RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #20

[JoeMalburg]

For the record, I'm impressed by Bob Pettit. I see him as being easily more worthy than Cousy or Baylor. I rate him above MIkan, though I think that's more debatable because of how hard it is, frankly, to compare Mikan to guys in later eras.

In Pettit you have a guy with great fundamentals and a reverence from his contemporaries along the lines of Dr. J. Also, importantly to me, you have a guy who just kept improving his skills his whole career. There is no question to me of whether Pettit could be great today.

Among power forwards, I've got him just after Barkley. There just isn't any way I see to look at Pettit in Barkley's league as a force of nature, but we are talking about a guy who would be an all-star again and again as a linchpin for a franchise if that franchise wasn't dysfunctional.

I'll add, going back to Mikan, I've always had trouble seriously considering him the equal of Patrick Ewing in a similar way. After Ewing you've got a pretty clear dropoff among 5's. I love Artis Gilmore, but he just had a passivity to his game that puts him down a tier.

I actually think Moses vs Pettit is a good debate but have always sided with Moses in the past. Don't particularly want to try to justify my prior opinions. I will say that the fact that Moses was so effective on an all-time great team mixed with the knowledge of Ewing theory certainly plays a role in why I tend to see Moses ahead of Ewing.

So yeah for me, the following guys are on my mind, and I'll break it down by role sorted chronologically because that seems informative to me at the moment:

Bigs: Pettit, Moses
Wings: Durant
Points: Stockton, Nash, Wade, Paul, Curry

In this post and the last few threads I've also talked about Ewing, Mikan & Gilmore (obviously), as well as Barry, Pippen & Havlicek. I don't list them in my breakdown above, not because they aren't close, because there are other guys who just seem to have the clear edge over them.

I list 5 different points because I can see an argument for any of them and I honestly don't know what order I will put them in. It's rare for me to have so much uncertainty in rankings at a position at any given time, and I really am hoping to glean insight from y'all on them.

How do you feel about the fact that Curry and Durant just don't have the longevity to match any of the others, excluding Mikan? You don't feel it's too early?

The thing about the longevity argument O believe is that there becomes a point when short term (all-time) greatness is preferred to sustained excellence.

Would you rather have the guy who was elite for five seasons, wins MVPs and titles and has a top ten all-time peak. Or the guy who is one step below that for 15 years, never an MVP, never a champ but very good every season?

[THKNKG]

For the record, I'm impressed by Bob Pettit. I see him as being easily more worthy than Cousy or Baylor. I rate him above MIkan, though I think that's more debatable because of how hard it is, frankly, to compare Mikan to guys in later eras.

In Pettit you have a guy with great fundamentals and a reverence from his contemporaries along the lines of Dr. J. Also, importantly to me, you have a guy who just kept improving his skills his whole career. There is no question to me of whether Pettit could be great today.

Among power forwards, I've got him just after Barkley. There just isn't any way I see to look at Pettit in Barkley's league as a force of nature, but we are talking about a guy who would be an all-star again and again as a linchpin for a franchise if that franchise wasn't dysfunctional.

I'll add, going back to Mikan, I've always had trouble seriously considering him the equal of Patrick Ewing in a similar way. After Ewing you've got a pretty clear dropoff among 5's. I love Artis Gilmore, but he just had a passivity to his game that puts him down a tier.

I actually think Moses vs Pettit is a good debate but have always sided with Moses in the past. Don't particularly want to try to justify my prior opinions. I will say that the fact that Moses was so effective on an all-time great team mixed with the knowledge of Ewing theory certainly plays a role in why I tend to see Moses ahead of Ewing.

So yeah for me, the following guys are on my mind, and I'll break it down by role sorted chronologically because that seems informative to me at the moment:

Bigs: Pettit, Moses
Wings: Durant
Points: Stockton, Nash, Wade, Paul, Curry

In this post and the last few threads I've also talked about Ewing, Mikan & Gilmore (obviously), as well as Barry, Pippen & Havlicek. I don't list them in my breakdown above, not because they aren't close, because there are other guys who just seem to have the clear edge over them.

I list 5 different points because I can see an argument for any of them and I honestly don't know what order I will put them in. It's rare for me to have so much uncertainty in rankings at a position at any given time, and I really am hoping to glean insight from y'all on them.

How do you feel about the fact that Curry and Durant just don't have the longevity to match any of the others, excluding Mikan? You don't feel it's too early?

The thing about the longevity argument O believe is that there becomes a point when short term (all-time) greatness is preferred to sustained excellence.

Would you rather have the guy who was elite for five seasons, wins MVPs and titles and has a top ten all-time peak. Or the guy who is one step below that for 15 years, never an MVP, never a champ but very good every season?

Well, I do get that part, but we don't have only guys who are "one step below that" left. Guys like Wade/CP3/Nash have played at an incredibly high level for longer at this point, though not as high at peak. I do think he's approaching fast, just not there yet. Wade has 05-11 as strong prime, for example, whereas Curry has only 5 years. 2 years is a pretty big gap, but like you said, the peak/impact gap is definitely in Curry's favor.

