RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #47 (Ray Allen)

[pandrade83]

Pablo - I do owe you a response. I'm going to see if I can bang this out quickly.

A couple things:


-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.

Green: By treating it as equal, you create some pretty big misses; example - Cousy > Russell is not defensible. You keep saying that all someone can do is dominate their own position in their era - by your standard - yes. In reality, all someone can do is impact winning in their era. Jalen Rose always says positions were only created so a novice can understand the game; Brad Stevens notes that there are only 3 positions. This isn't football where roles are so specialized. Russell & Wilt were the two best players of their era; the fact that your system doesn't see that is a real problem.

Red Through Blue: You lose the ability to criticize others for their subjective evaluations here. And that's OK - but it seems silly to say that your system comprised of people who were there is superior to everyone else's method - over and over and over - and then have your own subjective wrinkle in the back end. Just state your process & why you do it - but stop saying your "system" is better than everyone else's "subjective" methods ad nauseam by giving credit to others who were there and then making your own adjustments on the back end.

Even setting that aside - hindsight coupled with better analytics often gives you better knowledge than what you can see in the moment. I thought it was too early for Reggie Miller when he got in - but the power of analytics today - knowledge that we didn't have even 20 years ago - shows that he was much better than he was given credit for in his era - and your system misses all of that completely.

Pink: The quality went backwards in '99-'01. The older talent which had remained elite in the mid 90's & in some cases, late 90's fell off (Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson took a big step back, Jordan went away as for examples), and the next gen (Tmac, Kobe, KG, Duncan, Dirk) hadn't yet really fully arrived to replace them. Even someone like Jason Kidd had a weird time in Phoenix aside from his '99 season which always gets underrated.

Your system doesn't have a way to account for the "color" or context of what's going on because it assumes the league perpetually gets better - which isn't always true.

[trex_8063]

I make ZERO claim that my system is anything approaching perfection. Instead, I merely claim that in a process so TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE (with as many GOAT lists as there are people opinionating on them); THE BEST system is the one that most closely approaches OBJECTIVE analysis

Technically, this isn’t really “objective”. It’s an amalgamation of the subjective opinions of many persons. And based on one of these individual’s reasoning that I once read, their reasons can be very subjective indeed.

and, again, the ALL-League selectors are far more qualified than any of us, or all of us taken collectively.

Why?
This isn’t a situation like you need a tooth pulled, and your decision is between Back-Alley Bob (he has a pair of pliers), or going to a dentist (who has specialized training and sophisticated tools and resources to do the job soundly).

These people have no special training whatsoever to make them any more capable of evaluating basketball players (especially in an historic sense) than the rest of us. If they have degrees, it’s in things like journalism or media studies: NOTHING directly related to basketball at all. And there is no requirement of elite or even above average intelligence to to what they do.
Their only other “special qualification” is that they watch the NBA regularly and discuss/opine about what they’re watching. Does that sound like anyone on this forum? Perhaps more apt would be to ask, “Does that sound like the majority of this forum?”

Where eras like the 1950’s are concerned, there’s no doubt those doing the voters saw more games than any of us. But the flip-side of the coin is that their understanding of what they were watching, of what works or is good in basketball, was infantile and laughably poor relative to our understanding today.
E.g. Even as late as circa-1970 shot selection and apparent understanding of what was a “good” shot was fairly poor……..what today seem like fairly basic fundamentals of the game were just being pioneered and/or developed in the 50’s, and certain strategic principles had yet to come at all--->and I’m referring to understanding of the game by the players and coaches of the time; among the guys sitting on the sidelines [who perhaps had rarely played basketball themselves because it was such a newly emerging sport] reporting on the games, the understanding would naturally be even poorer…….yet they’re the ones selecting the All-NBA teams of the time.


And what’s more (pertains to “sophisticated tools” mentioned above): until VERY recently, the people doing the voting didn’t have the same array of analytics that we now have at our disposal with which to evaluate players (and contrary to your insinuation, they do not have special access to tools that we do not; all this stuff is publicly available). Some of this new information has to some degree revolutionized thinking on the value of various player types; and this wasn’t even available as recently as 10 years ago.


I can understand you want to label these people as exceptionally qualified, as this would lend additional validity to your chosen criteria. Or maybe there’s a compulsion to believe in the solid foundation of “the system” or “the powers that be” (i.e. "they must be the most qualified, why else would they be given the job?"). They’re given the job partly out of tradition (of allowing sports media to do it), partly because it’s thought coaches/players are the group most prone to bias if allowed to decide, and they needed someone at least vaguely connected to the industry to have a means of “credentials” for the voters.
But there is simply nothing to suggest that they are, in actuality, exceptionally qualified.

They are not necessarily of extraordinary intelligence, they do not have special training pertaining to basketball, they do not have a particular advantage over many people here as far as the number of games they’ve watched, until very recently they were at a distinct disadvantage as far as the analytical tools available, and are presently at a disadvantage to some posters here as far as interpreting and using some of these analytical tools (I’m much more apt to trust someone with advanced degrees in mathematics to properly utilize some of this information than someone with a degree in journalism).

[trex_8063]

...

Iverson's may be the deepest playoff run, but it's not necessarily the best. He was even more himself in that run, having some games where he carried the team against very weak competition (Indiana, Toronto Milwaukee) and some where he shot his team out of games they should have won. His TS% was an ugly .480 on 30 shots a game though he did get more assists than usual since he was playing hero ball much of the time. If you like Iverson's style, this was an excellent example of it on a team designed to maximize it. If you don't, it's an excellent example of why an Iverson led team will always have a limited ceiling.

Compare to Alex English's 1985 run to the WCF scoring almost as much (28.4ppg/34.3per 100 poss) on 10 less shots a game while showing off a .601 ts%. I know which one I'd rather have and it isn't Iverson.

I'd mentioned at the opening of the last thread that I was watching or re-watching G5 of the '01 ECF. Iverson opened the game shooting terribly (seriously something like 2/18 by early in the 3rd quarter or some such). But one thing I noted (and Bill Walton stated this very thing in the commentary at one point in the first half), is that Iverson---even on the shots he was missing---was frequently breaking the defense down off the dribble, getting by his man and into the paint or perhaps even to the rim (forcing rotations and the interior bigs to come over on the help). And while Iverson didn't have a great finishing rate at the rim most of his career, nor very good in the 3-10 ft range prior to changes to the hand-check rules, he was quick enough that he didn't have many of these shots blocked........which means he usually got the shot up on the rim, while interior defenders had rotated off their man to help/contest him.
This frequently left Sixer big men with no one boxing them out, and lots of offensive rebounding opportunities.

I was curious to see if there any notable association of Iverson's presence and an increased offensive rebounding rate......the findings were interesting.

