#60 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

[B]Billy Cunningham[/B] was voted the #59 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops.

20.8 PPG | 10.1 RPG | 4 APG

NBA Champion
4

Pau Gasol

[B]Pau Gasol[/B]
[IMG]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.179239!/img/httpImage/image.jpg[/IMG]

-2x NBA Champion (2009, 2010)
-Led 2010 Lakers to the championship as the best player
-4 x NBA Allstar
-18.7 PPG, 9.2 RPG 3.2 APG career numbers
-3 All NBA teams
-Two silver medals as the best player
-One of the most skilled bigmen of all-time
-Made the cover of the NBA video game in Spain

Jerry Lucas

NBA champion
7

Reggie Miller

Yeah Pau:bowdown:

Reggie Miller

Jerry Lucas.

Jerry Lucas

Reggie freakin Miller

Jerry Lucas

Pau.

Pau Gasol

Drats, last time I voted for Peja cause I thought Reggie was already on the list.

Hal Greer

I'll vote [B]Miller[/B], Hal Greer will be next.

Way way too early for Gasol.

There are a number of guys with better resume who were as big a part of Champions and contenders as Gasol was as well as number of players that were much better and more successful in the franchise player role than Pau was with the Grizzlies.

Let's just look as [COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol [/COLOR]versus The Chief, Robert [COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR].

Over 11 prime seasons [COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol [/COLOR]has averaged 19-9-3-2
Over 13 prime seasons [COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR] averaged 17-11-2-2

[COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol[/COLOR] has been selected to four All-Star teams and three all-NBA teams
[COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR] made it on to ten all-star teams and two all-NBA teams

[COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR] finished 4th in the '82 MVP race, 7th another season and recieved MVP votes five times.
[COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol [/COLOR]has never recieved MVP votes.

[COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR] finished top three in fg% three times, the top five in blocks three times and top ten in rebounding ten times.
[COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol[/COLOR] has been top ten in blocks, rebounds and fg% three times each

[COLOR="Green"]Parish'[/COLOR] Teams went 24-8 on playoff series during his prime with the Chief averaging 18-11-2-2
Gasol's teams are 12-5 in playoff series with him averaging 17-10-3-2

To me you have two fairly comparable players, but one did everything the other one did for a longer period of time and with more consistent success and better numbers relative to the league he faced,

Parish belongs right around 65-70 IMO, Gasol, 80-90.

I think guys like Alonzo Mourning, Chris Webber, Tracy McGrady and a number of other temporary franchise guys also belong above Gasol for now, though when all is said and done I believe he'll be right there with Parish, Worthy, DJ and Dumars in that first group of non-elite players who had great team skills and were major parts of numerous contenders.

I know that we should take accomplishments for what they are, but the fact that Gasol has never received any MVP votes is a disgrace... I'm not sure it should be held against him.
He had a clear case for top 10 in MVP voting from 2008 to 2011 (particularly in 2009-2010, when he averaged 18, 11, 3.5 and almost 2 blocks on 53% shooting on the championship team, was top 10 in rebounding, blocks, PER and win shares, and played so well in the Finals against great competition he even got FMVP consideration).

Not that he's better than Parish or anything.

Tracy McGrady is twice the player Pau Gasoft is. gasols just overrated because hes on a championship team. Remember boobie gibson and the hype some ppl gave him? Idiotic simpletons

My vote is Tracy McGrady

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]I know that we should take accomplishments for what they are, but the fact that Gasol has never received any MVP votes is a disgrace... I'm not sure it should be held against him.
He had a clear case for top 10 in MVP voting from 2008 to 2011 (particularly in 2009-2010, when he averaged 18, 11, 3.5 and almost 2 blocks on 53% shooting on the championship team, was top 10 in rebounding, blocks, PER and win shares, and played so well in the Finals against great competition he even got FMVP consideration).

Not that he's better than Parish or anything.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it should be held against him or anyone else, but it speaks to the level of player Gasol has been viewed as for most of his career. A notch-below the elite. A do think Gasol was a top ten player a couple of times, but I don't think he was a top ten MVP candidate during those years because of how much more valuable Kobe was to their team. Obviously Gasol was essential to win a title, but Bryant was clearly the leader and best player so I don't think voting Gasol as league MVP when he wasn't his teams MVP is very justifiable. Remember that only five players can make a person's MVP ballot.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I'll vote [B]Miller[/B], Hal Greer will be next.

