Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NBA GOAT
#21
I'm 39, so if we are just going on players we've seen, my top centers would be Hakeem and Shaq. Hakeem was one of the best offensive centers to ever play. Can you imagine how many more pts Shaq would have if he could have shot free throws? David Robinson would also have to be in the discussion.


You mentioned Gary payton, we should come up with an All Defensive team. The Glove would definitely make the list.
[Image: Zu8AdZv.png?1]
Deceitful, two-faced she-woman. Never trust a female, Delmar, remember that one simple precept and your time with me will not have been ill spent.

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]

Reply/Quote
#22
(06-16-2017, 09:34 AM)jason Wrote: I did have other guys to choose from at center though... Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson... I went with Shaq off of physical dominance. I think people hold his size against him... I know they do the same with Wilt. But when Shaq was right he was unstoppable. Lists like this are hard. I found myself omitting some of my all time favorites like Jason Kidd and Gary Payton. I couldn't quite squeeze Tim Duncan in... Maybe I left him off because I hate the whole ring counting thing.

Payton underrated for sure. Ewing and the Admiral maybe underrated too. Olajuwon had a lot of ink spilled over him but I am not sure it was enough. To me Olajuwon was almost what a healthy Bill Walton would have looked like over a full career.

Shaq was unstoppable in low post, but never played against a defender as good as Russell, Chamberlain, Jabbar or even Nate Thurmond. Outside that he didn't have much of a game. Terrible free throw shooter which is a huge liability in a low post player - contrast his numbers on free throws attempted and made with Malone's as an illustration. Not much of a passer or screener, good but not great on the boards... I just always thought he was overrated.

Other underrated guys include some already mentioned (Havlicek, Stockton, Don Nelson) and some not like Walt Frazier and Earl Monroe and Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes. The Bullets teams those two played on were fantastic. I met a guy the other day and we had a long talk about Unseld. If you can find you tube or whatever of any of those guys check it out. The NBA was all Celtics through much of the 1950's the 1960's, then had some great balance early in the 1970's. Then, strangely it got a reputation of being like hockey - "I went to a fight and a basketball game broke out" - for a few years until Magic and Bird came in and resurrected the league. The 1980's were incredible with those guys leading some insanely talented teammates.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
Reply/Quote
#23
(06-16-2017, 11:25 AM)xxlt Wrote: Payton underrated for sure. Ewing and the Admiral maybe underrated too. Olajuwon had a lot of ink spilled over him but I am not sure it was enough. To me Olajuwon was almost what a healthy Bill Walton would have looked like over a full career.

Shaq was unstoppable in low post, but never played against a defender as good as Russell, Chamberlain, Jabbar or even Nate Thurmond. Outside that he didn't have much of a game. Terrible free throw shooter which is a huge liability in a low post player - contrast his numbers on free throws attempted and made with Malone's as an illustration. Not much of a passer or screener, good but not great on the boards... I just always thought he was overrated.

Other underrated guys include some already mentioned (Havlicek, Stockton, Don Nelson) and some not like Walt Frazier and Earl Monroe and Wes Unseld and Elvin Hayes. The Bullets teams those two played on were fantastic. I met a guy the other day and we had a long talk about Unseld. If you can find you tube or whatever of any of those guys check it out. The NBA was all Celtics through much of the 1950's the 1960's, then had some great balance early in the 1970's. Then, strangely it got a reputation of being like hockey - "I went to a fight and a basketball game broke out" - for a few years until Magic and Bird came in and resurrected the league. The 1980's were incredible with those guys leading some insanely talented teammates.

Hakeem was definitely the most complete and refined center of that era. That year they went back to back he was destroying guys like Shaq and Robinson... But let's not forget he had Robert Horry on his team... 7 rings man.... 7.

Now that I think about it, Horry also led Shaq to 3 rings... The GOAT; Robert Horry.
Reply/Quote
#24
(06-16-2017, 10:36 AM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I'm 39, so if we are just going on players we've seen, my top centers would be Hakeem and Shaq. Hakeem was one of the best offensive centers to ever play. Can you imagine how many more pts Shaq would have if he could have shot free throws? David Robinson would also have to be in the discussion.


You mentioned Gary payton, we should come up with an All Defensive team. The Glove would definitely make the list.

