Originally Posted by ValanciunasFanboy
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.
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.
I get that, but again, if you want to have the slightest hope of getting some kind of agreement between 10+ people on this topic, it's this approach. Ultimately, it's really impossible to rank players accurately because there are so many variables like age, salary , contract length, injury risks, how well a player can fit a system and so on. Put andre miller on a half court team and pair him with a bunch of slow, old players and he's useless etc
I don't want to lump conley and Calderon
because I think they have equal value. I just think you need to make some compromises in order to get more people on board with however you're ranking these players.