PDA

View Full Version : Revised rankings, regarding James, but also regarding everyone else



joedaheights
06-21-2016, 12:04 PM
I've seen a lot of James re-ranking, and while that deserves its own thread, I think there's something bigger happening here. I see a lot of ranking of players that's very odd.. it goes like:

"Well, I'd put James up there #2 or #3 with Jordan and Wilt and then… and 10th I'd have Magic"

Wait, WHAT?!?

How you have to rank players to avoid confusing two different things

I used to get involved in "well, Russell would probably be a PF today and things might be different, and blah blah" and a friend of mine said "look man, you have to rank things two ways and not get them mixed up. You can rank talent, but players don't always play up to their talent, and some players like Bird and Curry play ABOVE their physical talent. Then there's ranking things by what happened."

What I see a lot of seems to be mixing of the two. It starts with "Wilt put up these numbers, but he could do anything.. could Magic do anything if he was say, on a team that needed him to be a scorer more than a distributor."

It's problematic to use a resume as a beginning point and then use it as a launch point for all the hypothetical things YOU THINK a guy could do.

Talent rankings

You have a bit of a problem with "well, look at the versatility and all the things James can do, he's up there with Jordan and Wilt."

Lean in… I'm a Jordan fan, as big as there is… SHAQUILLE O'NEAL is the most blindingly talented physical specimen who ever played the game. If you want what ifs.. put him in the pre-cap era, or shortly after the 83-84 cap introduction, where he has one star and a bunch of really good players on his team, and he wins the what if game every time and breaks backs doing it.

You want to go talent? Okay, David Robinson is right up there with the top guys and Magic and Bird is not. In fact, Robinson, if you're just grading him as you would in the pre draft process, is better than Tim Duncan. Now, who really thinks that?

Besides, if you go talent, a guy could do what James was doing in the beginning of the finals, dribbling around like the game just started when you're down 9 with 3 minutes left, BUT put up total stats that are impressive … and "hey, he's awesome, best ever."

I like the resume way of doing things.. where Lebron, and rightly so, is heavily praised for what he did in the LAST THREE GAMES.

How you grade resumes

So long as you are putting up really impressive numbers, you really do need to be graded in tiers with players who have similar RINGS AS THE LEADER or driving force of a team. There are gray areas there, but you have to do it that way.

Why?

Don't people say that winning is a team thing and that you should just look at numbers, because it's all about teammates when winning…

I think there is a deplorable level of support a la the Cavs in 07 where you say "okay, we aren't going to rip this guy…. look at his terrible support".. but when you talk about the cream of the crop in the NBA.. you're really talking about guys who can take GOOD stars and just overcome because of how they destroy a team.

Shaquille O'neal won 3 rings with Kobe. Are you really going to tell me that if he had Mitch Richmond, they don't win rings?

The problem with throwing rings out and just looking at numbers, is that there's a way to cheat the process. You can put up very impressive numbers with no regard for the score if you have a bunch of dung on your team. Ever hear of Tracy McGrady? Carmelo Anthony? Dominique Wilkins? Bernard King? Kevin LOVE? Funny how, when you put a top 5 player and another star on Love's team, and they get down to the business of fitting what they do into winning a ring, Love's stats go down to practically nothing compared to Minnesota.

Bill Russell is 104th all time in PER. Scottie Pippen is 119th. They were too busy winning to worry about putting up Carmelo's numbers. What, you guys don't think Scottie Pippen, were he on some crap team, could have hit five more shots per game if he played in a way that had coaches going to the GM about how they couldn't get through to him and THAT was why they were 31-51??

Start with winning… then when two players win equally, get down to the business of splitting hairs with the numbers you put up while actually winning.

Here, watch how the list looks now, and see if all this makes sense… Now, I tier it this way so that you can argue within the tier, but when you argue outside of it, you just look suspect based on the objective evidence we have

Tier 1
1. Michael Jordan 6 rings, 27.91 PER (1)

Tier 2
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6 rings, 24.58 PER (12)
3. Magic Johnson 5 rings, 24.51 PER (14)
4. Bill Russell 11 rings, 18.87 PER (104)

Tier 3
5. Lebron James 3 rings, 27.58 PER (2)
6. Larry Bird 3 rings, 23.50 PER (17)
7. Shaquille O'neal 3 rings, 26.43 PER (3)

Tier 4
8. Tim Duncan 5 rings, 24.22 PER (13)
9. Kobe Bryant 5 rings, 22.90 PER (23)
10. Wilt Chamberlain 2 rings, 26.13 PER (5)
11. Hakeem Olajuwon 2 rings, 23.59 PER (16)
12. Isiah Thomas 2 rings, 18.11 PER (140)

Anticipated responses and rebuttals

Bill Russell - He has 11 rings! He should be higher than anyone. Come on.. 6 rings today is something that is probably the outer limits of what you could reach.. I'd almost hesitate to rank Russell because of how the league was, but he's so great you have to. His career offensive averages are 14 PPG on 44% FG.

