PDA

View Full Version : ESPNs top 10 SFs of all time



Pages : [1] 2 3

YAALREADYKNO
01-14-2016, 05:39 PM
ESPN rankings

1.Lebron James
2.Larry Bird
3.Julius Erving
4.Kevin Durant
5.Elgin Baylor
6.Scottie Pippen
7.John Havlicek
8.Rick Barry
9.James Worthy
10.Dominque Wilkins

Thoughts?

mngopher35
01-14-2016, 05:55 PM
Again I think the biggest issue is having a current player too high (first Curry, now Durant). Again this could change within a couple of years but I just don't think he is there yet. It can be hard with players in their peak/prime though so there could be a little of what they are expected to do moving forward playing into the votes.

ManningToTyree
01-14-2016, 06:00 PM
Decent list outside of KD being so high seems a little early for that

nycericanguy
01-14-2016, 06:10 PM
list made me realize Melo & Wilkins have almost identical career numbers, actually the edge goes to Melo. Hard to believe Melo is in convo for top 10 SF in history.

basch152
01-14-2016, 06:24 PM
Funny how much more stacked sf is than sg.

All 10 of these guys would be a top 5 sg.

valade16
01-14-2016, 06:32 PM
Funny how much more stacked sf is than sg.

All 10 of these guys would be a top 5 sg.

No. Baylor, Hondo, Barry, Worthy and Nique are not better than Clyde.

valade16
01-14-2016, 06:33 PM
I'm fine with KD there. Baylor should be below Pippen and Hondo and Nique should be ahead of Worthy.

Hawkeye15
01-14-2016, 06:39 PM
Baylor below Pippen for me, otherwise looks fine

FlashBolt
01-14-2016, 06:40 PM
Glad most of us can agree LeBron belongs at 1st. KD too high and I'll put Wilkins over Worthy.

Hawkeye15
01-14-2016, 06:50 PM
Glad most of us can agree LeBron belongs at 1st. KD too high and I'll put Wilkins over Worthy.

plenty won't agree LeBron should be there yet, trust me. I personally think he belongs, if you read the award/accomplishment portions of the story, LeBron has passed Bird.

tredigs
01-14-2016, 06:52 PM
None of the guys below Durant have an MVP, and Durant's advanced + adjusted per-game stats rank with the best ever through his prime. After an injury riddled playoffs in '14 and season in 14/15, he's back on track as one of the games top players again (27/8/4 on 50/40/90 with a PER > 28 this year). One stat that's sort of important to look at for comparisons sake IMO is that he's already 13th All Time in MVP award shares (ahead of guys like Barkley/KG/Olajuwon/Nash/West, etc), and obviously that is only going to rise. The 12 ahead of him are: Jordan / Lebron / Kareem / Bird / Magic / Russell / Shaq / K Malone / Duncan / Wilt / Kobe / DRob.

His story isn't finished yet, but he's done enough to belong for me.

Lebron at first is debatable but that's where I'd have him. Whole list is solid enough.

YAALREADYKNO
01-14-2016, 07:12 PM
Wilkins over worthy for me

mngopher35
01-14-2016, 08:03 PM
None of the guys below Durant have an MVP, and Durant's advanced + adjusted per-game stats rank with the best ever through his prime. After an injury riddled playoffs in '14 and season in 14/15, he's back on track as one of the games top players again (27/8/4 on 50/40/90 with a PER > 28 this year). One stat that's sort of important to look at for comparisons sake IMO is that he's already 13th All Time in MVP award shares (ahead of guys like Barkley/KG/Olajuwon/Nash/West, etc), and obviously that is only going to rise. The 12 ahead of him are: Jordan / Lebron / Kareem / Bird / Magic / Russell / Shaq / K Malone / Duncan / Wilt / Kobe / DRob.

His story isn't finished yet, but he's done enough to belong for me.

Lebron at first is debatable but that's where I'd have him. Whole list is solid enough.

Just talking peak I think I would agree that Durant should be up there (probably 3rd behind Larry/Bron). When looking at entire careers and ranking I think he just hasn't played long enough. I mean CP3 has favorable numbers to Pippen (match up close with Durants best years), has almost double the MVP shares of Pippen and has greater longevity than Durant but I have never seen him mentioned in that area before.

If we look at 08 and 09 season CP3 was pretty close statistically to 14 Durant with one better playoffs and one worse. Just want to point out that while Durant did get the MVP part of those awards need context if that's gonna be such a big basis and numbers wise it was pretty similar to the best CP3 had (different scenarios lead to an award for him). So it is a plus for Durant no doubt but I don't think it even negates the longevity between him and even CP3 since as I stated they are very close statistically overall (for their careers CP3 leads in PER, WS/48, BPM, ORTG in both RS and playoffs). Again this is different if we just look at their peak 4-5 seasons and as Durant continues at this pace he should top CP3 soon overall, he just isn't there yet.

tredigs
01-14-2016, 09:18 PM
^Well, concerning CP3 we'd think of him VERY differently if he had led his teams to a Finals or two. He (probably unfairly) gets the short end of the stick in rankings due to his teams playoff woes. As an individual talent he is very close to Pippen All-Time IMO. His prime/peak is certainly way better offensively, but Pip is somewhat underrated statistically given how incredible his perimeter D was. He also was in a unique situation of being overshadowed in MVP voting due to A) their being better top end talent for the most part during his peak seasons then CP3 was going against, and B) him playing alongside the MVP of the 90's.

Them both being ranked 6th for their respective positions (given SF having stronger top end talent than PG historically) makes perfect sense to me.

KD's definitely over CP3 though just for the fact that he has actually won the MVP (and come in 2nd a handful of times) and has had more playoff success along with a handful of scoring titles (fair or not, the most coveted personal "stat award" a player can earn).

mngopher35
01-14-2016, 10:43 PM
^Well, concerning CP3 we'd think of him VERY differently if he had led his teams to a Finals or two. He (probably unfairly) gets the short end of the stick in rankings due to his teams playoff woes. As an individual talent he is very close to Pippen All-Time IMO. His prime/peak is certainly way better offensively, but Pip is somewhat underrated statistically given how incredible his perimeter D was. He also was in a unique situation of being overshadowed in MVP voting due to A) their being better top end talent for the most part during his peak seasons then CP3 was going against, and B) him playing alongside the MVP of the 90's.

Them both being ranked 6th for their respective positions (given SF having stronger top end talent than PG historically) makes perfect sense to me.

I agree with a lot of this for sure. I will go more in depth but I was mostly saying Durant is closer to Cp3 ranking wise than Pippen yet I have never seen an All-Time ranking with him ahead. It just seems to me like we are early in putting Durant that high. In the PG thread I believe CP3 was over Nash and his 2 MVP's for example and I don't have an issue there either, I am very high on him. I still don't think he ranks with Pippen though while he does compare nicely to KD.


KD's definitely over CP3 though just for the fact that he has actually won the MVP (and come in 2nd a handful of times) and has had more playoff success along with a handful of scoring titles (fair or not, the most coveted personal "stat award" a player can earn).

See I don't think this is necessarily true, although debatable. There can be an argument but IMO playing an extra couple years and still having the advantage individually (statistically) can be enough to make up the difference for the MVP (again he has a couple close seasons statistically just different situations). As I stated earlier CP3 was pretty close statistically to Durants MVP season but he got beat out by a player who had a better career but no MVP (while Durant was up against someone who won the award a bunch already). CP3 had a lead in PER (4 higher), WS (4 higher), and BPM (3.8 higher) while producing about 460 more points via score/assist with a ORTG 10 pts higher. Durant had an advantage in these areas too but not quite as big overall/throughout. The biggest difference here is just who they were going up against and maybe team success more than anything which isn't enough for me to use it as a meaningful separator between them individually.

Making the finals is another thing that I don't think is as big when you consider the context of teammates Durant has had to help him with the team success (the following year Westy/Harden both top 10 in MVP voting, role players like Ibaka).

I guess I can see how if we just look at team success and top accolades we could definitely favor KD over CP3 but then there is no way that KD can be over Pippen (and I hate ranking that way personally anyways, ignores so much). I like to look at the individual more and so far CP3 has produced at a similar rate (career numbers slightly higher) and for a longer time (2 more seasons) than Durant. Now with everything you mentioned about MVP award and shares, higher peak, and team success I think it can carry some weight and enough to close that gap but I don't see how it isn't extremely close between the two with that context. Even with how high I have CP3 that still doesn't quite put him in the Pippen category which is why I also think it's too early for KD at that level.

%%%%
01-15-2016, 01:14 AM
ESPN rankings

1.Lebron James
2.Larry Bird
3.Julius Erving
4.Kevin Durant
5.Elgin Baylor
6.Scottie Pippen
7.John Havlicek
8.Rick Barry
9.James Worthy
10.Dominque Wilkins

Thoughts?

Where is Carmelo?

Hawkeye15
01-15-2016, 01:19 AM
Where is Carmelo?

he lives in NY

IKnowHoops
01-15-2016, 02:02 AM
No. Baylor, Hondo, Barry, Worthy and Nique are not better than Clyde.

True, but Tmac, Vince, and Melo are IMO.

IKnowHoops
01-15-2016, 02:07 AM
1.Bron
2.KD
3.TMac
4.Bird
5.Dr J
6.Baylor
7.Scottie
8.Vince
9.Melo
10.Nique

If the top 30 SF all in there prime, got out on the court and started playing, this is where I think we would rank them based off of there performances going at each other for a couple days.

%%%%
01-15-2016, 02:14 AM
Paul pierce

IKnowHoops
01-15-2016, 02:22 AM
None of the guys below Durant have an MVP, and Durant's advanced + adjusted per-game stats rank with the best ever through his prime. After an injury riddled playoffs in '14 and season in 14/15, he's back on track as one of the games top players again (27/8/4 on 50/40/90 with a PER > 28 this year). One stat that's sort of important to look at for comparisons sake IMO is that he's already 13th All Time in MVP award shares (ahead of guys like Barkley/KG/Olajuwon/Nash/West, etc), and obviously that is only going to rise. The 12 ahead of him are: Jordan / Lebron / Kareem / Bird / Magic / Russell / Shaq / K Malone / Duncan / Wilt / Kobe / DRob.

His story isn't finished yet, but he's done enough to belong for me.

Lebron at first is debatable but that's where I'd have him. Whole list is solid enough.

Well, thats another stat Ive just heard of for the first time, but really like it based on who's there. Its also another stat that justifies/supports me having some legs to stand on when I have David Robinson in my top ten players to ever lace them up. Not saying that having him outside the top 10 is wrong, but I just think there is a solid argument that puts him as a top 10 player ever.

IKnowHoops
01-15-2016, 02:30 AM
None of the guys below Durant have an MVP, and Durant's advanced + adjusted per-game stats rank with the best ever through his prime. After an injury riddled playoffs in '14 and season in 14/15, he's back on track as one of the games top players again (27/8/4 on 50/40/90 with a PER > 28 this year). One stat that's sort of important to look at for comparisons sake IMO is that he's already 13th All Time in MVP award shares (ahead of guys like Barkley/KG/Olajuwon/Nash/West, etc), and obviously that is only going to rise. The 12 ahead of him are: Jordan / Lebron / Kareem / Bird / Magic / Russell / Shaq / K Malone / Duncan / Wilt / Kobe / DRob.

His story isn't finished yet, but he's done enough to belong for me.

Lebron at first is debatable but that's where I'd have him. Whole list is solid enough.

And this big time. I just can't stand how people rank players. No doubt in my mind that Durant's prime is the second best prime for a SF ever. So thats where I put him. If I am playing one game, Durant is my guy over everyone not named Bron. I think Durant is a top 5 scorer ever. I am a little surprised that he has passed KG in MVP shares, although I have no idea how its calculated, it must be based off votes by people rather than stats which makes it less impressive, but I still think it illustrates perception of players each year at that time. A lot of times people misremember what the reality of the situation was then, at that time.

YAALREADYKNO
01-15-2016, 09:27 AM
Where is Carmelo?

Not on the list

YAALREADYKNO
01-15-2016, 09:28 AM
Where is Carmelo?

Not on ESPNs list

ewing
01-15-2016, 09:51 AM
where's Alex English? is there a less celebrated guy with 25,000 points

Hawkeye15
01-15-2016, 12:33 PM
where's Alex English? is there a less celebrated guy with 25,000 points

if Paul Pierce ain't on here, Alex English isn't

ewing
01-15-2016, 12:39 PM
if Paul Pierce ain't on here, Alex English isn't

at least people notice PP scored that much

Hawkeye15
01-15-2016, 12:51 PM
at least people notice PP scored that much

I think he might be ahead of English in points?

ewing
01-15-2016, 12:56 PM
I think he might be ahead of English in points?

Alex is 17th all time PP is 16th

nycericanguy
01-15-2016, 03:10 PM
Where is Carmelo?

he has a case over Nique, his numbers are slightly better than Nique's.

YAALREADYKNO
01-15-2016, 03:35 PM
Pierce or melo?

Tony_Starks
01-15-2016, 03:45 PM
Holeup so TMac doesn't make the SF or SG top 10?

What sort of mockery is this?

jayjay33
01-15-2016, 03:49 PM
There is no freaking way Paul Pierce is not of the 10 best SF. That's some bs. And I'm a laker fan.

valade16
01-15-2016, 04:18 PM
There is no freaking way Paul Pierce is not of the 10 best SF. That's some bs. And I'm a laker fan.

It's hard to pinpoint whether these lists are peak or longevity/accolades.

If it's longevity/accolades then PP should definitely be on there, and if it's peak then T-Mac should be as well.

They should both be on there regardless actually lol

tredigs
01-15-2016, 04:37 PM
It's hard to pinpoint whether these lists are peak or longevity/accolades.

If it's longevity/accolades then PP should definitely be on there, and if it's peak then T-Mac should be as well.

They should both be on there regardless actually lol

I'm looking at an old PSD and RL GM top 50 lists and PP came in 10th among SF's on the PSD list, and he came in 10th on both. T-Mac 9th on one, 11th on the other (switched with Nique I believe). And that's sort of where I'd have them. All depends on whether you value peak or longevity/accolades more when producing these in your head.

ESPN stated these rankings are a mix of both peak/longevity.

ewing
01-15-2016, 04:46 PM
What about Alex English?

tredigs
01-15-2016, 05:10 PM
What about Alex English?

Right behind them with Dantley I'm pretty sure. I don't know, English was at that stage when I was just a little kid watching, and the Nuggets weren't really a team that made prime-time too often. The pace of those 80's Nuggets were insane, though. So his pure scoring numbers need to be put into context when comparing him to other guys (he was efficient at least).

Hawkeye15
01-15-2016, 06:44 PM
Right behind them with Dantley I'm pretty sure. I don't know, English was at that stage when I was just a little kid watching, and the Nuggets weren't really a team that made prime-time too often. The pace of those 80's Nuggets were insane, though. So his pure scoring numbers need to be put into context when comparing him to other guys (he was efficient at least).

Nugs played at around 110 possessions a game. The fastest teams today play at maybe 101? The average around 96.

Doesn't sound like much, but that is 14 more opportunities for an offense to score. That matters.

**** back in Wilt's days, teams played at 125+ possessions a game.

tredigs
01-15-2016, 07:28 PM
Nugs played at around 110 possessions a game. The fastest teams today play at maybe 101? The average around 96.

Doesn't sound like much, but that is 14 more opportunities for an offense to score. That matters.

**** back in Wilt's days, teams played at 125+ possessions a game.

Yeah, I mean I'm looking at it now and Wilt's 50 PPG year they ran a pace of 131.1, the "6 seconds or less" Suns in '06 ran at ~96.0, and like you said English's Nuggets ran a pace of ~110.0. All the fastest of their respective time. If Wilt ran at say, Jordan's Bulls pace when MJ was putting up 35 a game in the 80's (their pace was 95.5, so slow for the time but right around D'Antoni's Suns), Wilt would have averaged about 37 PPG instead of 50. And, that's not accounting for the fact that he was playing 48.5 MPG. Adjusted to a more reasonable 41.5 MPG, you can chop off another ~15% and Wilt's "unfathomable" 50+ PPG season comes down to a more recognizable 33 PPG average.

Not that we shouldn't recognize how insane it is to just be healthy and stay on the floor for that many minutes every single night, but it is important to recognize pace + minutes at the very least when comparing per-game stats across different eras.

valade16
01-15-2016, 08:03 PM
Not being old enough to have watched that era, is there a reason Alex English is considered better than Adrian Dantley?

lavell12
01-15-2016, 08:13 PM
Bird should be number 1.

ewing
01-15-2016, 10:32 PM
Not being old enough to have watched that era, is there a reason Alex English is considered better than Adrian Dantley?

i just like saying Alex English

PatsSoxKnicks
01-15-2016, 10:56 PM
^Well, concerning CP3 we'd think of him VERY differently if he had led his teams to a Finals or two. He (probably unfairly) gets the short end of the stick in rankings due to his teams playoff woes. As an individual talent he is very close to Pippen All-Time IMO. His prime/peak is certainly way better offensively, but Pip is somewhat underrated statistically given how incredible his perimeter D was. He also was in a unique situation of being overshadowed in MVP voting due to A) their being better top end talent for the most part during his peak seasons then CP3 was going against, and B) him playing alongside the MVP of the 90's.

Them both being ranked 6th for their respective positions (given SF having stronger top end talent than PG historically) makes perfect sense to me.

KD's definitely over CP3 though just for the fact that he has actually won the MVP (and come in 2nd a handful of times) and has had more playoff success along with a handful of scoring titles (fair or not, the most coveted personal "stat award" a player can earn).

CP3 definitely gets the short end of the stick with regards to his teams' playoff performance. If you actually look at CP3's individual playoff performance, it's really good and there's really not much of a decline compared to other players (in fact his BPM is actually higher in the playoffs). But his teams around him have never really been that great and when they finally have been great (like the last few years), the talent in the league has taken a jump forward where there are still more talented teams than his. I think last year was probably the only year where one of his teams' lost to an inferior team but outside of that, for the most part, his team is just losing to better teams.

I did think CP3 being below Curry was a little crazy and I am very high on Curry. I tend to value peak above longevity. But even so, Curry's not had enough years. And actually, from an individual standpoint, it's even debatable if Curry's best season (last year) was better than CP3's 08-09. Statistically, CP3 had Curry beat in BPM, PER, VORP, Win Shares. The only difference is that in 08-09, LeBron was out of this world and so CP3 didn't really have a shot at MVP even tho it was an MVP caliber season.

As for KD, I'm a bit torn. I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as enough years to be ranked that high but there is no doubt that KD's peak is better than everyone behind him. So I don't have too much of an issue with it. But again, all depends on how you value peak vs. longevity. I value peak a bit more.

NYKalltheway
01-16-2016, 09:42 AM
typically bad list

SLY WILLIAMS
01-16-2016, 02:06 PM
Bird should be number 1.

I agree with you but I gave up hope when the PSD lists had Hakeem before Bird LOL :D

1. Bird
2. James
3. KD
4. Dr J.

Tmac should be on the top 10 list.

Asterisk: I would take a healthy Bernard King ahead of some on the list as well.

valade16
01-16-2016, 05:26 PM
I agree with you but I gave up hope when the PSD lists had Hakeem before Bird LOL :D

1. Bird
2. James
3. KD
4. Dr J.

Tmac should be on the top 10 list.

Asterisk: I would take a healthy Bernard King ahead of some on the list as well.

My two favorite players are Hakeem and Bird but it's Bron.

He has more of everything except titles and he's only 1 behind.

ewing
01-16-2016, 05:29 PM
I agree with you but I gave up hope when the PSD lists had Hakeem before Bird LOL :D

1. Bird
2. James
3. KD
4. Dr J.

Tmac should be on the top 10 list.

Asterisk: I would take a healthy Bernard King ahead of some on the list as well.

what was king like as a player in his prime? I was old enough to remember his come back pretty well but not his prime

DboneG
01-16-2016, 06:28 PM
ESPN rankings

1.Lebron James
2.Larry Bird
3.Julius Erving
4.Kevin Durant
5.Elgin Baylor
6.Scottie Pippen
7.John Havlicek
8.Rick Barry
9.James Worthy
10.Dominque Wilkins




DboneG's ranking

1. Julius Erving ....This guy held it down in 2 leagues! Nobody has ever done that! Combine his numbers...
2. Larry Bird..........What can I say about LB?! He was awesome!
3. LeBron James...Not yet Bron Bron, not yet.
4. Scottie Pippin ...He could do it all.
5. Kevin Durant.....His greatness is still rising!
6. John Havlicek...Hondo did it all!
7. Elgin Baylor......He was ahead of his time in so many ways.
8. James Worthy...Just an awesome player!
9. Paul Pierce.......One of the best all round game around.
10. Dominque Wilkins...Great player!

Hawkeye15
01-16-2016, 08:34 PM
Yeah, I mean I'm looking at it now and Wilt's 50 PPG year they ran a pace of 131.1, the "6 seconds or less" Suns in '06 ran at ~96.0, and like you said English's Nuggets ran a pace of ~110.0. All the fastest of their respective time. If Wilt ran at say, Jordan's Bulls pace when MJ was putting up 35 a game in the 80's (their pace was 95.5, so slow for the time but right around D'Antoni's Suns), Wilt would have averaged about 37 PPG instead of 50. And, that's not accounting for the fact that he was playing 48.5 MPG. Adjusted to a more reasonable 41.5 MPG, you can chop off another ~15% and Wilt's "unfathomable" 50+ PPG season comes down to a more recognizable 33 PPG average.

Not that we shouldn't recognize how insane it is to just be healthy and stay on the floor for that many minutes every single night, but it is important to recognize pace + minutes at the very least when comparing per-game stats across different eras.

yep. I did the math a long time ago on what LeBron averages with those minutes/pace, and it was the most ridic statline imagineable haha. Now, Wilt being able to play that pace and those minutes attests to how incredible an athlete he is. But still, everyone needs to put Oscar's TD seasons, and anyone from that era's numbers into context. Obviously in Wilt's day, defense was not happening at all. It was essentially a track meet.

Hawkeye15
01-16-2016, 08:36 PM
My two favorite players are Hakeem and Bird but it's Bron.

He has more of everything except titles and he's only 1 behind.

Sly rates Bird higher than anyone I have ever met. But hey, everyone has that 1 guy who they value more than the general fans that love the game. I am sure I probably rate Dream too high, but he is my guy...

ewing
01-16-2016, 09:08 PM
i rate Socttie Pippen higher then Bird cause you know he was elite both ways :rolleyes:

Hawkeye15
01-16-2016, 09:11 PM
i rate Socttie Pippen higher then Bird cause you know he was elite both ways :rolleyes:

I mean, I do a tier system:

1- MJ
2- Wilt, KAJ
3- Shaq, Duncan, Dream, Magic
4- Bird, LeBron, Kobe, Russell

I don't care to argue inside my tier's, but I will debate someone if they move a player outside my tier's, if that makes sense. Sly has Bird as a top 3 player ever. I totally disagree.

ewing
01-16-2016, 09:16 PM
I mean, I do a tier system:

1- MJ
2- Wilt, KAJ
3- Shaq, Duncan, Dream, Magic
4- Bird, LeBron, Kobe, Russell

I don't care to argue inside my tier's, but I will debate someone if they move a player outside my tier's, if that makes sense. Sly has Bird as a top 3 player ever. I totally disagree.

Bron is a beast. he ruined his legacy by being a ring chasing *****. i don't know who i should rank higher.

Hawkeye15
01-16-2016, 09:19 PM
Bron is a beast. he ruined his legacy by being a ring chasing *****. i don't know who i should rank higher.

without expanding too much, you do realize his entire generation, country wise, flips around career wise all the time, right? It's the generation. Loyalty is gone in business. And the NBA is just business...

I don't hold it against him at all. Why should he be like the studs of the 80-90's that didn't ever get help, and just sit tight on a team hoping his front office helped him? Meh, he is just like any other 30 year old in the US nowadays.

ewing
01-16-2016, 09:22 PM
without expanding too much, you do realize his entire generation, country wise, flips around career wise all the time, right? It's the generation. Loyalty is gone in business. And the NBA is just business...

I don't hold it against him at all. Why should he be like the studs of the 80-90's that didn't ever get help, and just sit tight on a team hoping his front office helped him? Meh, he is just like any other 30 year old in the US nowadays.


that's why i cant rank him vs Bird. they are both great.

flea
01-16-2016, 09:24 PM
I also would take Bird over Lebron, but this discussion has been had many times here.

Hawkeye15
01-16-2016, 09:29 PM
that's why i cant rank him vs Bird. they are both great.

well, I get some people hate the teaming up thing now. It was going to happen, that is how this younger generation is. LeBron happened to fall into the timeline of players that started it. I get that rubs some people wrong. And he may even get blame going forward, because it will be the norm now. But it was inevitable, as our wussy nation of youth has had their work ethic and sense of responsibility lessened. Not the CEO by 30? God, can't be my fault, I am going elsewhere!

I just don't hold it against him. Hell he has already passed Bird in so many things, due to Bird coming in at nearly 23, then only playing so long. So even if you don't have him over Bird now, he absolutely blows Bird away at some point. There is also that issue so many have putting a current great over a retired great, until they are done as well. And that is natural.

Personally, I think if they switch times, Bird is better today, and LeBron better in his era. Meaning, individually I think both are better if they simply flip flop era's. Think of that wide open paint in the 80's, and what LeBron would do with it. Think of the 3 point stress nowadays, and what Bird would have done with it.

ewing
01-16-2016, 10:36 PM
well, I get some people hate the teaming up thing now. It was going to happen, that is how this younger generation is. LeBron happened to fall into the timeline of players that started it. I get that rubs some people wrong. And he may even get blame going forward, because it will be the norm now. But it was inevitable, as our wussy nation of youth has had their work ethic and sense of responsibility lessened. Not the CEO by 30? God, can't be my fault, I am going elsewhere!

I just don't hold it against him. Hell he has already passed Bird in so many things, due to Bird coming in at nearly 23, then only playing so long. So even if you don't have him over Bird now, he absolutely blows Bird away at some point. There is also that issue so many have putting a current great over a retired great, until they are done as well. And that is natural.

Personally, I think if they switch times, Bird is better today, and LeBron better in his era. Meaning, individually I think both are better if they simply flip flop era's. Think of that wide open paint in the 80's, and what LeBron would do with it. Think of the 3 point stress nowadays, and what Bird would have done with it.

he left a 60 win team and then left a team that lost in the NBA finals i can't not hold that against him. Chuck never won a title an i rank him super high. you know i rank Pat Ewing and Reggie higher then most. To me LeBron ruined his legacy. even if he wins a bunch of titles with Clev now, i can't rank him above MJ.

Hawkeye15
01-16-2016, 10:43 PM
he left a 60 win team and then left a team that lost in the NBA finals i can't not hold that against him. Chuck never won a title an i rank him super high. you know i rank Pat Ewing and Reggie higher then most. To me LeBron ruined his legacy. even if he wins a bunch of titles with Clev now, i can't rank him above MJ.

that 60 win team had the least amount of support any star has had in history, if we are talking about contenders. Look at that roster dude. Seriously, let me know who could have led that **** to a title. I get that you feel his legacy is ruined. But many don't agree with you is all, including me.

You rank Reggie way higher than I ever would. Ewing is another topic. You crush KG for the same things you ignore Ewing did. But whatevs

I can't rank Bron above MJ ever. Fwiw

ewing
01-16-2016, 11:12 PM
that 60 win team had the least amount of support any star has had in history, if we are talking about contenders. Look at that roster dude. Seriously, let me know who could have led that **** to a title. I get that you feel his legacy is ruined. But many don't agree with you is all, including me.

You rank Reggie way higher than I ever would. Ewing is another topic. You crush KG for the same things you ignore Ewing did. But whatevs

I can't rank Bron above MJ ever. Fwiw

he bounced on a championship team and team on the doorstep and KG did not do the same thing with Minn that Ewing did in NY. He didn't do anywhere near what Pat did and is no where near the player Pat was

JasonJohnHorn
01-16-2016, 11:15 PM
ESPN rankings

1.Lebron James
2.Larry Bird
3.Julius Erving
4.Kevin Durant
5.Elgin Baylor
6.Scottie Pippen
7.John Havlicek
8.Rick Barry
9.James Worthy
10.Dominque Wilkins

Thoughts?

I feel like Worthy has no place on this list. I loved the guy, don't get me wrong. But he simply had the fortune of being drafted onto a dynasty.

When you look at him compared to other SFs in his generation, it seems clear that the Lakers would have been greatly improve if you put Mark Aguire or Adrian Dantley on that roster in place of Worthy. And certainly Nique was a better player, and I think a strong case could be made for Melo as well.

Worthy was a poor long-range shooter, and wasn't a notable defender in the times that I watched him. He was a great teammate. A willing passer and a great post scorer that was willing to share the ball, got his share of assists and rebounds. I wouldn't say it's crazy to have him on the list as I respect him as a player a lot, but....

I look at Aguirre, for instance, and he was a better three point shooter, and watching him in games, I recall him being a better shooter in general (Worthy had a higher FG% because he took less 3's and posted up a lot- though if anybody has and shot charts that prove that assessment wrong I'd be open to changing my mind- this is based on the games I saw so match-ups may have led Worthy to taking less jumpers). And per36, Aguirre had an edge for boards and assists, though he wasn't a tough defender either.

Dantley twice led the league in scoring, was as good or better a rebounder, like Aguire, I recall him being a better jump shooter, and I recall him fitting well into Detroit's defensive role.


No, I will gladly concede that this is not quantifiable. Comparisons are very close in a lot of categories, but what I find frustrating about this is that a guy like Melo, or Dantley (who average 30+ points for 4 straight years), or Aguirre seem to get overlooked when they had such a similar skill set, and especially with Nique, when Worthy had relatively meek personal stats and was riding an already proven winner in the Lakers. I mean, Dantley was posting 30 a game when Worthy was posting 20.

As for Melo, he's a much better rebounder and shooter than Worthy ever was. The same can be said about Nique.

Hawkeye15
01-16-2016, 11:22 PM
he bounced on a championship team and team on the doorstep and KG did not do the same thing with Minn that Ewing did in NY. He didn't do anywhere near what Pat did and is no where near the player Pat was

sure dude. We can disagree. I am not going to argue over 2 players who are anywhere from 20-40 all time.

ewing
01-16-2016, 11:30 PM
sure dude. We can disagree. I am not going to argue over 2 players who are anywhere from 20-40 all time.


Ewing was a significantly more impactful player on both sides of the ball. Its not close

valade16
01-16-2016, 11:38 PM
Ewing was a significantly more impactful player on both sides of the ball. Its not close

Than KG?

SLY WILLIAMS
01-17-2016, 12:09 AM
what was king like as a player in his prime? I was old enough to remember his come back pretty well but not his prime

Before Bernard's injury he was a pretty special player for the Knicks. For those 2-3 years as a Knick he was a top 2-10 player in my opinion. He scored 40 points in playoff game after playoff game vs Detroit despite playing with a broken finger. He took a really bad supporting cast to 7 games vs Larry Bird's Champion Celtics that year. He came in second for the NBA MVP with Bird winning. Bernard had a near unstoppable post move on the side of the basket. He also attacked the rim on the break like a bigger stronger Sprewell. Picture a SF that shoots 54%-58%. You know Jordan went on a huge tear winning the scoring championship year after year but there was a trivia question when Jordan played. Who was the last guy to win the scoring championship other than Jordan. The answer was Bernard. His comeback to become an all star player after the knee was impressive, but he was never the same player. The explosiveness in his game was gone.

ewing
01-17-2016, 12:52 AM
Than KG?


yes.

Hawkeye15
01-17-2016, 01:49 AM
Ewing was a significantly more impactful player on both sides of the ball. Its not close

yeah but I think you are an idiot if you think nostrils was more impactful than KG

we can still be buddies

ewing
01-17-2016, 02:02 AM
yeah but I think you are an idiot if you think nostrils was more impactful than KG

we can still be buddies

we can be buddies but one guy was feared. he lead his college team to 3 finals as a defensive anchor and was compared to Bill Russell. then he was the leader the best defensive team in the NBA for close to a decade while being there #1 option. As i remember the other guy cried like a baby on TV cause his teammates weren't good enough. KG is somewhat comparable to Pat on O. I definitely take Pat b/c he was huge and made defense collapse. Pat wasn't a very good passer out of that though which limited that advantage. On the other end Pat is totally dominate.

ewing
01-17-2016, 02:15 AM
yeah but I think you are an idiot if you think nostrils was more impactful than KG

we can still be buddies

other then that one year you made the conf finals with Spree and Sam did you ever think that KG's Minn teams were a threat?

NYKalltheway
01-17-2016, 07:18 AM
Any list that doesn't have Bird and Erving as the top 2 is plain wrong and biased. Any list that has Durant over Wilkins is plain wrong and biased. Any list that has Lebron > Baylor by more than 1 spot is plain wrong and biased (I'd say Baylor > Lebron but that's for another discussion). Any list with Pippen not close to the top 6 is plain wrong and biased.
Other than that, there are a lot of players in contention for a top 10 spot. I'd expect more plurarity here.

nycericanguy
01-17-2016, 11:51 AM
Not old enough to have seen Bird play... but man his numbers are impressive.

24.3/10/6.3/1.7/.8

a SF grabbing 10 boards a game, blocking almost a shot per game, almost 2 steals, 6 assists.

and to top it off a 50/38/89 career shooting line?

had a couple of seasons where he averaged almost 30/10/7/2

IMagine if he had actually shot more 3's too... back then no one really took many.

SLY WILLIAMS
01-17-2016, 01:23 PM
Not old enough to have seen Bird play... but man his numbers are impressive.

24.3/10/6.3/1.7/.8

a SF grabbing 10 boards a game, blocking almost a shot per game, almost 2 steals, 6 assists.

and to top it off a 50/38/89 career shooting line?

had a couple of seasons where he averaged almost 30/10/7/2

IMagine if he had actually shot more 3's too... back then no one really took many.

The crazy thing about Bird is his stats do not even come close to telling his story as a competitor. As a Knicks fan I absolutely hated him. It felt like he was a vampire that just would not die. He was the epitome of a clutch player and it drove me nuts. He was like a rash we just could not get rid of lol. Remember that playoff game where Reggie Miller scored 8 points in 18 seconds to beat us? That was what Bird felt like all the time and worse than that Bird was often going to tell you exactly what he was going to do to you before he did it LOL :(

DavidGrant
01-17-2016, 02:54 PM
I feel like Worthy has no place on this list. I loved the guy, don't get me wrong. But he simply had the fortune of being drafted onto a dynasty.

When you look at him compared to other SFs in his generation, it seems clear that the Lakers would have been greatly improve if you put Mark Aguire or Adrian Dantley on that roster in place of Worthy. And certainly Nique was a better player, and I think a strong case could be made for Melo as well.

Worthy was a poor long-range shooter, and wasn't a notable defender in the times that I watched him. He was a great teammate. A willing passer and a great post scorer that was willing to share the ball, got his share of assists and rebounds. I wouldn't say it's crazy to have him on the list as I respect him as a player a lot, but....

I look at Aguirre, for instance, and he was a better three point shooter, and watching him in games, I recall him being a better shooter in general (Worthy had a higher FG% because he took less 3's and posted up a lot- though if anybody has and shot charts that prove that assessment wrong I'd be open to changing my mind- this is based on the games I saw so match-ups may have led Worthy to taking less jumpers). And per36, Aguirre had an edge for boards and assists, though he wasn't a tough defender either.

Dantley twice led the league in scoring, was as good or better a rebounder, like Aguire, I recall him being a better jump shooter, and I recall him fitting well into Detroit's defensive role.


No, I will gladly concede that this is not quantifiable. Comparisons are very close in a lot of categories, but what I find frustrating about this is that a guy like Melo, or Dantley (who average 30+ points for 4 straight years), or Aguirre seem to get overlooked when they had such a similar skill set, and especially with Nique, when Worthy had relatively meek personal stats and was riding an already proven winner in the Lakers. I mean, Dantley was posting 30 a game when Worthy was posting 20.

As for Melo, he's a much better rebounder and shooter than Worthy ever was. The same can be said about Nique.

Worthy is a top 10 SF for sure. the game is not 100% about just shooting long jumpers. Infact it's quite the opposite. Worthy didn't need to shoot long shots because he could score anytime he wanted to a foot from the basket.

Aguirre is a good player and almost as good as Worthy. They are similar. Worthy is a legit 6'9 while Aguire was Barkley's height at 6'5.


I think my top 10 SF's would be like this

Bird
Pippen
Erving
Wilkins
Worthy
Havlicek
James
Durant
Aguirre
Hawkins

this is really a deep position you can add Baylor, English, Mullin, Larry Johnson, Leonard maybe in 4-5 years, X McDaniel was there as well with the physical game he played. .

valade16
01-17-2016, 03:06 PM
^ :laugh2: at Bron being so low. I know you guys hate him but C'Mon.

DavidGrant
01-17-2016, 03:31 PM
^ at Bron being so low. I know you guys hate him but C'Mon.

Let him play his career. He's only 30 years old so check back in 6-7 years.

FlashBolt
01-17-2016, 03:44 PM
Let him play his career. He's only 30 years old so check back in 6-7 years.

Oh stop it. He's played 950 NBA games already. Of all the guys you listed, most only played 100 more games than he did. The fact that you think he needs 450+ more games to be "higher" is laughable. Just proves some of you don't even know how you're ranking anymore.

FlashBolt
01-17-2016, 03:46 PM
Any list that doesn't have Bird and Erving as the top 2 is plain wrong and biased. Any list that has Durant over Wilkins is plain wrong and biased. Any list that has Lebron > Baylor by more than 1 spot is plain wrong and biased (I'd say Baylor > Lebron but that's for another discussion). Any list with Pippen not close to the top 6 is plain wrong and biased.
Other than that, there are a lot of players in contention for a top 10 spot. I'd expect more plurarity here.

The fact you think Baylor>James proves you have some sort of agenda.

LOb0
01-17-2016, 03:47 PM
Any list that doesn't have Bird and Erving as the top 2 is plain wrong and biased. Any list that has Durant over Wilkins is plain wrong and biased. Any list that has Lebron > Baylor by more than 1 spot is plain wrong and biased (I'd say Baylor > Lebron but that's for another discussion). Any list with Pippen not close to the top 6 is plain wrong and biased.
Other than that, there are a lot of players in contention for a top 10 spot. I'd expect more plurarity here.

This is drug test worthy.

DavidGrant
01-17-2016, 03:51 PM
Oh stop it. He's played 950 NBA games already. Of all the guys you listed, most only played 100 more games than he did. The fact that you think he needs 450+ more games to be "higher" is laughable. Just proves some of you don't even know how you're ranking anymore.

But for instance someone like Dominique Wilkins averaged 30 ppg when he was 33 years old and averaged 28 when he was 34 years old. That's longevity right there!

And the others ahead of him had a winning record in the Finals and have more Rings than him.

You shouldn't get offended when someone doesn't agree with you.

DavidGrant
01-17-2016, 03:52 PM
This is drug test worthy.

Someone needs to report you to the community moderator. You're very rude and you don't add anything to the conversation.

LOb0
01-17-2016, 03:56 PM
Someone needs to report you to the community moderator. You're very rude and you don't add anything to the conversation.

I'm rude to illogical, bias people.

FlashBolt
01-17-2016, 04:00 PM
But for instance someone like Dominique Wilkins averaged 30 ppg when he was 33 years old and averaged 28 when he was 34 years old. That's longevity right there!

And the others ahead of him had a winning record in the Finals and have more Rings than him.

You shouldn't get offended when someone has a different opinion than yours.

Sorry but you make zero sense right now. LeBron's longevity is incredible right now when you consider he has played 950 games and is only age 31. He's only 100 games behind Wilkins and he did everything better. Wilkins has zero passion for the game and never played defense. He also never amounted to any accolades in the same sentence as LeBron. And if you think Worthy is better than James because of rings/Finals wins, that just shows how much you value a player.

DavidGrant
01-17-2016, 04:03 PM
Sorry but you make zero sense right now. LeBron's longevity is incredible right now when you consider he has played 950 games and is only age 31. He's only 100 games behind Wilkins and he did everything better. Wilkins has zero passion for the game and never played defense. He also never amounted to any accolades in the same sentence as LeBron. And if you think Worthy is better than James because of rings/Finals wins, that just shows how much you value a player.

Wilkins played 4 years of College. So now you're counting off if a player goes to college?

Wilkins had passion. now you're just making up stuff. Also he averaged 2.5 blocks per game his sophomore year at Georgia. That's a ton for a 6'7 SF. It's because he could jump so high and had such passion.

All I'm saying is lets see what LeBron is doing at age 35 cause Wilkins was averaging 29 a game for the Clippers at that age.

I think Worthy was better because he was a little bigger for one, also had a much better post game and I like that from my Forwards. I like my Forwards to be able to play like Forwards when need be. Also I think Worthy had a better off ball game for scoring and that is very important the further you go in tournaments or Playoffs.

LeBron is a little over rated, over hyped, how ever you want to say it.

phantasyyy
01-17-2016, 04:18 PM
Wilkins played 4 years of College. So now you're counting off if a player goes to college?

Wilkins had passion. now you're just making up stuff. Also he averaged 2.5 blocks per game his sophomore year at Georgia. That's a ton for a 6'7 SF. It's because he could jump so high and had such passion.

All I'm saying is lets see what LeBron is doing at age 35 cause Wilkins was averaging 29 a game for the Clippers at that age.

I think Worthy was better because he was a little bigger for one, also had a much better post game and I like that from my Forwards. I like my Forwards to be able to play like Forwards when need be. Also I think Worthy had a better off ball game for scoring and that is very important the further you go in tournaments or Playoffs.

LeBron is a little over rated, over hyped, how ever you want to say it.

So your justification for wilkins > Lebron is that he averaged 29pts as a 35yo? Or the fact that these guys had a post game or is bigger than LeBron?

I mean dude is freight-train and could probably average an absurd ppg, but that's not what you do when your leading your team to championships.

The hate is reaaaal. I mean I know hes easy to hate on, but this is ridiculous

ewing
01-17-2016, 04:58 PM
I'm rude to illogical, bias people.

thats not nice

DavidGrant
01-17-2016, 05:04 PM
the most and best lebrat has ever played is 38ppg on .399 for a series against a bunch of guys half his size. yeah, the chosen one.

DavidGrant
01-17-2016, 06:30 PM
It's hard to pinpoint whether these lists are peak or longevity/accolades.

If it's longevity/accolades then PP should definitely be on there, and if it's peak then T-Mac should be as well.

They should both be on there regardless actually lol

It's 80% based on Primes (A prime is about 8-10 years) Then it's 10% longevity and 10% accalades.

Tmac never won a playoff series and really was a chucker for the most part. Also only had about 5 good years.

Pierce was never really that good. He just got a lot of shots playing on bad teams. Lost usually in the first round and this being in the worst conference ever.

Hawkeye15
01-17-2016, 09:03 PM
Wilkins played 4 years of College. So now you're counting off if a player goes to college?

Wilkins had passion. now you're just making up stuff. Also he averaged 2.5 blocks per game his sophomore year at Georgia. That's a ton for a 6'7 SF. It's because he could jump so high and had such passion.

All I'm saying is lets see what LeBron is doing at age 35 cause Wilkins was averaging 29 a game for the Clippers at that age.

