RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #34

[Pablo Novi]

20170819 Pablo’s NBA+ GOAT List Last Post
I don't use ONLY 1st-Team selections; I also include (to a lesser extent; about 60% historically) 2nd-Team selections (and to a lesser extent still: about 60% historically) 3rd-Team selections. Throw in my adjustments for the ever-increasing DEPTH of Top Players (and over-all play of course) and you get:

Column 1: My INITIAL (ALL-League selections-based) Ranking: Column 2: "PTS" (mostly 5 "Pts" for 1st-Team; 3 "Pts" for 2nd-Team ... Column 3: "#" = INITIAL GOAT RANK BY POSITION. Column 4: Player Name

. # .. "PTS" . Pos# .. P L A Y E R
. 1 ... 64.5 ..... 1 ... Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
. 2 ... 63.9 ..... 1 ... Bryant, Kobe
. 3 ... 62.6 ..... 1 ... Duncan, Tim
. 4 ... 62.6 ..... 2 ... Malone, Karl
. 5 ... 61.0 ..... 1 ... James, LeBron
. 6 ... 55.0 ..... 2 ... West, Jerry (N.B. I have him as a SG rather than as a PG)
. 7 ... 53.0 ..... 2 ... Erving, Julius
. 8 ... 53.0 ..... 3 ... Jordan, Michael
. 9 ... 51.5 ..... 2 ... O'Neal, Shaquille
10 ... 50.0 ..... 1 ... Robertson, Oscar
11 ... 49.0 ..... 2 ... Johnson, Magic
12 ... 48.0 ..... 3 ... Bird, Larry
13 ... 46.2 …... 4 ... Baylor, Elgin
14 ... 44.5 ..... 3 ... Pettit, Bob
15 ... 43.9 ..... 3 ... Olajuwon, Hakeem
16 ... 42.5 ..... 4 ... Chamberlain, Wilt
17 ... 42.5 ….. 5 ... Barry, Rick
18 ... 41.3 ..... 4 ... Barkley, Charles
19 ... 40.5 .... 3 ... Cousy, Bob
20 ... 39.9 ..... 5 ... Nowitzki, Dirk
21 ... 33.0 ..... 5 ... Malone, Moses
22 ... 31.9 ..... 4 ... Stockton, John
23 ... 31.9 ..... 6 ... Garnett, Kevin
24 ... 31.7 ..... 6 ... Robinson, David
25 ... 31.4 ..... 7 ... Howard, Dwight
26 ... 31.3 .... 4 ... Gervin, George
27 ... 31.0 ..... 6 ... Durant, Kevin
28 ... 30.8 ..... 5 ... Paul, Chris
29 ... 30.5 ..... 8 ... Russell, Bill
30 ... 28.2 ..... 7 ... Schayes, Dolph
31 ... 28.0 ..... 6 ... Kidd, Jason
32 ... 27.9 ..... 7 ... Payton, Gary
33 ... 25.6 ..... 8 ... Iverson, Allen
34 ... 24.2 ..... 5 ... Wade, Dwyane
35 ... 24.1 ..... 9 ... Nash, Steve
36 ... 23.6 ..... 7 ... Pippen, Scottie
37 ... 23.0 ..... 9 ... Ewing, Patrick
38 ... 22.5 .... 10 ... Frazier, Walt
39 ... 22.1 ..... 8 ... McGrady, Tracy
40 ... 22.0 .... 11 .. Thomas, Isiah
41 ... 22.0 .... 12 .. Westbrook, Russell
42 ... 20.0 .... 10 .. Gilmore, Artis
43 ... 19.5 .... 13 .. Sharman, Bill
44 ... 19.3 ..... 9 ... Wilkins, Dominique
45 ... 19.0 .... 11 .. Mikan, George
46 ... 18.5 .... 14 .. Archibald, Nate "Tiny"
47 ... 18.0 ..... 6 ... Moncrief, Sidney
48 ... 17.5 ..... 8 ... Lucas, Jerry
49 ... 17.5 ..... 7 ... Greer, Hal
50 ... 17.5 ..... 8 ... Westphal, Paul

To me, for an INITIAL DRAFT - this is one very good list!
Now, keep in mind that I ALWAYS have included two more steps; with the 2nd Step addressing ALL other non-ALL-League selection factors; and the 3rd Step "allowing" for the movement of any player up or down my GOAT list by approximately 1 positional-ranking* - and I think it's a darned good system; producing "worthy" results.

The two most important examples of "1 up or down GOAT-positional shifts": MJ lists here at SG#3 (with my assumption that Jerry West is an SG). But his "Points" total is about the same as West's - so taking all the non ALL-League selection factors into account - MJ jumps past Kobe and my GOAT Top 3 SGs are:
MJ then Kobe then Jerry West.

Wilt is just behind Hakeem. So, Wilt jumping up past Shaq as GOAT #2 Center is "allowed" under my system. MY GOAT Centers then are:
KAJ, Wilt, Shaq, Bill Russell **, Hakeem

Bill Russell is THE ONE case where it MIGHT APPEAR that I allow myself a more than 1-positional-ranking shift. But as a HUGE part of Step 2, those 11 Chips in 13 years say he should pass the following Centers ahead of him on my INITIAL GOAT List: DHoward, DRob & Moses (in ascending order).

Btw, my INTENT has always been to do an INITIAL GOAT list based on "ALL-League" selection "Shares" - to see how that might look; but I can't find the actual voting (as opposed to the results of that voting) for most of the years prior to the 1986 season).
------------
LATE ADD:
I've made two MINOR CHANGES to the earlier version of this post:
1) I've reformatted my INITIAL GOAT listing (so it's easier to read, hopefully). (I replaced all the"!" with "...")

2) I've also added a note about #6, Jerry West based on four things:
a) a quote from Gail Goodrich, who said (paraphrased slightly) : "When we played together, I was the Point Guard & Jerry West was the Shooting Guard". (They played together for about half of Jerry West's seasons);

b) Most of the GOAT lists I've seen have Jerry West classified as a SG;

c) Jerry's stats were more SG-like than PG-like, imo; and

d) There is already a decided preponderance of PGs over SGs in this list - so it helps to balance that a bit.
----------------
The above is a copy-and-past of Post #43 in this thread: Re: Top 25 players of all time based on MVP shares viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1605350&start=40#start_here

Here I'd just like to add three of additional points:
[i]1) My INITIAL GOAT ranking system is based ONLY on REGULAR SEASON ALL-League selections AND[/i] tries to include fair balance between: positions, decades and Leagues (I believe it does this better than any other system I've seen);

2) A "PERFECT GOAT CAREER" would get you exactly 100 "Points" - 20 years of ALL-League 1st-Team selections (this number, 100, naturally is quite useful for both comparing players' actual results with a would-be "perfect career); and for comparing players' actual results with each other's).

3) Here is my "pro-rating" system for assigning "Points" based on ALL-League selections PER DECADE:

20170731 Pablo’s Pro-Rating Per Decade:

Increase
% Per ...... ”Points” Per
Decade ..... ALL-League: ........................... "Pts" Per
... DECADE . 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; 3d-Tm ............... All Tms ... Yr ... Decade
xxx 1930 !! ... 0.33 .. 0.17 ..... x ................... 0.50 ...... 2.5 ... ... 5
300 1940 !! ... 1.33 .. 0.67 ..... x ................... 2.00 ..... 10.0 ... 100
125 1950 !! ... 3 ...... 1.5 ...... x ................... 4.50 ..... 22.5 ... 225
66. 1960 !! ... 5 ...... 2.5 ....... x .................. 7.50 ..... 37.5 ... 375
10. 1970 !! ... 5 ...... 2.5 .... 0.75 ................. 8.25 ..... 41.3 ... 412.5
9.1 1980 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.0 ................... 9.00 ..... 45.0 ... 450
3.3 1990 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.3 ................... 9.30 ..... 46.5 ... 465
2.7 2000 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.55 .................. 9.55 ..... 47.8 ... 477.5
2.6 2010 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ................... 9.80 ..... 49.0 ... 490

........................................................ so far 1938-2017 ! 2,902 Total "Points"
........................................................ soon . 1938-2019 ! 3,000 Total "Points"

FUTURE?
... DECADE . 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; 3d-Tm; 4th-Tm ... All Tms ... Yr ... Decade
2.6 2020 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.25 ..... 10.10 ..... 50.3 ... 502.5
2.5 2030 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.50 ..... 10.30 ..... 51.5 ... 515
2.4 2040 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.75 ..... 10.60 ..... 52.8 ... 527.5
2.4 2050 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 1.00 ..... 10.80 ..... 54.0 ... 540

FINAL:
PABLO’S NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT LIST:
Column 1: “#” My GOAT RANK (mostly based on ALL-League selections);
Column 2: "PTS" (mostly based on: 5 "Pts" for 1st-Team; 3 "Pts" for 2nd-Team; 1.8 “Pts” for 3rd-Team).
N.B . In “Pablo’s NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT List”, a “perfect career” would be worth 100 “Points” (or 20 seasons of being selected to the ALL-League 1st-Team;
Column 3: "Pos#“ = GOAT RANK BY POSITION; and
Column 4: Player Name (initial positional ranking IF moved up or down more than one in Final version).

