PDA

View Full Version : Who are the top 5 players to never win a championship?



mrblisterdundee
08-11-2009, 08:30 PM
I definitely focus on forwards and centers. There's a lot of them who didn't have the back court support needed to utilize their strengths.

1. Karl Malone
2. Chris Webber
3. Reggie Miller
4. Patrick Ewing
5. Charles Barkley

Who do you think are the top 5 players to never win a championship?

Ironman5219
08-11-2009, 08:39 PM
Malone
Stockton
Barkley
Miller
Webber

Baldyy
08-11-2009, 08:41 PM
1. Karl Malone
2. Elgin Baylor
3. Charles Barkley
4. Patrick Ewing
5. John Stockton

_KB24_
08-11-2009, 08:43 PM
I definitely focus on forwards and centers. There's a lot of them who didn't have the back court support needed to utilize their strengths.

1. Karl Malone
2. Chris Webber
3. Reggie Miller
4. Patrick Ewing
5. Charles Barkley

Who do you think are the top 5 players to never win a championship?

:speechless:

Buddy, are you serious? Top 5? How about Stockton, Iverson, Nash, Kidd, Baylor, Pistol Pete, George Gervin, and those are the ones on the top of my head. Chris Webber is like a little rag compared to these HOFs.

bigvdebo86
08-11-2009, 08:45 PM
iverson
barkley
stockton
malone
pistol pete

Baldyy
08-11-2009, 08:48 PM
no love for baylor?

B.JenningsMVP
08-11-2009, 08:50 PM
baylor
malone
ewing
stockton
barkley

kswissdaf
08-11-2009, 08:53 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if LeBron is on that list when his career is over

zambo4president
08-11-2009, 08:54 PM
Wouldn't be surprised if LeBron is on that list when his career is over

I would honestly be surprised if he isnt

Raps18-19 Champ
08-11-2009, 08:56 PM
Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Miller, Ewing?

ARMIN12NBA
08-11-2009, 09:03 PM
Malone
Baylor
Barkley
Ewing
Stockton

GeorgeMcCloud21
08-11-2009, 09:04 PM
Stockton/Malone
Iverson
Nowitzki
Reggie Miller
Ewing

heyman321
08-11-2009, 09:07 PM
It's just too bad that the Jazz met Michael Jordan both times in the finals or else Stockton and Malone wouldn't be on this list.

ya_boi
08-11-2009, 09:13 PM
stockton
malone
ewing
barkley
kemp

asandhu23
08-11-2009, 09:15 PM
Connie Hawkins, Charles Barkley.... Nate Thurmond plus everyone else mentioned up there

jimm120
08-11-2009, 09:23 PM
Nice to see Ewing on so many lists.

Stockton was alright but I don't think he makes it to the top 5.

Patrick Ewing
Karl Malone
Gary Payton
Reggie Miller

Those are my definite top 4. From there on, the last two spots could go to

Charles Barkley
Pistol Pete

goose15
08-11-2009, 09:27 PM
K. Malone
Ewing
Barkley
Stockton
Dominique

what54!?
08-11-2009, 09:34 PM
stockon
malone
barkely
Ewing
Miller

what54!?
08-11-2009, 09:35 PM
Nice to see Ewing on so many lists.

Stockton was alright but I don't think he makes it to the top 5.

Patrick Ewing
Karl Malone
Gary Payton
Reggie Miller

Those are my definite top 4. From there on, the last two spots could go to

Charles Barkley
Pistol Petehe won one with the heat back in 06

Lakers4ItAll
08-12-2009, 02:33 AM
Nice to see Ewing on so many lists.

Stockton was alright but I don't think he makes it to the top 5.

Patrick Ewing
Karl Malone
Gary Payton
Reggie Miller

Those are my definite top 4. From there on, the last two spots could go to

Charles Barkley
Pistol Pete

He is the best PG of all time WTF are you talkin about?

Stockton
Malone
Miller
Ewing
Barkley

Kings Faithful
08-12-2009, 03:36 AM
:speechless:

Buddy, are you serious? Top 5? How about Stockton, Iverson, Nash, Kidd, Baylor, Pistol Pete, George Gervin, and those are the ones on the top of my head. Chris Webber is like a little rag compared to these HOFs.

Please. Stop being a hater. At his peak Webber averaged 27 ppg 11 rpg and 4.2 apg. Karl Malone at his peak 31 ppg, 11 rpg, 2 apg. Yet you pick on Webber and not Malone? Baylor played in a different time when it was alot more common place to see players putting up 35+ and 15+ a night. He couldn't do what he did in todays game. As far as the rest of the guys you mentioned, Webber deserves to be in the conversation. Not to mention Webbers team was better than any of those the teams lead by any of those players you mentioned and it was harder for him to rack up the numbers that he did.

