The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP)

Moderators: Doctor MJ, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063

trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 8,864
And1: 4,824
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
   

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#101 » by trex_8063 » Tue Jan 9, 2018 3:18 am

Ainosterhaspie wrote:Sadly I'm very late to this process and to finding realgm, but I'd still like to participate in what remains of the process. Please add me as a voter if I pass the evaluation and/or probationary period.

I rank players based on principles below.

1A. I like Bill Simmons tier approach. So I have all time greats in different tiers, though I've never really nailed down who is in each tier except the GOAT tier.

1B. I also have a bias toward the modern era which I view as starting roughly around the merger and three point line. Guys who are in a tier, but pre-modern are automatically below modern guys in the same tier, but above modern guys on a lower tier. This is done because changes in the game, talent pool and many other things make comparisons of guys that far apart more or less impossible. Russell and Wilt may be very hard to compare to modern players given the changes to the game, but they were clearly the GOAT of their era so they rank above all but the modern GOAT tier guys.

2. Rings and team success matter to me, but are only a part of my thinking. Basketball is a team game and while great individual talent can have more impact than in other team sports, there is a limit to that. Sometimes an opposing team is so superior that individual greatness cannot overcome it. Losing while playing well means more to me than winning while playing poorly. Magic and Kareem's team success in terms of titles plus conference championships is more impressive to me than MJ's though he is above both for other reasons.

3. I like advanced stats and tend to tune out eye test arguments, but advanced stats cannot completely replace watching a game. (At least as far as I know. ) I'm becoming aware that there are even more advanced stats that the original advanced stats, but confess to not being all that familiar with them. Stats can deceive just as memories and initial impressions of a game can deceive. But is best to check one against the other to come to a more valid conclusion.

4. I'm not impressed with high volume low efficiency scoring and think it is often a negative.

5. All offense no defense guys tend to be below all defense, no offense guys in my mind. Even more so if they are all inefficient offense.

6. Longevity matters both in terms of longevity of peak and longevity of ability to contribute as a highly useful piece of a team.

7. Elite role players can be higher on the list than guys who have franchise player potential or who've held that role. If we had an all time draft for a 30 team league, after the 30 franchise guys are off the board, it's time to start looking for complimentary players even if it means leaving franchise guys undrafted.

8. My evaluation of decades is 10's = 80's > '00s > 90s > 60s > 70s > rest.

9. Excitement matters, but only as a tiebreaker.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
All-Time NE Fantasy Team
PG-Chauncey Billups (06-08)/Terry Porter (91-93)
SG-George Gervin (78-80)/Danny Green
SF-R. Barry (67-70)/Bruce Bowen (04-06)
PF-Ho Grant (92-94)/D. Cowens (74-76)
C-D. Robinson (94-96)/Kevin Willis (92-94)
Bill Sharman (coach)
OverAndOut
Sophomore
Posts: 234
And1: 255
Joined: Nov 16, 2018

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#102 » by OverAndOut » Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:52 am

scrabbarista wrote:I am one of those who rely on a formula to develop my list. I had one formula for the last three or four years, one that I altered regularly over that time. I've recently scrapped it for a new one.

The reason I use a formula is because I believe that not relying on one is too slippery of a slope. (Anyone who's read Bill Simmons' book surely noticed a slant toward the Celtics, e.g.). The goal, for me, is always to develop a formula that matches my subjective opinions as closely as possible. I may think Dirk Nowitzki was better than Karl Malone, but until I can develop a formula that applies the same criteria to both of them (and that same criteria to every other player who ever played in the league) and has Dirk coming out on top, then my official opinion - the opinion I will share in casual conversation and formal debate - will be that Malone was the better player.

I'm a lifelong reader, and basketball is one of my favorite subjects, so I've read a number of books on it. The biographies of Kareem, Bird, Shaq, Jordan, and Bill Russell spring to mind first, as well as Bill Simmons' book, which I devoured in about twenty-four hours (getting no sleep) and is one of my favorite books of any kind. It inspired me to make my first ATG List.

I'm actually a huge believer in intangibles and off-court qualities. In fact, it's my belief that they translate so consistently into on-court success (when combined with talent, obviously) that even allows me to suppose that a formula can serve as a guide to ranking.

I'm familiar with the argument that a formula is always going to have gaps, is always going to miss things that any careful observer could plainly see. However, I believe that no observer is perfect either, least of all myself, and I simply prefer to use a formula. As a side note, it has the added entertainment value of giving me a visual (i.e., numerical) representation of the historical "hunt for greatness."

What goes into my formula: (I will probably forget a few small details, but I'll do my best to get everything down here.)

"Winning." Players get points for being the undisputed best player on a championship team, the undisputed best player on a finalist, one of two more-or-less equal "best" players on a championship team (happened this year), or simply a member of a championship roster at the end of a season. A bonus is added to a player's career for every "Best on Champ" he achieves. "Winning" is one of the categories, probably the most important, that is meant to capture the intangible qualities that I so firmly believe in.

Post Season Totals. My old formula was far more complicated, but became much too time-consuming (it involved players' career rankings in numerous categories - rankings which are constantly changing). Now I simply add up a player's career points, blocks, steals, assists, and rebounds. There is a small penalty for ABA totals. I don't worry about some stats not being counted before 1974, etc, because I find that pace balances out this discrepancy. Also, as it's much harder to even get into the league as time goes on, I see nothing wrong with giving modern players small advantages of this kind.

Regular Season Totals. Same as above. For nearly every player, career RS Totals have far more total value than PS Totals. The only exceptions I'm aware of, and all of them barely qualify, are Magic Johnson, Lebron James, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili.

Regular Season Stats. Weight is given to a total of 19 statistical categories. Any time a player finished in the Top 5 in any of these categories, it is recorded. Eight categories earn 1 point, while eleven earn half of a point. Some players like Oscar Robertson earn huge totals in this area, while others like Scottie Pippen are nearly invisible.

Honors. This category is meant to incorporate the eye-test, just not my eye-test. I would love to do without the category, as obvious media bias can be found here, but there are more players who need these points than there are players who benefited unjustly from them, so I include it. Points are given for Top 5 MVP finishes (fifth through first are weighted accordingly), and All-NBA finishes. The 3rd team is worth less than 1st, 2nd, and All-Defensive. Any time a player finishes in the Top 5 in MVP voting, his total career score receives a bonus. I don't like the fact that small-market players suffer historically in MVP voting, but again, I think MVP voting is much more helpful than detrimental in creating an ATG List.

"Loyalty." Based on the number of teams a player played for (so, Lebron only played for two, because Cleveland only counts once), this category has a miniscule weight the higher one climbs on the list. However, it may often flip two players who are close to each other. This is another attempt at quantifying intangibles. It measures a team's loyalty to a player as well as a player's loyalty to his team.

Era. Tiny penalties are accrued for each decade before the 2000's. 2001-present are considered equal.

RealGM 2014 List. Fairly significant points are earned here. I have projected rankings for Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, and Anthony Davis to make sure they aren't unfairly penalized. Once the 2017 List starts to take shape, my own list will change to reflect the new RGM rankings.

Hi, I plan on making my own formula soon, and was wondering if you could share yours through PM so I could perhaps get some ideas? Thank you.
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 15,608
And1: 8,632
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#103 » by Colbinii » Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:45 am

OverAndOut wrote:
scrabbarista wrote:I am one of those who rely on a formula to develop my list. I had one formula for the last three or four years, one that I altered regularly over that time. I've recently scrapped it for a new one.

The reason I use a formula is because I believe that not relying on one is too slippery of a slope. (Anyone who's read Bill Simmons' book surely noticed a slant toward the Celtics, e.g.). The goal, for me, is always to develop a formula that matches my subjective opinions as closely as possible. I may think Dirk Nowitzki was better than Karl Malone, but until I can develop a formula that applies the same criteria to both of them (and that same criteria to every other player who ever played in the league) and has Dirk coming out on top, then my official opinion - the opinion I will share in casual conversation and formal debate - will be that Malone was the better player.

I'm a lifelong reader, and basketball is one of my favorite subjects, so I've read a number of books on it. The biographies of Kareem, Bird, Shaq, Jordan, and Bill Russell spring to mind first, as well as Bill Simmons' book, which I devoured in about twenty-four hours (getting no sleep) and is one of my favorite books of any kind. It inspired me to make my first ATG List.

I'm actually a huge believer in intangibles and off-court qualities. In fact, it's my belief that they translate so consistently into on-court success (when combined with talent, obviously) that even allows me to suppose that a formula can serve as a guide to ranking.

I'm familiar with the argument that a formula is always going to have gaps, is always going to miss things that any careful observer could plainly see. However, I believe that no observer is perfect either, least of all myself, and I simply prefer to use a formula. As a side note, it has the added entertainment value of giving me a visual (i.e., numerical) representation of the historical "hunt for greatness."

What goes into my formula: (I will probably forget a few small details, but I'll do my best to get everything down here.)

"Winning." Players get points for being the undisputed best player on a championship team, the undisputed best player on a finalist, one of two more-or-less equal "best" players on a championship team (happened this year), or simply a member of a championship roster at the end of a season. A bonus is added to a player's career for every "Best on Champ" he achieves. "Winning" is one of the categories, probably the most important, that is meant to capture the intangible qualities that I so firmly believe in.

Post Season Totals. My old formula was far more complicated, but became much too time-consuming (it involved players' career rankings in numerous categories - rankings which are constantly changing). Now I simply add up a player's career points, blocks, steals, assists, and rebounds. There is a small penalty for ABA totals. I don't worry about some stats not being counted before 1974, etc, because I find that pace balances out this discrepancy. Also, as it's much harder to even get into the league as time goes on, I see nothing wrong with giving modern players small advantages of this kind.

Regular Season Totals. Same as above. For nearly every player, career RS Totals have far more total value than PS Totals. The only exceptions I'm aware of, and all of them barely qualify, are Magic Johnson, Lebron James, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili.

Regular Season Stats. Weight is given to a total of 19 statistical categories. Any time a player finished in the Top 5 in any of these categories, it is recorded. Eight categories earn 1 point, while eleven earn half of a point. Some players like Oscar Robertson earn huge totals in this area, while others like Scottie Pippen are nearly invisible.

Honors. This category is meant to incorporate the eye-test, just not my eye-test. I would love to do without the category, as obvious media bias can be found here, but there are more players who need these points than there are players who benefited unjustly from them, so I include it. Points are given for Top 5 MVP finishes (fifth through first are weighted accordingly), and All-NBA finishes. The 3rd team is worth less than 1st, 2nd, and All-Defensive. Any time a player finishes in the Top 5 in MVP voting, his total career score receives a bonus. I don't like the fact that small-market players suffer historically in MVP voting, but again, I think MVP voting is much more helpful than detrimental in creating an ATG List.

"Loyalty." Based on the number of teams a player played for (so, Lebron only played for two, because Cleveland only counts once), this category has a miniscule weight the higher one climbs on the list. However, it may often flip two players who are close to each other. This is another attempt at quantifying intangibles. It measures a team's loyalty to a player as well as a player's loyalty to his team.

Era. Tiny penalties are accrued for each decade before the 2000's. 2001-present are considered equal.

RealGM 2014 List. Fairly significant points are earned here. I have projected rankings for Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, and Anthony Davis to make sure they aren't unfairly penalized. Once the 2017 List starts to take shape, my own list will change to reflect the new RGM rankings.

Hi, I plan on making my own formula soon, and was wondering if you could share yours through PM so I could perhaps get some ideas? Thank you.

I'm going to give you some advice on creating your formula...

1) Look for stats that match your eye test

2) Use a variety of different inputs [box score derived, non-box score derived, impact data, media voting even]

3) Once you get a baseline, tweak only where you see a big no-no or something you disagree with

4) Get others input from multiple sources



Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app
tsherkin wrote:Locked due to absence of adult conversation.


penbeast0 wrote:Guys, if you don't have anything to say, don't post.


E-Balla wrote:LeBron is Jeff George.
scrabbarista
General Manager
Posts: 7,702
And1: 5,403
Joined: May 31, 2015

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#104 » by scrabbarista » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:09 pm

OverAndOut wrote:
scrabbarista wrote:I am one of those who rely on a formula to develop my list. I had one formula for the last three or four years, one that I altered regularly over that time. I've recently scrapped it for a new one.

