Pre-Top 100 Project Lists (post your ATL)

[trex_8063]

People are free to continue posting their lists here, but fyi, I'm only including those which came before this post in the amalgamated lists I'll present.

[penbeast0]

An interesting thing I want to see play out is this:

Bill Walton, for example, played in 468 career games, most of them in decline, had career averages of 13.3pts 10.5reb 3.4ast. Yet most, including me somewhere back there 50ish or something, will credit him with a prominent position on this list.

Well, even ignoring the other short career guys, a number of current players have played in more games, and more games at high levels than Walton. Steph has played in 574gms. Durant 703. Cousins 487. Westbrook 668. Harden 615. Blake 471. etc. All of those guys have career numbers dwarfing what Walton put up (6215 career pts 4923 rebs). So in order for Walton to be so elevated we just have to be applying a "coulda been greater than his numbers and put up much bigger numbers" standard. But then I am almost sure we're going to turn around in many other cases and say, oops partial career, not enough numbers etc.

That's not entirely a "you guys suck" argument. I am wary/aware of myself doing it both ways as well.

Couple of points......
Firstly, you're sort of assuming people will give him a position of prominence ("50ish or something"), when we don't know that to be the case at all (well, I KNOW that to NOT be the case for me). I'm the one tracking all the stuff itt, and I only see ONE person who has so far listed him at all (at #30); and that person has stated that longevity is a minor consideration.
I'd secondly note that Walton appears (clearly) to be a guy whose impact went well beyond his box numbers (in '77 and '78, at least), fwiw.

Walton can earn consideration above what his stats would apparently justify based on his peak performance as a Blazer before he got hurt, plus a boost from his 6th man year with the Celtics.

Those Portland teams in the championship 1976-77 season and Walton's MVP 1977-78 season are among my favorites, playing the beautiful, free-flowing game that I adore, unselfish. elite at both ends of the court. Though he never scored 20 points per game, Walton was the hub for their success at both ends. He was a great screener and passer, excellent rebounder, and excellent defender. Walton could've scored more, but part of Jack Ramsay's beautiful, unselfish system was that scoring was distributed -- six players averaged double-figures during the championship season and seven did during Walton's MVP season.

At his best, he was a bouncy, hyper, athletic force bouncing around the court. It was the briefest of times, but he played the center position at a peak level rivaling that of other all-time greats, and that's why some people put him on these lists. It's all a matter of how much weight you give to peak performance vs. stats vs. longevity. I expect that I'll have him somewhere on my 100 list and higher than most.

Walton doesn't make my top 100. In his prime year he was a legit MVP, he also was a legit SMOY . . . that's it for seasons he would affect the chance to win a title since he never made it through a season intact otherwise. On the other hand, he insisted on being paid as the ATG center he was when he was healthy and so Portland and San Diego (in the pre-superteam era) had to build around him and he destroyed their seasons and hopes over and over again. Knowing this, I can't see taking him over an extremely valuable support player like Bob Dandridge or Draymond Green (even if Dray's career ended tomorrow) and that's about the talent level that is competing for the 100th spot (unless I am underestimating Green).

[Winsome Gerbil]

Couple of points......
Firstly, you're sort of assuming people will give him a position of prominence ("50ish or something"), when we don't know that to be the case at all (well, I KNOW that to NOT be the case for me). I'm the one tracking all the stuff itt, and I only see ONE person who has so far listed him at all (at #30); and that person has stated that longevity is a minor consideration.
I'd secondly note that Walton appears (clearly) to be a guy whose impact went well beyond his box numbers (in '77 and '78, at least), fwiw.

Walton can earn consideration above what his stats would apparently justify based on his peak performance as a Blazer before he got hurt, plus a boost from his 6th man year with the Celtics.

Those Portland teams in the championship 1976-77 season and Walton's MVP 1977-78 season are among my favorites, playing the beautiful, free-flowing game that I adore, unselfish. elite at both ends of the court. Though he never scored 20 points per game, Walton was the hub for their success at both ends. He was a great screener and passer, excellent rebounder, and excellent defender. Walton could've scored more, but part of Jack Ramsay's beautiful, unselfish system was that scoring was distributed -- six players averaged double-figures during the championship season and seven did during Walton's MVP season.

