Overrated All-Time Great Players

[1987_Lakers]

Which legendary players do you think tend to get overrated.

Pete Maravich - No team success. Turnover machine. I don't think he deserved to be in the top 50 players of all time list.

Julius Erving - Helped the NBA become a popular sport, but had weaknesses as a player. Not a good shooter. Bad defender. Never won a title as the #1 guy.

Oscar Robertson - I notice that Oscar Robertson tends to get highly overrated by the casual fans. Some casuals put him in the top 5 players of all time list, which I think it ludicrous. He didn't have much team success and some teammates hated to play with him.

James Worthy - One of my favorite players ever, but I'll be the first to admit he is slightly overrated. Would James Worthy be remembered as another Mark Aguirre if he played for an average team throughout his career?

Elvin Hayes - Great example of how stats don't tell the whole story. His numbers were amazing, but he had an act of disappearing in clutch moments & was considered a bad teammate.

Reggie Miller - I've seen some rank him as a top 5 SG all-time. He was a one dimensional player

[alenleomessi]

Oscar was averaging triple double in a season! How can he be overated?:hammerhead: He and Magic are the best PGs in history

[Bodhi]

Oscar was averaging triple double in a season! How can he be overated?:hammerhead: He and Magic are the best PGs in history

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you adjust for pace LeBron has had at least one season better than Oscar's triple double season.

[1987_Lakers]

Keep in mind, just because I think these players are overrated doesn't imply that I think these players are not legendary. I have Dr.J & Oscar Robertson in the top 15 in my all-time players list, but I do think they tend to get slightly overrated.

[Yung D-Will]

Oscar was averaging triple double in a season! How can he be overated?:hammerhead: He and Magic are the best PGs in history

Isiah > Oscar


Magic

Isiah
Oscar
Stockton

[godofgods]

Kobe Bryant.

Whoops, sorry, you said All Time Great players, nevermind...

[momo]

I do not think Dr J was a bad defender. Maybe not a marque defender, but he could get the job done.

Eddie Jones was pretty overrated for a time but probably is not overall. Nice D, nice athlete, nice guy. Had a tendency to be unclutch. Not what one thinks of as a max deal player.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Which legendary players do you think tend to get overrated.

Pete Maravich - No team success. Turnover machine. I don't think he deserved to be in the top 50 players of all time list.

Julius Erving - Helped the NBA become a popular sport, but had weaknesses as a player. Not a good shooter. Bad defender. Never won a title as the #1 guy.

Oscar Robertson - I notice that Oscar Robertson tends to get highly overrated by the casual fans. Some casuals put him in the top 5 players of all time list, which I think it ludicrous. He didn't have much team success and some teammates hated to play with him.

James Worthy - One of my favorite players ever, but I'll be the first to admit he is slightly overrated. Would James Worthy be remembered as another Mark Aguirre if he played for an average team throughout his career?

Elvin Hayes - Great example of how stats don't tell the whole story. His numbers were amazing, but he had an act of disappearing in clutch moments & was considered a bad teammate.

Reggie Miller - I've seen some rank him as a top 5 SG all-time. He was a one dimensional player

I have a great deal of respect for Oscar from the limited amount of footage I've seen of him as well as his resume. With that being said, I don't see why many rank Oscar above Hakeem Olajuwon or even Tim Duncan. I know I didn't see Oscar play, but many that also didn't see him play also rank him above those players. But overrated is a strong word, Oscar has earned his praise and he's definitely borderline top 10.

I agree about Reggie Miller. I don't even think he was a better all around player than Ray Allen or Vince Carter in their primes.

Worthy was a great all around player and an excellent number 2 or 3 guy, but at best, I think he'd be a borderline hall of famer had he not ended up on such a great team with one hands down top 5 all time player(Kareem) and another arguable top 5 player(Magic).

Pete Maravich is also overrated as an NBA player. He was so skilled, but it never translated to success at 5 on 5 basketball at an NBA level.

As far as Dr. J? Ehh, again, like Oscar, I'm not sure I'd call him overrated, but I see where you're coming from. However, I have a great deal of respect for Julius. His NBA stats don't jump out at you like some of the other all time greats, but he consistently led his team to the ECF or finals often with close to, if not 60 wins. In fact, only twice in his NBA career did he fail to win 50 games and only twice in his NBA career did he fail to win a playoff series. He also won a well deserved MVP in 1981 and was consistently in the discussion. The teams he led to the finals were talented, but not what I'd call stacked either. When he finally had the luxuary of being a 2nd option at age 32, he helped lead one of the greatest teams in NBA history.

[Horatio33]

Elvin Hayes - Great example of how stats don't tell the whole story. His numbers were amazing, but he had an act of disappearing in clutch moments & was considered a bad teammate.



could say the same for Wilt Chamberlain.

ulius Erving. he had no J. when Jordan came in the league, Peter Vecsey p!ssed Dr J off by saying that Jordan was like "Dr J with a jumpshot."

[plowking]

Oscar Robertson
Reggie Miller

Two of the most overrated players in NBA history.

[JohnnySic]

James Worthy - One of my favorite players ever, but I'll be the first to admit he is slightly overrated. Would James Worthy be remembered as another Mark Aguirre if he played for an average team throughout his career?
Worthy is more than just slightly overrated. Put him on a bad or average team and he'd be another one of those "hey, do you remember that guy" guys.

[B-Diddy=2Easy]

Just about every Celtics great. Sam Jones, Bob Cousey, John Havlikek, Dave Cowens, Bill Russell, etc. These guys were dominate in their era, but would they even be able to get jobs today? Bob Cousy was known as a dribbling machine, but he never used his left hand. He also shot 37% from the field in his career.

[v3DreJ80]

Oscar is not overrated, well at least to my eyes he isn't. If you have Oscar in your Top 10 players of all-time list, then yes you are overrating him and you have him too high. If you have Oscar in the Top 11-20 range, then no you are rating him correctly. That being said, Pistol Pete and Reggie Miller were overrated for sure.

James Worthy and Dr. J overrated? :oldlol:

[EricForman]

Oscar was averaging triple double in a season! How can he be overated?:hammerhead: He and Magic are the best PGs in history

because triple doubles are overrated. people fall in love with "well rounded" numbers. Elgin Baylor averaged 38, 18, 5 one year. Wilt was a routine 50-25. In an era where everyone has crazy stats, (even 6'8 white guys like Jerry Lucas averaged 21 and 21one season), is 30-10-10 really THAT impressive?

I mean that's basically all people talk about when they put Oscar in their top ten list.

no one remembers Luca's 21 and 21 or Baylor, cause people are in love with well-rounded numbers. Even if Oscar averaged 25, 10, 10 he'd be remember as some crazy great over Baylor.

THe man won one ring as the second best player. I dont think he should be ranked higher than Isiah Thomas to be honest.

And to be honest, I think that era was weak and all stats were jacked up. I truly believe 88 Jordan would average something like 46, 14, 8 with 8 steals a game playing with those guys.

[AirJordan&Magic]

I dont really like calling players overrated, but the only three players that really come to mind in terms of overrated players imho, or at least players who look better in retrospect is.....

Charles Barkley- one of the most gifted offensive players I ever witnessed...but a defensive liability and had no work ethic. To see that he is often ranked in the top 15, or above players like Jerry West, George Mikan, or Bob Petit is ludacrous. He was simply not a winner.

Reggie Miller- One of the greatest playoff performers of all time, clutches, fiercest competitors....However, it seems as if his reputation often makes him look better than he really was.


George Gervin- I kind of hesitated to call Charles and Reggie overrated, but this comes with no hesitation. George Gervin is easily the most overrated player in Nba history in my opinion. To see a players as one dimensional as this guy often ranked between 18-22 is laughable.

I wouldn't say Oscar Roberston, but he is by some people. The man missed the playoffs 3 years in a row with a 20 ppg and 20 rpg player as a teammate. And then people have nerve to use him as a way to diminish Kareem. It is a joke....Oscar Roberston is not overrated as a whole, but some people tend to overrate him.

[plowking]

That's the exact reason Reggie is overrated, because people think he was a great playoff performer...

[D-Rose]

People are ranking Pippen top 25...don't bash me all you Pip lovers but Top 25? :oldlol:

[EricForman]

People are ranking Pippen top 25...don't bash me all you Pip lovers but Top 25? :oldlol:


sigh, you just invited Roundball and his 1300 word posts fighting, really no one (he pretends like there are a significant portion of people who claims Pip's no better than Joe Johnson) into this thread.

i'd prefer it if he just stayed in his own self-started, random-ass "lets talk about this playoff performance from 15 years ago" threads.

[jrong]

Scottie Pippen. Isiah Thomas.

Yes, I said it.

[Shepseskaf]

Worthy is more than just slightly overrated. Put him on a bad or average team and he'd be another one of those "hey, do you remember that guy" guys.
Completely agreed. I don't think that Worthy was as good a player as, say, Terry Cummings. He just happened to play with the greatest pg of all-time.

Let's not forget that Worthy somehow made it not only to the HoF, but also to the Top 50 all-time list. How did that happen?

[AirJordan&Magic]

People are ranking Pippen top 25...don't bash me all you Pip lovers but Top 25? :oldlol:

I'm no Pip lover (I'm a fan of his game though) but Pippen was definitely better than given credit for.....I can see him being ranked top 25.

The guy was one of the best all around players in Nba history and won 6 championships. He's a winner, sidekick or not.

[Desperado]

Michael Jordan- over-hyped by the media

[jrong]

James Worthy was a Finals MVP. He was not overrated. Well, he may be overrated in the sense that he was named Top 50. But, Scottie Pippen doesn't deserve to be Top 50 either.

[v3DreJ80]

Michael Jordan- over-hyped by the media
:oldlol: Dumbass.


Scottie Pippen. Isiah Thomas.

Yes, I said it.
I have no problem with saying Pippen being overrated, but Zeke? :wtf:

[Human Error]

Charles Barkley - Put up great offensive stats but he was a below average defender. Barkley tried, but his lack of size showed and it was frustrating to watch as a fan of his. Majority of ISH posters seem to think Barkley was better than Tim Duncan, which is totally untrue.

John Stockton - A lot of people seem to have him as the best point guard ever. He was never a top 2 point guard in the league at any point of his career. His career numbers are great thanks to his longetivity, but going by peak, people are overrating him.

[Shepseskaf]

James Worthy was a Finals MVP. He was not overrated.
That means almost nothing. Chauncey Billups was a Finals MVP as well. Are you going to put him in the HoF and Top-50 list?

The fact is that James is probably the most undeserving member of the Top-50 list and weakest HoFers.

That Bernard King, a better player in all respects, isn't on either list is a travesty.

[jrong]

I have no problem with saying Pippen being overrated, but Zeke? :wtf:

Inconsistent. Never saw a player who would so often drop 40 one night and 4 the next. When had games like that, Daley often benched him in the 4th too. If Dumars and Vinnie were doing it, Zeke rode pine.

Best ball handler of all-time? No doubt. Well, probably. CP would now give him a run for his money.

Isiah made his rep in that playoff game against the Bullets (I think) where he scored like 16 points in two minutes. He had other great playoff performances too, yes. Heroic against the Lakers in defeat. But, he became one of those players that fans voted to ASG after ASG irrespective of how he was playing. I'm still bitter about the year Sherman Douglas got robbed!

[Desperado]

Scottie Pippen doesn't deserve to be Top 50 either.

:oldlol:

Pippen is underrated if anything.

[Alhazred]

People are ranking Pippen top 25...don't bash me all you Pip lovers but Top 25? :oldlol:

Anywhere from 20-30 seems reasonable to me. :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

for all u guys that said pip was overrated but didnt rate hite, where do you put him?

and i agree with 87 james worthy was completely overrated.

i also think bill walton was overrated. he couldve been an alltime great, but injuries hurt (no pun intended) him in my opinion

[97 bulls]

another guy i think that is kinda overrated is kobe bryant. and its mainly from reading all the posts about pippen. their careers are so similar. i honestly think that the year he won the mvp it was based on one game. was blessed with having a beast at center competing dominating other garbage centers. and cant win unless he has a stacked team.

basically if you give scottie pippen a stacked teram and 6 prime years, he accomplishes more than what kobe has. except for the 81 and 62 point games.

[AirJordan&Magic]

Michael Jordan- over-hyped by the media

:oldlol: Michael Jordan is one of the greatest athletes of all time....a 6 time champion, 6 time finals Mvp, 5 time league Mvp, 10 time scoring champion is not overrated......sorry.......Erase the hate.

[AirJordan&Magic]

another guy i think that is kinda overrated is kobe bryant. and its mainly from reading all the posts about pippen. their careers are so similar. i honestly think that the year he won the mvp it was based on one game. was blessed with having a beast at center competing dominating other garbage centers. and cant win unless he has a stacked team.

basically if you give scottie pippen a stacked teram and 6 prime years, he accomplishes more than what kobe has. except for the 81 and 62 point games.

What kind of dumb argument is that? "Cant win unless he has a stacked team"?

Who besides Hakeem Olajuwon and Rick Barry have won a championship without a stacked team?...

Honestly there will never be a verdict on whether a player like Kobe Bryant is overrated or underrated.....There are so many people that hate him, that they underrate and underappreciate what he has done in his career and how talented this guy is....And then he has some homers, such as the creep Elie Sechbach who overrate him and prop him up to unmeasurable heights.

I honestly think Kobe is more underrapreciated than overrated. For every moronic Kobe homer who props him up, there are about 20 idiots who pretend as if Kobe is not one of the most talented players to ever play.

Be aware that I am not referring to you, I just disagreed with the first part of your comment.

[Desperado]

:oldlol: Michael Jordan is one of the greatest athletes of all time....a 6 time champion, 6 time finals Mvp, 5 time league Mvp, 10 time scoring champion is not overrated......sorry.......Erase the hate.


6 time champion? far from the record......5 league MVPs? also not the record


10 scoring titles? Jordan was a ball hog he led the league in FGA's a record nine times!



Jordan was overrated by the media to make money for corporate America!

[Alhazred]

6 time champion? far from the record......5 league MVPs? also not the record


10 scoring titles? Jordan was a ball hog he led the league in FGA's a record nine times!



Jordan was overrated by the media to make money for corporate America!

:oldlol: at this post. Make another comparison to Michael and Dominique, while you're at it. He was just another "bald-headed Dominique", right?

[Desperado]

:oldlol: at this post. Make another comparison to Michael and Dominique, while you're at it. He was just another "bald-headed Dominique", right?


Dominique was a great player. What's wrong with that comparison? :confusedshrug:

They were both very similar players.



Only thing is Dominique never had another HOF player to play with in his prime.

MJ never made it past the first round with another HOF player!

Compare MJ and Dominique in their prime!....Before Pippen.


They were both highlight reels, except Wilkins actually lead his team to a winning record!..and a playoff series win!.....Despite playing with NO Hofamers..and a guy named Jon Koncak! :oldlol:




85' D.Wilkins 27.4pts 3assist 7reb 2stl 1blk team record 34 - 48....missed playoffs

85' MJ ...........28 pts 6assist 7reb 2stl 1blk team record 38-44 lost to Milwakee 3 - 1

86 D.Wilkins 30pts 3assist 8reb 2stl 1blk team record 50 - 32!
Winning season and made it to the second round of the playoffs.

86 MJ............22pts 3assist 4reb 2stl 1blk team record 30 - 52!
got swept by Boston..MJ scores 63pts IN A LOSS!!!!..ESPN pours it down are throat!

87' D.Wilkins 30pts 3assist 6reb 2stl 1blk team record 57 - 25!
make it to the second round and lose to the Piston's!....Still no HOFamer!

87' MJ ... ...37pts 4assist 5reb 1stl 1blk team record 40-42..3rd consecutive LOSING season! swept again by Boston!


Even in thier 40's.........

D.Wilkins 18ppg 2assist 5 reb 1stl 1blk
MJ.............20ppg 3assist 6reb 1stl 0.5blk

[97 bulls]

What kind of dumb argument is that? "Cant win unless he has a stacked team"?

Who besides Hakeem Olajuwon and Rick Barry have won a championship without a stacked team?...

Honestly there will never be a verdict on whether a player like Kobe Bryant is overrated or underrated.....There are so many people that hate him, that they underrate and underappreciate what he has done in his career and how talented this guy is....And then he has some homers, such as the creep Elie Sechbach who overrate him and prop him up to unmeasurable heights.

I honestly think Kobe is more underrapreciated than overrated. For every moronic Kobe homer who props him up, there are about 20 idiots who pretend as if Kobe is not one of the most talented players to ever play.

Be aware that I am not referring to you, I just disagreed with the first part of your comment.

i dont think the first 3peat bulls were stacked with talent. nor were some of tim duncans spurs. the mvp kobe has was more or less based on that game against the hornets.

[insidious301]

i dont think the first 3peat bulls were stacked with talent. nor were some of tim duncans spurs. the mvp kobe has was more or less based on that game against the hornets.

Probably because the MVP race was so close, that "one game" was the tiebreaker.

Spare me the bullsh*t "lifetime achievement award" excuse:

28.3ppg 46%fg 36%3pt 84%ft 6.3ast 5.4reb 2stls. He was the MVP and in that game he showed up Paul.

[Alhazred]

Dominique was a great player. What's wrong with that comparison? :confusedshrug:

They were both very similar players.

"Similar"? Both were great dunkers and could score, but Wilkins was not in Michael's class as a playmaker, outside shooter or defender. That's like comparing Larry Bird to Mark Aguirre.


Only thing is Dominique never had another HOF player to play with in his prime.

MJ never made it past the first round with another HOF player!

Compare MJ and Dominique in their prime!....Before Pippen.

Michael was voted 6th in MVP voting in 1985 and Dominique was voted 17th. That was Michael's first year. Dominique was awesome, no doubt, but Michael was on another level as a player. If the Bulls had offered to trade Michael to Atlanta for Dominique straight up, would they have turned it down? Hell no!


They were both highlight reels, except Wilkins actually lead his team to a winning record!..and a playoff series win!.....Despite playing with NO Hofamers..and a guy named Jon Koncak! :oldlol:

:oldlol: Dominique had a better team and coach. What did Michael have to work with? Some one-dimensional cokeheads and some mediocre coaches. There was Oakley too, but other than that the team stunk. Switch Michael and Dominique on those teams and you think Atlanta wouldn't have stayed at their level, if not improve further?


85' D.Wilkins 27.4pts 3assist 7reb 2stl 1blk team record 34 - 48....missed playoffs

85' MJ ...........28 pts 6assist 7reb 2stl 1blk team record 38-44 lost to Milwakee 3 - 1

86 D.Wilkins 30pts 3assist 8reb 2stl 1blk team record 50 - 32!
Winning season and made it to the second round of the playoffs.

86 MJ............22pts 3assist 4reb 2stl 1blk team record 30 - 52!
got swept by Boston..MJ scores 63pts IN A LOSS!!!!..ESPN pours it down are throat!

87' D.Wilkins 30pts 3assist 6reb 2stl 1blk team record 57 - 25!
make it to the second round and lose to the Piston's!....Still no HOFamer!

87' MJ ... ...37pts 4assist 5reb 1stl 1blk team record 40-42..3rd consecutive LOSING season! swept again by Boston!

Atlanta was a solid team in the 80s, nothing like the coke addicted bums Michael was dealing with in Chicago pre-1988. Also, Michael missed most of the 86 season, why would you even mention that?



Even in thier 40's.........

D.Wilkins 18ppg 2assist 5 reb 1stl 1blk
MJ.............20ppg 3assist 6reb 1stl 0.5blk

Wilkins at 39 was averaging 5 points a game, what are you talking about?

[insidious301]

As far as Kobe being "overrated", I find that amusing. Arguably the most skilled guard/player ever that's mastered the fundamentals of the game being called "overrated" is a joke. Dwyane Wade after his amazing 2009 season still conceded KB as the #1 player in the League, wonder why he wasn't talking about his FG%? So he misses 2-3 more attempts than a Lebron or Wade (he also takes more shots), big deal? Stat junkies love adjusting and cramming stats, here's one: His effective field goal % is amongst the best at his position and perimeter play -- pretty much a lock to score when he's at the FT line (something Wade/Lebron are NOT).

[D-Rose]

I would put Pippen no higher than 35. Incredible player, defensive great, etc but these sort of lists are based a lot on what have you done as the leader and it's pretty easy to name 30 players that are not only BETTER but have accomplished more (Put each of those other 30 next to MJ and same results)

[Alhazred]

I would put Pippen no higher than 35. Incredible player, defensive great, etc but these sort of lists are based a lot on what have you done as the leader and it's pretty easy to name 30 players that are not only BETTER but have accomplished more (Put each of those other 30 next to MJ and same results)

Not trying to be argumentative, but which 30 would that be?

[iamgine]

Michael Jordan is pretty overrated in a sense that people overrate the Bulls team accomplishment. They had a great team that would win titles with any superstar. Plus most people doesn't know that MJ had a douchebag personality. He'd be a cancer if he wasn't a great player and have Phil & Pippen in the team.

[insidious301]

Not trying to be argumentative, but which 30 would that be?

I'd take Bernard King, Dantley, Reggie Miller, Dominique Wilkins and Isiah Thomas over Pippen (yes there are a few players that aren't on the all 50 team).

[Alhazred]

I'd take Bernard King, Dantley, Reggie Miller, Dominique Wilkins and Isiah Thomas over Pippen (yes there are a few players that aren't on the all 50 team).
Zeke and Wilkins are cool and I can understand King, but Dantley and Miller really never seemed better than Scottie overall, imo.

[wally_world]

Reggie Miller - Just a great shooter. Sure he made some clutch shots, but ridiculous he's a top 3 SG on some people's list.

Wilt Chamberlain - Stat padding machine who's great, but definetly not the best center in NBA history, needless to say the GOAT.

Patrick Ewing - Cant win, no defense, just really big and hyped cuz he played for NY.

Unhonourable mentions - Joe Dumars, Bill Lambier, Kevin McHale, David Robinson, Isiah Thomas, Jason Kidd, Magic Johnson

[D-Rose]

Not trying to be argumentative, but which 30 would that be?

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Kobe
Oscar
West
Baylor
Moses
Erving
Malone
Stockton
Pettit
Barkley
Hondo
Zeke
Cousy
Mikan
Hayes
Frazier
Barry
Admiral
KG
McHale
LeBron

[v3DreJ80]

I'd take Bernard King, Dantley, Reggie Miller, Dominique Wilkins and Isiah Thomas over Pippen (yes there are a few players that aren't on the all 50 team).
:wtf: :rolleyes: Nique, King, Miller and Dantley? Really? I can understand Zeke but those guys? Seriously. People must have really forgot what Pippen was capable of doing, one of the greatest players that could impact a game without scoring.

[Alhazred]

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Kobe
Oscar
West
Baylor
Moses
Erving
Malone
Stockton
Pettit
Barkley
Hondo
Zeke
Cousy
Mikan
Hayes
Frazier
Barry
Admiral
KG
McHale
LeBron

I'd be tempted to place Scottie over McHale, Stockton and Hayes, but all in all, nice list. :cheers:

[AirJordan&Magic]

i dont think the first 3peat bulls were stacked with talent. nor were some of tim duncans spurs. the mvp kobe has was more or less based on that game against the hornets.

Do you realize how close that Mvp race was between Kobe, Kg, and Chris Paul? I agree with the other guy.....Kobe averaged 28.6 ppg 6.3 rpg 5.4 apg 1.8 spg and had the Lakers cruising......whoever won between the three deserved it.

I agree that the 2003 and 2005 Spurs were not stacked with talent....The first three peat Bulls were a talented team, not stacked, but very talented.

The 2000-02 Lakers were not that much better than the 1991-93 Bulls, in my opinion.

[AirJordan&Magic]

:wtf: :rolleyes: Nique, King, Miller and Dantley? Really? I can understand Zeke but those guys? Seriously. People must have really forgot what Pippen was capable of doing, one of the greatest players that could impact a game without scoring.

I agree. Seriously, Dominique? King? Miller? and Dantley? :wtf:

[Alhazred]

I agree that the 2003 and 2005 Spurs were not stacked with talent....The first three peat Bulls were a talented team, not stacked, but very talented.

The 2000-02 Lakers were not that much better than the 1991-93 Bulls, in my opinion.

The first threepeat Bulls had plenty of talent. I would take them over the Lakers from 2000-02.

[insidious301]

:wtf: :rolleyes: Nique, King, Miller and Dantley? Really? I can understand Zeke but those guys? Seriously. People must have really forgot what Pippen was capable of doing, one of the greatest players that could impact a game without scoring.

Do people forget just how explosive Dantley and King were offensively? AD had 4 seasons scoring 30pppg+ on 53-58%, needless to say he and King (who had his share of 28-33ppg seasons on 50+% shooting) are known for their midrange game -- comparable to Michael Jordan's IMO. Both were tremendous/underrated rebounders as well. While Pippen was great, he was just an "ok scorer" and an all around great player (arguably the best defender on the perimeter). But as I said, the guys who I mentioned could impact the game by out scoring teams and totally holding opposing defenses hostage with their efficient scoring.

[v3DreJ80]

Do people forget just how explosive Dantley and King were offensively? AD had 4 seasons scoring 30pppg+ on 53-58%, needless to say he and King (who had his share of 28-33ppg seasons on 50+% shooting) are known for their midrange game -- comparable to Michael Jordan's IMO. Both were tremendous/underrated rebounders as well. While Pippen was great, he was just an "ok scorer" and an all around great player (arguably the best defender on the perimeter). But as I said, the guys who I mentioned could impact the game by out scoring teams and totally holding opposing defenses hostage with their efficient scoring.
Dantley and King were scorers and nothing more than scorers. I don't want my players being one-dimensional, I want my players to be as good as they can be at everything. Pippen was that, he didn't have a weakness or if he did it was not very noticeable. Pippen is one of the most versatile players to ever play the game. You act as if being the greatest perimeter defender is like nothing, because keep in mind he's not just the best perimeter defender at his position, he's the best perimeter defender ever.

[L.Kizzle]

Reggie Miller - Just a great shooter. Sure he made some clutch shots, but ridiculous he's a top 3 SG on some people's list.

Wilt Chamberlain - Stat padding machine who's great, but definetly not the best center in NBA history, needless to say the GOAT.

Patrick Ewing - Cant win, no defense, just really big and hyped cuz he played for NY.

Unhonourable mentions - Joe Dumars, Bill Lambier, Kevin McHale, David Robinson, Isiah Thomas, Jason Kidd, Magic Johnson
lol

I do agree with Joe Dumars. First ballot Hall of Famer, yeah right.

[insidious301]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdO_3iW5QAA

Dantley King of Midrange "He lived at the line" -- Listen to what is said about him and the defenders trying to "guard" him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDkWtjK6SCM

Bernard King, midrange at it's finest -- Tommy Heinsohn: When he has the ball in his hands, he's simply unstoppable

[insidious301]

Dantley and King were scorers and nothing more than scorers. I don't want my players being one-dimensional, I want my players to be as good as they can be at everything. Pippen was that, he didn't have a weakness or if he did it was not very noticeable. Pippen is one of the most versatile players to ever play the game. You act as if being the greatest perimeter defender is like nothing, because keep in mind he's not just the best perimeter defender at his position, he's the best perimeter defender ever.

So you don't factor in rebounding, clutch ability, getting to the FT line (wearing and tearing defenses slowly, but surely). According to you, without the rings, you'd take Pippen over everyone that's ever played the game, save The Big-O, Jordan and maybe Lebron?

[imdaman99]

That's the exact reason Reggie is overrated, because people think he was a great playoff performer...
wait, so he wasn't a great playoff performer? :wtf:

[jstern]

Something I notice is that players are underrated by future generations.

For example Shaq. I've seen so many teenagers, around 15 years old judge Shaq strictly by how he plays now, as an older super star. Just 5 years ago they were 10, so how can they know any better, but it's disturbing. Heck, they even put down Jordan. Makes me wonder how Lebron and Kobe are going to be judge like 15 years from now. Superstars who don't win championships aren't remembered. If Kobe doesn't win anymore, he doesn't have the type of success that's going to make him stick out. The 4 championships helps a lot, but he was a sidekick for 3, and shot 40% from the field. Has only one regular season MVP.

For those reasons I only judge players I've seen play. Can't really think who the most overrated player I've seen, but 30+ year old Jordan is the greatest I've ever seen.

Underrated players are also hustle players like Oackley, whose stats don't reflect their hard work. I guess I would consider Super Stars who can't perform in the clutch as overrated.

[v3DreJ80]

So you don't factor in rebounding, clutch ability, getting to the FT line (wearing and tearing defenses slowly, but surely). According to your logic, without the rings, you'd take Pippen over everyone that's ever played the game, save Bernard King, Jordan and maybe Lebron?
Pippen was the better defender and he was a clutch defender too. Where do people get this idea that he was a choker? He's had his cough moments and he's had his clutch moments, He's had both. Really, Give me a weakness Pippen honestly have. What? He couldn't isolate and take people off the dribble like his teammate Michael Jordan could do? Pippen was better than both those guys and you have to be a biased hater to not realize that.

Let's look at his performance during his prime (let's say 1991-1994) in "clutch" games:

1. In the closeout game against the team that probably pushed the Bulls the hardest during their run...Pippen put up a triple-double, with outstanding efficiency. 17/11/11/64 percent shooting....
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...205170CHI.html

2. In a game the closeout game of the 1992 Finals, where the Bulls had to deal with a major comeback....Pippen put up 26/5/4/53 percent shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...206140CHI.html

3. In the two deciding games in the 1993 Knicks series that is reference in number 1, Pippen put up games of 28/11/7/52 percent shooting and 24/7/6/50 percent shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...306040CHI.html

4. In the pivotal and close game 6 of the 1993 Finals, Pippen put up 23/12/5/4/46 percent shooting, while locking down the wing players on the Suns...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...306200PHO.html

5. In the game 7 (after the blown call) of the 1994 Knicks series, Pippen struggled from the floor, but was still able to put up 20/16/5. Probably his weakest clutch game during this period.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...405220NYK.html

[imdaman99]

another guy i think that is kinda overrated is kobe bryant. and its mainly from reading all the posts about pippen. their careers are so similar. i honestly think that the year he won the mvp it was based on one game. was blessed with having a beast at center competing dominating other garbage centers. and cant win unless he has a stacked team.

basically if you give scottie pippen a stacked teram and 6 prime years, he accomplishes more than what kobe has. except for the 81 and 62 point games.
he accomplishes more than what kobe ever does? what gives you that idea? is he going to bench himself at the end of games when Derek Fisher gets called on to take the last shot? he is not even half as clutch as kobe and it was obvious, even if that was the main difference. otherwise, yeah very similar players other than the fact that kobe could create his own shot anytime he wants and scottie could guard more people with his reach.

[jstern]

Something I notice is that players are underrated by future generations.

For example Shaq. I've seen so many teenagers, around 15 years old judge Shaq strictly by how he plays now, as an older super star. Just 5 years ago they were 10, so how can they know any better, but it's disturbing. Heck, they even put down Jordan. Makes me wonder how Lebron and Kobe are going to be judge like 15 years from now. Superstars who don't win championships aren't remembered. If Kobe doesn't win anymore, he doesn't have the type of success that's going to make him stick out. The 4 championships helps a lot, but he was a sidekick for 3, and shot 40% from the field. Has only one regular season MVP.

For those reasons I only judge players I've seen play. Can't really think who the most overrated player I've seen, but 30+ year old Jordan is the greatest I've ever seen.

Underrated players are also hustle players like Oackley, whose stats don't reflect their hard work. I guess I would consider Super Stars who can't perform in the clutch as overrated.

[phoenix18]

because triple doubles are overrated. people fall in love with "well rounded" numbers. Elgin Baylor averaged 38, 18, 5 one year. Wilt was a routine 50-25. In an era where everyone has crazy stats, (even 6'8 white guys like Jerry Lucas averaged 21 and 21one season), is 30-10-10 really THAT impressive?

I mean that's basically all people talk about when they put Oscar in their top ten list.

no one remembers Luca's 21 and 21 or Baylor, cause people are in love with well-rounded numbers. Even if Oscar averaged 25, 10, 10 he'd be remember as some crazy great over Baylor.

THe man won one ring as the second best player. I dont think he should be ranked higher than Isiah Thomas to be honest.

And to be honest, I think that era was weak and all stats were jacked up. I truly believe 88 Jordan would average something like 46, 14, 8 with 8 steals a game playing with those guys.

Are you serious?

Come on man. Who do you think made Jordan so great? Its the players that came before him. If you stuck Jordan in the 60's he would not be as good. Its common sense.

Plus a triple double SEASON is insane for anyone. If it wasnt so hard, then it wouldnt be held in such a high regard. He's the only one to ever do it. He's the closest to it as well. I cant believe this garbage you posted.

Shoot, a triple double game is amazing.

[insidious301]

Pippen was the better defender and he was a clutch defender too. Where do people get this idea that he was a choker? He's had his cough moments and he's had his clutch moments, He's had both. Really, Give me a weakness Pippen honestly have. What? He couldn't isolate and take people off the dribble like his teammate Michael Jordan could do? Pippen was better than both those guys and you have to be a biased hater to not realize that.

Have I denied he was a great all around player? Where did I say he was a choker? :oldlol: His weakness was coming up 'clutch' on the big stage (not that he was a choke artist, but Michael Jordan did a lot of that garbage work late in those 4th quarters), really never had that killer instinct to take over games (look at the 94 playoffs vs the Knicks, he sat out the last play because Phil didn't draw one up having him to take the last shot). I have no "biased against" Pippen, a great player for sure. You're propping him up onto an unreachable platform. If this is the case, you'd take him over any top 10 player except for Jordan/Oscar Robertson? Look beyond his gaudy all around stats, there are weaknesses, his mental approach would be one.

[Alhazred]

Pippen was the better defender and he was a clutch defender too. Where do people get this idea that he was a choker? He's had his cough moments and he's had his clutch moments, He's had both. Really, Give me a weakness Pippen honestly have. What? He couldn't isolate and take people off the dribble like his teammate Michael Jordan could do? Pippen was better than both those guys and you have to be a biased hater to not realize that.

Let's look at his performance during his prime (let's say 1991-1994) in "clutch" games:

1. In the closeout game against the team that probably pushed the Bulls the hardest during their run...Pippen put up a triple-double, with outstanding efficiency. 17/11/11/64 percent shooting....
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...205170CHI.html

2. In a game the closeout game of the 1992 Finals, where the Bulls had to deal with a major comeback....Pippen put up 26/5/4/53 percent shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...206140CHI.html

3. In the two deciding games in the 1993 Knicks series that is reference in number 1, Pippen put up games of 28/11/7/52 percent shooting and 24/7/6/50 percent shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...306040CHI.html

4. In the pivotal and close game 6 of the 1993 Finals, Pippen put up 23/12/5/4/46 percent shooting, while locking down the wing players on the Suns...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...306200PHO.html

5. In the game 7 (after the blown call) of the 1994 Knicks series, Pippen struggled from the floor, but was still able to put up 20/16/5. Probably his weakest clutch game during this period.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...405220NYK.html

Also see Scottie's 37/13/4 performance in game 3 of the 1999 first round when he and Barkley dismantled LA.

[jstern]

Reggie Miller - Just a great shooter. Sure he made some clutch shots, but ridiculous he's a top 3 SG on some people's list.

Wilt Chamberlain - Stat padding machine who's great, but definetly not the best center in NBA history, needless to say the GOAT.

Patrick Ewing - Cant win, no defense, just really big and hyped cuz he played for NY.

Unhonourable mentions - Joe Dumars, Bill Lambier, Kevin McHale, David Robinson, Isiah Thomas, Jason Kidd, Magic Johnson
When Ewing left NY, players immediately were able to penetrate for an easy basket. It killed the Knicks. Ewing was very good, defensively.

[v3DreJ80]

Have I denied he was a great all around player? Where did I say he was a choker? :oldlol: His weakness was coming up 'clutch' on the big stage (not that he was a choke artist, but Michael Jordan did a lot of that garbage work late in those 4th quarters), really never had that killer instinct to take over games (look at the 94 playoffs vs the Knicks, he sat out the last play because Phil didn't draw one up having him to take the last shot). I have no "biased against" Pippen, a great player for sure. You're propping him up onto an unreachable platform. If this is the case, you'd take him over any top 10 player except for Jordan/Oscar Robertson? Look beyond his gaudy all around stats, there are weaknesses, his mental approach would be one.
Saying Dantley and King being better than Pippen because of scoring is like saying Melo and Durant are better than Pippen. You might want to think of some excuses here, no unbiased or objective NBA fan out there will tell you Dantley or King was better than Pippen. They were one-dimensional scorers, while Pippen was the definition of versatile.

[imdaman99]

Saying Dantley and King being better than Pippen because of scoring is like saying Melo and Durant are better than Pippen. You might want to think of some excuses here, no unbiased or objective NBA fan out there will tell you Dantley or King was better than Pippen. They were one-dimensional scorers, while Pippen was the definition of versatile.
Please don't compare Melo or Durant to anyone thats already played and retired :rolleyes: these 2 guys haven't even played half their careers but you're already conceding they won't be as good as Scottie. Yeah I understand he was the biggest reason why MJ has 6 championship rings but don't put down current players that have yet to even play half their careers to build him up

[insidious301]

Saying Dantley and King being better than Pippen because of scoring is like saying Melo and Durant are better than Pippen. You might want to think of some excuses here, no unbiased or objective NBA fan out there will tell you Dantley or King was better than Pippen. They were one-dimensional scorers, while Pippen was the definition of versatile.

Wrong, not only are were King and and Dantley great scorers (to me they were better scorers than Durant and Melo because of their ability to get to the line and that uncanny midrange game), their defense was vastly underrated. You continue to dodge my question, without titles, according to your logic, you'd take Pippen over every top 10 player that's played at a high level because of his "all around play", correct? Why do you keep saying "they were just scorers"? They also averaged 6-8/9 rebounds a game and played the passing lanes (see their steals per game). Labeling them one dimensional further proves you're a young fan without any historic perspective/backbone of the game. Pippen was versatile, but so were Dantley and King, who I'd take over him any day of the week and twice on Sunday's.

[v3DreJ80]

Please don't compare Melo or Durant to anyone thats already played and retired :rolleyes: these 2 guys haven't even played half their careers but you're already conceding they won't be as good as Scottie. Yeah I understand he was the biggest reason why MJ has 6 championship rings but don't put down current players that have yet to even play half their careers to build him up
I was using the logic the moron I was arguing with was using.


Wrong, not only are were King and and Dantley great scorers (to me they were better scorers than Durant and Melo because of their ability to get to the line and that uncanny midrange game). You continue to dodge my question, without titles, according to your logic, you'd take Pippen over every top 10 player that's played at a high level because of his "all around play", correct? Why do you keep saying "they were just scorers"? They also averaged 6-8/9 rebounds a game and played the passing lanes (see their steals per game). Labeling them one dimensional further proves you're a young fan without any historic perspective/backbone of the game. Pippen was versatile, but so were Dantley and King, who I'd take over him any day of the week and twice on Sunday's.
Jesus christ could tell me they were better than Pippen and I still wouldn't believe that.

[insidious301]

I was using the logic the moron I was arguing with was using.

That moron who's giving you evidence, while your giving us a mere opinion. Tool.



Jesus christ could tell me they were better than Pippen and I still wouldn't believe that.

Well thank God you're entitled to your opinion.

[L.Kizzle]

Something I notice is that players are underrated by future generations.

For example Shaq. I've seen so many teenagers, around 15 years old judge Shaq strictly by how he plays now, as an older super star. Just 5 years ago they were 10, so how can they know any better, but it's disturbing. Heck, they even put down Jordan. Makes me wonder how Lebron and Kobe are going to be judge like 15 years from now. Superstars who don't win championships aren't remembered. If Kobe doesn't win anymore, he doesn't have the type of success that's going to make him stick out. The 4 championships helps a lot, but he was a sidekick for 3, and shot 40% from the field. Has only one regular season MVP.

For those reasons I only judge players I've seen play. Can't really think who the most overrated player I've seen, but 30+ year old Jordan is the greatest I've ever seen.

Underrated players are also hustle players like Oackley, whose stats don't reflect their hard work. I guess I would consider Super Stars who can't perform in the clutch as overrated.
Why are you taking a 15 year old's opinion serious?

[Shepseskaf]

I agree. Seriously, Dominique? King? Miller? and Dantley? :wtf:
You can tell who actually watched games back in the '80s simply by looking at these responses.

King, in his prime, was a superstar. At his best Pippen, though an elite player, was never regarded that way. He was a star, no more. In the '83-'64 season, King finished second to Bird in the MVP race, and many people thought he should have won it. Sporting News, which used to also award an MVP, gave it to him.

The argument is a little closer with Dominique and Dantley, basically because Pippen was so dominant on defense. However, I think that you could make an argument that the other two were better on offense than he was on defense.

[insidious301]

Something I notice is that players are underrated by future generations.

For example Shaq. I've seen so many teenagers, around 15 years old judge Shaq strictly by how he plays now, as an older super star. Just 5 years ago they were 10, so how can they know any better, but it's disturbing. Heck, they even put down Jordan. Makes me wonder how Lebron and Kobe are going to be judge like 15 years from now. Superstars who don't win championships aren't remembered. If Kobe doesn't win anymore, he doesn't have the type of success that's going to make him stick out. The 4 championships helps a lot, but he was a sidekick for 3, and shot 40% from the field. Has only one regular season MVP.

Yes, a sidekick who put up 21, 29 and 26ppg during the postseason and 22, 28 and 25 during the regular season (2000-2002). A sidekick who was the better all around defender than the "first option". A sidekick who closed games and wasn't benched because of his poor FT shooting. I'm sure this is marinating in your brain now. While I do believe Shaq gets most credit for those 3 rings, Kobe was definitely a 1B after their first championship in 2000, so stop the "he'll be forgotten" nonsense tool.

[insidious301]

You can tell who actually watched games back in the '80s simply by looking at these responses.

King, in his prime, was a superstar. At his best Pippen, though an elite player, was never regarded that way. He was a star, no more. In the '83-'64 season, King finished second to Bird in the MVP race, and many people thought he should have won it. Sporting News, which used to also award an MVP, gave it to him.

The argument is a little closer with Dominique and Dantley, basically because Pippen was so dominant on defense. However, I think that you could make an argument that the other two were better on offense than he was on defense.

Thank you. Someone with common sense.

[jstern]

Why are you taking a 15 year old's opinion serious?
Obviously I

[jstern]

Yes, a sidekick who put up 21, 29 and 26ppg during the postseason and 22, 28 and 25 during the regular season (2000-2002). A sidekick who was the better all around defender than the "first option". A sidekick who closed games and wasn't benched because of his poor FT shooting. I'm sure this is marinating in your brain now. While I do believe Shaq gets most credit for those 3 rings, Kobe was definitely a 1B after their first championship in 2000, so stop the "he'll be forgotten" nonsense tool.



My post was about how people in the future will perceive Kobe and other greats. I'm not putting him down, just seeing how newer generations put past players down, including someone like Jordan, I wondered how in their limited knowledge they were going to perceive Kobe. Being ignorant of Kobe, and never seeing him play day in and day out, do you think they're going to see him in the same light that you see him in? Do you think they're going to know certain details that you know, like that he closed certain games? No, they're going to look at the stats sheet and see that Shaq won 3 Finals MVP and Kobe was his sidekick. Or that he won 4 championships (If he doesn't win another) but only won finals MVP once. Are they going to know that he closed certain games from seeing his stats, or that he shot 40% from the field in his finals appearances. I'm not putting Kobe down if you read what I wrote, I'm simply saying his accomplishments are not going to get that much credit by future generations, the same way I see past players not get credit by people who never saw them play. Many people 30 and under don't give Larry Bird credit, just the way many people 27 and under don't give Jordan credit. My point is imagine Kobe who doesn't have the stats that Jordan has. Or Lebron for that matter.

[insidious301]

People have low reading comprehension.

My post was about how people in the future will perceive Kobe and other greats. I'm not putting him down, just seeing how newer generations put past players down, including someone like Jordan, I wondered how in their limited knowledge they were going to perceive Kobe. Being ignorant of Kobe, and never seeing him play day in and day out, do you think they're going to see him in the same light that you see him in? Do you think they're going to know certain details that you know, like that he closed certain games? No, they're going to look at the stats sheet and see that Shaq won 3 Finals NBA and Kobe was his sidekick. Or that he won 4 championships (If he doesn't win another) and that he was only finals MVP once. Are they going to know that he closed certain games from seeing his stats, or that he shot 40% from the field in his finals appearances. I'm not putting Kobe down if you read what I wrote, I'm simply saying his accomplishments are not going to get that much credit by future generations, the same way I see past players not get credit by people who never saw them play. Many people 30 and under don't give Larry Bird credit, just the way many people 27 and under don't give Jordan credit. My point is imagine Kobe who doesn't have the stats that Jordan has. Or Lebron for that matter.

First of all, I misread your post and apologize for that, my bad. Just take a gander at the past page...Children claiming guys like Alex English, Dantley and King were all "one dimensional scorers" -- how Scottie was this better all around player in every facet. It's ironic that stats can show how much impact a player had/has, but at the same time, can be entirely used out of context and without any overview of what actually went down.

[ShaqAttack3234]

What kind of dumb argument is that? "Cant win unless he has a stacked team"?

Who besides Hakeem Olajuwon and Rick Barry have won a championship without a stacked team?...


Actually, the 2000-2002 Lakers weren't even stacked. They basically had a 1-2 punch and a few aging role players after, but not really a legit 3rd scoring option even.


Patrick Ewing - Cant win, no defense, just really big and hyped cuz he played for NY.

No defense? :wtf: You obviously didn't watch Ewing. He was a great defensive player.


Yes, a sidekick who put up 21, 29 and 26ppg during the postseason and 22, 28 and 25 during the regular season (2000-2002). A sidekick who was the better all around defender than the "first option". A sidekick who closed games and wasn't benched because of his poor FT shooting. I'm sure this is marinating in your brain now. While I do believe Shaq gets most credit for those 3 rings, Kobe was definitely a 1B after their first championship in 2000, so stop the "he'll be forgotten" nonsense tool.

This is exactly what the other poster was talking about. 15 years old who didn't watch prime Shaq, spreading bullshit. First of all, Shaq wasn't benched in the 4th with the Lakers. That started happening later in his career. O'Neal played 43.5 mpg in the 2000 playoffs, 42.3 in the 2001 playoffs and 40.8 in the 2002 playoffs. If he wasn't in foul trouble, he'd get a bit of rest at the end of the first/early 2nd quarter and then sometimes at the end of the 3rd/early 4th, but he wasn't getting much rest.

And save this "better overall defender" shit. Shaq made a far bigger impact defensively, period. Whether it be blocking shots, scaring guys out of the paint, averaging 15 boards per game in the playoffs(to finish off the defensive possession), setting up the defensive with high percentage shots and free throw attempts and he was a good post defender as well. His only weakness defensively was playing against centers who would hit mid-range jumpshots because Shaq wouldn't challenge them, but turning the other big man into a shooter isn't the worst thing in the world because they'll only score 10-12 points usually, they'll be out of the paint, not drawing double teams and basically not impacting the game the way a center should. It's not like Kobe was some lockdown perimeter defender either. he was good, but in 2000 Ron Harper often guarded the best perimeter player and Rick Fox often did as well throughout the 3peat. Besides 1 perimeter derender rarely has the night in/night out impact of a shot blocking/rebounding force inside.

And save this 1.B bullshit. Kobe was a great player, arguably top 5 in the league during the last 2 titles, but Shaq was clearly number 1. He was the number 1 option offensively who scored more, drew more double teams and was more efficient offensively every regular season, playoff run and finals. As a center,he was only averaging 1-1.5 fewer apg than Kobe who was the Lakers leader in assists and a ball handling guard. Then you have the defensive/rebounding impact I pointed out above.

It's no coincidence that the Lakers were 25-6 during the 3peat with Shaq and without Kobe. Kobe was absolutely essential to those titles, but Shaq was clearly the MVP. When one player is clearly better, the 1.A/1.B stuff doesn't apply. That should be saved for situations like Magic and Kareem in 1982 when the MVP of the team is debatable.

[jstern]

First of all, I misread your post and apologize for that, my bad. Just take a gander at the past page...Children claiming guys like Alex English, Dantley and King were all "one dimensional scorers" -- how Scottie was this better all around player in every facet. It's ironic that stats can show how much impact a player had/has, but at the same time, can be entirely used out of context and without any overview of what actually went down.

I came on to erase the "low reading comprehension" part before you read it, so I apologize for that.

[insidious301]

This is exactly what the other poster was talking about. 15 years old who didn't watch prime Shaq, spreading bullshit. First of all, Shaq wasn't benched in the 4th with the Lakers. That started happening later in his career. O'Neal played 43.5 mpg in the 2000 playoffs, 42.3 in the 2001 playoffs and 40.8 in the 2002 playoffs. If he wasn't in foul trouble, he'd get a bit of rest at the end of the first/early 2nd quarter and then sometimes at the end of the 3rd/early 4th, but he wasn't getting much rest.

A teeny bopper claiming I didn't watch prime Shaq when I have been a Lakers fan for well over 18 years? Cut the verbal diarrhea and mental constipation, clown. Spreading bullshit? It's a known fact Shaq is a 40-50% FT shooter. It's also a widely known fact that hack-a-shaq meant his ass was going to the bench during the closing minutes, save the "I make them when they count" crap. That's a pure myth, and while he did make "some", he missed a hell of a lot of them too. What is with pin pointing Shaq's minutes/time he spent "playing"? We're talking about the closing minutes of a close game nimrod. Anyone denying this can do their homework by watching these games available on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy3_I7rD_qU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2meq3b5iYw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tOAwD0DPYk

These are just the Finals, the Portland Conference Finals and other playoff series are available from there too.


And save this "better overall defender" shit. Shaq made a far bigger impact defensively, period. Whether it be blocking shots, scaring guys out of the paint, averaging 15 boards per game in the playoffs(to finish off the defensive possession), setting up the defensive with high percentage shots and free throw attempts and he was a good post defender as well. His only weakness defensively was playing against centers who would hitmid-range jumpshots because Shaq wouldn't challenge them, but turning the other big man into a shooter isn't the worst thing in the world because they'll only score 10-12 points usually, they'll be out of the paint, not drawing double teams and basically not impacting the game the way a center should. It's not like Kobe was some lockdown perimeter defender either. he was good, but in 2000 Ron Harper often guarded the best perimeter player and Rick Fox often did as well throughout the 3peat. Besides 1 perimeter derender rarely has the night in/night out impact of a shot blocking/rebounding force inside.

Are you f*cking kidding me? What impact did he make defensively other than blocking a few shots a game? His defense on the pic and roll was horrendous. He was never praised on that side of the ball and infact called lazy when he didn't get the ball "enough". Kobe, on the other hand, has all defensive selections and was well known as one of, if not the games best perimeter defender (a combo of blocking shots, individual perimeter defense etc) in the league. Why are you discussing Shaq's skillset with me? Did I not say Shaq was the anchor of the Lakers 3peat dynasty? We are discussing Kobe's game and how it predicates to a 1/B type go to option. He closed out games, averaged 23+ppg during the regular season/post season, hit FT's down the stretch, hit clutch shots for the 3peat team down the stretch, had more assists and was obviously the better all around player when you include defense. I understand you have Shaq as your avatar, but can you keep the d*cksucking at a minimum?

[Crystallas]

Gary Coleman is way over-rated.

[ShaqAttack3234]

A teeny bopper claiming I didn't watch prime Shaq when I have been a Lakers fan for well over 18 years?

:roll:, if you're being honest then I've been watching basketball about as long as you(started sometime in the 92-93 season) so I find it funny that you call me a teeny bopper.


Cut the verbal diarrhea and mental constipation, clown. Spreading bullshit? It's a known fact Shaq is a 40-50% FT shooter. It's also a widely known fact that hack-a-shaq meant his ass was going to the bench during the closing minutes, save the "I make them when they count" crap. That's a pure myth, and while he did make "some", he missed a hell of a lot of them too. What is with pin pointing Shaq's minutes/time he spent "playing"? We're talking about the closing minutes of a close game nimrod. Anyone denying this can do their homework by watching these games available on youtube:

OK, I will watch these videos again.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy3_I7rD_qU

What's this? :roll: You just posted a video of Shaq going to the benhc to rest with the game in the bag. 15 point lead at home with 2 and a half minutes to go. :roll: That's not uncommon for star players, coaches often pull them when the game is pretty much in the bag to avoid unecessary injuries. All your video showed was Shaq scoring in the 4th quarter and helping put the game away and give them a 15 point lead before calling it a night.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2meq3b5iYw

Shaq played 52 out of a potential 53 minutes. When was he benched late in the game for free throw problems? :roll:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tOAwD0DPYk

Um, go to part 12/12, Shaq is still on the floor at the end of the game, even AFTER Kidd and Keynon Martin sit down.


These are just the Finals, the Portland Conference Finals and other playoff series are available from there too.

:roll: By all means, post some more, I'll be happy to expose your agenda again. Were you hoping I wouldn't watch the videos and I'd take your word for it?


Are you f*cking kidding me? What impact did he make defensively other than blocking a few shots a game? His defense on the pic and roll was horrendous. He was never praised on that side of the ball and infact called lazy when he didn't get the ball "enough". Kobe, on the other hand, has all defensive selections and was well known as one of, if not the games best perimeter defender (a combo of blocking shots, individual perimeter defense etc) in the league. Why are you discussing Shaq's skillset with me? Did I not say Shaq was the anchor of the Lakers 3peat dynasty? We are discussing Kobe's game and how it predicates to a 1/B type go to option. He closed out games, averaged 23+ppg during the regular season/post season, hit FT's down the stretch, hit clutch shots for the 3peat team down the stretch, had more assists and was obviously the better all around player when you include defense. I understand you have Shaq as your avatar, but can you keep the d*cksucking at a minimum?

:roll: You're lack of knowledge is hilarious. What impact did Shaq make defensively other than blocking a few shots? Shot blockers are the most valuable defenders there are, and you do realize that Shaq finished 2nd in DPOY voting in 2000 while anchoring the number 1 ranked defense with Kobe missing 16 games, right? Rebounding is a big part of defense as well. And it's not just about 3 shots he bloked per game, but the intimidation factor and how many shots he altered, When you're among the league leaders in shot blocking, players often alter their shot when they see you coming which often forces misses.

So no, it wasn't 1/A and 1/B.

[insidious301]

OK, I will watch these videos again.

These videos are just examples. Watch the part 12/12, etc. One game in particular is Game 3 of the 2001 NBA Finals, he's riding the bench because of his FTs (fouled out afterwards).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/columns/story?columnist=tolbert_tom&id=1817402 -- This is from 2004, but a great article none the less on how to "stop shaq". FTs are mentioned :oldlol:

So yes, they were 1A/1B. During 2001 season to be precise.

[ShaqAttack3234]

These videos are just examples. Watch the part 12/12, etc. One game in particular is Game 3 of the 2001 NBA Finals, he's riding the bench because of his FTs (fouled out afterwards).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2004/columns/story?columnist=tolbert_tom&id=1817402 -- This is from 2004, but a great article none the less on how to "stop shaq". FTs are mentioned :oldlol:

So yes, they were 1A/1B. During 2001 season to be precise.

Those videos are poor examples as evidenced. Haven't watched game 3 in well, probably 9 years, but if he fouled out right after that there's a good chance he was on the bench because of foul trouble. Of course free throws were a problem for Shaq, as they were for Wilt Chamberlain(another top 5 player of all time), but it doesn't mean they weren't on the court late in games.

[insidious301]

Those videos are poor examples as evidenced. Haven't watched game 3 in well, probably 9 years, but if he fouled out right after that there's a good chance he was on the bench because of foul trouble. Of course free throws were a problem for Shaq, as they were for Wilt Chamberlain(another top 5 player of all time), but it doesn't mean they weren't on the court late in games.

"The last six or so minutes of the first half in the Suns-Spurs game really demonstrates why teams would be stupid to avoid the hack-a-shaq. Shaq right now is shooting 5-14 from the line, 36%, which translates to an expected points per possession of .72. The Suns’ PPP during the regular season was 1.095. So there’s no reason why Gregg Popovich should abandon the hack, especially towards the ends of halves. Not only does it reduce the number of points the Suns score, it was also able to stop their momentum. This is especially important for a team that plays in a run-and-gun offense. When you take away the possibility of getting up the court and scoring easy buckets and force Shaq to get points at the line, it’s nearly impossible to maintain the pace and energy that the Suns best offense requires. It also forced D’Antoni to take Shaq out of the game in the last 2 or so minutes."
-Associated Press

This is what went on with Phil and LA certain games. I'm not saying it happened ALL THE TIME, but he was indeed a liability because of his poor FT shooting at the end of the games. Anyone who doesn't agree with this is sippin' on some Aristotle Kool-aid. My posts were not to disrespect Shaq, he was the anchor of the dynasty Lakers teams, a top 5-7 player of all time, but as I stated earlier, Kobe was no sidekick after that 2000 season.

[Dasher]

George Gervin dragged very bad teams deep into the playoffs with regularity.

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=insidious301]"[I]The last six or so minutes of the first half in the Suns-Spurs game really demonstrates why teams would be stupid to avoid the hack-a-shaq. Shaq right now is shooting 5-14 from the line, 36%, which translates to an expected points per possession of .72. The Suns

[insidious301]

I already acknowledged that later in Shaq's career he was benched late in games, I wasn't disputing that. My point was that more often that not, Shaq was on the floor in the closing minutes of games with the Lakers and Magic. Yes, his free throw shooting did make his teammates more hesitant to throw the ball to him late than they would be.

Kobe wasn't a mere sidekick like the term suggests, he was arguably top 5 in 2001 and 2002, my point was that with you acknowledging Shaq was the MVP of those teams that he was 1 and Kobe was 2. Not many will dispute who the MVP of those 3 teams were which is why I don't understand the 1/B thing. IMO that makes more sense when you can't really name an MVP of the team.

Since Shaq was infact the MVP of those Laker teams, you're correct. But the best all around player? I disagree. Most impact? Agreed, because he was so big it was virtually unstoppable for defenders to slow him down (as the article mentioned). I could have worded it better, i.e. "second best player" or just simply "no sidekick.

[ProfessorMurder]

Just shut the f*ck up insidious, you're talking out of your ass.

[insidious301]

Just shut the f*ck up insidious, you're talking out of your ass.

:violin:

[branslowski]

You 2 guy's are arguing over the word's 2nd option and 1/b.

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

Shaq was the Man on the Team...FACT.
Kobe was very Important, clutch, closer, exc...But was the #2 guy.

Whats wrong with any of these Facts? Nothing.

Any Perimeter player in NBA history would have been #2 to Shaq. Especially in the Triangle, and being that Shaq is the MOST DOMINATING CENTER IN NB f*ckin A history.
So why does anyone give a sh!t that Kobe was #2?....Bird, Magic, MJ would all be #2 in my opinion....You go inside out all the time baby.

[insidious301]

You 2 guy's are arguing over the word's 2nd option and 1/b.

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

Shaq was the Man on the Team...FACT.
Kobe was very Important, clutch, closer, exc...But was the #2 guy.

Whats wrong with any of these Facts? Nothing.

Any Perimeter player in NBA history would have been #2 to Shaq. Especially in the Triangle, and being that Shaq is the MOST DOMINATING CENTER IN NB f*ckin A history.
So why does anyone give a sh!t that Kobe was #2?....Bird, Magic, MJ would all be #2 in my opinion....You go inside out all the time baby.

Smooth, real smooth. I agree on all counts.

[v3DreJ80]

Dude, even Michael Jordan would have taken a seat and be the 2nd option if he were playing with a Prime Shaq. Kobe and Shaq 1a and 1b? Not even ****ing close, you are out of your ****ing mind if you think that. Kobe was basically what Paul Pierce was to the 2008 Celtics.

[jrong]

Dude, even Michael Jordan would have taken a seat and be the 2nd option if he were playing with a Prime Shaq.

Not bloody likely.

[jstern]

You 2 guy's are arguing over the word's 2nd option and 1/b.

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

Shaq was the Man on the Team...FACT.
Kobe was very Important, clutch, closer, exc...But was the #2 guy.

Whats wrong with any of these Facts? Nothing.

Any Perimeter player in NBA history would have been #2 to Shaq. Especially in the Triangle, and being that Shaq is the MOST DOMINATING CENTER IN NB f*ckin A history.
So why does anyone give a sh!t that Kobe was #2?....Bird, Magic, MJ would all be #2 in my opinion....You go inside out all the time baby.
I doubt Shaq would have been #1 with Jordan, I would agree about going inside all the time. Of course Jordan would take over in the 4th.

Jordan can score and create shots at will, shooting 50%, for Shaq he needs someone to get him the ball, then he has to post up, etc, at like 60%. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Jordan's FG% went up, less double teams. But unless the team was behind by a lot and the team needs quick points, I would throw the ball to Shaq.

[godofgods]

1. Scottie Pippen
2. Michael Jordan
3. Gary Payton
4. Everybody whose jersey number is retired by the Lakers

[Roundball_Rock]

First :applause: ShaqAttack!


King, in his prime, was a superstar. At his best Pippen, though an elite player, was never regarded that way. He was a star, no more. In the '83-'64 season, King finished second to Bird in the MVP race

Really? Never regarded that way? Here is how Pippen was regarded at his best:

Top 5 in all-NBA voting in 1994

1) Pippen (forward) 94
2) Hakeem (center) 68
3) Malone (forward) 65
4) Stockton (guard) 56
5) Sprewell (guard) 29

Pippen crushed everyone in the voting. You can let Hakeem slide because he was at the same position as Robinson and that cost him a lot of votes. Robinson was considered on par with Hakeem at the time. However, look at Pippen's vote and compare that to the other forwards and guards. Karl Malone was a top 5 player for practically all of the 90's, right? Pippen crushed him 94-68 in the voting. No, Pippen playing SF and Malone PF was not a factor. All-NBA voting is done on a forward/center/guard basis. Several times in the 90's two PF's, especially Malone and Barkley, took the two forward spots on the first team.

A quick internet search revealed the following for his other peak seasons:


Top 5 in all-NBA voting in 1995

1) Malone (F) 519
2) Robinson (C) 479
3) Pippen (F) 451
4) Stockton (G) 447
5) P. Hardaway (G) 394

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/12/sp...s-all-nba.html

Top 5 in all-NBA voting in 1996

1) Jordan (G) 113 (unanimous)
2) Pippen (F) 91
3) Hardaway (G) 90
4) Malone (F) 89
5) Robinson (C) 65

Since we know there were 113 voters Pippen received 81% of the vote. He got hurt during the final fifth of the season and his production declined so that surely cost him some votes. The margin between him and #3 and #4 would be greater if he didn't get hurt. Still, the guy gets hurt and averages 15 ppg for one-fifth of the season (21-22 ppg before that) and he still gets more votes than anyone not named Jordan.

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/24/sp...tar-again.html

This is voting for the all-NBA team. Regarding the all-Defensive team, Pippen received the most votes in 1994. And in 1995. And in 1996. Yes, also in 1997. So to recap, these were his finishes during his peak:

All-NBA voting: 1st, 3rd, 2nd
All-Defensive voting: 1st, 1st, 1st


In his one full prime season without Jordan he finished #1 in all-NBA voting, #1 in all-D voting, and #3 in MVP voting. If that isn't a superstar what is? I guess Hakeem was the only superstar playing basketball in 94'. :confusedshrug:


I think that you could make an argument that the other two were better on offense than he was on defense.

To make that argument you would have to say Pippen's vastly superior defense (considered the GOAT defensive SF) and superior playmaking skills do not offset a roughly 8 ppg scoring gap. Plus, you overlooked pace regarding rebounding. I checked King. When he averaged 9 rpg he did it at a much higher pace than Pippen (111 possessions vs. 92). When Pippen averaged 9 rpg in 94' the other top SF's (Mullin, Wilkins, Schrempf, and Mashburn) were all between 5-6 rpg. It isn't a matter of all-around play in and of itself. It just comes down to overall impact.


Pippen was the better defender and he was a clutch defender too. Where do people get this idea that he was a choker? He's had his cough moments and he's had his clutch moments, He's had both. Really, Give me a weakness Pippen honestly have. What? He couldn't isolate and take people off the dribble like his teammate Michael Jordan could do? Pippen was better than both those guys and you have to be a biased hater to not realize that.

Let's look at his performance during his prime (let's say 1991-1994) in "clutch" games:

1. In the closeout game against the team that probably pushed the Bulls the hardest during their run...Pippen put up a triple-double, with outstanding efficiency. 17/11/11/64 percent shooting....
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...205170CHI.html

2. In a game the closeout game of the 1992 Finals, where the Bulls had to deal with a major comeback....Pippen put up 26/5/4/53 percent shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...206140CHI.html

3. In the two deciding games in the 1993 Knicks series that is reference in number 1, Pippen put up games of 28/11/7/52 percent shooting and 24/7/6/50 percent shooting.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...306040CHI.html

4. In the pivotal and close game 6 of the 1993 Finals, Pippen put up 23/12/5/4/46 percent shooting, while locking down the wing players on the Suns...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...306200PHO.html

5. In the game 7 (after the blown call) of the 1994 Knicks series, Pippen struggled from the floor, but was still able to put up 20/16/5. Probably his weakest clutch game during this period.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...405220NYK.html

:applause:


His weakness was coming up 'clutch' on the big stage (not that he was a choke artist, but Michael Jordan did a lot of that garbage work late in those 4th quarters), really never had that killer instinct to take over games (look at the 94 playoffs vs the Knicks

How about looking at the 93' playoffs vs. the Knicks where he did precisely what you claim he could not do?

The 94' series was a different situation. As Phil Jackson said, the reason the Bulls lost (other than Hue Hollins..) is when Pippen was getting doubled and tripled at the end of games and passing off to his teammates they put up bricks. He didn't have a Pippen there to step up like Jordan did in 93'. Grant wanted to do it but couldn't; Armstrong lacked the talent to do it. This is straight from Phil Jackson. :pimp:

Moreover, how can you criticize Pippen for the 94' playoffs while extolling King and Dantley? What Pippen did in 94' was the deepest King ever got in the playoffs--and 94' was a below average season for Pippen since he was in the conference finals for a majority of his career. (yeah, yeah, Jordan card. :violin: Last I checked, Jordan was not on the 2000 Blazers)

[insidious301]

Look at the 93 series
The 94' series was completely different. As Phil Jackson said, the reason the Bulls lost (other than Hue Hollins..) is when Pippen was getting doubled and tripled at the end of games and passing off to his teammates they put up bricks. He didn't have a Pippen there to step up like Jordan did in 93'. This is straight from Phil Jackson. :pimp:

You're handpicking one series, and as I said, I've never said he was a choker, but there were times (many at that), that he's come up short with his decision making. Does that mean he's a perennial loser down the stretch? Of course not. Anyway, I don't want to steer away from my original comments: Give me BK, AD, English etc over Pippen starting a franchise. I may be wrong, but their offensive games (scoring mostly) were a form of art :pimp:

Kobe Bryant, just to clear things up, was the second option (if that's why you were "clapping" for Shaqattack). The guys I mentioned were never surrounded with the players Jordan and Pipp were IMO.

[Roundball_Rock]

Part of the reason for singling out the 93' ECF is that is really the only Jordan-Pippen era series in which Jordan needed rescuing, and even then it was only at times. Your comment was--and I heard the same thing from another poster yesterday--is Pippen was incapable of doing that.


but there were times (many at that), that he's come up short with his decision making

True, but the same can be said about practically anyone who was in the playoffs as frequently as he was.


Give me BK, AD, English etc over Pippen starting a franchise. I may be wrong, but their offensive games (scoring mostly) were a form of ar

Those are legitimate positions. The only thing I disagreed strongly with is you saying Pippen was never considered a superstar. He clearly was the best perimeter player in the game in 94' and 95' (and was #2 behind MJ in other seasons) .

[jlauber]

For anyone to consider Oscar was over-rated is ridiculous. There is a chance that Lebron will never win a title in his career. Will this generation few him as over-rated????

Oscar was saddled with mediocre teams his entire career, EXCEPT his last two years, and while he was not the major reason they won a title, he was certainly the final piece to the puzzle. One can only wonder how many rings he would have won in his prime, had he had semblance of talent in his prime. And, not only was he playing on miserable teams, he played in the era of the Celtic Dynasty.

I would never say that MJ was not a great player...he is definitely a Top-5 guy...but he played on five losing teams in his career. Not only that, but he was a "failure" in his first few years in the post-season (although, he did play brilliantly.) It wasn't until he was surrounded with Pippen (very under-rated IMHO), Grant, Cartwright, Paxson...and later with Pippen, Rodman, Harper, Kerr, and Kukoc...that his TEAMS won titles.

Had Oscar been given an equivalent supporting cast, in a watered down era like Jordan played in, and I suspect that he would have won his share of rings.

[magnax1]

1-James Worthy
2-Magic
3-Hakeem
4-Duncan
All are great, but people make them out to be much better then they were.
EDIT: how Is jordan "a failure in the postseason" if he played brilliantly? Maybe his teams failed, but saying he was a failure and he played brilliantly makes no sense at all. and really on his first three-peat his team compared to the teams he played against wasn't very talented.

[jlauber]

1-James Worthy
2-Magic
3-Hakeem
4-Duncan
All are great, but people make them out to be much better then they were.

WOW! Over-rated??? Even Worthy was a GREAT player. Take a look at his numbers in the 88-89 Finals, and against a great defensive team in the Pistons...and without Magic and Scott. In game four, albeit, in a losing effort, he erupted for 40 points on 17-26 shooting. AND, Worthy is nick-named "Big Game James" for a reason...he was an even better player, in the post-season, than he was in the regular season.

The rest of that list is comprised of Top-10 all-time players.

[jlauber]

EDIT: how Is jordan "a failure in the postseason" if he played brilliantly? Maybe his teams failed, but saying he was a failure and he played brilliantly makes no sense at all. and really on his first three-peat his team compared to the teams he played against wasn't very talented

Yes, Jordan was GENERALLY brilliant in the post-season. But for those that argue that he was the greatest player of all-time, they seldom acknowledge that he did not win any titles until he was surrounded with the best rosters in the NBA.

How good were those Bulls' teams? When MJ retired the first time, and following the 92-93 season, a season in which they went 57-25...they basically replaced Jordan with Toni Kukoc (and slightly upgraded when Kerr replaced Paxson. That was it. How did they do, without MJ? They went 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks in the playoffs...and that Knick team lost a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. They were CLEARLY an elite team WITHOUT MJ.

AND, unlike Bird, Robinson, Kareem, and Wilt...Jordan could not immediately turn a losing team into a winner. Those four players took last-place teams, and made them solid winners in their very first year.

[Alhazred]

Yes, Jordan was GENERALLY brilliant in the post-season. But for those that argue that he was the greatest player of all-time, they seldom acknowledge that he did not win any titles until he was surrounded with the best rosters in the NBA.

Sounds a lot like Wilt to me.



How good were those Bulls' teams? When MJ retired the first time, and following the 92-93 season, a season in which they went 57-25...they basically replaced Jordan with Toni Kukoc (and slightly upgraded when Kerr replaced Paxson. That was it. How did they do, without MJ? They went 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks in the playoffs...and that Knick team lost a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. They were CLEARLY an elite team WITHOUT MJ.

Didn't the 1969 76ers win 55 games while replacing Wilt with Darrell Imhoff? :confusedshrug: Also, the 1974 Lakers without Wilt also missed Jerry West for 51 games but still won their division.


AND, unlike Bird, Robinson, Kareem, and Wilt...Jordan could not immediately turn a losing team into a winner. Those four players took last-place teams, and made them solid winners in their very first year.

The Wizard's actually had a .500 record with him in the lineup during the 2002 season. The year before, the Wizards only won 19 games.

[Roundball_Rock]

and really on his first three-peat his team compared to the teams he played against wasn't very talented

:wtf:

The Suns with Barkley won 56 games in 94' (yes, Barkley missed some games but so did Pippen so that is a wash. Plus, Barkley played in about 70 games; Jordan played in 0!). The Knicks with Ewing won 57 games. The Blazers with Drexler could not reach 50 wins. The Cavs collapsed due to injuries, as did the Lakers so we can't really compare them The Bulls without Jordan won 55 games yet he did not have superior teams? You could argue he did not have stacked teams, although I believe he did relative to the competition, but you can't really argue that he did not have very competitive teams. You make it sound as if he was winning with the 94' Rockets or 03' Spurs when in reality he had a team with a guy who in his one full prime season without MJ finished #1 in all-NBA, #1 in all-D, and #3 in MVP voting (something Porter, Starks never came close to doing and Kevin Johnson, Worthy, Dumars and Daughetry never did) along with a legit all-star player in Horace Grant. Yeah, after that there was a drop-off but the same happened with every team back then.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Strictly on this forum thanks to certain recent trolls the last few months:


Kobe Bryant
LeBron James
Scottie Pippen
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar



Very impressive, considering just how difficult it is to realistically overrate these guys.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Strictly on this forum thanks to certain recent trolls the last few months:


Kobe Bryant
LeBron James
Scottie Pippen
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar



Very impressive, considering just how difficult it is to realistically overrate these guys.

Co-sign. Although I don't believe LBJ is overrated.

[Alhazred]

1-James Worthy
2-Magic
3-Hakeem
4-Duncan
All are great, but people make them out to be much better then they were.


:no:

[nbastatus]

that wilt chamberlain guy.

[Fatal9]

Strictly on this forum thanks to certain recent trolls the last few months
Says the gimmick who thinks Bobby Jones is the best PF ever (over Duncan, Malone, KG etc) and believes every outrageous fairy tale about Wilt Chamberlain :oldlol:

[L.Kizzle]

Kevin Johnson (on ISH only)

[Abraham Lincoln]

Says the gimmick who thinks Bobby Jones is the best PF ever (over Duncan, Malone, KG etc) and believes every outrageous fairy tale about Wilt Chamberlain :oldlol:
The key word being defensive forward. The only implication there was that he (as well as Roundfield & Jackson) was as effective a defensive man when all is taken into account. It is incredible how many times I have had to dumb myself down to try and attempt to explain something to you guys. There is so much false crap that has been forgotten or shrugged off as routine. You two are not idiots (nor close), so best be not to act like ones here.

[robertshaw_1]

:lol every NBA player was overrated in this thread......:oldlol: :oldlol:

[PistolPete]

In fairness to the LEGEND that is Pistol Pete, his career was cut short due to injuries and his career never went beyond the playoffs due to the crappy teams he was on. He's one of the 50 greatest players of all-time primarily for his dominance in the college game. Pete though, did lead the league at one point in scoring and other statistical categories throughout his short career.

Needless to say, had he been alive today or had he not suffered from injuries back then, he'd be on the top of many statistical lists. He could have easily managed the highest scoring average per game in NBA history.

[jlauber]

Re: Overrated All-Time Great Players

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
Yes, Jordan was GENERALLY brilliant in the post-season. But for those that argue that he was the greatest player of all-time, they seldom acknowledge that he did not win any titles until he was surrounded with the best rosters in the NBA.


Sounds a lot like Wilt to me.


Quote:
How good were those Bulls' teams? When MJ retired the first time, and following the 92-93 season, a season in which they went 57-25...they basically replaced Jordan with Toni Kukoc (and slightly upgraded when Kerr replaced Paxson. That was it. How did they do, without MJ? They went 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks in the playoffs...and that Knick team lost a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. They were CLEARLY an elite team WITHOUT MJ.


Didn't the 1969 76ers win 55 games while replacing Wilt with Darrell Imhoff? Also, the 1974 Lakers without Wilt also missed Jerry West for 51 games but still won their division.


Wilt was TRADED for an All-Star guard (Archie Clark, a 20 ppg scorer), a decent journeyman center (Darrell Imhoff, a career double-double guy), and Jerry Chambers.

Not only that, but his 67-68 Sixers went 62-20, while the 68-69 Sixers went 55-27.

Jordan RETIRED. His only replacement was 11 ppg scorer Toni Kukoc (and, as I mentioned, a slight upgrade with Kerr for Paxson.) The Bulls dropped from 57-25, with MJ, down to 55-27 WITHOUT MJ.

WITH Wilt, the Lakers went FOUR Finals in five seasons (winning one.) Without Wilt, they went from '74 to '79 without coming close to sniffing the Finals. AND, his former Sixer team never came close to the Finals, either, without him, and within a few years went 9-73.

[L.Kizzle]

In fairness to the LEGEND that is Pistol Pete, his career was cut short due to injuries and his career never went beyond the playoffs due to the crappy teams he was on. He's one of the 50 greatest players of all-time primarily for his dominance in the college game. Pete though, did lead the league at one point in scoring and other statistical categories throughout his short career.

Needless to say, had he been alive today or had he not suffered from injuries back then, he'd be on the top of many statistical lists. He could have easily managed the highest scoring average per game in NBA history.
No he's not!

[Duckie MAN]

Co-sign. Although I don't believe LBJ is overrated.

he's overrated

[Alhazred]

Wilt was TRADED for an All-Star guard (Archie Clark, a 20 ppg scorer), a decent journeyman center (Darrell Imhoff, a career double-double guy), and Jerry Chambers.

Jerry Chambers saw no playing time and although they were by no means bad players, Clark only went 13/3/3 due to the team being so deep in the back court and Imhoff went 9/9/3. Not bad, but not amazing, either.


Jordan RETIRED. His only replacement was 11 ppg scorer Toni Kukoc (and, as I mentioned, a slight upgrade with Kerr for Paxson.) The Bulls dropped from 57-25, with MJ, down to 55-27 WITHOUT MJ.

So Wilt's team in his prime lost 7 more games without him while Michael's lost 2 more with him missing. Wow, a five game difference. :confusedshrug:


WITH Wilt, the Lakers went FOUR Finals in five seasons (winning one.) Without Wilt, they went from '74 to '79 without coming close to sniffing the Finals. AND, his former Sixer team never came close to the Finals, either, without him, and within a few years went 9-73.

The Bulls never made the Finals without Michael, either. Also, I take it you didn't watch the Bulls' dramatic decline post-98? There were other personnel changes that year, but the Lakers and 76ers lost players other than Wilt, too in the time periods you mentioned. LA lost West, while Philly was missing most of their key players from the late 60s in 1973 like Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker. Hal Greer had also gotten old and was past his prime during the infamous 9-73 season.

I'm not trying to discredit Wilt, I think he was a great player and has a case for being the GOAT center, even the overall GOAT, but I think you're underestimating Michael's impact on his teams.

[Dave3]

:lol every NBA player was overrated in this thread......:oldlol: :oldlol:
Except Manu of course right?:rolleyes:

[v3DreJ80]

Except Manu of course right?:rolleyes:
Nope, so fail.

[Dave3]

Nope, so fail.
Oh damn, I must've really got on your nerves... Sorry, this is just a little bit hilarious:lol

[v3DreJ80]

Oh damn, I must've really got on your nerves... Sorry, this is just a little bit hilarious:lol
I agree, the way you stalked me was very hilarious. :oldlol:

[robertshaw_1]

manu is a true living legend, top 40 player ever.

so smart, versatil, clutch, great defense and offense...a true winner....

same with pippen....a top 10 player ever.

[Dave3]

manu is a true living legend, top 40 player ever.

so smart, versatil, clutch, great defense and offense...a true winner....

same with pippen....a top 10 player ever.
Who's Pippen better than? Kobe? Magic? Bird? What's your top 10 list?

[robertshaw_1]

Who's Pippen better than? Kobe? Magic? Bird? What's your top 10 list?

1

[Dave3]

[QUOTE=robertshaw_1]1

[robertshaw_1]

I see. At least now I know where the ludicrous is lol...

bad list for you?

forget the positions...give me the 10 best players ever

[D3vIrGiNiz3r]

Not a bad list. I'd ad Wilt to the list since he was basically a one man stat machine who cared only about personal success.

[v3DreJ80]

Not a bad list. I'd ad Wilt to the list since he was basically a one man stat machine who cared only about personal success.
A guy who changed basically changed 20 rules in the NBA is overrated. :lol

[JustinJDW]

Kobe during the 3-Peat Lakers sometimes gets overrated. Today, people like to try to act like Kobe was some type of Co-1st Option player when he wasn't. He was the clear 2nd Option and Shaq was the clear 1st.

Plus, it was so much easier for Kobe because he played with Prime Shaq. Do you ever wonder how amazing Tracy McGrady or Vince Carter or a prime Allen Iverson would be if they played with prime Shaq in that Era?

[Dave3]

bad list for you?

forget the positions...give me the 10 best players ever
Dude, Shaq not in top 10?

[v3DreJ80]

Dude, Shaq not in top 10?
He asked you to give him your top 10 dummy. :banghead:

[Dave3]

He asked you to give him your top 10 dummy. :banghead:
He also said "bad list for you?"

I know, reading is hard:ohwell:

[v3DreJ80]

He also said "bad list for you?"

I know, reading is hard:ohwell:
I know that dumb****, but he asked you to give him his Top 10. Jeez reading must be tough for you. :oldlol:

[LebrickJames84']

bad list for you?

forget the positions...give me the 10 best players ever

Any list that doesn't have Jordan as #1 is a failed list. And what the heck is Kobe Bryant doing in the top 7 that's the definition of overrated look at his career averages the guy can barely shoot over 45% from the field.


the most overrated goes to Scottie Pippen and nobody is really close. Prime Grant Hill was better than Pippen ever was.

[Nero Tulip]

I pretty much agree with OP's list.

I think Jordan's also one of the most overrated. Possibly the best ever, but that's how high he's rated, really... to say he's hands down way above any other player in history is ridiculous, yet it seems to be the consensus.

Never saw Wilt play, but if I had to guess I'd say he's also quite overrated.

[Alhazred]

the most overrated goes to Scottie Pippen and nobody is really close. Prime Grant Hill was better than Pippen ever was.

You sure?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=hillgr01&y1=2000&p2=pippesc01&y2=1995

Seems pretty equal to me.

[ShaqAttack3234]

the most overrated goes to Scottie Pippen and nobody is really close. Prime Grant Hill was better than Pippen ever was.

:oldlol: What exactly was Hill better at? Rebounding was basically even, Pippen was atleast as good as a passer/point forward and Hill had a smoother looking offensive game with his crossover and mid-range J, but Pippen was a better 3 point shooter and he could score pretty much as well and do it as efficiently. Then you have defense where Pippen destroys Hill as well as Pippen's leadership. Hill has never made it out of the first round while Pippen is a 6 time champion who led his team to game 7 of the ECSF in his first season as the leader of his team. He also led Portland to game 7 of the WCF after his prime.

[jlauber]

Individually, Shaq, Kareem, Oscar, Kobe, Wilt, and Jordan were/are probably the greatest players to ever play the game.

But, you can't quantify what Magic, Russell, Hakeem, Bird, and Duncan did for their teams. I still say those five guys made their teammates better. That is not a knock on the first six...as they made their teammates better by just getting double and triple teamed. But, the second five elevated the play of their teammates.

I won't get into any argument as to who is #1 or #10. But, they were all great. Needless to say...you couldn't go wrong with ANY of them.

[magnax1]

:wtf:

The Suns with Barkley won 56 games in 94' (yes, Barkley missed some games but so did Pippen so that is a wash. Plus, Barkley played in about 70 games; Jordan played in 0!). The Knicks with Ewing won 57 games. The Blazers with Drexler could not reach 50 wins. The Cavs collapsed due to injuries, as did the Lakers so we can't really compare them The Bulls without Jordan won 55 games yet he did not have superior teams? You could argue he did not have stacked teams, although I believe he did relative to the competition, but you can't really argue that he did not have very competitive teams. You make it sound as if he was winning with the 94' Rockets or 03' Spurs when in reality he had a team with a guy who in his one full prime season without MJ finished #1 in all-NBA, #1 in all-D, and #3 in MVP voting (something Porter, Starks never came close to doing and Kevin Johnson, Worthy, Dumars and Daughetry never did) along with a legit all-star player in Horace Grant. Yeah, after that there was a drop-off but the same happened with every team back then.
That means pretty much nothing. Look at the teams he won against in the finals 91, 92, 93. Beyond the very best player it wasn't really that close except 91
91-
Worthy
Divacs
Byron Scott
And Pippen wasn't near as good as 93-97 Pippen yet.
92-
Terry Porter
Jerome Kersey
Buck Williams
Danny Ainge and Cliff Robinson 6th men. Not even close.
93-
Kevin Johson
Dan Marjele
Richard Dumas
Danny Ainge
Tom Chambers
Cedric Ceballos (Who was injured I think)
Then for Jordan you have Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant John Paxson and BJ Armstrong splitting time at the point, both of whom were just spot up shooters, and then Bill Cartwright at center. Its not even Close compared to 92 Blazers and 93 Suns. The only other thing that really adds to Jordan's team is Phil Jackson, who to me isn't much, if any better then Rick Adelman who is an amazing coach.
The Bulls weren't bad teams, but they weren't as talented as any of the other title contenders.

[Dave3]

I know that dumb****, but he asked you to give him his Top 10. Jeez reading must be tough for you. :oldlol:
Since when was my freedom to choose not to answer something revoked? I don't have a top 10 list because I haven't seen every single NBA player that has ever played.

[D3vIrGiNiz3r]

Individually, Shaq, Kareem, Oscar, Kobe, Wilt, and Jordan were/are probably the greatest players to ever play the game.

But, you can't quantify what Magic, Russell, Hakeem, Bird, and Duncan did for their teams. I still say those five guys made their teammates better. That is not a knock on the first six...as they made their teammates better by just getting double and triple teamed. But, the second five elevated the play of their teammates.

I won't get into any argument as to who is #1 or #10. But, they were all great. Needless to say...you couldn't go wrong with ANY of them.

Excellent post. :applause:

[Alhazred]

That means pretty much nothing. Look at the teams he won against in the finals 91, 92, 93. Beyond the very best player it wasn't really that close except 91
91-
Worthy
Divacs
Byron Scott
And Pippen wasn't near as good as 93-97 Pippen yet.
92-
Terry Porter
Jerome Kersey
Buck Williams
Danny Ainge and Cliff Robinson 6th men. Not even close.
93-
Kevin Johson
Dan Marjele
Richard Dumas
Danny Ainge
Tom Chambers
Cedric Ceballos (Who was injured I think)
Then for Jordan you have Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant John Paxson and BJ Armstrong splitting time at the point, both of whom were just spot up shooters, and then Bill Cartwright at center. Its not even Close compared to 92 Blazers and 93 Suns. The only other thing that really adds to Jordan's team is Phil Jackson, who to me isn't much, if any better then Rick Adelman who is an amazing coach.
The Bulls weren't bad teams, but they weren't as talented as any of the other title contenders.

The Bulls weren't undermanned. Each of those series they were at least equal in talent, imo.

[magnax1]

The Bulls weren't undermanned. Each of those series they were at least equal in talent, imo.
I don't see how. The bulls had two defensive all stars level players, and other then the 91 Lakers, the blazers had 2 all star level players and three others who were all star level recently.
93 Suns isn't Close. Ceballos would've been an all star if he got starter playing time, but the team was so stacked that he only got 20 minutes a game. Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjerle, Richard Dumas, Danny Ainge, Tom Chambers coming off the bench, and Oliver Miller at center who was a good shot blocker.

[Alhazred]

I don't see how. The bulls had two defensive all stars level players, and other then the 91 Lakers, the blazers had 2 all star level players and three others who were all star level recently.
93 Suns isn't Close. Ceballos would've been an all star if he got starter playing time, but the team was so stacked that he only got 20 minutes a game. Kevin Johnson, Dan Marjerle, Richard Dumas, Danny Ainge, Tom Chambers coming off the bench, and Oliver Miller at center who was a good shot blocker.

The Bulls also had Michael, Scottie, Grant, Armstrong and Paxson. Phoenix had a slight edge, but not by much.

Portland wasn't quite as good, imo. Michael, Scottie, Horace and BJ were all in their primes in 1992.

[magnax1]

The Bulls also had Michael, Scottie, Grant, Armstrong and Paxson. Phoenix had a slight edge, but not by much.
Armstrong and Paxson were about equal to Ainge in those series. Good spot up shooters, and ok passers. And Ainge came off the bench in 92 & 93

[Gevz2kX]

no brainer. Robert Horry

[L.Kizzle]

no brainer. Robert Horry
Topic is all time great players.

[KAJ=GOAT]

Individually, Shaq, Kareem, Oscar, Kobe, Wilt, and Jordan were/are probably the greatest players to ever play the game.

But, you can't quantify what Magic, Russell, Hakeem, Bird, and Duncan did for their teams. I still say those five guys made their teammates better. That is not a knock on the first six...as they made their teammates better by just getting double and triple teamed. But, the second five elevated the play of their teammates.

I won't get into any argument as to who is #1 or #10. But, they were all great. Needless to say...you couldn't go wrong with ANY of them.

Magic made Kareem better?

:roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

:oldlol: What exactly was Hill better at? Rebounding was basically even, Pippen was atleast as good as a passer/point forward and Hill had a smoother looking offensive game with his crossover and mid-range J, but Pippen was a better 3 point shooter and he could score pretty much as well and do it as efficiently. Then you have defense where Pippen destroys Hill as well as Pippen's leadership. Hill has never made it out of the first round while Pippen is a 6 time champion who led his team to game 7 of the ECSF in his first season as the leader of his team. He also led Portland to game 7 of the WCF after his prime.

:applause: Especially, for you being one of the few people here to understand the 2000 Blazers and Pip's true role on that team. :oldlol: at agenda-driven people a decade later claiming he was a mere role player on that team.


.

Dude, you are going solely by which team was more talented on paper. I am going by results. I agree on paper some of those teams look better but on paper the Jazz of recent years should be dominant, right? A borderline superstar in Deron, a legit all-star and all-NBA caliber player in Boozer and two guys who have been all-stars at points in their careers in AK-47 and Okur. They also have some other good like Harpring and Millsap. So where are the results? They have talent but have not done anything aside from 07'. On paper they should be contending for championships every year.


then the 91 Lakers, the blazers had 2 all star level players and three others who were all star level recently.

Terry Porter was the second-best player on the Portland team in 92'; Scottie Pippen was the second-best player on the Dream Team in 92' (according to the team's coach Chuck Daly). You don't see a difference? Yeah, roster spot by roster spot Portland was better because they were deeper but Pippen>>>>>Porter and Grant was equal to and probably better than Porter as well.


The Bulls weren't bad teams, but they weren't as talented as any of the other title contenders.

The bottom line is without Jordan the Bulls won as much as the other contenders of that period did WITH their best player. Maybe they overachieved every year but does that matter? Who cares why a player got help.

Knicks with Ewing in 94' 57 wins
Blazers with Drexler in 94' 48 or 49 wins
Cavs with everyone healthy in 93' 54 wins
Suns with Barkley in 94' 56 wins
Rockets with Hakeem in 94' 58 wins
Sonics with Payton 63 wins
Hawks with Wilkins and then Manning replacing him 57 wins
Spurs with Robinson 55 wins
Jazz with Malone and Stockton 53 wins
Bulls without Jordan 55 wins

Which one is not like the others? :hammerhead:

The rationale for diminishing Jordan's teams makes little sense. Unless your name is Hakeem, Tim, or Rick you won on a very good to great team. In other words, all the other GOAT candidates had great teams when they won rings so why be insecure with respect to Jordan? Jordan had several chances to win with scrubs and we know what the results were. He had another opportunity to attempt to win with scrubs after 98' but he decided to retire for three years. He has a great record. Just stand on it. There is no need to credit him for things he never did, like win with weak teams.

[jlauber]

Magic made Kareem better?


Kareem was clearly the best player in the NBA in the 70's. However, despite his brilliant individual talent, he only had one ring to show for it. Interesting to note, though, that prior to Magic, Kareem's career high FG% for a single season, was .579. In fact, Kareem had seasons of .579, .577, .577 and .574, as his top four campaigns in his first ten seasons. After Magic, he his season high, at age 32, was .604. He followed that with .574, .579, .588, .578, , .599, .564 and .564.

And while I believe Kareem was still the best player on that Laker team for about five years, Magic was the catalyst for the entire team.


Roundball,

I agree with your point 100%. MJ was no miracle worker. He was a great player (arguably in the top-5 of all-time), on talented teams in the 90's. For anyone to suggest that the Bulls were an average team without him, well...the facts are the facts. They were title contenders without him. With him, they were champions.

That is not a knock on MJ. Jordan was the best player in the league for nearly every year he played. But he didn't do any more for his teams, than Chamberlain did for his. Wilt only had two rings, but he went up against the greatest dynasty in NBA history. And it could be argued that no player in NBA history single-handedly carried a team as far as Chamberlain did in the 61-62 season. Take a look at that roster. It was essentially the same last place roster that he joined in the 59-60 season. Yet, he had a season for the ages, and carried his team to within a two-point, game seven loss, against a 60-20 Celtic roster that had SIX HOFers on it.

Wilt basically took a last place roster to within an eyelash of playing for a championship. MJ was drafted by a last-place team, and improved them slightly. He played brilliantly against the 85-86 Celtics in the playoffs...but his Bulls were swept by that Celtic team, 3-0. True, that Boston team had FOUR HOFers...but here again, Chamberlain carried his team much further against a team of SIX HOFers.

[D.J.]

For those saying James Worthy, he put up 20/5+/4+ in his first season without Magic. He was getting it done without him.

[Human Error]

I know that dumb****, but he asked you to give him his Top 10. Jeez reading must be tough for you. :oldlol:
I'm an outsider here but I wouldn't feel the need to reply to a troll who thinks Kobe and Pippen are better than Shaq. Sometimes you have to have one's respect first.

[Alhazred]

That is not a knock on MJ. Jordan was the best player in the league for nearly every year he played. But he didn't do any more for his teams, than Chamberlain did for his.Wilt only had two rings, but he went up against the greatest dynasty in NBA history.

I agree, although Michael did enter a league with Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers at their peaks.


And it could be argued that no player in NBA history single-handedly carried a team as far as Chamberlain did in the 61-62 season. Take a look at that roster. It was essentially the same last place roster that he joined in the 59-60 season. Yet, he had a season for the ages, and carried his team to within a two-point, game seven loss, against a 60-20 Celtic roster that had SIX HOFers on it.

Impressive. I think Moses Malone's 1981 season has a case, also. He led a 40-42 team to the Finals and pushed a 62 win Celtics team to 6 games.


Wilt basically took a last place roster to within an eyelash of playing for a championship. MJ was drafted by a last-place team, and improved them slightly. He played brilliantly against the 85-86 Celtics in the playoffs...but his Bulls were swept by that Celtic team, 3-0. True, that Boston team had FOUR HOFers...but here again, Chamberlain carried his team much further against a team of SIX HOFers.

Didn't Wilt have three HOFers on his team? You can debate their legitimacy, but the same goes for some of the Celtics, as well. Plus, I don't think Michael had any on his team. Gervin is the only one who comes to mind, but he only played 11 minutes for the whole series against Boston.

[jlauber]

Alhazred,

Wilt had two other HOFers on that roster (and remember, they were a last place team before Wilt arrived.) However, one of them was Paul Arizin, who was in his final season. The other was Tom Gola. Take a look at Gola's career NBA statistics...he has much right being in the HOF as I do. True, that Boston team had six HOFers, and clearly two of them were not deserving either...KC Jones and Frank Ramsey, but Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, Bob Cousey, and Bill Russell were.

[Alhazred]

Alhazred,

Wilt had two other HOFers on that roster (and remember, they were a last place team before Wilt arrived.) However, one of them was Paul Arizin, who was in his final season. The other was Tom Gola. Take a look at Gola's career NBA statistics...he has much right being in the HOF as I do. True, that Boston team had six HOFers, and clearly two of them were not deserving either...KC Jones and Frank Ramsey, but Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, Bob Cousey, and Bill Russell were.

Gola's numbers don't jump out, but he and Arizin were both key players on the Warriors' championship team from 1956. I wouldn't write him off.

Also, that third guy I was thinking of was Guy Rodgers. He finished in second place for most assists in the league in 1962. He hasn't been put into the HOF, though.

[momo]

Magic made Kareem better?

:roll:

KAJ was already great before he got Magic, but playing alongside Magic did help him plenty. I think it helped Magic to have Kareem as well...

While we are on the 80's Lakers, lets just NOT start slagging James Worthy just to say he is overrated gang. Say he is overrated by a few spots on some list... it might be true.

But a bunch of junk in this thread about him is just silly. GTFO with that junk. He was a star player at every level, won at every level and was on one of the best NBA teams of all time.

He was a fantastic defender. Great at face-guarding, something that's a lost art, but made the Lakers deadly on the glass, as well as deflating James rebound #s as an individual. Great at defending the break. Great in the post. Great D in a face up situation. Great rotation defender.

I would LOVE to see someone who is slagging James in this thread dig up a clip of one of his peers saying he was not a great defender. Anyone.

[LebrickJames84']

You sure?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=hillgr01&y1=2000&p2=pippesc01&y2=1995

Seems pretty equal to me.

Hill 97 season was better imo. 21/9/7 for a whole season. and he was so athletic. Again Hill in his prime was better than Pippen ever was.

[Alhazred]

Hill 97 season was better imo. 21/9/7 for a whole season. and he was so athletic. Again Hill in his prime was better than Pippen ever was.

Yeah, he was better in 97(compared to 2000), I forgot about what he did that year. I'd still take 1994-95 Scottie, though, but it's close.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Hill 97 season was better imo. 21/9/7 for a whole season. and he was so athletic. Again Hill in his prime was better than Pippen ever was.

Scottie had 21/8/7/2/1 on 51% shooting on a championship team and those assists are even more impressive when you consider that he played in the triangle offense. Scottie also had 22/9/6/3 on 49% shooting in 1994 while leading a Jordan-less Bulls team to 55 wins.

[Manute for Ever!]

On this board it has to be Hakeem Olajuwon. He was great, but in his playing days he wasn't even the clear cut best at his position, now he gets in some top 5 GOAT lists!?! I guess that's what reputation/hindsight gets you.

Scottie Pippen is creeping up there, too, and this is coming from a Bulls fan who loved Pippen.

[catch24]

Scottie Pippen is creeping up there, too, and this is coming from a Bulls fan who loved Pippen.

Come on dude, you know better than that...RR is in this very thread.

[Manute for Ever!]

Come on dude, you know better than that...RR is in this very thread.

I didn't really think that through, stupid Jordan stan that I must be.

[Roundball_Rock]

As usual, good post Jlauber. The Bulls thing is clear on its face. Jordan was removed from the team and look at the results. His team was as good as the other top teams even though all those teams retained their superstar. There is only one logical conclusion here: he had a team strong enough to compete for championships even with him. The 94' team had the same starting 5 sans Jordan and the only major addition was rookie Kukoc (11/4/3 on 43%) as 6th man. Great points on Wilt too.


Scottie had 21/8/7/2/1 on 51% shooting on a championship team and those assists are even more impressive when you consider that he played in the triangle offense. Scottie also had 22/9/6/3 on 49% shooting in 1994 while leading a Jordan-less Bulls team to 55 wins.

Exactly and defense does not really show up in stats, nor does leadership. As you pointed out, what did Hill really do better than Pippen? Hill was overrated then and consequently now because he was tabbed by the media and Stern as the successor to Jordan. It is hilarious how many times you will see someone here say "Hill was great, Pippen overrated..." when they essentially were the same player except one could dominate defensively and lead successful teams. I've even seen some people here say Hill could have been better than Jordan had he stayed healthy.



Yeah, he was better in 97, I forgot about what he did that year.

Yeah--since Pippen was not 100% for half of 97' (coming off of three injuries in 96' plus a lack of rest due to the Olympics). When Pippen got back to 100% he scored as much as Hill (21 ppg in the second half of the season on a 69 team with the #1 scorer in the L, not a 54 win team where he was the focal point of the offense like Hill) and when his rebounding and assists are put into context (Rodman taking away so many boards and the triangle) there was not much difference there. Then there is defense, half of basketball. :roll:

I like Hill and always have but if the claims made about him then and now by some are accurate he would have led his team out of the first round at least once. The team card goes only so far. Hill in his prime played on a 54 win team and then on a 51 team in 99' (pace over 82 games). He had a 46 win team another year and got swept. Pippen had one full prime year without Jordan, won 55 games and was robbed of at least a trip to the ECF by Hue Hollins. Of course, just making it to the second round is more than Hill ever did. Then there is old, post-98' finals back injury Pippen leading the 00' Blazers to within 2 minutes of a ring, as ShaqAttack pointed out. That team was better than anything Hill ever had, though, but the 97' Pistons are comparable to the 94' Bulls, as their records suggest (55 wins vs. 54).


Come on dude, you know better than that...RR is in this very thread.


Hey, did you catch my big bad anti-Jordan agenda in this thread? :mad: Weak effort, though. Pippen has been called overrated several times in this thread and I said nothing.

Speaking of agendas, have you noticed nearly everyone who says Pippen is overrated happens to mysteriously have one thing in common?

Anyway, several people, including a Pippen fan, a Jordan fan, a Shaq fan and whatever Lebrick is were having a legit discussion of Pippen vs. Hill. Sadly, it is best to ignore many Jordan fans on ISH. Can you please refrain from quoting Manute until he learns to make a substantive post on the topic at hand? All his posts are directly or indirectly related to the tendencies of other posters, and even there his analysis often is lacking. For instance, for one who is in so many Pippen threads and loves to gawk at posters' tendencies he still hasn't figured out the one thing 90% of Pippen's detractors here have in common. Wow. :roll:

[catch24]

Hey, did you catch my big bad anti-Jordan agenda in this thread? :mad: Weak effort, though. Pippen has been called overrated several times in this thread and I said nothing.

Speaking of agendas, have you noticed nearly everyone who says Pippen is overrated happens to mysteriously have one thing in common?

Pipp is a little overrated (I have my reasons and I'm sure you've seen them in other threads). Many posters have him underrated here though, I'll admit. Still, for the majority, knowledgeable posters (non trolls) place him anywhere from 20-28.

Anyway, the most overrated all time player(s) to me is a cross between Julius Erving and Jerry West. Dr. J was one of the most entertaining athletic players of all time, but when watching him offensively, he was pretty limited IMO. His midrange game was OK at best, while he heavily relied on his athleticism to score most of his buckets. I just feel he was one of the more least skilled players out of the top 15-20 (where most have him). Jerry West, exceptional guard, most have him #2/3 all time. But he was 1-8 during the Finals. Today he would be called soft and more than likely be ridiculed by the masses for being a choker.

[97 bulls]

KAJ was already great before he got Magic, but playing alongside Magic did help him plenty. I think it helped Magic to have Kareem as well...

While we are on the 80's Lakers, lets just NOT start slagging James Worthy just to say he is overrated gang. Say he is overrated by a few spots on some list... it might be true.

But a bunch of junk in this thread about him is just silly. GTFO with that junk. He was a star player at every level, won at every level and was on one of the best NBA teams of all time.

He was a fantastic defender. Great at face-guarding, something that's a lost art, but made the Lakers deadly on the glass, as well as deflating James rebound #s as an individual. Great at defending the break. Great in the post. Great D in a face up situation. Great rotation defender.

I would LOVE to see someone who is slagging James in this thread dig up a clip of one of his peers saying he was not a great defender. Anyone.
dude, we are not talking about the same james worthy. the guy who couldnt dribble with his left, dribbled with his head down, had no 3pt range, a mediocre jumpshot, was an average at best rebounder, and a terrible passer. not to mention he was mediocre at defefense. the way the lakers played made worthy what he was. a great great finisher. and going back to his defense, youd think he wouldve made at least 1 all D-team if he was as fantastic as you say.

james worthy was a classic case of being in the right place at the right time.

[97 bulls]

Pipp is a little overrated (I have my reasons and I'm sure you've seen them in other threads). Many posters have him underrated here though, I'll admit. Still, for the majority, knowledgeable posters (non trolls) place him anywhere from 20-28.

Anyway, the most overrated all time player(s) to me is a cross between Julius Erving and Jerry West. Dr. J was one of the most entertaining athletic players of all time, but when watching him offensively, he was pretty limited IMO. His midrange game was OK at best, while he heavily relied on his athleticism to score most of his buckets. I just feel he was one of the more least skilled players out of the top 15-20 (where most have him). Jerry West, exceptional guard, most have him #2/3 all time. But he was 1-8 during the Finals. Today he would be called soft and more than likely be ridiculed by the masses for being a choker.
i just dont see how he overrated. no one has put him in the top 10. he just wasnt a sidekick. or at his best he wasnt just a sidekick. people act like jordan was his body guard or something. and its sad when you see the constant post that have been put up that totally refute what has been said about him. things like he was soft or that he didnt show up in big games or that he couldnt win without jordan or he couldnt win as the "man" or he couldnt close out teams, he wasnt clutch etc. it been proven that he was capable of all these things. i just dont see how it can be said that he was overrated. hes underrated plain and simple.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pipp is a little overrated (I have my reasons and I'm sure you've seen them in other threads). Many posters have him underrated here though, I'll admit. Still, for the majority, knowledgeable posters (non trolls) place him anywhere from 20-28.

I haven't made a legit reply to the OP because I don't put that much stock in this "overrated" thing. The reason is there are always going to be differences in public opinion. Remember when Bush was at 25% in the polls? Even then he was still getting around 10% marks for performing "great." I don't want to get into the specifics of Bush. My point was that even a president at extremely low popularity had strong support from a segment of the population. The same thing applies in other areas of public opinion, including basketball players.

You made an interesting and very good point on his general rating. Practically everyone has him in that 20-28 bracket. Where do I have him? I am one of if not the biggest Pippen fan here, right? I have him 18-20. That is it. There are only two posters here who have him top 15, and one of them is robertshaw1 and the other is a poster who doesn't specifically elevate Pippen. The other poster is a guy who rates all players prior to the last 25 years or so low. Yeah, he has Scottie much higher than everyone else but he does the same with every other 90's and 00's player. So in the end there is only one poster here who vastly rates much higher than the most, robertshaw1. So where is all this overrating of him occurring? If anything, as your range suggests, the far stronger tendency is to underrate him (especially if they are...). I just gave you the only two people who have him that high on ISH. I can give you a handful of people who have him outside the top 30 or top 35--just from fans of a certain retired player alone! In a thread a while ago asking fans of a certain retired player to rate Pippen there were two who had him outside the top 50.


i just dont see how he overrated. no one has put him in the top 10. he just wasnt a sidekick. or at his best he wasnt just a sidekick. people act like jordan was his body guard or something. and its sad when you see the constant post that have been put up that totally refute what has been said about him. things like he was soft or that he didnt show up in big games or that he couldnt win without jordan or he couldnt win as the "man" or he couldnt close out teams, he wasnt clutch etc. it been proven that he was capable of all these things. i just dont see how it can be said that he was overrated. hes underrated plain and simple.

:applause:

The "sidekick" thing blinds a lot of people, which is sad since it has no relevance as to how good he was. If he played in Seattle instead of Chicago would that magically make him a better player? Besides, how can people make a statement like "He was never a superstar" or "never an elite player", "never capable of being a '#1 option'" etc.? I am not singling anyone out. Several people--yes, usually with one thing in common--have said things to this effect. That makes no sense. In his one full prime season without Jordan he was #1 in all-NBA voting (killed Malone and Barkle at the forward position), #1 in all-Defensive voting, and #3 in MVP voting. If he wasn't a superstar that means the only superstar palying basketball in 1994 was Hakeem. :hammerhead:

I think what catch24 was referring to was the handful of people who overrate him, but you see that with any player, especially one who is controversial like Pippen, although the controversy surrounding him today is mainly due to the efforts of a particular fan base to diminish him. You are right, though, 97. No one has him top 10 all-time, with two exceptions. No one has ever said he was as good let alone better than Jordan, although Jordan fans act as if Pippen was 1b on the all-time lists and a grave threat to Jordan's pedestal. They need to relax. Pippen has no relevance to Jordan's ranking. Whether Pippen is 17th, 37th, or 57th Jordan is still Jordan. Jordan does face a real threat to his pedestal, largely because in every sport the media gets tired and manufactures a new "clear GOAT" every 15-20 years, but that has zero to do with Pippen.



Anyway, the most overrated all time player(s) to me is a cross between Julius Erving and Jerry West. Dr. J was one of the most entertaining athletic players of all time, but when watching him offensively, he was pretty limited IMO. His midrange game was OK at best, while he heavily relied on his athleticism to score most of his buckets. I just feel he was one of the more least skilled players out of the top 15-20 (where most have him). Jerry West, exceptional guard, most have him #2/3 all time. But he was 1-8 during the Finals. Today he would be called soft and more than likely be ridiculed by the masses for being a choker.

In West's defense he did perform exceptionally well in the playoffs. I do agree, though, that if he played today he would be called a massive choker, kind of like Lebron was last year despite putting up 38/8/8 in the ECF. Baylor gets a pass on this regard too. His teammate Baylor is always top 15 all-time but he was 0-8 in the NBA finals and he did not have the legendary playoff performances that West had. West has a case for the GOAT playoff performer in terms of individual performance.

Baylor today: choker
Rick Barry today: cancer
Havelick today: couldn't keep a team afloat without another MVP caliber player on his team
Oscar: never won without Kareem, hence he sucked

And so on.

It is amusing how much more scrutinized today's legends generally are. There is only one guy who is above real scrutiny. :D

[Alhazred]

Yeah--since Pippen was not 100% for half of 97' (coming off of three injuries in 96' plus a lack of rest due to the Olympics). When Pippen got back to 100% he scored as much as Hill (21 ppg in the second half of the season on a 69 team with the #1 scorer in the L, not a 54 win team where he was the focal point of the offense like Hill) and when his rebounding and assists are put into context (Rodman taking away so many boards and the triangle) there was not much difference there. Then there is defense, half of basketball. :roll:

I wasn't comparing Scottie to Grant, just Hill's 1997 and 2000 performances. Sorry for not being more specific.

That said, 97 Hill against 97 Scottie? I guess I'd have to go with Scottie. Hill led a crummy team to 54 wins, but Scottie posted similar stats with a 69 win team and won his second consecutive ring.


I like Hill and always have but if the claims made about him then and now by some are accurate he would have led his team out of the first round at least once. The team card goes only so far. Hill in his prime played on a 54 win team and then on a 51 team in 99' (pace over 82 games). He had a 46 win team another year and got swept. Pippen had one full prime year without Jordan, won 55 games and was robbed of at least a trip to the ECF by Hue Hollins. Of course, just making it to the second round is more than Hill ever did. Then there is old, post-98' finals back injury Pippen leading the 00' Blazers to within 2 minutes of a ring, as ShaqAttack pointed out. That team was better than anything Hill ever had, though, but the 97' Pistons are comparable to the 94' Bulls, as their records suggest (55 wins vs. 54).

I don't think it was a matter of whether or not he could lead a team to success. I think if you put Grant Hill on any of the Magic or Bulls teams from the 90s he would most likely have a ring(s). Scottie also joined an up-and-coming team when he entered the league, Grant joined a 20 win Pistons club that was still recouping from the end of the "Bad Boys" era. Seems like an unfair comparison, imo.


As for the 97 Pistons and 94 Bulls being similar, I disagree. Yes, their records were similar, but then again the 2007 Mavs had the same record as the 2000 Lakers. I doubt many people would say the Mavs could beat them. The Bulls had prime Grant, Pippen and Armstrong along with Kukoc off the bench while Grant's two best teammates in 1997 were over-the-hill Otis Thorpe and Joe Dumars. Doug Collins was also an alright, but ultimately inferior coach to Phil Jackson. If we were to have the two teams matchup, I'd have to pick Chicago as the heavy favorite.

[crisoner]

I think Bobby Sura was overrated.

[Manute for Ever!]

Can you please refrain from quoting Manute until he learns to make a substantive post on the topic at hand? All his posts are directly or indirectly related to the tendencies of other posters, and even there his analysis often is lacking. For instance, for one who is in so many Pippen threads and loves to gawk at posters' tendencies he still hasn't figured out the one thing 90% of Pippen's detractors here have in common. Wow. :roll:

I actually did make several valid post in some of your other Pippen threads last week and got pigeon-holed by you as a "Jordan stan". This coupled with the novels you continuously write where you completely disregard totally rational points made by others brought me to the conclusion that you are an argumentative moron who is deluded by his blind homerism and isn't going to even consider what is written, so it isn't worth my effort.

[pierce2008mvp]

Scottie Pippen easily. How many guys are considered top 25 all time that don't have a season or finals mvp?

That should tell you.

[97 bulls]

Scottie Pippen easily. How many guys are considered top 25 all time that don't have a season or finals mvp?

That should tell you.
but thats not fair to say. take for instance kobe, it took him 6 years to get the 2. pip only had 1 year in his prime to achieve those and he was damn close too.

[Desperado]

5 season below.500, missed the playoffs twice and never made it past the first round without another hall of famer by his side.

Over Rated! ....you know who :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

5 season below.500, missed the playoffs twice and never made it past the first round without another hall of famer by his side.

Over Rated! ....you know who :oldlol:
who are you talking about?

[Alhazred]

Scottie Pippen easily. How many guys are considered top 25 all time that don't have a season or finals mvp?

That should tell you.

Elgin Baylor? :confusedshrug:

[Desperado]

who are you talking about?


how many 'all-time greats' had 5 seasons below .500?

[Lebron23]

how many 'all-time greats' had 5 seasons below .500?


But 6x NBA Finals MVP. 5x NBA Regular Season MVP, >>> 1x NBA MVP, 1x NBA Finals MVP.

[Desperado]

But 6x NBA Finals MVP. 5x NBA Regular Season MVP, >>> 1x NBA MVP, 1x NBA Finals MVP.






But 11 rings and 5 MVPs >>> 6 Rings and 5 MVPs

[Alhazred]

5 season below.500, missed the playoffs twice and never made it past the first round without another hall of famer by his side.

Over Rated! ....you know who :oldlol:

How many times have Wilt, Russell, Bird and Magic done that? :confusedshrug:

[Dave3]

How many times have Wilt, Russell, Bird and Magic done that? :confusedshrug:
:roll: owned.

[Roundball_Rock]

Scottie Pippen easily. How many guys are considered top 25 all time that don't have a season or finals mvp?

That should tell you.

:roll: Let's use Simmons' list. Before we do that, though, can you please credit me when pasting my posts on another site using another name (JordansBulls over there, aka Duncan21mvp and pierce2008mvp here)? http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=970470&sid=50e05114faf6c86e08c7acbc440984dc

11. Shaq
12. Moses
13. Havlicek
14. Baylor
15. Kobe
16. Dr J
17. Pettit
18. Karl Malone
19. Barkley
20. LeBron
21. Cousy
22. Garnett
23. Isiah
24. Pippen
25. Stockton

(note: Simmons moved Kobe up to 9th after he won the championship last year)

Pippen had one full prime season without Jordan and he finished #1 in all-NBA, #1 in all-D and #3 in MVP voting. He likely would have been FMVP in 98' if he did not get injured.


who are you talking about?

Jordan. :oldlol:


how many 'all-time greats' had 5 seasons below .500?

Definitely not Scottie. :rockon:


How many times have Wilt, Russell, Bird and Magic done that?

Bird, Magic, and Russell never had losing seasons. Wilt may have had 1--I don't feel like looking it up--but he definitely did not have 5 of them.

[Alhazred]

Bird, Magic, and Russell never had losing seasons. Wilt may have had 1--I don't feel like looking it up--but he definitely did not have 5 of them.

I was only referring to the bolded part in my post.

[jlauber]

Wilt played on one sub-500 team in his 14 year career...and all he did that year was lead the league in scoring at 44.8 (the second greatest season in NBA history BTW), led the league in rebounding, at 24.3 rpg, set a new FG% mark of .528 (that he would shatter several more times over), led the league in minutes by a wide margin at 47.6 mpg, led the league in win shares at 20.9 (on a losing team), and had a player efficiency rating of 31.8 which is the highest rated season in NBA history...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_season.html

[04mzwach]

Which legendary players do you think tend to get overrated.

Pete Maravich - No team success. Turnover machine. I don't think he deserved to be in the top 50 players of all time list.

Julius Erving - Helped the NBA become a popular sport, but had weaknesses as a player. Not a good shooter. Bad defender. Never won a title as the #1 guy.

Oscar Robertson - I notice that Oscar Robertson tends to get highly overrated by the casual fans. Some casuals put him in the top 5 players of all time list, which I think it ludicrous. He didn't have much team success and some teammates hated to play with him.

James Worthy - One of my favorite players ever, but I'll be the first to admit he is slightly overrated. Would James Worthy be remembered as another Mark Aguirre if he played for an average team throughout his career?

Elvin Hayes - Great example of how stats don't tell the whole story. His numbers were amazing, but he had an act of disappearing in clutch moments & was considered a bad teammate.

Reggie Miller - I've seen some rank him as a top 5 SG all-time. He was a one dimensional player
:wtf: :eek: :cry:

[ILLsmak]

6 time champion? far from the record......5 league MVPs? also not the record


10 scoring titles? Jordan was a ball hog he led the league in FGA's a record nine times!



Jordan was overrated by the media to make money for corporate America!

No matter what your personal opinion is (I will say mine: I don't believe Jordan is the GOAT...), there is no basis to argue that he isn't the GOAT. It's just an opinion. I'd say there has never been a player who had 2 three peats and won finals MVP every time.

You make yourself look like a d-bag when you call MJ overrated. He IS overrated to GOD status by a lot of basketball fans, but nonetheless... it's a losing argument.

One more thing, to the person who said Stockton was overrated... really? I personally believe he was one of the best PGs ever. He gave you EVERYTHING you could want from a PG. Good defense, great passing with few turnovers, and the ability to make open shots (clutch ones, too.) He didn't win a ring, but as a PG how can you blame that on him?

-Smak

[Roundball_Rock]

Scottie Pippen easily. How many guys are considered top 25 all time that don't have a season or finals mvp?

That should tell you.

That was answered earlier but let's pose another question, JordansBulls/duncan21mvp/pierce2008mvp since you are a bitter Jordan fan: How many guys are top 40 all-time who had 5 losing seasons?


I was only referring to the bolded part in my post.

Hmm...
JordansBulls wrote: Here is his top 10.

Bill Simmons' top 10 players in NBA History

10. Hakeem Olajuwon
09. Oscar Robertson
08. Jerry West
07. Tim Duncan
06. Wilt Chamberlain
05. Larry Bird
04. Magic Johnson
03. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
02. Bill Russell
01. Michael Jordan

11. Shaq
12. Moses
13. Havlicek
14. Baylor
15. Kobe
16. Dr J
17. Pettit
18. Karl Malone
19. Barkley
20. LeBron
21. Cousy
22. Garnett
23. Isiah
24. Pippen
25. Stockton
26. Barry
27. The Admiral
28. Walton
29. Iverson
30. Reed
31. Cowens
32. Frazier
33. Sam Jones
34. Gervin
35. McHale
36. Mikan
37. Dirk
38. Nash
39. Ewing
40. Payton

How many of these players had 5 or more losing seasons? Funny how everyone's record is scrutinized yet Jordan gets a pass for this. Glancing at the list Robertson, Gervin, and a perennially injured Walton are the only ones who might beat him. I can't see anyone other than Oscar in the top 25 coming close to 5 losing seasons--except the "greatest of all-time." :wtf:


I'd say there has never been a player who had 2 three peats and won finals MVP every time.


Russell won 8 straight, 11 total. Is it his fault the FMVP did not exist back then (nor did DPOY and all-D teams only existed for one season of his career)? Why do you think it is called the Bill Russell award, not the Michael Jordan award?

[ILLsmak]

Russell won 8 straight, 11 total. Is it his fault the FMVP did not exist back then (nor did DPOY and all-D teams only existed for one season of his career)? Why do you think it is called the Bill Russell award, not the Michael Jordan award?


The same reason that the logo is Jerry West and not MJ. lol.

I know what Bill Russell did... but you do realize that there were only like 8 teams in the NBA then, right? I believe naming Bill in a GOAT discussion is nearly as asinine as naming George Mikan in a greatest center of all time discussion.

Cross-era comparisons are really skewed to begin with, but this is a no brainer. Winning 6 titles on two 3 peats in the 'modern era' trumps 11 in 13 years...

-Smak

[OrlandoAnderson]

Jason Kidd - yea he's got a high basketball IQ and yea he was a great passer, But seriously ranked in the top 30 basketballers of all time - i don't think so.
Among the players below him are Kevin Garnett, Willis Reed, Patrick Ewing ,S. Nash, payton , iverson. All of these players above would take a well seasoned steamy dump on J.Kidds chest when it comes to hoops. Da kid is overated.

[Big#50]

What kind of dumb argument is that? "Cant win unless he has a stacked team"?

Who besides Hakeem Olajuwon and Rick Barry have won a championship without a stacked team?...

Honestly there will never be a verdict on whether a player like Kobe Bryant is overrated or underrated.....There are so many people that hate him, that they underrate and underappreciate what he has done in his career and how talented this guy is....And then he has some homers, such as the creep Elie Sechbach who overrate him and prop him up to unmeasurable heights.

I honestly think Kobe is more underrapreciated than overrated. For every moronic Kobe homer who props him up, there are about 20 idiots who pretend as if Kobe is not one of the most talented players to ever play.

Be aware that I am not referring to you, I just disagreed with the first part of your comment.
Tim Duncan.

[JohnnySic]

Bill Simmons' top 10 players in NBA History

10. Hakeem Olajuwon
09. Oscar Robertson
08. Jerry West
07. Tim Duncan
06. Wilt Chamberlain
05. Larry Bird
04. Magic Johnson
03. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
02. Bill Russell
01. Michael Jordan
TD over Hakeem eh? :rolleyes:

Bill Simmons is a clod, even if he is a Boston guy. I never liked his stuff.

