Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    I go 80% peak these days. If you give me a solid 8 or so years of a high enough level of play and considerably higher peak than someone who was technically more accomplished over the span of 20 years, Ill take it. I consider being the better player to be the more important career achievement. Its why I have Paul Pierce below Tmac despite him having a more decorated career.

    I cant forget all the years where no one thought Pierce was better than Tmac, I guess the individual accolades would back this so I got to give that like 5% consideration or something. I cant forget all the years of Pierce missing the playoffs, having underwhelming seasons as a #1 while Tmac was posting historical production and absolutely showing up on both ends for the playoffs.

    For this reason I have Shaq way higher than most.

    If guys have only 3 seasons we really havent seen them tested, if they win a chip they prove alot but we havent seen how they fail either. Bill Walton is above guys like Parish for me but when you put him with a guy like Ewing or D-Rob, thats when I begin to wonder if the lack of longevity has to play a factor in career rankings. IDK tho, Id rather not list those guys.
    You consider peak 8 years? That seems a long time. I consider like absolute peak 2-5 years. But we are in agreement, I value how actually impactful you were as a player over accolades or longevity.

    I also have Shaq very high and I have T-Mac over Pierce for the exact reasons you mentioned.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    47,705
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You consider peak 8 years? That seems a long time. I consider like absolute peak 2-5 years. But we are in agreement, I value how actually impactful you were as a player over accolades or longevity.

    I also have Shaq very high and I have T-Mac over Pierce for the exact reasons you mentioned.
    Yeah more around there but you gotta have a sustained prime at least. Like Tmac wasn't peak Tmac for all 8 years but in that stretch he was still able to amass all-nba selections and MVP votes, that passes the longevity test for me.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,919
    So where do Grant Hill and Penny rank in your view as they do not have the 8 years of their prime but their peak was top 10 worthy?

    How about Jerry West, Moses Malone and Oscar Robertson? With that consideration they should be top 10 locks.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    I heard dwight isnt even mentioned and that dantley was above zeke lol
    Agreed. It's a joke man. The fact that Wade and Giannis are basically the same rank (only one apart at 27 and 26) is completely baffling. How can Giannis be on the level of a Dwayne Wade already?!? Are they expecting me to believe that if Giannis retired tomorrow, based on his body of work that he has basically a Dwayne Wade caliber legacy that he left behind. Shame on them.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    So where do Grant Hill and Penny rank in your view as they do not have the 8 years of their prime but their peak was top 10 worthy?

    How about Jerry West, Moses Malone and Oscar Robertson? With that consideration they should be top 10 locks.
    11. Hakeem
    12. West
    13. Moses
    14. Curry
    15. Durant
    16. Isiah
    17. Dr. J
    18. Oscar
    19. Wade
    20. Dirk

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I have no problem putting West over Wade, they are neck and neck to me.
    Agreed. Which is funny, because they have West so much higher ranked than Wade on this list lol.

    Being highly ranked at ones own position is very important to me. It's why I have Duncan so high up and why I have Kobe ranked at the bottom end of the top ten. I still give West the slight edge and why I have him ranked at number 12 and Wade at number 19. As I've said before, Wade could easily be ranked in the top 15 and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    I love when people say they rank Oscar so high because he averaged a triple double lol. Westbrook averaged a triple double three seasons in a row. Why not rank him in the top echelon as well? Gimme a break.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    10,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    I go 80% peak these days. If you give me a solid 8 or so years of a high enough level of play and considerably higher peak than someone who was technically more accomplished over the span of 20 years, Ill take it. I consider being the better player to be the more important career achievement. Its why I have Paul Pierce below Tmac despite him having a more decorated career.

    I cant forget all the years where no one thought Pierce was better than Tmac, I guess the individual accolades would back this so I got to give that like 5% consideration or something. I cant forget all the years of Pierce missing the playoffs, having underwhelming seasons as a #1 while Tmac was posting historical production and absolutely showing up on both ends for the playoffs.

    For this reason I have Shaq way higher than most.

    If guys have only 3 seasons we really havent seen them tested, if they win a chip they prove alot but we havent seen how they fail either. Bill Walton is above guys like Parish for me but when you put him with a guy like Ewing or D-Rob, thats when I begin to wonder if the lack of longevity has to play a factor in career rankings. IDK tho, Id rather not list those guys.
    If you haven't already, I recommend reading through Ben Taylor's work on the value of longevity.

    https://backpicks.com/2018/04/13/goa...and-longevity/

    I mostly lean towards peaks as well, and I think there's a path to put Tmac over Pierce all time. Also, since you're a peak guy I'm curious where you rank Kobe, as any ranking above 15 is usually rooted in longevity related arguments, with his peak being lower than guys like Jerry West, Oscar, D-Rob, etc. relative to era.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    8,896
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    One thing I find interesting is how the titles shake out amongst the top players. There have been 40 champions since the 1980 season. Of those 40 champions, 28 of them had at least one of the all time top 10 players from this list. That leaves 12 other championship teams.

    Of the other 12 champions, 8 of them had at least one player in the 11-20 group of this list. That leaves 4 more championship teams.

    Of those final 4, 1 more of them (last year's Raptor's with Kawhi) had the #25 player.

    That leaves only 3 more champions. All 3 of them were Pistons teams. 2 of them had Isiah Thomas, #31 on this list. The last one was that outlier '03-'04 team without anyone on this list.

    Takeaway from this list for me is that if you don't have a top 10 ALL TIME player on your roster, you're probably not sniffing a championship. You have a shot with a guy in the next 20. Beyond that - don't even bother.

    The Heat with Shaq and Duncan's last title you can probably argue that those were top 10 all time players in name only at that point. So you can probably move them down to the group with Wade/Kawhi at #25/26 from this list as the centerpiece. But overall the point still stands.

    You can even extend that down a level. Of the last 40 champions, the vast majority had a second player in the top 30-40. And then a few had some guys on the back end of this list. Only a few managed without at least one other all time great.
    At least some of that might be a self-fulfilling prophecy though. If those guys hadn't won those championships, would they be ranked nearly as high? It's difficult to determine which is the cause, and which is the effect.

    If Karl Malone had a couple of rings, would he be behind Durant? Would Stockton be outside the top 20?

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    47,705
    Quote Originally Posted by VCaintdead17 View Post
    If you haven't already, I recommend reading through Ben Taylor's work on the value of longevity.

    https://backpicks.com/2018/04/13/goa...and-longevity/

    I mostly lean towards peaks as well, and I think there's a path to put Tmac over Pierce all time. Also, since you're a peak guy I'm curious where you rank Kobe, as any ranking above 15 is usually rooted in longevity related arguments, with his peak being lower than guys like Jerry West, Oscar, D-Rob, etc. relative to era.
    ahh good ol dsmok

    yeah ive been following him since the ****** days

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,388
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyRealist View Post
    At least some of that might be a self-fulfilling prophecy though. If those guys hadn't won those championships, would they be ranked nearly as high? It's difficult to determine which is the cause, and which is the effect.

    If Karl Malone had a couple of rings, would he be behind Durant? Would Stockton be outside the top 20?
    Fair point. Karl Malone and especially Stockton are good examples of that. Barkley with a ring is another guy who could stand to move up I think. CP3 as well. Not sure that Malone would move up too much more and even if he did, it wouldn't change the point that all the rings would be for teams with the top players on this list.

    I think overall though the point still stands. Maybe with rings CP3, Stockton, Nash, Barkley, Ewing all make leaps. Even if KG/Dirk/Kawhi/Wade all got pushed back 5 spots each for them, it doesn't really change my point. I was showing how 38 of the last 40 champions have been won by players in the top 31 of this list. Only Ewing was behind Isiah (#36 to #31) so even if those guys all jumped up into the top 25 with rings it'd still be 38 of the last 40 champs going to the top 32 players now. Doesn't change the overall point really.


    NE Patriots Forum HOF (Class of 2011)

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,205
    Once again, ESPN and other morons who work the media refuse to list players based on tiers. There is no way to definitively prove a player is one spot higher than X player. You'll be here for an eternity arguing. The best way to absolve any of this and illustrate it in a way that makes sense is to tier players up. How do you differentiate between different set of rules, competition, modern technology, injuries, etc.,? You can't. It's impossible to mathematically quantify any of these factors.

    Tier 1:
    KAJ, LeBron, MJ
    Tier 2:
    Magic, Kobe, Bird, Shaq, Wilt
    Tier 3:
    Duncan, Hakeem, Bill Russell

    It's a far easier way of explaining this than to say that X player is better than Y but Y is better than Z because you can nitpick every single negative aspect that you would for one comparison but then use it as a positive aspect in a separate comparison.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •