RealGM Top 100 LIST- 2014

[Jaivl]

That's an awful counter argument, but there's no way in hell Walton's career isn't in the top 100.

What career? His prime lasts about one and a half seasons. He has one good post-prime year as a bench player in Boston. That's worth about what, 200 games of quality play, at most, and 40% of them as a role player? A fringe top 100 like Chris Bosh has more than three times that.

[eminence]

Finally put together my own first draft of a top 25 (with this season taken into account). Trying to refine my own criteria a bit and was wondering what I might be over or under valuing.

Will give some brief explanations, specifically on players I feel are a little off their 'normal' spots. Notes: Didn't rank Mikan/Pettit. Also I am really not a Moses Malone fan, so he doesn't make my list.

25. Chris Paul(+6)- Great player in my opinion, if he ever wins I feel like he'll shoot up (similar to Dirk).
24. Walt Frazier(+4)
23. Steve Nash(+2)
22. Scottie Pippen(+5)- I think I might have him a bit too high based off team success.
21. Charles Barkley(-1)
20. Dwayne Wade(+3)- Looking at him again it doesn't feel like he has the longevity to rank this high yet.
19. John Stockton(+7)- Favorite player all-time, probably some bias here.
18. Julius Erving(-4)
17. Jerry West(-2) - Feels a little low. Great defender, efficient, not sure why he's not higher on first pass.
16. Dirk Nowitzki(-)
15. Karl Malone(+2)
14. Oscar Robertson(-2) - His best numbers have always felt a bit hollow to me.
13. David Robinson(+5) - I think he had a couple seasons in the mid 90's where he was as good as anybody ever was. But all we remember are those games against the Rockets and Hakeem and he gets knocked down too far in my opinion.
12. Kevin Garnett(-1)
11. Hakeem Olajuwon(-1)
10. Larry Bird(-)
9. Magic Johnson(-1)
8. Bill Russell(-5) - I just can't bring myself to rank a guy who was such a one-way player any higher than this, even with all his success.
7. Kobe Bryant(+6) - Wins out over the three right behind him to me due to more longevity, I feel they were all similar success wise and as peak players (Kobe/Bird being a bit more balance, Magic as the offensive maestro, and Russell a defensive wizard).
6. Lebron James(+1)
5. Shaquille O'neal(+1)
4. Tim Duncan(+1)
3. Wilt Chamberlain(+1)
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar(-)
1. Michael Jordan(-)

[MyUniBroDavis]

New to the forum, so my original post got locked
I would consider kobe to be top 10 ish
I believe Kobe has a arguement to be around equal to lebron at THIS MOMENT, all time
In my opinion, I still rank Kobe higher, mostly because i am biased. As a pure basketball player, Lebron is objectively better than Kobe. however, I believe that Kobe's intangibles make him rank higher all time (At this moment, it will almost surely change in a few years).
One arguement for kobe I would like to represent is that, imo, kobe is more clutch. I do realize the "clutch stats" favor Lebron over kobe, but these stats, in my opinion, should be taken with a grain of salt. Kobe takes more shots in the clutch, but in my opinion, these stats are inflated based on (the percentages) because i believe kobe wasnt very clutch, base on stats, during 2012-2015, which is based on how he wasnt in his prime anymore. also, i woud like to add that we cant eally judge those shots based on percentages, we should base it on the difficulty of each shot, which could vary considering the quality of supporting casts. this could benifit kbe because he took more shots, which also might be used against him, since kobe is indeed a selfish player.

One thing i would like to say, is that any version of Kobe would not be able to take these warriors beyond 5 games with these cavs.
I think that kobe is the type of player that helps "bring a team to the next level" while playing better in the fourth quarter in general (lebron's 4th quarter collapses are very exaggerated though). I believe that lebron "does more with less" but kobe's intangibles help take a team tot he next level better. this can be seen by both his first and last heat seasons. in theat first heat season, I dont believe lebron helped that heat team like kobe would have (ignoring if wade was a different player who did the same things in a different position). However, in that last heat season, Lebron did alot witha heat team that, in my opinion, had a really weak supporting cast.

