RealGM

What new names will we find on next year list?

Butler
George
Doncic
Klay
Middleton
Holiday
Lowry
Embiid
Gobert

Will these players be TOP50?

Giannis
Jokic
Davis

SpreeS wrote:What new names will we find on next year list?

Butler
George
Doncic
Klay
Middleton
Holiday
Lowry
Embiid
Gobert

Will these players be TOP50?

Giannis
Jokic
Davis

I think they have no chance

I would say the 3 mentioned certainly have a chance at top 50 depending on how people evaluate peak v. longevity; Giannis the best chance, Davis the worst. Not sure Middleton is ready for the top 100 yet, the others again may stand a decent chance though some of those careers are very very early.

I think I rate Klay Thompson higher, I'd say he's one of the 5 of that 9 most likely to go in with his longevity and championship resume.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

SpreeS wrote:What new names will we find on next year list?

Butler
George
Doncic
Klay
Middleton
Holiday
Lowry
Embiid
Gobert

Will these players be TOP50?

Giannis
Jokic
Davis

I think they have no chance

Horace grant (who i like, not trying to discredit him) got into the last top 100

I think lowry ans eventually jrue will have good arguments for careers on his level

Top 75 in win shares, top 50 in VORP, franchise GOAT, has a title, has outstanding RAPM, was a clear star player (albeit never a superstar)… There is certainly an argument, although I agree that it seems unlikely barring some serious activity by Raptors fans.

Giannis is in his 10th season and will make his 7th consecutive All-Star and All-NBA teams this year barring a season ending injury. Willis Reed was voted 45th on the 2020 top 100 list and he played a total of 10 seasons and had 7 All-Star selections. Reed's 1 MVP and 2 Finals MVP (even though Frazier probably deserved both and at least the 73 FInals MVP) aren't much different than Giannis' 2 MVPs and 1 Finals MVP either. Peak for peak it's an easy choice in favor of Giannis for most people. So even for people big on longevity it's going to be hard to leave Giannis out of the top 50 next time around. Jokic is in his 8th season and his 5th as an All-Star (safe to presume) so while I do expect him to him to rise significantly I'm not sure if he's been around long enough for top 50 yet. He's a 2x MVP though with a top 20 peak so I wouldn't be too surprised if he sneaks into the back end of the top 50 although I'm expecting him closer to around 60. Luka is in his 5th season so maybe he can just get into the high 90s like Jokic did last time while also having 5 seasons in the NBA. Embiid should probably make it in next time around, Butler as well to be honest. Paul George is a maybe for me, Gobert probably too. I don't think Middleton, Lowry, Jrue and Klay make the list but they're at least in the discussion.

In any case this current season can still add quite a bit of value for these guys so we'll have to wait and see. Jayson Tatum leading the Celtics to a title, while probably getting All-NBA 1st team and a top 5 MVP finish, would definitely see him jump onto the list as well for example.

Dutchball97 wrote:Giannis is in his 10th season and will make his 7th consecutive All-Star and All-NBA teams this year barring a season ending injury. Willis Reed was voted 45th on the 2020 top 100 list and he played a total of 10 seasons and had 7 All-Star selections. Reed's 1 MVP and 2 Finals MVP (even though Frazier probably deserved both and at least the 73 FInals MVP) aren't much different than Giannis' 2 MVPs and 1 Finals MVP either. Peak for peak it's an easy choice in favor of Giannis for most people. So even for people big on longevity it's going to be hard to leave Giannis out of the top 50 next time around.

Yeah sometimes it’s easy to forget that Giannis had been this good for this long.

I was suprised to see that in 2017 Giannis already had a 26 PER. Initially I was thinking 2018 was his first all star caliber year, but 2017 definitely qualifies. Still pretty raw back then, but still counts as longevity.

Yeah there’s no objective way Giannis isn’t already top 50 today. I can’t really imagine what the counter to that would even look like. I still think he got a ways to go though, before we talk about him potentially being a top 10 all time great but he seems to be on that path. I can see him having enough longevity to pass Bird and Magic, will be tough climbing any further I think.

Horace Grant being in anyone's top 100 list is absolutely nuts. When you play with MJ and Shaq, you're going to have good plus/minus.

VanWest82 wrote:Horace Grant being in anyone's top 100 list is absolutely nuts. When you play with MJ and Shaq, you're going to have good plus/minus.

Grant's argument have little to do with plus/minus numbers, as we don't have them for his prime.

70sFan wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:Horace Grant being in anyone's top 100 list is absolutely nuts. When you play with MJ and Shaq, you're going to have good plus/minus.

Grant's argument have little to do with plus/minus numbers, as we don't have them for his prime.

What could possibly be the argument then?

VanWest82 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:Horace Grant being in anyone's top 100 list is absolutely nuts. When you play with MJ and Shaq, you're going to have good plus/minus.

Grant's argument have little to do with plus/minus numbers, as we don't have them for his prime.

What could possibly be the argument then?

His combination of outstanding defense and very efficient offensive game. He was good at everything he did - offensive rebounds, finishing, P&R game, jump shooting.

Not all great players have to score a lot to be impactful, you know?

70sFan wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:

70sFan wrote:Grant's argument have little to do with plus/minus numbers, as we don't have them for his prime.

What could possibly be the argument then?

His combination of outstanding defense and very efficient offensive game. He was good at everything he did - offensive rebounds, finishing, P&R game, jump shooting.

Not all great players have to score a lot to be impactful, you know?

He was a very good defender. "Outstanding" is pushing it. It's easy to be an effecient scorer when you're playing with MJ and Scottie and Penny/Kobe and Shaq. Kinda takes the pressure off, you know? Top 100 is ridiculous.

Making it:

Butler
George
Doncic
Embiid
Tatum
Klay (I expect him to rebound this season and have a good season next year as well)
Booker is borderline if he has strong next two seasons.

No to Lowry who didn't make it last time and has to deal with those new names. The MIN trade probably costs Gobert spot otherwise the +/- guys would have put him in.

VanWest82 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:What could possibly be the argument then?

His combination of outstanding defense and very efficient offensive game. He was good at everything he did - offensive rebounds, finishing, P&R game, jump shooting.

Not all great players have to score a lot to be impactful, you know?

He was a very good defender. "Outstanding" is pushing it. It's easy to be an effecient scorer when you're playing with MJ and Scottie and Penny/Kobe and Shaq. Kinda takes the pressure off, you know? Top 100 is ridiculous.

It's so easy that other players couldn't replicate it. We have seen Grant in 1997 still having an impact. We also have seen both 1995 Bulls and 1996 Magic without him struggling a lot, it's not surprising.

Again, you don't need to be a high volume scorer to be top 100 player ever.

70sFan wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:Horace Grant being in anyone's top 100 list is absolutely nuts. When you play with MJ and Shaq, you're going to have good plus/minus.

Grant's argument have little to do with plus/minus numbers, as we don't have them for his prime.

More pertinently we don't have any +/- (unless anyone's drawing any conclusions off Squared Statistics tiny sample RAPM [edit: actually some of the seasons have more than the ones I remembered looking at, especially for the Bulls, still suspect this hasn't had much effect on his perception yet, if it ever does, and none on previous project voting]) with Jordan. And we have 2 in prime years of him with Shaq, the second of which Grant and Shaq both miss a bunch of time, Shaq mostly at the start of the season through mid-December, Grant's mainly in January (i.e. non-overlapping) plus one year of late career Grant on the Lakers.

VanWest82 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:Horace Grant being in anyone's top 100 list is absolutely nuts. When you play with MJ and Shaq, you're going to have good plus/minus.

Grant's argument have little to do with plus/minus numbers, as we don't have them for his prime.

What could possibly be the argument then?

The threads are there if you're actually curious. I'm not saying the reasoning will be watertight or consistent or great or whatever, but if you're actually curious look through them, that's the value of the project more than an aggregated list order partially determined by who was available at given times, voting systems etc.

If though, you're just seeking an argument and to ridicule how "ridiculous" it is, imply that there could be no possible argument and state that being on "anyone's" (not a definitive or aggregated list but on anyone's list) "absolutely nuts" it might be more constructive to establish why that is the case, for instance by providing 100 player list and why by any (viable) criteria they would all be ahead, or multiple such lists for different viable criteria. One would probably want to go deeper than 100 for it to be "absolutely nuts" for anyone to get them top 100 ... maybe 135, 150 or 200 deep.

Fwiw, I don't think a bunch of power forwards of the time would have been that efficient next to Shaq, who brought more bodies into the post so some archetypal 4s, especially say, a Dale Davis or Tyrone Hill, guys whose range did not extend beyond 15 feet (or really much beyond 3 feet). Indeed it is plausibly arguable that 1) having a [for that time] spacer at the 4 was a greater benefit to Shaq than Shaq was to any given 4's scoring and (b) combining a low mistake, reasonable efficiency jump shooter with a rebounder, defender of Grant's caliber made him somewhat of a unicorn and someone with a lot of value to high end teams.

VanWest82 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:What could possibly be the argument then?

His combination of outstanding defense and very efficient offensive game. He was good at everything he did - offensive rebounds, finishing, P&R game, jump shooting.

Not all great players have to score a lot to be impactful, you know?

He was a very good defender. "Outstanding" is pushing it. It's easy to be an effecient scorer when you're playing with MJ and Scottie and Penny/Kobe and Shaq. Kinda takes the pressure off, you know? Top 100 is ridiculous.

If Grant didn’t happen to be a 3rd/4th option on multiple title teams I doubt many people would even remember him much. One all star appearance, and 0 all nba teams is hardly something notable.

I understand the inclination to put him in there, but I feel if someone really wanted to find 100 players better it shouldn’t be that difficult. For one, I find it highly unlikely he was better than Shawn Kemp, who missed the last 2 projects and barely made it in 2014.

Aside from longevity, i’m not sure he’s clearly better than Charles Oakley as a player for that matter. Blake Griffin for primes is certainly better, but I guess the panel probably doesn’t like how injury prone he became.

Maybe I’m underselling his value, but still can’t help but feel championship bias plays a big role in it.

No-more-rings wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:

70sFan wrote:His combination of outstanding defense and very efficient offensive game. He was good at everything he did - offensive rebounds, finishing, P&R game, jump shooting.

Not all great players have to score a lot to be impactful, you know?

He was a very good defender. "Outstanding" is pushing it. It's easy to be an effecient scorer when you're playing with MJ and Scottie and Penny/Kobe and Shaq. Kinda takes the pressure off, you know? Top 100 is ridiculous.

If Grant didn’t happen to be a 3rd/4th option on multiple title teams I doubt many people would even remember him much. One all star appearance, and 0 all nba teams is hardly something notable.

I understand the inclination to put him in there, but I feel if someone really wanted to find 100 players better it shouldn’t be that difficult. For one, I find it highly unlikely he was better than Shawn Kemp, who missed the last 2 projects and barely made it in 2014.

Aside from longevity, i’m not sure he’s clearly better than Charles Oakley as a player for that matter. Blake Griffin for primes is certainly better, but I guess the panel probably doesn’t like how injury prone he became.

Maybe I’m underselling his value, but still can’t help but feel championship bias plays a big role in it.

He wouldnt be the only player that wouldnt be in people minds for top 100 projects without rings. Far from it

And while is true that being part of great teams is what gave him notoriety...he is a significative part of why those teams were great. And the negative bias og not being a volume scorer would "neutralize" the bias in his favor of being on a winning team, so to speak

Out of your two examples, blake griffing is a player who would be top 100 (or even top 50) free if not for all his injuries so not thr best example as nobody has horace grant peak over that of blake griffin. Same thingh with shawn kemp. No one actually ranked horace peak over them but rather his overall career with longevity/durability included

And charles oakley is a fairly underated playrt himself (the bulls solid -2.5 D collapsed post 88 when he left suggesting he was at least as responsible for it as jordan) but while a good defensive player and rebounder, didnt have the jumpshoot and low turnovers of horace (who also was a very good defender and rebounder) which set him apart of the players on oakley level imo

No-more-rings wrote:

VanWest82 wrote:

70sFan wrote:His combination of outstanding defense and very efficient offensive game. He was good at everything he did - offensive rebounds, finishing, P&R game, jump shooting.

Not all great players have to score a lot to be impactful, you know?

He was a very good defender. "Outstanding" is pushing it. It's easy to be an effecient scorer when you're playing with MJ and Scottie and Penny/Kobe and Shaq. Kinda takes the pressure off, you know? Top 100 is ridiculous.

If Grant didn’t happen to be a 3rd/4th option on multiple title teams I doubt many people would even remember him much. One all star appearance, and 0 all nba teams is hardly something notable.

I understand the inclination to put him in there, but I feel if someone really wanted to find 100 players better it shouldn’t be that difficult. For one, I find it highly unlikely he was better than Shawn Kemp, who missed the last 2 projects and barely made it in 2014.

Aside from longevity, i’m not sure he’s clearly better than Charles Oakley as a player for that matter. Blake Griffin for primes is certainly better, but I guess the panel probably doesn’t like how injury prone he became.

Maybe I’m underselling his value, but still can’t help but feel championship bias plays a big role in it.

It definitely helps, and so does his 94 season without MJ or Shaq. I guess because he had one really good season without those guys we're just supposed to forget about him repeatedly coming up small in big playoff games.

Kemp and Blake were definitely better. No question. I don't understand some of these longevity arguments. We need to factor that in for cases like DRose or Walton, but in general, if a player clearly peaked higher then he was better. We've gotten way too cute trying to overcorrect with important role players who happened to play on a bunch of winning teams alongside superstars.

I don't think we have. I think a very strong well rounded player who produces value at both ends of the floor frequently gets underrated compared to a one dimensional scorer, or even a one dimensional assist machine, rebounder, or defender. Horace grant isn't the only one, guys like Bobby Jones, Bob Dandridge, etc. are in similar situations.

I think there's also added value in a guy who is out there every game or with an extended prime of over a decade vs. a guy like Kawhi Leonard or Bill Walton who are great when they play and have at least one glorious playoff run but who you can't count on consistently or a guy like Connie Hawkins whose ABA/NBA greatness was very high but very short.

SpreeS wrote:What new names will we find on next year list?

Butler
George
Doncic
Klay
Middleton
Holiday
Lowry
Embiid
Gobert

I always find this to be particularly interesting to watch. If we go by debut year starting in Lowry's rookie season, the pecking order to me looks something like this:

bold - on prior list
2006 - Kyle Lowry
2007 - Kevin Durant, Al Horford
2008 - Russell Westbrook, Marc Gasol
2009 - Steph Curry, James Harden, Jrue Holiday
2010 - Paul George
2011 - Kawhi Leonard, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler
2012 - Anthony Davis, Damian Lillard, Draymond Green, Khris Middleton
2013 - Giannis Antetokounmpo, Rudy Gobert
2014 - ...Andrew Wiggins I guess
2015 - Nikola Jokic, Devin Booker
2016 - Joel Embiid
2017 - Jayson Tatum, Donovan Mitchell
2018 - Luka Doncic

Typically 5 or less active players debut in the Top 100 each time, so if I were to guess the 5 most likely candidates at this point my guess would be something like:

Embiid - clear MVP-type talent, doing it for a while now
Doncic - clear MVP-type talent, doing it for a while now
Tatum - has pretty quietly built up a very accomplished career, possibly should be ranked higher than Embiid or Doncic
Booker - an embraced superstar who is continuing to shine brightly this season
Klay - winds don't really feel like they are blowing in his direction right now, but still more likely I think than the other candidates

On those guys:
Lowry - has a shot at the very end of the list, but it would help if he was still making himself feel relevant to people
Horford - if he has another playoffs like the last one, he'll probably get in, but hard to bet on that at his age
Gasol - felt like he was going to make the list at one point, but it's hard to imagine anything pushing him over the edge now
Holiday - if the Bucks become something like a dynasty, he'll likely get there
George - may make it no matter what happens, but it would help if he and the Clippers had buzz at that point
Butler - another big playoffs would probably do the trick, but Miami may be running on fumes
Middleton - see Holiday with the advantage of being seen as the #2 on the team over Holiday whether or not that's really true
Gobert - Was close to making it last time, but the winds are blowing so hard against him now, at least in the broader NBA zietgeist
Wiggins - hard to imagine him being discussed at all to be honest, but the competition from that rookie year is remarkably weak
Mitchell - if he leads Cleveland somewhere nice, particularly if Gobert and Minny continue to struggle, he's going to rise in prominence