RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #25 (Giannis Antetokounmpo)

[trelos6]

I think people should take a closer look on Havlicek for nomination at this point. He has everything in his resume to be considered - great longevity, a lot of team success, playoff resiliency, versatile and scalable skillset, two-way impact. What do you think about his candidacy?

I have Hondo around 40. He has great longevity, with 12 or 13 all star and All D level seasons. His peak was only 5 seasons at all nba level.

[One_and_Done]

I think it’s almost time to vote for Gilmore.

Unlike fellow MVP and 11 time-star Pettit, Gilmore led his team to a title in a much tougher league. The ABA in 1975 was probably stronger than the NBA. Gilmore has a skill set that would absolutely translate today. When I look at Gilmore, I see a guy who physically resembles a stronger, slightly shorter version of Kareem. His huge arms and relative fluidity would make him an excellent rim-roller, who in a pinch could score in other ways in and around the rim. His short jump shots and hook look surprisingly clean, even if I don’t know how often they went in.

It’s easy to look on youtube and find extensive footage of Artis dunking on Kareem and playing great against the showtime Lakers, on just horrible Chicago teams that clearly didn’t put anything much around him. There’s even a game of the NBA stars against the ABA stars, where Gilmore matches up very well physically with 1972 Wilt. If we were in the top 10 that would mean nothing, but we’re now nominating people who will be 30 or higher all-time.

Statistically, Gilmore compares favourably to say Moses, who is already in.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I am more impressed by Gilmore than I am with guys like Ewing or Stockton, the latter wasn’t even a real star. The former seems to be perpetually overrated. Gilmore wishes he had all the help Ewing did.

[trelos6]

Option 1

Postseason stats per 75 possessions
15-20 Harden (73 G): 28.2 points, 7.3 assists, 4.4 turnovers, 58.6% TS
06-10 Kobe (79 G): 28.6 points, 5.2 assists, 3.2 turnovers, 57.0% TS

Say what you will about choking in playoffs, Harden’s stats show he was as valuable as Kobe in his prime. I hate how Harden plays the game, but I’m putting that aside.

His 5 year 15-19 RS run: 30.5 pp75, +6.2 rTS%, 14 FTA/100, team rOrtg from 5-6 in the last 3 years of that range.

Option 2

Giannis 2 way impact leads the current crop of candidates. He plays at a DPOY level while also scoring at 32 pp75. His rTS% has been declining from +8.4 in 2019 to +2 in 2023, but +2 is still really good on his whopping 34.7 pp75.

Option 3

Jokic has just come off what I have as the best single season of anyone not already inducted. What he lacks in longevity, he’s making up for in peak.

I think I’ll go Giannis based off his 2 way impact.

My alternate is Nikola Jokic. I just can’t get there with Harden. Dude’s been a beast in the latter half of the 2010’s, but Jokic has market corrected him as an offensive dynamo.

As for nominations, Scottie Pippen. Solid 6 years as a weak MVP. Also probably the best perimeter defender of all time.

Alternate nomination Ewing. Some great defensive seasons early, weak MVP value. Robust scoring arsenal.

[Gibson22]

I don't know man, this project is losing me a bit, just too much modernism and recency bias, too little focus on longevity and also too much focus on pure numbers instead of a more conceptual ranking style. jokic is a better player than barkley, but he has like half the career totals. realistically jokic is not more than 35ish. he's a goat tier offensive player and he's having a top 10 all time peak probably, but the guy has scored 12k points, he has 68 playoff games played... jesus christ. he has 5 all star games. i'm not doubting how good he is, but he's not this high yet.

[Colbinii]

I think it’s almost time to vote for Gilmore.

Unlike fellow MVP and 11 time-star Pettit, Gilmore led his team to a title in a much tougher league. The ABA in 1975 was probably stronger than the NBA. Gilmore has a skill set that would absolutely translate today. When I look at Gilmore, I see a guy who physically resembles a stronger, slightly shorter version of Kareem. His huge arms and relative fluidity would make him an excellent rim-roller, who in a pinch could score in other ways in and around the rim. His short jump shots and hook look surprisingly clean, even if I don’t know how often they went in.

