RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[wigglestrue]

In all honesty, I might really be the equivalent of Antoine.
Which both shames and delights me. An inventive, inefficient disappointment...lmfao.
On the bright side: There are such things as fours in the game of thinking!

[wigglestrue]

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.

Good news: Yes. Bad news, it's somewhere in an old computer that died years ago and is sitting in the basement in case I ever feel like paying somebody to repair it, recover files, whatever. I didn't think it was possible for something to be "lost" on the internet, given all the wayback machines and whatnot. Surely someone at RealGM has a text-only backup of everything ever posted here, right? If not, how about the NSA, lol?

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.

Not much changes in three years, Doc. Or rather, not much should change, if the process has been accurate. A player here, a spot or two there. If you're getting sizable swings every three years, then the method is problematic. But yes, keep up the every-three-years traditional version, too. Just maybe, like, let an entirely new batch of posters handle that one. Have the, uh..."preeminent"...posters all do the ballot version, instead, to make it as awesome as possible.

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.

For real? Okay, but let's imagine that this composite/commentary/ballot Top 100 were to become, say, the signature product of this board because all the best of the old-timers and the new blood put their best effort into it and so it turned out to be the most accurate and informative and entertaining Top 100 list ever made. Let's say we all knew that's what would happen in advance if we got everyone involved with full enthusiasm...then a whole lot of people would want to have been part of it, right? There's gotta be at least 50 out of the Top 100 of us here who would be all about this once informed. Again, too: No clock, just a calendar. Dramatically alters the commitment required, no?

-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.

Right, but sometimes the community can become swept up in a fad, overtaken by an powerful but inaccurate rhetorical argument. There are a few downsides to real-time debate, in addition to the numerous upsides. There would still be an instantaneous debate of sorts, once all the comments are sorted and compiled underneath each player who got commentary added (not all will, which is interesting in itself).

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.

Why not do the novel thing first, and see how it changes the thing you've been doing the same way?

By contaminating, I just meant, like, no colluding to get Your Binkie into This Echelon, lol. And I also suspect that an involved pre-game thread anticipating the balloting might serve the same function as collusion, even if unintentional. That's all. Not "no talking", haha, that was bad wording on my part.

[lorak]

Before doing new "top 100" list we should discuss what criteria we should use when ranking players. I mean, how important are titles, stats, impact, accolades, longevity, peak and how it changes from era to era (for example not all titles are equal, because of different competition level).

Besides, I will say it again - retro DPOY project should be realGM PC board 1st priority. Knowledge gained in such project would be very helpful, when we will do new top 100 list.

[penbeast0]

IF you are willing to set it up and run it . . . Great, let's do it. But these things only work if someone steps up and focuses on doing it EVERY DAY for an extended period of weeks. Many people start these projects; few finish them.

So, it has to be something that excites you enough to make it happen properly which is why I encourage anyone who wants to do either thread to prepare for it this offseason.

[wigglestrue]

IF you are willing to set it up and run it . . . Great, let's do it. But these things only work if someone steps up and focuses on doing it EVERY DAY for an extended period of weeks. Many people start these projects; few finish them.

So, it has to be something that excites you enough to make it happen properly which is why I encourage anyone who wants to do either thread to prepare for it this offseason.

I can draw up ballots and try to establish some core guidelines (and maybe put together a VIP list of posters-whose-ballot-will-be-most-sought-after), all subject to future changes if need be.

We could even kill a few birds with one stone (or heal a few birds with one Band-Aid, because what kind of psycho goes around throwing rocks at birds, lol?) by simply adding a few optional lists to complete at the end, for the uber-serious-business nerds with free time on their hands. So, end of Top 100, page break, and then anything else people might be curious to see answered via the ballot process, purely optional.

[Quotatious]

I remember Doc MJ mentioned that he plans on running the next top 100 list this summer, so maybe you should talk to him about it, wigglestrue?

I imagine that LeBron would be heavily knocking on the door of the top 5 with another title this year.

[wigglestrue]

I remember Doc MJ mentioned that he plans on running the next top 100 list this summer, so maybe you should talk to him about it, wigglestrue?

I imagine that LeBron would be heavily knocking on the door of the top 5 with another title this year.

Well, whoever runs it, if the ballot thing winds up being done before/during/after the usual round thing, someone's gonna have to draw up a tentative ballot and a tentative overview of the process. I'm the balls at admin work like that, so I'm volunteering my services. Just the logistical side, not really interested in being an MC or mod or whatnot.

