TNT to pick Next 10 of the greatest players

[guest-koast]

As for Jason Kidd...not since Magic Johnson has one player made so many of his teammates 3 notches better with his passing.   Nash has always had more talent around him than Kidd.  I'd take Dirk and Amare over anyone that Kidd has had since he came into the league.

Just had to respond. John Stockton was responsible for guys like Shandon Anderson, Bryon Russell, Howard Eisley, Thurl Bailey, Antoine Carr, Mark Eaton and many more who overperformed while with the Jazz.

In fact, you might say that John Stockton is responsible for the downfall of the New York Knicks. John made every Scott Layden trade look so good, people thought the guy was a genius.

I guess I should have worded my repose better but John Stockton was named one of the 50 greatest players.  Out of players who are up for the list there is not a single one that matches up to Kidd except for Nash.  However, Nash has always had more talent and was never as good on the otherside of the ball.  I'll take Dirk and Amare over anyone that Kidd has had playing along side of him as a starter.

[Derek Bodner]

But Dominique could do things with the basketball and rim that no one else could. Doc had some fantastic moves, and so did MJ, but only Dominique could touch the top of the backboard.

Dude, KG's game is so much more versatile.  KG is a much better rebounder, a so far superior defender it's not even funny, and even a better passer.  

If you're going to say that Kg shouldn't get in because he's never won anything, fine.  then you need to hold Dominique to that same level.  If not, then you've got to put people in who's games merit it.  And KG's game far outshines 'Niques in just about every facet.

[ziggy]

My 10 choices, based upon the quality of their play, their relative dominance within their time, their importance to their team, and the success of those teams.

Tim Duncan  -  The best of the bunch

Kevin Garnett  -  comparable to Duncan except that Duncan has won 3 titles

Allen Iverson  -  considering the first 3 criteria, you cannot deny AI

Jason Kidd  -  same as AI

Kobe Bryant  -  easy choice

Bob McAdoo  -  this where it gets hard, but clearly McAdoo rates high in the first 3 categories

Bob Lanier  -  his teams didn't win a lot, but did play in 67 playoff games before the extended playoff era.  Lanier had 8 dominating seasons, before injuries broke him down.

Gary Payton  -  he was clearly one of the top 2 or 3 at his position for 12 years

Walt Bellamy  -  had 12 all star caliber seasons, finished with 20 points and 13.7 rebounds.

Joe Dumars  -  Dumars does not have the statistical numbers that would support him being top-60, but the success of his teams, his importance to that success, and the role he played, I think justifies him being in over Reggie Miller, or
Dominique Wilkins.

Alex English  -  I could easily pick Dennis Johnson with the 10th pick, especially if I am going to pick Dumars, but I went with English instead.  I think English fits the first 3 criteria better than than Johnson or Wilkins.

Here are the Hall of Fame monitors scores for each of the players
Walt Bellamy  -  147
Kobe Bryant  -  164
Adrian Dantley  -  126  I don't think he really rates that high using my criteria, fair or not
Joe Dumars  -  105
Tim Duncan  -  402
Alex English  -  129
Kevin Garnett  -  254
Connie Hawkins  -  110  He was a great for a couple of years, but not for an extended period of time
Allen Iverson  -  229
LeBron James  -  82  too young yet, but in 3 to 4 years then no problem
Dennis Johnson  -  134  he is very underrated, and on the bubble
Jason Kidd  -  196
Bernard King  -  135  -  much like Dantley
Bob Lanier  -  136
Bob McAdoo  -  221
Reggie Miller  -  130  -  Reggie was a very good player, clutch, and he played a lot of big games, but he was not as dominate as English, or Payton, nor as important as Dumars
Steve Nash  -  174  -  right now he is at his peak and a great player, but he hasn't got their yet.  Couple of more years maybe.
Gary Payton  -  169
Dennis Rodman  -  118  -  Way overrated, one dimensional.  There are a lot of other players I would take over him.
Dominique Wilkins  -  142  -  To compare him to KG is a joke.  Lots of stats, little relevance.

[rickortreat]

If you're going to say that Kg shouldn't get in because he's never won anything, fine. then you need to hold Dominique to that same level. If not, then you've got to put people in who's games merit it. And KG's game far outshines 'Niques in just about every facet.

