For this system to work you have to live with a rule like this: if player A is not CLEARLY better than player B, than you will consider both equal
Well I didn't use caps but that's what i said.
"At least 15, no maybies."
That does not mean there are no players who aren't CLEARLY better. Like, I'd have to think if Andre Miller is better than Calderon. Likely he is. But he's a clearly more limited player than Conley and it's not a home run versus Calderon. It would depend on the team and system. So I don't put him into the 15.
too many tiers defeat the purpose, this exercise only works well if you try to generalize as much as possible without becoming irrelevant.
The purpose is comparing players' value in game.
If I am forced
to group two players together when I think one is clearly better --- because I'm using a system that can only differentiate between Rondo level and Chalmers level, and everything in between is one tier --- then the system itself defeats its purpose.
Look, you want me to group Conley and Calderon
together because you
think they have similar value. I don't. I don't think it's close. And it's not a system or logical issue. It's a factual disagreement.
You want me to group them together because they are both worse than Rondo but better than Chalmers. What purpose does that serve? I'm struggling to find one.
You can use tiers. Or not. But either way, you can't lose sight of the purpose which is comparing quality in a sensible way.