RealGM Top 100 List #5

[ceiling raiser]

I'm still struggling with the four bigs. Hopefully I'll figure something out in the next couple of days. Just a couple of questions for anybody who has time:

1) How do we feel about KG's defensive game horizontally compared to Hakeem's?
2) How many more years of 84-88 level Bird would you guys need to see to consider him here? How many years at his 80-83 level instead? I'm not trying to take into account years Bird didn't play, don't get me wrong. Just trying to get an idea of how big the perceived gap is between the current batch and him.

[magicmerl]

What are my other assumptions? That at their best, Magic and Bird were comparable? That's pretty obvious, no?

That Duncan at his best was comparable to Magic/Bird at their best? I think I'm being kind to Duncan when I say that...media recognition and general consensus is on the side of Magic and Bird in that comparison.

There's also the fact that an individual player can usually impact offense a lot more than they can impact defense. Even an all-world defensive anchor needs a proper defensive system and proper defensive personnel in order to anchor a great defense (see KG in Minnesota vs KG in Boston). Meanwhile, the best of the best offensive players can take broken offensive teams and still push them to not just average, but even well above average levels (see LeBron in Cleveland). When you add elite perimeter defense on top of that, to the point where there is no longer a massive difference in defense between the two...but there IS a massive offensive difference between the two...the choice becomes clear to me.

Here's a crack at some:
1. Somehow you went from "the reason why Duncan has a case over them all time is because of his longevity and his huge defensive advantage" to "then LeBron is definitely better", ignoring the fact that his career isn't over yet, so self-evidently lacks longevity.
2. You use LeBron's defensive talent as a way of launching him from where Magic is to past Duncan, but that assumes that his defensive ability wasn't being taken into account already by the people who rated LeBron over Magic. So in effect you are double-counting LeBron's defensive ability
3. You are discounting an individual's defensive impact, yet a perimeter player's defensive impact is even MORE dependant on team/system than a defensive big. Having a big who can protect the rim is one of the most portable skills in basketball. There's no team ever that doesn't want that.

[ThaRegul8r]

Bluntly, I''m not convinced you had any real intention to change your mind and sought to control post content. Your double standards on posting coaching articles doesn't help. It really doesn't matter regardless and we can agree to disagree.

"Changed" it? I haven't even made my mind yet. I'm still deliberating. Which is the entire point. Which is why I've asked questions of some player advocates. To get more information to help me decide. Which was the point of my posting where I was at about Shaq. Because I haven't made up my mind yet. I have no candidate, nor any player that I'm advocating for. I'm reading the arguments and looking at what I already have on them. I've stated what arguments posters have made I've found were a point in their favor, and those I didn't find convincing. You've spoken on something for which you have no facts to support it.

Nor am I "controlling content." People can post whatever they want. I've commented on arguments that helped their case for me, arguments that omitted information and arguments that stated facts that weren't true. Why are you any different? (Tu quoque is not a good argument by the way. You can either take it and use it to argue better, or leave it. It doesn't matter to me.) I commended RayBan-Sematra for handling what I had to say the right way, and now this is an example of the wrong way.

I'm "even-handed" one minute and "closed-minded" the next depending on how you perceive it aids or doesn't aid your agenda?

Typical.

People always like what I have to say when they don't perceive it to oppose their agenda, but should I ever say anything that does, everything changes. That's how it goes on the internet (and in life in general, but I digress). But if this is the response to anything that doesn't 100% align with what you post, then I won't further engage you.

[therealbig3]

What are my other assumptions? That at their best, Magic and Bird were comparable? That's pretty obvious, no?

That Duncan at his best was comparable to Magic/Bird at their best? I think I'm being kind to Duncan when I say that...media recognition and general consensus is on the side of Magic and Bird in that comparison.

There's also the fact that an individual player can usually impact offense a lot more than they can impact defense. Even an all-world defensive anchor needs a proper defensive system and proper defensive personnel in order to anchor a great defense (see KG in Minnesota vs KG in Boston). Meanwhile, the best of the best offensive players can take broken offensive teams and still push them to not just average, but even well above average levels (see LeBron in Cleveland). When you add elite perimeter defense on top of that, to the point where there is no longer a massive difference in defense between the two...but there IS a massive offensive difference between the two...the choice becomes clear to me.

Here's a crack at some:
1. Somehow you went from "the reason why Duncan has a case over them all time is because of his longevity and his huge defensive advantage" to "then LeBron is definitely better", ignoring the fact that his career isn't over yet, so self-evidently lacks longevity.
2. You use LeBron's defensive talent as a way of launching him from where Magic is to past Duncan, but that assumes that his defensive ability wasn't being taken into account already by the people who rated LeBron over Magic. So in effect you are double-counting LeBron's defensive ability
3. You are discounting an individual's defensive impact, yet a perimeter player's defensive impact is even MORE dependant on team/system than a defensive big. Having a big who can protect the rim is one of the most portable skills in basketball. There's no team ever that doesn't want that.

