RealGM Top 100 List #6

Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier

User avatar
Quotatious
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,999
And1: 11,145
Joined: Nov 15, 2013

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#101 » by Quotatious » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:02 pm

ardee wrote:And honestly I'm splitting hairs here... Like I said, 11 is as good as 10 for me. He's a great player nonetheless, but with the other greats someone has to fall to the bottom. I just can't rank a guy who was truly among the league's best players for only 3 years of his career over guys who were in the discussion for much longer, ala Bird, Magic, LeBron, Kobe, Shaq, etc.

I think that you being higher on Kobe than most of us here (and having him ahead of Olajuwon, which is a slightly unpopular opinion, I guess), explains that a bit. Image
User avatar
acrossthecourt
Pro Prospect
Posts: 984
And1: 729
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#102 » by acrossthecourt » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:07 pm

I watched a finals game between Shaq and Hakeem. I came away more impressed with Penny Hardaway than anyone else. Oops.

But Shaq was not embarrassed by Hakeem. I was impressed by his ability to let the offense play through him. Those giant hands were useful for making quick passes. I really think he's an order of magnitude, or more, better than Olajuwon's offense -- he bests him in usage, efficiency, and passing.

People overrate low post offense from big men often because they can't pass. One big example would be Moses Malone, and another obvious modern one is Al Jefferson (Charlotte barely improved on offense adding him.) Drawing attention inside doesn't matter if you can't pass out well.

The difference between 20's Olajuwon and 30's Olajuwon is that his assist rates nearly double. It's not just having better teammates, because you can look at the percentage of the field goals he's assisting. Anyone want to comment on this change?

Shaq had that passing for almost all of his career, however. He warped the court and just bulldozed his way to the rim. I think Shaq's case is going to depend on how you rate his pre-'00 career. Just how good was he in his sophomore year? Did the stats align with his impact?
Twitter: AcrossTheCourt
Website; advanced stats based with a few studies:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com
User avatar
acrossthecourt
Pro Prospect
Posts: 984
And1: 729
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#103 » by acrossthecourt » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:10 pm

ardee wrote:And it shows doesn't it? He's only ever finished top 3 in MVP voting twice. I know people hate awards here but if a guy was never really considered to be on par with the other greats of the time until he noticeably improved his game, it might say something.

RealGM agrees though, and he doesn't rank much better in their (our...) awards despite his peak almost perfectly coinciding with Jordan's retirement. Maybe that would change if you redid the project.

Great player, but I agree with history that guys like Magic/Shaq/Bird are over him.
Twitter: AcrossTheCourt
Website; advanced stats based with a few studies:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,434
And1: 3,255
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#104 » by colts18 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:11 pm

acrossthecourt wrote:I watched a finals game between Shaq and Hakeem. I came away more impressed with Penny Hardaway than anyone else. Oops.

But Shaq was not embarrassed by Hakeem. I was impressed by his ability to let the offense play through him. Those giant hands were useful for making quick passes. I really think he's an order of magnitude, or more, better than Olajuwon's offense -- he bests him in usage, efficiency, and passing.

I made a post about that series a year ago. Here were my observations:

Total:
Hakeem: 253 touches, 140 doubles (55.3%)
Shaq: 221 touches, 146 doubles (66.1%)

Here are their stats when they were guarded by each other:
Shaq 32-57 (56.1 FG%), 6-8 FT, 67.3 double teamed%, .578 TS%, 17 assists, 1 O-reb allowed to Hakeem
Hakeem: 31-75 (41.3 FG%), 9-13 FT, 60.2 double teamed%, .446 TS%, 8 assists, 3 O-reb allowed to Shaq

Shaq blocked 2 Hakeem shots, Hakeem blocked 0 Shaq shots. Hakeem did make a 3P on Shaq. Hakeem guarded Shaq on 73.3% of the touches he had, while Shaq guarded Hakeem on 69.6% of his touches. Hakeem got a lot more fastbreak touches than Shaq so in the halfcourt, they guarded each other about even.

