PDA

View Full Version : ESPN's All-Time Top 100 Players



Pages : [1] 2

Matter.
01-20-2016, 03:28 PM
So, ESPN decided to do a All-time Top 100. Share your thoughts as this list gets updated until we find out #1!

100. Shawn Kemp
99. Kevin Love
98. Gail Goodrich
97. James Harden
96. Bobby Jones
95. Marc Gasol
94. Mark Price
93. Lenny Wilkens
92. Nate Thurmond
91. Maurice Cheeks
90. Paul Arizin
89. Yao Ming
88. Billy Cunningham
87. Chauncey Billups
86. Chris Bosh
85. Dave DeBusschere
84. Dennis Johnson
83. Chris Mullin
82. David Thompson
81. Sidney Moncrief
80. Grant Hill
79. Jerry Lucas
78. Sam Jones
77. Joe Dumars
76. Nate Archibald
75. Blake Griffin
74. Dolph Schayes
73. Dikembe Mutombo
72. Adrian Dantley
71. "Pistol" Pete Maravich
70. Artis Gilmore
69. Vince Carter
68. Bob Lanier
67. Dwight Howard
66. Chris Webber
65. Alonzo Mourning
64. Dennis Rodman
63. Tracy McGrady
62. Alex English
61. Manu Ginobili
60. Earl Monroe
59. Carmelo Anthony
58. Tony Parker
57. Robert Parish
56. Pau Gasol
55. Dave Cowens
54. Bernard King
53. Wes Unseld
52. Bob McAdoo
51. Reggie Miller
50. Ray Allen
49. Russell Westbrook
48. Willis Reed
47. George "Iceman" Gervin
46. Allen Iverson
45. Paul Pierce
44. Dominique Wilkins
43. James Worthy
42. Bill Walton
41. Gary Payton
40. Elvin Hayes
39. Bob Cousy
38. Walt Frazier
37. Rick Barry
36. Clyde Drexler
35. Jason Kidd
34. Bob Pettit
33. George Mikan
32. Patrick Ewing
31. Kevin McHale
30. Steve Nash
29. Chris Paul
28. John Havlicek
27. Dwyane Wade
26. Isiah Thomas
25. Scottie Pippen
24. Elgin Baylor
23. Steph Curry
22. Kevin Durant
21. Kevin Garnett
20. David Robinson
19. John Stockton
18. Charles Barkley
17. Dirk Nowitzki
16. Karl Malone
15. Moses Malone
14. Julius Erving
13. Jerry West
12. Kobe Bryant
11. Oscar Robertson
10. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Tim Duncan
7. Bill Russell








*I will try to update this as more come out, if a mod can help thanks!

KnicksorBust
01-20-2016, 03:31 PM
It's going to be ridiculously hard commenting 5 at a time but already surprised. Kemp should be higher (or is it lower?) than Love. Better as his peak and accomplished way more.

Bobby Jones be closer to 50 than to 100. Great 2-way player and underrated all-timer. In the modern era with his efficiency and defense people would have been drooling over him. Draymond Green of the 80s.

DanG
01-20-2016, 03:48 PM
Love shouldn't even be close to the list.

Tony_Starks
01-20-2016, 03:54 PM
Kevin Love on this list is like Meek Mill making a top 100 all time rapper list.....

Hawkeye15
01-20-2016, 04:02 PM
Kevin Love on this list is like Meek Mill making a top 100 all time rapper list.....

haha

ManningToTyree
01-20-2016, 04:16 PM
It's hard to make an argument on who should've there instead since we don't know the whole list but gasol and love seem to be mistakes already

HandsOnTheWheel
01-20-2016, 04:35 PM
7 players in, we already see 3 active players listed. There's going to be so many snubs from the past.

ManningToTyree
01-20-2016, 05:24 PM
7 players in, we already see 3 active players listed. There's going to be so many snubs from the past. I'm hoping there is just going to be a lot of modern guys toward the back end because of incomplete resumes and the older guys ahead but it's ESPN so I have my doubts

NYKalltheway
01-20-2016, 05:25 PM
I'm predicting some hillarious omissions here.

numba1CHANGsta
01-20-2016, 05:39 PM
#1 is MJ

/Thread

mngopher35
01-20-2016, 05:41 PM
I'm hoping there is just going to be a lot of modern guys toward the back end because of incomplete resumes and the older guys ahead but it's ESPN so I have my doubts

I dunno, in the pg and sf thread already made we see Curry and Durant extremely high. I think ESPN is just overrating some current players somewhat for whatever reason. It seems like they are doing it more so with players entering their peak/prime (KD, Curry, Love) so maybe it is partly projecting.

Overall I think their lists have been alright but that is just something I noticed and think will be seen when the entire list is out.

valade16
01-20-2016, 05:43 PM
Everyone seems to be hating on this list for the "current" guys they put on there but was James Harden really that bad?

Harden finished second in MVP voting last year, has already made 3 All-NBA teams (2 1st team selections) and will make his 4th All-NBA team this season, is on his 4th straight season over 25 PPG and has led his team to the Conference Finals. He already has a resume better than a lot of players.

If anything given Harden's peak and what he's accomplished, he actually has a case for being moved up the list, not being left off it. And this is coming from a guy who thinks his defense is poop and detests the way he plays the game.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-20-2016, 07:04 PM
I'm predicting some hillarious omissions here.

They'll probably not put McAdoo.

They'll probably favor greatly those that played in the NBA and or big markets. They'll probably also just base most everything just on stats, rather than how they won or changed the games. Like Shawn Kemp for instance won 55, 63, 57, 64, 57 games as the guy in Seattle over a 5 year stretch. It was harder to win 60 games back then because they didn't play as many trash franchises back then. He also stepped it up big time in the Playoff.

Like some others mentioned Marc Gasol and Kevin Love are completely over rated on this 90-100 list. Also pretty much all the others too except Shawn Kemp.

valade16
01-20-2016, 07:31 PM
They'll probably not put McAdoo.

They'll probably favor greatly those that played in the NBA and or big markets. They'll probably also just base most everything just on stats, rather than how they won or changed the games. Like Shawn Kemp for instance won 55, 63, 57, 64, 57 games as the guy in Seattle over a 5 year stretch. It was harder to win 60 games back then because they didn't play as many trash franchises back then. He also stepped it up big time in the Playoff.

Like some others mentioned Marc Gasol and Kevin Love are completely over rated on this 90-100 list. Also pretty much all the others too except Shawn Kemp.

Well hello again Buck Williams.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-20-2016, 07:36 PM
Well hello again Buck Williams.

I'm not Buck William.... wtfuta

your little team you drafted on a Bulls forum is utter trash. Why do you brag about drafting that team.

I would've drafted players like Leonard, Draymond, Duncan, Parker, Butler, Iggy, Ezle, you know guys that can actually play.

Chronz
01-21-2016, 03:40 PM
Predicting some hilarious complaints

valade16
01-21-2016, 03:44 PM
Predicting some hilarious complaints

For Chris Bosh?

The rest were all retro picks, which is either good in that they are recognizing all the years of the NBA or bad in that there are going to be a ton of current players ahead of them.

Glad to see Cunningham on there, he seems forgotten but was very good.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 03:48 PM
Watch them leave out Mark Aguirre, who used to give the Showtime Lakers fits.

LOb0
01-21-2016, 03:50 PM
For Chris Bosh?

The rest were all retro picks, which is either good in that they are recognizing all the years of the NBA or bad in that there are going to be a ton of current players ahead of them.

Glad to see Cunningham on there, he seems forgotten but was very good.

He's saying in the future.

Hawkeye15
01-21-2016, 03:51 PM
Watch them leave out Mark Aguirre, who used to give the Showtime Lakers fits.

I have to figure if he hasn't shown up yet, he won't.

valade16
01-21-2016, 04:07 PM
Watch them leave out Mark Aguirre, who used to give the Showtime Lakers fits.

I mean, would it be that bad of a snub? He was at least the 6th best high volume scoring of his era behind Bird, Dr. J (somewhat in his era), Nique, Dantley and English.

still1ballin
01-21-2016, 05:12 PM
This should be good! This will turn into a kobe and lebron debate.

Book it.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 05:15 PM
I mean, would it be that bad of a snub? He was at least the 6th best high volume scoring of his era behind Bird, Dr. J (somewhat in his era), Nique, Dantley and English.

LeBron is a high volume scorer. What is negative about that.

Aguire CARRIED a NEW FRANCHISE and should've beat LA Lakers if not for some calls. but he played for the Mavs and they invented the BEAT LA chant so you don't like it. Those Mavs were serious. Then he moves to Detriot and they all of a sudden win two straight titles.

The stats are amazing. He was probably better than Dantley and English because he could get rough.

I'm not going to look it all up to the decimal but during his day he averaged about

26ppg in 34 minutes
played tough
sort of the enforcer on the Mavs back then
7 rebounds
4 assist
52% shooting which is very high for back then. Back then you didn't have a wide open lane each time down the court like today.
Plus he played tough defense.

He won a lot of games with his play and improved a lot of teams. Also was big time in College so he was a player from 18-21 aswell.

Aguire being somewhere in the 9-13 range for SF should honestly put him about atleast at number 70 all time.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 05:17 PM
I'm predicting they'll leave M Finley out too. And they'll probably put Dirk at like 39 of some BS like that. NY and LA don't like DALLAS. They jelly.

WaDe03
01-21-2016, 05:25 PM
I'm not Buck William.... wtfuta

your little team you drafted on a Bulls forum is utter trash. Why do you brag about drafting that team.

I would've drafted players like Leonard, Draymond, Duncan, Parker, Butler, Iggy, Ezle, you know guys that can actually play.

Hearing about your draft picks bring back memories of the threads you used to make trying to get everyone to do an all-time draft with you lol.

Matter.
01-21-2016, 11:00 PM
updated!

Bruno
01-22-2016, 05:31 AM
I don't want to rain on anyones parade, but the longer I've been a fan, the less interested I am in focusing on the specific order of the greats. I know that sounds kind of crazy, and that to a certain extent we all live for that as fans. but personally, i feel like it is an inherently flawed exercise/effort. simply because it pulls the focus of the beauty of basketball and how its greatest players have contributed, and on why player A isn't as good as player B. essentially, we end up criticizing the flaws of great players as opposed to celebrating their genius when we rank. most debates are focused on comparing a flaw, as opposed to celebrating generational greatness. it is an inherently negative exercise. it can also be emotional, so I understand why it is often the focus of basketball discussion.

this will be interesting. I'll passively observe in amusement. as basketball changes through the generations, what we value and thus our lists are more volatile than we think. our memory of the greatest of the past are altered by the shaping of the game in its current form, and its future form.

More-Than-Most
01-22-2016, 05:39 AM
This should be good! This will turn into a kobe and lebron debate.

Book it.

When they put Kobe 3 and Lebron 10... you bet lol

More-Than-Most
01-22-2016, 05:40 AM
I have a bad bad feeling TD will be out of the top 10 and Curry will already be in the top 25 all time

NYKalltheway
01-22-2016, 06:36 AM
I don't want to rain on anyones parade, but the longer I've been a fan, the less interested I am in focusing on the specific order of the greats. I know that sounds kind of crazy, and that to a certain extent we all live for that as fans. but personally, i feel like it is an inherently flawed exercise/effort. simply because it pulls the focus of the beauty of basketball and how its greatest players have contributed, and on why player A isn't as good as player B. essentially, we end up criticizing the flaws of great players as opposed to celebrating their genius when we rank. most debates are focused on comparing a flaw, as opposed to celebrating generational greatness. it is an inherently negative exercise. it can also be emotional, so I understand why it is often the focus of basketball discussion.

this will be interesting. I'll passively observe in amusement. as basketball changes through the generations, what we value and thus our lists are more volatile than we think. our memory of the greatest of the past are altered by the shaping of the game in its current form, and its future form.

that's true to a large extenet.
And the bold is 100% true

KnicksorBust
01-22-2016, 07:04 AM
I have a bad bad feeling TD will be out of the top 10 and Curry will already be in the top 25 all time

Duncan? Personally I have him 4th. He will probably be around 6-7. Definitely will be top 10. No worries there.

NYKalltheway
01-22-2016, 08:09 AM
Well, Curry was ranked 4th at PG which is stupid imo, so I'd expect him to be in the top 30 in what looks to be a mediocre list :D
How on earth Kevin Love is a top 100 player in the NBA history is beyond me. Bosh and Goodrich are also debatable.

Also, if Yao Ming is there, I'd better see Tracy freaking McGrady sometime soon.

WaDe03
01-22-2016, 10:59 AM
If Wade isn't top 1 I'll go the **** off!

still1ballin
01-22-2016, 02:16 PM
If Wade isn't top 1 I'll go the **** off!

Get ready to go off!

*grabs popcorn*

WaDe03
01-22-2016, 02:51 PM
Get ready to go off!

*grabs popcorn*

Lmao!

valade16
01-22-2016, 03:30 PM
I felt Grant Hill was too low (but understand why he was). Peak he should be way higher. Joe Dumars seems awfully low as well.

Nice to see Jerry Lucas getting some love. Very forgotten around these parts.

Bostonjorge
01-22-2016, 04:20 PM
I predict 2-3 of these guys will be on the next batch mixed in with some older players.

Morning
Glenn rice
Larry Johnson
Tim hardway
Mike bibby

WaDe03
01-22-2016, 05:05 PM
Blake Griffin better than Bosh all time? Not even close.

valade16
01-22-2016, 06:00 PM
Jerry Lucas would average 15 and 10 in anyother era.

He grabbed nearly as many boards as Russell, Wilt and Thurmond in that era.

He's very similar to Kevin Love. Great range on his shot for a big (him shooting from deep was called a 'lucas layup' because of how good he was at it), was a great rebounder and was very bad defensively.

He was a good player. Top 100? I've never done a list out that far so IDK if he'd make it on my list.

I'm just glad this list is recognizing a lot of the 2nd tier stars from the past who oftentimes get forgotten like Billy Cunningham, Bobby Jones and Jerry Lucas.

valade16
01-22-2016, 06:21 PM
Why do you think he was "very bad defensively". Weird thing to mention when you're just doing a synopsis of a player, plus it's probably not true at all. There is no such thing as a "very bad defensive player" in NBA history.

I'll rephrase, for an NBA player it was not good defense.

It's all relative. When I say he isn't a good defender I don't mean compared to a layman, but to fellow NBA players.

valade16
01-25-2016, 06:11 PM
Focusing on the Centers. Here was the Center's on the list previously:

95. Marc Gasol
92. Nate Thurmond
89. Yao Ming
73. Dikembe Mutombo

4 Center's made the 61-70 portion:

70. Artis Gilmore
68. Bob Lanier
67. Dwight Howard
65. Alonzo Mourning

I'm very interested to see how close we are to the Top 10 Centers.

Bostonjorge
01-25-2016, 08:51 PM
Next batch I now predict

Pierce
Allan
Ewing
Miller
Dominique

Hopefully I can get 1 or 2 right.

valade16
01-25-2016, 09:26 PM
Next batch I now predict

Pierce
Allan
Ewing
Miller
Dominique

Hopefully I can get 1 or 2 right.

I feel like all of them are top 50 but I'm sure you'll get one.

Matter.
01-26-2016, 12:17 PM
Updated! Thoughts on Manu over Tmac?

valade16
01-26-2016, 12:34 PM
Updated! Thoughts on Manu over Tmac?

Obviously rings talk. Earl Monroe just ahead of them as well.

valade16
01-26-2016, 03:56 PM
Hawkeye, looks like the voters shares your sentiments about Reggie Miller. He came in at 51.

Hawkeye15
01-26-2016, 03:59 PM
Hawkeye, looks like the voters shares your sentiments about Reggie Miller. He came in at 51.

should have been 151


that's for you ewing...

flea
01-26-2016, 04:09 PM
Chauncey, Bosh, and DJ too low. Melo, Howard, and King too high. Not terrible for the first 50 but there's no way I'd have Love or Harden and maybe not even Yao top 100. (Maybe top 100 talent for Yao but 3 healthy and quality seasons and 3 more partial ones is not close to enough work in the NBA considering very little postseason success.)

HandsOnTheWheel
01-26-2016, 05:41 PM
Blake Griffin is insanely high.

valade16
01-27-2016, 02:30 PM
I love that Reggie is 51 and Ray is 50. They should be back to back.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2016, 05:29 PM
Iverson at 46. Thank god ESPN is getting a lot of this right-ish so far.

I still think Curry will be too high on this list, even if he potentially lands top 15 ever.

sammyvine
01-27-2016, 11:23 PM
Iverson at 46. Thank god ESPN is getting a lot of this right-ish so far.

I still think Curry will be too high on this list, even if he potentially lands top 15 ever.


Considering the amount of players that have played in the NBA...to be ranked 46th of all time...you have had a good career lol...i don't see how thats a bad thing.:rolleyes:

Your obsessed with Iversen lol...did he decline you an autograph or something?

I understand that he was polarising and you think he wasn't a good player but you don't have to rum down how poor he was in every thread lol.

El Patito
01-27-2016, 11:43 PM
When they end up ranking Kobe over Dirk, their entire list will lose all credibility.

HandsOnTheWheel
01-27-2016, 11:55 PM
Iverson at 46. Thank god ESPN is getting a lot of this right-ish so far.

I still think Curry will be too high on this list, even if he potentially lands top 15 ever.

Curry should realistically be in about the 50-60 range. As of today, he just hasn't accomplished enough to warrant the rank he'll receive. 3-4 years down the road he'll likely deserve top 30 but not now imo.

still1ballin
01-27-2016, 11:58 PM
When they end up ranking Kobe over Dirk, their entire list will lose all credibility.

lol.

El Patito
01-28-2016, 12:08 AM
lol.

Can't read a stat sheet?

ewing
01-28-2016, 12:24 AM
I love that Reggie is 51 and Ray is 50. They should be back to back.

reggie clearly had a better career.

ewing
01-28-2016, 12:28 AM
should have been 151


that's for you ewing...

its no problem pretend he was Dell Curry or Dennis Scott doesn't make it true.