And not so fast re: LeBron, given the ongoing re-assessment of Bird's defense.

But yeah, he's bound for at least the Top 7 if he wins another, especially in dominating Finals MVP fashion. I'd hate to see him rushed into the Top 5, though. He'd still have more knocking to do.

[Owly]

Re: James versus Bird
LeBron has a solid case for already having overtaken the stars of the 80s. He's got the advanced metrics, more points, a better TS% in a lower % era (certainly in terms of fg%, maybe the improvement at 3s makes up for that), is set to overtake Bird's total assists. More MVPs, soon to have more MVP shares. His statistical edges get larger in the playoffs. I don't know about the reassessment of Bird's D but LeBron has more accolades there (five 1st Team All-D to Bird's 3 2nd teams) and I suspect he was never as poor as Bird was at the end of his career on that end.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tals::none

[wigglestrue]

Re: James versus Bird
LeBron has a solid case for already having overtaken the stars of the 80s. He's got the advanced metrics, more points, a better TS% in a lower % era (certainly in terms of fg%, maybe the improvement at 3s makes up for that), is set to overtake Bird's total assists. More MVPs, soon to have more MVP shares. His statistical edges get larger in the playoffs. I don't know about the reassessment of Bird's D but LeBron has more accolades there (five 1st Team All-D to Bird's 3 2nd teams) and I suspect he was never as poor as Bird was at the end of his career on that end.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tals::none

Wait, you've seen their Finals stats side-by-side, right?
An adjusted-for-pace might say otherwise, but Bird > LeBron in the Finals.

Bird's D is being re-evaluated in this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=38639327#p38639327
It's about more than accolades. You'll have to peruse the last 8 pages.

No matter how many apg LBJ averages, he will never be as great a passer as Bird.

Bird's MVP shares came against much fiercer all-time competition.

LeBron is making a solid case...he does not have it yet, though.

[JrueHK]

Re: James versus Bird
LeBron has a solid case for already having overtaken the stars of the 80s. He's got the advanced metrics, more points, a better TS% in a lower % era (certainly in terms of fg%, maybe the improvement at 3s makes up for that), is set to overtake Bird's total assists. More MVPs, soon to have more MVP shares. His statistical edges get larger in the playoffs. I don't know about the reassessment of Bird's D but LeBron has more accolades there (five 1st Team All-D to Bird's 3 2nd teams) and I suspect he was never as poor as Bird was at the end of his career on that end.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tals::none

Wait, you've seen their Finals stats side-by-side, right?
An adjusted-for-pace might say otherwise, but Bird > LeBron in the Finals.

Bird's D is being re-evaluated in this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=38639327#p38639327
It's about more than accolades. You'll have to peruse the last 8 pages.

No matter how many apg LBJ averages, he will never be as great a passer as Bird.

Bird's MVP shares came against much fiercer all-time competition.

LeBron is making a solid case...he does not have it yet, though.

Because final stats should determine whether a player is better than the other player...
Lebron is def as good of a passer Bird was. Better defender, rebounder, and all around better player.

[wigglestrue]

Re: James versus Bird
LeBron has a solid case for already having overtaken the stars of the 80s. He's got the advanced metrics, more points, a better TS% in a lower % era (certainly in terms of fg%, maybe the improvement at 3s makes up for that), is set to overtake Bird's total assists. More MVPs, soon to have more MVP shares. His statistical edges get larger in the playoffs. I don't know about the reassessment of Bird's D but LeBron has more accolades there (five 1st Team All-D to Bird's 3 2nd teams) and I suspect he was never as poor as Bird was at the end of his career on that end.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... tals::none

Wait, you've seen their Finals stats side-by-side, right?
An adjusted-for-pace might say otherwise, but Bird > LeBron in the Finals.

Bird's D is being re-evaluated in this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=38639327#p38639327
It's about more than accolades. You'll have to peruse the last 8 pages.

No matter how many apg LBJ averages, he will never be as great a passer as Bird.

Bird's MVP shares came against much fiercer all-time competition.

LeBron is making a solid case...he does not have it yet, though.

Because final stats should determine whether a player is better than the other player...
Lebron is def as good of a passer Bird was. Better defender, rebounder, and all around better player.

Snark fail. I was responding to this particular point:
"His statistical edges get larger in the playoffs."
Finals stats have a huge role in what constitutes a playoff edge.

