PDA

View Full Version : All-Time Rankings (#21)



Shammyguy3
11-03-2015, 11:59 AM
If you think someone should be added to the poll PLEASE don't ***** about it. Just mention in the thread that he should be added to the next poll and if the player's all-time standing is relatively close to the number we're at there shouldn't be a problem adding him to the poll.


So, who does everyone have?
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Tim Duncan
6. Hakeem Olajuwon
7. Lebron James
8. Magic Johnson
9. Larry Bird
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Bill Russell
12. Moses Malone
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. David Robinson
16. Julius Erving
17. Charles Barkley
18. Kevin Garnett
19. Dirk Nowitzki
20. Dwyane Wade
21. ?

Chronz
11-03-2015, 12:23 PM
Pettit has the most impressive championship run left, played a long time for his era so his longevity is up there. Hondo has the most chips, insane durability/stamina mythos and was treated like royalty when he finally retired. Not quite the 2-way guy some on here are but once the 70's began, came into his own offensively. Would only argue his prime/peak run isn't as impressive.


I think its clearly between these 2 at this point. Love to hear an argument for anyone else tho.

YAALREADYKNO
11-03-2015, 02:34 PM
I went with isiah thomas

LakersIn5
11-03-2015, 02:39 PM
Karl malone would like to say FU to all of you

KnicksorBust
11-03-2015, 10:02 PM
Pettit has the most impressive championship run left, played a long time for his era so his longevity is up there. Hondo has the most chips, insane durability/stamina mythos and was treated like royalty when he finally retired. Not quite the 2-way guy some on here are but once the 70's began, came into his own offensively. Would only argue his prime/peak run isn't as impressive.


I think its clearly between these 2 at this point. Love to hear an argument for anyone else tho.

I don't think I have ever heard you detail how u value winning (ringzzzzz) in your comparisons. Can you even quantify the value of Pettit's ring? Or Hondo's 8?

Chronz
11-04-2015, 04:16 AM
I don't think I have ever heard you detail how u value winning (ringzzzzz) in your comparisons. Can you even quantify the value of Pettit's ring? Or Hondo's 8?
In similar vein as Pippens 6.

KnicksorBust
11-04-2015, 09:05 AM
In similar vein as Pippens 6.

Killin me. How do you value Pippen's 6? And don't say similar to Hakeem's 2 or something else cryptic. :laugh:

FlashBolt
11-04-2015, 06:34 PM
Chose Stockton here. True definition of a PG and had he won a couple of rings, would be up there in terms of who the best PG is.

KnicksorBust
11-04-2015, 08:01 PM
Chose Stockton here. True definition of a PG and had he won a couple of rings, would be up there in terms of who the best PG is.

Yeah the only thing he didn't do was get to the pinnacle of his sport. Oh wait that is pretty important. It is the reason they play. Hondo won 8 rings. Led the Celtics in 74. Was a star player for them in 3 other championships. A role player for 4 championships. Could do it all. Score, rebound, pass, and defend at an elite level.

FlashBolt
11-04-2015, 08:29 PM
Yeah the only thing he didn't do was get to the pinnacle of his sport. Oh wait that is pretty important. It is the reason they play. Hondo won 8 rings. Led the Celtics in 74. Was a star player for them in 3 other championships. A role player for 4 championships. Could do it all. Score, rebound, pass, and defend at an elite level.

*Did not play vs Michael Jordan and won championships in a weak era.

I can beat my local High School team 10/10 times. Does that make me the greatest basketball player ever?

FlashBolt
11-04-2015, 08:31 PM
Yeah the only thing he didn't do was get to the pinnacle of his sport. Oh wait that is pretty important. It is the reason they play. Hondo won 8 rings. Led the Celtics in 74. Was a star player for them in 3 other championships. A role player for 4 championships. Could do it all. Score, rebound, pass, and defend at an elite level.

You just proved it to me actually. *Won 4 rings as a role player. How amazing would it be if guys could win championships being a role player..

KnicksorBust
11-05-2015, 05:52 PM
Yeah the only thing he didn't do was get to the pinnacle of his sport. Oh wait that is pretty important. It is the reason they play. Hondo won 8 rings. Led the Celtics in 74. Was a star player for them in 3 other championships. A role player for 4 championships. Could do it all. Score, rebound, pass, and defend at an elite level.

*Did not play vs Michael Jordan and won championships in a weak era.

I can beat my local High School team 10/10 times. Does that make me the greatest basketball player ever?

Hondo beat West/Baylor, Wilt, Kareem/Oscar and more to win his rings. Slightly tougher than your local HS team.

