how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years?

[falcolombardi]

basically what have you changed with time, maybe even from a year ago to now, in what you believe/think about basketball topics?

everythingh from player evaluation, to basketball general "theory" among any other related topic

who are you higher or lower on, how differently do you evaluate players, what do you think about the directión of the sport compared to years ago, etc

[HeartBreakKid]

Hm...in the past year I've become more comfortable with just ranking players how I feel, and just ignoring consensus opinions. I still think that in past years I was influenced a lot by people going "wtf" at my rankings and such. Better at being honest to my evaluation.

The way I evaluate players haven't changed in the past few years.

I've become higher on Jerry West, his numbers just seem rather hard to deny, I'm considering him being a top ten guy next time I take a proper look at him. I also keep edging Garnett up a spot every year, I just find that he has a lot of evidence of his impact (due to databall era), and there is no real reason to go against that other than outside bias. Not that I only rate guys like a robot, but conceptually speaking it makes sense why a guy of his skill set dominates impact stats.

I'd say the thread that changed my opinion the most was the series of threads that talked about top 5 peaks of every franchise. I learned about a lot of players I knew little of, and/or expanded my depth of guys I was familiar with. Cliff Hagen is in my top 50 now, which I would not have put him there 2 years ago.

I also fully jumped on the Stockton > K Malone train. I just think how consistent you are in the playoffs is a better measure of how "good" a player really is, tournament play is really different from non tournament play - and that is true in most games, not just basketball.


Arvydas Sabonis over the years has the mythical "he'd be da best" reputation, which in turn had the reasonable push back of "he wasn't THAT good, let's not take one game of him against a young Robinson too far". Now I think it's gone a bit too far in the "he's overrated" direction, getting the best info we can of Sabonis - I still feel he is an MVP level player. He was really, really, impactful during his short run in the NBA despite being very slow, so I think it's reasonable to say that he was likely a "superstar" in his physical prime, or at least would be under NBA rules.

[Heej]

I remember I thought Memphis would beat the 2015 Warriors because Draymond was gonna be forced to guard either ZBo or Gasol in the post.

[falcolombardi]

I remember I thought Memphis would beat the 2015 Warriors because Draymond was gonna be forced to guard either ZBo or Gasol in the post.

when i was young and inexperienced in basketball (and a boston fan lol, i used to love rondo, garnett, allen and pierce) i thought that rondo was a generational talent who would compete for best in the league title and brandon bass a future dominant post scorer and all star

and that the bradley, rondo, bass core would dominate dir years to come

it is really funny in hindsight lmao

[ty 4191]

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years?

Just since joining Real GM, I've learned so much it's astounding.

Just one example of many, many perspectives and beliefs I've changed since joining Real GM...I've moved Kareem way up in my rankings.

Thank you to 70sFan, mainly, for the edification and erudition.

For one, I ran a study of the standard deviation of winning percentage for every year in NBA History. The 1970's had the lowest SD, with 1977 (Merger) having the lowest SD of any year since 1960.

I posted it on this forum. For those interested..

So, I ran a little study. Standard deviation of winning percentage. I went through every single year from 1960-2021.

Code: Select all

Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
1960   0.175   
1961   0.135   Expansion Year: Packers Added
1962   0.157   
1963   0.151   
1964   0.157   
1965   0.153   
1966   0.128   
1967   0.165   ABA Added, Rockets, Supersonics Added
1968   0.163   Expansion: Bucks, Suns Added
1969   0.147   
Decade Average    0.153   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
1970   0.116   Expansion: Clippers, Cavaliers, Trailblazers Added
1971   0.141   
1972   0.181   
1973   0.192   
1974   0.129   
1975   0.114   
1976   0.102   Expansion: Jazz Added
1977   0.096   Merger: Nuggets, Pacers, Nets, Spurs Added
1978   0.109   
1979   0.101   
Decade Average    0.128   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
1980   0.149   
1981   0.157   Expansion: Mavericks Added
1982   0.149   
1983   0.158   
1984   0.112   
1985   0.143   
1986   0.141   
1987   0.151   
1988   0.154   
1989   0.159   Expansion: Pellcans, Heat Added
Decade Average    0.147   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
1990   0.171   Expansion: Timberwolves, Magic Added
1991   0.155   
1992   0.156   
1993   0.155   
1994   0.174   
1995   0.158   
1996   0.168   Expansion: Raptors, Grizzlies Added
1997   0.188   
1998   0.186   
1999   0.157   
Decade Average    0.167   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Pecentage   
2000   0.158   
2001   0.154   
2002   0.136   
2003   0.142   
2004   0.134   
2005   0.153   Expansion: Hornets Added
2006   0.134   
2007   0.13   
2008   0.166   
2009   0.169   
Decade Average    0.148   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
2010   0.16   
2011   0.158   
2012   0.154   
2013   0.153   
2014   0.155   
2015   0.161   
2016   0.166   
2017   0.134   
2018   0.147   
2019   0.144   
Decade Average    0.153   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
2020   0.152   
2021   0.137   
Decade Average   0.144   