Lakersfan2483
08-12-2009, 03:55 AM
Karl Malone
Charles Barkley
Elgin Baylor
John Stockton
Patrick Ewing

Honorable Mention: Pete Maravich, Nate Thurmond, Reggie Miller, Dominique Wilkins

mrblisterdundee
08-12-2009, 02:00 PM
:speechless:

Buddy, are you serious? Top 5? How about Stockton, Iverson, Nash, Kidd, Baylor, Pistol Pete, George Gervin, and those are the ones on the top of my head. Chris Webber is like a little rag compared to these HOFs.

Chris Webber will be in the hall of fame. He's one of the most dominant power forwards ever. I'd take a healthy Webber over a healthy Duncan or Barkley any day of the week. The only reason Stockton was so good is that he had Malone to play with, and I'm sure Stockton would have been just as great playing with Webber. You have good points, such as me leaving out Baylor or Gervin, but a point guard without a dominant big man is a failure waiting to happen. It's true the other way around too, but I can't deny how dominant Webber was.

JayW_1023
08-12-2009, 02:03 PM
1. Stockton
2. Reggie
3. Malone
4. Baylor
5. Ewing

It's a little premature to include Dirk in my opinion. He still has a window.

Raph12
08-12-2009, 02:15 PM
:speechless:

Buddy, are you serious? Top 5? How about Stockton, Iverson, Nash, Kidd, Baylor, Pistol Pete, George Gervin, and those are the ones on the top of my head. Chris Webber is like a little rag compared to these HOFs.

:clap: I'd personally take Nash out but the rest are solid

FlakeyFool
08-12-2009, 02:33 PM
Please. Stop being a hater. At his peak Webber averaged 27 ppg 11 rpg and 4.2 apg. Karl Malone at his peak 31 ppg, 11 rpg, 2 apg. Yet you pick on Webber and not Malone? Baylor played in a different time when it was alot more common place to see players putting up 35+ and 15+ a night. He couldn't do what he did in todays game. As far as the rest of the guys you mentioned, Webber deserves to be in the conversation. Not to mention Webbers team was better than any of those the teams lead by any of those players you mentioned and it was harder for him to rack up the numbers that he did.


Chris Webber will be in the hall of fame. He's one of the most dominant power forwards ever. I'd take a healthy Webber over a healthy Duncan or Barkley any day of the week. The only reason Stockton was so good is that he had Malone to play with, and I'm sure Stockton would have been just as great playing with Webber. You have good points, such as me leaving out Baylor or Gervin, but a point guard without a dominant big man is a failure waiting to happen. It's true the other way around too, but I can't deny how dominant Webber was.


wow...big homers here. You'd rather have chris webber over a Tim Duncan or Charles Barkley? LOL

IversonIsKrazy
08-12-2009, 02:40 PM
Stockton, Iverson, Malone, Ewing, Barkley in no order.

Chronz
08-12-2009, 02:43 PM
What if that player didnt win a chip because he failed? Elgin and Ewing come to mind

Reggie Miller shouldnt be on here, he wasnt that good of a player. If he would have been, he wouldve gotten a chip. Think of it this way, he made the Finals, took the Lakers to 6, but he himself contributed very little compared to truly great players like those being mentioned.

Tom81
08-12-2009, 02:48 PM
Barkley ,Malone, Stockton,, Miller, Ewing

JMKnick33
08-12-2009, 02:49 PM
1. Malone
2. Stockton
3. Ewing
4. Barkley
5. Baylor

ko8e24
08-12-2009, 03:30 PM
I definitely focus on forwards and centers. There's a lot of them who didn't have the back court support needed to utilize their strengths.

1. Karl Malone
2. Chris Webber
3. Reggie Miller
4. Patrick Ewing
5. Charles Barkley

Who do you think are the top 5 players to never win a championship?

John Stockton instead of Chris Webber. Also, you can't forget about Elgin Baylor (1 season with Minneapolis Lakers and the original pioneer of the Los Angeles Lakers, where he received those arse kickings by the celtics in the 50s and 60s)

ko8e24
08-12-2009, 03:32 PM
Nice to see Ewing on so many lists.

Stockton was alright but I don't think he makes it to the top 5.
Patrick Ewing
Karl Malone
Gary Payton
Reggie Miller

Those are my definite top 4. From there on, the last two spots could go to

Charles Barkley
Pistol Pete


lol, he played 19 seasons ALL with the jazz, even more than karl malone (18 seasons with jazz + 1 season with lakers (more like half a season, lol) = 19 seasons total)

ko8e24
08-12-2009, 03:33 PM
He is the best PG of all time WTF are you talkin about?

Stockton
Malone
Miller
Ewing
Barkley

nope, thats the magic man. he's 3rd all time behind magic and the big O

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 03:40 PM
Webber??????? haha. And Ewing was so overrated its sick
Stockton
Miller
Elgin
K Malone
Barkley

I can't put an active player on there. Also noteworthy, is it proves how dominant MJ really was. He destroyed the chance of some of the all time greats to ever win it all.

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 03:41 PM
nope, thats the magic man. he's 3rd all time behind magic and the big O

Magic
Stockton (all time assist and steals leader, by a landslide)
Big O

Stockton would be #1 if he had a ring in my book

NeutralFan
08-12-2009, 03:50 PM
:speechless:

Buddy, are you serious? Top 5? How about Stockton, Iverson, Nash, Kidd, Baylor, Pistol Pete, George Gervin, and those are the ones on the top of my head. Chris Webber is like a little rag compared to these HOFs.

I think its just because most of the people on this site are younger and never saw those guys play. At 35 I'm probably one of the older guys on this site and i've never seen gervin or baylor play except for highlights. No disrespect to those guys. As a football fan I know that Gale Sayers and Jim Brown were amazing backs but if someone asks me who was best I say Barry Sanders because I was able to witness him play.

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 03:53 PM
I think its just because most of the people on this site are younger and never saw those guys play. At 35 I'm probably one of the older guys on this site and i've never seen gervin or baylor play except for highlights. No disrespect to those guys. As a football fan I know that Gale Sayers and Jim Brown were amazing backs but if someone asks me who was best I say Barry Sanders because I was able to witness him play.

this is a fair point. Many of the posters here are young, you can tell that.

JMKnick33
08-12-2009, 04:07 PM
Webber??????? haha. And Ewing was so overrated its sick
Stockton
Miller
Elgin
K Malone
Barkley

I can't put an active player on there. Also noteworthy, is it proves how dominant MJ really was. He destroyed the chance of some of the all time greats to ever win it all.

If Ewing is so overrated.. then you're definitely WAY OVERRATING Reggie Miller. Sure, I'm a Knicks fan and I grew up hating the guy, but you're talking about a player who has 11 All-star selections, 1 time NBA First team, 6 time NBA second team, 3 time defensive second team, Rookie of the year in Patrick Ewing compared to a one dimensional scorer and 3 point shooter, deadly shooter I'll give him that, and also only 5 All-star appearances and only 3 NBA THIRD team. Cmon mann.. seems like you're just a Knick hater for no reason.

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 04:17 PM
If Ewing is so overrated.. then you're definitely WAY OVERRATING Reggie Miller. Sure, I'm a Knicks fan and I grew up hating the guy, but you're talking about a player who has 11 All-star selections, 1 time NBA First team, 6 time NBA second team, 3 time defensive second team, Rookie of the year in Patrick Ewing compared to a one dimensional scorer and 3 point shooter, deadly shooter I'll give him that, and also only 5 All-star appearances and only 3 NBA THIRD team. Cmon mann.. seems like you're just a Knick hater for no reason.

I understand that Ewing has the numbers. He does. But he was getting a lot of votes from NYC to get on those all star teams, and him playing in NY got him overhyped like many NY athletes are. He was a relentless defender, average rebounder, and held the ball too long.
I like Ewing, I have met him on 2 occasions. I always liked his game. But he was a choker. Big time. He just isn't a personal preference of mine. I think there are centers who are far better.
And I don't have any hate for the Knicks. I have no opinion of them period. I have liked some of the players they have had.
Miller had far greater competition at the SG position to get those awards btw.

mitch91
08-12-2009, 04:20 PM
stockton/malone
barkley
miller
ewing
nash

TheMicrowave
08-12-2009, 04:22 PM
Barkley
Ewing
Malone
Stockton
LeBron
Dirk
Nash

There are plenty of guys now and past.

29$JerZ
08-12-2009, 04:28 PM
As of now

Karl Malone
Patrick Ewing
Charles Barkley
John Stockton
Allen Iverson

JMKnick33
08-12-2009, 04:34 PM
I understand that Ewing has the numbers. He does. But he was getting a lot of votes from NYC to get on those all star teams, and him playing in NY got him overhyped like many NY athletes are. He was a relentless defender, average rebounder, and held the ball too long.
I like Ewing, I have met him on 2 occasions. I always liked his game. But he was a choker. Big time. He just isn't a personal preference of mine. I think there are centers who are far better.
And I don't have any hate for the Knicks. I have no opinion of them period. I have liked some of the players they have had.
Miller had far greater competition at the SG position to get those awards btw.