Chronz
11-06-2015, 04:27 AM
Killin me. How do you value Pippen's 6? And don't say similar to Hakeem's 2 or something else cryptic. :laugh:

Hakeem could have zero and I would still know Pippen wasn't on his level. Hope thats not too cryptic but cmon man, its a team game.

KnicksorBust
11-06-2015, 08:50 AM
Killin me. How do you value Pippen's 6? And don't say similar to Hakeem's 2 or something else cryptic. :laugh:

Hakeem could have zero and I would still know Pippen wasn't on his level. Hope thats not too cryptic but cmon man, its a team game.

A rare strawman from you. I didn't expect to play this game with you.

Obviously Pippen isn't on his level. What is maddeningly frustrating to me is trying to have this discussion with someone who is unwilling to verbalize a consistent value to success. I simply cannot see how someone can want to rank a player like John Stockton ahead of a player like John Havlicek. The entire purpose of the sport is to win championships. It is hardly the only thing but it is something. Who wins those championships and how they win those championships is critical to demonstrating how valuable a player has been to their teams. For example, statistically Karl Malone in the regular season is basically equal to Tim Duncan and superior in some measures. Yet, no one considers him better in an all-time ranking. Why? Because in that comparison people value Duncan's postseason success. Yet Stockton can be better than Havlicek? Where is the consistency?

How can 8 rings be so easily swept aside? I am not arguing Robert Horry here. I am arguing a 4x All-NBA 1st team and 7x All-NBA 2nd team player who could score, rebound, pass, and was an elite defender (8x all defensive team).

It is so easy to be vague and speak in generalities. "It is a team game." "There were less teams. "The competiton wasn't as hard." Etc. Those are all great starting points but many people use them as closing arguments. What I want to see is someone actually clarify how they value a championship. I agree that not all rings are created equal and THAT is another debate I would love to have. But what I am seeing is some people seem to make a decision that for certain people they barely count but for others they make all the difference.

Duncan - clearly better than Malone
Hondo - irrelevant

valade16
11-06-2015, 02:29 PM
If you ascribe to the idea that "not all rings are created equal" then wouldn't you have to be open to the possibility that a playoff run in which someone didn't win a ring could be more impressive than someone who did?

Specifically, if we are going to rank playoff accomplishments, are we positive that Hondo's championships are more valuable than say Stockton/Malone's 2 Finals Appearances where he lost to what is generally considered the greatest team in NBA History?

If the Jazz had played nearly anyone else (or if MJ had never come back from his first retirement) they possibly win 2 rings. Similarly, I seriously doubt Hondo's 70's Celtics could have beaten MJ's Bulls in the Finals.

So if Titles are not all created equal, I'd ask if you think a title is inherently better than a finals loss or would it be possible for a Finals loss to equal/surpass a title depending on circumstances?

KnicksorBust
11-06-2015, 05:11 PM
If you ascribe to the idea that "not all rings are created equal" then wouldn't you have to be open to the possibility that a playoff run in which someone didn't win a ring could be more impressive than someone who did?

Specifically, if we are going to rank playoff accomplishments, are we positive that Hondo's championships are more valuable than say Stockton/Malone's 2 Finals Appearances where he lost to what is generally considered the greatest team in NBA History?

If the Jazz had played nearly anyone else (or if MJ had never come back from his first retirement) they possibly win 2 rings. Similarly, I seriously doubt Hondo's 70's Celtics could have beaten MJ's Bulls in the Finals.

So if Titles are not all created equal, I'd ask if you think a title is inherently better than a finals loss or would it be possible for a Finals loss to equal/surpass a title depending on circumstances?

Great question. In my ranking it is thereotically possible that a loss in the Finals can be more valuable than a win but only in the most drastic of circumstances. For example, LeBron going supernova for the first few games of the Finals is superior to Barbosa's ring. But it would require the losing player's performance to be overwhelmingly impressive and the winning player's performance to be significantly underwhelming.

I am not sure we have either circumstance here. And this is the 2nd time someone is ignoring that Hondo beat HOF'ers like West, Baylor, Wilt, Oscar, and Kareem to get his rings.

FlashBolt
11-06-2015, 05:56 PM
Great question. In my ranking it is thereotically possible that a loss in the Finals can be more valuable than a win but only in the most drastic of circumstances. For example, LeBron going supernova for the first few games of the Finals is superior to Barbosa's ring. But it would require the losing player's performance to be overwhelmingly impressive and the winning player's performance to be significantly underwhelming.

I am not sure we have either circumstance here. And this is the 2nd time someone is ignoring that Hondo beat HOF'ers like West, Baylor, Wilt, Oscar, and Kareem to get his rings.

