The GOAT List: 2014 Edition

[CENTER][IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/history/legends/bill-laimbeer/bill-laimbeer-RickStewart.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]
[SIZE="4"][B][FONT="Book Antiqua"]#128 William J. Laimbeer Jr.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/B]
[B]Tier Classification:[/B] Championship Pieces: Non-Alpha
[B]Years Played (Quality Prime Seasons):[/B] 14 (9)
[B]Primary Role(s):[/B] #2/#3/#4 on Champions and Contenders
[B]Prime Averages: [/B] 15-11-2-1 on 50/32/84
[CENTER][B]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/B][/CENTER]
[SIZE="3"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]-[SIZE="6"]H[/SIZE]e used to joke that he was the only player in the NBA who made less money than his Dad, and for much of his career that was true. Even though NBA contracts began to take off right as Bill Laimbeer turned pro, a six figure income was the norm for Laimbeer, raised in a privileged suburb of Chicago, going to the NBA may have meant a pay cut for Bill. But Laimbeer didn

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T][IMG]http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/whitemencantjump-woodywesley1.jpg[/IMG]

[SIZE="4"][FONT="Georgia"]This section, the next four players anyway, is dedicated to guys who perpetuate one of the most frustrating, but as always, true stereotypes in basketball. The nonathletic white big man. Here however we will pay homage to guys who had great careers despite not being cast from the typical mold.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]
I was almost correct. Only I had Paul Westphal instead of Dan Issel.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]I was almost correct. Only I had Paul Westphal instead of Dan Issel.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I saw that description and immediately thought Issel. Wasn't sure who else though. Interesting group of players.

[QUOTE=MP.Trey]Interesting. I saw that description and immediately thought Issel. Wasn't sure who else though. Interesting group of players.[/QUOTE]
Issel was pretty athletic for a big. He was supposed to be in the ABA dunk Contest.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]...Unquestionably he is beloved by fans in Detroit and bemoaned by those almost everywhere else. But let

[QUOTE=L.A. Jazz]You have for sure seen him play a lot and done a lot of research. But i dont respect players that try to hurt other players. The games i saw it looked like that and Larry Bird even said it in the interview with Bill Simmons.[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean. I heard the Simmons/Bird BS Report and I was a little surprised that Larry had not lighten up a little with time, but considering how violent their rivalry was, I'm not shocked.

I am certain many players still dislike and never really respected Laimbeer. But I wanted to point out (and feel I did with the quotes I used) that a number of players with cause to "hate" Laimbeer actually respected him.

As a Pistons fan, I admit my bias, but I am not ignorant of how others (mostly rightfully) may view Laimbeer. I just think most guys who hate him for what he did on the court would be singing a different tune if he wore the same jersey as them.

Goat why is chambers so high?
Over guys lik Lou Hudson etc

G.O.A.T, this is a tremendous thread. I used to enjoy reading your GOAT rankings back in the day (before I bothered registering), so it's great to see the biographies still going strong.

Sorry to nitpick, but I found it strange that you started a section about "nonathletic white big men" by talking about Bobby Jones. He was a great leaper! Also quite quick for his size.

Your rankings are excellent. I find myself agreeing with most of them and, where I do spot a discrepancy, I can see the logic (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). In other words, nobody appears massively overrated or underrated, but, instead, within the right tiers.

Keep up the great work.

While I don't agree with all the rankings, and I'm interested where you have Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker (last time you did this I think Parker was overrated and Manu wasn't even top-100), I can appreciate all the time and effort put into this list :cheers:

[QUOTE=WillC]G.O.A.T, this is a tremendous thread. I used to enjoy reading your GOAT rankings back in the day (before I bothered registering), so it's great to see the biographies still going strong.

Sorry to nitpick, but I found it strange that you started a section about "nonathletic white big men" by talking about Bobby Jones. He was a great leaper! Also quite quick for his size.

Your rankings are excellent. I find myself agreeing with most of them and, where I do spot a discrepancy, I can see the logic (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). In other words, nobody appears massively overrated or underrated, but, instead, within the right tiers.

Keep up the great work.[/QUOTE]

I screwed up a little. Jones was a good athlete. If you go back to my original GOAT list I mention this. But I had just got done doing these four and SPOILER ALERT: Vern Mikkelsen (who is next in my rankings) and I had quotes from all five guys talking about how they couldn't jump worth a darn.

Laimbeer said that since Bill Paultz left the league he believed he now was the worst leaper in the NBA.

Sikma said of his plyometric workouts, "Great now I can jump over two phone books instead of one."

Issel said that something about "When I was young I could outjump most of my peers, then I turned 12."

and Jones had a few...

"I couldn't do the things in the air those guys could do...I could jump when I was younger, but only with a running start, guys like Larry (Kenon) and George (McGinnis) wold ge to where I got and kept going until I cam down." - Jones in 1989

"I needed to use everything I had to keep up with the other guys at my position. They were stronger, faster and jumped better most of the time, playing less minutes meant I could go full speed whenever I was on the court."