The reason I use a formula is because I believe that not relying on one is too slippery of a slope. (Anyone who's read Bill Simmons' book surely noticed a slant toward the Celtics, e.g.). The goal, for me, is always to develop a formula that matches my subjective opinions as closely as possible. I may think Dirk Nowitzki was better than Karl Malone, but until I can develop a formula that applies the same criteria to both of them (and that same criteria to every other player who ever played in the league) and has Dirk coming out on top, then my official opinion - the opinion I will share in casual conversation and formal debate - will be that Malone was the better player.

I'm a lifelong reader, and basketball is one of my favorite subjects, so I've read a number of books on it. The biographies of Kareem, Bird, Shaq, Jordan, and Bill Russell spring to mind first, as well as Bill Simmons' book, which I devoured in about twenty-four hours (getting no sleep) and is one of my favorite books of any kind. It inspired me to make my first ATG List.

I'm actually a huge believer in intangibles and off-court qualities. In fact, it's my belief that they translate so consistently into on-court success (when combined with talent, obviously) that even allows me to suppose that a formula can serve as a guide to ranking.

I'm familiar with the argument that a formula is always going to have gaps, is always going to miss things that any careful observer could plainly see. However, I believe that no observer is perfect either, least of all myself, and I simply prefer to use a formula. As a side note, it has the added entertainment value of giving me a visual (i.e., numerical) representation of the historical "hunt for greatness."

What goes into my formula: (I will probably forget a few small details, but I'll do my best to get everything down here.)

"Winning." Players get points for being the undisputed best player on a championship team, the undisputed best player on a finalist, one of two more-or-less equal "best" players on a championship team (happened this year), or simply a member of a championship roster at the end of a season. A bonus is added to a player's career for every "Best on Champ" he achieves. "Winning" is one of the categories, probably the most important, that is meant to capture the intangible qualities that I so firmly believe in.

Post Season Totals. My old formula was far more complicated, but became much too time-consuming (it involved players' career rankings in numerous categories - rankings which are constantly changing). Now I simply add up a player's career points, blocks, steals, assists, and rebounds. There is a small penalty for ABA totals. I don't worry about some stats not being counted before 1974, etc, because I find that pace balances out this discrepancy. Also, as it's much harder to even get into the league as time goes on, I see nothing wrong with giving modern players small advantages of this kind.

Regular Season Totals. Same as above. For nearly every player, career RS Totals have far more total value than PS Totals. The only exceptions I'm aware of, and all of them barely qualify, are Magic Johnson, Lebron James, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili.

Regular Season Stats. Weight is given to a total of 19 statistical categories. Any time a player finished in the Top 5 in any of these categories, it is recorded. Eight categories earn 1 point, while eleven earn half of a point. Some players like Oscar Robertson earn huge totals in this area, while others like Scottie Pippen are nearly invisible.

Honors. This category is meant to incorporate the eye-test, just not my eye-test. I would love to do without the category, as obvious media bias can be found here, but there are more players who need these points than there are players who benefited unjustly from them, so I include it. Points are given for Top 5 MVP finishes (fifth through first are weighted accordingly), and All-NBA finishes. The 3rd team is worth less than 1st, 2nd, and All-Defensive. Any time a player finishes in the Top 5 in MVP voting, his total career score receives a bonus. I don't like the fact that small-market players suffer historically in MVP voting, but again, I think MVP voting is much more helpful than detrimental in creating an ATG List.

"Loyalty." Based on the number of teams a player played for (so, Lebron only played for two, because Cleveland only counts once), this category has a miniscule weight the higher one climbs on the list. However, it may often flip two players who are close to each other. This is another attempt at quantifying intangibles. It measures a team's loyalty to a player as well as a player's loyalty to his team.

Era. Tiny penalties are accrued for each decade before the 2000's. 2001-present are considered equal.

RealGM 2014 List. Fairly significant points are earned here. I have projected rankings for Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, and Anthony Davis to make sure they aren't unfairly penalized. Once the 2017 List starts to take shape, my own list will change to reflect the new RGM rankings.

Hi, I plan on making my own formula soon, and was wondering if you could share yours through PM so I could perhaps get some ideas? Thank you.


Hi. Sorry, I generally like to keep my formulas private. Also, I think this post did a pretty good job of showing what I included in that formula. I think this post referred to the second or third formula that I used. I am now in the process of making a new and completely different one.

My original formulas (similar to the one outlined in this post) were great in that they included almost every piece of "information" ('everything is information,' as my mother would say) available to me. While this was admirable, the problem was that I lacked the computer savvy to have them automatically refresh. I was doing basically every bit of input manually. The rankings could change on an almost weekly basis once I got to around 200 players, and the inputs were changing on a virtually daily basis. Eventually, I had to streamline things. Actually, the post above refers to a heavily streamlined version of my original formula, but even the one referenced above eventually became too time-consuming to maintain, besides not providing results that I was entirely happy with.

Colbinii has given you some great advice. The advice I would give is that the more comfortable you become with spreadsheet software (excel, libreoffice), the more fun you'll eventually be able to have. I'm still a beginner with them myself, but I've learned a ton just through trial and error - and web searches - that has made things much easier for me than they were when I started doing formulas years ago. This same advice about spreadsheet software probably also applies equally to math in general and computers in general - neither of which I'm particularly good at. The point, of course, is to have fun; as long as it's fun, I'll keep doing it and hopefully keep learning how to make it more fun. I recommend you do that same. If your math skills only extend to addition and subtraction, then just have fun with that. And so on.

I'm currently working on what I think is my fourth all-time formula. It is by far the simplest yet. It is going to be based on year-by-year performance, and will include Win Shares (playoff and regular season), VORP (playoff and regular season), and Jacob Goldstein's PIPM Wins Added: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iiDqGlkcIa_0nnMsxsxEdOPmGSqKQgMX7BjAhpiC51g/edit#gid=1729518701. It is going to adjust all of these inputs by era/league (ABA). It will also adjust them by team-role (so that the fourth-best player on a title team doesn't end up looking better than an All-Star on an eighth seed, as can happen with some of these stats). Then it will probably include something for "loyalty" and some bonus for being the best player on a championship team by a large margin (this bonus will probably only apply to about 25 individual seasons in history so far).

