Underrated Postseason Performance - 1986 Kevin McHale [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

ShaqAttack3234

08-27-2012, 10:54 PM

1986 is the year people look at and say Bird turned into God mode, but his sidekick McHale was pretty damn good as well.

First Round vs Chicago (3 games)
28 PPG | 10 RPG | 4 APG | 3 BPG | 65 FG%

ECSF vs Atlanta (5 games)
24.5 PPG | 8 RPG | 3 APG | 1.2 BPG | 55 FG%
- Shut down Dominique Wilkins on defense

ECF vs Milwaukee (4 games)
21.5 PPG | 9 RPG | 2.5 APG | 3.3 BPG | 57 FG%

Finals vs Houston (6 games)
26 PPG | 8.5 RPG | 2 APG | 2.5 BPG | 57 FG%
- Outscored everyone in the Finals

Overall postseason numbers...
18 games - 25 PPG | 8.5 RPG | 2.7 APG | 2.4 BPG | 58 FG%

Has there ever been a better performance (besides Kobe) by a second option in the postseason?

Glad you mentioned him shutting down Nique. As Tom Heinsohn mentioned during the series, McHale was the perfect defender to guard Nique. Nique took a lot of wild shots in that series. On the other end, I have to mention how good Bird was that series, he humiliated Nique with some of his moves.

But back to McHale, I've often said that's possibly the best run by a second option outside of 2001 Kobe. He was pretty unstoppable throughout the playoffs, very consistent. I'd probably rank him as one of the 5 best post scorers of all time, his defense has been mentioned and I've seen '86 games where commentators mentioned his improved passing that year. I have seen him make some nice passes, and his reputation as a black hole is overstated. Aside from Bird, and how great of a passing team the '86 Celtics were, one of the reasons I love watching them is to see McHale go to work in the post. Whether it's the up and under or his turnaround jumper with such great touch.

I'd say that McHale was a top 5 player overall in both 1986 and 1987.

I can absolutely guarantee that someone will bitch about McHale's mediocre rebounding numbers and not take those numbers into context.

Before you dummies who take every stat for face value do, keep in mind that Mchale would often times guard the SF which would push him further away from the basket. As the OP addressed, McHale was the one guarding Dominique and shut him down.

It was why Bird's rebounding numbers were so high too because he played closer to the basket because he would often times defend the PF. Bird usually guarded the weaker forward/offensive player but it's not like he was just taking a break on that end like what Kobe has been doing for the past 3-4 years. He was a terrific help defender and it was better for the Celtics overall that they had Mchale man up on the opposing team's best offensive forward and have Bird guard the weaker one so they can both utilize their best strength defensively.

Mchale's best strength defensively was post-defense, man-defense, Bird's best strength defensively was help-defense. It was a perfect strategy.

Good post, I agree with everything. There aren't many rebounds available when you have Parish, McHale, Walton off the bench and arguably the greatest rebounding small forward Bird(though as you mentioned he was effectively a power forward a lot of times defensively). Actually, Bird's position comes into play more with offensive rebounds. He was often taking a shot, especially from the perimeter, so he wasn't in position that much, but he had phenomenal technique and timing for offensive rebounds that doesn't show in his numbers.

He was beasting in the 85 Finals too, iirc. They lost, but still...

Yeah, in the games, the commentators mention that McHale would probably be the finals MVP if the Celtics won. This was largely due to Bird dealing with several injuries, but McHale was still playing extremely well.

1987_Lakers

08-27-2012, 11:23 PM

He was beasting in the 85 Finals too, iirc. They lost, but still...

Lakers never had an answer for McHale just like the Celtics never had an answer for Worthy.

Round Mound

08-27-2012, 11:34 PM

McHale The Post Move Arquitect :bowdown:

1987_Lakers

08-27-2012, 11:34 PM

Glad you mentioned him shutting down Nique. As Tom Heinsohn mentioned during the series, McHale was the perfect defender to guard Nique. Nique took a lot of wild shots in that series. On the other end, I have to mention how good Bird was that series, he humiliated Nique with some of his moves.

But back to McHale, I've often said that's possibly the best run by a second option outside of 2001 Kobe. He was pretty unstoppable throughout the playoffs, very consistent. I'd probably rank him as one of the 5 best post scorers of all time, his defense has been mentioned and I've seen '86 games where commentators mentioned his improved passing that year. I have seen him make some nice passes, and his reputation as a black hole is overstated. Aside from Bird, and how great of a passing team the '86 Celtics were, one of the reasons I love watching them is to see McHale go to work in the post. Whether it's the up and under or his turnaround jumper with such great touch.

McHale has always been an underrated rebounder & as you said people overdue him being a black hole. You could call him a black hole from '81-'85, but not during that '86 season, from what I've seen of him during that '86 season he was a capable passer, he knew how to pass out of double teams and he made nice passes every know and then.

McHale was also a decent rebounder. Averaged 9 rpg in '85 (out-rebounded everyone in that '85 Finals), he fell to 8 rpg in '86, but that had alot to do with the addition of Bill Walton, he averaged 10 rpg the next season in '87. If McHale is your 4th best rebounder on the team (as he was in '86), you are in great shape.

Shep

08-28-2012, 09:20 AM

gasol in 2010
robinson in 1999
pippen in 1998, 1996, 1992, and ofcourse 1991

and this was only from 1986 onwards

JohnnySic

08-28-2012, 10:28 AM

McHale's rebound numbers were "low" because Parish and Bird were also gobbling up rebounds.

1987_Lakers

08-29-2012, 02:02 AM

gasol in 2010
robinson in 1999
pippen in 1998, 1996, 1992, and ofcourse 1991

and this was only from 1986 onwards

McHale > all of them

ShaqAttack3234

08-29-2012, 02:22 AM

gasol in 2010

First, I have to ask if you mean full seasons by a second option or just playoff runs?

I'm definitely not taking 2010 Gasol as a player or playoff run.

McHale didn't have a series nearly as weak as Gasol's series vs Phoenix and in generally he was pretty consistently more dominant round by round with a possible exception of their second rounds. McHale was great in every series except the ECF and he was still good. Gasol's only great series was the WCSF. He had a standout series vs OKC and it was the one series I'd say he was the Lakers MVP in.

As players, McHale had considerable advantages as a scorer and defender while Gasol was a better passer and rebounder.

I guess part of it comes down to personal preference, but it's not that difficult. McHale was at least a top 5 player, Gasol was a top 10 player.

robinson in 1999

:oldlol: His defense was still great, but as an overall player, he was still a step down from McHale.

pippen in 1998, 1996, 1992, and ofcourse 1991

Pippen never had a playoff run as good as McHale's in '86. If you're talking about as a player, well Pippen's '96 season as a 2nd option is up there and debatable. '92 and '97 wouldn't be far behind as well.

The only way '91 enters the discussion is if we're just talking about playoff runs.

Snoop_Cat

08-29-2012, 02:25 AM

An absolute monster in the post. On BOTH ends.

A lot of people know that he had a great post repertoire but I think his amazing post defense gets overlooked a ton - sadly, quite possibly because people assume he's some sickly looking white dude.

DirtySanchez

08-29-2012, 02:31 AM

But he rode birds coattails!

L.A. Jazz

08-29-2012, 12:45 PM

as Charles Barkley repeats every now and then, the best player he ever faced.

Micku

08-29-2012, 12:58 PM

McHale has always been an underrated rebounder & as you said people overdue him being a black hole. You could call him a black hole from '81-'85, but not during that '86 season, from what I've seen of him during that '86 season he was a capable passer, he knew how to pass out of double teams and he made nice passes every know and then.

McHale was also a decent rebounder. Averaged 9 rpg in '85 (out-rebounded everyone in that '85 Finals), he fell to 8 rpg in '86, but that had alot to do with the addition of Bill Walton, he averaged 10 rpg the next season in '87. If McHale is your 4th best rebounder on the team (as he was in '86), you are in great shape.

Exactly. He was a better passer that year. The commentators mentioned how he improved on that aspect. And out of everyone on the Celtics roster, I always hear coaches and players commented on how Mchale was either unguardable or just an extremely tough matchup. Gave the Lakers some trouble.

And Mchale was a great defender. As mention above, Mchale had the footwork to guard SF while Bird would guard the PFs. This is also another reason why he didn't get many rebounds too. Not to mention Parish, Bird and Walton were all great rebounders.

ShaqAttack3234

08-29-2012, 05:34 PM

McHale has always been an underrated rebounder & as you said people overdue him being a black hole. You could call him a black hole from '81-'85, but not during that '86 season, from what I've seen of him during that '86 season he was a capable passer, he knew how to pass out of double teams and he made nice passes every know and then.

His passing probably got even better late in his career around the early 90's too. But even earlier than that, certainly by '86, he was regularly making the right pass when he was doubled. Often back to DJ for an open jumper since DJ's man was often the double teamer.

McHale did have the ability to beat double teams with his moves too. And he would sometimes, but he wouldn't do it so often that it's hurt his teams, and he'd often pick the right times to do it, so he wouldn't get in trouble doing it too much and turning the ball over.

McHale was also a decent rebounder. Averaged 9 rpg in '85 (out-rebounded everyone in that '85 Finals), he fell to 8 rpg in '86, but that had alot to do with the addition of Bill Walton, he averaged 10 rpg the next season in '87. If McHale is your 4th best rebounder on the team (as he was in '86), you are in great shape.

McHale's offensive rebounding also impressed me too despite not having offensive rebounding numbers that really stood out.

Aside from Walton and Bird, he was playing with Robert Parish all those years. It's easy to forget how good Parish still was those years. When Bird was out for the '89 season, Parish averaged 18.6 ppg and 12.5 rpg on 57% shooting at 35 years old.

1987_Lakers

08-31-2012, 01:32 AM

as Charles Barkley repeats every now and then, the best player he ever faced.
:applause:

Shep

09-01-2012, 04:40 AM

First, I have to ask if you mean full seasons by a second option or just playoff runs?
what is this thread about? playoff performance

I'm definitely not taking 2010 Gasol as a player or playoff run.
i am taking 2010 gasol as a player and playoff run

McHale didn't have a series nearly as weak as Gasol's series vs Phoenix and in generally he was pretty consistently more dominant round by round with a possible exception of their second rounds. McHale was great in every series except the ECF and he was still good. Gasol's only great series was the WCSF. He had a standout series vs OKC and it was the one series I'd say he was the Lakers MVP in.
i'm not going to go into who was the better player series by series. but if you want to argue about stats, which you always like doing, i will bring pace into the argument, and therefore will destroy anything you have got. in any case, bird was the celtics best player by a large margin, bryant was the lakers best player by a very small margin. mchale didn't even step up the second most out of all celtics players, danny ainge did.

As players, McHale had considerable advantages as a scorer and defender while Gasol was a better passer and rebounder.

I guess part of it comes down to personal preference, but it's not that difficult. McHale was at least a top 5 player, Gasol was a top 10 player.
no, its quite an easy decision. gasol was a top 3 player, mchale was a top 4 player.

His defense was still great, but as an overall player, he was still a step down from McHale.
i have robinson easily better than mchale, and gasol for that matter. top 2 in the league.

Pippen never had a playoff run as good as McHale's in '86.
ofcourse you mean besides 1998, 1996, 1992, and 1991

RoundMoundOfReb

09-01-2012, 07:50 AM

One of the most skilled post players ever. Very underrated IMO.

ShaqAttack3234

09-01-2012, 03:28 PM

Forgot to mention it earlier, but other great playoff runs by 2nd options were Magic in '82 and '85 and Worthy in '87 and '88. Magic was arguably the best player on the '85 Lakers, but still no more than the 2nd option, technically more like the 3rd option as a scorer behind Worthy, but still one of the Lakers top 2 offensive players. Kareem when the game slows down and Magic when the team ran.

what is this thread about? playoff performance

Well, some of the names you threw out were so far off in playoff runs I had to ask.

i'm not going to go into who was the better player series by series. but if you want to argue about stats, which you always like doing, i will bring pace into the argument, and therefore will destroy anything you have got. in any case, bird was the celtics best player by a large margin, bryant was the lakers best player by a very small margin. mchale didn't even step up the second most out of all celtics players, danny ainge did.

I didn't bring up stats once, I'll leave that to you. And I don't have to speculate about pace either, I've seen pretty much the entire playoff run. What made McHale great was his half court game. If you put '86 McHale in a time machine and he comes out 24 years later, that post game is still going to be there making opposing big men look stupid. His defense will still be there as well. The 2 greatest things about McHale's game should be completely unaffected by a slower pace. Robert Parish was the big man who ran the floor the best on that team, which isn't to say he'd be less effective either, but at least there's some logic to taking away from his game because of pace. But McHale? :roll:

no, its quite an easy decision. gasol was a top 3 player, mchale was a top 4 player.

McHale probably was top 4. Gasol at top 3 is just comedy, though. Closer to top 10.

i have robinson easily better than mchale, and gasol for that matter. top 2 in the league.

:roll: He was about top 11, and just a top 3 center.

ofcourse you mean besides 1998, 1996, 1992, and 1991

:oldlol: at '96 especially. Pippen was noticeably limited by injuries, and the only series he played very well in were the 1st round and ECF.

97 bulls

09-01-2012, 06:10 PM

ShaqAttack3234

09-01-2012, 09:20 PM

Scottie Pippen

22/9/6/3/1 on 50%. Led the playoffs in defensive rating and defensive win shares.

Defensive rating for individuals is garbage, just based on estimate with nothing that actually makes sense used to form that estimate.

Defensive win shares are also complete shit.

All you really need to post is the 22/9/6/3/1, 50% if you're using stats.

Win shares and defensive rating/offensive rating for individuals(it's the best defensive stat for teams, though) are things I can't understand why anyone would use them.

Jordan was still the Bulls best perimeter defender at that point anyway.

It was a great playoff run, and in the second half of the '91 season and playoffs Pippen really took his game to another level.

Though Pippen improved noticeably in the '92 season and probably went up a tier as a player.

I think his '92 playoff run was more impressive than '91 since the competition was better to me, they were challenged more and he played at a higher level to me outside of the Knicks series when he was outplayed by Xavier McDaniel. But I also see '91 Pippen struggling against that Knick team.

97 bulls

09-01-2012, 11:03 PM

Defensive rating for individuals is garbage, just based on estimate with nothing that actually makes sense used to form that estimate.

Defensive win shares are also complete shit.

All you really need to post is the 22/9/6/3/1, 50% if you're using stats.

Win shares and defensive rating/offensive rating for individuals(it's the best defensive stat for teams, though) are things I can't understand why anyone would use them.

Jordan was still the Bulls best perimeter defender at that point anyway.

It was a great playoff run, and in the second half of the '91 season and playoffs Pippen really took his game to another level.

Though Pippen improved noticeably in the '92 season and probably went up a tier as a player.

I think his '92 playoff run was more impressive than '91 since the competition was better to me, they were challenged more and he played at a higher level to me outside of the Knicks series when he was outplayed by Xavier McDaniel. But I also see '91 Pippen struggling against that Knick team.
I just cant see how the 92 was better. Pips stats were better, and the they closed down two dynasties. And he had three memorable games.

As I remeber the 92 series vs the Knicks. The Knicks gameplan was to zone in on Pippen. They took a page out of the Pistons book but instead of trying to bully Jordan, they went after Pippen.

ShaqAttack3234

09-01-2012, 11:26 PM

I just cant see how the 92 was better. Pips stats were better, and the they closed down two dynasties. And he had three memorable games.

Only real difference in stats is scoring dropping from 22 ppg to 20 ppg and shooting % dropping a bit, rebounds stayed the same and assists went up 1 per game. Plus, he maintained that in 22 games. And that's primarily due to Pippen having to play 7 games against the Knicks who were a better defensive team than anyone they faced in '91.

More than that, Pippen was a better player by '92 and just impressed me more when I watched him since his jump shot was noticeably improved, he was in a bigger more as a playmaker, really becoming the Bulls point forward in '92 and his defense was noticeably improved to me.

Granted some of those are more arguments for Pippen being a better player in '92 than '91 as opposed to an argument for his playoff run, but Pippen having a bigger role as their primary ball-handler in '92 was an advantage for '92 Pippen's playoff run as well as his defense being better, he was already a great defender in '91, but I thought he was more disruptive in '92.

Also, unlike '91, I'd say Pippen had a case for series MVP in the '92 ECF. His '92 finals was more impressive than '91 as well, and Pippen was pretty incredible in closeout games in every round of the '92 playoffs.

I still think the '91 Bulls would have won the finals, but it's worth noting that Worthy got injured in game 6 of the WCF and Byron Scott was also injured in the finals. The Lakers weren't really a dynasty anymore either since they hadn't won a championship since '88.

And the Pistons had declined quite a bit in '91 winning just 50 games so this wasn't really the championship Pistons. You can say that they were just 1 year removed from a title, but the year after '91, they were eliminated in the first round the next season by the Knicks. And that '92 team was closer in wins to the '91 team than the 90 team was, Isiah was healthy in '92 unlike '91, they added Orlando Woolridge(but lost a key player in James Edwards) and Rodman had a career year.

Round by round, the competition in '92 was more impressive to me than '91.

Shep

09-02-2012, 12:23 AM

Well, some of the names you threw out were so far off in playoff runs I had to ask.
:roll: all of the names i threw up were the correct answers

I didn't bring up stats once, I'll leave that to you. And I don't have to speculate about pace either, I've seen pretty much the entire playoff run. What made McHale great was his half court game. If you put '86 McHale in a time machine and he comes out 24 years later, that post game is still going to be there making opposing big men look stupid. His defense will still be there as well. The 2 greatest things about McHale's game should be completely unaffected by a slower pace. Robert Parish was the big man who ran the floor the best on that team, which isn't to say he'd be less effective either, but at least there's some logic to taking away from his game because of pace. But McHale?
ofcourse his game would hold up, nobody will argue that. but there will be less possessions, which is common sense, making his ppg, alot closer to gasol's, and pathetic rpg average more glaring.

McHale probably was top 4. Gasol at top 3 is just comedy, though. Closer to top 10.
he was closer to the 10th best player dirk nowitzki than the best player lebron james. but he was very close to the second best player kobe bryant, infact just n the regular season they were almost inseparable.

He was about top 11, and just a top 3 center.
:roll: nobody was close to him as the second best player in the league let alone the center spot

at '96 especially. Pippen was noticeably limited by injuries, and the only series he played very well in were the 1st round and ECF.
:hammerhead: pippen outplayed the best player in the nba in teammate michael jordan in those playoffs

97 bulls

09-02-2012, 12:27 AM

Only real difference in stats is scoring dropping from 22 ppg to 20 ppg and shooting % dropping a bit, rebounds stayed the same and assists went up 1 per game. Plus, he maintained that in 22 games. And that's primarily due to Pippen having to play 7 games against the Knicks who were a better defensive team than anyone they faced in '91.

More than that, Pippen was a better player by '92 and just impressed me more when I watched him since his jump shot was noticeably improved, he was in a bigger more as a playmaker, really becoming the Bulls point forward in '92 and his defense was noticeably improved to me.

Granted some of those are more arguments for Pippen being a better player in '92 than '91 as opposed to an argument for his playoff run, but Pippen having a bigger role as their primary ball-handler in '92 was an advantage for '92 Pippen's playoff run as well as his defense being better, he was already a great defender in '91, but I thought he was more disruptive in '92.

Also, unlike '91, I'd say Pippen had a case for series MVP in the '92 ECF. His '92 finals was more impressive than '91 as well, and Pippen was pretty incredible in closeout games in every round of the '92 playoffs.

I still think the '91 Bulls would have won the finals, but it's worth noting that Worthy got injured in game 6 of the WCF and Byron Scott was also injured in the finals. The Lakers weren't really a dynasty anymore either since they hadn't won a championship since '88.

And the Pistons had declined quite a bit in '91 winning just 50 games so this wasn't really the championship Pistons. You can say that they were just 1 year removed from a title, but the year after '91, they were eliminated in the first round the next season by the Knicks. And that '92 team was closer in wins to the '91 team than the 90 team was, Isiah was healthy in '92 unlike '91, they added Orlando Woolridge(but lost a key player in James Edwards) and Rodman had a career year.

Round by round, the competition in '92 was more impressive to me than '91.
I see why youd prefer Pippen in 92.

I do take exception to the second half of your post. It seems like only the Bulls get penalized for playing injured teams. When every other team thats won has been what able to enjoy the same situation. Whats more, the Pistons werent old, the Lakers replaced Kareem with competant bigs. And worthy and Scott played every game of the Finals but the last one.

ShaqAttack3234

09-02-2012, 01:32 AM

:roll: all of the names i threw up were the correct answers

They went from wrong to flat out delusional.

ofcourse his game would hold up, nobody will argue that. but there will be less possessions, which is common sense, making his ppg, alot closer to gasol's, and pathetic rpg average more glaring.

Who says his scoring would drop? You could argue teams would feature him more offensively in a slower half court game, especially on a modern team rather than a team with the historic talent of the '86 Celtics. When was the last time we saw teams with anywhere near that much talent? His rebounds were lower because of the incredible frontline he played on. I don't expect many rebounds playing with Parish/Walton and Bird while having to go out and guard the league's best small forwards a lot of the time.

Besides, I'm not judging him on stats. He was a flat out better scorer than Gasol and a better defensive player. It wouldn't matter if his scoring was close

he was closer to the 10th best player dirk nowitzki than the best player lebron james. but he was very close to the second best player kobe bryant, infact just n the regular season they were almost inseparable.

:oldlol: at Dirk being as low as 10th. I try to see where you're coming from, I really do. But you make it hard sometimes. I have a lot of respect for what Gasol did that season, and really enjoyed watching him play. I can see why some called him the best big man ranking him over Gasol and Dirk despite me disagreeing, but putting him over Wade is taking it a step too far.

You're correct that Lebron was the best player and Kobe was the second best player, though.

:roll: nobody was close to him as the second best player in the league let alone the center spot

Shaq and Alonzo Mourning were in their primes and far superior players. This isn't even remotely debatable. Really, comparing a past his prime Robinson is downright hilarious.

I doubt a team has ever had the 2 best players in the league. The only teams I think of with a valid argument are the '01 Lakers and to a lesser extent '02, the '11 Heat have an argument and perhaps the '86 Celtics have an argument.

But I wouldn't say any of them had the 2 best players in the league.

:hammerhead: pippen outplayed the best player in the nba in teammate michael jordan in those playoffs

:roll: What?! You're saying that Pippen was the Bulls MVP for the '96 playoffs? That's a new one. Well, you always come up with new material. You ever thought of trying stand up comedy?

I see why youd prefer Pippen in 92.

I do take exception to the second half of your post. It seems like only the Bulls get penalized for playing injured teams. When every other team thats won has been what able to enjoy the same situation. Whats more, the Pistons werent old, the Lakers replaced Kareem with competant bigs. And worthy and Scott played every game of the Finals but the last one.

I'm not trying to discredit the '91 Bulls, they were a great team and I'd bet they would have won anyway. They lost only 2 games in the playoffs so they did what they were supposed to do. And Jordan/Pippen certainly had one of the greatest playoff runs for a duo along with their '92 runs, '86 Bird and McHale and '01 Shaq/Kobe.

BlackVVaves

09-02-2012, 02:56 AM

what is this thread about? playoff performance

i am taking 2010 gasol as a player and playoff run

i'm not going to go into who was the better player series by series. but if you want to argue about stats, which you always like doing, i will bring pace into the argument, and therefore will destroy anything you have got. in any case, bird was the celtics best player by a large margin, bryant was the lakers best player by a very small margin. mchale didn't even step up the second most out of all celtics players, danny ainge did.

no, its quite an easy decision. gasol was a top 3 player, mchale was a top 4 player.

i have robinson easily better than mchale, and gasol for that matter. top 2 in the league.

ofcourse you mean besides 1998, 1996, 1992, and 1991

Like, did you watch '85-'88 McHale? Be honest guy.

McHale was a better scorer than Gasol, better defender than Gasol, and was so unguardable that the Lakers had to make a mid-season trade near the deadline in 87 because they KNEW they'd be facing the Celtics in the Finals (two best records in the NBA at the time of the trade, and, actually, were identical in the wins and losses columns) and would get obliterated by him unless they found someone who could guard him.

Gasol by no means was ever considered unguardable in the Finals. Not in definitely not in 2008, not in 2009, and not in 2010. Not saying he wasn't hard to guard, but unguardable implies an offensive dominance that few have carried in this league, particularly big men.

McHale (in those very short years, and obviously to a lesser extent compared to the the next mentioned) was one. Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt, Kareem are others.

Gasol? No.

Shep

09-05-2012, 09:50 AM

They went from wrong to flat out delusional.
actually they went from correct, to good call master, i agree

Who says his scoring would drop? You could argue teams would feature him more offensively in a slower half court game, especially on a modern team rather than a team with the historic talent of the '86 Celtics. When was the last time we saw teams with anywhere near that much talent? His rebounds were lower because of the incredible frontline he played on. I don't expect many rebounds playing with Parish/Walton and Bird while having to go out and guard the league's best small forwards a lot of the time.

Besides, I'm not judging him on stats. He was a flat out better scorer than Gasol and a better defensive player. It wouldn't matter if his scoring was close
all filth. we all know how mchale performed with less help when bird was injured a couple of seasons later (or ateast most of us do) - robert parish was the celtics best player. mchale did not step up at all and his rebounding was even more pathetic.

at Dirk being as low as 10th. I try to see where you're coming from, I really do. But you make it hard sometimes. I have a lot of respect for what Gasol did that season, and really enjoyed watching him play. I can see why some called him the best big man ranking him over Gasol and Dirk despite me disagreeing, but putting him over Wade is taking it a step too far.

You're correct that Lebron was the best player and Kobe was the second best player, though.
wade? :roll: oh let me guess, ppg?

Shaq and Alonzo Mourning were in their primes and far superior players. This isn't even remotely debatable. Really, comparing a past his prime Robinson is downright hilarious.
shaq in his prime? shaq had one of the worst years of his career, and zo had a nice regular season but got eliminated in the first round of the playoffs after finishing with the best record in the east.

I doubt a team has ever had the 2 best players in the league. The only teams I think of with a valid argument are the '01 Lakers and to a lesser extent '02, the '11 Heat have an argument and perhaps the '86 Celtics have an argument.

But I wouldn't say any of them had the 2 best players in the league.
a number of teams have had the best 2 players in the league, including:
'11 heat, '01 lakers, '00 lakers, '99 spurs, '96 bulls, '92 bulls, '91 bulls, '82 lakers, '71 bucks, '69 lakers, and '56 warriors

What?! You're saying that Pippen was the Bulls MVP for the '96 playoffs? That's a new one. Well, you always come up with new material. You ever thought of trying stand up comedy?
i didn't realise people laugh at facts

1987_Lakers

09-05-2012, 09:52 PM

a number of teams have had the best 2 players in the league, including:
'11 heat, '01 lakers, '00 lakers, '99 spurs, '96 bulls, '92 bulls, '91 bulls, '82 lakers, '71 bucks, '69 lakers,

LOL

ShaqAttack3234

09-06-2012, 01:40 AM

all filth. we all know how mchale performed with less help when bird was injured a couple of seasons later (or ateast most of us do) - robert parish was the celtics best player. mchale did not step up at all and his rebounding was even more pathetic.

Right, because McHale was just as good in '89 as '86. Why didn't he come remotely close to his '86 level when Bird returned then?

wade? :roll: oh let me guess, ppg?

Yeah...because Wade was just a one-dimensional scorer. :rolleyes:

shaq in his prime? shaq had one of the worst years of his career, and zo had a nice regular season but got eliminated in the first round of the playoffs after finishing with the best record in the east.

Shaq did have a down year, but his prime probably started around '98 and ended about '03 so it was in his prime. Zo's playoff loss was a disappointment(although I blame Mashburn and especially Hardaway), but most of the best players had disappointing playoffs. Shaq played poorly vs the Spurs, Malone was terrible vs Portland, Grant Hill didn't have a particularly good series vs Atlanta and Kidd did nothing of note. So this doesn't drop Zo from his 3rd place ranking.

'11 heat

Debatable. Probably wouldn't rank Wade as 2nd best myself, but a good case can be made. At least people regularly said this as well.

'01 lakers

Would put Duncan 2nd, but it's debatable, at least people were actually saying in 2001 that the Lakers had the 2 best players.

'00 lakers

:roll: :oldlol: :roll: Flat out delusional, they barely had a second player in the top 10.

'99 spurs

Robinson wasn't even top 10 anymore, imo. 11th best that year.

'96 bulls

Nope, but at least this is somewhat reasonable and something that was said at the time. At least they probably had 2 top 5 players.

'92 bulls

A huge stretch, Pippen really wasn't any better than top 6 at this point.

'91 bulls

Pippen probably fell short of the top 10 this year.

'82 lakers

Nope, didn't even have the best player, but they did have 2 top 5 players.

'71 bucks

Not sure, but I doubt a past his prime Oscar was 2nd best at this point.

'69 lakers

Very possible.

and '56 warriors

No idea, can't say Johnston and Arizin as the top 2 is that much of a stretch, but haven't researched this year thoroughly enough to say they were both better than guys like Cousy and Pettit.

i didn't realise people laugh at facts

I've seen you do it on a number of occasions.

G-train

09-06-2012, 02:01 AM

An underrated playoff pairing was Clyde/Dream in 1995.

Shep

09-15-2012, 03:36 AM

Right, because McHale was just as good in '89 as '86. Why didn't he come remotely close to his '86 level when Bird returned then?
1989 was mchale's time to shine. coming off a season in which he was the second best power forward in the nba, and was the second best player on a team that won the second most games in the league, he was expected to step up and show what he was capable of in 1989 because bird went down due to injury. unfortunately for mchale, he did not step up at all, instead it was 35 year old robert parish who stepped in bird's absence. the excuses made in 1986 for mchale's pitiful rebound averages proved to be useless in this case, as with no bird and walton hogging up the rebounds mchale had no excuse. instead all he could come up with were just over 8 rebounds in 37 minutes of action.

Yeah...because Wade was just a one-dimensional scorer.
no, but he averaged more points than gasol. wade was good enough for 6th best that year.

Shaq did have a down year, but his prime probably started around '98 and ended about '03 so it was in his prime. Zo's playoff loss was a disappointment(although I blame Mashburn and especially Hardaway), but most of the best players had disappointing playoffs. Shaq played poorly vs the Spurs, Malone was terrible vs Portland, Grant Hill didn't have a particularly good series vs Atlanta and Kidd did nothing of note. So this doesn't drop Zo from his 3rd place ranking.
i don't really care about these prime years arguments, as each year is different, and in '99 shaq had quite a bad season compared to his lofty standards so me calling that his prime wouldn't really make sense.

zo stays at 3rd, behind duncan and robinson. zo was the heat's best player so he will take alot of the blame, although hardaway was the most disappointing player on the roster.

Debatable. Probably wouldn't rank Wade as 2nd best myself, but a good case can be made. At least people regularly said this as well.

easy choice here, rose is somewhat close, but thats about it.

Would put Duncan 2nd, but it's debatable, at least people were actually saying in 2001 that the Lakers had the 2 best players.
duncan isn't even top 3

Flat out delusional, they barely had a second player in the top 10.
yes they did, his name was shaquille o'neal and he was first

Robinson wasn't even top 10 anymore, imo. 11th best that year.
:roll: this is an easy decision, nobody comes close.

Nope, but at least this is somewhat reasonable and something that was said at the time. At least they probably had 2 top 5 players.
robinson was very close with with pippen, but in the end it was pippen who took that number 2 spot.

A huge stretch, Pippen really wasn't any better than top 6 at this point.
robinson is once again the only competition. besides him there is no stretch here.

Pippen probably fell short of the top 10 this year.
nobody is close this year

Nope, didn't even have the best player, but they did have 2 top 5 players.
they didn't have the best player in a team that won 57 games and romped to a 12-2 demolishing of all playoff foes? :roll: what a joke.

Not sure, but I doubt a past his prime Oscar was 2nd best at this point.
more of this prime trash talk. it was his fifth best season in the nba, and he was easily the second best player on that dominant team.

Very possible.
100% likely

No idea, can't say Johnston and Arizin as the top 2 is that much of a stretch, but haven't researched this year thoroughly enough to say they were both better than guys like Cousy and Pettit.
no need to do research, i have all the answers

I've seen you do it on a number of occasions.
:oldlol: i have never laugh at facts, that would be silly

ShaqAttack3234

09-15-2012, 12:15 PM

1989 was mchale's time to shine. coming off a season in which he was the second best power forward in the nba, and was the second best player on a team that won the second most games in the league, he was expected to step up and show what he was capable of in 1989 because bird went down due to injury. unfortunately for mchale, he did not step up at all, instead it was 35 year old robert parish who stepped in bird's absence. the excuses made in 1986 for mchale's pitiful rebound averages proved to be useless in this case, as with no bird and walton hogging up the rebounds mchale had no excuse. instead all he could come up with were just over 8 rebounds in 37 minutes of action.

