel like he like should be coming up soon. His peak is probably as good as Ewing or at least close to it. Also, he has amazing longevity.

Also, he was the best player on the 1983 Spurs if we go by advanced metrics. Also he was tied in MVP voting with Gervin that year also.

Artis Gilmore is my favorite player discussed so far. But when I take off my fanboy cap and put on my Top 100 cap, I have to say that he's come to be pretty overrated. The stats and the advanced stats may look nice, but they didn't amount to much when it came to winning. He only won one ABA championship despite playing with two of the best players in ABA history. When to came to leading to an NBA team as its best player, forget it. I have E before A in my book. There's a reason he didn't make the '97 50 list.

[andrewww]

I'm not quite ready for Gilmore, but as we near ~30, I'd like him to get some buzz. Almost criminally underrated player, imo.

What about Artis Gilmore vs Nate Thurmond? It seems reasonable to compare them when my impressions of them as I think of them as similar caliber players to say Alonzo Mourning or Dikembe Mutombo.

[THKNKG]

I'm not quite ready for Gilmore, but as we near ~30, I'd like him to get some buzz. Almost criminally underrated player, imo.

What about Artis Gilmore vs Nate Thurmond? It seems reasonable to compare them when my impressions of them as I think of them as similar caliber players to say Alonzo Mourning or Dikembe Mutombo.

Gilmore/Mutombo/Thurmond are all in the same range for me, but Zo is significantly further down (first 3 are in the 30ish range, Zo in the 50ish).

[Dr Positivity]

Vote: Moses Malone
Second Vote: John Stockton

What do you guys think about Artis Gilmore? I feel like he like should be coming up soon. His peak is probably as good as Ewing or at least close to it. Also, he has amazing longevity.

Also, he was the best player on the 1983 Spurs if we go by advanced metrics. Also he was tied in MVP voting with Gervin that year also.

Gilmore is tough player to rate as it appears the people who watched him at the time in the NBA, like him less than the advanced stats show which were still that of a top 5 player. He never made All-NBA (brutal competition with only 2 teams though), didn't finish higher than 8th in MVP in NBA and was left out of the top 50 list and HOF for decades.

My interpretation of what happened is it is connected to his personality. Gilmore is one of the most introverted players on this list, he's a classic example of a giant who's insecure about not fitting in because of his size. I think critics took his lack of emotion on the court as being a heartless player and lacking aggression enough to dominate. It would be reasonable to say they were just stupid and production is production, but there's also a chance the eye test users were on to something, and it did limit his impact. While neither are in Gilmore's class statistically, to make an example my analysis of Joe Johnson and Deron Williams careers will always be affected by their personalities. I think it's valid to say that for a player like Johnson, there's something disappointing about him that it will be lost on for posters decades from now that can only go by numbers and skillset. I don't know enough about Gilmore to know whether he it's true or not that something was just missing, but I'm not casting off the people who were critical of him at the time either

[penbeast0]

...
When you add that Curry has the more noteworthy peak and has the franchise that Durant came to play for, it's hard to argue that Durant's really accomplished more despite the fact we all agree that Durant's talent seems greater.

Odd, I agree Curry has the more noteworthy peak, but I would have said that Curry's talent seems greater (and more unique) while Durant had a reasonably strong edge on longevity. I will have to think further about this because one or the other will soon be competing with Bob Pettit and Walt Frazier (two reasonably short careers) for a spot in the 20s for me. Then they have to compete with longer career guys like Stockton.

[Outside]

I'm not quite ready for Gilmore, but as we near ~30, I'd like him to get some buzz. Almost criminally underrated player, imo.

What about Artis Gilmore vs Nate Thurmond? It seems reasonable to compare them when my impressions of them as I think of them as similar caliber players to say Alonzo Mourning or Dikembe Mutombo.

Nate is my favorite player (his jersey is my avatar), so I'm glad to see him start to get some mentions.

For me, it's Nate over Artis (I know, big shock). But here's my reasoning.

