2015 Anger General Greatest post-merger Players of All Time #29

[AbeVigodaLive]

Walton averaged like 46 games played per season and played what 10 years? You wanna use longevity as a factor than he is way down on the list. He had 3 solid seasons. I don't see how he should be mentioned yet. We have plenty of guys who have done much more

Interesting choice of the term "solid"...

We all have our own way of using it I guess. For example, I think Maurice Cheeks had 10 - 12 "solid" seasons.

Did he not have 3 solid seasons? I'm being generous too btw.

I think you missed my point.

Were Walton's best seasons only "solid" or were they possibly slightly better than "solid?" It's only a word... and we all have our own way of describing players and using the English language... but for most "solid" is not the same as "very good" or "great."

But perhaps that's what you meant all along...

[Bush4Ever]

I think having one concrete grading system is too myopic when the subjects are changing so much.

Again, I'm no longer comparing elite players. I'm comparing good to great players... so I judge them entirely different... just as I would if I was comparing baseball players or favorite fruits or hot female celebrities right now.

That's simply inconsistent with basic measurement principles, because the criterion is the same.

The criterion must be the same, or ranking into a common list doesn't make sense in the first place.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think having one concrete grading system is too myopic when the subjects are changing so much.

Again, I'm no longer comparing elite players. I'm comparing good to great players... so I judge them entirely different... just as I would if I was comparing baseball players or favorite fruits or hot female celebrities right now.

That's simply inconsistent with basic measurement principles, because the criterion is the same.

The criterion must be the same, or ranking into a common list doesn't make sense in the first place.

Watch out! Professor Bush is in the house!

I know it's literally your job (I think) to put a nice and neat bow on statistical measurements and stuff. But I repeat... this is not a common list for me.

I don't consider 3rd fiddles and elite MVP players and perennial champions as an apple to apple comparison. Maybe that's the crux of our differing opinion. I don't have any fun discussing NBA issues with such concrete metrics that dissolve most context from the discussion.

MVP: 0.67 points
Finals MVP: 0.45 points
20 ppg: 0.71 points
1st team NBA: 1.1 points
Et al...

Cumulative: My calculator tells me "Player X is the 36th best player since 1976."

Meh. Call me logically unsound. Or, inconsistent. Or, obtuse. But at least I won't get trapped in a tiny little box where there's no light... and no fun.

[Deez]

Interesting choice of the term "solid"...

We all have our own way of using it I guess. For example, I think Maurice Cheeks had 10 - 12 "solid" seasons.

Did he not have 3 solid seasons? I'm being generous too btw.

I think you missed my point.

Were Walton's best seasons only "solid" or were they possibly slightly better than "solid?" It's only a word... and we all have our own way of describing players and using the English language... but for most "solid" is not the same as "very good" or "great."

But perhaps that's what you meant all along...

18 & 13 52%
18 & 14 52%
16 & 13 47%

Just a few of his best seasons all while missing 20+ games out of each. I think it hurts when you miss as much as he has and only played 460 some games in 10 seasons. He had 1 really good playoffs? Meh just don't see much of an argument for him.

[Bush4Ever]

Stuff.

The apples to oranges comparison doesn't reference "lead dog vs. third fiddle".

It references "operationalization of greatness" vs. "a different operationalization of greatness"...and *then* ranking all your results on a common list of *greatness*.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Did he not have 3 solid seasons? I'm being generous too btw.

I think you missed my point.

Were Walton's best seasons only "solid" or were they possibly slightly better than "solid?" It's only a word... and we all have our own way of describing players and using the English language... but for most "solid" is not the same as "very good" or "great."

But perhaps that's what you meant all along...

18 & 13 52%
18 & 14 52%
16 & 13 47%

Just a few of his best seasons all while missing 20+ games out of each. I think it hurts when you miss as much as he has and only played 460 some games in 10 seasons. He had 1 really good playoffs? Meh just don't see much of an argument for him.

That might be the issue. I don't think you believe he was ever truly elite... even if only for 1.5 years.

Other guys, like Grizz, probably believe there isn't another guy out there who's had a better run as THE dominant force (albeit short) than Walton.

I'm sorta in-between. I agree that his longevity works against him. But I think I probably differ from you and others because I think he really was THAT good and THAT much better at his peak.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Stuff.

The apples to oranges comparison doesn't reference "lead dog vs. third fiddle".

It references "operationalization of greatness" vs. "a different operationalization of greatness"...and *then* ranking all your results on a common list of *greatness*.

We're nearing the "not-so-great" area for me though.

And these guys simply don't have the same applicable metrics most of us used earlier to separate the very elite.

[Bush4Ever]

That might be the issue. I don't think you believe he was ever truly elite... even if only for 1.5 years.

Other guys, like Grizz, probably believe there isn't another guy out there who's had a better run as THE dominant force (albeit short) than Walton.

I'm sorta in-between. I agree that his longevity works against him. But I think I probably differ from you and others because I think he really was THAT good and THAT much better at his peak.

I think his peak was probably the best of anyone still on board.

That's fine to acknowledge, but you must acknowledge that his performance was *significantly* worse than most everyone else at this point in the non-peak years. By a long-shot, and by more of a distance than there is a difference in peak value. It has to be that way, since he didn't play at all.

[Bush4Ever]

We're nearing the "not-so-great" area for me though.

And these guys simply don't have the same applicable metrics most of us used earlier to separate the very elite.

Then I hope you don't hold MVP/Lead Dog rings as some sort of powerful evidence for Walton, since virtually no one at this stage is going to have those things in play.

