RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #46 (Bob Cousy)

[LA Bird]

1. Dikembe Mutombo
One of the greatest defensive players ever and should have won more than 4 DPOYs. Deke is the only player beside Russell who is on both of my defensive Mt Rushmore for peak and overall career. He dominated DRob/Hakeem in late 90s DRAPM data which suggests his relative lacking defensive versatility and agility out in the perimeter did not stop from him being a major defensive force. I rate Mutombo as a slight negative offensively due to him not being a good passer but he at least scores at a solid efficiency on low volume and can make FTs. Remained a top tier defensive player into his 40s and the extra longevity puts him ahead of other centers (namely Mourning, Reed, Walton) who peaked higher but had their careers significantly cut short by injuries.

Alternate: Ray Allen?

[70sFan]

1. Dikembe Mutombo
One of the greatest defensive players ever and should have won more than 4 DPOYs. Deke is the only player beside Russell who is on both of my defensive Mt Rushmore for peak and overall career. He dominated DRob/Hakeem in late 90s DRAPM data which suggests his relative lacking defensive versatility and agility out in the perimeter did not stop from him being a major defensive force. I rate Mutombo as a slight negative offensively due to him not being a good passer but he at least scores at a solid efficiency on low volume and can make FTs. Remained a top tier defensive player into his 40s and the extra longevity puts him ahead of other centers (namely Mourning, Reed, Walton) who peaked higher but had their careers significantly cut short by injuries.

Alternate: Ray Allen?

What do you think about Mutombo vs Thurmond?

[penbeast0]

Mutombo was the more intimidating shot blocker (and a good post defender) while Thurmond was quicker and a better man defender (and a good shotblocker too). We tend to believe through statistical analysis that rim protection tends to have a stronger impact than man defense on team defense so Mutombo by that measure would probably be the more impactful defender. Offensively, I would rather have the low volume, high efficiency of Mutombo than the medium volume, poor efficiency of Thurmond, especially when I was not particularly impressed with either of them as a passer (Thurmond did a better job of sealing his defender on his back to allow a post pass in though). Thus overall, I favor Mutombo over Thurmond.

[trex_8063]

Robert Parish......

That was my ambiguous yet dramatic marquee for a post about a player I'm higher on than most, and want to drum up a little support for. So here goes.....

Let's start with some broad strokes indicating just how productive he was (and for how long):
*Parish is 32nd all-time (in NBA/ABA combined) in career rs pts scored, 9th in rebounds, 11th in blocks. He's 26th all-time in rs WS.
**Playoffs is nearly identical: he's 32nd all-time in career playoff pts, 9th in rebounds, 6th in blocks, and 35th all-time in playoff WS.

If you look at his career in terms of PER, WS/48, BPM, remind yourself that you're looking at numbers that span an ayfkm 21 seasons. If we look at some of the other candidates gaining traction, such as Unseld, Cousy, and Iverson, note their careers were all 13 [or a little over] seasons.
Parish, by the end of his 13th season, had a PER of 20.0, .163 WS/48, +2.4 BPM in 31.0 mpg (which doesn't compare too unfavorably vs them, except maybe a little bit vs Iverson). Parish would have two more All-Star seasons AFTER that, as well as a handful of years of usefulness besides.

And he was there for his team night after night, on average missing LESS THAN 4 game games per year for two solid decades.


Parish was a two-way player. Offensively, he was one of the best transition running centers in the game (watch some early 80's Celtics games if you doubt this statement), could clean up easy hoops inside, but also had a deadly accurate spot-up from <14 ft or turn-around jumper from <12 ft (and made FT's at 72% for his career). His turn-around was not a fade-away, fwiw, but rather would turn squared up and fire this unique high-arcing shot that was somewhat difficult to block.

At the end of his 15th season he still had a career average of 16.5 ppg @ 57.7% TS while having been a consistent rebounding anchor (career 10.1 rpg at that point), as well as a reasonable rim protector (career 1.7 bpg at that point). He had anchored a top-5 defense in '79 while averaging 2.9 bpg (3.2 blk/36 min) and still maintaining the league's best DREB%......he led the league in individual DRtg that year, fwiw.

He was the clear 2nd-best player for a title team ('81 Celtics), probably about a 2b for another title team ('84 Celtics), and the fairly clear 3rd-best player for another title team; was either 2nd or 3rd best for multiple other contenders, too.


"But he was never the top dog for a good team" or "He was only any good on offense due to Bird's passing".....
These are critical statements I've heard in the past. Fortunately, we need look no further than the '89 Celtics to dispel them as false. In '89 Bird was injured and missed basically the entire year. It was a 35-yr-old Robert Parish who filled much of the void. I bold the age to emphasize this isn't even Parish in his physical prime.
Parish nonetheless led the team in ORebs, DRebs and TRebs (by handy margins on all accounts): he was actually 3rd in the whole league in rpg that year (behind only Hakeem and Barkley, and he actually had a higher reb/36 min than Barkley), and also led the entire league in TREB%. He also led the team in bpg, and averaged 18.6 ppg (2nd on the team, and +4.3 from '88), and still on a very elite 60.7% TS [again: without Bird].

He had the team's best PER at 21.6 (2nd was McHale's 20.3), the team's best WS/48 at .177 (2nd was McHale's .168, not counting Ed Pinckney's .176 which came on <700 total minutes), and the team's best BPM at +4.2 (2nd was McHale's +2.1, not counting Pinckney's +3.0). And there's not enough difference between McHale and Parish in mpg to account for Parish's edge in everything (36.9 mpg for McHale, 35.5 mpg for Parish, who missed two fewer games as well).

In short, he was the top dog on this team that managed a 42-40 record in a tough Eastern Conference (+1.26 SRS); and this was after turning 35 years old before the season even started.


He was a 9-time All-Star, 1-time All-NBA 2nd Team, 1-time All-NBA 3rd Team, and has four total NBA titles to his credit--->playing during one of the toughest eras in the history of the league, too.
He figured into the MVP vote FIVE seasons, twice in the top 10, once as high as 4th.

To me, this is a fairly stellar career easily deserving of top 50 recognition.

[trex_8063]

Pau Gasol......

This was the other guy I really want to drum up some support for.

Some may use his relatively smaller sum of awards and honors against him. But here again is where it's important to look at circumstance, imo.

For instance, where All-Star selections are concerned, it's important to note not only positional competition in his era, but also the conference he played in.
Pau until very recently was a PF/C in the Western Conference. They are only going to take perhaps 5 (occasionally only 4) PF/C's for the All-Star team. Pau's prime overlaps almost exactly with that of Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, and Kevin Garnett. Timmy and Dirk were exclusively in the WC, Garnett was to thru '07........so that's three of the All-Star spots full for sure every year thru '07. From '02-'04, you damn well know prime Shaq is getting one too. In some years, that might be just about all the spots they'll hand out to big men. At best there's only one more spot available.

Pau's is competing for that last one (occasionally two available spots AFTER '04) spot, and his competition for that spot would include: prime Elton Brand (from '02-'07), prime Amar'e Stoudemire ('05, '07-'10), Yao Ming ('03-'09), Rasheed Wallace ('02-'04), Zach Randolph ('02-'07, then again '10 and after), healthy prime Carlos Boozer and/or LaMarcus Aldridge every year from '07 on, Shawn Marion in '06........

Frankly, getting an All-Star selection at all in the WC in the 2000's as a big man is a hell of an accomplishment. That Pau managed even ONE prior to '09 is a credit to his record, imo.

