RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[Grandpa Waiters]

I always felt KG was overrated defensively. Mutombo, Zo, Hakeem and prime David caused more havoc than KG ever did but his narrative (on RealGM at least) persists.

I like the idea of taking measure of havoc. Havoc Wreaked Per Possession, lol. But really, I know what you mean. Thing is, KG wreaked a lot of his havoc in subtler ways, his defensive value is not so much as a conspicuous swatsman or a daring ballhawk but is also and maybe more so a type of cerebral + max effort great defender like Bowen or Cooper, the kind of defense that is best perceived by the eye of an advanced scout or captured in a complicated metric.

I know what you're saying but I wouldn't go that far. In the end it's just basketball. It's not chaos math or string theory. Advanced scouts had Bowie ahead of Jordan and Oden in front of Durant. It's not a perfect science. Complicated metrics have their value but you don't need them to tell you that Rihanna is hot. Just use your eyes. Know what I mean? It's just basketball.

[Drummer Boy]

Admiral was a better scorer, shot blocker and defender in my opinion. People forget he lost two years due to his tour of duty in the Navy. He led the Spurs to the biggest one season turn around in NBA history as a rookie (besting Bird's rookie season turn around).

Ewing at his peak was a better scorer than KG and had more playoff success as the man vs KG's playoff futility in Minnesota. He lost to Jordan in seven games in '92 and in the ECF in '93 before losing to Hakeem in game seven of the finals in '94, better than KG ever did as the man. I know you'll probably disagree as KG is somehow thought of as a GOD on RealGM. His high ranking is baffling.

I don't like to think that I think that highly of Garnett, as I have him as a top-25 player. Just from watching their careers, Garnett seemed to be on a different level. This Patrick that you envision, really for me was only that good in '90, when he knocked off Bird on his home court, and I believe was his only top-3 finish in scoring, and his only first team selection. Robinson had that immediate impact, yes. When I first saw him play, I thought for sure he'd be a top-10 player all-time, he had ALL THE GIFTS. But to me, it seemed like he underachieved, and put up empty stats during the '90s. Don't think he had quite the heart, or impact Kevin had, but that's just me.

Yep. Ewing peaked around '89 so most of the posters who put Garnett in front of him probably have no memory of prime Ewing or only remember him in the late '90's or as a Sonic or Magic player (much like kids now will only remember KG as a scrub on the Nets). Robinson did underachieve but so did KG and since DRob is a better player and they BOTH underachieved he gets the nod in my book.

My man, I usually agree with you, you are SEVERLY overrating Ewing He's the most uncoordnated center I've ever seen. His knees were soft as marshmellows, out-of-position alot, turnover prone, had feet for hands, was inefficient.



His turnaround jumper was wet, I'll give him that. He had his runner along the lane that he'd often dribble across his foot though. Ewing was never in the top 3 in rpg. In fact, he only cracked the top 4 once in his career. Again, he cracked the top 3 in scoring once. He was top 3 in bpg 4 times, but never reached the #1 spot.

0 rings
2 Finals appearance

What are you SEEING in him again??

[Grandpa Waiters]

I don't like to think that I think that highly of Garnett, as I have him as a top-25 player. Just from watching their careers, Garnett seemed to be on a different level. This Patrick that you envision, really for me was only that good in '90, when he knocked off Bird on his home court, and I believe was his only top-3 finish in scoring, and his only first team selection. Robinson had that immediate impact, yes. When I first saw him play, I thought for sure he'd be a top-10 player all-time, he had ALL THE GIFTS. But to me, it seemed like he underachieved, and put up empty stats during the '90s. Don't think he had quite the heart, or impact Kevin had, but that's just me.

Yep. Ewing peaked around '89 so most of the posters who put Garnett in front of him probably have no memory of prime Ewing or only remember him in the late '90's or as a Sonic or Magic player (much like kids now will only remember KG as a scrub on the Nets). Robinson did underachieve but so did KG and since DRob is a better player and they BOTH underachieved he gets the nod in my book.