Fair enough. But still, Miller was only a scorer, while Ewing was more of a two way player than Miller ever was. Ewing averaged more points, rebounds, blocks, and possibly steals than Miller did. Ewing held the ball pretty long I agree, but he was their franchise player, and that's what franchise players do. The same could be said about other franchise players, such as Lebron, Kobe, and Jordan. He was also an average rebounder only because he had a ton of help from Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley. You also said there are centers who are far better. Of course there are, but they have rings. Don't get off topic, since this thread is about players who have never won a championship. And I believe he's the greatest center to never have won a championship, sadly :(

JMKnick33
08-12-2009, 04:35 PM
stockton/malone
barkley
miller
ewing
nash

i agree stockton and malone should be considered as one.

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 04:40 PM
Fair enough. But still, Miller was only a scorer, while Ewing was more of a two way player than Miller ever was. Ewing averaged more points, rebounds, blocks, and possibly steals than Miller did. Ewing held the ball pretty long I agree, but he was their franchise player, and that's what franchise players do. The same could be said about other franchise players, such as Lebron, Kobe, and Jordan. He was also an average rebounder only because he had a ton of help from Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley. You also said there are centers who are far better. Of course there are, but they have rings. Don't get off topic, since this thread is about players who have never won a championship. And I believe he's the greatest center to never have won a championship, sadly :(

he may be the best center to never win one. I would have to look back, don't feel like it. I think the only thing that seperates Ewing and Miller, is that Miller was his best with the game on the line. Ewing just seemed to fade.
Again, I really like Ewing, I have just personally always thought he was overrated in the grand scheme of things. I may have gone overboard in the whole, its sick statement. My bad.

Ebbs
08-12-2009, 05:02 PM
Dirk Nowitzki
Steve Nash
Jason Kidd
Karl Malone
John Stockton

JMKnick33
08-12-2009, 05:26 PM
he may be the best center to never win one. I would have to look back, don't feel like it. I think the only thing that seperates Ewing and Miller, is that Miller was his best with the game on the line. Ewing just seemed to fade.
Again, I really like Ewing, I have just personally always thought he was overrated in the grand scheme of things. I may have gone overboard in the whole, its sick statement. My bad.

lol, apology accepted. I just had to defend the player that made me a basketball fan. I was a Ewing fan before I was a basketball fan. :)

Chronz
08-12-2009, 05:41 PM
Yea that hawkeye is crazy, I hate Ewing with a passion and adore the skinny kid from Indiana but there is no way Reggie impacted the outcome of a game more than Ewing. On any level, if you add Ewing or Reggie to a horrible team, the Ewing led team would win more. On an average team Ewing would do more, it gets closer on a good team because Reggie got stronger as the game wore on, and with players who could carry him and mask his deficiencies he'd probably have a similar impact offensively, but the defensive end just makes this a no brainer.

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 05:46 PM
Yea that hawkeye is crazy, I hate Ewing with a passion and adore the skinny kid from Indiana but there is no way Reggie impacted the outcome of a game more than Ewing. On any level, if you add Ewing or Reggie to a horrible team, the Ewing led team would win more. On an average team Ewing would do more, it gets closer on a good team because Reggie got stronger as the game wore on, and with players who could carry him and mask his deficiencies he'd probably have a similar impact offensively, but the defensive end just makes this a no brainer.

I disagree. I watched Ewing for years, and nothing really stood out as far as elite, or taking teams to the next level for me. He had great numbers, but didn't get it done when it mattered most. And the age of the center was in full swing then, so starting with a center was a good move, so yes, I would maybe start with Ewing before Miller. I can even understand the argument that Ewing was a better player, although I don't think so.
And I will agree that Miller had monster shortcomings, but with the game on the line, he is the man.

BHBrad
08-12-2009, 05:58 PM
I'm actually surprised to see Reggie getting so much love. And I'm ecstatic. From people I personally saw play, I think you're looking at Ewing, Barkley, Miller, Malone/Stockton (Agree on including them as one) and then the final spot is open to a bunch of people.

JMKnick33
08-12-2009, 05:59 PM
I disagree. I watched Ewing for years, and nothing really stood out as far as elite, or taking teams to the next level for me. He had great numbers, but didn't get it done when it mattered most. And the age of the center was in full swing then, so starting with a center was a good move, so yes, I would maybe start with Ewing before Miller. I can even understand the argument that Ewing was a better player, although I don't think so.
And I will agree that Miller had monster shortcomings, but with the game on the line, he is the man.

So, in your opinion, what did Miller do better than Ewing besides shoot better 3s and free throws and get on Spike Lee's nerves? Although Ewing did get on Lee's nerves a couple of times.

Chronz
08-12-2009, 06:38 PM
I disagree. I watched Ewing for years, and nothing really stood out as far as elite,
His defense


or taking teams to the next level for me.
He anchored one of the best defenses in league history, how is that not taking them to the next level.


He had great numbers, but didn't get it done when it mattered most.
Id rather have the guy with great #'s and impacted the game more outside of those #'s, than the guy who couldnt produce and still didnt get it done.



And I will agree that Miller had monster shortcomings, but with the game on the line, he is the man.

So you toss out 85-90% of the game, and focus on the 10% that Reggie was finally elite for?

Chronz
08-12-2009, 06:43 PM
So, in your opinion, what did Miller do better than Ewing besides shoot better 3s and free throws and get on Spike Lee's nerves? Although Ewing did get on Lee's nerves a couple of times.
Ewing should have had a championship ring, it was his shortcomings both in the clutch and timely moments that prevented the Knicks from winning a title. Reggie would have never done that, nor would he have been able to carry an underwhelming team that far in the first place. These shortcomings are what prevented both from being historically great. Like Reggie wouldve been in Clyde Drexlers class had he been gifted enough to carry teams, and Ewing wouldve been in D-Rob or Dreams class if he werent so unclutch.

So its a question of preference, do you want the guy who can hit big shots if you carry him through the game despite his weaknesses, or the guy who can do more for your team.

The way I see it, if Ewing had as little responsibility as Reggie did, he would have been better in the clutch. Ironically what each player needed to win a ring was someone like eachother. If Reggie and Ewing were on the same team, that wouldve been amazing.

Lo Porto
08-12-2009, 06:44 PM
Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Miller, Ewing?

You are absolutely right. That is the list.

Reyes6
08-12-2009, 06:48 PM
1. Malone
2. Stockton
3. Miller
4. Barkley
5. DIKEMBE MUTOMBO

Chronz
08-12-2009, 06:51 PM
Players better than Reggie to never win a ring.... how about Dominique Wilkens

ARMIN12NBA
08-12-2009, 07:01 PM
Players better than Reggie to never win a ring.... how about Dominique Wilkens

:nod:

MTar786
08-12-2009, 07:18 PM
:speechless:

Buddy, are you serious? Top 5? How about Stockton, Iverson, Nash, Kidd, Baylor, Pistol Pete, George Gervin, and those are the ones on the top of my head. Chris Webber is like a little rag compared to these HOFs.

webber in his prime was better than stockton, nash, pete, and gervin.

if stockton was as great as people think and malone was too then howcome in their like 100 years together couldnt even get 1 title? even in the years mj stopped playing?? oh n shaq n kobe were the only great players on their 3 titles in a row team.. so if stockton n malone were as good or even ALMOST as good like some think then y couldnt they atleast get one

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 07:36 PM
Players better than Reggie to never win a ring.... how about Dominique Wilkens

Bird and Magic, and the fact that Atlanta couldn't give him any help. You talk about Miller as one dimensional, and no defense, Wilkins was worse on defense.

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 07:37 PM
Ewing should have had a championship ring, it was his shortcomings both in the clutch and timely moments that prevented the Knicks from winning a title. Reggie would have never done that, nor would he have been able to carry an underwhelming team that far in the first place. These shortcomings are what prevented both from being historically great. Like Reggie wouldve been in Clyde Drexlers class had he been gifted enough to carry teams, and Ewing wouldve been in D-Rob or Dreams class if he werent so unclutch.

So its a question of preference, do you want the guy who can hit big shots if you carry him through the game despite his weaknesses, or the guy who can do more for your team.

The way I see it, if Ewing had as little responsibility as Reggie did, he would have been better in the clutch. Ironically what each player needed to win a ring was someone like eachother. If Reggie and Ewing were on the same team, that wouldve been amazing.

neither was able to carry a team, so I take the one who wins it with a minute to go. I guess that is the easiest way to put it for me.

mikantsass
08-12-2009, 07:38 PM
I definitely focus on forwards and centers. There's a lot of them who didn't have the back court support needed to utilize their strengths.

1. Karl Malone
2. Chris Webber
3. Reggie Miller
4. Patrick Ewing
5. Charles Barkley

Who do you think are the top 5 players to never win a championship?

Take out Webber and put in Gary Payton

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 07:39 PM
So, in your opinion, what did Miller do better than Ewing besides shoot better 3s and free throws and get on Spike Lee's nerves? Although Ewing did get on Lee's nerves a couple of times.

he won games when they were in the last minute. As I said, neither was able to carry a team, or is a top 5 player for instance. But, they were both superstars, and when the game was on the line, I take Miller 10/10 times. That is really the only deciding factor for me.

Chronz
08-12-2009, 07:54 PM
Bird and Magic, and the fact that Atlanta couldn't give him any help. You talk about Miller as one dimensional, and no defense, Wilkins was worse on defense.
Wilkins was uninspired defensively, but he wasnt worse than Miller. Atleast not when you compare the players they had to guard. Im not saying the SG position wasnt strong in Millers day, just that the F position in the 80's was quite possibly the most stacked since the modern post expansion league format. But that was his defensive peak, as his athleticism waned the lack of defensive fundamentals grew more obvious.

Nique was a late bloomer, he wasnt all that great at first but something in him changed in 85-86 being 2nd in the MVP and after the duel vs Bird, it seemed he might be truly historic. But somewhere along the way people forgot about him. Im not sure I understand why, his career in the 90's lacked the same luster, and was probably lesser than Reggies. Plus Nique wasnt really one dimensional, he was a far superior rebounder, and could help his team in ways outside of shooting.

MajorFloridaFan
08-12-2009, 07:55 PM
1. Karl Malone
2. Elgin Baylor
3. Charles Barkley
4. Patrick Ewing
5. John Stockton

good list

stawka
08-12-2009, 07:56 PM
Take out Webber and put in Gary Payton

Payton won with the Heat

ARMIN12NBA
08-12-2009, 08:03 PM
Take out Webber and put in Gary Payton

Payton won a championship.

BkOriginalOne
08-12-2009, 08:04 PM
Karl Malone
Reggie Miller
John Stockton
Patrick Ewing
Charles Barkley

Honarble Mention. Allen Iverson, Steve Nash (C'mon, 2time MVP), Dirk, Lebron James

Draco
08-12-2009, 08:06 PM
Nique was a late bloomer, he wasnt all that great at first but something in him changed in 85-86 being 2nd in the MVP and after the duel vs Bird, it seemed he might be truly historic. But somewhere along the way people forgot about him. Im not sure I understand why, his career in the 90's lacked the same luster, and was probably lesser than Reggies. Plus Nique wasnt really one dimensional, he was a far superior rebounder, and could help his team in ways outside of shooting.

Lack of playoff success.. his Hawks never got past the 2nd round.

Chronz
08-12-2009, 08:20 PM
neither was able to carry a team, so I take the one who wins it with a minute to go. I guess that is the easiest way to put it for me.
You cant just clump them into a group like that man, there are different levels to which a player can elevate his teams performance. Its not like there are only 2 or 3 guys in the league who can carry their teams, and then the rest of the league is in the same group. The tiers to which both were at was still substantially more impressive in Ewings case.

Earlier you mentioned the fact that it was a center driven league, well how does that help Ewing stand out if his peers are all better than your average SG, a position of which Miller wasnt even perceived to dominate during his prime?

Its interesting how similarly dysfunctional their careers began and how their additions didnt change much at first but every example points to Ewing having a greater impact. Both were drafted to bad teams, both teams actually lost more games the year they added them. Indiana even made the playoffs the year before, but they were pretty much the same team regardless. Their eWins and overall efficiency on either ends wasnt very different.

In Ewings case though the teams core was radically altered by the departure of Bernard King, who even at that age contributed alot for the team. They were basically the equivalent of a -15win team. He basically was their offense, but provided little defensively. With Ewings addition the offense sank (Tends to happen when you replace efficient possessions from Bernard, with less efficient possessions from Ewing). But where Ewing made his presence felt was defensively. The teams defensive ranking jumped from the cellar to the top 5. That alone represents a level of impact that Reggie couldnt possibly match.

That was their developmental years though, neither teams were really good, but as both players grew their teams record improved with it. The trend remains the same however, Ewing does abit more. Its where I got my theories from, I havent really looked at it in full detail, but its obvious enough not to, atleast before today.

Ill post what I find late, if I get around to it.

Chronz
08-12-2009, 08:21 PM
Payton won with the Heat

barely

Hawkeye15
08-12-2009, 08:36 PM
You cant just clump them into a group like that man, there are different levels to which a player can elevate his teams performance. Its not like there are only 2 or 3 guys in the league who can carry their teams, and then the rest of the league is in the same group. The tiers to which both were at was still substantially more impressive in Ewings case.

Earlier you mentioned the fact that it was a center driven league, well how does that help Ewing stand out if his peers are all better than your average SG, a position of which Miller wasnt even perceived to dominate during his prime?

Its interesting how similarly dysfunctional their careers began and how their additions didnt change much at first but every example points to Ewing having a greater impact. Both were drafted to bad teams, both teams actually lost more games the year they added them. Indiana even made the playoffs the year before, but they were pretty much the same team regardless. Their eWins and overall efficiency on either ends wasnt very different.

In Ewings case though the teams core was radically altered by the departure of Bernard King, who even at that age contributed alot for the team. They were basically the equivalent of a -15win team. He basically was their offense, but provided little defensively. With Ewings addition the offense sank (Tends to happen when you replace efficient possessions from Bernard, with less efficient possessions from Ewing). But where Ewing made his presence felt was defensively. The teams defensive ranking jumped from the cellar to the top 5. That alone represents a level of impact that Reggie couldnt possibly match.

That was their developmental years though, neither teams were really good, but as both players grew their teams record improved with it. The trend remains the same however, Ewing does abit more. Its where I got my theories from, I havent really looked at it in full detail, but its obvious enough not to, atleast before today.

Ill post what I find late, if I get around to it.

The Knicks got Ewing due to Bernard Kings injury. They were a good team prior to that. And I don't take anything away from his defensive ability. Lets drop Miller out, period. He isn't a top 5 player of all time that didn't win a ring, I just didn't feel like looking into it, it was a blanket call.
Ewing, presented absolutely no wins his first 2 years, despite winning ROY, and changing the so called culture. When Pitino took over, and they drafted Mark Jackson, a top 5 assist man of all time, they took off. They then decided to change their identity, and become a tough, no holds barred team, trading for Oakley, from Chicago, and giving up Bill Cartwright in the process. Thru transition, Riley came in, then blah, blah, blah, and the roster was molded into a tough roster. They played great defense, and Ewing was given the tab of the anchor of that, even though he was not.
My point is, I understand there are all sorts of ways to take a game over. KG is my favorite player ever, and I don't trust him with 1 minute to go, down 2. But Ewing choked at nearly every opportunity he was given to do great things on the biggest stage. I don't care what his efficiency was.
And as far as Wilkins, I agree, that he took himself individually to the next level in 1987. He did not however, improve his team. He was a selfish scorer, who only pretended to play defense. Not that he was concerned with only numbers, but he was concerned with winning his matchup, not the game many nights.

Chronz
08-12-2009, 10:51 PM
The Knicks got Ewing due to Bernard Kings injury. They were a good team prior to that.
Exactly prior to him leaving. The point of my comparison is to show the quality of teammates and impact their additions had on their teams during their developmental seasons. The fact that Ewing never played with Bernard King, even a washed up version is why his addition added more to the team than Reggie did his. The mere fact that they lost a player of his caliber and remained the same was a credit to Ewing. Not to his offensive game because at that stage it was trash (Offensive RTG 99) and the switch in go2 scorers was that they became the worst offensive team in the league, that was what held them back. But the improvement from a bad defensive to a top defensive team meant the dropoff offensively didnt hurt them. That was intended to show Ewings defensive influence. As his offensive game improved rapidly over the next few seasons, the Knicks did as well.

Its like when Al Jefferson got to the Wolves and lost more games the next year, his addition didnt outweigh the loss of KG and nor should it. But you wouldnt say he didnt improve the team would you?


And I don't take anything away from his defensive ability. Lets drop Miller out, period. He isn't a top 5 player of all time that didn't win a ring, I just didn't feel like looking into it, it was a blanket call.
Very well but I gotta say I never looked Reggie up, hes better than his awards say he is, I gotta look up who took his spots on the NBA Teams/All-Star Games.


Ewing, presented absolutely no wins his first 2 years, despite winning ROY, and changing the so called culture. When Pitino took over, and they drafted Mark Jackson, a top 5 assist man of all time, they took off. They then decided to change their identity, and become a tough, no holds barred team, trading for Oakley, from Chicago, and giving up Bill Cartwright in the process. Thru transition, Riley came in, then blah, blah, blah, and the roster was molded into a tough roster.
Yea I agree, the point wasnt to portray him as a success, I have several old posts where I bash the guy and say people overrated him early in his career. Im with you on that, just that in comparison to Reggie his addition had a greater influence. In year 2 however, they got this insane idea of taking Ewing out of his natural position and trying the twin towers experiment. When they went back to the conventional methods and Ewing was healthy the teams defense remained solid.



They played great defense, and Ewing was given the tab of the anchor of that, even though he was not.

If he wasnt then who was? Its not like he got a ton of credit for it either, he didnt make to many defensive teams.


My point is, I understand there are all sorts of ways to take a game over. KG is my favorite player ever, and I don't trust him with 1 minute to go, down 2. But Ewing choked at nearly every opportunity he was given to do great things on the biggest stage. I don't care what his efficiency was.
Id rather have a player who can get me there and choke, than a player who cant get me there unless he has a ton of help, because in such a case Ewing may not have needed to be put in that scenario, just like KG didnt to win a title. And why wouldnt you care about his efficiency, Reggie is probably the most efficient player of all time. If anything its the sole thing he has in his favor.



And as far as Wilkins, I agree, that he took himself individually to the next level in 1987. He did not however, improve his team.
What exactly are you basing this theory on?


