ESPN Top 100 list

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

He’s the primary reason they were losing in the first round as 6, 8 seed teams? C’mon now. Garnett shouldn’t be expected to be a power player that commanded double teams on the block, that wasn’t the type of player he was or was ever going to be. Idk why he should be judged against something he wasn’t. And I’m not saying you just try to turn basketball into a math equation, but in some instances it’s hard to just vote against consistency. We would be assuming these numbers that are consistent throughout KG’s career are just wrong every single year, or that in a select group of guys with similar results he’s the only outlier who doesn’t belong..

This is just a random highlight clip, so I know you shouldn’t draw conclusions based on one set of highlights from one game. But this is the KG I remember.

https://youtu.be/OSDlW00k4RI

Plenty of instances of help sagging to his side of the floor and him repeatedly making the right passes once the defense shifts. Is he commanding instant double teams like Shaq? No, but idk why he should ever be expected to, that’s not the type of player he was.

Also notice how active he is offensively. Off ball screens, on ball screens, grabbing post positioning, screen and pops, cuts, he did a bit of everything. Watching KG was what made it so aggregating to watch Chris Bosh on the Heatles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, he played well in game three but they were down 0-2 in the series so the pressure was off. Why were they down? Because Garnett was disastrous in the clutch in the first two games missing jumpers, free throws, and fumbling rebounds. In game 4 Garnett would choke in the clutch yet again and the wolves were done. Rasheed Wallace outplayed Garnett in the series. He was a fine player but best suited as a third option to legitimate star players. Yes he was active without the ball but all the true greats were as well.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Look, none of those can be in looked at vacuum and clearly some subjectivity is involved. Still, Duncan won in 2003 with one of the weakest supporting casts in NBA history (Robinson had fallen off into a "managed minutes" role while Parker/Ginobili were one or two years away from being studs), won another on two severely sprained ankles in '05 (while going against and outplaying Ben & 'Sheed) while K.G. needed all-stars to win. Point. Blank.

Yes, mismanagement and roster turmoil dealt him a bad hand at times (including Marbury leaving before either hit their prime). He still missed the playoffs three times while being a top 10 player (don't people clown Karl-Anthony Towns for that) in his prime and got bounced repeatedly in the first-round.

I loved his game and thought he was incredible, but clearly he needed more than his sheer talent, will & "intensity" (whole lotta screaming) to win.

It isn't a knock on him since a lot guys (Robinson, Drexler, Durant, etc) need better talent surrounding them to win. You know, that stupid "Alpha" nonsense that Jordan and Bryant (who I would place in the camp with Garnett) co-opted.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

But nobody is even in here arguing any sort of case against Duncan. That was absolutely one of the better performances by one player ever, but It still has absolutely zero correlation to Kevin Garnett and his teams. Nobody is trying to make any sort of argument against Duncan, but to try to use him to justify what KG can/can’t do under completely different circumstances is just wild IMO.

You can’t win a championship with a team that’s severely flawed on either end of the court. The number of All-Star voted players you have doesn’t change or dictate that. That Spurs group was one of the best defensive dynasties of all time, they won 60 games and went into the playoffs with the overall number 1 seed. The ONLY time KG has played on a team of that caliber was Boston, and they won.

That doesn’t just by default paint the picture that there is no way for him to win unless his teammates are All-Stars, how would we even know that considering he was never on a championship level team before then to prove otherwise?

Is there literally even just one example of when a 3rd-4th place in their own division level team was expected to win championships? This argument is bizarre to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[J_Posse]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

But nobody is even in here arguing any sort of case against Duncan. That was absolutely one of the better performances by one player ever, but It still has absolutely zero correlation to Kevin Garnett and his teams. Nobody is trying to make any sort of argument against Duncan, but to try to use him to justify what KG can/can’t do under completely different circumstances is just wild IMO.

You can’t win a championship with a team that’s severely flawed on either end of the court. The number of All-Star voted players you have doesn’t change or dictate that. That Spurs group was one of the best defensive dynasties of all time, they won 60 games and went into the playoffs with the overall number 1 seed. The ONLY time KG has played on a team of that caliber was Boston, and they won.

That doesn’t just by default paint the picture that there is no way for him to win unless his teammates are All-Stars, how would we even know that considering he was never on a championship level team before then to prove otherwise?

Is there literally even just one example of when a 3rd-4th place in their own division level team was expected to win championships? This argument is bizarre to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said anyone was making a case against Duncan, OJ. I brought the Duncan/Garnett argument up because of AlexBrady (severely downplaying K.G.'s impact) and the podcast where the host and his guest both picked Garnett at his peak.

Everyone understands that it takes a lot to win in any athletic field. I brought the '03 team because it lacked any other go-to player or a consistent second option, yet they won because of Duncan.

We all know the circumstances behind why K.G. underachieved at times in Minnesota (the Joe Smith under the table deal, loss of picks, Starbury leaving, etc.), yet he was a top 5 player missing the playoffs more than once in his prime. If any other great player - especially in this hyper critical "Twitter Era" of today - did such a thing they would be bashed to kingdom come.