Are you even being remotely serious right now? Let's get back to what happened. Hondo didn't "beat" those guys. His team were drastically better. When he "beat" West, he wasn't the best player in that series and his team was much better. Wilt was way past his prime and Baylor is overrated. Look at that team Hondo had and then get back to me with a real comparison. Oscar & Kareem? Now you're just reaching. That was Oscar's last season and he was a shell of himself. So you have a guy who won rings with stacked teams and who's numbers on a pace formula is rather weak. Cool, let me know when that guy can beat Jordan.. if he can't, I can care less about those rings he won when the league was weak, in its baby stages, lacked sufficient amount of competing teams, less games played to reach the championship, etc. Hondo would get wrecked in any other generation and you know it. Stockton's game will translate in any generation.

KnicksorBust
11-06-2015, 06:08 PM
Great question. In my ranking it is thereotically possible that a loss in the Finals can be more valuable than a win but only in the most drastic of circumstances. For example, LeBron going supernova for the first few games of the Finals is superior to Barbosa's ring. But it would require the losing player's performance to be overwhelmingly impressive and the winning player's performance to be significantly underwhelming.

I am not sure we have either circumstance here. And this is the 2nd time someone is ignoring that Hondo beat HOF'ers like West, Baylor, Wilt, Oscar, and Kareem to get his rings.

Are you even being remotely serious right now? Let's get back to what happened. Hondo didn't "beat" those guys. His team were drastically better. When he "beat" West, he wasn't the best player in that series and his team was much better. Wilt was way past his prime and Baylor is overrated. Look at that team Hondo had and then get back to me with a real comparison. Oscar & Kareem? Now you're just reaching. That was Oscar's last season and he was a shell of himself. So you have a guy who won rings with stacked teams and who's numbers on a pace formula is rather weak. Cool, let me know when that guy can beat Jordan.. if he can't, I can care less about those rings he won when the league was weak, in its baby stages, lacked sufficient amount of competing teams, less games played to reach the championship, etc. Hondo would get wrecked in any other generation and you know it. Stockton's game will translate in any generation.

Read this but heading out. Look forward to responding in full.

Chronz
11-07-2015, 12:52 AM
Great question. In my ranking it is thereotically possible that a loss in the Finals can be more valuable than a win but only in the most drastic of circumstances. For example, LeBron going supernova for the first few games of the Finals is superior to Barbosa's ring. But it would require the losing player's performance to be overwhelmingly impressive and the winning player's performance to be significantly underwhelming.

I am not sure we have either circumstance here. And this is the 2nd time someone is ignoring that Hondo beat HOF'ers like West, Baylor, Wilt, Oscar, and Kareem to get his rings.

Its still about the team tho. The strength of competition is still strong, but they aren't all equally strong. Lets run down some of these series and compare them.

Chronz
11-07-2015, 01:13 AM
A rare strawman from you. I didn't expect to play this game with you.

Obviously Pippen isn't on his level. What is maddeningly frustrating to me is trying to have this discussion with someone who is unwilling to verbalize a consistent value to success. I simply cannot see how someone can want to rank a player like John Stockton ahead of a player like John Havlicek. The entire purpose of the sport is to win championships. It is hardly the only thing but it is something. Who wins those championships and how they win those championships is critical to demonstrating how valuable a player has been to their teams. For example, statistically Karl Malone in the regular season is basically equal to Tim Duncan and superior in some measures. Yet, no one considers him better in an all-time ranking. Why? Because in that comparison people value Duncan's postseason success. Yet Stockton can be better than Havlicek? Where is the consistency?

How can 8 rings be so easily swept aside? I am not arguing Robert Horry here. I am arguing a 4x All-NBA 1st team and 7x All-NBA 2nd team player who could score, rebound, pass, and was an elite defender (8x all defensive team).

It is so easy to be vague and speak in generalities. "It is a team game." "There were less teams. "The competiton wasn't as hard." Etc. Those are all great starting points but many people use them as closing arguments. What I want to see is someone actually clarify how they value a championship. I agree that not all rings are created equal and THAT is another debate I would love to have. But what I am seeing is some people seem to make a decision that for certain people they barely count but for others they make all the difference.

Duncan - clearly better than Malone
Hondo - irrelevant

Its like you said, there comes a point when the difference in talent looms so large that no amount of team success would blind you. Pippen has 6 and I think hes wildly underrated. But a guy like Grant Hill was better despite his first round losses. Now Pippen has the greater legacy, but its not blasphemous to suggest a guy like Hill (who never advanced beyond R1) was better than any version of Pippen.

Me personally, I value longevity when "ranking" players. Pippen takes the cake easily there. Peak is still very important but the breaking point comes when you simply flame out early ala Tmac. Though I will be voting for him before many of his contemporaries who have "won a title". Paul Pierce for example, great longevity but Tmac still amassed more of those individual accolades despite that and was FAR better IMO. Got more out of his teams when both were in similar situations/stages. That he was gifted KG and a stellar cast doesn't erase all those struggles he had before and during when dragging his crummy cast.


