Re: RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #27

[mikejames23]

And finally there's the gulf between how players and coaches from his era rank him and how he's ranked here. Do they really just have a blind spot or should it give us some pause? I'm not one to write off testimonials from peers.

The more I look into this as a method of evaluation, the more I am convinced it's the worst way of doing things, on par with PER and absurd metrics of the sort.

fwiw, I don't think Laimbeer (or anyone else) is suggesting we use peer testimonial as the only methodology, or even necessarily as a primary consideration. He's just saying we shouldn't write it off completely (and I would generally agree).

I am really not high on peer to peer ranking type of stuff. LeBron's struggle with GM'ing a team around his game or all the quotes done to inflate Kobe's reputation, the ridiculous collection of everything Charles Barkley has said, etc. prove this from time to time. The average casual fan would have be an equally reliable source. I don't find very many of them cerebral in that respect.

Now quotes like these can be interesting.

Greg Kelser, the color commentator for Pistons games on Fox Sports Detroit, was a teammate for part of Thomas’ rookie season before being traded to Seattle for Vinnie Johnson.

“After a bad stretch, Isiah called a team meeting, something unheard for a rookie to do and said, ‘I didn’t come here to lose, I came out here to win, and if you don’t want to win, then don’t play,’ ” Kelser said. “He’s 20 and he’s calling out everybody. From that day forward, it was Isiah’s team.”

“What Isiah did in a blink of an eye at the Joe was simply unbelievable,” Blaha said. “If my statistician, Joe Abramson, hadn’t been keeping track, I would have guessed that he scored 10 or 12 points. It was amazing.”

I think if you do something more specific on leadership or perception of athletic skill etc. to make an argument, it could work.

[mikejames23]

And finally there's the gulf between how players and coaches from his era rank him and how he's ranked here. Do they really just have a blind spot or should it give us some pause? I'm not one to write off testimonials from peers.

The more I look into this as a method of evaluation, the more I am convinced it's the worst way of doing things, on par with PER and absurd metrics of the sort.

But is Isiah considered that outstanding by contemporaries? He never finished above 5th in MVP voting and wasn't even All-NBA the years the Pistons won their titles (though he was an All-Star and has a finals MVP). He's a great player but his accolades don't match up with some of the other guys being considered (Cousy, Durant, arguably even Curry)

Yes. He would actually end up below guys like Sidney Moncrief or Clyde Drexler pretty consistently, and Moncrief hasn't been brought up yet. During some years he's actually tied with Joe Dumars and voters didn't seem to know how to separate them. Isiah's greatest legacy was the sheer hate contemporaries felt for his team w/the Bad Boy branding, to the extent that Isiah wasn't allowed on the dream team later.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Patrick Ewing

Vote 2 - Scottie Pippen

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #43:

Kevin Durant - 5 (CodeBreaker, dhsilv2, pandrade83, penbeast0, scabbarista)
Patrick Ewing - 5 (trex_8063, Winsome Gerbil, Clyde Frazier, Hornet Mania, 2klegend)
Stephen Curry - 3 (janmagn, oldschooled, twolves97)
Elgin Baylor -2 (Outside, Pablo Novi)
Clyde Drexler - 1 (JordansBulls)
Artis Gilmore - 1 (Narigo)
Isiah Thomas - 1 (JoeMalburg)
Bob Cousy -1 (euroleague)


Thread still has about 20-22 hours left, but that's where we stand.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[RCM88x]

Vote: Scottie Pippen

In my opinion the GOAT perimeter defender, and one of the best passing Forwards of all time. Pippen posted an impressive prime run of 9 seasons from '90 to '98, averaging a BPM of 6.1 and a WS/48 of .173. He ranks an impressive 13th all time in career playoff WS, 18th in career average playoff BPM, and an insane 5th all time in playoff VORP.

In my opinion, probably the idea 2nd option. Doesn't need the ball to have an impact and when he does, is a 3 way threat to drive, pass or shoot.

2nd Vote: Patrick Ewing

[drza]

So, I've noticed there's been a lot of conversation recently about accolades/how a player was evaluated by the press or his peers while they were playing. The inference being, having great accolades in-era should be the most important factor in evaluating a player's greatness. I can see that as an approach, though obviously I don't agree with it. As I stated in the pre-project criteria thread, I'm one that tries to evaluate how effective a player is at helping his team win, as independently as possible from his circumstances. In this project, you guys have seen me try a lot of different ways to do that, trying to tie scouting and anecdotes with box score stats and impact stats to come up with what I believe is the best case that I can make for every player. For me, that is the best way to do it...try to incorporate all of the info I can get, and build individual cases for everyone. It's really time consuming to do well, and I can't say I get to go as deeply as I'd like with most cases, but it gives me a framework to work from.

So, when it comes to accolades and anecdotes, I'm all for utilizing them. I'm all for making note of the fact that Cousy or Baylor had a lot of excellent accolades, as this tells me that they were well thought of in their time. The anecdotes (like the ones that Fundamental21 gave for Isiah in post #41) are great info too, as they help to explain why a player is well thought of, in addition to what he might have been doing to make him impact in ways that are either tangible or intangible. I think that's good stuff. On the other hand, I also think it's good stuff to look at the box scores, and their teams' strengths/weaknesses over time, to see if that helps us to understand more about what the player is doing and how effective it is. And if we've got some next level impact stuff to work with, like WOWY for players that missed extended periods or were traded in season, that helps even more. And +/- stats, be it raw like what we have for the mid-90s or the postseason in the databall era or full PBP & regressions like what we have for full-seasons since 1998...all of that helps me to make stronger and stronger cases for a player's strengths or weaknesses.

Which brings me to this vote. I've been voting Ewing for a few threads now. Some of the big pushback against him has been that he didn't dominate the accolades of his time the way that Cousy or Baylor did. But again, while I note that, I also put it in context. Ewing only has one All NBA first team selection...but from 1986 - 1998, spanning beyond Ewing's prime in both directions, every center besides him that DID earn an All NBA first team selection has already been voted in. In 7 of those seasons, Ewing was voted either 1st team (once) or 2nd team (6 times). So to me, in context, all the accolades can tell me is that Ewing wasn't considered to be quite as good as players that we've already voted in anyway, but that he was RIGHT behind them. I don't see where this would stipulate that Cousy or Baylor would have to be better, unless there's an assumption that the talent distribution in the NBA has to be equal across eras. I don't see it like that, so the accolades don't have a lot more to offer to me in trying to estimate which were actually the best players that were helping their teams the most.

Then, it starts coming down to trying to evaluate what a player actually did on the court. Ewing's case, in a thumbnail, is that he is one of the most dominant defensive players still left on the board, and that simultaneously he's also useful on offense as a finisher that spans from leading-scoring-option-on-a-contender to scoring-role-player/big-man-with-jumper-spacing threat. That's a strong two-way impact. It's also a model that tends to have:

Excellent portability & scalability: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared

The ability to be almost purely additive with no downside: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162035208506/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

And is historically scarce: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162019505846/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

Those 3 topics are obviously interrelated, but I'd written about each of them in some detail earlier in this project. Especially during the LeBron or Duncan debates.

So, with Ewing (and without getting into a stat battle), my feeling is that his combination of elite defense and solid offense would produce a peak impact as good as any player left with close to his longevity (a couple threads back, using DocMJ's scale, I estimated about a +5 or 6 on offense and +3 or 4 on defense for around +9.5 ish at peak). That this impact would be robust in the face of different team environments. And with solid longevity to boot, that this makes the best overall package of improving his team's chances to win championships over his career.

