this is so good, like mana from heaven, especially with the name calling - God I miss the oughts...

Posted by savoybg on 4/14/2025 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/14/2025 12:23:00 AM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/12/2025 4:17:00 PM (view original):
I don't play regularly because most of the ideas I have for leagues will not get 24 owners. I personally have tried to start leagues that have gotten enough owners to have an 8 team or a 12 team league, but could not get enough for a 24 team league. This has happened at least 5 times to me. And even the leagues that I did get to 24 owners with had to have at least 3 or 4 owners who took two teams apiece.

Nobody uses Kobe much...not because of normalization needed, but because he is far overrated. Same with Russell, and many other pre-70s players.

We have a big disagreement on Russell. You have him as the third greatest player, I have him as the 22nd greatest player. My rankings are based on math. Yours are just being pulled out of your *** with no mathematical basis for him being the third greatest player.

Here are my all time rankings of the most valuable players. My system measures the value that each player created both for their career and their 7 season peak, as well as their level of play in the playoffs. Not sure what yours measures as you seem to be just pulling them out of your *** if Russell is #3.

MOST VALUABLE PLAYERS ALL TIME (soon to be updated after this season's playoffs)
01. Kareem - 228.52
02. Wilt - 222.13
03. LeBron - 220.29
04. Jordan - 203.96
05. Mailman - 193.64
06. Chris Paul - 180.58
07. Nowitzki - 180.29
08. Duncan - 177.17
09. Oscar - 174.35
10. Stockton - 173.19
11. Admiral - 170.16
12. Garnett - 168.03
13. Shaq - 167.89
14. Gilmore - 164.84
15. Barkley - 163.89
16. Durant - 161.57
17. Dr. J - 160.96
18. Moses - 157.55
19. Harden - 155.77
20. Kobe - 155.62
21. West - 155.35
22. Russell - 152.61
23. Magic- 151.85
24. Olajuwon - 150.08
25. Miller - 148.40
26. Bird - 145.23
27. Schayes - 139.84
28. Pettit - 138.52
29. Issel - 138.40
30. Mikan - 137.19
31. Curry - 135.38
32. Dwight Howard - 132.95
33. Jokic - 132.46
34. Paul Pierce - 132.35
35. Pau Gasol - 131.69
36. Payton - 131.13
37. Drexler - 129.80
38. Dantley - 129.74
39. Ray Allen - 126.57
40. Parish - 126.02
41. Bellamy - 125.62
42. Wade - 124.88
43. Nash - 123.61
44. Ewing - 123.31
45. Greek Freak - 123.30
46. Frazier - 122.86
47. Barry - 122.25
48. Billups - 121.40
49. Pippen - 121.34
50. Havlicek - 121.02
51. Marion - 120.46
52. Kidd - 119.68
53. Anthony Davis - 118.68
54. Arizin - 117.78
55. Lanier - 117.52
56. Gervin - 116.15
57. Jimmy Butler - 116.00
58. Vince Carter - 115.65
59. Dominique - 115.55
60. McHale - 115.23
61. Westbrook - 115.21
62. Hayes - 114.96
63. Lillard - 114.12
64. Gobert - 113.95
65. Chet Walker - 113.76
66. Bailey Howell - 113.24
67. Aldridge - 111.63
68. Baylor - 111.36
69. Mutombo - 110.53
70. McGrady - 109.74
71. Kawhi Leonard - 109.73
72. Nance - 109.67
73. Horace Grant - 109.33
74. Zelmo Beaty - 109.12
75. Ginobli - 107.63
76. Ed Macauley - 107.51
77. Brand - 107.42
78. Terry Porter - 107.15
79. Hornacek - 106.01
80. Bosh - 105.77
81. Johnston - 105.65
82. Unseld - 105.60
83. Buck Williams - 105.30
84. Iverson - 104.93
85. Horford - 104.71
86. Sikma - 104.59
87. Schrempf - 104.02
88. Stoudemire - 103.71
89. Lowry - 103.17
90. Parker - 103.05
91. Kevin Johnson - 103.02
92. Carmelo - 102.99
93. McAdoo - 102.88
94. English - 101.81
95. Laimbeer - 101.33
96. Jerry Lucas - 101.26
97. DeAndre Jordan - 100.69
98. Cheeks - 99.50
99. Rasheed - 99.37
100. Moncrief - 99.26
101. DeRozan - 98.96
102. Thorpe - 98.90
103. Shawn Kemp - 98.36
104. Eddie Jones - 97.99
105. Hal Greer - 97.73
106. Grant Hill - 97.47
107. Tyson Chandler - 97.40
108. Kevin Love - 97.13
109. Sam Jones - 97.00
110. Cliff Hagan - 96.46
111. Jason Terry - 96.32
112. Mike Conley - 96.25
113. Mourning - 96.15
114. Ben Wallace - 96.10
115. Andre Miller - 96.03
116. Paul George - 95.17
117. Bobby Jones - 94.45
118. Marques Johnson - 94.44
119. Blake Griffin - 94.29
120. Mullin - 94.13
121. Cowens - 94.34
122. Hersey Hawkins - 93.90
123. Cummings - 93.38
124. AC Green - 93.38
125. Lenny Wilkins - 92.77
126. Kyrie Irving - 92.60
127. Webber - 92.52
128. Anthony Mason - 92.40
129. Mikkelsen - 92.23
130. Divac - 92.00
131. Iguodala - 91.63
132. Cassell - 91.57
133. Glen Rice - 91.11
134. Bob Cousy - 91.00
135. Rashard Lewis - 90.90
136. Worthy - 90.68
137. Tim Hardaway - 90.64
138. Bill Sharman - 90.30
139. Rodman - 89.97
140. Millsap - 89.92
141. Willis Reed - 89.79
142. Marc Gasol - 89.68
143. Stojakovic - 89.57
144. Isiah - 89.50
145. Steve Smith - 89.42
146. Archibald - 89.36
147. Billy Cunningham - 88.98
148. Jamison - 88.68
149. Jimmy Jones - 88.51
150. Connie Hawkins - 88.46
151. Larry Foust - 88.42
152. Lou Hudson - 88.36

You can't even have a REAL progressive league here as there are not enough players in a season to fill 24 teams until like 1989.

The baseball game here allows several different size leagues. Why not the basketball game? It's not a difficult thing to code.

I'd love to see both things done, a better game, and a bunch more league sizes. Neither will likely make the regulars like yourself play more often. The smaller leagues (8, 12, 16 teams) would allow several progressive leagues to start up with 8 teams and go through all of the 50s and 60s seasons that are available, and then expand to 12 teams when the ABA starts.

We're not enemies here Chewmaster. However, what I most want will take little coding work and what you want will take a ton of work to accomplish.

I'd also like to see options whether to use or not use 3 pointers, which would be important to playing leagues from before there was a 3 point line in use. The baseball game that I play at Imagine sports gives you like 15 different options. League size, Ohtani DH rule or not, DH or not, extra innings with or without runner on 2B, active roster size (25 or 26). pickoff rule, 2 throws or unlimited. and several others. The main one for basketball would be 3 point shots on or off.

Anyway, this new owner has not made one shred of difference to this sim.

We talked about this before, and I think I was too kind before. So let me saying it like this:

if you think Olajuwon is the 24th greatest player in history you either do not know history, your metric is way the hell off, or you are an abject moron. I am leaning toward a combination of the three. Dirk in the top 10 is one of the most ridiculously moronic things I have ever seen. EVER SEEN.

I watched the movie Ishtar, and that makes more sense than the BS you are slinging here.

I never said greatest. I said most valuable.

Dirk is 9th in career win shares with 206.34. Olajuwon is 23rd in career win shares with 162.77. That's a W-I-D-E gap. Dirk created 27% more value than Olajuwon for their careers.

Dirk's win shares per 48 minutes is .1928

Olajuwon's win shares per 48 minutes is .1767. So Dirk's average level of play was 9% better than Olajuwon's average level of play.

Dirk played 51368 career minutes. Olajuwon played 44222. So not only did Dirk play at a higher level than Olajuwon on average, he also played 16% more minutes than Olajuwon. It's not even close. Dirk created far more value for his career than Olajuwon did for his career.

Olajuwon was slightly better than Dirk in the playoffs. They are 19th and 20th all time on the win shares per 48 minutes list for the playoffs. Olajuwon is at .1887 and Dirk is at .1884.