1. I was obviously talking about these players at their best. Clearly, LeBron's longevity is worse than Duncan's, and that's why Duncan ranks higher than LeBron on my own list...but both of them at their best, I'd definitely take LeBron.

2. Again, I'm talking about prime vs prime. Prime Magic is absolutely on the same level as Duncan, most likely better. LeBron is even better than a prime Magic.

3. Agreed. But I'm saying that even if you put both in an ideal environment, Duncan's defensive impact isn't destroying LeBron's...while LeBron's offensive impact IS destroying Duncan's. And I'm saying that an offensive superstar can push a team's offense by himself further than a defensive superstar can push a team's defense by himself.

[ThaRegul8r]

Here's the thing I don't get about the "less support" talk. It seems people focus on 1 or 2 seasons where a star with "less support" wins a title, but.....the many other years where their teams may have under-performed based on "support", are ignored.

Except for Duncan those examples don't exist. He always met or exceeded the expectations he should have had based on his support cast.

Even if a player didn't, then I'd still be impressed they could do it once (Moses Malone for eg), then judge them for when they didn't do it. But that's not the case here with Duncan. The 3 bad teams prime Duncan was on all were 58-60 win contenders/champs from 01-03.

Focusing on one magically season is a recipe for problems. Like i said before, if we're judging player for only the things that went right...Wilt would be ahead of Russell because of his 1967 season. The project would essentially become the Peaks Project with 00 Shaq vs 03 Duncan vs 87 Magic vs 06 Kobe vs 86 Bird, and so on.

For me, it seems more prudent to evaluate the whole career with special emphasis on prime years. The good & the bad should factor in. It's like is we were rating the best movies ever. Would we focus only on the great scenes, or would we take the whole film into account.

Agreed that the whole career should be looked at, not a selective focus on favorable periods.

[90sAllDecade]

Bluntly, I''m not convinced you had any real intention to change your mind and sought to control post content. Your double standards on posting coaching articles doesn't help. It really doesn't matter regardless and we can agree to disagree.

"Changed" it? I haven't even made my mind yet. I'm still deliberating. Which is the entire point. Which is why I've asked questions of some player advocates. To get more information to help me decide. Which was the point of my posting where I was at about Shaq. Because I haven't made up my mind yet. I have no candidate, nor any player that I'm advocating for. I'm reading the arguments and looking at what I already have on them. I've stated what arguments posters have made I've found were a point in their favor, and those I didn't find convincing.

Nor am I "controlling content." People can post whatever they want. I've commented on arguments that helped their case for me, arguments that omitted information and arguments that stated facts that weren't true. Why are you any different? (Tu quoque is not a good argument by the way. You can either take it and use it to argue better, or leave it. It doesn't matter to me.) I commended RayBan-Sematra for handling what I had to say the right way, and now this is an example of the wrong way.

I'm "even-handed" one minute and "closed-minded" the next depending on how you perceive it aids or doesn't aid your agenda?

Typical.

Well, you have a right to your own opinion, I disagree with your labels and that take.

Not a big deal regardless and I'm glad we can move on, fair enough *shrug*

[ceiling raiser]

Bluntly, I''m not convinced you had any real intention to change your mind and sought to control post content. Your double standards on posting coaching articles doesn't help. It really doesn't matter regardless and we can agree to disagree.

"Changed" it? I haven't even made my mind yet. I'm still deliberating. Which is the entire point. Which is why I've asked questions of some player advocates. To get more information to help me decide. Which was the point of my posting where I was at about Shaq. Because I haven't made up my mind yet. I have no candidate, nor any player that I'm advocating for. I'm reading the arguments and looking at what I already have on them. I've stated what arguments posters have made I've found were a point in their favor, and those I didn't find convincing.

Nor am I "controlling content." People can post whatever they want. I've commented on arguments that helped their case for me, arguments that omitted information and arguments that stated facts that weren't true. Why are you any different? (Tu quoque is not a good argument by the way. You can either take it and use it to argue better, or leave it. It doesn't matter to me.) I commended RayBan-Sematra for handling what I had to say the right way, and now this is an example of the wrong way.

I'm "even-handed" one minute and "closed-minded" the next depending on how you perceive it aids or doesn't aid your agenda?

Typical.

People always like what I have to say when they don't perceive it to oppose their agenda, but should I ever say anything that does, everything changes. That's how it goes on the internet (and in life in general, but I digress). But if this is the response to anything that doesn't 100% align with what you post, then I won't further engage you.

Well, you have a right to your own opinion, I disagree with your labels and that take. Not a big deal regardless and I'm glad we can move on. Fair enough *shrug*

I won't speak for ThaRegul8r, but he seems (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) to be pressing everybody to flesh out both sides of the ledger for all players being discussed (to help himself and others make an informed decision), so don't feel singled out.

