That is a terrible way to evaluate a player when determining there all time ranking IMO. How is longevity not a HUGE HUGE factor? Look at it from the franchises perspective, having a guy who is cornerstone for 10-15 years is infinitely more valuable than a guy who may have been a little better in his prime, but that prime only lasted 5 years. Finding someone who was consistently an all time great is hard to find and the group is very small. The guy with the longevity is so much more valuable it's not even a comparison.No way T-Mac deserves to be in the same grouping as Wade and Kobe. TMac is currently younger than Kobe, dude hasn't been relevant for years. Yet he deserves to be in the same tier as those guys? No way. Longevity factor is the reason Kobe is clear cut ahead of Wade too. Both in their prime? Sure the difference is not too much, but overall how long a player can sustain their greatness ends up being a top factor in their all time ranking for me.
it isn't for me, I accept that other people have a different view, and I think its just as valid
but it just isn't for me; when I sit back and remember a player a remember them at their best and to me thats what matters.