When they weren't being guarded by each other, Shaq was being guarded by Charles Jones and Hakeem by Horace Grant.

Shaq vs Jones: 7-11 FG (63.6 FG%), 35 doubles in 52 touches (67.3%), 2 assists
Hakeem vs Grant: 13-24 (54.2 FG%), 33 double teams in 58 touches (56.9%), 6 assists

Jump shots:
Hakeem: 27-62 (43.5%)
Shaq: 2-7 (28.6%)

The vast majority of Shaq's shots were close range hooks.

Dunks:
Hakeem: 1 dunk (vs grant)
Shaq: 9 dunks (2 of them were in Hakeem's face)

Fouls drawn on offense:
Shaq: 37 (17 on Hakeem)
Hakeem: 21 (9 on Shaq)

Hakeem did draw 4 Shaq charges.

Shaq was called for 5 travels, Hakeem 2.

Plus/Minus (Houston outscored Orlando by 28 points total):
On court:
Shaq: -12 in 180 minutes
Hakeem: +17 in 179 minutes

Off court:
Shaq: -16 in 16:37 of action (Houston scored 133 points per 48 in the minutes Shaq missed)
Hakeem: +11 in 17:11 of action (134 points per 48 in the minutes he was off the court)

Interestingly enough, in 2 of the games, the Magic outscored the Rockets when Shaq was on the court. The magic were -8 in about 9 minutes of action without Shaq in game (lost by just 2 points). In game 3, they were -4 in the minutes Shaq missed in a game where they lost by 3 points. In game 1, the Rockets outscored the magic by 9 in the minutes Hakeem missed, but they were outscored by a combined 4 points in games 3 and 4 without Hakeem.

Observations:
-Orlando was for some reason really committed to doubling Hakeem in game 1. They were throwing a lot of hard doubles. Hakeem had 5 assists in that game, all of them 3 pointers, 4 came off of doubles (one was a triple team). I'm guessing it was a response to Hakeem's series vs Robinson. For the rest of the series, Orlando didn't double Hakeem as much and they threw softer doubles.

-Hakeem made like 5 or 6 baskets in transition to Shaq's 1 or so. So while Shaq didn't get credit for giving up those buckets since he didn't guard, a few of those times Shaq was slow in transition. Shaq got about 3 or shots

-One of the commentators compared Horry to Scottie Pippen and Walton took the comment seriously. They are vastly different players IMO

-I'm not sure why Penny wasn't more aggressive. Kenny Smith couldn't guard him at all. When Penny did drive to the basket, he made a few shots over Hakeem.

-Drexler was the man in this series. He really wanted to get his first title badly. For some reason, people rarely talk about him despite him getting more WS than Hakeem in that playoff run

-It's fashionable these days to **** on Hakeem's cast in 94, but this cast was much better than that one. The guards outplayed Orlando's guards. Horry played really well. The 3P shooters benefited a lot from the shortened 3P line.

-Contrary to popular belief, handchecking wasn't allowed in 95. The refs called like 2 handchecking fouls in this series

-I'm so thankful the NBA got rid of the illegal defense. The refs called like 5 of them in each game. It destroyed the flow of the game and limited the ways you could double team a player.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1242882
TrueLAfan
Senior Mod - Clippers
Senior Mod - Clippers
Posts: 8,272
And1: 1,800
Joined: Apr 11, 2001

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#105 » by TrueLAfan » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:22 pm

Five players in the running here:

Bird--Out of the box strong; terrific peak. May have a slight nod for best punch as a passer/playmaker by position in the group. Good length peak, career shortened by injuries. Great intangibles. Had some playoff problems.

Hakeem--Best defender. Shortest peak period—but next level of play was nearly as good and, combined with peak, made him very valuable for a very long time. Had a relatively brief period where he was considered problem and a distraction. Playoff stud.