. # .. "PTS" . Pos# .. P L A Y E R (moved up or down from _)
. 1 ... 64.5 ..... 1 ... Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
. 2 ... 49.0 ..... 1 ... Johnson, Magic
. 3 ... 53.0 ..... 1 ... Jordan, Michael (up from SG 2-3)
. 4 ... 61.0 ..... 1 ... James, LeBron
. 5 ... 62.6 ..... 1 ... Duncan, Tim
. 6 ... 42.5 ..... 2 ... Chamberlain, Wilt (up from Center 3-4)
. 7 ... 63.9 ..... 2 ... Bryant, Kobe
. 8 ... 53.0 ..... 2 ... Erving, Julius
. 9 ... 50.0 ..... 2 ... Robertson, Oscar
10 ... 62.6 ..... 2 ... Malone, Karl
11 ... 51.5 ..... 3 ... O'Neal, Shaquille
12 ... 55.0 ..... 3 ... West, Jerry
13 ... 48.0 ..... 3 ... Bird, Larry
14 ... 44.5 ..... 3 ... Pettit, Bob
15 ... 40.5 .... 3 ... Cousy, Bob
16 ... 30.5 ..... 4 ... Russell, Bill (up from Center 5-8)
17 ... 46.2 …... 4 ... Baylor, Elgin
18 ... 41.3 ..... 4 ... Barkley, Charles
19 ... 31.9 ..... 4 ... Stockton, John
20 ... 31.3 .... 4 ... Gervin, George
21 ... 43.9 ..... 5 ... Olajuwon, Hakeem (down from Center 3-4)
22 ... 42.5 ….. 5 ... Barry, Rick
23 ... 39.9 ..... 5 ... Nowitzki, Dirk
24 ... 30.8 ..... 5 ... Paul, Chris
25 ... 24.2 ..... 5 ... Wade, Dwyane
26 ... 33.0 ..... 6 ... Malone, Moses
27 ... 31.0 ..... 6 ... Durant, Kevin
28 ... 31.9 ..... 6 ... Garnett, Kevin
29 ... 28.0 ..... 6 ... Kidd, Jason
30 ... 18.0 ..... 6 ... Moncrief, Sidney
31 ... 31.7 ..... 7 ... Robinson, David
32 ... 27.9 ..... 7 ... Payton, Gary
33 ... 28.2 ..... 7 ... Schayes, Dolph
34 ... 23.6 ..... 7 ... Pippen, Scottie
35 ... 17.5 ..... 7 ... Greer, Hal
36 ... 31.4 ..... 8 ... Howard, Dwight
37 ... 25.6 ..... 8 ... Iverson, Allen
38 ... 22.1 ..... 8 ... McGrady, Tracy
39 ... 17.5 ..... 8 ... Lucas, Jerry
40 ... 17.5 ..... 8 ... Westphal, Paul
41 ... 23.0 ..... 9 ... Ewing, Patrick
42 ... 24.1 ..... 9 ... Nash, Steve
43 ... 19.3 ..... 9 ... Wilkins, Dominique
44 ... 17.0 …... 9 … Stoudemire Amare’e
45 ... 16.8 …... 9 … Harden, James
46 ... 19.0 ... 10 .. Mikan, George
47 ... 22.5 ... 10 .. Frazier, Walt
48 ... 17.0 …. 10 .. Hill, Grant
49 ... 16.6 …. 10 .. Drexler, Clyde
50 ... 15.8 ... 10 .. McGinnis, George 51 ... 22.0 ... 11 ..Thomas, Isiah
52 ... 20.0 ... 11 .. Gilmore, Artis
53 ... 15.6 ... 11 .. Webber, Chris
54 ... 15.0 .… 11 .. Maravich, Pete
55 ... 14.3 .… 11 .. King, Bernard 56 ... 22.0 ... 12 .. Westbrook, Russell
57 ... 15.0 ... 12 .. Cunningham, Billy
58 ... 14.0 ... 12 .. Havlicek, John
59 ... 13.8 ... 12 .. Johnston, Neil
60 ... 12.5 ... 12 .. Davies, Bob
61 ... 19.5 .… 13 .. Sharman, Bill
62 ... 14.3 ... 13 .. Hayes, Elvin
63 ... 12.5 ... 13 .. Anthony, Carmelo
64 ... 11.8 ... 13 .. Thompson, David
65 ... 11.3 ... 13 .. Daniels, Mel
66 ... 18.5 ... 14 .. Archibald, Nate "Tiny"
67 ... 12.5 ... 14 .. Hawkins, Connie
68 ... 12.3 ... 14 .. Mullin, Chris
69 ... 11.6 ... 14 .. Richmond, Mitch
70 ... 10.8 ... 14 .. Issel, Dan
71 ... 16.0 …. 15 .. Curry, Stephen
72 ... 12.1 ... 15 .. Wallace, Ben
73 ... 12.0 ... 15 .. Johnson, Marquez
74 ... 11.3 ... 15 .. Hardaway, Anfernee
75 ... 10.7 ... 15 .. Ming, Yao
76 ... 15.3 ... 16 .. Hardaway, Tim
77 ... 11.0 ... 16 .. Arizin, Paul
78 ... 10.8 ... 16 .. Griffin, Blake
79 ..... 8.6 ... 16 .. Jordan, DeAndre
80 ..... 7.5 ... 16 .. Jones, Sam
81 ... 13.3 .... 17 .. Johnson, Kevin
82 ... 10.0 .... 17 .. Leonard, Kawhi
83 ... 10.0 .... 17 .. Heinsohn, Tom
84 ..... 8.5 ... 17 .. Macauley, Ed
85 ..... 7.0 ... 17 .. Cervi, Al
86 ... 10.6 .... 18 .. Parker, Tony
87 ... 10.0 .... 18 .. Davis, Anthony
88 ..... 9.0 ... 18 .. Dantley, Adrian
89 ..... 8.0 ... 18 .. Gasol, Marc
90 ..... 6.8 ... 18 .. Guerin, Richie
91 ... 10.0 .... 19 .. Bing, Dave
92 ..... 9.4 ... 19 .. Gasol, Pau
93 ..... 9.0 …. 19 .. English, Alex
94 ..... 8.0 ... 19 .. Mourning, Alonzo
95 ..... 6.5 …. 19 .. Zaslofsky, Max
96 ..... 9.3 ... 20 .. Pollard, jim
97 ..... 9.0 …. 20 .. Johnson, Dennis
98 ..... 7.7 …. 20 .. Pierce, Paul
99 ..... 7.5 …. 20 .. Walton, Bill
100 ..… 6.1 ... 20 .. Arenas, Gilbert

[Pablo Novi]

For those supporting Cousy for his pioneering, what would you say that he pioneered that we hadn't already seen from players like Davies or Haynes?

In terms of Davies, he had HALF the "Great Years" that Cousy had (which is one of the two main reasons I have him much further down my GOAT list; the other reason being that his career was even earlier, i.e., during even weaker years. As to how much he might have pioneered that Cousy merely / mostly copied - I haven't seen a comparison of the two pretty much over the last 40 or so years - so, you might be correct; but I HAVE seen Cousy almost "endlessly" complimented for his revolutionizing of the PG position.

Haynes?

[Outside]

That doesn't make sense to me in the comparison to the players I mentioned. As I pointed out, TS% puts him in a more favorable light than FG%, and Thurmond has clearly better offensive production than Unseld, Mutombo, and Wallace. If he'd been asked to score at their levels, it's a fair assumption that his shooting percentages would've been higher, so it's fair to give Thurmond credit for being a better scorer than those guys.

My overall point is that Thurmond was a better offensive player than one-dimensional guys like Wallace and Mutombo. Wallace averaged 5.7 points for his career, never scored in double-digits in any season, and averaged 41.4 FT% -- are you arguing that he was better offensively than Thurmond?