Nobody is as good of a passer as Bird was. No forward, certainly.
Go look up "Larry Bird" and "passing" on YouTube. You're welcome.

James is a better defender overall, sure. Not as much as you think, I bet.
Larry Bird is one of the best team defenders of all time. See that thread.

Bird is the better rebounder, and I'd love to hear the argument otherwise.
Bird is the better shooter. LeBron is the better dribbler.

This is the latest thread for this comparison:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1299171

[E-Z]

Here's my top 100 from last year. Not perfect, but I'm pleased.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Tim Duncan
4. Kobe Bryant
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Magic Johnson
8. Bill Russell
9. Larry Bird
10. LeBron James
11. Hakeem Olajuwon
12. Kevin Garnett
13. Bob Cousy
14. Julius Erving
15. Jerry West
16. Oscar Robertson
17. John Havlicek
18. Moses Malone
19. Karl Malone
20. Bob Pettit
21. David Robinson
22. John Stockton
23. Scottie Pippen
24. Rick Barry
25. Dirk Nowitzki
26. Artis Gilmore
27. Jason Kidd
28. Dennis Rodman
29. Dwight Howard
30. Gary Payton
31. George Gervin
32. Charles Barkley
33. Dikembe Mutombo
34. Elgin Baylor
35. Allen Iverson
36. Chris Paul
37. Dywane Wade
38. Spencer Haywood
39. Dennis Johnson
40. Sam Jones
41. Steve Nash
42. Tom Heinsohn
43. Bill Sharman
44. Sidney Moncrief
45. Patrick Ewing
46. Alonzo Mourning
47. Kevin McHale
48. Elvin Hayes
49. George Mikan
50. Paul Pierce
51. Billy Cunningham
52. Willis Reed
53. Robert Parish
54. Isiah Thomas
55. Joe Dumars
56. Dan Issel
57. Dave DeBusschere
58. Bob McAdoo
59. Tracy McGrady
60. George McGinnis
61. Hal Greer
62. Ray Allen
63. Tony Parker
64. Jerry Lucas
65. Jimmy Jones
66. Michael Cooper
67. Clyde Drexler
68. Dave Cowens
69. Chauncey Billups
70. Vern Mikkelsen
71. Dolph Schayes
72. James Worthy
73. Tiny Archibald
74. Adrian Dantley
75. Jo Jo White
76. Wes Unseld
77. Neil Johnston
78. Connie Hawkins
79. Dominique Wilkins
80. Paul Westphal
81. Larry Foust
82. Pau Gasol
83. Dave Bing
84. Mitch Richmond
85. Grant Hill
86. Amare Stoudemire
87. Alex English
88. Bob Davies
89. Reggie Miller
90. Vince Carter
91. Cliff Hagan
92. Chris Webber
93. Chet Walker
94. Tom Sanders
95. David Thompson
96. Zelmo Beaty
97. Bob Lanier
98. Lenny Wilkens
99. Robert Horry
100. Bill Walton
101. Jack Sikma

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... tMlE#gid=0

[wigglestrue]

Here's my top 100 from last year. Not perfect, but I'm pleased.

3. Tim Duncan
4. Kobe Bryant

It's pitchy, dawg. Sharp.

I like where you have a few players, but you really missed some critical notes, like...the Barkley-Mutombo combo, Ewing at 45, Isiah outside the Top 50, Drexler, Cowens, Archibald, among dozens more, and then the epic off-key placement of Horry ahead of Walton. Was this list supposed to not be in any particular order?

[NinjaSheppard]

I don't think I have ever seen someone rank Bill Russell low but at the same time rank Cousy so high. It is usually a combo of both in the same direction (60s overrated vs dem rings)

[E-Z]

Here's my top 100 from last year. Not perfect, but I'm pleased.

3. Tim Duncan
4. Kobe Bryant

It's pitchy, dawg. Sharp.

I like where you have a few players, but you really missed some critical notes, like...the Barkley-Mutombo combo, Ewing at 45, Isiah outside the Top 50, Drexler, Cowens, Archibald, among dozens more, and then the epic off-key placement of Horry ahead of Walton. Was this list supposed to not be in any particular order?

I used a point-based system based on player accomplishments as well as statistical performance. It's weighted slightly more so for actual awards and achievements at the moment. Bill Russell as well as other players from his era are snubbed due to the lack of awards that existed during his era.