If someone can poke a hole in that theory, based upon a tangible argument that makes sense to me, I still could be swayed. But until then, I'll continue to vote:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TDB

[Pablo Novi]

So, I've noticed there's been a lot of conversation recently about accolades/how a player was evaluated by the press or his peers while they were playing. The inference being, having great accolades in-era should be the most important factor in evaluating a player's greatness. I can see that as an approach, though obviously I don't agree with it. As I stated in the pre-project criteria thread, I'm one that tries to evaluate how effective a player is at helping his team win, as independently as possible from his circumstances. In this project, you guys have seen me try a lot of different ways to do that, trying to tie scouting and anecdotes with box score stats and impact stats to come up with what I believe is the best case that I can make for every player. For me, that is the best way to do it...try to incorporate all of the info I can get, and build individual cases for everyone. It's really time consuming to do well, and I can't say I get to go as deeply as I'd like with most cases, but it gives me a framework to work from.

So, when it comes to accolades and anecdotes, I'm all for utilizing them. I'm all for making note of the fact that Cousy or Baylor had a lot of excellent accolades, as this tells me that they were well thought of in their time. The anecdotes (like the ones that Fundamental21 gave for Isiah in post #41) are great info too, as they help to explain why a player is well thought of, in addition to what he might have been doing to make him impact in ways that are either tangible or intangible. I think that's good stuff. On the other hand, I also think it's good stuff to look at the box scores, and their teams' strengths/weaknesses over time, to see if that helps us to understand more about what the player is doing and how effective it is. And if we've got some next level impact stuff to work with, like WOWY for players that missed extended periods or were traded in season, that helps even more. And +/- stats, be it raw like what we have for the mid-90s or the postseason in the databall era or full PBP & regressions like what we have for full-seasons since 1998...all of that helps me to make stronger and stronger cases for a player's strengths or weaknesses.

Which brings me to this vote. I've been voting Ewing for a few threads now. Some of the big pushback against him has been that he didn't dominate the accolades of his time the way that Cousy or Baylor did. But again, while I note that, I also put it in context. Ewing only has one All NBA first team selection...but from 1986 - 1998, spanning beyond Ewing's prime in both directions, every center besides him that DID earn an All NBA first team selection has already been voted in. In 7 of those seasons, Ewing was voted either 1st team (once) or 2nd team (6 times). So to me, in context, all the accolades can tell me is that ...

Then, it starts coming down to trying to evaluate what a player actually did on the court. Ewing's case, in a thumbnail, is that he is one of the most dominant defensive players still left on the board, and that simultaneously he's also useful on offense as a finisher that spans from leading-scoring-option-on-a-contender to scoring-role-player/big-man-with-jumper-spacing threat. That's a strong two-way impact. It's also a model that tends to have:

Excellent portability & scalability: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared

The ability to be almost purely additive with no downside: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162035208506/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

And is historically scarce: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162019505846/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

Those 3 topics are obviously interrelated, but I'd written about each of them in some detail earlier in this project. Especially during the LeBron or Duncan debates.

So, with Ewing (and without getting into a stat battle), my feeling is that his combination of elite defense and solid offense would produce a peak impact as good as any player left with close to his longevity (a couple threads back, using DocMJ's scale, I estimated about a +5 or 6 on offense and +3 or 4 on defense for around +9.5 ish at peak). That this impact would be robust in the face of different team environments. And with solid longevity to boot, that this makes the best overall package of improving his team's chances to win championships over his career.

If someone can poke a hole in that theory, based upon a tangible argument that makes sense to me, I still could be swayed. But until then, I'll continue to vote:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TDB

I think you make a good case for Ewing; and that you line of thinking is well-thought out and reasonable.
Where I disagree with it is where you say this:
"... Ewing wasn't considered to be quite as good as players that we've already voted in anyway, but that he was RIGHT behind them. I don't see where this would stipulate that Cousy or Baylor would have to be better, unless there's an assumption that the talent distribution in the NBA has to be equal across eras. I don't see it like that, so the accolades don't have a lot more to offer to me in trying to estimate which were actually the best players that were helping their teams the most."

In my view, ALL-Time Great players from any decade from the 1960s onwards could be switched with AT Greats (at their position) from any other decade and still be ALL-Time Greats (my biggest question amongst GOAT Top 25 player is with Bill Russell - it seems to me that his shooting percentage from close-to-the-basket was so weak - that in subsequent decades he'd have still been THE dominant DEFENSIVE player; but a step down overall due to that shooting percent - but then again, my view on Russell is easily my most controversial one).

Putting Russell to one side for the moment, let's take the cases of Baylor & Ewing. Baylor was 10 times 1st-Team in his "decade". Ewing wasn't close. Baylor in any subsequent decade, switched with the top small forward for it; would still be an All-Time Great Top 5 SF; but Ewing, equally switched would stay a level lower (just as he was during his own era).

Cousy's more problematic because he's mostly pre-1960 (a weaker decade than any subsequent one). Still, in my system, I've already deducted "Points" for the weakness of his era; and he still ends up ranking GOAT PG #3. Then, either we "respect" his dominance of his own era - or we've got anti-early-timer chaos - and Mikan himself shouldn't be ranked nearly as high as we have him.

MY solution: Cousy and Baylor are ranked higher than Ewing. They DID dominate THEIR positions in THEIR era more than he did. And in both their cases there's two more aspects: they both had TEN 1st-Team selections (only 10 players in all of NBL-NBA-ABA history have that many; and few have 9 or 8 or 7) AND they both REVOLUTIONIZED their respective position. That, for me, clearly trumps Ewing.

I doubt it convinced you; and I very much respect your way of approaching this. Just giving you "what you asked for"; a hopefully "worthy" counter-argument.

Let me add that, having reviewed the results of comparisons by any number of stats and combinations of them; and by MVP votes and MVP shares; imo, NOTHING beats the ALL-League selection process for best reflecting who were actually the best (Reg. Season) players at their position each year - since 1960, I've never been strongly opposed to the 1st-Team & 2nd-Team selections. (After all, it was/is the very job of those selectors to analyze what the players do each season - and they tend to see the most games and have the best "feel" / eye test for it). (Justified, again, by their "accurate" results).

[THKNKG]

So, I've noticed there's been a lot of conversation recently about accolades/how a player was evaluated by the press or his peers while they were playing. The inference being, having great accolades in-era should be the most important factor in evaluating a player's greatness. I can see that as an approach, though obviously I don't agree with it. As I stated in the pre-project criteria thread, I'm one that tries to evaluate how effective a player is at helping his team win, as independently as possible from his circumstances. In this project, you guys have seen me try a lot of different ways to do that, trying to tie scouting and anecdotes with box score stats and impact stats to come up with what I believe is the best case that I can make for every player. For me, that is the best way to do it...try to incorporate all of the info I can get, and build individual cases for everyone. It's really time consuming to do well, and I can't say I get to go as deeply as I'd like with most cases, but it gives me a framework to work from.

So, when it comes to accolades and anecdotes, I'm all for utilizing them. I'm all for making note of the fact that Cousy or Baylor had a lot of excellent accolades, as this tells me that they were well thought of in their time. The anecdotes (like the ones that Fundamental21 gave for Isiah in post #41) are great info too, as they help to explain why a player is well thought of, in addition to what he might have been doing to make him impact in ways that are either tangible or intangible. I think that's good stuff. On the other hand, I also think it's good stuff to look at the box scores, and their teams' strengths/weaknesses over time, to see if that helps us to understand more about what the player is doing and how effective it is. And if we've got some next level impact stuff to work with, like WOWY for players that missed extended periods or were traded in season, that helps even more. And +/- stats, be it raw like what we have for the mid-90s or the postseason in the databall era or full PBP & regressions like what we have for full-seasons since 1998...all of that helps me to make stronger and stronger cases for a player's strengths or weaknesses.