All-NBA honors are further stymied by the presence of superstar SF's (All-NBA teams just want two forwards; neither has to be a PF). So the presence of guys like Lebron and Durant, as well as all the Bosh's, Pierce's, Melo's, etc of the world make those difficult as well.
That's what he's been up against most of his career. In light of that, his 6 All-Star selections and 4 All-NBA honors shine all the brighter.

Pau's got a career spanning SIXTEEN seasons (and counting), and still has a career PER for 21.5, career WS/48 of .169, and a +3.5 BPM in a career avg of 34.7 mpg. Was averaging 18.2 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 3.3 apg, and 1.7 bpg after FIFTEEN seasons.

He's one of the most offensively talented big men we've seen in the last 20 years: a guy who can score from the block, stretch the floor and hit from the midrange/outside, makes his FT's, elite passing big, etc.
He's proven a solid rebounding anchor, and for his defensive short-comings has still managed 1.7 bpg.

He was the clear 2nd-best player on two title teams, more like a 1b on another contender, and once led a team to 49 wins (+3.74 SRS) as the clear (and by a good margin) best player, and has been above average all sixteen of his seasons.


1st vote: Pau Gasol
2nd vote: Robert Parish (reasons in post #24)

[trex_8063]

Thru post #25:

Willis Reed - 1 (dhsilv2)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Wes Unseld -1 (pandrade83)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Dikembe Mutombo - 1 (LABird)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)

Well, I guess it doesn't get any more wide open than this. This thread will go to runoff one way or another in about 18 hours. Please get your votes and comments in before then.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Dr Positivity]

On Cousy, Billups, Tmac, Mourning, Iverson, Unseld, Westbrook, Hayes, Reed, Thurmond, English:

Spoiler:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Allen Iverson - Case for: Rated well in his time, MVP winner with two other top 5 finishes. Tremendous volume scorer, on ball playmaker which is high value offensive role. For an advanced stats lightning rod, is a respectable 42nd in VORP. Solid longevity compared to other options here, a solid decade. Made Finals with role players. Efficiency problems somewhat connected to context. Played on defense first team with terrible spacing, in pre handcheck rules era. TS improved in Denver when this was rectified. Imagine if he played with the spacing Harden has right now. Case against: Not a great advanced stats player. Rated as overrated by RAPM and WS on the whole. TS when it dips low enough in PHI makes it harder to say he's worth it. Weak defense. Poor intangibles. Very weak portability both for his style of game and his attitude.

Wes Unseld - Case for: Impact not captured by his boxscore. His outlet passes don't always end in assists, GOAT level screen setter and defends well without it showing up in blocks. More than his MVP, his Finals MVP averaging 9/12/4 looks even crazier in terms of impact he must have shown without stats. Even with that in mind, his boxscore is still decent, he finished top 10 in WS and VORP 5 times each. Fantastic intangibles. Relevant for over a decade. Leads his team to 4 Finals and a title. Case against: Very mediocre volume scoring threat when you take into account pace as well. Combined with playing center it's hard to believe he has a great offensive impact despite the passing. Never makes an all-defensive team. Never makes All-NBA after his MVP season or finishes higher than 8th in MVP again. As soon as he gets there Hayes is voted on as the best player on the team by MVP votes.

Russell Westbrook - Case for: High peak dropping a crazy 32/11/10 MVP season. His last 2 seasons would've ranked high for peaks at this range too. Broke BPM/VORP. A monster talent who puts a ton of physical pressure on the opponent. Plays hard every minute. Has excelled as both 2nd option and 1st. Very good in the playoffs and has come out on the better end of several high profile PG battles. Case against: Rates as top 10 not top 5 peak in RPM. Average longevity, has been a star level player for 7 years, one of them he played 46 games in, and it's only the last 3 where he went to MVP level peak. Low portability both emotionally and style of play, is not taking a backseat to anyone and wants to shoot as much as possible. Mediocre 3pt shooting and floor spacing. Average TS throughout his career and turnover prone.

Elvin Hayes - Case for: Strong longevity and perfect durability leading to high total career marks in points and rebounds. Rated as a star in his time with 2 3rd place MVP, a 5th and several other top 10s and makes 3 1st team All-NBA. Good defensive player and makes a few 2nd team all-defense. Successful in Washington and arguably most talented or best player on a champion, and making 2 other Finals. Case against: Underwhelming TS and a poor passer for his volume, which combines for only ok performance in stats like OWS or OBPM. Terrible intangibles, reviled by many teammates and coaches and has been compared to Chinese water torture, and has been called the worst person they've met in sports. Overall playoff stats are decent, but had choker reputation.

Willis Reed - Case for: High level peak. A player who at different points win MVP and leads league in WS. Outside of the boxscore which is great on its own, has non box value as a 1st team all-defense C who is a great floor spacer for his position. Rated the best player on a team with Frazier. Good intangibles. Quality playoff performer with two Finals MVP. Case against: Short longevity with about 5 prime years and some other decent ones. Not a great passer or dominant offensive player overall, plays weakest offensive position in center. Support as best Knicks player over Frazier may be because white people preferred the quieter black man.

Nate Thurmond - Case for: Rated a high level defender in his time at a key defensive position in C, both man to man where he is supposed GOAT level in an era where it matters a lot, and late career block numbers are promising. With high baseline of value on defense does not need much more on offense to be great. Volume scorer, floor spacer and above average playmaker. A quality decade's worth of longevity. Peaks at 2nd in MVP. Case against: Poor TS while taking a lot of shots for his role. Due to inefficiency weak WS numbers for a player this high.

Alex English - Case for: High volume scoring threat, once leads league in PPG and finishes top 3 several other times. Above average efficiency. Good passer. Durable and has an over decade long prime. Makes 3 2nd team All-NBAs and finishes top 10 in MVP twice. One of the best mid range shooters in history, in era without 3pt this counts for elite floor spacing for his position. Case against: Not a great defensive player. Plays on the fasted paced team of his era with not much defensive responsibility asked for allowing him to put up inflated stats. Ranks 81st in WS and 72d in VORP, despite being an accumulation friendly player (durable with a long career).

+ Dikembe Mutombo - Case for: 4 time DPOY and some of the highest DRAPM on record. Plays most defensive position so is starting with very high baseline of value from defense alone. Good in overall RAPM including 3rd in ascreamingacrossthecourt numbers. Solid longevity with some good role player years on the back end. Case against: Weak offensive player compared to candidates here as reflected in ORAPM. Low volume scoring, mediocre passing and solid efficiency as a finisher but not elite like Tyson Chandler. Never considered a superstar or finishes top 10 in MVP voting.Never finishes top 10 in BPM/VORP and peaks at 8th/9th in WS.

+ Robert Parish - Case for: Excellent longevity and durability with a strong 15 years of starting to all-star play. Peaks at 4th in MVP vote/2nd team All-NBA and with good WS/48 (.228) and BPM (5.0). 26th all time in Win Shares and 15th in DWS. Fits pretty well with other stars as a finisher with a little floor spacing. Case against: Peaks at 7th and 10th in BPM and 7th and 8th in WS and only finishes in top 10 in MVP twice at 4th and 7th. Not a great passer. Offensively is a good but not elite player at a low value offensive position in center. Defensively is solid but never makes an All-NBA team.

+ James Harden - Case for: Legitimate MVP credentials finishing a close 2nd twice. Tremendous offensive value as a playmaking, high efficiency high volume scoring wing with 3pt range and has won mid 50 games with role players. Case against: Some very sketchy showing in big playoff moments. His game relying on 3s and FTs and his tricks to get the latter may be easier to guard in the playoffs. Questionable body language. Below average defense. Ball dominant player. Below average longevity.