I always thought Kareem played in a weak league (along with everyone else between 1967-1976). It turns out this is very likely not true.

[falcolombardi]

Re: how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years?

Just since joining Real GM, I've learned so much it's astounding.

Just one example of many, many perspectives and beliefs I've changed since joining Real GM...I've moved Kareem way up in my rankings.

Thank you to 70sFan, mainly, for the edification and erudition.

For one, I ran a study of the standard deviation of winning percentage for every year in NBA History. The 1970's had the lowest SD, with 1977 (Merger) having the lowest SD of any year since 1960.

I posted it on this forum. For those interested..

So, I ran a little study. Standard deviation of winning percentage. I went through every single year from 1960-2021.

Code: Select all

Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
1960   0.175   
1961   0.135   Expansion Year: Packers Added
1962   0.157   
1963   0.151   
1964   0.157   
1965   0.153   
1966   0.128   
1967   0.165   ABA Added, Rockets, Supersonics Added
1968   0.163   Expansion: Bucks, Suns Added
1969   0.147   
Decade Average    0.153   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
1970   0.116   Expansion: Clippers, Cavaliers, Trailblazers Added
1971   0.141   
1972   0.181   
1973   0.192   
1974   0.129   
1975   0.114   
1976   0.102   Expansion: Jazz Added
1977   0.096   Merger: Nuggets, Pacers, Nets, Spurs Added
1978   0.109   
1979   0.101   
Decade Average    0.128   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
1980   0.149   
1981   0.157   Expansion: Mavericks Added
1982   0.149   
1983   0.158   
1984   0.112   
1985   0.143   
1986   0.141   
1987   0.151   
1988   0.154   
1989   0.159   Expansion: Pellcans, Heat Added
Decade Average    0.147   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
1990   0.171   Expansion: Timberwolves, Magic Added
1991   0.155   
1992   0.156   
1993   0.155   
1994   0.174   
1995   0.158   
1996   0.168   Expansion: Raptors, Grizzlies Added
1997   0.188   
1998   0.186   
1999   0.157   
Decade Average    0.167   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Pecentage   
2000   0.158   
2001   0.154   
2002   0.136   
2003   0.142   
2004   0.134   
2005   0.153   Expansion: Hornets Added
2006   0.134   
2007   0.13   
2008   0.166   
2009   0.169   
Decade Average    0.148   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
2010   0.16   
2011   0.158   
2012   0.154   
2013   0.153   
2014   0.155   
2015   0.161   
2016   0.166   
2017   0.134   
2018   0.147   
2019   0.144   
Decade Average    0.153   
      
Year   Standard Deviation of Winning Percentage   
2020   0.152   
2021   0.137   
Decade Average   0.144   

I always thought Kareem played in a weak league (along with everyone else between 1967-1976). It turns out this is very likely not true.

he played in a league with a ton of parity, which makes winning récords and SRS more impressive thsn the raw numbers (a 50 win team in 1975 would be more impressive than a 50 win team in 1997 )

but that is parity, which is related but not the same thingh peopke usually mean with "weak league"

that often is about a perceived lack of top end -individual-
talent and lack of top end juggernaut teams , with the división of talent with thw aba, and the league overall parity is arguably than 70's nba suffered both

now does this make the 70's a weak league for having less than usual top end talent and multiple good teams without any juggernaut (except early in the decade)?

not necesarrily, it depends on what we are talking about as far as league "strenght"

[McBubbles]

Used to think MJ was the clear GOAT and didn't even put Russell in my top 10. Now Lebron is likely my GOAT, with Russell and MJ being interchangeable with Lebron from 1 to 3 with no issues.

