Worst re-writing of NBA history on ISH? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Worst re-writing of NBA history on ISH?

SCdac

08-03-2009, 07:05 PM

Bush4Ever

08-03-2009, 07:08 PM

"Shaq and Kobe were co-leaders during the 3peat" seems to be a common one for the Kobe kiddies. Totally false.

LA_Showtime

08-03-2009, 07:11 PM

Over/under 80% of the posts will be about Kobe?

NuggetsFan

08-03-2009, 07:12 PM

When people who are as young as I am talk about Bill Russel and Wilt like they watched them play.

OneMoreSucka

08-03-2009, 07:12 PM

In before CantStop

chitownsfinest

08-03-2009, 07:13 PM

"Scottie Pippen guarded Magic mainly in the 91 Finals"
This is as false as it gets. Watch the series again and you will see that MJ guarded Magic in most of games 3-5, all of game 1, and the first quarter of game 2. The series is on youtube. I would love to see someone prove with video evidence that Pippen guarded Magic mainly in those finals.

"90s was a watered down era"
Don't want to get into that one.

Da_Realist

08-03-2009, 07:15 PM

Today's defense is as good as late 80's through the 90's.

Luigi

08-03-2009, 07:16 PM

CantStop

08-03-2009, 07:19 PM

"Tayshaun Prince shut down Kobe"

When in reality it was the whole Pistons team.

LAClipsFan33

08-03-2009, 07:20 PM

"Bill Walton sucks"

If you say this you have never seen Walton play and shouldn't comment on such

LAClipsFan33

08-03-2009, 07:23 PM

"Tayshaun Prince shut down Kobe"

When in reality it was the whole Pistons team.

True...Larry Brown confused Phil Jackson with a strategy he NEVER adjusted to. All year the Lakers played off of Shaq being doubled. Larry decided to double Kobe instead and let Shaq try and beat them by himself. In game on Shaq scored 30+ points on like 13/16 shooting, but they lost because Kobe got shackled. The series went on like this for the duration and Phil Jackson...the supposed GOAT of coaches had no answer for it.

CantStop

08-03-2009, 07:24 PM

True...Larry Brown confused Phil Jackson with a strategy he NEVER adjusted to. All year the Lakers played off of Shaq being doubled. Larry decided to double Kobe instead and let Shaq try and beat them by himself. In game on Shaq scored 30+ points on like 13/16 shooting, but they lost because Kobe got shackled. The series went on like this for the duration and Phil Jackson...the supposed GOAT of coaches had no answer for it.

I agree with you. Phil Jackson is so overrated. People think he's the GOAT when he brings top talent teams to the Finals but when he can't bring sh!tty teams to the 2nd round, nothing is said.

LAClipsFan33

08-03-2009, 07:28 PM

I agree with you. Phil Jackson is so overrated. People think he's the GOAT when he brings top talent teams to the Finals but when he can't bring sh!tty teams to the 2nd round, nothing is said.

Larry Brown is the best coach of my lifetime IMO. Better than Phil...although Phil is a good coach he has also benefited with great teams and great assistants

Rake2204

08-03-2009, 07:32 PM

Within the last two months there was a claim that Luc Longley was a do-everything center and would dominate the game today.

lakers_forever

08-03-2009, 07:34 PM

Charles Barkely > Karl Malone comes to mind.

It was easily agreed upon by almost everyone who watched them that Malone was the GOAT power forward. Since Barkley's fan appreciation from TNT, things have steadily moved without any new information added to the story.

:applause:

Other cases:

Olajuwon is the GOAT center (No one dared to say such bs in The Dream's prime)

Bill Russell was a role player.

Sabonis was a soviet superman center. He would dominate everybody in the NBA.

Vince Carter and Tmac are as talented as Kobe Bryant.

Allen Iverson was never a great player.

Prime Grant Hill was just as great as Lebron James.

Reggie Miller was better than Mitch Richmond

Pippen was a better defender than Michael Jordan.

60's and 70's players would be scrubs today.

And many more.

GP_20

08-03-2009, 07:59 PM

:applause:

Other cases:

Olajuwon is the GOAT center (No one dared to say such bs in The Dream's prime)

Bill Russell was a role player.

Sabonis was a soviet superman center. He would dominate everybody in the NBA.

Vince Carter and Tmac are as talented as Kobe Bryant.

Allen Iverson was never a great player.

Prime Grant Hill was just as great as Lebron James.

Reggie Miller was better than Mitch Richmond

Pippen was a better defender than Michael Jordan.

60's and 70's players would be scrubs today.

And many more.

All great examples
:applause:

Here's another one that is getting worse and worse

"Stockton is the GOAT PG"
"Stockton is better than Oscar/Isiah for sure, and he is better than Magic too"
"Stockton was a dominant PG in his prime"
"Stockton is underrated" (he was underrated)
"Without Stockton, Malone would not have been nearly as good"

etc.

phoenix18

08-03-2009, 08:02 PM

Larry Brown is the best coach of my lifetime IMO. Better than Phil...although Phil is a good coach he has also benefited with great teams and great assistants
Not just in your opinion. When it comes to the game of basketball, I think Mr.Brown has to be in the top three all-time.

LAClipsFan33

08-03-2009, 08:04 PM

Not just in your opinion. When it comes to the game of basketball, I think Mr.Brown has to be in the top three all-time.

Yeah I just put that because a lot of people disagree with me. I don't think anyone can deny he's one of the best to ever do it though.

branslowski

08-03-2009, 08:09 PM

:oldlol: ..."Kobe isn't top 15 Greatest Players Of All-Time"......

You should get smacked for sayin some dumb sh!t like that....

HighFlyer23

08-03-2009, 08:16 PM

:applause:

Other cases:

Olajuwon is the GOAT center (No one dared to say such bs in The Dream's prime)

Bill Russell was a role player.

Sabonis was a soviet superman center. He would dominate everybody in the NBA.

Vince Carter and Tmac are as talented as Kobe Bryant.

Allen Iverson was never a great player.

