What is your criteria for choosing the greatest careers?

[70sFan]

As I said, players can trascend their league, but the league a player dominated is extremely relevant. I'd have Kareem top 3 probably, whereas I wouldn't have Mikan top 100. It depends on the context.

But your cutoff point is completely arbitrary and you know that. I can understand why you don't rate the early 1950s, but Kareem had the huge part of his prime played against the 1960s players. The same player you said sucked terribly.

The truth is that you can't find a legitimate point when the league started to be relevant. Your inclusion of Kareem for top 3 doesn't have much sense if you think Nate Thurmond is a scrub who wouldn't make G-league.

[One_and_Done]

I never said Thurmond was a g-leaguer. If you see my amended post you will note I recognise that players played across era; that's exactly what we should look at to help evaluate these eras. We may just disagree about the evaluation.

[Lou Fan]

I think both approaches are subjective choices, but using era-relative one gives us less arbitrary results. Despite the "absolute" one being more objective in a perfect scenario (you don't weigh the importance of contextual information), we don't have any reliable tools to compare players ability to play basketball across eras in absolute sense. We don't know how much better basketball became from 1963 to 1993 compared to the shift from 1993 to 2023.

I don't disagree with OhayoKD, but I kinda agree with penbeast that top 100 project with such criteria would give us more arbitrary lists and worse process as a whole.

I agree with you but I don't think that means we can condemn the approach. I remember in 2017 I argued with a guy who's criteria was some formula adding All-NBA selections together and had has list have one person at each position for every 5 spots with the first one always being a center because "centers are the strongest position" and that was allowed. If something that ridiculous is fine, then surely something that actually makes logical sense is fine.

[70sFan]

I never said Thurmond was a g-leaguer. If you see my amended post you will note I recognise that players played across era; that's exactly what we should look at to help evaluate these eras. We may just disagree about the evaluation.

Didn't you say that prime Wilt faced absolutely no competition at center outside of Russell?

[70sFan]

I think both approaches are subjective choices, but using era-relative one gives us less arbitrary results. Despite the "absolute" one being more objective in a perfect scenario (you don't weigh the importance of contextual information), we don't have any reliable tools to compare players ability to play basketball across eras in absolute sense. We don't know how much better basketball became from 1963 to 1993 compared to the shift from 1993 to 2023.

I don't disagree with OhayoKD, but I kinda agree with penbeast that top 100 project with such criteria would give us more arbitrary lists and worse process as a whole.

I agree with you but I don't think that means we can condemn the approach. I remember in 2017 I argued with a guy who's criteria was some formula adding All-NBA selections together and had has list have one person at each position for every 5 spots with the first one always being a center because "centers are the strongest position" and that was allowed. If something that ridiculous is fine, then surely something that actually makes logical sense is fine.

Yeah, I am not for banning people from the project for having a different criteria. I am for trying to establish the best criteria, but it is up for every poster to decide what they think is the best way to create such list.

Nothing is worse than the incident we had when certain poster did everything to push his favourite player over another player and then ignore the rest of the project though...

[One_and_Done]

I never said Thurmond was a g-leaguer. If you see my amended post you will note I recognise that players played across era; that's exactly what we should look at to help evaluate these eras. We may just disagree about the evaluation.

Didn't you say that prime Wilt faced absolutely no competition at center outside of Russell?

Pretty sure you imagined it.

[70sFan]

I never said Thurmond was a g-leaguer. If you see my amended post you will note I recognise that players played across era; that's exactly what we should look at to help evaluate these eras. We may just disagree about the evaluation.

Didn't you say that prime Wilt faced absolutely no competition at center outside of Russell?

Pretty sure you imagined it.

Did I also imagine that you said G-league roleplayers would be stars in the 1960s?

[One_and_Done]

That I said. It is not mutually exclusive from the other statement.

[70sFan]

That I said. It is not mutually exclusive from the other statement.

How? I don't understand that.

What are your thoughts about the 1960s centers like Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Beaty, Lovellette?

