MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole on October 11, 2021, 07:56:40 AM
-
So the NBA is going to be naming 75 players to its 75th Anniversary team, 25 years after naming 50 to its 50th. So who will those extra 25 names be? How many who made the 50th will not make the 75th?
Here are my thoughts. I have 14 obvious or near obvious candidates, 11 who are "in the conversation," and three who are pretty much shoo-ins but are younger in their careers.
Obvious: Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Tim Duncan, Steph Curry, Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant
Near Obvious: Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller
In the Conversation: Tony Parker, Alonzo Mourning, Pau Gasol, Manu Ginobili, Ray Allen, Gary Payton, Tracy McGrady, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Dikembe Mutombo, Vince Carter
Shoe Ins but Young: Giannis, Anthony Davis, Kawhi Leonard
I guess there could be older players who were frozen out of the 50th team too. Who they might be I don't know.
Am I missing anyone? Some of the thought processes around these players are interesting. Is Ray Allen better than Dave Bing? Is Tony Parker better than Tiny Archibald?
-
Interesting topic.
McGrady is one I'd leave off. Sure, he made the HOF. Great scorer in his prime, but rarely affected the game in other ways. Harden is similar, but has had far more triple doubles and is one of the most gifted offensive players I've seen, as much as I can't stand how he plays.
The three younger guys having rings also affects the conversation. Kawhi is a definite, IMO. Giannis and AD not far behind.
-
I think Giannis makes it, albeit his inclusion needs to include some projection. But 2 MVPs, DPOY, and Finals MVP by age 27 is definitely worthy.
Add three All NBA 1st teams and two 2nd teams, especially considering Lebron, Durant and Kawhi are the other top forwards of this era, and Giannis has an even stronger case.
-
Giannis' body of work suggests he "deserves" it, but as FBM said he's relatively young. Didn't average 20 pts or 8 rebs till his 4th season, so he's had only 5 great seasons. They were great, and he got better and better, but maybe just not enough of them. I wouldn't be surprised if he's left off.
Kawhi also hasn't had a zillion "great" seasons, but his playoff performances, including MVP for 2 different title teams, will matter. As will the fact that he has a full decade in the NBA, and had many, many honors. Will be surprised if he's not on it.
Davis is kind of a tweener between Kawhi and Giannis. I'll say he's not selected ... but won't be surprised if he is.
I'm thinking all 14 of FBM's obvious and near obvious are in easily.
Harden and Parker I think are in, perhaps Mourning too. Seems to be lots of love for Gasol among player chatter. For that matter, cases could be made for everybody else FBM names on his "conversation" list.
Carmelo Anthony? Dwight Howard? Those are big names and big stats compilers. Chris Bosh? Very good stats and key contributor on 2 champs and 2 more finalists.
What will be interesting to me:
1. As FBM said, will any old-timers who weren't on the 50th team be chosen this time?
2. Will anybody who was on the 50th team get knocked off the 75th team by a newbie?
Good topic, Fluff.
-
Here's the 50- https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players
Walton is interesting. I didn't get to watch him play, but know that injuries took away a lot of his prime.
-
Giannis and Leonard have to be locks. I also think Klay is in the conversation with the others mentioned.
-
Here's the 50- https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players
Walton is interesting. I didn't get to watch him play, but know that injuries took away a lot of his prime.
OK, I didn't really think twice about Bill Walton until I looked at his stats. And...well...if Giannis doesn't make it because he doesn't have enough years, than I can't imagine how Walton made it. Sure his peak was high, but Giannis has more games and minutes played. And one more MVP award.
-
Fluffy, Shaq made the top 50 with fewer seasons than Giannis. Antetokounmpo is a lock, look at his stats? He also has 2MVP's, a DPOY, and a Finals MVP. He's already top 25 ever and moving up quickly.
-
Fluffy, Shaq made the top 50 with fewer seasons than Giannis. Antetokounmpo is a lock, look at his stats? He also has 2MVP's, a DPOY, and a Finals MVP. He's already top 25 ever and moving up quickly.
Giannis is a lock
-
What will be interesting to me:
1. As FBM said, will any old-timers who weren't on the 50th team be chosen this time?
2. Will anybody who was on the 50th team get knocked off the 75th team by a newbie?
As for #2, I would think the answer *should be* yes. You would think that more than 1/3 of the NBA's best all time players have risen to prominence in the last 25 years right? The real questions are, who will it be? And is that enough?
-
Here's the 50- https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players
Walton is interesting. I didn't get to watch him play, but know that injuries took away a lot of his prime.
Maybe the hardest decision. Woulda been a Top 10 all-timer without injuries.
-
So the NBA is going to be naming 75 players to its 75th Anniversary team, 25 years after naming 50 to its 50th. So who will those extra 25 names be? How many who made the 50th will not make the 75th?
Here are my thoughts. I have 14 obvious or near obvious candidates, 11 who are "in the conversation," and three who are pretty much shoo-ins but are younger in their careers.
