RealGM

Criteria: Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball.

Voting Will End In 2 Days (Monday 9/12) at 10PM EST

Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Willis Reed

2x NBA Champion
Hall of Fame 1982
MVP (1970)
1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-Def 1st Team
7x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1965)


Allen Iverson

MVP (2001)
3x All-NBA 1st Team
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-NBA 3rd Team
11x All-Star
Rookie of the Year (1996)


Dave Cowens

Hall of Fame 1991
2x NBA Champion
MVP 1973
3x All-NBA 2nd Team
1x All-Def 1st Team
2x All-Def 2nd Team
Rookie of the Year 1971
7x All-Star


Elvin Hayes

Hall of Fame (1990)
NBA Champion (1978)
3× All-NBA First Team Selection
3× All-NBA Second Team Selection
2x All-Defense Second Team Selections
12× All-Star


Dominique Wilkins

Hall of Fame (2006)
1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x All-NBA 3rd Team
9x All-Star

Kevin McHale

Hall of Fame 1999
3 NBA Championship Teams
1 All NBA 1st Team
3 All-Defense 1st Team
3 All-Defense 2nd Team
2 Sixth Man of the Year Awards


Tracy McGrady

Most Improved (2001)
2x1st Team All-NBA
3x2nd Team All-NBA
2x3rd Team All-NBA
7xAll-Star

Paul Pierce

NBA Champion 2008
2008 NBA Finals MVP
1x All-NBA 2nd Team
3x All-NBA 3rd Team
9x All-STar



Dwight Howard

4x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 3rd Team
3x NBA DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR
3x NBA All-Defensive 1st Team
1x NBA All-Defensive 2nd Team
5x All-Star

Yikes, I'm not sure about that J Kidd slotting. I'm seriously concerned about his halfcourt offense even being more than slightly above average. Ah well, he does have a nice impact on teammates and has the results, I suppose

Vote: Paul Pierce

Nomination: Bob McAdoo

Torn between him, Lanier and English. I'll go with the highest peak in McAdoo

This one is wide open for me. I could go in a bunch of directions with both the vote and the nominee.

The nominee vote is interesting, because we've got Team Cousy going heads up with Team Paul/Reggie, and then there are a lot of other viable candidates still at large as well. My default is still Mourning, though I'm interested in the debate and could get behind any of a bunch of candidates for the next slot.

As for the vote, Team Pierce came really close to getting him elected last thread. We know that he'll have at least 3 votes, but I'm curious as to whether his other two supporters really think he is the best player left or if they were just very convinced that he was better than Kidd. I could actually see any of the 10 candidates as viable winners of this slot, but as a default I'd have to say that Dwight is probably my default vote.

Let the debates begin!

Ugh. Just lost a huge freaking post responding to fatal about Reggie Miller. Not going to re-do it, don't have time, will summarize:

-If you don't like the Miller nomination, argue specifics against it, don't just say he was worse than other players. Obviously, some of us disagree with you. We've given specifics supporting him, ignore us or debate in earnest with us.

-Comparison with Ray Allen is most informative, so I'll speak to that. Allen's got 2 obvious things over Miller.

1) All-star nods, which are luck. Allen had ridiculously weak competition.

2) His gaudy volume numbers in Seattle. But, on ball players get inflated numbers. Is there anyone building a dream team that wants Allen for what he did in Seattle? C'mon, he's a HOF lock primarily because of his off ball role as a shooter/spacer.

And when you look at Allen in that role, Miller matches or beats him everywhere you look. More volume, more efficiency, and widens the gap in the playoffs.

As a Celtics fan, what I've noticed about Allen to his discredit has been really bad slumps -- e.g. the 2010 Finals after his record game.

I attribute these not just to random fluctuation, but rather to him being SO much a creature of rhythm and habit that it's possible to get him off his game, especially via some sort injury other guys might be more effective at playing through. (In the 2010 Finals it was a thigh injury resulting from an Artest mugging.)

Otherwise, his quasi-PG skills have been worse than we expected when he came over from Seattle, and his defense has been better. Other than an occasional outlet pass, too rare to count for much in evaluating him, I haven't seen him do much in the way of getting the ball skillfully to somebody else.

Doctor MJ wrote:Ugh. Just lost a huge freaking post responding to fatal about Reggie Miller. Not going to re-do it, don't have time, will summarize:

-If you don't like the Miller nomination, argue specifics against it, don't just say he was worse than other players. Obviously, some of us disagree with you. We've given specifics supporting him, ignore us or debate in earnest with us.

-Comparison with Ray Allen is most informative, so I'll speak to that. Allen's got 2 obvious things over Miller.

1) All-star nods, which are luck. Allen had ridiculously weak competition.

2) His gaudy volume numbers in Seattle. But, on ball players get inflated numbers. Is there anyone building a dream team that wants Allen for what he did in Seattle? C'mon, he's a HOF lock primarily because of his off ball role as a shooter/spacer.

And when you look at Allen in that role, Miller matches or beats him everywhere you look. More volume, more efficiency, and widens the gap in the playoffs.

As for the past several rounds:

Vote: Pierce
Nominate: Cousy

We had a vigorous discussion toward the end of Thread #35 as to whether it should matter that Cousy had huge impact on the game in establishing PG/transition offense play, and an arguably even huger impact in the area of racial integration. I say it should.

Also, rumors of Cousy's low efficiency are greatly exaggerated, an artifact of there not being PG/SG distinctions in the records of the time. If you look at "small guards" who dished out a relatively high number of assists, and use that as a proxy for "PG", all of a sudden his supposed inefficiency goes away.

Rumors of Cousy's inadequate defense seem questionable, given the great defensive teams he played on. Yes, Celtics guards relied on Russell to protect them while they gambled for steals, and no, steals aren't actually tracked from those days -- but whatever they did worked.

If you're groaning about overall shooting efficiency from that era, I refer you to Sharman's quotes about the shape of the basketball (!), general fatigue from the conditions of the day, and so on. I further refer you to the lack of game-day shootarounds (later pioneered by, yes, Sharman), the lack of a 3-pt line providing spacing, and so on, although I recognize that some of those things were implemented after efficiency went at least somewhat up.

If you are looking askance at the huge differences in Celtics stats from the rest of the league's -- #1 in points scored and last in efficiency at the same time -- well, that was the system. And it won. We've seen with Kidd how great eye-test PG play can show up more in defensive than offensive stats. We can't rule out extra fatigue from a LOT of extra running affecting efficiency in Celtics games at both ends of the court; indeed, it makes perfect sense to assume that in.

And in what I think is an underappreciated factor, we can't rule out an offensive systems that factors the potential of an offensive rebound into schemes and decision-making -- it's known the Celtics had a limited number of plays (seven), and it's known that rebounding schemes were part of the play design.

And by the way -- Cousy collected an awesome set of rings and accolades.

Fencer reregistered wrote:Also, rumors of Cousy's low efficiency are greatly exaggerated, an artifact of there not being PG/SG distinctions in the records of the time. If you look at "small guards" who dished out a relatively high number of assists, and use that as a proxy for "PG", all of a sudden his supposed inefficiency goes away.

Interested in that statement. Would be great if you could expound with data from the players you're comparing him to.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Fencer reregistered wrote:Also, rumors of Cousy's low efficiency are greatly exaggerated, an artifact of there not being PG/SG distinctions in the records of the time. If you look at "small guards" who dished out a relatively high number of assists, and use that as a proxy for "PG", all of a sudden his supposed inefficiency goes away.

Interested in that statement. Would be great if you could expound with data from the players you're comparing him to.

To copy from viewtopic.php?f=64&p=28843186#p28843101 :

penbeast0 wrote:For the nomination:

PG -- It is between the great playmaking but inefficient even for his era (especially in playoffs) Bob Cousy, and the young gun with 2 great years but only 5 1/2 years total, Chris Paul. If someone can do a comp to show me Cousy was actually reasonably efficient either individually or in terms of team offense in the period from 58-62, I'll vote for him easily, otherwise . . . Other candidates include Kevin Johnson, the surprisingly efficient Chauncey Billups, and possibly Lenny Wilkens from the 60s or the purely offensive Nate Archibald or Pete Maravich from the 70s.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y5=1959 is a comparison of assist leaders in the 1958-59 season who are listed as guard (as opposed to, say, guard-forward).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y5=1959 is the same comparison for that season only.

