RealGM Top 100 All-Time (2017)

Owly · Post #301 » by **Owly** » Wed Dec 6, 2017 11:21 pm

Outside wrote:I put a lot of emphasis on playoff performance, which means I have a tough time including Anthony Davis and Boogie Cousins on this list. They're obviously talented players, but they both have issues beyond the postseason one. Davis has only 335 RS and four PS games prior to this season, and he's constantly getting hurt. Cousins has only 511 RS and zero PS games, and while undeniably talented, his behavior issues impact his ranking -- for me, it's not the technicals and ejections themselves but more about pouting on the floor and how destructive his negative behavior is to team chemistry.

Kawhi obviously doesn't have those PS and chemistry issues, but he only has 398 RS games to go with his 87 PS games. He's only been in the league six seasons, and he's been an elite player since his coming out party in the 2014 finals, but that's only three regular seasons and four postseasons. It's not that he was bad before that, but he was merely good, not top-100 great. I fully expect him to get on this list eventually, but I have a tough time putting him there now with such a short peak and lack of overall longevity.

We have numerous players with extensive careers who should get in before these guys.

[Quoting across threads here because this is somewhat of a meta question.]

In terms of your conception of "greatness" (if that is what you are ranking on, or else whatever other criteria/basis you are voting), would it be fair to say that historical importance is as important as influence on basketball games (or is a significant part of your criteria)? I ask as "a lot of emphasis on the playoffs", and in particular with few playoff games as a disqualifier as a/the cause for a low(er) ranking (rather, perhaps, than a possible signal of lower impact which has been investigated and is supported) seems to suggest that factors other than how good a player is at basketball (that is, the impact they have on games, including accounting for injuries - rather than merely a notional "talent" level) are a significant factor in your decisions. Is that accurate (or have I misinterpreted)?

No pressure, here just curious here.

Post #302 » by **Outside** » Thu Dec 7, 2017 5:53 am

Owly wrote:
Outside wrote:I put a lot of emphasis on playoff performance, which means I have a tough time including Anthony Davis and Boogie Cousins on this list. They're obviously talented players, but they both have issues beyond the postseason one. Davis has only 335 RS and four PS games prior to this season, and he's constantly getting hurt. Cousins has only 511 RS and zero PS games, and while undeniably talented, his behavior issues impact his ranking -- for me, it's not the technicals and ejections themselves but more about pouting on the floor and how destructive his negative behavior is to team chemistry.

Kawhi obviously doesn't have those PS and chemistry issues, but he only has 398 RS games to go with his 87 PS games. He's only been in the league six seasons, and he's been an elite player since his coming out party in the 2014 finals, but that's only three regular seasons and four postseasons. It's not that he was bad before that, but he was merely good, not top-100 great. I fully expect him to get on this list eventually, but I have a tough time putting him there now with such a short peak and lack of overall longevity.

We have numerous players with extensive careers who should get in before these guys.

[Quoting across threads here because this is somewhat of a meta question.]

In terms of your conception of "greatness" (if that is what you are ranking on, or else whatever other criteria/basis you are voting), would it be fair to say that historical importance is as important as influence on basketball games (or is a significant part of your criteria)? I ask as "a lot of emphasis on the playoffs", and in particular with few playoff games as a disqualifier as a/the cause for a low(er) ranking (rather, perhaps, than a possible signal of lower impact which has been investigated and is supported) seems to suggest that factors other than how good a player is at basketball (that is, the impact they have on games, including accounting for injuries - rather than merely a notional "talent" level) are a significant factor in your decisions. Is that accurate (or have I misinterpreted)?

No pressure, here just curious here.

Well, I'll try to break your question down into chunks and throw a few tangential points in along the way. My apologies if this gets overly long.

As background, this is my first time participating in this type of project. The impression I get is that most other people participating in the project have developed a top-100 or other all-time list over time, honing both their list and the criteria/system they use for ranking. I've resisted actually ranking players in the past, preferring instead to informally group players into tiers, because it seems so arbitrary to say who among, say, Jordan, Russell, and Kareem is the greater player when they are such different players playing in completely different eras. So having to make that type of decision and put players in a ranking order is a new exercise for me.

My approach is highly subjective. I use stats, but I consider my rankings to be informed by stats, not determined by them. From what I gather, some people have developed systems that use stats to rank players, and while I understand that goal, I think that approach is still subjective because a) determine weighting applied to each stat is subjective; and b) to be complete would require turning subjective characteristics such as leadership and historical impact into a number.

So my rankings are based on a variety of factors.

-- I start with the stats. They've certainly changed my rankings for some players. I primarily rely on basic stats plus simple derived metrics like true shooting percentage.

