RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[penbeast0]

Owly, you rock.

Again, I'm sure there's no shortage of reasoning behind the weirdness. This board features some of the world's brightest NBA history obsessives. There's just something amiss with the voting. The method, the criteria, the voting pool, something.

Miller being 40 is bad enough. I know there are sophisticated arguments for his one trick being super-valuable. Maybe in 2003 he had a better case for being Top 50 than I realized at the time, however I might still strenuously argue for more well-rounded players over him. He might have had a non-illegitimate case for Top 50 then. In the dozen years since several new players have entered the Top 50, e.g., Chris Paul. So, regardless of the mainstream consensus on Miller (which is based way more on the shallow impressions of crowdthink and way less on this board's signature rational deliberation) that now has Miller as a shoo-in Top 50 candidate, given how many new players have passed the longevity test and since established clearcut claims to Top 10/20/30/40/50 status, Miller should only be even further away from the Top 50, not closer within it. This board ought to be a rare place of sanity re: ranking Reggie Miller. Not a place where a wack consensus is reinforced. But not a place where a genuinely-illuminating next-level argument against the equally-reflexive anti-Miller anti-consensus (e.g., me at times, sorry) gives everyone the vapors, either.

There are many more players than before on this new list who Miller has no business outranking, even considering any deserved pro-Miller re-revisionism. There are also now players in Miller's vicinity who've within the last decade held very firm claims to Top 25 status, even Top 10-15. I have no idea what is happening to Isiah's reputation, but whatever it is, it's a damnable shame. I see Olajuwon now outranking Bird, in no small part because of the two titles he snagged while Jordan sat out. Isiah's two titles were gained only by conquering Bird, Magic, and Jordan. Ah, but so the new wrinkle is that it wasn't "Isiah's team" as much as people have thought, or that he wasn't really a first-tier star? Or maybe it has something to do with how basketball nerd-dom has decided that assists are overrated? Whatever it is, it's an instance of thinking about 50-75% too-damn-much. Anyway, the juxtaposition of Isiah and Reggie is just the epitome to me of what's wrong with the list, whatever that happens to be. I'll be glad to do a deep, error-by-error postmortem once the list is complete, diving into the discussions here pertaining to each. I need to know what the hell has happened to, say, Elgin Baylor. Or, for the love of all that is holy, Bob Cousy.

For those players, the answer is simple . . . more advanced statistics have to some degree shown a light on their weaknesses where the original counting/box score statistics that they made their reputation on have been reinterpreted in light of newer knowledge. I often feel like I'm a generation behind in terms of analyzing numbers but even my level of understanding had dropped those 3 players below where their prior reputation had them the last time we did this project. Heck, when I came onto this board, there were a significant number of posters claiming Allen Iverson had a claim to being one of the top 5-15 players of all time.

[Laimbeer]

Owly, you rock.

Again, I'm sure there's no shortage of reasoning behind the weirdness. This board features some of the world's brightest NBA history obsessives. There's just something amiss with the voting. The method, the criteria, the voting pool, something.

Miller being 40 is bad enough. I know there are sophisticated arguments for his one trick being super-valuable. Maybe in 2003 he had a better case for being Top 50 than I realized at the time, however I might still strenuously argue for more well-rounded players over him. He might have had a non-illegitimate case for Top 50 then. In the dozen years since several new players have entered the Top 50, e.g., Chris Paul. So, regardless of the mainstream consensus on Miller (which is based way more on the shallow impressions of crowdthink and way less on this board's signature rational deliberation) that now has Miller as a shoo-in Top 50 candidate, given how many new players have passed the longevity test and since established clearcut claims to Top 10/20/30/40/50 status, Miller should only be even further away from the Top 50, not closer within it. This board ought to be a rare place of sanity re: ranking Reggie Miller. Not a place where a wack consensus is reinforced. But not a place where a genuinely-illuminating next-level argument against the equally-reflexive anti-Miller anti-consensus (e.g., me at times, sorry) gives everyone the vapors, either.

