PDA

View Full Version : PSD's Official #33 Player of All Time



mightybosstone
09-30-2014, 11:50 PM
Voting for #32 has concluded and PSD's Official #32 NBA Player of all time is....

C Willis Reed!!!!

The List:

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sho...7#post28837457

Again, I have yet to see anyone make any suggestions for new candidates recently, so I'm just going to keep posting the same guys from previous polls. Let me know if you want someone added and I'll try to add them the next time around.

I'm going to do everything in my power to keep this thing going and get it completed at or near the start of the season, but I need you guys to help me out. PLEASE keep voting and posting in these threads. If the votes and the activity keep dwindling, I will just let this thing burn out and die. It's not worth doing this if we're not going to get a decent sample size on these votes, and the last vote was pathetic.

Let's get to arguing, gentlemen!

mightybosstone
09-30-2014, 11:52 PM
I want to see some discussion going before officially voting, but I'm town between Kevin Durant, Kevin McHale and Bill Walton.

MODS PLEASE STICKY.

Chronz
10-01-2014, 01:33 AM
**** it. I'm going straight to peak ability at this point.

Durant dominated an entire regular season in ways we haven't seen save legit goat members. McHale gets my next vote

Chronz
10-01-2014, 12:58 PM
Don't feel that durant is as good as his numbers. Pretty sure he's only good numbers because he shoots alot.

What kind of a player would he be with 10 shots a game. I doubt he'd even score 12 points because he usually takes alot of shots to get into rhythm.
Also I don't see him rebound or do other things when he's not shooting.
Describing Durant as a volume shooter when hes the most efficient scoring machine we've ever seen is hard to take seriously. He shoots alot because he can get QUALITY shots off almost effortlessly. Not buying the rhythm argument. If he were in say, James Harden's role as a 6th man, I have no doubt he would be even more efficient carrying a smaller burden.


Nominate Elvin Hayes for the 18th time
Is someone trying to keep him off the voting?

He's only 8th in all time scoring and 4th in rebounds.
Also is ranked as a top 10 all time defensive player.
Went to two Finals and won one.
is a 12 time NBA All Star.

Most durable player in NBA history.

averaged 22,13, and 3 blocks for his career.
Those are Shaq numbers.
Led the NBA in scoring once and led the NBA in rebounds 2 times.


Also Bob McAdoo should be on the list already for a while now.
Wasn't Hayes in 3 Finals? I know he cost his team several times and that even in victory, NOBODY wanted to vote him as the F.MVP because of how much he shrank in pivotal moments. IIRC, his team won a few games while he was on the bench in foul trouble and his team lost many games because he went ghost when it mattered most. And no, he did not post up Shaq numbers, unless your interpretation of numbers are completely outdated.

He and McAdoo are a great debate, Elvin has a ring, but given how they carried their teams, I think I might go with McAdoo. They should be coming up soon, just not before a guy like Durant/McHale.

KnicksorBust
10-01-2014, 06:58 PM
Bill Walton

KnicksorBust
10-02-2014, 12:52 PM
Walton was the best player in the world 76-77 and carried his team to a dominating record and an NBA Finals. He is also an elite 2-way player who could do everything that you would want a true center to do. Love him as the choice here.

KnicksorBust
10-02-2014, 12:52 PM
Durant doesn't have the post-season chops to stack up to Walton.

Chronz
10-02-2014, 01:56 PM
As foolish as it may be to debate someone whos just going to get banned anyways, I saw wat he wrote and it was most amusing....(I picture the most pompous *** saying that too)...

Did you guys really have to delete everything tho? I mean my eyes lit up when I saw what he wrote, it was like x-mas. Trash talk aside, the dude is criticizing Durant's versatility and efficiency all while propping up a single minded chucker like Hayes. The same Elvin Hayes who famously told Tex Winter to not expect him to pass the ball. And datbannedguy has the gall to call me out? LMFAO, plz allow it mods. The guy should have his words on record for all to mock. A post we can all point to for future reference, cuz you know hes just gonna come back and recycle the same garbage all over again anyways.


So back to the hidden debate, Hayes is most definitely not coming up as a Top-40 player on my list. dat banned guy said something about posting his Finals stats, this after I corrected him on how many Finals Hayes has actually participated in (Nothing on that huh dbg, and Im the one who talks out his bum lol).

Well, Ill do him one better. Numbers+Context=Fun








Finals Appearance #1

Heavily Favored Bullets vs 1-Man Wrecking Crew aka Warriors. The results? Hayes and the Bullets get swept, with Elvin being a no show in every 4th quarter and shooting a middling 41% for the series overall (this with a decline in his scoring rate to go with it) all while being covered by an undersized wing.

Most memorable moments:
G.1 Bullets go up big in the 3rd, Hayes has a good game (29&16 on 13-29), tho he does miss a key free throw down the stretch.

G.2 is decided by a single point, Hayes scores 15PTS
G.4 is decided by a single point, Hayes scores 15PTS and fouls out.


You could argue Hayes was detrimental to the team during tight stretches. For example, a close contest in G2 turned into an 8PT lead in part because of the goaltend + ensuing technical foul from arguing said g.t.
Bullets stay in the game but Hayes goes ghost and eventually gets benched for shooting 3/14. They put in a rookie over him ffs. Could you ever envision a situation where a team doesn't want Durant playing.... ever? Anyways, Washington takes the lead with Elvin on the bench, and then falls behind 1pt after some clutch ft's from Barry. Bullets insert "E" for the final possession, they miss the shot but Elvin comes away with the offensive rebound, and instead of going up with it, the guy takes a few steps back and shoots a jumper that barely grazed iron and probably wouldn't have counted if it did fall.



Per game Averages: 20.8PPG - 10.8REB - 1.8AST (.416FG% - 68FT%) with him coming up weak in close games, getting benched in others and playing his best in the blowout game. This series stands out because E was essentially contained by a slender SF in Jamaal Wilkes.








Finals Appearance #2 - Listless in victory - Hayes gets his ring but there were 2 pivotal games that the team won with him watching from the sidelines (G4+G7). In his defense, the reasons he fouled out were absolutely bogus calls.
Leading up to that G7, Hayes had scored 133 PTS through 6 games but only 12 of them came in the 4th quarter. For his finale, he scores 12PTS before fouling out with 8 left to play. His so-so performance left the voters no choice but to scramble to award the F.MVP to anyone other than him. It was down to Dandridge and Unseld, I forget the reasons/controversy but they chose Unseld for sentimental reasons IIRC.



Per game Averages: 20.7PPG - 11.9REB - 1.4AST (.480FG% - 66FT%) - He played great enough to have this series held in fairly high regard and it cements his place in History, but its telling that arguably his greatest accomplishment was not without serious blemishes. Then we get to his other Finals loss....






Finals Appearance #3 - The Rematch - I dont know which Finals "E" performed worse in, this one or his first. His numbers were worse here but Seattle was the best defensive team in the league and it somewhat exonerates his inefficiency. Still, the guy was getting shut out in 4th quarters.

G.1 Hayes goes 6-16 (14PTS) as his team wins its only game of the series
G.3 Hayes goes 5-20 (19PTS) in defeat.
G.4 Game goes into OT, Hayes scores 18 PTS on 5 of 13.

Per game Averages: 20.0PPG - 11.8REB - 1.2AST (.396FG% - 64FT%) - Yikes....







And this is just his FINALS career. There are other blemishes to consider, like his G.7 performance during the 74 playoffs vs a rival Knicks squad. He had 15PTS on 5-15 and was repeatedly asking to be taken out of the game, people thought he was hurt, but no, Elvin admits asking for the benching because of his struggles. Dude outright quit on himself.