-- One area where I need to improve my knowledge is more advanced metrics, and I'm willing to consider advanced metrics presented by others, but until I truly understand how a particular metric is calculated and what it means, I approach them with some skepticism. For example, I think WOWY data can be useful, but sometimes it may say more about the quality of a particular player's backup or the depth of the roster than about a player himself.

-- Postseason performance matters. I don't have a specific ratio, but I'm probably in the 60/40 or 65/35 RS/PS ratio. Regular season matters, but PS is a big chunk, and not being in the PS (Cousins) means that player has a huge deficit to overcome. Performing poorly in the PS is a negative, particularly the deeper you go in the playoffs. Performing well in those situations is a big plus.

-- Longevity. This has certainly made the difference in where some players end up. Total minutes matter as much as seasons and games and is particularly important when comparing players across eras.

-- Defense matters. Not as much as offense except for a select few who had outsized defensive impact, Bill Russell being the prime example. For players with similar offensive impacts, defense can be the distinguishing factor for me. For example, I have Rick Barry lower than players with less offensive impact because he defense wasn't as good.

-- Winning matters, part 1. Scoring 25 PPG on a losing team isn't as impactful to me as, say, scoring 18 PPG on a title team.

-- Winning matters, part 2. I judge whether the way a player plays contributes to winning beyond his stats. For example, I had Adrian Dantley much lower than where he was voted because I thought his style of play -- isolation-heavy and ball-dominant -- allowed him to pile up individual stats at the expense of overall team performance. This is of course highly subjective, and a problem with me using it is how to apply it to a player like Paul Arizin who I didn't see play. But this is a very important factor to me, because the object of the game is to win, not get the best individual stats.

-- I assign bonus points for things like titles, MVPs and MVP shares, and other awards. Not a huge factor, but being part of championship teams means something. Racking up an impressive number of awards is, well, impressive.

-- Intangibles. Was a player considered a leader, a good teammate? Did he change how the game was played? How strong was his competition? Stuff like that.

I put it all in the blender and see what comes out. Not very scientific, I'm afraid. I rely heavily on my knowledge of the game and my experience of having been a serious observer of the league since the mid to late 60s.

So to circle back to the specifics of what you asked...

Re: ranking players by "greatness" -- that's not how I think of it. Ultimately, I'm ranking players by how impactful they are at playing winning basketball, because in my view, that's what makes a player valuable.

Playoffs -- as I mentioned, the postseason matters a significant amount. The RS matters more, but PS games count for more than
RS games, and games matter more the further you go into the PS. How someone plays in the finals matters more than how someone plays in the first round. Players who perform well when the pressure is most intense are more valuable than players who don't. It's not that it's disqualifying to have a non-existent PS resume (in the case of Cousins, or nearly non-existent as in the case of Davis) or a poor PS resume (TMac not getting out of the first round, for example), but it's a huge hurdle to overcome, and we have too many good players still on the board who have proved themselves in the PS.

Re: "seems to suggest that factors other than how good a player is at basketball (that is, the impact they have on games, including accounting for injuries - rather than merely a notional 'talent' level) are a significant factor in your decisions" -- welllll, I disagree with that conclusion. To me, I define "how good a player is at basketball" as "how impactful they are at playing winning basketball." This is a team game, not an individual one, and the object is to win, not score more points individually than any other player in the game. And the postseason is the true test of a player's ability to demonstrate how impactful he is at helping his team win. It's no coincidence that every player in the top 10 won multiple titles and that all but a handful in the top 50 won at least one title. It's not that the titles themselves were the requirement, but rather that they proved they were notably impactful at playing winning basketball.

I'll leave it at that. Again, sorry for going on so long.

Owly · Post #303 » by **Owly** » Thu Dec 7, 2017 8:43 pm

Outside wrote:
Owly wrote:
Outside wrote:snip
snip

Well, I'll try to break your question down into chunks and throw a few tangential points in along the way. My apologies if this gets overly long.

As background, this is my first time participating in this type of project. The impression I get is that most other people participating in the project have developed a top-100 or other all-time list over time, honing both their list and the criteria/system they use for ranking. I've resisted actually ranking players in the past, preferring instead to informally group players into tiers, because it seems so arbitrary to say who among, say, Jordan, Russell, and Kareem is the greater player when they are such different players playing in completely different eras. So having to make that type of decision and put players in a ranking order is a new exercise for me.

My approach is highly subjective. I use stats, but I consider my rankings to be informed by stats, not determined by them. From what I gather, some people have developed systems that use stats to rank players, and while I understand that goal, I think that approach is still subjective because a) determine weighting applied to each stat is subjective; and b) to be complete would require turning subjective characteristics such as leadership and historical impact into a number.

So my rankings are based on a variety of factors.

-- I start with the stats. They've certainly changed my rankings for some players. I primarily rely on basic stats plus simple derived metrics like true shooting percentage.

