#1 ·
I was looking at some recent decade-based accolades recently, and it really struck me how much the "all-star" lists can feel like a complete wash sometimes. You see these lists where every single team is represented in a specific position, and it feels less like a celebration of greatness and more like the math just forced it to be that way. It’s almost frustrating when you’re looking for a clear standout or a dominant era, but the stats just spread the glory around until it feels meaningless.
It makes me wonder if we overvalue these "all-decade" or "all-era" lists. Is it even worth tracking them if the goal is to find the elite, or are we just documenting the fact that the league is balanced? I feel like true greatness should be about one or two names rising above the rest, not a perfect distribution that makes everyone feel included.
Do you guys think these decade-based honors actually mean anything, or are they just a way to manufacture hype for teams that are just "decent" rather than legendary?
It makes me wonder if we overvalue these "all-decade" or "all-era" lists. Is it even worth tracking them if the goal is to find the elite, or are we just documenting the fact that the league is balanced? I feel like true greatness should be about one or two names rising above the rest, not a perfect distribution that makes everyone feel included.
Do you guys think these decade-based honors actually mean anything, or are they just a way to manufacture hype for teams that are just "decent" rather than legendary?