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

NOTE: LISTS WITHOUT DISCUSSION WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE FINALS VOTE

Shawn Marion

2x All-NBA 3rd
NBA Champion 2011
4x All-Star

Mitch Richmond

3x 2nd Team All-NBA
2x 3rd Team All-NBA
2002 NBA Title (Lakers)
1989 Rookie of the Year
6x All-Star

Dave DeBusschere

Hall of Fame 1983
1x All-NBA 2nd Team
2x NBA Champion
6x All-Defense 1st Team
8x All-Star

Bill Laimbeer

2x NBA Champion
4x All-Star


Brad Daugherty

1x NBA 3rd Team
5x All-Star

Shawn Marion is probably my choice here.

Compare to:

Daugherty -- Marion scores as well; nearly as efficient, rebounds as well despite playing 3/4 instead of 5, and plays much better defense both man and help; Daugherty is a better passer and a guy you can run an offense through but that doesn't make up for his mediocre defensive skills in this comparisom.

Laimbeer -- is the opposite. Nasty man defender but that's his only arguable advantage over Marion. Marion scores more, has better range, is a better help defender, has a longer peak, and was generally a more dominant player.

Richmond -- Clearly more explosive and about as efficient a scorer as Marion (worse shooting but more FTs); Richmond was solid but not great at anything but scoring -- Marion brings more defense and great rebounding. Dealer's choice depending on what you need. I favor the defense and rebounding over the scoring when the efficiency is okay but not great.

VOTE SHAWN MARION

Going to throw out a new name for the nomination -- Neil Johnston. Only played 6 years in the NBA plus parts of 2 more . . . but in those 6 years he was All-NBA 4 times, All-NBA 2nd 1 time, was an all-star each year and won a ring. He also led the league in scoring 3 of those 6, fg% 3 of the 6, and rebounding once. For PER fans, he was over a 25 PER 5 of those 6; led league in Offensive Win Shares 4 of them. Pretty much the Bob McAdoo of his day with no Kareem, no drug issues and a ring although the 50s are a shaky era.

Downside . . . mediocre defensive rep and big playoff falls. Also Philly took it's jump to elite status when Arizin came back despite Johnston's putting up big numbers; that's why Arizin went in long ago.

VOTE: Dave DeBusschere

Much for the same reason's penbeast claimed in the OP - great defensive player with a notorious reputation in his era. I prefer him to Marion because he played better D for longer, and was credited accordingly (6 x All Defensive 1st). He also contributed to an extra Championship.

Vote: DeBusschere

I'll jump on the bandwagon. I've always respected the hell out of the guy, and considered him a Top 100 guy. I have more of a positive vibe on him than Marion.

Nominate: Issel

I'll bounce around again just because I feel like there are guys who should get some discussion. Issel had a long solid career in the NBA. Frankly, I question whether Dolph Schayes was as good as him. He is worth some thought.

Vote: Mitch Richmond

Nominate: Amar'e Stoudemire

Richmond was a great all-around offensive player. He was basically Ray Allen with slightly less shooting and more strength in the 90s.

If he would have formed a Big 3 late in his career- Mitch, Hakeem, Drexler (who could have made the transition to SF like Pierce did, what with his improved outside J and his size) would have had better chemistry and a better chance at beating '97 Utah since Utah had so much trouble defending wings- and won a title, he'd have looked so much better.

Nominating Amar'e because he's a 25 ppg, ultra-efficient off-ball big man who can make solid passes. He doesn't need anybody to be productive either, though he obviously works better with an all-time great creator.

ronnymac2 wrote:Richmond was a great all-around offensive player. He was basically Ray Allen with slightly less shooting and more strength in the 90s.

If he would have formed a Big 3 late in his career- Mitch, Hakeem, Drexler (who could have made the transition to SF like Pierce did, what with his improved outside J and his size) would have had better chemistry and a better chance at beating '97 Utah since Utah had so much trouble defending wings- and won a title, he'd have looked so much better.

But Richmond already won a title.

True. Shaq/Kobe/Mitch was pretty intimidating.