RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[rrravenred]

It's a damn shame TrueLAFan isn't participating. What's a top 100 list without someone to speak for all the great Clippers who should make the list? (Buffalo doesn't count)

Absolutely. And I will severely miss his social historian contributions to the discussions on ABA stars.

[SDChargers#1]

Disappointing Russell makes it as 2nd. I've been doing some mental calculations, and things should light up around the 4th or 5th vote. I think alot of people are going to be surprised about some nominations too, at the present rate I think Oscar and West are a long way from being nominated, and I'm going to be pretty surprised if Kobe makes it to the top 13. It'll be really interesting actually, because if my guess is right, he'll be in a direct vote off with Lebron for the 14th spot.

I agree about Russell, I don't like the fact that someone with no offensive game (even if he is the greatest defensive player ever) is #2 of all time. I would have much preferred to have an all around player in Kareem, but it certainly isn't the end of the world.

I disagree about Kobe. I don't know where you are getting this idea that he is going to drop that far. He made the initial 10 nominations, and no one has really mentioned him negatively except for you in the threads so far, so it is essentially your personal preference. My guess is Kobe goes 10th.

Also I don't think there is any way that Lebron makes top 15. Though he is essentially guaranteed that spot by the end of his career, at this point he just isn't there yet.

[Wavy Q]

Russell didn't have "no" offensive game, thats some huge hyperbole

[ronnymac2]

Just for the sake of being completely open, I'm a Lakers fan, but I'm also a Knicks fan and a Nets fan.

And for the record, while I am a Lakers fan, I am a bit of a Harlem Rens homer.

So I guess you'll be pushing for "Tarzan" Cooper shortly?

[GilmoreFan]

I disagree about Kobe. I don't know where you are getting this idea that he is going to drop that far. He made the initial 10 nominations, and no one has really mentioned him negatively except for you in the threads so far, so it is essentially your personal preference. My guess is Kobe goes 10th.

Also I don't think there is any way that Lebron makes top 15. Though he is essentially guaranteed that spot by the end of his career, at this point he just isn't there yet.

You're going to be very disappointed my friend. I've already counted about half the voters who have Kobe firmly outside their top 10 (myself, ElGee, Gongxi, Warspite, Penbeast, Mysticbb, Drza, Laimbeer, Baller24, Sedale Threat, FJS, David Stern, rraverred, vinsanity, and others, some who have him well outside the 10), and even some of those who had him in the top 10 like Doc MJ will likely end up voting him out by virtue of the bizarre selections they had (for instance, Doc MJ has Kobe in his 10, but no Wilt, and ranks KG in there, assumedly above Kobe if I read him right, so since Wilt is invariably going to make it... well, you do the math). In fact, I can see only 10 voters who definitely have Kobe in their top 10, and of the 5 who said where they had him rated he was 10th, 10th, 9th, 9th, and 6th (that's you btw). Kobe's only real support is going to be coming from his hardcore fanbase; yourself (and you admit you're somewhat biased towards him), "unbiased fan", black feet and Jay from LA (who has him 9th).

Kobe made the initial 10 because:
a) Less people voted for the nomination process than for the actual first vote (which is where the list has been generated from), and
b) because he had a plurality, but not a majority, whereas the other top 9 had almost universal support (I think Wilt didn't make 2 lists, and Hakeem missed 1, but otherwise they were on basically every list).

I've been looking at the current voting patterns and pulling some of the data on people's top 10's, and it seems a foregone conclusion he loses to Dr J, not to mention the extremely high possibility he's behind Moses, Karl Malone and KG (where Kobe is really bleeding votes).

I think he'll probably hold out against Lebron (for now), and will stay ahead of West and Oscar, but it's not a lock or anything, which is why (for everyone's sake) it would have been kinder for the initial nomination process to take the consensus 9, rather than sneak Kobe in at 10, when he hasn't a hope of getting in anytime soon.

[SDChargers#1]

Russell didn't have "no" offensive game, thats some huge hyperbole

I am sorry for the byperbole.

He had a severely limited offensive game (guys like Rodman and Ben Wallace have no offensive game and he is certainly above them).