LeBron--Almost as versatile as Magic. Good length peak period—and still going. Has had occasional playoff hiccups but also can carry a team single handedly as well as or better than any of these other players. The second best defender in this group.

Magic--Most versatile; definitely the most valuable rebounder by position. Great peak. After early hiccups involving run-ins with management, was a model player—maybe the highest intangibles. Moderate length peak; Career shortened by factors outside of his control.

Shaq--Terrific peak. Long peak period. Playoff stud. But peak period punctuated by missed games and distractions. Coaches and teammates often felt he underperformed or lacked focus.

In that group, I’ve got it:

LeBron/Magic
Bird/Hakeem
Shaq

…but, really, there’s little to separate them. They have different skills sets and strengths and weaknesses, and that means you’ll arrive at different answers based on your methodology or tools. I’m sorry to say that I can’t buy that any analytic tool can give a definitive answer as to why one of these players—any of them—is better than the other. (Statistically, for instance, LeBron is Bird’s equal or superior as a passer. As a watcher of games, I disagree with that.) I think that in this group, more than any other, it’s a big picture issue.


For that reason, I’ll go with Magic Johnson. In a functional sense, I think you’ll get more ways to win with Magic Johnson. Magic adapted his game to style of play, period of play, and stylistic issues more than gets acknowledged. And I’m a rebound guy, and Magic Johnson gives you the biggest wallop as a rebounder. To have the best passer in the league that’s also the best positional rebounder and is regularly in the top ten in scoring efficiency while putting in around 20 a game is nice. The personality and charisma is a bonus too. Although he had “growing up” issues in his first couple of seasons that resulted in some strain with management and players (which Kareem went a ways to calm down, post-Westhead fracas), to have a team with an MVP in (very) gradual decline and a player in ascendency that meshed so well and effectively is a tribute to both men. (Again, Lazenby’s The Show highlights some of the potential rifts between Kareem and Magic that … did not become problems or distractions.) I’ve got nothing really negative to say about LeBron or Hakeem or Bird, but I’ll pick Magic.

btw, colts18, nice breakdown/analysis of the Orlando/Houston final. Good read.
Image
batmana
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,824
And1: 1,425
Joined: Feb 18, 2009
 

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#106 » by batmana » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:26 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Where does it say that we are voting greatest and not best?

This is extremely troubling to me that people are not actually voting for the players that they do not feel are the best. What's the point of this list then?


May have been in the previous top 100 thread but I think it was mentioned in the initial post that the list is supposed to take into account not just play/performance but also accolades, trophies, legacy, etc. Also, that's how I view this list. I think it has an important meaning when we are voting players from the early eras (think Bob Cousy for instance) and compare them to modern players. You either have to project 1960s Cousy into today's game and call him an amateur for only dribbling with one hand, shooting 30%, etc. or you have to compare what Cousy achieved back then to what players are doing in later eras without comparing them actually as players. I am not a fan of the so-called "portability" and I try not to use this as an argument (plus, you can't take anything for granted when it comes to portability, it's all speculation) so this is essentially how I am comparing players. Thus, Bill Russell is a deserved No. 2 in my personal list but if I was to disregard everything other than actual basketball abilities, Bill Russell is not No. 2, he's probably not even top 10. Just one of a number of examples I can give.
User avatar
acrossthecourt
Pro Prospect
Posts: 984
And1: 729
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#107 » by acrossthecourt » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:53 pm

batmana wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
Where does it say that we are voting greatest and not best?

This is extremely troubling to me that people are not actually voting for the players that they do not feel are the best. What's the point of this list then?