[One_and_Done]

As I have said, players can trascend a bad league. The mileage may vary on how much they do. Thurmond for instance can transcend the bad league he's in, but just not as much as Wilt. I'm not saying he did, we can debate that later, but that is one example of how both statements can be true.

Alternatively, I could just think the average player sucked in the 60's. Therefore many G-Leaguers might be all-stars, but Wilt would still be better than them. They'd be taking the all-star spots of lesser players who were not Wilt.

On the whole I think the 60s was a garbage league compared to today's game, but that doesn't mean every player in it was garbage.

[70sFan]

As I have said, players can trascend a bad league. The mileage may vary on how much they do. Thurmond for instance can transcend the bad league he's in, but just not as much as Wilt. I'm not saying he did, we can debate that later, but that is one example of how both statements can be true.

Alternatively, I could just think the average player sucked in the 60's. Therefore many G-Leaguers might be all-stars, but Wilt would still be better than them. They'd be taking the all-star spots of lesser players who were not Wilt.

On the whole I think the 60s was a garbage league compared to today's game, but that doesn't mean every player in it was garbage.

How do you differentiate which player was garbage and which wasn't? How many games have you seen from that era?

[One_and_Done]

Film. Stats. Results. We all know this is an inexact science, that's what the discussion is for. I am sure we'll disagree on the evaluations, but a player isn't bad just because of when he played. I'm not going to punish a player for being born in the modern era either though.

[70sFan]

Film. Stats. Results. We all know this is an inexact science, that's what the discussion is for. I am sure we'll disagree on the evaluations, but a player isn't bad just because of when he played. I'm not going to punish a player for being born in the modern era either though.

Ok, but how about players we don't have much film about? How can you evaluate a starter from 1965 Detroit Pistons team? Do you assume he was bad or not?

If someone like Zelmo Beaty played in a garbage league, faced garbage competition and didn't dominate that league, does it mean he was also garbage?

[Tim Lehrbach]

This is going to be an interesting Top 100!

Mikan got mentioned above. I don't think the "Mikan problem" has even been adequately dealt with. If you believe that greatness is about how much you dominated your contemporaries (vs. absolute basketball ability/sophistication, the debate at hand here), then you must think every Top 100 to date has drastically underrated Mikan (and Pettit, probably). Or, you adjust for quality of contemporaries, in which case I wonder whether you consistently apply such adjustment to the players of today and/or believe this is not a strong era either. I suppose a third, and likely widely held, alternative is that you do believe in a cumulative model of basketball ability and hold that there was just a massive gulf between the quality of 1940s/50s NBA basketball and everything that came thereafter (and no additional such gulfs going forward), but I'd wonder how you can hold such an opinion when honestly comparing some of the reserves (particularly bigs) of say, the 1990s, to today's margins of the league.

[70sFan]

This is going to be an interesting Top 100!

Mikan got mentioned above. I don't think the "Mikan problem" has even been adequately dealt with. If you believe that greatness is about how much you dominated your contemporaries (vs. absolute basketball ability/sophistication, the debate at hand here), then you must think every Top 100 to date has drastically underrated Mikan (and Pettit, probably). Or, you adjust for quality of contemporaries, in which case I wonder whether you consistently apply such adjustment to the players of today and/or believe this is not a strong era either. I suppose a third, and likely widely held, alternative is that you do believe in a cumulative model of basketball ability and hold that there was just a massive gulf between the quality of 1940s/50s NBA basketball and everything that came thereafter (and no additional such gulfs going forward), but I'd wonder how you can hold such an opinion when honestly comparing some of the reserves (particularly bigs) of say, the 1990s, to today's margins of the league.

I actually think having Mikan at the edge of top 30 is fair if you heavily respect total career value. Mikan has one of the greatest peaks ever, but his NBA career is very short and to put him much higher, you'd have to value his peak way higher than other GOAT candidates. I think I'd have Mikan close to top 20 because of that, though I didn't evaluate his pre-1950 seasons yet.