At his best, he was a bouncy, hyper, athletic force bouncing around the court. It was the briefest of times, but he played the center position at a peak level rivaling that of other all-time greats, and that's why some people put him on these lists. It's all a matter of how much weight you give to peak performance vs. stats vs. longevity. I expect that I'll have him somewhere on my 100 list and higher than most.

Walton doesn't make my top 100. In his prime year he was a legit MVP, he also was a legit SMOY . . . that's it for seasons he would affect the chance to win a title since he never made it through a season intact otherwise. On the other hand, he insisted on being paid as the ATG center he was when he was healthy and so Portland and San Diego (in the pre-superteam era) had to build around him and he destroyed their seasons and hopes over and over again. Knowing this, I can't see taking him over an extremely valuable support player like Bob Dandridge or Draymond Green (even if Dray's career ended tomorrow) and that's about the talent level that is competing for the 100th spot (unless I am underestimating Green).

Wait...we're taking Bob Dandridge and Draymond Green over former league MVPs now?

[penbeast0]

Over Walton, over Derrick Rose . . . yes. Over the likes of Steve Nash or Wes Unseld . . . no.

[ardee]

Over Walton, over Derrick Rose . . . yes. Over the likes of Steve Nash or Wes Unseld . . . no.

That's perfectly reasonable.

I've never thought of Walton and Rose as players in the same category, good comparison.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[feyki]

Having Walton in the same tier as Rose is crime.

[Outside]

The question is how to value a very high but short peak versus a much lower but sustained career. It's one of the critical questions when formulating an ATL.

Walton's peak was really, really high. To me, that's worth more on an ATL than a very good, not great player like Bob Dandridge.

[feyki]

I'm high on longevity, because of my criteria. But I could rank him in the 70's and at least in the 80's. His first two year were star level and then peaked with top 15 AT level. These only makes him member of the top 100 Goat's. And he also played with a positive impact in some years after the injury.

[wojoaderge]

I have no idea where to put Mikan.

I feel he should be no less than 14th

His peak/prime top 5, for me. But longevity is the problem.

See, longevity is low on the list for me, but not for you. It's be gonna an interesting project

[trex_8063]

The question is how to value a very high but short peak versus a much lower but sustained career. It's one of the critical questions when formulating an ATL.

Walton's peak was really, really high. To me, that's worth more on an ATL than a very good, not great player like Bob Dandridge.

It's up to you (or rather: to each individual) how to balance those considerations. Me? I'm a total career value guy, and am pretty big on meaningful longevity, as well as season-to-season durability and consistency. So for me, Walton is actually not in my top 100 (though not far outside it); and that's despite him being a roughly top 15 peak to me.

[Quotatious]

Walton has no place in top 100 to me. His longevity is non-existent. Peaks project is one where Walton can shine, not here. Yao Ming is much closer to top 100 than Walton is (Yao was also injury-prone, but at least he has a 5-6 year prime or thereabouts, with better health).

Having Walton in the same tier as Rose is crime.

I don't think anybody would put them in the same tier, but that comparison makes sense in terms of the mechanism - I mean, both were very high peak/almost nonexistent longevity players (obviously Walton's peak was much better, though).

[Outside]

The question is how to value a very high but short peak versus a much lower but sustained career. It's one of the critical questions when formulating an ATL.

Walton's peak was really, really high. To me, that's worth more on an ATL than a very good, not great player like Bob Dandridge.

It's up to you (or rather: to each individual) how to balance those considerations. Me? I'm a total career value guy, and am pretty big on meaningful longevity, as well as season-to-season durability and consistency. So for me, Walton is actually not in my top 100 (though not far outside it); and that's despite him being a roughly top 15 peak to me.

Exactly. I'm struggling to come up with the proper mix for these various factors, plus how to quantify intangibles, because creating an absolute numerical ranking requires quantifying such things. I think the process of establishing my ranking criteria and comparing that to how others do the same is almost more interesting than the actual rankings. I'm sure that ranking differences are sometimes a matter of over- or undervaluing a player from a statistical perspective, but it seems like it will more often be about differences in the ranking criteria.

