For example, who should be ranked higher, Russell Westbrook or Stephen Curry? There are people that are going to rate Curry higher because of his efficiency and how much he has won. On the other hand, there are going to be people that point out that Westbrook averaged a triple double and that he played on a team that was not very good so he should be higher. While I see the merits of both arguments, my inclination is to rate Curry higher because personally, I am not a fan of Westbrook's play because I feel he is a ball hog and that he hurt his team last year. Also, should we penalize players like Westbrook and Curry for their defense, should we move Chris Paul, the real best two way point guard in the league, ahead of them?
Another place that these rankings pop up is in our video games, specifically NBA 2K. Every year I buy the game even though I tell myself that they have not changed much, but I just have to. The first thing I do is go to the rosters and browse through the players and let out sighs and I can't believe that when I see the rankings of certain players. I do not have to worry about that too much now because the ratings are such a big thing on twitter. For example, people are up in arms about Austin Rivers being rated an 80. His own teammate Patrick Beverley is rated a 79. Now many people are going to say that Rivers has no business being rated ahead of Beverley, but in some ways a lot of our feelings about Rivers are tied to him being the coach's son. Say what you want about Austin Rivers, but he is a solid NBA player. He is not better than Patrick Beverley, in my opinion, but he is a solid player.
The last rankings that are tough to deal with are historical rankings. For example, many people rank Michael Jordan as number 1 and they point to all sorts of reasons why that is. His record in the Finals, his play at the end of games, his competitive nature, and many other things. However, you could make a case for so many other players and who the best of all time is wrapped up a lot in what you value as a basketball fan. I think the fact that Jordan's contribution to games was mainly scoring the ball hurt his case. I value players that can change the game through their passing, their rebounding, and other facets of the game. That is why my historical rankings have Lebron as number 1. While I get that he does not have a great record in the Finals, it is impressive that he has made it there so many times. The problem with the argument of Jordan's record is that Lebron has played some tough teams in the Finals and I do not think that is the case for Jordan. Lebron has played some great teams in the Finals and has come up on the losing end, but he beat a team that broke Jordan's 1995-96 record in the Finals.
The point that I am trying to make is that we have to be careful with rankings. Don't get so upset about it. Take into account what that person values and why they may have slotted certain players ahead of others. Whether or not Westbrook is ahead of Curry does not change the fact that they are not going to be playing one on one anytime soon. Also, the Warriors will never trade them for each other straight up so we can do an experiment of who is better. Let it go. Let's all promise to keep making rankings though because it leads to fun arguments about the NBA, what could be better.
Thanks for reading, follow me on twitter @dennisdownba.