The entire purpose of the sport is to win championships. Yes, but you accomplish that as a team, doesn't matter how badly this All-NBA'er wants it, hes missing the playoffs altogether if hes surrounded by bums and not getting past superior opponents isn't as damaging as losing to inferior ones. Im not devaluing championships so much as respecting what you get out of your situation. Hondo did indeed have that 1 impressive run, but the overall campaign may not be as impressive as others. MJ is the best and he had a great squad around him, this led to a historic three-repeat in every tangible and most would agree intangible way. Hes the best for a reason and its the reason why Phil Jackson believes only 1 team could have dethroned them. It wasn't any of the teams you mentioned or will mention.

KnicksorBust
11-07-2015, 07:29 PM
Are you even being remotely serious right now?

If supporting an 11x all-nba player who won 8 rings as a top 20 player is the crazy side of the argument then we've reached a scary place.


Let's get back to what happened. Hondo didn't "beat" those guys. His team were drastically better.

This is Deflect 101. How many titles over the course of NBA History are you going to invalidate because the superior team won? To me it is the ultimate cop-out response. Look at the Warriors. Yes they were better than the Cavs. You know why? BECAUSE STEPH CURRY WAS ON THAT TEAM. Them being "better" is a compliment but instead people use it as a reason to prove that LeBron was still superior. Look he won 2 games with bad teammates! Curry only won the title in 6 games with great teammates! It sets a completely unreasonable bar of expectation. Hondo's teams didn't luck their way into 8 championships.


When he "beat" West, he wasn't the best player in that series and his team was much better.

Even if I agreed, what does that even prove? West is better than Hondo. Okay. West is already on the list. So do any of Hondo's rings count? Are they completely useless? We can't use post-season acccomplishments? WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?


Wilt was way past his prime

He averaged 21-21-5 on 58% shooting from the field. I think he was still doing okay.


and Baylor is overrated.

Lazy analysis for a hall of fame player.


Look at that team Hondo had and then get back to me with a real comparison.

Why should I when you haven't even come close to proving how superior they were. Bill Russell was "way past his prime" and averaged less than 10ppg on 43% from the field but you don't want to bring that up.


beat Oscar & Kareem? Now you're just reaching. That was Oscar's last season and he was a shell of himself.

I completely agree with you about Oscar. Why don't you tell me about Kareem?


So you have a guy who won rings with stacked teams and who's numbers on a pace formula is rather weak. Cool, let me know when that guy can beat Jordan..

This is the point where I honestly feel like you went off the edge into trolling. First you tell me that he had a better team and implied that devalued his titles and then you tell me to "let you know" when he can beat Jordan the greatest player of all-time? I don't think Hondo was better than Jordan. What does that prove exactly?


if he can't, I can care less about those rings he won when the league was weak, in its baby stages, lacked sufficient amount of competing teams, less games played to reach the championship, etc. Hondo would get wrecked in any other generation and you know it. Stockton's game will translate in any generation.

Hondo was an elite defender, an athletic freak, and he could run, score, pass, and rebound. How does that not translate?

KnicksorBust
11-07-2015, 07:42 PM
Its like you said, there comes a point when the difference in talent looms so large that no amount of team success would blind you. Pippen has 6 and I think hes wildly underrated. But a guy like Grant Hill was better despite his first round losses. Now Pippen has the greater legacy, but its not blasphemous to suggest a guy like Hill (who never advanced beyond R1) was better than any version of Pippen.

Geniunely confused. What does this prove? Isn't the whole discussion about legacy? If there is no question about Pippen having the greater legacy I don't understand the purpose of comparing him to Hill.


Me personally, I value longevity when "ranking" players. Pippen takes the cake easily there. Peak is still very important but the breaking point comes when you simply flame out early ala Tmac. Though I will be voting for him before many of his contemporaries who have "won a title". Paul Pierce for example, great longevity but Tmac still amassed more of those individual accolades despite that and was FAR better IMO. Got more out of his teams when both were in similar situations/stages. That he was gifted KG and a stellar cast doesn't erase all those struggles he had before and during when dragging his crummy cast.

This makes sense. But so how do you compare Hondo to T-Mac? Is that even a comparison? I'm sure you would consider peak McGrady superior to Hondo.


The entire purpose of the sport is to win championships. Yes, but you accomplish that as a team, doesn't matter how badly this All-NBA'er wants it, hes missing the playoffs altogether if hes surrounded by bums and not getting past superior opponents isn't as damaging as losing to inferior ones.

I completely disagree. We have seen plenty of examples of legendary players leading their teams far beyond their talent levels. My favorite examples are Duncan's title in 2003 and Kobe's playoff berth in the mid 2000s with Kwame-Smush. If we are talking about top 25 players of all-time, I'm expecting some super human ****. Especially in the playoffs.


Im not devaluing championships so much as respecting what you get out of your situation.

I can't imagine a title-less resume that would stack up as superior to Hondo's 8 rings.


Hondo did indeed have that 1 impressive run, but the overall campaign may not be as impressive as others.

See and this is what makes my want to pull out my slowly turning gray hair. An entire career of all-nba teams, all-defensive teams, historic playoff runs, and 8 championships gets diminished to "he did have 1 impressive run."


MJ is the best and he had a great squad around him, this led to a historic three-repeat in every tangible and most would agree intangible way. Hes the best for a reason and its the reason why Phil Jackson believes only 1 team could have dethroned them. It wasn't any of the teams you mentioned or will mention.

What is the obsession with Jordan? Yes I believe that MJ is the best and far better than Hondo. I don't know if Hondo's Celtics could have beat MJ's Bulls. What does this prove exactly? I'd love to hear you find a parallel in strictly post-season success that would be equal to Hondo's 8 rings though. In all seriousness.

FlashBolt
11-07-2015, 08:07 PM
If supporting an 11x all-nba player who won 8 rings as a top 20 player is the crazy side of the argument then we've reached a scary place.



This is Deflect 101. How many titles over the course of NBA History are you going to invalidate because the superior team won? To me it is the ultimate cop-out response. Look at the Warriors. Yes they were better than the Cavs. You know why? BECAUSE STEPH CURRY WAS ON THAT TEAM. Them being "better" is a compliment but instead people use it as a reason to prove that LeBron was still superior. Look he won 2 games with bad teammates! Curry only won the title in 6 games with great teammates! It sets a completely unreasonable bar of expectation. Hondo's teams didn't luck their way into 8 championships.



Even if I agreed, what does that even prove? West is better than Hondo. Okay. West is already on the list. So do any of Hondo's rings count? Are they completely useless? We can't use post-season acccomplishments? WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?



He averaged 21-21-5 on 58% shooting from the field. I think he was still doing okay.



Lazy analysis for a hall of fame player.



Why should I when you haven't even come close to proving how superior they were. Bill Russell was "way past his prime" and averaged less than 10ppg on 43% from the field but you don't want to bring that up.



I completely agree with you about Oscar. Why don't you tell me about Kareem?



This is the point where I honestly feel like you went off the edge into trolling. First you tell me that he had a better team and implied that devalued his titles and then you tell me to "let you know" when he can beat Jordan the greatest player of all-time? I don't think Hondo was better than Jordan. What does that prove exactly?



Hondo was an elite defender, an athletic freak, and he could run, score, pass, and rebound. How does that not translate?

1) Do you not understand what relativity means? You agree that Hondo had the better team. You can't deny that he had the easiest competition. You can't deny that teams were pretty much at their beginning stages besides a few (Milwaukee/Boston), you can't deny that they needed fewer games than during Stock's time to win rings. You can't just say he has 8 rings and act as if there shouldn't be any context regarding those rings.

2) Deflect? It was unquestionable that he had the better team.. So if Team USA 2012 played against the 2015 GSW, are we going to blame Curry if he loses? You can't fault a player for not beating a team that was drastically better. Deflection? You're the one deflecting a legitimate argument. Of course Hondo's team didn't luck their way to 8 championships.. they were simply better! Is it a coincidence that Boston hasn't won much of anything since Larry Bird and further, since Russell? They only won one ring in like 25 years, why? Because the rest of the league caught up with talent. FYI, why shouldn't a player get praised for winning with nothing? Many people had the Cavs getting swept after Irving went out.. they didn't get swept and went on to go up 2-1. So by your logic, we shouldn't commend a player for exceeding expectations?

3) What are YOU saying? You said that Hondo beat West in the Finals. Newsflash: He didn't beat West... West beat him if you are using that terminology. His TEAM beat West's team because clearly, West outplayed Havlicek. That's like if LeBron scored 30 PPG, 8 RPG, 8 APG and he lost to Tony Parker who scored 16 PPG, 4 RPG, 7 APG. Did Tony Parker "beat" LeBron James? Don't phrase it a certain way and then try to pinpoint the fallacy of your post as if it was my error.

4) Bill Russell was way past his prime as well. I never mentioned it because he was just as impactful as Wilt was. Then you look at the rest of his team and tell me where the other points add up. BTW, who was the Finals MVP? Exactly.. so maybe you want to not mention Havlicek beating West again because that never happened. And FYI.. Russell averaging 43% from the field is the norm. Bring up something that is actually news please.

