RGM Top 100 Vote Thread - The Greatest Player of All-Time

[Jimmy76]

just dont have time right now

vote: Jordan
nominate: Dr J

[Baller 24]

Are we serious about respecting prior eras? Relative to his competition, it's pretty clear to me Mikan is a top ten guy. Pioneering and off court achievements are superb as well.

Take into account era dominance, but also take into account were they better basketball players? That's the tough one, and based on my personal opinion, I certainly don't think Mikan is better than anyone from the Top 100, but with respect to the dominance to his era, I presume he'll get nominated somewhere along the line.

[Vinsanity420]

Vote: MJ
Nominate: Oscar Robertson

My Top 5 for now are pretty much set in stone, so I won't be debating it all that much. Beyond that, I will be more open to discussion - that's where things get interesting.

[JordansBulls]

Kareem: The biggest reason I would pick him – In an “All Time Draft”, many of which have been on RealGM, Kareem is usually the smart choice to take #1. He gives you elite offense and defense

That's not true: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1056693&start=60
(Bastillon's post)

As for nominating West before Robertson could people doing so provide some kind of explanation?
Here are some arguments why West wasn't better than Robertson: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1122883
Remember, if you are saying that West is better because he was better defender and more clutch player, then the same could be said about West > Magic.

West was a better playoff performer than Oscar.


Most Career 40+ Point Games in Playoffs History

1. MJ = 38
2. West = 20
3. Baylor = 14
4. Wilt = 13
5. Shaq = 12
6. Hakeem = 11
Kobe = 11
Iverson = 10
9. Lebron = 9


Most Career 30+ Point Games in Playoffs History
MJ - 109
Kobe - 81
Kareem - 75
West -74
Baylor - 60



ALL-TIME HIGHEST SCORING AVERAGES, NBA PLAYOFFS
Jerry West, LAL vs BAL, 1965..... 46.3
Michael Jordan, CHI vs CLE, 1988..... 45.2
Michael Jordan, CHI vs MIA, 1992..... 45.0

Just think about it, West played in less playoff games than Wilt and had more games of 40+ and 30+ when scoring was Wilt's best attribute.

[Baller 24]

West and Robertson over Erving, why? I'd like to take into consideration that Erving's impact is likely on par with the likes of Magic, Bird, and Kareem. ABA years I'd say at least throughout his peak years, you can consider his '74/'75 years as one of the best peak seasons of all-time. And in terms of quality and production there wasn't much of a difference between the NBA and ABA, both produced some great players, Erving was clearly well and above the pact as tier one talent. His game transcended pretty well onto the NBA, and his impact continued until and after they won a championship. He's got accolades from the ABA and NBA (championships and MVPs in both) that compare with the top of the crew.

[JordansBulls]

West and Robertson over Erving, why? I'd like to take into consideration that Erving's impact is likely on par with the likes of Magic, Bird, and Kareem. ABA years I'd say at least throughout his peak years, you can consider his '74/'75 years as one of the best peak seasons of all-time. And in terms of quality and production there wasn't much of a difference between the NBA and ABA, both produced some great players, Erving was clearly well and above the pact as tier one talent. His game transcended pretty well onto the NBA, and his impact continued until and after they won a championship. He's got accolades from the ABA and NBA (championships and MVPs and both) that compare with the top of the crew.

Well I personally nominated Erving because I am including ABA as well, I'm just not sure how many posters are including ABA in the discussion here.

[pancakes3]

It just makes no sense to me why Wilt gets so much praise and hype, I understand his era dominance (although it can be argued that Shaq is arguably the most dominant athlete to ever play, just like Wilt, there was not one player that could stop him, and he went up against the best; don't let the '95 Finals fool you, Olajuwon in no way did he stop or even come close to containing Shaq), I understand how great of an athlete he was, but IMHO he does not so easily get the sway of votes over Shaq. Not for me anyways.

kind of hard to be the GOAT center when you don't have a single rebounding title.