Lebron would have had more success with tht 2006 lakers squad, but kobe would have had more success with the 2011 mavs squad, even though they both did great (bringing pheonix to 7 games, and making the nba finals)

I would say shaq is rated too high, since his prime, which is definately top 5, didnt really last that long.
i would say that jason kidd is ranked too low, nash being higher than stockton is debatable, and that garnett is ranked a little bit high. Larry bird should be higher than Hakeem, and i would say that right now Larry and Magic should still be rated as top 7 players

[Blackmill]

I ended up going through several of the "Realgm Top 100 - #X" threads (in their entirety) and found many interesting and revealing arguments on players whom I did not know much about. That said, the arguments in favor of MJ for #1 were far less nuanced than those for, let's say, Russel or Kareem. It was as if people had already accepted that MJ would likely win the #1 spot and so less effort was put into making his case. In part because of this, I actually ended up feeling that MJ was underserving of his position. I would like to take this time to lay out my primary concerns in hope that someone will address them.

Although Jordan was a good defender, he was ultimately limited by his position at guard, since his defensive ability wouldn't be fully realized if the opposing offense relied on a dominant center or power forward. Jordan simply doesn't have the size or mass to consistently defend those position -- no guard does. And even if the opposition led a guard-driven offense, Jordan would still need to be assigned to defend the dominant guard, otherwise his defensive impact would yet again have a celling placed on it. On the other hand, a center such as Kareem or Duncan will have significant defensive impact regardless of opponent or assignment, since they protect the rim and can alter any shot attempt in that region. I have been watching the 1997 nba finals recently, and while Jordan played well defensively (except for a few overplays), there were many possessions where he had no impact defensively because of his assignment on Hornacek. The point I'm leading to is I don't think Jordan's defensive impact remotely compares to that of a center like Russel, Hakeem, Kareem, Duncan, or even Shaq.

Based on this conclusion, Jordan can only be ranked above the aforementioned if he has significantly more offensive impact, and I don't believe this is the case for several of those players (namely Kareem and Shaq). Cases have already been made for why Kareem and Shaq are as good offensively as anyone, and so I won't focus on that. If you want to read the arguments I read, just look through the first few voting threads for the 2014 top 100, you will find something. Now, the main thing I would like to point out is consistency. In every single finals series, you can find a game where Jordan shot poorly, and in some series there are several games in which he shot poorly. Shaq was a player who, for his first 20 or so finals games, shot with high efficiency and volume. He never had a bad game. I don't have Kareem's stats, but considering Jordan's willingness to take jumpers (especially during the 1997 finals thus far), I say with full confidence that Kareem was likely more consistent as well. Combine this comparable efficiency and volume and I have trouble seeing how the voters placed Jordan as #1 when his defensive doesn't compare and his offense isn't head and shoulders above Kareem's or Shaq's.

[Mutnt]

Based on this conclusion, Jordan can only be ranked above the aforementioned if he has significantly more offensive impact, and I don't believe this is the case for several of those players (namely Kareem and Shaq). Cases have already been made for why Kareem and Shaq are as good offensively as anyone, and so I won't focus on that. If you want to read the arguments I read, just look through the first few voting threads for the 2014 top 100, you will find something. Now, the main thing I would like to point out is consistency. In every single finals series, you can find a game where Jordan shot poorly, and in some series there are several games in which he shot poorly. Shaq was a player who, for his first 20 or so finals games, shot with high efficiency and volume. He never had a bad game. I don't have Kareem's stats, but considering Jordan's willingness to take jumpers (especially during the 1997 finals thus far), I say with full confidence that Kareem was likely more consistent as well. Combine this comparable efficiency and volume and I have trouble seeing how the voters placed Jordan as #1 when his defensive doesn't compare and his offense isn't head and shoulders above Kareem's or Shaq's.

