ESPN Top 100 list

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • aloncho11
    Hall Of Fame
    • Jul 2010
    • 3708

    #286
    Re: ESPN Top 100 list

    It's really a hard concept to define, but to me it all comes down to the people in discussion.

    For example, I consider Iguodala to be above Green simply because I've seen him in every particular scenario you mentioned in the Sixers, Nuggets and Warriors. That for me is a reassurance that he will be a team player, perform to the best of his abilities and actually contribute a team to win no matter the situation.

    Regardless of how much better of a player Green actually is, the fact that I've never seen Green in the other scenarios ranks him lower in my list.

    Rodman was a special athlete, but he needed to be surrounded by great players, a stable environment, a father type figure and a friend to confide in to perform at his best and make his team win.

    His last two years at Detroit where a mess for him and the team, his stay at San Antonio was a little better, but ended in a mess too (team chemistry wise). His last year at the Bulls was a "closely controlled mess" that fortunately didn't affect the team as maybe it should have.

    Yes, he was a great athlete and a great specialist (and personality), but he wasn't great at winning in non favorable scenarios.
    Only respectable people deserve respect, you destroyed the game.

    Comment

    • AlexBrady
      MVP
      • Jul 2008
      • 3341

      #287
      Re: ESPN Top 100 list

      Jokic is a terrific player. Great passer with amazing vision. Has the bulk to hold his ground on the box and has clever moves down there. Has glue-hands but is only a two space rebounder. Biggest problem is his slow movement laterally and vertically. Misses too many makeable shots and he did falter at the foul line in the playoffs.

      Too premature to place him on a list like this. How would he do mano y mano against the great bigs of the past like Russell, Thurmond, Jabbar and Chamberlain? He would have his hands full. The old bigs played one on one with very little help provided to them. We need to remember that the whole defense and offense were keyed to the big man's specific skills. Could Jokic handle such responsibility and be the prime mover of his ball-club? The league was also at its strongest back then with fewer teams and full college apprecticeships before entering the league.

      For me, a player who provides crucial contributions towards a championship cause cannot be diminished in any way. I weight defense more heavily on a ratio of about 55% to offense being about 45%. Pure talent is never enough without certain unquantifiable traits to go along with it. Function supercedes talent and I grade players based on how well they fufill their job descriptions within their teams.

      DeBusschere played more like a guard during his time in Detroit and he was only good not great in that role. Playing next to a powerhouse center like Willis Reed and within a savvy unselfish offense allowed him to concentrate on his strong points (defense, rebounding, long-range bombing). I definitely view him differently based on how he performed with the Knicks.

      Comment

      • ojandpizza
        Hall Of Fame
        • Apr 2011
        • 29807

        #288
        Re: ESPN Top 100 list

        Thanks for the response, I genuinely like hearing other peoples inputs on things like this because it feels like this is one area where there is no conclusive "evidence" in either argument. Just feels like a massive grey area, one in which even my own thoughts sorta flip flop-from time to time and I have a hard time deciding which side deserves more weight. And perhaps it is solely dependent on the individual that's being discussed, which is just all the more reason it's nearly impossible to compare players across different eras, positions, roles, etc.

        I think my general thoughts sorta echo yours on Rodman, I believe even a few pages back in this thread I had pointed out that he is halfway up the list even though there are a lot of "better" players than him either behind him or not on the list at all. And your quote here
        Rodman was a special athlete, but he needed to be surrounded by great players, a stable environment, a father type figure and a friend to confide in to perform at his best and make his team win.
        Definitely plays a part because you could argue that outside a handful of seasons he wasn't in that specific environment. But then you open up the longevity argument again, which is another massive grey area. Some people want years of success, others simply want to know who was "better" so long as it was long enough to prove that peak wasn't just a fluke season.

        I still struggle to an extent with the Rodman-like players though. On one hand, as you even alluded to, they are role players that need a specific environment to excel the way they do. On the other hand the impact they provide to championship level teams can be much larger in some instances than what their talent alone gives them credit for..

        Example being, there are a number of stats (very analytical stuff mind you) that show the Bulls improved w/wo Rodman offensively more so than w/wo Jordan, who is the best scorer/player ever. In part because Rodman extended so many possessions and the gap between his rebounding and a replacement level rebounder was larger than the gap between almost any other elite-skill player and what their gap would be. Also in part because volume scoring is maybe the most replaceable trait there is in NBA basketball, everyone can score. If you are a team averaging 100 a game and your best player gets 30 a night, if he's injured or retired/replaced the team doesn't drop to 70 points a game.. Elite level scoring typically only provides a 2-3 point boost over a replacement to most offenses... Also part of why Chicago for example could replace Jordan with another defense-oriented guy like Pete Myers and only lose 2 less games and still compete for a championship.

