RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[HeartBreakKid]

How is deron williams on that list.

It was done 3 or 4 years ago, when he was fresh out of Utah more or less. Not crazy at all for a 20/10ish PG to make it, many people thought he was the best PG in the league, certainly top 100 worthy.

It'll be interesting to see if he makes in the 90s, probably won't though.

A better version of Noah isn't coming close to winning MVP in today's league. LeBron and Durant are clearly superior players. Only reason Noah is mentioned as a candidate for MVP is because people are bored of talking about LeBron and Durant...in reality, Noah isn't an MVP candidate, just like anyone outside of LeBron and Durant isn't an MVP candidate. Nobody is on their level right now.

And as for that, a better version of Noah isn't coming close to challenging a peak Duncan or a peak Garnett for MVP, either.

Still, the gap between Russell and Noah is pretty gigantic. Not even being speculative, but I would think most NBA players would agree with that, even with generational bias. I mean Bill matches Noah in a lot of the things Noah is best at, and dominates him other aspects. Noah isn't really better than Bill at anything.

So I think the point is more along the lines of, if a player like Noah can be recognized as a great player, than Russell will certainly be up there. I think if Bill played today, and his athleticism/b-ball IQ crossed over, I think he would make a lot of people think about what makes a great player. I could see him being in the media with them asking "can a defensive player be the MVP?"

Of course, that's the somewhat reasonable assumption that Bill would be a much better Ben Wallace - and Ben Wallace was very well respected and praised despite him having huge holes in his game.

[colts18]

Still, the gap between Russell and Noah is pretty gigantic. Not even being speculative, but I would think most NBA players would agree with that, even with generational bias. I mean Bill matches Noah in a lot of the things Noah is best at, and dominates him other aspects. Noah isn't really better than Bill at anything.

Noah is a better passer than Russell

[ceiling raiser]

Still, the gap between Russell and Noah is pretty gigantic. Not even being speculative, but I would think most NBA players would agree with that, even with generational bias. I mean Bill matches Noah in a lot of the things Noah is best at, and dominates him other aspects. Noah isn't really better than Bill at anything.

Noah is a better passer than Russell

How would we know that, one way or the other?

[The Infamous1]

There's no year in the last 20 years that russell would win mvp.

His best chance would be 02, 03 or 04, but guys like Duncan and KG are giving you just as good defense while being substantially better on offense which would be the argument in the media.

[Owly]

Before doing new "top 100" list we should discuss what criteria we should use when ranking players. I mean, how important are titles, stats, impact, accolades, longevity, peak and how it changes from era to era (for example not all titles are equal, because of different competition level).

Besides, I will say it again - retro DPOY project should be realGM PC board 1st priority. Knowledge gained in such project would be very helpful, when we will do new top 100 list.

If we're doing it again this summer we need to start organizing it.

Sooooooooooooo, is there going to be 2014 RealGM top X players list (could go deeper than 100, Slam went 500, though that was too deep, obviously the further away from elite stars you go the more it’s very small gaps and about fit more than talent as to who’s better and anyway unless voters are committed, after 100, hell after 50 it could lag, voters could abandon).

Also a possible side pre-project. Top players by position and decade. Could be used as a source for info for the “master” list, if there was enough prep you could do the sub lists then positional lists and decade lists so that (forcing a small number of players to be on the ballot so you don’t get a first past the post without a majority thing happening, though the solution last time, pre-listing seemed to work out okay so far as I can tell). But that would mean a lot of work, would probably run out of steam, so if done (could maybe be done myself if there were interest possibly), maybe it would be best just doing the sub rankings (within both decade and position, probably not then doing decade and position lists from that).

Also anyone recall any quirks in the last project? Any ways in which people felt it could be improved? Probably worth looking at this sort of stuff now.

[HeartBreakKid]

Need to figure out how to break tie breakers.