He should have significantly more offensive impact. In terms of producing baskets, he has the most insane combination of volume+efficiency in the history of the league and outputs it on a ridiculously consistent basis throughout his career. And the stupidest part is he kicks it up another notch in the playoffs consistently too. Not only does he trump Kareem & Shaq (two of the best offensive Bigs in NBA history) convincingly in that area, he's also a guard which naturally means he puts more pressure on the defense in a variety of ways. Jordan's combination of speed, ball-handling & athleticism allows him to excel both in transition and in the half-court like no Big ever can. He can literary get anywhere on the court with zero assistance and twist and turn around defenses because he's a threat to score anywhere on the floor, with or without the ball. Which brings me to another major strength Jordan has over the guys you mentioned. His off-ball skills were godly. Sure, guys like Shaq & Kareem are big threats in pick n' rolls and around the rim in general for shovel passes/alley-oops and what not, but it's still a lot more likely to deny Shaq & Kareem the ball or at least make them operate from less favorable positions than disrupting MJ in such a way. He'll just come off a screen and nail a jumper or drive straight in for a high percentage shot and there's not much you can do. It's like combining the strenghts of Kobe and Wade at their peak. Not to mention MJ is a far superior playmaker than any Big in NBA history. That matters, a lot. Shaq and Kareem are cool, they'll make some passes out of double teams and a nice dime here and there but MJ can take over games with his ability to pressure the defense with his drives and pass out to anyone that's open.

I don't know why you would question Jordan's efficiency and bring out isolated examples of him struggling. Yes, he had some not-so-stellar parts in his career, but he's had those far less than anyone else so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Kareem was usually great efficiency wise in his career but his scoring burden was way less than what MJ was filling up night in and night out. And even with that, Jordan matched him in efficiency pretty much outside of seasons like '86 when he only played 15 games, '95 when he came back, his last days as an old man in Chicago and especially in Washington (Kareem was even worse scoring wise in his old days, but thank god he had Magic and those stellar Lakers teams). The biggest separation MJ has is his postseason output. Like I said, MJ kicked it up another gear when playoffs came and he blows Kareem (or Shaq) out easily here. Kareem had series of 45%TS, 46%TS, 50%TS, 50%TS, 51%TS as the 1st option, scoring like **** 28 ppg on 28 shots with minimal influence on his teammates doing better via making plays for them or something. So I'm not sure how inefficiency is something you want to assign to MJ before anyone else in this case.

[colts18]

Is anybody here interested in a RealGM Top 100 LeBron challenge this summer? Have LeBron go head to head vs each of the top 10 in the RealGM top 100 to see where he should be slotted now in the all-time list? For example, LeBron starts off in a thread vs MJ then he faces off vs Kareem. Keep doing that until he wins a poll.

[Quotatious]

Is anybody here interested in a RealGM Top 100 LeBron challenge this summer? Have LeBron go head to head vs each of the top 10 in the RealGM top 100 to see where he should be slotted now in the all-time list? For example, LeBron starts off in a thread vs MJ then he faces off vs Kareem. Keep doing that until he wins a poll.

It would be very interesting. For example I've just recently realized that I was underrating LeBron's longevity (he's already equal to Bulls-only MJ in this regard). Last time I evaluated the top 10 all-timers, I had LeBron ranked conservatively at 7, because even though I think that his prime is clearly top 5, I thought that his longevity still wasn't good enough to put him over Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem, who I have ranked in the 4-6 range. Considering that I have Jordan as my GOAT, and LeBron's longevity is already equal, with LBJ's prime being top 5, it obviously means that I should already rank James in the top 5 already, as well, if I want to be consistent.

Quite honestly I believe that prime LeBron may be the second best ever after Jordan (at least I have their peaks ranked #1 and 2).

[Blackmill]

He should have significantly more offensive impact. In terms of producing baskets, he has the most insane combination of volume+efficiency in the history of the league and outputs it on a ridiculously consistent basis throughout his career. Not only does he trump Kareem & Shaq...

Except I wouldn't say he has significantly more offensive impact. Jordan combined elite efficiency with elite volume in five seasons. Otherwise, his efficiency ranged from average to good. Shaq was actually able to match Jordan's volume, and while he never had the same peak efficiency as Jordan, he did have many more years with good efficiency. For that reason, over multiple seasons, I struggle to see how Jordan's point scoring is significantly better than Shaq's. And Kareem was able to match Jordan's efficiency but not his volume. Kareem had many more seasons than Jordan with either elite or good efficiency. Although he didn't have the same volume, he was still high volume, and the longevity of his scoring once more makes it hard for me to see Jordan as a vastly better scorer over the course of a decade.

