"How in the world could Curry be top 5? He's not even better than Durant"

[Bush4Ever.]

Iverson's stepover game was much better.

I was honestly curious because most of the time the answer (ha ha!) devolves into something along the lines of "heart man mad heart" (players with heart don't practice or integrate into a team concept apparently) and "he be dribbling crazy and sheeet", which is a non-starter against Curry specifically, who can absolutely match his handles.

Shooting? lol
Rebounding? No
Passing? No
Generally non-scoring on teammates? lol
Defense? lol

[wailuaFC]

Not everything is quantifiable, which is why I consider stats a useful reference to give some added insight but i will never use strict stats to formulate my opinions without using my eyes and personal analysis, as stats are flawed and can be manipulated in disengenuous ways. I don't waver on any of my takes in this thread and none of the stats I've read here or anywhere else have convinced me to change my mind on the Russel wilt argument, curry being a product of this era, Iverson and Isiah Thomas being underrated by number crunchers etc.

I think the first half of this is completely spot on, and the second half is nonsensical. No sport can be boiled down to just metrics, and no one can just watch a game and fully understand the impact each player has. I take in data, and then watch games and see if it matches the eye test. The average eye test isn’t going to notice the low man having to shift further to the corner because curry is ready for a kick out which opens a lane for someone to drive to the hoop, but seeing that impact over thousands of possessions in the data can give us an understanding of that.

[PhutureDynasty]

Not everything is quantifiable, which is why I consider stats a useful reference to give some added insight but i will never use strict stats to formulate my opinions without using my eyes and personal analysis, as stats are flawed and can be manipulated in disengenuous ways. I don't waver on any of my takes in this thread and none of the stats I've read here or anywhere else have convinced me to change my mind on the Russel wilt argument, curry being a product of this era, Iverson and Isiah Thomas being underrated by number crunchers etc.

I think the first half of this is completely spot on, and the second half is nonsensical. No sport can be boiled down to just metrics, and no one can just watch a game and fully understand the impact each player has. I take in data, and then watch games and see if it matches the eye test. The average eye test isn’t going to notice the low man having to shift further to the corner because curry is ready for a kick out which opens a lane for someone to drive to the hoop, but seeing that impact over thousands of possessions in the data can give us an understanding of that.

I agree that your assessment of the greatness of a player has to be a combination of stats/metrics and eye test. The most important thing of all is objectivity. Do you think you're being biased because you do not like a certain player and are discounting the positives that player has while harping on the negatives? Or do you think you're being biased because you do like a certain player? If yes, you're obviously not objective.

When making my GOAT list I feel like I have been overly biased against what people would assume a Sixers fan would think; meaning I try to be more favorable to Bill Russell and Larry Bird even though they played for my least favorite basketball team. Almost as a way to show I am not biased. Until LeBron's 4th ring I had Bill Russell as my 2nd greatest NBA player ever. He's now 3rd for me. I have friends who are fellow Sixers fans who always discount Bill's accomplishments because "8 teams" or "his teams were stacked" or "6'6" white insurance salesman playing center as his competition outside of Wilt" and have him closer to the 10th spot than the GOAT. To me that's crazy. Its odd to say that an opinion on the greatness of a player can be objectively wrong, but I feel OK saying it in that situation.

Also, while I love Iverson I also think he is worse on my GOAT list than the average Philadelphia Sixers fan or even general NBA fan would have him. I would probably say he's closer to 50 or 60 than he is top 20 or 30 and I absolutely loved watching him play. He is the reason I got into the sport as a kid.

Sorry for the random rant.

[wailuaFC]

Not everything is quantifiable, which is why I consider stats a useful reference to give some added insight but i will never use strict stats to formulate my opinions without using my eyes and personal analysis, as stats are flawed and can be manipulated in disengenuous ways. I don't waver on any of my takes in this thread and none of the stats I've read here or anywhere else have convinced me to change my mind on the Russel wilt argument, curry being a product of this era, Iverson and Isiah Thomas being underrated by number crunchers etc.

