NBA 75 vs 2023 RealGM 75 (of 100)

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Re: forced inclusion of entire previous list. Yup, that's the big sin. I'm still stunned they let that happen given that's not how previous updates to the NBA & WNBA's lists along these lines go. I feel like it's likely nobody told the voters to do this, but because the old voters were biased and the young voters they chose weren't qualified by actual expertise, this became the easy way out.

It wouldn't surprise me if the NBA did want the whole previous list to carry over - not for any ideological or basketball reasons, but public relations reasons. A majority of those older guys are still alive, and the ones that aren't, their families are probably still around and their teammates might be too. It's a very public list and if some older players who were on the 50 don't make the 75, like Maravich or Monroe or whoever, then it becomes a story. People can get offended. It's one thing to not make a list, it's another to be removed. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if the powers that be in the NBA just decided it wasn't worth the potential headaches.

But that's just pure speculation on my part.

I think the fact that they were seen as "already on the list" was part of the problem, but I think it's important to recognize that the NBA 75 is just another increment of the type of list the NBA has been doing for forever, and in the past they had no such reluctance. Guys like Bob Davies & Joe Fulks made previous lists, for example.

There's an extra weirdness here for me because honestly I think if there was any pull to keep legacy guys on the list, Davies should have been carried through indefinitely. The idea that there was ever a time when Dave Bing was more worthy than Davies just seems silly to me.

Fulks of course on the other is the type of guy who represents a clear decision path. If it's about who is best at basketball, Fulks deserves no mention, because he really couldn't even compete within his own era once the big boys from the NBL joined the league. If it's about the NBA celebrating its own history from the start, then Fulks should be mentioned.

I am aware of the earlier lists, but I think it's also worth underscoring that the media in general had grown exponentially by the late 90s(expanded cable and satellite packages with sometimes hundreds of channels, the internet/web existed in its early state) in comparison to when the previous lists were done in 1971 and 1981, and that the NBA specifically was being paid attention to MUCH more in 1996 than in those earlier time periods. The 50 at 50 was just a bigger deal. It was a year-long celebration. There were those interview commercials(with 50 at 50 players) that were on NBA TV for what felt like years after. NBA Live 2000 was the first basketball simulation game to feature classic players, and the list of players, thought not 100% identical to the 50 at 50, was close, and I'd find it hard to believe that's a coincidence.

My point being, I wouldn't be surprised if in 1996, nobody but the most hard core of NBA fans even knew the 25 year anniversary team was a thing(and a lot of them may not have known or remembered who Bob Davies was). When the 75 was announced, everyone was comparing to the 50 at 50.

There are just more eyeballs on it now, more media platforms to debate/complain on, etc, than ever before.

But again, total speculation on my part.

Re: current MVP guys move up too fast on RealGM. I definitely think this happens sometimes, and it speaks to a certain assumption that a guy's prime status won't age poorly that I don't necessarily object to. While it makes sense to try to be conservative in your assessment to avoid having a guy awkwardly move back down your list, I'm okay with this happening on my personal lists because it just means I changed my assessment about the guy.

Dwight Howard's the guy I think of here. I memory serves I wasn't actually a Top 100 champion for him in any project, but when he made his debut - and to this day peak - in 2011 at #39, I didn't think that was crazy high for him, because at the time I thought more highly of what could be built around him. I did not know at the time that early weirdness in his relationship with the Orlando Magic would bloom into a bizarre situation where he'd bounce from team to team insisting that he wanted to play as a volume post-scorer at a time when NBA teams were realizing that almost no one should be a volume post-scorer. I did not know, in other words, that anything built around Howard was destined to fall apart.

Depending on one's philosophy, one might believe none of this relevant, but I think the reality is that for most, even those who don't want to be swayed by stuff like this probably are.

So yeah, there's a non-zero probability that we'll eventually see how high we placed Giannis or Jokic and cringe at how much we overrated them, but I think documenting the phenomenon behind the cringe is worthwhile.

Yeah, I've been fairly vocal about my feelings about certain active players being pushed too early. I've pointed to examples from past lists too, like when LeBron made the 2006 list despite only being in the league for three years and having won nothing at that point.

But to be fair, if you look at the NBA's 50 at 50, which was announced in 1996, they voted Shaq in, who had only played four years at that point and - though he'd been to the 1995 Finals and 1996 ECF - hadn't won anything; likewise they voted David Robinson in, who had seven years at that point and on WCF appearance in 1995. (There wasn't anything quite like that on the 75 - I think the closest was Giannis, who was starting his ninth season and already had a ring when that list was announced.)