Yeah, except the excitement factor.  Garnett may be the better player, but Dominique brought people out of their seats every night.  Even if the Hawks lost, the next day people at the coffee machine would all be talking about the dunk that made the last nights ESPN highlights.

From an entertainment standpoint, a lot of people would prefer to see 'Nique in his prime than a lot of players, including KG.

[Derek Bodner]

Yeah, except the excitement factor. Garnett may be the better player

We're talking about the 60 greatest players, not the 60 most eligible globetrotters.

From an entertainment standpoint, a lot of people would prefer to see 'Nique in his prime than a lot of players, including KG.

Irrelevant, to me.  

[guest-koast]

I am still trying to figure out how Dennis Rodman made it onto the list.  He was a great defender and rebounder.....but so were alot of guys.  He just so happend to be on one of the greates teams in history so his stock is inflated IMO.  Could the Bulls have won with out Rodman?  Probably.

Ziggy, what was the formula used for the HOF monitoring again??

[Derek Bodner]

He was a great defender and rebounder.....but so were alot of guys

I agree that rodman probably shouldn't be on it, but I disagree with "so were a lot of guys".  Rodman was arguably the best ever.

[Guest_Randy]

I am still trying to figure out how Dennis Rodman made it onto the list.  He was a great defender and rebounder.....but so were alot of guys.  He just so happend to be on one of the greates teams in history so his stock is inflated IMO.  Could the Bulls have won with out Rodman?  Probably.

Ziggy, what was the formula used for the HOF monitoring again??

Rodman -- outstanding defender and rebounder -- the Bulls DID win with another outstanding defender and rebounder (Horace Grant) but without one of these two guys rebounding and defending the paint, the Bulls couldn't have done it, IMO.

Rodman, I think, gets mention because he is probably the best rebounder the league has seen -- well, it's hard to compare Rodman to Russell, etc. because the style of the game has changed so much.  But I think that's why Rodman gets mentioned.  If he had ANY kind of offensive game, I might consider him but the guy couldn't shoot the ball at all!

Ziggy, I too would like to see that HOF formula for monitoring because when Nash ends up higher than Kobe, I think something is WAYYY off.  Nash is getting there -- Kobe is already there, IMO.  

My top 10:
  TD
  KG
  Kobe
  AI
  Kidd
  GP (people are forgetting just HOW good this guy was at BOTH ends of the court simply because he is at the end of his career)

The next four?  I, personally, would wait a little while -- unless people are worthy, I don't think you should add them -- I think you just wait and too many of the rest on the list are VERY iffy, IMO.

But I think I will rant a little -- what's up with including Nique on that list?  Nique was the "human highlight film" but are we REALLY going to include players who were flashy but had little substance?  Sure, he could score -- it's the ONLY thing he could do!  It wasn't until later in his career that he developed an outside shot but he NEVER played any defense -- I have a hard time adding him to this list.  Reggie Miller played more defense than Nique did -- so what's that tell you?

[guest-koast]

He was a great defender and rebounder.....but so were alot of guys

I agree that rodman probably shouldn't be on it, but I disagree with "so were a lot of guys".  Rodman was arguably the best ever.

Bill Laimbeer was a good defender back when they allowed physical play (something Rodman was also allowed to do).  Rodman would use the same type of play and use mind games to throw guys off their game.  Laimbeer just used physical play.

And Bill Russell is the best defensive player to play the game IMO.  Rodman was a good defender and rebounder but never a serious shot blocker.

Plus Rodman is one of the only players I can personally think of that were able to strickly focus in on one side of the floor.

[Derek Bodner]

Well, Rodman was nothing offensively.  But he did used to average 6 offensive rebounds/game, so he did have at least some impact offensively.

[Skandery]

Koast,

About Rodman, I actually don't know how much you caught of his career but this guy wasn't just another good defender.  This guy was an ultimate, game-changing defender.  The environment on the court would get altered by his presence.  While he had little offensive skills to speak of: not a good FT shooter, not a good shooter period, he ran the offensive patterns that his coaches drew up, to the freakin' T.  To say nothing of his career 4.8 ORPG average, think about that, 5 times in a game you're team is getting a second look because he's on your roster.    

