Posted by Midge on 4/16/2025 9:32:00 PM (view original):
You should also subtract 50% of any win shares earned in the ABA.

half the first post merger all star team were ABA dudes, they had some good dudes

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:03:00 PM (view original):
You guys should all write to Basketball-Reference and demand that they get rid of the win shares totals that are shown on every player's page that's on the site, since it's a badly flawed stat and all. But don't tell them what exactly is flawed about the stat other than the fact that its conclusions are wrong based on your "eye test."

Also let them know that Karl Malone can't be a top 5 player because he never won a championship. All players should be ranked based on how many championships they won.

Imagine if someone came in here shouting in all caps big red letters than Jamal Crawford was better than Bill Russell because he scored more PPG.

And then literally 100% of people tried to tell them they were looking at the stats incorrectly.

and then they said “well then clearly you guys should write to BBall-ref to tell them to delete PPG since it doesn’t matter!!” and “let them know that Jamal Crawford can’t be a top 5 player because he never won a championship!”

no one is saying that Issel doesn’t have a higher career WS than Curry or whatever. They’re just saying it doesn’t matter because you’re looking at a stat that values longevity and quantity, even if the player was hurting his team by making maximum salary and putting up below average efficiency at the end of his career.

It’s like saying Bruce Willis is a better actor than Daniel Day Lewis because he made more movies

Anybody putting up below average efficiency is not going to accumulate many win shares. And "better" is not being used either.

Tell you what, I'll take 1% of the money made by Bruce Willis movies and you can take 1% of the money made by Daniel Day Lewis movies.

Posted by Midge on 4/16/2025 9:32:00 PM (view original):
You should also subtract 50% of any win shares earned in the ABA.

Show me your analysis that has the ABA only 50% as strong as the NBA. Clearly the NBA was stronger in the years that they both were around, but by nowhere near that amount. My system does deduct points when ABA seasons are calculated.

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:03:00 PM (view original):
You guys should all write to Basketball-Reference and demand that they get rid of the win shares totals that are shown on every player's page that's on the site, since it's a badly flawed stat and all. But don't tell them what exactly is flawed about the stat other than the fact that its conclusions are wrong based on your "eye test."

Also let them know that Karl Malone can't be a top 5 player because he never won a championship. All players should be ranked based on how many championships they won.

Imagine if someone came in here shouting in all caps big red letters than Jamal Crawford was better than Bill Russell because he scored more PPG.

And then literally 100% of people tried to tell them they were looking at the stats incorrectly.

and then they said “well then clearly you guys should write to BBall-ref to tell them to delete PPG since it doesn’t matter!!” and “let them know that Jamal Crawford can’t be a top 5 player because he never won a championship!”

no one is saying that Issel doesn’t have a higher career WS than Curry or whatever. They’re just saying it doesn’t matter because you’re looking at a stat that values longevity and quantity, even if the player was hurting his team by making maximum salary and putting up below average efficiency at the end of his career.

It’s like saying Bruce Willis is a better actor than Daniel Day Lewis because he made more movies

Anybody putting up below average efficiency is not going to accumulate many win shares. And "better" is not being used either.

Tell you what, I'll take 1% of the money made by Bruce Willis movies and you can take 1% of the money made by Daniel Day Lewis movies.

did you think you were making a good point here? I mean Die Hard is my favorite Christmas movie but even I know the difference...

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:03:00 PM (view original):
You guys should all write to Basketball-Reference and demand that they get rid of the win shares totals that are shown on every player's page that's on the site, since it's a badly flawed stat and all. But don't tell them what exactly is flawed about the stat other than the fact that its conclusions are wrong based on your "eye test."

Also let them know that Karl Malone can't be a top 5 player because he never won a championship. All players should be ranked based on how many championships they won.

Imagine if someone came in here shouting in all caps big red letters than Jamal Crawford was better than Bill Russell because he scored more PPG.

And then literally 100% of people tried to tell them they were looking at the stats incorrectly.

and then they said “well then clearly you guys should write to BBall-ref to tell them to delete PPG since it doesn’t matter!!” and “let them know that Jamal Crawford can’t be a top 5 player because he never won a championship!”

no one is saying that Issel doesn’t have a higher career WS than Curry or whatever. They’re just saying it doesn’t matter because you’re looking at a stat that values longevity and quantity, even if the player was hurting his team by making maximum salary and putting up below average efficiency at the end of his career.

It’s like saying Bruce Willis is a better actor than Daniel Day Lewis because he made more movies

Anybody putting up below average efficiency is not going to accumulate many win shares. And "better" is not being used either.

Tell you what, I'll take 1% of the money made by Bruce Willis movies and you can take 1% of the money made by Daniel Day Lewis movies.

Antoine Walker has 38.1 Win Shares on career 92+ TS.