+ Manu Ginobili - Case for: Amazing per minute player including leading the league in RAPM at one point and other top 2/3 finishes. WS and BPM also have him as phenomenal per minute. Skillset wise handling, passing, shooting is high value on offense. Good defender. Great intangibles and effort level. Clutch playoff career. Good longevity continuing to be a high impact SG even in his late 30s. 35th in VORP. Case against: Less minutes than other players leading his raw stats to be a lot lower. Because of this is still only 75th in WS. Weak durability. Had the benefit of playing against 2nd units. Usually not rated a top 10 player peaking at 8th in MVP and 3rd team All-NBA.

+ Pau Gasol - Case for: All time great longevity, he comes in productive as a rookie and is an all-star in his 16th season. Great fit with other players on offense with his ability to shoot, finish and pass. 32nd in WS and 28th in VORP. Decent defender in LA. Some big playoff moments. Case against: Never rated a superstar or #1 option on a contender caliber player, never gets any MVP votes. Middling RAPM record not finishing in top 10 in his prime and worse in Memphis.

Vote Russell Westbrook

He has been an all-star for 7 seasons and MVP conversation caliber the last 3, I think that is decent enough longevity. He is not a perfect player but the strengths he has put an immense amount of pressure on the defense compared to other talents here.

2nd: Manu Ginobili

[JordansBulls]

1st Vote: Dominique Wilkins (Led the league in scoring, finished 2nd in MVP voting in a league with peak Magic, Kareem, Hakeem, Bird, Barkley to name a few guys. One of the greatest scorers the league has ever seen. Top 5 in MVP 3x as well.

2nd Vote: Alonzo Mourning

[penbeast0]

I am enjoying the diversity of picks here and reading about several guys who I hadn't even thought of yet (Parish, Gasol, Billups) who have decent cases.

I do repeat that as contemporaries, voting for Wilkins over English is voting for style over substance and English did more defensively than most of his peers (other than Worthy) including Nique.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Pau Gasol
Alt: Wes Unseld

So, I've been essentially letting others do the heavy lifting lately. Reason is that I just feel so ambivalent once we get this deep in the project. Can see so many good arguments and so many counters. It's easier if I have a short list to focus on.

Of the players with a vote so far, I'll go with these two.

I have enormous respect for Pau. This isn't just the #2 on a mini-dynasty, this is also arguably the FIFA player of the decade for his lead role on Spain. His ability to go between alpha and beta so smoothly, and then smoothly take on smaller roles, it's not common.

After that I'll take Unseld who I would just love to have on my team. I do think he gets overrated by that MVP, but I also feel like he gets underrated by everyone who realizes that.

Of those without a vote so far, Zo is the one who has been on my mind most. To me this is a guy who has a case for being a Top 3 player for a series of years, and who could slide over to a lesser role while giving the locker room an intensity pick up.Longevity is an issue of course, but I still think Zo accomplished more than Howard.

[Pablo Novi]

There's a significant problem with your "12x All-NBA" for both Cousy and Schayes.
Cousy had TEN 1st-Teams, Schayes had SIX.

ONLY TEN players have ever gotten 10 or more ALL-League 1st-Team selections (a super-select, tiny group over the last 80 years). Many more have gotten 6 1st-Team selections.

That's not an insignificant difference; I'd say that Cousy DID have "a clear accolades advantage."

The issue is that the league was big man dominate in those days and Cousy was getting those awards as a point guard. I get that you'll disagree but if you were to ask even at the time who the best players were you'd get a list with virtually no guards on it.

I wanted to chime in on this discussion, have transferred it to the recent thread.
I hate to gang up on Pablo while he's going thru some serious and scary stuff at home, so my apologies for the timing. fwiw, I definitely want you to continue participating, and I'd not be upset if Cousy got voted in any time now. There are a handful more guys I'd prefer got voted in before he does, though only 2-3 that I feel strongly about.

While everyone has been free to bring forth their own criteria rather than adopt some panel-dictated criteria, I did want to speak to what I see as some really relevant flaws with this criteria (that relies to such a large degree on All-NBA honors and ignores strength of competition for those honors), as far as its ability to be a truly germane method.
And I've been trying to think of ways to express why I feel it's faulty (even though I know you've arrived at it after much deliberation)......


So it's basically trying to "level the playing field" between the positions (guard All-NBA worth just as much as a "big" All-NBA), even though historically basketball has [very very clearly] been a "big man's game": until fairly recently (and especially before the 3pt line), the list of the best/most productive/most impactful players in any given year would have been heavily dominated by big men (PF's and C's).
But the premise of this criteria would appear to say, "It doesn't matter that one position inherently has more potential to impact the game or be better, and---on average---is better.........players should only be assessed by how good they are relative to their own positions, and the best of one position should be given the same prestigious placement as the best of another position, none given favoritism over the other (regardless if one is better)."

If we applied this principle to rating football players, we are thus saying the best punter in the history of [American/NFL] football should be considered a top 15-25 player EVER.
I hope I don't need to elaborate extensively on why that's a flawed method for football rankings, given that best-ever punter's impact on and import to the game are not equal to [probably not even close to] the 100th-best quarterback or 100th-best running back, for examples. I mean, his value is comically minuscule compared to literally hundreds (if not thousands) of other players.
Yet this method would nonetheless direct us to this somewhat ludicrous result.

I know that seems a bit of a strawman due to the vast inherent differences in the two sports, and perhaps it is......but not completely. Because this IS the premise we're talking about with this criteria: success compared ONLY to those at one's same position, and ALL positions being given essentially equal consideration, regardless of the [often obvious] differences in quality/impact between positions.
Or would we be saying that this method is inappropriate for football because the differences between positions are "too big", but that the differences in basketball player positions don't matter 'cause it's close enough? Because that's a very arbitrary [almost whimsical] distinction.


So that's one method of explaining why I think the system is flawed.
To outline another explanation I'm going to back-track to my prior statements regarding basketball being [historically] a "big man's game". I recall multiple times growing up hearing someone say to a tall person something like, "You're tall; you must play basketball" or "You're tall; you should play basketball."
I mean, height was such a widely recognized asset in the sport that basically EVERYONE was aware of it, and practically assumed that tall persons must at least dabble in the game. And indeed, thru much of the NBA/ABA/BAA/NBL's history we saw the collection of the most dominant players [from any given year, until fairly recently] were mostly "big men".

So----when you boil it down----if we're saying that guard All-NBA's are worth the same as "big men" All-NBA's, regardless of era/competition/etc......we are, in essence, leveling the playing field for height.......the positions played are simply dictated by that height (for the most part, with a few historic exceptions).

Thus, if we're simply going to level the playing field based on height, why not go all the way? Shouldn't we by trying to assess who was the "inch-for-inch" best? Maybe we should, by the gist of this thinking, be giving someone like Muggsy Bogues traction here. I'm not sure there's anyone left on the table who---inch for inch---did better in his career.


Lastly, I can't help being skeptical of a criteria that utilizes a VERY narrow scope of the available information and yields results which [at times] cannot be supported by almost ANY other means. To me, that's problematic.

But this is just me.

btw, I DO appreciate the concerns about what we're going thru - absent still a third monster quake here some time soon - it looks like we've come out mostly unscathes. Thanx. So "gang up on me" all you want! lol

I have THREE main arguments for my GOAT-list building system being better than any other I've seen:
1. It's "VALIDITY" as A basic measurement of player performance; no, much more accurately stated, as THE BEST measurement of the performance of the League's best players - i,e, THE BEST way to seperate the "men from the boys", the ALL-Time Greats from the other All-Stars)
2. The question of comparability of the 5 positions (particularly in previous decades); and
3. The actual results it produces (i.) my overall GOAT list; ii.) my DECADES' GOAT lists; iii.) my POSITIONAL GOAT lists:
and a BONUS, yippee!:
4. "Predictive Power" and "Ease Of Usage"


1. THE "VALIDITY" OF MY METHOD (greatest emphasis on the number of a players' ALL-League selections, with more points for higher team selections):
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20810860/superteam-standings-thunder-big-three-warriors-level
Here's an article by Tom Haberstroh today at ESPN. The focus of the article is comparing the League's teams based on if they have at least 3 big stars - up to the moment (just after the Melo trade to OKC and before DWade's destination is determined). Notice please that he rates the players by EXACTLY MY ONE DOMINANT CRITERIA: ALL-NBA selections (though in his case here: from the previous three seasons for players under 35 years of age). From all the incredible variety of "stats" and/or opinions and/or combinations of them, this top NBA analyst chose the single criteria of: ALL-NBA selections. Additionally, he sets up a "Points" system as: 1st-Team = 5 "Points"; 2nd-Team = 3 "Points"; 3rd-Team = 1 "Point" (This is nearly an exact duplicate of my system; but for the 2010s, I give 1.8 "Points" for 3rd-Team selections - a very minor difference).

Please note. This then is treating players REGARDLESS OF POSITION as equal - with EVERYTHING depending on ALL-NBA selections.

So this is a kind of Step 1 in a would-be defense of my system.

2) POSITIONAL "COMPARABILITY" (particularly in previous decades (those before the great lowering of the value assigned to the Center position, particularly in the 2000s and 2010s).

I think it can safely be assumed that IF we just go by the standard way of evaluating players, Centers dominate the 1900s. BUT I strongly disagree with that "standard". Sure, as we all know, Centers play a more important STATISTICAL, measureable, role on DEFENSE. BUT, there is one GENERAL AREA of play that virtually NEVER gets included in the discussion: NON-STATISTICAL CONTRIBUTIONS:

i) Bringing the ball up the court Centers are terrible at this and it does count for a significant portion of EVERY POSSESSION - including the defensive pressure put up by the non-Centers to stop it. Generally speaking, the smaller the position, the greater the role in bringing the ball up (and the more wear-and-tear over a career);

ii) The half-court sets DRIBBLING: Same understanding here: the smaller the position, the more dribbling involved AND the more effort to try to interfere with that dribbling on defense;

iii) The half-court sets PASSING: Again, the smaller the position the more effort involved in both the passing and in trying to disrupt effective passing on defence;

iii) Half-Court cutting, stop-and-starting and general running around: Once again, the smaller the position the more effort on both sides of the ball - I wonder if there have been studies done comparing the amount of "mileage" PER POSITION that's happening.

iv) Fast-Breaks: Still another example of the "smalls" putting out more effort than the bigs.

v) TEAM-work: I take a Magic pass or LeBron pass over a Magic or LBJ shot any day of the week. The assist is the ESSENCE of TEAM-work imo. I appreciate teams with better quality TEAM-work than I do teams with players with crazy scoring ability (although naturally I love that too; just less so). But TEAM-work effort involves all the other things (other than passing; i.e.: bringing the ball up, dribbling, cutting, fast-break work; that contribute up to the moments when the stats mostly start to represent things

To sum up this (sub-)section: imo, the overwhelmingly non-statistical additional contributions listed above ALMOST equal the extra contributions statistically measured for the BIGS - thus, why in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots, I have one player per position WHILE, for my GOAT Top 50, the Center is always ranked first within each set of 5. (Another way to put this, no team composed only of BIGS would ever beat a team composed of the Top PGs, or smalls in general - because the BIGS won't be able to: bring the ball up, run the half-court sets, succeed on the fast break, or have good-enough passing-based TEAM-work.)

3) RESULTS:
3A) My GOAT List is better than any of your's AND better than our collective RealGM GOAT list (nah-nee, nah-nee, nah-naa! lol)
I've never seen a better list than my GOAT list (in order) ... All facetiousness aside, I think this is a darned good list.

01-05: KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ, TD
06-10: Wilt, Kobe, Dr J, "O", Karl Malone
11-15: Shaq, Jerry West, Larry Bird, Pettit, Cousy
16-20: Russell, Bill Baylor, Elgin; Barkley, Charles; Stockton, John; Gervin, George
21-25: Olajuwon, Hakeem; Barry, Rick; Nowitzki, Dirk; Paul, Chris; Wade, Dwyane
26-30: Malone, Moses; Durant, Kevin; Garnett, Kevin; Kidd, Jason; Moncrief, Sidney
31-35: Robinson, David; Payton, Gary; Schayes, Dolph; Pippen, Scottie; Greer, Hal
36-40: Howard, Dwight; Iverson, Allen; McGrady, Tracy; Lucas, Jerry; Westphal, Paul
41-45: Ewing, Patrick; Nash, Steve; Wilkins, Dominique; Stoudemire, Amar'e; Harden, James
46-50: Mikan, George; Frazier, Walt; Hill, Grant; Drexler, Clyde; McGinnis, George

I'd take my "GOAT Top 5" as a team over any other set of 5 players, INCLUDING RealGM's new GOAT Top 5.
I'd take my "GOAT Top 10" as a team (with 5 bench players) over any other set of 10 players.
Also, I've NEVER seen a more Center-centric GOAT list than our developing RealGM list. In other words, ours represents, for me, the worst example of the over-valuing of the role of Centers in previous decades; the worst example of under-valuing the roles of "smalls".

3B) MY DECADAL GOAT LISTS (are a darned good reflection of who actually the best players each decade):

1938 - 1949 (12 years: NBL & BAA)
....... ALL-Lg
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 7.4 6 McDermott, Robert
2 6.0 3 Mikan, George
3 5.7 8 Edwards, Leroy
4 5.6 4 Cervi, Al
5 5.1 5 Jeannette, Buddy
6 4.5 7 Shipp, Charley
7 4.3 2 Pollard, Jim
8 4.2 5 Dancker, Edward
9 4.1 3 Fulks, Joe
10 4.1 3 Zaslofsky, Max
11 4.0 2 Davies, Bob
12 3.4 2 Holzman, Red
13 2.6 3 Stephens, Ben
14 2.3 2 Riebe, Mel
15 2.1 4 Bush, Gerard
16 2.0 1 Todorovich, Mike
17 1.9 2 Feerick, Bob
18 1.7 1 Lewis, Freddie
19 1.7 3 Vaughn, Ralph
20 1.7 3 Cable, Howard
21 1.6 2 Sadowski, Ed
22 1.5 2 Glamack, George
23 1.4 4 Ozburn, Jack
24 1.4 1 Carpenter, Bob
25 1.3 1 Patrick, Stan
26 1.2 2 Kautz, Wilbert
27 1.1 1 Brian, Frankie
28 1.1 1 Englund, Gene
29 1.1 1 Mehen, Dick
30 1.1 1 Otten, Don
31 1.1 2 Pelkington, Jake
32 1.0 1 Armstrong, Curly
33 1.0 1 Chuckovits, Charles
34 1.0 1 Dallmar, Howie
35 1.0 2 Lautenschlager, Reuben
36 1.0 2 Suesens, Kenneth
37 1.0 1 Wager, Clint
38 1.0 2 Calihan, Robert
39 0.9 1 McKinney, Bones
40 0.9 1 Miasek, Stan
41 0.7 2 Young. Jewell
42 0.7 1 Novak, Mike
43 0.6 1 Hartman, Pierre
44 0.6 1 Triptow, Dick
45 0.5 1 Andres, Ernest
46 0.5 1 Boswell, Wyatt
47 0.5 1 Frankel, Nat
48 0.5 1 Kolar, Otto
49 0.5 1 Schaefer, Herm
50 0.4 1 Birch, Paul
51 0.4 1 Sines, John
52 0.4 2 Bloedorn, Charles
53 0.3 1 Hapac, William
54 0.2 1 Moir, John
55 0.2 1 Armstrong, Scott
56 0.2 1 Neu, Robert
57 0.1 1 Kessler, Robert
58 0.1 1 McGowan, Vince
59 0.1 1 Quinn, Bart
60 0.1 1 Wooden, John

