2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time: #1 selection

[Bush4Ever]

I guess it depends whether "greatest" means "best" or "most influential". Maybe it's a combination of the two. I still think Jordan takes it.

To me, viewing "greatest" in absolute terms will quickly lead you into conclusions that have very little face validity.

For example, Kwame Brown > George Mikan.

From my perspective, judging a player relative to his peers is still the best method to determine greatness. Because when you compare to peers, you are mostly removing those confounding variables that are dependent on time (like sport science, travel, style changes to the game, etc...). So if a player is extremely removed from his peers (i.e.-an outlier on the happy side of things), it sort of points in direction that he would also be removed from all players in history if everyone was on a level playing field.

Scientists are generally judged by how far they advanced a field, given where the field was when they started, as opposed to raw volume of knowledge. I tend to think of basketball players in a similar light via the peer method described above.

[elmouse03]

I guess it depends whether "greatest" means "best" or "most influential". Maybe it's a combination of the two. I still think Jordan takes it.

To me, viewing "greatest" in absolute terms will quickly lead you into conclusions that have very little face validity.

For example, Kwame Brown > George Mikan.

From my perspective, judging a player relative to his peers is still the best method to determine greatness. Because when you compare to peers, you are mostly removing those confounding variables that are dependent on time (like sport science, travel, style changes to the game, etc...). So if a player is extremely removed from his peers (i.e.-an outlier on the happy side of things), it sort of points in direction that he would also be removed from all players in history if everyone was on a level playing field.

Scientists are generally judged by how far they advanced a field, given where the field was when they started, as opposed to raw volume of knowledge. I tend to think of basketball players in a similar light via the peer method described above.

Hell yeah

[Deez]

How did Kwame not make the list btw?

[elmouse03]

How did Kwame not make the list btw?

because he gets no respect

[Bush4Ever]

Fucking A bros. Don't troll me bros.

[Deez]

How did Kwame not make the list btw?

because he gets no respect

This list clearly was an attempt to troll us.

[elmouse03]

Fucking A bros. Don't troll me bros.

but Kwame is GOAT

[elmouse03]

So from what I am getting at on this list is that there are some people who think Jordan should easily win this #1 choice and are surprised that players like Kareem and Russell are getting any votes at all.

[Y2K]

Yeah, I get all that. My point was that I think in order to be considered the GOAT, you'd have to be dominant in any era. I think prime Jordan would easily be the best player in the league right now; prime Russell, I'm not convinced. And I'm not saying he wouldn't be good at all, only that I'm not sure he could dominate today the way he did when he played.

It's all subjective obviously, but you are definitely biasing things towards modern players if you view it that way, since the more removed from the origins of the game a player is, the more they will have to build on in the first place.

It's similar to saying how a modern PhD level scientist is a greater scientist than Newton, because he unquestionably knows more about the universe than Newton did. It seems off to me.

I guess it depends whether "greatest" means "best" or "most influential". Maybe it's a combination of the two. I still think Jordan takes it.

So do I. It's a very easy decision for me. Winning is most important. But a player's impact on winning is just as important.

Michael Jordan couldn't take a back seat. Bill Russell could focus only on one side of the ball and average less than 10 ppg and they could still win.

[elmouse03]

It's all subjective obviously, but you are definitely biasing things towards modern players if you view it that way, since the more removed from the origins of the game a player is, the more they will have to build on in the first place.

It's similar to saying how a modern PhD level scientist is a greater scientist than Newton, because he unquestionably knows more about the universe than Newton did. It seems off to me.

I guess it depends whether "greatest" means "best" or "most influential". Maybe it's a combination of the two. I still think Jordan takes it.

So do I. It's a very easy decision for me. Winning is most important. But a player's impact on winning is just as important.

Michael Jordan couldn't take a back seat. Bill Russell could focus only on one side of the ball and average less than 10 ppg and they could still win.

Jordan used to say to the media that he would love to be surrounded by the type of players and talent that Magic and Bird had in their primes but truly I think he wanted to be the clear cut man when it came to winning to ease his ego which we all know was HUGE!!!

[Bush4Ever]

So do I. It's a very easy decision for me. Winning is most important. But a player's impact on winning is just as important.

Michael Jordan couldn't take a back seat. Bill Russell could focus only on one side of the ball and average less than 10 ppg and they could still win.

