RealGM

Will try to find some time tomorrow to expand my case for Schayes, really do feel like he's a pretty clear choice here. Will be listening to quite a few different arguments for my alternate slot.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 2:55 am**

Bob Cousy's early to mid 50s years were certainly elite (in a weak league) but I actually have Paul Arizin's 50s run as stronger than Cousy's and Cousy's post-Russell years were characterized by a lot of truly awful playoff inefficiency. Westbrook is interesting too. Short and spectacular, but I can't support someone whose primary argument is his ridiculous point/assist totals when his efficiency and turnovers are so poor; at least not yet. Harden is an efficient scorer but his defense is worse than George Gervin's and his turnovers are equally high. If I am going for a short prime player, it's going to be Sidney Moncrief who was an extremely efficient 20 point/game scorer for the 4-5 years his body held up while also being probably the greatest perimeter man defender in the history of the NBA.

However, there are a lot of wings with long, high scoring careers. The aforementioned Arizin, George Gervin (the most likely to take over a game), Alex English, Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce are the ones I look at first, before the inefficiency and poor leadership of an Allen Iverson or Pete Maravich.

Defensive forwards Bobby Jones and Shawn Marion (maybe James Worthy and Larry Nance as well) could also get traction but to me, the best big remaining is probably Kevin McHale. I have questions about his ability to deal with consistent double teams as he played his career next to Larry Bird but I think he showed enough when Bird was injured to trust this. He is also less than stellar as a rebounder and post passer but gives you excellent offense and defense in the post with the ability to also defend well out onto the floor.

Vote: George Gervin (just seems more dominant without a system designed for him than Reggie)
Alternate: Reggie Miller (English impresses me as much as Pierce but Reggie's playoffs put him over the top)

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 3:11 am**

penbeast0 wrote:Bob Cousy's early to mid 50s years were certainly elite (in a weak league) but I actually have Paul Arizin's 50s run as stronger than Cousy's and Cousy's post-Russell years were characterized by a lot of truly awful playoff inefficiency. Westbrook is interesting too. Short and spectacular, but I can't support someone whose primary argument is his ridiculous point/assist totals when his efficiency and turnovers are so poor; at least not yet. Harden is an efficient scorer but his defense is worse than George Gervin's and his turnovers are equally high. If I am going for a short prime player, it's going to be Sidney Moncrief who was an extremely efficient 20 point/game scorer for the 4-5 years his body held up while also being probably the greatest perimeter man defender in the history of the NBA.

However, there are a lot of wings with long, high scoring careers. The aforementioned Arizin, George Gervin (the most likely to take over a game), Alex English, Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce are the ones I look at first, before the inefficiency and poor leadership of an Allen Iverson or Pete Maravich.

Defensive forwards Bobby Jones and Shawn Marion (maybe James Worthy and Larry Nance as well) could also get traction but to me, the best big remaining is probably Kevin McHale. I have questions about his ability to deal with consistent double teams as he played his career next to Larry Bird but I think he showed enough when Bird was injured to trust this. He is also less than stellar as a rebounder and post passer but gives you excellent offense and defense in the post with the ability to also defend well out onto the floor.

Vote: George Gervin (just seems more dominant without a system designed for him than Reggie)
Alternate: Reggie Miller (English impresses me as much as Pierce but Reggie's playoffs put him over the top)

What about the fact that Reggie nearly matched Gervin's volume in the playoffs per 100?
Per 100:
Ice - 33.5pp100/.560 TS%/28.0 USG%
Reggie - 30.5pp100/.601 TS%/24.3 USG%
This with a better assist rate and turnover rate, but with a lower rebounding rate.

To me, that seems like the dominance of Gervin could be nearly totally matched by Reggie (in the playoffs). Thoughts?

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 3:34 am**

eminence wrote:Will try to find some time tomorrow to expand my case for Schayes, really do feel like he's a pretty clear choice here. Will be listening to quite a few different arguments for my alternate slot.

I could see Schayes as a very viable candidate here, and he's among the top 6-7 I'm considering. I'm still likely going for Pierce as my top pick, but I could hypothetically be swayed to support Schayes as my alternate.

Going with the pros/cons manner of talking about guys that I took in the last thread, Schayes has a LOT of pros for him, and the only real con is the strength of era consideration. It's a pretty substantial concern, but his candidacy otherwise looks stellar:

*Excellent scorer relative to era
*Excellent rebounder: especially early in his career, but even at the tail end of his prime (>30 years old and into the 1960's) he was still rebounding at a rate that [on a per 100 poss basis] was similar to Draymond Green of recent years (while playing more substantial minutes than Draymond).
*Very good passing big.
*Excellent longevity.
*In terms of awards/honors, there are only a few players left on the table who can exceed him.
*Has a title to his credit as the very clear best player on his team (and in the shotclock era, too).
*Is somewhat the original "stretch 4", fwiw.

Even defensively, his reputation is not bad.

At any rate, I'm glad to see him getting some buzz.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 12:12 pm**

micahclay wrote:
What about the fact that Reggie nearly matched Gervin's volume in the playoffs per 100?
Per 100:
Ice - 33.5pp100/.560 TS%/28.0 USG%
Reggie - 30.5pp100/.601 TS%/24.3 USG%
This with a better assist rate and turnover rate, but with a lower rebounding rate.

To me, that seems like the dominance of Gervin could be nearly totally matched by Reggie (in the playoffs). Thoughts?

Actually, I think Reggie was better than Gervin in the playoffs by a little; that's what made the choice between the two very tough. But Gervin also worked harder on defense in the playoffs and was better than his regular season game overall because of it. And, as I said, that Indiana offense was designed to run Reggie's defenders through multiple screens and free him up; San Antonio ran a very unsophisticated offensive scheme where Gervin had to do it all himself. Not that that's a knock on Reggie, his motor on offense was very high allowing Indiana to do this, but overall I just came down on Gervin's side by a hair.

Wait until I have to decide between Alex English v. Paul Pierce . . .

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 12:24 pm**

eminence wrote:Will try to find some time tomorrow to expand my case for Schayes, really do feel like he's a pretty clear choice here. Will be listening to quite a few different arguments for my alternate slot.

He's 3rd on my board right now. I'll be supporting him soon.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 12:47 pm**

1st choice: Wes Unseld
Honorable Mention: George Gervin

If you're not giving Unseld a look, you're missing a gem. You're getting a guy who is recognized as a high impact performer (VORP, BPM), was selected to be an MVP, was a strong playoff performer & enjoyed strong team success.

Advanced Metrics

Unseld hit 5+ scores for both BPM 3 times & VORP twice - that we know of - one of which didn't come in a double digit WS year. If we make the reasonably safe assumption that he hit those scores in ALL of his double digit WS year, that gives him 6 years of a BPM Score of 5+ and 5 years of a VORP Score of 5+ and It's highly likely that if we had RAPM, the metric would've loved him as well.

What's so impressive about that? Aside from McGrady & Schayes, no one else from last round made it to those markers more than 4 times*

* - Hayes never got there in his best WS Seasons - peaking out around 12. In his pre-'74 years, he never got to 10 WS, so I assigned him 0; Cousy never got to 9 WS even, I gave Reed the benefit of the doubt and assumed he made it there in all 4 10 WS + Years.

MVP Season
In the '68-'69 season, Unseld was selected MVP over guys who are already in like Wilt, Russell, West, Baylor, Frazier & Hondo. He is clearly well respected by his peers. People have said that Unseld's MVP was a little weak - and I get that - but remember you're voting for slot #41, not slot #14. It's noteworthy that Unseld's arrival coincided with a 21 win improvement without a change in the team's core, or a change in the coach. Washington went from 36 to 57 wins and finished with the best record in the league - that's why he won MVP - he had a major impact on winning. A team with Unseld & Monroe as it's two best players beat out Wilt/West, Russell/Hondo, Frazier/Reed, which is pretty impressive.

Strong playoff performer

In the playoffs, he maintains his strong performance - averaging 10/15/4/with 1.8 TOs (on fairly limited data) which is right on par with his career averages.

The most infamous defeat one of his teams suffer isn't really on him (the '75 Finals). He does his thing - 12-17-4 on 54% TS. That's who he was. Hayes crippled the team offensively - yes, he scored 20 PPG but he shot a miserable TS% of just 46%.

Strong Team Success

Unseld was the team playoff leader in WS and then VORP/BPM for 4 Finals Teams* as he was vital to his teams' playoff success as mentioned by his strong playoff numbers above. Unseld only misses the playoffs once in a strong 13 year career that sees him pace his team in every year but 2# in VORP & BPM - and before that in WS.

* - Hayes outpaced Unseld in Playoff VORP; Unseld outpaced Hayes in Playoff BPM as well as regular season VORP and BPM
# - ('74 - injuries & '81 - injuries + final year)

Unseld would make a fantastic addition to our Top 40. You're getting an MVP who is recognized as a high impact performer by advanced metrics, who had decent longevity, was a strong playoff performer and was the driver of a consistent winner.

You just don't see guys who achieved that much this late; there's guys left who achieved higher peaks, but had much worse longevity - Unseld brings very high impact years over a sustained run as a winner; the really high peak players remaining (Westbrook, Tmac, McAdoo, Walton) can't say that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes WS, BPM, VORP & RAPM get it wrong. George Gervin is one of those cases. There's a lot of value in having the leading scorer who does so at the efficiency that Gervin achieved. Let's focus in on his scoring title years:

'78 - 27.2 ppg @ +7.9% TS relative to league average; 14.0% TOV - looks high but still 2% below league average
'79 - 29.6 ppg @ +6.1% TS relative to league average; 12.5% TOV
'80 - 33.1 ppg @ +5.4% TS relative to league average; 10.3% TOV
'82 - 32.3 ppg @ +2.3% TS relative to league average; 8.5% TOV

Offensively he's a clear boon to your team.

It translates to winning too - this isn't empty stats by any stretch of the imagination.. The Spurs win their division in 3 of those 4 years and he's anchoring offenses that are top 3 or higher every year from '75-'84 with the lone exception of '81 when they were 4th. The Spurs win 50 games or more in their final 2 ABA years and 5 Division Titles upon entering the league.

His numbers translate well to the post-season averaging 29-7-3, 1 stl & 1 block on 56% TS from '75-'83 and for the intangible guys, it's noteworthy that he's not really being moved around either unlike an Adrian Dantley,

So, with all that, why is he below Unseld? His defensive issues come to play for sure - while I don't think this is a James Harden situation, the defensive metrics we have outside of blocks/steals don't paint him in a positive light at all. Additionally, his impact outside of scoring is a little bit light. A typical year from him aside from the monster scoring is something like 5 reb, 3 ast. On the rare off-night offensively, he's not doing much for you, so he's a little bit of a one trick pony in terms of the ways he impacts the game. It's still immensely valuable and he does it for a long time - but there's a reason the VORP/BPM #'s I wrote above are so glowing for Unseld & not for Gervin. I think the #'s are wrong in regards to Gervin - but I give Unseld a slight edge because he has more than one way he's impacting the game.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 1:15 pm**

micahclay wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:Bob Cousy's early to mid 50s years were certainly elite (in a weak league) but I actually have Paul Arizin's 50s run as stronger than Cousy's and Cousy's post-Russell years were characterized by a lot of truly awful playoff inefficiency. Westbrook is interesting too. Short and spectacular, but I can't support someone whose primary argument is his ridiculous point/assist totals when his efficiency and turnovers are so poor; at least not yet. Harden is an efficient scorer but his defense is worse than George Gervin's and his turnovers are equally high. If I am going for a short prime player, it's going to be Sidney Moncrief who was an extremely efficient 20 point/game scorer for the 4-5 years his body held up while also being probably the greatest perimeter man defender in the history of the NBA.

However, there are a lot of wings with long, high scoring careers. The aforementioned Arizin, George Gervin (the most likely to take over a game), Alex English, Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce are the ones I look at first, before the inefficiency and poor leadership of an Allen Iverson or Pete Maravich.

Defensive forwards Bobby Jones and Shawn Marion (maybe James Worthy and Larry Nance as well) could also get traction but to me, the best big remaining is probably Kevin McHale. I have questions about his ability to deal with consistent double teams as he played his career next to Larry Bird but I think he showed enough when Bird was injured to trust this. He is also less than stellar as a rebounder and post passer but gives you excellent offense and defense in the post with the ability to also defend well out onto the floor.

Vote: George Gervin (just seems more dominant without a system designed for him than Reggie)
Alternate: Reggie Miller (English impresses me as much as Pierce but Reggie's playoffs put him over the top)

What about the fact that Reggie nearly matched Gervin's volume in the playoffs per 100?
Per 100:
Ice - 33.5pp100/.560 TS%/28.0 USG%
Reggie - 30.5pp100/.601 TS%/24.3 USG%
This with a better assist rate and turnover rate, but with a lower rebounding rate.

To me, that seems like the dominance of Gervin could be nearly totally matched by Reggie (in the playoffs). Thoughts?

3 points on a base of 30 is 10%. I know we tend to not think in those terms, but 10% higher scoring is somewhat meanginful.

I'd also ask about their teammates. I feel Miller had much and I mean much better talent around him, including a guy I doubt we see on our list, but still a top 5 all time assists point guard in Jackson. How do you actor in the quality of teammates Miller had? They clearly are a factor in his out put.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 1:21 pm**

Has anyone thought about say having us pick a pool of canidates, say 10, we vote in the next 5 from the pool and then we make another pool?

This having 15 players getting votes imo is or at least will (not sure how I feel about McHale...I could go from a good pick to wow that's nuts) result in some guys jumping way higher than a lot of us would have done just due to such low votes going towards them.

The bonus here is we get to discuss the pool which I think will help with the voting as I know a lot of us like to read other opinions before we vote and we are swayed, especially now that I think a lot of us don't have strong feelings.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 2:41 pm**

We could bring back the nomination system

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 3:30 pm**

Not in this thread guys. If you want to suggest changes to the system, put it in the system thread.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 3:55 pm**

penbeast0 wrote:
micahclay wrote:
What about the fact that Reggie nearly matched Gervin's volume in the playoffs per 100?
Per 100:
Ice - 33.5pp100/.560 TS%/28.0 USG%
Reggie - 30.5pp100/.601 TS%/24.3 USG%
This with a better assist rate and turnover rate, but with a lower rebounding rate.

To me, that seems like the dominance of Gervin could be nearly totally matched by Reggie (in the playoffs). Thoughts?

Actually, I think Reggie was better than Gervin in the playoffs by a little; that's what made the choice between the two very tough. But Gervin also worked harder on defense in the playoffs and was better than his regular season game overall because of it. And, as I said, that Indiana offense was designed to run Reggie's defenders through multiple screens and free him up; San Antonio ran a very unsophisticated offensive scheme where Gervin had to do it all himself. Not that that's a knock on Reggie, his motor on offense was very high allowing Indiana to do this, but overall I just came down on Gervin's side by a hair.

Wait until I have to decide between Alex English v. Paul Pierce . . .

In playoffs:

Miller - '90'-'00:
23 PPG on an astounding 60.6% TS, 2.9 Reb, 2.5 ast, 1.1 stl, 0.3 blk, 1.8 TOV - also impressive. The League TS% average in this area ranged from 51 in '99 to 54 in '90, '93, '95-'97. So he's about 7.5% above the league average during this era
Gervin - '75-'85:
29 PPG on 56.2% TS, 7.2 Reb, 3.0 Ast, 1.2 stl, 1.1 blk, 3.1 TOV. The league TS% average in this area ranged from 50 in '75 & '76 to 54 in '82, '84, '85. Gervin is about 4% above the league average during this era which is really impressive given the higher volume.

The Volume edge doesn't tighten up that much. Miller is still more efficient but on lower volume but isn't really giving you anything else. Gervin stepped up his D in the playoffs somewhat. Gervin feels more complete and ultimately had to do more as others mentioned. The Pacers were smarter about how they used Miller with the mouse trap offense that they set up.

Everyone keeps mentioning that Miller's playoff #'s are very close to Gervin's & that's fair. But if their playoff #'s are equal & Gervin is producing more in the regular season, I still don't see the case for Reggie.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 4:02 pm**

Vote 1 - George Gervin

Vote 2 - Willis Reed

Reasoning: viewtopic.php?p=58490363#p58490363

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 4:30 pm**

41. Elvin Hayes
42. Dolph Schayes

*For combined (RS) points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals, Elvin Hayes is 9th in the history of the NBA and ABA combined. If you aren't giving him consideration at the 41st spot, then career totals should probably not enter into your thought at any point on this list.

*Hayes was the most productive player on the '78 Bullets title team, although Unseld was generally more heralded. By my count, there is only a handful of players remaining who were the best player on a title team, so Hayes at least needs to start receiving consideration.

*Hayes' MVP finishes, in spite of the fact that apparently not a single person with a vote actually liked him:

1971-72 NBA 0.006 (17)
1972-73 NBA 0.021 (10)
1973-74 NBA 0.082 (5)
1974-75 NBA 0.299 (3)
1975-76 NBA 0.018 (8)
1976-77 NBA 0.020 (7)
1978-79 NBA 0.126 (3)

*Hayes also led the league in scoring in '69, and was a 12x All-Star.

For me, his combination of longevity and production for a championship team make him too hard to ignore.

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 6:15 pm**

I wanted to get some reset here among all the single votes, guys who haven't been mentioned, guys who soon will etc. So I went to bball-reference and ran a series of searches for top remaining players of all time by several different criteria, minimum of 400 games, and then also went through the All NBA lists to find guys with the highest totals. Between all the different lists I would hope almost all of the next wave of worthies would show up in at least one of them. Here are all the top remaining guys:

By PER
10) Neil Johnston 24.7
17) Russell Westbrook 23.8
22) Yao Ming 23.0
24) James Harden 22.9
27) Blake Griffin 22.8
30) DeMarcus Cousins 22.4
32) Tracy McGrady 22.1
34) Dolph Shayes 22.0
35) Kevin Love 21.9
37) Amare Stoudemire 21.8
38) George Gervin 21.7
39) Dwight Howard 21.7
40) Bob Lanier 21.7
41) Clyde Lovelette 21.6
42) Dominique Wilkins 21.6
43) Adrian Dantley 21.5
44) Harry Gallatin 21.5
45) Pau Gasol 21.5
46) Alonzo Mourning 21.2
47) Arvydas Sabonis 21.2
50) Dan Issel 21.0

By Career Scoring Average
7) Allen Iverson 26.7
9) George Gervin 26.2
13) Carmelo Anthony 24.8
14) Dominique Wilkins 24.8
17) Adrian Dantley 24.3
18) Pete Maravich 24.2
23) Paul Arizin 22.8
25) Russell Westbrook 22.7
26) Bernard King 22.5
28) James Harden 22.1
29) Bob McAdoo 22.1
30) David Thompson 22.1
33) Geoff Petrie 21.8
35) Alex English 21.5
36) Blake Griffin 21.5
37) DeMarcus Cousins 21.2
40) Elvin Hayes 21.0
41) Mitch Richmond 21.0
42) Billy Cunningham 20.8
44) Gilbert Arenas 20.7
45) John Drew 20.7
46) Glenn Robinson 20.7
47) Chris Webber 20.7
50) Dan Issel 20.4

By Career Points Scored
10) Elvin Hayes 27313
13) Dominique Wilkins 26668
15) Paul Pierce 26397
18) Alex English 25613
19) Reggie Miller 25279
22) Vince Carter 24555
23) Ray Allen 24505
24) Allen Iverson 24368
25) Carmelo Anthony 24156
27) Robert Parish 23334
28) Adrian Dantley 23177
33) Hal Greer 21586
35) Walt Bellamy 20941
38) George Gervin 20708
39) Mitch Richmond 20497
40) Tom Chambers 20049
41) Antawn Jamison 20042
42) Joe Johnson 20033
43) Pau Gasol 20001
45) Bernard King 19655
46) Clifford Robinson 19591
47) Walter Davis 19521
48) Terry Cummings 19460
49) Bob Lanier 19248
50) Eddie Johnson 19202

By All NBA
Bob Cousy 12 (10/2)
Dolph Schayes 12 (6/6)
Dwight Howard 8 (5/1/2)
Bill Sharman 7 (4/3)
Hal Greer 7 (0/7)
George Gervin 7 (5/2)
Dominique Wilkins 7 (1/4/2)
Allen Iverson 7 (3/3/1)
Tracey McGrady 7 (2/3/2)
Carmelo Anthony 6 (0/2/4)
Russell Westbrook 6 (2/4/0)

Remaining MVPs
Russel Westbrook 1
Derrick Rose 1
Allen Iverson 1
Bill Walton 1
Bob McAdoo 1
Dave Cowens 1
Willis Reed 1
Wes Unseld 1
Bob Cousy 1

I also did it by WS/48 despite my contempt for that stat's granny logic, but there were enough random results that I didn't think it would add much except clutter, so I'm tucking under this spoiler:

Spoiler:

I continue to like my MVPs (Iverson, Westbrook, Cousy) and near MVPs (Wilkins, Gervin) over the rest of the field who never reached those levels of sustained greatness. Those 5 players also have 5 of the 11 highest remaining totals of ALL NBA awards. After them, Howard should get a look at some point as there really shouldn't be that large a gap between he an Gilmore (Gilmore may have gone too high though) and Hayes (for pure mass raw stats) and Schayes (as the next oldie after Cousy) need to get in before 50.

41) Iverson
42) Westbrook

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 7:34 pm**

Now that Kidd's off the board that opens up a whole new tier of guys for me to consider here.
Next Tier: Gervin, Nique, T-Mac, Dwight, Reggie, Harden, Zo, Billups, McHale. I might be forgetting a couple guys but this is generally where my head's at.

Gervin: Iceman gets criminally underrated in most GOAT discussions especially here with a lot of people on this forum underrating volume scoring. He led the league in scoring 4 times on unbelievable efficiency for his time. He could take over games in the blink of an eye he could ring 40 on you. Gervin as a scorer imo tops Kobe as well as many other ATG scorers. I bet most people can't name a single Gervin teammate except maybe Kenon and they were still a tough team in the post-season. In 79' they blew a 3-1 in the ECF and I think they would've had a great chance in the finals against Seattle. He put up 42 in Game 7 and they still lost. Gervin was a great playoff performer but he was often let down by his teammates. However, Gervin had some gaping holes in his game most notably defense and passing. Gervin a bad defender but the degree to which he was a bad defender is overstated. He was clearly a better defender than Harden and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. However his passing is usually understated as a problem he averaged more turnovers per game than assists for his career. If he could've been just a solid passer he probably has a ring and we are probably discussing him in the top 20.

Nique: He was a slightly worse 80s version of Gervin who also suffers because of this forums dislike of volume scorers but until Gervin goes Nique can't be considered.

Howard: In 99.9% of cases I couldn't care less about intangibles and Howard falls in that .1%. Dwight is just so incredibly toxic and delusional I can't give him a pass for his ridiculous immaturity and stupidity. That being said Dwight the player gets way too much hate because of Dwight the person. He was a BEAST. Best player in the league defensively throughout his peak and his 4 DPOYs were deserved. He led the league in DWS 4 times as well. His defense at the C position alone makes him incredibly valuable but he was an efficient scorer as well. He consistently averaged around 20 ppg in his prime and he had solid gravity in the paint and in the pick and roll. He's an ATG rebounder on both ends and he led the league in rebounds 5 times. Post-prime/current Dwight also gets an unfairly bad rap as he is still probably a top 50 player in the league and his defense and rebounding are still really valuable. His 14 ppg this year where on his highest fg% of his career. That being said his horrible intangibles aren't his only weakness. He's a terrible passer and he commits at least 1 dumb/unnecessary turnover per game. With the amount of attention he drew in the paint 1.5 assists per game is unacceptable. He also faced pretty weak competition at the center position and in the east.

Reggie: 2nd greatest off ball player of all-time. ATG ceiling raiser and absolutely incredible playoff performer. He was also one of the clutchest players of all time. I understand the concern with his extremely underwhelming box score stats for a top 50 all-time player. However, his way ahead of the competition efficiency makes the low assists and rebounding numbers hurt a little less. He has the GOAT ORTG. However, he only did one thing well, score the basketball and even more specifically shoot the basketball. The defensive attention that followed him around and the awesome efficiency with which he shot the ball is what puts him in this conversation but he was average to poor at everything else so I'm not ready for him. yet....

Harden: Awesome peak and the rightful MVP this year (triple doubles are so overrated :noway:

). Great efficiency as a scorer and just a great well rounded player...... offensively :lol:

. His lack of defense and longevity means its a bit too early for him.

Zo: Great peak in 00 and one of the best defensive centers of all time. Got unlucky playing the golden era of centers for most of his prime. Lack of playoff success is eye opening but the presence of an elite guard could probably have changed that. When he had Tim Hardaway they won 61 games and made the Eastern Conference Finals (barely). He surpasses his stats according to my eye test but mediocre advanced stats mean I might be wrong.

Billups: I love him and his style of play and his willingness to spread the wealth directly correlated to the Pistons success. He has awesome impact stats which I think are deserving and the Denver trade bodes well for him in examining his impact. Mr. Big Shot deserves a long hard look at this stage.

Last but not least my favorite player of all-time (yes I'm admitting to my slight bias though I try not to be) Tracy McGrady. T-Mac was the ideal point-forward and if for some reason we were cloning shooting guards I'd argue T-Mac would be the best choice. McGrady had it all 6'9" elite athleticism and wingspan. He had absolutely no holes in his game. I'll go through every portion of his game but not overly extensive. First his passing ability was great, truly elite. He knew how to find his teammates at the best time in the best spot and had the type of vision you can only be born with. He could pass out of any double-team and he basically never turned the ball over. His turnover pct was often below 10% which is really incredible. Another reason for his turnover averse play was his ball-handling. Tracy McGrady is the greatest SG ball handler of all time and at 6'9" that's really saying something. He could dribble the ball anywhere he wanted on the court and while sometimes his fancy displays of ball-handling killed ball movement they mostly enabled him to attack and score from wherever he wanted. These two traits made him the best point-forward of his time (pre LBJ of course). He could do literally whatever he wanted as far as scoring the basketball. He could get to the basket and finish with ease, he had a solid post up game with a great fadeaway, he could pull up for 3 off-the dribble, he could spot up and hit shots, he could run off screens, he could any type of step-back, turnaround, hop step mid range jumpers you could think of, he could play in the pick and roll to score or pass, and he could explode out of the triple-threat. He had the most variety in his coring of any player I've ever seen and possibly the most ever. He was really the perfect wing. T-Mac was really beautiful to watch. Watching T-Mac play was like watching Federer play tennis it looks as tho they were born to play the sport and they just glide around the court gracefully dismantling their opponents in a way that seems effortless. This seemingly effortlessness in McGrady's game probably partially contributed to the perception of him being a lazy player. McGrady's work ethic was pretty poor and if he had Kobe or MJ killer in him, provided he was healthy, he'd be top 3 all-time. He was never a great leader and he was a pretty quiet guy but his intangibles other than work ethic weren't a negative. I can't honestly blame him for his lack of effort if your best teammates were Juwan Howard and Mike Miller you'd probably be pretty frustrated and lazy too. Those Orlando supporting casts are so laughably bad that they dwarf LBJ and Kobe's and even Garnett's. No wonder his back couldn't take him carrying all those scrubs for 4 years :lol:

. His situation was just completely hopeless. Maybe that's why he always settled for deep contested 2s his jumper was awesome but no one can hit contested perimeter shots consistently at a high percentage. He easily could've gotten to the rim more or created more open looks but he really seemed to half-ass games at time because of how **** his teams were. He was literally the only guy on the team who could create any shots for himself or others. That's probably another reason he settled because he was tasked with doing literally everything for his team and he was probably exhausted. Had he played on even a decent team he would have the energy to attack the rim way more. Same goes for defense when he was playing at 100% effort he looked like an All-NBA defender but he was an average defender his whole career because he didn't care to play defense most of the time and he also didn't have energy to play D. McGrady was the only person on his team that defenses had to give any **** about and he still destroyed defenses. At his peak in 03 he had 30 ast % to 8.4 yes 8.4 tov % and had the greatest season of all-time tied with Michael Jordan according to OBPM at 9.8. The Magic still only went 42-40 and he played amazing in the playoffs and they still lost in 7 to the Pistons. It's honestly depressing to think about. If only Tim Duncan signed with the Magic and Grant Hill could stay healthy they would've been the greatest team of all-time and maybe McGrady's back wouldn't have been destroyed by carrying the 600 pound Shawn Kemp and all those other scrubs on his back. His 1 year peak is top 10 and his 7 year prime is awesome but it could've been so much more. He was the third best player in the league in the early 00s behind Shaq and TD and was the best offensive player in a time dominated by defense. This is getting ridiculously long so I'm done but I could go on for even longer if I wanted lol. I'm willing to answer any questions/debate with people about this but I think it's time for McGrady.
1st Vote: T-Mac
2nd: Gervin

Posted: **Sat Sep 9, 2017 7:55 pm**

Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Been voting these two for a while so I think my views are clear. Let me talk about some other guys who I've been thinking about lately.

Bill Walton - so hard to place. I really can't fault you if he's not in your Top 100. But he was so, so, so good. It won't take much for me to follow others lead on him when he gets momentum.

Zo/Mutombo - the two Hoyas have compelling arguments imho. Zo with better longevity would easily be my pick over Reggie.

George Gervin - can definitely see the argument for him over the two guys I've picked, but I just barely prefer them to him.

Unseld/Reed/Cowens - I view these guys similarly. Though I don't think they were quite as good as their accolades indicate, neither did people back then have a mass hallucination. These guys were incredible team players.

Posted: **Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:02 am**

Doctor MJ wrote:Vote: Reggie Miller
Alt: Paul Pierce

Been voting these two for a while so I think my views are clear. Let me talk about some other guys who I've been thinking about lately.

Bill Walton - so hard to place. I really can't fault you if he's not in your Top 100. But he was so, so, so good. It won't take much for me to follow others lead on him when he gets momentum.

Zo/Mutombo - the two Hoyas have compelling arguments imho. Zo with better longevity would easily be my pick over Reggie.

George Gervin - can definitely see the argument for him over the two guys I've picked, but I just barely prefer them to him.

Unseld/Reed/Cowens - I view these guys similarly. Though I don't think they were quite as good as their accolades indicate, neither did people back then have a mass hallucination. These guys were incredible team players.

I can't get too on board wtih zo and mutombo if Howard isn't ahead of them both.

I am still also struggling with Miller over Ray Allen. Allen's peak was better and his "role player" era lead to titles. I can see a case for miller over him, but if you have miller that high I just can't see there being 7 + guys separating him.

To me Allen is a better version of miller on WAY worse teams until he got to boston. And from there he showed his ability fit into different roles something miller never really did.

Posted: **Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:06 am**

[quote="Winsome Gerbil"][/quote]

Why would you use WS/48 and not total winshare? Seems odd to go there.

RealGM

RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41 (George Gervin)

RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41 (George Gervin)

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41

Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #41