Moderators: Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier
nods wrote:It's an interesting idea...obviously it's going to skew to the 90's...but for the 70's the next guys up should be George Gervin, Rick Barry, and Walt Frazier.
Bob Pettit should also be in the mix...but I love that you guys made a note of George Mikan
rk2023 wrote:Now that 22 players are inducted/nominated, this is what my next grouping on an all-time list looks like in no order particularly -
Ewing
R. Miller
Harden
Wade
Nash
Barkley
Giannis
Jokic
Pippen
Kawhi?
With 1-2 more prime seasons that parallel their best, I could see the pair of current foreign superstars headlining this grouping and competing more with the players in conversation for #17 and the immediately following rounds. But we are not at that point in time yet, and I don't want to accrue credit for play that hasn't transpired yet from a speculation/projection angle; even taking an approach weighting more for MVP level play, I'm unsure what is the highest outcome I could get when ranking either.
For what we know however: Both have shown to have the floor raising / unimpeachable #1 option ability on a title team, which I could only say for Wade and Kawhi out of the aforementioned player pool. ITO prime consistency, there are a fair share of problems with the latter two two however - where Kawhi certainly has it worse but Wade has some major injuries hampering the heart of his prime. From all I have seen between the two, Wade strikes me as a generally better player stacking up each of their primes. As soon as Kawhi's offensive load increased (2017), his defense was still stellar but never at the levels of "terminator Klaw" 2014-16. While I prefer Kawhi here, I think the attention and offensive pressure Wade put on defense's along with vastly better playmaking contributes to an offensive package outweighing that of the defensive gap Kawhi provides. Getting specific, I would say the high-ends of both players here trump that of anybody not named Giannis and Jokic.
Barkley, Nash, and Harden would be the next three here ITO higher-ends/~peak seasons - being the "one-way" titans of this group. I see Nash's play as the most impressive of the trio, but reckon Barkley has the most "close to MVP level" offensive seasons - implying both of them would be over Harden - at-least from a hypothesis standpoint.
That leaves me with Reggie, Pippen, and Ewing. Clearly Reggie was the best offensive player out of this trio - where I think his ability and impact is under-regarded (even in more nuanced circles). Though I'm unsure how Pipp/Ewing fare in terms of being a #1 on a contending team (I will say, they're both under-ratedly close ITO goodness [Ewing had terrible support at his true peak years]), I have some appreciation for their ability to have defensive impact that was (1) pragmatically valuable and (2) replicable/portable across various schemes and situations. All three have solid, though not outlier level, longevity that I would speculate is the best out of this entire grouping (Nash *could* be an exception with how good he was through his early-mid 30s). Is that enough to make up for the gap between them and the rest's best season(s) quality though? I'm not sure.
Warspite wrote:Billups was a horrible scorer who could only score with an open corner 3 or a FT.
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
70sFan wrote:
Can't wait to hear the second part. I am very vocal about incorrectness about the reducing the GOAT debate to only two guys and I hope more people will realize that thanks to Ben's and Cody's talk. We need more mainstream voices talking about more greats than just these two in GOAT context.
More than advocating for any player (from one whom regards Steph, West, Hakeem, Nash highly) - I liked the firm emphasis on how this is subjective at root no matter how you want to approach all-time rankings. Of course, this being in general and not directed your way Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
postertag wrote:Is there any way we can limit posts that attempt to overly gamify the voting process?
I lurk and follow this project every time it comes around, but this iteration has been pretty obnoxious with regards to campaigning for votes and reducing it to "your vote for X was a waste because this is a convo between Y and Z" -- we learn nothing about basketball history from this.
postertag wrote:Is there any way we can limit posts that attempt to overly gamify the voting process?
I lurk and follow this project every time it comes around, but this iteration has been pretty obnoxious with regards to campaigning for votes and reducing it to "your vote for X was a waste because this is a convo between Y and Z" -- we learn nothing about basketball history from this.
rk2023 wrote:70sFan wrote:
Can't wait to hear the second part. I am very vocal about incorrectness about the reducing the GOAT debate to only two guys and I hope more people will realize that thanks to Ben's and Cody's talk. We need more mainstream voices talking about more greats than just these two in GOAT context.