I think Worthy was better because he was a little bigger for one, also had a much better post game and I like that from my Forwards. I like my Forwards to be able to play like Forwards when need be. Also I think Worthy had a better off ball game for scoring and that is very important the further you go in tournaments or Playoffs.

LeBron is a little over rated, over hyped, how ever you want to say it.

no. But you now need to account that LeBron, or almost every player in this era, has logged a TON more NBA minutes by 30, than the old school guys. That means something. Hell, by the time Bird entered the NBA, LeBron had already played 350 games and made 2 all NBA teams. So you don't hold it against a guy who played in college, all 4 years, but trying to say LeBron hasn't accomplished as much as Bird did in his entire career, is just false. Wait and let him finish his career? He could quit now and he is above Bird. And he is miles above Nique. Melo is this generation's Nique. Prolific scorer who does minimal else to impact a game.

Hawkeye15
01-17-2016, 09:05 PM
oh wait, Buck Williams is back...

Munkeysuit
01-18-2016, 08:19 AM
Durant over Pip and Elgin Baylor? really? wow.

LOb0
01-18-2016, 10:49 AM
the most and best lebrat has ever played is 38ppg on .399 for a series against a bunch of guys half his size. yeah, the chosen one.

Thank christ..and the mods this guy was banned.

NYKalltheway
01-18-2016, 04:59 PM
The fact you think Baylor>James proves you have some sort of agenda.

Why is James better than Baylor?


This is drug test worthy.

I'd like to see arguments instead of smartass lines.

Hawkeye15
01-18-2016, 05:14 PM
Why is James better than Baylor?



I'd like to see arguments instead of smartass lines.

James is better than Baylor was for sure. Far more efficient, much better distributor, much better defender, impacts the win column a ton more. That isn't even a close one.

NYKalltheway
01-18-2016, 05:21 PM
James is better than Baylor was for sure. Far more efficient, much better distributor, much better defender, impacts the win column a ton more. That isn't even a close one.

Why is he a better defender?
Win column impact must be a joke. There's no way of comparing different eras using this. Heck, you can't even compare same eras with players under different styles using this..
As for efficiency, he has a more open court than Baylor ever had. It can't be compared.
Baylor being more selfish is true.

Hawkeye15
01-18-2016, 05:45 PM
Why is he a better defender?
Win column impact must be a joke. There's no way of comparing different eras using this. Heck, you can't even compare same eras with players under different styles using this..
As for efficiency, he has a more open court than Baylor ever had. It can't be compared.
Baylor being more selfish is true.

is this a joke? It was a track meet with minimal defense back then. Baylor is not in LeBron's class. I know you have this desire to continually pump the old timers in threads, but this is a poor example.

LOb0
01-18-2016, 05:53 PM
Why is James better than Baylor?



I'd like to see arguments instead of smartass lines.


What conceivable argument could you possibly have for Wilkins being better than Durant?

NYKalltheway
01-18-2016, 07:05 PM
What conceivable argument could you possibly have for Wilkins being better than Durant?

The fact that he was better all around, carried a team on his own for a decade against tougher competition than what Durant has ever faced. Durant is a better 3 point shooter than Nique, doesn't have any other trait that puts him above him. I'd like to see Durant go up against a prime Larry Bird and scoring 40.

NYKalltheway
01-18-2016, 07:08 PM
is this a joke? It was a track meet with minimal defense back then. Baylor is not in LeBron's class. I know you have this desire to continually pump the old timers in threads, but this is a poor example.

There were 5 people in the paint, now there's barely 1 and occassionally there's a help defender that's often too late. Back then, you'd hack a player's hand and it was barely called a foul, now you get near him without contact and it's a foul. What are you even talking about?
Also, Baylor was a phenomenal passer but as I said, he was selfish.
Saying that Elgin Baylor is a poor example and saying that Lebron is in a different class is plain bias and it's borderline ignorance.

tredigs
01-18-2016, 07:19 PM
There were 5 people in the paint, now there's barely 1 and occassionally there's a help defender that's often too late. Back then, you'd hack a player's hand and it was barely called a foul, now you get near him without contact and it's a foul. What are you even talking about?
Also, Baylor was a phenomenal passer but as I said, he was selfish.
Saying that Elgin Baylor is a poor example and saying that Lebron is in a different class is plain bias and it's borderline ignorance.
That does not matter. Defensive schemes as a whole blow that era away by a country mile. It's an entirely different and advanced league. It's honestly too far of a divide from that era to this one to directly compare them as players, but if you're trying to say that Elgin was h2h legitimately more dominant and skilled than Lebron, well, then you're just insane and not watching the same video as everyone else. Even relative to their own league, Lebron is head and shoulders more dominant in comparison to his peers than Elgin was. He was never an MVP in his time. And would never be an MVP in today's time.

Scoring ability? Bron
Passing ability? Bron
Defensive ability? Bron
Accolades? Bron
Championships? Bron

You have absolutely no leg to stand on here. Enough with your elder generation dogma dude. Give it a rest.

LOb0
01-18-2016, 07:45 PM
The fact that he was better all around, carried a team on his own for a decade against tougher competition than what Durant has ever faced. Durant is a better 3 point shooter than Nique, doesn't have any other trait that puts him above him. I'd like to see Durant go up against a prime Larry Bird and scoring 40.

Do you not understand how efficiency works? Durant is better in every measurable thing. I'm all for the older guys had tougher rules and often defend that stuff but you just sound like an old person that by default thinks people in the past were better.

NYKalltheway
01-18-2016, 08:01 PM
Even relative to their own league, Lebron is head and shoulders more dominant in comparison to his peers than Elgin was. He was never an MVP in his time. And would never be an MVP in today's time.


This is where you get it wrong.

Baylor is the reason why players like Lebron get MVP awards. He made the NBA a fun league and gave it players fans wanted to see. It was a tall man's league and the taller the better. There wasn't a non-big MVP winner from Robertson (early 60s) to Julius Erving (early 80s). Because feeding the big guy was the way to win. Baylor CHANGED THE GAME. And I'm pretty sure Baylor would have gotten 2 Finals MVP awards (1962 and 1966) had there been one..... They started giving those in the 70s, just fyi.

And Elgin Baylor would definitely be considered an elite player and one of the greatest of all time in this era of media exposure and overhype of anything 'now'. This is the era that suits Elgin Baylor the most. But his paradox problem is that without him, this era wouldn't look this way. This guy defined the ABA and he didn't even play in it.

ewing
01-18-2016, 08:01 PM
The fact that he was better all around, carried a team on his own for a decade against tougher competition than what Durant has ever faced. Durant is a better 3 point shooter than Nique, doesn't have any other trait that puts him above him. I'd like to see Durant go up against a prime Larry Bird and scoring 40.

i don't have a hard time seeing that happen

LOb0
01-18-2016, 08:05 PM
[/B]

i don't have a hard time seeing that happen

lol neither do I.

NYKalltheway
01-18-2016, 08:08 PM
That's also because you haven't really seen Durant play against a tough defense.

LOb0
01-18-2016, 08:14 PM
That's also because you haven't really seen Durant play against a tough defense.

Literal facepalm. So you think that Larry Bird is a tougher defender than the top tier defenders now. The quickness and athleticism now, combined with the more complex defensive strategy makes up for a lot the softer rules of todays game.

ewing
01-18-2016, 08:37 PM
That's also because you haven't really seen Durant play against a tough defense.


dude can score. he can score now, he would have scored then, 20 years from now he would score.

NYKalltheway
01-18-2016, 09:01 PM
dude can score. he can score now, he would have scored then, 20 years from now he would score.


but the same does not apply to Baylor or Nique?

ewing
01-18-2016, 09:45 PM
but the same does not apply to Baylor or Nique?

you said I'd like to see Durrant drop 40 on Bird like Nique. I'm telling you he could. I never saw Baylor play. Nique would also score today.

valade16
01-18-2016, 10:09 PM
but the same does not apply to Baylor or Nique?

Of course it does, but the point is: it also applies to Durant

Anyone who thinks the players of today are inherently inferior to any other generation suffers from the golden age fallacy.

KD has an MVP, Nique doesn't.
KD led his team to the Finals, Nique didn't.
KD has multiple scoring titles, Nique has 1.

So far as I can tell, your entire argument is based on Nique having to face the 80's Celtics. But KD has had to face the 5 time champion Spurs, so it's not like they haven't faced a historically great team.

Hawkeye15
01-18-2016, 11:20 PM
There were 5 people in the paint, now there's barely 1 and occassionally there's a help defender that's often too late. Back then, you'd hack a player's hand and it was barely called a foul, now you get near him without contact and it's a foul. What are you even talking about?
Also, Baylor was a phenomenal passer but as I said, he was selfish.
Saying that Elgin Baylor is a poor example and saying that Lebron is in a different class is plain bias and it's borderline ignorance.

all b.s. Track meet dude. Go watch the videos again.

LeBron is much better than Baylor. So is Durant, or Bird, for example.

There was literally zero defense for the most part in Baylor's era, outside some occasional rim protectors

Laker Legend42
01-18-2016, 11:23 PM
No. Baylor, Hondo, Barry, Worthy and Nique are not better than Clyde.

James worthy was better than Clyde. Big game is overlooked a lot because of who his teammates were.

Hawkeye15
01-18-2016, 11:23 PM
That's also because you haven't really seen Durant play against a tough defense.

Did you stop watching basketball 8 years ago? The defenses today are better than ever. More complex, with real numbers to diagnose players weaknesses, and put the offenses in the worst position to succeed.

The players you always protect, come from a generation where they basically just played the "I will outscore you" mode. Nothing wrong with that, but don't try and get away with telling anyone the defenders of old compare to the schemes of the last 10 years and growing.

Hawkeye15
01-18-2016, 11:25 PM
but the same does not apply to Baylor or Nique?

If they were in today's game, and could consistently find the line or hit 3's, yep. But we don't know.....

Can you imagine if you sent Durant back to 1985, and teams NEVER guarded the three point line like they do now? He would destroy it. Now, as a counter, can you imagine Bird growing up into today's game? He would shoot 3 times as many bombs as he used to.

tredigs
01-18-2016, 11:58 PM
This is where you get it wrong.

Baylor is the reason why players like Lebron get MVP awards. He made the NBA a fun league and gave it players fans wanted to see. It was a tall man's league and the taller the better. There wasn't a non-big MVP winner from Robertson (early 60s) to Julius Erving (early 80s). Because feeding the big guy was the way to win. Baylor CHANGED THE GAME. And I'm pretty sure Baylor would have gotten 2 Finals MVP awards (1962 and 1966) had there been one..... They started giving those in the 70s, just fyi.

And Elgin Baylor would definitely be considered an elite player and one of the greatest of all time in this era of media exposure and overhype of anything 'now'. This is the era that suits Elgin Baylor the most. But his paradox problem is that without him, this era wouldn't look this way. This guy defined the ABA and he didn't even play in it.

Dude, he shared the majority of his career on the court with an ultra high scoring guard (Jerry West) who was considered the teams best player by most, and almost always finished above him in MVP balloting (and the only one of the two who has a scoring title). Plus, West was WAY more efficient of a scorer (Elgin TS% was an abhorrent 49%. Far below Allen Iverson for comparison). Also, Oscar Robertson? Another ultra high scoring guard who came in at essentially the same time and was considered better than Baylor. And 2 Finals MVP's if it existed??? Elgin never won a Finals. The only time a Finals loser won the Finals MVP (the only time), it was HIS TEAMMATE JERRY WEST. Also, Jerry played both sides of the floor and was considered one of the games best defenders while Elgin was a sieve on that end.

You have some serious revisionist history going on. Again. It's an absolute joke to consider Elgin on Lebron's level, forget above him.

NYKalltheway
01-19-2016, 07:32 AM
So you're basically overrating players because of the 3pt line and how it developed in the game, assuming that the older guys wouldn't hit threes. Assuming that defenses are better now (they're not), forgetting that the competition level was better back then due to less teams around and more stacked teams and your best argument is not basketball related, but it's just some numbers being thrown out of context, also ignoring the stat padding mentality these modern generation players have, that didn't exist till the late 90s. Seriously, I don't think how someone can continue to talk basketball here with all the numbers, this isn't freaking baseball.

valade16
01-19-2016, 11:31 AM
So you're basically overrating players because of the 3pt line and how it developed in the game, assuming that the older guys wouldn't hit threes. Assuming that defenses are better now (they're not), forgetting that the competition level was better back then due to less teams around and more stacked teams and your best argument is not basketball related, but it's just some numbers being thrown out of context, also ignoring the stat padding mentality these modern generation players have, that didn't exist till the late 90s. Seriously, I don't think how someone can continue to talk basketball here with all the numbers, this isn't freaking baseball.

The reason we have to use numbers is apparently watching with your own eyes isn't working if you honestly think the 60's had better defense than today.

How could all the teams be scoring 125 PPG back then (on bad shooting efficiency) if their defense was so good?

The 2 lowest scoring teams of 1961-1962 scored 110.9 and 114.8 PPG. The Warriors, who are on pace to tie the best record in NBA history, score 114.3 PPG.

How come defenses back then were giving up an average of 119 PPG nightly? The least amount of points allowed for the entire decade of the 60's was in 1963/64 by the Warriors, when they allowed 102.6. Just this season we have 10 teams that allow less than 100 PPG.

So what is it? Were players in the 60's both better at scoring and better at defense? In the last 50 years we have invented computers, the internet, smartphones. We've improved virtually in virtually every area but in Basketball we just didn't improve at all?

Hawkeye15
01-19-2016, 11:37 AM
I mean, the simple FACT is a track meet pace produces ****** defense.

Hawkeye15
01-19-2016, 11:37 AM
So you're basically overrating players because of the 3pt line and how it developed in the game, assuming that the older guys wouldn't hit threes. Assuming that defenses are better now (they're not), forgetting that the competition level was better back then due to less teams around and more stacked teams and your best argument is not basketball related, but it's just some numbers being thrown out of context, also ignoring the stat padding mentality these modern generation players have, that didn't exist till the late 90s. Seriously, I don't think how someone can continue to talk basketball here with all the numbers, this isn't freaking baseball.

like everything else, sports evolve. When you have years behind you to see what works best, you tend to do that. Which is why it's so difficult to compare players from wildly different era's. We can only use their evidence in an argument.

But without hesitation, I think if you send LeBron back to the 60's, he isn't the same player he is today. And vice versa, if you send Baylor to this era, he is a different player.

But what we do know is, in reality, as a basketball player, LeBron is far better.

NYKalltheway
01-19-2016, 01:18 PM
like everything else, sports evolve. When you have years behind you to see what works best, you tend to do that. Which is why it's so difficult to compare players from wildly different era's. We can only use their evidence in an argument.

But without hesitation, I think if you send LeBron back to the 60's, he isn't the same player he is today. And vice versa, if you send Baylor to this era, he is a different player.

But what we do know is, in reality, as a basketball player, LeBron is far better.

By this logic, there's no player today that is inferior to anyone till the early 70s due to the professional nature of the sport compared to the amateuristic approach of the past, lifestyle changes and media exposure. But when you want to want a cross-generation discussion, TALENT is the #1 commodity. This cannot be measured by any number. You either have the ability to understand how a talented player looks, or you don't. There's a difference between an athletic player and a talented player and the guy who's both athletic and talented gets to be the best. Athleticism is something you can train and teach someone to have to a larger extent than talent. Hence, I consider talent >>>>> athleticism. And in this era, it's all about the athleticism and it's why I don't like the fact that the Nowitzkis and Duncans of this world are getting more rare (I mean style of play, not the whole package which is rare on its own).

When you discuss cross-generation, you have to assume some level of equal standards, otherwise you're biased. Back then, they called travelling. In the last 25 years, they sort of stopped. I don't see Lebron being as effective without his no-calls. I don't see him as effective when someone is allowed to touch him. I don't see him as effective if he can't be on a stacked team against inferior (on paper) teams, since the rest will also have stacked teams. And I don't consider Lebron to be a bad player or something, he's gonna have a legendary status at the end of the day and he deserves that, it's just that I don't overrate him like most of you are.

Jeffy25
01-20-2016, 03:40 AM
Bron over Bird is correct, no doubt about that.

KD has only played 22K minutes

He hasn't passed the guys below him on this list yet with what he's done so far. If he never played another NBA minute, he would remain below these guys.

I understand that people really value peak vs longevity, but no way. Not yet. He's an elite player, and better than those guys talent wise. But he hasn't been on the court long enough and played enough minutes to surpass them yet.

I'm good with the first three and their order

Jeffy25
01-20-2016, 03:55 AM
The fact that he was better all around, carried a team on his own for a decade against tougher competition than what Durant has ever faced. Durant is a better 3 point shooter than Nique, doesn't have any other trait that puts him above him. I'd like to see Durant go up against a prime Larry Bird and scoring 40.

I read more in the NBA forums than I post (as opposed to the MLB).

And I continually see people talk about the past as though the NBA of the 80's and 90's was somehow better/harder, etc. And that's absolutely false. Maybe centers were different, and the game focused more on the post game more than they do now. But the competition is much more fierce now and the talent is much better distributed as a whole, especially with players moving around more.

The game is different, that doesn't mean it's easier.

I understand that people have nostalgia and like to believe that guys like Nique, Baylor, Ewing, etc....that we had more 'stars' back then. But the reality is that the game has always had the same number of stars, it just distributes the talent differently as time elapses.

There is so much more talent in the NBA today than there was in the 80's and 90's and it's not even funny. For one, you have so many more kids focused on the sport coming up and are trained specifically for it as a professional career than you had then. You have advanced scouting, much larger players, and more youth and more spread out, balanced basketball with a focus on defense for once.

It's a very different sport, but the talent is absolutely not worse. And while there is no way to quantify or prove that one way or the other, it's simple evolution that the game has not regressed over the last 30 years in talent. Especially as basketball has become a more advanced universal professional sport.

Can you imagine what a guy like Dirk would have done in the 80's?


The 14-15 season had 7 players with a 25.0 PER or better with the best being 30 (Davis), and 31 players who posted a 20.0 PER (min 2000 minutes) and 13 players contributed 10 win shares or more with the best being 16 (Harden, Curry, and Paul)

The 84-85 season saw 3 guys with a 25.0 PER or better, with the best being 26 (Bird and Jordan), and there were 19 players with a 20.0 PER and 12 players contributed 10 win shares or more with the best being 15 (again Bird and Jordan)

Players are more efficient, better coached and scouted, and the game is more spread out and balanced and we easily have more better and good players than we did 30 years ago.


I see these posts a lot, I'm not picking on you. I just see them a lot, and while they can't be proven, I see them as laughably false.

NYKalltheway
01-20-2016, 11:19 AM
Jeff, you are contradicting yourself. There's way more teams now than before. Teams used to be stacked with superstars (you can't teach talent no matter how much you train or how well scouted a guy is), now there's barely 1 in every team. Teams with 2 superstars used to miss playoffs, now it's news if they don't make it to their conference semis!

It's easier for the elite players of today to put up better numbers and they're also working towards that direction, since it's what the US media is all about and that's essentially what they're cashing in. It's all about the money and the means is the inflated statistics (which has forced people to go for advanced and futher advanced statistics instead of eliminating it as a whole and go back to the actual game). In the past, it was all about winning. The regular season has become a joke in the last 10 years (it never was very important, but in the last decade it's a complete joke) and it's all about inflating statistics of some players. We've seen guys like David Lee, Cousins, DeRozan and so on having impressive stats but we all know they're nothing special.

The rotations are not larger these days than in the past, which is a sign of regress in what you're trying to talk about. Compare that to Europe, where people were logging 40/40 minutes or 36/40 minutes and the bench guys were just bench guys that played for a few minutes or seconds... and how it progresses into 10 and 12 man rotations. Whilst you could argue that this is because the NBA teams poach young European starlets, the truth is there are still at least 50 guys in Europe who can be in an NBA rotation and the level is increasing. There's an evident lack of superstars though but that has to do with other factors.

valade16
01-20-2016, 11:33 AM
I will say that the increased efficiency of today is not necessarily because people are better shooters (although many are), it's also because thanks to the advanced statistics people are being taught where and when to shoot to get easier opportunities.

When I watch 80's/early 90's highlights, it amazes me how many times I'll see a guy on the backside of the court get a pass and shoot a jump-shot a foot inside the 3pt line. Nowadays they would simply be told to stand a foot back to make it a 3.

That being said, while there are more teams, there are also more stars because there are more people all around the world playing basketball and coming over. Just because there were less teams back then doesn't automatically mean they were more stacked because that is assuming they were drawing from the same pool of players as today.

Hawkeye15
01-20-2016, 11:44 AM
I will say that the increased efficiency of today is not necessarily because people are better shooters (although many are), it's also because thanks to the advanced statistics people are being taught where and when to shoot to get easier opportunities.

When I watch 80's/early 90's highlights, it amazes me how many times I'll see a guy on the backside of the court get a pass and shoot a jump-shot a foot inside the 3pt line. Nowadays they would simply be told to stand a foot back to make it a 3.

That being said, while there are more teams, there are also more stars because there are more people all around the world playing basketball and coming over. Just because there were less teams back then doesn't automatically mean they were more stacked because that is assuming they were drawing from the same pool of players as today.

Unless you are the Wolves, and their archaic ****ing offense. Sam Mitchell needs to be put on a shelf somewhere to collect dust like his offensive playbook has to the rest of the world. I can't even tell you how pissed off I get watching the Wolves swing the ball around only for Prince, Towns, or Wiggins to take a 19 footer.

NYKalltheway
01-20-2016, 12:49 PM
When I watch 80's/early 90's highlights, it amazes me how many times I'll see a guy on the backside of the court get a pass and shoot a jump-shot a foot inside the 3pt line. Nowadays they would simply be told to stand a foot back to make it a 3.


I can give you that, even if it's still evident today to a large extent. It's not a dead practice. Especially a rushed shot selection.