Which brings me to another major strength Jordan has over the guys you mentioned. His off-ball skills were godly... He'll just come off a screen and nail a jumper or drive straight in for a high percentage shot and there's not much you can do... Not to mention MJ is a far superior playmaker than any Big in NBA history.

Jordan was very good off the ball. I watched the 1997 finals game 2 yesterday, and so his skills are fresh in my memory, but I can tell you that he settled for many more jumpers than drives to the basket. While Jordan's jumper was smooth, it was never highly efficient on a consistent basis, as evident by his highly varied game-to-game efficiency in the playoffs. But even if Jordan was consistently efficient with his jumper (which he wasn't), him playing off the ball reduced his facilitation at times, which makes me value his off the ball skills less.

I don't know why you would question Jordan's efficiency and bring out isolated examples of him struggling.

I wouldn't say he was struggling. My point was that MJ was more than willing to take a dozen jumpers. And even for a player like MJ, who was very good at getting open looks, the jumper is not reliable.

The biggest separation MJ has is his postseason output. Like I said, MJ kicked it up another gear when playoffs came and he blows Kareem (or Shaq) out easily here. Kareem had series of 45%TS, 46%TS, 50%TS, 50%TS, 51%TS as the 1st option, scoring like **** 28 ppg on 28 shots with minimal influence on his teammates doing better via making plays for them or something. So I'm not sure how inefficiency is something you want to assign to MJ before anyone else in this case.

Several points to be made here. Firstly, both Shaq and Kareem have multiple very good post seasons, and like MJ they also have some not-so-good playoff series. There's a certain hypocrisy to complaining that I was singling out Jordan's bad seasons (and I wasn't) and then doing the same for Kareem. Jordan did play better during the playoffs in some respects but it wasn't this vast difference that you seem to be suggesting. Neither the film nor basic stats suggest this, but even if they did, how could you know they weren't a result of the particular teams he faced in the post-season? In the regular season, details such as opponent defense, match-ups, hot streaks and so on are abstracted away by the high number of games and opponents. In the post season these details need to be accounted for.

[Mutnt]

Except I wouldn't say he has significantly more offensive impact. Jordan combined elite efficiency with elite volume in five seasons. Otherwise, his efficiency ranged from average to good. Shaq was actually able to match Jordan's volume, and while he never had the same peak efficiency as Jordan, he did have many more years with good efficiency. For that reason, over multiple seasons, I struggle to see how Jordan's point scoring is significantly better than Shaq's. And Kareem was able to match Jordan's efficiency but not his volume. Kareem had many more seasons than Jordan with either elite or good efficiency. Although he didn't have the same volume, he was still high volume, and the longevity of his scoring once more makes it hard for me to see Jordan as a vastly better scorer over the course of a decade.

I'm not gonna argue superlatives, but yeah, to me MJ was clearly superior offensively. How was Shaq able to match MJ's volume? That makes zero sense anyway you look at it, raw/per36/per100 & pace adjusted Jordan just scored more. I'm not seeing what you're seeing here. As far as efficiency goes, yeah, sure, Shaq had a bunch of seasons where he'd give you north of 25 ppg on around 58%TS but I don't feel that's significant enough in this comparison. MJ just peaked higher clearly as a scorer and was able to amass more prime years of such production while also bringing extra offensive value primarily via his playmaking and off-ball skills (and other things I've alluded to in my previous post). It's no surprise when you take all this in consideration that MJ also comes ahead multiple years in ORtg and OBPM etc. And some of these were achieved when MJ was surrounded with extremely incompetent offensive players the likes of which Shaq probably never experienced in his career. You can also add the fact that MJ, when he was out there, he was really out there in the literal sense, consecutively clocking north of 80 games each season + playoffs on 40 mpg, making his presence felt, while Shaq was known to play in cruise control and even skip multiple games per season during his career. I really don't know how you struggle to see Jordan was a better and more consistent scoring machine really, let alone a superior offensive player.

Kareem is in my Top 3 of all-time mainly because his longevity is stupid good. At the end of the day, it's up to the individual himself to asses how much value he puts in longevity vs. peak etc. etc. Are those extra seasons of Kareem putting 24 ppg on 58%TS playing on a team with Magic no less, enough to trump MJ for you? That's entirely on you, but for me it's not. Again, Jordan has the peak, he has the prime. And when you look at it from a very simplistic manner, it's funny too, because as stellar and long as Kareem's NBA career was, he still did not achieve as much as Jordan did despite playing like 9 more seasons than him. Take it for what it's worth.

Which brings me to another major strength Jordan has over the guys you mentioned. His off-ball skills were godly... He'll just come off a screen and nail a jumper or drive straight in for a high percentage shot and there's not much you can do... Not to mention MJ is a far superior playmaker than any Big in NBA history.

Jordan was very good off the ball. I watched the 1997 finals game 2 yesterday, and so his skills are fresh in my memory, but I can tell you that he settled for many more jumpers than drives to the basket. While Jordan's jumper was smooth, it was never highly efficient on a consistent basis, as evident by his highly varied game-to-game efficiency in the playoffs. But even if Jordan was consistently efficient with his jumper (which he wasn't), him playing off the ball reduced his facilitation at times, which makes me value his off the ball skills less.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting these uncited stats you are using to claim MJ's efficiency (or lack thereof). Jordan's mid-range jumper wasn't consistently efficient compared to who? To Dirk? To CP3? I think people here tracked and posted stats of Jordan's mid-range percentages in some of his playoff runs and he was very much efficient, not only compared to his contemporary league but rather in general history of the game. I don't have those numbers at hand, but I think if you ask for them in this topic I'm sure some of the many great posters here will be happy to throw some data your way. In the mean time, you don't post numerous years of 60%TS as a guard in the 80's/90's where there was minimal usage of the 3pt shot without being very good from mid-range, which Jordan was, undoubtedly. Big men like Shaq & Kareem logically should be more efficient at the rim, since they pretty much live there as centers, but Jordan matched or even exceeded their efficiency on greater volume as a guard. How was he able to do that without being marvelous from outside the paint? So as much as you wanna harp on MJ's jumper and the reliability and efficiency of it, the results and logic seem to speak otherwise...

re: off-ball; At times sure, but note, MJ posted absurd USG% throughtout his career no matter in what system he played. We're talking usage ratings bigger than Shaq and Kareem year in and year out. Don't think just because MJ didn't pound the ball at the top of the key for 14 seconds before he went to make a play ala LeBron, CP3, Wade etc. (well he did earlier in his career, not so much later on, but back to my point) that somehow limited his ability to make plays within the offense. He still got to make the plays, except Pippen or his PG brought the ball up and moved it until Jordan got free with enough time on the shot clock to make things happen.

I wouldn't say he was struggling. My point was that MJ was more than willing to take a dozen jumpers. And even for a player like MJ, who was very good at getting open looks, the jumper is not reliable.

Again, results speak otherwise. What evidence do you have his jumper was not reliable?

Several points to be made here. Firstly, both Shaq and Kareem have multiple very good post seasons, and like MJ they also have some not-so-good playoff series. There's a certain hypocrisy to complaining that I was singling out Jordan's bad seasons (and I wasn't) and then doing the same for Kareem. Jordan did play better during the playoffs in some respects but it wasn't this vast difference that you seem to be suggesting. Neither the film nor basic stats suggest this, but even if they did, how could you know they weren't a result of the particular teams he faced in the post-season? In the regular season, details such as opponent defense, match-ups, hot streaks and so on are abstracted away by the high number of games and opponents. In the post season these details need to be accounted for.

We're talking about 3 of the top 5 players of all-time. In the case of MJ vs. Kareem, I have them at #1 and #2... No one is talking vast differences here. Clear differences, sure, but vast? Not really. Anyway, like I said previously, a lot depends on subjective criteria and balance. Obviously when we talk about MJ vs. Kareem we talk about like 11 godlike seasons of MJ vs. like 20 of Kareem. After that it's just a matter of how much stock you put on what MJ did in those 11 seasons (6 titles, 6 finals mpvs, 5 mvps, godlike peak, godlike prime, amazing offensive production, solid defense etc.) and what Kareem did in those 20 (6 titles, 2 finals mvps, 6 mvps, not MJ level peak, not MJ level prime etc.)

The strenghts of opponents (both offensively and defensively) as well as teams MJ and Kareem were playing for are all taken into consideration. I don't know how familiar you are with RealGM, but I can tell you there are people on here that breathe basketball and analyze even the smallest of things you and I would never consider. A lot of these debates have been done ad nauseam each year but stick around, you'll be surprised at what information you can garner.

[Blackmill]

I'm not gonna argue superlatives, but yeah, to me MJ was clearly superior offensively. How was Shaq able to match MJ's volume?

Over his best stretch (94-03) Shaq was averaging roughly 38 pts/100 versus Jordan's (87-98) 42 pts/100. Shaq averaged 37.8 minutes/game compared to Jordan's 38.9 minutes/game. I view that as comparable but perhaps you do not.

As far as efficiency goes, yeah, sure, Shaq had a bunch of seasons where he'd give you north of 25 ppg on around 58%TS but I don't feel that's significant enough in this comparison.

0.600+ TS%: Jordan 4 vs. Shaq 2
0.590-0.599 TS%: Jordan 1 vs. Shaq 1
0.580-0.589 TS%: Jordan 1 vs. Shaq 3
0.570-0.579 TS%: Jordan 1 vs. Shaq 3

As I mentioned before, Shaq didn't have the same peak efficiency, but outside of their peaks Shaq had better efficiency more often. To me, this makes up for the discrepancy, especially since he was posting high 0.57/0.58 TS percentages.

You can also add the fact that MJ, when he was out there, he was really out there in the literal sense, consecutively clocking north of 80 games each season + playoffs on 40 mpg, making his presence felt, while Shaq was known to play in cruise control and even skip multiple games per season during his career.

A definite knock on Shaq, I mind don't admitting that, but he wasn't skipping finals games so I can let it slide.

Again, I'm not sure where you're getting these uncited stats you are using to claim MJ's efficiency (or lack thereof).

At the start of game 2 the commentators said Jordan shot 4-16 on his jumpers before hitting the game winner (making it 5-17 overall) in game 1. In the second, I didn't count, but I'm sure Jordan was making at least 50% of his jumpers. Although the efficiency of his jumpers averaged out nicely, which seems to be your argument, there is a higher variance to that type of offense. A low variance offense with slightly worse averages is more valuable from my perspective than a high variance offense with slightly better averages.

I think people here tracked and posted stats of Jordan's mid-range percentages in some of his playoff runs and he was very much efficient, not only compared to his contemporary league but rather in general history of the game. I don't have those numbers at hand, but I think if you ask for them in this topic I'm sure some of the many great posters here will be happy to throw some data your way... How was he able to do that without being marvelous from outside the paint? So as much as you wanna harp on MJ's jumper and the reliability and efficiency of it, the results and logic seem to speak otherwise

I saw that data a few years back, so I'm aware that Jordan had a great midrange game, but averages were never my argument.

We're talking about 3 of the top 5 players of all-time. In the case of MJ vs. Kareem, I have them at #1 and #2... No one is talking vast differences here. Clear differences, sure, but vast? Not really. Anyway, like I said previously, a lot depends on subjective criteria and balance.

Definitely. Because the differences are small, and the method of evaluation has such great influence, I've always been more inclined to rank players in tiers. And for the record, I would personally place MJ in the very top tier, along with Kareem. Who else goes in there I'm not so certain of.

I don't know how familiar you are with RealGM, but I can tell you there are people on here that breathe basketball and analyze even the smallest of things you and I would never consider. A lot of these debates have been done ad nauseam each year but stick around, you'll be surprised at what information you can garner.

I won't deny this. I've been reading threads on realgm long before I made an account and its a pretty great site for gathering basketball insight.

[RingsDontLie]

There really should be more categories, rather than just one overall best player of all time. I think for purists and the most skilled perspective it's MJ and Kobe all day, and nothing comes close. MJ and Kobe turned the game into an art. From a "most dominating" perspective, we have to go with Wilt, Shaq, Kareem. From an overall game perspective, I'm going with Magic, Lebron, then maybe Oscar Robertson. It's pointless to rank as fans and try to be objective, even if you try to use stats, because we all know there are "Damaned lies, and statistics."

