PSD Top 25 GOAT Rankings Summary (Opinion Thread - Overrated/Underrated/Snubbed?)

[KnicksorBust]

I feel awful about my Moses pick. My day was ruined

Would you do a pure ranking swap him and Walton?

[warfelg]

Stockton over Kawhi? It's nice to have a true PG but my goodness in a redraft you could probably take Kyle Lowry like 5 rounds later and be fine. Kawhi gives you so much more than Stockton in terms of scoring and defensive impact.

I think Stockton is one of the most underrated players there's ever been.

I guess my issue in "recency" bias in rankings like this is that cross era comparisons are so hard. Like Stockton was a great passer in the late 80'/early 90's, what would he look like in today's NBA? Getting through the pick and roll easier? His roll man getting a cleaner release? I mean Stockton was 5x All-NBA and 2x steals leader so it's not like he was a slouch over there by any means.

Also...I wouldn't count Lowry better than Stockton at all. Statistically (even by advanced metrics) Stockton was better and more efficient almost everywhere but rebounding and committing fouls.

EDIT:
My little cross era rant - I hate it so much. AI is the biggest loser of using analytics retroactively to downplay his career. AI played when midrange scoring was king, and efficiency was an after thought. The 3 point line was still seen as a novelty at the time. In the late 90's-early 2000's of his day, you wanted your superstar to be someone that could take the ball and get you 25-30ppg night in and night out regardless of how it looked. So when we apply modern analytics to most guys of that era they end up looking like inefficient chuckers of the ball.

Hence why I think there tends to be some recency bias to these things. Some people who vote want to apply the analytics to everything and let that overrun it. So of course a guy like Curry/KD is going to have an advantage because they are coached to think a certain way like 33% from 3 is better than 50% from 2. And I'm not saying lets give the older players a pass to put them automatically to the top of the list over modern era guys; but instead of comparing say AI with current analytics to Curry with current analytics, lets compare what AI was in his era to what Curry is in his era; and in that case I think you can make a case those two players are a lot closer than doing it the other way. They are both lead scorers and ball handlers for and offense built around their strengths who play a gamble style defense that can lead to good defensive plays but a lot of mistakes.

[KnicksorBust]

I think Stockton is one of the most underrated players there's ever been.

I don't really see how that could be true. He's always mentioned as one of the greatest point guards in history. Even though of course he spent 15 years playing with a top 5 PF of all-time and never won a title.

I guess my issue in "recency" bias in rankings like this is that cross era comparisons are so hard. Like Stockton was a great passer in the late 80'/early 90's, what would he look like in today's NBA? Getting through the pick and roll easier? His roll man getting a cleaner release? I mean Stockton was 5x All-NBA and 2x steals leader so it's not like he was a slouch over there by any means.

You are not really comparing Stockton to Kawhi defensively are you? Kawhi is a DPOY who reeks havoc on that end.

Also...I wouldn't count Lowry better than Stockton at all. Statistically (even by advanced metrics) Stockton was better and more efficient almost everywhere but rebounding and committing fouls.

I am not claiming Lowry is even in Stockton's league. I'm looking at these players from a ranking/draft perspective. I'd much rather start a team by building around Kawhi Leonard and then finding a player to dribble the ball up the court later. I can draft Kawhi in the 1st round, a talented 2-way big in the 2nd round and Lowry in the 5th round and be perfectly happy with defense/balance/play-making. If you start a team with Stockton then still HAVE to get an elite 2-way big and wing and the pool dries up a lot faster than.

Hypothetically, I would much have say Lowry-Kawhi than Stockton-Eddie Jones.

EDIT:
My little cross era rant - I hate it so much. AI is the biggest loser of using analytics retroactively to downplay his career. AI played when midrange scoring was king, and efficiency was an after thought. The 3 point line was still seen as a novelty at the time. In the late 90's-early 2000's of his day, you wanted your superstar to be someone that could take the ball and get you 25-30ppg night in and night out regardless of how it looked. So when we apply modern analytics to most guys of that era they end up looking like inefficient chuckers of the ball.

What's wrong with that?

Do we actually think that Ty Cobb would bat .400 if he was going against Jacob DeGrom?
Bart Starr going to lead the Packers to a better record than Aaron Rodgers?
How many olympics records still exist from before 1990?

Sports and athletes get better.

Hence why I think there tends to be some recency bias to these things. Some people who vote want to apply the analytics to everything and let that overrun it. So of course a guy like Curry/KD is going to have an advantage because they are coached to think a certain way like 33% from 3 is better than 50% from 2. And I'm not saying lets give the older players a pass to put them automatically to the top of the list over modern era guys; but instead of comparing say AI with current analytics to Curry with current analytics, lets compare what AI was in his era to what Curry is in his era; and in that case I think you can make a case those two players are a lot closer than doing it the other way. They are both lead scorers and ball handlers for and offense built around their strengths who play a gamble style defense that can lead to good defensive plays but a lot of mistakes.

