RealGM Top 100 List #9

[Doctor MJ]

Forget teh HCA and Purch is making a solid point. David Robinson in particular was not blessed with strong teams pre-Duncan, but still had great RS performances and great RS team records. Then he gets killed for his supposed playoff failures when his stats really arent worse than KG's at all in the PS and we know just like KG there is no reason to believe his defense fell apart in the PS too. But because he had high seeds he's thought of as a terrible playoff performer in a way KG isnt. And its all based on the perception of their teams based on record.

We are focusing WAY TOO MUCH on teammates and attempting to go through all kinds of minutae trying to determine who had more help and who didnt. It absolutely is benefiting those who are perceived to have weak teams and is hurting those perceived to have strong ones. And despite my respect for ElGee and others who have attempted to put a statistical number on supporting casts its just not at all clear to me anyway that we can define the strength of casts with any real accuracy.

Take my boy Dirk as a great example: you can spin it that post-Nash Dirk never played with a single all-star or all-NBA player yet had great team success. Or you can spin it that Dirk had an owner willing to have a $90M payroll thus ensuring Dirk had a deep supporting cast filled with better than average role players. Which version is more representative? Maybe we are simply better served focusing more attention elsewhere.

This is more getting to the actual crux of the matter. People do indeed seem to give an added penalty to a player perceived as disappointing in the playoffs beyond what his direct playoff attributes would seem to suggest, and that's a problem.

For the record, I'm incredibly impressed with David Robinson. Were people seriously talking about him now, even before Hakeem got in, it wouldn't seem crazy to me.

[Purch]

The people supporting Garnett have not used winning or losing once in order to prop him up or to put down Bird. They just respond to the "he always lost" argument with the fact that his team wasn't very good. I don't see drza, Doctor MJ, PCProductions, ElGee, or myself (the only posters I see that have actually given support to Garnett) knocking Bird, Malone, or Robinson at all for losing in the playoffs, and none of the arguments have to do with Garnett not getting upset much.

I don't understand why people invent strawmen like this.

Some people use winning and losing for their argument...and those people are clearly not supporting Garnett in any way.

Again, you're missing the point. If the thread seems to be focusing on players losing with Home court, or losing when their teams are the favorites, at same time you can't reward players for not having homecourt or missing the playoffs altogether. It's like you're penalizing players for putting their teams in multiple opportunities in the playoffs, in which an upset can occur. It's similar to people harping on players finals records. Should you get more credit for not reaching the finals, simply because you didn't lose in them?

If you follow the conversation rather than speaking about imaginary stateman, you might realize that the original post I was responded to wasn't even in reference to KG. But I stated that Kg is the extreme example of losing bias, because due to the teammate argument, it narrows 2008 as the only season we could have potentially criticized his playoff performance due to having good teamates and being the last year of his prime. Which gives him dramatically less opportunity to be criticized for failing in the playoffs than guys who make the playoffs every year with the goal of winning.

But go ahead with the strawman angle

Please refer me to the posts where someone is doing what you're saying. I have an idea which posters might do something like that, but it's clearly not the prevailing idea of the thread...it's 1 or 2 posters at best. Everyone else is trying to focus on them as individual players, not by whether their team won as the favorites or not.

And it is a strawman, because you're going on a semi-rant about KG not getting criticized, when NOBODY brought him up, and the people that have given him support during this project said NOTHING of the sort when they defended him.

Is there a reason you can't simply go through the thread? Again the original post I was responding to FJS's.

Yawn, again clearly you're not reading my post, because KG's case was an example of the fact that people brush off up his playoff failures due to the fact he had bad teammates (But since you're claiming no one made this argument even though there were ton of ramp metrics used to support the idea that Garnett's teammates were bad). And because people are willing to do that, by comparison it's unfair that players like Robinson or Malone are getting criticized when the players they're being compared dont put their teams in positions where they have the opportunity to fail .

Unless you stop your ridiculous strawman accusation as a means of ignoring the central point I've stated for 3 post, I'm not gonna waste my time replying to you.

It's not hard to understand the simple argument I'm making

If Blake Griffin underperformance in the playoffs, than by comparison with Kevin Love how can that be used against him when Love didnt even make the playoffs.

Lebron had an underwhelming 2011 finals, how can you elevate Durant when his team wasn't even put into a position where that failure could occurs.