This was undoubtedly one of my favorites out of the 200+ episodes Ben has published
RE: your point. Certainly agree with that, and It goes to show even on a more nuanced community like PC Board. LBJ vs. Jordan threads are pushed to no breaking point -_-, where it’s consensus in a more main stream that *one* of them has to be GOAT. I’ve re-thought things, and now realize it seems silly to overlook Russell and Kareem’s (for example) status for best body of work depending on what you value. Same goes for single season peak, with other candidates in this running as well. Unsure if such a discussion could be carried out in good faith, however, with the Jordan pushback
"How can you make a bulletproof case that Jerry West wasn't the greatest player of all-time?"
"How do you look at the outlier scoring, the possibility that he may have been a great, great defensive guard with steals and the blocks, we obviously know he was a good passer for his time, and then these massive, massive impact footprints on his team. How do you look at that and say: 'Oh, I'm 100% certain that Bill Russell was better.' Versus if you just change the teammate quality, maybe it's not the Celtics with nine championships in that stretch—maybe it's the Lakers. How can you say with certainty? I don't know how."
postertag wrote:Is there any way we can limit posts that attempt to overly gamify the voting process?
I lurk and follow this project every time it comes around, but this iteration has been pretty obnoxious with regards to campaigning for votes and reducing it to "your vote for X was a waste because this is a convo between Y and Z" -- we learn nothing about basketball history from this.
), I change my vote/nominations, there isn't a right or a wrong. It's just a project, we have plenty of more argumentive threads during the regular season. 
Colbinii wrote:postertag wrote:Is there any way we can limit posts that attempt to overly gamify the voting process?
I lurk and follow this project every time it comes around, but this iteration has been pretty obnoxious with regards to campaigning for votes and reducing it to "your vote for X was a waste because this is a convo between Y and Z" -- we learn nothing about basketball history from this.
You should read the 2020 project where Ardee's sole purpose was to make sure Bryant was ahead of KG and then left the project after this occurred.
HeartBreakKid wrote:postertag wrote:Is there any way we can limit posts that attempt to overly gamify the voting process?
I lurk and follow this project every time it comes around, but this iteration has been pretty obnoxious with regards to campaigning for votes and reducing it to "your vote for X was a waste because this is a convo between Y and Z" -- we learn nothing about basketball history from this.
I'm glad you said it.
There is a lot of political voting and backstage talking in this version of the top 100. (still overall going well, all things considering)
Just vote people and share your thoughts. Don't overcomplicate things. I "throw" my vote away voting for guys who I think deserve my vote. The list is just reflective of what our board thinks, there isn't an ulterior motive. I ask questions about players (not for the sake of combative debate, not all the time at least
When I jumped into the project around the #8 vote I saw a lot of talks essentially trying to create parties ("modernest"). It didn't really take off to be honest, but it was certainly an eye sore.
postertag wrote:Is there any way we can limit posts that attempt to overly gamify the voting process?
I lurk and follow this project every time it comes around, but this iteration has been pretty obnoxious with regards to campaigning for votes and reducing it to "your vote for X was a waste because this is a convo between Y and Z" -- we learn nothing about basketball history from this.
ZeppelinPage wrote:rk2023 wrote:70sFan wrote:Can't wait to hear the second part. I am very vocal about incorrectness about the reducing the GOAT debate to only two guys and I hope more people will realize that thanks to Ben's and Cody's talk. We need more mainstream voices talking about more greats than just these two in GOAT context.
This was undoubtedly one of my favorites out of the 200+ episodes Ben has published
RE: your point. Certainly agree with that, and It goes to show even on a more nuanced community like PC Board. LBJ vs. Jordan threads are pushed to no breaking point -_-, where it’s consensus in a more main stream that *one* of them has to be GOAT. I’ve re-thought things, and now realize it seems silly to overlook Russell and Kareem’s (for example) status for best body of work depending on what you value. Same goes for single season peak, with other candidates in this running as well. Unsure if such a discussion could be carried out in good faith, however, with the Jordan pushback
Gave this a listen and quite frankly I am shocked at Ben Taylor's recent shift in thinking. First, he created his Wilt video, which was well researched and was, for the most part, a more positive view of Wilt Chamberlain. Second, his Allen Iverson video, which was also a positive view of his game--one that analyzed why Iverson was inefficient, why he had to shoot so much, and why a player that can do that is actually valuable.
