THE GREAT DEBATE: The #2 Greatest Player of All-Time

[WillC]

This thread is solely for nominations for the #2 Greatest Player of All-Time.

Any and all discussion regarding the rules and methodology of these rankings should be posted here: THE GREAT DEBATE: Ranking the Greatest Players of All-Time

Introduction:

One thing has become clear from recent 'greatest player' polls on ISH: the results are heavily influenced by modern fans acting like sheep to vote for their favourite players at the expense of more deserving - but less popular - alternatives. This skews the results in favour of popular and/or modern players.

Something else that I learned was that sometimes I find myself questioning my own judgement after reading a convincing argument written by someone else in favour of a different player.

Indeed, that is why I continue to come back to this forum. Despite the over abundance of childish posters with little knowledge, there is in fact a group of very knowledgeable members whose intelligence and common sense shines through.

All of the above helped me devise an unusual way of ranking players that I am excited about trialling here.

Rules:

- The goal is to establish an intelligently debated list of the greatest players of all-time.

- Each day, ISH members are invited to nominate a player of their choice.

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- You can only vote for one player per day/round.

- Each day, I will select the winning player based upon the most persuasive and convincing nomination.

- Your nominations might include statistics, quotes, descriptions, explanations and video clips (etc) to help justify your decision.

- If your player isn't selected, you can re-use your nomination the next day, if you wish.

Criteria for selecting players:

- It's completely up to you. NBA, ABA, pre-NBA, NCAA, individual awards, team success, peak, longevity, style, substance... it's up to you.

The Greatest Players of All-Time:

01 - Michael Jordan (nominated by: pauk)
02 -
03 -
04 -
05 -
06 -
07 -
08 -
09 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -

[WillC]

Note:

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- Try to be original. I was disappointed in the first round by the lack of convincing arguments for LeBron James, George Mikan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and others. Meanwhile, the arguments for Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell could have been more convincing. The argument for Larry Bird was considered. The arguments for Kobe Bryant were pathetic (i.e. lacked explanation).

[Psileas]

Note:

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- Try to be original. I was disappointed in the first round by the lack of convincing arguments for LeBron James, George Mikan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and others. Meanwhile, the arguments for Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell could have been more convincing. The argument for Larry Bird was considered. The arguments for Kobe Bryant were pathetic (i.e. lacked explanation).

I'm not participating in the project (it's a nice effort, btw), but I have to ask: What would happen if the thread on the GOAT (or #2, 3, it doesn't matter that much) consisted only of arguments like "its jordan, duh!" or "6 rings, baby!" and an excellent description of a great, but next tier great, like Elgin Baylor? Would you pick Baylor as the GOAT?

As a sidenote, I note that you mention that length isn't an issue, but your original post in the thread for #1 never changed the 200 word limit, while Pauk wrote all this essay (actually he copied this from a famous Jordan poster who used to post this multiple times for years, unless Pauk and that Jordan poster is the same person), which is way longer. You were also lenient for picking for him the best parts of the essay, while he should judge what to keep and what not by himself.

[WillC]

I'm not participating in the project (it's a nice effort, btw), but I have to ask: What would happen if the thread on the GOAT (or #2, 3, it doesn't matter that much) consisted only of arguments like "its jordan, duh!" or "6 rings, baby!" and an excellent description of a great, but next tier great, like Elgin Baylor? Would you pick Baylor as the GOAT?

Firstly, the above scenario is extremely unlikely to happy. However, if someone was able to intelligently argue that Baylor was greater than Jordan - and if that argument was stronger than all other arguments, which is clearly unlikely - then, yes, I would select their nomination as the winner.

As a sidenote, I note that you mention that length isn't an issue, but your original post in the thread for #1 never changed the 200 word limit, while Pauk wrote all this essay (actually he copied this from a famous Jordan poster who used to post this multiple times for years, unless Pauk and that Jordan poster is the same person), which is way longer. You were also lenient for picking for him the best parts of the essay, while he should judge what to keep and what not by himself.

A number of posters raised their concerns about the word limit. I therefore decided to simply select the most convincing argument. Frankly, pauk's post would have been better if he'd condensed it to 200 words. Regardless, it still contained the most convincing arguments for Jordan's merits at the greatest of all-time.