It's a simple argument to understand, you'd just rather stick with this strawman argument

[tsherkin]

The Admiral was remarkable; he mostly gets killed for falling off as a scorer like Malone, unable to match hos RS volume/efficiency in the postseason. It's not just about his team success (which remains impressive when you consider his pre-Duncan teammates). Garnett was not an amazing scorer to begin with and sti got worse in the playoffs, but his rosters also dictate a lot about his postseason success, as evidenced in 04 and 08-10.

We should be talking about degrees of fall-off, and to what level that brought a player relativeto his peers, though. Both Malone and Robinson remained highly capable of drawing fouls inhe PS, which Garnett was not, and that did help them perform.

[Purch]

The people supporting Garnett have not used winning or losing once in order to prop him up or to put down Bird. They just respond to the "he always lost" argument with the fact that his team wasn't very good. I don't see drza, Doctor MJ, PCProductions, ElGee, or myself (the only posters I see that have actually given support to Garnett) knocking Bird, Malone, or Robinson at all for losing in the playoffs, and none of the arguments have to do with Garnett not getting upset much.

I don't understand why people invent strawmen like this.

Some people use winning and losing for their argument...and those people are clearly not supporting Garnett in any way.

Again, you're missing the point. If the thread seems to be focusing on players losing with Home court, or losing when their teams are the favorites, at same time you can't reward players for not having homecourt or missing the playoffs altogether. It's like you're penalizing players for putting their teams in multiple opportunities in the playoffs, in which an upset can occur. It's similar to people harping on players finals records. Should you get more credit for not reaching the finals, simply because you didn't lose in them?

If you follow the conversation rather than speaking about imaginary stateman, you might realize that the original post I was responded to wasn't even in reference to KG. But I stated that Kg is the extreme example of losing bias, because due to the teammate argument, it narrows 2008 as the only season we could have potentially criticized his playoff performance due to having good teamates and being the last year of his prime. Which gives him dramatically less opportunity to be criticized for failing in the playoffs than guys who make the playoffs every year with the goal of winning.

But go ahead with the strawman angle

We may be missing a point of yours, but you're clearly missing ours, and ours ties directly into what you're saying.

Fundamentally here this is what I've seen:
1. You complaining about the type of thinking that HCA proponents have brought.
2. You talking about the absurdity of using that thinking with respect to Garnett.
3. You specifically attacking KG supporters for doing this.

But they didn't do this. It was other people. You've merged two groups of people who do things in different ways and then labeled this hypothetical confused person as confused. He would be if he existed, but we are not that dude.

The point about the possibility of a player getting hurt based on expectations is a reasonable one, but you've given no reason to think that KG supporters aren't aware of this and factoring that in.

As far as your point of "I wasn't even responding to a KG post", well yeah, that's why are issue is with you specifically. You're the one who really made this about KG, and then you made "you guys" statements that made it inescapable to conclude that you were talking about KG supporters. Had you instead said "I know you're not doing it, but it's just an example of what could happen", we'd be done by now.

Once again for the final time, just because KG was the example I used, doesn't mean he's the central issue of the argument. The argument can be simplified as that

1. If Player A leads him team to the finals but underperforms he shouldn't be critisized, if at the same time player B didn't reach the finals with his team, but is immune to critisizm because of perceived weaker teammates. It's a flawed way of punishing players who consistently make the playoffs with good teams, and rewarding players who put up great stats on bad teams who don't consistently make deep runs.

if I had used Kevin Love it would be easier for you guys to understand? You and the big3 seem to take this KG stuff personally, whiles it was an example uses to illustrate the point right above.

If I misintepreted the ramp data you guys presented about Garnett's teammates production, as being focused on something else besides how good his teammates were then thats my fault.

[acrossthecourt]

There's some statistical significance to Robinson's drop in offensive efficiency against better defenses, and arguably the playoffs (but there's a high standard error there), which is so severe that Olajuwon, whose efficiency increases in the playoffs, is more efficient overall by a decent amount in the playoffs versus good teams. That's the crux of the argument, and it's not conjecture.

Coupled with his shorter prime, and it's harder to put up a case versus other MVPs with longer careers. That said, i'm receptive to him at 11, along with a huge list of guys, so I"ll be listening. I will say that it's pretty fantastic he carried those pre-Duncan teams to high seeds. They weren't great.

