68 replies to this topic

[bnickle]

People alre also going to look foolish at some point ranking Curry so high on some of these All time lists. He'll still be a solid player for awhile but his peak is past. I tried to tell UA to move on and find the next big thing. 

[bnickle]

False.

Factz. And he had to manipulate the system to go to Miami to get the 1 legit title he does own. It's but for the kindness in my heart that I ranked him ahead of Kobe. For  today anyway. 

[mweb08]

Top of my head I'd go Shaq, Duncan, LBJ, Kobe, Dirk.  Biggest debate being between Shaq and Duncan for #1. Probably Dirk, Garnett, Wade in that order for 5,6,7 . 

Why Dirk over KG?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Guys please don't do this again.

 

Please.

 

Let him be.  Don't feed the troll.

 

Don't let him ruin Weber's project.

 

Thanks.

[bnickle]

Why Dirk over KG?

Title and NBA Finals MVP is virtually the  tiebreaker there. 

[bnickle]

Guys please don't do this again.

 

Please.

 

Let him be.  Don't feed the troll.

 

Don't let him ruin Weber's project.

 

Thanks.

Fuck off. I created discussion in this thread. 

[Pedro Cerrano]

Fuck off. I created discussion in this thread. 

 

Yea you create a lot of discussion with your hard-headedness combined with your complete lack of knowledge about the sport.

 

Good job.

[bnickle]

Yea you create a lot of discussion with your hard-headedness combined with your complete lack of knowledge about the sport.

 

Good job.

Ironic. You create a lot of discussion with  your hard headedness combined with your complete lack of knowledge of every sport. 

[Pedro Cerrano]

Ironic. I say the same thing about you and every sport. 

 

Ouch!

 

Also, that's not irony, dumbass.

 

Carry on.

[bnickle]

Ouch!

 

Also, that's not irony, dumbass.

 

Carry on.

Ironic.  Coming from the dumbass.

[bnickle]

I'll say this. I say the LBJ stuff because I believe it. Not done solely to troll. If it so happens that my opinion annoys the shit out of Cerrano thats just an added bonus.

[mweb08]

Why Dirk over KG?

Title and NBA Finals MVP is virtually the  tiebreaker there. 

KG also has a title and I believe should have a Finals MVP.

However, it would be fair to argue that Dirk had less support to get his ring.

There's no need for a tie-breaker, though imo. KG's defense separates him from Dirk.

[bnickle]

It's relatively close so no arguing too much which is 5 and which is 6. For what it's worth ESPN had Dirk higher in their recent list.

[GabeFerguson]

I should have been paying attention to this earlier. Really good stuff. I agree with most of the ranking, I would probably have Steph a little higher because he has been playing at an unreal level for 3 years now. It's hard to push him past many guys though with the amount of talent that the NBA has enjoyed over the past 25 years.

 

A few quibbles, Bosh should be higher, probably over Parker, Manu, and Hill for sure. I'm not sure I would have Mourning on my list at all. 

 

I think Ray Allen is too high, although at the same time I think he is underrated in general. I'd probably have Westbrook and AI over him. Same with T-Mac.

 

Also, does Vince Carter not make an appearance at all? I think he is absolutely in the top 25.

[mweb08]

I should have been paying attention to this earlier. Really good stuff. I agree with most of the ranking, I would probably have Steph a little higher because he has been playing at an unreal level for 3 years now. It's hard to push him past many guys though with the amount of talent that the NBA has enjoyed over the past 25 years.

 

A few quibbles, Bosh should be higher, probably over Parker, Manu, and Hill for sure. I'm not sure I would have Mourning on my list at all. 

 

I think Ray Allen is too high, although at the same time I think he is underrated in general. I'd probably have Westbrook and AI over him. Same with T-Mac.

 

Also, does Vince Carter not make an appearance at all? I think he is absolutely in the top 25.

 

Thanks.

 

No Vince, although he was close. 

 

Not that I always or even usually agree with the media on MVP or all league choices, but Vince only made 2nd All-NBA once and 3rd one other time. He was 2nd in PER once in a down season for that stat, but only made the top 10 one other year (10th).

 

Meanwhile, Zo who you probably wouldn't have on your list was a top 3 MVP guy twice and top 6 PER guy 3 times, plus was a great defender while Vince was not so good on defense. Then there's the matter of who would I rather have on my team if the objective is to win a title. Obviously neither guy won one in their prime, but I can more easily see a team built around prime Zo winning a title than a team built around prime Vince. Zo was a great teammate and easy to build around IMO, while Vince was not necessarily a great teammate and someone that needed the ball much more to be effective, yet was not truly elite when he had it. He was generally a low 20's PER guy that didn't do a good job of setting up his teammates. Vince was not the type of guy that I could see as likely to win a title with, even if only being the #2 guy on a team, which is not a role that he was even all that ideally suited for. Manu for instance provides a better chance at winning a title IMO from the same position. I guess that's easy to say given how things have played out, but Manu was the more competitive, selfless, and gritty player, plus a better teammate. We'll never know for sure, but it's a bit hard to imagine young Vince accepting the role Manu had with the Spurs. It's not hard for me to imagine Manu being the main guy on mostly mediocre teams while putting up good stats.

 

I will give Vince credit for transitioning well into a role player, which is often difficult for star players, especially with his game.

 

Steph can obviously rise higher, but he's only been elite for a short stretch so lets see how things turn out there. 

 

I could see Bosh being ranked higher. I wouldn't argue much with him being placed above those players you mention. I do think Hill was clearly better at his peak, but that peak was obviously cut short.

 

Westbrook and AI are better than Allen in some ways, primary being better at being ball dominant first options on a team that can have a higher impact on the game. Not all of that impact is positive though. Ultimately for me, it comes down to who I think I have the better chance of winning a title with, and as I mentioned, I think that's Allen if he's being compared to Iverson, who I think would have been hard to win a title with unless paired with someone like Shaq, Duncan, or KG, and those guys may not have loved playing with him. Westbrook will probably pass Ray on this list with more time. 

[GabeFerguson]

I can't really argue too much with anything you said. It's all sound and logical. I still think Vince Carter is more deserving. He made 10 straight AS games, averaged 22 points, 5+ Rebs, 4+ Asts with decent percentages and he's 29th in career scoring (4th among active players). Plus you get the entertainment factor with him which I think has value.

 

I think if Vince was your #2 or #3 guy, you can win a championship with him. He was really never on a great team during his peak, and it's fair to put that partially on him, but if people give T-Mac a pass on his team's performances, I don't see how it's any different with Vince who had a lot more team success throughout his career.

 

What are your thoughts on Gary Payton? I know he misses your 25 year cut-off by one year, but I'm just curious where he would fit in if he qualified. I'm probably in the monority, but I always thought he was a better PG than Kidd.

[mweb08]

T-Mac was substantially better than Carter.

Carter's FG% wasn't all that good and his popularity played a role in how many all-star games he made. 4+ assists isn't good either for a 2 guard with the ball so much.

I think it would be hard to win a title with him as a #2, even with someone like Shaq. He'd be a huge downgrade from Kobe or Wade.

But he does have a solid case.

[mweb08]

Payton vs Kidd is tough and I would need to look into it more, but I think they would be slotted right next to each other on this list.

[GabeFerguson]

I think if you look at the numbers, McGrady isn't that much different than Carter. McGrady shot a higher volume and had the edge in assist rate, while Carter was a more efficient scorer. Carter shot better from the field, from 3PT and FTs. 

 

McGrady at his best was definitely better than Carter at his best, but prime Carter also had a longer run than McGrady. 

[mweb08]

While Vince obviously has played longer, I don't think he had the longer prime. They both had 7-8 true all-star caliber seasons, if anything, I'd say McGrady had one more.

While they were roughly similar players with roughly similar stats, McGrady was legitimately a top 5 caliber player for 4 years and in the best player conversation for at least one of those years while Vince was a top 5 player once and arguably never a top 10 player otherwise.

The advanced stats, the media, and my eyes lead to a conclusion of T-Mac being better by a fair margin. A true superstar for about 4 years and an all-star for another 4, while Vince was mostly just an all-star (usually not even a no brainer all-star and sometimes not deserving at all) that perhaps had a better reputation than that due to being one of the best dunkers ever and having the UNC pedigree.

The biggest issue with where I rated T-Mac imo was that his career was cut short.