You might be better off ranking the players before creating the tiers, as opposed to creating the tiers of 10 and then ranking the players.
Yeah, but I'm not going for one-by-one rankings. As I noted earlier, I don't really believe in them, and it's so impossible at some point that it becomes a bit absurd. I think that exact rankings force false choices.
Last edited by GMATCallahan : 03-11-2007 at 10:04 PM.
man, after the top 10, it becomes extremely difficult. even the top 10 isn't easy. i'm not altogether certain oscar ranks ahead of moses and west. he definitely has an argument, but i don't know if it's a clear cut case. to me it actually breaks down a little different in terms of tiers. i don't think there's any way i would rank pippen and karl as definitively better than thomas, barkley, or robinson. on the other hand i can pretty definitively rank west and moses over scottie. tremendously subjective too when you try to put all the second and third tier super-stars in rankings.
I should make one point about Robertson. Even though he was 35 and well past his prime when he retired in 1974 and had only posted modest, non-star numbers in his last season, the Bucks fell from 59 wins and Game Seven of the NBA Finals to 38 victories and missing the NBA playoffs. Even without Kareem in his prime, they fell apart with an aging "Big O."
Yeah, but I'm not going for one-by-one rankings. As I noted earlier, I don't really believe in them, and it's so impossible at some point that it becomes a bit absurd. I think that exact rankings forces really false choices.
I don't really like them either, most of my threads are also lists instead of individual ranks
can you explain why scottie ranks in the top 20 and kobe only ranks in the top 50? i'm no lakers fan or anything but i don't get how a terrific second banana on phil's first dynasty ranks so much higher than a second banana on phil's second dynasty. just curious.
Wade is not a top 50 player ever...I hope that was a typo
Obviously, I may be jumping the gun, but if you look at his combination of scoring, playmaking, efficiency, explosivenes, and even rebounding, plus what he did in the Finals to win a championship (even though some of the calls were really dubious), I think that he's right there. He's one of four players to record at least 30 points and 12 assists in three straight games (along with Oscar Robertson, Tiny Archibald, and Kevin Johnson).
can you explain why scottie ranks in the top 20 and kobe only ranks in the top 50? i'm no lakers fan or anything but i don't get how a terrific second banana on phil's first dynasty ranks so much higher than a second banana on phil's second dynasty. just curious.
Pippen was a superior all-around player who made his teammates better. Bryant was the superior pure scorer, but he was worse at everything else and more inefficient. Pippen literally did everything on the floor, all over the floor, as perhaps the greatest "glue" player ever.
Kobe is more like the poor man's Jordan (although a jaw-dropping player in his own right).
I just think that Pippen creates a more positive winning impact (we saw that in '93-'94), even though Kobe is one of the most spectacular shot-makers ever.
Maybe Pip should be 20-30, I don't know ...
Last edited by GMATCallahan : 03-11-2007 at 10:06 PM.
Obviously, I may be jumping the gun, but if you look at his combination of scoring, playmaking, efficiency, explosivenes, and even rebounding, plus what he did in the Finals to win a championship (even though some of the calls were really dubious), I think that he's right there. He's one of four players to record at least 30 points and 12 assists in three straight games (along with Oscar Robertson, Tiny Archibald, and Kevin Johnson).
And he is in his 4th season...he doesnt belong in the top 50 All Time...I also consider LeBron to be better in his 4 years in the league than Wade.
Yes, Wade does have a finals MVP but you switch him with Lebron and I think LeBron gets them to the championship too
Anyways there are tons of players who have had better careers than Wade...4 years in the league doesnt cut it for me.
Yes, Wade does have a finals MVP but you switch him with Lebron and I think LeBron gets them to the championship too
im not sure you understand this line of thinking lacks of any solid reasoning and can't be used as "evidence" ?
i think if you put iverson with the most physically dominant player of all-time he would have 3 rings too, maybe more considering he wouldnt run shaq out of town.
Yeah, but I'm not going for one-by-one rankings. As I noted earlier, I don't really believe in them, and it's so impossible at some point that it becomes a bit absurd. I think that exact rankings force false choices.
I mean more along the lines of just creating different tiers with a different number of players in each. You don't exactly have to rank the players exactly, but you could say that all the players in your top 10, plus Jerry West, are in the first tier. Or you could shorten up the first tier to just include Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Bird, and Russell. And possibly Dream I suppose. Just an idea, gives a better idea of who the better players are, without actually ranking the players one by one.
And he is in his 4th season...he doesnt belong in the top 50 All Time...I also consider LeBron to be better in his 4 years in the league than Wade.
Yes, Wade does have a finals MVP but you switch him with Lebron and I think LeBron gets them to the championship too
Anyways there are tons of players who have had better careers than Wade...4 years in the league doesnt cut it for me.
Fair enough, I was kind of just placing him on a trajectory.
Still, in four years, Wade has made a greater impact than so many others. Maybe James brings them the championship, but he's not as adept at fourth quarter scoring and free throw shooting.
Re: Top ten players of all-time