That's it. I'm sure Colbinii's advice will be a hundred times more useful than any of this - and, in fact, his advice exactly matches the approach I took when I first started! - but these are my thoughts.

Good luck and have fun!
Owly
Analyst
Posts: 3,114
And1: 1,600
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#105 » by Owly » Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:30 pm

Colbinii wrote:
OverAndOut wrote:
scrabbarista wrote:I am one of those who rely on a formula to develop my list. I had one formula for the last three or four years, one that I altered regularly over that time. I've recently scrapped it for a new one.

The reason I use a formula is because I believe that not relying on one is too slippery of a slope. (Anyone who's read Bill Simmons' book surely noticed a slant toward the Celtics, e.g.). The goal, for me, is always to develop a formula that matches my subjective opinions as closely as possible. I may think Dirk Nowitzki was better than Karl Malone, but until I can develop a formula that applies the same criteria to both of them (and that same criteria to every other player who ever played in the league) and has Dirk coming out on top, then my official opinion - the opinion I will share in casual conversation and formal debate - will be that Malone was the better player.

I'm a lifelong reader, and basketball is one of my favorite subjects, so I've read a number of books on it. The biographies of Kareem, Bird, Shaq, Jordan, and Bill Russell spring to mind first, as well as Bill Simmons' book, which I devoured in about twenty-four hours (getting no sleep) and is one of my favorite books of any kind. It inspired me to make my first ATG List.

I'm actually a huge believer in intangibles and off-court qualities. In fact, it's my belief that they translate so consistently into on-court success (when combined with talent, obviously) that even allows me to suppose that a formula can serve as a guide to ranking.

I'm familiar with the argument that a formula is always going to have gaps, is always going to miss things that any careful observer could plainly see. However, I believe that no observer is perfect either, least of all myself, and I simply prefer to use a formula. As a side note, it has the added entertainment value of giving me a visual (i.e., numerical) representation of the historical "hunt for greatness."

What goes into my formula: (I will probably forget a few small details, but I'll do my best to get everything down here.)

"Winning." Players get points for being the undisputed best player on a championship team, the undisputed best player on a finalist, one of two more-or-less equal "best" players on a championship team (happened this year), or simply a member of a championship roster at the end of a season. A bonus is added to a player's career for every "Best on Champ" he achieves. "Winning" is one of the categories, probably the most important, that is meant to capture the intangible qualities that I so firmly believe in.

Post Season Totals. My old formula was far more complicated, but became much too time-consuming (it involved players' career rankings in numerous categories - rankings which are constantly changing). Now I simply add up a player's career points, blocks, steals, assists, and rebounds. There is a small penalty for ABA totals. I don't worry about some stats not being counted before 1974, etc, because I find that pace balances out this discrepancy. Also, as it's much harder to even get into the league as time goes on, I see nothing wrong with giving modern players small advantages of this kind.

Regular Season Totals. Same as above. For nearly every player, career RS Totals have far more total value than PS Totals. The only exceptions I'm aware of, and all of them barely qualify, are Magic Johnson, Lebron James, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili.

Regular Season Stats. Weight is given to a total of 19 statistical categories. Any time a player finished in the Top 5 in any of these categories, it is recorded. Eight categories earn 1 point, while eleven earn half of a point. Some players like Oscar Robertson earn huge totals in this area, while others like Scottie Pippen are nearly invisible.

Honors. This category is meant to incorporate the eye-test, just not my eye-test. I would love to do without the category, as obvious media bias can be found here, but there are more players who need these points than there are players who benefited unjustly from them, so I include it. Points are given for Top 5 MVP finishes (fifth through first are weighted accordingly), and All-NBA finishes. The 3rd team is worth less than 1st, 2nd, and All-Defensive. Any time a player finishes in the Top 5 in MVP voting, his total career score receives a bonus. I don't like the fact that small-market players suffer historically in MVP voting, but again, I think MVP voting is much more helpful than detrimental in creating an ATG List.

"Loyalty." Based on the number of teams a player played for (so, Lebron only played for two, because Cleveland only counts once), this category has a miniscule weight the higher one climbs on the list. However, it may often flip two players who are close to each other. This is another attempt at quantifying intangibles. It measures a team's loyalty to a player as well as a player's loyalty to his team.

Era. Tiny penalties are accrued for each decade before the 2000's. 2001-present are considered equal.

RealGM 2014 List. Fairly significant points are earned here. I have projected rankings for Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Kawhi, and Anthony Davis to make sure they aren't unfairly penalized. Once the 2017 List starts to take shape, my own list will change to reflect the new RGM rankings.

Hi, I plan on making my own formula soon, and was wondering if you could share yours through PM so I could perhaps get some ideas? Thank you.

I'm going to give you some advice on creating your formula...

1) Look for stats that match your eye test


2) Use a variety of different inputs [box score derived, non-box score derived, impact data, media voting even]

3) Once you get a baseline, tweak only where you see a big no-no or something you disagree with

4) Get others input from multiple sources



Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app


I'm going to offer an alternative view on point one (or at least one possible interpretation of it). To an extent it's inevitable to the extent that any credibility or "laugh" test will be based on your preconceptions and biases.

Nevertheless I would argue against actively seeking out something that confirms what you were already thinking, at least unless you are going to do so in great depth. If you've got a strong understanding of basketball and what you think is important to it, and a good statistical head to convert those ideas into the proportions which say boxscore stats are important, and how different factors will impact plus/minus based stats then you look into those metrics and how they work and understand them as best you can and judge them. So looking for something practical that matches and fits criteria you already have - sure. But I'd caution looking for something that agrees with your ranking of players - if something seems weird in a metric's output try to see whether there's a flaw in it's process (DBPM's valuation of Russell Westbrook - okay it's overweighting players who combine rebounding and passing) or whether it's possible that it sees something valuable you hadn't considered.
User avatar
eminence
General Manager
Posts: 7,911
And1: 4,664
Joined: Mar 07, 2015
 

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#106 » by eminence » Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:55 pm

eminence wrote:Career Impact - I generally have a pretty high amount of faith in our regression based impact stats (RAPM back to '96, less faith in WOWY before that). It is not however taken as a gospel for ranking players, but rather to inform my own opinions of what skillsets lead to high 'impact'. This can get tricky in that different skillsets may be more or less effective in different eras/team situations, which leads to a portability factor within 'impact'. Generally speaking off-ball offense and defense based skillsets score the highest in terms of portability. Box-score numbers are generally used to inform me what a players skillset is, and less for how good they were. I do not currently try to quantify this 'impact', but split players more into tiers and I suppose could come up with orders within those tiers if pushed. Don't really have a preference for offense vs defense, but would say I have a bit of a threshold where a player can become an 'anchor' on either offense or defense and those players get a boost for that.