Tim Duncan - 5 rings! Yes, but only THE CLEAR central figure for two. By 2005, he was relying very, very heavily on Parker and Ginobili and by 07, you could argue that Parker was very narrowly the central figure. And he's beating teams that did not have the great players that the opponents of Magic in 1980 or Kareem in 1987 had..

Kobe Bryant - 5 rings! O'neal was by far and away the driving force for the first three. As a front and center team killing individual, you really can only argue Kobe for two.

Wilt Chamberlain - 2 rings, those stats, how is he not #1 amongst his tier. Wilt was really not the driving force in 72 that he was in 67, and you look at the choke jobs in 69 and 70, I think he's appropriately ranked based on what he did.

That's my list… I'll put it up against anyone's list out there. It goes far beyond Lebron.. but it also shows the sliding scale by which he can elevate himself by winning 2 maybe 3 more. What you have to realize though is that he's 31, and that as he ages, like Bryant and so many others, the PER will go down.

I just got tired of seeing these lists where I was like "wait, WTF!?"

mngopher35
06-21-2016, 01:27 PM
I am not sure per is the best single judge to use at all but I will stick with it a little here to talk since it's what u used and I'm on my phone so can't look up more. Even within your ranks you are splitting up different sets of production/talent as shown with that per. Wilt specifically stands out based on just that and it is likely because you are valuing team success over individual impact which if you keep going with that type of thought extended further becomes clear it makes no sense.

Everyone can choose to do their lists however they want and I personally lean towards talent/impact being more important but accomplishments still have meaning. Essentially within your tiers you are mixing talent with team results but favoring team results it seems which I don't get at all. If we were to list players with most rings and players with most talent the talent side would be way high in rankings and rings would be a mix of old Celtics and Robert horry up there. Winning matters and top players tend to influence that more but it is a team game and always has been.

I would never ask someone to make sure rings are close when ranking players, it doesn't make sense (talent is more important). Just because hondo has like 8 doesn't put him top 10 but he would fit in the lists above based on rings/per probably, but to me he isn't comparable to Jordan with 6. If someone used just rings to compare players I would definitely have an issue of the talent was different though (see what happens when you mention horry). Everyone has their own opinions but it kinda looks like you just made a thread to vent that in those other ones people had different lists than you (instead of asking those people why individually). I think you favor team results too much here and it shows in the inconsistency of the stat you used above with those guys #s (I assumed to try to show talent/impact). You did try to add some context which I like but cmon with the Duncan response, go back and watch those teams in 05 and 07 and tell me he wasn't the driving force.

joedaheights
06-21-2016, 02:57 PM
I am not sure per is the best single judge to use at all but I will stick with it a little here to talk since it's what u used and I'm on my phone so can't look up more. Even within your ranks you are splitting up different sets of production/talent as shown with that per. Wilt specifically stands out based on just that and it is likely because you are valuing team success over individual impact which if you keep going with that type of thought extended further becomes clear it makes no sense.

Everyone can choose to do their lists however they want and I personally lean towards talent/impact being more important but accomplishments still have meaning. Essentially within your tiers you are mixing talent with team results but favoring team results it seems which I don't get at all. If we were to list players with most rings and players with most talent the talent side would be way high in rankings and rings would be a mix of old Celtics and Robert horry up there. Winning matters and top players tend to influence that more but it is a team game and always has been.

I would never ask someone to make sure rings are close when ranking players, it doesn't make sense (talent is more important). Just because hondo has like 8 doesn't put him top 10 but he would fit in the lists above based on rings/per probably, but to me he isn't comparable to Jordan with 6. If someone used just rings to compare players I would definitely have an issue of the talent was different though (see what happens when you mention horry). Everyone has their own opinions but it kinda looks like you just made a thread to vent that in those other ones people had different lists than you (instead of asking those people why individually). I think you favor team results too much here and it shows in the inconsistency of the stat you used above with those guys #s (I assumed to try to show talent/impact). You did try to add some context which I like but cmon with the Duncan response, go back and watch those teams in 05 and 07 and tell me he wasn't the driving force.

A few things having only had time to skim..

1. You can steer a car with your feet if you want to, that don't make it a good idea - chris rock

2. Great, so don't use objective criteria to at least frame the rankings... Instead defer to "who you think is talented" and consider championships after the fact

3. Do you really want me to dismantle wilt for you?

4. What's wrong with PER? It's a per minute aggregator. I don't see anyone on that list who is averaging only 18 minutes a game and unfairly benefitting

What this boils down to is people wanting to throw out what happened cause they think things

mightybosstone
06-21-2016, 03:13 PM
You lost me when you used rings and PER as your only barometers for judging a player's worth. Then you ranked Isiah Thomas as the 12th greatest player of all time and you jumped on the train to Crazytown.

Rings are a terrible single barometer for judging a player's worth. I look more at overall postseason production and Finals MVPs, which are better indicators of a player's playoff prowess than simply rings. It's a team sport. Also, you have to consider the eras in which these guys play in and the supporting casts around them. Russell played in an era with far fewer teams, a shorter postseason and an unbelievably stacked team. Obviously the dude is going to have a ton of rings.

And then PER is not a great barometer of a player's overall efficiency or production by itself. Like any stat, it's flawed. I'd much rather look at a player's overall basic statistical production across the board while using things like TS% and WS to consider his efficiency.

Also, your entire post goes on to explain how you use these two factors as your sole justifications for your list, but your list contradicts itself in multiple places. Russell had the most rings, and if that's the single most important factor for you, why isn't he higher on your list? Kobe and Duncan had more rings than Bird and similar efficiency ratings, yet you have Bird rated higher. Why is that the case? And Isiah is 140th in PER (for a reason) and has only two titles. There are a TON of other players that have experienced a similar level of postseason success and posted WAY better numbers. Yet you have him 12th. Why?

Sorry man, but this thread is kind of all over the place...

MonroeFAN
06-21-2016, 03:16 PM
Exert this energy on something that matters.

mngopher35
06-21-2016, 03:43 PM
A few things having only had time to skim..

1. You can steer a car with your feet if you want to, that don't make it a good idea - chris rock

I am not sure what this is in reference to. If anything I think it relates to the idea of using team results to judge individuals. You can but if the goal is to actually judge just the individuals then team success is far from the best indicator since it kinda has to do with many other people.


2. Great, so don't use objective criteria to at least frame the rankings... Instead defer to "who you think is talented" and consider championships after the fact

I am all for looking at different criteria like production/stats and awards etc. I am just saying that what an individual does is not the only factor in RINGZ so it is a bad criteria to use. Stats and rings alone will never give the whole story though so yes I think context is very important and you even mention some in your initial post so you clearly do too. It is a mix of everything that should be used to rank these guys from stats/rings which are quantifiable to their team situations/opponents/career path etc. which is more subjective. If you only use one or two and pick and choose with each player how to justify it (aka not the same standard for everyone) you are just claiming it to be objective when in reality it is not. You clearly don't just use stats or rings objectively to do that which is good, but don't get mad that others don't either. It is a combination of everything and that is what makes everyone's list an opinion.

If I wanted to rank just off specific stats or just off rings I would get a pretty easy and consistant list but I don't think either would be a very good judge for ranking players (Stats would be closer though, quite easily). In your initial post you even say rings as a leader is the best criteria to use to judge yet you have Duncan a tier below Shaq/Lebron/Bird so even you don't follow said criteria to the end. You add your own opinion into it just like everyone else.


3. Do you really want me to dismantle wilt for you?

If you want sure, I like to read different opinions on players. I didn't get to see Wilt live and there is less video on him than others for me to have access to so the more I can learn the better.


4. What's wrong with PER? It's a per minute aggregator. I don't see anyone on that list who is averaging only 18 minutes a game and unfairly benefitting

It gives extra weight to volume compared to efficiency is one problem I have. I don't think any of those stats individually are great, they all have their flaws but when you use the entirety of stats available I think you can start to get solid pictures of players overall production. Stats also leave out context but just from a stats perspective you can never just use one and call it a day is all I was saying. It isn't a big deal that you used it as a barometer, just pointing out it isn't the whole story on their stats (and I commented on it still because it does still show the point I was making about you mixing talent/production/rings throughout like everyone else does).


What this boils down to is people wanting to throw out what happened cause they think things

Counting stats/rings is how you throw out what happened to focus on just end results though without any context (and not even individual results with rings). How/why things happen get completely lost and you narrow it down to production despite so many other factors (in different eras, with different casts, against different competition, rules etc) and rings which is a team result and the result again ignores those other factors listed.

I feel like you bashed other peoples criteria's in this thread because YOU think things so I would be careful on throwing others under the bus for that way of going about things...

tredigs
06-21-2016, 03:52 PM
Ringz and PER brah, what i'm 'bout

tredigs
06-21-2016, 03:55 PM
Zeke at 12 is a good for a nice laugh, specifically with regards to your use of PER as your sole stat attribution. Without question the highest I have ever in my life seen him listed.

Wrigheyes4MVP
06-21-2016, 03:58 PM
Lebron is #2 in my book

Chronz
06-21-2016, 04:35 PM
Hard to take you seriously if you think a guy coming back from a potentially career ending injury in the span of time Wilt did to lead them to the Finals was choking. You want to see choking, check out the many playoff blunders in Bird's short career.

He didn't choke in 69 either, his coach handicapped him and was fired shortly thereafter.

joedaheights
06-22-2016, 01:55 AM
You lost me when you used rings and PER as your only barometers for judging a player's worth. Then you ranked Isiah Thomas as the 12th greatest player of all time and you jumped on the train to Crazytown.

Rings are a terrible single barometer for judging a player's worth. I look more at overall postseason production and Finals MVPs, which are better indicators of a player's playoff prowess than simply rings. It's a team sport. Also, you have to consider the eras in which these guys play in and the supporting casts around them. Russell played in an era with far fewer teams, a shorter postseason and an unbelievably stacked team. Obviously the dude is going to have a ton of rings.

And then PER is not a great barometer of a player's overall efficiency or production by itself. Like any stat, it's flawed. I'd much rather look at a player's overall basic statistical production across the board while using things like TS% and WS to consider his efficiency.

Also, your entire post goes on to explain how you use these two factors as your sole justifications for your list, but your list contradicts itself in multiple places. Russell had the most rings, and if that's the single most important factor for you, why isn't he higher on your list? Kobe and Duncan had more rings than Bird and similar efficiency ratings, yet you have Bird rated higher. Why is that the case? And Isiah is 140th in PER (for a reason) and has only two titles. There are a TON of other players that have experienced a similar level of postseason success and posted WAY better numbers. Yet you have him 12th. Why?

Sorry man, but this thread is kind of all over the place...

There's so much bad here.. where to start?

1. I think PER is a good guideline when talking about this group of players. The common complaint that I know you wish you could spout off is "it's a PER minute aggregator, WAAAH, what about a guy who averages 18 MPG"… But all of these guys are high MPG guys, so that isn't present.

Your strategy, because people like you love your own opinion, is to obscure the stat side of things to the point that you can default to "who I think is awesome cause of my hot take." I will start respecting guys like you when you say, "I think the BETTER way to look at stats is to look at these stats/aggregators, and based on that, I have compiled a list using ORtg (or whatever)." But what you want is, "no numerical basis is good enough, let's fall back on who I think is awesome. Hot take, Mountain Dew Download, Play of the Week, BOOYA!"

Mind you, before you obscure what I'm saying, I'm not saying rings or stats DEFINITELY tell you anything. I'm saying it's great to use them to tier things and THEN come in with all of the subjectivity. But, if you have guidelines… you look like a royal A-hole if you come in afterward and say "Magic, 5 rings, really good numbers… Wilt is better because.. (pause, wait for it) … I think he's more talented.

2. I'd expect someone coming from your way of viewing things to not think much of Isiah Thomas. I mean, the numbers are not insane.

I see a guy who averaged 21.2 PPG and 13.4 APG early in his career, and then, as Jack McCloskey adds hall of famers to the roster in Rodman and Dumars, and also … Laimbeer (four all star appearances), Salley, Vinnie Johnson and Mark Aguirre (1st overall pick AHEAD of Thomas).. Thomas, who could easily have said "other good players? Nope. Winning by demanding less for myself? Not really. Everyone can eat one because I want my spot on ESPN play of the day"… he took a hit to his numbers and was still the leader of a team that gave death blows to Magic and Larry and temporarily stifled Michael's Bulls.

If Wilt Chamberlain had half of what Isiah had in his head and heart to go with that talent, he might have been the best.

3. Rings are a terrible single barometer?

Uh, I was pretty sure I used rings and then stats to tier a list at which subjectivity within the tiers is totally understandable. I didn't just say "rings are all there is, mic drop" did I? Pretty sure I didn't.

4. Postseason production and Finals MVPs??

Finals MVP can be the result of a great matchup. Do you look at the 04 Pistons and say to yourself, "you know, Chauncey Billups is a better player than Rasheed Wallace" or do you say "Gary Payton just couldn't walk, but if I had to pick a central figure for that ring, it has to be Wallace.."

Paul Pierce.. was he the best Celtic in 08? Or did the Lakers not really have a defender that matched up with Pierce at all?

You just said, in essence, you look at the 15 Warriors, and what jumps off the page is Andre Iguodala above all else.

Rings as the LEADER of your team (which crushes your whiny Hondo narrative).. you want to argue leader? Fine. But usually a bad argument doesn't pass the laugh test.

Plus, hard to win Finals MVP when you don't win a ring, right?

Postseason production? Very talented players can get numbers in without it being part of the best course of action for their team.

In game 5 of the 91 Finals, Phil got in Michael Jordan's face and said "Michael, WHO IS OPEN?!" After a few times, Jordan defeatedly blurted out "Paxson" and began to not only pass to an open Paxson, but pass to others who then passed to an open Paxson (which would not show up on the stat sheet).. There have been more than a few players who get a few extra buckets, but miss 4-5 more shots by just gunning for their numbers. What, you think Carmelo Anthony and Tracy Mcgrady just guide the defense their way and whip it to Cartwright who slings it to Paxson for an open three?

Winning matters. Go ask Charles Barkley or Karl Malone if they played the game to "possibly win a ring, but really, to just look really productive and maybe so productive that I even would get Finals MVP consideration in a losing effort." No. The pursuit of a championship has drawn blood in battles.. it has taken men like Lebron James who once were content to dribble around on the perimeter with HUGE numbers while seemingly not understanding the game, and turned them into enraged bullies who were going to do what that man did and CLAW their way with every last thing they had for that ring. It has also made men that many thought were great shrivel and go away. The confrontations with Isiah and Jordan in the 90 and 92 Finals showed you who the real Clyde Drexler was.

You bring up Russell and the "look at the era look at the teammates" thing. I don't know, the following players look at least GREAT to me…

Elgin Baylor
Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Wilt Chamberlain

Why didn't they win more? Wilt.. joined West and Baylor in LA and couldn't beat Russell in his last playoff series. In 69, the player with the teammate advantage was WILT! The Celtics weren't even favored to get out of the first round. So what happened? Russell just not very good but backed into a title over a bunch of nothing? Wrong… not how it happened.

5. "And then PER is not a great barometer of a player's overall efficiency or production by itself. Like any stat, it's flawed. I'd much rather look at a player's overall basic statistical production across the board while using things like TS% and WS to consider his efficiency."

Great, create a list where you compile a complete analysis based no whatever you want and assert it as a "better list."

6. I never said rings were the only thing, only the primary thing.. and that stats very much come into it right after that.

You didn't read the whole post. I said that Russell's rings are great, but that he's hard to rank and that his offensive stats were so MEH, and that 6 now is an equivalent of 11 back then. I do buy some of what you say about rings back then.. enough to marginalize the 11 number. I just don't buy that that era was SO BAD that they don't matter at all.

I explained Kobe and Duncan. Yes they have rings. But unlike you, I can also look at a ring and say "wait, was this guy the leader?" While I value the 2009 and 2010 championships very little compared to what MJ did, I look at those rings and say 'hey, that was at least hard to do even for a great player.' Cleaning up the dirt after O'neal completely destroys other teams in 2000, 2001 or 2002? Yeah it's "a ring." But the average $2 moron can look at that and say "not the kind of ring that puts a guy up there with Magic Johnson" "not the kind that breaks a tie with so and so."

Duncan? Answer me this, because it's a simple aptitude test. Do you look at the 2014 "ring" that Duncan won, and think that it's similar to any of the three that Bird won? Or do you look at it and say, "well, since I have a brain that can weigh out multiple factors, wow, you know, that's a ring that would have been like Malone tagging along in 04 had the Lakers won. It doesn't change anything."

See, these are the arguments you have. Even if we disagree, we start with facts and disagree. We don't start with "Wilt #3, Magic #10, because I think Wilt is like, TOOOOOTALLY awesome."

What do you want, an admission that there is no perfect comparison? Yes, I admit it. Subjectivity comes in… I just think it comes in after facts and not before. Is that so bad?

IKnowHoops
06-22-2016, 03:19 AM
This is a joke. Where is Admiral? Have you seen his PER?

europagnpilgrim
06-22-2016, 05:38 AM
I've seen a lot of James re-ranking, and while that deserves its own thread, I think there's something bigger happening here. I see a lot of ranking of players that's very odd.. it goes like:

"Well, I'd put James up there #2 or #3 with Jordan and Wilt and then… and 10th I'd have Magic"

Wait, WHAT?!?

How you have to rank players to avoid confusing two different things

I used to get involved in "well, Russell would probably be a PF today and things might be different, and blah blah" and a friend of mine said "look man, you have to rank things two ways and not get them mixed up. You can rank talent, but players don't always play up to their talent, and some players like Bird and Curry play ABOVE their physical talent. Then there's ranking things by what happened."

What I see a lot of seems to be mixing of the two. It starts with "Wilt put up these numbers, but he could do anything.. could Magic do anything if he was say, on a team that needed him to be a scorer more than a distributor."

It's problematic to use a resume as a beginning point and then use it as a launch point for all the hypothetical things YOU THINK a guy could do.

Talent rankings

You have a bit of a problem with "well, look at the versatility and all the things James can do, he's up there with Jordan and Wilt."

Lean in… I'm a Jordan fan, as big as there is… SHAQUILLE O'NEAL is the most blindingly talented physical specimen who ever played the game. If you want what ifs.. put him in the pre-cap era, or shortly after the 83-84 cap introduction, where he has one star and a bunch of really good players on his team, and he wins the what if game every time and breaks backs doing it.

You want to go talent? Okay, David Robinson is right up there with the top guys and Magic and Bird is not. In fact, Robinson, if you're just grading him as you would in the pre draft process, is better than Tim Duncan. Now, who really thinks that?

Besides, if you go talent, a guy could do what James was doing in the beginning of the finals, dribbling around like the game just started when you're down 9 with 3 minutes left, BUT put up total stats that are impressive … and "hey, he's awesome, best ever."

I like the resume way of doing things.. where Lebron, and rightly so, is heavily praised for what he did in the LAST THREE GAMES.

How you grade resumes

So long as you are putting up really impressive numbers, you really do need to be graded in tiers with players who have similar RINGS AS THE LEADER or driving force of a team. There are gray areas there, but you have to do it that way.

Why?

Don't people say that winning is a team thing and that you should just look at numbers, because it's all about teammates when winning…

I think there is a deplorable level of support a la the Cavs in 07 where you say "okay, we aren't going to rip this guy…. look at his terrible support".. but when you talk about the cream of the crop in the NBA.. you're really talking about guys who can take GOOD stars and just overcome because of how they destroy a team.

Shaquille O'neal won 3 rings with Kobe. Are you really going to tell me that if he had Mitch Richmond, they don't win rings?

The problem with throwing rings out and just looking at numbers, is that there's a way to cheat the process. You can put up very impressive numbers with no regard for the score if you have a bunch of dung on your team. Ever hear of Tracy McGrady? Carmelo Anthony? Dominique Wilkins? Bernard King? Kevin LOVE? Funny how, when you put a top 5 player and another star on Love's team, and they get down to the business of fitting what they do into winning a ring, Love's stats go down to practically nothing compared to Minnesota.

Bill Russell is 104th all time in PER. Scottie Pippen is 119th. They were too busy winning to worry about putting up Carmelo's numbers. What, you guys don't think Scottie Pippen, were he on some crap team, could have hit five more shots per game if he played in a way that had coaches going to the GM about how they couldn't get through to him and THAT was why they were 31-51??

Start with winning… then when two players win equally, get down to the business of splitting hairs with the numbers you put up while actually winning.

Here, watch how the list looks now, and see if all this makes sense… Now, I tier it this way so that you can argue within the tier, but when you argue outside of it, you just look suspect based on the objective evidence we have

Tier 1
1. Michael Jordan 6 rings, 27.91 PER (1)

Tier 2
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6 rings, 24.58 PER (12)
3. Magic Johnson 5 rings, 24.51 PER (14)
4. Bill Russell 11 rings, 18.87 PER (104)

Tier 3
5. Lebron James 3 rings, 27.58 PER (2)
6. Larry Bird 3 rings, 23.50 PER (17)
7. Shaquille O'neal 3 rings, 26.43 PER (3)

Tier 4
8. Tim Duncan 5 rings, 24.22 PER (13)
9. Kobe Bryant 5 rings, 22.90 PER (23)
10. Wilt Chamberlain 2 rings, 26.13 PER (5)
11. Hakeem Olajuwon 2 rings, 23.59 PER (16)
12. Isiah Thomas 2 rings, 18.11 PER (140)

Anticipated responses and rebuttals

Bill Russell - He has 11 rings! He should be higher than anyone. Come on.. 6 rings today is something that is probably the outer limits of what you could reach.. I'd almost hesitate to rank Russell because of how the league was, but he's so great you have to. His career offensive averages are 14 PPG on 44% FG.

Tim Duncan - 5 rings! Yes, but only THE CLEAR central figure for two. By 2005, he was relying very, very heavily on Parker and Ginobili and by 07, you could argue that Parker was very narrowly the central figure. And he's beating teams that did not have the great players that the opponents of Magic in 1980 or Kareem in 1987 had..

Kobe Bryant - 5 rings! O'neal was by far and away the driving force for the first three. As a front and center team killing individual, you really can only argue Kobe for two.

Wilt Chamberlain - 2 rings, those stats, how is he not #1 amongst his tier. Wilt was really not the driving force in 72 that he was in 67, and you look at the choke jobs in 69 and 70, I think he's appropriately ranked based on what he did.

That's my list… I'll put it up against anyone's list out there. It goes far beyond Lebron.. but it also shows the sliding scale by which he can elevate himself by winning 2 maybe 3 more. What you have to realize though is that he's 31, and that as he ages, like Bryant and so many others, the PER will go down.

I just got tired of seeing these lists where I was like "wait, WTF!?"

The Big Dipper and Russell are tier 1, you can put players without rings in tier 1, especially those who could impact the game and lead teams far with a non stacked/contending type of roster

I would love for you to break down The Big Dipper, he went up against a 8peat dynasty and broke through against that team to win his first title, if he choked it wasn't because he didn't have the heart, he was just afraid of actually killing players on the court as he was a gentle giant, he broke a players collarbone from blocking his shot, broke a toe from dunking the ball so I am pretty sure he could have avg 40-50ppg his entire career pretty much until he got old and had knee surgery late in his Lakers tenure and came back in like 4 months, if that isn't heart/toughness I don't know what is, plus Big O said Wilt had more triple doubles than him but they didn't keep track of blocks or it would have been games where he had 10+ in 4 different categories many a game, he is not even Tier 1, he is in a league/tier all by himself regardless of PER/rings because he was the most physically dominant/best solo act to ever lace the sneaks, and how can you choke when you are the sole reason your team is even in contention? had he got drafted by the Lakers or Celtics he would have 5x the rings, 10

young Jordan couldn't even win a playoff game against Bird's Celtics while The Big Dipper took that superteam(8peat) of Russell's to 6/7 games basically each time and when he had the proper support they mopped the floor with them to end the 8peat, The Big Dipper was way more impact/dominant player than Jordan, in any era

Russell could have easily scored more and his 44% fg is based on the infancy of the nba back then, teams barely shot 40% as a whole so that's really good for that era/time, if Russell wanted to he could have avg between 20-25ppg along with the boards, and blocks they didn't keep track of

had Tmac trade from Raptors to Sixers went through then you would be singing a diff. tune because him and The Answer would have racked up many ECF/Finals trips, I don't know if they would have won it all but they would have owned the East from 99-06' easily with L Brown running the coaching show

Shaq was a modern type version of The Big Dipper but didn't have his innate power or post skill, he damn near dislocated Shaq's shoulder from a handshake and he was 50yrs old, but Shaq was dominant from LSU to Heat, his physical prowess is only usurped by the Big Dipper

Kobe was a fake Jordan who won 5 rings and carried the league off of that image, of course Shaq was driving force but Kobe had big scoring games/moments(as did Fisher/Horry) during that 4 finals in 5yr run, and he was the driving force(with Gasol/Odom) for that second stretch where they made 3 straight finals, Kobe made the Finals 7/10 years so that is either impressive or a product of being a tinseltown Laker since West went to like 9-10 finals and Magic went to like 9 in a 12yr span, I choose the latter but give all 3 big props for getting there, regardless of how stacked the team was, they did what they were supposed to do

Duncan had the luxury of playing with a aging but once upon a time freak and skilled Center in DRob but he clearly anchored and opened up the court for both Ginobili and Parker but they helped out Duncan as he aged/recovered from injuries during stint together, its a team game for a reason

Bird is not better than none of those guys listed in your tiers, better pure shooter/taller but that's about it and possibly trash talker, Dennis Rodman made that true statement about him for a reason,google it

Jabbar is tier 1 also, bar none, enough said

you cant devalue of how the league was in Russell's day because it was watered down/expanded twice during Jordan's 3peats so why not hold that against Jordan? that would essentially make the league/teams weaker since they had to give up quality players for the stupid expansion draft, and now people cry and scream on how weak/soft the league is today

Also Jordan won his titles once the dynasties in both conferences got old/injured/broken up, the Pistons/Celtics/Sixers ran the eastern conf. and the Lakers ran the western conf. outside of Houston making it in 86' or something like that, Jordan beat a retirement Lakers team to win his first title, and that Lakers team should have lost to Portland who was younger/hungrier/better but it didn't happen

you cant leave off players like Big O who averaged a triple double for like his first 6 or so years, that is tier 1 all day any day, especially when people go crazy over 18 triple doubles for a entire season nowadays

Moses Malone should be in a tier

I don't know about Mitch Richmond but if Shaq had TMac/The Answer they win 3 and possibly more in a 8yr span if healthy, and I think they wouldn't have run Shaq out of town to collect even more few years after, or at worst make the Finals from 05-08

Dr J always belongs on this list somewhere

Drexler is underrated as well, Barkley was a beast and belongs in a tier

Isaih Thomas is underrated by most on here and they fail to recognize if not for his injury in Finals and that Bird steal in ECF they would have possibly 4peated in the 87-90' seasons, so I am glad you put him in your tier

Olajuwon/Lebron/The Answer had teams in the Finals that shouldn't have been there with Olajuwon pulling out 2 rings but he had better overall talent than the other 2 mentioned, with The Answer probably having the worst support cast offensively in nba finals history, just slightly in front of Lebron's 07' crew, that carries a lot of weight to me when evaluating players impact/dominance, that is tier 1 to me(along with years of showcasing dominance)

I base it off individual impact/dominance and then the rings and rest come later in context since it depends on the roster structure, the more stacked teams usually win it but then you have guys who can carry a larger load to impact the advancement of a lesser team which gets more props for that Superstar player

the eye test trumps all, no matter how you slice it

joedaheights
06-22-2016, 06:31 PM
This is a joke. Where is Admiral? Have you seen his PER?

I have him right there behind this group, but you look at the rings... He was not a top impact player in 03 and Duncan was probably already better in 99, incidentally one of the weaker seasons in recent memory.

Also, you are aware he was almost consistently outplayed by o'Neal and Olajuwon, right?

Talent
06-23-2016, 02:43 PM
Jordan
Ewing
Olajuwon
Robinson
Shaq
Moses
Magic
Barkley
Julius
Dawkins
Pippen
Duncan
Kareem
Isiah
Malone
Russell
Bird
Drexler
Robertson
Hayes
Kemp
McHale
Wilt
Kobe
Wilkins
Dirk
Havlicek
Garnett
James
Miller
Stockton
Webber
Mourning
McAdoo
Walton
Parish
Rodman
Worthy
Durant
Aguirre
King
English
Wade
Mullin
Connie H.
K.Johnson
Archibald
D.Johnson
H. Grant
T. Porter
Iverson
M.Cheeks
Finley
Payton
Westbrook
R. Harper
Nance
Dumars
Barry
West
Baylor
B. Wallace
Pettit
Amare
Nash
Mutombo
Richmond
L. Johnson
A. Mason
Smits
Thorpe
Horry
Carter
McGrady
G. Hill
Irving
Tim Hardaway
A. Hardaway
C. Paul
T. Parker
Lanier
JoJo White
Norm Nixon
Marion
V.Baker
McDyess
G. Robinson
X. McDaniel