Please list your All-Time Top 10 while applying these minimum requirments

[falcolombardi]

No? Resilience is resilience. You can be extremely un-portable and still resilient.

I think impacting the game in different context (read teammates) is portability

The whole idea of portability in regars to impact is that your impact doesnt suffer in a different context (usually the example being used is sharing the court with other offensive stars)

Having your impact remain in different contexts and not only in a very specific ones is a kind of resilience

That is not any sort of definitional overlap though. Magic and Lebron and Wade are all resilient without being typically labeled as “portable” (although we have gone over why that label is often used poorly anyway).

I think that is kind of my point, magic led the greatest offense dinasty ever or thereabouts and still gets points docked for his ball dominance not being "portable on teams with more offensive talent"

If you can join a talented offensive team and create an all time great offensive team as a result (lebron,nash, magic) then either you are "portable" or the label would be kinda meaningless imo for any player evaluation

Like if you get the results in the context where the supposed lack of portability should stop you from getting them what is the point of being docked points for "not portability"

[AEnigma]

Good points. In addition to what you have mentioned about the differences in longevity for reasons like age of entry into the league, we also have players like Lebron and Duncan who obviously profited from taking performance enhancing drugs... which has helped boost their longevity stats and awards. For example: Duncan's physical abilities kept deteriorating until 2011 only to have a magical resurgence out of the blue. It was almost like a genie granted him a wish, i.e., if you believe in genies.

That applies not only to illegal procedurs but also to the medical progress. Your boy Kobe (for whom I wouldn't stake my like on never taking PEDs either) may have been done a couple of years earlier without that Regenokine treatment, thus arguably making him fall short of that 30,000 point threshold that you obviously set to make him a sure candidate.

The reason I chose 30,000 is because there a similar number of players who have scored 30,000 RS points as there are:
- players with 2x DPOTYs
- players who led the season in APG atleast 3x times
- players who have won 3x MVPs.

These other 3 criteria only lets a few in, so I did not want to let extra players through a scoring backdoor by lowering the bar to less than 30,000 points... and 35,000 would have been too high with only 3 players qualifying.

Also, with 30,000 being a multiple of three and a multiple of 10,000, I figured it communicated nicely too. Feel free to suggest another number that I can use instead, as long as the new number doesn't suddenly raise the number of players who qualify through scoring point from 10 players to 20 or 30.

I gave mine which were more specific and narrowing than yours while following similar standards… except this time they were not designed to blatantly and obviously exclude Tim Duncan.

[AEnigma]

I think impacting the game in different context (read teammates) is portability

The whole idea of portability in regars to impact is that your impact doesnt suffer in a different context (usually the example being used is sharing the court with other offensive stars)

Having your impact remain in different contexts and not only in a very specific ones is a kind of resilience

That is not any sort of definitional overlap though. Magic and Lebron and Wade are all resilient without being typically labeled as “portable” (although we have gone over why that label is often used poorly anyway).

I think that is kind of my point, magic led the greatest offense dinasty ever or thereabouts and still gets points docked for his ball dominance not being "portable on teams with more offensive talent"

If you can join a talented offensive team and create an all time great offensive team as a result (lebron,nash, magic) then either you are "portable" or the label would be kinda meaningless imo

That is fine but it still is disconnected with resilience with how people use it. Larry Bird fits every definition of portable, but his resilience is pretty weak.

[LAL1947]

That applies not only to illegal procedurs but also to the medical progress. Your boy Kobe (for whom I wouldn't stake my like on never taking PEDs either) may have been done a couple of years earlier without that Regenokine treatment, thus arguably making him fall short of that 30,000 point threshold that you obviously set to make him a sure candidate.

The reason I chose 30,000 is because there a similar number of players who have scored 30,000 RS points as there are:
- players with 2x DPOTYs
- players who led the season in APG atleast 3x times
- players who have won 3x MVPs.

These other 3 criteria only lets a few in, so I did not want to let extra players through a scoring backdoor by lowering the bar to less than 30,000 points... and 35,000 would have been too high with only 3 players qualifying.

Also, with 30,000 being a multiple of three and a multiple of 10,000, I figured it communicated nicely too. Feel free to suggest another number that I can use instead, as long as the new number doesn't suddenly raise the number of players who qualify through scoring point from 10 players to 20 or 30.

I gave mine which were more specific and narrowing than yours while following similar standards… except this time they were not designed to blatantly and obviously exclude Tim Duncan.

I do not like your criteria for the same reasons that Masiogond gave. I feel that your criteria focus too much on longevity stats... whereas mine focus on rewarding those who were truly exceptional at their craft (i.e., scoring, passing or defending... with the 4th criteria, 3x MVP, intended to catch any others who were truly exceptional overall players).

[falcolombardi]

That is not any sort of definitional overlap though. Magic and Lebron and Wade are all resilient without being typically labeled as “portable” (although we have gone over why that label is often used poorly anyway).

