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 -- Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Robert Parish

Hall of Fame 2003
1x 2nd team All-NBA
1x 3rd team All-NBA
4x NBA Champion (once as deep bench with Bulls)
9x All-Star

Sam Jones

Hall of Fame 1984
3x All-NBA 2nd team
10x NBA Champion
5x All-Star

Pau Gasol

1x All-NBA 2nd team
2x All-NBA 3rd team
2x NBA Champion
4x All-Star

Bernard King

2x All-NBA 1st team
1x All-NBA 2nd team
1x All-NBA 3rd team
4x All-Star

Marques Johnson

1x All-NBA 1st team
2x All-NBA 2nd team
5x All-Star

Paul Arizin

Hall of Fame 1978
3x All-NBA 1st Team
1x All-NBA 2nd Team
NBA Champion 1956
10x All-Star


Manu Ginobili

2x All-NBA 3rd
3x NBA Champion
Sixth Man of the Year 2008
2x All-Star

Dennis Rodman

2x All-NBA 3rd Team
5x NBA Champion
2x Defensive Player of the Year
7x All-Defense 1st Team
1x All-Defense 2nd Team
2x All-Star


Grant Hill

1x 1st Team All-NBA
3x 2nd Team All-NBA
7x All-Star
Rookie of the Year

Vote: Marques Johnson
Nominate: Vince Carter

ElGee has touched on Marques plenty of times, so I don't think I need to explain that...but regarding Carter, I made this post before about him:



I think there are aspects to VC's game that are underrated, namely his rebounding and his playmaking. He was never like T-Mac as a playmaker, but he seemed to be at least as good as say, Paul Pierce, whose playmaking, although not otherworldly, is generally considered a positive. And Carter was also one of the best rebounding SGs in the league since he entered the league.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y4=2008

As you can see, when compared to Wade, Kobe, and T-Mac, three of the best rebounding SGs in the modern era, Carter compares favorably, and is in fact second only to T-Mac, who's bigger than the other three players and played half his prime as a SF. It's a little skewed in the sense that Kobe had his two lowest TRB% seasons in his first two years, and Wade's first season was his 2nd-lowest TRB%, but T-Mac actually had some of his best TRB% years in his first few years in the league. Overall, it's a little biased towards Carter, but still gives a pretty good estimation of their respective rebounding.

So considering that, I think Carter has generally performed well in the playoffs, namely in 01, 05, and 06. Everyone knows about 01, and his showdown with AI, but in 05, he played the best basketball of his life after the trade to the Nets, and I would definitely have ranked him top 10 in the league during that stretch (MAYBE top 5-7). The Nets were overwhelmed by a far superior Heat team, with Wade establishing himself as a superstar, and Carter's efficiency suffered. It didn't help that the 2nd best scorer on the team, Richard Jefferson, had just come back from a season-ending injury and wasn't nearly his old self, and that Jason Kidd was not really a guy who was going to alleviate the scoring load for you, especially at that point in his career (although he did average over 17 ppg in that series). So I can excuse Carter for having a 48% TS, and I'm actually impressed with the fact that he averaged close to 27/9/6 for that series.

In 06, again, the Nets lost to the Heat, who decided to play up to their potential once the playoffs rolled around. Wade again dominated. But Carter held his own. For the playoffs, Carter averaged 30/7/5 on 56% TS. This was clearly his best individual playoffs.

His 07 playoffs was pretty inexcusable though, because although he was still rebounding and distributing at a high level (and despite what the overall numbers say about his Toronto series, he played very well), he got owned in a head to head matchup in the 2nd round against...Sasha Pavlovic. Pavlovic guarded Carter and shut him down, and he even had a few nice offensive games of his own on Carter. If Carter played just a little better, the Nets could have easily won this series and advanced to the Conference Finals. It also kind of wasted the best playoffs of Kidd's career too. But again, Carter was still a good distributor and rebounder for the Nets.

Overall, I think Carter was that "all-around" type player that I don't think people really give him credit for, and he was a better playoff performer than people give him credit for. He was obviously not perfect and had plenty of flaws, but he was a very good player that could carry an offense and explode for huge games in the playoffs when asked to. Similar to AI and Dominique in that sense.

Carried over from the other thread.

Doctor MJ wrote:
Vote: Paul Arizin

Yeah I said it, and hoping to see some good counterarguments next time around. Here's the thing, Arizin tends to fall from my radar because any RPOY-style project is bound to have Dolph Schayes ranked ahead of him, and Schayes doesn't impress me that much. However, the more I think about Arizin, the more I find him hard to brush aside.

Y'all know what's been said about him: This is a guy with strong shooting ability who is completely comfortable with how modern shooting needs to be done, while at the same time having a nose for the hole, a fantastic reputation as a defender, and strong evidence that teams got a lot better with him as their alpha even in comparison to another star with comparable box score attributes.

Now consider as well Arizin vs Pettit. Pettit being someone most of us agree was a superb player by any era's standards. One of the things about Pettit that I like is that even though his efficiency was weak by modern standards, it showed signs of improving as the league developed, giving me confidence that while he'd never be Barkley's equal on that front, he'd be solid there.

However, despite the fact that Pettit came into the league AFTER Arizin, his efficiency never matched Arizin's peak efficiency as a volume scorer, and whereas Pettit's playoff stats showed the typical falloff for a player facing touch competition, Arizin only got more impressive in the playoffs.

None of this makes me debate who should be ranked higher between Pettit & Arizin, but truly a player with peak that rivals Pettit is tough to pass up down this far in the list.

btw, none of this changes how I feel about Cousy & Schayes. I think Cousy had the least impactful peak of the bunch at the time, and I have major difficulties taking a 6'7" set shooting big man seriously compared to current players. But I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to '50s basketball. A guy with huge impact then who has a game that sure seems like it would translate to today is still a big deal.

I end up comparing Arizin with Ginobili, and right now they seem to have quite a bit in common with the exception that Arizin was a big minute alpha. I look at all that, and I'm siding with Arizin at the moment.

therealbig3- Feels like we're playing thread tag. lol Good post on VC though. Most people don't understand what he meant to that team for years. The Nets collapsed after he left, especially offensively. Carter gets the Shaq treatment sometimes: he didn't reach his potential, so people gloss over his positives.

Vote: Bernard King

Nominate: Vince Carter

I don't mind Penny over VC though. Hardaway is getting underrated here.

ronnymac2 wrote:therealbig3- Feels like we're playing thread tag. lol Good post on VC though. Most people don't understand what he meant to that team for years. The Nets collapsed after he left, especially offensively. Carter gets the Shaq treatment sometimes: he didn't reach his potential, so people gloss over his positives.

Vote: Bernard King

Nominate: Vince Carter

I don't mind Penny over VC though. Hardaway is getting underrated here.

Yep, I think it's a combination of the Shaq treatment and the fact that people think VC is soft and is a choker, neither of which are really founded imo. After 03, Carter really doesn't miss too many games. And although his efficiency suffers in the playoffs, it's expected, since he's had to carry a huge offensive load for his teams, with not much support. His volume, rebounding, and playmaking all go up.

He's not a great playoff performer, as he did tend to not show up at times, like the aforementioned Nets-Cavs series in 07, and he was below average defensively, and he wasn't an uber-awesome playmaker at his position...but we're no longer talking about the top 30 or 40 or even 50, he hasn't even been nominated yet, and we're on 58...that means he would be projected to be voted in around 70. Carter was a better player than that, and I think the negative stigma associated with him really makes people underrate him.

Doctor MJ wrote:
Vote: Paul Arizin

It's hard to add much to the Arizin vote; I'm assuming not many of us were old enough to have seen him, so all we really have to go by are a few reports here and there that are published on the net.

Still, his CV speaks for itself; 1st team selections, 10 x All Star, reputation for being a two-way player. But because I know so little, it's hard to know whether it's the right vote.

As for my thoughts on the other candidates:

Robert Parish - good 2nd/3rd option with an unstoppable jumpshot and remarkably efficient. Good defender too, decent rebounder, proven winner. The downside is that he was never more than a 2nd/3rd option therefore could only be a complimentary difference maker.

Sam Jones falls into a similar category to Parish; not a primary option but nonetheless extremely successful in what he did.

Pau Gasol has proven himself as a great second option and a key international player too - that said, I find it hard to separate him and Parish; overall impact it very similar.

Bernard King is a scoring star who never found the right situation. He'll probably do more with less than anyone on this list right now; but we don't know how good he would have been in a winning situation. He doesn't have any Finals performances to judge.

Marques Johnson - or Scottie Pippen-lite; IMO. In terms of overall impact he was great. Enough to separate him from the rest of this list? Not sure.

Manu Ginobili has been a steady player and a good compliment to Duncan. Knocks against him are inconsistency and lack of durability - we assume he could've been a 25+ ppg scorer in his prime but he never got given those minutes. I think everyone on this list could do a comparable job, alongside Duncan.

Dennis Rodman the supreme specialist role-player. Too high for him to go now though, there's some far more talented guys still here.

And finally, Grant Hill. Great peak (though I think his rebounding numbers were exaggerated by the lack of Detroit frontcourt), long-career, but we all know the injuries. Because he achieved little in his peak years, I'll pass on him at this stage.


Nominate: Big Game James - still the only consistent nomination for Worthy; maybe I overrate him? Not a Lakers fan, but I always thought Worthy was a great player, but unable to shine due to being on a stacked team. We saw the Finals triple-double that won the '88 title for the Lakers (and him the MVP); that he lead the Lakers in post-season scoring more than once. He was supremely efficient, and it's harsh to say he's a product of Magic when his college career was widely acclaimed and he was drafted 1st overall. I suspect he could've put up prime Grant Hill numbers on a worse team, but he was content as a team-player and stepping up only when needed. He wasn't an amazing defender or passer but he was OK at both; he didn't have a long-range shot but from mid-range and to the basket he was efficient and effective. If Manu's in the conversation then so should Worthy be.

vote: Marques Johnson
nominate: Penny Hardaway

This is supposed to be a fun project but it's also supposed to be informational. (A lot of time is put into it.) The voting is secondary in many ways, but as we see in the RPOY project, the voting results drive interest and future debate. Every interesting or controversial result is heavily argued. That's why it's damaging to the project credibility IMO when these "reputation" players slip through the cracks.

Unseld bothers me in particular because he was a fairly unique player (ITO of big name recognition) and has absolutely zero statistical argument. So...the onus should be on those voting for him to make a case...some case...anything? (Penbeast aside for obvious reasons.)

When people go to check this project for (a) information on Wes Unseld and (b) what the case was for him over the last 43 players, it won't be there. And that's not a good thing at all.

Re: Wes Unseld.

He's one of those players - I guess in the same mould as guys such as Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman and Dave DeBusschere, that made his name through 'passion' and 'heart' rather than stats. Still, his stats weren't all that bad...

His prime was 5 years where he averaged 13.92 points on ~50% shooting; 17 rebounds, 3.5 assists. His scoring efficiency was OK - top 10 in TS%, twice; 1st in eFG% for one season and top 10 a further 3 times. Equally, his rebounding was really good, top 5 in rebounds per game for 8 seasons, including 1st once and 2nd three times; also reflected in his TRB%. Advanced metrics showed his defence to be excellent, which supports the reasons he earned his MVP - DWS ranked him 2nd, 4th, 6th, 6th, 2nd etc. over respective seasons.

Now, I don't really put much emphasis into stats, moreso what I see and hear. My argument in that case was this: Wes Unseld 'did all the unspectacular things that lead to glamorous victories' (quote stolen from NBA.com, but it sums it up perfectly). His arrival in Washington took them from a 36 win team to a 57 win team, a season which ended at the hands of the stacked New York Knicks in the Conference Finals. He earned a lot of work for his defensive efforts against players like Kareem, Wilt, and less so Willis Reed. His offensiive game wasn't spectacular but he hustled for points and considering his size disadvantage he was pretty effective. He was a very good passer for his position which contributed immensely. They're all the reasons he was elected to the Hall of Fame and the NBA 50th anniversary team.

Vote: Marques
Nomination: Worthy

Vote: Sam Jones
Nominate: Penny Hardaway

On Sam Jones

Sam averaged 17.7/4.9/2.5 for his career - but from 1961-69, he had seasons of:

18.4
19.7
19.4
25.9
23.5
22.1
21.3
16.3

He was also a career > 80% FT shooter which was huge for back then.

His averages are down because he didn't exceed 20.6 Min/Game his first 3 years. Per 36 min he was a 22.8 PPG player.

By WS/48 he was the 33rd best player of all time.

He was part of 10 of 12 Championships, and a key member of eight (6 times 2nd best WS/48; 1 time 3rd, 1 time 4th best (both WS and WS/48) of these 10 teams.

He made 5 ASG and 3 2nd team All NBA 3 times.

lukekarts wrote:It's hard to add much to the Arizin vote; I'm assuming not many of us were old enough to have seen him, so all we really have to go by are a few reports here and there that are published on the net.

Still, his CV speaks for itself; 1st team selections, 10 x All Star, reputation for being a two-way player. But because I know so little, it's hard to know whether it's the right vote.

It is indeed hard to judge these early players, but it is part of the deal, and imho a fun part. Just makes it a challenge, which I like, and I'm not particularly concerned with the fact that I may be wrong. Being wrong just means I'm more likely to learn something.

Now Cousy's already been voted in. Where do you have him ranked? What's your comparison of Arizin vs Cousy?

Doctor MJ wrote:

lukekarts wrote:It's hard to add much to the Arizin vote; I'm assuming not many of us were old enough to have seen him, so all we really have to go by are a few reports here and there that are published on the net.