I'm gonna give that all defensive team a try... It will be hard because I'm already having trouble with the guards alone. You have Jordan, Payton, Kobe, and Dumars off the top of my head. I'll have to use a bench again.
Reply/Quote
#25
(06-16-2017, 12:39 PM)jason Wrote: I'm gonna give that all defensive team a try... It will be hard because I'm already having trouble with the guards alone. You have Jordan, Payton, Kobe, and Dumars off the top of my head. I'll have to use a bench again.

Just off the top of my head, I'd go with

Payton
Jordan
Pippen
Rodman
Mutumbo

But that's just on the fly. Lambier (god I hated that goon) would also have to be considered. ill have to look up all Defensive teams of the 80s and 90s.
[Image: Zu8AdZv.png?1]
Deceitful, two-faced she-woman. Never trust a female, Delmar, remember that one simple precept and your time with me will not have been ill spent.

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]

Reply/Quote
#26
(06-16-2017, 12:55 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Just off the top of my head, I'd go with

Payton
Jordan
Pippen
Rodman
Mutumbo

But that's just on the fly. Lambier (god I hated that goon) would also have to be considered. ill have to look up all Defensive teams of the 80s and 90s.

They were the first off the top of my head too. It's not hard to see why the Bulls were so great; is it? Horace Grant before Rodman was no defensive slouch either.
Reply/Quote
#27
If I had the first pick in an all-time NBA draft, I am going with Jordan in his prime for his all around game on defense, offense (inside/outside/quick fade away), dribbling, assists, and intensity & focus. 

Off the top of my head from players Ive watched, my top 5 ideal team would be:

Jordan (best all around)
Magic (best at spreading the ball)
Bird (best shot)
Lebron (play guard or forward)
Shaq (mainly for muscle on inside for rebounds and quick dunks)

bench:
Kobe
Pippen
Tim Duncan
Steph
Hakeem
This post uses only 100% recycled electrons.

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#28
(06-13-2017, 11:30 AM)xxlt Wrote: As you can see from the list below, Michael Jordan is in good company, tied at 10th place for the NBA's GOAT. After all, we measure by championships, right?

11 Bill Russell
Boston Celtics
1956-57, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69
10 Sam Jones
Boston Celtics
1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69
8 John Havlicek
Boston Celtics
1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1973-74, 1975-76
8 Tom Heinsohn
Boston Celtics
1956-57, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65
8 K.C. Jones
Boston Celtics
1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66
8 Tom Sanders
Boston Celtics
1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1967-68, 1968-69
7 Robert Horry
Houston Rockets
1993-94, 1994-95
Los Angeles Lakers
1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02
San Antonio Spurs
2004-05, 2006-07
7 Jim Loscutoff
Boston Celtics
1956-57, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64
7 Frank Ramsey
Boston Celtics
1956-57, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64
6 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Los Angeles Lakers
1979-80, 1981-82, 1984-85, 1986-87, 1987-88
Milwaukee Bucks
1970-71
6 Bob Cousy
Boston Celtics
1956-57, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63
6 Michael Jordan
Chicago Bulls
1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98
6 Scottie Pippen
Chicago Bulls
1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98


I wonder why the guys on Jordan's jock don't spend less time trying to convince people he is better than LeBron (which is debatable) and more time trying to convince people of the more winnable argument that he is better than Jim Loscutoff, Frank Ramsey, or Robert Horry. Well, I do know why they don't do that. Math. 7>6.

So, Jordanaires (see what I did there), here's a thought. Why don't you try to cement Michael's spot at 10 and argue Pippen, Cousy and Abdul-Jabbar belong behind him on the list?  

What do you think?

Except, even if you ignore the fact that all of those players with those titles weren't the center of their teams or the reasons for the titles, there's things like mentioning how there was only 8 to 12 teams in the league when Russel and the Celtics won those titles and the game was far less advanced.

Jordan led the Bulls to those titles with far less talent around him than Lebron has.
Reply/Quote
#29
(06-20-2017, 02:19 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Except, even if you ignore the fact that all of those players with those titles weren't the center of their teams or the reasons for the titles, there's things like mentioning how there was only 8 to 12 teams in the league when Russel and the Celtics won those titles and the game was far less advanced.

Jordan led the Bulls to those titles with far less talent around him than Lebron has.

Even though I went with Jordan as my number 1 of all time, I disagree with this. Pippen is an all-time top 50 player. Also in the last 3 championship runs, he had Steve Kerr who could drill 3's, Rodman who was great at rebounding, and Kukoc as the best 6th man in the league off the bench. And not to mention Jordan had Phil Jackson as a head coach, where as Lebron has had I have no idea who. 
This post uses only 100% recycled electrons.

[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]
Reply/Quote
#30
(06-20-2017, 02:19 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Except, even if you ignore the fact that all of those players with those titles weren't the center of their teams or the reasons for the titles, there's things like mentioning how there was only 8 to 12 teams in the league when Russel and the Celtics won those titles and the game was far less advanced.

Jordan led the Bulls to those titles with far less talent around him than Lebron has.

A smaller league means more good or great players on every team. A bigger league means players who wouldn't be good enough to ride the bench on an 8 team league end up starting on a team in a 30 league team. 8x12= 96. You can be one of the best 100 players in the whole country and not make a team! 30x12=360. Suddenly guys from 96 to 150 aren't just in the league but starting (5 starters on each team). So your argument that a smaller league was a weaker league is exactly backwards. A smaller league is a tougher league, which demonstrates that Russell and the other guys ahead of Jordan and Horry on the list were light years ahead of them in terms of talent.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
Reply/Quote
#31
(06-21-2017, 06:50 AM)xxlt Wrote: A smaller league means more good or great players on every team. A bigger league means players who wouldn't be good enough to ride the bench on an 8 team league end up starting on a team in a 30 league team. 8x12= 96. You can be one of the best 100 players in the whole country and not make a team! 30x12=360. Suddenly guys from 96 to 150 aren't just in the league but starting (5 starters on each team). So your argument that a smaller league was a weaker league is exactly backwards. A smaller league is a tougher league, which demonstrates that Russell and the other guys ahead of Jordan and Horry on the list were light years ahead of them in terms of talent.

That would be correct if all things were equal but basketball was still not as widespread or popular as it has been in the 90s and now.

It's not like there were hundreds of all-stars sitting at home that couldn't get into the league.
Reply/Quote
#32
(06-21-2017, 08:33 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: That would be correct if all things were equal but basketball was still not as widespread or popular as it has been in the 90s and now.

It's not like there were hundreds of all-stars sitting at home that couldn't get into the league.

It is exactly like that. And it is true across sports leagues. In a small league there are great players who are not great enough to make the league. You had to be the greatest of the great to make it. But as you add more teams every expansion waters down the talent level. Whether or not the league is popular in a given era is irrelevant.

In 1950 baseball was extremely popular (pro boxing and pro wrestling were too) and there were only 16 teams. In 2000 there were 30 teams even though baseball was less popular than NASCAR or the NFL by that time. But the fact remains you had to be a better player in 1950 to make a roster - there were only 16. When there were almost twice as many in 2000 you had "stars" labeled stars because half their opponents were guys who wouldn't be in MLB in a 16-team league. The greats of the 1950's (and before) were truly great. The greats of today merely average when measured against history.

Don't blame me, it is just math.
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
Reply/Quote
#33
(06-21-2017, 01:37 PM)xxlt Wrote: It is exactly like that. And it is true across sports leagues. In a small league there are great players who are not great enough to make the league. You had to be the greatest of the great to make it. But as you add more teams every expansion waters down the talent level. Whether or not the league is popular in a given era is irrelevant.

In 1950 baseball was extremely popular (pro boxing and pro wrestling were too) and there were only 16 teams. In 2000 there were 30 teams even though baseball was less popular than NASCAR or the NFL by that time. But the fact remains you had to be a better player in 1950 to make a roster - there were only 16. When there were almost twice as many in 2000 you had "stars" labeled stars because half their opponents were guys who wouldn't be in MLB in a 16-team league. The greats of the 1950's (and before) were truly great. The greats of today merely average when measured against history.

Don't blame me, it is just math.

Mathematics is universal.

They should contract the league. Miami Heat, Minnesota T Wolves, Orlando Magic, Charlotte Hornets... Ya'll are outta here. All current players on those teams will go into the contraction draft. The Thunder will go back to Seattle.

Make the NBA great again.
Reply/Quote
#34
(06-28-2017, 10:25 PM)jason Wrote: Mathematics is universal.

They should contract the league. Miami Heat, Minnesota T Wolves, Orlando Magic, Charlotte Hornets... Ya'll are outta here. All current players on those teams will go into the contraction draft. The Thunder will go back to Seattle.

Make the NBA great again.


I like it.


Slick Watts and the Sonics forever! Thunder never!
JOHN ROBERTS: From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice... I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.
Reply/Quote





Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)