Which brings me to this vote. I've been voting Ewing for a few threads now. Some of the big pushback against him has been that he didn't dominate the accolades of his time the way that Cousy or Baylor did. But again, while I note that, I also put it in context. Ewing only has one All NBA first team selection...but from 1986 - 1998, spanning beyond Ewing's prime in both directions, every center besides him that DID earn an All NBA first team selection has already been voted in. In 7 of those seasons, Ewing was voted either 1st team (once) or 2nd team (6 times). So to me, in context, all the accolades can tell me is that Ewing wasn't considered to be quite as good as players that we've already voted in anyway, but that he was RIGHT behind them. I don't see where this would stipulate that Cousy or Baylor would have to be better, unless there's an assumption that the talent distribution in the NBA has to be equal across eras. I don't see it like that, so the accolades don't have a lot more to offer to me in trying to estimate which were actually the best players that were helping their teams the most.

Then, it starts coming down to trying to evaluate what a player actually did on the court. Ewing's case, in a thumbnail, is that he is one of the most dominant defensive players still left on the board, and that simultaneously he's also useful on offense as a finisher that spans from leading-scoring-option-on-a-contender to scoring-role-player/big-man-with-jumper-spacing threat. That's a strong two-way impact. It's also a model that tends to have:

Excellent portability & scalability: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared

The ability to be almost purely additive with no downside: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162035208506/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

And is historically scarce: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162019505846/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

Those 3 topics are obviously interrelated, but I'd written about each of them in some detail earlier in this project. Especially during the LeBron or Duncan debates.

So, with Ewing (and without getting into a stat battle), my feeling is that his combination of elite defense and solid offense would produce a peak impact as good as any player left with close to his longevity (a couple threads back, using DocMJ's scale, I estimated about a +5 or 6 on offense and +3 or 4 on defense for around +9.5 ish at peak). That this impact would be robust in the face of different team environments. And with solid longevity to boot, that this makes the best overall package of improving his team's chances to win championships over his career.

If someone can poke a hole in that theory, based upon a tangible argument that makes sense to me, I still could be swayed. But until then, I'll continue to vote:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TDB

My vote is the same, including the second place being TBD.

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: Scottie Pippen

Reasoning - in a nutshell, elite ATG level defensive anchor who provides above average to really good offense. The other guys I'm considering don't have the longevity (Steph, KD), the offensive game to match (Dikembe, Thurmond), or their impact just wasn't in the same level long enough IMO (Kidd/Pippen/Payton/Elgin/Westbrook/etc.).

Others I'm considering after him are Steph, KD, Dikembe, Thurmond, Kidd, Pippen, GP, Baylor, Westbrook, Havlicek, Frazier, Barry, Reggie, Gilmore, Drexler.

I know that's a long list, but the short list for me right now is probably Curry, Dikembe, Thurmond, Pippen, Kidd, Durant.

Any insight would be really helpful!

[THKNKG]

Spoiler:

So, I've noticed there's been a lot of conversation recently about accolades/how a player was evaluated by the press or his peers while they were playing. The inference being, having great accolades in-era should be the most important factor in evaluating a player's greatness. I can see that as an approach, though obviously I don't agree with it. As I stated in the pre-project criteria thread, I'm one that tries to evaluate how effective a player is at helping his team win, as independently as possible from his circumstances. In this project, you guys have seen me try a lot of different ways to do that, trying to tie scouting and anecdotes with box score stats and impact stats to come up with what I believe is the best case that I can make for every player. For me, that is the best way to do it...try to incorporate all of the info I can get, and build individual cases for everyone. It's really time consuming to do well, and I can't say I get to go as deeply as I'd like with most cases, but it gives me a framework to work from.

So, when it comes to accolades and anecdotes, I'm all for utilizing them. I'm all for making note of the fact that Cousy or Baylor had a lot of excellent accolades, as this tells me that they were well thought of in their time. The anecdotes (like the ones that Fundamental21 gave for Isiah in post #41) are great info too, as they help to explain why a player is well thought of, in addition to what he might have been doing to make him impact in ways that are either tangible or intangible. I think that's good stuff. On the other hand, I also think it's good stuff to look at the box scores, and their teams' strengths/weaknesses over time, to see if that helps us to understand more about what the player is doing and how effective it is. And if we've got some next level impact stuff to work with, like WOWY for players that missed extended periods or were traded in season, that helps even more. And +/- stats, be it raw like what we have for the mid-90s or the postseason in the databall era or full PBP & regressions like what we have for full-seasons since 1998...all of that helps me to make stronger and stronger cases for a player's strengths or weaknesses.

Which brings me to this vote. I've been voting Ewing for a few threads now. Some of the big pushback against him has been that he didn't dominate the accolades of his time the way that Cousy or Baylor did. But again, while I note that, I also put it in context. Ewing only has one All NBA first team selection...but from 1986 - 1998, spanning beyond Ewing's prime in both directions, every center besides him that DID earn an All NBA first team selection has already been voted in. In 7 of those seasons, Ewing was voted either 1st team (once) or 2nd team (6 times). So to me, in context, all the accolades can tell me is that ...

Then, it starts coming down to trying to evaluate what a player actually did on the court. Ewing's case, in a thumbnail, is that he is one of the most dominant defensive players still left on the board, and that simultaneously he's also useful on offense as a finisher that spans from leading-scoring-option-on-a-contender to scoring-role-player/big-man-with-jumper-spacing threat. That's a strong two-way impact. It's also a model that tends to have:

Excellent portability & scalability: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared

The ability to be almost purely additive with no downside: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162035208506/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

And is historically scarce: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162019505846/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

Those 3 topics are obviously interrelated, but I'd written about each of them in some detail earlier in this project. Especially during the LeBron or Duncan debates.

So, with Ewing (and without getting into a stat battle), my feeling is that his combination of elite defense and solid offense would produce a peak impact as good as any player left with close to his longevity (a couple threads back, using DocMJ's scale, I estimated about a +5 or 6 on offense and +3 or 4 on defense for around +9.5 ish at peak). That this impact would be robust in the face of different team environments. And with solid longevity to boot, that this makes the best overall package of improving his team's chances to win championships over his career.

If someone can poke a hole in that theory, based upon a tangible argument that makes sense to me, I still could be swayed. But until then, I'll continue to vote:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TDB

I think you make a good case for Ewing; and that you line of thinking is well-thought out and reasonable.
Where I disagree with it is where you say this:
"... Ewing wasn't considered to be quite as good as players that we've already voted in anyway, but that he was RIGHT behind them. I don't see where this would stipulate that Cousy or Baylor would have to be better, unless there's an assumption that the talent distribution in the NBA has to be equal across eras. I don't see it like that, so the accolades don't have a lot more to offer to me in trying to estimate which were actually the best players that were helping their teams the most."

In my view, ALL-Time Great players from any decade from the 1960s onwards could be switched with AT Greats (at their position) from any other decade and still be ALL-Time Greats (my biggest question amongst GOAT Top 25 player is with Bill Russell - it seems to me that his shooting percentage from close-to-the-basket was so weak - that in subsequent decades he'd have still been THE dominant DEFENSIVE player; but a step down overall due to that shooting percent - but then again, my view on Russell is easily my most controversial one).

Putting Russell to one side for the moment, let's take the cases of Baylor & Ewing. Baylor was 10 times 1st-Team in his "decade". Ewing wasn't close. Baylor in any subsequent decade, switched with the top small forward for it; would still be an All-Time Great Top 5 SF; but Ewing, equally switched would stay a level lower (just as he was during his own era).

