Think about the players you think are more offensively skilled than Hakeem.

[Kblaze8855]

Now….remove the players not close to as good on defense.


Tell me who you have left.

You probably have Jordan. Some of you who ignore the difference between making all D teams with 2 guard spots vs 1 center spot in a league with Drob/Ewing/Mutombo/Zo might also have Kobe.

A few might throw in Wilt I’d imagine.

Im not sure who else. Duncan may get a mention? Or Leonard?

All possible. But for most of you I assume the guy is Jordan.

What does that mean to you?

As so called “real” fans one would think our appreciation for the total game would be such that it would earn you higher ranking than it does. We fall into the same casual fan conversation traps to get away from talking the actual game. It’s all circumstantial shit like this series and that one going this way with 3 dozen factors. How many of what was won. As if Hakeem would be better if Houston took the Portland deal of Clyde and #2 for Sampson and drafted Hakeem and Jordan and that big 3 won 9 rings. Same player….more highly regarded(unless he’s relegated to sidekick status and considered a guy who wouldn’t have won on his own…another possibility in this world of idiots).


Point is a lot of things can make your career to a lot of ways. But getting to basics?

You know I could give you an hour and a half collection of Hakeem absolutely destroying people on offense. Of hooks, jumpers, faceup crossovers, dream shakes, insane dunks and putbacks….it would be spectacular and we all know that. But just as easily you could put together an hour and a half of:


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/RegularImpeccableCicada-size_restricted.gif



https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ZestyDefinitiveCurassow-size_restricted.gif


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HarmoniousCarelessIriomotecat-size_restricted.gif




https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BountifulAngelicIberianbarbel-size_restricted.gif





https://thumbs.gfycat.com/IlliterateSorrowfulBonobo-size_restricted.gif

















Plays that wouldn’t necessarily be amazing to all fans but most here should understand the impressive things about. A center who can guard Karl Malone or Ewing but still have the hand speed to pick the pockets of a Stockton or Avery Johnson almost on the ground. To deny the post and slip around and steal the entry when the passer goes away from it. To erase so many shots and alter even more. The all time shot block leader. He and Ewing played over essentially the same time period. I wanna say 84-02 and 85-03. Ewing was a great shot blocker. Hakeem blocked a thousand more shots. He blocked 600 more shots than anyone in the 50 years they were recorded. He blocked 5 shots and got 2 steals a game in the same season. His combo of timing and hands were absolutely unheard of.

This man switched at 30 feet and closed the distance on a guard to block a pull-up shot for the title in a series he shut down his star matchup and absolutely nobody gives a shit because it’s on the wrong end and we only pay lip service to defense in passing to flex how non “casual” we are.


My point isn’t even about Hakeem at its most basic. He’s just an example.

My point is…when we all know defense is so important why is using it to settle an argument among great offensive players so often met with resistance?

Im not talking all stars defense being used to put them over all time elite scorers who don’t play D. I’m talking in the upper room…where everyone but I suppose Russell is a great scorer….why don’t the Hakeem’s and Duncan’s tend to get that boost?

We marvel at spectacular offense and talk about their contribution to winning while largely ignoring the defenses that led to just as much. Duncan, Hakeem, Jordan, Russell, and even guys we often don’t credit for it like Kareem…all unbelievably effective on defense and it’s mentioned in passing like “Plus the defense…” after a whole dissertation on their offense.


My question despite the length of this post is pretty simple…


If we know better…why don’t we do better?

Or is the problem that we don’t know better(as a society) and nothing Hakeem or Duncan could do on defense will really factor in beyond a throw away line at the end of a talk about their offense?

If you don’t think more than 1-2 players with his offense can touch his defense…why is Hakeem so far outside the best player discussion?

I know why he’s not in GOAT discussion. Greatness isn’t goodness. It’s abstract. It’s not how good you are. But how good you are is how good you are…so I’m asking….


If he’s like a second tier offensive weapon and a top tier defensive player…and only like 2 others can boast that….

Why is calling him like…top 5…so offensive? We don’t actually care about all around do we?

Just say we do because it sounds like the thing to say?

Do you care?

Do you really care who the best is all around enough to bump the defenders up at the expense of flashy offense?

And if not…you care enough to bump up the scorers who can also play insane d?

And if you do…why doesn’t it feel like most top _____ lists reflect that?

[Kblaze8855]

And yes this kinda stemmed from a discussion in another topic on if Jokic is just better at basketball than anyone ever despite not having the accolades to match and me thinking it’s a hard sell when other elite offensive talents are defensive monsters and we just don’t care. I just didn’t wanna fully derail that as I intend to return to that topic now and then to update it with fresh Jokic related madness as he provides it and I didn’t want it to just be a Jokic vs Hakeem thing. Instead I made it “Two way elites not getting their due” because I also believe that to be true.

I mean…Chris Paul and Steve Nash. A poll I suspect would be close nationally. Both great offensive players. Nash greater if you want. But Paul is 5’11” and I’ve watched him guard the **** outta Kevin Durant in a career full of such things. Who is “better” shouldn’t be a question. But it is.

[Johnny32]

I usually take hakeem as my center on all time teams.

[SouBeachTalents]

In terms of all-time ranking, your resume determines so much of where you end up on the all time list, and you're absolutely right, a players resume/accomplishments are heavily influenced by circumstances outside of their control, like their supporting cast, the era they play in, etc. Just based on resume, it'd be difficult to rank Hakeem top 5, when guys like Jordan, LeBron, Kareem undoubtedly accomplished more than he did.

If we're talking strictly where they rank as players, resume/accomplishments aside, I always felt Hakeem was one of the 5 or so greatest players ever. Just based on their level of play, I'd prob go something like

Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Wilt
Bird

Those would be my top 7, not necessarily in exact order. What about you Blaze, just based on how good they were at basketball, who do you have ahead of Hakeem, or on the same level as him?

[AlternativeAcc.]

Lebron bro.

We gon act like lebron ain't close to Hakeem on D?

[HoopsNY]

GOAT Post

[3ba11]

Horry swears up and down that Hakeem destroys Timmy

since he's equal or superiority to Duncan, while also not being a talent-based winner - aka he knows how to win (organic.. brand of ball/chemistry) and he can also ability to defeat maximum defensive attention (carry scoring load in playoffs and Finals of title run) - given these factors, I believe he's top 10 all-time

[Im Still Ballin]

Hot Take: Kevin McHale was a better offensive player than Tim Duncan and Karl Malone.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AcidicFrankLamb-size_restricted.gif

https://i.gifer.com/Qqht.gif

He was also one of the best defenders in the league before wrecking his foot. Good enough to be a multiple time all-defensive guy, and be voted the DPOY by the coaches in '87.

[Kblaze8855]

Off the top of my head Lebron wouldn’t crack my top 5 big wing defenders list much less a best ever discussion like Hakeem. Giannis, Leonard, Pippen, Artest, AK47…quite a few others are on a similar level or outright ahead. If Lebron played peak Shawn Marion’s defense in his prime nobody would have noticed a significant drop off just less spectacular chase downs.

[tontoz]

I always felt Hakeem was overrated on offense. He was a black hole who settled for midrange shots too often.

He was an elite defender though, two time DPOY. He would be great in this era with more space on offense and able to defend guards with no problem on switches.

[Im Still Ballin]

I always felt Hakeem was overrated on offense. He was a black hole who settled for midrange shots too often.

He was an elite defender though, two time DPOY. He would be great in this era with more space on offense and able to defend guards with no problem on switches.

Poor shot selection, like Kobe. However, he made those tough shots better than just about any big.

[Shogon]

My point is…when we all know defense is so important why is using it to settle an argument among great offensive players so often met with resistance?

Because most fans don't understand defense and they only semi understand offense and offense sells. Sad truth, but that's it.

Offense is flashy... defense is not.

Knowing your rotations, angling your body to direct defenders in a certain direction, moving your feet, boxing out, etc... don't really get much praise.

People pay to see scoring. Not even really offense... just scoring. lol.

People are stupid.

[Kblaze8855]

In terms of all-time ranking, your resume determines so much of where you end up on the all time list, and you're absolutely right, a players resume/accomplishments are heavily influenced by circumstances outside of their control, like their supporting cast, the era they play in, etc. Just based on resume, it'd be difficult to rank Hakeem top 5, when guys like Jordan, LeBron, Kareem undoubtedly accomplished more than he did.

If we're talking strictly where they rank as players, resume/accomplishments aside, I always felt Hakeem was one of the 5 or so greatest players ever. Just based on their level of play, I'd prob go something like

Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Wilt
Bird

Those would be my top 7, not necessarily in exact order. What about you Blaze, just based on how good they were at basketball, who do you have ahead of Hakeem, or on the same level as him?


Flat out…how good at basketball?

Jordan id put ahead even though his position didn’t allow him to impact defenses as much. I don’t know for sure I’d put anyone else ahead. I’ve gotten more into tiers and don’t see the separation so many insist they do. Everything used to break these true elites up requires you throw out standards as you go and ignore your previous reasoning. There is no one way to do it that doesn’t force hypocritical outcomes.

[Johnny32]

Lebron bro.

We gon act like lebron ain't close to Hakeem on D?
2013 lebron is the goat perimeter defender. also what he did in the 2016 finals on that end is better than any mj, kobe, kawhi finals performances. and even in 2020 his defensive rating in the postseason is 1 point behind runner up for dpoy ad. he had a higher defensive rating in the finals than ad.

[Im Still Ballin]

Off the top of my head Lebron wouldn’t crack my top 5 big wing defenders list much less a best ever discussion like Hakeem. Giannis, Leonard, Pippen, Artest, AK47…quite a few others are on a similar level or outright ahead. If Lebron played peak Shawn Marion’s defense in his prime nobody would have noticed a significant drop off just less spectacular chase downs.

I'd imagine Bobby Jones would be in there

[Johnny32]

since they want to always make excuses for offenses...lebron with hand-checking is the goat defender ever.

[SouBeachTalents]

Flat out…how good at basketball?

Jordan id put ahead even though his position didn’t allow him to impact defenses as much. I don’t know for sure I’d put anyone else ahead. I’ve gotten more into tiers and don’t see the separation so many insist they do. Everything used to break these true elites up requires you throw out standards as you go and ignore your previous reasoning. There is no one way to do it that doesn’t force hypocritical outcomes.
I agree, most of the time these players are separated by so little it usually makes sense to put them into tiers. In that case, since you only put Jordan ahead, who else you putting in Hakeem's tier?

[Kblaze8855]

I'd imagine Bobby Jones would be in there


And Tayshaun:





https://youtu.be/NPPB7VPKQXU



Ive covered damn near everyone if you look hard enough. The Bobby Jones/Prince one was maybe a bit much even for me though.