Nate was one of the best shotblocking, defending, and rebounding centers ever who doesn't get as much shine as he should because his career coincided with the numbers 2, 4, and 6 players on the list. One of the great statistical tragedies of the NBA is that they didn't record blocks during the Russell/Chamberlain/Thurmond era except for the tail end of Thurmond's career. Even though his knees were going at that point, he was still able to record the first official quadruple double in 1974 (22 points, 14 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in his first game with Chicago). Russell, Chamberlain, and Thurmond would hold all the shotblock records if they had been tracked during that time.

Which brings me to Artis. I like him a lot, but he wasn't nearly as mobile as those other guys, and while he was a good defender, he wasn't near the defender and shotblocker that Thurmond was (Gilmore's career average is 2.4 blocks).

Artis was better as a scorer, but not tremendously so. He also had better longevity (17 seasons vs 14, 1,329 games vs 964).

It's not normally discussed, but Nate was an exceptional screen setter. Being more mobile, he also covered more territory than Gilmore offensively for both screens and his own shots (he had a decent outside shot). I recall Nate being a better passer -- he has the higher career assist average and higher season peaks, but not hugely so -- but I recall him operating a lot at the top of the key and the elbows, where passes sometimes result in assists but often just keep the ball moving as part of offensive flow. A lot of his screens achieved the same result as an assist without showing up in the box score. Nate was good at all those little things.

A few of his notable achievements:

-- One of five players to average 15 rebounds per game for his career (Chamberlain, Russell, Pettit, Lucas)

-- One of five players to average 20 rebounds for a season (did it twice; also done by Chamberlain, Russell, Pettit, Lucas)

-- One of four players with 40 rebounds in a game (Russell, Chamberlain, Lucas)

-- Holds the record for rebounds in a quarter (18)

Both guys are underappreciated. Maybe someone can make a case for Artis, but in my book, Nate ranks higher.

[Doctor MJ]

Here's how I view the Stockton vs. Nash thing:

Stockton was the ultimate craftsmen. He maximized whatever god given talents he had - there was nothing left to squeeze out of that orange.

Nash was an innovator. He had a stylistic impact and I'll remember watching Nash much moreso than Stockton.

Stylistic impact and who I will remember - the edge goes to Nash hands down, not that close.

But in terms of impact on winning - Stockton's offensive impact metrics pan out roughly equal to Nash's, he did it for a longer sustained time period and was one of the better players (at his position) on the defensive side of the ball than Nash. And that's why Stockton gets my vote over Nash.

I'm not sure what data you're using to make the judgment. It would be good if you shared.

APM/RAPM data in my experience puts Nash as the top offensive player of his generation and better than Stockton appears to be in the limited data we have.

On the other hand, the defensive data for Stockton if memory serves was actually spooky strong. Like, the type of impact you just can't have as a point guard nowadays.

Regardless, rating Stockton ahead based on cumulative impact is a pretty unassailable position.

I think you're speaking to my offensive impact comment - if not, let me know & I can address for sure.

Because of the limited sample size (and we're looking at 38-40 yr old Stockton), I stayed away from RAPM for Stockton vs. Nash

Stockton's advanced stats I'm looking at on the offensive end from '88-'97:
ORtg above League Average: 14.81
Cumulative OBPM: +52.1

Nash's from '01-10:
Ortg above League Average: 14.38
Cumulative OBPM: +48.9

That looks really close to me - and slight edge for Stockton if anything.

Looks to me like you're using box score-based stats here, and box score stats just don't properly capture the impact of players for me to use them as more than a first pass analysis. I don't ignore them by any means - they are useful, but they are not enough.

[Doctor MJ]

...
When you add that Curry has the more noteworthy peak and has the franchise that Durant came to play for, it's hard to argue that Durant's really accomplished more despite the fact we all agree that Durant's talent seems greater.

