Rank the following in the order of importance that you would go by when ranking a player among all time greats:
1. Number of Championships
2. Career win % and total career wins
3. Finals MVP
4. Regular Season MVP
5. Other individual awards (scoring le, DPOY, all NBA team, all star appearances, etc. you can rank these by order of importance too if you want)
6. Other advanced statistics (win shares, PER)
7. Career stats (total points scored, total rebounds, total assists, etc.)
8. les outside the NBA (NCAA championship, gold medals, international les)
9. Other?
Just curious.
I think it's a combination of 1, 3, 4, 5, maybe 7 and maybe 8.
Those rings dictate everything and this is just for Superstars. Yes, Bob Horry has 7 but dude was a franchise type player. With that said, that's why I always debate to whether Jordan and Jabbar with the GOAT tag. Jordan could easily have more MVPs, Final MVPs and rings (retirement). And Cap's numbers are just crazy as .
The definition of a great player is one who never stops trying…That is why Kobe Bryant is clearly the greatest player in the history of the NBA…He may only be shooting 2 for 17 in a game but he just keeps on trying….
1. Advanced stats, specifically PER (sorry, haters, it's the best metric we have right now for measuring players statistically) in conjunction with objective observation to evaluate intangibles (defense, hustle, how a certain player impacts the game, etc).
2. Playoff consistency. Unfortunately, not every great player will always be on the best team. For example, Lebron James in '09 (who was historically great in the post-season that year) and Kevin Durant last year had two amazing playoff performances that should boost their legacy but will be largely forgotten since it didn't result in an NBA le.
3. Finals MVPs.
4. Regular season MVPs.
5. Other individual awards (should be taken with a heavy grain of salt, though. The media who votes on these selections has a habit of favoring stars and basing their vote on a player's reputation rather than on merit.
6. Rings. Team accomplishment. Only dip fossils stuck in the 70s would give rings majority weight when evaluating a player's legacy. If rings are the be all, end all, why isn't John Havlicek, a first option player, with his 8 rings the consensus GOAT? Or why was Jerry West, who only won one ring, considered a top ten player in history for the longest time? If I recall, I think he was actually once considered the greatest player of all-time.
7. Career stats.
8. les outside the NBA.
Comeon Where is Trollinger with the formula?
I think les outside the NBA have different merit for different players. For example, I think Chris Mullins olympic gold can't hold a candle to Manu's gold in 2004. In fact, most american olympic medals are basically gimmes and shouldn't count much towards a legacy. A gold for a non american is something special.
To be considered on the greatest of all time list you must have certain criteria (imo):
1) Must have led your team to multiple championships
2) Must have multiple Finals MVP's to prove you can do it at the highest level
3) Must have multiple MVP's
4) Must have consistently led the team to winning the regular season (high winning percentage) as evidenced by team being a consistent contender or in the hunt (otherwise number 1 and 2 wouldn't be possible)
4) Take into consideration statistics and how a player does in comparision to others in his position with an emphasis on playoff production (PER, Offensive Ratings, Defensive Ratings, etc)
5) Take into consideration individual accomplishments (ROY, DPOY, All NBA, All D...etc)
6) Intangibles - did he make others better, was he a good team-mate (helped cohesiveness, chemistry), etc...
Guys like Horry can't make the list as they don't have the overall package.
statistics. Common sense tells us there are only a handful of past/preset greats in this current class:
Lebron
KD
Duncan
Kobe
Kidd
Dirk
CP3
Garnett
Nash
Pierce?
Melo?
everyone else is a pretender
lies, damn lies and statistics .........
6-0 in the finals
6 finals mvps
5 mvps
30,000 points
ROY
DPOY (at the guard spot)
and all that other ........
Those 6 final mvps may be what put Mike's NBA career over Cap's but as a total package, including college, Jabbar hold court with Mike with no problem.
3
4
6
1
5
7
2
8
At least one part of my personal evaluation is "What did you do with the cir stances that you had?" ... For example, IMO this downgrades both Kobe and Shaq. They only won 3 together, and IMO, had the talent to do far more. If they had both been willing to stay in shape, work together (not arguing about who should be the man), lead by example (eg. both playing hard, team defense). I think that if they had maximized their potential, they could have had 6 or more... What Kobe is managing this year (and in the years between Shaq and Gasol) downgrades him even more. Another example is Malone/Stockton who get dinged some for this (although MJ and Hakeem are mitigating factors). On the other hand, Duncan (& Ginobili & Parker) get points for this (again IMO) - it's difficult to say that the Spurs have had an overwhelming talent advantage on the rest of the league for any of their four championships - but Duncan has four rings anyway. I rate Wilt pretty high personally - but the Celtics had the league by the balls in terms of talent for a lot of his career; there is a reason why Bill Russel has all those rings.
I watch the games.
What a shocker that a spurfan would say this to suck off their precious Manu.
the importance of a player to his team and the honors his team achieves with him playing a key role are the top factors on my priority list when evaluating a player tbh. duncan has 4 rings and he was the pivot each time, winning 3 finals MVP awards more than anyone who're still playing, so it's safe to say he has the most successful career among all active players. finals MVP is the only item worth a imho, the rest are asterisks
I agree with the first two, finals mvp and advanced statistics should be the top metrics.
finals mvp, shows how many championships the player was able to lead his team to. also gets rid of those coattailers. the player has demonstrated he can perform on the highest stage and was the best player in highest stage of the game. someone with 2 finals MVP and two championships would be better than someone like robert horry who had 0 finals mvp but 7 championships. for the players that played before the award existed, i think it would be pretty easy to retroactively point them out.
advanced statistics, better than just looking at career stat totals. shows efficiency and effect on the game. also gives recognition to players stuck on teams just not good enough to win a championship. this is needed to bounce out the lesser finals mvps.
Here are the rest in my order:
regular season MVP, some MVPs may have been undeserving but it says that the player was at least top 3 in the league that year. one may be a fluke but 2-3 awards are no fluke.
career wins and win %. this shows that the player has had an effect on his teams. throughout his career the player must have played with many different teammates and maybe even switched teams. a high win% demonstrates that he has the ability to make his teammates better, no matter who they are. it shows that he is the reason for winning, not just simply landing on an already good team.
championships. since finals MVP already covers the metric of winning the highest level, the total number of championships can be misleading. if you put this category too high, robert horry would be considered one of the best. still, it shows the player is a winner.
career stats. shows longevity and the ability to be consistently good for a long time.
other individual awards. this is probably more subject to media and fan manipulation so isn't as reliable as the others.
les outside the NBA. this will be last. more like the frosting on the cake and isn't very substantial.
winner
greatness can only be truly appreciated by witnessing the art form.
Like a painter, yes you can look at the finished product, but witnessing the creation of the artwork would give you ultimate appreciation of their greatness.
Why, if we have all these mul ude of advanced stats that are coming out nowadays, should we adhere to a single stat? Especially one with such an offensive and usage rate bias?
You don't use a single metric in baseball to determine the best player of all-time. PER is decent but if you could combine it with other stats to give a more complete picture of a player, then why wouldn't you go that extra step to really determine the greatest players of all-time? I also think PER is not able to account for pace adjusted, is this correct as well?
Exactly. Im embracing some advanced stats but I dont need them to tell me MJ and Cap are the two greatest I saw ... Magic, Bird, Shaq, Kobe etc are all a notch or notches below but Magic is probably closest (for me) because he won and even when he didnt he was losing in the finals to Moses, Isiah, Bird or MJ ...
Lebron may change all of this though ...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
