50's and 60's Stats are Inflated Especially For Big men

[NewYorkNoPicks]

How could anyone rank George Mikan over a guy like David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, etc?

Why is Wilt so highly exalted?

Segregation still existed in the 1950s!

Guys like Mikan and Wilt (for the early part of his career) played against 6"7 white centers!!!!

You can put me in a game vs 20 kindergarteners and yeah I could score 100 points by solely being the tallest and most physically imposing person there by far.

The 1970s up to now mark the REAL NBA era. These days if youre talented you will most likely be discovered. Think of all the possible talent that could have fallen through the cracks in the 50s and 60s with prejudice, lesser opportunities for minorities, and a lack of a truly global scouting system.

George Mikan is irrelevant and his numbers are so inflated based on his level of competition.

No one doubts Wilt is one of the greatest ever, but some of his greatest seasons came in years where frankly there just wasnt much competition at the center position.

[KG215]

Mikan has nothing to do with the "inflated stats" era of the 60s. His career came before the shot clock.

[NewYorkNoPicks]

Milan has nothing to do with the "inflated stats" era of the 60s. His career came before the shot clock.

Still played against NOBODY NOTEWORTHY and in a predominantly white league. How can this guy EVER be rated higher than some of the greatest centers of all time? ridiculous!

Guys like Ewing, Robinson played aginst the likes of Shaq, Hakeem, Moses Malone etc!

[Optimus Prime]

Without Mikan there is no Ewing. He was the first big man to show that they could successfully play basketball at a high level, as hard as that is to believe.

The better question is why do people care so much about these silly ISH polls? :confusedshrug:

:kobe:

[KG215]

Still played against NOBODY NOTEWORTHY and in a predominantly white league. How can this guy EVER be rated higher than some of the greatest centers of all time? ridiculous!

Guys like Ewing, Robinson played aginst the likes of Shaq, Hakeem, Moses Malone etc!

I'm not going into this any further. You've got an agenda (an incredibly ignorant one). I doubt this thread even stays up too long.

Grow-up and learn to just appreciate what the greats from the 50s and 60s accomplished instead of discrediting them for what you THINK they wouldn't be able to do in later eras.

[millwad]

Milan has nothing to do with the "inflated stats" era of the 60s. His career came before the shot clock.

Completely true.

[Owl]

How could anyone rank George Mikan over a guy like David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, etc?

Why is Wilt so highly exalted?

Segregation still existed in the 1950s!

Guys like Mikan and Wilt (for the early part of his career) played against 6"7 white centers!!!!

You can put me in a game vs 20 kindergarteners and yeah I could score 100 points by solely being the tallest and most physically imposing person there by far.

The 1970s up to now mark the REAL NBA era. These days if youre talented you will most likely be discovered. Think of all the possible talent that could have fallen through the cracks in the 50s and 60s with prejudice, lesser opportunities for minorities, and a lack of a truly global scouting system.

George Mikan is irrelevant and his numbers are so inflated based on his level of competition.

No one doubts Wilt is one of the greatest ever, but some of his greatest seasons came in years where frankly there just wasnt much competition at the center position.
Because he was better than his peers. Because there's a chance that without Mikan the NBA doesn't exist today, that basketball is less popular than it is today.

You can argue that the players who peaked in the 50s should be listed seperately because of the vast differences in the game (shot clock, quotas, narrow lane). But to say he's irrelevent displays an ignorance and lack of respect for history that is baffling.

It's like saying Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were rubbish, they had silly ideas and contributed nothing to civilization. Look they believed many things our children know to be nonsense and as such should be mocked. Weak era for knowledge.

[KG215]

Because he was better than his peers. Because there's a chance that without Mikan the NBA doesn't exist today, that basketball is less popular than it is today.

You can argue that the players who peaked in the 50s should be listed seperately because of the vast differences in the game (shot clock, quotas, narrow lane). But to say he's irrelevent displays an ignorance and lack of respect for history that is baffling.

