APBRmetrics

This may be just a trial balloon, or it may evolve indefinitely. With a poll feature allowing 50 entries and any number of votes, you can vote for 25 of the 50. After some time (a week?), we can call the top 20 to 30 vote-getters "the top 25" (wherever there's a clear "break" in the vote totals, near 25) and redo the poll. We'd then delete those 25 names and add 25 more.

If you voted for someone who does not get 'elected' in the 1st round, he'll still be there in the next batch, and you may vote for him again.
If there's a player not listed in this 50, who you think should be in the top 25, please submit a 'write-in vote'. I'll be tabulating votes into a spreadsheet, since with each updating all votes are reset to zero.

I'll start out with the top 50 from my rankings, in alphabetical order. You may change your votes at any time, as long as they're still showing in the poll. If you don't think 25 of the 50 deserve to be included, you may vote for fewer.

Now my challenge is to phrase the poll question. Who among these had the best pro careers? Which of these were the best players? I'll go with the less subjective one.

After 6 people have voted, we have 146 votes cast. Mystery voter #2 has voted for only 21 players (so far).
With 6 votes: Kareem, Bird, Wilt, Duncan, Erving, LeBron, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Oscar, Robinson, Russell, Stockton, and West. That's 14 unanimous 'yeas'.
5 of 6: Garnett, Moses, Hakeem, Pettit, and Pippen
4 of 6: Baylor, Kobe, Mailman, Dirk, and Wade
3 of 6: Barkley and Ewing
2 of 6: Barry and Havlicek
1 of 6: Cousy, Gilmore, Hayes, Dwight, McGrady, Parish, and Schayes.
15 of 50 listed players have received no vote.

EDITED at 5 PM

A few names I think you should add to this list or the next one: Walt Frazier, Kevin McHale, George Gervin, Reggie Miller. None of those guys are in my top 25 personally, but they all arguably deserve to be there.

Mike G wrote:This may be just a trial balloon, or it may evolve indefinitely. With a poll feature allowing 50 entries and any number of votes, you can vote for 25 of the 50. After some time (a week?), we can call the top 20 to 30 vote-getters "the top 25" (wherever there's a clear "break" in the vote totals, near 25) and redo the poll. We'd then delete those 25 names and add 25 more.

If you voted for someone who does not get 'elected' in the 1st round, he'll still be there in the next batch, and you may vote for him again.
If there's a player not listed in this 50, who you think should be in the top 25, please submit a 'write-in vote'. I'll be tabulating votes into a spreadsheet, since with each updating all votes are reset to zero.

I'll start out with the top 50 from my rankings, in alphabetical order. You may change your votes at any time, as long as they're still showing in the poll. If you don't think 25 of the 50 deserve to be included, you may vote for fewer.

Now my challenge is to phrase the poll question. Who among these had the best pro careers? Which of these were the best players? I'll go with the less subjective one.

So what happens after we get the top 25 down further? One way to do it would be to get it to ten, and have those ten eligible for the "#1 greatest ever." At that point we could make arguments for #1, have another vote, crown #1, vote on a new nominee, move onto the #2 debate, and so forth.

Also, who the f doesn't have Hakeem in their top 25?

Walt Frazier, Kevin McHale, George Gervin, Reggie Miller.

The next 10 in my list are Frazier, McHale, 'Nique, Ginobili, Miller, McAdoo, Billups, Nash, Parker, Gervin

who the f doesn't have Hakeem in their top 25?

That's a head-scratcher. But 2 of 6 people don't think Karl Malone belongs, or Kobe.
1/3 of respondents think Stockton was better than Malone?

What if we leave 10 or 12 players tied at #1, for now, and resolve those later? I was thinking the next step would be to skim off the top 25 or so, and bring in the next 25. Right now, 24 players have 4 or more votes; 26 have 3 or more. But we don't have a lot of responses yet.

Eventually we may have to depart from the list I'm working off of, which is my own creation. Someone's gonna get impatient waiting for Willis Reed or Sweetwater Clifton to show up.

It may be that some haters are consigning Kobe and Malone to the 20-24 range. I could change all or most of my votes to players who don't have any, and they'd move up. But that's just weird.

Mike G wrote: That's a head-scratcher. But 2 of 6 people don't think Karl Malone belongs, or Kobe.
1/3 of respondents think Stockton was better than Malone?

What if we leave 10 or 12 players tied at #1, for now, and resolve those later? I was thinking the next step would be to skim off the top 25 or so, and bring in the next 25. Right now, 24 players have 4 or more votes; 26 have 3 or more. But we don't have a lot of responses yet.