I do think Wade & LeBron making it in 2006 represents a bit of an obsolete viewpoint for this group back when it was more influenced by the NBA 50. The fact that Shaq made the 50 despite not really achieving much to that point spoke to a bit more of a "most outstanding" focus, and in 2006, Wade & LeBron felt outstanding.

I don't think a player analogous to 3-year LeBron would make the 100 today.

On the other hand, we really haven't seen a 3-year player like Wade since Wade, and so I'd stay he still makes the 100 but does so at a lower rank.

Just responding to the underlined, because I starting thinking about it - Kawhi, maybe? Drafted in 2011, made the Finals in years 2 and 3, won a championship and Finals MVP in year 3?

[Doctor MJ]

It wouldn't surprise me if the NBA did want the whole previous list to carry over - not for any ideological or basketball reasons, but public relations reasons. A majority of those older guys are still alive, and the ones that aren't, their families are probably still around and their teammates might be too. It's a very public list and if some older players who were on the 50 don't make the 75, like Maravich or Monroe or whoever, then it becomes a story. People can get offended. It's one thing to not make a list, it's another to be removed. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if the powers that be in the NBA just decided it wasn't worth the potential headaches.

But that's just pure speculation on my part.

I think the fact that they were seen as "already on the list" was part of the problem, but I think it's important to recognize that the NBA 75 is just another increment of the type of list the NBA has been doing for forever, and in the past they had no such reluctance. Guys like Bob Davies & Joe Fulks made previous lists, for example.

There's an extra weirdness here for me because honestly I think if there was any pull to keep legacy guys on the list, Davies should have been carried through indefinitely. The idea that there was ever a time when Dave Bing was more worthy than Davies just seems silly to me.

Fulks of course on the other is the type of guy who represents a clear decision path. If it's about who is best at basketball, Fulks deserves no mention, because he really couldn't even compete within his own era once the big boys from the NBL joined the league. If it's about the NBA celebrating its own history from the start, then Fulks should be mentioned.

I am aware of the earlier lists, but I think it's also worth underscoring that the media in general had grown exponentially by the late 90s(expanded cable and satellite packages with sometimes hundreds of channels, the internet/web existed in its early state) in comparison to when the previous lists were done in 1971 and 1981, and that the NBA specifically was being paid attention to MUCH more in 1996 than in those earlier time periods. The 50 at 50 was just a bigger deal. It was a year-long celebration. There were those interview commercials(with 50 at 50 players) that were on NBA TV for what felt like years after. NBA Live 2000 was the first basketball simulation game to feature classic players, and the list of players, thought not 100% identical to the 50 at 50, was close, and I'd find it hard to believe that's a coincidence.

My point being, I wouldn't be surprised if in 1996, nobody but the most hard core of NBA fans even knew the 25 year anniversary team was a thing(and a lot of them may not have known or remembered who Bob Davies was). When the 75 was announced, everyone was comparing to the 50 at 50.

There are just more eyeballs on it now, more media platforms to debate/complain on, etc, than ever before.

But again, total speculation on my part.

Oh I'd say you're right, and I'll also say that 75 is always harder to make that 50 even without the historical component.

But what's also clearly the case is that when they made the voter panel this time around, they chose people for their names rather than for their expertise.

I know it's self-serving of me to say "They should have asked RealGM to be involved" even though the list would have been better had they done so, but in general they weren't focused on getting people known to be basketball historians. They were more focused, for example, even aside from the fact that they put so many basketball players on the list, they were more focused on getting big name talking heads than they were getting serious people attached to the Hall of Fame or APBR.

In the end I can't even say this is truly a mistake because they knew full well what they were focusing on and what they weren't, but from a long-term perspective, it hardly makes sense to keep having new lists where the world asks, "Wait, who is Dave Bing?" over and over again. Fine to make people ask that about old-timers they don't know about if the players were truly significant, but those that do research Bing quickly realize that there's really nothing there.

Yeah, I've been fairly vocal about my feelings about certain active players being pushed too early. I've pointed to examples from past lists too, like when LeBron made the 2006 list despite only being in the league for three years and having won nothing at that point.

But to be fair, if you look at the NBA's 50 at 50, which was announced in 1996, they voted Shaq in, who had only played four years at that point and - though he'd been to the 1995 Finals and 1996 ECF - hadn't won anything; likewise they voted David Robinson in, who had seven years at that point and on WCF appearance in 1995. (There wasn't anything quite like that on the 75 - I think the closest was Giannis, who was starting his ninth season and already had a ring when that list was announced.)