It appeared that at 31 years old, McHale was just starting to decline a bit, that's completely normal at that age, especially considering the injuries he had played through. Parish got a remarkable 12.5 rpg himself so it's not exactly easy to get rebounds playing alongside a guy getting close to 13 per game.

no, but he averaged more points than gasol. wade was good enough for 6th best that year.

:oldlol: at top 6. Wade hasn't dropped out of the top 5 since he became a top 5 player in 2006 other than his injury-plagued seasons in '07 and '08, and even then, some would put him top 5 in 2007, although I didn't. The only other year you could even argue Wade has failed to be top 5 from his 3rd year on was this past season.

i don't really care about these prime years arguments, as each year is different, and in '99 shaq had quite a bad season compared to his lofty standards so me calling that his prime wouldn't really make sense.

I can see where you're coming from on this one, although in terms of skills and athletic ability, it was quite clearly part of his prime, almost everyone had down years during that lockout season, and Shaq remained easily the best offensive player in the league.

zo stays at 3rd, behind duncan and robinson. zo was the heat's best player so he will take alot of the blame, although hardaway was the most disappointing player on the roster.

Your right Zo isn't without blame, but considering nobody did anything remarkable outside of Duncan, he stays at a clear 3rd for me behind only Duncan and Shaq. Of course, Malone's own disappointing playoff run eliminated any chance of him moving past Mourning, despite being voted league MVP, an incorrect choice, imo.

easy choice here, rose is somewhat close, but thats about it.

:oldlol: at Rose. He wasn't even top 5. Dwight Howard and Dirk Nowitzki are the players in the discussion.

duncan isn't even top 3

:roll: 3rd is the absolute lowest you could put him. I'll acknowledge Kobe has a case over him given his play in the playoffs, but if I have to choose who to build a championship team around as my number 1 guy keeping the whole season in mind, there's no question I'm going with Duncan, and honestly, it'd be foolish to not choose Duncan to start a team with over Kobe, and anyone else not named Shaq.

Complete disrespect for Duncan, not only was Duncan never anything less than top 3 in his prime unless you consider 2006 part of his prime, he was never less than top 2 in his prime, imo.

yes they did, his name was shaquille o'neal and he was first

Uh, when did I deny that Shaq was clearly the best player in 2000? I don't think I've heard one person dispute he was the best player that year once the season was finished.

:roll: this is an easy decision, nobody comes close.

Robinson wasn't close to Shaq and Mourning who were easily the league's 2 best centers by this point.

robinson was very close with with pippen, but in the end it was pippen who took that number 2 spot.

Not only was Robinson better as the 3rd best player in the league, but Hakeem was clearly better than Pippen as the 2nd best. Shaq was probably a better player, although I'm not sure if I should rank him higher with all the missed games.

robinson is once again the only competition. besides him there is no stretch here.

Robinson was better in addition to Ewing and Malone.

nobody is close this year

You mean Pippen wasn't even close to top 2 this year. In fact, he was never top 2, although he was probably top 5 from '94-'96, or at least in my top 5.

they didn't have the best player in a team that won 57 games and romped to a 12-2 demolishing of all playoff foes? :roll: what a joke.

Of course not, that doesn't mean they had the best player, it means they had the best team, and outside of the 2nd best player Kareem who was still a fantastic player only slightly past his prime, and a great sidekick in Magic, they had an exceptionally talented team with 2 other all-star caliber players in Norm Nixon and Jamaal Wilkes, in addition to a rejuvenated Bob McAdoo who was playing like an all-star in the playoffs and the ultimate role player Michael Cooper, who would have to be in the discussion for greatest role player of all-time.

more of this prime trash talk. it was his fifth best season in the nba, and he was easily the second best player on that dominant team.

What is "prime trash talk?" :oldlol: Kareem himself said that Oscar was no longer in his prime, but on certain nights could play like prime Oscar in his book "Giant Steps." I tend to doubt it was Oscar's 5th best season.

Of course he was the 2nd best player on that Milwaukee team, but as great of an all around player as Bob Dandridge was, nobody was putting him among the top 5 players in the league.

no need to do research, i have all the answers

Thanks, but I'd rather check for myself before coming to any conclusions.

SHAQisGOAT

09-15-2012, 01:38 PM

McHale had a short prime/peak (not many minutes in the beginning then injuries...) but he was just really great while at his best, unstoppable in the post.

kNicKz

09-15-2012, 01:55 PM

mchale= beast

Shep

09-17-2012, 08:37 AM

It appeared that at 31 years old, McHale was just starting to decline a bit, that's completely normal at that age, especially considering the injuries he had played through. Parish got a remarkable 12.5 rpg himself so it's not exactly easy to get rebounds playing alongside a guy getting close to 13 per game.
lol @these pathetic excuses. first he had too alot of rebounders to contend with in 1986 with "parish/walton and then bird" now with walton gone, bird injured for the year and 35 year old robert parish to contend with the excuse now is "its not exactly easy to get rebounds playing alongside a guy getting close to 13 per game". pathetic.

at top 6. Wade hasn't dropped out of the top 5 since he became a top 5 player in 2006 other than his injury-plagued seasons in '07 and '08, and even then, some would put him top 5 in 2007, although I didn't. The only other year you could even argue Wade has failed to be top 5 from his 3rd year on was this past season.
:oldlol: wade was top 3 this past season. other than this season if we work backwards and we are talking about the top 25 players in the league, he was top 2 in '11, top 6 in '10, top 4 in '09, nowhere in '08, top 13 in '07, best in '06, top 2 in '05, and nowhere in '04. so he has had a fluctuating career to say the least.

I can see where you're coming from on this one, although in terms of skills and athletic ability, it was quite clearly part of his prime, almost everyone had down years during that lockout season, and Shaq remained easily the best offensive player in the league.
he was still one of the best players in the nba, fourth in fact.

Your right Zo isn't without blame, but considering nobody did anything remarkable outside of Duncan, he stays at a clear 3rd for me behind only Duncan and Shaq. Of course, Malone's own disappointing playoff run eliminated any chance of him moving past Mourning, despite being voted league MVP, an incorrect choice, imo.
i have it as an incorrect choice aswell, but the only player more valuable than malone was tim duncan. so malone will only slip to fifth, behind o'neal. o'neal's regular season was more or less inseparable compared to robinson's, but obviously we saw what happened in the playoffs. mourning will not slip behind o'neal due to mourning being the best player in the regular season.

at Rose. He wasn't even top 5. Dwight Howard and Dirk Nowitzki are the players in the discussion.
mvp, leading your team to the conference finals and playing well in the playoffs doesn't get you a top 5 spot in shaqattacks rankings? :roll: man you got some jokes. rose was top 3 by a huge margin. the difference between #3 and #4 dirk nowitzki is the largest a #3 and #4 have been separated by since 1995 when shaquille o'neal was 3rd and karl malone was 4th.

3rd is the absolute lowest you could put him. I'll acknowledge Kobe has a case over him given his play in the playoffs, but if I have to choose who to build a championship team around as my number 1 guy keeping the whole season in mind, there's no question I'm going with Duncan, and honestly, it'd be foolish to not choose Duncan to start a team with over Kobe, and anyone else not named Shaq.

Complete disrespect for Duncan, not only was Duncan never anything less than top 3 in his prime unless you consider 2006 part of his prime, he was never less than top 2 in his prime, imo
iverson is also better than duncan in '01. nobody is ranking players based on who they would choose to build a championship team around, people get ranked on how they perform given the circumstance they are in. nobody is talking about what if's. i show no disrespect to any player, all my rankings are done with no predetermined notions. i have the utmost respect for tim duncan and have him ranked higher all time than anyone.

Uh, when did I deny that Shaq was clearly the best player in 2000? I don't think I've heard one person dispute he was the best player that year once the season was finished.
you said the lakers didn't have a second player in the top 10, because kobe was easily in the top 10, top 2 infact, i thought you might not think o'neal wasn't in the top 10.

Robinson wasn't close to Shaq and Mourning who were easily the league's 2 best centers by this point.
mourning had a great regular season, but his pitiful showing in the playoffs saw him demoted to third after robinson's impressive playoffs. o'neal did not make much noise in the playoff's and was swept away by the team with the 2 best players in the league.

Not only was Robinson better as the 3rd best player in the league, but Hakeem was clearly better than Pippen as the 2nd best. Shaq was probably a better player, although I'm not sure if I should rank him higher with all the missed games.
:oldlol: olajuwon better than pippen? he wasn't even better than malone and o'neal, let alone robinson and pippen.

Robinson was better in addition to Ewing and Malone.
lol ewing wasn't even top 6, malone wasn't even top 7. nobody was close to jordan at #1, and nobody was close to pippen and robinson at #2, and #3.

You mean Pippen wasn't even close to top 2 this year. In fact, he was never top 2, although he was probably top 5 from '94-'96, or at least in my top 5.
no i actually meant that nobody was close to pippen in 1991. he was number 2 a number of times, 3 infact.

Of course not, that doesn't mean they had the best player, it means they had the best team, and outside of the 2nd best player Kareem who was still a fantastic player only slightly past his prime, and a great sidekick in Magic, they had an exceptionally talented team with 2 other all-star caliber players in Norm Nixon and Jamaal Wilkes, in addition to a rejuvenated Bob McAdoo who was playing like an all-star in the playoffs and the ultimate role player Michael Cooper, who would have to be in the discussion for greatest role player of all-time.
ofcourse they had a great team, most championship teams are great teams. magic was the best player of this great team, kareem was also a nice sidekick to have, but magic was the motor behind that great team, and made those players who they were.

What is "prime trash talk?"
prime trash talk is talk in which people say it was his "prime" yet he had other better seasons in which were better than his so called "prime years" just because it is out of the age bracket that people dedicate "prime years" to.

Kareem himself said that Oscar was no longer in his prime, but on certain nights could play like prime Oscar in his book "Giant Steps." I tend to doubt it was Oscar's 5th best season.

Of course he was the 2nd best player on that Milwaukee team, but as great of an all around player as Bob Dandridge was, nobody was putting him among the top 5 players in the league.
this is trash prime talk at its best. just because he wasn't throwing up 30 points on a much higher pace on a much less successful roster doesn't make it one of his prime years, unless you only include a players best 4 seasons in his prime seasons.

dandridge was very close to being included in the top 5 players that particular season.

Thanks, but I'd rather check for myself before coming to any conclusions.
for sure, by all means. but if checked properly you will come to the same conclusion i do.

ShaqAttack3234

09-20-2012, 12:20 PM

lol @these pathetic excuses. first he had too alot of rebounders to contend with in 1986 with "parish/walton and then bird" now with walton gone, bird injured for the year and 35 year old robert parish to contend with the excuse now is "its not exactly easy to get rebounds playing alongside a guy getting close to 13 per game". pathetic.

First of all, '89 McHale is not '86 McHale, and if you want to look at a season outside of '86, why not '87 when he averaged 9.9 boards?

The '86 Celtics outrebounded opponents by 4.9 rpg and the '89 Celtics outrebounded opponents by 4.3 rpg, so it doesn't seem like McHale needed to get any more rebounds.

:oldlol: wade was top 3 this past season. other than this season if we work backwards and we are talking about the top 25 players in the league, he was top 2 in '11, top 6 in '10, top 4 in '09, nowhere in '08, top 13 in '07, best in '06, top 2 in '05, and nowhere in '04. so he has had a fluctuating career to say the least.

:oldlol: at Wade being top 2 in '05, best in '06 and top 3 last season. You can go from overrating him to underrating him in the blink of an eye.

i have it as an incorrect choice aswell, but the only player more valuable than malone was tim duncan. so malone will only slip to fifth, behind o'neal. o'neal's regular season was more or less inseparable compared to robinson's, but obviously we saw what happened in the playoffs. mourning will not slip behind o'neal due to mourning being the best player in the regular season.

Mourning as a better player than Shaq seems ridiculous to me, but since Mourning was the all-nba first team center, you're not the only person who felt this way for this particular season. His playoffs were more disappointing to me than Shaq's though. Robinson's regular season was nowhere near Shaq's, and their playoffs can't be compared considering how different their roles were with Robinson clearly playing second fiddle to Duncan.

mvp, leading your team to the conference finals and playing well in the playoffs doesn't get you a top 5 spot in shaqattacks rankings? :roll: man you got some jokes. rose was top 3 by a huge margin. the difference between #3 and #4 dirk nowitzki is the largest a #3 and #4 have been separated by since 1995 when shaquille o'neal was 3rd and karl malone was 4th.

The MVP choice was wrong and Rose could be argued 5th, but no higher, and I'd take Durant at number 5 over Rose. Rose over Dirk is a really bad joke, you talk about Rose getting to the conference finals and playing "well" in the playoffs, Dirk won a championship and played much better than Rose in the playoffs.

Rose over Dwight is truly laughable. Dwight's offense was finally catching up to his defense in '11, and his defense was clearly the best in the league in addition to his rebounding. Rose can't compare to that impact at both ends.

iverson is also better than duncan in '01. nobody is ranking players based on who they would choose to build a championship team around, people get ranked on how they perform given the circumstance they are in. nobody is talking about what if's. i show no disrespect to any player, all my rankings are done with no predetermined notions. i have the utmost respect for tim duncan and have him ranked higher all time than anyone.

How was Iverson better than Duncan? I look at each player's skills and ability at that particular time and the level they played at and decide which player would give me a better chance to win and in this case, it's not even close. Duncan will clearly give me a better chance to win. Not only is his defense as a massive advantage, but Duncan's offense is more reliable, imo and easier to fit alongside other pieces despite Iverson being a more prolific scorer. Duncan even won more games in a much better conference.

you said the lakers didn't have a second player in the top 10, because kobe was easily in the top 10, top 2 infact, i thought you might not think o'neal wasn't in the top 10.

Kobe was exactly the 10th best player in 2000. Kobe was not even close to the real 2nd best player Duncan, if you wish to push the issue, I will destroy any arguments you attempt. Hell, despite ranking Kobe over Robinson I'm not 100% sure he was even better than him much less Duncan. Then there were the other franchise big men who were clearly better than Kobe(Mourning, Garnett, Malone, Webber), and Grant Hill was also clearly a superior perimeter player now with his improved jump shot.

I can see the argument over Payton since Payton's defense had slipped to the point that Kobe was now a better defender, and Payton also had bad habits offensively, but I'll still take Payton. Kidd is also debatable, but I'll definitely take Kidd because he was so much smarter and had a much greater impact on his teammates in addition to being one of the few guards comparable to Kobe defensively.

mourning had a great regular season, but his pitiful showing in the playoffs saw him demoted to third after robinson's impressive playoffs. o'neal did not make much noise in the playoff's and was swept away by the team with the 2 best players in the league.

Robinson was in a completely different situation, his playoff run would be considered bad by Shaq and Mourning's standards. Shaq at least dominated the 1st round at a level Robinson wasn't capable of at that time, or maybe was never capable of.

:oldlol: olajuwon better than pippen? he wasn't even better than malone and o'neal, let alone robinson and pippen.

:roll: How on earth was Shaq better than Hakeem in '96 when Shaq missed 28 games and Hakeem was still the better defensive player and arguably as good/better offensively too?

Malone over Hakeem? :roll: This doesn't even deserve a response.

Hakeem was still better than Robinson too. Robinson may have passed Hakeem defensively by this point, but if he did, it wasn't by much, however, Hakeem's offense was clearly superior.

Pippen over Hakeem doesn't make any sense since Hakeem was probably better at both ends, clearly better offensively.

lol ewing wasn't even top 6, malone wasn't even top 7. nobody was close to jordan at #1, and nobody was close to pippen and robinson at #2, and #3.

:oldlol: Right, Ewing wasn't top 6 yet he was a legitimate first option offensively and a legitimate anchor defensively. He also had a very impressive playoff run taking Chicago to 7, although that was also because Pippen was outplayed by Xavier McDaniel which doesn't help your case for Pippen.

Malone not top 7? :roll: He had a phenomenal playoff run to lead his team to the conference finals.

no i actually meant that nobody was close to pippen in 1991. he was number 2 a number of times, 3 infact.