[AbeVigodaLive]

That might be the issue. I don't think you believe he was ever truly elite... even if only for 1.5 years.

Other guys, like Grizz, probably believe there isn't another guy out there who's had a better run as THE dominant force (albeit short) than Walton.

I'm sorta in-between. I agree that his longevity works against him. But I think I probably differ from you and others because I think he really was THAT good and THAT much better at his peak.

I think his peak was probably the best of anyone still on board.

That's fine to acknowledge, but you must acknowledge that his performance was *significantly* worse than most everyone else at this point in the non-peak years. By a long-shot, and by more of a distance than there is a difference in peak value. It has to be that way, since he didn't play at all.

Isn't that basically what I just wrote?

His longevity works against him... but eventually, I'd like to acknowledge just how great he was. And for me, it's long before we get to the likes of Reggie Miller.

[AbeVigodaLive]

We're nearing the "not-so-great" area for me though.

And these guys simply don't have the same applicable metrics most of us used earlier to separate the very elite.

Then I hope you don't hold MVP/Lead Dog rings as some sort of powerful evidence for Walton, since virtually no one at this stage is going to have those things in play.

Sure I can. Why not? It's part of the complete Walton story. Just like his many injuries. His lack of games. Et al.

Again, I'm not going to stay in that little box where we create itemized lists for each guy and turn this into a math problem. I find that really boring.

[Bush4Ever]

Sure I can. Why not?

Because you have already admitted to not giving them weight for players at this point in the ranking (i.e- different weights for the same thing for "truly elite" vs these guys we are discussing now).

If you give something a zero or trivial weight, its presence doesn't affect the bottom line that much.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Not that anyone would have noticed, but several rounds ago, I stopped participating in these threads. I find it absolutely moronic that Walton has not been chosen yet. It's kind of made the whole thing seem stupid to me at this point. That's it. I'm back to not posting in these threads.

Have fun.

[Bush4Ever]

So to sum the discussion, peak performance is overwhelming in weight compared to career sum accomplishment, except when you are talking about the non-truly elite, but it does when talking about Bill Walton, even though no one would call people at this stage of the came truly-elite.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Sure I can. Why not?

Because you have already admitted to not giving them weight for players at this point in the ranking (i.e- different weights for the same thing for "truly elite" vs these guys we are discussing now).

If you give something a zero or trivial weight, its presence doesn't affect the bottom line that much.

I don't know why we are having such a disconnect here.

Ignoring Walton's peak performance is just as bad as ignoring his many many absences from the court. Why can't we discuss both? After all, we'd be discussing Bill Walton's place on this list.

Why do you think we need a clean, neat itemized spreadsheet for every single player?

[Bush4Ever]

I don't know why we are having such a disconnect here.

Ignoring Walton's peak performance is just as bad as ignoring his many many absences from the court. Why can't we discuss both? After all, we'd be discussing Bill Walton's place on this list.

Why do you think we need a clean, neat itemized spreadsheet for every single player?

You can discuss both. You have to discuss both if you want to rank on a criterion of "greatness", and you think both peak and total career performance are meaningful components of "greatness".

You don't need a spreadsheet, but you need to have the same weighting system because you are evaluating across a single, common criterion.

The only way Walton can be voted in now is if you give overwhelming amounts of weight to peak peformance, since on a career front, he isn't even in the ballpark.

If you decide that, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But if you take that approach, you have to apply it consistently across the board *or* make a new list that is evaluating a different criterion (like peak performance instead of greatness).

[AbeVigodaLive]

I don't know why we are having such a disconnect here.

Ignoring Walton's peak performance is just as bad as ignoring his many many absences from the court. Why can't we discuss both? After all, we'd be discussing Bill Walton's place on this list.

Why do you think we need a clean, neat itemized spreadsheet for every single player?

You can discuss both. You have to discuss both if you want to rank on a criterion of "greatness", and you think both peak and total career performance are meaningful components of "greatness".

You don't need a spreadsheet, but you need to have the same weighting system because you are evaluating across a single, common criterion.

The only way Walton can be voted in now is if you give overwhelming amounts of weight to peak peformance, since on a career front, he isn't even in the ballpark.

If you decide that, there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But if you take that approach, you have to apply it consistently across the board *or* make a new list that is evaluating a different criterion (like peak performance instead of greatness).

Nah. I don't think so.

The term "greatest" is a very nebulous term. It can mean peak performance. Longevity. Both. Or something else entirely. Right now I'm only interested in who I think was the 29th "greatest" player since the merger. I chose Chris Paul.

Maybe I'll choose Bill Walton at #30 when I consider his strengths and weaknesses along with others I think are worthy of discussion at that point. Maybe... I won't.

[Bush4Ever]

Nah. I don't think so.

The term "greatest" is a very nebulous term. It can mean peak performance. Longevity. Both. Or something else entirely.

It it is subjective across people, but should be completely objective *within* person. Otherwise, you are ranking on explicitly different criterion.

People can have whatever subjective preferences they want. That's where all the fun in these rankings and discussion take place.

But they need to be internally consistent. Otherwise, their ranking is nonsensical.

[elmouse03]

I think the only reason Abe is picking Walton is because of how successful his whatifsports team is doing with him.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think the only reason Abe is picking Walton is because of how successful his whatifsports team is doing with him.

I think the only reason elmouse would think I picked Walton at this point is because he didn't actually read the thread.


[Note: I chose Paul. But yes... Walton is a beast in that sim. My MVP.]