What's the criteria for ranking all time greats?

[HOoopCityJones]

What's the criteria or more specifically, your own personal criteria of ranking the all time great players in NBA History?

This is kinda inspired by the If Duncan wins again will he move up thread, but I think there's a broader discussion here that should be visited.

How do you determine if a player is in the Top 10 or not, or if he should move up or down. You have guys like Kobe, Duncan and Kareem with 5 or 6 rings, yet they weren't the goto guy for all of them, then a guy like Hondo with 8 rings all together , how come he's in no one's Top 10? Bird and Magic arguably had the most stacked Teams of all time when they were winning, yet they're ranked so high. So help doesn't seem to factor in, at least where it concerns those two specific players or Kareem for that matter.

If we're basing everything on statistics, then Wilt has everyone beat, if it's winning , then Russell is at the peak of the hill, but a combination of stats and winning, then it's clearly Jordan. Longevity is Kareem, Duncan or Kobe.

I'm just fascinated by how one can rank all of these great players without contradictions. We penalize guys like Nash or CP3 for being career losers , yet celebrate Hakeem for being able to win rings at the tail end of his prime play, forget what he didn't do up to that point.

So what's the criteria? Semblance of different things or just the whimsical opinions of the person at the other end of the question?

[RRR3]

For Kobe and LeBron: Didn't win FMVP and dominate the entire way? Worst player ever.


Anyone else: meh, I guess they were pretty great.

[HOoopCityJones]

For Kobe and LeBron: Didn't win FMVP and dominate the entire way? Worst player ever.


Anyone else: meh, I guess they were pretty great.

The way people hold Lebron and Kobe to the highest standard in history, you would think they were #2 and # 3 , right after Jordan himself. :facepalm

[Lebron23]

Accumulated Stats, Number of Finals MVP, and Regular season MVP.

[HOoopCityJones]

Accumulated Stats, Number of Finals MVP, and Regular season MVP.

You missed Longevity, Defense and Championships bruh.


You honestly think any of these guys would be talked about if they didn't win in this league? Rings aren't the end all be all , but to pretend they aren't a factor isn't genuine.

[Lebron23]

You missed Longevity, Defense and Championships bruh.


You honestly think any of these guys would be talked about if they didn't win in this league? Rings aren't the end all be all , but to pretend they aren't a factor isn't genuine.

I agree. It's unfair to compare Russell's rings to Jordan 6th rings. Russell played in a era where only few NBA teams played. Russell's team were also stacked.

[Nash]

You missed Longevity, Defense and Championships bruh.


You honestly think any of these guys would be talked about if they didn't win in this league? Rings aren't the end all be all , but to pretend they aren't a factor isn't genuine.
Championships is FMVP
Longevity is a prerequisite
Defense, yeah but we all know its an offense dominated game.

[RRR3]

The way people hold Lebron and Kobe to the highest standard in history, you would think they were #2 and # 3 , right after Jordan himself. :facepalm
TBH I feel that a lot of Jordan fans secretly fear Kobe and LeBron. Not that they should. But they do.

[kshutts1]

Ability relative to peers. I admit, it makes ranking older players much more difficult, because history only remembers those that won, but that's what I try and do.

I don't hold TMac's lack of postseason success against him; his play never tailed off in the postseason. He doesn't have the body of work to be as high as Kobe or anything, but that's what I consider.

I prefer doing tiers, for that reason. No tier will have two easily comparable players (same era, same position) where one is clearly better than the other. For this reason, Jordan and Kobe can not be in the same tier. Any non-stan that watched both play can clearly see Jordan is better.

What I try and accomplish is to recognize the difference in the game that comes about with era (can't really compare different eras accurately for this reason) as well as the different requirements of playing different positions (again, difficult to compare a C to a PG).

So my first tier is...
Russell
Wilt
Jordan
Kareem
Shaq
Magic
Bird
Oscar

Russell and Wilt are the only players that played the same position in the same era, but one has an extraordinary amount of team success, while the other has ridiculous personal success. Even people that saw them play find it difficult to tell which was better.

