[B]Kevin Durant[/B] was voted the #56 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops.
26.6 PPG | 6.6 RPG | 2.3 APG
3
Printable View
[B]Kevin Durant[/B] was voted the #56 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops.
26.6 PPG | 6.6 RPG | 2.3 APG
3
Durant's in, nice.
I still vote for Robert Parish.
Tiny Archibald
Only player in NBA history to lead the league in scoring and assists in the same season. :applause:
Vote - Chris Paul
After CP3, my votes are looking like....Grant Hill, Tracy McGrady, Robert Parish, Penny Hardaway, Pau Gasol, Reggie Miller, etc. not sure about the order but CP3 should be on this one.
Tracy McGrady
[QUOTE=ukballer]Tracy McGrady[/QUOTE]
I'd vote CP3 before him. I think CP3 was better than Tracy was at his peak and he certainly accomplished more. Tracy could very well be next on my list to vote for after CP3 gets in.
[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]I'd vote CP3 before him. I think CP3 was better than Tracy was at his peak and he certainly accomplished more. Tracy could very well be next on my list to vote for after CP3 gets in.[/QUOTE]
Totally understand both ways, call it the T-Mac fanboy in me that gives him the edge. :D
Got to get Tiny in the top 60. Leading the league in scoring and assists definitely counts for something, along with 5 All-NBA teams and 6 all star games. One of, if not the best, ball handlers of his era.
reggie miller, How can people give credit to people who haven't done half of what reggie did and have never had a iconic moment like reggie has had several time.
Please people give the man some credit.
[QUOTE=colts19]reggie miller, How can people give credit to people who haven't done half of what reggie did and have never had a iconic moment like reggie has had several time.
Please people give the man some credit.[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't be over a guy like Dennis Johnson, if that's the case. (not a vote for DJ, just throwing his name out there)
T-Mac :dancin
[img]http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/disapoint/grand/cuban_disapoint_gif_546.gif[/img]
Pete Maravich
[QUOTE=WillC]Pete Maravich[/QUOTE]
Pete Maravich should have been in long time ago...
But no.. Durant is better... damn... 5 years only... 3 1st all-nba... woohooo... GOAT
[QUOTE=pauk]Pete Maravich should have been in long time ago...
But no.. Durant is better... damn... 5 years only... 3 1st all-nba... woohooo... GOAT[/QUOTE]
I've given up making arguments for deserving players.
There's no point trying to convince people.
Instead, we'll probably see TMac get voted in ahead of Pete Maravich, Hal Greer, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere, Dennis Johnson, etc.
What a joke.
[QUOTE=WillC]I've given up making arguments for deserving players.
There's no point trying to convince people.
Instead, we'll probably see TMac get voted in ahead of Pete Maravich, Hal Greer, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere, Dennis Johnson, etc.
What a joke.[/QUOTE]
How are Hal Greer and Dennis Johnson jokes in comparison to guys like Maravich and/or Miller ?
McGrady does have the greatest peak, but I don't that warrants him over Maravich and Miller either. I'm not even arguing forwards or centers vs guards, but it's not a joke to have Greer or Johnson considered over Maravich and/or Miller.
The people who don't think Durant deserved that #56 spot are probably the same people that didn't think Shaq deserved that top 50 spot in 1997.
Kblaze already pointed it out, it's stupid that someone like Dwight will be ranked higher in like 3 years even if nothing happens.
Pete Maravich
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]How are Hal Greer and Dennis Johnson jokes in comparison to guys like Maravich and/or Miller ?
McGrady does have the greatest peak, but I don't that warrants him over Maravich and Miller either. I'm not even arguing forwards or centers vs guards, but it's not a joke to have Greer or Johnson considered over Maravich and/or Miller.[/QUOTE]
McGrady should easily be above Maravich. I wrote an essay some years ago about it ...
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]McGrady should easily be above Maravich. I wrote an essay some years ago about it ...[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't argue against that either, but I'm saying my Pete could be over is because he played longer... similar to Reggie.
[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]The people who don't think Durant deserved that #56 spot are probably the same people that didn't think Shaq deserved that top 50 spot in 1997.
Kblaze already pointed it out, it's stupid that someone like Dwight will be ranked higher in like 3 years even if nothing happens.[/QUOTE]
If dwight retired tonite, he wouldn't be higher in 3 years.
