Pre-Top 100 Project Lists (post your ATL)

[Winsome Gerbil]

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

Much as I might disagree about Bob Dandridge, at least that's apples to oranges. You can choose the long term productivity over the short term peak.

But as usual the Draymond thing is a complete mystery. That's apples to apples. Draymond hasn't had a long career either. He's had 3 years of mattering. He has half the career stats of Walton. He would be lucky to be half the player talentwise at his peak. He's just as short term as Walton. In fact even moreso.

[Winsome Gerbil]

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.

I've mentioned before in other threads at other times that there is an essential definitional question for anything like this.

Top 100 what?

I largely approach it as Top 100 greatest players. As in best. As in who would kick each other's ass. There is a factor of who would kick each other's ass for how many years, that does matter. But I'm rarely going to elevate some inferior player who a better guy would have wiped the floor with over those concerns.

But turning the question to "who had the Top 100 careers", as in not talent, not greatness, but instead career achievements, produces a different list.

There's also a sporadically and IMO not entirely principled use of a "greatest impact" standard that can track even further from "greatest" as in "best". and produce things like the Horace Grant issue, or Draymond today.

There's a definitional issue that drives ranking outcomes depending on what the actual answer to "Top 100 what?" is.

[penbeast0]

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.

Unless by "those two seasons" you are talking about his season in Boston as a reserve, I rate his second MVP candidate season as worth relatively little since he couldn't get to the playoffs. To me, the key is how much a player helps a team (not necessarily the team he played with but a team in his time) win a championship. A season where you don't play in the playoffs is necessarily going to rate fairly low on that scale.

[penbeast0]

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.

I've mentioned before in other threads at other times that there is an essential definitional question for anything like this.

Top 100 what?

I largely approach it as Top 100 greatest players. As in best. As in who would kick each other's ass. There is a factor of who would kick each other's ass for how many years, that does matter. But I'm rarely going to elevate some inferior player who a better guy would have wiped the floor with over those concerns.

But turning the question to "who had the Top 100 careers", as in not talent, not greatness, but instead career achievements, produces a different list.

There's also a sporadically and IMO not entirely principled use of a "greatest impact" standard that can track even further from "greatest" as in "best". and produce things like the Horace Grant issue, or Draymond today.

There's a definitional issue that drives ranking outcomes depending on what the actual answer to "Top 100 what?" is.

And that's why we have the criteria thread . . . because that's a question that is very very interesting and approached in so many different ways.

[wojoaderge]

I've mentioned before in other threads at other times that there is an essential definitional question for anything like this.

Top 100 what?

That's what I want to know, and I pretty much agree with you

[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.

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.

I've mentioned before in other threads at other times that there is an essential definitional question for anything like this.

Top 100 what?

I largely approach it as Top 100 greatest players. As in best. As in who would kick each other's ass. There is a factor of who would kick each other's ass for how many years, that does matter. But I'm rarely going to elevate some inferior player who a better guy would have wiped the floor with over those concerns.

But turning the question to "who had the Top 100 careers", as in not talent, not greatness, but instead career achievements, produces a different list.

There's also a sporadically and IMO not entirely principled use of a "greatest impact" standard that can track even further from "greatest" as in "best". and produce things like the Horace Grant issue, or Draymond today.

There's a definitional issue that drives ranking outcomes depending on what the actual answer to "Top 100 what?" is.

I agree with you that it's fundamental to discuss what the top 100 is. I do agree with pen that it has largely been discussed in the criteria thread, but still important to talk about. In a lot of cases, the best players are the ones who exhibit the most impact, and who are as you say, the best. We aren't approaching it differently; it's important to me to determine who is the best. The difference is epistemological - in the approaches and assumptions we carry to the question, "what is great?" Some of it is tied to best career, but much of that is circumstantial. That's why I've said a few times it's important not only to discuss the players at hand, but the approaches we have to them as well.

[trex_8063]

Have compiled results and posted them in edit to OP, for anyone who is interested.

[THKNKG]

Have compiled results and posted them in edit to OP, for anyone who is interested.

Thanks for doing that. It looks like MJ has some competition from Kareem, in this thread at least. Did you post a list of your own? I must have missed it.

[trex_8063]

Have compiled results and posted them in edit to OP, for anyone who is interested.

Thanks for doing that. It looks like MJ has some competition from Kareem, in this thread at least. Did you post a list of your own? I must have missed it.

I didn't post it, but I included it as one in the compilation.

[Alphabet]

Have compiled results and posted them in edit to OP, for anyone who is interested.

Great work, your time and effort is much appreciated!

[ardee]

The compiled top 15 list is actually not bad, Wilt at 5 is good, Kobe at 11 is decent, would want a couple of spots higher but hey you win some, you lose some.

Gonna have to do some serious arguing when it comes to KG at 13 though

[Jaivl]

I agree, he should be quite higher! I'd like to know their criteria...

[ardee]

I agree, he should be quite higher! I'd like to know their criteria...

Yeah you're right, Kobe should be like 8.

[janmagn]

1. Michael Jordan
2. LeBron James
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
7. Magic Johnson
8. Larry Bird
9. Tim Duncan
10. Bill Russell

[mischievous]

1. Michael Jordan
2. LeBron James
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
7. Magic Johnson
8. Larry Bird
9. Tim Duncan
10. Bill Russell

Why so low on Jabbar?

[janmagn]

1. Michael Jordan
2. LeBron James
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
7. Magic Johnson
8. Larry Bird
9. Tim Duncan
10. Bill Russell

Why so low on Jabbar?

Those guys 3-6 are almost the same, though I think others were just a tad more dominant than Kareem

Lähetetty minun LG-H440n laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[rebirthoftheM]

Shifted my top 15 somewhat after reading some of the posts on this forum:

1. MJ
2. LBJ

3. Shaq
4. Kareem
5. Hakeem

6. Magic
7. Kobe
8. Duncan

9. Dirk
10. Bird
11. Mailman
12. Wilt
13. KG
14. Drob
15. Barkley

Wilt is down because of some the strong arguments i've read about his offensive value. Bill is MIA because of era issues and because of his lack of offense. Oscar and the logo are missing for these very reasons.

[euroleague]

1. Wilt
2. Shaq
3. MJ
4. Kareem
5. Larry Bird
6. Magic
7. Dr. J
8. Hakeem
9. Karl Malone
10. Moses Malone
11. Tim Duncan
12. Lebron James
13. Kobe Bryant
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Kevin Garnett
16. Bill Russell
17. Jerry West
18. Bob Cousy
19. Charles Barkley
20. Isiah Thomas
21. Rick Barry
22. David Robinson
23. Elgin Baylor
24. Steph Curry
25. Gary Payton

Hard to rank people: Hakeem (couldn't decide if he was in front of dr J or behind moses, or even up there with Shaq.)
LBJ/Kobe (not a stan, personally think their achievements are both over-rated by getting carried/being in an easy conference and taking advantage of injuries)
Jerry West (haven't watched him much, don't know his game beyond he is clutch and a good scorer/defender with decent playoff performances)
Kevin Durant (wasn't sure if he would make it here, very close to GP/Curry)

Might edit this list later.