[One_and_Done]

If you want a guy ranked highly the burden is on the people making that argument. If a player has zero footage I'd strongly argue against ranking him at all.

[70sFan]

If you want a guy ranked highly the burden is on the people making that argument. If a player has zero footage I'd strongly argue against ranking him at all.

But if the majority of the 1960s players have zero (or very limited) footage, then you shouldn't rank them at all - yet you do, by calling them garbage.

If you call player garbage, the burden of proof is on you.

[Tim Lehrbach]

This is going to be an interesting Top 100!

Mikan got mentioned above. I don't think the "Mikan problem" has even been adequately dealt with. If you believe that greatness is about how much you dominated your contemporaries (vs. absolute basketball ability/sophistication, the debate at hand here), then you must think every Top 100 to date has drastically underrated Mikan (and Pettit, probably). Or, you adjust for quality of contemporaries, in which case I wonder whether you consistently apply such adjustment to the players of today and/or believe this is not a strong era either. I suppose a third, and likely widely held, alternative is that you do believe in a cumulative model of basketball ability and hold that there was just a massive gulf between the quality of 1940s/50s NBA basketball and everything that came thereafter (and no additional such gulfs going forward), but I'd wonder how you can hold such an opinion when honestly comparing some of the reserves (particularly bigs) of say, the 1990s, to today's margins of the league.

I actually think having Mikan at the edge of top 30 is fair if you heavily respect total career value. Mikan has one of the greatest peaks ever, but his NBA career is very short and to put him much higher, you'd have to value his peak way higher than other GOAT candidates. I think I'd have Mikan close to top 20 because of that, though I didn't evaluate his pre-1950 seasons yet.

Thanks for that added nuance. Yes, an unstated premise of my post is that I would expect his peak, in a consistent evaluation, blows most others away. But you're right that he is penalized for a shorter NBA career than most. I still wonder whether he and his league are regarded fairly, but I guess that'll be a great topic to revisit when the project begins!

[70sFan]

This is going to be an interesting Top 100!

Mikan got mentioned above. I don't think the "Mikan problem" has even been adequately dealt with. If you believe that greatness is about how much you dominated your contemporaries (vs. absolute basketball ability/sophistication, the debate at hand here), then you must think every Top 100 to date has drastically underrated Mikan (and Pettit, probably). Or, you adjust for quality of contemporaries, in which case I wonder whether you consistently apply such adjustment to the players of today and/or believe this is not a strong era either. I suppose a third, and likely widely held, alternative is that you do believe in a cumulative model of basketball ability and hold that there was just a massive gulf between the quality of 1940s/50s NBA basketball and everything that came thereafter (and no additional such gulfs going forward), but I'd wonder how you can hold such an opinion when honestly comparing some of the reserves (particularly bigs) of say, the 1990s, to today's margins of the league.

I actually think having Mikan at the edge of top 30 is fair if you heavily respect total career value. Mikan has one of the greatest peaks ever, but his NBA career is very short and to put him much higher, you'd have to value his peak way higher than other GOAT candidates. I think I'd have Mikan close to top 20 because of that, though I didn't evaluate his pre-1950 seasons yet.

Thanks for that added nuance. Yes, an unstated premise of my post is that I would expect his peak, in a consistent evaluation, blows most others away. But you're right that he is penalized for a shorter NBA career than most. I still wonder whether he and his league are regarded fairly, but I guess that'll be a great topic to revisit when the project begins!

I think the early 1950s aren't regarded fairly at all in such discussions, but we will see when it will go this time.

I don't think we have any reasons to believe that Mikan is clearly better relative to league average than any other GOAT candidate to be honest. He's definitely in discussion, but I disagree that nobody ever reached his level of dominance. I am not super informed of pre-1955 NBA either though, so maybe we'll get some great information in the future debates.

[One_and_Done]

There's not zero footage of the 60s though. There is just alot less footage. There's enough to form a view about the quality of the league