Top 25 players of all time based on MVP shares

[Warspite]

Do you think this creates a better GOAT list than the MVP award shares?

Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.

By 1st team awards (total awards, then 2nd team as tiebreakers):
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Karl Malone
3. LeBron James
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. TIm Duncan
6 (tie). Bob Cousy
6 (tie). Jerry West
8 (tie). Michael Jordan
8 (tie). Bob Pettit
10. Elgin Baylor
11. Oscar Robertson
12 (tie). Larry Bird
12 (tie). Magic Johnson
14. Shaquille O'Neal
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dolph Schayes
17. Hakeem Olujawon
18. George Mikan
19. Julius Erving
20. Charles Barkley
21. Rick Barry
22. George Gervin
23. Dwight Howard
24. Kevin Durant
25. Jason Kidd

wouldn't you have to adjust the Cs since its twice as hard to make all NBA (and in reality its even more so with Wilt/Russell, 70s Cs and then Hakeem/DRob/Ewing/Shaq) IMHO being 3rd team all NBA C is more impressive than being 2nd team F or G.

[penbeast0]

wouldn't you have to adjust the Cs since its twice as hard to make all NBA (and in reality its even more so with Wilt/Russell, 70s Cs and then Hakeem/DRob/Ewing/Shaq) IMHO being 3rd team all NBA C is more impressive than being 2nd team F or G.

The poster I was quoting whose take I was interested in comparing (before actually looking at the lists; once I looked, I pretty easily was able to choose which list was more like my perceptions) felt that centers were grossly overrepresented in the top 100 project and (to paraphrase) that while centers have an advantage in rebounding and rim protection, smaller players have an equal advantage in moving around more and creating more offense such that the GOAT lists should be roughly (not precisely but generally) equally distributed by position.

I personally believe that, at least up until the 90s which is most of NBA history, centers were significantly more key to winning than any other position. Look at the teams that won championships before the Bad Boys and in the whole of NBA history to that point, the only NBA champion that didn't have a HOF center starting (if not playing at HOF level at times) was the Warrior team that rode Rick Barry's hot hand to the title in 75.

[Pablo Novi]

Do you think this creates a better GOAT list than the MVP award shares?

Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.

By 1st team awards (total awards, then 2nd team as tiebreakers):
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Karl Malone
3. LeBron James
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. TIm Duncan
6 (tie). Bob Cousy
6 (tie). Jerry West
8 (tie). Michael Jordan
8 (tie). Bob Pettit
10. Elgin Baylor
11. Oscar Robertson
12 (tie). Larry Bird
12 (tie). Magic Johnson
14. Shaquille O'Neal
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dolph Schayes
17. Hakeem Olujawon
18. George Mikan
19. Julius Erving
20. Charles Barkley
21. Rick Barry
22. George Gervin
23. Dwight Howard
24. Kevin Durant
25. Jason Kidd

The ONE "slight" problem with your top list is that it does NOT represent MY METHODOLOGY.
I don't use ONLY 1st-Team selections; I also include (to a lesser extent; about 60% historically) 2nd-Team selections (and to a lesser extent still: about 60% historically) 3rd-Team selections. Throw in my adjustments for the ever-increasing DEPTH of Top Players (and over-all play of course) and you get:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d) There is already a decided preponderance of PGs over SGs in this list - so it helps to balance that a bit.

[Pablo Novi]

Do you think this creates a better GOAT list than the MVP award shares?

Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.

By 1st team awards (total awards, then 2nd team as tiebreakers):
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Karl Malone
3. LeBron James
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. TIm Duncan
6 (tie). Bob Cousy
6 (tie). Jerry West
8 (tie). Michael Jordan
8 (tie). Bob Pettit
10. Elgin Baylor
11. Oscar Robertson
12 (tie). Larry Bird
12 (tie). Magic Johnson
14. Shaquille O'Neal
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dolph Schayes
17. Hakeem Olujawon
18. George Mikan
19. Julius Erving
20. Charles Barkley
21. Rick Barry
22. George Gervin
23. Dwight Howard
24. Kevin Durant
25. Jason Kidd

wouldn't you have to adjust the Cs since its twice as hard to make all NBA (and in reality its even more so with Wilt/Russell, 70s Cs and then Hakeem/DRob/Ewing/Shaq) IMHO being 3rd team all NBA C is more impressive than being 2nd team F or G.

Seeing as there are twice as many Guards and Forwards as there are Centers; it is NOT the case that it's twice as hard to make all-NBA.

Secondly, there's a built-in (subjective) ASSUMPTION (with which I don't agree) that you make (based on "circular reasoning"). You claim that "being 3rd team all NBA C is more impressive than being 2nd team F or G." This would be true ONCE the Centers have already been ASSUMED to be much more highly valuable than Fs and Gs. I don't make that assumption.

The near-universal ASSUMPTION that Centers have been much more valuable is based, imo, on a bit of short-sightedness - an overwalueing of stats as compared to any undervalueing of EFFORT which is not reflected in the stats: the extra effort the smaller guys make in: running, cutting, stop-and-starting, dribbling, passing (even thinking? / understanding more intracasies of the play-design & break-downs).

[penbeast0]

Do you think this creates a better GOAT list than the MVP award shares?

Elsewhere I've tried to make the case for why ALL-League selections are much more valuable than MVPs an thus a much better criteria for building a GOAT list. (The two main points: The ALL-League selection process is much, much broader AND deals with players by "position": Guards, Forwards, Center; and, historically speaking, I believe the MVP award has been flawed a number of times; whereas I've never had any BIG problems with the ALL-League selections over the last 58 years.

By 1st team awards (total awards, then 2nd team as tiebreakers):
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Karl Malone
3. LeBron James
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. TIm Duncan
6 (tie). Bob Cousy
6 (tie). Jerry West
8 (tie). Michael Jordan
8 (tie). Bob Pettit
10. Elgin Baylor
11. Oscar Robertson
12 (tie). Larry Bird
12 (tie). Magic Johnson
14. Shaquille O'Neal
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dolph Schayes
17. Hakeem Olujawon
18. George Mikan
19. Julius Erving
20. Charles Barkley
21. Rick Barry
22. George Gervin
23. Dwight Howard
24. Kevin Durant
25. Jason Kidd

The ONE "slight" problem with your top list is that it does NOT represent MY METHODOLOGY.
I don't use ONLY 1st-Team selections; I also include (to a lesser extent; about 60% historically) 2nd-Team selections (and to a lesser extent still: about 60% historically) 3rd-Team selections. Throw in my adjustments for the ever-increasing DEPTH of Top Players (and over-all play of course) and you get:

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

# ! ! PTS ! POS # ! P L A Y E R
1 ! ! 64.5 ! 1 ! Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
2 ! ! 63.9 ! 1 ! Bryant, Kobe
3 ! ! 62.6 ! 1 ! Duncan, Tim
4 ! ! 62.6 ! 2 ! Malone, Karl
5 ! ! 61 ! 1 ! James, LeBron
6 ! ! 55 ! 2 ! West, Jerry
7 ! ! 53 ! 2 ! Erving, Julius
8 ! ! 53 ! 3 ! Jordan, Michael
9 ! ! 51.5 ! 2 ! O'Neal, Shaquille
10 ! ! 50 ! 1 ! Robertson, Oscar
11 ! ! 49 ! 2 ! Johnson, Magic
12 ! ! 48 ! 3 ! Bird, Larry
13 ! ! 46.2 ! 4 ! Baylor, Elgin
14 ! ! 44.5 ! 3 ! Pettit, Bob
15 ! ! 43.9 ! 3 ! Olajuwon, Hakeem
16 ! ! 42.5 ! 4 ! Chamberlain, Wilt
17 ! ! 42.5 ! 5 ! Barry, Rick
18 ! ! 41.3 ! 4 ! Barkley, Charles
19 ! ! 40.5 ! 3 ! Cousy, Bob
20 ! ! 39.9 ! 5 ! Nowitzki, Dirk
21 ! ! 33 ! 5 ! Malone, Moses
22 ! ! 31.9 ! 4 ! Stockton, John
23 ! ! 31.9 ! 6 ! Garnett, Kevin
24 ! ! 31.7 ! 6 ! Robinson, David
25 ! ! 31.4 ! 7 ! Howard, Dwight
26 ! ! 31.3 ! 4 ! Gervin, George
27 ! ! 31 ! 6 ! Durant, Kevin
28 ! ! 30.8 ! 5 ! Paul, Chris
29 ! ! 30.5 ! 8 ! Russell, Bill
30 ! ! 28.2 ! 7 ! Schayes, Dolph
31 ! ! 28 ! 6 ! Kidd, Jason
32 ! ! 27.9 ! 7 ! Payton, Gary
33 ! ! 25.6 ! 8 ! Iverson, Allen
34 ! ! 24.2 ! 5 ! Wade, Dwyane
35 ! ! 24.1 ! 9 ! Nash, Steve
36 ! ! 23.6 ! 7 ! Pippen, Scottie
37 ! ! 23 ! 9 ! Ewing, Patrick
38 ! ! 22.5 ! 10 ! Frazier, Walt
39 ! ! 22.1 ! 8 ! McGrady, Tracy
40 ! ! 22 ! 11 ! Thomas, Isiah
41 ! ! 22 ! 12 ! Westbrook, Russell
42 ! ! 20 ! 10 ! Gilmore, Artis
43 ! ! 19.5 ! 13 ! Sharman, Bill
44 ! ! 19.3 ! 9 ! Wilkins, Dominique
45 ! ! 19.0 ! 11 ! Mikan, George
46 ! ! 18.5 ! 14 ! Archibald, Nate "Tiny"
47 ! ! 18 ! 6 ! Moncrief, Sidney
48 ! ! 17.5 ! 8 ! Lucas, Jerry
49 ! ! 17.5 ! 7 ! Greer, Hal
50 ! ! 17.5 ! 8 ! Westphal, Paul