[pierce2008mvp]

5 season below.500, missed the playoffs twice and never made it past the first round without another hall of famer by his side.

Over Rated! ....you know who :oldlol:

I didn't know Pippen was a Hall of Famer in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991.

How many guys have won multiple titles without having an allstar that year?

I believe Jordan is the only one to do so in 1991 and 1998.

How many times has Phil Jackson lost in the 1st round and with HCA? Oh yeah, that is something that only happened with Kobe on the team.

[pierce2008mvp]

That was answered earlier but let's pose another question, JordansBulls/duncan21mvp/pierce2008mvp since you are a bitter Jordan fan: How many guys are top 40 all-time who had 5 losing seasons?



Hmm...
JordansBulls wrote: Here is his top 10.

Bill Simmons' top 10 players in NBA History

10. Hakeem Olajuwon
09. Oscar Robertson
08. Jerry West
07. Tim Duncan
06. Wilt Chamberlain
05. Larry Bird
04. Magic Johnson
03. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
02. Bill Russell
01. Michael Jordan

11. Shaq
12. Moses
13. Havlicek
14. Baylor
15. Kobe
16. Dr J
17. Pettit
18. Karl Malone
19. Barkley
20. LeBron
21. Cousy
22. Garnett
23. Isiah
24. Pippen
25. Stockton
26. Barry
27. The Admiral
28. Walton
29. Iverson
30. Reed
31. Cowens
32. Frazier
33. Sam Jones
34. Gervin
35. McHale
36. Mikan
37. Dirk
38. Nash
39. Ewing
40. Payton

How many of these players had 5 or more losing seasons? Funny how everyone's record is scrutinized yet Jordan gets a pass for this. Glancing at the list Robertson, Gervin, and a perennially injured Walton are the only ones who might beat him. I can't see anyone other than Oscar in the top 25 coming close to 5 losing seasons--except the "greatest of all-time." :wtf:



Russell won 8 straight, 11 total. Is it his fault the FMVP did not exist back then (nor did DPOY and all-D teams only existed for one season of his career)? Why do you think it is called the Bill Russell award, not the Michael Jordan award?

And yet, Jordan is the only one of the group to never lose a series with the SAME or BETTER Record.

Oh and Jordan was 2nd in Win Shares as a rookie and PER, while Bird was 1st, and Jordan was 1st in PER in 1987 and Win Shares. Meaning no one else in the league would have done better than him on those Bulls.

[momo]

dude, we are not talking about the same james worthy. the guy who couldnt dribble with his left, dribbled with his head down, had no 3pt range, a mediocre jumpshot, was an average at best rebounder, and a terrible passer. not to mention he was mediocre at defefense. the way the lakers played made worthy what he was. a great great finisher. and going back to his defense, youd think he wouldve made at least 1 all D-team if he was as fantastic as you say.

james worthy was a classic case of being in the right place at the right time.

:roll:

Yea, right at the #1 pick in the draft, right @ North Carolina, right in the rafters in the staples center.

[JohnnySic]

LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Shaq, Kevin Garnett, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Bosh, Carmelo Anthony, Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Amare Stoudamire, Kevin Durant, Pau Gasol, Joe Johnson, Brandon Roy, Carlos Boozer, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, Ray Allen, Deron Williams.

Question: What do the above players have in common?

Answer: Every one is, was, or (worst case for a few) has the potential to be beter than James Worthy.

You read that correct: 24 current players are arguably (in most cases, innarguably) better than the fraudulent top-50 player.

Its enough to make you want to puke blood.

[Alhazred]

Hmm...
JordansBulls wrote: Here is his top 10.

Bill Simmons' top 10 players in NBA History

10. Hakeem Olajuwon
09. Oscar Robertson
08. Jerry West
07. Tim Duncan
06. Wilt Chamberlain
05. Larry Bird
04. Magic Johnson
03. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
02. Bill Russell
01. Michael Jordan

11. Shaq
12. Moses
13. Havlicek
14. Baylor
15. Kobe
16. Dr J
17. Pettit
18. Karl Malone
19. Barkley
20. LeBron
21. Cousy
22. Garnett
23. Isiah
24. Pippen
25. Stockton
26. Barry
27. The Admiral
28. Walton
29. Iverson
30. Reed
31. Cowens
32. Frazier
33. Sam Jones
34. Gervin
35. McHale
36. Mikan
37. Dirk
38. Nash
39. Ewing
40. Payton

How many of these players had 5 or more losing seasons? Funny how everyone's record is scrutinized yet Jordan gets a pass for this. Glancing at the list Robertson, Gervin, and a perennially injured Walton are the only ones who might beat him. I can't see anyone other than Oscar in the top 25 coming close to 5 losing seasons--except the "greatest of all-time." :wtf:


Jordan was ancient for two seasons with Washington and their record with him in the lineup the first year was 30-30. So that's four losing seasons, one as an old man on the Wizards, the other three on sub-par Bulls teams, one year he wasn't even healthy and played in only 18 games(1986). In other words, MJ only had two losing seasons in his prime when healthy.

And despite all of that, he only missed the playoffs twice, both times in Washington when he was way past his prime.

[magnax1]

Magic-I can't see why hes so great. Obviously a top 15 all time player, but individually there are a couple point guards I'd rather have. Do the Pistons win if you switch Magic whith Isiah? I think not. (Look at the teams comparitively talent wise when they played eachother. (Magic had three players that were top 10. Isiah may have had two) in their positionsDid he do as much for his team as prime Stockton or Roberston? I don't think so. He was just lucky enough to play with, Kareem, Worthy, Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, Bob Mcadoo, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper and Vlade Divacs who were all all stars whith or whithout him.
Duncan-Definitely great, but he didn't dominate the game like most top 20 players. He was a consistant 25-12 in his prime in the playoffs, and he made all his teams defensively. But I can't say he ever dominated the game like other players people stick in their top 10s.
Hakeem-Hes not the greatest defensive player ever. Hes not a top 10 offensive player. And he did not carry a bunch of scrubs to the finals.

[Psileas]

Magic-I can't see why hes so great. Obviously a top 15 all time player, but individually there are a couple point guards I'd rather have. Do the Pistons win if you switch Magic whith Isiah? I think not. Did he do as much for his team as prime Stockton or Roberston? I don't think so. He was just lucky enough to play with, Kareem, Worthy, Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, Bob Mcadoo, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper and Vlade Divacs who were all all stars whith or whithout him.

1) Scott, Cooper, Divac weren't all-stars even with Magic, let alone without him. Divac got lucky once in the early 00's and got 9 minutes of play, that's all.
2) If you can't see why he's so great, how can you see that his teammates were?
3) If you can't see why he's so great, what exactly made Stockton and Isiah great? That they won 2 titles combined because they played with worse teams? Their clearly inferior stats? Did they elevate their teammates more?

[magnax1]

1) Scott, Cooper, Divac weren't all-stars even with Magic, let alone without him. Divac got lucky once in the early 00's and got 9 minutes of play, that's all.
2) If you can't see why he's so great, how can you see that his teammates were?
3) If you can't see why he's so great, what exactly made Stockton and Isiah great? That they won 2 titles combined because they played with worse teams? Their clearly inferior stats? Did they elevate their teammates more?
1-They were all star level, I didn't look up if they were all stars or not
2-He was great, but greatest point guard ever? Not really. Like I said, you switch him with some other great point guards, and now everybody else thinks they're the greatest.
3-Statistically infererior? so 23-12-6 with 4 turnovers on 52% shooting is so much better then
21-14 with 2 steals on 46% and 4 turnovers?
17-14.5 on 53% with 42% 3p 3.5 turnovers and 3 steals?
30-12-11?
Not in my mind, especially when you consider they were all much much much better on the defensive end of the floor. When Magic was winning his MVP's he couldn't have been much better then Steve Nash on defense. I don't think Oscar (they probably didn't have defensive teams back then) or Isiah were on all defensive teams. I think Stockton was on a couple.

[Dasher]

:wtf: :eek: :cry:I thought he along with Dave Debusschere were the two most undeserving member of The 50th anniversary team. Nique was the greatest "Atlanta" Hawk of all time, and he missed getting on the team for the fanboy favorite Pete Maravich.

[Psileas]

1-They were all star level, I didn't look up if they were all stars or not

So were
a) Malone-Hornacek-Eaton-Griffith
b) Dumars-Laimbeer-Rodman-Dantley-Aguirre


2-He was great, but greatest point guard ever? Not really. Like I said, you switch him with some other great point guards, and now everybody else thinks they're the greatest.

That's a clearly hypothetical argument which has no explanation and therefore no reason to be taken really seriously. I can make a lot of these as well, like Bird or Jordan not winning anything if they were replacing Dominique for Atlanta.


3-Statistically infererior? so 23-12-6 with 4 turnovers on 52% shooting is so much better then
21-14 with 2 steals on 46% and 4 turnovers?
17-14.5 on 53% with 42% 3p 3.5 turnovers and 3 steals?
30-12-11?

Magic put up all-time great numbers on a clearly more consistent basis than Stockton and, even more, Isiah. Isiah went off for 1 season, also posted some very good numbers for 2-3 more, which is not much better than what Tiny Archibald did (and no-one considers Archibald to be even a candidate for GOAT PG). These though were the seasons when Isiah was leading his teams to early playoff exits. Once his teams got stronger, he stopped getting the numbers he did. Magic was getting 20-7-12 types of numbers throughout his whole career. Even Isiah's prime numbers aren't any better, since his scoring efficiency was well below Magic's, his rebounding was out of Magic's league and he managed to out-assist him only once. Stockton? His scoring and rebounding by themselves put him clearly below, and I won't mention titles and accolades. Oscar is the only PG who can compare to Magic statistically, but his team record puts him below Magic-it's not just that he wasn't winning titles as "The Man", but he generally had the least playoff success among all the superstars of his day-Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor, Pettit. I still rank him in the top-10 players ever, but below Magic.



Not in my mind, especially when you consider they were all much much much better on the defensive end of the floor. When Magic was winning his MVP's he couldn't have been much better then Steve Nash on defense. I don't think Oscar (they probably didn't have defensive teams back then) or Isiah were on all defensive teams. I think Stockton was on a couple.

Among these 3, no-one was "much much better" than Magic defensively. Let me use one argument that you did: Put Magic on the Bad Boys or even in Utah, with their low tempo game, with emphasis played on defense, with Eaton and Karl Malone inside. Would Magic be seen as the defender he used to when he was playing for the Lakers? I don't think so. For one, never once did I view Isiah as a better overall defender, period. I only saw him as dirtier. You couldn't trust him to seriously affect an opposing scoring threat defensively by himself. Stockton was a tough defender (though pretty dirty himself) and Magic certainly couldn't guard PG's as effectively, though neither Stockton could guard 6-7 forwards that Magic used to pretty often-can you imagine Stock trying to guard Dr.J? I'll give Stockton the upper hand defensively, but not to the point that he'll cover the large gap created by the factors I mentioned earlier. If his defense was at the level of Payton's, that would make it closer. Oscar was above average, but not an all-time great.

[magnax1]

a) Malone-Hornacek-Eaton-Griffith
b) Dumars-Laimbeer-Rodman-Dantley-Aguirre



That's a clearly hypothetical argument which has no explanation and therefore no reason to be taken really seriously. I can make a lot of these as well, like Bird or Jordan not winning anything if they were replacing Dominique for Atlanta.
I'm pretty sure Eaton and Griffith were retired by the time Hornacek got their, but Isiah definitely had talented teams, but not during his very best seasons, nor were they anywhere near as talented as Magics. Magic on the Pistons, or Jazz, or Kings/Royals and he doesn't win crap, because hes just plain worse, and was lucky enough to play in a conference where he consistantly only had to play against a 40 win team in the conference finals. If David THompson or BIll walton weren't injured/hopped up on coke, would he have reached 9 (?) straight conference finals?

I think you completely lost the point. Magic just isn't logically much better then many of these point guards everyone says he was better then. Much worse defender, and the only thing he has over Isiah is rebounding. Oscar and him were pretty equal, except for defense, and you could make a case against stockton, but I'd take him because of his passing and defense.


Magic put up all-time great numbers on a clearly more consistent basis than Stockton and, even more, Isiah. Isiah went off for 1 season, also posted some very good numbers for 2-3 more, which is not much better than what Tiny Archibald did (and no-one considers Archibald to be even a candidate for GOAT PG). These though were the seasons when Isiah was leading his teams to early playoff exits. Once his teams got stronger, he stopped getting the numbers he did. Magic was getting 20-7-12 types of numbers throughout his whole career. Even Isiah's prime numbers aren't any better, since his scoring efficiency was well below Magic's, his rebounding was out of Magic's league and he managed to out-assist him only once. Stockton? His scoring and rebounding by themselves put him clearly below, and I won't mention titles and accolades. Oscar is the only PG who can compare to Magic statistically, but his team record puts him below Magic-it's not just that he wasn't winning titles as "The Man", but he generally had the least playoff success among all the superstars of his day-Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor, Pettit. I still rank him in the top-10 players ever, but below Magic.
Archibald did it on an absoulutely terrible team and never averaged more then 25 points or 8 assists again. Isiah didn't have a good team during his prime, Magic did.

Among these 3, no-one was "much much better" than Magic defensively. Let me use one argument that you did: Put Magic on the Bad Boys or even in Utah, with their low tempo game, with emphasis played on defense, with Eaton and Karl Malone inside. Would Magic be seen as the defender he used to when he was playing for the Lakers? I don't think so. For one, never once did I view Isiah as a better overall defender, period. I only saw him as dirtier. You couldn't trust him to seriously affect an opposing scoring threat defensively by himself. Stockton was a tough defender (though pretty dirty himself) and Magic certainly couldn't guard PG's as effectively, though neither Stockton could guard 6-7 forwards that Magic used to pretty often-can you imagine Stock trying to guard Dr.J? I'll give Stockton the upper hand defensively, but not to the point that he'll cover the large gap created by the factors I mentioned earlier. If his defense was at the level of Payton's, that would make it closer. Oscar was above average, but not an all-time great.

Everyone was much better defensively. Magic was one of the worst all star defenders ever. Its not even debatable.
And does it matter if Isiah was dirtier? No, Malone was dirtier then Kemp, and thats why he was a better defender. Malone wasn't physically more talented (though Isiah was quite a bit quicker then Magic, so its a bit of a different comparison)
When magic did guard those forwards he was consistantly giving up 30+ points a game. This really isn't a logical debate. Magic was just plain terrible on defense. Thats probably the main reason I have him ranked so low. Most people use the same arguement on Nash vs. Chris paul or Williams. Nash is a much better passer, but he just plain sucks on D.

[JMT]

I'd be curious to see how many of those participating in this discussion ever saw, first hand, the players they consider themselves qualified to rate.

First, the structure of the league was dramatically different. Peopleargument about the number of championships a player won or didn't win. The NBA of those days was much more balanced than today's watered down version. Unlike today, all the players really belonged in the league, and had substantial background competing at a high level (not high school). Yes, Boston won all the time, but there were rules in place (ie territorial draft) that made the Celtics and Knicks near locks to get the top college players.

The game was much more physical. You'll see that shooting % are typically lower, for much the same reason that NFL QB of the day had lower completion %. EVERYBODY used their hands on defense.

On to some of the players mentioned:

Oscar Robertson would have been a dominant player, on both ends of the floor, in any era. Would he have averaged a triple-double? Don't know, don't care. He was an exceptional shooter, defender, and ball handler. Played on some bad teams, yet always had them competitive. Carried a franchise for years before they finally took pity and let him go to win one with Lew.

Pete Maravich was a tremendous NBA player. 2 x All NBA, 2 x All NBA second team. All Rookie Team. Screwed out of ROY honors by the players who voted for the award. One scoring title. 5 x All Star. Top 20 all time scoring average. 15,000+ points in ten years. During the couple years in Utah when he was healthy, it was generally acknowledged that he was the best player in the game. Absolutely indefensible.

Dr J? Had such an impact on the style of play and the business side of the game that it's hard to overstate. As a player, he made himself a more than adequate shooter and defender. But, even as a Philly fan, I could see that argument.

Worthy? No argument at all here. Smaller Amare Stoutemire, though he would and could defend.

Magic? Pure insanity. They're still waiting for another guy with his combination of size, skill set, and court smarts to come along. Keep waiting. For those comparing Isaiah or Stockton to Magic...well, they were all guards. That's about it.

[magnax1]

I just want to point out that the FG% in the 80's was much higher then it is today. If there is one thing you can't say about the 80's its that the defense was much better. 6 teams in 85 had a fg% of 50+. there are none today. There is one with 49% and in 85 there were 12.
Though this is a bit off because they shot a lot less 3's back then. A better way is to look at the offensive rating, which was a league average of 108 in 85. Today its 106.7

[Dasher]

Pete Maravich was a tremendous NBA player. 2 x All NBA, 2 x All NBA second team. All Rookie Team. Screwed out of ROY honors by the players who voted for the award. One scoring title. 5 x All Star. Top 20 all time scoring average. 15,000+ points in ten years. During the couple years in Utah when he was healthy, it was generally acknowledged that he was the best player in the game. Absolutely indefensible. LOL. The best player in the game was an untradeable perennial loser turnover machine? Get on with that mess.

[jlauber]

JMT,

I applaud your comments. Glad to see there are still a few of us out there that witnessed true greatness. For ANYONE to suggest that Magic is not among the greatest of all-time...sorry, but their opinion has no validity.

I am not a huge fan of Jordan, but I will acknowledge that he was one of the greatest who ever played. Whether you liked Magic, or not, his resume is near the top.