-- One area where I need to improve my knowledge is more advanced metrics, and I'm willing to consider advanced metrics presented by others, but until I truly understand how a particular metric is calculated and what it means, I approach them with some skepticism. For example, I think WOWY data can be useful, but sometimes it may say more about the quality of a particular player's backup or the depth of the roster than about a player himself.

-- Postseason performance matters. I don't have a specific ratio, but I'm probably in the 60/40 or 65/35 RS/PS ratio. Regular season matters, but PS is a big chunk, and not being in the PS (Cousins) means that player has a huge deficit to overcome. Performing poorly in the PS is a negative, particularly the deeper you go in the playoffs. Performing well in those situations is a big plus.

-- Longevity. This has certainly made the difference in where some players end up. Total minutes matter as much as seasons and games and is particularly important when comparing players across eras.

-- Defense matters. Not as much as offense except for a select few who had outsized defensive impact, Bill Russell being the prime example. For players with similar offensive impacts, defense can be the distinguishing factor for me. For example, I have Rick Barry lower than players with less offensive impact because he defense wasn't as good.

-- Winning matters, part 1. Scoring 25 PPG on a losing team isn't as impactful to me as, say, scoring 18 PPG on a title team.

-- Winning matters, part 2. I judge whether the way a player plays contributes to winning beyond his stats. For example, I had Adrian Dantley much lower than where he was voted because I thought his style of play -- isolation-heavy and ball-dominant -- allowed him to pile up individual stats at the expense of overall team performance. This is of course highly subjective, and a problem with me using it is how to apply it to a player like Paul Arizin who I didn't see play. But this is a very important factor to me, because the object of the game is to win, not get the best individual stats.

-- I assign bonus points for things like titles, MVPs and MVP shares, and other awards. Not a huge factor, but being part of championship teams means something. Racking up an impressive number of awards is, well, impressive.

-- Intangibles. Was a player considered a leader, a good teammate? Did he change how the game was played? How strong was his competition? Stuff like that.

I put it all in the blender and see what comes out. Not very scientific, I'm afraid. I rely heavily on my knowledge of the game and my experience of having been a serious observer of the league since the mid to late 60s.

So to circle back to the specifics of what you asked...

Re: ranking players by "greatness" -- that's not how I think of it. Ultimately, I'm ranking players by how impactful they are at playing winning basketball, because in my view, that's what makes a player valuable.

Playoffs -- as I mentioned, the postseason matters a significant amount. The RS matters more, but PS games count for more than
RS games, and games matter more the further you go into the PS. How someone plays in the finals matters more than how someone plays in the first round. Players who perform well when the pressure is most intense are more valuable than players who don't. It's not that it's disqualifying to have a non-existent PS resume (in the case of Cousins, or nearly non-existent as in the case of Davis) or a poor PS resume (TMac not getting out of the first round, for example), but it's a huge hurdle to overcome, and we have too many good players still on the board who have proved themselves in the PS.

Re: "seems to suggest that factors other than how good a player is at basketball (that is, the impact they have on games, including accounting for injuries - rather than merely a notional 'talent' level) are a significant factor in your decisions" -- welllll, I disagree with that conclusion. To me, I define "how good a player is at basketball" as "how impactful they are at playing winning basketball." This is a team game, not an individual one, and the object is to win, not score more points individually than any other player in the game. And the postseason is the true test of a player's ability to demonstrate how impactful he is at helping his team win. It's no coincidence that every player in the top 10 won multiple titles and that all but a handful in the top 50 won at least one title. It's not that the titles themselves were the requirement, but rather that they proved they were notably impactful at playing winning basketball.

I'll leave it at that. Again, sorry for going on so long.

Thanks for taking the time to answer, and for going into detail.

That said there are small aspects that confuse me or where I'd benefit from further clarification. Again obviously there's no obligation. So far as I can tell (and I'm very much guessing here) that people aren't utilising a purely metric based approach (nor I would think, of the belief that they had an "objective" truth).

Okay, that said ...

On the one hand your final sentence and introduction to that paragraph suggest that it is absolutely player performance. But there appears to be hedging in terms of the legitimacy of using titles as a reliable barometer thereof. Does the final sentence override this, in that titles are caused by effective basketball (and not vice versa, and thus the latter are an incredibly crude barometer of the former for individual players).

Tangential here but ... Ditto MVPs. We know that winning an MVP doesn't make the season you had better. So if it was a Rose/Iverson (i.e. narrative driven) MVP, can that intrinsically "add bonus points" rather than a possible more indirect bonus, as in something causing you to further examine that year. I can see it in a first draft of forming a list, and perhaps for older players where there's less data (quantitative and qualitative) available, but it's hard to see MVP "points" in and of themselves in most instances.