[tontoz]

Side note: In his last year in college Hakeem averaged 5.6 blocks per game. :oldlol:

[Im Still Ballin]

And Tayshaun:





https://youtu.be/NPPB7VPKQXU



Ive covered damn near everyone if you look hard enough. The Bobby Jones/Prince one was maybe a bit much even for me though.

Tayshaun is a perfect example of why you shouldn't evaluate defenders purely on blocks and steals. I'd be interested to hear whether you think Prince or Kirilenko is a better defender. Both long, athletic, versatile defenders that can guard multiple positions.

[Round Mound]

Best All Around Center Ever!

[Kblaze8855]

I agree, most of the time these players are separated by so little it usually makes sense to put them into tiers. In that case, since you only put Jordan ahead, who else you putting in Hakeem's tier?


My tiers are wider than most. Let me put it this way…


One league?

Im fairly certain if you put the whole top 75 list in it at once….there would be a few credible people of the opinion the leagues best player is David Robinson.

It sounds weird but there were coaches putting him over peak Jordan.

Im not sure something like the top 20 are all that different.

09 Wade on the same floor as literally everyone to ever play? He’s not like…getting little bro status. Peak Wade could play with anyone to ever step on the court. So can Kevin Durant. So could Hakeem.

But what do you do what that information?

How do you really make 3/4 levels?

I think I have to break it up into two lists for maybe the whole top 25. Potentially the best ever. And the rest. There are days I’d only put Jordan and Kareem on that first. Days Jordan gets someone else on it with him. Nobody else is on it on a regular basis though.

I guess I’d have to say Jordan then other elites since it isn’t consistent which other couple I have on the top level at that moment. I’ve never had Lebron as that other guy though it feels like some people think I would.

[tontoz]

Best All Around Center Ever!

Come on now I would take Kareem easily over Dream. Ditto Wilt.

[Johnny32]

Come on now I would take Kareem easily over Dream. Ditto Wilt.

lmao @ kareem.

[AlternativeAcc.]

But somehow you have Jordan as an equal to Hakeem on defense? What?

Prime for prime lebron beats Jordan on defense. Way more versatile, way better help defense. Very close 1v1.

Lebron > Jordan on D.

[Johnny32]

But somehow you have Jordan as an equal to Hakeem on defense? What?

Prime for prime lebron beats Jordan on defense. Way more versatile, way better help defense. Very close 1v1.

Lebron > Jordan on D.

it isn't close in 2013.

"James defended 833 individual defensive sets and was shot on 688 times (via Synergy). He held his opponents to just 37.6 percent shooting".

jordone could never.

[tontoz]

lmao @ kareem.


Kareem has a legit case as the GOAT. Hakeem isn't in the same zip code.

[Johnny32]

Kareem has a legit case as the GOAT. Hakeem isn't in the same zip code.

i thought you were still typing about defense. so n/m.

[Kblaze8855]

Kareem does have a case for goat. And prime Kareem and prime Hakeem on the same floor would absolutely be in the same zip code.

There is no center matchup that would look that great a mismatch vs peak Hakeem. That’s like saying Shaq wasn’t close to ____ . ______ may or may not be better but he’d play everyone as an equal peak for peak.

[AlternativeAcc.]

it isn't close in 2013.

"James defended 833 individual defensive sets and was shot on 688 times (via Synergy). He held his opponents to just 37.6 percent shooting".

jordone could never.

Peak lebron was a terror.

Best peak of all time. Which makes his GOAT longevity even more ridiculous.

To have the GOAT peak and longevity is just flat out insane.

We've been lucky to be witnesses, bro

[Norcaliblunt]

Chris Paul

[HoopsNY]

I always felt Hakeem was overrated on offense. He was a black hole who settled for midrange shots too often.

He was an elite defender though, two time DPOY. He would be great in this era with more space on offense and able to defend guards with no problem on switches.


Poor shot selection, like Kobe. However, he made those tough shots better than just about any big.

Not sure how you both arrive at this conclusion. Hakeem was masterful in the low post and statistically, he proved himself quite well. Just take a look at his prime years:

RS '85-'97: 24 PPG on 52%

PS '85-'97: 27 PPG on 54%

Finals: 28 PPG on 49%

The comparison with Kobe is a bit absurd. Hakeem could take those shots because he had the skills while enabling the strategy of removing his big man from the paint, tiring his defender, and allowing for more spacing...all while holding his own on the defensive end.

Hakeem attempted 20+ FGA between 1995-97 and still shot the ball at a 52% clip. Even when he attempted a lot of FGs in the playoffs, he shot the ball well. He had 4 playoffs with 20 or more FGA: 1988, 1989, 1994, and 1995. Hakeem averaged 24 FGA and shot 53% in those four years.

It's incredibly difficult to sustain higher field goal percentages on higher volume, especially in the postseason. But Hakeem did it, and in two of those years, he won the championship.

[tontoz]

Kareem does have a case for goat. And prime Kareem and prime Hakeem on the same floor would absolutely be in the same zip code.

There is no center matchup that would look that great a mismatch vs peak Hakeem. That’s like saying Shaq wasn’t close to ____ . ______ may or may not be better but he’d play everyone as an equal peak for peak.

At his best Hakeem was a nightmare. His undressing of DRob was the greatest playoff series i ever saw from anyone.

But he could sulk at times and didnt always play well with others. He would get crucified in this era for all those 1st round losses, not to mention the years where he didn't even make the playoffs.

You can't judge a career just by looking at them at their best. Looking at their whole careers they aren't very comparable.

I think he would definitely fit a lot better in this era.

[1987_Lakers]

If you want to call passing a skill I think a peak Bill Walton deserves a mention, he was a monster on defense.

[Kblaze8855]

A basketball game can’t be played by your whole career. And I’ve had less and less interest over time in comparing things that way.

When you play a game how good you were 12 years ago or 6 years from then does nothing.

Prime Kareem would eat up young Hakeem because he was a jumping Jack and easily frustrated. Prime Hakeem would be too tough a matchup for washed Kareem for athleticism mixed with the skills he honed even though washed Kareem would still score a lot.

I don’t see why either matchup matters. Nobody cares about how Knicks Mcgrady compares to OKC Harden.

It’s prime on prime or a waste of time. When you use lesser versions you’re just rigging it to the answer you want by the selection of the players in question.

Like I said…you can’t be who you were at all points of a career. How good you are at basketball is a question of a specific time. Which is why prime discussions make the most sense to me.

[iamgine]

If you don’t think more than 1-2 players with his offense can touch his defense…why is Hakeem so far outside the best player discussion?

Offense very often trumps defense. Like if Steve Nash played Gary Payton, Payton ain't shutting Nash down. Payton didn't even shut down Van Exel. Garnett might be one of the top defender ever, he didn't shut down Nowitzki.

David Robinson outside of that one series regularly beat Hakeem.

Hakeem's not far from best player discussion though.

[FultzNationRISE]

Tbh I just think Joker’s offensive versatility is too much of a game changer. Also he may not be a shut down defender but he’s not a bad defender. So it isnt like he just gives back what he scores, a la Amare Stoudemire.

And the thing is, when you factor in how the game is played now... it just wouldnt make sense to take someone you have to “assume” would have the threeball in his arsenal today. Sure, Hakeem probably would. But theres no way to know for sure. And threes are just such an advantage now, and we know Joker shoots them WELL. It’s not Hakeem’s fault we cant give him credit as a good three point shooter, it’s just the way it is.

When you factor in Jokic’s extra assists too, which nowadays often equates to even more three point buckets... I mean the dude is an offensive megaforce. Hakeem is a legendary defender but I dont know that the extra block or steal per game really equates to the same impact.

It’s obviously close enough to be reasonable to prefer either guy. But IMO the evidence we have to work with - removing hypotheticals and whatnot - points to Joker being one of the most individually impactful guys on a basketball game, after Lebron.

[1987_Lakers]

A few might throw in Wilt I’d imagine.

No thanks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=FfwVlFe7pjQ&feature=emb_title

[Kblaze8855]

Shut down isn’t really the issue though. Bill Russell didn’t need to stop Wilt to make his team play great defense.

KGs matchup individually isn’t as important as defending the other team.

At times both happen(Hakeem destroying Ewing in 94 for example) but one doesn’t change the other.

There are guys who’s defensive impact is largely communicating and help which wouldn’t be shown in man to man matchups.

Id say a great defenders value often lies in the options he gives his coach as far as designing the defense. Which opponent scores 22 of 110 isn’t always the point.

[tontoz]

Not sure how you both arrive at this conclusion. Hakeem was masterful in the low post and statistically, he proved himself quite well. Just take a look at his prime years:

RS '85-'97: 24 PPG on 52%

PS '85-'97: 27 PPG on 54%

Finals: 28 PPG on 49%

The comparison with Kobe is a bit absurd. Hakeem could take those shots because he had the skills while enabling the strategy of removing his big man from the paint, tiring his defender, and allowing for more spacing...all while holding his own on the defensive end.

Hakeem attempted 20+ FGA between 1995-97 and still shot the ball at a 52% clip. Even when he attempted a lot of FGs in the playoffs, he shot the ball well. He had 4 playoffs with 20 or more FGA: 1988, 1989, 1994, and 1995. Hakeem averaged 24 FGA and shot 53% in those four years.

It's incredibly difficult to sustain higher field goal percentages on higher volume, especially in the postseason. But Hakeem did it, and in two of those years, he won the championship.


That just proves my point. Barkley shot 54% from the field for his career in spite of the fact that he liked to shoot 3s which he sucked at. On 2s he shot 58% for his career.

With the moves and athleticism he had Hakeem should have been more efficient but he loved those fadeaway jumpers. You have to cherry pick his best years just to match Barkley's career average.

Kareem shot 56% for his career. He actually led the league in FG% one year while averaging 26 ppg.

[tontoz]

A basketball game can’t be played by your whole career. And I’ve had less and less interest over time in comparing things that way.

When you play a game how good you were 12 years ago or 6 years from then does nothing.

Prime Kareem would eat up young Hakeem because he was a jumping Jack and easily frustrated. Prime Hakeem would be too tough a matchup for washed Kareem for athleticism mixed with the skills he honed even though washed Kareem would still score a lot.

I don’t see why either matchup matters. Nobody cares about how Knicks Mcgrady compares to OKC Harden.

It’s prime on prime or a waste of time. When you use lesser versions you’re just rigging it to the answer you want by the selection of the players in question.

Like I said…you can’t be who you were at all points of a career. How good you are at basketball is a question of a specific time. Which is why prime discussions make the most sense to me.


At the same ages Kareem was always better. The margin would be greater some years than others but every year counts.

When DWade was in Chicago do you think the Bulls or their fans cared how good Wade was a 27? Of course not.

[Kblaze8855]

Tbh I just think Joker’s offensive versatility is too much of a game changer. Also he may not be a shut down defender but he’s not a bad defender. So it isnt like he just gives back what he scores, a la Amare Stoudemire.