In '96, the Sixers were 19th/29 in OREB%.
In '97 (with rookie AI), their OREB% jumps to 3rd in the league, then.....
'98: 8th
'99: 2nd
'00: 4th
'01: 2nd
'02: 4th
'03: 7th
'04: 15th (Iverson had missed 34 games this year)
And then it seems to jump up immediately upon the changes to hand-check rules and he doesn't seem to have quite that effect anymore (as Iverson's efficiency and style also shift a bit, as well as that of the whole league; some roster changes as well, iirc).


Anyway, just putting this out there fwiw.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #23 (just 6 votes):

Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)
Willis Reed - 1 (dhsilv2)
Wes Unseld -1 (pandrade83)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Alex English - 1 (panbeast0)
Sidney Moncrief - 1 (Pablo Novi)

This thread will go to runoff in ~18-22 hours more (depending on when I can get to it tomorrow).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Pablo Novi]

I make ZERO claim that my system is anything approaching perfection. Instead, I merely claim that in a process so TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE (with as many GOAT lists as there are people opinionating on them); THE BEST system is the one that most closely approaches OBJECTIVE analysis

Technically, this isn’t really “objective”. It’s an amalgamation of the subjective opinions of many persons. And based on one of these individual’s reasoning that I once read, their reasons can be very subjective indeed.

and, again, the ALL-League selectors are far more qualified than any of us, or all of us taken collectively.

Why?
This isn’t a situation like you need a tooth pulled, and your decision is between Back-Alley Bob (he has a pair of pliers), or going to a dentist (who has specialized training and sophisticated tools and resources to do the job soundly).

These people have no special training whatsoever to make them any more capable of evaluating basketball players (especially in an historic sense) than the rest of us. If they have degrees, it’s in things like journalism or media studies: NOTHING directly related to basketball at all. And there is no requirement of elite or even above average intelligence to to what they do.
Their only other “special qualification” is that they watch the NBA regularly and discuss/opine about what they’re watching. Does that sound like anyone on this forum? Perhaps more apt would be to ask, “Does that sound like the majority of this forum?”

Where eras like the 1950’s are concerned, there’s no doubt those doing the voters saw more games than any of us. But the flip-side of the coin is that their understanding of what they were watching, of what works or is good in basketball, was infantile and laughably poor relative to our understanding today.
E.g. Even as late as circa-1970 shot selection and apparent understanding of what was a “good” shot was fairly poor……..what today seem like fairly basic fundamentals of the game were just being pioneered and/or developed in the 50’s, and certain strategic principles had yet to come at all--->and I’m referring to understanding of the game by the players and coaches of the time; among the guys sitting on the sidelines [who perhaps had rarely played basketball themselves because it was such a newly emerging sport] reporting on the games, the understanding would naturally be even poorer…….yet they’re the ones selecting the All-NBA teams of the time.


And what’s more (pertains to “sophisticated tools” mentioned above): until VERY recently, the people doing the voting didn’t have the same array of analytics that we now have at our disposal with which to evaluate players (and contrary to your insinuation, they do not have special access to tools that we do not; all this stuff is publicly available). Some of this new information has to some degree revolutionized thinking on the value of various player types; and this wasn’t even available as recently as 10 years ago.


I can understand you want to label these people as exceptionally qualified, as this would lend additional validity to your chosen criteria. Or maybe there’s a compulsion to believe in the solid foundation of “the system” or “the powers that be” (i.e. "they must be the most qualified, why else would they be given the job?"). They’re given the job partly out of tradition (of allowing sports media to do it), partly because it’s thought coaches/players are the group most prone to bias if allowed to decide, and they needed someone at least vaguely connected to the industry to have a means of “credentials” for the voters.
But there is simply nothing to suggest that they are, in actuality, exceptionally qualified.

They are not necessarily of extraordinary intelligence, they do not have special training pertaining to basketball, they do not have a particular advantage over many people here as far as the number of games they’ve watched, until very recently they were at a distinct disadvantage as far as the analytical tools available, and are presently at a disadvantage to some posters here as far as interpreting and using some of these analytical tools (I’m much more apt to trust someone with advanced degrees in mathematics to properly utilize some of this information than someone with a degree in journalism).

Thanx for taking the time and effort to produce such a thorough and well-thought-out response.

My main arguments (which I have repeatedly pointed out but may not have in my last post) for the "accuracy" of the ALL-League process are:
1. It's the very job of the selectors to report on the game (I assume that if they were truly bad at it; they'd be replaced in most cases). Even though, by definition, their votes are "subjective"; I find that COLLECTIVELY their decisions are more "objective" than any other factor, stat, combination etc. A big part of the problem with all other alternate systems is that while stats, for example, look objective; their interpretation usage, importance-given is HIGHLY subjective.

2. Their sheer numbers tend to overcome the individual biases.

3. For me, the Regular Season is more important than the Post-Season. The Regular Season is some 15 times the sample size that is the Post-Season. Post-Season success is more "fickle" due to such as: match-ups, injuries, previous and current strength of opponent and luck AND we don't have nearly as powerful a tool for the P-S as we do (with the ALL-League selections) for the Reg. Season.

4. I've seldom disagreed with the ALL-League selection results over the past 58 years (either when they were produced or looking back in hind-sight).

5. I look as my GOAT list and am very pleased with it. imo, my GOAT Top 5 (KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ & TD) would beat RealGM's (or anybody else's) GOAT Top 5.
Same for GOAT Top 10s (adding to mine: Wilt, Kobe, Dr J, "O" & K.Malone) and GOAT Top 15s (adding to mine: Shaq, Jerry West, Bird, Pettit and Cousy).

As to "confirmation bias"; I can't KNOW that I don't have problems with this. Otoh, I DO have 52 years of heavy-duty peace-justice activism; i.e. of putting others first - which REQUIRES of an activist that he/she constantly TRY to fight such confirmation bias to best reflect the needs of the majority. In that social-organizing context, I believe I've been very skilled (and have continually learned from others throughout this half-century plus).

I am sure that the key to helping others is to put: UNITY (based on some minimum-necessary set of good moral principles): First, Last & Always.

In terms of my GOAT-list making system. It is NOT my first version; but a version representing many previous attempts.
What drove me to this particular system was trying to put UNITY first again. One sees all the incredibly divided opinions and flame warring; so I tried to find a system tailor-made to overcome the bases for such divisions.

I had NO IDEA whatsoever how my list was going to come out until the moment I ran my final calculations - a number of spots surprised me a lot. (PERHAPS (?) that's a sign of objectivity.

[Winsome Gerbil]

47) Iverson
48) Westbrook

This is something like round 12 of this, so what else could I possibly say?

So, the next 3 guys I think should be up are Allen Iverson, Russell Westbrook, and Dominique Wilkins. Then it will likely be time to turn to some of those great old school bigs.