[Baller 24]

It just makes no sense to me why Wilt gets so much praise and hype, I understand his era dominance (although it can be argued that Shaq is arguably the most dominant athlete to ever play, just like Wilt, there was not one player that could stop him, and he went up against the best; don't let the '95 Finals fool you, Olajuwon in no way did he stop or even come close to containing Shaq), I understand how great of an athlete he was, but IMHO he does not so easily get the sway of votes over Shaq. Not for me anyways.

kind of hard to be the GOAT center when you don't have a single rebounding title.

Not the GOAT center for me personally, I've got both behind Kareem and Russell, however the debate for me is why Wilt so easily over Shaq? Rebounds are only a small part of the equation, especially considering in terms of rebound rate there's not really THAT big of a significant advantage.

[An Unbiased Fan]

A little confused - you grade Russ down for being from a prior era and then hope the older players aren't graded down?

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

I tend to evaluate players on both dominance of their era, AND also how their play translates across differing eras.

To me, it just seems as if Russell's dominance in the 60's gets praised, but issues about how well he would have across other eras are downplayed or dismissed. Conversely, other older players like Mikan, Cousy, West, Baylor, Petitt etc., seem to get no beneift of the doubt. I just feel there should be better balance in criteria used for the older guys, because it's seems to be either too harsh or too lenient, right now.

[TMACFORMVP]

Erving's impact on the game was ridiculous. I remember seeing a post from TLA just the type of impact of he had. In the ABA's Final season (75-76), the Erving led Nets won the championship against the Denver Nuggets. After that season, the ABA/NBA merged, and both teams went in with nearly similar rosters - except Erving moved to the Sixers. The Nuggets were still a dominant team, finishing tied for the second best record in the NBA. The Nets? With the loss of Erving, and addition of Archibald for roughly half the season, the Nets finished with the worst record in the NBA (by far, I might add). Granted the Nets lost a few other smaller pieces, and had some injuries to Williamson, Erving was essentially the difference between a top record team in the NBA, and the worst.

And the Sixers you ask? Roughly .500 team before Erving joined, then with him, an NBA Finals appearance his first year with the team. Had it not been potentially for Maurice Lucas's statement, which many argue changed the series, then they could have potentially been the NBA champions.

I think then when you factor in what he did for the game, including the ABA, he'd get the nod to keep my nomination with him -- over Moses.

Nominate: Julius Erving

For the little era debate, I'm all about respecting prior eras, but I'd probably be a bit disrespectful to pre Russell/Wilt era. It was just a completely different sort of game at that time, without as much conclusive evidence about the players that played at the time. In terms of resume, Mikan deserves a top ten spot, but we just don't have the conclusive evidence to claim he'd also be a transcendental player like we do with Russell and Wilt, IMO.

[Baller 24]

A little confused - you grade Russ down for being from a prior era and then hope the older players aren't graded down?

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

I tend to evaluate players on both dominance of their era, AND also how their play translates across differing eras.

I'm going to go ahead and add this part to the criteria, considering so much is put into the dominance of the era, that this is completely avoided.

[pancakes3]

It just makes no sense to me why Wilt gets so much praise and hype, I understand his era dominance (although it can be argued that Shaq is arguably the most dominant athlete to ever play, just like Wilt, there was not one player that could stop him, and he went up against the best; don't let the '95 Finals fool you, Olajuwon in no way did he stop or even come close to containing Shaq), I understand how great of an athlete he was, but IMHO he does not so easily get the sway of votes over Shaq. Not for me anyways.

kind of hard to be the GOAT center when you don't have a single rebounding title.

Not the GOAT center for me personally, I've got both behind Kareem and Russell, however the debate for me is why Wilt so easily over Shaq? Rebounds are only a small part of the equation, especially considering in terms of rebound rate there's not really THAT big of a significant advantage.

rebounding RATES? i've only seen estimates and yeah... the advantage is significant, especially if you look outside of the peak 2-3 seasons shaq had.

well if you've got KAJ and Russell both over Shaq/Wilt, and then you look at the 1st team nods in the '60's and see that Wilt was clearly more favorably compared to Russ... it's really not much of a leap of faith to think that Wilt and Russ were at least comparable. compound that with the shortcoming of rebounding (or blocks) and that Kobe had a lot to do with the 3peat, and that wilt was a 4x MVP while Shaq only a 1x (2x if you count the robbery in '01) and i think there exists at least a CASE, if not a convincing case.

at least something you could look to and say, ok, well even if i don't agree personally i can see how others might feel that way.