Only 2 years he had a case for top 2 where '94 and '96.

ofcourse they had a great team, most championship teams are great teams. magic was the best player of this great team, kareem was also a nice sidekick to have, but magic was the motor behind that great team, and made those players who they were.

:oldlol: Magic was the sidekick, Robin to Kareem's Batman ect. it's obvious. As difficult as it is to argue Magic was better than Kareem in '82, it's even more difficult to argue he was more important. This is because the Lakers had a guy who could do a lot of what Magic did such as run the offense in Norm Nixon, who wasn't quite as good as Magic, though he was a much better shooter and perhaps a better scorer. But the Lakers did not have another post scorer like Kareem, or another shot blocker like Kareem. They didn't have another player who could get his own shot whenever he wanted in the half court or draw double teams like that.

Kareem was not even close to a sidekick, Magic and Riley both called it Kareem's team and Kareem was clearly the go to guy. This is an accepted fact.

None of those players were a product of Magic, the only player who even looked like one was Wilkes, and I can disprove that using Wilkes '81 season.

Championship teams are great of course, but few have had anywhere near the talent the '82 Lakers had.

prime trash talk is talk in which people say it was his "prime" yet he had other better seasons in which were better than his so called "prime years" just because it is out of the age bracket that people dedicate "prime years" to.

I can see why '99 being part of Shaq's prime is arbitrary since it wasn't as good as his '98 season or '00-'02, or '03, and he did have a couple of better seasons before such as '95, '97 as well as after such as '05 and perhaps '04.

But I thought Shaq entered his prime in the '98 season and it didn't end until at least '02, if not '03, so '99 is part of that period. As far as skills and ability he was at prime level, he was just had a down year, probably due to injuries. Prime Kobe('03-'09) and prime Wade('06-'11) are similar, except they had 2 down years in there. Unless you think Shaq's prime was just '00-'02, Kobe's was just '06-'09 and Wade's was just '09-'11, which some do.

this is trash prime talk at its best. just because he wasn't throwing up 30 points on a much higher pace on a much less successful roster doesn't make it one of his prime years, unless you only include a players best 4 seasons in his prime seasons.

:oldlol: Kareem himself said Oscar was no longer in his prime, I'm more inclined to believe him than you, especially since I doubt you're old enough to have watched Oscar.

Legends66NBA7

09-20-2012, 12:39 PM

Shep vs ShaqAttack seems like the new millwad vs jlauber

Shep

09-22-2012, 07:34 AM

First of all, '89 McHale is not '86 McHale, and if you want to look at a season outside of '86, why not '87 when he averaged 9.9 boards?

The '86 Celtics outrebounded opponents by 4.9 rpg and the '89 Celtics outrebounded opponents by 4.3 rpg, so it doesn't seem like McHale needed to get any more rebounds.
more trash statements. 31 year old kevin mchale regressed significantly while larry bird was out injured for the 1989 season, instead it was left to 35 year old robert parish to step up in his 13th season and lead the celtics, not overrated bench player kevin mchale.

at Wade being top 2 in '05, best in '06 and top 3 last season. You can go from overrating him to underrating him in the blink of an eye.
i don't overrate or underrate anyone. i rate everyone correctly, including dwyane wade.

Mourning as a better player than Shaq seems ridiculous to me, but since Mourning was the all-nba first team center, you're not the only person who felt this way for this particular season. His playoffs were more disappointing to me than Shaq's though. Robinson's regular season was nowhere near Shaq's, and their playoffs can't be compared considering how different their roles were with Robinson clearly playing second fiddle to Duncan.
ofcourse mourning's playoffs were more disappointing that o'neal's. but mourning's regular season was far superior to o'neal's, making it an easy decision here. as for robinson? well his regular season was closer to mourning's than it was o'neal's, and his playoff's was easily better, especially when you take into consideration the statistical sacrifice he made in order for the team to be successful.

The MVP choice was wrong and Rose could be argued 5th, but no higher, and I'd take Durant at number 5 over Rose. Rose over Dirk is a really bad joke, you talk about Rose getting to the conference finals and playing "well" in the playoffs, Dirk won a championship and played much better than Rose in the playoffs.
:roll: @durant over rose. the mvp choice was only wrong by a very small margin, and nobody was close to rose as the second most valuable player in the league. dirk over rose is simply not possible. nowitzki played slightly better in the playoffs, but rose was light years ahead of nowitzki in the regular season, making this an easy decision.

Rose over Dwight is truly laughable. Dwight's offense was finally catching up to his defense in '11, and his defense was clearly the best in the league in addition to his rebounding. Rose can't compare to that impact at both ends
dwight is nowhere in the top 5, and had quite clearly regressed from his 2009 season.

How was Iverson better than Duncan? I look at each player's skills and ability at that particular time and the level they played at and decide which player would give me a better chance to win and in this case, it's not even close. Duncan will clearly give me a better chance to win. Not only is his defense as a massive advantage, but Duncan's offense is more reliable, imo and easier to fit alongside other pieces despite Iverson being a more prolific scorer. Duncan even won more games in a much better conference.
i look at how a particular player performed given his situation, not how he would perform to give some made up team the best chance to win. i look at iverson, who was voted league mvp, leading his sixers to a 56-26 record, and their first nba finals appearance since moses malone led them to the '83 championship. i look at iverson carrying his team on his shoulders more than anyone in the nba. i look at iverson averaging 33/5/6/2 in the playoffs.

tim duncan was fourth that year, he had a great regular season and a good playoff, but there just was 3 guys who performed better. duncan was swept out of the playoffs by the same lakers who lost a game to the sixers, and played disgusting in the last 2 games of that series, nailing a combined 8 field goals out of 24 attempts, on 12ppg.

Kobe was exactly the 10th best player in 2000. Kobe was not even close to the real 2nd best player Duncan, if you wish to push the issue, I will destroy any arguments you attempt. Hell, despite ranking Kobe over Robinson I'm not 100% sure he was even better than him much less Duncan. Then there were the other franchise big men who were clearly better than Kobe(Mourning, Garnett, Malone, Webber), and Grant Hill was also clearly a superior perimeter player now with his improved jump shot.
this statement is redundant due to the fact that i've destroyed whatever filth you have regurgitated in this thread. kobe was exactly the 2nd best player in 2000. the real 3rd best player duncan was somewhat close to the 2nd best player bryant. as for robinson? well, this is quite clearly becoming a joke as robinson was nowhere in the vicinity. mourning? 4th. garnett? 5th. malone? 8th. webber? 7th. hill was nowhere, he had an ok regular season, he was then the most disappointing player in the playoffs by one of the biggest margins in nba history.

I can see the argument over Payton since Payton's defense had slipped to the point that Kobe was now a better defender, and Payton also had bad habits offensively, but I'll still take Payton. Kidd is also debatable, but I'll definitely take Kidd because he was so much smarter and had a much greater impact on his teammates in addition to being one of the few guards comparable to Kobe defensively.
payton was better than the aforementioned webber, malone, and ofcourse hill, but was still 6th - 4 spots behind bryant. kidd wasn't even better than robinson.

Robinson was in a completely different situation, his playoff run would be considered bad by Shaq and Mourning's standards. Shaq at least dominated the 1st round at a level Robinson wasn't capable of at that time, or maybe was never capable of.
lol so o'neal dominated the first round? thats nice, good stuff. robinson won a championship and swept away o'neal and his lakers in the very next round. mourning? he would have been happy making the second round, and after losing to 8th seed new york, nothing can be more disappointing.

How on earth was Shaq better than Hakeem in '96 when Shaq missed 28 games and Hakeem was still the better defensive player and arguably as good/better offensively too?
olajuwon's poor play in the playoffs made it a nice easy decision.

Malone over Hakeem? This doesn't even deserve a response.
:roll: you shouldn't have responded once in this thread, for your own sake

Hakeem was still better than Robinson too. Robinson may have passed Hakeem defensively by this point, but if he did, it wasn't by much, however, Hakeem's offense was clearly superior.
more trash :roll: robinson was much better in the regular season, and in the playoffs. infact robinson was the best player in the entire league in the regular season.

Pippen over Hakeem doesn't make any sense since Hakeem was probably better at both ends, clearly better offensively.
although olajuwon had a better regular season, pippen was the mvp of the entire playoffs, catapulting him to #2 overall.

Right, Ewing wasn't top 6 yet he was a legitimate first option offensively and a legitimate anchor defensively. He also had a very impressive playoff run taking Chicago to 7, although that was also because Pippen was outplayed by Xavier McDaniel which doesn't help your case for Pippen.
good point mentioning mcdaniel, who definately stepped up more than ewing in the playoffs. as for outplaying pippen? lets see
pippen: 16.0ppg, 8.3rpg, 6.6apg, 2.0spg, 1.1bpg
mcdaniel: 18.6ppg, 5.9rpg, 2.1apg, 0.9spg, 0.3bpg
another destroyed statement.

ewing was a nice player, his performance simply wasn't enough to warrant him being ranked higher than any of the players better than him including michael jordan, scottie pippen, david robinson, clyde drexler, hakeem olajuwon, or john stockton. in more minutes, ewing dropped his points, rebounds, steals, blocks, and shot only 45% from the field after shooting 52% in the regular season

Malone not top 7? He had a phenomenal playoff run to lead his team to the conference finals.
he had a nice playoff run, but his regular season was nothing special.

Shep

09-22-2012, 07:35 AM

Only 2 years he had a case for top 2 where '94 and '96.
he wasn't even top 4 in 1994 and you are correct about 1996, he was top 2 that year.

Magic was the sidekick, Robin to Kareem's Batman ect. it's obvious. As difficult as it is to argue Magic was better than Kareem in '82, it's even more difficult to argue he was more important. This is because the Lakers had a guy who could do a lot of what Magic did such as run the offense in Norm Nixon, who wasn't quite as good as Magic, though he was a much better shooter and perhaps a better scorer. But the Lakers did not have another post scorer like Kareem, or another shot blocker like Kareem. They didn't have another player who could get his own shot whenever he wanted in the half court or draw double teams like that.
the only years magic was the sidekick was 1980 and 1981 and even 1981 is pushing it. magic outrebounded the 7-2 kareem as a guard, and put up 19/10/10, along with 3 steals on 52%fg. he was the most impressive player out of everyone in the playoffs and stepped up his game the most, on top of being the mvp of the playoffs and finals. kareem wasn't all that impressive, and even norm nixon stepped up more than him.

Kareem was not even close to a sidekick, Magic and Riley both called it Kareem's team and Kareem was clearly the go to guy. This is an accepted fact.
just got off the phone to riley, he said that he said that only out of respect for kareem, magic was clearly the better player by that stage and he said to tell you that just because abdul-jabbar might have scored the most points, it was the all-round aspect of magic's game that guided the lakers to be victorious.

None of those players were a product of Magic, the only player who even looked like one was Wilkes, and I can disprove that using Wilkes '81 season.
magic made them all better and wilkes was clearly better in '82 than he was in '81.

Championship teams are great of course, but few have had anywhere near the talent the '82 Lakers had.
and magic was the best out of all these talented players.

I can see why '99 being part of Shaq's prime is arbitrary since it wasn't as good as his '98 season or '00-'02, or '03, and he did have a couple of better seasons before such as '95, '97 as well as after such as '05 and perhaps '04.

But I thought Shaq entered his prime in the '98 season and it didn't end until at least '02, if not '03, so '99 is part of that period. As far as skills and ability he was at prime level, he was just had a down year, probably due to injuries. Prime Kobe('03-'09) and prime Wade('06-'11) are similar, except they had 2 down years in there. Unless you think Shaq's prime was just '00-'02, Kobe's was just '06-'09 and Wade's was just '09-'11, which some do.
i don't use the "prime" word due to these facts that you have already outlined. it doesn't make much sense to me that a players "prime" years were between a certain period yet they had better years outside of these years. athletic prime is another thing, but prime as a player is a totally different thing.

Kareem himself said Oscar was no longer in his prime, I'm more inclined to believe him than you, especially since I doubt you're old enough to have watched Oscar.
kareem probably said that so he could take more credit for their success.

ShaqAttack3234

09-23-2012, 10:52 AM

:roll: @durant over rose. the mvp choice was only wrong by a very small margin, and nobody was close to rose as the second most valuable player in the league. dirk over rose is simply not possible. nowitzki played slightly better in the playoffs, but rose was light years ahead of nowitzki in the regular season, making this an easy decision.

Dirk was only slightly better than Rose in the playoffs? Not even close. Rose was busy shooting 35% which prevented the Bulls from having a chance to win that series while Dirk was destroying everyone with some of the best clutch play ever while leading his team to upsets over two more talented and favored opponents in LA and Miami. You could also argue that OKC had more talent.

dwight is nowhere in the top 5, and had quite clearly regressed from his 2009 season.

:wtf: This is one of the most incorrect statements I've ever heard. Dwight had a legitimate case for best player that year, but more important Dwight was far beyond any level he had played at prior to 2011. The defense and rebounding were there just like 2009, but he had also gotten better at avoiding foul trouble since then allowing him to play more minutes, particularly after the Gortat trade and more importantly he made a massive improvement offensively.

In '09, he had become more comfortable offensively compared to '08 and he did become decent with those running hooks with either hand while also occasionally showing a nice spin move. But in '11, he was much more efficient with jump hooks with either hand, he had learned how to use the glass quite well on these shots when he was at an angle, as well as a face up bank shot he made enough of throughout the season that it was no longer surprising. His footwork had also become more fluid, and he had also learned how to use his strength much better which made him so much more comfortable with his back to the basket, while he'd usually face up and drive in '09 making him much more predictable and less consistent.

Howard's consistency is demonstrated by very few of the low scoring games he was criticized so much for in the past and his greatly improved offensive game also resulted in big games becoming much more frequent.

i look at how a particular player performed given his situation, not how he would perform to give some made up team the best chance to win. i look at iverson, who was voted league mvp, leading his sixers to a 56-26 record, and their first nba finals appearance since moses malone led them to the '83 championship. i look at iverson carrying his team on his shoulders more than anyone in the nba. i look at iverson averaging 33/5/6/2 in the playoffs.

I look at which skill set I see as more effective for a team, besides, Iverson didn't prove to be more of a winning player than Duncan either, Duncan's team won 2 more games and lost to the same Laker team Iverson's team did. I don't care that Iverson was voted MVP, Shaq was the correct choice, and at the very least Duncan was also more deserving. Iverson carrying his team more than any other player implies he produced more than any other player, which he didn't, especially since his team won with their phenomenal defense and rebounding, not offense, which is where Iverson impacted the game. Yeah, Iverson averaged 33/5/6, but attempted an even 30 FGA to do it and shot just 39%.

tim duncan was fourth that year, he had a great regular season and a good playoff, but there just was 3 guys who performed better. duncan was swept out of the playoffs by the same lakers who lost a game to the sixers, and played disgusting in the last 2 games of that series, nailing a combined 8 field goals out of 24 attempts, on 12ppg.

Yeah, Duncan was disappointing in those 2 final games, but two games doesn't decide who the better player was. Only one player played better than Duncan and that was Shaq. Kobe is acceptable as well, but with the whole season in mind, and who the better player was, Duncan is still the right choice.

this statement is redundant due to the fact that i've destroyed whatever filth you have regurgitated in this thread. kobe was exactly the 2nd best player in 2000. the real 3rd best player duncan was somewhat close to the 2nd best player bryant. as for robinson? well, this is quite clearly becoming a joke as robinson was nowhere in the vicinity. mourning? 4th. garnett? 5th. malone? 8th. webber? 7th. hill was nowhere, he had an ok regular season, he was then the most disappointing player in the playoffs by one of the biggest margins in nba history.

This is getting too ridiculous. There's not a single argument that can be made for Kobe being the 2nd best player that year. Your'e right, it is becoming a joke because of statements like yours. Usually, when a statement is made such as Kobe being top 2 in 2000, the safe assumption would be that it's just an attempt at trolling, but it's made worse by the fact that I know you're dead serious.

payton was better than the aforementioned webber, malone, and ofcourse hill, but was still 6th - 4 spots behind bryant. kidd wasn't even better than robinson.

Payton was not better than Webber, Malone or Hill. Kidd was better than Robinson.

olajuwon's poor play in the playoffs made it a nice easy decision.

Nope. Shaq didn't do anything spectacular enough in the playoffs to make this even close to a valid point. Hakeem had a down series vs Seattle, but wasn't really bad outside of game 1, he impacted the game in other ways than scoring. With the Sonics swarming him, I wouldn't expect a big scoring series.

