SI Top 100 2021-22

[canman1971]

Crazy disrespectful to Clarkson.

Well, if makes you feel any better, I did not realize he was still in the league.

[QingJames]

Crazy disrespectful to Clarkson.

Well, if makes you feel any better, I did not realize he was still in the league.

He just won 6MOY....

[canman1971]

Crazy disrespectful to Clarkson.

Well, if makes you feel any better, I did not realize he was still in the league.

He just won 6MOY....

Well, 30 NBA teams=150 starters, which means technically, Clarkson is doing well for himself being at 100, correct?

[QingJames]

Well, if makes you feel any better, I did not realize he was still in the league.

He just won 6MOY....

Well, 30 NBA teams=150 starters, which means technically, Clarkson is doing well for himself being at 100, correct?

Right, but he was 6MOY on a team that just had the best record in the league and 3 all stars. He would start on probably 25 of the league's teams. He's a very gifted scorer and a smart (although not physically talented) player on defense.

For instance, I liked the Josh Richardson acquisition by the Celtics but there's no way Clarkson wouldn't start over him if you put him on your roster.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I remember when Zach Lowe used to do SI's top 100. It was an exhaustive project with pretty decent little breakdowns on each player. It was a good way to learn a bit about guys you hadn't watched much in the prior season.

Lists like this are whatever. Low level click-bait (never as bad as ESPN's which is so bad it should be banned from NBA fandom) at worst, and worth a few minutes of time during the doldrums of the late offseason. I'm reading some of these blurbs and wondering if whoever wrote it actually knows much about the player. But it's not offensively bad or anything.

I think we all know how pointless rankings can be the further you go down the list. I like Seth Parthnow's version at the athletic, where he puts players into tiers. That makes more sense to me. A ranked list like SI's just gets pretty silly and obnoxious when subjectively equal players get ranked 20 spots apart, making it seem like one is on a whole other level. Is Harrison Barnes (67) 28 spots "better" than Jonathan Isaac (95)? Am I supposed to care whether Norman Powell is 55 or 99 (he's 92 I guess). Maybe the ranking numbers makes for easier reading but it also makes for very silly implied arguments.

There's no such thing as a good top 100.

It's one thing if they lay out some kind of methodology but most of the time it seems very arbitrary

[GeorgeMarcus]

He just won 6MOY....

Well, 30 NBA teams=150 starters, which means technically, Clarkson is doing well for himself being at 100, correct?

Right, but he was 6MOY on a team that just had the best record in the league and 3 all stars. He would start on probably 25 of the league's teams. He's a very gifted scorer and a smart (although not physically talented) player on defense.

For instance, I liked the Josh Richardson acquisition by the Celtics but there's no way Clarkson wouldn't start over him if you put him on your roster.

I actually disagree. J Rich offers a more complementary skillset. Clarkson would be 6th man on most teams IMO partly due to his style of play

[shza]

Klay at 57 feels pretty random. “Well, he’ll miss half the season and we don’t know what he’ll look like after being out for two years; where’s that leave us? Fifty-seventh, obviously.”

[Up-And-Coming]

Am I the only one surprised by De'Andre Hunter being so high at 56. He could be a good player but only played 23 games last season.

[HotelVitale]

As a POR fan, I'm confused by this list...Where it gets confusing to me is when comparing the player rankings to the team power rankings. This year, SI has POR 18th in their preseason Power Rankings....

I know this is obvious but in case you're actually confused--neither of those lists are official well-researched 'Sports Illustrated' rankings, they're just things some sub-editor asked a writer to whip up quickly since they're efficient ways to get clicks. It's probably totally different writers making the lists and no one's making an effort to be thorough or consistent. The articles have a famous logo behind them but what you're actually reading is just some overworked dude trying to fill up content quota for the week before moving on to something else.

[BoatsNZones]

Klay at 57 feels pretty random. “Well, he’ll miss half the season and we don’t know what he’ll look like after being out for two years; where’s that leave us? Fifty-seventh, obviously.”

Doesn't feel too off, honestly. He's probably somewhere in the 18-25 range when healthy, so 50-60 post terrible injuries is reasonable. Slides him in as a low-end #2.

[dirkforpres]

Here’s to hoping Kristaps Porzingis truly is a top 60 player. I’m not sure I’m buying that ranking

[cupcakesnake]

I came here to see how low Demar would be ranked. He became the yearly lowball player. Maybe he's not even in the top 100 lol.

He's not on the list of snubs, so I think he's safely in the top 50. Unless SI's writers have decided he's worse than Blake, Aldridge, Oladipo, Drummond, and other injured/washed/discarded players.

Really hard for me to imagine anyone putting DeRozan Top 50 right now. For the last two seasons he's been on lottery teams that do better with him on the bench.

If you're wondering how he could below someone like Drummond - who has literally never really figured out how to play the game on a level where he can be one of 5 main players on a contender - that's a good point, so maybe he will be in their Top 50, I just think he has no business being in contention on that level.

He's not in my top 50. But the PPG power is strong at most sports journalism websites, especially one as old as SI. I'd be surprised if they left him off entirely without even mentioning him in the snubs section. Again, people like Oladipo and Aldridge got listed as snubs so I assume they really respect a big name around those parts. Also the Bulls just paid him to be a top... 43 player lol.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Am I the only one surprised by De'Andre Hunter being so high at 56. He could be a good player but only played 23 games last season.

From an injury standpoint I get your surprise but IMO he's the second best player on the Hawks if healthy. Was looking that way before he went down last year, which is pretty impressive for a guy early in his sophomore season. He's a very complete player who checks all the boxes as an ideal 2nd fiddle: team first mentality, 3-tier scorer with efficient shot selection, defends multiple positions at a high level, solid rebounder and capable of creating his own shot when necessary. I do like the Kawhi-lite comparisons although it's pretty unlikely he'll ever be a Kawhi-level threat in isolation.

[Tor_Raps]

He's not on the list of snubs, so I think he's safely in the top 50. Unless SI's writers have decided he's worse than Blake, Aldridge, Oladipo, Drummond, and other injured/washed/discarded players.

Really hard for me to imagine anyone putting DeRozan Top 50 right now. For the last two seasons he's been on lottery teams that do better with him on the bench.

If you're wondering how he could below someone like Drummond - who has literally never really figured out how to play the game on a level where he can be one of 5 main players on a contender - that's a good point, so maybe he will be in their Top 50, I just think he has no business being in contention on that level.

He's not in my top 50. But the PPG power is strong at most sports journalism websites, especially one as old as SI. I'd be surprised if they left him off entirely without even mentioning him in the snubs section. Again, people like Oladipo and Aldridge got listed as snubs so I assume they really respect a big name around those parts. Also the Bulls just paid him to be a top... 43 player lol.

It's not only his scoring but he's become a really good playmaker too. Yes his defense and 3 point shooting suck but he's still easily a top 50 player in the NBA.

[BNM]

As a POR fan, I'm confused by this list...Where it gets confusing to me is when comparing the player rankings to the team power rankings. This year, SI has POR 18th in their preseason Power Rankings....

I know this is obvious but in case you're actually confused--neither of those lists are official well-researched 'Sports Illustrated' rankings, they're just things some sub-editor asked a writer to whip up quickly since they're efficient ways to get clicks. It's probably totally different writers making the lists and no one's making an effort to be thorough or consistent. The articles have a famous logo behind them but what you're actually reading is just some overworked dude trying to fill up content quota for the week before moving on to something else.

Perhaps more disappointed than confused. I'm old enough to remember when Sports Illustrated had a top notch staff of in-house writers and editors that checked their content for accuracy and consistency.

Yes, I suspect you're right that no one involved reads the others' content to make sure they are all on relatively the same page. They are likely lowly paid "contributors" that have never even met in person.

[Infinite Llamas]

Rozier is underrated at this point.

A guy like D’Angelo Russell is 17 spots higher and Rozier is pretty much a better player at this point.

[Catchall]

Last year was the season I realized that Dejounte Murray isn't really that good.
Also, I realize that injuries are a huge factor, but Nurkic has really fallen off. You can't put him ahead of Valanciunas.

[Up-And-Coming]

Am I the only one surprised by De'Andre Hunter being so high at 56. He could be a good player but only played 23 games last season.

From an injury standpoint I get your surprise but IMO he's the second best player on the Hawks if healthy. Was looking that way before he went down last year, which is pretty impressive for a guy early in his sophomore season. He's a very complete player who checks all the boxes as an ideal 2nd fiddle: team first mentality, 3-tier scorer with efficient shot selection, defends multiple positions at a high level, solid rebounder and capable of creating his own shot when necessary. I do like the Kawhi-lite comparisons although it's pretty unlikely he'll ever be a Kawhi-level threat in isolation.

It's possible but I didn't pay much attention to the Hawks when he played tbh. It's just such a small sample size to claim him as a top 2 starter on a team (Top 60).

[Doctor MJ]

He's not on the list of snubs, so I think he's safely in the top 50. Unless SI's writers have decided he's worse than Blake, Aldridge, Oladipo, Drummond, and other injured/washed/discarded players.

Really hard for me to imagine anyone putting DeRozan Top 50 right now. For the last two seasons he's been on lottery teams that do better with him on the bench.

If you're wondering how he could below someone like Drummond - who has literally never really figured out how to play the game on a level where he can be one of 5 main players on a contender - that's a good point, so maybe he will be in their Top 50, I just think he has no business being in contention on that level.

He's not in my top 50. But the PPG power is strong at most sports journalism websites, especially one as old as SI. I'd be surprised if they left him off entirely without even mentioning him in the snubs section. Again, people like Oladipo and Aldridge got listed as snubs so I assume they really respect a big name around those parts. Also the Bulls just paid him to be a top... 43 player lol.

You're probably right, and yeah, agree with you that I think the Bulls are fooling themselves in thinking they're building a contender with their Lavine/Vucevic/DeRozan Big 3.

[Doctor MJ]

Really hard for me to imagine anyone putting DeRozan Top 50 right now. For the last two seasons he's been on lottery teams that do better with him on the bench.

If you're wondering how he could below someone like Drummond - who has literally never really figured out how to play the game on a level where he can be one of 5 main players on a contender - that's a good point, so maybe he will be in their Top 50, I just think he has no business being in contention on that level.

He's not in my top 50. But the PPG power is strong at most sports journalism websites, especially one as old as SI. I'd be surprised if they left him off entirely without even mentioning him in the snubs section. Again, people like Oladipo and Aldridge got listed as snubs so I assume they really respect a big name around those parts. Also the Bulls just paid him to be a top... 43 player lol.

It's not only his scoring but he's become a really good playmaker too. Yes his defense and 3 point shooting suck but he's still easily a top 50 player in the NBA.

What's your theory as to why his teams are always better when he's on the bench?