SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:"peaks project", OK that sounds like me. "Greatest" "Best" mean peaks to me. For others "Greatest" and best mean longevity which is wierd to me.
There seem to be more longevity people than peaks people. The project has not been picky about voting criteria.
I thought as a service I would find he project principles wherever that thread got buried.
OP gets to define the project. Let's see how badly I ignored the OP.
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1748183
Post #4 in that thread, eminence first asks the question.....
eminence wrote:The defense one would be fun for sure, would it be a prime level ranking? I find it very tough to come up with career defensive value numbers.
In post #21 of that thread I follow up on that....
trex_8063 wrote:......Also, eminence asked an important question before you move forward: what kind of time-frame are you referring to? Some players have a really good 3-4 year stretch of defense, but if you look at their average defense over their entire careers, it's not so special (Kobe might be a good example of this). So you really should clearly state what kind of time-frame you're referring to.
Post #22 lebron3-14-3 replies.....
lebron3-14-3 wrote:I would prefer to do a career value ranking
Post #25, I ask for more specificity.....
trex_8063 wrote:Even that statement requires more specificity: do you mean their average year (over their entire career), or some manner of cumulative [total] career defensive value?
With the former, guys with long careers are hurt in the comparisons (because players's defensive [and overall] capabilities tend to dwindle with age). With the latter, younger players are hurt in the comparisons (for example, have guys like Andre Roberson or Robert Covington even accumulated enough TOTAL career defensive value to be considered against good defensive players who played >10 seasons?).
I might suggest something like the average of their 3-5 best defensive seasons.
lebron3-14-3 replied in post #35.....
lebron3-14-3 wrote:
I would be more oriented to do it considering the whole career of the player, but without a specific method, I would leave it to the common sense of the members. I think that people understand that a player who played 21 years will have a lowered average defensive years, or that guys that played few years can't have a great total career defensive values. But, as these two criteria have these flaws, considering just the 3-5 best defensive seasons has an even bigger flaw, that is not considering the rest of the career.
I mean, if we did the same ranking for the offensive part of the game, the question would be, how good has he been in his career? And that would mean what impact did he have throughout the years, how long did he play at a certain level etc, we don't consider just his best 8-10 offensive seasons.
I know that the big difference is that level of defense is more variable and it tends to lower in fewer years, but I don't think it's an issue.
Now, I do think that people have different opinions about what it means to play valuable defense, but I don't think people have very diverse opinions about what you said. If we have two players that played 11 and 17 seasons, both played a 90/100 defense for their first 11 years (pretending you can give a number to one player's defense), the first one retired while the second one continued to play a 75/100 defense for other 6 years, it would be obvious that the second one would be ranked higher than the first one, even if his average season would be lowered by those 6 seasons.
Now, if we have a player that has played 4 elite defensive seasons but was average for other 11 years it depends on what somebody thinks, I don't think there's someone that says No I consider just those 4 seasons and he's the 3rd best defender in his position because of that, but It's not about the criteria we choose to use in this project, I think that there are already estabilished things in the way we rank things in basketball.
So, If I had to give an answer I would say: I'm more oriented to a criteria that considers the entire career of the player, but not specifically a total career value or an average year, but also peaks and primes are important, exactly like it is when we rank players careers in general.
[/quote]
So he didn't stipulate a really specific criteria or methodology, but he does indicate multiple spots that he wants it to be about whole careers. Not specifically cumulative career value (and even I've not gone completely cumulative value; if I had, I'd rank Stockton higher and probably would have supported Hayes over Jones last thread, etc), but definitely considering career wholes. It's a bit vague as to how we're to do that, and it was largely left to each individual to approach in his own manner.
So idk; perhaps I (and others) have become TOO longevity-oriented in our voting practices here. Retrospectively, I think maybe I have (just a little), and I might try to make a minor adjustment to how I'm looking at things.
But jsia......whole career was specifically stated in that thread.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