Odd, I agree Curry has the more noteworthy peak, but I would have said that Curry's talent seems greater (and more unique) while Durant had a reasonably strong edge on longevity. I will have to think further about this because one or the other will soon be competing with Bob Pettit and Walt Frazier (two reasonably short careers) for a spot in the 20s for me. Then they have to compete with longer career guys like Stockton.

In practice, Curry's talent has been better able to translate to impact, and obviously he has a talent with shooting none can match so you can't just say Durant is overall superior. But Durant is capable of dominating on both sides of the court at time. I would never have predicted Curry's superior success to this point.

[oldschooled]

Love the discussions with Curry at this range. Peak, impact, accolades (multiple champ and MVP). It is deserved imo.

[JoeMalburg]

Vote: Moses Malone
Second Vote: John Stockton

What do you guys think about Artis Gilmore? I feel like he like should be coming up soon. His peak is probably as good as Ewing or at least close to it. Also, he has amazing longevity.

Also, he was the best player on the 1983 Spurs if we go by advanced metrics. Also he was tied in MVP voting with Gervin that year also.

I'm not quite ready for Gilmore, but as we near ~30, I'd like him to get some buzz. Almost criminally underrated player, imo.

In my opinion, the pendulum has shifted and now Gilmore is extraordinarily overrated. At 30 all-time he's about 30-40 spots too high for me and about 15-20 spots before he warrants consideration.

Gilmore had a lot of the tools that you'd want in a center, he put up some very impressive numbers (especially without the context that surrounds them) and he has a cool name, great haircut and there are several photos of him looking very imposing. Additionally, in an era without advanced metrics, he inadvertently did a lot of things advanced metrics like.

Gilmore's teams consistently struggled in the postseason, is this all his fault? No. But it is a fact.

1972: The 68 win Colonels lose in the first round to the 44-win Nets.
1973: The 56 win Colonels lose to the 51 win Pacers in the ABA Finals.
1974: The 53 win Colonels, swept by the 55 win Nets in the Semis
1975: ABA Champions. However, they beat a 27 win team, 32 win team and 45 win team to win the title.
1976: Lost to the 60 win Nuggets in semis

So in his ABA days, Gilmore's Kentucky teams lost three of four series to teams with 50 wins, were upset once by a team with 25 fewer wins and never beat an opponent without HCA. Additionally, they were upset by a team with an inferior record in multiple playoffs.

This become more concerning when you factor in the quality of Gilmores teammates playing alongside Dan Issel and arguably the greatest guard in ABA history Louie Dampier who along with Darrell Carrier formed the best perimeter shooting backcourt in pro basketball for a few years. Through in the amazingly named Cincinnatius Powell and they ran out five guys who already were or soon would be multiple time ABA all-stars.

There is also the matter of level of competition. The ABA was fantastic at the forward position, but weaker than the NBA in the back court and extremely weak in the middle. Gilmore is the only former ABA center to make an all-star team after the merger. Here's his top competition by year, compared with the NBA.

1972
Top ABA Centers: Gilmore, Zelmo Beaty, Mel Daniels, Jim McDaniels
Top NBA Centers: Kareem, Wilt, Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Unseld

1973
Top ABA Centers: Gilmore, Beaty, Daniels, Billy Paultz
Top NBA Centers: Kareem, Wilt, Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, Unseld

1974
Top ABA Centers: Gilmore, Swen Nater, Daniels, Jim Eakins
Top NBA Centers: Kareem, Thurmond, Lanier, Cowens, McAdoo, Hayes

1975
Top ABA Centers: Gilmore, Nater, Paultz, Caldwell Jones
Top NBA Centers: Kareem, McAdoo, Cowens, Unseld, Lanier

1976
Top ABA Centers: Gilmore, Issel, Paultz, Jones
Top NBA Centers: Kareem, Mcadoo, Cowens, Lanier, Unseld, Alvan Adams

As you can see, a world of difference from one league to the next in terms of both the size and athleticism at the pivot position.

Gilmore joined the NBA's Chicago Bulls, a team rebuilding after a series of close but no cigar runs in the first half of the seventies.