Magic and Larry didn't play the same position, so not black and white as to who was better (pun not intended).

Oscar is the lone inclusion that most people disagree with, but he was long-lauded as the greatest player ever. IMO, he's one of the most overlooked players of all time, along with Pettit, Baylor and Mikan (none of whom do I rank, since I don't have much research on them).

[scandisk_]

1. dikk size
2. alphamaleness
3. shoe sales
4. number of finals made
5. FG%

that's about it

[SouBeachTalents]

Being in MVP contention for several seasons/ winning multiple times as "the man" is really the most important criteria, which is why you typically see the same consensus group of players for the top 10 all time

[RidonKs]

which career do i want starting a franchise from square one...

most people look at it like "dominance + rings = goat"

really it should be "quality + quantity = goat"

meaning u can't just show up for a few years and win a few rings

you gotta be at a high level for a long ass time

[HOoopCityJones]

Championships is FMVP
Longevity is a prerequisite
Defense, yeah but we all know its an offense dominated game.

Championships shouldn't be equivalent to Finals MvP. What about the times Kareem won over Magic or vice versa? Magic's first Finals performance is legendary, but does he win FMVP if Kareem doesn't go down before the closeout game? I doubt it.

What does it matter if it's prerequisite? Only a handful of guys have played at a relatively high level (compared to their prime play) well into their golden years.

[Akrazotile]

1. dikk size
2. alphamaleness
3. shoe sales
4. number of finals made
5. FG%

that's about it


This but I would also add in MVP awards.

[ArbitraryWater]

OP said defense lol.. thats one side of the ****ing sport (while individual offense is obviously worth more), it should go without saying that that's taken into consideration lol..

This is an outplayed topic, that so far isn't looking like it's gonna get smart responses..

[Derka]

I agree. It's unfair to compare Russell's rings to Jordan 6th rings. Russell played in a era where only few NBA teams played. Russell's team were also stacked.
Fewer teams also meant a greater concentration of talent. If you took today's league and knocked it down to 8 teams, you'd have 8 benches full of All-Star/borderline All-Star players who wouldn't even crack the rotation.

[Young X]

How come Robertson doesn't get thrown in the "career loser" category?

He only won 2 playoff series in his first 10 seasons
He missed the playoffs 3 straight seasons in his prime
His only ring came at 33 when he played with Kareem

I've asked this question multiple times and no one has given me an answer.

[ArbitraryWater]

How come Robertson doesn't get thrown in the "career loser" category?

He only won 2 playoff series in his first 10 seasons
He missed the playoffs 3 straight seasons in his prime
His only ring came at 33 when he played with Kareem

I've asked this question multiple times and no one has given me an answer.

Sure, he gets discredited for it though :confusedshrug: I don't know why you keep asking... his statistics would guarantee him a top 10 spot, is he given one? No, so there you go, its taken into account.

[FKAri]

1. dikk size
2. alphamaleness
3. shoe sales
4. number of finals made
5. FG%

that's about it

4 out of 5 aint bad. MJ still da GOAT :bowdown:

[Young X]

Sure, he gets discredited for it though :confusedshrug: I don't know why you keep asking... his statistics would guarantee him a top 10 spot, is he given one? No, so there you go, its taken into account.Him only having 1 ring is what's taken into account.

Rarely do you see people picking apart his career and discrediting his greatness based on his very underwhelming playoff success like they do with other players.

Like why is he universally ranked over KG? Both have 1 ring, 1 MVP, no FMVP's, extremely limited playoff success in their primes, and some greatest all round play/numbers ever. Their careers are very similar in alot of ways but Robertson is always ranked multiple spots above guys like KG or even David Robinson.

[feyki]

İmpact .

[T_L_P]

When I think of my all-time list, I simply ask myself, "Who would I take first in an all-time draft if my goal is to win as many games a possible."

