Higher All-Time: Bill Walton or Anthony Davis

[dankok8]

Who's higher all time?

[RRR3]

Obviously AD. Walton barely played.

[FultzNationRISE]

The one who didnt need Lebron to change his damn diapers all the time.

[colts19]

To all of you who pick AD. I realize most people on this board aren't old enough to have seen a prime Bill Walton play, however, being old and having watched him play I can tell you that he was a special player and affected the game in ways that AD never has. Bill Russell was doing color on the game of the week and when asked what he thought of Walton said, "he reminds me of someone I coached once" of course referring to himself. Yea Bill was that great.

[SouBeachTalents]

To all of you who pick AD. I realize most people on this board aren't old enough to have seen a prime Bill Walton play, however, being old and having watched him play I can tell you that he was a special player and affected the game in ways that AD never has. Bill Russell was doing color on the game of the week and when asked what he thought of Walton said, "he reminds me of someone I coached once" of course referring to himself. Yea Bill was that great.
Nobody disputes he was great. The issue is his prime barely lasted 2 seasons. Even the year he won MVP he played only 58 games and was a literal non factor in the playoffs.

[RRR3]

To all of you who pick AD. I realize most people on this board aren't old enough to have seen a prime Bill Walton play, however, being old and having watched him play I can tell you that he was a special player and affected the game in ways that AD never has. Bill Russell was doing color on the game of the week and when asked what he thought of Walton said, "he reminds me of someone I coached once" of course referring to himself. Yea Bill was that great.
I’m aware Walton had more impact than Davis. But his prime lasted about 130 games.

[tontoz]

AD at age 28 has already played over 100 more games than Walton did in his whole career. Walton missed more games than he played.

[1987_Lakers]

Will this get as intense as the McHale/Hayes debate? lol

[fsvr54]

I’m aware Walton had more impact than Davis. But his prime lasted about 130 games.

So?

At one point he was a better player than AD will ever be. So he's a better all time player

[RRR3]

So?

At one point he was a better player than AD will ever be. So he's a better all time player
Then he should be ranked over Isiah Thomas by this logic.

[fsvr54]

If he was indeed better, then yeah.

[RRR3]

If he was indeed better, then yeah.
Damn I guess you must have Jokic in the top 25 then.

[fsvr54]

I don't have personal rankings, nor care to.

[L.Kizzle]

Will this get as intense as the McHale/Hayes debate? lol
I'm not to high in both. AD vs McHale is a good debate tho.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

I would say about even but Davis is clearly on pace to pass him.

[ImKobe]

AD, easily. Not even close.

[1987_Lakers]

Vote AD, but it looks like Walton is gonna take it.

The funny thing is, if we are just talking about peaks, these 2 players are good example of how stats don't tell the whole story, peak Walton was insanely better than the stats say, ATG defender, GOAT passing big man at the time, and a great leader, had all the intangibles.

AD despite putting up Shaq like numbers at times didn't translate to wins, hell just look how lost the Lakers currently look without LeBron. it's pretty clear his on court impact is a step behind guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, etc but there is no shame in that.

[SATAN]

AD will never live up to his potential. Tie.

[tontoz]

If you are on the roster but not playing then you are hurting the team. That was Walton most of the time.

[Naero]

Not sure that either belong in the top fifty, but Walton comfortably outranks AD in my book.

I don't care how short-lived his superstardom was; all that matters is he wasn't a fluke. A player should only need to sustain his greatness for a few seasons, as Walton did, to cement his player profile, and it's obvious the Big Red would've done so for even longer if it weren't for his rash of injuries.

Peak-wise, he has a cogent case over AD. As 1987 Lakers explained, the statsheet undermeasures Walton's impact. There are just too many unquantifiable intangibles like his off-ball movement, on-court communication, defense, locker-room leadership, and pick-and-roll mastery—a technique he was especially state-of-the-art at in the '70s and '80s. Even as his health deteriorated, he compensated for it with all his cerebral skills to remain as one of the game's most impactful bigmen.

AD is easily the more prolific scorer and defensively comparable, but he's not nearly the same offensive anchor. Walton's masterful playmaking and intangibles in themselves were enough to lend his team a championship-level offense, whereas AD needs an actual orchestrator like LeBron/Westbrook or a well-coached system.

Hardware-wise, Walton also gets the nod. He's won both MVPs, and he likely would also have a DPOY in that trove if the award had been inaugurated by his peak.

Only ironclad case for AD is longevity. Even then, it's easy to overweight that: you don't know how much more durable previous generations would be with modern medicotechnology, nutrition, and training, and vice-versa. It's a safe bet Walton's knees and foot would be more treatable today, whereas AD's injuries would have harsher residual effects decades ago.

AD will go down as the greater player, if he hasn't already, by the general public's criteria, but if I were a GM with the option to build around either in their respective eras? I'd easily choose Walton.

[Honor Boost]

AD, easily. Not even close.

It is 17-6 so yes you are right in that it is not close

[ImKobe]

It is 17-6 so yes you are right in that it is not close

Portland was still a Playoff team without Walton if impact is the only argument you have. Even then, Davis took a lottery Lakers team to a championship the following year so he's achieved what Walton did, and as a 1st option and not a 3rd one. Davis is one of the most versatile big men ever and his stats are not a fluke. Just because he's not flashy does not mean that he doesn't have any impact. This forum is heavily pro-Lebron so I'm not surprised that the poll is that lopsided.

And even if you give the peak/skill argument to Walton, Davis has played more games, has made way more All-Star/All-NBA/All-Defensive teams and has the stats on his side. People underrate just how versatile Davis is as a big man.

[RRR3]

Portland was still a Playoff team without Walton if impact is the only argument you have. Even then, Davis took a lottery Lakers team to a championship the following year so he's achieved what Walton did, and as a 1st option and not a 3rd one. Davis is one of the most versatile big men ever and his stats are not a fluke. Just because he's not flashy does not mean that he doesn't have any impact. This forum is heavily pro-Lebron so I'm not surprised that the poll is that lopsided.

And even if you give the peak/skill argument to Walton, Davis has played more games, has made way more All-Star/All-NBA/All-Defensive teams and has the stats on his side. People underrate just how versatile Davis is as a big man.
:yaohappy:


Delusional. Better not go on other boards if you think ISH of all places is pro LeBron lmao

[1987_Lakers]

Portland was still a Playoff team without Walton if impact is the only argument you have. Even then, Davis took a lottery Lakers team to a championship the following year so he's achieved what Walton did, and as a 1st option and not a 3rd one. Davis is one of the most versatile big men ever and his stats are not a fluke. Just because he's not flashy does not mean that he doesn't have any impact. This forum is heavily pro-Lebron so I'm not surprised that the poll is that lopsided.

And even if you give the peak/skill argument to Walton, Davis has played more games, has made way more All-Star/All-NBA/All-Defensive teams and has the stats on his side. People underrate just how versatile Davis is as a big man.

Blazers were 15-26 without Walton in '77 & '78. With him? 92-31, that is massive impact right there, '78 in particular they completely fell apart without him.

And that isn't the only argument, you can actually run your offense through Walton and his defense was a notch better. I'm just talking peaks here, I voted AD, but he wishes he could carry a team the way Walton did when he was healthy.

[SouBeachTalents]

Blazers were 15-26 without Walton in '77 & '78. With him? 92-31, that is massive impact right there, '78 in particular they completely fell apart without him.

And that isn't the only argument, you can actually run your offense through Walton and his defense was a notch better. I'm just talking peaks here, I voted AD, but he wishes he could carry a team the way Walton did when he was healthy.
I love how in that post he made zero mention of Walton's best teammate on that title team being Maurice Lucas, while AD won with LeBron James :lol

[TheCorporation]

18 to 6, close this stupid ass thread up :lol



I love how in that post he made zero mention of Walton's best teammate on that title team being Maurice Lucas, while AD won with LeBron James :lol

Bingo :lol

[ImKobe]

I love how in that post he made zero mention of Walton's best teammate on that title team being Maurice Lucas, while AD won with LeBron James :lol

What does that have to do with anything? The talent level is vastly different between the two eras lmao. Kareem's Lakers had the best record in the NBA at just 53 wins and he had 0 all-star teammates and missed his best teammate for 2 home games in that series.

[Taurus]

Walton is comfortably the better player but AD already has the better career.

Overall I'd give it to AD

[1987_Lakers]

I love how in that post he made zero mention of Walton's best teammate on that title team being Maurice Lucas, while AD won with LeBron James :lol

Yea, I forgot to point that out. "took a lottery Lakers team to a championship the following year so he's achieved what Walton did".

All you can do is roll your eyes when you read that statement. Not to mention Walton went up against a loaded Sixers team in the Finals and still came out on top. What Walton did that year is one of the biggest carry jobs ever.

