RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[Sinant]

I want to give beast his props. Thank you for putting this altogether and sticking with it for over a half year. Cheers!

This + as an outside lurker of the project, I'd like to thank all the voters for their dedication and the great arguments presented.

[therealbig3]

I want to give beast his props. Thank you for putting this altogether and sticking with it for over a half year. Cheers!

+1

+2

[therealbig3]

So who were the honorable mentions from some people, guys that didn't make it that you personally have in your top 100?

6 guys on my list missed the cut:

Rasheed Wallace
Terry Cummings
Chris Bosh
Paul Pressey
Amare Stoudemire
Shawn Marion

[lukekarts]

^ Probably just Sheed.

Thanks penbeast for pulling this together. I think it warrants some sort of discussion on the general board, now that the 'player comparisons' bit is out of the way.

[Doormatt]

really awesome list guys, props to everybody who contributed and made it possible.

[bastillon]

props Penbeast

[colts18]

MAybe I'm missing something, but there is no #97 on the list.

[therealbig3]

Yeah, #97 was never added to the list, but it was Dave Debusschere. It was a pretty forgettable thread, which is why I think it was overlooked:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1153458

[ronnymac2]

Big thanks to Pen for being consistent and lighting a fire under our asses the last few weeks. Your work is greatly appreciated.

[penbeast0]

Thanks, fixed

[thamadkant]

I dont know the history of the voting or discussions taken place...

but

Garnett higher than D.Robinson?

I understand that Robinson didnt step up in the playoffs... but he got out of the first round alot more than Garnett. And if you look at his stats in the playoffs, down as they are... is still as good as Garnett's.

Robinson has 2 rings.... got them as a decline secondary star next to Duncan.
Garnett has 1 ring.... got them as declined secondary star next to 2 stars in Pierce and Allen... and a very good point guard in Rondo.

[rrravenred]

I dont know the history of the voting or discussions taken place...

but...

With respect, it's possible that here you might have taken a different tack prior to clicking "Submit"

[ElGee]

I dont know the history of the voting or discussions taken place...

but...

With respect, it's possible that here you might have taken a different tack prior to clicking "Submit"

Such as watch basketball?

This just in: Declined Secondary Star wins DPOY and finishes 3rd in MVP (with giant share) while missing 11 games on best SRS team in years!

[Doctor MJ]

I dont know the history of the voting or discussions taken place...

but

Garnett higher than D.Robinson?

I understand that Robinson didnt step up in the playoffs... but he got out of the first round alot more than Garnett. And if you look at his stats in the playoffs, down as they are... is still as good as Garnett's.

Robinson has 2 rings.... got them as a decline secondary star next to Duncan.
Garnett has 1 ring.... got them as declined secondary star next to 2 stars in Pierce and Allen... and a very good point guard in Rondo.

Key things:

1) Players don't get out of the first round, teams do.

2) Going by box score stats Robinson looks better. There are many who feel like those stats overrate Robinson, and with the newer stats we have available for current players, it's a certainty that Garnett was underrated by them.

3) Robinson's 2nd ring bears no mention in this context. Superstar comparisons should not be determined by what someone did when they were old man role players.

1st ring is legit, and accurate: He truly was a secondary star. Garnett in Boston was most definitely not a secondary star. This was a team that won with defense, and Garnett was by far the most important part of that defense. There are many of us who feel that NO ONE was having more team impact in '07-08 than Garnett was.

[drza]

Hey fellas, I do some writing for a sports website and we have a spin-off blog. Anyway, for this year I've based my blog on our project. Each week I pick one of our top players as voted and link to this thread, and try to generate some discussion about them. This week I did Wilt, and it's got some solid discussion going on...I just shamelessly ripped an article that ThaRegl8or posted on Wilt and Shaq to make a point. Anyway, if any of you guys want to come join in or just check out the blog, here's the url for the Wilt one:

http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Great ... m#Comments

I post under the name "The Professor"

[ElGee]

Following up on some of the post-list reactions from people...

I've noticed something interesting when it's comes to the Winning Bias in ranking these players. Of course, much of the reaction to this list from people is "woah! that guy was a loser or never won X, and the popular opinion of him is totally different, so what were you guys thinking?"

Check out the following lists at the bottom of the post for reference broken down by era (approximately) and by the pedigree of the players involved:

*The 1960s has a clear separation of 6 players (Russ, Wilt, O, West, Baylor, Pettit) with Russell and Wilt, unofficial MVPs of every champion from 1959-1969, atop the lists. Then there is an enormous dropoff, and much disagreement, on the next best player on the period.