[Clyde Frazier]

The question is how to value a very high but short peak versus a much lower but sustained career. It's one of the critical questions when formulating an ATL.

Walton's peak was really, really high. To me, that's worth more on an ATL than a very good, not great player like Bob Dandridge.

Walton is an extreme case, which I think makes it more clear cut: he had an excellent peak, but nothing close to an all time great career. We didn’t solely do the peaks project to recognize walton, but that’s ultimately where he shined, and rightfully so (voted in at 13th):

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1404723

When your career was short, consisted of rarely being able to stay on the court for a full season, and didn’t approach that peak again for the most part, I don’t see how it’s deserving of a top 50 spot, let alone top 100.

I realize I sound harsh, but it just comes down to logic for me. We’re talking about careers, not 1 championship season in the top 100 project. I know everyone has a different criteria, but to me including him would likely be inconsistent in following most people’s criteria.

[Outside]

The question is how to value a very high but short peak versus a much lower but sustained career. It's one of the critical questions when formulating an ATL.

Walton's peak was really, really high. To me, that's worth more on an ATL than a very good, not great player like Bob Dandridge.

Walton is an extreme case, which I think makes it more clear cut: he had an excellent peak, but nothing close to an all time great career. We didn’t solely do the peaks project to recognize walton, but that’s ultimately where he shined, and rightfully so (voted in at 13th):

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1404723

When your career was short, consisted of rarely being able to stay on the court for a full season, and didn’t approach that peak again for the most part, I don’t see how it’s deserving of a top 50 spot, let alone top 100.

I realize I sound harsh, but it just comes down to logic for me. We’re talking about careers, not 1 championship season in the top 100 project. I know everyone has a different criteria, but to me including him would likely be inconsistent in following most people’s criteria.

That makes sense, and knowing that there is a separate peaks ranking for a case like Walton, I'll probably downgrade the weight I give to a peak versus longevity. A high peak performance will still be worth something extra to me, just not as much as I had been thinking.

I'll see if Walton makes my top 100. He'll be lower than I was originally thinking, and may not make it when it's all said and done. It will be hard to separate out my bias toward him based on that peak, his unselfish nature as a player, the joy he played with, and my affinity for those Blazer teams. Maybe I'll put him at 100 just to placate myself

[THKNKG]

The question is how to value a very high but short peak versus a much lower but sustained career. It's one of the critical questions when formulating an ATL.

Walton's peak was really, really high. To me, that's worth more on an ATL than a very good, not great player like Bob Dandridge.

Walton is an extreme case, which I think makes it more clear cut: he had an excellent peak, but nothing close to an all time great career. We didn’t solely do the peaks project to recognize walton, but that’s ultimately where he shined, and rightfully so (voted in at 13th):

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1404723

When your career was short, consisted of rarely being able to stay on the court for a full season, and didn’t approach that peak again for the most part, I don’t see how it’s deserving of a top 50 spot, let alone top 100.

I realize I sound harsh, but it just comes down to logic for me. We’re talking about careers, not 1 championship season in the top 100 project. I know everyone has a different criteria, but to me including him would likely be inconsistent in following most people’s criteria.

I don't think it's that easy for me (though I almost fully agree with what you're saying). His impact was just so high those two seasons, it's hard to compare. I would rather have the career of Dennis Rodman over him, for example, but would I choose him over Horace Grant? Hard to say, but it's close.

[drza]

The question is how to value a very high but short peak versus a much lower but sustained career. It's one of the critical questions when formulating an ATL.

Walton's peak was really, really high. To me, that's worth more on an ATL than a very good, not great player like Bob Dandridge.

Walton is an extreme case, which I think makes it more clear cut: he had an excellent peak, but nothing close to an all time great career. We didn’t solely do the peaks project to recognize walton, but that’s ultimately where he shined, and rightfully so (voted in at 13th):

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1404723

When your career was short, consisted of rarely being able to stay on the court for a full season, and didn’t approach that peak again for the most part, I don’t see how it’s deserving of a top 50 spot, let alone top 100.

I realize I sound harsh, but it just comes down to logic for me. We’re talking about careers, not 1 championship season in the top 100 project. I know everyone has a different criteria, but to me including him would likely be inconsistent in following most people’s criteria.

Walton is an interesting case for so many reasons, and...I'm not sure that he isn't an all-time great career. Just because his peak was SO high. I'm not sure I want to argue FOR him either, though, because it would be hell to commit your team to someone that breaks your heart repeatedly. But, I consider a thought exercise...

If you were the GM of a team, and were given this offer:

You can have LeBron James for 10 years, as your franchise player, for 10 years. He will be paid as such, and your team will be built to suit his strengths and weaknesses. However, you are only guaranteed to have him healthy for the majority of the season plus the playoffs, once. You will also get at least one other season where he will be healthy for the whole season, but not the playoffs. The other 8 seasons, you very well may get nothing. Oh, and you're guaranteed that the two seasons promised to you will happen at the height of his powers, not when he's a rookie or before you've had your chance to build around him.

Or...

You can have 10 years of Tony Parker, corresponding in health and pay to the first 10 years of his career.

You have no idea what kind of team you will be able to build around either.

Which would you take?

I don't know about you, but for me that's a HARD question. Because Parker doesn't get you to contention without at least one player significantly better than him, probably two. And there's no surety...actually, there's an active unlikelihood that your team will be able to lure an all-time great centerpiece at any time in that decade, which means that there's an active unlikelihood that you win any championships on a team that starts with only Parker and the rest unknown.

On the other hand...in the two regular seasons and one full postseason that you get a mostly healthy LeBron, there's a very good chance that you are at the very least a contending team if you've done any type of reasonable team-building around him. And you'll have a superstar centerpiece in those seasons, as good as anyone else in the league. Now, the other 8 years plus the injured playoffs in the 9th season will SUCK! But there's a very, very real chance that in that one season you have a legitimate chance to win a title. So...

...in a way, don't you maybe have a better chance at winning a title at some point in the decade with 1 season of LeBron in this situation? And wouldn't most GMs, if given this type of deal-with-the-devil, take their chances on swinging for the fences that once? Or would they?

By the way, Parker came in at 81st in our last Top 100 project. If there's any part of you that feels like you might consider LeBron in the scenario above...wouldn't there have to at least be a case to be made that Walton's actual career may deserve a spot?

[wojoaderge]

What exactly does "Top 100" mean? Is there some kind of intellectual consensus?

[THKNKG]

We could make a scale. I'm going to name this the Parish-Walton scale. So, the Parish-Walton scale is named as such because it has the longest career with moderate-to-low impact and the shortest "career" with GOAT impact (in terms of how long his impact was that high). I feel that plugging in players (that would be around 50 or later on lists) in between these two players, then comparing values would help me tangibly see how much I value peak/impact. If they had a peak higher/longer than Walton, or great longevity with really good peak, they obviously fall out of the scale to the left and right (or top and bottom).

Here's an example of my thinking:

Robert Parish

Tony Parker

Horace Grant

Draymond Green

Bill Walton


So, the plan when it gets closer to time is to continue filling it in. It might be cool to get some outside opinion to make it more reliable. Anyways, back to the point.

It's clear the scale goes
<LONGEVITY ----stuff in middle----PEAK>

The goal would be to compare the ends to others within the list, because comparing the ends to one another tends to be obvious depending on criteria (I'd EASILY pick Parish over Walton, but those high on peak would easily do the opposite).

So, for example, let's say I compare Walton and Draymond. Whose career would I rather have? I think I'd say Draymond (though I'll put more thought into it later). 3 really really good, portable years, vs one otherworldly year. Let's say I then compare Horace Grant and and Bill Walton. I could see myself choosing Walton over Grant, so my peak/longevity value falls between Horace and Draymond on my scale. If I'd pick Walton over Draymond, I would keep going left. If you're a peak guy, you can start from the left side. Therefore, the more players I fill in on the scale, the more precise my valuation would be.

I'm not sure this made any sense, but it was an interesting idea, and I welcome input for sure.