I don't care much for individual accomplishments, but I do think rings won as the best player on your team is a good thing to look at. Of course it needs to be looked out in connection with the amount of help, longevity, peak play etc.

Can't rank Russell or Wilt. It was a different era and I've barely seen any of their play, and probably none of their bad games. If I had to rank them though, Russell would probably be in the 2nd tier and Wilt would be in the 4th (I don't have a lot of respect for Wilt though as he was a teammate-bashing stat padder).

Tier 1: Jordan, Kareem

Tier 2: Magic, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem

Tier 3: Bird, Kobe, LeBron, Garnett

Tier 4: Moses, Robinson

I'm sure LeBron will move up to Tier 2 when he's played a few more years.

[HOoopCityJones]

OP said defense lol.. thats one side of the ****ing sport (while individual offense is obviously worth more), it should go without saying that that's taken into consideration lol..

This is an outplayed topic, that so far isn't looking like it's gonna get smart responses..

Defense is one reason why Bill Russell is a potential Goat. :biggums:

[HOoopCityJones]

When I think of my all-time list, I simply ask myself, "Who would I take first in an all-time draft if my goal is to win as many games a possible."

I don't care much for individual accomplishments, but I do think rings won as the best player on your team is a good thing to look at. Of course it needs to be looked out in connection with the amount of help, longevity, peak play etc.

Can't rank Russell or Wilt. It was a different era and I've barely seen any of their play, and probably none of their bad games. If I had to rank them though, Russell would probably be in the 2nd tier and Wilt would be in the 4th (I don't have a lot of respect for Wilt though as he was a teammate-bashing stat padder).

Tier 1: Jordan, Kareem

Tier 2: Magic, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem

Tier 3: Bird, Kobe, LeBron, Garnett

Tier 4: Moses, Robinson

I'm sure LeBron will move up to Tier 2 when he's played a few more years.

Hakeem above Kobe, Bird and Lebron? :biggums:

[ArbitraryWater]

Defense is one reason why Bill Russell is a potential Goat. :biggums:

Reading comprehension is a great thing you little shithead :oldlol: :cheers:

[HOoopCityJones]

AW you lucky I'm even acknowledging your existence today.

[Smoke117]

When I think of my all-time list, I simply ask myself, "Who would I take first in an all-time draft if my goal is to win as many games a possible."

I don't care much for individual accomplishments, but I do think rings won as the best player on your team is a good thing to look at. Of course it needs to be looked out in connection with the amount of help, longevity, peak play etc.

Can't rank Russell or Wilt. It was a different era and I've barely seen any of their play, and probably none of their bad games. If I had to rank them though, Russell would probably be in the 2nd tier and Wilt would be in the 4th (I don't have a lot of respect for Wilt though as he was a teammate-bashing stat padder).

Tier 1: Jordan, Kareem

Tier 2: Magic, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem

Tier 3: Bird, Kobe, LeBron, Garnett

Tier 4: Moses, Robinson

I'm sure LeBron will move up to Tier 2 when he's played a few more years.


Duncan on a higher tier than Bird...:roll: :roll: :roll: You fanboy, you. It's the other way around. Duncan certainly isn't 2 tiers above Robinson, either. The only thing he has over him his longevity.

[pauk]

When I think of my all-time list, I simply ask myself, "Who would I take first in an all-time draft if my goal is to win as many games a possible."

I don't care much for individual accomplishments, but I do think rings won as the best player on your team is a good thing to look at. Of course it needs to be looked out in connection with the amount of help, longevity, peak play etc.

Can't rank Russell or Wilt. It was a different era and I've barely seen any of their play, and probably none of their bad games. If I had to rank them though, Russell would probably be in the 2nd tier and Wilt would be in the 4th (I don't have a lot of respect for Wilt though as he was a teammate-bashing stat padder).

Tier 1: Jordan, Kareem

Tier 2: Magic, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem

Tier 3: Bird, Kobe, LeBron, Garnett

Tier 4: Moses, Robinson

I'm sure LeBron will move up to Tier 2 when he's played a few more years.