Playoff Performance - Playing well in the playoffs (emphasis on playing - sorry injury prone guys) is what wins titles in this league, so playoff performance is quite important to me. Regular season play obviously has it's positives as well - larger sample in pure number of games and in opponents faced (matching up poorly with one opponent shouldn't bury a guy who had a great season - Drob vs Hakeem).

Era Dominance - Being among the best in the world at what you do when you're doing it gets a boost from me. For the very early years this means factoring in segregation, then ABA/NBA talent dilution, and lack of international players until recently. Generally do believe basketball has been consistently improving, but it's a gradual upward curve and I'm not one to put average starters today over stars from the 50's.

And that's really the basics of it.

Edit: Small edit on my playoff injury policy after thinking about this for a bit. I'd kind of built my criteria in the past with a POY/peak approach in mind, so I heavily penalized any and all playoff missed time. But I think that makes less sense in a career context. I'd still say they are more damaging than regular season injuries, but not nearly as damaging in a career context as within the evaluation of a single season.


Was interested to see what I'd put down here, and came away fairly pleasantly surprised, think I would have tried to write something similar today. There was a period where it felt like my evaluation criteria were changing pretty rapidly, but if feels kind of nice to potentially be past that.
'17-'18 APBR Win Projections Champion (1st of 20)
'18-'19 5th of 18
'19-'20 2nd of 17 (For now?)
trex_8063
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 8,864
And1: 4,824
Joined: Feb 24, 2013
   

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#108 » by trex_8063 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:22 pm

Owly wrote:
Spoiler:
Colbinii wrote:
OverAndOut wrote:Hi, I plan on making my own formula soon, and was wondering if you could share yours through PM so I could perhaps get some ideas? Thank you.

I'm going to give you some advice on creating your formula...

1) Look for stats that match your eye test


2) Use a variety of different inputs [box score derived, non-box score derived, impact data, media voting even]

3) Once you get a baseline, tweak only where you see a big no-no or something you disagree with

4) Get others input from multiple sources



Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app


I'm going to offer an alternative view on point one (or at least one possible interpretation of it). To an extent it's inevitable to the extent that any credibility or "laugh" test will be based on your preconceptions and biases.

Nevertheless I would argue against actively seeking out something that confirms what you were already thinking, at least unless you are going to do so in great depth. If you've got a strong understanding of basketball and what you think is important to it, and a good statistical head to convert those ideas into the proportions which say boxscore stats are important, and how different factors will impact plus/minus based stats then you look into those metrics and how they work and understand them as best you can and judge them. So looking for something practical that matches and fits criteria you already have - sure. But I'd caution looking for something that agrees with your ranking of players - if something seems weird in a metric's output try to see whether there's a flaw in it's process (DBPM's valuation of Russell Westbrook - okay it's overweighting players who combine rebounding and passing) or whether it's possible that it sees something valuable you hadn't considered.



I was going to comment something similar.

I mean, it's good to know the "weaknesses" or biases of the various metrics that are available, and obviously we all have our preferences as to which are more valid or useful.....which you may potentially then use those impressions to influence how you weight the various inputs. And in that sense, you're allowing your subjective opinion and preferences to influence the formula.

But that's not quite the same as straight-up looking for metrics that closely match your preconceptions (and presumably ignoring those that don't)---->doing this will basically only succeed in constructing an echo chamber for the opinions you already had. But I assume that's not the "point" of producing such a formula.

I would assume the desire to make such a formula stems from a curiosity as to what purely objective outputs will yield in terms of rankings/scores; which you then may or may not use to guide your own ranking (or at least guide further investigations where your own rankings do not align).


My personal suggestion is [more or less] to use as many inputs as possible (as long as it's a level playing field), and let the chips fall where they may. I figure the various weaknesses and biases of the various metrics will sort of balance each other out to some degree, if you get my meaning (assuming too many of your inputs don't share the same "weaknesses").
All-Time NE Fantasy Team
PG-Chauncey Billups (06-08)/Terry Porter (91-93)
SG-George Gervin (78-80)/Danny Green
SF-R. Barry (67-70)/Bruce Bowen (04-06)
PF-Ho Grant (92-94)/D. Cowens (74-76)
C-D. Robinson (94-96)/Kevin Willis (92-94)
Bill Sharman (coach)
bledredwine
RealGM
Posts: 11,570
And1: 3,318
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
   

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#109 » by bledredwine » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:31 pm

That's well thought out and explained, trex. My criteria won't be as thoroughly explained, but I generally judge players by the following-

-Statistics relative to era
- The player is judged on how they perform in the regular season. What carries more weight, however, is how they play against winning teams. How do they fare in the playoffs? And the most important round, the finals? (if applicable)

-Achievements
- This is nothing out of the ordinary. How many achievements did they rack up? This includes championships, MVP's, rebound/steal/scoring titles, DPOY, records held, and whatever I may be forgetting.

Team records
- How were the team records of said player? Of course, this must be in relation to players played with, to some extent. How dominant were the teams? Were the teams led by said player, or was it a Kobe Shaq Wilt Oscar situation?
Regarding consistent winning - This is usually indicative of a true leader, who holds players accountable on both ends of the floor (Jordan, Duncan, Magic are the best examples of this type of leadership. Honestly I don't know enough about Russell Wilt. But that sort of leadership that turns team practices into war and rigidly keeps players in line defensively/offensively helps win games.)

Versatility
- Did the player make adjustments to win? Switching defensive assignments, playing another position like Magic, changing their game, and so on?

Defensive dominance
- How much did the player dominate their opponent? Did they limit their opponent, and cause the team trouble, impacting the game defensively? Do they slack like Harden and set a bad example?

Offensive dominance
- What were they capable of and what couldn't they do? How consistent were they? Did they have years where they were outperformed statistically by other players? Playoffs? Finals? Jordan Kareem and Lebron generally excel here.

Winning games single-handedly
-Does the player win important close games, especially in the forth quarter? This is often overlooked but very important. This is why I rate Reggie Miller, prime Rose, and Larry Bird so highly. They won games that they shouldn't have.

Number of all-stars/HOFers played with
-This is touchy. The number of HOF'ers (or allstars if discussing a modern player) played with compared to the other greats certainly matters. In this regard, Wilt, Hakeem, get some major respect. I do think that Wilt gets the short end of the stick. Hakeem especially gets a lot of respect since he only played with old farts Barkley and Drexler. 91-93 Jordan in particular gets respect since after winning the 93 finals, he played with way less all-stars than all the greats. His 2nd fiddle Pippen had 18 ppg to his 36 ppg that 3-peat.
Image

dice wrote:James Harden is currently in the same league as Michael Jordan as a scorer.



Playoffs- to age 27
MJ 35.4 PPG
JH 20.6 PPG

LBJ 27% in the clutch in the Finals: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1651184
DeKlaw
Ballboy
Posts: 9
And1: 6
Joined: Jun 18, 2020
 

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#110 » by DeKlaw » Wed Oct 7, 2020 1:24 am

A quick summary of what I value in a ranking such as this top 100 is as follows, with a lack of explanation currently but I will explain if anyone asks. Also, this is not in order of what I value the most, more of just jotting down off the top of my head.

1. Advanced statistics compared to the league/other top players at the time.

2. Per 75/100 to do small comparisons between statistics across eras.

3.Peak is very important in comparison to longevity, but only to a certain extent. A players peak still needs to consist of a large enough data set to be fully confident of how good they truly were at their best. If a player who had a 7 year prime was marginally better than a player with a 10 year prime, then the 7 year prime player would most likely be ranked higher on my list not taking into account accolades.

4.The concept of being a floor raiser vs. ceiling raiser. I admittedly value a player who can help a winning team become a championship calibre team instead of a player who can make a bad team become a decent/good team. Generally how valuable their skill set is to a winning organization in their era.

5.Individual play evaluation: go through the strengths and weaknesses of a player in terms of all aspects of the game on both ends in order to fully evaluate their on court play. This is the main way I will decide between ranking someone number 17 and number 18, as I will compare those players directly to make sure that is the player i want in that position. Also, this is where I decide what I value the most in player's as far as individual talents and skills, such as shooting, finishing, help defense, perimeter defense, playmaking, isolation scoring etc.

6.Rightful accolades: So what I don't mean here that a player with three MVP's is necessarily better than someone with just one. What I mean by rightful accolades is I would go through each NBA season and personally evaluate all of the awards races and decide for myself how good that player actually was compared to the rest of the league. This is not a common thing as far as I know, but I don't think using accolades as a base argument is fair or important at all. One year I could think that one player was the MVP but another player would win it, does that now mean the MVP had the better regular season? Absolutely not. Also, each accolade is not created equal. Some MVP season's were better than others, and some all nba first team appearances feature much weaker players than that calibre. I wont go on any more but I hope this makes sense.

7.Postseason play: This section is specifically over multiple year stretches. I don't think a sub 4-20 something game sample size is nearly large enough to evaluate how good of a post season player someone is. It also isnt fair just to look at averages over their career due to years outside of their prime. Instead, 3 to 5 season post season stretches seem like the best way to evaluate someone's peak in the playoffs.

8.Career and season context: teammates, system, coaching, opponents, matchups, injuries etc

9.Individual success>team success, as long as the context matches up: Example without explaining: Ranking KG high

Probably forgetting a lot but I think this should show I am actively thinking about my rankings so here they are
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 22,279
And1: 4,555
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
   

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#111 » by penbeast0 » Wed Oct 7, 2020 3:05 am

I tend to focus on play within one's own era. I could care less about how a player would have performed in 2020 if their style dominated when they played. I do discount for era, particularly looking at how the expanding player pool matched up with the expanding size of the league. I believe the current era is the strongest in NBA history, then the 2000s, and the 90s. I find expansion weakened the 80s and 70s to the point where I think the teams were stronger on the average in the 60s (particularly the 70s). The 50s are well behind any other era for me mainly due to the racial limitations on the player pool. The 60s had some of that too (though less), but mainly at the lower levels of play. Stars could be as black as they wanted; the 11th and 12th man frequently favored the white players. There is some prejudice that shows up in awards; Walt Frazier in NY particularly.

I rate by dominance. By dominant, I mean how much that particular player contributes to winning, particularly having the chance to win championships. I value a player who can move a franchise from 50 wins to 60 more than one who moves the needle from 10 wins to 30 wins unless, with better players around him, I think that player could also have moved the needle from 50 to 60 or better. That's even more true of postseason play. Guys who consistently stepped it up in the postseason like Hakeem I also give an extra boost while guys who consistently underperform in the postseason I will penalize. A guy like Kevin Garnett in Minnesota who just didn't have the talent around him to have a lot of postseason data, I will consider his postseason play a lot less than someone like Jerry West who went deep in the postseason almost every year.

Similarly, I don't care about 2 way play or any other stylistic difference. If you are Bill Russell or Steve Nash and are more dominant than a great two way player like Kawhi Leonard, I will vote for you first. I will talk about Bill Russell being a weak offensive player (his shooting is underrated, particularly early career, his passing in his early years is overrated though he made himself much better, his FT shooting sucked throughout), but his defensive impact was so high, he is still my likely choice for GOAT.

FInally, I look at longevity based on a baseline of roughly a 10 year career. I will give a bonus to guys who played all those extra years, but I find my extra valuing of them is lower than many of the more statistically motivated posters. The big key for me is how a player like Kareem played during his prime in the 70s and into the first couple of years in the 80s. I do mark off for a player who missed a lot of time. Sidney Moncrief for 4 years was one of the top 5 SGs in NBA history, but he's toward the bottom of the top 10 for me because of his injuries. Bill Walton isn't in my top 100 for impact because his teams couldn't rely on him. He made it to the playoffs healthy as a starter ONCE (and missed 16games that year anyway) but made sure that he was payed as a top 10 player for a decade. That hurt both Portland, then San Diego badly and I count off for that just like I give him a ton of credit for Portland's one title run. It's a shame, he was a guy I think could have been top 10 all time, but he just wasn't there.