[ceiling raiser]

Once again for the final time, just because KG was the example I used, doesn't mean he's the central issue of the argument. The argument can be simplified as that

1. If Player A leads him team to the finals but underperforms he shouldn't be critisized, if at the same time player B didn't reach the finals with his team, but is immune to critisizm because of perceived weaker teammates. It's a flawed way of punishing players who consistently make the playoffs with good teams, and rewarding players who put up great stats on bad teams who don't consistently make deep runs.

if I had used Kevin Love it would be easier for you guys to understand? You and the big3 seem to take this KG stuff personally, whiles it was an example uses to illustrate the point right above.

If I misintepreted the ramp data you guys presented about Garnett's teammates production, as being focused on something else besides how good his teammates were then thats my fault.

Purch - If I'm understanding correctly, you want people to be consistent with how they judge players. I think that's a reasonable and probably the correct stance, and have no problem with you feeling that way.

With regards to KG in particular, I don't think it's been the case with his supporters. There are a ton of viewpoints in this thread, with different people trying to answer the same question in different ways. All I'm seeing from KG supporters (I'd like to consider myself one as well; the voting results aren't important for me but I've been voting for Hakeem since slot #5, and don't think it's reasonable to argue that there have been 9 more impactful players than either guy, let alone both...just my opinion though) is a call to look at context (and not just simplify or hand-wave/dismiss differences-not suggesting you're guilty of this, but this is a misconception that some participants in this thread are looking to extinguish-not all "bad" teams are created equally, there's a tremendous spectrum ranging from a slightly below 0 SRS supporting cast, and a replacement level squad) and look past small sample sizes/noise/winning bias. As long as every player is held to the same scrutiny, it's not inconsistent at all IMO.

[ardee]

just like KG there is no reason to believe his defense fell apart in the PS too.

With regards to KG, this statement is not true.

You're a long-time Mavs fan right?

I'm assuming you remember the 2002 first round, when Dirk did things to the Wolves that can't be described in gentlefolk tongue.

General question I've asked before but never got a reply to. What the hell was KG doing on defense that series? He was all over the place. It seemed like he got it in his head that he was a wing and not a 7'1 big. He spent most of his time playing some kind of weird one-man zone at the top of the key, helping on perimeter players but not really defending the rim and most of all barely helping on Dirk, who like I said had one of his best series' ever.

One has to consider that the 'come out of the paint and help excessively on pick and rolls' style of defense that KG is so lauded for in these parts was actually something the Wolves benefited from a lot less than if he protected the rim more and followed the Hakeem/Duncan/DRob model.

[Purch]

Once again for the final time, just because KG was the example I used, doesn't mean he's the central issue of the argument. The argument can be simplified as that

1. If Player A leads him team to the finals but underperforms he shouldn't be critisized, if at the same time player B didn't reach the finals with his team, but is immune to critisizm because of perceived weaker teammates. It's a flawed way of punishing players who consistently make the playoffs with good teams, and rewarding players who put up great stats on bad teams who don't consistently make deep runs.

if I had used Kevin Love it would be easier for you guys to understand? You and the big3 seem to take this KG stuff personally, whiles it was an example uses to illustrate the point right above.

If I misintepreted the ramp data you guys presented about Garnett's teammates production, as being focused on something else besides how good his teammates were then thats my fault.

Purch - If I'm understanding correctly, you want people to be consistent with how they judge players. I think that's a reasonable and probably the correct stance, and have no problem with you feeling that way.

With regards to KG in particular, I don't think it's been the case with his supporters. There are a ton of viewpoints in this thread, with different people trying to answer the same question in different ways. All I'm seeing from KG supporters (I'd like to consider myself one as well; the voting results aren't important for me but I've been voting for Hakeem since slot #5, and don't think it's reasonable to argue that there have been 9 more impactful players than either guy, let alone both...just my opinion though) is a call to look at context (and not just simplify or hand-wave/dismiss differences-not suggesting you're guilty of this, but this is a misconception that some participants in this thread are looking to extinguish-not all "bad" teams are created equally, there's a tremendous spectrum ranging from a slightly below 0 SRS supporting cast, and a replacement level squad) and look past small sample sizes/noise/winning bias. As long as every player is held to the same scrutiny, it's not inconsistent at all IMO.

Thank you for actually understanding the simple argument.