It’s easy to look on youtube and find extensive footage of Artis dunking on Kareem and playing great against the showtime Lakers, on just horrible Chicago teams that clearly didn’t put anything much around him. There’s even a game of the NBA stars against the ABA stars, where Gilmore matches up very well physically with 1972 Wilt. If we were in the top 10 that would mean nothing, but we’re now nominating people who will be 30 or higher all-time.

Statistically, Gilmore compares favourably to say Moses, who is already in.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I am more impressed by Gilmore than I am with guys like Ewing or Stockton, the latter wasn’t even a real star. The former seems to be perpetually overrated. Gilmore wishes he had all the help Ewing did.

Why are you using 6 years for Moses and 5 years for Gilmore?

1979-1983 Moses: 31.9/18.3/2.0, 7.8 Oreb, 53.2% FTR, 70.2 WS, 3.3 BPM, 116 Ortg/103 Drtg, +867 TS+
1975-1979 Gilmore: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 5.1 Oreb, 49.9% FTR, 67.6 WS, 4.4 BPM, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, +1281 TS+

What we see with Gilmore from a pure statistical lense [I assume you have never watched a game of basketball prior to 2010, and certainly not from the 1970s or 1980s since it would be the equivalent of watching paint dry for you [and not to mention your inability to accurately assess players from this era shows you have not watched nor have interest in these players]] is he was an Elite [ATG?] scorer and offensive machine for a handful of years.

However, when you actually watch the games, and specifically Moses, you see a player who went toe-to-toe with the best player of the 1970s [And 1980s? ] in KAJ and that alone vaults him up the peak-lense for many people [and rightfully so].

I don't personally care for Moses all that much, but I much prefer him to Gilmore given what I have seen from them on tape as Moses really pops as a high-impact guy for his stretch of peak play.

[70sFan]

2) The burden of proof is on ppl advancing an argument sure, but that doesn't mean I need to produce records of what his wind sprints were in practise; some of this stuff is inherently subjective and will rest on our argumentation. There's no stat to capture how slow you are, not in the pre-synergy days anyway. You just need to watch some footage and use some common sense.

I mean, there is no argumentation in your posts. You don't reference games you supposedly watched and you don't say anything specific outside of basic stuff like "Moses was slow".

3) Shaq wasn't Tim Duncan on D, but he did provide solid rim protection. One of the few things that seemed to fire up Shaq was guys daring to think they could dunk on him, which is why so few guys ever did.

I have another theory regarding this - Shaq didn't like being posterized and was dunked on rarely, because he avoided high risk contests. It doesn't sound as fun, but it backs up my observations during very extensive footage analysis.

[Colbinii]

I don't know man, this project is losing me a bit, just too much modernism and recency bias, too little focus on longevity and also too much focus on pure numbers instead of a more conceptual ranking style. jokic is a better player than barkley, but he has like half the career totals. realistically jokic is not more than 35ish. he's a goat tier offensive player and he's having a top 10 all time peak probably, but the guy has scored 12k points, he has 68 playoff games played... jesus christ. he has 5 all star games. i'm not doubting how good he is, but he's not this high yet.

Okay, so why don't you compare him to players being discussed.

Wade (RS 2006-2012): 17K Minutes, 74.8 WS, 6.2 OBPM [7.8 BPM, depending if you like DBPM--I don't], 653 TS+
Wade (PS 2006-2012): 3.3K Minutes, 13.6 WS, 5.8 OBPM [7.6 BPM], 56.6 TS%

Jokic (RS 2017-2023): 16.6K Minutes, 87.9 WS, 7.1 OBPM [10.0 BPM], 1250 TS+
Jokes (PS 2019-2023): 2.6K Minutes, 12.6 WS, 8.0 OBPM [10.4 BPM], 61.4 TS%

I could see you really liking 2005 Wade [Not sure I can buy a large value in 2013/2014 Wade but Wade was good in the 2013 RS, just not Prime Wade good]. What title odds do you expect 2005/2013 Wade to add reasonable? The thing is, Jokic blows Wade away for a 7-year stretch [and remember Wade has 2008 where he played 51 games and was tu-tu-turruble] in that stretch. So replace that season with 2005, you still get a worse 7-year stretch without any meaningful longevity added at that point.