As for the rest, I'll disagree with the pool of players etc. The game has changed. It's becoming a league of athletes instead of a league of basketball players that it used to be. The lack of college level players and the evident lack of fundamentals is what causes the NBA to sign foreign players. The foreigners haven't improved as individuals, if anything, we have much less stars these days but there's more emphasis on passing efficiency and rotation. The main reason is that these players do have the fundamentals that superstars of this era do not, guys like Lebron, Blake Griffin etc. The NBA doesn't breed Tim Duncans, it breeds Griffins. That people like to take pictures of and drool over their jumping ability. Nobody watches the NBA to see Duncan's footwork. Hence;players should be judged on their basketball skills and not their popularity. There can't be a mix of the two if you want to be unbiased.

KnicksorBust
01-20-2016, 01:00 PM
I can give you that, even if it's still evident today to a large extent. It's not a dead practice. Especially a rushed shot selection.

As for the rest, I'll disagree with the pool of players etc. The game has changed. It's becoming a league of athletes instead of a league of basketball players that it used to be. The lack of college level players and the evident lack of fundamentals is what causes the NBA to sign foreign players. The foreigners haven't improved as individuals, if anything, we have much less stars these days but there's more emphasis on passing efficiency and rotation. The main reason is that these players do have the fundamentals that superstars of this era do not, guys like Lebron, Blake Griffin etc. The NBA doesn't breed Tim Duncans, it breeds Griffins. That people like to take pictures of and drool over their jumping ability. Nobody watches the NBA to see Duncan's footwork. Hence;players should be judged on their basketball skills and not their popularity. There can't be a mix of the two if you want to be unbiased.

And NBA teams don't just give any scrub who can dunk a contract. The way you are underrating the skills of the current players is shocking. The most valuable basketball skills these days are passing, 3's, and getting to the basket. There is no doubt that the modern era of guards and forwards are miles better as perimeter shooters than the players from the 80s and 90s. No debate.

In addition, the reason we won't see more footwork pf/c players is because offensively the low post big man is no longer as valuable as it once was. The defense he plays will be valuable until the end of time. But now it is better that bigs can also stretch the floor and finish at the rim. Anthony Davis and Karl Towns are the future of elite big men.

Bajecco
01-20-2016, 01:04 PM
I agree with you but I gave up hope when the PSD lists had Hakeem before Bird LOL :D

1. Bird
2. James
3. KD
4. Dr J.



Dr. J doesn't get the respect he deserves. If he came up in the early 80's rather than early 70's he'd be the undisputed #2 behind LeBron. Doc was a transcendent talent and would of been one of the GOATS regardless of what era he played in. He was schooling NBA guys in his 30's with 2 bad knees.

NYKalltheway
01-20-2016, 05:55 PM
And NBA teams don't just give any scrub who can dunk a contract. The way you are underrating the skills of the current players is shocking. The most valuable basketball skills these days are passing, 3's, and getting to the basket. There is no doubt that the modern era of guards and forwards are miles better as perimeter shooters than the players from the 80s and 90s. No debate.


How is passing more valuable now than before? The NBA is more direct than ever (early 2000s and on).
Getting to the basket has always been valuable. You know what the word you're looking for is? Easier. It's easier to get to the basket now. There's no 7 footer brutes under it plus 1-2 other big guys in front of you, it's essentially an open lane.
Three's have definitely integrated into the new way of offense, but it's not like long range shots weren't common in the past. There just wasn't a three point line and a +1 point per shot chance from the field.

We now have long range shooting specialists. The older generation guys could still shoot. There's a debate alright. There was a 3pt line in the ABA. Their stats aren't really bad and iirc it was around 2 feet further away from the current 3 point line (the corners were the same distance at 22ft), as they were referred to as the 25 footers, while the current one is at 23"9. And those guys had much less practice. Heck, I'm a good 3 point shooter in a casual game situation with some practice so to say that a professional basketball player who'd practice the shot wouldn't excel in it is ridiculous. There was no reason to shoot from that far. Havlicek used to shoot a lot from that area. Dave DeBuscherre helped the Knicks win their 2 championships with that kind of shots. It's ridiculous to dismiss this and ignore all context just because you, like most NBA fans, are a prisoner of the moment. And the likes of Lebron, Durant etc are hot in the moment. The other issue is, there was never a generation of basketball fans that wanted their guys to be the best ever. No one said when Kevin Johnson was lighting it up, that he was a top 3 PG of all time in 1993. We've seen Nash and we'll soon see Steph Curry be called that. It's just too much and it's done by people who know so little, because no one really cares about watching older generation games and players and make a proper comparison. A 3 minute black & white youtube video doesn't translate to "I've seen Wilt Chamberlain and Dwight Howard is better". That's something I've heard btw, that Howard was a top 10 center of all time and that he's better than Russell and Wilt... This was when Howard was considered a top 3 player in the league. This is what I hate about today's NBA the most. The fans who just drool over everyone as if there's never been something like them. At least this year with the Warriors it's rightful to say something like that. With Kobe, Lebron, Howard, Griffin etc it was just dumb.

Hawkeye15
01-20-2016, 06:01 PM
How is passing more valuable now than before? The NBA is more direct than ever (early 2000s and on).
Getting to the basket has always been valuable. You know what the word you're looking for is? Easier. It's easier to get to the basket now. There's no 7 footer brutes under it plus 1-2 other big guys in front of you, it's essentially an open lane.
Three's have definitely integrated into the new way of offense, but it's not like long range shots weren't common in the past. There just wasn't a three point line and a +1 point per shot chance from the field.

We now have long range shooting specialists. The older generation guys could still shoot. There's a debate alright. There was a 3pt line in the ABA. Their stats aren't really bad and iirc it was around 2 feet further away from the current 3 point line (the corners were the same distance at 22ft), as they were referred to as the 25 footers, while the current one is at 23"9. And those guys had much less practice. Heck, I'm a good 3 point shooter in a casual game situation with some practice so to say that a professional basketball player who'd practice the shot wouldn't excel in it is ridiculous. There was no reason to shoot from that far. Havlicek used to shoot a lot from that area. Dave DeBuscherre helped the Knicks win their 2 championships with that kind of shots. It's ridiculous to dismiss this and ignore all context just because you, like most NBA fans, are a prisoner of the moment. And the likes of Lebron, Durant etc are hot in the moment. The other issue is, there was never a generation of basketball fans that wanted their guys to be the best ever. No one said when Kevin Johnson was lighting it up, that he was a top 3 PG of all time in 1993. We've seen Nash and we'll soon see Steph Curry be called that. It's just too much and it's done by people who know so little, because no one really cares about watching older generation games and players and make a proper comparison. A 3 minute black & white youtube video doesn't translate to "I've seen Wilt Chamberlain and Dwight Howard is better". That's something I've heard btw, that Howard was a top 10 center of all time and that he's better than Russell and Wilt... This was when Howard was considered a top 3 player in the league. This is what I hate about today's NBA the most. The fans who just drool over everyone as if there's never been something like them. At least this year with the Warriors it's rightful to say something like that. With Kobe, Lebron, Howard, Griffin etc it was just dumb.

no, it's not. In the 80's, it was wide open. Sure there were times you were going to deal with a hard foul, but illegal defense was called any time you tried to wall off the paint. It is not any longer. Driving lanes are much harder to find now then ever. Want to know what teams did to help? They spaced the floor more. If they still played the packed in offenses they did in the older days, with the newer rules, nobody would get a layup off the dribble.

mngopher35
01-20-2016, 06:09 PM
How is passing more valuable now than before? The NBA is more direct than ever (early 2000s and on).
Getting to the basket has always been valuable. You know what the word you're looking for is? Easier. It's easier to get to the basket now. There's no 7 footer brutes under it plus 1-2 other big guys in front of you, it's essentially an open lane.
Three's have definitely integrated into the new way of offense, but it's not like long range shots weren't common in the past. There just wasn't a three point line and a +1 point per shot chance from the field.

We now have long range shooting specialists. The older generation guys could still shoot. There's a debate alright. There was a 3pt line in the ABA. Their stats aren't really bad and iirc it was around 2 feet further away from the current 3 point line (the corners were the same distance at 22ft), as they were referred to as the 25 footers, while the current one is at 23"9. And those guys had much less practice. Heck, I'm a good 3 point shooter in a casual game situation with some practice so to say that a professional basketball player who'd practice the shot wouldn't excel in it is ridiculous. There was no reason to shoot from that far. Havlicek used to shoot a lot from that area. Dave DeBuscherre helped the Knicks win their 2 championships with that kind of shots. It's ridiculous to dismiss this and ignore all context just because you, like most NBA fans, are a prisoner of the moment. And the likes of Lebron, Durant etc are hot in the moment. The other issue is, there was never a generation of basketball fans that wanted their guys to be the best ever. No one said when Kevin Johnson was lighting it up, that he was a top 3 PG of all time in 1993. We've seen Nash and we'll soon see Steph Curry be called that. It's just too much and it's done by people who know so little, because no one really cares about watching older generation games and players and make a proper comparison. A 3 minute black & white youtube video doesn't translate to "I've seen Wilt Chamberlain and Dwight Howard is better". That's something I've heard btw, that Howard was a top 10 center of all time and that he's better than Russell and Wilt... This was when Howard was considered a top 3 player in the league. This is what I hate about today's NBA the most. The fans who just drool over everyone as if there's never been something like them. At least this year with the Warriors it's rightful to say something like that. With Kobe, Lebron, Howard, Griffin etc it was just dumb.

You seem to be on one extreme and using another extreme to justify it (no one arguing here has or would say that about Dwight/Wilt despite some crazy you heard somewhere). There is a middle ground in all of this and it involves admitting the evolution of the game and not calling people bias/irrational for having Lebron clearly over Baylor (which like 90+% would agree on and that is basketball people not just weird kids you listen to).

valade16
01-20-2016, 06:17 PM
I love the logic "It is easier to get into the paint now than it was back then". That's why everyone is taking 3-pointers right? If it was easier to get into the paint, why wouldn't everyone be going to the paint?

valade16
01-20-2016, 06:19 PM
http://www.slamonline.com/nba/rick-barry-says-lebron-james-is-the-greatest-small-foward-in-nba-history/#5K6rxvzUhQoe5y5Q.97

Rick Barry says LeBron James is the greatest small forward in NBA history. Too bad he's just a dumb fan today who never watched any black and white footage of the NBA :rolleyes:

Ball_Out
01-20-2016, 06:23 PM
Id take Pippen over Durant honestly.

Hawkeye15
01-20-2016, 06:27 PM
Id take Pippen over Durant honestly.

I think Durant passes him, but at this point, I for sure take Pippen over Durant.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-20-2016, 06:43 PM
The concept of a guy scooting back 1 foot to shoot a three rather than shoot a 23 foot shot worth 2 points isn't new at all. It's also common sense. I've never seen a player stand 23 feet from the rim and shoot jumpers.

As for the talent in the league its all wasted talent today. There are too many poorly run franchises that waste the top 5 draft picks year after year.

Also any post game beats a three point shooting team any day. Watch what happens when San Antonio proves it against GS.
In the history of the NBA a three point shooting team that relies on threes has never beaten a post up team.

So actually the talent was better in the 80's and 90's. That is proof. Yes they shoot more threes now and maybe many are better at shooting threes, but on the same token players were much better at posting up back then and getting offensive rebounds. The game was very competitive back then too. The games today are not that competitive unless they're on TNT of a super network like that. Back in the 90's every game was competive.

The NBA needs to do away with about 3 teams and send the star players of those teams to the East to help balance out the East and West for Star players.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-20-2016, 06:49 PM
Id take Pippen over Durant honestly.

Pippen was the better player. I'd rather have Pippen than just about any player today.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-20-2016, 06:55 PM
PER is calculated different each season. I saw someone put a large emphasis on there being 5 players with a 25 PER. That is because there are far more players in the NBA today so the worst players make those best players PER inflated. It's all averaged on 15. If there are 100 players and all getting a ton of minutes then the worst player will actually be pretty good and also the average from 15 won't be that much lower or higher.

If you put Wilt Chamberlain in todays league and average his stats against everyone elses on the silly PER his PER would be in the neighborhood of 45.

Same with MJ, His PER would be around 45 in todays NBA. The list goes on, All those players back then. Even Scottie Pippen in his great seasons would have a 30 PER today.

The NBA has about 500 players today that play.

Back then it was more like 380, and a majority of them played rotation minutes unlike today.

NYKalltheway
01-20-2016, 07:54 PM
You seem to be on one extreme and using another extreme to justify it (no one arguing here has or would say that about Dwight/Wilt despite some crazy you heard somewhere). There is a middle ground in all of this and it involves admitting the evolution of the game and not calling people bias/irrational for having Lebron clearly over Baylor (which like 90+% would agree on and that is basketball people not just weird kids you listen to).

The Howard statements were made on this very forum. You just had to be here in 2011-13 and you'd witness it yourself. And seeing that sign on the top right, I'm pretty sure you've seen those posts back in the day but you probably didn't think it was weird back then, hence why you don't recall it.

NYKalltheway
01-20-2016, 07:58 PM
I love the logic "It is easier to get into the paint now than it was back then". That's why everyone is taking 3-pointers right? If it was easier to get into the paint, why wouldn't everyone be going to the paint?

Coz 3>2.
But seriously, there are various reasons:

1) Coaches draw offenses for an open shot. That's usually a three.

2) The post play of modern players is very bad. You see forwards and centers that can play in the post still being fed the ball. But they're a minority now. It's all about the p&r because that's the only way these new bigs (DeAndre, Griffin, Howard etc) can remain efficient and it also keeps point #1 open.

3) Slashing guards and forwards are increasing by the minute. I don't see how this can be ignored. PG's are no longer playmakers, they simply drive to the basket. Rose, Westbrook and a bunch of others that have that style who are the majority of draftees in the 2000s/

mngopher35
01-20-2016, 09:15 PM
The Howard statements were made on this very forum. You just had to be here in 2011-13 and you'd witness it yourself. And seeing that sign on the top right, I'm pretty sure you've seen those posts back in the day but you probably didn't think it was weird back then, hence why you don't recall it.

Haha I would obviously think it was weird if Dwight was being called better than Wilt/Russell, I have always had them in my all time great lists for example but no Dwight. If it came from a poster who commonly said stuff like that I easily could have just missed it because I stopped reading their posts. I don't take those people's opinions to mean anything basically is what I was saying in calling it out previously(When I said no one arguing here I meant people questioning you in this thread like Hawk/Tre/KoB etc. and I highly doubt it was one of them) but of course you take it as me agreeing with the opinion I called crazy. You are so set that everyone is bias against old players even when it isn't true (or at least been shown).

I do agree that there are some posters on here who underrate older players or overrate their favorites mostly being current etc. but you are similar in the opposite way (not as bad as that reference but generally speaking).

Hawkeye15
01-20-2016, 11:33 PM
The Howard statements were made on this very forum. You just had to be here in 2011-13 and you'd witness it yourself. And seeing that sign on the top right, I'm pretty sure you've seen those posts back in the day but you probably didn't think it was weird back then, hence why you don't recall it.

I absolutely get why you post what you do. You are sticking up for history, and I love it.

But cmon, some of the stuff you post, is just absolutely not accurate. Otherwise you would be my Dad, and would have stopped watching the NBA 15 years ago

NYKalltheway
01-21-2016, 07:03 AM
I absolutely get why you post what you do. You are sticking up for history, and I love it.

But cmon, some of the stuff you post, is just absolutely not accurate. Otherwise you would be my Dad, and would have stopped watching the NBA 15 years ago

It's not really sticking up for history. It's also for objectivity. I'm not attached to any era or something. The one I've lived through the most, live, is the late 90s early 2000s one, which people hate because the game was too, let's say, tactical and defense focused. Which is exactly what I love in basketball. Then they ruined all that, in order to give guys like Kobe and Wade the chance to become inflated superstars. They were gonna still be superstars no matter what kind of rules you had, but some rule changes have just created a handicap between today and history. And this is where Lebron comes into the picture. The guy can get away with murder if it happened on the court! He had a never seen before ref treatment throughout his career. Even Jordan got bad calls against him in the 80s!

Another thing, I was watching a youtube video with Steve Smith, Webber, Isiah Thomas, Grant Hill etc (Open Court iirc) and the guys there were talking about modern players, how no one really wants to win and they're in it for the money and lifestyle. Which is true and it translated on the court. Not through numbers, but through the quality of the game. There's hardly any passion in the game compared to other times, it draws people away.

And I sort of did stop watching the NBA. I remember I'd stay up at night to watch a random Regular Season game at least 4 times in 5 when I was in school (and mind you, there's a 7-10 hours in time zone difference). In the last 10 years, I barely wanna watch a few RS games because it's pretty much a way to see these modern players in action, but only around half of the playoff games are worth watching, since the 1st round is usually useless except 1 or 2 games! It doesn't attract me anymore because all I see is a cash cow product in an era of consumerism, an era of which I've seen the birth (Michael Jordan's 2nd threepeat) but never realised the effects it would have on the game itself. The early post-Jordan era was one of my favorites with Shaq, Tmac, Iverson, Kobe, Grant Hill, Webber, Peja(loved him from his time in Greece), the prospect of a Tim Duncan and Garnett rivalry in the West, Starbury, Steve Francis on his way to stardom... That was probably my favorite era watching the NBA. You're not gonna see my hype these guys out unless they deserve it. On the other hand, Charles Barkley is probably my favorite PF of all time. And I rank him #5 in an all time list of PFs.

Anyway, here's an interesting number of lists in October 2011. Lebron hasn't really added much to his game since then, but he managed to win a ring with a Heat team after losing the first time and he still maintains a losing record in the Finals despite having 2 rings. You can give him bonus points in longevity, which is what makes me revise my own list and give him a few spots up, but if rings is a catalyst for some, he'd be still losing points there. The lists come from PSD members. One of them is yours Hawkeye :)


1: Larry Bird
2: Julius Erving
3: Hondo
4: Pippen
5: Elgin Baylor
6: Rick Barry
7: LeBron James
8: Dominique Wilkins
9: Paul Pierce
10: Worthy
11: Bernard King
12: Adrian Dantley
13: Vince Carter
14: Alex English
15: Dave DeBusschere


1: Larry Bird
2: Julius Erving
3: John Havlicek
4: Elgin Baylor
5: LeBron James
6: Scottie Pippen
7: Rick Barry
8: Alex English
9: Chris Mullin
10: Bernard King
11: Paul Pierce
12: Adrian Dantley
13: Grant Hill
14: Paul Arizin
15: Dominique Wilkins


1: Bird
2: Dr. J
3: Baylor
4: Pippen
5: Hondo
6: Nique
7: Rick Barry
8: LeBron
9: Pierce
10: English
11: King
12: Worthy
13: Grant Hill
14: Dantley
15: Vince Carter


1. Bird
2. Erving
3. Pippen
4. Havlicek
5. Baylor
6. LeBron
7. Wilkins
8. Pierce
9. Barry
10. Alex English
11. Bernard King
12. Dantley
13. Worthy
14. Mullin
15. Hill


1: Larry Bird
2: Julius Erving
3: John Havlicek
4: Elgin Baylor
5: Scottie Pippen
6: Lebron James
7: Dominique Wilkins
8: Paul Pierce
9: Rick Barry
10: James Worthy
11: Alex English
12: Bernard King
13: Grant Hill
14: Adrian Dantley
15: Vince Carter


1: Larry Bird
2: Julius Erving
3: John Havlicek
4: Elgin Baylor
5: Rick Barry
6: Lebron James
7: Dominique Wilkins
8: Scottie Pippen
9: James Worthy
10: Paul Pierce
11: Bernard King
12: Adrian Dantley
13: Chris Mullin
14: Alex English
15: Dave DeBusschere

The following one is mine. My top 4 remains unchanged. My 5 and 6 are interchangeable, perhaps Elgin getting the edge. Worthy and Pippen are marginally off the top 6. I'd probably rate Lebron somewhere between 8 and 10-11 at this point, due to longevity.

1: Larry Bird
2: Julius Erving
3: John Havlicek
4: Rick Barry
5: Dominique Wilkins
6: Elgin Baylor
7: James Worthy
8: Scottie Pippen
9: Alex English
10: Adrian Dantley
11: Bernard King
12: Lebron James
13: Grant Hill
14: Chris Mullin
15: Latrell Sprewell



1: L.Bird
2: L.James
3: J.Erving
4: E.Baylor
5: S.Pippen
6: J.Havlicek
7: R.Barry
8: D. Wilkins
9: J.Worthy
10: G.Hill
11: A.English
12: A.Dantley
13: B.King
14: P.Peirce
15: C.Mullin



1: Larry Bird
2: Dr J
3: Elgin Baylor
4: Rick Barry
5: Scottie Pippen
6: James Worhty
7: Dominique Wilkins
8: Lebron James
9: Adrian Dantley
10:Chris Mullins
11: Alex english
12: Marques Johnson
13: Jamaal Wilkes
14: Dennis Rodman
15: Bernard King



1.bird
2.dr.j
3.lebron
4.hondo
5.pippen
6.baylor
7.barry
8.pp
9.wilkins
10.dantley
11.english
12.worthy
13.king
14.hill
15.skywalker


1. Larry Bird
2. Lebron James
3. Elgin Baylor
4. Rick Barry
5. Dr. J
6. Hondo
7. Dennis Rodman
8. Scottie Pippen
9. Paul Pierce
10. ‘Nique
11. DeBusschere
12. James Worthy
13. Bernard King
14. Alex English
15. Adrian Dantley


1. Larry Bird
2. Elgin Baylor
3. LeBron James
4. Julius Erving
5. John Havlicek
6. Dominique Wilkins
7. Scottie Pippen
8. Rick Barry
9. Carmelo Anthony
10. Adrian Dantley
11. James Worthy
12. Paul Pierce
13. Alex English
14. Bernard King
15. Shawn Marion



1. Larry Bird
2. Julius Erving
3. LeBron James
4. Elgin Baylor
5. Rick Barry
6. Scottie Pippen
7. James Worthy
8. Dominique Wilkins
9. Adrian Dantley
10. Alex English
11. Bernard King
12. Paul Pierce
13. Grant Hill
14. Chris Mullin
15. Dave DeBuscherre


1. Bird
2. Erving
3. Pippen
4. Baylor
5. Havlicek
6. LBJ
7. Paul Pierce
8. Dominique
9. Worthy
10. Dantley
11. English
12. Grant Hill
13. Vince Carter
14. Kevin Durant
15. King



1: Bird
2: Dr. J
3: Baylor
4: Pippen
5: Hondo
6: Wilkins
7: Rick Barry
8: LeBron
9: Durant
10: English
11: King
12: Worthy
13: Grant Hill
14: Pierce
15: Vince Carter


1. Larry Bird
2. Julius Erving
3. John Havlicek
4. Elgin Baylor
5. Scottie Pippen
6. Lebron James
7. Dominique Wilkins
8. Rick Barry
9. James Worthy
10. Paul Pierce
11. Alex English
12. Bernard King
13. Grant Hill
14. Adrian Dantley
15. Chris Mullin


1: Larry Legend
2: Dr. J
3: Hondo
4: Baylor
5: Pippen
6: Barry
7: LeBron James
8: Dominique
9: Pierce
10: Worthy
11: Bernard King
12: Adrian Dantley
13: VC
14: English
15: DeBusschere

I don't really see how these lists should radically change.
Ignoring my ranking, Lebron was ranked 7th, 5th, 8th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 2nd, 8th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 6th, 7th.
That means an average of 5th or 6th SF of all time. In 2011. I see some of the people who gave him "low" ranks praise him as the GOAT SF or in the thereabouts now. Why?
Has he developed his game? Has his competition improved?
In 16 rankings, Baylor is ahead of him in 12, while Lebron is just over Baylor by one spot in two of them, and by two spots in one of them. How did Baylor lose all his prestige as an all time great SF and Lebron became a top 2-3 SF in a matter of 4 years?
This just shows the captivity of the moment I was referring to earlier.

valade16
01-21-2016, 11:12 AM
It's not really sticking up for history. It's also for objectivity. I'm not attached to any era or something. The one I've lived through the most, live, is the late 90s early 2000s one, which people hate because the game was too, let's say, tactical and defense focused. Which is exactly what I love in basketball. Then they ruined all that, in order to give guys like Kobe and Wade the chance to become inflated superstars. They were gonna still be superstars no matter what kind of rules you had, but some rule changes have just created a handicap between today and history. And this is where Lebron comes into the picture. The guy can get away with murder if it happened on the court! He had a never seen before ref treatment throughout his career. Even Jordan got bad calls against him in the 80s!

Another thing, I was watching a youtube video with Steve Smith, Webber, Isiah Thomas, Grant Hill etc (Open Court iirc) and the guys there were talking about modern players, how no one really wants to win and they're in it for the money and lifestyle. Which is true and it translated on the court. Not through numbers, but through the quality of the game. There's hardly any passion in the game compared to other times, it draws people away.

And I sort of did stop watching the NBA. I remember I'd stay up at night to watch a random Regular Season game at least 4 times in 5 when I was in school (and mind you, there's a 7-10 hours in time zone difference). In the last 10 years, I barely wanna watch a few RS games because it's pretty much a way to see these modern players in action, but only around half of the playoff games are worth watching, since the 1st round is usually useless except 1 or 2 games! It doesn't attract me anymore because all I see is a cash cow product in an era of consumerism, an era of which I've seen the birth (Michael Jordan's 2nd threepeat) but never realised the effects it would have on the game itself. The early post-Jordan era was one of my favorites with Shaq, Tmac, Iverson, Kobe, Grant Hill, Webber, Peja(loved him from his time in Greece), the prospect of a Tim Duncan and Garnett rivalry in the West, Starbury, Steve Francis on his way to stardom... That was probably my favorite era watching the NBA. You're not gonna see my hype these guys out unless they deserve it. On the other hand, Charles Barkley is probably my favorite PF of all time. And I rank him #5 in an all time list of PFs.

Anyway, here's an interesting number of lists in October 2011. Lebron hasn't really added much to his game since then, but he managed to win a ring with a Heat team after losing the first time and he still maintains a losing record in the Finals despite having 2 rings. You can give him bonus points in longevity, which is what makes me revise my own list and give him a few spots up, but if rings is a catalyst for some, he'd be still losing points there. The lists come from PSD members. One of them is yours Hawkeye :)

The following one is mine. My top 4 remains unchanged. My 5 and 6 are interchangeable, perhaps Elgin getting the edge. Worthy and Pippen are marginally off the top 6. I'd probably rate Lebron somewhere between 8 and 10-11 at this point, due to longevity.

I don't really see how these lists should radically change.
Ignoring my ranking, Lebron was ranked 7th, 5th, 8th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 2nd, 8th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 6th, 7th.
That means an average of 5th or 6th SF of all time. In 2011. I see some of the people who gave him "low" ranks praise him as the GOAT SF or in the thereabouts now. Why?
Has he developed his game? Has his competition improved?
In 16 rankings, Baylor is ahead of him in 12, while Lebron is just over Baylor by one spot in two of them, and by two spots in one of them. How did Baylor lose all his prestige as an all time great SF and Lebron became a top 2-3 SF in a matter of 4 years?
This just shows the captivity of the moment I was referring to earlier.

1st Bolded: What on earth are you talking about? You have a terrible case of revisionist history. It was well known back then that Jordan (and other stars) were getting favorable calls. Magic even famously commented on it during the Dream Team photo shoot, telling Larry Bird "don't touch Michael or you'll get a foul".

2nd Bolded: You at least see the irony here right? You're saying all of us today are captivated by the moment and can't rank properly and cite former rankings, by us. So we were able to not be captivated by the moment a mere 4 years ago but now we are utterly incapable?

3rd Bolded: Even according to all the lists you provided, you still have him ranked lower than virtually everybody else. So I'll reiterate, if anyone is biased here, it is you.

4th Bolded: This may be your confusion regarding these lists. These lists are talking about greatest, as in a combination of ability/accolades. That is a completely different list than best, as in purely ability. Given that, a lot has changed in 4 years for LeBron. He won his 4th MVP, which puts him in the company of only KAJ, Russell, Wilt, and Jordan as players who have won 4+ MVPs, he won a second title, a second Finals MVP, made the All-NBA first team 3 more times, which puts him at 11 All-NBA teams and 9 All-NBA first teams (most and 2nd most all-time for SFs), and became the youngest player to score 20,000 points.

That is an incredible boost to his legacy. For comparison, in those 4 years you dismiss, he added more All-NBA 1st teams, MVPs and Titles than John Stockton. That's in 4 seasons...

So yes, LeBron should rightly climb any greatest SF ever list based on increased achievement. If you want to go off ability, he was near the top long before 2011 in terms of peak play.


But it's not PSD living in the moment, everyone has realized LeBron James complete career surpasses any other SFs, here are some lists:

http://www.nba.com/magic/gallery/cohen-8ball-ranking-70-greatest-small-forwards-nba-history

1. LeBron James
2. Larry Bird
7. Elgin Baylor

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/10-of-the-greatest-nba-small-forwards-of-all-time.html/?a=viewall

1. Larry Bird
2. LeBron James
3. Elgin Baylor

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankSFs/ranking-top-10-small-forwards-ever

1. LeBron James
2. Larry Bird
5. Elgin Baylor

http://thecomeback.com/crossoverchronicles/2015-articles/the-top-5-greatest-nba-small-forwards-of-all-time.html

1. LeBron James
2. Larry Bird
N/R Elgin Baylor (only top 5)

(from 2012)
http://www.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-small-forwards-in-NBA-history#photo-title=Larry+Bird+%25281979-92%2529&photo=30169404

1. Larry Bird
2. LeBron James
5. Elgin Baylor

http://www.thetoptens.com/top-nba-small-forwards/

1. Larry Bird
2. LeBron James
9. Elgin Baylor

http://hoopshabit.com/2014/12/04/nba-power-rankings-best-30-small-forwards-time/31/

1. LeBron James
2. Larry Bird
7. Elgin Baylor


Virtually everyone has LeBron James ahead of Elgin Baylor. There is a greater consensus on that then there is on Evolution or Global Warming...

The only person who has a case with LeBron at SF is Larry Legend.

What's funny is that you say we are 'prisoners of the moment' when it comes to LeBron now... but we weren't in 2011... when he just won his first title and was the MVP... wouldn't people have been even more in the moment in 2011 because LeBron was the undisputed best player at the time, where as now, he isn't coming off an MVP, didn't win the finals and isn't the consensus best player in the world. If ever there was a time to overrated LeBron, it was 2011.

And lastly, it is amazing how you say you move LeBron up because of what he accomplished since 2011, yet criticize others for doing the same. If you get to move him up your list, why can't we?

Hawkeye15
01-21-2016, 11:35 AM
It's not really sticking up for history. It's also for objectivity. I'm not attached to any era or something. The one I've lived through the most, live, is the late 90s early 2000s one, which people hate because the game was too, let's say, tactical and defense focused. Which is exactly what I love in basketball. Then they ruined all that, in order to give guys like Kobe and Wade the chance to become inflated superstars. They were gonna still be superstars no matter what kind of rules you had, but some rule changes have just created a handicap between today and history. And this is where Lebron comes into the picture. The guy can get away with murder if it happened on the court! He had a never seen before ref treatment throughout his career. Even Jordan got bad calls against him in the 80s!

Another thing, I was watching a youtube video with Steve Smith, Webber, Isiah Thomas, Grant Hill etc (Open Court iirc) and the guys there were talking about modern players, how no one really wants to win and they're in it for the money and lifestyle. Which is true and it translated on the court. Not through numbers, but through the quality of the game. There's hardly any passion in the game compared to other times, it draws people away.

And I sort of did stop watching the NBA. I remember I'd stay up at night to watch a random Regular Season game at least 4 times in 5 when I was in school (and mind you, there's a 7-10 hours in time zone difference). In the last 10 years, I barely wanna watch a few RS games because it's pretty much a way to see these modern players in action, but only around half of the playoff games are worth watching, since the 1st round is usually useless except 1 or 2 games! It doesn't attract me anymore because all I see is a cash cow product in an era of consumerism, an era of which I've seen the birth (Michael Jordan's 2nd threepeat) but never realised the effects it would have on the game itself. The early post-Jordan era was one of my favorites with Shaq, Tmac, Iverson, Kobe, Grant Hill, Webber, Peja(loved him from his time in Greece), the prospect of a Tim Duncan and Garnett rivalry in the West, Starbury, Steve Francis on his way to stardom... That was probably my favorite era watching the NBA. You're not gonna see my hype these guys out unless they deserve it. On the other hand, Charles Barkley is probably my favorite PF of all time. And I rank him #5 in an all time list of PFs.

Anyway, here's an interesting number of lists in October 2011. Lebron hasn't really added much to his game since then, but he managed to win a ring with a Heat team after losing the first time and he still maintains a losing record in the Finals despite having 2 rings. You can give him bonus points in longevity, which is what makes me revise my own list and give him a few spots up, but if rings is a catalyst for some, he'd be still losing points there. The lists come from PSD members. One of them is yours Hawkeye :)













The following one is mine. My top 4 remains unchanged. My 5 and 6 are interchangeable, perhaps Elgin getting the edge. Worthy and Pippen are marginally off the top 6. I'd probably rate Lebron somewhere between 8 and 10-11 at this point, due to longevity.






















I don't really see how these lists should radically change.
Ignoring my ranking, Lebron was ranked 7th, 5th, 8th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 2nd, 8th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 6th, 7th.
That means an average of 5th or 6th SF of all time. In 2011. I see some of the people who gave him "low" ranks praise him as the GOAT SF or in the thereabouts now. Why?
Has he developed his game? Has his competition improved?
In 16 rankings, Baylor is ahead of him in 12, while Lebron is just over Baylor by one spot in two of them, and by two spots in one of them. How did Baylor lose all his prestige as an all time great SF and Lebron became a top 2-3 SF in a matter of 4 years?
This just shows the captivity of the moment I was referring to earlier.

what has changed? More numbers, and years under his belt (as well as adding 2 Finals MVP's). He keeps piling up the numbers, meaning, longevity is now being added to his peak. That is kind of how you climb into all time rankings...

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 12:04 PM
kids today will move a player up 30 spots on the all time list for just playing another 1-2 seasons over a player that was better than them. It's absurd. Also I think it's a shot as Larry Bird and the Jordan era. It's these young kids that are being biased and have an agenda to attack the Jordan era. (which was the best era, and I'm not being biased). Even someone like Bill Russell would tell you that.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 12:06 PM
what has changed? More numbers, and years under his belt (as well as adding 2 Finals MVP's). He keeps piling up the numbers, meaning, longevity is now being added to his peak. That is kind of how you climb into all time rankings...

yeah, but he hasn't gotten a lick better with "his game".

Hawkeye15
01-21-2016, 12:18 PM
yeah, but he hasn't gotten a lick better with "his game".

He didn't need to. Nobody gets better after 30 dude.

Hawkeye15
01-21-2016, 12:19 PM
kids today will move a player up 30 spots on the all time list for just playing another 1-2 seasons over a player that was better than them. It's absurd. Also I think it's a shot as Larry Bird and the Jordan era. It's these young kids that are being biased and have an agenda to attack the Jordan era. (which was the best era, and I'm not being biased). Even someone like Bill Russell would tell you that.

But Bird wasn't better than LeBron. Quite the opposite actually. Bird was better at certain things, but not as an overall player. And now LeBron has caught him in numbers, accolades, awards, etc.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 12:31 PM
But Bird wasn't better than LeBron. Quite the opposite actually. Bird was better at certain things, but not as an overall player. And now LeBron has caught him in numbers, accolades, awards, etc.
Bird played in the Jordan, Magic, Kareem era. So accolades don't translate.
Bird averaged 24/10/7/2/1 on 50% and 88% at the line Won Three NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS beating in their prime greats such as Magic, Worthy, Moses, Kareem, Hakeem, Sampson, Jordan, Isiah, Julius, King, Wilkins on the way to those 3 Titles. That's a more impressive list of contemporaries. Also played 3 years at Indiana St where he even joined late at age 20. The longevity was better than many kids think. The NBA was different back then and they weren't taking 17 and 18 year old.

24/10/7/2/1 will be better than LeBron when it's all said and done.

Also Larry did all his scoring off the ball which makes it that much more impressive. Larry was fundamentally sound and had more than just one or two moves like LeBron (lower the head and bull doze in, while crying to the refs)

Larry Bird won Three Straight NBA MVPS which is impressive when you look at the legends that were in there prime during that time. Jordan, Kareem, Magic to name a few.

Also Larry Bird is more clutch and had the much better Finals stats and record.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 12:38 PM
He didn't need to. Nobody gets better after 30 dude.

Jordan, Rodman, English are just a few players that added to their games. Infact pretty much all players used to add something to their games each year. I haven't seen LeBron add anything to his game over his career.

D-Leethal
01-21-2016, 12:39 PM
I don't think its crazy to say LeBron jumped from ~#5 to #1 in nearly 5 years of piling on monster stats and adding 2 titles and 2 FMVP's.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 12:50 PM
I don't think its crazy to say LeBron jumped from ~#5 to #1 in nearly 5 years of piling on monster stats and adding 2 titles and 2 FMVP's.

Did he become better at playing the game? He still has the same problems he had 5 years ago.

valade16
01-21-2016, 01:44 PM
kids today will move a player up 30 spots on the all time list for just playing another 1-2 seasons over a player that was better than them. It's absurd. Also I think it's a shot as Larry Bird and the Jordan era. It's these young kids that are being biased and have an agenda to attack the Jordan era. (which was the best era, and I'm not being biased). Even someone like Bill Russell would tell you that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2013/05/05/lebron-james-mvp-bill-russell-kareem-abdul-jabbar-karl-malone-moses-malone-bob-pettit/2136567/

Really? Here's what he had to say about LeBron:

"What I think about him is what I used to think about Wilt," Russell said after a morning round of golf, "and like I told Wilt one time, 'I think I'm the only guy on the planet who really knows how good you are because I've seen you up close.' I know what I'm watching, and LeBron is doing a great job being LeBron James."


Did he become better at playing the game? He still has the same problems he had 5 years ago.

But that's not how these lists work. These are greatest of all-time, which means accolades, longevity and accomplishments are taken into account.

NYKalltheway
01-21-2016, 03:03 PM
1st Bolded: What on earth are you talking about? You have a terrible case of revisionist history. It was well known back then that Jordan (and other stars) were getting favorable calls. Magic even famously commented on it during the Dream Team photo shoot, telling Larry Bird "don't touch Michael or you'll get a foul".



I said 80s, you dispute it by having no clue of what you're saying and claiming something after his 2nd ring, in 1992. Which last I knew, wasn't part of the 80s and you call that revisionist history. Ok, I'll give you that :D



2nd Bolded: You at least see the irony here right? You're saying all of us today are captivated by the moment and can't rank properly and cite former rankings, by us. So we were able to not be captivated by the moment a mere 4 years ago but now we are utterly incapable?


There's no irony. That was right after Lebron teamed up with Wade and Bosh and yet failed to win a ring which was a catalyst for some to rate him higher. That was also captivitity in the moment, with the negative sense for Lebron. A year earlier, and some of those rankings would have been better, some may be worse.
But at least there was no "he won a ring, hence legend" situation that's been going on since his first win.



3rd Bolded: Even according to all the lists you provided, you still have him ranked lower than virtually everybody else. So I'll reiterate, if anyone is biased here, it is you.


I know I'm rating him lower than most. There's a reason. I see things differently and I judge basketball players in a different way than most. I pick on the bad elements of players more than their good traits. And Lebron has more bad than good. He would'nt be the brand name he is now without the favorable ref treatment since his rookie year.



4th Bolded: This may be your confusion regarding these lists. These lists are talking about greatest, as in a combination of ability/accolades. That is a completely different list than best, as in purely ability. Given that, a lot has changed in 4 years for LeBron. He won his 4th MVP, which puts him in the company of only KAJ, Russell, Wilt, and Jordan as players who have won 4+ MVPs, he won a second title, a second Finals MVP, made the All-NBA first team 3 more times, which puts him at 11 All-NBA teams and 9 All-NBA first teams (most and 2nd most all-time for SFs), and became the youngest player to score 20,000 points.


Again, you're comparing apples, oranges and tomatoes.
MVPs mean nothing. It's a generational thing, it's not objective. Put Jerry West in today's game, he'd have 4 or 6 or 8 MVPs. Put MJ, he'd have 9. Put Kareem, he'd have 10. Put Bill Russell, he'd have none. It's not a basketball argument. It has no basis at all.
All-NBA teams mean nothing in an all time discussion. I'm not going to punish a player by default because one of the best players of all time played in the same position. I'm not trading Clyde for Kobe or any one not names Michael Jordan and Jerry West for the SG spot. He was unlucky that he had to go up against the best guard of all time and the 2nd best point guard of all time at the same for the "all NBA first". Does that mean that he was inferior to someone who managed 3-4 all-NBA first just because he has some numbers and played in a different era?



And lastly, it is amazing how you say you move LeBron up because of what he accomplished since 2011, yet criticize others for doing the same. If you get to move him up your list, why can't we?

I'm not moving him up because he accomplished something. I'm moving him up because he didn't destroy himself. It's an ALL-TIME list. I'm not judging him on how I'd hope he becomes but what he's shown so far. He's added 4 more quality years of basketball but he's still the same player, with no new moves and he's starting to show signs of decline. So he might end up lower again on my list.

valade16
01-21-2016, 03:15 PM
I said 80s, you dispute it by having no clue of what you're saying and claiming something after his 2nd ring, in 1992. Which last I knew, wasn't part of the 80s and you call that revisionist history. Ok, I'll give you that :D

There's no irony. That was right after Lebron teamed up with Wade and Bosh and yet failed to win a ring which was a catalyst for some to rate him higher. That was also captivitity in the moment, with the negative sense for Lebron. A year earlier, and some of those rankings would have been better, some may be worse.
But at least there was no "he won a ring, hence legend" situation that's been going on since his first win.

I know I'm rating him lower than most. There's a reason. I see things differently and I judge basketball players in a different way than most. I pick on the bad elements of players more than their good traits. And Lebron has more bad than good. He would'nt be the brand name he is now without the favorable ref treatment since his rookie year.

Again, you're comparing apples, oranges and tomatoes.
MVPs mean nothing. It's a generational thing, it's not objective. Put Jerry West in today's game, he'd have 4 or 6 or 8 MVPs. Put MJ, he'd have 9. Put Kareem, he'd have 10. Put Bill Russell, he'd have none. It's not a basketball argument. It has no basis at all. All-NBA teams mean nothing in an all time discussion. I'm not going to punish a player by default because one of the best players of all time played in the same position. I'm not trading Clyde for Kobe or any one not names Michael Jordan and Jerry West for the SG spot. He was unlucky that he had to go up against the best guard of all time and the 2nd best point guard of all time at the same for the "all NBA first". Does that mean that he was inferior to someone who managed 3-4 all-NBA first just because he has some numbers and played in a different era?

I'm not moving him up because he accomplished something. I'm moving him up because he didn't destroy himself. It's an ALL-TIME list. I'm not judging him on how I'd hope he becomes but what he's shown so far. He's added 4 more quality years of basketball but he's still the same player, with no new moves and he's starting to show signs of decline. So he might end up lower again on my list.

