RealGM

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:09 pm**

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:

Bobby Jones

1x All-ABA 2nd team
NBA Champion 1983
10x All-Defense 1st team (2x in ABA)
1x All-Defense 2nd team
Sixth Man of the Year 1983
5x All-Star

Billy Cunningham

Hall of Fame 1986
ABA MVP 1973
3x All-NBA 1st team
1x All-NBA 2nd team
1x All-ABA 1st team
NBA Champion 1967
5x All-Star

Dolph Schayes

Hall of Fame 1973
6x All-NBA 1st Team
6x All-NBA 2nd Team
NBA Champion 1955
12x All-Star

Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo

1x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x All-NBA 3rd Team
4x Defensive Player of the Year
4x All-Defense 1st Team
3x All-Defense 2nd Team
8x All-Star

Vince Carter

1x All-NBA 2nd team
1x All-NBA 3rd team
8x All-Star
Rookie of Year

Nate Thurmond

Hall of Fame 1985
2x All-Def 1st Team
3x All-Def 2nd Team

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

Grant Hill

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

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:24 pm**

Im not on a pannel but I hope can contribute

Thurmond 1967 (16g) 12.7 to 5.4
Thurmond 1968 (31g) 10.5 to 3.4
Thurmond 1969 (12g) 8.4 to -0.4
Thurmond 1970 (40g) 5.8 to -1.6

to me this is pretty convincing argument for why Thurmond should be voted in. the guy was a definite game changer when he played. enough said that he anchored lots of #2 defenses (Russ). he often gets criticized for his offense but does it really matter that much when his overall impact was still outrageous ?

what's impressive about his intangibles is that Thurmond was actually on route to MVP in 1968 before the injury. his impact was widely renown around the league. this is also a guy who stopped both Wilt and Kareem in the playoffs (demolished Kareem, basically; KAJ posted 22 ppg on 45% TS and -0.1 OWS). 2nd best defender of the 60s.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:26 pm**

Interesting that we have two straight nominations for white UNC alums nicknamed "The Kangaroo Kid" . . .

We have 7' shotblocking defensive anchors in Robert Parish, Nate Thurmond, and Dikembe Mutombo. Thurmond is the best defender pretty clearly but a negative offensively; Mutombo also brings great shotblocking and is efficient but with poor hands; Parish isn't up to the other two defensively but brings a much more versatile and valuable offensive game that helped the Celtics win championships. I can see supporting either Parish or Thurmond here, I go back and forth . . .

At forward we have 50s star Dolph Schayes who was a weak shooter from the field but whose foul shooting puts Larry Bird to shame and a tough defender to boot; from the 60/70s we have Billy Cunningham who came up as a scorer but who added defense and playmaking for a very valuable all around player; from the 70s/80s we have Bobby Jones who is the only player to ever get named 1st team All-Defense 10 times . . . in his 1st 10 seasons (his last year he was only selected as 2nd team) and played a variety of roles in his career -- he was the star of Denver's best record in either league team in 75, defended both forwards and center in Denver then went to Philly where he was a combo foward who also defended guards and shifted to 6th man (winning SMOY) when asked to give bench help to that star-studded starting lineup (Moses, DrJ, Toney, Cheeks) and was a winner everywhere he went. Schayes's FT shooting was more important than you would think, it was much more of a key to 50's offenses where the paint tended to resemble a rugby scrum -- probably the first candidate to go in here.

Finally, we have Grant Hill, an all-around star in Detroit before his injury and Vince Carter, half man-half amazing dunk and scoring machine. I remember worrying more about Hill than Carter, even in Carter's best years -- despite the shortness of his peak and his playoff shortcomings, I rank him over Carter.

VOTE: Dolph Schayes -- changed my mind from Parish; Schayes was a 50s guy which isn't a great era but he was the man on a championship team and a consistent star for a long time. Parish has the modern game and was one of the best 3rd options on both ends ever . . . but still a 3rd best player on his own team. His time as a "star" in Golden State isn't nearly as impressive as star turns by Cunningham or Bobby Jones or even Thurmond.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:48 pm**

Point Guards -- I like Billups's consistency and efficiency, not up for any of the others
Chauncey Billups
Nate Archibald
Tim Hardaway
Mark Price
Dennis Johnson ? Mookie Blaylock?

