ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
Moderators: KingDavid, cupcakesnake, Dirk, Domejandro, ken6199, infinite11285, Clav, bwgood77, bisme37, zimpy27
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
giberish
- RealGM
- Posts: 17,647
- And1: 7,345
- Joined: Mar 30, 2006
- Location: Whereever you go - there you are
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
The ESPN list, the SI list, our RealGM list and my own opinion has the same top-10 (in some order). In terms of preseason expectations for next year there is a very clear top-10 group (even withing the RealGM voting it got very clear towards the bottom of the top-10 who was in that group, then uncertainty starting at 11).
From #11 on there are major differences, with some really questionable choices.
From #11 on there are major differences, with some really questionable choices.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
- Bornstellar
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,046
- And1: 23,973
- Joined: Mar 05, 2018
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
BNM wrote:Bornstellar wrote:I like Lillard but he is not a top 10 player. Top 15-20 but not top 10
He's finished top 8 in MVP voting and has been 1st or 2nd team All NBA 3 of the past 4 seasons:
2015-16: 8th in MVP voting, 2nd team All NBA
2017-18: 4th in MVP voting, 1st team All NBA
2018-19: 6th in MVP voting, 2nd team All NBA
SI Ranking: 10th
ESPN Ranking: 10th
RealGM Player Poll: 10th
Your opinion would appear to be in the minority.
Cool, thanks for letting me know.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
- Mauro Pedrosa
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,631
- And1: 4,409
- Joined: Oct 15, 2016
- Contact:
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
Lillard >> Jokic
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
Buckeye-NBAFan
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,163
- And1: 4,872
- Joined: Jun 25, 2004
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
XxIronChainzxX wrote:RoxSteady wrote:OK, so they put down the crack pipe for 8 picks. None of these are too offensive; although LeBron's probably ranked too high. Giannis (presumably #1) and Kawhi (#2) are left.
10. PG13
9. Dame
8. Embiid
7. Jokic
6. Steph
5. AD
4. Harden
3. LBJ
I assume Kawhi is #1. But in any case, it's not that hard to name the 10 best players in the NBA out of order.
Eh, Irving and Lillard are interchangeable. Yeah, Irving struggled in the playoffs last year, but not as bad as Lillard the year before.
And Gobert has an argument too.
The top 10 was easy to name before Durant's injury. But that includes George who was an MVP candidate before the injury. Don't know why ESPN would have him below Lillard unless they don't think he'll be healthy.
And if you're projecting the future, it's not out of the question to predict Towns will make the leap this year into Lillard/Irving/Gobert territory.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
Catchall
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,672
- And1: 11,273
- Joined: Jul 06, 2008
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
OfficialRef wrote:i'm not so sure lillard is a better player than PG...
I think he's been more consistent.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
SpreeS
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,990
- And1: 4,272
- Joined: Jul 26, 2012
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
Curry isnt TOP5...ok. Lillard 9... They are on same tier (6-10) by ESPN. But in realitty the gap is huge, so huge that noone mention them in one sentence.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
SpreeS
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,990
- And1: 4,272
- Joined: Jul 26, 2012
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
levon wrote:Harden is better than Curry. And I'm one of Harden's biggest detractors.
wow
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
gh123
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,848
- And1: 1,197
- Joined: Feb 17, 2016
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
How the hell does AD still get ranked so high when all he does is miss the PO year after year?
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
dhsilv2
- RealGM
- Posts: 51,567
- And1: 27,851
- Joined: Oct 04, 2015
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
Hindenburg wrote:Davis should be at the end of top 10. What exactly did he accomplish last year to move up a spot?
Curry should be in top 3-4.
LeBron should be in #5 spot or lower.
They're projecting next year, not looking back.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
- Official
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,721
- And1: 321
- Joined: Apr 14, 2009
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
gh123 wrote:How the hell does AD still get ranked so high when all he does is miss the PO year after year?
Because winning, which is tied to circumstances and teammates, is the only argument anyone can make against AD. From an individual standpoint he is undoubtedly top 5. He has for the most part averaged 28ppg/12rpg/2.5bpg the last three seasons playing elite defense.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
- ReasonablySober
- Retired Mod

- Posts: 109,569
- And1: 43,506
- Joined: Dec 02, 2001
- Location: Cheap dinner. Watch basketball. Bone down.
- Contact:
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
Giannis at #1.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
Quattro
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,081
- And1: 9,679
- Joined: Jan 29, 2016
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
I don't get it. Where is Durant? Or is this supposed to be rankings for the upcoming season so he is omitted?
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
GiannisAnte34
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,624
- And1: 2,914
- Joined: Jun 19, 2019
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
LeMasta wrote:AD is not a better player than Curry
I'm also taking LeBron over Giannis especially come playoff time.
LOL at LeBron ahead of Giannis in 2019-20. Maybe 2 years ago
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10
- Effigy
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,825
- And1: 14,214
- Joined: Nov 27, 2001
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10
Asif16 wrote:Dame at 9 and Mccolum at 13.
You would think they could have at least put some sort of a fight against the Warriors with such a loaded back court.
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that Dame probably should be 13 while Mccolum shoudl've been way lower
Dame beat Jokic and George. So how low should they be?
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
- Optms
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,451
- And1: 20,971
- Joined: Jun 11, 2009
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
Raps in 4 wrote:AD and Harden ahead of Steph is pretty horrible.
Anyone ahead of Curry is pretty horrible. What a joke list.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
- E-Balla
- RealGM
- Posts: 35,891
- And1: 25,221
- Joined: Dec 19, 2012
- Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
GeorgeMarcus wrote:“Battling illness last spring and having illness questioned, Embiid saw his production on both ends of the court decrease in the playoffs”
![]()
Unreal display of ignorance. This trumps the Winslow PG debacle in my book
Not at all Winslow played PG for half a season. Embiid saw his numbers decrease so boxscore watchers would think he played worse on both ends if they don't watch games. Even in the boxscore Winslow was the PG though. The best part was them having to report that the comments confused Miami because he was ALREADY the PG a day after roasting him for saying he wanted to be the PG.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10
- Asif16
- RealGM
- Posts: 19,473
- And1: 27,704
- Joined: Feb 03, 2013
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10
Effigy wrote:Asif16 wrote:Dame at 9 and Mccolum at 13.
You would think they could have at least put some sort of a fight against the Warriors with such a loaded back court.
Essentially, what I'm trying to say is that Dame probably should be 13 while Mccolum shoudl've been way lower
Dame beat Jokic and George. So how low should they be?
The post was clearly not just about Dame though.
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
- Asif16
- RealGM
- Posts: 19,473
- And1: 27,704
- Joined: Feb 03, 2013
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
GiannisAnte34 wrote:LeMasta wrote:AD is not a better player than Curry
I'm also taking LeBron over Giannis especially come playoff time.
LOL at LeBron ahead of Giannis in 2019-20. Maybe 2 years ago
Giannis is easier to stop with a good game plan.
LeBron on the other hand can still expose you, doesnt matter how much you game plan due to his IQ and better shooting (than giannis).
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
illuminati666
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,020
- And1: 4,562
- Joined: Sep 28, 2014
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
Nope no way you can have AD over Curry.
Not a GSW fan but Curry is still in his prime and the 2nd best PG of all time. He's number 3 for me.
1. LBJ (until proven otherwise)
2. Kawhi
3. Curry
4. Harden
5. Giannis
6. AD
and then Jokic - Embiid - Dame - PG13 I agree with
Not a GSW fan but Curry is still in his prime and the 2nd best PG of all time. He's number 3 for me.
1. LBJ (until proven otherwise)
2. Kawhi
3. Curry
4. Harden
5. Giannis
6. AD
and then Jokic - Embiid - Dame - PG13 I agree with
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
-
GiannisAnte34
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,624
- And1: 2,914
- Joined: Jun 19, 2019
-
Re: ESPN Rankings 3-10 Are Surprisingly Not Horrible
Asif16 wrote:GiannisAnte34 wrote:LeMasta wrote:AD is not a better player than Curry
I'm also taking LeBron over Giannis especially come playoff time.
LOL at LeBron ahead of Giannis in 2019-20. Maybe 2 years ago
Giannis is easier to stop with a good game plan.
LeBron on the other hand can still expose you, doesnt matter how much you game plan due to his IQ and better shooting (than giannis).
Oh so it's easy for a team to have a carousel of multiple lengthy, athletic, and high IQ DPOY veterans? My mistake