Obvious: Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Tim Duncan, Steph Curry, Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant
Near Obvious: Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller
In the Conversation: Tony Parker, Alonzo Mourning, Pau Gasol, Manu Ginobili, Ray Allen, Gary Payton, Tracy McGrady, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Dikembe Mutombo, Vince Carter
Shoe Ins but Young: Giannis, Anthony Davis, Kawhi Leonard
I guess there could be older players who were frozen out of the 50th team too. Who they might be I don't know.
Am I missing anyone? Some of the thought processes around these players are interesting. Is Ray Allen better than Dave Bing? Is Tony Parker better than Tiny Archibald?
Impressive post. The questions at the end (there are others too) are going to be the hardest.
I think some of the older guys lose their luster over time. As to the 2 you mention, I would take Bing (barely) and Archibald (easily).
-
My guess is the 50 from before stay, and they add 25 New Players.
-
My guess is the 50 from before stay, and they add 25 New Players.
I'd have to think that the folks who compiled the original 50 know very well who just missed in the 51-55 range and will give those guys very strong consideration. I'd be surprised if at least a couple of those guys didn't make it into the 75.
-
Here's the 50- https://www.nba.com/history/nba-at-50/top-50-players
Walton is interesting. I didn't get to watch him play, but know that injuries took away a lot of his prime.
If one only counts Walton's NBA career (and I think that's what is supposed to be the case), Walton shouldn't be on this all-time team. He was great when healthy ... but he had the equivalent of 4 healthy years. Almost everybody on FBM's list had a better NBA career -- including Giannis and Davis -- and all of them played way more games.
Otherwise, I can't see any old-timers who could get surpassed. DeBusschere? Sam Jones? I mean, they were great players and, unlike Walton, they weren't hurt all the time.
I remember when the 50th team was picked there was some controversy surrounding the inclusion of O'Neal, who was only in his 5th year. Obviously, he went on to justify being selected. Maybe the memory of that helps a guy like Giannis.
-
I don't understand why Dominique Wilkins doesn't get more love. Some of these names seem off to me. He shouldn't be penalized for playing on mediocre teams.
-
I don't understand why Dominique Wilkins doesn't get more love. Some of these names seem off to me. He shouldn't be penalized for playing on mediocre teams.
It’s funny you mention that because I always remember hearing that Dominique was very overrated.
Never saw him play in his prime so couldn’t give an opinion one way or another.
-
It’s funny you mention that because I always remember hearing that Dominique was very overrated.
Never saw him play in his prime so couldn’t give an opinion one way or another.
I was a kid in his prime but he was not just a freak athlete. He was a career 24.8 ppg scorer. I'm looking at some of these names and I have a hard time believing there were 50 guys better when the list came out. I'm not sure he played with a bone fire all-star so I wouldn't call him overrated.
-
Dominique was a very good player. Excelled on the offensive end of the floor. Rather indifferent on the defensive end. He was only All NBA first team once in his career, but was four times on the second team and two times on the third.
Which is nice! Solid and occasionally spectacular career. But not top 75 all time.
-
Dominique was a very good player. Excelled on the offensive end of the floor. Rather indifferent on the defensive end. He was only All NBA first team once in his career, but was four times on the second team and two times on the third.
Which is nice! Solid and occasionally spectacular career. But not top 75 all time.
Did George Gervin play defense? I'm not an expert but a lot of people disagree with you about Dominique, especially "not top 75".
-
I only saw Gervin at the end of his career, but I think he was a better player than Dominique.
That being said, if Dominique gets into the top 75, I wouldn't be outraged or anything. (Unless he gets in and Giannis doesn't.)
-
I only saw Gervin at the end of his career, but I think he was a better player than Dominique.
That being said, if Dominique gets into the top 75, I wouldn't be outraged or anything. (Unless he gets in and Giannis doesn't.)
I think the Iceman was more diverse as an offensive player than ‘Nique and that’s saying something since Wilkins was such an offensive force. Wilkins was stuck on a team in an era where the Celtics transitioned into the Pistons into the Bulls. The Hawks were good but they couldn’t beat any of those teams and he got lost in the flotsam. I say this as someone that was a big Wilkins fan in that era.
-
Looking at the young guys got me thinking about who was young the last time around but made it:
- Shaquille O'Neal: In 1996, Shaq had just four professional seasons under his belt. He had a ROY, was a two-time Third Team All-NBA, and a scoring title. He had also won the USA Basketball Male Athlete of the Year.
- David Robinson: He had completed seven seasons, including an MVP, ROY, 4 times on the All-NBA First Team, 6 times on the first or second All-Defensive team (with a DPOY), and had led the league in scoring, blocks, and rebounds in single seasons (all in different years).
- Scottie Pippen: He had nine seasons in, the only other player with less than a decade, but it included 4 NBA titles, 3 First Team All-NBA, and 5 First Team All-Defensive team. He was also the reigning USA Basketball Male Athlete of the Year.