Still, his CV speaks for itself; 1st team selections, 10 x All Star, reputation for being a two-way player. But because I know so little, it's hard to know whether it's the right vote.

It is indeed hard to judge these early players, but it is part of the deal, and imho a fun part. Just makes it a challenge, which I like, and I'm not particularly concerned with the fact that I may be wrong. Being wrong just means I'm more likely to learn something.

Now Cousy's already been voted in. Where do you have him ranked? What's your comparison of Arizin vs Cousy?

Cousy split opinion on here but I think he was a great player - particularly relative to his peers, at the time. Whilst nothing really tells the whole story, the 1st Team Appearances, the MVP; they're the things that separate him from Arizin.

I think we're at the point where Arizin is right to be considered though.

Aside from Penbeast

. . . because it's obvious I'm a Bullets homer or because I tend to talk a lot?

I loved Marques Johnson and the Bucks, just think he's a little high here. He was a pretty standard superstar scoring 3 . . . right in the middle of the pack with King, Dantley, Wilkins, Aguirre, English, etc. -- very good secondary stats compared to those contemporaries but the worst scoring stats. Then you add in his injuries and short peak and I just don't see him above guys like Hill, King, Jones, Manu or for that matter Paul Arizin. I know ElGee has been pushing him but I have seen nothing that makes him stand out the way Moncrief's defense, Hill's playmaking, Jones's and Ginobili's rings, or King's scoring does.

Among the bigs, the Worm is the most dominant but has really high negatives, Gasol has the stronger role than Parish on the championship teams so I lean to him over the Chief but Rodman still a bit over Pau (though I'd love a reason to vote for Pau . . . or anybody else over Rodman).

I think the Arizin post makes the most sense and despite knowing the least about him, I will tentatively lean to him; he seems more like an English/NIque/Pierce type of longer term star that should go above the short term guys without substantially higher peaks.

Vote: Paul Arizin

Point Guards -- Chauncey Billups was suprisingly efficient and solid on both ends of the court once he got established in Detroit. Nate Archibald was the most dominant PG left for 4 years, but was neither terribly efficient nor played any defense. Penny was similarly flashy in his short peak but without Tiny's superior playmaking and less dominant overall.

Wings -- On the wings, there are still great scorers left . . . the more spectacular but less consistent David Thompson or the statistically most efficient Adrian Dantley or 60s star Hal Greer -- I'd rather have prime Thompson than prime Tiny or Penny but the drug issues really hurt him for me. Bobby Jones came up as a PF but won 1st team all-defense awards during years where he played PF/C (Denver), PF/SF (most of career), and even SF/SG (Philly when they added Barkley) plus he was a consistent top 10 in the league in fg% while scoring in the 10-15ppg range; his disadvantage is that he was an energizer bunny type player whose coaches consistently limited his minutes to about 30/g after his first couple of years -- during those first years, Jones did lead his Denver team to the best record in either lead in 75 without great talent around him although I tend to think of that year as Larry Brown's HOF coaching peak.

Big Men -- On the offensive end, Amare Stoudamire and Chris Webber are the best modern players left but just have too many issues to rank above Jones. I think the other real contender is Jerry Lucas who was a great PF rebounder and an efficient scorer as the second star in Oscar on those great offensive Royals teams then was the center on the defensive oriented Knicks title squad in 73 when Reed's injuries caught up but again, never seemed that dominant. The last guy here would be Dolph Schayes who won all sorts of accolades for is toughness and heart as a big man in the 50s but was inefficient even for his era. He does have one secret weapon, he went to the line well and shot close to 90% there . . . still, looking at the numbers Neil Johnston should own him; someone has to show me his defense was dominant to vote for Schayes.

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. Dikembe Mutombo wasn't a scorer but brings great shotblocking.

Playoffs between these. Billups led the big playoff win over the Lakers and earned the nickname Mr. Big Shot, Bobby Jones led Denver to the best record in either league in 75 as the best player then was the glue guy on those Philly teams that competed with the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics for league dominance. Lucas had some big series, particularly 72, but was a part time player in the 73 title playoffs -- he's the weakest of the bunch here. Mutombo helped get Allen Iverson to a title game and upset 1st seed Seattle as an 8th seed in Denver.

I vote for Bobby Jones as arguably the most consistent and versatile defender outside of the dominant centers ever . . . 10 1st team All-Defense in his first 10 years is unmatched by anyone, ever and an efficient and heady offensive player with great intangibles.

