RealGM Top 100 List #59

[penbeast0]

Criteria: Take into account both peak and career play, era dominance, impact on the game of basketball, and how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras. To be more exact, how great they were at playing the game of basketball.

Voting Will End In 2 Days -- Please vote and nominate

Newest addition:

Penny Hardaway

2x 1st team All-NBA
1x 3rd team All-NBA
4x All-Star

Robert Parish

Hall of Fame 2003
1x 2nd team All-NBA
1x 3rd team All-NBA
4x NBA Champion (once as deep bench with Bulls)
9x All-Star

Sam Jones

Hall of Fame 1984
3x All-NBA 2nd team
10x NBA Champion
5x All-Star

Pau Gasol

1x All-NBA 2nd team
2x All-NBA 3rd team
2x NBA Champion
4x All-Star

Bernard King

2x All-NBA 1st team
1x All-NBA 2nd team
1x All-NBA 3rd team
4x All-Star

Marques Johnson

1x All-NBA 1st team
2x All-NBA 2nd team
5x All-Star

Manu Ginobili

2x All-NBA 3rd
3x NBA Champion
Sixth Man of the Year 2008
2x All-Star

Dennis Rodman

2x All-NBA 3rd Team
5x NBA Champion
2x Defensive Player of the Year
7x All-Defense 1st Team
1x All-Defense 2nd Team
2x All-Star


Grant Hill

1x 1st Team All-NBA
3x 2nd Team All-NBA
7x All-Star
Rookie of the Year

[penbeast0]

I loved Marques Johnson and the Bucks, just think he's a little high here. He was a pretty standard superstar scoring 3 . . . right in the middle of the pack in the 80s with English, King, Dantley, Wilkins, Aguirre, etc. -- good secondary stats compared to those contemporaries but the worst scoring stats. Then you add in his injuries and short peak and I just don't see him above guys like Hill, King, Jones, Manu . . . and what about Billy Cunningham, Larry Nance, James Worthy, Terry Cummings, Shawn Marion . . . the list of reasonable comps is pretty extreme. I know ElGee has been pushing him but I have seen nothing that makes him stand out the way Moncrief's defense, Hill's playmaking, Jones's and Ginobili's rings, or King's scoring does.

For the bigs, Rodman has the strongest resume with his GOAT resume and all those rings but also some of the highest negatives around. What he did in SA makes me wonder if he could play with most teams; in both Detroit and Chicago he had two of the strongest personality lead dogs around who could keep his stupidities under control. As for Parish or Gasol, the numbers aren't too different with Parish doing it longer and Gasol doing it in a slower league but Gasol's role in LA is bigger than Parish's with Boston so I lean to him.

De los anillos y otras cosas, votar por Pau Gasol

[penbeast0]

Point Guards -- Chauncey Billups was suprisingly efficient and solid on both ends of the court once he got established in Detroit. Nate Archibald was the most dominant PG left for 4 years, but was neither terribly efficient nor played any defense. Penny was similarly flashy in his short peak but without Tiny's superior playmaking and less dominant overall.

Wings -- On the wings, there are still great scorers left . . . the more spectacular but less consistent David Thompson or the statistically most efficient Adrian Dantley or 60s star Hal Greer -- I'd rather have prime Thompson than prime Tiny or Penny but the drug issues really hurt him for me. Billy Cunninghame and James Worthy deserve mention too.

Bobby Jones came up as a PF but won 1st team all-defense awards during years where he played PF/C (Denver), PF/SF (most of career), and even SF/SG (Philly when they added Barkley) plus he was a consistent top 10 in the league in fg% while scoring in the 10-15ppg range; his disadvantage is that he was an energizer bunny type player whose coaches consistently limited his minutes to about 30/g after his first couple of years -- during those first years, Jones did lead his Denver team to the best record in either lead in 75 without great talent around him although I tend to think of that year as Larry Brown's HOF coaching peak. Similar all around 2 way players who should be considered soon include Larry Nance, the NBA's greatest shotblocking non-C and 1st slam dunk champion and Shawn Marion.