5) Look at you trying to paint this as a Havlicek vs Kareem argument. Everyone knows who is better and who played better... so you lose again with this silly argument of yours. Nice of you to acknowledge that Oscar was a shell of himself and you mentioning him was a mistake on your part since you probably assumed Oscar was still at his prime. Let's look at facts here:

Boston's best three players after Havlicek combined numbers:
51 PPG, 18 RPG, 15 APG.

Milwaulee's best three players after Kareem's combined numbers (including Oscar here):
40 PPG, 14 RPG, 11 APG

So if you were wondering how Havlicek beat Kareem when Kareem was easily the best player that series, it's because one guy had the more productive teammates.
I'm using facts here. You're the one trying to deflect the importance of teammates. Saying Havlicek beat a certain player when he was probably never the best player in any of those Finals series is a completely misinformed opinion of yours.

So you think I'm "trolling" but you are the one coming up with silly reasons as to why Havlicek was better? I used the Jordan argument because it tells you just how difficult it was to win a ring against Jordan's Bulls. John Stockton/Karl Malone couldn't win rings because of Jordan. Barkley couldn't win it because of Jordan. Payton/Kemp couldn't because of Jordan. All-Time NBA Greats could not beat Jordan. Hakeem probably would not have won (maybe one) if Jordan's Bulls were there. What I'm saying is, Havlicek likely wouldn't have stood a chance against Jordan. I'm using RELATIVITY in my rankings because there is no doubt, the past generations were less competitive. You're not using relativity at all. Was Hondo one of the best during his team? Yup. Would he have been one of the best in Jordan's/today's team? Doubt it. Why? Because the competition is 10x better. Name me the wing players of Hondo's time then name the wing's of the past twenty years... you tell me who's better.

Chronz
11-07-2015, 08:38 PM
Geniunely confused. What does this prove? Isn't the whole discussion about legacy? If there is no question about Pippen having the greater legacy I don't understand the purpose of comparing him to Hill.
Im setting up the value of being deemed the superior player and how longevity plays a role in my final evaluation. You asked me to quantify how I value championships, well imagine this situation. Grant Hill spends an entire career being superior (without a doubt either) to Scottie Pippen but never once wins a chip. If he does he wins one in J-Kidd fashion (if that makes a difference for you let me know). Who goes down the higher "ranked" player?


This makes sense. But so how do you compare Hondo to T-Mac? Is that even a comparison? I'm sure you would consider peak McGrady superior to Hondo.
Yup, just like I would rank Hondo above Pierce. Tmac is the most polarizing because of his short lived prime but I just cant ignore that great of a player. Tmac is basically my litmus test for great players whos careers were cut short.



I completely disagree. We have seen plenty of examples of legendary players leading their teams far beyond their talent levels. My favorite examples are Duncan's title in 2003 and Kobe's playoff berth in the mid 2000s with Kwame-Smush. If we are talking about top 25 players of all-time, I'm expecting some super human ****. Especially in the playoffs.

You just named 2 of the best players we've already voted for. Thats exactly my point, truly great players show examples of this, when they have trash they truly elevate their games to make up the difference. When they have the necessary help they become more efficient, generally.


I can't imagine a title-less resume that would stack up as superior to Hondo's 8 rings.

Resume? Nope. But lots of inferior players posted superior resumes. Overall, I would agree, in a "Legacy list", Hondo is above title-less players. I'd still vote Pettit above him. Its funny tho, PSD has already voted guys who never "led" their teams to a title but have won in less impressive fashion as Hondo. Im guessing you must hate the Karl Malone + Chuck votes. In all honesty, if the GOAT Team wasn't in the way of those guys, do you really see them coming away without a single championship?


See and this is what makes my want to pull out my slowly turning gray hair. An entire career of all-nba teams, all-defensive teams, historic playoff runs, and 8 championships gets diminished to "he did have 1 impressive run."

Make a list of the best individual seasons, which players come out on top?


What is the obsession with Jordan? Yes I believe that MJ is the best and far better than Hondo. I don't know if Hondo's Celtics could have beat MJ's Bulls. What does this prove exactly? I'd love to hear you find a parallel in strictly post-season success that would be equal to Hondo's 8 rings though. In all seriousness.
That was the competition some of the "title-less" players who have already been voted ahead of Hondo had to deal with. If thats the competition you face then there is more understanding for not winning as much. Some people are more impressed by that context than being the best against inferior competition. Which is what you are admitting to by acknowledging MJ's Bulls greatness.