All 3 guys I think at this point are being criminally undervalued relative to their accomplishments, and it's basically because of their playstyle.

But the thing is that for objections to their playing style to have legitimacy, especially in light of their enormous stature and statistics, there just HAS to be a corresponding failure in actual performance.

So I want to talk about Nique here, since the others have been done to death:

'Nique
Dominique Wilkins was one of the most spectacular offensive players in league history. He has the 14th highest scoring average in NBA history, averaging 24.8pts in 35.5minutes. Kobe Bryant averaged 25.0pts in 36.0minutes. People at the time certainly knew it as they elected him to 7 straight All NBA teams. He only made one 1st team in an era when he was competing with Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Charles Barkley and Karl Malone, but he also peaked as high as 2nd in the MVP voting. The only person ahead of him on the all-time ppg list that has not been taken yet is Allen Iverson.

But because, uh-oh, he did his scoring in disfavored post player iso fashion, there seems to be this push to elevate just anybody else over him. We got Reggie Miller, who barely averaged 20ppg for much of his career, in there many picks ago. Paul Pierce, who never accomplished what he did as a #1, has been taken. Now we are talking Alex English, another great scorer, but one playing in an inflated duck and chuck system, and a contemporary consistently held in lesser esteem. Pau Gasol and Dikembe Mutombo, guys who were never in any way MVP candidates or #1s at anywhere near the level of Nique.

But again, the thing is, for the objection to be principled, it has to be paired by a measurable performance deficit.

One of the points raised to push along Reggie Miller's candidacy was that Miller, a mere 18.0 scorer for his career, but perhaps 20ish through his prime, with no creative ability, was somehow responsible for his team's consistently good Offensive Ratings. Okay, I find that dubious, but fine. Let's look at that. From the Miller debate it was clear that he could fairly attributed as his team's clear #1 guy for a 10 year span straight through the 1990s. Meanwhile Nique was clearly his team's #1 guy for 9 years beginning in 1984-85 (actually he was in his 10th year too, but was traded midseason greatly complicating the statistical picture, so I just leave that year off). So then:

Reggie Miller's teams 89-90 to 98-99:
89-90: 42-40 ORTG 7th
90-91: 41-41 ORTG 7th
91-92: 40-42 ORTG 6th
92-93: 41-41 ORTG 5th
93-94: 47-35 ORTG 11th
94-95: 52-30 ORTG 8th
95-96: 52-30 ORTG 6th
96-97: 39-43 ORTG 15th
97-98: 58-24 ORTG 4th
98-99: 33-17 (54-28 pace) ORTG 1st
----------------------------------------------
Avg: 46.6wins ORTG 7th

Dominique Wilkins' teams 89-90 to 98-99:
84-85: 34-48 ORTG 16th
85-86: 50-32 ORTG 11th
86-87: 57-25 ORTG 4th
87-88: 50-32 ORTG 5th
88-89: 52-30 ORTG 4th
89-90: 41-41 ORTG 4th
90-91: 43-39 ORTG 8th
91-92: 38-44 ORTG 16th
92-93: 43-39 ORTG 10th
----------------------------------------------
Avg: 45.3wins ORTG 8.7th


So...where exactly is the principled stand there? Where is the evidence that Reggie Miller, low volume "efficient" scorer was helping his team's ORTG and winning record, more than Dominique Wilkins, one of the league's greatest iso scorers? Because it looks to me like Nique's teams were doing just fine with performance very much in line with Reggie's teams. The difference was that Nique was personally responsible for more of it than Reggie was. And Reggie's already off the board. As is Paul Pierce, who cannot match those numbers.

[Pablo Novi]

Pablo - I do owe you a response. I'm going to see if I can bang this out quickly.

A couple things:


-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.

Green: By treating it as equal, you create some pretty big misses; example - Cousy > Russell is not defensible. You keep saying that all someone can do is dominate their own position in their era - by your standard - yes. In reality, all someone can do is impact winning in their era. Jalen Rose always says positions were only created so a novice can understand the game; Brad Stevens notes that there are only 3 positions. This isn't football where roles are so specialized. Russell & Wilt were the two best players of their era; the fact that your system doesn't see that is a real problem.

Red Through Blue: You lose the ability to criticize others for their subjective evaluations here. And that's OK - but it seems silly to say that your system comprised of people who were there is superior to everyone else's method - over and over and over - and then have your own subjective wrinkle in the back end. Just state your process & why you do it - but stop saying your "system" is better than everyone else's "subjective" methods ad nauseam by giving credit to others who were there and then making your own adjustments on the back end.

Even setting that aside - hindsight coupled with better analytics often gives you better knowledge than what you can see in the moment. I thought it was too early for Reggie Miller when he got in - but the power of analytics today - knowledge that we didn't have even 20 years ago - shows that he was much better than he was given credit for in his era - and your system misses all of that completely.

Pink: The quality went backwards in '99-'01. The older talent which had remained elite in the mid 90's & in some cases, late 90's fell off (Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson took a big step back, Jordan went away as for examples), and the next gen (Tmac, Kobe, KG, Duncan, Dirk) hadn't yet really fully arrived to replace them. Even someone like Jason Kidd had a weird time in Phoenix aside from his '99 season which always gets underrated.

Your system doesn't have a way to account for the "color" or context of what's going on because it assumes the league perpetually gets better - which isn't always true.

You had promised in the previous thread to lay out a detailed response; you certainly have. I appreciate the effort.

GREEN: Russell & Wilt were the two best players of their era; the fact that your system doesn't see that is a real problem.
Pablo: I NEVER considered Russell as the first or 2nd best player of the 1960s. The Big "O" had (still has?) Elgin Baylor as his GOAT. In LeBron's Mount Rushmore he has neither Wilt nor Russell, but he does have the Big "O".

Having watched the entirety of the 1960s, I have always considered all three of: Elgin, Jerry West and "O" as better players than Russell. Not only because I've felt they were more complete and better players; but also because I've always felt that had Wilt and Russell traded places, Wilt would have gotten as many rings with the C's while Bill would have gotten less rings (and success) with Wilt's teams. I feel like Nate Thurmond could probably done about as well as did Bill on thos C's All-Star teams - especially because both the GM (Red) and the Coach (Red) was, era-wise, the furthest ahead of his time ever. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill on Nate's teams would have had similar (lack of) success. That close-to-the-basket shooting percentage for a Center was, imo, atrocious. (Which is why, of all my GOAT Top 25, I consider Bill Russell the least "transferable" (i.e., the least likely to be an All-Time Great in any other subsequent decade). I DID get to see him play LIVE at the Gaaaaden a number of times (1963-1967) and always loved him; particularly because of his incredible dignity in the face of the race-hatred of his own fans. So this is NOT a case of some personal bias against him; he was one of the people I most looked up to (both on and OFF the court).