[Pablo Novi]

Vote: Pettit
Alt: Cousy
H.M. Baylor

These are the only three guys with 10 ALL-League 1st-Team selections not yet chosen for our GOAT list.

I certainly think all three should be up for consideration now or very soon, but why is Ten all-nba firstvtram selections more significant to you then three MVPs? In either case, Why should we put so much stock into the opinions of so few people?

Pettit was selected First-Team over Russell in 1958 (though Russell got the MVP - I believe due to collective guilt over past, and then-still-existing racist policies).

I know you say you've never had a major issue with the voting, but this would be an example of one here IMO. Pettit is listed at center to keep Russell off the first team because a lot of voters were still pretty outwardly racist. Chuck Share and Ed McCauley were the Hawks centers that year, and Russell was the MVP because the players voted for MVP, not the media.

The Significance (imo) of the ALL-League selections:
First, I think they have a lot more significance than MVP voting because in terms of the SELECTION process instead of just voting for ONE spot (THE MVP) (which can and does allow for "political" voting); the selectors are choosing a whole list of players (5 for 1st-Team, 5 for 2nd-Team; and since there's been 3rd-Teams, likewise). This, imo, naturally gives a much more well-rounded reflection of the top players in the League each year.

This also is quite informative of who outplayed who else each year at EACH POSITION - something the MVP voting process basically doesn't even really address at all (or at best barely "answers").

Second, I believe the ALL-League selection process, in terms of results, has been more accurate.
(Examples: 1st-Team: Wilt over Russell in 1961 and 1962 ! (which I find just mind-boggling); but Russell over Wilt for MVP both of those years. Same for KAJ over Cowens 1st-Team, but Cowens over KAJ for MVP in 1973. In the case of Wilt vs Russell. Wilt rightfully got both the MVP and 1st-Team over Russell in 1960, Wilt's first year. But Wilt was better, imo, in 1961 and even better in 1962, while Russell, IF he improved over his 1960 level, didn't improve as much. So, therefore, both those MVP voting results were wrong - and, I THINK that the players get jealous of Wilt's dominance and voted against him). In 1973, it seemed clear at the time that KAJ was decidedly better than Cowens - my guess then and since is that the Cs had a disproportionate influence amongst the MVP voters.

Imo, these are not the only "incorrect" MVP selections; there have been a number since back then (I'm thinking the two NASH MVPs amongst others; and what people call "MVP-voter-fatigue").

Third, it is universally known that people have traditionally placed FAR MORE attention to MVPs than to ALL-League selections - imo, it should be just the opposite. So, I very much DO believe that being one of the only 10 players ever to get TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections is decidedly more significant than getting 3 MVPs.

A specific example of, imo, great overemphasis on MVP results. It is often noted that Russell got 5 MVPs to Wilt's 4 . But transfer TWO of those FROM Russell to Wilt (as I believe they should have been originally voted) and you have Russell's 3 to Wilt's 6. Contrast that with the 1st-Team & 2nd-Team results: in the 9 years they both got ALL-NBA selections, Wilt beat Russell 7-2 on 1st-Team selections - for me that says that one player, Wilt, dominated the other, Russell. The direct opposite of what the MVP voting says.

N.B. If Wilt had gotten SIX MVPs, as I believe he deserved, the overall GOAT discussions would be decidedly different (given, again, the heavy emphasis placed on MVPs).

Fourth, you say, " Why should we put so much stock into the opinions of so few people? "
I find this a little hard to believe.
a) There are over ONE HUNDRED selectors each year; and ALL OF THEM are HIGHLY QUALIFIED - given the BEST access they had/have to what was going on in the games at the time they were being played (or right afterwards).

b) The RESULTS of their voting is remarkably accurate.

c) Here WE ARE, all 54 or so of us; with ONLY 20 or so voting each thread - and is this much smaller number of us, most decidedly less-qualified (I certainly include myself) - to paraphrase you, "Why should we put so much stock into the opinions of even way fewer (AND probably WAY LESS QUALIFIED) people?"
--------------
ON THE MATTER OF RUSSELL GETTING THE MVP OVER PETTIT; but Pettit getting 1st-Team Center over Russell.
I was not paying attention to the NBA back then; so I always assumed that Pettit had mostly played Center that year (he was listed as having been the Center the TWO years before that). IF you are correct in what you state here; then, naturally, I both withdraw my objection to Russell being chosen MVP over Pettit and, what's the most-appropriate word(?), "apologize" to the readers of this thread for misrepresenting what really went on. (I would just note that virtually ALL of the free time of my entire adult life has been dedicated to, and actually used intensely, in being a heavy-duty peace-justice (including anti-racist) activist. If I have missed what was really going on in this one case; I find that deeply embarrassing).

