FanHouse NBATop50

During the publication of my conceited effort to rate the NBA's Top 50, I saw a lot of comments and emails about those left out. A big slice of feedback also came in the form of criticizing the relative placement of various players, but that has been addressed within the posts themselves. The snubs need their due, though, so here's an attempt at explaining why certain players didn't make my cut.

Joe Johnson: J.J. was a hard omission, and on any given day I might have included him in the late 40s. Johnson is a great offensive player, a truly multifaceted weapon who can explode into blue-hot flames like few others. Some nights, he looks like one of the best in the world.

But "some nights" isn't good enough. Obviously, J.J. is a scorer by trade, Atlanta's top option every night. He failed to hit 10 points seven times last season. He shot worse than 40% in 30 of his 82 games -- more than a third of the season's worth of play. In those games, Atlanta went 9-21.

When you're the top dog, your team can't survive terrible shooting nights ... unless you find another way to score. Among all top-flight guards, J.J. was one of the worst at drawing fouls. Kevin Martin (who played four fewer minutes per game than Johnson) averaged 9.5 free throws a night. Johnson averaged 4.5 and shot at least nine free throw attempts in a game only 10 times. What good is J.J.'s slashing skill if it doesn't help his efficiency or his team's offense?

FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

Last spring, I made a case under this banner for Chris Paul to be included in any future consideration for Next G.O.A.T. (greatest of all time). People had bandied about comparisons to Isiah Thomas and suggested Paul could maybe someday find himself in the upper echelon of the game's point guards. But the overwhelming assertion from the masses: Paul hasn't proved anything, and it will be a long time before we can call him the best.

Be as patient as you like, my friends, but I'm not waiting around to crown CP3. If his performance remains even close to last season's effort (at age 22), you're looking at the future greatest point guard of the modern era. After the jump, I'll explain my rationale.

FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

Kobe Bryant will never quiet his critics, and it has nothing to do with his personality, his jersey or his legal history. Kobe's divisiveness can be traced to the most basic quark of sport, the certain theme in one's observation of any game with sides and a scoreboard: the battle between team and individual.

Those who flash cudgels at Kobe think he is selfish, conceited, unsavory, a detriment to the perfect balance in panoramic basketball. If you love Kobe, you consider him a hoops God on Earth, a man who could easily wedge into idealistic basketball if his game wasn't so damn flawless on its own. Kobe ignores friends, or Kobe has no need for friends. Kobe is a hog, or Kobe is realistic about his skills. Kobe is overrated, or Kobe is the G.O.A.T.

Can there ever be a bridge?

FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

Thanks to my overwhelming ego, I have not dared say this yet in our journey from 50 to 1: this choice, Kevin Garnett, won a coin toss against Tim Duncan. When I looked at the 2008-09 season and who I felt would be the best players in the NBA, I couldn't go one way or the other between Big Fun and the Big Ticket. So KG took tails and the No. 4 spot. I'm not ashamed of the arbitrary decision, though: it's probably the right choice by a smidgen.

Duncan gets mentioned as the greatest power forward ever, and might end up in a whole lot of top 10 all-time lists. But Garnett has been just as good through it all. Duncan has eight all-defense first team appearances. Garnett has seven. KG sits just a touch lower on all-time rebounds and blocks per game lists than Duncan, which can be in part attributed to Garnett's rookie season, where as a 19-year-old he played less than 30 minutes a game. In fact, during the pair's primes, KG led the league in rebounds four times. Duncan only finished as high as second once.

All this begs the question: is Garnett as good a defender as Duncan?

FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

Tim Duncan needs no explanation here. Generally regarded as one of the greatest pivots in the league's history, Duncan has dominated the NBA for the last decade like no other active player ... not even Shaq. Duncan's lows (2005-06, '07-08) are still top 10 material. His heights -- well, few could dream of reaching them.

Big Fun(damental) has a crystal defensive record. In the modern era, only Dikembe Mutombo can reasonably be considered a peer as an anchor, shotblocker, defensive quarterback, rebounder and pure stopper. The way Duncan plays defense is the way most kids in the schoolyard see Kobe play offense: simple domination. In eight of his 11 seasons, Duncan has been voted to first team All-Defense; in the other three seasons, he made the second team. He's top 20 all-time in blocks and rebounds per game ... and that's playing on a slow team in any era where offenses are favored (as opposed to the 1970s and 80s, where rules and talent levels left a lot more rebound opportunities).

If that's enough, he's one of the most potent offensive weapons ever. His usage rate is top 15 all-time, meaning less than 15 players in the history of the NBA have been responsible for a larger share of their team's offense. ! So yes, his overall offensive efficiency numbers aren't spectacular -- free throws remain the sometimes fatal flaw -- but he gets the job done at above-average rate for a ton of possessions.

FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

For whatever reason, the importance of efficiency has struggled to achieve critical mass among fans and pundits. Study after study shows that at the team level, shooting percentage is the single most important factor in team offensive success. As you'd suspect, shooting is a skill easily attributable to individual players.

We don't want to be simpletons, so you need to account for the fact that a made three is better for a team than a made two and that free throws are a good way to score. Thus, we get a figure dubbed True Shooting percentage: a metric which adjusts for the impact of free throws and threes. It's not as easy as plain old FG% to calculate, but it's not complicated either. (You can find the formula at the previous link.) Basically, with one look at TS% you can tell how efficient a player is with his shots.

Last season, that fellow was Amare Stoudemire, the world's most efficient high-scorer.

FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

Dirk Nowitzki might have been the only superstar officially disqualified last year from MVP consideration before the season began. Upon winning the trophy for his exemplary work in the 2007 regular season, his team was summarily dis(mis)sed by an eighth seed as his own stock among basketball fans near (in Dallas) and far (every town but Frankfurt) sunk to unfair levels. Dirk took all heat for the Golden State defeat, and it's a ghost it seems he won't be able to shed.

FanHouse's Tom Ziller argues his ranking of the top 50 players in the NBA.

It's hard to name an NBA love affair so basic and beautiful as Dwight Howard + Dunk 4-EVA. Thirty percent of Dwight's FGAs last season came off ye old slam (he shot 93% on those, and less than 25% on jumpers). For comparison's sake, Amare Stoudemire took 18% of his FGAs with his hands on the rim, and Shaq sat around 22%. Even among the ranks of ideological shock-and-awe dunkers, Howard rates as the most devoted missionary of the slam.