Pre-RealGM 100 Personal Lists, 2023 edition

[70sFan]

True but these are the weakest offensive seasons in his career.

Right but it still sort of coincides with his general off efficiency going down and people still being very high on those seasons in terms of his impact. I mean his teams were still winning rings in 3 of those 4 seasons despite his playoff ppg/efficiency numbers being rather weak(as opposed to the the other playoffs you alluded to where both tended to go up).

True, I would add one thing - if Thurmond wasn't injured in 1968 playoffs, the view on his prime might change a lot. I don't think they'd be a serious title contenders, but I am sure he'd do a lot of damage against the Lakers. I think healthy Thurmond was slightly worse, but not much worse than Russell in 1967-69 period.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Thurmond definitely is underrated compared to Russell (though he's definitely inferior basketball player overall), but I will provide a few arguments why Russell ranks clearly higher:

1. Durability - the easiest thing to nitpick in Nate's resume. Russell was an ironman, while Nate missed a lot of games that caused his team to lose chances for titles.
2. Russell was clearly better defensively. I'd compare it to the gap someone like LeBron has over someone like Durant on offense (not because Nate is Durant equivalent on defense, but because Russell has bigger advantage over 2nd best defender than GOAT offensive player).
3. Russell was a better offensive player, at least for majority of his prime. He improved his offensive game in the playoffs consistently, while Thurmond usually didn't.

These reasons do not explain why people who have Russell in top 5 don't have Thurmond inside top 50, but I think it's enough to put 35-40 places between them.

Yes, everything you said above plus winning bias(which isn't a bias so much as just seeing correlation between winning and player impact) points towards Russell. My point was just similar to what you made at the end. Which is that if era based impact is a criteria that you value then I think Thurmond tends to be underrated quite a bit and if someone has Russell top 5 then I think they should also be relatively high on Thurmond as well. Top 50 seems about right with room for him possibly being top 40. Also, Russell's post season offense was relatively low volume and pretty bad efficiency wise from 66-69.

I'll just emphasize that I don't do my lists by saying "This guy is not Top 50 worthy". In the end it's just about specific comparisons between players, and gaps between contemporaries naturally get wider with time.

For example, Elgin Baylor is someone who is continuing to slide down my list not because I'm continuing lowering him compared to his contemporaries, but because the future just keeps happening, and more and more guys are emerging and moving past him. It's harder for those people to pass up Jerry West, so basically every time we do this project, the ranking gap between West & Baylor grows.

[ty 4191]

Re: defense. I'm open to arguments here, but while I think Thurmond was an outstanding defender, I don't see him as being comparable to Russell in impact.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jE5K2XrILol56zGe0e7LA-bKyRECGNgG/edit#gid=367062482

At least the man to man defense part, as you can see, Thurmond decimated opposing HOF Center FG% by an even greater % than Russell did.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd first point to TS Add numbers to get a one-number metric on the difference. Thurmond looks far worse than Russell on this front, and early in Russell's career he was a positive here.

I also think the difference in shooting primacy is a key here. Thurmond on the Warriors averaged 13.9 FGA per 36 minutes. Russell only surpassed that once with a 14.1 in '57-58, at a time when Russell was still getting positive TS Add. Keep in mind also that I'm using per minute numbers instead of per possession because that's what's available, but we know that pace had slowed by the time Thurmond was at his highest shooting volume (1970-ish).

Ts add is one of the main things I'm using in my post to make my point though. Which is that in the 63-69 years Russell's ts add and ts+ are very similar to Thurmond's in those very same years and people generally have Russell as either the best or at worst 4th best player in the league in those years. In those 7 seasons Russell only had 2 with a ts+ above 95. Thurmond meanwhile from 65-74(while having a consistently higher volume) had 5 seasons with a ts+ above 95. Granted that his efficiency drops off a cliff after 74 but that's when his prime was pretty much over.

[iggymcfrack]

I was actually thinking about finding someone to replace him with altogther for a sec, but he is #2 behind LeBron on of those 25-year RAPM samples. I gotta give him credit for that even if he's had some rough playoffs. Plus is it even fair to grade him harshly on playoff failures in years when Doc Rivers is his coach?

