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:

Sidney Moncrief

1x All-NBA 1st Team
4x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x Defensive Player of the Year
4x All-Defense 1st Team
1x All-Defense 2nd TEam
5x All-Star

Alonzo Mourning

NBA Championship 2006
1x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x Defensive Player of the Year
2x All-Defense 1st Team
7x All-Star


Bob Cousy

Hall of Fame 1971
MVP 1957
10x All-NBA 1st Team
2x All-NBA 2nd Team
6x NBA Champion
13x All-Star

Chris Paul

1x1st Team All-NBA
1x2nd Team All-NBA
1x3rd Team All-NBA
1x1st Team All-Defense
2x2nd Team All-Defense
Rookie of the Year 2006
5xAll-Star


Reggie Miller

3x3rd Team All-NBA
5xAll-Star

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

Voting Candidates
We have two PGs on the board. Chris Paul has only played 5 years in the NBA and only 2 really peak years but those two were as impressive as any small guard who has ever played in the NBA. Bob Cousy, on the other hand, has 6 rings, 10 1st team All-NBA awards, an MVP, and was the games first great playmaker (Bob Davies possibly excepted). Paul's peak is so short it is hard to pick him over one of the all-time greats like Cousy but he's better offensively, defensively, and doesn't have his efficiency fall off a cliff in the playoffs as Cousy did in so many championship seasons.

Allen Iverson and Reggie Miller couldn't be more unalike as scorers. Iverson the super high volume, inefficient, undersized, bad practice, streetball superstar with accolades and endorsements everywhere; Miller the superefficient, come off of screens, playoff assassin with only 5 All-Star games in his long career and never better than 3rd team All-NBA. Neither were much defensively unlike Sidney Moncrief who is probably the greatest man defender in NBA history and a superefficient 20+ppg scorer with excellent ballhandling and rebounding as well.

Then you have the bigs. Cowens and Reed were early 70s stars with reasonably short careers and not great stats but who were recognized as MVP's for their leadership and hard nosed play. Alonzo Mourning is similar but without the championships. Elvin Hayes is stronger statistically than any of them and also a 70s champion although known as a whiner more than a leader. The question is whether the intangibles for Cowens, Reed, and Zo outweight the longevity and bigger numbers of Elvin Hayes since only Zo really has any sort of efficiency edge on the Big E. I lean to Hayes of these 4 bigs.

Vote: So, short peak, it's Moncrief over Paul; long peak it's Miller or Hayes (efficient scoring over inefficient but with defense, rebounding, and team more team success). I will tentatively vote for Sidney Moncrief, he was just that terrific for his short 5 year stretch -- but as I don't expect that much support for him at this point yet, I will probably change my vote to help more deserving over less deserving other candidates.

Vote: Reggie Miller
Nominate: Kevin Johnson

For the nomination:

PG -- It is between Kevin Johnson who was a very solid player in all respects though often injured, the surprisingly efficient Chauncey Billups, and possibly Lenny Wilkens from the 60s or the purely offensive Nate Archibald or Pete Maravich from the 70s. I lean to KJ for his all around game.

Wings -- On the wings, there are still great scorers left . . . I like Alex English's consistency and Ray Allen's 3 point shooting over the more spectacular but less consistent Bernard King, Mark Aquirre, or David Thompson, or the statistically most efficient Adrian Dantley. Paul Arizin, Sam Jones, and Hal Greer also should come into play reasonably soon and I am interested in how they match up to the likes of English or Allen but for now I lean English.

Big Men -- At PF, Bobby Jones and Dennis Rodman may be the greatest pair of defensive forwards but Jones, while extremely efficient, didn't score or rebound that much while Rodman had no offense and for 1/2 his career, left his man at times to pad his rebounding stats at the team's expense. On the offensive end, Amare Stoudamire and Chris Webber just have too many issues to rank above Jones or Rodman. Actually comparing these guys to the other big men left, I would have to suck it up and go with Rodman despite my dislike for what he did in San Antonio. He's a punk but his rebounding is GOAT level and his post defense excellent (earlier in his career he defender out on the floor well too but he gave up doing that to pad his rebounding totals, another reason I don't like him . . . but it's hard to argue with his level of success).