And the thing is, when you factor in how the game is played now... it just wouldnt make sense to take someone you have to “assume” would have the threeball in his arsenal today. Sure, Hakeem probably would. But theres no way to know for sure. And threes are just such an advantage now, and we know Joker shoots them WELL. It’s not Hakeem’s fault we cant give him credit as a good three point shooter, it’s just the way it is.

When you factor in Jokic’s extra assists too, which nowadays often equates to even more three point buckets... I mean the dude is an offensive megaforce. Hakeem is a legendary defender but I dont know that the extra block or steal per game really equates to the same impact.

It’s obviously close enough to be reasonable to prefer either guy. But IMO the evidence we have to work with - removing hypotheticals and whatnot - points to Joker being one of the most individually impactful guys on a basketball game, after Lebron.



There was an entire month(16 games) Hakeem put up 26/15 with 6.1 blocks and 2.75 steals a game. I don’t think the difference is a block or a steal here and there. He was taking a tremendous number of points off the board. And he was years shy of his peak. It isn’t two amazing scorers and a good defender vs an ok one. It’s two amazing offensive players and one of the all time elite defensive players.

We just aren’t conditioned to care.

And there are a few examples where it can be defended. I’m just saying. It’s hard to not consider it in a “all around” talk.

[GOATKawhi_2]

Kawhi and Hakeem the only two players with multiple finals mvps and defensive player of the years.

Also their 2019 and 1994 rings were won on a roster with no top 5 pick or top 5 mvp candidate the only two to do that since 1994.

The overall GOATS. kawhi just needs at least 1 ring with clippers and he'll pass Hakeem.

I there are a handful of players more skilled then Hakeem but his size, defense, scoring volume is what puts him over the top. 33 points for a title run? Duncan couldn't even hit 25

[1987_Lakers]

But somehow you have Jordan as an equal to Hakeem on defense? What?

Prime for prime lebron beats Jordan on defense. Way more versatile, way better help defense. Very close 1v1.

Lebron > Jordan on D.

It's a shame people have forgotten how great of a defender LeBron was in '12 & '13. He was a terror on that end, I'd pick his defense over MJ's peak on defense because his size simply allows him to do more stuff. As LeBron got older he simply didn't put the effort because his stamina wasn't the same and he obviously had big responsibilities on offense. It seems like most great perimeter defenders who are also very good scorers once they hit 30 simply don't have the same defensive intensity they once had. Even Gary Payton's defensive effort started slipping once his team asked him to score more, same for Kawhi.

[Kblaze8855]

At the same ages Kareem was always better. The margin would be greater some years than others but every year counts.

When DWade was in Chicago do you think the Bulls or their fans cared how good Wade was a 27? Of course not.

I don’t care by age. Like I said you can’t play a basketball game in any form but the version you are at the time and I see no reason to consider declined versions of anyone in such a thing. Kareem had a longer prime no doubt it just doesn’t matter when the question is how good you are at any given moment.

Prime on prime or I’m not interested. And no big is gonna be a zip code away from prime Hakeem.

Im not sure anyone in the top 10-15 would be that far ahead of any of the others on the same floor once we throw out the guys so far back we can’t honesty evaluate them vs modern players.

[tontoz]

Tbh I just think Joker’s offensive versatility is too much of a game changer. Also he may not be a shut down defender but he’s not a bad defender. So it isnt like he just gives back what he scores, a la Amare Stoudemire.

And the thing is, when you factor in how the game is played now... it just wouldnt make sense to take someone you have to “assume” would have the threeball in his arsenal today. Sure, Hakeem probably would. But theres no way to know for sure. And threes are just such an advantage now, and we know Joker shoots them WELL. It’s not Hakeem’s fault we cant give him credit as a good three point shooter, it’s just the way it is.

When you factor in Jokic’s extra assists too, which nowadays often equates to even more three point buckets... I mean the dude is an offensive megaforce. Hakeem is a legendary defender but I dont know that the extra block or steal per game really equates to the same impact.

It’s obviously close enough to be reasonable to prefer either guy. But IMO the evidence we have to work with - removing hypotheticals and whatnot - points to Joker being one of the most individually impactful guys on a basketball game, after Lebron.


I can't believe you actually made a coherent post without mentioning Lebron's name. I will have to bookmark this.

Historically foul shooting is a good indicator of 3 pt shooting potential. In fact when evaluating college players their foul shooting is a better indicator of future 3 pt shooting than their actual 3 pt shooting in college.

Joker shoots 83% from the foul line. Hakeem shot 71%.

Jokic uses his size and skills to get to the rim. He isn't settling for 2 pt jumpers very often. Not only is he an elite scorer with elite efficiency but he is also an elite playmaker. Just a freak show offensively.

His defense has definitely improved after losing weight. He is far more mobile and his length causes a lot of problems when guys are trying to score on his near the rim. He can legit contest shots without jumping.

[tontoz]

I don’t care by age. Like I said you can’t play a basketball game in any form but the version you are at the time and I see no reason to consider declined versions of anyone in such a thing. Kareem had a longer prime no doubt it just doesn’t matter when the question is how good you are at any given moment.

Prime on prime or I’m not interested. And no big is gonna be a zip code away from prime Hakeem.

Im not sure anyone in the top 10-15 would be that far ahead of any of the others on the same floor once we throw out the guys so far back we can’t honesty evaluate them vs modern players.


If a guy is out there playing then that is part of his career. Just because a player isn't at the absolute peak doesn't mean their play doesn't count.

Some guys career are done at 32. Other guys are playing at an elite level at 32+ and that has to count in their favor when judging their careers.

Jordan was definitely on the decline during his second 3 peat. Do you not count those years? :facepalm

[tpols]

First off, its much easier to draft and sign defensive talent than offensive talent. Some of the best defensive players ever were drafted late. And you can always sign a goon on like pj tucker or whatever for cheap. So defense matters obviously but its far more easily replaceable.

Furthermore, coaching matters a ton for it too since an offensive player can take over a game by himself often if hes that good but defense requires more of a team coordination. All great defenses have great defensive coaches. While some great offenses take off on the back of a star or two.

Ultimately... Hakeem didn't make other guys better offensively which is pinnacle offense. He was the ultimate get your own guy and yes plenty skilled with it but he got it for himself. GOAT offensive players ENHANCE everybody around them on top of producing thensekves. That's how you get GOAT offense. Hakeems teams never had dominant offenses. Because he didn't have any meta teammate lifting offensive awareness. He wasn't an elite passer by any means.

So OP is being delusional acting like Hakeem could generate offenses like Magic or Bird or MJ. He wasn't even close because he had no teammate elevation ability. Which is a critical function of being a truly GOAT offensive player.

[iamgine]

Shut down isn’t really the issue though. Bill Russell didn’t need to stop Wilt to make his team play great defense.

KGs matchup individually isn’t as important as defending the other team.

At times both happen(Hakeem destroying Ewing in 94 for example) but one doesn’t change the other.

There are guys who’s defensive impact is largely communicating and help which wouldn’t be shown in man to man matchups.

Id say a great defenders value often lies in the options he gives his coach as far as designing the defense. Which opponent scores 22 of 110 isn’t always the point.

Yes of course there are value to great defender. But isn't the question how much value?

I for one don't think for example, Nowitzki would look out of place playing peak Hakeem despite him being much worse defender.

[2much_knowledge]

Lebron bro.

We gon act like lebron ain't close to Hakeem on D?

You have problems. Is lebron up there with Bird and Curry in shooting? Or on par with AI and Rafer alston in the handles??

[tpols]

Tbh I just think Joker’s offensive versatility is too much of a game changer. Also he may not be a shut down defender but he’s not a bad defender. So it isnt like he just gives back what he scores, a la Amare Stoudemire.

And the thing is, when you factor in how the game is played now... it just wouldnt make sense to take someone you have to “assume” would have the threeball in his arsenal today. Sure, Hakeem probably would. But theres no way to know for sure. And threes are just such an advantage now, and we know Joker shoots them WELL. It’s not Hakeem’s fault we cant give him credit as a good three point shooter, it’s just the way it is.

When you factor in Jokic’s extra assists too, which nowadays often equates to even more three point buckets... I mean the dude is an offensive megaforce. Hakeem is a legendary defender but I dont know that the extra block or steal per game really equates to the same impact.

It’s obviously close enough to be reasonable to prefer either guy. But IMO the evidence we have to work with - removing hypotheticals and whatnot - points to Joker being one of the most individually impactful guys on a basketball game, after Lebron.

Yup. He's a 7 foot Larry Bird. And Larry Bird was better than Hakeem which is agreed upon by everybody. Every superstar can produce by themselves but not every superstar at the same time enhances their teammates to the same degree. And honestly enhancing teammates matters a ton since that's 80% of the guys you're out on the floor with.

[Kblaze8855]

If a guy is out there playing then that is part of his career. Just because a player isn't at the absolute peak doesn't mean their play doesn't count.

Some guys career are done at 32. Other guys are playing at an elite level at 32+ and that has to count in their favor when judging their careers.

Jordan was definitely on the decline during his second 3 peat. Do you not count those years? :facepalm


Why are you even talking to me about judging players careers? How many ways do I need to say I’m not talking about careers because your career can’t play a game? How great your career is means absolutely nothing to me in this discussion. If you want to count guys with torn ACLs that ruined their careers, guys years before they developed the skills their known for, and old men go right ahead. It just has no place in the kind of discussion I have on how good those players were. I don’t care how good you were while injured, old, or finding your way.

It’s largely irrelevant information.

[Kblaze8855]

Yes of course there are value to great defender. But isn't the question how much value?

I for one don't think for example, Nowitzki would look out of place playing peak Hakeem despite him being much worse defender.

Well that’s something of a side point. All the best players look pretty similar once you go high enough.

Paul George plays peak Jordan it’s not out of the question George outplays him. Guys modern fans never heard of did it. Modern guys would too. The way people talk you would think historical rankings make players clearly more effective on the same court at the same time and it just isn’t the case.

Hakeem could play your top 3 to a stand still and plenty of the top 50 could do the same to him.

There is no great separation between any of them it just amazes me how few so called real fans choose to make one with defense when they are content to use such frivolous bullshit daily.

[tontoz]

Why are you even talking to me about judging players careers? How many ways do I need to say I’m not talking about careers because your career can’t play a game? How great your career is means absolutely nothing to me in this discussion. If you want to count guys with torn ACLs that ruined their careers, guys years before they developed the skills their known for, and old men go right ahead. It just has no place in the kind of discussion I have on how good those players were. I don’t care how good you were while injured, old, or finding your way.

It’s largely irrelevant information.


So Jordan's 2nd 3 peat is irrelevant? He was on the decline so according to you these years dont matter, right?