Both SLAM and Simmons think 6 of the 17 players ever played in his period...which would be highly unlikely given the simple distribution of players to suit up in the league then (small % played in the 60s).

*The 1970s has a pretty even distribution of players in the 20s and 30s.

*The 80s are basically Bird, Magic, and everyone else. Those players won 8 of the 10 titles in the decade. The next two players on every list captained the two other title teams.

*The 90s are Jordan (6 titles) with Hakeem the only other playing blipping the elite ranks...and he won the two other titles in the timespan.

*The 00s have Shaq and Duncan in the top 10 (8 titles in 9 years) and if applicable, Kobe as the next highly relevant player (2 titles as Finals MVP and 3 more as an all-nba 1st teamer).

So a few things should jump out:

(1) Winning Bias has heavily dominated these lists. Whether that's a coincidence in some cases or a gross warping of basketball prowess I won't address in this space (I have posted top 50 lists and such in other places which will answer that).

(2) With the exception of the 1960s -- which is weird in its own right -- the degree to which a player won the share of the titles influences not only his own spot but the others in his time period in a zero-sum manner.

It's the second point that caused me to analyze these lists and compile them here in this manner. Michael Jordan might very well be the GOAT (he's my GOAT). But somehow people have used that AGAINST his competition in these narratives. Logically speaking, if winning is such a big component, and the GOAT is dominating, the people he's defeating should (or at least could) benefit from having to be defeated by his greatness. It's perfectly reasonable to assume the second greatest player played at the same time the GOAT did...something people almost believe about the 1960s...and yet over and over we see Jordan's competition penalized for "losing to him."

To boot:
SLAM has the 3rd and 4th best players of the period at 18 and 20.
Simmons has the 3rd and 4th best players of the period at 18 and 19.
Real GM's 2008 list has the 3rd and 4th best players of the period at 15 and 17.

The No. 3 and 4 for the other decades on the lists, respectively, rank
SLAM: 5-10/17-21/16-19/12-28
Simmons: 8-9/16-26/12-23/15-20
Real GM 2008: 11-12/14-19/13-25/18-20

Keep in mind that the last pairing there is from an incomplete decade...and almost every list already has the 3rd best player of the period ahead of the 90s No. 3...the ringless Karl Malone. Every list has BOTH the 3rd and 4th best of 60s ahead Malone by a good amount, the 70s No. 3 ahead of him (despite the divided league, expansion, drugs and lack of a dynasty that dominated the era) and all have the "80s" No. 3 ahead as well.

It turns out, every other No. 3 has a championship, even it was accrued at a slightly later time.

(3) Modern players were underrated. The final point of contention comes with players like Kevin Garnett and Steve Nash (combined 1 championship - people STILL equating Garnett to massive losing). I think it's fairly obvious that the other lists or popular perception are slow to acknowledge the swell of great players from this period, and that their careers have been properly put in perspective in the last 3-4 years since the old lists were compiled. There's just a lag...unless you believe fewer great players exist today despite a larger talent pool.

SLAM Top 50 (2009)
"60s"
2. Wilt (2)
3. Russell (11)
5. Oscar (1)
10. West (1)
11. Baylor (0)
14. Pettit (1)
33. Thurmond (0)

"70s"
7. Kareem (6)
15. Erving (3)
17. Havlicek (8)
21. Barry (1)
23. Hayes (1)
31. Reed (2)

"80s"
6. Magic (5)
9. Bird (3)
16. Moses (1)
19. Isiah (2)
26. McHale (3)
43. Dominique (0)

"90s"
1. Jordan (6)
13. Hakeem (2)
18. Malone (0)
20. Barkley (0)
22. Stockton (0)
25. Robinson (2)

"00s"
4. Shaq (4)
8. Duncan (4)
12. Bryant (3)* At compilation
28. Kidd (0)*
30. KG (0)
39. Iverson (0)
50. Nash (0)

--

Bill Simmons

"60s"
3. Russell (11)
6. Wilt (2)
8. West (1)
9. Oscar (1)
14. Baylor (0)
17. Pettit (1)
33. Jones (10)

"70s"
3. Kareem (6)
13. Havlicek (8)
16. Erving (3)
26. Barry (1)
30. Reed (2)
31. Cowens (2)

"80s"
4. Magic (5)
5. Bird (3)
12. Moses (1)
23. Isiah (2)
35. McHale (3)
48. Worthy (3)