Hawkeye15
01-28-2016, 01:19 AM
Considering the amount of players that have played in the NBA...to be ranked 46th of all time...you have had a good career lol...i don't see how thats a bad thing.:rolleyes:

Your obsessed with Iversen lol...did he decline you an autograph or something?

I understand that he was polarising and you think he wasn't a good player but you don't have to rum down how poor he was in every thread lol.

I think AI was a great player. He is getting his due. But I can't stomach it when I hear someone try and tell me he was a generational player. The dude was a great chucker. He is rated properly.

Hawkeye15
01-28-2016, 01:20 AM
its no problem pretend he was Dell Curry or Dennis Scott doesn't make it true.

That isn't what I was saying. It was a joke. Take it

ewing
01-28-2016, 01:22 AM
stfu dude. That isn't what I was saying. It was a joke. Take it

:)

ManningToTyree
01-28-2016, 02:36 AM
Once the list is completed I would like to see how many players from each era broken down. I'm expecting a modern day bias.

Bostonjorge
01-28-2016, 02:43 AM
Next batch prediction

Ewing
Kidd
Mchale
Dominique
Paul

I think this time I will get 2 right

LA_Raiders
01-28-2016, 02:49 AM
Bspn

Bruno
01-28-2016, 03:19 AM
if Westbrooks career ended tomorrow he wouldn't be considered better than Pau Gasol or Ray Allen, right?

mngopher35
01-28-2016, 04:05 AM
if Westbrooks career ended tomorrow he wouldn't be considered better than Pau Gasol or Ray Allen, right?

I wouldn't have him that high, he stood out as an obvious example of overating current players to me. It's not horrible when you consider the peak/prime of some of the current players rating but I am more of an entire career guy.

I usually am on westys side on this site too, but he's too high on this list.

TylerSL
01-28-2016, 04:36 AM
Kevin Love being #99 is laughably bad. Dude's probably not even top 200...

NYKalltheway
01-28-2016, 05:09 AM
When was the last time ESPN had a top 100 of all time? I'm trying to compare their list to any previous one.

Arnav Kumar
01-28-2016, 05:45 AM
Where are the top 45 ??
i cant see them.

NYKalltheway
01-28-2016, 05:53 AM
Where are the top 45 ??
i cant see them.

it's being released piece by piece.

bagwell368
01-28-2016, 07:16 AM
Unseld and Maravich both way too high.

Westbrook - gee nothing like rating a guy at his peak

Bernard King - take away his big year he's not even top 150, add it in and he's maybe #95 tops

Iverson - thankfully not in the top 45, shouldn't even be in the top 150. Ray Allen and Miller should both be in front of him. I'd take DJ and Cheeks over AI too.

Love? Umm no

kdspurman
01-28-2016, 02:06 PM
Curry should realistically be in about the 50-60 range. As of today, he just hasn't accomplished enough to warrant the rank he'll receive. 3-4 years down the road he'll likely deserve top 30 but not now imo.

ESPN tends to live in the moment.. I agree though. Too soon

Hawkeye15
01-28-2016, 02:10 PM
When was the last time ESPN had a top 100 of all time? I'm trying to compare their list to any previous one.

I don't ever remember seeing one

valade16
01-28-2016, 02:56 PM
45. PP
44. Nique
43. Worthy

Essentially all equal by rankings.

still1ballin
01-28-2016, 03:15 PM
Can't read a stat sheet?

Can't count rings?

bootsy
01-28-2016, 05:37 PM
Iverson - thankfully not in the top 45, shouldn't even be in the top 150. Ray Allen and Miller should both be in front of him. I'd take DJ and Cheeks over AI too.



Still with the WOAT opinions I see. DJ and Cheeks were glue guys not even close to AI's level.

NYKalltheway
01-28-2016, 05:58 PM
I don't ever remember seeing one

Then I'm probably confusing it with SLAM or some other magazine or network's attempt.

NYKalltheway
01-28-2016, 06:00 PM
Still with the WOAT opinions I see. DJ and Cheeks were glue guys not even close to AI's level.

Cheeks was a basketball hero. There's no other way to describe this guy's intensity and skill.
Dennis Johnson was superb.

You call them "glue" guys, but if you had them today on NBA teams, they'd be all-stars, all-NBA 1st and 2nd team members throughout their career and occassional DPOY and MVP contenders respectively.
Iverson was better offensively than either of them, but he wasn't more beneficial to him team than those two guys.

Hawkeye15
01-28-2016, 06:10 PM
Cheeks was a basketball hero. There's no other way to describe this guy's intensity and skill.
Dennis Johnson was superb.

You call them "glue" guys, but if you had them today on NBA teams, they'd be all-stars, all-NBA 1st and 2nd team members throughout their career and occassional DPOY and MVP contenders respectively.
Iverson was better offensively than either of them, but he wasn't more beneficial to him team than those two guys.

No way DJ is a contender to win MVP today, but I do think he is one of the more underrated players in history. Absolutely elite defender, very good decision maker on offense.

I would take DJ over Iverson. Maybe Cheeks too, I have to think more about that one. He was so lucky playing next to Toney, Doc, Moses, Cunningham, and then Barkley later. If Cheeks is as good as you claim, that team should have won a lot more during his tenure.

NYKalltheway
01-28-2016, 06:30 PM
No way DJ is a contender to win MVP today, but I do think he is one of the more underrated players in history. Absolutely elite defender, very good decision maker on offense.

I would take DJ over Iverson. Maybe Cheeks too, I have to think more about that one. He was so lucky playing next to Toney, Doc, Moses, Cunningham, and then Barkley later. If Cheeks is as good as you claim, that team should have won a lot more during his tenure.


Yes, they should have been able to beat the Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson, Ainge etc) so many times.

1984, they lost to a good Nets team (Buck Williams, Dawkins, Sugar Ray Richardson before his collapse, and a forgotten Otis Birdsong who had many great seasons as a 2 guard.
Cheeks was the best player for the 76ers in those series and Julius Erving was lost.

1985, lost in 5 to the Celtics (best of 7). No arguments here. It wasn't a blow out series, most games were close enough.

1986, lost in 7 to the Bucks, 1 point game. One of the best Game 7 in NBA playoff history. Cheeks again, best player on the court for the 76ers in that playoff run. A team that included Barkley and an old Dr J

1987, bad season, lost in 5 (best of 5) to the Bucks but they couldn't have beaten the Celtics that year anyway. Cheeks had another great series. Bucks included Pressey, Cummings, Sikma, Skiles and Ricky Pierce.

1988, they gave up on the season. It was all about Barkley and Cheeks. I still don't understand why they did that.

1989, barely made playoffs and lost to the Knicks in a 3-0 sweep. One of the best Knicks teams I remember with Patrick Ewing in his prime, Oakley, Mark Jackson, Gerald Wilkins, Rod Strickland as a rookie, Kiki... Lost in 6 to Jordan after that of course :D


You can't blame Mo Cheeks for his team's lack of success. In fact, he was the reason why the 76ers started to become a serious franchise (surely the Moses Malone made them contenders). The guy would upgrade any team's PG spot unless they were named John Stockton, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas or Kevin Johnson. Could argue he was on the same level as Dennis Johnson (I prefer him as a SG tbh) or Mark Jackson, but the way he played gives him too much credit. I love it when players have such desire to win and show so much intensity on the court.
I know this may be a bit biased, but here goes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwOo-QQIdjA

RaiderLakersA's
01-28-2016, 07:37 PM
Talk about your prisoner of the moment lists. There are some names on ESPN's list that don't rate top 100 consideration in my book. Some don't even rate top 500. Stop the madness, BSPN.

valade16
01-28-2016, 07:46 PM
Now that we know everyone in the top 100 (by cross referencing with their top 10 position lists, who should be on it that isn't? Who is in it that shouldn't be?

Love, Marc Gasol, and Griffin definitely shouldn't be on it. Carmelo maybe. Westbrook and Harden either near the bottom or not on it either.

For old timers Gail Goodrich is an interesting pick.

Anyone else have opinions on who should or shouldn't be on the list?

Chronz
01-28-2016, 11:19 PM
Still with the WOAT opinions I see. DJ and Cheeks were glue guys not even close to AI's level.
Glue guys Can exceed supersede the impact of a "star"

tredigs
01-28-2016, 11:51 PM
Talk about your prisoner of the moment lists. There are some names on ESPN's list that don't rate top 100 consideration in my book. Some don't even rate top 500. Stop the madness, BSPN.

Good luck defending this comment. These are all UNQUESTIONABLY top-200 in history.

Chronz
01-29-2016, 12:04 AM
Lol exceed supersede. Man i need to stop posting whilst drunk

Chronz
01-29-2016, 12:06 AM
Side note: at a dive bar, bartender is cute as hell but abit chunky. How many drinks does it take to reach the point of no return

kdspurman
01-29-2016, 12:08 AM
Side note: at a dive bar, bartender is cute as hell but abit chunky. How many drinks does it take to reach the point of no return

I'll go with 6

HandsOnTheWheel
01-29-2016, 12:18 AM
lol

kdspurman
01-29-2016, 04:53 PM
36-40 updated

valade16
01-29-2016, 05:06 PM
Clyde Drexler at 36 is low.

Hawkeye15
01-29-2016, 06:19 PM
Side note: at a dive bar, bartender is cute as hell but abit chunky. How many drinks does it take to reach the point of no return

everyone has their own number. Knowing you Chronz, probably about half a beer

Hawkeye15
01-29-2016, 06:20 PM
and where the **** is Jimmy Chipwood?

Chronz
01-29-2016, 09:14 PM
everyone has their own number. Knowing you Chronz, probably about half a beer
You're either dissing my drinking ability or complimenting my pickup game. Net neutral comment

JAZZNC
01-30-2016, 01:20 AM
You're either dissing my drinking ability or complimenting my pickup game. Net neutral comment

I think he just meant that you like banging fat chicks.

ManningToTyree
01-30-2016, 01:15 PM
Curry is too high.

Hawkeye15
01-30-2016, 03:23 PM
You're either dissing my drinking ability or complimenting my pickup game. Net neutral comment

yes both. And maybe you have a soft spot for the big girls haha

FraziersKnicks
01-30-2016, 04:01 PM
Side note: at a dive bar, bartender is cute as hell but abit chunky. How many drinks does it take to reach the point of no return

Depends on your definition of "chunky" and "point of no return".

GottaLoveCubs
01-31-2016, 01:16 AM
This list is awful. Marc Gasol on it already? Blake Griffin ranked higher than Chris Bosh?! That is awful! Griffin shouldn't even be on the list. The guy can only do 1 thing and has only been doing it for a few years.

KnicksorBust
01-31-2016, 07:44 AM
Side note: at a dive bar, bartender is cute as hell but abit chunky. How many drinks does it take to reach the point of no return

I have been up since 5am from feeding my 2 month old twins. I demand a follow-up to this dive bar cute bartender story.

HandsOnTheWheel
02-01-2016, 06:15 PM
Ewing is too high and Curry's in the top 30.

valade16
02-01-2016, 07:55 PM
Ewing is too high and Curry's in the top 30.

Ewing too high? If anything he's too low. He should be ahead of McHale.

HandsOnTheWheel
02-01-2016, 08:26 PM
Why should he be higher?

Chronz
02-01-2016, 08:38 PM
Tmac below English? WTF, your teammates shouldn't be that influential. English was less productive and a FAR inferior defender, did that twig even play defense?

Chronz
02-01-2016, 08:43 PM
I have been up since 5am from feeding my 2 month old twins. I demand a follow-up to this dive bar cute bartender story.

I envy you.

I've become a regular for the 2 weeks that Im helping my friend, seen her a couple of times but its clear I have no shot with this fattie. Shes just a player who flirts to get tips. Cant hate on her tho, she knows how to treat her regulars (got free shots+sliders last Thursday) and she even gets some of the saddest individuals to dance. Guys who look like they're on the verge of suicide let loose a smile for her, I appreciate her but man, just tell me you dont want me stalking you instead of pretending you dont have an instagram.

Her only flaw, she has a high sense of self respect and admiration. She claims to have fans but wont take a picture with me? Wat a *****

Hawkeye15
02-01-2016, 08:45 PM
Tmac below English? WTF, your teammates shouldn't be that influential. English was less productive and a FAR inferior defender, did that twig even play defense?

I loved English growing up. Did Denver have anyone that defended? They basically just wanted to try and get to 130 and dare you to outscore them.

shep33
02-01-2016, 08:59 PM
Pau should be higher

ManningToTyree
02-02-2016, 05:12 PM
Mchale in front of Ewing? This list is crap lol

HandsOnTheWheel
02-02-2016, 05:53 PM
Curry above Hondo and Wade so far. Lol ok ESPN.

J_M_B
02-02-2016, 05:59 PM
This is getting crazy, Curry is top 25 already?

Don't get me wrong, he's probably played the best basketball I've ever seen the last season and a half, but this seems way too early.

I need to see more on the resume

mngopher35
02-02-2016, 06:05 PM
It seems like they overrated basically all of the current high level players which is why we see Curry/Durant about to be top 25 already in their careers (Westbrook, Griffin and others have been mentioned before as too high so far). I said this in just the positional rankings too but it seems to me like they are kind of projecting with these guys since their careers are so short and they haven't started declining yet (IMO players like Gasol/Wade etc. are ranked better even though they are currently playing because they don't get that benefit being past their peak). I don't like it but if you consider this when looking at their rankings it seems to fit more.

NYKalltheway
02-02-2016, 06:13 PM
It seems like they overrated basically all of the current high level players which is why we see Curry/Durant about to be top 25 already in their careers (Westbrook, Griffin and others have been mentioned before as too high so far). I said this in just the positional rankings too but it seems to me like they are kind of projecting with these guys since their careers are so short and they haven't started declining yet (IMO players like Gasol/Wade etc. are ranked better even though they are currently playing because they don't get that benefit being past their peak). I don't like it but if you consider this when looking at their rankings it seems to fit more.

They're not projecting. They're hyping. They're telling you "watch these top 20 players live" and "watch them make history" and all that. It's purely marketing. 5 years later they put them in the 30s then 20-30 years later maybe the 40-50s at best. That's how you market this product. By saying that you're witnessing history in the making and watching some of the best players of all time. As if 'the best players in the world right now' isn't enough.

mngopher35
02-02-2016, 06:35 PM
They're not projecting. They're hyping. They're telling you "watch these top 20 players live" and "watch them make history" and all that. It's purely marketing. 5 years later they put them in the 30s then 20-30 years later maybe the 40-50s at best. That's how you market this product. By saying that you're witnessing history in the making and watching some of the best players of all time. As if 'the best players in the world right now' isn't enough.

Some of it for sure could be this but my main point was just that players currently playing at or around their peak levels got overrated here. I do think it is extremely tough to judge current players vs. past players when you have seen better top level play but just are missing the longevity factor.

In 20 years I think it is far more likely to have at least one of if not both Durant/Curry in the top 30 like this list has them than in the 40's-50's at best though. Outside of major injury that is. I don't mean just espn lists either, I mean basketball fans in general will have them that high and deservedly so.

YAALREADYKNO
02-02-2016, 06:47 PM
Dang I thought Wade would at least break the top 20-25

Jeffy25
02-02-2016, 06:59 PM
I think he just meant that you like banging fat chicks.

ya, but butterface

valade16
02-02-2016, 09:08 PM
If Curry and Durant keep up their current paces (no given) they have a great chance at being top 25 ever.

Westbrook and Griffin were way too high. Kevin Love should not be on the list at all. Chris Paul is probably a little high based on his lack of team success but he is extremely talented. I'm surprised and delighted they showed such restraint with Harden, I figured he would be way higher on the list.

They have Nash very high, so obviously his 2 MVPs helped him a lot there.

NYKalltheway
02-03-2016, 08:41 AM
splitting them by eras, based on prime, some could be on two lists, will be displayed in italics. Other than the first section, all the rest will be split into approximately 10 year periods. (Mid could mean x4 to x6, it's not easy to group them all together, nor is it fair to use chronological decades)


first BAA years till late 60s: (9+1)
93. Lenny Wilkens
90. Paul Arizin
79. Jerry Lucas
78. Sam Jones
74. Dolph Schayes
48. Willis Reed
39. Bob Cousy
34. Bob Pettit
33. George Mikan
28. John Havlicek


ABA/NBA late 60s-mid70s: (9+5)
98. Gail Goodrich
92. Nate Thurmond
88. Billy Cunningham
85. Dave DeBusschere
79. Jerry Lucas
71. "Pistol" Pete Maravich
70. Artis Gilmore
68. Bob Lanier
60. Earl Monroe
55. Dave Cowens
53. Wes Unseld
52. Bob McAdoo
40. Elvin Hayes
38. Walt Frazier
37. Rick Barry


mid70s-early 80s: (5+7)
96. Bobby Jones
84. Dennis Johnson
82. David Thompson
76. Nate Archibald
71. "Pistol" Pete Maravich
70. Artis Gilmore
54. Bernard King
52. Bob McAdoo
47. George "Iceman" Gervin
42. Bill Walton
40. Elvin Hayes
37. Rick Barry

early80s-early 90s: (14+3)
94. Mark Price
91. Maurice Cheeks
83. Chris Mullin
81. Sidney Moncrief
77. Joe Dumars
72. Adrian Dantley
64. Dennis Rodman
62. Alex English
57. Robert Parish
54. Bernard King
47. George "Iceman" Gervin
44. Dominique Wilkins
43. James Worthy
36. Clyde Drexler
32. Patrick Ewing
31. Kevin McHale
26. Isiah Thomas


early90s-late90s: (6+2)
100. Shawn Kemp
80. Grant Hill
73. Dikembe Mutombo
66. Chris Webber
65. Alonzo Mourning
51. Reggie Miller
41. Gary Payton
32. Patrick Ewing


late 90s-mid 2000s: (4+4)
89. Yao Ming
69. Vince Carter
66. Chris Webber
63. Tracy McGrady
50. Ray Allen
46.Allen Iverson
45. Paul Pierce
35. Jason Kidd


modern era (2004-2015/16): (15+3)
99. Kevin Love
97. James Harden
95. Marc Gasol
89. Yao Ming
87. Chauncey Billups
86. Chris Bosh
75. Blake Griffin
67. Dwight Howard
61. Manu Ginobili
59. Carmelo Anthony
58. Tony Parker
56. Pau Gasol
50. Ray Allen
49. Russell Westbrook
45. Paul Pierce
30. Steve Nash
29. Chris Paul
27. Dwyane Wade



we're still waiting on:
Wilt Chamberlain (first two categories)
Kareem Abdul Jabar (70s and 80s)
David Robinson (90s)
Shaquille O'Neal (90s and early 2000s)
Moses Malone (mid 70s and 80s)
Hakeem Olajuwon (80s and 90s)
Bill Russell (first category)
Jerry West (first two categories)
Kobe Bryant (early 2000s and modern)
Michael Jordan (80s and 90s)
Karl Malone (80s and 90s)
Tim Duncan (early 2000s and modern)
Dirk Nowitzki (modern)
Charles Barkley (80s and 90s)
Kevin Garnett (early 2000s and modern)
Steph Curry (modern)
John Stockton (80s and 90s)
Oscar Robertson (first two categories)
Magic Johnson (80s)
Lebron James (modern)
Larry Bird (80s)
Julius Erving (mid 70s and 80s)
Kevin Durant (modern)
Elgin Baylor (first category)
Scottie Pippen (90s)

leprechaun5
02-03-2016, 11:37 AM
Curry and Durant ahead of Wade and Isiah is just disgraceful.