Hakeem had consecutive years in his late 20s averaging only 21 ppg, not even top 10 in the league. Pretty anemic for a guy who is comparable to Kareem. Do those years count to you?

[jayfan]

53 responses in 2 hours? Damn.

.

[tontoz]

53 responses in 2 hours? Damn.

.

Some of us aren't into the Lebron threads. Nice to see some actual bball discussion.

[Kblaze8855]

Don Chaney asking Hakeem to shoot less does not factor into how good he is no. Just like I don’t think Wilt was a worse scorer on the 76ers when he was passing or think when Larry Brown changed the offense and had AI scoring 22 that it meant he couldn’t do more.

Why would it?

Why do you think I’d factor such things into a discussion about skills?

If anything it’s all more evidence why numbers should be less of an issue in a lot of cases. They give you a general feel for what’s happening but the specifics of why are lost.

Far as Jordan of course if you ask me something like Lebron or Jordan I’m not talking about todays Lebron vs 98 Jordan. I’m thinking peak Jordan and peak Lebron otherwise I’m just rigging the answer by choosing better or worse versions to suit my desired outcome.

There is no reason for me to consider 15 years at once unless 15 years can play a game.

It can’t. One version vs one version. And I see no reason to use anything but the players in the form they are remembered.

Im not talking Memphis Iverson or Blazers Jermaine O’Neal and I’m not gonna keep explaining why. I have to believe you get it even if you want to keep fighting about why I choose to do it.

Im just not interested in how good some guy is when he’s not yet or not still the guy we remember him being in his day.

[tontoz]

Don Chaney asking Hakeem to shoot less does not factor into how good he is no. Just like I don’t think Wilt was a worse scorer on the 76ers when he was passing or think when Larry Brown changed the offense and had AI scoring 22 that it meant he couldn’t do more.

Why would it?

Why do you think I’d factor such things into a discussion about skills?

If anything it’s all more evidence why numbers should be less of an issue in a lot of cases. They give you a general feel for what’s happening but the specifics of why are lost.

Far as Jordan of course if you ask me something like Lebron or Jordan I’m not talking about todays Lebron vs 98 Jordan. I’m thinking peak Jordan and peak Lebron otherwise I’m just rigging the answer by choosing better or worse versions to suit my desired outcome.

There is no reason for me to consider 15 years at once unless 15 years can play a game.

It can’t. One version vs one version. And I see no reason to use anything but the players in the form they are remembered.

Im not talking Memphis Iverson or Blazers Jermaine O’Neal and I’m not gonna keep explaining why. I have to believe you get it even if you want to keep fighting about why I choose to do it.

Im just not interested in how good some guy is when he’s not yet or not still the guy we remember him being in his day.


Once again no comment about Jordan's 2nd 3 peat. So do these years meet your criteria and actually matter, or not?

Usually when guys are more selective with their shots they shoot better. Funny how that didn't apply to Hakeem.

[Kblaze8855]

Nothing but the player you are at roughly your best “matters” when I talk about how good someone is.

Jordan in the late 90s matters if someone asks me about ____ vs that version of Jordan.

If you ask me Jordan or Shaq I’m taking the Jordan I saw at his best(late 80s to first 3peat) vs Lakers Shaq before 03 or so. I’m not talking 84 Olympics, 95 comeback, 98 with Pippen injured, or nailed to the floor missing dunks elder statesmen wizards Jordan when the question isn’t specifically asking me to do that.

[tontoz]

Nothing but the player you are at roughly your best “matters” when I talk about how good someone is.

Jordan in the late 90s matters if someone asks me about ____ vs that version of Jordan.

If you ask me Jordan or Shaq I’m taking the Jordan I saw at his best(late 80s to first 3peat) vs Lakers Shaq before 03 or so. I’m not talking 84 Olympics, 95 comeback, 98 with Pippen injured, or nailed to the floor missing dunks elder statesmen wizards Jordan when the question isn’t specifically asking me to do that.


So in your world Jordan's 2nd 3 peat doesn't matter because he wasn't at his best. That sounds absurd because it is absurd.

Every season counts. Obviously Jordan's Wizard years aren't that important because wing players arent typically playing at that age.

Personally i give no fs about the Jordan/Lebron debate but Lebron's longevity absolutely counts as a plus in his favor. He worked hard from day 1 to keep himself in top shape and that is a big reason he is still effective. He definitely deserves credit for that.

[Kblaze8855]

So in your world Jordan's 2nd 3 peat doesn't matter because he wasn't at his best. That sounds absurd because it is absurd.

Every season counts. Obviously Jordan's Wizard years aren't that important because wing players arent typically playing at that age.

Personally i give no fs about the Jordan/Lebron debate but Lebron's longevity absolutely counts as a plus in his favor. He worked hard from day 1 to keep himself in top shape and that is a big reason he is still effective. He definitely deserves credit for that.


Mattering to your career accomplishments/abstract greatness and being relevant to a question about how good a player the prime version of you was isn’t the same thing and I know you understand what I mean even if you insist on pretending you don’t. These kinda go nowhere semantic arguments are exactly the kind of thing that makes posting here annoying these days. Nobody in person would act like they don’t understand me not caring about 99-03 David Robinson or his rings when talking David or Ewing. Neither David nor Ewing even existed in their real forms in the 2000s. I don’t need to talk about the people playing in their jerseys in someone else’s supporting cast.

Get online and talking sports devolves into these arguments nobody needs to have. It’s just exhausting.

I had more fun talking to a British guy I meant watching the Super Bowl in Miami and he barely knew the sport.

Get on here and I have to explain 18 times why I don’t care how good Paul Pierce was on the Nets or Wizards when the question is if he was better than Luka or whoever.

I talk to novice fans and local coaches and never have these discussions anywhere but here because something about the internet makes people find something to fight about. Maybe it’s the text only thing. Hard to really get people and sense personality and intent this way so things are easier to misunderstand….

[tontoz]

The problem with your "reasoning" is that you are cherry picking which years count and which years don't.

Everyone ages. Some guys handle it better than others and that should definitely be considered when comparing players.

For example Westbrook hasn't been able to adapt his game at all. Laker fans don't care how good he was with OKC.

Pierce was pretty good with the wizards fwiw. His minutes were limited but he was definitely better than I expected for a 37 yr old not known for his conditioning. He punked the raps in the playoffs.

[Kblaze8855]

Yes. I’m choosing not to count Robert Parish on the Bulls or Rasheed Wallace on the Bullets when discussing how good they were. You can’t get your head around why or you choose to pretend you can’t. Neither possibility is worth more talk about it. I’m going to bed.

[Im Still Ballin]

Peak, prime, career.

[Norcaliblunt]

My question is how many games do you have to play at the bare minimum? If you only play one game but drop 100 points, grab 50 rebounds, dish 20 assists, have 10 blocks and 10 steals win the game then retire can you call yourself the GOAT basketball player?

[Akeem34TheDream]

Peak, prime, career.

https://giphy.com/gifs/qN7NZR3Q5R2mY

[TheGoatest]

Peak, prime, career.

Agree

Hakeem > Jordan

[plowking]

David Robinson outplayed Hakeem over their careers, especially early on.

I'd say he has a case as an offensive and defensive talent. Narrative suits Hakeem as he stepped up and dominated Robinson in the playoffs.

[coastalmarker99]

No thanks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=FfwVlFe7pjQ&feature=emb_title

As awkward as you think this move was it yielded an easy shot that Wilt would rarely miss.


Wilt is a classic example of how the media can shape how someone is remembered.


Wilt never played the media's game, so they punished him by dogging out his legacy.


How many times have you heard Wilt described as just a big, brute, dunker, who was a bully and could never show up in big games by some media hack?



Yet the footage we have of him shows that Wilt was mainly a finesse player who was incredibly skilled.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O9MgNfcGJA&t=42s



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfczQovODz8&t=532s

[HoopsNY]

That just proves my point. Barkley shot 54% from the field for his career in spite of the fact that he liked to shoot 3s which he sucked at. On 2s he shot 58% for his career.

With the moves and athleticism he had Hakeem should have been more efficient but he loved those fadeaway jumpers. You have to cherry pick his best years just to match Barkley's career average.

Kareem shot 56% for his career. He actually led the league in FG% one year while averaging 26 ppg.

Kareem and Barkley at their apex are better than Hakeem offensively, though I wouldn't say by a wide margin. If that's what you mean then yea, I can agree. But that just means those guys were more dominant low-post players, and not necessarily more skilled.

[HoopsNY]

Don Chaney asking Hakeem to shoot less does not factor into how good he is no. Just like I don’t think Wilt was a worse scorer on the 76ers when he was passing or think when Larry Brown changed the offense and had AI scoring 22 that it meant he couldn’t do more.

Why would it?

Why do you think I’d factor such things into a discussion about skills?

If anything it’s all more evidence why numbers should be less of an issue in a lot of cases. They give you a general feel for what’s happening but the specifics of why are lost.

Far as Jordan of course if you ask me something like Lebron or Jordan I’m not talking about todays Lebron vs 98 Jordan. I’m thinking peak Jordan and peak Lebron otherwise I’m just rigging the answer by choosing better or worse versions to suit my desired outcome.

There is no reason for me to consider 15 years at once unless 15 years can play a game.

It can’t. One version vs one version. And I see no reason to use anything but the players in the form they are remembered.

Im not talking Memphis Iverson or Blazers Jermaine O’Neal and I’m not gonna keep explaining why. I have to believe you get it even if you want to keep fighting about why I choose to do it.

Im just not interested in how good some guy is when he’s not yet or not still the guy we remember him being in his day.

I actually agree with Kblaze. My criteria is similar to his when comparing players. What happens outside of your peak play is of no consequence to me, and that includes MJ's 1995-1998 years.

Longevity is nice when judging careers, for example, but it doesn't tell me who I would want for a 7 game series or for a full-season, or who I would draft around. Talk to me about the very best years set of years, or at least prime for prime. Otherwise, miss me with what rookie or sophomore Kawhi did, or how Robert Parish played during his Bulls years.

[HoopsNY]

I can't believe you actually made a coherent post without mentioning Lebron's name. I will have to bookmark this.

Historically foul shooting is a good indicator of 3 pt shooting potential. In fact when evaluating college players their foul shooting is a better indicator of future 3 pt shooting than their actual 3 pt shooting in college.

Joker shoots 83% from the foul line. Hakeem shot 71%.

Jokic uses his size and skills to get to the rim. He isn't settling for 2 pt jumpers very often. Not only is he an elite scorer with elite efficiency but he is also an elite playmaker. Just a freak show offensively.

His defense has definitely improved after losing weight. He is far more mobile and his length causes a lot of problems when guys are trying to score on his near the rim. He can legit contest shots without jumping.