Looking at that, I think Kawhi (10 seasons), Davis (9 season), and Giannis (8 seasons) are in very good shape. What will be interesting is if they try to fit any younger players on the list. I'm not sure he's done enough, but Luka Doncic with a ROY, two-time First Team All-NBA, and coming off the EuroLeague MVP when he got here might be a surprise inclusion.
-
I only saw Gervin at the end of his career, but I think he was a better player than Dominique.
That being said, if Dominique gets into the top 75, I wouldn't be outraged or anything. (Unless he gets in and Giannis doesn't.)
Oh...I was thinking top 75 when the original list was made. My guess is he won't make the 75 anniversary team.
-
I don't understand why Dominique Wilkins doesn't get more love. Some of these names seem off to me. He shouldn't be penalized for playing on mediocre teams.
My initial reaction upon reading this was that you had to be wrong because Dominique had to have been on the 50th anniversary team. But then I looked it up and I have to admit I'm pretty surprised.
Yes, he was one-dimensional, but so were offensive stars like Iceman, Pearl and Pistol.
No. 14 scorer in NBA history ... No. 32 offensive rebounder ... No. 33 in Value Over Replacement ... averaged 20+ for 11 straight seasons.
Plus, he was the "Human Highlight Reel" -- in many respects the frontcourt version of Pete Maravich, who also didn't care a lick about D and whose career numbers weren't as good as Nique's. And I loved watching Pistol Pete play.
-
Oh...I was thinking top 75 when the original list was made. My guess is he won't make the 75 anniversary team.
The original list was top 50 on the NBA's 50th anniversary. This year will be top 75.
-
Dominique was a very good player. Excelled on the offensive end of the floor. Rather indifferent on the defensive end. He was only All NBA first team once in his career, but was four times on the second team and two times on the third.
Which is nice! Solid and occasionally spectacular career. But not top 75 all time.
I disagree. He was 2nd & 3rd team to some of the greatest forwards in NBA history.
-
Marc Stein went through a similar exercise- https://marcstein.substack.com/p/the-nbas-top-75
-
Marc Stein went through a similar exercise- https://marcstein.substack.com/p/the-nbas-top-75
Interesting that he lists Giannis as a lock in the top 75 (and I totally agree), and Dominique as a snub on the original top 50. Not too sure about the latter, but he is definitely worthy of discussion.
I don't see any way Giannis is out, given his 2 MVPs and Finals MVP. There were guys in the original top 50 with less hardware.
-
Folks can criticize Dominique all they want ... but there really should be no question that Dominique had a much better NBA career than Bill Walton.
-
Folks can criticize Dominique all they want ... but there really should be no question that Dominique had a much better NBA career than Bill Walton.
Why would anyone criticize him? He's an outstanding human being by all accounts and had crazy elevation. He also had tremendous power on his slams, reminiscent of me on my nerf hoop back in the day. :)
-
Team announced: https://ca.nba.com/news/nba-75-team-list-players-75th-anniversary-season/6jov1u8vfe861lgnpqf55ct3f
Looking online, Dame seems to be the most controversial.
-
Team announced: https://ca.nba.com/news/nba-75-team-list-players-75th-anniversary-season/6jov1u8vfe861lgnpqf55ct3f
Looking online, Dame seems to be the most controversial.
Dame always seems to be controversial in the grand discussions because of a limited amount of success by the Blazers in the playoffs. But his resume is STRONG.
At age 31...already top 50 in all time All-NBA appearances ahead of legends like Jerry Lucas, Clyde Drexler, and Tiny Archibald. Tied with people like Walt Frazier, Jason Kidd, and Elvin Hayes. Not that crazy to think he could add another 2-3 which would put him in rare air.
If he averages around 1900-2000 pts a season, like he has all of the last 5 years, in a few years he'll be a top 40 scorer with potential to be top 30 with some longevity.
He's a special player and an all time great. Nobody has issues with Iverson's inclusion and short of some major injury, he's gonna probably surpass Iverson in some key metrics.
-
I'm a little surprised Tony Parker doesn't get more consideration. The playoffs should be part of this discussion. The guy was clutch and the 2nd best player on three of those Spurs titles.
-
Dominique, who absolutely should have been on the 50th team, is on the 75th team. So that's good. The other player from that era who didn't make 50 but did make 75 was Bob McAdoo.
I wouldn't have taken McAdoo over Tony Parker, Bernard King or Alex English, to name a few. Probably not over Dwight Howard, either.
Walton's on the all-time team again. Ridiculous. Rarely healthy, and the equivalent of 4-5 very good to great seasons in his career.
-
I'm a little surprised Tony Parker doesn't get more consideration. The playoffs should be part of this discussion. The guy was clutch and the 2nd best player on three of those Spurs titles.
Cause he’s an extremely good but not historically good player. He was never the best PG in the NBA, he never even garnered a single All NBA first team. Those Spur teams were great, but as you said he was never the man. His best seasons were actually not on those great Spurs teams (outside of 2014). His peak as an individual player was actually pretty short and not as a supernova.
Fantastic player any team would be lucky to have, but not a generational talent. When you think of PGs over the last 20 years, you’d never take him over Nash, Paul, Curry, or Kidd…all of who had more NBA First Team nods than Parker had total NBA Second Team selections
-
The Bernard King who played for Hubie Brown from '83-85 was as good a ball player as I've ever seen. That injury was unfortunate.
-
Cause he’s an extremely good but not historically good player. He was never the best PG in the NBA, he never even garnered a single All NBA first team. Those Spur teams were great, but as you said he was never the man. His best seasons were actually not on those great Spurs teams (outside of 2014). His peak as an individual player was actually pretty short and not as a supernova.
Fantastic player any team would be lucky to have, but not a generational talent. When you think of PGs over the last 20 years, you’d never take him over Nash, Paul, Curry, or Kidd…all of who had more NBA First Team nods than Parker had total NBA Second Team selections
I get that argument, although I'm not sure I would only compare him to other PG's on this list. The fact is he was the 2nd best player on three title teams. I'm trying to think of another player on three championship teams who had that much of an impact but is not on this list.
He had a lot to do with the Spurs being a semi dynasty and really good for like 15 years. And I'll tell you something else: there are a lot of guards on this list with better stats but none of them were/are better at the most important stat. I'm not saying he was snubbed, but that winning should be taken into account. He wasn't a role player on great teams.
-
Now that I think about it....what about Klay Thompson?
-
So the NBA is going to be naming 75 players to its 75th Anniversary team, 25 years after naming 50 to its 50th. So who will those extra 25 names be? How many who made the 50th will not make the 75th?
Here are my thoughts. I have 14 obvious or near obvious candidates, 11 who are "in the conversation," and three who are pretty much shoo-ins but are younger in their careers.
Obvious: Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Tim Duncan, Steph Curry, Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant
Near Obvious: Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller
In the Conversation: Tony Parker, Alonzo Mourning, Pau Gasol, Manu Ginobili, Ray Allen, Gary Payton, Tracy McGrady, James Harden, Russell Westbrook, Dikembe Mutombo, Vince Carter
Shoe Ins but Young: Giannis, Anthony Davis, Kawhi Leonard
Looks like there was 76 players due to a tie in the voting.
Everyone on the 50th list made the 75th.
The 14 obvious and near obvious all made it. Ditto for the three young ones. Then four from the "in the conversation" also made it (Allen, Payton, Harden, Westbrook). And three who didn't make any of my lists in Rodman, Carmello and Lillard.
That's 24
Then you have McAdoo and Dominique who didn't make the 50 but made the 75.
-
If Iverson is top 75, then Lillard is a no brainer. Iverson has 99 win shares in 14 seasons. Lillard already has 92 win shares in only 9 seasons.
Dame also has a 118 career O rating on 28.8% usage. That is almost exactly the same as Steph Curry's career numbers of 118/28.5%.
Dame is kind of underrated since he plays for a small market, west coast team that's never had an extended playoff run in his career. But he's definitely legit and deserved to be included.
-
On another note, how crazy is it that the Thunder drafted 3 top 75 players in consecutive years despite never having the #1 overall pick.
Too bad the Thunder didn't keep that core together after the Finals appearance. But at the time of the trade, Harden wasn't quite what he is today. Still, one of the great what ifs in sports.
-
Looks like there was 76 players due to a tie in the voting.
Everyone on the 50th list made the 75th.
The 14 obvious and near obvious all made it. Ditto for the three young ones. Then four from the "in the conversation" also made it (Allen, Payton, Harden, Westbrook). And three who didn't make any of my lists in Rodman, Carmello and Lillard.
That's 24
Then you have McAdoo and Dominique who didn't make the 50 but made the 75.
I thought Carmelo had a chance.
I like the inclusion of Rodman. One of the best rebounders ever, a great defender, an important player on 5 championship teams. Phil Jackson said Rodman ran the triangle better than anybody he ever coached and might have been the smartest player he ever coached. It's nice to see a non-scorer who was elite in other areas get recognized.
-
I like the inclusion of Rodman. One of the best rebounders ever, a great defender, an important player on 5 championship teams. Phil Jackson said Rodman ran the triangle better than anybody he ever coached and might have been the smartest player he ever coached. It's nice to see a non-scorer who was elite in other areas get recognized.
Agreed. Anytime you're arguably the best of all time at one of the key basketball disciplines, which Rodman was, I think that is significant. I mean 7 straight years leading the league in boards in the modern era is wild. Plus his Defensive prowess.
Speaking of best, same for Melo. There was a stretch where Melo was the best scorer on the planet. Not the best player, but he was an absolute monster as a pure scorer. Dude is top 10 all time in NBA scoring. Everyone around him on that list is in the top 75.
-
Agreed. Anytime you're arguably the best of all time at one of the key basketball disciplines, which Rodman was, I think that is significant. I mean 7 straight years leading the league in boards in the modern era is wild. Plus his Defensive prowess.
Speaking of best, same for Melo. There was a stretch where Melo was the best scorer on the planet. Not the best player, but he was an absolute monster as a pure scorer. Dude is top 10 all time in NBA scoring. Everyone around him on that list is in the top 75.
Wasn't there a stretch where Adrian Dantley, Alex English, and Bernard King were the best scorers? I'm pretty iffy on the inclusion of Melo. Do you really think he's a better player than say Klay Thompson for example? Isn't defense part of the game? While we're at it I'd take Thonpson over Allen or Miller.
-
Wasn't there a stretch where Adrian Dantley, Alex English, and Bernard King were the best scorers? I'm pretty iffy on the inclusion of Melo. Do you really think he's a better player than say Klay Thompson for example? Isn't defense part of the game? While we're at it I'd take Thonpson over Allen or Miller.
Reggie Miller? That’s insane.
-
Wasn't there a stretch where Adrian Dantley, Alex English, and Bernard King were the best scorers? I'm pretty iffy on the inclusion of Melo. Do you really think he's a better player than say Klay Thompson for example? Isn't defense part of the game? While we're at it I'd take Thonpson over Allen or Miller.
No, they were in the league with Larry Bird and George Gervin. They scored lots of points, but that doesn't mean they were the best scorers on the planet at any given time.
I love Klay. I think he's absolutely a better pure shooter than Melo and his defensive is underrated. But peak Melo could kill you in so many ways. We've never seen Klay on his own needing to break guys down or do it on his own. Peak Melo is 1000% a better scorer than Klay, dude was an absolute iso nightmare.
I also think you are doing a great disservice to Ray Allen. You're thinking late stage corner sniper Ray Allen. Not early career Ray who could bury a million 3s but also blow by you and attack the rim.
-
JWags and Fluffy: Is defense part of the game? Do you realize that Klay Thompson is a way better defender than both Miller and Allen. It's not close. How on earth is it "crazy" to think he's better than these guys? This is a dude who dropped 37 in a quarter. He's always had to play 2nd fiddle to Steph but he's a tremendous, tremendous, player, and unselfish. I think both of you are wrong.
-
I have no idea what George Gervin or Bird have to with Adrian Dantley. You're saying he wasn't one of the best scorers? I'm I reading his career stats incorrectly?
-
No, they were in the league with Larry Bird and George Gervin. They scored lots of points, but that doesn't mean they were the best scorers on the planet at any given time.
I love Klay. I think he's absolutely a better pure shooter than Melo and his defensive is underrated. But peak Melo could kill you in so many ways. We've never seen Klay on his own needing to break guys down or do it on his own. Peak Melo is 1000% a better scorer than Klay, dude was an absolute iso nightmare.
I also think you are doing a great disservice to Ray Allen. You're thinking late stage corner sniper Ray Allen. Not early career Ray who could bury a million 3s but also blow by you and attack the rim.
And I think you're doing a disservice to Klay.
-
JWags and Fluffy: Is defense part of the game? Do you realize that Klay Thompson is a way better defender than both Miller and Allen. It's not close. How on earth is it "crazy" to think he's better than these guys? This is a dude who dropped 37 in a quarter. He's always had to play 2nd fiddle to Steph but he's a tremendous, tremendous, player, and unselfish. I think both of you are wrong.
Reggie Miller win shares per 48: .174
Ray Allen: .150
Klay Thompson: .110
Reggie Miller was a gifted offensive player during an era where defense was much rougher than it is now. And he was an alpha player whose second best was…an old Chris Mullen? Mark Jackson? Rik Smits?
I think Ray Allen is arguable. Reggie Miller is absolutely not.
-
I have no idea what George Gervin or Bird have to with Adrian Dantley. You're saying he wasn't one of the best scorers? I'm I reading his career stats incorrectly?
I said Melo, for a time, was the best scorer on the planet. I'm not talking NBA scoring leader or just pure stats. I'm talking game, ability, etc... Gervin, Bird, those were contemporaries of Dantley who were better scorers than he was. Dantley was a nice player but he put up a lot of empty numbers on mediocre Jazz teams. Melo started more playoff games by age 22 than Dantley did before he turned 30.
And nobody is saying Klay isnt a great player or a great shooter, but he's literally played off the best shooter in NBA history his entire career. Melo, Allen, Reggie...they were all scoring as the man for large portions of their career.
And Klay is an underrated defender, absolutely. But you're making him out to be Ben Wallace. He's not even the best defender on his own team, a team that is not known for being a defensive stalwart. Oh and "unselfish"? Klay averages 2.3 assists a game for his career. Ray Allen never averaged under 2.5 assists a game for an entire season until his late 30s when he was only a role player. His rebounding also dwarfs Klay.