You can compare them to their own era when you debate their career legacy but if we are debating their peak skills then you have just to look at the player and what they could do on the court. I think to your favor that doesn't necessarily disqualify Iverson. If anything, when you are debating Iverson at his PEAK, you could argue that in the modern game he would be even tougher to contain. Plus the average shooters are much better so Iverson would be playing with much better spacing so that would improve fg% and his assist totals. His free throw percentage was always high. It's possible with a higher repetition of 3pt attempts his perimeter shooting percentage would improve too.

I actually think a peak debate, if argued correctly, could be used to help Iverson's case.

[Chronz]

Would you do a pure ranking swap him and Walton?

I was voting one way earlier and another later. I feel like you guys underrate Bill Russel if Walton is this guy we're always propping up because of his impact (not personal individual stats) but a far superior combo of that is DQ'd cuz he played only a few years prior?

IDK. I just know I overrated Moses by both measures.

[KnicksorBust]

I was voting one way earlier and another later. I feel like you guys underrate Bill Russel if Walton is this guy we're always propping up because of his impact (not personal individual stats) but a far superior combo of that is DQ'd cuz he played only a few years prior?

IDK. I just know I overrated Moses by both measures.

I just feel like with Russell you have to make a lot more excuses than Walton. They both were MVPs but there are question marks about Russell on offense. None of us watched enough of that era to really convincing say or prove how well those players would translate to the modern game.

Walton showed he could be a 19ppg/5apg offensive player on 52% from the field and 72% from the free throw line. It's reasonable to assume he could be transported into 2020 and his bball IQ and skillset would keep him an elite player. Russell averaged around 45% from the field and 56% from the free throw line. The efficiency was fine for that era but the free throw percentage does not play. Do you have any confidence that he would be able to hit jumpshots or 3's? Name me a modern NBA player that is an MVP candidate that cannot handle the ball and shoot. That player doesn't exist anymore.

[mightybosstone]

I just asked this to Ewing but I'm curious about your opinion. Should Bill Walton and Moses Malone have been in each others spots?

Nah. I'm a Walton fan in all-time discussions, but some posters in this discussion are giving the guy too much credit. It's not like he was putting up 30 and 15 every night. The guy was absolutely a dominant player there for a stretch, and he's deserving of being in the top 25 in this discussion, but I think he's about where he belongs, if not maybe a little high actually. I'd have Moses somewhere from 15-20 and Walton somewhere from 20-25.

Who would you draft first: Bill Russell (#11) or Karl Malone (Not Ranked)?

Such a tough question, because Russell was the pinnacle of winning and Malone is the prime example of a guy who tended to shrink in the biggest moments. Also, I hate Karl Malone. But Malone's postseason stats are not completely hot garbage, and the guy was insanely productive at his peak to the point where it's hard for me to make a great case for Russell in a debate like this. If I'm picking one guy to dominant across any era, I think Malone probably deserves to be slightly higher than Russell, but just barely. I could see them both falling somewhere in that 22-30 range.

It's entirely possible I'm being a ridiculous homer here but that vote came down to Harden or Ewing and my personal preference between those two is Ewing.

Yeah, but I don't think Harden was the only guy left I would have taken over Ewing. There were probably 7-10 guys left I would have ranked higher, including Paul, Giannis, Davis, Dr. J, Malone, etc. I get that there's a personal preference—I just don't think he belonged.

[Snowone]

Most overrated- Russell is any easy pick, his skill set is closer to Joakim Noah then the other dominant bigmen and I expect so would his impact.

Most underrated- Durant - Tailored for the modern game, top offense guaranteed, and underrated defensively if we're talking peak.

Snub was Harden then CP3 probably.

Today's wings are so good better training, knowledge, competition, and talent pool and it's the position for the modern game. Malone below the wings and Hakeem below at least Durant. Curry's too high he's all offense and been shut down more consistently then any of the wings in the playoffs I'd be very tempted to take Harden before him.This is how I'd draft them. Probably some other guys before Curry since he can be shut down.

7.) Durant
8.) Bird
9.) Wade
10.) Duncan
11.) Hakeem
12.) Kobe
13.) Kawhi
14.) Dirk
15.) Harden
16.) Curry

[Allphakenny1]

Most overrated- Russell is any easy pick, his skill set is closer to Joakim Noah then the other dominant bigmen and I expect so would his impact.

Most underrated- Durant - Tailored for the modern game, top offense guaranteed, and underrated defensively if we're talking peak.

Snub was Harden then CP3 probably.

Today's wings are so good better training, knowledge, competition, and talent pool and it's the position for the modern game. Malone below the wings and Hakeem below at least Durant. Curry's too high he's all offense and been shut down more consistently then any of the wings in the playoffs I'd be very tempted to take Harden before him.This is how I'd draft them. Probably some other guys before Curry since he can be shut down.

7.) Durant
8.) Bird
9.) Wade
10.) Duncan
11.) Hakeem
12.) Kobe
13.) Kawhi
14.) Dirk
15.) Harden
16.) Curry

Just going off of the guys you have here and not looking at anyone else, I would go like this:

1. Duncan
2. Bird
3. Hakeem
4. Kobe
5. Dirk
6. Curry
7. Durant
8. Wade
9. Harden
10. Kawhi

Of course some of these can change based on current players achievements.

[KnicksorBust]

Nah. I'm a Walton fan in all-time discussions, but some posters in this discussion are giving the guy too much credit. It's not like he was putting up 30 and 15 every night. The guy was absolutely a dominant player there for a stretch, and he's deserving of being in the top 25 in this discussion, but I think he's about where he belongs, if not maybe a little high actually. I'd have Moses somewhere from 15-20 and Walton somewhere from 20-25.

I tend to agree with this.

Such a tough question, because Russell was the pinnacle of winning and Malone is the prime example of a guy who tended to shrink in the biggest moments. Also, I hate Karl Malone. But Malone's postseason stats are not completely hot garbage, and the guy was insanely productive at his peak to the point where it's hard for me to make a great case for Russell in a debate like this. If I'm picking one guy to dominant across any era, I think Malone probably deserves to be slightly higher than Russell, but just barely. I could see them both falling somewhere in that 22-30 range.

I still am curious if people think Karl Malone would be a PF or a C in the modern game.

Yeah, but I don't think Harden was the only guy left I would have taken over Ewing. There were probably 7-10 guys left I would have ranked higher, including Paul, Giannis, Davis, Dr. J, Malone, etc. I get that there's a personal preference—I just don't think he belonged.

I actually think Giannis and Anthony Davis will both end up on this list if I do it again in a year or two. I still would take Ewing over Harden though to build a team. He brings me elite 2-way production and would be so much easier to build around. Hell, I'll just take Reggie Miller in the 2nd round and then I'm set. I can even draft a high usage PG like Dame Lillard with Ewing and not have to worry about chemistry issues. It's beautiful.

[Hawkeye15]

I still think KAJ is 3rd, pretty easily. Bird is 3-4 spots too high

and wtf are these guys doing here?
#12.) Kawhi Leonard
#13.) Kevin Durant
#14.) Stephen Curry

[KnicksorBust]

I still think KAJ is 3rd, pretty easily. Bird is 3-4 spots too high

and wtf are these guys doing here?
#12.) Kawhi Leonard
#13.) Kevin Durant
#14.) Stephen Curry

Kawhi Leonard is a DPOY who averaged 31ppg / 9rpg / 4apg with splits of 49%/38%/88% leading the Raptors to the title. What's missing from his skills that would make him top 12 for you?

[mightybosstone]

I still think KAJ is 3rd, pretty easily. Bird is 3-4 spots too high

and wtf are these guys doing here?
#12.) Kawhi Leonard
#13.) Kevin Durant
#14.) Stephen Curry

I agree that Kawhi was too high. I was fine with him in the top 25, but he didn't deserve to be in the top 15, IMO. I stand by Durant and Curry being in the top 15, though. Those guys' peaks compare well to the other all-time greats extremely well, and they weren't just dominant historically, but in a modern era that includes Lebron and a slew of other hyper-efficient superstars.

Assuming we get another 3-5 years of them at an elite level and some more deep playoff runs, I think Durant and Curry could end up cracking the top 15 in overall all-time discussions, too. I think they've surpassed guys like Moses, Barkley, Wade, Dirk and KG in terms of peak dominance, and if they get the longevity, it's going to be hard to make an argument against them being in that top 15.

[Hawkeye15]

Kawhi Leonard is a DPOY who averaged 31ppg / 9rpg / 4apg with splits of 49%/38%/88% leading the Raptors to the title. What's missing from his skills that would make him top 12 for you?

And that justifies a top 15 ranking? A guy who still has years left with minimal longevity to his name? He may end up there, but top 15 today for any of those 3 is blah to me.

[KnicksorBust]

And that justifies a top 15 ranking? A guy who still has years left with minimal longevity to his name? He may end up there, but top 15 today for any of those 3 is blah to me.

I don't think you read the OP.

In August I started making threads for the basketball forum to vote for who they thought were the best players in NBA History at their peak. If you had to win 1 game and could take the best version of any player in history who would you draft first to build a team around. I enjoyed the debates because it focused less on accolades/rings/all-star games and more on the talent of the players.

Longevity is irrelevant in this thread.

[Hawkeye15]

I don't think you read the OP.



Longevity is irrelevant in this thread.

Ahh ok. Still may not take any of them that high.