He played a humongous role for the Detroit Piston championships usually having to guard one of the other team's greats (Larry Bird, Scottie Pippen, Larry Nance).  I'd go so far as to say that he was the best defender during the Bad Boy Pistons era and that's saying ALOT considering the roster (Dumars, Mahorn, Laimbeer, Salley).

In San Antonio, he seemed to change the face of the team by raising the intensity of the defense while at the same facilitating Bob Hill's pristine offense.  It is no mere coincidence that David Robinson's two best offensive years came the exact two years that Rodman was on the Spurs.

When he was dealt to Chicago (a team I really disliked) in the summer of 1995, I told everybody that they might as well not even play the season out and just hand them the trophy (because of Rodman not Jordan).  They go on to break the single season record and win the championship over my Sonics.  Conicidentally, it was Rodman who was directly responsible for the ejection of Frank Brickowski (a valuable bench player) in Game 3 of the Finals to put the Bulls up 3-0.  

When you talk about "winners", their are damn few that can be in the conversation with Rodman.  He was the master of every mechanical, fundamental, dirty, ugly, aspect of basketball that don't lead to points, assists, averages, or highlights but lead to wins and championships.  How many people in the history of the NBA played integral roles on two dynasties for two different teams.

He was a talented flake who let his eccentricity get the best of him in the end but a one-dimensional basketball player he was not?  

He make my next 10 for the 60 greatest players of all time and I hate the guy.

...well enough of my rant,  the other 9 would go something like:

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Jason Kidd
Allen Iverson
Kobe Bryant
Bob Lanier
Dennis Johson
Gary Payton
Reggie Miller

People I hate leaving off:

Bob McAdoo - actually played Integral role on a championship team aside from awesome career averages

Artis Gilmore - underrated much like Lanier and I went with Lanier.  

Joe Dumars - Exactly what you want from a basketball player (in every sense of the word, period).  Career numbers aren't there, though.

People I probably should hate leaving off but don't:

Walt Bellamy - Career numbers mind-boggling.  Defense and never won anything.

Dominique Wilkins - See Bellamy

People getting left off b/c there's only 10 spots:

Alex English  

Adrian Dantley  

Bernard King

People I have NO PROBLEM leaving off:

LeBron James - Can we do it when he actually deserves it instead of tarnishing it like Shaq

Connie Hawkins - You need sustained greatness to be one of the greatest.  





 

           

[Reality]

Conicidentally, it was Rodman who was directly responsible for the ejection of Frank Brickowski (a valuable bench player) in Game 3 of the Finals to put the Bulls up 3-0.

*footnote.   Flopping  :bs:  got Rodman many of those calls vs not only Brick but many others during the media Bulls loving '95-'98 2nd run.

That having been said,
Calls he got vs the Mailwimp:  priceless.

please continue greatest 60 rant.

[guest-koast]

Skander,

I do not remember him being the greatest defensive player of all time in SA.  One hell of a rebounder but not the end all be all when it came to defense.

Not exactly sure how you are pinning Robinson's offensive production to Rodman in that 2 year stint.  Other than maybe he was not asked to rebound as much so he had more energy to score. The guy was just flat out better than anyone guarding him.  With or without Rodman he would have been eating up those defenders.  The first year Rodman showed up they were swept by the Jazz and I believe he was guarding Karl Malone the entire series.  Doesn't help your case for Rodman  if the team you are playing sweeps you while you are guarding their best player.

Also, that second year you are reffering to....do you think David Robinson's scoring had anything to do with the fact that Avery Johnson was running the offense to a T and the other teams' defense had to stay home on shooters like Sean Elliot?

As for Chicago, people act as if Ho Grant did nothing and Rodman did everything?  It was actually the combination of both PFs and Scottie Pippen's defense that helped them achieve what they did.  Why was Pippen chosen to guard the best players on the opposing team instead of Rodman?

[ziggy]

Hall of Fame Monitor

For the formula and the definition
http://www.basketballreference.com/about/abouthofm.htm
The Hall of Fame Monitor is a formula with six components. It is meant to be used as a guide and not as a hard and fast rule. There are some players who do very well according to the formula and are not in the hall of fame, but for the most part this formula is a good scale.