[Colbinii]

We could make a scale. I'm going to name this the Parish-Walton scale. So, the Parish-Walton scale is named as such because it has the longest career with moderate-to-low impact and the shortest "career" with GOAT impact (in terms of how long his impact was that high). I feel that plugging in players (that would be around 50 or later on lists) in between these two players, then comparing values would help me tangibly see how much I value peak/impact. If they had a peak higher/longer than Walton, or great longevity with really good peak, they obviously fall out of the scale to the left and right (or top and bottom).

Here's an example of my thinking:

Robert Parish

Tony Parker

Horace Grant

Draymond Green

Bill Walton


So, the plan when it gets closer to time is to continue filling it in. It might be cool to get some outside opinion to make it more reliable. Anyways, back to the point.

It's clear the scale goes
<LONGEVITY ----stuff in middle----PEAK>

The goal would be to compare the ends to others within the list, because comparing the ends to one another tends to be obvious depending on criteria (I'd EASILY pick Parish over Walton, but those high on peak would easily do the opposite).

So, for example, let's say I compare Walton and Draymond. Whose career would I rather have? I think I'd say Draymond (though I'll put more thought into it later). 3 really really good, portable years, vs one otherworldly year. Let's say I then compare Horace Grant and and Bill Walton. I could see myself choosing Walton over Grant, so my peak/longevity value falls between Horace and Draymond on my scale. If I'd pick Walton over Draymond, I would keep going left. If you're a peak guy, you can start from the left side. Therefore, the more players I fill in on the scale, the more precise my valuation would be.

I'm not sure this made any sense, but it was an interesting idea, and I welcome input for sure.

Add: AK47, Deron Williams, Joakim Noah, Kawki Leonard

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

[THKNKG]

We could make a scale. I'm going to name this the Parish-Walton scale. So, the Parish-Walton scale is named as such because it has the longest career with moderate-to-low impact and the shortest "career" with GOAT impact (in terms of how long his impact was that high). I feel that plugging in players (that would be around 50 or later on lists) in between these two players, then comparing values would help me tangibly see how much I value peak/impact. If they had a peak higher/longer than Walton, or great longevity with really good peak, they obviously fall out of the scale to the left and right (or top and bottom).

Here's an example of my thinking:

Robert Parish

Tony Parker

Horace Grant

Draymond Green

Bill Walton


So, the plan when it gets closer to time is to continue filling it in. It might be cool to get some outside opinion to make it more reliable. Anyways, back to the point.

It's clear the scale goes
<LONGEVITY ----stuff in middle----PEAK>

The goal would be to compare the ends to others within the list, because comparing the ends to one another tends to be obvious depending on criteria (I'd EASILY pick Parish over Walton, but those high on peak would easily do the opposite).

So, for example, let's say I compare Walton and Draymond. Whose career would I rather have? I think I'd say Draymond (though I'll put more thought into it later). 3 really really good, portable years, vs one otherworldly year. Let's say I then compare Horace Grant and and Bill Walton. I could see myself choosing Walton over Grant, so my peak/longevity value falls between Horace and Draymond on my scale. If I'd pick Walton over Draymond, I would keep going left. If you're a peak guy, you can start from the left side. Therefore, the more players I fill in on the scale, the more precise my valuation would be.

I'm not sure this made any sense, but it was an interesting idea, and I welcome input for sure.

Add: AK47, Deron Williams, Joakim Noah, Kawki Leonard

Sent from my SM-G920P using RealGM mobile app

I'm thinking the benefit of a system like this would be that we could ascribe a number to our longevity/peak weighing. That way, when we discuss, we don't have to give a convoluted explanation of how we value the two; both discussers could just give a number.

It could go two ways:

easy way - pick about 20 players to fill the scale, and have the scale go from 10L to 0 to 10P in increments of 1. That way, it could be as simple as comparing and then reviewing and picking a single number.

harder way - create a formula that uses the choice you make on the scale to produce an SRS or RAPM valuation (like Elgee's championship odds) to determine how many years of longevity at Y are equal to a peak year of X (10 RAPM/SRS as equal to 10 years at 3 - arbitrary example).

Those would be good players to add, I think. They all fall into the spectrum easily. Thoughts?