[therealbig3]

My only complaint is that it pretty much died towards the end of the project, because so many people lost interest. A lot of the players that got in towards the end got like 3 votes to win, because almost no one was voting.

My suggestion would be to seriously consider shortening the list to like the top 75, or maybe the top 50. But I feel like top 50 would be too short, because there were still a lot of good players that people were interested in discussing at that point. Top 75 is still pretty inclusive, but it also doesn't get as insanely bogged down towards the end like the top 100 did.

Just a thought, I stayed till the end for the top 100 last time, and I'd do it again. But shortening the list would probably make it more interesting and not as much of a hassle to get through.

[RSCD3_]

Keeping with the aldridge inferno sweepstakes , could he sneak into the top 100. He's been playing great and I think some momentum from a great series will carry over

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Quotatious]

Keeping with the aldridge inferno sweepstakes , could he sneak into the top 100. He's been playing great and I think some momentum from a great series will carry over

Maybe, but honestly I'm not sure. It'd be similar to Deron and Melo being voted into the top 100 in 2011, and I'd say their resume was better than LMA's will be after this year's playoffs, maybe unless Aldridge leads Portland to a title, which is somewhat doubtful...

I'd probably rather see Shawn Marion in the top 100, as far as current players.

I wonder how high Durant will be ranked. Top 40-50 already? Hard to predict, seeing how Bill Walton was ranked 47th based basically on peak alone. Establishing consistent criteria before the project would help a lot.

[HeartBreakKid]

I rank peak play high, but even if one didn't, Durant is easily above a top 40-50 player, at least using the current list for reference.

Chris Paul (only up to 2011) made the top 50, as did Tracy McGrady, Gary Payton and a few others.

Durant not only has an all time great peak, but has quite a few seasons of being a franchise player, a large sample size in the playoffs, and success in the playoffs (has a finals appearance already). Still going strong as we're speaking.

[Texas Chuck]

There's no year in the last 20 years that russell would win mvp.

His best chance would be 02, 03 or 04, but guys like Duncan and KG are giving you just as good defense while being substantially better on offense which would be the argument in the media.

Well KG isnt for sure as he wasnt being used as a defensive anchor in those years. While he was obviously a great individual defender in those days it hardly takes any imagination to project Russell as having far more defensive impact even for those who think he would struggle to translate offensively.

I mean Russell's defensive impact in his era was so far beyond anything else we've ever seen. Not hard to think in the early 00s he could have more defensive impact than a guy who wasnt even anchoring good defenses outside of the 04 aberration year.

[therealbig3]

Well KG isnt for sure as he wasnt being used as a defensive anchor in those years. While he was obviously a great individual defender in those days it hardly takes any imagination to project Russell as having far more defensive impact even for those who think he would struggle to translate offensively.

I mean Russell's defensive impact in his era was so far beyond anything else we've ever seen. Not hard to think in the early 00s he could have more defensive impact than a guy who wasnt even anchoring good defenses outside of the 04 aberration year.

Sounds to me that your only evidence for KG not being an elite defender (or as elite as the other two) is team DRating. I hope you can see why some people don't find that very convincing.

You think he became a better defender after he went to Boston, because then he started anchoring better defenses more consistently? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Texas Chuck]

NO NO NO

I dont think he became more skilled as a defender. I think he was used correctly. Thus making him more effective. And it goes beyond team drtg which I don't believe I mentioned. Those defense were mediocre. We all knew it at the time too.

Just like everyone says Nash was more effective in Phoenix because he was used correctly, I feel the same way about KG in Boston. Lessened his offensive load so that his energies could be more fully devoted to defense. He was positioned closer to the basket. No more guarding wings or playing at the top of that crazy Flip zone.

[Quotatious]

Just like everyone says Nash was more effective in Phoenix because he was used correctly, I feel the same way about KG in Boston. Lessened his offensive load so that his energies could be more fully devoted to defense. He was positioned closer to the basket. No more guarding wings or playing at the top of that crazy Flip zone.

I think these two situations aren't very alike. Nash was one of those rare players who arguably improved at 30 years of age, like John Havlicek or Karl Malone. Sure, his potential was maximized in Phoenix, but seeing how long Nash remained a superstar (until 2010, at age 36, and still clearly a star point guard in 2011 and 2012), I think it's likely that he was just a very late bloomer.

KG was IMO clearly on a decline since 2007, when he was still in Minnesota, and his best years were in the mid 2000s, while Nash's best were all in Phoenix. Garnett was obviously still a great player, still a superstar in 2008, and even before the unfortunate knee injury in 2009, but clearly not the same as he was 3-4 years earlier. His athleticism IMO clearly started to decline after 2006.

Wolves KG = Suns Nash
Celtics KG = Mavs Nash

[Texas Chuck]

sigh

I suck at being clear I guess. Im not suggesting KG was a better player in Boston than in Minnesota. Im suggesting that he had more defensive impact in Boston(and far less offensive impact) because Doc Rivers knew exactly how to use him to maximize his skills.

Yes KG could bring the ball up the court(but that's a terrible idea and a waste of KG's energy). Yes KG could guard wings, but again that's taking one of the best 7 foot mobile defenders we've ever seen and turning him into Eddie Jones.

I just prefer how Rivers used him. And I will believe forever that KG had more defensive impact in Boston because of that. Not because his team was better and had better defenders around him. I can filter out that noise. Im old. I watched a lot of KG in Minny. I worked in Minneapolis for 2 years during KG's prime so I got to watch a ton of Wolves games. I know relying on my own memory and the dreaded "eye test" is flawed, but when the eye test and the statistical evidence agree its hard for me to overlook.

[The Infamous1]

One would have to take a giant leap of faith to assume russell would have more, much less substantially more impact defensively then guys like prime KG/Duncan/Hakeem playing on the modern era.

If you put russell on the 2007 Wolves they're going to be just as bad defensively as they were under KG.

[Texas Chuck]

Yeah I get thats the consensus. I just disagree. I understand Im unlikely to convince anyone else. I understand concerns about era differences, but sometimes greatness is just greatness. And nothing about Russell physically(especially considering he would have the same modern benefits and lack of distractions he dealt with) suggests he wouldn't be able to be a force in the modern era. To me. And while a lot of his innovations have been copied, you can't copy his ability, his mind, or his heart.

I know the majority of you feel differently.

[lorak]

sigh

I suck at being clear I guess. Im not suggesting KG was a better player in Boston than in Minnesota. Im suggesting that he had more defensive impact in Boston(and far less offensive impact) because Doc Rivers knew exactly how to use him to maximize his skills.

Well, you are right (except it was Thibs, not Rivers) and it shows how difficult (maybe even impossible) is to be great on both ends of the floor at the same time. Seems like players always have to in some way sacrifice one end of the court, to be great on the other.

This also bring question how Russell would be used today. What would happen with him if he would stuck in early XXI Wolves, Clippers or whatever where coach and organization is bad?

[Owly]

My only complaint is that it pretty much died towards the end of the project, because so many people lost interest. A lot of the players that got in towards the end got like 3 votes to win, because almost no one was voting.

My suggestion would be to seriously consider shortening the list to like the top 75, or maybe the top 50. But I feel like top 50 would be too short, because there were still a lot of good players that people were interested in discussing at that point. Top 75 is still pretty inclusive, but it also doesn't get as insanely bogged down towards the end like the top 100 did.

Just a thought, I stayed till the end for the top 100 last time, and I'd do it again. But shortening the list would probably make it more interesting and not as much of a hassle to get through.

This seems to be the big thing. We need more input on the later votes. Looking at the later rounds I think because there's less consensus, the debate thins out (not that it's not interesting but the guy who wins might not get a serious conversation, just three "vote: X; nominate: Y" responses. Also does who ever gets early votes have disprortionate impact on later (tactical?) voters, where there are only a small number of voters (maybe rankings helps here)?