Hawkeye15
02-03-2016, 12:10 PM
Wade didn't finish top 25?

YAALREADYKNO
02-03-2016, 12:17 PM
Scottie pippen just came in at #25

HandsOnTheWheel
02-03-2016, 12:30 PM
Wade didn't finish top 25?

Yep.

KnicksorBust
02-03-2016, 12:33 PM
Curry and Durant ahead of Wade and Isiah is just disgraceful.

I actually completely agree with you. Although would you feel this way if Curry wins his 2nd MVP this season and 2nd championship? In terms of Curry we might not be too far away from it being a reality...

NYKalltheway
02-03-2016, 12:58 PM
I actually completely agree with you. Although would you feel this way if Curry wins his 2nd MVP this season and 2nd championship? In terms of Curry we might not be too far away from it being a reality...

What difference does it make? It's still the same basketball player.

tredigs
02-03-2016, 01:06 PM
What difference does it make? It's still the same basketball player.

Because the greatest individual and greatest team achievement in the basketball sports world matter, specifically if he were to do it with all guns aimed at him/them. When every Warriors away game has the buzz of the fans/media akin to seeing a viewing of Cirque de Soleil (seriously, I recommend all of you go watch this team in your home-town if you have the chance, just to see the spectacle that it is for the fans right now), it adds pressure to the games that he and the Warriors did not have last season. It's part of the reason why repeats are so difficult.

But, if you're just looking at him as a player and don't care about continuing the process, personal accolades and team achievements, then I can only assume you have Curry top 20 All Time at this point as an individual talent.

SLY WILLIAMS
02-03-2016, 01:10 PM
Mchale in front of Ewing? This list is crap lol

McHale was a pretty darn good player but I do find it hard to believe any GMs would take Steve Nash, Chris Paul, or Dwyane Wade over Patrick Ewing. These lists are not easy so I'm not going to bash the list maker but I do wonder how it was composed. Patrick was a big dog alpha carrying his team year after year. Patrick was the Jordan Bulls best competition in multiple years. He was not a guy who was eliminated in the first round year after year or a side kick. People today talk about big 3's. Patrick did not even have a big 2. Patrick did not get to pair up with a Shaq or Lebron to win a title. It was Patrick surrounded by role players for much of his career.

ewing
02-03-2016, 01:11 PM
Because the greatest individual and greatest team achievement in the basketball sports world matter, specifically if he were to do it with all guns aimed at him/them. When every Warriors away game has the buzz of the fans/media about to enter a viewing of Cirque de Soleil (seriously, I recommend all of you go watch this team in your home-town if you have the chance, just to see the spectacle that it is for the fans right now), it adds pressure to the games that the he and the Warriors did not have last season. It's part of the reason why repeats are so difficult.

But, if you're just looking at him as a player and don't care about continuing the process, personal accolades and team achievements, then I can only assume you have Curry top 20 All Time at this point as an individual talent.

your Warriors certainly aren't suffering from a championship hangover. Pretty damn impressive

NYKalltheway
02-03-2016, 01:16 PM
Because the greatest individual and greatest team achievement in the basketball sports world matter, specifically if he were to do it with all guns aimed at him/them. When every Warriors away game has the buzz of the fans/media about to enter a viewing of Cirque de Soleil (seriously, I recommend all of you go watch this team in your home-town if you have the chance, just to see the spectacle that it is for the fans right now), it adds pressure to the games that the he and the Warriors did not have last season. It's part of the reason why repeats are so difficult.

But, if you're just looking at him as a player and don't care about continuing the process, personal accolades and team achievements, then I can only assume you have Curry top 20 All Time at this point as an individual talent.

These stuff are important for legacy, but they don't really impact a player's talent.

Steph Curry is one of the greatest offensive threats of all time, that's definite. Top 1-5-10-20-30-40 it doesn't matter, it's Top something.
As a player overall, of course you have to take into account a player's longevity, but that doesn't make them better than others. Improving their game and not declining before reaching a certain age or years in(let's say 32, or 10 seasons in) is what's important.

tredigs
02-03-2016, 01:24 PM
These stuff are important for legacy, but they don't really impact a player's talent.

Steph Curry is one of the greatest offensive threats of all time, that's definite. Top 1-5-10-20-30-40 it doesn't matter, it's Top something.
As a player overall, of course you have to take into account a player's longevity, but that doesn't make them better than others. Improving their game and not declining before reaching a certain age or years in(let's say 32, or 10 seasons in) is what's important.

If that's your line of thought, fair enough, but consider that "legacy" is one of the major criteria for these lists, and even though Curry has indeed made that leap in his game (that has translated to the team as a whole as well) over his/their MVP + 'ship campaign last season, if he were to fall off from his current form or go down with a high ankle sprain to miss the final month of the season + playoffs, then that would effect matters (for both his personal and teams All Time standing).

Hawkeye15
02-03-2016, 01:25 PM
eeck, Wade should be somewhere 20-25

leprechaun5
02-03-2016, 01:36 PM
I actually completely agree with you. Although would you feel this way if Curry wins his 2nd MVP this season and 2nd championship? In terms of Curry we might not be too far away from it being a reality...

I still think it's early for him to be considered that high on this list. In terms of talent and what kind of unstoppable force he is right now, he should probably be a top 15-20 player ever already but to consider him a top 25 player with 2 and a half great season just doesn't make sense. Longevity matters, otherwise the list should be named top 100 peaks in NBA history.

Hypothetical question: Would you take Wade career or Curry/Durant career right now?

kdspurman
02-03-2016, 01:44 PM
I still think it's early for him to be considered that high on this list. In terms of talent and what kind of unstoppable force he is right now, he should probably be a top 15-20 player ever already but to consider him a top 25 player with 2 and a half great season just doesn't make sense. Longevity matters, otherwise the list should be named top 100 peaks in NBA history.

Hypothetical question: Would you take Wade career or Curry/Durant career right now?

Sums up how I feel as well

tredigs
02-03-2016, 01:54 PM
With Curry, assuming they used the same panel-voting process as their top 10 position lists, you knew he was going to go 16-24 just based on the fact that he went #4 as a PG. Wade definitely went lower than I would have had him if they are valuing peak as much as they are.


Elgin Baylor went #24.

valade16
02-03-2016, 02:50 PM
With Curry, assuming they used the same panel-voting process as their top 10 position lists, you knew he was going to go 16-24 just based on the fact that he went #4 as a PG. Wade definitely went lower than I would have had him if they are valuing peak as much as they are.

Elgin Baylor went #24.

I cross referenced the lists already, and they are. Basically they took the Top 100 list and just broke it down by Top 10 at each position. It was all the same voting.

As for Elgin, ESPN apparently likes my last ATRD team a lot more than PSD did (Baylor 24, Kidd 35, Walton 42, McAdoo 52 and Dumars 77) lol.

Matter.
02-03-2016, 04:47 PM
Curry at #23 , Durant #22

leprechaun5
02-03-2016, 05:28 PM
KG at 21 is wrong. He's a top 15 lock IMO, ahead of course of every other PF except for Duncan.

YAALREADYKNO
02-03-2016, 05:49 PM
KG at 21 is wrong. He's a top 15 lock IMO, ahead of course of every other PF except for Duncan.

I thought for sure he'd break the top 20 at least

leprechaun5
02-03-2016, 05:52 PM
I thought for sure he'd break the top 20 at least

It's ESPN. They pay Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith real money. Enough said about them.

KingJames6
02-03-2016, 06:52 PM
Curry's ranking is more of them trying to indicate what he will do as opposed to what he's already done. Heck, right now he's having the greatest individual season in the history of the NBA. I completely agree with Durant's placement, as well. The dude is the definition of scoring machine and deadly efficiency. I could easily argue he's the best perimeter scorer since Jordan. IMO though DWade should definitely be above Curry as of right now. Sure, no MVP, but he has a scoring title, Finals MVP, 3 Championships, and was just a complete and utter monster in his prime, (arguably up to par with or superior to even Kobe Bryant.) I'm happy that Charles Barkley and David Robinson were able to crack the top 20, though.

More-Than-Most
02-03-2016, 06:56 PM
Curry's ranking is more of them trying to indicate what he will do as opposed to what he's already done. Heck, right now he's having the greatest individual season in the history of the NBA. I completely agree with Durant's placement, as well. The dude is the definition of scoring machine and deadly efficiency. I could easily argue he's the best perimeter scorer since Jordan. IMO though DWade should definitely be above Curry as of right now. Sure, no MVP, but he has a scoring title, Finals MVP, 3 Championships, and was just a complete and utter monster in his prime, (arguably up to par with or superior to even Kobe Bryant.) I'm happy that Charles Barkley and David Robinson were able to crack the top 20, though.

Lebron James says hello the year he was as good all around offensively and should have been the defensive player of the year.... Ya know defense does in fact matter.

KingJames6
02-03-2016, 07:01 PM
Lebron James says hello the year he was as good all around offensively and should have been the defensive player of the year.... Ya know defense does in fact matter.

Stats don't lie. Curry's got the edge in PER, ws/48, and BPM over 2012-2013 Lebron, and they have the same DRTG. Not that the season you're referencing is the best ever, or Lebron's best, for that matter. Nor am I saying Curry will keep up his current pace.

tredigs
02-03-2016, 07:16 PM
It's ESPN. They pay Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith real money. Enough said about them.

That they make smart business decisions?

ESPN is a massive network spanning virtually all major sports that employs nearly 10,000 employees worldwide who in turn have a massive amount of differentiating opinions. While they have their dunces who serve a different purpose than to simply give us meaningful information about the sports we care about, they also employ a number of employees who are a hell of a lot more knowledgeable in their disciplines than 99.9% of the posters who contribute on this site or any other.

I'm not sure who the exact voters were in these top 10 position / top 100 overall debates, but I have very little reason to believe they are less versed in the game than your average PSD voter.

still1ballin
02-03-2016, 10:45 PM
Durant better than Wade? Where's that guy who as gonna lose it if Wade wasn't top 10 or something

PatsSoxKnicks
02-04-2016, 01:21 AM
I cross referenced the lists already, and they are. Basically they took the Top 100 list and just broke it down by Top 10 at each position. It was all the same voting.

As for Elgin, ESPN apparently likes my last ATRD team a lot more than PSD did (Baylor 24, Kidd 35, Walton 42, McAdoo 52 and Dumars 77) lol.

My former editor was one of the voters in the ESPN rank- said they were given a long list of head to head matchups where you chose who was better among the 2 players. And then that was used to determine the overall rank. Very easy process- as opposed to choosing among 5 guys where it might be hard to pick one, you just match head to head and decide whose better.

PatsSoxKnicks
02-04-2016, 01:26 AM
That they make smart business decisions?

ESPN is a massive network spanning virtually all major sports that employs nearly 10,000 employees worldwide who in turn have a massive amount of differentiating opinions. While they have their dunces who serve a different purpose than to simply give us meaningful information about the sports we care about, they also employ a number of employees who are a hell of a lot more knowledgeable in their disciplines than 99.9% of the posters who contribute on this site or any other.

I'm not sure who the exact voters were in these top 10 position / top 100 overall debates, but I have very little reason to believe they are less versed in the game than your average PSD voter.

Yup. Average PSD voter overrates their knowledge. I'd trust a Zach Lowe type way more than your average PSD poster (heck even NBA execs/GMs have lunch time conversations about Lowe's articles)

tredigs
02-04-2016, 01:28 AM
My former editor was one of the voters in the ESPN rank- said they were given a long list of head to head matchups where you chose who was better among the 2 players. And then that was used to determine the overall rank. Very easy process- as opposed to choosing among 5 guys where it might be hard to pick one, you just match head to head and decide whose better.
This is the way it was explained to me as well. To me, it's a quicker and less meaningful process than what this debate actually deserves, but such is life in 2016.

MTar786
02-04-2016, 01:53 AM
wade so underrated.

PatsSoxKnicks
02-04-2016, 02:02 AM
This is the way it was explained to me as well. To me, it's a quicker and less meaningful process than what this debate actually deserves, but such is life in 2016.

Maybe but it's done to make the process easier and to make it more "exact". For example, you're choosing between 2 players and it's a lot easier to be confident in your choice then if you are choosing between 5 players. I think it does make a lot of sense especially where you have so many people voting. Though I admit there are downsides.

As an aside, I liked how Pelton looked at it statistically- came up with a Championships added metric which weighted regular season performance, MVPs, all-stars, etc. Hopefully he posts a full list at some point.

tredigs
02-04-2016, 02:49 AM
^Overall, it's the process that makes the most sense. The debate and nuance is fun, but I understand why they did it the way they did.

I saw that Pelton Championships added metric. There's some contention behind it btw; basically that it was a stolen stat from a less heralded contributor. Which would be lame, but ultimately for us, who cares.

PatsSoxKnicks
02-04-2016, 02:54 AM
^Overall, it's the process that makes the most sense. The debate and nuance is fun, but I understand why they did it the way they did.

I saw that Pelton Championships added metric. There's some contention behind it btw; basically that it was a stolen stat from a less heralded contributor. Which would be lame, but ultimately for us, who cares.

Interesting, didn't know that. Based on a twitter conversation, I wonder if it's my boss. Can maybe take this to PMs so we don't get off topic. Am curious where the stolen stat came from (as someone whose heavily involved in the stats community myself).

valade16
02-04-2016, 08:10 AM
Yup. Average PSD voter overrates their knowledge. I'd trust a Zach Lowe type way more than your average PSD poster (heck even NBA execs/GMs have lunch time conversations about Lowe's articles)

Everyone wants to rag on it because it's ESPN, but outside of a handful of current guys, they did a pretty good job IMO.

And I think they darn near nailed who should be in the Top 20 (haven't seen the order) but these are the guys Top 20:

Magic
Big O
Stockton
Jordan
Kobe
West
Bron
Bird
Dr. J
Duncan
Karl
Dirk
Barkley
KAJ
Wilt
Shaq
Russell
Hakeem
Moses
D-Rob

FraziersKnicks
02-04-2016, 08:36 AM
Stats don't lie. Curry's got the edge in PER, ws/48, and BPM over 2012-2013 Lebron, and they have the same DRTG. Not that the season you're referencing is the best ever, or Lebron's best, for that matter. Nor am I saying Curry will keep up his current pace.

Please don't use DRTG. It's way to heavily focused on how good your teammates are defensively and is a terrible stat for portraying someone's defensive impact. Are you telling me Pau Gasol (97.9) is having a better defensive season than Draymond Green (98.6)? Or LaMarcus Aldridge (97.4) is better defensively than Rudy Gobert (99.5)?
LaMarcus Aldridge is a career 106 DRTG player in Portland and now suddenly he's a top 5 defender in the league? No.

DBPM is a much better metric to use, and it places Curry at league average for defense (0.1 DBPM... Where 0 is league average.)

Offensively, Curry's season is better than LeBron's monster 2012-13, but defensively, Curry this season is nowhere near what LeBron was that season. As an overall season of dominance on both sides of the ball, LeBron season was superior. Not to mention he also led the Heat to a ring and Finals MVP that year. So Curry still has a ton to do.

KnicksorBust
02-04-2016, 09:09 AM
I still think it's early for him to be considered that high on this list. In terms of talent and what kind of unstoppable force he is right now, he should probably be a top 15-20 player ever already but to consider him a top 25 player with 2 and a half great season just doesn't make sense. Longevity matters, otherwise the list should be named top 100 peaks in NBA history.

Hypothetical question: Would you take Wade career or Curry/Durant career right now?

So it's a great question because it's the part of the debate where everyone seems to value things slightly different. It's why guys like Walton can be ranked all over the place. Is it better to be Robert Parish and very good for a long time or amazing for 2 seasons and then have a career decimated by injuries? In terms of my all-time rankings I don't value "talent" as highly as most. I've always valued longevity and team success very highly. Probably more highly than the typical poster but to me those are the most important aspects of a players career. This is why I have Duncan and Kobe in my top 5. They check those boxes very strongly.

In terms of your question right now I would take Wade's career over both of them. And I wouldn't even hesitate. BUT the caveat is that Curry is doing something historic and I believe if Curry finishes this season at this pace. Wins a(n) [almost] unanimous MVP. Then leads the Warriors on another title run... and wins Finals MVP. Then suddenly I'd have to look at his career and Wade's careers very closely. To be honest 2 league MVPs and 2 rings while producing arguably the most impressive offensive season in NBA History would put Curry ahead of Wade but that would be a great debate. Because I have very vivid memories of 2006, 2009 Wade who was a part of the great MVP debate, and he was solid as a sidekick in 12 and 13. My gut, I'd take Curry. But again we are a long ways away from his finishing his historic regular season and winning another championship.

Until Durant wins a ring he is a clear level below them.

NYKalltheway
02-04-2016, 10:00 AM
There's never any consistenty with these lists. That's the major issue.

They just mix prime, peak, talent, accolades that don't have much to do with individual quality, they only downgrade older eras (which is why Mikan is always so low) so there's no adjustment in the difficulty to play per era... Some are just guys who imacted the NBA but are lacking in comparison with others in terms of talent and anything else.


For example, if I was asked to create a top 20 of players who IMPACTED the NBA the most, throughout its history, we'd see some top 20 guys that you won't see anywhere else.

1. Michael Jordan - made the NBA global
2. George Mikan - changed the game's rules
3. Wilt Chamberlain - changed the game's rules
4. Bill Russell - first dynasty and first African-American superstar in the league
5. Pete Maravich - created the way for flashy guards
6. Elgin Baylor - saved the Lakers franchise and created the way for flashy forwards
7. Bob McAdoo - showed the world that a big can play and shoot from distance
8. Allen Iverson - virtually created this era. Almost everything associated with 2010s NBA can be traced back to Allen Iverson.
9. Vince Carter - followed Nique's steps and made dunks look like a normal thing to see in every game
10. Ming Yao - essentially saved the NBA's global marketing position in the post-Jordan era with Asian money. I think he still is the most recognizable NBA player in the world, even ahead of Jordan.
11 & 12. Magic Johnson & Larry Bird. Might be too low here, but these guys saved the NBA from bankruptcy, while this might be a reach, there's a strong element of truth in it. And they revived rivalries in NBA basketball.
13. Julius Erving - changed the NBA game and added some ABA(entertainment) flavor in it.
14. Oscar Robertson - the first real superstar in the NBA that was under 6ft9
15. Darryl Dawkins - showed that pure power can be effective and we've enjoyed Shaq as a result
16. George Gervin - ensured that flair became something to care about in terms of scoring ability
17. Dominique Wilkins - pretty much the prototype Vince Carter back in the 80s, as this is all about impact and pioneering with Clyde Drexler being an honorable mention.
18. Reggie Miller - showed that you can become an NBA superstar even if you're called "just a shooter" (which he was not)
19. Dirk Nowitzki - first 7 footer to have a great career in the NBA being mostly a perimeter and midrange threat and created a new type of bigs, mostly imported from Europe for the time being
20. Shawn Kemp (featuring Gary Payton) - Lob city.
honorable mention: Isiah Thomas and co, for basically building the road for the modern era's rules.
Kareem's ban of dunkng was in the college game so I don't think it fits, maybe his whole style is worth being here though but no one copied his sky hook, at least successfully.

I'd also mention Cousy, McHale and some other European guys but I'd prefer to keep it about 2016 and the modern game rather than historically as a whole.

I think Steph Curry can easily enter the top 20 if there's someone to follow his Warriors' steps and win the league as a 3pt threat team, but so far this is just the begining and there's no way of knowing the impact. If anything, we could use Steve Nash here as a pioneer whereas Steph Curry has managed it, but it's not that direct.

tredigs
02-04-2016, 12:13 PM
There's never any consistenty with these lists. That's the major issue.

They just mix prime, peak, talent, accolades that don't have much to do with individual quality, they only downgrade older eras (which is why Mikan is always so low) so there's no adjustment in the difficulty to play per era... Some are just guys who imacted the NBA but are lacking in comparison with others in terms of talent and anything else.


For example, if I was asked to create a top 20 of players who IMPACTED the NBA the most, throughout its history, we'd see some top 20 guys that you won't see anywhere else.

1. Michael Jordan - made the NBA global
2. George Mikan - changed the game's rules
3. Wilt Chamberlain - changed the game's rules
4. Bill Russell - first dynasty and first African-American superstar in the league
5. Pete Maravich - created the way for flashy guards
6. Elgin Baylor - saved the Lakers franchise and created the way for flashy forwards
7. Bob McAdoo - showed the world that a big can play and shoot from distance
8. Allen Iverson - virtually created this era. Almost everything associated with 2010s NBA can be traced back to Allen Iverson.
9. Vince Carter - followed Nique's steps and made dunks look like a normal thing to see in every game
10. Ming Yao - essentially saved the NBA's global marketing position in the post-Jordan era with Asian money. I think he still is the most recognizable NBA player in the world, even ahead of Jordan.
11 & 12. Magic Johnson & Larry Bird. Might be too low here, but these guys saved the NBA from bankruptcy, while this might be a reach, there's a strong element of truth in it. And they revived rivalries in NBA basketball.
13. Julius Erving - changed the NBA game and added some ABA(entertainment) flavor in it.
14. Oscar Robertson - the first real superstar in the NBA that was under 6ft9
15. Darryl Dawkins - showed that pure power can be effective and we've enjoyed Shaq as a result
16. George Gervin - ensured that flair became something to care about in terms of scoring ability
17. Dominique Wilkins - pretty much the prototype Vince Carter back in the 80s, as this is all about impact and pioneering with Clyde Drexler being an honorable mention.
18. Reggie Miller - showed that you can become an NBA superstar even if you're called "just a shooter" (which he was not)
19. Dirk Nowitzki - first 7 footer to have a great career in the NBA being mostly a perimeter and midrange threat and created a new type of bigs, mostly imported from Europe for the time being
20. Shawn Kemp (featuring Gary Payton) - Lob city.
honorable mention: Isiah Thomas and co, for basically building the road for the modern era's rules.
Kareem's ban of dunkng was in the college game so I don't think it fits, maybe his whole style is worth being here though but no one copied his sky hook, at least successfully.

I'd also mention Cousy, McHale and some other European guys but I'd prefer to keep it about 2016 and the modern game rather than historically as a whole.

I think Steph Curry can easily enter the top 20 if there's someone to follow his Warriors' steps and win the league as a 3pt threat team, but so far this is just the begining and there's no way of knowing the impact. If anything, we could use Steve Nash here as a pioneer whereas Steph Curry has managed it, but it's not that direct.

...Which is all well and good (albeit extremely subjective and I'd disagree with much of your placement. No Bob Cousy while saying Pistol created the way for flashy guards stood out immediately, and Bob Pettit would have to be there for being the first stretch 4 who could bang), but certainly not any way I'd want to see an All-Time Greatest in NBA History list created. First of all, it's insanely skewed to the early generations for no reason other than the fact that they were there first, and as such were the innovators by default.

Edit: Timely due to his passing away this week, where's Kenny Sailors for innovating (or at the very least popularizing) the jump shot? I'd say that ranks higher than paving the way for flashy guards on an All-Time impact list.


Long story medium length, making All-Time lists is never easy due to the massive amount of A) differentiating opinions on the exact same players and B) what is being valued most. But, the room for discussion is what makes them relevant.

YAALREADYKNO
02-04-2016, 12:26 PM
David Robinson #20

valade16
02-04-2016, 12:55 PM
...Which is all well and good (albeit extremely subjective and I'd disagree with much of your placement. No Bob Cousy while saying Pistol created the way for flashy guards stood out immediately, and Bob Pettit would have to be there for being the first stretch 4 who could bang), but certainly not any way I'd want to see an All-Time Greatest in NBA History list created. First of all, it's insanely skewed to the early generations for no reason other than the fact that they were there first, and as such were the innovators by default.

Edit: Timely due to his passing away this week, where's Kenny Sailors for innovating (or at the very least popularizing) the jump shot? I'd say that ranks higher than paving the way for flashy guards on an All-Time impact list.


Long story medium length, making All-Time lists is never easy due to the massive amount of A) differentiating opinions on the exact same players and B) what is being valued most. But, the room for discussion is what makes them relevant.

I was thinking the same thing. Cousy's nickname was Houdini lol, he was definitely a flashy guard.

NYKalltheway
02-04-2016, 01:06 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Cousy's nickname was Houdini lol, he was definitely a flashy guard.

Cousy had great dribbling and passing skills, but they weren't flashy really. I mean, bounce passes were considered to be flashy back then. Maravich simply took it to a whole new level and it didn't really improve much since then.
Jerry West was as good as Cousy in dribbling and passing. And Cousy basically dribbled with only one hand. I love the guy in his historical place in basketball, but I mentioned later that it's not a historical review, but based on what the NBA is today, those were the top 20+1 guys with the most impact. Otherwise Cousy would be top 10 if that wasn't a factor.

Ken Sailors developed the jump shot long before he entered the NBA and he wasn't the only one taking jumpshots in the inaugural season.
I made an NBA list. Otherwise Bob Kurland and Leroy Edwards would be top 10.

YAALREADYKNO
02-04-2016, 01:17 PM
Stockton a better player than KG, Robinson, Isaiah, and Wade??? 😂😂😂 this list is hilarious

tredigs
02-04-2016, 01:22 PM
^Stockton was incredible, certainly not a laughable spot for him. 10 year peak of 16/13 and close to 3 steals as an elite shooter, floor general and defender. I always felt he was the Jazz' most important piece, not Malone. Didn't hurt that he was never hurt. The most important ability is availability. That's just the truth.

mngopher35
02-04-2016, 01:25 PM
I would have had both Utah guys go before kg and Robinson, they are a bit high

Hawkeye15
02-04-2016, 02:01 PM
^Stockton was incredible, certainly not a laughable spot for him. 10 year peak of 16/13 and close to 3 steals as an elite shooter, floor general and defender. I always felt he was the Jazz' most important piece, not Malone. Didn't hurt that he was never hurt. The most important ability is availability. That's just the truth.

Stockton's injury history (or lack there of) is so impressive.

I think Robinson is too low.

flea
02-04-2016, 02:04 PM
Stockton gets dogged for being white, even though he excelled at everything and played in a tougher era for guards. Same thing will happen to Nash in 5 years mark my words - we'll have posters proclaiming that there is no way he could beat someone off the dribble "these days" because he wasn't an elite athlete and that his stats are elite only because of his pace and playing with prime Stat (who will always be overrated because he was athletic, just like Shawn Kemp).

Hawkeye15
02-04-2016, 02:10 PM
Stockton gets dogged for being white, even though he excelled at everything and played in a tougher era for guards. Same thing will happen to Nash in 5 years mark my words - we'll have posters proclaiming that there is no way he could beat someone off the dribble "these days" because he wasn't an elite athlete and that his stats are elite only because of his pace and playing with prime Stat (who will always be overrated because he was athletic, just like Shawn Kemp).

just pull Nash's on/off court numbers, and laugh at them.

Uh, the greatest shooter ever prior to Curry, would have no problem off the dribble in any era. If only Nash could guard a wet paper bag haha

YAALREADYKNO
02-04-2016, 02:24 PM
^Stockton was incredible, certainly not a laughable spot for him. 10 year peak of 16/13 and close to 3 steals as an elite shooter, floor general and defender. I always felt he was the Jazz' most important piece, not Malone. Didn't hurt that he was never hurt. The most important ability is availability. That's just the truth.

Sure he's a great player. I just don't think he should be ahead of those other guys. Isiah if anything gets over looked by a lot of people

tredigs
02-04-2016, 02:25 PM
If you just search, "highest offensive rating in NBA history" for teams in statmuse or something, 50% of the top 10 are teams lead by Nash (between the Mavs/Suns). He was OK.

Shlumpledink
02-04-2016, 02:32 PM
Robinson is too low. Should/could be higher.

YAALREADYKNO
02-04-2016, 02:33 PM
Jordan
Magic
Kareem
Shaq
Wilt
Kobe
Duncan
Lebron
Hakeem
Russell
West
Dirk
Oscar
Erving
Malone
Malone
Bird

I'm guessing those are the other players left to be ranked

leprechaun5
02-04-2016, 02:40 PM
Stockton was great, I like him even more than Malone to be honest. KG at 21 is bad, very bad. Robinson is also low.

YAALREADYKNO
02-04-2016, 03:15 PM
Dirk at 17???

JAZZNC
02-04-2016, 03:43 PM
^Stockton was incredible, certainly not a laughable spot for him. 10 year peak of 16/13 and close to 3 steals as an elite shooter, floor general and defender. I always felt he was the Jazz' most important piece, not Malone. Didn't hurt that he was never hurt. The most important ability is availability. That's just the truth.
This. I certainly agree. There are arguments for the other guys but I view Stockton a lot more highly than most. I think Stockton gets pushed aside by younger fans because he was just a short white guy and they just assume he just put up numbers because of Malone. I agree that Stockton was the best player between he and Malone. I feel like he and Malone get slighted because they played with each other but we don't fault any other great players for playing with other greats. For example everybody wants to reference KGs lone title. Remind me again when Karl and Stock got the benefit of a third Hall of Famer?

mngopher35
02-04-2016, 03:57 PM
^Stockton was incredible, certainly not a laughable spot for him. 10 year peak of 16/13 and close to 3 steals as an elite shooter, floor general and defender. I always felt he was the Jazz' most important piece, not Malone. Didn't hurt that he was never hurt. The most important ability is availability. That's just the truth.
This. I certainly agree. There are arguments for the other guys but I view Stockton a lot more highly than most. I think Stockton gets pushed aside by younger fans because he was just a short white guy and they just assume he just put up numbers because of Malone. I agree that Stockton was the best player between he and Malone. I feel like he and Malone get slighted because they played with each other but we don't fault any other great players for playing with other greats. For example everybody wants to reference KGs lone title. Remind me again when Karl and Stock got the benefit of a third Hall of Famer?

Kg is one of the worst examples you could have chosen for a player surrounded by talent, especially in his peak/prime. How many years in his peak did kg get to play with someone on te level of Stockton Malone? That one year before injuring his knee?

They spent their careers together which is easily more talented than teams kg had in Minnesota. Despite that lack of support kg matches up very well in comparison (when he finally got even close to similar team talent in 04 and 08 he won MVP, dpoy, and a title)

JAZZNC
02-04-2016, 04:36 PM
Kg is one of the worst examples you could have chosen for a player surrounded by talent, especially in his peak/prime. How many years in his peak did kg get to play with someone on te level of Stockton Malone? That one year before injuring his knee?

They spent their careers together which is easily more talented than teams kg had in Minnesota. Despite that lack of support kg matches up very well in comparison (when he finally got even close to similar team talent in 04 and 08 he won MVP, dpoy, and a title)

All I was pointing out is that IMO people rate KG higher because of his lone title. He got that title playing with TWO other Hall of Fame players. Malone and Stockton never had that kind of top to bottom talent. For crying out loud their fourth best player was arguably Ostertag. But they get killed because they lost to a team who's 6th man would arguably been the Jazz third best player. Things need to be looked at with some sort of perspective. People seem to just say "they played together so what they did for 2 decades doesn't matter as much....you know because they played together". Stockton and Malone will never get the respect they deserve from the masses and I will just never understand it. KG for example has an argument for better peak but if I'm picking a guy for their career I take both Malone and Stockton easily over KG. Longevity and availability matter a lot to me in these types of conversations and KG doesn't have either of those things. Try and imagine KG at 39 being the best or second best player on a playoff team....if you aren't laughing you should be.

leprechaun5
02-04-2016, 04:57 PM
All I was pointing out is that IMO people rate KG higher because of his lone title. He got that title playing with TWO other Hall of Fame players. Malone and Stockton never had that kind of top to bottom talent. For crying out loud their fourth best player was arguably Ostertag. But they get killed because they lost to a team who's 6th man would arguably been the Jazz third best player. Things need to be looked at with some sort of perspective. People seem to just say "they played together so what they did for 2 decades doesn't matter as much....you know because they played together". Stockton and Malone will never get the respect they deserve from the masses and I will just never understand it. KG for example has an argument for better peak but if I'm picking a guy for their career I take both Malone and Stockton easily over KG. Longevity and availability matter a lot to me in these types of conversations and KG doesn't have either of those things. Try and imagine KG at 39 being the best or second best player on a playoff team....if you aren't laughing you should be.

KG is a top 10 defender ever! He had an amazing run in 2004 and injuries held that team from winning a championship. (Both Cassell and Hudson were out in that WCF, in stretches he played PG for that team). He was by far the best player on Celtics 08 championship team, that also got to the game 7 of 2010 finals.

I blame him and his contracts (also terrible management) for not having better teams in Minnesota but other than that he beats Malone in almost everything.

mngopher35
02-04-2016, 04:58 PM
All I was pointing out is that IMO people rate KG higher because of his lone title. He got that title playing with TWO other Hall of Fame players. Malone and Stockton never had that kind of top to bottom talent. For crying out loud their fourth best player was arguably Ostertag. But they get killed because they lost to a team who's 6th man would arguably been the Jazz third best player. Things need to be looked at with some sort of perspective.

Barkley and Malone have 0 rings and are higher on this list, I don't know what makes you believe his ring is pumping up his rating. Beyond that I think that if you get one true chance on a championship caliber team in your prime like KG and you win the championship in that chance while being the best player it is a big deal. I agree we need perspective but you used a horrible example based off of the only year where KG was in the same ball park talent wise and ignored the rest of their careers. I don't have Stockton/Malone lower because they don't have a ring, it's because when we look at all around talent/impact I believe KG was the superior player. In fact I am normally one to stand up for Stockton in debates and try and move him closer to Malone since many times people leave a gap between them which I think is a bit unfair (I agree with u and tre on that point)


People seem to just say "they played together so what they did for 2 decades doesn't matter as much....you know because they played together". Stockton and Malone will never get the respect they deserve from the masses and I will just never understand it. KG for example has an argument for better peak but if I'm picking a guy for their career I take both Malone and Stockton easily over KG. Longevity and availability matter a lot to me in these types of conversations and KG doesn't have either of those things. Try and imagine KG at 39 being the best or second best player on a playoff team....if you aren't laughing you should be.

The thing is you can't just ignore they played together either, especially in comparison to someone like KG. For example one of the biggest knocks on KG is that he isn't really built to just carry an offense like Dirk as that main option. Having a pg like Stockton for his career would have not only taken that pressure off him to a large extent but also put him in better position statistically as well with more efficient looks and having a lot less responsibility/attention (especially when defenses focused in come playoff time). On top of this with more talent like that next to him he could have had more of a chance in awards/post season play with better team success. I won't simply say KG is better for his ring but I also won't ignore the advantages of playing next to another top 20 talent. KG was a better all around player than Malone and the one area Malone really had an advantage (scoring) he had more help to get there playing next to an all time pg (who you yourself thinks was actually better).

KingJames6
02-04-2016, 07:25 PM
David Robinson should honestly be above all the people who were (insofar) ranked above him.

PatsSoxKnicks
02-04-2016, 07:32 PM
Everyone wants to rag on it because it's ESPN, but outside of a handful of current guys, they did a pretty good job IMO.

And I think they darn near nailed who should be in the Top 20 (haven't seen the order) but these are the guys Top 20:

Magic
Big O
Stockton
Jordan
Kobe
West
Bron
Bird
Dr. J
Duncan
Karl
Dirk
Barkley
KAJ
Wilt
Shaq
Russell
Hakeem
Moses
D-Rob

The biggest issue is that some current guys are probably being overrated but that's to be expected since they are currently playing...But outside of that, agree that it's been a pretty good list so far.

PatsSoxKnicks
02-04-2016, 08:16 PM
just pull Nash's on/off court numbers, and laugh at them.

Uh, the greatest shooter ever prior to Curry, would have no problem off the dribble in any era. If only Nash could guard a wet paper bag haha


If you just search, "highest offensive rating in NBA history" for teams in statmuse or something, 50% of the top 10 are teams lead by Nash (between the Mavs/Suns). He was OK.

Yup, dude was among one of the top players in 15-year RAPM (Plus-Minus #'s adjusted for teammates' and opponent): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CA4KxmzjZrTlYqxNU85jkUnCcqvJjsP5LT818LSYjkk/edit?usp=sharing (no age adjustment) or https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-R9RXLp6eYuRcptQIQVTBIkLrxvrTCfLh_WB2P-DBwE/edit#gid=0 (with age adjustment)

And as tredigs mentioned, look up the top 10 offenses in NBA history (even relative to league average) and most of them are Nash led teams. We'll probably see some Curry teams in the mix there now over the next few years. But Nash is undoubtedly one of the most underrated players. He's also had such a huge impact on the game- consider that in today's NBA, most teams run a ton of Pick-and-Roll, which was a huge staple of those Nash era teams. That and the quick pace. The Warriors are essentially a perfected version of the 7 seconds or less offense.

And here's a controversial statement that'll rile up the Kobephiles- Nash has actually had a bigger impact on the current league than Kobe has. Look at the systems a lot of teams run (tons of P&R) and you can see the Nash (+Amare) imprint all over the league. Whereas Kobe's turnaround fadeaways have actually become less popular (the league is now all about high quality shot selection, which is not one of Kobe's things). Also, the Post Up has declined the last few years too. Game is moving towards spread pick and roll.

PatsSoxKnicks
02-04-2016, 08:20 PM
Stockton was great, I like him even more than Malone to be honest. KG at 21 is bad, very bad. Robinson is also low.

KG's actually got the top 15 year RAPM (+/- adjusted for teammates and opponent) in the league (or 2nd if you use the non-age adjustment version) so definitely a great all around player. Unfortunately, the postseason #'s don't quite measure up to his regular season #'s which is where the greats usually establish themselves. That said, definitely underrated as an overall player.

KingJames6
02-04-2016, 08:27 PM
Gotta love how low Kobe is in RAPM. Just like literally every other statistic.

PatsSoxKnicks
02-05-2016, 12:49 AM
Gotta love how low Kobe is in RAPM. Just like literally every other statistic.

Interesting aspect of Kobe's RAPM is that while he's always been good on offense (well until these last few years at least), his defense has appeared to be overrated. Only 1 season where his RAPM was on the + side on defense I believe.

Or even something more basic like simple career +/- #'s- Kobe's teams' career DRtg with him on the court is the exact same as with him off the court: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/on-off/

You'd think if he was this amazing defender that he'd been perceived to be, that wouldn't be the case.

And to take a random prime year of his- maybe his best year (06), his team was 6.4 points better with him OFF the court than on: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/on-off/2006/

A few more numbers: Looking at Kobe's isolation defensive ranks from 06-07 to 09-10 (from Synergy):
166 (in 06-07), 226 (07-08), 93 (08-09), 107 (09-10). That doesn't really scream elite to me. Top 100 once in his prime. And his bread and butter on defense was supposedly his ability to defend one on one. You'd think that'd be apparent in his defensive isolation numbers right?

How does that happen? And that's not even a small difference- 6.4 points which seems pretty large to me (and for comparison, a known terrible defender like Harden has a career on/off difference in team DRtg of 1.7 i.e. his teams have been 1.7 points better with him off the court on defense).

Edit: Take someone like T-Mac and look at his career on/off #'s: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mcgratr01/on-off/

Team was 1.3 points better defensively with him on the court and yet his reputation is nowhere near Kobe's on defense. And while Kobe's career on/off #'s might be getting docked by his recent lawn chair level defense, the T-Mac comparison is an interesting one because he also has a number of non-prime years in his dataset where he probably had lawn chair level defense because he was old and broken down.

Anyways, not trying to say Kobe is worse than T-Mac on defense but just bringing up another example of a former star who doesn't have any defensive recognition whatsoever and yet somehow STILL has a better career on/off defensive team #'s.

Vinsanity's another example here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cartevi01/on-off/
Or Paul Pierce (who I always felt was an underrated defender): http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01/on-off/

Also on the + side and thats in spite of his current lawn chair level defense this year.

Again, just odd about Kobe's defensive on/off #'s.

NYKalltheway
02-05-2016, 06:07 AM
so going back to this:

First BAA years till late 60s:
93. Lenny Wilkens
90. Paul Arizin

79. Jerry Lucas
78. Sam Jones
74. Dolph Schayes

48. Willis Reed

39. Bob Cousy
34. Bob Pettit
33. George Mikan

28. John Havlicek
24. Elgin Baylor

to complete the list:
[Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson]


ABA/NBA late 60s-mid70s:
98. Gail Goodrich
92. Nate Thurmond

88. Billy Cunningham
85. Dave DeBusschere

79. Jerry Lucas
71. "Pistol" Pete Maravich
70. Artis Gilmore

68. Bob Lanier
60. Earl Monroe

55. Dave Cowens
53. Wes Unseld
52. Bob McAdoo

40. Elvin Hayes

38. Walt Frazier
37. Rick Barry

[Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Kareem Abdul Jabar]

mid70s-early 80s:
96. Bobby Jones

84. Dennis Johnson
82. David Thompson

76. Nate Archibald
71. "Pistol" Pete Maravich
70. Artis Gilmore

54. Bernard King
52. Bob McAdoo

47. George "Iceman" Gervin
42. Bill Walton
40. Elvin Hayes

37. Rick Barry

[Kareem Abdul Jabar, Moses Malone, Julius Erving]

early80s-early 90s:
94. Mark Price
91. Maurice Cheeks

83. Chris Mullin
81. Sidney Moncrief

77. Joe Dumars
72. Adrian Dantley

64. Dennis Rodman
62. Alex English

57. Robert Parish
54. Bernard King

47. George "Iceman" Gervin
44. Dominique Wilkins
43. James Worthy

36. Clyde Drexler
32. Patrick Ewing
31. Kevin McHale

26. Isiah Thomas

[Moses Malone, Julius Erving, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Stockton, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird]


early90s-late90s:
100. Shawn Kemp

80. Grant Hill

73. Dikembe Mutombo

66. Chris Webber
65. Alonzo Mourning

51. Reggie Miller

41. Gary Payton

32. Patrick Ewing

25. Scottie Pippen
20. David Robinson

[Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, John Stockton, Shaquille O'Neal]

late 90s-mid 2000s:
89. Yao Ming

69. Vince Carter
66. Chris Webber
63. Tracy McGrady

50. Ray Allen

46.Allen Iverson
45. Paul Pierce

35. Jason Kidd

21. Kevin Garnett

[Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant]

modern era (2004-2015/16):
99. Kevin Love
97. James Harden
95. Marc Gasol

89. Yao Ming
87. Chauncey Billups
86. Chris Bosh

75. Blake Griffin

67. Dwight Howard
61. Manu Ginobili
59. Carmelo Anthony

58. Tony Parker
56. Pau Gasol
50. Ray Allen

49. Russell Westbrook
45. Paul Pierce

30. Steve Nash

29. Chris Paul
27. Dwyane Wade
23. Steph Curry
22. Kevin Durant
21. Kevin Garnett

[Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Lebron James]

modern players overrepresented and overrated as expected by ESPN. And there's till more to come.

Top 50 so far, excluding the unlisted guys in [x]:
up to late 60s: 6
ABA era: 3 (1 + 2 actually, shared with post ABA era)
post-ABA era: 4 (1+3 actually, 1 is shared with 80s)
80s-early 90s: 7 (5+2, 1 shared with 90s)
90s: 4 (3+1)
late 90s-early 2000s: 5 (3+2 actually, shared with modern era)
modern era- mid 2000s till today: 9 (7+2)

tredigs
02-05-2016, 12:04 PM
^Why is your "modern era" the longest one, and do you think that skews your results? For sure they are giving the benefit of the doubt to some of the superstars who are still in their prime right now, but you've got a 12 year window (2004-2016), while considering "late 90's to mid 2000's", "late 60's to early 70's", "mid 70's to early 80's", etc as the same window.


Maybe a little self constructed stat-tweaking to help push your agenda there?

NYKalltheway
02-05-2016, 01:08 PM
The longest one?
It's 2004-5 to 2014-15 and half a season. That's 10 years.

Early 80s to early 90s = 10-13 years
First category is like 20 years long

early 90s and the late 90s ones are around 8-10 years long each. That's because the game was very different in all those periods of time.

The shortest period is mid 70s to early 80s because it was a transition era between the ABA merger and the Magic-Bird era.

How should the modern era be split? Most of those players played for a while in the 2010s. Basically only Yao is the outlier here. Most of the others are either still playing or recently retired (within 2 seasons). Mid 2000s also takes some bits till 2006 or so.

YAALREADYKNO
02-05-2016, 03:27 PM
Kobe at #12???

tredigs
02-05-2016, 03:39 PM
The longest one?
It's 2004-5 to 2014-15 and half a season. That's 10 years.

Early 80s to early 90s = 10-13 years
First category is like 20 years long

early 90s and the late 90s ones are around 8-10 years long each. That's because the game was very different in all those periods of time.

The shortest period is mid 70s to early 80s because it was a transition era between the ABA merger and the Magic-Bird era.

How should the modern era be split? Most of those players played for a while in the 2010s. Basically only Yao is the outlier here. Most of the others are either still playing or recently retired (within 2 seasons). Mid 2000s also takes some bits till 2006 or so.

First era is "20 years", I mean I guess. I can't really take the 50's or any largely segregated league seriously though. Late 50's is where the NBA truly began. 2004 to current= > 12 years and counting. And nothing about "late 90's to mid 2000's" etc suggest 10 years. Check your math.

I've already agreed that the list is more partial to modern players, mostly due to those currently in their prime seemingly being given the benefit of the doubt for their peak play and projecting some continuation of that, but your self constructed time frames aren't exactly doing much to persuade me that they are intentionally biased.

NYKalltheway
02-05-2016, 04:06 PM
Check my math? Season starts October 2004 to June 2015. That's 10.5 years + a few months into the next season. So that's 11 seasons and a half, not 12 years.... Jeez. Talk about nitpicking.
Late 90s can mean: 97-98-99
Mid 2000s can mean: 2004-2005-2006
2006-1997 = 9 years...

Early 90s-late90s: 1990-1999: 9 years again. It's not gonna exclude a player who fits this but has a prime in 1989 or 2000.
Early 80s-early 90s: 1980 to 1990-1991-1992-1993, depends on the player. That can be 13 years.

There's no time constraint, that's the best way I found to split the game into eras given the peaks/primes of the listed players. It's about when players primed. Some players primed between 1998 and 2003. Why should I put him with the guy who was in his prime in 1993-1999?

Find me another way to distinguish basketball eras and I'll use that. I've no problem. I just don't see what's so wrong with this and how 2004-today is the longest, given that we're at about 1/3 of the season so far, considering playoffs as well.

tredigs
02-05-2016, 04:11 PM
So at the absolute max ends of both your timeline thresholds you can create a 9 year time frame while overlapping those eras (not 10 years mind you). Gotchya. This really means nothing to me overall as I understand what you're trying to prove and where you're going with it, but it's food for thought. For the third time, do understand that I agree with your premise that the modern era is given extra weight. I just don't necessarily disagree with that weight.

tredigs
02-05-2016, 04:15 PM
Kobe at #12???

Seems about perfect.

NYKalltheway
02-05-2016, 04:41 PM
So at the absolute max ends of both your timeline thresholds you can create a 9 year time frame while overlapping those eras (not 10 years mind you). Gotchya. This really means nothing to me overall as I understand what you're trying to prove and where you're going with it, but it's food for thought. For the third time, do understand that I agree with your premise that the modern era is given extra weight. I just don't necessarily disagree with that weight.

I do understand your position on this. I just don't see how you expected to split the modern era. It's still a decade and it only will be seperated, starting from last season, if we see a new trend, so the era will be 2004-2014. I can't see any way where they can be differentiated.
Late 90s to mid 2000s was the post-Jordan era towards the last radical rule change in 2005.
80s-early 90s is the Bird-Magic era with Jordan coming up, 90s is the era where Jordan ruled the world of basketball, mid 70s to early 80s was the post-merger era, late 60s to mid 70s was a weird era with 2 similar level basketball leagues and prior to that there's not much point in splitting it, unless we wanna give George Mikan a category of his own.

So again, how do you split the eras of the NBA to give each era a proper weight?

tredigs
02-05-2016, 05:01 PM
I do understand your position on this. I just don't see how you expected to split the modern era. It's still a decade and it only will be seperated, starting from last season, if we see a new trend, so the era will be 2004-2014. I can't see any way where they can be differentiated.
Late 90s to mid 2000s was the post-Jordan era towards the last radical rule change in 2005.
80s-early 90s is the Bird-Magic era with Jordan coming up, 90s is the era where Jordan ruled the world of basketball, mid 70s to early 80s was the post-merger era, late 60s to mid 70s was a weird era with 2 similar level basketball leagues and prior to that there's not much point in splitting it, unless we wanna give George Mikan a category of his own.

So again, how do you split the eras of the NBA to give each era a proper weight?

It's fine if you don't want to switch anything, you just have to acknowledge that you're dealing with a longer period of time where the NBA is in full swing with immense talent (unlike the early 50's). For example, this isn't a list that Curry is on 3 years ago. But, the last 3 years have happened. Same goes for players who 3 years ago would not have had a long enough resume' to be as high as they currently are, but now that has changed. The longer time period makes a difference.

YAALREADYKNO
02-05-2016, 05:46 PM
Seems about perfect.

Not really considering Oscar went next at 11. Don't know how Oscar is better than Kobe

tredigs
02-05-2016, 05:51 PM
Not really considering Oscar went next at 11. Don't know how Oscar is better than Kobe

I don't see how that's not a very close debate one way or the other.

valade16
02-06-2016, 09:13 AM
KYNkalltgeway's numbers look so overwhelming because of 3 of the bottom 6 are modern guys. The numbers don't look nearly as skewed if you do Top 94 so I'm not buying a massive focus on the modern era based off the tail end of the list.

I do think Westbrook, Melo, Griffin are overrated.

NYKalltheway
02-07-2016, 04:34 PM
It's not just the top 94 (lol), it's also guys like Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard etc and they're also being highly rated here, other than the most glaring ones who are nearer the top 30.
Melo is a top 100 player but he's not top 60.

Seriously, everyone and especially networks such as ESPN should educate themselves more on the history of the NBA (and the ABA as well) and stop overrating the present just because they think it'll sell more today.

Assuming they feel that peak is relevant for this, guys like Neil Johnston, John Drew, Bill Bridges, Geoff Petrie and Mike Mitchell, Lou Hudson, Dave Bing, Brad Daugherty & Larry Nance, Dan Issel, Walt Bellamy, Walter Dukes, Mark Aguirre, John Williamson, Kiki Vandeweghe, Larry Johnson, Rasheed Wallace, Mitch Richmond, JoJo White, Gus Johnson, Ben Wallace and so many other names would be in someone's all time top 100. Some names in there are just vomit worthy when you consider some people who were left out.

valade16
02-07-2016, 04:49 PM
Apparently you've conceded the list is not disproportionately favoring current players from 94 on, so all we're left with is your bias, and some of those names proves it.

NYKalltheway
02-07-2016, 05:41 PM
Apparently you've conceded the list is not disproportionately favoring current players from 94 on, so all we're left with is your bias, and some of those names proves it.

lol. You're unreal.

The list is not disproportionately favoring current players because you want to remove 3 out of the bottom 6? And because you think that it's okay to have Blake Griffin, Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard, Kevin Love, Marc Gasol and James Harden in the top 100?

And I'm biased? You're calling me biased? Lol. Get real.

valade16
02-07-2016, 06:50 PM
lol. You're unreal.

The list is not disproportionately favoring current players because you want to remove 3 out of the bottom 6? And because you think that it's okay to have Blake Griffin, Chris Bosh, Dwight Howard, Kevin Love, Marc Gasol and James Harden in the top 100?

And I'm biased? You're calling me biased? Lol. Get real.

I specifically said Griffin, Love, Harden and Marc Gasol are overrated.

But yes, you're very biased. For example the era that has the most names on the list is 80's - 90's, is ESPN biased towards that era as well?

Well obviously not because you grew up watching basketball then so obviously the heroes from your childhood are better than the heroes from anybody else's childhood.

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 05:10 AM
I specifically said Griffin, Love, Harden and Marc Gasol are overrated.

But yes, you're very biased. For example the era that has the most names on the list is 80's - 90's, is ESPN biased towards that era as well?

Well obviously not because you grew up watching basketball then so obviously the heroes from your childhood are better than the heroes from anybody else's childhood.

Dude, it's not biased to say that 80s-early 90s had some of the greatest players ever, because it's true. That's the golden age of the NBA. Now, it's not even the bronze age, yet they're treating it as if Magic and Bird have been resurrected and there's a next coming of Michael Jordan :laugh:
Yeah yeah, Lebron, Curry, Durant etc are just as good :laugh:

tredigs
02-08-2016, 06:39 AM
This guy wants to see Bill Bridges in a top 100 list, and clowns the talent of Lebron James, Curry, etc. I love it.

Just stick to Greek basketball dude.

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 08:45 AM
This guy wants to see Bill Bridges in a top 100 list, and clowns the talent of Lebron James, Curry, etc. I love it.

Just stick to Greek basketball dude.

You're happy with Rodman in the top 65 but Bill Bridges' name in the discussion for top 100 makes you hectic?
I said Lebron is a top 40 player in my book. That's FORTY. Out of thousands. Top 2% ever. How is that "clowns down"? And where have I spoken negatively about Curry? I was the guy getting dissed for calling him a better player than Rose in his MVP years.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Just stick to the 2010s.

Vince70
02-08-2016, 08:47 AM
Kobe at #12???

You don't think that's a fair ranking?

Hawkeye15
02-08-2016, 11:25 AM
Dude, it's not biased to say that 80s-early 90s had some of the greatest players ever, because it's true. That's the golden age of the NBA. Now, it's not even the bronze age, yet they're treating it as if Magic and Bird have been resurrected and there's a next coming of Michael Jordan :laugh:
Yeah yeah, Lebron, Curry, Durant etc are just as good :laugh:

no, you are biased as hell to your childhood era. You are the only one not seeing it.

Hawkeye15
02-08-2016, 11:26 AM
You're happy with Rodman in the top 65 but Bill Bridges' name in the discussion for top 100 makes you hectic?
I said Lebron is a top 40 player in my book. That's FORTY. Out of thousands. Top 2% ever. How is that "clowns down"? And where have I spoken negatively about Curry? I was the guy getting dissed for calling him a better player than Rose in his MVP years.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Just stick to the 2010s.

I have been watching since 1984. I loved the 80-90's. But you are an idiot if you don't realize LeBron is a top 5 talent to ever hit the league, and will finish as a top 10 player easily.

valade16
02-08-2016, 02:59 PM
You're happy with Rodman in the top 65 but Bill Bridges' name in the discussion for top 100 makes you hectic? I said Lebron is a top 40 player in my book. That's FORTY. Out of thousands. Top 2% ever. How is that "clowns down"? And where have I spoken negatively about Curry? I was the guy getting dissed for calling him a better player than Rose in his MVP years.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Just stick to the 2010s.

How is putting LeBron, a Top 10 player ever, in your Top 40 some sort of compliment? It's not. But more importantly, how come it's not a diss when you do it to LeBron but it is a diss when people do it to Baylor? These are your words:

I've never seen anyone who was around till the 80s who hasn't called Elgin Baylor one of the best ever, top 5 caliber. Now he's like 20something and people are like "yeah, whatever.. but Kobe is not top 1-2-3-4-5???????????????ZOMG!!!"

Wouldn't Baylor being Top 25 be a compliment in the same way LeBron in the Top 40 is? I mean, top 25 is top 2% right? For that matter, if I ranked Larry Bird and Magic Johnson 49th and 50th all time, how is that not a compliment? That's top 2% ever.

Clearly anyone who says Magic and Bird were Top 50 players (but not Top 10) are paying them a huge compliment right?

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 03:21 PM
lol, are you like eleven?

HandsOnTheWheel
02-08-2016, 03:45 PM
Where's today's rankings?

valade16
02-08-2016, 03:57 PM
lol, are you like eleven?

I see you have no rebuttal. How old are you? Unless you're very old I bet we're around the same age (which would be ironic wouldn't it)...

Evil_Empire
02-08-2016, 04:17 PM
I see you have no rebuttal. How old are you? Unless you're very old I bet we're around the same age (which would be ironic wouldn't it)...

Ignore him and his ad hominem attack.

He thinks Lebron is only top 40, but everyone who knows the NBA disagrees with him. Here is a quick search on quotes about Lebron and ranking as said by other players, nba legends, coaches, etc.

“I think LeBron is the greatest three to ever play the game. And as great as he is, he still has room for improvement. If that was ever to happen and he really refined his game more, they may have to outlaw him, he's so good. He's an anomaly, I mean he really is. There's never been anybody like him with his size, his athleticism, his feel for the game.” –Rick Barry

"There's no question I would take LeBron James. He can do more," Laimbeer said during an interview on the "Dan Patrick Show" Thursday. "Michael Jordan could score and make big shots and look spectacular at times with wild flying dunks, but LeBron can get you 18 rebounds, get you 15 assists or score 50 if he wants to. The triple threat the he poses is just phenomenal, and the size, he just physically dominates. It's impressive."

"Michael Jordan is probably the greatest scorer to play the game," Pippen said. "But I may go as far as to say LeBron James may be the greatest player to ever play the game because he is so potent offensively that not only can he score at will but he keeps everybody involved. You have to be on your Ps and Qs on defense. No guy on the basketball court is not a threat to score with LeBron James out there. Not only will LeBron dominate from the offensive end as well, but he's also doing it on the defensive end which really makes him the complete package. He's able to get in those passing lanes, shoot those gaps and create transition opportunities where he is pretty much unstoppable."

"Scottie said that LeBron would've kicked MJ's ***," Mourning said. Oh boy. "I said, 'Scottie, you're right,' but, because LeBron is my size," Mourning said. "He weighs 265, so when he's playing point guard, it's like a freight train coming. I couldn't imagine doing the things he's doing at my size."

"If LeBron says he should be on Mount Rushmore, you know what? I think he should be there," the legendary point guard (Oscar Robertson) espoused before providing a little bit of context. "But he's gotta go and play. I mean, he's on the bubble. He came back great from moving from Clevelandto Miami and, you know, there's still challenges for him."

“I fantasize about LeBron's ability. He is the best player I have ever seen at this age.” –Rick Barry

“After the first 3 games LeBron James should be on everybody's Mt. Rushmore...including mine!” –Magic Johnson

“What I think about him is what I used to think about Wilt," Russell said after a morning round of golf, "and like I told Wilt one time, 'I think I'm the only guy on the planet who really knows how good you are because I've seen you up close.' I know what I'm watching, and LeBron is doing a great job being LeBron James."

Jerry West told The New York Times today that he believes LeBron James has surpassed Kobe Bryant right now as the best player in the game and that “He has a chance to be arguably the greatest player ever to play the game,” and “He’s just too big, too strong, too quick. And he has incredible body control. But more than that, he’s a great teammate. You can see his teammates love him.”

Jordan plays his new favorite trivia game, asking which current players could be nearly as successful in his era. "Our era," he says over and over again, calling modern players soft, coddled and ill-prepared for the highest level of the game. This is personal to him, since he'll be compared to this generation, and since he has to build a franchise with this generation's players. "I'll give you a hint," he says. "I can only come up with four." He lists them: LeBron, Kobe, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki.

“No. No, he wasn’t,” Barkley said Wednesday on The Dan Patrick Show. “Scottie was a terrific player. But Scottie wasn’t a guy who could get you 30 every night. He was a terrific defender, but he wasn’t gonna get you 10 rebounds. LeBron could get you 30 a night. He’s the best defender — Scottie was a great defender. But he wasn’t gonna get you a bunch of rebounds every night. So the answer to that question is no.”

"I do think he can be better than Michael," Barkley said. "I thought I would never compare somebody to Michael Jordan. But this guy, LeBron James, he does everything well. Michael did everything well. LeBron James is just bigger, stronger, faster. That's the only difference."

“He might not have had a lot of big numbers, but he would have made it,” Oakley said. “If you can get 26 [points] instead of 27, it's the same thing. But he's a guy you want to play with, no matter level what he played. If he played 40 years ago, he understands basketball. He's one of the smartest guys I've seen in this game, probably go down as one of the smartest guys. He dictates offense, defense, he can do it all.”
“It's a different debate,” Oakley said. “I ask everybody, who's the best between Magic and LeBron? Everyone says Michael's greatest. But, OK, well, we'll give him his props. But LeBron is a better athlete, and he can do more than Michael on the basketball court. Michael is finisher, a great shooter, and it is what it is.”

Tracy McGrady was quite the basketball player. Los Angeles Lakers rookie D'Angelo Russelleven said (controversially) that he "might have been the GOAT."
So he knows a thing or two about NBA greats. We got him to give us his all-time NBA top five, and he laid it out in the form of a lineup -- with one notable position switch.
PG: Magic Johnson
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: LeBron James
PF: Hakeem Olajuwon
C: Shaquille O'Neal

During an interview with “The Dan Patrick Show” on Monday, Malone spoke about LeBron James and some of the greatest players who have ever played the game. When asked to name his all-time starting five, Malone took John Stockton and Oscar Robertson as his guards, Wilt Chamberlain at center, LeBron at power forward and Scottie Pippen at small forward. Pippen and no Jordan — really?
“Scottie Pippen led the team in every statistical category while he was there without Michael Jordan,” Malone explained. “That’s why I have to put him there. So now you know.” [...]
Malone’s answer would be surprising if he didn’t say the exact same thing in an interview last year. For whatever reason, he loves Pippen and refuses to give Jordan the same amount of credit everyone else gives him. Toward the end of the interview, Malone also admitted that he has a “man crush” on LeBron James. If he has a crush on LeBron, he must be in love with Scottie.

“Three future Hall Of Famers that could've played when MJ, Bird and I were playing are Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James.” – Magic Johnson

“LeBron has never played better,” Walton told SLAM. “He is playing at the level and the style and the control and the impact of some of my favorite players ever—Bill Russell, Magic Johnson and Steve Nash. And the greatest thing about basketball is the ability of the team to come together, no matter who the team is. LeBron, his skill package, his physical fitness level, the vision of how to play, to pull the whole team together, to inspire all these guys who nobody wanted, what he has done is inspire the whole city. He’s inspiring the whole community along the way, and really changed the dynamics of the series psychologically, emotionally and personally.”

"I think LeBron's career is not over. Michael's career is over," Krzyzewski told ESPNChicago.com's Nick Friedell on Tuesday. "Michael has been the greatest, I think, player to ever play the game and greatest competitor. I think LeBron is the greatest player right now. He's the best player. And I love LeBron. And I know Michael really well, I mean really well. Let's wait until LeBron finishes his career. He's won two championships, won two Olympic gold medals, MVP. I think he's in his prime right now.

(Phil) Jackson went on to heap praise on LeBron James for having a similar skill set to Kobe Bryant at the small forward position, calling him a "power player with tremendous capability," and then, closed out his comparison by stating that Lebron James "has been really the dominant player here for the last three years."

“He could end up being the very best, we’ll just have to see,” Carlisle said. “A lot of that’s yet to be written. He’s top five [all time] for sure, if you’re asking my opinion.”

I always thought that you guys always had something to say. If LeBron went right, you said he should have gone left. Or if he shot it, he should have passed it. If he passed it, he should have shot it. I always thought that was all baloney. He's a great player. He's not just athletic. He's incisive. He understands the game the way Magic (Johnson), the way Larry (Bird) did, the way (Tim) Duncan does. That kind of thing. So, he knows a whole lot more about what he's doing and what he has been doing than you all. He's a character guy, he's good people, he's got a great heart. So, I'm happy for him whether he went to Timbuktu. He should do what's best for him, for his family and everybody else can go swim in the lake, so to speak. You all do what you want to do, LeBron should be able to do what he wants to do.” Greg Popovich

"He knows more than all of you put together." – Greg Popovich to reporters

Oscar probably has Lebron over Jordan, because when asked about them, he said that “Lebron is in a class of his own”.

“We're talking about probably the three of the best seven or eight players in the history of the game, and they're all phenomenal in their own right. They're just different." – Steve Kerr in references to Bryant, Jordan, and Lebron James

Jeff Van Gundy said that he's never seen a player of LeBron James' caliber not get calls like other NBA stars seem to get.

Mark Jackson on LeBron: "He's the greatest small forward to ever play this game."

"He is the best post-up player in the league, really," the scout said. "You used to be able to get him to take jumpers in the post, but now he is smarter, he is able to get by you and get himself an easy basket. It's a nightmare. He is that much more efficient." In reference to Lebron James

“(Laughing) I love watching D-Wade. He is so highly skilled. He gets a lot of blocks for a guy his side. And he hustles. I also like LeBron, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard and a bunch of other guys. I love the skill level. Highly skill guys make the game what it is. They are why people go to the games.” – Clyde Drexler


Magic Johnson, walking out of AmericanAirlines Arena Friday morning, said: “LeBron is top 10 and moving up fast, and he can surpass Michael as the greatest who ever played. He’s the best defender, smartest player in the game. And he [plays for] the greatest organization in the world.”
Then there’s Isiah Thomas, who places James in the top three with Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, “who we don’t give the credit he deserves. He dominated the NBA for two decades.”
Hall of Famers Jack Ramsay, Marv Albert and Bob McAdoo said James belongs in the top five.
“I don’t think LeBron is Jordan, but he’s in the ballpark,” Ramsay said. “Bill Russell, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West have to be in there. The last two seasons, LeBron finally got it together.”
And McAdoo, the Heat assistant coach, says: “For this era, LeBron is the best.”
So why does Shaq say it’s “debatable” if LeBron should even crack the top 10? “There’s a lot of great players,” he said. “I don’t put myself in the top 10. He’s a great player. However, the more championships he gets, the more you slide him up.”
Barkley’s take? “He’s top 10, no question. But I don’t think you can put anybody top five on my list: Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Jordan and Robertson. He’s never going to be Jordan. He’s not a better shooter. Nobody is a better defender than Michael.”
And ESPN announcer and Hall of Fame coach Hubie Brown mentioned to us that James has averaged at least 26 points, six rebounds and six assists nine times, whereas Robertson “did it eight. Jordan and Larry Bird did it three times.
“If he keeps doing this, he is going to pass Michael and Russell and Kareem,” (Hubie) Brown said. “The potential is there [to be the best ever] but he has to stay injury free.”
The last word from former Heat guard/NBA TV analyst Steve Smith: “I don’t think we’ve seen the best of LeBron because of the competition. He isn’t being challenged enough.”

"[LeBron] has to definitely be ranked up there with the best that ever played this game.” – Michael Cooper

Boeheim, appearing on ESPN Radio, said James is a “ten times better player” now than he was at the ’06 World Championships. “Some of it’s maturity. He’s a leader. He was a kid when we first got him," said Boeheim. "He’s better defensively. He’s worked on his game. He’s a better shooter. He’s now a good low post player, which helped him win an NBA championship last year. But most of all he’s a leader. He gets on the court, he tells people what to do. He gets the ball, he makes plays. He knows, ‘Kobe hasn’t got the ball, let’s get Kobe a jumpshot,’ and he makes a play to him. He’s a 6-9, 260-pound point guard/forward/center. He guarded the post guys (in the Olympic tournament). They always say a guy can guard five positions — I’ve never seen that. ... This guy can guard five (positions). … You can put him on anybody, and he can guard him. I always felt Michael Jordan was the best player I’ve ever seen. I always have, and I didn’t think it was close — and I’m not so sure anymore, and I love Michael Jordan. ... And (James is) getting better ... He’s like Magic Johnson with Michael Jordan-type skills as well.”

“Over these 46 years, I’ve had an opportunity to see some great players — and all the ones I’ve observed, watched and have seen, they’ve always gotten better. In my humble opinion, I believe the man right here is the best of them all.” – Pat Riley on Lebron James

Nash wasn't afraid to drop a Jordan comparison, unsolicited. "It's scary," the two-time MVP said of LeBron's play. "No one's quite played the game the way he's playing it, as consistently as he's played it. I think Jordan had some years of that, when he was rebounding and passing as well as scoring efficiently. But [LeBron] has taken it to a pretty rare area in the history of our game."

“Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, you know, they’re great players, they’re probably the greatest backcourt ever assembled,” O’Neal said. “And you know, they’re going to get back.”

"His basketball IQ is phenomenal," O'Neal said of James. "He could coach in the NBA right now." The 24-year-old James has impressed O'Neal with his thorough knowledge of the game -- his understanding of angles, of defensive principles, of how to set up teammates, of how opponents defend various plays and players, and of not only his own responsibilities on the court but those of all his teammates as well. O'Neal hasn't talked about who's better between James and his former Los Angeles Lakers teammate, Kobe Bryant. But he has told confidantes that James has the advantage in basketball IQ, saying he's the smartest star he's played with in his 18-year career.




Yet this bozo claims that the people that are better than Lebron know less about basketball than he does. Ha ha ha ha ha.

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 07:53 AM
I see you have no rebuttal. How old are you? Unless you're very old I bet we're around the same age (which would be ironic wouldn't it)...

I've been rebutting every random thing you've been mentioning for I don't know how many threads and pages. And you come up with stupid remarks and you want to appear as the person who's offended here? :laugh2: Come on.... You've just grown to be too tiring with your non-basketball related arguments about basketball.

valade16
02-09-2016, 08:23 AM
I've been rebutting every random thing you've been mentioning for I don't know how many threads and pages. And you come up with stupid remarks and you want to appear as the person who's offended here? :laugh2: Come on.... You've just grown to be too tiring with your non-basketball related arguments about basketball.

Seriously, how old are you?

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 09:22 AM
Seriously, how old are you?

Eleven.

So yeah, we're about the same age.

valade16
02-09-2016, 09:26 AM
Eleven.

So yeah, we're about the same age.

Your refusal to answer makes me believe you're not as old as you claim to be. Now that would just be the cherry on the cake.

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 09:28 AM
Your refusal to answer makes me believe you're not as old as you claim to be. Now that would just be the cherry on the cake.

How old did I claim I was?

valade16
02-09-2016, 09:55 AM
How old did I claim I was?

True, you never specifically claimed how old you were (hence me asking), but judging by your condescending and dismissive attitude of those who like current players you're portraying yourself as someone older than those who like current players.

So how old is that exactly?

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 10:19 AM
True, you never specifically claimed how old you were (hence me asking), but judging by your condescending and dismissive attitude of those who like current players you're portraying yourself as someone older than those who like current players.

So how old is that exactly?

