FIVE REASONS WHY NBA PLAYER RANKINGS ARE SILLY

NBA player rankings can be found anywhere there’s a discussion about the league. Whether the source is a sports media outlet, a video game, or a fan post on social media, NBA player rankings are popular and guaranteed to spark a debate. And given the arbitrary nature of some of these rankings, the source doesn’t seem to mind what type of feedback results from it, as long as there’s feedback. This is why the “better than” question is always a feature of sports programming with a debate format. And while, overall, the sports debate can produce spirited conversations, they can also get out of hand. We’ve seen splits between talk show hosts, relatives, and friends resulting from disputes–which sometimes get personal–over NBA player rankings, even when what’s being debated isn’t clear. Though not an exhaustive list, here are five reasons why NBA player rankings are silly, especially if you’re not being paid to debate the subject.

1. THERE ARE NO CLEAR CRITERIA

Regarding player lists and rankings, do we even know what’s being disputed? When discussing the top players of all time, what are the criteria? Total points scored? Career scoring average? Titles won? Finals winning percentage? Number of Hall of Fame teammates? Which era did they play in? What about defense? Individual or help defense? Leadership? Intangibles? Does longevity factor in? How about availability? Do you like or dislike the player? Ask ten of your friends about their system for ranking the top players and you’ll get ten different answers.

We’ve simply not come to a consensus on what “better” means, especially when comparing players at the top of the sport.

2. NO ONE HAS SEEN ALL THE PLAYERS

For a second, forget the players from yesteryear. Even if you were around and watching basketball decades ago, unless you were an insider you didn’t see all the players enough. You knew the players on your local team well, but that was based on a select number of televised road games (assuming you could get a decent reception) unless you were fortunate enough to have season tickets. Toss in a few nationally televised games and you were lucky if you saw half your team’s games, as home games were blacked out locally. And if you were the type to rely on boxscores, they weren’t nearly as thorough as the ones we have now. And the ones we have now don’t begin to tell the full story.

Nowadays, even with every single game available for viewing, detailed boxscores, highlight packages, shows devoted exclusively to the sport, and analytics, not many of us have the access or time to watch every player in the league play in each of their games. We’ll watch every game involving our favorite team and some nationally televised games involving other squads, but boxscores, highlights, and analytics will never make up for seeing players in game situations.

This is why we’ll immediately think our favorite player is being “disrespected” if ranked below another guy we’re not as familiar with, especially if that guy has, for example, a lower points-per-game average.

3. SHORTER LISTS EXCLUDE PAST GREATS

Shorter lists, like asking for the Lakers’ Mount Rushmore, are guaranteed to result in heated discussions as there are more than four players in the Lakers’ rich history deserving of a spot. But it doesn’t end there. In shorter lists, the legendary players excluded aren’t merely excluded, they’re also denigrated and likely played prior to the 1980s. We’ve heard them referred to as “plumbers” who were not as athletically gifted as the contemporary player. They flunk the eye test. Their movements weren’t as fluid. The games were played below the rim. The players always dribbled with the same hand, regardless of which direction they were going in. Some guys even took set shots.

Horrors!

They also didn’t have easy access to film to emulate other players, traveled between cities to games via car, train, bus, and commercial flights, couldn’t carry the ball while dribbling, take 3-4 steps on a layup, or take 2 steps sideways or backward before shooting to clear space, played multiple sets of back-to-back-to-back games, didn’t load manage, and played against defenses where hand-checking was allowed. Many had to work during the off-season and report for military obligations during the season. Most teams didn’t have an assistant or developmental coach, let alone several. And the footwear and training facilities are much better now, though you wouldn’t know it from all the injuries and load management.

This is why the exclusively “Michael Jordan versus Lebron James as G.O.A.T” argument is a head-scratcher for older fans, as there are several other players who should be under consideration. It’s also why comparing players from different eras doesn’t work.

4. EXTENDED LISTS ARE ARBITRARY

Extensive lists, like ESPN’s annual Top 100 (current) NBA Players ranking, result in several types of debate. The network’s programming suggests this is no accident. If the rankings accomplish nothing else, they generate discussions and we end up debating how the 68th-ranked player could possibly rank higher than the 91st-ranked player. The further down an extended list you go, the rankings become even more arbitrary. Regardless of the methodology used, it’s not worth the agita.

The NBA’s 50th and 75th Anniversary lists resulted in some healthy debate over players excluded. Alex English, currently 24th in all-time points scored in NBA history, was left off the list in a league where scoring gets you the most notoriety. ESPN, never one to shy away from a debate, went a step further and ranked the players included in the 75th-anniversary list. I wonder how many contributors to those rankings actually saw every player in action. In any event, there’s no compelling argument for ranking Dominique Wilkins two spots ahead of Rick Barry when they played different styles in different eras, or 16 spots ahead of George Gervin (or vice versa) when their playing careers briefly collided.

5. “OF ALL TIME” VERSUS “I’VE EVER SEEN”

Anyone, regardless of age, can prepare a “Best NBA Players I’ve Ever Seen” list, but only a handful of people can submit a “Best Players Of All Time” list having actually seen the players compete. Unfortunately, the two categories are often used interchangeably. You can almost guess the age of a ranking source by the players included in those rankings. Increasingly, we’ve seen players from past eras slide farther down in most contemporary all-time rankings if not completely ignored.

READY TO RUMBLE

So without determining what makes one player better than another overall, without having seen every current player enough, without having seen past players at all, we’re prepared to go into an all-time player-ranking battle against family, friends, and strangers after hearing similar debates on our favorite sports talk shows. No one wins here, but everyone involved potentially loses. Blood pressure and decibel levels go up, listening and hearing go down, nothing gets resolved, and we don’t even know what we’re fighting about.

And while some of us are tearing down Lebron James, for example, we’re still witnessing the career of one of the all-time greats but still missing it to focus on his faults, even while he’s still playing at a high level as he approaches his 39th birthday. And while we’re arguing over player rankings, NBA2K rankings come out and the players aren’t happy, either.

No one’s happy. That’s not the point of this. Let the paid pundits duke it out while we relax, enjoy the games, and appreciate the legends.

It’s just basketball.