Also, again assuming you are correct (and I have no big reason to doubt you); then I whole-heartedly thank you for correcting my understanding and salute you.

[Pablo Novi]

Vote: Pettit
Alt: Cousy
H.M. Baylor

These are the only three guys with 10 ALL-League 1st-Team selections not yet chosen for our GOAT list.
A "decade's" worth of domination of the players at their position is a tremendous achievement (only achieved by a total of 10 players in the 80 years of 1938 season to 2017 season!) Of those ten, only three (K.Malone, Kobe & LeBron) have 11 1st-Team selections. In other words, these three could hardly have done more.

Pettit was selected First-Team over Russell in 1958 (though Russell got the MVP - I believe due to collective guilt over past, and then-still-existing racist policies).

Besides, each of them revolutionized their respective positions. We've been (collectively) putting players on our GOAT list with FAR LESS positional-era-dominance. I don't much see what more they could have done to "satisfy" this board?

Imo, all three of these guys should go next.

Permit me to add: the selectors are IDEALLY suited - it was/is their job to report on the sport; and COLLECTIVELY, there are enough of them to override pretty much any and all personal, "homerist" biases. Imo, their selection process TRUMPS all stats or combinations of them. I'd also note, that over the last 58 years of NBA-NBL-ABA "rabidity", I've never once had a major objection to their selections.

Further, there are only 22 players in total who even accumulated at least 6 1st-Team ALL-League selections - showing just how difficult getting TEN is.

I'm sorry I just don't get the point of what you are saying. It doesn't seem like you are adding any valuable incites or analysis by just stating who had the most All-NBA selections. If the criteria was All-NBA selections then there would be nothing to debate and we could make the list just off that. In my eyes the point of what we are doing here is to dive deeper than the basic wikipedia of a player. There are clearly players who were better than the All-NBA selections and all-star appearances indicate. Hakeem Olajuwon only had 6 All-NBA first team selections and he is clearly a far superior player than Cousy or Pettit could have dreamed of being (see what I did there (; ). Hell KG only made 4 All-NBA first teams and 9 total All-NBA teams in total and I don't think he's even in the same tier as Cousy or Pettit, and clearly the majority of people agree with me because KG is no. 12 and Pettit and Cousy will probably be in the 25-30 area. I'm not trying to be a jerk when I say this but I just don't see what you are adding to these discussions by just putting out each players basic accolades and not doing any deeper research. Also the voters get stuff wrong all the time. Paul should have been MVP in 08 Kobe in 06 Shaq in 05 and basically any year MJ didn't win the MVP especially 1997. MJ didn't win 97 because a reporter wrote an article about how MJ deserved the MVP but wouldn't it be nice if someone else won it like Karl Malone because he was having a "MVP type season." If anyone's interested I believe the article is titled "The Jazz Master," look it up. Anyway the point is voters get stuff wrong and sometimes making 10 all-nba first teams isn't as impressive as it looks/sounds. In my opinion deeper analysis is nearly always needed to see the real value and impact of a player.

I'm glad you raise this question / objection about / to my emphasis on ALL-League selections.

It is universally recognized that GOAT discussions are tremendously divided and divisive - the amount of subjectivity (including about which stats or combinations of stats to use and how much emphasis to place on them) overwhelms the discussions.

It is MY belief that the BEST (if not only) way to "bridge the gaps" so to speak and/or tone down the flame-warring is to start with some "basic criteria" that, if given serious consideration (something I never seen ever close to happening so far) ... if given serious consideration; people could agree that the ALL-League selections are THE BEST "stat" available for: comparing how players did vis-à-vis THEIR POSITION IN THEIR ERA. The very large number of selectors tends to overwhelm any and all individual biases amongst them. (It's LIKE but considerably even better, than the Olympic Games evaluations: where, for example in Diving and other sports, the high and low votes are thrown out).

I DO strongly believe that we should START any GOAT discussion by FIRST: analyzing who dominated each of the FIVE positions during each's career - THEN we can TRY to compare the BEST at each position for each "decade" to the BEST at that same position for the other "decades". This, it seems to me, makes the process much "cleaner" / transparent / "objective".

People would then have a 5 positional GOAT lists; and, logically, would then compare THE #1 at EACH position against each other - (based on whatever criteria they think is/are most important) in order to chose their GOAT #1. Then compare the remaining positional #1s (including or not the #2 from the position already chosen) ...

For ME, I believe that ALL 5 positions should be treated as RELATIVELY EQUAL. Sure bigs, especially Centers have traditionally (until the turn of the century or so) been more important, particularly on defense. But what this does not address AT ALL, is that the smaller the position/player the more: running, cutting, stop-and-starting, dribbling, passing, etc. that they do. While no stats reflect this extra effort; it exists and is important on both sides of the ball. Imo, it is enough to ALMOST equalize the defensive advantage of the bigs. That is why I both include one player per position in each descending set of 5 positions on my GOAT list; AND, put the Center first in EACH descending set. That seems quite a bit fairer to me than any other system (or lack thereof) I've seen applied.

About the question you raise of whether placing so much importance on ALL-League selections basically eliminates (or reduces too much) the quantity and/or quality of GOAT discussions, please consider this:
a) (as I mentioned earlier), the ALL-League selectors are the MOST QUALIFIED to judge (and their large numbers do tend to produce very high quality results);

b) Using THEIR historical results, as a FIRST (but certainly not only) "UNIT" of measurement, is super useful: a player with 10 1st-Team selections dominated their position during THEIR career more than a player at the same position did who has 5 or less 1st-Team selections.

c) The Regular Season is a HUGE sample size compared to the Post-Season (which is, on average, 1/8th the length for HALF the teams; where generally only half the players even participate - and where any number of "short-term" factors become more important than in the R.S.: particular match-ups, injuries, amount of rest, difficulty of previous opponents, etc).

In other words, using (Reg. Season) ALL-League selections as a 1st "approximation" or "basic measuring unit" is both quite useful/accurate AND puts all of us GOAT-list makers in the same general playing field.

BUT
c) There is still TONS of room for discussion.
1) How much should each "decade" be valued compared to the others. (Most of us value the 40s a lot less than the 50s and the 50s a lot less than the 60s ... with most, generally, valuing each subsequent decade a bit more than the previous ones)

2) How much should each position be valued compared to the others.

3) During the Dual-League years, how much should each League be valued compared to the others.

4) How much should the tons of other factors (Post-Season, stats, special player-qualities (attitude, TEAM-work, relatively-unique skills, or the lacks thereof) influence the evaluation process.

Using myself as an example: I don't have any of the THREE players with 11 1st-Team ALL-League selections (K.Malone, Kobe, TD) in my GOAT Top 4; though I have TD GOAT #5; and both Kobe and Karl in my GOAT Top 10 (#8 & #10 respectively). Likewise, there have only been TEN players with at least 10 ALL-League 1st-Team selections; but I don't have 3 of them in my GOAT Top 15: Pettit, Cousy & Baylor. So MY GOAT list is not at all DOMINATED by the ALL-League selections; it is just highly-"informed" by them.
----
Conversely, I don't see any other means (short of some all-encompassing not-yet-developed stat that both truly accurately measures comparative player performances AND will be near-universally accepted as such) to "bridge the enormous gap" in GOAT list-makers evaluation processes - and result in a sane, rational, CALM discussion where most are coming from a relatively "common ground".

As examples of what we are all completely familiar with:
Some GOAT list-makers have as their GOAT #1: MJ (most), KAJ, LBJ, Kobe and a few others. And virulently disagree with each other - to the point where on their respective lists, the other major worthy candidates are often not even ranked in their top 10.

Again, using each player's number of ALL-League selections at least MIGHT get us to be relatively "in the same ball park" enough to have discussions that are both far-more informative AND "friendly" (anti-flame-warring).

[wojoaderge]

If the list was 100 BEST basketball players . . . (b)ut the list is 100 GREATEST basketball players . . . dominance = greatness and trumps longevity

Exactly. This list also isn't the Top 100 Least Flawless, Most Versatile, Most Era-Portable, or Players You'd Most Want to Choose for Your All-Time Fantasy Team. At least that's not the way i'm approaching it . . .

[Doctor MJ]

How do you feel about the fact that Curry and Durant just don't have the longevity to match any of the others, excluding Mikan? You don't feel it's too early?

The thing about the longevity argument O believe is that there becomes a point when short term (all-time) greatness is preferred to sustained excellence.

Would you rather have the guy who was elite for five seasons, wins MVPs and titles and has a top ten all-time peak. Or the guy who is one step below that for 15 years, never an MVP, never a champ but very good every season?

Well, I do get that part, but we don't have only guys who are "one step below that" left. Guys like Wade/CP3/Nash have played at an incredibly high level for longer at this point, though not as high at peak. I do think he's approaching fast, just not there yet. Wade has 05-11 as strong prime, for example, whereas Curry has only 5 years. 2 years is a pretty big gap, but like you said, the peak/impact gap is definitely in Curry's favor.

I always think there's no right way to weigh peak vs longevity. You can't even say "What would a GM do?" because that depends on context.

Let's take Curry because he represents an extreme:

In his short career he has had the GOAT regular season and led quite possibly the GOAT team (the mainstream thinks Durant did it, but that's not what the data says, and it's not how the team's approach was built).

What this means is that he's actually what you might call a Rushmore candidate. Someone whose significance is so huge that he could be one of slightly more than a handful of guys in history that you absolutely have to talk about if you were teaching Basketball History 101.

On the other hand, longevity is quite short. I wouldn't really object to someone having him way further down.