My man, I usually agree with you, you are SEVERLY overrating Ewing He's the most uncoordnated center I've ever seen. His knees were soft as marshmellows, out-of-position alot, turnover prone, had feet for hands, was inefficient.



His turnaround jumper was wet, I'll give him that. He had his runner along the lane that he'd often dribble across his foot though. Ewing was never in the top 3 in rpg. In fact, he only cracked the top 4 once in his career. Again, he cracked the top 3 in scoring once. He was top 3 in bpg 4 times, but never reached the #1 spot.

0 rings
2 Finals appearance

What are you SEEING in him again??

LOL. I never said he was the best center ever just that he was better than KG and deserved to be ranked higher. He was a better scorer/offensive player than KG and anchored those tough Knicks teams defensively. In addition, he consistently led his Knicks further into the playoffs (as the man) than Garnett did until he got major help in Boston. I also think you're underrating his athletic ability. He had an array of moves and shots that blow away any center today....turn around, the runner you mentioned and a real nice jumper out to twenty feet. Nice touch too. When I think of uncoordinated centers a few names come to mind (Bill Cartwright, Mutombo, Manute Bol) but Patrick isn't one of them. It's not that I think so much of Patrick per se, just that I think a little less of KG, enough to rank him behind Ewing. Know what I mean?

[Drummer Boy]

Yep. Ewing peaked around '89 so most of the posters who put Garnett in front of him probably have no memory of prime Ewing or only remember him in the late '90's or as a Sonic or Magic player (much like kids now will only remember KG as a scrub on the Nets). Robinson did underachieve but so did KG and since DRob is a better player and they BOTH underachieved he gets the nod in my book.

My man, I usually agree with you, you are SEVERLY overrating Ewing He's the most uncoordnated center I've ever seen. His knees were soft as marshmellows, out-of-position alot, turnover prone, had feet for hands, was inefficient.



His turnaround jumper was wet, I'll give him that. He had his runner along the lane that he'd often dribble across his foot though. Ewing was never in the top 3 in rpg. In fact, he only cracked the top 4 once in his career. Again, he cracked the top 3 in scoring once. He was top 3 in bpg 4 times, but never reached the #1 spot.

0 rings
2 Finals appearance

What are you SEEING in him again??

LOL. I never said he was the best center ever just that he was better than KG and deserved to be ranked higher. He was a better scorer/offensive player than KG and anchored those tough Knicks teams defensively. In addition, he consistently led his Knicks further into the playoffs (as the man) than Garnett did until he got major help in Boston. I also think you're underrating his athletic ability. He had an array of moves and shots that blow away any center today....turn around, the runner you mentioned and a real nice jumper out to twenty feet. Nice touch too. When I think of uncoordinated centers a few names come to mind (Bill Cartwright, Mutombo, Manute Bol) but Patrick isn't one of them. It's not that I think so much of Patrick per se, just that I think a little less of KG, enough to rank him behind Ewing. Know what I mean?

At their apex, other than Wilt, name me a more complete big man in NBA history

[Grandpa Waiters]

My man, I usually agree with you, you are SEVERLY overrating Ewing He's the most uncoordnated center I've ever seen. His knees were soft as marshmellows, out-of-position alot, turnover prone, had feet for hands, was inefficient.



His turnaround jumper was wet, I'll give him that. He had his runner along the lane that he'd often dribble across his foot though. Ewing was never in the top 3 in rpg. In fact, he only cracked the top 4 once in his career. Again, he cracked the top 3 in scoring once. He was top 3 in bpg 4 times, but never reached the #1 spot.

0 rings
2 Finals appearance

What are you SEEING in him again??