The Cs won a very high percent of their P-O series in games decided by 5 points or less and series that went long. I've always felt that the real MVP was Red - he was THAT superior - imo, he was EASILY worth at least 5 points a game. But I have the OPPOSITE of a pro-Red bias; he ALWAYS struck me as one ARROGANT SOB - but I could never deny his genius.

Russell (with the defensive help of the entirety of the C's great defensive team) barely held Wilt to 5 ppg below his average - meaning either: Russell was not the GOAT defensive player (and by a wide margin) OR that the League was full of centers (clearly having less TEAM-help vs Wilt) that were almost equal to Russell defensively (and a number of them were better offensively) OR some combination of both.

Red thru Blue: I didn't initially start off making (repeated) claims that my system is better than others'. I started doing that because nobody was agreeing with me and most were seriously questioning the value of mine. So my claim of my system being better was just to say that, imo, it DOES produce better results. (Naturally, everyone of us thinks their system is the best - otherwise they wouldn't be voting on that basis - what distinguishes me is that I've just gone ahead and said so).

The "subjective wrinkle" at the end has its own purpose. I started building my system by searching for a way to, hopefully, build the most unity amongst GOAT-list builders THRU hopefully, finding a way to avoid as much subjectivity (and the flame-warring based on it) as possible. That INITIAL basis seems to me to be the ALL-League selections. I envision (at some point in the starry future) that there'd be general consensus that such a list would be a good, common, STARTING POINT.

Btw, I've ALWAYS said that my system has THREE steps; with the 2nd one factoring in all non ALL-League selections; and the 3rd allowing for minor adjustments. Were such a system to be "commonly adopted"; we'd all start off with the same list - but we wouldn't end with the same list - otherwise it'd just be someone (me in this case) dictating everybody's list - not much fun or mutual learning involved.

Everybody rates the non ALL-League factors differently; thus my Step #2 - which makes significant adjustments to the initial list; but not HUGE adjustments.

Similarly with my 3rd Step - which "allows" minor final adjustments (one move up or down vis-a-vis each player's POSITIONAL ranking.

In other words, IF, as I believe to be the case, the ALL-League selections are a more objective (and potentially unifying) basis for initially building GOAT lists; then we have a system that starts from a relatively objective basis but allows a good deal of INDIVIDUAL ("subjective"?) adjustments / refinements for each person's individual GOAT list.

Vis-a-vis your use of Reggie Miller as an example. I recognize the validity of your general point: we have lots more & better tools than they did earlier. My response is this: NOBODY agrees with anybody else about which tools are better and by how much - so it reverts (inevitably imo) back to subjective judgements. And the "proof" of that is the very extreme diversity of GOAT lists.

Again, the ALL-League selections both at THAT time, and having frequently re-reviewed them, since then - APPEAR to me to quite accurately reflect what really happened. Certainly I could be wrong; but that's how I see it.

Btw, Tom Haberstroh has just posted an article attempting to define which NBA teams for the coming season can be called "super-teams" as defined by having THREE super-stars. His ONE CRITERIA for judging the players? ALL-NBA selections (from the previous 3 seasons; exceptions: older players). He even assigned "Point" values almost identical to mine. (Same 5 "Points" for 1st-Teams; same 3 "Points" for 2nd-Teams; he gives 1 "Point" for 3rd-Teams while I give 1.8 "Points". I THINK my idea is a bit better, because 2nd-Teamers are worth 60% of 1st-Teamers so why not 3rd-Teamers being worth 60% of 2nd-Teamers INSTEAD of THREE TIMES as much?) Prior to seeing his latest article, I had very highly respect Haberstroh's thinking (and imagine quite a few other people do too). So it's interesting that he came up with essentially the same system I came up with.

PINK: "The quality went backwards in 1998-2000." Say what??? I disagree strongly. (But don't feel much like arguing about it; or about anything else sports-related either for that matter.) 2000, 2001 and 2002 were the historically great Shaq-Kobe Lakers' Chip-years. The East got weaker; but the West was incredibly strong (Spurs, Kings ...).

And how you can point to 1998 as the start of a significantly weaker period, when it was 1989-1996 when the League added SIX teams in only EIGHT years! That AUTOMATICALLY dilutes the over-all talent pool - virtually guaranteeing the stronger squads to more thoroughly dominate the weaker ones. And, surprise, just as in previous major expansion eras, historically high-percent W-L records were achieved. So, given no further expansion (except by one team in the last 20+ years) AND the influx of foreign talent AND the steady increase in the "American base" of talent AND ever-continuing improvements in: training, injury prevention and recovery; diet; etc. etc. - I believe it's safe to say that since the 1996 season, the general level of play in the League has TENDED to improve slowly but steadily.

Which brings me/us back to the question of how to best evaluate eras/decades (similarly to positional and other comparative issues)? My position (after 100s and 100s of hours of messing around with different formulas and ways to think about it); is that the most sure thing is that the general level of play in the League has steadily improved - i.e., the trend has been closer to slow constant improvement than to any alternative analysis (and again, there is far from universal agreement about when the strong years/periods were and when the weak ones occurred - it was/is the very problematic nature of such "year-by-year" analysis that led me to use more generalized systems. Naturally, there's strengths and weaknesses inherent in both; but I feel mine comes closer to accurate as an initial basis (Plus that's why I have my 2nd & 3rd steps for).

You end your post with,
"Your system doesn't have a way to account for the "color" or context of what's going on because it assumes the league perpetually gets better - which isn't always true."

My system assumes a GENERAL slow-steady improvement (which I'd bet is true and would be agreed to by the majority of NBA-analyzers) WHILE fully allowing for "context". In the first place, otherwise I would have had larger percent increases in value for the 1970s and 1990s - but decreased them (decreased the increases) decidedly due to expansion. Further, my system allows for what I THINK is a decent amount of flexibility and individual "subjective" thinking.

Perhaps it might be one additional proof of the "objectivity" of my system that I would have never ordered my GOAT list like it is now. In other words, I THINK my system helped me overcome my own subjective biases.

Again, thanx for your thoughts. I took them in the spirit of friendly disagreements; and offer mine back in the same spirit.

[Pablo Novi]

47) Iverson
48) Westbrook

This is something like round 12 of this, so what else could I possibly say?

So, the next 3 guys I think should be up are Allen Iverson, Russell Westbrook, and Dominique Wilkins. Then it will likely be time to turn to some of those great old school bigs.

All 3 guys I think at this point are being criminally undervalued relative to their accomplishments, and it's basically because of their playstyle.

But the thing is that for objections to their playing style to have legitimacy, especially in light of their enormous stature and statistics, there just HAS to be a corresponding failure in actual performance.

