RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #26

[Pablo Novi]

From the "Top 25 players of all time by MVP Shares" thread:
Post#43 » by Pablo Novi » 15 minutes ago

penbeast0 wrote:
Do you think this creates a better GOAT list than the MVP award shares?

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


[ penbeast0 wrote:]
By 1st team awards (total awards, then 2nd team as tiebreakers):
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Karl Malone
3. LeBron James
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. TIm Duncan
6 (tie). Bob Cousy
6 (tie). Jerry West
8 (tie). Michael Jordan
8 (tie). Bob Pettit
10. Elgin Baylor
11. Oscar Robertson
12 (tie). Larry Bird
12 (tie). Magic Johnson
14. Shaquille O'Neal
15. Wilt Chamberlain
16. Dolph Schayes
17. Hakeem Olujawon
18. George Mikan
19. Julius Erving
20. Charles Barkley
21. Rick Barry
22. George Gervin
23. Dwight Howard
24. Kevin Durant
25. Jason Kidd

clyde21 wrote:
Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pablo Novi]

...

I've seen / reviewed a ton of GOAT lists; and RealGMs 2017 one is one of THE most Center-centric lists I've seen. Does that make it right? Maybe, maybe not?

Until the Bad Boys in 89 and 90, can you name me two teams that won an NBA title without a HOF center starting? 75 Warriors and . . . (ABA had some, but not NBA). That's over half the history of the league where you were not a title team without a HOF center. Centers dominated the first 40 years of the league far more than any other position and even after that you still had the Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan multiple championships.

I agree with all you say here. BUT, this RealGM GOAT list IS the most Center centric list I think I've ever seen - so, perhaps, we, collectively, have gone overboard about the Centers.

Besides, regardless of the general narrative of the first 40 years being Center-dominated; that does not even address whether that domination by Centers was as HEAVILY dominated by them as is assumed.

My point HERE is that, just as stats have ALWAYS been overemphasized by most (and, advanced stats now by many), no stat I've seen (perhaps the latest movement-tracking stuff would illuminate this) ... no stat I've seen comes close to reflecting the EXTRA: running, cutting, stop-and-starting, dribbling, passing (and THINKING - to follow the intracacies of the play thru to the end, including taking into account break-downs) ... close to reflecting that EXTRA EFFORT by the smaller players.

I've never said that such extra-effort is equal to the extra benefits Centers have traditionally contributed; but I FEEL it's close enough to significantly influence the discussion and produce less Center-centric GOAT resutls.

[Narigo]

Its a shame that Nash got in. His defense is extremely bad.

The thing is, Nash is still one of the best offensive players ever if we use box score metrics like OBPM and OWS .
But his crappy defense is the reason why his BPM isnt that high

[Lou Fan]

...

I've seen / reviewed a ton of GOAT lists; and RealGMs 2017 one is one of THE most Center-centric lists I've seen. Does that make it right? Maybe, maybe not?

Until the Bad Boys in 89 and 90, can you name me two teams that won an NBA title without a HOF center starting? 75 Warriors and . . . (ABA had some, but not NBA). That's over half the history of the league where you were not a title team without a HOF center. Centers dominated the first 40 years of the league far more than any other position and even after that you still had the Hakeem, Shaq, and Duncan multiple championships.

79 sonics as well. Sickma was good but definitely my HOF imo.

[Lou Fan]

"Looks like we should just agree to disagree."
Fair enough but I would like you to address just one last thing . You base so much of your off of what position a player played and how they dominated compared to others at their position. What do you think of what I said about positions being arbitrary. Lebron and Magic play basically the same style but Lebron is a SF/PF and Magic is a PG. While Brook Lopez and Shaq are both centers but their games are completely different. I don't want to repeat what I already wrote so please look at my last post for the rest of my explanation of my interpretation. Also if Kobe and MJ played at the same time and MJ won all the 1st team selections would that make Kobe worse? Thanks!

You're most welcome! (I like your style; keep sending more compliments and "thanks" my way, bro!)
I don't have a whole lot more to add. So let's see how long I can make this anyway. lol

About Kobe and MJ playing at the same time and MJ winning all the 1st-Team selections - (assuming, I assume you assume that both put up their same (separate-era) numbers: let me bring that question back to you: Wouldn't MOST NBA analysts have lower opinions of Kobe because he was consistently beaten / dominated at his own position in his own era? I would think so.

A very similar example is DWade. He was just dominated at his position in his era by Kobe. Had they not played mostly simultaneously (and DWade put up the same stats (regular and advanced; and with the same success rate)); then I picture MOST NBA analysts would rate DWade higher than they do now - I would.

Wilt. For lots of people, Wilt's numbers seem "cartoonish" - and, particularly with those who are (far) removed from his era - they TEND to treat his stats and what is contemporaries said about him ("Greatest All-Sports Athlete of the 1900s" type statements) as if they're all exaggerations and/or Wilt would never repeat anything close in any other subsequent era.

We can't know for sure (naturally) how any player would actually have done in any different decade; and Wilt's Post-Season record is not very impressive (if you just go by series won/lost and Chips won); but he DID dominate THE greatest defensive presence the League has ever seen (in HIS era at HIS position) - which might be the reason that I'm not the only one who ranks Wilt GOAT #6 (and not way lower).

It appears that people are inconsistent in when they use the "against their own competition" criteria - applying it in some cases and not in others. In my case, I use that criteria 100% of the time - as my INITIAL GOAT list building block.

For me it just keeps coming down to: you can only play and beat (or lose to) whatever teams / whichever players / under whatever rules - you are presented with. AND, exactly because the variables are SO variable - I return to that basic criteria: how you did against your contemporaries.

btw, LeBron's "Mount Rushmore" has NO CENTERS on it at all; and LeBron's got a terrific b-ball iq. Does he know more than you. DEFINITELY! (lol) Does he know more than me? NO WAY ! I'm TWICE HIS AGE! (lol - you'll have to excuse my ingrained habit of making fun of myself (the only person I make fun of; but I do TRY to be gentle about it.)

I've seen / reviewed a ton of GOAT lists; and RealGMs 2017 one is one of THE most Center-centric lists I've seen. Does that make it right? Maybe, maybe not?

The more we have debated this the more I have come to understand and respect your point of view. I used to think your way was crazy but now I understand your method of thinking and hopefully you feel the same about me. With that being said there are two things that I still can't get over. First you still haven't addressed what I said about positions. Second I just don't get why you don't evaluate each players greatness regardless of position. Just apply your formula (if you must) on all players regardless of position then adjust from there.

[Jaivl]

Its a shame that Nash got in. His defense is extremely bad.

The thing is, Nash is still one of the best offensive players ever if we use box score metrics like OBPM and OWS .
But his crappy defense is the reason why his BPM isnt that high

The inherent faulty nature of using boxscore to derive plus-minus is the reason why his BPM isn't that high.

Why one would use BPM post-1997 is beyond me.

[Pablo Novi]

"Looks like we should just agree to disagree."
Fair enough but I would like you to address just one last thing . You base so much of your off of what position a player played and how they dominated compared to others at their position. What do you think of what I said about positions being arbitrary. Lebron and Magic play basically the same style but Lebron is a SF/PF and Magic is a PG. While Brook Lopez and Shaq are both centers but their games are completely different. I don't want to repeat what I already wrote so please look at my last post for the rest of my explanation of my interpretation. Also if Kobe and MJ played at the same time and MJ won all the 1st team selections would that make Kobe worse? Thanks!

You're most welcome! (I like your style; keep sending more compliments and "thanks" my way, bro!)
I don't have a whole lot more to add. So let's see how long I can make this anyway. lol

About Kobe and MJ playing at the same time and MJ winning all the 1st-Team selections - (assuming, I assume you assume that both put up their same (separate-era) numbers: let me bring that question back to you: Wouldn't MOST NBA analysts have lower opinions of Kobe because he was consistently beaten / dominated at his own position in his own era? I would think so.

