How can you rank a player that you have never watched play?

[nba_55]

I see lots of GOAT lists in here, and many of them have players such as Russell, Wilt in them. 99.99 % of the members in here haven't seen those guys play. They haven't even watched one of their games. That means they are ranking those players solely based on their stats.

But can you really rank a player based on stats? Basketball is much more than stats. There are so many things that you can't see on the stats sheet.

Lewis had 0 pts, 0 rbs and 0 ass against Indiana in one of the games last series. Looking at the stats, one would think that he played very poorly, but in reality, he impacted the game a lot. He changed the whole game with his defensive presence.

Bosh often gets criticised for his stats. What we don't see on the stats sheet is his impact on the whole Miami offense. He opens the paint for Lebron and Wade. He is responsible for Miami s spacing, and spacing is the most important aspect of Miami s offense. On defense, his great pick and roll D doesn't show up on the stats sheet. That pick and roll D is an integral part of Miami s defense.

Looking at the stats, many would pick Beasley over players like Lewis, Haslem, Battier. But if you actually watch the games, you would see that Beasley ruins the whole Miami system. Defensively, he doesn't get the read and react defense system. We cant see that on the stats.

[red1]

that's a great question. kobe is a rapist

[Black and White]

This seems like a ploy to prop up LeBron in peoples all time lists, I see what you are doing.....

[The Magics]

You just bend the available information to support your favorite ideas. It's quite simple.

[nba_55]

This seems like a ploy to prop up LeBron in peoples all time lists, I see what you are doing.....

I don't believe in all-time lists and I don't have any all-time list. I haven't watched enough of many all-time great players to make a list.

[Kblaze8855]

Most people seem to rank players using shit they wouldnt need to see them play to discover anyway.

[Black and White]

I don't believe in all-time lists and I don't have any all-time list. I haven't watched enough of many all-time great players to make a list.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinon, so based on who you have seen play, who are the best of the best?

[Just2McFly]

Most people seem to rank players using shit they wouldnt need to see them play to discover anyway.
+1

[midatlantic09]

This is what I've been saying about Dante Exum. People on here keep putting him in their top 5 draft prospects, but probably haven't even seen him play a full game.

[nba_55]

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinon, so based on who you have seen play, who are the best of the best?

I actually started to watch basketball in 2003, and at that time, I didn't know a lot about it and I didn't follow it closely. It s really during 2006 that I started to follow it closely. And from what I have seen which is not a lot, I have Lebron as the best and Kobe as 2nd.

I have watched some Jordan games, but not enough to rank him.

[nba_55]

This is what I've been saying about Dante Exum. People on here keep putting him in their top 5 draft prospects, but probably haven't even seen him play a full game.

They are probably using highlights on youtube on rank him.

[kennethgriffin]

How can you rank a player that you have never watched play?



same way we rank players we've seen play

with resumes



i can sit here all day saying i saw both kobe and jordan play and kobes better. but itel never get me anywhere. all that people wanna talk about is stats, awards, rings... rightfully so

[kamil]

that's a great question. kobe is a rapist

*raptors fan

[Black and White]

I actually started to watch basketball in 2003, and at that time, I didn't know a lot about it and I didn't follow it closely. It s really during 2006 that I started to follow it closely. And from what I have seen which is not a lot, I have Lebron as the best and Kobe as 2nd.

I have watched some Jordan games, but not enough to rank him.

Wade must be pretty high on your list then too??

Dirk??

2006 -now has been good, I have a soft spot for great big men, so the Hakeems, Shaqs, Duncans, KGs, Dirks of the world are always higher on my list.

[nba_55]

same way we rank players we've seen play

with resumes



i can sit here all day saying i saw both kobe and jordan play and kobes better. but itel never get me anywhere. all that people wanna talk about is stats, awards, rings... rightfully so

But you don't have to follow the other people. Why would you need other people to validate your opinion?

[kennethgriffin]

But you don't have to follow the other people. Why would you need other people to validate your opinion?


i dont. i just like trolling

:confusedshrug:

[K Xerxes]

More to the point, the idea of ranking player is hugely flawed. If one player thrives in a particular system with particular players and coaching staff, does that necessarily mean he is better than another player in a completely different set up? How would you know even by watching games?

