RealGM

CENTERS
Artis Gilmore or Dwight Howard are the next greatest 2 way centers but Artis seemed to lose his competitive fire when he came to the NBA and Dwight has not been the same dominant player since Orlando. Alonzo Mourning and Mel Daniels are the other 2 candidates that came to mind, very similar players in many ways; plus probably Dikembe Mutombo is a candidate as the most impactful defender left (and not a complete disaster offensively).

FORWARDS
Baylor, McHale, Pippen, Havlicek, Rodman, and even Kevin Durant. Interested to see who starts getting support. Baylor seemed to have efficiency issues even for his day, McHale is super efficient but worked against single teams in the post more than any great post scorer in history and was a mediocre defensive rebounder (though the presence of Larry Bird that gave him so many single teams also stole some rebounds from him). Pippen does everything well, but has some issues with clutch situations and mental fragility. Havlicek seems to have nerves (and lungs) of steel but was even more inefficient through the mid 70s than Baylor. Rodman is the GOAT rebounder, but also a disruptive force and barely above the Ben Wallace level offensively, and Durant's career is just starting. A lot of talent, a lot of questions.

GUARDS
I see Walt Frazier as a step up over Nash and Stockton for his ability to take over games with both his scoring and defense, over Payton, Kidd, or Isiah for his scoring efficiency and superior all around game. Chris Paul is also a legit candidate but hasn't yet exploded to dominate an NBA finals the way that Frazier did.

Frazier v. Nash. Nash is the more efficient scorer because he takes advantage of the 3 point line extremely well though Frazier is about as efficient relative to the other guards of his era. Frazier is the more explosive scorer, more likely to take over a game with his scoring, particularly 4th quarters. Nash has greater durability and gets a lot more assists but although Frazier doesn't have the big assist (or turnover) numbers, anyone who watched his Knick teams should have no doubts about his ability to orchestrate an efficient offense; the Holtzman offense Frazier ran is a thing of beauty (damn I hated the Bullets playing against them). I choose Frazier over Nash for two reasons: (1) Frazier's ability to step up in NBA finals and dominate. Nash was a good playoff performer, but Frazier has some legendary performances. And, of course, defense. Even Nash's supporters admit he's not a good defender; Frazier is arguably the GOAT defensive PG to ever play (I prefer Payton's constant aggression to Frazier's gameplaying) and can disrupt opposing teams by forcing the ball out of the PG's hands or by trapping -- probably the quickest hands in NBA history. A similar narrative compared Frazier v. Stockton -- Stockton's defense is a lot better than Nash's but he's a major step below either in his ability to take over a game with his scoring and unlike Frazier, he does not have a history of great finals performances. Chris Paul is starting to get the longevity to compete with these 3 greats, but again, I take Frazier for defense and finals dominance.

The PGs are the strongest group left. Based on his finals heroics, the way his teams in NY (of all places) ran like well oiled machines with almost no ego problems, superior durability, and the fact that as a fan, I feared facing him more than I did any of the others, I will cast my vote for:

WALT FRAZIER

I'm glad that Mikan won the run-off against Nash - it was so close... it could probably indicate that Nash will be a heavy favorite here, and I'd probably lean towards him, as well (especially considering that I had him at 20 on my pre-list), but I'll really keep an open mind here. I'm really willing to listen to some good arguments for Frazier, Stockton, Pippen, or whoever I'll consider deserving of this spot. I really hope that I'll learn more about guys like Havlicek or Barry.

A lot of guys mentioned here - one more I'd like to throw out there is Dave Cowens -top 5 player in the league, and top player of a champ team, and a top 2nd guy on a second. I don't know if his longevity is any worse than a Frazier or a Baylor.

Not a vote, a lot of guys to look at for me - for me with Wade and Mikan in, go down to the next level a bit.

Nash is the frontrunner here. I don't think I can take Frazier, Barry, or Pippen over him.

To those who voted for George Mikan — Will you be considering Paul Arizin next? He had the GOAT offensive season pre-shot clock, becoming one of the few players in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and field goal percentage in 1952. He comes back to the league in 1955, except now there's a shot clock, yet he's still dominant offensively because of his jump shot. Wins a scoring title in 1957. Has an all-time great playoff run in 1956, dropping 28.9 points and 8.4 rebounds per game in the playoffs en route to a championship. He was still an All-Star and 20+ PPG player in 1962, the year he retired. Notable players in 1962 include Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and Elgin Baylor.

Come to think of it, if era dominance is big for you, I'm not sure why Mikan would be ahead of Arizin. Arizin proved his greatness against 5 players who were better than Mikan based on this list.

I'll be voting for Steve Nash


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Why is muttombo and Howard considered to be better than Bob Lanier?

Quotatious wrote:I'm glad that Mikan won the run-off against Nash - it was so close... it could probably indicate that Nash will be a heavy favorite here, and I'd probably lean towards him, as well (especially considering that I had him at 20 on my pre-list), but I'll really keep an open mind here. I'm really willing to listen to some good arguments for Frazier, Stockton, Pippen, or whoever I'll consider deserving of this spot. I really hope that I'll learn more about guys like Havlicek or Barry.

It will be interesting to see. As much as I say "told you so" about Mikan getting in without waiting too long, it's probably not a coincidence that he got in in a run off against one of the most controversial players of the modern era. If Nash wins this, then that says Mikan at 24 was really his place. If Nash doesn't though we'll have to ask ourselves whether MIkan was fortunate to go up against Nash.

I am voting Clyde Frazier at this spot. He was just flat out better defensively than Nash. Offensively they're about even as scorers and Nash is a better passer (better overall) but I can't help but to think that the hand check helped him become so dominant and if it did that means that for half his career he wasn't an ATG that could lead anyone anywhere. Meanwhile Walt by his second season was a top 5 player caliber guy and was good enough to lead NY to rings (a level he stayed at for many years). I'd take 8 years of Walt's prime over 5 years of Nash even if its at a slightly lower level.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Quotatious wrote:I'm glad that Mikan won the run-off against Nash - it was so close... it could probably indicate that Nash will be a heavy favorite here, and I'd probably lean towards him, as well (especially considering that I had him at 20 on my pre-list), but I'll really keep an open mind here. I'm really willing to listen to some good arguments for Frazier, Stockton, Pippen, or whoever I'll consider deserving of this spot. I really hope that I'll learn more about guys like Havlicek or Barry.

It will be interesting to see. As much as I say "told you so" about Mikan getting in without waiting too long, it's probably not a coincidence that he got in in a run off against one of the most controversial players of the modern era. If Nash wins this, then that says Mikan at 24 was really his place. If Nash doesn't though we'll have to ask ourselves whether MIkan was fortunate to go up against Nash.

Personally I wasn't going to vote Mikan as I knew next to nothing about him but he was against someone who never won a ring and like Mikan might've been helped by peaking at the right time (the post hand check, pre 2.9 defense era). Plus the Mikan supporters made decent arguments and had enough film for me to not doubt his abilities as much as I did before.

So yeah:

Vote: Steve Nash

As I've already said, to me when we talk about offense, the only guys in the discussion with Nash were voted in a while ago. Yes, the defense is an issue, but he wasn't have horrendously bad impact over there. He was a smart player who made good decisions, and stayed within the scheme that was designed, and that meant that even on a team without a truly scary frightening presence his team was fully capable of being good on defense. Tough for me to use the defense as the argument against him too hard here unless were talking about a serious defensive badass.

Doctor MJ wrote:So yeah:

Vote: Steve Nash

As I've already said, to me when we talk about offense, the only guys in the discussion with Nash were voted in a while ago. Yes, the defense is an issue, but he wasn't have horrendously bad impact over there. He was a smart player who made good decisions, and stayed within the scheme that was designed, and that meant that even on a team without a truly scary frightening presence his team was fully capable of being good on defense. Tough for me to use the defense as the argument against him too hard here unless were talking about a serious defensive badass.