Way way too early for Gasol.

There are a number of guys with better resume who were as big a part of Champions and contenders as Gasol was as well as number of players that were much better and more successful in the franchise player role than Pau was with the Grizzlies.

Let's just look as [COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol [/COLOR]versus The Chief, Robert [COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR].

Over 11 prime seasons [COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol [/COLOR]has averaged 19-9-3-2
Over 13 prime seasons [COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR] averaged 17-11-2-2

[COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol[/COLOR] has been selected to four All-Star teams and three all-NBA teams
[COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR] made it on to ten all-star teams and two all-NBA teams

[COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR] finished 4th in the '82 MVP race, 7th another season and recieved MVP votes five times.
[COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol [/COLOR]has never recieved MVP votes.

[COLOR="Green"]Parish[/COLOR] finished top three in fg% three times, the top five in blocks three times and top ten in rebounding ten times.
[COLOR="Indigo"]Gasol[/COLOR] has been top ten in blocks, rebounds and fg% three times each

[COLOR="Green"]Parish'[/COLOR] Teams went 24-8 on playoff series during his prime with the Chief averaging 18-11-2-2
Gasol's teams are 12-5 in playoff series with him averaging 17-10-3-2

To me you have two fairly comparable players, but one did everything the other one did for a longer period of time and with more consistent success and better numbers relative to the league he faced,

Parish belongs right around 65-70 IMO, Gasol, 80-90.

I think guys like Alonzo Mourning, Chris Webber, Tracy McGrady and a number of other temporary franchise guys also belong above Gasol for now, though when all is said and done I believe he'll be right there with Parish, Worthy, DJ and Dumars in that first group of non-elite players who had great team skills and were major parts of numerous contenders.[/QUOTE]

KBlaze made me think...Why Miller? Why not...Mourning. Or Kevin Johnson. Or even Alex English.

[quote=G.O.A.T]I don't think it should be held against him or anyone else, but it speaks to the level of player Gasol has been viewed as for most of his career. A notch-below the elite.[/quote]

So this factors in with Pau but we ignore that Antione Walker got 3 times Reggies entire career MVP point totals in 1998 alone?


We start talking numbers, all NBA teams, and MVP consideration....I gotta think a few guys blow past reggie.

Hal Greer made literally twice the all star teams(I think the last guy in with as many was #45), more than 3 times as many second teams....as Reggie made 3rd teams, and put up better numbers and got closer than Reggie did to being considered an elite player. Added to that he won a title putting up 27/7/5 in the Kobe role to Wilts Shaq(except he outscored Wilt by quite a bit).

Or Lenny Wilkens....a 9 time all star who made 5 conference finals total(some with wilt some without) and 1 or 2 finals, lead the league in assists twice and was second 2 more times, and got as high as #2 in MVP voting in a season that saw him get more MVP points from the players than Baylor, Russell, and Oscar combined.


Quite a few guys like that arent there? Guys who nobody seems to even care about who were more highly regarded in their time?

I gotta think there are better options than Pau or Reggie when we have MVPs and many time all NBA first teamers left.

Far as just Pau vs Reggie if people have to pick one....

Dont know. Id take Pau on the Bulls over Reggie quite easily. But I wouldnt take him over Reggie on Reggies Pacers. Pau has multiple rings as a key player and managed all nba second team...

If I have to choose a career to have I guess id take Pau...

But I wouldnt take either of them over Dennis Johnson or Robert Parish so....**** it.

It really would be nice to get Reggie out of the way if only to get rid of what feels like a philosophical issue of....do I care if ____ is flat out better than him.

I tend to care.

But I offer my vote to Reggie just to stop having to read his name in posts that annoy me.

I repeat...my vote...is for Reggie Miller.

