RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #37

[70sFan]

I have a question. At what point will you include Paul Arizin and Dolph Schayes into the disscusion? In my honest opinion, both were better players than Bob Cousy and even if you disagree with me, they are reasonably close. I don't see Cousy in top 40 and Arizin/Schayes not in top 60 at the same time.

Also, I'd like to point out that Cousy didn't "invent" no look passes and behind the back dribbles. He wasn't the first one and we probably don't know a player who used that for the first time. Basketball is much older than many people realize. It's similar to Arizin and jumpshot situation. Many call Paul the first jumpshooter but he said in many interviews that he wasn't the first one and he still used setshot a lot. I've seen players from 1940s made jumpshots. Basketball is situational game, many new moves became popular because of accidential situation.

Even though I sometimes look like a Cousy hater, I actually really like him as a player. He was outstanding dribbler and very few players could lead fastbreak as good as him. He didn't have good shooting selection but almost all PGs from the 1950s didn't. He had huge offensive value in my opinion and he's definitely closer to Jason Kidd offensively than to Jason Williams (and some people argue he was negative for the Celtics which is not true). Even in his last game (which is available on YT) you can see how well he read the game and how good of playmaker he was. He wasn't just flash and he wasn't worse defender than Steve Nash for example. I've seen many impressive steals he made because of quick hands he possesed. I believe he was the best PG in the league until Larry Costello hit his prime.

[Hornet Mania]

37. Jason Kidd
Alt: Walt Frazier

Torn between Miller and Thomas whenever one of those two PGs get in. At this stage everyone has their warts, but also points that could put them over the top. I'm going with Kidd for longevity, but am tempted to put Thomas over Miller because he was integral to those championship teams which would hardly be consistent because Frazier has that over Kidd as well...I think I'll do some more research on Thomas and see how my opinion changes.

[LA Bird]

1. Jason Kidd
Longevity is the key reason Kidd is ranked so high since his prime is not that great compared to even some of the other point guards who won't be getting votes any time soon (eg. Billups, KJ). Kidd's all rounded game makes him one of the better floor raisers but his poor shooting ability limits his offensive impact especially on terms with other capable ball handlers. Defensively, Kidd was not quick enough to lock down some of the smaller point guards but his size and strength allowed him to be a very versatile and effective team defender throughout his very long career. Pretty good advanced and plus minus stats given his mediocre scoring efficiency. Solid two way play combined with his insane longevity makes him the best player left for me.

2. Reggie Miller
A very long career just like Kidd but otherwise, a completely opposite player. Reggie is an excellent shooter who is probably the least all rounded player in my top 50. Playing style is irrelevant to me as long as it helps the team so both Kidd and Miller are ranked highly due to their longevity even though they have very different playing styles.

[drza]

(Most of this is re-posted from last thread)

I posted a lengthy scouting, box-score and impact-based article comparing Jason Kidd and Steve Nash several threads back. In it, I made the case that Kidd's measured, quantitatively demonstrable positive impact on both offense and defense, across a variety of different team situations, in a variety of different roles, across a nearly two-decade career made it arguable that Kidd should be higher on this list than Nash (who was voted in 26th). If you want to read/re-read my points, evidence and arguments, you can find it (with pictures, even) here: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/164358653191/kidd-vs-nash-scouting-boxscores-and-impact

In thread #35, I made another, similar post comparing Kidd and Payton. I didn't go as in depth, but in my view, Kidd was better across their respective primes than Payton. That he also had better longevity while maintaining higher impact outside of his prime, makes it even clearer to me that Kidd should have gone higher. Nevertheless, here's a link to that post: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=58381868#p58381868

Similarly, I posted an article about how I believed Isiah Thomas to have been having a bigger impact than the box score stats indicate for the Pistons. You can find that article here: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/164458238801/isiah-thomas-better-impact-than-shown-by


Vote: Jason Kidd
2nd: Isiah Thomas

[Lou Fan]

Kidd is the clear choice for me here.
He's an elite defender and rebounder at his position and obviously an ATG player/passer on the fastbreak. He took the Nets to back to back Finals while leading the team in points, assists, and steals. The big drawback for Kidd is his lack of a pull up jumper. He just never learned how to score off the dribble, except layups/dunks, and that really hurt his teams in the halfcourt. 87% of his 3s were assisted on which clearly shows he wasn't creating his own jumpers. I do value his championship as a starter on the Mavs. His very solid post prime seasons bump his case. His relatively high turnover numbers don't really bug me as they were a necessary byproduct of his risky mindset that made him so brilliant as a passer. One of the greatest defensive/rebounding guards of all-time and all those boards where great break starters where J-Kidd was at his best. He had some leadership issues early on but was considered a great leader for the majority of his career. drza had a great post talking about Kidd's impact a few posts back read that for more.
I have no idea what to do with my alt. I hadn't really thought past Kidd because I didn't GP was gonna get in so soon. I'm thinking Reggie, Gervin, Isiah, D12, Frazier and T-Mac are the next few I'll support in no particular order.
For now
1st Vote: Kidd
2nd Vote: Ice Man

[trex_8063]

Thru post #45 (16 votes, requiring 9 for true majority):

Jason Kidd - 7 (Dr Positivity, drza, Hornet Mania, LABird, pandrade83, trex_8063, twolves97)
Walt Frazier - 4 (oldschooled, penbeast0, dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Isiah Thomas - 2 (scabbarista, JordansBulls)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)
Reggie Miller - 1 (Doctor MJ)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)

Cousy, Miller, and Iverson are first eliminated. One vote transfers to Frazier, one to Isiah, one becomes a ghost vote (was for Cousy).

Kidd - 7
Frazier - 5
Thomas - 3

So Isiah is next eliminated, though both just become ghost votes (Hayes, Wilkins).

Kidd - 7
Frazier - 5

So this one goes to Kidd. Will have the next thread up in a moment.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Franco]

I actually have no problem at all with those guys over Iverson. The worst case scenario for either of them at this point is as nothing more than rich man's AIs, which would still put them over Iverson.

So what is it I hold in so much respect about the Ray Allens of the world? I might say that it's the fact that I know with an absolute certainty how they'll respond when a team is in position to actually win a title, and I'm impressed with that response.

I really liked Harden in his OKC role for that reason, but realistically the reason why he's being talked at already in this project is because of what he's done as an alpha...and I don't think what he's done as an alpha is actually that much of an outlier. He - and Westbrook to an even larger degree - have taken roles where they are at the fulcrum of everything and it lets them rack up huge numbers, but I don't think those huge numbers are actually all that healthy, and I don't think it actually proves all that much about what you'll do as an alpha in a truly healthy context.

But again, I"m not saying they've done nothing yet, I"m just saying that in an all-time great context, there's still a lot left to be written before we know what these guys truly are.

Fair enough, I think that the playoffs can really be held against them when talking about this level of ATG, especially with Harden's complete no-show on the elimination game last year age Spurs and Westbrook's game 6 and 7 self-destruction against the Warriors.

Less than 5 games is always going to be completely suspect. A single game being used for good or bad on a player's career seems horrible to me.

Not saying that those games should define their careers, but they were really important ones. They still have to prove themselves on those high-tension and really meaningful games, and while that's not evidence enough to completely judge them, it's also really hard to ignore when it happened more than once or twice.