Updating my top 50

[PistolPeteJR]

Really? I see it tougher to come to a consensus top-10 agreement even among casuals (minus Kobe diehards).

Now it is. 5-6 years ago I don't think it was. I think it was pretty well established with Jerry/Oscar/Kobe and a few others in the next group. Of course that's not with everyone but I think it was close to being consensus.

West still doesn't make most top-10s I don't think. Oscar you see more of, primarily because he was the triple-double king of the era.

[Cavsfansince84]

West still doesn't make most top-10s I don't think. Oscar you see more of, primarily because he was the triple-double king of the era.

I'm saying West/Oscar/Kobe just outside of the top 10.

[70sFan]

From another perspective, KG was just difficult to build around. First, the franchise was not a good one, with bad operation and stupid mistakes losing their picks. Second, he was not a great teammate and commanded historically high salary making it difficult for the team to have a more competitive roster. Third, and most important, he was not a complete player on the offensive side. His mid range fadeaway jumper, albeit he was good at it, is the least effective spot on the court and causes little damage in terms of efficiency and foul drawing. He was either incapable or not smart enough to develop a 3pt shot, even though lots of his peers were already doing that. They had to go with one dimensional offensive players for offense, hoping he could man the defense. As a result, TWolves were never a good defensive team. Due to the construction limit, what do you expect a bunch of no-D players perform when KG was out?

This perspective makes no sense...

Ok, i am also open to constructive criticism.

So it's my time to say: "No it is not even criticism. It is like I folded in Texas holdem and saw your hands" right?

The idea that Wolves were limited to play bad players because of Garnett offensive weaknesses is quite interesting. I didn't know that defense first stars force you to sign bad players, very interesting approach. It would be also interesting to get it explained why it didn't happen to someone like Duncan, Russell or Walton (who weren't really better offensively than Garnett), so if you want to go further, go ahead.

[LukaTheGOAT]

How dominant would Mikan have had to have been, for his peak to be put on the same level as Bill Russell/Wilt?

Just curious.

[70sFan]

How dominant would Mikan have had to have been, for his peak to be put on the same level as Bill Russell/Wilt?

Just curious.

It's probably not a question to me, but I ranked Mikan's best NBA season (1950) in GOAT-level tier.

[dygaction]

This perspective makes no sense...

Ok, i am also open to constructive criticism.

So it's my time to say: "No it is not even criticism. It is like I folded in Texas holdem and saw your hands" right?

The idea that Wolves were limited to play bad players because of Garnett offensive weaknesses is quite interesting. I didn't know that defense first stars force you to sign bad players, very interesting approach. It would be also interesting to get it explained why it didn't happen to someone like Duncan, Russell or Walton (who weren't really better offensively than Garnett), so if you want to go further, go ahead.

You distorted my words. Not defense first stars force you to, but when a bad organization committed supermax to KG after many mistakes was forced to make compromise.

Duncan had a better organization, showed leadership by willing to have some salary cut, and widely liked by his teammates. Russell was surrounded by a bunch of HOFers in an unfair league. I agree putting KG in Russell's position they would have won similar, but history does not take hypothetical. KG may be able to player better basketball, but Russell is the greater player.

KG had serious leadership problems, and he used to have Marbury and Chauncey as teammates. It is difficult to build a winning culture when you are losing and your teammates do not like you.

"You keep yelling this sh*t at people and someone is going to come back at you" - Chauncey Billups warned Kevin Garnett about being too intense
https://www.basketballnetwork.net/old-school/chauncey-billups-warned-kevin-garnett-about-being-too-intense

[70sFan]

Ok, i am also open to constructive criticism.

So it's my time to say: "No it is not even criticism. It is like I folded in Texas holdem and saw your hands" right?

The idea that Wolves were limited to play bad players because of Garnett offensive weaknesses is quite interesting. I didn't know that defense first stars force you to sign bad players, very interesting approach. It would be also interesting to get it explained why it didn't happen to someone like Duncan, Russell or Walton (who weren't really better offensively than Garnett), so if you want to go further, go ahead.

You distorted my words. Not defense first stars force you to, but when a bad organization committed supermax to KG after many mistakes was forced to make compromise.

Duncan had a better organization, showed leadership by willing to have some salary cut, and widely liked by his teammates. Russell was surrounded by a bunch of HOFers in an unfair league. I agree putting KG in Russell's position they would have won similar, but history does not take hypothetical. KG may be able to player better basketball, but Russell is the greater player.

KG had serious leadership problems, and he used to have Marbury and Chauncey as teammates. It is difficult to build a winning culture when you are losing and your teammates do not like you.

"You keep yelling this sh*t at people and someone is going to come back at you" - Chauncey Billups warned Kevin Garnett about being too intense
https://www.basketballnetwork.net/old-school/chauncey-billups-warned-kevin-garnett-about-being-too-intense

You said that the most important thing was Garnett's offensive limitations. It is in the quote.

[-Luke-]

Hey 70sFan, thank you for sharing the list and the explanation.

Maybe you wrote it somewhereand I missed it, but do you have a specific strategy/calculation method for what is a GOAT-level, All-time, MVP level season etc? For example: A player must have at least this value in metric 1, this value in metric 2 etc. for it to count as a GOAT-level/... season. Or is it less strict and not based on some method and more on feeling/eye test?

[70sFan]

Hey 70sFan, thank you for sharing the list and the explanation.

Maybe you wrote it somewhereand I missed it, but do you have a specific strategy/calculation method for what is a GOAT-level, All-time, MVP level season etc? For example: A player must have at least this value in metric 1, this value in metric 2 etc. for it to count as a GOAT-level/... season. Or is it less strict and not based on some method and more on feeling/eye test?

It's the latter, I spent a lot of time evaluating great players on this forum and I am aware of most statistical signals for them, but I've never had trust in any "one in all" metric. This makes my list subjective of course, but I never tried to suggest otherwise.

[DQuinn1575]

West still doesn't make most top-10s I don't think. Oscar you see more of, primarily because he was the triple-double king of the era.

I'm saying West/Oscar/Kobe just outside of the top 10.

Oscar was the most efficient scorer of the decade while leading the league in assists multiple.
He has many seasons of TS add higher than Jokic's best.
He is now trivalized as a triple double king, but he was 1st-2nd best scorer and best playmaker in league.

[Cavsfansince84]

Oscar was the most efficient scorer of the decade while leading the league in assists multiple.
He has many seasons of TS add higher than Jokic's best.
He is now trivalized as a triple double king, but he was 1st-2nd best scorer and best playmaker in league.

I know that and I am as high on Oscar as just about anyone on this board tbh. Having said that, he is still generally by consensus left outside the top 10 now and 5-6 years ago. Do I have him outside the top 10? I do but I think he was basically as good as Bird and Magic. In some ways he's a victim of circumstance.

[PistolPeteJR]

West still doesn't make most top-10s I don't think. Oscar you see more of, primarily because he was the triple-double king of the era.

I'm saying West/Oscar/Kobe just outside of the top 10.

Oscar was the most efficient scorer of the decade while leading the league in assists multiple.
He has many seasons of TS add higher than Jokic's best.
He is now trivalized as a triple double king, but he was 1st-2nd best scorer and best playmaker in league.

I get it; I'm saying how he's perceived by the general public (the ones that DO know of him).

[DQuinn1575]

Real good stuff, a couple of things,
1. I think the methodology overrates role players. You need to be better than role player to be a champion, they are basically probably zero value in that it is a negative to play a lower level player. Having your 5th best guy as a role player doesnt help you win, you have to get someone better to win. Or 10 years of having a role player on your team never really helps you win, just doesnt hurt your chances. When there are 100+ role players, they arent really valuable in the hierarchy. If you are looking long term, the role players are the filler, which by default you will have some, the strategy is really to get the move the needle guys.

I don't think I agree, role players are extremely important to get the title. I mean, look at 2022 and 2023 Nuggets teams - the difference between these two seasons aren't strictly because of Murry comeback. The team had significantly stronger starting 5 and bench, that mattered.

2. When I think of old-timer longevity, to me it really is captured by Russell, he retired after 13 years because he proved enough. Giving credit to anyone for playing longer than Russell on all-time list seems unfair, as he was Alexander the Great and had no worlds left to conquer. It's hard as some players do have more than 13 great years, but do you "reward" Karl Malone for playing more years partly because he couldnt do in all those years what Russell did in 13?

I agree, that's why I need to make a longevity curve at some point. One thing to remember - Russell still finished with significantly higher score than Malone. They are not close to each other, despite huge difference in seasons played.

point 2 first - using Malone as example, you can use Duncan or LeBron but dont want to derail a conversation.

Point 1 - try this, I used bpm 0.0-3.0 with 1,000 minutes plus as a role player. We can revise based on wherever you set it.
For 2014-2023 there are 937 player seasons, with 30 teams on average 31.2 guys should be on title team, by my count I got 34,
Or your odds go from 3.3% (1 out of 30) to 3.6%
So they don't move the needle 2%, they move it 0.3%


https://stathead.com/tiny/wEEsL

[penbeast0]

I'd say Oscar was arguably better on the court than Magic, at least as an individual talent; but Magic's intangibles were stronger and for whatever reason, his teams overperformed in the postseason while Oscar's tended to fizzle. I think Bird and maybe Julius Erving are players who may see some surprising slippage in our next top 100. I'm not sure they don't get passed by the likes of Oscar and West as the generation that grew up with them as the league's icons becomes less of a factor and people start looking at them more through the twin lenses of statistics and team results.

[dygaction]

So it's my time to say: "No it is not even criticism. It is like I folded in Texas holdem and saw your hands" right?

The idea that Wolves were limited to play bad players because of Garnett offensive weaknesses is quite interesting. I didn't know that defense first stars force you to sign bad players, very interesting approach. It would be also interesting to get it explained why it didn't happen to someone like Duncan, Russell or Walton (who weren't really better offensively than Garnett), so if you want to go further, go ahead.

You distorted my words. Not defense first stars force you to, but when a bad organization committed supermax to KG after many mistakes was forced to make compromise.

Duncan had a better organization, showed leadership by willing to have some salary cut, and widely liked by his teammates. Russell was surrounded by a bunch of HOFers in an unfair league. I agree putting KG in Russell's position they would have won similar, but history does not take hypothetical. KG may be able to player better basketball, but Russell is the greater player.

KG had serious leadership problems, and he used to have Marbury and Chauncey as teammates. It is difficult to build a winning culture when you are losing and your teammates do not like you.

"You keep yelling this sh*t at people and someone is going to come back at you" - Chauncey Billups warned Kevin Garnett about being too intense
https://www.basketballnetwork.net/old-school/chauncey-billups-warned-kevin-garnett-about-being-too-intense

You said that the most important thing was Garnett's offensive limitations. It is in the quote.

Yes, his ceiling was limited by his offense. They had to make compromise and use one dimensional offensive players hoping KG can man the defense. He was close to the second best scorer (volume and efficiency combined) in the playoffs most of the years in TWolves. If he was also a dominate scorer, they could have used better defenders.

97: 3rd in ppg after Starbury and Gugliotta @17.3p
98: 2nd tied in ppg with Terry Porter after Anthony Peeler @ 15.8p
99: 1st in ppg 21.8p@.488TS, with Terrell Brandon 19.3p@.515TS
00: 2nd in ppg 18.5p@.441TS, with Terrell Brandon 19.5p@.575TS
02: 1st in ppg 24p@.514TS, with Billups 22p@.552TS and Szcerbiak 20p@.578TS

not exactly he dragged the team to playoffs for 8 years in a row, especially early days.

[70sFan]

Real good stuff, a couple of things,
1. I think the methodology overrates role players. You need to be better than role player to be a champion, they are basically probably zero value in that it is a negative to play a lower level player. Having your 5th best guy as a role player doesnt help you win, you have to get someone better to win. Or 10 years of having a role player on your team never really helps you win, just doesnt hurt your chances. When there are 100+ role players, they arent really valuable in the hierarchy. If you are looking long term, the role players are the filler, which by default you will have some, the strategy is really to get the move the needle guys.

I don't think I agree, role players are extremely important to get the title. I mean, look at 2022 and 2023 Nuggets teams - the difference between these two seasons aren't strictly because of Murry comeback. The team had significantly stronger starting 5 and bench, that mattered.

2. When I think of old-timer longevity, to me it really is captured by Russell, he retired after 13 years because he proved enough. Giving credit to anyone for playing longer than Russell on all-time list seems unfair, as he was Alexander the Great and had no worlds left to conquer. It's hard as some players do have more than 13 great years, but do you "reward" Karl Malone for playing more years partly because he couldnt do in all those years what Russell did in 13?

I agree, that's why I need to make a longevity curve at some point. One thing to remember - Russell still finished with significantly higher score than Malone. They are not close to each other, despite huge difference in seasons played.

point 2 first - using Malone as example, you can use Duncan or LeBron but dont want to derail a conversation.

Point 1 - try this, I used bpm 0.0-3.0 with 1,000 minutes plus as a role player. We can revise based on wherever you set it.
For 2014-2023 there are 937 player seasons, with 30 teams on average 31.2 guys should be on title team, by my count I got 34,
Or your odds go from 3.3% (1 out of 30) to 3.6%
So they don't move the needle 2%, they move it 0.3%


https://stathead.com/tiny/wEEsL

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "role player". Role player is not an average player, he's a player who can contribute positively on a contending team for more than 20 mpg.

[70sFan]

I'd say Oscar was arguably better on the court than Magic, at least as an individual talent; but Magic's intangibles were stronger and for whatever reason, his teams overperformed in the postseason while Oscar's tended to fizzle.

Outside of 1962 (their first playoff run in a long time), I don't think Royals underperformed in any season in the playoffs.

[70sFan]

Yes, his ceiling was limited by his offense. They had to make compromise and use one dimensional offensive players hoping KG can man the defense.

The same thing can be said about Duncan, but somehow their franchise didn't struggle to put championship level teams around Timmy. Are you aware that offensive superstars in bad situations also struggle to move the needle?

He was close to the second best scorer (volume and efficiency combined) in the playoffs most of the years in TWolves. If he was also a dominate scorer, they could have used better defenders.

Yeah and if Dirk was a better defender, the Mavs would have won the title 10 years earlier.

97: 3rd in ppg after Starbury and Gugliotta @17.3p
98: 2nd tied in ppg with Terry Porter after Anthony Peeler @ 15.8p
99: 1st in ppg 21.8p@.488TS, with Terrell Brandon 19.3p@.515TS
00: 2nd in ppg 18.5p@.441TS, with Terrell Brandon 19.5p@.575TS
02: 1st in ppg 24p@.514TS, with Billups 22p@.552TS and Szcerbiak 20p@.578TS

not exactly he dragged the team to playoffs for 8 years in a row, especially early days.

How does it prove anything exactly? Do you really struggle to understand basketball beyond ppg + TS%?

[DQuinn1575]

I don't think I agree, role players are extremely important to get the title. I mean, look at 2022 and 2023 Nuggets teams - the difference between these two seasons aren't strictly because of Murry comeback. The team had significantly stronger starting 5 and bench, that mattered.


I agree, that's why I need to make a longevity curve at some point. One thing to remember - Russell still finished with significantly higher score than Malone. They are not close to each other, despite huge difference in seasons played.

point 2 first - using Malone as example, you can use Duncan or LeBron but dont want to derail a conversation.

Point 1 - try this, I used bpm 0.0-3.0 with 1,000 minutes plus as a role player. We can revise based on wherever you set it.
For 2014-2023 there are 937 player seasons, with 30 teams on average 31.2 guys should be on title team, by my count I got 34,
Or your odds go from 3.3% (1 out of 30) to 3.6%
So they don't move the needle 2%, they move it 0.3%


https://stathead.com/tiny/wEEsL

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "role player". Role player is not an average player, he's a player who can contribute positively on a contending team for more than 20 mpg.

okay, so tell me who you have as role players for DEN this year, I can probably calibrate just based on them.

[dygaction]

I don't know why same about Duncan. He won.
Replacing Russell with Gobert, Celtis may still have won many chips, doesn't mean I need to prop Gobert to give him things that he did not do.
Also true about Dirk, if he was a better defender, the Mavs would have won the title 10 years earlier. We recognize that, and that's why you don't normally see Mavs fans put him top 10.
People fail to see that your first option scoring big men should also be able to score down low and constantly get the opponents into foul trouble and bring the team earlier to the charity line.
Replacing those with inefficient long jumpers hurts your team, not all ~20 ppg worth the same. Failing to understand a low TS% from a big man is a big drawback for an ATG is beyond me.

Yes, his ceiling was limited by his offense. They had to make compromise and use one dimensional offensive players hoping KG can man the defense.

The same thing can be said about Duncan, but somehow their franchise didn't struggle to put championship level teams around Timmy. Are you aware that offensive superstars in bad situations also struggle to move the needle?

He was close to the second best scorer (volume and efficiency combined) in the playoffs most of the years in TWolves. If he was also a dominate scorer, they could have used better defenders.

Yeah and if Dirk was a better defender, the Mavs would have won the title 10 years earlier.

97: 3rd in ppg after Starbury and Gugliotta @17.3p
98: 2nd tied in ppg with Terry Porter after Anthony Peeler @ 15.8p
99: 1st in ppg 21.8p@.488TS, with Terrell Brandon 19.3p@.515TS
00: 2nd in ppg 18.5p@.441TS, with Terrell Brandon 19.5p@.575TS
02: 1st in ppg 24p@.514TS, with Billups 22p@.552TS and Szcerbiak 20p@.578TS

not exactly he dragged the team to playoffs for 8 years in a row, especially early days.

How does it prove anything exactly? Do you really struggle to understand basketball beyond ppg + TS%?