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

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

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

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

Btw, my INTENT has always been to do an INITIAL GOAT list based on "ALL-League" selection "Shares" - to see how that might look; but I can't find the actual voting (as opposed to the results of that voting) for most of the years prior to the 1986 season).

Thanks, it wasn't supposed to be a criticism, just that your thoughts and this thread had led me to look at the list to compare it to the one the OP had come up with. Having your version is even better comparison.

[Pablo Novi]

Do you think this creates a better GOAT list than the MVP award shares?



By 1st team awards (total awards, then 2nd team as tiebreakers):
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Karl Malone
3. LeBron James
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. TIm Duncan
6 (tie). Bob Cousy
6 (tie). Jerry West
8 (tie). Michael Jordan
8 (tie). Bob Pettit
10. Elgin Baylor
11. Oscar Robertson
12 (tie). Larry Bird
12 (tie). Magic Johnson
14. Shaquille O'Neal
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dolph Schayes
17. Hakeem Olujawon
18. George Mikan
19. Julius Erving
20. Charles Barkley
21. Rick Barry
22. George Gervin
23. Dwight Howard
24. Kevin Durant
25. Jason Kidd

The ONE "slight" problem with your top list is that it does NOT represent MY METHODOLOGY.
I don't use ONLY 1st-Team selections; I also include (to a lesser extent; about 60% historically) 2nd-Team selections (and to a lesser extent still: about 60% historically) 3rd-Team selections. Throw in my adjustments for the ever-increasing DEPTH of Top Players (and over-all play of course) and you get:

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

# ! ! PTS ! POS # ! P L A Y E R
1 ! ! 64.5 ! 1 ! Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
2 ! ! 63.9 ! 1 ! Bryant, Kobe
3 ! ! 62.6 ! 1 ! Duncan, Tim
4 ! ! 62.6 ! 2 ! Malone, Karl
5 ! ! 61 ! 1 ! James, LeBron
6 ! ! 55 ! 2 ! West, Jerry
7 ! ! 53 ! 2 ! Erving, Julius
8 ! ! 53 ! 3 ! Jordan, Michael
9 ! ! 51.5 ! 2 ! O'Neal, Shaquille
10 ! ! 50 ! 1 ! Robertson, Oscar
11 ! ! 49 ! 2 ! Johnson, Magic
12 ! ! 48 ! 3 ! Bird, Larry
13 ! ! 46.2 ! 4 ! Baylor, Elgin
14 ! ! 44.5 ! 3 ! Pettit, Bob
15 ! ! 43.9 ! 3 ! Olajuwon, Hakeem
16 ! ! 42.5 ! 4 ! Chamberlain, Wilt
17 ! ! 42.5 ! 5 ! Barry, Rick
18 ! ! 41.3 ! 4 ! Barkley, Charles
19 ! ! 40.5 ! 3 ! Cousy, Bob
20 ! ! 39.9 ! 5 ! Nowitzki, Dirk
21 ! ! 33 ! 5 ! Malone, Moses
22 ! ! 31.9 ! 4 ! Stockton, John
23 ! ! 31.9 ! 6 ! Garnett, Kevin
24 ! ! 31.7 ! 6 ! Robinson, David
25 ! ! 31.4 ! 7 ! Howard, Dwight
26 ! ! 31.3 ! 4 ! Gervin, George
27 ! ! 31 ! 6 ! Durant, Kevin
28 ! ! 30.8 ! 5 ! Paul, Chris
29 ! ! 30.5 ! 8 ! Russell, Bill
30 ! ! 28.2 ! 7 ! Schayes, Dolph
31 ! ! 28 ! 6 ! Kidd, Jason
32 ! ! 27.9 ! 7 ! Payton, Gary
33 ! ! 25.6 ! 8 ! Iverson, Allen
34 ! ! 24.2 ! 5 ! Wade, Dwyane
35 ! ! 24.1 ! 9 ! Nash, Steve
36 ! ! 23.6 ! 7 ! Pippen, Scottie
37 ! ! 23 ! 9 ! Ewing, Patrick
38 ! ! 22.5 ! 10 ! Frazier, Walt
39 ! ! 22.1 ! 8 ! McGrady, Tracy
40 ! ! 22 ! 11 ! Thomas, Isiah
41 ! ! 22 ! 12 ! Westbrook, Russell
42 ! ! 20 ! 10 ! Gilmore, Artis
43 ! ! 19.5 ! 13 ! Sharman, Bill
44 ! ! 19.3 ! 9 ! Wilkins, Dominique
45 ! ! 19.0 ! 11 ! Mikan, George
46 ! ! 18.5 ! 14 ! Archibald, Nate "Tiny"
47 ! ! 18 ! 6 ! Moncrief, Sidney
48 ! ! 17.5 ! 8 ! Lucas, Jerry
49 ! ! 17.5 ! 7 ! Greer, Hal
50 ! ! 17.5 ! 8 ! Westphal, Paul

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

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

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

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

Btw, my INTENT has always been to do an INITIAL GOAT list based on "ALL-League" selection "Shares" - to see how that might look; but I can't find the actual voting (as opposed to the results of that voting) for most of the years prior to the 1986 season).

Thanks, it wasn't supposed to be a criticism, just that your thoughts and this thread had led me to look at the list to compare it to the one the OP had come up with. Having your version is even better comparison.

Thanx back to you. I didn't really take it as a criticism. And I am very much interested in your further thoughts, as you come up with them. (I've been continually impressed with the conscientiousness you apply to you evaluation of the available information; both here and in the GOAT threads; and readily admit to not even being in your League (or of others) when it comes to analyzing advanced stats.)

If you convince me my system is not good enough; I'll be left with nothing to contribute! lol

[dhsilv2]

By ranking them outside the top 50…? What?

The stat doesn't care about people who aren't top 25 players. Like they just don't matter AT ALL to it. The fact that these guys have meaningful scores in the metric at all gives us a reason to justify them anywhere after about 25. 25 is a bit arbitrary but in a league that's about 75 years old, with 1 mvp per season you'd expect 20-30 people to gotten most of the awards and those should be your top top top guys. This metric is pretty useless after you rank that group.

The problem is MVP voting is for top 5 players. So it's not just about 20-30 players.

A metric that becomes useless after 25 and rates MVP caliber players crazy low just isn't a very good metric.

The OP asked if it was a good top 25 list. It was! You're trying to ask if it is a good metic for something else, it isn't. No metric is great for everything. They all suck, EVERY SINGLE ONE! That's why you have to think critically of the metrics and the context they're used in. Here for top 25, it's a very good metric. If you want to expand it to top 50, you as a thinker must realize why it is a short fall. I think you identified the issue. What you're not seeing is why it is great for what the OP's purpose was. But great isn't perfect, nothing is perfect.

[Eglend]

After Dirk didn't finish in the top 5 for MVP voting in 2011 when he had the best regular season of anybody with Dwight being the only other person that could realistically be argued for, I stopped treating MVP shares as if they meant anything.

[dhsilv2]

wouldn't you have to adjust the Cs since its twice as hard to make all NBA (and in reality its even more so with Wilt/Russell, 70s Cs and then Hakeem/DRob/Ewing/Shaq) IMHO being 3rd team all NBA C is more impressive than being 2nd team F or G.