It's like saying Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were rubbish, they had silly ideas and contributed nothing to civilization. Look they believed many things our children know to be nonsense and as such should be mocked. Weak era for knowledge.

This is probably going to go WAY above the OP's head.

[Raz]

Mikan did a lot more in his era than Robinson did in his. That's all you need to know.

[BoutPractice]

The 60s, aka the actual beginning of the modern era of basketball, weren't a "white" decade. Just look at the dynasty Celtics' starting five.

As for Wilt, he played against two of the top centers of all time, Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, as well as Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed etc. He was dominant even against them.

The 50s are a bit different due things like segregation, the shot clock or the lane's width. So many things have changed since then that comparisons are made much more difficult. Mikan is given the benefit of the doubt because he was clearly head and shoulders above everyone else in the league.

[creepingdeath]

http://i.imgur.com/bsPGQ.gif
As soon as jlauber reads this...

[millwad]

Although I don't agree with OP it's a fact that the 60's was the era for inflated stats when it comes to big men.

In another thread Jlauber was spamming about the amount of rebounds and blocked shots Wilt grabbed and blocked in the '67 finals vs the Warriors, and the following is not about Wilt's inflated stats but centers in general in the 60's but I use Wilt's crazy rebound per game average in that finals as an example.

As a comparison, the 76ers in the finals of '67 averaged 106 FGA per game, Miami Heat who won the finals this year averaged 77 FGA per game. They played at a MUCH higher pace back then and lower FG% which led to way more available rebounds. And the rebounds wasn't the only thing, more FGA's leads to more points and more FGA's leads to more blocked shots.

[PHILA]

The 1970s up to now mark the REAL NBA era.


What exactly changed during the 5-6 months between the 1969 and 1970 seasons to magically improve the NBA in your mind? Is it Russell's retirement or KAJ's debut?



No one doubts Wilt is one of the greatest ever, but some of his greatest seasons came in years where frankly there just wasnt much competition at the center position.


1. '66-'67
2. '65-'66
3. '67-'68
4. '63-64
5. '71-'72


During 4 of Wilt's 5 best years his best competition at center was Russell, KAJ, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Lanier, Embry, Kerr, Hayes, Cowens, Unseld, & Beaty. All of whom would easily rank among the top 5 centers of 2012.

[shaq2000]

Very inflated. Wilt obviously had some talent, but it's incredibly overstated because of the misleading stats of that era.

[L.Kizzle]

Cause Mikan actually led his team to the titles unlike Robinson.

[lilgodfather1]

What exactly changed during the 5-6 months between the 1969 and 1970 seasons to magically improve the NBA in your mind? Is it Russell's retirement or KAJ's debut?




1. '66-'67
2. '65-'66
3. '67-'68
4. '63-64
5. '71-'72


During 4 of Wilt's 5 best years his best competition at center was Russell, KAJ, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Lanier, Embry, Kerr, Hayes, Cowens, Unseld, & Beaty. All of whom would easily rank among the top 5 centers of 2012.
Let's be real here. With the exception of Dwight, and maybe Bynum those would be the top C's in the NBA today. Then again in today's NBA 6'8" players can get away with playing C (Joel Anthony, Tristan Thompson). The C simply isn't as important as it used to be, but I don't know if it is a case of the lack of talent, or the rule changes. It could be a combination I guess. It breaks my heart I love big men, but they are dead with Duncan.

[PHILA]

Let's be real here. With the exception of Dwight, and maybe Bynum those would be the top C's in the NBA today. Then again in today's NBA 6'8" players can get away with playing C (Joel Anthony, Tristan Thompson). The C simply isn't as important as it used to be, but I don't know if it is a case of the lack of talent, or the rule changes. It could be a combination I guess. It breaks my heart I love big men, but they are dead with Duncan.

:applause:

A few of them like Russell & KAJ would be the best among all the positions, and perennial MVP candidates.

