The Official Criteria Thread (2017-20)---PLEASE CONTRIBUTE if participating in top 100 project! (read OP)

[trex_8063]

Finally! Had been indirectly motivated (by ThaRegul8r) to create this thread. A similar one was done recently:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1540237&hilit=criteria#start_here

I will copy and paste posts from that thread to this one, as I want to have one centralized reference for criteria when the top 100 project starts (I will have this thread linked in the metathinking thread). Just thought this could be useful in better understanding where other posters are coming from, especially once that project is underway.

IF YOU INTEND TO PARTICIPATE IN THE UP-COMING TOP 100 PROJECT, PLEASE PROVIDE SOME DESCRIPTION OF YOUR CRITERIA HERE. I will not make it required that you do so, but it would be appreciated. If you already wrote in the other thread, don’t worry about repeating here; again, I’m going to copy and paste those posts to here, beginning post #3 (however, if you'd like to add to or augment your prior post, feel free; please do so after the quoted text within the same post, to prevent excessive sprawl).
For post #2, I’m going to put in the outline of my own criteria, which I finally finished.

[trex_8063]

So…..my criteria….

Introduction
I’d like to be able to tell you that I evaluate each and every player by the exact same means, but I don’t. How can I? When some of the tools we might use for an early 80's player weren’t around for a player of the 50s/60s, and some of the tools for a late 90’s player weren’t around for that early-80s player, and some of the tools for a current player weren’t around for that late 90’s player, etc etc.

The very means by which we can evaluate players is constantly expanding and evolving; it’d be a sloppy effort, frankly, to use the exact same means for each and every player. And that’s before even taking note of changes to the game (rules, trends, philosophies, demographics, relative competitiveness and parity, equipment and resources, etc etc etc etc---->there really are a lot of et ceteras), or taking note how the “objective” tools we have don’t rate the value of each and every player-type with equal accuracy…...especially in older eras when there were virtually no defensive stats being recorded. Do we really think the value of a guy like Dave DeBusschere was accurately captured by the box-based metrics?

So anyway, it’d be awfully convenient if I could simply show you a formula or something; just punch the numbers into it and it spits out a player’s score. But I don’t think a formula can be created which suitably factors in everything necessary (Lord knows I’ve tried). I do have several formulas I’ve constructed, a few which I’ve endeavored to make fairly “comprehensive”, but they’re still insufficient. I do “use” them to partially inform my player rankings, but my ATL certainly does not reflect them exactly (not by a long shot).

But I do try to be guided by the same principles for all players, and I'll try to give as detailed a description of those principles as possible.


General Philosophy and Values of my Criteria
As I’ve stated multiple times in other places, my criteria is largely about total career value and accomplishment. It’s not about their peaks alone or even their primes alone, but rather TOTAL (that is: cumulative) career value [edit: above replacement level]. To me, even seasons as a solid role player (even as a solid bench or marginally above replacement level player) for a decent team are still adding career value. Although realistically, the value added by a season as a solid replacement level player is fairly negligible.
Did Paul Pierce added any career value in ‘17? Certainly not; he was an utter non-factor in the league that year. But I try not to hold a year like this against him, either. Guys like Pau Gasol and Dwyane Wade have certainly added a little career value that same season, though.

DISCLAIMER: I know there are people who will try to play the “Gotcha!” game and preach the lame-duck logic that if I value longevity so much, I then MUST----between two even remotely similar(ish) tiered players---rank higher the player who was around longer. But that is [obviously] oversimplifying and assumes that “similar(ish)” = “equal”.
If you want a visual representation of what I mean by total/cumulative career value, imagine a simple plot-point graph, with years/seasons along the X-axis, and player quality and accomplishment along the Y-axis. For each season a player plays, a point will be plotted; then draw a line connecting all points, and shade in the area underneath the line. The player with the largest shaded area has the most career value. So one can easily imagine how Player A might have a larger area shaded than Player B, even if player B played 3-4 more seasons than Player A. If the majority of Player A’s plot-points are higher on the Y-axis…..

I’ll go a little further into what goes into my assessment of value and accomplishment below. But that kinda gives you an idea about how I view career wholes.

There are a few other factors that [to a lesser degree] go into my ranking of players, other than just a semi-measurable assessment of career value. One such thing is imprint/influence left upon the game or game culture itself. Players such as Bob Cousy, Bill Russell, George Mikan, Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Pete Maravich, Earl Monroe, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson, and Steph Curry all come to mind where this is concerned.
These are all guys who in some way altered the course of professional basketball. Whether it was by pioneering a new skillset or pushing the envelope of what's possible in an existing skill, being a positional prototype, altering game philosophy, forcing rule changes, changing the aesthetics and/or simply inspiring the imagination of fans and young players (maybe altering the skillsets they pursue) and boosting global popularity of the game, etc etc…...these are ways in which a single player may shift the course of the game.

