How do you rank players all-time?

[Marchesk]

Which criteria do you count as more important? Common criteria would be of course:

Accolades
Individual stats
Advanced stats (where available)
Team achievement
Offensive ability
Defensensive ability
Longevity
Iconic
Changed the game
Eye test (where available)
What the media tells you
How peers rank them
Era
Competition at their position

[Dr Seuss]

i dont. it's fruitless

[Marchesk]

I forgot a common one on here:

Who you think would be better if they all played at the same time (time travel argument).

[ISHGoat]

***** length * Girth.

So LeBron/Pippen would be first

Kobe/Jordan dead last.

[Marchesk]

i dont. it's fruitless

No doubt. But it can be fun. I had wondered about what the result would be if people ranked the criteria and then a top 20 list was generated from that. But then how do you assign values to things like "eye test"? I guess people would have to say who they thought was better according to certain criteria, and then the numeric ones would be automatically factored.

[Marchesk]

***** length * Girth.

So LeBron/Pippen would be first

Kobe/Jordan dead last.

[FatComputerNerd]

Not based off of rings.

Personally I look at the individual and try to gauge how skilled he is/was. This means stats to some extent but also the eye-test.

[Dr Hawk]

Prime (impact, stats count but not as much)
Peak (impact, stats count but not as much)
Longevity

I can't care less about rings

[Marchesk]

Not based off of rings.

Personally I look at the individual and try to gauge how skilled he is/was. This means stats to some extent but also the eye-test.

Does that mean you rank Bill Russell lower than most?

[FatComputerNerd]

Does that mean you rank Bill Russell lower than most?

Honestly I can't say.

I wasn't around to watch him live. I try not to rank players I didn't get to see play. Youtube highlights only show just so much.

I don't think I'd even attempt to rank him or most anyone from that era.

[WayOfWade]

I largely just try to take how impactful and successful a player was in his own time period, including accolades and everything he himself was able to do. That's why I don't penalize Wilt and Russell for being as good as they were back in the day, they did their best with what they had. I really don't use advanced stats too much, but that's mainly due to my disinterest and lack of knowledge thereof; I do believe they hold value though. And personally, I am not a fan of the "eye test" theory. I don't need to see how a player plays to know he was successful and dominated his competition. Players can have ugly games yet still get the job done

[LAZERUSS]

Well, we know that today's basketball players are much better athletes, and more skilled...

How about this 6-8 white guy winning a rpg title, and putting up a 26-12 season...

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+misses+a+dunk

Or this skilled marvel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=993UTozPECc

and how about this two-time MVP winning beast of a man...

[G0ATbe]

Eye test
Era
Rings

[Dr Hawk]

Well, we know that today's basketball players are much better athletes, and more skilled...

How about this 6-8 white guy winning a rpg title, and putting up a 26-12 season...

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+misses+a+dunk

Or this skilled marvel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=993UTozPECc

and how about this two-time MVP winning beast of a man...

Why this passive-aggressive post?

[kennethgriffin]

its a little bit of everything combined


say 2 guys have around the same stats and finals mvps


ok so 1 guy has more mvps

the other guy has more rings

guy 1 has more mvps though

the other guy has more 1st team all nbas

guy 1 has the mvps again

the other guy has more 1st team all defensive awards

guy 1 has 4 mvps doe

the other guy won 2 rings without a top 50 player all time unlike guy 1

but guy 1 has those mvps

the other guy has way more 40, 50, 60 point games and even an 80 point game

but guy 1 has 4.. count em... 4 mvps

the other guy beat 5 times as many great teams throughout his career ( 24 series wins vs 50+ win teams ) while the other guy had a cake walk in the crap east

but .... 4 mvps for guy 1

the other guy has way more of a polished skillset, fundamentals, footwork, post game, and does it in a way smaller body with way less physical advantages

but the big guy 1 has does mvps


the other guy never ring chased. never colluded. never took a play cut in order to rig a team together. never left to join another guy who already won a title a few years earlier. never won during a lockout year or had a teammate hit a season saving shot in an elimination game.

but guy 1... well you get the picture





so in the end.. having more titles and more of everything in every aspect except for mvps and efficiency is basically worthless in the minds of some retards