Lucky707 wrote:I don't know if I'm allowed to post here but I'm always fascinated by the differences between reliable all-time lists. I've been trying to derive a formula based on Basketball-Ref's hall of fame probability tracker combined with various other stats in order to try and approximate the RealGM and ESPN lists. While doing so, I've noticed that the following players have yet to be placed in this edition's Top 75 and might be worth a discussion as to why they are 10+ spots different on the two lists:
(ESPN All-Time Rank in brackets)
Bill Walton (42)
James Worthy (43)
Bernard King (54)
Tony Parker (58)
Carmelo Anthony (59)
Earl Monroe (60)
Dennis Rodman (64)
Chris Webber (66)
I wish you all the best of luck and I will continue to read.
Thank you for your input, and yes you're allowed to post in here (though the voter panel is "pre-approved" based on tenure, good behavior/clean record [relatively], and positive contributions to the forum in general). If you have genuine interest in joining the voter panel, please read the OP of
this thread, and state your interest in joining there. As you're a new poster whom I think most are relatively unfamiliar with, we'd put you on a probation period of sorts during which we'd sort of scrutinize your contributions, ability to "play nice", and so on, before formally approving (or denying) your request to join the panel. But you're allowed to voice your opinion in these threads whether you're a member of the voter panel or not.
So much of the difference between lists is based in criteria and priorities, even within definition of "greatest" [as it the "100 Greatest NBA/ABA Players of All-Time"] there can be differences of opinion, and in how much critical thought and analysis the voting participants of whichever group have put into their rankings (or if they're just sort of "wingin' it" based on surface-scraping analysis and mainstream lists they've seen in the past).
Some of those listed above are polarizing figures (polarizing in the spread you'll often see in their rankings). Bill Walton, perhaps more than any.
A criteria that prioritizes peak should likely include him (and perhaps even in the top 50 like that). A criteria that lies more in assessing
total career value (thus a higher premium on longevity) may not include Bill Walton anywhere in the top 100.
I mean, the reality with Walton is that you mostly have just *two prime seasons (*barely two, given he missed 41 rs games and 4 playoff games between those two years, and was destined to miss more playoff games had they managed to advance that year), and that comprises the VAST majority of his meaningful career.
He was also very good in his first two seasons, but missed 47 and 31 games, respectively, in those two years (missed the playoffs).
Then he had the *two seasons mentioned.
He then played 169 rs games (so just a little over two seasons worth of games), spread out over four seasons, which took place over a span of
seven years. All of these for a poor performing team, while eating up a lot of salary, and anecdotally while doing a lot of grumbling (as that pertains to off-court intangibles). So not much value to be had in those seven years.
He then was "resurrected" to some degree, having a single healthy season playing at a 6th Man of the Year level. And then his career was over.
So in comparing him to, say.....Shawn Marion (who is gaining some traction here), you'd have to answer for yourself (and whatever you value): do Walton's *two prime seasons + one good non-prime season (+ a couple other season fragments where he was playing well when around) carry more career value than Shawn Marion's 8-year prime + his 4-5 other decent role-player years?
To me, Walton was great.....but he wasn't THAT great (to overcome a nearly 4:1 ratio in relevant seasons). Those who have done various "championship odds" (like our own Elgee) or some other "expected titles" type of studies----and sort of measure career worth by that standard----would generally conclude this question to be in Marion's favor (or at best a wash), fwiw.
Earl Monroe is truly a puzzler for me. There really
isn't any objective means to rank him this high (or even anywhere close to it, actually).......but that's where you frequently see him on mainstream lists.
Maybe he's getting boosts for his stylist influence on the game; maybe he's getting boosts for having arguably the TWO best nicknames of all-time. idk....
Statistically, he doesn't have much case for top 100 status (much less top 60). Impact studies (what is possible to do, given lack of play-by-play line-up data) don't indicate he was overly special, either.
Can use honors and accolades as a barometer, but that puts him no closer (just a 4-time All-Star, 1-time All-NBA---was a 1st team---and NEVER finished in the top 10 in the MVP vote, only three seasons where he received a vote at all).
And his longevity is good, but not great. And he wasn't a defensive stopper.
Where is the case for top 60 (or even top 100)? idk
Again, that one just plainly puzzles me. I think it might be one of those things that some well-known list was published and had him around there (and I think he was in the top 50 at 50 in 1996).....and so people just
keep putting him there (status quo), because they're nervous about bucking convention too hard.
Could comment wrt some others, but I've gotta stop there.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
); but suffice to say I've a variety of analytics and broad-based methodologies which have led me to think more highly of any number of other potential candidates, and to believe that mainstream ("status quo", if you will) rankings of Hal Greer have perhaps overrated him.