-
Reggie Miller win shares per 48: .174
Ray Allen: .150
Klay Thompson: .110
Reggie Miller was a gifted offensive player during an era where defense was much rougher than it is now. And he was an alpha player whose second best was…an old Chris Mullen? Mark Jackson? Rik Smits?
I think Ray Allen is arguable. Reggie Miller is absolutely not.
So if it was much harder to score why aren't Dantley, English, and King on the list instead of today's scorers? Those Indiana teams were very good even if they didn't have a bona fide number two scorer. My take is Klay Thompson could be an alpha on another team and is so much better as a defender that I would take him ahead of Miller or Allen.
-
Reggie Miller win shares per 48: .174
Ray Allen: .150
Klay Thompson: .110
Reggie Miller was a gifted offensive player during an era where defense was much rougher than it is now. And he was an alpha player whose second best was…an old Chris Mullen? Mark Jackson? Rik Smits?
I think Ray Allen is arguable. Reggie Miller is absolutely not.
Also, Thompson's best year was 8.8 win shares. Allen had 9 seasons 8.9 or higher, and Miller had 13.
I like Klay a lot but his resume doesn't stack up as an all time great.
-
Jwags, as far as Dantley vs Gervin they have similar career stats. Dantley was a career 24.3 scorer and shot .540 from the field. it was well before my time but why is Gervin an auto pick over him? Were his stats legitimate and Dantley's "empty"? From what I can see both were top scorers in the league for a significant period of time.
-
So if it was much harder to score why aren't Dantley, English, and King on the list instead of today's scorers? Those Indiana teams were very good even if they didn't have a bona fide number two scorer. My take is Klay Thompson could be an alpha on another team and is so much better as a defender that I would take him ahead of Miller or Allen.
And I will take Miller and my team would win.
Honestly, you have provided nothing but opinion about why Klay is better because statistically it isn't really close.
-
Jwags, as far as Dantley vs Gervin they have similar career stats. Dantley was a career 24.3 scorer and shot .540 from the field. it was well before my time but why is Gervin an auto pick over him? Were his stats legitimate and Dantley's "empty"? From what I can see both were top scorers in the league for a significant period of time.
George Gervin was a five time first team all NBA and two time second team and is in the Hall of Fame.
Dantley twice second team and isn't in the Hall of Fame.
Sometimes you just have to look at how they were viewed respectively during their times and the answer is obvious.
-
And I will take Miller and my team would win.
Honestly, you have provided nothing but opinion about why Klay is better because statistically it isn't really close.
"Statistically it's not close". Their career stats are very similar.
-
"Statistically it's not close". Their career stats are very similar.
Again, context matters.
When Reggie became a starter in 1989, through the end of his career in 2005, the Pacers averaged more than 100 pts in only 5 seasons. In that time, there were more seasons that they averaged 95 or less points than averaged more than 100.
Meanwhile, Klay's Warriors have averaged more than 110 pts a game his entire career except for a season they averaged 106, multiple times averaging over 115.
The fact that Reggie and Klay have similar stats when one attracted constant defensive attention, didn't have an arguable top 25 player next to him, and played on a very low scoring team speaks volumes about Reggie's stats. Thats why his win share is so much higher.
-
Again, context matters.
When Reggie became a starter in 1989, through the end of his career in 2005, the Pacers averaged more than 100 pts in only 5 seasons. In that time, there were more seasons that they averaged 95 or less points than averaged more than 100.
Meanwhile, Klay's Warriors have averaged more than 110 pts a game his entire career except for a season they averaged 106, multiple times averaging over 115.
You leave out the obvious. Klays teams scored more because they had better players. Reggie's teams scored less because they didn't have any great player. Reggie's numbers are somewhat like Kevin Love's numbers on Minnesota. The best offensive player on a bad offensive team will score a crap ton of points. It doesn't mean he is comparable to guys who score the same on a loaded team. BTW I am not saying Klay is a better player than the other 2 guys.
That being said, the entire argument really doesn't matter as to these 3 guys. Who would you take on your team? If you have any brain at all, you know it depends on the team makeups.
Klay is absolutely the best for GS, Reggie or Allen would have been the better fit for certain other teams (i.e. Reggie would be far and away the best fit of the 3 for the current 76ers team).
-
You leave out the obvious. Klays teams scored more because they had better players. Reggie's teams scored less because they didn't have any great player. Reggie's numbers are somewhat like Kevin Love's numbers on Minnesota. The best offensive player on a bad offensive team will score a crap ton of points. It doesn't mean he is comparable to guys who score the same on a loaded team. BTW I am not saying Klay is a better player than the other 2 guys.
That being said, the entire argument really doesn't matter as to these 3 guys. Who would you take on your team? If you have any brain at all, you know it depends on the team makeups.
Klay is absolutely the best for GS, Reggie or Allen would have been the better fit for certain other teams (i.e. Reggie would be far and away the best fit of the 3 for the current 76ers team).