[LikeABosh]

Let's not forget about the ridiculous pace back then and shot chucking.

[magictricked]

If I'm understanding this right people actually have a problem with the faster pace of yesteryear? If anything today's stats are deflated.

Faster pace, more possessions, more shots, more fast breaks and higher scores is a bad thing?

I'm sold, bring it on, beats watching guys walk the ball up the floor to begin a 20 second isolation play

Bring it back I wanna see the 70's Nuggets or Spurs try to run every opponent into the ground again

[TheBigVeto]

Still played against NOBODY NOTEWORTHY and in a predominantly white league. How can this guy EVER be rated higher than some of the greatest centers of all time? ridiculous!

Guys like Ewing, Robinson played aginst the likes of Shaq, Hakeem, Moses Malone etc!

Same reason why Jimi Hendrix is rated top 5 GOAT guitarist, even though these days at least 10000 guitarists in youtube are better than him.

[millwad]

:applause:

A few of them like Russell & KAJ would be the best among all the positions, and perennial MVP candidates.

Russell would be no where close to what he was in the 60's, if he would have played today.

A man with no real scoring ability...

[KOBE143]

It's a weak era.. Obviously their stats were inflated especially Wilt..

[CavaliersFTW]

OP is a raging homosexual

[Colbertnation64]

Wilt would be in the d-league today and Russell would be his water boy.

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell would be no where close to what he was in the 60's, if he would have played today.

A man with no real scoring ability...
I call bullshit, you don't know what your talking about here. period.

[inclinerator]

didnt mikan play on 9 foot peach baskets?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gWfGdyyDR3Y/Tz5zPtwCB_I/AAAAAAAAAWk/Ah7Qd9oefv4/s1600/peach+basket.jpg

[Colbertnation64]

didnt mikan play on 9 foot peach baskets?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gWfGdyyDR3Y/Tz5zPtwCB_I/AAAAAAAAAWk/Ah7Qd9oefv4/s1600/peach+basket.jpg
That's actually a rare photo of of the Fort Wayne Pistons vs the St Louis Bombers.

[Colbertnation64]

I call bullshit, you don't know what your talking about here. period.
Not sure why you bother responding anymore lol. I've just come to accept that about 50% of the posters here don't know a single thing about the NBA pre-1980. This forum is much nicer if you put them on ignore.

[CavaliersFTW]

Not sure why you bother responding anymore lol. I've just come to accept that about 50% of the posters here don't know a single thing about the NBA pre-1980. This forum is much nicer if you put them on ignore.
Millwad has proven capable of using his brain when he isn't feuding with Jlauber. Trouble is he's nearly always feuding with Jlauber :oldlol:

[Timmy D for MVP]

OP has no sense of history.

But truly it amazes me how much fans will sit here and profess their love about this sport and then know absolutely nothing about it beyond their narrow view.

This includes, but is not limited to, history, evolution, and leagues outside their favorite (often the NBA or in Euroleague's case THE BEST LEAGUE EVER HOW DARE YOU INSINUATE THAT THE NBA PLAYERS ARE BETTER?!)

[Colbertnation64]

OP has no sense of history.

But truly it amazes me how much fans will sit here and profess their love about this sport and then know absolutely nothing about it beyond their narrow view.

This includes, but is not limited to, history, evolution, and leagues outside their favorite (often the NBA or in Euroleague's case THE BEST LEAGUE EVER HOW DARE YOU INSINUATE THAT THE NBA PLAYERS ARE BETTER?!)
The thing that I can't wrap my mind around is why people choose to remain ignorant of history. Basketball discussion would be a better place if we took away ranking by numbers and instead did it by tiers. In the top tier would be guys from different eras, it would depend on how they did for their time. So Shaq, Wilt, and Mikan would all be at the very top.

I will go as far as saying that the whole numerical ranking system almost destroys most worthwhile basketball discussion.

I just don't get why people would choose to remain ignorant of legends from before.