As for referencing All-star games, Jokic put up 7.3 BPM, 26.3 PER and 166.7 TS+ in his 2nd season [Not an all-star, apparently].
He then put up 6.9 BPM, 24.4 PER and 108.4 TS+ in his 3rd season [Not an all-star, apparently].

Wade made an all-star for 3 straight years from 2014-2016, posting 2.3 BPM, 21.2 PER and a combined 16.1 TS+.

So again, when you reference "He only has 5 all-star games", I assume this is a shout from the balcony of the Accolades crowd. I get it, Accolades are important--they help tell the story of the NBA which is vital for a Top 100 project as we want to be capturing both the 100 Greatest Players but also explain how they impacted the game. But when you reference "He only had 5 all-star games" and leave out the fact he is one of 16 players with multiple MVP's, I feel like that statement holds much more power in en capturing greatness than listing all-star appearances when Jokic was putting up All-NBA numbers [and Impact] by his 2nd season.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't know man, this project is losing me a bit, just too much modernism and recency bias, too little focus on longevity and also too much focus on pure numbers instead of a more conceptual ranking style. jokic is a better player than barkley, but he has like half the career totals. realistically jokic is not more than 35ish. he's a goat tier offensive player and he's having a top 10 all time peak probably, but the guy has scored 12k points, he has 68 playoff games played... jesus christ. he has 5 all star games. i'm not doubting how good he is, but he's not this high yet.

So, my hope would be that if you find yourself with a diverging minority opinion you don't check out and let the majority opinion run away with things. Those who champion minority causes - and do so with positive attitude and proactive point-finding - are central to what makes the project great, particularly as we get into the later stages.

On specific points:

- I'm inclined to push back on the idea that "modernism" is a real movement here. I know the term has been bandied about and the push & pull between current & past eras is certainly real, but I don't think we get Mikan in the Top 20 if support for the past had died out.

- Longevity. What I always say here is that the weighting of longevity is not something we can expect to objectively agree upon. Different people will value it differently, and while I encourage folks to explain their perspective and maybe influence others, there will always be those who disagree.

For myself, I effectively weigh longevity less than I did in the past because of a focus around teams building to win championships. This makes me both a) reluctant to side with a guy with a guy based on, say, his 6th best year being better than another with a better Top 5, and b) reluctant to consider longer runs in general if it seems unrealistic that you can really keep the guy engaged for your cause for that long.

[Colbinii]

I'll say this about an overall good project.

"Empty cans make the most noise."

[One_and_Done]

I'll say this about an overall good project.

"Empty cans make the most noise."

Really, because I find comments like these are the most detrimental to a project:

I assume you have never watched a game of basketball prior to 2010, and certainly not from the 1970s or 1980s since it would be the equivalent of watching paint dry for you [and not to mention your inability to accurately assess players from this era shows you have not watched nor have interest in these players

It's not an accurate comment either btw.

I don't mention this because I want you banned, or because I need a mod to hold my hand. This is an internet forum. It's not going to affect my real life in the slightest.

The disconnect here is not uncommon. If I went to a crowded bazar in Mecca, and repeatedly pushed my view that God wasn't real, I would be subject to abuse, yet I would also be branded the trouble maker, even as stones were being hurled at me. If you want a project that isn't an echo chamber you need to recognise alternative points of view as potentially valid.

There's nothing terribly sensational about my views, or how they're stated; I don't think past leagues were as good (like in most sporting events), I find the way guys were ranked at the time to often be useful to consider (like most things), and I don't want to obsessively focus on a number a computer produces to rank people (like most fans). I've certainly provided plenty of reasons to back my opinions up. Maybe you should just reconsider why you feel the way you do, and your own views, instead of getting so angry about others disagreeing.

Again, you do you. It's not going to phase me either way, but it is interesting to note the disparity in language that is acceptable if you are part of the tribe vs not. I could go through the past few threads and find numerous comments like these which, if I had written them, would undoubtedly have seen me suspended.

[rk2023]

Very few rounds have been land-slides, I would say that in itself is far from an echo-chamber.

