Here it is, from Peter D. Rumm, MD (yeah, never heard of him either): http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_16803.shtml Three best players according to him: Kobe, LeBron, and Dwyane Wade. I can't disagree with that, though I might change the order.
This guy is on crack VInce Carter 21? I don't think so. How can you put guys like Paul Gasol and Tony Parker ahead of him? Those two are phenominal players but I see Vince on about the same level if not higher than Paul Pierce.
I agree. Vince is probably underrated on the list. I think the perception is that there's a Big Three in New Jersey, and Vince doesn't really separate himself from the trio enough for him to be considered one of truly elite players in the game. Also, New Jersey doesn't get a lot of airtime on national tv, it seems, which probably hurts. Hopefuly he's in top form in this year's playoffs.
Vince is a glorified jumper shooter these days. Yes he's a star and probably should be higher, but let's not lose perspective of the type of baller he is these days. BTW Give Pau Jason Kidd and he'd go for 30 a night without raising a sweat.
The list is very inconsistent. Is he talking about individual accomplishment for this season alone? How does Shaq get the #6 spot when his game is starting to decline? And there's noway Tim Duncan is in the #5 spot, he isn't 100%. The list is whack. The only 2 I agree with is #1 and #2.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting kobe4life:</div><div class="quote_post">The list is very inconsistent. Is he talking about individual accomplishment for this season alone? How does Shaq get the #6 spot when his game is starting to decline? And there's noway Tim Duncan is in the #5 spot, he isn't 100%. The list is whack. The only 2 I agree with is #1 and #2.</div> Even though Shaq is clearly on the declne and Duncan isn't 100%, I can't think of more than a handful of NBA players I'd rather have on my team in a playoff series. And, really, isn't that the best criteria for judging who the best players are?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting kobe4life:</div><div class="quote_post">The list is very inconsistent. Is he talking about individual accomplishment for this season alone? How does Shaq get the #6 spot when his game is starting to decline? And there's noway Tim Duncan is in the #5 spot, he isn't 100%. The list is whack. The only 2 I agree with is #1 and #2.</div> Yeah I agree with you, not a very good list at all. The top 3 is fairly accurate, but from then on, it isnt.
These kind of lists are never popular, because everyone has a different opinion on who's better. The chances of two people agreeing on the same top 25 list is so unbelievably small, there might only be 2 or 3 people in the country who agree with him 100%.
^Very True Durvasa, That list is not on point, Chris Paul is not top 25, you cant be considered a top 25 player in this league based on 1 season and your team only being a quality team for half of that season. Tony Parker better then Jason Kidd, come on now....Parker plays in a system that makes him look better then he really is and plays along side the best perimeter defender in the league, which allows the Spurs to hide his weak defense most nights. The list is very confusing because if you are talking top 25 this year then its hard to put Ron Artest in the top 15 for 05-06,but if you are talking top 25 in general then Tony Parker, is vastly seeded to high on the rankings and Paul shouldnt be there at all.
I continue to make a case for Shawn Marion. 19th? What has Artest done really to be higher than Marion and McGrady. Forget about Vince, he's right where he should be, but TMac and Marion are way too low on that list. Elton Brand, although he is having a wonderful season, should be in the 10-15 range, with Dirk taking his spot.
^^ Are you serious? Vince is a legit top 15 player and I agree about Marion but Vince is definately better than 21.
This article is vastly flawed. First, the writer doesn’t mention if it’s this season that is being taken into consideration, or the last few. He gives no indication of how he is ranking these players. Is it personal stats only, or do you take the teams success into count as well? He has included no formula for his decisions. The writer also seems extremely biased. And as a writer, are you not supposed to be as neutral as possible. It’s the only way you can write an accurate article. Maybe he’s not biased, but how would you explain him listing Shaq as number 6 and Kevin Garnett as 11? One again, as I read more of the article, I found more inconsistencies. The writer has Garnett listed at 11, and the reason for his low placing: he missed the playoffs two consecutive seasons. Understandable, it looks like the write is taking team success into consideration, fine. But, you have Allen Iverson as number 7? The Sixers, by any stretch of the imagination are not a good team. Better than the Wolves? Yes, but are they so much better to justify four spots in this list? No. Next, you have Steve Nash at number 4. This may be justifiable as he has a strong chance as repeating as MVP. But, you have him ranked higher than Dirk. If you compare the numbers, it comes down to one thing: which are more valuable, scoring and rebounds, or assists and efficiency (Nash is efficient; his turnovers are low for how much he has the ball in his hands). Nash can score, but obviously not on the same magnitude as Dirk. Nash brings a team together though; he controls the tempo better than anybody in the league. For this, I say Nash is fine at number four; he is by far the top point guard in the league. But, Dirk is too low. I don’t have time to go over each player’s ranking individually, so I will address only the bigger mistakes. Ron Artest comes in at number twelve. Defensively, he is number one. Best defender in the league, bar none. But, his offence is average at best. And compared to the players on this list, his offence is below standard. Artest is placed much two high. I would put him 20-17. His defense is incredible, but his offence, compared to the majority of this list, is not too good. Tracy McGrady is at number 19. Are you kidding me? That is just ridiculous. McGrady has an off season, due to injury. But so did Tim Duncan, and look at his ranking. Besides, McGrady’s injury filled season wasn’t as big of a drop off compared to Shaq, or Duncan. McGrady is a top five player. He has the ability to completely take games over. 62 point against Washington to single handedly beat the Wizards. 13 points in 33 seconds, against an elite team. Amazing. Vince Carter at 21, I don’t think so. I live in Toronto, I’m a Raptors fan. So, I’m not exactly a Carter fan. But, give the guy some credit. He averages some of the better numbers on the list. 25 points, 4 assists, and 6 boards (off the top of my head, could be off a bit). On top of that, he gets better than a steal per game, shoots a decent percentage, good from the line and a lights out 3 point shooter. Not only that, he only plays 37 minutes a game, and only takes 19 shots a game. If Vince took the same amount of shots as Kobe, or played the minutes of Lebron, he would have some of the top numbers in the league. Chris Paul at number 25, not yet; his number are great, for a rookie. But, compared to other players left off this list, they aren’t great. Rasheed Wallace on this list is laughable, especially when you have Chris Bosh and Dwight Howard left off. ‘Sheed didn’t deserve to be an All-Star, and he certainly doesn’t deserve this. That is just scratching the surface. This list has much too many errors and inconsistencies for me to go over every one.
The list appears to be a subjective ranking, rather than a list based on a rating system. I assume he means top 25 right now. So, if he could recruit a player for a big game or playoff series, like in a draft, those would be his top 25 choices in order. Clearly he's not taking age/potential/career accomplishments into account. Which is the correct approach for a "best right now" list.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">The list appears to be a subjective ranking, rather than a list based on a rating system. I assume he means top 25 right now. So, if he could recruit a player for a big game or playoff series, like in a draft, those would be his top 25 choices in order. Clearly he's not taking age/potential/career accomplishments into account. Which is the correct approach for a "best right now" list.</div> But even subjective rankings need certain criteria so you can have consistency. This guy is all over the place with his explanations.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">But even subjective rankings need certain criteria so you can have consistency. This guy is all over the place with his explanations.</div> I didn't notice that. Can you give an example?
