RealGM

This is my 13 - 23 range and they are all neck and neck and the same tier.

Probably Jerry West.

KG, but I thought about KD seriously. Both are pushing top 10 all time.

Big O and KG

Out of those guys, KG for sure. I wouldn't want to rank all of the rest though. It gets super close amongst a lot of them.

SHAQ32 wrote:Probably Jerry West.

Closely followed by Oscar

KG easily. He had an all-time peak season in 2004 and another year where he was best in the league in 2008. He doesn’t get the respect he deserves because he spent so much of his career with an absolutely terrible Minnesota franchise that not only gave away 5 years of 1st round raft picks, but also had him playing out of position for most of his career. He probably would have had a better career than Tim Duncan if they’d been drafted by opposite franchises.

Even into his mid-30s he was the best defensive player in the league on a per minute basis. He played over 50,000 minutes and still managed to maintain an insane career on/off of +11.3. That career average over 20 seasons beats every Kobe season but two. KG’s easily top 10 all-time.

not right now, but Giannis has a good shot as ending up higher than anyone on that list .

2 MVPs
1 chip
1 FMVP
1 DPOY

yup, just getting warmer

KG handily for me, best peak and best longevity. I have him on a different caliber than the other guys.

Other than him,

Oscar
Dirk
-- small gap --
West
Drob
Durant (will most def surpass Drob, don't think he'll get higher)
Dr. J
--small gap--
Malone
Wade
Giannis (can maaaybe surpass KG potentially)

iggymcfrack wrote:KG easily. He had an all-time peak season in 2004 and another year where he was best in the league in 2008. He doesn’t get the respect he deserves because he spent so much of his career with an absolutely terrible Minnesota franchise that not only gave away 5 years of 1st round raft picks, but also had him playing out of position for most of his career. He probably would have had a better career than Tim Duncan if they’d been drafted by opposite franchises.

Even into his mid-30s he was the best defensive player in the league on a per minute basis. He played over 50,000 minutes and still managed to maintain an insane career on/off of +11.3. That career average over 20 seasons beats every Kobe season but two. KG’s easily top 10 all-time.

Can we stop acting like losing some late 1sts would have made much of a difference? How many guys with a pulse did the threepeat Lakers get with late firsts in that stretch? The Wolves didn't even end up losing all the picks in the end.

KG is a great player. I'd prolly have him in or close to my top 10, but when I see stuff like this it makes it really tough to defend him. He had some bad Wolves teams, but he had some solid onex too. No, he was not as good as Tim Duncan, and even if he could have been he wasn't; because it didn't happen and we rate guys on what they actually did in their careers.

One_and_Done wrote:

iggymcfrack wrote:KG easily. He had an all-time peak season in 2004 and another year where he was best in the league in 2008. He doesn’t get the respect he deserves because he spent so much of his career with an absolutely terrible Minnesota franchise that not only gave away 5 years of 1st round raft picks, but also had him playing out of position for most of his career. He probably would have had a better career than Tim Duncan if they’d been drafted by opposite franchises.

Even into his mid-30s he was the best defensive player in the league on a per minute basis. He played over 50,000 minutes and still managed to maintain an insane career on/off of +11.3. That career average over 20 seasons beats every Kobe season but two. KG’s easily top 10 all-time.

Can we stop acting like losing some late 1sts would have made much of a difference? How many guys with a pulse did the threepeat Lakers get with late firsts in that stretch? The Wolves didn't even end up losing all the picks in the end.

KG is a great player. I'd prolly have him in or close to my top 10, but when I see stuff like this it makes it really tough to defend him. He had some bad Wolves teams, but he had some solid onex too. No, he was not as good as Tim Duncan, and even if he could have been he wasn't; because it didn't happen and we rate guys on what they actually did in their careers.

Well that's what you might do. Some people choose to take a different view of things because they don't want an individual's greatness to be determined by surrounding context they have no control over.

Garnett and Robertson are in my top ten. West is up there as well.

LukaTheGOAT wrote:Well that's what you might do. Some people choose to take a different view of things because they don't want an individual's greatness to be determined by surrounding context they have no control over.

The problem with this approach is that you can end of using it to rate guys like Len Bias in the top 50. Ultimately you have to judge players off what actually happened. That doesn't mean we can't apply context, but giving a guy skills or durability or achievements he never had is where you lose me.You have to defer somewhat to what actually happened.

One_and_Done wrote:

LukaTheGOAT wrote:Well that's what you might do. Some people choose to take a different view of things because they don't want an individual's greatness to be determined by surrounding context they have no control over.

The problem with this approach is that you can end of using it to rate guys like Len Bias in the top 50. Ultimately you have to judge players off what actually happened. That doesn't mean we can't apply context, but giving a guy skills or durability or achievements he never had is where you lose me.You have to defer somewhat to what actually happened.

