Backpick all time rankings..

[thedangerouskitchen]

Go ahead and explain why you believe KG > Magic and Bird... and while you're at it, tell us why you agree with the author of the list that Malone > Kobe.

Why don't you read the scouting reports and criteria instead of just putting your fingers in your ears like a two year old and yelling "I can't hear you".

Ben specifically stated:

What This List Is Not

This list will not make traditional “arguments” for players. I won’t attempt to balance Kobe’s championships without Shaq, nor do I care about accolades like All-Star teams or the number of Hall of Fame teammates someone played with. I also don’t care how many rings a player won; the very thing I’m trying to tease out is who provided the most lift. Sometimes that lift is good enough to win, sometimes it’s not.

There are no time machines either — it’s not about how players would do today if transported into the past or future. It’s about the impact each had in his own time over the course of a career.

He ALSO specifically stated that his list is about "the impact each (player) had in his own time over the course of a career" and "ranks the players who have provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning championships over the course of their careers".

So with that, go ahead and justify KG over Magic and Bird and Malone over Kobe.

So far no one has had the sack to do so.

TDK is waiting...

[thedangerouskitchen]

TDK is just in a panic because he knows this methodology has a greater likelihood of placing Lebron over Jordan than the usual "mah rings mah 6 for 6" barbershop type methodologies would.

Everything he has said in this thread is an attempt to devalue the methodology so as to devalue the list so as to protect his hero and homosexual fantasy.

That's all it is.

...and you're stupid enough to give credibility to a "methodology" that puts KG over Magic and Bird, Malone over Kove and (presumably) LeBron over Jordan.

Yes, that makes you a fool.

That's it, that's all.

[Bush4Ever35]

He ALSO specifically stated that his list is about "the impact each (player) had in his own time over the course of a career" and "ranks the players who have provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning championships over the course of their careers".

So with that, go ahead and justify KG over Magic and Bird and Malone over Kobe.

So far no one has had the sack to do so.

TDK is waiting...

Do you understand that player A winning more championships than player B implies absolutely nothing about whether or not player A provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning a championship over the course of their career?

[vcsgrizzfan]

TDK is just in a panic because he knows this methodology has a greater likelihood of placing Lebron over Jordan than the usual "mah rings mah 6 for 6" barbershop type methodologies would.

Everything he has said in this thread is an attempt to devalue the methodology so as to devalue the list so as to protect his hero and homosexual fantasy.

That's all it is.

And Jordan will still end up at the top, but even if he didn't WHO THE FUCK REALLY CARES??? Jesus freaking Murphy it's a fun exercise. That's all.

[Y2K]

Why don't you read the scouting reports and criteria instead of just putting your fingers in your ears like a two year old and yelling "I can't hear you".

Ben specifically stated:

What This List Is Not

This list will not make traditional “arguments” for players. I won’t attempt to balance Kobe’s championships without Shaq, nor do I care about accolades like All-Star teams or the number of Hall of Fame teammates someone played with. I also don’t care how many rings a player won; the very thing I’m trying to tease out is who provided the most lift. Sometimes that lift is good enough to win, sometimes it’s not.

There are no time machines either — it’s not about how players would do today if transported into the past or future. It’s about the impact each had in his own time over the course of a career.

He ALSO specifically stated that his list is about "the impact each (player) had in his own time over the course of a career" and "ranks the players who have provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning championships over the course of their careers".

So with that, go ahead and justify KG over Magic and Bird and Malone over Kobe.

So far no one has had the sack to do so.

TDK is waiting...

He specifically provided the analytical data along with his thoughts on longevity to support each position. It's all there.

[thedangerouskitchen]

He ALSO specifically stated that his list is about "the impact each (player) had in his own time over the course of a career" and "ranks the players who have provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning championships over the course of their careers".

So with that, go ahead and justify KG over Magic and Bird and Malone over Kobe.

So far no one has had the sack to do so.

TDK is waiting...

Do you understand that player A winning more championships than player B implies absolutely nothing about whether or not player A provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning a championship over the course of their career?

So GO AHEAD and explain why YOU believe KG >> Magic and Bird and Malone >> Kobe using the aforementioned criteria.

TDK is STILL waiting for one of you pussies to speak up.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Ben specifically stated:

What This List Is Not

This list will not make traditional “arguments” for players. I won’t attempt to balance Kobe’s championships without Shaq, nor do I care about accolades like All-Star teams or the number of Hall of Fame teammates someone played with. I also don’t care how many rings a player won; the very thing I’m trying to tease out is who provided the most lift. Sometimes that lift is good enough to win, sometimes it’s not.

There are no time machines either — it’s not about how players would do today if transported into the past or future. It’s about the impact each had in his own time over the course of a career.

He ALSO specifically stated that his list is about "the impact each (player) had in his own time over the course of a career" and "ranks the players who have provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning championships over the course of their careers".

So with that, go ahead and justify KG over Magic and Bird and Malone over Kobe.

So far no one has had the sack to do so.

TDK is waiting...

He specifically provided the analytical data along with his thoughts on longevity to support each position. It's all there.

And you buy it?



PS: Bill Russell played only 13 years, so there's goes the "longevity" argument.

Next.

[Bush4Ever35]

I can handle dumbness. I can usually handle arrogance.

But smash them together and it's a chore to deal with.

[thedangerouskitchen]

TDK is just in a panic because he knows this methodology has a greater likelihood of placing Lebron over Jordan than the usual "mah rings mah 6 for 6" barbershop type methodologies would.

Everything he has said in this thread is an attempt to devalue the methodology so as to devalue the list so as to protect his hero and homosexual fantasy.

That's all it is.

And Jordan will still end up at the top, but even if he didn't WHO THE FUCK REALLY CARES??? Jesus freaking Murphy it's a fun exercise. That's all.