[Deuce Bigalow]

didnt mikan play on 9 foot peach baskets?


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gWfGdyyDR3Y/Tz5zPtwCB_I/AAAAAAAAAWk/Ah7Qd9oefv4/s1600/peach+basket.jpg
:roll: :roll:

What's up with that guy? Looks like he's 7 foot, 170 pounds

[millwad]

I call bullshit, you don't know what your talking about here. period.

Yeah, 15.1 points on 44% shooting...

Considering that you "know," tell me how his non-great scoring ability would translate in to the modern era..

[millwad]

Millwad has proven capable of using his brain when he isn't feuding with Jlauber. Trouble is he's nearly always feuding with Jlauber :oldlol:

Haha, repped. :oldlol:

[Timmy D for MVP]

The thing that I can't wrap my mind around is why people choose to remain ignorant of history. Basketball discussion would be a better place if we took away ranking by numbers and instead did it by tiers. In the top tier would be guys from different eras, it would depend on how they did for their time. So Shaq, Wilt, and Mikan would all be at the very top.

I will go as far as saying that the whole numerical ranking system almost destroys most worthwhile basketball discussion.

I just don't get why people would choose to remain ignorant of legends from before.

I agree. If pressed I can list a top ten. Or place a player in that manner.

But I'd much rather go by tiers.

And you're right. It's probably because those people are just ignorant. "Why should I take the time to learn this shit?" They don't get it. A lot of people in general don't get the importance of history just in life.

[magictricked]

One of my pet peeves is people being dismissive of time spent in the ABA. More than once during that ongoing list I've read posters downplay a players accomplishments because he came to the NBA via the ABA.

[iamgine]

How could anyone rank George Mikan over a guy like David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, etc?

Why is Wilt so highly exalted?

Segregation still existed in the 1950s!

Guys like Mikan and Wilt (for the early part of his career) played against 6"7 white centers!!!!

You can put me in a game vs 20 kindergarteners and yeah I could score 100 points by solely being the tallest and most physically imposing person there by far.

The 1970s up to now mark the REAL NBA era. These days if youre talented you will most likely be discovered. Think of all the possible talent that could have fallen through the cracks in the 50s and 60s with prejudice, lesser opportunities for minorities, and a lack of a truly global scouting system.

George Mikan is irrelevant and his numbers are so inflated based on his level of competition.

No one doubts Wilt is one of the greatest ever, but some of his greatest seasons came in years where frankly there just wasnt much competition at the center position.
Why 70s? Why not 80s? or 90s? After all NBA salary blew up in 90s, not 70s.

[Coffee Black]

It makes total sense that a person who went up against Hall of Fame big men already mentioned on this list would not be able to dominate the big men (except for maybe Howard) of today's NBA that lack the skill and toughness to play back to the basket, defend the rim, and even grab over 10 rebounds a game.

Too many posters on this site talk about all-time rankings and drop opinions about different eras, with out understanding the current era. What makes this era so great? The lack of big men? The ability of "superstar players" to hold on to the ball until jacking up a shot late in the shot clock? Superstars teaming up with each other, overshadowing one another as team mates, and diluting the competition in the league? The lack of toughness? The rules enacted in the last ten years favoring tipping the league in favor of those that attack the basket?

[NewYorkNoPicks]

So heres the litmus test guys:

Building a franchise you have a choice between David Robinson and George Mikan...... NOBODY WOULD CHOOSE MIKAN.

End of story point proven.

[Coffee Black]

So heres the litmus test guys:

Building a franchise you have a choice between David Robinson and George Mikan...... NOBODY WOULD CHOOSE MIKAN.

End of story point proven.

Your argument fails because you are naturally assuming that these guys would play in the current league. In the 50s and 60s a player with Mikan's hook shots around the basket may definitely more effective than one who's go to move is a jump shot.

Not to mention that without Mikan, David Robinson would not have had the drills that helped him become so great.