All I will say though, is that we should be just as cautious about losing bias as winning bias. For example when Karl Malone comes into the disscusion one of the strongest perceptions of him is that he failed in the playoffs or downed his game in the playoffs. However, since he made the playoffs every single year of his career for 19 years, his team was put in more positions to have playoff failures than other teams. So compared to guys who've only had two or three legitimate deep playoff runs, downing Malone for his playoff performance whiles elevating the other guy is the wrong direction to go, simply because the other guy shouldn't be rewarded for not reaching that point as consistently

[drza]

If I misintepreted the ramp data you guys presented about Garnett's teammates production, as being focused on something else besides how good his teammates were then thats my fault.

Interestingly, I see RAPM data as doing exactly the opposite of what you are worried about. Or, said without all the double negatives, the most common purpose for RAPM data is actually to try to do what you are saying that you want done. The idea behind RAPM (or WOWY, or other +/- approaches) is to try to estimate how much a player is contributing to his team's success, independent of teammate quality. That's the goal. Whether it's Kevin Love on the Timberwolves or Kevin Durant on the Thunder, the goal of RAPM data is to estimate how much either Kevin is lifting their teams...again, as independent from the quality of that team as possible.

Shaq, LeBron, Duncan, KG and Dirk all have seasons where they led the NBA in RAPM in the same year their team won a title. Other players, including LeBron and KG, have put up great RAPM numbers in other situations where their team support was pretty poor. That's what the goal of RAPM is...to estimate what a player's impact is whether his team is in the penthouse or the outhouse.

Now, how good the estimate might be is certainly up for debate. But according to what seem to be your concerns, the purpose behind RAPM should be more in line with your interests.

[colts18]

With regards to KG, this statement is not true.

You're a long-time Mavs fan right?

I'm assuming you remember the 2002 first round, when Dirk did things to the Wolves that can't be described in gentlefolk tongue.

General question I've asked before but never got a reply to. What the hell was KG doing on defense that series? He was all over the place. It seemed like he got it in his head that he was a wing and not a 7'1 big. He spent most of his time playing some kind of weird one-man zone at the top of the key, helping on perimeter players but not really defending the rim and most of all barely helping on Dirk, who like I said had one of his best series' ever.

I'm pretty sure he was playing that 1 man zone because Flip asked him to. I believe that is the year where Minnesota was experimenting with zones because of new illegal defense rules.

As far as KG's playoff defense, you can look at his series vs 99 Spurs, 00 Blazers, 01 Spurs, 04 Kings, and 08 Lakers

[Purch]

If I misintepreted the ramp data you guys presented about Garnett's teammates production, as being focused on something else besides how good his teammates were then thats my fault.

Interestingly, I see RAPM data as doing exactly the opposite of what you are worried about. Or, said without all the double negatives, the most common purpose for RAPM data is actually to try to do what you are saying that you want done. The idea behind RAPM (or WOWY, or other +/- approaches) is to try to estimate how much a player is contributing to his team's success, independent of teammate quality. That's the goal. Whether it's Kevin Love on the Timberwolves or Kevin Durant on the Thunder, the goal of RAPM data is to estimate how much either Kevin is lifting their teams...again, as independent from the quality of that team as possible.

Shaq, LeBron, Duncan, KG and Dirk all have seasons where they led the NBA in RAPM in the same year their team won a title. Other players, including LeBron and KG, have put up great RAPM numbers in other situations where their team support was pretty poor. That's what the goal of RAPM is...to estimate what a player's impact is whether his team is in the penthouse or the outhouse.

Now, how good the estimate might be is certainly up for debate. But according to what seem to be your concerns, the purpose behind RAPM should be more in line with your interests.

I must have been mistaking then. I remember looking at chart that was comparing Garnett, Iverson, Duncan and a couple players from the 2000's and the ramp or another impact stat of their teammates production

[ceiling raiser]

Thank you for actually understanding the simple argument.

All I will say though, is that we should be just as cautious about losing bias as winning bias. For example when Karl Malone comes into the disscusion one of the strongest perceptions of him is that he failed in the playoffs or downed his game in the playoffs. However, since he made the playoffs every single year of his career for 19 years, his team was put in more positions to have playoff failures than other teams. So compared to guys who've only had two or three legitimate deep playoff runs, downing Malone for his playoff performance whiles elevating the other guy is the wrong direction to go, simply because the other guy shouldn't be rewarded for not reaching that point as consistently

Two notes on this:

1) I'm not in favor of overreacting to single games here and there or placing a ton more weight on a smaller sample in general. Regardless of who the player is, we shouldn't make too much of a single phenomenal or poor performance. Consistency is what makes stars, stars, in this league IMO.

