Monday edition of the pod continuing our all decade series. This was also really interesting to get into and I think we're gonna have some fun philosophical disagreements on our top five MVP of the decade and then also our all decade all NBA teams as well.

So day can you describe what your philosophy was your criteria in picking this.

Sure, I think we should start with the with the kind of the all NBA teams that will set the parameters for then who we include because I assume everybody that we talk about in the all NBA will be in the all in the top five that would be I think the the more co here cohesives way of doing it.

So for me, I mean it was a really challenging balance between peak and longevity, but I would say longevity of peak is also really important.

So somebody who was amazing for one year let's say, Yannis is a really good example, you know justified MVP in the final year of this, but he didn't play at all in a lot of this decade and wasn't that same type of player.

So you know, I consider that obviously and I also valued playoff contributions not only the rock counting stats, but also did you swing series like was your presence were you the best player.

So for example, like yeah, Kevin love one of championship, but that doesn't get weighted nearly as heavily as his teammate LeBron James being so much more instrumental in that same championship.

The other thing that I will add to is I put a premium and this is something that Ben Taylor has talked about a lot in his historical research Kevin Pelton has talked about his historical research that we've talked about of the goal of basketball is to win a championship.

And so I think that had a couple of effects on the way I did things number one, I valued a really high peak right if you are a top five player in the NBA, if you're a top one player in the NBA, that means to me that your team has a pretty darn good chance of winning the championship that year.

And so I think Ben's research is showing this KP's research has shown this that a top five type of season in terms of your odds of winning a championship on a random team.

That really means so much more than a top 10, a top 15 type of season in a given year.

And so if you have a player who maybe only had four years where he was a top five player in the league, but then just didn't give much value on that I still might value that over say your guy who was lower and all star every year of the decade.

And another aspect of that to me is I put more of a premium on the guys at the lower end who could fit in whether that's guys who maybe had a pretty high peak, but then also when they weren't at an all NBA type of level were still able to contribute to really good winning basketball say coi Leonard right his first three years or so he's not a star.

But he's still able to really contribute at a high level doing things as a three and D player that are going to help you win a championship.

Whereas say Russell West work still on one of my teams, but just by contrast when he's at his absolute best.

Yes, I think he can help you win a championship, but as soon as he drops off just a little bit now he's using so much of the ball.

He's not a good defender. You're not going to win a championship with him at hit kind of his lower end level.

Well, and something else that I thought was really important is the I usually say the his presence alone test, which is especially for offense, I would say did having that person on your team mean that you were going to have a really good offense.

And that is incredibly valuable because if they need to be a complimentary player, then you have to find that guy.

So if if it's LeBron or Steph Curry or James Hardin, you know that that is a huge value at if you can give them the keys and they can take you on one into the floor where you want to go.

And it ended up being more on the offensive and the defensive end because a lot of the defenders who were that guy for a period of time were not close in the rest of the decade.

Like I think that that we'll get into this in the center conversation, which I assume will be later in this podcast, but that was something that I noticed was that there were offensive players who were dominant for maybe not the whole decade, but a whole lot longer than the defensive guys and some of that's just armature and point type stuff.

...