Cousy beats everybody else on win shares in any comparison. He looks good on efficiency against most of them, but not against single-season Richie Guerin, nor (more arguably because of the volume differential) single-season Dick McGuire.

As for team efficiency -- I've argued that offensive rebounding, defensive efficiency, and fatigue-from-pace can all serve to make team efficiency numbers misleading.

I further note that the Celtics were #1 in overall points scored, as well as #1 in overall wins, as well as #1 in the post-season, all of which might provide some context for their supposedly deplorable shooting efficiency.

The results were even more favorable to Cousy when I looked at data from a couple years earlier.

Hmm. I guess I misundestood what you meant because I don't find this compelling.

What you're saying here is that Cousy's efficiency what you'd expect for playmakers, but consider:

1) The more you shoot, the more your efficiency matters. Most of those guys shot such tiny amounts they essentially were non-scorers, and the one guy on the list who did shoot a decent amoung (Guerin) still shot way less than Cousy, was never the leading shot taker on his team, and was actually more efficient than Cousy.

2) None of the guys on that list are even in our conversation for the Top 100 list. I understand that those are in some sense his closest peers, but there remains a basic fact that that saying "well he's no worse than Joe Glass" when Joe Glass sucks can't really be a great argument.

Also, I'm really desperate for people to answer my concerns regarding Cousy vs Dolph Schayes. If any one votes for Cousy without having a clear impression of who Schayes was, they have no done their due diligence as a voter.

To state the issue again: Cousy & Schayes were ranked pretty similarly by contemporaries. Having Cousy ahead of Schayes was always a reasonable opinion, but people in the 1950s would think you totally crazy to think that Cousy was a talent for the ages and Schayes was nothing special. I don't see how you can think Cousy is a Top 20-30 player based on what he did at the time without having Schayes as a major contender for your nomination at this point once Cousy goes in.

I haven't paid as much attention to Schayes because he didn't quite have the accolades of Cousy (not first-team every year, never an NBA), didn't quite have the team success (OK, that part is unfair), and didn't have the humongous extras that I'm convinced Cousy has.

Anyhow, Schayes was known as one of the great shooters of his era, and Cousy had almost identical shooting stats to him, so you're making my pro-Cousy point for me.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=1963

Schayes did get to the line a bit more that Cousy, and had rebounds where Cousy had assists; those are the main statistical differences between them.

If you want to make some sort of argument that Schayes/Cousy is Pierce/Kidd all over again, be my guest. We don't have the eye test on Schayes to match our assurance that Pierce was a very effective defender, but Schayes also doesn't have Pierce's odd lack of top contemporary regular-season accolades.

On the other hand, Schayes did get beaten out for All-NBA Second Team a couple of times by Tommy Heinsohn, let alone first team (Pettit, Arizin, Baylor), while Cousy never lost out for First Team to anybody except Robertson and West. So maybe we DO have a bit of a contemporary-accolades issue with Schayes as well.

More than half kidding on the accolade part, actually. The biggest part of the accolade point that's real is that Cousy had an UNBROKEN run on first team until he lost out to guys we've ranked MUCH higher on the list.

Hmm, Doc MJ, I'm not completely sure we can discredit Miller's lack of all-star berths by bringing up the "lack of competition" for Ray Allen.

During Miller's prime, here are some of the guards that beat him out for the All-Star game. This is excluding the obvious Jordan, Thomas being included as obvious sort picks. Outside of them, and even Isiah in his later years, which guards were considered near locks to make the game?

91: Hersey Hawkins, Joe Dumars, Alvin Robertson.
92: Reggie Lewis, Joe Dumars, Mark Price, Michael Adams
93: Joe Dumars, Mark Price.
94: Kenny Anderson, Mookie Blaylock, B.J. Armstrong, John Starks, Mark Price.
97: Terrell Brandon, Joe Dumars.

We compare that to Allen's competition. Kidd, McGrady, and Iverson were near locks to be in the all-star game every year. So, Allen had lesser spots to compete with his contemporaries which included guys like Baron Davis, Carter at times, Jordan (lol), Marbury, Houston, Sprewell, Stackhouse, etc.

When Allen moved West to Seattle, Kobe and McGrady (a year after Allen moved to Seattle) were locks to be named to the All-Star team. Then consider his competition was Ginobili, Nash, Paul/Deron at the tail end of his Sonics career, or Parker, then I'm not completely sold on the idea that Allen had ridiculously easy competition, while implying that Miller had much more superior competition.

Overall though, all-star nominations, as you allude to aren't really a reason to rank one over another. It's dependent on era and media, and don't really prove why one player is better than another. It's just that, I'm not completely sure it was the competition that created that discrepancy.

Re: Spacing; I completely buy this argument. Reggie's impact in terms of creating for space his teammates is astronomical, and a big reason why his numbers don't indicate his true impact on the game. I was always under the belief that Reggie Miller was one of the most overrated players of our generation (depending on whom you ask in the media, it's still holds some truth); but I think that opinion became so popular that he's now become slightly underrated because his statistics don't paint the entire picture. But the question I'm struggling with is, does this propel him into being better than some certain players that had different offensive games - meaning, put the ball on the floor more, play-making, etc, while they have considerably greater defensive impact, see guys like Moncrief or Dumars.

I also take the points about Miller raising his game in the playoffs, most specifically 5 post-seasons with an average of over 25+ PPG respectively. But I think it's worth mentioning, only one of those five post season runs were when Miller actually advanced past the first round. He played 3, 4, 17, 1, 4 games in those respective post-seasons. In retrospect, Allen actually has two post-seasons of production worth over 25 PPG having advanced past the first round.

I think they're comparable as defenders, while Allen has the edge as an all rounded player in terms of rebounding, and play-making. Offensively, I think it's close enough to the point that I like Ray Allen more overall. In fact, there's not much a difference between their teams relative rank in ORTG.






And as for his volume #'s in Seattle, I agree with the notion that I'd prefer Allen with less an on ball role, and for that sort of role, I'd prefer Miller, BUT I don't think that's the right way to look at Allen's role with those Sonics teams. Because, he had to play that role, not out of game style, but team structure.

I think the better question is, if the team structure were forced into putting one of these guys as the primary creator/initiator for the team offense, then I'd take Allen over Miller, because he's a bit more versatile in terms of putting the ball on the floor, and getting to the rim to create for himself or teammates. Now, I don't think it's a huge difference, but similar to the difference in wanting Miller over Allen in a strict off the ball sort role. That '05 season was pretty impressive by Ray, IMO. Give him some more shooters in Lewis, Ridnor, and Radman, along with hustle big men like Fortson, Evans, James, and Collison, that Sonics team won 50+ games, and took the to-be champion Spurs in the 2nd round to 6 games.

TBH, I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on, but I think Allen deserves serious consideration with Miller to the point it's a matter of preference. Perhaps comes down to valuing a slight better all round game, or greater playoff play.

BTW, I love Ginobili. He's efficient, he's clutch, has a very good all-game, competes every game, and drza had an awesome post about his defensive impact. I love that he's getting talked about here, but where does Carter stack up in a comparison with him? Longevity for both are similar, if not a slight edge for Carter, so are we under the assumption that Ginobili's peak is THAT much better?

JordansBulls wrote:Vote: Dominique Wilkins
Nominate: Bob Cousy

Why Wilkins, when Pierce isn't on the list yet?

Fencer reregistered wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:Vote: Dominique Wilkins
Nominate: Bob Cousy

Why Wilkins, when Pierce isn't on the list yet?

He was more elite for longer. He actually led a team to the #2 seed and was #2 in MVP voting with 3 top 6 players all time in there primes in the loaded Eastern Conference in the 80's. Pierce gets this pedestal based on 2 other stars coming to Boston when the first year he wasn't even the best player on the team. Also in 1989 Walt Frazier called Nique top 3 in the league with MJ and Magic.

1989 Season - Mentioned at the 4:13-4:25 mark that MJ, Magic and Nique were the top 3 in the league.

viewtopic.php?p=25631585

This was the 1989 Season and it was mentioned at the 4:13-4:25 mark that MJ, Magic and Nique were the top 3 in the league.