FWIW some of the sources you've posted have been very helpful. I'm not sure who my pick will be, but I'm presently leaning Hakeem (thanks to posts from yourself and fatal9 to help get a better idea of his pre-peak years, and general watching/reading as much as I can the past few days).

[magicmerl]

1. I was obviously talking about these players at their best.

Sure. I'm happy to agree with you that peak LeBron is higher than peak Duncan. One of robo-Duncan's unique abilities is that he is almost the exact same player from his first season to his 17th. There's just nobody else like that in NBA history.

And I agree that Prime matters. I'm just concerned about posts that seem to argue that the only thing that matters is peak/prime. I think that prime years count for more than the tail of a career, but it all counts for something.

[ThaRegul8r]

"Changed" it? I haven't even made my mind yet. I'm still deliberating. Which is the entire point. Which is why I've asked questions of some player advocates. To get more information to help me decide. Which was the point of my posting where I was at about Shaq. Because I haven't made up my mind yet. I have no candidate, nor any player that I'm advocating for. I'm reading the arguments and looking at what I already have on them. I've stated what arguments posters have made I've found were a point in their favor, and those I didn't find convincing.

Nor am I "controlling content." People can post whatever they want. I've commented on arguments that helped their case for me, arguments that omitted information and arguments that stated facts that weren't true. Why are you any different? (Tu quoque is not a good argument by the way. You can either take it and use it to argue better, or leave it. It doesn't matter to me.) I commended RayBan-Sematra for handling what I had to say the right way, and now this is an example of the wrong way.

I'm "even-handed" one minute and "closed-minded" the next depending on how you perceive it aids or doesn't aid your agenda?

Typical.

People always like what I have to say when they don't perceive it to oppose their agenda, but should I ever say anything that does, everything changes. That's how it goes on the internet (and in life in general, but I digress). But if this is the response to anything that doesn't 100% align with what you post, then I won't further engage you.

Well, you have a right to your own opinion, I disagree with your labels and that take. Not a big deal regardless and I'm glad we can move on. Fair enough *shrug*

I won't speak for ThaRegul8r, but he seems (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) to be pressing everybody to flesh out both sides of the ledger for all players being discussed (to help himself and others make an informed decision), so don't feel singled out.

You are correct.

[Clyde Frazier]

Barry beat a Bullets team who would not even have qualified for the Western Conference playoffs this year. It hardly compares to some of the earlier examples given, like Duncan taking out Shaq and Kobe in their primes.

Get serious -

Elvin Hayes HOF
Wes Unseld HOF
Phil Chenier 2nd team all-nba
Kevin Porter led league in assists
Mike Riordan - 5 year starter in NBA

Rookie Truck Robinson on bench - future 1st team all-nba

How many teams in the NBA have 2 HOFers/Top 50 all-timers on them playing with a 2nd team all-nba player?

Probably puts them battling for 3rd in West.

HoF is a meaningless title. Mikan and Cousy are HoFers, and they would be lucky to make it in today's NBA. Elvin Hayes and Unseld might not have been top 100 players of all-time. They are no comparison to prime Shaq and Kobe.

…Are you completely dismissing the NBA pre-1980 or something? Making grand generalizations about players from the 50s and 70s not being able to play in today's game isn't really relevant. Barry isn't a current player. You have to take the players who played each other at face value. That isn't insignificant.

[90sAllDecade]

I won't speak for ThaRegul8r, but he seems (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) to be pressing everybody to flesh out both sides of the ledger for all players being discussed (to help himself and others make an informed decision), so don't feel singled out.

FWIW some of the sources you've posted have been very helpful. I'm not sure who my pick will be, but I'm presently leaning Hakeem at the moment (thanks to posts from yourself and fatal9 to help get a better idea of his pre-peak years, and general watching/reading as much as I can the past few days).

I will continue to post info for others like yourself Fpliii, regardless of the vote. My participating fanbase is clearly a minority but I enjoy this project and will participate regardless of outcome.

I didn't care for his attempt to dictate if someone should post about coach support or players as I address points and argument posters have at the time. So I allowed him to express his perspective, while I did the same.

Besides that, two people advocating presents the best way to flesh out a debate imo (like our justice system with two advocates and a jury listening). Which is why I wanted to hear RAPM and LeBron vs Magic freely discussed earlier.

But like I said, I'll have more info soon. And I appreciate the substance in your contributions as well.

[Baller2014]

I take them at face value, and the prima facie evidence tells me that the competition in 1975 sucked compared to pretty much all the modern teams we're talking about. It's not Barry who is getting dissed, he'd have been a great player today, it's the weaksauce opposition he faced. Barry would probably make my top 25 all-time list, despite his inconsistencies and personality issues.