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]How are Hal Greer and Dennis Johnson jokes in comparison to guys like Maravich and/or Miller ?[/QUOTE]
Erm, what?
1) What has Reggie Miller got to do with this? I didn't even mention him.
2) I voted for Maravich and my next few votes would go to players like Greer and Johnson. They're not a joke compared to Maravich or Miller. They're all great players.
What the hell are you on about?
[QUOTE=WillC]Erm, what?
1) What has Reggie Miller got to do with this? I didn't even mention him.
2) I voted for Maravich and my next few votes would go to players like Greer and Johnson. They're not a joke compared to Maravich or Miller. They're all great players.
What the hell are you on about?[/QUOTE]
Oh wow, completely read your post wrong, my bad.
:facepalm @ me.
I'm actually voting for Jerry Lucas this time.
[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]
Kblaze already pointed it out, it's stupid that someone like Dwight will be ranked higher in like 3 years even if nothing happens.[/QUOTE]
3 more years is 3 more years. It's not stupid at all. Even if Howard does nothing but decline from here on out, he's still improving his standing overall by continuing to improve his team's chances of winning - assuming that he doesn't become a net negative.
If we truly want to rank the "best" players of all time, we should be ranking them by who gives their team - on average - the best chance of winning over a given time frame. In that sense, eleven years of Dwight Howard will almost always be better than eight years of Dwight Howard over an eleven year period- even if those last three years aren't up to par.
Dang Ray Allen and Durant over Reggie Miller? Oh my. I can't rate any of them this high yet. I gotta vote Tiny Archibald at #57.
[QUOTE=jlip]I'm actually voting for Jerry Lucas this time.[/QUOTE]
Now it is getting really tough to pick players. I thought that the great Jerry Lucas would have been a little bit higher on the list. Some of the all-time greats, I feel, are going to be forgotten.
I think it's a bit early for Durant, and I disagree with the if he did nothing in 3 years, he will be ranked higher.
-If Durant gets injured every season now and plays like a role player only every season out.. would he still be ranked this high? No, he'd dropped out very slowly. Therefore ranking him this high now is premature.
-same reason that if this poll took place 10 years ago, T-mac would have been voted in top 50, but now he's not.
-the years do make a difference. if dwight "didn't do anything", as in he kept up his standards, then that is definitely a plus for him- consistency and longevity. If he didn't keep up, then he SHOULD drop.
-there's a reason why we don't put current active players up so early, because we haven't seen everything yet. Their careers might spiral down at any moment. Just because they are top 30 now, does that mean they will always be there? No, if they start playing badly, they will DROP. And if they CAN drop, then it's too early to put them up that high.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]If dwight retired tonite, he wouldn't be higher in 3 years.[/QUOTE]
Actually, he would probably would. People forever reason like to overrate the past players and when we look back in retrospect.
[QUOTE=DatAsh]3 more years is 3 more years. It's not stupid at all. Even if Howard does nothing but decline from here on out, he's still improving his standing overall by continuing to improve his team's chances of winning - assuming that he doesn't become a net negative.
If we truly want to rank the "best" players of all time, we should be ranking them by who gives their team - on average - the best chance of winning over a given time frame. In that sense, eleven years of Dwight Howard will almost always be better than eight years of Dwight Howard over an eleven year period- even if those last three years aren't up to par.[/QUOTE]
I understand this logic but someone like Dwight, Durant, CP3, etc. they do give you a better chance to win a certain amount of titles than some of the players listed.
People who vote Maravich know nothing about the game of basketball.
CP3
[QUOTE=StateOfMind12]
I understand this logic but someone like Dwight, Durant, CP3, etc. they do give you a better chance to win a certain amount of titles than some of the players listed.[/QUOTE]
I can agree with that,though I think were still missing a few past greats. But, current players should go up in these rankings as their longevity increases; there's nothing inherently wrong - or stupid - about that.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]People who vote Maravich know nothing about the game of basketball.[/QUOTE]
If you're unable to appreciate Maravich's ability, then [i]you[/i] know nothing about the game of basketball
I bet you just think he was a show-boater, right? Admit it, you've never even seen more than a few highlight clips? You and I both know I'm right.
Educate yourself and take the time to watch him light up the Pistons (featuring Bob Lanier): [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAFFgpXUC0[/url]
Then go and read up on your basketball history.
