#57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

[Young X]

CP3

[DatAsh]

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.

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.

[WillC]

People who vote Maravich know nothing about the game of basketball.

If you're unable to appreciate Maravich's ability, then you 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): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAFFgpXUC0

Then go and read up on your basketball history.

Maravich was a flat out offensive maestro.

[Legends66NBA7]

If you're unable to appreciate Maravich's ability, then you 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): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAFFgpXUC0

Then go and read up on your basketball history.

Maravich was a flat out offensive maestro.

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.

[WockaVodka]

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.

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?

[Freedom Kid7]

. Serious? Before Tiny, before Greer, 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

[Owl]

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

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....

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

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.

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/...t=&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.

[Kblaze8855]

I bet you just think he was a show-boater, right?

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.

[WockaVodka]

Christopher Paul

[nycelt84]

Nate Archibald

[L.Kizzle]

Billy Cunningham

[BIZARRO]

Kareem Age 27-31 26.7 ppg 14.0 rb 3.5 bl 55.0%

The A-Train Age 27-31 20.2 ppg 11.6 rb 2.1 bl 58.4%

Kareem's consensus top 5, some say top 2, and these are some sick numbers to prove it. However Gilmore certainly, has got to make the top 60 with these sick numbers at the same time.

In addition, Karem at Age 35, a very good 21.8, 7.5, 2.2 bl 58.8% season, but look at the A-Train still going strong....
Age 35 A-Train: 19.1, 10.4, 2.1 bl 62.3%
Age 3.5

Even better than Kareem that year...

That's sick, and I'd take him over Ray Allen every day of the week.

The A-Train, ABA MVP, 11 Time All Star, ABA All Star Game MVP, #1 OFfensive Rating in the NBA in 81-82, #6 All time in Win Shares NBA/ABA combined, #11 all time in Defensive Win Shares, #14 All Time in Offensive Win Shares, 3 time top 10 NBA MVP vote getter, 5 Time All ABA 1st Team, 5 Time 1st team All Defense, #1 Career field goal % shooter in NBA History...

Better win shares than The Dream, Moses, Russell, Shaq, and Ewing...

#1 in Career Defensive Rebounds, #2 in Career Offensive Rebounds, #5 in Total Rebounds, #4 in Career Blocks, #1 True Shooting % in NBA History, #1 Career in E-FG% in NBA History, A Force for Years...

No remaining player had more and better impact than the 7'2, 240 pound monster..
Y'all can take who you want, but give me THE A-TRAIN...

[Patrick Chewing]

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.

Some of those names on that list are a joke. Gary Payton?? Come on.

And Durant needs to up his Assists if he wants to get voted in. He's too one-dimensional right now. Voters seem like they are 21 and under.

[coin24]

Tiny