2) On the other hand, I don't think we can ignore things we've learned because of the longer playoff outings that we wouldn't know otherwise. I think Doc's made this point with regards to Wilt playing against the Celtics...had he not went up against Boston every year, issues with his game might not have been exposed, but because he did go up against them 8 out of 10 years in the playoffs when both he and Russell were in the league, and it did affect his game, this is something we can't ignore.

This holds true with other players as well. So it's not so much that there's a "losing bias", it's just that some players—who had superior supporting casts—had different situations. Players who didn't have good enough teams don't get a bonus per se, but if they weren't "exposed" because they weren't placed in those situations, in addition to not giving extra credit, we can't assume the worst. Not speaking about Malone, Robinson, or anyone else in particular (I am interested in reading the arguments when both guys come up down the line, I think it does them a disservice when too much attention is paid to just scoring volume/efficiency vs good teams in the playoffs compared to the regular season), just commenting in general. We can't ignore information in our analysis, particularly in the "pre-databall era" (96-97 being the first season for which we have play-by-play data) as a few have coined it, during which we don't have much quantitative depth to support the qualitative information that's present

[drza]

just like KG there is no reason to believe his defense fell apart in the PS too.

With regards to KG, this statement is not true.

You're a long-time Mavs fan right?

I'm assuming you remember the 2002 first round, when Dirk did things to the Wolves that can't be described in gentlefolk tongue.

General question I've asked before but never got a reply to. What the hell was KG doing on defense that series? He was all over the place. It seemed like he got it in his head that he was a wing and not a 7'1 big. He spent most of his time playing some kind of weird one-man zone at the top of the key, helping on perimeter players but not really defending the rim and most of all barely helping on Dirk, who like I said had one of his best series' ever.

One has to consider that the 'come out of the paint and help excessively on pick and rolls' style of defense that KG is so lauded for in these parts was actually something the Wolves benefited from a lot less than if he protected the rim more and followed the Hakeem/Duncan/DRob model.

Perhaps you watched that series and have a different perspective than I do. But from what I saw, the Hakeem/Duncan/DRob model would have been useless in that particular situation because of the way the two teams matched up and how Nellie chose to deploy his units. I remember a lot of spread sets, where all of the Mavs players (including their center) were around or outside of the 3-point line. I remember the Mavs doing most of their damage from the 3-point line and the mid-range, not much in the paint. Memory is imperfect, but the shot charts on basketball-reference back up my memory perfectly. The Mavs were doing their damage from the outside-in, not the inside-out.

The Hakeem/Duncan/DRob model of protecting the rim wouldn't have helped in any way...in fact, it may have hurt even worse because it would have allowed whoever the center was playing off of to get even hotter. The way KG was deployed may have helped slow the rest of the team somewhat, but obviously it allowed Dirk to go nova as a finisher. Frankly, there wasn't anything that even Russell could have done defensively with that particular match-up. Of course, that type of perfect storm is a rare thing...out of twenty-something playoff series that KG was in, that was the only time it happened. Credit to the Mavs and Dirk for how they took advantage of the match-ups. But that series certainly wasn't an example of an individual defensive failure or anything to suggest a systematic defensive issue. Indded, over the vast majority of KG's playoff series you can directly trace a significant deficit in both his man's production as well as the opposing team's offensive output. I've highlited some examples in previous posts, and I imagine we'll be digging into it further in the next thread or two when we go in more depth to flesh out KG's playoff performances.

[Texas Chuck]

just like KG there is no reason to believe his defense fell apart in the PS too.

With regards to KG, this statement is not true.

You're a long-time Mavs fan right?

I'm assuming you remember the 2002 first round, when Dirk did things to the Wolves that can't be described in gentlefolk tongue.

Actually in that series Minny didn't often use the zone with KG at the top of the key. They did use that in the RS fairly extensively which seemed odd then, and maybe worse now looking back. Nope they played mostly man and KG was assigned to Michael Finley the majority of the time. Now Finley had one of his better series and Dirk went bonkers so clearly this was a poor plan by Flip.

KG couldn't help but leave Finley to provide help defense because its in his nature and plus Dirk, Nash, and NVE were also created a good deal of havoc in that series. The problem of course is that by this point in his career Finley was nearly exclusively a jump shooter and so he was able to take advantage of the open shots.