[ThaRegul8r]

I take them at face value, and the prima facie evidence tells me that the competition in 1975 sucked compared to pretty much all the modern teams we're talking about. It's not Barry who is getting dissed, he'd have been a great player today, it's the weaksauce opposition he faced. Barry would probably make my top 25 all-time list, despite his inconsistencies and personality issues.

Enough with the "weaksauce" opposition. You're a Duncan guy, so you should be aware that some people say Duncan won his titles against "weak competition." So if you persist on taking that approach, you're only hurting your own case. You're not helping yourself.

[RayBan-Sematra]

If you replace Shaq with 2013/2014 Duncan on the 2010 Cavs and 2011 Celtics they would have been a much better team.

Don't agree with this.
Shaq in 2010 was in his 18th season. Duncan will be in his 18th season this coming year.

Duncan has much better longevity.

He really doesn't.
Shaq has a good 14 quality years.
Duncan at most has 15.

That is a negligible difference.

While I think Shaq was the better two way player than Duncan in his prime and peak, he wasn’t consistent on a year to year basis.

Shaq was really incredibly consistent over his Prime when it came to his production and impact.
I wouldn't say Duncan has a significant edge here.

Playoff PER

-Shaq
Top 5 years : 29.9
Top 7 years : 29.6
Top 10 years : 28.3

-Duncan
Top 5 years : 27.6
Top 7 years : 27.3
Top 10 years : 26.4

As you can see they were equally as consistent over their 7 best years.
Duncan has a minor edge over their 10 best.

[Clyde Frazier]

I take them at face value, and the prima facie evidence tells me that the competition in 1975 sucked compared to pretty much all the modern teams we're talking about. It's not Barry who is getting dissed, he'd have been a great player today, it's the weaksauce opposition he faced. Barry would probably make my top 25 all-time list, despite his inconsistencies and personality issues.

If you really think hayes, unseld and chenier would be significantly worse in today's NBA, while barry would be just fine, I don't know what to tell you.

[Baller2014]

I agree that the competition Duncan faced in 2003 was hardly the strongest field ever. I have no problem admitting that. The 2014 Spurs for instance faced far tougher foes. That said, Duncan did take down the 3 time defending champs, a prime Shaq and Kobe, and was 2-1 up v.s the Mavs before Dirk got hurt (with really no reason to believe they wouldn't have won the series anyway). I'm a reasonable guy, and I don't play up bad teams the Spurs beat (like the 03 Suns and Nets). That doesn't make my analysis of the teams in 1975 less valid though. Every one of the teams the Warriors beat in the playoffs that year (and the Warriors themselves) would have lost in the first round of the Western playoffs this year.

[Baller2014]

I take them at face value, and the prima facie evidence tells me that the competition in 1975 sucked compared to pretty much all the modern teams we're talking about. It's not Barry who is getting dissed, he'd have been a great player today, it's the weaksauce opposition he faced. Barry would probably make my top 25 all-time list, despite his inconsistencies and personality issues.

If you really think hayes, unseld and chenier would be significantly worse in today's NBA, while barry would be just fine, I don't know what to tell you.

The NBA in 1975 was definitely not as strong as it is today, and even at the time guys like Unseld and Hayes were vastly overrated. Unseld is maybe the worst MVP of all-time (or close), and never really looked close to getting such recognition again. Is Hayes even a better player than Amare Stoudemire? He certainly had as many negatives to his game. Chenier was what, a poor mans 6-3 Joe Johnson? 1st round exit team at best.

Barry on the other hand would be even better today, with his excellent shooting ability and the increased floor spacing.

[ThaRegul8r]

Being in a weaker conference isn't a huge deal in this case mainly because we're talking about a player who went to the Finals 9 times, so we're not talking about a team that was involved in upsets.

This is incorrect. While he did lead an upset over Portland in '91 in order to get the Lakers to the Finals against Jordan that year, he has been on the wrong side of several upsets.

[Baller2014]

+1. Magic was on the wrong side of 3 upsets, the Rockets twice (in 81 and 86) and the KJ Suns (in 1990).

[ElGee]

SHAQ

Ok I have
Bird
Lebron
Magic
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan

Magic has lowest peak
Bird shortest prime
Hakeem less career

Duncan peak and prime are both below shaq and lebron


For now i have to go with shaq. He has career over lebron and is only one who can match his peak and prime.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Can you or someone else help with this, as I'm queuing up my post on early Bird-Magic -- how does Bird have a shorter prime than Magic?? Bird's an MVP-level player from 80-88 (9 years). Magic is from 84-91 (8 years). I've still yet to see a reason why people focus on prime versus the whole career -- I can barely keep up with people ranking by peak, prime, accolades, career, ability to play in the post 2005 NBA -- but I've seen a lot of strange exercises in declaring when prime starts and ends.