Chuck Texas wrote:why in the world would Dwight or Zo get consideration before Deke? If we are talking about the best defensive big man of the modern era left on the board, he' s got to be the guy. And while he's not the scorer the other 2 are, neither of them should be drawing consideration based on their offense.
I agree Dikembe is the best defender PERIOD left out there. However....
tbh, the best thing that can be said about Mutombo's offense is that he didn't try to do more than he was able (nor was it asked of him), which results in him looking OK from an efficiency or ORtg standpoint......but always on low to EXTREMELY low usage. ORAPM maybe paints a more accurate picture of the interplay between "somewhat good efficiency" on low usage. Of course the data's only there from '98 on, but in the 11 years we have impact data for Deke, he only shows a positive ORAPM twice (and both times +0.1; that is: negligible). Rest of the years are negatives (and sometimes BIG negatives) offensively; like near or even worse than prime Ben Wallace (this in Deke's late prime I'm referring to, not even his twilight years).
Both Dwight and Zo have consistent and substantial impact on the defensive end (especially Zo) despite being asked to carry so much more offense than Dikembe ever was (prime Dwight/Zo have literally nearly twice the usage as prime Dikembe, while sporting very similar ORtg). This is further reflected in consistently positive ORAPM, too. Both of these guys actually have/had some substantial offensive talent (even if Dwight has been a bit dumb with his, as ronnymac said), which cannot really be said for Mutombo. And both were very good defenders in their own right. For me, that more than closes the gap, actually swinging things back in Dwight/Zo's favor.
But then Mutombo's longevity can possibly narrow things down again......
All that being said, none of these guys are really on my radar this early on the list.
"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
The Infamous1 wrote:I wonder when people will start making an argument for Durant
I would bet he starts getting serious mentions between 25 and 30 though where he ends up is beyond my prognostication since there are a lot of outstanding players coming up. Even as a SF, do you rank him ahead of Baylor, Pippen, Havlicek, Barry?
No to all of them for me. Durant has been an elite player from 2010-2014, and top 2 from 2012-2014. He's made strides in his game every single year, and although he does have a decent chunk of playoff success under his belt i think he needs a few more seasons before we throw him up there with these guys.
I'm going to withold my vote for now. Most likely I suppose I'll vote Ewing again.
I think at this point the really interesting debates are with the guards. Off the top of my head there's Frazier, Nash, Stockton and Wade that have gotten some love, so I'll talk about them even if I won't guarantee they are my top 4 next guard votes.
Frazier for a long time has been a kind of under-the-radar "only on RealGM" guy. By that I mean that whenever we do these project, he does better than I would have expected back before I joined RealGM. I mean he isn't even in Slam's Top 30 despite being exactly the type of player they love, yet in our lists he's been no lower than 23. It's fascinating.
I don't say this to advocate that we listen to Slam, because I would never wish that on anyone. I'm basically on board the Clyde-wagon (pulled by Clydesdales?). He's a fantastic all around player, and while I'm not as impressed with the point guard role in Holzmann's offense as I am in some, there are many point guards racking up more assists who I'm not as impressed with.
As far as Frazier being the next guard, to me that's gotta be dependent on seeing him as a truly dominant defensive player on a level that basically doesn't exist among point guards today - which of course raises the question of why he'd be able to do it when others can't.
The reason why Frazier needs that boost is because the offensive competition is so fierce among guards, and because Frazier's longevity isn't that great. It's not so much the 7 all-star appearances that bother me as it is that they were all in a row and there are steep dropoffs on the other side (the year before his all-star status was awesome too, but he was injured in his last all-star season so it averages out). This is a guy whose biological clock ran out not long after he turned 30, can I really put him ahead of guys were dominant long after that?