It's worth noting that to the extent you care about historical prioritization of peak vs longevity, basketball has been quite peak heavy compared to, say, baseball. Walton was a no-brainer HOFer, and Shaq was named Top 50 in history after only playing a few years. If you were to use that type of peak/longevity weighting, Curry deserves to a major, major candidate for you at the current spot.

And once again, on the other hand, when Shaq left Orlando shortly after that Top 50 spot was given to him, I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince an Orlando Magic fan that he'd contributed enough to their franchise to warrant that level of praise.

One more thing:

It's really tricky factoring in innovation and spearheading in general. Mikan is the most important historical player left on the boards, and I think we all agree about that, but when you look at more modern guys it gets trickier.

I'm sure others would disagree, but I'll come right out in say it: Nobody needs to learn about Stockton, everyone needs to understand Nash, and the reason is that Nash was a spearhead that was instrumental to the NBA changing offensive strategy on a level arguably not seen in generations, and Stockton just wasn't.

Nash deserves some credit for his spearheadedness, but how much given that in future generations whatever edge Nash had over Stockton will be less, and already career impact-wise with no extra weight toward prime, Stockton has the franchise value contributed edge easily.

You just have to figure it out for yourself.

[penbeast0]

...

So Curry v. Durant, who do you have higher all-time?

[trex_8063]

Second, I believe the ALL-League selection process, in terms of results, has been more accurate.
(Examples: 1st-Team: Wilt over Russell in 1961 and 1962 ! (which I find just mind-boggling); but Russell over Wilt for MVP both of those years. Same for KAJ over Cowens 1st-Team, but Cowens over KAJ for MVP in 1973. In the case of Wilt vs Russell. Wilt rightfully got both the MVP and 1st-Team over Russell in 1960, Wilt's first year. But Wilt was better, imo, in 1961 and even better in 1962, while Russell, IF he improved over his 1960 level, didn't improve as much. So, therefore, both those MVP voting results were wrong - and, I THINK that the players get jealous of Wilt's dominance and voted against him).

There's a bit of logical fallacy in here. You're basically saying the All-NBA voting more closely aligns with what you already thought (that Wilt is better)......therefore it is more accurate.

Mind you I'm not necessarily arguing that the MVP vote is more accurate; I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm merely suggesting that automatically assuming that which correlates more with your pre-conceived opinions is therefore more "accurate" is perhaps not the best way to interpret information.

Third, it is universally known that people have traditionally placed FAR MORE attention to MVPs than to ALL-League selections - imo, it should be just the opposite. So, I very much DO believe that being one of the only 10 players ever to get TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections is decidedly more significant than getting 3 MVPs.

A specific example of, imo, great overemphasis on MVP results. It is often noted that Russell got 5 MVPs to Wilt's 2. But transfer TWO of those FROM Russell to Wilt (as I believe they should have been originally voted) and you have Russell's 3 to Wilt's 4........

Again, what people have repeatedly been suggesting is that maybe you/we shouldn't put a tremendous amount of stock in either (MVP vote or All-NBA honors). And maybe instead the focus should be more on what a player brings to the table by way of production, efficiency, impact (plus intangibles, leadership qualities, portability, etc).

[Pablo Novi]

If the list was 100 BEST basketball players . . . (b)ut the list is 100 GREATEST basketball players . . . dominance = greatness and trumps longevity

Exactly. This list also isn't the Top 100 Least Flawless, Most Versatile, Most Era-Portable, or Players You'd Most Want to Choose for Your All-Time Fantasy Team. At least that's not the way i'm approaching it . . .

imo, We are "measuring" CAREER vs CAREER
You say, " ... dominance = greatness and trumps longevity"
But I don't think anybody here is arguing for "simple" longetivity. (Nobody's ranking Parish or Willis (with their 21 seasons) NEAR the top of the list). Still, IF by longetivity we mean MINUTES rather than GAMES; MOST of the top guys in MINUTES got that many minutes because they were top guys period.

So then dominance = PEAK PLUS PRIME (plus, if your PEAK and/or PRIME were great enough, any additional "Great Years" - "Great Years" being defined as ALL-League 1st-Team and 2nd-Team selections (because the 10 players who get selected each year truly did DOMINATE their position that year).

Imo, what we are "measuring" here is/are CAREERS. Career-length DOMINANCE. Careers include both PEAKS and PRIMES and, in a very few cases, additional "Great Years"; plus other factors.

If ALL we went on was PEAK, the not-quite TWO awesome years that Bill Walton had would put him WAY up high on the GOAT list.
Assume a normally-long duration for a great player and Walton WOULD be there.

If I were to build an All-Time TEAM, based on each player's single greatest year; I'd seriously consider Walton for the Center position.

I disagree with lots that Bill Simmons says; but, "ONE-YEAR PEAK-WISE" agree with his (slightly paraphrased) : Of all the great OFFENSIVE Centers, Walton was the greatest DEFENSIVE Center; of all the great DEFENSIVE Centers, Walton was the greatest OFFENSIVE Center.