Like, say, Frazier . . . .

GC Pantalones wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Quotatious wrote:I'm glad that Mikan won the run-off against Nash - it was so close... it could probably indicate that Nash will be a heavy favorite here, and I'd probably lean towards him, as well (especially considering that I had him at 20 on my pre-list), but I'll really keep an open mind here. I'm really willing to listen to some good arguments for Frazier, Stockton, Pippen, or whoever I'll consider deserving of this spot. I really hope that I'll learn more about guys like Havlicek or Barry.

It will be interesting to see. As much as I say "told you so" about Mikan getting in without waiting too long, it's probably not a coincidence that he got in in a run off against one of the most controversial players of the modern era. If Nash wins this, then that says Mikan at 24 was really his place. If Nash doesn't though we'll have to ask ourselves whether MIkan was fortunate to go up against Nash.

Personally I wasn't going to vote Mikan as I knew next to nothing about him but he was against someone who never won a ring and like Mikan might've been helped by peaking at the right time (the post hand check, pre 2.9 defense era). Plus the Mikan supporters made decent arguments and had enough film for me to not doubt his abilities as much as I did before.

Hmm. So apologize up front if it feels like I've baited you into a fight, but:

You're saying basically that if Horry hadn't tackled Nash and as a result he won a chip, that that instant would be the difference between you voting for someone you know basically nothing about about or not.

Do you see how this sounds like you're not really thinking things through?

Narigo wrote:Why is muttombo and Howard considered to be better than Bob Lanier?

Grammar police . . . ."Why ARE Mutombo and Howard . . . . "

Pure and simple . . . defense. Lanier was not a terribly good defensive center and that's a position where defense is crucial. Look at Detroit's defense throughout his prime, the team was good defensively once and below average defensively 8 times although toward the end of his tenure in Detroit, he was platooning offense/defense with Leon Douglas so not completely his fault.

That's (and of course the presence of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) is why despite being a consistent 24/12 big with good efficiency and a well liked player during his prime, he never made an all-NBA team, not even as 2nd team. Think rich man's Greg Monroe.

ronnymac2 wrote:Nash is the frontrunner here. I don't think I can take Frazier, Barry, or Pippen over him.

To those who voted for George Mikan — Will you be considering Paul Arizin next? He had the GOAT offensive season pre-shot clock, becoming one of the few players in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and field goal percentage in 1952. He comes back to the league in 1955, except now there's a shot clock, yet he's still dominant offensively because of his jump shot. Wins a scoring title in 1957. Has an all-time great playoff run in 1956, dropping 28.9 points and 8.4 rebounds per game in the playoffs en route to a championship. He was still an All-Star and 20+ PPG player in 1962, the year he retired. Notable players in 1962 include Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and Elgin Baylor.

Come to think of it, if era dominance is big for you, I'm not sure why Mikan would be ahead of Arizin. Arizin proved his greatness against 5 players who were better than Mikan based on this list.

There are a LOT of great offensive SFs; the 80s were rife with them. That said, Arizin has as good a shot as anyone from the 50s of starting to show up on people's radar. Last time we did this project, he had a strong advocate and finished top 50 if I remember right. Someone needs to step up and make the case though; the SF category is a lot deeper than the centers.

