PDA

View Full Version : PSD NBA All-Time Player Power Rankings: #18



mrblisterdundee
11-13-2017, 10:29 PM
Charles Barkley took the 17th spot last round. This round, I added Rick Barry, ranked 37th by ESPN's #NBArank (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank160129/all-nbarank-36-40). Voting lasts two days.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Tim Duncan
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Magic Johnson
8. Larry Bird
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Bill Russell
11. Kobe Bryant
12. Moses Malone
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. David Robinson
16. Kevin Garnett
17. Charles Barkley

WaDe03
11-13-2017, 10:36 PM
**** I wasn't here to vote on the last one or we would be having a Wade vs Barkley tie breaker that Wade would win. Wade here. Best peak, most accomplished player.

HandsOnTheWheel
11-13-2017, 10:37 PM
^ That's a shame. The truth is we have too little voter turnout to properly gauge these rankings anyway, which is why I stopped making them lol

YAALREADYKNO
11-14-2017, 12:02 AM
Going Dirk

WaDe03
11-14-2017, 01:03 AM
^ That's a shame. The truth is we have too little voter turnout to properly gauge these rankings anyway, which is why I stopped making them lol

Yea true, had a busy weekend so didn't get the chance to check in. OP should change accordingly for the GOAT.

tredigs
11-14-2017, 02:43 AM
In honor of Chuck at the 17 spot, I gotta mention that I just heard a story that he anonymously donated millions to Lake Tahoe after a big forest fire they had about a decade back. He loves the area and comes here for Celebrity Golf and just to have a good time. A lady I know who actually took the donation for the city mentioned it to me last week. I have quite a few other stories about Chuck that all paint him in an extremely good light. He's ridiculous on air on occasion, but Chuck is the man.

Giannis94
11-14-2017, 11:11 AM
Asking for MTM, but why isn't Embiid an option?

mightybosstone
11-14-2017, 11:15 AM
Went with Dr. J here. I don't think his peak is quite as strong as other guys on this list, but he was unquestionably the greatest player in the history of the ABA, his overall career resume is insanely strong and his contribution to the game is greater than anyone left on the list, IMO.

Hawkeye15
11-14-2017, 11:27 AM
Went with Dr. J here. I don't think his peak is quite as strong as other guys on this list, but he was unquestionably the greatest player in the history of the ABA, his overall career resume is insanely strong and his contribution to the game is greater than anyone left on the list, IMO.

I went the Dr too, for mostly the same reasons. His chip was kinda meh when it came to his production, but I have to factor in his ABA career here as well.

mrblisterdundee
11-14-2017, 08:05 PM
Asking for MTM, but why isn't Embiid an option?

There's a 50-game minimum to be on the all-time list. He's only got eight more to go!

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 12:10 PM
We'll get it right soon guys!!!

valade16
11-15-2017, 12:27 PM
Man I was hoping it would have gone KG, Barkley, Dirk, Malone. How poetic would it be to have them all back to back like that?

KnicksorBust
11-15-2017, 12:41 PM
Should have been. They are all so close that it doesn't make sense for Dr. J to slide in between.

GREATNESS ONE
11-15-2017, 01:05 PM
Man I was hoping it would have gone KG, Barkley, Dirk, Malone. How poetic would it be to have them all back to back like that?

It really should be, especially if youíre old enough to watch all 4 play. Iíll vote Dirk here since heís close enough to take the spot, I love Dr J but these big men I would take first over him, I think Wade is front of Dr J too.

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 01:43 PM
Wade is better than Jerry West.

GREATNESS ONE
11-15-2017, 01:44 PM
Wade is better than Jerry West.

In all honesty, we should have top 25 pre 80ís and after 80ís.

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 02:10 PM
In all honesty, we should have top 25 pre 80ís and after 80ís.

I wouldnt mind seeing that.

Hawkeye15
11-15-2017, 02:27 PM
In all honesty, we should have top 25 pre 80ís and after 80ís.

this site struggles with post 2000, it would be like 8 people discussing prior to that

mightybosstone
11-15-2017, 02:38 PM
Wade is better than Jerry West.

Based on what, though? Neither guy won an MVP, but West was All-NBA for 12 consecutive years (including 10 1st teams) compared to only eight for Wade (and two 1st teams). They were both the best player on one title team and have one Finals MVP, so despite Wade getting the two rings as Lebron's Robin, the postseason resume is kind of a wash for me with Wade having maybe a slight edge because of the significance of his 2006 run.

