RealGM

Rating - Michael Jordan is 100/100
Worse player of all time 40/100.

1 point is the difference between barely missing the All Star Game and barely making it.

#1.) Devon Booker 92
#2.) Jaylen Brown 92
#3.) Zach LaVine 91
#4.) James Harden 89
#5.) Bradley Beal 89
#6.) C.J McCollum 88
#7.) D. Mitchell 88
#8.) Dejounte Murray 88
#9.) Anthony Edwards 87
#10.) Klay Thompson 86

I'm excited when we can move beyond the labels of position and instead rank players by roles.

I don’t know if I’m interpreting this right or wrong, but Devin Booker isn’t 92% of what MJ was. If that’s how this works, all those numbers are off, in my opinion. Too high.

PistolPeteJR wrote:I don’t know if I’m interpreting this right or wrong, but Devin Booker isn’t 92% of what MJ was. If that’s how this works, all those numbers are off, in my opinion. Too high.

Think of them as 2k numbers

The only point is that a 100 player is a bit better than a 99 player and a 99 pkayer a bit better than a 98 player

PistolPeteJR wrote:I don’t know if I’m interpreting this right or wrong, but Devin Booker isn’t 92% of what MJ was. If that’s how this works, all those numbers are off, in my opinion. Too high.

It starts at 40, not 0.

So a 92 means Devin Booker is 85% of what MJ was. Still dubious, frankly

Dooley wrote:

PistolPeteJR wrote:I don’t know if I’m interpreting this right or wrong, but Devin Booker isn’t 92% of what MJ was. If that’s how this works, all those numbers are off, in my opinion. Too high.

It starts at 40, not 0.

So a 92 means Devin Booker is 85% of what MJ was. Still dubious, frankly

Yup. Still off.

I think if you go by 2k numbers it’s fine that a decent all star is 92 and a super duper star is a 100

falcolombardi wrote:

PistolPeteJR wrote:I don’t know if I’m interpreting this right or wrong, but Devin Booker isn’t 92% of what MJ was. If that’s how this works, all those numbers are off, in my opinion. Too high.

Think of them as 2k numbers

The only point is that a 100 player is a bit better than a 99 player and a 99 pkayer a bit better than a 98 player

Yep exactly. 92 isn't in the same league as a 100.

MyUniBroDavis wrote:I think if you go by 2k numbers it’s fine that a decent all star is 92 and a super duper star is a 100

Yep!

Dooley wrote:

PistolPeteJR wrote:I don’t know if I’m interpreting this right or wrong, but Devin Booker isn’t 92% of what MJ was. If that’s how this works, all those numbers are off, in my opinion. Too high.

It starts at 40, not 0.

So a 92 means Devin Booker is 85% of what MJ was. Still dubious, frankly

So you think 85% is still too high?

Gonna use more of a 2k style rating system (instead of 40-100 like a more 70ish to 99 system with 99 being an all time player or better and a 70 being a fringe NBA player)

1. James Harden (93)
2. Devin Booker (91)
3. Donovan Mitchell (90)
4. Bradley Beal (88)
5. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander (87)
6. Zach LaVine (87)
7. Dejounte Murray (86)
8. Jaylen Brown (85)
9. Anthony Edwards (84)
10. CJ McCollum (83)

Some serious Devin Booker disrespect going on here. He's at least 85%.

I have never thought that SG would be by far the weakest position in NBA. We dont have SG in TOP10 at the moment and I dont see top caliber young shooting guards.

Booker 21-22: 21.3 PER | .156 WS/48 | 4.1 BPM
Jordan Career: 27.9 PER | .250 WS/48 | 9.2 BPM

Booker's production last season was about 76% of career MJ by PER, about 62% by WS/48 and about 45% by BPM.

Even rookie Jordan (his worst non-Wizards season) is notably better than peak Booker across the board...

Booker 21-22: 21.3 PER | .156 WS/48 | 4.1 BPM
Jordan 84-85: 25.8 PER | .213 WS/48 | 7.3 BPM

A little closer here, but still not at 85% of MJ's production with PER the closest at 83%, WS/48 at 73% and BPM at 56%.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:

Dooley wrote:

PistolPeteJR wrote:I don’t know if I’m interpreting this right or wrong, but Devin Booker isn’t 92% of what MJ was. If that’s how this works, all those numbers are off, in my opinion. Too high.

It starts at 40, not 0.

So a 92 means Devin Booker is 85% of what MJ was. Still dubious, frankly

So you think 85% is still too high?

I'd lean that way. I'm generally high on MJ and low on Booker. Booker is a significantly lesser scorer than MJ and is also worse at most other aspects of basketball. If I had to pick a number out of the air I'd have Booker maybe around 70% of MJ.

SpreeS wrote:I have never thought that SG would be by far the weakest position in NBA. We dont have SG in TOP10 at the moment and I dont see top caliber young shooting guards.

I think SG has historically been the shallowest position in terms of overall talent. And it's compounded by guys who would historically have been PGs moving over to SG, but it's really always been pretty weak once you get past the elite all-time players.

Dooley wrote:

mdonnelly1989 wrote:

Dooley wrote:
It starts at 40, not 0.

So a 92 means Devin Booker is 85% of what MJ was. Still dubious, frankly

So you think 85% is still too high?

I'd lean that way. I'm generally high on MJ and low on Booker. Booker is a significantly lesser scorer than MJ and is also worse at most other aspects of basketball. If I had to pick a number out of the air I'd have Booker maybe around 70% of MJ.

SpreeS wrote:I have never thought that SG would be by far the weakest position in NBA. We dont have SG in TOP10 at the moment and I dont see top caliber young shooting guards.

I think SG has historically been the shallowest position in terms of overall talent. And it's compounded by guys who would historically have been PGs moving over to SG, but it's really always been pretty weak once you get past the elite all-time players.

I see. So you would give Devon Booker closer to an 85 then based on the rankings. Interesting.

IF you buy PG as a role, rather than just the shortest guy on the court, a couple of these guys didn't play SG last year.

Irving acknowledged Harden as the PG in NJ and he certainly was the PG paired with Maxey in Philly. Murray was unquestionably the PG in San Antonio.

penbeast0 wrote:IF you buy PG as a role, rather than just the shortest guy on the court, a couple of these guys didn't play SG last year.

Irving acknowledged Harden as the PG in NJ and he certainly was the PG paired with Maxey in Philly. Murray was unquestionably the PG in San Antonio.

This is the tough thing about doing lists for positions. There is the position they are listed as, and then the position they played.

Agree, and PG is the worst because for all the other positions, it's more about who you defend but at PG you have guys like Magic Johnson who didn't generally defend the other team's 1 but more often the 2 or 3, or even the 4. At PG it's the guy who brings the ball up and initiates the offense most of the time.

SpreeS wrote:I have never thought that SG would be by far the weakest position in NBA. We dont have SG in TOP10 at the moment and I dont see top caliber young shooting guards.

It's been like that for a long time and been like that for most of the NBA's history.