These rating aren't "any given night" ratings. They're overall ratings given performance over a season and post season and prognosis going forward. Or they should be.
So basically that's nice you're the champ and MVP and we have over 100 games of your objective statistical impact. But Westbrook and Kobe cause box scores and Kobe and stuff!
And Harden and Aldridge and Gasol too! Cause they're like good am I right?
What's interesting is the other franchise has rankings almost exactly according a certain consensus you might find on more nuanced basketball forums. You might not agree with them precisely but they're at least thoughtful. The biggest issue folks are making is Kobe at 85.
These ratings align with what I would expect from casual hand waving fans.
 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by Tonyattia |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you misread my post, I was talking about curry being tied for 4th best ratings wise, because someone disagreed with that. I tried to explain why it's not that crazy to think that as Lbj, Durant, Harden, Westbrook, Davis,Paul, Blake, and Gasol are all really elite and deserve recognition. With that said, I agree there are way too many 90s. Honestly only the players I just listed should be 90s imo.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
It's not unreasonable to say all these players deserve recognition.
It IS unreasonable to say EVERY ONE of those players happen to be as good or better than the MVP and the player with the greatest objective impact, who was considered to have had the best overall performance and a top-4 at worst player even including a healthy Durant.
And I agree that Klay is overrated compared to players like Kawhi and possibly Draymond. Which enforces my point about these ratings seeming completely casual and don't reflect serious basketball analysis.