[NewYorkNoPicks]

Your argument fails because you are naturally assuming that these guys would play in the current league. In the 50s and 60s a player with Mikan's hook shots around the basket may definitely more effective than one who's go to move is a jump shot.

Not to mention that without Mikan, David Robinson would not have had the drills that helped him become so great.

Listen i dont care man! Ive been watching basketball for 19 years! Ive seen Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Hakeem etc and NOONE would pick Mikan over those guys! He is not as good a player as any of those guys

Stop grasping at straws people!

[Coffee Black]

Listen i dont care man! Ive been watching basketball for 19 years! Ive seen Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, Hakeem etc and NOONE would pick Mikan over those guys! He is not as good a player as any of those guys

Stop grasping at straws people!

Too bad you didn't watch it for 60 years.

I haven't either man, that is why I don't talk in absolutes. I don't do the impossible of dropping dudes from the 60s into 2012, and factoring every variable into how that person would play today (as if I am some kind of super computer or something). The truth is you have to take players for what they have done in their time. It's for that reason you don't hear any other sport ask what if he played now. What if Pele played with in today's European system? What if Rod Laver played with today's racquets but with the majors on more diverse courts? What if Johnny Unitas played in the modern west coast offense?

Nobody can answer these questions with any certainty. It is illogical.

[Timmy D for MVP]

So heres the litmus test guys:

Building a franchise you have a choice between David Robinson and George Mikan...... NOBODY WOULD CHOOSE MIKAN.

End of story point proven.

Certainly.

But you still can't downplay Mikan. You can't ignore history.

Lets switch it up a bit. Is Walter Johnson the person you would hand the ball to to pitch any game? Or would you start Jim Brown over any other RB in history?

[Psileas]

So heres the litmus test guys:

Building a franchise you have a choice between David Robinson and George Mikan...... NOBODY WOULD CHOOSE MIKAN.

End of story point proven.

Who someone would choose in a hypothetical draft doesn't necessarily co-relate with who's greater. Most people consider Jordan the GOAT, yet, I've seen a lot of them claim that in a hypothetical draft, they'd pick as their #1 someone else, like Kareem, Wilt or even Magic, because they'd find it easier to build a team around them. Hell, in Mikan's days, it would be impossible to build a team around Robinson, since blacks weren't even allowed to play.
This is the beef I have against Mikan's era, although it's still a given that Mikan influenced the history of the game far more than Robinson, which is exactly why he's mentioned in the same breath with him. Nobody putting Mikan up there with Robinson does it because of comparing their talents. They do it because Mikan influenced the course of the league more than arguably anyone ever. If we were to only put this into account, Mikn would be considered the or close to the GOAT. Instead, he's only up there with Robinson, because most people do consider the era and the talent available at that time.

As a sidenote, Mikan played just fine against the black Harlem Globetrotters and his black center opponents. Plus, from what I've read, he had the mentality of a leader: He played hard regardless of opponent (his mom was complaining to him that he was being too harsh on the court when playing against his brother, then he said something in the lines of "mom, I'd play the same way if I were facing you, too), he raised his game when it mattered, he played (and dominated) injured. He was a real winner, from the same mold with Russell, Magic, Bird and Jordan, but playing in a different era.

[MavsSuperFan]

So heres the litmus test guys:

Building a franchise you have a choice between David Robinson and George Mikan...... NOBODY WOULD CHOOSE MIKAN.

End of story point proven.

That's like saying who is smarter Issac Newton, or a random theoretical/quantum physics professor today. I saw on pbs recently that now physicists understand gravity better then during Newton's time. Does this diminish Newton's accomplishment. Pythagoras is credited with proving the Pythagorean theorem (a2+b2=c2), but it took him until adulthood. Does the fact that school children learn this formula all across the world diminish pythagoras?

