RealGM

Point Guards:

1. Jason Kidd
2. Walt Frazier
3. Gary Payton
4. Dennis Johnson
5. Jerry West
6. John Stockton
7. Chris Paul
8. Mookie Blaylock
9. Nate McMillan
10. Mo Cheeks

Shooting Guards:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Sidney Moncrief
3. Tony Allen
4. Michael Cooper
5. Alvin Robertson
6. Eddie Jones
7. Jerry Sloan
8. Joe Dumars
9. Danny Green
10. Don Chaney


Small Forwards:

1. Scottie Pippen
2. Ron Artest
3. Lebron James
4. Andre Iguodala
5. Shane Battier
6. John Havlicek
7. Bruce Bowen
8. Shawn Marion
9. Luol Deng
10. Kawhi Leonard


Power Forwards:

1. Tim Duncan
2. Kevin Garnett
3. Bobby Jones
4. Dennis Rodman
5. Elvin Hayes
6. Dave DeBusschere
7. Draymond Green
8. Kevin McHale
9. Rasheed Wallace
10. Horace Grant


Centers:

1. Bill Russell
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. David Robinson
4. Dikembe Mutombo

And this is where it started
Idea


THE CANDIDATES
Ben Wallace
Wilt Chamberlain
Patrick Ewing
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Alonzo Mourning
Dwight Howard
Nate Thurmond
Bill Walton
Rudy Gobert
George Mikan
Artis Gilmore
Willis Reed
Wes Unseld
Jack Sikma
Andrew Bogut
Tree Rollins
Theo Ratliff
Mark Eaton
Manute Bol
Shawn Bradley
Marc Gasol
Tyson Chandler
Marcus Camby
Joakim Noah
DeAndre Jordan
Roy Hibbert
Dave Cowens
Robert Parish
Vlade Divac
George Johnson
Caldwell Jones
Clifford Ray
Bill Laimbeer
Yao Ming
Nene Hilario
Al Horford
[/b]



Hi guys
[/quote]

Leaning toward Chamberlain or B Wallace.

Going Ben Wallace again, narrowly over Chamberlain because of Chamberlain's inconsistent impact.

Ben Wallace again.

Center voting has been very good so far, probably because there aren’t any all-time quality modern centers.

Vote Ben wallace.

I gotta stick with Wilt Chamberlain who I voted the last 2 rounds.

When it comes to centers, the 60's and 90's have the most center talent, and so I feel like we can be sure that Wilt is legit in that he faced good competition on an almost nightly basis (less teams means he faces those handful of star centers more often). Wilt is likely the best rebounder and shotblocker in NBA history. Rebounder for sure, blocks is harder to state since we only have unofficial counts and only a tiny fraction of his games have been digitized. Even accounting for game pace changes his unofficial numbers are higher than Eaton by a good margin.

People often cite Wilt's inconsistency on the defensive end, but I think it is overstated even early in his career when he scored so much and certainly not true later in his career when he scored much less. In the games and times that mattered, he typically stepped up like most greats do. He made deep playoff runs in 12 of his 14 seasons, with 2 rings and 10 losses to the eventual champion, 1 early exit and 1 playoff miss (which both came very early in his career). Of the current candidates at this stage, he has by far the most playoff value earned outside of Kareem. In his last few years even, he was extremely valuable despite not scoring much. In his final season in 1973, he lost in the Finals to the Knicks. He averaged almost 48min in the playoffs that year, like he did every year (he averaged 47.2mpg in the playoffs for his career). He was on the floor primarily for his defense, as he only averaged 10ppg in those 1973 playoffs. Though he did also average 23rpg, best in the league.

Another argument in favor of Wilt, is that outside of his ridiculous stats his presence was beyond that, as he was so scary strong that he scared people out of making aggressive moves to the hole, like Shaq. In an era where paint scoring was more important than ever, this is pretty impactful. Pretty much nobody tried to dunk on these guys.

Thinking between Thurmond and Wilt, though Ben also has a case. What about Ewing? I wouldn't have him over them, but I think that he's worthy candidate.

Yeah you know the competition is tough when Ewing struggles to make a top 10. Which is why we should go to 15 or 20 for centers

kendogg wrote:Yeah you know the competition is tough when Ewing struggles to make a top 10. Which is why we should go to 15 or 20 for centers

Kind of defeats the purpose of a top ten if we're giving participation trophies

For all reasons I noted before, Wilt Chamberlain. I can't believe he has fallen this far.

Repeating my vote for Nate Thurmond. As a Warrior fan, I was able to see a lot of Thurmond, both on TV and at both the Oakland Coliseum and the Cow Palace before that. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of those not voting for Thurmond never saw him play live. As someone who had the chance to see Big Nate play live, as well as the others in contention (Kareem, Deke, Wilt, Big Ben, etc.), my view is that Nate was better defensively in his era than the others were in their era. And that is the primary point for me. As I've said before, I have never seen an actual functioning time-machine, so I have no idea how well Nate would do if he were transported to 2003 just as I don't know how Ben Wallace would do if he were transported to the 1960's. And since this is a basketball forum and not a science fiction forum, playing Back to the Future games is not relevant. Looking at these centers and how they played under the conditions they played under, I am comfortable voting for Thurmond.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

kendogg wrote:Yeah you know the competition is tough when Ewing struggles to make a top 10. Which is why we should go to 15 or 20 for centers

Kind of defeats the purpose of a top ten if we're giving participation trophies

But you can argue the 20th best center is better than the 10th best defender at other positions.

Sticking with Nate Thurmond. He was known in his time as being better than his contemporary Chamberlain, his head-to-head results make him a demonstrably superior post defender at the very least, and his WOWYR score is only one below Chamberlain's despite the extra offense Chamberlain provided.

All things considered, I'd rather go with someone who was known as a great defender from the very beginning of his career (Thurmond) than someone who coaches had to repeatedly admonish to focus more on defense, however great he may have been giving partial effort (Chamberlain). I also find it noteworthy that they played during the same time period and nearly every source from back then seems to think more highly of Thurmond.

kendogg wrote:Another argument in favor of Wilt, is that outside of his ridiculous stats his presence was beyond that, as he was so scary strong that he scared people out of making aggressive moves to the hole, like Shaq. In an era where paint scoring was more important than ever, this is pretty impactful. Pretty much nobody tried to dunk on these guys.

I don't know that this is true. Here are some quotes from guards who played against Wilt:

When you drove on [Wilt], you waited for the squat; then, if you timed it right, you could get your shot off. That was the main difference defensively between him and Bill Russell. Russell would stand straight up and you didn’t know when he was going to make his move and block your shot. When Wilt wanted to block you, he had to get ready first and set himself. -- Walt Frazier

I’d rather drive against Chamberlain than Russell. Chamberlain doesn’t gather himself as quickly and you can throw it up there easier. -- Hal Greer

This appears to confirm my eye-test perception from watching film of Wilt and Thurmond - Wilt's certainly the more explosive athlete, but a big part of the reason his blocks look more impressive is that he's coming from farther away to get to the ball, blocking the shot later after the release when it's higher up, etc. His athleticism is so great that it makes up for it a lot of the time, but his timing and positioning is inconsistent. By contrast, Thurmond's typically already in the right spot when the shot starts to go up, and he jumps earlier, so he doesn't have to reach as far to get the block, plus he has a better chance of recovering the ball. And beyond that, Thurmond was no slouch as far as physical tools either - even Wilt once said that Thurmond had the longer reach as a shot-blocker/rim protector.

None of that means Wilt wasn't a great defender - I mean, he's getting compared to the best ever in those quotes - but it does cast some significant doubt onto how real his fear factor was, and it provides some insight into why Thurmond was talked about as second only to Russell.

pandrade83 wrote:Going Ben Wallace again, narrowly over Chamberlain because of Chamberlain's inconsistent impact.

Was Wallace really any more consistent? Wasn't he mostly unremarkable outside of his six-year run of dominance in Detroit? Open to being proved wrong here, but not seeing much of a case for consistency as Wallace's advantage.

You know who was a great defender from the start of his career to the finish? Thurmond

kendogg wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:

kendogg wrote:Yeah you know the competition is tough when Ewing struggles to make a top 10. Which is why we should go to 15 or 20 for centers

Kind of defeats the purpose of a top ten if we're giving participation trophies

But you can argue the 20th best center is better than the 10th best defender at other positions.

yeah, but we're doing "10 best defenders at each position" not "50 best defenders overall"

cecilthesheep wrote:

kendogg wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:Kind of defeats the purpose of a top ten if we're giving participation trophies

But you can argue the 20th best center is better than the 10th best defender at other positions.

yeah, but we're doing "10 best defenders at each position" not "50 best defenders overall"

You guys should do that next, though! I love reading this stuff.

cecilthesheep wrote:

pandrade83 wrote:Going Ben Wallace again, narrowly over Chamberlain because of Chamberlain's inconsistent impact.

Was Wallace really any more consistent? Wasn't he mostly unremarkable outside of his six-year run of dominance in Detroit? Open to being proved wrong here, but not seeing much of a case for consistency as Wallace's advantage.

You know who was a great defender from the start of his career to the finish? Thurmond

Maybe I should vote Thurmond then, ha.

Wallace was good outside that stretch (and to be clear, I don't view this as a career value piece as much as I do a peak/prime one) in Chicago when the Bulls lept from -2.6 to -6.9 rel D Rating when he joined. Wallace also shows up as a positive impact on +/- data from '01-'10 - even though he was a total drag offensively. The impact is just more clear & consistent with Wallace than it is Wilt.

pandrade83 wrote:

cecilthesheep wrote:

pandrade83 wrote:Going Ben Wallace again, narrowly over Chamberlain because of Chamberlain's inconsistent impact.

Was Wallace really any more consistent? Wasn't he mostly unremarkable outside of his six-year run of dominance in Detroit? Open to being proved wrong here, but not seeing much of a case for consistency as Wallace's advantage.

You know who was a great defender from the start of his career to the finish? Thurmond

Maybe I should vote Thurmond then, ha.

Wallace was good outside that stretch (and to be clear, I don't view this as a career value piece as much as I do a peak/prime one) in Chicago when the Bulls lept from -2.6 to -6.9 rel D Rating when he joined. Wallace also shows up as a positive impact on +/- data from '01-'10 - even though he was a total drag offensively. The impact is just more clear & consistent with Wallace than it is Wilt.

That makes sense. Wallace and Thurmond are both good choices imo depending on how you value length of prime and strength relative to era. Thurmond takes it for me because I think he was a little bit further out in front of his contemporaries plus better longevity, but Wallace had one of the most ridiculously high sustained peaks in this project too, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Frazier is saying that Wilt is easier to drive against because he's a bit less mobile than Nate or Russ. That is an agreed upon fact. That is a bit different than stopping Frazier at the rim with Wilt already in position. And I already ceded that Wilt chased blocks at times early in his career, but so did many centers until they settled in. Wilt had 4 coaches in his first 5 seasons, so that didn't help things for him. I still feel like Wilt is the best rim protector after Russ and perhaps even equal to Russ later in his career. But eyeball test unfortunately only takes you so far in a debate.