RealGM

2020 List
1. LeBron James
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Bill Russell
5. Tim Duncan
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Magic Johnson
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Larry Bird
11. Kevin Garnett
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
17. David Robinson
18. Julius Erving
19. George Mikan
20. Moses Malone
21. Charles Barkley
22. Kevin Durant
23. Chris Paul
24. ??

1st vote: John Stockton
Again: meaningful longevity matters to me; and Stockton's got that in spades. He was valuable (almost a borderline All-Star calibre player) even in his 19th and final season (every metric, including the impact variety, bare this to be true); and imo was roughly a top 6-8 player in the league during two or three of his best years (fwiw, box-based metrics typically peg him even HIGHER than this many years, and impact data we have from '97 [or '94] on also frequently places him among the league's elite).

He was so clever (and dirty), particularly defensively, as well as being an excellent shooter, fantastic [if a touch overly "safe"] passer; and bloody tough as nails. There's some value to having a guy you can count on being there EVERY night. He's also a teammate that no one ever did [no one ever would, I suspect] say something bad about. Just a humble, hard-working class act; though still tough as anyone (someone who Chris Webber once referred to as "the baddest man in the NBA").

While I don't think he attained the offensive heights of Steve Nash, he so thoroughly trumps Nash as a defender AND in terms of longevity that I have him comfortably ahead in an all-time sense.

I'll also refer to this post from the #23 thread regarding some of the usual criticisms he endures in these discussions.


2nd vote: Dwyane Wade
I'll try to add some more substantial arguments at a later time. For now I'll state I think Wade is arguably the best peak left on the table save maybe Stephen Curry and/or Bill Walton. His longevity is lacking [durability was oft an issue], which is the only reason I've not supported him earlier.
But Wade was a crazy good slashing/finishing guard, understated playmaker, and in the GOAT-tier of help defenders from the SG position. Box-based metrics put him at an MVP tier during his very best seasons, and he held up well in the playoffs before his body began breaking down (like around '13 and after).
He's in the company of players like Dirk and Chris Paul, and just barely behind Duncan [all of these guys already voted in] in terms of his impact measures, which would certainly seem to suggest he deserves some traction.


3rd vote: Patrick Ewing
I worry I'm going to be on an island promoting this pick for awhile before he has traction, but I do think he deserves some consideration.
Overshadowed in terms of DPOY and/or All-Defensive accolades because his career almost exactly overlaps with those of Hakeem, DRob, and Dikembe......I'm willing to bet Dwight Howard does no better on this front if his career overlapped with these guys.

But Ewing anchored [or at worst "co-anchored"] TWO of the greatest defensive squads in NBA history (two of the top 3-4 defenses of the last 30 years), while simultaneously being the 1st option on offense [even if he wasn't terrifically suited to that role]. There are not a lot of guys who can anchor an elite defense AND score 23-27 ppg [even if it is on average(ish) efficiency].

And Ewing had more than respectable longevity as well.

Feels like CP3 kind of snuck that one out, but I'll certainly have an open 3rd ballot this time around, at first glance Harden/Stockton are my top two, with Wade a bit of a wildcard. Nash/Curry almost certain to still be my top two.

I didn't expect CP3 to get voted over Curry, but I will post this anyway :

Since CP3 and Wade are gaining some traction I decided to plot their team's relative ORtg during their respective prime. For Wade (2005-2010), I was especially interested to see how his team performed with him as a true "alpha" so I only looked at 2005 to 2010. For CP3 (2008-2011) I initially also only looked when he played for the Hornets since it was easier to plot. In addition, since Billups (2003-2008) overlapped considerably with Wade, I also decided to include him. Below is the relative ORtg of their teams ranked compared to other playoff teams within the same season, spanning from 2003 to 2011:


raw numbers:

As you can see the Pistons were pretty okay on offense, and even quite good in 2007 and 2008.
The Heat were never truly elite and were actually better on defense than on offense if you look at the raw/absolute numbers.
The Hornets were elite in 2008, the worst in 2009, and okay in 2011.

So who did the heavy-lifting for these teams? Perhaps the association between individual ORtg (Dean Oliver's metric) and team ORtg can provide some clues:
Pistons:


Heat:


Hornets:


As you can see the results are not surprising, but there is some wonky stuff to note. While Billups's individual ORtg seems most associated with his team performance, Hamilton and Rasheed Wallace are very close, if not equal. That said Billup's had some crazy individual ORtgs, he was above 200(!!) two times, and got close a third time. For these correlation analyses, I trust the Pistons data the most since the total sample size amounts to more than 100 games! Pretty good run by the Pistons.

Surprisingly, Beasly has the best association with the Heat! Though the sample-size is quite small (12 games), this might also reflect how weak the Heat's squad was in general, since he was taking the 2nd most FGA behind Wade. Interestingly Shaq was also not too far behind Wade, and he did play a substantial amount of games.

With the Hornets, there's not much to conclude. CP3 has one the highest slopes I've seen so far, but David West is also pretty good. That said, pretty small sample size over three play-off runs.

Up next if people are interested: Clippers (2012-2017), Rockets (2013-2020), and Blazers (2014-2020).

WestGOAT wrote:Up next if people are interested: Clippers (2012-2017), Rockets (2013-2020), and Blazers (2014-2020).

I'm quite interested in seeing these next ones in particular

I've been supporting Curry for a while. Short prime but very dominant. He's at least the face of the change to the modern pace and space era and almost certainly the best shooter we've ever seen in the league.

For the next slot, I have Pettit then Stockton. Pettit, during the strong league stretch of his career, he was a clear level above every except Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar and Baylor. It's close between Baylor and Pettit and they were contemporaries who both played the PF forward over the same period generally speaking (I have Baylor as more of a PF type than LaRusso) though Baylor was a 4/3 while Pettit was a 4/5. As expected from their positions, Pettit was the better rebounder while Baylor was the better ballhandler. But Pettit has two edges on Baylor that give him the advantage for me. First, he was the more efficient scorer, particularly relative to league since he played his first few years in a much less efficient league than Baylor played his post-Pettit career. Second, from what I've been able to gather from their contemporaries, Pettit was the stronger defender. So, I have Pettit over Baylor.

Stockton v. Nash. Nash has the higher offensive peak but Stockton is close; he did nearly as much with much less offensive talent around him. Additionally, he has a strong defensive edge and nearly unmatched consistency and ironman performance.

Beyond them there is Frazier, Harden, Wade, Baylor, and Ewing on my radar. Harden is tempting; if it was individual dominance instead of a team game, he'd already be in. Really not seeing the Schayes love, I will probably go Arizin first from the 50s after Pettit. Scottie Pippen should get a look soon too.

1. Curry
2. Pettit
3. Stockton[/quote]

Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

Voting for the #24 spot:


1. Stephen Curry
2. James Harden
3. Bob Pettit

1. Stephen Curry is one of those guys that is hard to rank mostly because he doesn't have that Finals MVP yet but everything else he has done is ridiculous. First of all, being able to make it to 5 straight Finals is amazing. We downplay that because of LeBron but truthfully they are the only two players to ever make 5 straight Finals since probably 1960 or so? Meanwhile guys are trying to slide in Stockton who only ever made 2 Finals for his whole career and never won a ring either.

Curry making 5 straight Finals alone, that right there is amazing, but his greatness goes even further. He also won 3 of them, while achieving the greatest regular season run in the history of our sport. 73 wins, Unanimous MVP. 30 ppg, off a 50/40/90 splits for a full season. He has also has all the three pointer records too: most in a single season, most in the playoffs, and will eventually pass Ray Allen for most all time in the RS, and he has already passed Ray by nearly 100 in playoff 3-pointers. His offensive gravity is remarkable and yet still easy to give dismiss. But think about this, teams in the playoffs were nearly forced to pick him up as soon as he crossed half court or they were repeatedly sending hard doubles at him. No other perimeter player has faced that type of defensive attention. Anyway, in a nut shell: 2x MVP, 3x Rings, 5x Finals, Only U-MVP in league history, 1st in PO 3-pointers, soon to be 1st in RS 3-pointers as well. I can't put a guy with 2 Finals and zero rings or MVPs above that. Nope, no way.

2. Harden dropped 36 ppg in the modern era! He also accumulated three scoring titles, an MVP, and an assist title. Very few have won both an assist and scoring title in their NBA career. Not to mention he is an 8x all-star, but the thing holding him back the most is lack of Finals appearances and rings. He only has 1 Finals appearance, although I feel if the next guy below him (CP3) didn't get hurt in 2018 playoffs then Harden most likely wins his first title and possibly the FMVP. I can't count LeBron out completely in 2018 but if Chris Paul doesn't get hurt in 2018 then Harden likely wins his 1st ring (finally). Harden also has 6x all NBA 1st teams (more than some guys voted before him such as: Barkley, Erving, Dirk, KG, Moses, Robinson, Russell, & Curry/Wade/Nash/Pippen [if people are voting them in]).

3. At this stage in the game it is very hard to ignore the fact that Pettit has 10x All NBA 1st teams, 2x MVP, and 2x Scoring Titles. He doesn't have longevity, but everything else is within the realm of top 30 no doubt. 6x consecutive 25 ppg seasons as well, with 7 overall. Again the only major knock is his lack of longevity, that's what hurts his ranking the most. And while Bill Russell was injured in the 1958 Finals, nobody can discount Pettit's game 6 performance where he dropped FIFTY to close out the series and win his only ring and defeat Bill Russell's Celtics. I also find it pretty cool to note that he was the first player to ever score 20,000 points.

Doctor MJ wrote:Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

I can guarantee nobody else left has his resume

5x Finals
3x Rings
2x MVP
1x Scoring Title
73-win season (record)

Nobody

Magic Is Magic wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

I can guarantee nobody else left has his resume

5x Finals
3x Rings
2x MVP
1x Scoring Title
73-win season (record)

Nobody

The same can be said about Curry in reference to a lot of other players if that player gets to set the criteria. Its all in how you choose to weigh it. For instance Pettit was all nba 1st team 10 times and top 4 in mvp voting 8 times. Curry doesn't touch that either. Plus one mvp, likely one fmvp had it existed and 4x led the league in per(which isn't a super metric but its something). Curry's career isn't even close to done yet so I think its sort of disingenuous for people to be amazed that he's being voted behind players who have that advantage over him.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Curry's career isn't even close to done yet so I think its sort of disingenuous for people to be amazed that he's being voted behind players who have that advantage over him.

Disingenuous? Uh, nope.

Y'all, when they made a best player list 50 years into basketball's existence, Hank Luisetti ranked 2nd despite never having played pro ball. In the NBA's Top 50 list they had Shaq after only a few years in the NBA and I'm quite sure Walton was seen as a given despite having a pittance of the longevity that Curry already has.

Listen, I'm not here to tell other people how to weight longevity broadly, but I'm going to say 3 things:

1. If you're voting for Paul over Curry by longevity, you're weighing longevity abnormally compared to folks traditionally have.

2. If you're voting for Paul over Curry by longevity, you're specifically considering a longevity beyond what NBA decision makers focus on.

3. Do expect that as the years go by for this vote to look stranger and stranger to people, because Curry's legacy is written in cement where Paul's a rolling stone gathering no moss.

If you can see all of that and say "Yes, I understand and I'm fine with that", good. I'm still floored by you though.

Here's what I'll also say:

To me this smacks of being not that impressed with Steph Curry. I detect a lot of "I guess Curry's prime is a bit better but..." going on. And I think if that's you, then you're sleeping on what an achievement GS' 5 year run was. Quite simply, if you're not old enough to have lived through Jordan's prime, it's the most impressive thing you've ever witnessed in team NBA basketball period. And it's built around Curry because Curry has a specific skill set that is not in any way, shape, or form approximated by Paul, or really anyone else.

I hope as the years go by, after all these players are retired legends, you can look back and have a greater appreciation for how astonishingly rare stuff like this is, and what it says about the power of Curry's game that you could make something like that around him. I say this, with all sincerity.

Doctor MJ wrote:Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

I truly don't understand why. A simple accounting of differing principles or philosophy in career comparisons (such as to those that value longevity to a greater degree) should suffice as explanation. Just as a few examples:

Harden and Pettit both have careers spanning the same 11 seasons as Curry has......but Harden has played 134 more rs games and almost 4,600 more minutes (nearly the equivalent of two full seasons more); Pettit played 93 more games and nearly 6,700 more minutes. Pettit reached his prime much quicker than Curry, too.

Everyone else with traction has an even larger edge in longevity and/or durability (EDIT: except maybe Wade). Thrown into the mix is that Curry's playoff consistency isn't much more bullet-proof than most of the others (particularly someone like Nash, and to a lesser degree Wade).


Not saying any of this is to suggest you should be supporting a different candidate; but "stunned" and "completely floored"? Just feels a touch dramatic.

Just as a few quick and dirty bullet-points....
*Even with his 2 MVP's (and the one and only unanimous MVP), Curry is STILL just *24th all-time in MVP award shares (no doubt would be 25th if it had been awarded in Mikan's day).

**He's 80th in NBA/ABA career rs WS (76th in NBA-only); 31st (30th) in the playoffs.

***He's 33rd [since 1973] in NBA/ABA career rs VORP (32nd in NBA-only); 25th in the playoffs.

****His impact goes beyond his box-production is often a talking point; though his best 5-years RAPM is still behind that of Nash, Wade, Ginobili, and barely ahead of late-career Stockton [among those still on the table], and also behind that of Chris Paul and Charles Barkley [among those only recently voted in].


Can it really be so shocking that not everyone has him in his top 25?

EDIT: I'll also add that you probably more than ANY other poster on this forum have advocated for era portability as being a fairly important consideration (and Curry is perhaps one of the most "era-fragile" talents in league-history (his best skill [the thing that makes him so special] is built around something that has only existed for 41 years [and was not a gimmick for only about 25-30]).

Doctor MJ wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:Curry's career isn't even close to done yet so I think its sort of disingenuous for people to be amazed that he's being voted behind players who have that advantage over him.

Disingenuous? Uh, nope.

Y'all, when they made a best player list 50 years into basketball's existence, Hank Luisetti ranked 2nd despite never having played pro ball. In the NBA's Top 50 list they had Shaq after only a few years in the NBA and I'm quite sure Walton was seen as a given despite having a pittance of the longevity that Curry already has.

Listen, I'm not here to tell other people how to weight longevity broadly, but I'm going to say 3 things:

1. If you're voting for Paul over Curry by longevity, you're weighing longevity abnormally compared to folks traditionally have.

The bolded isn't necessarily an argument that we're "doing it wrong".

I mean, are we seriously citing the "NBA at 50" list as a paradigm of quality player ranking, or methodology? I sort of consider that list a joke, and I thought most posters here [including you] did as well.
I'm fairly certain you yourself have at times argued [probably with only thinly veiled disdain] against using things like media-awarded accolades or mainstream opinion as a benchmark to work from.

tbh, you quite simply seem upset that your guy isn't in yet, and are sort of lashing out at the rest of us for not getting on the same page with you.

Doctor MJ wrote:
To me this smacks of being not that impressed with Steph Curry. I detect a lot of "I guess Curry's prime is a bit better but..." going on. And I think if that's you, then you're sleeping on what an achievement GS' 5 year run was. Quite simply, if you're not old enough to have lived through Jordan's prime, it's the most impressive thing you've ever witnessed in team NBA basketball period. And it's built around Curry because Curry has a specific skill set that is not in any way, shape, or form approximated by Paul, or really anyone else.

I hope as the years go by, after all these players are retired legends, you can look back and have a greater appreciation for how astonishingly rare stuff like this is, and what it says about the power of Curry's game that you could make something like that around him. I say this, with all sincerity.

I greatly appreciate Curry's impact. The 5 straight finals and 3 rings stuff doesn't mean that much to me from an individual perspective though for a few reasons:

1. From 2017-2019 that was probably the most stacked team of all time.
2. The degree to which injuries played into even the 2015 ring
3. The fact that Curry missed a lot of games which made it both harder for his team as well as lessened his impact at times due to playing at about 75%.

So I see it as 7 years which are comparable to most guys in the top 15 or so but then you also have the injuries which play into why he seems a bit overwhelmed in the postseason in small stretches. He hits very high highs sometimes but also has some games where it just seems like he's been taken out of the game. All of this together is why I don't have him top 25 right now but if he can play a few more top 5 type seasons he'll no doubt get moved up. The KD years didn't do that much for either guy imo.

Doctor MJ wrote:Y'all, when they made a best player list 50 years into basketball's existence, Hank Luisetti ranked 2nd despite never having played pro ball. In the NBA's Top 50 list they had Shaq after only a few years in the NBA and I'm quite sure Walton was seen as a given despite having a pittance of the longevity that Curry already has.

Listen, I'm not here to tell other people how to weight longevity broadly, but I'm going to say 3 things:

1. If you're voting for Paul over Curry by longevity, you're weighing longevity abnormally compared to folks traditionally have.

2. If you're voting for Paul over Curry by longevity, you're specifically considering a longevity beyond what NBA decision makers focus on.

3. Do expect that as the years go by for this vote to look stranger and stranger to people, because Curry's legacy is written in cement where Paul's a rolling stone gathering no moss.

If you can see all of that and say "Yes, I understand and I'm fine with that", good. I'm still floored by you though.

Here's what I'll also say:

To me this smacks of being not that impressed with Steph Curry. I detect a lot of "I guess Curry's prime is a bit better but..." going on. And I think if that's you, then you're sleeping on what an achievement GS' 5 year run was. Quite simply, if you're not old enough to have lived through Jordan's prime, it's the most impressive thing you've ever witnessed in team NBA basketball period. And it's built around Curry because Curry has a specific skill set that is not in any way, shape, or form approximated by Paul, or really anyone else.

I hope as the years go by, after all these players are retired legends, you can look back and have a greater appreciation for how astonishingly rare stuff like this is, and what it says about the power of Curry's game that you could make something like that around him. I say this, with all sincerity.

For someone who ranks Garnett in the top 5 ahead of Magic, Bird and others, you seem strangely worried about mainstream opinion and legacies here. The whole purpose of this project is so that we can have in-depth discussion on player rankings beyond the basic narratives and yet you want to talk about how folks traditionally rank players and their legacies?

1. If you're voting for Garnett over Kobe by defense, you're weighing defense abnormally compared to folks traditionally have.
2. If you're voting for KG over Kobe by defense, you're specifically considering defense beyond what NBA decision makers focus on.
3. Do expect that as the years go by for this vote to look stranger and stranger to people, because Kobe's legacy is written in cement where KG's a rolling stone gathering no moss.

Where were you when this board voted for Garnett over Kobe? Were you completely floored and stunned? No, because you had KG a lot higher than that despite mainstream opinion saying otherwise. You had Garnett ahead of Magic despite the two being a lot further apart on mainstream all time lists than Curry vs Paul. None of the three points you raised actually matter to you in your own player evaluation so don't use them now as a justification for Curry over Paul.

The only reason Curry is behind Moses, Barkley, Durant and Paul is longevity. I'm not totally against the decision. Paul has by far better longevity than Curry.

Ugh, I can't believe I'm gonna have to vote for Harden in the top 30.

RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project Tier List

Tier 1: LeBron James, Michael Jordan

Tier 1.5: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Tier 2: Bill Russell, Tim Duncan, Wilt Chamberlain

Tier 3: Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon, Larry Bird, Kevin Garnett

Tier 4: Kobe Bryant, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson

Tier 4.5: Dirk Nowitzki

Tier 5: Karl Malone, David Robinson, Julius Erving, George Mikan, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, (Steph Curry)

Doctor MJ wrote:Man. I'm stunned by how low this group is on Curry.

Just completely floored.

How can you possibly be surprised? There is a moderator here who bans people for speaking well of Curry. Because of that this group is self-selected to favor certain players over others.

Participation in these projects by people who try to be objective such as yourself simply rewards such behavior and perpetuates the farce. And let's be honest this list is a farce. I have no problem with it though because it makes manifest the entire ludicrous narrative that is being put in play.

CP3 was the 4th guy on my list so my ballot remains unchanged.

Dutchball97 wrote:1. Steph Curry - KD finally got in so I'm moving on to another guy I already view as top 15. The case against Curry is his relative lack of longevity. He has 7 years of high level play from 2013-2019, which isn't the best but at this point it's not something that bothers me too much. Especially when you consider what Curry has achieved in those years. Back to back MVPs, including the first unanimous MVP for what could very well be the best regular season ever. Five straight finals and three rings is also an insane achievement. His 2015 and 2017 play-off runs especially were absolutely elite and on top of that he has played at a high level every year he's been in the play-offs, even though his level in the play-offs isn't as historically insane as his regular season. If you remove the longevity argument, Curry is a guy who can already make a case for top 10 and with longevity not being a priority for me, there is little holding me back from voting him in here.

2. Dwyane Wade - Before the project began I thought I'd probably vote for Dirk and Wade right after each other. Now this time it's not because Wade fell a lot more spots than I thought but because Dirk was voted in much earlier than I expected. Wade is another guy who doesn't have the best longevity but his prime is nothing to scoff at. Really high regular season peak in 2009 and 2010, plenty of great play-off runs as well like 2006 and 2011. The thing that hurts him the most and what puts him towards the back end of this tier of players is that he was somewhat inconsistent in the play-offs. A few too many bad years in his prime to put him much higher but there are also very few guys left that reached the heights that Wade did.

3. Bob Pettit - He briefly was the best player in the league between Mikan and Russell. He was also elite for the entirety of his 10 year career. Pettit won 2 MVPs and a ring in the late 50s, which wasn't the strongest era of course. However, he held up just fine in the early 60s against some All-Time greats already on the list. I'm not too fixated on where Pettit gets voted in exactly but I do firmly believe he was a better player than Elgin Baylor.

I'm pretty sure I'm going for CP3 after the guys on my ballot are voted in but after that the field is wide open again for me.