Finally on the "playoff performance matters" section I often see RS to playoff ratio and I wonder what that means. What do you mean by this? Is absence from the playoffs scoring a zero here? Is that as bad as a "bad" playoffs? Worse? Does the ratio shift as the playoff sample grows larger? And when you speak of a "poor ps resume" and higher weighting to later rounds is there anything to avoid perverse incentives (e.g. do you significantly penalize LeBron for his '11 finals and if so would he have been better if the Heat had been eliminated in the the Conference finals if he had played the same as he did to that point or only marginally worse - if this seems like a trap or ... I don't know ... it's not so much at you as a discussion point that I struggle with in terms of a fair way of discussing playoff performance). Finally is playoff performance considered in a vacuum or relative to regular season (again a perverse incentive question whereby larger playoff "game-raising" is possible where players are weaker in the RS, so a relative system penalizes RS performance).
On finals more valuable than earlier rounds, why do you think so? Is this shorthand for the tougher the opponent the more performance matter (on the basis that it typically gets tougher deeper, though not always). Aren't each of the rounds equally necessary to winning the title?
Does the substantial variation in year to year playoff performance give you any unease, do you feel that luck isn't part of it or do you accept that it is but rate on the basis that "what happened, happened"? (Can link to some basketball-reference profiles to illustrate the type of variation I'm thinking of, if you like?)

Paranthetical note

Spoiler:

I don't know. It may come across as though everything can be/has been/has to be quantified and qualitative data is useless. And/or that I'm attacking you. Or that I'm of the belief that I have good, objective, consistent methodology for rating players (one of the reasons I'm not really part of this project, as a voter at least, is that I'm unhappy with the ad hoc methodology I would have used). I just want to get the reasoning on why people interpret things differently. If you don't think further exchange would be constructive that's fine.

Dr Positivity · Post #304 » by **Dr Positivity** » Fri Dec 8, 2017 7:13 pm

The Clippers this season are an example of why I'm not the biggest fan of WOWY. I think in previous years they did pretty decent when Paul went out - during Blake's 3rd place MVP year they went 12-6 without him during his injury I believe. But taking away a player in the offseason instead of the middle of the summer gives opponents more times to prepare for the star-less team, losing the franchise player has an impact on the culture, etc. of his team, teams can play harder to make up for it in season if they know they're star is coming back in 3 weeks. Seeing the wheels come off the Clippers this season tells us more about Paul's impact on that franchise than how they played when he was injured in my opinion. Or another example the Raptors went 14-6 during Lowry injury after they got Ibaka and Tucker last year... I don't think that tells you how much the Raptors would suffer if they had lost Lowry this offseason

Post #305 » by **Outside** » Sat Dec 9, 2017 9:37 am

I'll take this a chunk at a time.

Owly wrote:Thanks for taking the time to answer, and for going into detail.

That said there are small aspects that confuse me or where I'd benefit from further clarification. Again obviously there's no obligation. So far as I can tell (and I'm very much guessing here) that people aren't utilising a purely metric based approach (nor I would think, of the belief that they had an "objective" truth).

The purely metric-based approach was something I recall from the earliest threads, but as the project progressed and the participants thinned out, that doesn't seem to be a method used by the posters who remain. It's just something I recall from early on.

Okay, that said ...

On the one hand your final sentence and introduction to that paragraph suggest that it is absolutely player performance. But there appears to be hedging in terms of the legitimacy of using titles as a reliable barometer thereof. Does the final sentence override this, in that titles are caused by effective basketball (and not vice versa, and thus the latter are an incredibly crude barometer of the former for individual players).

I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding "player performance." Se're all ranking by "player performance," but we differ in our definitions of what that means and the criteria we use to gauge it.

Regarding titles, my guess is that the "hedging" you sensed from me comes from two things:

-- I don't want to put too much emphasis on titles. They matter, but a lot of other stuff matters more. I want to recognize a player's accomplishment in winning a title, but there are many great players who never won a title due to a variety of circumstances, so it's not a be-all, end-all thing. So I'm hedging in my own mind on this.

-- I gauge a player's performance by his positive impact on helping his team win -- "playing winning basketball." Winning a title is by definition proof that a player can play winning basketball, though it doesn't prove in itself how much impact that player had toward winning that title. The top 100 players of all time is a very select group, so I would expect a player on that list to have a significant impact on his team's ability to play winning basketball. In my mind, the player's performance is what matters, not that titles per se, though titles serve as proof that a player had at least a minimum level of positive impact toward his team winning. It's the type of distinction that could be interpreted as "hedging," but it's an important distinction that allows me, for example, to give Jerry West credit for playing winning basketball at the highest level even though his team lost in the finals eight times and won only once.