Used to rank players based on how they'd do in the current era, not relative to their own (which isn't really fair).

Don't give anywhere as much of a **** about portability anymore because I realized that no one really agrees on a definition lol and even when they do I think it's infinitely more important for role players than ATG's.

I'm much less high on Kobe as a human being (used to be my favourite player of all time, even had him as my phone screen) but much higher on him as an actual player and think he's probably top 10.

[Colbinii]

I'm much lower on portability for superstars than I have been in the past.

I'm higher on playmaking for superstars.

[PistolPeteJR]

Used to think T-Mac was a monster; still think he was great, though not as great as I used to think

[Stalwart]

I haven't changed my view much as far as how I rank players in terms of all time. But I have become disillusioned with the whole exercise given the way everyone else has changed.

There used to be much more uniform standards by which we measure players. We used to use things like championships, accolades, box scores, reputation, impact, and intangibles. But over the past 10 years or so pretty much all if those categories have been minimized to such a degree that many people ignore those things altogether. Now it seems all standard, objective measures have been removed and rankings are based on what each person personally values and how they see the game. On its face that seems appropriate until you see this play out in practice. In practice it allows fans to use arguments that are ultimately inconsistent, biased, and illogical while justifying them based on what they personally value or how they see the game. Because how can you argue with someone personal values or philosophy?

Example: Kevin Garnett. Going by traditional standards it would be difficult to put him in the top 20. But with these new, entirely subjective standards of evaluation KG can jump all the way into the top 10 no problem. When asked how KG could be ranked ahead more dominant and successful players like Jerry West, Dr. J, Hakeem, Oscar, Kobe, Bird, ect they will fall back on "hey, I just personally value KG's defense and rebounding bro. Have you seen his impact metrics??" And since it all comes down to subjective value and personal taste there is not much you can argue at that point.

The opposite effect has happened to guys luke Kobe Bryant. By traditional standards Kobe is an unquestionable top 10 player. Going by todays subjective standards Kobe has been all but removed from the top 10 due almost entirely to personal bias and narrative. We've gotten to a point where guys like Dirk Nowitzki are being ranked ahead.

So its all getting very silly at this point. We've entered an era where the NBA community is dominated by ESPN narratives backed up by online 'experts' who have completely distorted the traditional standards of evaluation to such a degree that its become almost meaningless.
And its all being done according to personal agendas and fandom. Its now become an excercise in propping up and knocking down players with arguments based on logical fallacies and personal bias with actual accomplishments and results being increasingly marginalized.

[McBubbles]

I haven't changed my view much as far as how I rank players in terms of all time. But I have become disillusioned with the whole exercise given the way everyone else has changed.

There used to be much more uniform standards by which we measure players. We used to use things like championships, accolades, box scores, reputation, impact, and intangibles. But over the past 10 years or so pretty much all if those categories have been minimized to such a degree that many people ignore those things altogether. Now it seems all standard, objective measures have been removed and rankings are based on what each person personally values and how they see the game. On its face that seems appropriate until you see this play out in practice. In practice it allows fans to use arguments that are ultimately inconsistent, biased, and illogical while justifying them based on what they personally value or how they see the game. Because how can you argue with someone personal values or philosophy?

Example: Kevin Garnett. Going by traditional standards it would be difficult to put him in the top 20. But with these new, entirely subjective standards of evaluation KG can jump all the way into the top 10 no problem. When asked how KG could be ranked ahead more dominant and successful players like Jerry West, Dr. J, Hakeem, Oscar, Kobe, Bird, ect they will fall back on "hey, I just personally value KG's defense and rebounding bro. Have you seen his impact metrics??" And since it all comes down to subjective value and personal taste there is not much you can argue at that point.

The opposite effect has happened to guys luke Kobe Bryant. By traditional standards Kobe is an unquestionable top 10 player. Going by todays subjective standards Kobe has been all but removed from the top 10 due almost entirely to personal bias and narrative. We've gotten to a point where guys like Dirk Nowitzki are being ranked ahead.

So its all getting very silly at this point. We've entered an era where the NBA community is dominated by ESPN narratives backed up by online 'experts' who have completely distorted the traditional standards of evaluation to such a degree that its become almost meaningless.
And its all being done according to personal agendas and fandom. Its now become an excercise in propping up and knocking down players with arguments based on logical fallacies and personal bias with actual accomplishments and results being increasingly marginalized.

This is the most un self aware / ironic post I've seen in awhile.

You say that things used to be objective and are currently too subjective for you. Yet, you put the words "reputation" and "intangibles" in the objective category, and then the words "impact metrics" in the subjective category


Sounds like you're just annoyed that your very basic method of evaluating players is now (correctly) seen as obsolete.

If someone plays like **** but their Finals opponent is injured, then they can win a championship. If another player plays amazingly, better than the former, but their team is injured or just worse, they won't a championship. Basic example like that is why using number of championships as a statistic instead of a broad indicator is why that's a very bad metric for player evaluation.

If one player is a top 5 defender of all time but is in a league with the other top 4 defenders of all time, they'll get less defensive accolades than the player that's the 10th best defender of all time but in a league with the other top 11-14, despite them being better. Basic example like that is why accolades aren't a great metric for player evaluation. They're also reputation based, which is bad.

Box scores are again, best used as a general indicator of ability, but the game is much too complex for them to be useful beyond that. Box scores would tell you Westbrook is a more impactful rebounder than Brook Lopez. He isn't.

Not going to explain why something as ridiculously fallible and subjective as reputation, or if we're being honest, Argument from Authority, is a bad metric to use either, as that's also obvious.

And intangibles are usually synonymous with reputation, and so are useless 90% of the time. When they're actually being used properly, they're just synonymous with impact, which is the only objective measuring stick you actually mentioned. The rest are trash and aren't focused on as heavily anymore for very very good reason.

Also, ESPN narratives are on your side lmao. Not only do they come to the same conclusions as you but they use the same methodology that you do, so not sure why you're demonizing them.

[1993Playoffs]

Not really a belief but looking back I expected the the 2017 finals to at least go 7 and maybe the Cavs win


I thought LeBron had a “mental edge” over Curry and KD. Which obviously wasn’t true.

[Dutchball97]

I mainly judged players on scoring (through simple PPG and FG%) and the rest of the boxscore stats also holding some sway. Through analysis from posters here and the introduction to advanced stats I now have a lot more respect for players who impact the game at an elite level despite relatively low scoring numbers. Examples of active players I'm now much higher on than before are Chris Paul, Draymond Green and Rudy Gobert. High scoring wings who offer little else like Beal and Booker are now much less impressive to me than before. So pretty much PG and center stocks have risen in my eyes, while I'm down on wings.

[Colbinii]

Not really a belief but looking back I expected the the 2017 finals to at least go 7 and maybe the Cavs win


I thought LeBron had a “mental edge” over Curry and KD. Which obviously wasn’t true.

He did, the Cavaliers were simply outmatched in terms of talent.

[Stalwart]

I haven't changed my view much as far as how I rank players in terms of all time. But I have become disillusioned with the whole exercise given the way everyone else has changed.

There used to be much more uniform standards by which we measure players. We used to use things like championships, accolades, box scores, reputation, impact, and intangibles. But over the past 10 years or so pretty much all if those categories have been minimized to such a degree that many people ignore those things altogether. Now it seems all standard, objective measures have been removed and rankings are based on what each person personally values and how they see the game. On its face that seems appropriate until you see this play out in practice. In practice it allows fans to use arguments that are ultimately inconsistent, biased, and illogical while justifying them based on what they personally value or how they see the game. Because how can you argue with someone personal values or philosophy?

Example: Kevin Garnett. Going by traditional standards it would be difficult to put him in the top 20. But with these new, entirely subjective standards of evaluation KG can jump all the way into the top 10 no problem. When asked how KG could be ranked ahead more dominant and successful players like Jerry West, Dr. J, Hakeem, Oscar, Kobe, Bird, ect they will fall back on "hey, I just personally value KG's defense and rebounding bro. Have you seen his impact metrics??" And since it all comes down to subjective value and personal taste there is not much you can argue at that point.

The opposite effect has happened to guys luke Kobe Bryant. By traditional standards Kobe is an unquestionable top 10 player. Going by todays subjective standards Kobe has been all but removed from the top 10 due almost entirely to personal bias and narrative. We've gotten to a point where guys like Dirk Nowitzki are being ranked ahead.

So its all getting very silly at this point. We've entered an era where the NBA community is dominated by ESPN narratives backed up by online 'experts' who have completely distorted the traditional standards of evaluation to such a degree that its become almost meaningless.
And its all being done according to personal agendas and fandom. Its now become an excercise in propping up and knocking down players with arguments based on logical fallacies and personal bias with actual accomplishments and results being increasingly marginalized.

This is the most un self aware / ironic post I've seen in awhile.

You say that things used to be objective and are currently too subjective for you. Yet, you put the words "reputation" and "intangibles" in the objective category, and then the words "impact metrics" in the subjective category

Reputation = Consensus Opinion. I think its objective to take the consensus opinion into account rather than simply my own. Oops.

Intangibles = Things we all know exist but can't be captured by numbers. An objective and sophisticated analysis would take this into account.

Sounds like you're just annoyed that your very basic method of evaluating players is now (correctly) seen as obsolete.

People can assess basketball however they want. I just don't respect the way you guys go about it. Sounds like that annoys you.

If someone plays like **** but their Finals opponent is injured, then they can win a championship. If another player plays amazingly, better than the former, but their team is injured or just worse, they won't a championship. Basic example like that is why using number of championships as a statistic instead of a broad indicator is why that's a very bad metric for player evaluation.

If someone leads their team to a championship then they have proven they can get it done and should get credit for that. Someone who hasn't done that has not proven they can do it and shouldn't get credit for that no matter what you think they could or would do. Simple, basic logic.

If one player is a top 5 defender of all time but is in a league with the other top 4 defenders of all time, they'll get less defensive accolades than the player that's the 10th best defender of all time but in a league with the other top 11-14, despite them being better. Basic example like that is why accolades aren't a great metric for player evaluation. They're also reputation based, which is bad.

Yes, but if a player earns and then receives an accolade he should get credit for it. Its not appropriate for you to come along years after the fact and take that credit away or minimize it because you disagree'd with it. That would be...subjective. the objective thing to do is give people credit for what they earn and accomplish.

Of course there is room for context but not to the degree we take away credit from people based on our own subjective opinion about if they deserved it or not.

Box scores are again, best used as a general indicator of ability, but the game is much too complex for them to be useful beyond that. Box scores would tell you Westbrook is a more impactful rebounder than Brook Lopez. He isn't.

Box scores are not the end all be all but they're actually real. They correlate directly to what happens in the game. Made up analytical formulas are not and do not. They are abstract and theoretical. Definitely not something you want to value more than actual accomplishments, accolades, and results.

Not going to explain why something as ridiculously fallible and subjective as reputation, or if we're being honest, Argument from Authority, is a bad metric to use either, as that's also obvious.

See above.

And intangibles are usually synonymous with reputation, and so are useless 90% of the time. When they're actually being used properly, they're just synonymous with impact, which is the only objective measuring stick you actually mentioned. The rest are trash and aren't focused on as heavily anymore for very very good reason.

Intangibles refer to things like leadership, performance under pressure, Bball IQ, unique skills and attributes. Surely you wouldn't ignore these things when doing a full evaluation of a player would you?

Also, ESPN narratives are on your side lmao. Not only do they come to the same conclusions as you but they use the same methodology that you do, so not sure why you're demonizing them.

The entire reason you guys think championships don't matter is because of ESPN/Fox Sports. The entire reason Lebron is on the GOAT discussion is because of ESPN/Fox Sports narratives. And on and on.

[70sFan]

Box scores are not the end all be all but they're actually real. They correlate directly to what happens in the game. Made up analytical formulas are not and do not. They are abstract and theoretical. Definitely not something you want to value more than actual accomplishments, accolades, and results.

Are you aware that analytical formulas correlate directly to what happens in game as well? There is nothing more "abstract and theoretical" in plus/minus data than in counting rebounds or assists. In fact, plus/minus data is less subjective if anything. It literally shows the results of games. You proved it again that you have no idea how analytical formulas are created.

By the way, do you apply the same logic to other parts of life as well? Do you think that quantum mechanics is "abstract and theoretical" because you don't feel it with your basic senses? Do you think that economical models are useless because they are complicated?

[70sFan]

The entire reason you guys think championships don't matter is because of ESPN/Fox Sports. The entire reason Lebron is on the GOAT discussion is because of ESPN/Fox Sports narratives. And on and on.

One more thing - this is complete bullsh*t. Before MJ era, most people didn't care about rings in GOAT evalutation. You've seen a lot of Oscar Robertson mentions as the GOAT, despite him winning only one ring past his prime. Plenty of people were willing to call Kareem the greatest before Magic came to the league. Hell, Elgin Baylor was as respected as anyone and he never won a ring.

It's so easy to create a simple answer to complicated questions and decide that everyone else is wrong. Easy doesn't always mean true though, I'm afraid...

[McBubbles]

Reputation = Consensus Opinion. I think its objective to take the consensus opinion into account rather than simply my own. Oops.

The consensus opinion has absolutely zero inherent value or objectivity attached to it, and there's no reason why it should be a part of your analysis. Why do you think it matters? It's consensus opinion that Magic started at center in the 1980 Finals. That's just straight up incorrect.
Hell, it's consensus opinion that Lebron is in the GOAT conversation... now what ? Why does that consensus opinion not form part of your objective analysis? Dig yourself out of that logical inconsistency.

If someone leads their team to a championship then they have proven they can get it done and should get credit for that. Someone who hasn't done that has not proven they can do it and shouldn't get credit for that no matter what you think they could or would do. Simple, basic logic.

Do you think 2015 Steph Curry is better than 1988-1990 Michael Jordan? Do you think 04 Chauncy Billups is better than 1991 Magic? Kevin Garnett missed the playoffs back to back years in 06 and 07 but won in 08. Do you think Garnett was literally, several times better than he was in 08 than he was the years prior? Because according to your logic, the answer should be yes, but that's obviously not the case. If a better player can sometimes NOT win a championship, then maybe championships aren't a good metric to determine who the better player is? Maybe there is additional context you need?

Yes, but if a player earns and then receives an accolade he should get credit for it. Its not appropriate for you to come along years after the fact and take that credit away or minimize it because you disagree'd with it. That would be...subjective. the objective thing to do is give people credit for what they earn and accomplish. Of course there is room for context but not to the degree we take away credit from people based on our own subjective opinion about if they deserved it or not.

M8, what are you talking about? You keep on saying "our own" subjective opinion. What do you think the opinions of voters are? Divinely inspired? Our opinions are worth no less than the opinions of those that vote for the awards, and as such, should not be viewed as any less objective. In fact, the opposite is true. Most of the people that vote for the awards are **** casuals or idiots, most people in this forum are not, so if anything "Our own" voting should be viewed as more objective. Why do you take the opinions of people that voted IT on an all defensive team to be objective? It seems like your definition of the word "objective" is literally just "permanently on record". Coming along years after the fact and disagreeing with something is subjective, but NOT disagreeing with it is objective? I don't understand your thought process at all.

Box scores are not the end all be all but they're actually real. They correlate directly to what happens in the game. Made up analytical formulas are not and do not. They are abstract and theoretical. Definitely not something you want to value more than actual accomplishments, accolades, and results.

They're literally not abstract nor theoretical. Not much more to say about that lol, this statement is just categorically incorrect. Even if that were true, abstract and theoretical aren't synonymous with incorrect. I mean, what? Every theory is still theoretical even after they're proven correct, so that doesn't even make sense as a point of disagreement.

Intangibles refer to things like leadership, performance under pressure, Bball IQ, unique skills and attributes. Surely you wouldn't ignore these things when doing a full evaluation of a player would you?

I don't ignore them, they can be reflected in impact and just seen on the court. Problem is most peoples intangibles are just reputation based, hence the issue.

The entire reason you guys think championships don't matter is because of ESPN/Fox Sports. The entire reason Lebron is on the GOAT discussion is because of ESPN/Fox Sports narratives. And on and on.

Why is it that you keep on telling us that we believe things because of ESPN and Fox Sports when we literally keep on telling you that we don't?
You - "You only like rap because you listen to Eminem".
Us - "I don't listen to Eminem though".
You - "Yeah you do".

Also, again, i'd like to point out that ESPN and Fox Sports agree more with you than with us. The only point of disagreement you have is their placement of Lebron, but I bet you think that Kobe is top 10, that Garnett isn't top 10, that Zeke is better than CP3 and Nash, that MJ is better than Lebron and Russell, etc. You AGREE with the same people WE don't like much more than WE do, and yet you accuse us of valuing their opinions .____.

[f4p]

i used to think bill russell was overrated because he just didn't score enough and things like his ft% indicated he probably wasn't that good at offense and wasn't just avoiding scoring. within the last few years, i started thinking anyone who won that much, no matter the circumstances, was doing something right. if he thought the right way to play was that way, then i guess he was right because all he did was win. and he moved up my all-time rankings.

now that i've seen more numbers that the celtics weren't particularly good at offense and, in fact, sometimes awful, it makes me want to flip flop on my flip flop. maybe he really should have been scoring more. or, if he simply couldn't, then it should be held more against him since nearly every other all-time great has been asked to be the scoring alpha on their teams and, if they couldn't do it in the biggest moments, it dinged their reputations. it's like russell just got to skip that portion of the exam and it doesn't necessarily seem fair. and maybe he got to skip it because it was a young nba and someone like russell could just dominate in a way that wouldn't be possible in most other eras. you look at all the close game 7's he won (double OT, OT, won in regulation by 1/2/2/2) and consider how much of that relied on his teammates scoring a bunch of those points and not having a horrible off day even once (he only scored 6 in the 1969 finals) and not only does he seem to have had luck on his side (i don't hold that against him, what happened is what happened) but he had teammates around to make sure the ball got in the basket. i still haven't taken him down in my rankings, but i'm considering it a little more.

[jalengreen]

i used to think bill russell was overrated because he just didn't score enough and things like his ft% indicated he probably wasn't that good at offense and wasn't just avoiding scoring. within the last few years, i started thinking anyone who won that much, no matter the circumstances, was doing something right. if he thought the right way to play was that way, then i guess he was right because all he did was win. and he moved up my all-time rankings.

now that i've seen more numbers that the celtics weren't particularly good at offense and, in fact, sometimes awful, it makes me want to flip flop on my flip flop. maybe he really should have been scoring more. or, if he simply couldn't, then it should be held more against him since nearly every other all-time great has been asked to be the scoring alpha on their teams and, if they couldn't do it in the biggest moments, it dinged their reputations. it's like russell just got to skip that portion of the exam and it doesn't necessarily seem fair. and maybe he got to skip it because it was a young nba and someone like russell could just dominate in a way that wouldn't be possible in most other eras. you look at all the close game 7's he won (double OT, OT, won in regulation by 1/2/2/2) and consider how much of that relied on his teammates scoring a bunch of those points and not having a horrible off day even once (he only scored 6 in the 1969 finals) and not only does he seem to have had luck on his side (i don't hold that against him, what happened is what happened) but he had teammates around to make sure the ball got in the basket. i still haven't taken him down in my rankings, but i'm considering it a little more.

i've thought about this too. we know that the celtics' relative defensive rating with russell was consistently all-time great year in and year out, supporting his case for being the GOAT defender. but their offenses were also consistently mediocre or just downright bad. i often hear stuff about how russell was one of the smartest players ever even on offense so he did all of the little things to make them better, and while that may be true, there doesn't really seem to be objective evidence of that? it didn't seem to make their offenses statistically respectable.