RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[HeartBreakKid]

and noticed an argument against Bill about how it is impossible to average more than 3 blocks a game.

What was this argument based on? Every single year since 1974 the NBA blocks per game leader has always averaged more than 3.0. Except of course during a 3 year period from 2008-09 to 2010-11. I also recall a few members trying to place Lamar Odom in the top 100.

Well the list was made the summer of 2011 if I can recall, so I suppose one of the posters (I think his name was GreenHat) thought the stretch showed that the NBA had changed. Since Diwght Howard could not get over 3 blocks a game and he was the best shot blocker in the league, it seemed improbable to get over that hump.

[Doctor MJ]

and noticed an argument against Bill about how it is impossible to average more than 3 blocks a game.

What was this argument based on? Every single year since 1974 the NBA blocks per game leader has always averaged more than 3.0. Except of course during a 3 year period from 2008-09 to 2010-11. I also recall a few members trying to place Lamar Odom in the top 100.

Well there was a time when Dwight Howard was looked upon as essentially the realistic big man ideal. People seemed to have this notion that if Howard couldn't block 3 BPG, that it was unrealistic to think of anyone doing much more than that.

It was always so messed up to me for the reasons you're giving: In the modern era it's still almost a given that the league leader blocks 3 BPG, and clearly therefore the only reason Howard ever led the league is that there was a dearth of shot blockers competing with him.

[sp6r=underrated]

Adding this here because it's seems like the most relevant project and I don't really want to start a thread (it would get ugly in a hurry):

LeBron has now past Kobe in playoff Win Shares:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... eer_p.html

I actually wasn't even mean to go to this page - was trying to go to the regular season career leaders page - but saw this, and just thought I needed to share it. Whatever you think of the WS stats, it doesn't seem like it should be possible given how much time Kobe's played in the playoffs (Kobe's #2 all-time in playoff minutes played, LeBron's only played like 60% of that amount of minutes).

with the exception of Jordan he slaughters everyone on ws/48 stat while Kobe for an ATG on this stat doesn't rank among the elite even in the non MJ/Lebron elite.

I have a hard time understanding why so many get up in arms when people make the argument for Lebron having the highest peak of any player in NBA history. He has a great case even if you disagree.

[sp6r=underrated]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNChrisPalmer/status/335274212686184449[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNChrisPalmer/status/335281929735782400[/tweet]

sad.

I saw a post somewhere from JA Adande were he said if the Spurs win it reopens the debate between Kobe and Duncan over who is the best player of their generation.

Leaving aside that their are others who have very credible arguments for that title, I found his logic for Bryant so sad as it was clearly the case that he was just going 5>4.

I can see a credible argument for Kobe over Duncan that would be centered around single game ceilings, value of individual scoring in the PS, longevity, etc. I don't agree with the argument but I can understand it. What I can't understand is how a 29mpg season in which a guy doesn't even play well in the PS reopens the debate for someone. That I can't understand.

[ardee]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNChrisPalmer/status/335274212686184449[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNChrisPalmer/status/335281929735782400[/tweet]

sad.

I saw a post somewhere from JA Adande were he said if the Spurs win it reopens the debate between Kobe and Duncan over who is the best player of their generation.

Leaving aside that their are others who have very credible arguments for that title, I found his logic for Bryant so sad as it was clearly the case that he was just going 5>4.

I can see a credible argument for Kobe over Duncan that would be centered around single game ceilings, value of individual scoring in the PS, longevity, etc. I don't agree with the argument but I can understand it. What I can't understand is how a 29mpg season in which a guy doesn't even play well in the PS reopens the debate for someone. That I can't understand.

It's the mainstream RINGZZ RINGZZ RINGZZ logic.

I'm a Kobe fan and I have him at 8, right behind Duncan who is at 7 right behind Bird. Very small gaps.

If Duncan has an epic ala '85 Kareem type of Finals performance, say 24-12-4 or something, I may just nudge him up to 6.

If not, he'll remain where he is, though I think Kobe will have a harder time catching him.

[ElGee]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNChrisPalmer/status/335274212686184449[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNChrisPalmer/status/335281929735782400[/tweet]

sad.

