View Single Post
Old 10-05-2012, 07:53 PM   #37
Owl
Local High School Star
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,503
Default Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

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:
Originally Posted by 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.

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
. 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:
Originally Posted by 1987_Lakers
People who vote Maravich know nothing about the game of basketball.
But then I wouldn't be as dismissive of modern players as to suggest that
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
Originally Posted by 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.
(for my counterpoints regarding Paul see http://insidehoops.com/forum/showpos...5&postcount=50 )

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 http://www.basketball-reference.com/...t=&order_by=ws 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 % http://www.basketball-reference.com/...&order_by =ws ).

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.
Owl is offline   Reply With Quote