How come the rankings of NBA legends always spark controversy and challenge the consensus on the definition of greatness?
The Elusive Science of All-Time NBA Rankings
The process of assembling the top 100 NBA players list is not just a numbers game. It's a delicate balance between cold numbers team performance as well as era strength and even impact.
The ranking of the OP (with Michael Jordan, LeBron James and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar at the top) is a good reflection of well-tread logic, but quickly shifts into the realm of contestation. How important are rings in relation to dominance at its peak? Does Andre Drummond's rebounding edge sufficient to warrant a slot at 91? The comment section transforms into a separate roundtable.
Subjectivity, System Dynamics, and Era Bias
Each list is a personal one. One user writes, "The only way to make an objective determination is by stats...there's only one right answer by a mile, Wilt." The plethora of statistics opposes arguments for sacrifice and leadership not just flash or records.
Wilt had more encounters with than the future Hall of Fame centers than any other player, excluding Kareem. Russell never claimed to be the owner of Wilt and the team did. I have never seen Wilt's equal in athleticism.
Power mapping exposes an undercurrent that is rooted in era bias even as we strive to be fair. The market for the NBA has grown as media culture grew, and younger generations challenge the "mythical status" of pioneers such as Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain.
Redefining Metrics: From Rings to Influence
"Winning is where legends are made," the OP says by drawing similarities between Wilt's legacy and more recent dynasties that were ruined by the emergence of rivals such as Curry or LeBron. However, some people argue the notion that Bill Walton's brief but spectacular peak be compared to Drummond's long-term success?
Comments