#84 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

[mrbigshot1]

You guys are ****ing retarded. Ben Wallace deserves if anything deserves to be higher.

[L.Kizzle]

Carmelo is no better than sweet Lou Hudson and he hasn't got a mention yet.

[tmacattack33]

Ben Wallace was a bad pick. Absolutely embarrasing for this forum.

He had only 6 good years. Remember, he came into this league and did absolutely nothing for 5 years in Washington and Orlando. And after his 6 years in Detroit, he went to Chicago and was not the same player over there as he was in Detroit.

And those 6 years were good, but certainly not amazing enough to put him over greats like Carmelo, Grant Hill, and especially this other guy who did very similar things to him, but did it for twice as long.

1. Grant Hill had a better 6 year prime before his injury than the aforementioned 6 good years of Ben's career

2. Carmelo has had a very good 9 years so far that trumps Ben Wallace's 6 good years



And the worst thing you did was put him over that other guy who had a similar game as prime B. Wallace, but did it for twice as long...Dikembe Mutumbo. Mutombo was just as strong defensively, better offensively, and almost as strong on the boards. But...he did that for 10 years. Wallace did it for 6. Turrible pick. Absolutely embarrassing.

[WillC]

Ben Wallace was a bad pick. Absolutely embarrasing for this forum.

He had only 6 good years. Remember, he came into this league and did absolutely nothing for 5 years in Washington and Orlando.

And those 6 years were good, but certainly not amazing enough to put him over greats like Carmelo, Grant Hill, and especially this other guy who did very similar things to him, but did it for twice as long.

1. Grant Hill had a better 6 year prime than the aforementioned 6 good years of Ben's career

2. Carmelo has had a very good 9 years so far that trumps Ben Wallace's five good years



And the worst thing you did was put him over that other guy who had a similar game as prime B. Wallace, but did it for twice as long...Dikembe Mutumbo. Mutombo was just as strong defensively, better offensively, and almost as strong on the boards. But...he did that for 10 years. Wallace did it for 6. Turrible pick. Absolutely embarrassing.

Very well said. I completely agree with you.

[L.Kizzle]

Very well said. I completely agree with you.

I wouldn't say Ben Wallace at #83 was a bad pick.

Now if he was picked were Gasol or Durant ere pick, then yes it would be bad.

[Owl]

If Johnston is one of them I would be stunned. I see no argument for a one dimensional player whose best seasons came on bad teams over a better one dimensional player whose best years came on title contending teams.

Not too many one dimensional players lead the league in two major categories (points and rebounding) and finish 2nd in a third (TS%) in the same year '55 (in '53 he came 1st in ppg, fg% and second in rpg and ts%). His assist numbers aren't too shabby for a center either.

Now you could argue whether Wallace too is one dimensional (he contributed through rebounding at both ends, shot blocking, steals and defense in general), but that's a seperate matter. If we were comparing the two (with regard to multi-dimensionality) Johnston doesn't have a flaw as large as Wallace's awful offensive game.

If you want to give an edge to Wallace based on era or longevity that's your prerogative. But Johnston was not one dimensional and he was a dominant figure in a way Wallace never was.

If Johnston is one of them I would be stunned. I see no argument for a one dimensional player whose best seasons came on bad teams over a better one dimensional player whose best years came on title contending teams.

Somewhat misleading as on the '56 champs he had a year more or less as good as his others (2nd in Free throws made and attempted, 1st in fg%, 9th in ft%, 3rd in ppg, 4th in rpg, 16th in apg, 1st in ts%, 1st in PER, Win Shares and Win Shares per 48).

[Deuce Bigalow]

Neil Johnston

[haji_d_robertas]

Ben Wallace was a bad pick. Absolutely embarrasing for this forum.

He had only 6 good years. Remember, he came into this league and did absolutely nothing for 5 years in Washington and Orlando. And after his 6 years in Detroit, he went to Chicago and was not the same player over there as he was in Detroit.