Now, I'm listening to his podcast and he's saying this about Jerry West:"How can you make a bulletproof case that Jerry West wasn't the greatest player of all-time?""How do you look at the outlier scoring, the possibility that he may have been a great, great defensive guard with steals and the blocks, we obviously know he was a good passer for his time, and then these massive, massive impact footprints on his team. How do you look at that and say: 'Oh, I'm 100% certain that Bill Russell was better.' Versus if you just change the teammate quality, maybe it's not the Celtics with nine championships in that stretch—maybe it's the Lakers. How can you say with certainty? I don't know how."
I've criticized Taylor in the past but this has certainly been refreshing to listen to as I have West extremely high compared to the average person. I'm finding similarities between what he values and what I value, which I wouldn't have previously expected. Some of his final thoughts in his Iverson video were very unexpected as I share much of his positive view on the way Iverson plays and takes pressure off his teammates. His overall thoughts on how we winning can change the perception of a player makes a whole lot of sense. I definitely recommend giving this a listen.
70sFan wrote:ZeppelinPage wrote:rk2023 wrote:
This was undoubtedly one of my favorites out of the 200+ episodes Ben has published
RE: your point. Certainly agree with that, and It goes to show even on a more nuanced community like PC Board. LBJ vs. Jordan threads are pushed to no breaking point -_-, where it’s consensus in a more main stream that *one* of them has to be GOAT. I’ve re-thought things, and now realize it seems silly to overlook Russell and Kareem’s (for example) status for best body of work depending on what you value. Same goes for single season peak, with other candidates in this running as well. Unsure if such a discussion could be carried out in good faith, however, with the Jordan pushback
Gave this a listen and quite frankly I am shocked at Ben Taylor's recent shift in thinking. First, he created his Wilt video, which was well researched and was, for the most part, a more positive view of Wilt Chamberlain. Second, his Allen Iverson video, which was also a positive view of his game--one that analyzed why Iverson was inefficient, why he had to shoot so much, and why a player that can do that is actually valuable.
Now, I'm listening to his podcast and he's saying this about Jerry West:"How can you make a bulletproof case that Jerry West wasn't the greatest player of all-time?""How do you look at the outlier scoring, the possibility that he may have been a great, great defensive guard with steals and the blocks, we obviously know he was a good passer for his time, and then these massive, massive impact footprints on his team. How do you look at that and say: 'Oh, I'm 100% certain that Bill Russell was better.' Versus if you just change the teammate quality, maybe it's not the Celtics with nine championships in that stretch—maybe it's the Lakers. How can you say with certainty? I don't know how."
I've criticized Taylor in the past but this has certainly been refreshing to listen to as I have West extremely high compared to the average person. I'm finding similarities between what he values and what I value, which I wouldn't have previously expected. Some of his final thoughts in his Iverson video were very unexpected as I share much of his positive view on the way Iverson plays and takes pressure off his teammates. His overall thoughts on how we winning can change the perception of a player makes a whole lot of sense. I definitely recommend giving this a listen.
I think the problem is that Ben sometimes focuses too much on falsification of popular narrative and his early work was mostly about it. Now after he wrote a book and made his first public project, he seems to have a lot more freedom and his takes are more nuanced, which I love.
I also believe that the footage I provided helped him getting a better understanding of these old-school players, although maybe that's my being too haughty (I hope not).
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
rk2023 wrote:70sFan wrote:ZeppelinPage wrote:
Gave this a listen and quite frankly I am shocked at Ben Taylor's recent shift in thinking. First, he created his Wilt video, which was well researched and was, for the most part, a more positive view of Wilt Chamberlain. Second, his Allen Iverson video, which was also a positive view of his game--one that analyzed why Iverson was inefficient, why he had to shoot so much, and why a player that can do that is actually valuable.
Now, I'm listening to his podcast and he's saying this about Jerry West:
I've criticized Taylor in the past but this has certainly been refreshing to listen to as I have West extremely high compared to the average person. I'm finding similarities between what he values and what I value, which I wouldn't have previously expected. Some of his final thoughts in his Iverson video were very unexpected as I share much of his positive view on the way Iverson plays and takes pressure off his teammates. His overall thoughts on how we winning can change the perception of a player makes a whole lot of sense. I definitely recommend giving this a listen.