Cousy's more problematic because he's mostly pre-1960 (a weaker decade than any subsequent one). Still, in my system, I've already deducted "Points" for the weakness of his era; and he still ends up ranking GOAT PG #3. Then, either he "respect" his dominance of his own era - or we've got anti-early-timer chaos - and Mikan himself shouldn't be ranked nearly as high as we have him.

MY solution: Cousy and Baylor are ranked higher than Ewing. They DID dominate THEIR positions in THEIR era more than he did. And in both their cases there's two more aspects: they both had TEN 1st-Team selections (only 10 players in all of NBL-NBA-ABA history have that many; and few have 9 or 8 or 7) AND they both REVOLUTIONIZED their respective position. That, for me, clearly trumps Ewing.

I doubt it convinced you; and I very much respect your way of approaching this. Just giving you "what you asked for"; a hopefully "worthy" counter-argument.

Help me understand something about your criteria. How do you take into account dilution or concentration of talent in a particular position in a particular era? What I mean is, there were certain eras were certain positions were STACKED (C's in late 60's/early 70's - Wilt/Russell/Thurmond/KAJ/Beaty/etc., PF's in 00's - KG/Dirk/Duncan), and there were certain eras where positions were pretty weak as a whole (C's now, PG's in the pre Oscar/West era - pretty much just Cousy). How do you reconcile the fact that it seems pretty clear that not all all-NBA accolades are pretty demonstrably different in value?

Not criticizing, I just disagree, so i would like to understand.

[Pablo Novi]

So, I've noticed there's been a lot of conversation recently about accolades/how a player was evaluated by the press or his peers while they were playing. The inference being, having great accolades in-era should be the most important factor in evaluating a player's greatness. I can see that as an approach, though obviously I don't agree with it. As I stated in the pre-project criteria thread, I'm one that tries to evaluate how effective a player is at helping his team win, as independently as possible from his circumstances. In this project, you guys have seen me try a lot of different ways to do that, trying to tie scouting and anecdotes with box score stats and impact stats to come up with what I believe is the best case that I can make for every player. For me, that is the best way to do it...try to incorporate all of the info I can get, and build individual cases for everyone. It's really time consuming to do well, and I can't say I get to go as deeply as I'd like with most cases, but it gives me a framework to work from.

So, when it comes to accolades and anecdotes, I'm all for utilizing them. I'm all for making note of the fact that Cousy or Baylor had a lot of excellent accolades, as this tells me that they were well thought of in their time. The anecdotes (like the ones that Fundamental21 gave for Isiah in post #41) are great info too, as they help to explain why a player is well thought of, in addition to what he might have been doing to make him impact in ways that are either tangible or intangible. I think that's good stuff. On the other hand, I also think it's good stuff to look at the box scores, and their teams' strengths/weaknesses over time, to see if that helps us to understand more about what the player is doing and how effective it is. And if we've got some next level impact stuff to work with, like WOWY for players that missed extended periods or were traded in season, that helps even more. And +/- stats, be it raw like what we have for the mid-90s or the postseason in the databall era or full PBP & regressions like what we have for full-seasons since 1998...all of that helps me to make stronger and stronger cases for a player's strengths or weaknesses.

Which brings me to this vote. I've been voting Ewing for a few threads now. Some of the big pushback against him has been that he didn't dominate the accolades of his time the way that Cousy or Baylor did. But again, while I note that, I also put it in context. Ewing only has one All NBA first team selection...but from 1986 - 1998, spanning beyond Ewing's prime in both directions, every center besides him that DID earn an All NBA first team selection has already been voted in. In 7 of those seasons, Ewing was voted either 1st team (once) or 2nd team (6 times). So to me, in context, all the accolades can tell me is that Ewing wasn't considered to be quite as good as players that we've already voted in anyway, but that he was RIGHT behind them. I don't see where this would stipulate that Cousy or Baylor would have to be better, unless there's an assumption that the talent distribution in the NBA has to be equal across eras. I don't see it like that, so the accolades don't have a lot more to offer to me in trying to estimate which were actually the best players that were helping their teams the most.

Then, it starts coming down to trying to evaluate what a player actually did on the court. Ewing's case, in a thumbnail, is that he is one of the most dominant defensive players still left on the board, and that simultaneously he's also useful on offense as a finisher that spans from leading-scoring-option-on-a-contender to scoring-role-player/big-man-with-jumper-spacing threat. That's a strong two-way impact. It's also a model that tends to have:

Excellent portability & scalability: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared

The ability to be almost purely additive with no downside: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162035208506/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

And is historically scarce: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162019505846/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

Those 3 topics are obviously interrelated, but I'd written about each of them in some detail earlier in this project. Especially during the LeBron or Duncan debates.

So, with Ewing (and without getting into a stat battle), my feeling is that his combination of elite defense and solid offense would produce a peak impact as good as any player left with close to his longevity (a couple threads back, using DocMJ's scale, I estimated about a +5 or 6 on offense and +3 or 4 on defense for around +9.5 ish at peak). That this impact would be robust in the face of different team environments. And with solid longevity to boot, that this makes the best overall package of improving his team's chances to win championships over his career.

If someone can poke a hole in that theory, based upon a tangible argument that makes sense to me, I still could be swayed. But until then, I'll continue to vote:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TDB

My vote is the same, including the second place being TBD.

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TBD (hopefully soon)

Reasoning - in a nutshell, elite ATG level defensive anchor who provides above average to really good offense. The other guys I'm considering don't have the longevity (Steph, KD), the offensive game to match (Dikembe, Thurmond), or their impact just wasn't in the same level long enough IMO (Kidd/Pippen/Payton/Elgin/Westbrook/etc.).

Others I'm considering after him are Steph, KD, Dikembe, Thurmond, Kidd, Pippen, GP, Baylor, Westbrook, Havlicek, Frazier, Barry, Reggie, Gilmore, Drexler.

I know that's a long list, but the short list for me right now is probably Curry, Dikembe, Thurmond, Pippen, Kidd, Durant.

Any insight would be really helpful!

You've essentially got the same list of upcoming candidates as I do (except you don't have Cousy at all; and I've got him and Elgin before any other remaining candidates.

As to "any insight"; I'd suggest you check out my post just above yours.
I'd add to that post of mine that, while I treat the best players at each position as "transferable" to any other decade; the way I "adjust" for what I consider a steadily increasing DEPTH of top talent, is by giving "Points" to 3rd-Team selectees (with slightly increasing "Points" each decade - up to my current level of 60% the number of points for 3rd-Team selectees that I give to 2nd-Teamers (who get 60% of 1st-Teamers: so: 1st-Team = 5 "Points", 2nd-Team = 3 "Points"; 2010's 3rd-Team = 1.8 "Points")

How this works out for a few players players:

Cousy (40.5 "Points", GOAT #3 PG)
Baylor (46.2 "Points", GOAT #4 SF)
Barry (42.5 "Points", GOAT #5 SF)
DHoward (31.4 "Points", GOAT #7 Center)
Gervin (31.3 "Points" GOAT #4 SG)
Ewing (23 "Points", GOAT #9 Center)
Others below Gervin (in my INITIAL "Points" order, down to about GOAT #50) :
Schayes, Kidd, Payton, AI, Pippen, Frazier, TMac, Isiah, Westbrook, Tiny, Moncrief, Jerry Lucas, Hal Greer, Paul Westphal.

[Winsome Gerbil]

So, I've noticed there's been a lot of conversation recently about accolades/how a player was evaluated by the press or his peers while they were playing. The inference being, having great accolades in-era should be the most important factor in evaluating a player's greatness. I can see that as an approach, though obviously I don't agree with it. As I stated in the pre-project criteria thread, I'm one that tries to evaluate how effective a player is at helping his team win, as independently as possible from his circumstances. In this project, you guys have seen me try a lot of different ways to do that, trying to tie scouting and anecdotes with box score stats and impact stats to come up with what I believe is the best case that I can make for every player. For me, that is the best way to do it...try to incorporate all of the info I can get, and build individual cases for everyone. It's really time consuming to do well, and I can't say I get to go as deeply as I'd like with most cases, but it gives me a framework to work from.

So, when it comes to accolades and anecdotes, I'm all for utilizing them. I'm all for making note of the fact that Cousy or Baylor had a lot of excellent accolades, as this tells me that they were well thought of in their time. The anecdotes (like the ones that Fundamental21 gave for Isiah in post #41) are great info too, as they help to explain why a player is well thought of, in addition to what he might have been doing to make him impact in ways that are either tangible or intangible. I think that's good stuff. On the other hand, I also think it's good stuff to look at the box scores, and their teams' strengths/weaknesses over time, to see if that helps us to understand more about what the player is doing and how effective it is. And if we've got some next level impact stuff to work with, like WOWY for players that missed extended periods or were traded in season, that helps even more. And +/- stats, be it raw like what we have for the mid-90s or the postseason in the databall era or full PBP & regressions like what we have for full-seasons since 1998...all of that helps me to make stronger and stronger cases for a player's strengths or weaknesses.

Which brings me to this vote. I've been voting Ewing for a few threads now. Some of the big pushback against him has been that he didn't dominate the accolades of his time the way that Cousy or Baylor did. But again, while I note that, I also put it in context. Ewing only has one All NBA first team selection...but from 1986 - 1998, spanning beyond Ewing's prime in both directions, every center besides him that DID earn an All NBA first team selection has already been voted in. In 7 of those seasons, Ewing was voted either 1st team (once) or 2nd team (6 times). So to me, in context, all the accolades can tell me is that Ewing wasn't considered to be quite as good as players that we've already voted in anyway, but that he was RIGHT behind them. I don't see where this would stipulate that Cousy or Baylor would have to be better, unless there's an assumption that the talent distribution in the NBA has to be equal across eras. I don't see it like that, so the accolades don't have a lot more to offer to me in trying to estimate which were actually the best players that were helping their teams the most.

Then, it starts coming down to trying to evaluate what a player actually did on the court. Ewing's case, in a thumbnail, is that he is one of the most dominant defensive players still left on the board, and that simultaneously he's also useful on offense as a finisher that spans from leading-scoring-option-on-a-contender to scoring-role-player/big-man-with-jumper-spacing threat. That's a strong two-way impact. It's also a model that tends to have:

Excellent portability & scalability: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared

The ability to be almost purely additive with no downside: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162035208506/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

And is historically scarce: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162019505846/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

Those 3 topics are obviously interrelated, but I'd written about each of them in some detail earlier in this project. Especially during the LeBron or Duncan debates.

So, with Ewing (and without getting into a stat battle), my feeling is that his combination of elite defense and solid offense would produce a peak impact as good as any player left with close to his longevity (a couple threads back, using DocMJ's scale, I estimated about a +5 or 6 on offense and +3 or 4 on defense for around +9.5 ish at peak). That this impact would be robust in the face of different team environments. And with solid longevity to boot, that this makes the best overall package of improving his team's chances to win championships over his career.

If someone can poke a hole in that theory, based upon a tangible argument that makes sense to me, I still could be swayed. But until then, I'll continue to vote:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TDB

My vote is the same, including the second place being TBD.

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TBD (hopefully soon)

Reasoning - in a nutshell, elite ATG level defensive anchor who provides above average to really good offense. The other guys I'm considering don't have the longevity (Steph, KD), the offensive game to match (Dikembe, Thurmond), or their impact just wasn't in the same level long enough IMO (Kidd/Pippen/Payton/Elgin/Westbrook/etc.).

Others I'm considering after him are Steph, KD, Dikembe, Thurmond, Kidd, Pippen, GP, Baylor, Westbrook, Havlicek, Frazier, Barry, Reggie, Gilmore, Drexler.

I know that's a long list, but the short list for me right now is probably Curry, Dikembe, Thurmond, Pippen, Kidd, Durant.

Any insight would be really helpful!

You've essentially got the same list of upcoming candidates as I do (except you don't have Cousy at all; and I've got him and Elgin before any other remaining candidates.

As to "any insight"; I'd suggest you check out my post just above yours.
I'd add to that post of mine that, while I treat the best players at each position as "transferable" to any other decade; the way I "adjust" for what I consider a steadily increasing DEPTH of top talent, is by giving "Points" to 3rd-Team selectees (with slightly increasing "Points" each decade - up to my current level of 60% the number of points for 3rd-Team selectees that I give to 2nd-Teamers (who get 60% of 1st-Teamers: so: 1st-Team = 5 "Points", 2nd-Team = 3 "Points"; 2010's 3rd-Team = 1.8 "Points")

How this works out for a few players players:

Cousy (40.5 "Points", GOAT #3 PG)
Baylor (46.2 "Points", GOAT #4 SF)
Barry (42.5 "Points", GOAT #5 SF)
DHoward (31.4 "Points", GOAT #7 Center)
Gervin (31.3 "Points" GOAT #4 SG)
Ewing (23 "Points", GOAT #9 Center)
Others below Gervin (in my INITIAL "Points" order, down to about GOAT #50) :
Schayes, Kidd, Payton, AI, Pippen, Frazier, TMac, Isiah, Westbrook, Tiny, Moncrief, Jerry Lucas, Hal Greer, Paul Westphal.

Your formula has Dwight Howard ranked above Patrick Ewing in GOAT #center points. Methinks your formula might need some tweaking.

Semi-seriously, I think the error lies in insufficient era/competition correction. Playing in the 90s with Ewing and the boys, Dwight would never have won a single 1st Team All NBA, and may not even have nabbed a DPOY, although he would have joined a ridiculously crowded field in the running there.

[dhsilv2]

Vote 1 - Patrick Ewing

Vote 2 - Scottie Pippen

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

Where I struggle with the last part of your argument is that I still think Oakley was the heart of that defense. Sure Ewing was the better player, but I honestly think Oakley was an Isiah Thomas like personality for that team. I wasn't a knicks fan and it was the dark days of cable tv, so am I wrong? Was ewing really a locker room hero? To me it was Oakley's heart and soul that made that defense, and Ewing was just the "talent" if you will.

I don't buy that era was a super era for centers either. A super era for centers with long careers perhaps, but centers dominated the game from the 50's on till about now. Ewing being this high moves him past guys like Reed, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Unseld who were all MVP level centers. Cowens, Reed, and Unseld all played together, and all won MVP's but I'm supposed to move Ewing over all of them?

The MVP's from 65-79

Russell, Wilt, Unseld, Reed, Kareem, Cowens, McAdoo, Walton, and Moses. That was THE center era, so the argument that centers were better in the 90's seems false. The question is if you think the 90's as a whole were the best decade by a mile. I've asked this over the Ewing fans, but I don't think I've gotten a direct answer. If you think the 90's were just by far the best era, then that's a reasonable case for Ewing. All be it, I think your second pick Pippen had a far better career, the rest of your argument for Ewing at last seems reasonable for him over Pippen.

[pandrade83]

So, I've noticed there's been a lot of conversation recently about accolades/how a player was evaluated by the press or his peers while they were playing. The inference being, having great accolades in-era should be the most important factor in evaluating a player's greatness. I can see that as an approach, though obviously I don't agree with it. As I stated in the pre-project criteria thread, I'm one that tries to evaluate how effective a player is at helping his team win, as independently as possible from his circumstances. In this project, you guys have seen me try a lot of different ways to do that, trying to tie scouting and anecdotes with box score stats and impact stats to come up with what I believe is the best case that I can make for every player. For me, that is the best way to do it...try to incorporate all of the info I can get, and build individual cases for everyone. It's really time consuming to do well, and I can't say I get to go as deeply as I'd like with most cases, but it gives me a framework to work from.

So, when it comes to accolades and anecdotes, I'm all for utilizing them. I'm all for making note of the fact that Cousy or Baylor had a lot of excellent accolades, as this tells me that they were well thought of in their time. The anecdotes (like the ones that Fundamental21 gave for Isiah in post #41) are great info too, as they help to explain why a player is well thought of, in addition to what he might have been doing to make him impact in ways that are either tangible or intangible. I think that's good stuff. On the other hand, I also think it's good stuff to look at the box scores, and their teams' strengths/weaknesses over time, to see if that helps us to understand more about what the player is doing and how effective it is. And if we've got some next level impact stuff to work with, like WOWY for players that missed extended periods or were traded in season, that helps even more. And +/- stats, be it raw like what we have for the mid-90s or the postseason in the databall era or full PBP & regressions like what we have for full-seasons since 1998...all of that helps me to make stronger and stronger cases for a player's strengths or weaknesses.

Which brings me to this vote. I've been voting Ewing for a few threads now. Some of the big pushback against him has been that he didn't dominate the accolades of his time the way that Cousy or Baylor did. But again, while I note that, I also put it in context. Ewing only has one All NBA first team selection...but from 1986 - 1998, spanning beyond Ewing's prime in both directions, every center besides him that DID earn an All NBA first team selection has already been voted in. In 7 of those seasons, Ewing was voted either 1st team (once) or 2nd team (6 times). So to me, in context, all the accolades can tell me is that ...

Then, it starts coming down to trying to evaluate what a player actually did on the court. Ewing's case, in a thumbnail, is that he is one of the most dominant defensive players still left on the board, and that simultaneously he's also useful on offense as a finisher that spans from leading-scoring-option-on-a-contender to scoring-role-player/big-man-with-jumper-spacing threat. That's a strong two-way impact. It's also a model that tends to have:

Excellent portability & scalability: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162857973161/lebron-james-impact-diminishing-returns-compared

The ability to be almost purely additive with no downside: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162035208506/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

And is historically scarce: http://hoopslab.rotowire.com/post/162019505846/individual-offense-is-not-more-important-than

Those 3 topics are obviously interrelated, but I'd written about each of them in some detail earlier in this project. Especially during the LeBron or Duncan debates.

So, with Ewing (and without getting into a stat battle), my feeling is that his combination of elite defense and solid offense would produce a peak impact as good as any player left with close to his longevity (a couple threads back, using DocMJ's scale, I estimated about a +5 or 6 on offense and +3 or 4 on defense for around +9.5 ish at peak). That this impact would be robust in the face of different team environments. And with solid longevity to boot, that this makes the best overall package of improving his team's chances to win championships over his career.

If someone can poke a hole in that theory, based upon a tangible argument that makes sense to me, I still could be swayed. But until then, I'll continue to vote:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TDB

I think you make a good case for Ewing; and that you line of thinking is well-thought out and reasonable.
Where I disagree with it is where you say this:
"... Ewing wasn't considered to be quite as good as players that we've already voted in anyway, but that he was RIGHT behind them. I don't see where this would stipulate that Cousy or Baylor would have to be better, unless there's an assumption that the talent distribution in the NBA has to be equal across eras. I don't see it like that, so the accolades don't have a lot more to offer to me in trying to estimate which were actually the best players that were helping their teams the most."

In my view, ALL-Time Great players from any decade from the 1960s onwards could be switched with AT Greats (at their position) from any other decade and still be ALL-Time Greats (my biggest question amongst GOAT Top 25 player is with Bill Russell - it seems to me that his shooting percentage from close-to-the-basket was so weak - that in subsequent decades he'd have still been THE dominant DEFENSIVE player; but a step down overall due to that shooting percent - but then again, my view on Russell is easily my most controversial one).

Putting Russell to one side for the moment, let's take the cases of Baylor & Ewing. Baylor was 10 times 1st-Team in his "decade". Ewing wasn't close. Baylor in any subsequent decade, switched with the top small forward for it; would still be an All-Time Great Top 5 SF; but Ewing, equally switched would stay a level lower (just as he was during his own era).

Cousy's more problematic because he's mostly pre-1960 (a weaker decade than any subsequent one). Still, in my system, I've already deducted "Points" for the weakness of his era; and he still ends up ranking GOAT PG #3. Then, either we "respect" his dominance of his own era - or we've got anti-early-timer chaos - and Mikan himself shouldn't be ranked nearly as high as we have him.

MY solution: Cousy and Baylor are ranked higher than Ewing. They DID dominate THEIR positions in THEIR era more than he did. And in both their cases there's two more aspects: they both had TEN 1st-Team selections (only 10 players in all of NBL-NBA-ABA history have that many; and few have 9 or 8 or 7) AND they both REVOLUTIONIZED their respective position. That, for me, clearly trumps Ewing.

I doubt it convinced you; and I very much respect your way of approaching this. Just giving you "what you asked for"; a hopefully "worthy" counter-argument.

Let me add that, having reviewed the results of comparisons by any number of stats and combinations of them; and by MVP votes and MVP shares; imo, NOTHING beats the ALL-League selection process for best reflecting who were actually the best (Reg. Season) players at their position each year - since 1960, I've never been strongly opposed to the 1st-Team & 2nd-Team selections. (After all, it was/is the very job of those selectors to analyze what the players do each season - and they tend to see the most games and have the best "feel" / eye test for it). (Justified, again, by their "accurate" results).

Here's the problem I have with Cousy. Pretend there's a hypothetical league called the American Basketball League. Pretend it has no black players or foreigners. Pretend there's 16 teams in it. In my mind, this league can't be very good. Right now there's not even enough players in the existing NBA to fill half this league - only 2 such players made an All-Star Team this year. I don't even think the all white American team would even make the finals in the current NBA - but that's neither here nor there.

There's a point guard by the name of Bill Choosy. His teams are on the "mediocrity" treadmill year after year. He makes All-ABL year after year after year - but his teams never go anywhere.

Back to reality - my fake player Bill Choosy is probably the equivalent of JJ Redick or Kyle Korver. - maybe worse. There's no way he's as good as Hayward or Love. A team with Hayward or Love is probably making the Finals year after year and one of those guys are locks for the title. They're just so far ahead of everyone else.

That said, from a historical perspective, you can't have Cousy too low. I still give him historical credit as being the first strong point guard and he'll make my Top 100 - being the first strong PG has to mean SOMETHING. But O & West came along and were MUCH better in a stronger league; and their careers did have overlap w/ Cousy. His teams never accomplished anything until Russell came along.

This little example shows why league strength has to matter - I don't really care that he made all NBA in a league that was mostly segregated. If Cousy were dropped in Paul's shoes, I don't think he ever escapes the 1st round, and I see him missing the playoffs more often than not - that's after giving him nutrition/training benefits.

But I really struggle to place players of that era who didn't win very highly at all. In the hypothetical league I just created, I have doubts that the worst teams in that league would make a Final Four; and that's my problem. The league really didn't start to integrate until Russell comes along - and even when Russell came along and they started winning all kinds of titles, the relative offensive efficiency was average/below average - so you can't say Cousy had a significant impact offensively - Russell was just that damn good on the other end

There's just too much evidence that tells me Cousy wasn't that great of a player in the big scheme of things.

[dhsilv2]

My vote is the same, including the second place being TBD.

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: TBD (hopefully soon)

Reasoning - in a nutshell, elite ATG level defensive anchor who provides above average to really good offense. The other guys I'm considering don't have the longevity (Steph, KD), the offensive game to match (Dikembe, Thurmond), or their impact just wasn't in the same level long enough IMO (Kidd/Pippen/Payton/Elgin/Westbrook/etc.).

Others I'm considering after him are Steph, KD, Dikembe, Thurmond, Kidd, Pippen, GP, Baylor, Westbrook, Havlicek, Frazier, Barry, Reggie, Gilmore, Drexler.

I know that's a long list, but the short list for me right now is probably Curry, Dikembe, Thurmond, Pippen, Kidd, Durant.

Any insight would be really helpful!

You've essentially got the same list of upcoming candidates as I do (except you don't have Cousy at all; and I've got him and Elgin before any other remaining candidates.

As to "any insight"; I'd suggest you check out my post just above yours.
I'd add to that post of mine that, while I treat the best players at each position as "transferable" to any other decade; the way I "adjust" for what I consider a steadily increasing DEPTH of top talent, is by giving "Points" to 3rd-Team selectees (with slightly increasing "Points" each decade - up to my current level of 60% the number of points for 3rd-Team selectees that I give to 2nd-Teamers (who get 60% of 1st-Teamers: so: 1st-Team = 5 "Points", 2nd-Team = 3 "Points"; 2010's 3rd-Team = 1.8 "Points")

How this works out for a few players players:

Cousy (40.5 "Points", GOAT #3 PG)
Baylor (46.2 "Points", GOAT #4 SF)
Barry (42.5 "Points", GOAT #5 SF)
DHoward (31.4 "Points", GOAT #7 Center)
Gervin (31.3 "Points" GOAT #4 SG)
Ewing (23 "Points", GOAT #9 Center)
Others below Gervin (in my INITIAL "Points" order, down to about GOAT #50) :
Schayes, Kidd, Payton, AI, Pippen, Frazier, TMac, Isiah, Westbrook, Tiny, Moncrief, Jerry Lucas, Hal Greer, Paul Westphal.

Your formula has Dwight Howard ranked above Patrick Ewing in GOAT #center points. Methinks your formula might need some tweaking.

Semi-seriously, I think the error lies in insufficient era/competition correction. Playing in the 90s with Ewing and the boys, Dwight would never have won a single 1st Team All NBA, and may not even have nabbed a DPOY, although he would have joined a ridiculously crowded field in the running there.

What is the case for Ewing over Howard? Howard was a far more dominate player. He was a far better just on paper non career defender. Offensively he played in a tougher era for big men and was still reasonably effective. Honestly I think howard has a great case over Ewing.

8x all nba (5x first team)
3x DPOY
Ewing is 55th all time in VORP and Howard is 57th (which begs why they're being talked about in this thread)
Ewing is 40th in WS Howard is 44th (again why are we talking about these guys already?)
Howard 37th all time in PER Ewing 50th

Best MVP vote Howard 2nd Ewing 4th.

Howard's peak was better, his accolades are better, and his career stats are close. The only argument against him is era. But if we drop the all nba piece and just talk about the quality of the league (MVP clearly doesn't care if you're big or not) then I'm not sure anyone would rank Ewing era above Howards and if so I haven't seen the case yet. I think their playoff success is relatively the same as well. Both took their team to the finals as the best player. The only difference is Howard beat Lebron to get there. Ewing didn't beat jordan (1 and 3 in our rankings).

[dhsilv2]

...
But, you actually missed my point.

No, I think you missed mine. My point was, ignoring the accolades which are inflated because of winning bias (to me winning based on Bill Russell's defensive impact) and pace inflation, how good actually are the players around Russell? You see a bunch of all-stars. I see a bunch of low percentage chuckers (Cousy, Heinsohn, early Havlicek) or weak offensive players (KC Jones, Lotscutoff, Sanders) and a few solid All-Stars (3 seasons of early Sharman then Sam Jones up through 68, a few seasons of late -- still inefficient -- Havlicek, 3 seasons of Bailey Howell).

With Sharman, Ed Macauley (a very good player) and Cousy shooting at league average and not failing in the playoffs as he did after Russell, the Celtics were a treadmill team finishing 2/4, 3/4, 3/4, and 2/4 in their conference in the four years before Russell. Without Russell but with Havlicek having a career year (and his first year of his career with a ts% over .500, a mark he didn't slide under again in the 70s until 76) plus a down year from Bailey Howell, the Celtics in 1970 finished 6th out of 7 in their conference. Celtics also still had Satch Sanders (31 and having a typical year), Don Nelson who was most efficient scorer, and PGs Larry Siegfried and Em Bryant all one season past being the NBA champions. Only at center was there a major change with reserve Hank Finkel taking Russell's place and the team fell apart. That doesn't sound like a team that, apart from Russell, outperformed their era.

I think this is a great post. If someone thinks Bill was better than a player like Wilt, then I think a lot of the inflated records of the celtic's other guys has to be questioned (and I think we have evidence to do so). That said I do have to pause with Cousy was who and MVP. How do you explain that one away? Was it because he was a normal sized white guy? was that a peak year and then he declined? I can ignore all nba awards in a tiny tiny tiny league at what was then the least important role, but an MVP?

[dhsilv2]

lol cp3 over kd

Your reasoning is not really compelling but I have to admit that I come to a similar conclusion. The CP3 ranking is the only one that really irks me so far. Imho he has no business being voted in before a couple of guys that are still missing.

One of this guys that need to be voted in very soon to maintain some consistency is indeed KD. I just want to point out that CP3 has played a total of 1900 more career minutes than KD in RS and POs combined. This is something like 50 games and KD has the higher peak, better prime and the accolades on his side.

Other than that I just want to say: Keep up the great work, I enjoy following this project.

Thing about Kd vs Cp3, is that every season that their primes overlap, Kd was pretty widely considered better. 2012-2014 with little room for debate, then 16-17. 15 doesn't count due to injury. Even 2011 they were comparable except that wasn't really Kd's prime yet. I'd say Kd was cleary better over the 10-17 span, and I don't really think Paul's 08 and 09 seasons make up for that.

But 15 is seen as Paul's 3rd best year. It was a really special year so just dismissing it because KD was hurt seems dishonest. Though your greater point is very reasonable.

[dhsilv2]

Here's what bugs me about Nash getting in over Ewing:

-Shorter prime; take whatever Ewing year from '88-'97 you think is the weakest (probably '88 or '96 but whatever) - that year is still giving you a lot more value than anything Nash did in Dallas
-Nash was actively bad at defense; total liability.
-Ewing was far from elite on offense - but he was useful at the very least - he did lead a team that made the 2nd round 8 of 9 years in scoring each & every year.
-You can definitely make a case that Nash is a GOAT caliber offensive player using RAPM & team offensive rating - it's not an argument that I buy per se for reasons I won't get into here- the problem is similar case that indicates that Ewing is a GOAT caliber defensive type player (harder to base around RAPM because of data availability) - while having a longer prime AND being useful on both ends, as opposed to a straight up liability.

Nash while bad defensively because pretty epic at small things like taking charges. And liability is a strong word. The only matchup in the playoffs I felt that might be the case was against parker. Otherwise, he always seemed passable.

[Winsome Gerbil]

You've essentially got the same list of upcoming candidates as I do (except you don't have Cousy at all; and I've got him and Elgin before any other remaining candidates.

As to "any insight"; I'd suggest you check out my post just above yours.
I'd add to that post of mine that, while I treat the best players at each position as "transferable" to any other decade; the way I "adjust" for what I consider a steadily increasing DEPTH of top talent, is by giving "Points" to 3rd-Team selectees (with slightly increasing "Points" each decade - up to my current level of 60% the number of points for 3rd-Team selectees that I give to 2nd-Teamers (who get 60% of 1st-Teamers: so: 1st-Team = 5 "Points", 2nd-Team = 3 "Points"; 2010's 3rd-Team = 1.8 "Points")

How this works out for a few players players:

Cousy (40.5 "Points", GOAT #3 PG)
Baylor (46.2 "Points", GOAT #4 SF)
Barry (42.5 "Points", GOAT #5 SF)
DHoward (31.4 "Points", GOAT #7 Center)
Gervin (31.3 "Points" GOAT #4 SG)
Ewing (23 "Points", GOAT #9 Center)
Others below Gervin (in my INITIAL "Points" order, down to about GOAT #50) :
Schayes, Kidd, Payton, AI, Pippen, Frazier, TMac, Isiah, Westbrook, Tiny, Moncrief, Jerry Lucas, Hal Greer, Paul Westphal.

Your formula has Dwight Howard ranked above Patrick Ewing in GOAT #center points. Methinks your formula might need some tweaking.

Semi-seriously, I think the error lies in insufficient era/competition correction. Playing in the 90s with Ewing and the boys, Dwight would never have won a single 1st Team All NBA, and may not even have nabbed a DPOY, although he would have joined a ridiculously crowded field in the running there.

What is the case for Ewing over Howard? Howard was a far more dominate player. He was a far better just on paper non career defender. Offensively he played in a tougher era for big men and was still reasonably effective. Honestly I think howard has a great case over Ewing.

8x all nba (5x first team)
3x DPOY
Ewing is 55th all time in VORP and Howard is 57th (which begs why they're being talked about in this thread)
Ewing is 40th in WS Howard is 44th (again why are we talking about these guys already?)
Howard 37th all time in PER Ewing 50th

Best MVP vote Howard 2nd Ewing 4th.

Howard's peak was better, his accolades are better, and his career stats are close. The only argument against him is era. But if we drop the all nba piece and just talk about the quality of the league (MVP clearly doesn't care if you're big or not) then I'm not sure anyone would rank Ewing era above Howards and if so I haven't seen the case yet. I think their playoff success is relatively the same as well. Both took their team to the finals as the best player. The only difference is Howard beat Lebron to get there. Ewing didn't beat jordan (1 and 3 in our rankings).

You are rather proving my point there by citing Dwight's accolades.

Playing through the 90s Howard likely has, depending on the exact timing of his career, maybe half as many All-NBAs, likely no first team All NBAs. He may well have no DPOYs either as his competition is guys named Hakeem, Admiral, Deke, Mourning. And he's like the 5th or 6th best center of the decade. Likely a perennial All Star, but clearly a step back from the true superstar bigs of the era.

And flip Ewing back the other way and he's got every chance to dominate Dwight's era at least as badly as Dwight did. Both eras are outliers. One the very toughest in league history to accumulate accolades during as a center, the other perhaps the very easiest.

As for era...haha. Every kid always likes his era best, but Ewing's era was the Dream Team era, he began it playing Magic and Bird, and ran though his prime contending years with Mailman and Barkley , and MJ and Drexler, and Pippen, and Admiral and Hakeem and Shaq and Mourning. So yeah, people might pretty easily go damn, that was a pretty ridiculously stacked era. Just had MJ squatting atop it sucking down all the titles and accolades.

[dhsilv2]

Your formula has Dwight Howard ranked above Patrick Ewing in GOAT #center points. Methinks your formula might need some tweaking.

Semi-seriously, I think the error lies in insufficient era/competition correction. Playing in the 90s with Ewing and the boys, Dwight would never have won a single 1st Team All NBA, and may not even have nabbed a DPOY, although he would have joined a ridiculously crowded field in the running there.

What is the case for Ewing over Howard? Howard was a far more dominate player. He was a far better just on paper non career defender. Offensively he played in a tougher era for big men and was still reasonably effective. Honestly I think howard has a great case over Ewing.

8x all nba (5x first team)
3x DPOY
Ewing is 55th all time in VORP and Howard is 57th (which begs why they're being talked about in this thread)
Ewing is 40th in WS Howard is 44th (again why are we talking about these guys already?)
Howard 37th all time in PER Ewing 50th

Best MVP vote Howard 2nd Ewing 4th.

Howard's peak was better, his accolades are better, and his career stats are close. The only argument against him is era. But if we drop the all nba piece and just talk about the quality of the league (MVP clearly doesn't care if you're big or not) then I'm not sure anyone would rank Ewing era above Howards and if so I haven't seen the case yet. I think their playoff success is relatively the same as well. Both took their team to the finals as the best player. The only difference is Howard beat Lebron to get there. Ewing didn't beat jordan (1 and 3 in our rankings).

You are rather proving my point there by citing Dwight's accolades.

Playing through the 90s Howard likely has, depending on the exact timing of his career, maybe half as many All-NBAs, likely no first team All NBAs. He may well have no DPOYs either as his competition is guys named Hakeem, Admiral, Deke, Mourning. And he's like the 5th or 6th best center of the decade. Likely a perennial All Star, but clearly a step back from the true superstar bigs of the era.

And flip Ewing back the other way and he's got every chance to dominate Dwight's era at least as badly as Dwight did. Both eras are outliers. One the very toughest in league history to accumulate accolades during as a center, the other perhaps the very easiest.

As for era...haha. Every kid always likes his era best, but Ewing's era was the Dream Team era, he began it playing Magic and Bird, and ran though his prime contending years with Mailman and Barkley , and MJ and Drexler, and Pippen, and Admiral and Hakeem and Shaq and Mourning. So yeah, people might pretty easily go damn, that was a pretty ridiculously stacked era. Just had MJ squatting atop it sucking down all the titles and accolades.

Ewing's era was mine. Jordan is why I started watching basketball.

You ignored the important point however. Howard was seen as the second best player in the NBA in his era. You can't quote centers here. You have to quote players. You have to believe that in Howard's time the league's best players were worse. You also have to account for the bias against center's by RULE in howards time and how he STILL managed to stand out. Your response ignores that the league was actively trying to "nerf" big men and howard was STILL able to finish higher in the MVP voting than ewing ever did. It isn't just about their position, but about impact here.

Best PER
Howard 26.1 (howards next 3 best are better than Ewings second)
Ewing 25.8

Best winshare
Howard 14.4
Ewing 13.5

Best VORP
Howard 5.4
Ewing 5.2

I'm fine ignoring all nba awards as I think I said. That issue however doesn't help Ewing at all. He wasn't as good a defender just period and he played in an era that was more favorable to being a tall athletic shot blocker.

FYI I say this all under the context that you seemed to dismiss Howard being over Ewing as if it were unthinkable. I'm not sure who I'd pick ultimately right now, but Howard over Ewing seems perfectly reasonable.

[andrewww]

Vote: Kevin Durant
Alternate: Stephen Curry

As stated previously, you have a walking mismatch with KD who imo is the best talent remaining. Curry has Shaq-like gravity from beyond the arc, but does not have the longevity yet.