After that . . .
2. Chauncey Billups
3. Mutombo, Amare, Thompson, or Lucas? OPEN TO ARGUMENTS

vote: Arizin
nominate: Bobby Jones

FENCER'S LIST

Vote: Sam Jones

Nominate: Dolph Schayes
(James Worthy to break a tie)

penbeast0 wrote:FENCER'S LIST

Vote: Sam Jones

Nominate: Dolph Schayes
(James Worthy to break a tie)

Thought we couldn't do contingencies?

Vote: Dolph Schayes


Nominate: waiting

penbeast0 wrote:

Aside from Penbeast

. . . because it's obvious I'm a Bullets homer or because I tend to talk a lot?

I loved Marques Johnson and the Bucks, just think he's a little high here. He was a pretty standard superstar scoring 3 . . . right in the middle of the pack with King, Dantley, Wilkins, Aguirre, English, etc. -- very good secondary stats compared to those contemporaries but the worst scoring stats. Then you add in his injuries and short peak and I just don't see him above guys like Hill, King, Jones, Manu or for that matter Paul Arizin. I know ElGee has been pushing him but I have seen nothing that makes him stand out the way Moncrief's defense, Hill's playmaking, Jones's and Ginobili's rings, or King's scoring does.

At this point I'm sort of at a loss as to how to explain this other than just to say it again:

Player's Change Throughout Their Careers

It makes little sense to compare players by talking about them in sweeping (peak) terms as if they were a constant over time. Or to try and fudge the amount of time they were good into a counting process (ie "Well, they were comparable players so the extra year changes everything" or "He was only good for 3 years so there is no way he could be better than a healthy All-Star for 9 years.")

In this case, let's look at who you mention:

Ginobili and Jones: Rings has nothing to do with this and should never be mentioned again. Thank you.

Moncrief: How does ANYONE overcome Moncrief's defensive edge? It's simple really - they are better in other areas of the game. Marques was a much better offensive player and a better rebounder. That's it really. And there are no longevity issues when comparing to Moncrief, especially when you look at 82-86 for Squid and note his 1986 PS injury.

The more I compare them, the more dogmatic I am that Johnson was better. How can you take a guy who, at his peak in 1983, was completely outperformed by a slightly past-peak teammate in Marques? It's hard for me to wrap my head around, despite having them so close on list.

King - Best peak. Arguably the GOAT one-dimensional scorer IMO. But it's a short peak and outside of a few other years, it's questionable as to how much his scoring was helping. I think people need to think of Carmelo Anthony at like 25 ppg and on decent efficiency, doing his iso thing, versus Carmelo Anthony at 35 ppg on great efficiency. It's like if Amare were injured next year and he blew up with that Knick team and made them 15 ppg better on offense...that's peak King vs. pre-peak King to me. It's a huge difference.

Dantley - So to compare Marques Johnson to Dantley makes no sense to me. These guys are not just similar wings you throw in a bucket and stat check. Dantley loved to iso, facing the hoop or in the post, and dribble and fiddle and diddle and hold. His numbers were impressive, but his impact seems near non-existent because of the number of possessions a game he'd destroy the efficiency on by doing this. It's been well-chronicled and he has, BY FAR, the worst in/out numbers of any player in this project.

Wilkins - Wasn't he voted in a long time? Not to mention that Marques has arguably a better peak...

Aguirre - Huh?

English - Also voted in (incorrectly IMO).

Paul Arizin I'm totally fine with going pretty much anywhere because of the difficulty in era comparison and how that pertains to application of criteria. I have Arizin 54th.

I have Hill ahead of Arizin and Marques. Hill is slightly worse of a scorer if he is, rebounds as well as them but is leagues ahead as a playmaker/run the offense through guy. Longevity wise, Hill maybe has 4 great years if you don't count 00, Marques has 5 great Milwaukee ones - Small enough for me to take who I think is the better player. Arizin has 7 good post shot clock ones, depending on how much he lost by the end of his career - pace had gone up by that point to mask he wasn't the same guy and couldn't help Wilt all that much. So again I think I go with the better player in Hill for those 4 years, and he has some value after. I also have King above Arizin and Marques for similar reasons, I think he's on their level from 81-83 and on an entirely different "would make top 80 if that was his only season" level in 84, so his best 4 years are clearly better than Marques or Arizin's. Marques only having his 5 great years makes it pretty easy to go with King there if I think his best 4 are clearly better - Arizin, more tricky but I believe again that it's worth it to take the better player, and I'm guessing Washington King was pretty close to Arizin's last few seasons when he was no longer an All-NBA recognized player

Still voting Pau even though nobody wubs him

Vote Gasol

Nominate Carter

I'm gonna change my vote to:

VOTE: Paul Arizin

I've deleted any mention of vote from my earlier post to avoid confusion.