Pau Gasol vs. Dirk Nowitzki

[QUOTE=vert48]Interesting. Simmons said last year at the All-Star break that Kobe would be top 10 if he won the title that year. He assumed either the Cavs or Celtics would beat the Lakers without Bynum at full strength, but then had to make good on his quote after people called him on it when the book came out.[/QUOTE]


I still don't get it though. Shaq won 4, Kobe won 4. Shaq was the most important player in 3 out of those 4, yet Shaq is #12 and slipping. While he was also more dominant in his prime than Kobe ever was (or ever will be).

I can see why someone would have Kobe ahead of Shaq if #24 wins a few more rings, but right now?

It makes no sense to me.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]
Noone argued otherwise, I have certainly not. Dirk is the better offensive player, yes. And Gasol is the better defensive player. Dirk had better teammates in the NBA, resulting is more success as the #1. Gasol had better teammates in FIBA, resulting in more success as the #1.

With all this said, I'd take Dirk as well (as I said here more than once). I just don't think the difference is huge. [/quote]

that makes it sound like teammates are the only relevant factor, ignoring that Dirk has played much better than Gasol throughout their respective careers, regular season, playoffs and also head-to-head matchups.

As long as Gasol does not win as a #1 option in the NBA there will never be an argument for him over Dirk.


[quote]
We don't. He is borderline top 30, but I'd put him a bit lower.[/QUOTE]

Then I'd certainly like to see your list, or at least a selection of non-obvious choices you'd rank over Clyde and Dirk.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]He changed it two times since the book got published. Moved Shaq futher down and Kobe up for example. He should have wated a few more years until Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, Iverson et al. retire to be able to make better, longer-lasting standings.[/QUOTE]

If he did that he would never be able to write that section of the book because there are always going to be great young players. If he waited for those careers to end he would still have to rate Lebron, Wade, Howard, Paul, and some younger players, like a Durant or Rose, will insert themselves into the conversation.

He moved Shaq down one spot because Kobe moved up to #8.

[QUOTE]Simmons said last year at the All-Star break that Kobe would be top 10 if he won the title that year. He assumed either the Cavs or Celtics would beat the Lakers without Bynum at full strength, but then had to make good on his quote after people called him on it when the book came out.[/QUOTE]

He wrote the rankings section before the playoffs were over. In the epilogue he said Kobe moved up to #8.

[QUOTE]Dirk is pretty much in that Clyde Drexler category or even higher, depends on how much value his MVP and leading the league in PER twice. And we surely do agree that Drexler is top 30 at the very least.[/QUOTE]

Drexler is usually around 40th. Dirk probably is ahead of him and top 40 but top 30 is a stretch, although he may get there by the time he retires. To be top 25-30 he would have to be considered as good and accomplished as players like Jason Kidd, Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, David Robinson, and Kevin Garnett to name some recent players around 25th place on most lists.

[QUOTE]Then I'd certainly like to see your list, or at least a selection of non-obvious choices you'd rank over Clyde and Dirk[/QUOTE]

Me too. He has said Gasol is close to players like Dirk and Pippen. That begs the question: where does he have Gasol? Top 50? Top 60 all-time? Top 75? Does he think Gasol is better than someone like Chris Webber?

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]As long as Gasol does not win as a #1 option in the NBA there will never be an argument for him over Dirk.[/QUOTE]


OK. But why are you saying this again? I've just said one more time I'd also take Dirk. What else do you want to hear? Should I take him twice?


[QUOTE]Then I'd certainly like to see your list, or at least a selection of non-obvious choices you'd rank over Clyde and Dirk.[/QUOTE]

Someday I may do that list. I'm not keen on such lists though as I have tiers. I'm telling you the first two tiers:

[U]1st tier[/U]
Wilt
Russell
Jordan
Bird
Magic
Kareem

[U]2nd tier[/U]
Hakeem
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Oscar
West

That's a dozen guys there. In my next tier are around 15 players. Barkley, Isiah, Stockton, Malone, Robinson, etc.