[Baller 24]

rebounding RATES? i've only seen estimates and yeah... the advantage is significant, especially if you look outside of the peak 2-3 seasons shaq had.

well if you've got KAJ and Russell both over Shaq/Wilt, and then you look at the 1st team nods in the '60's and see that Wilt was clearly more favorably compared to Russ... it's really not much of a leap of faith to think that Wilt and Russ were at least comparable. compound that with the shortcoming of rebounding (or blocks) and that Kobe had a lot to do with the 3peat, and that wilt was a 4x MVP while Shaq only a 1x (2x if you count the robbery in '01) and i think there exists at least a CASE, if not a convincing case.

at least something you could look to and say, ok, well even if i don't agree personally i can see how others might feel that way.

Definitely have good points, and I can understand how others feel that way, but this entire project isn't always dependent on an overall resume. Kobe was a big part sure, but Wilt's had big players too with West, Baylor, Goodrich, Greer, Walker, and Cunningham. I'm not arguing that there isn't a case that Wilt should be ranked higher than Shaq or vice versa, I'm trying to figure out why so easily is this the case for many.

[Vinsanity420]

Well I personally nominated Erving because I am including ABA as well, I'm just not sure how many posters are including ABA in the discussion here.

Something like that... I am not discrediting the ABA or anything - the league obviously had a talented pool of players, but it was a different league...it simply wasn't the NBA. I don't hold the same value for ABA accomplishments as I do for the NBA. It doesn't really help that his numbers dropped across the board right after the merger (this probably had more to do with adjusting to the new league and his new teammates, but it still needs to be taken into account).

In the NBA, he still had a couple of great years ( such as the 79-80 season, where he was phenomenal), and he was still a high impact player despite being past his prime, so I see him as say, a Top 15 - 20 caliber player... but I would have problems ranking him over West or Oscar.

[ElGee]

re: Different Eras. I don't understand how we are supposed to seriously consider "how well game translates to other eras." League rules as well as economic factors change the dynamics of the game, and the sport evolved. Why not just judge guys based on what they did?

re: Intangibles. These are *already* built in to impact. If someone had really bad off-court issues, or zapped a team in practice and uninspired them, then we would see in that a player's impact. I fear people look at a player's impact (intangibles built in) and then ADD some intangible factor, which really at its root is just a bias.

I see this with McGrady vs. Kobe Bryant. It's been noted by many NBA people that McGrady had "lazy" habits, and like Allen Iverson, didn't take practice as seriously as he could have. BUT THE DUDE STILL SMOKED THE LEAGUE IN 2003.

Someone says, well, if McGrady had more "fire" (or whatever) he would have had a better career. That's true probably. But he made SEVEN all-nba teams. Guess what - if Shaq cared more about basketball he might have been the GOAT.

But we should just judge these guys on how they played/actual impact.

[ElGee]

GOAT is Jordan vs. Russell for me. I think we all know the case for MJ. As for Russell, it's his astronomical defensive impact: http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/31/bil ... ve-impact/

[Baller 24]

Something like that... I am not discrediting the ABA or anything - the league obviously had a talented pool of players, but it was a different league...it simply wasn't the NBA. I don't hold the same value for ABA accomplishments as I do for the NBA. It doesn't really help that his numbers dropped across the board right after the merger (this probably had more to do with adjusting to the new league and his new teammates, but it still needs to be taken into account).

Read above to what TMACFORMVP posted.

Why wouldn't you hold the same value for ABA accomplishments? When in terms of overall production and competition the NBA and ABA were neck and neck statistically speaking. The talent and overall pool was clearly there with the NBA aside from maybe two to at most three extra tier one talented players on the NBA side. As for his statistical drop, it wasn't because of him switching into a different league, definitely not. He had surgeries/injury issues with his knees, which is the main reason for the statistical drop (which is one of the main reasons '75 Erving is considered at one of the great all-time peaks seasons), although it is clearly picked up later, he still isn't statistically producing the same kind of numbers. However, it's definitely great to note that when you consider Erving, his impact despite his statistical drop never changed a beat. It's incredibly hard to come onto a .500 team after the merger and take them straight to the NBA finals.