Exactly this.... disagree with the tiers tho...

[pauk]

"Who does the most with what he has to work with around him" is what i think is the best criteria.... rings or no rings at all this can be measured very easily just by seeing what the player had to do & did with what he had to work with around him, how they play without/with him and when he plays good/bad..... and what type of players usually does the most with what they have to work with around them? Simply those who possess the best actual individual basketball ability (talent/skill/productions/peak/domination/impact).

"the player that does the most with what he has to work with around him" is the player that will win the championship every single year if ALL 1st options/team leaders like him had identical supporting casts..... but reality is all teams are different & he could end up in a scrub team & not win a single one considering if he plays with scrubs his entire career trying to win against stacked teams in Finals every season, this unfortunately happens to be a team game where the best team wins the championship, not the best player.... it has never happened & never will, unless the best player had the best team.... so is championships just like that the correct criteria to go after? No, you are ranking individual players, not teams..... Its all about CONTEXT.... what did the player have to work with around him? What was his role? Was he the best player in the NBA or at least the best/MVP/FMVP in his team?

Its not about the championship/ring IF a player wins one.... its about the CHAMPIONSHIP RUN itself..... 1 championship to a players legacy can be far more prestigious/significant than 1 or 2 or even 10 from the other guy or even his own other championships depending on one thing.... CONTEXT!

[WayOfWade]

Personally, accolades do a lot for me, with titles and MVP's weighing heavily in my opinion. Sometimes that's tough because many players earn accolades they don't deserve while others get snubbed; but that's just how it is, and in 20 years the new generation is going to take it for face value.
Post season success is also pretty important, since winning is the overall objective. Because of that, players like McGrady and CP3 will be penalized in my book whether it was their fault or not. Is that fair? Probably not, but it is the at history will be written, bottom line is they didn't win. As to whether or not being "the man" on a title team is important depends. Obviously being and alpha on a title team means a lot, more so than being a 2nd option, but that doesn't mean that the 2nd option title doesn't mean anything.
In general there is a ton of criteria, these are my main points though.

[Rocketswin2013]

People will use whatever criteria that goes goes along with what they already believed, or want to believe.

[rmt]

Hakeem above Kobe, Bird and Lebron? :biggums:

Don't you see his criteria? Who would I take first in an all-time draft if my goal is to win as many games a possible. That'd be Hakeem - an elite two-way big man over Kobe, Bird and Lebron.

[scandisk_]

This is where MJ really stands out. He's top 3 on most of these categories.

Longevity? okay..

then you have....

IMPACT
STATS
RANGZ
ACCOLADES
INTANGIBLES

arguably top 3 on each of those.

[iamgine]

So what's the criteria? Semblance of different things or just the whimsical opinions of the person at the other end of the question?
Different people weighing different combinations of criterias differently. So the answer is both.

[sd3035]

1. Hairline

2. Finals winning percentage

3. Ability to make contested jump shots

[SpecialQue]

The way people hold Lebron and Kobe to the highest standard in history, you would think they were #2 and # 3 , right after Jordan himself. :facepalm

What I think is hilarious is people shitting on Kobe's performance in his 20th season after being sidelined for two entire seasons with major injuries. It's like they're still expecting him to be putting up 2008 numbers.

As for Lebron...it's insane to bash a guy who's dragged teams to the finals as many times as he has. I'm not even a fan of his, but he's already secured himself as an all-time great.

[HOoopCityJones]

What I think is hilarious is people shitting on Kobe's performance in his 20th season after being sidelined for two entire seasons with major injuries. It's like they're still expecting him to be putting up 2008 numbers.

As for Lebron...it's insane to bash a guy who's dragged teams to the finals as many times as he has. I'm not even a fan of his, but he's already secured himself as an all-time great.

Ikr? It's like a 38 yr old with 20 season mileage dropping 21 pts isn't impressive enough?

Lebron is already Top 10 imo.

[Indian guy]

1) Stats
2) Rings
3) Accolades