I should have added Mikkelsen to the "White Men Can't Jump" group, not Jones, but I was sleepy and thought I had already posted the Jones article.

Bobby does not belong with those guys, but the only reason he was considered a good athlete was because he was "good for a whiteguy" which I hate.

[QUOTE=SCdac]While I don't agree with all the rankings, and I'm interested where you have Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker (last time you did this I think Parker was overrated and Manu wasn't even top-100), I can appreciate all the time and effort put into this list :cheers:[/QUOTE]

Please remember that Parker was not ranked by number, but with a group of players of like achievements. Though he was #66 on the list, I had said he may not even have been in my top 90 by pure rankings.

I have them both in this list still to come, where approximately would you rank each as a Spurs fan? And which players would you have them ranked around historically?

Wherever Kevin Johnson Timmy Hardaway and Mark Price are Tony Parker should be behind them. Probably alongside Chauncey Billups. Manu behind Ray Allen T Mac Richmond and VC.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I screwed up a little. Jones was a good athlete. If you go back to my original GOAT list I mention this. But I had just got done doing these four and SPOILER ALERT: Vern Mikkelsen (who is next in my rankings) and I had quotes from all five guys talking about how they couldn't jump worth a darn.

Laimbeer said that since Bill Paultz left the league he believed he now was the worst leaper in the NBA.

Sikma said of his plyometric workouts, "Great now I can jump over two phone books instead of one."

Issel said that something about "When I was young I could outjump most of my peers, then I turned 12."

and Jones had a few...

"I couldn't do the things in the air those guys could do...I could jump when I was younger, but only with a running start, guys like Larry (Kenon) and George (McGinnis) wold ge to where I got and kept going until I cam down." - Jones in 1989

"I needed to use everything I had to keep up with the other guys at my position. They were stronger, faster and jumped better most of the time, playing less minutes meant I could go full speed whenever I was on the court."

I should have added Mikkelsen to the "White Men Can't Jump" group, not Jones, but I was sleepy and thought I had already posted the Jones article.

Bobby does not belong with those guys, but the only reason he was considered a good athlete was because he was "good for a whiteguy" which I hate.



Please remember that Parker was not ranked by number, but with a group of players of like achievements. Though he was #66 on the list, I had said he may not even have been in my top 90 by pure rankings.

I have them both in this list still to come, where approximately would you rank each as a Spurs fan? And which players would you have them ranked around historically?[/QUOTE]

Ginobili I think is top 80, Parker I can understand being top 70 by the time his career is over (keeping achievements in mind, not just level of talent and individual ability) though I have him around Ginobili personally. Parker to me is indeed like another Tim Hardaway or Kevin Johnson. Whereas Manu is cut from a different cloth. I'd definitely rank Ginobili over Vince Carter, for instance, despite being less popular to the casual fans of America. It's worth noting Ginobili came into the NBA at 25, a very late age, yet was the MVP for his winning Argentinian team and even lead the Spurs in many respects (played point guard in crunch time alot).

[QUOTE=SCdac]Ginobili I think is top 80, Parker I can understand being top 70 by the time his career is over (keeping achievements in mind, not just level of talent and individual ability) though I have him around Ginobili personally. Parker to me is indeed like another Tim Hardaway or Kevin Johnson. Whereas Manu is cut from a different cloth. I'd definitely rank Ginobili over Vince Carter, for instance, despite being less popular to the casual fans of America. It's worth noting Ginobili came into the NBA at 25, a very late age, yet was the MVP for his winning Argentinian team and even lead the Spurs in many respects (played point guard in crunch time alot).[/QUOTE]
Biased as well as a Spurs fan. I tend to think Parker gets a little underrated generally. I've got Ginobili right around 75 and thinks he stays around that unless he adds a FMVP to his resume, which is a very long shot.

Parker I've got a little higher currently and think he has a very good chance at being top 50 by the time his career is over. Accomplishment-wise, he's already past Manu and he's got a few extra years to add to that. He will almost definitely finish as a top 5-7 playoff scorer and top 3-4 playoff assist man in NBA history. For comparison, Ginobili will be lucky to break into the top 25 on either of those lists even though he played for the same Spurs team, albeit 1 less year.

But when you take all of Ginobili's injuries and crazy boneheaded plays (good with the bad for sure), I don't think you can put him above Parker. I mean, he had arguably one of the dumbest fouls of all-time in 2006 on Dirk. Then he had his only 8-turnover game that happened to be Game 6 of the 2013 Finals when he basically tried to throw the game. Then in G7 on the last play he just jumps in the air and throws it straight to Lebron. I love Ginobili as much as the next guy, but I think some of those potential championship-costing plays are almost inexcusable. Parker gives you the same ability to create and hit the game winners (2013 G1 & G6) or can flat out dominate (2014 Mavs G7) when you need him most. Add to that a way better overall resume (NBA) and I've got Parker finishing far higher in rank. Talent-wise, Ginobili's there, but he couldn't stay health or composed in some of the biggest moments.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Wherever Kevin Johnson Timmy Hardaway and Mark Price are Tony Parker should be behind them. Probably alongside Chauncey Billups. Manu behind Ray Allen T Mac Richmond and VC.[/QUOTE]
I really wish Parker would have got to knock those guys out of the playoffs like he does Paul, Curry, Nash, Billups, Deron, Kidd, etc. etc.