Shooting Guards -- Not really feeling any of the top guys yet but here's who I'm thinking about
David Thompson
Joe Dumars
Bill Sharman ?
Chris Mullin
Hal Greer

Shooting Forward -- a lot of great candidate left, in no particular order
Adrian Dantley
James Worthy
Shawn Marion
Connie Hawkins
Cliff Hagan

Power Forward --
Jerry Lucas
Larry Nance
Amare Stoudamire/Terry Cummings/Elton Brand
Not quite ready for Chris Webber or Shawn Kemp yet (two guys I didn't like their games but talented enough to start getting a look here over the Paul Silas/Buck Williams types that would be the main alternatives)

Centers: starting to run a little short here
Mel Daniels
----------?
Walt Bellamy
Neil Johnston
Yao Ming

Looking at the candidates -- Billups is the kind of guy I tend to rank higher than most -- very consistent two way player who wasn't a superstar but is the kind of guy who makes winning teams win. Same for Dumars and Sharman -- I'd love to get a comp of them from someone. I'd lean to Worthy over David Thompson or Adrian Dantley among the scorers, again, because I think he's more the kind of player you will find championship teams built around. Lucas and Nance are the best PF types (and probably over Shawn Marion too) for consistency and star quality over time. Jerry Lucas wasn't a great defender but he was the other main star on those great Cinncinnati offenses with his rebounding and outside game allowing Oscar to work his magic inside -- then Lucas turned around and helped the defense and passing oriented Knicks win another title with Willis Reed injured and ineffective. He was a great rebounder, a very efficient outside scoring big, and a terrific passer who gets less love than his numbers because of his Asberger's type personality but one of the best for a long time. Finally, Mel Daniels won TWO MVP's and 3 championships in the ABA -- yes it was an inferior league and his career wasn't that long but it was better ball than the NBA in the 50s and he was basically Alonzo Mourning as a player with better rebounding but less shotblocking -- similar offense and attitude. He'd be a star even today though probably not a 20ppg scorer.

So, Billups, Dumars, or Lucas for consistency; Daniels or Worthy for peak?

Code: Select all

Rk Player From To G GS MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS 
1 Chauncey Billups 1998 2011 982 888 32.3 4.7 11.2 .417 1.8 4.5 .389 4.4 5.0 .894 0.5 2.5 2.9 5.6 1.0 0.2 2.1 2.1 15.5 
2 Mel Daniels 1968 1977 639  35.2 7.3 15.6 .468 0.0 0.1 .088 3.8 5.8 .657 4.5 10.4 14.9 1.8 0.6 1.5 3.0 3.6 18.4 
3 Joe Dumars* 1986 1999 1018 944 34.5 5.9 12.8 .460 1.0 2.5 .382 3.4 4.0 .843 0.7 1.5 2.2 4.5 0.9 0.1 2.0 1.8 16.1 
4 Jerry Lucas* 1964 1974 829  38.8 6.9 13.8 .499    3.2 4.1 .783 0.8 4.3 15.6 3.3 0.4 0.3  2.9 17.0 
5 James Worthy* 1983 1994 926 717 32.4 7.4 14.3 .521 0.1 0.5 .241 2.6 3.4 .769 1.7 3.4 5.1 3.0 1.1 0.7 2.0 2.1 17.6 


Rk Player From To G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48 
1 Chauncey Billups 1998 2011 982 31674 19.1 .581 .496 1.7 8.9 5.3 28.5 1.7 0.4 13.5 22.0 118 107 90.3 27.8 118.1 0.179 
2 Mel Daniels 1968 1977 639 22466 20.1 .507 .468 10.8 26.2 19.3 7.4 1.1 2.6 14.2 22.7 97 99 23.7 41.2 64.8 0.139 
3 Joe Dumars* 1986 1999 1018 35139 15.3 .554 .498 2.2 5.0 3.6 20.5 1.3 0.2 12.3 21.1 113 110 63.1 23.1 86.2 0.118 
4 Jerry Lucas* 1964 1974 829 32131 18.9 .544 .499 4.0 20.1 15.3 12.0 0.8 0.8    94 63.6 34.8 98.4 0.147 
5 James Worthy* 1983 1994 926 30001 17.7 .559 .525 6.2 11.3 8.9 14.0 1.7 1.2 11.3 22.9 112 108 51.5 29.7 81.2 0.130 

Rk Player From To G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS WS/48 
1 Chauncey Billups 1998 2011 982 31674 19.1 .581 .496 1.7 8.9 5.3 28.5 1.7 0.4 13.5 22.0 118 107 90.3 27.8 118.1 0.179 
2 Mel Daniels 1968 1977 639 22466 20.1 .507 .468 10.8 26.2 19.3 7.4 1.1 2.6 14.2 22.7 97 99 23.7 41.2 64.8 0.139 
3 Joe Dumars* 1986 1999 1018 35139 15.3 .554 .498 2.2 5.0 3.6 20.5 1.3 0.2 12.3 21.1 113 110 63.1 23.1 86.2 0.118 
4 Jerry Lucas* 1964 1974 829 32131 18.9 .544 .499 4.0 20.1 15.3 12.0 0.8 0.8    94 63.6 34.8 98.4 0.147 
5 James Worthy* 1983 1994 926 30001 17.7 .559 .525 6.2 11.3 8.9 14.0 1.7 1.2 11.3 22.9 112 108 51.5 29.7 81.2 0.130

Looking at the numbers, the one that stands out is Chauncy Billups. One of the longest careers, most efficient scorer, all-around game, only Daniels has better regular season numbers and that's in about half the time and only Worthy compares in postseason numbers (and Billups has a higher postseason PER which surprised me).

NOMINATE Chauncey Billups

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:57 pm**

Penbeast, question, why are you Russell's supporter but don't consider Thurmond a true superstar ? he made extreme defensive impact.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:20 pm**

Two reasons:

First, when I saw him play, his teams (not him but the team around him) never looked good defensively. I didn't see Russell much but the numbers agree -- the Celtics were incredible, unprecedented, dominant defensively; Thurmond defensively was like Wilt except that, unlike Wilt, he was more willing to move away from the basket to challenge a jump shooting center (great rebounder too which people don't seem to point to). The other reason is that Thurmond was like Jermaine O'Neal in IND, he was in love with that stupid jump shot which he didn't shoot well. He would call for the ball and clank it all the time, but still he'd call for the ball again and again. The only thing that kept his FG% above .400 was putbacks and chasing the break -- sort of like Elvin Hayes only worse.

Then GS traded him for Cliff Ray and I thought, here's the chance for Nate the Great to really contend away from the (I thought) overrated Rick Barry and with a great defensive team . . . what happened? GS got better and won a title while Chicago got worse (not all Nate's fault in either case but he didn't improve things). So I got off the Thurmond bandwagon . . . he's pretty close to a nomination for me anyway; behind Parish but ahead of Mutombo as the best center left and not sure he should be behind Parish but Doctor MJ is pretty convincing on Parish's value.

Far from convinced on anyone at the moment though; Schayes is sort of a holding vote like the Bobby Jones nomination was for about 10 threads . . . willing to go with it but also very willing to come off it if a good case is made for someone else or there is a tie vote.

Oh and welcome back, we've missed you around here! :hug:

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:36 pm**

VOTE: Robert Parish

Kind of underrated in his prime (retrospectively) he was a big part in 3 title runs as a 2nd or 3rd option, with a good defensive impact and really efficient offensive game (complete with super efficient jump shot). There aren't many knocks you can make about this guy other than he didn't score 25ppg; but longevity, and peak play, were all high (and thus reflected in his MVP votes in his best year and consistently high PER).