Ranking players in a team game doesn't work, full stop. Of course, some players are better than others... obviously lebron is better than anthony bennett. But I don't truly believe the gap between #1 (lets say Jordan) and #10 ( lets say olajuwon) is big enough to account for external factors, that you could easily be justified in saying they have similar impact and belong in the same tier.

Anyway I do like to rank players and compare. Its a fun part of being a fan. Doesn't mean its right.

[played0ut]

I see lots of GOAT lists in here, and many of them have players such as Russell, Wilt in them. 99.99 % of the members in here haven't seen those guys play. They haven't even watched one of their games. That means they are ranking those players solely based on their stats.

But can you really rank a player based on stats? Basketball is much more than stats. There are so many things that you can't see on the stats sheet.

Lewis had 0 pts, 0 rbs and 0 ass against Indiana in one of the games last series. Looking at the stats, one would think that he played very poorly, but in reality, he impacted the game a lot. He changed the whole game with his defensive presence.

Bosh often gets criticised for his stats. What we don't see on the stats sheet is his impact on the whole Miami offense. He opens the paint for Lebron and Wade. He is responsible for Miami s spacing, and spacing is the most important aspect of Miami s offense. On defense, his great pick and roll D doesn't show up on the stats sheet. That pick and roll D is an integral part of Miami s defense.

Looking at the stats, many would pick Beasley over players like Lewis, Haslem, Battier. But if you actually watch the games, you would see that Beasley ruins the whole Miami system. Defensively, he doesn't get the read and react defense system. We cant see that on the stats.


Besides clips, there is context.

Bill Russell:

[quote=article]

[nba_55]

Wade must be pretty high on your list then too??

Dirk??

2006 -now has been good, I have a soft spot for great big men, so the Hakeems, Shaqs, Duncans, KGs, Dirks of the world are always higher on my list.

I actually don't have an actual list from 1 to 10, but i have great respect for Wade, KG, Dirk, Duncan also. Bosh is very underrated in here.

[kennethgriffin]

More to the point, the idea of ranking player is hugely flawed. If one player thrives in a particular system with particular players and coaching staff, does that necessarily mean he is better than another player in a completely different set up? How would you know even by watching games?

Ranking players in a team game doesn't work, full stop. Of course, some players are better than others... obviously lebron is better than anthony bennett. But I don't truly believe the gap between #1 (lets say Jordan) and #10 ( lets say olajuwon) is big enough to account for external factors, that you could easily be justified in saying they have similar impact and belong in the same tier.

Anyway I do like to rank players and compare. Its a fan part of being a fan. Doesn't mean its right.


i think everyone ranks people based on an agenda that fits the criteria of their favorite player


like how lebron fans discounted rings and finals mvps their whole life up until a few years ago

now they they love finals mvps but discount rings

and if/when lebron gets a 5th or 6th ring... then lebron fans will fall in love with them


its just a big agenda driven troll fest on message boards everywhere... everyones retarded... its hilarious

:lol

[nba_55]

Besides clips, there is context.

Bill Russell:

Yeah, but can you really based your list from someone else perspective?

[Black and White]

I actually don't have an actual list from 1 to 10, but i have great respect for Wade, KG, Dirk, Duncan also. Bosh is very underrated in here.

Boshs impact is often lost as he is now a third option, players like that arent given the respect that they deserve.

[Eye Test]

ask lebron stans

[played0ut]

Yeah, but can you really based your list from someone else perspective?

People much more knowledgeable than me, more knowledgeable than probably anyone else on this forum, who knows the intangibles like NONE of us ever could (refer to havlicek talking about Russell strategizing), and seem unbiased?


Of course. Its no different from handing in a paper and citing legitimate references--theyre the references.

[MavsSuperFan]

Great point OP, ISH hipsters just like pretending they watched Wilt and russell play, when they are at most 30.

[La Frescobaldi]

I see lots of GOAT lists in here, and many of them have players such as Russell, Wilt in them. 99.99 % of the members in here haven't seen those guys play. They haven't even watched one of their games. That means they are ranking those players solely based on their stats.