Eventually we may have to depart from the list I'm working off of, which is my own creation. Someone's gonna get impatient waiting for Willis Reed or Sweetwater Clifton to show up.

It may be that some haters are consigning Kobe and Malone to the 20-24 range. I could change all or most of my votes to players who don't have any, and they'd move up. But that's just weird.

Yeah that's just weird. Whoever isn't voting for Kobe and Malone must have a serious bias against longevity. Malone arguably has the best longevity of anyone ever (with all due respect to Kareem), and Kobe's is nothing to scoff at either. I personally don't think either guy is top ten (I have both in my 11-15 range), but I'd like to hear arguments as to how someone could leave either out of their top 25.

Eight people have voted now and TWO do not have Hakeem in their top 25. I feel like we should make people state their case before they vote; I can't imagine any reasonable argument that would keep him out.

Well, in a democracy, a vote is a vote. Having to state your motivations could be an inhibitor on exercising the vote.
Only 5 of 8 like Karl Malone for top 25. In equivalent points (relative to pts per team per game), he's the most prolific scorer of all time, including playoffs. The #5 rebounder, after 4 centers. Among these elite 50, he's #19 in assists.

According to b-r.com, he's #3 in Win Shares, after Kareem and Wilt. His 234 WS is 20 more than Jordan, in regular seasons. Include playoffs, and he's just above Jordan.

I understand he wasn't loved during his playing career. Most of his missed games were suspensions due to violent acts. And he was passed over for allstar games and all-NBA teams later in his career. Yet nobody has more 1st-team all-leagues (11)

Among forwards, he has 25% more RS Win Shares than anyone else (Garnett), 40% more ePoints (Nowitzki); more eReb by 7.5% (Garnett); trails only Pippen, Havlicek, LeBron, Bird, and Garnett in Assists; trails only Erving and Pippen in steals; behind only Erving in steals AND blocks.

Among all players with at least 20,000 RS minutes, Malone is 13th in career PER and 16th in WS/48. And he played 55,000 minutes.

People have all sorts of biases. Old guys tend to like the oldtimers.

i wasn't alive when neil johnston played, but how many players dominated the league like he did?...

from 52-53 to 57-58, he lead the league in total points scored and highest overall shooting - that's over a long 6 year stretch. how many players have done that?...

he also was 2nd in total rebounds those 6 years, won a championship (in 55-56), was all-nba 1st team 4 straight years, all-nba 2nd team once, lead the league in scoring 3 times (52-53 to 54-55), and was 3rd twice (55-56 and 56-57)...

he was out of the league by age 29 due to a knee injury. do you penalize him for that in terms of being rated an all-time great? he accomplished far more in terms of accolades than did many of the players in your list above, playing far less years...

bchaikin wrote:People have all sorts of biases. Old guys tend to like the oldtimers.

i wasn't alive when neil johnston played, but how many players dominated the league like he did?...

from 52-53 to 57-58, he lead the league in total points scored and highest overall shooting - that's over a long 6 year stretch. how many players have done that?...

he also was 2nd in total rebounds those 6 years, won a championship (in 55-56), was all-nba 1st team 4 straight years, all-nba 2nd team once, lead the league in scoring 3 times (52-53 to 54-55), and was 3rd twice (55-56 and 56-57)...

he was out of the league by age 29 due to a knee injury. do you penalize him for that in terms of being rated an all-time great? he accomplished far more in terms of accolades than did many of the players in your list above, playing far less years...

It's an interesting case, but let's look at his team success to help put his raw numbers into perspective:

1952: his rookie year, he didn't play too much, but the Warriors had a -1.1 SRS, 7th out of 10 in the league.

1953: the team's best player, Paul Arizin, left to do service with the Marines, and Johnston became the go-to guy (led in minutes and points). The team had a -7.7 SRS, by far the worst in the league.

1954: the team basically has a roster overhaul, but Johnston remains the clear focal point. The Warriors had a -1.9 SRS and again failed to make the playoffs.

1955: Arizin is back from the Marines with generally the same roster otherwise, and the team jumps to a -0.2 SRS, but fails to make the playoffs.

1956: Johnston plays Robin, taking a backseat to Arizin in scoring and minutes for the first time since Arizin's return with the same basic roster, and the team wins the title with the league's best SRS (3.8), although winning the title only demanded that they win a best of five series over syracuse (which they did, in 5 games) and a best of 7 over Fort Wayne.

1957: Bill Russell is in the league now, so they can kiss titles goodbye, but they still managed to have the league's 2nd best SRS with the same formula (Arizin led team in scoring and minutes), but failed to get out of the first round. 1958 was the same basic story, and in '59 Johnston was done.

None of this is to say, of course, that Johnston isn't worth considering as a top-25 or whatever player, but he couldn't make the playoffs without Arizin, and only succeeded when he took a backseat in scoring.

I never have been able to understand what value there is in comparing players from bygone eras to those in the (more) modern NBA. There simply have been too many changes in too many variables to make precise comparisons, and in essentially every category, these changes are clearly adverse to the valuation of the old guard. Even comparisons between the 80s to today are fraught with similar problems.

I mean, never mind Neil Johnston, does anyone even think that someone from the tweener era of the 70s, say John Havlicek, would even be able to make it in today's NBA?

None of this is to say, of course, that Johnston isn't worth considering as a top-25 or whatever player,

because he is, especially when looking at peak performance...

but he couldn't make the playoffs without Arizin, and only succeeded when he took a backseat in scoring.

this is as silly as someone saying wilt chamberlain wasn't a great player because he didn't win a title until he was 30 years of age. the fact is the stats clearly show he was a dominant player in his era, as johnston was in his era...

I mean, never mind Neil Johnston, does anyone even think that someone from the tweener era of the 70s, say John Havlicek, would even be able to make it in today's NBA?

of course they would, and they would be stars like they were back then. you give havlicek, or frazier, or tiny archibald, even pettit and schayes the payday players get today, and thus no need to work a different job in the offseason, give them access to medical treatment players have now that was not available back then, a 24 hour/day weightroom, full time weight lifting coaches and trainers, a team nutritionist, travel by chartered plane versus 1960s air travel (or even by bus in the 1940s/50s), etc., and they would thrive just like today's stars do...

players today return from injuries in just a year that ended players careers in the 50s and 60s thanks to advances in medicine...

you think if bernard king or amare stoudemire had played in the 1950s or 60s or 70s they would have come back from their knee injuries as soon as they actually did?...

Schtevie, maybe you are right. It may be that Magic Johnson would be as good as Andre Miller today, or Havlicek = Sefolosha. On the other hand, those modern players might not cut it in 1973. Brutal conditions, lousy shoes, incompetent coaches, low pay, etc.

There's no "value" in it, other than the value of fun. We have to give credit to the innovators and the heroes of earlier times. Who was a better general, Hannibal or Eisenhower? Ike never crossed the Alps with elephants, and Hannibal never invaded Normandy. Students of war history may enjoy war history.

Now here's a comparison of Neil Johnston and Shawn Kemp: http://bkref.com/tiny/hVyqv
(thru age 29)
Per minute they're very close. In regular seasons, Johnston has better PER and WS/48. In playoffs, it's reversed.

For whatever reason, Johnston only got to the Hall of Fame in 1990. That's 30 years after his retirement.
The first MVP award went to Bob Pettit in 1956. Johnston was not one of the 7 players who got votes. This in spite of his leading the league in WS, TS%, FG%, 3rd in scoring, 4th in rebounding.
In 1957, similar leadership, 1st in WS and WS/48, and no MVP votes, though 12 others got some votes.
In '58 he got his only vote, a one-pointer, not a 1st place vote.

Whatever the deal was, he was not considered to be all that when he played, at least after 1955; nor was he remembered as all that. He just had very pretty stats?

[I've got him ranked #74, so he'll be along in the next batch.]

A story:

Sometime in the last millennium (roundabouts the late '90s, I believe) I had the pleasure of attending an event, some fundraiser related to the Olympics, where, amongst other great athletes, was John Havlicek. During the course of the evening, after the plate of chicken had been cleared, I made a point of sidling over to where he was chatting with various attendees, not for the purpose of asking any questions, just to overhear his remarks. I cannot recall if I introduced the general issue of his opinions of the NBA of the day or not, but I have a very clear memory of him saying, quite humbly and plainly, that he would have no chance of joining the contemporary Association, simply (if I recall correctly) on athletic grounds.

So there you are.

(Yes, that was a bit wicked of a set up. And I apologize to John Havlicek, who was a great player of his era.)

He wouldn't make a team in the '90s, or he wouldn't be perennial all-NBA?
Jeff Hornacek was still a good player on bad knees at age 38. Was he that much more athletic than Havlicek?