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). The numbers clearly say Artis, but I'm just not as high on him as I used to be.

FORWARDS
Baylor, McHale, Havlicek, Rodman, and new star 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). 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. Kevin Durant may have the highest peak but is 5 years with no rings enough? What about someone like Alex English who was very good for over a decade in many different lineups and taking on many different roles?

GUARDS
I am looking hard at Chris Paul who, like Artis, has spectacular numbers but I'm just not sure that his numbers don't overstate his impact. I am open to Payton, Kidd, or Isiah but all three have efficiency issues v. Paul and Paul is the best of the bunch as a playmaker and not a bad defender. Longevity is the biggest issue for Paul like it is for Durant.

Wide open to listen to advocates and analysts . . . go ahead and convince me!

3 guys i'll likely be choosing between are all SFs: havlicek, baylor and barry

Will have to take a closer look at some bigs as I haven't really considered any over the last few spots.

I think I'm voting Baylor here. He has the highest 5 year peak left and I think the best postseason performance. Yes he wasn't super efficient but the correlation between his efficiency and his PGs efficiency isn't very strong which makes me think he was still creatinf his own looks even after Jerry became great and he still was an allstar level guy after his first 5-6 seasons so that's pretty significant. I'm definitely open to others though.

Question for me: Do I keep voting for Nader...er I mean Hondo?

Kidd, Deke, and Baylor would be the other guys in the mix for me at this point.

Vote: Isiah Thomas

Led the Pistons to back to back titles in an era that was tough as nails. Had to deal with peak Bird and Magic in the process. Also won finals mvp, lost only 1 series in his career with HCA. Took a franchise from the bottom to the top as well in the process.

Clyde Frazier wrote:3 guys i'll likely be choosing between are all SFs: havlicek, baylor and barry

Will have to take a closer look at some bigs as I haven't really considered any over the last few spots.

It's a bit ridiculous that not one of those guys you mentioned have been voted in yet.

Chuck Texas wrote:Question for me: Do I keep voting for Nader...er I mean Hondo?

Do it if you feel it. I'll probably do the same (hovering around Hondo, Barry, Kidd, Artis).

Basketballefan wrote:It's a bit ridiculous that not one of those guys you mentioned have been voted in yet.

Well it's not like there is some conspiracy... or maybe is?

Basketballefan wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote:3 guys i'll likely be choosing between are all SFs: havlicek, baylor and barry

Will have to take a closer look at some bigs as I haven't really considered any over the last few spots.

It's a bit ridiculous that not one of those guys you mentioned have been voted in yet.

It is in no way ridiculous at all, no. Depth of competition over 5 or 6 decades, lad.

Vote: Rick Barry

Barry's got 1967 and 1973-1976 as his 5 strongest NBA years, with 3 more seasons at NBA All-Star level (rookie year, 1977-1978) and 2 years as a role player on a playoff team. An 8-year NBA prime with maybe the best peak of anybody left.

What of the 4 ABA years?

Well, he was 1st Team All-ABA every year. His 1970 playoffs look like 2009 LeBron as Barry dropped 40/10/3 on 53% shooting and 60%TS in a 7-game loss to god-level Spencer Haywood's #1 SRS Denver squad. In 1971, he goes to New York and puts up a solid season before exploding in the playoffs again, this time for 34/12/4 on over 62%TS (including 2.3/4.5 3's per game) in a 6-game loss to the #3 SRS Virginia Squires.

1972 gets the benefit of an 18-game postseason sample. Barry averaged 31/6/4 in the playoffs on 47.2%/37.7%/85.6% (56.2%TS). In the first round, the Nets knocked off Kentucky, the most dominant REG SEA team in ABA history (68 wins, #1 SRS at 7.99 which is the highest SRS in ABA history, led by Artis Gilmore and Dan Issel). Second round, the Nets take out Julius Erving's Virginia Squires. New York ends up losing to Indiana (#3 SRS, #2 defense) in the ABA Finals.

Not counting 1969 makes sense because he ended the season not playing on a team, but 1970-1972 are prime Rick Barry years in my opinion. So that makes it more like an 11-year prime with arguably the best peak left.

Also, if anybody has more information on those ABA years that would provide context to Barry's play/numbers, it'd be appreciated.

Rick Barry is the Steve Jobs of professional basketball history. He came onto the scene and helped create something successful (1967 Warriors = Early 80s Apple), showing faults yet great potential. He left and did other things to mixed results (ABA Barry = Jobs at NeXT), but he learned how to be a better all-around player and use his teammates/co-workers around him a bit better. He learned a bit of patience.

After developing, he moved back to the NBA and became one of the truly best ever at his craft (1975-1976 Barry = Jobs leading Apple as a dominant Tech company).

Also, by all accounts, they were both demanding, ornery pricks who knew how to get things done.

My top candidates right now:

1. Paul
2. Barry
3. Gilmore

It's not as set in stone as it may appear. I'm still listening to Paul vs Kidd arguments for example. I defend Paul's longevity relative to some, but I'm not pretending it isn't an issue.

Chuck Texas wrote:Question for me: Do I keep voting for Nader...er I mean Hondo?

Kidd, Deke, and Baylor would be the other guys in the mix for me at this point.

We all do it from time to time. When it gets extreme, I sometimes abandon a guy for a while.

That said, i could see Hondo getting traction at any moment.

[quote="Doctor MJ"

It's not as set in stone as it may appear. I'm still listening to Paul vs Kidd arguments for example. I defend Paul's longevity relative to some, but I'm not pretending it isn't an issue.[/quote]
I'm not considering either one this high on the list but i think Kidd should still be ranked ahead of Paul even if it ain't by a lot.

Prime Kidd gives you 15-18 ppg, 10 assists, 6-7 boards and elite defense. And he has superb longevity. Plus, the playoff success, yes i'm aware of the conference disparity but Kidd still played at a very high level in the playoffs and you can't take that away from him.

How good is Dwight Howard's peak v. Durant's or Paul's? We've all seen these guys a lot no matter how young or old we are and Howard has longevity over the other two even if we all remember the Dwightmare and agree that he SHOULD be penalized for throwing his team under a bus that way.

For Barry (who was known for throwing his teammates under a bus, at least verbally), what's his argument over Alex English who scored more and more efficiently and who also had good playmaking skills (though Barrys were better) and who played more consistent defense and by all accounts was one of the all-time good guys (multiple citizenship awards). Is it just winner's bias from 1975 or is there more? Same question for Barry v. Gervin; Ice got better after entering the NBA so we don't have to discount his ABA years (though with Ice it's pure scoring, he doesn't have Barry's playmaking and isn't clearly better defensively but his scoring is a lot better and he carried some weak teams well).

For Kidd, why is he better than Gary Payton who gave you better defense (Kidd's best feature) while being a better scorer over the course of his career and equal or greater team success? Has Kidd's playmaking actually led to his teams overperforming offensively like Steve Nash, has Payton's and if neither, why is this a strong selling point for either? Is prime Kidd even superior to prime Chauncey Billups (who does a great job by the efficiency type stats despite his FG% being consistently miserable)?

ronnymac2 wrote:Rick Barry is the Steve Jobs of professional basketball history. He came onto the scene and helped create something successful (1967 Warriors = Early 80s Apple), showing faults yet great potential. He left and did other things to mixed results (ABA Barry = Jobs at NeXT), but he learned how to be a better all-around player and use his teammates/co-workers around him a bit better. He learned a bit of patience.

After developing, he moved back to the NBA and became one of the truly best ever at his craft (1975-1976 Barry = Jobs leading Apple as a dominant Tech company).

Also, by all accounts, they were both demanding, ornery pricks who knew how to get things done.

Demanding, ornery pricks? That's a nice way put it...

Trouble is that Barry isn't the Steve Jobs of basketball (complete with a hiatus), that's Jordan. He's more the rude, offensive prick that started . . . Commodore (not that I know anything about that person but that's more his position in basketball history).

Basically all of kidd success as a franchise player game in arguably the worst Conference in history

penbeast0 wrote:Trouble is that Barry isn't the Steve Jobs of basketball (complete with a hiatus), that's Jordan. He's more the rude, offensive prick that started . . . Commodore (not that I know anything about that person but that's more his position in basketball history).

I think Jobs was a perfect comparison. Apple is big and great but not dominating the market share. Apple products aren't selling outside the US.

penbeast0 wrote:How good is Dwight Howard's peak v. Durant's or Paul's? We've all seen these guys a lot no matter how young or old we are and Howard has longevity over the other two even if we all remember the Dwightmare and agree that he SHOULD be penalized for throwing his team under a bus that way.

I'd say the 3 are pretty close peak wise. I would probably go KD>Dwight>CP3, with very little separating the 3. Career's i'd rank them KD>Dwight>CP3 as well. Kd peaks higher and has comparable longevity so i put his career over theirs.