RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

GilmoreFan · Post #41 » by **GilmoreFan** » Mon Jul 4, 2011 1:25 am

Isiah is a long way off. No way he's going as high as 25 again.

Wavy Q · Post #42 » by **Wavy Q** » Mon Jul 4, 2011 1:34 am

Yeah i don't think you'll see too much Isiah love, especially with the lack of heavy detroit fan representation

SDChargers#1 · Post #43 » by **SDChargers#1** » Mon Jul 4, 2011 2:39 am

GilmoreFan wrote: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.

Lebron and Dirk's ascent mainly has to do with what they have done in the past 3 years instead of how people are changing their criteria.

Lebron was a 5 year pro the last time this was voted on. He now has 8 years of success with 2 MVPs, that's a big boost.

Dirk was considered one of the biggest chokers of all time (essentially a year after choking away the '06 title and losing in the first round to the Warriors). Now he has had another 3 years of elite production and a fantastic championship run.

Both Lebron and Dirk make sense to be moving up a ton of spots. I am not too convinced about Gilmore and Thurmond (Thurmond probably will a little), I just don't see Gilmore jumping too many people.

I think West is going to be nominated by the next round personally, he is already getting a ton of votes, and it does look like the other guys could drop, with the next one being nominated after West being Oscar. The others aren't going to be coming in any time soon.

GilmoreFan · Post #44 » by **GilmoreFan** » Mon Jul 4, 2011 2:46 am

West is similar to Kobe, in that he'll get nominated by a plurality well before he actually gets voted in. And look at where West was last time... 11th! Right now there are already 12 guys nominated, and West isn't one of them, and he's currently running even with Karl Malone for the 13th nomination. I think when it comes to the actual vote guys like KG will wind up ahead too. A huge drop for West (though not as much as the others).

shawngoat23 · Post #45 » by **shawngoat23** » Mon Jul 4, 2011 5:09 am

In the interest of full disclosure, I grew up a Pistons and Bulls fan, but I haven't had a favorite team since 1998.

Post #46 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Jul 4, 2011 10:41 pm

ronnymac2 wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
ronnymac2 wrote: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?

Post #47 » by **Doctor MJ** » Mon Jul 4, 2011 10:44 pm

Sedale Threatt wrote: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.

I'm imagining Russell as Bob Dylan with Kareem as Led Zeppelin.

Post #48 » by **rrravenred** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 2:34 am

Or Kareem as the Beatles and Russell as Vsan Morrison.

Iman Shumpert · Post #49 » by **Iman Shumpert** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 4:07 am

How do you get added to that list of voters? Or is this an invite-only group?

GilmoreFan · Post #50 » by **GilmoreFan** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 4:20 am

You have 56 posts. It's up to the 2 guys running the project, but I think to add you at this stage would by problematic. How would your refuse all the other ballboys wanting to join to pimp their guy?

EDIT: and I say that having searched some of your past posts, and found something which hints you'd be voting with me alot anyhow:

The place is dominated by Kobe trolls making account after account propping up their beloved Kobe. I've visited the place less and less after finding RealGM.

So it's in my interests for you to be added... but how can you be added without creating a precedent for every pro-Kobe or Lebron ballboy to join?

Iman Shumpert · Post #51 » by **Iman Shumpert** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 4:26 am

GilmoreFan wrote:You have 56 posts. It's up to the 2 guys running the project, but I think to add you at this stage would by problematic. How would your refuse all the other ballboys wanting to join to pimp their guy?

That's fine. I was just wondering.

GilmoreFan · Post #52 » by **GilmoreFan** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 4:38 am

If he'd joined at the start, there would be no basis to refuse. But if you start letting people enter after it's started at select points, so they can champion their dude, it'll ruin the project. Note that I haven't said anything about other guys who have joined and have nearly zero posts.

Personally I'd have had a more strenuous vetting stage at the beginning, based on quality posts, not tenure. But that's just me. If Pen and Baller24 want him, it'll work out well for me, but I think it's problematic at this point in time. If he'd joined from the first vote, there'd be nothing to say.

EDIT: the post I was replying to by Optimism Prime was deleted...

Fencer reregistered · Post #53 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 7:24 am

Maybe there can be a mid-project sign-up, with criteria a little more stringent than the original one. Namely, have them give their list for the slots to date, and explain their choices in enough detail to show they're familiar with the discussion.

Really, my main concern about letting people in partway through is that we'd have to re-discuss everything with them.

GilmoreFan · Post #54 » by **GilmoreFan** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 7:35 am

Wait until after the first 15 people get voted in, and if they still want to join, let them do so. By then new voices will be welcome, and it'll be too late for them to do any serious harm (and because of that, the people joining will mostly be serious people committed to joining, rather than Lebron or Kobe or Shaq fans keen to vote for their guy, and leave).