Posted by PBandJ on 4/16/2025 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 10:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 9:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 12:13:00 AM (view original):
And your assertion that my numbers give more credit for playing time than for quality of playing time is total horseschit. There are lots of guys with real long careers that did not make these rankings. But if both guys are high quality players and one played 38% more minutes than the other, guess what?

54852 minutes of Karl Malone at a rate of .205 win shares per 48 minutes is FAR MORE VALUABLE than 34443 minutes of Larry Bird at .203 win shares per 48 minutes. Malone is even slightly more valuable that Bird on a per minute basis, but he also played 59% more minutes than Bird. You're a complete fool if you'd rather have Bird on your team for his entire career than Malone on your team for his entire career.

If you want to just talk each player's 2 or 3 best seasons you'd lose that too. Malone's best 3 seasons in win shares per 48 minutes are all better than Bird's best season. But Karl only had one other hall of famer to play with while Bird had four. After Stockton the best player Malone ever had with him on the Jazz was Hornacek. When they had him they tore through the Western Conference playoffs twice in a row like a hot knife through butter. and then lost really close games to the Bulls to lose the title. But if Dick Bavetta had not ****** up and called a bad 24 second violation as Eisley hit a 3 in game 6, most likely they win that game and are slight favorites to win game 7 at home.

So because a referee ****** up, now Malone is a loser, right?

You arseholes think that all that matters is championships. David Robinson took the Spurs who were a joke and made them a huge contender. Before they got Duncan who was the best player he ever had on his team? Avery Phucking Johnson?

The year before the Admiral got there the Spurs went 21-61. His first year they went 56-26, a 35 game improvement, which is still the highest ever. The year before Olajuwon arrived the Rockets went 29-53. His first year they went 45-37. That's a great 16 game improvement, which is less than half of the Spurs improvement with the rookie David Robinson.

The first Spurs championship, 98-99, when YOU think Duncan was the reason, Robinson was the best player in the league. He led the league in WS/48 at .261. Duncan was .213. David led the league in that metric 5 times, and his career WS/.48 was .250. Olajuwon was just .177 for his career. Robinson was far more valuable than Olajuwon. That's why he went 30-12 against him head to head. Counting playoffs David went 32-16 head to head against Hakeem.

To the Olajuwon argument:

In year two Olajuwon took the Rockets to the finals. In year 2 Robinson lost int the first round so there is that.

You discuss win shares a lot, but what bolsters win shares....WINNING! That has a lot to do with what is around you. Olajuwon's peak only featured playing with one all-star player that made the all-star game one time. BTW Duncan was above Robinson in WS in the 98-99 Season. Duncan finished 3rd in MVP voting and Robinson was 12th. Say what you will about the objective nature of MVP voting, but the top 3 is rarely wrong. I can argue with about 10 of the eventual winners, but the top 3 were the dominant figures of the league clearly. Additionally, you asked who the best player was and like a moron you stated Avery Johnson was the best player. You forgot that Sean Elliott and Vinny Del Negro played there. Plus, in the 98-99 season Mr. "The Kiss of Death" had a higher WS total than were better despite player 380 fewer minutes. So, to the Karl Malone point, if you think the choker/kid toucher Mailman was in the same class with Larry Bird puts you squarely against any basketball historian. At some point you have to acknowledge that you are wrong and not everyone else. Bird won when the game was on the line, and Bird was THE dominant player in the league for five years. Malone was a footnote in comparison. There has never been a question about Bird's MVPs...the same cannot be said for Mailman. 1997 was voter fatigue and 1999 you have already questioned. (BTW you want to complain about Bavetta? Olajwuon received more techs and was fouled out by him more than any other referee so let's not go down the road of referee preferences lest I get into another Scott Foster/Joey Crawford diatribe). Then you want to talk about how I lose the debate about the best seasons between Bird and Malone. Bird's level of competition was light years ahead or Malone in a weaker western conference. The Lakers were done, the Suns were borderline, the Sonics, Rockets, and Spurs were good consistently (except that one year when Robinson was hurt), but he played in the era of vast expansion. Bird had the Sixers, Bucks, Pistons, Bulls, Cavs, and Knicks were all good at varying times. The league didn't expand until Bird was starting his downhill turn. Malone's only argument was longevity. When he "tore through the western conference like a knife through hot butter" the west was not exceptional. The Bulls had stiffer competition in the east plus had to play through more adversity.

I never said that championships are all that matters, but when we get to the cream of the crop (the top 10-15 players in history) winning matters and winning as the best player is crucial. The list of players I shared is bulletproof except for Reed (one of his Finals MVPs is specious at best - should have belonged to Frazier). If I was selecting a power forward for my team, I would choose at least four before I got to Malone. I get your argument about the eye test. When you don't know the game, it is hard to understand what you are seeing.

Duncan was above Robinson in win shares in 98-99 because Robinson missed a lot of games with injuries. When they were both playing Robinson was like 20% more effective per every 40minutes played. But you knew that already. You are trying to manipulate stats now. Robinson was the best player in the league that season per 48 minutes played. David missed 33 games with injuries.

Olajuwon didn't "Take" the Rockets to the finals in his second year. The Rocket got to the finals because they had 2 or 3 other good players. Olajuwon had become their best player by then, but he was still not a big superstar. His WS/48 was well below .200. But again, how good players are is not just about the playoffs. It's MORE about the regular season then the playoffs. Even if a team makes the finals they are only playing like 25% as many games in the playoffs as the played in the regular season. If they lose in the first or second round that may only play like 12% as many games in the playoffs as in the regular season.

You can go with your so called "historians," I'm taking Malone over Bird if I have a choice of having either player for their FULL Career. Calling Malone a "choker" is beyond absurd. Malone is easily the top PF of all time (Duncan is a center, about 65% of his minutes were played at center). It's not even close. You can take who you want. And I forgot more about the game than you know.

I will agree with you on one thing. You did forget more about the game. I doubt you ever knew it.

Olajuwon didn't take them there in 1995 and he wasn't a big superstar yet. You realize he won MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same season the year prior and was the first to accomplish that in history, right? RIGHT? Go be dumb elsewhere. You clearly don't know the story of 1995. CLEARLY. Olajuwon fought through injuries early in the season. Then they traded for Drex. Glide wasn't the same Glide that he was in 1988. Olajuwon dominated the second half of the season and the Rox got the 6 seed. Then led the Rox to the title without ever having HCA.

You allege that I manipulated stats. I did nothing of the sort. What I did was not take your BS as gospel truth and showed where you were lying. You should have provided context to your argument.

Malone WAS a choker. Your favorite stat proves it.
Regular season .205 WS/48. Playoffs .146 WS/48
Jordan .250 to .255.
LeBron .221 to .237.
Wilt .248 to .200.
Kareem .228 to .193.
CP3 .226 to .187
Dirk .193 to .188
Duncan .209 to .194
Oscar .207 to .178
Stockton .209 to .160

Bird .203 to .173.
Olajuwon .177 to .189
Robinson .250 to .199

No player in "your" top 10 fell off more in the playoffs. He was worse than Stockton, which is hard to imagine because he sucked too in the postseason.

My power forwards I would choose over Malone:
Duncan (I do count him as a PF he won his MVPs there)
Giannis
Garnett
McHale

The best version of Barkley runs close with the best version of Mailman. Karl was a better defender, but Barkley was better at virtually everything else. Dirk isn't in the discussion. You have to do more than just shoot the ball. Dirk couldn't guard his shadow and was a very light rebounder considering his size, position, and era.

I'll take the best version of them against the best version of Malone and win every time.

You'd win every time, huh?

Malone and Duncan played 11 playoff games head to head. Malone's team won 8 of those 11 games.

Utah played the Spurs just once in the playoffs during both of their careers, and Utah won the series 4 games to one.

The meeting was in 1998 and the Jazz won the series 4 games to one. Malone averaged 24 and 10 and 4 assists, Duncan averaged 21 and 8, and 1 assist.

Old man Malone on the Lakers faced the Spurs in the playoffs in 2004 and the Lakers won that series in 6 games. Malone was 40 years old and not great anymore, Duncan was 27 years old and right in his prime. But Malone's team still won the series.

It makes sense that Malone beat Duncan. Duncan had an albatross at center playing next to him the majority of that. Yeah...Old Man Malone was the man. I am sure it had nothing to do with Shaq and Kobe you autistic dildo.

Now you are making fun of handicapped people like the autistic? My girlfriend has Asperger's. You better hope I never run into you, ***** Bastard Jackass.

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 10:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:03:00 PM (view original):
You guys should all write to Basketball-Reference and demand that they get rid of the win shares totals that are shown on every player's page that's on the site, since it's a badly flawed stat and all. But don't tell them what exactly is flawed about the stat other than the fact that its conclusions are wrong based on your "eye test."

Also let them know that Karl Malone can't be a top 5 player because he never won a championship. All players should be ranked based on how many championships they won.

Imagine if someone came in here shouting in all caps big red letters than Jamal Crawford was better than Bill Russell because he scored more PPG.

And then literally 100% of people tried to tell them they were looking at the stats incorrectly.

and then they said “well then clearly you guys should write to BBall-ref to tell them to delete PPG since it doesn’t matter!!” and “let them know that Jamal Crawford can’t be a top 5 player because he never won a championship!”

no one is saying that Issel doesn’t have a higher career WS than Curry or whatever. They’re just saying it doesn’t matter because you’re looking at a stat that values longevity and quantity, even if the player was hurting his team by making maximum salary and putting up below average efficiency at the end of his career.