And if we look at their numbers, West's prime was just longer and stronger. Wade had seven straight seasons with at least 24 points, 5 assists and 4 rebounds, but West did that 12 straight seasons and was healthier during that stretch than Wade was. West posted 11 seasons with a .200+ WS/48 compared to six for Wade. Wade had nine seasons with 22+ PER compared to 12 for West.

The only argument I can really see for Wade is that he was maybe slightly better than West at their absolute peaks (which is debatable) and Wade has a lightly more impressive playoff resume (which is pretty narrow). But in terms of accolades, productivity, longevity and impact on the game, I just think West has a much, much stronger case in any all-time argument.

So what's your case for Wade over West?

valade16
11-15-2017, 02:40 PM
Yeah, I don't think you can definitively say Wade is better than West. Wade's resume hangs on a small amount of very good peak seasons and one incredible playoff run. But you aren't going to make a strong case over West by touting Wade's playoff run because West was so good in the playoffs, he is the only Finals MVP from a losing team.

YAALREADYKNO
11-15-2017, 02:58 PM
Based on what, though? Neither guy won an MVP, but West was All-NBA for 12 consecutive years (including 10 1st teams) compared to only eight for Wade (and two 1st teams). They were both the best player on one title team and have one Finals MVP, so despite Wade getting the two rings as Lebron's Robin, the postseason resume is kind of a wash for me with Wade having maybe a slight edge because of the significance of his 2006 run.

And if we look at their numbers, West's prime was just longer and stronger. Wade had seven straight seasons with at least 24 points, 5 assists and 4 rebounds, but West did that 12 straight seasons and was healthier during that stretch than Wade was. West posted 11 seasons with a .200+ WS/48 compared to six for Wade. Wade had nine seasons with 22+ PER compared to 12 for West.

The only argument I can really see for Wade is that he was maybe slightly better than West at their absolute peaks (which is debatable) and Wade has a lightly more impressive playoff resume (which is pretty narrow). But in terms of accolades, productivity, longevity and impact on the game, I just think West has a much, much stronger case in any all-time argument.

So what's your case for Wade over West?

Peak peak peak

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 03:16 PM
West played in the YMCA men's league compared to what the NBA is today. Much less talent then. I'm just talking pure basketball. You can't sit here and tell me if y'all were at the gym and prime Wade and West walked in you would pick West over Wade.

Take Wade as a rookie and drop him in the 1960s and we're saying he's the GOAT right now more than likely.

West is also a career loser, what was he like 1-8 in the finals? Yea cool he got there 9 times in a weak league but I'll take Wades 3 rings and just the fact he's the better player.

The no MVP stuff is frustrating lol! It's true but let's not act like he didn't play at an MVP level on multiple occasions. Injury is the only reason for no MVP. I think he should've won in 08-09, 06-07 he was the front runner 50 games in until injury, 07-08 still had nagging injuries from the prior year that put a damper on what could've been that season, 2010-11 him and LeBron said before the year neither of them would get MVP since they teamed up so that ruined any chance. He was neck and neck with LeBron and Kobe for multiple years though, they were on top of the league. When those 3 guys would match up you always made sure you watched because they were the best, you weren't getting hype for Dirk, KG, or TD games like you were for these guys.

At work so I can't really dig in as much as I would like but I don't believe you guys think West is better than Wade on a pure basketball basis.

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 03:16 PM
peak peak peak

yaalreadykno!!

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 03:18 PM
these threads suck. Majority does not make any compelling arguments so all you get are people who just vote based on which side of the bed they woke up on. How is Barkley ahead of Dirk or Malone? How is Dr.J not ahead of Barkley? And I'm still confused as to how Oscar is better than Wade other than inflated statistics. Just mind-boggling how we're considering rankings now. I think someone should state the criteria's involved so we can all judge them by that criteria rather than everyone voting for player X because they had a better longevity despite player Y producing at a higher level that compensates for the difference in longevity.

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 03:26 PM
West played in the YMCA men's league compared to what the NBA is today. Much less talent then. I'm just talking pure basketball. You can't sit here and tell me if y'all were at the gym and prime Wade and West walked in you would pick West over Wade.

Take Wade as a rookie and drop him in the 1960s and we're saying he's the GOAT right now more than likely.

West is also a career loser, what was he like 1-8 in the finals? Yea cool he got there 9 times in a weak league but I'll take Wades 3 rings and just the fact he's the better player.

The no MVP stuff is frustrating lol! It's true but let's not act like he didn't play at an MVP level on multiple occasions. Injury is the only reason for no MVP. I think he should've won in 08-09, 06-07 he was the front runner 50 games in until injury, 07-08 still had nagging injuries from the prior year that put a damper on what could've been that season, 2010-11 him and LeBron said before the year neither of them would get MVP since they teamed up so that ruined any chance. He was neck and neck with LeBron and Kobe for multiple years though, they were on top of the league. When those 3 guys would match up you always made sure you watched because they were the best, you weren't getting hype for Dirk, KG, or TD games like you were for these guys.

At work so I can't really dig in as much as I would like but I don't believe you guys think West is better than Wade on a pure basketball basis.

There's a lack of criteria and enforcement of it in these threads. I stopped voting like ten spots ago because it became filled with contradictory votes rather than logical "let's stick by our criteria we set before." It seems no one takes into account inflated and weaker era competition. I mean, what's the argument of Big O over KG or Dirk? No one even made one. Just vote vote vote and then we're stuck here wondering what the real criteria is.

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 03:38 PM
There's a lack of criteria and enforcement of it in these threads. I stopped voting like ten spots ago because it became filled with contradictory votes rather than logical "let's stick by our criteria we set before." It seems no one takes into account inflated and weaker era competition. I mean, what's the argument of Big O over KG or Dirk? No one even made one. Just vote vote vote and then we're stuck here wondering what the real criteria is.

My main things I try and look at are how good they are when at their best, how much did they win, what era, and longevity. Probably in that order.

So while West has longevity, Wade was better at their best, won 2 more championships, and played in a much stronger era. I challenge anyone to go watch prime West play and then watch prime Wade a then FaceTime me and tell me West was a better player than Wade with a straight face.

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 03:40 PM
And by listing longevity last I'm not saying it's not important, I just think era is a pretty huge deal.

KnicksorBust
11-15-2017, 03:50 PM
There's a lack of criteria and enforcement of it in these threads. I stopped voting like ten spots ago because it became filled with contradictory votes rather than logical "let's stick by our criteria we set before." It seems no one takes into account inflated and weaker era competition. I mean, what's the argument of Big O over KG or Dirk? No one even made one. Just vote vote vote and then we're stuck here wondering what the real criteria is.

The problem is everyone has different criteria. The math nerd in me actually loves the idea of creating a criteria and quantifying this list but that seems harder because everyone values things differently.

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 03:57 PM
The problem is everyone has different criteria. The math nerd in me actually loves the idea of creating a criteria and quantifying this list but that seems harder because everyone values things differently.

Right, but why not have criteria's listed and we vote on it based on importance.

Ex: Statistics = 1, MVP = 2, Rings = 3, Level of era competition = 4, etc.?

That way if say we compare Kobe to Bird:

Statistics = Tie?
MVP = Bird
Rings = Kobe

And then we can just work our way up from there. Perhaps a points system.

I just see way too many contradictory votes that someone makes for player X but then player Y is still on the list despite having an advantage over player Z for the same reason that player voted X over Y.

There's really no discussion going on because NO ONE knows how these rankings are being made. These all-time lists are all subjective but it would be more solid if we just followed a fair criteria that the majority agree on.

valade16
11-15-2017, 03:58 PM
West played in the YMCA men's league compared to what the NBA is today. Much less talent then. I'm just talking pure basketball. You can't sit here and tell me if y'all were at the gym and prime Wade and West walked in you would pick West over Wade.

Take Wade as a rookie and drop him in the 1960s and we're saying he's the GOAT right now more than likely.

West is also a career loser, what was he like 1-8 in the finals? Yea cool he got there 9 times in a weak league but I'll take Wades 3 rings and just the fact he's the better player.

The no MVP stuff is frustrating lol! It's true but let's not act like he didn't play at an MVP level on multiple occasions. Injury is the only reason for no MVP. I think he should've won in 08-09, 06-07 he was the front runner 50 games in until injury, 07-08 still had nagging injuries from the prior year that put a damper on what could've been that season, 2010-11 him and LeBron said before the year neither of them would get MVP since they teamed up so that ruined any chance. He was neck and neck with LeBron and Kobe for multiple years though, they were on top of the league. When those 3 guys would match up you always made sure you watched because they were the best, you weren't getting hype for Dirk, KG, or TD games like you were for these guys.

At work so I can't really dig in as much as I would like but I don't believe you guys think West is better than Wade on a pure basketball basis.

If we're talking pure basketball skill, 75 year old Jerry West is still a better shooter than Wade lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buYB75cMehY

If we're talking pure basketball ability, Jerry West had an incredibly long wing-span and quick footwork, an excellent shot (not just in accuracy, but the form was very good, high delivery, great follow through).

Jerry West could absolutely play in the NBA today. In fact, with the rules against physicality on the perimeter and the emphasis on outside shooting, Jerry West would be more suited to play today than he was in the 60's.

valade16
11-15-2017, 04:02 PM
Right, but why not have criteria's listed and we vote on it based on importance.

Ex: Statistics = 1, MVP = 2, Rings = 3, Level of era competition = 4, etc.?

That way if say we compare Kobe to Bird:

Statistics = Tie?
MVP = Bird
Rings = Kobe

And then we can just work our way up from there. Perhaps a points system.

I just see way too many contradictory votes that someone makes for player X but then player Y is still on the list despite having an advantage over player Z for the same reason that player voted X over Y.

There's really no discussion going on because NO ONE knows how these rankings are being made. These all-time lists are all subjective but it would be more solid if we just followed a fair criteria that the majority agree on.

I get the point you are making, but when you say statistics are a tie are you talking about volume or efficiency? Because efficiency it's not even close to a tie, Bird smashes Kobe on just about every efficiency metric available.

KnicksorBust
11-15-2017, 04:04 PM
Right, but why not have criteria's listed and we vote on it based on importance.

Ex: Statistics = 1, MVP = 2, Rings = 3, Level of era competition = 4, etc.?

That way if say we compare Kobe to Bird:

Statistics = Tie?
MVP = Bird
Rings = Kobe

And then we can just work our way up from there. Perhaps a points system.

I just see way too many contradictory votes that someone makes for player X but then player Y is still on the list despite having an advantage over player Z for the same reason that player voted X over Y.

There's really no discussion going on because NO ONE knows how these rankings are being made. These all-time lists are all subjective but it would be more solid if we just followed a fair criteria that the majority agree on.

Are they weighted or is every criteria equal? Does offensive/defensive ability count? Does team success count? Does Longevity count?

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 04:07 PM
I get the point you are making, but when you say statistics are a tie are you talking about volume or efficiency? Because efficiency it's not even close to a tie, Bird smashes Kobe on just about every efficiency metric available.

It could be established further but my reasoning for that is due to Kobe's stats achieved due to a longer career. Bird might have had the better peak numbers but we gotta give Kobe props for having a long history of consistence as well. Definitely debate-able, which is why I think a criteria that is established before any voting makes more sense as there is a more clear discussion-based debate.


Are they weighted or is every criteria equal? Does offensive/defensive ability count? Does team success count? Does Longevity count?

No idea. I just threw out some random criteria's. Offensive/defensive ability for sure count. It's the only reason I even put Timmy over Shaq, tbh.

KnicksorBust
11-15-2017, 04:07 PM
I get the point you are making, but when you say statistics are a tie are you talking about volume or efficiency? Because efficiency it's not even close to a tie, Bird smashes Kobe on just about every efficiency metric available.

We already pin-pointed exactly what Durant needs to do to pass Kobe on an all-time list. I'm sure we can crack this case as well. ;)

KnicksorBust
11-15-2017, 04:19 PM
It could be established further but my reasoning for that is due to Kobe's stats achieved due to a longer career. Bird might have had the better peak numbers but we gotta give Kobe props for having a long history of consistence as well. Definitely debate-able, which is why I think a criteria that is established before any voting makes more sense as there is a more clear discussion-based debate.



No idea. I just threw out some random criteria's. Offensive/defensive ability for sure count. It's the only reason I even put Timmy over Shaq, tbh.

Accolades = out of 10 (MVPs, All-NBA teams, etc.)
Offensive Ability = out of 10
Defensive Ability = out of 8
Team Success = out of 8 (Postseason production included here)
Peak Production = out of 5
Longevity = out of 5
Era = out of 4

It adds up to 50 to keep it clean.

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 04:32 PM
If we're talking pure basketball skill, 75 year old Jerry West is still a better shooter than Wade lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buYB75cMehY

If we're talking pure basketball ability, Jerry West had an incredibly long wing-span and quick footwork, an excellent shot (not just in accuracy, but the form was very good, high delivery, great follow through).

Jerry West could absolutely play in the NBA today. In fact, with the rules against physicality on the perimeter and the emphasis on outside shooting, Jerry West would be more suited to play today than he was in the 60's.

Haha he might still shoot better. Wade was a much more dominant force though. Wade also has a pretty crazy wingspan and 6'11 and is the greatest shotblocking guard ever. Wade put so much more pressure on defenses, you could literally play off of him and he would still blow by you. Although his shooting is a little underrated at times, he would hit an occasional 3 and kill you from midrange.

Jerry would be a good player today but we would view him worse if he played today as opposed to the 60s.

WaDe03
11-15-2017, 04:33 PM
We already pin-pointed exactly what Durant needs to do to pass Kobe on an all-time list. I'm sure we can crack this case as well. ;)

He can't pass him lol, too big of a *****!

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 04:35 PM
Accolades = out of 10 (MVPs, All-NBA teams, etc.)
Offensive Ability = out of 10
Defensive Ability = out of 8
Team Success = out of 8 (Postseason production included here)
Peak Production = out of 5
Longevity = out of 5
Era = out of 4

It adds up to 50 to keep it clean.

Yep. I like this sorta ranking more than just random votes going to random players based on the weather. If we could maybe vote on the value of certain criteria to generate a total of 50 or 100 points, that would be sweet. More work would go into it but by far we would have better discussions. Instead of, "Jerry West played in a weaker era", we could say, "Jerry West ranks lower than Wade in terms of era but his offensive ability ranks higher." We went back-and-forth with Bill but maybe this sort of criteria would be more precise and bring more closure to some of these debates. I've been hearing Wade since like the 13th spot but other than "Peak Wade has three rings", there really isn't much else to differentiate the rankings.

eDush
11-15-2017, 04:37 PM
I get the point you are making, but when you say statistics are a tie are you talking about volume or efficiency? Because efficiency it's not even close to a tie, Bird smashes Kobe on just about every efficiency metric available.

We already pin-pointed exactly what Durant needs to do to pass Kobe on an all-time list. I'm sure we can crack this case as well. ;)KD already a more efficient player during his career but he is not as clutch as Kobe, when he was in OKC that is :nod:

mightybosstone
11-15-2017, 05:43 PM
West played in the YMCA men's league compared to what the NBA is today. Much less talent then. I'm just talking pure basketball. You can't sit here and tell me if y'all were at the gym and prime Wade and West walked in you would pick West over Wade.

Take Wade as a rookie and drop him in the 1960s and we're saying he's the GOAT right now more than likely.
OK, but if this is the case, then we pretty much have to throw out all players who peaked before the ABA/NBA merger. In all-time discussions, you can't hypothesize how Player X would have performed in Player Y's era, because it's completely hypothetical. This isn't a "Who would you take in a pickup game?" conversation. It's an all-time "How does this guy's career stack up against this guy's career?" discussion.


West is also a career loser, what was he like 1-8 in the finals? Yea cool he got there 9 times in a weak league but I'll take Wades 3 rings and just the fact he's the better player.
This is where rings and Finals records get overrated in these conversations. It's a team sport, not an individual one. And if you look at West's actual postseason numbers, they're freaking fantastic. In fact, pretty much across the board, they were better than Wade's. Yet he's a playoff loser. How is that a fair argument?


The no MVP stuff is frustrating lol! It's true but let's not act like he didn't play at an MVP level on multiple occasions.
OK, but the dude only made two All-NBA 1st teams in his career. That's a pretty telling statistic in terms of how he stacked up against the elite of his era. Now, he also happened to play in a totally stacked era of basketball, and he was probably a top 5 player in the league for 6-7 years. But West was top 5 for pretty much his whole career. He finished top 5 in MVP voting eight times. Wade did it once!

When you compare how dominant each guy was in his respective era, clearly West has the edge. And it's not close.


Injury is the only reason for no MVP.
Stop right there. Because any point that begins with "Injury is the only reason..." is a poor one. Because you're about to make a case for Wade based solely on a hypothetical scenario that never happened. Wade was injury prone in his career, and injuries cut his prime much shorter than West's prime. That's simply a fact. "Wade shoulda won an MVP if X, Y and Z" is not a fact, and therefore it has no place in this discussion.


At work so I can't really dig in as much as I would like but I don't believe you guys think West is better than Wade on a pure basketball basis.
In this conversation, I do. If the conversation is "Who do I think would win in a pickup game: peak Wade or peak West?" then my conclusion would be different. But this isn't that conversation.

mightybosstone
11-15-2017, 06:15 PM
There's a lack of criteria and enforcement of it in these threads. I stopped voting like ten spots ago because it became filled with contradictory votes rather than logical "let's stick by our criteria we set before." It seems no one takes into account inflated and weaker era competition. I mean, what's the argument of Big O over KG or Dirk? No one even made one. Just vote vote vote and then we're stuck here wondering what the real criteria is.

Oscar's numbers are (arguably) better, his accolades are stronger and he was far more dominant in his era of the sport than KG and Dirk. The guy was unequivocally the best or second best guard (with West) in the league and the second most dominant player statistically in the league (behind Wilt) for a decade. He wasn't known as a great team player or winner, but (like KG) he didn't exactly have studs for teammates in Cincinatti and he did still win a title later in his career when he joined another future Hall of Famer in Milwaukee.

You could absolutely make a strong case for KG or Dirk over Oscar. That doesn't mean there isn't still a strong case to be made the other way around.

Edit: In regards to which criteria you're using to judge a player in an all-time conversation, that's kind of up to the voter, isn't it? Everyone has different barometers they trust a little more, and that should be up to the voter. If we tell everyone "You should value peak over longevity and postseason production over regular season production," then we're forcing them to view the game the same way. And that's just now how we can or should debate sports.

And even if we DID create some sort of criteria to judge these guys, it wouldn't be as black and white as you seem. One championship is not equal to every other championship. A two-year insanely impressive peak isn't necessarily better or more impressive than a guy who has 10-12 years of a really, really good prime. And we measure certain statistics differently for certain players and look at numbers differently across certain eras.

Everyone has their own barometers by which they judge all-time greats. Just because other voters disagree with you doesn't make their points less valid.

mightybosstone
11-15-2017, 06:32 PM
Accolades = out of 10 (MVPs, All-NBA teams, etc.)
Offensive Ability = out of 10
Defensive Ability = out of 8
Team Success = out of 8 (Postseason production included here)
Peak Production = out of 5
Longevity = out of 5
Era = out of 4

It adds up to 50 to keep it clean.

OK, but then what if I disagree on which barometers are getting which points? Like what if I think postseason should be a far greater factor? Or what if I think peak production is far more important than longevity? Also, how do you measure offensive and defensive ability? Defense seems especially hard to judge for guys pre-1980s who nobody has seen aside from highlights.

I think this could be a fun activity for a select group of us. Maybe we could somehow make this a game/activity in the offseason? But I don't think it's fair to set criteria by which every voter on PSD has to judge every player.

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 06:48 PM
OK, but then what if I disagree on which barometers are getting which points? Like what if I think postseason should be a far greater factor? Or what if I think peak production is far more important than longevity? Also, how do you measure offensive and defensive ability? Defense seems especially hard to judge for guys pre-1980s who nobody has seen aside from highlights.

I think this could be a fun activity for a select group of us. Maybe we could somehow make this a game/activity in the offseason? But I don't think it's fair to set criteria by which every voter on PSD has to judge every player.

The issue is people who are voting are contradicting their own statements for other players they have voted for previously. The sole purpose of the criteria being set isn't to be factual but to generate a ranking that is formula-based. Kinda like if we didn't use PER and just started ranking players and such is what we're dealing with right now whereas if we have PER and other measurements, we can make a better assessment. I just hate seeing how Tim is voted over Shaq because of longevity but then Kobe doesn't get that same courtesy over Bird. Literally is mind-boggling how inaccurate this voting has been.

YAALREADYKNO
11-15-2017, 06:51 PM
The issue is people who are voting are contradicting their own statements for other players they have voted for previously. The sole purpose of the criteria being set isn't to be factual but to generate a ranking that is formula-based. Kinda like if we didn't use PER and just started ranking players and such is what we're dealing with right now whereas if we have PER and other measurements, we can make a better assessment. I just hate seeing how Tim is voted over Shaq because of longevity but then Kobe doesn't get that same courtesy over Bird. Literally is mind-boggling how inaccurate this voting has been.

It's because its Kobe

YAALREADYKNO
11-15-2017, 06:52 PM
Oscar's numbers are (arguably) better, his accolades are stronger and he was far more dominant in his era of the sport than KG and Dirk. The guy was unequivocally the best or second best guard (with West) in the league and the second most dominant player statistically in the league (behind Wilt) for a decade. He wasn't known as a great team player or winner, but (like KG) he didn't exactly have studs for teammates in Cincinatti and he did still win a title later in his career when he joined another future Hall of Famer in Milwaukee.

You could absolutely make a strong case for KG or Dirk over Oscar. That doesn't mean there isn't still a strong case to be made the other way around.

Edit: In regards to which criteria you're using to judge a player in an all-time conversation, that's kind of up to the voter, isn't it? Everyone has different barometers they trust a little more, and that should be up to the voter. If we tell everyone "You should value peak over longevity and postseason production over regular season production," then we're forcing them to view the game the same way. And that's just now how we can or should debate sports.

And even if we DID create some sort of criteria to judge these guys, it wouldn't be as black and white as you seem. One championship is not equal to every other championship. A two-year insanely impressive peak isn't necessarily better or more impressive than a guy who has 10-12 years of a really, really good prime. And we measure certain statistics differently for certain players and look at numbers differently across certain eras.

Everyone has their own barometers by which they judge all-time greats. Just because other voters disagree with you doesn't make their points less valid.

I have Dirk over Oscar

valade16
11-15-2017, 06:52 PM
The issue is people who are voting are contradicting their own statements for other players they have voted for previously. The sole purpose of the criteria being set isn't to be factual but to generate a ranking that is formula-based. Kinda like if we didn't use PER and just started ranking players and such is what we're dealing with right now whereas if we have PER and other measurements, we can make a better assessment. I just hate seeing how Tim is voted over Shaq because of longevity but then Kobe doesn't get that same courtesy over Bird. Literally is mind-boggling how inaccurate this voting has been.

Well that is partly because the people who think Shaq should have won are assuming the reason everyone voted Duncan over him is longevity. Duncan has a case of being better than Shaq at his peak.

mightybosstone
11-15-2017, 06:59 PM
The issue is people who are voting are contradicting their own statements for other players they have voted for previously. The sole purpose of the criteria being set isn't to be factual but to generate a ranking that is formula-based. Kinda like if we didn't use PER and just started ranking players and such is what we're dealing with right now whereas if we have PER and other measurements, we can make a better assessment. I just hate seeing how Tim is voted over Shaq because of longevity but then Kobe doesn't get that same courtesy over Bird. Literally is mind-boggling how inaccurate this voting has been.

I don't think longevity is a very good argument for Duncan over Shaq. If it is, it's a weak one, as Shaq played like 1,200+ games in his career and was the best center in the league for close to a decade. Voting for Duncan over Shaq should be based more on his superior defense, intangibles and postseason resume. On the flip side, I think a vote for Kobe over Bird almost has to be based on longevity as Bird's peak and prime production is simply better than Kobe's, his accolades are more impressive and their postseason resumes are pretty much a wash (although I'd give a slight edge to Bird there as well).

mightybosstone
11-15-2017, 07:00 PM
I have Dirk over Oscar

And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Not much of a counterpoint, though. Were you trying to have an actual discussion or just randomly felt like stating your opinion on that one topic? :shrug:

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 07:02 PM
Well that is partly because the people who think Shaq should have won are assuming the reason everyone voted Duncan over him is longevity. Duncan has a case of being better than Shaq at his peak.

Peak for peak, give me Shaq. Career, I'd take Timmy D because of his defense. I don't think it's really close in terms of peak. Yeah, I get statistics show Timmy D was an absolute monster as well but Shaq was just unstoppable to where I think I'd take a peak Shaq over pretty much any other player outside of James+MJ (debatable).

YAALREADYKNO
11-15-2017, 07:05 PM
And you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Not much of a counterpoint, though. Were you trying to have an actual discussion or just randomly felt like stating your opinion on that one topic? :shrug:

Just felt like stating an opinion

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 07:05 PM
I don't think longevity is a very good argument for Duncan over Shaq. If it is, it's a weak one, as Shaq played like 1,200+ games in his career and was the best center in the league for close to a decade. Voting for Duncan over Shaq should be based more on his superior defense, intangibles and postseason resume. On the flip side, I think a vote for Kobe over Bird almost has to be based on longevity as Bird's peak and prime production is simply better than Kobe's, his accolades are more impressive and their postseason resumes are pretty much a wash (although I'd give a slight edge to Bird there as well).

Sorry, I meant to add that Duncan's longevity was more impactful. Shaq was just playing for the hell of it. Duncan had actual impact on his team. It's like Dirk the past few years. He's just there because he wants to be. I'd void those seasons if I had to. Same with Kobe. His career has been over since 2013.

mightybosstone
11-15-2017, 07:38 PM
Sorry, I meant to add that Duncan's longevity was more impactful. Shaq was just playing for the hell of it. Duncan had actual impact on his team. It's like Dirk the past few years. He's just there because he wants to be. I'd void those seasons if I had to. Same with Kobe. His career has been over since 2013.
Right, I mean, I get that. But I also don't think Duncan's longevity is some huge advantage over Shaq. Was Duncan a better player at 35-36 than Shaq was? Sure, and that's a fair point. But those last few years in San Antonio, we weren't seeing prime Duncan. The dude could only play like 28-30 minutes a night and saved his energy for the playoffs.

Both guys saw a pretty steep dropoff in their production in their early 30s and both guys had a prime of about 12-13 seasons. The only difference is that Duncan stuck around and was still a very useful player as a defender and efficient secondary scorer in his late 30s. Shaq bounced around and couldn't stay healthy enough to be useful after that season with Phoenix at age 36.

DanG
11-15-2017, 07:41 PM
Ugh, I'm at a point where it's impossible to rank these all-time players. Personally I believe Dwyane Wade would've stepped over those people Jerry West played against... same again with Kobe ... imagine him playing in Bill Russell's era.

LeBron is without question the 2nd best basketball player ever, don't even mention Kareem. Like, I know he's the living legend and an icon, but just let it go. It's just called evolution.

It's the same with soccer. I have no doubt in my mind that Messi and Ronaldo are two of the greatest footballers ever. And people still bring up Pele from the 60's. Like, it's 2017, the social media age, we criticize these athletes for every minor mistake they make. It's very different.

FlashBolt
11-15-2017, 07:51 PM
Right, I mean, I get that. But I also don't think Duncan's longevity is some huge advantage over Shaq. Was Duncan a better player at 35-36 than Shaq was? Sure, and that's a fair point. But those last few years in San Antonio, we weren't seeing prime Duncan. The dude could only play like 28-30 minutes a night and saved his energy for the playoffs.

Both guys saw a pretty steep dropoff in their production in their early 30s and both guys had a prime of about 12-13 seasons. The only difference is that Duncan stuck around and was still a very useful player as a defender and efficient secondary scorer in his late 30s. Shaq bounced around and couldn't stay healthy enough to be useful after that season with Phoenix at age 36.

That's why I mentioned defense. At even his last years, Duncan was still one of the best defenders in the league. Ranked consistently high at protecting the rim. It wasn't as if he was just there milking his contract. Dude genuinely had impact on that team. Ask KDspurs, he would be able to go more in-depth with it. Shaq's career was far over and he just kept playing. I wouldn't say he had much of any impact.

AntiG
11-15-2017, 09:26 PM
That's why I mentioned defense. At even his last years, Duncan was still one of the best defenders in the league. Ranked consistently high at protecting the rim. It wasn't as if he was just there milking his contract. Dude genuinely had impact on that team. Ask KDspurs, he would be able to go more in-depth with it. Shaq's career was far over and he just kept playing. I wouldn't say he had much of any impact.

Shaq was great in Boston, his issue was purely health due to the joints wearing down due to his girth, his play level was still very high. Had he stayed healthy, the C's probably would have gotten #18.

basch152
11-16-2017, 07:52 AM
these threads suck. Majority does not make any compelling arguments so all you get are people who just vote based on which side of the bed they woke up on. How is Barkley ahead of Dirk or Malone? How is Dr.J not ahead of Barkley? And I'm still confused as to how Oscar is better than Wade other than inflated statistics. Just mind-boggling how we're considering rankings now. I think someone should state the criteria's involved so we can all judge them by that criteria rather than everyone voting for player X because they had a better longevity despite player Y producing at a higher level that compensates for the difference in longevity.

I've been voting for Dr j for like 4 threads.