I think the first half of this is completely spot on, and the second half is nonsensical. No sport can be boiled down to just metrics, and no one can just watch a game and fully understand the impact each player has. I take in data, and then watch games and see if it matches the eye test. The average eye test isn’t going to notice the low man having to shift further to the corner because curry is ready for a kick out which opens a lane for someone to drive to the hoop, but seeing that impact over thousands of possessions in the data can give us an understanding of that.

I agree that your assessment of the greatness of a player has to be a combination of stats/metrics and eye test. The most important thing of all is objectivity. Do you think you're being biased because you do not like a certain player and are discounting the positives that player has while harping on the negatives? Or do you think you're being biased because you do like a certain player? If yes, you're obviously not objective.

When making my GOAT list I feel like I have been overly biased against what people would assume a Sixers fan would think; meaning I try to be more favorable to Bill Russell and Larry Bird even though they played for my least favorite basketball team. Almost as a way to show I am not biased. Until LeBron's 4th ring I had Bill Russell as my 2nd greatest NBA player ever. He's now 3rd for me. I have friends who are fellow Sixers fans who always discount Bill's accomplishments because "8 teams" or "his teams were stacked" or "6'6" white insurance salesman playing center as his competition outside of Wilt" and have him closer to the 10th spot than the GOAT. To me that's crazy. Its odd to say that an opinion on the greatness of a player can be objectively wrong, but I feel OK saying it in that situation.

Also, while I love Iverson I also think he is worse on my GOAT list than the average Philadelphia Sixers fan or even general NBA fan would have him. I would probably say he's closer to 50 or 60 than he is top 20 or 30 and I absolutely loved watching him play. He is the reason I got into the sport as a kid.

Sorry for the random rant.

I totally understand the not wanting to be biased thing. It’s why, as much as I hate to say it, on my personal list Kobe is close to 15 than firmly top 10 these days.

[PhutureDynasty]

I think the first half of this is completely spot on, and the second half is nonsensical. No sport can be boiled down to just metrics, and no one can just watch a game and fully understand the impact each player has. I take in data, and then watch games and see if it matches the eye test. The average eye test isn’t going to notice the low man having to shift further to the corner because curry is ready for a kick out which opens a lane for someone to drive to the hoop, but seeing that impact over thousands of possessions in the data can give us an understanding of that.

I agree that your assessment of the greatness of a player has to be a combination of stats/metrics and eye test. The most important thing of all is objectivity. Do you think you're being biased because you do not like a certain player and are discounting the positives that player has while harping on the negatives? Or do you think you're being biased because you do like a certain player? If yes, you're obviously not objective.

When making my GOAT list I feel like I have been overly biased against what people would assume a Sixers fan would think; meaning I try to be more favorable to Bill Russell and Larry Bird even though they played for my least favorite basketball team. Almost as a way to show I am not biased. Until LeBron's 4th ring I had Bill Russell as my 2nd greatest NBA player ever. He's now 3rd for me. I have friends who are fellow Sixers fans who always discount Bill's accomplishments because "8 teams" or "his teams were stacked" or "6'6" white insurance salesman playing center as his competition outside of Wilt" and have him closer to the 10th spot than the GOAT. To me that's crazy. Its odd to say that an opinion on the greatness of a player can be objectively wrong, but I feel OK saying it in that situation.

Also, while I love Iverson I also think he is worse on my GOAT list than the average Philadelphia Sixers fan or even general NBA fan would have him. I would probably say he's closer to 50 or 60 than he is top 20 or 30 and I absolutely loved watching him play. He is the reason I got into the sport as a kid.

Sorry for the random rant.

I totally understand the not wanting to be biased thing. It’s why, as much as I hate to say it, on my personal list Kobe is close to 15 than firmly top 10 these days.

Kobe is at 11 for me. Curry recently jumped him, Shaq, and Dream for me after his 4th championship.

9. Curry
10. Shaq
11. Kobe
12. Dream

So I understand where you're coming from.

[PhutureDynasty]

I also do not think it's an insult to now be a top 15 player.

That should become the new norm because I feel like "top 10" has been the barometer for years now but as the game grows and the talent gets better saying someone is the 15th greatest player ever is still an insane compliment. That person is a one percent of one percenters amongst all NBA players.

[Bush4Ever.]

In science, a meta-analysis is (to be very general), a combination of many primary studies to understand the magnitude of relationships.