It’s like saying Bruce Willis is a better actor than Daniel Day Lewis because he made more movies

Anybody putting up below average efficiency is not going to accumulate many win shares. And "better" is not being used either.

Tell you what, I'll take 1% of the money made by Bruce Willis movies and you can take 1% of the money made by Daniel Day Lewis movies.

did you think you were making a good point here? I mean Die Hard is my favorite Christmas movie but even I know the difference...

So you can take pride in watching your wonderfully acted DDL movies and I'll count my money from my 1% of Bruce's shlock.

hitting all the high notes
hitting all. of. them!
go super hard on autism next!

Bradley Beal has 6.3 WS the past two season on Phoenix while being literally a NEGATIVE asset. The Suns would kill to trade him for nothing.

When a player plays, you are using a roster spot and part of your salary cap on them. And they are using minutes that could go to another player. You aren’t factoring in any of that. They need to be BETTER than a replacement, or else you’re just rewarding them for being on the floor when someone else better could be in their spot.

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 10:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:03:00 PM (view original):
You guys should all write to Basketball-Reference and demand that they get rid of the win shares totals that are shown on every player's page that's on the site, since it's a badly flawed stat and all. But don't tell them what exactly is flawed about the stat other than the fact that its conclusions are wrong based on your "eye test."

Also let them know that Karl Malone can't be a top 5 player because he never won a championship. All players should be ranked based on how many championships they won.

Imagine if someone came in here shouting in all caps big red letters than Jamal Crawford was better than Bill Russell because he scored more PPG.

And then literally 100% of people tried to tell them they were looking at the stats incorrectly.

and then they said “well then clearly you guys should write to BBall-ref to tell them to delete PPG since it doesn’t matter!!” and “let them know that Jamal Crawford can’t be a top 5 player because he never won a championship!”

no one is saying that Issel doesn’t have a higher career WS than Curry or whatever. They’re just saying it doesn’t matter because you’re looking at a stat that values longevity and quantity, even if the player was hurting his team by making maximum salary and putting up below average efficiency at the end of his career.

It’s like saying Bruce Willis is a better actor than Daniel Day Lewis because he made more movies

Anybody putting up below average efficiency is not going to accumulate many win shares. And "better" is not being used either.

Tell you what, I'll take 1% of the money made by Bruce Willis movies and you can take 1% of the money made by Daniel Day Lewis movies.

Antoine Walker has 38.1 Win Shares on career 92+ TS.

And yet some ******** paid Walker a lot of money for 12 seasons of his .058 WS/48. I guess these guys who make these decisions don't know very much, huh?

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 3:12:00 AM (view original):
Here are the Brucie Rankings of the Most Valuable Players at each position.

POINT GUARD
1. Chris Paul - 180.58
2. Oscar - 174.35
3. Stockton - 173.19
4. West - 155.35
5. Magic - 151.85
6. Curry - 135.38
7. Payton - 131.13
8. Nash - 123.61
9. Frazier - 122.86
10. Billups - 121.40
11. Kidd - 119.68
12. Westbrook - 115.21
13. Lillard - 114.12
14. Terry Porter - 107.15
15. Lowry - 103.17
16. Parker - 103.05
17. Kevin Johnson - 103.02
18. Cheeks - 99.50
19. Mike Conley - 96.25
20. Andre Miller - 96.03
21. Lenny Wilkins - 92.77
22. Kyrie Irving - 92.60
23. Cassell - 91.57
24. Cousy - 91.00
25. Tim Hardaway - 90.64
26. Isiah - 89.50
27. Archibald - 89.36
28. Jimmy Jones - 88.51
29. Deron Williams - 87.77
30. Mark Jackson - 87.68
31. Strickland - 87.59
32. Calvin Murphy - 87.51
33. Derek Harper - 85.75
34. Mark Price - 83.86
35. Gus Williams - 82.99
36. Marbury - 82.04
37. Dennis Johnson - 80.81
38. Blaylock - 80.40
39. Penny Hardaway - 78.71
40. Baron Davis - 77.26
41. Luka Doncic - 76.61
42. Mike Bibby - 75.92
43. Doc Rivers - 75.47
44. Archie Clark - 75.53
45. Louis Dampier - 75.01

SHOOTING GUARD
1. Jordan - 203.96
3. Harden - 155.77
3. Kobe - 155.62
4. Miller - 148.40
5. Drexler - 129.80
6. Ray Allen - 126.57
7. Wade - 124.88
8. Gervin - 116.15
9. Vince Carter - 115.65
10. McGrady - 109.74
11. Ginobli - 107.63
12. Hornacek - 106.01
13. Iverson - 104.93
14. Moncrief - 99.26
15. Eddie Jones - 97.99
16. Greer - 97.73
17. Sam Jones - 97.00
18. Jason Terry - 96.32
19. Hersey Hawkins - 93.90
20. DeRozan - 93.49
21. Bill Sharman - 90.30
22. Steve Smith - 89.42
23. Lou Hudson - 88.36
24. Dumars - 86.34
25..Walter Davis - 85.88
26. Earl Monroe - 83.28
27. Goodrich - 82.29
28. Mitch Richmond - 81.20
29. Dick Van Arsdale - 80.01
30. Dan Majerle - 79.96
31. Brent Barry - 79.91
32. Paul Westphal - 79.62
33. Joe Johnson - 79.48
34. Blackman - 79.17
35. Ricky Pierce - 78.10
36. Byron Scott - 76.93
37. Richie Guerin - 75.00

SMALL FORWARD
1. LeBron - 220.29
2. Durant - 161.57
3. Dr. J - 160.96
4. Bird - 145.23
5. Paul Pierce - 132.35
6. Dantley - 129.74
7. Rick Barry - 122.25
8. Pippen - 121.34
9. Havlicek - 121.02
10. Marion - 120.46
11. Arizin - 117.78
12. Jimmy Butler - 116.00
13. Dominique- 115.55
14. Chet Walker - 113.76
15. Baylor - 111.36
16. Kawhi Leonard - 109.73
17. Schrempf - 104.02
18. Carmelo - 102.99
19. English - 101.81
20. Grant Hill - 97.47
21. Cliff Hagan - 96.46
22. Marques Johnson - 94.44
23. Mullin - 94.13
24. Iguodala - 91.63
25. Glen Rice - 91.11
26. Rashard Lewis - 90.90
27. Worthy - 90.68
28. Paul George - 90.09
29. Stojakovic - 89.57
30. Billy Cunningham - 88.98
31. Connie Hawkins - 88.46
32. Bob Dandridge - 87.02
33. Cornbread Maxwell - 86.60
34. Vandeweghe - 86.10
35. Richard Jefferson - 84.87
36. Dale Ellis - 84.20
37. Michael Finley - 82.21
38. Twyman - 81.11
39. Bernard King - 80.13
40. Don Nelson - 80.03
41. Kirilenko - 79.25
42. Yardley - 79.07
43. Luol Deng - 78.47
44. Wilkes - 78.22
45. Mark Aguirre - 77.90
46. Battier - 77.54
47. John Drew - 76.11
48. Jerome Kersey - 75.14

POWER FORWARD
1. Mailman - 193.64
2. Nowitzki - 180.29
3. Garnett - 168.03
4. Barkley - 163.89
5. Schayes - 139.84
6. Pettit - 138.52
7. Pau Gasol - 131.69
8. McHale - 115.23
9. Hayes - 114.96
10. Greek Freak - 114.40
11. Bailey Howell - 113.24
12. Aldridge - 111.63
13. Nance - 109.67
14. Horace Grant - 109.33
15. Brand - 107.42
16. Buck Williams - 105.30
17. Stoudemire - 103.71
18. Jerry Lucas - 101.26
19. Rasheed Wallace - 99.37
20. Thorpe - 98.90
21. Shawn Kemp - 98.36
22. Kevin Love - 97.13
23. Bobby Jones - 94.45
24. Blake Griffin - 94.29
25. Cummings - 93.38
26. AC Green - 93.38
27. Webber - 92.52
28. Anthony Mason - 92.40
29. Mikkelsen - 92.23
30. Rodman - 89.97
31. Millsap - 89.92
32. Jamison - 88.68
33. David West - 87.76
34. PJ Brown - 87.12
35. Carlos Boozer - 86.85
36. George McGinnis - 86.63
37. Cliff Robinson - 86.02
38. Spencer Haywood - 85.28
39. Oakley - 85.14
40. Harry Gallatin - 85.08
41. Zach Randolph - 84.62
42. Odom - 84.29
43. Paul Silas - 83.07
44. Dale Davis - 82.58
45. Rudy T - 80.23
46. David Lee - 80.18
47. Kevin Willis - 79.40
48. Tom Chambers - 79.29
49. Larry Johnson - 77.73
50. Shareef Abdur-Rahim - 77.30
51. Happy Hairston - 76.96
52. Hot Rod Williams - 75.40
53. Maurice Lucas - 75.00

CENTER
1. Kareem - 228.52
2. Wilt - 222.13
3. Duncan - 177.17
4. Admiral - 170.16
5. Shaq - 167.89
6. Gilmore - 164.84
7. Moses - 157.55
8. Russell - 152.61
9. Olajuwon - 150.08
10. Issel - 138.40
11. Mikan - 137.19
12. Dwight Howard - 132.95
13. Jokic - 132.46
14. Parish - 126.02
15. Bellamy - 125.62
16. Ewing - 123.31
17. Anthony Davis - 118.68
18. Lanier - 117.52
19. Gobert - 113.95
20. Mutombo - 110.53
21. Beaty - 109.12
22. Ed Macauley - 107.51
23. Bosh - 105.77
24. Johnston - 105.65
25. Unseld - 105.60
26. Horford - 104.71
27. Sikma - 104.59
28. McAdoo - 102.88
29. Laimbeer - 101.33
30. DeAndre Jordan - 100.69
31. Tyson Chandler - 97.40
32. Mourning - 96.15
33. Ben Wallace - 96.10
34. Cowens - 94.34
35. Divac - 92.00
36. Willis Reed - 89.79
37. Marc Gasol - 89.68
38. Larry Foust - 88.42
39. Brook Lopez - 85.80
40. Karl-Anthony Towns - 85.20
41. Clyde Lovellette - 84.88
42. Embiid - 84.69
43. Jonas Valanciunas - 84.23
44. Brad Daugherty - 82.38
45. Marcus Camby - 82.27
46. Clint Capela - 80.95
47. Brad Miller - 80.86
48. Drummond - 80.27
49. Thurmond - 80.15
50. Yao Ming - 79.77
51. Bill Cartwright - 78.81
52. Nenê - 77.00
53. Valanciunas - 76.95
54. Michael Cage - 75.84
55. Alvan Adams - 75.74
56. Ilgauskas - 75.26

I assume Brucie was some kid in your neighborhood with an IQ of 43 and ate Elmer's glue with a side of paste.

The power forward position top five literally has only one player who is a Mount Rushmore candidate at that position. Pierce as the fifth best SF is a joke, by joke I mean I literally laughed. The two best point guards are ranked 5 and 6. I am a Harden apologist and I would never put him above Kobe Bryant and Reggie to round out the top 4 is criminal. I could give you 10 I would put on a team before Reggie and his garbage defense.

Finally, the center position. I have already mentioned Olajuwon. I get it, you are a mental defective, but I decided to ask the person I know who is the biggest Kentucky Colonels fan ever and has a picture with Gilmore, Issel, Dampier, and Erving with her. I call her Mom. I told her you had Gilmore over Russell, Dream, and Moses. She asked me how retarded you were (it's okay Mom is a Boomer. She loves everyone but she comes from an era where the term Oriental was okay even with not in the context of a type of area rug), and I told her very. The point Mom made, that was very astute, was that Gilmore didn't have to Kareem, Reed, and Cowens for the first five years of his career. He was a man amongst boys. She told me that I could have made an ABA all-star team (I think she believes a bit too much in me, after all, she's Mom, but I was pretty good). The level of competition was nowhere near the same. Look what happens to his numbers once he hits the NBA, his ABA average of 17 RPG drops in season one NBA to 13, and he lost over 4 PPG from his ABA averages. Not to mention that he played two extra games per season in the ABA. If your top 5 centers are not Russell, Kareem, Dream, Wilt, and Shaq in some order you are wrong. PERIOD. It is inexcusable. Basketball illiteracy at its finest.

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 10:07:00 PM (view original):
Bradley Beal has 6.3 WS the past two season on Phoenix while being literally a NEGATIVE asset. The Suns would kill to trade him for nothing.

When a player plays, you are using a roster spot and part of your salary cap on them. And they are using minutes that could go to another player. You aren’t factoring in any of that. They need to be BETTER than a replacement, or else you’re just rewarding them for being on the floor when someone else better could be in their spot.

No ****. Who is worse than replacement level that I said was good?

Thaddeous Young is well above replacement level.

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 10:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 10:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 9:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 9:03:00 PM (view original):
You guys should all write to Basketball-Reference and demand that they get rid of the win shares totals that are shown on every player's page that's on the site, since it's a badly flawed stat and all. But don't tell them what exactly is flawed about the stat other than the fact that its conclusions are wrong based on your "eye test."

Also let them know that Karl Malone can't be a top 5 player because he never won a championship. All players should be ranked based on how many championships they won.

Imagine if someone came in here shouting in all caps big red letters than Jamal Crawford was better than Bill Russell because he scored more PPG.

And then literally 100% of people tried to tell them they were looking at the stats incorrectly.

and then they said “well then clearly you guys should write to BBall-ref to tell them to delete PPG since it doesn’t matter!!” and “let them know that Jamal Crawford can’t be a top 5 player because he never won a championship!”

no one is saying that Issel doesn’t have a higher career WS than Curry or whatever. They’re just saying it doesn’t matter because you’re looking at a stat that values longevity and quantity, even if the player was hurting his team by making maximum salary and putting up below average efficiency at the end of his career.

It’s like saying Bruce Willis is a better actor than Daniel Day Lewis because he made more movies

Anybody putting up below average efficiency is not going to accumulate many win shares. And "better" is not being used either.

Tell you what, I'll take 1% of the money made by Bruce Willis movies and you can take 1% of the money made by Daniel Day Lewis movies.

Antoine Walker has 38.1 Win Shares on career 92+ TS.

And yet some ******** paid Walker a lot of money for 12 seasons of his .058 WS/48. I guess these guys who make these decisions don't know very much, huh?

The point is that your stat would say that Antoine Walker is ~6x more valuable than Victor Wembanyama. Your stat is flawed.

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 10:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/16/2025 9:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 10:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 9:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 12:13:00 AM (view original):
And your assertion that my numbers give more credit for playing time than for quality of playing time is total horseschit. There are lots of guys with real long careers that did not make these rankings. But if both guys are high quality players and one played 38% more minutes than the other, guess what?

54852 minutes of Karl Malone at a rate of .205 win shares per 48 minutes is FAR MORE VALUABLE than 34443 minutes of Larry Bird at .203 win shares per 48 minutes. Malone is even slightly more valuable that Bird on a per minute basis, but he also played 59% more minutes than Bird. You're a complete fool if you'd rather have Bird on your team for his entire career than Malone on your team for his entire career.

If you want to just talk each player's 2 or 3 best seasons you'd lose that too. Malone's best 3 seasons in win shares per 48 minutes are all better than Bird's best season. But Karl only had one other hall of famer to play with while Bird had four. After Stockton the best player Malone ever had with him on the Jazz was Hornacek. When they had him they tore through the Western Conference playoffs twice in a row like a hot knife through butter. and then lost really close games to the Bulls to lose the title. But if Dick Bavetta had not ****** up and called a bad 24 second violation as Eisley hit a 3 in game 6, most likely they win that game and are slight favorites to win game 7 at home.

So because a referee ****** up, now Malone is a loser, right?

You arseholes think that all that matters is championships. David Robinson took the Spurs who were a joke and made them a huge contender. Before they got Duncan who was the best player he ever had on his team? Avery Phucking Johnson?

The year before the Admiral got there the Spurs went 21-61. His first year they went 56-26, a 35 game improvement, which is still the highest ever. The year before Olajuwon arrived the Rockets went 29-53. His first year they went 45-37. That's a great 16 game improvement, which is less than half of the Spurs improvement with the rookie David Robinson.

The first Spurs championship, 98-99, when YOU think Duncan was the reason, Robinson was the best player in the league. He led the league in WS/48 at .261. Duncan was .213. David led the league in that metric 5 times, and his career WS/.48 was .250. Olajuwon was just .177 for his career. Robinson was far more valuable than Olajuwon. That's why he went 30-12 against him head to head. Counting playoffs David went 32-16 head to head against Hakeem.

To the Olajuwon argument:

In year two Olajuwon took the Rockets to the finals. In year 2 Robinson lost int the first round so there is that.

You discuss win shares a lot, but what bolsters win shares....WINNING! That has a lot to do with what is around you. Olajuwon's peak only featured playing with one all-star player that made the all-star game one time. BTW Duncan was above Robinson in WS in the 98-99 Season. Duncan finished 3rd in MVP voting and Robinson was 12th. Say what you will about the objective nature of MVP voting, but the top 3 is rarely wrong. I can argue with about 10 of the eventual winners, but the top 3 were the dominant figures of the league clearly. Additionally, you asked who the best player was and like a moron you stated Avery Johnson was the best player. You forgot that Sean Elliott and Vinny Del Negro played there. Plus, in the 98-99 season Mr. "The Kiss of Death" had a higher WS total than were better despite player 380 fewer minutes. So, to the Karl Malone point, if you think the choker/kid toucher Mailman was in the same class with Larry Bird puts you squarely against any basketball historian. At some point you have to acknowledge that you are wrong and not everyone else. Bird won when the game was on the line, and Bird was THE dominant player in the league for five years. Malone was a footnote in comparison. There has never been a question about Bird's MVPs...the same cannot be said for Mailman. 1997 was voter fatigue and 1999 you have already questioned. (BTW you want to complain about Bavetta? Olajwuon received more techs and was fouled out by him more than any other referee so let's not go down the road of referee preferences lest I get into another Scott Foster/Joey Crawford diatribe). Then you want to talk about how I lose the debate about the best seasons between Bird and Malone. Bird's level of competition was light years ahead or Malone in a weaker western conference. The Lakers were done, the Suns were borderline, the Sonics, Rockets, and Spurs were good consistently (except that one year when Robinson was hurt), but he played in the era of vast expansion. Bird had the Sixers, Bucks, Pistons, Bulls, Cavs, and Knicks were all good at varying times. The league didn't expand until Bird was starting his downhill turn. Malone's only argument was longevity. When he "tore through the western conference like a knife through hot butter" the west was not exceptional. The Bulls had stiffer competition in the east plus had to play through more adversity.

I never said that championships are all that matters, but when we get to the cream of the crop (the top 10-15 players in history) winning matters and winning as the best player is crucial. The list of players I shared is bulletproof except for Reed (one of his Finals MVPs is specious at best - should have belonged to Frazier). If I was selecting a power forward for my team, I would choose at least four before I got to Malone. I get your argument about the eye test. When you don't know the game, it is hard to understand what you are seeing.

Duncan was above Robinson in win shares in 98-99 because Robinson missed a lot of games with injuries. When they were both playing Robinson was like 20% more effective per every 40minutes played. But you knew that already. You are trying to manipulate stats now. Robinson was the best player in the league that season per 48 minutes played. David missed 33 games with injuries.

Olajuwon didn't "Take" the Rockets to the finals in his second year. The Rocket got to the finals because they had 2 or 3 other good players. Olajuwon had become their best player by then, but he was still not a big superstar. His WS/48 was well below .200. But again, how good players are is not just about the playoffs. It's MORE about the regular season then the playoffs. Even if a team makes the finals they are only playing like 25% as many games in the playoffs as the played in the regular season. If they lose in the first or second round that may only play like 12% as many games in the playoffs as in the regular season.

You can go with your so called "historians," I'm taking Malone over Bird if I have a choice of having either player for their FULL Career. Calling Malone a "choker" is beyond absurd. Malone is easily the top PF of all time (Duncan is a center, about 65% of his minutes were played at center). It's not even close. You can take who you want. And I forgot more about the game than you know.

I will agree with you on one thing. You did forget more about the game. I doubt you ever knew it.

Olajuwon didn't take them there in 1995 and he wasn't a big superstar yet. You realize he won MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same season the year prior and was the first to accomplish that in history, right? RIGHT? Go be dumb elsewhere. You clearly don't know the story of 1995. CLEARLY. Olajuwon fought through injuries early in the season. Then they traded for Drex. Glide wasn't the same Glide that he was in 1988. Olajuwon dominated the second half of the season and the Rox got the 6 seed. Then led the Rox to the title without ever having HCA.

You allege that I manipulated stats. I did nothing of the sort. What I did was not take your BS as gospel truth and showed where you were lying. You should have provided context to your argument.

Malone WAS a choker. Your favorite stat proves it.
Regular season .205 WS/48. Playoffs .146 WS/48
Jordan .250 to .255.
LeBron .221 to .237.
Wilt .248 to .200.
Kareem .228 to .193.
CP3 .226 to .187
Dirk .193 to .188
Duncan .209 to .194
Oscar .207 to .178
Stockton .209 to .160

Bird .203 to .173.
Olajuwon .177 to .189
Robinson .250 to .199

No player in "your" top 10 fell off more in the playoffs. He was worse than Stockton, which is hard to imagine because he sucked too in the postseason.

My power forwards I would choose over Malone:
Duncan (I do count him as a PF he won his MVPs there)
Giannis
Garnett
McHale

The best version of Barkley runs close with the best version of Mailman. Karl was a better defender, but Barkley was better at virtually everything else. Dirk isn't in the discussion. You have to do more than just shoot the ball. Dirk couldn't guard his shadow and was a very light rebounder considering his size, position, and era.

I'll take the best version of them against the best version of Malone and win every time.

You'd win every time, huh?

Malone and Duncan played 11 playoff games head to head. Malone's team won 8 of those 11 games.

Utah played the Spurs just once in the playoffs during both of their careers, and Utah won the series 4 games to one.

The meeting was in 1998 and the Jazz won the series 4 games to one. Malone averaged 24 and 10 and 4 assists, Duncan averaged 21 and 8, and 1 assist.

Old man Malone on the Lakers faced the Spurs in the playoffs in 2004 and the Lakers won that series in 6 games. Malone was 40 years old and not great anymore, Duncan was 27 years old and right in his prime. But Malone's team still won the series.

It makes sense that Malone beat Duncan. Duncan had an albatross at center playing next to him the majority of that. Yeah...Old Man Malone was the man. I am sure it had nothing to do with Shaq and Kobe you autistic dildo.

Now you are making fun of handicapped people like the autistic? My girlfriend has Asperger's. You better hope I never run into you, ***** Bastard Jackass.

You are right, you should hope we don't. It would be bad for you to run into a 6'4 310 lb. high-functioning autistic that spends 12 hours a week in the gym.

See, I am allowed to make autistic jokes because I am autistic. I have an A-word pass.