Big Men -- On the offensive end, Amare Stoudamire and Chris Webber are the best modern players left but just have too many issues to rank above Jones. I think the other real contender is Jerry Lucas who was a great PF rebounder and an efficient scorer as the second star in Oscar on those great offensive Royals teams then was the center on the defensive oriented Knicks title squad in 73 when Reed's injuries caught up but again, never seemed that dominant. The last guy here would be Dolph Schayes who won all sorts of accolades for is toughness and heart as a big man in the 50s but was inefficient even for his era. He does have one secret weapon, he went to the line well and shot close to 90% there . . . still, looking at the numbers Neil Johnston should own him; someone has to show me his defense was dominant to vote for Schayes.

The centers left all have some issue with their games. Neil Johnston and Mel Daniels played against inferior competition during their primes and were more limited besides. Dikembe Mutombo wasn't a scorer but brings great shotblocking.

Playoffs between these. Billups led the big playoff win over the Lakers and earned the nickname Mr. Big Shot, Bobby Jones led Denver to the best record in either league in 75 as the best player then was the glue guy on those Philly teams that competed with the Showtime Lakers and the Bird Celtics for league dominance. Lucas had some big series, particularly 72, but was a part time player in the 73 title playoffs -- he's the weakest of the bunch here. Mutombo helped get Allen Iverson to a title game and upset 1st seed Seattle as an 8th seed in Denver.

I vote for Bobby Jones as arguably the most consistent and versatile defender outside of the dominant centers ever . . . 10 1st team All-Defense in his first 10 years is unmatched by anyone, ever and an efficient and heady offensive player with great intangibles.

After that . . .
2. Chauncey Billups?
3. OPEN TO ARGUMENTS

[penbeast0]

Fencer's List shows:

Vote -- Sam Jones
Nominate -- Dolph Schayes

[Dr Positivity]

Clearly Pau Gasol is going after these guys so I will go ahead and say

Vote Bernard King

Nominate Vince Carter

King clearly has a higher peak than Marques Johnson in 84 and King does trail much in longevity. Marques has 5 great Milwaukee years, other than 84, King has 81, 82 and 83 where he ranks very similarly statistically to Marques as a scorer in volume and efficiency and he takes his team to playoff caliber. So it's basically 4 v 5 just looking at their primes years wise - it's not that big of a difference if like me, you put a ton of value on 84 from a 'this guy could be the best on a title team and those are impossible to find' perspective, which got Paul and Walton in the top 50 for 1/2 years at that level. (That's not considering Marques 16ppg Mil/LAC years and all-star LAC one vs King's NJN years and Washington seasons, but I don't care a ton about non prime seasons. King's big Wash year and Marques best Clippers one were pretty good though)

Likewise with Grant Hill vs Marques Johnson, it seems pretty straight forward to me that Grant Hill is either equal as a scorer or only marginally worse, they are similar defenders and rebounders, but Hill is one of the true playmaking/pseudo point wings and Marques is not. To give an idea of the difference, Hill's AST% is between 31 and 36% 96 to 99, Marques' is between 15 and 20% from 80 to 84, which is right around Melo, 81-83 King, English level. He can pass the ball but his role is dramatically more off the ball than Hill's. When watching Marques, the phrase that strikes me is PF in a SF's body. He's a scary physical force on the court, but very much loves to play off the ball and find his shots rather than facilitate. Considering he started his career at PF this is not entirely surprising. Great player, probably would go within 3 or 4 spots of this vote for me among the players left on the board, but I believe Hill is simply the better player by having an entirely extra facilitator/PG dimension to his game that is very valuable while doing most of what Marques can

[therealbig3]

Vote: Marques Johnson
Nominate: Vince Carter

[drza]

Vote: Manu Ginobili
Nominate: Chris Webber

I'd be cool with a Mutombo nomination as well, and I could change it, but I'm sure that I value Webber above Vince Carter and at the moment that's fresh on my mind.

[therealbig3]

drza, I'd be interested in your rationale for Webber over Carter, or for Webber in general at this point.

My opinion of Webber is pretty negative. As you can probably get from our Duncan vs KG discussion, I value big men that can get a ton of opportunities at the line and convert on those opportunities. Webber did neither. He was a pretty poor FT shooter and pretty bad at getting to the line. His rebounding was never that amazing, and his defense was pretty poor. I do love his passing though, it was pretty awesome. But he had quite a few negatives, and I don't really think his passing ability (especially since he wasn't even the main creator, that was Bibby) is enough to overcome that.

And I haven't seen much evidence for him having a big impact...in fact, Sacramento played fine without Webber.

[lukekarts]

Right, I'm tempted to vote Pau Gasol on this one. I'm being persuaded away from Marques slightly; Pau has had a good career particularly internationally, and I'd put him on a similar level, except he's won more - and, one bad post-season aside, he's been largely consistent for almost a decade.

With regards to Vince, for all his talent I can't help but see him as a failure; hence why I'd much rather pick Worthy who despite not putting up the numbers consistently, excelled in the playoffs/Finals. I kind of see a case for Webber in the nomination discussion but I'd much rather look at a guy like Billups or Schayes at this point instead.

I'll wait for a few more arguments before finalising my nomination and vote.

[ronnymac2]

Likewise with Grant Hill vs Marques Johnson, it seems pretty straight forward to me that Grant Hill is either equal as a scorer or only marginally worse, they are similar defenders and rebounders, but Hill is one of the true playmaking/pseudo point wings and Marques is not. To give an idea of the difference, Hill's AST% is between 31 and 36% 96 to 99, Marques' is between 15 and 20% from 80 to 84, which is right around Melo, 81-83 King, English level. He can pass the ball but his role is dramatically more off the ball than Hill's. When watching Marques, the phrase that strikes me is PF in a SF's body. He's a scary physical force on the court, but very much loves to play off the ball and find his shots rather than facilitate. Considering he started his career at PF this is not entirely surprising. Great player, probably would go within 3 or 4 spots of this vote for me among the players left on the board, but I believe Hill is simply the better player by having an entirely extra facilitator/PG dimension to his game that is very valuable while doing most of what Marques can

Hill's ability to carry a load seems lesser than Johnson's though. Go through each individual box score for Grant (it doesn't take much time considering you really just need to look at 15 games overall) and you'll see what I mean. He just doesn't seem like much of a shot-maker, especially if put in a situation where his volume scoring is necessary.

[ronnymac2]

With regards to Vince, for all his talent I can't help but see him as a failure; hence why I'd much rather pick Worthy who despite not putting up the numbers consistently, excelled in the playoffs/Finals. I kind of see a case for Webber in the nomination discussion but I'd much rather look at a guy like Billups or Schayes at this point instead.

You should look at what Vince actually did, not what you think he should have done. Imagining what Vince could have been with his potential is a mind-stimulating, fun exercise that I enjoy taking part in as well from time to time. But it isn't for this thread.

[FJS]

Vote Marques
Nominate James Worthy

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Bernard King

Nominate: Vince Carter

[lukekarts]

With regards to Vince, for all his talent I can't help but see him as a failure; hence why I'd much rather pick Worthy who despite not putting up the numbers consistently, excelled in the playoffs/Finals. I kind of see a case for Webber in the nomination discussion but I'd much rather look at a guy like Billups or Schayes at this point instead.

You should look at what Vince actually did, not what you think he should have done. Imagining what Vince could have been with his potential is a mind-stimulating, fun exercise that I enjoy taking part in as well from time to time. But it isn't for this thread.

I am only looking at what he did; which is why I don't see value in him being discussed at this point.

[penbeast0]

Marques had one big scoring year of 25+ppg, his second best is only 21ppg. That's not that powerhouse a scorer compared to guys with equal length careers like David Thompson or Bernard King. I like Marques's secondary values more but are they really THAT special?

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Sam Jones
Nominate: Shawn Kemp

[ElGee]

vote: Marques Johnson
nominate: Nate Thurmond

Thurmond argument pending...

[therealbig3]

Marques had one big scoring year of 25+ppg, his second best is only 21ppg. That's not that powerhouse a scorer compared to guys with equal length careers like David Thompson or Bernard King. I like Marques's secondary values more but are they really THAT special?

I think the argument is that Marques could have scored more points, but that since he was part of a multi-polar offense, he sacrificed his scoring for the good of the team, much like Paul Pierce post-07.

And I do believe that argument, because he showed he could explode when asked to, and he did it consistently.

[therealbig3]

With regards to Vince, for all his talent I can't help but see him as a failure; hence why I'd much rather pick Worthy who despite not putting up the numbers consistently, excelled in the playoffs/Finals. I kind of see a case for Webber in the nomination discussion but I'd much rather look at a guy like Billups or Schayes at this point instead.

You should look at what Vince actually did, not what you think he should have done. Imagining what Vince could have been with his potential is a mind-stimulating, fun exercise that I enjoy taking part in as well from time to time. But it isn't for this thread.

I am only looking at what he did; which is why I don't see value in him being discussed at this point.

I think Carter can be criticized for not playing well in 07 against the Cavs in the playoffs, and because of his poor play, you can say that was the reason that the Nets lost. So knock him for that.

But I'm not seeing any other time when he played poorly in the playoffs during his prime. I mean in 00 his efficiency in the playoffs was bad, but it was only his 2nd year in the league and his first time in the playoffs...I think everybody is allowed one mulligan in terms of not playing well in the playoffs. It happens to everybody. I don't see how you can say he didn't play awesome in the 01 playoffs, and I already broke down his 05 and 06 playoffs and think that he played very well in those playoffs.

Overall, he was a good playoff performer, an explosive scorer, a good playmaker, and a very good rebounder. His defense was below average to average, true, but defense from a SG we know doesn't have much of an impact one way or another. And in terms of intangibles, his departure from the Raptors was ugly, but I never heard one criticism of him during his time with the Nets. And between their pseudo big 3, Carter stayed the longest out of him, Kidd, and Jefferson.

And I'm seeing 8 prime seasons from Carter, with good durability in those seasons. And even then, his 02 and 03 seasons aren't useless, he does play 60 and 43 games respectively. And there's good evidence for him having a big impact, from APM studies to just crudely looking at how the Nets played in 09 compared to 10.

So I'm seeing a guy who was very proficient in all aspects of the game, a guy who could carry a team come playoff time, a guy who had good longevity and durability, and a guy who had a big impact during his prime. So just looking at what he did, I don't see how he doesn't at least belong in the discussion at this point.

[therealbig3]

And I just wanted to look at how Carter performed over his 00-09 stretch, not including 02 or 03:

Regular season (624 games): 24.0 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 4.5 apg, 2.4 TOpg, .541 TS%
Playoffs (42 games): 25.9 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 5.2 apg, 2.7 TOpg, .516 TS%

I think people are looking at that 2.5% difference in efficiency too closely...it reminds me of the argument for Malone honestly: the drop off in efficiency isn't something that you can really criticize him for, because he was part of offenses in which he had to carry a huge offensive load, and there was really nobody else to take the pressure off him.

Compare Carter's regular season stretch to Kobe's, throwing out Kobe's first two seasons:

27.4 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 5.1 apg, 3.1 TOpg, .557 TS%

I'm definitely not trying to put Carter on Kobe's level, Kobe is CLEARLY a better player, hands down, but looking at those stats, I'm not seeing two totally dissimilar players. It looks like Carter is just a level down. Taking into account longevity and playoff production, Carter probably ends up 3 levels down...but I just compared him to the guy who was voted in at #10. If Carter got nominated now, he's projected for ~70. For him to look similar to the #10 guy makes Carter look very impressive, imo.