It's valuable because random chance/variation in primary studies can give different estimates for relationships, even in competently done studies, especially in softer fields like psychology or education, etc...

Informally, I kind of attempt to think about basketball rankings/tiers the same way. Aggregate the results/opinions of (smart/respectable/thoughtful) basketball people, average them out, and use that as a reference point to start your own analysis.

Probably hundreds of conversations with my father, uncles, sports friends
RealGM top 100 project
Backpicks
Places like here

Hopefully the biases for and against guys balance each other out and you get something close to an accurate ranking.

Average that out and put guys into an ordered list, or tiers and go into your personal analysis with whatever methodology you have (hopefully some combination of quant and non-quant/qualitative elements).

I think it's relatively rare for a "wisdom of the masses" type approach to wildly miss the mark on a player. About the only guys I think get missed in a major way are KG (too low usually), Isiah (too high usually), and sometimes guys who are the "player of the hour/year" just because it's a little awkward to rank active players, even when they have as many years/production on the books as certain retired players.

[Odogg]

Bush pls post your top ten or 12 list. Thanks.

[Bush4Ever.]

Bush pls post your top ten or 12 list. Thanks.

My list for TDK places Jordan approximately 9th to 11th, depending on certain criteria.

But when he's not here:

1. Lebron
2. Jordan
3. Russell

4. Kareem

5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Hakeem

8. Magic
9. Bird
10. Curry

11. Wilt

12. KG
13. Kobe
14. Oscar
15. Durant

That's my approximate list at the moment, with each chunk being a tier of players that are essentially equivalent in my mind, depending on what people value in establishing career value (i.e.--one could put Jordan ahead of Lebron or Bird ahead of Curry with no complaints from me).

It might be worth tweaking, but that's approximately where I am circa 2024. If Joker and Giannis had come into the NBA hot out of the gate, they would probably be on this list. They just don't enough years of elite ball (yet)

[Odogg]

Bush pls post your top ten or 12 list. Thanks.

My list for TDK places Jordan approximately 9th to 11th, depending on certain criteria.

But when he's not here:

1. Lebron
2. Jordan
3. Russell

4. Kareem

5. Duncan
6. Shaq
7. Hakeem

8. Magic
9. Bird
10. Curry

11. Wilt

12. KG
13. Kobe
14. Oscar
15. Durant

That's my approximate list at the moment, with each chunk being a tier of players that are essentially equivalent in my mind, depending on what people value in establishing career value (i.e.--one could put Jordan ahead of Lebron or Bird ahead of Curry with no complaints from me).

It might be worth tweaking, but that's approximately where I am circa 2024. If Joker and Giannis had come into the NBA hot out of the gate, they would probably be on this list. They just don't enough years of elite ball (yet)

We agree on Curry at 10 and Wilt at 11 at least lol.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Too easy...

Wilt carried his teams' Offenses while Russell had elite Scorers around him. Thus, Russell didn't have to worry about Scoring, and could focus his energt on Defense. Much like Rodman.

Wilt didn't have that luxury.

Turbo athlete Wilt didn't have the energy to play two sides of the game, even when he greatly reduced his personal offense in the late 60s into the 1970s (he averaged 18 ppg his last five years in the league).

Interesting. Tell me more.

Go away and tell me why he also widely outpaced legendary defensive player Nate Thurmond in the mid/late 60s, who had a similar scoring+passing burden to Russell from 1965-1969 (19 and 3 vs. 15 and 4)?

I'd give that that effort a C-. Not *too* bad given your mental illness and limited means, but taking about two minutes to refute doesn't bode well.

Anything else?

Newflash: No player in NBA history has had the energy to carry a team both Offensively (Scoring in particular) and on Defense, fool... not Wilt and certainly not Russell, although MJ and Dream probably came closest.

Wilt was a very good Defensive player, and an Offensive/Scoring force like the game has never seen. Russell had that same impact Defensively, but he was merely average (at best) Offensively.

Put simply: Russell was the better Defender but Wilt was the better player overall... he just didn't have as much talent around him as Russell.

Facts.

Get madder.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Bush-league and meatball grizz still pushing those woefully flawed "fake stats" as if they were gospel.