Nominate: James Worthy

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:00 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:Centers: starting to run a little short here
Mel Daniels
----------?
Walt Bellamy
Neil Johnston
Yao Ming

Hey Penbeast what you think about Jack Sikma?? just... he was a good C I think and maybe still worth a look at this stage I got him ahead of Yao and Johnston but maybe I just got wrong. thanks!!

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:16 pm**

Vote: Grant Hill
Nominate: Shawn Kemp

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:25 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:
[b]Bobby Jones

Oh man, what a great pic.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:42 pm**

Vote Vince

Nominate Tiny Archibald

In the interest of run-off voting I'll try to nominate someone I expect to get some support

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:27 pm**

Vote: Vince Carter

Nominate: Nate Archibald

Awesome, Archibald is picking up steam.

Hey, this dude led the league in scoring and assists in the same year. He shot 48 percent from the field that year and was sixth in the league in True Shooting Percentage, so he wasn't simply jacking up bad shots. He's got three other high-volume seasons (still with good efficiency) to boot.

Criticism: He only made the playoffs once during this superstar period- in 1975. And he struggled. To be fair, it was a small sample size against the number two-ranked Chicago defense, which featured an excellent defensive point guard in Norm Van Lier.

Archibald then smoothly transitioned into a floor-general type in Boston where he could still put the team over the top with his ability to penetrate and manufacture points. His foul-drawing abilities in Boston are fantastic, and he was a very efficient player in 1980 and 1981. 14 points, 8 assists, efficiency, and solid defense against quick point guards, all while playing on a successful team, is a pretty good finale. He even made all-nba second team in 1981.

Boston was a top-five offense and defense during those two years as well, and they won the title in 1981. His playoff battles with a young Mo Cheeks were not only highly entertaining but incredibly valuable to Boston as it battled its biggest conference rival those years.

Archibald was an excellent contributor in the later stages of his career. You combine that with his superstar years in the mid-70's, you have a player clearly worthy of nomination at this point.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:35 pm**

Copied over from last thread:

Doctor MJ wrote:
ElGee wrote:Just way too much love in this project for role players like Jones and Rodman. Makes no sense to me. And I'm using the term love literally. I think thoughtful posters who like them as players -- I sure as hell do -- for what they add to the team are valuing those contributions ahead of overall value and Grade B superstars. At least there is some consistency about though...but c'mon, Bobby Jones over some of the guys left on the board? Why did he rarely start and play ~28 mpg? His peak couldn't touch David Thompson's IMO.

To be honest, I was hoping to push for an all-Nuggets conversation before nominating anyone from the group. Nom'ed Bobby because I needed to pick someone, and he has been on my mind.

Nuggets have Jones, Thompson, and Issel as a trio, and I think it really warrants conversation.

I think it makes sense to go chronologically.

'73-74. None of the players are on the team. The team is weak, SRS of -0.49.

'74-75. The great leap forward. The team's SRS jumps to +6.62, and now the team's record is +6.62. So what happened?

Well, major changes:

1. Mack Calvin joins the team appears to be the anointed star. Makes 1st team All-ABA.

2. Rookie Bobby Jones. He plays 2700+ minutes, which is 2nd on the team and more than any other new player. He also leads the team in Win Shares.

3. Larry Brown becomes the coach. This was certainly a factor in the success, but how big of a factor, and how much should that count against the players?

'75-76: Another great year, but the SRS and team record dip a bit. Noteworthy changes:

1. Mack Calvin's gone. btw, Calvin changed teams 9 times in his 12 year career. Pretty hard to fathom that a player a guy capable of spearheading a 6+ SRS improvement wouldn't also be worth keeping on your team.

2. Dan Issel joins and leads the team in PER and WS.

3. Rookie David Thompson joins and leads the team in scoring.

Incidentally, Thompson plays about 3100 minutes, while Issel and Jones play about 2800.

Denver joins the NBA and remains elite before descending toward mediocrity. When did that descent begin in earnest? Debatable. The first big SRS drop came in '77-78 (-4.15), but the team record didn't see a serious decline until ('79-80) when we see a second big SRS drop.

If you don't care about SRS, the narrative is straight forward:

1. Thompson missing time and regressing.

2. Also, Larry Brown quit late in '78-79 and his brain was missed. Incidentally, Brown quit and went back to college to coach UCLA because of George McGinnis. McGinnis was just such an awful follower of instruction that Brown demanded he be traded, but management refused. McGinnis was acquired by trading Bobby Jones away.

If you don't want to ignore the first SRS drop it becomes tougher though.

The big symptom of '77-78 is that the defense fell off dramatically. They were #1 in the league on defense in their first year in the NBA, but fell to 15th of 22 the next year. Looking at the 4 factors, the big thing that stands out is that their ability to force turnovers went from elite to mediocre. Worth noting that in '76-77 led the league in steals by a wide margin. They had 941 steals, the league average was 768, and only one other team was within a 100 steals from them.

By contrast, in '77-78, they only had 824 steals. Big dropoff, and there were a variety of factors there but has to be noted:

1. Jones leads the team in steals both times. First time with 186, second time with 137. So big dropoff from Jones again correlates clearly with team success.

2. Thompson & Issel combine for 205 steals the first year, and 192 the next. Not a big difference there.

Okay so dropoff in steals - maybe the team had to do that because they couldn't gamble as much? Makes me want to look at blocks. Incidentally, team blocks. What happened there? Well, they also went down, from 471 to 422, which took the team down from very strong to mediocre. Perhaps that relates to something that forced a change in strategy.

Incidentally, who led the team in blocks in '76-77? Jones with 162.
Okay, and who led the team in blocks in '77-78? Jones with 126.

So the team blocks 49 less shots than the previous year, and 36 of those less blocks are caused by Jones blocking less.

Every where we look it seems, we see Jones correlated with team success in Denver.

And then he gets traded to Philly for a much bigger name, and Philly ends up very happy they made the trade, just as Larry Brown bangs his head against the wall in Denver.

I just have a very hard time looking at Jones as a mere role player. His low minutes is a problem, but I do think it's appropriate to look at him as someone who at his best was having pretty huge impact on a per minute basis.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:21 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:Two reasons:

First, when I saw him play, his teams (not him but the team around him) never looked good defensively. I didn't see Russell much but the numbers agree -- the Celtics were incredible, unprecedented, dominant defensively; Thurmond defensively was like Wilt except that, unlike Wilt, he was more willing to move away from the basket to challenge a jump shooting center (great rebounder too which people don't seem to point to). The other reason is that Thurmond was like Jermaine O'Neal in IND, he was in love with that stupid jump shot which he didn't shoot well. He would call for the ball and clank it all the time, but still he'd call for the ball again and again. The only thing that kept his FG% above .400 was putbacks and chasing the break -- sort of like Elvin Hayes only worse.

Then GS traded him for Cliff Ray and I thought, here's the chance for Nate the Great to really contend away from the (I thought) overrated Rick Barry and with a great defensive team . . . what happened? GS got better and won a title while Chicago got worse (not all Nate's fault in either case but he didn't improve things). So I got off the Thurmond bandwagon . . . he's pretty close to a nomination for me anyway; behind Parish but ahead of Mutombo as the best center left and not sure he should be behind Parish but Doctor MJ is pretty convincing on Parish's value.

Far from convinced on anyone at the moment though; Schayes is sort of a holding vote like the Bobby Jones nomination was for about 10 threads . . . willing to go with it but also very willing to come off it if a good case is made for someone else or there is a tie vote.

Oh and welcome back, we've missed you around here!

1. I remember analysing 60s and Thurmond anchored top2 defenses at the time. statistically teams he anchored had a lot better defense than Wilt. it needs to be said that I'm not sure of it and somebody would have to double check me on this one.

2. when trade happened Thurmond was already well past his prime. hard to form opinion about Thurmond's career judging just from this trade when he was already 33. the trade we should really analyse is when Wilt left GS - IIRC they actually improved.

and then there's phenomenal data from Elgee's findings, which you didn't comment on:
Thurmond 1967 (16g) 12.7 to 5.4
Thurmond 1968 (31g) 10.5 to 3.4
Thurmond 1969 (12g) 8.4 to -0.4
Thurmond 1970 (40g) 5.8 to -1.6

what do those numbers mean ? well basically the guy was making MVP like impact.
let's take his contemporaries as a comparison:

Wilt 1970 (70g) 0.3 to 2.3
Wilt Phi 1965 (42g) -0.8 to -0.5
Wilt SF 1965 (44g) 3.1 to -4.1

Robertson 1968 (21g) 14.4 to 2.5
Robertson 1972 (18g) 8.2 to 13
Robertson 1970 (11g) 5.8 to 2.1

West 1971 (13g) 10.9 to 4.5
West 1968 (31g) 6.4 to 7.8
West 1967 (16g) 5.7 to 1.5
West 1969 (21g) 4.9 to 5.4

Thurmond made bigger impact during those years than three top20 players ever. to me his peak is clearly level above everyone else right now and I'm very surprised to still see him on board. he rivaled peak Wilt for MVP in 1968 before the injury. can anyone else match this accomplishment ?

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:27 pm**

I've been voting Carter in, but I've been rethinking it, and Thurmond has been on my mind, and bastillon's numbers at the top are pretty convincing. In fact, thinking about it now, I think that Thurmond probably should have been voted in a little while ago. His offense wasn't THAT bad, and his defense was amazing. If not for Russell, Thurmond would probably have been the best defender of the 60's.

I'm not going to submit my vote yet, but it's Carter vs Thurmond for me, and I'm leaning Thurmond right now.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:08 pm**

glad to hear :clap:

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:17 pm**

Regarding Billups, I think his impact, his all-around game, and his bball IQ are getting overrated.

He's a very good scorer, because of his dangerous shooting, and ability to get to the line and convert at a high level (biggest flopper in the world, which makes me hate him, but props to him for knowing how to work the refs).

But he's not a great rebounder or distributor. Isn't that part of all-around game? And his defense:

Ilardi's 6-year APM: -0.90
Engelmann's 4-year RAPM: -0.3
Engelmann's 6-year RAPM: -1.9
Engelmann's 10-year RAPM: -0.7

He consistently comes out to be a negative on defense. He played Paul very well in 09, but that was more because of team defense and Nene/Martin backing him up.

I think he got great defensive reputation simply for being on strong defensive teams in Detroit, which he wasn't a key to. It was coaching, either one or both of the Wallaces, Prince, and a good amount of physical, defensive bigs off the bench.

And regarding his bball IQ, when did that happen? He forces bad shots, to this day, and even up until 04, he was being criticized for not knowing when to pass, and looking for his own shot too much. When I see him play, I see a guy with a SG's mentality, who's looking for his own shot mainly...he really does go into zones when he'll just start chucking up 3s early in the shot clock, and won't really look for other players.

Posted: **Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:21 am**

I'm pretty sold on Thurmond actually.

Vote: Thurmond
Nominate: Kemp

Posted: **Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:15 am**

Love to see a Thurmond/Parish comp . . . as I said, Schayes is my fallback position but very willing to be convinced that either Thurmond or Parish is the man here . . . bastillon is doing a good job with his Thurmond argument.

Oh, and if you are shooting near .600 ts% and have a higher playoff PER than notorious playoff star James Worthy, it's hard to argue you are taking a whole lot of bad shots.

Posted: **Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:19 am**

My count:

Vote:

Carter-2 (Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2)

Schayes-1 (penbeast0)

Parish-1 (lukekarts)

Hill-1 (JordansBulls)

Thurmond-1 (therealbig3)

Nominate:

Kemp-2 (JordansBulls, therealbig3)

Tiny-2 (Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2)

Billups-1 (penbeast0)

Worthy-1 (lukekarts)

RealGM

RealGM Top 100 List #66

RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #66