Dr Positivity wrote:Thanks for the posts Pablo, it's always nice to get the perspective of someone who remembered the 60s
While the idea of ranking by best of position sounds pretty good to me, the one thing I disagree with is using All-NBAs as much as that. It's just bad luck if you play in an era with another megastar at your position ie Wilt/Russell, compared to how Karl Malone for example had comparatively less competition at PF.
I can buy into the idea though that players should be compared vs their era. I was thinking about this a few weeks ago with Russell's ranking, how part of ranking Russell for many is about asking how he'd compete today. But it just becomes a guessing game at that point, it's not ranking what he did, but what he theoretically could do in modern day. On the other hand though one can't just ignore that the talent pool is bigger today. So there has to be a balance between trying to rank players for what they did in their era, while acknowledging it is at least slightly better to be as dominant now as they were back then
Vis-à-vis your compliment, do I say, "You're welcome" or "Thank you"? or both?
Having thunk (mis-spelling on porpoisely) for all of 5.5 decades on how to compare similar things across dissimilar circumstances; and in particular, how to rank All-Time NBA/ABA/NBLers; I've come to the conclusions that:
a) No stat (regular or advanced) or combination of them is a good enough indicator; conversely, all single ones and/or combinations of them have serious flaws - that I can't see any fix-all for;
b) MVP awards have been seriously flawed and are, inherently not broad enough for the purposes;
c) the All-League selections are simply the voting results of the people MOST-QUALIFIED to judge each player's quality-of-play that particular regular season (the people who are paid to describe how the games were played). And having reviewed the All-League results EACH year for all these years; as well as re-reviewing them (repeatedly) - I really have (had) NO serious objections to ANY of those selections over all these years (1960-2016). That's one damned fine track record. Part of the beauty of the system is that individual voters potential homerism is cancelled out the sheer number of votes/voters.
d) THE worst case scenario for the excellent point you make (that "bad timing" can mean that an All-Time Great player would be consistently overshadowed by an ever better contemporary at that same position) is, imo, John Stockton. He only got TWO All-NBA 1st-Team selections - it was "magical". (but DID get 6 2nd-Team selections). Yet, I've got him ranked GOAT #3 PG - he WAS that incredible. (In fact, I've been in long, drawn out debates with informed people where the claim was made and well-defended that Stockton'd be a better choice than Magic - because his defense was better and his offense was almost as good.) Another example would be DWade - Kobe beat him out (or is it "off", lol) year after year after year.
e) About K.Malone at the PF position; he DID, almost for his whole career, compete with Sir Charles - a most worthy "adversary", right?
f) About Bill Russell as a SPECIFIC example for "transferability" to other decades: Imo, it is undeniable that Russell was almost as weak a shooter as he was great at most everything else. His shooting percent from VERY close range was never very good. This is precisely the reason why I "see" him in later decades as a MONSTER defensive specialist - with his offense still remaining THE weakest of the All-Time Greats of THOSE other decades - just as it was during the 60s.
g) Please remember (not saying you forgot, btw, lol) ... that I make a two-pronged point:
i ) the All-Time Greats of each (post 50's) decade would be All-Time Greats in any other decade;
but, due to the ever-increasing improvement in the overall quality of play League-wide - given better and more US players, vastly more international players, better training methods, health, injury-prevention/recovery, coaching, and, not least of all by any means - MORE TEAMS ...
ii) within any GOAT Top "50", there should be MORE players for each newer decade.
I believe (but what do I know?) that this is the best way to approach "fairness" vis-à-vis the decade-vs-decade or generation-vs-generation debate/challenge.
P.S. You raised a doubt/question about my big emphasis on All-League selections. IF we keep in mind that each year there are 4 guards, 4 forwards and 2 centers who end up being either 1st-Team or 2nd-Team members; I feel that that's a decent enough "screen" when "all" one is looking for is All-Time Greatness. Certainly, the deeper down an All-Time GOAT-type list one would go, the less useful would this "criteria" be. In any event, it turns out that some 300 or so players have gotten such 1st-Team or 2nd-Team selections - and that, pretty much every single All-Time Great (according to any and all lists and consensuses) is represented in such results - i.e., it seems to me to be HIGHLY representative of both WHO were the All-Time Greatest players and of how great they actually played.
Another way to put this is that, if you weren't good enough to be in the top 2 at your position year-after-year, then you were NOT an All-Time Great.