For myself, I can't rank Walton's CAREER any higher than about GOAT #50.

[wojoaderge]

For myself, I can't rank Walton's CAREER any higher than about GOAT #50.

I have him in the 30s

[wojoaderge]

Again, what people have repeatedly been suggesting is that maybe you/we shouldn't put a tremendous amount of stock in either (MVP vote or All-NBA honors). And maybe instead the focus should be more on what a player brings to the table by way of production, efficiency, impact (plus intangibles, leadership qualities, portability, etc).

Not me. Too much room for unbridled revisionism

[pandrade83]

The thing about the longevity argument O believe is that there becomes a point when short term (all-time) greatness is preferred to sustained excellence.

Would you rather have the guy who was elite for five seasons, wins MVPs and titles and has a top ten all-time peak. Or the guy who is one step below that for 15 years, never an MVP, never a champ but very good every season?

Well, I do get that part, but we don't have only guys who are "one step below that" left. Guys like Wade/CP3/Nash have played at an incredibly high level for longer at this point, though not as high at peak. I do think he's approaching fast, just not there yet. Wade has 05-11 as strong prime, for example, whereas Curry has only 5 years. 2 years is a pretty big gap, but like you said, the peak/impact gap is definitely in Curry's favor.

I always think there's no right way to weigh peak vs longevity. You can't even say "What would a GM do?" because that depends on context.

Let's take Curry because he represents an extreme:

In his short career he has had the GOAT regular season and led quite possibly the GOAT team (the mainstream thinks Durant did it, but that's not what the data says, and it's not how the team's approach was built).

What this means is that he's actually what you might call a Rushmore candidate. Someone whose significance is so huge that he could be one of slightly more than a handful of guys in history that you absolutely have to talk about if you were teaching Basketball History 101.

On the other hand, longevity is quite short. I wouldn't really object to someone having him way further down.

It's worth noting that to the extent you care about historical prioritization of peak vs longevity, basketball has been quite peak heavy compared to, say, baseball. Walton was a no-brainer HOFer, and Shaq was named Top 50 in history after only playing a few years. If you were to use that type of peak/longevity weighting, Curry deserves to a major, major candidate for you at the current spot.

And once again, on the other hand, when Shaq left Orlando shortly after that Top 50 spot was given to him, I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince an Orlando Magic fan that he'd contributed enough to their franchise to warrant that level of praise.

One more thing:

It's really tricky factoring in innovation and spearheading in general. Mikan is the most important historical player left on the boards, and I think we all agree about that, but when you look at more modern guys it gets trickier.

I'm sure others would disagree, but I'll come right out in say it: Nobody needs to learn about Stockton, everyone needs to understand Nash, and the reason is that Nash was a spearhead that was instrumental to the NBA changing offensive strategy on a level arguably not seen in generations, and Stockton just wasn't.

Nash deserves some credit for his spearheadedness, but how much given that in future generations whatever edge Nash had over Stockton will be less, and already career impact-wise with no extra weight toward prime, Stockton has the franchise value contributed edge easily.

You just have to figure it out for yourself.

Here's how I view the Stockton vs. Nash thing:

Stockton was the ultimate craftsmen. He maximized whatever god given talents he had - there was nothing left to squeeze out of that orange.

Nash was an innovator. He had a stylistic impact and I'll remember watching Nash much moreso than Stockton.

Stylistic impact and who I will remember - the edge goes to Nash hands down, not that close.

But in terms of impact on winning - Stockton's offensive impact metrics pan out roughly equal to Nash's, he did it for a longer sustained time period and was one of the better players (at his position) on the defensive side of the ball than Nash. And that's why Stockton gets my vote over Nash.

[Pablo Novi]

Second, I believe the ALL-League selection process, in terms of results, has been more accurate.
(Examples: 1st-Team: Wilt over Russell in 1961 and 1962 ! (which I find just mind-boggling); but Russell over Wilt for MVP both of those years. Same for KAJ over Cowens 1st-Team, but Cowens over KAJ for MVP in 1973. In the case of Wilt vs Russell. Wilt rightfully got both the MVP and 1st-Team over Russell in 1960, Wilt's first year. But Wilt was better, imo, in 1961 and even better in 1962, while Russell, IF he improved over his 1960 level, didn't improve as much. So, therefore, both those MVP voting results were wrong - and, I THINK that the players get jealous of Wilt's dominance and voted against him).

There's a bit of logical fallacy in here. You're basically saying the All-NBA voting more closely aligns with what you already thought (that Wilt is better)......therefore it is more accurate.

Mind you I'm not necessarily arguing that the MVP vote is more accurate; I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm merely suggesting that automatically assuming that which correlates more with your pre-conceived opinions is therefore more "accurate" is perhaps not the best way to interpret information.

Third, it is universally known that people have traditionally placed FAR MORE attention to MVPs than to ALL-League selections - imo, it should be just the opposite. So, I very much DO believe that being one of the only 10 players ever to get TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections is decidedly more significant than getting 3 MVPs.