What's generally the most common argument for Russell to be #1 or #2 anyway? If we value championships that much, then MJ wouldn't be #1 or #2.

[penbeast0]

I used a point-based system based on player accomplishments as well as statistical performance. It's weighted slightly more so for actual awards and achievements at the moment. Bill Russell as well as other players from his era are snubbed due to the lack of awards that existed during his era.

What's generally the most common argument for Russell to be #1 or #2 anyway? If we value championships that much, then MJ wouldn't be #1 or #2.

The most common argument for Russell isn't the rings . . . they are results rather than causes . . . it's the defensive impact (including defensive rebounding but mainly team points allowed per possession relative to league average) which is unprecentended and differentiates him more from the norm (or even the second greatest of his era) than any other player in terms of impacting team W/L.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I used a point-based system based on player accomplishments as well as statistical performance. It's weighted slightly more so for actual awards and achievements at the moment. Bill Russell as well as other players from his era are snubbed due to the lack of awards that existed during his era.

What's generally the most common argument for Russell to be #1 or #2 anyway? If we value championships that much, then MJ wouldn't be #1 or #2.

The most common argument for Russell isn't the rings . . . they are results rather than causes . . . it's the defensive impact (including defensive rebounding but mainly team points allowed per possession relative to league average) which is unprecentended and differentiates him more from the norm (or even the second greatest of his era) than any other player in terms of impacting team W/L.

It should be said however, that it's hard to compare Russell's defensive impact to modern day players. Russell wouldn't have had the same defensive impact if he played his whole career in a NBA where players could jump through the roof, and are lightning quick. A NBA with wider lanes, and a 3pt line spacing the action. A NBA where there are more than 8-10 teams.

What would a Hakeem, TD, KG, or even Dwight do back in Russell's era? I would say they would be incredibly imapctful too. Russell however, wouldn't be as imapctful as them in the modern era(IMO).

[penbeast0]

We don't know. Maybe Jordan would be a Deron DeRozan today; maybe LeBron or Wade wouldn't be able to adjust to the 60s dribbling rules; maybe Russell's rebounding, defense, and intelligence wouldn't be as effective in the modern era. What we do know is that Russell was the most impactful player in NBA history in the age that he played in. A system that doesn't recognize that needs to be looked at just as when PER rated Ivan Calderon as one of the most impactful players in the NBA that had to be taken with a grain of salt.

[lorak]

We don't know. Maybe Jordan would be a Deron DeRozan today;

No "maybe" here. Jordan's skillset would FOR SURE made him MUCH better player today than DeRozan. And the same is with your others "maybes". There's really nothing wrong in speculating how players would be doing in different eras. Some had skillest that would translate well, others don't and it's not difficult to recognize that.

[wigglestrue]

I used a point-based system based on player accomplishments as well as statistical performance. It's weighted slightly more so for actual awards and achievements at the moment. Bill Russell as well as other players from his era are snubbed due to the lack of awards that existed during his era.

What's generally the most common argument for Russell to be #1 or #2 anyway? If we value championships that much, then MJ wouldn't be #1 or #2.

The most common argument for Russell isn't the rings . . . they are results rather than causes . . . it's the defensive impact (including defensive rebounding but mainly team points allowed per possession relative to league average) which is unprecentended and differentiates him more from the norm (or even the second greatest of his era) than any other player in terms of impacting team W/L.

It should be said however, that it's hard to compare Russell's defensive impact to modern day players. Russell wouldn't have had the same defensive impact if he played his whole career in a NBA where players could jump through the roof, and are lightning quick. A NBA with wider lanes, and a 3pt line spacing the action. A NBA where there are more than 8-10 teams.

What would a Hakeem, TD, KG, or even Dwight do back in Russell's era? I would say they would be incredibly imapctful too. Russell however, wouldn't be as imapctful as them in the modern era(IMO).

This is sooooo dumb. Josh Smith, Marcus Camby, Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Deandre Jordan...these are some of the players who've been defensively dominating the NBA recently. You think Bill Russell wasn't an order of magnitude better than they are? Smarter than they are? More intense than they are? More skilled as a defender, rebounder, and passer? More athletic? Russell was an Olympics-level athletic specimen. You think Russell couldn't pull off what KG did on defense, have the same impact overall? Wait, what am I saying, you don't think. You are among the laziest thinkers on this forum, and I'm blocking you. Bye!