Tangential here but ... Ditto MVPs. We know that winning an MVP doesn't make the season you had better. So if it was a Rose/Iverson (i.e. narrative driven) MVP, can that intrinsically "add bonus points" rather than a possible more indirect bonus, as in something causing you to further examine that year. I can see it in a first draft of forming a list, and perhaps for older players where there's less data (quantitative and qualitative) available, but it's hard to see MVP "points" in and of themselves in most instances.

My point was more about guys who appear multiple times on the MVP list. For example, Bob McAdoo had four seasons with MVP shares (2nd, 1st, 2nd, and 10th), while Derrick Rose had only two seasons (1st and 11th), so I'll give McAdoo an edge there.

I'd give some guys who never won the award more "points" than Rose -- for example, Dominique Wilkins, who had seven seasons with MVP shares (17, 2, 5, 6, 8, 5, 11). That shows a more consistently high level of play than someone who only had one or two seasons with MVP shares, even if they won the MVP in one of those seasons.

Finally on the "playoff performance matters" section...

A lot of questions here.

I often see RS to playoff ratio and I wonder what that means. What do you mean by this?
I think you're referring to how much emphasis to put on a player's RS performance vs PS performance, where I referred to something like 60/40 for RS vs PS. I happen to think that the PS is a truer test when judging whether a player should be in the top 100 of all time and where they go on that list. The RS is a bigger sample size, but the PS is a better quality sample.

Is absence from the playoffs scoring a zero here?
Pretty much, yep.

Is that as bad as a "bad" playoffs? Worse?
For me, not making the playoffs is worse than performing poorly in the playoffs.

Does the ratio shift as the playoff sample grows larger?
I'm not sure. I don't quantify it, so I can't really say. I'd have to think about that.

And when you speak of a "poor ps resume" and higher weighting to later rounds is there anything to avoid perverse incentives (e.g. do you significantly penalize LeBron for his '11 finals and if so would he have been better if the Heat had been eliminated in the the Conference finals if he had played the same as he did to that point or only marginally worse - if this seems like a trap or ... I don't know ... it's not so much at you as a discussion point that I struggle with in terms of a fair way of discussing playoff performance).
I struggle with that also, but I'm inclined to say it's worse to not reach the finals than to reach the finals and do poorly. I don't agree with the "Jordan is better than LeBron because he never lost in the finals" argument, because it's not like Jordan was undefeated in the PS -- he just lost earlier more often than LeBron. (I think Jordan is better than LeBron, but not for that reason.)

Finally is playoff performance considered in a vacuum or relative to regular season (again a perverse incentive question whereby larger playoff "game-raising" is possible where players are weaker in the RS, so a relative system penalizes RS performance).
I'm not that specific in my analysis. I don't consider PS performance in a vacuum because everything matters -- RS, PS, longevity, etc, etc. It's like looking at a Jackson Pollack painting -- it's made up of various components (different colors and patterns), but I'm trying to assess it as a whole.

Each player's career is different. I'm probably not a good person to ask because my methods are squishy, subjective, and evolving. Others have been at this a lot longer than I have. I'm still finding my way.

On finals more valuable than earlier rounds, why do you think so? Is this shorthand for the tougher the opponent the more performance matter (on the basis that it typically gets tougher deeper, though not always).
It's partly that the opponents get tougher (not always, but usually). But the pressure increases. Media attention increases, everything around the game itself gets more intense. Players who can rise above all that, recognize that this is the bright lights and the big stage and perform at their best, players who sieze those moments instead of faltering in them -- yeah, that's worth a lot in my judgment. The PS is a whole different animal, and it ratchets up with every round.

Aren't each of the rounds equally necessary to winning the title?
Of course you can't win the finals without winning the first round, but I don't see how that changes the fact that the finals are a much tougher challenge than the first round.

Does the substantial variation in year to year playoff performance give you any unease, do you feel that luck isn't part of it or do you accept that it is but rate on the basis that "what happened, happened"? (Can link to some basketball-reference profiles to illustrate the type of variation I'm thinking of, if you like?)
Again, each player's career is different. Some have a nice arc, some go up and down, some have one good season and a bunch of mediocre ones. Of course luck is involved, whether it's the bounce of the ball on the rim or injuries.

Maybe I'm missing what you're getting at, but I'm not worked up over it to the point that it gives me "unease." I'm using data and the eye test and my gut and spitballing a ranking. It's just an interesting exercise where it's more about the discussion than the end result. I enjoy getting other people's perspectives. Getting my arguments challenged forces me to improve my arguments or sometimes change my position. Where does "unease" come into it?

Paranthetical note
Also I'm sad to see that the "T-Mac didn't make it out of the first round" meme hasn't died. McGrady made the finals as part of the 2013 San Antonio Spurs.

TMac played in China in 2012-13, and he didn't play at all in the NBA during the regular season. After his season in China ended, the Spurs picked him up for the playoffs as a nice gesture.

He played in six of their 21 playoff games, for a total of 31 minutes, scoring zero points.

If you want to give him some kind of credit for "making it out of the first round" by sitting on the bench chasing a ring right before he retired, that's your prerogative. I don't see how that erases him not making it out of the first round all those years when he was considered one of the best players in the league.

I don't know. It may come across as though everything can be/has been/has to be quantified and qualitative data is useless. And/or that I'm attacking you. Or that I'm of the belief that I have good, objective, consistent methodology for rating players (one of the reasons I'm not really part of this project, as a voter at least, is that I'm unhappy with the ad hoc methodology I would have used). I just want to get the reasoning on why people interpret things differently. If you don't think further exchange would be constructive that's fine.

From my perspective, I think you worry too much. I don't have anywhere the data expertise that most people here do, but I have confidence in my knowledge of the game and in my opinions. My methodology isn't refined, but so what? I can still make a case for player X over player Y.

Rather than worry about whether my ranking methodology is good enough, I just want to add my perspective to the mix. Making a good stew requires a lot of different ingredients. I'm not the meat, but maybe I'm the carrots or the potatoes. Maybe I'm a bay leaf. Just don't tell me I'm the peas.

Civil conversation with knowledgeable people about a topic that I love is a wonderful thing

Ainosterhaspie · Post #306 » by **Ainosterhaspie** » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:06 pm

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

Owly · Post #307 » by **Owly** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:42 am

From across the voting thread ...

Ainosterhaspie wrote:Rodman is a better rebounder than Wallace by a long shot. The article I posted argues he is the best rebounder ever and by a wide margin, yes even better than Wilt and Russell. Rodman is also a significantly better free throw shooter than Wallace who was a terrible free throw shooter. Rodman had a higher shooting percentage as well, scored more points per game and had more assists per game.

Rodman ranks number one with a large gap to number two in win percentage differential, something the author of the article I linked to discusses in detail, which is an examination of the difference in a team's winning percentage when the player plays compared to when he doesn't. Wallace is #196 on that list.

The Bulls from 91-93 with Grant had a better version of Jordan and Pippen than the 96-98 Bulls with Rodman had, yet the 96 Bulls were the team from those two groups that is the best contender for all time great team. Grant's scoring is better than Rodman's but Rodman's rebounding is far superior to Grant's. Rodman was all NBA and DPOY 2x, Grant 0. Rodman was 1st defensive team 7 times, Grant 0. Rodman was 2nd defensive team 1 time, Grant 4. Rodman has more all star appearances 2-1. Rodman was so much better at role player stuff that the moderate scoring edge Grant has doesn't matter. Rodman has the better head to head record in the playoffs (3-1)despite to opposing team having two guys who rank ahead of the best guy on his team on the all time list. I'm not counting the Magic/Bulls series Rodman's team won since Grant was out injured.

I know you've put out some principles that guide your thinking, but it might be worthwhile expanding on what your methodology is in ranking players (i.e. what steps you go through).

I ask in part because the argument style's here seem quite disperate. For instance: you cite Rodman's All-Star appearances as a positive versus Grant, but are surely aware that a list going by ASG count wouldn't include Rodman for a long time yet. Are you including things that you don't think are important? You cite head-to-head playoffs amongst players you have described as "second and third tier players", again is this part of how you would rank peers? If so: (a) Does it matter whether both players are in their primes? (b) Do you look at where the the best players rank for their careers (as done here) or look at the entire rosters at that particular time? (c) Per your above criteria, where "Losing while playing well means more to me than winning while playing poorly" wouldn't '88 be a victory for Grant over Rodman - by the boxscore at least with Grant having clearly the better Gamescore per minute and Ortg-Drtg differential)?

I appreciate the difficulty of maintaining an even semi-consistent methodology (hence my own more sideline role). Nevertheless the above feels more like "areas I can find where Rodman has an advantage" rather than, "how I come to believe that Rodman is better", and the latter would be probably be more helpful. Apologies if this misrepresents you (and for instance ASG appearances is part of your process); perhaps your approach is more ad-hoc, and tbh there's an extent to which that is necessary for all participants, because information available isn't always going to be equal on all players.

Anyhow welcome to the project, good luck with getting approved.

Post #308 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:22 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

Thank you for your interest, and fwiw I like what I see above. Seems reasonable and relatively broad-based and astute. I will add you to the "mailing list", so you know when new threads go up and such, and we'll begin your probationary period immediately. So please continue to participate in the discussion. Can't give you an exact timeline as to when we'll give you a "yay" or "nay" answer to your request to join the panel; to some degree it depends on how often you contribute (scant contribution doesn't afford us much means to evaluate you). Could be anywhere from 1-5 threads (or thereabouts).

Ainosterhaspie · Post #309 » by **Ainosterhaspie** » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:24 am

Whew, where to begin?