The Formula:


75 points for each NBA MVP award
15 points for each All NBA First Team selection
1 point for each point of NBA career Approximate Value and .33 points for each point of ABA career Approximate Value
2.5 points for each point of NBA career Efficiency
3.5 points for each NBA Championship
-20 points for centers and -15 points for forwards
Formula Explanations

NBA MVP
Being an NBA MVP has been the best way to get into the hall. Every NBA MVP who is eligible for the Hall of Fame is in the Hall of Fame. When a player wins an MVP award, its almost as good as getting enshrined.

All NBA First Team
Being elected NBA First Team carries some weight with the hall. 80% of players who were All NBA First Team two or more times and are eligible for the hall of fame, are in the hall of fame. The percentage jumps to 96% for players with three or more NBA First Team selections. Being selected to an All NBA First team should be slightly easier for a forward or guard than a center because two forwards and guards are selected as opposed to one center.

Approximate Value (AV)
Approximate Value is a statistical calculation that provides an idea of how much a player contributed to his team over the course of a season. The career AV will provide an idea of how much a player contributed to his teams over the course of his entire career. This component gives players credit for long, solid careers. ABA AV is not given as much credit as NBA AV. The AV is also slightly biased towards centers and forwards.

Efficiency (EFF)
Efficiency is a measure of a players impact per game. Since it is a per game average, it helps players who had short, but spectacular careers. It is also the only component that can decrease over time. So a player who has a career EFF of 20.1 after five seasons, may fall off and only have a career EFF of 17.3 after 10 seasons. This means that the HOF Monitor score can actually fall for some players over time. EFF is slightly biased towards centers and forwards.

NBA Championship
Winning an NBA Championship is a good thing in the eyes of the Hall of Fame voters. It also gives that player some publicity and possibly enhances the perception that he is a great player. Players who play on multiple championship teams have a slightly increased chance of making the Hall of Fame.

C and F Penalty
The slight bias towards centers and forwards that AV and EFF have needs to be acounted for with a penalty. Centers are penalized 20 points and forwards are penalized 15 points. Each player in our system has been assigned one single position. This is not ideal, but in most cases works out fine. Players who play multiple positions were given the position that they played most over the course of their career.

This formula provides a handy guide for rating a player's HOF chances. It is not meant to be a way to compare players of different eras. 85% of all players with a HOF Monitor score of 135 or more and are eligible are in the Hall of Fame. 99% of players with a score of 160 or greater and are eligible are in the Hall of Fame. One thing you will notice is that good players tend to jump out to a quick pace. This is because of the player's career EFF score. Keep in mind that the career EFF score will probably not move very much for a player and in most cases will actually drop off as the player becomes older and his skills diminish.


For the Rankings
http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadershof.htm

 

[Joe Vancil]

Rodman's defense after he left Detroit is seriously overrated because he switched to POWER FORWARD at that time, and never had the luck guarding power forwards - ON THE ACTUAL COURT - that he had guarding small forwards.  Rodman's defense in Detroit was awesome - Rodman's defense in San An and Chicago was barely more than adequate.

At that point, all Rodman did was irritate opponents so that they took themselves out of the game - like the Brickowski incident.  Players like Brian Williams (Bison Dele) and Jason Caffey were more instrumental in shutting down Malone against the Jazz, and Kemp made Rodman look REALLY bad on several occasions - as I'm surprised Skander didn't point out.

The one place Rodman doesn't get enough credit is in how SMART he was on the basketball court.  It wasn't just that he got rebounds, but the fact that he did smart things with the ball after he got the rebounds.  Even in his stint with the Lakers, the guy did smart things in terms of basketball.  It was just sheer idiocy in everything else that led to his downfall.

As for the Spurs getting beat by the Jazz in that one year, please keep in mind that it was STOCKTON - not Malone - who destroyed the Spurs in the fourth quarter of that last game.  The most memorable game I've ever seen for detailing what a great passer can mean to a team.  Stockton had 11 assists and 1 steal in the fourth quarter of a game tied at the end of 3.  Those 11 assists and that 1 steal accounted for all 24 Jazz points in the fourth, as the Jazz went on to win that game.

And I don't believe that Rodman was guarding Malone, anyway.  Typically, as I remember it, Malone and David Robinson guarded each other.  (I know for a fact that Malone generally guarded David Robinson.)