Nash, well y'all know I'm a Nash guy. For that reason I like to stay out of the conversation with him in situations like this if I can help it. I probably won't keep to that when others talk about him, but for now I'm just going to spoiler-quote ElGee's recent post relating to Nash & Stockton where his research left him stunned at how impressive Nash looks. He and I were talking about it recently, and we're both of the belief that 1) Nash still doesn't realize how ridiculously good he was, and that 2) we still didn't actually see how good Nash could be. He was a unique talent.
Spoiler:
ElGee wrote:Well I've said earlier in this project that people need to realize what RAPM is actually "saying." It does not say Collison and Johnson are among the best players in the world. It also does not say they are imparting the most impact. It says that they are very impactful in their given role...which is for a short period of time, i.e. is specialized.
This really stands out to me when it comes to players like old Stockton, old Robinson, old Garnett, etc. It's not that I don't think they were good, it's just that even if the stat is "accurate" it still only says what these players were able to do in the right spots. This not only includes minute allocation for their rest/energy but also the lineup-roles they have. RAPM tries to detect when you have good/bad teammates, but it doesn't know if you only get put out there in lineups that cater to your strengths.
This really isn't an issue at all when a player is forced to play with a diversity of lineups, i.e. play big minutes. But when you get into Stockton's 27-29 mpg territory, I see the results as much more specialized. An indicator of value, no doubt, but of overall goodness? I don't see how the metric is measuring that given the circumstances. I'd say the same thing about Robinson to a degree.
Stockton interests me on a psychological level more than anything. He was revered but never crowned. Like Havlicek before him. Or Ripken in baseball. Everyone "respected" him and "the way he played," but no one really ever thought he was a high-peak guy. Then Nash came along, and from an "eye test" point of view I just kept saying "Stockton on Steroids. Stockton on Steroids." And it really almost literally was taking Stockton's mastery of the pick and roll and making it look almost passive. Nash would just look to burry defenses on every play.
In Stockton, we're talking about a player who scored over 30 points 11 times in his prime (34-point best) out of 880 games. That's 1.2% of the time. This is someone in the 14-15 pts/36 range. He took over 20 true shot attempts in a game 21 times in that period (2.4% of games).
What's worse is what happens in the playoffs. He had six games with over 20 TSA (4.7% of PS games). Against sub-103 defenses in the playoffs, he averaged 12.7 pts/36, 8.5 sat/36 2.7 tov/36 on 52.8% TS. This is a drop from 14.4 pts/10.5 ast on 61.5% TS in the regular season. His sub-105 numbers show the same trend: in 87 games, 13.5 pts/36, 10.2 ast/36 on 57% TS, down 5% from the RS along with a 2 point drop in volume.
This was someone who not only failed to ramp up his game, but his absolute metrics make him look more pedestrian than all-nba (or all-timer). This is a major problem for me, not because it exists on paper, but precisely because it reinforces what I saw when I re-watched all those Jazz games a few years ago -- where the heck was John Stockton?? That Utah's offenses were so successful in the postseason says borderline wondrous things to Malone for me since he was the anchor, the rock, the constant, etc. I understand his variance (stemming from jump-shooting), but Michael and Kobe had variance. If I were less concerned with scaling (portability), I'd probably have Malone bordering on top-5.
Nash, on the other hand, only played 67 PS games from 05-10 in Phoenix. 43 of them were against sub-105s. (!) You know what happened in those game? His scoring spiked. 19.2 pts/36 on 60.2% TS. UP from the RS of 17.6/10.6 62.5% TS.
Hold on I nearly fainted. Didn't realize it was that impressive until I hit "calculate." Never seen that before.
OK I've regained consciousness. The clutch numbers reflect all this as well. It's not a "change" in their games, but a *reflection* of their games -- Nash was a great offensive player because of the pressure of his own scoring (from shooting) combined with his GOAT-level reads and quick passes. Defending him off the PnR was a nightmare. Stockton was excellent, but more passive, not as good of a shooter, not as big and crafty in finishing and while a great passer, i don't think he was quite at Nash's Manning-level of defense-reading.
