Which critera for ranking players is accurate?

[Olacinco]

Lmao @ d rose #19

[I<3NBA]

the first one is better
any list with the rapist at 5 sucks
/ thread

[BoutPractice]

Alternative for judging a player: the dialectical test, also known as "stan vs hater".

Let's try this test for Tim Duncan. The stan says he's top 3. His argument is that Duncan led 4 teams to the championship: only Russell, Jordan and Mikan led their teams to more championships, but Mikan is suspect because he played pre-shot clock. The hater says that winning is highly contingent on circumstance, and Duncan was helped by Popovich and a great organization. The stan concedes a point, but remarks that the Spurs won only 20 games before Duncan came to the league, and 56 games right after after Duncan was drafted. The hater notes that this is partly due to David Robinson's return. The stan once again concedes a point, but adds that the Spurs retained the best winning percentage as David Robinson declined and after he retired, and that Duncan is the one credible common denominator in the Spurs' success from 1997 to 2014.

The hater says that leading a winning isn't the only argument anyway: what counts is who was considered the best player in the league when they were playing. The stan replies that Duncan has 2 MVPs, including one coinciding with a championship year, and has about a dozen All-NBA First Team appearance. The hater counters that he may have a couple of MVPs, but many players have a more "dominant peak". The stan observes that 2003 Duncan won without any other All-Star, and had dominant all-around performances in the playoffs and Finals, such as a quasi quadruple double in the title clinching game.

The hater moves on to longevity and consistency. Once again, the stan has an answer: Tim Duncan played in 3 different decades, led his team to the best winning percentage in the league through the period, and as an illustration was both a top player in his rookie year, and a last second 3 pointer away from winning another FMVP 16 years later.

The hater then tries the skill argument. The stan points out that Duncan possesses almost every skill there is in basketball, and has as complete a game, on both sides of the court, as any bigman in history.

The hater lists instances where Duncan and his team choked. The stan replies by finding a number of similar examples for every other great player in history.

The hater is left with the eye test: Duncan is boring and "doesn't look as good as (whoever) to me". The stan says that it's the hater's right to think that, but it's a completely subjective opinion on the basis of which no common ground can be found.

etc. etc. until all angles have been probed.

Subject every great player to the test. See whose game and career resists criticism the most. (I suspect that MJ would be at the top of that list)

[ArbitraryWater]

Why not just go off the eye test? Not trolling here, just completely throw all accolades (aside from championships) out the window. Analyze how good players are, if winning as many championships as possible with them as your main piece is the goal. Take into account quality of teammates, role, etc.

Because everyone has different opinions?? People can just say shit favoring their agenda and be like "my eyes saw it"

[SavageMode]

First list is better doe.

[6 for 24]

what?! I'm confused. As Kobe fans we don't want people thinking he's a chucker. Being a chucker is bad. Btw, I also like pistol Pete.

This is where you are mistaken, my friend. Being a chucker is good, what every player should strive for but few have the 'cojones' to accomplish. Chucking leads to made baskets and rebounding opportunities, which lead to wins and build team camraderie. Perhaps it is my cross-sport upbringing that has established this belief, but after watching the NBA for some time now, I am convinced it is correct.

Warmest regards,

Ayotunde Ndiaye

[fpliii]

Because everyone has different opinions?? People can just say shit favoring their agenda and be like "my eyes saw it"

Then we can just throw the opinions of those with agendas out the window.