No, I don't think there has been a worse offensive player than Ben Wallace in the history of the NBA; you never want him to touch the ball unless it's a wide open layup or a rebound. I was saying that compared to the guys we were looking at here, Thurmond's offense is a liability. When he is matched up against Elvin Hayes or Jermaine O'Neal then it's a different argument. (Fwiw, Mutombo was a high percentage scorer, but with poor hands and passing; Unseld was the GOAT for pick setting and outlet passing so his offensive value, which is still not that high, mainly comes from non-boxscore production.)

FWIW, I brought up Wallace, Unseld, and Mutombo as a counter to your statement that Thurmond "may be the worst shooting center that we will consider in the whole top 100 project," not for guys being considered at this point.

[penbeast0]

You are certainly right about Wallace, he was worse than Thurmond.

[eminence]

For those supporting Cousy for his pioneering, what would you say that he pioneered that we hadn't already seen from players like Davies or Haynes?

In terms of Davies, he had HALF the "Great Years" that Cousy had (which is one of the two main reasons I have him much further down my GOAT list; the other reason being that his career was even earlier, i.e., during even weaker years. As to how much he might have pioneered that Cousy merely / mostly copied - I haven't seen a comparison of the two pretty much over the last 40 or so years - so, you might be correct; but I HAVE seen Cousy almost "endlessly" complimented for his revolutionizing of the PG position.

Haynes?

I agree with Cousy over Davies for his longevity (though with NBL included it's a smaller gap), but just so often see Cousy brought up as revolutionizing the position, and I'm not really sure what he did to revolutionize it (though his passing vision was a clear step up from Davies imo).

And Marques Haynes the Globetrotter.

Sidenote: The games always mentioned are the Trotters vs Lakers games from '48 on, but the Royals also met them in two exhibition games in '46 (unfortunately before Haynes joined the team I believe in '47). They split, with the Trotters winning the first game 57-55 and the Royals getting revenge 60-49 in the rematch.

[scrabbarista]

34. Isiah Thomas

35. [Yes, 23 spots higher than he finished in 2014] Elvin Hayes


I. Isiah Thomas is the only player left who was the best player on two championship teams. It could be argued he was also a rolled ankle away from holding that distinction for three championship teams.

[Same as in the last thread, here] are some excerpts of mine from an old thread on Isiah Thomas:

Isiah is not overrated, unless someone is rating him in the top 20. The simple version - which obviously the media and public at large prefer - is that he was the best player on two championship teams, as well as the best or second best on a team that probably lost a third Finals because he twisted his ankle. He was also the best player on an NCAA champ. Only Jordan, Bird, and Magic made more All-NBA teams in the 80's. All of this is hard to dispute.

The more complex version hinges first and foremost on his elevating his play in the postseason. The post containing his all-time rankings in postseason improvement over the regular season should not be casually glossed over. The vast majority of players decrease their productivity in the playoffs, while the elite of the elite consistently increase it. Thomas' increases are historically high.

Secondly, the complex version states that he led and orchestrated top offenses for nearly his entire career, rather than relied on great defenses. There were four or five seasons when his team's OR even exceeded its DR.

A third point in the complex version is that Thomas was the galvanizing/uniting/driving leader behind the Pistons for all of the 80's. To illustrate, a player from the '88 team team has stated on record that when he and his teammates saw Isiah's heroic fourth quarter performance in game 6 of the 1988 Finals, they finally understood the depth of his determination, and they knew that even if he couldn't contribute in game 7 (he couldn't), they would come back the following year and win it all. Anyone who was paying close attention in 2014 should understand that the Spurs didn't win that year simply because of their system or their talent. The system was perfected and the talent was maximized over the course of nearly one hundred games because of the collective determination and focus that sprang from the agony of Ray Allen's miraculous shot in game 6 of the '13 Finals. Isiah's ankle injury in '88 played the same role as Allen's corner three in '13. If Isiah hadn't had the character, will, and desire that enabled him to excel on virtually one leg, his teammates might have lost a measure of confidence in their leader, and we might be looking at extra championships for Magic, Michael, or Clyde Drexler.

The people who say, "Show me where it says "character," "will," or "desire" on the stat sheet!" and accuse others of being simple-minded or narrative-dominated in their thinking are in fact the ones who fail to see the subtleties in the difference between winning and losing. No one person sees all the subtleties, but we must acknowledge their existence. As an example, when Dwight Howard, in a particularly tense moment in the playoffs, calls out his teammates even when they're doing their best, simply because he thinks he's looked bad on a particular possession, team cohesiveness is damaged as those players realize Dwight cares more about his own image than building up his teammates for the sake of collective success. Then Dwight leaves the court in the next timeout, and those players, still on the court, are trying to regain the focus and flow that Dwight's outburst cost them. Their play diminishes slightly, and Dwight's on/off numbers go up - or the quality of his "supporting cast" appears weaker. The stat sheet is lying - every part of it except the win/loss column. A hundred related scenarios occur in every game, and more occur on the practice court and in the locker room. More can occur in comments made to the media. Heck, this type of stuff has probably even happened in strip clubs.

A person who tries to sell you on a player based solely on stats without a narrative context is like someone who'll tell you he has a great marriage because he lasts a long time in bed with his wife - and then tells you exactly how long, down to the second.

I'm not one to echo Vince Lombardi's "winning is the only thing" quote. (That, too, would ignore context.) Karl Malone, in my opinion, had twice as good of a career as Isiah Thomas. But Thomas is a top 25 player [Top 28 now] because winning is the one "stat" that tells us what all the other stats never could. Winning is a coordinate on an imaginary graph: where a player's talent meets his daily determination to maximize it.

--------------


"I don't know man, I can't really get behind motivation and leadership being this huge of a factor into deciding who is greater. But we'll get to that."

I just can't help but what wonder what kind of life experiences a person has had so say something like "motivation and leadership are not huge factors in deciding who is greater." Like, have you ever had a job? Ever worked with other people? Maybe on a project with a bad leader? Or a great one? Ever notice the difference between the two - the difference in the results produced? Ever tried hard? Ever slacked off? Ever noticed the difference in the results between the two?

I can't force you to see things how I see them, but I watched last night's Game 2 and I saw a Cavs team that was more motivated than the Warriors team. It was obvious that Lebron and Dellavadova were working harder than anyone on the court - and this lead to multiple key offensive rebounds, not to mention loose balls that were saved or tipped - even one of which could have been the difference in the game. I'm not implying that actually making shots is irrelevant or that some of the things I've mentioned don't show up in the box score - that's a straw man - I'm just saying some things exist outside of the box score. The game is much more subtle and complex than the numbers alone can account for.

"Elevating play in the postseason is a great thing, but it's relevant only so far as to what level that increase actually leads to. If you're starting from a much smaller base than someone who doesn't improve as much, does it really matter if your increase is bigger if you still end up below them? The fact that the vast majority of players don't improve is irrelevant, because we aren't comparing Isiah to the vast majority of players here."

I agree with you. Only the end results matter in evaluating someone's greatness. I've just seen others on these boards highlight improvements and drops in playoff performance so many times that I guess it thought it might be relevant to this discussion.

Lest you be confused by my saying only the end results matter, then going on about process and narrative, my point in writing about process and narrative has never been that either is grounds for my rankings. They emphatically are not - my list is at least 99% results-driven. It depends almost exclusively on results that any objective observer could agree actually happened. The point I've been trying to make is that team success is one such result. Process and narrative only come into the discussion when they become useful in explaining why team success can be attributed to great players' actions that don't appear in the box score.

"Well, I wouldn't exactly call them great. Outside of the 1st place finish in 84, the Pistons while Isiah was an all-star level player were never a top 5 offense. And the defense being below average might have something to do with Isiah himself no? And the Pistons didn't make the conference finals until 87, the year their defense first replaced the offense as the better unit. So until the Pistons began "relying" on great defenses, they had basically no postseason success."

Perhaps they weren't great offenses. At least not plural. At least not when he was an "All-Star level player." As to below average defenses having something to do with Isiah, would you say the same about the Clippers defense and Chris Paul? It's generally acknowledged that point guard is the position that can have the least impact on a team's defense. Still, I happen to think all five players are important on both sides of the ball, so yes, he had something to do with it, and he also had something to do with the "great defenses" that came after. My original intent was just to dispel the myth that he never led a great offense.


"I can't get behind this. There's really no way to tell how much, if any at all, the drive of a player impacts the players around him. It's impossible, and always will be."

There's only one way: did the team do enough to get the job done? This is the same way leaders are evaluated in every walk of life.

