What criteria do you use to rank players all-time... NBA of course

[thedangerouskitchen]

Just curious what criteria you folks use, first and forement... and second, to be transparent, I'm mainly interested in whether or not said criteria is used consistently and fairly across the board, or whther you flip-flop depending on the player in question?

Example: If you say Bill Russell is the GOAT based on Defense and Winning (as your top two criteria) are you giving that criteria the SAME weight of importance when ranking all other players?

IMO most people aren't. Most will cater the criteria around the player, as opposed to establishing the criteria FIRST, and then ranking the players equally based on that same established set of criteria.

So what say you? What criteria do you use AND are you ranking equally based on that criteria OR are you a biased cherry-picker?

[Robceltsfan]

Just saying "use defense as criteria" is already a dishonest take.

The defense of a guard has far less value than the defense of an interior player, for very, very obvious reasons. That's why the defensive value of a Michael Jordan is far less valuable than that of a Bill Russell. It's also oversimplified if you're basing it off "number of All-Defense selections"....or "was a DPOY versus wasn't a DPOY".

The criteria should be all-encompassing. Winning (and not just titles), stats, efficiency, awards, selections, difficulty of opponents, teammates, consistency, etc.

[Havlicekstealsit]

Whatever LeSPN tells me

[Bush4Ever.]

I don't have tons of time today, but to me the composition of contribution is irrelevant compared to the magnitude of said contribution. It's not about "valuing defense" or "valuing offense" or wanting guys to be "complete players".

"How much (all else equal), does this player move the needle towards winning?"

That's the goal. There have been guys in NBA history that are one-way dominant offensively (think Magic Johnson), one-way dominant defensively (rare...but think Bill Russell), and two-way dominant (think Hakeem)...it's not the composition of the contribution...it's how large it is.

Then, taking some combination of peak/prime play, and accumulation of contribution over the career span (which is basically an interaction between average performance and longevity), with some minor things like robustness in the playoffs, portability/generalizability, quality of opposition, etc...coming into play.

That's a rough cut. I also sometimes tweak my ratings to put my favorite players on top or disliked players lower because it makes me feel good about myself, which in turn helps me fuck better and walk through life with more confidence. When my favorite players are higher on a list like that, I have more bounce in my step than usual. As a counter-example, a few days ago, Joker was listed as 3rd in the MVP vote by Steven A. Smith of ESPN, and I couldn't maintain an erection because Joker is probably my most favorite player to watch in the current NBA.

[elartman1973]

I dont rank players because thats pointless, impossible and the equivalent of a girl ranking barbie dolls

[lettherebehouse]

Skills Stats Ringz Peen

[PhutureDynasty]

Skills Stats Ringz Peen

Who is your GOAT then?

[lettherebehouse]

Skills Stats Ringz Peen

Who is your GOAT then?

1A - Kobe

1B - Lonzo

[Titan18]

1) anyone who played before 1969 is automatically disqualified for top 7 except for Wilt
2) Lebron always gets bumped down 2 spots because I say so
3) Jordan always number 1
4) rings, stats, overall ability

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

I don't have tons of time today, but to me the composition of contribution is irrelevant compared to the magnitude of said contribution. It's not about "valuing defense" or "valuing offense" or wanting guys to be "complete players".

"How much (all else equal), does this player move the needle towards winning?"

That's the goal. There have been guys in NBA history that are one-way dominant offensively (think Magic Johnson), one-way dominant defensively (rare...but think Bill Russell), and two-way dominant (think Hakeem)...it's not the composition of the contribution...it's how large it is.

Then, taking some combination of peak/prime play, and accumulation of contribution over the career span (which is basically an interaction between average performance and longevity), with some minor things like robustness in the playoffs, portability/generalizability, quality of opposition, etc...coming into play.

That's a rough cut. I also sometimes tweak my ratings to put my favorite players on top or disliked players lower because it makes me feel good about myself, which in turn helps me fuck better and walk through life with more confidence. When my favorite players are higher on a list like that, I have more bounce in my step than usual. As a counter-example, a few days ago, Joker was listed as 3rd in the MVP vote by Steven A. Smith of ESPN, and I couldn't maintain an erection because Joker is probably my most favorite player to watch in the current NBA.

At the end of the day, impact on winning is what it boils down to. How much do you move the needle, however you move it, on the Won Loss column. There are a lot of different ways to move it with scoring being the most obvious. I also like how portable your game is. In other words, how easy is it to build the necessary pieces around you to make a winner. I think that is my biggest beef with LeBron and most other guys that are very ball dominant. It generally is harder to build around those guys. It is one of the reasons I like Russell so much. For his era, when he had to be dominant offensively, he could (30 points and 40 boards in game 7 of the 1962 final against the Lakers for example), but generally, he would adjust his game to whatever was needed to get the W. In his last 15 seasons (13 pro and 2 college), he won 13 titles and the only years he didn't win he was injured in one finals and the other was his first season as player/coach. No matter who he played with, he won. Period.

[Da Stars.]

1) anyone who played before 1969 is automatically disqualified for top 7 except for Wilt
2) Lebron always gets bumped down 2 spots because I say so
3) Jordan always number 1
4) rings, stats, overall ability

Wrong order.

MJ always number one.
LeBron, the Gutless Choking Coward. Two in not down far enough.
Before 1969 not doubt.
Numba 4, for sure.

[PhutureDynasty]

Skills Stats Ringz Peen

Who is your GOAT then?

1A - Kobe

1B - Lonzo