Fencer reregistered · Post #55 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 7:57 am

GilmoreFan wrote:You have 56 posts.

I'm not sure that's the right metric.

On the other hand, he only joined a week ago, whereas you've been around for a whole month. That might be more telling.

ElGee · Post #56 » by **ElGee** » Tue Jul 5, 2011 10:03 pm

I want to throw something out there that's a little tricky for me, but I'm trying to balance it out with the era differences. Perhaps it's new to others, or perhaps they have specific thoughts on it which I'd love to hear.

Players careers we're a little shorter in the early days than what we're seeing lately. Yet again, it comes backs to minutes played. The stars of the 60s were sort of run into the ground (worse conditions, worse courts, worse sneakers) whereas it has become vogue recently to pace players over the regular season. The tradeoff is obvious, it's better to have a guy give you 12 or 14 shots at a title than 10.

Here are the top MP guys: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=mp

Broken down by the year started for the top-50 MP players (35,800+), I see:
60s (9)
70s (6)
80s (19)
90s (14)

*Noting Hayes and Unseld started in 69 (which makes 60s and 70s fairly balanced here)

Now, here are the average MPG of those players from the decades and avg. career length:
60s 38.8 mpg (14.4 yrs)
70s 32.9 mpg (17.2 yrs)
80s 33.0 mpg (17.6 yrs)
90s 35.0 mpg (15.9 yrs)

So, how do people reconcile this? For me, I'm going to assume I could get a little more out of the early guys in the 60s ITO of longevity compared to the players of today. Subtle, yes, but seems relevant when thinking about "what are the odds that Player X helps me win title(s) over his career."

Fencer reregistered · Post #57 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Wed Jul 6, 2011 12:28 am

Yikes. That's an excellent point!

If somebody was a modern player's equal in minutes played, he shouldn't be downgraded because the minutes were compressed into fewer seasons. Each provided the same number of minutes of play at whatever quality they mustered.

Complications: Preseason (long in the old days), post season (shorter in the old days).

ElGee wrote:I want to throw something out there that's a little tricky for me, but I'm trying to balance it out with the era differences. Perhaps it's new to others, or perhaps they have specific thoughts on it which I'd love to hear.

Players careers we're a little shorter in the early days than what we're seeing lately. Yet again, it comes backs to minutes played. The stars of the 60s were sort of run into the ground (worse conditions, worse courts, worse sneakers) whereas it has become vogue recently to pace players over the regular season. The tradeoff is obvious, it's better to have a guy give you 12 or 14 shots at a title than 10.

Here are the top MP guys: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=mp

Broken down by the year started for the top-50 MP players (35,800+), I see:
60s (9)
70s (6)
80s (19)
90s (14)

*Noting Hayes and Unseld started in 69 (which makes 60s and 70s fairly balanced here)

Now, here are the average MPG of those players from the decades and avg. career length:
60s 38.8 mpg (14.4 yrs)
70s 32.9 mpg (17.2 yrs)
80s 33.0 mpg (17.6 yrs)
90s 35.0 mpg (15.9 yrs)

So, how do people reconcile this? For me, I'm going to assume I could get a little more out of the early guys in the 60s ITO of longevity compared to the players of today. Subtle, yes, but seems relevant when thinking about "what are the odds that Player X helps me win title(s) over his career."

pancakes3 · Post #58 » by **pancakes3** » Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:00 am

<-- wizards fan

Vinsanity420 · Post #59 » by **Vinsanity420** » Thu Jul 7, 2011 1:47 am

It doesn't make sense to compare longevity across eras IMO. Sports medicine was clearly not as advanced in the 60's as it is now. I would judge longevity by comparing them to their peers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nba

Nash, Pierce, Kobe, Allen and Nowitzki? NBA outliers. All of them. Their extended primes might last 15-20 percent longer than anything we've seen from a perimeter player before.

Or today's generation would look amazing since they're all defying the longevity curve.

Fencer reregistered · Post #60 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Thu Jul 7, 2011 4:41 am

Vinsanity420 wrote:It doesn't make sense to compare longevity across eras IMO. Sports medicine was clearly not as advanced in the 60's as it is now. I would judge longevity by comparing them to their peers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ortCat=nba

Nash, Pierce, Kobe, Allen and Nowitzki? NBA outliers. All of them. Their extended primes might last 15-20 percent longer than anything we've seen from a perimeter player before.

Or today's generation would look amazing since they're all defying the longevity curve.

Speaking of that, the earlier point that guys played longer minutes in the old days is telling too. Also, guys get into the league younger than they used to, although I don't know whether college schedules are demanding enough for that to matter much, especially since modern guys have more demanding high school/AAU experiences, and also play college varsity as freshmen.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... areer.html has career minutes stats, regular-season only, I would think. Shaq seems to have played around 120% of the minutes Larry Bird did. Wilt is 4th all-time, despite a full college career plus a year with the Globetrotters.