I think the problem is that Ben sometimes focuses too much on falsification of popular narrative and his early work was mostly about it. Now after he wrote a book and made his first public project, he seems to have a lot more freedom and his takes are more nuanced, which I love.
I also believe that the footage I provided helped him getting a better understanding of these old-school players, although maybe that's my being too haughty (I hope not).
Well said on both accounts. Of course, this was/is well before I joined and started interacting on PC Board - but am aware (through past project documentation, his own original T-40, and word of mouth) about Taylor's time/posts on here. Since the original version of top 40, It's refreshing to see more of his work (the consistent being how cogsci, analytics, basketball are all featured) comes out as "inquisitive, yet appreciative" in contrast to some of the more "critical, yet technical" analyses earlier on. Certainly felt this in the recent pod - where the overarching point is how many great players there have been
70sFan wrote:ZeppelinPage wrote:rk2023 wrote:
This was undoubtedly one of my favorites out of the 200+ episodes Ben has published
RE: your point. Certainly agree with that, and It goes to show even on a more nuanced community like PC Board. LBJ vs. Jordan threads are pushed to no breaking point -_-, where it’s consensus in a more main stream that *one* of them has to be GOAT. I’ve re-thought things, and now realize it seems silly to overlook Russell and Kareem’s (for example) status for best body of work depending on what you value. Same goes for single season peak, with other candidates in this running as well. Unsure if such a discussion could be carried out in good faith, however, with the Jordan pushback
Gave this a listen and quite frankly I am shocked at Ben Taylor's recent shift in thinking. First, he created his Wilt video, which was well researched and was, for the most part, a more positive view of Wilt Chamberlain. Second, his Allen Iverson video, which was also a positive view of his game--one that analyzed why Iverson was inefficient, why he had to shoot so much, and why a player that can do that is actually valuable.
Now, I'm listening to his podcast and he's saying this about Jerry West:"How can you make a bulletproof case that Jerry West wasn't the greatest player of all-time?""How do you look at the outlier scoring, the possibility that he may have been a great, great defensive guard with steals and the blocks, we obviously know he was a good passer for his time, and then these massive, massive impact footprints on his team. How do you look at that and say: 'Oh, I'm 100% certain that Bill Russell was better.' Versus if you just change the teammate quality, maybe it's not the Celtics with nine championships in that stretch—maybe it's the Lakers. How can you say with certainty? I don't know how."
I've criticized Taylor in the past but this has certainly been refreshing to listen to as I have West extremely high compared to the average person. I'm finding similarities between what he values and what I value, which I wouldn't have previously expected. Some of his final thoughts in his Iverson video were very unexpected as I share much of his positive view on the way Iverson plays and takes pressure off his teammates. His overall thoughts on how we winning can change the perception of a player makes a whole lot of sense. I definitely recommend giving this a listen.
I think the problem is that Ben sometimes focuses too much on falsification of popular narrative and his early work was mostly about it. Now after he wrote a book and made his first public project, he seems to have a lot more freedom and his takes are more nuanced, which I love.
I also believe that the footage I provided helped him getting a better understanding of these old-school players, although maybe that's my being too haughty (I hope not).
70sFan wrote:HeartBreakKid wrote:postertag wrote:Is there any way we can limit posts that attempt to overly gamify the voting process?
I lurk and follow this project every time it comes around, but this iteration has been pretty obnoxious with regards to campaigning for votes and reducing it to "your vote for X was a waste because this is a convo between Y and Z" -- we learn nothing about basketball history from this.
I'm glad you said it.
There is a lot of political voting and backstage talking in this version of the top 100. (still overall going well, all things considering)
Just vote people and share your thoughts. Don't overcomplicate things. I "throw" my vote away voting for guys who I think deserve my vote. The list is just reflective of what our board thinks, there isn't an ulterior motive. I ask questions about players (not for the sake of combative debate, not all the time at least
When I jumped into the project around the #8 vote I saw a lot of talks essentially trying to create parties ("modernest"). It didn't really take off to be honest, but it was certainly an eye sore.
Especially frustrating because I don't see any "old-timers" or "modernists" outside of one specific example, who isn't even consistent himself...
ZeppelinPage wrote:...