RealGM Top 100 List #52

[trex_8063]

OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate on something that occurred to me while reading The Rivalry: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor.

So many (even most???) here would argue that volume scoring in and of itself is not a significant achievement or a worthwhile goal for a player (paging Doc). But the following passage from that book (which is a very interesting read, btw) had me wondering otherwise:

“.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….” (p.206-207)

To some degree, similar is still true today. Casual fans don't come to see (and new fans are generally not attracted to the game by) an excellent defense (maybe anchored by someone like Mutombo) holding opponents to 70 pts in a grind 'em down defensive victory......they come to see big scores and big scorers. They come to see explosiveness, dazzling 1-on-1 play, some flash, some showmanship; maybe see a couple moves that make them laugh and shake their heads while they say "did you see that?!?" to their peers.

It's that kind of stuff that the casual fan typically wants to see; it's that kind of stuff that is more apt to attract new fans to the game. And thus it is that type of play (and that type of player) which has been primarily responsible for propelling the global popularity of this game to the levels we currently enjoy.

The top 10 selling jerseys of the last decade (as of 2013) were (and I'll bold some that appear a bit out of place, at least that high, based on the overall quality of player and/or how long ago it was that they were in their primes):
1. Lebron James
2. Kobe Bryant (probably North America only; wouldn't be surprised if he's #1 globally)
3. Dwyane Wade
4. Carmelo Anthony---last year Melo jersey sales out-numbered Bron jersey sales
5. Allen Iverson
6. Derrick Rose
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Kevin Durant
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Chris Paul

Top 10 this year:
1. Lebron
2. Durant
3. Kobe
4. Derrick Rose
5. Steph Curry
6. Carmelo Anthony
7. DWade
8. CP3
9. Kyrie Irving
10. James Harden

Notice the high tendency toward scorers, and particularly perimeter scorers.
So idk.....again, I'll just play devil's advocate and put the question out there: are we sure there's not intrinsic value in scoring? While it strictly speaking may not always contribute directly to winning as much as previously believed, it seems clear it does contribute directly to increased revenues, which may lead to more recruiting options; and may also contribute to the on-going rise in global popularity===>====>larger/better player pool.

EDIT: A couple other historic examples of players whose all-time status appears inflated by lay-fans, apparently based on the fact that they scored and played with flare: Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe. Neither is a name that is exactly synonymous with team success (particularly so with Maravich), and yet many casual fans would have one or both in their top 50 all-time. EDIT2: Not saying they're right (far from it). Just siting those as further examples that casual fans are drawn in by that type of player.

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Iverson

He led the Sixers to 5 consecutive playoff appearances and 6 appearances overall. He carried that franchise for many years without a lot of offensive help, he's constantly criticized for his low efficiency, high volume shots which is fair, but somewhat unwarranted, he didn't have anyone to take defensive attention away from him.

He won MVP, Scoring title, and led his team to the finals all in one season. Overall his resume is pretty impressive:

11 time all star
MVP
4 scoring titles
3 time All NBA first team
3 time All NBA second team
Rookie of the year
etc

He is 46th in career PER for NBA and 48th for ABA/NBA combined.
22nd all time in career points in NBA and 27th for ABA/NBA combined.

Several years as a top 10 player and arguably even top 5 in 2001.

7th all time in career ppg average.
2nd all time in career playoff ppg average.

His peak is impressive as well : 33 3 7 54 ts% 26 PER..his scoring efficiency is nothing special here but there's nothing wrong with high volume on average efficiency.

So aside from maybe his later years, Iverson had a positive impact on his teams, even though some will deem him as a cancer.

I also disagree that he isn't capable of leading his team to a title, he was 3 games away from doing so and he happened to be up against a dynasty that had 2 top 10 players ever.

Honorable mentions go to Dantley, English, and Elvin Hayes.

[Basketballefan]

If you think Melo should be in the discussion, then you'll have to show that he has at least a solid case over guys like Nique, Carter and Manu who will all likely gain significant traction well before Melo.

Sent from my LG-G2 using RealGM Forums

Melo was a way better postseason performer than Nique and about even peak for peak if not better. I'll also take Melo over Manu in a heartbeat. Many is closer to Rasheed Wallace than these guys on my list. Carter is a tough one and I'd say they're roughly even.

But don't you think Wilkins should rank higher than Melo based on longevity?

[Clyde Frazier]

EDIT: A couple other historic examples of players whose all-time status appears inflated by lay-fans, apparently based on the fact that they scored and played with flare: Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe. Neither is a name that is exactly synonymous with team success (particularly so with Maravich), and yet many casual fans would have one or both in their top 50 all-time. EDIT2: Not saying they're right (far from it). Just siting those as further examples that casual fans are drawn in by that type of player.