We honestly don't know that. I think Klay could have been an Alpha like Miller. I also think he's a significantly better defender. As far as Allen I think Klay could have easily played his role on Boston or Miami. We have seen Klay take over games in the playoffs as well. I think all of you are selling the guy short for some reason and are underestimating the defensive end of the floor. I recall him shutting down al lot of good players during playoff runs. Guys that can drop 37 in a quarter can be alphas imo.
-
You leave out the obvious. Klays teams scored more because they had better players. Reggie's teams scored less because they didn't have any great player. Reggie's numbers are somewhat like Kevin Love's numbers on Minnesota. The best offensive player on a bad offensive team will score a crap ton of points. It doesn't mean he is comparable to guys who score the same on a loaded team. BTW I am not saying Klay is a better player than the other 2 guys.
The Reggie Miller Pacers were way better than the Kevin Love T Wolves. For goodness sakes in a seven year stretch, they made five conference finals and one NBA Finals. Love's Wolves teams never made the playoffs.
So sure Klay's teammates were a step above Reggie's, but Reggie's were WAY better than Love's.
-
We honestly don't know that. I think Klay could have been an Alpha like Miller. I also think he's a significantly better defender. As far as Allen I think Klay could have easily played his role on Boston or Miami. We have seen Klay take over games in the playoffs as well. I think all of you are selling the guy short for some reason and are underestimating the defensive end of the floor. I recall him shutting down al lot of good players during playoff runs. Guys that can drop 37 in a quarter can be alphas imo.
Thats not a great argument considering that was Allen in his mid to late 30s on the downside of his career. He's on this list cause of his years in Milwaukee and Seattle when he was an incredible player. Not when he was a good to very good player in a supporting role on stacked teams.
And again, just wild speculation. Klay scored his 60 point game will 11 total dribbles. You don't think that was a function of playing with Curry and Durant? And yes he's a good defender, but you're taking a guy that has ONE All-Defensive team selection, a 2nd team at that, and making him out to be some Tony Allen defensive stopper who should be put on All Time lists cause of EXCEPTIONAL defense.
-
Thats not a great argument considering that was Allen in his mid to late 30s on the downside of his career. He's on this list cause of his years in Milwaukee and Seattle when he was an incredible player. Not when he was a good to very good player in a supporting role on stacked teams.
And again, just wild speculation. Klay scored his 60 point game will 11 total dribbles. You don't think that was a function of playing with Curry and Durant? And yes he's a good defender, but you're taking a guy that has ONE All-Defensive team selection, a 2nd team at that, and making him out to be some Tony Allen defensive stopper who should be put on All Time lists cause of EXCEPTIONAL defense.
We will agree to disagree.
-
"Statistically it's not close". Their career stats are very similar.
Look beyond basic stats. The advanced stats aren't close.Also, Thompson's best year was 8.8 win shares. Allen had 9 seasons 8.9 or higher, and Miller had 13.
Reggie Miller win shares per 48: .174
Ray Allen: .150
Klay Thompson: .110
-
I’m a Ray Allen fan. Reggie Miller was much better
-
Klay is nowhere near a top-75 player.
If we’re going to bring up Walton’s injury issues, then you have to consider the fact that Klay hasn’t played a game in two years.
Plus I truly believe Klay is nowhere near as successful if he doesn’t have someone like Curry playing next to him that can give him floor space.
If anybody got robbed, it’s Alex English.
-
Klay is nowhere near a top-75 player.
If we’re going to bring up Walton’s injury issues, then you have to consider the fact that Klay hasn’t played a game in two years.
Plus I truly believe Klay is nowhere near as successful if he doesn’t have someone like Curry playing next to him that can give him floor space.
If anybody got robbed, it’s Alex English.
Klay does not need space and really isn’t given space. He’s not the one benefitting from Steph, it’s the guys behind him.
-
Klay does not need space and really isn’t given space. He’s not the one benefitting from Steph, it’s the guys behind him.
Its not space per se, but its attention and being blanketed.
Through 2019, Klay shot 48.5%/43.4%/85.7% with Steph, and 44.7%/35.9%/77.9% without him.
-
Klay is nowhere near a top-75 player.
If anybody got robbed, it’s Alex English.
I loved English's game and he had a stretch of about 10 years where he could score at will (25+) without the added benefit of the 3 point shot. Plus he was an outstanding rebounder as a young guy.
I would rate him somewhere between 80-100. In Bill Simmon's excellent "Book of Basketball" 1st published in 2009, he was rated #65 all-time (2 spots bellow Reggie Miller).
Just a note about Dantley who was mentioned earlier. He retired with the highest fG% for a non-center in NBA history, And if you weren't around to see him, you'll likely never get a chance to see someone like him. Barely 6'4" and strictly a post-up and in the lane player who couldn't be stopped. Those guys aren't around anymore. Used his body for positioning as well as anyone ever. Also a guy teams couldn't wait to get rid of.