In all seriousness, I already have. I have Pettit above him and have been voting this way for 2 or 3 polls now

KnicksorBust
11-08-2015, 04:17 PM
1) Do you not understand what relativity means? You agree that Hondo had the better team. You can't deny that he had the easiest competition. You can't deny that teams were pretty much at their beginning stages besides a few (Milwaukee/Boston), you can't deny that they needed fewer games than during Stock's time to win rings. You can't just say he has 8 rings and act as if there shouldn't be any context regarding those rings.

I've given context multiple times. Don't reach. I've discussed his all-nba team accomplishments. I've discussed his skills as a scorer, rebounder, passer and his elite defense. I've even discussed how his 74 title was his most impressive, along with 3 other rings as an all-nba player and another 4 as a role player.


2) Deflect? It was unquestionable that he had the better team.. So if Team USA 2012 played against the 2015 GSW, are we going to blame Curry if he loses? You can't fault a player for not beating a team that was drastically better. Deflection? You're the one deflecting a legitimate argument. Of course Hondo's team didn't luck their way to 8 championships.. they were simply better! Is it a coincidence that Boston hasn't won much of anything since Larry Bird and further, since Russell? They only won one ring in like 25 years, why? Because the rest of the league caught up with talent. FYI, why shouldn't a player get praised for winning with nothing? Many people had the Cavs getting swept after Irving went out.. they didn't get swept and went on to go up 2-1. So by your logic, we shouldn't commend a player for exceeding expectations?

Yes deflect which you continue to do again in this post. How do you value Hondo's 8 rings? Do any of them count? How do they impact his legacy?

Look I'm willing to commend players for exceeding expectations. I have no problem with that. Is there no credit left for the team that actually takes their talent and gets the job done? Your problem is how far you go with your "expectations." The Warriors were expected to sweep? Based on what?

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2015/story/_/id/13000122/nba-finals-predictions
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/25199235/nba-finals-our-experts-make-their-predictions-on-warriors-vs-cavaliers
http://www.si.com/nba/2015/06/02/nba-finals-predictions-warriors-cavaliers-lebron-james-stephen-curry

That is roughly 40 experts and none of them had a Warriors sweep. ZERO. The most common choice was Warriors in 6. There were some that picked Cleveland. If anything, the Warriors and Steph Curry met their challenging expectations. That is an accomplishment. Having the talent is not always enough. Not even close. CP3 and Blake are top 10 players with 0 rings. Harden and D12. The Spurs. There are all teams that were outlasted by the Warriors with as much talent and more experience. Isn't there something to be said for winning the championship no matter how much talent you have?


3) What are YOU saying? You said that Hondo beat West in the Finals. Newsflash: He didn't beat West... West beat him if you are using that terminology. His TEAM beat West's team because clearly, West outplayed Havlicek. That's like if LeBron scored 30 PPG, 8 RPG, 8 APG and he lost to Tony Parker who scored 16 PPG, 4 RPG, 7 APG. Did Tony Parker "beat" LeBron James? Don't phrase it a certain way and then try to pinpoint the fallacy of your post as if it was my error.

It's semantics and you are still wrong...


4) Bill Russell was way past his prime as well. I never mentioned it because he was just as impactful as Wilt was. Then you look at the rest of his team and tell me where the other points add up. BTW, who was the Finals MVP? Exactly.. so maybe you want to not mention Havlicek beating West again because that never happened. And FYI.. Russell averaging 43% from the field is the norm. Bring up something that is actually news please.

See this is how misleading your posts can be and why you seem like you are trolling. Wilt has always been better than Russell individually but you felt the need to call him "way past his prime" ignoring that past his prime Wilt was just as impactful as Russell. You want to scream for context but you have yet to even come close to detailing how unbeatable the Celtics teams were in any of these series.


Look at you trying to paint this as a Havlicek vs Kareem argument. Everyone knows who is better and who played better... so you lose again with this silly argument of yours. Nice of you to acknowledge that Oscar was a shell of himself and you mentioning him was a mistake on your part since you probably assumed Oscar was still at his prime. Let's look at facts here:

Boston's best three players after Havlicek combined numbers:
51 PPG, 18 RPG, 15 APG.

Milwaulee's best three players after Kareem's combined numbers (including Oscar here):
40 PPG, 14 RPG, 11 APG

So if you were wondering how Havlicek beat Kareem when Kareem was easily the best player that series, it's because one guy had the more productive teammates.
I'm using facts here. You're the one trying to deflect the importance of teammates. Saying Havlicek beat a certain player when he was probably never the best player in any of those Finals series is a completely misinformed opinion of yours.