I think that is kind of my point, magic led the greatest offense dinasty ever or thereabouts and still gets points docked for his ball dominance not being "portable on teams with more offensive talent"

If you can join a talented offensive team and create an all time great offensive team as a result (lebron,nash, magic) then either you are "portable" or the label would be kinda meaningless imo

That is fine but it still is disconnected with resilience with how people use it. Larry Bird fits every definition of portable, but his resilience is pretty weak.

I guess that is kinda my point that portability became a proxy for "less ball dominant" or "good outside shooter"

Rather than about a player ability to fit in talented teams and raise their ceiling as a team

[Masigond]

I do not like your criteria for the same reasons that Masiogond gave. I feel that your criteria focus too much on longevity stats... whereas mine focus on rewarding those who were truly exceptional at their craft (i.e., scoring, passing or defending... with the 4th criteria, 3x MVP, intended to catch any others who were truly exceptional overall players).

Just to be clear: I liked your criteria even less. Way too subjective, arbitrary and essentially B.S.

[LAL1947]

I do not like your criteria for the same reasons that Masiogond gave. I feel that your criteria focus too much on longevity stats... whereas mine focus on rewarding those who were truly exceptional at their craft (i.e., scoring, passing or defending... with the 4th criteria, 3x MVP, intended to catch any others who were truly exceptional overall players).

Just to be clear: I liked your criteria even less. Way too subjective, arbitrary and essentially B.S.

Well, then you should vote in the poll so I can know how you feel.

[AEnigma]

The reason I chose 30,000 is because there a similar number of players who have scored 30,000 RS points as there are:
- players with 2x DPOTYs
- players who led the season in APG atleast 3x times
- players who have won 3x MVPs.

These other 3 criteria only lets a few in, so I did not want to let extra players through a scoring backdoor by lowering the bar to less than 30,000 points... and 35,000 would have been too high with only 3 players qualifying.

Also, with 30,000 being a multiple of three and a multiple of 10,000, I figured it communicated nicely too. Feel free to suggest another number that I can use instead, as long as the new number doesn't suddenly raise the number of players who qualify through scoring point from 10 players to 20 or 30.

I gave mine which were more specific and narrowing than yours while following similar standards… except this time they were not designed to blatantly and obviously exclude Tim Duncan.

I do not like your criteria for the same reasons that Masiogond gave. I feel that your criteria focus too much on longevity stats... whereas mine focus on rewarding those who were truly exceptional at their craft (i.e., scoring, passing or defending... with the 4th criteria, 3x MVP, intended to catch any others who were truly exceptional overall players).

… What? You set a higher total points limit and then set random assist standards that let in guys like Kevin Porter. The problem is that Duncan matches Kobe in titles and all-NBA spots and exceeds him in MVPs, Finals MVPs, rebounds, blocks, and defensive award shares, all while not being too far behind in points. But that would ruin the schtick you built your entire account around.

Like the funniest thing about all this is you tried to frame the idea as setting “specific top ten standards”… except you could not even manage to do that in a way that did not open the door to like thirty names.

[Masigond]

I do not like your criteria for the same reasons that Masiogond gave. I feel that your criteria focus too much on longevity stats... whereas mine focus on rewarding those who were truly exceptional at their craft (i.e., scoring, passing or defending... with the 4th criteria, 3x MVP, intended to catch any others who were truly exceptional overall players).

Just to be clear: I liked your criteria even less. Way too subjective, arbitrary and essentially B.S.

Well, then you should vote in the poll so I can know how you feel.

No thanks. It isn't about a fav (or any specific) player for me, contrary to like it seems to be for you. There's no option in that poll for my stance that these arbitrarily set standards should not be the measurement at all. Because these standards are not objective, not because they leave out the one or other specific player. Now you know how I feel about that. Happy now?

[falcolombardi]

I think you shouldnt be top 10 ever if you missed more shots than you hit tbh

That seems a fair criteria for top 10

[LAL1947]

Just to be clear: I liked your criteria even less. Way too subjective, arbitrary and essentially B.S.

Well, then you should vote in the poll so I can know how you feel.

No thanks. It isn't about a fav (or any specific) player for me, contrary to like it seems to be for you. There's no option in that poll for my stance that these arbitrarily set standards should not be the measurement at all. Because these standards are not objective, not because they leave out the one or other specific player. Now you know how I feel about that. Happy now?

Why are you making assumptions about it being player specific for me? I've clearly explained my reasons for 30,000 RS points... for 2x DPOTY... for 3x lead the league in APG... and for 3x MVP.

The goal is simply to reward those who were truly exceptional at one of these three crafts: scoring, play-making and defending... with MVP catching those who fall through.

It's just meant as a fun exercise... but y'all aren't even playing... only finding fault.

Also, it may not be player specific for you and me... but I hope you can see it is clearly player specific for everyone else who is posting here, which is yet another of the goals.

[LAL1947]

I gave mine which were more specific and narrowing than yours while following similar standards… except this time they were not designed to blatantly and obviously exclude Tim Duncan.