Bolded: It is you who have no clue what you're talking about. So in the 80's he got more bad calls and wasn't gifted fouls like he was in the 90's (or players from today), yet his 3 highest years in terms of Free Throws per game were in the 80's. So it is you who has no clue, but man did you get me there :D

I just want to get this straight, your saying when it comes to looking at players, we shouldn't use stats or accolades. The only thing we should use is our personal opinion on their basketball attributes? Who is to determine whose opinion or eye test is more valid or more informed?

Essentially, your only argument is "All current NBA players suck now"

To quote Christopher Hitchens "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Your opinion is not evidence and as I reject the premise of your opinion (that players today suck compared to players back then) I have no further rebuttal except to say I dismiss your argument based on a lack of evidence.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 03:44 PM
valade,

that logic doesn't work at all because it doesn't use context. Just counting up who started more all star games doesn't tell you anything. Might only tell you they happened to play in LA and in the internet era where anyone can vote and vote a million times. Accolades, you can't just go by. Because then Bill Russell is the GOAT. But we all know that Jordan was the best. Also going by Accolades would put Steve Nash with his countless All NBA Tams, All Star Games around, Two MVP's somewhere in the top 20 all time. But if you watch him, he was a nice player about like Terry Porter honestly, just for a few more years( because the league is much softer now).
I'm trying to be nice. I've been trying to tell people on countless message boards you can't just go by accolades and rings counts. Because that is bad for the game. That breeds players just wanting "thiers". Then that creates a lot of losing teams and poor franchises. Also it has no way of accounting for bias news media and playing in larger markets where most awards are handed. Also it counts off for those players that played in a better era. Hence if David Robinson played in todays NBA and came in at age 19 (he was ready at that age) and doesn't get injured at all ever because the game isn't as rough. He wins 3 MVPS even with LeBron in the league and the love for perimeter players and he wins several Titles makes starter about 15 times in the All Star game and is First team All NBA and All Defense about 15 straight years. That's the truth.

But the way you and some others are looking at it Steve Nash is better than David Robinson, but we know that just isn't true. Nor was he better than Charles Barkley.

So I guess if Charles Barkley cared about his "brand" and just ring chased from day one joining up with Bird and them, then when MJ was ready he joins with MJ and he collects about 6 Rings to go with his Amazing Stats and lets say he starts on 15 ALL Star games because he's on the most popular team now every season. Then is he the best Forward ever?

Really though, It's so flawed to just look at all NBA awards because the league is changing every year and sometimes there is not as many great players. Look at it this way. the biggest knock on LeBron might be the fact that he let a B rate player about as good as Damion Lillard win an MVP over him. That never happens in a million years for any player in the 90's and you know it.

The average of the MVP players of the 90's was something like

30/11/9/3/3 on 54% shooting

compared to the last 10 years

24/6/7/2/.07

valade16
01-21-2016, 04:17 PM
valade,

that logic doesn't work at all because it doesn't use context.

I understand the concept of relativity. The accolades are telling us how good they are relative to the players they are current playing against, but not necessarily a comparison of how good he is compared to a player that didn't play at the same time as him. I get it. That also applies to stats.

The problem is, saying we shouldn't/can't use those takes away any objective measurement of comparison. Ultimately I know that player comparison is all opinion, but surely that has to be some way of defending your opinion with an objective measurement? Otherwise, whose opinion is more valid? His that says all current players suck or mine that differs? Is it the majority opinion that is the correct answer?

Chronz
01-21-2016, 04:29 PM
I stopped following the conversation when Greek Knicks fan said players can move DOWN on a list. If that were true then Elgin Baylor would have fallen out of the conversation by virtue of preventing his teams from winning, hell, the greatest NBA winning streak of ALL-TIME happened the nano-second he retired, thus stop holding his team back.

LMFAO. Bron can NEVER move back hes either #1 or #2 on the SF list and anyone who claims otherwise has no OBJECTIVE opinion on the matter, just hate filled thoughts that pass for opinions, or just biased.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 04:38 PM
I understand the concept of relativity. The accolades are telling us how good they are relative to the players they are current playing against, but not necessarily a comparison of how good he is compared to a player that didn't play at the same time as him. I get it. That also applies to stats.

The problem is, saying we shouldn't/can't use those takes away any objective measurement of comparison. Ultimately I know that player comparison is all opinion, but surely that has to be some way of defending your opinion with an objective measurement? Otherwise, whose opinion is more valid? His that says all current players suck or mine that differs? Is it the majority opinion that is the correct answer?


good you get it. Then why put so much weight on it. Also it's sometimes not even how good they were to their peers but rather how the league thought maybe it will sell more shoes. (james got a couple too many mvps and you know it, the media knows it and everyone knows it) That's why they have been saying NO MORE MVPS for LeBron until he wins more rings. I've heard so many emphasis that over the last 2 years in the national media and they empahasis the NO MORE part. Like he's a disappointment and maybe people went a little or a lot crazy on him there for a while from like 08-13.

The best and really only way to judge a player is to watch him play games, see how the player moves, how they interact with team mates. Are they a good leader, do they rise up against teams that are better than there's. etc.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 04:41 PM
I stopped following the conversation when Greek Knicks fan said players can move DOWN on a list. If that were true then Elgin Baylor would have fallen out of the conversation by virtue of preventing his teams from winning, hell, the greatest NBA winning streak of ALL-TIME happened the nano-second he retired, thus stop holding his team back.

LMFAO. Bron can NEVER move back hes either #1 or #2 on the SF list and anyone who claims otherwise has no OBJECTIVE opinion on the matter, just hate filled thoughts that pass for opinions, or just biased.

If you're going to move them up simply for longevity and a few good years or titles on good teams then you should be able to move them down a little when they have many bad years at the end of their career and lose a lot of games. It's only fair and objective.

Really the best way to say who was BETTER is to just say

Game 7 Who ya Got?

Larry or Lebron

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 05:07 PM
just riding stacked teams to a couple of titles doesn't make you great. What makes a player GREAT is rising up and beating the Warriors in 6 games.

You know it, I know it and everyone knows it

Chronz
01-21-2016, 05:37 PM
If you're going to move them up simply for longevity and a few good years or titles on good teams then you should be able to move them down a little when they have many bad years at the end of their career and lose a lot of games. It's only fair and objective.

Really the best way to say who was BETTER is to just say

Game 7 Who ya Got?

Larry or Lebron

Thats beyond stupid. Whats written in stone can never be taken away, all any player is doing is ADDING another chapter to his legacy. There is NOTHING to be gained from retiring early, there is always MORE to add when you prove capable of lasting in the NBA.

really, thats one of the worst ways to break it down, g7? What if a player plays bad in G7 but happens to play elite in 1-6 and prevents g7 in the first place...... there is no 1 true formula newb, its a combo of EVERYTHING.... well except asinine ideas like detracting from a players legacy. I remember some fans who wanted MJ to stay retired because it hurt his per game averages, Im like are you ****ing kidding me. Why be robbed of some great performances from a player his age all because hes no longer at the top of his game? Again, if you're the type to drop players based on longevity, you're the type who knows nothing about the game and nobody would care anyways.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 05:44 PM
Thats beyond stupid. Whats written in stone can never be taken away, all any player is doing is ADDING another chapter to his legacy. There is NOTHING to be gained from retiring early, there is always MORE to add when you prove capable of lasting in the NBA.

really, thats one of the worst ways to break it down, g7? What if a player plays bad in G7 but happens to play elite in 1-6 and prevents g7 in the first place...... there is no 1 true formula newb, its a combo of EVERYTHING.... well except asinine ideas like detracting from a players legacy. I remember some fans who wanted MJ to stay retired because it hurt his per game averages, Im like are you ****ing kidding me. Why be robbed of some great performances from a player his age all because hes no longer at the top of his game? Again, if you're the type to drop players based on longevity, you're the type who knows nothing about the game and nobody would care anyways.

You can only get better if you practice and get better at playing the game. If you go and sign on with the Warriors as the 16th man and get a ring with them, chronz, you're still the same player you always were and you are not "ranked" higher then at playing the game you idiot.

Larry Bird was ten times the player that Lebron was or ever will be. LeBron plays in a league you think is great and he can't even barely get 2 rings and needs to run to Wade, Allen, Love and Irving every season.

Chronz
01-21-2016, 05:45 PM
just riding stacked teams to a couple of titles doesn't make you great. What makes a player GREAT is rising up and beating the Warriors in 6 games.

You know it, I know it and everyone knows it

Sounds like a load of BS to me. Warriors are one of the most stacked squads I can recall and its precisely because their star player took a massive bargain of a contract that allowed them flexibility with FA, their star player suffered massive injury/teammate setbacks which allowed them to draft actual talent to grow with. Not every situation is the same, to blindly assume a player should "rise up" is to ignore context. Thats why extreme generalities are simply cliches that ignore NBA history.

valade16
01-21-2016, 05:49 PM
So Larry Bird is better than LeBron James because he played less games?

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 05:50 PM
So chronz thinks a B- player for 15 years is better than a A+ player for 12 years. Beyond stupid.

I guess you'd rather have a wife that is like Ann Hathaway for 15 years over a Wife like Pamela Anderson for 12 years

Chronz
01-21-2016, 05:52 PM
You can only get better if you practice and get better at playing the game.
False, plenty of players have admitted to never practicing much, never adding a thing in the off-season (some never even touched a ball during the off-season) yet got better just by entering physical/mental maturity at whatever stage of their careers. So PLZ stop spewing these cliches to me bro, I know too much about NBA history to fall for haterade.



If you go and sign on with the Warriors as the 16th man and get a ring with them,chronz, you're still the same stupid piece of **** player you always were and are not "ranked" higher then at playing the game you idiot.
There is no 16th man and plz keep the personal insults at bay. You can call my idea idiotic, but when you call me idiotic you're crossing the line. Maybe you dont give a **** but Im tired of seeing guys who actually want to debate get banned. Hopefully you will grow as a member.


Larry Bird was ten times the player that Lebron was or ever will be.
Why stop at 10? Why not 11? Why not 100? LMFAO, you think I care about fake numbers? LOL


LeBron plays in a league you think is great and he can't even barely get 2 rings and needs to run to Wade, Allen, Love and Irving every season.

Ill take Larry Bird's opinion (That Bron had the greatest post season of all-time) over your unsubstantiated claim. Am I suppose to be disheartened that he had an injured Wade/Bosh and defeated more talented/healthier teams? LMFAO

Bring FACTS, spare me the BS plz

Chronz
01-21-2016, 05:55 PM
So chronz thinks a B- player for 15 years is better than a A+ player for 12 years. Beyond stupid.
Prove that. Ill take peak over prime any day, the difference is I dont degrade the A+ player (thru 12 years) down to a B- player simply for playing 3 years well beneath their prime/peak. LMFAO, step it up rook.


I guess you'd rather have a wife that is like Ann Hathaway for 15 years over a Wife like Pamela Anderson for 12 years

Anne Hathaway is not a B- if a lady like Pam is an A. But lets stick to basketball, hard to grade aesthetics, luckily for us(well, for me), we actually have objective facts in BBALL.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 06:04 PM
you don't get anyting. PEAK, WTF is that. Is that like their best game ever. When someone says a player you just think about them as a whole for their prime which is like age 21-35 or whatever.

Lets break it down by talent.

Larry is a little taller although not much.
Similar strength infact Larry is rougher and tuffer and played in the bigger better league where everyone was going after him. LeBron is buddy buddy with almost everyone in the league.

Larry is the better defender. He held Houston to 84 ppg in the 81 finals on 38%. He was the main Defensive player on that team and he sort of brought defense back to the NBA when it was lacking in the 70's. Many Defensive Win Shares and was very aware. I can bring up video of LeBron in last years finals of him looking totally lost on defense.

Bird was the smarter player.

Bird was the much better passer. no one in the history of the league has ever averaged 8 assist like he did playing OFF THE BALL.

Bird was the better Rebounder and offensive Rebounder

Bird is the better post player

Bird is the better mid range player

Bird is the better long range shooter

Bird was quicker and had better anticipation skills. "Steal by Bird" jae


Lebron runs faster and dunks better.

So I guess that makes LeBron much better. GET REAL.

NYKalltheway
01-21-2016, 07:35 PM
Bolded: It is you who have no clue what you're talking about. So in the 80's he got more bad calls and wasn't gifted fouls like he was in the 90's (or players from today), yet his 3 highest years in terms of Free Throws per game were in the 80's. So it is you who has no clue, but man did you get me there :D

Dude, for real... we're talking basketball here or picking things out of our *****?
Michael Jordan was a selfish slashing guard that couldn't shot to save his life in his first days. You know what happened next? He got serious, he became a team player, he passed the ball more, he made use of all his players, he stopped being a man defender but became a team defender.
Michael Jordan rarely got the kind of free throws that these modern superstars get. The "I breathed upon your skin, therefore foul". Michael Jordan got kicked in the butt. In his first years, he got bruises. He got bruises any time he played vs the freaking Pistons. He'd get hacked in the air and the ref would simply look away. MJ's calls are a fact, but they weren't anything like this day. They were legit fouls, some would even be called flagrant fouls now, yet back then it was a travesty to award such fouls. Those were MJ's calls. He got kicked and got the foul. Others would get kicked and didn't get fouls. You don't have this image embedded in your mind, thus, you can't understand it through a freaking spreadsheet.

I don't even know why I bother. I'll chat with that MS Excel 97 animation thingy you could turn into a wizard or a puppy, might know more about basketball and still use the freaking numbers that most of you here.

I never said that players suck today. I'm saying I'm stricter on them because they have it very easy. It's a picnic session for them and I'm not even seeing half the things I saw from older legends. The ones you have never seen play and you dismiss because your spreadsheet says that the guy you're watching is probably better as if we're talking about freaking baseball or any other static, non-contact sport....

NYKalltheway
01-21-2016, 07:47 PM
Lebron runs faster and dunks better.

So I guess that makes LeBron much better. GET REAL.


Welcome to the 21st century, fellow biased history lover :p

valade16
01-21-2016, 08:07 PM
Dude, for real... we're talking basketball here or picking things out of our *****?
Michael Jordan was a selfish slashing guard that couldn't shot to save his life in his first days. You know what happened next? He got serious, he became a team player, he passed the ball more, he made use of all his players, he stopped being a man defender but became a team defender.
Michael Jordan rarely got the kind of free throws that these modern superstars get. The "I breathed upon your skin, therefore foul". Michael Jordan got kicked in the butt. In his first years, he got bruises. He got bruises any time he played vs the freaking Pistons. He'd get hacked in the air and the ref would simply look away. MJ's calls are a fact, but they weren't anything like this day. They were legit fouls, some would even be called flagrant fouls now, yet back then it was a travesty to award such fouls. Those were MJ's calls. He got kicked and got the foul. Others would get kicked and didn't get fouls. You don't have this image embedded in your mind, thus, you can't understand it through a freaking spreadsheet.

I don't even know why I bother. I'll chat with that MS Excel 97 animation thingy you could turn into a wizard or a puppy, might know more about basketball and still use the freaking numbers that most of you here.

I never said that players suck today. I'm saying I'm stricter on them because they have it very easy. It's a picnic session for them and I'm not even seeing half the things I saw from older legends. The ones you have never seen play and you dismiss because your spreadsheet says that the guy you're watching is probably better as if we're talking about freaking baseball or any other static, non-contact sport....

You never said they suck using those exact words, but what you said right there is tantamount to saying they suck. Want to hide behind semantics, fine. You think players today are inferior to past players.

What's comical is you said your favorite era was what? 90's/early 00's. that's what I grew up on. I saw all them play. I watch a tremendous amount of old game footage.

The reason you never want to use numbers, or accolades is because they are all against you. When numbers say you're wrong, when accolades say you're wrong, when experts say you're wrong, and when fans say you're wrong; maybe it's not everything else that is wrong...

You say you haven't seen half of what you've seen from older players. Have you seen better shooting by the average player? Have you seen more ball movement? Have you seen more complex defensive strategies? Because those are all true.

If you want to go back to opinions, give me one reason I should believe yours given your bias against the modern game?

NYKalltheway
01-21-2016, 08:24 PM
You never said they suck using those exact words, but what you said right there is tantamount to saying they suck. Want to hide behind semantics, fine. You think players today are inferior to past players.

What's comical is you said your favorite era was what? 90's/early 00's. that's what I grew up on. I saw all them play. I watch a tremendous amount of old game footage.

The reason you never want to use numbers, or accolades is because they are all against you. When numbers say you're wrong, when accolades say you're wrong, when experts say you're wrong, and when fans say you're wrong; maybe it's not everything else that is wrong...

You say you haven't seen half of what you've seen from older players. Have you seen better shooting by the average player? Have you seen more ball movement? Have you seen more complex defensive strategies? Because those are all true.

If you want to go back to opinions, give me one reason I should believe yours given your bias against the modern game?

I use numbers to sign players from the D-League. They're helpful when it comes to signing a player or comparing players NOW. At this given moment. They're compareable. Comparing stats over different eras is like arguing that Julius Caesar was a worse general than Patton because the latter used tanks and could cause more long range distance. Some things just cannot be compared. Your numbers are meaningless. They're way out of context. You cannot compare player X from 2000 with player Y from 1960 without comparing player X's teammates numbers and player Y teammates' numbers as well as their opponents game in, game out. Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to waste 5000 hours of your life to prove a point using numbers? Numbers that we're actually lacking from earlier generations because nobody cared about stats till the 80s and no player cared about his own stats till the 2000s... Till then, your numbers are toilet paper.

Better shooting? Not really. Better shot selection, yes.
More ball movement? Not really. There's more isolation now than ever before. And I'm not talking about the "feed the ball to the post" type of isolation that some people labelled it.
Complex defensive strategies? No. Have you watched the Bad Boy Pistons? Have you watched the Celtics in the 80s? The 90s Knicks? The post-Jordan Pacers? The 80s Sixers? The 80s Bucks? The 80s in general? The defenses peaked in the late 90s and early 2000s (up to 2002, 2003 or so) and then they started to decline. Help defense does not mean complex defense.

Numbers and accolades are meaningless. Here's what you're arguing in simple terms. We have Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in a college class. Let's say that Gates is #1 and Jobs is #2 in class. In all their 4 years, they shared the #1 and #2 spot. Every semester, depending on the year, the top one wins all the academic awards. Both have a 4.33 GPA or A+ or 98% or whatever system you prefer. Then you have some random guy 15 years later who's top of his class and sometimes wins the semester awards, sometimes doesn't. He has a 4.0 GPA/A grade/etc and has been top of his class throughout his studies. Your argument is that the random guy is the best of them all. Why? Because the numbers prove it, he has all the accolades, 4 MVPs compared to 2, whilst he also has a ring (ie, top of the class) which one of the others does not.
This is your logic.

My logic is: WHO ARE THOSE GUYS AND WHAT HAVE THEY ACTUALLY HAVE DONE? The random guy is just a random guy, whilst the other two have changed the whole world....

valade16
01-21-2016, 08:34 PM
Your logic is ignorance. You make absolutely false claims backed up by nothing. I dismiss your claims as the ramblings of an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn because he doesn't like that time has passed.

Good luck to you, I sincerely hope you manage to get those kids off your lawn.

NYKalltheway
01-21-2016, 09:00 PM
Your logic is ignorance. You make absolutely false claims backed up by nothing. I dismiss your claims as the ramblings of an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn because he doesn't like that time has passed.

Good luck to you, I sincerely hope you manage to get those kids off your lawn.

Translation:
"I can't really respond to that so I'll insult you in a catch way".
Cool.

valade16
01-21-2016, 09:04 PM
Translation: "I can't really respond to that so I'll insult you in a catch way".
Cool.

You're correct in that I can't really respond to you. Anyone who is so delusional as to believe defenses somehow got less complex with the allowance of zone defense is impossible to respond to.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:14 PM
NYalltheway, They are biased all the way to the current. Even 15 years from now they will be saying how much lebron sucks and the new player in the league at that time is the best ever.


If you asked them to make a top 20 list over the history of the NBA they would pick about 15 current players in the top 20.

They have can't remember. They are fixiated on the "and 1" dribbling of todays game. Guys could all do that back then but they wanted SCORE. They didn't care to play with the ball for 22 seconds. They got the ball and scored.

Also when you look at it 30 years really isn't that long ago.

I'm not even a fan of Bird really, but you put him in todays NBA and he'd average 40 points.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:17 PM
You're correct in that I can't really respond to you. Anyone who is so delusional as to believe defenses somehow got less complex with the allowance of zone defense is impossible to respond to.

They don't let players camp in the lane now on defense. Back then they did. Now you have to be OUT OF THE LANE. Do you know how easy that makes it for the players now. Just run a pick n roll and there is no one there to pick up the roll man. Also these coaches today must be told to send two players to the pg each time.

The good coaches were back in the day when they would give the pg 50 if he can get it. That hurts a team to have a pg score 50. So it's a can't win. So why do all coaches double team the pg on the pick n roll? That's not very complex.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:19 PM
A lot of the players today don't really play as a TEAM. ALOT. I know Rick Barry was the same way.

but now there are 40 Rick Barrys in the NBA. THEY all want the ball to shoot. They shoot that ball everytime they get it or they dribble for 22 seconds and then pass to a bad shot.

they don't understand the art of the post up and using the angles and size or athleticism so score every single time down low.

Instead todays game is a series of taking turns chucking up threes and the team that happens to be on wins.

Even Experts like Popovich say it was light years better in the 80's and 90's.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:22 PM
Your logic is ignorance. You make absolutely false claims backed up by nothing. I dismiss your claims as the ramblings of an old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn because he doesn't like that time has passed.

Good luck to you, I sincerely hope you manage to get those kids off your lawn.

You haven't made a true claim yet.

you are biased and STUPID.

SHAQ
MALONE
BARKLEY
JORDAN
STOCKTON

BEAT THAT

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:25 PM
Chronz and valade don't ever bring facts. THEY JUST DONT THEY ARE LIARS. THEY BRING IGNORANT OPINION

valade16
01-21-2016, 09:31 PM
I love it. You guys assume I'm biased towards modern players when that isn't true. I grew up on the 90s/early 00s. My two favorite players ever are Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon. The only basketball jerseys I had outside of Blazers are NYK Sprewell and KG.