That's not really a fair assessment. Jokic is likely in his prime years, so obviously his FTH% stands out a bit more. Peak Hakeem was somewhere around 75-76%, reaching as high as almost 79% in 1997. In 1994, before the shortened line, he hit 8-19 threes (42%).

I'm almost certain Hakeem would have evolved as a great three point shooter. Plenty of guys from this era did. Rondo has been a terrible free throw shooter his entire career, including the last 7 seasons where he's shot nearly 36% from downtown. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.

[tontoz]

Yes. I’m choosing not to count Robert Parish on the Bulls or Rasheed Wallace on the Bullets when discussing how good they were. You can’t get your head around why or you choose to pretend you can’t. Neither possibility is worth more talk about it. I’m going to bed.


So do you still think AD is better than Jokic?

If you only look at games when a guy was healthy and in his prime then you get a very incomplete picture of a player.

[Kblaze8855]

I’m not sure I’ve ever been involved in a Davis or Jokic argument. Do you remember one I forgot?

Not that I’d care about it now. I admit I’m often boring but even I won’t make time to fight about who is better between a healthy superstar and one who is injured at the moment.

I have time to waste but I can still find better uses than that.

Tiger woods being worse at golf than ______ after a life threatening car accident means exactly as much to me as how good Anthony Davis is with no ankle.

[HoopsNY]

It's a shame people have forgotten how great of a defender LeBron was in '12 & '13. He was a terror on that end, I'd pick his defense over MJ's peak on defense because his size simply allows him to do more stuff. As LeBron got older he simply didn't put the effort because his stamina wasn't the same and he obviously had big responsibilities on offense. It seems like most great perimeter defenders who are also very good scorers once they hit 30 simply don't have the same defensive intensity they once had. Even Gary Payton's defensive effort started slipping once his team asked him to score more, same for Kawhi.

I sparingly watched MJ in 1991 and 1992 (as I was a child), saw him more in 1993, and didn't see him at all in 1987-90. You're considerably younger than I am, so I don't think you saw MJ at all back then.

Having said that, I did see LeBron in 2012 and 2013. As amazing as he was, many if not most of the elite defensive bigs like KG and Duncan were on their last lap, and a lot of elite guys were missing time. Peak MJ was competing with guys like Ewing, Robertson, Robinson, Hakeem, Pippen, and Rodman, while competing in a fast paced league.

This stands out a bit more (at least in my opinion) given the demise of the defensive bigs (especially seeing that LeBron was a PF those years), as well main guys falling off or not being in their peaks by comparison. Peak Duncan and KG are far bigger threats and stand out defensively more so than, with all due respect, Joakim Noah and Tyson Chandler (both of whom were very good, don't get me wrong).

[HoopsNY]

So in your world Jordan's 2nd 3 peat doesn't matter because he wasn't at his best. That sounds absurd because it is absurd.

Every season counts. Obviously Jordan's Wizard years aren't that important because wing players arent typically playing at that age.

Personally i give no fs about the Jordan/Lebron debate but Lebron's longevity absolutely counts as a plus in his favor. He worked hard from day 1 to keep himself in top shape and that is a big reason he is still effective. He definitely deserves credit for that.

Yes, it counts if we're judging careers. Once again, Kblaze isn't talking about that.

[tontoz]

I’m not sure I’ve ever been involved in a Davis or Jokic argument. Do you remember one I forgot?

Not that I’d care about it now. I admit I’m often boring but even I won’t make time to fight about who is better between a healthy superstar and one who is injured at the moment.

I have time to waste but I can still find better uses than that.

Tiger woods being worse at golf than ______ after a life threatening car accident means exactly as much to me as how good Anthony Davis is with no ankle.



Yes there was a big argument on here about Embiid/Jokic/AD a couple of years ago. You are adamant about AD being better than Jokic. When i pointed out his injury history you completely dismissed it.

Here we are again with AD out hurt and his team struggling to make the play in with Lebron lighting it up. Meanwhile Jokic is carrying a team to a 40-26 record without it's 2nd and 3rd best players. Last year same story, AD out half the season.

If a guy is injury prone that has to count against him when comparing players. A guy is no good to his team sitting on the bench. Similarly guys who decline sharply in their 30s, typically guys who rely heavily on athleticism, have to get dinged for that when comparing them to players who aged better.

Curry and Westbrook are the same age. Curry is still elite and was a MVP finalist last year. Westbrook, not so much.

[Kblaze8855]

I’m not sure I’ve ever said anything negative about Jokic. Only thing from the time period I can find at a glance is this:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?464715-Feels-like-we-have-cooled-on-Jokic-and-im-not-sure-why



A topic I made wondering why he wasn’t more appreciated.

Im not gonna say you’re lying that I ranked AD over him at some point. May be lost in the big server move. It’s not a take id feel a need to hide from if you’re sure about it. Like I said I’m not judging anyone injured or old or whatever as if it’s an accurate representation of the player in question.

As I said earlier it just allows one to cherry pick matchups to make any point you want. Of course Kyle Lowry is better than DerrickRose with no knee. Why talk about it?

Players can only be what they are at any given moment. The player represented by an average of an entire careers performances never actually exists so I don’t know how to evaluate their hypothetical game.

You wanna know how good Karl Malone is I can talk about the super athletic banger dunking on everyone and not being able to handle a double team or make a free throw or the finesse fadeaway shooter with incredible polish and instincts.

Two different players even if it’s the same human. The best I can do is talk about his prime when he was between the two extremes Which is why if you ask me how good he was I’m talking about the mid 90s version. Can’t just assign a player every trait he ever developed in his career and pretend the resulting fairytale ever existed.

Basketball games are played 48 minutes at a time not 15 years. Your career is not how good you are at any point of it. Your career can’t play. Careers are stories not basketball players.

[HoopsNY]

Yes there was a big argument on here about Embiid/Jokic/AD a couple of years ago. You are adamant about AD being better than Jokic. When i pointed out his injury history you completely dismissed it.

Here we are again with AD out hurt and his team struggling to make the play in with Lebron lighting it up. Meanwhile Jokic is carrying a team to a 40-26 record without it's 2nd and 3rd best players. Last year same story, AD out half the season.

If a guy is injury prone that has to count against him when comparing players. A guy is no good to his team sitting on the bench. Similarly guys who decline sharply in their 30s, typically guys who rely heavily on athleticism, have to get dinged for that when comparing them to players who aged better.

Curry and Westbrook are the same age. Curry is still elite and was a MVP finalist last year. Westbrook, not so much.

A couple of years ago sounds like 2020 where AD was a 1b, winning a title, putting up monster numbers against the rest of the league. Looking back on it now is revisionist history since at the time he was what he was.

[tontoz]

A couple of years ago sounds like 2020 where AD was a 1b, winning a title, putting up monster numbers against the rest of the league. Looking back on it now is revisionist history since at the time he was what he was.

It was definitely a pre covid discussion and of course covid gave AD a break. He didn't have to play a whole season which he has a problem with. He has only two seasons playing 70 games in the regular season.

[tontoz]

I’m not sure I’ve ever said anything negative about Jokic. Only thing from the time period I can find at a glance is this:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?464715-Feels-like-we-have-cooled-on-Jokic-and-im-not-sure-why



A topic I made wondering why he wasn’t more appreciated.

Im not gonna say you’re lying that I ranked AD over him at some point. May be lost in the big server move. It’s not a take id feel a need to hide from if you’re sure about it. Like I said I’m not judging anyone injured or old or whatever as if it’s an accurate representation of the player in question.

As I said earlier it just allows one to cherry pick matchups to make any point you want. Of course Kyle Lowry is better than DerrickRose with no knee. Why talk about it?

Players can only be what they are at any given moment. The player represented by an average of an entire careers performances never actually exists so I don’t know how to evaluate their hypothetical game.

You wanna know how good Karl Malone is I can talk about the super athletic banger dunking on everyone and not being able to handle a double team or make a free throw or the finesse fadeaway shooter with incredible polish and instincts.

Two different players even if it’s the same human. The best I can do is talk about his prime when he was between the two extremes Which is why if you ask me how good he was I’m talking about the mid 90s version. Can’t just assign a player every trait he ever developed in his career and pretend the resulting fairytale ever existed.

Basketball games are played 48 minutes at a time not 15 years. Your career is not how good you are at any point of it. Your career can’t play. Careers are stories not basketball players.


When i guy misses games due to injury year after year after year in his prime that can't be dismissed. We aren't talking about one devastating injury like Rose, we are talking about a pattern. Missed games are part of the deal with AD and it will likely get worse as he ages.

[Axe]

Yes there was a big argument on here about Embiid/Jokic/AD a couple of years ago. You are adamant about AD being better than Jokic. When i pointed out his injury history you completely dismissed it.

Here we are again with AD out hurt and his team struggling to make the play in with Lebron lighting it up. Meanwhile Jokic is carrying a team to a 40-26 record without it's 2nd and 3rd best players. Last year same story, AD out half the season.

If a guy is injury prone that has to count against him when comparing players. A guy is no good to his team sitting on the bench. Similarly guys who decline sharply in their 30s, typically guys who rely heavily on athleticism, have to get dinged for that when comparing them to players who aged better.

Curry and Westbrook are the same age. Curry is still elite and was a MVP finalist last year. Westbrook, not so much.
Yet last year westbrook got the last laugh out of the two, when his team was able to make it into the playoffs by winning a game in the play-ins despite their losing record in the rs.

[tontoz]

Yet westbrook got the last laugh out of the two, when his team was able to make it into the playoffs by winning a game in the play-ins despite their losing record in the rs.


Do you understand what the word "last" means? Pretty sure Westbrook isn't laughing now.

[Axe]

Do you understand what the word "last" means? Pretty sure Westbrook isn't laughing now.
But am pretty sure you mentioned last year too lol

[tontoz]

But am pretty sure you mentioned last year too lol

Yeah when Curry was an MVP finalist and Westbrook couldnt even make the All-star game.

Given the way Russ played in the playoffs it wasn't much of a prize. He shot 33% from the field.

[HoopsNY]

It was definitely a pre covid discussion.

2016-17: 75 games
2017-18: 75 games
2018-19: 56 games
2019-20: 62 games (out of 67)

The anomaly here is 2018-19 where he played 56 games. IIRC, LeBron and AD were colluding to get him out of NOLA. To secure that trade and prevent any other injuries, NOLA had AD out a bunch of games with the injury to his index finger with no urgency of a return or to keep him on the court. They even went as far as to play AD only 22 minutes a game in his final 15 appearances, facing a possible fine from the league if they didn't play him.

[tontoz]

2016-17: 75 games
2017-18: 75 games
2018-19: 56 games
2019-20: 62 games (out of 67)

The anomaly here is 2018-19 where he played 56 games. IIRC, LeBron and AD were colluding to get him out of NOLA. To secure that trade and prevent any other injuries, NOLA had AD out a bunch of games with the injury to his index finger with no urgency of a return or to keep him on the court. They even went as far as to play AD only 22 minutes a game in his final 15 appearances, facing a possible fine from the league if they didn't play him.

You do realize that you omitted 4 years of his career, right?:oldlol:

[Axe]

Yeah when Curry was an MVP finalist and Westbrook couldnt even make the All-star game.

Given the way Russ played in the playoffs it wasn't much of a prize. He shot 33% from the field.
But the wizards also weren't in the playoffs for two straight years when that happened. Too bad his triple-doubles per game just weren't enough for them to garner more than a single win against the top seed sixers.

[HoopsNY]

You do realize that you omitted 4 years of his career, right?:oldlol:

Well we were discussing 2020. Sure, the first 3 years of his career he wasn't healthy, but he had established a pattern of being on the floor the next 4 years. It was a risk, but it worked out for the Lakers in 2020.

My point was to show that he had established himself given the previous 3 years he was fine. LeBron opted to play with Dwyane Wade. Wade's rookie year he missed 21 games, then in 2007 and 2008 he missed 31 games each.

But he set a pattern of success, playing almost the entire season in 2009 and 2010, and then of course 2011 with LeBron. I guess my point is the more recent years mattered given the sample.

[tontoz]

But the wizards also weren't in the playoffs for two straight years when that happened. Too bad his triple-doubles per game just weren't enough for them to garner more than a single win against the top seed sixers.


Did you miss the part where i said he shot 33% for the series? In the game the Wizards won he shot 3-19. :oldlol:

[Axe]

Did you miss the part where i said he shot 33% for the series? In the game the Wizards won he shot 3-19. :oldlol:
Eh maybe but it's funny they still got into the playoffs when he went there lmao

[tontoz]

Well we were discussing 2020. Sure, the first 3 years of his career he wasn't healthy, but he had established a pattern of being on the floor the next 4 years. It was a risk, but it worked out for the Lakers in 2020.

My point was to show that he had established himself given the previous 3 years he was fine. LeBron opted to play with Dwyane Wade. Wade's rookie year he missed 21 games, then in 2007 and 2008 he missed 31 games each.

But he set a pattern of success, playing almost the entire season in 2009 and 2010, and then of course 2011 with LeBron. I guess my point is the more recent years mattered given the sample.

It worked out in 2020 because they had a long break due to covid. He signed a big deal and now is missing half the games.

Keep in mind that when you compare him to Jokic you are comparing him to a guy who rarely misses games. Unless i counted wrong Jokic has missed only 21 games in his career.

[HoopsNY]

It worked out in 2020 because they had a long break due to covid. He signed a big deal and now is missing half the games.

Keep in mind that when you compare him to Jokic you are comparing him to a guy who rarely misses games. Unless i counted wrong Jokic has missed only 21 games in his career.

It's an assumption that AD wouldn't have played fully if not for Covid. I think you're reaching a little here, especially given the last couple of seasons has seen AD crumble health-wise. Either way, it's not unreasonable for a person to come to that conclusion in 2020. He was on his way to being All-Defensive 1st Team and All-NBA 1st Team prior to Covid, and that ended up happening.

In addition, he was already seen as an elite player. In 2018, he finished top 3 in MVP voting, and was ranked top 5-6 going into the 2020 season.

Look at Jokic's numbers up to that point: 17/10/5.5/1/1 on 52%

It's not unreasonable why someone wouldn't put AD ahead of Jokic up to that point.

[tontoz]

It's an assumption that AD wouldn't have played fully if not for Covid. I think you're reaching a little here, especially given the last couple of seasons has seen AD crumble health-wise. Either way, it's not unreasonable for a person to come to that conclusion in 2020. He was on his way to being All-Defensive 1st Team and All-NBA 1st Team prior to Covid, and that ended up happening.

In addition, he was already seen as an elite player. In 2018, he finished top 3 in MVP voting, and was ranked top 5-6 going into the 2020 season.

Look at Jokic's numbers up to that point: 17/10/5.5/1/1 on 52%

It's not unreasonable why someone wouldn't put AD ahead of Jokic up to that point.


Pretty sure the discussion happened after the 2019 playoffs when Jokic showed out. That was the year AD was out 20+ games.

Assuming AD will miss games due to injury is a pretty safe assumption.

[Kblaze8855]

When i guy misses games due to injury year after year after year in his prime that can't be dismissed. We aren't talking about one devastating injury like Rose, we are talking about a pattern. Missed games are part of the deal with AD and it will likely get worse as he ages.


I feel like if I try to explain why I can’t judge the basketball playing ability of someone who isn’t playing basketball you would try to make it out to be difficult to understand and want a whole argument about it. But still….


Staying healthy is a matter of value and impacts career accomplishments due to availability. Your health is only a factor in your play when it changes how you play. You can be a worse player if your foot is constantly hurt and it changes how you can use your athleticism. You can’t be a worse player without playing basketball worse.

Im talking basketball not abstract concepts. If your injury makes you worse when you play then you have become a worse player. If your injury prevents you from playing I don’t know what you are just that you are less valuable to a franchise which is an entirely different question.

I can’t say how good somebody would be at basketball when they are a spectator. I can judge your value relative to guys I can depend on. But nothing you do while not an active player changes how good you are at the game. You are what I last saw you be until I have reason to assume you are no longer capable of it. If you arent playing I don’t know what you are. I can evaluate your value as an asset if you are an injury prone player but I can’t evaluate basketball with any activity but playing basketball.

As usual we are having different conversations. You might be more useful to an NBA team than Anthony Davis if he can’t play and you are on a minimum contract and can go in and foul a bad free-throw shooter as a strategy. You’re more useful to the team at the moment.

You arent yet better at basketball Because I can’t evaluate him as a basketball player while he’s at home. And if he gets there his injury was so severe he actually cant contribute more than you and your six potential fouls then we can talk. You might be better than Anthony Davis. But until I see Anthony Davis play worse than you I can’t assume he’s fallen that far off.

Ive seen Davis play worse than Jokic. That is why I would currently say Jokic is better. It remains to be seen what Davis will be when and if he is ever healthy again.

[HoopsNY]

Pretty sure the discussion happened after the 2019 playoffs when Jokic showed out. That was the year AD was out 20+ games.

Assuming AD will miss games due to injury is a pretty safe assumption.

Yea but we went over why that even happened. AD could have played more games.

[tontoz]

Yea but we went over why that even happened. AD could have played more games.

He missed 14 games prior to march 1, then played 8 games in March. It wasn't just a case of the Pels just shutting him down.

[tontoz]

I feel like if I try to explain why I can’t judge the basketball playing ability of someone who isn’t playing basketball you would try to make it out to be difficult to understand and want a whole argument about it. But still….


Staying healthy is a matter of value and impacts career accomplishments due to availability. Your health is only a factor in your play when it changes how you play. You can be a worse player if your foot is constantly hurt and it changes how you can use your athleticism. You can’t be a worse player without playing basketball worse.

Im talking basketball not abstract concepts. If your injury makes you worse when you play then you have become a worse player. If your injury prevents you from playing I don’t know what you are just that you are less valuable to a franchise which is an entirely different question.

I can’t say how good somebody would be at basketball when they are a spectator. I can judge your value relative to guys I can depend on. But nothing you do while not an active player changes how good you are at the game. You are what I last saw you be until I have reason to assume you are no longer capable of it. If you arent playing I don’t know what you are. I can evaluate your value as an asset if you are an injury prone player but I can’t evaluate basketball with any activity but playing basketball.

As usual we are having different conversations. You might be more useful to an NBA team than Anthony Davis if he can’t play and you are on a minimum contract and can go in and foul a bad free-throw shooter as a strategy. You’re more useful to the team at the moment.

You arent yet better at basketball Because I can’t evaluate him as a basketball player while he’s at home. And if he gets there his injury was so severe he actually cant contribute more than you and your six potential fouls then we can talk. You might be better than Anthony Davis. But until I see Anthony Davis play worse than you I can’t assume he’s fallen that far off.

Ive seen Davis play worse than Jokic. That is why I would currently say Jokic is better. It remains to be seen what Davis will be when and if he is ever healthy again.


I guess you aren't a fan of the saying "the most important ability is availability".

I roll my eyes when i see Bill Waltons name mentioned when discussing all time greats. People will say when he was healthy blah blah but that was so rare that to me he just can't rank that high.

A players value to a team isn't just about their production on the court. It also about includes their behavior off the court (weren't you the one talking about KLove being so unpopular with teammates? Or Isiah Thomas' leadership?) and their availability.

Some guys will play hurt routinely. Very few guys playing now are 100% heathy. I wasn't a big John Wall fan but i respected him for playing through stuff that would cause other guys to sit out.

It will be interesting to see when AD comes back from his injury. I'll go way out on a limb and guess it won't be earlier than expected.

[Kblaze8855]

The Most important ability absolutely is availability and I suspect I could find myself saying something like it. It just isn’t literal. Being available to make your team worse if they played you isnt actually useful. It’s a saying when discussing a players value it isn’t basketball analysis. It’s team building related but it isn’t an aspect of a basketball game.

And what I posted about Kevin love was an actual teammate critiquing how he played basketball and his selfish stat obsessed approach as well as him actually giving the ball to the other team and walking off as they hit a three and the incident showing up Sexton and yelling during a play instead of playing. Those are basketball issues. He’s on the floor doing them and alienating teammates a game that requires cooperation.

Being a jerk on the floor is a basketball trait just not a basketball skill. Like dribbling is a skill. Being a ball hog is a trait. And both are basketball playing factors. Not playing doesn’t make you worse. Kyrie isn’t playing half the games. Makes him a worse asset. Not worse at basketball. Same concept.

[tontoz]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. To me basketball ability doesn't matter when you dont play so to me bball ability and availability have to be tied together when comparing players.

AD isn't sitting out with devastating injuries like torn acl/ruptured achilles/fractured ankle. He is sitting out with sprains and a lot of guys are playing, and playing well, with sprains or worse. I have seen a lot of guys play through injuries that require surgery, then have the surgery in the offseason. AD aint about that life lol.

[Norcaliblunt]

People who argue peak basketball ability can never answer how long the peak has to be for it to count. You obviously have to do it for more than one game, but then that means you are talking about longevity and career shit. Lol.

[Kblaze8855]

You Mistake ignoring an overused argument that was stupid to begin with with not being able to respond to it. The “But what if you score 160 then retire” argument is just another “But what about Horry….” that doesn’t justify acknowledging after 200 people have all made themselves look stupid by trying to pass it off as a quality take.

[Norcaliblunt]

You Mistake ignoring an overused argument that was stupid to begin with with not being able to respond to it. The “But what if you score 160 then retire” argument is just another “But what about Horry….” that doesn’t justify acknowledging after 200 people have all made themselves look stupid by trying to pass it off as a quality take.

