Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 258
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,796

    UPDATED TOP 100 NBA players list


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    24,006
    just a quick glance, but any list that has Stockton over Curry is just silly. KG has no business being top ten.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    43,030
    Quote Originally Posted by dhopisthename View Post
    just a quick glance, but any list that has Stockton over Curry is just silly. KG has no business being top ten.
    Lionel gonna Lionel.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    61,004
    Quote Originally Posted by dhopisthename View Post
    just a quick glance, but any list that has Stockton over Curry is just silly. KG has no business being top ten.
    KG isbtop 10 because of portability.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by dhopisthename View Post
    just a quick glance, but any list that has Stockton over Curry is just silly. KG has no business being top ten.
    Defense is much more difficult to quantity than offense. Success on defense is often more team-oriented and dependent on coaching scheme than offense in my opinion. As a result, most player evaluations don't even attempt to factor in the vast defensive nuance that make up a players' full value eg. on-ball defense.

    There's is so much information available to attempt the application of an overall individual defensive evaluation. It's by far the most rigorous part of my research and analysis.

    We've become accustom to evaluating players based off of simply the box stats, and that overlooks, according to my research about 40% of a players' defensive performance.

    I've researched articles and NBA tracking stats to develop reasonable estimates of each players defensive effectiveness outside the box sheets to fill in these gaps. I've tested my results and increased the positive correlations of my individual player evals with pythagorean team wins.

    Garnett, in my player eval system, is a top five defender all-time in a neutral time period (Olajuwon, Russell, Duncan, Garnett, Chamberlain, Wallace).

    Garnett was an incredible rim protect--25th best all-time according to my value shares project. Garnett was not quite the caliber rim protector as Olajuwon, Duncan, Mutombo, Eaton, or Hayes, but he certainly has an argument for the most versatile. In all the film that I've watched on Garnett, it stands out how effective he was in switches with perimeter offensive players.

    Olajuwon, Robinson, Hayes, and Russell were certainly agile. They weren't as agile as Garnett in my opinion.

    Garnett was also a highly effective offensive player as well. Garnett was an underrated passer, had an effective mid range shot, and especially earlier in his career was a dynamic scorer.

    Longevity weighs in my ranking system as well. Garnett was on the floor over 40% longer than David Robinson was in his regular and postseason career.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    122,455
    Curry 25 and durant 14

    You are about to get destroyed for having kobe outside of your top 10 and durant top 14... Id have kobe 9-11 though but overall great list

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    48,569
    Tmac in the top 55 but should be higher
    Random Highlight of the Month: * RARE - Zo DUNKS on Shaq *

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    24,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel20 View Post
    Defense is much more difficult to quantity than offense. Success on defense is often more team-oriented and dependent on coaching scheme than offense in my opinion. As a result, most player evaluations don't even attempt to factor in the vast defensive nuance that make up a players' full value eg. on-ball defense.

    There's is so much information available to attempt the application of an overall individual defensive evaluation. It's by far the most rigorous part of my research and analysis.

    We've become accustom to evaluating players based off of simply the box stats, and that overlooks, according to my research about 40% of a players' defensive performance.

    I've researched articles and NBA tracking stats to develop reasonable estimates of each players defensive effectiveness outside the box sheets to fill in these gaps. I've tested my results and increased the positive correlations of my individual player evals with pythagorean team wins.

    Garnett, in my player eval system, is a top five defender all-time in a neutral time period (Olajuwon, Russell, Duncan, Garnett, Chamberlain, Wallace).

    Garnett was an incredible rim protect--25th best all-time according to my value shares project. Garnett was not quite the caliber rim protector as Olajuwon, Duncan, Mutombo, Eaton, or Hayes, but he certainly has an argument for the most versatile. In all the film that I've watched on Garnett, it stands out how effective he was in switches with perimeter offensive players.

    Olajuwon, Robinson, Hayes, and Russell were certainly agile. They weren't as agile as Garnett in my opinion.

    Garnett was also a highly effective offensive player as well. Garnett was an underrated passer, had an effective mid range shot, and especially earlier in his career was a dynamic scorer.

    Longevity weighs in my ranking system as well. Garnett was on the floor over 40% longer than David Robinson was in his regular and postseason career.
    I know that the stats guys love KG so honestly he isn't the biggest one I would fight(I would have him a bit lower just due to stuff that really wasn't his fault), but the Curry being lower then Stockton is just something that has to be fixed. Peak has to matter over longevity at some point. the highest Stockton ever finished in the MVP race was 7th when he got a total of 28 points out of 850 and was behind his own teammate. we just saw Curry win his 4th ring and 2nd as the clear best player on the team. by the time stockton made the Finals he was only playing 28 minutes a game. I am Jazz fan so you know that isn't some huge bias against stockton, but Curry has to be pushing the top ten players of all time at this point. I wasn't really meaning to just pick on stockton, but moreso you have to balance out peak vs longevity more then you are on a list like this.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel20 View Post
    Based on what now?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    18,554
    I started looking at the list from the bottom up. As soon as I saw Chris Paul over Jerry West, I closed it and stopped trying to rationalize it.

    Make it make sense OP.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by dhopisthename View Post
    I know that the stats guys love KG so honestly he isn't the biggest one I would fight(I would have him a bit lower just due to stuff that really wasn't his fault), but the Curry being lower then Stockton is just something that has to be fixed. Peak has to matter over longevity at some point. the highest Stockton ever finished in the MVP race was 7th when he got a total of 28 points out of 850 and was behind his own teammate. we just saw Curry win his 4th ring and 2nd as the clear best player on the team. by the time stockton made the Finals he was only playing 28 minutes a game. I am Jazz fan so you know that isn't some huge bias against stockton, but Curry has to be pushing the top ten players of all time at this point. I wasn't really meaning to just pick on stockton, but moreso you have to balance out peak vs longevity more then you are on a list like this.

    I want to explain my statistical theory,

    The first school of thought with any all-time criteria is to examine how well player x performed in their era compared to how well player y performed their time period and then draw the conclusion regarding who was better.

    I found that just simplifying cross-era comparisons like that excludes too many factors, namely, rule changes.

    For instance, the way professional basketball is played today is much more conducive to guards than in Stockton's time period. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s the game was played more inside out ie dump the ball into the post and spread the floor. It's not that coaching at that time needed to evolve as much as coaching was geared toward the illegal defense rules at the time.

    The turning point towards the modern era began in the early 90s as far as I'm concerned. The league began to stress player safety, enforcing flagrant fouls and increasing fines and penalties on players and organizations that failed to fall in line.

    In the late 90s David Stern appointed Jerry Colangelo to chair a committee tasked with speeding up the pace of the game and increasing offensive output (The NFL went through this same process with passing rules a few years prior with Don Shula leading the charge). Colangelo focused on further curtailing defensive physicality (eg enforcing the elimination of hand checking), allowing for zone defenses to discourage iso-ball, and slowing the effectiveness of big men (eg 5 second rule for post players backing down defenders , and implementing a 3 second rule on defense discouraging rim protectors from parking in the lane). After a few years of the competition committees' dedication to rules implemented in the spirit freeing up perimeter players the results were the NBA was a different game in my opinion.

    No offensive system embodied Colangelo's vision like Mike D'Antoni. Colangelo would eventually hire him in Philadelphia years later.

    In 2005 PG Steve Nash won MVP with D'Antoni's Suns. Nash's MVP and the success of D'Antoni's offensive scheme is almost directly attributable to Stern-Colangelo rule changes. Stockton did just about everything Nash did "better". Stockton was a far superior defender than Nash or Curry. If Stockton started his career 10 years after he did, I don't think MVPs are out of the question.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,033
    Stockton does everything Nash does but better? Now Iíve heard it all.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    24,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Lionel20 View Post
    I want to explain my statistical theory,

    The first school of thought with any all-time criteria is to examine how well player x performed in their era compared to how well player y performed their time period and then draw the conclusion regarding who was better.

    I found that just simplifying cross-era comparisons like that excludes too many factors, namely, rule changes.

    For instance, the way professional basketball is played today is much more conducive to guards than in Stockton's time period. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s the game was played more inside out ie dump the ball into the post and spread the floor. It's not that coaching at that time needed to evolve as much as coaching was geared toward the illegal defense rules at the time.

    The turning point towards the modern era began in the early 90s as far as I'm concerned. The league began to stress player safety, enforcing flagrant fouls and increasing fines and penalties on players and organizations that failed to fall in line.

    In the late 90s David Stern appointed Jerry Colangelo to chair a committee tasked with speeding up the pace of the game and increasing offensive output (The NFL went through this same process with passing rules a few years prior with Don Shula leading the charge). Colangelo focused on further curtailing defensive physicality (eg enforcing the elimination of hand checking), allowing for zone defenses to discourage iso-ball, and slowing the effectiveness of big men (eg 5 second rule for post players backing down defenders , and implementing a 3 second rule on defense discouraging rim protectors from parking in the lane). After a few years of the competition committees' dedication to rules implemented in the spirit freeing up perimeter players the results were the NBA was a different game in my opinion.

    No offensive system embodied Colangelo's vision like Mike D'Antoni. Colangelo would eventually hire him in Philadelphia years later.

    In 2005 PG Steve Nash won MVP with D'Antoni's Suns. Nash's MVP and the success of D'Antoni's offensive scheme is almost directly attributable to Stern-Colangelo rule changes. Stockton did just about everything Nash did "better". Stockton was a far superior defender than Nash or Curry. If Stockton started his career 10 years after he did, I don't think MVPs are out of the question.
    thats way to many what ifs. the Fact is that Stockton didn't do any of that and you have ranked high then a 4x champion, 2x MVP. do I think if he played today he would be a better scorer? sure, but he isn't winning any MVP's. could he have done what Nash did for the Suns? who knows, he never did anything of the sort. Also, Nash is for sure a better shooter then Stockton.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    68,767
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Stockton does everything Nash does but better? Now Iíve heard it all.
    Steve Nash won 2 MVPs and went right back to being underrated. Itís remarkable


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    15,297
    Great example of why most present stats aren't very useful for assessing players...and that's frankly not their purpose.

Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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