But he was a horrendous FT shooter, and never averaged more than 19 points per game a season in a highly inflated era and shot very low FG% (even if they were high relative to the era, they were low comparative to the greats of the time (West, Oscar, Wilt). Nothing makes me believe he was average any more than 12 points per game in today's league, especially with the larger paint area.

Now when I said offensive game, I probably should have said scoring game because Russell was a very good passer.

[Fencer reregistered]

Russell didn't have "no" offensive game, thats some huge hyperbole

I am sorry for the byperbole.

He had a severely limited offensive game (guys like Rodman and Ben Wallace have no offensive game and he is certainly above them).

But he was a horrendous FT shooter, and never averaged more than 19 points per game a season in a highly inflated era and shot very low FG% (even if they were high relative to the era, they were low comparative to the greats of the time (West, Oscar, Wilt). Nothing makes me believe he was average any more than 12 points per game in today's league, especially with the larger paint area.

Now when I said offensive game, I probably should have said scoring game because Russell was a very good passer.

That's fair. I think he'd get "garbage points" and lots of them, but that's about it. Putbacks (easier nowadays when guys don't block out), open under the hoop when opponents are napping, abuse the occasional utter mismatch, finish the occasional break that started with a turnover in the corner, etc.

[JordansBulls]

Disappointing Russell makes it as 2nd.

I disagree.

[Sedale Threatt]

I do think there was a little 90s-indie-music-fan going on for Bill, in that he was a cooler vote than the way-too-obvious Kareem. But I don't have a major problem with him at No. 2. Or even a small problem. I even thought about it myself, which I never would have done a couple of years ago.

[penbeast0]

You're going to be very disappointed my friend. I've already counted about half the voters who have Kobe firmly outside their top 10 (myself, ElGee, Gongxi, Warspite, Penbeast, Mysticbb, Drza, Laimbeer, Baller24, Sedale Threat, FJS, David Stern, rraverred, vinsanity, and others,. . . .

I think you are wrong about some of those GF, I'm leaning to Kobe at 10 actually, just want to see Mikan in the discussion as soon as possible because he's the biggest wild card in the top 20 depending on era bias. Rings batter and Kobe's rings with Pau Gasol as his second best player are a tribute to his ability (to say nothing of the GOAT coach, Phil Jackson -- tempted to argue for discounting all the Phil Jackson rings as more coaching than talent just to see Jordan, Shaq, and Kobe fall precipitously). Notice that none of them won before or after Jackson, except Shaq as second banana. Will watch this year to see if Lakers revert to Carmelo era Nuggets level of marginal contenders.

[An Unbiased Fan]

If the first 2 votes are any indication, no one really has a concrete list from #1-20. What's encouraging is that voters are actually debating the players, and haven't made up their minds yet. It's rather silly and premature to project where players are going to go in the #5-15 range, right now.

After MJ, Russ, KAJ, Wilt....I think list will start to diverge a lot more in opinion.

[Baller 24]

Agreed, opinions have changed for many. Bird, Magic, Duncan, and Shaq are completely up in the air for me, where I know they're next, but in what exact order is what I'm unsure of. And I'm definitely ready to put arguments in for Shaq v Wilt come the next thread.

[Fencer reregistered]

Agreed, opinions have changed for many. Bird, Magic, Duncan, and Shaq are completely up in the air for me, where I know they're next, but in what exact order is what I'm unsure of. And I'm definitely ready to put arguments in for Shaq v Wilt come the next thread.

I'm not convinced yet that the 4th slot should go to a guy with a mere 4 rings, let alone 2.

[ThaRegul8r]

If the first 2 votes are any indication, no one really has a concrete list from #1-20.

Part of the point of this project should be to help people form a list by actually thinking about it.

What's encouraging is that voters are actually debating the players, and haven't made up their minds yet.

This is good. If people's minds are already made up, then there's no room for discussion. Everyone would then be simply trying to make this list a reflection their own personal list.

Agreed, opinions have changed for many. Bird, Magic, Duncan, and Shaq are completely up in the air for me, where I know they're next, but in what exact order is what I'm unsure of. And I'm definitely ready to put arguments in for Shaq v Wilt come the next thread.

Bring 'em on. Will look forward to reading them.

[JordansBulls]

You're going to be very disappointed my friend. I've already counted about half the voters who have Kobe firmly outside their top 10 (myself, ElGee, Gongxi, Warspite, Penbeast, Mysticbb, Drza, Laimbeer, Baller24, Sedale Threat, FJS, David Stern, rraverred, vinsanity, and others,. . . .

I think you are wrong about some of those GF, I'm leaning to Kobe at 10 actually, just want to see Mikan in the discussion as soon as possible because he's the biggest wild card in the top 20 depending on era bias. Rings batter and Kobe's rings with Pau Gasol as his second best player are a tribute to his ability (to say nothing of the GOAT coach, Phil Jackson -- tempted to argue for discounting all the Phil Jackson rings as more coaching than talent just to see Jordan, Shaq, and Kobe fall precipitously). Notice that none of them won before or after Jackson, except Shaq as second banana. Will watch this year to see if Lakers revert to Carmelo era Nuggets level of marginal contenders.

You can apply that in the Shaq case because the Lakers were winning 56+ games yearly before Phil came. Bulls won 50 games the most before Phil came but that had more to do playing in the 80's and playing with undeveloped players in Pip and Grant. The next year got to the conference finals and after that Collins was gone.
If wasn't like Phil was a proven coach before he went to Chicago just like Avery Johnson wasnt nor was Poppovich in San Antonio. It's like saying Duncan needed Popps to win.

[ElGee]

I'm pretty disappointed in a project in which the criteria at the top of each thread says to focus on well how well people played, you guys are talking about team accomplishments. Old habits are hard to break...I suppose we know from this group who thinks going for it on 4th down is "too risky!"

You don't start individual player analysis of a game with "which team won," and by extension you don't translate that out to a season, nor a concatenation of seasons in this case. "Winner" is just a term for "gave his chance a better team to win" which is synonymous with "better at basketball" which is circular argument. It's like saying "I'm giving player A a tiebreaker over Player B because Player A was better."

If you fall into that trap, you end up with an NBA team of Tyler Hansboroughs, Wayne Turners and Trajan Langdon's. You know -- big "winners." *sigh*

[rrravenred]

To put a counter-argument... this benefits the Adrian Dantleys of NBA History whose individual impacts were awesome, but whose teams generally benefited structurally from their departure.

You're right that team success has a limited amount to do with individual player X, but I think the player's effect on the team itself does bear analysis.

[ElGee]

To put a counter-argument... this benefits the Adrian Dantleys of NBA History whose individual impacts were awesome, but whose teams generally benefited structurally from their departure.

You're right that team success has a limited amount to do with individual player X, but I think the player's effect on the team itself does bear analysis.

Hmm. Let me be clear here. We want to know HOW MUCH a player increases the chances his team wins the game. That's what make the individual. But that's only a small piece of the equation, and as a result (many other variables), looking at wins and losses is a *terrible* way to analyze individual performance. Adrian Dantley just didn't help his team win much.

[rrravenred]

Yeah, but increasing "chances" doesn't always lead to actual results (fickle damn fate). When it does, the "contributions" are validated. When they're not, they're just "empty" stats (which is validated retrospectively). i.e. Wilt's finals performances were "empty" wheras West's stats (for the same end result) are "heroic" partially because he eventually won as "the man" wheras Wilt did as a role-player (though a damn fine one).

On-line with your actual point, of course.

I'm looking forward with a strange type of anticipatory dread to Isiah's nomination, as Laimbeer and I have seemingly endless debates on how much Isiah's individual contributions contributed to the Pistons mid-late 80s success.

[GilmoreFan]

I'll be going to D.Rob very soon, and Barkley. I think the team success aspect is being emphasised alot less than it was last time. I mean, take the last time this was done. Lebron was 36, Dirk 41, Gilmore 31, Thurmond 51... I think those 4 will be going way, way higher. On the other hand Oscar, West, Pettit, Baylor, Havlicek and especially Mikan will drop considerably. This is a good thing.