Sorry to those people who stuck to the rules more rigidly.

[SpecialQue]

I don't care what criteria is selected, we really don't need multiple threads on the Greatest Player of All Time. This has been done to death already, and no one is going to offer an argument that we haven't already seen a dozen times on this site.

I get that you're trying to be more "scientific" about it, but these debates are ridiculously subjective. If we're going by a LEADER who brought IMMEDIATE success to his team, a team that would not have won if he were not on it, then the only legitimate choice for GOAT would be Bill Russell.

[LeBird]

With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. You're picking who you think is making good arguments; and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH? How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?

[WillC]

I don't care what criteria is selected, we really don't need multiple threads on the Greatest Player of All Time. This has been done to death already, and no one is going to offer an argument that we haven't already seen a dozen times on this site.

I get that you're trying to be more "scientific" about it, but these debates are ridiculously subjective. If we're going by a LEADER who brought IMMEDIATE success to his team, a team that would not have won if he were not on it, then the only legitimate choice for GOAT would be Bill Russell.

Actually, I'm not trying to be at all scientific about it. Please read the introduction.

[TheMarkMadsen]

With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. You're picking who you think is making good arguments; and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH? How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?

This, unless OP is completly un biased (he's not) then the criteria for the voting is pretty absurd.

This idea has been beat to death, no new information to really be brought to the table at this moment. MJ is the clear cut GOAT of basketball, and after that # 1 ranking it's pretty much a toss up between 10 other players who's rankings will depend on who is rakning them & biase.

[AlphaWolf24]

Actually, I'm not trying to be at all scientific about it. Please read the introduction.

- same ol tired thread..we already have 100 threads a week about "Ish's" GOAT's GOAT'S

- we all get it.....please think of an original thread or GTFO!

[COLOR="White"]- (really does facepalm......GOAT thread?...really)[/COLOR]

[WillC]

This, unless OP is completly un biased (he's not) then the criteria for the voting is pretty absurd.

This idea has been beat to death, no new information to really be brought to the table at this moment. MJ is the clear cut GOAT of basketball, and after that # 1 ranking it's pretty much a toss up between 10 other players who's rankings will depend on who is rakning them & biase.

Hence some intelligent debate about those players could lead to more accurate rankings, rather than it just being a vote (which inevitably becomes warped due to each respective player's popularity).

I'm sorry you think I'm biased. Actually, I am fully open to selecting whoever has the strongest case based upon the nominations put forward.

[WillC]

With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. You're picking who you think is making good arguments; and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH? How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?

I don't recall naming these rankings on behalf of ISH.

[pauk]

Now #2 will be much more interesting...

[TheMarkMadsen]

Hence some intelligent debate about those players could lead to more accurate rankings, rather than it just being a vote (which inevitably becomes warped due to each respective player's popularity).

I'm sorry you think I'm biased. Actually, I am fully open to selecting whoever has the strongest case based upon the nominations put forward.

Of course you don't think you're biased, unless you're a robot you most likely are biased in some way.

Do you have a list in your head of who YOU think the top 10 players of all time are?

If so, when somebody goes to make an argument for a player to be in a certain spot and it doesn't match up to your pre conceived notion of the who should be where in the top 10, your biase will come in to play.

And yet you're the end all be all of who's arguments get chosen as the "best" or most "credible"

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

- same ol tired thread..we already have 100 threads a week about "Ish's" GOAT's GOAT'S

- we all get it.....please think of an original thread or GTFO!

[COLOR="White"]- (really does facepalm......GOAT thread?...really)[/COLOR]

Quit posting in topics you dont like. Simple solution.

[WillC]

Of course you don't think you're biased, unless you're a robot you most likely are biased in some way.

Do you have a list in your head of who YOU think the top 10 players of all time are?

If so, when somebody goes to make an argument for a player to be in a certain spot and it doesn't match up to your pre conceived notion of the who should be where in the top 10, your biase will come in to play.

And yet you're the end all be all of who's arguments get chosen as the "best" or most "credible"

Of course I have an opinion of the top 10. But I'm merely judging the arguments presented in front of me.