"Saying Ray Allen's shot was the basis of the Spur's title run the next year is just so out there. It'd be like me saying the reason Duncan became a hall of fame player was because of the hurricane that destroyed the olympic swimming pool in his hometown that forced him to focus on basketball."

No, it's more like Duncan himself saying, "Me and my community were so devastated by that hurricane that I decided to do everything in my power to rise above it and make millions of dollars playing basketball to show that neither me nor my community could be bowed by the whims of fate." What you say has nothing to do with it. That's why I pointed out that a Pistons player actually said Isiah's determination drove them the entire following year. The Spurs players have said they were hoping to face the Heat. You can bet that desire was there from the moment game 7 of the '13 Finals ended, and you can bet the Spurs would not have been quite as focused against another team in the Finals. (They still would have won, obviously. They were too good by that time.) I never meant to imply that without Allen's shot, the Spurs don't win the championship. I did mean to imply, though, that it was a factor. Probably a very big factor.

"Every event is connected in the journey, as you say. But the way you tell it, it was Isiah's game 6 performance that was the most important moment of their 89 title run. That's ridiculous. It'd be way down on the list, waaaaaaaaaaay behind the level of play of the individual Pistons players during the actual season, which is what everyone else is using as the primary evaluator to make their all time list. Changes in confidence play a part, but not anywhere near THAT much. Having confidence in your leader isn't suddenly going to change you from a run of the mill playoff team into a champion. If I were to evaluate the 89 Pistons, I'd say their title was due to the emergence of Rodman and Dumars and the trade of Dantley making their team better and more cohesive, the way the rest of the Pistons played, the Celtics getting worse, the Lakers being injured, any amount of refereeing and injury randomness, how their other playoff opponents played, general randomness that's associated with all competitive sports (shots not falling etc.) and a whole bunch of other stuff. I can't see how looking at Isiah's leadership is going to come even close to having the impact those things do."

Again, it wasn't the way I told it. If it was just me making up a story, it would lose a lot of credence. It's there in the Bad Boys documentary. The players felt that way. Everything you mention was undoubtedly a factor. Just as in life, when a team has to work together on any common goal or project, everything that happens is a factor, and dozens of individual occurrences might each be the difference between success and failure. Many of these might be random. But what is the unifying concept throughout? The way the group responds to these occurrences. And what drives these responses? Leadership.

Again, I'm not saying that that previous paragraph explains why I rate Isiah where I do. What explains why I rate him where I do is the simple fact that he lead his teams to ultimate victory and near-ultimate victory four times in his career, three in the NBA and one in college. That previous paragraph was just to say that leadership is a real thing and it exists and it makes a difference in outcomes.

"First off, I don't really see anyone having an attitude like that. And I don't get the comparison to Dwight, because I don't think anyone here is calling Dwight a top 25 player either. And if Dwight's teammates are really that affected by a random "you guys suck" comment (and making an assumption that this has any impact on their play at all is a BIG assumption), they probably shouldn't be in the NBA in the first place. NBA players are getting heckled by fans, the media, and their teams ALL the time."

Correct, Dwight is not a top 25 player, but he may have more talent than Isiah. Most would probably say he does. Which is exactly my point. Talented players are often separated by "intangibles." Stating that human beings are affected by random "you suck" comments is not an assumption. It's common knowledge. And these random "you suck" comments tend to be more affecting when they come from people close to us or people on a higher level than us, and when they happen in public - all of which would describe Dwight in relation to someone like Ariza or Brewer, calling guys out on TV in the playoffs

I don't know how to save this and I need to go to work soon, but when you're talking about players getting heckled: a straw man. Dwight didn't heckle anybody in my example. Also, the fans and media are not in positions of leadership or in intimate relationships with the players. Also, there is a difference between making fun of someone and calling them out - and as I said, there is a difference in whether it is done to save Dwight's own face or to build up the cohesion of the team. Human relationships.

"The people you'd be comparing Isiah to if you think he's top 25 are guys like the usual suspects (MJ, Magic, Bird, Russell, Duncan, Kareem etc.) or more guys like Dirk, KG, Havlicek, Baylor, Barkley, Wade etc. Are we somehow going to argue that Isiah is a better leader than them? Or had more determination than them? How would we even go about that? We already have too much to look at with their respective basketball abilities and the circumstances in which they displayed those abilities."

We'd go about it by looking at wins. Determination, etc., do not appear on my ATG list. Winning does. If we're talking about how I evaluate players, then we're talking about stats, wins, and consensus - nothing else.

"Determination, like I said with the playoff thing earlier, is only relevant in how it affects your ability to play basketball. It's the starting from the lower base thing again. When compared with a guy who never meets his potential (like, say, Shaq) does it matter that Isiah had more determination if even with that determination Shaq was still in another stratosphere as a player?"

No, it doesn't matter. Shaq is higher than Isiah because he produced better results.

"Winning is a coordinate on a graph where a player's talent meets his daily determination to maximize it... AND where said player's teammates' talent meets their daily drive, AND where said player's opponents' talent meets their daily drive, AND where said player's coaches abilities to manage said talent, AND how lucky your team gets with injuries, AND how lucky your opponents get with injuries, AND how lucky your team gets with refereeing, AND a whole bunch of other things."

True, all of that factors in, but all of that also factors in to every other stat besides winning. So why would we decide other stats are more relevant than winning in evaluating players? Winning is the goal of the game. To ignore it or even minimize it is something I have a hard time understanding.

"The common thing here is talent. The talent and ability is the most important thing. And Isiah just didn't have enough talent and ability to be ranked where the consensus has him. The winning was just as much or more due to those other factors as it was to Isiah himself."

Talent Is Overrated. It's a good book. Check it out. As for Isiah's responsibility or lack thereof in his team's successes, I take the position that people often create their own opportunities and luck: when we consistently find a person in successful positions, in spite of all the other factors that might have been at play, the common thread is the person himself. I therefore give credit to that person.

[Winsome Gerbil]

For those supporting Cousy for his pioneering, what would you say that he pioneered that we hadn't already seen from players like Davies or Haynes?

In terms of Davies, he had HALF the "Great Years" that Cousy had (which is one of the two main reasons I have him much further down my GOAT list; the other reason being that his career was even earlier, i.e., during even weaker years. As to how much he might have pioneered that Cousy merely / mostly copied - I haven't seen a comparison of the two pretty much over the last 40 or so years - so, you might be correct; but I HAVE seen Cousy almost "endlessly" complimented for his revolutionizing of the PG position.

Haynes?

I agree with Cousy over Davies for his longevity (though with NBL included it's a smaller gap), but just so often see Cousy brought up as revolutionizing the position, and I'm not really sure what he did to revolutionize it (though his passing vision was a clear step up from Davies imo).

And Marques Haynes the Globetrotter.

Sidenote: The games always mentioned are the Trotters vs Lakers games from '48 on, but the Royals also met them in two exhibition games in '46 (unfortunately before Haynes joined the team I believe in '47). They split, with the Trotters winning the first game 57-55 and the Royals getting revenge 60-49 in the rematch.

He led the league in assists 8 times in a row.

At the point that he retired (1963, not the 7gms in 1970 as a 40yr old player-coach), the all time assist list went:

Cousy 6945
McGuire 4205
Phillip 3759
Martin 3160
Schayes 3024

So at that point there were only 2 players in NBA history (McGuire + Phillips) who even had half as many assists as Cousy did. He was the original floor general.

As an aside, as an indication of just how normal his shooting % was for that age, here's that same list with the career shooting percentages for each guy as well:

Cousy 6945 .375FG% .446TS%
McGuire 4205 .389FG% .455TS%
Phillip 3759 .368FG% .430TS%
Martin 3160 .364FG% .436TS%
Schayes 3024 .381FG% .488TS%

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Barry
Alt: Gilmore

Repeat vote. Still siding with Barry on the basis of how complete an alpha star he became and how long he commanded the role. Still have mixed feelings about it.

[Dr Positivity]

Gary Payton - Case for: A full career's worth of longevity which is an advantage compared to many players here. Primary ballhandlers with assists is a strong offensive value role. A solid 20 point volume scorer. Leads the league in OBPM twice to show his boxscore cred on that end. One of the top rated defensive PGs and a DPOY. Ability to guard multiple positions allows him to elevate past just PG defensive impact. Case against: Leader of a team with some glaring playoff upsets. It is more difficult to impact the game defensively at PG. Limited RAPM data is not blown away by him. Only finishes top 5 in MVP voting once.

Bob Cousy - Case for: Superb longevity. He is still a 2nd team All-NBA level, all-star in his 13th season. Highly regarded by his peers with all his All-NBA, wins MVP, and in 1980 which is about the halfway point for this project is one of 11 players selected for the 35th anniversary team ahead of some contenders here like Barry and Frazier. Being one of the best slashers of his era and the best passer are both high value offensive roles. Helped Boston to 1st ORTGs when he was the best player. Case against: Played against mostly segregated players in his prime. Being the best guard passer in a poor passing league doesn't necessarily mean he was better at it than future players. Weak TS leads to disappointing OWS and WS production, never finishes higher than 8th/9th in WS. The Celtics dynasty was predicted to collapse without him but they did just fine. Likely overcredited in his time for Boston's offensive success, noting that this was a time where they didn't know any better than to think whoever scored the most points had the best offense, eg. in Cousy's MVP year they had the 5th highest ORTG but scored the most points easily so they may have credited the offensive player as the driving force.

Walt Frazier - Case for: Fabulous boxscore stats despite steals not being tracked a lot of his prime. Has multiple 2nd/3rd finishes in WS and if steals were tracked earlier would've done fabulously in VORP, he 4th/3rd the first two seasons it's tracked in 74 and 75 despite his offensive stats not being what it was a few years earlier. High value offensive role as a scorer/creator and one of the top defensive PGs making all-defensive 1st team throughout his prime. Great playoff career including one of the great Finals games. Case against: Weak longevity (6-7 years prime). No top 3 finishes in WS and voters at the time seemed to clearly prefer Reed as the Knicks best player, although a theory could be use racism (Frazier being "too black") having something to do with that.

Isiah Thomas - Case for: Very solid longevity being great for about a 11 year prime. Great intangibles and praised by many teammates. Strong playoff career leading his team to the top of the mountain. One of the best passers in the league which is a highly valuable offensive skill, along with creation ability. Case against: Average TS leading to only one top 10 finish in WS at 7th, and a 4th/7th in VORP. A good not great scoring career when you consider the volume and efficiency. Finishes 5th in MVP once and never above 8th and surprisingly underrecognized in Pistons title years in either MVP or All-NBA. Despite being a great leader and passer he struggles to fit in his most talented teammate ever in Dantley and keeps shooting as much as ever.

Chauncey Billups - Case for: Combination of passing, getting to the line and free throw line all of which is highly valuable on offense. Somewhat ahead of his time in appreciation for his skillset and value of 3pt spacing. Very good boxscore player with a few top 5s in WS (3rd/5th) and other top 10s and solid but would do better in VORP if his defense was rated better as it probably should've been. Leads Pistons to some strong seasons even without Ben Wallace. Iverson for Billups trade looks terrific for his case with his impact on the Nuggets both as a player and leader and Pistons decline without him. Case against: Ok longevity with about 8 strong years. Good but not great RAPM career, mainly peaking later in his prime. Felt less talented than other players in contention here. Not rated a superstar in his time, not even a star on the level of players like Pierce, Allen and Kidd. His reasonable MVP/All-NBA career somewhat misrepresents the lack of real star labelling there was for Billups. Seen somewhat like the game manager QB on an elite football defense, great at it, but still a game manager. Doesn't necessarily "put pressure on the defense" athletically.

Jason Kidd - Case for: One of the strongest RAPM players left ranking top 5 in his prime and some great on/off seasons. Playmaking alone has strong value at PG offensively, while is a great defensive player at his position who can up his value by guarding 2s. A great fastbreak starter due to his rebounder. Peaks at 2nd in MVP voting. Good VORP career finishing 1st in it once (99) and top 5 another time. Decent decade of prime longevity and valuable older player. Case against: Mediocre scoring career, making it harder to make a star level offensive impact and lack of shooting hurts floor spacing value. Not the best WS player with a 5th and 9th as his top 10s. Two top 5 finishes in MVP but often settled at 8th/9th.

Reggie Miller - Case for: Increases his stock in the playoffs where he is on several occasions a killer. Game translates to playoffs well since he can create open shots by movement. Outstanding longevity and durability and still has value late in his career as floor spacer. 17th in career WS. High floor spacing effect that he know better now than they did in the 90s the value of. Solid passing stats and ability to get to the FT Line, not just a spot up shooter. Good RAPM support. Case against: Shockingly little accolades in his time, not just missing MVP and All-NBA but all-star games half the time. Difficult to make the case he was ever a top 5 player, even in the stat that loves him WS he never finishes top 5. Limited RAPM sample also has him as very good but more of a fringe top 10 guy.

George Gervin - Case for: One of the best offensive careers left, leads the league in scoring 4x and a highly efficient scorer and leads good offenses and contenders. Considered a superstar on his time, 2x 2nd and 1x 3rd MVP finishes and 5 straight 1st team All-NBA. Case against: The Harden of his era on defense, probably worst top 50 defender if Harden doesn’t get in. Only finishes top 5 once in WS and peaks at 6th in VORP in NBA. Mediocre passing for his scoring volume, playmaking is typically critical for high offensive impact for a guard.

Tracy McGrady - Case for: Amazing statistical peak in 2003 right up there (9.7 BPM!) that’s up there with any Kobe season. Great playmaking wing increasing his value throughout his career along with high volume scoring. Good playoff performer. Case against: Weak longevity and health. Poor intangibles and often seemed half asleep. TS average outside of 03. Never makes it past 1st round as a real player. Him and Yao never seemed to reach their potential together and the Rockets suspiciously overperformed whenever one got injured.

Rick Barry - Case for: Carries team to championship with one of the weakest supporting casts. A high level floor spacer and passer for his position which is a valuable offensive combination and it leads to results. Elite volume scoring to take pressure off teammates. Gets steals on defense. Strong accolades for this stage - has a 4th, 4th and 5th in MVP voting in NBA alone and made 4 1st team All-NBA s and 4 in ABA. Finishes to 3 in WS twice, and in 74 and 75 is 4th/5th in VORP. A lot of signs he was a top 5 player at his peak. Solid longevity when including the ABA. Case against: Middling TS, although decent for his volume. A dick who alienated his teammates. Average defensive career. ABA stats were not against the best competition. Not put on top 11 players of first 35 years in 1980.

Artis Gilmore - Case for: 10th all time in career WS. Very high peak in the ABA including MVP, best player on champion and leads in WS multiple times. Continued to put up good stats in NBA with the value of his TS possibly underrated at the time. Strong defensive center at high level defensive position C. Strong longevity and durability. Case against: Disrespected by eye test users at the time and future HOF voters, as being considered too slow and mechanical on offense and not having the inner fire to dominate. Doesn’t finish higher than 8th in MVP in NBA. Offensive style of play doesn’t appear to be high impact - non spacing post center who’s a poor passing/turnover player. Could have inflated stats in ABA (reb/blk) due to lack of size competition.

Alonzo Mourning - Case for: One of the best defensive centers remaining, as elite shotblocker and 2x DPOY. Plays the right position to be defense first. Peaks at 2nd in MVP voting in 00 and 1st in 99 RAPM (ascreamingacrossthecourt). Solid 8 years before kidney problems, decent play in 02 and valuable few years as mega shotblocking backup C in 06 and 07. 20 point scorer with above average TS and has midrange floor spacing. Outstanding intangibles, he is both the anti-Dwight and anti-Gilmore in a way. Case against: Not a great offensive threat. Terrible passing numbers and assist to turnover rate. Visually a Meh scoring skillset. May have got the job done in the regular season but to win a title there needs to be a more dynamic offensive player on the team.

Dwight Howard - Case for: Excellent accolades in his time, finishing 2nd in MVP (and possibly deserving to win) and 2x 4th place and 1x 5th place. 3rd a few times in WS and peaks at 5th/6th in VORP. The consensus best defender in the league in his prime and offensively is a 20 point, highly efficient scorer who creates gravity on the pick and roll. The defense alone is highly valuable at center. Peaks at 5th/8th in RAPM. Case against: Poor intangibles, annoying manchild. Very poor passing center who turns it over, and a complete non floor spacer at C. Played in a perfect offensive fit for his style, with ahead of its time floor spacing giving him room inside to score and he has never been the same without it. His offensive skillset never fully passed the eye test. Defensive impact seemed to evaporate after Orlando. When looking at how much better a player like late career Mourning was on defense than post prime Dwight, is it a clue about their ability on that end in their prime?

...

After writing it out I lean towards Barry and Payton. Both have good longevity. Barry has great offensive skillset (shooting, passing, volume scoring) and there's just a lot that points towards him as a top 5 player in his prime - MVP, VORP, WS. Payton is a very good offensive player and great defensive guard. I like Frazier's peak the most of the PGs but he doesn't have the best longevity.

Vote: Rick Barry

2nd: Gary Payton

[euroleague]

Pick: Cousy
Alt: Isiah Thomas
HM: Rick Barry
HM2: Kevin McHale

Pick: Cousy - Cousey's passing influenced the way the game was played hugely, and he did so in an unconventional way that didn't gain any unfair advantage a la goaltending. He won an MVP as his prime was ending, and his offensive style lives on far past his retirement and beyond his success leading the Celtics pre-Russell (questionable how Russell's passing would've developed without Cousey).

When Cousy joined the league, the Celtics were a 20-22 win team, and he immediately brought them to 39 his rookie year. He changed a bottom dwelling team to an immediate contender, and went on to contend with an elite offense in the eastern conference before Russell ever joined. He won MVP, and led the league in assists many times on his way to 10 all-nba first teams.

Alt: isiah Thomas: In 1988 he led the league in VORP for the post-season. In this post-season, MJ was playing on a team with no back-up, Magic was in his prime, Bird was beasting still. And Isiah Thomas led the league in VORP on a "deep" team that had other guards who were legit. The Pistons wouldn't be close to the team they were without Isiah, and even with him on the bench they immediately suffered more than the Lakers without Magic.

In 1988 he also led the league in DWS for the PS.

From 1987-1990, Isiah Thomas was never lower than 3rd in Post-Season VORP. His team is often called "the deepest of the 80s", in terms of talent across the board, but Isiah's impact was consistently on the tier of MJ/Bird/Magic (these 4 dominated the VORP rankings).

Isiah Thomas was also 3rd in playoff box-score plus-minus in 87 and 88, and 2nd in 90.

As a floor general, his impact went far beyond volume statistics. When IT wasn't in the game, the Pistons were suffering. He was capable of scoring if needed, evidenced by the 55 point outing that should've sealed a Pistons championship in 88 (except for a bad call from a ref in the last seconds) WHILE he was injured.

IT had his teammates back, and would throw himself under the fire to keep them alright. Isiah embraced the "bad boy" role even though he himself was obviously far from a bad boy image, with his clean smile and baby face, and his impact was equal to GOAT level players in the late 80s.

HM: Rick Barry

A player whose shooting form and hero ball changed the role of shooting in a championship team. He led his team to a ring, and put up huge numbers in the ABA. He was a baller, but many people have talked about him already and I won't do so excessively.

HM2: McHale is possibly the greatest m2m PF defender in NBA history, and one of the greatest individual scorers in the post in NBA history. His playstyle is similar to Hakeem for most of Hakeem's career in terms of scoring and man2man defense, except McHale may be the superior post scorer and the superior man 2 man defender. He was, however, even worse at passing (basically a black hole on offense) and not a rim protector so these two aspects give Hakeem the edge on both ends in the end. But, McHale's scoring is getting very underrated.

McHale averaged 26ppg on 65% TS in 1987. He had a 24 PER, 10rpg and 2.2 bpg. His ws/48 was .232 and he played more minutes than Larry Bird, resulting in 14.8 WS.

To compare with MJ that year, MJ had a league leading 16.9 WS and a 29.8 PER.

Larry Bird led the league in PER in 85 and 86 with 26.5 and 25.8.

McHale was 5th in the league in PER, behind only MJ/Bird/Barkley/maybe Magic didn't look. He was 4th in WS and WS/48. He was top 10 in VORP/BPM, but didn't have the same impact coming off the court as he would have if he was the team captain (obviously) because Bird was the leader of the team, so these numbers are lessened.

His PER/WS/WS/48 were all ahead of Hakeem, Moses, Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, and many other stars in their heyday.

[pandrade83]

That doesn't make sense to me in the comparison to the players I mentioned. As I pointed out, TS% puts him in a more favorable light than FG%, and Thurmond has clearly better offensive production than Unseld, Mutombo, and Wallace. If he'd been asked to score at their levels, it's a fair assumption that his shooting percentages would've been higher, so it's fair to give Thurmond credit for being a better scorer than those guys.

My overall point is that Thurmond was a better offensive player than one-dimensional guys like Wallace and Mutombo. Wallace averaged 5.7 points for his career, never scored in double-digits in any season, and averaged 41.4 FT% -- are you arguing that he was better offensively than Thurmond?

No, I don't think there has been a worse offensive player than Ben Wallace in the history of the NBA; you never want him to touch the ball unless it's a wide open layup or a rebound. I was saying that compared to the guys we were looking at here, Thurmond's offense is a liability. When he is matched up against Elvin Hayes or Jermaine O'Neal then it's a different argument. (Fwiw, Mutombo was a high percentage scorer, but with poor hands and passing; Unseld was the GOAT for pick setting and outlet passing so his offensive value, which is still not that high, mainly comes from non-boxscore production.)

FWIW, I brought up Wallace, Unseld, and Mutombo as a counter to your statement that Thurmond "may be the worst shooting center that we will consider in the whole top 100 project," not for guys being considered at this point.

I think I'd rather have Unseld on the offensive end without question though. Better passer - and even though he's scoring less, he's shooting at a much higher %. Thurmond's volume & efficiency is a rough combination because that combo is hurting you at the offensive end.

Mutombo is only going to get you 12/13 ppg but at least those will be reasonably efficient points. I think it's fair to say that Thurmond will probably be the 2nd worst offensive center who gets consideration in this project.

[trex_8063]

Quickly getting in my picks with the few moments i have.
1st vote: Jason kidd
2nd vote: artis gilmore

Kidd is 31st all time in rs WS (i think like 26th in nba only), peaked as high as 2nd in the mvp vote and 5th in the league in RAPM (three separate years), was 6th another year. Was a positive impact player pretty much every year of his 19 year career while plsying starter level minutes every year if his career

[dhsilv2]

20170731 Pablo’s Pro-Rating Per Decade:

Increase
% Per ...... ”Points” Per
Decade ..... ALL-League: ........................... "Pts" Per
... DECADE . 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; 3d-Tm ............... All Tms ... Yr ... Decade
xxx 1930 !! ... 0.33 .. 0.17 ..... x ................... 0.50 ...... 2.5 ... ... 5
300 1940 !! ... 1.33 .. 0.67 ..... x ................... 2.00 ..... 10.0 ... 100
125 1950 !! ... 3 ...... 1.5 ...... x ................... 4.50 ..... 22.5 ... 225
66. 1960 !! ... 5 ...... 2.5 ....... x .................. 7.50 ..... 37.5 ... 375
10. 1970 !! ... 5 ...... 2.5 .... 0.75 ................. 8.25 ..... 41.3 ... 412.5
9.1 1980 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.0 ................... 9.00 ..... 45.0 ... 450
3.3 1990 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.3 ................... 9.30 ..... 46.5 ... 465
2.7 2000 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.55 .................. 9.55 ..... 47.8 ... 477.5
2.6 2010 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ................... 9.80 ..... 49.0 ... 490

........................................................ so far 1938-2017 ! 2,902 Total "Points"
........................................................ soon . 1938-2019 ! 3,000 Total "Points"

FUTURE?
... DECADE . 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; 3d-Tm; 4th-Tm ... All Tms ... Yr ... Decade
2.6 2020 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.25 ..... 10.10 ..... 50.3 ... 502.5
2.5 2030 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.50 ..... 10.30 ..... 51.5 ... 515
2.4 2040 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.75 ..... 10.60 ..... 52.8 ... 527.5
2.4 2050 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 1.00 ..... 10.80 ..... 54.0 ... 540

This model is going to grossly over value players who played in a smaller league. There are 400% more players in the NBA today, yet first team is worth the same as in 1960?

The list also is going to under value centers (1 spot) and over value depending on era either guards for forwards. Basically anytime there's a glut of talent at one of the positions. I don't believe any good ranking system should be this heavily based on the arbitrary position a player plays.

[dhsilv2]

Voter Barry
Alt Frazier

Titles matter even if they are somewhat arbitrary at times. With the likes of Kidd and Payton getting traction their lack of titles as the key pieces of teams (I know some give Kidd more value in his dallas win then I would, but it's a fair point I'm sure people can bring up). I value peaks over longer careers within reason and I think we're too strong on giving credit for more modern players having longer careers. Careers are lasting longer thanks to medical technology, training, nutrition, etc. Oddly if we're going longevity Miller IMO should edge out Kidd, 17th in winshare.

Barry gets credit for his 75 title run along with some video game stats in the aba. He was a star from day one in the nba as well.