That Sixers team had 3 All-star level players in their prime, and a bunch of quality role players, one of those role players went on to average 30 points a game immediately after he left the Sixers.

[tanibanana]

Currently its Walton, and it is really close.
But Davis has 4 years of his prime left, and possibly 7 years left as a player.
Davis will surpass him by a wide margin.

[tanibanana]

Walton is comfortably the better player but AD already has the better career.

Overall I'd give it to AD

This.

[ImKobe]

Yea, I forgot to point that out. "took a lottery Lakers team to a championship the following year so he's achieved what Walton did".

All you can do is roll your eyes when you read that statement. Not to mention Walton went up against a loaded Sixers team in the Finals and still came out on top. What Walton did that year is one of the biggest carry jobs ever.

That Sixers team had 3 All-star level players in their prime, and a bunch of quality role players, one of those role players went on to average 30 points a game immediately after he left the Sixers.

Kareem had 0 all-star teammates and his 2nd option was out for the first 2 games of the WCF.. '77 was Dr J's first season in the NBA and the Sixers only won 50 games, you're acting as if they were the 2017 Warriors lmao. You should go and look up some of these games.. Lionel Hollins in that Lakers series had a game with 31 pts 9 ast 8 steals and Herm Gilliam had 28 off the bench on 12/18 shooting in that same game (Game 2).. Maurice Lucas averaged 23/12/4/2 in that series as well. He had great teammates and the Blazers were still a 45-win team without him in '79 (and lost a close series against the Suns which was a BO3 at the time, the Suns would play the Sonics to a Game 7 in the WCF that year). Walton got injured Game 2 of the Seattle series in '78 and they still took them to 6 games (and could have gone 7 if they won that close one where Hollins dropped 35) without him playing just 15 minutes in one of the two wins, that's a B2B Finals team that won it all in '79 and his team was good enough to still make it competitive without him.

[Axe]

Some people voted for walton only because of his finals mvp count.

[SouBeachTalents]

Kareem had 0 all-star teammates and his 2nd option was out for the first 2 games of the WCF.. '77 was Dr J's first season in the NBA and the Sixers only won 50 games, you're acting as if they were the 2017 Warriors lmao. You should go and look up some of these games.. Lionel Hollins in that Lakers series had a game with 31 pts 9 ast 8 steals and Herm Gilliam had 28 off the bench on 12/18 shooting in that same game (Game 2).. Maurice Lucas averaged 23/12/4/2 in that series as well. He had great teammates and the Blazers were still a 45-win team without him in '79 (and lost a close series against the Suns which was a BO3 at the time, the Suns would play the Sonics to a Game 7 in the WCF that year). Walton got injured Game 2 of the Seattle series in '78 and they still took them to 6 games (and could have gone 7 if they won that close one where Hollins dropped 35) without him playing just 15 minutes in one of the two wins, that's a B2B Finals team that won it all in '79 and his team was good enough to still make it competitive without him.
The Blazers were 92-31 when Walton played in '77 & '78, 15-26 without him. That is colossal impact.

And here is an example where you show zero consistency. You hype up the Blazers winning 45 games and losing in the first round without Walton, yet you consistently downplay the Bulls winning 55 games and nearly making the conference finals without Jordan.

[ImKobe]

The Blazers were 92-31 when Walton played in '77 & '78, 15-26 without him. That is colossal impact.

And here is an example where you show zero consistency. You hype up the Blazers winning 45 games and losing in the first round without Walton, yet you consistently downplay the Bulls winning 55 games and nearly making the conference finals without Jordan.

I'm not downplaying shit. The Bulls won a dozen close games that year and had three All-Stars. When MJ retired, the Bulls added Kukoc & Kerr. They were a significantly worse team on offense & in SRS overall but managed to win games with their defense and Kukoc was insanely clutch that year. The Bulls were a dynasty that won 6 rings so I'm not that surprised that the team was able to still win a bunch of games with peak Pippen and a solid supporting cast with PJ at the helm. Difference here is that MJ had a good supporting cast but also carried them in scoring in ways that no player ever has on a dynasty.

The Blazers were 10 - 14 without Walton his MVP season and won 2 Playoff games without him against a Finals team so they were not that bad. The poster I quoted acted as if Walton had no help and that it was one of the biggest carry jobs ever when that's not really the case because he wasn't an elite scorer and didn't carry a big scoring load compared to someone like Kareem, who also did everything for his team but at a higher level overall.