So on 1 hand, we have Hayes, a great player in his own right, just not the teammate that Durant is. Durant emotionally lifted his team with his MVP speech (IMO) whereas Hayes could be borderline cancerous, his teammates compared being with him to Chinese Water torture. Others just didn't like his cantankerous attitude towards team building (like when he allegedly got mad that black players were hanging out at coffee shops with white players). You're talking about a guy who throws the teams heart and soul under the bus, the guy who once said he would rather win a scoring title than be ROY/MVP. A guy who drew the ire of multiple HOF coaches. I mean what debate is there? Nothing, you trash PSD for not having him nominated yet ur arguments have been reliant on pitiful counting stats. Ur statistical grasp isn't long enough to convince anyone and u definitely havent watched much of him given the mistakes you've made......


Again, there are no Shaq numbers, there were some deep character issues, his D was inconsistent, in fact, during his prolific days in Houston he was a downright undersized liability at center. Tex vowed to move him to forward to make room for a true rim protector (To E's credit, he was MUCH better defensively at the 4). And while he did win, it wasn't in impressive enough fashion to overtake all those who remain here. Top 50 for sure, we're just not there yet. Hayes is one of the leagues most interesting characters tho.

Chronz
10-02-2014, 01:58 PM
Walton was the best player in the world 76-77 and carried his team to a dominating record and an NBA Finals. He is also an elite 2-way player who could do everything that you would want a true center to do. Love him as the choice here.
Im all for going with PEAK ability at this point. Longevity should play less and less of an issue the deeper we get IMO. Im just not ready to go against longevity to that degree. I would honestly take several years of prime McHale than that 1 season from Walton.

Chronz
10-02-2014, 02:04 PM
Post his Finals stats? Were we suppose to be impressed with that banned guy? Stick to raw counting stats before getting so intricate. LMFAO

mightybosstone
10-02-2014, 07:31 PM
Wow.... Allen Iverson is actually leading this thing. If he goes this early in the process, I may just stop this thing altogether. I don't to live in a world where Allen Iverson is the 33rd greatest player of All-time. I'm still torn between Durant, McHale and Walton, but I think I'm leaning toward Durant. McHale and Walton were better defensive players, but they never had a season as good as Durant had last year. Durant's peak just crushes their peaks, and if Westbrook and Ibaka don't get hurt in the last two postseasons, it's quite possible the guy would already have titles.

Seriously, though, I don't care who people vote for, but for the love of God, don't vote for Allen ****ing Iverson. The guy has absolutely no business going in the top 40, much less 33rd.

mightybosstone
10-03-2014, 09:25 AM
To strengthen the case for Durant, here's his overall resume:

27/7/4/1/1 guy on .479/.377/.882 shooting percentages
4th in career PPG
18th in career TS% (60.0%)
13th in career PER (24.5)
19th in career WS/48 (.205)
80th in career OWS and 110th in career WS (despite playing only seven seasons)
4 scoring titles in 5 years
5 consecutive All-NBA first selections (in seven years)
5 consecutive top 5 finishes in MVP voting, including runner ups in '10, '12 and '13
2013-14 NBA MVP

There is not a player left that has a peak that good.

valade16
10-03-2014, 09:33 AM
Do people think McHale could be a legitimate #1 on a championship-caliber team?

Darren Farris
10-03-2014, 01:45 PM
As foolish as it may be to debate someone whos just going to get banned anyways, I saw wat he wrote and it was most amusing....(I picture the most pompous *** saying that too)...

Did you guys really have to delete everything tho? I mean my eyes lit up when I saw what he wrote, it was like x-mas. Trash talk aside, the dude is criticizing Durant's versatility and efficiency all while propping up a single minded chucker like Hayes. The same Elvin Hayes who famously told Tex Winter to not expect him to pass the ball. And datbannedguy has the gall to call me out? LMFAO, plz allow it mods. The guy should have his words on record for all to mock. A post we can all point to for future reference, cuz you know hes just gonna come back and recycle the same garbage all over again anyways.


So back to the hidden debate, Hayes is most definitely not coming up as a Top-40 player on my list. dat banned guy said something about posting his Finals stats, this after I corrected him on how many Finals Hayes has actually participated in (Nothing on that huh dbg, and Im the one who talks out his bum lol).

Well, Ill do him one better. Numbers+Context=Fun








Finals Appearance #1

Heavily Favored Bullets vs 1-Man Wrecking Crew aka Warriors. The results? Hayes and the Bullets get swept, with Elvin being a no show in every 4th quarter and shooting a middling 41% for the series overall (this with a decline in his scoring rate to go with it) all while being covered by an undersized wing.

Most memorable moments:
G.1 Bullets go up big in the 3rd, Hayes has a good game (29&16 on 13-29), tho he does miss a key free throw down the stretch.

G.2 is decided by a single point, Hayes scores 15PTS
G.4 is decided by a single point, Hayes scores 15PTS and fouls out.


You could argue Hayes was detrimental to the team during tight stretches. For example, a close contest in G2 turned into an 8PT lead in part because of the goaltend + ensuing technical foul from arguing said g.t.
Bullets stay in the game but Hayes goes ghost and eventually gets benched for shooting 3/14. They put in a rookie over him ffs. Could you ever envision a situation where a team doesn't want Durant playing.... ever? Anyways, Washington takes the lead with Elvin on the bench, and then falls behind 1pt after some clutch ft's from Barry. Bullets insert "E" for the final possession, they miss the shot but Elvin comes away with the offensive rebound, and instead of going up with it, the guy takes a few steps back and shoots a jumper that barely grazed iron and probably wouldn't have counted if it did fall.



Per game Averages: 20.8PPG - 10.8REB - 1.8AST (.416FG% - 68FT%) with him coming up weak in close games, getting benched in others and playing his best in the blowout game. This series stands out because E was essentially contained by a slender SF in Jamaal Wilkes.








Finals Appearance #2 - Listless in victory - Hayes gets his ring but there were 2 pivotal games that the team won with him watching from the sidelines (G4+G7). In his defense, the reasons he fouled out were absolutely bogus calls.
Leading up to that G7, Hayes had scored 133 PTS through 6 games but only 12 of them came in the 4th quarter. For his finale, he scores 12PTS before fouling out with 8 left to play. His so-so performance left the voters no choice but to scramble to award the F.MVP to anyone other than him. It was down to Dandridge and Unseld, I forget the reasons/controversy but they chose Unseld for sentimental reasons IIRC.



Per game Averages: 20.7PPG - 11.9REB - 1.4AST (.480FG% - 66FT%) - He played great enough to have this series held in fairly high regard and it cements his place in History, but its telling that arguably his greatest accomplishment was not without serious blemishes. Then we get to his other Finals loss....






Finals Appearance #3 - The Rematch - I dont know which Finals "E" performed worse in, this one or his first. His numbers were worse here but Seattle was the best defensive team in the league and it somewhat exonerates his inefficiency. Still, the guy was getting shut out in 4th quarters.

G.1 Hayes goes 6-16 (14PTS) as his team wins its only game of the series
G.3 Hayes goes 5-20 (19PTS) in defeat.
G.4 Game goes into OT, Hayes scores 18 PTS on 5 of 13.

Per game Averages: 20.0PPG - 11.8REB - 1.2AST (.396FG% - 64FT%) - Yikes....







And this is just his FINALS career. There are other blemishes to consider, like his G.7 performance during the 74 playoffs vs a rival Knicks squad. He had 15PTS on 5-15 and was repeatedly asking to be taken out of the game, people thought he was hurt, but no, Elvin admits asking for the benching because of his struggles. Dude outright quit on himself.




So on 1 hand, we have Hayes, a great player in his own right, just not the teammate that Durant is. Durant emotionally lifted his team with his MVP speech (IMO) whereas Hayes could be borderline cancerous, his teammates compared being with him to Chinese Water torture. Others just didn't like his cantankerous attitude towards team building (like when he allegedly got mad that black players were hanging out at coffee shops with white players). You're talking about a guy who throws the teams heart and soul under the bus, the guy who once said he would rather win a scoring title than be ROY/MVP. A guy who drew the ire of multiple HOF coaches. I mean what debate is there? Nothing, you trash PSD for not having him nominated yet ur arguments have been reliant on pitiful counting stats. Ur statistical grasp isn't long enough to convince anyone and u definitely havent watched much of him given the mistakes you've made......


Again, there are no Shaq numbers, there were some deep character issues, his D was inconsistent, in fact, during his prolific days in Houston he was a downright undersized liability at center. Tex vowed to move him to forward to make room for a true rim protector (To E's credit, he was MUCH better defensively at the 4). And while he did win, it wasn't in impressive enough fashion to overtake all those who remain here. Top 50 for sure, we're just not there yet. Hayes is one of the leagues most interesting characters tho.


Hate much bro?

sixers247
10-03-2014, 02:12 PM
Hate much bro?

Dupe much brah?

Chronz
10-03-2014, 03:47 PM
Hate much bro?

Hate on who? I love Hayes and I dont even know u

b@llhog24
10-03-2014, 07:40 PM
Ai.

xbrackattackx
10-03-2014, 08:55 PM
I gotta go Morrison here. He has the rings and his peak stats are 50% 2 pt 42% 3 pt and 79%. Ft.

todu82
10-03-2014, 09:18 PM
Walton

NYKalltheway
10-05-2014, 09:57 AM
Durant? Seriously?

mightybosstone
10-05-2014, 10:42 AM
Durant? Seriously?

Surprise, surprise. You don't like a player that's currently in the league....Can you name a single player left whose peak was remotely close to Durant's?

Edit: I just realized you didn't even vote in the thread. If you don't vote and don't state your case in the thread, then you have no right to complain when a player you don't support wins that poll.

NYKalltheway
10-05-2014, 11:11 AM
State "my case" to whom? To people who already have their minds set and the only thing that moves them is a bunch of numbers? The fact that only 16 people voted should show you that something is done wrong here.

And I'm generally not voting in these things (might have casted a vote in 6-7 of these, not sure) is because I don't want to be a part of this travesty that you call an all time list. You may enjoy your list.

Chronz
10-05-2014, 11:15 AM
Yes, Durant is definitely a better choice than AI.

mightybosstone
10-05-2014, 11:26 AM
State "my case" to whom? To people who already have their minds set and the only thing that moves them is a bunch of numbers? The fact that only 16 people voted should show you that something is done wrong here.

And I'm generally not voting in these things (might have casted a vote in 6-7 of these, not sure) is because I don't want to be a part of this travesty that you call an all time list. You may enjoy your list.

That's pathetic. You don't vote in these hardly ever and yet you spend an insane amount of time criticizing the list and its players. Yet most of your criticisms are completely baseless and your arguments have no fact or data to support them. You remind me of so many people I know who refuse to vote in elections because they're too lazy and are completely ignorant, but then sit around and complain about the government and the people who represent them.

My motto is that if you don't participate in the voting process, don't say anything. Because you're partially to blame for why things didn't turn out the way you wanted them to. :shrug:

NYKalltheway
10-05-2014, 06:53 PM
That would have been a great example in another sort of discussion but unfortunately it doesn't apply here.

What could apply here is looking at the blue sky, while the majority is arguing whether the clouds that will show up the next day are gray or white. I'm the guy telling you to look at the sky. So I won't comment on whether the future clouds will be gray or white as it's redundant and doesn't make any sense given that the discussion is talking about the clear day. Awkward example, I know, but this one actually applies :)


Yes, Durant is definitely a better choice than AI.

Was he a better choice than McHale, Walton, Gervin, Cousy, Hayes, Mikan(when is this guy gonna get any love?), Gilmore, Kidd, Worthy, Nique, Payton, McAdoo, Tiny Archibald, Cunningham, Hal Greer, Jerry Lucas, Maravich (yes, him, insanely underrated here), Tmac(another underrated guy here who Durant has nothing on yet and won't have nothing on if he has the same luck in injuries), Schayes, Wilkens, Unseld, Sam Jones, Cowens, Arizin and a few other guys?

mightybosstone
10-05-2014, 07:48 PM
That would have been a great example in another sort of discussion but unfortunately it doesn't apply here.

What could apply here is looking at the blue sky, while the majority is arguing whether the clouds that will show up the next day are gray or white. I'm the guy telling you to look at the sky. So I won't comment on whether the future clouds will be gray or white as it's redundant and doesn't make any sense given that the discussion is talking about the clear day. Awkward example, I know, but this one actually applies :)
Actually, no, my analogy actually applies and was something that actually makes sense and is used a lot in normal conversations. I've never heard your analogy before in my entire life, and it's completely nonsensical.


Was he a better choice than McHale, Walton, Gervin, Cousy, Hayes, Mikan(when is this guy gonna get any love?), Gilmore, Kidd, Worthy, Nique, Payton, McAdoo, Tiny Archibald, Cunningham, Hal Greer, Jerry Lucas, Maravich (yes, him, insanely underrated here), Tmac(another underrated guy here who Durant has nothing on yet and won't have nothing on if he has the same luck in injuries), Schayes, Wilkens, Unseld, Sam Jones, Cowens, Arizin and a few other guys?
Yes. None of those players were better than Durant has been for the first seven seasons of his career. You could make a case for Walton and Mikan, but Walton's peak was insanely short and Mikan gets huge points taken off for playing in a vastly white league and in an era without a shot clock.

If you want to make a case for someone else, how about actually doing it instead of just complaining after the vote is already over? What good does that do and what purposes does that serve?

NYKalltheway
10-06-2014, 06:24 PM
Aand Mikan gets huge points taken off for playing in a vastly white league and in an era without a shot clock.


White league? First of all, you keep using this argument a lot. Was basketball popular among any other ethnic groups in the USA during the time btw? Is there a guarantee that non-white players would have been successful if they were the majority? Second, was Mikan not white himself? I don't get how this is an argument. Makes it sound as if whites can't play basketball. I'm sure Larry Bird, John Stockton, Jerry West and lots of others agree.

As for my analogy, a) there's always a first time b) analogies are analogies and not poems or whatever because you can instantly make one up to prove a point and c) if someone tried to explain to you what you're trying to prove and what you're actually proving before myself, at an earlier age, we wouldn't be having this conversation :D

mightybosstone
10-06-2014, 06:34 PM
White league? First of all, you keep using this argument a lot. Was basketball popular among any other ethnic groups in the USA during the time btw? Is there a guarantee that non-white players would have been successful if they were the majority? Second, was Mikan not white himself? I don't get how this is an argument. Makes it sound as if whites can't play basketball. I'm sure Larry Bird, John Stockton, Jerry West and lots of others agree.
More than anything, the important thing to take away from what I was saying is that they played in a league without a shot clock. It was a different game back then played very differently. But, yes, the lack of black athletes seriously hindered the talent of the sport back then. It's not racism, it's just a statistical fact. If you were to look at the current demographics of the NBA, I'm willing to bet that 70-80 percent of players are black compared to a league in the 50s where probably less than 10 percent of the players were black.

And if you think the league was remotely as talented in the 50s as it is today, then I don't really have any other arguments for you, because you're too crazy to debate with in the first place.


As for my analogy, a) there's always a first time b) analogies are analogies and not poems or whatever because you can instantly make one up to prove a point and c) if someone tried to explain to you what you're trying to prove and what you're actually proving before myself, at an earlier age, we wouldn't be having this conversation :D
(A) It didn't even make sense.
(B) Except you didn't make your point and I had to read over it multiple times, and still don't understand it.
(C) Hell, I don't even understand what this sentence is trying to say. I know you're Greek and English probably isn't your first language so I'm going to let this slide. But sometimes the things you write make no sense and the sentences are poorly structured. You've got to work on that, dude.

Chronz
10-06-2014, 10:16 PM
That would have been a great example in another sort of discussion but unfortunately it doesn't apply here.

What could apply here is looking at the blue sky, while the majority is arguing whether the clouds that will show up the next day are gray or white. I'm the guy telling you to look at the sky. So I won't comment on whether the future clouds will be gray or white as it's redundant and doesn't make any sense given that the discussion is talking about the clear day. Awkward example, I know, but this one actually applies :)



Was he a better choice than McHale, Walton, Gervin, Cousy, Hayes, Mikan(when is this guy gonna get any love?), Gilmore, Kidd, Worthy, Nique, Payton, McAdoo, Tiny Archibald, Cunningham, Hal Greer, Jerry Lucas, Maravich (yes, him, insanely underrated here), Tmac(another underrated guy here who Durant has nothing on yet and won't have nothing on if he has the same luck in injuries), Schayes, Wilkens, Unseld, Sam Jones, Cowens, Arizin and a few other guys?
Totally depends on What you value but I'm glad he's in over the alternative

NYKalltheway
10-07-2014, 11:26 AM
And if you think the league was remotely as talented in the 50s as it is today, then I don't really have any other arguments for you, because you're too crazy to debate with in the first place.



I think you're confusing the word 'talent' with things that aren't related to talent. You throw the word a lot but it's mostly something you are born with. Many people are born with basketball talent but not everyone can make it. The most talented players of all time are not also the best basketball players of all time. You need the perfect mix to make it. Saying that the players in the 50s weren't talented because they were mostly white is prejudism. They had worse infrastructure, weren't professionals, didn't train daily, didn't even touch a basket ball daily, usually didn't have coaching staff, didn't really have developed tactics, strategies and other basic things. You can diss the 50s all you want, but one thing they definitely had was talent. And what you're doing is also prejudiced. Saying that their talent couldn't translate in a later era if they had all these non-talent related advantages as well.

Pick on another word, talent is not the one you're looking for.


Totally depends on What you value but I'm glad he's in over the alternative

I value and factor in almost everything. The things that I don't value and factor are the things I have no idea on (eg basketball pre-60s and other small things that could play a small role but not vital)

mightybosstone
10-07-2014, 11:40 AM
I think you're confusing the word 'talent' with things that aren't related to talent. You throw the word a lot but it's mostly something you are born with. Many people are born with basketball talent but not everyone can make it. The most talented players of all time are not also the best basketball players of all time. You need the perfect mix to make it. Saying that the players in the 50s weren't talented because they were mostly white is prejudism. They had worse infrastructure, weren't professionals, didn't train daily, didn't even touch a basket ball daily, usually didn't have coaching staff, didn't really have developed tactics, strategies and other basic things. You can diss the 50s all you want, but one thing they definitely had was talent. And what you're doing is also prejudiced. Saying that their talent couldn't translate in a later era if they had all these non-talent related advantages as well.

Pick on another word, talent is not the one you're looking for.

No, talent is exactly what I'm looking for. But there's a lot of other words you could use to explain why players today are better than players in the 50s. Bigger. Stronger. Faster. More athletic. More skilled. Better trained. Smarter. However you want to describe it, the NBA's players overall are just far better than the league's players from the 50s and 60s.

But I assure you that the word "talent" still very much applies here and it doesn't necessarily have to do with just race. Look at the NBA's lack of popularity up until the 80s when Magic and Bird helped elevate the game and its popularity. The more popular your industry or company is, the more talent you're going to attract. Great athletes can choose to play any sport, but far more top tier athletes are playing basketball today than they were in the 50s. And, yes, the lack of black athletes playing professional sports absolutely hurt the overall talent pool of professional sports back then. That's not prejudice. That's just simple fact.

Also, prejudism is not a word, chief. You're looking for "prejudice."

Chronz
10-07-2014, 02:09 PM
I value and factor in almost everything. The things that I don't value and factor are the things I have no idea on (eg basketball pre-60s and other small things that could play a small role but not vital)
You're not getting me. We can all value/factor in everything, it doesn't mean we put the same emphasis on everything.

For example, someone may value peak performance over longevity and vice versa, both evaluators have factored those aspects into the equation, they both come to different conclusions.

So again, it depends on what you value most.

NYKalltheway
10-08-2014, 07:28 PM
You're not getting me. We can all value/factor in everything, it doesn't mean we put the same emphasis on everything.

For example, someone may value peak performance over longevity and vice versa, both evaluators have factored those aspects into the equation, they both come to different conclusions.

So again, it depends on what you value most.

No I agree with this. But some don't value everything. You might value everything but the key word is 'emphasis'. Others value only the few things (or 1 thing) they emphasize on.

MBT, you're still not getting what 'talent' is if you think that players today are more talented than those in previous eras. You got some of it right. They are better trained, faster perhaps and 1-2 other minor things. But that's about it. Talent is something you have proven to me that you cannot judge. Place the guys in the 50s or 60s in this era and they'd be as well trained and as fast. That's what you don't get. That's not a basketball argument. And that's ignoring context.

mightybosstone
10-08-2014, 08:03 PM
MBT, you're still not getting what 'talent' is if you think that players today are more talented than those in previous eras. You got some of it right. They are better trained, faster perhaps and 1-2 other minor things. But that's about it. Talent is something you have proven to me that you cannot judge. Place the guys in the 50s or 60s in this era and they'd be as well trained and as fast. That's what you don't get. That's not a basketball argument. And that's ignoring context.
No sir. You're not grasping what I'm saying. But I'm pretty much done with this argument. It's completely off topic and you've gotten to the point where you're arguing semantics because you have no more legitimate basketball arguments. Hell, I think you do a better job of arguing semantics than you do NBA legacies.

In the meantime, how about moving and actually debating in the more recent threads? This discussion has become a complete waste of everyone's time and, meanwhile, we've got 16 more polls left to finish before we get to 50. Instead of dwelling on the same ****, move on and let's have some productive NBA discussion that actually gets us somewhere. :shrug:

NYKalltheway
10-09-2014, 09:26 AM
If this was a platform for productive NBA discussion I'd participate more and would have voted in all the polls. But it's a popularity contest and an ill-informed statistical measurement, it has nothing to do with basketball. You're comparing players and all you say is PER x > PER y, All-NBA 1st n > All-NBA 1st n-1 and so on. This is not basketball. This is not even barber shop basketball discussion. It's not a sports discussion.

When you wish to start talking about basketball, we can have productive NBA discussion. 30something threads so far and most have been farcical. That's the bitter truth. NBA fans don't really talk about basketball anymore. And this is my point. At least some have realized it, some have stopped voting because they got their favorite guys in, some have stopped because they don't know players before 2005 and others have stopped because the list is a travesty as I have repeatedly said.
I especially love how you guys say things like Durant should be a top 35 player and that Lebron should be a top 10 player but diss on players like Zeke and McHale...

P.S: When you copy links, make sure you right click & copy link shortcut because copy-paste cuts the link in half and it doesn't lead anywhere ;)

mightybosstone
10-09-2014, 12:56 PM
If you want a basketball discussion, have a basketball discussion. Nobody is stopping you. If you think McHale is better than Durant, just say so and explain why you think that. This isn't rocket science. It's sports discussion. But I don't see you doing that. I see you come in after the fact to ***** about every player you don't think deserves to be here. But in the 5-10 posts you've had in this thread, you haven't made a single argument for against a single player. You just stated a lot of good players and then complained about the fact that I don't take players from the 50s that seriously.

You're just being a troll at this point. If you have nothing constructive to say in these threads, just don't say anything at all. Because you're not adding anything of value to the discussion at this point, and some of us are trying to have legitimate basketball debate in here. Just because the nature of our discussions and the values we emphasize don't correspond to how you judge players doesn't make it any less relevant or important.