RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #44 (Dwight Howard)

[THKNKG]

I'm planning on doing a big post tonight, especially focused on the big men coming up soon. I hate that my involvement is sporadic, but it is what it is.

[trex_8063]

Alternate: No one at this point, listening . . .

Might I suggest something from our fine line of available big men:
Dwight Howard (case made above in post #2)
Pau Gasol (a bit weak defensively, but fantastically skilled and versatile offensive big man who is also a solid rebounding anchor, and with excellent longevity and a fair number of "legacy accomplishments" to his credit)
Dolph Schayes (same basic arguments as for Pau, except significantly greater number of legacy accomplishments, albeit in a weaker era)
or Robert Parish (solid two-way big who's on the shortlist of longevity giants, and a nice array of accomplishments), perhaps?

I'll throw in Wes Unseld to the list. Of our remaining MVP's, he has the best longevity of guys who didn't peak in a segregated era - more on him in a minute

wrt how I feel about him vs Howard: more or less similar to him vs. Thurmond (which I mentioned in post #2). Thurmond was a clearly better defensive player, though I like Unseld better on offense. Even though he wasn't a scorer, Wes didn't take anything off the table from his teammates, and what small scoring he did reasonably efficiently; was meanwhile a good playmaking center (from what I've seen, they appear to utilize him from the high post in this fashion quite frequently), outstanding screen-setter and outlet passer. Despite his higher ppg numbers, I just don't think what Thurmond brought to the table offensively matches up.
Both look fantastic impact-wise based on [admittedly noisy] WOWY studies, though I have the same reservations I mentioned for Thurmond wrt era.

[penbeast0]

...
Lastly, during the early stages of the NBA, MVPs were voted on by players and not by media. This means well-liked players would get more votes, and players like Wilt (who had personality and diva issues) wouldn't win as many.

You think Wilt was more disliked than Russell? Not sure I agree from what I've read of the era. People admired Russell but hated the Celtics (both for the ridiculous winning streaks and for the arrogance -- Auerbach and his victory cigar being the best known but not the only example), plus Russell personally was quite the cold fish to people other than his teammates. Plus many players admired Wilt for standing up for himself (or getting away with stuff if you wish), his money, his women, etc. And, Wilt was a more outgoing and personable person than Russell socially.

I think it's more likely that people tried to split the difference. The two greatest players in the league both played the same position and they would split the ticket, one for MVP, the other for All-NBA . . . with Russell getting the MVP for winning all the time and Wilt the All-NBA for generating stats the likes of which had never been seen before and would not be seen again. Heck, I'd probably have done the same.

[Doctor MJ]

...
Lastly, during the early stages of the NBA, MVPs were voted on by players and not by media. This means well-liked players would get more votes, and players like Wilt (who had personality and diva issues) wouldn't win as many.

You think Wilt was more disliked than Russell? Not sure I agree from what I've read of the era. People admired Russell but hated the Celtics (both for the ridiculous winning streaks and for the arrogance -- Auerbach and his victory cigar being the best known but not the only example), plus Russell personally was quite the cold fish to people other than his teammates. Plus many players admired Wilt for standing up for himself (or getting away with stuff if you wish), his money, his women, etc. And, Wilt was a more outgoing and personable person than Russell socially.

I think it's more likely that people tried to split the difference. The two greatest players in the league both played the same position and they would split the ticket, one for MVP, the other for All-NBA . . . with Russell getting the MVP for winning all the time and Wilt the All-NBA for generating stats the likes of which had never been seen before and would not be seen again. Heck, I'd probably have done the same.

Yup, same reason why in the NFL so often the MVP and OPOY are different guys. If two guys have amazing years that are hard to compare, people like to do things like this.

[pandrade83]

...
Lastly, during the early stages of the NBA, MVPs were voted on by players and not by media. This means well-liked players would get more votes, and players like Wilt (who had personality and diva issues) wouldn't win as many.

You think Wilt was more disliked than Russell? Not sure I agree from what I've read of the era. People admired Russell but hated the Celtics (both for the ridiculous winning streaks and for the arrogance -- Auerbach and his victory cigar being the best known but not the only example), plus Russell personally was quite the cold fish to people other than his teammates. Plus many players admired Wilt for standing up for himself (or getting away with stuff if you wish), his money, his women, etc. And, Wilt was a more outgoing and personable person than Russell socially.

I think it's more likely that people tried to split the difference. The two greatest players in the league both played the same position and they would split the ticket, one for MVP, the other for All-NBA . . . with Russell getting the MVP for winning all the time and Wilt the All-NBA for generating stats the likes of which had never been seen before and would not be seen again. Heck, I'd probably have done the same.