I do not like your criteria for the same reasons that Masiogond gave. I feel that your criteria focus too much on longevity stats... whereas mine focus on rewarding those who were truly exceptional at their craft (i.e., scoring, passing or defending... with the 4th criteria, 3x MVP, intended to catch any others who were truly exceptional overall players).

… What? You set a higher total points limit and then set random assist standards that let in guys like Kevin Porter. The problem is that Duncan matches Kobe in titles and all-NBA spots and exceeds him in MVPs, Finals MVPs, rebounds, blocks, and defensive award shares, all while not being too far behind in points. But that would ruin the schtick you built your entire account around.

Like the funniest thing about all this is you tried to frame the idea as setting “specific top ten standards”… except you could not even manage to do that in a way that did not open the door to like thirty names.

I'm open to fine-tuning the APG requirement. How about we make it "lead the league in APG for atleast 4 seasons". Are you good now?

[AEnigma]

“Hey everyone I am transparently doing this bit in the most laughably manufactured way possible to exclude Tim Duncan, but if you talk about that it means you are obsessed with Tim Duncan.”

[AEnigma]

I do not like your criteria for the same reasons that Masiogond gave. I feel that your criteria focus too much on longevity stats... whereas mine focus on rewarding those who were truly exceptional at their craft (i.e., scoring, passing or defending... with the 4th criteria, 3x MVP, intended to catch any others who were truly exceptional overall players).

… What? You set a higher total points limit and then set random assist standards that let in guys like Kevin Porter. The problem is that Duncan matches Kobe in titles and all-NBA spots and exceeds him in MVPs, Finals MVPs, rebounds, blocks, and defensive award shares, all while not being too far behind in points. But that would ruin the schtick you built your entire account around.

Like the funniest thing about all this is you tried to frame the idea as setting “specific top ten standards”… except you could not even manage to do that in a way that did not open the door to like thirty names.

I'm open to fine-tuning the APG requirement. How about we make it "lead the league in APG for atleast 4 seasons". Are you good now?

Oh no you took away Rajon Rondo from me.

[LAL1947]

… What? You set a higher total points limit and then set random assist standards that let in guys like Kevin Porter. The problem is that Duncan matches Kobe in titles and all-NBA spots and exceeds him in MVPs, Finals MVPs, rebounds, blocks, and defensive award shares, all while not being too far behind in points. But that would ruin the schtick you built your entire account around.

Like the funniest thing about all this is you tried to frame the idea as setting “specific top ten standards”… except you could not even manage to do that in a way that did not open the door to like thirty names.

I'm open to fine-tuning the APG requirement. How about we make it "lead the league in APG for atleast 4 seasons". Are you good now?

Oh no you took away Rajon Rondo from me.

Make up your mind!

[Jaivl]

I don't think that standards should be nice and basic in a game that changed a lot since the 50s, thus comparisons of stats and awards can't be made that easily. For years it was impossible for players to enter the NBA before the age of about 22, so the same opportunity of amassing total stats wasn't given to them as for players of later eras. Or does the insane pace of the 50s and 60s level that out? How about rule changes? Weren't assists way harder to get in former eras?
Even with awards: Theoretically you could have been the second best player ever, but what if you were playing on a somewhat lesser team than the undisputed best player ever who happened to play in exact the same timeframe? Your chances of winning MVPs would be hampered a lot, even though you might have been way better than some multiple MVP winners. Take Kareem as an example for that who won 4 of his MVP awards pre-merger. Don't take me wrong, he is one of the best players ever and one of the very few legitimate GOAT candidates, but 6 winning MVPs overall with some under these circumstances is a bit different to the chances in the 80s with arguably all of the best players of that era playing in the same league. What about voter fatigue for that matter? Or that the MVPs were voted by the players until 1979-80? Do we trust them less, equal or more than the panel of sportswriters and broadcasters since?

That whole top 10 ranking will always remain way too subjective, especially as there are intangibles that stats don't refer to. It's a fun game but we'll never come to a satisfying conclusion. With such a basic and very reduced approach as suggested by the OP even less.

Good points.

I'd like to add to the point you made about the differences in longevity for reasons like age of entry into the league, etc. We also have players like Lebron and Duncan who obviously profited from taking performance enhancing drugs... which has helped boost their longevity stats and awards.

For example: Duncan's physical abilities kept deteriorating until 2011 only to have a magical resurgence out of the blue. Well, 2011 or 2012, can't rightly remember. It was almost like a genie granted him a wish, i.e., if you believe in genies.

Duncan played in the same era as Kobe, yet you sniff drug problems only in Duncan's case. How can we treat you seriously?

Yeah, I care 0 about PEDs and think most elite athletes use them, but if anything I'd be more wary of the player thar made frequent trips to Germany to recover bathing in HGH via a miraculous non-drug treatment.

[PaulieWal]

Closing this mess of a thread.