Again, the metrics say they were equals in the regular season but one guy faded come playoff time (like Robinson, Malone and a lot of other greats) and the other didn't.

I'm not trying to slight Garnett or diminish how great he was. He was a top 20 all-time great, but a lot like LeBron, who needed to be surround by high level talent to ring (that last sentence was trolling).










Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

How many more seasons like this past does Jokic need to have to land firmly in a list like this one? Perhaps even climb the rankings fairly quickly?

I was having the convo with some co-workers the other day, for all the extra excuses and hypotheticals we make for previous players; "they would be a much better shooter today", "it's easier to score today", "no hand checking today", "if they had modern medicine", "if the game was less physical", what if we did the same in reverse for someone like Jokic? Seems a lot of people are comfortable saying that numbers across eras can be blurry and we often give past players the benefit of the doubt on the majority of them.

So what if we took Jokic's biggest weakness of just being a bit too slow to be able to make all the switches necessary to cover today's guards? All of the movement and ball-screening mixed with everyone being a shooting threat has made that type of defense an absolute must, and that's easily his biggest flaw. What if he was in an era that didn't exist to the degree it does now? The same excuses we make, or are at least told we should make, for past players.

He's already coming off his best defensive season, he can hold his ground in the post, an honest defender who doesn't often leave his feet because he's not an excellent shot blocker, already one of the best defensive rebounders ever which might could have been better playing in an era with less outside shooting and less situations where he's pulled from the paint, etc.

Hes probably the best passer period in today's NBA. Great numbers for minutes played, and a legit 50/40/90 threat on any given night. Sets great screens, can play inside or outside, can run point-center, and honestly might have been the best individual player in the playoffs this past post-season.. If not the best he was right on par with the Steph, Kawhi, KD, Giannis group, all of which will have their names shooting up lists like this..

I think he also undoubtedly has that Draymond, Rodman, Russell like factor where even just his talent alone doesn't really explain how much better he makes his team when he's on the floor.

Completely understand he would have to keep playing at this level for more than just one season to start getting some "All-Time" recognition, the career aspect has to play into it. But at 23 years old he's off to a pretty good start. What other sub 25 year old players have playoff showings like he had last year? At least in the modern NBA.. LeBron, Jordan, Chris Paul.. maybe it.

Quoting myself here because he's doing it again this year... My man even added a Dirk fade and has been dropping clutch over the head buckets like he's Larry Bird.

Assists are down some, but that's because Murray has the ball more and Joker's ability to play with Murray and use his screen setting, passing, spacing, to set up Murray for more big plays, more mismatch switches, that's only made Murray a better player and made Joker and his team even more valuable despite lowering his assist numbers and stats that pull from that such as PER.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGJoOph-Pe0

I am so ****ing hyped for this, his content is always so well put together.

If this model follows a sharable spreadsheet he used to have based on each players top CORP evaluations his top peak list would look something like..

Jordan - 1989
Shaq - 2000
LeBron - 2013
Hakeem - 1993
Kareem - 1977
KG -2004
Wilt - 1967
Curry - 2017
Duncan - 2002
Russell - 1962
Bird - 1986
Robinson - 1991
Magic - 1987
Walton - 1977
West - 1966

That's the top 15 if each player were to only be allowed 1 season.. However in his in depth breakdowns on backpicks, peaks are more so defined as 3 or 4 year stretches, playoff performance weighed in, and he also mentions that for Shaq and LeBron they would have arguments for "best peak".. So it seems like this video series will be a lot more in depth than just picking a singular season and that being that.. I'm expecting lots of context and amazing content for sure!

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGJoOph-Pe0

I am so ****ing hyped for this, his content is always so well put together.

If this model follows a sharable spreadsheet he used to have based on each players top CORP evaluations his top peak list would look something like..

Jordan - 1989
Shaq - 2000
LeBron - 2013
Hakeem - 1993
Kareem - 1977
KG -2004
Wilt - 1967
Curry - 2017
Duncan - 2002
Russell - 1962
Bird - 1986
Robinson - 1991
Magic - 1987
Walton - 1977
West - 1966

That's the top 15 if each player were to only be allowed 1 season.. However in his in depth breakdowns on backpicks, peaks are more so defined as 3 or 4 year stretches, playoff performance weighed in, and he also mentions that for Shaq and LeBron they would have arguments for "best peak".. So it seems like this video series will be a lot more in depth than just picking a singular season and that being that.. I'm expecting lots of context and amazing content for sure!

This is off too a great start, kinda bummed that he's doing 1977-current rather than all time. Video 1 is basically a Wilt/Russell video and gives a good indication of how the rest of the players will be judged. But lack of film material, and post merger statistics being so much easier to adjust and compare against mean this series will sadly leave off Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar, all of which could have been included in this series otherwise. Wilt, Russell, West all 3 in that top 15 single season list.