Jordan took a backseat on all sorts of critical aspects to the game, such as interior defense and rebounding, and incidentally won jack until those needs were addressed, first by Horace Grant's development and then by Rodman.

You can splice it any way you want to: offense/defense, interior/exterior, etc...no player has everything on the plate.

[Y2K]

So do I. It's a very easy decision for me. Winning is most important. But a player's impact on winning is just as important.

Michael Jordan couldn't take a back seat. Bill Russell could focus only on one side of the ball and average less than 10 ppg and they could still win.

Jordan took a backseat on all sorts of critical aspects to the game, such as interior defense and rebounding, and incidentally won jack until those needs were addressed, first by Horace Grant's development and then by Rodman.

You can splice it any way you want to: offense/defense, interior/exterior, etc...no player has everything on the plate.

That's a major reach, Bush4Ever.

[Bush4Ever]

That's a major reach, Bush4Ever.

In absolute terms (not relative to position, but absolutely), Jordan was not an amazing rebounder, passer, or interior defensive player. That's not a stretch at all. That fact was manifested quite clearly in 1995, when the Bulls lost mostly due to those gaps, and in 1996, when they filled them again and won 72 games, even though Jordan was there for both the 95 playoffs and 96 season.

What I'm saying is entirely uncontroversial. No one in history has been great at every aspect of the game in absolute terms.

Drawing the splice at offense vs. defense is entirely arbitrary. You could just as easily say "interior vs. exterior", "shooting vs. non-shooting categories" or anything else. Who cares?

That's why again, I say the evaluation should be on their respective levels of NET contribution, not whether or not they hit benchmarks on these discrete categories. That's the only thing that matters in the end.

Like I said before, a hypothetical player who blocks 30 shots a game and literally did nothing else would be the greatest player in the history of the game. Yet, he would also fail on these types of benchmarks and be seen as a non-great, if ya'll were internally consistent with your application of the principle.

[Deez]

That's a major reach, Bush4Ever.

In absolute terms (not relative to position, but absolutely), Jordan was not an amazing rebounder, passer, or interior defensive player. That's not a stretch at all. That fact was manifested quite clearly in 1995, when the Bulls lost mostly due to those gaps, and in 1996, when they filled them again and won 72 games, even though Jordan was there for both the 95 playoffs and 96 season.

What I'm saying is entirely uncontroversial. No one in history has been great at every aspect of the game in absolute terms.

Drawing the splice at offense vs. defense is entirely arbitrary. You could just as easily say "interior vs. exterior", "shooting vs. non-shooting categories" or anything else. Who cares?

That's why again, I say the evaluation should be on their respective levels of NET contribution, not whether or not they hit benchmarks on these discrete categories. That's the only thing that matters in the end.

Like I said before, a hypothetical player who blocks 30 shots a game and literally did nothing else would be the greatest player in the history of the game. Yet, he would also fail on these types of benchmarks and be seen as a non-great, if ya'll were internally consistent with your application of the principle.

Jordan was also not a big man/low post player

[elmouse03]

That's a major reach, Bush4Ever.

In absolute terms (not relative to position, but absolutely), Jordan was not an amazing rebounder, passer, or interior defensive player. That's not a stretch at all. That fact was manifested quite clearly in 1995, when the Bulls lost mostly due to those gaps, and in 1996, when they filled them again and won 72 games, even though Jordan was there for both the 95 playoffs and 96 season.

What I'm saying is entirely uncontroversial. No one in history has been great at every aspect of the game in absolute terms.

Drawing the splice at offense vs. defense is entirely arbitrary. You could just as easily say "interior vs. exterior", "shooting vs. non-shooting categories" or anything else. Who cares?

That's why again, I say the evaluation should be on their respective levels of NET contribution, not whether or not they hit benchmarks on these discrete categories. That's the only thing that matters in the end.

Like I said before, a hypothetical player who blocks 30 shots a game and literally did nothing else would be the greatest player in the history of the game. Yet, he would also fail on these types of benchmarks and be seen as a non-great, if ya'll were internally consistent with your application of the principle.

Jordan was also not a big man/low post player

Jordan was the most perfect player in the most perfect era(s) in the annals of NBA history.

[Bush4Ever]

Jordan was also not a big man/low post player

I know.

But I'm sure I could set categories whereby Russell would win on the back of that. Here we go:

Offense, Defense, and Rebounding.

Russell was the better defender and rebounder. Jordan the better offensive player.

2 > 1

Russell wins! Woot!

I jest, but I'm trying to get you all away from setting these discrete benchmarks or categories and disqualifying people on them, especially when those categories are arbitrary in the first place.

[Y2K]

That's a major reach, Bush4Ever.

In absolute terms (not relative to position, but absolutely), Jordan was not an amazing rebounder, passer, or interior defensive player. That's not a stretch at all. It was also manifested quite clearly in 1995.

What I'm saying is entirely uncontroversial. No one in history has been great at every aspect of the game in absolute terms.

Drawing the splice at offense vs. defense is entirely arbitrary. You could just as easily say "interior vs. exterior", "shooting vs. non-shooting categories" or anything else. Who cares?

That's why again, I say the evaluation should be on their respective levels of NET contribution, not whether or not they hit benchmarks on these discrete categories. That's the only thing that matters in the end.

Like I said before, a hypothetical player who blocks 30 shots a game and literally did nothing else would be the greatest player in the history of the game. Yet, he would also fail on these types of benchmarks and be seen as a non-great, if ya'll were internally consistent with your application of the principle.

No one is saying be elite at everything and not have any flaws at anything.

For his position, Jordan was actually consistently a damn good rebounder. Didn't matter who u put around him because he was going to produce on BOTH sides of the ball on an elite level.

For His position, Bill Russell Was NOT a damn good scorer. He knew that he wasn't. Boston Knew that he wasn't and that he didn't have to be as long as they surrounded him with scorers. If u took some of those shooters/scorers away, you could expose his flaws easily.


That's the difference and I'm consistent with that in my rankings.

[Deez]

Jordan was also not a big man/low post player

I know.

But I'm sure I could set categories whereby Russell would win on the back of that. Here we go:

Offense, Defense, and Rebounding.

Russell was the better defender and rebounder. Jordan the better offensive player.

2 > 1

Russell wins! Woot!

I jest, but I'm trying to get you all away from setting these discrete benchmarks or categories and disqualifying people on them, especially when those categories are arbitrary in the first place.

I understand ya bush, i know what you are getting at. You can spin it anyway you want. Jordan was the best at his position, offense, defense, rebounding, steals, clutch factor. Russell was defensively and rebounding, that's about it. Now i can do the 5>2. Too many things to factor.

[Bush4Ever]

No one is saying be elite at everything and not have any flaws at anything.

For his position, Jordan was actually consistently a damn good rebounder. Didn't matter who u put around him because he was going to produce on BOTH sides of the ball on an elite level.

For His position, Bill Russell Was NOT a damn good scorer. He knew that he wasn't. Boston Knew that he wasn't and that he didn't have to be as long as they surrounded him with scorers. If u took some of those shooters/scorers away, you could expose his flaws easily.

That's the difference and I'm consistent with that in my rankings.

So, hypothetically, a person who blocked 50 shots a game and did literally nothing else wouldn't be in position for GOATness, correct?

Literally every criticism and disqualification you make of Russell would apply to this hypothetical player (and more so, since Russell could do some things offensively).

True? Or no? Why or why not?

[Y2K]

No one is saying be elite at everything and not have any flaws at anything.

For his position, Jordan was actually consistently a damn good rebounder. Didn't matter who u put around him because he was going to produce on BOTH sides of the ball on an elite level.

For His position, Bill Russell Was NOT a damn good scorer. He knew that he wasn't. Boston Knew that he wasn't and that he didn't have to be as long as they surrounded him with scorers. If u took some of those shooters/scorers away, you could expose his flaws easily.

That's the difference and I'm consistent with that in my rankings.

So, hypothetically, a person who blocked 50 shots a game and did literally nothing else wouldn't be in position for GOATness, correct?

Literally every criticism and disqualification you make of Russell would apply to this hypothetical player (and more so, since Russell could do some things offensively).

True? Or no? Why or why not?

Let's be reasonable, Bush4Ever. Russell isn't in consideration for GOAT on his shot blocking alone. Eleven rings and 4 MVPs in 13 years with setting the standard for modern defensive players is why.