LOL. I never said he was the best center ever just that he was better than KG and deserved to be ranked higher. He was a better scorer/offensive player than KG and anchored those tough Knicks teams defensively. In addition, he consistently led his Knicks further into the playoffs (as the man) than Garnett did until he got major help in Boston. I also think you're underrating his athletic ability. He had an array of moves and shots that blow away any center today....turn around, the runner you mentioned and a real nice jumper out to twenty feet. Nice touch too. When I think of uncoordinated centers a few names come to mind (Bill Cartwright, Mutombo, Manute Bol) but Patrick isn't one of them. It's not that I think so much of Patrick per se, just that I think a little less of KG, enough to rank him behind Ewing. Know what I mean?

At their apex, other than Wilt, name me a more complete big man in NBA history

More complete than KG? Kareem, Walton, Moses, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq. Too young to have seen Russell, Thurmond, Reed etc. I think all of those guys would have their way with KG, easily too. I mean, look up the numbers Pau Gasol put up against KG in the '10 Finals. If Pau could do that what would the aforementioned guys do?

[Jaivl]

More complete than KG? Kareem, Walton, Moses, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Shaq. Too young to have seen Russell, Thurmond, Reed etc. I think all of those guys would have their way with KG, easily too. I mean, look up the numbers Pau Gasol put up against KG in the '10 Finals. If Pau could do that what would the aforementioned guys do?

You're acting like Garnett was in his prime and Gasol wasn't the most complete offensive big man in the league...

[Notanoob]

What I think is flawed here is that KG is getting compared to centers when he's a PF. Just because he can play C doesn't mean that it's optimal for him to do so. Only now that he's old and slow is that the best position for him.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Elton Brand? ROTFL.

[mikejetlife]

Dwight Howard isn't ahead of Reed until he wins a title period.

[wigglestrue]

Is there a short answer for how Jerry Lucas and Dave DeBusschere finish behind Mark Price, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Elton Brand, and...well, I love Gus Williams, but, come on. Edit: Jesus chrrr...is this right, DJ didn't make it?

[Owly]

I wasn't here for the top 100 list (see my postcount) but it's a lot easier to knock a list than come up with a coherent one of your own.

Elton Brand? ROTFL.

Well a peak where you're playing the same position as three top 20 all time guys and you're roughly as good as each of them (around their primes) is certainly laughable. Seriously check Brand in '06 versus Nowitzki, Garnett and Duncan. The numbers are worse than Nowitzki's (but with better D); roughly equal to, possibly slightly worse than, Garnett's and substantially better than Duncans (Duncan had a down year).

Dwight Howard isn't ahead of Reed until he wins a title period.

Is your opinion. Justify it. As the people did when casting their votes. And to say a team achievement (regardless of individual performance) is a requisite to a certain position on these sort of lists always seems arbitrary and have little to with how that person actually played/plays basketball.

Is there a short answer for how Jerry Lucas and Dave DeBusschere finish behind Mark Price, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Elton Brand, and...well, I love Gus Williams, but, come on. Edit: Jesus chrrr...is this right, DJ didn't make it?

The short answer would be that's how the people who took part voted. The long answer would be reading their rationales.

But my quick take (besides the fact that it makes more sense to do a proper list and defend it rather than pitting guys you think are too high versus those you think are too low) is ...

Lucas: Could legitimately be higher but ... had poor playoff performances (significantly below his norms on average, and two in particular seem to be just bad); doesn't have a strong reputation as a defender; is regarded as caring too much about his stats (perhaps what some would call "empty stats).

DeBusschere: Look at his numbers, look at how teams did with him as their best player (or close to their best), look at the accolades (great defender, but only one All-NBA 2nd team appearance).
Tangent warning: That Knicks team gets to be a great example of teamwork and being better than the some sum of their parts, or it can be the sum of legendary individual parts, it can't be both. For every bit of one that it is it has to be less of the other otherwise the team would be better than it was. We've just heard Willis is too (low as in underrated: low-high language can be confusing when low numbers = "high" ratings), now DeBusschere is too low, a guy published a book with Bill Bradley as a way better forward than Dirk Nowitzki (after Dirk had won his MVP). If Frazier is a legit top 5 pg and a lock for top 35 or 40 (23rd here) and all these other guys are elite historical guys (plus Barnett and Russell who weren't slouches, or later Lucas and Monroe) then even with injuries the Knicks would have to have been somewhat less than the sum of their parts to have not maintained a dynasty.