But can you really rank a player based on stats? Basketball is much more than stats. There are so many things that you can't see on the stats sheet.

Lewis had 0 pts, 0 rbs and 0 ass against Indiana in one of the games last series. Looking at the stats, one would think that he played very poorly, but in reality, he impacted the game a lot. He changed the whole game with his defensive presence.

Bosh often gets criticised for his stats. What we don't see on the stats sheet is his impact on the whole Miami offense. He opens the paint for Lebron and Wade. He is responsible for Miami s spacing, and spacing is the most important aspect of Miami s offense. On defense, his great pick and roll D doesn't show up on the stats sheet. That pick and roll D is an integral part of Miami s defense.

Looking at the stats, many would pick Beasley over players like Lewis, Haslem, Battier. But if you actually watch the games, you would see that Beasley ruins the whole Miami system. Defensively, he doesn't get the read and react defense system. We cant see that on the stats.

It's a nice point, and why I leave Bill Russell out. I watched Chamberlain in his best days, right up to the end, but I only saw Russell when he was old, frequently injured, and focused maybe more on coaching than playing. He was great all right, but I never saw the dude in the 50s or early 60s. It's even worse than usual with that guy because there's almost no film at all.

Baylor same thing. The Baylor I saw was mostly a clanking miserable excuse (really really good in '68 and say, '69 but lotta my friends felt like DeBusschere was cheated of 1st team All-NBA by a 'name' player instead of what happened on a court) who got worse in the 70s when he didn't play at all but still drew down his salary. Is it fair to say that's all Baylor was when I never saw him before he broke his kneecap?

But even more than that. It's about impossible to look back at past players, like Walton or Bird or Moses Malone, like on ESPN Classics or whatever.... and really see them. The live-game intensity doesn't exist. Unless you saw those seasons in the present, as they were happening.... they make no sense.

Everybody's eye is colored by the present, clouded by the recent.

Of course the younger eye, that did not watch those seasons will think that era was 'primitive' and so they think the players were somehow less than today's stars. When in fact player talent hasn't changed a jot from Hal Greer, Oscar, & Logo to these past few seasons of Bryant, Wade and Parker.

The game has changed, the rules have changed, coaching and training is better, skills are honed to a much finer edge. Those are the evolution of the game - not of players. Talent hasn't gotten better nor worse.... in my view you can't understand the complete and utter domination of the NBA by Bill Walton just by looking back at it. It's cliche, maybe, but....... you just had to be there.

I also know, as a grey haired old geezer, that your high school & college days remain vivid in the memory while your later years and decades fade a lot more. This is why guys who were in that 15 to 25 y.o. age during Jordan's era have no doubt in their mind's eye that he was the Greatest. And I'm certain it has an effect on me, too, me who grew up watching Wilt and Greer, Frazier and Reed, Jabbar and all those guys.

[nba_55]

It's a nice point, and why I leave Bill Russell out. I watched Chamberlain in his best days, right up to the end, but I only saw Russell when he was old, frequently injured, and focused maybe more on coaching than playing. He was great all right, but I never saw the dude in the 50s or early 60s. It's even worse than usual with that guy because there's almost no film at all.

Baylor same thing. The Baylor I saw was mostly a clanking miserable excuse (really really good in '68 and say, '69 but lotta my friends felt like DeBusschere was cheated of 1st team All-NBA by a 'name' player instead of what happened on a court) who got worse in the 70s when he didn't play at all but still drew down his salary. Is it fair to say that's all Baylor was when I never saw him before he broke his kneecap?

But even more than that. It's about impossible to look back at past players, like Walton or Bird or Moses Malone, like on ESPN Classics or whatever.... and really see them. The live-game intensity doesn't exist. Unless you saw those seasons in the present, as they were happening.... they make no sense.

Everybody's eye is colored by the present, clouded by the recent.

Of course the younger eye, that did not watch those seasons will think that era was 'primitive' and so they think the players were somehow less than today's stars. When in fact player talent hasn't changed a jot from Hal Greer, Oscar, & Logo to these past few seasons of Bryant, Wade and Parker.

