Doctor MJ wrote:sp6r=underrated wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:
Oh, I'm completely comfortable saying that the folks who voted for the Top 75 weren't nearly good enough at this sort of task to have any credibility compared to RealGM.
In their defense, they were working with the unofficial rule that no one could be kicked off the list. That makes it much harder for them
Nope, can’t give credence to that.
The NBA has done lists like this a number of times over the years in both the NBA and WNBA, including the WNBA 25 happening close to the NBA 75. The norm is for some players to get removed from one list to the next.
Those close to the 75 list might have convinced themselves it was okay to not take sides on older players, but this was them punting on a part of the task that no analogous committees punted on in the past, and quite frankly it kills all credibility of the list. ALL of it.
In their - the voters - defense, it’s way harder to actually be able to know 75 years of history well enough to be competent at it than a smaller scale. So one might say that this “unofficial rule” was what had to be done because the NBA apparently has either no ability to find people who can make such lists effectively, or simply doesn’t care about about how “good” the list is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. The WNBA is an immature, not calling it minor, but immature league. When a league is still in its infancy its all time list is much more flexible.
2. Sports leagues when they put out lists like this aren't playing the role of pure historical analysts. They have stakeholders they answer to and this is as much a marketing tool as a historic document. It is much harder NBA for the NBA to conduct honest historical analysis than MLB and NFL, don't know enough about other sports to comment. In those sports there are clear positions which makes it much easier for them to leave off "name" players whose rep vastly exceeds their value. The NFL can easily say to a player and his fans:
We'd love to add you to our NFL team, useless ball hawking CB who gave up a ton of points trying to gun interceptions, but we have to have X number of linemen on our team. And you know you weren't a top 4 CB all time. But rest assured we consider you a top 100 football player all time.
They can easily say that even if the people who vote against him consider him trash and who know his interceptions were empty calories.
3. The low level of importance on positions in the NBA takes away that excuse. I've read your posts long enough to know your opinion on Melo. I share it. He wouldn't make my top 200 all time list. Horace Grant, Rasheed were all better. Manu is almost comically better.
But almost all the NBA stakeholders (media, players, most fans) would mutiny if it turned out those guys got more votes than Melo.
+ 
= 