Maravich was a flat out offensive maestro.
[QUOTE=WillC]If you're unable to appreciate Maravich's ability, then [i]you[/i] know nothing about the game of basketball
I bet you just think he was a show-boater, right? Admit it, you've never even seen more than a few highlight clips? You and I both know I'm right.
Educate yourself and take the time to watch him light up the Pistons (featuring Bob Lanier): [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAFFgpXUC0[/url]
Then go and read up on your basketball history.
Maravich was a flat out offensive maestro.[/QUOTE]
No doubt Pete was a stud, at least offensively.
Ignorant comments about Maravich not being this high either is silly, though I would rather Dennis Johnson and/or Hal Greer win this (not a vote). Apologies about my earlier post by the way, if you missed it.
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]No doubt Pete was a stud, at least offensively.
Ignorant comments about Maravich not being this high either is silly, though I would rather Dennis Johnson and/or Hal Greer win this (not a vote). Apologies about my earlier post by the way, if you missed it.[/QUOTE]
Yo, I remember asking you a question a week ago about what you do for a living since you are on here 24/7. Can you answer me what you do for a living now?
:biggums: . Serious? Before Tiny, before [b]Greer[/b], before Lucas....
Jesus that rustles my jimmies. Hell, if Durant imploded now I'd rather have frikkin Dennis Johnson to start my team up than Durant
I don't think its ridiculous to have Maravich here as some have suggested
e.g.
from #56 thread in a we aren't in Reggie's range yet post
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]100% untrue? They both lost in the finals. Making more conference finals while playing 3 times longer is not winning more. Its being 50 while the other guy is 25. Reggie did nothing Durant didnt. Should be quite clear what I meant.
And I couldnt care less if telling the truth as I see it is seen as overboard. If you cant explain why im wrong I dont much care what your opinion is.
I dont exactly mind you saying I am...because I know you arent making an emotional decision on a whim. I also know most arent you and most arent me....and just dont care about history.
Like some guy called "Colts" who id assume is from Indiana is voting for Reggie Miller because he looked into what guys like Westphal, Dennis Johnson, and Hal Greer did and decided Reggie is better.
Its emotional attachment/fan of the 90s votes.
Such things annoy me. If there is one time a casual fan should care enough to look into the facts its when making an effort to rank players all time.
[B]That said....Reggie Miller should probably be higher than Pistol Pete who I just saw get a vote.
I couldnt possibly be less impressed with Pistol Pete[/B]. There are 3 major things I consider....
How good you are
How good you were considered in your time/your accolades
What you managed to win
Reggie might....MIGHT...beat out Pete in 2 of those. Middle one is...tough. Voted all NBA first team yet your GM says nobody would trade for you? Eh.
Reggie has enough of an edge in the 3rd category to justify the discussion on if the gap in their talent is wide enough to ignore the rest.
Id have to say...it is not.
And id have to say...id want to have Reggies career over Petes.
There are people...HOF guys...legends...my process puts Reggie ahead of.
A guy like Durant? Hes clearly better at basketball, hes clearly higher ranked in his time/has more accolades, and Reggie didnt win anything he didnt.
So I consider it obvious who is greater.
That is not always the case. We are approaching the level where Reggie wont be behind many others in all 3. Pistol Pete for example....[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]People who vote Maravich know nothing about the game of basketball.[/QUOTE]
But then I wouldn't be as dismissive of modern players as to suggest that
[QUOTE=WillC]I've given up making arguments for deserving players.
There's no point trying to convince people.
Instead, we'll probably see TMac get voted in ahead of Pete Maravich, Hal Greer, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere, Dennis Johnson, etc.