May have been in the previous top 100 thread but I think it was mentioned in the initial post that the list is supposed to take into account not just play/performance but also accolades, trophies, legacy, etc. Also, that's how I view this list. I think it has an important meaning when we are voting players from the early eras (think Bob Cousy for instance) and compare them to modern players. You either have to project 1960s Cousy into today's game and call him an amateur for only dribbling with one hand, shooting 30%, etc. or you have to compare what Cousy achieved back then to what players are doing in later eras without comparing them actually as players. I am not a fan of the so-called "portability" and I try not to use this as an argument (plus, you can't take anything for granted when it comes to portability, it's all speculation) so this is essentially how I am comparing players. Thus, Bill Russell is a deserved No. 2 in my personal list but if I was to disregard everything other than actual basketball abilities, Bill Russell is not No. 2, he's probably not even top 10. Just one of a number of examples I can give.

Portability isn't speculation because you can compare how a player does with different lineups, co-stars, or teams.
Twitter: AcrossTheCourt
Website; advanced stats based with a few studies:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,776
And1: 3,216
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#108 » by Owly » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:53 pm

Quotatious wrote:
ardee wrote:Not talking about RealGM, I mean general ATLs you see from writers and other people.

And I personally see a good case for it. He was the second most efficient 60s player besides Wilt, second best rebounding guard behind Oscar, basically ran the offense for the Lakers even if you consider him an SG, best defensive guard of the era besides Hondo, put up monster Playoff numbers every year... He's considered neck and neck with Oscar, and if Oscar has a case for top 10 shouldn't he too?

I have him at 12, right behind Hakeem.

I think he's very comparable to Kobe, KG, Dirk, Dr. J and Oscar, but I generally rank him last in this group (16th), because for me, the other guys have a more compelling case (and for instance he has the worst longevity, clearly below KG, Dr. J or Oscar in terms of peak, doesn't separate himself from the others based on prime etc. ).

My impression is that Oscar is generally regarded as the better player - they're close, but Robertson comes out on top in vast majority of lists. Even Jerry himself admitted that.

Robertson has finished ahead in all published lists (overall and position based) except both editions of the Book of Basketball (8th over 9th and 9th over 10th) and Keith Thompson's 2005 Heroes of the Hardcourt which has West tied 16th with Heinsohn ( :-? ) then Havlicek 18th and Robertson 19th.

Given they're from the same era and all lists are since their retirements there's no issue in comparing their average career rankings (even with Simmons counted both times Robertson's is 6.444444444; West's 10.02777778).

Erving over West is far less typical (not that you said it wasn't or anything, he's just the only guy with a comparable number of listings, where a comparison can be done fairly, though even then there could be issues as to how people have considered Erving's ABA career). Erving's average ranking is 13.69444444. There is an outlier in that his former GM Pat Williams (with Michael Connelly) places him 37th (without which his average rank would be 12.32353) and makes you think the ranking could be NBA only, though it's hard to say if there's a consistent weighting of ABA years, here's all players who played in the ABA that make the list (101 deep) Issel makes the list at 73; David Thompson at 92 (assuming you say that the guy after the players tied at 80th is 82nd, the book technically says '91 iirc); Artis Gilmore at 70, George Gervin 51, Billy Cunningham 49, Rick Barry 25. It does say it's a rating of players from "NBA and ABA history" and a measure of ""players who had the greatest positive impacts on their eras, teams, leagues, and the game of basketball itself" so you'd think it sounds like criteria that would favour him but he falls behind Jerry Lucas.

Either way Erving over West has been relatively rare (Martin Taragano in '93, Peter C Bjarkman in '94 and Thompson in 2005). Notably Erving is ahead in two of the three earliest lists and his stock seems to have dropped considerably in relative terms, wheras West (who as I noted was considered 7-9 in most pre 2000 listings) hasn't typically dropped many places despite, as you (Quotatious) note, a number of new competitors to the top 10/15/20 area (Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, Garnett, Nowitzki, Kobe even Hakeem, Robinson, K. Malone and Barkley).