1 9 5 0 s
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 25.5 8 Cousy, Bob
2 23.2 10 Schayes, Dolph
3 17.0 5 Pettit, Bob
4 17.0 6 Sharman, Bill
5 13.8 5 Johnston, Neil
6 13.0 5 Mikan, George
7 11.0 4 Arizin, Paul
8 8.5 4 Macauley, Ed
9 8.5 4 Davies, Bob
10 8.5 5 Martin, Slater
11 5.5 2 Russell, Bill
12 5.5 2 Yardley, George
13 5.3 4 Mikkelsen, Vern
14 5.2 3 Stokes, Maurice
15 5.0 3 Pollard, Jim
16 4.5 2 Gallatin, Harry
17 4.2 3 Wanzer, Bob
18 4.0 2 Groza, Alex
19 3.7 1 Baylor, Elgin
20 3.7 2 Hagan, Cliff
21 3.3 2 Beard, Ralph
22 3.0 1 Foust, Larry
23 3.0 2 Seymour, Paul
24 2.9 2 Brian, Frankie
25 2.7 2 Phillip, Andy
26 2.3 1 Zaslofsky, Max
27 1.8 1 Guerin, Richie
28 1.8 1 Garmaker, Dick
29 1.8 1 Gola, Tom
30 1.5 1 Fulks, Joe
31 1.5 1 Braun, Carl
32 1.5 1 George, Jack
33 1.5 1 Lovellette, Clyde
34 1.4 1 Cervi, Al
35 1.2 1 Schaus, Fred
36 1.2 1 McGuire, Dick


1 9 6 0 s (including ABA)
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 45.0 9 Robertson, Oscar
2 42.5 9 Baylor, Elgin
3 40.0 9 Chamberlain, Wilt
4 35.0 8 West, Jerry
5 27.5 6 Pettit, Bob
6 25.0 8 Russell, Bill
7 17.5 5 Lucas, Jerry
8 17.5 7 Greer, Hal
9 15.0 3 Barry, Rick
10 15.0 4 Cousy, Bob
11 10.0 2 Hawkins, Connie
12 10.0 4 Heinsohn, Tom
13 7.5 3 Havlicek, John
14 7.5 2 Daniels, Mel
15 7.5 2 Shue, Gene
16 7.5 3 Jones, Sam
17 5.0 1 Bing, Dave
18 5.0 2 Johnson, Gus
19 5.0 2 Schayes, Dolph
20 5.0 2 Guerin, Richie
21 5.0 2 Twyman, Jack
22 5.0 1 Monroe, Earl
23 2.5 1 Cunningham, Billy
24 2.5 1 Reed, Willis
25 2.5 1 Sharman, Bill
26 2.5 1 Costello, Larry
27 2.5 1 Howell, Bailey
28 2.5 1 Unseld, Wes

1 9 7 0 s (including ABA)
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 37.5 9 Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
2 30.0 7 Erving, Julius
3 27.5 7 Barry, Rick
4 22.5 5 Frazier, Walt
5 20.0 4 West, Jerry
6 18.0 8 Gilmore, Artis
7 15.8 4 Maravich, Pete
8 15.5 5 McGinnis, George
9 15.0 4 Archibald, Nate"Tiny"
10 14.3 5 Hayes, Elvin
11 13.3 4 Gervin, George
12 12.5 3 Westphal, Paul
13 12.5 4 Thompson, David
14 11.8 3 Cunningham, Billy
15 10.8 4 Issel, Dan
16 7.5 7 Havlicek, John
17 7.0 4 Haywood, Spencer
18 6.5 2 Walton, Bill
19 5.5 3 Calvin, Mack
20 5.0 2 Davis, Walter
21 5.0 3 Jones, Bobby
22 5.0 1 Bing, Dave
23 5.0 1 Goodrich, Gail
24 5.0 1 Johnson, Marques
25 5.0 1 Malone, Moses
26 5.0 1 Reed, Willis
27 5.0 1 Robinson, Truck (Leonard)
28 4.5 3 Daniels, Mel
29 3.8 2 White, Jo Jo
30 3.5 2 Knight, Billy
31 3.3 2 Robertson, Oscar
32 3.3 2 Boone, Ron
33 3.3 2 McAdoo, Bob
34 3.3 1 Dandridge, Bobby
35 3.0 1 Ford, Phil
36 2.5 1 Free, Lloyd B.
37 2.5 2 Freeman, Donnie
38 2.5 2 Kenon, Larry
39 2.5 1 Lucas, Maurice
40 2.5 2 Jones, Jimmy
41 2.5 1 Silas, James
42 2.5 1 Simpson, Ralph
43 2.5 1 Chamberlain, Wilt
44 2.5 1 Hawkins, Connie
45 2.5 2 Johnson, Gus
46 2.5 1 Jones, Larry
47 2.0 1 Melchionni, Bill
48 1.0 1 Scott, Charlie
49 1.0 1 Hollins, Lionel
50 1.0 1 Maxwell, Cedric
51 1.0 1 Smith, Randy
52 1.0 1 Taylor, Brian
53 1.0 1 Williams, Gus
54 0.8 1 Chenier, Phil
55 0.8 1 Dampier, Louie
56 0.8 1 Jabali, Warren
57 0.8 1 Nater, Swen
58 0.5 1 Beaty, Zelmo
59 0.5 1 Brown, Roger
60 0.5 1 Clark, Archie
61 0.5 1 Hudson, Lou
62 0.5 1 Love, Bob
63 0.5 1 Verga, Bob