[QUOTE=ninephive]Biased as well as a Spurs fan. I tend to think Parker gets a little underrated generally. I've got Ginobili right around 75 and thinks he stays around that unless he adds a FMVP to his resume, which is a very long shot.

Parker I've got a little higher currently and think he has a very good chance at being top 50 by the time his career is over. Accomplishment-wise, he's already past Manu and he's got a few extra years to add to that. He will almost definitely finish as a top 5-7 playoff scorer and top 3-4 playoff assist man in NBA history. For comparison, Ginobili will be lucky to break into the top 25 on either of those lists even though he played for the same Spurs team, albeit 1 less year.

But when you take all of Ginobili's injuries and crazy boneheaded plays (good with the bad for sure), I don't think you can put him above Parker. I mean, he had arguably one of the dumbest fouls of all-time in 2006 on Dirk. Then he had his only 8-turnover game that happened to be Game 6 of the 2013 Finals when he basically tried to throw the game. Then in G7 on the last play he just jumps in the air and throws it straight to Lebron. I love Ginobili as much as the next guy, but I think some of those potential championship-costing plays are almost inexcusable. Parker gives you the same ability to create and hit the game winners (2013 G1 & G6) or can flat out dominate (2014 Mavs G7) when you need him most. Add to that a way better overall resume (NBA) and I've got Parker finishing far higher in rank. Talent-wise, Ginobili's there, but he couldn't stay health or composed in some of the biggest moments.[/QUOTE]

Eh, virtually every great player had bad moments in the playoffs. Are we going to conveniently forget that Manu made a huge, clutch 3 immediately before that dumb play in 2006? And holding what he's done post-35 years old against him seems unfair, given that he's clearly lost a few steps and athleticism. And in 2013 he was bogged with injuries all season and never looked himself. Yet he still hit a game-winning shot against Golden State in the playoffs!

As for Parker, in 2 of his 4 championships his role was much smaller and was getting benched at crucial times (see: 2003 Finals). In the 2005 Finals he was maybe not even the 3rd best or most important player on the Spurs (Duncan, Manu, Bowen, Horry, etc).

Both of them have benefited from playing with Tim Duncan and Greg Popovich and other great teammates, and I think it's whack when only one player (Manu) is pretty much treated like that, whereas Parker is treated like he's been on his "own" team which is patently false. Even this past season, Parker didn't even crack 30 mpg and at times looked better when he wasn't on the floor (Spurs were that deep).

Only reason I have Parker projected as being higher is he's probably going to get more seasons/minutes/shots in to his career (starting playing for the Spurs at 19 years old, vs. 25 years old for Manu). The Finals MVP I'm indifferent. After seeing Kawhi win Finals MVP, surely it puts perspective on the award itself.

Another thing that irks me, when Manu Ginobili was injured for the playoffs in 2009, Parker put up "big numbers" while the Spurs nearly got swept by the Mavs in the first round. Clearly, Spurs needed Manu, and have always needed Manu since they signed him. His win-% his higher than Parker's and when watching them irl it's not an all out surprise, Manu does more out there, is a better defender, and plays with more intensity than most players in the league.

[QUOTE=SCdac]Eh, virtually every great player had bad moments in the playoffs. Are we going to conveniently forget that Manu made a huge, clutch 3 immediately before that dumb play in 2006? And holding what he's done post-35 years old against him seems unfair, given that he's clearly lost a few steps and athleticism. And in 2013 he was bogged with injuries all season and never looked himself. Yet he still hit a game-winning shot against Golden State in the playoffs!

As for Parker, in 2 of his 4 championships his role was much smaller and was getting benched at crucial times (see: 2003 Finals). In the 2005 Finals he was maybe not even the 3rd best or most important player on the Spurs (Duncan, Manu, Bowen, Horry, etc).

Both of them have benefited from playing with Tim Duncan and Greg Popovich and other great teammates, and I think it's whack when only one player (Manu) is pretty much treated like that, whereas Parker is treated like he's been on his "own" team which is patently false. Even this past season, Parker didn't even crack 30 mpg and at times looked better when he wasn't on the floor (Spurs were that deep).