:laugh: YOU FRAMED THE WHOLE ARGUMENT. One of your most substantial arguments was that Stockton was blocked to win a title because of Jordan. This is absolutely ridiculous of course because they played in different conferences and Stockton has 16 other seasons where he did not even meet Jordan in the post-season to explain. Ignoring that huge and glaring weakness in your argument, it implied Hondo beat teams with no other stars or talent. I believe you compared it to beating your local HS team. I replied in turn with a list of hall of famers that were on the teams defeated by Havlicek. You are also arguing points I have no problem conceding. Hondo had better teammates than Kareem. Okay. The only point that matters is that those Bucks/Lakers/etc. teams had talent which is in direct confliction with your absurd "Local HS Team" argument.


So you think I'm "trolling" but you are the one coming up with silly reasons as to why Havlicek was better?

All-NBA Teams. All-Defensive Teams. His skills as a scorer, rebounder, passer? His success. His ability to win as a role player, all-nba player, and team leader? I don't find any of them remotely "silly."


I used the Jordan argument because it tells you just how difficult it was to win a ring against Jordan's Bulls. John Stockton/Karl Malone couldn't win rings because of Jordan.

So they lost to him twice. What about the other 16 seasons?


Barkley couldn't win it because of Jordan.

Barkley lost to him once in the Finals. What about the rest of his career?


Payton/Kemp couldn't because of Jordan.

They lost to him once. What about the rest of their careers?


All-Time NBA Greats could not beat Jordan. Hakeem probably would not have won (maybe one) if Jordan's Bulls were there.

In your bizarre world does he even get credit for winning? Just the 1 where he was retired? What about when the Magic knocked out the Bulls?


What I'm saying is, Havlicek likely wouldn't have stood a chance against Jordan.

Why does this even matter?



I'm using RELATIVITY in my rankings because there is no doubt, the past generations were less competitive. You're not using relativity at all. Was Hondo one of the best during his team? Yup. Would he have been one of the best in Jordan's/today's team? Doubt it. Why? Because the competition is 10x better. Name me the wing players of Hondo's time then name the wing's of the past twenty years... you tell me who's better.

This is the only part of your post where I have genuine problems with the rebuttal because we have a clear difference in how we make our ranking. I'm comparing Hondo to his peers where he was clearly an elite player for over a decade. What value do you give to that?

KnicksorBust
11-08-2015, 04:31 PM
Im setting up the value of being deemed the superior player and how longevity plays a role in my final evaluation. You asked me to quantify how I value championships, well imagine this situation. Grant Hill spends an entire career being superior (without a doubt either) to Scottie Pippen but never once wins a chip. If he does he wins one in J-Kidd fashion (if that makes a difference for you let me know). Who goes down the higher "ranked" player?

Scottie Pippen.


Yup, just like I would rank Hondo above Pierce. Tmac is the most polarizing because of his short lived prime but I just cant ignore that great of a player. Tmac is basically my litmus test for great players whos careers were cut short.

How does he compare to Walton?


You just named 2 of the best players we've already voted for. Thats exactly my point, truly great players show examples of this, when they have trash they truly elevate their games to make up the difference. When they have the necessary help they become more efficient, generally.

But so isn't that clearly a way to celebrate the truly great from the pretenders? Dirk is a great example of this.


Resume? Nope. But lots of inferior players posted superior resumes. Overall, I would agree, in a "Legacy list", Hondo is above title-less players. I'd still vote Pettit above him. Its funny tho, PSD has already voted guys who never "led" their teams to a title but have won in less impressive fashion as Hondo. Im guessing you must hate the Karl Malone + Chuck votes. In all honesty, if the GOAT Team wasn't in the way of those guys, do you really see them coming away without a single championship?

I'm assuming that is because most people on PSD seem to only think Kareem and Wilt were any good before 1980. The only player in NBA History that I believe can be given a pass for being "blocked" is Jerry West. Every other player should have gotten it done at least once. It's very easy to tear pieces off Malone's stellar production by diving into his post-season blunders. Chuck is a little harder in that respect.



Make a list of the best individual seasons, which players come out on top?

Who are we comparing?


That was the competition some of the "title-less" players who have already been voted ahead of Hondo had to deal with. If thats the competition you face then there is more understanding for not winning as much. Some people are more impressed by that context than being the best against inferior competition. Which is what you are admitting to by acknowledging MJ's Bulls greatness.

In all seriousness, I already have. I have Pettit above him and have been voting this way for 2 or 3 polls now

The problem that I have with that argument is setting the bar is so subjective. It's my issue when I have debated all-time coaches and we talk about Phil Jackson. How many rings would he had need to won for people to call him the GOAT coach? It seems that sometimes the winning players/coach are just as "blocked" from success as the losing team. Stockton couldn't win because he played MJ. Phil Jackson only won because he had MJ then Shaq/Kobe. Jordan is so powerful in all these comparisons.