Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?

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

Where is the bigger gap?

Between 1 and 10
23
74%
Between 10 and 20
7
23%
equal
1
3%
 
Total votes: 31

Cavsfansince84
RealGM
Posts: 14,940
And1: 11,443
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#1 » by Cavsfansince84 » Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:01 pm

This is a question of whether you see a bigger gap between whichever player you place as #1 all time and 10th or whoever you have as 10th and 20th. So you probably need to figure out who you have at those 3 spots or maybe just a rough idea. Feel free to give your three in the comments and how you see the comparison.
User avatar
CharityStripe34
General Manager
Posts: 9,512
And1: 6,400
Joined: Dec 01, 2014
     

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#2 » by CharityStripe34 » Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:11 pm

Probably 10 to 20.
"Wes, Hill, Ibaka, Allen, Nwora, Brook, Pat, Ingles, Khris are all slow-mo, injury prone ... a sandcastle waiting for playoff wave to get wrecked. A castle with no long-range archers... is destined to fall. That is all I have to say."-- FOTIS
User avatar
Ron Swanson
RealGM
Posts: 25,571
And1: 29,381
Joined: May 15, 2013

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#3 » by Ron Swanson » Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:31 pm

Jordan
Kareem
Lebron
Wilt
Magic
Shaq
Russell
Duncan
Hakeem
Bird
Kobe
Curry
Oscar
Giannis
KG
Barkley
West
Moses
Admiral
Durant

Hmmm, I actually lean towards a bigger gap between 1 and 10, but this exercise entirely depends on who you have in those slots on your ATG list.
SickMother
Senior
Posts: 677
And1: 634
Joined: Jul 10, 2010

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#4 » by SickMother » Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:13 pm

Obviously Win Shares aren't the be all end all, but the difference between #1 Kareem @ 273.4 and #10 Garnett @ 191.4 is 82 Win Shares. That is about equal to Peja (82.6 WS) or Kevin Willis (81.8 WS) entire career.

The difference between #10 Garnett @ 191.4 and #20 Russell @ 163.5 is only 27.9 Win Shares. That is about equal to Austin Croshere's (27.6 WS) entire career.

From #10 Garnett @ 191.4 you've got to go all the way down to #68 Detlef @ 109.5 To match the 82 WS difference between #1-#10.
User avatar
Jaivl
Head Coach
Posts: 7,052
And1: 6,714
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#5 » by Jaivl » Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:04 am

1 to 10, always.

Especially if you go by career value and your #1 is LeBron.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 5,705
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#6 » by An Unbiased Fan » Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:36 pm

10 to 20

1 to 10 are legends, by the time you get to 20, you have greats, but not quite the same.

The ratings of 1 to 10 players would be like 100 to 99, while 10 to 20 is like 99 to 97, 20 to 30 is 97-94, and so on
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
SickMother
Senior
Posts: 677
And1: 634
Joined: Jul 10, 2010

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#7 » by SickMother » Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:52 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:10 to 20

1 to 10 are legends, by the time you get to 20, you have greats, but not quite the same.

The ratings of 1 to 10 players would be like 100 to 99, while 10 to 20 is like 99 to 97, 20 to 30 is 97-94, and so on


Why use subjectively assigned ratings when we have objective information?
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#8 » by ceiling raiser » Fri Jul 15, 2022 9:47 pm

1 vs 10: Jordan/Russell vs Shaq/Hakeem. Pretty close in terms of caliber per player.
10 vs 20: Shaq/Hakeem vs Durant/Kobe. Not even close, to me.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 5,705
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#9 » by An Unbiased Fan » Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:23 am

SickMother wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:10 to 20

1 to 10 are legends, by the time you get to 20, you have greats, but not quite the same.

The ratings of 1 to 10 players would be like 100 to 99, while 10 to 20 is like 99 to 97, 20 to 30 is 97-94, and so on


Why use subjectively assigned ratings when we have objective information?

Ranking are subjective to begin with. But if we look at Top 20 resumes, the gaps is smaller from 1 to 10, vs 10-20.

There's a reason everyone's top 10 is so different, as opposed to Top 20 which is more stable. If everyone named their Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40, Top 50, the lists would get far more stable as you go along
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,317
And1: 9,882
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#10 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:41 am

SickMother wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:10 to 20

1 to 10 are legends, by the time you get to 20, you have greats, but not quite the same.

The ratings of 1 to 10 players would be like 100 to 99, while 10 to 20 is like 99 to 97, 20 to 30 is 97-94, and so on


Why use subjectively assigned ratings when we have objective information?


What information is that? All the statistical information is informative but incomplete or flawed. I am curious what you think of as an objective rating system here.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,317
And1: 9,882
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#11 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:44 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:Ranking are subjective to begin with. But if we look at Top 20 resumes, the gaps is smaller from 1 to 10, vs 10-20.

There's a reason everyone's top 10 is so different, as opposed to Top 20 which is more stable. If everyone named their Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40, Top 50, the lists would get far more stable as you go along


Really? Haven't found that to be even close to true in the 100 GOAT list project, the players are closer in value so the lists are generally far more variable the further down you get. The most extreme examples for me seem to be George Mikan who I have top 15 or so but others don't have in their top 100 or, alternatively, Bill Walton, and Allen Iverson, neither of whom is in my top 100 or even close to it but others have them in their top 50
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
wojoaderge
Analyst
Posts: 3,095
And1: 1,679
Joined: Jul 27, 2015

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#12 » by wojoaderge » Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:49 am

10 to 20
"Coach, why don't you just relax? We're not good enough to beat the Lakers. We've had a great year, why don't you just relax and cool down?"
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,854
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#13 » by Colbinii » Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:44 am

penbeast0 wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Ranking are subjective to begin with. But if we look at Top 20 resumes, the gaps is smaller from 1 to 10, vs 10-20.

There's a reason everyone's top 10 is so different, as opposed to Top 20 which is more stable. If everyone named their Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40, Top 50, the lists would get far more stable as you go along


Really? Haven't found that to be even close to true in the 100 GOAT list project, the players are closer in value so the lists are generally far more variable the further down you get. The most extreme examples for me seem to be George Mikan who I have top 15 or so but others don't have in their top 100 or, alternatively, Bill Walton, and Allen Iverson, neither of whom is in my top 100 or even close to it but others have them in their top 50


I also think the opposite.

I think there is more stability in the Top 10 than the The 20 and certainly the Top 50.

Mathematically and statistically, it makes sense as well.
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 34,243
And1: 21,854
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#14 » by Colbinii » Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:48 am

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
SickMother wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:10 to 20

1 to 10 are legends, by the time you get to 20, you have greats, but not quite the same.

The ratings of 1 to 10 players would be like 100 to 99, while 10 to 20 is like 99 to 97, 20 to 30 is 97-94, and so on


Why use subjectively assigned ratings when we have objective information?

Ranking are subjective to begin with. But if we look at Top 20 resumes, the gaps is smaller from 1 to 10, vs 10-20.

There's a reason everyone's top 10 is so different, as opposed to Top 20 which is more stable. If everyone named their Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40, Top 50, the lists would get far more stable as you go along


My tiers get substantially larger the further I go out.

The Top 4 or 5 players for me are in a tier. The next 5 or 6 are in a tier. Then the next 6 or 7 are in a similar tier. Once I get to around #75 or #80, my tiers are probably 40 to 50 players large.
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 20,868
And1: 13,670
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#15 » by sp6r=underrated » Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:52 am

The gap gets smaller the farther down the list you go so 1-10. The conversations in the top 5 and 10 are more heated but the debates further down the list are a lot more interesting because the players are so close in value but the arguments are so divergent
falcolombardi
General Manager
Posts: 9,505
And1: 7,109
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#16 » by falcolombardi » Sat Jul 16, 2022 3:01 am

Everyone in the top 20 is a mvp winner or a player who didnt win mvp cause someone else was too good (wade in 09-10) but is easilt mvp level

Is normal that the gaps among guys who dominated their leaguea enough to be awarded as most valuable players are all relatively close in value

I think is after like the top 30~ that it gets wild as you get high but short peaks, second tier superstars, low end all star guys with really great and long careers and it becomes tricky
User avatar
An Unbiased Fan
RealGM
Posts: 11,732
And1: 5,705
Joined: Jan 16, 2009
       

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#17 » by An Unbiased Fan » Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:25 pm

Colbinii wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:
SickMother wrote:
Why use subjectively assigned ratings when we have objective information?

Ranking are subjective to begin with. But if we look at Top 20 resumes, the gaps is smaller from 1 to 10, vs 10-20.

There's a reason everyone's top 10 is so different, as opposed to Top 20 which is more stable. If everyone named their Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40, Top 50, the lists would get far more stable as you go along


My tiers get substantially larger the further I go out.

The Top 4 or 5 players for me are in a tier. The next 5 or 6 are in a tier. Then the next 6 or 7 are in a similar tier. Once I get to around #75 or #80, my tiers are probably 40 to 50 players large.

That's fair, you have your tiers, and everyone else has their rankings too. The Top 10 players is very close, and switch around a lot on various lists, even here on Real GM. Why? because they all were greats in their eras. But at you move form 10 to 20, the gaps get bigger, obvious flaws in resumes get more numerous.

In the last RGM Top 100 list, Lebron was #1, Bird was #10, Moses was #20. Where's the bigger gap? Clearly it's Bird to Moses to me. #20 Moses to #30 Walt is even bigger. #30 Walt to #40 Artis even more.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
SickMother
Senior
Posts: 677
And1: 634
Joined: Jul 10, 2010

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#18 » by SickMother » Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:41 pm

penbeast0 wrote:What information is that? All the statistical information is informative but incomplete or flawed. I am curious what you think of as an objective rating system here.


Any statistical information is incomplete or flawed, sure, but it's still far more objective than subjectively assigning point ratings like in NBA2K.

I already provided one example (while admitting its imperfection above) with Win Shares, but look at just about any leaderboard for anything at all & the difference from 1-10 will almost always be greater than the difference between 10-20.

VORP 1-10: LeBron (142.6) to Admiral (81.9). Diff: 60.7
VORP 10-20: Admiral (81.9) to Harden (72.0). Diff: 9.9

MVP Shares 1-10: LeBron (8.8) to Kobe (4.2). Diff 4.6
MVP Shares 10-20: Kobe (4.2) to Pettit (2.7): Diff 1.5

Points 1-10: Kareem (38,387) to Shaq (28,596). Diff: 9,791
Points 10-20: Shaq (28,596) to Havlicek (26,395). Diff: 2,201

Rebounds 1-10: Wilt (23,924) to Garnett (14,662). Diff: 9,262
Rebounds 10-20: Garnett (14,662) to Barkley (12,546). Diff: 2,116

Assists 1-10: Stockton (15,806) to Payton (8,966). Diff: 6,840
Assists 10-20: Payton (8,966) to Cousy (6,955). Diff: 2,011

NBA Owner Net Worth 1-10: Ballmer (75.6 billion) to DeVos (5.4 billion). Diff: 70.2 billion
NBA Owner Net Worth 10-20: DeVos (5.4 billion) to Lasry (1.8 billion). Diff: 3.6 billion
DraymondGold
Senior
Posts: 644
And1: 831
Joined: May 19, 2022

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#19 » by DraymondGold » Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:56 pm

An Unbiased Fan wrote:
Colbinii wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Ranking are subjective to begin with. But if we look at Top 20 resumes, the gaps is smaller from 1 to 10, vs 10-20.

There's a reason everyone's top 10 is so different, as opposed to Top 20 which is more stable. If everyone named their Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40, Top 50, the lists would get far more stable as you go along


My tiers get substantially larger the further I go out.

The Top 4 or 5 players for me are in a tier. The next 5 or 6 are in a tier. Then the next 6 or 7 are in a similar tier. Once I get to around #75 or #80, my tiers are probably 40 to 50 players large.

That's fair, you have your tiers, and everyone else has their rankings too. The Top 10 players is very close, and switch around a lot on various lists, even here on Real GM. Why? because they all were greats in their eras. But at you move form 10 to 20, the gaps get bigger, obvious flaws in resumes get more numerous.

In the last RGM Top 100 list, Lebron was #1, Bird was #10, Moses was #20. Where's the bigger gap? Clearly it's Bird to Moses to me. #20 Moses to #30 Walt is even bigger. #30 Walt to #40 Artis even more.
Yeah, I gotta disagree with this premise haha :lol:

You argue the gap is smallest between 1 and 10, bigger from 10 to 20, bigger from 20 to 30, and so on. Well, let's take this to the extreme.
-Let's look at the Athletic's Top 75 All time list. Do we really think the gap between Chris Webber (#65) and Lenny Wilkins (#75) is bigger than the gaps at the top?
-What about SLAM's 500 Greatest Players of all time: Do we really think the gap between Šarūnas Marčiulionis (#490) and Pervis Ellison (#500) is bigger than the gaps at the top, between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? I gotta be honest... I have no idea who those players are :o
-What about AinsworthSports Top 1000 NBA players. IS the gap between Walt Williams (#990) and Floyd Volker (#1000) bigger than the gap at the top?

I have trouble thinking so. Once we get to a certain point (e.g. the bottom of the Top 75, and any certainly further down) most lists basically have no agreement whatsoever on who's #65 vs #75, who's #490 vs #500, or who's number #990 vs #1000. So if there's so much uncertainty, why should the gap be bigger?

For those discussing how much Top 10 Lists change vs top 10-20 lists... I wonder how much that just comes from how much more people debate the #1–#10 spots, as opposed to debating #10-#20. I mean, just look at this website... my guess would be the first 10 threads in a Greatest Peaks or Greatest Players project is wayyy more active than the next 10 threads. After the top ~10, people stop caring about exact ordering and just go with inertia. If we debated 10-20 as fiercely, I wonder whether we'd find there's more uncertainty there.

...

Let me introduce some math (if you're intimidated, just stick with me here... :D). There's a concept in math called a "Normal Distribution" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg). It looks like a big bump in the middle, with small arms at either end. It was called a "Normal Distribution" because people noticed this is how Normal things tend to be Distributed. For example, take height: there's lots of people who are close to average height in the middle... very few people who are super tall and super short. Take IQ: there's lots of people who have average intelligence (even if IQ is a stupid measure of intelligence), while there's much fewer people at the extremes (e.g. there are not many true geniuses), and these extremes are much more spread out from the masses.

This is how things normally tend to be distributed. Why should basketball be any different? We should expect lots of people to be average, and very few All-Time-Great outliers. Since there's very few all-time greats, we should expect the biggest outliers, the true all-time-greats, to have a bigger separation from the masses than the masses have from each other (otherwise we wouldn't agree on who the all-time great players were, which is certainly not true... nobody has MJ or LeBron or Kareem outside of their top 10... plenty of people have Šarūnas Marčiulionis outside of their top 490).

Even if this exact case happens to be an exception to this rule (if by random chance the gap is bigger between 10 and 20 than between 1 and 10), we should expect this to be pretty unlikely unlikely, and we should expect this pattern to absolutely not hold once we get lower down the GOAT list. There's just no way the gap between #490 and #500 is bigger than the gap between #1 and #10.
sp6r=underrated
RealGM
Posts: 20,868
And1: 13,670
Joined: Jan 20, 2007
 

Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20? 

Post#20 » by sp6r=underrated » Sat Jul 16, 2022 4:57 pm

Colbinii wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Ranking are subjective to begin with. But if we look at Top 20 resumes, the gaps is smaller from 1 to 10, vs 10-20.

There's a reason everyone's top 10 is so different, as opposed to Top 20 which is more stable. If everyone named their Top 10, Top 20, Top 30, Top 40, Top 50, the lists would get far more stable as you go along


Really? Haven't found that to be even close to true in the 100 GOAT list project, the players are closer in value so the lists are generally far more variable the further down you get. The most extreme examples for me seem to be George Mikan who I have top 15 or so but others don't have in their top 100 or, alternatively, Bill Walton, and Allen Iverson, neither of whom is in my top 100 or even close to it but others have them in their top 50


I also think the opposite.

I think there is more stability in the Top 10 than the The 20 and certainly the Top 50.

Mathematically and statistically, it makes sense as well.


Take a player almost everyone has in their top 5: Kareem. I still see list were he is #1 and I've seen lists that have him 5-6. I've never seen a list anywhere that has him outside the top 10 yet alone the 20. That is true for MJ, Lebron. Russ has a little more flexibility but I've never seen him non top 20 either.

The reason for it is these guys had outlier careers even limiting ourselves to the outliers and resume usually without any dents. Once you start going down the list you see much wider ranges. I made this post in a "is Gasol top 50 thread?" and I think it explains why list variability increases as you move down:

A big cause of these disputes is how much should you weigh "alpha" ability once you move far down these all time lists.

Once you're in the 40s range you don't have players capable of being the best player on title contenders save those destroyed by injuries or severe lack of longevity due to other causes.

A lot of the debate is then about how do you weigh a guy who is better at the "alpha" role but can't do it on a legit contender rather than the guys who are weaker at the alpha role but do a far better job at playing the lead supporting role on elite teams or playing the role of first among equals.

The pro-Gasol contingent, and I'm one of em, argue that Gasol's elite ability at play a lead secondary role and his very evident skills as a first among equals make him more valuable than a lot of the weak alphas who can't transition to supporting roles or playing as part of an ensemble.


At the top of the list everyone has super peak, ability to be best player on title teams, good longevity and we're arguing at the margins. Jordan-Lebron, KG-Duncan, Curry-Paul debates are very heated because people are passionate about the players not because there are large objective differences.

By contrast once you start moving down it becomes basically impossible to get people to agree on how players should be evaluated.

Return to Player Comparisons