I saw a post somewhere from JA Adande were he said if the Spurs win it reopens the debate between Kobe and Duncan over who is the best player of their generation.

Leaving aside that their are others who have very credible arguments for that title, I found his logic for Bryant so sad as it was clearly the case that he was just going 5>4.

I can see a credible argument for Kobe over Duncan that would be centered around single game ceilings, value of individual scoring in the PS, longevity, etc. I don't agree with the argument but I can understand it. What I can't understand is how a 29mpg season in which a guy doesn't even play well in the PS reopens the debate for someone. That I can't understand.

It's the mainstream RINGZZ RINGZZ RINGZZ logic.

I'm a Kobe fan and I have him at 8, right behind Duncan who is at 7 right behind Bird. Very small gaps.

If Duncan has an epic ala '85 Kareem type of Finals performance, say 24-12-4 or something, I may just nudge him up to 6.

If not, he'll remain where he is, though I think Kobe will have a harder time catching him.

I actually think it's the mainstream "RESUME!" argument. Since I can no longer talk to these guys in the media easily, I've attempted to pick the brains of people on realgm about using resume, but the thread I started about it had almost no responses. :/ The only people who participated said they used resume because of ignorance, which makes sense.

For whatever reason, people either use resume or demand their own ignorance be displayed. Look at Palmer's list and the explanation he gives for Kobe at No. 2. (The number 2 what, exactly, I would ask, based on the man's own criteria?)

-Rings
-Finals (huh?)
-ASG
-All-D (holy god)
-MVPs
-all-time scoring (eek)

So presumably he's answering the question "who is the best player" by talking about stuff like media accolades, team circumstance and bulk volume of points (with absolutely no regard for how they were scored). Based on JUST the 6 categories he mentions, one can note:

Rings: Kareem > Magic = Kobe
Finals: Kareem > Magic > Kobe
ASG: Kareem > Kobe
All-D: Kobe 12, Kareem 11 (and Kareem had 1/2 the odds of getting on, but someone like Palmer wouldn't consider context)
MVPs: Kareem (6!) > Magic > Kobe
Scoring: Kareem > Kobe

That's a senseless drubbing.

But then he's got LeBron 5th. How can that be? He had only made 3 Finals at the time, 1 ring, falls behind the guys behind him in basically every category except MVPs. (4) But Bill Russell has 5 MVPs and 11 rings and he's behind LeBron!?

The point is, someone who thinks he is "giving history lessons" doesn't seem to know much about basketball. (Dunning-Kruger.) As such, he has rested on the RESUME! argument, but he doesn't even seem to apply his own criteria...so what the heck kind of list is he making? And I'd say the same thing about Bill Simmons' list, which has some colossal weirdness to it.

[colts18]

And I'd say the same thing about Bill Simmons' list, which has some colossal weirdness to it.

Yeah like ranking Havlicek 1 spot behind Shaq. Or ranking Kevin Johnson in the 90's range.

[Dipper 13]

Bill Simmons' list

I just don't understand why he had to lie regarding Billy Cunningham's rookie year was, more than once in the book. There are plenty of other ways to shamelessly slander one of the all time great teams without lying on something that is obviously wrong. The scary thing is many fans consider this book a reliable and objective source of information. Not even mentioning his cruel comment in reference to Ike Richman's death in 1965.



35.One thing Wilt can’t be blamed for: during a 1965 game in Boston, 76ers owner Ike Richman died of a heart attack while sitting at the press table next to Philly’s bench. If you had to pick a superstar whose owner might drop dead during a big game, you’d have to pick Wilt, right?



1967. KC retires, another veteran castoff comes aboard (future Hall of Famer Bailey Howell), and Russell struggles mightily to handle the first year of his player-coach duties. 16 From day one, it’s Philly’s year: given an extra boost by rookie Billy Cunningham and Wilt’s sudden revelation that he doesn’t need to score to help his team win (more on this in a second), the Sixers roll to their famous 68-win season, topple the Celtics in five, and beat the Warriors in six for Wilt’s first title. This was the perfect storm for Wilt—his strongest possible team against Boston’s weakest possible team.