DJ: Again look at the numbers the most visible advanced metrics suggest he was a little above average (admittedly with limited ability to quantify D). Again a very good defender and a very nice complementary piece. Unlike Dave D, traded for cents on the dollar because he was considered a malcontent and disruptive locker room presence by coaches. Again the overall accolades (again with strong D, say 1 1st Team All-NBA and one 2nd Team) probably suggests around the 100 ballpark would be fair.

I mean if you want to make a case for these guys then make a case; don't just turn up late to the meeting and then just tell everyone that their decisions were garbage.

[Doctor MJ]

The short answer would be that's how the people who took part voted. The long answer would be reading their rationales.

But my quick take (besides the fact that it makes more sense to do a proper list and defend it rather than pitting guys you think are too high versus those you think are too low) is ...

Lucas: Could legitimately be higher but ... had poor playoff performances (significantly below his norms on average, and two in particular seem to be just bad); doesn't have a strong reputation as a defender; is regarded as caring too much about his stats (perhaps what some would call "empty stats).

DeBusschere: Look at his numbers, look at how teams did with him as their best player (or close to their best), look at the accolades (great defender, but only one All-NBA 2nd team appearance).
Tangent warning: That Knicks team gets to be a great example of teamwork and being better than the some sum of their parts, or it can be the sum of legendary individual parts, it can't be both. For every bit of one that it is it has to be less of the other otherwise the team would be better than it was. We've just heard Willis is too (low as in underrated: low-high language can be confusing when low numbers = "high" ratings), now DeBusschere is too low, a guy published a book with Bill Bradley as a way better forward than Dirk Nowitzki (after Dirk had won his MVP). If Frazier is a legit top 5 pg and a lock for top 35 or 40 (23rd here) and all these other guys are elite historical guys (plus Barnett and Russell who weren't slouches, or later Lucas and Monroe) then even with injuries the Knicks would have to have been somewhat less than the sum of their parts to have not maintained a dynasty.

DJ: Again look at the numbers the most visible advanced metrics suggest he was a little above average (admittedly with limited ability to quantify D). Again a very good defender and a very nice complementary piece. Unlike Dave D, traded for cents on the dollar because he was considered a malcontent and disruptive locker room presence by coaches. Again the overall accolades (again with strong D, say 1 1st Team All-NBA and one 2nd Team) probably suggests around the 100 ballpark would be fair.

I mean if you want to make a case for these guys then make a case; don't just turn up late to the meeting and then just tell everyone that their decisions were garbage.

Impressive entrance Owly. Hope to see more from you.

[Doctor MJ]

Is there a short answer for how Jerry Lucas and Dave DeBusschere finish behind Mark Price, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Elton Brand, and...well, I love Gus Williams, but, come on. Edit: Jesus chrrr...is this right, DJ didn't make it?

Been a while since this list happened so I don't think any of us remember how it all played out so deep into the project.

I will say regarding Lucas specifically there's been a turn away from him that I'm part of. I used to see him as a guy who could have been a superstar if he didn't have to defer to Oscar, but over time I just couldn't justify it. He's certainly a good player, but there's just nothing in his NBA career that even suggests the superstar that he was seen to be in college. Taking it on face value, an offensive oriented big who gives you 20 PPG on middling efficiency just isn't that noteworthy.

DeBusschere I had forgotten had slipped some. I don't recall how I voted, but I will say that my opinion of him has not slipped, and I would expect to have him higher on a personal list of mine. Perhaps higher than all the guys you mention, although I'd have to think about it.

I had forgotten about DJ's falloff. Again I don't remember the details, but I would imagine it relates to a general feeling that it only makes sense to go so far when you talk about ranking a point guard primarily on his defense.

Regarding the fact you're listing more modern guys in contrast, I do remember feeling a real dissatisfaction with how people were siding with those players in the last 20 or so spots on the list, but those last 20 spots are so hard to pull off because people are tired.

[wigglestrue]

Is there a short answer for how Jerry Lucas and Dave DeBusschere finish behind Mark Price, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Elton Brand, and...well, I love Gus Williams, but, come on. Edit: Jesus chrrr...is this right, DJ didn't make it?

Been a while since this list happened so I don't think any of us remember how it all played out so deep into the project.

I will say regarding Lucas specifically there's been a turn away from him that I'm part of. I used to see him as a guy who could have been a superstar if he didn't have to defer to Oscar, but over time I just couldn't justify it. He's certainly a good player, but there's just nothing in his NBA career that even suggests the superstar that he was seen to be in college. Taking it on face value, an offensive oriented big who gives you 20 PPG on middling efficiency just isn't that noteworthy.

DeBusschere I had forgotten had slipped some. I don't recall how I voted, but I will say that my opinion of him has not slipped, and I would expect to have him higher on a personal list of mine. Perhaps higher than all the guys you mention, although I'd have to think about it.

I had forgotten about DJ's falloff. Again I don't remember the details, but I would imagine it relates to a general feeling that it only makes sense to go so far when you talk about ranking a point guard primarily on his defense.

Regarding the fact you're listing more modern guys in contrast, I do remember feeling a real dissatisfaction with how people were siding with those players in the last 20 or so spots on the list, but those last 20 spots are so hard to pull off because people are tired.

Thank you for the explanation. As someone who helped do the very first (IIRC) big RealGM Top [insert number, but it was 50 then, on the General Board], I take this kind of list probably too seriously, but is it not one of the more prominent artifacts we're leaving behind on this forum, a kind of monument to how well-reasoned this board is, etc. I'm not all that unhappy about the first 50 here, but the second 50 is a mess. It reflects meh-ly on all of us collectively, not just on the particular voters. This board deserves a better Top 100 stickied. Not that the voters didn't give their best effort. This format is probably just not the best. Too clock-sensitive, too many rounds, not enough of an incentive as a fantasy draft has to keep people on schedule. Hmmm. Not one to criticize like this without trying to offer a solution, so: Has there ever been a survey-type Top 100? Meaning, uh...lemme think...

Select 100 of the best posters ever here, roughly balanced team-and-player-bias-wise, and have each (on their own clock, but by a certain day on the calendar) painstakingly construct an individual Top 100. To ensure a degree of investment, in order to avoid people just throwing a bunch of names together and vaguely sorting it into a plausible order, we should require there to be exactly 10 out of the 100 selections where a listmaker addends a 100-word-or-more explanation under the player chosen. Could be 10 in a row, the first ten, the last ten, every tenth player, totally random, or whatever. I suggest using each to explain an unorthodox placement, unusually high or unusually low. But, that's just my idea of how to use them. And maybe it should only be 5 explanations required, or maybe it should be 20. Anyway, you'd also have to request no talking, lol, no contaminating the process until all ballots submitted. So, what you should ideally wind up with is 100 of the best minds here being able to create a list without any interference, at their own pace, without any risk of fatigue setting in, or any pressure to "make up for" any suboptimal selections. Then you just average those 100 ballots, weigh them, whatever, and -- voila -- you have the best Top 100 ever created together by internet strangers. The commentary-requirement would then allow for a really cool way to wrap it all up in a bow at the end. All at once, on one page, all 100 crowdsourced picks, with ALL of the explanations submitted per player chosen for that. And...a full listing of the left-out remainders, and each ballot-maker should be responsible for explaining at least 1 total omission with another 100 words at the end. Perhaps this would be a perfectly legit reason for doing that PC Board Top 100 Poster thing, as opposed to just-for-s***s-and-giggles, lol.