I actually don't think Wilkins over Pierce is that preposterous. Wilkins was a higher volume scorer; his efficiency wasn't as good, but it's not as bad as some people make it out to be (both have four seasons of 25+ PPG on at least .550 TS%), and he consistently anchored among the better offensive teams in the league w/out another significant offensive option (The Celtics for most of Pierce's prime were an average to slightly below average offensive team with a relative top 10 in the league in pace). Nique is also a better rebounder, and while Pierce generally garners more assists, Nique also turns it over less which makes up some of the gap (from 01-10, Pierce gives you 4.3 assists to 3.3 turnovers, while Nique from 85-93 gives you 3.0 assists to 2.6 turnovers). I don't blame Wilkins for not winning a championship, because:

a.) He never had a championship caliber supporting cast.
b.) He lost to only some of the best teams in the era.

Also, as the clear cut best player on their team, Nique led the Hawks to four straight 50+ win seasons, while Pierce technically never accomplished that. Pierce has very good longevity, but Nique nearly matches that, in fact might have one more year of superior sort play. In terms of overall offensive impact, Nique has a case over Pierce, while defensively, I don't think Pierce clearly separates himself until '08.

Pierce has better range/efficiency, and has proven to fit flawlessly with a championship caliber team (something Nique unfortunately didn't get the chance to prove), while being a better defender and comparable enough in other aspects of the game - is what probably puts Pierce above Nique. But they have similar longevity, with similar impact peaks to the point that it'd be more a debate than it's been so far (should count for a little bit in terms of recognition with MVP/All-NBA as well).

Note: I'm not really arguing Nique over Pierce, but I think there's enough a case to question it.

JordansBulls wrote: Also in 1989 Walt Frazier called Nique top 3 in the league with MJ and Magic.

Cool. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3992 ... est-player says Pierce was the 3rd-best player in the league.

Robert Parish said Pierce was a better offensive player than Larry Bird, and indeed the "best offensive player" in Celtic history.
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... rce_b.html

Pierce has also had better longevity than Bird, and some would say he is a better defender as well.

Fencer reregistered wrote:

JordansBulls wrote: Also in 1989 Walt Frazier called Nique top 3 in the league with MJ and Magic.

Cool. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3992 ... est-player says Pierce was the 3rd-best player in the league.

Robert Parish said Pierce was a better offensive player than Larry Bird, and indeed the "best offensive player" in Celtic history.
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... rce_b.html

Pierce has also had better longevity than Bird, and some would say he is a better defender as well.

Pierce in MVP Voting

2000-01 NBA 0.004 (13)
2001-02 NBA 0.017 (11)
2002-03 NBA 0.001 (11)
2007-08 NBA 0.001 (14)
2008-09 NBA 0.017 (7)


Nique in MVP voting
1985-86 NBA 0.522 (2)
1986-87 NBA 0.168 (5)
1987-88 NBA 0.069 (6)
1990-91 NBA 0.030 (8)
1992-93 NBA 0.055 (5)
1993-94 NBA 0.001 (11)

People really held it against Stockton for a while because of where he ranked overall in the league (MVP voting, All NBA teams), yet seem to be ignoring that with Pierce. Pierce has never been a top 5 player in the NBA, and has been top 10 maybe once or twice. I just don't see how that equates to a top 40 player of all time.

Vote: Dominique Wilkins
Nomination: Bob Cousy

SDChargers#1 wrote:People really held it against Stockton for a while because of where he ranked overall in the league (MVP voting, All NBA teams), yet seem to be ignoring that with Pierce. Pierce has never been a top 5 player in the NBA, and has been top 10 maybe once or twice. I just don't see how that equates to a top 40 player of all time.

Vote: Dominique Wilkins
Nomination: Bob Cousy

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, Stockton HAS already been voted onto our list.

Pierce has been a top-2 SF in the league more consistently than Stockton was a top-2 PG (Magic, Isiah, Payton), although the discussion does get clouded by positional back-and-forth, and by some excessive Melo-love.

When we nominated Pierce (and TMac) before Wilkins, we were right to do so, although I'm OK with the flashy guy from the earlier era going on the list soon after those two do.