1 9 8 0 s
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 45.0 9 Bird, Larry
2 39.0 9 Johnson, Magic
3 28.0 8 Malone, Moses
4 27.0 7 Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
5 23.0 5 Erving, Julius
6 22.0 6 Thomas, Isiah
7 19.0 5 Olajuwon, Hakeem
8 18.0 4 Jordan, Michael
9 18.0 4 Gervin, George
10 18.0 6 Moncrief, Sidney
11 16.0 4 Barkley, Charles
12 13.0 3 King, Bernard
13 12.0 4 Wilkins, Dominique
14 9.0 3 Johnson, Dennis
15 9.0 5 Dantley, Adrian
16 9.0 3 English, Alex
17 8.0 2 Malone, Karl
18 8.0 2 Williams, Gus
19 7.0 3 McHale, Kevin
20 7.0 5 Parish, Robert
21 7.0 3 Johnson, Marques
22 6.0 2 Stockton, John
23 6.0 2 Ewing, Patrick
24 6.0 4 Drexler, Clyde
25 5.0 1 Westphal, Paul
26 5.0 3 Roundfield, Dan
27 4.0 2 Cummings, Terry
28 4.0 2 Paxson, Jim
29 4.0 2 Lever, Fat (Lafayette)
30 3.0 1 Johnson, Kevin
31 3.0 1 Mullin, Chris
32 3.0 1 Chambers, Tom
33 3.0 1 Archibald, Nate "Tiny"
34 3.0 1 Birdsong, Otis
35 3.0 1 Williams, Buck
36 3.0 3 Nance, Larry
37 3.0 3 Richardson, Micheal Ray
38 3.0 1 Sampson, Ralph
39 3.0 1 Robertson, Alvin
40 2.0 2 Gilmore, Artis
41 2.0 2 Cheeks, Maurice
42 2.0 2 Blackman, Rolando
43 1.0 1 Price, Mark
44 1.0 1 Daugherty, Brad
45 1.0 1 Davis, Walter
46 1.0 1 Jones, Bobby
47 1.0 1 Rollins, Tree
48 1.0 1 Washington, Kermit
49 1.0 1 Aguirre, Mark
50 1.0 1 Ruland, Jeff
51 1.0 1 Williams, Ray
52 1.0 1 McCray, Rodney
53 1.0 1 Floyd, Eric (Sleepy)
54 1.0 1 Ellis, Dale


1 9 9 0 s
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 50.0 10 Malone, Karl
2 35.0 7 Jordan, Michael
3 28.6 8 Robinson, David
4 25.9 9 Stockton, John
5 25.3 7 Barkley, Charles
6 24.9 8 Olajuwon, Hakeem
7 23.6 7 Pippen, Scottie
8 18.3 6 Payton, Gary
9 17.0 5 Ewing, Patrick
10 15.3 5 Hardaway, Tim
11 14.9 6 O'Neal, Shaquille
12 14.0 4 Hill, Grant
13 11.6 5 Richmond, Mitch
14 11.3 3 Hardaway, Anfernee
15 10.6 4 Drexler, Clyde
16 10.3 4 Johnson, Kevin
17 10.0 2 Duncan, Tim
18 10.0 2 Johnson, Magic
19 9.3 3 Mullin, Chris
20 9.0 3 Kemp, Shawn
21 7.6 3 Price, Mark
22 7.3 3 Wilkins, Dominique
23 5.6 3 Dumars, Joe
24 5.0 1 Kidd, Jason
25 5.0 1 Iverson, Allen
26 5.0 1 Mourning, Alonzo
27 5.0 1 Sprewell, Latrell
28 4.3 2 Baker, Vin
29 4.3 2 Rice, Glen
30 3.9 3 Miller, Reggie
31 3.0 1 Webber, Chris
32 3.0 1 Bird, Larry
33 3.0 1 Chambers, Tom
34 3.0 1 Johnson, Larry
35 3.0 1 Strickland, Rod
36 2.6 2 Worthy, James
37 2.6 2 Coleman, Derrick
38 2.6 2 Rodman, Dennis
39 1.3 1 Bryant, Kobe
40 1.3 1 Garnett, Kevin
41 1.3 1 Mutombo, Dikembe
42 1.3 1 Mason, Anthony
43 1.3 1 McDyess, Antonio
44 1.3 1 King, Bernard
45 1.3 1 Daugherty, Brad
46 1.3 1 Willis, Kevin
47 1.3 1 Petrovic, Drazen
48 1.3 1 Schrempf, Detlef
49 1.3 1 Howard, Juwan


2 0 0 0 s
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 44.0 10 Duncan, Tim
2 42.6 10 Bryant, Kobe
3 36.6 8 O'Neal, Shaquille
4 32.1 9 Nowitzki, Dirk
5 30.6 8 Garnett, Kevin
6 23.0 5 Kidd, Jason
7 22.1 7 McGrady, Tracy
8 21.1 6 Nash, Steve
9 21.0 5 James, LeBron
10 20.6 6 Iverson, Allen
11 12.6 4 Wade, Dwyane
12 12.6 4 Webber, Chris
13 12.1 5 Wallace, Ben
14 11.6 3 Howard, Dwight
15 11.0 3 Stoudemire, Amar'e
16 10.7 5 Ming, Yao
17 9.6 3 Payton, Gary
18 8.0 2 Paul, Chris
19 7.7 4 Pierce, Paul
20 6.1 3 Billups, Chauncey
21 6.1 3 O'Neal, Jermaine
22 6.1 3 Arenas, Gilbert
23 4.7 3 Anthony, Carmelo
24 4.6 2 Malone, Karl
25 4.6 2 Mutombo, Dikembe
26 4.6 2 Carter, Vince
27 4.6 2 Allen, Ray
28 3.1 2 Robinson, David
29 3.1 2 Marbury, Stephon
30 3.1 2 Marion, Shawn
31 3.0 1 Williams, Deron
32 3.0 1 Roy, Brandon
33 3.0 1 Bosh, Chris
34 3.0 1 Hill, Grant
35 3.0 1 Mourning, Alonzo
36 3.0 1 Cassell, Sam
37 3.0 1 Stojakovic, Peja
38 3.0 1 Brand, Elton
39 1.6 1 Parker, Tony
40 1.6 1 Gasol, Pau
41 1.6 1 Ginobili, Manu
42 1.6 1 Boozer, Carlos
43 1.6 1 Mashburn, Jamal
44 1.6 1 Jones, Eddie
45 1.6 1 Davis, Baron
46 1.6 1 Redd, Michael
47 1.6 1 World Peace, Metta

2 0 1 0 s (8 years so far: 2010-2017)
# Pts Xs P L A Y E R
1 40.0 8 James, LeBron
2 31.0 7 Durant, Kevin
3 22.8 6 Paul, Chris
4 22.0 6 Westbrook, Russell
5 20.0 4 Bryant, Kobe
6 19.8 5 Howard, Dwight
7 16.8 4 Harden, James
8 16.0 4 Curry, Stephen
9 11.6 4 Wade, Dwyane
10 10.8 4 Griffin, Blake
11 10.0 2 Davis, Anthony
12 10.0 2 Leonard, Kawhi
13 9.0 3 Parker, Tony
14 8.6 3 Duncan, Tim
15 8.6 3 Jordan, DeAndre
16 8.4 4 Aldridge, LaMarcus
17 8.0 2 Gasol, Marc
18 7.8 3 Nowitzki, Dirk
19 7.8 3 Anthony, Carmelo
20 7.8 3 Gasol, Pau
21 6.0 2 Stoudemire, Amar'e
22 6.0 2 Love, Kevin
23 6.0 2 Cousins, DeMarcus
24 5.4 3 George, Paul
25 5.0 1 Rose, Derrick
26 5.0 1 Noah, Joakim
27 4.8 2 Lillard, Damian
28 4.8 2 Green, Draymond
29 3.6 2 Thompson, Klay
30 3.0 1 Nash, Steve
31 3.0 1 Williams, Deron
32 3.0 1 Bynum, Andrew
33 3.0 1 Antetokounmpo, Giannis
34 3.0 1 Gobert, Rudy
35 3.0 1 Thomas, Isaiah
36 1.8 1 Roy, Brandon
37 1.8 1 Ginobili, Manu
38 1.8 1 Johnson, Joe
39 1.8 1 Randolph, Zach
40 1.8 1 Chandler, Tyson
41 1.8 1 Jefferson, Al
42 1.8 1 Bogut, Andrew
43 1.8 1 Horford, Al
44 1.8 1 Rondo, Rajon
45 1.8 1 Lee, David
46 1.8 1 Dragic, Goran
47 1.8 1 Irving, Kyrie
48 1.8 1 Drummond, Andre
49 1.8 1 Lowry, Kyle
50 1.8 1 Butler, Jimmy
51 1.8 1 DeRozan, DeMar
52 1.8 1 Wall, John