But Kevin Garnett being a great player did happen. None of his skills, durability or achievements are fictional.

The Timberwolves being bad is what actually happened. That isn't hypothetical?

I am not sure how that is anything like saying Len Bias is a top 50 player of all time, which doesn't make any sense under any criteria.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

LukaTheGOAT wrote:Well that's what you might do. Some people choose to take a different view of things because they don't want an individual's greatness to be determined by surrounding context they have no control over.

The problem with this approach is that you can end of using it to rate guys like Len Bias in the top 50. Ultimately you have to judge players off what actually happened. That doesn't mean we can't apply context, but giving a guy skills or durability or achievements he never had is where you lose me.You have to defer somewhat to what actually happened.

But Kevin Garnett being a great player did happen. None of his skills, durability or achievements are fictional.

The Timberwolves being bad is what actually happened. That isn't hypothetical? I am not sure how that is anything like saying Len Bias is a top 50 player of all time, which doesn't make any sense under any criteria.

It's an extreme example to highlight the problem with this line of thinking. Duncan actually had seasons like 03 where he carried a mediocre team to a title over the threepeat Lakers. Duncan actually did play all those career playoff minutes and hold up. KG never did develop a 3pt shot. Maybe if things had been different KG would have developed a 3, had the same durability as Duncan, and been able to carry a weak support cast to a title. He never actually proved he could do that stuff though.

I think there are good reasons to think he couldn't either, but the fact is he never did.

I'll remind you I have him top 10 or close, so we're not disagreement that much here.

Dirk's title run was among the greatest individual achievements i have seen in person. I have not watched Dr. J or Jerry West, but out of the more recent players and only looking at the peak - how unstoppable, how much of a game changer - i think Dirk is on top of this group (and some others that are probably higher on your list).

One_and_Done wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:
The problem with this approach is that you can end of using it to rate guys like Len Bias in the top 50. Ultimately you have to judge players off what actually happened. That doesn't mean we can't apply context, but giving a guy skills or durability or achievements he never had is where you lose me.You have to defer somewhat to what actually happened.

But Kevin Garnett being a great player did happen. None of his skills, durability or achievements are fictional.

The Timberwolves being bad is what actually happened. That isn't hypothetical? I am not sure how that is anything like saying Len Bias is a top 50 player of all time, which doesn't make any sense under any criteria.

It's an extreme example to highlight the problem with this line of thinking. Duncan actually had seasons like 03 where he carried a mediocre team to a title over the threepeat Lakers. Duncan actually did play all those career playoff minutes and hold up. KG never did develop a 3pt shot. Maybe if things had been different KG would have developed a 3, had the same durability as Duncan, and been able to carry a weak support cast to a title. He never actually proved he could do that stuff though.

I think there are good reasons to think he couldn't either, but the fact is he never did.

I'll remind you I have him top 10 or close, so we're not disagreement that much here.

I mean I don't have KG top 10, but I still think I and many here might disagree with the fundamental concept here. Having Bias that high involves lot of projection on him improving as a playmaker and decision-maker and being that good for a long time. I mean even if you argue he is an all-nba player from the get-go, he would have to maintain that for sometime to be in the current top 50.

This is less of a hypothetical stretch with some other players. We can see how long they were good, as well look at impact signals that suggest who are their peers. We can more easily project how they might do in other situations.

Jerry West had that dawg in him man.

iggymcfrack wrote:also had him playing out of position for most of his career

could you clarify what you mean here

LukaTheGOAT wrote:
I mean I don't have KG top 10, but I still think I and many here might disagree with the fundamental concept here. Having Bias that high involves lot of projection on him improving as a playmaker and decision-maker and being that good for a long time. I mean even if you argue he is an all-nba player from the get-go, he would have to maintain that for sometime to be in the current top 50.

This is less of a hypothetical stretch with some other players. We can see how long they were good, as well look at impact signals that suggest who are their peers. We can more easily project how they might do in other situations.

How do you rate a Bill Walton then? He showed the skills and abilities to be a top 20 NBA player (maybe higher) but just couldn't stay healthy.

I have him well out of my top 100 because he only had one season as a starter where he was healthy for the playoffs (and one as a top 6th man) and he stayed as one of the league's top paid players for a decade of injuries. Those years he actually hurt the Blazers, then Clippers, because you build around a superstar, particularly a PG or a C who then gets injured, it messes up your schemes and the Lloyd Neals of the world just can't make things work. So to me that hurts your GOAT career value in the same way that having a Karl Malone/John Stockton type who goes out there every night for a decade no matter what creates extra value, not only on the court, but as an example.