[Colbinii]

There really should be more categories, rather than just one overall best player of all time. I think for purists and the most skilled perspective it's MJ and Kobe all day, and nothing comes close. MJ and Kobe turned the game into an art. From a "most dominating" perspective, we have to go with Wilt, Shaq, Kareem. From an overall game perspective, I'm going with Magic, Lebron, then maybe Oscar Robertson. It's pointless to rank as fans and try to be objective, even if you try to use stats, because we all know there are "Damaned lies, and statistics."

The whole point of this list is to combine all these "categories" as you claim and compile them into one "mega-category" while coming up with the best players of all-time.

The more I read the more I challenge the general line of thinking.
Duncan/Shaq/KAJ as GOAT candidates, LeBron as a top 5 player, KG in the top 10.

[ceiling raiser]

EDIT: Wrong thread, sorry.

[JordansBulls]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/618491584137408512[/tweet]

Does Crash have anything left? If so, he could be another very nice addition to GSW's already terrific depth.

Why is that here? Are either Lee and Wallace top 100 all time?

[ceiling raiser]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/618491584137408512[/tweet]

Does Crash have anything left? If so, he could be another very nice addition to GSW's already terrific depth.

Why is that here? Are either Lee and Wallace top 100 all time?

Oops sorry, wrong thread lol.

[RSCD3_]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/status/618491584137408512[/tweet]

Does Crash have anything left? If so, he could be another very nice addition to GSW's already terrific depth.

Why is that here? Are either Lee and Wallace top 100 all time?

Oops sorry, wrong thread lol.

Well Gerald Wallace did lead a team to the playoffs that had never been there before

[Baseline Runner]

How on earth is Elton Brand ahead of Chris Webber?

[SactoKingsFan]

How on earth is Elton Brand ahead of Chris Webber?

Many of the voters that were still participating have Brand peaking higher and don't have Webber rated very highly due to his inefficient scoring, tendency to settle for jumpers and avoid physical play, less than impressive playoff resume and the Kings playing at a high level when Webber missed most of the 04 season. I was one of the few Webber supporters in the project and have him ahead of Brand, but I think it's a fairly close comparison since Brand had an impressive 8 year prime and didn't really have any major holes in his game.

[Baseline Runner]

How on earth is Elton Brand ahead of Chris Webber?

Many of the voters that were still participating have Brand peaking higher and don't have Webber rated very highly due to his inefficient scoring, tendency to settle for jumpers and avoid physical play, less than impressive playoff resume and the Kings playing at a high level when Webber missed most of the 04 season. I was one of the few Webber supporters in the project and have him ahead of Brand, but I think it's a fairly close comparison since Brand had an impressive 8 year prime and didn't really have any major holes in his game.

Webber was immensely talented offensively, one of the best ever at the PF position when you consider passing as well. Brand was just a good player and never accomplished anything. Webber at least had a good run with the Kings.

[theonlyclutch]

How on earth is Elton Brand ahead of Chris Webber?

Many of the voters that were still participating have Brand peaking higher and don't have Webber rated very highly due to his inefficient scoring, tendency to settle for jumpers and avoid physical play, less than impressive playoff resume and the Kings playing at a high level when Webber missed most of the 04 season. I was one of the few Webber supporters in the project and have him ahead of Brand, but I think it's a fairly close comparison since Brand had an impressive 8 year prime and didn't really have any major holes in his game.

Webber was immensely talented offensively, one of the best ever at the PF position when you consider passing as well. Brand was just a good player and never accomplished anything. Webber at least had a good run with the Kings.

The keyword here is "talented", Webber was much more talented than Brand, but between his injuries, whining, and aversion to physical play, meant that he never put it all together, especially considering that the Kings were often chugging right along without him.

Brand, meanwhile, was a 20/10 big man from the get go, always quietly effective, and peaked at the right time to lead a rather untalented Clippers team (36 yr old Cassell was your 2nd best player) to a stone's throw from the WCF, in a playoff performance that is much better than any of Webber's...