This is not backed up by numbers, at least not the author's numbers. The author used his numbers to show how good a TEAM is with the said player. Below are two graphs to show Shaq and Magic are PROVEN in that they will lead historic offensive teams. Hakeem did not prove that. So the author said he feels the 'uncertainty' on how Hakeem's ISO offense can lead a great TEAM.
Correct. The author wasn't really saying that Shaq is the better player or had the better career. But the nature of the list required that he put them in some order, and given the lack of information for Hakeem since he never played with a super-star level player (both Drexler and Barkley were past their prime) we can't know if his offensive attack could be the basis of a great offensive team. Shaq's track record in that regard is solidified.
It looks like for this list, the author is not taking into account the current season. He says after this season LeBron would likely move up to 2nd. He apparently sees an argument could be made that LeBron is #1. Steph Curry was another guy who he said would go up quite a bit in the rankings after this season (like around 21). That was before his latest injury setbacks, though. If I had to guess, James Harden sits outside his top 40 since this season was excluded. Maybe after this year, Harden jumps into the picture.
I’m curious his take on Harden’s career so far. His MVP season this year may get him on the list but an actual elevation of his play during the playoffs coupled with success will definitely move him in there.
2014: Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Dream, Duncan 2017: Kareem, Jordan, LBJ, Russell, Shaq So I guess there must have been some stunning revelation made in ball science in the last 3 years that’d justify Kareem leapfrogging essentially 3 spots (which, based on the author’s own logic for doing the 36-40 or the 31-35 mini-writeups, would be like someone in the 36+ range leaping into the low 20’s...despite having played his last game almost three decades ago....) (Same with Shaq leapfrogging over Dream and Duncan, though I suppose based on the author’s muddled logic, there’s always a chance Duncan somehow played his way to a lower spot on the list.) Am I the only one who finds this more than a little bit annoying?
I don’t find it annoying in the least. First, there is no hard “ball science” here. Second, why should we demand consistent ordering of players if his methodology has evolved, or if he has updated information that he is considering?
LOL. Yes, this isn’t by any means a definitive order — if there is such a thing. It’s just one guy’s well-considered opinion based on criteria he has setup for evaluating the “goodness” of NBA careers. This is what he himself says on his Top 40 page: This is still only one person’s opinion. A “better” list would come from a group of diverse and highly knowledgable evaluators, like realgm’s top 100 list. I see my value here as a video and data curator and as an analyst of that data; obviously, mileage may vary on the rankings, especially depending on criteria. With that said, I will try and highlight where there’s wiggle room and the ranges that I believe players fall into, but the final order is based on the most likely answers to me (i.e. gun to my head, how good I think a career was).
Which is the case? Evolving methodology or updated information? I do think that he should spell them out clearly. It does make people wonder since these are retired players. Information about them should not have changed unless there are some new discoveries. If the methodology changed, then the whole introductory part should give some kind of justification for the changes. I know this is not perfectly exact science. But he is also claiming some kind of objective standards. If he changes the standards, there have to be some good reasons.
There is at least one methodological difference from my understanding -- he weights longevity differently in this iteration of his list by making an "era adjustment". That probably boosts Kareem's career ranking. Beyond that, I think there is subjectivity (or eye test component) in these orderings, which he more or less acknowledges when he writes: "With that said, I will try and highlight where there’s wiggle room and the ranges that I believe players fall into, but the final order is based on the most likely answers to me (i.e. gun to my head, how good I think a career was)." There is certainly more old footage of retired players now than ever before. And even if he was watching the exact same footage of these players as before, watching it would fresh eyes you'll pick up on different things that you may not have seen before. So, all in all, I have no concern whatsoever that his personal rankings would have evolved. For the rankings to be exactly the same would be the bigger surprise, actually, and possibly signal a bias towards validating his old rankings rather than restarting the project afresh.
I understand that one cannot totally eradicate the subject elements. However, the more subjective a list is, the less meaningful it is. What makes his list a "better" list than say a list come up by a random CF poster like me is that he has a clear methodology and a large amount of objective data to support his claims. By changing his ranking of retired players every few years, he is raising the impression of subjectivity, and thereby lowering the meaningfulness of his list. Moving a retired player from third to first is a big change. It is like moving a guy from #30 to #10 with very little changes of objective data. I wouldn't be concerned if he adjusted things here and there. But if you change your story too often and/or too much, your credibility is suspect. Why would I trust his current story? I say all these as someone who really like what he does. I am just a bit disappointed by the fluidity of the list. (And I am not complaining about putting Kareem at #1. I have always challenge the unquestioned assumption that MJ has to be #1 no matter what.)
Well, I don't agree that going from #3 to #1 is like going from #30 to #10. There's a big difference between going up to two spots and going up 19 spots. He's given his reasons for why, in 2018, this is how he'd rank the players. Perhaps he will discuss at some point how and why his opinion has shifted for certain players over the year (heck, maybe he does so in his write up for Kareem). The fact that there has been a shift does not in itself call into question his credibility in my eyes. I would only find the credibility questionable if the criteria he has laid out this time was not consistently applied, or if the shift in his opinion does not signal an evolution of thought but rather appears to be random drift.
There is a psychological difference. Who cares if someone goes from #37 to #35? But going from third to first is huge. Any change of the top 5 would have lots of discussion. And he'd better lay out the good reasons. I hope he does. That's what I was talking about. The changes themselves would be fine if he gave justifications for the changes. He should tell his readers what criteria he has changed that may have significant impact to his list and why he thinks the changes are for the better.
He has laid out his reasons. Asking him to revisit his thinking on the topic from years ago might be interesting, but it is not essential to understanding his reasons for ranking the players as he does now. Slight shifts in his criteria, or how he values various attributes, or just having more information to work with can jumble the order. I think you are perhaps attaching more importance to the final order than me, and maybe that’s the difference on how we’re looking at this. I don’t think the actual order is the important takeaway here. It is the process of how he evaluates each player’s career that I find fascinating. I should also point out that I found his 2014 list posted on a message board (by someone else); I don’t believe he did a detailed breakdown at that time like in this series. It’s no more necessary for him to detail his own personal evolution in how he views these players than it would be for anyone else who created a list of this sort. That said, it might be interesting anyway. He appears to be open to answering questions of this sort on Twitter, so if he doesn’t get to it in his write up for a particular player you can always ask him directly about them. As an aside, he’s also written a book, Thinking Basketball, which details how we think about the game and the various cognitive biases that can get in the way. I remember we had a long debate long ago about the importance of clutch play. He has a chapter devoted to this topic and more or less argues your side. I look at that a little differently now. Anyway, I think you’d like the book.