So I want to talk about Nique here, since the others have been done to death:

'Nique
Dominique Wilkins was one of the most spectacular offensive players in league history. He has the 14th highest scoring average in NBA history, averaging 24.8pts in 35.5minutes. Kobe Bryant averaged 25.0pts in 36.0minutes. People at the time certainly knew it as they elected him to 8 straight All NBA teams. He only made one 1st team in an era when he was competing with Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Charles Barkley and Karl Malone, but he also peaked as high as 2nd in the MVP voting. The only person ahead of him on the all-time ppg list that has not been taken yet is Allen Iverson.

But because, uh-oh, he did his scoring in disfavored post player iso fashion, there seems to be this push to elevate just anybody else over him. We got Reggie Miller, who barely averaged 20ppg for much of his career, in there many picks ago. Paul Pierce, who never accomplished what he did as a #1, has been taken. Now we are talking Alex English, another great scorer, but one playing in an inflated duck and chuck system, and a contemporary consistently held in lesser esteem. Pau Gasol and Dikembe Mutombo, guys who were never in any way MVP candidates or #1s at anywhere near the level of Nique.

But again, the thing is, for the objection to be principled, it has to be paired by a measurable performance deficit.

One of the points raised to push along Reggie Miller's candidacy was that Miller, a mere 18.0 scorer for his career, but perhaps 20ish through his prime, with no creative ability, was somehow responsible for his team's consistently good Offensive Ratings. Okay, I find that dubious, but fine. Let's look at that. From the Miller debate it was clear that he could fairly attributed as his team's clear #1 guy for a 10 year span straight through the 1990s. Meanwhile Nique was clearly his team's #1 guy for 9 years beginning in 1984-85 (actually he was in his 10th year too, but was traded midseason greatly complicating the statistical picture, so I just leave that year off). So then:

Reggie Miller's teams 89-90 to 98-99:
89-90: 42-40 ORTG 7th
90-91: 41-41 ORTG 7th
91-92: 40-42 ORTG 6th
92-93: 41-41 ORTG 5th
93-94: 47-35 ORTG 11th
94-95: 52-30 ORTG 8th
95-96: 52-30 ORTG 6th
96-97: 39-43 ORTG 15th
97-98: 58-24 ORTG 4th
98-99: 33-17 (54-28 pace) ORTG 1st
----------------------------------------------
Avg: 46.6wins ORTG 7th

Dominique Wilkins' teams 89-90 to 98-99:
84-85: 34-48 ORTG 16th
85-86: 50-32 ORTG 11th
86-87: 57-25 ORTG 4th
87-88: 50-32 ORTG 5th
88-89: 52-30 ORTG 4th
89-90: 41-41 ORTG 4th
90-91: 43-39 ORTG 8th
91-92: 38-44 ORTG 16th
92-93: 43-39 ORTG 10th
----------------------------------------------
Avg: 45.3wins ORTG 8.7th


So...where exactly is the principled stand there? Where is the evidence that Reggie Miller, low volume "efficient" scorer was helping his team's ORTG and winning record, more than Dominique Wilkins, one of the league's greatest iso scorers? Because it looks to me like Nique's teams were doing just fine with performance very much in line with Reggie's teams. The difference was that Nique was personally responsible for more of it than Reggie was. And Reggie's already off the board. As is Paul Pierce, who cannot match those numbers.

I have 'Nique coming up 7 spots from now and have him WAY above Pierce and WAY, WAY WAY above Reggie.

'Nique WAS the "Human Highlights Film" guy - one of THE most thrilling players ever.

OTOH, you don't mention his defense at all (I'm not saying Reggie or Pierce were great at that end of the floor). I'd be interested to know what you think of it. For me, it always seemed like he wasn't really interested in that half of the game. I assume (but could certainly be wrong) that the reason 'Nique barely cracks most GOAT Top 50s and, iirc, isn't even in the Hall of Fame) is because of his D.

[Winsome Gerbil]

47) Iverson
48) Westbrook

This is something like round 12 of this, so what else could I possibly say?

So, the next 3 guys I think should be up are Allen Iverson, Russell Westbrook, and Dominique Wilkins. Then it will likely be time to turn to some of those great old school bigs.

All 3 guys I think at this point are being criminally undervalued relative to their accomplishments, and it's basically because of their playstyle.

But the thing is that for objections to their playing style to have legitimacy, especially in light of their enormous stature and statistics, there just HAS to be a corresponding failure in actual performance.

So I want to talk about Nique here, since the others have been done to death:

'Nique
Dominique Wilkins was one of the most spectacular offensive players in league history. He has the 14th highest scoring average in NBA history, averaging 24.8pts in 35.5minutes. Kobe Bryant averaged 25.0pts in 36.0minutes. People at the time certainly knew it as they elected him to 8 straight All NBA teams. He only made one 1st team in an era when he was competing with Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Charles Barkley and Karl Malone, but he also peaked as high as 2nd in the MVP voting. The only person ahead of him on the all-time ppg list that has not been taken yet is Allen Iverson.

But because, uh-oh, he did his scoring in disfavored post player iso fashion, there seems to be this push to elevate just anybody else over him. We got Reggie Miller, who barely averaged 20ppg for much of his career, in there many picks ago. Paul Pierce, who never accomplished what he did as a #1, has been taken. Now we are talking Alex English, another great scorer, but one playing in an inflated duck and chuck system, and a contemporary consistently held in lesser esteem. Pau Gasol and Dikembe Mutombo, guys who were never in any way MVP candidates or #1s at anywhere near the level of Nique.

But again, the thing is, for the objection to be principled, it has to be paired by a measurable performance deficit.

One of the points raised to push along Reggie Miller's candidacy was that Miller, a mere 18.0 scorer for his career, but perhaps 20ish through his prime, with no creative ability, was somehow responsible for his team's consistently good Offensive Ratings. Okay, I find that dubious, but fine. Let's look at that. From the Miller debate it was clear that he could fairly attributed as his team's clear #1 guy for a 10 year span straight through the 1990s. Meanwhile Nique was clearly his team's #1 guy for 9 years beginning in 1984-85 (actually he was in his 10th year too, but was traded midseason greatly complicating the statistical picture, so I just leave that year off). So then:

Reggie Miller's teams 89-90 to 98-99:
89-90: 42-40 ORTG 7th
90-91: 41-41 ORTG 7th
91-92: 40-42 ORTG 6th
92-93: 41-41 ORTG 5th
93-94: 47-35 ORTG 11th
94-95: 52-30 ORTG 8th
95-96: 52-30 ORTG 6th
96-97: 39-43 ORTG 15th
97-98: 58-24 ORTG 4th
98-99: 33-17 (54-28 pace) ORTG 1st
----------------------------------------------
Avg: 46.6wins ORTG 7th

Dominique Wilkins' teams 89-90 to 98-99:
84-85: 34-48 ORTG 16th
85-86: 50-32 ORTG 11th
86-87: 57-25 ORTG 4th
87-88: 50-32 ORTG 5th
88-89: 52-30 ORTG 4th
89-90: 41-41 ORTG 4th
90-91: 43-39 ORTG 8th
91-92: 38-44 ORTG 16th
92-93: 43-39 ORTG 10th
----------------------------------------------
Avg: 45.3wins ORTG 8.7th


So...where exactly is the principled stand there? Where is the evidence that Reggie Miller, low volume "efficient" scorer was helping his team's ORTG and winning record, more than Dominique Wilkins, one of the league's greatest iso scorers? Because it looks to me like Nique's teams were doing just fine with performance very much in line with Reggie's teams. The difference was that Nique was personally responsible for more of it than Reggie was. And Reggie's already off the board. As is Paul Pierce, who cannot match those numbers.

I have 'Nique coming up 7 spots from now and have him WAY above Pierce and WAY, WAY WAY above Reggie.

'Nique WAS the "Human Highlights Film" guy - one of THE most thrilling players ever.

OTOH, you don't mention his defense at all (I'm not saying Reggie or Pierce were great at that end of the floor). I'd be interested to know what you think of it. For me, it always seemed like he wasn't really interested in that half of the game. I assume (but could certainly be wrong) that the reason 'Nique barely cracks most GOAT Top 50s and, iirc, isn't even in the Hall of Fame) is because of his D.

Nique's in the HOF (circa 2006).

You might be thinking of Dantley's long wait?

And no, in a comparison with Reggie Miller I didn't feel particularly compelled to defend his defense.

[pandrade83]

Pablo - I do owe you a response. I'm going to see if I can bang this out quickly.


You had promised in the previous thread to lay out a detailed response; you certainly have. I appreciate the effort.

GREEN: Russell & Wilt were the two best players of their era; the fact that your system doesn't see that is a real problem.
Pablo: I NEVER considered Russell as the first or 2nd best player of the 1960s. The Big "O" had (still has?) Elgin Baylor as his GOAT. In LeBron's Mount Rushmore he has neither Wilt nor Russell, but he does have the Big "O".

Having watched the entirety of the 1960s, I have always considered all three of: Elgin, Jerry West and "O" as better players than Russell. Not only because I've felt they were more complete and better players; but also because I've always felt that had Wilt and Russell traded places, Wilt would have gotten as many rings with the C's while Bill would have gotten less rings (and success) with Wilt's teams. I feel like Nate Thurmond could probably done about as well as did Bill on thos C's All-Star teams - especially because both the GM (Red) and the Coach (Red) was, era-wise, the furthest ahead of his time ever. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill on Nate's teams would have had similar (lack of) success. That close-to-the-basket shooting percentage for a Center was, imo, atrocious. (Which is why, of all my GOAT Top 25, I consider Bill Russell the least "transferable" (i.e., the least likely to be an All-Time Great in any other subsequent decade). I DID get to see him play LIVE at the Gaaaaden a number of times (1963-1967) and always loved him; particularly because of his incredible dignity in the face of the race-hatred of his own fans. So this is NOT a case of some personal bias against him; he was one of the people I most looked up to (both on and OFF the court).

The Cs won a very high percent of their P-O series in games decided by 5 points or less and series that went long. I've always felt that the real MVP was Red - he was THAT superior - imo, he was EASILY worth at least 5 points a game. But I have the OPPOSITE of a pro-Red bias; he ALWAYS struck me as one ARROGANT SOB - but I could never deny his genius.

Russell (with the defensive help of the entirety of the C's great defensive team) barely held Wilt to 5 ppg below his average - meaning either: Russell was not the GOAT defensive player (and by a wide margin) OR that the League was full of centers (clearly having less TEAM-help vs Wilt) that were almost equal to Russell defensively (and a number of them were better offensively) OR some combination of both.

Red thru Blue: I didn't initially start off making (repeated) claims that my system is better than others'. I started doing that because nobody was agreeing with me and most were seriously questioning the value of mine. So my claim of my system being better was just to say that, imo, it DOES produce better results. (Naturally, everyone of us thinks their system is the best - otherwise they wouldn't be voting on that basis - what distinguishes me is that I've just gone ahead and said so).

The "subjective wrinkle" at the end has its own purpose. I started building my system by searching for a way to, hopefully, build the most unity amongst GOAT-list builders THRU hopefully, finding a way to avoid as much subjectivity (and the flame-warring based on it) as possible. That INITIAL basis seems to me to be the ALL-League selections. I envision (at some point in the starry future) that there'd be general consensus that such a list would be a good, common, STARTING POINT.

Btw, I've ALWAYS said that my system has THREE steps; with the 2nd one factoring in all non ALL-League selections; and the 3rd allowing for minor adjustments. Were such a system to be "commonly adopted"; we'd all start off with the same list - but we wouldn't end with the same list - otherwise it'd just be someone (me in this case) dictating everybody's list - not much fun or mutual learning involved.

Everybody rates the non ALL-League factors differently; thus my Step #2 - which makes significant adjustments to the initial list; but not HUGE adjustments.

Similarly with my 3rd Step - which "allows" minor final adjustments (one move up or down vis-a-vis each player's POSITIONAL ranking.

In other words, IF, as I believe to be the case, the ALL-League selections are a more objective (and potentially unifying) basis for initially building GOAT lists; then we have a system that starts from a relatively objective basis but allows a good deal of INDIVIDUAL ("subjective"?) adjustments / refinements for each person's individual GOAT list.

Vis-a-vis your use of Reggie Miller as an example. I recognize the validity of your general point: we have lots more & better tools than they did earlier. My response is this: NOBODY agrees with anybody else about which tools are better and by how much - so it reverts (inevitably imo) back to subjective judgements. And the "proof" of that is the very extreme diversity of GOAT lists.

Again, the ALL-League selections both at THAT time, and having frequently re-reviewed them, since then - APPEAR to me to quite accurately reflect what really happened. Certainly I could be wrong; but that's how I see it.

Btw, Tom Haberstroh has just posted an article attempting to define which NBA teams for the coming season can be called "super-teams" as defined by having THREE super-stars. His ONE CRITERIA for judging the players? ALL-NBA selections (from the previous 3 seasons; exceptions: older players). He even assigned "Point" values almost identical to mine. (Same 5 "Points" for 1st-Teams; same 3 "Points" for 2nd-Teams; he gives 1 "Point" for 3rd-Teams while I give 1.8 "Points". I THINK my idea is a bit better, because 2nd-Teamers are worth 60% of 1st-Teamers so why not 3rd-Teamers being worth 60% of 2nd-Teamers INSTEAD of THREE TIMES as much?) Prior to seeing his latest article, I had very highly respect Haberstroh's thinking (and imagine quite a few other people do too). So it's interesting that he came up with essentially the same system I came up with.