The centers left all have some issue with their games. Neil Johnston and Mel Daniels played against inferior competition during their primes and were more limited besides. Bob McAdoo while his 5 year peak is spectacular, didn't play big man defense and his teams didn't dominate; Bob Lanier and Walt Bellamy had nice numbers but their teams weren't that much either and Detroit with Lanier sucked defensively for 9 of Lanier's 10 prime years which I consider pretty bad. Finally there are lesser scoring Wes Unseld and Dikembe Mutombo who were consistent players for years; Unseld brings GOAT picks and outlet passing, Deke great shotblocking. Finally, Bill Walton had one great year (not that much better than Wes Unseld's MVP year) but every other year he broke down and left the Portland and San Diego teams which had built around him destroyed until he made another 1 year comeback as a top reserve. I wouldn't choose a one in eight shot at catching lightning in a bottle at the expense of a virtually guaranteed team crash the other seven over most of the above named players. I can't see taking any of them ahead of Rodman, moron that he was; just had too much success and was too unique a rebounder.

So, overall, KJ v. English v. Rodman. KJ v. English has English as the better individual player with better scoring, efficiency, and both slightly above average defensively; the question is whether KJ has some kind of a Steve Nash type team bonus that elevates him over his numbers. English v. Rodman is the classic good v. bad as English was a perpetual good citizenship nominee but I think rebounding and interior defense win more championships than versatile and efficient wing scoring.

Nominate The Worm.

I'm all over the Rodman nomination. He and Ginobili are probably my two default candidates right now, and if Worm is the one that can generate the momentum (as last thread appeared to indicate) I'm fine with that.

As for the vote, right now I'd say that Hayes, Reed and Iverson are my front-runners. Could get behind a push for Zo as well.

For the vote, after Miller gets in...I don't see why not Paul? Best peak out of any of the other nominees imo.

I will say up front that I'm not an Iverson fan at all, and I have him around 48 or 49 on my current list.

Also, penbeast0 has been mentioning him, but nobody else has...are we seriously overlooking Alex English? He has some monster scoring seasons, with very good efficiency, as well as solid playmaking and rebounding.

Vote: Reggie Miller, obviously, and I hope people read the last page or so of the last thread. If when you last voted there were anti-Miller points you hadn't seen rebutted, please take a gander.

My nomination is still up in the air. Glad to see Rodman begin to seriously enter the conversation.

therealbig3 wrote:For the vote, after Miller gets in...I don't see why not Paul? Best peak out of any of the other nominees imo.

I will say up front that I'm not an Iverson fan at all, and I have him around 48 or 49 on my current list.

Paul is my likely vote. I will keep an open mind though that thread comes and the arguments are made.

havent followed this project for a little while now, but if tmac's in at 36 what makes him superior to someone like grant hill who hasnt even been nominated yet? ditto for penny, although his prime was shorter than either of mac or hill.

OK, I want to preface this by stating I'm a huge Rodman fan, and without sounding like a know-it-all, I think I know his game and how he impacts basketball on the court quite well.

So to other Rodman supporters, I pose this question: How great of a team do you think you can build around Dennis Rodman as your best overall player?

I know we're between 40-50 on our list now, and we're starting to leave the historic megastars behind. We aren't comparing anybody to Barry or James or Olajuwon here. But how comfortable are you with Dennis Rodman as your best overall player?

andrewww wrote:havent followed this project for a little while now, but if tmac's in at 36 what makes him superior to someone like grant hill who hasnt even been nominated yet? ditto for penny, although his prime was shorter than either of mac or hill.

Was Hill clearly better than T-Mac in any area? I'd give T-Mac a big edge as a scorer and creator, and he was pretty close, if not equal, defensively (he obviously didn't have the reputation, but I think he was a very good defender).

Hill did have an edge as a rebounder, as T-Mac was around a 9% TRB in his prime, and he peaked at 11.4%. Hill was at 12.1% in his prime, and he peaked at 14.5%.

But I don't think that Hill has such a big edge as a rebounder that it compensates for T-Mac's advantages elsewhere.

ronnymac2 wrote:OK, I want to preface this by stating I'm a huge Rodman fan, and without sounding like a know-it-all, I think I know his game and how he impacts basketball on the court quite well.

So to other Rodman supporters, I pose this question: How great of a team do you think you can build around Dennis Rodman as your best overall player?

I know we're between 40-50 on our list now, and we're starting to leave the historic megastars behind. We aren't comparing anybody to Barry or James or Olajuwon here. But how comfortable are you with Dennis Rodman as your best overall player?

I would refer you to the recent great Piston teams who I don't think anyone as impactful to Rodman, and urge you to consider that finding decent scorers really isn't that hard. I absolutely think I could build a title winner with Rodman as the best player.