Only reason I have Parker projected as being higher is he's probably going to get more seasons/minutes/shots in to his career (starting playing for the Spurs at 19 years old, vs. 25 years old for Manu). The Finals MVP I'm indifferent. After seeing Kawhi win Finals MVP, surely it puts perspective on the award itself.[/QUOTE]
Yah, I was at both the Dirk foul game and the Golden State game you're talking about. When Ginobili hit that 3 after the huge comeback, it may have been the loudest I have ever heard the arena. It was a huge huge shot. Ginobili is the epitome of the good with the bad, because he negated it by fouling Dirk who would have just brought Dallas within one and the Spurs get the ball without a shot-clock. It just made so little sense to give that late help defense when Dirk was basically at the rim. It's more of a "be-aware" play...no 3s and no And-1s.

On the Golden State game, yah of course he hits the shot in 2 OT, but do we forget that he AIRBALLED his first game winner attempt? (And had a really good look). Of course Pop (who loves Ginobili) puts the ball in his hands like he did in G6 2013 OT where Ginobili doesn't even get a shot up. Pop always goes with Ginobili and sometimes it pays off. However, very often it doesn't and my argument would be that if Parker (who is better at creating his own shot and getting to the basket or free-throw line) would win as many, if not more, games if Pop didn't bench him at the end of big games. To me, it's unreal how many big games we've given away with Parker sitting on the bench.

[QUOTE=SCdac]Eh, virtually every great player had bad moments in the playoffs. Are we going to conveniently forget that Manu made a huge, clutch 3 immediately before that dumb play in 2006? And holding what he's done post-35 years old against him seems unfair, given that he's clearly lost a few steps and athleticism. And in 2013 he was bogged with injuries all season and never looked himself. Yet he still hit a game-winning shot against Golden State in the playoffs!

As for Parker, in 2 of his 4 championships his role was much smaller and was getting benched at crucial times (see: 2003 Finals). In the 2005 Finals he was maybe not even the 3rd best or most important player on the Spurs (Duncan, Manu, Bowen, Horry, etc).

Both of them have benefited from playing with Tim Duncan and Greg Popovich and other great teammates, and I think it's whack when only one player (Manu) is pretty much treated like that, whereas Parker is treated like he's been on his "own" team which is patently false. Even this past season, Parker didn't even crack 30 mpg and at times looked better when he wasn't on the floor (Spurs were that deep).

Only reason I have Parker projected as being higher is he's probably going to get more seasons/minutes/shots in to his career (starting playing for the Spurs at 19 years old, vs. 25 years old for Manu). The Finals MVP I'm indifferent. After seeing Kawhi win Finals MVP, surely it puts perspective on the award itself.[/QUOTE]
And when you mention Parker arguably not being the third-best Spurs player during the 2005 Finals, how is that a knock on Parker when Ginobili wasn't the Spurs 3rd best player in the 2003, 2013, or 2014 Finals?

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Wherever Kevin Johnson Timmy Hardaway and Mark Price are Tony Parker should be behind them. Probably alongside Chauncey Billups. Manu behind Ray Allen T Mac Richmond and VC.[/QUOTE]

I strongly disagree with this.

Tony Parker should be ahead of all of those point guards. I'll explain my opinion later when I have time.

[QUOTE=WillC]I strongly disagree with this.

Tony Parker should be ahead of all of those point guards. I'll explain my opinion later when I have time.[/QUOTE]
Price may have been a stretch but KJ and Timmy for sure. I don't think Parker was ever the 2nd best PG any season. Those two were and for a couple seasons after Magic retired could argue for that first spot along with Stockton.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Price may have been a stretch but KJ and Timmy for sure. I don't think Parker was ever the 2nd best PG any season. Those two were and for a couple seasons after Magic retired could argue for that first spot along with Stockton.[/QUOTE]
Call me crazy, but in my opinion Parker was the second best PG multiple seasons... especially confident about this in 2013.

In fact I would call Parker the second best PG in the league in 2009, 2012 and 2013, and he has an argument in 2007 and possibly other years.

Sounds insane? Not as much as you'd think. First of all, Parker was top 10 in MVP voting in as many as four years, so he was seen as belonging to that conversation. He was top 5 in 2012 and deserved to be even higher in 2013, but somehow ended up 6th. Incidentally, Tony Parker is 4th in MVP voting shares among active PGs, behind Paul, Nash, and DRose (who's a bit of a special case), supporting the idea that Parker can credibly be argued to be a top 3 PG of his era.

In 2006 he was a top 3 PG. He averaged 19 and 6 on 54% shooting for the 63 win Spurs, who fell to the Mavs in 7 games after a stupid late game foul. His competition at PG was MVP Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups averaging 18 and 8.5. Chris Paul was only a rookie and not really part of the conversation.

In 2007 he was top 3 with a case for top 2. He averaged 18.5 and 5.5 on 52% shooting for a title team and won the Finals MVP. Steve Nash was ahead of him, but the rest of the competition were Chauncey Billups, with a slightly less impressive season, and Gilbert Arenas if you consider him a point guard. You can credibly argue that he was better than both.