Thoughts:
(a) Have people offer a ranked top 5 list of choices so your getting more data per person. There could be other tinkering with voting, but I'd say this makes sense not only in terms of more data, but showing where differences lie, encouraging discussion, makes ties less likely)
(b) Enforce jutification/discussion to have votes counted (tempting on the face of it, but might thin the ranks further, and arguably "just voting" posts is a effect rather than cause of problems, hmmm )
(c) If you need to create debate how best to do it: If comparing disperate eras, positions is what makes it hard, sublists might help; maybe it's getting everyone on the same page regarding criteria

cf:

Before doing new "top 100" list we should discuss what criteria we should use when ranking players. I mean, how important are titles, stats, impact, accolades, longevity, peak and how it changes from era to era (for example not all titles are equal, because of different competition level).

Besides, I will say it again - retro DPOY project should be realGM PC board 1st priority. Knowledge gained in such project would be very helpful, when we will do new top 100 list.

Then again criteria was posted at the top of each new thread. Did it need to be clearer? Or is debate naturally going to veer off topic somewhat (and people naturally have their own criteria which they'll aply anway)?

Any ideas? Could you generate more interest in later rounds by showing (a) what people put last time, (b) what other 100s put in their lists, (c) what (noted?, respected? subjective as that is) individual participants would have as their hundred (and particularly their later votes) and/or (d) what a combination of such posters lists. Obviously (a), (c) and (d) might be somewhat similar, but at the tail end of lists will get less so. But the basic idea is get some debate going and if people are annoyed Deron got in last time, think through their own 100, get properly involved. Responses anyone?

[Quotatious]

sigh

I suck at being clear I guess. Im not suggesting KG was a better player in Boston than in Minnesota. Im suggesting that he had more defensive impact in Boston(and far less offensive impact) because Doc Rivers knew exactly how to use him to maximize his skills.

Yes KG could bring the ball up the court(but that's a terrible idea and a waste of KG's energy). Yes KG could guard wings, but again that's taking one of the best 7 foot mobile defenders we've ever seen and turning him into Eddie Jones.

I just prefer how Rivers used him. And I will believe forever that KG had more defensive impact in Boston because of that. Not because his team was better and had better defenders around him. I can filter out that noise. Im old. I watched a lot of KG in Minny. I worked in Minneapolis for 2 years during KG's prime so I got to watch a ton of Wolves games. I know relying on my own memory and the dreaded "eye test" is flawed, but when the eye test and the statistical evidence agree its hard for me to overlook.

Okay, I agree that he was definitely used better in Boston, but I think it mostly comes down to just one thing - he had way better offensive talent around him, in Pierce and Allen, than he ever had in Minny. 2004 Sam Cassell was an excellent player, really good scorer, but other than him, they were pretty meh. Wally was decent, but he was more of a shooter, and obviously not someone who could be the #1 option over prime KG.

Garnett was obviously a very good scorer in his prime, still really good in Boston in 2008, but he was definitely never an elite go-to-guy at any point in his career, it's just not his main strength as a player. He'd be basically a perfect number two scorer, but it's just so damn difficult to be able to acquire someone better than prime KG as a scorer, with the salary cap, and still be able to surround them with good enough role players to be a really serious contender.

As far as his defense, his role on offense was way smaller in Boston, so he could make anchoring their defense his primary focus. I doubt he'd ever be able to duplicate that impact if he had to carry the same load offensively as he did in Minny (it's not just about his scoring, but he was also the main playmaker of his team, even as a bigman - he was basically a one man wrecking crew, one man team. When you see how much he had to do offensively, his defense was still awesome in Minny, even if he wasn't really an "anchor", he still usually played All-Defensive first team level D.

I guess I might be too nitpicky though, and it might be more of a problem that you not being clear enough with what you've written.