Stockton
Stockton holds the all-time records in career assists and steals. This is obviously relevant for anyone who values statistical footprint, but also is telling of both the quality of his play and the length of time (and consistency) that he played. These records are literally unbreakable. They are as unlikely to be broken as Wilt’s 50 ppg season; but unlike Wilt’s 50 ppg season, they did not come about thru stat-padding, gimmick, or because of a specific motive (shared by the whole team) to break records.
The steals record came about because he was a smart, savvy, and always aggressive defender (more on his D later) who played 19 years at a high level/significant minutes while also being remarkably durable.
The assists record came about because he is the gold-standard prototype of the pass-first PG, who consistently played a fundamentally sound and high level game for 19 years while also being remarkably durable.
He may not have been the #1 offensive weapon on that team, but he was the general. He orchestrated the assault, he directed the army (unfortunately for the Jazz, at times Malone by himself was primarily the army, with little additional help).
They nonetheless put it to outstanding effectiveness:
*The Jazz had at least a top-11 rated offense FOURTEEN years in a row.
**They were SEVEN TIMES a top-4 rated offense.
***FIVE TIMES a top-3 offense.
****Were once the #1 rated offense in the land.

Stockton had some very impressive numbers from his prime:
Prime John Stockton (‘88-’97) (10 seasons in which he missed FOUR GAMES TOTAL).......
Per 100 rs: 21.8 pts, 4.1 reb, 17.9 ast, 3.6 stl, 0.3 blk, 4.7 tov on .619 TS%
22.7 PER, .221 WS/48, 122 ORtg/104 DRtg in 36.2 mpg
Per 100 ps: 21.4 pts, 4.8 reb, 16.2 ast, 2.8 stl, 4.5 tov on .574 TS%
20.4 PER, .163 WS/48, 117 ORtg/108 DRtg in 39.0 mpg

As I’ve stated before, I only cut off his prime at ‘97 because it’s the last year he really plays “star-level” minutes (although he would never average less than 27.7 mpg in his twilight/post-prime). His level of play otherwise would NOT significantly decline, even right down to his 19th season. He never once in his final SIXTEEN SEASONS had a single season with a PER <21. He only TWICE in his finals SIXTEEN SEASONS had a WS/48 <.200. His pts/100 possessions would never fall lower than 20.9 in his late years. His ast/100 possessions would never fall below 14.0 in his late years. Compare all of this to Walt Frazier, whose PRIME numbers look like this:

Prime Walt Frazier (‘70-’76)--529 rs games
Per 100 rs (only have data ‘74-’76): 23.0 pts, 7.2 reb, 7.1 ast, 2.4 stl, 0.2 blk on .546 TS%
19.8 PER, .191 WS/48, 96 DRtg (‘74-’76; league avg in that span was 97.9) in 41.2 mpg
Per 100 ps (‘74-’76): 26.9 pts, 9.1 reb, 5.4 ast, 2.5 stl, 0.3 blk on .564 TS%
19.9 PER, .198 WS/48, 98 DRtg (league avg those years-->97.7) in 43.3 mpg

wrt to defense, Stockton’s DRtg (relative to league average) is marginally BETTER than Frazier’s (for the years we have data for Frazier). I know some don’t like DRtg as a stat, though, so I think it’s worth noting Stockton’s DRAPM data (only available for his post-prime): he has a net-positive effect defensively ALL SIX SEASONS of his post-prime, usually fairly significantly so. In ‘00, his DRAPM is +3.06, which was BETTER than ‘00 Shaq (+2.31) and ‘00 Tim Duncan (+2.78). This in spite of the data (shutupandjam?) presented wrt the average PG being a defensive negative.
His league rank in combined RAPM for those years was as follows:

‘98---7th
‘99---8th
‘00---8th
‘01---3rd (NPI)
‘02---12th
‘03---13th

vs. Nash….
Both his prime and career ast/100 possession numbers are better than those of Steve Nash, for both rs and playoffs.
Both his prime and career individual ORtg’s are better than those of Steve Nash for the rs, and are tied with Steve Nash’s for the playoffs.

Stockton has the longevity case over Nash (smallish margin) and Frazier (large margin).

Also.....