So, I'm not trying to tell you you need to change your approach, but I do want to respond here based on how I think about this.

First off, there's just the general notion of longevity. As I've said, I'm not looking to micromanage how people judge longevity so long as people do think about it in this project in a way they wouldn't if this were the Peaks project.

When we consider base longevity, I think minutes played is a good place to start. So I'll put this comparison in to chew on:

Joel Embiid, drafted in 2014, has played 12,524 regular season minutes and 1,835 playoff minutes.
Jayson Tatum, drafted in 2017, has played 14,916 regular season minutes and 3,635 playoff minutes.

So quite literally, Embiid has inferior longevity to Tatum even before you factoring the damage that Embiid's missed time has had for his teams. Doesn't mean that Embiid should be below Tatum in your rankings, but just in case you were thinking about Embiid as someone who "has been around for a while" and Tatum as "still pretty new", which I think would be a natural thing to do, I think the scale of Embiid's missed time is important here.

Here's another number that I factor in which may not matter to others at all:

How many playoff series victories were you a Top 5 minutes guy on your team?

Embiid: 2
Tatum: 10

Now, fine to say that Tatum's been in a better environment on this, but I'd point out that Embiid's teammate Ben Simmons tallies to 3 here, and that Embiid didn't qualify by this metric in ANY of those 3 series. I'm as critical of Simmons as anybody and certainly don't think he's anywhere near as good as Embiid, but quite literally the playoff success of the 76ers from Embiid's draft in 2014 until 2021 was driven more by Simmons than Embiid.

I think it's totally understandable to look at Simmons, Brett Brown & Doc Rivers and think that they held Embiid back, but I'd say that the true reality here is that Embiid's injuries are the real issue, and that if it weren't for the quality of non-Embiid teammates, Philly's playoff success by playoff series would drop by more than 50%.

This then to say that, in addition to other comparisons, I really think Tatum has just done more in the pros to help his team be a title contender than Embiid has...and Tatum's not a guy I look at as a real Top 50 candidate yet.

It actually did cross my mind to put Tatum in at #30. He also scores extremely well in those huge multi-year RAPM samples and I think he’s definitely in the ballpark. He actually ranks #4 in 26 year RAPM behind only LeBron, KG, and CP3. Ultimately, Embiid has some all-time box score years too that are part of why I have him so high which Tatum can’t match, but I do think they’re in the same general grouping. Now I only had a top 20 until this year when I made a top 30 for a project in January so I’m not very locked in on the guys in that 30-40 range. It’s very possible that after a bunch of really in-depth analysis I end up with Embiid at #32 and Tatum at #40 or something. But he would definitely be under consideration.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'll just emphasize that I don't do my lists by saying "This guy is not Top 50 worthy". In the end it's just about specific comparisons between players, and gaps between contemporaries naturally get wider with time.

For example, Elgin Baylor is someone who is continuing to slide down my list not because I'm continuing lowering him compared to his contemporaries, but because the future just keeps happening, and more and more guys are emerging and moving past him. It's harder for those people to pass up Jerry West, so basically every time we do this project, the ranking gap between West & Baylor grows.

Ok and I'm not really trying to point a finger at anyone in particular. I'm just pointing out what could be an inconsistency which is overlooked with regard to where many posters may place Nate ahead of the next project. It might be worth rethinking his overall impact and considering him for the 40-50 range.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Not my top 100 list but my CORP list, which is pretty close. Would like to do a re-evaluation sometime soon and make something about era differences vs championship probabilities. Feel free to nitpick. There may be some players I forgot to rate.