THE ’67 76ERS (68–13, 12–4)

Beyond the pre-1970 issue and a weak competitive season described earlier, they were overrated for the following reasons: First, they caught the Russell era at the perfect time, immediately after Auerbach retired, when Russell struggled in his first year as player-coach. Second, the “special” component to Philly’s season was its 68–13 record … but really, the 68 happened because Boston stayed close for a while and the national media, for whatever reason, made a big deal about the quest for 70. Third, they only featured three Pyramid guys (Wilt, Greer and Cunningham, only a rookie), and when you think about it, how could the so-called greatest team of the NBA’s first thirty-five years have only three Pyramid guys? Fourth, Wilt’s poor free throw shooting would quickly manifest itself in a fictional round-robin tournament with the other all-time powerhouses; he infamously avoided the ball in the final two minutes, leaving Greer or Cunningham to match baskets with Jordan, Kobe, Bird or whomever. And fifth, for an allegedly “great” team, they couldn’t defend their title even once, blowing a 3–1 lead to the ’68 Celtics (with Wilt demanding a trade that summer). So much for our number one 1 Silver Anniversary choice.





Isn't it nice to read such a narcissistic comment, "I've seen the tapes."


Hence, for the purposes of this chapter, I’m ignoring the pre-1960 teams (not enough black players, defense or quality shooting), severely penalizing the 1970–76 teams (because of the expansion/ABA double whammy) and pre-1970 teams (because I’ve seen the tapes and you can’t tell me with a straight face that the ’65 Celts or ’67 Sixers wouldn’t have gotten swept by the ’01 Lakers by 25 points a game)

[HeartBreakKid]

I actually think it's the mainstream "RESUME!" argument. Since I can no longer talk to these guys in the media easily, I've attempted to pick the brains of people on realgm about using resume, but the thread I started about it had almost no responses. :/ The only people who participated said they used resume because of ignorance, which makes sense.

For whatever reason, people either use resume or demand their own ignorance be displayed. Look at Palmer's list and the explanation he gives for Kobe at No. 2. (The number 2 what, exactly, I would ask, based on the man's own criteria?)

-Rings
-Finals (huh?)
-ASG
-All-D (holy god)
-MVPs
-all-time scoring (eek)

So presumably he's answering the question "who is the best player" by talking about stuff like media accolades, team circumstance and bulk volume of points (with absolutely no regard for how they were scored). Based on JUST the 6 categories he mentions, one can note:

Rings: Kareem > Magic = Kobe
Finals: Kareem > Magic > Kobe
ASG: Kareem > Kobe
All-D: Kobe 12, Kareem 11 (and Kareem had 1/2 the odds of getting on, but someone like Palmer wouldn't consider context)
MVPs: Kareem (6!) > Magic > Kobe
Scoring: Kareem > Kobe

That's a senseless drubbing.

But then he's got LeBron 5th. How can that be? He had only made 3 Finals at the time, 1 ring, falls behind the guys behind him in basically every category except MVPs. (4) But Bill Russell has 5 MVPs and 11 rings and he's behind LeBron!?

The point is, someone who thinks he is "giving history lessons" doesn't seem to know much about basketball. (Dunning-Kruger.) As such, he has rested on the RESUME! argument, but he doesn't even seem to apply his own criteria...so what the heck kind of list is he making? And I'd say the same thing about Bill Simmons' list, which has some colossal weirdness to it.

Yeah, that his "history lesson" comment is so ironic. Kobe doesn't even have the best accolades or even Jordan really, so he's pretty much just deciding the order "just cause".

[ElGee]

Simmons is fascinating to me because he's so successful. He represents a casual perspective nearly to perfection: Basketball is about "clutch scoring," "go-to scorers," "No. 1 options," "games are decided in the final 5," "winners" and isolation scoring. That's pretty much the sport!

I'm looking at his list right now and I can't even wrap my head around some of it. (Yes, I've read the book.)

He puts Robert Horry at 86, so he obviously doesn't care about impact on the game or box statistics...even though he cites box statistics constantly. And Horry is completely void of any accolades, so that can't matter either. Perhaps Simmons has some sort of "guys I want on my team" concept of this list.

OK, so then he wants Robert Horry on his team over a myriad of all-star and all-NBA level power forwards? Really?

Let's give him a pass on Horry and presume he's trying to sell a book with a splash. Well we know when he discussed Bill Walton he clearly states that he's putting him there because of his on-court impact. He goes as far as saying Walton "basically guarantees you a title." Without delving into detail, I'll suggest that this is supremacy of basketball ignorance, to think one person is so good they are worth 15 or 20 points a game. (!?)

OK, so then we get to Shaq, who he has 12th. No "guarantees you a title" logic. No on-court impact. No rings. (The next 3 guys in front of Shaq have a combined 4 rings, with both West and Oscar coming on all-time stacked teams where they weren't ostensibly the team's best player.) His arguments against Shaq:

1. He only won 1 RS MVP

Spoiler:

Well, Karl Malone won 2, but Simmons disagrees with those MVPs, so he discounts those MVPs. Good for him -- I would think he'd want to judge how good someone was at basketball based on how good they played basketball. But then he doesn't do the same here with Shaq!

2. He was swept 6 times

Spoiler:

So it's Shaq's responsibility for his teams to win a game when down 3-0 just for funsies, even though no one in history has the expectation that they'll actually win the series.

3. Shaq was such a liability he was pulled in a few close playoff games

Spoiler:

Hmm, 47 minutes of Shaq plus offense-defense subs at the end of games where teams are intentionally fouling because you are ahead, or no Shaq? Which sounds better. Simmons says "this can't be forgotten." Umm, isn't he the self-touted Minister of Common Sense?

4. He only took basketball seriously for one entire season

Spoiler:

Walton only played one entire season. Why is it relevant how seriously he takes basketball? I took basketball far more seriously than Shaq -- apparently Simmons would want me over Shaq. (Funny story -- BC guard Ryan SIdney told me during Shaq's peak that "Shaq's not that good." Can't shoot, can't dribble, and yet they change the rules around the league for the guy. Weird league!)

5. Made his teams worse when he left

Spoiler:

Wait, isn't that the mark of a good player?

6. Shaq created controversy when he left

Spoiler:

What does this have to do with basketball again?

7. Wilt is ranked way higher because "Shaq left something on the table"

Spoiler:

First, why does this matter? Jordan left something on the table. He nearly became a scratch golfer, started a business enterprise, micromanaged a brand and gambled in casinos constantly. Second, why does Simmons think that people can just automatically maximize their physical "potential?" And third, what does this have to do with how well they played or any of his criteria when ranking other players??

You can do that with the whole book basically, and nearly every Simmons basketball column. I'm basically at a loss as to what his list represents.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm thinking about reading the book just to see some of these statements.

[Not Bias]

Why do some people take Chris Palmer so seriously?? The dude is a total moron...

[Reservoirdawgs]

Simmons is fascinating to me because he's so successful. He represents a casual perspective nearly to perfection: Basketball is about "clutch scoring," "go-to scorers," "No. 1 options," "games are decided in the final 5," "winners" and isolation scoring. That's pretty much the sport!

If you're reading a Simmons book in order to learn something or read something insightful then you're in the wrong place. You said it best - he represents a casual, reactionist perspective to perfection, and is enough of an entertainer to be amusing. He's the definition of empty calories - he's fun to read, he's just too full of himself and doesn't have the ability to break down a basketball game or write about anything necessarily insightful because he allows his biases to get in the way. He still doesn't understand many basketball statistics and frequently mis-uses them (either intentionally or unintentionally, I'm not sure at times) but with the rise of Grantland and Zach Lowe, he at least has a better understanding of advanced statistics that he used to completely gloss over.

With all of that said - I was actually kind of surprised at The Book of Basketball...it's better researched than a typical Simmons article is. As you pointed out, his reasonings aren't the best and he's inconsistent, but it's an opinion-based list, so I don't get too much into it.

[Reservoirdawgs]

*Begins following Chris Palmer on Twiiter*

Considering how bad that list is, I'm not surprised you'd start following him .

[Nairobi]

Here's my list, in this order:

1.Bill Russell
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4.Michael Jordan
5.John Havlicek
6.Kobe Bryant
7.Bob Cousy
8.Magic Johnson
9.Shaquille O'Neal
10.Larry Bird
11.Bob Pettit
12.Jerry West
13.Tim Duncan
14.Oscar Robertson
15.Elgin Baylor
16.George Mikan
17.Karl Malone
18.LeBron James
19.Sam Jones
20.Tom Heinsohn
21.Dwyane Wade
22.Kevin Garnett
23.Isiah Thomas
24.Hakeem Olajuwon
25.Elvin Hayes
26.Allen Iverson
27.Charles Barkley
28.Dolph Schayes
29.Vern Mikkelsen
30.Moses Malone
31.Neil Johnston
32.Slater Martin
33.Paul Arizin
34.Scottie Pippen
35.Dave Cowens
36.Julius Erving
37.David Robinson
38.Jim Pollard
39.Dirk Nowitzki
40.Jerry Lucas
41.Ed Macauley
42.Paul Pierce
43.Clyde Drexler
44.Bill Sharman
45.Willis Reed
46.George Yardley
47.Rick Barry
48.Dave DeBusschere
49.Hal Greer
50.Ray Allen
51.Harry Gallatin
52.Walt Frazier
53.Patrick Ewing
54.Dominique Wilkins
55.Robert Parish
56.Jason Kidd
57.Chris Bosh
58.George Gervin
59.Bob McAdoo
60.Bailey Howell
61.Chris Paul
62.Billy Cunningham
63.Gary Payton
64.Lenny Wilkens
65.Bob Lanier
66.Kevin McHale
67.John Stockton
68.Jo Jo White
69.Arnie Risen
70.Tony Parker
71.Nate Thurmond
72.James Worthy
73.Carmelo Anthony
74.Adrian Dantley
75.Dwight Howard
76.Alex English
77.Bobby Wanzer
78.Tiny Archibald
79.Dave Bing
80.Vince Carter
81.Bob Davies
82.Gus Johnson
83.Chris Webber
84.Pete Maravich
85.Walt Bellamy
86.Clyde Lovellette
87.Chet Walker
88.Kevin Durant
89.Willie Naulls
90.Dick McGuire
91.Jack Sikma
92.Mitch Richmond
93.Frank Ramsey
94.Bob Dandridge
95.Wes Unseld
96.Andy Phillip
97.Pau Gasol
98.Mel Hutchins
99.Cliff Hagan
100.Tracy McGrady

[Reservoirdawgs]

*List snipped*

I have to say, that is a very interesting and unusual list...whenever I see a list like this, usually someone has created a statistical formula and ranked it based on the results to their own statistical formula. How did you determine on the order?

[HeartBreakKid]

Here's my list, in this order:

1.Bill Russell
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4.Michael Jordan
5.John Havlicek
6.Kobe Bryant
7.Bob Cousy
8.Magic Johnson
9.Shaquille O'Neal
10.Larry Bird
11.Bob Pettit
12.Jerry West
13.Tim Duncan
14.Oscar Robertson
15.Elgin Baylor
16.George Mikan
17.Karl Malone
18.LeBron James
19.Sam Jones
20.Tom Heinsohn
21.Dwyane Wade
22.Kevin Garnett
23.Isiah Thomas
24.Hakeem Olajuwon
25.Elvin Hayes
26.Allen Iverson
27.Charles Barkley
28.Dolph Schayes
29.Vern Mikkelsen
30.Moses Malone
31.Neil Johnston
32.Slater Martin
33.Paul Arizin
34.Scottie Pippen
35.Dave Cowens
36.Julius Erving
37.David Robinson
38.Jim Pollard
39.Dirk Nowitzki
40.Jerry Lucas
41.Ed Macauley
42.Paul Pierce
43.Clyde Drexler
44.Bill Sharman
45.Willis Reed
46.George Yardley
47.Rick Barry
48.Dave DeBusschere
49.Hal Greer
50.Ray Allen
51.Harry Gallatin
52.Walt Frazier
53.Patrick Ewing
54.Dominique Wilkins
55.Robert Parish
56.Jason Kidd
57.Chris Bosh
58.George Gervin
59.Bob McAdoo
60.Bailey Howell
61.Chris Paul
62.Billy Cunningham
63.Gary Payton
64.Lenny Wilkens
65.Bob Lanier
66.Kevin McHale
67.John Stockton
68.Jo Jo White
69.Arnie Risen
70.Tony Parker
71.Nate Thurmond
72.James Worthy
73.Carmelo Anthony
74.Adrian Dantley
75.Dwight Howard
76.Alex English
77.Bobby Wanzer
78.Tiny Archibald
79.Dave Bing
80.Vince Carter
81.Bob Davies
82.Gus Johnson
83.Chris Webber
84.Pete Maravich
85.Walt Bellamy
86.Clyde Lovellette
87.Chet Walker
88.Kevin Durant
89.Willie Naulls
90.Dick McGuire
91.Jack Sikma
92.Mitch Richmond
93.Frank Ramsey
94.Bob Dandridge
95.Wes Unseld
96.Andy Phillip
97.Pau Gasol
98.Mel Hutchins
99.Cliff Hagan
100.Tracy McGrady

Bill Simmons, is that you?

[Nairobi]

Here's my list, in this order:

1.Bill Russell
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4.Michael Jordan
5.John Havlicek
6.Kobe Bryant
7.Bob Cousy
8.Magic Johnson
9.Shaquille O'Neal
10.Larry Bird
11.Bob Pettit
12.Jerry West
13.Tim Duncan
14.Oscar Robertson
15.Elgin Baylor
16.George Mikan
17.Karl Malone
18.LeBron James
19.Sam Jones
20.Tom Heinsohn
21.Dwyane Wade
22.Kevin Garnett
23.Isiah Thomas
24.Hakeem Olajuwon
25.Elvin Hayes
26.Allen Iverson
27.Charles Barkley
28.Dolph Schayes
29.Vern Mikkelsen
30.Moses Malone
31.Neil Johnston
32.Slater Martin
33.Paul Arizin
34.Scottie Pippen
35.Dave Cowens
36.Julius Erving
37.David Robinson
38.Jim Pollard
39.Dirk Nowitzki
40.Jerry Lucas
41.Ed Macauley
42.Paul Pierce
43.Clyde Drexler
44.Bill Sharman
45.Willis Reed
46.George Yardley
47.Rick Barry
48.Dave DeBusschere
49.Hal Greer
50.Ray Allen
51.Harry Gallatin
52.Walt Frazier
53.Patrick Ewing
54.Dominique Wilkins
55.Robert Parish
56.Jason Kidd
57.Chris Bosh
58.George Gervin
59.Bob McAdoo
60.Bailey Howell
61.Chris Paul
62.Billy Cunningham
63.Gary Payton
64.Lenny Wilkens
65.Bob Lanier
66.Kevin McHale
67.John Stockton
68.Jo Jo White
69.Arnie Risen
70.Tony Parker
71.Nate Thurmond
72.James Worthy
73.Carmelo Anthony
74.Adrian Dantley
75.Dwight Howard
76.Alex English
77.Bobby Wanzer
78.Tiny Archibald
79.Dave Bing
80.Vince Carter
81.Bob Davies
82.Gus Johnson
83.Chris Webber
84.Pete Maravich
85.Walt Bellamy
86.Clyde Lovellette
87.Chet Walker
88.Kevin Durant
89.Willie Naulls
90.Dick McGuire
91.Jack Sikma
92.Mitch Richmond
93.Frank Ramsey
94.Bob Dandridge
95.Wes Unseld
96.Andy Phillip
97.Pau Gasol
98.Mel Hutchins
99.Cliff Hagan
100.Tracy McGrady

Bill Simmons, is that you?

¿Qué

[ardee]

*List snipped*

I have to say, that is a very interesting and unusual list...whenever I see a list like this, usually someone has created a statistical formula and ranked it based on the results to their own statistical formula. How did you determine on the order?

I can't think of a single statistical measure by which Bob Cousy ranks higher than Magic, Bird, Shaq, Hakeem or Kobe....

[Reservoirdawgs]

I can't think of a single statistical measure by which Bob Cousy ranks higher than Magic, Bird, Shaq, Hakeem or Kobe....

Neither do I, which is why I'm interested in learning how this order was determined. It's his list so he can rank people however he wants, but it has such an unusual ordering that I am curious as to how he ranked them the way he did.