He was a selfish scorer, who only pretended to play defense. Not that he was concerned with only numbers, but he was concerned with winning his matchup, not the game many nights.

He may have been selfish but I dont see how you could say it wasnt with the intent to win the game.

Toenail Clipper
08-13-2009, 12:09 AM
Nash Iverson Nowitzki Carter McGrady :P

Jumba
08-13-2009, 12:35 AM
webber in his prime was better than stockton, nash, pete, and gervin.

if stockton was as great as people think and malone was too then howcome in their like 100 years together couldnt even get 1 title? even in the years mj stopped playing?? oh n shaq n kobe were the only great players on their 3 titles in a row team.. so if stockton n malone were as good or even ALMOST as good like some think then y couldnt they atleast get one

Honestly... What? Webber being compared to a bunch of Point Guards? And for Stockton and Malone's defense they were both at the end of their careers. I mean look at Malone when he played for the Lakers (His biggest mistake). He rarely played, injury's caught up to him. I mean really, Stockton was at least 36-37. 19 long seasons. Only like 22 missed games. They were both beat. The team was rebuilding. They spent so much on trying to beat Jordan, and were the only team in the league for at least 3 seasons that could have done it. It was poor timing.

Chronz
08-13-2009, 01:50 AM
What impresses me most about Stockton and Malone is the fact that they could stay so effective for so long, in any type of offensive pace. Offensive first, defensively. They were just never good enough to win though. They had their shots, but MJ was that good.

Speaking of the Jazz, Adrian Dantley was better than Reggie Miller.

stawka
08-13-2009, 05:51 AM
You would have a valid case if we were saying "Michael Doleac" or one of those bums, but Payton actually came up with a couple of big shots in that Finals series. His veteran shots fell through when it counted, so as much as he was the 5th, 6th, 7th or whatever option on that team, he made a couple of massive shots that were needed.


barely

Reddd
08-13-2009, 06:31 AM
Malone/Stockton
Miller
Bakrley
Ewing
Gervin
Honorable mentions:Penny Hardaway, Baylor, Dominique Wilkins

mrblisterdundee
08-13-2009, 01:26 PM
wow...big homers here. You'd rather have chris webber over a Tim Duncan or Charles Barkley? LOL

Tim Duncan and Charles Barkley were never great leaders, whereas Chris Webber always led his team. Duncan is consistent, but Webber is more dominant player. Barkley wasn't in good enough shape to ever take a team all the way. It took multiple referees being payed off to stop Webber from getting to the finals.

Hawkeye15
08-13-2009, 01:56 PM
Exactly prior to him leaving. The point of my comparison is to show the quality of teammates and impact their additions had on their teams during their developmental seasons. The fact that Ewing never played with Bernard King, even a washed up version is why his addition added more to the team than Reggie did his. The mere fact that they lost a player of his caliber and remained the same was a credit to Ewing. Not to his offensive game because at that stage it was trash (Offensive RTG 99) and the switch in go2 scorers was that they became the worst offensive team in the league, that was what held them back. But the improvement from a bad defensive to a top defensive team meant the dropoff offensively didnt hurt them. That was intended to show Ewings defensive influence. As his offensive game improved rapidly over the next few seasons, the Knicks did as well.

Its like when Al Jefferson got to the Wolves and lost more games the next year, his addition didnt outweigh the loss of KG and nor should it. But you wouldnt say he didnt improve the team would you?


Very well but I gotta say I never looked Reggie up, hes better than his awards say he is, I gotta look up who took his spots on the NBA Teams/All-Star Games.


Yea I agree, the point wasnt to portray him as a success, I have several old posts where I bash the guy and say people overrated him early in his career. Im with you on that, just that in comparison to Reggie his addition had a greater influence. In year 2 however, they got this insane idea of taking Ewing out of his natural position and trying the twin towers experiment. When they went back to the conventional methods and Ewing was healthy the teams defense remained solid.



If he wasnt then who was? Its not like he got a ton of credit for it either, he didnt make to many defensive teams.


Id rather have a player who can get me there and choke, than a player who cant get me there unless he has a ton of help, because in such a case Ewing may not have needed to be put in that scenario, just like KG didnt to win a title. And why wouldnt you care about his efficiency, Reggie is probably the most efficient player of all time. If anything its the sole thing he has in his favor.



What exactly are you basing this theory on?


He may have been selfish but I dont see how you could say it wasnt with the intent to win the game.


dude, I like debating you, for sure. You actually know what you are talking about almost all the time. However, I am moving on, cause I don't care for either Ewing or Miller THAT much, haha.
We have differenct opinions on them. That's all.
As far as Wilkins, he was nothing more than a great scorer who lived on ESPN highlights. A dynamic Alex English