Of course, Robinson embarrassed himself vs Utah.

more trash :roll: robinson was much better in the regular season, and in the playoffs. infact robinson was the best player in the entire league in the regular season.

Tell me, what facets of the game was Robinson better at? Hakeem's advantages were scoring due to his vastly superior low post game as well as a better jump shot, which was the biggest advantage either player had over the other in any category, and Hakeem was also the better passer.

although olajuwon had a better regular season, pippen was the mvp of the entire playoffs, catapulting him to #2 overall.

:oldlol: Pippen's regular season was more impressive than his playoffs. He was limited during the second half of the season and playoffs due to his injuries, and only really played like himself in the Miami and Orlando series.

good point mentioning mcdaniel, who definately stepped up more than ewing in the playoffs. as for outplaying pippen? lets see
pippen: 16.0ppg, 8.3rpg, 6.6apg, 2.0spg, 1.1bpg
mcdaniel: 18.6ppg, 5.9rpg, 2.1apg, 0.9spg, 0.3bpg
another destroyed statement.

Watch the series, it will tell you a lot more than just posting the stats. I will say that Pippen defended him well, which is more of a credit to McDaniel than a knock against Pippen, but it did seem that the Knicks got into Pippen's head and Scottie had a subpar series.

Ewing had an excellent playoff run, if McDaniel stepped up more, it really doesn't mean much to me because McDaniel was considered somewhat of a disappointment during the regular season due to his inconsistency, while Ewing had a great regular season.

ewing was a nice player, his performance simply wasn't enough to warrant him being ranked higher than any of the players better than him including michael jordan, scottie pippen, david robinson, clyde drexler, hakeem olajuwon, or john stockton. in more minutes, ewing dropped his points, rebounds, steals, blocks, and shot only 45% from the field after shooting 52% in the regular season

Drexler wasn't the impact player Ewing was, and Stockton is an incredibly stupid choice over Ewing. Talk about the playoffs, John came up small again, especially compared to Ewing.

This was before Hakeem went to another level, and in particular, he had a subpar '92 season, so Ewing over Hakeem isn't a tough choice this year.

There were 3 players with a legit case over Ewing and they were Jordan(the only one I'm sure was actually better), Malone and Robinson. Robinson may have been ranked higher, but I preferred Ewing's offensive game and leadership and Robinson missing the playoffs right now is the deciding factor for me, but I'm not sure whether I'll change my mind and rank Robinson higher.

the only years magic was the sidekick was 1980 and 1981 and even 1981 is pushing it. magic outrebounded the 7-2 kareem as a guard, and put up 19/10/10, along with 3 steals on 52%fg. he was the most impressive player out of everyone in the playoffs and stepped up his game the most, on top of being the mvp of the playoffs and finals. kareem wasn't all that impressive, and even norm nixon stepped up more than him.

:oldlol: Thought so, you're just drooling over the triple double stats, and the steal numbers which really don't mean much, especially comparing him to a guy who got 3 blocks per game and was a much better defensive player.

Frustrating to give detailed breakdowns of their games and for it to just go right over your head and you respond with this trash.

I'll give the simplified version with the following facts. Kareem was a much better scorer, a much better clutch player, a much better defensive player and a much better half court player. No argument against that.

Shep

09-30-2012, 03:28 AM

Dirk was only slightly better than Rose in the playoffs? Not even close. Rose was busy shooting 35% which prevented the Bulls from having a chance to win that series while Dirk was destroying everyone with some of the best clutch play ever while leading his team to upsets over two more talented and favored opponents in LA and Miami. You could also argue that OKC had more talent.
yes, he was only slightly better in the playoffs. the difference between rose and the next best player on the bulls roster was the biggest in the league, except for dwight howard in orlando.

rose was busy shooting 35% in one series, meanwhile dirk nowitzki was busy grabbing only 8 rebounds per contest, and dishing only 2 and a half assists, along with barely over a steal or a block per game.

the only reason the mavs won a championship was because lebron james didn't play to his usual level, or the level he displayed against the bulls in the conference finals. this had zero to do with dirk nowitzki, who was the worst defender in dallas' starting 5.

rose had an outstanding first 2 rounds, and played beyond what nowitzki was capable of at that point.

against indiana he averaged 27.6ppg, 4.6rpg, 6.2apg, 2.6spg, and 1.2bpg in a 4-1 white wash.

against atlanta he averaged 29.8ppg, 4.3rpg, 9.8apg, 0.7spg, and 0.7bpg in a 4-2 series victory.

rose will not be blamed for chicago not making the nba finals, due to him giving his all, and putting it all on the line. other guys that were contributers during the regular season were non factors in the playoffs. key guys off the bench like ronnie brewer and cj watson did nothing, then there was carlos boozer who was the teams 3rd best player in the regular season and went from 18/10/3 on 51% from the field to a disgusting 13/10/2 on 43%.

This is one of the most incorrect statements I've ever heard. Dwight had a legitimate case for best player that year, but more important Dwight was far beyond any level he had played at prior to 2011. The defense and rebounding were there just like 2009, but he had also gotten better at avoiding foul trouble since then allowing him to play more minutes, particularly after the Gortat trade and more importantly he made a massive improvement offensively.

In '09, he had become more comfortable offensively compared to '08 and he did become decent with those running hooks with either hand while also occasionally showing a nice spin move. But in '11, he was much more efficient with jump hooks with either hand, he had learned how to use the glass quite well on these shots when he was at an angle, as well as a face up bank shot he made enough of throughout the season that it was no longer surprising. His footwork had also become more fluid, and he had also learned how to use his strength much better which made him so much more comfortable with his back to the basket, while he'd usually face up and drive in '09 making him much more predictable and less consistent.

Howard's consistency is demonstrated by very few of the low scoring games he was criticized so much for in the past and his greatly improved offensive game also resulted in big games becoming much more frequent.
how far did this new found footwork skills and realisation that there was a backboard behind the hoop get his team, the orlando magic though?

I look at which skill set I see as more effective for a team, besides, Iverson didn't prove to be more of a winning player than Duncan either, Duncan's team won 2 more games and lost to the same Laker team Iverson's team did. I don't care that Iverson was voted MVP, Shaq was the correct choice, and at the very least Duncan was also more deserving. Iverson carrying his team more than any other player implies he produced more than any other player, which he didn't, especially since his team won with their phenomenal defense and rebounding, not offense, which is where Iverson impacted the game. Yeah, Iverson averaged 33/5/6, but attempted an even 30 FGA to do it and shot just 39%.
iverson's skillset was much more effective for his team. duncan's team was swept by that lakers team and duncan played disgustingly poor in that series, not that it even matters. the team actually won with allen iverson leading them to victory, and their defensive schemes were a contribution of every player on the floor, but offensively it was largely iverson doing everything. attempting 30 field goals was required for the sixers to have the best chance to win.

Yeah, Duncan was disappointing in those 2 final games, but two games doesn't decide who the better player was. Only one player played better than Duncan and that was Shaq. Kobe is acceptable as well, but with the whole season in mind, and who the better player was, Duncan is still the right choice.
the whole season is in mind when choosing who the best player, and the playoffs. the playoff's proved iverson was the third best player in the league, only behind o'neal and bryant.

This is getting too ridiculous. There's not a single argument that can be made for Kobe being the 2nd best player that year. Your'e right, it is becoming a joke because of statements like yours. Usually, when a statement is made such as Kobe being top 2 in 2000, the safe assumption would be that it's just an attempt at trolling, but it's made worse by the fact that I know you're dead serious.
i have demolished all your arguments you have ever put up regarding anyone besides shaquille o'neal being better than kobe bryant in 2000.

Payton was not better than Webber, Malone or Hill. Kidd was better than Robinson.
payton was better than the aforementioned webber, malone, and ofcourse hill, but was still 6th - 4 spots behind bryant. kidd wasn't even better than robinson.

Nope. Shaq didn't do anything spectacular enough in the playoffs to make this even close to a valid point. Hakeem had a down series vs Seattle, but wasn't really bad outside of game 1, he impacted the game in other ways than scoring. With the Sonics swarming him, I wouldn't expect a big scoring series.

Of course, Robinson embarrassed himself vs Utah.
:roll: olajuwon embarrassed himself in the whole playoffs, and was swept in the second round.

o'neal had a positive playoff run. he made the conference finals, and despite losing to the eventual champion bulls, still put up 27/11/4 on 64% from the field.

robinson had a negative playoff run, but nowhere near olajuwon's, whos series against seattle was pure filth. he averaged 30/12/3/1/3 on 56% from the field in the first round win over charles barkley, kevin johnson, and the phoenix suns.

Tell me, what facets of the game was Robinson better at? Hakeem's advantages were scoring due to his vastly superior low post game as well as a better jump shot, which was the biggest advantage either player had over the other in any category, and Hakeem was also the better passer.
the very importand facet of winning games, and making your teammates appear much better than they would be if you weren't there. robinson was also a much better rebounder, defender, and alot better at taking care of the ball. i will also take robinson's offensive game at this point.

Pippen's regular season was more impressive than his playoffs. He was limited during the second half of the season and playoffs due to his injuries, and only really played like himself in the Miami and Orlando series.

:roll: pippen stepped up and led the bulls in the playoffs with michael jordan playing uncharacteristically human like.

Watch the series, it will tell you a lot more than just posting the stats. I will say that Pippen defended him well, which is more of a credit to McDaniel than a knock against Pippen, but it did seem that the Knicks got into Pippen's head and Scottie had a subpar series.

Ewing had an excellent playoff run, if McDaniel stepped up more, it really doesn't mean much to me because McDaniel was considered somewhat of a disappointment during the regular season due to his inconsistency, while Ewing had a great regular season.
if you had seen any of those games you will understand how many ways pippen could impact on a game, besides scoring the basketball.

if mcdaniel was considered a disappointment it was only due to the fact that he was in a new system, and a system where he could no longer get the ball when he wanted because ewing was the focal point, and a very poor passer.

Shep

09-30-2012, 03:29 AM

Drexler wasn't the impact player Ewing was, and Stockton is an incredibly stupid choice over Ewing. Talk about the playoffs, John came up small again, especially compared to Ewing.
drexler definately had more of an impact on the blazers, leading them to the best record in the western conference, and the nba finals.

stockton? easy choice over ewing. stockton was his teams best player, although malone played better than stockton in the playoffs, stockton was still the jazz' best player due to his spectacular regular season in which he was top 3 most valuable.

This was before Hakeem went to another level, and in particular, he had a subpar '92 season, so Ewing over Hakeem isn't a tough choice this year.
although hakeem did not make the playoffs, ewing did not do anything in the playoffs to increase his rank over olajuwon. ewing decreased his points, rebounds, steals, blocks, all in more minutes per game, ewing also decreased his field goal percentage by more than 6 percentage points, and had to take 20 shots to get his 23 points, a disgusting line for a center.

There were 3 players with a legit case over Ewing and they were Jordan(the only one I'm sure was actually better), Malone and Robinson. Robinson may have been ranked higher, but I preferred Ewing's offensive game and leadership and Robinson missing the playoffs right now is the deciding factor for me, but I'm not sure whether I'll change my mind and rank Robinson higher.
malone wasn't better than ewing. jordan, pippen, robinson, drexler, olajuwon, and stockton were.

Thought so, you're just drooling over the triple double stats, and the steal numbers which really don't mean much, especially comparing him to a guy who got 3 blocks per game and was a much better defensive player.

:lol better than drooling over ppg stats

Frustrating to give detailed breakdowns of their games and for it to just go right over your head and you respond with this trash.
:cry: sorry to disappoint you. actually i thought you would respond after my first post and acknowledge my rankings, and then change your rankings to suit mine.

I'll give the simplified version with the following facts. Kareem was a much better scorer, a much better clutch player, a much better defensive player and a much better half court player. No argument against that.
magic was much better at making teammates better, running sets, creating scoring opportunities, and running a team. he also contributed more, had no weaknesses to his game, was finals mvp, stepped up more when it counted, and was just flat out better. easy choice here, no contest.

ShaqAttack3234

09-30-2012, 08:12 PM

yes, he was only slightly better in the playoffs. the difference between rose and the next best player on the bulls roster was the biggest in the league, except for dwight howard in orlando

I don't care what the difference between 1st and 2nd best player is when that Bulls team is the best defensive team and outrebounded opponents by a stunning 5.7 rpg. I expect Rose to win a lot of games with that support.

By the way, remember your comment about Howard because once you consider Howard made his team an elite defense while Rose was backed by one and you'll see how ridiculous comparing them based on team success is.

rose was busy shooting 35% in one series, meanwhile dirk nowitzki was busy grabbing only 8 rebounds per contest, and dishing only 2 and a half assists, along with barely over a steal or a block per game.

Dirk wasn't a great defender and rebounder, but he was solid, not bad, however, he was a phenomenal offensive player. Rose was pretty much exclusively an offensive player himself, and I'd much rather have an extremely efficient guy like Dirk who was a monster in the clutch and fit into an offense, than Rose who was inefficient at 39.6% for the entire playoffs, excessively ball-dominant and disappeared in the clutch shooting just 21.4% and averaging just 4.4 ppg in 4th quarters and the game 4 OT while shooting.

the only reason the mavs won a championship was because lebron james didn't play to his usual level, or the level he displayed against the bulls in the conference finals. this had zero to do with dirk nowitzki, who was the worst defender in dallas' starting 5.

So how about the Mavs victories over very talented Laker and Thunder teams? Series that Dirk dominated. And aren't you the one always preaching against hypotheticals?

rose had an outstanding first 2 rounds, and played beyond what nowitzki was capable of at that point.

:oldlol:

rose will not be blamed for chicago not making the nba finals, due to him giving his all, and putting it all on the line. other guys that were contributers during the regular season were non factors in the playoffs. key guys off the bench like ronnie brewer and cj watson did nothing, then there was carlos boozer who was the teams 3rd best player in the regular season and went from 18/10/3 on 51% from the field to a disgusting 13/10/2 on 43%.

His team gave him a chance to win vs Miami. As bad as Rose was, his team was still competitive, makes you wonder. I mentioned how bad Rose was late in games, and all of their losses were up for grabs in the 4th. Game 2 was tied with less than 5 minutes remaining, Game 3 was a 2 point game at one point in the 4th, game 4 went to overtime and the Bulls led by 12 in game 5 with about 3 minutes remaining.

how far did this new found footwork skills and realisation that there was a backboard behind the hoop get his team, the orlando magic though?

As far as you could expect with Howard expected to carry so much of the offense(only other player who averaged even 15 was Carter for just his 22 games with the team), while being almost soley responsible for Orlando having a top 3 defense.

Out of Dwight's 8 teammates who played 15 or more mpg, only 3 shot at least 40%, and only 2 averaged double figures(Nelson at 13.2 ppg, Jason Richardson at 10 ppg) while Dwight averaged 27 ppg, 15.5 rpg, 1.8 bpg on 63 FG%.

You really expect Dwight to win that series with that type of support?

iverson's skillset was much more effective for his team. duncan's team was swept by that lakers team and duncan played disgustingly poor in that series, not that it even matters. the team actually won with allen iverson leading them to victory, and their defensive schemes were a contribution of every player on the floor, but offensively it was largely iverson doing everything. attempting 30 field goals was required for the sixers to have the best chance to win.

:oldlol: at Iverson's skill set being much more effective for his team. Duncan's defense was a big reason the Spurs had an elite defense, and he was easily his team's best and most important offensive player. Iverson's team won on defense and rebounding, and he wasn't great at either.

Congratulations, the Sixers won 1 more game vs the Lakers, that must mean Iverson is better, right? :oldlol:

Iverson was a great scorer, but you brought up stats which is why I brought up the 30 FGA. 33 ppg on 30 FGA is nothing amazing so you should really stay away from numbers on this one.

the whole season is in mind when choosing who the best player, and the playoffs. the playoff's proved iverson was the third best player in the league, only behind o'neal and bryant.

5th best clearly behind Shaq, Duncan and Kobe, and also behind Garnett.

i have demolished all your arguments you have ever put up regarding anyone besides shaquille o'neal being better than kobe bryant in 2000.

Not in your wildest delusion.

payton was better than the aforementioned webber, malone, and ofcourse hill, but was still 6th - 4 spots behind bryant. kidd wasn't even better than robinson.

:oldlol:

:roll: olajuwon embarrassed himself in the whole playoffs, and was swept in the second round.