I personally believe maravich belongs in the top 100. Don’t think it’s fair to put monroe in the same category of criticism, though. He’s well renowned for putting team performance ahead of individual accolades when he came to NY, and he was a key member of the 73 championship team. Maravich had gaudy #s and didn’t have much team success. Pretty big difference.

[trex_8063]

EDIT: A couple other historic examples of players whose all-time status appears inflated by lay-fans, apparently based on the fact that they scored and played with flare: Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe. Neither is a name that is exactly synonymous with team success (particularly so with Maravich), and yet many casual fans would have one or both in their top 50 all-time. EDIT2: Not saying they're right (far from it). Just siting those as further examples that casual fans are drawn in by that type of player.

I personally believe maravich belongs in the top 100. Don’t think it’s fair to put monroe in the same category of criticism, though. He’s well renowned for putting team performance ahead of individual accolades when he came to NY, and he was a key member of the 73 championship team. Maravich had gaudy #s and didn’t have much team success. Pretty big difference.

But I don't think it's Monroe's NY years, averaging ~15/3/4 for contenders that propel him forth on all-time lists (if so, why doesn't Bill Bradley get similar consideration?). And particularly with the casual fan base that I'm referring to.

[Clyde Frazier]

EDIT: A couple other historic examples of players whose all-time status appears inflated by lay-fans, apparently based on the fact that they scored and played with flare: Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe. Neither is a name that is exactly synonymous with team success (particularly so with Maravich), and yet many casual fans would have one or both in their top 50 all-time. EDIT2: Not saying they're right (far from it). Just siting those as further examples that casual fans are drawn in by that type of player.

I personally believe maravich belongs in the top 100. Don’t think it’s fair to put monroe in the same category of criticism, though. He’s well renowned for putting team performance ahead of individual accolades when he came to NY, and he was a key member of the 73 championship team. Maravich had gaudy #s and didn’t have much team success. Pretty big difference.

But I don't think it's Monroe's NY years, averaging ~15/3/4 for contenders that propel him forth on all-time lists (if so, why doesn't Bill Bradley get similar consideration?). And particularly with the casual fan base that I'm referring to.

Well, i'd say in comparison to bradley, he was just regarded as the more talented player, and his lesser #s in NY reflected adapting to playing with other talent. I have said that Bradley probably would've put up more substantial #s on an average team, though. Also, monroe still had team success putting up better #s in baltimore. I just don't see him in the same light as maravich, even with his known flashy style.

[D Nice]

I think Hill needs more recognition. Generational Rookie season…(was a better rookie than Lebron, Carmelo…you name it. You have to go back to Jordan before you’ll get to a perimeter player with a stronger rookie campaign). Then 5 straight seasons of being a top 10 player, 2 of which were true superstar campaigns where in ’97 he anchored a top 5 offense with ancient dumars as his #2 and 2000 where he led the only efficient offense jerry stackhouse has ever had a featured role in. His ’96-’00 stretch is better whatever Carter’s/Allen's/Nique's/etc best 5-year stretch was.

There real kicker though is that he has 4 straight seasons as a ridiculously high-end role player. He somehow became an elite defender in old age while rocking 13/5/2.5 for the suns on 57TS% in 30mpg. He missed 12 games in ’08 and then 2 games combined the 3 seasons thereafter. This solidly puts his career right there with T-Mac’s IMO. Like T-Mac he has a worse 6th prime season floating out there too.

Spoiler:

2003 Mac > 2000 Hill
2002 Mac = 1997 Hill
2001 Mac > 1999 Hill
2004 Mac = 1998 Hill
2005 Mac = 1996 Hill

2007 Mac > 2005 Hill

2008-2011 Hill >>> The rest of McGrady’s career

KJ is similar. He doesn’t have the post-prime Hill put together but he’s got 4-5 years of top 10 play (89, 90, 92, 94, and 91 if you excuse his playoff series) and several injury-riddled but still impactful years (he was a monster in ’95 PS for example). These are the two I think should get a serious look after AI gets in (along with Vince/English obviously).

[Texas Chuck]

Agree with the Grant Hill mention. I think he deserved to be higher than TMac who still shouldn't be in imo.

[D Nice]

Agree with the Grant Hill mention. I think he deserved to be higher than TMac who still shouldn't be in imo.