The poster I was quoting whose take I was interested in comparing (before actually looking at the lists; once I looked, I pretty easily was able to choose which list was more like my perceptions) felt that centers were grossly overrepresented in the top 100 project and (to paraphrase) that while centers have an advantage in rebounding and rim protection, smaller players have an equal advantage in moving around more and creating more offense such that the GOAT lists should be roughly (not precisely but generally) equally distributed by position.

I personally believe that, at least up until the 90s which is most of NBA history, centers were significantly more key to winning than any other position. Look at the teams that won championships before the Bad Boys and in the whole of NBA history to that point, the only NBA champion that didn't have a HOF center starting (if not playing at HOF level at times) was the Warrior team that rode Rick Barry's hot hand to the title in 75.

Why were centers not just as skewed in the 90's? Just because MJ was a freak? Or is there something else I missed? I guess Magic making the finals in 92 is a good counter as well. Dexler with the blazers. But I'm just interested in your deeper thoughts. Shaq, Ewing, and Hakeem were in the finals when MJ left.

[penbeast0]

Why were centers not just as skewed in the 90's? Just because MJ was a freak? Or is there something else I missed? I guess Magic making the finals in 92 is a good counter as well. Dexler with the blazers. But I'm just interested in your deeper thoughts. Shaq, Ewing, and Hakeem were in the finals when MJ left.

As I said, pre-1989 there was only 1 (two actually, I had forgotten Jack Sikma's Sonics) team to win an NBA title without a HOF starting center (even if no longer in prime). In 89, you had the Pistons; then in the 90s you had the Bulls, and more recently centers have been so devalued that they have possibly less value than equivalently ranked players at the other 4 positions rather than considerably more. So, I stop assuming the extra value for centers as highly in 1989 based generally on results (ringz!).

[dhsilv2]

Why were centers not just as skewed in the 90's? Just because MJ was a freak? Or is there something else I missed? I guess Magic making the finals in 92 is a good counter as well. Dexler with the blazers. But I'm just interested in your deeper thoughts. Shaq, Ewing, and Hakeem were in the finals when MJ left.

As I said, pre-1989 there was only 1 (two actually, I had forgotten Jack Sikma's Sonics) team to win an NBA title without a HOF starting center (even if no longer in prime). In 89, you had the Pistons; then in the 90s you had the Bulls, and more recently centers have been so devalued that they have possibly less value than equivalently ranked players at the other 4 positions rather than considerably more. So, I stop assuming the extra value for centers as highly in 1989 based generally on results (ringz!).

Laimbeer has been underrated but I still think he'll find his way into the hall.

Duncan and Shaq (both are centers I don't care how many time I hear about Duncan as a 4) won 9 titles.

I"m sorry but I'm just not buying it. MJ was just a freak. Throw those 6 titles out and it's center after center.

[penbeast0]

Laimbeer has been underrated but I still think he'll find his way into the hall.

Duncan and Shaq (both are centers I don't care how many time I hear about Duncan as a 4) won 9 titles.

I"m sorry but I'm just not buying it. MJ was just a freak. Throw those 6 titles out and it's center after center.

I'd say Sikma is more likely than Big Bad Bill and while I still think center is the most valuable position, it has become a minority position here on RealGM I would guess.

[Rapcity_11]

The stat doesn't care about people who aren't top 25 players. Like they just don't matter AT ALL to it. The fact that these guys have meaningful scores in the metric at all gives us a reason to justify them anywhere after about 25. 25 is a bit arbitrary but in a league that's about 75 years old, with 1 mvp per season you'd expect 20-30 people to gotten most of the awards and those should be your top top top guys. This metric is pretty useless after you rank that group.

The problem is MVP voting is for top 5 players. So it's not just about 20-30 players.

A metric that becomes useless after 25 and rates MVP caliber players crazy low just isn't a very good metric.

The OP asked if it was a good top 25 list. It was! You're trying to ask if it is a good metic for something else, it isn't. No metric is great for everything. They all suck, EVERY SINGLE ONE! That's why you have to think critically of the metrics and the context they're used in. Here for top 25, it's a very good metric. If you want to expand it to top 50, you as a thinker must realize why it is a short fall. I think you identified the issue. What you're not seeing is why it is great for what the OP's purpose was. But great isn't perfect, nothing is perfect.

Considering how poorly it rates a handful of ~25ish guys makes it a poor top 25 metric...