A very similar example is DWade. He was just dominated at his position in his era by Kobe. Had they not played mostly simultaneously (and DWade put up the same stats (regular and advanced; and with the same success rate)); then I picture MOST NBA analysts would rate DWade higher than they do now - I would.

Wilt. For lots of people, Wilt's numbers seem "cartoonish" - and, particularly with those who are (far) removed from his era - they TEND to treat his stats and what is contemporaries said about him ("Greatest All-Sports Athlete of the 1900s" type statements) as if they're all exaggerations and/or Wilt would never repeat anything close in any other subsequent era.

We can't know for sure (naturally) how any player would actually have done in any different decade; and Wilt's Post-Season record is not very impressive (if you just go by series won/lost and Chips won); but he DID dominate THE greatest defensive presence the League has ever seen (in HIS era at HIS position) - which might be the reason that I'm not the only one who ranks Wilt GOAT #6 (and not way lower).

It appears that people are inconsistent in when they use the "against their own competition" criteria - applying it in some cases and not in others. In my case, I use that criteria 100% of the time - as my INITIAL GOAT list building block.

For me it just keeps coming down to: you can only play and beat (or lose to) whatever teams / whichever players / under whatever rules - you are presented with. AND, exactly because the variables are SO variable - I return to that basic criteria: how you did against your contemporaries.

btw, LeBron's "Mount Rushmore" has NO CENTERS on it at all; and LeBron's got a terrific b-ball iq. Does he know more than you. DEFINITELY! (lol) Does he know more than me? NO WAY ! I'm TWICE HIS AGE! (lol - you'll have to excuse my ingrained habit of making fun of myself (the only person I make fun of; but I do TRY to be gentle about it.)

I've seen / reviewed a ton of GOAT lists; and RealGMs 2017 one is one of THE most Center-centric lists I've seen. Does that make it right? Maybe, maybe not?

The more we have debated this the more I have come to understand and respect your point of view. I used to think your way was crazy but now I understand your method of thinking and hopefully you feel the same about me. With that being said there are two things that I still can't get over. First you still haven't addressed what I said about positions. Second I just don't get why you don't evaluate each players greatness regardless of position. Just apply your formula (if you must) on all players regardless of position then adjust from there.

In my life the three things that most thrill me are: hanging with my truly ever-loving wife; TEAM-work; and, in cases where I'm involved in serious differences of opinion - the gap is principledly bridged (at least partially) and more unity results. So I'm pleased (if that's the best word) with how things are developing in our discussion.

Forgive me for not quite understanding, "First you still haven't addressed what I said about positions." I ask because I thought I had addressed it - but, this discussion has been complicated, naturally, so probably I didn't do so enough.

About your, " Second I just don't get why you don't evaluate each players greatness regardless of position." This also confuses me a bit - but again, it may just be because I haven't done a very good job explaining how "my system" works. I'll give it another try....

I spent a massive amount of time trying to analyze historical strength of "decades"; including for the Dual-League years (that was easily the hardest to figure out how to treat fairly; especially the ABA-NBA years); AND to figure out a "Points" system that would most closely reflect this - basically: 5 "Points" for ALL-League 1st-Team selections (except in pre-1960 years; and in Dual-League years); then 60% of that or 3 "Points" for ALL-League 2nd-Team selections; then 60% of THAT for ALL-NBA 3rd-Team selections. I call seasons in which a player gets a 1st-Team or 2nd-Team selection as a "Great Year" - and that's the easiest (simplified) way to describe the FIRST, INITIAL part of my system - the more "Great Years" (modified by 3rd-Team selections once they started) ... the more "Points" ... the higher the INITIAL ranking.

This is applied "universally" to all players form all Leagues, decades, years and POSITIONS. (Which is why I say I'm a bit confused by your 2nd point - again, I DO rate all positions FIRST by the "Great Years" criteria.

I then added up each player's total "Points". And have a kind of rough-draft INITIAL GOAT list.

It is only then that I break that list down into 5 components by position; 5 positional GOAT lists.

I then examine for each player ALL the other factors (stats, advanced stats, awards, Post-Season play, special strengths (like TEAM-work) and weaknesses (like being a lousy TEAM-mate or terrible on defense ...). This is the 2nd-Step in my evaluation process.

In my 3rd-Step, the final one; dealing first by positions: I allow myself to move a player up or down only one positional-ranking (based on those 2nd-Step factors). I've given the example of: for the top 3 SG's: Kobe, MJ & Jerry West:
Kobe is about 20% ahead of Jerry West who's a bit ahead of MJ INITIALLY. Given that West & MJ are in a virtual tie ("Points-wise"), I can theoretically move either of them up or down: up to GOAT SG #1 or down to GOAT SG #4.

I consider MJ's Post-Season career just superior enough over Kobe's, that I move MJ past Kobe into my GOAT SG #1 spot. Kobe then is GOAT SG #2 and Jerry West neither moves up or down, so stays GOAT SG #3.

Another example: For the Centers. I've got KAJ GOAT Center #1 by a sizeable margin INITIALLY (64.5 "Points" to Shaq's 51.5); and the other factors don't narrow the gap at all; so he stays my GOAT Center #1. Then come INITIALLY: Shaq, followed by Hakeem & Wilt (close enough to be "tied" for GOAT Center #3-4; with Hakeem having 43.9 "Points" and Wilt 42.5 "Points". The KEY 2nd-Step factor FOR ME in the cases of: Shaq, Hakeem & Wilt is Wilt's era-wise dominance. Not counting Mikan (in a MUCH weaker era), for me, Wilt was THE most era-dominant player ever. This is enough for me to move Wilt ahead of Shaq into the GOAT Center #2 spot; followed by Shaq and then Hakeem. (But Bill Russell, based on his "2nd-Step" 11 Rings in 13 years, moves out of a "tie" with Moses Malone, DRob & DHoward & moves up past Hakeem into my GOAT Center #3 spot, with Hakeem now GOAT Center #4.

The last part then is to plug the POSITIONAL GOAT lists into an overall GOAT list.
In this final step, to reflect what I consider relative-EQUALITY of positions, each descending set of 5 spots on my GOAT list has one player from each position: so in my GOAT Top 5 there are my GOAT #1 PG, #1 SG, #1 SF, #1 PF & #1 Center. But seeing as I still rate Centers generally more valuable than the other positions, I ALWAYS put the Center FIRST.

This results in the following, my GOAT list:
#1 KAJ,
#2 Magic (GOAT #1 in TEAM-work)
#3 MJ
#4 LBJ (I've had him moving up one spot per year for several years; and expect this to continue, assuming he continues to have more "Great Years")
#5 TD
all the following are in order:
#s 6-10: Wilt, Dr J, Kobe, "O", Karl Malone;
#s 11-15: Shaq, Jerry West, Bird, Pettit, Cousy;
#s16-20: Bill Russell, Baylor, Stockton, Barkley, Gervin;
#s21-25: Hakeem, Rick Barry, Nowitski, CP3, DWade

I look at my GOAT list and am really pleased with it. It seems to be to be THE FAIREST (position-wise, decade-wise, etc) of any list I've ever seen.

And, of course, nobody agrees with me! lol

Still, compared to most other well-reasoned GOAT lists, it's not that different!

THE most glaring difference between my GOAT list and most everybody else's is where I rank Bill Russell. Because, imo, he was DOMINATED (by Wilt) at his own position in his own era; (and because I don't allow myself to move any player up or down more than one-positional ranking) I can't put Russell in my GOAT Top 15.

[Clyde Frazier]

Read on Twitter

[Nash is being inducted into the HOF on Friday]