Frazier I'm giving credit for winning for the Knicks. Reed needs to get mentioned sooner than later here, but for now I'll give this nod to Frazier. The glove might have been a better player, but I'm giving Frazier the career nod due to winning, and doing so in maybe the worst franchise in the league. The knicks seem to get anyone to coach or manage that team that they won't, they have players who want to play there and still can't seem to ever make it work. For some reason it's the one "big market" team that struggles more than any small market team. bottom line, I think getting the knicks a title is more impressive than most.

[Pablo Novi]

For those supporting Cousy for his pioneering, what would you say that he pioneered that we hadn't already seen from players like Davies or Haynes?

In terms of Davies, he had HALF the "Great Years" that Cousy had (which is one of the two main reasons I have him much further down my GOAT list; the other reason being that his career was even earlier, i.e., during even weaker years. As to how much he might have pioneered that Cousy merely / mostly copied - I haven't seen a comparison of the two pretty much over the last 40 or so years - so, you might be correct; but I HAVE seen Cousy almost "endlessly" complimented for his revolutionizing of the PG position.

Haynes?

I agree with Cousy over Davies for his longevity (though with NBL included it's a smaller gap), but just so often see Cousy brought up as revolutionizing the position, and I'm not really sure what he did to revolutionize it (though his passing vision was a clear step up from Davies imo).

And Marques Haynes the Globetrotter.

Sidenote: The games always mentioned are the Trotters vs Lakers games from '48 on, but the Royals also met them in two exhibition games in '46 (unfortunately before Haynes joined the team I believe in '47). They split, with the Trotters winning the first game 57-55 and the Royals getting revenge 60-49 in the rematch.

I won't repeat what others in this thread (and or earlier ones) have said about how and how much Cousy "revolutionized" his position. I'd just note that "(though his passing vision was a clear step up from Davies ...)." is a MAJOR argument for my/our position - given that passing vision is such a fundamental part of playing the PG position. Right?

btw, I INCLUDE Davies' time in the NBL - and the gap, in my system is still overwhelmingly in Cousy's favor:
Cousy: 40.5 "Points";
Davies: 12.5 "Points".

About Haynes: I thought to myself that it must have been the "Trotters" player you were referring to. But I wondered what your point was - given that his Trotters years are not included in anybody's NBA (-ABA-NBL) GOAT rankings I've ever seen.

Certainly the 'Trotters did all kinds of revolutionary things on the court. But, given that we're talking about NON-Globetrotters' history; I/we give "revolutionary" credit to those who first did such things IN the NBL-NBA-ABA.

[Pablo Novi]

20170731 Pablo’s Pro-Rating Per Decade:

Increase
% Per ...... ”Points” Per
Decade ..... ALL-League: ........................... "Pts" Per
... DECADE . 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; 3d-Tm ............... All Tms ... Yr ... Decade
xxx 1930 !! ... 0.33 .. 0.17 ..... x ................... 0.50 ...... 2.5 ... ... 5
300 1940 !! ... 1.33 .. 0.67 ..... x ................... 2.00 ..... 10.0 ... 100
125 1950 !! ... 3 ...... 1.5 ...... x ................... 4.50 ..... 22.5 ... 225
66. 1960 !! ... 5 ...... 2.5 ....... x .................. 7.50 ..... 37.5 ... 375
10. 1970 !! ... 5 ...... 2.5 .... 0.75 ................. 8.25 ..... 41.3 ... 412.5
9.1 1980 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.0 ................... 9.00 ..... 45.0 ... 450
3.3 1990 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.3 ................... 9.30 ..... 46.5 ... 465
2.7 2000 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.55 .................. 9.55 ..... 47.8 ... 477.5
2.6 2010 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ................... 9.80 ..... 49.0 ... 490

........................................................ so far 1938-2017 ! 2,902 Total "Points"
........................................................ soon . 1938-2019 ! 3,000 Total "Points"

FUTURE?
... DECADE . 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; 3d-Tm; 4th-Tm ... All Tms ... Yr ... Decade
2.6 2020 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.25 ..... 10.10 ..... 50.3 ... 502.5
2.5 2030 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.50 ..... 10.30 ..... 51.5 ... 515
2.4 2040 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.75 ..... 10.60 ..... 52.8 ... 527.5
2.4 2050 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 1.00 ..... 10.80 ..... 54.0 ... 540

This model is going to grossly over value players who played in a smaller league. There are 400% more players in the NBA today, yet first team is worth the same as in 1960?

The list also is going to under value centers (1 spot) and over value depending on era either guards for forwards. Basically anytime there's a glut of talent at one of the positions. I don't believe any good ranking system should be this heavily based on the arbitrary position a player plays.

1. "EQUALITY" OF ALL-TIME GREATS REGARDLESS OF (post 1950s) DECADE: The overwhelming majority of NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT list makers (myself included) I've ever seen, work under the general assumption that the ALL-Time Greats from any one decade if hypothetically switched with their counter-parts from other decades would still have ALL-Time Great careers. Given that, assigning all 1st-Team-ers 5 "Points" makes complete sense.

Do you question that such as: Wilt, West & the Big "O" would have been ALL-Time Greats in subsequent decades? I don't.

Still, the level of play has been improving steadily over the decades. My system / model is designed with this fact specifically in mind. Given that the same amount of "Points" are allotted FIRST-Team-ers; to reflect that improvement, I allot increasing amounts of "Points" to other ALL-League selections.

As many "Points" systems do, I use a 5 to 3 ratio. First-Team-ers get 5 "Points", 2nd-Team-ers build up to eventually get 3 "Points"; 3rd-Teamers build up to eventually get 1.8 "Points". Regardless of the specific "point" values one might place on such 2nd-Team & 3rd-Team selections, overall this seems like a very fair system for:
a) Treating 1st-Team selectees as essentially equal;
b) Treating non 1st-Team selectees as rising in value (as the general level of play has risen).

2. "EQUALITY" OF COMPARATIVE COMPETITION P-E-R P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N REGARDLESS OF THE (post-1950s) DECADE:
I designed my system specifically to try to avoid as much as possible all subjective biases, based on: (post-1950s) decade; League (NBL, ABA, NBL); level of competition per position; reliance on any one stat or combination of them; homerism; etc.

So, it is (naturally) both a strength and weakness of my system when it comes to decades where the level of competition IN CERTAIN POSITIONS MIGHT have been higher (or lower) than usual. I CHOSE to treat them all as pretty-much equally competitive; because I believe they WERE CLOSER to equally competitive than they were to NOT being equally competitive. Besides, what percent of GOAT evaluators will agree on which positions during which decades were more/less competitive AND by how much so? My system avoids all those SUBJECTIVE judgements about which most do not agree.

3. "EQUALITY" OF CENTERS IN PARTICULAR:
It is MY position (almost uniquely so, seeing as I've NEVER seen anybody else posit it) that essentially ALL 5 positions should be treated as relatively equal in importance within the game and for making GOAT ranking lists. This is easily one of, if not THE, most controversial part(s) of my system.

What I base that on is that, while it IS true that Centers have definitely tended to have had more influence on the defensive end; no one else has ever addressed the so-far not-measured: effort involved in: bringing the ball up, dribbling, cutting, stop-and-starting, on-the-spot constant adjustments, passing, going over/under picks, etc. I'd BET that such things play a SIGNIFICANT role in the success (or failure) of TEAM offenses and defenses.

Picture a hypothetical team built of players only from ONE position. Would an All-Centers team be able to compete? (Say of: Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Russell & Hakeem). Who'd be able to bring the ball up consistently in 8 seconds or less? Who'd be able to handle all the dribbling, passing, cutting, decision-making?

Given these kinds of considerations, I treat all 5 positions as RELATIVELY equal:
a) "EQUAL" - in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots, I have one player from each position; but
b) "RELATIVELY" - in each such set (within my GOAT Top 50), I put the Center automatically FIRST.

This seems reasonably fair to me.

And the "proof" is that my final GOAT list seems to me to be:
i) highly representative of NBA (ABA-NBL) history;
ii) not significantly different from other major GOAT lists (taken COLLECTIVELY together);
iii) MORE FAIR than any other system I've ever seen (in 52 years of building my own GOAT lists and in analyzing other lists).