Spoiler:

--- 4 CORP line is here ---
1 LeBron James
--- 3.5 CORP line is here ---
2 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
--- 3 CORP line is here ---
3 Michael Jordan
4 Bill Russell
--- 2.5 CORP line is here ---
5 Tim Duncan
6 Hakeem Olajuwon
7 Shaquille O’Neal
8 Kevin Garnett
9 Wilt Chamberlain
10 Magic Johnson
--- 2 CORP line is here ---
11 Kobe Bryant
12 Larry Bird
13 Dirk Nowitzki
14 Oscar Robertson
15 Stephen Curry
16 Karl Malone
17 Jerry West
18 David Robinson
19 Chris Paul
20 Julius Erving
21 Kevin Durant
--- 1.5 CORP line is here ---
22 Charles Barkley
23 Dwyane Wade
24 Moses Malone
25 Steve Nash
26 Giannis Antetokounmpo
27 James Harden
28 Rick Barry
29 Patrick Ewing
30 John Stockton
31 George Mikan
32 Bob Pettit
33 Scottie Pippen
34 Elgin Baylor
35 Reggie Miller
36 Nikola Jokic
37 Jason Kidd
38 John Havlicek
--- 1 CORP line is here ---
39 Russell Westbrook
40 Kevin McHale
41 Paul Pierce
42 Walt Frazier
43 Artis Gilmore
44 Isiah Thomas
45 Anthony Davis
46 Dolph Schayes
47 Ray Allen
48 Clyde Drexler
49 George Gervin
50 Dave Cowens
51 Dwight Howard
52 Gary Payton
53 Tracy McGrady
54 Pau Gasol
55 Kawhi Leonard
56 Bob Lanier
57 Elvin Hayes
58 Jimmy Butler
59 Nate Thurmond
60 Dominique Wilkins
61 Alonzo Mourning
62 Vince Carter
63 Kevin Johnson
64 Damian Lillard
65 Dikembe Mutombo
66 Manu Ginóbili
67 Robert Parish
68 Rasheed Wallace
69 Joel Embiid
70 Draymond Green
71 Alex English
72 Allen Iverson
73 Tony Parker
74 Adrian Dantley
75 Bobby Jones
76 Sidney Moncrief
77 James Worthy
78 Terry Porter
79 Paul George
80 Billy Cunningham
81 Grant Hill
82 Willis Reed
83 Chauncey Billups
84 Bob Cousy
85 Carmelo Anthony
86 Gus Williams
87 Kyle Lowry
88 Ben Wallace
89 Dennis Rodman
90 Hal Greer
91 Paul Arizin
92 Bob McAdoo
93 Wes Unseld
94 Marques Johnson
95 Dave DeBusschere
96 Horace Grant
97 Spencer Haywood
98 Cliff Hagan
99 Andre Iguodala
100 Sam Jones

No Luka, no like

[Doctor MJ]

Re: defense. I'm open to arguments here, but while I think Thurmond was an outstanding defender, I don't see him as being comparable to Russell in impact.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jE5K2XrILol56zGe0e7LA-bKyRECGNgG/edit#gid=367062482

At least the man to man defense part, as you can see, Thurmond decimated opposing HOF Center FG% by an even greater % than Russell did.

Oh I do think Thurmond might be the best big man-man defender in history so I don't want to knock that. I just think the help defense was such a big deal and while Thurmond wasn't bad there, I think Russell's impact is unmatched.

Something I will say:

Thurmond played Wilt a lot later in Wilt's career when he shot a lot less in general and became obsessed with FG%, and it really seemed to me in looking at box scores that Wilt seemed to decide not to shoot in Thurmond games. That's a credit to Thurmond to be sure, but you can see in Wilt's FG% against various players that it's not actually super-low against Thurmond (it's lower against Russell).

[Doctor MJ]

I'd first point to TS Add numbers to get a one-number metric on the difference. Thurmond looks far worse than Russell on this front, and early in Russell's career he was a positive here.

I also think the difference in shooting primacy is a key here. Thurmond on the Warriors averaged 13.9 FGA per 36 minutes. Russell only surpassed that once with a 14.1 in '57-58, at a time when Russell was still getting positive TS Add. Keep in mind also that I'm using per minute numbers instead of per possession because that's what's available, but we know that pace had slowed by the time Thurmond was at his highest shooting volume (1970-ish).

Ts add is one of the main things I'm using in my post to make my point though. Which is that in the 63-69 years Russell's ts add and ts+ are very similar to Thurmond's in those very same years and people generally have Russell as either the best or at worst 4th best player in the league in those years. In those 7 seasons Russell only had 2 with a ts+ above 95. Thurmond meanwhile from 65-74(while having a consistently higher volume) had 5 seasons with a ts+ above 95. Granted that his efficiency drops off a cliff after 74 but that's when his prime was pretty much over.

Eh, okay. If we just take the TS Add years the two guys both played, ignoring relative ages and teammates efficiency context:

Russell -265.1
Thurmond -443.3

I'd say it's still a pretty significant difference.

[70sFan]

Thurmond played Wilt a lot later in Wilt's career when he shot a lot less in general and became obsessed with FG%, and it really seemed to me in looking at box scores that Wilt seemed to decide not to shoot in Thurmond games. That's a credit to Thurmond to be sure, but you can see in Wilt's FG% against various players that it's not actually super-low against Thurmond (it's lower against Russell).

I don't think either way of looking at that is fair. Wilt played a lot of games against Russell at the beginning of his career when he didn't reach his full potential on offense either.

To make it more comparable, you should look at Wilt scoring numbers in 1965-68 period vs Russell and Thurmond (or 1965-66 only, if you want to exclude non-volume scoring years but the sample becomes quite small).

[Doctor MJ]

Thurmond played Wilt a lot later in Wilt's career when he shot a lot less in general and became obsessed with FG%, and it really seemed to me in looking at box scores that Wilt seemed to decide not to shoot in Thurmond games. That's a credit to Thurmond to be sure, but you can see in Wilt's FG% against various players that it's not actually super-low against Thurmond (it's lower against Russell).

I don't think either way of looking at that is fair. Wilt played a lot of games against Russell at the beginning of his career when he didn't reach his full potential on offense either.

To make it more comparable, you should look at Wilt scoring numbers in 1965-68 period vs Russell and Thurmond (or 1965-66 only, if you want to exclude non-volume scoring years but the sample becomes quite small).

So I should start my Wilt scoring evaluation half a decade after his first MVP and several years after his volume peak because all that should be seen as pre-prime? Seems a bit much.

I will say it's reasonable to want to do an apples to apples comparison though factoring in only years where both Russell & Thurmond played.

[scrabbarista]

Here are 100 players in order. This is purely tentative and very flexible (though my top 20 is pretty well-set). It's based on a formula, but my subjective opinion, to a specific numerical limit, is included.

...I should probably get Reggie Miller over Dominique!

When the 100 project starts, I'll pay closer attention to each spot. Tiny Archibald is at 101st at the moment.

Jordan, Michael
James, LeBron
Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
Duncan, Tim
Russell, Bill
Johnson, Magic
Bird, Larry
Chamberlain, Wilt
Olajuwon, Hakeem
O’Neal, Shaquille

Bryant, Kobe
Curry, Stephen
Nowitzki, Dirk
Garnett, Kevin
Malone, Moses
Malone, Karl
Durant, Kevin
Erving, Julius
Robinson, David
Antetokounmpo, Giannis

Jokic, Nikola
Robertson, Oscar
West, Jerry
Pettit, Bob
Barkley, Charles
Harden, James
Wade, Dwyane
Havlicek, John
Mikan, George
Paul, Chris

Leonard, Kawhi
Pippen, Scottie
Stockton, John
Kidd, Jason
Barry, Rick
Baylor, Elgin
Frazier, Walt
Nash, Steve
Ewing, Patrick
Cowens, Dave

Thomas, Isiah
Schayes, Dolph
Westbrook, Russell
Davis, Anthony
Howard, Dwight
Gasol, Pau
Hayes, Elvin
Drexler, Clyde
Cousy, Bob
Gervin, George

McHale, Kevin
Payton, Gary
Iverson, Allen
Pierce, Paul
Ginobili, Manu
Gilmore, Artis
Reed, Willis
Walton, Bill
Embiid, Joel
Butler, Jimmy

Parker, Tony
Parish, Robert
Wilkins, Dominique
Miller, Reggie
Lillard, Dame
Unseld, Wes
Jones, Sam
Billups, Chauncey
McAdoo, Bob
Mutombo, Dikembe

Johnson, Dennis
Green, Draymond
Allen, Ray
Rodman, Dennis
Lanier, Bob
Wallace, Ben
Mourning, Alonzo
Webber, Chris
Bosh, Chris
Moncrief, Sidney

English, Alex
George, Paul
Worthy, James
Grant, Horace
Anthony, Carmelo
McGrady, Tracy
Dumars, Joe
Issel, Dan
Thurmond, Nate
Sharman, Bill

Gobert, Rudy
Marion, Shawn
Dantley, Adrian
Jones, Bobby
Greer, Hal
Arizin, Paul
Cunningham, Billy
Cheeks, Maurice
Lucas, Jerry
Horry, Robert

[Cavsfansince84]

Eh, okay. If we just take the TS Add years the two guys both played, ignoring relative ages and teammates efficiency context:

Russell -265.1
Thurmond -443.3

I'd say it's still a pretty significant difference.

idk, I mean I think given that Nate was on a higher volume almost throughout his prime that they're pretty similar. I don't think its something to where when you evaluate them as players you would say that Bill was that much more efficient other than in the very early years where league wide efficiency was much lower(league wide fg% goes from .383 in 1958 to 42.6 in 62 then up from there). I'm just throwing this out there because I think its probably worth mentioning. It actually has me rethinking how I view Nate as well tbh.

[70sFan]

So I should start my Wilt scoring evaluation half a decade after his first MVP and several years after his volume peak because all that should be seen as pre-prime? Seems a bit much.

In this case... yes? 1960 is by far the worst Wilt season in terms of efficiency and it's very evident that he wasn't at his best on that end as a rookie, not surprising at all. 1961 saw a clear improvement, but it was still weaker than any season out of 1962-66 period.

Even if we ignore stats for a moment, there are countless of articles citing massive improvement Wilt did offensively in 1961/62 season (some even cite the next season). There is no reason to believe that Wilt didn't massively improve after the first two years.

I'm fine with treating 1960 and 1961 as the part of Wilt's prime, but I think once we start evaluating player's scoring ability, it's quite useful to realize that the player made clear improvements throughout his career.

[iggymcfrack]

I moved him down from #29 after this year's playoffs.

I was actually thinking about finding someone to replace him with altogther for a sec, but he is #2 behind LeBron on of those 25-year RAPM samples. I gotta give him credit for that even if he's had some rough playoffs. Plus is it even fair to grade him harshly on playoff failures in years when Doc Rivers is his coach?

It's not even about his playoffs failures, Embiid has so few relevant seasons and such a short career (even worse in his case because of missed games) that putting him inside top 30 would require GOAT-level peak to me... and Embiid wasn't really in conversation for the best player in the league at any point of his career - including this year when he got the MVP.

I understand that some people are willing to put Jokic over someone like Ewing, because he peaked much higher and has this title run and all the boxscore stats some people love. In Embiid's case though, I am not even comfortable that he's a better basketball player than Ewing and his career doesn't touch Pat's - and Ewing isn't a lock top 30 player himself either.

Well as you know, I tend to weight peak more highly than you so if someone had legit GOAT level impact for Embiid’s career length I’d have them much higher. I think the case for Embiid is clear though. In addition to the incredible RAPM numbers, he’s #2 all-time in career PER behind Jordan. His playoff numbers, disappointing as they’ve been, still compare favorably with Ewing’s.

I know Ewing peaked higher defensively, but was he ever a top 5 player outside of 1990? I feel like the answer’s probably no. Embiid is on a run now where he’s been solidly top 5 three years in a row. I mean Ewing would probably be in my 31-40 range here so it’s not like he’s far off, but when 2 completely different measures have Embiid top 2 all-time or top 2 since 1997, I think throwing him a bone in the top 30 is fair.

[ZeppelinPage]

So I should start my Wilt scoring evaluation half a decade after his first MVP and several years after his volume peak because all that should be seen as pre-prime? Seems a bit much.

In this case... yes? 1960 is by far the worst Wilt season in terms of efficiency and it's very evident that he wasn't at his best on that end as a rookie, not surprising at all. 1961 saw a clear improvement, but it was still weaker than any season out of 1962-66 period.

Even if we ignore stats for a moment, there are countless of articles citing massive improvement Wilt did offensively in 1961/62 season (some even cite the next season). There is no reason to believe that Wilt didn't massively improve after the first two years.

I'm fine with treating 1960 and 1961 as the part of Wilt's prime, but I think once we start evaluating player's scoring ability, it's quite useful to realize that the player made clear improvements throughout his career.

According to contemporary accounts, Wilt significantly improved as a jump shooter in his '62 season. I believe this improvement was noted by various coaches, including Frank McGuire and Red Auerbach, among others.

[scrabbarista]

I was listening to Ryan Russillo talk about how much Houston fans love James Harden.

Trivia question!!!!! Do you know how many players have led the league in WS more times than Harden for a single team?

Spoiler:

One: Michael Jordan, who did it 9 times for the Bulls.

Harden did it 5 times for the Rockets. Abdul-Jabbar did it 5 times for the Lakers. Chamberlain did it 5 times for the Warriors. So did Neil Johnston. No one else has done it even 4 times.

[70sFan]

I moved him down from #29 after this year's playoffs.

I was actually thinking about finding someone to replace him with altogther for a sec, but he is #2 behind LeBron on of those 25-year RAPM samples. I gotta give him credit for that even if he's had some rough playoffs. Plus is it even fair to grade him harshly on playoff failures in years when Doc Rivers is his coach?

It's not even about his playoffs failures, Embiid has so few relevant seasons and such a short career (even worse in his case because of missed games) that putting him inside top 30 would require GOAT-level peak to me... and Embiid wasn't really in conversation for the best player in the league at any point of his career - including this year when he got the MVP.

I understand that some people are willing to put Jokic over someone like Ewing, because he peaked much higher and has this title run and all the boxscore stats some people love. In Embiid's case though, I am not even comfortable that he's a better basketball player than Ewing and his career doesn't touch Pat's - and Ewing isn't a lock top 30 player himself either.

Well as you know, I tend to weight peak more highly than you so if someone had legit GOAT level impact for Embiid’s career length I’d have them much higher. I think the case for Embiid is clear though. In addition to the incredible RAPM numbers, he’s #2 all-time in career PER behind Jordan. His playoff numbers, disappointing as they’ve been, still compare favorably with Ewing’s.

I know Ewing peaked higher defensively, but was he ever a top 5 player outside of 1990? I feel like the answer’s probably no. Embiid is on a run now where he’s been solidly top 5 three years in a row. I mean Ewing would probably be in my 31-40 range here so it’s not like he’s far off, but when 2 completely different measures have Embiid top 2 all-time or top 2 since 1997, I think throwing him a bone in the top 30 is fair.

Yeah, I guess we won't find a common language. You said you considered Tatum for top 30, while he's out of my top 150 most likely. Completely different criteria and values.

[eminence]

I don't see much evidence '61 Wilt was any significant amount behind '62-'66 as a scorer (or offensive player in general). If you'd said specifically '62/'63 I could see a raw volume argument.

eFG+ by year
'61 - 123
'62 - 119
'63 - 120
'64 - 121
'65 - 120
'66 - 125

Pts/game
'61 - 38.4
'62 - 50.4
'63 - 44.8
'64 - 36.9
'65 - 34.7
'66 - 33.5

Rel Ortg
'61 - -0.9
'62 - +0.9
'63 - -0.7
'64 - -1.6
'65 - -5.9 Warriors, +0.5 Sixers
'66 - +0.4

I have to imagine the any such articles of the time were more caught up in the spectacle of 50 ppg than in anything else.

[KidPistol]

I’ve abandoned ranking from 1 to 100 and decided that tiers make to most sense.

For example - players in tier 3 each have arguments for being greater than each other but none of them have much of an argument over the players in higher tiers and vice versa.

Tier 1. Jordan LeBron Kareem
Tier 2. Magic Wilt Duncan Russell
Tier 3. Shaq Curry Kobe Hakeem Bird Oscar
Tier 4. Dirk KG KD Karl Moses Barkley Dr. J Zeke Giannis West Elgin David Robinson
Tier 5. Stockton Wade Jokic Scottie Kawhi