And those 6 years were good, but certainly not amazing enough to put him over greats like Carmelo, Grant Hill, and especially this other guy who did very similar things to him, but did it for twice as long.

1. Grant Hill had a better 6 year prime before his injury than the aforementioned 6 good years of Ben's career

2. Carmelo has had a very good 9 years so far that trumps Ben Wallace's 6 good years



And the worst thing you did was put him over that other guy who had a similar game as prime B. Wallace, but did it for twice as long...Dikembe Mutumbo. Mutombo was just as strong defensively, better offensively, and almost as strong on the boards. But...he did that for 10 years. Wallace did it for 6. Turrible pick. Absolutely embarrassing.

Ben Wallace is a title winner. That seems to be the reason why he's picked over Grant Hill, C. Anthony and D. Mutombo. I was voting for Carmelo earlier on and I was surprised that nobody else thought he was eligible that high. I think this is fun and not scientific plus there seems to be a lot less voters now, so I picked Wallace over Johnston to break the tie. I think Wallace's story is pretty compelling, considering he was not drafted. He is the most successful NBA Player to not get drafted. Think about that. That is a very important fact. All of the scouts missed this guy and he winds up being a huge part of a title team and a beast on the blocks and boards. People like that kind of story. Don't you?

[G.O.A.T]

Not too many one dimensional players lead the league in two major categories (points and rebounding) and finish 2nd in a third (TS%) in the same year '55 (in '53 he came 1st in ppg, fg% and second in rpg and ts%). His assist numbers aren't too shabby for a center either.

Now you could argue whether Wallace too is one dimensional (he contributed through rebounding at both ends, shot blocking, steals and defense in general), but that's a seperate matter. If we were comparing the two (with regard to multi-dimensionality) Johnston doesn't have a flaw as large as Wallace's awful offensive game.

If you want to give an edge to Wallace based on era or longevity that's your prerogative. But Johnston was not one dimensional and he was a dominant figure in a way Wallace never was.


Somewhat misleading as on the '56 champs he had a year more or less as good as his others (2nd in Free throws made and attempted, 1st in fg%, 9th in ft%, 3rd in ppg, 4th in rpg, 16th in apg, 1st in ts%, 1st in PER, Win Shares and Win Shares per 48).

Look into how many MVP votes he got in '56 and how much acclaim he got relative to teammate Arizin. The take on Johnston from those who played with him and covered him is that he was an awful defender who needed the offense to revolve around him for him to really be effective.

My problem is, as usual, no one knows very much about who they are voting for or who they are looking past and instead of discussion we get a name only as a vote. Kind of boring and for someone who invests in this stuff as much as me, it'll make you cringe.

[Legends66NBA7]

If Carmelo Anthony is going to get mentions, so should Amare Stoudemire.

[WillC]

Look into how many MVP votes he got in '56 and how much acclaim he got relative to teammate Arizin. The take on Johnston from those who played with him and covered him is that he was an awful defender who needed the offense to revolve around him for him to really be effective.

My problem is, as usual, no one knows very much about who they are voting for or who they are looking past and instead of discussion we get a name only as a vote. Kind of boring and for someone who invests in this stuff as much as me, it'll make you cringe.

And yet you and Owl just had a very interesting discussion, so clearly these threads aren't all bad.

[TheBigVeto]

This list just jumped the shark.

There is no way Ben Wallace should be ahead of incredible talents and players like Grant Hill or David Thompson. Not even close.

It jumped the shark when Kobe entered top 10.
But yeah, no way Ben Wallace is ahead of the two. Hell, Ben Wallace didn't deserve to be in top 100.

[G.O.A.T]

And yet you and Owl just had a very interesting discussion, so clearly these threads aren't all bad.

Certainly not all bad, but after the top fifty, there has been very little discussion. To many votes determined by people who have contributed nothing to the dialog.