Idk I think you arguing for pages, year after year, over this shit is more stupid, but to each his own.

[Kblaze8855]

Oh sure I’ll argue about quite a lot. But there’s is a point at which someone is just trolling or intentionally wasting your time. And that point is somewhere in the area of “But Horryxhas more rings. Is he better than Jordan?” and “Well if you score 100 one game and never play again are you the goat?”.

I’ll talk to you about basketball. I’m not going to have a discussion about why 2+2 doesn’t equal 17.

It doesn’t. That’s all.

[Norcaliblunt]

Oh sure I’ll argue about quite a lot. But there’s is a point at which someone is just trolling or intentionally wasting your time. And that point is somewhere in the area of “But Horryxhas more rings. Is he better than Jordan?” and “Well if you score 100 one game and never play again are you the goat?”.

I’ll talk to you about basketball. I’m not going to have a discussion about why 2+2 doesn’t equal 17.

It doesn’t. That’s all.


It’s exaggerated yes, but the point remains at this level you have to take longevity and consistency into consideration. You are doing that whether you like it or not.

[HoopsNY]

It’s exaggerated yes, but the point remains at this level you have to take longevity and consistency into consideration. You are doing that whether you like it or not.

Consideration, sure, but there are exceptions. Chris Webber had a great career, definitely had longevity, but I don't think I'd put him above Penny Hardaway.

Kobe had the longevity over Hakeem, but I personally think Hakeem is a step above Kobe. While longevity is a factor, I don't think it trumps peak/prime play.

[tontoz]

Consideration, sure, but there are exceptions. Chris Webber had a great career, definitely had longevity, but I don't think I'd put him above Penny Hardaway.

Kobe had the longevity over Hakeem, but I personally think Hakeem is a step above Kobe. While longevity is a factor, I don't think it trumps peak/prime play.

Webber had longevity? That's news to me. He was washed and injury prone in his 30s. His scoring efficiency was comically bad.

[NBAGOAT]

The skill part of the question makes it a bit loaded. Like David Robinson is definitely less skilled than some guys but his impact is higher so he’s still a “better” offensive player. Why a few people had him even over Jordan

[HoopsNY]

Webber had longevity? That's news to me. He was washed and injury prone in his 30s. His scoring efficiency was comically bad.

He had 10+ prime years. I'd say that counts for longevity, especially since it far surpasses what Penny was able to do. And in those years, he shot 48%. I don't understand how that's comically bad efficiency?

[Norcaliblunt]

Consideration, sure, but there are exceptions. Chris Webber had a great career, definitely had longevity, but I don't think I'd put him above Penny Hardaway.

Kobe had the longevity over Hakeem, but I personally think Hakeem is a step above Kobe. While longevity is a factor, I don't think it trumps peak/prime play.

We all understand that. The question is how large does the sample size have to be to assess a players “basketball ability”? Because if it’s more than one game, two games, a season, 2 seasons, or 5 seasons then by simple logic you are taking longevity and consistency into account. So wtf is it? Then we can debate. Crazy how fools can’t get this.

[tontoz]

He had 10+ prime years. I'd say that counts for longevity, especially since it far surpasses what Penny was able to do. And in those years, he shot 48%. I don't understand how that's comically bad efficiency?


A sub 50% TS is bad for a guard. It is terrible for a big and he was consistently sub 50% from age 29 until he was done.

[HoopsNY]

A sub 50% TS is bad for a guard. It is terrible for a big and he was consistently sub 50% from age 29 until he was done.

Yea, though Webber played in the height of the defensive era. And not to mention, you're conveniently removing the first 9 years of his career. Fact is, he had a great career and is a perfect example of how relying on longevity doesn't hold a ton of weight.

An even better example is Hakeem and Kobe.

[Norcaliblunt]

relying on longevity doesn't hold a ton of weight.

Simple question? How long does a player have to play to assess their talent and ability?

[tontoz]

Yea, though Webber played in the height of the defensive era. And not to mention, you're conveniently removing the first 9 years of his career. Fact is, he had a great career and is a perfect example of how relying on longevity doesn't hold a ton of weight.

An even better example is Hakeem and Kobe.


You were the one who said he had longevity. That is what I don't agree with.

His days as a good player were over by age 29. I watched him a lot in Philly and he just wasn't any good.

[HoopsNY]

Simple question? How long does a player have to play to assess their talent and ability?

I know where you're going with this, and while I agree that it's really arbitrary, I think that 4-5 years are really a testimony to a player's talent/IQ and ability.

Having said that, I think that a player's peak/prime is probably a better indicator than longevity. There are obvious examples, and even when it comes to great players, (as Kblaze mentioned), we tend not to care about what they did in their out of peak/prime years.

Does anyone really care about Kobe's first 3 seasons in the league? Does anyone really care about his last 3? Grant Hill was a phenomenal talent from 1995-2000. He was easily an elite player and one of the best, most all-around, we had ever seen. Yet he played 'til 2013.

I can name a number of guys who had longer/more sustainable careers, but Hill's first six easily puts him above them.

[HoopsNY]

You were the one who said he had longevity. That is what I don't agree with.

His days as a good player were over by age 29. I watched him a lot in Philly and he just wasn't any good.

So that's it? His career from 2004-2008 is what matters? How do you obsess over longevity and completely negate Webber's first 10 seasons?

In those first 10 seasons, Webber won ROY, was an All-Star 5x, and All-NBA 5x. Not to mention, he was competing with the likes of Malone, Dirk, Garnett, Duncan, Wallace, McDyess, Kemp, Baker, Barkley, Brand etc. And most of those guys played in the Western Conference when Webber was with Sacramento.

I'm now wondering what you think constitutes longevity? Webber sustained prime play for about 10 years. If 10 doesn't count, then what does? 11? 12? 14?

[tontoz]

Hakeem won his titles at age 31/32 which shows the value of having longevity. It isn't easy to build a team into a title contender. When a guy plays well for a long time they have a better chance to win rings.

If he was declining hard at 30 he wouldn't have any rings. His postseason runs were scary during his title runs. He was the leading scorer in the playoffs both years.

[HoopsNY]

Hakeem won his titles at age 31/32 which shows the value of having longevity. It isn't easy to build a team into a title contender. When a guy plays well for a long time they have a better chance to win rings.

If he was declining hard at 30 he wouldn't have any rings. His postseason runs were scary during his title runs. He was the leading scorer in the playoffs both years.

Are we discussing rings or are we discussing longevity, though? If that's the case then Karl Malone's "longevity" is pretty meaningless, as is Chris Paul's.

[tontoz]

So that's it? His career from 2004-2008 is what matters? How do you obsess over longevity and completely negate Webber's first 10 seasons?

In those first 10 seasons, Webber won ROY, was an All-Star 5x, and All-NBA 5x. Not to mention, he was competing with the likes of Malone, Dirk, Garnett, Duncan, Wallace, McDyess, Kemp, Baker, Barkley, Brand etc. And most of those guys played in the Western Conference when Webber was with Sacramento.

I'm now wondering what you think constitutes longevity? Webber sustained prime play for about 10 years. If 10 doesn't count, then what does? 11? 12? 14?

I am not obsessing about longevity. I just disagree that Webber had it. He was washed at 29 and had injury issues even in his 20s.

He played only 15 games in year 3, 54 in yr 2, 42 in year 6. Do those years count as sustained prime?

He only got past the 2nd round once in his 20s so no I don't give him credit for longevity.

When he was young and healthy he was great but 5 All-star games isn't the stuff of legend lol. Hakeem made 12 All-Star games in an era of great centers

[HoopsNY]

I am not obsessing about longevity. I just disagree that Webber had it. He was washed at 29 and had injury issues even in his 20s.

He played only 15 games in year 3, 54 in yr 2, 42 in year 6. Do those years count as sustained prime?

He only got past the 2nd round once in his 20s so no I don't give him credit for longevity.

When he was young and healthy he was great but 5 All-star games isn't the stuff of legend lol. Hakeem made 12 All-Star games in an era of great centers

I think you're conflating issues here. You can't compare great players to elite all-time players in order to negate the point. It doesn't work that way. A great player's prime years are still great, irrespective of them being lesser to an elite all-time player's peak/prime years.

Throwing in rings, accolades, 'longevity', and a host of other arguments is just a career argument. What Kblaze and I are arguing is that the best of what that player did is what ultimately matters.

No one is really interested in what Giannis did in his first 3 seasons in the league. Similarly, no one is really interested in what Kobe did his first 3 years, either.

Steve Nash was a backup to Jason Kidd when he came into the league. His career didn't really take off until his sixth season in the league. No one really cares for those years. Just like they don't care about his last couple of seasons. People will remember what he did in his best years, because that's all that ultimately matters.

Aside from 3ball, does anyone care about any of Scottie Pippen's years other than 1991-98? Guess what, Pippen played in 9 other seasons. See my point?

[HoopsNY]

I am not obsessing about longevity. I just disagree that Webber had it. He was washed at 29 and had injury issues even in his 20s.

He played only 15 games in year 3, 54 in yr 2, 42 in year 6. Do those years count as sustained prime?

He only got past the 2nd round once in his 20s so no I don't give him credit for longevity.

When he was young and healthy he was great but 5 All-star games isn't the stuff of legend lol. Hakeem made 12 All-Star games in an era of great centers

Technically, no, but if we're gonna nickel and dime like that, then that's what, 7 seasons? I'd count the 54 game season but if not then fine. We're left with 7.

And if Webber doesn't get that nod, then what the heck does that make Tracy McGrady? He couldn't even get out of the 1st round, and probably totaled about 6 "full seasons" of prime play if we're gonna start knocking down injury years.

How far down this rabbit hole do you really wanna go? Or does T-Mac suddenly not count as a great player?

[tontoz]

Technically, no, but if we're gonna nickel and dime like that, then that's what, 7 seasons? I'd count the 54 game season but if not then fine. We're left with 7.

And if Webber doesn't get that nod, then what the heck does that make Tracy McGrady? He couldn't even get out of the 1st round, and probably totaled about 6 "full seasons" of prime play if we're gonna start knocking down injury years.

How far down this rabbit hole do you really wanna go? Or does T-Mac suddenly not count as a great player?


He was a great player who didn't have longevity. There are a lot of guys like that through history.

[HoopsNY]

He was a great player who didn't have longevity. There are a lot of guys like that through history.

I dunno man, T-Mac had 8 really good seasons. In Toronto, he was really being held back by playing under Vince, hence his move to Orlando. Otherwise, T-Mac probably has 9 really good seasons.

Pippen had 9 really good seasons. It's the same thing, though Pippen was the better player, but not by much. This longevity argument is flawed.