Hakeem played quite well vs the Lakers.

o'neal had a positive playoff run. he made the conference finals, and despite losing to the eventual champion bulls, still put up 27/11/4 on 64% from the field.

His playoff run was more good than bad, but he didn't dominate the Bulls and shot under 40% from the line.

robinson had a negative playoff run, but nowhere near olajuwon's, whos series against seattle was pure filth. he averaged 30/12/3/1/3 on 56% from the field in the first round win over charles barkley, kevin johnson, and the phoenix suns.

That Suns team was about as bad of a defensive as you can see in the playoffs, 7th worst in the league, and their interior defense in particular was very weak, so forgive me if I don't alter my rankings because he dominated that team.

Robinson's series vs Utah was clearly worse than Hakeem's vs Seattle, and more importantly, Hakeem was still simply a better player.

the very importand facet of winning games, and making your teammates appear much better than they would be if you weren't there. robinson was also a much better rebounder, defender, and alot better at taking care of the ball. i will also take robinson's offensive game at this point.

Hakeem had a greater impact on his teammates, it's pretty clear when watching how Houston's offense operated. :oldlol: at Robinson being a "much" better defender and rebounder, and taking Robinson over Hakeem offensively.

:roll: pippen stepped up and led the bulls in the playoffs with michael jordan playing uncharacteristically human like.

Your delusions have returned.

if you had seen any of those games you will understand how many ways pippen could impact on a game, besides scoring the basketball.

I'm well aware of that, he still had a poor series, it was well documented.

if mcdaniel was considered a disappointment it was only due to the fact that he was in a new system, and a system where he could no longer get the ball when he wanted because ewing was the focal point, and a very poor passer.

Some of this is true, except Ewing's passing was fine at this point.

drexler definately had more of an impact on the blazers, leading them to the best record in the western conference, and the nba finals.

Because that team was loaded. Ewing's defensive impact is too much for Drexler to overcome especially since Ewing was a better half court scorer than Drexler making their offense much closer than their defense.

stockton? easy choice over ewing. stockton was his teams best player, although malone played better than stockton in the playoffs, stockton was still the jazz' best player due to his spectacular regular season in which he was top 3 most valuable.

There was not one season that both Stockton and Ewing were in the league when Stockton was the better player from '89-'97.

although hakeem did not make the playoffs, ewing did not do anything in the playoffs to increase his rank over olajuwon. ewing decreased his points, rebounds, steals, blocks, all in more minutes per game, ewing also decreased his field goal percentage by more than 6 percentage points, and had to take 20 shots to get his 23 points, a disgusting line for a center.

Ewing was excellent in both of his playoff series, and he had a better regular season than Hakeem on top of it.

better than drooling over ppg stats

You keep sticking to that line, anyone else who sees this thread and my posts will see how ridiculous and unsubstantiated it is.

magic was much better at making teammates better, running sets, creating scoring opportunities, and running a team. he also contributed more, had no weaknesses to his game, was finals mvp, stepped up more when it counted, and was just flat out better. easy choice here, no contest.

So in other words, Magic was better at being a point guard than Kareem? I guess Norm Nixon was better than Kareem too. Magic did have weaknesses. Outside shooting, half court skill set and defense. Kareem's weaknesses were barely weaknesses and far more minimal.

Shep

10-08-2012, 06:44 AM

I don't care what the difference between 1st and 2nd best player is when that Bulls team is the best defensive team and outrebounded opponents by a stunning 5.7 rpg. I expect Rose to win a lot of games with that support.

By the way, remember your comment about Howard because once you consider Howard made his team an elite defense while Rose was backed by one and you'll see how ridiculous comparing them based on team success is.
lol. rose was voted league mvp for a reason. that reason was because he was the most valuable player (or second most valuable in this case) to his teams success, in the entire league.

Dirk wasn't a great defender and rebounder, but he was solid, not bad, however, he was a phenomenal offensive player. Rose was pretty much exclusively an offensive player himself, and I'd much rather have an extremely efficient guy like Dirk who was a monster in the clutch and fit into an offense, than Rose who was inefficient at 39.6% for the entire playoffs, excessively ball-dominant and disappeared in the clutch shooting just 21.4% and averaging just 4.4 ppg in 4th quarters and the game 4 OT while shooting.
where are you getting this trash from? rose was much more clutch all season long. i would rather have nowitzki in the playoffs that particular season anyway, as i have stated he slightly outplayed rose. but in the regular season the difference was just far, far too much to overcome.

So how about the Mavs victories over very talented Laker and Thunder teams? Series that Dirk dominated. And aren't you the one always preaching against hypotheticals?
who is talking about hypotheticals? i'm talking about facts. nowitzki didn't dominate anything or anyone in the playoffs. 25/9 against the lakers? good, but not great. less than 6 rebounds per game and over 4 turnovers per game against the thunder? not good at all. jason kidd was the best player in the oklahoma series.

His team gave him a chance to win vs Miami. As bad as Rose was, his team was still competitive, makes you wonder. I mentioned how bad Rose was late in games, and all of their losses were up for grabs in the 4th. Game 2 was tied with less than 5 minutes remaining, Game 3 was a 2 point game at one point in the 4th, game 4 went to overtime and the Bulls led by 12 in game 5 with about 3 minutes remaining.
rose put the bulls in those positions to win games.
there was also a number of times when rose led the bulls like a league mvp leads his teams including game 1 vs the pacers coming up huge in the fourth quarter to lead the bulls back from being behind by 10 points, finishing with 39 points. game 2 vs the pacers, scoring 8 points over the final 4 minutes of regulation en route to a 36 point night. game 3 vs the pacers, coming up huge again in the final stages, making a go ahead layup inside 20 seconds. playing a massive part in the bulls taking over game 5 in chicago. i could go on, but seriously, how many games did you actually watch? or are you just going by popular notion?

As far as you could expect with Howard expected to carry so much of the offense(only other player who averaged even 15 was Carter for just his 22 games with the team), while being almost soley responsible for Orlando having a top 3 defense.

Out of Dwight's 8 teammates who played 15 or more mpg, only 3 shot at least 40%, and only 2 averaged double figures(Nelson at 13.2 ppg, Jason Richardson at 10 ppg) while Dwight averaged 27 ppg, 15.5 rpg, 1.8 bpg on 63 FG%.

You really expect Dwight to win that series with that type of support?
jameer nelson had the best season of his career, hedo turkoglu provided solid support with his 11/5/5, and jason richardson was a nice contributer with his 14/4/2. howard had a major dropoff in his play in the playoffs with huge drops in assists (0.5apg :roll: ), steals (0.7spg), and blocks (1.8bpg), on top of almost averaging almost 6 turnovers per game.

at Iverson's skill set being much more effective for his team. Duncan's defense was a big reason the Spurs had an elite defense, and he was easily his team's best and most important offensive player. Iverson's team won on defense and rebounding, and he wasn't great at either.
david robinson was a bigger reason the spurs had an elite defense, i'll give you the fact that he was his teams best offensive player. iverson's team won on iverson's talents, then on defense and rebounding.

Congratulations, the Sixers won 1 more game vs the Lakers, that must mean Iverson is better, right?
yeh it must mean iverson was better huh, especially after duncan went for 12 points and 10 rebounds on 33% over the final 2 games against that same lakers side, en route to getting swept out of the playoffs :oldlol:

Iverson was a great scorer, but you brought up stats which is why I brought up the 30 FGA. 33 ppg on 30 FGA is nothing amazing so you should really stay away from numbers on this one.
i'd rather have 33ppg on 30fga and an nba finals appearance out of a 2 guard, then 24ppg on 19fga and a second round sweep out of a power forward. you should really stay away from any discussion on any subject where i am involved, for your own sake on this one.

5th best clearly behind Shaq, Duncan and Kobe, and also behind Garnett.
clearly behind shaq. also behind kobe. duncan was fourth. garnett? he wasn't even top 7 :roll:

Not in your wildest delusion.
:rolleyes:

:oldlol:
:confusedshrug:

Hakeem played quite well vs the Lakers.
no as good as robinson played against the suns. o'neal had a positive playoff run. he made the conference finals, and despite losing to the eventual champion bulls, still put up 27/11/4 on 64% from the field.

Your delusions have returned.
your delusions have always been apparent

I'm well aware of that, he still had a poor series, it was well documented.
just because he scored 5 less ppg? :hammerhead: new york were by far the slowest paced, and best defensive team in the playoffs, 5 less ppg than his regular season average doesn't mean anything.

Because that team was loaded. Ewing's defensive impact is too much for Drexler to overcome especially since Ewing was a better half court scorer than Drexler making their offense much closer than their defense.
:oldlol: not these excuses again. they had the same team only 2 seasons earlier and finished below .500. how far did ewings offense and defense lead the knicks to?

There was not one season that both Stockton and Ewing were in the league when Stockton was the better player from '89-'97.
ofcourse stockton was better in '88. but in those seasons you mentioned? he was better in '89, '91 (in another league by this stage), '92, and '97.

Ewing was excellent in both of his playoff series, and he had a better regular season than Hakeem on top of it.
:roll: :oldlol:

You keep sticking to that line, anyone else who sees this thread and my posts will see how ridiculous and unsubstantiated it is.
popular beliefs and ppg, followed by excuses = basis for all shaqattack arguments.

So in other words, Magic was better at being a point guard than Kareem? I guess Norm Nixon was better than Kareem too. Magic did have weaknesses. Outside shooting, half court skill set and defense. Kareem's weaknesses were barely weaknesses and far more minimal.
nixon was definately more impressive in the playoffs. magic was not only a better point guard, but a better player, best in the league infact. magic's weaknesses were nothing compared to abdul-jabbars, lazy getting up and down the court, rebounding liability, mediocre free throw shooter, zero defense aside from shot blocking, slow and weak.

Money 23

10-08-2012, 10:28 AM

a number of teams have had the best 2 players in the league
:biggums:

11 heat
The Heat had Dwight Howard?

01 lakers
The Lakers had Tim Duncan?

00 lakers
The Lakers had Kevin Garnett?

99 spurs
The Spurs had Shaquille O'Neal?

96 bulls
The Bulls had David Robinson?

92 bulls
The Bulls had Clyde Drexler?

91 bulls
The Bulls had Magic Johnson?

ShaqAttack3234

10-08-2012, 11:31 PM

lol. rose was voted league mvp for a reason. that reason was because he was the most valuable player (or second most valuable in this case) to his teams success, in the entire league.

Rose was clearly less valuable than Howard and Lebron at the very least.

where are you getting this trash from? rose was much more clutch all season long. i would rather have nowitzki in the playoffs that particular season anyway, as i have stated he slightly outplayed rose. but in the regular season the difference was just far, far too much to overcome.

:oldlol: Dirk was just a better player than Rose. He did what Rose did best much better than Rose did, and that's score. He was much more efficient, versatile and difficult to stop. He was a great shooter from everywhere, particularly mid-range, and he could create his own shot very well because of his unstoppable fadeaway. He was unstoppable from both the mid-post area and perimeter, plus he didn't need to dominate the ball like Rose.

who is talking about hypotheticals? i'm talking about facts. nowitzki didn't dominate anything or anyone in the playoffs. 25/9 against the lakers? good, but not great. less than 6 rebounds per game and over 4 turnovers per game against the thunder? not good at all. jason kidd was the best player in the oklahoma series.

It was clear to anyone who watched the 2011 playoffs that Dirk dominated that playoff run. Check out how efficient he was vs the Lakers and he shot 50% in every game. He averaged 32 vs OKC and I'm sure you remember his two 40+ games.

In the 9 games between the Laker and OKC series, Dirk scored at least 25 points in 7 of those games, and shot at least 50% in 8 of those games.

:roll: at Kidd being the MVP of the WCF. He was still a nice contributor, but he had declined a ton and simply isn't a star player anymore.

i could go on, but seriously, how many games did you actually watch? or are you just going by popular notion?

When it mattered most, Rose was unbelievably bad in the clutch as I showed, and if he was better, they would have a chance to beat Miami, or they would have at least won an extra game or 2. Do I even need to tell you what Dirk did in the clutch that postseason?

jameer nelson had the best season of his career, hedo turkoglu provided solid support with his 11/5/5, and jason richardson was a nice contributer with his 14/4/2. howard had a major dropoff in his play in the playoffs with huge drops in assists (0.5apg :roll: ), steals (0.7spg), and blocks (1.8bpg), on top of almost averaging almost 6 turnovers per game.

Nelson didn't have the best season of his career, and was no more than an average point guard at best. He was not a great facilitator due to his limited court vision and habit of overdribbling, plus he was a terrible defender. Richardson was also no more than an average shooting guard. A one-dimensional shooting guard who didn't provide much other than 3 point shooting. Hedo was ok, but again average for his position. Good playmaker, but inconsistent offensively and also a weak defender.

Plus, Dwight made Orlando a top 3 defensive team and his 14.1 rpg were why Orlando outrebounded opponents by 3.5 rpg. Rose averaged 4.1 rpg and was an average defensive point guard yet Chicago was the best defensive team and outrebounded opponents by 5.7 rpg.

david robinson was a bigger reason the spurs had an elite defense, i'll give you the fact that he was his teams best offensive player. iverson's team won on iverson's talents, then on defense and rebounding.

False, Iverson's team clearly won on defense and rebounding first. They had a top 5 defense statistically and imo, were the most well rounded defense between interior defense and perimeter defense. Plus, they outrebounded opponents by an excellent 4 rpg. Eric Snow and Aaron McKie both averaged more assists than Iverson and handled a lot of the ball-handling allowing Iverson to play shooting guard and look for his own shot.

Iverson was the primary reason Philly was a decent offensive team, but it's false to say Philly won on offense primarily.

And to show how overstated Philly's reliance on Iverson is, they started off 16-4 with Iverson averaging only 24/5/5 on 39 FG%.

As far as David Robinson being more responsible for their defense, well I think both players were comparable defensively at this stage, but Duncan was on the court for 39 mpg, while Robinson only played 30. Either way, Duncan was a big impact player defensively, while Iverson was not, and certainly not in the same ballpark as Duncan defensively.

yeh it must mean iverson was better huh, especially after duncan went for 12 points and 10 rebounds on 33% over the final 2 games against that same lakers side, en route to getting swept out of the playoffs :oldlol:

I'll concede Duncan deserves criticism for that, but if you look at the reasons Philly was more competitive, a lot of them have nothing to do with either player.

Philly was able to contain 1 of the 2 Laker stars much more. Kobe torched the Spurs and exploited their perimeter defense, meanwhile, the Sixers had much better perimeter defenders such as Aaron McKie to slow down Kobe, and if Kobe didn't have easily his worst game of the playoffs, the Lakers would have easily won that game. Plus, Horace Grant wasn't an impact player like previous series because his post defense wasn't very important vs Philly, and finally, Fisher was on an incredible hot streak vs the Spurs and came down to earth vs Philly.

i'd rather have 33ppg on 30fga and an nba finals appearance out of a 2 guard, then 24ppg on 19fga and a second round sweep out of a power forward. you should really stay away from any discussion on any subject where i am involved, for your own sake on this one.

:oldlol: It's amazing how wrong you can be. First of all, Duncan got ot the WCF and lost to the same team Iverson did, and I'd rather have Duncan's more efficient scoring, smarter, more team-oriented offensive play and elite defense and rebounding. Than a volume scorer who is an undersized 2 guard and doesn't have anywhere near the same impact outside of scoring.

clearly behind shaq. also behind kobe. duncan was fourth. garnett? he wasn't even top 7 :roll:

Well, at least you're right that he was behind Shaq and Kobe, but it's apparent that you have to watch more Duncan and Garnett games.

no as good as robinson played against the suns. o'neal had a positive playoff run. he made the conference finals, and despite losing to the eventual champion bulls, still put up 27/11/4 on 64% from the field.

It's a lot easier to dominate a team with a terrible defense, especially defensive frontcourt like the Suns than the Lakers. Not to mention that many weren't even sure Hakeem's Rockets would be that talented Laker team.

just because he scored 5 less ppg? :hammerhead: new york were by far the slowest paced, and best defensive team in the playoffs, 5 less ppg than his regular season average doesn't mean anything.

Watch the series, Pippen had a poor series by his standards. It's revisionist history to suggest otherwise. He was great in the other 3 series, but not in this one. In fairness, he did have an ankle injury, which some thought may have affected him.

:oldlol: not these excuses again. they had the same team only 2 seasons earlier and finished below .500. how far did ewings offense and defense lead the knicks to?