I use stats, hopefully to help me understand how a team succeeded or failed. Where stats don't seem to tell the story, intangibles come into play. I believe in the value of stars working on defense translating into team defensive culture; stars working hard in practice and being in shape translating to team cohesion; stars not being flaming jerks to their teammates creating a positive locker room. However, if there are unusual levels of success (Russell sitting out lots of practices, Jordan calling out multiple teammates in the press), I will give a star a pass. If the star's teams seem to underperform and there are issues about practice, defensive effort, individual accountability, then I will slam a guy for intangibles.

If there is anything else I can think of, I will amend and revise these remarks.
Bradley Beal@RealDealBeal23
Because we can hoop!
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - Mavericks and NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 55,647
And1: 45,972
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: 403 Minutes in the Bay
   

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#112 » by Texas Chuck » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:35 pm

My apologies for missing this before I commented in the actual list. But my criteria is really simple -- who helps their teams win the most over a total career. I think peak and primes are largely arbitrarily defined and if you are helping your team before or after those periods, I'm going to give you credit.

I don't give bonus points for offense over defense. A guy like Nash whose value is heavily weighted to the offensive end can be great just as a player like Deke whose contributions are heavily weighted towards defense can be great. Two of my GOAT candidates are clearly defense-first players.

I measure each player within their own era. I don't care if older players might not be as successful today or vice versa because honestly we can't ever know and the best players are always going to seek edges in the circumstances they find themselves in. Would it shock me if Bill Russell learned how to shoot corner 3's? Nope. Would it shock me that James Harden would find ways to attack without the carries/travels and spamming step backs? Not at all. I don't have a time machine so you get judged by your own era.

As to eras I don't assume modern is superior. Now obviously the league has evolved and improved over time, I don't deny that, but with the exceptions of some players who are the cause of those leaps, I don't give the players credit for the year they were born. Russell should get a ton of credit for modern basketball period--more than any one player he influenced how the game was played and we still feel the impact 60 years later. Nash and Steph and KG and Dirk among many others who trailblazed and fundamentally moved the game forward. Those individual players definitely get credit from me for that. But more teams isn't compelling to me.

Stats are important, but only so much. I won't be making major statistical cases for anyone. Partly because others can do so much better than me, but partly because I believe players should be judged solely on how they performed towards the goal of their team winning games, series, and championships. Typically if they do that well the stats will follow. But 03 TMac is a great example of a statistical season that will have some of you including him in your top 100 when I feel convinced he is not one of the 100 greatest NBA players of all-time.

Team success matters, but I'm not interested in litigating teammate quality. The KG sections are going to be torture for me if history is our guide. I hope we focus more on KG's lift than his teammates ineptitude especially since the narratives get so exaggerated.
Winston Peters wrote:Sorry, Sunshine, wrong place.
Dutchball97
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,463
And1: 1,311
Joined: Mar 28, 2020
 

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#113 » by Dutchball97 » Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:11 am

Might be a good idea to participate here, since I've noticed my approach differs pretty significantly from the "total cumulative value added" approach I've seen a lot of so far in the voting thread.

I look at players within their own era because I don't see the value in portability when the priorities of the game changed drastically over time. Curry would be just as lost in the 50s as Mikan would be now.

To me pre- or post-prime years that are clearly worse than a player's best years add very little value. Especially in these early parts of the list, I'm not going to reward a GOAT candidate too much for managing a good but unspectacular season at a high age. The same goes for off years being detrimental to my view of a player instead of those years simply adding less value to the total than other years. LeBron's 2011 season would be the best season of the majority of players but for LeBron it was a disappointment and a blemish. I saw some confusion as to LeBron's valuation in the voting thread so felt like I should address his case specifically.

The main thing I look at is how good a player was at his best (peak), how long they were able to continue that form (prime) and how much their performance translated to team success.
freethedevil
Head Coach
Posts: 6,335
And1: 2,891
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#114 » by freethedevil » Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:57 pm

Alright so for voting here is my criteria along with my votes.

The most important thing is accumulative value RELATIVE TO ERA. Please note, that longetivy based era adjustments are already taken into account which corp which I'll be using as a baseline. Note, my career rankings do not align 1:1 with Ben's, because

A. I am a big believer in descriptive analysis over predictive analysis when assessing the past(so 69 russell for example will be rated higher based on playodds)
B. I take into account off court effect on winning which leadership is a part of. This raises russell(as you will see soon), lowers jordan, lowers shaq, and (thanks largely to the ad trade), raises lebron. I'll be using this as a tiebreaker where its close in terms of career value.
C. I put a lot more weight into the playoffs
D. I do not care about "fluky" induvidual performace
E. I weigh portability less
F. I, like e-ball before me, put a lot more weight into performances vs good opposition/defense/offense depending on what the player in question makes bank on.(This is why I'm considering taking Durant later than harden)
G. Pre Nba play will be weighed ACCORDING to how good they may have been in the nba at the time. Jordan gets nothing for playing worse than rookie lebron in what amounted to a seasons worth of college games. Kareem and Russell on the other hand do get signifcant boosts or being superstar level players before they entered the nba.

Here are other tiebreakers. Not tiebreakers are only used when its already a dead heat:
-> Era strength, this is simply based on talent pool size and in-era things like --expansion---. Given that the talent pool in 2003 was twice as big as the talent pool in 1990, i see no reason to treat the gap between the 90's and the 70's or the 60's as bigger than the gap between the 90's and the 2000's/10's. Era must be applied consistently. Also specific positional strength can be considered(so in a big dominated leagues, a high scoring guard is less impressive if they're getting lots of value from scoring or defending other guards) This all amounts to a drop in the bucket.

-> Winning/team successs, this is not just about rings, finals apps, win % all matters. This also amounts to a drop in the bucket.