If T-Mac puts up 1 more season of 20/5/5, does that suddenly make him any different? I fail to see how that adds to his value.

[tontoz]

I dunno man, T-Mac had 8 really good seasons. In Toronto, he was really being held back by playing under Vince, hence his move to Orlando. Otherwise, T-Mac probably has 9 really good seasons.

Pippen had 9 really good seasons. It's the same thing, though Pippen was the better player, but not by much. This longevity argument is flawed.

If T-Mac puts up 1 more season of 20/5/5, does that suddenly make him any different? I fail to see how that adds to his value.

If a guy is washed by age 30 I am not giving them credit for longevity. McGrady's last season averaging 20 ppg was age 28.

It happens to a lot of guys. 82 games is a long season.

[HoopsNY]

If a guy is washed by age 30 I am not giving them credit for longevity. McGrady's last season averaging 20 ppg was age 28.

It happens to a lot of guys. 82 games is a long season.

Then we're just debating semantics. You're looking at age, I'm looking at years. Either way, players can have shorter life spans to their best years, but that doesn't mean players who sustain longer careers are necessarily better.

[tontoz]

Then we're just debating semantics. You're looking at age, I'm looking at years. Either way, players can have shorter life spans to their best years, but that doesn't mean players who sustain longer careers are necessarily better.


I am not saying you can't be a great player without longevity.

McGrady played like a star from ages 21-27... that's not many years. One of those years he missed almost half a season. So longevity wasn't part of his career. Even during those years his shooting was sometimes weak.

His longevity was definitely on the low end among top players.

[HoopsNY]

I am not saying you can't be a great player without longevity.

McGrady played like a star from ages 21-27... that's not many years. One of those years he missed almost half a season. So longevity wasn't part of his career. Even during those years his shooting was sometimes weak.

His longevity was definitely on the low end among top players.

Yea, that's the problem. If the metric is gonna be against the elite players, then sure. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a better player than guys who had better longevity.

Russell Westbrook has better longevity than Grant Hill. Was he really a better player than Grant Hill though? I don't think so. And Hill never even made it out of the 1st round.

[tontoz]

Yea, that's the problem. If the metric is gonna be against the elite players, then sure. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a better player than guys who had better longevity.

Russell Westbrook has better longevity than Grant Hill. Was he really a better player than Grant Hill though? I don't think so. And Hill never even made it out of the 1st round.


You keep deflecting. I am talking specifically about longevity and McGrady simply didn't have that many years at a high level.

Longevity is just one factor in valuing a player, like shooting, passing, defense, whatever. I think they all should be part of the discussion.

Grant sort of had two careers. One as a star then another as a complimentary role player. I was happy to see him come back. That crap with his ankle was UGLY.

Westbrook is just an odd case. He was really popular with the Wizards. His play in the second half of the season was actually very impressive. The Wizards won several games solely because of his will to compete. But he really needs the right fit to be effective and the Lakers are a terrible fit.

[HoopsNY]

You keep deflecting. I am talking specifically about longevity and McGrady simply didn't have that many years at a high level.

Longevity is just one factor in valuing a player, like shooting, passing, defense, whatever. I think they all should be part of the discussion.

Grant sort of had two careers. One as a star then another as a complimentary role player. I was happy to see him come back. That crap with his ankle was UGLY.

Westbrook is just an odd case. He was really popular with the Wizards. His play in the second half of the season was actually very impressive. The Wizards won several games solely because of his will to compete. But he really needs the right fit to be effective and the Lakers are a terrible fit.

I'm not deflecting anything. The premise of what I'm saying is that longevity doesn't matter as much as peak/prime play. There are many examples which show this.

Hill > Westbrook and I think you can agree to that. And to Kblaze's point, when we evaluate the strength of a player, we're not looking at what players really did beyond their best years.

As I mentioned before, I don't really care what Pippen did prior to 1991. I also don't care what he did from 1999-03. I don't know a single poster on this forum who really does (aside from 3ball). And the general consensus with fans seems to be 1991-98. That's pretty fair.

If we start looking at career numbers, then how does his 16/6/5 on 47% compare to other greats? Doesn't seem so great. But who cares? What matters is what he did in his best years.

[tontoz]

When you say someone has good longevity when they really don't that's a you problem.i never said longevity was more important than prime play. I am just saying it has to be part of any comparison between players

Pippen played all 82 games at age 34. He has 8 seasons playing at least 79 games. He was pretty durable and his strength was defense not scoring. He was 1st team all NBA defense 8 times. He made the first team with Houston and 2nd team with Portland.

Completely different player from McGrady or Webber and yes he had better longevity.

[BigShotBob]

Wilt was better defensively than Hakeem and comparable offensively

[Cold soul]

There is a few players those that come to mind are Jordan, Bird, and Kobe are right there with Hakeem when it comes to offensively skilled.

[nayte]

I don't get how posters can't differentiate between skills and career like op wants.

[HoopsNY]

When you say someone has good longevity when they really don't that's a you problem.i never said longevity was more important than prime play. I am just saying it has to be part of any comparison between players

Pippen played all 82 games at age 34. He has 8 seasons playing at least 79 games. He was pretty durable and his strength was defense not scoring. He was 1st team all NBA defense 8 times. He made the first team with Houston and 2nd team with Portland.

Completely different player from McGrady or Webber and yes he had better longevity.

When did I say he didn't have better longevity than those guys? Sure, guys can have better longevity than others. Anyway, we're going around in circles.

My belief is that prime/peak years is all that matters. I don't care about longevity, like, at all. That is because I am not invested in comparing player's careers. Sure, if we're discussing careers, then longevity absolutely matters.

But for me, the greater topic is who do I want on my team for a NBA Finals 7 game series. I suppose if we switch the topic to who do I want to draft for a sustainable career, then longevity becomes much more important. All good, you're not wrong.

[ShawkFactory]

Wilt was better defensively than Hakeem and comparable offensively

They're hard to compare on both ends. Completely different ball game.

[Shogon]

If a guy is washed by age 30 I am not giving them credit for longevity. McGrady's last season averaging 20 ppg was age 28.

It happens to a lot of guys. 82 games is a long season.


82 games has nothing to do with anything. It's because he had back and knee problems and one leg is longer than the other.

[tontoz]

82 games has nothing to do with anything. It's because he had back and knee problems and one leg is longer than the other.

82 games has nothing to do with it? :facepalm

Playing back to backs/ 3 games in 4 nights so often year after year takes a toll on the body and can frequently lead to injuries. If they played less games they would have more time to recover and would be less likely to get injured. Duh

[Shogon]

82 games has nothing to do with it? :facepalm

Playing back to backs/ 3 games in 4 nights so often year after year takes a toll on the body and can frequently lead to injuries. If they played less games they would have more time to recover and would be less likely to get injured. Duh


Nothing to do with anything other than your perception. 82 games is not an issue if he was a normally structured human being.

Most players who have reached the heights he reached had 15+ year careers of dominance playing 82 game seasons... he fell apart because his body was imperfect and no amount of rest was ever going to change it. He was having repeated back injury issues in Orlando when he was an early to mid 20s aged player.

He might of made it worse faster due to playing games while injured, but the point is he was always going to be injured in any reasonable amount of games played.

You're just wrong.

[tontoz]

Nothing to do with anything other than your perception. 82 games is not an issue if he was a normally structured human being.

Most players who have reached the heights he reached had 15+ year careers of dominance playing 82 game seasons... he fell apart because his body was imperfect and no amount of rest was ever going to change it. He was having repeated back injury issues in Orlando when he was an early to mid 20s aged player.

He might of made it worse faster due to playing games while injured, but the point is he was always going to be injured in any reasonable amount of games played.

You're just wrong.



LOL

Some guys can handle the wear and tear of a long season. Some guys can't. Not a hard concept to grasp. Being a star makes it more likely they will get hurt because of heavy minutes. Any problem gets magnified with all that pounding year after year.

They have been adjusting the schedule in recent years to reduce back to backs. Guys have been sitting out games in recent years due to "load management". Pop was doing this with Duncan years ago. Maybe you should tell them "82 games doesn't matter". I don't think they got the memo.

There have been a lot of star players whose career ended too early because their bodies couldn't handle the beating. Bill Walton was the most obvious example. Isiah Thomas was out of the league at 32. Brandon Roy....and on and on.

[Shogon]

LOL

Some guys can handle the wear and tear of a long season. Some guys can't. Not a hard concept to grasp. Being a star makes it more likely they will get hurt because of heavy minutes. Any problem gets magnified with all that pounding year after year.

They have been adjusting the schedule in recent years to reduce back to backs. Guys have been sitting out games in recent years due to "load management". Pop was doing this with Duncan years ago. Maybe you should tell them "82 games doesn't matter". I don't think they got the memo.

There have been a lot of star players whose career ended too early because their bodies couldn't handle the beating. Bill Walton was the most obvious example. Isiah Thomas was out of the league at 32. Brandon Roy....and on and on.


You just don't know what the **** you're talking about when it comes to McGrady specifically. Hell, he was having back problems so bad one year for Orlando he was thinking he might not play... IN THE PRESEASON.

82 games doe! 82 games! 82 games! Explains it all!

Shut the **** up.

[tontoz]

You just don't know what the **** you're talking about when it comes to McGrady specifically. Hell, he was having back problems so bad one year for Orlando he was thinking he might not play... IN THE PRESEASON.

82 games doe! 82 games! 82 games! Explains it all!

Shut the **** up.



LOL you mad bro? If you could actually read the 82 games comment wasn't specific to McGrady anyway.

[HoopsNY]

You guys are talking spicy for no reason.

[Axe]

LOL you mad bro? If you could actually read the 82 games comment wasn't specific to McGrady anyway.
Guys like greg oden has never played 82 games in at least one season at all so that could be true. Zion looks like he's going to end up being the same either. Ofc injuries or body problems are big factors for those. Meanwhile, this makes me wonder also if michael jordan, after his first retirement (or suspension) in 1993 and missing 1.5 seasons in his career, would have been able to play all 82 rs games for three seasons in a row or during the second three-peat if that never happened.

[tontoz]

Guys like greg oden has never played 82 games in at least one season at all so that could be true. Zion looks like he's going to end up being the same either. Ofc injuries or body problems are big factors for those. Meanwhile, this makes me wonder also if michael jordan, after his first retirement (or suspension) in 1993 and missing 1.5 seasons in his career, would have been able to play all 82 rs games for three seasons in a row or during the second three-peat if that never happened.


Jordan played 82 games 9 times in his career, even his last at age 39 lol. He was just a freak.

[dankok8]

Skill is different from effectiveness OP. Hakeem also had weaknesses as a passer until the mid 90's. But those few years he really put it all together. I don't have a problem with someone saying that 1993-95 Hakeem is among the five best players we've ever seen. Heck a lot of people believe so.