Ewing led the Knicks to a 7th game vs Chicago. I just described why he was clearly a better player than Drexler.

ofcourse stockton was better in '88. but in those seasons you mentioned? he was better in '89, '91 (in another league by this stage), '92, and '97.

I'm undecided on Ewing vs Stockton in '88, but it's possible. Stockton has no case in those other years.

popular beliefs and ppg, followed by excuses = basis for all shaqattack arguments.

Nope, I give detailed assessments of every player's game I discuss. If I can't, then I try to avoid discussing them.

nixon was definately more impressive in the playoffs. magic was not only a better point guard, but a better player, best in the league infact. magic's weaknesses were nothing compared to abdul-jabbars, lazy getting up and down the court, rebounding liability, mediocre free throw shooter, zero defense aside from shot blocking, slow and weak.

:oldlol: This whole post set a new standard for stupidity.

Kareem was their first option offensively as well as their best scorer by far, and their defensive anchor, plus he created a lot of opportunities for teammates with his passing out of double teams. That alone makes it a fact that Kareem was the Lakers best and most valuable player.

Kareem's only real weakness was running the floor, and many centers don't do that much anyway.

Shep

10-15-2012, 10:09 AM

Rose was clearly less valuable than Howard and Lebron at the very least.
only lebron was more valuable

Dirk was just a better player than Rose. He did what Rose did best much better than Rose did, and that's score. He was much more efficient, versatile and difficult to stop. He was a great shooter from everywhere, particularly mid-range, and he could create his own shot very well because of his unstoppable fadeaway. He was unstoppable from both the mid-post area and perimeter, plus he didn't need to dominate the ball like Rose.
he was a better shooter than rose. overall offensively rose has the edge with not only his ability to score the basketball, but also being able to get others involved.

It was clear to anyone who watched the 2011 playoffs that Dirk dominated that playoff run. Check out how efficient he was vs the Lakers and he shot 50% in every game. He averaged 32 vs OKC and I'm sure you remember his two 40+ games.
no doubt he played well in the playoffs, but nowhere near well enough to elivate him past rose into the number 3 spot on the official rankings, and he had alot of help. jason terry burned those lakers to the tune of 20/2/4 on 59% from the field, 68% from the 3 point line, and 86% from the free throw line off the bench. peja stojakovic was huge with his 13/2 including 6/6 from downtown in game 4. the mavs bench was a huge reason they won that series.
against okc? yeh i remember the 40 point games, but i also remember the 3 out of 5 games with 5 rebounds or less, and also the 7 turnover game. jason kidd was also the mavs best player in that series.

In the 9 games between the Laker and OKC series, Dirk scored at least 25 points in 7 of those games, and shot at least 50% in 8 of those games.
in those games he also recorded double figures in rebounds once, had less than 3 assists on 4 occasions, had zero steals 6 out of 9 games, had zero blocks 6 out of 9 games, and turned the ball over 3 times or more 5 times.

at Kidd being the MVP of the WCF. He was still a nice contributor, but he had declined a ton and simply isn't a star player anymore.
i'd definately call kidd a star in 2011. he was still one of the best point guards in the league, and top 9 overall. in the western conference finals he averaged 10/5/9 along with over 3 steals per game. in the playoffs he led everyone in the entire league in assists, and steals, along with 3 point field goals. all this while being being a great team defender, and one of the smartest players the game has known.

When it mattered most, Rose was unbelievably bad in the clutch as I showed, and if he was better, they would have a chance to beat Miami, or they would have at least won an extra game or 2. Do I even need to tell you what Dirk did in the clutch that postseason?
he probably used up all his energy keeping the bulls in contention after all the players i have already mentioned played disgusting throughout the series and playoffs, the bulls wouldn't even had made the conference finals if he didn't put them on his shoulders and carry them like he did in the first 2 rounds to the tune of 29 points, 5 rebounds, 8 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.

Nelson didn't have the best season of his career, and was no more than an average point guard at best. He was not a great facilitator due to his limited court vision and habit of overdribbling, plus he was a terrible defender. Richardson was also no more than an average shooting guard. A one-dimensional shooting guard who didn't provide much other than 3 point shooting. Hedo was ok, but again average for his position. Good playmaker, but inconsistent offensively and also a weak defender.
nelson had the best season of his career, playing in 76 games, putting up 13/3/6 with 1 steal per contest. his assists mark was the highest of his career. he was a better than average facilitator, and he made up for his defense with his driving game which was fantastic, his mid range shooting, his quickness and ability on the fast break, and his handles.
richardson was made average by the orlando magic offense, and proved what he was capable of in the previous seasons, and half of season '11. dwight howard did him no favors by clogging the lane. he was made a 3 point shooter.
hedo was a great passer, and ball handler, and a solid small forward.

Plus, Dwight made Orlando a top 3 defensive team and his 14.1 rpg were why Orlando outrebounded opponents by 3.5 rpg. Rose averaged 4.1 rpg and was an average defensive point guard yet Chicago was the best defensive team and outrebounded opponents by 5.7 rpg.
this is just stupid. thats like rose scoring 25ppg was the reason why chicago outscored opponents by 7.3ppg. how far did that defense get the orlando magic? the magic went from 59 wins and a conference finals appearance to 52 wins and a first round loss to a team with 8 less wins than them while howard played like trash. rose's improvement from 2010 to 2011 is the reason why chicago went from a .500 record to the best record in the league.

False, Iverson's team clearly won on defense and rebounding first. They had a top 5 defense statistically and imo, were the most well rounded defense between interior defense and perimeter defense. Plus, they outrebounded opponents by an excellent 4 rpg. Eric Snow and Aaron McKie both averaged more assists than Iverson and handled a lot of the ball-handling allowing Iverson to play shooting guard and look for his own shot.
false. iverson's next best scorer didn't even score 12 points per game. his 31/4/5 along with a league leading 2.5 steals per game was the main reason his sixers had the best record in the east, and made the nba finals.

Iverson was the primary reason Philly was a decent offensive team, but it's false to say Philly won on offense primarily.
iverson was the biggest contributer by far as to the reason why philadelphia was successful.

And to show how overstated Philly's reliance on Iverson is, they started off 16-4 with Iverson averaging only 24/5/5 on 39 FG%.
:roll: this trash again. how many good teams did they beat?

As far as David Robinson being more responsible for their defense, well I think both players were comparable defensively at this stage, but Duncan was on the court for 39 mpg, while Robinson only played 30. Either way, Duncan was a big impact player defensively, while Iverson was not, and certainly not in the same ballpark as Duncan defensively.
defensive impact doesn't really mean alot when you are getting swept out of the playoffs contributing 12 points on 33% from the field.

I'll concede Duncan deserves criticism for that, but if you look at the reasons Philly was more competitive, a lot of them have nothing to do with either player.

Philly was able to contain 1 of the 2 Laker stars much more. Kobe torched the Spurs and exploited their perimeter defense, meanwhile, the Sixers had much better perimeter defenders such as Aaron McKie to slow down Kobe, and if Kobe didn't have easily his worst game of the playoffs, the Lakers would have easily won that game. Plus, Horace Grant wasn't an impact player like previous series because his post defense wasn't very important vs Philly, and finally, Fisher was on an incredible hot streak vs the Spurs and came down to earth vs Philly.
more excuses and hypotheticals. more of the same old shit.

Shep

10-15-2012, 10:10 AM

It's amazing how wrong you can be. First of all, Duncan got ot the WCF and lost to the same team Iverson did, and I'd rather have Duncan's more efficient scoring, smarter, more team-oriented offensive play and elite defense and rebounding. Than a volume scorer who is an undersized 2 guard and doesn't have anywhere near the same impact outside of scoring.
iverson's heart alone gets him over tim. how did duncan lose? 12ppg on 33% from the field. iverson would not go down like that, that is the difference between iverson and duncan in 2001. how did iverson go down in the same last 2 games against LA? 36 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2 steals.

Well, at least you're right that he was behind Shaq and Kobe, but it's apparent that you have to watch more Duncan and Garnett games.
kevin garnett is nowhere near the discussion, he isn't even better than vince carter, chris webber, and tracy mcgrady, let alone allen iverson. duncan was relatively close, but it is easy to tell iverson is the better player of the two.

It's a lot easier to dominate a team with a terrible defense, especially defensive frontcourt like the Suns than the Lakers. Not to mention that many weren't even sure Hakeem's Rockets would be that talented Laker team.
no doubt they were talented, but they were facing the two time defending champions gunning for a three peat featuring some of the best players in the nba at 3 positions, coming off a season where they won 1 less game and won a championship. nobody in their right mind would pick the star-less lakers to win. olajuwon showed his true colors against seattle.

Watch the series, Pippen had a poor series by his standards. It's revisionist history to suggest otherwise. He was great in the other 3 series, but not in this one. In fairness, he did have an ankle injury, which some thought may have affected him.
pippen had a great, all-round series. you and your ppg :rolleyes:

Ewing led the Knicks to a 7th game vs Chicago. I just described why he was clearly a better player than Drexler.
drexler led the blazers to the nba finals. who says the knicks beat the 53 win suns featuring the second best point guard and the third best shooting guard in the nba? or what about the 55 win utah jazz featuring the best point guard and best power forward in the nba? i highly doubt it. drexler was able to play better than ewing against the bulls, on a bigger stage, matched up with the best player in the league anyway, putting up 25/8/5/1/1. drexler's play throughout the playoff's was even more proof that he was better than ewing including 26/9/9/1/1 against the lakers, 31/8/7/2/2 against the suns, and 24/5/8/2 against the jazz.

I'm undecided on Ewing vs Stockton in '88, but it's possible. Stockton has no case in those other years.
you obviously have not watched any stockton games.

Nope, I give detailed assessments of every player's game I discuss. If I can't, then I try to avoid discussing them.
:rolleyes:

This whole post set a new standard for stupidity.
:roll:

Kareem was their first option offensively as well as their best scorer by far, and their defensive anchor, plus he created a lot of opportunities for teammates with his passing out of double teams. That alone makes it a fact that Kareem was the Lakers best and most valuable player.

Kareem's only real weakness was running the floor, and many centers don't do that much anyway.
kareem was their first option, and he was also a good team defender. this does not make him their best player. magic johnson was. magic was much better at making teammates better, running sets, creating scoring opportunities, and running a team. he also contributed more, had no weaknesses to his game, was finals mvp, stepped up more when it counted, and was just flat out better. easy choice here, no contest.

ShaqAttack3234

10-18-2012, 02:25 PM

only lebron was more valuable

Dwight as well.

he was a better shooter than rose. overall offensively rose has the edge with not only his ability to score the basketball, but also being able to get others involved.

Dirk was better, he didn't have to dominate the ball to dominate.

no doubt he played well in the playoffs, but nowhere near well enough to elivate him past rose into the number 3 spot on the official rankings, and he had alot of help.

Dirk had a great regular season too, it was just overshadowed by his amazing playoff run. I had him top 5-6 prior to the playoffs, and the playoffs elevated him to top 4 minimum. I didn't even think Rose was better during the regular season, much less after the playoffs when Dirk played the best ball of his career, while Rose went out with a terrible ECF.

Yeah, Dirk had help, but he won a championship. Everyone needs help to win a title. Rose had help too, but he lost to the same team Dirk beat, and played much worse vs them.

in those games he also recorded double figures in rebounds once, had less than 3 assists on 4 occasions, had zero steals 6 out of 9 games, had zero blocks 6 out of 9 games, and turned the ball over 3 times or more 5 times.

I didn't claim Dirk was a great defender or rebounder, but he is a great offensive player, one of the best of his era. He can score whenever he wants, from wherever he wants, and his skill set makes him a massive mismatch. And we saw what kind of impact "only" being such a great offensive player had. It resulted in a championship, and he made Dallas contenders for the better part of a decade.

i'd definately call kidd a star in 2011.

Kidd was nowhere near star level. He was a remarkable contributor for a 38 year old, but he was pretty much a role player by this point.

he probably used up all his energy keeping the bulls in contention after all the players i have already mentioned played disgusting throughout the series and playoffs

Rose was tired? And you accuse me of excuses? His team obviously wasn't as bad as you say, otherwise they wouldn't have been competitive in just about every ECF game into the 4th or even OT against Miami with Rose having a putrid series, and playing even worse in the 4th quarters when games were up for grabs.

nelson had the best season of his career, playing in 76 games, putting up 13/3/6 with 1 steal per contest. his assists mark was the highest of his career. he was a better than average facilitator, and he made up for his defense with his driving game which was fantastic, his mid range shooting, his quickness and ability on the fast break, and his handles.
richardson was made average by the orlando magic offense, and proved what he was capable of in the previous seasons, and half of season '11. dwight howard did him no favors by clogging the lane. he was made a 3 point shooter.
hedo was a great passer, and ball handler, and a solid small forward.

None of them were even top 10 at their position. And Dwight didn't make Richardson worse, He just didn't have the best playmaker like he did in Phoenix. But even in '10 and '11 with Phoenix, he was still attempting 5-6 threes per game and just 2-3 FTA because as I said, he didn't have the ball-handling ability to consistently create off the dribble.

this is just stupid. thats like rose scoring 25ppg was the reason why chicago outscored opponents by 7.3ppg. how far did that defense get the orlando magic? the magic went from 59 wins and a conference finals appearance to 52 wins and a first round loss to a team with 8 less wins than them while howard played like trash. rose's improvement from 2010 to 2011 is the reason why chicago went from a .500 record to the best record in the league.

The only thing that's stupid is your analogy. Point differential also involves defense, and Chicago was second to none defensively, which of course, wasn't because of Rose.

Howard improved a lot between 2010 and 2011 so Orlando's decline was obviously not because of him. :oldlol: at Howard playing like trash in the 2011 playoffs. When you're teammates pretty much all shoot under 40%, you're not going to win.

Rose's improvement was certainly a big factor in the Bulls improvement which was the primary reason they went from one of the worst offenses to respectable, but at least as big of a factor was going from not even a top 10 defense to the best defense, and a +1.8 rpg team to a +5.7 rpg team.

false. iverson's next best scorer didn't even score 12 points per game. his 31/4/5 along with a league leading 2.5 steals per game was the main reason his sixers had the best record in the east, and made the nba finals.

How does any of this dispute that Philly primarily won on defense and rebounding?

iverson was the biggest contributer by far as to the reason why philadelphia was successful.

He was without question their best player, I'm not disputing that, I have him top 5.

:roll: this trash again. how many good teams did they beat?

8 of their 16 wins came against winning teams. Not bad, but you're missing the point as usual, despite the fact that I just destroyed your rebuttal attempt, and the point is, if they relied on Iverson as much as you're suggesting, then they couldn't go 16-4 in any type of realistic schedule with Iverson averaging 24/5/5, 39%.

defensive impact doesn't really mean alot when you are getting swept out of the playoffs contributing 12 points on 33% from the field.

Defensive impact is a huge reason why Duncan is one of the all-time greats.

iverson's heart alone gets him over tim. how did duncan lose? 12ppg on 33% from the field. iverson would not go down like that, that is the difference between iverson and duncan in 2001. how did iverson go down in the same last 2 games against LA? 36 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2 steals.

Iverson did have incredible heart, I've always admired him for it, but what you're suggesting is laughable. It's insulting to suggest that Tim doesn't have heart, Iverson had that same heart other years when you never thought he was close to Tim.

kevin garnett is nowhere near the discussion, he isn't even better than vince carter, chris webber, and tracy mcgrady, let alone allen iverson. duncan was relatively close, but it is easy to tell iverson is the better player of the two.

Garnett's all around game alone makes him the right choice over both. Anyone with eyes could see Duncan was better than Iverson.

no doubt they were talented, but they were facing the two time defending champions gunning for a three peat featuring some of the best players in the nba at 3 positions, coming off a season where they won 1 less game and won a championship. nobody in their right mind would pick the star-less lakers to win. olajuwon showed his true colors against seattle.

The Rockets had been decimated by injuries, and had top players at 2 positions, not 3. Hakeem had a poor series by his standards vs Seattle, but David Robinson had a poor series vs a Utah team whose defense was nowhere near as good, and he wasn't swarmed the same way Hakeem was by Seattle, who were one of the best teams I've seen at double-teaming.

drexler led the blazers to the nba finals. who says the knicks beat the 53 win suns featuring the second best point guard and the third best shooting guard in the nba? or what about the 55 win utah jazz featuring the best point guard and best power forward in the nba? i highly doubt it. drexler was able to play better than ewing against the bulls.