There are many more players than before on this new list who Miller has no business outranking, even considering any deserved pro-Miller re-revisionism. There are also now players in Miller's vicinity who've within the last decade held very firm claims to Top 25 status, even Top 10-15. I have no idea what is happening to Isiah's reputation, but whatever it is, it's a damnable shame. I see Olajuwon now outranking Bird, in no small part because of the two titles he snagged while Jordan sat out. Isiah's two titles were gained only by conquering Bird, Magic, and Jordan. Ah, but so the new wrinkle is that it wasn't "Isiah's team" as much as people have thought, or that he wasn't really a first-tier star? Or maybe it has something to do with how basketball nerd-dom has decided that assists are overrated? Whatever it is, it's an instance of thinking about 50-75% too-damn-much. Anyway, the juxtaposition of Isiah and Reggie is just the epitome to me of what's wrong with the list, whatever that happens to be. I'll be glad to do a deep, error-by-error postmortem once the list is complete, diving into the discussions here pertaining to each. I need to know what the hell has happened to, say, Elgin Baylor. Or, for the love of all that is holy, Bob Cousy.

The short answer is, it's a dozen guys on the Internet. Do the rankings again with a different set of posters and it would look different, and no doubt odd to those that did this list.

[wigglestrue]

Quotatious, it's more like a Top 100 Writers list where John Grisham is ranked ahead of John Milton. I don't need to read the contents of Grisham's every book or know a single thing about the debate to know that, nah, that **** is wack. The most important thing should still be putting together the best list possible. If it's all about the process and the process leads to a list like this, then the project has become an exercise in putting the cart before the horse. Still fun, I'm sure...great conversation, informative arguments...bad result. No bueno.

[wigglestrue]

If advanced stats lead to Cousy at 71, then advanced stats are Doing It Wrong, are Not Advanced Enough.

[wigglestrue]

How about the board select the five or ten most sage posters and shuffle through a few processes with the goal of reaching an objective Top 100 that will stand the test of time and not be subject to Argumentative Plinko.

[Quotatious]

Quotatious, it's more like a Top 100 Writers list where John Grisham is ranked ahead of John Milton. I don't need to read the contents of Grisham's every book or know a single thing about the debate to know that, nah, that **** is wack. The most important thing should still be putting together the best list possible. If it's all about the process and the process leads to a list like this, then the project has become an exercise in putting the cart before the horse. Still fun, I'm sure...great conversation, informative arguments...bad result. No bueno.

Well, but how can you figure out who's better at any particular thing, if you don't have any consistent criteria?

I see that you value "being a pioneer", so to speak, pretty highly. That's why you mentioned "recency bias" in your previous post. Honestly, that's one thing I've always struggled with. I'm always torn whether I should give a guy some extra credit for being a "pioneer" or dominating his own era (no matter how weak that era might be) to a great extent, or not.

It's much easier to define who's the best basketball player than who's the best writer, the criteria are much more well-defined, but to give you a basketball equivalent of the Milton/Grisham example - Wilt Chamberlain vs David Robinson. Both are athletic freaks, great offensive AND defensive players, comparable impact based on advanced stats (D-Rob actually may've been more consistent) - Wilt is a thousand times more decorated, but accolades aside, was he really a better (more productive/impactful) player than the Admiral, though? It's certainly not a sure thing. Era-relative, I think he was, but his era was weaker than Robinson's era, and (by far) the most important difference between them is the fact that Wilt was born almost 30 years earlier than David, and he naturally had the opportunity to revolutionize the game, that Robinson did not have, because the game was so much more advanced and well-developed, in his era, 20 or 30 years later.

To be honest with you, I often feel the same urge as you do - I also want to reward guys who were "pioneers", or at least dominated the game in their own era, but I've gotten to the point where I think that it's impossible to create one list that would take everything into account, and it wouldn't feel like there's something wrong with it. If we really want to create one list without any precise prior-established criteria, it's always going to be very inconsistent.

You can create at least three or four seperate lists, that would be consistent - one based on what you can call "conventional wisdom" (based on the greatest combination of stats/accolades/eye-test/anecdotal evidence/team success etc., which is what most poeple are trying to do, anyway), second based on advanced stats, focusing on peaks or short primes (let's say we assume that it's going to be based on 3 or 5 consecutive years, called "primes", for every player), third based on advanced stats, focusing on longevity (taking entire careers into account), and finally you can make separate lists based on regular season and playoffs (because the playoff sample size is always going to differ - some players are fortunate enough to be drafted/play for good organizations, have good supporting casts around them, others don't - Tim Duncan/Kevin Garnett would be a perfect example). Finally, deciding whether you should assign some extra value for dominating an era, or maybe you should just compare players regardless of era, is another key question.

There's really no golden mean, as far as criteria are concerned - someone's always going to be discontented, no matter what criteria you choose.

[Quotatious]

If advanced stats lead to Cousy at 71, then advanced stats are Doing It Wrong, are Not Advanced Enough.

It's also possible that Cousy was not advanced enough to look good based on advanced stats.

[Moonbeam]

If advanced stats lead to Cousy at 71, then advanced stats are Doing It Wrong, are Not Advanced Enough.

It's also possible that Cousy was not advanced enough to look good based on advanced stats.

Or that Cousy's playoff drop in production is a big concern...

[wigglestrue]

I'm beginning to feel corners of this forum are getting bit too shooting efficiency-centric.

A "bit too" was putting it charitably. The uber-nerd contingent has absolutely overdosed on the significance/primacy of shooting efficiency. So far that seems to be the one big, recurring prejudice behind most of the list's weirdness.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm sure the discussions have been rich with detail and logic, but holy ******* **** is that list weird and awful.

Thanks for that hard hitting analysis. You'd make magic johnson proud.

You're welcome.

I wouldn't even know where to begin. The stench of recency bias? The baffling inconsistency of how the old timers who still made the list are rated? The radical surging-up of borderline players and sinking-down of great players?

Oh wait, I know where to begin, per usual: The one-note wonder of the world, Reggie ******* Miller. By the year 2020, will he be cracking the Top 30? Top 20? I note he is basically tied with Isiah Thomas here, an abomination which would singlehandedly ruin the credibility of this list if there weren't also a dozen other equally mindblowing fails.

I think you guys ought to institute an age minimum or something, if this is supposed to be a serious recurring project. Again, I'm sure the debates featured a dazzling array of fine-tuned arguments from several world-class basketball minds, etc. But the product -- the list -- it's starting to verge on random, misinformed Bleacher Report territory. Pitiful.

I don't understand the recency bias thing at all. There are players from different eras from all over the place.

Reggie Miller generally gets ranked lower as time goes by, not sure where you're getting this idea that people would think he is a top 30 player in 2020. Seems like you're just doing a lot of whining because people have a different perspective on basketball than you. Is Reggie Miller being ranked close to Thomas supposed to be recency bias..?

[wigglestrue]

Thanks for that hard hitting analysis. You'd make magic johnson proud.

You're welcome.

I wouldn't even know where to begin. The stench of recency bias? The baffling inconsistency of how the old timers who still made the list are rated? The radical surging-up of borderline players and sinking-down of great players?

Oh wait, I know where to begin, per usual: The one-note wonder of the world, Reggie ******* Miller. By the year 2020, will he be cracking the Top 30? Top 20? I note he is basically tied with Isiah Thomas here, an abomination which would singlehandedly ruin the credibility of this list if there weren't also a dozen other equally mindblowing fails.

I think you guys ought to institute an age minimum or something, if this is supposed to be a serious recurring project. Again, I'm sure the debates featured a dazzling array of fine-tuned arguments from several world-class basketball minds, etc. But the product -- the list -- it's starting to verge on random, misinformed Bleacher Report territory. Pitiful.

I don't understand the recency bias thing at all. There are players from different eras from all over the place.

It's not so much that the recency concerns the players themselves and when they played, more a case of, "There's this aspect of the game that we smart people have recently realized is more important than previously understood and so we're going overboard by radically revising all historical judgments through that one lens as if no one had ever competently understood the nature of the sport before and as if no new lenses will ever rival or supercede it."

Reggie Miller generally gets ranked lower as time goes by, not sure where you're getting this idea that people would think he is a top 30 player in 2020.

You are incorrect.

Seems like you're just doing a lot of whining because people have a different perspective on basketball than you. Is Reggie Miller being ranked close to Thomas supposed to be recency bias..?

Right, uh, **** "perspectives", there's an objective reality that can be approximated through discourse, not all perspectives are equal, some perspectives totally suck, some perspectives are rich with knowledge but still flawed. This isn't a stroll through an impressionist art gallery where everything is subjective and everyone's POV is valid. There are right answers here, more or less.

[Ballerhogger]

i can't believe bill walton doesnt make it over Horace Grant .

[penbeast0]

i can't believe bill walton doesnt make it over Horace Grant .

