Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
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.
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.
Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
McGrady should easily be above Maravich. I wrote an essay some years ago about it ...
Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legends66NBA7
How are Hal Greer and Dennis Johnson jokes in comparison to guys like Maravich and/or Miller ?
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.
Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlip
I'm actually voting for Jerry Lucas this time.
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.
Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
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.
Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.Kizzle
If dwight retired tonite, he wouldn't be higher in 3 years.
Actually, he would probably would. People forever reason like to overrate the past players and when we look back in retrospect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Re: #57 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops
@ me.