So...great idea, right?

(Have you all done it before, and I'm just late to the party? :| )

[rrravenred]

"Best posters" is something so insanely subjective that I can't see it ever working. The list trends to become selected for quality outside the top ten in any case, as the pure fanboys tend to drop off after THEIR player gets in.

The idea of a personal, and only intermittently justified list is sort of interesting. Only problem I have with it is that it reduces to almost zero the role of discussion and argument, which is sort of the point of the PC board.

Still interesting as a way to streamline the project, and when that Finals series ends, a robust discussion on the methods we use well be really helpful in driving the process...

Sent from my SM-T310 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[wigglestrue]

Well, luckily enough I came up with a way to get the same result (naming the best PC Board posters ever, in descending order) without being obnoxious about it:

viewtopic.php?p=38323007#p38323007

:-o

Off-topic:

Chicago76 is...the Michael Jordan of this board, or something? And I mean that in a good way. Reading him drop knowledge and reasoning in each post is kind of like watching Jordan drop 40+ over and over. Hmmm...

TrueLAFan is clearly the Magic, his years of dispensing history generously = a mountainous total of assists. It's hilarious that ballboys signing up just now will only see 21 And1s under TLAF's belt, lol. Kids, he is the all-time leader, have no doubt. Going with this further, Doctor MJ makes for a pretty good Dr. J equivalent. How far can this be taken? Has this been done before? If not, is it worth doing? (p.s. Fun fact: This is how the very first ATL draft was born here, in a comment of mine like this.) If we do it, all I ask for is dibs on being Heinsohn, haha.

Instead of the 100 best posters, how about, say, 50 or 25? That shouldn't generate too much butthurt, right? Especially if we're being Positive and Cute about coming up with that Top Whatever, in some roundabout way like "Let's link the GOAT players to their RealGM poster analogue", etc.

[Doctor MJ]

Thank you for the explanation. As someone who helped do the very first (IIRC) big RealGM Top [insert number, but it was 50 then, on the General Board], I take this kind of list probably too seriously, but is it not one of the more prominent artifacts we're leaving behind on this forum, a kind of monument to how well-reasoned this board is, etc. I'm not all that unhappy about the first 50 here, but the second 50 is a mess. It reflects meh-ly on all of us collectively, not just on the particular voters. This board deserves a better Top 100 stickied. Not that the voters didn't give their best effort. This format is probably just not the best. Too clock-sensitive, too many rounds, not enough of an incentive as a fantasy draft has to keep people on schedule. Hmmm. Not one to criticize like this without trying to offer a solution, so: Has there ever been a survey-type Top 100? Meaning, uh...lemme think...

Select 100 of the best posters ever here, roughly balanced team-and-player-bias-wise, and have each (on their own clock, but by a certain day on the calendar) painstakingly construct an individual Top 100. To ensure a degree of investment, in order to avoid people just throwing a bunch of names together and vaguely sorting it into a plausible order, we should require there to be exactly 10 out of the 100 selections where a listmaker addends a 100-word-or-more explanation under the player chosen. Could be 10 in a row, the first ten, the last ten, every tenth player, totally random, or whatever. I suggest using each to explain an unorthodox placement, unusually high or unusually low. But, that's just my idea of how to use them. And maybe it should only be 5 explanations required, or maybe it should be 20. Anyway, you'd also have to request no talking, lol, no contaminating the process until all ballots submitted. So, what you should ideally wind up with is 100 of the best minds here being able to create a list without any interference, at their own pace, without any risk of fatigue setting in, or any pressure to "make up for" any suboptimal selections. Then you just average those 100 ballots, weigh them, whatever, and -- voila -- you have the best Top 100 ever created together by internet strangers. The commentary-requirement would then allow for a really cool way to wrap it all up in a bow at the end. All at once, on one page, all 100 crowdsourced picks, with ALL of the explanations submitted per player chosen for that. And...a full listing of the left-out remainders, and each ballot-maker should be responsible for explaining at least 1 total omission with another 100 words at the end. Perhaps this would be a perfectly legit reason for doing that PC Board Top 100 Poster thing, as opposed to just-for-s***s-and-giggles, lol.