Best 12-Year Stretch PER (rs)


Best 3-Year WS/48 (rs)


Best 5-Year WS/48 (rs)


Best 7-Year WS/48 (rs)


Best 10-Year WS/48 (rs)


Best 12-Year WS/48 (rs)


Best 3-Year ORtg/DRtg gap (rs)


Best 5-Year ORtg/DRtg gap (rs)


Best 7-Year ORtg/DRtg gap (rs)


Best 10-Year ORtg/DRtg gap (rs)


Best 12-Year ORtg/DRtg gap (rs)



All things considered, Stockton has a more than legit case for this spot, imo. My vote for #25: John Stockton.

ronnymac2 wrote:Nash is the frontrunner here. I don't think I can take Frazier, Barry, or Pippen over him.

To those who voted for George Mikan — Will you be considering Paul Arizin next? He had the GOAT offensive season pre-shot clock, becoming one of the few players in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and field goal percentage in 1952. He comes back to the league in 1955, except now there's a shot clock, yet he's still dominant offensively because of his jump shot. Wins a scoring title in 1957. Has an all-time great playoff run in 1956, dropping 28.9 points and 8.4 rebounds per game in the playoffs en route to a championship. He was still an All-Star and 20+ PPG player in 1962, the year he retired. Notable players in 1962 include Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and Elgin Baylor.

Come to think of it, if era dominance is big for you, I'm not sure why Mikan would be ahead of Arizin. Arizin proved his greatness against 5 players who were better than Mikan based on this list.

I think Arizin is a top 30 player but since you, I and Penbeast are the only ones who have ever heard of him what is the point? Before I get to my players in the 20s Im going to finish the top 20 1st.

Doctor MJ wrote:

GC Pantalones wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
It will be interesting to see. As much as I say "told you so" about Mikan getting in without waiting too long, it's probably not a coincidence that he got in in a run off against one of the most controversial players of the modern era. If Nash wins this, then that says Mikan at 24 was really his place. If Nash doesn't though we'll have to ask ourselves whether MIkan was fortunate to go up against Nash.

Personally I wasn't going to vote Mikan as I knew next to nothing about him but he was against someone who never won a ring and like Mikan might've been helped by peaking at the right time (the post hand check, pre 2.9 defense era). Plus the Mikan supporters made decent arguments and had enough film for me to not doubt his abilities as much as I did before.

Hmm. So apologize up front if it feels like I've baited you into a fight, but:

You're saying basically that if Horry hadn't tackled Nash and as a result he won a chip, that that instant would be the difference between you voting for someone you know basically nothing about about or not.

Do you see how this sounds like you're not really thinking things through?

Ah its cool. First off I'm not so sure I would say they win even with Amare and everyone else but it increases their chances. I wouldn't say the hip check was that important though.

Now I did say before in my post voting for Mikan that I did take Nash's terrible luck into account. I mean the guy must've been hexed to get that unlucky. Dallas gets a good coach and finds balance right after he leaves, Amare's injuries, the hip check, etc. Its all very unfortunate but some say luck is a skill and yes I do take that into account a little bit... Well at least enough to make me question Mikan vs Nash and stay open to other opinions on Mr. Basketball (and Ewing too for that matter with that super unlucky layup and everything else that went wrong with NY).

GC Pantalones wrote:I am voting Clyde Frazier at this spot. He was just flat out better defensively than Nash. Offensively they're about even as scorers and Nash is a better passer (better overall) but I can't help but to think that the hand check helped him become so dominant and if it did that means that for half his career he wasn't an ATG that could lead anyone anywhere. Meanwhile Walt by his second season was a top 5 player caliber guy and was good enough to lead NY to rings (a level he stayed at for many years). I'd take 8 years of Walt's prime over 5 years of Nash even if its at a slightly lower level.

Apologies again for now doubling up on you. I'll say up front that I expected (and hoped) that there would be a serious Nash vs Frazier discussion and I won't be remotely offended if Frazier gets vote in first.

When you say they are about even as scorers, what's the basis for this? They shot at similar volume, but Nash was considerably more efficient.

Hand check rule? An understandable thing to bring up, but what exactly is the specific allegation? There never was an era where it was seen as okay to actually push a driving player. Guys got away with minor stuff, but anything major got called. The notion then that a player couldn't drive like Nash drove with the old norms in place seems pretty weird to me.

Moreover, part of the reason people freaked out over the rule change is that they perceived that it let guys dominate by getting to the line. Dwyane Wade was the poster boy for this, but Kobe, Iverson, etc also saw a similar boost.

Guess who didn't? Nash

This is important because it can't be both ways here. If Nash is the true poster boy for guys whose career was forever changed by the rule, then the narrative has to be that the rule change made defenses immediately play timid to avoid fouls, but that doesn't fit with the narrative that the rule change made defenses foul more, which is backed up when we look at the careers of Kobe & Wade who were voted in to this project with basically no concern about them being able to make it in the prior eras.

I think int the end it's just important to not to look for excuses to ignore accomplishments. One can turn that back on me given that I was against Mikan and that's fine, I won't say I'm above reproach here, but when we're talking about a guy whose prime we all just lived through, to me that's a bit more eye-opening.

GC Pantalones wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

GC Pantalones wrote:Personally I wasn't going to vote Mikan as I knew next to nothing about him but he was against someone who never won a ring and like Mikan might've been helped by peaking at the right time (the post hand check, pre 2.9 defense era). Plus the Mikan supporters made decent arguments and had enough film for me to not doubt his abilities as much as I did before.

Hmm. So apologize up front if it feels like I've baited you into a fight, but:

You're saying basically that if Horry hadn't tackled Nash and as a result he won a chip, that that instant would be the difference between you voting for someone you know basically nothing about about or not.

Do you see how this sounds like you're not really thinking things through?

Ah its cool. First off I'm not so sure I would say they win even with Amare and everyone else but it increases their chances. I wouldn't say the hip check was that important though.

Now I did say before in my post voting for Mikan that I did take Nash's terrible luck into account. I mean the guy must've been hexed to get that unlucky. Dallas gets a good coach and finds balance right after he leaves, Amare's injuries, the hip check, etc. Its all very unfortunate but some say luck is a skill and yes I do take that into account a little bit... Well at least enough to make me question Mikan vs Nash and stay open to other opinions on Mr. Basketball (and Ewing too for that matter with that super unlucky layup and everything else that went wrong with NY).

Cool.

To be clear I'm not assuming you think the hip check took away a guaranteed Suns championship, I just wanted to point out that it's possible it might have. This is something I do a lot: If there's a moment that conceivable would have changed how a guy's team did in a narratively massive way, I have to normalize for that moment.

If Ray Allen misses that shot in the '13 finals, LeBron doesn't win the championship. If that significantly changes your view of what LeBron was as a player, then you're judging LeBron based on luck, which is not the right way to do things.

Sounds like you're trying to do the right thing though, so good on you.

penbeast0 wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:So yeah:

Vote: Steve Nash

As I've already said, to me when we talk about offense, the only guys in the discussion with Nash were voted in a while ago. Yes, the defense is an issue, but he wasn't have horrendously bad impact over there. He was a smart player who made good decisions, and stayed within the scheme that was designed, and that meant that even on a team without a truly scary frightening presence his team was fully capable of being good on defense. Tough for me to use the defense as the argument against him too hard here unless were talking about a serious defensive badass.

Like, say, Frazier . . . .

Frazier, the point guard, being evaluated in 2014 when we haven't seen a single superstar defensive point guard in the 15+ year era where we've had the data to really judge this. This is my issue here.

I believe Frazier would be All-D worthy as a guard in today's game, but that's a far cry from being an actual defensive superstar.

Here's what I will say: I don't object to the notion that Frazier couldn't have been having defensive superstar type of impact back when he played, and I don't believe that one should judge a guy from 1970 only by how he'd do in 2010.

The question for me becomes how much of the shift is about rule/strategy changes, and how much of it is due to players just getting better. I love me some Jerry West, but the way he was overwhelmed at times by the Knick defensive swarm seems to me like the type of thing that offenses would be prepared for today and could exploit.