[HeartBreakKid]

I don't know man, this project is losing me a bit, just too much modernism and recency bias, too little focus on longevity and also too much focus on pure numbers instead of a more conceptual ranking style. jokic is a better player than barkley, but he has like half the career totals. realistically jokic is not more than 35ish. he's a goat tier offensive player and he's having a top 10 all time peak probably, but the guy has scored 12k points, he has 68 playoff games played... jesus christ. he has 5 all star games. i'm not doubting how good he is, but he's not this high yet.

The last 7 players added have all been in the NBA for like 20 seasons each.

Spoiler:

18. Dirk Nowitzki
19. Karl Malone
20. Chris Paul
21. Julius Erving
22. Kevin Durant
23. Moses Malone
24. Steve Nash

Giannis meanwhile has been on the board for nearly half of the project.



Let's be real here, this board favors longevity a lot. Complaining about this is like when a minority shows up in a neighborhood and all of a sudden people are saying there are so many immigrants around.

You're essentially complaining that the minority of people have a different opinion from you. If you don't want to participate because 100% of people are not agreeing with you then I don't know what to say. The project is a democracy.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

You mention Wade "upsetting back-to-back 6-SRS teams with middling support" - I just want to mention that Shaq was still there. I know he was in decline by 2006, but he put up 21.7 and 10.5 on 65.5% FG in the ECF vs the Pistons against the Big Ben/Rasheed frontcourt. His Finals volume was lower(largely due to two below-average games out of six), but his efficiency was still elite - 13.7 and 10.2 on 60.7% FG. Shaq averaged 18.4/9.8 on 57.1% TS throughout those playoffs, and he had a 4.85 RS+PO RAPM per J.E. in 2005-06.

20/10 or 14/10, Shaq's honestly nothing more than a glorified Zach Randolph at that point. Capable scorer with really nothing more to offer, probably a low-level all-star and a far cry from your typical title 2nd option.

Also, that +4.85 RAPM (#11 in the league) is prior informed and very dependend on his earlier, much better form (top 5 every year 98-05). Over the whole season, Miami...

With Shaq and Wade - 2097 min, +8.9
With Wade w/o Shaq - 1755 min, +7.4
With Shaq w/o Wade - 468 min, -7.7
Without either - 740 min, -9.9

Wade was the #1 option in 2006 but, say what you want about the rest of the roster, the Heat aren't winning that championship without Shaq. It may seem irrelevant to the debate at hand, but since so much of Wade's case seems to center on that title run, I just think it's important that we don't diminish Shaq's role in it for the sake of making it appear a bigger carry job than it was for Wade. And also that we acknowledge the, ahem, friendly whistle Wade was getting in those playoffs. It wasn't the 94 Rockets or the 03 Spurs.

It wasn't the 94 Rockets or the 03 Spurs - it was legitimately more impressive than either one.

That +/- comparison seems a bit unfair when the "With Shaq w/o Wade" sample is so much smaller than the "With Wade w/o Shaq" sample - it's not much more than a quarter the size.

Zach Randolph was significantly less efficient than Shaq. For his career, Randolph has a 52.2% TS in the RS and a 49.6% in the PO; 2005-06 Shaq has a 58.6% TS in the RS and a 57.1% TS in the PO. I dislike that comparison.

You describe Shaq as "a capable scorer with really nothing more to offer" - 15.7 rebounds Per 100 RS and 15.8 rebounds Per 100 PO is "nothing more to offer"? 3.0 blocks per 100 RS and 2.4 blocks per 100 PO is nothing more to offer?

Neither 94 Hakeem nor 03 Duncan had a teammate as good as 06 Shaq, imo, so I just can't possibly argue with your last statement.

I repeat what I originally said - we shouldn't diminish Shaq's role on that team in the name of pumping Wade up. What Wade did was impressive, but Shaq was there, and also the refs were very friendly to Wade. People were legitimately worked up about the officiating in that Finals series. Aside from Lakers/Kings 2002, there aren't many series that have had their officiating complained about more than that one. At the time and in hindsight.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Barkley certainly has the best longevity / career value of the 5 nominees and probably ends up being my pick here due to that, but I have some gripes with his game (eg. defense, impact profile that doesn't quite add up with how high the box score regards him).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZxRM9p2dFil5w6s21VEB4HnQZJymEY8_2vej-jREuUo/htmlview#
Courtesy of Harvey Pollack - On/off Net-swing for Barkley's 76ers tenure of 1985-1992 RS (formatted as "Net Swing", "ORTG - DRTG on", "ORTG - DRTG off"):

Code: Select all

1.9, 111.6-106.8, 110.9-108.0
10.6, 110.7-105.7, 102.5-108.0
7.9, 109.3-107, 106.1-111.8
2.7, 109.7-110.6, 105.5-109.2
11.0, 115.3-111.4, 104.7-111.8
8.3, 115.5-108.5, 106.6-107.9
8.8, 112.4-109.3, 100.5-106.2
6.0, 112.3-112.0, 97.9-103.7

Dipper 13, once active on PC Board and known for effortful historical tracking, has some data from 1988-96 Barkley (keep in mind, it is drawing from limited games):

Nope. Also, data is from Dipper 13, maybe he has more?

Only Barkley (from 84 game sample) between 1988-96.

From this, he looks like absolute dynamite as a 2-point scorer and dangerous when getting downhill. As I mentioned however, his offensive lift on his teams (granted - I don't have Suns Barkley data) reaches levels akin to *that* sort of player only from 1989-92. It's also not like Barkley is some RS paper tiger who falls over in the PS, as his scoring profile looks pretty solid there too - with a slight drop in raw TS% and adjusted TS% at that, but a similar "score-val" value indexing on his 1985-96 sample. His granular playmaking stats don't look that good however (eg. negative playval, not really great creation or passer rating).

For those whom have scouted him more-so, I guess a question I could pose is how was Barkley's scoring attention / gravity, and how good was he at utilizing the defensive focus / attention a puncturing interior presence like him would in theory commend? I certainly wouldn't call Barkley "one dimensional" - as he's adding a ton through rim pressure/rebounding/some off-ball scoring sets (not to mention how much his gaudy FTR affects team minutes/rotations) - but his playmaking doesn't look like a crazy needle mover and he's giving back some of his value as a player on defense.

I hope you end up sticking with Barkley for your official vote. Right now the voting stands at Giannis 4, Barkley 3, Jokic 2, and Wade 1, and Giannis picks up another vote in secondary voting. Barkley needs all the votes he can get.

To offer a sort-of answer to your bolded question:

First, as a general thing - I don't think drive-and-kick was as common a tactic back then, and Barkley was never really the low-post inside-out passer like centers - Hakeem, Shaq - might have been, seeing as he didn't really have the height for that kind of game. I guess I'm saying that PFs weren't really expected to create in that fashion in the 90s.

To that point, by some metrics, he was better than the other great PFs of his era, though none of them were great. Look at career assists vs turnovers Per 100:

Barkley:
RS: 5.4a/4.3t
PO: 5.1a/3.7t

Karl Malone
RS: 4.9a/4.2t
PO: 4.2a/3.8t

Shawn Kemp
RS: 3.0a/4.9t
PO: 2.9a/5.0t

Kevin McHale
RS: 2.7a/3.0t
PO: 2.4a/2.8t

Granted there's more to creation than just that, but I would say Barkley was ok-to-solid in this creation respect, but not great, and I would assess Malone similarly. Kemp and McHale look pretty poor in this regard.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I don't know man, this project is losing me a bit, just too much modernism and recency bias, too little focus on longevity and also too much focus on pure numbers instead of a more conceptual ranking style. jokic is a better player than barkley, but he has like half the career totals. realistically jokic is not more than 35ish. he's a goat tier offensive player and he's having a top 10 all time peak probably, but the guy has scored 12k points, he has 68 playoff games played... jesus christ. he has 5 all star games. i'm not doubting how good he is, but he's not this high yet.

The last 7 players added have all been in the NBA for like 20 seasons each.

Spoiler:

18. Dirk Nowitzki
19. Karl Malone
20. Chris Paul
21. Julius Erving
22. Kevin Durant
23. Moses Malone
24. Steve Nash

Giannis meanwhile has been on the board for nearly half of the project.



Let's be real here, this board favors longevity a lot. Complaining about this is like when a minority shows up in a neighborhood and all of a sudden people are saying there are so many immigrants around.