Video 2 is Bill Walton, video 3 Kareem, each video is like 20 minutes long. Lot's of great content.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

This is off too a great start, kinda bummed that he's doing 1977-current rather than all time. Video 1 is basically a Wilt/Russell video and gives a good indication of how the rest of the players will be judged. But lack of film material, and post merger statistics being so much easier to adjust and compare against mean this series will sadly leave off Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar, all of which could have been included in this series otherwise. Wilt, Russell, West all 3 in that top 15 single season list.

Video 2 is Bill Walton, video 3 Kareem, each video is like 20 minutes long. Lot's of great content.

Walton in his prime was just amazing. He had seemingly everything except for outstanding strength.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list





Bron’s career numbers and records are going to look silly when he’s finally done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Bron’s career numbers and records are going to look silly when he’s finally done.

A testament to his incredible skills with the ball in hand and above all, longevity.

Of the non-centers he ranks near the top but just below the likes of Oscar Robertson (technically the best there ever was) and Michael Jordan. I would class him a tier below those two with Kobe Bryant but award the slight edge to LeBron for his power advantage.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Was looking at some shooting stats earlier with a guy at work.. Crazy LeBron stat that some of you will think is stupid, some might not..

After last night's shot LeBron is now 22/45 on shots in the playoffs to either tie or take the lead with 1 minute or less remaining in 4th quarters/OT. Or 48.8%. In other words he has a better percentage on those shots than MJ or Kobe does on any FG attempt in the playoffs in general. Career playoff FG% of 44.8 and 48.7 respectively.

Only cared to pull up the numbers when somebody had claimed Kobe had made more of those shots on higher % than LeBron. Kobe 12/44 on those shots for 27%.

[J_Posse]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Was looking at some shooting stats earlier with a guy at work.. Crazy LeBron stat that some of you will think is stupid, some might not..

After last night's shot LeBron is now 22/45 on shots in the playoffs to either tie or take the lead with 1 minute or less remaining in 4th quarters/OT. Or 48.8%. In other words he has a better percentage on those shots than MJ or Kobe does on any FG attempt in the playoffs in general. Career playoff FG% of 44.8 and 48.7 respectively.

Only cared to pull up the numbers when somebody had claimed Kobe had made more of those shots on higher % than LeBron. Kobe 12/44 on those shots for 27%.

Just for clarity, Mike shot 48.7% for his playoff career and Kobe shot 44.8%.

And, I thought the myths about LeBron being "unclutch" and Kobe having the "clutch gene" (to use Skip Bayless' dumb term) was disproven a while ago.

The false perception will probably linger amongst casual fans, but not the hardcore (ie OS).

Official HQ of Bills Backer/Spurs Nation

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...XXc/edit#gid=0

Posting this here, this is RealGMs top 100 list. Only posting because it shows the voting results for the past 7 times they've voted on a "list". It's a pretty neat comparison to some of the others as you can see how guys move up and down the list over time.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

The Athletic's Seth Partnow revealed the first tier of his annual player tiers today. Players ranked 80-125, which equates to a "high rotation" player (basically this is the beginning of the list of players that he believes positively impact their team).

https://theathletic.com/2737630/2021/08/09/nba-player-tiers-the-top-125-players-ranked-in-groups-from-lebron-james-to-ivica-zubac/?source=emp_shared_article

It is behind a paywall unless you have a subscription, but for those that don't, the Tier 5 players are as follows:

Alex Caruso
Andrew Wiggins
Anthony Edwards
Blake Griffin
Bruce Brown
Buddy Hield
Cameron Payne
Collin Sexton
D'Angelo Russell
Danilo Gallinari
Danny Green
Davis Bertans
Dejounte Murray
Dennis Schroeder
Derrick White
Devonte' Graham
Duncan Robinson
Evan Fournier
Gary Trent Jr.
Harrison Barnes
Immanuel Quickley
Ivica Zubac
Jaren Jackson Jr.
Jarrett Allen
Jeff Green
Jonathan Isaac
Jordan Clarkson
Kelly Olynyk
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
Kevin Huerter
Kyle Anderson
Lonzo Ball
Marcus Morris Sr.
Nerlens Noel
Nicolas Batum
Norman Powell
P.J. Washington
Patrick Beverley
Reggie Jackson
Richaun Holmes
Robert Williams III
Steven Adams
T.J. Warren
Terry Rozier
Tim Hardaway Jr.
Tyrese Haliburton

[TheSportsDude]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Giannis should be higher on the list. He is one of the best one-ring champions of all time. Bucks in 6, forever.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Think almost every list on here is from before him winning a ring this year. Regardless most of them are heavily factoring in guys whole careers, Giannis has had one of the best 3 year runs we’ve probably ever seen, but it’s still only 3 years. I don’t know which list you’re referring to specifically, as there are like 10 in here now, but I’d assume he’s moving his way up all of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk