RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[mysticbb]

Well, let's see. Pettit stands out as a huge error. That guy would not even be a top 20 player in todays NBA, yet he's 19th all time? Ridiculously bad ranking. The rest of the top 25 is basically defensible. Not always where I'd put them, but they all belong roughly where they are.

The basic premise was NOT to evaluate the players on their ability to play today, but rather how they performed in prime years against their peers while taking longevity into account. ;)

[AnaheimRoyale]

I always like a reply that makes a jesuitical statement.

riteria: 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.

So yes, you take era dominance into account, just like you take how well it would translate today (so your above statement is wrong). It also says it would take other things into account, but that the final question was "how great they were at the game of basketball", ie- their impact. If Pettit's impact would be middling today, he wasn't the 19th most impactful basketball player of all time.

[mysticbb]

I always like a reply that makes a jesuitical statement.

And I love when people fail at reading comprehension. When we discussed the stuff before the voting started, some wanted to have the part about "how well their style of play and skills would transcend onto different eras" included, while it was for sure not the consensus most important part. You are trying to argue that the ranking had ONLY the premise to represent a player list based on how well they would play, if we use a timemachine and place those players into the current NBA. Even you should have noticed that the majority of the criteria had NOTHING to do with that at all. Let alone that "different eras" != "today".

[AnaheimRoyale]

I never said how they would play today is the only criteria, you've made that up from nothing, the only criteria for me is how good they were at basketball (which btw, is how I read the above criteria too). It's just today's game is better than when Pettit played, which is a pretty relevant caveat to his impact during his career, since it's obvious he couldn't do it today... in which case, yeh, he wasn't the 19th most impactful.

[mysticbb]

I never said how they would play today is the only criteria, you've made that up from nothing, the only criteria for me is how good they were at basketball (which btw, is how I read the above criteria too). It's just today's game is better than when Pettit played, which is a pretty relevant caveat to his impact during his career, since it's obvious he couldn't do it today... in which case, yeh, he wasn't the 19th most impactful.

That guy would not even be a top 20 player in todays NBA, yet he's 19th all time? Ridiculously bad ranking.

Honestly, your only argument against Pettit is exactly that in your mind he wouldn't be able to do the same today. Now, how much value do you put on 10 All-NBA 1st seasons for Pettit against his peers? Obviously not much at all. But how well he played against his peers was actually the bigger part of the criteria.
Well, and everything else is just you stating your personal fantasy again without having anything to back it up. How would you know how Pettit would approach todays game, if he would be born later? He only had the chance to show us how good he was at his time, with the rules at that time against the players which played at that time. Everything else is just based on speculation within a context limited by your own personal fantasy. There are so much factors going into that. I can see a 6'9'' PF with pretty good shooting touch being a nice stretch 4 in todays league, especially if we consider todays differences in trainings regimes and focus on the game. And we know how much impact such guys can have, if we look at someone like Ryan Anderson.

[AnaheimRoyale]

You got burnt, and your response is to draw a hopelessly longbow, by claiming my one liner (listing one of the reasons Pettit was overrated) was intended as the only argument, to the exclusion of all others. This is tiresome and obvious.

The fact Pettit made his impact and got 10 all-nba teams in a weaker era is highly relevant, both to me, and to the criteria laid out for this exercise, just as how good he'd be today is highly relevant. The rest is white noise from you, designed to distract attention from the fact you overreacted, and now look bad for claiming I misunderstood the criteria ("couldn't read"), when it was in fact you who misrepresented them.

[mysticbb]

You got burnt

Well, and that's all you care about. Trying to win a internet debate by all means while using strawmen, hyperbole and lies. Thanks for proven me correct again.

[AnaheimRoyale]

Dude, please. You came on and told me I "failed at reading comprehension", then made a series of points which were false and ironic (since you were the one not reading right). It's a bit late to take the high ground now. Usually when people say inaccurate stuff, and make incorrect accusations to someone, the polite thing is to apologise.

[mysticbb]

Dude, please. You came on and told me I "failed at reading comprehension", then made a series of points which were false and ironic (since you were the one not reading right). It's a bit late to take the high ground now. Usually when people say inaccurate stuff, and make incorrect accusations to someone, the polite thing is to apologise.

:lol:

The MAJORITY of the criteria was peak play, era dominance, impact on the game (obviously against the peers) and career play. The MINORITY was "how well would it translate into other eras", while "today" is only a minor part of all "eras". Your only argument against Pettit so far is that it wouldn't translate well into todays game. Then, read my post again in which I said that

The basic premise was NOT to evaluate the players on their ability to play today, but rather how they performed in prime years against their peers while taking longevity into account. ;)

So, now, take a course in reading comprehension and learn how to make an argument without using lies, hyperbole and strawmen.

[AnaheimRoyale]

You are trying to argue that the ranking had ONLY the premise to represent a player list based on how well they would play, if we use a timemachine and place those players into the current NBA

Reading is your friend.

[wigglestrue]

Maybe participate next time, so we can benefit from your... um.... wisdom.

I participated hugely in what I believe was the very first of these here on the General Board, in about 2004. Back then Reggie slipped in at #50 if I remember right. It was a disgrace then. To move up to #42, 8 years later? That tells me that, despite the smaller pool of voters and supposed improvement in thought process, the voting has only gotten worse.

By the way, when I couched those stats in blahs, I wasn't saying those stats are useless, I was saying that it's all Reggie and his deluded supporters have, and it's the same weak argument for him I've seen on here for almost a decade.

[rrravenred]

Reggie's main supporters in that thread were (IIRC) ElGee, Doctor MJ and Penbeast. They're not generally posters given to irrationality or self-delusion. Go and read the three-or-so threads around Reggie's nomination. You might hear something you haven't heard, or at least expressed in a different way...

[penbeast0]

Reggie's main supporters in that thread were (IIRC) ElGee, Doctor MJ and Penbeast. They're not generally posters given to irrationality or self-delusion. Go and read the three-or-so threads around Reggie's nomination. You might hear something you haven't heard, or at least expressed in a different way...

I have been called an efficiency freak more than once however . . . and not just here on RealGM.

[rrravenred]

<thinks about the full range of RL activities that could apply to>


<retches>



<tries to unthink>

[penbeast0]

My ex has also used rational and analyze as insults . . . for what it's worth.

[lukekarts]

I'm not going to state the arguments weren't well presented or rational, but in hindsight I do still struggle to see how Reggie at #42 separates himself from say a Ray Allen (#54) James Worthy (#73), amongst others in completely different roles (Cowens, for example).

Obviously the Ray Allen comparison makes sense, because of all the players on the list, Ray is probably the closest match. I'm not going to suggest Ray is better, but what makes him worse?

I recall clutch moments and ability to step up in the playoffs being cited in his arguments but James Worthy - a similarly effective though not as efficient off-ball player, known even more so for his big moments - lands 31 places below with those arguments being largely dismissed.

Of course, we could start a whole separate topic about that... In general the list is very good but I am not surprised if people most frequently look at Reggie Miller as a reach at 42.

Everyone has their own opinion of course but recent topics on RGM suggest the majority prefer Ray to Reggie (could be weighted by a young crowd, though plenty of older supporters are on board with that argument). We may not have got the most representative top 100, but the list is a strong one regardless.

[ElGee]

I'm not going to state the arguments weren't well presented or rational, but in hindsight I do still struggle to see how Reggie at #42 separates himself from say a Ray Allen (#54) James Worthy (#73), amongst others in completely different roles (Cowens, for example).

Obviously the Ray Allen comparison makes sense, because of all the players on the list, Ray is probably the closest match. I'm not going to suggest Ray is better, but what makes him worse?

I recall clutch moments and ability to step up in the playoffs being cited in his arguments but James Worthy - a similarly effective though not as efficient off-ball player, known even more so for his big moments - lands 31 places below with those arguments being largely dismissed.

Of course, we could start a whole separate topic about that... In general the list is very good but I am not surprised if people most frequently look at Reggie Miller as a reach at 42.

Everyone has their own opinion of course but recent topics on RGM suggest the majority prefer Ray to Reggie (could be weighted by a young crowd, though plenty of older supporters are on board with that argument). We may not have got the most representative top 100, but the list is a strong one regardless.

In a nutshell: longevity.

In more overarching terms:
(1) "FIt"
(2) Playoff "Escalation" -- reflecting a flexibility/versatility IMO that makes him very difficult to defend
(3) Longevity (matched by Malone and Kareem only?)

Miller isn't a high-peak player. Neither was John Havlicek. I have Miller at #34 btw, not because he cracks my top-50 peaks list, but because of the 3 major points about. My guess is people either haven't read the threads on Miller or are unable to articulate a rebuttal to them, so they just jump on the result.

For reference, http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/02/mil ... n-offense/

And note how good he was offensively in the postseason just by broad stroke box score stats, seemingly the same reason everyone is whining about his placement: http://www.backpicks.com/2012/06/13/top ... ted-value/

Finally, per the longevity, it's important to note that here is the difference between Miller and Allen, two players who ARE similar and BOTH chugged along fairly consistently throughout their career. Win Shares:

Miller 174 (12th all-time)
Allen 138 (25th all-time)

This is not a definitive metric, but it should illustrate the point. Allen's first really good season was in 2000 -- a 10 WS season. He would lose the 07 season due to injury. Otherwise, from 2000 to 2011, he had nine seasons in the ~9 WS ballpark. Miller's first really good season was 1990, and he had 13 such seasons until 2002.

Frankly, Miller's consistency is freakish, and rivaled by very few.

[AnaheimRoyale]

I've read it, and I just don't agree at all. Reggie Miller is the John Stockton of shooting guards. His peak isn't even close to good enough to be ranked at #34.

[ElGee]

Well that's not a bad comparison. I actually checked my list and I have Miller 36th and Stockton 37th.

A major factor in my criteria is "how much a player raises the probability of winning championships over X years." So, while I tend to value high-peak players extremely because I don't see this as something linear (there can be a huge difference between an all-star and MVP), a player like Miller is doing a little every year for 13 years and it adds up. For instance, I think McHale crushes him in peak, but if I draft both, over the course of their careers Miller increases my odds of winning more.

[AnaheimRoyale]

That's why Stockton and Miller, despite many impressive support casts, won so many titles... oh wait.

Longevity does not win you titles, peak play does. That's why nobody ranks Dan Issel ahead of Bill Walton, or Mark Jackson ahead of Penny.