Prime Grant Hill was just as great as Lebron James.

Reggie Miller was better than Mitch Richmond

Pippen was a better defender than Michael Jordan.

60's and 70's players would be scrubs today.

And many more.

Because most of that stuff listed is true?

Hakeem has a case for being the GOAT center ... Bill Russell wouldn't do jack in todays game, just like the rest of those old overrated players ... Pippen was a better defender than Jordan, his versatility and help D was unmatched for a perimeter player including Jordan .. T-Mac and VC are more talented and naturally gifted than Kobe, but Kobe's work ethic and determination is what elevated him past those two and is the reason why he is the greater player ...

Godfather

08-03-2009, 08:19 PM

Wilt Chamberlain would dominate in the 80's and 90's.

Jerry West would average 40 points in "today's game".

Not really history, but still.

niko

08-03-2009, 08:37 PM

Let's see.
1) Marbury never was a problem on any team he was on. (I'm not being sarcastic, people say he never was - it was not his fault even ONE time.)
2) Iverson really wanted to come off the bench for Detroit, but Detroit told him to **** off and sent him home.
3) Tony Parker single handedly destroyed the Cavs as the Spurs MVP in that series. Duncan who?
4) Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade (pick your choice) at any time sucked and were carried by their all star level supporting casts as they choked away a series.

Snoop_Cat

08-03-2009, 08:42 PM

Larry Brown is the best coach of my lifetime IMO. Better than Phil...although Phil is a good coach he has also benefited with great teams and great assistants

Agreed. All his titles included the GOAT, Kobe, and Shaq. Overrated as a coach

goldenryan

08-03-2009, 08:42 PM

All great examples
:applause:

Here's another one that is getting worse and worse

"Stockton is the GOAT PG"
"Stockton is better than Oscar/Isiah for sure, and he is better than Magic too"
"Stockton was a dominant PG in his prime"
"Stockton is underrated" (he was underrated)
"Without Stockton, Malone would not have been nearly as good"

etc.
you really dislike stockton. he's a top 3 pg imo. waiting for rg to write something bad about bosh and howard.

lakers_forever

08-03-2009, 09:08 PM

Because most of that stuff listed is true?

Hakeem has a case for being the GOAT center ... Bill Russell wouldn't do jack in todays game, just like the rest of those old overrated players ... Pippen was a better defender than Jordan, his versatility and help D was unmatched for a perimeter player including Jordan .. T-Mac and VC are more talented and naturally gifted than Kobe, but Kobe's work ethic and determination is what elevated him past those two and is the reason why he is the greater player ...

Thanks for proving I was right about people re-writing history in those things.

STATmanLAKERFAN

08-03-2009, 10:19 PM

3) Tony Parker single handedly destroyed the Cavs as the Spurs MVP in that series. Duncan who?
.

this. Tim Duncan did the work that fans don't care about, he rebounded the ball, passed to led the spurs with 8 assists in game 2, and altered and blocked shots

godofgods

08-03-2009, 11:23 PM

I agree with you. Phil Jackson is so overrated. People think he's the GOAT when he brings top talent teams to the Finals but when he can't bring sh!tty teams to the 2nd round, nothing is said.

This is the first intelligent post that you've ever done. :applause:

Younggrease

08-03-2009, 11:32 PM

Hakeem...
Stockton is a better at playing the playing the pg then Isiah

joe

08-03-2009, 11:49 PM

steve nash didnt deserve his mvp's

oh

and dwight>yao

Bodhi

08-05-2009, 12:21 AM

I had to bump this topic because I just remembered one that I absolutely hate.

"Duncan was robbed of the 2007 finals MVP and clearly deserved it over Parker."

When the consensus at the time was that Parker was amazing in the finals and obviously deserved the award. Total revisionist history.

allball

08-05-2009, 01:03 AM

lbj23clutch

08-05-2009, 01:08 AM

Anything CantStop has said...

DuMa

08-05-2009, 01:52 AM

AlphaWolf's posts on how MJ wouldnt have won anything without Pippen. that one is always a good laugh

KoolKat

08-05-2009, 02:11 AM

AlphaWolf's posts on how MJ wouldnt have won anything without Pippen. that one is always a good laugh

Worst is Duncan21formvp about how Kobe would be another Grant Hill type of player without Derek Fisher :roll:

RedBlackAttack

08-05-2009, 02:57 AM

Every day there's posts about a certain player, game, or series that just makes you think "did you even watch what you are talking about???"...

What are some of the worst interpretations of NBA events that you recall?
The most recent 'revisionist history' that I see on this board involves the Cavs-Magic series this past year. People like to act as though the Cavs were completely overmatched and that the series was over before it started.

The fact of the matter is, three of the six games were decided by two points or less. Neither team really proved to be much better than the other at any point in the ECF, unless you are only looking at the close-out game when it began to get out-of-hand at the end.

For the most part, it was a back-and-forth series with both teams having opportunities to win almost every game.

I've heard over-and-over that, if LeBron doesn't hit the game-winner in Game 2, the Magic sweep... Maybe so... But, if Shard doesn't hit 3-pointers with under 17 seconds left in two separate games, the Cavs may have been the ones to win that series 4-2.

Also, in Game 4 in Orlando, the Cavs had actually grabbed the lead and stopped the Magic with under 10 seconds left and, as the ball was rolling out of bounds, it deflected off of Delonte West's finger. Shard then hit a corner 3-pointer off of a screen on Ben Wallace. LeBron's half-courter bounced off the back of the rim.

If that ball doesn't deflect off of Delonte, the Cavs almost assuredly win that game and the series would have probably gone seven games... And the Cavs had homecourt.

I'm not saying that the better team didn't win. The Magic, imo, were slightly better than the Cavs. But, it was definitely slightly better, not a landslide, as some like to claim.

I think the fact that so many had already penciled in the Cavs to make the Finals made that series shocking to some and, thus, clouded the way that they viewed it. They didn't expect a team to match the Cavs blow-for-blow and, in some instances, out-do them. Also, everything the Magic did looked very easy, while the Cavs struggled on both ends.

Still, at the end of almost every game, both teams had chances to win and both teams had some incredibly close victories. It was a very close, entertaining series.

TheAnchorman

08-05-2009, 03:01 AM

^ Good analysis. Repped.

And congratulations on your 10,000th post lol.

RedBlackAttack

08-05-2009, 03:09 AM

^ Good analysis. Repped.

And congratulations on your 10,000th post lol.
:cheers:

I didn't even realize I had hit that landmark. I don't know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing... Probably the latter, as I usually post at work... Which means I'm not getting a whole lot done. :ohwell:

My job ensures that I have ample leisure time.... Not much I can do about it.

guy

08-05-2009, 11:28 AM

1. Player x from a previous era would put up some ridiculously greater stats in today's era - sure there are differences in eras, but not that different, except for the 60s where players would actually put up significantly worse stats today.
2. Kobe was just as important to the Laker dynasty as Shaq. - clearly not true.
3. Many of the overrated statements about Pippen - Should've won MVP in 94 (Did they not see how ridiculous Hakeem was?). Could've led teams to championships and was a top 20 player of all-time (if you actually watched him play for most of his career, this really raises an eyebrow).
4. Prime Grant Hill was as good as Lebron.
5. Reggie Miller was one of the greatest SGs ever.

Probably more, just can't think of any.

fadeaway3

08-05-2009, 03:22 PM

:oldlol: ..."Kobe isn't top 15 Greatest Players Of All-Time"......

You should get smacked for sayin some dumb sh!t like that....

..."Kobe is a top 15 Greatest Player Of All-Time"......

You should get smacked for sayin some dumb sh!t like that....

KoolKat

08-05-2009, 03:56 PM

1. Player x from a previous era would put up some ridiculously greater stats in today's era - sure there are differences in eras, but not that different, except for the 60s where players would actually put up significantly worse stats today.

I kind of disagree. Maybe 90's players, but I don't think the rest will.

80's game was such fast paced, multiple teams were scoring 110+ a game.

KoolKat

08-05-2009, 03:57 PM

..."Kobe is a top 15 Greatest Player Of All-Time"......

You should get smacked for sayin some dumb sh!t like that....

I heard in this site Cousy & Maravich ranked ahead of him, nothing surprise ma anymore.

guy

08-05-2009, 04:01 PM

I kind of disagree. Maybe 90's players, but I don't think the rest will.

80's game was such fast paced, multiple teams were scoring 110+ a game.

Huh? What are you disagreeing with? That players from other eras would put up ridiculously greater stats in today's era? You know, like how people say Jordan would average 50 today? Cause i don't think they would.

KG5MVP

08-05-2009, 04:01 PM

KG sucks offensively
KG isn't clutch
KG backsdown in the fourth quarter
Paul Pierce carried Celtics in 08 playeroffs

gotbacon23

08-05-2009, 04:08 PM

back when KB42PAH was on here, he had some of the worst. he would say the 1990s were weak because harold miner, steve kerr, john paxson, and craig hodges were some of the top guards of the 1990s, while chris paul, steve nash, kobe bryant, vince carter, dwayne wade etc were some of the top guards of the 2000s. its a COMPLETE re-write of history by saying someone like steve kerr, jon paxson, harold miner, and craig hodges were top guards of the 90s when they were just role players. thats like saying "the NFL in the 2000s is greater than the NFL in the 1990s because Peyton Manning is one of the top QBs in the 2000s, and Kent Graham was one of the top QBs in the 1990s". bs. if you are gonna compare the best from one era to the best in another, make sure that the people you are comparing are in fact, the best of that era.

KoolKat

08-05-2009, 04:12 PM

Huh? What are you disagreeing with? That players from other eras would put up ridiculously greater stats in today's era? You know, like how people say Jordan would average 50 today? Cause i don't think they would.

Sorry, I meant I agree. Got confused :oldlol:

JohnnySic

08-05-2009, 04:19 PM

"Magic Johnson was better than Larry Bird"

Funny, back in the 80's, no one was saying that, not even Lakers fans.

Some others off the top of my head:

"Penny Hardaway was a HOF talent" FAIL.

"Larry Johnson was a top power foward ala Barkley, Malone, Webber, etc." FAIL.

"Bill Russell wasn't that good" FAIL FAIL FAIL.

"Dennis Rodman could shut down Duncan, KG, etc." FAIL.

"If Wilt played today he's still average 50 ppg" FAIL.

"If Wilt played today he'd be a scrub" FAIL.

I'll post more FAILURES later if I think of any...

Showtime

08-05-2009, 04:28 PM

"Penny Hardaway was a HOF talent" FAIL.

So you don't think, if he would have stayed healthy, that he was good enough to make the HOF? I don't have to re-write history because I watched him, and I thought he was one of the most talented guards of that time. 6'7'', could play either the PG or SG position, had a good jumpshot, handles, the ability to get places on the floor, athletic, just an overall great talent. If he wouldn't have gotten injured, and kept going, he had a chance at the hall. That's like somebody telling me Grant Hill or Webber weren't HOF talent. They had the talent.

guy

08-05-2009, 04:40 PM

"Penny Hardaway was a HOF talent" FAIL.

This was definitely being said at the time, and it is a reasonable thing to say that Penny was a HOF TALENT. Keyword is talent. At the time there were even comparisons to Magic. I'm not saying he was as good as Magic, but that was what was being said. He has been somewhat overrated as time as went by. Ive heard people try to say he was as good as Kobe or T-Mac, which is far from true.

JohnnySic

08-05-2009, 05:39 PM

^Agreed. With longevity and accolades, Penny would have had a shot at the hall. Maybe "Penny was an all-time great talent" is a better way of stating it...

1~Gibson~1

08-05-2009, 05:58 PM

Perimeter length wasnt the reason the Cavs lost to the Magic, interior defense was.

BlackMamba24

08-05-2009, 06:02 PM

jordan is the goat...smh at these clowns

CantStop

08-05-2009, 06:10 PM

jordan is the goat...smh at these clowns

lol :oldlol:

Alpha Wolf

08-05-2009, 06:18 PM

Bruce on how Kobe was just a marginal role player during the Lakers 3-peat :oldlol:

LA_Showtime

08-05-2009, 06:21 PM

Kobe was the sole reason the Lakers lost in 2004 to the Detroit Pistons.

TryToBeUnbias

08-05-2009, 06:46 PM

-Kobe is the sole reason the lakers lose any and every game

-kobes 06 season wasnt something special

-wilt would be an complete and utter scrub in today's game

-Magic Johnson is overrated

-Bird wouldnt be as good in todays league due to his lack of athleticism

umm everyone else took them all

Abraham Lincoln

08-05-2009, 06:56 PM

-The 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, & 90s were weak eras.

-Bill Russsell was overrrated.

-Dwight Howard > Wilt Chamberlain.

-Kobe Bryant's peak was in 2005-06.

-Kevin Garnett is a choker.

-Allen Iverson is a cancer.

-The Lakers/Celtics have the greatest rivalry in NBA history.

-Dennis Rodman could not play offense.

-Dennis Rodman had a low IQ.

-Bryant rode the coattails of O'Neal.

-Gasol rode the coattails of Bryant.

-Gasol is the Lakers best player.

-Tim Duncan is a power porward.

-Dwight Howard is a 7 footer.

-Dwight Howard is a center.

-Dwight Howard is the most athletic big man of all time.

-Patrick Ewing is overrated.

-Charles Barkley is not a top 5 power forward in NBA history.

-Charles Barkley was fat during his NBA career.

LAClipsFan33

08-05-2009, 07:02 PM

-Dwight Howard > Wilt Chamberlain.

-Dwight Howard is the most athletic big man of all time.

Damn...What Dwight Howard homer wrote this ?

Abraham Lincoln

08-05-2009, 07:10 PM

Mr. Unstoppable, amongst a few others I have seen before.

EMERE

08-05-2009, 07:20 PM

"Derek Fisher is more clutch than Kobe Bryant":roll:

ChrisKreager

08-05-2009, 08:10 PM

The guy who said that all 50-point playoff games besides Jordan were tainted.

Manute for Ever!

08-05-2009, 08:12 PM

One that will come in a few years (and is mentioned now) - "Duncan was a centre".

Alpha Wolf

08-05-2009, 08:19 PM

The guy who said that all 50-point playoff games besides Jordan were tainted.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122251

what a nut :lol

monkeypox

08-05-2009, 08:26 PM

"Kobe was just a role player on his first three championships, any half decent guard would have gotten them those rings next to Shaq."

west

08-05-2009, 08:30 PM

jordan is the goat...smh at these clowns
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

SCdac

06-26-2010, 01:25 PM

what kind of shit are people making up nowadays????

ShaqAttack3234

06-26-2010, 01:48 PM

Showtime

06-26-2010, 01:55 PM

- Zones are not infallable, nor are they even widely used, contrary to popular belief among morons.

- Wilt did not dominate midgets, which many have claimed.

Roundball_Rock

06-26-2010, 02:13 PM

"Pippen was never a superstar"/"Pippen then was never considered an elite player"

#1 in all-NBA voting--by far--#1 in all-Defensive voting and #3 in MVP voting despite PR problems in his one full prime season without MJ. That isn't a superstar? :roll:

I am that I am

06-26-2010, 02:16 PM

"Tayshaun Prince shut down Kobe"

When in reality it was the whole Pistons team.
No, Tayshaun Prince and Rip Hamilton shut down Kobe with single coverage

Kblaze8855

06-26-2010, 02:20 PM

Charles Barkely > Karl Malone comes to mind.

It was easily agreed upon by almost everyone who watched them that Malone was the GOAT power forward.

No it wasnt. Barkley was in discussion with Jordan and Magic as the best player in the league. Malone wasnt as highly regarded until after Barkley started to decline to injury. Malone was bumped over him in retrospect. he wasnt considered better and then underrated today. From 85 to 94(including the 85-86 season and the 93-94 season) Barkley got a total of 2143 points in MVP voting. Malone had 1046. Not quite fair since Malone came in a year later so ill remove the points from Barkleys 86 season and hes down to 2010.

2010 to 1046 only counting Malones first high level season(87) to Barkleys first season of real decline. 94 was the most gamed hed ever misses. He played 65 games and was supposedly considering retirement. Form then on Malone topped him. It wasnt in Barkleys prime.

Malone was made better after barkley faded a little. He didnt take the top spot from Barkley at his peak. barkley at his peak was considered arguably the best player in a league with Jordan, Hakeem, and Magic. Barkley got the most first place MVP votes in two different seasons. And in those two season Malone was putting up 31/11 on a 55 win team and 27/11 on a 47 win team.

Barkley was considered the best when Malone was at his physical peak.

Karl took the spot due to longevity not out performing him while both were near their best. If anything Karl was often overlooked back then because of Barkleys greatness. I watched an old interview on him being the forgotten superstar out in Utah. Had a bunch of fans on the street being asked who the best player was. Heard Mike. Barkley. Bird(it wasl ike 1990). Drob. Magic. Never heard Karl. They had him watching the clips on a little screen and he was laughing at nobody bringing him up.

The interview was about how he should be right there based on his numbers and how good his team was but he wasnt mentioned. It was pro Karl...but it showed something anyone who remembers that time doesnt need an old interview to know..

Barkley was geenerally thought to be the best power forward for like 7 or 8 years and Karl got that spot when Barkley lost a step and he didnt.

Barkley was one of the biggest stars in the league for good and bad reasons. He was more popular and thought to have better seasons(at least by MVP voters over 8 years). Barkley was like one notch behind Jordan as a star athlete back then.

Malone was never in the public facel ike that and while there were arguments on who was better...and some years Karl did have the better season(for a number of reasons), and he did get more MVP votes some years of Barkleys prime...

The general opinion was always that Barkley was the best 4 in the league. Karl was the default argument for people to have. But he wasnt the standard answer. Barkley was. Until he fell off.

Karl took the ball when Barkley dropped it. He didnt take it out of his hands.

che guevara

06-26-2010, 06:27 PM

No it wasnt. Barkley was in discussion with Jordan and Magic as the best player in the league. Malone wasnt as highly regarded until after Barkley started to decline to injury. Malone was bumped over him in retrospect. he wasnt considered better and then underrated today. From 85 to 94(including the 85-86 season and the 93-94 season) Barkley got a total of 2143 points in MVP voting. Malone had 1046. Not quite fair since Malone came in a year later so ill remove the points from Barkleys 86 season and hes down to 2010.

2010 to 1046 only counting Malones first high level season(87) to Barkleys first season of real decline. 94 was the most gamed hed ever misses. He played 65 games and was supposedly considering retirement. Form then on Malone topped him. It wasnt in Barkleys prime.

Malone was made better after barkley faded a little. He didnt take the top spot from Barkley at his peak. barkley at his peak was considered arguably the best player in a league with Jordan, Hakeem, and Magic. Barkley got the most first place MVP votes in two different seasons. And in those two season Malone was putting up 31/11 on a 55 win team and 27/11 on a 47 win team.

Barkley was considered the best when Malone was at his physical peak.

Karl took the spot due to longevity not out performing him while both were near their best. If anything Karl was often overlooked back then because of Barkleys greatness. I watched an old interview on him being the forgotten superstar out in Utah. Had a bunch of fans on the street being asked who the best player was. Heard Mike. Barkley. Bird(it wasl ike 1990). Drob. Magic. Never heard Karl. They had him watching the clips on a little screen and he was laughing at nobody bringing him up.

The interview was about how he should be right there based on his numbers and how good his team was but he wasnt mentioned. It was pro Karl...but it showed something anyone who remembers that time doesnt need an old interview to know..

Barkley was geenerally thought to be the best power forward for like 7 or 8 years and Karl got that spot when Barkley lost a step and he didnt.

Barkley was one of the biggest stars in the league for good and bad reasons. He was more popular and thought to have better seasons(at least by MVP voters over 8 years). Barkley was like one notch behind Jordan as a star athlete back then.

Malone was never in the public facel ike that and while there were arguments on who was better...and some years Karl did have the better season(for a number of reasons), and he did get more MVP votes some years of Barkleys prime...

The general opinion was always that Barkley was the best 4 in the league. Karl was the default argument for people to have. But he wasnt the standard answer. Barkley was. Until he fell off.

Karl took the ball when Barkley dropped it. He didnt take it out of his hands.
So why was Malone not as good as Barkley, despite him having nearly equal numbers?

ashbelly

06-26-2010, 06:59 PM

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179712

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Lebron Bryant

06-26-2010, 07:11 PM

This reminds of the schools in Texas re-writing everything from math to history. I'm some Texas person did the re-writing the NBA history on here.

Psileas

06-26-2010, 07:19 PM

Some that I was going to say have been mentioned.

Grant Hill was as good as Lebron
Shaq and Kobe were equal during the 3peat
Kobe and Gasol are equally important to the Lakers
Shaq was just a role player on the 2006 Heat
Shawn Kemp was better than Amare Stoudemire
Magic was better than Larry Bird
Magic was the best player on the 80's Lakers
Wilt was a great playoff performer
Oscar Robertson is better than Kobe and top 10
Russell could be a great scorer when he wanted to be
Defense in the 80's was better than '99-'04
Ewing was a choker
Kobe was a superstar in 2000
T-Mac was never an elite player
Reggie Miller was better than Ray Allen
Kobe choked in 2008
Wilt had a 48" vertical and Kevin Garnett type range on his jump shot.
Shaq was schooled by Hakeem in the 1995 finals

I can't call the first bolded one "history revisionism", especially since you also mentioned the rest that I bolded, which shows that you do give the benefit of the doubt to certain players whose playoffs had been billed unsuccessful. On the contrary, I'll say it's revisionism to say that he wasn't, by pretending that because his playoff numbers are inferior to his regular season numbers, they are not impressive.

Kblaze8855

06-26-2010, 07:49 PM

So why was Malone not as good as Barkley, despite him having nearly equal numbers?

The same reason he wasnt as good as Hakeem when he had better numbers at points. The ability to play basketball.

Barkley in the time in question(till about 94) was better at virtually everything with the exception of man to man post defense and I guess I have to mention his willingness to protect the paint but he didnt do it with great basketball exactly. He just hit people hard. But his off the ball defense....prevent drives? Blocking or altering shots off penetration? Nothing worth mentioning. his entire defensive reputation is hitting people hard, and being physical in the post. He could strip you in the post and would body you just before you attempted to make a move and he did it so often they couldnt just foul him out every game so it became accepted. But really....

Barkley was a far better shooter overall. better as a spot up shooter and off the dribble. Better facing up by many many miles. Barkley was a more varied scorer around the basket. He was less robitic in the post. A better passer out of the post as well.

Speaking of passing...

Barkley was better at every form of it. Better outlet passer, unlike Karl he could pass off the dribble, he found open players that were not always in the same spot. People amazed Karl found cutters over his shoulder 2 times a week should have noticed that the cutters were always coming from the same places...he didnt find them...their offense put them there for him much of the time. They had chemistry. He never created plays for others in the way Barkley could. Ive seen Barkley shake a swingman one on one wait for the help and drop off bounce passes into the post for easy scores. And its not even remarkable when he does it because he could do it all the time. Barkley made passes Karl never did. Not just "fancy" passes. Practical. Karl didnt have the handles or ball control to put himself int othe position to make many passes barkley did.

Barkley was a better rebounder and I dont fee la need to explain that. Even in like 98 or 99 he was rebounding more than Karl ever was. He had a better feel for it even after he lost his athletic ability.

Karl was a better defender because he cared more but he was overall a far less skilled player. Barkley had midlevel guard skills and all time great bigman skills. Which combined for a player I feel could do many more things and give you more options. He made many plays Karl just wasnt capable of.

Nero Tulip

06-26-2010, 07:59 PM

Kblaze8855

06-26-2010, 08:19 PM

Im sure the players playing cared....but the pool of players availiable and how much is done to prepare has always been greatly impacted by Americans not caring about those games.

Fatal9

06-26-2010, 08:34 PM

Psileas

06-26-2010, 09:57 PM

I think if you look at it game by game, every year in the playoffs, Wilt has not been a great playoff performer. Even many of his big scoring nights, he took an insane amount of possessions, like the 56 pointer (22/48 FG, 12/22 from line). Or his 46 pt game on Russell where he went 8/25 from the FT line after not showing up to practice during the series. There's always a little something behind his stats. Then there's the debacle in '68 and '69. In his early years, his stats and efficiency went down significantly come playoff time. He had his moments, but overall I don't think you can call him a great playoff performer, especially not relative to most of the other guys.

I always thought Russell and his fans who claimed Russell would lock down Wilt when the game was on the line and then let him get his pts was complete BS. But after looking into some recaps of these games, you can see Russell would outplay Wilt in the first half of many games, with Celtics leading comfortably by 20+ and then Wilt would get his 20+ point half to get his 30+ pts. I don't know how much of it is him just getting hot, or him statpadding, but there is a possible trend. I see a lot of empty numbers from him in these blowout type of games where he'd usually play all 48.

About the first paragraph and scoring efficiency, if you take all era stats into perspective, Wilt's 22/48 doesn't come up as short as it seems. The league FG% playoff average was only 41.1% and his team shot an already miserable 38.6%, which becomes 35.3% if you take out Wilt. That's 1940's material... The champions Celtics shot 40.7%, as well. Wilt's 46% in this game is way above average and is combined with a huge scoring night and 35 rebounds (I guess 10 could easily be offensive). 8/25 FT's is not a good performance obviously. If you combine it with 19/34 FG's, you still get an above average figure. And you still have 34 rebounds to add and then compare this to the mess his teammates produced and translates to a playoff combination of 35.2% FG. And you can't blame Wilt for freezing them out, there were 3 different guys (other than Wilt) taking more than 10 shots per game and another one coming 1 shot short of this in that series.

As far as I know, Russell did use this tactic against Wilt in some games, including his 62-pointer, but if you see Wilt's performances in relation to the scores, the least productive nights of Wilt are almost automatically connected with an easy win for the Celtics. The 1962 series was such a case. Game 1, Russell "holds" Wilt to 33, the Celtics win hands-down. Game 2, Wilt drops 42, Warriors win by 7. Game 3, Wilt scores 35, the Celtics win easily. Game 4, Wilt hits 41, the Warriors take a marginal win. Game 5, Wilt gets "only" 30/14, Celtics win easily. Game 6, at last, seems a little different (Warriors win, with Wilt hitting a still below his standards 32), as well as Game 7, although Wilt came alive in the end and scored like 3 baskets in a row in the last few minutes that kept the Warriors into contention.

Nanners

06-26-2010, 10:01 PM

Rony Seikaly is a top 10 goat center. I am sorry but no way is he better than like top 20

ShaqAttack3234

06-26-2010, 10:52 PM

I can't call the first bolded one "history revisionism", especially since you also mentioned the rest that I bolded, which shows that you do give the benefit of the doubt to certain players whose playoffs had been billed unsuccessful. On the contrary, I'll say it's revisionism to say that he wasn't, by pretending that because his playoff numbers are inferior to his regular season numbers, they are not impressive.

Well, for example in the 1995 finals, Shaq averaged 28, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg and 2.5 bpg on 59.5% shooting with 5.3 TO and 18.5 FGA. Hakeem averaged 32.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 5.5 apg and 2 bpg on 48.3% shooting and 2.8 TO and 29 FGA.

In game 1, Shaq was 1 assist shy of a triple double and killed Hakeem on the boards and the difference was Nick Anderson, a 70% FT shooter missing 4 free throws when Orlando was up 3 and Kenny Smith hitting a 3.

Or game 3, Shaq had 28/10/6/3 on 11/17 shooting, Olajuwon had 34/14/7 on 14/30 shooting and the difference was a Robert Horry game-winner.

Not to mention that Hakeem had atleast two teammates score atleast 20 points in every game, Shaq only had that happen in game 1 and in game 3, he was the only Magic player to score 20.

So really their were 2 games decided by their teammates, Shaq was statistically better(not saying he was better, Hakeem's leadership and clutch play was better in the series), but acting like Shaq got schooled like Robinson and Ewing in that series is laughable.

As far as Wilt, well, some of those numbers don't look impressive to me. The rebounding numbers were always great with no exceptions which I'll admit is remarkable and gives him a good case for GOAT rebounder.

But scoring? I mean, you see the 35 ppg in the '62 playoffs and you think it's impressive, but then you see that he shot a shade under 47% and had a TS% of just under 51% which is very inefficient. Yes, you could say that league average shooting percentages were much lower then, but why were the shooting percentages lower? Most likely because guards were taking quicker pull up jumpers. I doubt Wilt was doing that. Wouldn't he be the same post player regardless? I mean, what would he be doing differently in a different league? I'd imagine he'd still be shooting his finger rolls, fadeaways, getting dunks ect. so how would the league average affect his shooting percentage.

And if you say that his efficiency wasn't as bad as it looks initially because of the era then you also must factor in that because of the shot attempts players could get, the 35 ppg isn't as good as it initially looks.

And in the Boston series in '62, I believe Wilt averaged something like 33 ppg(don't have his shooting percentages).

Or in '66, the Sixers were in a 3-1 hole and Wilt had averaged only 23 ppg on 48% shooting through those 4 games, both well below his season averages, he did have a 46/34 game which is impressive. I don't find the free throw shooting as huge of a problem because he did score 46 and had a great rebounding night, and I can't judge how efficient he was without knowing what he shot from the field. But when you lose and you miss that many free throws, that does have to be a factor because it's well below even his standard to shoot 8/25.

In '68, I know Cunningham was injured, but wasn't he injured to start the series? And they had gotten a 3-1 lead, we all know about Wilt not getting shots in the second half, but isn't it well documented that Wilt wasn't calling for the ball? I believe he even explained why he didn't. And in game 6, Wilt scored just 20 points while shooting 8/23 from the free throw line and Hal Greer had 40 points so the lack of help excuse can't come in to play.

Then in '69, he averaged just 13 ppg for the playoffs and under 12 ppg while shooting 37% from the line in the finals well under his season numbers of 20+ ppg while losing a series his team was heavily favored in and Wilt had just 8 points in game 6.

Aside from rebounding and in '67, his assists, his playoff numbers just don't impress me that much. He did shoot 58% and average 22 ppg in the '67 playoffs though. Actually, I'll give him a lot of credit for his 1972 finals series.

I can't take credit for finding a lot of these numbers, though. Fatal9 found most of them. And I won't call his 56 point game in the playoffs unimpressive, but it isn't amazing either IMO because of the shot attempts, but he got the win which is what matters.

But look at the '62 EDF

Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg, well below his season average and it looks like Russell was well above his season average, though I can't find his scoring average for the entire series.

Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half.

Game 2- Wilt had 42 and won, but he allowed Russell to score 31 on him.

Game 3- 35 points, but Russell outscored Wilt 21-13 and out-rebounded him 14-11 in the first half giving Boston a 21 point halftime lead. Russell finished with 31 again.

Game 5- Wilt had 30 points and Russell had 29. But Wilt shot 4-13 in the first half and had just 11 points in the half while Russell out-rebounded him 11-9 to give Boston a 23 point halftime lead.

Game 7- Wilt had just 22 points and Russell again nearly matched him with 19.

It appears that he padded his stats with the game basically decided in games 1, 3 and 5. So as far as the 33.6 ppg were below his usual 50.4 ppg average, it helps put his play in perspective. It also doesn't say much about his defense in his early years that Russell was noticeably above his season average vs Wilt unless he just had 3 terrible games aside from the 4 games where I found his point totals.

vert48

06-27-2010, 12:24 AM

One that will come in a few years (and is mentioned now) - "Duncan was a centre".Duncan is a center.

vert48

06-27-2010, 12:27 AM

Rony Seikaly is a top 10 goat center. I am sorry but no way is he better than like top 20Who has EVER said that?

I am that I am

06-27-2010, 12:29 AM

REWRITE: Shaq was shut down by Ben Wallace in the 2004 NBA finals

FACT: Shaq shot above 60% and got 26 ppg and like 12-14 boards a game

Nanners

06-27-2010, 12:33 AM

Who has EVER said that?

like everybody basically. some guy was saying that if you can rebound 36rbs per game that makes you the best rebounder in NBA history. no way is rony seikaly that good.

Mr. Jabbar

06-27-2010, 01:17 AM

"hakeem olajuwon was so great, top 5 GOAT" people are overrating him like no other here. He is about to become the concensus GOAT on ISH :eek: . WTF perineal top 10 at the best.

Mr. Jabbar

06-27-2010, 01:22 AM

-Dirk is a poor playoff performer (never understood this one)
-Sabonis was god with a knee injury
-Lakers dominated the league during their 3 titles with Shaq (Portland and Sac were veeeeery close to win, could've gone either way)
-Team USA lost the last World Championships because they didn't really care (load of crap)

Those were the only 2 teams with a chance in 3 years. And that wasn't even in the Finals. Lakers dominated the Finals, and in the process they had a 15-1 playoff record. Yeah, they did dominate.

TheLogo

06-27-2010, 01:24 AM

Pau is better than Pippen.

Kobe's Lakers are more loaded than MJ's Bulls.

Lebron is clutch.

Lebron doesn't have teammates.

Those are the ones I can think of right now.....I am sure I will post more.

Ass Dan

06-27-2010, 01:30 AM

Showtime

06-27-2010, 02:06 AM

Those were the only 2 teams with a chance in 3 years. And that wasn't even in the Finals. Lakers dominated the Finals, and in the process they had a 15-1 playoff record. Yeah, they did dominate.
His point is valid. They were a bucket or two away from only having one ring. It doesn't matter if it was the WCF, the fact was that they only had one postseason of domination.

Fatal9

06-27-2010, 02:35 AM

But look at the '62 EDF

Wilt averaged 33.6 ppg, well below his season average and it looks like Russell was well above his season average, though I can't find his scoring average for the entire series.

Game 1- Boston won 117-89, Wilt had just 12 points in the first half.

Game 2- Wilt had 42 and won, but he allowed Russell to score 31 on him.

Game 3- 35 points, but Russell outscored Wilt 21-13 and out-rebounded him 14-11 in the first half giving Boston a 21 point halftime lead. Russell finished with 31 again.

Game 5- Wilt had 30 points and Russell had 29. But Wilt shot 4-13 in the first half and had just 11 points in the half while Russell out-rebounded him 11-9 to give Boston a 23 point halftime lead.

Game 7- Wilt had just 22 points and Russell again nearly matched him with 19.

It appears that he padded his stats with the game basically decided in games 1, 3 and 5. So as far as the 33.6 ppg were below his usual 50.4 ppg average, it helps put his play in perspective. It also doesn't say much about his defense in his early years that Russell was noticeably above his season average vs Wilt unless he just had 3 terrible games aside from the 4 games where I found his point totals.

This is exactly what I mean, and I see it happening in many of his games against Russell. He will get his stats after Boston is already up 20+ and win the statistical battle to create an illusion that he outplayed him every game. I actually gained a lot of respect for Russell when I noticed this trend.

Mr. Jabbar

06-27-2010, 02:59 AM

His point is valid. They were a bucket or two away from only having one ring. It doesn't matter if it was the WCF, the fact was that they only had one postseason of domination.

Lets put it this way, on those 3 years the lakers faced 12 teams. (4 x 3 seasons). From which only 2 posed a real threat. I say thats domination, you could put up a case against any "dominating" team for that matter.

