Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 14,940
- And1: 11,443
- Joined: Jun 13, 2017
-
Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
- CharityStripe34
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,512
- And1: 6,400
- Joined: Dec 01, 2014
-
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
- Ron Swanson
- RealGM
- Posts: 25,571
- And1: 29,381
- Joined: May 15, 2013
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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.
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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 677
- And1: 634
- Joined: Jul 10, 2010
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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.
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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
- 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?
1 to 10, always.
Especially if you go by career value and your #1 is LeBron.
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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
- 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?
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
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
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 677
- And1: 634
- Joined: Jul 10, 2010
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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?
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 4,531
- And1: 3,754
- Joined: Jan 27, 2013
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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.
10 vs 20: Shaq/Hakeem vs Durant/Kobe. Not even close, to me.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
- 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?
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
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- 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?
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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- 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?
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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
- wojoaderge
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,095
- And1: 1,679
- Joined: Jul 27, 2015
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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?"
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 34,243
- And1: 21,854
- Joined: Feb 13, 2013
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 34,243
- And1: 21,854
- Joined: Feb 13, 2013
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,868
- And1: 13,670
- Joined: Jan 20, 2007
-
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,505
- And1: 7,109
- Joined: Apr 13, 2021
-
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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
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
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
- 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?
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
Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 677
- And1: 634
- Joined: Jul 10, 2010
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 644
- And1: 831
- Joined: May 19, 2022
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
Yeah, I gotta disagree with this premise hahaAn 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.

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

-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...

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.
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,868
- And1: 13,670
- Joined: Jan 20, 2007
-
Re: Bigger gap between 1 and 10 or 10 and 20?
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.