-> Peak, this is about single season, single game, single series to me, also amounts to a drop to a bucket
-> Prime, three years, 5 years, 8 years, drop in the bucket
-> Resume, I only care about holistic awards, mvp's, fmvp's, all-nba's, all stars. I will be giving out awards to players where it wasnlt available and it was obvious they were worthy(cough russell cough), will also be looking at how many votes are received, mvp voting shares, how close you get to unanimous, drop in the bucket.
-> Port, how well a player scales up, this is the most important tiebreaker, but it only comes into play when value is comparable(kd gets the edge over westbrook peak wise despite having less raw value thanks to port for example)

All these tiebreakers mean **** if the players aren't tied or close to tied in career value. IE: Kobe is a much better winner and has a much better resume than KG. I dont care, KG was vastly more valuable in the regular season, over multiple playoff runs, and has vastly better longetvity, in a extensive variety of settings and an extensive variety of quality in supporting casts. Kobe doesn't touch him and has no buiness being treated like a comparable player. The name of the game is to impact winning over your career and kobe never came close. Similarly bird peaked way higher than kobe, but since bird couldn't stop himself from geting into bar fights, Kobe gets rated higher because Kobe's career value is higher and Bird's longevity is ****.

I giveth to kobe as much as I taketh away. He's top 10 in accumulative value so he gets to be top 10 in my rankings.


Now with that out of the way here's the vote.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 22,279
And1: 4,555
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
   

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#115 » by penbeast0 » Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:53 pm

trex_8063 wrote:(OP)
freethedevil wrote:...
G. Pre Nba play will be weighed ACCORDING to how good they may have been in the nba at the time. Jordan gets nothing for playing worse than rookie lebron in what amounted to a seasons worth of college games. Kareem and Russell on the other hand do get signifcant boosts or being superstar level players before they entered the nba....


Are we looking at anything other than NBA/ABA play in this project? BAA? College? Olympics? Overseas? I think this may need to be clarified.
Bradley Beal@RealDealBeal23
Because we can hoop!
freethedevil
Head Coach
Posts: 6,335
And1: 2,891
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#116 » by freethedevil » Thu Oct 15, 2020 7:09 pm

penbeast0 wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:(OP)
freethedevil wrote:...
G. Pre Nba play will be weighed ACCORDING to how good they may have been in the nba at the time. Jordan gets nothing for playing worse than rookie lebron in what amounted to a seasons worth of college games. Kareem and Russell on the other hand do get signifcant boosts or being superstar level players before they entered the nba....


Are we looking at anything other than NBA/ABA play in this project? BAA? College? Olympics? Overseas? I think this may need to be clarified.

college since for some players there was no oppurtunity to play in the nba at the time.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 22,279
And1: 4,555
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
   

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#117 » by penbeast0 » Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:20 pm

I understand the reasoning, just not sure what Trex wants and he's the guy setting the rules. Also not sure what the first year is for this, BAA? NBL? Earlier? Also this would apply to guys like Oscar Schmidt's Argentinean or Arvidas Sabonis's Euroleague years just as logically.
Bradley Beal@RealDealBeal23
Because we can hoop!
Ambrose
Starter
Posts: 2,318
And1: 1,910
Joined: Jul 05, 2014
Contact:
 

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#118 » by Ambrose » Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:41 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:But my criteria is really simple -- who helps their teams win the most over a total career. I think peak and primes are largely arbitrarily defined and if you are helping your team before or after those periods, I'm going to give you credit.

I don't give bonus points for offense over defense. A guy like Nash whose value is heavily weighted to the offensive end can be great just as a player like Deke whose contributions are heavily weighted towards defense can be great. Two of my GOAT candidates are clearly defense-first players.


I'd love to write out what my criteria is but TC already did a perfect job of doing so.
AWGXXX
Ballboy
Posts: 12
And1: 1
Joined: Oct 14, 2020
       

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#119 » by AWGXXX » Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:27 pm

Personally I have a approach somewhat similar to elgee's where I value longevity and a player's total career value(relative to era) when it comes to ranking players. To me greatness is how much value you have provided to teams over the course of your career and so I don't care that much above peak or prime contributions over overall contributions. I absolutely do not care about awards with inconsistent criteria(ex MVPs or DPOYs) and that can be decided by simple votes, or even championships(there is way too much randomness in a playoffs sample size) and instead prefer looking at career impact using actual statistics.
mailmp
Freshman
Posts: 84
And1: 43
Joined: Oct 16, 2020
       

Re: The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP) 

Post#120 » by mailmp » Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:56 pm

I will also echo elgee in large part but with a clearer weight for real success (e.g. Kobe and Dirk get a boost), specific postseason elevation or lack thereof (e.g. Robinson), and a more comprehensive consideration of ability rather than sheer on court play (this mostly just plays to Wilt; I think he showcased a lot that could have been better utilised by a pre-Hannum coach). I am willing to be convinced by value arguments, but I do have skepticism of players with short careers and favourable circumstances (e.g. Kawhi). I also value era translation to an extent (e.g. I think Howard would translate worse in centre-heavier eras). I do not innately give huge “scalability” boosts because most players never get plugged into situations like the 2017 Warriors or the 2008 Celtics, but it does matter and there are cases where it is a relatively negative mark on the player (e.g. Dantley). I also assign negatives for toxicity (e.g. Hayes) and low-ceiling inefficiency scorers (e.g. Westbrook and Iverson).

I also place a lot of weight on larger scale RAPM so poor to weak indicators there make me skeptical of the player (e.g. Carmelo), with the acknowledgment that our data for that only goes so far and certain players could have conceivably been worse in impact than they appear. I appreciate WOWY(R) to a point, and high/low values in it are at least worthwhile indicators of some team complementarity. Postseason peaks do matter to me (e.g. Walt versus Stockton). I might be more critical of modern players because I do think there is an innate tendency to over-elevate them. Glancing at the prior list and factoring in changes in collective assessment, my biggest points of disagreement would be with Iverson, Stockton, maybe Howard... I know Vlade was divisive but I agreed with his consideration. I value the ABA to a point but am skeptical of player differences moving between the leagues or of players who did not really make the transition (e.g. Mel Daniels). I think Chet Walker was undervalued and deserved a top hundred spot.

Anything else I should cover?

Return to Player Comparisons