3C: POSITIONAL GOAT RANKINGS: TOP 10 EACH
PGs
1 Johnson, Magic
2 Robertson, Oscar
3 Cousy, Bob
4 Stockton, John
5 Paul, Chris
6 Kidd, Jason
7 Payton, Gary
8 Iverson, Allen
9 Nash, Steve
10 Frazier, Walt

SGs
1 Jordan, Michael
2 Bryant, Kobe
3 West, Jerry
4 Gervin, George
5 Wade, Dwyane
6 Moncrief, Sidney
7 Greer, Hal
8 Westphal, Paul
9 Harden, James
10 Drexler, Clyde

SFs
1 James, LeBron
2 Erving, Julius
3 Bird, Larry
4 Baylor, Elgin
5 Barry, Rick
6 Durant, Kevin
7 Pippen, Scottie
8 McGrady, Tracy
9 Wilkins, Dominique
10 Hill, Grant

PFs
1 Duncan, Tim
2 Malone, Karl
3 Pettit, Bob
4 Barkley, Charles
5 Nowitzki, Dirk
6 Garnett, Kevin
7 Schayes, Dolph
8 Lucas, Jerry
9 Stoudemire, Amar'e
10 McGinnis, George

Centers
1 Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
2 Chamberlain, Wilt
3 O'Neal, Shaquille
4 Russell, Bill
5 Olajuwon, Hakeem
6 Malone, Moses
7 Robinson, David
8 Howard, Dwight
9 Ewing, Patrick
10 Mikan, George

BONUS SECTION:
4. "Predictive Power" and "Ease Of Usage"
This is a kind of play on the words "Predictive Power". What I have in mind here is that using this system it's SUPER-EASY to predict what up-and-coming players will need to achieve (vis-a-vis All-League selections) to move up the GOAT lists.

As to "Ease Of Usage": What could be easier than just referring to one list (mine in this case, lol) for "all your needs"?
As compared to referring to one individual stat (regular or advanced) or some combination of them.
-----
Given how incredibly different from each other GOAT lists are; I wonder how my GOAT list compares to a "composite" GOAT list (composed of several highly-esteemed individual lists)?
-----
As to: "Lastly, I can't help being skeptical of a criteria that utilizes a VERY narrow scope of the available information and yields results which [at times] cannot be supported by almost ANY other means. To me, that's problematic."

Yes, I completely understand why, at first glance, this particular criteria (ALL-League selections) may APPEAR narrow in scope. BUT, the ALL-League selectors are the very people in THE BEST position to judge the players' performances of the just-passed Regular Season. It is their job to report on the games; and their results, imo, super-closely match how the players actually did (better, if not far better, than any other criteria).

In other words, their "subjective" collective opinion results in more "objective" analysis than any objective stat or combination of stats.

[pandrade83]

A couple things:

1) I'm glad your'e safe.

2) After seeing that you had Cousy over Russell, I just kind of sat there & did this for like 2 straight minutes

Some of the problems . . .

-I've touched on this before but you assume a constantly even distribution of talent by position which is just not true.
-I realized looking at this list, that it completely ignores what happens in the PS, which is kind of a problem.
-I don't really think any one metric can encapsulate everything - and this assumes it can.
-It inherently overstates the ABA/NBA over-lap years because there's 2 ways to make it
-When league quality goes backwards (like '99-'01), it doesn't have a way of controlling for it.

[oldschooled]

Just curious, what would be the difference between Mt. Mutombo and Ben Wallace? And why should he get in before Big Ben? Both can be argued as 4+ DPOY winners, both were mediocre (I'm being generous here but Deke has a tiny advantage) offensively and were GREAT defensive anchors. It can also be argued that Ben was better because he defensively anchored his team to a championship. Can be argued also that Ben was the Finals MVP that time.

[Pablo Novi]

A couple things:

1) I'm glad your'e safe.

2) After seeing that you had Cousy over Russell, I just kind of sat there & did this for like 2 straight minutes

Some of the problems . . .

-I've touched on this before but you assume a constantly even distribution of talent by position which is just not true.
-I realized looking at this list, that it completely ignores what happens in the PS, which is kind of a problem.
-I don't really think any one metric can encapsulate everything - and this assumes it can.
-It inherently overstates the ABA/NBA over-lap years because there's 2 ways to make it
-When league quality goes backwards (like '99-'01), it doesn't have a way of controlling for it.

btw, I had left off the my POSITIONAL GOAT RANKINGS, so I've added them in in the above post.

About Russell only being my GOAT #16. My position on this is that you can't be in my GOAT Top 15 if you were dominated at your own position in your own era. And that's what was done to Russell by Wilt: In the NINE years in which they were both selected ALL-NBA, Wilt had SEVEN 1st-Teams (with Russell getting those 7 2nd-Teams) while Russell had ONLY TWO 1st-Teams (with Wilt getting those 2 2nd-Teams). That's just domination.

Of course, that puts me subject to ridicule by just about everybody. BUT
, Russell's standard GOAT Top 5-10 ranking is based mostly on those 11 Chips. But if that is THE #1 criteria, then Russell should be forever the GOAT #1.

Maybe, just maybe, sometime in the future, Russell would move steadily downwards in the GOAT lists?

to your other objections:

pandrade83: -I've touched on this before but you assume a constantly even distribution of talent by position which is just not true.
PABLO: I KNOW there has never been an even distribution of talent by position. BUT, EVERY SINGLE evaluation I've seen is FAULTY in some way. My response: treat them all as more equal than un-equal.

pandrade83-I realized looking at this list, that it completely ignores what happens in the PS, which is kind of a problem.
PABLO: STEP #1 in my evaluation process only focuses on the Regular Season (because the Reg. Seas. is some 15 times bigger a sample size; and because a number of key factors can "warp" PS results: match-ups, INJURIES, previous series, LUCK.

STEP #2 brings in every other consideration (including: PS, stats, exceptional qualities and weaknesses, TEAM-work ...). Then my

STEP #3 "allows" for adjustments: either one positional spot upwards or downwards. (I "allow" for one exception to this; where ONE player can be moved more than one spot up or down. My own particular application of this "rule" is that I moved Bill Russell UP more than one spot amongst the Centers - due to his phenomenal TEAM success in the Play-Offs.

If one were to review my INITIAL GOAT list (based just on STEP #1) there are a number of differences, for example:
Kobe has decidedly more "Points" than does MJ; Shaq out-points Wilt.

pandrade83-I don't really think any one metric can encapsulate everything - and this assumes it can.
PABLO: Yes, this is how almost everybody finds fault with my system. My response is simply that the ALL-League selectors were in the best position to judge (all aspects considered) PLUS the sheer number of them squeezes out the "homerist" type votes. It's a remarkably high-quality system. In other words, THEY DO take into account all the factors; my review of their collective judgement over the FIFTY-EIGHT years I've been a "rabid" NBA-ABA-NBL fan (and have paid attention to the ALL-League selections) ... my review of THEIR work is that it has been EXCELLENT.

I'd trust their judgement over any of our judgement (with endless numbers of different ways to judge the stats and performances; including my own).

pandrade83-It inherently overstates the ABA/NBA over-lap years because there's 2 ways to make it
PABLO: No, this is not the case. For the DUAL-LEAGUE years: 1947-1949 and for the DUAL-LEAGUE years (68-76), I went year-by-year, merging the two sets of ALL-League teams so that, the same number of spots and "Points" were allotted.