Olajuwon had 8 seasons with 10 or more win shares and never led the league. Dirk had 12 seasons with 10 or more win shares and led the league twice with totals that Olajuwon never even sniffed. Dirk had 17.7 win shares in 2005-06 and had 16.3 win shares in 2006-07. He also had 2 other seasons with 15 or more win shares. Olajuwon's only reached 15 win shares once. They each won one MVP.

If your best argument is that I am an abject moron, you've lost this debate already.

BTW, Dirk is a 38% three pointer shooter and made almost 2000 of them. Shooting 38% on threes is the same as shooting 57% on twos. Olajuwon shot 20% on threes and made a whopping 25 of them. Olajuwon shot 71% from the line. Dirk shot 88% from the line. Dirk had a much lower turnover rate than Hakeem too. Dirk averaged just 1.6 turnovers per game. Hakeem averaged 3.0 turnovers per game. Dirk was a FAR MORE efficient offensive player than Hakeem was.

BTW, for you guys who rate Olajuwon above David Robinson based on one playoff series, keep in mind that when they played head to head in the regular season David went 30-12 against Olajuwon.

You misunderstood something. The abject moron thing isn't an argument. It was merely a statement of fact.

The only advantage that Dirk had on Olajuwon was as a scorer. Olajuwon was better at every other element of the game. Your David Robinson argument is hollow as well. Robinson's legacy in the history of the league was only solidified when Tim Duncan won him two rings. Olajuwon had far less talent playing around him at almost any given moment than both of his Texas counterparts. Seriously, Chris Paul at 6th is crazy when he is not a top 4 point guard. At some point there must be an understanding of historical context. CP3 finishes top 5 in MVP voting only 5 times, Dirk three, but at least he was an MVP and a Finals MVP, and Robinson finished top 5 on 5 occasions as well, he won two rings but was never the Finals MVP.

Let's look at a list that best firms up who the best players of all-time that considers historical context:

LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Bill Russell
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Wilt Chamberlain
Kobe Bryant
Shaquille O'Neal
Moses Malone
Kevin Durant
Steph Curry
Giannis Antetokounmpo
Nikola Jokic
Willis Reed

This is the list of people that have at least one MVP and one Finals MVP, but the total of the two is at least three. Willis Reed is the only turd in the punch bowl here, but he is still an excellent player. I also did not make considerations for how I felt about some MVP awards and the only allowance I made was for Bill Russell who would have won at least six Finals MVP, plus they named the award for him.

The only people that I think that should be included to round out the best players in history is Dr. J, John Havlicek, Jerry West, and Oscar Robertson. Robinson, Malone, Barkley, and a few others had too many individual issues.

Point in fact...Artis Gilmore (who I love) should not sniff the top 25 players in history. Your numbers may be statistically correct, but they lack context to truly understand who is most valuable. Your list further rewards players for the time they played more than what they did when they played. Gilmore was not the best player in the ABA, and then he was bolstered by playing with two of the greatest players in that league's history. Furthermore, once Gilmore made it to the NBA one could argue he was at best a top 3 center. Isiah Thomas is one of the most valuable point guards to ever play in the league it would be nonsensical to think that Mo Cheeks is 10% more valuable. The eye test alone tells us that DWade was more valuable than Reggie Miller or Dan Issel.

Here is the question, would you rather have had the shortened career of Larry Bird, or the longer career of Karl Malone? There is just one correct answer. I would focus on the combination of the numbers and the context while understanding the nature of the era that they played in. Do we think that the 70's, with a bifurcated focus, should be measured equal to the decades that came after? Certainly not.

Posted by copernicus on 4/14/2025 5:26:00 PM (view original):
this is so good, like mana from heaven, especially with the name calling - God I miss the oughts...

This is like debating an autistic e-monk.

an oxy moron, you mean?

Things like MVP awards, all-league, are all based only on people's opinions. There are no facts involved. The people who have these opinions base them FAR TOO MUCH on winning championships, which is a team accomplishment. Not an individual accomplishment.

Your "list that best firms up who the best players of all-time" is nothing but people's opinions. I say that it IN NO WAY firms up schit. Willis Reed is nowhere near the top 20 players of all time. He only had 4-5 seasons where he was great or even really good. He's not even in the league of Durant, Nowitzki, Chris Paul, and many others.