PINK: "The quality went backwards in 1998-2000." Say what??? I disagree strongly. (But don't feel much like arguing about it; or about anything else sports-related either for that matter.) 2000, 2001 and 2002 were the historically great Shaq-Kobe Lakers' Chip-years. The East got weaker; but the West was incredibly strong (Spurs, Kings ...).

And how you can point to 1998 as the start of a significantly weaker period, when it was 1989-1996 when the League added SIX teams in only EIGHT years! That AUTOMATICALLY dilutes the over-all talent pool - virtually guaranteeing the stronger squads to more thoroughly dominate the weaker ones. And, surprise, just as in previous major expansion eras, historically high-percent W-L records were achieved. So, given no further expansion (except by one team in the last 20+ years) AND the influx of foreign talent AND the steady increase in the "American base" of talent AND ever-continuing improvements in: training, injury prevention and recovery; diet; etc. etc. - I believe it's safe to say that since the 1996 season, the general level of play in the League has TENDED to improve slowly but steadily.

Which brings me/us back to the question of how to best evaluate eras/decades (similarly to positional and other comparative issues)? My position (after 100s and 100s of hours of messing around with different formulas and ways to think about it); is that the most sure thing is that the general level of play in the League has steadily improved - i.e., the trend has been closer to slow constant improvement than to any alternative analysis (and again, there is far from universal agreement about when the strong years/periods were and when the weak ones occurred - it was/is the very problematic nature of such "year-by-year" analysis that led me to use more generalized systems. Naturally, there's strengths and weaknesses inherent in both; but I feel mine comes closer to accurate as an initial basis (Plus that's why I have my 2nd & 3rd steps for).

You end your post with,
"Your system doesn't have a way to account for the "color" or context of what's going on because it assumes the league perpetually gets better - which isn't always true."

My system assumes a GENERAL slow-steady improvement (which I'd bet is true and would be agreed to by the majority of NBA-analyzers) WHILE fully allowing for "context". In the first place, otherwise I would have had larger percent increases in value for the 1970s and 1990s - but decreased them (decreased the increases) decidedly due to expansion. Further, my system allows for what I THINK is a decent amount of flexibility and individual "subjective" thinking.

Perhaps it might be one additional proof of the "objectivity" of my system that I would have never ordered my GOAT list like it is now. In other words, I THINK my system helped me overcome my own subjective biases.

Again, thanx for your thoughts. I took them in the spirit of friendly disagreements; and offer mine back in the same spirit.

Thanks for your thoughts - it was intended in the spirit of friendly disagreement

1) WRT Russell, we're going to have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. Boston went from +1.4 on Defense to -4.9; when he retired, they went from -6.4 to -0.1. It's clear to me who made the defense. That Boston won titles with ORatings in the -2.5 to -4 range is nothing short of remarkable - and some of the blame for that has to get laid at the feet of the guys who consistently led in shot attempts (Cousy, Hondo) - two guys who I personally feel went too high.

I know Russell wasn't a strong offensive player - but his defensive strength is such an outlier it's hard ignore. I'm not going to write more because the fact is that we're VERY far apart on this; and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the biggest Russell supporter on this forum by a long shot.

2) WRT your process, you don't need to re-explain it. I've read it enough times
More broadly, this is like a gigantic puzzle. Looking at All-NBA is a nice piece of the puzzle; it's hard to complete the picture without it. But it's only PART of the puzzle - and you're treating it as the whole thing.

3) The league was not in a healthy spot in that '99-'01 stretch. It was a transition stretch - the best players of the next gen weren't ready, the old guard was cooked. You got your years off on the Kings - '02-''04 was their run. The Spurs . . .so-so - as Robinson declined, it took a little bit for the Spurs to re-load around Duncan. Definitely a transition spot for the league. I feel like starting in '02, things got better.

4) Lastly - T-Rex really hit this on the nail of the head better than I'm going to; but today, with the power of analytics & hindsight, we're in a much better place to evaluate the game than writers of yester-year. We're not necessarily smarter - we simply have more tools to work with. It's not about slamming the sports-writing world or the people who covered the game then - we just have better data to work with.

[dhsilv2]

...

Iverson's may be the deepest playoff run, but it's not necessarily the best. He was even more himself in that run, having some games where he carried the team against very weak competition (Indiana, Toronto Milwaukee) and some where he shot his team out of games they should have won. His TS% was an ugly .480 on 30 shots a game though he did get more assists than usual since he was playing hero ball much of the time. If you like Iverson's style, this was an excellent example of it on a team designed to maximize it. If you don't, it's an excellent example of why an Iverson led team will always have a limited ceiling.

Compare to Alex English's 1985 run to the WCF scoring almost as much (28.4ppg/34.3per 100 poss) on 10 less shots a game while showing off a .601 ts%. I know which one I'd rather have and it isn't Iverson.

I'd mentioned at the opening of the last thread that I was watching or re-watching G5 of the '01 ECF. Iverson opened the game shooting terribly (seriously something like 2/18 by early in the 3rd quarter or some such). But one thing I noted (and Bill Walton stated this very thing in the commentary at one point in the first half), is that Iverson---even on the shots he was missing---was frequently breaking the defense down off the dribble, getting by his man and into the paint or perhaps even to the rim (forcing rotations and the interior bigs to come over on the help). And while Iverson didn't have a great finishing rate at the rim most of his career, nor very good in the 3-10 ft range prior to changes to the hand-check rules, he was quick enough that he didn't have many of these shots blocked........which means he usually got the shot up on the rim, while interior defenders had rotated off their man to help/contest him.
This frequently left Sixer big men with no one boxing them out, and lots of offensive rebounding opportunities.

I was curious to see if there any notable association of Iverson's presence and an increased offensive rebounding rate......the findings were interesting.

In '96, the Sixers were 19th/29 in OREB%.
In '97 (with rookie AI), their OREB% jumps to 3rd in the league, then.....
'98: 8th
'99: 2nd
'00: 4th
'01: 2nd
'02: 4th
'03: 7th
'04: 15th (Iverson had missed 34 games this year)
And then it seems to jump up immediately upon the changes to hand-check rules and he doesn't seem to have quite that effect anymore (as Iverson's efficiency and style also shift a bit, as well as that of the whole league; some roster changes as well, iirc).


Anyway, just putting this out there fwiw.