My evaluation of the DUAL-LEAGUE years was a bit complicated.
For the 3 NBL-BAA years I did this:
1947 & 1948: NBL 1st Team selections became COMBINED-Leagues 1st-Team selections; BAA 1st-Team selections became COMBINED-Leagues 2nd-Team selections (with the NBL and BAA 2nd-Team selections being removed from the combined list).
1949: BAA 1st Team selections became COMBINED-Leagues 1st-Team selections; NBL 1st-Team selections became COMBINED-Leagues 2nd-Team selections (with the NBL and BAA 2nd-Team selections being removed from the combined list).

In the NBL-BAA Dual-League 3 years, this makes complete sense to me. During the first two years of those three, the NBL's teams and players were clearly superior; during the last of the 3 years it was the reverse (mostly because the top NBL teams had switched over).

For the 9 NBA-ABA Dual-League years, it cost me TONS of hours to sort thru. Eventually, I divided those 9 years up into 3 sets of 3 years. During the first 3 years, the NBA got the great bulk of the combined "Points"; during the 2nd set of 3 years, the gap narrowed; during the last 3 years, the gap was tiny. My "Points" awarded reflects that. I admit I had to make a whole series of judgement calls about which player from which League was better than the others each year.

pandrade83-When league quality goes backwards (like '99-'01), it doesn't have a way of controlling for i
PABLO: Quite similarly to the question of uneveness PER POSITION PER DECADE, the question of when League quality went up or down (and by how much) is super-problematic - there is the opposite of universal agreement.

In the particular case you've chosen to point to "99-01"; I don't even get your point. Quality can be assumed to have gone down SIMULATENOUSLY with EXPANSION (by more than one team in a given year). So, by this line of thinking, the WORST period for quality of play would have been 68-76 (the ABA years) followed by the expansion by 6 teams in only 8 years: 89-96 (as well as 1950, at the moment of the NBL-BAA merger).

The "proof" of this is that it was exactly in such years that MOST of the greatest single-season team W-L records were achieved!

Still, HOW MUCH of a "demerit" should be given to such expansion era players is one of those questions where there is the opposite of universal agreement. In response to that, I've simply rated each succeeding decade as having a generally improved level of play - which very well could be the case (even despite expansion). That improvement is reflected in the number of "Points" awarded per decade - that increase in "Points" awarded lessens each decade - to, hopefully, reflect the fact that the improvement vs previous decades gets smaller.

[dhsilv2]

I keep pointing this out, but today the all nba team and for some time (I think 56 looks like the first year they started doing this but that could have been accidental).

The first team all nba has voters vote for 3 positions. Guards, Forwards, and Centers. This allows for 2 people at the same position to make the first team, unless we are talking about a center. Centers only get 1 spot. So the question is not just that centers are seen as more valuable, but they are discriminated against in making all nba teams (this of course after the mid 50's where multiple centers would make the first team.

You can't tell me that power forwards should get two slots (which has happened alot) because they dribble the ball up the court or create more with their passing, especially traditionally where power forwards were often just smaller centers. Case and point if the Spurs didn't insist on calling Tim Duncan a power forward he would be much further down your list while playing exactly the same. Wilt and Russell had to play the same position so only one of them could make first team, but had the celtrics just called bill a power forward, boom he would jump up on your list because there was more room for a second forward.

[Pablo Novi]

VOTE: Bob Cousy TEN 1st-Team ALL-League Selections plus TWO 2nd-Teams (He dominated his position WAY MORE than ny other not-yet-selected-by-us player did). I have him as my GOAT #3 PG. 40.5 "Points" (more than 50% more than any other remaining player). Revolutionized his position.

ALT: Sidney Moncrief I have him as my GOAT #6 SG. 18 "Points". In the 6 year period, 1981-1986, he had ONE ALL-NBA 1st-Team selection and FOUR 2nd-Teams (which comparatively speaking means he outranks all remaining SGs in terms of positional-dominance in their own era and he outranks most of the remaining players (except Cousy of course) as compared to their positional-dominance in their own eras).

[eminence]

Just curious, what would be the difference between Mt. Mutombo and Ben Wallace? And why should he get in before Big Ben? Both can be argued as 4+ DPOY winners, both were mediocre (I'm being generous here but Deke has a tiny advantage) offensively and were GREAT defensive anchors. It can also be argued that Ben was better because he defensively anchored his team to a championship. Can be argued also that Ben was the Finals MVP that time.

I for one don't see the offensive gap as all that small. Ben was truly horrific on the offensive end (Eaton is the only player I've seen to rival him on that end), while Deke was probably slightly above average.

[Pablo Novi]

I keep pointing this out, but today the all nba team and for some time (I think 56 looks like the first year they started doing this but that could have been accidental).

The first team all nba has voters vote for 3 positions. Guards, Forwards, and Centers. This allows for 2 people at the same position to make the first team, unless we are talking about a center. Centers only get 1 spot. So the question is not just that centers are seen as more valuable, but they are discriminated against in making all nba teams (this of course after the mid 50's where multiple centers would make the first team.

You can't tell me that power forwards should get two slots (which has happened alot) because they dribble the ball up the court or create more with their passing, especially traditionally where power forwards were often just smaller centers. Case and point if the Spurs didn't insist on calling Tim Duncan a power forward he would be much further down your list while playing exactly the same. Wilt and Russell had to play the same position so only one of them could make first team, but had the celtrics just called bill a power forward, boom he would jump up on your list because there was more room for a second forward.

This is incorrect.
Since 1956:
There are FIVE 1st-Team selections and FIVE 2nd-Team selections (and FIVE 3rd-Team selections) each year.
For each "-Team" there are TWO spots for GUARDS (which represent 2 spots on each 5-man team on the court);
For each "-Team" there are TWO spots for FORWARDS (which represent 2 spots on each 5-man team on the court);
For each "-Team" there are ONE spots for a CENTER (which represent 1 spot on each 5-man team on the court).

In other words, on the 1st-Team, there are two spots for Guards, two spots for Forwards and one spot for Centers - EXACTLY the same as there are players on the court. Same for 2nd- and 3rd-Teams.

I'm not currently looking at the list from each individual year, but I'd bet that in the great majority of years, there has been one PG, one SG, one SF, one PF and one Center selected for the 1st-Team AND for the 2nd-Team AND for the 3rd-Team.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-NBA_Team

[dhsilv2]

Just curious, what would be the difference between Mt. Mutombo and Ben Wallace? And why should he get in before Big Ben? Both can be argued as 4+ DPOY winners, both were mediocre (I'm being generous here but Deke has a tiny advantage) offensively and were GREAT defensive anchors. It can also be argued that Ben was better because he defensively anchored his team to a championship. Can be argued also that Ben was the Finals MVP that time.

I for one don't see the offensive gap as all that small. Ben was truly horrific on the offensive end (Eaton is the only player I've seen to rival him on that end), while Deke was probably slightly above average.

Career negative OBPM, never positive for a season. He turned the ball over a bit too much imo. He was at least willing and capable for scoring, and offensive winshare gives him a nice edge. That said one has to wonder if he'd have been a better player had it shot less and scored less like Ben. I still feel like he was a better offensive player than the stats say, but they're kinda damning here.

[Clyde Frazier]

Even though I've been pushing for reed, happy to see schayes get his due. One of those guys who gets lost in the shuffle, and really had an impressive career. Will be putting in my vote for reed, but still mulling over the second vote.