But it isn't biased to recognize that some of the players today are very good at basketball.

You guys are the hipsters of basketball fans.

valade16
01-21-2016, 09:32 PM
Chronz and valade don't ever bring facts. THEY JUST DONT THEY ARE LIARS. THEY BRING IGNORANT OPINION

All we brought are facts :laugh:

You guys said facts don't matter.

Give me a fact, not your opinion, but an actual fact.

valade16
01-21-2016, 09:34 PM
You haven't made a true claim yet.

you are biased and STUPID.

SHAQ
MALONE
BARKLEY
JORDAN
STOCKTON

BEAT THAT

Wilt
McHale
Bird
Big O
Magic

Not one current player.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:34 PM
I love it. You guys assume I'm biased towards modern players when that isn't true. I grew up on the 90s/early 00s. My two favorite players ever are Larry Bird and Hakeem Olajuwon. The only basketball jerseys I had outside of Blazers are NYK Sprewell and KG.

But it isn't biased to recognize that some of the players today are very good at basketball.

You guys are the hipsters of basketball fans.

You're biased. How old are you and how many live Jordan games did you watch. Don't lie LIAR.

Also you don't really like Hakeem or Larry. I bet you'd put a prime Hakeem today at like 20th best player because.
"unquote" the game has changed.

That is what ESPN tells the little kids that missed out on Jordan so they'll watch and it will feel new to them.

mngopher35
01-21-2016, 09:37 PM
Alright it's time to ban buck again...

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:37 PM
Wilt
McHale
Bird
Big O
Magic

Not one current player.

I just named the all 93 team.

Name the all today team

LeBron
Green
Leonard
Paul
Durant

Where is the Center?

Where are their post players.

Will they just be all iso with no team play.

That team would get killed by 50 points against a frontline of Shaq, Malone and Barkley of 93.

look at the rebounds per game and points per 36.

It's just too many possessions and too high a % and too much knowledge and understanding of how to post guys up for points whenever they want.

USE facts you liar.

valade16
01-21-2016, 09:39 PM
Alright it's time to ban buck again...

Agreed. He was kind of reasonable for awhile then he went back off the deep end.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:42 PM
Alright it's time to ban buck again...

Can't take the facts little *****. you and this site are a cestpool of lies.

Here's some facts.

Bird
O rating 115
D rating 101

Lebron
Orating 116
Drating 102

Same differential

Except LeBron hasn't finished his career and it will fall.


Then to separate we have to use FACTS and not opinion.

BIRD 3 RING

Lebrat 2 rings


That is the Kicker and it is the facts.

Also Bird six 60+ win seaons

lebrat only 3 60+ win totals.


That is the tie breaker. you got to go by wins because that is why we play the game.

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:43 PM
I don't even like Bird.

Pippen was the best SF ever. He played for one goal and that was to WIN!!! That's why we play the game and Pippen was the best at WINNING

THAT IS A FACT

BUT YOU DONT LIKE FACTS

valade16
01-21-2016, 09:45 PM
I don't even like Bird.

Pippen was the best SF ever. He played for one goal and that was to WIN!!! That's why we play the game and Pippen was the best at WINNING

THAT IS A FACT

BUT YOU DONT LIKE FACTS

Who do you think is the best player at every position?

PG:
SG:
SF:
PF:
C:

mngopher35
01-21-2016, 09:47 PM
Notice how you didn't touch on all defensive teams, playoff stats, Mvps, context of situations etc? I mean even what you tried to give is extremely limited in itself.

I'd go more in depth but with you there just isn't a point because you won't respond logically to what I say and most likely instead will insult me then ramble on about some nonsense opinion.

Jeffy25
01-21-2016, 09:54 PM
1st Bolded: What on earth are you talking about? You have a terrible case of revisionist history. It was well known back then that Jordan (and other stars) were getting favorable calls. Magic even famously commented on it during the Dream Team photo shoot, telling Larry Bird "don't touch Michael or you'll get a foul".

2nd Bolded: You at least see the irony here right? You're saying all of us today are captivated by the moment and can't rank properly and cite former rankings, by us. So we were able to not be captivated by the moment a mere 4 years ago but now we are utterly incapable?

3rd Bolded: Even according to all the lists you provided, you still have him ranked lower than virtually everybody else. So I'll reiterate, if anyone is biased here, it is you.

4th Bolded: This may be your confusion regarding these lists. These lists are talking about greatest, as in a combination of ability/accolades. That is a completely different list than best, as in purely ability. Given that, a lot has changed in 4 years for LeBron. He won his 4th MVP, which puts him in the company of only KAJ, Russell, Wilt, and Jordan as players who have won 4+ MVPs, he won a second title, a second Finals MVP, made the All-NBA first team 3 more times, which puts him at 11 All-NBA teams and 9 All-NBA first teams (most and 2nd most all-time for SFs), and became the youngest player to score 20,000 points.

That is an incredible boost to his legacy. For comparison, in those 4 years you dismiss, he added more All-NBA 1st teams, MVPs and Titles than John Stockton. That's in 4 seasons...

So yes, LeBron should rightly climb any greatest SF ever list based on increased achievement. If you want to go off ability, he was near the top long before 2011 in terms of peak play.


But it's not PSD living in the moment, everyone has realized LeBron James complete career surpasses any other SFs, here are some lists:

http://www.nba.com/magic/gallery/cohen-8ball-ranking-70-greatest-small-forwards-nba-history

1. LeBron James
2. Larry Bird
7. Elgin Baylor

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/10-of-the-greatest-nba-small-forwards-of-all-time.html/?a=viewall

1. Larry Bird
2. LeBron James
3. Elgin Baylor

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankSFs/ranking-top-10-small-forwards-ever

1. LeBron James
2. Larry Bird
5. Elgin Baylor

http://thecomeback.com/crossoverchronicles/2015-articles/the-top-5-greatest-nba-small-forwards-of-all-time.html

1. LeBron James
2. Larry Bird
N/R Elgin Baylor (only top 5)

(from 2012)
http://www.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-small-forwards-in-NBA-history#photo-title=Larry+Bird+%25281979-92%2529&photo=30169404

1. Larry Bird
2. LeBron James
5. Elgin Baylor

http://www.thetoptens.com/top-nba-small-forwards/

1. Larry Bird
2. LeBron James
9. Elgin Baylor

http://hoopshabit.com/2014/12/04/nba-power-rankings-best-30-small-forwards-time/31/

1. LeBron James
2. Larry Bird
7. Elgin Baylor


Virtually everyone has LeBron James ahead of Elgin Baylor. There is a greater consensus on that then there is on Evolution or Global Warming...

The only person who has a case with LeBron at SF is Larry Legend.

What's funny is that you say we are 'prisoners of the moment' when it comes to LeBron now... but we weren't in 2011... when he just won his first title and was the MVP... wouldn't people have been even more in the moment in 2011 because LeBron was the undisputed best player at the time, where as now, he isn't coming off an MVP, didn't win the finals and isn't the consensus best player in the world. If ever there was a time to overrated LeBron, it was 2011.

And lastly, it is amazing how you say you move LeBron up because of what he accomplished since 2011, yet criticize others for doing the same. If you get to move him up your list, why can't we?

Damn that's a good observation....

YOUGOTAGETUP
01-21-2016, 09:58 PM
I remember kids putting him as the best SF ever and top 10 every when he was a rookie. little hood rats have been lying about lebrat all along. They know that if you overhype someone enough you'll get them in the top 10.

Kids that have NEVER seen good basketball of the 80's and 90's.

NYKalltheway
01-21-2016, 09:59 PM
6 year old video, yet the legend continues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6iibPJb-yo

Show me one candidate for a top 10 SF of all time spot that has this kind of....skills.

flea
01-21-2016, 10:09 PM
People do ignore Lebron's shortcomings because he is the face of the league still (sorry Curry). But that day will pass. His teammates all being trash has become a good meme though, unique among superstars.

valade16
01-21-2016, 10:13 PM
People do ignore Lebron's shortcomings because he is the face of the league still (sorry Curry). But that day will pass. His teammates all being trash has become a good meme though, unique among superstars.

I also think as time passes less people will irrationally hate him as he becomes part of their "back in my day"

I remember quite a few people disliked Kobe and now he's far more universally loved and appreciated.

NYKalltheway
01-22-2016, 08:28 AM
I stopped following the conversation when Greek Knicks fan said players can move DOWN on a list. If that were true then Elgin Baylor would have fallen out of the conversation by virtue of preventing his teams from winning, hell, the greatest NBA winning streak of ALL-TIME happened the nano-second he retired, thus stop holding his team back.

LMFAO. Bron can NEVER move back hes either #1 or #2 on the SF list and anyone who claims otherwise has no OBJECTIVE opinion on the matter, just hate filled thoughts that pass for opinions, or just biased.


This is what moves down players:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK9wLWF8TXo


And this is why he's overrated in general:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptH0DyiomvE

I don't rate players who abuse the system and cheat (whether they intend to or not). Lebron is one of those players. Curry and Durant on the other hand don't really do that. Kobe didn't either. Lebron HAD to be branded as the next best thing since Michael Jordan. He's not. He could have been, but this is way too ridiculous to rate according to the inflated brand name he gets due to the media and the fans who simply follow whatever is on.
Lebron as a top 5 SF of all time is OVERRATED. Lebron as the #1 SF of all time is insanity. Larry Bird and Julius Erving are probably laughing at everyone now.
No one in their right mind can pick Lebron over Bird.



The problem with the media is that they know what the product is like now and they're running out of discussions. What brings numbers? Inflating current generation players. Same applies with Howard, CP3, Wade, Kobe and many others. With Lebron it gone to another level. So they have to invent "discussions" where these new guys are better than their predecessors... And Lebron is the token boy of this NBA era, so he has to be "the best". I remember back in 2005 people were like "if he wins a couple of rings, he's GOAT material"

valade16
01-22-2016, 12:19 PM
It is an interesting question. If NYKalltheway is correct and LeBron, and all modern players, are overrated as he claims, that means everyone else is wrong.

Either NYKalltheway is wrong, or nearly every fan, analyst, player, coach and former player is wrong.

What is more likely?

valade16
01-22-2016, 01:05 PM
people have been wrong before. 08 SuperBowl, obama, 82-0 Miami in 2011, the list goes on. You really want to be careful about just following the crowd.

Somethings about the NBA are fun today, but overall they were better back in the 70s.

young people emotionally want "now" to be the best era of the NBA so bad. Wanting and actually being are two different things.

He's giving video evidence and facts. You're just ignoring the video evidence.

lebron has major flaws.

*low awareness
*gets confused when switches and doubles
*poor defense
*poor footwork
*no basic shots like a hook or jumpshot
*poor rebounder for his size and position

He handles the ball like a PG and he's in the EAST so he's going to be vastly over-rated. Happens with John Wall too and Irving. They're both over-rated. So is Dywane

Says who? I like the 90's the best, but what I like is completely irrelevant to me when analyzing who was better.

I just want to get this straight, your saying every player, former player, analyst and coach is wrong and you two are right?

So all these basketball experts just don't know what they're talking about or collectively can't see the truth?

ewing
01-22-2016, 01:13 PM
Chronz and valade don't ever bring facts. THEY JUST DONT THEY ARE LIARS. THEY BRING IGNORANT OPINION

how'd this guy get banned?

NYKalltheway
01-22-2016, 01:20 PM
It is an interesting question. If NYKalltheway is correct and LeBron, and all modern players, are overrated as he claims, that means everyone else is wrong.

Either NYKalltheway is wrong, or nearly every fan, analyst, player, coach and former player is wrong.

What is more likely?

Look, everyone in the media knows this, some might truly believe in what they say though. Stephen A Smith, who's the biggest Lebron fanboy around, has publicly said that he knows that this is a softer era and that he indirectly overrates people on this generation because he "assumes" that their skillset translates. Ignoring that there were very skillful players in the past that couldn't really make it because they got beat up and they weren't very effective whilst they'd kill it if they played today.

The problem is that the fans listen to the garbage that the media is forced to feed them and they absorb it. If the media were straight with them and said it was all due to the sponsors and the advertising money, people would be less biased. Can you imagine ESPN and TNT or any other network publicy saying that their product is inferior to a previous generation? These guys are paid to say that we're witnessing history and other OMG situations! Everyone "sells" their product as the best thing out there. The NBA is no different.

valade16
01-22-2016, 01:27 PM
Look, everyone in the media knows this, some might truly believe in what they say though. Stephen A Smith, who's the biggest Lebron fanboy around, has publicly said that he knows that this is a softer era and that he indirectly overrates people on this generation because he "assumes" that their skillset translates. Ignoring that there were very skillful players in the past that couldn't really make it because they got beat up and they weren't very effective whilst they'd kill it if they played today.

The problem is that the fans listen to the garbage that the media is forced to feed them and they absorb it. If the media were straight with them and said it was all due to the sponsors and the advertising money, people would be less biased. Can you imagine ESPN and TNT or any other network publicy saying that their product is inferior to a previous generation? These guys are paid to say that we're witnessing history and other OMG situations! Everyone "sells" their product as the best thing out there. The NBA is no different.

I'm not talking about fans or the media, I'm talking about players, former players, coaches and GMs. They aree in near universal agreement that Bron is an all-time great player.

So are they all wrong?

NYKalltheway
01-22-2016, 02:39 PM
I'm not talking about fans or the media, I'm talking about players, former players, coaches and GMs. They aree in near universal agreement that Bron is an all-time great player.

So are they all wrong?

Who are these people? Are these the regular guys that are called to broadcast or comment live games or NBA programs? These guys are usually paid, or they just want to say popular things in order to get a job in the near future. You get ostracized for saying that Lebron travels and needs referee help. No one who cares about his TV or basketball management/coaching career will say these things. People will indirectly say these things, that the league is soft etc, but only guys who don't give a damn about what others say about them will openly say these things but not all the way as they're risking their jobs,too. eg guys like Skip Bayless.

I also think he's gonna be an all time great. Top 40-50 is still great. Out of 3000+. That's still in the top 2% of all NBA players ever. Top 2% gets you in Mensa.

Why is it so important to say that you've witnessed a top 10 player of all time? You're disrespecting the actual top 10.

P.S: If you guys are going to kill George Mikan in an all time great list because he played in a "crap" era, allow people to do the same about this era's stars.
The only players that have come in the post-Jordan era and had "top 20" potential were Duncan, Garnett, Tmac, Kobe, Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, Lebron Wade and Jason Kidd. Yet, only Duncan is actually a given. And Kobe is arguable. Some had injury troubles, others lacked the personality or the luck. Not everyone makes the cut.

You realize what top 20 means?
It means - ignore the order - this!
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Hakeem Olajuwon
Bill Russell
Moses Malone
David Robinson
John Stockton
Julius Erving
Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
Wilt Chamberlain
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
These are 15 players you cannot leave out of the top 15.
and then you had these guys:
Walt Frazier
Kevin Garnett
Kevin McHale
Elgin Baylor
Patrick Ewing
Clyde Drexler
Isiah Thomas
Bob Pettit
Charles Barkley
John Havlicek
Bob Cousy
Karl Malone
George Gervin
Dominique Wilkins
Dolph Schayes
and quite a few others...

It's pathetic trying to make someone a top 10 player when it's obvious he's not. All you do is say some numbers and some random awards that are meaningless. We're comparing different players, playing at different positions and roles, that played under different rules in a different era. Be objective ffs and see that these numbers you're using can't compare, they're useless and more importantly, they're inflated. Even the FG% is wrong, since they used to count a missed shot when fouled, whilst now they only give you a + 1/1 FGM but no 0/1 FGM if you're fouled on the shot. This changed sometime in the 70s. Nobody cared about stats, now players play for stats that will give them a better contract (David Lee, Kevin Love etc) and then fans will say how amazing these guys are until they have to play under pressure. Lebron has a losing NBA Finals streak and his team was always the favorite except in 2007 when he shouldn't have gone past 2nd round, but thank the refs.

I really can't believe there's such a discussion. The different in the level of quality in basketball discussion in European message boards is heads & shoulders ahead of what's going on here with all the fanboy epidemics, whether there's an intention or no. It's embedded in the way Americans watch basketball and sports in general. It's all about numbers and nothing about the sport.

valade16
01-22-2016, 03:20 PM
You guys act like we're all biased when in reality it's you guys just pimping who you saw when you grew up. I grew up watching 90's/early 00's Basketball. I like those guys as players more than I like any current player.

But I like Latrell Sprewell more than Kobe, doesn't mean I can't acknowledge Kobe was better.

I'll ask again, who do you think was the best player at every position?

PG
SG
SF
PF
C

valade16
01-22-2016, 03:23 PM
And NYKalltheway, I enjoy talking about the skills of basketball with people who actually know what they're talking about.

But when you say LeBron is a bad passer you don't know what you're talking about. When you say he is a bad defender, you don't know what you're talking about. When you say he doesn't have fundamentals, you don't know what you're talking about.

You say you watch the games, but I don't believe you. How do you converse with someone about the sky when you they are looking directly at it and saying it's not blue?

Sport472
01-22-2016, 03:35 PM
Hi guys, I'll keep this short and sweet. I'm trying to get to Los Angeles to see Kobe's last game against Utah, however I am from New Jersey. Any donations would be greatly appreciated.

https://www.gofundme.com/gekrp9d8

valade16
01-22-2016, 03:48 PM
Why do you like Latrell more than Kobe?

I have reasons why I think the players today aren't as good. They're good reasons and they're based on fact.
I have red flags I look for when everyone is drinking the kool aid about an 18 year old. I then go and look at his game. I look for certain things.


My all time Teams look something like this and I always start with the Center first because that's how they did it in the 70's.

Robinson Just think he fits well with anytype of all time lineup. Also 7'1 and extremely agile and athletic.
Barkley Could go Duncan here as well or even Malone, but I think Duncan is somewhat of a center
Bird/Pippen
Jordan
Magic/Isiah/Pippen

I like Latrell more than Kobe because as a Blazers fan I hate the Lakers and what Kobe/Shaq did in the 2000 WCFs beating us game 7 and I'm a huge fan of Ewing and the 90's Knicks and loved the Ewing/Houston/Sprewell/Larry Johnson 8th seed Knicks from 99 when they went to the Finals.

But that is who I like, I recognize Kobe was a way better basketball player than Sprewell. I can separate like from best. It doesn't seem like you can.

I asked specifically because I knew what your answer would be. Look at your list. D-Rob, Barkley, Pippen, Bird, MJ, Magic, Isiah. They all played in the league at the same time. In the 70+ years of basketball the best player at every position played in the league at the same time?

That isn't objective. That isn't fact. That is you being partial to who you grew up with. You are a homer for when you grew up.

Look at me, the guy you accuse of being a modern star homer, my Top 5 team would be:

Magic
MJ
Bron
Duncan
Kareem

I have players from more time periods than you. And I'm the biased one? Look at my favorite players ever list:

PG Nash
SG Drexler
SF Bird
PF KG
C Hakeem/Ewing

Notice how they're all NOT from the current era.

There is only one (well two) biased person here and it isn't me.

NYKalltheway
01-22-2016, 04:39 PM
But when you say LeBron is a bad passer you don't know what you're talking about. When you say he is a bad defender, you don't know what you're talking about. When you say he doesn't have fundamentals, you don't know what you're talking about.

Where did I say that?
The last one is true. The guy doesn't even know how many steps you're allowed... As for defense, he's average. That's not bad.

As for your question:

C- Kareem
PF- Duncan
SF- Bird
SG- Jordan
PG- Magic

Too easy...

P.S: How am I pimping up players I grew up with? The 60s and 70s guys played before I was even born... The 80s I only caught on tape. It was simply better basketball.

valade16
01-22-2016, 06:09 PM
Where did I say that?
The last one is true. The guy doesn't even know how many steps you're allowed... As for defense, he's average. That's not bad.

As for your question:

C- Kareem
PF- Duncan
SF- Bird
SG- Jordan
PG- Magic

Too easy...

P.S: How am I pimping up players I grew up with? The 60s and 70s guys played before I was even born... The 80s I only caught on tape. It was simply better basketball.

It's hard to keep of which of you is saying which ridiculous thing.

The pimping his eras players mainly applies to BuckWilliams (or whatever his name is now).

Look at your list. With the exception of Bird (who I have 2nd all-time), the lists are identical. So you can be objective when you try.

Problem is you don't try when it comes to modern players. "I hate modern basketball so they all suck".

Kareem, Russell, Jordan, West have all said Bron is great, one of the greatest ever. None of them were paid to do it and all legends. Are they all wrong?

The answer is: you're biased. It's really that simple.

Hawkeye15
01-22-2016, 06:15 PM
You guys act like we're all biased when in reality it's you guys just pimping who you saw when you grew up. I grew up watching 90's/early 00's Basketball. I like those guys as players more than I like any current player.

But I like Latrell Sprewell more than Kobe, doesn't mean I can't acknowledge Kobe was better.

I'll ask again, who do you think was the best player at every position?

PG
SG
SF
PF
C

PG- Magic
SG- MJ
SF- LeBron
PF- Dunca
C- KAJ

my team spans 6 decades. So it's not me shaming the past to put LeBron 1st at his position.

valade16
01-22-2016, 06:16 PM
Can I ask you Valade, which was the best era so far?

Best as in what?

Defenses had it best in the late 90's/early 00's when they allowed zone defense but there was still a lot of physicality.

The best era for offense was probably the 60's or early 70's since very few people played defense and it was just run the ball up the court and shoot as fast as you can.

The most sophisticated offenses is almost impossible to determine, because each offense catered to the type of league they were in.

In terms of best passing offenses Imve ever seen I'd have these in my top 5:

80's Lakers
00's Suns
00's Kings
10's Spurs
Current Warriors

Of course there are some older teams that could possibly get consideration like the 70's Knicks or Pete's Hawks/Jazz, as a totality of the offense, we are seeing more passing now than in the 90's.

It all depends on what specific thing you're talking about. The primary difference between you and I (and NYKalltheway) is I don't automatically dismiss any era because I don't like it.

valade16
01-22-2016, 06:19 PM
PG- Magic
SG- MJ
SF- LeBron
PF- Duncan
C- KAJ

my team spans 6 decades. So it's not me shaming the past to put LeBron 1st at his position.

I have the exact same list. Most everybody has at least 60% the same. So again, is it some mass delusion that we all watch LeBron and see something completely different than NYKalltheway? How can we all be caught in the moment or pimping the current era when we have identical lists of older players who we think are the best?

Hawkeye15
01-22-2016, 06:20 PM
I have to ask some of you that hate the players today. Why watch? I stopped watching NCAA basketball outside Iowa (it's in my blood, I have no choice), because the teams are legit far worse now, because of the one and done rule, etc.

I stopped watching. Why don't you if it's unbearable?

valade16
01-22-2016, 06:31 PM
^ If I were just basing it off points I'd have Malone, Kobe and Dr. J there because they have the most points for their positions :laugh2:

You claim to know about Basketball and then say the Lakers were the tallest team? Why about the 80's/86 Celtics? Bird, McHale, Parish, and Walton?

I simply don't trust your evaluations based on what you're telling me.

ewing
01-22-2016, 06:40 PM
I have to ask some of you that hate the players today. Why watch? I stopped watching NCAA basketball outside Iowa (it's in my blood, I have no choice), because the teams are legit far worse now, because of the one and done rule, etc.

I stopped watching. Why don't you if it's unbearable?

did the same thing. When i first got into ball college basketball was a better product then the NBA. I loved it. Then it fell to ****. I still lobe March Madness but otherwise i almost never watch. maybe if Duke gets another guy everyone hates as much as JJ or Christain I'll turn in

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 06:58 PM
valade you're so biased you named everysingle era except the 80's and early 90's. SO BIASED. you're just mad and jealous that you didn't start watching until 99 so you just barely missed the best era ever and you're mad about it. You're emotional and biased.

The best offenses were in the 80's then teams started to build the best defenses to stop players like Jordan.

This era is sorry.

Post up basketball is the best kind of basketball and everyone knows it. Ask the Spurs. They are destroying this era.

This whole site isn't objective.

They all missed the Jordan era or if they did watch it they don't like Jordan because he beat their team too much and you're all just homers.


the Best all around center ever was ether Hakeem or David Robinson

The best all around Sf ever was Larry or Pippen

The best All around SG was Jordan

The best all around PG was either Roberston, Magic or Isiah


Here's a list for you better and more diverse than your's


Russell
Barkley
Draymond
Jordan
Robertson

there that is over 7 decades.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:03 PM
^ If I were just basing it off points I'd have Malone, Kobe and Dr. J there because they have the most points for their positions :laugh2:

You claim to know about Basketball and then say the Lakers were the tallest team? Why about the 80's/86 Celtics? Bird, McHale, Parish, and Walton?

I simply don't trust your evaluations based on what you're telling me.

you started watching in 99, you don't know the game like I do. You missed out on the JORDAN era. He made everyone else around the league and world better. you were like a little immature 6 year old in 1999.

You missed out on so much. You can watch it on tape, but sometimes it doesn't have the same effect as live sports. It would be like watching some random game from 2008 between the Nuggets and Lakers.

you pretty much had to have lived it and you don't understand how good the league was in the 80's and 90's.

You're being extremely biased and emotional when you don't acknowledge that the 80's and 90's was the best.

valade16
01-22-2016, 07:03 PM
I actually started watching during Jordan's 2nd 3-peat but nice try :laugh2:

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:06 PM
I actually started watching during Jordan's 2nd 3-peat but nice try :laugh2:

you were too young to understand the 80's and 90's. How old were you in during the second three peat? So yomissed like all of Jordans rings but like 1-2. wow you missed so much. You need to have respect for your elders.

Also answer this.

How does post up basketball not win in your opinion.

Also what is the best era. just answer it straight.

valade16
01-22-2016, 07:10 PM
you were too young to understand the 80's and 90's. How old were you in during the second three peat? So yomissed like all of Jordans rings but like 1-2. wow you missed so much. You need to have respect for your elders.

Also answer this.

How does post up basketball not win in your opinion.

Also what is the best era. just answer it straight.

You need to have respect for your elders. Why isn't the 60's or the 70's the best? They're your elders.

I've never once said post-up basketball doesn't win.

The most top end talent was the 90's. MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, D-Rob, Ewing, Zo, Karl, Barkley, Pippen, Drexler, Stockton.

But I guess I'm not respecting the elders of the 70's

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:10 PM
You don't know what makes a player great, you just look at his stats and assume he's just great because of the stats.

Yeah, but he had to do something on the court to get those stats. And you have to look at who and how he's doing it. then you have to look at what beats what.

High leapers beat player like lebrat.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:15 PM
You need to have respect for your elders. Why isn't the 60's or the 70's the best? They're your elders.

I've never once said post-up basketball doesn't win.

The most top end talent was the 90's. MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, D-Rob, Ewing, Zo, Karl, Barkley, Pippen, Drexler, Stockton.

But I guess I'm not respecting the elders of the 70's

The entire league was the best in the 90's. the worst player was someone like Robert Pack in the 90's.

Just say what was the best era ever overall. don't try to change the question.


Also I've spoken to many many life time NBA and basketball fans that were born in the 50's and most all say that the 80's and 90's was the best. They liked the early 2000's too with Shaq, but they could see that Shaq was getting the whistle FAR too often so they turned the game off and they really don't get into the NBA anymore like they did.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:24 PM
If I had to pick just 10 years that was the best and concentrate it to that I'd say that 86-96 was the best ten years of the NBA. And I didn't start watching until I was 10 (really watching where I turn the game on) in 1990. I walked though the living room in the summer several times and would stop and notice a very intence NBA game on that my Dad was watching, but then I'd look for about 1 minute standing there and would run outside to ride dirtbikes or something before the sun went down.

I cought on when a lot of people caught on. 1991 NBA FINALS. I SAW THE BEST. JORDAN VS MAGIC

WHAT was your first game!

And even before that when I'd walk through the living room I'd see who was playing at age 7 and 8. Celtics vs Pistons, Lakers vs Pistons.

So I SAW THE BEST

valade16
01-22-2016, 07:26 PM
The first games I really got into were Hakeem vs Ewing in the 94 Finals.

But this verifies it for me, you're just stuck on your childhood.

Let me guess, the best TV shows are from the 90's? And the best movies? And the best music?

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:33 PM
The first games I really got into were Hakeem vs Ewing in the 94 Finals.

But this verifies it for me, you're just stuck on your childhood.

Let me guess, the best TV shows are from the 90's? And the best movies? And the best music?


How old were you in the 94 NBA finals.

That is actually my favorite Finals ever if I had to pick one. I was 13 at that time. I was born Nov. 80 I had great hops and could already dunk on a 9 foot at about 5'6 at that time. Me and my friend had a camera and he had a nice court and we'd have dunk contest and play 21 for a few hours before the game and he'd bring a 20 inch out to his back patio and we'd play and watch those Finals pretty much each game.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:38 PM
By the way music was the best then and so where most of the movies. Movies like Home Alone is a classic that only used about 500, 000 dollars for filming That movie made a billion. That's talent. When you can make a movie like that. Now days it's all cgi and spending 20 trillion to get back 21 trillion hopefully. Actually a lot of production companies all go backrupt now.

Rambo 2 is probably the best action movie ever. That was 85. there is nothing wrong with seeing what is the best.

But you think everything is the best now. music Taylor swift, Movies with all the sex jokes based on an entire movie, no story line, or they try to do action with CGI which doesn't work.
I bet you think the economy is the best now too.

You just had a shiity childhood so you probably try to stay as far away from that as possilble and you dispise the 90's because of that.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:40 PM
I like 50's 60's and 70's music aswell.

I bet you ONLY like rap from now.

valade16
01-22-2016, 07:43 PM
By the way music was the best then and so where most of the movies. Movies like Home Alone is a classic that only used about 500, 000 dollars for filming That movie made a billion. That's talent. When you can make a movie like that. Now days it's all cgi and spending 20 trillion to get back 21 trillion hopefully. Actually a lot of production companies all go backrupt now.

Rambo 2 is probably the best action movie ever. That was 85. there is nothing wrong with seeing what is the best.

But you think everything is the best now. music Taylor swift, Movies with all the sex jokes based on an entire movie, no story line, or they try to do action with CGI which doesn't work.
I bet you think the economy is the best now too.

You just had a shiity childhood so you probably try to stay as far away from that as possilble and you dispise the 90's because of that.

That's not it at all :laugh2: the difference is I'm self-aware of my biases and you are not.

You don't think it's a little coincidental that the best of everything happened to be when you were a kid?

For reference, my favorite band is Guns N'Roses and my favorite movie ever is Aliens. My favorite video game was Perfect Dark for the Nintendo 64.

I loved the 90's and most of my favorite things come from that era. But I also realize I'm biased because I grew up then.

The best of everything didn't happen when I grew up, I just think it was the best of everything because that's when I grew up.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 07:48 PM
TV shows are bad now.

I only will watch Goldbergs sometimes.

My farvorite shows in no order are Seinfeld, NBA Inside Stuff 90-95, I Love Lucy, Northern Exposure, etc etc


You missed out on the 80's man and you have an agenda against it for some reason.

I'm not biased at all, but the 80's is seen as Americas best decade ever. That's just the facts. Sometimes I wish was was like already 10 years old in the 80's when they started so I would've been 15 in 85. The 80's was a great time.

You are just mad that you missed out. 90's was pretty good to, but things started to change around 98. Music got worse and shows started getting worse. The Economy started to go down. But it was still pretty good. Just too much regulation by the government democrats that are liberal in their strick rules.

valade16
01-22-2016, 07:54 PM
^ are you serious? 80's were most definitely NOT considered the best decade. The 50's were considered the best.

And TV is better now than at any point ever. There are a million more options.

I love Seinfeld and Married with Children.

It's OK, you're clearly biased to think everything you grew up on was the best. It's a common phenomena called the 'Golden Age Fallacy'

Also, I have no problem with the 80's lol. Bird and Hakeem both played in the 80's. Aliens came out on 86. GNR in 87. All my favorite stuff is 80's :laugh2:

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:00 PM
That's not it at all :laugh2: the difference is I'm self-aware of my biases and you are not.

You don't think it's a little coincidental that the best of everything happened to be when you were a kid?

For reference, my favorite band is Guns N'Roses and my favorite movie ever is Aliens. My favorite video game was Perfect Dark for the Nintendo 64.

I loved the 90's and most of my favorite things come from that era. But I also realize I'm biased because I grew up then.

The best of everything didn't happen when I grew up, I just think it was the best of everything because that's when I grew up.

No, things were just better back then. There are reasons why and they sort of fit together. Music was better in the 50-90s but things in music started to get too ghetto and gansta in the 90's atleast a lot of MTV and a lot of guys that think they're tough started listening to it. This isn't exactly good music to listen too.

I have many favorite bands from the 50's Mo town and 60's and 70's. I used to love that music when I was a teenager. Still do. I love 80's music now. And a lot of the good stuff of the 90's.

'but music isn't what it once was because people don't spend as much time practicing.

You don't have enough history on things to make accusastion. See you were born in the video game and internet age. Also the age when there are 3-4 TV's in every house and everyone had cable.

I was born in 80 and the world was different in the 80's. No real video games. I mean there were a few at diners or something but no one actually played them for a long time. Video games got awesome around the late 80's. Japan started making some pretty cool games with the advancement in that field. The graphics were cool.

Color tv was still new. I know it was popular in the 70's, but color tv wasn't quite the same in the 70's as it was in the 80's. But in the 80's most people had 1 tv and it was in the living room and you'd watch, but only for like 2 hours a day. Now that number is higher and especially since 2000. I'm being very honest.

There was no internet back then, Do I have to expound on this.

People were outside all day in the 80's Kids that is especially and adults. Kids were playing sporst all day and riding bikes all day. Some that liked playing music would play music all day.

Kids and adults for the most part aren't like that. So for that reason we don't have the talent pull for music and acting even. Nor do we have the athletes we ones had.

The 80's is totally different than the 2000's.

Watch the GoldBergs and you'll see what it was sort of like in the 80's.

valade16
01-22-2016, 08:05 PM
Dude you're so biased it's not even funny and I can't believe you can't see it.

FWIW I am a drummer who plays rock and I love music. Zeppelin, Sabbath, Jethro Tull. You keep assuming I love the 00's or something and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Hell, my favorite NFL team is the 49ers. I love the 80's.

But saying the best of everything happened when you grew up is you being biased. If you can't see how that makes you biased, you're also an idiot.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:09 PM
^ are you serious? 80's were most definitely NOT considered the best decade. The 50's were considered the best.

And TV is better now than at any point ever. There are a million more options.

I love Seinfeld and Married with Children.

It's OK, you're clearly biased to think everything you grew up on was the best. It's a common phenomena called the 'Golden Age Fallacy'

Also, I have no problem with the 80's lol. Bird and Hakeem both played in the 80's. Aliens came out on 86. GNR in 87. All my favorite stuff is 80's :laugh2:

You're clearly biased because you just barely missed the 80's.

The 50's were a great era as were the 60's and 70's. But the 80's had the best of all worlds. I have a cousin that was born in 72 and has a freat concept of history. He loves all the decades 50's, 60's, He loved the 70's. the way everything was LAYED BACK. FAR OUT. But even he agrees that the 80's was the best.

You say that the 50's is the best,

Well what If someone that was born in 1950 said the 50's was the best. They couldn't be right in your mind though, because you already get mad when someone does that.

Do you see how your logic is silly and probably put on you by some screwed up college professor that couldn't sneak here in the 80's so has a hatred of the 80's and he preaches with an agenda against everthing 80's and 80's USA. That actually happens a lot. I've seen it happen.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:16 PM
Dude you're so biased it's not even funny and I can't believe you can't see it.

FWIW I am a drummer who plays rock and I love music. Zeppelin, Sabbath, Jethro Tull. You keep assuming I love the 00's or something and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Hell, my favorite NFL team is the 49ers. I love the 80's.

But saying the best of everything happened when you grew up is you being biased. If you can't see how that makes you biased, you're also an idiot.

dude you're so biased and you don't even see the silly logic you have.

So if you were born in the 80's then you wouldn't be able to say that Guns n Roses was your favorite band, nor the 49ers are your team, nor Senfeld and Married with Children, nor aliens which I guess came out in 86.

Don't you see what you're doing. all you favorite stuff is in the 80's for a reason. IT's because it was the best era dude. you're just sad that you totally missed it just barely. I'm not trying to be rude or mean. I actually care about that. That would be sort of ruff.


You say 50's is the best era overall, and it's up there, But bring reasons.

My Mom says that the 50's were the best and I sort of believe her. I will say that 50's cars looked great. The whole Malt Shop deal seems way awesome.

I can see when something's great, and add it up and weigh everything, you can't. Some of the movies and shows were fun back then. (wish they had color tv).

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:21 PM
90% of all NBA fans that say that the 80's and 90's was the best.

You just hang on sites like this where the average age is something like 21 so you start believing like them.

You have to be atleast 20 to even start to think about NBA eras.

When I was a teenager and some oldtimer like Wes Unseld or someone and would say that it was really tough in the 70's I'd respect them and I would never dream of just saying to them "ah you're just saying that because it was your era". That is extremely rude and disrespectful which makes me think you didn't have a good up bringing. Maybe even a single parent household where your mom let you do whatever and talk trash.

mngopher35
01-22-2016, 08:24 PM
80's was the worst era for like everything. I was born in 80 so I would for sure know. Plus all of my friends of the same age all agree it's way better today than the 80's from TV and movies to basketball. 80's is probably the most overrated era ever honestly and like 90% of people agree.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:24 PM
The 80's was the best decade ever and I'm thankful for being born then! So there. Not only that but I was born in 80 which is perfect.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:29 PM
80's was the worst era for like everything. I was born in 80 so I would for sure know. Plus all of my friends of the same age all agree it's way better today than the 80's from TV and movies to basketball. 80's is probably the most overrated era ever honestly and like 90% of people agree.

you're a dumbass that is a smart elic You didn't have parents and you were poor in the 80's.

I doubt you had an 86 Kawasaki KX 80 TWo Stroke bike in the 80's.

I doubt you got a Nintendo Entertainment system for Christmas 87 like I did.

Or a Tony Hawk inspired Santa Cruz Skate board in 87.
You guys just didn't live in the 80's and if you didn't you were poor and didn't have nothing, probably didn't even have a dad to teach you about good music like Led Zepplin

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:31 PM
You didn't go to all the SuperCrosses in the 80's when they allowed TWO STROKE RACE BIKES. you can thank the stupid democrats for outlawing 2 stroke bikes and jetskis.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:33 PM
The Best SFs

Pippen drafted 80's
Bird 70's
Erving 60's
Dominique 80's
Tha Hawk 60's

Not biased to one era.

valade16
01-22-2016, 08:42 PM
90% of all NBA fans that say that the 80's and 90's was the best.

You just hang on sites like this where the average age is something like 21 so you start believing like them.

You have to be atleast 20 to even start to think about NBA eras.

When I was a teenager and some oldtimer like Wes Unseld or someone and would say that it was really tough in the 70's I'd respect them and I would never dream of just saying to them "ah you're just saying that because it was your era". That is extremely rude and disrespectful which makes me think you didn't have a good up bringing. Maybe even a single parent household where your mom let you do whatever and talk trash.

The day you do as much for basketball or know as much about it as Wes Unseld I'll give you the utmost respect.

I also love how you talk about upbringing and being rude and you wished death/threatened to kill another poster earlier in this thread.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:43 PM
where did you go you biased troll.

I destroyed your silly BS logic. Where did you learn that junk.

You say a person born in the 50's can't say the 50's is the best era. Yet you yourself say the 50's is the best era.

you dummy valade.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 08:49 PM
The day you do as much for basketball or know as much about it as Wes Unseld I'll give you the utmost respect.


Where are you to clarify. You said a player born in an era can NEVER say their era is the best. Yet I've heard people born in the 50's say that era was the best and you say the 50's was the best decade, What if they said the 50's is the best decade, Are they biased then you stupid.

Then you can't name an era that was probably the best overall in the NBA. you dance around the question poorly I might add.

valade16
01-22-2016, 08:54 PM
Where are you to clarify. You said a player born in an era can NEVER say their era is the best. Yet I've heard people born in the 50's say that era was the best and you say the 50's was the best decade, What if they said the 50's is the best decade, Are they biased then you stupid.

Then you can't name an era that was probably the best overall in the NBA. you dance around the question poorly I might add.

I did not say that. I said someone who thinks everything about their era is the best is probably biased.

I distrust anyone who says everything about their era was the best. To use the 50's, although I said the 50's is considered the best era I never said everything about it was the best (movies certainly weren't).

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 09:10 PM
QUOTE=valade16;30690918]I did not say that. I said someone who thinks everything about their era is the best is probably biased.

I distrust anyone who says everything about their era was the best. To use the 50's, although I said the 50's is considered the best era I never said everything about it was the best (movies certainly weren't).[/QUOTE]

I'm definitely not biased, I like all eras. Never said EVERYTHING is the best from any era.

I went back and watched all the eras. Still need to watch more 70's ball and DR J, Bill Walton and the others.

Some of my favorite Finals are in chronological order

81 Finals Really like watching Archibald a 70's player win the Title. Also really liked Larry's Birds defense in that series. you're probably biased and listen to all the lies about Larry Birds defense. (racist). tha's worse that biased.

85 Finals was good.

86 Finals was great Twin Towers was great going against Celtics frontline I like that type of basketball because over the HISTORY it wins the best. You are biased to threes and you porobabluy think you must shoots 40 threes a game to win now. analytic dork

88 Finals was great

89 Finals

90 Finals

91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99

00 didn't seem as good. Seemed like someone got away with cheating. Then I find out latet 10 years later that the refs did rig up the WCF. So my judgement is RIGHT ON

01 was pretty cool seeing a 5'11 guy lead his team against the biggest player ever.

02 was a bad finals only an idiot would disagree.


03 was cool because Robinson won a title for the second time. Then rode off into the sunset only the second player really that did that. That I know of.

04 was a bad finals


11 was a good one seeing lebrat and wade get their ***** whooped.

14 was great too

15 was great.


So I like the league right now.

I like the Warriors and Spurs. Do I have to be biased to lebrat? Do I have to like lebrat. I see so many flaws with him.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 09:20 PM
So I liked to watch Jordan and Pippen play in the 90's. So I'm biased in your dumb mind.

LIST the 10 best players you ever saw play. not who had the best stats ever and was on the most stacked teams. Who are the 10 best you ever saw play if they happen to have the best stats that's fine.

But I don't you've really seen that much basketball and understand what wins.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 09:23 PM
The 80s is considered the best era in the USA.

you saying that LeBron is the best sf EVER right now is very biased. Do you know the odds of that?

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 09:26 PM
most everyone considers the 80's the decade of the SF.

Just like the 90's was the decade of the running back. Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Thurman Thomas and a few others.

Somethings are just fact. You need to learn to except fact and not be biased against an era because you didn't live in it.

DropStepDunk
01-22-2016, 09:30 PM
Just look at these great 80's SF's

Bird
King
Erving
Wilkins
Mullin
English
Aguirre
Dantley
Pippen got in there a little
Worthy
Vandewedge
McDaniel

And there are probably a few other great ones.


Can you name a better list of SF's in a decade?

Don't you think all those GREAT players at the 3 would make each one better and bring out the best in each other.