Furthering the Johnston discussion, his scoring numbers were a product of the Gottleib superstar system. Eddie the Mogul (The Philadelphia coach then owner) had Joe Fulks, Johnston, Arizin and then Wilt. Always he pushed for the highest scoring star to wear his uniform. Johnston was made to score in that era so it was a pretty good choice by the strategy of the day. He was tallish, mobile and athletic relative to plodders like Mikan and Foust had good touch on his shot. He shot over smaller men and went around bigger men. He rebounded well as he was one of the few players who jumped to corral caroms. He shot a high percentage as their were few who could rival his combined physical gifts and skill level. However it all changed when the Bill Russell's, Maurice Stokes and even to some extent Bob Pettit got into the league. As that happened he went from one of the league's best centers (maybe the best for a year or two) to a guy barely hanging on. We've all heard the story of Russell shutting him out, imagine a former scoring Champion scoring zero points against a rookie.

The point of all this, there were a lot of players in Johnston's era who were arguably as good or better. At the center position Larry Foust often outplayed Johnston head-to-head. Easy Ed MaCauley put up comparable numbers and garnered similar accolades. Arnie Risen played a bigger role on a title team and was actually able to adjust to the new game and survive as a value reserve for the early Celtics title teams. On the wings guys like George Yardley, Jim Pollard and Vern Mikkelsen were better all-around players, more respected and revered from what I've found. In the back court I'd take Slater Martin or Bob Davies before I'd want Johnston if I'm building a team in the fifties.

It doesn't add up. People voted for him because someone else did and they saw the 4 all-NBA first teams and scoring titles. Then they probably saw the title (if they got that far) except they have no idea who Tom Gola or Jack George were. Or how much worse the team was the year before and after without Gola in the lime-up. Yet it's unlikely that anyone besides me will mention Gola, or Paul Seymour, or Red Kerr or Clyde Lovellette or Bobby Wanzer or Max Zaslofsky.

Now I would rank Johnston over some of those guys, I can see case over all but Davies even, but my issue is they won't even get brought up.

It goes beyond that era too. Pretty soon, like now maybe, the votes will be for players like Mitch Richmond, Vince Carter, Carmelo etc. which is fine sort of, but comparable players will be ignored because they didn't make basketball cards when they played. Are those three really so much better than guys like Paul Westphal, Gus Johnson, Zelmo Beaty or Connie Hawkins? All those players put up as good or better numbers at their peak and the guys I mentioned did a lot more winning in the process.

Adrian Dantley is in, because he scored a shit ton of points, but where are contemporaries like Jamaal Wilkes and Bobby Jones. Do we really think Philadelphia or Los Angeles would have traded one of those forwards for the 30ppg no defense, my way or the highway Dantley?

Even if you prefer him, that conversation should be had. Glad I got to try and start it.

[WillC]

Great post, GOAT. I haven't got time to comment on each of the things you said but, rest assured, I read and enjoyed all of it. I found myself agreeing with most if it too, for what it's worth. It's made me re-evaluate my vote for Johnston. Meanwhile, earlier today I found myself digging out old books to read about Johnston. It pretty much confirmed many of the things you said, including the fast-paced Philly offense leading to inflated stats (which reminded me of the 1980s Denver Nuggets).

However it all changed when the Bill Russell's, Maurice Stokes and even to some extent Bob Pettit got into the league. As that happened he went from one of the league's best centers (maybe the best for a year or two) to a guy barely hanging on. We've all heard the story of Russell shutting him out, imagine a former scoring Champion scoring zero points against a rookie.

All of which makes me wonder what Bill Russell would have done to George Mikan if their paths had crossed. But they didn't. Therefore, it seems a little unfair that you're using the above argument against Johnston but still have Mikan in your top 10 players list.

On the wings guys like George Yardley, Jim Pollard and Vern Mikkelsen were better all-around players, more respected and revered from what I've found. In the back court I'd take Slater Martin or Bob Davies before I'd want Johnston if I'm building a team in the fifties.