It's also over-stated a bit regarding the disparity in MVP's. During their overlapping careers, each guy won 4 X; 2 of Russell's MVP years occurred during horrible team performance years for Wilt - so it's perfectly reasonable. That really only leaves 2 of the years where someone could make the case that Russell won when Wilt should've.

[dhsilv2]

For those picking Howard and people who are longevity guys T-Mac had an 8 year prime and 15 years total it's not great but it's solid. Howard voters why pick Howard when he has same longevity and lower peak with horrid intangibles?

Life isn't always fair. T-mac maybe did have a better peak than Howard, there's a good case for it. I however tend to think his 2011 was better than Tmac's 03. I value defensive bigs who can still score rather highly, until really the last few years (the trend has been going since 01, but the last 2-4 years have really accelerated it) I'd take a great big over a great small pretty easily. Anyway to the point I can't blame Tmac for losing in the playoffs, but I can't give him any credit for that either. Howard made it to an NBA finals. It sucks that T-mac never had the help he needed, but I don't like just assuming he would have done better with more help. I do think he'll get traction around 50-55 for me, but we still have MVPs on the board and guys who won titles as the best or second best guy.

I think I'm going to have to think hard about Tmac vs Westbrook. Westbrook is a guy I think has style issues, but his MVP and playoff success are there to rank him over Tmac. I do however think especially defensively that Tmac was the better player, just in the wrong era. That'll be one for me to think more on as we get close to those two.

[dhsilv2]

Vote: Cousy (My GOAT #15 - I've been voting him 1st or 2nd for about 30 threads! Oh well, lol!)
Alternate: Schayes (My GOAT #33 - I'm putting him above Moncrief cause Sidney's gotten ZERO traction so far).

Remaining un-selected players from my GOAT Top 50:
My GOAT #15, #3 PG: Cousy, Bob ... (40.5 "Points", TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Teams)
My GOAT #33, #7 PF: Schayes, D. .. (28.2 "Points", . SIX 1st-Team ALL-League selections, ... SIX 2nd-Teams)

H.M.:
My GOAT #30, #6 SG: Moncrief, S. . (18.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #35, #7 SG: Greer, Hal ... (17.5 "Points", . ZERO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, SEVEN 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #36, #8 C: . Howard, D. . (31.4 "Points", . FIVE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #37, #8 PG: Iverson, A.... (25.6 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #38, #8 SF: TMac ........ (22.1 "Points", . TWO 1st-Team ALL-League selections, THREE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #39, #8 PF: JLucas, Jerry (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #40, #8 SG: Westphal, P. . (17.5 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. ONE 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #43, #9 SF: Wilkins, D. ... (19.3 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #44, #9 PF: Stoudeire, A. (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #45, #9 SG: Harden, J. .. (16.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . ZERO 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #49, #10 SF: Hill, Grant . (17.0 "Points", .. ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)
My GOAT #50, #10 PF: McGinnis ... (15.8 "Points", THREE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, .. TWO 2nd-Tms)

Getting Traction Here (but not with me):
My GOAT #103,#11 C: Reed, Willis . (07.5 "Points", . ONE 1st-Team ALL-League selections, . FOUR 2nd-Tms)

fwiw, I think you really undermined yourself at the end of the last thread.

All-Star Teams - I discount them entirely; ALL-League Teams are far superior (covering whole seasons instead of "half-seasons"); and the results, imo, are close to spot on, whereas All-Star selections have had MANY mistakes.

MVPs: I find the MVP-selections to be inferior to 1st-Team ALL-League selections because: a) They're much more limited; b) I've disagreed with the actual choice a number of years (2 Xs Russell over Wilt; Cowens over KAJ; Nash 2X over others; and other years.) I've seen the "MVP SHARES" list; and feel that while that is DECIDEDLY better than just MVPs; it is clearly inferior to the results my system produces. (There's been a relatively recent thread that addressed this very issue.) viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1605350&start=40#start_here Post #45 includes most of the points made back-and-forth between penbeast0 and myself.

I struggle to see how you'll discredit MVPs or even MVP Shares when the same people are voting on this as All NBA.

MVP is the best player on the best team.

All-NBA tends to be the best player, and it has room for more diversity in voting - #2 votes are meaningful since two people get in, as opposed to in MVP voting.

Bill Russell won a ton of MVPs, but Wilt Chamberlain was first team every year.

Lastly, during the early stages of the NBA, MVPs were voted on by players and not by media. This means well-liked players would get more votes, and players like Wilt (who had personality and diva issues) wouldn't win as many.

If you go back an look at the first half of the 50's the first team was like 4 centers/power forwards. Should we throw out all nba because it wasn't possitionally balanced? You'll find an issue with any award if you go back in time to the start because either it changes over time or it doesn't. if it changes it isn't consistent. If it doesn't change, then it's likely to have faults and who doesn't adapt with time?

I think others covered why MVP award share (which is what I think most people think should be used) is actually a very good proxy to hash out peaks. Especially in a smaller league where there were often huge gaps in the top players on the all nba team and the guys who just kinda needed to be there (though we get weak canidates popping up all over history).

[trex_8063]

Thru post #27:

Bob Cousy - 2 (euroleague, Pablo Novi)
Dwight Howard - 1 (trex_8063)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Tracy McGrady - 1 (twolves97)
Wes Unseld - 1 (pandrade83)


Thread will go to runoff in ~14-18 hours (depending on exactly what time tomorrow I'm free to get to it).

btw---penbeast0, you still haven't specified an alternate.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

Since I posted too much text.

Vote was Reed
Alt Howard

[pandrade83]

For those picking Howard and people who are longevity guys T-Mac had an 8 year prime and 15 years total it's not great but it's solid. Howard voters why pick Howard when he has same longevity and lower peak with horrid intangibles?

Life isn't always fair. T-mac maybe did have a better peak than Howard, there's a good case for it. I however tend to think his 2011 was better than Tmac's 03. I value defensive bigs who can still score rather highly, until really the last few years (the trend has been going since 01, but the last 2-4 years have really accelerated it) I'd take a great big over a great small pretty easily. Anyway to the point I can't blame Tmac for losing in the playoffs, but I can't give him any credit for that either. Howard made it to an NBA finals. It sucks that T-mac never had the help he needed, but I don't like just assuming he would have done better with more help. I do think he'll get traction around 50-55 for me, but we still have MVPs on the board and guys who won titles as the best or second best guy.

I think I'm going to have to think hard about Tmac vs Westbrook. Westbrook is a guy I think has style issues, but his MVP and playoff success are there to rank him over Tmac. I do however think especially defensively that Tmac was the better player, just in the wrong era. That'll be one for me to think more on as we get close to those two.

This articulates why I voted Howard over Tmac as my alternate. I'm torn between Westbrook or Tmac and I'm very close to the point where I'm willing to support them.

[Pablo Novi]

7.1 Earthquake: Temporarily Still Alive & Uninjured In Mexico City
Just letting you-all know that my baby and I survived the massive 7.1 Earthquake today here in Mexico City (epicenter in the city of Puebla, not all that far from here). The side-to-side shaking was the worst I've ever experienced (I've experienced a few: In San Diego, L.A. and Mexico City). I had a bad night, so slept in. The quake caught me in bed. For quite a long time I was unable to get out of the bed, much less stand, much less throw some clothes on.

Electricity is on and off.

We just returned from a four hour walk around the city. The most surprising thing was that EVERYBODY was out in the streets - a unique moment. In a city of almost 25,000,000 people; we'd NEVER seen anything like this!

Traffic jams everywhere; but zero sign of panic - though it SEEMED a lot of people had decide to try to leave "town".

We're hearing sirens pretty constantly and they've just sent a loud-speaker car around warning that the possibility of a heavy-duty after-shock will be very high for the next two weeks, at least. Hours after the quake, I'm still a bit dizzy.

I saw one video from high up in a tall building in which, in all directions you can see "clouds", dust clouds due to collapsed buildings. I'd guess there' one every 10 blocks or so.

If I stop voting, it'd be because "The BIG One" took me/us out. If Cousy doesn't get voted in by then; I'll die in tears. NOT.
(Please excuse my weird sense of humor - there's no fixing it.) lol

[1993Playoffs]

7.1 Earthquake: Temporarily Still Alive & Uninjured In Mexico City
Just letting you-all know that my baby and I survived the massive 7.1 Earthquake today here in Mexico City (epicenter in the city of Puebla, not all that far from here). The side-to-side shaking was the worst I've ever experienced (I've experienced a few: In San Diego, L.A. and Mexico City). I had a bad night, so slept in. The quake caught me in bed. For quite a long time I was unable to get out of the bed, much less stand, much less throw some clothes on.

Electricity is on and off.

We just returned from a four hour walk around the city. The most surprising thing was that EVERYBODY was out in the streets - a unique moment. In a city of almost 25,000,000 people; we'd NEVER seen anything like this!

Traffic jams everywhere; but zero sign of panic - though it SEEMED a lot of people had decide to try to leave "town".

We're hearing sirens pretty constantly and they've just sent a loud-speaker car around warning that the possibility of a heavy-duty after-shock will be very high for the next two weeks, at least. Hours after the quake, I'm still a bit dizzy.

I saw one video from high up in a tall building in which, in all directions you can see "clouds", dust clouds due to collapsed buildings. I'd guess there' one every 10 blocks or so.

If I stop voting, it'd be because "The BIG One" took me/us out. If Cousy doesn't get voted in by then; I'll die in tears. NOT.
(Please excuse my weird sense of humor - there's no fixing it.) lol

Glad you and your family are okay homie.

[euroleague]

...
Lastly, during the early stages of the NBA, MVPs were voted on by players and not by media. This means well-liked players would get more votes, and players like Wilt (who had personality and diva issues) wouldn't win as many.

You think Wilt was more disliked than Russell? Not sure I agree from what I've read of the era. People admired Russell but hated the Celtics (both for the ridiculous winning streaks and for the arrogance -- Auerbach and his victory cigar being the best known but not the only example), plus Russell personally was quite the cold fish to people other than his teammates. Plus many players admired Wilt for standing up for himself (or getting away with stuff if you wish), his money, his women, etc. And, Wilt was a more outgoing and personable person than Russell socially.

I think it's more likely that people tried to split the difference. The two greatest players in the league both played the same position and they would split the ticket, one for MVP, the other for All-NBA . . . with Russell getting the MVP for winning all the time and Wilt the All-NBA for generating stats the likes of which had never been seen before and would not be seen again. Heck, I'd probably have done the same.

I think most players didn't like going against Wilt. He scored 100ppg on them, and kind of crushed everybody. I can't speculate on exactly why they didn't dislike Wilt, and I haven't read much on it, but Cousy and the Celtics were the darling of the league (90% of the reason for Cousy's MVP). When they visited, the stadium would have huge crowds. It would be a huge event.

The majority of the players in the game at this point weren't gangster admiring black guys. They were mostly white college graduates with other jobs in office work. I can easily see the guys on the bench admiring Russell more than Wilt (who had many issues with coaches). I don't think they would admire Wilt for getting away with stuff and being exceptionally promiscuous.

[penbeast0]

7.1 Earthquake: Temporarily Still Alive & Uninjured In Mexico City

I'm glad you are okay; all these disasters are starting to pile up.

[pandrade83]

7.1 Earthquake: Temporarily Still Alive & Uninjured In Mexico City
Just letting you-all know that my baby and I survived the massive 7.1 Earthquake today here in Mexico City (epicenter in the city of Puebla, not all that far from here). The side-to-side shaking was the worst I've ever experienced (I've experienced a few: In San Diego, L.A. and Mexico City). I had a bad night, so slept in. The quake caught me in bed. For quite a long time I was unable to get out of the bed, much less stand, much less throw some clothes on.

Electricity is on and off.

We just returned from a four hour walk around the city. The most surprising thing was that EVERYBODY was out in the streets - a unique moment. In a city of almost 25,000,000 people; we'd NEVER seen anything like this!

Traffic jams everywhere; but zero sign of panic - though it SEEMED a lot of people had decide to try to leave "town".

We're hearing sirens pretty constantly and they've just sent a loud-speaker car around warning that the possibility of a heavy-duty after-shock will be very high for the next two weeks, at least. Hours after the quake, I'm still a bit dizzy.

I saw one video from high up in a tall building in which, in all directions you can see "clouds", dust clouds due to collapsed buildings. I'd guess there' one every 10 blocks or so.

If I stop voting, it'd be because "The BIG One" took me/us out. If Cousy doesn't get voted in by then; I'll die in tears. NOT.
(Please excuse my weird sense of humor - there's no fixing it.) lol

I won't be supporting Cousy in a run-off, but I support your health & safety

[Doctor MJ]

7.1 Earthquake: Temporarily Still Alive & Uninjured In Mexico City
Just letting you-all know that my baby and I survived the massive 7.1 Earthquake today here in Mexico City (epicenter in the city of Puebla, not all that far from here). The side-to-side shaking was the worst I've ever experienced (I've experienced a few: In San Diego, L.A. and Mexico City). I had a bad night, so slept in. The quake caught me in bed. For quite a long time I was unable to get out of the bed, much less stand, much less throw some clothes on.

Electricity is on and off.

We just returned from a four hour walk around the city. The most surprising thing was that EVERYBODY was out in the streets - a unique moment. In a city of almost 25,000,000 people; we'd NEVER seen anything like this!

Traffic jams everywhere; but zero sign of panic - though it SEEMED a lot of people had decide to try to leave "town".

We're hearing sirens pretty constantly and they've just sent a loud-speaker car around warning that the possibility of a heavy-duty after-shock will be very high for the next two weeks, at least. Hours after the quake, I'm still a bit dizzy.

I saw one video from high up in a tall building in which, in all directions you can see "clouds", dust clouds due to collapsed buildings. I'd guess there' one every 10 blocks or so.

If I stop voting, it'd be because "The BIG One" took me/us out. If Cousy doesn't get voted in by then; I'll die in tears. NOT.
(Please excuse my weird sense of humor - there's no fixing it.) lol

Wow. So glad to hear you came out of it ok. Be safe in the days to come Pablo, I know we will be thinking of you.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Pablo Novi]

There have been a number of comments about (including a number of criticisms) of my GOAT-list building system.
Rather than answer each of them separately, I'll just re-post my list.

My point here? I LOVE the way this list is. It DOES represent my opinion of who have been the NBA-ABA-NBL's best 100 players AND in order of their GOAT-iness. So, this result says to me (perhaps ONLY to me?) that my system is not flawed in any major way.

GOAT
# . P's . Early Final . NAME ..... RealGM ... . ALL-Lg Teams (adjusted for Dual-League Years: 47-49 & 68-76)
.. "Pts" . Pos# Pos# ................. # . Pos . 1st . 2nd
01 ! ! 64.5 ! 1 1 ! Abdul-Jabbar, K. 02 !! 5 !! 10 ! 5
02 ! ! 49.0 ! 2 1 ! Johnson, Magic . 07 !! 1 !! 9 ! 1
03 ! ! 53.0 ! 3 1 ! Jordan, Michael . 01 !! 2 !! 10 ! 1
04 ! ! 61.0 ! 1 1 ! James, LeBron . 03 !! 3 !! 11 ! 2
05 ! ! 62.6 ! 1 1 ! Duncan, Tim ... 05 !! 4 !! 10 ! 3

06 ! ! 42.5 ! 4 2 ! Chamberlain, W. 06 !! 5 !! 7 ! 3
07 ! ! 63.9 ! 1 2 ! Bryant, Kobe ... 11 !! 2 !! 11 ! 2
08 ! ! 53.0 ! 2 2 ! Erving, Julius ... 16 !! 3 !! 9 ! 3
09 ! ! 50.0 ! 1 2 ! Robertson, O ... 13 !! 1 !! 9 ! 2
10 ! ! 62.6 ! 2 2 ! Malone, Karl ... 14 !! 4 !! 11 ! 2

11 ! ! 51.5 ! 2 3 ! O'Neal, Shaq .... 08 !! 5 !! 8 ! 2
12 ! ! 55.0 ! 2 3 ! West, Jerry ..... 15 !! 2 !! 10 ! 2
13 ! ! 48.0 ! 3 3 ! Bird, Larry ...... 10 !! 3 !! 9 ! 1
14 ! ! 44.5 ! 3 3 ! Pettit, Bob ...... 24 !! 4 !! 10 ! 1
15 ! ! 40.5 ! 3 3 ! Cousy, Bob ... ____ !! 1 !! 10 ! 2

16 ! ! 30.5 ! 8 4 ! Russell, Bill ...... 04 !! 5 !! 3 ! 8
17 ! ! 46.2 ! 4 4 ! Baylor, Elgin ..... 32 !! 3 !! 10 !
18 ! ! 41.3 ! 4 4 ! Barkley, Charles . 19 !! 4 !! 5 ! 5
19 ! ! 31.9 ! 4 4 ! Stockton, John .. 21 !! 1 !! 2 ! 6
20 ! ! 31.3 ! 4 4 ! Gervin, George .. 41 !! 2 !! 5 ! 4

21 ! ! 43.9 ! 3 5 ! Olajuwon, Hak. . 09 !! 5 !! 6 ! 3
22 ! ! 42.5 ! 5 5 ! Barry, Rick ...... 34 !! 3 !! 9 ! 1
23 ! ! 39.9 ! 5 5 ! Nowitzki, Dirk .. 17 !! 4 !! 4 ! 5
24 ! ! 30.8 ! 5 5 ! Paul, Chris ...... 23 !! 1 !! 4 ! 3
25 ! ! 24.2 ! 5 5 ! Wade, Dwyane .. 22 !! 2 !! 2 ! 3

26 ! ! 33.0 ! 5 6 ! Malone, Moses . 20 !! 5 !! 4 ! 4
27 ! ! 31.0 ! 6 6 ! Durant, Kevin .. 28 !! 3 !! 5 ! 2
28 ! ! 31.9 ! 6 6 ! Garnett, Kevin . 12 !! 4 !! 4 ! 3
29 ! ! 28.0 ! 6 6 ! Kidd, Jason ..... 37 !! 1 !! 5 ! 1
30 ! ! 18.0 ! 6 6 ! Moncrief, Sid. . ___ !! 2 !! 1 ! 4

31 ! ! 31.7 ! 6 7 ! Robinson, David . 18 !! 5 !! 4 ! 2
32 ! ! 27.9 ! 7 7 ! Payton, Gary .... 35 !! 1 !! 2 ! 5
33 ! ! 28.2 ! 7 7 ! Schayes, Dolph . ___ !! 4 !! 6 ! 6
34 ! ! 23.6 ! 7 7 ! Pippen, Scottie .. 30 !! 3 !! 3 ! 2
35 ! ! 17.5 ! 7 7 ! Greer, Hal ...... ___ !! 2 !! ! 7

36 ! ! 31.4 ! 7 8 ! Howard, Dwight ___ !! 5 !! 5 ! 1
37 ! ! 25.6 ! 8 8 ! Iverson, Allen ... ___ !! 1 !! 3 ! 3
38 ! ! 22.1 ! 8 8 ! McGrady, Tracy . ___ !! 3 !! 2 ! 3
39 ! ! 17.5 ! 8 8 ! Lucas, Jerry .... ___ !! 4 !! 3 ! 2
40 ! ! 17.5 ! 8 8 ! Westphal, Paul .. ___ !! 2 !! 3 ! 1

41 ! ! 23.0 ! 9 9 ! Ewing, Patrick ... 27 !! 5 !! 1 ! 6
42 ! ! 24.1 ! 9 9 ! Nash, Steve ...... 26 !! 1 !! 3 ! 2
43 ! ! 19.3 ! 9 9 ! Wilkins, Dom. .. ___ !! 3 !! 1 ! 4
44 ! ! 17.0 ! 9 9 ! Stoudemire, Am. ___ !! 4 !! 1 ! 4
45 ! ! 16.8 ! 9 9 ! Harden, James .. ___ !! 2 !! 3 !

46 ! ! 19.0 ! 11 10 ! Mikan, George . 25 !! 5 !! 8 !
47 ! ! 22.5 ! 10 10 ! Frazier, Walt ... 38 !! 1 !! 4 ! 2
48 ! ! 17.0 ! 10 10 ! Hill, Grant .... ___ !! 3 !! 1 ! 4
49 ! ! 16.6 ! 10 10 ! Drexler, Clyde .. 33 !! 2 !! 1 ! 2
50 ! ! 15.8 ! 10 10 ! McGinnis, Geo. ___!! 4 !! 3 ! 2

51 ! ! 22.0 ! 11 11 ! Thomas, Isiah . 39 !! 1 !! 3 ! 2
52 ! ! 20.0 ! 10 11 ! Gilmore, Artis . 36 !! 5 !! 5 !
53 ! ! 15.6 ! 11 11 ! Webber, Chris ___ !! 4 !! 1 ! 3
54 ! ! 15.0 ! 11 11 ! Maravich, Pete ___ !! 2 !! 2 ! 2
55 ! ! 14.3 ! 11 11 ! King, Bernard ___ !! 3 !! 2 ! 1

56 ! ! 22.0 ! 12 12 ! Westbrook, Russ. ___ !! 1 !! 2 ! 4
57 ! ! 15.0 ! 12 12 ! Cunningham, B . ___ !! 4 !! 4 ! 1
58 ! ! 14.0 ! 12 12 ! Havlicek, John ... 31 !! 3 !! 4 ! 7
59 ! ! 13.8 ! 12 12 ! Johnston, Neil .. ___ !! 5 !! 4 ! 1
60 ! ! 12.5 ! 12 12 ! Davies, Bob ..... ___ !! 2 !! 5 ! 2

61 ! ! 19.5 ! 13 13 ! Sharman, Bill .... ___ !! 1 !! 4 ! 3
62 ! ! 14.3 ! 13 13 ! Hayes, Elvin ..... ___ !! 4 !! 3 ! 3
63 ! ! 12.5 ! 13 13 ! Anthony, Carmelo ___ !! 3 !! ! 2
64 ! ! 11.8 ! 13 13 ! Thompson, David ___ !! 2 !! 2 ! 1
65 ! ! 11.3 ! 13 13 ! Daniels, Mel ..... ___ !! 5 !! 4 ! 1

66 ! ! 18.5 ! 14 14 ! Archibald, "Tiny". ___ !! 1 !! 3 ! 2
67 ! ! 12.5 ! 14 14 ! Hawkins, Connie . ___ !! 4 !! 3 !
68 ! ! 12.3 ! 14 14 ! Mullin, Chris ...... ___ !! 3 !! 1 ! 2
69 ! ! 11.6 ! 14 14 ! Richmond, Mitch . ___ !! 2 !! ! 3
70 ! ! 10.8 ! 14 14 ! Issel, Dan ......... ___ !! 5 !! 1 ! 4