I've been around for 5.5 years or so. I never hid my age. I've always said that I had tapes of games from all Playoffs from 1980 and on and some RS games from older times up to now. I never said I was old. I'm 29. I've even said it in the other thread you're involved it, but you keep missing most of the things I write just because you think my conclusion is something you understand without reading what's in the post.
I'm someone who's spent literally months educating himself on older generations of the sports I'm involved in. This is why I'm "dismissive" of anyone who hasn't and claim they have. I'm not the one hyping a player who I'm witnessing now just because of 2-3 good/great seasons. Be it Curry, Durant, Rose, Lebron, Kobe, Melo or anyone else. I'm as objective as they get. I'm relatively vocal against the Knicks management and I'm no fanboy. I'm not gonna tell you that Ewing, who was one of my absolute favorites, is a top 5 center or better than D-Rob, at least not in all situations. I also understand that's something you don't meet very often.

tredigs
02-09-2016, 10:43 AM
I do have to say, you're a very healthy poster for the forum, NYK. I disagree with you vehemently on some of your conclusions, but even if you're 29 and did not see much of what you write about in real time, your takes are by and large thoughtful and relevant. Also, you take heat from the wall against you impressively.

Now get back to your VHS and beta-max of the 73 Finals.

valade16
02-09-2016, 11:11 AM
I've been around for 5.5 years or so. I never hid my age. I've always said that I had tapes of games from all Playoffs from 1980 and on and some RS games from older times up to now. I never said I was old. I'm 29. I've even said it in the other thread you're involved it, but you keep missing most of the things I write just because you think my conclusion is something you understand without reading what's in the post.
I'm someone who's spent literally months educating himself on older generations of the sports I'm involved in. This is why I'm "dismissive" of anyone who hasn't and claim they have. I'm not the one hyping a player who I'm witnessing now just because of 2-3 good/great seasons. Be it Curry, Durant, Rose, Lebron, Kobe, Melo or anyone else. I'm as objective as they get. I'm relatively vocal against the Knicks management and I'm no fanboy. I'm not gonna tell you that Ewing, who was one of my absolute favorites, is a top 5 center or better than D-Rob, at least not in all situations. I also understand that's something you don't meet very often.

I KNEW it. I'm 28 and will be turning 29 in a couple months. We are the same age. So stop with this notion that I'm somehow beholden to modern players. I'm not.

My favorite players ever are: Hakeem, Bird, Drexler, Ewing.
My favorite movie is Aliens
My favorite band is Guns N' Roses
My favorite NFL team is the San Francisco 49ers because of Joe Montana and Steve Young.

I could not be any more biased towards the late 80's/early 90's if I tried. But judging basketball isn't about likes and dislikes, it's about honest assessment. You think you're objective but you're not and it's obvious in everything you post, including this very post.

I'm not the one hyping a player who I'm witnessing now just because of 2-3 good/great seasons.

2-3 good/great seasons? You listed Durant, LeBron and Kobe. Even Durant, the least prolific of those 3 has had 6 good/great seasons. Do you seriously think those 3 have only had 2-3 good/great seasons?

But that is what I'm talking about. You claim objectivity and then allude to or say things like that which show how completely un-objective you are. You have good points and make many good posts, but there is this weird blind spot when it comes to judging current players or talking about the current NBA. The only explanation is bias. It's a shame you can't see past that.

Jeffy25
02-09-2016, 11:17 AM
I'm older than both of ya'll (Hawkeye has us all beat, that old fogey)

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 11:31 AM
These players, outside Kobe*, were hailed as the next GOAT after 2-3 good/great seasons. Lebron in 2007 was hailed as the next coming of Michael Jordan. Didn't happen. Durant was hailed as the next Larry Bird in 2010. Rose after 1.5 seasons. Curry, even less time because his team won the championship in the meanwhile and is going for yet another one.

*Kobe was in the shadow of Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, in the meanwhile Shaq-Duncan-Garnett from other positions and later on Dwayne Wade's shadow, before he was hailed as the next MJ, which happened in the mid-late 2000s.

People are/were too quick to jump on the bandwagon and no matter what, they're not signing off. They want to witness history just like the previous generations have, with epic Michael Jordan, the Dream Team and Dream Team II's greats in their primes and the epic Bird vs Magic battles. Even the Walton's Blazers** vs Erving's 76ers great battle. That's not there anymore.
And I'm talking in general, not directly at yourself, though you seem to follow that mentality to a large extent.

** I'd like to add them as one of the best and most sophisticated basketball teams of all time. Great team basketball, equal or perhaps even better than the 70s Knicks.

valade16
02-09-2016, 11:47 AM
These players, outside Kobe*, were hailed as the next GOAT after 2-3 good/great seasons. Lebron in 2007 was hailed as the next coming of Michael Jordan. Didn't happen. Durant was hailed as the next Larry Bird in 2010. Rose after 1.5 seasons. Curry, even less time because his team won the championship in the meanwhile and is going for yet another one.

*Kobe was in the shadow of Allen Iverson, Tracy McGrady, in the meanwhile Shaq-Duncan-Garnett from other positions and later on Dwayne Wade's shadow, before he was hailed as the next MJ, which happened in the mid-late 2000s.

People are/were too quick to jump on the bandwagon and no matter what, they're not signing off. They want to witness history just like the previous generations have, with epic Michael Jordan, the Dream Team and Dream Team II's greats in their primes and the epic Bird vs Magic battles. Even the Walton's Blazers** vs Erving's 76ers great battle. That's not there anymore.
And I'm talking in general, not directly at yourself, though you seem to follow that mentality to a large extent.

** I'd like to add them as one of the best and most sophisticated basketball teams of all time. Great team basketball, equal or perhaps even better than the 70s Knicks.

OK, I get a lot of people are quick to over hype someone, but that doesn't apply to LeBron James right now. No one is saying he is better than Jordan. But he has played more games than Larry Bird. He is currently Top 20 all-time in points scored.

Ranking him now is not being in the moment or being susceptible to proclaiming someone great too soon. We've seen him for over 10 years. At this point if you don't have him ranked at least Top 15 it's not because you want to wait and see if the hype is real, it's because you are biased.

** I agree that Blazers team was absolutely great. It's a shame Walton became injury prone as that team was even better the next season when Walton played, but Walton was hurt and they lost to the Sonics in the playoffs, which is another great but more forgotten team. Gus Williams, Fred Brown, Dennis Johnson and Jack Sikma.

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 12:32 PM
Karl Malone is 2nd in points scored. Where do you rank him?
Dirk Nowitzki is top 10 in points scored. Where does he rank?
Elvin Hayes is top 10 in points scored. Where does he rank?
Moses Malone? Top 10 as well.
Dan Issel is top 10 if you include the ABA (I think we should, if you want to rate the post 2005 NBA as high as you do)
Dominique Wilkins is top 15 in points scored. Where does he rank?


Wanna do it Points per game?

Baylor, Iverson, Jerry West, Gervin... all in the top 10. In fact, Baylor is 3rd, over Lebron. And he played half his career injured.

How is points scored an argument for Lebron but not for most of the other guys? Even if you wanna go statistically, he's not superior in rebounding and/or assists than many others you rate him above. I also use context which you apparently don't. Don't act like I'm calling him a scrub as a top 40 player.

tredigs
02-09-2016, 12:40 PM
Karl Malone is 2nd in points scored. Where do you rank him?
Dirk Nowitzki is top 10 in points scored. Where does he rank?
Elvin Hayes is top 10 in points scored. Where does he rank?
Moses Malone? Top 10 as well.
Dan Issel is top 10 if you include the ABA (I think we should, if you want to rate the post 2005 NBA as high as you do)
Dominique Wilkins is top 15 in points scored. Where does he rank?


Wanna do it Points per game?

Baylor, Iverson, Jerry West, Gervin... all in the top 10. In fact, Baylor is 3rd, over Lebron. And he played half his career injured.

How is points scored an argument for Lebron but not for most of the other guys? Even if you wanna go statistically, he's not superior in rebounding and/or assists than many others you rate him above. I also use context which you apparently don't. Don't act like I'm calling him a scrub as a top 40 player.

Don't be so myopic. He included total points along with his other comments to bring to light that Lebron has a FULL career under his belt, longer and much more distinguished than many who you rank above him.

Hilarious to say "you use context" and he does not when you have a post on points stats without even mentioning minutes per game, efficiency, or the pace of the era they played in. Those are the most important factors for the stat. The "context" if you will.

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 12:54 PM
He mentioned points. I mentioned points. ffs

It's not the pace of the era that matters, it's the era itself. The difficulty. You discount all relevant factors and reduce basketball to some numbers as if it's baseball or a fantasy sport thing.

tredigs
02-09-2016, 01:00 PM
He mentioned points. I mentioned points. ffs

It's not the pace of the era that matters, it's the era itself. The difficulty. You discount all relevant factors and reduce basketball to some numbers as if it's baseball or a fantasy sport thing.

I rescind my previous comments. You argue for the sake of argument. He mentioned total points to illustrate a point about career standing and him not being "lost in the moment" concerning LBJ's career, and he was 100% correct. The guy has been at it for a decade and has a longer run than Magic or Bird had. His place in history is already set among the PEAK legends, and is only growing from here.

I knew your rebuttal would be concerning the "era itself" and that is a relevant piece. Where we differ is that A) I don't think that helps your point in the least (in fact I think it hurts it), and B) you still 100% ignore the paramount factors of pace/mpg. Let me put it this way. There is no world where Wilt Chamberlain can approach 50 PPG in the current NBA, and it has absolutely zero to do with his immense capability as a player. The same goes for Elgin and company.

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 01:31 PM
I rescind my previous comments. You argue for the sake of argument. He mentioned total points to illustrate a point about career standing and him not being "lost in the moment" concerning LBJ's career, and he was 100% correct. The guy has been at it for a decade and has a longer run than Magic or Bird had. His place in history is already set among the PEAK legends, and is only growing from here.

I knew your rebuttal would be concerning the "era itself" and that is a relevant piece. Where we differ is that A) I don't think that helps your point in the least (in fact I think it hurts it), and B) you still 100% ignore the paramount factors of pace/mpg. Let me put it this way. There is no world where Wilt Chamberlain can approach 50 PPG in the current NBA, and it has absolutely zero to do with his immense capability as a player. The same goes for Elgin and company.

I don't ignore factors like pace and minutes per game. I just don't use stats to talk about basketball. When you mention something, I'll mention it back. That's not arguing for the sake of argument, that's adapting to the level of the person I'm arguing with. If you can't talk basketball without a calculator and you put me into a position to use one to talk about game where it's close to irrelevant, then what would you have me do? Come back and hear silly stuff such as "but you're not using metric A, B and C and you're ignoring % X, Y and Z?".

tredigs
02-09-2016, 01:43 PM
I don't ignore factors like pace and minutes per game. I just don't use stats to talk about basketball. When you mention something, I'll mention it back. That's not arguing for the sake of argument, that's adapting to the level of the person I'm arguing with. If you can't talk basketball without a calculator and you put me into a position to use one to talk about game where it's close to irrelevant, then what would you have me do? Come back and hear silly stuff such as "but you're not using metric A, B and C and you're ignoring % X, Y and Z?".

It's funny you say something like this, because you're talking to someone who I GUARANTEE has been to more live professional basketball games than you have (I'll include your Greek games) for 3 decades and someone who puts his money where his mouth is on the game. I speak to people every day who have seen more basketball games in their life than the two of us combined (by a huge margin), who make 5 figure bets every morning, and trust me, they do not deny or ignore the analytics as well. The games have become MUCH tougher to bet in the past decade on accordance of analytics. And all the best bettors have the best stats. That's just a fact. You're an ignorant loser (literally) to ignore that.

valade16
02-09-2016, 02:18 PM
Tredigs hit the nail on the head. I NEVER said LeBron should be ranked higher/lower based on the amount of points he scored.

NYKalltheway said he doesn't get caught up in the hype when a guy has 2-3 good/great years and listed Kobe, Bron and Durant. They all had more than 2-3 good/great years and as an example I used LeBron's game count compared to Bird and his total points scored to illustrate he's been in the league a long time.

So the idea we are getting caught up in the moment with LeBron is completely incorrect.

Trust me NYKalltheway, I'd LOVE to use more context with you, but this proves you can't understand context.

But I noticed you glossed over refuting that. Care to revise your statement concerning LeBron, Kobe and Durant having 2-3 good/great years or are you going to stand by that?

NYKalltheway
02-09-2016, 02:32 PM
It's funny you say something like this, because you're talking to someone who I GUARANTEE has been to more live professional basketball games than you have (I'll include your Greek games) for 3 decades and someone who puts his money where his mouth is on the game. I speak to people every day who have seen more basketball games in their life than the two of us combined (by a huge margin), who make 5 figure bets every morning, and trust me, they do not deny or ignore the analytics as well. The games have become MUCH tougher to bet in the past decade on accordance of analytics. And all the best bettors have the best stats. That's just a fact. You're an ignorant loser (literally) to ignore that.

Dude, I've been to at least 800 basketball games in my life, that's no exaggeration. And I've watched thousands more. I've watched around 2000 training/practice sessions in my life as well and been involved in some - ie, run them, as I had to get a coaching certification.

Betting (I work in finance full time and used to be involved in trading in particular, I know what gambling is :laugh: - fund management which is my current status is much easier and less hectic lol) is more complex as a whole now. That's natural.

But it's not all about watching the games. My dad watches games and he doesn't understand what's a foul and what's not. He's watched over 100 basketball games live and at least x5 as many on tv. He likes the hoops and that, but basketball is not a sport he'll ever understand. He's someone who might say he's impressed with someone like Curry and Durant who shoot lights out but will go 'meh' at someone like Derrick Rose and say player X from country Y seems better. It's not an easy sport. I know people who talk about soccer all day long and they know crap. I know people who bet thousands on soccer teams they've never heard of. It's no critetia really.

At the end of the day, there are many knowledgable people in the game and some very contradicting opinions and mindsets. Don't look any further than the NBA. Look at Popovich, Phil Jackson and Pat Riley who've been the top 3 coaches in the last years. Their take on basketball is alien to eachothers.
So conflict of opinion doesn't mean that much, it's mostly about the angle and information someone has.

tredigs
02-09-2016, 03:08 PM
I surely hope so NYK. I essentially lived at Oracle in the early 90's and have played/coached for as long as I've been here. In the financial realm, you'll find (or may have found) that sports-betting is tougher than nearly all other gambling avenues (which is a stigmatized term for 'finance realm') because there are essentially no backdoor angles to manipulate (IE insider trading).

And yes, it's not all about watching games. It's about understanding the game. And imo, you only ultimately reach that point of peak knowledge after watching tape/live, playing, coaching and ultimately betting on the game (not necessary I suppose, but will put your knowledge in check VERY fast if your current knowledge is off base).

Edit: If I was a team owner (HA), being a capable winning sports bettor is something I'd want out of them almost beyond all else. If you're a loser, you lack the depth of the current game to run a team imo.

kdspurman
02-09-2016, 03:16 PM
Updated first page..

Dream 10, Shaq 9, Timmy 8 , Russell 7

FraziersKnicks
02-09-2016, 03:40 PM
Updated first page..

Dream 10, Shaq 9, Timmy 8 , Russell 7

Shaq and Timmy should be above Russ, Magic and Bird.

HandsOnTheWheel
02-09-2016, 03:40 PM
Next 6 should be
6. Lebron
5. Bird/Magic
4. Magic/Bird
3. Wilt
2. Kareem
1. MJ

mngopher35
02-09-2016, 03:48 PM
Shaq and Timmy should be above Russ, Magic and Bird.

I agree, I also currently have them over Lebron as well.

kdspurman
02-09-2016, 03:49 PM
Shaq and Timmy should be above Russ, Magic and Bird.

I agree. I have TD above Lebron as well, but most folks top 10's vary, it's no biggie. Overall (there were some questionable items) I think the list is decent.

flea
02-09-2016, 03:51 PM
Both Shaq and Duncan should be over Lebron. They both had better primes through age 30, and Duncan had one of the best declines ever. Literally no argument beyond the tired chorus of PPG, which Shaq actually beats Lebron on anyway.

Don't see how a guy who wins less in the worse conference and sees his efficiency sink from regular season to playoffs (especially in latter stages of playoffs since East round 1 and 2 are usually gimmes) is better than 2 of the best bigs of all time. Oh yeah he isn't, this is ESPN marketing machine hyping their star.

FraziersKnicks
02-09-2016, 04:43 PM
Both Shaq and Duncan should be over Lebron. They both had better primes through age 30, and Duncan had one of the best declines ever. Literally no argument beyond the tired chorus of PPG, which Shaq actually beats Lebron on anyway.

Don't see how a guy who wins less in the worse conference and sees his efficiency sink from regular season to playoffs (especially in latter stages of playoffs since East round 1 and 2 are usually gimmes) is better than 2 of the best bigs of all time. Oh yeah he isn't, this is ESPN marketing machine hyping their star.

I actually agree that TD and Shaq should be above LeBron but your first statement just isn't true:

Stats thru age 30 season:

LBJ: 27.7 PER, 58.1 TS%, 178.9 win shares, .240 WS/48, 9.2 BPM, 101.0 VORP
TD: 25.2 PER, 55.4 TS%, 130.3 win shares, .224 WS/48, 6.3 BPM, 58.4 VORP
Shaq: 28.4 PER, 58.4 TS%, 135.5 win shares, .232 WS/48, 6.2 BPM, 57.7 VORP

LBJ has a HUGE advantage in win shares, BPM and VORP. Shaq had a slightly higher PER and TS%.

All of them experience drops in efficiency in the playoffs based on TS% (not surprising, considering you're going up against the best of the best):

LBJ: -1.5 (58 down to 56.5)
TD: -0.2 (55.1 down to 54.9)
Shaq: -2.1 (58.6 down to 56.5)

As for LeBron winning less, he leads both TD and Shaq in playoff winning percentage.

LBJ: 115-63 (64.6%)
TD: 152-94 (61.7%)
Shaq: 135-90 (60%)

So really none of your arguments hold any truth.

Just for the record I've got TD/Shaq above LeBron, but it's not for the reasons you've mentioned.

flea
02-09-2016, 05:04 PM
I actually agree that TD and Shaq should be above LeBron but your first statement just isn't true:

Stats thru age 30 season:

LBJ: 27.7 PER, 58.1 TS%, 178.9 win shares, .240 WS/48, 9.2 BPM, 101.0 VORP
TD: 25.2 PER, 55.4 TS%, 130.3 win shares, .224 WS/48, 6.3 BPM, 58.4 VORP
Shaq: 28.4 PER, 58.4 TS%, 135.5 win shares, .232 WS/48, 6.2 BPM, 57.7 VORP

LBJ has a HUGE advantage in win shares, BPM and VORP. Shaq had a slightly higher PER and TS%.

All of them experience drops in efficiency in the playoffs based on TS% (not surprising, considering you're going up against the best of the best):

LBJ: -1.5 (58 down to 56.5)
TD: -0.2 (55.1 down to 54.9)
Shaq: -2.1 (58.6 down to 56.5)

As for LeBron winning less, he leads both TD and Shaq in playoff winning percentage.

LBJ: 115-63 (64.6%)
TD: 152-94 (61.7%)
Shaq: 135-90 (60%)

So really none of your arguments hold any truth.

Just for the record I've got TD/Shaq above LeBron, but it's not for the reasons you've mentioned.

Stats like BPM mean very little for 3 guys who were the #1 player for their team offensively and at least top 2 defensively. PER is utterly useless, and WS is basically the same for all 3 and doesn't adjust for conference or anything else. This is a site of relatively sophisticated basketball fans, we can look at the raw lines ourselves and decide.

Per 100 Possessions:

LJ: 36.5/11.3/8.6 with 4.5 TO 51.5 2PT% 31.8 3PT% 56.5 TS%, 114 O Rating 101 D rating, 2 rings in the historically bad East (2 Finals beatdowns and 1 undermanned attempt). Good, not excellent, forward defense.

TD: 32.3/17/4.8 with 4.3 TO, 51.1 2PT% 56.0 TS%, 111 O Rating 97 D Rating, 4 rings in 4 Finals in the stacked West. Elite all-time defense.

SO: 37.3/17.1/4.3 with 4.1 TO, 55.8 2PT% 56.8 TS%, 114 O Rating, 104 D rating, 3 rings in 4 Finals in stacked West (one Finals in East). Good big man defense, sometimes great.

Lebron also shoots 46% from the field and 31% from game 10 onwards in the playoffs. His Finals percentages are even worse. When he can't beat up on the Bucks, Josh Smith Hawks, or Avery Bradley Celtics he's more like Clyde Drexler than he is MJ.

FWIW Duncan shoots 49% from the field in game 10+ of playoffs, in the much harder conference. Duncan's TS% also increases along with his PPG from regular season to playoffs. Shaq's TS% increases but his PPG goes down. Lebron's go down across the board.

So if you want to reward him for winning with worse efficiency in the East, be my guest. Duncan and Shaq won more rings as the their team's best player (sometimes only star player), increased efficiency, played in the hard conference, and were much more impactful defenders.

valade16
02-09-2016, 05:13 PM
I have to echo FraziersKnicks sentiments. It seems based on a number of decisions that whatever group of people polled is valuing peak over longevity or even accolades the closer they get to the top spot, and one could easily argue LeBron's peak was every bit as good or even better than Shaq or Duncan's, especially statistically (though my reason for thinking so is not exclusively statistically).

LeBron has 3 of the top 10 PER seasons in history, Shaq and Duncan have none (I know Flea is not a fan of PER)
LeBron has 3 of the top 10 WS/48 seasons in history (and the 11th best too), Shaq and Duncan have none.
LeBron has 5 of the top 10 and 4 of the top 6 Box Plus Minus seasons in history, Shaq and Duncan have none.
LeBron has 3 of the top 10 VORP seasons in history (and the 11th best too), Shaq and Duncan have none.

For the record, I also have both Shaq and Duncan ahead of LeBron. Statistically LeBron's peak is ahead of both Shaq and Duncan's, but once you factor in defense it's a lot closer than the statistics dictate, although LeBron was certainly no slouch on the defensive end either.

ManningToTyree
02-09-2016, 05:21 PM
So the remaining 6 are mj wilt bird Magic lebron and Kareem I take it. This list is really a mess

tredigs
02-09-2016, 05:35 PM
So the remaining 6 are mj wilt bird Magic lebron and Kareem I take it. This list is really a mess

Totally. What a fail of a top 6. I'd have had Clyde/Zeke/Nique/Cousy/Mikan/Westbrook.

valade16
02-09-2016, 05:38 PM
Stats like BPM mean very little for 3 guys who were the #1 player for their team offensively and at least top 2 defensively. PER is utterly useless, and WS is basically the same for all 3 and doesn't adjust for conference or anything else. This is a site of relatively sophisticated basketball fans, we can look at the raw lines ourselves and decide.

Per 100 Possessions:

LJ: 36.5/11.3/8.6 with 4.5 TO 51.5 2PT% 31.8 3PT% 56.5 TS%, 114 O Rating 101 D rating, 2 rings in the historically bad East (2 Finals beatdowns and 1 undermanned attempt). Good, not excellent, forward defense.

TD: 32.3/17/4.8 with 4.3 TO, 51.1 2PT% 56.0 TS%, 111 O Rating 97 D Rating, 4 rings in 4 Finals in the stacked West. Elite all-time defense.

SO: 37.3/17.1/4.3 with 4.1 TO, 55.8 2PT% 56.8 TS%, 114 O Rating, 104 D rating, 3 rings in 4 Finals in stacked West (one Finals in East). Good big man defense, sometimes great.

Lebron also shoots 46% from the field and 31% from game 10 onwards in the playoffs. His Finals percentages are even worse. When he can't beat up on the Bucks, Josh Smith Hawks, or Avery Bradley Celtics he's more like Clyde Drexler than he is MJ.

FWIW Duncan shoots 49% from the field in game 10+ of playoffs, in the much harder conference. Duncan's TS% also increases along with his PPG from regular season to playoffs. Shaq's TS% increases but his PPG goes down. Lebron's go down across the board.

So if you want to reward him for winning with worse efficiency in the East, be my guest. Duncan and Shaq won more rings as the their team's best player (sometimes only star player), increased efficiency, played in the hard conference, and were much more impactful defenders.

I'm sure everyone's been over this but in regards to the first bolded, while that is your opinion, most disagree with it. LeBron is considered historically one of the better defenders at SF and he had a few seasons where it was most assuredly elite defense.

In regards to the second bolded, I'm assuming you mean Duncan as the only star player and not Shaq? Even then that was 1 year for Duncan, other than that he's played with some of the more stacked rosters in recent memory. Or put another way, with the exception of 2003 Duncan has played with at least one other bonafide HOF caliber player every title run (Robinson 99, Manu/Parker 05 and 07, Kawhi 14), Outside Wade/Bosh in Miami, LeBron has played with none. I won't even go into the difference between Popovich and the coaches LeBron had because that should be obvious.

LeBron has faced the Spurs 3 times. Once as you said his team was severely outgunned, but when LeBron had a stacked team like Duncan's they are 1-1.

Also, Duncan's playoff TS% is 54.9%, Shaq's is 56.5% and LeBron's is 56.5%, so I'm not seeing this decreased efficiency compared to Duncan and Shaq considering he is scoring at the same rate and efficiency in the playoffs as them (LeBron 36.5 Per 100, Shaq 34.7 Per 100, Duncan 30.1 Per 100).

Like I said, if you want to argue defense outside the realm of statistics, then we're going to have to agree to disagree on LeBron not being a great defender in his prime.

kdspurman
02-09-2016, 05:42 PM
I'm sure everyone's been over this but in regards to the first bolded, while that is your opinion, most disagree with it. LeBron is considered historically one of the better defenders at SF and he had a few seasons where it was most assuredly elite defense.

In regards to the second bolded, I'm assuming you mean Duncan as the only star player and not Shaq? Even then that was 1 year for Duncan, other than that he's played with some of the more stacked rosters in recent memory. Or put another way, with the exception of 2003 Duncan has played with at least one other bonafide HOF caliber player every title run (Robinson 99, Manu/Parker 05 and 07, Kawhi 14), Outside Wade/Bosh in Miami, LeBron has played with none. I won't even go into the difference between Popovich and the coaches LeBron had because that should be obvious.

LeBron has faced the Spurs 3 times. Once as you said his team was severely outgunned, but when LeBron had a stacked team like Duncan's they are 1-1.

Also, Duncan's playoff TS% is 54.9%, Shaq's is 56.5% and LeBron's is 56.5%, so I'm not seeing this decreased efficiency compared to Duncan and Shaq considering he is scoring at the same rate and efficiency in the playoffs as them (LeBron 36.5 Per 100, Shaq 34.7 Per 100, Duncan 30.1 Per 100).

Like I said, if you want to argue defense outside the realm of statistics, then we're going to have to agree to disagree on LeBron not being a great defender in his prime.

I think Lebron put up some really good years during his stint in Miami, defensively. But outside of that, (in my opinion) he was nothing really special. Yes he had the chase down blocks that were featured often during his highlights, but he just didn't seem to put as much effort on that end as he did the other. Obviously nothing like a James Harden, but I think he was probably average on that end for much of his career

Evil_Empire
02-09-2016, 05:44 PM
Totally. What a fail of a top 6. I'd have had Clyde/Zeke/Nique/Cousy/Mikan/Westbrook.

Which Clyde?

Clyde Mayes, Clyde Lovellette, Clyde Lee, Clyde Drexler, Clyde Dickey, Ben Clyde, or even Walt "Clyde" Frazier

I would like to throw in Chubby Cox simply because his name makes me giggle.

FraziersKnicks
02-09-2016, 05:46 PM
Stats like BPM mean very little for 3 guys who were the #1 player for their team offensively and at least top 2 defensively. PER is utterly useless, and WS is basically the same for all 3 and doesn't adjust for conference or anything else. This is a site of relatively sophisticated basketball fans, we can look at the raw lines ourselves and decide.

Per 100 Possessions:

LJ: 36.5/11.3/8.6 with 4.5 TO 51.5 2PT% 31.8 3PT% 56.5 TS%, 114 O Rating 101 D rating, 2 rings in the historically bad East (2 Finals beatdowns and 1 undermanned attempt). Good, not excellent, forward defense.

TD: 32.3/17/4.8 with 4.3 TO, 51.1 2PT% 56.0 TS%, 111 O Rating 97 D Rating, 4 rings in 4 Finals in the stacked West. Elite all-time defense.

SO: 37.3/17.1/4.3 with 4.1 TO, 55.8 2PT% 56.8 TS%, 114 O Rating, 104 D rating, 3 rings in 4 Finals in stacked West (one Finals in East). Good big man defense, sometimes great.

Lebron also shoots 46% from the field and 31% from game 10 onwards in the playoffs. His Finals percentages are even worse. When he can't beat up on the Bucks, Josh Smith Hawks, or Avery Bradley Celtics he's more like Clyde Drexler than he is MJ.

FWIW Duncan shoots 49% from the field in game 10+ of playoffs, in the much harder conference. Duncan's TS% also increases along with his PPG from regular season to playoffs. Shaq's TS% increases but his PPG goes down. Lebron's go down across the board.

So if you want to reward him for winning with worse efficiency in the East, be my guest. Duncan and Shaq won more rings as the their team's best player (sometimes only star player), increased efficiency, played in the hard conference, and were much more impactful defenders.

So BPM and PER are useless but D rating and your opinion that LeBron wasn't an excellent defender are more gospel (because they support your agenda)?

Win shares is basically the same?! LeBron basically has a 40 win share advanced on TD and 35 on Shaq. That's the equivalent of 3 extra MVP level seasons worth of win share production! That can't be ignored (even though you want to).

D rating is impacted far too much by teammates to have any real impact of valuing a player. Is LaMarcus Aldridge a better defensive player than Draymond Green this year?

I also value LeBron being a top 5 DPOY candidate 4 times (runner up twice) more than your opinion he was simply "good".

Where are you getting these efficiency numbers from? I've already shown you that all of their TS% dropped in the playoffs (LeBron is still more efficient than TD and par with Shaq at 56.5%).

tredigs
02-09-2016, 05:53 PM
Which Clyde?

Clyde Mayes, Clyde Lovellette, Clyde Lee, Clyde Drexler, Clyde Dickey, Ben Clyde, or even Walt "Clyde" Frazier

I would like to throw in Chubby Cox simply because his name makes me giggle.

Aha funny thing is I was referencing Frazier, and he's the only actual non Clyde of the bunch.

flea
02-09-2016, 05:58 PM
So BPM and PER are useless but D rating and your opinion that LeBron wasn't an excellent defender are more gospel (because they support your agenda)?

PER is completely useless. BPM is useful in some situations, like for role players, but you might as well look at team wins if you're talking about star players carrying their teams. How well the bench behind them plays has little to do with them, and most of these guys played 40+ MPG in the samples anyway.


Win shares is basically the same?! LeBron basically has a 40 win share advanced on TD and 35 on Shaq. That's the equivalent of 3 extra MVP level seasons worth of win share production! That can't be ignored (even though you want to).

Age 21-30 Postseason WS/48:

LJ: .234
TD: .222
SO: .211

LJ has a raw WS advantage because he played in 50 more games during the sample. The reason he did is that he played in the junk conference and he played the entire sample in playoff expansion (SO and TD had 5 game series vs. their opening opponents who shouldn't have even been in playoffs anyway for about half in TD's case and almost all SO's case).

WS is a box score stat like PER too, but at least it's tied to wins. Lebronball is designed to get him numbers regardless of outcome.


D rating is impacted far too much by teammates to have any real impact of valuing a player. Is LaMarcus Aldridge a better defensive player than Draymond Green this year?

I also value LeBron being a top 5 DPOY candidate 4 times (runner up twice) more than your opinion he was simply "good".

I don't think either O RTG or D RTG are great, but I think they are both better than PER/WS because they indicate how a player's team performs while he's on the court. I think D RTG is much worse, but I think the differential can sometimes be useful to look at.


Where are you getting these efficiency numbers from? I've already shown you that all of their TS% dropped in the playoffs (LeBron is still more efficient than TD and par with Shaq at 56.5%).

Maybe you aren't isolating SO and TD's primes (through age 30). I am not comparing Shaq's fat years to Lebron's physical prime. Here are regular season and postseason TS% numbers for each:

LJ: 58% RS/56.5% PS
TD: 55.4% RS/56.0% PS
SO: 58.4% RS/56.8% PS

KingJames6
02-09-2016, 05:59 PM
Bird is at 6. Top 5 will be Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, and Lebron, then.

flea
02-09-2016, 06:08 PM
Oh and IDK anyone but fanboys who think Lebron was ever a "great defender." He's a perimeter defender and does not like to defend inside - poor old Shane Battier had to do it. He rebounds well for a SF but not for a PF, and he never in his career checked the opposing team's best perimeter player except in brief stretches. It is near impossible to be great defensively if that's your role.

Evil_Empire
02-09-2016, 06:21 PM
Oh and IDK anyone but fanboys who think Lebron was ever a "great defender." He's a perimeter defender and does not like to defend inside - poor old Shane Battier had to do it. He rebounds well for a SF but not for a PF, and he never in his career checked the opposing team's best perimeter player except in brief stretches. It is near impossible to be great defensively if that's your role.

Let me introduce you some hall of famers and non-fanboys who think highly of Lebron's defense:

"Not only will LeBron dominate from the offensive end as well, but he's also doing it on the defensive end which really makes him the complete package. He's able to get in those passing lanes, shoot those gaps and create transition opportunities where he is pretty much unstoppable." Scottie Pippen

“No. No, he wasn’t,” Barkley said Wednesday on The Dan Patrick Show. “Scottie was a terrific player. But Scottie wasn’t a guy who could get you 30 every night. He was a terrific defender, but he wasn’t gonna get you 10 rebounds. LeBron could get you 30 a night. He’s the best defender — Scottie was a great defender. But he wasn’t gonna get you a bunch of rebounds every night. So the answer to that question is no.”

“He might not have had a lot of big numbers, but he would have made it,” Oakley said. “If you can get 26 [points] instead of 27, it's the same thing. But he's a guy you want to play with, no matter level what he played. If he played 40 years ago, he understands basketball. He's one of the smartest guys I've seen in this game, probably go down as one of the smartest guys. He dictates offense, defense, he can do it all.”


Magic Johnson, walking out of AmericanAirlines Arena Friday morning, said: “LeBron is top 10 and moving up fast, and he can surpass Michael as the greatest who ever played. He’s the best defender, smartest player in the game. And he [plays for] the greatest organization in the world.”

"This guy can guard five (positions). … You can put him on anybody, and he can guard him." - Jim Boeheim


"His basketball IQ is phenomenal," (Shaq) O'Neal said of James. "He could coach in the NBA right now." The 24-year-old James has impressed O'Neal with his thorough knowledge of the game -- his understanding of angles, of defensive principles...saying he's the smartest star he's played with in his 18-year career."

Now you know someone other than fanboys who think that. Try those logical fallacies some more there, Flea, and maybe just maybe you will hit on something that can not be refuted.

Ha

valade16
02-09-2016, 06:50 PM
Yeah, Flea's argument is pretty weak.

Not a great defender despite near unanimous consensus he was a great defender at his peak.

Had worse efficiency than Shaq/Duncan in the playoffs in their primes despite the fact his TS% is identical and/or slightly better.

We can't use flawed stats that show LeBron is superior but we can use flawed stats to show Duncan/Shaq are superior.

There is an argument to be made for Shaq and Duncan here, but that certainly isn't it.

flea
02-09-2016, 06:52 PM
Try those logical fallacies some more there, Flea, and maybe just maybe you will hit on something that can not be refuted.

Ha

Lmao are you joking? At least I gave perfectly legitimate reasons why (perimeter man, didn't make it part of his game to check the best player, more of a team defender). All you've done is literally give a logical fallacy - appeal to authority.

I don't care what off-the-cuff comments have been made - he objectively can't defend 1-5 and that was a lie when people said it about Magic too. This is a perfect example of fanboyism.