Originally Posted by StateOfMind12
Kblaze already pointed it out, it's stupid that someone like Dwight will be ranked higher in like 3 years even if nothing happens.
3 more years is 3 more years. It's not stupid at all. Even if Howard does nothing but decline from here on out, he's still improving his standing overall by continuing to improve his team's chances of winning - assuming that he doesn't become a net negative.
If we truly want to rank the "best" players of all time, we should be ranking them by who gives their team - on average - the best chance of winning over a given time frame. In that sense, eleven years of Dwight Howard will almost always be better than eight years of Dwight Howard over an eleven year period- even if those last three years aren't up to par.