I do think Wade & LeBron making it in 2006 represents a bit of an obsolete viewpoint for this group back when it was more influenced by the NBA 50. The fact that Shaq made the 50 despite not really achieving much to that point spoke to a bit more of a "most outstanding" focus, and in 2006, Wade & LeBron felt outstanding.

I don't think a player analogous to 3-year LeBron would make the 100 today.

On the other hand, we really haven't seen a 3-year player like Wade since Wade, and so I'd stay he still makes the 100 but does so at a lower rank.

Just responding to the underlined, because I starting thinking about it - Kawhi, maybe? Drafted in 2011, made the Finals in years 2 and 3, won a championship and Finals MVP in year 3?[/quote]

I would not consider Kawhi to have had any Top 5 seasons in his first 3 years, whereas I think Wade actually had the best season of anyone in '05-06.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Thier list was built drom the Cleveland top50 one, they decided not to remove anybody from there.

[JLei]

On their list, the four names I think would fit best on our list are Rodman, Iverson, Cousy, and Worthy.

On our list, the most “replaceable” to me are Embiid, Jones, maybe one of the Wallaces or the cousins.

Gilmore’s exclusion makes sense with the framework. Bing over Lanier never made sense and has always been indefensible.

Iverson being the only different player on their list to be drafted after 1986 helps explain some of the other more baffling exclusions like Pau or Dwight or the entirety of the 2003-08 Pistons core.

Good observation but I will note they have Carmelo Anthony on their list as well.

It was harder (too hard) for new guys to make the list because of their process...but they still managed to squeeze Melo.

I think it's really quite interesting that Melo made it but Vince Carter did not.

I mean pretty easy to see why. Carmelo is 10th on the scoring list (9th at the time) and by "accomplishments" more accomplished than Vince (10 all-star selections, 4 all-nba selections, lead his team the WCF as a lead).

It's when you get into the deeper analysis and looking at the impact metrics that Carter shines a bit more.

I think Carmelo's auto inclusion is due to his tie to Bron and Wade in that draft class as the 3 dudes that came in and took over the league but I mean it's also easy to see his auto inclusion because he's 9th on the scoring list which to historians is quite important and that every other player there was in.

[Doctor MJ]

On their list, the four names I think would fit best on our list are Rodman, Iverson, Cousy, and Worthy.

On our list, the most “replaceable” to me are Embiid, Jones, maybe one of the Wallaces or the cousins.

Gilmore’s exclusion makes sense with the framework. Bing over Lanier never made sense and has always been indefensible.

Iverson being the only different player on their list to be drafted after 1986 helps explain some of the other more baffling exclusions like Pau or Dwight or the entirety of the 2003-08 Pistons core.

Good observation but I will note they have Carmelo Anthony on their list as well.

It was harder (too hard) for new guys to make the list because of their process...but they still managed to squeeze Melo.

I think it's really quite interesting that Melo made it but Vince Carter did not.

I mean pretty easy to see why. Carmelo is 10th on the scoring list (9th at the time) and by "accomplishments" more accomplished than Vince (10 all-star selections, 4 all-nba selections, lead his team the WCF as a lead).

It's when you get into the deeper analysis and looking at the impact metrics that Carter shines a bit more.

I think Carmelo's auto inclusion is due to his tie to Bron and Wade in that draft class as the 3 dudes that came in and took over the league but I mean it's also easy to see his auto inclusion because he's 9th on the scoring list which to historians is quite important and that every other player there was in.

These are good explanations that make clear that the answer is not all that mysterious, but it's strange when you think about what happened.

For many, when Carter adapted adroitly to become a great role player once he could no longer be an impactful star, it was like what he did after that no longer counted.

By contrast, Melo was generally not super impactful no matter what he did, but because he wasn't really good at anything but scoring, continued trying to be a volume scorer for forever, and there was a time period where he had no business being seen as a Top 30 level player but still got thought of as an all-star by default.

But the really interesting thing here to me is that prime vs prime as a celebrity, Carter was a considerably bigger deal than Melo. Carter was at one point the single most exciting player in the game, while Melo could never make that claim and in general was less exciting than multiple other players from around his same draft class.

The message seems to be that the way to get seen as having a better career than someone with a better prime than you is to just make sure you never stop volume shooting until they stop letting you play.

[Owly]

The message seems to be that the way to get seen as having a better career than someone with a better prime than you is to just make sure you never stop volume shooting until they stop letting you play.