A specific example of, imo, great overemphasis on MVP results. It is often noted that Russell got 5 MVPs to Wilt's 2. But transfer TWO of those FROM Russell to Wilt (as I believe they should have been originally voted) and you have Russell's 3 to Wilt's 4........

Again, what people have repeatedly been suggesting is that maybe you/we shouldn't put a tremendous amount of stock in either (MVP vote or All-NBA honors). And maybe instead the focus should be more on what a player brings to the table by way of production, efficiency, impact (plus intangibles, leadership qualities, portability, etc).

Well the question of how objective/subjective any of us is, is one tough question to answer.

Otoh, I'd bet most people would agree that Wilt improved more from 1960 to 1961 and 1962 than Russell did over those same three years. Given that, with Wilt getting both the MVP AND the 1st-Team ALL-NBA selection in 1960; wouldn't it be pretty logical to assume that he should have gotten them both (INCLUDING the MVP) over Russell the latter two years?

In terms of how much stock I'm putting in different factors: you-all might want to consider the following:
When any new player-evaluation tool comes along; or an old one gets proposed as having more significance than previously thought - this tends to meet with much resistance. As an example, early on, advanced stats met with far more resistance than they did subsequently.

Perhaps one day GOAT- or career- evaluators will come to place a good deal more emphasis on ALL-League selections than they do now? In which case, Pablo Novi just happened to be ahead of the curve. No big deal.

Still, if you look at most GOAT lists, they actually PARALLEL the pyramid (so to speak) of accumulated ALL-League selections. That similarity might just mean that using a player's accumulated number of ALL-League selections is quite useful.

Additonally, using anything else other than ALL-Leagues selections, except MVP selections, is far more cumbersome in general. I've said why I don't value MVPs as highly as most everybody else does. Leaving that to the side, how often is a GOAT- or career- evaluator gonna have AT HAND a combination of one or several stats PLUS an analysis of them PLUS all the other considerations; VS having ONE list of the accumulated totals of ALL-League selections?

I can look at my ALL-League selections list; and with just a glance have a reasonable APPROXIMATION of what my final GOAT list ends up looking like.

I need to also point out that I DO pay significant attention to such as: "And maybe instead the focus should be more on what a player brings to the table by way of production, efficiency, impact (plus intangibles, leadership qualities, portability, etc"

For example, the biggest single reason I rank Magic GOAT #2 over MJ (my GOAT #3) is because of TEAM-work in a TEAM sport. (I wouldn't rank him over MJ IF Magic's number of "Great Years" wasn't approximately the same as MJ's).

And this IS the case in MY GOAT rankings at EVERY SPOT on the list. "INITIAL" criteria/basis is not ONLY criteria/basis.

My basic point: for an INITIAL (and that's ALL this is an attempt at doing - suggesting an INITIAL criteria for putting hundreds of players in APPROXIMATE FIRST ball-park groupings) ... for an INITIAL basis for GOAT thinking; imo, the "points" each player accumulated in their career vis-à-vis ALL-League selections (prorated for strength of "decade" and for Dual-League periods) - this is a WORTHY INITIAL basis.

Then there comes the PRACTICAL situation where some players who "dominated" their position for as many as 10 years; have not even been given serious consideration in OUR discussion so far: Pettit, Cousy & Baylor. Dominating your position for a "decade" is absolutely a sign of All-Time Greatness. Which is why, and the only reason why, I point this out. (Besides which, I KNOW I can't compete with many of you in your sophisticated analysis of (advanced) stats - that's well beyond my "pay grade". So I'm just trying to contribute what I can.)

A concrete example: Mikan. Almost for sure he dominated HIS position and HIS era more than any subsequent player - we all agree. We further all agree that his era was super-weak. Yet, here he is, as he should be, imo, up for serious consideration in the GOAT range of 20-25. But he dominated in a super-weak era; and Pettit, Cousy & Baylor dominated THEIR positions for LONGER periods in a decidedly stronger era. To me this says they should be about as much in consideration as Mikan - yet, so far, they have not been.

[Pablo Novi]

For myself, I can't rank Walton's CAREER any higher than about GOAT #50.

I have him in the 30s

Imo, at least 15 of the following 22 Centers easily had better CAREERS than did Walton - thus why I have him that "low".

Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
O'Neal, Shaquille
Olajuwon, Hakeem
Chamberlain, Wilt
Robinson, David
Malone, Moses
Howard, Dwight
Russell, Bill
Ewing, Patrick
Gilmore, Artis
Mikan, George
Ming, Yao
Johnston, Neil
Daniels, Mel
Parish, Robert
Gasol, Marc
Issel, Dan
Jordan, DeAndre
Mourning, Alonzo
Mutombo, Dikembe
Horford, Al
Macauley, Ed
Walton, Bill

[trex_8063]

Well the question of how objective/subjective any of is, is one tough question to answer.