Lets take a look at the Bulls first three-peat playoff record: 45-13,.....now the second: 45-13.
Now lets see Lakers playoff record during their three-peat: 45-13.

Not saying both dominated in the same way, but it gives you a clue.

Nero Tulip

06-27-2010, 06:21 AM

Those were the only 2 teams with a chance in 3 years. And that wasn't even in the Finals. Lakers dominated the Finals, and in the process they had a 15-1 playoff record. Yeah, they did dominate.

Hey not taking anything away from them, I actually like the Lakers. But the year they almost swept the playoffs is the only one when they dominated.

Who cares if the finals were easy? The Eastern Conference was basically the NBDL at that point. Did San Antonio dominate the league because of how easy the New Jersey Nets and the Cleveland Cavaliers were for them?

My point is, they were lucky to win it (especially against Sacramento), so they didn't really dominate. Dominating the league means being above the rest of the competition, and those 2 teams at least were as good as them.

JMT

06-27-2010, 01:03 PM

People who aren't old enough to have seen players, and instead rely on stats to bolster their uninformed opinions, have nothing to bring to the discussion.

Yet that's the basis of a huge percentage of the posts here.

Seems half the topics posted are revisionist history.

OrlandoAnderson

06-27-2010, 10:56 PM

Within the last two months there was a claim that Luc Longley was a do-everything center and would dominate the game today.

could you even be more hypocritical, you probably never even saw luc longley play.. don't know what he looks, don't kno what country he's from.. and what he did for the bulls that was so special.. please shut the fk up.. and post in the kiddy threads.

jlauber

06-27-2010, 11:00 PM

magnax1

06-28-2010, 04:53 AM

Payton and Kidd were better then Stockton
Hakeem was, or had a case for GOAT center
Jordan would've been just like Dominique if not for Pippen
Mutumbo didn't deserve his DPOTYs
Pau was the best player on the Lakers
AI was cancer
KG was a choker

BlueandGold

06-28-2010, 05:05 AM

"Wilt is not a top10 player in the game" - shaqattack

Psileas

06-28-2010, 11:48 AM

But scoring? I mean, you see the 35 ppg in the '62 playoffs and you think it's impressive, but then you see that he shot a shade under 47% and had a TS% of just under 51% which is very inefficient. Yes, you could say that league average shooting percentages were much lower then, but why were the shooting percentages lower? Most likely because guards were taking quicker pull up jumpers. I doubt Wilt was doing that. Wouldn't he be the same post player regardless? I mean, what would he be doing differently in a different league? I'd imagine he'd still be shooting his finger rolls, fadeaways, getting dunks ect. so how would the league average affect his shooting percentage.

47% FG and 51% TS was not considered inefficient and you can trace this back if you want. Abe had posted some time ago an article from SI from his rookie season and you could see that Wilt was actually praised for shooting in the range of 45%, which he upped during the season to about 47%.
After all, you're not going to shoot much better if you are playing at this pace and take all types of shots, including a lot that you shouldn't. See Hakeem, Duncan. These guys don't shoot any better from the field than high scoring Wilt and they do get praised when they take more offensive responsibilities. You even mentioned the Hakeem vs Shaq thing. Hakeem shot 48% from the field on 30 shots per game and only few FT's, but he was praised, and that was in 1995, not 1960. Wilt shooting "only" 45-50% from the field for 40-pointers would earn him praises as long as his team won.

What would change nowadays? Apart from the obvious better conditions of practicing, etc, the more sophisticated offensive schemes would give him more good shots than unnecessary ones and would raise his percentages. In a league where every big man dunks on every chance, why would Wilt do any different? This is the story with Euroleague. It's the most physical league worldwide as long as defenses go, yet it has a lot of players shooting 60% or close to this from the field. That's because the offensive schemes of the teams always try to get a player the easiest shot possible. One Kobe-like move is deemed unnecessary, 5 such moves will be considered tanking the game. Euroleague's fans pretty much accuse the modern NBA for a lot of the same things that the modern NBA's fans accuse 60's NBA.

And if you say that his efficiency wasn't as bad as it looks initially because of the era then you also must factor in that because of the shot attempts players could get, the 35 ppg isn't as good as it initially looks.

By today's standards, yes. By standards of the era? How many others were scoring 35 ppg. Baylor a couple of times and that's it. Again, it's like taking Wilt's 25 rpg and comparing them to today's rebounding leaders' mark and getting to the conclusion that Wilt was like an 80% better rebounder than Howard or prime Garnett.

And in the Boston series in '62, I believe Wilt averaged something like 33 ppg(don't have his shooting percentages).

Or in '66, the Sixers were in a 3-1 hole and Wilt had averaged only 23 ppg on 48% shooting through those 4 games, both well below his season averages, he did have a 46/34 game which is impressive. I don't find the free throw shooting as huge of a problem because he did score 46 and had a great rebounding night, and I can't judge how efficient he was without knowing what he shot from the field. But when you lose and you miss that many free throws, that does have to be a factor because it's well below even his standard to shoot 8/25.

True, he played below his standards in this series. 3 points though:

1) He also held Russell to 14 ppg. As a comparison, Russell got a career-high for a series 23.6 ppg in the following series against the Lakers. So, that

alexandreben

06-28-2010, 07:03 PM

This is exactly what I mean, and I see it happening in many of his games against Russell. He will get his stats after Boston is already up 20+ and win the statistical battle to create an illusion that he outplayed him every game. I actually gained a lot of respect for Russell when I noticed this trend.
down by 20 pts in the halftime, so.. the player should give up?

we've seen so many times that Bulls down by around 20 pts entered into the fourth Qtr, using that logic you mentioned, Jordan was just another guy who went for the stats that create an illusion that he outplayed someone on the other side??

i'm not here to judge your logic, nevertheless, if any player(not to mention a superstar), who give up the game just becase they're down by 20pts at the halftime, should definitely be blamed...

remember the old NY Knicks? they never ever give up not till the last moment...

it aint over till it's over