[dhsilv2]

20170731 Pablo’s Pro-Rating Per Decade:

Increase
% Per ...... ”Points” Per
Decade ..... ALL-League: ........................... "Pts" Per
... DECADE . 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; 3d-Tm ............... All Tms ... Yr ... Decade
xxx 1930 !! ... 0.33 .. 0.17 ..... x ................... 0.50 ...... 2.5 ... ... 5
300 1940 !! ... 1.33 .. 0.67 ..... x ................... 2.00 ..... 10.0 ... 100
125 1950 !! ... 3 ...... 1.5 ...... x ................... 4.50 ..... 22.5 ... 225
66. 1960 !! ... 5 ...... 2.5 ....... x .................. 7.50 ..... 37.5 ... 375
10. 1970 !! ... 5 ...... 2.5 .... 0.75 ................. 8.25 ..... 41.3 ... 412.5
9.1 1980 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.0 ................... 9.00 ..... 45.0 ... 450
3.3 1990 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.3 ................... 9.30 ..... 46.5 ... 465
2.7 2000 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.55 .................. 9.55 ..... 47.8 ... 477.5
2.6 2010 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ................... 9.80 ..... 49.0 ... 490

........................................................ so far 1938-2017 ! 2,902 Total "Points"
........................................................ soon . 1938-2019 ! 3,000 Total "Points"

FUTURE?
... DECADE . 1st-Tm; 2d-Tm; 3d-Tm; 4th-Tm ... All Tms ... Yr ... Decade
2.6 2020 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.25 ..... 10.10 ..... 50.3 ... 502.5
2.5 2030 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.50 ..... 10.30 ..... 51.5 ... 515
2.4 2040 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 0.75 ..... 10.60 ..... 52.8 ... 527.5
2.4 2050 !! ... 5 ...... 3 ...... 1.8 ...... 1.00 ..... 10.80 ..... 54.0 ... 540

This model is going to grossly over value players who played in a smaller league. There are 400% more players in the NBA today, yet first team is worth the same as in 1960?

The list also is going to under value centers (1 spot) and over value depending on era either guards for forwards. Basically anytime there's a glut of talent at one of the positions. I don't believe any good ranking system should be this heavily based on the arbitrary position a player plays.

1. "EQUALITY" OF ALL-TIME GREATS REGARDLESS OF (post 1950s) DECADE: The overwhelming majority of NBA-ABA-NBL GOAT list makers (myself included) I've ever seen, work under the general assumption that the ALL-Time Greats from any one decade if hypothetically switched with their counter-parts from other decades would still have ALL-Time Great careers. Given that, assigning all 1st-Team-ers 5 "Points" makes complete sense.

Do you question that such as: Wilt, West & the Big "O" would have been ALL-Time Greats in subsequent decades? I don't.

Still, the level of play has been improving steadily over the decades. My system / model is designed with this fact specifically in mind. Given that the same amount of "Points" are allotted FIRST-Team-ers; to reflect that improvement, I allot increasing amounts of "Points" to other ALL-League selections.

As many "Points" systems do, I use a 5 to 3 ratio. First-Team-ers get 5 "Points", 2nd-Team-ers build up to eventually get 3 "Points"; 3rd-Teamers build up to eventually get 1.8 "Points". Regardless of the specific "point" values one might place on such 2nd-Team & 3rd-Team selections, overall this seems like a very fair system for:
a) Treating 1st-Team selectees as essentially equal;
b) Treating non 1st-Team selectees as rising in value (as the general level of play has risen).

2. "EQUALITY" OF COMPARATIVE COMPETITION P-E-R P-O-S-I-T-I-O-N REGARDLESS OF THE (post-1950s) DECADE:
I designed my system specifically to try to avoid as much as possible all subjective biases, based on: (post-1950s) decade; League (NBL, ABA, NBL); level of competition per position; reliance on any one stat or combination of them; homerism; etc.

So, it is (naturally) both a strength and weakness of my system when it comes to decades where the level of competition IN CERTAIN POSITIONS MIGHT have been higher (or lower) than usual. I CHOSE to treat them all as pretty-much equally competitive; because I believe they WERE CLOSER to equally competitive than they were to NOT being equally competitive. Besides, what percent of GOAT evaluators will agree on which positions during which decades were more/less competitive AND by how much so? My system avoids all those SUBJECTIVE judgements about which most do not agree.

3. "EQUALITY" OF CENTERS IN PARTICULAR:
It is MY position (almost uniquely so, seeing as I've NEVER seen anybody else posit it) that essentially ALL 5 positions should be treated as relatively equal in importance within the game and for making GOAT ranking lists. This is easily one of, if not THE, most controversial part(s) of my system.

What I base that on is that, while it IS true that Centers have definitely tended to have had more influence on the defensive end; no one else has ever addressed the so-far not-measured: effort involved in: bringing the ball up, dribbling, cutting, stop-and-starting, on-the-spot constant adjustments, passing, going over/under picks, etc. I'd BET that such things play a SIGNIFICANT role in the success (or failure) of TEAM offenses and defenses.

Picture a hypothetical team built of players only from ONE position. Would an All-Centers team be able to compete? (Say of: Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Russell & Hakeem). Who'd be able to bring the ball up consistently in 8 seconds or less? Who'd be able to handle all the dribbling, passing, cutting, decision-making?

Given these kinds of considerations, I treat all 5 positions as RELATIVELY equal:
a) "EQUAL" - in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots, I have one player from each position; but
b) "RELATIVELY" - in each such set (within my GOAT Top 50), I put the Center automatically FIRST.

This seems reasonably fair to me.

And the "proof" is that my final GOAT list seems to me to be:
i) highly representative of NBA (ABA-NBL) history;
ii) not significantly different from other major GOAT lists (taken COLLECTIVELY together);
iii) MORE FAIR than any other system I've ever seen (in 52 years of building my own GOAT lists and in analyzing other lists).

There are 2 forwards per team and 2 guards per team. There is no requirement that the forwards be 4's or 3's or with guards 1's an 2's. Thus your system has an inherent bias against centers. That is not with me adding that centers have been the most important position and you should be biasing it the other way to match historical lists.

As for eras, guards have generally just been a weaker position especially at the top.

I don't think giving more points for all nba fist team today contradicts that greats would be greats whenever as that wasn't my point. It is harder to be first team today, because there is more competition. This is just a mathematical fact. 3rd team today is harder than 1st team in an 8 team league.

You also lumped decades together which again is fault as the natural changes to the game aren't nicely or even closely related to the decade. If you were to assume the league is relatively equal over time, then then points should scale with expansion, not decades. The scaling should be based directly on the size of the nba population. This of course would over value the league JUST after expansion as there isn't always talent ready to join in the league, but it would at least create a non biased system that is purely based on the award and the population size of the league. It would provide a much better frame work.

Again a great can still be great, but not make the first team all nba. When the league had 8 teams, there were only 40 starters. Today we have 30 teams with 150 starters.

12.5% of starters in an 8 team league makes the first team. Compare that to 3.33% today. Or in another way as a percentage of starters 10% make an all nba team today while 12.5% made the FIRST team in an 8 team league.

This is why in part (there's some recency bias here) your system has you pull for players like Cousy who are still multiple slots away from getting any traction.

[Hornet Mania]

At this point it's hard for me to pass up Kidd's longevity. He was a really high-level player for many years, and useful starter for even longer. My alternate vote was a tough choice, everyone in this area is so close. Gary Payton was a tempting choice, as was Artis Gilmore, but in the end I have to side with Walt Frazier.

34. Jason Kidd
Alt vote: Walt Frazier

[dhsilv2]

At this point it's hard for me to pass up Kidd's longevity. He was a really high-level player for many years, and useful starter for even longer. My alternate vote was a tough choice, everyone in this area is so close. Gary Payton was a tempting choice, as was Artis Gilmore, but in the end I have to side with Walt Frazier.

34. Jason Kidd
Alt vote: Walt Frazier

Can you explain Kidd vs Miller of Longevity is the driver here? 19 vs 18 years, but stats like winshare are heavily favor Miller (I think he's our top guy in WS not in). I myself have Kidd over Miller as well, but longevity isn't the driver for where I rank kidd or miller or at least it isn't the primary one. I ask in part because I'm starting to look at miller and wondering if I'm overrating kidd and/or under rating miller.

[THKNKG]

Short on time, but if I complete the long post about offense I did earlier, I can elaborate more on my choices.

Vote: Rick Barry
2: Reggie Miller

Barry was a complete player, who was an excellent "alpha" (as much as I detest that phrasing). He played at a high level for basically all of his career, and his impact was closer to the top 25 than most of the players in 26-50.

Reggie was the ultimate off-ball, 3 shooting guard, gravity guy (before Curry). He did all that so effectively while being the number one offensive option on his team, and elevating his team in the playoffs.