        All that said, Rodman is still not a supremely gifted player, but we do have 3 separate instances of him improving 3 contending-level teams on the offensive end of the floor.. Even though he himself is not technically a good offensive player. So if by value he's propelling good teams to championship level teams, how much emphasis do we place on that as far as over-looking the fact that he's not necessarily a good player, for lack of a better word. And like you mentioned, his departure from all 3 spots was messy, so I understand that could be taken into account as well.

        Even in your Iggy example, Draymond could probably never go to a situation like Iggy in Philly and be that level of a player. But his impact on GS is huge, in some instances you even see people calling him their most valuable piece. So I still question there, how much weight do we give that? I look at a lot of names just off the top 100 list, there are guys that you could replace Draymond with who likely don't provide enough impact to help propel that OG group to 73 wins.. Even though most on an island are much more talented than Draymond.

        Personally, I still think I side with picking the better players for lists like this. And largely agree with opinions close to yours. I'm still open minded enough to hear the reverse arguments, (and apparently type an essay over it lol), but I feel like the more impact-based arguments (like the Rodman example) are great reasons why he should make the HOF but should maybe be left off of a best players list like these.

        Comment

        • aloncho11
          Hall Of Fame
          • Jul 2010
          • 3708

          #289
          Re: ESPN Top 100 list

          Originally posted by aloncho11
          It's really a hard concept to define, but to me it all comes down to the people in discussion.

          For example, I consider Iguodala to be above Green simply because I've seen him in every particular scenario you mentioned in the Sixers, Nuggets and Warriors. That for me is a reassurance that he will be a team player, perform to the best of his abilities and actually contribute a team to win no matter the situation.

          Regardless of how much better of a player Green actually is, the fact that I've never seen Green in the other scenarios ranks him lower in my list.

          Rodman was a special athlete, but he needed to be surrounded by great players, a stable environment, a father type figure and a friend to confide in to perform at his best and make his team win.

          His last two years at Detroit where a mess for him and the team, his stay at San Antonio was a little better, but ended in a mess too (team chemistry wise). His last year at the Bulls was a "closely controlled mess" that fortunately didn't affect the team as maybe it should have.

          Yes, he was a great athlete and a great specialist (and personality), but he wasn't great at winning in non favorable scenarios.
          Another example, Carmelo Anthony.

          He is considered a great player by Vox-Populi (including fans, journalists, players and coaches), to the point that his pal players are campaigning for him.

          But yet inside the league there's an unspoken truth and feeling amongst players, coaches, GM's and people related to the business in general that he is a cancer to teams and their chemistry, doesn't pass the ball once he gets it, doesn't play defense, and will not provide the leadership and attitude to make the players around him better and contribute to win. Yes players, most coaches and GM's like Melo, but they don't want him on their team because the intangibles associated with him have long surpassed anything he can offer basketball talent-wise.

          That intangible factor is a big one for me not to consider him as a top player in any sort of list (the same goes for Iverson). No matter how great the basketball talents of these players are/were, they will never truly embody the attitude and work ethic of real professionals, either to become a great player or an average Joe (Johnson).
          Only respectable people deserve respect, you destroyed the game.

          Comment

          • ojandpizza
            Hall Of Fame
            • Apr 2011
            • 29807

            #290
            Re: ESPN Top 100 list

            A total of 4,374 players have appeared in at least one NBA game. How can anyone whittle that number down to the top 50? Attempting to create that list is an excruciating endeavor...


            Just going to add this to the other lists.. Bleacher Report released a top 50.. Biggest difference here in comparison to other lists is Steph is all the way up to 10th.

            Comment

            • AlexBrady
              MVP
              • Jul 2008
              • 3341

              #291
              Re: ESPN Top 100 list

              Originally posted by ojandpizza
              https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...vealed#slide49

              Just going to add this to the other lists.. Bleacher Report released a top 50.. Biggest difference here in comparison to other lists is Steph is all the way up to 10th.
              Their argument against Bill Russell was that he faced fewer teams but that is actually a point in his favor. The competition level was higher.

              You look at the teams that missed the playoffs in the mid 60s and they would certainly qualify for the playoffs in todays game. The Knicks missed the playoffs in '65 with Willis Reed and Bob Boozer on the front line.

              The Warriors won 17 games and missed the playoffs in '65 with Wilt Chamberlain (healthy for 38 games), Nate Thurmond, Guy Rodgers and Al Attles on the team. That was one of the worst teams in the league.

              Detroit with Dave DeBusschere, Reggie Harding, Ray Scott, and Joe Caldwell failed to make the playoffs in '65.

              The weak sisters were not all that weak back then.

              Comment

              • ojandpizza
                Hall Of Fame
                • Apr 2011
                • 29807

                #292
                Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                Originally posted by AlexBrady
                Their argument against Bill Russell was that he faced fewer teams but that is actually a point in his favor. The competition level was higher.

                You look at the teams that missed the playoffs in the mid 60s and they would certainly qualify for the playoffs in todays game. The Knicks missed the playoffs in '65 with Willis Reed and Bob Boozer on the front line.

                The Warriors won 17 games and missed the playoffs in '65 with Wilt Chamberlain (healthy for 38 games), Nate Thurmond, Guy Rodgers and Al Attles on the team. That was one of the worst teams in the league.

                Detroit with Dave DeBusschere, Reggie Harding, Ray Scott, and Joe Caldwell failed to make the playoffs in '65.

                The weak sisters were not all that weak back then.
                I think this argument is fair, though I also think the counter-argument would be fair. With so few players in the league, and so many of the top players on his team, I'm not sure they were regularly not the favorites.. If that makes sense.

                I also think there is a general sense of a lot of people not feeling the league was as good back then, less players or not.. Back then you had plenty of players saying random street-ballers were the best in the world, guys didn't make enough money to always choose basketball over other revenues.. I also think athletic guys like Wilt, Russell, Baylor, were almost anomalies then instead of just another great athlete that today's era seems to have an abundance of.

                Either way, I think Bill Russell is firmly planted in everyone's top 10, where as we keep seeing a guy who many even call "GOAT" in Kobe being bounced out of the top 10.. I think that illustrates how highly people think of Bill, whether he's 1 or 8 or whatever.

                Comment

                • AlexBrady
                  MVP
                  • Jul 2008
                  • 3341

                  #293
                  Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                  Originally posted by ojandpizza
                  I think this argument is fair, though I also think the counter-argument would be fair. With so few players in the league, and so many of the top players on his team, I'm not sure they were regularly not the favorites.. If that makes sense.

                  I also think there is a general sense of a lot of people not feeling the league was as good back then, less players or not.. Back then you had plenty of players saying random street-ballers were the best in the world, guys didn't make enough money to always choose basketball over other revenues.. I also think athletic guys like Wilt, Russell, Baylor, were almost anomalies then instead of just another great athlete that today's era seems to have an abundance of.

                  Either way, I think Bill Russell is firmly planted in everyone's top 10, where as we keep seeing a guy who many even call "GOAT" in Kobe being bounced out of the top 10.. I think that illustrates how highly people think of Bill, whether he's 1 or 8 or whatever.
                  The Celtics with Russell struggled more than people remember especially in the mid-late sixties. They dropped a lot of winnable games in the regular season and usually raised their level of play on their late season road trips which they had to do well on to get home court advantage. They were great in the big money games. Even today though, I don't see guys with Russel's lateral and vertical quickness at 6-10 (legit height). I don't see guys 7-1 and 300 pounds with Wilt's grace.

                  Comment

                  • J_Posse
                    Greatness Personified
                    • Jun 2005
                    • 11255

                    #294
                    Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                    Originally posted by AlexBrady
                    The Celtics with Russell struggled more than people remember especially in the mid-late sixties. They dropped a lot of winnable games in the regular season and usually raised their level of play on their late season road trips which they had to do well on to get home court advantage. They were great in the big money games. Even today though, I don't see guys with Russel's lateral and vertical quickness at 6-10 (legit height). I don't see guys 7-1 and 300 pounds with Wilt's grace.
                    Agreed, those two and a few more could easily adapt and play in any era. Most players from their era couldn't sniff today's league though because they weren't skilled, athletic, lacked size (imagine Zion or LeBron in 1960's NBA) or all three.

                    Yes, they had a "better" fundamental grasp of the game and were more technically sound, but modern players are more efficient (believe or not) & have big athleticism advantage (comparing rank and file in both eras).


                    The game has gotten a lot faster (not pace wise, but in smaller space/shorter distances) and with a lot more above the rim play.