Nash went from an 17.3/36 scorer to a 27.2/36 scorer -- a 57% improvement -- while increasing efficiency. Stockton jumped from 14.4 pts/36 to 18.3 -- a 27% scoring jump -- on a 1.1% drop in efficiency. Let's put Nash's scoring in perspective here: there have been 22 player-seasons in NBA history at 27 pts/36 and over 54% eFG%. It's been done by 12 men. (Shaq, Dantley, King, Kareem, K. Malone, Durant, Kiki, Bird, Jordan, Walter Davis and Gervin). From 03-11 Dirk was 30 pts/36 at 47% eFG% in the clutch.
And I've heard people suggest confusion as to why Nash should be heralded for situational volume scoring while others aren't (necessarily). It's simple -- there's nothing situational about the PRESSURE Nash applies on the defense -- it's constant, he just balances his own shots with his teammates. He COULD be a volume scorer if he wanted to, the way some lead guards play by default (from the Francis/Marbury type to guys like Wade and even LeBron), but Nash senses higher efficiency elsewhere and perceives passing as the best option. Hard to argue with the GOAT-level offensive results. When the passing is choked off and the option sub-optimal -- due to defensive adjustment, teammate changes, or simply Nash just hedging his bets and simplifying the game by calling his own number more -- he is still capable of volume scoring well because he's awlays been capable of scoring well. Which is exactly what makes him so different from John Stockton. Similar, but steroids make a huge different.
Full circle to Malone -- Karl was the guy who played more of the Nash role I just described. When the going got tough, Utah went to Malone a lot. Sometimes Karl passed, but he wasn't the creator Nash was. He was a phenomenal passer, and an excellent scorer. There are probably only a handful of players in history who could have performed better against that kind of stress/load he faced annually in the playoffs. Meanwhile, Stockton passed and passed and essentially wilted against better defenses at the most inopportune times. And I still think Stockton's good, but there's a sizable gap between him and Malone.
Stockton to me is someone whose reputation seems to be glacial in it's movement. Whether you see it moving forward, or simply narrowing as the blurry edges melt away. He is the archetype of the pass first point guard with a reputation of doing everything in fundamentally sound ways. And we're seeing inklings as the data moves back in time that may have led him to be profoundly effective when you factor it all in even though it is a limitation that's not good if you're a top tier creative player.
I think that if you take the RAPM at face value, no concern for minutes-based bias or noise, and add in how long he played, to be honest it's hard not to pick right this moment (or earlier). I'm still not so sure, but with some of the uncertainty fading away, he has gone up in my list.
Wade is another guy who is playing right now, so you all basically know the deal with him. Y'all might know I'm a bit down on him now, but I've loved watching him play. Sheer aggression. He made the game simple, sacrificing his body and cranking up his motor as needed. Same thing that made Iverson so fun, except Wade was a lot more effective at it on both sides of the court, and he had a great attitude instead of being an idiot, which is why he was able to orchestrate LeBron's move to Miami.
Unfortunately though, he has everything to do with why LeBron's leaving too.
Had you asked me when we made the last list in 2011 to predict where Wade would be in my 2014 list, I'd have said he'd be in the teens ahead of Dirk. The last 3 years clearly didn't go as planned. And while some might want to point out his team won 2 titles and made the finals all 3 years, the story of the past two seasons is perhaps how amazing it is that LeBron got his team to play that well given Wade's disappearance. It's one of those things that hits my analysis pretty hard.
It's probably partly because we sometimes instinctively credit a guy with more longevity that he's actually given us essentially assuming a graceful falloff with nothing but romantic nostalgia in its wake. The reality though when, as with Frazier, a guy seems to fall apart at age 30 is typically less appealing. Now Wade's longevity issues are front and center, and worse, now we start questioning things - or at least I do.
As we do the autopsy on what appears to be Wade's prime, I see a guy who I don't know if I'd feel that comfortable trying to build a great offense around him. As with Iverson, the peak of his alpha stardom came on a team that was better at defense than offense, and that defense was not built around Wade. And were I the GM building around him, that's what I'd do. I'd rely on his self-sufficiency to mean we could get decent offense without dedicating a ton of resources around him, and focus the rest of my energy on other things.
Now, you might ask: What's the problem with that? Maybe nothing, but I tend to think that whichever side of the ball is your team's strength, you're probably going to need to get some not-so-easy to come by talent on that side of things to make it work. Hence in general, you're hoping to cross that issue off the list when you get your franchise player, and a player who on the other hand means the opposite of that doesn't sound so great to me. The fact that Wade actually won a title like this to me is more anecdotal than reassuring.
One other potential come back: "Doc, Jordan's a volume scorer and he led a great offense. What is it about Wade that makes you think he couldn't do that?" You might think I'm setting that up as some sort of trap, or that I'd dismiss it with cliches about Jordan's GOATness, but perhaps more damning to my thinking is that I consider this a serious comeback. I'm on record being critical of Jordan, which to some will just mean I'm biased against volume scorers irrationally. Here's what I'll say though:
-Jordan struggled to make a great offense until Chicago did some really, really smart things that included both strategy changes and the acquisition of players who were far more valuable - especially in this context - than most around the NBA realized at the time. He's thus not immune to these criticism.
-Jordan's also better at Wade did best - the attack. -Jordan was also a considerably better shooter, which opened up the offense to let him be less on-ball. That's a big deal. -Jordan, especially when he was young, was capable of leading on that other side of the ball in a way that Wade couldn't. Wade had bursts where he was everywhere on defense, but Jordan imho could sustain it much more successfully.
And all that's before the matter that Jordan seems like his game aged much more smoothly than Wade's is in the process of doing.
fpliii wrote:You know, since Ewing (my likely vote again) and Frazier (who I'm high on as well) have received support, what do you guys think about Reed? Both of his FMVP's likely should go to Frazier from my understanding, but I wonder what kind of traction he should be getting here? Some questions I have on him:
1) How good was he defensively, and what degree of responsibility did he have on that end on his teams? 2) How skilled/effective was he in the post? 3) What was his effective shooting range? From how far out was he consistent? 4) How would you guys compare him to Ewing and Dwight (who I think should be receiving consideration sooner than later as well)?
Just to throw another name out there, what about Thurmond?
Fpliii, I have believed and even stated for years how Twyman's "I think we see Willis coming out!" and Reed walking out of the tunnel in 1970 became bigger than anything that the game had to offer. It's really unjust to Walt Clyde because that was a absolute gem that he played in that game 7.
Basketballefan wrote:Shouldn't be anytime soon. 7 seasons isn't enough.
That's true but a few things
A. No left is clearly a better basketball player than Durant has been the last 2 seasons. B. He's got 5 top 5(more like top 2) player level seasons from 10-14. C. As a franchise centerpiece he's led OKC to 3 conference finals and one finals appearance playing in a loaded west.
A. Since you said "Clearly", I agree. He's had one hell of a peak already. B. He wasn't that great in 2010. Other than that, sure. C. Agreed.
Reason why I personally can't vote for him yet is because I don't see an argument over D-Wade. I'd put 2009 Wade over any version of KD so far, and Wade has better longevity in terms of prime seasons AND overall career. If Dwyane Wade beats you in longevity, it's hard to come back from that (on my list).
If one thinks KD is better peak-wise and values peak highly, it's understandable to begin voting for Durant soon.
B. Explain wasn't that great in 2010. Scoring title on excellent efficiency and led OKC to the PS in a historically tough west. The only guys clearly better that year are Kobe,Wade,Lebron,Dwight. C. I agree that peak Wade is better and he has better longevity but I don't think he gives any more elite(top 5) level seasons as KD. I have Wade 05,06,09,10,11 as superstar level years for Wade and 10-14 for Durant. For the record I have Wade above Durant, just something to think about.
RSCD3_ wrote:Does Rick Barry deserve to be brought up soon.
Other than wade And Nash I feel he has the highest offensive peak
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Coming into the project i had Barry 22-23 on my list, i understand that's higher than most. I suppose once Wade is in i might make my case for Barry but i will have to look at my other candidates first to see if he would be the right choice. Perhaps i ranked him a little high i'm not sure.
The Infamous1 wrote:I wonder when people will start making an argument for Durant
I hope not before Chris Paul gets in.
Why?
Their primes are happening at the same time and Durant is considered the Better player. He's also had the better career overall. He's done more at 25 then CP3 has done at 30. It's also not like CP3 has some big longevity advantage
Chuck Texas wrote:why in the world would Dwight or Zo get consideration before Deke? If we are talking about the best defensive big man of the modern era left on the board, he' s got to be the guy. And while he's not the scorer the other 2 are, neither of them should be drawing consideration based on their offense.
For the record I'd be inclined to rank them:
1. Deke 2. Zo 3. Dwight
So we're kind of on the same page...2 things though:
1 - RAPM is on my mind with the first two guys, and while it says Deke was the best defender we've seen in recent times, it gives Zo the clear edge overall just like what was thought when they played. If I'm going just by peak, I pick Zo first and probably Deke last.
2 - While Deke has the longevity edge, it may not be as big as you were thinking. Deke played a long time, but he played in limited minutes for many of those years.
The Infamous1 wrote:I wonder when people will start making an argument for Durant
I hope not before Chris Paul gets in.
Why?
Their primes are happening at the same time and Durant is considered the Better player. He's also had the better career overall. He's done more at 25 then CP3 has done at 30. It's also not like CP3 has some big longevity advantage
Yeah i also don't understand how he considers Paul over KD a given. Paul only played 2 more seasons and when you compare their 3-4 best seasons i believe KD gets the edge there. KD also has far more playoff success, in less seasons as well. I think they are probably close on the all time list i'd probably rank Paul in the 40-45 range and KD comfortably in the top 40.
Doctor MJ wrote: I hope not before Chris Paul gets in.
Why?
Their primes are happening at the same time and Durant is considered the Better player. He's also had the better career overall. He's done more at 25 then CP3 has done at 30. It's also not like CP3 has some big longevity advantage
Yeah i also don't understand how he considers Paul over KD a given. Paul only played 2 more seasons and when you compare their 3-4 best seasons i believe KD gets the edge there. KD also has far more playoff success, in less seasons as well. I think they are probably close on the all time list i'd probably rank Paul in the 40-45 range and KD comfortably in the top 40.
I agree with that.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... hares.html I just looked it up and Durant is 13 all time in MVP shares... At 25. That's crazy. If it wasn't for goat level seasons by lebron in 12 and 13 he would've won 3 straight MVP awards.
The Infamous1 wrote:I wonder when people will start making an argument for Durant
I hope not before Chris Paul gets in.
Why?
Their primes are happening at the same time and Durant is considered the Better player. He's also had the better career overall. He's done more at 25 then CP3 has done at 30. It's also not like CP3 has some big longevity advantage
If you go by Win Shares, Paul has a large advantage. If you go by PER, and compare them best year against best year, 2nd vs 2nd, etc. Paul has the edge going all the way down. If you go by +/- stats, Paul's edge is even more pronounced. Here's colts18's spreadsheet tallying up +/- over years:
Paul has a cume score that more than doubles Durant's.
None of these things are the holy grail of course, but yes, I think Paul has a clear cut longevity edge.
I'd say what's tricky here though is that I too agree that Durant at his best is capable of more than Paul is. That hasn't been the case for that long, but definitely in the last 2 years at least. The +/- data still doesn't give him clear edges there though, and it almost certainly has much to do with the fact that there is heavy redundancy issues between he and Westbrook - made all the more clear this year when Westbrook missed time and Durant's volume AND efficiency went up.
Clyde Frazier wrote:I think ewing is deserving here, and like I said last thread, i'm surprised by how much traction he already got. That said, i'll go back and check out some other players before submitting my vote.
penbeast0 wrote:FORWARDS
I remember you saying something about not rating barry all that highly, and then noticed he wasn't mentioned here. I'm well aware of the criticism of his off the court personality. Do you feel that personality actually prevented him from being more successful as a player? I'm not sure that it did.
Yes, I do. I think he had a higher usage than he should have due to his ego and although he was a terrific passer, think he shot too much; especially since he wasn't all that efficient (not terrible but not great). He also frequently seemed to feel that playing defense was beneath him, certainly not a floor burn player like West or Pettit. Further, I think his arrogance caused him to slam teammates; in a free agency era, a lot of people would just plain not want to play with him.
I realize it's a lot of "intangibles" arguments except maybe the defense; but I place a high value on being a good teammate.
Are you saying with his talent and teammates that he should’ve won multiple championships? From 70-79, no team won back to back championships, and the knicks and celtics were the only teams to win more than one. The league was wide open, and there’s always the theory that talent being split between the ABA and NBA created more parity (although I think it’s overstated). Winning a championship isn’t easy. I’m not going to proclaim his championship run one of the best of all time, but his win in 75 with a rookie jamaal wilkes and the likes of butch beard and charles johnson was impressive nonetheless.
Michael Jordan, who most consider the best player of all time was seemingly overly critical of his teammates, and held them to higher standards than anyone else. I take intangibles into consideration as well, but I think there can be separation between an on the court persona and off the court persona. I’d have to look into this further as it relates to him specifically. I’m not voting for barry here, but I’d probably start thinking about him in the ~25 range as opposed to the 30+ range.
re: Top defenders, Nate Thurmond is on the very very short list of GOAT defenders. If you haven't, take a dive into his history.
re: Hayes. Excellent defender, not excellent on offense. 73-76 period of peak defense is great -- a notch below the all-timers but great nonetheless. Long, tall, athletic and protects the rim well. Good in team and rotations. The idea was that Unseld used to bang and therefore took a harder guy...but that completely ignores or undermines Hayes team value on defense to me. And he played forever, so he has excellent longevity. FTR I don't have him in my top-35 due to offense.
re: Scoring on poor efficiency. This has come up with Baylor. It's a site wide issue as well.
The ideal offensive player could score every time. But we only see this at low levels. Lisa Leslie scored 101 in a half, she didn't have 35 assists because no one could stop her, and ONLY her from scoring.
In the NBA, no one is close to that level, so they strike up a balance between calling their own number and enhancing teammates opportunities. Typically, defenses curtail the scoring of the elite player, and by doing so, create an opportunity for his creation to balance (or exceed!) his scoring opportunity. (Yes, defenses aren't perfect.) This is just a basic Game Theory play where the player needs to strike a balance between shooting and passing if the defense has overcommitted to his shot.
And here's what's key to understand -- when a player lacks this balance, it does not automatically marginalize his offensive efficacy. This is because everyone's "Balance Curve" isn't equal, based on their own scoring ability. This gets complex, and some meta-game is involved (e.g. needing to take shots to keep the D honest because, hey, the D can't figure out what the perfect balance is either, they and the coaches are using intuition). To me, 05 McGrady is the most instructional case here...
After trading for Wesley, they implemented a backcourt that could both shoot and pass, something that is historically successful dating back to the 68 Lakers. (BTW, I value shooting and passing as the 2 most primary offensive skills for reasons like this -- the interactive potency afforded by passing/creating and shooting is very powerful.) McGrady had the second worst TS% on the time but took the most shots. He also led the team in ast% and was the clear "lead guard" -- McGrady, in general, is an excellent creator.
Now the tendency would be to look at his TS%/shooting volume and say he didn't have a perfect balance. Remember, everyone's "Balance Curve" peak will be limited by their own abilities. Rajon Rondo often should attack more, but he's so limited as a player I don't think it would make him that much better. McGrady perhaps should have struck a better balance, but that balance wouldn't make him much better because there's no way to make him a better shooter based on that balance. And -- and here's what's crazy -- despite his poor TS%, it's possible he was already playing right around his peak balance. (!) There's the meta-game -- notice that he has the lowest % of FG's assisted on the team, so his individual self-creation could have not only been at opportune times, but it could have also helped create the pressure and floor architecture that was so darn successful alongside Ming, Sura, Wesley and co.
For Elgin Baylor PRE-INJURIES, I actually think this kind of "similar height" around his Balance Curve peak is appropriate to the early part of his career. In 61-62 and 64-65 he combines to miss 51 games with a WOWY score of 3.5. This is really good, and just a shade off of that 4+ range we consistently see from the standouts in this stat who also are standouts by box-score/accolade reputation.
Consider that 5 assists per game is quite decent for a volume shooter. Also consider that Baylor was a slasher, not a great shooter himself, so for him to wisely give up shots he would truly have to sucked defenders into his path. If he's only marginally drawing extra defensive coverage, then him making pseudo-idle passes won't automatically buoy the offense. The natural response is "well, if they just toned down his marginally efficient drives they could have run the West show," but Baylor was PART of the West show. Either in concert with West, on the receiving end of what West providing or sometimes leading the charge himself. And while I do consider a far superior offensive force than Baylor, it's hard to really climb on his balance too hard given their results.
NB: I think post-knees Baylor probably tried to do too much, both based on reports, the little I've seen and the statistical declines. FTR I do have Baylor's peak offense above Bob Pettit's, another player who has major longevity issues for me and I just don't hold as a super high-peak player despite really liking a lot of what he brings quite a bit. Thus, I currently have Baylor outside the top 40, because his longevity and "issues" are a catastrophic downgrade for me after 1965. I value his entire career post-1964 as about the same as Dwyane Wade's best year.
The first superstar and franchise player, the original big man, the player who made having a 7-footer a necessity and who showed it was the most impactful position on the floor. Mikan caused rule changes, he dominated and that was all he could do, I admit that his opposition was likely sub-par most of the time but at the same time I can't say with a straight face he wouldn't be good in the 60s, and we have already voted the biggest stars of the 60s, some of them way higher than expected.
I just think Mikan belongs in a tier in which the remaining players probably don't belong (Durant obviously can get in that tier and even further but that's yet to be determined). Wade has a good case with a great prime and a great title run in 2006 but I still prefer Mikan at this position.
In terms of actual ability I doubt Bill Russell is any better than George Mikan. It is kinda funny that mikan is viewed as a player of his times, while people feel russell is comparable to modern greats like olajuwon and shaq.
Doctor MJ wrote: I hope not before Chris Paul gets in.
Why?
Their primes are happening at the same time and Durant is considered the Better player. He's also had the better career overall. He's done more at 25 then CP3 has done at 30. It's also not like CP3 has some big longevity advantage
If you go by Win Shares, Paul has a large advantage. If you go by PER, and compare them best year against best year, 2nd vs 2nd, etc. Paul has the edge going all the way down. If you go by +/- stats, Paul's edge is even more pronounced. Here's colts18's spreadsheet tallying up +/- over years:
Paul has a cume score that more than doubles Durant's.
None of these things are the holy grail of course, but yes, I think Paul has a clear cut longevity edge.
I'd say what's tricky here though is that I too agree that Durant at his best is capable of more than Paul is. That hasn't been the case for that long, but definitely in the last 2 years at least. The +/- data still doesn't give him clear edges there though, and it almost certainly has much to do with the fact that there is heavy redundancy issues between he and Westbrook - made all the more clear this year when Westbrook missed time and Durant's volume AND efficiency went up.