There he and the Bulls were the picture of underachievement. After a strong 1976-77 season, the Bulls and Gilmore regressed over the next three seasons winning 40, 31 then 30 games in 1980 as Gilmore missed 34 games. That year the Bulls win 18-30 with Gilmore and 12-22 without him.

It's easy to get fooled by Gilmore's high shooting percentage to think he was a good offensive player, especially in the 1980's. But he wasn't. He was an awful passer, unable to recognize and counter a double team. He was extremely turnover prone for a big man, especially one who wasn't a player maker. He was absurdly methodical and would pass up high percentage shots trying to get an even better one which would often end with him unable to get a shot off and him kicking it out as the shot clock ran down to a teammate to improvise. Basically, if you created a shot for him he finished it effective, but if he had to do it on his own, he was pretty ineffective.

On defense, Gilmore was dynamic in the ABA, much less so in the NBA when he didn't have 4-5 inches on every center. He does deserve a lot of credit for playing Kareem very effectively, that's why the Spurs targeted him after 1982. But most centers got there's against him. In limited meetings, Bill Walton dominated Gilmore. Bob McAdoo was a nightmare for Artis as you might expect. Lanier got the better of Artis more often than the other way around. Dave Cowens more than held his own, actually out-rebounding Gilmore in 7 of 9 meetings.

Moreover, Artis was never an elite NBA center during his decade in the league. Gilmore was never top three in rebounds in the NBA, never top three in blocks, never an All-NBA center. His teams made one conference final, with the 1983 Spurs, a team that had made the conference finals the year prior without Gilmore.

Gilmore was his generations Dwight Howard. Peaked early, much more highly revered by fans and media than his peers, heavily reliant on athleticism, low basketball IQ, inconsistent motor. He can't be in the discussion until guys like Moses, Mikan and Ewing are off the board and quite frankly it's hard for me to justify putting him above guys like McAdoo, Cowens and Lanier who were better than him H2H and had more individual and team successes in the NBA (not so much with Dobber), just not the longevity.

I'll be interested to hear the case as you all lay it out, but short of finding some footage or first hand accounts from people I trust, I don't expect to be swayed greatly. I know what the numbers say, but I also know what actually happened on the court. When those two are irreconcilable, I always favor the later.

[trex_8063]

Gilmore was his generations Dwight Howard. Peaked early, much more highly revered by fans and media than his peers, heavily reliant on athleticism, low basketball IQ, inconsistent motor.

I don't disagree. Howard is actually the modern comparison I go with for Gilmore, too (except Gilmore has better longevity).

He can't be in the discussion until guys like Moses, Mikan and Ewing are off the board

I agree wrt Moses and Ewing. I have him in the same vicinity as Mikan, though.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #78:

Moses Malone - 9 (andrewww, Dr Positivity, JordansBulls, Narigo, Outside, SactoKingsFan, scabbarista, trex_8063,
Winsome Gerbil)
George Mikan - 2 (penbeast0, JoeMalburg)
Bob Pettit - 1 (Pablo Novi)

I'm going to leave this open at least another hour or two as the turn-out has been skimpy thus far, though I don't think it's going to change the outcome.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[JoeMalburg]

Gilmore was his generations Dwight Howard. Peaked early, much more highly revered by fans and media than his peers, heavily reliant on athleticism, low basketball IQ, inconsistent motor.

I don't disagree. Howard is actually the modern comparison I go with for Gilmore, too (except Gilmore has better longevity).

He can't be in the discussion until guys like Moses, Mikan and Ewing are off the board

I agree wrt Moses and Ewing. I have him in the same vicinity as Mikan, though.

Do you find my criticisms valid?

What are the major "pros" you see in Gilmore's game and career?

How do you compare him with guys like McAdoo, Cowens and Reed who came just before him, won a lot more, achieved greater individual acclaim, but don't have the numbers to suggest the potential Gilmore seems to have had by those numbers?