You mention ASG. Awards, especially by fans, have limited value and sometimes aren't even remotely close to an accurate evaluation. But in this specific situation of Grant vs. Rodman it doesn't matter if other guys have more awards because they aren't being discussed. The awards are a data point that may or may not be meaningful. If Rodman's advantage there is misallocated, I'll listen to that argument. One ASG vs. two doesn't mean that much really. Eight all defensive selections compared to two appears to mean much more, though I would listen to arguments for the proposition that Grant was a defender on par with Rodman.

Rodman and Grant played more or less the same position and role for their teams during almost exactly the same time period and in the same conference. Because of this they were competing directly against each other for accolades. This makes comparing awards more helpful than comparing Isiah Thomas and Kevin Garnett's awards for example.

Another part if this is that different people will be swayed by different arguments, so it is effective to present a wide variety of arguments. I do try to avoid irrational and unsupportable arguments. I would never use 6-0 to argue Jordan's greatness. Only the 6 matters.

I somewhat feel that using the word methodology to describe how I rank people as being too grandiose, and I won't claim any consistent method. There are just too many variables many of which of poorly understood and/or defined. A guy like Rodman just seems to have a massive impact that is very, very hard to quantify. Jordan's impact can be quantified in innumerable way. (Some hyperbole there.) Guys who are pure offensive greats are easier to compare to each other than great defensive players.

I listen to general consensus views. I listen to contraindications views. I listen to my own gut. Where these differ, I try to understand why. I look for data that supports my position and the others. If my position looks legitimate I try to develop an argument to support it. If others make sensible counter arguments I adjust mine accordingly including abandoning my weaker arguments or position in its entirety if appropriate. There are so many conscious and subconscious factors, like impressions at a time that were mentally catalogued without all the details about why those impressions formed,that I can't detail my thinking in a concise way. I'm impressed with the players here who have developed complex algorithms to rank players, but don't have even close to that personally.

Guys pre mid 80s are lore to me more than anything. For guys like that, I rely on others identifying who may be in the conversation at various spots. Arguments and counterarguments can move me one way or another. I have a recency bias but try to partition it. Russell and Wilt are GOAT level guys, so they are in my GOAT tier with four modern guys. Modern guys not in my GOAT tier are automatically below those two. Tier two guys from the pre merger era are always above tier three guys from the modern era.

The game score observation is interesting. I'll have to think about that for a bit.

I'm rushing this response so I'm not real happy with it. I have other stuff to do though. I'll try to add more later.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Owly · Post #310 » by **Owly** » Tue Jan 2, 2018 11:30 pm

Just looking at comparing last time's list to this one (as I mentioned in the present voting thread).

To keep things consistent, I've tried to remove players who've added value to their career (in the 3 seasons in between) in a way that may have moved them up, from both lists. The threshold for this won't necessarily be consistent (Wade and Melo might have had similar boxscore metrics in these 3 years, but from up where Wade was, those extra years just aren't going to make a difference, where perhaps for Melo they might), and are a bit arbitrary.

That said, the following players, who played in the meantime, but I guess didn't really add noteworthy value, so just stay in:
Bryant
Garnett
Wade
Howard
Ginobili
Brand
Parker

and those who perhaps did add value enough to move them, and so were taken out:
LeBron
Paul
Durant
Curry
Pau Gasol (would have been 50 on old to would be 44 on new, rising up by 6)
Westbrook
Bosh
Anthony (taken out of the old list, not in yet)
Harden

Spoiler:

The first somewhat significant moves are Stockton up 5 (25 to 20) and Frazier down 7 (27 to 34). Overall, through the top 40s there wasn't really much difference. But then Cousy leapt up 26 spots to 42 and Unseld 22 spots to 44. The next biggest move is a 14 spot slide for McGrady.

From a quick scan the next handful in can't be big fallers (if at all) in real terms. Bernard King is the only person already "due" to be in based on last time (two spots ago), and Rodman "should" go here. The group notionally in consideration (other than any new players adding value in the meantime, perhaps including Anthony) are in the 70s on (this version of) the 2014 list, though of course Bobby Jones and Tony Parker are already in). I've probably missed someone but haven't got any more time to look at it ... Might be interesting to look at the cases made for the big movers.

Post #311 » by **penbeast0** » Wed Jan 3, 2018 1:20 am

For the last umpteen threads, it's been a runoff between guys with 2 votes so not surprising there are big moves; especially with such a small voter base turning out.

Cousy and Unseld had strong supporters early (not working for Mel Daniels, lol). Tmac, not sure why he fell, maybe overrated last time?

dhsilv2 · Post #312 » by **dhsilv2** » Wed Jan 3, 2018 1:37 am

Small number of voters, but also the way runoffs work. Often we get a runoff and those not supporting either canidate, really don't want to vote for either, it isn't like it was their 3rd or 4th next pick. So 2-3 people can create a runoff for someone with no chance of them winning, this means if another 2-3 support someone else, that person gets in even if many feel that person is too early. Non ideal, but hey it's fun either way right?