Otoh, I'd bet most people would agree that Wilt improved more from 1960 to 1961 and 1962 than Russell did over those same three years. Given that, with Wilt getting both the MVP AND the 1st-Team ALL-NBA selection in 1960; wouldn't it be pretty logical to assume that he should have gotten them both (INCLUDING the MVP) over Russell the latter two years?

idk. It's "logical" based on the presupposition that him getting those accolades in '60 was justified or correct.

[Pablo Novi]

Again, what people have repeatedly been suggesting is that maybe you/we shouldn't put a tremendous amount of stock in either (MVP vote or All-NBA honors). And maybe instead the focus should be more on what a player brings to the table by way of production, efficiency, impact (plus intangibles, leadership qualities, portability, etc).

Not me. Too much room for unbridled revisionism

This is just a question of clarification (seeing as I'm not sure what you "stance" here is).
To what are you referring as "Too much room for unbridled revisionism"?
In other words, are you placing a good amount of "stock" in either/or both: MVP and ALL-NBA honors; or do you consider THEM to be too influenced by unbridled revisionism?

[wojoaderge]

For myself, I can't rank Walton's CAREER any higher than about GOAT #50.

I have him in the 30s

Imo, at least 15 of the following 22 Centers easily had better CAREERS than did Walton - thus why I have him that "low".

Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
O'Neal, Shaquille
Olajuwon, Hakeem
Chamberlain, Wilt
Robinson, David
Malone, Moses

Russell, Bill

Mikan, George

Daniels, Mell

I agree with these guys. DeAndre Jordan? That's why I account for MVPs more than All-League selections

[wojoaderge]

Again, what people have repeatedly been suggesting is that maybe you/we shouldn't put a tremendous amount of stock in either (MVP vote or All-NBA honors). And maybe instead the focus should be more on what a player brings to the table by way of production, efficiency, impact (plus intangibles, leadership qualities, portability, etc).

Not me. Too much room for unbridled revisionism

This is just a question of clarification (seeing as I'm not sure what you "stance" here is).
To what are you referring as "Too much room for unbridled revisionism"?
In other words, are you placing a good amount of "stock" in either/or both: MVP and ALL-NBA honors; or do you consider THEM to be too influenced by unbridled revisionism?

The former

[Lou Fan]

Second, I believe the ALL-League selection process, in terms of results, has been more accurate.
(Examples: 1st-Team: Wilt over Russell in 1961 and 1962 ! (which I find just mind-boggling); but Russell over Wilt for MVP both of those years. Same for KAJ over Cowens 1st-Team, but Cowens over KAJ for MVP in 1973. In the case of Wilt vs Russell. Wilt rightfully got both the MVP and 1st-Team over Russell in 1960, Wilt's first year. But Wilt was better, imo, in 1961 and even better in 1962, while Russell, IF he improved over his 1960 level, didn't improve as much. So, therefore, both those MVP voting results were wrong - and, I THINK that the players get jealous of Wilt's dominance and voted against him).

There's a bit of logical fallacy in here. You're basically saying the All-NBA voting more closely aligns with what you already thought (that Wilt is better)......therefore it is more accurate.

Mind you I'm not necessarily arguing that the MVP vote is more accurate; I don't really have a horse in this race. I'm merely suggesting that automatically assuming that which correlates more with your pre-conceived opinions is therefore more "accurate" is perhaps not the best way to interpret information.

Third, it is universally known that people have traditionally placed FAR MORE attention to MVPs than to ALL-League selections - imo, it should be just the opposite. So, I very much DO believe that being one of the only 10 players ever to get TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections is decidedly more significant than getting 3 MVPs.

A specific example of, imo, great overemphasis on MVP results. It is often noted that Russell got 5 MVPs to Wilt's 2. But transfer TWO of those FROM Russell to Wilt (as I believe they should have been originally voted) and you have Russell's 3 to Wilt's 4........

Again, what people have repeatedly been suggesting is that maybe you/we shouldn't put a tremendous amount of stock in either (MVP vote or All-NBA honors). And maybe instead the focus should be more on what a player brings to the table by way of production, efficiency, impact (plus intangibles, leadership qualities, portability, etc).

Exactly what I was trying to say just much better written. Thx trex .

[penbeast0]

For myself, I can't rank Walton's CAREER any higher than about GOAT #50.

I have him in the 30s

I don't have him in my top 100, here's why. To me, the key is how much a guy can contribute to winning a championship (I don't detract based on teams but how much he could have). Walton had ONE, count them ONE, season where he made it to the playoffs as a starting caliber player plus one season as a top reserve. That season was amazing BUT, otherwise Walton was a guy who demanded to be paid as one of the top stars in the league and yet never helped his teams in the playoffs and this went for a decade where he screwed over Portland, then San Diego (who had to give their best player as compensation for signing him). To me that's negative value for about 8 years.