The biggest uncertainty for me with Erving (even beyond ABA competition levels) is his D. He has good defensive boxscore stats for what that's worth and David Friedman has argued vehemently for Erving as a good defender whilst citing sources that were critical of him. Bill Simmons has suggested on the other hand that he was a "surprisingly subpar defender" (is Simmons influenced more by the Bird era version of Erving? Perhaps though he was going to games well before then, though he would have been young. Anyway it's Simmons so it's hardly gospel, but it's probably worth noting). He made one All-ABA defensive team (they only had first teams, he made it in '76). I think I've read stuff on here (or from guys on here) that have him as a significant plus on D.
Purch
Veteran
Posts: 2,820
And1: 2,145
Joined: May 25, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#109 » by Purch » Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:57 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Purch wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
Where does it say that we are voting greatest and not best?


This is extremely troubling to me that people are not actually voting for the players that they do not feel are the best. What's the point of this list then?


I assume it's how you define "greatest".

If it was simply who was most efficient on the court than wouldn't this be the same as an all time peak rating?

I'm pretty sure most people would have Shaq right behind Jordan if it was simply about how dominant you were on the court


No, it's not. You can rate someone based on peak or longevity, and still consider them to be better than others. People should be rating these guys on impact, I realize there is no criteria listed, but it still makes little sense to rank someone who you think is worse than another individual because...they're more famous or praised.

So again, where does it say this is a top 100 greatest list? I have serious problems that people are ranking guys over each other for arbitrary reasons. Might as well just cite ESPN's top 100 or some garbage like that.


I'm going to ignore your hyperbole because its honestly laughable the extreme youre taking, when it comes to what one poster feels defines a players greatness and place in history.

Also where does it differentiate between best and greatest? It simply states the "top" players. It's up to a posters discretion to figure out what that term means to them. Unless you want to change the title to "HeartBreakid's" top 100 players in history, so you can set strict guidelines in what players are and are not allowed to cosider

If you wanted different guidelines, about what could or couldn't be used in posters creitira there was a whole thread about it before the project even started. Where people logically came to the conclusion that posters should be allowed to vote based on what they value most, when it comes to judging who are the top players in nba history.

So in other words, you're basically whining because someone else values different things historically than you do.. Which is worthless
Image
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,434
And1: 3,255
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#110 » by colts18 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:13 pm

Prime Shaq (93-06) had to play in 12 playoff series where his opponent had a D rating under 100. To put that into perspective, MJ has 1 series in his career against a sub 100 D rating opponent. Bird has 1. Magic has 0. Hakeem has 1. From 99-04, an absurd 59% of his playoff games came against teams with a D rating under 100. That is his peak and he was facing the toughest defensive era in history.

This is what Shaq did in those series against sub 100 D rating teams from 93-06

59 games played
26-14-3, 56 FG%, 3 blk, .564 TS%

Average opponent had a 98.1 D rating.

To put that 98.1 opponent D rating into perspective, the 2008 Celtics GOAT defense had a 98.9 D rating. Shaq played 59 games in his prime against opponents who on average were tougher to score on than the 2008 Celtics :o
User avatar
acrossthecourt
Pro Prospect
Posts: 984
And1: 729
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#111 » by acrossthecourt » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:18 pm

colts18 wrote:Prime Shaq (93-06) had to play in 12 playoff series where his opponent had a D rating under 100. To put that into perspective, MJ has 1 series in his career against a sub 100 D rating opponent. Bird has 1. Magic has 0. Hakeem has 1. From 99-04, an absurd 59% of his playoff games came against teams with a D rating under 100. That is his peak and he was facing the toughest defensive era in history.

This is what Shaq did in those series against sub 100 D rating teams from 93-06

59 games played
26-14-3, 56 FG%, 3 blk, .564 TS%

Average opponent had a 98.1 D rating.

To put that 98.1 opponent D rating into perspective, the 2008 Celtics GOAT defense had a 98.9 D rating. Shaq played 59 games in his prime against opponents who on average were tougher to score on than the 2008 Celtics :o

That's a bit misleading because Shaq played in an era where the average offensive rating was at its lowest. There's a reason why people use relative DRtg to compare players/teams across eras.

There are ways you can adjust stats for the environment. PER and Win Shares already do this, for instance.
Twitter: AcrossTheCourt
Website; advanced stats based with a few studies:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,828
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#112 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:21 pm

Purch wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
Purch wrote:
I assume it's how you define "greatest".

If it was simply who was most efficient on the court than wouldn't this be the same as an all time peak rating?

I'm pretty sure most people would have Shaq right behind Jordan if it was simply about how dominant you were on the court


No, it's not. You can rate someone based on peak or longevity, and still consider them to be better than others. People should be rating these guys on impact, I realize there is no criteria listed, but it still makes little sense to rank someone who you think is worse than another individual because...they're more famous or praised.

So again, where does it say this is a top 100 greatest list? I have serious problems that people are ranking guys over each other for arbitrary reasons. Might as well just cite ESPN's top 100 or some garbage like that.


I'm going to ignore your hyperbole because its honestly laughable the extreme youre taking, when it comes to what one poster feels defines a players greatness and place in history.

Also where does it differentiate between best and greatest? It simply states the "top" players. It's up to a posters discretion to figure out what that term means to them. Unless you want to change the title to "HeartBreakid's" top 100 players in history, so you can set strict guidelines in what players are and are not allowed to cosider

If you wanted different guidelines, about what could or couldn't be used in posters creitira there was a whole thread about it before the project even started. Where people logically came to the conclusion that posters should be allowed to vote based on what they value most, when it comes to judging who are the top players in nba history.

So in other words, you're basically whining because someone else values different things historically than you do.. Which is worthless


I'm not sure how I am "whining". An individual said "if this were a greatest not best project then..."

My rebuttal was, "where does it say this is a greatest projects?"

You are actually the one that it insisted it is a greatest projects, and now you're playing this "I'm a nazi, everyone has to think like me" conjecture. Not to mention that you did not interpret what I said properly.



So yes, it only says "TOP", so my original criticism of "where does it say we are rating them on who is the greatest (what does that even mean?)" seems to stand true, regardless of my disapproval to people who are literally ring counting.

That's all I'm going to say on this topic to you as what you're saying is largely becoming rude and personal, not to mention irrelevant.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,828
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#113 » by HeartBreakKid » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:25 pm

batmana wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
Where does it say that we are voting greatest and not best?

This is extremely troubling to me that people are not actually voting for the players that they do not feel are the best. What's the point of this list then?


May have been in the previous top 100 thread but I think it was mentioned in the initial post that the list is supposed to take into account not just play/performance but also accolades, trophies, legacy, etc. Also, that's how I view this list. I think it has an important meaning when we are voting players from the early eras (think Bob Cousy for instance) and compare them to modern players. You either have to project 1960s Cousy into today's game and call him an amateur for only dribbling with one hand, shooting 30%, etc. or you have to compare what Cousy achieved back then to what players are doing in later eras without comparing them actually as players. I am not a fan of the so-called "portability" and I try not to use this as an argument (plus, you can't take anything for granted when it comes to portability, it's all speculation) so this is essentially how I am comparing players. Thus, Bill Russell is a deserved No. 2 in my personal list but if I was to disregard everything other than actual basketball abilities, Bill Russell is not No. 2, he's probably not even top 10. Just one of a number of examples I can give.



If impact did not matter, these threads would not go 20 pages long. People wouldn't have to try to prove about how good Bill Russell was if they did not think that he was actually a great player. There wouldn't be mass stat posting. It's silly that this project literally has no guidelines at all, so no one is on the same page remotely.

You're free to do as you wish, but if you actually think Bob Cousy is not a good player, there is no one stopping you from denouncing him. No player should be put on a pedestal just because of their name. You can also compare players impacts without hypothetically transporting them across eras.