Drexler lost to the same Bulls team that Ewing did. Clyde was great vs Phoenix, but he had help with Porter averaging 26/6/8 on 54/41/81, Kersey averaging 18/9/4, 3.2 spg, 1.6 bpg, 52 FG% and Portland still had seven players average double figures in the series. Porter was the most impressive player vs Utah and destroyed the 2nd best point guard John Stockton. Drexler got his ass handed to him in the finals, Ewing was more impressive vs the Bulls.

you obviously have not watched any stockton games.

I've watched too many Stockton games to count, which is why I can rate him correctly, you on the other hand, drool over his assist and steal numbers, and elevate him to a status he never reached.

kareem was their first option, and he was also a good team defender. this does not make him their best player. magic johnson was. magic was much better at making teammates better, running sets, creating scoring opportunities, and running a team. he also contributed more, had no weaknesses to his game, was finals mvp, stepped up more when it counted, and was just flat out better. easy choice here, no contest.

Your first 2 statements about Kareem are important, and why he was still clearly better than Magic. He was the first option for a reason, he was a much better and more reliable scorer than Magic, and he made a much bigger impact defensively. Do you want to try to argue with either of these 2 statements? If you're reasonable and acknowledge them, then you'll see why it's extremely difficult to come up with a logical argument for Magic over Kareem in 1982.

As for the rest of your post, Magic was the best passer in the league, but Kareem could also create in a way that Magic couldn't by drawing double teams. And Magic did have weaknesses in his game as I've stated.

LA Lakers

10-18-2012, 03:36 PM

I wouldnt say McHales Playoff performances were underrated. We all knew how great he was...

Shep

10-25-2012, 10:35 AM

Dwight as well.
dwight was top 4 most valuable, nowhere near rose.

Dirk was better, he didn't have to dominate the ball to dominate.
rose needed to dominate the ball to put his team in the best possible position to succeed

Dirk had a great regular season too, it was just overshadowed by his amazing playoff run. I had him top 5-6 prior to the playoffs, and the playoffs elevated him to top 4 minimum. I didn't even think Rose was better during the regular season, much less after the playoffs when Dirk played the best ball of his career, while Rose went out with a terrible ECF.
nowitzki's regular season was nothing special. dirk was 15th after the regular season, and the playoffs elevated him to 4th. you don't even think rose was better during the regular season? :roll: the only players who were better after the regular season were lebron james and dwight howard. as for the best ball of his career? if you are talking about peak this is nowhere near his peak. if you are talking about pure playoffs? i'll take dirk in 2006 over 2011.

Yeah, Dirk had help, but he won a championship. Everyone needs help to win a title. Rose had help too, but he lost to the same team Dirk beat, and played much worse vs them.
dirk gets his props for winning the championship, but rose also stepped up big in the playoffs as i have previously destroyed including game 1 vs the pacers coming up huge in the fourth quarter to lead the bulls back from being behind by 10 points, finishing with 39 points. game 2 vs the pacers, scoring 8 points over the final 4 minutes of regulation en route to a 36 point night. game 3 vs the pacers, coming up huge again in the final stages, making a go ahead layup inside 20 seconds. playing a massive part in the bulls taking over game 5 in chicago.

I didn't claim Dirk was a great defender or rebounder, but he is a great offensive player, one of the best of his era. He can score whenever he wants, from wherever he wants, and his skill set makes him a massive mismatch. And we saw what kind of impact "only" being such a great offensive player had. It resulted in a championship, and he made Dallas contenders for the better part of a decade.
he is a nice offensive player, but he is also soft, and bigmen who are soft..well it doesn't really translate well into the playoffs as he has underperformed in more playoffs than he has done well in including 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2012. so out of 12 total playoffs years that he has been involved in he has only impressed in 2006, 2009, and 2011. not a good record at all.

Kidd was nowhere near star level. He was a remarkable contributor for a 38 year old, but he was pretty much a role player by this point.
lol top 4 point guard, top 9 overall. easily a star.

Rose was tired? And you accuse me of excuses? His team obviously wasn't as bad as you say, otherwise they wouldn't have been competitive in just about every ECF game into the 4th or even OT against Miami with Rose having a putrid series, and playing even worse in the 4th quarters when games were up for grabs.
if you have a "putrid series" and are still able to put up 23 points, 4 rebounds, and 7 assists per game you are in good company. not many players could put up those numbers and be labelled as having a "putrid series", only 2 infact: lebron james and dwyane wade. aside from this series, a series in which all-nba first team defender, and best player in the league lebron james defended rose, rose was superb and played at a level nowitzki could not dream of reaching, atleast not in 2011. rose put up 29/5/8/2/1 in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs - leading the bulls past a physical indiana pacers outfit in round 1, and scoring over 32 points on 3 occasions in the dismantling of the atlanta hawks.

None of them were even top 10 at their position. And Dwight didn't make Richardson worse, He just didn't have the best playmaker like he did in Phoenix. But even in '10 and '11 with Phoenix, he was still attempting 5-6 threes per game and just 2-3 FTA because as I said, he didn't have the ball-handling ability to consistently create off the dribble.
richardson was on course to be easily placed in the top 10 at his position before being forced to sit on the 3 point line on offensive sets with orlando. his confidence was shot, he went from attempting 16 shots in 32 minutes to 12 shots in 35 minutes.

The only thing that's stupid is your analogy. Point differential also involves defense, and Chicago was second to none defensively, which of course, wasn't because of Rose.
actually only you are stupid. how many rebounds someone gets also involves how good your teammate disrupts the offensive players shot.

Howard improved a lot between 2010 and 2011 so Orlando's decline was obviously not because of him. at Howard playing like trash in the 2011 playoffs. When you're teammates pretty much all shoot under 40%, you're not going to win.
howard was better in the regular season, but his play in the 2010 playoffs was simply on another level compared to the filth he served up in 2011, including losing to a team with 8 less wins than them, and with home court advantage.

Rose's improvement was certainly a big factor in the Bulls improvement which was the primary reason they went from one of the worst offenses to respectable, but at least as big of a factor was going from not even a top 10 defense to the best defense, and a +1.8 rpg team to a +5.7 rpg team.
yeh but rose is 1 person, defense is all about a team. each person contributes to the defense, rose individually contributed more than the total of each individual combined.

How does any of this dispute that Philly primarily won on defense and rebounding?
iverson is 1 person, defense is all about a team. each person contributes to the defense, iverson individually contributed more than the total of each individual combined

He was without question their best player, I'm not disputing that, I have him top 5.
well i am sorry to inform you that the rank of 5th is not correct for allen iverson in 2001. the correct rank is 3rd.

8 of their 16 wins came against winning teams. Not bad, but you're missing the point as usual, despite the fact that I just destroyed your rebuttal attempt, and the point is, if they relied on Iverson as much as you're suggesting, then they couldn't go 16-4 in any type of realistic schedule with Iverson averaging 24/5/5, 39%.
you have destroyed zero so far, and i highly doubt you will destroy any more than zero for the entirety of this destroying i am handing out. of the 9 away wins only 2 teams were had a better record than the sixers did the previous year, and they did not play any team with a top 6 record in the west (except against the lakers and spurs (in which both games were demolished)). the wins came against middle of the road teams who they should have beaten, and they played against them at the start of the season, the easiest part of the season to pick up easy wins and catch teams off guard.

Shep

10-25-2012, 10:36 AM

Defensive impact is a huge reason why Duncan is one of the all-time greats.
we are talking about the 2001 nba season

Iverson did have incredible heart, I've always admired him for it, but what you're suggesting is laughable. It's insulting to suggest that Tim doesn't have heart, Iverson had that same heart other years when you never thought he was close to Tim.
tim duncan did not show heart in the last 2 games of his season

Garnett's all around game alone makes him the right choice over both. Anyone with eyes could see Duncan was better than Iverson.
lol garnett is nowhere in the top 7. duncan was close, but people who know basketball know that iverson was better than him in 2001.

The Rockets had been decimated by injuries, and had top players at 2 positions, not 3. Hakeem had a poor series by his standards vs Seattle, but David Robinson had a poor series vs a Utah team whose defense was nowhere near as good, and he wasn't swarmed the same way Hakeem was by Seattle, who were one of the best teams I've seen at double-teaming.
hakeem was the 3rd best center in the league (second before his disgusting showing in the playoffs), drexler was the second best shooting guard, and robert horry was the third best small forward. olajuwon was swept out of the playoffs after winning the previous 2 championships.

Drexler lost to the same Bulls team that Ewing did. Clyde was great vs Phoenix, but he had help with Porter averaging 26/6/8 on 54/41/81, Kersey averaging 18/9/4, 3.2 spg, 1.6 bpg, 52 FG% and Portland still had seven players average double figures in the series. Porter was the most impressive player vs Utah and destroyed the 2nd best point guard John Stockton. Drexler got his ass handed to him in the finals, Ewing was more impressive vs the Bulls.
drexler got his ass handed to him? i would take getting my ass handed to me (and still managing to put up 25/8/5/1/1) and being matched up with the best player the game has ever seen 1 year removed from his peak after leading my team to its first nba finals in 15 years, and being my teams best and most impressive playoff performer, over losing in the second round of the playoffs against bill cartwright any day.

I've watched too many Stockton games to count, which is why I can rate him correctly, you on the other hand, drool over his assist and steal numbers, and elevate him to a status he never reached.
better than drooling over points per game in losing teams :roll:

Your first 2 statements about Kareem are important, and why he was still clearly better than Magic. He was the first option for a reason, he was a much better and more reliable scorer than Magic, and he made a much bigger impact defensively. Do you want to try to argue with either of these 2 statements? If you're reasonable and acknowledge them, then you'll see why it's extremely difficult to come up with a logical argument for Magic over Kareem in 1982.

As for the rest of your post, Magic was the best passer in the league, but Kareem could also create in a way that Magic couldn't by drawing double teams. And Magic did have weaknesses in his game as I've stated.
kareem had more glaring weaknesses to his game. abdul-jabbar was lazy getting up and down the court, was a rebounding liability, a mediocre free throw shooter, provided zero defense aside from shot blocking, and was slow and weak. magic on the other hand was much better at making teammates better, running sets, creating scoring opportunities, and running a team. he also contributed more, played better in the regular season, and much better in the playoffs, had no weaknesses to his game, was finals mvp, stepped up more when it counted, and was just flat out better.

ShaqAttack3234

11-15-2012, 12:47 PM

rose needed to dominate the ball to put his team in the best possible position to succeed

Dirk was more productive offensively in the playoffs and did it in a style that allowed others to get involved more.

nowitzki's regular season was nothing special. dirk was 15th after the regular season, and the playoffs elevated him to 4th. you don't even think rose was better during the regular season? :roll: the only players who were better after the regular season were lebron james and dwight howard. as for the best ball of his career? if you are talking about peak this is nowhere near his peak. if you are talking about pure playoffs? i'll take dirk in 2006 over 2011.

The fact that you elevated Dirk from 15th to 4th shows that you didn't watch Dirk much during the regular season. And yeah, I thought Dirk was better, I thought Rose was getting overrated from the start, and I thought Dirk was having an underrated season. Should have been an MVP candidate, imo. At least you admit Dwight was better than Rose during the regular season. With the other comment, I was just talking about the playoffs, and 2006 is definitely comparable. As far as peak, I think '11 is up there, but I'm not sure he was better than '06, '07 and '09.

dirk gets his props for winning the championship, but rose also stepped up big in the playoffs as i have previously destroyed including game 1 vs the pacers coming up huge in the fourth quarter to lead the bulls back from being behind by 10 points, finishing with 39 points. game 2 vs the pacers, scoring 8 points over the final 4 minutes of regulation en route to a 36 point night. game 3 vs the pacers, coming up huge again in the final stages, making a go ahead layup inside 20 seconds. playing a massive part in the bulls taking over game 5 in chicago.

Rose was big vs Atlanta, but vs Indiana, he shot 37%, had just 6.2 apg with 3.8 TO, and he was so bad vs Miami, that it overshadows his Atlanta series.

he is a nice offensive player, but he is also soft, and bigmen who are soft..well it doesn't really translate well into the playoffs as he has underperformed in more playoffs than he has done well in including 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2012. so out of 12 total playoffs years that he has been involved in he has only impressed in 2006, 2009, and 2011. not a good record at all.

The soft label hasn't been appropriate for Dirk in years, and his game has translated to the playoffs remarkably well. How did he underperform in '03? He was great and led Dallas to the WCF. He destroyed Minnesota in '02, and he didn't underperform in '04, '08, '10 and '12 either.

if you have a "putrid series" and are still able to put up 23 points, 4 rebounds, and 7 assists per game you are in good company. not many players could put up those numbers and be labelled as having a "putrid series", only 2 infact: lebron james and dwyane wade. aside from this series, a series in which all-nba first team defender, and best player in the league lebron james defended rose

No, it means that you're so ball-dominant that you'll still put up numbers even when you're terrible. With those 23.4 ppg were 24 FGA and 35% and 3.8 TO to go with those 6.6 apg.

richardson was on course to be easily placed in the top 10 at his position before being forced to sit on the 3 point line on offensive sets with orlando. his confidence was shot, he went from attempting 16 shots in 32 minutes to 12 shots in 35 minutes.

Bottom line, Richardson was not top 10, and it's not Dwight's fault that Richardson needs the best passer in the league to spoon-feed him open shots.

actually only you are stupid. how many rebounds someone gets also involves how good your teammate disrupts the offensive players shot.

And Rose was lucky to have teammates who forced so many misses.

howard was better in the regular season, but his play in the 2010 playoffs was simply on another level compared to the filth he served up in 2011, including losing to a team with 8 less wins than them, and with home court advantage.

In 2010, Howard was not much of a factor offensively vs Charlotte and constantly in foul trouble, and he didn't bother showing up vs Boston until they were already down 3-0. Regardless, there's nothing Howard could have done in the '10 playoffs to make him equal to 2011. There were just clear improvements in his game that made him a much better player and were obvious throughout the 2011 season.

yeh but rose is 1 person, defense is all about a team. each person contributes to the defense, rose individually contributed more than the total of each individual combined.

I'm not comparing Rose or Iverson to any one of their teammates, I'm talking about the overall help they had, and the defense and rebounding their teammates provided was very important.

you have destroyed zero so far, and i highly doubt you will destroy any more than zero for the entirety of this destroying i am handing out. of the 9 away wins only 2 teams were had a better record than the sixers did the previous year, and they did not play any team with a top 6 record in the west (except against the lakers and spurs (in which both games were demolished)). the wins came against middle of the road teams who they should have beaten, and they played against them at the start of the season, the easiest part of the season to pick up easy wins and catch teams off guard.

If they were as bad as many make them out to be, they couldn't start off 16-4 vs any schedule with Iverson playing that poorly.

we are talking about the 2001 nba season
\
Yes, and Duncan's defensive impact was enormous as always.

lol garnett is nowhere in the top 7. duncan was close, but people who know basketball know that iverson was better than him in 2001.

People who know basketball know that Iverson was never close to Duncan.

hakeem was the 3rd best center in the league (second before his disgusting showing in the playoffs), drexler was the second best shooting guard, and robert horry was the third best small forward. olajuwon was swept out of the playoffs after winning the previous 2 championships.

Horry was never anywhere near a top 3 small forward, and Drexler as a top 2 shooting guard in '96 is very questionable.

drexler got his ass handed to him? i would take getting my ass handed to me (and still managing to put up 25/8/5/1/1) and being matched up with the best player the game has ever seen 1 year removed from his peak after leading my team to its first nba finals in 15 years, and being my teams best and most impressive playoff performer, over losing in the second round of the playoffs against bill cartwright any day.

I'd take a game 7 vs the Bulls despite an inferior team to what Portland had. I'd take classic games like games 1 and 6 over anything Drexler did in the series.

kareem had more glaring weaknesses to his game. abdul-jabbar was lazy getting up and down the court, was a rebounding liability, a mediocre free throw shooter, provided zero defense aside from shot blocking, and was slow and weak. magic on the other hand was much better at making teammates better, running sets, creating scoring opportunities, and running a team. he also contributed more, played better in the regular season, and much better in the playoffs, had no weaknesses to his game, was finals mvp, stepped up more when it counted, and was just flat out better.

You pretty much just said that Magic is a better PG than Kareem again. That's true, but Kareem was still clearly the better player. Magic having no weaknesses in his game in '82 is a blatant lie. Kareem deserved the finals MVP as well.