-
You would think that the Bucks' retiring Ray Allen's number is a no brainer considering his inclusion on this list. I mean, they retired Brian Winters' and Junior Bridgeman's right?
Of course the one issue is that the best player in franchise history is currently wearing the same number.
-
I just heard an interview with BJ Armstrong. He stated that Arvydas Sabonis is one of the 25 best players of all-time. He wasn't making the case that he should be on the 75th list because he came to the NBA well past his prime, but he described Arvydas as a bigger, stronger, more athletic Jokic. Did any of you see him play before he came to the NBA? Armstrong said in college he played on a team with David Robinson and Arvydas shredded him quite easily. :)
-
I just heard an interview with BJ Armstrong. He stated that Arvydas Sabonis is one of the 25 best players of all-time. He wasn't making the case that he should be on the 75th list because he came to the NBA well past his prime, but he described Arvydas as a bigger, stronger, more athletic Jokic. Did any of you see him play before he came to the NBA? Armstrong said in college he played on a team with David Robinson and Arvydas shredded him quite easily. :)
Yes. He was incredible but by time he got to the NBA, his body was pretty beaten down. Those old USSR teams played a lot of basketball. His NBA games was more old dude owning you at the Y than what he was overseas.
-
Yes. He was incredible but by time he got to the NBA, his body was pretty beaten down. Those old USSR teams played a lot of basketball. His NBA games was more old dude owning you at the Y than what he was overseas.
[/quot
I remember his passing ability and the fact that he could barely get up and down the floor with the Blazers. He's a rather large man but was stuck in cement when he tried to guard Shaq. Could he shoot at all in his prime?
-
He was a complete Euro big man in his prime. Could shoot, pass, defend, rebound, post. Complete. But the years and miles were not kind to him. So, yes, by the time he reached the NBA, he had slowed considerably.
-
Yes. He was incredible but by time he got to the NBA, his body was pretty beaten down. Those old USSR teams played a lot of basketball. His NBA games was more old dude owning you at the Y than what he was overseas.
[/quot
I remember his passing ability and the fact that he could barely get up and down the floor with the Blazers. He's a rather large man but was stuck in cement when he tried to guard Shaq. Could he shoot at all in his prime?
Great shooter
-
Great shooter
If he was a bigger and more athletic Jokic where do you slot him among the centers?
Sounds !like his game would flourish in this era? 28, 15, and 10??
-
If he was a bigger and more athletic Jokic where do you slot him among the centers?
Sounds !like his game would flourish in this era? 28, 15, and 10??
Similar and he’d be a monster in this era. Still an all-time great
-
Obviously he’s the reigning MVP so I get it, but a better Sabonis comp for me is a thicker/stronger and much more complete Porzingis. Same height, same sort of athletic inside outside ability.
Jokic is a unicorn cause so much of his game is craftiness and creativity/vision. I think he’s a better passer than Sabonis was.
What is interesting, is how the game would play through Sabonis. He never averaged many assists even in his prime in Europe, though obviously he was a great passer
-
Obviously he’s the reigning MVP so I get it, but a better Sabonis comp for me is a thicker/stronger and much more complete Porzingis. Same height, same sort of athletic inside outside ability.
Jokic is a unicorn cause so much of his game is craftiness and creativity/vision. I think he’s a better passer than Sabonis was.
What is interesting, is how the game would play through Sabonis. He never averaged many assists even in his prime in Europe, though obviously he was a great passer
Wasn't Mr. Sabonis significantly stronger and more skilled in the post than Porzingas? Armstrong intimated that David Robinson could not guard him at all. :)
-
Wasn't Mr. Sabonis significantly stronger and more skilled in the post than Porzingas? Armstrong intimated that David Robinson could not guard him at all. :)
Which is why I said stronger and more complete 8-)
-
Best Euro ever or Nowitzki?
-
Best Euro ever or Nowitzki?
Nowitzki accomplished a crap-load at the highest level, including an MVP and an NBA title, so he's No. 1 in my book.
Jokic is very Sabonis-like; he plays today much like Sabonis did, except he takes more outstide shots.
Of the guys who were/are in the NBA during their primes, best Euros would be Nowitzki, Petrovic, Kukoc, Doncic, Jokic and Parker IMHO.
Obviously, I'm projecting for Doncic and Jokic, as one would think they haven't hit their primes yet. Given his range of offensive skills, Doncic has an outstanding opportunity to be the best Euro ever.
-
Best Euro ever or Nowitzki?
Or Giannis.
-
Or Giannis.
Yeah. Him, Hakeem, and Steve Nash.
-
Yeah. Him, Hakeem, and Steve Nash.
Uh...what?
-
Uh...what?
Lol. Thought it was just foreign.
-
Or Giannis.
Oh...my bad.
-
Oh...my bad.
😉😉😉
-
Or Giannis.
Good catch. Add him to my list, obviously.