They're literally within one spot of each other for me (Mac #48-#49, Hill #49-#50). I tend to think even when you take out their best individual season Tracy's '01-'04 years were just as good as Hill's '96-'99 years. Hill has a slight RS advantage but Mac tended to have much more impressive showings in the playoffs. Hill failed as a volume scorer in virtually every opportunity he was presented with (speaking on the PS). Mac's '07 campagin was also more impressive than Hill's lone all-star season in Orlando.

Did you think KD should have been in the top 40 on the basis of only 5 years of elite play, 2 of which he probably wasn't a top 7-8 player? If that's enough to be top 40 then Mac's career is easily top 50. If you didn't, then I'm cool with you not thinking Mac was top 50 either. Just gotta be consistent.

[Texas Chuck]

I think Durant deserves to be higher than TMac because I think his peak is considerably higher. But I do think he went in too early(as did Paul)

[D Nice]

I think Durant deserves to be higher than TMac because I think his peak is considerably higher. But I do think he went in too early(as did Paul)

I do too (although I'd disagree with 2014 KD being a "considerably" better peak than 2003. "considerably" better than 2003 McGrady would make it something like a top 10 peak ever).

I was just saying Mac should be within 10 spots of KD, hence the top 40 vs top 50 mentions. Personally I've got Mac at #48 and KD at #43.

[Quotatious]

I think Durant deserves to be higher than TMac because I think his peak is considerably higher.

That's a pretty unusual way to look at it, because IMO T-Mac's peak was incredible (but it was an outlier year), comparable to any wing in history other than Jordan, LeBron and maybe Dr. J, including Wade, Kobe, Durant etc., basically any superstar wing of his generation, but to each his own, I guess...If I had to justify Durant over McGrady, I'd much rather look at their more extended prime - to me, 2010-14 Durant easily beats 2001-05 T-Mac, other than their peak seasons (honestly, I don't know who I'd take in terms of peak, can see a great case for both guys).

[Basketballefan]

Yeah Kd is only slightly ahead of tmac in peaks. They got real close stats, kd is more efficient but tmac is a better ball handler. I dont have much issue with either of their ranks, tmac maybe a little too high only because he has 0 playoff success to speak of.

Chris Paul on the other hand went flat out too high, probly by 12-15 spots.

[trex_8063]

I personally believe maravich belongs in the top 100. Don’t think it’s fair to put monroe in the same category of criticism, though. He’s well renowned for putting team performance ahead of individual accolades when he came to NY, and he was a key member of the 73 championship team. Maravich had gaudy #s and didn’t have much team success. Pretty big difference.

But I don't think it's Monroe's NY years, averaging ~15/3/4 for contenders that propel him forth on all-time lists (if so, why doesn't Bill Bradley get similar consideration?). And particularly with the casual fan base that I'm referring to.

Well, i'd say in comparison to bradley, he was just regarded as the more talented player, and his lesser #s in NY reflected adapting to playing with other talent. I have said that Bradley probably would've put up more substantial #s on an average team, though. Also, monroe still had team success putting up better #s in baltimore. I just don't see him in the same light as maravich, even with his known flashy style.

I don't mean to be disparaging of either Monroe or Maravich. Again, I'm suggesting that maybe scoring is intrinsically valuable, but perhaps just not for exactly the same reasons we've traditionally held to be true (I do think the ability to score in isolation is a more premium skill in the post-season, fwiw). And at least as far as I'm willing to be the devil's advocate, I'm also questioning whether there's some degree of value to have a flashy and aesthetically pleasing style of play (getting the kids excited about playing bball, and leaving a stylistic imprint on the game).

Because outside of these things.......statistically, these guys just don't have the resume to warrant a top 100 spot (probably not by a long shot):
Monroe never had a PER as high as 20 (peak was 19.3). Only once had a PER in the league's top 10 (at 9th in '68). Career PER is 17.2. He never had a WS/48 that was in the top 10. His peak WS/48 was .158 (and that in somewhat reduced minutes, at 31.6 mpg in '73); that's his only season north of .150; career WS/48 just .125.
Maravich had just two seasons with PER north of 20 (peak at 20.5), despite MASSIVE volumes in some years. He had just three seasons in the league's top 10 (never higher than 6th). He was never even close to top 10 in WS/48 (his best season being .144). Career WS/48 was an entirely pedestrian .092.

I don't necessarily state these things to be overtly critical of these guys. I'm merely exploring why they're perceived as they are.

[E-Balla]

If you think Melo should be in the discussion, then you'll have to show that he has at least a solid case over guys like Nique, Carter and Manu who will all likely gain significant traction well before Melo.

Sent from my LG-G2 using RealGM Forums

Melo was a way better postseason performer than Nique and about even peak for peak if not better. I'll also take Melo over Manu in a heartbeat. Many is closer to Rasheed Wallace than these guys on my list. Carter is a tough one and I'd say they're roughly even.

But don't you think Wilkins should rank higher than Melo based on longevity?

When the distance between them in the postseason is major no I don't.

[trex_8063]

Alex English (3) - penbeast0, ronnymac2, Moonbeam

Dominique Wilkins (1) - JordansBulls

Allen Iverson (4) - trex_8063, Joao Saraiva, E-Balla, Basketballefan

Dave Cowens (3) - Chuck Texas, lukeharts, Clyde Frazier

Bob Lanier (1) - Owly

Pau Gasol (2) - john248, RayBan-Sematra

Thru post 55. I think we're at 48 hours.

[Texas Chuck]

To clarify a little my peak comments regarding Tmac and Durant--I don't count 1 year as a peak. I look at the best 3 year stretch. If you do it once, that can be a bit of a fluke. See a season like 08 Monta Ellis for example.

So while TMac had a big year in 03 I find KD's recent run more impressive than TMac's best 3-4 year stretch. And I'd still take Durant last year over 03 McGrady.

[john248]

OK, I'm going to play devil's advocate on something that occurred to me while reading The Rivalry: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor.

So many (even most???) here would argue that volume scoring in and of itself is not a significant achievement or a worthwhile goal for a player (paging Doc). But the following passage from that book (which is a very interesting read, btw) had me wondering otherwise:

“.....Fans specifically came to see him [Baylor]. When he was on military duty and playing sporadically, they called the box office before games to ask if he would be appearing. The Lakers front office had run figures calculating Baylor’s ability to sell tickets, and they determined that in games when he did not play, the Lakers drew an average of 2,000 fewer fans. That amounted to approximately $6,000 per game, or $200,000 over the course of a season….” (p.206-207)

To some degree, similar is still true today. Casual fans don't come to see (and new fans are generally not attracted to the game by) an excellent defense (maybe anchored by someone like Mutombo) holding opponents to 70 pts in a grind 'em down defensive victory......they come to see big scores and big scorers. They come to see explosiveness, dazzling 1-on-1 play, some flash, some showmanship; maybe see a couple moves that make them laugh and shake their heads while they say "did you see that?!?" to their peers.

It's that kind of stuff that the casual fan typically wants to see; it's that kind of stuff that is more apt to attract new fans to the game. And thus it is that type of play (and that type of player) which has been primarily responsible for propelling the global popularity of this game to the levels we currently enjoy.

The top 10 selling jerseys of the last decade (as of 2013) were (and I'll bold some that appear a bit out of place, at least that high, based on the overall quality of player and/or how long ago it was that they were in their primes):
1. Lebron James
2. Kobe Bryant (probably North America only; wouldn't be surprised if he's #1 globally)
3. Dwyane Wade
4. Carmelo Anthony---last year Melo jersey sales out-numbered Bron jersey sales
5. Allen Iverson
6. Derrick Rose
7. Kevin Garnett
8. Kevin Durant
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Chris Paul

Top 10 this year:
1. Lebron
2. Durant
3. Kobe
4. Derrick Rose
5. Steph Curry
6. Carmelo Anthony
7. DWade
8. CP3
9. Kyrie Irving
10. James Harden

Notice the high tendency toward scorers, and particularly perimeter scorers.
So idk.....again, I'll just play devil's advocate and put the question out there: are we sure there's not intrinsic value in scoring? While it strictly speaking may not always contribute directly to winning as much as previously believed, it seems clear it does contribute directly to increased revenues, which may lead to more recruiting options; and may also contribute to the on-going rise in global popularity===>====>larger/better player pool.

EDIT: A couple other historic examples of players whose all-time status appears inflated by lay-fans, apparently based on the fact that they scored and played with flare: Pete Maravich and Earl Monroe. Neither is a name that is exactly synonymous with team success (particularly so with Maravich), and yet many casual fans would have one or both in their top 50 all-time. EDIT2: Not saying they're right (far from it). Just siting those as further examples that casual fans are drawn in by that type of player.

Jersey sales? Really?

[penbeast0]

Just got back; we need a tiebreaker between Alex English and Dave Cowens . . . anyone up for it?

[Notanoob]

I'm looking at it. Also watching Gonzaga right now, so it won't be too fast lol.

Alright, I throw my vote in for Dave Cowens. Break up this tie. Got to love those passing big men. Pretty nice rebounder too.