ESPN Top 100 list

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Just wanted to add this into this thread for cross comparisons on all the lists.

What is a lightweight and a choker like Kevin Garnett doing in the top 10 of any All-All list? He couldn't carry Gus Johnson's or Dave DeBusschere's shoes.

Karl Malone was a solid 18-20 ppg scorer who was turned into a 28 ppg monster by John Stockton. Stockton was the more important of the two there.

David Robinson? A nifty face up scorer and great weak-side shot blocker. Did he have serious go-to moves? Could he guard man to man in the low post? Did he ever deliver in the clutch? Was he carried to glory by Tim Duncan? No, no, no, and yes.

Barkley was a useless stat sheet stuffer. He would hold the ball for a five count before making any type of affirmative move. And he never rotated on defense.

Moses Malone was too one dimensional to be ranked on a list like that. Ditto for Reggie Miller.

Patrick Ewing was a good turn around jump-shooter and had a nice hook shot. He couldn't do anything else.

Kevin McHale is every bit as good as Hakeem Olajuwon was.

[jake44np]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

What is a lightweight and a choker like Kevin Garnett doing in the top 10 of any All-All list? He couldn't carry Gus Johnson's or Dave DeBusschere's shoes.

Karl Malone was a solid 18-20 ppg scorer who was turned into a 28 ppg monster by John Stockton. Stockton was the more important of the two there.

David Robinson? A nifty face up scorer and great weak-side shot blocker. Did he have serious go-to moves? Could he guard man to man in the low post? Did he ever deliver in the clutch? Was he carried to glory by Tim Duncan? No, no, no, and yes.

Barkley was a useless stat sheet stuffer. He would hold the ball for a five count before making any type of affirmative move. And he never rotated on defense.

Moses Malone was too one dimensional to be ranked on a list like that. Ditto for Reggie Miller.

Patrick Ewing was a good turn around jump-shooter and had a nice hook shot. He couldn't do anything else.

Kevin McHale is every bit as good as Hakeem Olajuwon was.

You need a history lesson, how old are you?

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

AB about to post the oil painting of him and Naismith setting up the first peach baskets. Of all the guys who need history lessons, he ain't it.

[jake44np]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

AB about to post the oil painting of him and Naismith setting up the first peach baskets. Of all the guys who need history lessons, he ain't it.

Yeah I know, it was a joke.
He is about the same age as me.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Haven't been able to dig all the way but I like where he seems to be going with this. I've always wondered why people were so fixated on judging individual players only by the number of team championships they'd won. Well, I guess I can understand why people fixate on that, I just don't agree with its gravity in most cases. Rather, I like the idea of looking at how positively a player affects a team, period, even if the end result isn't an NBA championship.

For instance, throw Michael Jordan onto the early 90's Bulls and they're championship contenders every single year. However, throw Michael Jordan on the 1993 Mavericks and they probably make the playoffs, which would be an incredible improvement for a team that won just 11 games without him. Michael Jordan is still the same Michael Jordan in each case. It's just, when his point guard is Mike Iuzzolino, that team's only going to go so far.

I like taking in all aspects of a players career, but I've never understood the idea behind championships being such a large divider when determining player vs player. How much impact that player has should far outweigh whether or not the team he was on wins a championship. Hypothetically speaking if player A and B player were nearly identical across the board in terms of their level of play, accolades, stats, longevity, impact, etc, but player A has more rings and player B was better at his peak, in most cases player B probably gets the nod from me. After all, if it's a better player argument shouldn't who's better at his best hold a good chunk of weight?

[dubcity]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

AB not gonna get his usual likes on that damn post lol.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

What is a lightweight and a choker like Kevin Garnett doing in the top 10 of any All-All list? He couldn't carry Gus Johnson's or Dave DeBusschere's shoes.

Karl Malone was a solid 18-20 ppg scorer who was turned into a 28 ppg monster by John Stockton. Stockton was the more important of the two there.

David Robinson? A nifty face up scorer and great weak-side shot blocker. Did he have serious go-to moves? Could he guard man to man in the low post? Did he ever deliver in the clutch? Was he carried to glory by Tim Duncan? No, no, no, and yes.

Barkley was a useless stat sheet stuffer. He would hold the ball for a five count before making any type of affirmative move. And he never rotated on defense.

Moses Malone was too one dimensional to be ranked on a list like that. Ditto for Reggie Miller.

Patrick Ewing was a good turn around jump-shooter and had a nice hook shot. He couldn't do anything else.

Kevin McHale is every bit as good as Hakeem Olajuwon was.

Kevin Garnet:

Spoiler

I've never fully agreed with your Kevin Garnett slander. I don't agree with the notion that he's the 8th greatest player to ever play, but the information given in their breakdown does fall in line with a lot of their criteria used for other players. It’s definitely a well thought out ranking even though there are definitely aspects that are left out. I think a better range for KG would be somewhere from 15-25.
I understand there are probably aspects Gus and Dave fair better than him at, and those aspects form your opinions in the past I know hold a lot of weight. But there are plenty of things that he bests them at as well. And there is something to be said for a player who’s of the caliber you can build your team around. Those are the rarity type of players, KG was one of them, and likely never less than a top 5 player in the league through the better part of his career. He ranks out top 10 all time in most advanced metrics, won league MVP and competed for a few more of them, has 22 All-League/Defensive selections. I know you like to point out that those don’t matter because they are voted on as opinions but also realize that would be like me telling you that your opinion doesn’t matter either. It does hold weight when a player is performing at that level consistently.

I know from reading here over the years one of your biggest Garnett complaints is failing to come up with baskets or big plays during clutch moments of playoff games. I find that to be a massive overstatement, but even if I were to agree with that statement entirely we can’t ignore the context that comes with that. He was far and away the best player on those teams, teams that weren’t of the level to realistically compete for a ring against those Spurs/Lakers teams. The fact that they were even in a position for a chance for him to fail in a clutch moment was because of how he played in the other 45 minutes of those games. The first chance he had to play on a team that was good enough to compete for a championship he wins it his first year, as the best player on the team overall and at both ends of the court, also bringing home DPOY. So, I do think your criticism, while he definitely should have some, is pretty overstated.

Karl Malone:

Spoiler

A bit different than the KG scenario as he always had Stockton and Sloan which gave him a better environment to succeed, and his game in terms of versatility wasn’t near the level of KG. Despite that he was still a great with longevity that is rivaled by few. Malone had a good low post game, good mid-range game, and ran the floor as well as just about anyone his size that’s ever played. He 100% benefited from playing with Stockton, but Stockton 100% benefited from playing with him. He set good screens, ran the floor hard, rolled to the rim well, and could always be counted on if you dumped it into him.

I think the biggest difference with Malone and Stockton here is Malone could have likely been the same player with any high-level passer, Kidd, Nash, Magic, etc because his game was effectively built around creating opportunities for them to get him the ball. While Stockton without a big the set screen like Malone, rolled like Malone, posted as well as Malone, ran the floor as well as Malone, his career likely wouldn’t have played out as well.

Per the info provided in the link, and I’m going to quote it, the majority of Malone’s offense in fact wasn’t from direct creation by Stockton.
"Additionally, in tracking nearly 400 possessions from 1991-98, Malone had a teammate create a score for him at a rate of 0.5 per 100 possessions. For comparison, in 1,100 possessions during the 2010 playoffs, Amare Stoudemire’s rate of “helped” offense like this was 3.4 per 100, nearly seven times higher. Malone’s rate was closer to hubs like LeBron (0.3 per 100 in the ’10 playoffs) and Kobe (0.4 per 100 in the ’10 playoffs)."..

Also, in terms of longevity on par with scoring only Kareem, Kobe, and likely LeBron are really going to match. Another guy who spent most of his career competing for (and winning) the MVP award. Also, of note, Malone actually played a big chunk of games without Stockton in 97-98, which was a bit past his prime and his advantage of out-running everyone down the court had drastically diminished. He was still around a 25 and 12 guy. So, I think it’s unfair to really say he’s only great due to Stockton, they both made each other great.

I think his biggest knock would be his performance seemed to take a dip in the playoffs compared to regular season. However, most players do. 13 is a bit higher than I would have him, the other lists have him at 16 and 21 though so it’s not as if he’s not somewhere in that mix. They have Kobe right after him, which to me isn’t accurate, but also outside of championships their performance over a long career is actually going to come out looks fairly similar.

David Robinson:
A few of us here have argued enough about Robinson to jump onto that ship again. Like Garnett your take on his game seems almost stubborn to the point where if he doesn’t have the exact qualities you want you ignore the ones he does have.

Charles Barkley:
I don’t disagree about him often having the ball for too long, especially later in his career. He was still a great player. In the 20ish range seems fair for him, the other lists have him around that same ranking as well.

