trex_8063 wrote:As most of these media-produced (from either a single sports pundit, or a small panel of journalists) lists go, this one is not near as bad as some of them. Anybody recall that one list from that long-time SI journalist (whose name is eluding me right now.....Frank Deford???)? THAT list was godawful. I recall a terrible one from.....I think it was the sports journalists/editors of a Boston newspaper???, which was also cluelessly poor, too.
Disclaimer: Before ThaRegular chimes in about opinions and differing criteria, I hope he will at least take into consideration my posting history (I do acknowledge the potential validity of differing criteria-related values, I bristle at absolutist language when stating opinions [even if the opinion in question mirrors my own], etc). But these lists I'm referring to above were sporadically awful under ANY conceivable lens of scrutiny. They contained positions which (imo,) are utterly indefensible (by any rational or evidence-based means); things like Dave Bing ahead of Dirk Nowitzki, for example.
Additionally, they lacked any discernible vein of consistency. One doesn't have to agree with my criteria and my way of seeing things.....but at least be consistent in your own methods. These were not [in any way I could see]. Rather they seemed nearly arbitrary collections of famous names.
Anyway, back to the list at hand.....
Not that this one is without obvious [to me] flaw, but it's certainly better than those mentioned above. There are a few positions that are virtually indefensible to me. Probably most striking are David Robinson at #27 and Bob Pettit at #45; the latter cannot be accounted for by suggesting they're dismissive of that era, either, given Cousy is #36 and Schayes is #40.
I also don't like Kareem out as far as #5, though it's possible if one really doesn't put much value in longevity. Lack of consideration for longevity could account for other potential aberrations such as the positions of Curry and Kawhi (the latter having played only 375 rs games thus far, and really only "superstar level" the last 1.5 seasons). However, if one is so dismissive of longevity (such that one can justify putting Curry at #19 and Kawhi in the top 50 already), I have a hard time seeing how you can justify leaving Bill Walton out of the top 50. Longevity is really just about the ONLY way one could attempt to justify Schayes over Pettit, too, fwiw.
So.....it's kinda bad imo; but prior media-produced lists have conditioned me to expect something so indefensible godawful that I was actually [slightly] pleasantly surprised by the "quality" of this one.
Jack McCallum was the (somewhat notably) wacky one. And yes a Boston Globe article too.
Heck, I'll dig them up ...
Globe: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1415688 https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/11/07/revisiting-top-nba-players-all-time/PfEGU89kJ71gAVjwz9SBSI/story.html
McCallum: viewtopic.php?t=1426580 http://www.si.com/nba/2016/02/09/michael-jordan-lebron-james-stephen-curry-nba-greatest
On internal consistency ... it's an average of multiple opinions. Once you make it more than one person that consistency is going to be difficult and unlikely.
If I were to try to infer some tendencies it would be some people might be projecting forward or at least giving some benefit for relatively younger active players (Leonard, Curry).
It's possible that there is a "better within era" case for Schayes over Pettit. He has for instance five top three Win Share seasons (a first, two seconds, two thirds) to Pettit's three (a first and two seconds), though Pettit has more fourth and fifth finishes versus tougher competition. Another argument that could be part of the above or made seperately would be for Schayes as the better playoff player, he has for instance a better playoff PER despite (1) a larger chunk of his career minutes dragged down by weak post prime years and (2) two strong looking years, particularly '51 not calculable due to the absence of minutes - but a strong win share output giving a very positive indication. Now I wouldn't place Schayes above Pettit, but I think there might be arguments people could make.
The [not entirely uncommon] misspelling of Parish is slightly disconcerting.
Anyway enough early reaction - I'll read it properly.