                    Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app
                    Last edited by J_Posse; 09-28-2019, 12:31 AM.
                    San Antonio Spurs 5 - Time ('99, '03, '05, '07, '14) NBA Champions

                    Official OS Bills Backers Club Member

                    Comment

                    • 2KUte
                      Rookie
                      • Sep 2014
                      • 391

                      #295
                      Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                      Originally posted by ojandpizza
                      https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...vealed#slide49

                      Just going to add this to the other lists.. Bleacher Report released a top 50.. Biggest difference here in comparison to other lists is Steph is all the way up to 10th.
                      All peole on twitter could talk about is Kobe's ranking. In this you got Robinson over Olajuwon, Barkley over Malone, and Chris Paul over Stockton and all people want to talk about is Kobe at 14?!?!

                      Comment

                      • ojandpizza
                        Hall Of Fame
                        • Apr 2011
                        • 29807

                        #296
                        Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                        I think I could at least listen to arguments for Barkley>Malone and CP3>Stockton, I’m not so sure about Robinson over Hakeem. Though I am part of the Hakeem gets overrated Robinson gets underrated based on that one series team.. still definitely don’t buy that Robinson surpasses him, or even ranks quite that high All-Time.. seems like his positioning is very box-score heavy.


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                        Comment

                        • AlexBrady
                          MVP
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 3341

                          #297
                          Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                          Originally posted by ojandpizza
                          I think I could at least listen to arguments for Barkley>Malone and CP3>Stockton, I’m not so sure about Robinson over Hakeem. Though I am part of the Hakeem gets overrated Robinson gets underrated based on that one series team.. still definitely don’t buy that Robinson surpasses him, or even ranks quite that high All-Time.. seems like his positioning is very box-score heavy

                          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                          Malone gets the edge over Barkley for his better post up game, screen/roll mastery, and better defensive rebounding. Barkley could be out reached in defending the low post at 'only' 6-5 while Malone offered more defensive resistance at 6-9. Hakeem was better than Robinson for his offensive unpredictability, better lateral movement, and his reliability in the clutch.

                          Comment

                          • ojandpizza
                            Hall Of Fame
                            • Apr 2011
                            • 29807

                            #298
                            Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                            Originally posted by ProfessaPackMan
                            Would I be nitpicking about Giannis at 85 or this just about right for him at this stage in his career so far?


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                            Originally posted by ojandpizza
                            This is always my biggest hang up when trying to decide how I think a player should be judged. Do you rate them based on their abilities or do you still need to play the "wait and see" game. I'm a firm believer in a players talent/ability, their sustained level of play, and their impact on the court being the main driver in comparing them to another player. Their career stats, achievements, and number of championships, and all that play a small role in determining differences in closely ranked players, but for me when it comes down to player A vs player B I'm picking the player who I feel was a better player rather than the player who played on more championship teams.

                            With that said I think if you look at what Giannis is doing this season he could be ranked even higher than he is. On the other hand, this season is really the only season he's had that would put him in consideration for a list like this. On his career he's not a top 100 player but do you give him the benefit of the doubt because he's playing so well this season or not? Reggie is often my example, but for comparisons sake Giannis this season is a much better player than Reggie for any season. But in terms of their careers it's a landslide in Reggie's favor. Another example might be someone like Bill Walton, he won a ring as the focal point in Portland but wasn't even able to play one full season, topping out at 65 games that same year. If he's all the way up in the top 50, how much do you discredit Giannis on his one year of work?

                            It's hard to judge for sure.
                            Bringing this up from what you and I were talking about a couple years ago Pack.. If he keeps playing like he is this season he's going to be leap frogging most of the players on this list. Especially if he's showing up big come playoff time.

                            Comment

                            • ojandpizza
                              Hall Of Fame
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 29807

                              #299
                              Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                              Since this is somewhat of a popular and controversial topic, how do y'all feel about James Harden and lists like this?

                              Comment

                              • AlexBrady
                                MVP
                                • Jul 2008
                                • 3341

                                #300
                                Re: ESPN Top 100 list

                                Originally posted by ojandpizza
                                Since this is somewhat of a popular and controversial topic, how do y'all feel about James Harden and lists like this?


                                Harden is certainly worthy of a top 100 listing but not yet at the 50 greatest level. He must prove that his personal offense-only gameplan is good enough to compel his team to a championship and he needs to make more game changing plays deep in the playoffs.


                                If he fails to accomplish this then he is more of a crowd-pleaser like George Gervin or Pete Maravich but not a truly iconic player.

                                Comment

                                Working...