"90s"
1. Jordan (6)
10. Hakeem (2)
18. Malone (0)
19. Barkley (0)
24. Pippen (6)
25. Stockton (0)

"00s"
7. Duncan (4)
11. Shaq (4)
15. Bryant (3)
20. LeBron (0)
22. KG (1)
29. Iverson (0)
37. Dirk (0)*
38. Nash (0)

--

Real GM 2008 list
"60s"
3. Russell (11)
4. Wilt (2)
11. West (1)
12. Oscar (1)
16. Pettit (1)
21. Baylor (0)
48. Lucas (0)

"70s"
2. Kareem (6)
10. Erving (3)
14. Havlicek (8)
19. Frazier (2)
24. Barry (1)
31. Gilmore (1)

"80s"
5. Magic (5)
6. Bird (3)
13. Moses (1)
25. Isiah (2)
40. Moncrief (0)
42. McHale (3)

"90s"
1. Jordan (6)
7. Hakeem (2)
15. Malone (0)
17. Robinson (2)
23. Barkley (0)
26. Pippen (6)

"00s"
8. Shaq (4)
9. Duncan (4)
18. Kobe (3)*
20. KG (1)
36. LeBron (0)
38. Kidd (0)*
39. Nash (0)

--

Current real GM list
"60s"
2. Russell (11)
5. Wilt (2)
14. Oscar (1)
15. West (1)
19. Pettit (1)
26. Baylor (0)
59. Jones (10)

"70s"
3. Kareem (6)
11. Erving (3)
23. Frazier (2)
28. Havlicek (8)
30. Barry (1)
34. Gilmore (1)

"80s"
4. Magic (5)
6. Bird (3)
16. Moses (1)
29. Isiah (2)
40. McHale (3)

"90s"
1. Jordan (6)
9. Hakeem (2)
12. Malone (0)
20. Barkley (0)
21. Robinson (2)
25. Pippen (6)

"00s"
7. Shaq (4)
8. Duncan (4)
10. Kobe (5)
13. KG (1)
17. Dirk (1)
18. LeBron (0)
22. Wade (1)
24. Nash (0)

[penbeast0]

I think the modern bias may be going away in RealGM's most recent list . . . notice there are 6 00 players in the top 20, more than any other era . . . and 2 more in the top 25. That's a deep pool of superstars; maybe because now the 00s are actually over so the top players of the era have fuller careers.

No argument that winning championships matters . . . the strong argument for playoff stats over regular season stats was definitely a part of the discussion quite often. Of course, the GOAT types like Russell or Jordan carried their teams there . . . the one I remember being most hurt by this bias was not even Karl Malone, it was Wilt who some people were dropping out of their top 10 even because of preceived playoff failures.

Note that if you take the many playoff matchups against Russell out of Wilt's resume, his playoff series win % of .810 is the same as that of MIchael Jordan (though for a smaller sample size).

[ElGee]

Oh I absolutely agree about the differences in this list with modern players - I was defending the differences in the new list since those particular things seem to be under fire from people who can't accept the latest group of players in the same tier as heralded, romanticized greats.

I have to add, on a personal note, I've been a junkie since I was a little kid at the end of the 80s and the coverage has changed sooooo much...the stars these days are put under such a microscope by people who really aren't qualified to put them under a microscope, then blended into a hype-machine commercialized Narrative Blender, and spat out to the public. I think the result is that older players are romanticized into having fewer or no flaws, while simultaneously there is an obsession with focusing on current athletes "shortcomings." (Some of these performances aren't even shortcomings, they are A- to A+ performances in losing efforts.)

Also you need to be careful with that Wilt stat...the league makeup was much smaller then, making talent distribution narrower and the likelihood of meeting such a team over and over quite high. In other words, it's like saying "if you take out the times Karl Malone lost to the NBA champ, he won 61.3% of his playoff series." Know what I mean? (Or if you also remove the series MJ lost to the champs, his win% becomes 88.2%.)

[bastillon]

Note that if you take the many playoff matchups against Russell out of Wilt's resume, his playoff series win % of .810 is the same as that of MIchael Jordan (though for a smaller sample size).

against pathetic competition and most often with vast talent advantage on his team. name one series when Wilt beat stronger team and overachieved.

[drza]

This week in my spin-off blog from this project I'm talking Karl Malone. http://rotosynthesis.rotowire.com/Great ... BD3593.htm ElGee, if you read this, I'd love for you to come weigh in since you were really driving the Malone train in this project.