Post #313 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 2:14 am

As Hal Greer has now entered his FIFTH consecutive runoff, I just wanted to throw a musing out there to see what people think of it (not that I really want to change the protocol [again] at this late stage). But since it came to mind, I just thought I'd get opinions about it......

What if we set a limit to the number of runoffs a player can get into?....
As in, if a player hits runoff #X (if we elect to go this way, we'd need to decide upon an appropriate number for "X"), he is simply awarded the spot without having to face runoff again.

Pros
*This theoretically may be more favorable to a player who might score well (and potentially win the spot) via a more extended ballot system (but who just cannot get over the hump in our current system).
**It may save several posters a little frustration of supporting a candidate who doesn't get voted in for potentially dozens of threads.
***May shave a day or two of total running time off the project as a whole (by eliminating a runoff or two).

Cons
*It may allow in a candidate who doesn't truly have the broad-based support to otherwise own the spot.
**It arguably further "corrupts" the internal consistency of the project.
***In these late stages with small voter turn-out, it allows for as few as two people to quite easily collude to get a dark horse candidate in much sooner than they otherwise would.
^^^This latter concern is the big one as to why I'd be cautious about instituting this change.

But anyway, I wanted to grab some opinions, see if there's a broad desire to add this rule in. And if so, we'd need to agree on an "X" value. I think the X should certainly be >5 (though >10 is perhaps pushing it).
Don't know if this really sets precedent, but in the 2014 I remember Allen Iverson losing runoff and runoff before finally getting in. I just went and looked at those threads to see how many it was: it was his SEVENTH runoff before he finally got in (and that was with randomly missing one runoff in the middle, too)......he was in the runoff from #49 to #53, randomly missed #54, then was in #55-56.
So don't know if that's a suggestion that we should make X=7 ("lucky 7"), as it's the most number of runoffs anyone has faced (to my knowledge). Or perhaps, based on this, we should make X=8 (as it's one more than the max number of runoffs anyone has faced without actually winning a runoff).

Thoughts?

Spoiler:

Post #314 » by **penbeast0** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 2:46 am

We have a small enough consensus as it is, I don't like making it smaller. Even if it means Mel Daniels continues to be ignored for awhile.

dhsilv2 · Post #315 » by **dhsilv2** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 2:49 am

Pro - Saves us time and gets this done sooner.
Con - Increases the value of a vocal minority which causes people lower in desirability to get in.

Honestly I'd rather see a 3 way and have everyone vote top 2, and just take it that way as it opens up while narrowing down the selection and would give a clearer consensus.

Con of that - With voter size we'd likely need a 2nd alt and then we'd possibly see all alt type candidates get in without good arguments/cases. It would imo give us a better list though.

edit

BTW a top 2 out of 3 does NOT imo give one any kind of "black ball" manipulation factor which I now has been cited as a concern.

pandrade83 · Post #316 » by **pandrade83** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 3:39 am

I'm good keeping it the way it is.

Post #317 » by **trex_8063** » Thu Jan 4, 2018 4:16 pm

OK, certainly no outpouring of support, so we'll continue on as we are. As implied above, I wasn't crazy about the proposed change either, but just thought I'd ask since it came to mind.

Jaqua92 · Post #318 » by **Jaqua92** » Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:38 am

Duncan is great but he is not a top 5 player all time lololololol

Post #319 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:40 pm

For runoff, could just count all 1st and 2nd place votes (maybe with 1sts having twice the value) and see if we can get 2 person runoffs rather than 3 person more often? Just an idea but since we are consistently having runoffs where 1 or 2 1st place votes get you into the mix, maybe we should count both votes toward runoff.

Post #320 » by **trex_8063** » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:20 pm

penbeast0 wrote:For runoff, could just count all 1st and 2nd place votes (maybe with 1sts having twice the value) and see if we can get 2 person runoffs rather than 3 person more often? Just an idea but since we are consistently having runoffs where 1 or 2 1st place votes get you into the mix, maybe we should count both votes toward runoff.

dhsilv2 wrote:.

I didn't want to do the straight point-system because that's basically the ballot system that we wanted to avoid from the first, as it allows the greatest means of manipulating the vote AGAINST undesired candidates, no?

However, I've tentatively edited in the following adjustment to protocol:

EDIT (update 1/29/18): A player may NOT be excluded from the runoff if he received at least a secondary vote from >60% of the participating voters, even if he was not one of the top two in 1st ballots. The runoff he is included in must be at least a 3-player runoff, however.

Rodman here in the current thread is the first to actually necessitate activation of this protocol rule (so it doesn't "create" an inconsistency within portions of the project that are already completed).