Presumably because 1 year of great play is not equal for some of us to a decade of very good play. Walton's peak is just too short. Even Connie Hawkins (2 great years sandwiched around 1 injured season) comes up short despite being one of my favorite players. Give me 5 years and I'll start considering them top 100 (3 at Walton's level, he was that good); give me 8 prime years and I'll take off very little for durability even v. guys like Moses Malone or Kareem.

[Ballerhogger]

i can't believe bill walton doesnt make it over Horace Grant .

Presumably because 1 year of great play is not equal for some of us to a decade of very good play. Walton's peak is just too short. Even Connie Hawkins (2 great years sandwiched around 1 injured season) comes up short despite being one of my favorite players. Give me 5 years and I'll start considering them top 100 (3 at Walton's level, he was that good); give me 8 prime years and I'll take off very little for durability even v. guys like Moses Malone or Kareem.

i see what your saying but he was still very good the next year. MVP,FMVP is hard imagine him not making a top 100.

[Quotatious]

i can't believe bill walton doesnt make it over Horace Grant .

Most of us strongly considered voting for him (I was almost sure that I would eventually vote for him at some point), but it's extremely hard to figure out where exactly Walton should be ranked - it would be an obvious exception to what has been kind of an "unwritten rule" (that we should give credit to guys who had long, consistent careers - I mean, it's ceratinly not Walton's fault that injuries destroyed his career, but still, you can't give him credit for what he didn't do).

We're probably going to do a top 50 (or top whatever, hard to say how far we'll go with it) peaks project this summer, and Walton has a great chance to be ranked top 15 there, I think (personally, I rank him 14th on my highest peaks list, and he was ranked 12th on the latest PC board highest peaks list). He just lacks overall career value, even with his outstanding peak, to be ranked in the top 100 career list.

[Owly]

i can't believe bill walton doesnt make it over Horace Grant .

Presumably because 1 year of great play is not equal for some of us to a decade of very good play. Walton's peak is just too short. Even Connie Hawkins (2 great years sandwiched around 1 injured season) comes up short despite being one of my favorite players. Give me 5 years and I'll start considering them top 100 (3 at Walton's level, he was that good); give me 8 prime years and I'll take off very little for durability even v. guys like Moses Malone or Kareem.

i see what your saying but he was still very good the next year. MVP,FMVP is hard imagine him not making a top 100.

Some only put much weight on one year because he's absent for the playoffs so he doesn't help you much towards the title (except HCA deeper through the playoffs).

In terms of the accolades an MVP was no guarantee of getting in and it's not exclusive to Walton. Rose isn't in, in large part for similar reasons (injuries have limited his career value).

As others have covered versus Horace Grant, you first have to acknowledge how good Grant was as a role player (very good defender, very accurate from the field etc), so just because he wasn't a "star" (which is strongly tied to being a scorer) it doesn't mean he wasn't seriously valuable. Then it comes down to availability. Grant gives at least 21,000 minutes as a very good player, then another 17,000 as a solid player, smart defender (playing out of position quite a lot). Walton gives you 4,200 minutes of great play (I won't do the aforementioned playoff discounting, or hold his high salary against him, though you can undestand others might) then dribs and drabs of good play intermitently within seasons. Maybe Walton is five times the player prime Grant is, or boosts your title chances five times as much. If you believe that and the non-prime stuff holds little value Walton's there, slightly ahead. But that is the sort of ratio he needs (and people may believe he has that, but it's worth knowing what it is, because it's not insubstantial). But nobody made a compelling case for Walton.

[E-Balla]

Nice to see the list finally completed. Very happy to see Marques Johnson make it in after he missed the last one.

[ronnymac2]

Great project guys! Thank you to everybody; I learned a lot about players I hadn't particularly studied before, and gained new perspectives on what to look for as far as career value. Definitely shifted how I evaluate players.

Special thanks to Penbeast for running the project and being the rock of the whole thing. Appreciate it!

[ceiling raiser]

Terrific work gentlemen! Thanks to pen for running the project, and to all of the panel for putting together all of this terrific content.

[Clyde Frazier]

Wow... We're actually finished. Congrats to all those involved who made the project a success. Glad I stuck with it, and certainly feel more knowledgable on the whole as a result.

Special thanks to penbeast for running it! Much appreciated.

Looking forward to a post project discussion. Since there were several schools of thought within the project as far as criteria's concerned, that was the most challenging aspect for me to stick with it. That said, it made the discussions all the more interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums