no one here but you is judging Mike on his time with the Wizards when we think about whether he was the GOAT

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 5:42:00 PM (view original):
so you're saying Doo playing less than 20 mpg and scoring 10 ppg is the same thing as MVP Doo? Is that the hill you want to stand on? you are worse than bosoxbill

Mailman #1, Stockton (who is even better than him according to your whole silly thing) #3, both in their actual primes and they've got nothing to show for it? better check your numbers man...

Doo playing 20minutes a game is far better than Having Thurl Bailey and Blue Edwards playing 38 minutes a game each.

Wait, you’re actually on to something for once!

So would you also agree that having Curry for 28 minutes could maybe, just maybe, be better than Issel for 40?

Anybody might have a better 28 minutes than anybody else's 40 minutes in one particular game. And if the game is taking place in the 50s or 60s or in the NBA before 1979, Issel would be far more valuable than Curry with no 3 point shot. But if your choice is Curry for 28 minutes for 82 games, or Issel for 40 minutes for 82 games, I'm taking Issel even with 3 point shots. He'd be playing 43% more minutes for the season. Check the salaries on here for Curry playing about 2300 minutes and Issel playing about 3300 minutes and see who is higher.

I'll do it for you.

18-19 Curry - 2331 minutes - $6.366M
73-74 Issel - 3268 minutes - $7.472M

How about we just use these two seasons since you literally said “I’m taking Issel”

Okay, I take 73-74 Issel and you take 18-19 Curry, and whichever player ranks higher on the sim's MVP scale wins the bet.

I’ll do this with any Curry and any Issel.

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 6:10:00 PM (view original):
ooh! what if we did an open league and you could only build around Dan Issell or Steph Curry and we can see how many of 23 teams not run by Savoy pick Steph?

If the choices were 2009-2010 Steph or 1972-1973 Curry, I would expect that no one would pick Steph. But we are not arguing here about seasons. And the argument is moot because Issel is only ranked slightly ahead in my rankings because he is still in mid career while Issel hasn't played in like 40 years. Once Curry's career is over he will rank higher than Issel here.

that's the problem with you - to the rest of us it is already 1000% clear who the better player is was or will be - Steph already did everything he needed to do to prove his point

And the problem with you and others here is that they keep ignoring the fact that my rankings don't measure who is "better," they measure who accrued the most value as of a certain point in time. Like through 1984 Dan Issel was far more valuable than Michael Jordan. Michael Jordon could have gotten hit by a truck and died the next day. We can't just assume what will happen in the future.

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 7:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 5:42:00 PM (view original):
so you're saying Doo playing less than 20 mpg and scoring 10 ppg is the same thing as MVP Doo? Is that the hill you want to stand on? you are worse than bosoxbill

Mailman #1, Stockton (who is even better than him according to your whole silly thing) #3, both in their actual primes and they've got nothing to show for it? better check your numbers man...

Doo playing 20minutes a game is far better than Having Thurl Bailey and Blue Edwards playing 38 minutes a game each.

Wait, you’re actually on to something for once!

So would you also agree that having Curry for 28 minutes could maybe, just maybe, be better than Issel for 40?

Anybody might have a better 28 minutes than anybody else's 40 minutes in one particular game. And if the game is taking place in the 50s or 60s or in the NBA before 1979, Issel would be far more valuable than Curry with no 3 point shot. But if your choice is Curry for 28 minutes for 82 games, or Issel for 40 minutes for 82 games, I'm taking Issel even with 3 point shots. He'd be playing 43% more minutes for the season. Check the salaries on here for Curry playing about 2300 minutes and Issel playing about 3300 minutes and see who is higher.

I'll do it for you.

18-19 Curry - 2331 minutes - $6.366M
73-74 Issel - 3268 minutes - $7.472M

How about we just use these two seasons since you literally said “I’m taking Issel”

Okay, I take 73-74 Issel and you take 18-19 Curry, and whichever player ranks higher on the sim's MVP scale wins the bet.

I’ll do this with any Curry and any Issel.

Okay, you get 2009-10 Curry and I get 1972-73 Issel. Your $200 against my $20. Which ever player ranks higher on the sim's MVP scale at the end of the season wins the bet.

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 7:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 7:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 5:42:00 PM (view original):
so you're saying Doo playing less than 20 mpg and scoring 10 ppg is the same thing as MVP Doo? Is that the hill you want to stand on? you are worse than bosoxbill

Mailman #1, Stockton (who is even better than him according to your whole silly thing) #3, both in their actual primes and they've got nothing to show for it? better check your numbers man...

Doo playing 20minutes a game is far better than Having Thurl Bailey and Blue Edwards playing 38 minutes a game each.

Wait, you’re actually on to something for once!

So would you also agree that having Curry for 28 minutes could maybe, just maybe, be better than Issel for 40?

Anybody might have a better 28 minutes than anybody else's 40 minutes in one particular game. And if the game is taking place in the 50s or 60s or in the NBA before 1979, Issel would be far more valuable than Curry with no 3 point shot. But if your choice is Curry for 28 minutes for 82 games, or Issel for 40 minutes for 82 games, I'm taking Issel even with 3 point shots. He'd be playing 43% more minutes for the season. Check the salaries on here for Curry playing about 2300 minutes and Issel playing about 3300 minutes and see who is higher.

I'll do it for you.

18-19 Curry - 2331 minutes - $6.366M
73-74 Issel - 3268 minutes - $7.472M

How about we just use these two seasons since you literally said “I’m taking Issel”

Okay, I take 73-74 Issel and you take 18-19 Curry, and whichever player ranks higher on the sim's MVP scale wins the bet.

I’ll do this with any Curry and any Issel.

Okay, you get 2009-10 Curry and I get 1972-73 Issel. Your $200 against my $20. Which ever player ranks higher on the sim's MVP scale at the end of the season wins the bet.

As in I can pick any curry and you can pick any Issel. You said it yourself, Issel has multiple seasons in WIS that have a higher salary than Curry, which you used to say he was better. AND I’m giving you 10:1 odds.

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 7:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 7:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 7:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 6:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 5:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 5:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 5:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 5:42:00 PM (view original):
so you're saying Doo playing less than 20 mpg and scoring 10 ppg is the same thing as MVP Doo? Is that the hill you want to stand on? you are worse than bosoxbill

Mailman #1, Stockton (who is even better than him according to your whole silly thing) #3, both in their actual primes and they've got nothing to show for it? better check your numbers man...

Doo playing 20minutes a game is far better than Having Thurl Bailey and Blue Edwards playing 38 minutes a game each.

Wait, you’re actually on to something for once!

So would you also agree that having Curry for 28 minutes could maybe, just maybe, be better than Issel for 40?

Anybody might have a better 28 minutes than anybody else's 40 minutes in one particular game. And if the game is taking place in the 50s or 60s or in the NBA before 1979, Issel would be far more valuable than Curry with no 3 point shot. But if your choice is Curry for 28 minutes for 82 games, or Issel for 40 minutes for 82 games, I'm taking Issel even with 3 point shots. He'd be playing 43% more minutes for the season. Check the salaries on here for Curry playing about 2300 minutes and Issel playing about 3300 minutes and see who is higher.

I'll do it for you.

18-19 Curry - 2331 minutes - $6.366M
73-74 Issel - 3268 minutes - $7.472M

How about we just use these two seasons since you literally said “I’m taking Issel”

Okay, I take 73-74 Issel and you take 18-19 Curry, and whichever player ranks higher on the sim's MVP scale wins the bet.

I’ll do this with any Curry and any Issel.

Okay, you get 2009-10 Curry and I get 1972-73 Issel. Your $200 against my $20. Which ever player ranks higher on the sim's MVP scale at the end of the season wins the bet.

As in I can pick any curry and you can pick any Issel. You said it yourself, Issel has multiple seasons in WIS that have a higher salary than Curry, which you used to say he was better. AND I’m giving you 10:1 odds.

No way. I've already said that Curry is better per minute than Issel and will rank higher after he plays enough minutes. WHY would I bet that Issel's best season is better than Curry's best season?

Curry's career WS/48 is 196.
Issel's career WS/48 is .181.

Curry is CLEARLY more valuable per minute, which I have said from the beginning.

Someone asked my why Issel was a bit higher in the rankings NOW than Curry is. explained to them that the current rankings only go through the end of last season. At that point the minutes played were:

Issel -- 41784
Curry - 32723

As of July 2024 Issel had more overall value because he had played 28% more minutes than Curry at 92% as good of a level of play.

Hey just spitballing here but

If you post 600 times about some theory you have.

And literally zero people agree with any part of it.

And someone offers you $200 vs $20 to put your theory to the test.

And you say no.

Then maybe you should stop posting 600 times a day about your theory?

Posted by dBKC on 4/16/2025 7:24:00 PM (view original):
Hey just spitballing here but

If you post 600 times about some theory you have.

And literally zero people agree with any part of it.

And someone offers you $200 vs $20 to put your theory to the test.

And you say no.

Then maybe you should stop posting 600 times a day about your theory?

Opposite. I need to double my posting pace so you arseholes stop issue challenges that have nothing to do with my theory.

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.

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 6:10:00 PM (view original):
ooh! what if we did an open league and you could only build around Dan Issell or Steph Curry and we can see how many of 23 teams not run by Savoy pick Steph?

If the choices were 2009-2010 Steph or 1972-1973 Curry, I would expect that no one would pick Steph. But we are not arguing here about seasons. And the argument is moot because Issel is only ranked slightly ahead in my rankings because he is still in mid career while Issel hasn't played in like 40 years. Once Curry's career is over he will rank higher than Issel here.

that's the problem with you - to the rest of us it is already 1000% clear who the better player is was or will be - Steph already did everything he needed to do to prove his point

And the problem with you and others here is that they keep ignoring the fact that my rankings don't measure who is "better," they measure who accrued the most value as of a certain point in time. Like through 1984 Dan Issel was far more valuable than Michael Jordan. Michael Jordon could have gotten hit by a truck and died the next day. We can't just assume what will happen in the future.

and what you seem to be ignoring is that no one cares about that metric. We all get it, but it just doesn't toggle no nobs. for all the reasons already elaborated upon by all the people.

At this point we are all just having fun poking at you in your cage of emotions

as I suggested, BetterHelp...

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

You should also subtract 50% of any win shares earned in the ABA.

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.

No, didn’t you see? A top-3 player from the most talented, most global league the world has ever seen wouldn’t be able to hack it in the 2nd best league in an era where players from only one country played and smoked cigarettes at halftime.

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.

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 7:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/16/2025 6:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/16/2025 6:10:00 PM (view original):
ooh! what if we did an open league and you could only build around Dan Issell or Steph Curry and we can see how many of 23 teams not run by Savoy pick Steph?

If the choices were 2009-2010 Steph or 1972-1973 Curry, I would expect that no one would pick Steph. But we are not arguing here about seasons. And the argument is moot because Issel is only ranked slightly ahead in my rankings because he is still in mid career while Issel hasn't played in like 40 years. Once Curry's career is over he will rank higher than Issel here.

that's the problem with you - to the rest of us it is already 1000% clear who the better player is was or will be - Steph already did everything he needed to do to prove his point

And the problem with you and others here is that they keep ignoring the fact that my rankings don't measure who is "better," they measure who accrued the most value as of a certain point in time. Like through 1984 Dan Issel was far more valuable than Michael Jordan. Michael Jordon could have gotten hit by a truck and died the next day. We can't just assume what will happen in the future.

and what you seem to be ignoring is that no one cares about that metric. We all get it, but it just doesn't toggle no nobs. for all the reasons already elaborated upon by all the people.

At this point we are all just having fun poking at you in your cage of emotions

as I suggested, BetterHelp...

Okay Nic. Glad I can help amuse you.