If you want to talk about one of the GOAT one-man carry jobs in that era, Kareem in the '77 Playoffs averaged 35/18/4/2/4 on 64.6%TS and that's after leading a team with no stars to the best record in the league.

[1987_Lakers]

I'm not downplaying shit. The Bulls won a dozen close games that year and had three All-Stars. When MJ retired, the Bulls added Kukoc & Kerr. They were a significantly worse team on offense & in SRS overall but managed to win games with their defense and Kukoc was insanely clutch that year. The Bulls were a dynasty that won 6 rings so I'm not that surprised that the team was able to still win a bunch of games with peak Pippen and a solid supporting cast with PJ at the helm. Difference here is that MJ had a good supporting cast but also carried them in scoring in ways that no player ever has on a dynasty.

The Blazers were 10 - 14 without Walton his MVP season and won 2 Playoff games without him against a Finals team so they were not that bad. The poster I quoted acted as if Walton had no help and that it was one of the biggest carry jobs ever when that's not really the case because he wasn't an elite scorer and didn't carry a big scoring load compared to someone like Kareem, who also did everything for his team but at a higher level overall.

If you want to talk about one of the GOAT one-man carry jobs in that era, Kareem in the '77 Playoffs averaged 35/18/4/2/4 on 64.6%TS and that's after leading a team with no stars to the best record in the league.

So you gloss over the fact that the Sixers had 3 All-stars, but use the 3 All-star argument for the Bulls.

You also say Bulls added Kukoc and Kerr when MJ retired and that the Blazers still had a winning record without Walton in '79 with no mention how they added Mychal Thompson & Ron Brewer that year, two players who made All-Rookie 1st Team that year. lol

[dankok8]

The truth as usual is somewhere in the middle. Walton didn't carry a bunch of bums to a championship but he also wasn't replaceable by any stretch of imagination. He made that team a whole lot better. They were at best decent without him and amazing with him.

In terms of a peak comparison I'd go with Walton over AD. AD is a much better scorer but Walton is a better rebounder, a GOAT-level passer and had amazing intangibles. Even on the 2020 Lakers I think if you take out AD and replace him with Walton they get better. Still 1.5 years of Walton is just way too few. I mean Walton gets your team one title with a decent cast but that's also your cap. In the aforementioned Lakers example, Lebron and Walton get one title and then Walton breaks down and their title window closes.

[RogueBorg]

The truth as usual is somewhere in the middle. Walton didn't carry a bunch of bums to a championship but he also wasn't replaceable by any stretch of imagination. He made that team a whole lot better. They were at best decent without him and amazing with him.

In terms of a peak comparison I'd go with Walton over AD. AD is a much better scorer but Walton is a better rebounder, a GOAT-level passer and had amazing intangibles. Even on the 2020 Lakers I think if you take out AD and replace him with Walton they get better. Still 1.5 years of Walton is just way too few. I mean Walton gets your team one title with a decent cast but that's also your cap. In the aforementioned Lakers example, Lebron and Walton get one title and then Walton breaks down and their title window closes.

Walton's 6th man contributions to the '85-'86 Celtics needs mentioning as well. He was an important piece to that team's success.

[Micku]

The truth as usual is somewhere in the middle. Walton didn't carry a bunch of bums to a championship but he also wasn't replaceable by any stretch of imagination. He made that team a whole lot better. They were at best decent without him and amazing with him.

In terms of a peak comparison I'd go with Walton over AD. AD is a much better scorer but Walton is a better rebounder, a GOAT-level passer and had amazing intangibles. Even on the 2020 Lakers I think if you take out AD and replace him with Walton they get better. Still 1.5 years of Walton is just way too few. I mean Walton gets your team one title with a decent cast but that's also your cap. In the aforementioned Lakers example, Lebron and Walton get one title and then Walton breaks down and their title window closes.

I agree.

I think in this case, it just depends on career vs peak type of thing. While Walton didn't play as long, I would say his peak was better due to everything you said. It's really tough to say. But I suppose you can argue that Walton proved that he could lead a decent team to a title while AD hasn't proved that yet. Plus Walton is an mvp. And as you said, Walton had that short window of opportunity. At least as the guy.

But AD's career isn't over yet, so even if he isn't higher than AD all time with some ppl, he still got time to prove it. As long as he stays healthy lol.