Feel free to rate guys how you want, but there is no one forcing you to rate people based on their greatness, or even any implication of that.
User avatar
acrossthecourt
Pro Prospect
Posts: 984
And1: 729
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#114 » by acrossthecourt » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:27 pm

If you're going to argue for Olajuwon at this point, you have to have an argument for him that doesn't involve his two titles. His teams hit a few game 7's along the way, and it's entirely conceivable Houston loses in '94 and '95. They had a game 7 win versus Phoenix in '95 by one point. This is even more likely if the Sonics don't somehow lose early during those seasons -- they beat Houston in '93 and '96.

Let's say some of his role players fall short by a couple inches and they lose a couple game 7's (let's say the finals in '94 and versus Phoenix in '95) in those seasons. Where would you rank him?
Twitter: AcrossTheCourt
Website; advanced stats based with a few studies:
http://ascreamingcomesacrossthecourt.blogspot.com
lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,237
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#115 » by lorak » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:31 pm

TrueLAfan wrote:
Magic--Most versatile; definitely the most valuable rebounder by position. Great peak. After early hiccups involving run-ins with management, was a model player—maybe the highest intangibles. Moderate length peak; Career shortened by factors outside of his control.


Why outside of his control? Somebody forced him to all these intercourses?
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 12,733
And1: 8,364
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#116 » by trex_8063 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:32 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Where does it say that we are voting greatest and not best?


This is extremely troubling to me that people are not actually voting for the players that they do not feel are the best. What's the point of this list then?


Well it clearly states "RealGM's 100 Greatest" right at the header of the prior list from 2011: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1123731

Following tradition or standards, that's usually what these kinds of lists are about:

Similar project on InsideHoops.com reads "Top 100 Greatest NBA Players Of All-Time According to InsideHoops"
The 50 players selected by that panel back in 1996 (the 50th Anniversary All-Time Team) were labeled the "50 Greatest Players in NBA History".
SLAM magazines list from 2011 was labeled the "500 Greatest NBA Players of All-Time".

etc etc
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 7,434
And1: 3,255
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#117 » by colts18 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:33 pm

acrossthecourt wrote:That's a bit misleading because Shaq played in an era where the average offensive rating was at its lowest. There's a reason why people use relative DRtg to compare players/teams across eras.

There are ways you can adjust stats for the environment. PER and Win Shares already do this, for instance.

It's not misleading at all. It would be misleading if I said those defenses are better than the 08 Celtics. The relative Drtg doesn't apply here at all. It does apply if I said Shaq's defense was good because he held his opponents to a 102 O rating.

In this case it doesn't apply. The 08 Celtics are a "better" defense than the 04 Rockets, but D rating says its about as hard to score on the 04 Rockets (99.0 D rating) as it is with the 08 Celtics (98.9 D rating). If Shaq has a 56 TS% against the 04 Rockets its the same as LeBron having a 56 TS% against the 08 Celtics even though the 08 Celtics are a "better" defense. You have to adjust for defensive environment because Shaq played in the hardest defensive environment to score on in the 3 point era.
ardee
RealGM
Posts: 15,320
And1: 5,397
Joined: Nov 16, 2011

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#118 » by ardee » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:51 pm

MacGill wrote:The footage I have watched of West....man was his stroke sweet. Free throw, jumper...hand in face. Dude could flat out shoot from anywhere. Still has his touch, even today.


Yeah he was way ahead of his time.

I mean even today, how many players can just stroke a casual 70 foot Finals buzzer beater?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,907
And1: 22,841
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#119 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:56 pm

Vote: Garnett

First off, just wow drza! What I would give to see breakdowns of everyone else in such detail.

With Duncan inducted now I don't know how Garnett discussion will go but my worry is this: that Garnett has a link to Duncan in how people see his strengths and people will tend to put that out of mind when comparing him to other players with less in common, and that this will let people rationalize a major gap between the two players despite the fact that they can't directly justify anything so drastic.