And one final factor that plays a VERY small part (near-negligible; almost more of a “tie-breaker” consideration) is era portability. I’ve argued multiple times against making this a large consideration in one’s criteria. Why? Because it is completely and utterly speculative. People have wildly different opinions (and I am NOT being hyperbolic when I say “wildly”) regarding how various players translate across eras.
How can there be such polar disagreement? Because it’s speculative and hypothetical, and there are [relatively] few objective quality checks one can temper their speculations with. As result, I feel this is simply far too noisy a factor to include to any large degree…...but it’s still something that’s worthwhile to think about from time to time (has a greater application in a peaks project, imo).

Now I’ll try to relay some finer details…..


Methodology
So I’ve alluded to career value and how even role player seasons can carry some value. You might be wondering how I go about assessing that career value…..

It’s sort of a combination awards/honors/accolades (though this is a smaller consideration), team accomplishment (in light of context), what we might call “statistical footprint” (hopefully self-explanatory), and the biggest [by far] consideration of all---->assessing overall player quality by weighing in their production, efficiency, and impact: as measured thru a variety (pretty much any and all available) metrics, eye-test, and various indicators of impact. In addition to simply watching games and making a subjective assessment of what each player brings to the table, this usually involves looking at statistical volume (usually per 100 or per 36), efficiency (taking note of relative to league avg, not only raw), and mpg; assessment of all available box-based advanced metrics----I don’t cast any aside, though I admit I’m not as fond of individual ORtg and DRtg (for most player types, anyway); I try to simply be aware of the biases and short-comings of each metric----weighting all of this in light of team success and team context…….and then I review impact indicators.

The latter are obviously in more short supply (or even near-absent) for certain eras, though I have endeavored to compile with/without (and often before/after) team records for many older-era players, including Bob Cousy, Dolph Schayes, Richie Guerin, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Mo Cheeks, Pete Maravich, Walt Bellamy, Dominique Wilkins, Elgin Baylor, Bob Pettit, Adrian Dantley, Allen Iverson, Isiah Thomas, Larry Nance, Elvin Hayes, George Mikan, Artis Gilmore, Willis Reed, Wes Unseld, Bob McAdoo, Nate Thurmond, Bill Walton…….just to name a few handfuls.
And I generally try to record some details wrt other roster changes/injuries, which can account for changes seen.

With some, I have also figured up with/without SRS and team ORtg’s and/or DRtg’s (Isiah Thomas, Larry Nance, Kevin Johnson, Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkins, and Adrian Dantley are a few names for which I’ve compiled some of this additional information).

I also always do a quick subjective assessment of supporting cast quality and successes achieved (this applies to all eras).

Obviously we have RAPM for every season after ‘96, as well as on/off data going back as far as ‘01, various WOWY calculators for recent seasons, etc. And actually colts18 provided APM (regular season only) for ‘94, ‘95, and ‘96. So there’s no shortage of impact indicators for modern era players.

One thing I try to keep in mind where impact is concerned, is that better impact does NOT necessarily = better player…...it’s also a function of role and fit.

I’ll also add that I think certain offensive stars----if manipulated and trained to take on a different role----are more capable of filling the role of a defensive role player than your typical defensive role player is capable of filling in as an offensive hub. So while Player A (offensive hub) may appear to not have any greater impact than Player B (defensive role player), I sometimes find myself cognizant that Player A probably could do Player B’s job if he were trained, motivated, and deployed to do so…….but often the reverse is not true.
Anyway, it’s food for thought [imo] regarding impact and impact data.

One other consideration is noting that it’s our offensive stars who [to a larger degree] drive the popularity of the game. That may not be fair, but it’s nonetheless true. And that bears relevance, as popularity of the game is what drives the size of the player pool the league can select from.
Is this something that shifts the needle hugely for me? Not really, but as I’m aware of it I would say it does nudge the needle slightly.


****For all players, this manner of statistical evaluation is further tempered by eye-test (to varying degrees, for very apparent reasons; where eye-test is in short supply, I do indulge in anecdotal evidence, reputation and peer-review), recognition of any biases or short-comings the available stats have (again, refer to DeBusschere example previously stated), subjective assessment of strength/competitiveness of era, assessment of era parity, as well as noting missed games.****

And fwiw, I’m not as big on the playoff sample as many appear to be. I certainly weight a 15-game playoff sample much heavier than 15 rs games…….but do I weight it more than 82 rs games? No; personally, I do not.
For one, sample size becomes just too much of an issue, imo, if you’re too centric on playoff performance. And secondly, the broader consideration is how these guys fair against ALL of their professional peers (not just a handful of them).


Back-tracking slightly to the mention of awards/honors/accolades/anecdotal info……..
Some people would ask why bother including that? For one, I think it relates somewhat to “footprint” left on the annals of pro basketball. Additionally (especially for older era players), I think it may shed some more light on the caliber of player that they were (when stat-keeping was woefully incomplete): again, the DeBusschere or Gus Johnson examples would apply……….But I think it also bears relevance for some more modern players who are inaccurately represented by most conventional metrics (someone like Jason Kidd comes to mind as underrated by them; I think Isiah Thomas too is under-credited by most metrics; on the flip-side, guys like Dan Issel and Amar’e Stoudemire are likely over-credited by conventional advanced metrics).
So yes, I do heed these things (although only to a small degree), and I weight them against a subjective assessment of POSITIONAL strength of era.

EDIT: One other relevant factor that I forgot to mention is leadership intangibles. I'm not just referring to on-court leadership; in fact, I'm mostly referring to off-court stuff-->leadership provided in practices, on the bench, other team functions, interactions with the media, nurturing or supportive behavior toward teammates, team-oriented play and any other "sacrifices" willingly made for the team's benefit or in the interest of building a "winning culture". fwiw, Tim Duncan is the GOAT leader to me. Just about the only other guy near his tier [imo] is Bill Russell.


Hopefully that sufficiently illuminates what I find important in ranking players. I don’t think I forgot anything, but will edit it as necessary.

[trex_8063]

So I've been asked about my criteria before, and I last posted it some years ago for someone who asked. I haven't posted it in recent threads because it's generally TL;DR for internet forums, and I'm not going to derail someone's thread with something that has nothing to do with the topic. (Generally, when I post about something to the degree to which I generally think about things, discussion ceases.)

But this thread is specifically asking about criteria, so it's appropriate to post. But first I'm going to preface it with the following:

This is MY criteria based on what I value. As such, it is not open to debate. Particularly, if someone has never taken the time to think about it and develop their own criteria, then I couldn't care less if they think a particular criterion isn't important or shouldn't be a factor. Make your own first. I have made revisions when posters brought up something I thought was a valid issue, and incorporated it into my criteria.

I aspired to replicability. In Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's detective stories, Sherlock Holmes would say, "You know my methods, Watson." Similarly, it should be possible for other people to run the criteria and come up with the same answer, provided they have the relevant information. Another RealGM poster actually has independently run my criteria for their favorite player as part of their campaign process during the last Top 100 project in a post specifically directed to me since I was the only one who had listed a complete set of criteria. But that's how, ideally, it should work. I shouldn't have to be the one who runs it, it should work regardless of who runs it if a good enough job has been done in formulating the criteria.

As I've repeated said during my 11 years as a registered member here and elsewhere (I've been PMed on 5 or 6 different boards about this since I've never published one anywhere), I do not have a GOAT list. I started one during the last Top 100 project, but I lost in during a computer crash, and I didn't care enough about it to re-do it. Additionally, just as I record what happens in basketball in the moment, I couldn't recreate my mindset in the particular moment I was working on it after the fact. I've used it for player vs. player comparisons, but to do a list would require running everyone through it, and order them in relation to each other, which is more time than I care to spend on it.

Any replies that don't foster constructive dialogue should not be made. Since I've explicitly made this clear before the fact, I won't be sympathetic if this is ignored.

1. The ability to integrate oneself and whatever respective abilities one brings to the table with the rest of the players on one’s team in order to enhance the whole for the facilitation of the ultimate objective of winning, and the dedication to employ these abilities for the effectuation of said purpose. An NBA game is not a game of AND1, so who would do what against another player one-on-one—as if they were the only two players on the court in an empty gym—is irrelevant.

The means by which a player helps his team are inconsequential. What is important is the end. The player in question should use whatever skills he brings to the table to help his team win. As different players have different abilities, the means employed will vary. The only thing that matters is results. How well what a player brings to the table translates into victories for his team. No one way of helping one’s team is inherently valued more than another.

My intent behind this criterion was to eliminate style-of-play bias. It's irrelevant whether or not I like the way they play. What matters is that they use whatever it is that they do to help their team win.

There have also been arguments about whether certain styles of play are as impactful as other, more conventionally accepted styles. I only care if it works. "Works" = "helps his team win."

2. The ability to both identify what the team needs at any given moment in order to realize the ultimate object of winning and provide it. Players who can do this will rank higher than those who can’t figure out what needs to be done without being told.

There are occasions where exploiting a favorable matchup is what needs to be done to win, and it might not always be you. Some non-playing spectators penalize a player for taking advantage of the hot hand if that hand isn't their own, because it isn't "alpha" enough.

3. The possession of the rational self-interest to put ego aside in order to do #1 and #2, disregarding the opinions of irrelevant others who are not on the team and thus have no effect on the team’s success.

Opinions of anonymous people on the internet who aren't playing are irrelevant, since they have zero effect on the team's success. Neither do the opinions of members of the media if they're not doing anything to help your team win, and what you're doing is.

4. The ability to block out distractions and anything irrelevant to the maximization of the team’s chances of victory.

A player focusing on anything other than helping his team will receive a lower evaluation. Basketball is a job like any other, and a player’s job is to help bring his team wins, just as a salesman’s job is to make sales for his company. Nothing else matters or is relevant. A basketball player has more impact on the outcome of a basketball game than a baseball player does on the outcome of a baseball game, or an American football player does on the outcome of a game of American football. A baseball player is one of nine players on the field of play, and position players only come to bat 3-4 times during the course of a three-hour game. A pitcher has the most impact on a baseball game, but only pitches once every five games. An American football player is one of 11 players on the field of play, and there are entirely separate teams for offense and defense. American football is the most specialized of the major sports—which limits the impact an individual player can have, and for half of the game an American football player has no impact on the game whatsoever—Chuck Bednarik, who played with the Philadelphia Eagles from 1949 to 1962, was the last American football player to play on both offense and defense. A basketball player however, is one of five players on the field of play, and can be involved in everything that occurs on a basketball court on both offense and defense. Since a basketball player has more impact on the outcome of a basketball game than it is possible for a player to have in any other of the major sports, helping his team win carries more importance for a basketball player. Thus comparing basketball players to players in other sports is flawed and reveals a lack of understanding of the varying natures of the sports.

Basketball players are grown men who make choices. They have the right to make whatever choice they want, but with action comes consequence. That choice they make will be honored and they will be evaluated on the basis of that choice, whether it’s beneficial or detrimental to their team’s chances of winning.

People make the job analogy on occasion, such as when they used it when Durant went to Golden State, saying it's no different from any other employee taking a better job offer. So let's go with it fully and not selectively.

5. Clutchness. The ability to rise to the occasion during big games and crucial moments in order to bring about the ultimate objective of winning, and the mental fortitude to do so.

I may re-name it "rising to the occasion" or something similar.

6. Playoff Translatability. The ability of a player to continue to effectively employ whatever it is he brings to the table to help his team win during the postseason. The sole purpose of the regular season is to determine seeding for the postseason and playoff brackets.

I was inspired by the results of a study ElGee published as far as naming it. As stated in criterion #1, I don't care how a player helps his team win. But, whatever it is, it has to translate to the postseason. If you take a class, the final exam is weighted heavier than the rest of the semester/quarter. If you don't do well on the final exam, it doesn't matter how well you do prior to it. Bomb the final exam and you devastate your grade, even though the rest of the semester/quarter is longer than the final exam.

7. Statistics. Statistics are team-dependent. Doing what is needed in order for the team to win may require sacrificing individual statistics. There will be no penalty levied for doing so, nor will a player’s evaluation be lowered for putting the needs of the team above his own individual statistics. It shows he has the right priority.

Some people don't understand how "individual" statistics may be team-dependent. David Robinson scoring 71 on the last day of the season to win the scoring title was a team achievement. People who don't understand how are precisely the people I'm talking about. When Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen went to the Celtics in 2008, Garnett went from 22.4/12.8/4.1 to 18.8/9.2/3.4, Allen went from 26.4/4.5/4.1 to 17.4/3.7/3.1, and Paul Pierce went from 25.0/5.9/4.1 to 19.6/5.1/4.5. It wasn't because they suddenly got worse. Their statistics decreased due to the team they went to. And they won. In Year One. Context has to be considered.

8. Rings. Rings are only relevant so far as the player’s contribution to his team winning the title that year. Mitch Richmond won an NBA championship as a member of the Los Angeles Lakers in 2002, but played all of four minutes that postseason. Thus, the ring that he won is as irrelevant as he was to the Lakers that year. He gets no boost against a ringless player. Neither does a player who bandwagons his way to a ring.

Obligatory, since some people make dumb statements based on rings.

9. Individual Contribution. The only thing of relevance is how a player helps his team win, which means the player in question’s performance will be evaluated. If that player has a poor performance and another player picks up the slack to help his team win, then that player receives no bonus for his teammate bailing him out. Conversely, just as a doctor can try to the best of his ability to help keep a patient alive but fail, so can a player try to the best of his ability to help his team win but ultimately fail. His individual performance will be assessed, and if he didn’t help his team lose, he will incur no penalty. However, if he was instrumental in his own team’s defeat, he will be penalized accordingly.

One poster here said my criteria seemed to emphasize winning, and asked if a player who played well but lost would be penalized. I replied, "No." This addresses that. As per the previous criterion, rings are only relevant so far as the player's contribution to his team winning. A player's contribution will be assessed and judged accordingly.

10. Awards and Accolades. The object of the game is to help your team win. Awards are extraneous to this objective. A trophy has never once stepped onto a court to help a team win a game. Awards are not needed in order to know how much a player helped his team win.

Awards have nothing to do with how well a player played, as a player’s performance stands independently of whether or not he received an award for it. A player’s performance doesn’t magically get any better for receiving an award for it, nor does it magically get worse for not receiving one. It only matters for people incapable of looking at how a player played and forming an opinion from that.

Another example is All-Star selections. There are only 12 spots available, so not everyone who plays All-Star caliber ball will make it onto the team. Every season there are more players playing at an All-Star level than there are roster spots on the All-Star team to accommodate them. There are snubs and omissions every year. And the starting lineup is literally a popularity contest. The fans vote on the starters, meaning that some players are guaranteed to get in every year on popularity alone whether they deserve it or not, thus reducing the number of spots available for players whose performance actually warrants it. Therefore, what is important as far as that goes is whether a player played at an All-Star level during a given season, not whether he was selected to a team with limited spots from which deserving players will always be excluded. One of the questions on Bill James’ Keltner List to assess whether a player is deserving of induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame is: “How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in?” Every player having an All-Star-type season in any given year won’t actually be selected to the team, and it's lauded that James took this into consideration when he formulated the questions.

Additionally, All-Star selections only cover the first half of the season. Presumably—since over half the season has been played at that point, that’s enough of a sample size that one should be able to assume they’ll continue to maintain the same level of play through the season half of the season, but it’s also possible to play poorly the rest of the way. Case in point is 2013-14 Roy Hibbert. “Not since Chuck Knoblauch has a professional player so good deteriorated so quickly,” Chris Mannix wrote on SI.com after Game 6 of the 2014 Eastern Conference first round series between the Indiana Pacers and Atlanta Hawks in which Hibbert had four fouls, zero points and two rebounds. “In the first half of the season, Hibbert averaged 11.8 points and 7.7 rebounds, shooting 46.4 percent from the floor. In the second half, Hibbert’s numbers dipped to 8.9 points and 4.7 rebounds, shooting 39 percent from the field” (Chris Mannix, “Despite Roy Hibbert’s woes, Pacers force Game 7 against Hawks.” SI.com. 2 May 2014. http://www.si.com/nba/2014/05/02/indiana-pacers-win-game-6-atlanta-hawks-nba-playoffs#). The All-Star selection Hibbert received during the first half of the season is not indicative of his play for the entire season, which serves to illustrate that an All-Star selection is not needed in order to determine whether a player played at an All-Star level. The latter is more important than the former. In other words, performance > awards.

I've talked about this criterion before, and ronnymac2 brought up Roy Hibbert, which I liked, so I incorporated it into the criteria.

I don't like how awards have become a shortcut for thinking. The previous criterion concerned individual contribution. That can be assessed without needing awards. I care about how a player played, not whether he won an award for it or not. I also don't like how it's used as a technicality, where people say, "Player X didn't play with an All-Star" in Z year, where they're only looking at whether or not they received an accolade, not whether or not they played like an all-star, which would be the pertinent question. As said in the criterion, all the players who play like an All-Star in a given year will never receive an accolade for it, in any year. It doesn't make sense to me to not acknowledge their play simply because they didn't get anything for it (though that's something that one couldn't just look up on basketball-reference). What awards and accolades a player won are a matter of record, but they don't factor in my rankings. Not every player had the opportunity to win the same awards, so some players would gain an automatic advantage in that regard. I want the same standard across the board.

I was also disappointed by the results of a test question I posed here on RealGM some time ago, which served to strengthen this criteria for me, and illustrate that I was correct to include it.

11. Playoff Advancement. The object of the game is to help your team win. In lieu of actually achieving that objective, helping your team get as close to it as possible. Helping your team get to the semifinals > losing in the opening round; helping your team get to the conference finals > losing in the semifinals; helping your team get to the Finals > losing in the conference finals. Getting closer to the ultimate goal of winning is always a positive. Finishing farther away from it is always a negative. Helping your team get to the Finals but losing is always better than losing in an earlier round.

From what I've read on internet basketball forums, I felt it was necessary to explicitly include this into my criteria. It's irrational to me how an early elimination can be perceived to be better than deep advancement. And I had to actually use my own criteria on the Brady vs. Montana debate that used to go on, which is the entire point. Montana was my all-time favorite quarterback, but the entire point of having criteria is that they objectively apply across the board to everyone. The fact that it put someone I had no sentiment for over someone I did illustrated that it worked. Many people simply change the criteria or make an exception when a player they like is involved.

12. Longevity vs. Peak. The object of the game is to help your team win. Nothing else matters. Thus longevity is only relevant as far as when evaluating a player, the question is: how much did that player help the team(s) he played on during his career win, from draft day to retirement? This encompasses more than just a player’s peak/prime, it encompasses the moment he plays his first NBA game to the moment he announces his retirement, not an arbitrarily selected portion of his career. A player can help his team win before reaching his peak/prime (e.g., Magic Johnson), and can continue to do so after passing it (e.g., Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Tim Duncan). These years will not be excluded simply because they didn’t fall inside the period labeled as that player’s peak/prime.

A player does not cease to help his team win after passing his peak/prime. He may not be able to make as large a contribution as he formerly did due to age, but continuing to contribute to team wins to the extent one is able is still valuable to the team he plays for and helps the team obtain the ultimate objective. A player’s career consists of more than just his peak. The mere fact that one player “peaked” higher than another at one point in his career does not mean that he helped the team(s) he played for win more from draft day to retirement.

Longevity only has any meaning insofar as the length of time a player can continue to effectively employ whatever skills he brings to the table at whatever degree he is able to at that point in time to remain a positive contributor to team success. Post-prime longevity only matters when adding extra value. That is to say, if a player failed to effectively employ whatever abilities he brings to the table to help his team win during his prime, then simply outlasting the competition long enough to luck into a favorable situation is not adding extra value. Post-prime longevity cannot make up for the failure to meet Criteria #1 and #5 during one’s prime. Only seasons in which a player helped his team win will be considered in the overall evaluation (Criterion #8).

This was necessary for me to codify based on what I've read on internet basketball forums, which is irrational.

Player X only has more titles than Player Y due to his supporting cast.

This is a common argument made on various basketball boards.

Yet, once a player declines from what they used to be, but is still at least as good as those members of the supporting cast which was given as a reason why he had more championships than another player, suddenly he's a "role player" and his contributions don't count because he wasn't "The Man" anymore.

Which is it?

People can't have it both ways. A player gets discredited for what he did because of some players he had around him, which is "the reason his team won," yet when he's no longer himself but still at least as good as some of those supporting players who were "the reason his team won" when he was in his prime, he's discredited again. It's a double standard. So it's something I felt the need to address in some way.

That's what it consists of since my last revision. I haven't seen anything since then that's caused me to think an addition is in order. "Luck" was brought up recently, but I already account for what a player does to help his team. I don't have a problem discussing any of it, as I've specifically incorporated some things posters here have commented on, but, again, if you haven't sat down and considered your own criteria, then I don't particularly care about anyone telling me how wrong my criteria are if they don't even have any themselves.

[trex_8063]

I've once made a thread with a formula.

Peak, Prime, Longevity trough statistical evidence. Along with accodales, team success and rings. Of course it wasn't all equal in the formula.

However I don't go by that formula only (and I only made for players after 1980, but that's about all the bball I've seen).

I also take into consideration eye test on defensive ability mostly but I do it too on the other side of court.

I tend too look into team success besides the formula one - if the player did not go any further in the playoffs or missed them, what happened? Could he have done any better?

I don't care much about era-portability, since the players have to be good in the era play.

I care about portability on other roles. For example Iverson was a very good 1st option in Philadelphia and he did what he could. But I doubt his portability a lot, in terms of role (play as a role player, play from the bench, fit within a system of 3 or 4 great players where he didn't handle the ball so much).

It's difficult to rank players, a lot has to be taken into consideration.

The formual is here viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here

[trex_8063]

Individual impact.

Methodology could use some [a lot] of elaborating, fwiw.

[trex_8063]

Hmm hard to say how exactly I come to the conclusion of how good someone is. I definitely don't have a set criteria and I go by the eye test a lot / visual impact. I feel like I consider the situation / team the player was given a lot more than some other people on the board. For instance I hold Hakeem / Dirk / KG (even though I down play him a lot on here cause theres a lot of KG fans that go toooo overboard) in high regard for what they managed to do with the teams they were on. I also knock down a peg players like Magic / Lebron / Shaq etc. for having ATG teammates or extremely strong teams when they won. Also strongly considering who each player had to beat out for rewards / beat in the playoffs / beat for titles in comparison to others. I don't like when people directly compare playoff stats of playoff success just by numbers / how far they got.

I also don't really like to rate players I haven't watched much, especially on defense. That and I don't really know what to do with early players on a GOAT list. It's extremely difficult to rate Russell/Wilt/West/Havlicek etc. in comparison to modern players.

[trex_8063]

I try and look at every bit of information I can, even that which is clearly subjective.

But what it boils down for me is how much positive impact did a player have for his actual team in his actual era. I put essentially no weight on "time machine" analysis or imagining how player X would do if he switched places with player Y.

I don't care in what form that input comes. If you are Ben Wallace and almost all of your impact is defensively, great. If you are Steve Nash and its almost all offense, great. You can be a specialist, or a great all-around player.

I don't judge players from previous eras by standards of more modern ones. Just like I would never do the reverse. You should only be judged by your actual circumstances and you should never be totally discounted because of the accident of your birth year.

I can think you are great even if your box scores aren't pretty. I can think you are great even if I don't have +/- data, or they don't paint the rosiest picture. Or I can think you are overrated even if one or the other love you--if the other information I have leads me to that conclusion.

[trex_8063]

I'd like to say I have a consistent criteria but I've never been able to reach to a defined criteria that will never change. I'll name one debate I run into.

I. Player likely to generate most championships or player like to generate most championships for one team.

Shaq against Duncan is the best example I can find of explaining how these are different concepts. I feel relatively confident if you ran their careers through 100k simulations which adjust for environment Shaq would play on more championships. I also feel relatively confident that if you ran their careers through 1000k simulations which adjust for environment Duncan would generate more championships for one franchise.

I am not of the mindset second place is first loser. Shaq would likely ruin 1-2 franchises for a couple of lottery seasons due to pettiness. He is also more likely to generate championships. Which is more important?

[trex_8063]

it's real simple....who dominated his era the most

Does that include Mikan, Bill, and Wilt in your highest portions of the list, or do you not hold much weight on the older eras? Just curious


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Of course it does i got Russ as the GOAT Wilt and mikan at 3-4

[trex_8063]

Individual ability, statistics (achievements, accolades, peak, prime, longevity, etc.), individual and team impact.

Basically a combination of everything above.

[trex_8063]

Eye ball test.

[trex_8063]

Other, specify in comments: I look at Ability first, second Achievement, third Stats and I look at it in a peak period of 3-5 years, since that defines a player. I don't give more than half a point for longevity.

[trex_8063]

This Individual statistics (achievements, accolades, peak, prime, longevity, etc.).

We can go into the detail and era specific rule, restriction, playoff setup, etcc but the above criteria will provide me a basis to quantify their impact within 80% accuracy and I'm fine with that because it's impossible to be 100% exact in your evaluation due to circumstance that that player may not maximize their talent. However, stat don't usually lie about a player capability.

[trex_8063]

individual offensive impact is my #1 criteria.

Elaboration would be appreciated (example: by what means do you evaluate offensive impact? Does era and/or rule changes factor into it? If this is your #1 criteria, what is your #2-#X? etc).

rebirthoftheM elaborated at length in post #33 itt.

[Joao Saraiva]

I've once made a thread with a formula.

Peak, Prime, Longevity trough statistical evidence. Along with accodales, team success and rings. Of course it wasn't all equal in the formula.

However I don't go by that formula only (and I only made for players after 1980, but that's about all the bball I've seen).

I also take into consideration eye test on defensive ability mostly but I do it too on the other side of court.

I tend too look into team success besides the formula one - if the player did not go any further in the playoffs or missed them, what happened? Could he have done any better?

I don't care much about era-portability, since the players have to be good in the era play.

I care about portability on other roles. For example Iverson was a very good 1st option in Philadelphia and he did what he could. But I doubt his portability a lot, in terms of role (play as a role player, play from the bench, fit within a system of 3 or 4 great players where he didn't handle the ball so much).

It's difficult to rank players, a lot has to be taken into consideration.

The formual is here viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here

I want to participate. Been watching a lot of 60s games lately to be able to vote for those players too.

[trex_8063]

I've once made a thread with a formula.

Peak, Prime, Longevity trough statistical evidence. Along with accodales, team success and rings. Of course it wasn't all equal in the formula.

However I don't go by that formula only (and I only made for players after 1980, but that's about all the bball I've seen).

I also take into consideration eye test on defensive ability mostly but I do it too on the other side of court.

I tend too look into team success besides the formula one - if the player did not go any further in the playoffs or missed them, what happened? Could he have done any better?

I don't care much about era-portability, since the players have to be good in the era play.

I care about portability on other roles. For example Iverson was a very good 1st option in Philadelphia and he did what he could. But I doubt his portability a lot, in terms of role (play as a role player, play from the bench, fit within a system of 3 or 4 great players where he didn't handle the ball so much).

It's difficult to rank players, a lot has to be taken into consideration.

The formual is here viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1457603#start_here

I want to participate. Been watching a lot of 60s games lately to be able to vote for those players too.

This isn't the top 100 project sign-up/metathinking thread. This is merely a thread I will link within the metathinking thread, for reference during the course of the project.

[MisterHibachi]

I don't have exact criteria. But I take a cursory look at the stats, but I don't usually quote them in player comparisons. My scouting skills aren't the best, but that's what I rely on for the most part. I try to watch the player a bunch before making a judgment on him. I look mainly at decision making and skill set. I think if I have a handle on those two things then I can comfortably talk about a player.

[Blackmill]

I would like to participate provided the voting doesn't start until after mid-May. My schedule is still uncertain and I will update this post if it becomes apparent that I can't participate.

Evaluation Criterion. I evaluate each player based on his expected accumulated value, in terms of championships won, over the course of his career. Since my criterion is an expectation, I must try to adjust for scenarios such as having played in a different era or with different teammates. Since I'm defining value as championships won, offensive impact conditioned on facing elite defenses -- and analogously, defensive impact conditioned on facing elite offenses -- have some of the largest influence on my ranking.

Evaluation Method. I very much prefer a statistics oriented approach. If the voting starts late enough, I will see what results deep learning and optimal control can produce. However, what statistics we have readily available, I feel are thoroughly inadequate. Furthermore, the human mind can learn relationships from far less data than any machine learning algorithm, which is immensely useful in evaluating older players. All this is to say I have become much more appreciative of the eye-test and will use it primarily. The eye-test will be particularly useful to my criterion since it demands the evaluator somehow incorporate "what if" scenarios. Indeed, through the eye-test we can identify skillsets with a granularity that current basketball statistics do not have, and then use footage of other players sharing some skill, operating in a different situation, to understand how the evaluated player's impact may change according to these "what if" scenarios. Needless to say, whenever I use the eye-test, it will be accompanied with plenty of video evidence.

[THKNKG]

The way in which I judge players isn't formulaic, though as I progress further into my learning, it seems more that way. The primary focus I have in judging a player is winning. A basketball player's individual talent means little in regard to the sport unless they contribute to the sport's primary goal - winning. That's why we don't judge the best world chess players (as an example) by their ability to play blindfolded. We judge them on how well they win.

Of course, talent is important, and is certainly considered, but it is not the foremost priority. My biggest standard by which I judge is impact. The way a player impacts the game doesn't have to directly translate to wins (as those are context dependent - see early 00's Garnett and Steve Nash), but their play has to "lift" their team, so to speak.

Things like peak/prime/longevity are important, but only insofar as they contribute to the player's impact. If player A has a greater prime than player B, but neither lifted their team much, it's an almost entirely irrelevant conversation. The same applies with longevity - longevity only matters if they player continued to show high impact with their play, and contributed to winning. This, as an example, is why I consider Duncan's longevity > KAJ's longevity. Kareem's scoring during his "longevity" years were less valuable for me than Duncan's defensive anchor "longevity" years.

I count external factors (like being a good teammate, etc.) because they do affect winning. Like I said, anything that contributes/lessens likelihood of winning is fair game.

Ideas like portability and scalability are important to me, and awards mean practically zero, other than to give me an idea what the consensus was at the time.

Some other notes - I'm not very high on volume scoring, and I'm high on the offensive abilities of solid lead guards and the defensive abilities of bigs


Some example lists with varying emphases using my criteria:

Peak/prime impact:
1. Russell
2. MJ
3. LBJ
4. Duncan
5. KAJ
6. Wilt
7. KG
8. Shaq
9. Magic
10. Oscar

Intangibles considered as well, with prior list:
1. Duncan
2. Russell
3. Kareem
T4. MJ/LBJ
6. KG
7. Wilt
8. Magic
9. Shaq
10. Oscar

And longevity-emphasized:
1. Duncan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. LBJ
5. MJ
6. KG
7. Wilt/Shaq
9. Magic
10. Hakeem/Dirk


Here are some players I'm higher or lower on than others typically are:
Higher - Duncan, KG, Oscar, Nash, Paul, Rodman
Lower - Kobe, Barkley

Philosophical musing - lots of analysis tends to be rooted in narrative, baseless axioms, and conjecture. I think these are the enemies of true discussions. Having a majority opinion, and being able to say "not close" or "easily" gives you a position that enables you to effectively silence the competition, whether intentionally or not. I want to actively guard against this in my own thinking, and to uproot it when it is seen elsewhere, so that discussion may flourish.



Tl;dr - Contribution to winning (tangible and intangible, on court or off), impact-emphasis, portability/scaleability

[JordansBulls]

Combination of Winning, Stats, Accolades, and Productivity and also how often a player was upset in a series with HCA.