This dude
[IMG]http://collegehealth.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/aago206reggie-miller-legends-composite-posters.jpg[/IMG]

Tracy Mcgrady

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]So this factors in with Pau but we ignore that Antione Walker got 3 times Reggies entire career MVP point totals in 1998 alone?[/quote]

As with Miller it demonstrates that they were not elite players. They had Elite skills, could take over a single game or playoff series, and could be your teams best player for a short period of time, but aren't going to carry a franchise to a title without a player better than them.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]We start talking numbers, all NBA teams, and MVP consideration....I gotta think a few guys blow past reggie.[/quote]

Sure do, and a lot of other guys already listed like Nate Thurmond. I think I was pretty clear that I was demonstrating the difference between two players who were in comparable roles and with comparable achievements. The circumstances of Parish's career and Gasol's are fairly similar. Both played a good number of prime seasons with an elite superstar player, they won a comparable amount of the time in the postseason had similar regular season team winning percentages and of course had essentially the same role and played nearly the same number of mpg for their contending teams.

My point was that here's two guys who seem to have very similar value to a similar amount of success in a similar role, but one guy has, so far, maintained that level of play for a longer period of time and holds a slight edge in most objective measurable criteria apropos to the comparison.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Hal Greer made literally twice the all star teams(I think the last guy in with as many was #45), more than 3 times as many second teams....as Reggie made 3rd teams, and put up better numbers and got closer than Reggie did to being considered an elite player. Added to that he won a title putting up 27/7/5 in the Kobe role to Wilts Shaq(except he outscored Wilt by quite a bit).[/quote]

Also Greer was a better all-around player than Miller as he was one of the top defensive guards of the sixties. I rank Greer right after Cunningham and Miller so it's not as if consider him chop liver. In fact I have Greer above Sam Jones, few others do. But Greer spent most of his career in a supporting role as the 2nd-4th best player on very balanced teams. He was superb in '67, but he was not Kobe to Wilt's Shaq, as that team had three other all-star level players in Cunningham, Chet Walker and Luke Jackson. Plus guys off the deep end of the bench would be stars in the ABA.

In Greer's three season's as the Nats/Sixers best player.go-to-guy they did not win a playoff series. In that time he had five different teammates make the all-star team (Red Kerr, Dolph Scyaes, Lee Shaffer, Chet Walker and Larry Costello) In Miller's nine seasons in the same role the Pacers won 11 playoff series. Miller's total number of all-star teammates, two Schrempf and Smits.

The reason for the high number of all-star appearances for Greer and his teammates and is the same for the low number for Reggie and his. Different Eras, All-star selections meant something totally different.

I can't compare Greer and Miller by those standards because they were not in a similar role or same era.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855] Or Lenny Wilkens....a 9 time all star who made 5 conference finals total(some with wilt some without) and 1 or 2 finals, lead the league in assists twice and was second 2 more times, and got as high as #2 in MVP voting in a season that saw him get more MVP points from the players than Baylor, Russell, and Oscar combined.[/quote]

Don't forget to mention that the Hawks collapsed in 1962 when Wilkins, then only in his second season, was hurt and missed 60 games. They had been a finalist the previous season.

Wilkens however fails his eras elite standard the same way Reggie does. Lenny never made an all-NBA team. Even in '68, when as you mentioned he was second to Wilt in the MVP voting. Wilkens was a guy that players valued a lot, that's why he finished so high in the MVP vote that year not because the Hawks had a major turnaround and he was the obvious reason or because he was actually an elite player for just that one season. That's also why Wilkens was such a great coach I believe, players have so much respect for him.

Wilkins and Miller both played in five semifinal series during their careers and one finals, during which they lost to a dynastic foe in the midst of consecutive titles.

The era and teammates difference is supreme here though. Wilkins was drafted to a team with three then all-stars and now Hall of Famers in the frontcourt (Pettit, Hagan, Lovellette) Through the rest of his career he would play with numerous all-star and all-nba level players in their primes including Zelmo Beaty and Joe Caldwell who made multiple all-star teams in the NBA with Wilkins and later on in the ABA. Richie Guerin, a 7-time all-star inclduing multiple years with Wilkins and the Hawks, Two of the premier defensive forwards of the era in Bill Bridges (3-time all-star) and Paul Silas (twice) and one of the best offensive forwards in Lou Hudson. In Seattle he played with Bob Rule during his 25-10 healthy peak and with Spencer Haywood after that.

Wilkins teams were the 60's versions of Miller's 90's Pacers except Wilkins wasn't as consistently viewed (by people other than Phil Jackson and Larry Brown c 1996) as their best player as Miller and didn't raise his level of play as frequently or memorably in the postseason.

After Wilkins 2nd place MVP finish in '68 he was traded for Walt Hazzard. Obviously the Hawks felt like Wilkins wasn't as valuable as the players did that year. Considering they were eliminated by the 43 win Warriors in the '68 WCSF and made the Conference Finals the next two seasons without Wilkins, I'd say they were right.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Quite a few guys like that arent there? Guys who nobody seems to even care about who were more highly regarded in their time?[/quote]

Unless you include me in the group of people who don't care about these players, stop suggesting this means my opinion on Miller is invalid or hypocritical.

Pau should not be receiving any votes with other PF's Jerry Lucas, DeBusschere, Webber, Gus Johnson, Tommy Heinshn, ect still on the board.

[QUOTE=iamgine]KBlaze made me think...Why Miller? Why not...Mourning. Or Kevin Johnson. Or even Alex English.[/QUOTE]

Miller's teams won more when he was in the same role as those guys and those guys usually had better second and third options, though usually not as good of depth. Those guys and others like Marques Johnson, Bernard King, Webber, McGrady etc. were better individual players at their peak than Miller. But they weren't better team players, or at least never proved it like Miller did and some of them had the opportunity Miller never did, to play alongside an elite player and still don't win anymore.

Miller's style of play allowed for all of his teammates to be maximized without him having to be used any less. Additionally his consistent ability to score more in the playoffs and occasionally, especially when needed, have an elite superstar game elevated Indiana to a comparable level (from 94-00) with teams like New York, Miami, San Antonio, Utah, Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Phoenix which all had relatively comparable 2-8 rotations and all had more highly regarded superstars.

Pete Maravich

Carmelo Anthony

Reggie Miller

Jerry Lucas.

Minus a vote for Gasol when this is finished, WockaVodka and MiamiThrice are the same person. RG is clueless as hell, thinking we don't know it's him. :oldlol:

T-Mac

Hal "Great Player and worthy of top 60" Greer

Jerry Lucas

[QUOTE=MiamiThrice][B]Pau Gasol[/B]
[IMG]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.179239!/img/httpImage/image.jpg[/IMG]

-2x NBA Champion (2009, 2010)
-Led 2010 Lakers to the championship as the best player
-4 x NBA Allstar
-18.7 PPG, 9.2 RPG 3.2 APG career numbers
-3 All NBA teams
-Two silver medals as the best player
-One of the most skilled bigmen of all-time
-Made the cover of the NBA video game in Spain[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WockaVodka]Pau Gasol[/QUOTE]


Be less obvious RG.

reggie miller

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Miller's teams won more when he was in the same role as those guys and those guys usually had better second and third options, though usually not as good of depth. Those guys and others like Marques Johnson, Bernard King, Webber, McGrady etc. were better individual players at their peak than Miller. But they weren't better team players, or at least never proved it like Miller did and some of them had the opportunity Miller never did, to play alongside an elite player and still don't win anymore.

Miller's style of play allowed for all of his teammates to be maximized without him having to be used any less. Additionally his consistent ability to score more in the playoffs and occasionally, especially when needed, have an elite superstar game elevated Indiana to a comparable level (from 94-00) with teams like New York, Miami, San Antonio, Utah, Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Phoenix which all had relatively comparable 2-8 rotations and all had more highly regarded superstars.[/QUOTE]
If that's the criteria, then why not Manu Ginobili? We know he's damn good, filled the above criteria and more versatile. Oh and he actually won 3 championships in much shorter window. Is it because Manu played with Tim Duncan?

[QUOTE=iamgine]If that's the criteria, then why not Manu Ginobili? We know he's damn good, filled the above criteria and more versatile. Oh and he actually won 3 championships in much shorter window. Is it because Manu played with Tim Duncan?[/QUOTE]
Manu has even less accolades then all of them.

Plus he was never the go-to guy. Even as the 2nd or 3rd option, it doesn't match up.

[QUOTE=iamgine]If that's the criteria, then why not Manu Ginobili? We know he's damn good, filled the above criteria and more versatile. Oh and he actually won 3 championships in much shorter window. Is it because Manu played with Tim Duncan?[/QUOTE]

Ginobili in no way fits the description of Miller I gave. The whole point was that Miller made the Pacers a constant contender without a superstar teammate. Ginobili had arguably the best player of the NBA on his team.