So just try not to let yourself do that. Think on Duncan when you now consider Garnett, and think of what drza and others have said. If you have any tendency at all to dismiss Garnett's defense, I would urge you to actually try typing up your reasoning and see if you really think it stands up to the depth people have gone into showing the staggering depth and breadth of KGs work over the course of his career.

To those fixated on Garnett not being "the man" in terms of scoring, you need to shift your perspective to be more holistic. To win a team needs scoring sure, but it needs lots of other things too. Entering into player comparisons looking first at scoring is an unjustifiable bias.

And finally just circling back to Duncan, remember that his teams' best offensive results were not based on his peak as a volume scorer. Don't let the fact that Duncan happened to play in a more traditional offensive model earlier in his career fool you into putting these guys into entirely different categories.




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,907
And1: 22,841
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: RealGM Top 100 List #6 

Post#120 » by Doctor MJ » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:33 pm

A couple other points:

Erving's defense: is clearly underrated. Understand that the '76 Nets had thebest defense in the ABA, and that included teams that basically stayed intact as they went over to the NBA and were the best defenses in the unified league. Erving was THE help defender on that team. Everything they were trying to do on defense was dependent on Erving's role, and based on any quantitatively rigorous analysis if the time they succeeded with flying colors. If there was a state of the art in basketball defense at the time, you'd have to say the Erving-based Nets have at least as good of a case for it as it gets.

Which certainly will leave people asking: So why didn't people talk about Erving this way?

Simply put, in the absence of the kinds if analytic see now have, a contradicting narrative took all the oxygen in the room and since recognition of defense is so narrative focused that was all she wrote for Erving's historical reputation on defense.

Point by point:
The ABA got a reputation for being an offense-only league.
This happened because it was clearly a flashier more innovative league in general and people notice this more on offense. It also happened because the scores were higher in the ABA and people didn't understand pace erc.

Let me emphasize the "etc" here because y'all get pace and might already know that even adjusting for that the ABA still had more successful offenses. It's crucial to recognize that there are a wide variety if things that go into the war between offense and defense. And so you can't really do apples to apples comparisons simply basedon the numbers until after the
Merger where we see the great success the ABA teams had in the NBA

Now you might point out that the ABA was a league with less depth than the NBa and so judging the league based on its best teams doesn't tell the whole story. True, but that doesn't change the fact that we have proof that good ABA defense were perfectly effective in the NBa. And this means that any attempt to disparage the Nets defense with Erving relative to the norms of the time is utterly doomed.

Erving was THE poster boy for what the ABA stood for and as sich got classified as the kind if half assed defender people wrongly think the ABA was instead he should be seen as the
Poster boy for how GOOD the defense was, and that really changes everything.

I would submit to y'all that as Erving was leading the Nets in every category in their way to a title he has a case for being the most impactful player in the world on each side of the court. His peak is absolutely worthy of GOAT peak consideration.

Which probably leaves you all wondering why I'm not voting for him here. Well while ill champion his peak and defend the relative disappointment in Philly, from a GOAT candidacy perspective I'ver a career there are two thing:

1 While I think it's very understandable why Erving took on a lesser role in Philly, it's still a lesser role and he's competing with guys who just plain did more.

2 As I champion Erving's peak defensive impact, it's still only a success in one
Particular role. This is nothing like the kind if versatility we saw from Garnett. And it was very much relying in the explosiveness if youth, While Ervjngs defense was underrated the whole if his career thus doesn't mean I think he was an absolutely stellar defender his whole career. He faded, and faded in both sides of the ball, in a way that most of the top players here didn't quite so much.

We're someone to champion Erving for the current spot I wouldn't think them crazy but in my career rankings the guys with a bit more graceful aging tend to win out.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!

Return to Player Comparisons