Still its hard for me to view that series as a defensive failing by KG as much as a case of Dallas being a really difficult matchup for any defense with shooters everywhere, two really good PGs on the court together a lot in Nash and NVE(and always one of them) and Dirk was in full-blown beast mode by this time. Nope Flip was desperate and grasping at straws and probably thought to himself that KG can neutralize their 2nd best scorer, KG can't stop Dirk anyway, and we take our chances with Nash and NVE. It didn't work, but I see what Flip's thought process was. Either way I'm not sure fault really lies with KG here.

I'd have loved to have seen these 2 guys go h2h in the playoffs the way we got to see each of them with Duncan, but alas our one chance and neither coach wanted their guy guarding the other. Tho ironically Dirk spent more time guarding KG than vice versa which shocks people when they hear it, but its true. Najera started in that series specifically to guard KG, but when he sat Dirk was the primary defender on KG.

[magicmerl]

Shaq, LeBron, Duncan, KG and Dirk all have seasons where they led the NBA in RAPM in the same year their team won a title. Other players, including LeBron and KG, have put up great RAPM numbers in other situations where their team support was pretty poor. That's what the goal of RAPM is...to estimate what a player's impact is whether his team is in the penthouse or the outhouse.

Now, how good the estimate might be is certainly up for debate. But according to what seem to be your concerns, the purpose behind RAPM should be more in line with your interests.

Plus, RAPM isn't a useful metric to compare players across eras where the data isn't available.

It's the same as the difficulty of comparing Wilt/Russell to post-merger players, a bunch of the things that you expect to be there and want to use to compare the players just aren't, which makes the cross-era comparison imperfect at best.

So if KG's claim to fame is plus minus, and he's being compared to players where we don't have that data, then that doesn't help me make a comparison between those players. For what it's worth, I do think that he and David Robinson have a lot of parallels and should likely be ranked in similar positions.

After Bird/Hakeem gets voted in at #10, I think the field is wide open again, and the KG/Robinson/Oscar/Dirk/Karl/DrJ/Kobe/Moses bracket is wide open.

[Clyde Frazier]

- - - -

Do you happen to know of anywhere online I could watch the entire wolves lakers series from 04? I'd like to watch it again as we get closer to more garnett votes, and I don't see it available on youtube.

If it isn't available online, anyone have them on tape that would be willing to UL them to youtube, and maybe share the unlisted URLs via PM so it doesn't get taken down? Thanks.

[john248]

Not sure what this discussion is about. There's no set criteria other than who you feel is the greatest player. Not to single anyone out, but I don't agree with JordanBulls way of rating players. I'm not going to really sit here and argue with him about it though since he just views it differently even if I think some of it is wrong then there are some times where he brings something up where I'm glad the info is there. Separately, there are those with clear agendas, and I generally just gloss over that.

If one guy thinks a player could've done more relative to what we've seen of others, fine. If another thinks a player under performed relative to his own play, fine. People find themselves arguing a single point versus an entire career in some cases. It's really just up to the individual to read what's posted here, fact check it, and hopefully have an open mind.

And I'm not saying to not have a discussion, so hopefully it doesn't come out that way. But you can easily see patterns of certain participants and notice what they value and if it comes with an agenda.

[Texas Chuck]

It's really just up to the individual to read what's posted here, fact check it, and hopefully have an open mind.

This is a great point.


One of the reasons why I will challenge a specific point on occasion is because we have some posters with great reputations who still occasionally get a detail incorrect(or I disagree with their conclusion) and I feel it important enough to speak up in an attempt to not allow a statement to be accepted as fact based on the rep of the poster. I try not to waste any time arguing with the agenda guys or with guys fixated on one criteria. I don't worry about their influence.

[penbeast0]

Larry Bird - 14 (trex_8063, Warspite, Baller2014, DQuinn1575, Basketballefan, batmana, john248, Clyde Frazier, DHodgkins, RSCD3, Chuck Texas, Acrossthecourt, Moonbeam, Narigo)


Hakeem Olajuwon - 15 (colts18, therealbig3, fpliii, RayBan-Sematra, andrewww, ronnymac2, GC Pantalones, Quo, shutupandjam, SactoKingsFan, penbeast0, PCProductions, Gregoire, 90sAllDecade, magicmer1)

New Hakeem Votes (4): MacGIll, HeartbreakKid, JordansBulls, 0_6, rich316

Looks like Hakeem wins with a late surge

[An Unbiased Fan]

Knew I should have logged back in earlier. Was gonna vote for Bird.