Moses Malone:
Not one dimensional as he was an elite rebounder and a good scorer over his career. His impact likely doesn’t equate to his counting numbers, but he was still one of the best players in the league, what he did with Philly was all-timer worthy. They have him barely making the top 25, while the other lists (and most others as well) have him around 15. So he’s not really being overrated in this breakdown by any means.

Patrick Ewing:
While your “He couldn't do anything else” statement isn’t really fair, I’ve never been overly praising of Ewing myself. I don’t think he would crack my top 30, though he still probably lands somewhere in the backside of my top 50. Would have liked to have been able to see a career from him with no knee issues.

Hakeem Olajuwon:
While I think Hakeem could at times be somewhat of a black-hole, I disagree with your statement wholeheartedly. McHale was maybe every bit as good as Hakeem in terms of footwork, but that’s about where that comparison ends. Still think 6 is a bit too high for him personally, But a lot of that is going to come down to how much value you place on his “peak”.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Garnett wasn't the type of player you build around but rather a complementary piece to a true franchise player like Paul Pierce. He was an incredibly active defender and did cover large swaths of space. Problem is that he could be roasted when playing behind a bulky low post big. Even mediocre bigs could give KG a rough time in the post. His passing was alert and unselfish but he couldn't pass on the move. Carrying a team to the brink of the finish line isn't enough. A truly great player will make all the plays necessary to carry his team to victory in the clutch.

Karl Malone could always be counted on when the ball was dumped into him.... unless there were eight minutes left in a big game. He was a notorious choke artist. Instead of blasting his way to the middle he would toss up a low percentage turnaround jumper over his right shoulder that always missed. He did expertly read screen/roll situations and always seemed to know when to slip the screen. But he lacked serious go-to moves and didn't have an explosive body.

Magic was rarely involved in screen/rolls so that wouldn't quite fit with Malone's skill set. Steve Nash didn't have the strength that Stockton did to set those vicious back screens in Jerry Sloan's flex so that wouldn't be optimal either. Jason Kidd would have been a perfect fit in Sloan's grind it out offense.

Moses Malone was only effective in close proximity to the rim. He was a monstrous offensive rebounder and low post scorer. But he hated to pass and was a turnover machine. His man to man defense was casual and he didn't rotate. When he felt like he wasn't getting his touches he would ruin any semblance of team chemistry.

[d11king]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I’m not trying to start anything, but when you (you reading this) say “best player of all-time” or at any position, what factors into how you make the decision? Like I think Lebron is the best basketball player of all time from a talent level perspective.. but I believe some people factor in legacy and killer instinct and all other type of things, so I’m just asking in general what your formula really is...

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I’m not trying to start anything, but when you (you reading this) say “best player of all-time” or at any position, what factors into how you make the decision? Like I think Lebron is the best basketball player of all time from a talent level perspective.. but I believe some people factor in legacy and killer instinct and all other type of things, so I’m just asking in general what your formula really is...

Dominance of your peers is number one. Talent is important but character is even more crucial. I like players with complete games with an extra added emphasis on the defensive end. Since the NBA's field goal percentage hovers around 47% it is quite clear then that defense triumphs 53% of the time.

The truly great players can take even a modicum of talented players around them to a title but there are certain special players that never won it all (John Stockton, Nate Thurmond, Sidney Moncrief).

Since there are always 10 players on the court and only one ball that means that almost every player will spend 90% of their time on the court without the ball. How do they react to this situation? Do they box out or look to leak out? Screen solidly or ghostly? Are their dive cuts determined or desultory? How do they deal with screen/rolls and weak-side screens? It goes on and on. You learn the most about any given player by observing them without the ball.

Statistics are merely a marginal guide and a box-score communicates little about what happened in a ball game. Career longevity is also a minor consideration.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Since the NBA's field goal percentage hovers around 47% it is quite clear then that defense triumphs 53% of the time.

This insinuates that in every instance there is bad defense that other teams would shoot 100%, which isn’t the case.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

So I was listening to NBA radio last night and they were doing their top 5, top 10 stuff, I think mostly in talks with Kobe. And I believe it was host Gerald Brown with Ryan Hollins and Antonio Daniels, as well as some callers like always.

But one thing Brown said, which I've heard him bring it up before in these discussions which is why I'm posting, is he always seems to bring Earl Monroe's name into the discussion. Top 10 discussion. So I'm coming back to these lists to see him at 50, and 60 which to me seems a bit more accurate but maybe still a tad high...

I guess my point of posting is, how much do some of these older players get boosted on lists like this for their name more so than their game. It seems like when the inverse happens it's always chalked up as "recency bias" but not many seem to take issue with an older generation player getting placed so highly because they "did it first" or they "did it before". I think somewhere the line between before/better seems to get a bit blurred. I would use Dr. J still being labeled as the best dunker by many as an example of what I'm trying to say.

It's not like there is tons of Monroe footage out there. But from what I've gathered about him over the years he seemed to be a combo like guard, who had a great spin move, and tons of different releases on his shots in the lane, with a decent mid-range jumper.

But today is the first time I've ever actually taken the time to analyze him statistically rather than using games/highlights to decipher for myself. He's a career 18 a night guy who shot in the mid 40's. He only made 1 All-League team, 4 all-star teams, the closest he finished for an MVP award was 12th, and basketball reference only gave him a HOF probability of 14%. The only two aspects all time that he ranks top 100 in are total points (84th) and points per game (99th).

Advanced stats for him didn't start until the 73/74 season where he ranked out as a negative in terms of box +/-, he also was given a PER of 14.5 where the league average is ranked at 15. A couple good playoff stretches before he went to the Knicks, but only shot 42% in that 3 year span, 38% in his best scoring year.

I understand stats never paint the full picture, and eras are tricky, but even in his own era it seems as if he wasn't really regarded as a top tier guy, at least consistently. Yet we all know "The Pearl", "Black Jesus", he's a HOF player, made the 50 greatest players list, etc... At what point does it become fair to say that the inverse of "recency bias" might be a stronger factor in many ways that actual recency bias is? There are guys playing now that many would tear you down for if you insinuated they belonged anywhere near the top 100, yet some of them are going to have much better careers than a guy who's consistently labeled as a top 50 player.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Well, you have to first understand the circumstances in which Monroe played. His first year in the NBA he was sensational dropping 24 points per game and winning the Rookie of the Year.

His Baltimore coach, Gene Shue, basically preached a one on one offense so Monroe was free to dribble and dance with the ball to his heart's content. All of his maneuvering usually terminated in some sort of mid-range pull up. His pull up jumper wasn't only "decent", he was deadly. I would call him the most creative player the NBA has ever seen. And throughout his career he was highly reliable in clutch situations.

Defenses back in Monroe's days were much more physical than they are now and the players were more fundamentally sound with their defensive techniques.

When Pearl got traded to the Knicks he had to share shot opportunities in their 'hit the open man' attack. He would typically rank third or fourth in shot attempts. That explains why his scoring numbers took a hit. What really impressed me though was that his defense improved when he came to New York. His lazy malfunctions were a thing of the past and he was now hounding his man all over the court.

Playing one on one in the NBA with this type of style was never really acceptable before Monroe arrived on the stage and for that he was one of the more influential players in history. I would suspect this is part of the reason why the radio hosts regard Pearl so highly.

As for me I always have Monroe safely inside the top 10 whenever I am asked to class the all time two guards together. Certainly he belongs in the top 50 all time as well.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I'm basing it more from what I've been able to see, which can be difficult considering most instances are highlights only, but deadly seems to be a strong term in this case. Especially when you're shooting 40% and it's taking 23 shots to get 25 points. Even if those years with Baltimore he was the best player alive that's still only 4 years of his career, and probably why basketball reference only gives him a 14% chance at hitting the HOF. By the same measure you're calling Monroe deadly you call anyone else that doesn't hit one of YOUR lists erratic..

It's really hard for me to back these claims "Defenses back in Monroe's days were much more physical than they are now and the players were more fundamentally sound with their defensive techniques" when it happens every 5 to 10 years. This era more so than that era, more so than that era, more so than that era.. Nothing I can find video wise supports this IMO. Especially the fundamentally sound part when I see videos like these https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRii8d-jCMI. But I'm not really here to start up a big argument about that.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Monroe's career field goal percentage is 46.4%. That is better than all time great shooters like Ray Allen and Klay Thompson. My old game charts consistently have Monroe shooting about 45% from 15 to 18 feet. That is outstanding and yes "deadly".

The fact is that it was tougher to penetrate to the basket under the rules in which Pearl played. Which isn't to say that old team defenses were necessarily 'better' than today's more exotic schemes.

You are correct in your theory that the NBA has taken measures throughout the years to reduce the physicality in the game.

Picking a game at random and castigating an entire generation of players is silly. That was the game that finally ended the Lakers 33 game win streak and they had little energy left due to the night after night pressure to win.