You / others obviously care, because you're defending this guy as if he was your little sister.

[thedangerouskitchen]

I can handle dumbness. I can usually handle arrogance.

But smash them together and it's a chore to deal with.

13 years = longevity.

Dumbness or arrogance, bush-league?

[Y2K]

He ALSO specifically stated that his list is about "the impact each (player) had in his own time over the course of a career" and "ranks the players who have provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning championships over the course of their careers".

So with that, go ahead and justify KG over Magic and Bird and Malone over Kobe.

So far no one has had the sack to do so.

TDK is waiting...

He specifically provided the analytical data along with his thoughts on longevity to support each position. It's all there.

And you buy it?



PS: Bill Russell played only 13 years, so there's goes the "longevity" argument.

Next.

...then make an adjustment for era-based longevity, and typically sort out any close calls by defaulting to the player with the better peak or stronger era.

Lord Jesus you are desperately seeking attention.

[Bush4Ever35]

Dumbness or arrogance, bush-league?

I would say dumbness on your part, as well as a lack of careful reading.

Hint: Actual *read* and *absorb* what he is writing.

[thedangerouskitchen]

He specifically provided the analytical data along with his thoughts on longevity to support each position. It's all there.

And you buy it?



PS: Bill Russell played only 13 years, so there's goes the "longevity" argument.

Next.

...then make an adjustment for era-based longevity and typically sort out any close calls by defaulting to the player with the better peak or stronger era.

Lord Jesus you are desperately seeking attention.

... whaaaat!?!?!?

So a 13-year career during Russell's era is = to a 15-18-20-year career in the 80's, or 00's? What "adjustment, exactly? Define "close calls"... "better peak" based on what? And I thought "strength of era" wasn't factored in.

Like I said, ridiculously stupid criteria.

Come on... WoW..!

[thedangerouskitchen]

Dumbness or arrogance, bush-league?

I would say dumbness on your part, as well as a lack of careful reading.

Hint: Actual *read* and *absorb* what he is writing.

Again, what he's writing is foolish nonsense. 13 years for Russell = longevity, but 13 years for Bird = hurt by a lack of longevity.

And your dumb ass gives credibility to that logic...

[Y2K]

And you buy it?



PS: Bill Russell played only 13 years, so there's goes the "longevity" argument.

Next.

...then make an adjustment for era-based longevity and typically sort out any close calls by defaulting to the player with the better peak or stronger era.

Lord Jesus you are desperately seeking attention.

... whaaaat!?!?!?

So a 13-year career during Russell's era is = to a 15-18-20-year career in the 80's, or 00's? What "adjustment, exactly? Define "close calls"... "better peak" based on what? And I thought "strength of era" wasn't factored in.

Like I said, ridiculously stupid criteria.

Come on... WoW..!

Era-based longevity:

http://www.backpicks.com/2017/08/01/are ... a-history/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thedangerouskitchen]

...then make an adjustment for era-based longevity and typically sort out any close calls by defaulting to the player with the better peak or stronger era.

Lord Jesus you are desperately seeking attention.

... whaaaat!?!?!?

So a 13-year career during Russell's era is = to a 15-18-20-year career in the 80's, or 00's? What "adjustment, exactly? Define "close calls"... "better peak" based on what? And I thought "strength of era" wasn't factored in.

Like I said, ridiculously stupid criteria.

Come on... WoW..!

Era-based longevity:

http://www.backpicks.com/2017/08/01/are ... a-history/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Win Shares after a certain arbitrary age/year is supposed to prove what, exactly? Jerry West is right-there with Russell in WS during their 13th season... where is he on this guy's list?

Again, ridiculously stupid criteria.

[Y2K]

... whaaaat!?!?!?

So a 13-year career during Russell's era is = to a 15-18-20-year career in the 80's, or 00's? What "adjustment, exactly? Define "close calls"... "better peak" based on what? And I thought "strength of era" wasn't factored in.

Like I said, ridiculously stupid criteria.

Come on... WoW..!

Era-based longevity:

http://www.backpicks.com/2017/08/01/are ... a-history/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So Win Shares after a certain arbitrary age/year is supposed to prove what, exactly? Jerry West is right-there with Russell in WS during their 13th season... where is he on this guy's list?

Again, ridiculously stupid criteria.

Maybe you should actually read the write-up on Jerry West.

[thedangerouskitchen]

So after reading the write-up on Pippen and KG, this list is an even bigger joke than I initially thought.

Synopsis of Pippen, based off the "magical scouting report":

- All time great Defender
- Phenomenal Rebounder (prime DR rate = all-time elite among non bigs)
- Passing / Creating skills slightly behind that of John Stockton
- Phenomenal finisher and transition player
- Carried the second-largest load on the greatest Dynasty in modern NBA history
- Average Scorer (although his career/peak Scoring averages are just 2-PPG less than KG)

With that, the author has KG #8 all-time, and Scottie a distant #23 (lower than CP3, if you can believe that nonsense)... and yet the "smart and thoughtful" posters (like bush-league, meatball grizz, and Y2K) buy into it like gospel based on, for the most part, "estimating and manipulating" Box Score +/-



Well ooookay then.

BTW, you guys wouldn't be interested in buying some prime ocean-front property in downtown Chicago... would ya??



(PS: KG is one of my all-time favorite players, so I'm not hating on him.)

[Bush4Ever35]

I like how TDK's rebuttals always amount to a grown man's version of a valley girl going "umm...hello...like OMG as ifffff!".

[Y2K]

I like how TDK's rebuttals always amount to a grown man's version of a valley girl going "umm...hello...like OMG as ifffff!".

And they are completely unnecessary seeing that Ben explained everything that he was doing before he ever started his project.