And be a high pick with a "big" NCAA rep (not that Carter's was picked low or was tiny college career).
And create an association between yourself and bigger stars.
And play in New York, maybe.
But yeah, keep firing I guess.

[penbeast0]

And now, the Iverson debate.

[JLei]

The message seems to be that the way to get seen as having a better career than someone with a better prime than you is to just make sure you never stop volume shooting until they stop letting you play.

And be a high pick with a "big" NCAA rep (not that Carter's was picked low or was tiny college career).
And create an association between yourself and bigger stars.
And play in New York, maybe.
But yeah, keep firing I guess.

Also even though it's supposed to be NBA only. They are definitely counting the Team USA stuff. He's important to that story with Kobe and Lebron with him being the most decorated Olympian in the era where they had to redeem the team after the failure of 04.

That's probably the area where he is the biggest/ most impactful star and putting himself on the level above where his NBA career showed.

Which I mean I'm not a big fan of really counting Olympic stuff at all for Team USA for legacy (I mean they are supposed to win) but I know a lot of people consider it very important.

[Doctor MJ]

The message seems to be that the way to get seen as having a better career than someone with a better prime than you is to just make sure you never stop volume shooting until they stop letting you play.

And be a high pick with a "big" NCAA rep (not that Carter's was picked low or was tiny college career).
And create an association between yourself and bigger stars.
And play in New York, maybe.
But yeah, keep firing I guess.

Also even though it's supposed to be NBA only. They are definitely counting the Team USA stuff. He's important to that story with Kobe and Lebron with him being the most decorated Olympian in the era where they had to redeem the team after the failure of 04.

That's probably the area where he is the biggest/ most impactful star and putting himself on the level above where his NBA career showed.

Which I mean I'm not a big fan of really counting Olympic stuff at all for Team USA for legacy (I mean they are supposed to win) but I know a lot of people consider it very important.

I think the crazy thing about that is the fact that:

1. Only one of those guys was on the team that failed (Melo).
2. Only one of those guys was the star of a Gold Medal team (Carter).

I'm not arguing with you. I think there's something to what you say...but people are basically dismissing Carter's Olympic accomplishment because it happened before the nadir of Team USA basketball rather than during it. Bizarre.

[OhayoKD]

And be a high pick with a "big" NCAA rep (not that Carter's was picked low or was tiny college career).
And create an association between yourself and bigger stars.
And play in New York, maybe.
But yeah, keep firing I guess.

Also even though it's supposed to be NBA only. They are definitely counting the Team USA stuff. He's important to that story with Kobe and Lebron with him being the most decorated Olympian in the era where they had to redeem the team after the failure of 04.

That's probably the area where he is the biggest/ most impactful star and putting himself on the level above where his NBA career showed.

Which I mean I'm not a big fan of really counting Olympic stuff at all for Team USA for legacy (I mean they are supposed to win) but I know a lot of people consider it very important.

I think the crazy thing about that is the fact that:

1. Only one of those guys was on the team that failed (Melo).
2. Only one of those guys was the star of a Gold Medal team (Carter).

I'm not arguing with you. I think there's something to what you say...but people are basically dismissing Carter's Olympic accomplishment because it happened before the nadir of Team USA basketball rather than during it. Bizarre.

So I guess the case here is Vince peaked higher but even if he was their star(read: leading scorer), I don't know he was really more important to the team than KG and I wonder if this is rewarding him for playing with teammates who were less scoring orientated. Honestly if mourning hadn't missed 2 games, I'd probably need some convincing on that front too.

Melo wasn't his team's best player for sure, but he is the only athlete to win 3 golds in a row and is also team usa's points and rebounds leader. I think it's fair to argue in terms of international career carmelo is signifcantly more accomplished

Also don't think there's value in using a 19 year old Melo's 6.7 mpg worth of involvement in the Bronze team as a mark against him. If anything, them losing when he had close to no role and winning when he became one of their minutes leader would be a positive indicator of his influence on the team

[penbeast0]

I've heard nothing but good things from peers and commentators about Anthony's Olympic time. Nonetheless, this is indeed NBA only.

[OhayoKD]

I've heard nothing but good things from peers and commentators about Anthony's Olympic time. Nonetheless, this is indeed NBA only.

Was the NBA 75 explicit about that?

[penbeast0]

I've heard nothing but good things from peers and commentators about Anthony's Olympic time. Nonetheless, this is indeed NBA only.

Was the NBA 75 explicit about that?

Oh bleep, I was thinking top 100 project, sorry.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Iverson swung from overrated to underrated faster than any player I can remember