[dhsilv2]

The problem is MVP voting is for top 5 players. So it's not just about 20-30 players.

A metric that becomes useless after 25 and rates MVP caliber players crazy low just isn't a very good metric.

The OP asked if it was a good top 25 list. It was! You're trying to ask if it is a good metic for something else, it isn't. No metric is great for everything. They all suck, EVERY SINGLE ONE! That's why you have to think critically of the metrics and the context they're used in. Here for top 25, it's a very good metric. If you want to expand it to top 50, you as a thinker must realize why it is a short fall. I think you identified the issue. What you're not seeing is why it is great for what the OP's purpose was. But great isn't perfect, nothing is perfect.

Considering how poorly it rates a handful of ~25ish guys makes it a poor top 25 metric...

Who are the 5? And what raw number based system does a better job? And define "ish" cause a guy who's between 25 and 35 is different from 20-25. It's actually a big difference.

[LakerLegend]

The Mailman at #8 should tell everyone this list is trash.

and I think Karl was a great player.

[Rapcity_11]

The OP asked if it was a good top 25 list. It was! You're trying to ask if it is a good metic for something else, it isn't. No metric is great for everything. They all suck, EVERY SINGLE ONE! That's why you have to think critically of the metrics and the context they're used in. Here for top 25, it's a very good metric. If you want to expand it to top 50, you as a thinker must realize why it is a short fall. I think you identified the issue. What you're not seeing is why it is great for what the OP's purpose was. But great isn't perfect, nothing is perfect.

Considering how poorly it rates a handful of ~25ish guys makes it a poor top 25 metric...

Who are the 5? And what raw number based system does a better job? And define "ish" cause a guy who's between 25 and 35 is different from 20-25. It's actually a big difference.

Who said anything about 5? I’ve already brought them up in this thread.

Ish = right around #25. 22-28, something like that.

It doesn’t matter if no raw number based system does a better job. Being better than crap doesn’t make something good.

[thekdog34]

There seems to be offensive bias in voting awards.

[dhsilv2]

Considering how poorly it rates a handful of ~25ish guys makes it a poor top 25 metric...

Who are the 5? And what raw number based system does a better job? And define "ish" cause a guy who's between 25 and 35 is different from 20-25. It's actually a big difference.

Who said anything about 5? I’ve already brought them up in this thread.

Ish = right around #25. 22-28, something like that.

It doesn’t matter if no raw number based system does a better job. Being better than crap doesn’t make something good.

This list isn't crap, neither are other forms. They're all flawed, but all and all this is a darn good list. You're upset over some people who are questionable choices or you're upset over negotiable ranking differences. You're also talking about the fringe of the list....

[Pablo Novi]

fyi,
I've VERY SLIGHTLY changed my post #43 on this page. Here's the note I added at the bottom of it which explains what those two MINOR CHANGES were:

"LATE ADD:
I've made two MINOR CHANGES to the earlier version of this post:
1) I've reformatted my INITIAL GOAT listing (so it's easier to read, hopefully). (I replaced all the"!" with "...")

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

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

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

d) There is already a decided preponderance of PGs over SGs in this list - so it helps to balance that a bit."

[penbeast0]

...

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

West played 13.5 seasons in the NBA; 6.5 with Goodrich (a bit less than half) and Goodrich was a reserve for 3 of those 6.5 (behind Walt Hazzard and Archie Clark as well as West). Of the 3 full seasons Goodrich started next to West, he had half West's assist average in 1971 (4.8 to 9.5), less than half in 72 (4.5 to 9.7), and half again in 73 (4.4 to 8.8) . . . while playing close to equal minutes and scoring nearly as much. West was 4th, led the league, and would have been 2nd in assists/game if he hadn't missed games during those three years he played with Goodrich starting next to him.

In other words, this sounds like a bunch of hooey. I'd like to see the actual quote (maybe, I sometimes played PG when playing next to Jerry West which would be accurate) but every piece of evidence that we have shows West as the primary ballhandler and playmaker or, as we call it, point guard.

West led the Lakers in assists/game for every year of his career except his rookie year (more so than Magic Johnson for example who played off guard next to Norm Nixon until the Lakers dealt Nixon for Byron Scott) although the Laker system used both guards as ballhandler and shared playmakers . . . nearly up until the Goodrich years. Goodrich may have had the least PG responsibilities of any starting Laker guard during West's career though he did play PG in Phoenix.