So...great idea, right?

(Have you all done it before, and I'm just late to the party? :| )

So first off, you wouldn't have the list from the first Top X handy would you? I saved the 2006 one, and have a Google doc with 2006, 2008 and 2011, but it appears the 2003 one is lost.

As for a different method, I'm all for trying something in addition to the tried & true method, but I don't like the idea of replacing it. I think this has worked probably better than we have any right to expect something like this to work, and I also like the idea of keeping methods roughly constant so that we can see how opinions changed over time.

Of course you might say: Yeah, but look at those picks toward the end, do those truly give a snapshot of the board, or are they more random? Agree, they are too random for my taste.

My expectation is that I won't be the one running the next Top 100, which I hope will be this summer, so it's certainly not like I'll have final say on what we do, but given that we've waited 3 years from the last of these projects, I'd like to basically do the same thing again before we try to new method.

If discussion were to come up though, I wouldn't be opposed to planning to change methods as the project goes along. If we can do something to reduce the effort it takes for people to maintain their focus, then the last picks won't be as dominated by a few survivors.

To specifically address what you've proposed:

-100 of the best posters making individual lists. Unrealistic. In general we're fortunate to have 30 people be involved at vote #1 which takes much less commitment. Perhaps we could get 10 to commit to this, although to be honest when I make individual lists I find it ceases to be very meaningful well before 100.

-Having some picks which are required to give an explanation. I would agree with this. To me there's a real problem if people just give a list. First and foremost it basically takes the educational aspect out of the project, and while that might sound corny, it's my belief that the actual debate in the projects we've run on this board has everything to do with the building of community and the refinement of opinions.

Of course by that same token, the idea of "no contaminating" is something I don't believe in as part of an initial project, but what I could see is a secondary project. Basically, after we put together our induction-style Top 100, everyone who has then made their Top 100 list then submits it into list-style Top 100. It would be interesting to see the difference in the two results, and we might decide the second list is more worthy than the first.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, luckily enough I came up with a way to get the same result (naming the best PC Board posters ever, in descending order) without being obnoxious about it:

viewtopic.php?p=38323007#p38323007

:-o

Off-topic:

Chicago76 is...the Michael Jordan of this board, or something? And I mean that in a good way. Reading him drop knowledge and reasoning in each post is kind of like watching Jordan drop 40+ over and over. Hmmm...

TrueLAFan is clearly the Magic, his years of dispensing history generously = a mountainous total of assists. It's hilarious that ballboys signing up just now will only see 21 And1s under TLAF's belt, lol. Kids, he is the all-time leader, have no doubt. Going with this further, Doctor MJ makes for a pretty good Dr. J equivalent. How far can this be taken? Has this been done before? If not, is it worth doing? (p.s. Fun fact: This is how the very first ATL draft was born here, in a comment of mine like this.) If we do it, all I ask for is dibs on being Heinsohn, haha.

Instead of the 100 best posters, how about, say, 50 or 25? That shouldn't generate too much butthurt, right? Especially if we're being Positive and Cute about coming up with that Top Whatever, in some roundabout way like "Let's link the GOAT players to their RealGM poster analogue", etc.

btw, this is hilarious.

[EArl]

Im down to help for a new top 100.

[rrravenred]

FWIW I place myself somewhere between Battier and Scalabrine as a poster...

Sent from my LG-P705 using RealGM Forums mobile app