What a joke.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WillC]Voting for CP3 at this stage of his career would be like calling Penny Hardaway or Grant Hill a top 50 player of all-time in 1998 or calling Tracy McGrady a top 50 player of all-time in 2005.
i.e. Too early.[/QUOTE]
(for my counterpoints regarding Paul see [url]http://insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7827055&postcount=50[/url] )
It depends on criteria. Maravich was unfortunate with the environments he landed in; with a series of injuries, illnessess and family tragedies in his early career (and the congenital heart problem that ultimately killed him), with the knee injury that effectively ended his career etc. But then he was only at best a middling defender (though he might have given more effort than his reputation suggests) not an especially efficient scorer and was probably fortunate turnovers were not tracked for his entire career (he has the highest single season turnovers per game at 5.0 [url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=tov_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=200&c3stat=tov_per_g&c3comp=gt&c3val=4.5&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws[/url] though his turnover% is less, well, embarrassing and suggests the turnovers were in large part a result of his huge role, see the many notables with a higher turnover % [url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=tov_pct&c1comp=gt&c1val=15&c2stat=mp&c2comp=gt&c2val=200&c3stat=per&c3comp=gt&c3val=-1000&c4stat=ws_per_48&c4comp=gt&c4val=-1000&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws[/url] ).
Anyway by a criteria that ignores stuff that wasn't in his hands (injuries, ill-health, bad teams, race and wage related envy, expectations, possible genetic and cultural disposition toward drinking, absence of a three point line) and focused on the work ethic he had and the work he did to get his ball handling to where it was, and especially on his level of influence on future generations and commercial appeal then you could rate him highly indeed.
One could equally put in place the argument that he didn't always look after his body (drinking), that he dominated the ball, that he wasn't notably efficient as a scorer, turned the ball over a lot and wasn't a good defender on top of which he was injury prone and had limited longevity.
Personally I would put McGrady ahead of him because his apex is significantly superior. McGrady (albeit finishing only 4th) warranted serious MVP consideration in 2003 was the best player by PER and Win Shares/48, bested Maravich (narrowly) even on raw stats 32/6.5/5.5 to Maravich's 31/5.3/5.4 but did so in a substantially slower, lower scoring league on better percentages (in a league with lower %s), getting to line more often and having about half Maravich's turnovers (2.6 to what we would have to assume was about 5, probably a little higher given his greater load that year).
On the whole, whilst Maravich was significantly unfortunate and suffered a number of bad breaks in terms of luck, I wouldn't pick be picking him yet. Not in terms of win impact i.e. contribution to wins over his career, with slight weighting towards peak where greatest contribution is made and when the person would be most likely to be a key player on title team, anyway. Even based on a hypothetical redraft scenario where he might have had better luck I'm not sure if he goes yet. If we're talking influence he's probably top 10. And he's got financial value in terms of merchandise and drawing power. But in terms of careers would you, for example, rather have 9 years of 68.3 games per season giving 25/7 (assists) with maybe 5 turnovers and poor to middling D or 15 years 78.4 games giving 20/13 (rebounds) on 58% from the field (.623 ts%), 2.5 blocks 3.4 turnovers. I'd take Gilmore.
I enjoy these type of rankings but I don't see why people get mad over other peoples ranks (unless it's especially egregious e.g. Kobe = GOAT) when they may well have entirely different criteria.
[quote]I bet you just think he was a show-boater, right?[/quote]
The people watching him thought he was a show boater. It was general opinion. Ive heard Pete himself say there were billboards put up saying "Why is a hotdog a dime in Philly but 2 million dollars in Atlanta?" by fans who didnt respect him.
Lets not act like the idea he was a flashy loser was invented now.
This is a guy who turned the ball over 4-5 times a game while not even being much of a playmaker and whos greatest accomplishment is scoring 40 a game in college coached by his dad while missing the NCAA tournament and even losing in the NIT.
Pistol pete was called a loser showoff in college and the NBA. That isnt my opinion. You can watch the same videos I did and see his GM from the Hawks say they wanted to trade him and nobody wanted him until the LSU market got its own team and needed to sell tickets.
Pistol Pete was an immense talent.
He also won nothing even when he had 2-3 stars with him who had won before he got there....was generally seen as a joke.....and only had like 6 healthy seasons. He took 38 shots a game to score 44 in college and 28 a game to score 31 in the NBA. Ive read from people I know saw more of him than either of us that he didnt pass except to get an assist(getting 4-5 assists a game on a team that scores like 115 makes me believe it could be true)....and that he was the worst defender in the 40 years he was involved with the game.
Pistol Petes is not the career I would wish on my son. I might wish he had Petes talent. But a lot of people had talent and....got something done with it.
Pete belongs with the Tmacs, Pennys, Hills, and so on as talents. He just didnt do much. College or NBA. he did not do much worth remembering. He just did what he did with such style its going be remembered anyway.
Christopher Paul
Nate Archibald