The game has changed, the rules have changed, coaching and training is better, skills are honed to a much finer edge. Those are the evolution of the game - not of players. Talent hasn't gotten better nor worse.... in my view you can't understand the complete and utter domination of the NBA by Bill Walton just by looking back at it. It's cliche, maybe, but....... you just had to be there.

I also know, as a grey haired old geezer, that your high school & college days remain vivid in the memory while your later years and decades fade a lot more. This is why guys who were in that 15 to 25 y.o. age during Jordan's era have no doubt in their mind's eye that he was the Greatest. And I'm certain it has an effect on me, too, me who grew up watching Wilt and Greer, Frazier and Reed, Jabbar and all those guys.

That's an interesting point. I think nostalgia plays a huge role in some of the lists in here.

[jlip]

I see lots of GOAT lists in here, and many of them have players such as Russell, Wilt in them. 99.99 % of the members in here haven't seen those guys play. They haven't even watched one of their games. That means they are ranking those players solely based on their stats.

But can you really rank a player based on stats? Basketball is much more than stats. There are so many things that you can't see on the stats sheet.


Because one may use far more than stats to make an assessment of players whose careers were before he started watching. There is a plethora of resources which includes a limitless supply of articles, books, interviews, etc. (and now some video) that provides valuable information regarding players from previous generations. Some young people actually know more about historical players than the information that can be found on their b-ball reference profile. It's called research.

[el gringos]

But you don't have to follow the other people. Why would you need other people to validate your opinion?
That is how most of these people have opinions. By taking others opinions. Very few people use their own minds to determine talent because of the fear of not fitting in.


Just imagine no internet, no mock draft lists, no sports talk shows- just 100 people given all d1 basketball game footage. Even erase the ore games and half times. How many of those 100 people come up w wiggins from watching games as some kind of sure fire superstar talent?

[NuggetsFan]

NBA was different back than. You couldn't watch 82 games. I mean Wilt's 100 point game wasn't even on TV. So unless you were one of the few to see it live, somebody born in 1948 knows as much as someone born in 1991 about it. We can listen to the same thing you did, read about it like you have in books & articles etc.

I mean how many Bill Russell games would you actually watch back than if you got in a time machine? Nowhere near what you'd see see of a Steph Curry today. Where you literally could have watched his entire career starting with him in College. You'd listen to alot of radio.

Stats, accomplishments relative to era, whatever game tape is available, books, articles, trusted opinions are enough to give you a decent understanding. I mean we do that with history, why should basketball be any different? If a 12 year old kid wanted to do a book report on Wilt Chamberlain he could. Wouldn't be the same as doing one on LeBron James or Jordan, but people who lived back than didn't even get that kinda coverage :confusedshrug:

[kshutts1]

Believe it or not, to make my all-time tier, I used.... drumroll please... input/thoughts/opinions of others, coupled with stories/stats/highlight video!!!

It is so weird, leaning on your fellow man for information, then applying it appropriately. I don't need to have seen the 60's to know that Oscar, Wilt, Pettit were some of the best players of that era. I hear about it all the time, and see it in resumes.

[Marchesk]

It's their impact relative to their competition. How are you not going to rank Russell in the top 10 when he has 11 rings in 13 seasons, and was denying other great players such as Wilt, Oscar, Petit, Baylor and West?

[diamenz]

This seems like a ploy to prop up LeBron in peoples all time lists, I see what you are doing.....

op is livinglegend - go figure.

[La Frescobaldi]

NBA was different back than. You couldn't watch 82 games. I mean Wilt's 100 point game wasn't even on TV. So unless you were one of the few to see it live, somebody born in 1948 knows as much as someone born in 1991 about it. We can listen to the same thing you did, read about it like you have in books & articles etc.

I mean how many Bill Russell games would you actually watch back than if you got in a time machine? Nowhere near what you'd see see of a Steph Curry today. Where you literally could have watched his entire career starting with him in College. You'd listen to alot of radio.

Stats, accomplishments relative to era, whatever game tape is available, books, articles, trusted opinions are enough to give you a decent understanding. I mean we do that with history, why should basketball be any different? If a 12 year old kid wanted to do a book report on Wilt Chamberlain he could. Wouldn't be the same as doing one on LeBron James or Jordan, but people who lived back than didn't even get that kinda coverage :confusedshrug:

Only somewhat true.

Many or most fans had season tickets - greed was darn near un-American by comparison with today's catastrophes - and with 10 or 12 teams in the league you saw all players 3 or 4 times a season or more. And, since most of the league was based around that NYC Boston Philly triangle you see? You not only could cruise out to catch other games pretty easy but you even saw a lot of the same people at the game from the other cities. One of my friends dated girls on the regular from all 3 towns because he saw them 2,3, 4 times a month. Gas was like 19c. back then and any job was $1.15 or $1.25... if you could roof or paint... more. Hoops was a very small community in those days.
There are millions of other distractions or pastimes today. I doubt many guys honestly catch 80 games in the regular season today.... on tv or live-cast. Lots of guys caught 80 or 100 games a regular season back then because unlike today's internet, tv and so forth, live ball was a major pastime if you loved sports. Guys would blare the Bullets games on their transistor radios while sitting in the Garden watching the Warriors get destroyed by Willis & Clyde and everybody around them was listening too.

That said though, film unquestionably changed everything, starting, really, right around 1970 or '72. That's when teams really had it available and started studying their opponents, etc.
Ball was way more pure before film.

[ImKobe]

Wilt, Russell, Oscar are hard for me to rank because I wasn't around during their days and there's not enough footage on them for me to properly analyze. You can watch MJ, Bird, Magic, Kareem footage for days, you don't have enough footage on the other guys I mentioned.

[IncarceratedBob]

What's the point of watching the game? Look at stats and their collective resumes in context. Obviously Bill Russell is going to have a better looking resume than LeBron/Kobe/Duncan, etc but does anyone actually believe that Russ could hold a candle to those three? No way.

You need to adjust for era, Wilt's stats look incredible but once you adjust them for a more modern basketball environment they look a lot more human but impressive nonetheless.

[MavsSuperFan]

Believe it or not, to make my all-time tier, I used.... drumroll please... input/thoughts/opinions of others, coupled with stories/stats/highlight video!!!

It is so weird, leaning on your fellow man for information, then applying it appropriately. I don't need to have seen the 60's to know that Oscar, Wilt, Pettit were some of the best players of that era. I hear about it all the time, and see it in resumes.
no one disagrees with that.
People just wonder how they would do against less flawed eras.

[Marchesk]

People just wonder how they would do against less flawed eras.

Are we time travelling them or do they get to grow up in whatever era isn't so flawed? That's why it's a dumb standard. You rank them based on what sort of impact they had on the game.

[Marchesk]

Obviously Bill Russell is going to have a better looking resume than LeBron/Kobe/Duncan, etc but does anyone actually believe that Russ could hold a candle to those three? No way.

They do, otherwise he wouldn't be ranked in most people's top 4. Anyway, Russell is the superior rebounder and shot blocker (we're talking one of the GOATs in both categories), and his teams almost always won with him as their best player for most of that time. So that gets him ranked above those guys, even though Lebron has a shot at being higher when his career is done.

[Im so nba'd out]

that's a great question. kobe is a rapist
:cheers: :roll:

[Iceman#44]

imo, Bill Russell is really overrated. Yes, 11 rings, But he play with like 8 Hof, was a great male the greatest defender ever, But he never scored 20 ppg in a single season. Top 10, But no goat candidate. As a player, Wilt was 10 times better.

[kshutts1]

no one disagrees with that.
People just wonder how they would do against less flawed eras.
I would never penalize someone for being in a "weak era". Because if the whole era is weak, it's a generational/sport thing. Something that would, theoretically, be different/changed in any other era.

50's/60's didn't have training/nutrition? I don't need to look at how well Mikan's frame would hold more weight... rather, I look at how well he dominated his competition, and assume he would dominate his competition at a relatively similar "rate" given, again, the same (though different from what he had) circumstances.

I think that how well players do against their peers is one of the best indicators of talent, particularly one of the most useful.

[jlip]

If all you know about Russell's GOAT candidacy is 11 rings then you definitely are not qualified to rank him. He has individual accolades, statistical titles, and records. But I forgot, in this world "statistically dominant" means only individual scoring, as if a person scoring the most points necessarily translates to his team scoring the most points.