In 2009 he averaged 22 and 7 on 50% shooting for a 54 win team. The competition was Chris Paul, who was better, and Chauncey Billups, who clearly had a great impact but worse averages and wasn't carrying the same offensive load, as he was paired with high scoring Melo.

In 2012 he averaged 18 and 8, the first offensive option on a team that finished 50-16 and had a good shot at the championship.

In 2013 he averaged 20 and 7.5 and was the first offensive option for a team that ended up being a single shot away from the championship.

By the way, on the topic of Parker's career more broadly... How many point guards in the history of the game have played an integral part in as many as 4 championship (not talking about the Derek Fishers here) and been a player worthy of being called a "star" for 3 of them? Magic Johnson, Bob Cousy, and...?

Add to that resume the Finals MVP, six all-star selections, and what will undoubtedly be remarkable career totals (especially in the playoffs), and you've got a top 3 PG in a PG heavy era.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Price may have been a stretch but KJ and Timmy for sure. I don't think Parker was ever the 2nd best PG any season. Those two were and for a couple seasons after Magic retired could argue for that first spot along with Stockton.[/QUOTE]
I'd say we wait until we hear his argument, though considering the names I assume it will center around achievements and accolades.

In terms of pure ability, I agree with your ranking of Parker. But there are other factors that can muddy up some rankings.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]Call me crazy, but in my opinion Parker was the second best PG multiple seasons... especially confident about this in 2013.

In fact I would call Parker the second best PG in the league in 2009, 2012 and 2013, and he has an argument in 2007 and possibly other years.

Sounds insane? Not as much as you'd think. First of all, Parker was top 10 in MVP voting in as many as four years, so he was seen as belonging to that conversation. He was top 5 in 2012 and deserved to be even higher in 2013, but somehow ended up 6th. Incidentally, Tony Parker is 4th in MVP voting shares among active PGs, behind Paul, Nash, and DRose (who's a bit of a special case), supporting the idea that Parker can credibly be argued to be a top 3 PG of his era.

In 2006 he was a top 3 PG. He averaged 19 and 6 on 54% shooting for the 63 win Spurs, who fell to the Mavs in 7 games after a stupid late game foul. His competition at PG was MVP Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups averaging 18 and 8.5. Chris Paul was only a rookie and not really part of the conversation.

In 2007 he was top 3 with a case for top 2. He averaged 18.5 and 5.5 on 52% shooting for a title team and won the Finals MVP. Steve Nash was ahead of him, but the rest of the competition were Chauncey Billups, with a slightly less impressive season, and Gilbert Arenas if you consider him a point guard. You can credibly argue that he was better than both.

In 2009 he averaged 22 and 7 on 50% shooting for a 54 win team. The competition was Chris Paul, who was better, and Chauncey Billups, who clearly had a great impact but worse averages and wasn't carrying the same offensive load, as he was paired with high scoring Melo.

In 2012 he averaged 18 and 8, the first offensive option on a team that finished 50-16 and had a good shot at the championship.

In 2013 he averaged 20 and 7.5 and was the first offensive option for a team that ended up being a single shot away from the championship.

By the way, on the topic of Parker's career more broadly... How many point guards in the history of the game have played an integral part in as many as 4 championship (not talking about the Derek Fishers here) and been a player worthy of being called a "star" for 3 of them? Magic Johnson, Bob Cousy, and...?

Add to that resume the Finals MVP, six all-star selections, and what will undoubtedly be remarkable career totals (especially in the playoffs), and you've got a top 3 PG in a PG heavy era.[/QUOTE]
Great post. Add to that the fact that he has taken out all the best guards of his era in the playoffs:

2002: [B]Gary Payton [/B]with 17.2 PPG on .500 shooting as a 19-year old rookie!
2003: [B]Stephon Marbury[/B], [B]Derick Fisher[/B], [B]Steve Nash[/B], & [B]Jason Kidd[/B]
2004: [B]Jason Williams [/B]on 21/8.5 on .527
2005: [B]Earl Boykins[/B], [B]Luke Ridnour[/B], [B]Steve Nash[/B], [B]Chauncey Billups [/B]
2006: [B]Mike Bibby [/B]with 22.2 PPG on .510 shooting.
2007: [B]Allen Iverson[/B], [B]Steve Nash[/B], [B]Deron Williams[/B], [B]Daniel Gibson [/B] to earn a FMVP.
2008: [B]Steve Nash [/B](29.6/7.0 !!! on .523), [B]Chris Paul [/B](Game-clinching shot in G7)
2009: Lost in R1 putting up 28.6/6.8 on .596
2010: [B]Jason Kidd[/B], and went for 17.3/5.4 for the playoffs (his worst run in the past 9 years)
2011: Lost in R1 putting up 19.7/5.2 to Mike Conley (who went for 14.3/6.2)
2012: [B]Devin Harris[/B], [B]Chris Paul [/B]- went 20.1/6.8 for the playoffs.
2013: [B]Steve Nash[/B], [B]Stephen Curry[/B], [B]Mike Conley [/B]- went for 20.6/7.0 for the playoffs.
2014: [B]Devin Harris[/B], [B]Damien Lilliard[/B], [B]Russell Westbrook[/B], [B]Mario Chalmers[/B]

The bolded names include most of (pretty much all of) the best point guards in the league for the past 15 years, all of which Parker has knocked out. I know Parker gets to play with Tim Duncan (who averages all of TWO more PPG than him for their playoff careers). But you have to remember the guys Parker has knocked out have also played with [B]Lebron James[/B], [B]Kevin Durant[/B], [B]LaMarcus Aldridge[/B], [B]Dirk Nowitzki[/B], [B]Zach Randolph[/B], [B]Dwight Howard[/B], [B]Blake Griffin[/B], [B]Amare Stoudemire[/B], [B]Carmelo Anthony[/B], [B]Ray Allen[/B],[B] Pau Gasol[/B], [B]Penny Hardaway[/B], [B]Kobe Bryant[/B], & [B]Shaquille O'Neal[/B]. So it's not like these other guys didn't have help.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]Call me crazy, but in my opinion Parker was the second best PG multiple seasons... especially confident about this in 2013.

In fact I would call Parker the second best PG in the league in 2009, 2012 and 2013, and he has an argument in 2007 and possibly other years.

Sounds insane? Not as much as you'd think. First of all, Parker was top 10 in MVP voting in as many as four years, so he was seen as belonging to that conversation. He was top 5 in 2012 and deserved to be even higher in 2013, but somehow ended up 6th. Incidentally, Tony Parker is 4th in MVP voting shares among active PGs, behind Paul, Nash, and DRose (who's a bit of a special case), supporting the idea that Parker can credibly be argued to be a top 3 PG of his era.

In 2006 he was a top 3 PG. He averaged 19 and 6 on 54% shooting for the 63 win Spurs, who fell to the Mavs in 7 games after a stupid late game foul. His competition at PG was MVP Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups averaging 18 and 8.5. Chris Paul was only a rookie and not really part of the conversation.

In 2007 he was top 3 with a case for top 2. He averaged 18.5 and 5.5 on 52% shooting for a title team and won the Finals MVP. Steve Nash was ahead of him, but the rest of the competition were Chauncey Billups, with a slightly less impressive season, and Gilbert Arenas if you consider him a point guard. You can credibly argue that he was better than both.

In 2009 he averaged 22 and 7 on 50% shooting for a 54 win team. The competition was Chris Paul, who was better, and Chauncey Billups, who clearly had a great impact but worse averages and wasn't carrying the same offensive load, as he was paired with high scoring Melo.

In 2012 he averaged 18 and 8, the first offensive option on a team that finished 50-16 and had a good shot at the championship.

In 2013 he averaged 20 and 7.5 and was the first offensive option for a team that ended up being a single shot away from the championship.

By the way, on the topic of Parker's career more broadly... How many point guards in the history of the game have played an integral part in as many as 4 championship (not talking about the Derek Fishers here) and been a player worthy of being called a "star" for 3 of them? Magic Johnson, Bob Cousy, and...?

Add to that resume the Finals MVP, six all-star selections, and what will undoubtedly be remarkable career totals (especially in the playoffs), and you've got a top 3 PG in a PG heavy era.[/QUOTE]
You're not crazy that's a damn good assessment. I'm at a wing spot right now than on my way to physical therapy once I return I can go more into this.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Wherever Kevin Johnson Timmy Hardaway and Mark Price are Tony Parker should be behind them.[/QUOTE]

Ok, here goes...

At the age of 31, Tony Parker already has more regular season points than Johnson, Hardaway and Price.

I'm not a big fan of advanced statistics (and admittedly you could choose different ones to make alternative arguments), but Parker already has the highest career Win Shares of the four players.

Tony Parker has nearly as many playoff points (3,705) as Johnson, Hardaway and Price combined (3,787)! Again, by the age of 31.

Amongst all guards in NBA history, only Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and Jerry West have more playoff points than Tony Parker. He has more playoff points than Magic Johnson, Dwyane Wade, Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, Oscar Robertson, etc. Again, by the age of 31.

Tony Parker has 4 championship rings (Johnson, Hardaway and Price have none between them).

It's probably worth me stating that, along with Scottie Pippen, Mark Price was my favourite player in the 1990s. He was spectacularly accurate from long range. However, injuries hurt his career and, despite a few years of very good play, it's nearly impossible to justify ranking him ahead of Tony Parker.

Tim Hardaway was a poor shooter in the playoffs (.393 FG%) and I believe he only got out of the first round twice. I can't take someone like that over a perennial winner like Parker.

Kevin Johnson is underrated by many fans. Much like Parker, he played in the shadows of more headline-grabbing point guards and, as a result, has an unfairly low number of All-Star and All-League selections. In terms of talent, he might give Parker the best run for his money.