This reminds me of some of the analytics we've seen with Harden the last few years, especially when he had Howard on his team. His missed shots are an exceptionally high offensive rebound rate relative to the league average. It seems that at least in part why analytics say to shoot 3's and layups is in part not just a TS% factor, but an offensive rebound factor as well.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Re: English's playoff numbers vs. Iverson's...

I again have to underscore, double underscore in this particular matchup, the extreme nature of the Nuggets' system at that time. The term "empty stats" gets thrown around a lot, often without much rigor. But what about "inflated stats"? Because of COURSE Alex English's offensive numbers are going to look pretty when the entire point of their system was to run up and down the court as fast as possible to get as many layups as possible. Meanwhile the opposing team is getting the same, unfortunately.

Because that's the thing, the system enabling English's numbers came at the expense of the other team also putting up insane numbers. Iverson's lesser efficiency in a half court slug it out system came with the benefit of also driving down the opposing team's efficiency. Completely opposite camps of basketball theory.

How does that play out?

In the 1985 playoffs for Denver, and the 2001 playoffs for the Sixers:

DENVER
Rnd 1 -- Pace 104.1 PtsFor 120.8 PtsOpp 110.2
Rnd 2 -- Pace 108.1 PtsFor 125.0 PtsOpp 117.8
Rnd 3 -- Pace 112.7 PtsFor 120.2 PtsOpp 132.4

SIXERS
Rnd 1 -- Pace 86.7 PtsFor 93.5 PtsOpp 87.3
Rnd 2 -- Pace 85.3 PtsFor 92.9 PtsOpp 92.1
Rnd 3 -- Pace 84.5 PtsFor 90.1 PtsOpp 89.9
Finals -- Pace 89.6 PtsFor 93.8 PtsOpp 100.6


Those are not remotely comparable situations. There is a cost for the Nugget's pretty shooting percentages, just as there is an upside for the walk it up, slow it down, slam inside in the halfcourt approach of the Sixers. One produces prettier numbers, but not necessarily better results. In both cases the two teams advanced along with their respective game plans until they ran into Lakers squads better at it than they were, then they got squished.

I have absolutely not a doubt in the world that if you flipped English onto those Sixers as the designated halfcourt scorer, and flipped Iverson onto those Nuggets to play in the extreme run n gun, that their respective efficiencies would converge dramatically. In fact when Iverson ended up on a latter day Denver team with Melo late in his career, his TS% went .545, .567, .549. Alex English's career TS% was .550.

And we keep on referring to one man halfcourt shows as having a "limited ceiling". Well a) of course. Aside from Hakeem and Duncan, big post players, virtually nobody can actually win a title alone. Not even LeBron. But b) what about the limited ceiling of playing a defensively casual run n gun system designed to inflate your stats while allowing the opponent to do whatever they want? Because that's never worked either. Not even in the modern era where the Warriors' elite defense often gets overlooked.

[LA Bird]

Same votes as last round:

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

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Willis Reed

Vote 2 - Ray Allen

Reasoning: viewtopic.php?p=58629578#p58629578

[Winsome Gerbil]

Ray Allen mentions at this stage are truly mystifying to me.

Ray Allen > Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins, Russell Westbrook, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, not to mention a host of bigs?

Dominique Wilkins 7x All NBA (1/4/2), .945 MVP Shares, career 24.8pt scorer, 21.6PER
Ray Allen: 2x All NBA (0/1/1), .038 MVP Shares, career 18.9pt scorer, 18.6PER
Mitch Richmond: 5x All NBA (0/3/2), .009 MVP Shares, career 21.0pt scorer, 17.6PER

How's the guy in the middle there get tagged? I hope nobody is under any delusion that if the Celtics had added late prime Mitch Richmond to the team with KG, Pierce and the gang instead of late prime Ray Allen that they wouldn't have been just as good, if not better given that Richmond was the stronger defender. Joe Dumars could have done the trick too.

[70sFan]

Paul Arizin should get more recognition at this point. I like Wilkins and Richmond was decent too, but they don't have better career than Pitchin' Paul. He was MVP candidate in his prime and arguably the best player in the NBA in 1955/56 season.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #36 (disappointing turnout of just 9 votes; 5 required for majority):

Willis Reed - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Pau Gasol - 1 (trex_8063)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)
Dikembe Mutombo - 1 (LABird)
Wes Unseld -1 (pandrade83)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Alex English - 1 (panbeast0)
Sidney Moncrief - 1 (Pablo Novi)

No one can achieve majority. Reed is automatically entered into the runoff as the leader in 1st place votes. Of the players who received one 1st place vote, Allen Iverson is the only one who also received at least one 2ndary vote.
So we will now enter a runoff between Allen Iverson and Willis Reed:

Reed - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)

If your name is not shown here, please state your pick between these two with reasons why.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[JordansBulls]

Vote: Willis Reed winning league mvp, Finals mvp, allstar game mvp and the title the same year gives me his vote.

[dhsilv2]

Ray Allen mentions at this stage are truly mystifying to me.

Ray Allen > Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins, Russell Westbrook, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, not to mention a host of bigs?

Dominique Wilkins 7x All NBA (1/4/2), .945 MVP Shares, career 24.8pt scorer, 21.6PER
Ray Allen: 2x All NBA (0/1/1), .038 MVP Shares, career 18.9pt scorer, 18.6PER
Mitch Richmond: 5x All NBA (0/3/2), .009 MVP Shares, career 21.0pt scorer, 17.6PER

How's the guy in the middle there get tagged? I hope nobody is under any delusion that if the Celtics had added late prime Mitch Richmond to the team with KG, Pierce and the gang instead of late prime Ray Allen that they wouldn't have been just as good, if not better given that Richmond was the stronger defender. Joe Dumars could have done the trick too.

I was rather disappointed by Richmond time and time again over his career. I would absolutely go with Ray Allen over him.

5 VORP seasons equal or better than Mitch's best. 8 equal or better than Mitch's 2nd best. 5 WS 10+ seasons vs 1. 8 PER seasons to 2. 25 career VORP for richmond vs 58.1 for Allen. 79.3 WS for Richmond vs 145.1 for Allen. By every stat we have Allen peaked higher, peaked longer, and had a significantly better career. But Richmond was a volume scorer in an era where 25 a game even on a bad team got you a lot of all nba considerations.

Wilkins, English and Dantley are better arguments that Richmond for me. I'm not sure Richmond will get much consideration on this project, and if so it'll be a while for me.

[Dr Positivity]

I was going to vote Ray Allen 1st, with him having 2 2nd place votes as well any chance that can put him in the run-off since the number of votes for Reed and Iverson are so brutal? I suspect he would be a bigger contender to win than the divisive Iverson. My 2nd vote was going to be Manu

If not my vote is for Reed, he has longevity concerns but a very strong peak with top level non boxscore impact (defense/spacing) and his boxscore was still great including leading league in WS at one point