Drexler is in tier 4. Borderline 30.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Drexler is usually around 40th. Dirk probably is ahead of him and top 40 but top 30 is a stretch, although he may get there by the time he retires. To be top 25-30 he would have to be considered as good and accomplished as players like Jason Kidd, Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, David Robinson, and Kevin Garnett to name some recent players around 25th place on most lists.
[/QUOTE]

Is Dirk any less accomplished than Kidd, Pippen, Stockton, DRob and Garnett?

btw, on [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57766"]that list[/URL] Drexler is at #27

[QUOTE]That begs the question: where does he have Gasol? Top 50? Top 60 all-time? Top 75?[/QUOTE]

Top 100.

Where he will end up depends a lot on how much he is going to win. I doubt he will ever reach top 50 though. He is not that good.

But let's not act like the difference is HUGE with a player being top 40 or top 70 on an all time list. There are like 450 players on the teams each year and we are talking about all time. If a player is top 40 or top 70 all time it means only a few places in their current rankings.

Like Dirk is a top 5 player now and Gasol is a borderline top 10 player now. Over the course of a career it will easily translate as the difference between, say, to 35 and top 75.

Let's not act as if these differences were so immense. They are not.

[QUOTE]That's a dozen guys there. In my next tier are around 15 players. Barkley, Isiah, Stockton, Malone, Robinson, etc.

Drexler is in tier 4. Borderline 30.[/QUOTE]

okay, though I do think Dirk and Drexler belong in that same tier, albeit on the bottom end. All those players except Isiah lead their team to the finals as the best player, put up great stats in the process and won MVPs (except Stockton). Dirk basically is Malone, only a more clutch but less prolific as a scorer.

[QUOTE]I do think Dirk and Drexler belong in that same tier[/QUOTE]

Yes, me too. And Nash is also there, as is Kidd or Iverson. In that tier, there are at least 20 guys, and it is actually pretty tough ranking them. Ranking players 1 thru 25 is a lot easier than doing a 26 thru 50

Both lists will be arguable, but you will have a tougher time creating the second list.

[QUOTE=elementally morale]Yes, me too. And Nash is also there, as is Kidd or Iverson. In that tier, there are at least 20 guys, and it is actually pretty tough ranking them. Ranking players 1 thru 25 is a lot easier than doing a 26 thru 50

Both lists will be arguable, but you will have a tougher time creating the second list.[/QUOTE]

If you have 12 players in tier 1 and 2 combined, plus 20 players in tier 3, which include Dirk and Drexler, that makes both top 32, which is basically where I rank them.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]If you have 12 players in tier 1 and 2 combined, plus 20 players in tier 3, which include Dirk and Drexler, that makes both top 32, which is basically where I rank them.[/QUOTE]

But I don't and didn't say that, did I?

Let's take a look at it again:

Tier 1, six players. Tier 2, six players. Tier 3, about 15 players. (Give or take a few). We are somewhere between 25-30 by now.

[B]Drexler is in tier 4.[/B] There are about 20 players there. In other words: Drexler is most definitely top 50 and no way better than top 25. Around 35, a bit better a bit worse. Somewhere there. As is Iverson, Kidd, Nash, Dirk.... it's tough.

Dirk easily.

[QUOTE=Brunch@Five]Is Dirk any less accomplished than Kidd, Pippen, Stockton, DRob and Garnett?

btw, on [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57766"]that list[/URL] Drexler is at #27[/QUOTE]

It is debatable but I would say he is slightly less accomplished then those players. Stockton and Kidd are 1-2 in assists all-time and Pippen and Garnett have championships and were elite defenders, perhaps the best at their peaks. Dirk is not far from those guys, though.

Yeah, ISH has him 27th but everywhere else he is around 40th. Slam has him 41st, Simmons has him 43rd and Kalb 49th or 50th (although his book was written in 03' and players who retired around then have moved up on most lists since then). He has a case for top 30, though. Drexler is a good comparison to Dirk. Someone who is around 40th right now but has a case for top 30 and may get there by the time he retires.

[QUOTE]But let's not act like the difference is HUGE with a player being top 40 or top 70 on an all time list. [/QUOTE]

That depends on how you define huge. Is there a big difference between 10th and 20th, i.e. Duncan vs. Malone? Simmons has David Thompson at #70 and Gary Payton at #40. There is a difference but how big it is depends on your definition.

[QUOTE]Like Dirk is a top 5 player now and Gasol is a borderline top 10 player now. Over the course of a career it will easily translate as the difference between, say, to 35 and top 75.[/QUOTE]

A borderline top 10 player at his peak is that high all-time? Dirk is top 5 now and he is past his prime.

[QUOTE]A borderline top 10 player at his peak is that high all-time? [/QUOTE]

We don't know yet. He is around top 100 on my list now. In case he wins 3 more titles as the #2 option, top 70 is not out of reach. However, it doesn't make too much sense to rank players below top 25 and it is basically pointless below top 50. The lower you go the less meaning it has and the more personal preference it becomes.

If someone can rank Wilt as #1 or #6 or Shaq #1 and #12... it is not that clear cut then, is it? Jordan had a good 15 years as the consensus #1, and even that will come to an end. It will simply go out of style to have him as the clear cut GOAT.

One may build just as good a case for Kareem or Russell, and one may argue Bird had no worse a prime than Jordan. That's why I think having tiers makes a lot more sense than a rigid ranking.

People usually can't agree where they rank Nash, Paul and Deron this season. They can't agree on LeBron and Kobe, they can't agree on Dwight Howard or Tim Duncan this very year. Yet we try acting as if we knew how to properly rank people on all time lists, with all the different eras and situations.

I shouldn't be ranking Wilt, Russell, West and Oscar at all. All I saw is some footage. People not old enough to have been able to see Hakeem's career or Barkley's career should not really comment on their respective level of play all time. Or even if they do, they should be a lot more modest about it than they usually are.

At least that's what I think.

In a way there are tiers. The same players are ranked with each other 90% of the time. Plus, most people switch players a few spots since they are close calls. No one posting a list today will have the same list two months from now, even though the records of the players involved will be the same by then.

Yeah, going beyond top 50 is iffy and that is why it is rarely done. Slam magazine, Kalb in his book, and the NBA itself all used top 50 lists. Simmons and the ISH thread are the only places I have seen people go beyond that.

You are right that the lower you go the harder it is to classify players because criteria becomes more important. For instance, if you don't care about championships then Malone looks a lot better than he does if you do.

[QUOTE]People usually can't agree where they rank Nash, Paul and Deron this season. They can't agree on LeBron and Kobe, they can't agree on Dwight Howard or Tim Duncan this very year.[/QUOTE]

They are in tiers too. Only three PG's are in the best PG discussion and only two players are in the best player discussion right now, given the subpar season Wade has had thus far.

[QUOTE]I shouldn't be ranking Wilt, Russell, West and Oscar at all. All I saw is some footage. People not old enough to have been able to see Hakeem's career or Barkley's career should not really comment on their respective level of play all time.[/QUOTE]

So why do you rank players you never saw contemporaneously? A good starting point would be to practice what you preach. :confusedshrug: People get ranked all the time in every sport (not to mention the same thing happens outside of sports, i.e. greatest presidents or greatest generals). There is a reason for it. Do you really think only basketball fans do this? Go to a NFL forum and post a thread asking who the best QB ever is or a NASCAR forum and ask who the best driver ever is and you will see a lengthy discussion. How many of those people saw Unitas play or Petty race? Here we have 95% of posters declaring Jordan the GOAT. How many saw Wilt, Russell, or prime Kareem? Maybe a handful of posters. For sure no one here saw the 50's players. Most here probably didn't see prime Bird either.

Edit: Here is a thread ranking a rap producer in the OTC sub-forum. It is up to four pages already. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157601[/url]

[QUOTE]So why do you rank players you never saw contemporaneously?[/QUOTE]


I don't.
Have you ever seen me doing an all time list? I have tiers and I usually add the 'since 1980' disclaimer.


[QUOTE]
People get ranked all the time in every sport[/QUOTE]

I know. And it makes no sense comparing Maradona with Pel