New names on RealGM TOP100 2023?

[70sFan]

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.

Horace was still great in 1997 season without Shaq in Orlando anymore.

About coming up small in big playoff games, I remember him being quite good in 1995 vs Bulls, game 7 vs 1995 Pacers, whole 1994 vs Knicks, He also consistently improved his production in the first three peat as well.

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

I love how you're arguing about +/- even though Grant didn't have any.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

I love how you're arguing about +/- even though Grant didn't have any.

You've got a point about his fixation on +/- when people aren't talking about that, but it's not true we don't have any Grant data.

The first year we have +/- data for the league is '93-94, so we know Grant from then onward.

So, we know, for example that Grant led the Bulls in raw +/- that year, we know he was 3rd on the Magic the next year behind Penny & Shaq, and we know that the next year he had a higher raw +/- than Shaq and a higher On +/- rate than Penny.

After that it's '96-97 and we have more and better data, but of course Grant by that point is also 31 and on a team that's beginning to fall apart.

Regarding his place in the Top 100, it's certainly understandable people find it surprising. There are bigger stars not on the list. I wouldn't want to die on the hill saying Grant has to be there, but I do think 2 things need to be front of mind when trying to understand why he's on the list:

1. Grant had a long career. He was one of the core 5 players on the 2001 Laker GOAT-candidate playoff run at age 35. That alone wouldn't make him make the list of course, but it must be remember that the Top 100 is about Career not Peak.

2. When comparing Grant to others, who would you rather have if you were trying to build a dynasty? You obviously don't want Grant to try to lead you to a dynasty, but NBA history is full of alphas whose game is basically incompatible with truly top-tier NBA team basketball because you need a better alpha than them to do it and they don't know how to gamma.

[VanWest82]

I wouldn't call it a "fixation"

More like, what other reason could there be? There's enough RAPM from squared 88, 91, and 96 to make a case on it. It's a heck of a lot better argument than Horace being the 6th most important player of that 01 playoff run where Shaq and Kobe's impact dwarfed everyone else's put together.

I'd have to go through the list but I doubt I'd put him top 200 unless we're doing some weird total career value argument based on WS or VORP or whatever. Other than Wiggins, I'd put every one of the proposed candidates ahead of him.

As for the dynasty argument, that's a pretty slippery slope and leads to arguments like Horry > AI.

[penbeast0]

I wouldn't call it a "fixation"

More like, what other reason could there be? There's enough RAPM from squared 88, 91, and 96 to make a case on it. It's a heck of a lot better argument than Horace being the 6th most important player of that 01 playoff run where Shaq and Kobe's impact dwarfed everyone else's put together.

I'd have to go through the list but I doubt I'd put him top 200 unless we're doing some weird total career value argument based on WS or VORP or whatever. Other than Wiggins, I'd put every one of the proposed candidates ahead of him.

As for the dynasty argument, that's a pretty slippery slope and leads to arguments like Horry > AI.

IF you are going to make the argument that Iverson was better than a Robert Horry, Horace Grant type player, you have to somehow make the idea work that Iverson throwing up 25-35 shots a game on historically poor efficiency while playing poor defense and missing practices regularly is a valuable player. If all you care about is points, ignoring the rest of basketball, then I guess you are fine with it but if you care about contribution to winning, Iverson is still pretty controversial.

[VanWest82]

I wouldn't call it a "fixation"

More like, what other reason could there be? There's enough RAPM from squared 88, 91, and 96 to make a case on it. It's a heck of a lot better argument than Horace being the 6th most important player of that 01 playoff run where Shaq and Kobe's impact dwarfed everyone else's put together.

I'd have to go through the list but I doubt I'd put him top 200 unless we're doing some weird total career value argument based on WS or VORP or whatever. Other than Wiggins, I'd put every one of the proposed candidates ahead of him.

As for the dynasty argument, that's a pretty slippery slope and leads to arguments like Horry > AI.

IF you are going to make the argument that Iverson was better than a Robert Horry, Horace Grant type player, you have to somehow make the idea work that Iverson throwing up 25-35 shots a game on historically poor efficiency while playing poor defense and missing practices regularly is a valuable player. If all you care about is points, ignoring the rest of basketball, then I guess you are fine with it but if you care about contribution to winning, Iverson is still pretty controversial.

I am not suggesting Horry = Horace; merely, that when you only look at things through the lens of championship basketball you can make some pretty serious errors in talent evaluation. Like, maybe you drafted Horry over Iverson using that logic, except you still don't have anyone who can reliably create offense and so you don't win 30 games. Horry winds up being forced into a role that's too big for him and he fails because he doesn't have an all star to draw attention and make life easier so he can focus on the things he does well. Next thing you know Horry's being traded in an attempt to find an all star.

Iverson was a flawed player but let's be careful about hyperbole wrt his shooting. He was league average TS lots of years while starting next to guys like Theo Ratliff, Eric Snow, and Dikembe. Whether you want to try and make the argument that Sixers had no choice but to build like that or not, the fact remains AI had little offensive talent to work with in many of those years. His shot creation was what allowed them to build with defense which got them to a Finals.

It's very easy to look at these things in a vacuum and forget everything else that goes into team building, like for example, how hard it is to acquire an all star in the first place and just how difficult NBA life is when you don't have one.

[SHAQ32]

LaMarcus Aldridge

[LukaTheGOAT]

Luka better be on it. That is all.

[Doctor MJ]

I wouldn't call it a "fixation"

More like, what other reason could there be? There's enough RAPM from squared 88, 91, and 96 to make a case on it. It's a heck of a lot better argument than Horace being the 6th most important player of that 01 playoff run where Shaq and Kobe's impact dwarfed everyone else's put together.

I'd have to go through the list but I doubt I'd put him top 200 unless we're doing some weird total career value argument based on WS or VORP or whatever. Other than Wiggins, I'd put every one of the proposed candidates ahead of him.

As for the dynasty argument, that's a pretty slippery slope and leads to arguments like Horry > AI.

Fair enough, but if you literally want that question answered, you can just go to the thread where Grant got voted in and see people’s reasoning.

Re: Grant Lakers. I was simply pointing to the longevity dimension.

Re: slippery slope. To me this translates as “Careful, with that logic you could end up drawing this obviously wrong conclusion.” To which I’d respond:

If it’s wrong, you should be able to state why, and then the slope will stop feeling slippery. The slippery-ness isn’t a warning so much as a call for action.

And from there, when you have a clear statement why something is right/wrong in your judgment, then people can disagree with that statement and you’ll know why your assessments diverge from each other, which I’d call another win.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lou Fan]

Though it's getting super crowded at this point I think it's clear Lowry belongs at this point. I think the only thing holding him out is he doesn't look like a superstar but if he played like Kyrie and had the exact same results and impact footprint he'd be a shoe in and would probably be ranked closer to 50 than 100. With his longevity and borderline top 10 peak on the Raps he should sneak in imo.

[SpreeS]

Look’s like Davis is playing for RealGM 23 top100 list this year