In the NBA, he still had a couple of great years ( such as the 79-80 season, where he was phenomenal), and he was still a high impact player despite being past his prime, so I see him as say, a Top 15 - 20 caliber player... but I would have problems ranking him over West or Oscar.

Well, 11 seasons in the NBA and he had the following accolades:
NBA MVP
NBA Champion
5x All-NBA First Team
2x All-NBA Second Team
11x NBA All-Star
6x Top 5 MVP Vote Getter
2x Top 10 MVP Vote Getter

And that's not counting his overall resume in the ABA, where he won 2 championships, multiple MVPs, and was a part of multiple ABA teams and defensive teams at his utter most peak. He's a winner in both leagues, his impact is absolutely astonishing, and definitely greater than that of West or Robertson (who wasn't on par in terms of playoff performances).

Compare that to both Robertson and West

West (14 Years)
9x Top 5 MVP vote getter
10x All-NBA First
1x All-NBA Second
4x All-NBA Defensive Teams
NBA Champion

Robertson
NBA Champion
NBA MVP
12× NBA All-Star
9x All-NBA First Team
2x All-NBA Second team

And also take not that both of these guys were loaded with talented rosters, and never had to compete for All-NBA positions, while Dr. J had to with the likes of Larry Bird, Bernard King, George Garvin, Elvin Hayes, and Adrian Dantley. Where for West and Robertson, their compeition was relatively weak aside from Walt Fraizer, whom wasn't even being considered until the early parts of the 70s.

[lorak]

Kareem: The biggest reason I would pick him – In an “All Time Draft”, many of which have been on RealGM, Kareem is usually the smart choice to take #1. He gives you elite offense and defense

That's not true: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1056693&start=60
(Bastillon's post)

As for nominating West before Robertson could people doing so provide some kind of explanation?
Here are some arguments why West wasn't better than Robertson: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1122883
Remember, if you are saying that West is better because he was better defender and more clutch player, then the same could be said about West > Magic.

West was a better playoff performer than Oscar.

No, he wasn't:

Code: Select all

Robertson's and West's playoffs statistics from 1961-62 to 1969-70

stat   OR 62-70   JW 62-70
PPG   29.7      30.9
TS%   56.6      55.6
FT%   86.9      80.6
RPG   9.3      5.9
APG   9.4      5.9


[Bucksfans1and2]

Vote for Kareem

I flip back and forth on Jordan and Kareem but if there's ever a tie in my mind, I give it to the big. Many people claim that Magic was "the guy" on those Lakers championship teams, and offensively there absolutely correct but Kareem anchored the defense as well as being a dynamic scorer in his own right. Kareem wasn't an actual #2 impact guy like Kobe was on the Shaq years because of his defense.

Nominate: Jerry West

[An Unbiased Fan]

I would hate for it to seem like I'm piling on Russell, but since he's in contention for the #1 spot, I feel compelled to point out a few more things.

1) I tend to feel that Russell dominance, even within his own era, is a bit overstated. Amongst the Top 10 candidates, Russell is the ONLY one with less than 6 All-NBA 1st team nods. Even more amazing is that he barely has half of that total at 3. Now competition definitely factors into this since both MJ & KAJ probably had the easiest time getting 1st teams nods during their eras, but even still, it's hard to call Russ the GOAT when he wasn't even rated the #1 center 9 out of 12 years.

2) Not only did Wilt best Russell in All-NBA 1st teams 7 to 3, he was also the more dominant rebounder & scorer. Wilt was #1 in RPG 11 out of 13 times, and #2 the other 2 seasons. He was #1 in PPG seven times, and led the NBA in FG% nine times. Russell was the superior defender, but it should also be noted that Wilt made 2 All-D 1st teams at the end of his career.

I give Russell major credit for his leadership & intangibles, but it's hard to ignore the multiple HOFers he was surrounded by in an 8 team league. I'm not sure how Russ is over Wilt in both dominance of the 60's as a player, or in how well they would do across other decades. Wilt's skillset and style of play would be dominant from the 50's-00's, while I question what Russell would produce post-merger. A center who shoots in the mid to low 40% would have a tough time outside of the 50-60's.