But Parker's team success and playoff exploits blows the others out of the water.

Is it unfair to penalise Johnson, Hardaway and Price for playing on good-but-not-great teams? Maybe.

But if you try to examine each player in isolation (i.e. removing the team context), then you could argue that Kevin Garnett was better than Tim Duncan and peak Tracy Mcgrady was better than Kobe Bryant... but surely we'd be fools to rank them in such a way in the all-time rankings?

You have to look at career achievements, and there's no debating that Parker has achieved a lot more than Hardaway, Johnson and Price.

Normally I don't do hypotheticals, but if Kevin Johnson or Tim Hardaway played with Duncan they would take more shots away from Duncan or the rest of the team. They would be less likely to sublimate their ball dominant game within the system than the French Layup Machine. :no:

Since both Parker and Ginobili are part of the greatest winning trio in NBA playoff history, we should reward consistent excellence during the money season over brief spells of transcendent peaks that occurred in the regular season.

Each. And. Every. Time.

Nice discussion everyone. Thanks for giving the thread a little life outside me and Kizzle. I really sincerely do appreciate everyone who follows the list and/or offers feedback. I hope you find these mini-profiles interesting enough to invest in my site or book whenever I get that up for availability. (My need deadline is February 1st 2015 btw, working with a better publisher now that doesn't make me put up my own money)

On the topic at hand, I will delve deeper into it as I get to Manu and Parkers spots on the list (as well as Price, Tim Hardaway and KJ) but I think Parker has, as some of you have suggested, seperated himself from point guards like the aforementioned who may have been more spectacular individually, but for a much shorter period of time and without the same kind of once in a generation team success. Since Duncan showed up, the Spurs have never won less than 50 games (except in shortened seasons where they won at an above 50 game pace) Parker has been durable and thrived in four distinctly different roles. As a young role playing PG from 2002-2005, as a second option from 2005-2008, as the teams best player (2009-2013) and last year as a veteran key cog picking his spots on a balanced team.

That's pretty impressive. Having individual and team success in four different but important roles is something few players have achieved. Though they are different types of players, Parker's career is shaping up like that of Joe Dumars or Dennis Johnson, guys who excelled in multiple roles over a decade plus span.

I respect every ones opinions and can see the case for them all. But would yall put Parker over the likes of Chris Paul Gary Payton and Nate Archibald?

It's the Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell argument. Wilt was the better player but Russell had the greater career.

KJ Payton Price etc might've had higher peaks than Parker in their careers, making them the Wilt, but Parker's career is greater than all of them.
:yaohappy:

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]It's the Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell argument. Wilt was the better player but Russell had the greater career.

KJ Payton Price etc might've had higher peaks than Parker in their careers, making them the Wilt, but Parker's career is greater than all of them.
:yaohappy:[/QUOTE]
This isn't close to Wilt vs. Russell. Parker has never been the best player in the NBA. He's never been the best point guard in the NBA.

This is Elgin Baylor vs. John Havlicek.

[CENTER][IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/dam/assets/131122182746-vern-mikkelsen-112213.story-top.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]
[SIZE="4"][B][FONT="Book Antiqua"]#127 Arild Verner Agerskov Mikkelsen
[/FONT][/SIZE][/B]
[B]Tier Classification:[/B] Championship Pieces: Non-Alpha
[B]Years Played (Quality Prime Seasons):[/B] 10 (9)
[B]Primary Role(s):[/B] #2/#3/#4 on Champions and Contenders
[B]Prime Averages: [/B] 15-10-2 on 40/77

[CENTER][B]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/B]

[IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/teamsites/images/legacy/lakers/news_121019_martin_650.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]
[SIZE="4"][B][FONT="Book Antiqua"]#126 Slater Nelson Martin Jr.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/B]
[B]Tier Classification:[/B] Championship Pieces: Non-Alpha
[B]Years Played (Quality Prime Seasons):[/B] 11 (9)
[B]Primary Role(s):[/B] #3/#4 on Champions and Contenders
[B]Prime Averages: [/B] 11-4-5 on 37/77
[CENTER][B]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/B][/CENTER]
[SIZE="3"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]-[SIZE="6"]O[/SIZE]n November 2nd 1949, the NBA debuted as a new league with the merger of the BAA and NBL. The Lakers, winners of the 1948 NBL and 1949 BAA Championships, debuted two new players that day who would help them win four more titles in the next five seasons. They gave up their first round pick to use a territorial selection and take Vern Mikkelsen from Hamline University. They also signed Slater Martin from the University of Texas. In Mikkelsen the Lakers got a 6

Did Jim Pollard make your list?

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]This isn't close to Wilt vs. Russell. Parker has never been the best player in the NBA. He's never been the best point guard in the NBA.

This is Elgin Baylor vs. John Havlicek.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. Missing the forest for the trees. :oldlol:

It's not who's the best player in a specific year or whatever 'moving the goalpost' technique up that sleeve.

It's just plain "who's better, Player X or Player Z" scenario.
Choosing either player demonstrates your criteria, and if you are consistent in applying that criteria across the board then you'll end up with an interesting list unlike the standard GOAT lists out there.

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]You're missing the point. Missing the forest for the trees. :oldlol:

It's not who's the best player in a specific year or whatever 'moving the goalpost' technique up that sleeve.

It's just plain "who's better, Player X or Player Z" scenario.
Choosing either player demonstrates your criteria, and if you are consistent in applying that criteria across the board then you'll end up with an interesting list unlike the standard GOAT lists out there.[/QUOTE]
I see where you all are coming from. Parker has the rings and the other guys don't. A lot of foks have Hondo over Elgin Baylor on All-Time list because of the 8 rings to zero comparison. I've never seen them play, but reading up on them and from their peers, Elgin was the flat out better player. KJ, Price and Timmy don't have the rings but have the numbers and accolades to a certain extent.

KJ vs. Tony Parker. I think KJ was a better player. Parker had the better luck of playing with the GOAT PF. I don't think Tony is a bad player by any stretch, he's damn good.

Maybe because he's still playing and can do so much more. He's only 32 he still has a few years left as a top PG. Maybe because he's just very consistent. He never just had that break-put season numbers wise, compared to the current PG and the KJs and Timmy's. Like G.O.A.T said, Joe Dumars. Very consistent, didn't have the numbers his peers had, but got the job done. Billups is another.

It's not travesty to have Parker over them, but you could make a case for KJ and Timmy being over Parker also.

If Tony Parker had Kevin Johnson's numbers, with four ring he's on Magic and Isiah level.

If Kevin Johnson had Tony Parker's numbers, he's Kenny Smith in Sacramento.

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]If Tony Parker had Kevin Johnson's numbers, with four ring he's on Magic and Isiah level.

If Kevin Johnson had Tony Parker's numbers, he's Kenny Smith in Sacramento.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean "if he had KJ's numbers?" Scoring-wise, they are practically identical:

Per-36 numbers:

Regular season:

KJ: 18.9
Parker: 18.8

Playoffs:

KJ: 18.8
Parker: 19.0

And KJ had a very short career and fell off drastically. In his 11th season, he averaged 9.5/4.9 - compare that with Parker who put up 20.3/7.6 in his 12th season. Parker's already played longer than KJ and probably has 3-5 more years. That's a huge difference.

[CENTER][IMG]http://blacksportsonline.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/chris-bosh.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]
[SIZE="4"][B][FONT="Book Antiqua"]#125 Christopher Wesson Bosh [/FONT][/SIZE][/B]
[CENTER][B][SIZE="4"]6

One thing I really like that you do is that you take into account a player's ability to play different roles, and what that means to team success. Personally, I'd rather have a player that is mediocre as a first option, but great as a second or third option, than a player who is great as a first option - though not great enough to win it all - and mediocre to bad as a second or third option. If you accept the fact that the first option player isn't good enough to win it all as a first option, is there every any scenario where he gives you a better chance of winning than the "role" player?

Don't know how I feel about Bosh at that spot. I'm thinking he should be higher, but don't know what bigs might be over him?


Shawn Kemp
Ben Wallace
Jermaine O'Neal
Zelmo Beaty
Paul Gasol
Neil Johnston
Walt Bellamy
Tom Heinsohn
Maurice Lucas

Bosh is someone imo that will probably be overrated as hell after his career is over. From his absurd amount of all-star selections to being a member of the "Big 3", he'll be considered a much better player than he actually was, especially by those who never watched him play.

To me, Bosh is a good player, but he's honestly just nothing special. He was never once relevant to the league in his Toronto days, he put up good numbers on a bad team, not much different from the likes of Elton Brand or Zach Randolph. I attribute him making 9 all-star games due to playing in the East, and I have a hard time believing he'd make even close to that amount had he been playing the West and competing with the likes of Duncan, KG, & Dirk for all-star spots.

Even his contributions in Miami haven't been that great. You cited some of the things he improved, such as his jump shooting and some aspects of his defense, which is commendable. But his impact on the Heat has honestly been underwhelming. He hasn't received any kind of accolade in his 4 seasons in Miami, not a single All-NBA or All-Defensive team selection, and he hasn't even garnered a single MVP vote.

Even what he's done in the playoffs hasn't been that impressive. He was injured for most of the 2012 playoffs and played decently, having maybe 3 good games in that run. However, you cannot say the same about his play 2013. He grabbed that rebound in Game 6 over someone 5 inches shorter than him, fine, but he was terrible in that playoff run, and ABYSMAL in the final two rounds. He averaged 11 & 6 on 42% in the ECF & Finals and got frequently outplayed and even dominated by Hibbert & Duncan.

In conclusion, Bosh is a good player, nothing more, nothing less, and would have absolutely irrelevant to the history of the league had he not joined a team with a top 10 & top 25 player of all time in their primes.