[Colbertnation64]

Who someone would choose in a hypothetical draft doesn't necessarily co-relate with who's greater. Most people consider Jordan the GOAT, yet, I've seen a lot of them claim that in a hypothetical draft, they'd pick as their #1 someone else, like Kareem, Wilt or even Magic, because they'd find it easier to build a team around them. Hell, in Mikan's days, it would be impossible to build a team around Robinson, since blacks weren't even allowed to play.
This is the beef I have against Mikan's era, although it's still a given that Mikan influenced the history of the game far more than Robinson, which is exactly why he's mentioned in the same breath with him. Nobody putting Mikan up there with Robinson does it because of comparing their talents. They do it because Mikan influenced the course of the league more than arguably anyone ever. If we were to only put this into account, Mikn would be considered the or close to the GOAT. Instead, he's only up there with Robinson, because most people do consider the era and the talent available at that time.

As a sidenote, Mikan played just fine against the black Harlem Globetrotters and his black center opponents. Plus, from what I've read, he had the mentality of a leader: He played hard regardless of opponent (his mom was complaining to him that he was being too harsh on the court when playing against his brother, then he said something in the lines of "mom, I'd play the same way if I were facing you, too), he raised his game when it mattered, he played (and dominated) injured. He was a real winner, from the same mold with Russell, Magic, Bird and Jordan, but playing in a different era.

The thing is also that Mikan dominated the people that played at the same time as him. People are going to get better as time goes on, that's just how it works. What matters is how he played against his peers.

If Kobe was born in 1925 he would look much more like Pollard or Vern than Michael Jordan. He'd be doing the same moves, probably be taking a two handed set shot.

That quote is from a Chicago Stags vs Lakers game. Mikan broke his brothers nose during a game and his mom had complained to him afterwards. Mikan told her that if she had been on the floor he'd break her nose too.

Here's the video I uploaded of Mikan knocking Ed down during a game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUCocwFtyRI

[Math2]

Still played against NOBODY NOTEWORTHY and in a predominantly white league. How can this guy EVER be rated higher than some of the greatest centers of all time? ridiculous!

Guys like Ewing, Robinson played aginst the likes of Shaq, Hakeem, Moses Malone etc!

:roll: :roll: :roll: This thread is pretty funny, thanks for a good laugh. I'm glad we still have some jokesters here.

[Simple Jack]

That's like saying who is smarter Issac Newton, or a random theoretical/quantum physics professor today. I saw on pbs recently that now physicists understand gravity better then during Newton's time. Does this diminish Newton's accomplishment. Pythagoras is credited with proving the Pythagorean theorem (a2+b2=c2), but it took him until adulthood. Does the fact that school children learn this formula all across the world diminish pythagoras?

Pretty bad example as it proves part of the OP's logic.

Objectively, a scientist who had Newton's knowledge + much more would be the "better choice" of the two in a "who can do physics better" contest. Doesn't mean Newton wasn't great in his own right (which is what the OP went full-retard on) but it doesn't make him more knowledgeable than someone who knows the subject more.

[Psileas]

Pretty bad example as it proves part of the OP's logic.

Objectively, a scientist who had Newton's knowledge + much more would be the "better choice" of the two in a "who can do physics better" contest. Doesn't mean Newton wasn't great in his own right (which is what the OP went full-retard on) but it doesn't make him more knowledgeable than someone who knows the subject more.

The problem is, much like basketball and "skills", "more knowledgeable" is hardly the (only) basic criterion used to measure greatness among scientists. It doesn't even mean "smarter" or "more prolific", let alone "more influential". Then comes the era thing. I'd respect a lot more a scientist in Newton's era who was more knowledgable than a scientist from nowadays who is so. However, I'd respect equally with/more than Newton an equally/more prolific/smart/influential scientist, regardless of era (except maybe if we're talking about an era fully controlled by futuristic technology of eugenics, with everyone being born smart/charismatic). However, you'd be hard pressed to find even a handful that could compete. There are some, but definitely not a long list.

[Owl]

Pretty bad example as it proves part of the OP's logic.