Where my concern is though is having such a non-leader as my most important cog. There would be volatility to any team that considered Rodman to be the franchise.

ronnymac2 wrote:OK, I want to preface this by stating I'm a huge Rodman fan, and without sounding like a know-it-all, I think I know his game and how he impacts basketball on the court quite well.

So to other Rodman supporters, I pose this question: How great of a team do you think you can build around Dennis Rodman as your best overall player?

I know we're between 40-50 on our list now, and we're starting to leave the historic megastars behind. We aren't comparing anybody to Barry or James or Olajuwon here. But how comfortable are you with Dennis Rodman as your best overall player?

I think Rodman could be the best player, but not be recognized as such, if you know what I mean. Like, you're obviously going to surround him with scorers, and even though Rodman might still have the biggest positive impact on the game, one of the scorers might be recognized as the best player on the team. Kind of like a Ben Wallace in Detroit situation. Billups and Hamilton were the ones getting the credit, because they were the best offensive players, but I'd argue that Ben Wallace's defense and rebounding made him the most valuable Piston.

therealbig3 wrote:Also, penbeast0 has been mentioning him, but nobody else has...are we seriously overlooking Alex English? He has some monster scoring seasons, with very good efficiency, as well as solid playmaking and rebounding.

Adrian Dantley?

1 of 5 players in league history to average 30 while having a TS% of over 60. Something in which he did 4 times which is tied with Michael for most all time. English never scored 30 for a season or shot a TS of 60% or over. He came very close to both but not quite there. As for playmaking and rebounding English was indeed better but is it by that much more that makes up for Dantley's supreme efficiency?

Vote: Reggie Miller
Nominate: Anfernee Hardaway

X-Factor wrote:

therealbig3 wrote:Also, penbeast0 has been mentioning him, but nobody else has...are we seriously overlooking Alex English? He has some monster scoring seasons, with very good efficiency, as well as solid playmaking and rebounding.

Adrian Dantley?

1 of 5 players in league history to average 30 while having a TS% of over 60. Something in which he did 4 times which is tied with Michael for most all time. English never scored 30 for a season or shot a TS of 60% or over. He came very close to both but not quite there. As for playmaking and rebounding English was indeed better but is it by that much more that makes up for Dantley's supreme efficiency?

Dantley is of course a reasonable counterexample to bring up any time someone advocates someone simply based on their stats. On the other hand, that Dantley isn't already on the list is certainly not a reflection on someone with those stats being inherently unimpressive. Dantley had legit issues with the team game that got in the way of matters. I've never hard English criticized the same way.

Doctor MJ wrote:Dantley is of course a reasonable counterexample to bring up any time someone advocates someone simply based on their stats. On the other hand, that Dantley isn't already on the list is certainly not a reflection on someone with those stats being inherently unimpressive. Dantley had legit issues with the team game that got in the way of matters. I've never hard English criticized the same way.

Understood. Then again my counterargument could then be that he was always widely regarded as a one of the hardest workers and most disciplined players of his time with one of the best scorers IQ the league has ever seen. However I see your POV because he was indeed a bit troublemaker of sorts.

Vote: Reggie Miller
Nominate: Dennis Rodman

Soon I suspect we need to thin out the herd of bigs -- but I reserve the right to vote for Cousy instead.

Nominee candidates I have in mind:

Unseld -- we'll be voting his peers in soon.
Paul Arizin and Dolph Schayes -- great players from a distant era.
Ray Allen -- just how big is the Reggie/Ray gap?
James Worthy

I'll let others carry the flags for Kevin Johnson, Alex English, or Marques Johnson

And there's always the Bill Walton question, but I've been on the pro-longevity side so far.

X-Factor wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Dantley is of course a reasonable counterexample to bring up any time someone advocates someone simply based on their stats. On the other hand, that Dantley isn't already on the list is certainly not a reflection on someone with those stats being inherently unimpressive. Dantley had legit issues with the team game that got in the way of matters. I've never hard English criticized the same way.

Understood. Then again my counterargument could then be that he was always widely regarded as a one of the hardest workers and most disciplined players of his time with one of the best scorers IQ the league has ever seen. However I see your POV because he was indeed a bit troublemaker of sorts.

From what I've read about Dantley, it's more that he got his personal stats at the cost of the team...meaning even though his personal stats looked great, the team's offense as a whole wasn't as good as it should have been, because he was minimizing the impact of everyone else. And all of the stats that try to measure impact that we have for Dantley kind of show that he wasn't all that valuable, so his stats are what you'd call "empty stats", I guess.