You're essentially complaining that the minority of people have a different opinion from you. If you don't want to participate because 100% of people are not agreeing with you then I don't know what to say. The project is a democracy.

I'm not exactly agreeing with him, but he was complaining about both modernism and longevity, which are two different things.

What you say is accurate - this project has favored longevity strongly. In this particular thread, however, Giannis, Jokic, and Wade have gotten seven of the ten votes so far, with Barkley, the oldest of the four by a lot, getting only 3. That might be where Gibson's complaint is coming from. That said - if Gibson is reading this - I would hope he still votes - seeing as his secondary vote last round(after Moses) was for Barkley.

I would question the consistency of some voters' criteria...if for example some people vote for guys like Malone, CP3, or Nash at least partially on the basis of longevity, and then turn around and vote for Giannis and Jokic, who just don't have it yet, or Wade, who had a very short prime.

[rk2023]

I don't know man, this project is losing me a bit, just too much modernism and recency bias, too little focus on longevity and also too much focus on pure numbers instead of a more conceptual ranking style. jokic is a better player than barkley, but he has like half the career totals. realistically jokic is not more than 35ish. he's a goat tier offensive player and he's having a top 10 all time peak probably, but the guy has scored 12k points, he has 68 playoff games played... jesus christ. he has 5 all star games. i'm not doubting how good he is, but he's not this high yet.

The last 7 players added have all been in the NBA for like 20 seasons each.

Spoiler:

18. Dirk Nowitzki
19. Karl Malone
20. Chris Paul
21. Julius Erving
22. Kevin Durant
23. Moses Malone
24. Steve Nash

Giannis meanwhile has been on the board for nearly half of the project.



Let's be real here, this board favors longevity a lot. Complaining about this is like when a minority shows up in a neighborhood and all of a sudden people are saying there are so many immigrants around.

You're essentially complaining that the minority of people have a different opinion from you. If you don't want to participate because 100% of people are not agreeing with you then I don't know what to say. The project is a democracy.

I'm not exactly agreeing with him, but he was complaining about both modernism and longevity, which are two different things.

What you say is accurate - this project has favored longevity strongly. In this particular thread, however, Giannis, Jokic, and Wade have gotten seven of the ten votes so far, with Barkley, the oldest of the four by a lot, getting only 3. That might be where Gibson's complaint is coming from. That said - if Gibson is reading this - I would hope he still votes - seeing as his secondary vote last round(after Moses) was for Barkley.

I would question the consistency of some voters' criteria...if for example some people vote for guys like Malone, CP3, or Nash at least partially on the basis of longevity, and then turn around and vote for Giannis and Jokic, who just don't have it yet, or Wade, who had a very short prime.

I’ll most likely be voting for Barkley (thank you for the response, by the way), but when it comes to an alternate vote - would you take Harden over the three players you mentioned here that are currently nominees. Jokic is more of a yes for me, but even with a slight longevity edge Harden has over the other two here - I’m not sure if he’s added more than either at this point in time

[HeartBreakKid]

I don't know man, this project is losing me a bit, just too much modernism and recency bias, too little focus on longevity and also too much focus on pure numbers instead of a more conceptual ranking style. jokic is a better player than barkley, but he has like half the career totals. realistically jokic is not more than 35ish. he's a goat tier offensive player and he's having a top 10 all time peak probably, but the guy has scored 12k points, he has 68 playoff games played... jesus christ. he has 5 all star games. i'm not doubting how good he is, but he's not this high yet.

The last 7 players added have all been in the NBA for like 20 seasons each.

Spoiler:

18. Dirk Nowitzki
19. Karl Malone
20. Chris Paul
21. Julius Erving
22. Kevin Durant
23. Moses Malone
24. Steve Nash

Giannis meanwhile has been on the board for nearly half of the project.



Let's be real here, this board favors longevity a lot. Complaining about this is like when a minority shows up in a neighborhood and all of a sudden people are saying there are so many immigrants around.

You're essentially complaining that the minority of people have a different opinion from you. If you don't want to participate because 100% of people are not agreeing with you then I don't know what to say. The project is a democracy.

I'm not exactly agreeing with him, but he was complaining about both modernism and longevity, which are two different things.

What you say is accurate - this project has favored longevity strongly. In this particular thread, however, Giannis, Jokic, and Wade have gotten seven of the ten votes so far, with Barkley, the oldest of the four by a lot, getting only 3. That might be where Gibson's complaint is coming from. That said - if Gibson is reading this - I would hope he still votes - seeing as his secondary vote last round(after Moses) was for Barkley.

I would question the consistency of some voters' criteria...if for example some people vote for guys like Malone, CP3, or Nash at least partially on the basis of longevity, and then turn around and vote for Giannis and Jokic, who just don't have it yet, or Wade, who had a very short prime.

It is just likely that players with insane longevity and consistent MVP caliber play have run out. There are a finite number of them.

As players with long careers are dropping down in on-court quality people are turning to guys with shorter careers. That seems like a natural transition.

There is a gap in quality between a player like Wade and Pippen and some people may not think it is accurate to think that Pippen has a better career because he was better for longer. That doesn't seem highly inconsistent.

[One_and_Done]

Longevity matters, because you only get credit for things you actually did, but being a much better player matters too. At a certain threshold the scales will tip. It just depends how big the disparity is in talent and longevity. I'm voting for Giannis for instance because I think he is a vastly better player than Barkley. I love Chuck, but it's not close between them. Longevity can't bridge that gap, unless you have Bill Walton levels of longevity. AC Green has alot of longevity, but I'd never rank him over Grant Hill or T-Mac. Ditto Stockton vs Giannis.

Next time this project happens Giannis will have enough longevity to make the top 15.

[penbeast0]

I'm not exactly agreeing with him, but he was complaining about both modernism and longevity, which are two different things.

What you say is accurate - this project has favored longevity strongly. In this particular thread, however, Giannis, Jokic, and Wade have gotten seven of the ten votes so far, with Barkley, the oldest of the four by a lot, getting only 3. That might be where Gibson's complaint is coming from. That said - if Gibson is reading this - I would hope he still votes - seeing as his secondary vote last round(after Moses) was for Barkley.

I would question the consistency of some voters' criteria...if for example some people vote for guys like Malone, CP3, or Nash at least partially on the basis of longevity, and then turn around and vote for Giannis and Jokic, who just don't have it yet, or Wade, who had a very short prime.

Longevity is one factor in analyzing a player for me, but only one. Playoff performance is another. Peak performance a third. Intangibles (is the player someone I'd want as a teammate) is another. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, even LeBron/MJ/Kareem who most people have at the top of their boards. You weigh them all up and try to make a judgement. I've voted for guys with strong longevity and am trying to nominate Stockton. I've voted for shorter careers like Russell and currently am voting for both Giannis and Jokic. If there's anything I probably weigh more than most, it's not longevity or peak but the intangible/jerk factor which is why I have guys like Jordan, Barkley, and Harden lower than most.

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

I think it’s almost time to vote for Gilmore.

Unlike fellow MVP and 11 time-star Pettit, Gilmore led his team to a title in a much tougher league. The ABA in 1975 was probably stronger than the NBA. Gilmore has a skill set that would absolutely translate today. When I look at Gilmore, I see a guy who physically resembles a stronger, slightly shorter version of Kareem. His huge arms and relative fluidity would make him an excellent rim-roller, who in a pinch could score in other ways in and around the rim. His short jump shots and hook look surprisingly clean, even if I don’t know how often they went in.

It’s easy to look on youtube and find extensive footage of Artis dunking on Kareem and playing great against the showtime Lakers, on just horrible Chicago teams that clearly didn’t put anything much around him. There’s even a game of the NBA stars against the ABA stars, where Gilmore matches up very well physically with 1972 Wilt. If we were in the top 10 that would mean nothing, but we’re now nominating people who will be 30 or higher all-time.

Statistically, Gilmore compares favourably to say Moses, who is already in.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I am more impressed by Gilmore than I am with guys like Ewing or Stockton, the latter wasn’t even a real star. The former seems to be perpetually overrated. Gilmore wishes he had all the help Ewing did.

This simply isn't true. Prime Ewing never had a teammate as good as Dan Issel.