If I had to choose either the Mailman or Bird and I get either guy for his entire career, it's Malone by a mile. Put Bird on a team without 4 other hall of famers and let's see what he does. He's only on the pedestal he's on because of playing with Parish, McHale, DJ and Walton and winning titles. If he had ended up on almost any other team he'd be far less respected. Steph Curry would not even be an all star if he played before the 3 point shot.

Ted Williams and Ty Cobb each never won a title. Ken Griffey Jr. never even won a pennant. Doesn't look like Mike Trout will ever even win a playoff series. That does not mean they were any less historically significant that Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, or any other players who happened to be on teams that won a lot of titles.

Take your parroted opinions and shove them.

Here are the ABA leaders in different categories. It's either Gilmore or Erving for the best ever ABA player. Nobody else is in the running.

WIN SHARES

Rank	Player	WS
1.	Artis Gilmore*	82.23
2.	Dan Issel*	75.47
3.	Julius Erving*	74.86
4.	Jimmy Jones	72.60
5.	Louie Dampier*	67.37
6.	Roger Brown*	65.25
7.	Mel Daniels*	64.83
8.	Donnie Freeman	55.58
9.	Mack Calvin	54.44
10.	Byron Beck	54.1

WIN SHARES/48

Rank	Player	WS/48
1.	Artis Gilmore*	.2262
2.	Julius Erving*	.2171
3.	Zelmo Beaty*	.2026
4.	Dan Issel*	.1863
5.	Rick Barry*	.1828
6.	Jimmy Jones	.1670
7.	Dave Robisch	.1596
8.	James Silas	.1567
9.	Larry Jones	.1547
10.	George McGinnis*.1539

PLAYOFFS WIN SHARES/48

Rank	Player	WS/48
1.	Julius Erving*	.2429
2.	Artis Gilmore*	.2041
3.	Zelmo Beaty*	.1937
4.	Roger Brown*	.1763
5.	Jimmy Jones	.1724
6.	Dan Issel*	.1708
7.	Mack Calvin	.1500
8.	Willie Wise	.1487
9.	Jim Eakins	.1435
10.	George McGinnis*	.1417

Phuck you and your "eye test." Nobody sees enough of all players to go by that, and nobody is smart enough to take everything into account solely based on the eye test.

Isiah Thomas was turnover prone, did not shoot a great percentage, was not much of a defender either. He's not even the best point guard for the Pistons. Chauncy Phillips is clearly better. Notice how nobody wants Thomas in this sim. That's not an accident. The sim shows us how overrated he is. He is not even close to being in a league with Stockton, Chris Paul, Oscar, Magic, and numerous other point guards.

Billups may be the most underrated player in league history. He's the 10th most valuable PG ever, while Thomas is at #26.

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

Savoy - you are so funny. 17 years a slave to bad basketball stats. Everything you have is based on win shares, which is a very flawed stat. We still don't have any idea how to quantify defense, much less create one overall stat that measures everything. Even in baseball it is at best an interesting starting point. In the NBA it is just dangerous. Great try though. Of course, this is all based on my personal eye test.

btw, wrong forum?

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.

Posted by BenJoker on 4/14/2025 11:58:00 PM (view original):
Savoy - you are so funny. 17 years a slave to bad basketball stats. Everything you have is based on win shares, which is a very flawed stat. We still don't have any idea how to quantify defense, much less create one overall stat that measures everything. Even in baseball it is at best an interesting starting point. In the NBA it is just dangerous. Great try though. Of course, this is all based on my personal eye test.

Interesting how win shares is always wrong when it contradicts the opinion of the "eye test" guys. Even when it contradicts their opinion by a ton, like in the case of Chris Paul vs. Isiah Thomas. Somehow the win shares system is so phucking horrible according to you guys that it can show Chris Paul as the most valuable PG ever and show Isiah Thomas as outside the top 25 PGs, and in actuality Thomas is more valuable than Chris Paul.

You guys have your heads so far up your ***** that you must be tasting Brylcreem.

WHY don't you arseholes start drafting Thomas before Chris Paul and Stockton?

Savoy. I have no problem with you having an opinion. Opinions are like butt holes. We all have one and most of them stink.
However, you come across so angry and just down right rude. We aren't attacking YOU, we are attacking your opinion. If you have made your opinion on win shares, Wilt Chamberlain, and Karl "statutory rape" Malone a part of your identity, I suggest seeking help. Otherwise roll with the punches man. It's obvious you know this is/was a hot take so don't be surprised that you got burned a little.

Posted by savoybg on 4/14/2025 11:14:00 PM (view original):
Here are the ABA leaders in different categories. It's either Gilmore or Erving for the best ever ABA player. Nobody else is in the running.

WIN SHARES

Rank	Player	WS
1.	Artis Gilmore*	82.23
2.	Dan Issel*	75.47
3.	Julius Erving*	74.86
4.	Jimmy Jones	72.60
5.	Louie Dampier*	67.37
6.	Roger Brown*	65.25
7.	Mel Daniels*	64.83
8.	Donnie Freeman	55.58
9.	Mack Calvin	54.44
10.	Byron Beck	54.1

WIN SHARES/48

Rank	Player	WS/48
1.	Artis Gilmore*	.2262
2.	Julius Erving*	.2171
3.	Zelmo Beaty*	.2026
4.	Dan Issel*	.1863
5.	Rick Barry*	.1828
6.	Jimmy Jones	.1670
7.	Dave Robisch	.1596
8.	James Silas	.1567
9.	Larry Jones	.1547
10.	George McGinnis*.1539

PLAYOFFS WIN SHARES/48

Rank	Player	WS/48
1.	Julius Erving*	.2429
2.	Artis Gilmore*	.2041
3.	Zelmo Beaty*	.1937
4.	Roger Brown*	.1763
5.	Jimmy Jones	.1724
6.	Dan Issel*	.1708
7.	Mack Calvin	.1500
8.	Willie Wise	.1487
9.	Jim Eakins	.1435
10.	George McGinnis*	.1417

Looks like Issel has an argument...

Posted by berkelon on 4/15/2025 7:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/14/2025 11:14:00 PM (view original):
Here are the ABA leaders in different categories. It's either Gilmore or Erving for the best ever ABA player. Nobody else is in the running.

WIN SHARES

Rank	Player	WS
1.	Artis Gilmore*	82.23
2.	Dan Issel*	75.47
3.	Julius Erving*	74.86
4.	Jimmy Jones	72.60
5.	Louie Dampier*	67.37
6.	Roger Brown*	65.25
7.	Mel Daniels*	64.83
8.	Donnie Freeman	55.58
9.	Mack Calvin	54.44
10.	Byron Beck	54.1

WIN SHARES/48

Rank	Player	WS/48
1.	Artis Gilmore*	.2262
2.	Julius Erving*	.2171
3.	Zelmo Beaty*	.2026
4.	Dan Issel*	.1863
5.	Rick Barry*	.1828
6.	Jimmy Jones	.1670
7.	Dave Robisch	.1596
8.	James Silas	.1567
9.	Larry Jones	.1547
10.	George McGinnis*.1539

PLAYOFFS WIN SHARES/48

Rank	Player	WS/48
1.	Julius Erving*	.2429
2.	Artis Gilmore*	.2041
3.	Zelmo Beaty*	.1937
4.	Roger Brown*	.1763
5.	Jimmy Jones	.1724
6.	Dan Issel*	.1708
7.	Mack Calvin	.1500
8.	Willie Wise	.1487
9.	Jim Eakins	.1435
10.	George McGinnis*	.1417

Looks like Issel has an argument...

But not a strong argument. I'd say he's third for sure though.

Posted by BenJoker on 4/14/2025 11:58:00 PM (view original):
Savoy - you are so funny. 17 years a slave to bad basketball stats. Everything you have is based on win shares, which is a very flawed stat. We still don't have any idea how to quantify defense, much less create one overall stat that measures everything. Even in baseball it is at best an interesting starting point. In the NBA it is just dangerous. Great try though. Of course, this is all based on my personal eye test.

Okay Ben, all kidding aside.

Are you saying that win shares is a "very flawed stat" because you disagree with their results, or have you actually investigated their formula and calculations and spotted some mathematical mistakes or misappropriation of values?

If it's the latter I'd like to know what you have. As a scientist I am always open to changing my mind.