The above is certainly true, and that's the main argument for why Johnston is perhaps rated too high at number 84 on this list. Yardley is hugely underrated today. Pollard and Mikkelsen have stood the test of time (and Martin to a lesser extent) due to the legendary team they played for. Davies is in Cousy's shadow, perhaps unfairly. From what I've read, Yardley was perhaps the most revered of the group.

It goes beyond that era too. Pretty soon, like now maybe, the votes will be for players like Mitch Richmond, Vince Carter, Carmelo etc. which is fine sort of, but comparable players will be ignored because they didn't make basketball cards when they played. Are those three really so much better than guys like Paul Westphal, Gus Johnson, Zelmo Beaty or Connie Hawkins? All those players put up as good or better numbers at their peak and the guys I mentioned did a lot more winning in the process.

Very true. I'm a fan of Richmond but feel that he's getting votes from fans who never saw him play. Meanwhile, Carmelo Anthony is very difficult to rank. He puts up big offensive numbers like Dantley, English, Wilkins and Gervin, but hasn't done enough yet to be ranked on their level. Maybe in the future. Hawkins is a pain to rank because of his years in exile/ABA.

(On a separate note, I personally think Maurice Stokes and Joe Fulks deserve to be in by this point, but making an argument for them is difficult despite the fact they were amongst the very best in the league at some point in time)

Adrian Dantley is in, because he scored a shit ton of points, but where are contemporaries like Jamaal Wilkes and Bobby Jones. Do we really think Philadelphia or Los Angeles would have traded one of those forwards for the 30ppg no defense, my way or the highway Dantley?

Yes, Jones fitted the 76ers team beautifully. They didn't need another scorer. I think most teams would take Dantley over Jones or Wilkes though. Using your 'who was more respected and revered' argument, I give Dantley the edge. He was very popular amongst fans, players and journalists. Not sure about coaches.

[G.O.A.T]

All of which makes me wonder what Bill Russell would have done to George Mikan if their paths had crossed. But they didn't. Therefore, it seems a little unfair that you're using the above argument against Johnston but still have Mikan in your top 10 players list.

The above is certainly true, and that's the main argument for why Johnston is perhaps rated too high at number 84 on this list. Yardley is hugely underrated today. Pollard and Mikkelsen have stood the test of time (and Martin to a lesser extent) due to the legendary team they played for. Davies is in Cousy's shadow, perhaps unfairly. From what I've read, Yardley was perhaps the most revered of the group.



Very true. I'm a fan of Richmond but feel that he's getting votes from fans who never saw him play. Meanwhile, Carmelo Anthony is very difficult to rank. He puts up big offensive numbers like Dantley, English, Wilkins and Gervin, but hasn't done enough yet to be ranked on their level. Maybe in the future. Hawkins is a pain to rank because of his years in exile/ABA.

(On a separate note, I personally think Maurice Stokes and Joe Fulks deserve to be in by this point, but making an argument for them is difficult despite the fact they were amongst the very best in the league at some point in time)

Yes, Jones fitted the 76ers team beautifully. They didn't need another scorer. I think most teams would take Dantley over Jones or Wilkes though. Using your 'who was more respected and revered' argument, I give Dantley the edge. He was very popular amongst fans, players and journalists. Not sure about coaches.

Maybe, but foolishly I think if so. I'd argue (purely subjectively, but hence my conclusion on this topic) that a smart team would keep the guy who can better help you win a title not just a few more regular season games.
We can agree that you can't win a title with Dantley as your best player, so why is he more valuable to the ultimate goal than someone like Jones or Wilkes who aren't going to be as good as your franchise player, but are better in any role as a second-fifth best player because of their versatility, defensive prowess and team first nature.

It's an issue at the forefront of my own self-criticism regarding my personal rankings. At what point or maybe better put, how much talent (or lack there of) can intangibles make up for and at what point does individual excellence stop mattering as much as team brilliance?