Are you stating that Westbrook is holding Durant and OKC back from getting the most out of one player at a time?
Because I wondered also whether the offense was more free flowing and less predictable without Russ there.
It seemed like the ball moved better and his teammates were more effective specifically the bench players
I still think they would have suffered come playoff time but the redundancy is real in that Westbrook benefits from KD more than vice versa.
I wonder if it forced Scott brooks' game plan to change and it worked better, can any people who saw a lot of okc verify this
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
batmana wrote:I'm going to vote again for George Mikan.
The first superstar and franchise player, the original big man, the player who made having a 7-footer a necessity and who showed it was the most impactful position on the floor. Mikan caused rule changes, he dominated and that was all he could do, I admit that his opposition was likely sub-par most of the time but at the same time I can't say with a straight face he wouldn't be good in the 60s, and we have already voted the biggest stars of the 60s, some of them way higher than expected.
I just think Mikan belongs in a tier in which the remaining players probably don't belong (Durant obviously can get in that tier and even further but that's yet to be determined). Wade has a good case with a great prime and a great title run in 2006 but I still prefer Mikan at this position.
I dont understand this logic. Mikan was "the first superstar so lets put him top 25".
batmana wrote:I'm going to vote again for George Mikan.
The first superstar and franchise player, the original big man, the player who made having a 7-footer a necessity and who showed it was the most impactful position on the floor. Mikan caused rule changes, he dominated and that was all he could do, I admit that his opposition was likely sub-par most of the time but at the same time I can't say with a straight face he wouldn't be good in the 60s, and we have already voted the biggest stars of the 60s, some of them way higher than expected.
I just think Mikan belongs in a tier in which the remaining players probably don't belong (Durant obviously can get in that tier and even further but that's yet to be determined). Wade has a good case with a great prime and a great title run in 2006 but I still prefer Mikan at this position.
I dont understand this logic. Mikan was "the first superstar so lets put him top 25".
He's giving his own vote, not telling everyone else how they should vote. "I'm voting for Mikan."
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
batmana wrote:I'm going to vote again for George Mikan.
The first superstar and franchise player, the original big man, the player who made having a 7-footer a necessity and who showed it was the most impactful position on the floor. Mikan caused rule changes, he dominated and that was all he could do, I admit that his opposition was likely sub-par most of the time but at the same time I can't say with a straight face he wouldn't be good in the 60s, and we have already voted the biggest stars of the 60s, some of them way higher than expected.
I just think Mikan belongs in a tier in which the remaining players probably don't belong (Durant obviously can get in that tier and even further but that's yet to be determined). Wade has a good case with a great prime and a great title run in 2006 but I still prefer Mikan at this position.
I dont understand this logic. Mikan was "the first superstar so lets put him top 25".
He's giving his own vote, not telling everyone else how they should vote. "I'm voting for Mikan."
I don't see basketballefan's response as wrong…. essentially all of our discussions lead to discussion about what's most important. I agree with basketballefan- fine, vote for Mikan, but why does it matter if Mikan was the first or the last big to play the game? We are trying to figure out who was the best player. Who came before you and who came after you doesn't matter. As well as where the game was stylistically. You're telling me they wouldn't have widened the lane for Shaq/KAJ/Russell/Ewing/dwight howard?
Okay Brand, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did.
I get some people are mostly interested in hypotheticals. What if this player played then? Or what if this or that?
Fine.
But its also okay for some others to be more interested in the actual historical record. And the reality is that it was Mikan and not Shaq. It doesn't really matter if it could have been someone else. It was Mikan.
And maybe you are trying to find out who was the best player, but Im not sure that's how I feel a top 100 ranking should be done. I think the impact you had on the game is important too. Tracy McCrady was a more talented basketball player than several guys already on this list, but I won't be voting for him any time soon. Probably not in the top 50. I think Mikan is more worthy than McCrady. You may disagree. I think that's great and what makes the list awesome--its not just one perspective.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