Objectively, a scientist who had Newton's knowledge + much more would be the "better choice" of the two in a "who can do physics better" contest. Doesn't mean Newton wasn't great in his own right (which is what the OP went full-retard on) but it doesn't make him more knowledgeable than someone who knows the subject more.
It isn't. It's a perfectly good example.

It's the same sentiment as my example on page 1


... It's like saying Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were rubbish, they had silly ideas and contributed nothing to civilization. Look they believed many things our children know to be nonsense and as such should be mocked. Weak era for knowledge.

Both examples illustrate that great achievements occur in context. The great men of history aren't admired for what they might do today, but because what they did in their own time was extraordinary, because they were the first to make conceptual leaps.

Young centers don't do the Ewing drill or the Robinson drill, they do the Mikan drill. He was influential, he made the leap (basketball's first superstar).

The great scientists aren't compared by what they'd do in a "science off" so it is odd that you rate basketball players in such a way. Because it's so combatative you might factor how well they would do versus one another and thus (your perception of) era strength in. You might look at the smaller pool of potential players. There are various legitimate ways of doing GOAT type lists. But "stick them in a time machine and make them play with our present rules", seems, to me, to be an unusual and unfair one.

[Coffee Black]

The last page of posts seems to contain a unanimous opinion on how these all time lists should work.

Players should be values relative to their era. Transplanting players across eras is illogical.

[Timmy D for MVP]

The last page of posts seems to contain a unanimous opinion on how these all time lists should work.

Players should be values relative to their era. Transplanting players across eras is illogical.

Correct. And especially in basketball. Baseball you could build a line-up with Ruth, Mays, and Pujols and they'd all still be great no matter when they played.

Football is relatively young so you could still take someone like say Deacon Jones and he'd still likely translate (he'd wouldn't be on the line but he'd still be a good player).

You could take Russell and he'd be great in today's era, but the sport evolves so quickly that it's a completely different game. Even from just 7 years ago!

It is value in relation to the time they were playing. Measure them against their peers and the iteration of the game at the time.

[daily]

The last page of posts seems to contain a unanimous opinion on how these all time lists should work.

Players should be values relative to their era. Transplanting players across eras is illogical.
This. A top five player of his time is a top five player of all time he doesn't get knocked down the list because a top 5 player today could beat him one on one.

I realize when you make lists players have to get shuffled around and that's part of the fun to me. If done right it's also painstaking business because you can't just randomly drop Jerry West down the line because an active player had a couple good seasons.

[G.O.A.T]

kudos to coffee black and daily for drawing an obvious but all to overlooked conclusion.

[Timmy D for MVP]

kudos to coffee black and daily for drawing an obvious but all to overlooked conclusion.

Annnnd to Timmy D. *Cough*

Naw but for real. Even though I enjoy Simmons more for his humor and writing ability (love him, hate him, Simmons can write) he does have some great ideas.

1) I love his playoff idea, but that's not relevant.

2) His basketball pyramid is how I would rate players. And what is this fascination with ranking anyway? You know I've recently weighed possibly pursuing an advanced degree in history after I get my Bachelors, and I sat here for like 40 minutes trying to figure out what my actual focus would be. Then it dawned on me, I would love to be a basketball historian. Because the sport lacks those. Baseball and football have a bunch (read: too many) basketball doesn't have nearly enough. And one such topic that I think would make for great literature is why we have this fascination with the idea of rigid rankings in this sport.

Now would my University support my topic?.... idk. :oldlol: But it'd certainly be fun to look at.

[L.Kizzle]

No such thing as inflated stats,

[Coffee Black]

kudos to coffee black and daily for drawing an obvious but all to overlooked conclusion.

Thanks man.

Can we all agree on another common sense "rule" to players' legacies that is often overlooked. A legacy is built by what the player has done, not by what they have potential to achieve or what they fail to achieve.

For example, I fully expected Duncan to continue dominating the league for at least a few years after 2007. But him not doing so and having a couple first round losses in no means tarnishes his previous numerous feats.