71 ! ! 16.0 ! 15 15 ! Curry, Stephen ..... 29 !! 1 !! 2 ! 2
72 ! ! 12.1 ! 15 15 ! Wallace, Ben ...... ___ !! 4 !! ! 3
73 ! ! 12.0 ! 15 15 ! Johnson, Marques. ___ !! 3 !! 1 ! 2
74 ! ! 11.3 ! 15 15 ! Hardaway, Anfer... __ !! 2 !! 2 !
75 ! ! 10.7 ! 15 15 ! Ming, Yao ......... ___ !! 5 !! ! 2

76 ! ! 15.3 ! 16 16 ! Hardaway, Tim ... ___ !! 1 !! 1 ! 3
77 ! ! 11.0 ! 16 16 ! Arizin, Paul ...... ___ !! 3 !! 3 ! 1
78 ! ! 10.8 ! 16 16 ! Griffin, Blake .... ___ !! 4 !! ! 3
79 ! ! 08.6 ! 16 16 ! Jordan, DeAndre . ___ !! 5 !! 1 !
80 ! ! 07.5 ! 16 16 ! Jones, Sam ....... ___ !! 2 !! ! 3

81 ! ! 13.3 ! 17 17 ! Johnson, Kevin ... ___ !! 1 !! ! 4
82 ! ! 10.0 ! 17 17 ! Leonard, Kawhi .. ___ !! 3 !! 2 !
83 ! ! 10.0 ! 17 17 ! Heinsohn, Tom ... ___ !! 4 !! ! 4
84 ! ! 08.5 ! 17 17 ! Macauley, Ed ..... ___ !! 5 !! 3 ! 1
85 ! ! 07.0 ! 17 17 ! Cervi, Al .......... ___ !! 2 !! 3 ! 1

86 ! ! 10.6 ! 18 18 ! Parker, Tony ...... ___ !! 1 !! ! 3
87 ! ! 10.0 ! 18 18 ! Davis, Anthony ... ___ !! 4 !! 2 !
88 ! ! 09.0 ! 18 18 ! Dantley, Adrian ... ___ !! 3 !! ! 2
89 ! ! 08.0 ! 18 18 ! Gasol, Marc ....... ___ !! 5 !! 1 ! 1
90 ! ! 06.8 ! 18 18 ! Guerin, Richie .... ___ !! 2 !! ! 3

91 ! ! 10.0 ! 19 19 ! Bing, Dave ........ ___ !! 1 !! 2 ! 1
92 ! ! 09.4 ! 19 19 ! Gasol, Pau ........ ___ !! 4 !! ! 2
93 ! ! 09.0 ! 19 19 ! English, Alex ...... ___ !! 3 !! ! 3
94 ! ! 08.0 ! 19 19 ! Mourning, Alonzo.. ___ !! 5 !! 1 ! 1
95 ! ! 06.5 ! 19 19 ! Zaslofsky, Max .... ___ !! 2 !! 4 !

96 ! ! 09.3 ! 20 20 ! Pollard, Jim ....... ___ !! 4 !! 3 ! 2
97 ! ! 09.0 ! 20 20 ! Johnson, Dennis .. ___ !! 1 !! 1 ! 1
98 ! ! 07.7 ! 20 20 ! Pierce, Paul ........ 43 !! 3 !! ! 1
99 ! ! 07.5 ! 20 20 ! Walton, Bill ....... ___ !! 5 !! 1 ! 1
100 ! ! 06.1 ! 20 20 ! Arenas, Gilbert .. ___ !! 2 !! ! 1

[Pablo Novi]

7.1 Earthquake: Temporarily Still Alive & Uninjured In Mexico City
Just letting you-all know that my baby and I survived the massive 7.1 Earthquake today here in Mexico City (epicenter in the city of Puebla, not all that far from here). The side-to-side shaking was the worst I've ever experienced (I've experienced a few: In San Diego, L.A. and Mexico City). I had a bad night, so slept in. The quake caught me in bed. For quite a long time I was unable to get out of the bed, much less stand, much less throw some clothes on.

Electricity is on and off.

We just returned from a four hour walk around the city. The most surprising thing was that EVERYBODY was out in the streets - a unique moment. In a city of almost 25,000,000 people; we'd NEVER seen anything like this!

Traffic jams everywhere; but zero sign of panic - though it SEEMED a lot of people had decide to try to leave "town".

We're hearing sirens pretty constantly and they've just sent a loud-speaker car around warning that the possibility of a heavy-duty after-shock will be very high for the next two weeks, at least. Hours after the quake, I'm still a bit dizzy.

I saw one video from high up in a tall building in which, in all directions you can see "clouds", dust clouds due to collapsed buildings. I'd guess there' one every 10 blocks or so.

If I stop voting, it'd be because "The BIG One" took me/us out. If Cousy doesn't get voted in by then; I'll die in tears. NOT.
(Please excuse my weird sense of humor - there's no fixing it.) lol

I won't be supporting Cousy in a run-off, but I support your health & safety

"... won't be supporting Cousy ..."
Why You xxx !!! lol

[Lou Fan]

For those picking Howard and people who are longevity guys T-Mac had an 8 year prime and 15 years total it's not great but it's solid. Howard voters why pick Howard when he has same longevity and lower peak with horrid intangibles?

Life isn't always fair. T-mac maybe did have a better peak than Howard, there's a good case for it. I however tend to think his 2011 was better than Tmac's 03. I value defensive bigs who can still score rather highly, until really the last few years (the trend has been going since 01, but the last 2-4 years have really accelerated it) I'd take a great big over a great small pretty easily. Anyway to the point I can't blame Tmac for losing in the playoffs, but I can't give him any credit for that either. Howard made it to an NBA finals. It sucks that T-mac never had the help he needed, but I don't like just assuming he would have done better with more help. I do think he'll get traction around 50-55 for me, but we still have MVPs on the board and guys who won titles as the best or second best guy.

I think I'm going to have to think hard about Tmac vs Westbrook. Westbrook is a guy I think has style issues, but his MVP and playoff success are there to rank him over Tmac. I do however think especially defensively that Tmac was the better player, just in the wrong era. That'll be one for me to think more on as we get close to those two.

You put T-Mac on the Spurs for ginobili or on the lakers for kobe or the pistons for chauncey or the or the celtics for pierce or the lakers for pau or the heat for wade or the mavs for terry or the warriors for klay or cavs for kyrie what happens? They win the championship and probably dominate more than before. I'm thinking about this as in a vacuum and is T-Mac better than all the names I've seen thus far in a vacuum, in my opinion yes. Yeah Howard made it to the finals, which he wouldn't have if KG stayed healthy and then we'd be talking about his 2nd round exit, but he had a roster perfectly molded to fit his skillset in a weak conference. You can't honestly believe T-Mac couldn't have done the same with a supporting cast of equal talent.
PS Howards offense is pretty clearly overrated it isn't that hard to finish dunks and lobs and score in transition. Let's be real Howard never had a great post game.

[euroleague]

For those picking Howard and people who are longevity guys T-Mac had an 8 year prime and 15 years total it's not great but it's solid. Howard voters why pick Howard when he has same longevity and lower peak with horrid intangibles?

Life isn't always fair. T-mac maybe did have a better peak than Howard, there's a good case for it. I however tend to think his 2011 was better than Tmac's 03. I value defensive bigs who can still score rather highly, until really the last few years (the trend has been going since 01, but the last 2-4 years have really accelerated it) I'd take a great big over a great small pretty easily. Anyway to the point I can't blame Tmac for losing in the playoffs, but I can't give him any credit for that either. Howard made it to an NBA finals. It sucks that T-mac never had the help he needed, but I don't like just assuming he would have done better with more help. I do think he'll get traction around 50-55 for me, but we still have MVPs on the board and guys who won titles as the best or second best guy.

I think I'm going to have to think hard about Tmac vs Westbrook. Westbrook is a guy I think has style issues, but his MVP and playoff success are there to rank him over Tmac. I do however think especially defensively that Tmac was the better player, just in the wrong era. That'll be one for me to think more on as we get close to those two.

You put T-Mac on the Spurs for ginobili or on the lakers for kobe or the pistons for chauncey or the or the celtics for pierce or the lakers for pau or the heat for wade or the mavs for terry or the warriors for klay or cavs for kyrie what happens? They win the championship and probably dominate more than before. I'm thinking about this as in a vacuum and is T-Mac better than all the names I've seen thus far in a vacuum, in my opinion yes. Yeah Howard made it to the finals, which he wouldn't have if KG stayed healthy and then we'd be talking about his 2nd round exit, but he had a roster perfectly molded to fit his skillset in a weak conference. You can't honestly believe T-Mac couldn't have done the same with a supporting cast of equal talent.
PS Howards offense is pretty clearly overrated it isn't that hard to finish dunks and lobs and score in transition. Let's be real Howard never had a great post game.

Harden really showed last season he is capable of carrying a team. There was no other all-star on that team, and they won more games than LBJ/Irving/KLove.

Dominique Wilkins was on a top4 team in 1988, and was elite against the Celtics.

Hard to vote against either of those 2 in favor TMac/Dwight. If we are talking elite peaks, why not talk about Walton who actually won?