PDA

View Full Version : Who is the best 8th Overall Pick of All-time?



Jeffy25
07-22-2018, 03:35 AM
Our current draft

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. Dirk Nowitzki - Bucks (traded to Mavs) - 1998
10. Paul Pierce - Celtics - 1998
11. Reggie Miller - Pacers - 1987
12. Julius Erving - Bucks (but played in ABA) - 1972
13. Kobe Bryant - Hornets (traded to Lakers) - 1996
14. Clyde Drexler - Blazers - 1983
15. Steve Nash - Suns - 1996
16. John Stockton - Jazz - 1984
17. Shawn Kemp - Sonics/Thunder - 1989
18. Joe Dumars - Pistons - 1985
19. Tiny Archibald - Royals/Kings - 1970
20. Larry Nance - Suns - 1981
21. Michael Finley - Suns - 1995
22. Norm Nixon - Lakers - 1977
23. Alex English - Bucks - 1976
24. Sam Cassell - Rockets - 1993
25. Mark Price - Mavs (traded to Cavs) - 1986
26. Vlade Divac - Lakers - 1989
27. Dennis Rodman - Pistons - 1986
28. Tony Parker - Spurs - 2001
29. Dennis Johnson - Sonics - 1976
30. Jimmy Butler - Bulls - 2011


https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/draft_finder.cgi?request=1&year_min=&year_max=&round_min=&round_max=&pick_overall_min=8&pick_overall_max=8&franch_id=&college_id=0&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&is_active=&is_hof=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ws

Some notable picks

Robert Parish
Jack Sikma
Detlef Schrempf
Andre Miller
Sam Jones
Tom Chambers
Jack Twyman
Willis Reed
Ron Harper
Jamal Crawford
Calvin Natt
Tom Sanders
Rudy Gay
Terry Dischinger
Brian Grant
Vin Baker
Olden Polynice
Kerry Kittles
Channing Frye
Larry Hughes
Brendan Wright
Al-Faroug Aminu
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
Terrence Ross
Stanley Johnson
Jordan Hill
Nik Stauskas

Jeffy25
07-22-2018, 03:39 AM
I'm leaving this one up for a bit, since this should be a good debate.

COOLbeans
07-22-2018, 04:43 AM
Iím torn between Parrish and Andre Miller. I believe Miller is very underrated and he hasnít been in an ideal situation like Parrish was. But based on the old heads that saw those mid-80s Celtics teams, they say he was a hell of a player and I donít think Iíve heard anyone refer to Miller that way.

mightybosstone
07-22-2018, 08:14 AM
Iím torn between Parrish and Andre Miller. I believe Miller is very underrated and he hasnít been in an ideal situation like Parrish was. But based on the old heads that saw those mid-80s Celtics teams, they say he was a hell of a player and I donít think Iíve heard anyone refer to Miller that way.

:facepalm: Andre Miller? Are you kidding me? He wouldn't crack my top 6 on this list. The only thing Miller has on these guys is that he was consistent and played for a really, really long time. Parish, Reed, Jones, Sikma, Schrempf and Chambers were all vastly superior players in their primes. We're talking about guys who went to multiple All-Star games and in many cases were All-NBA guys and key contributors to NBA championships.

I don't mean to belittle you, but you should seriously do a little reading on the history of the NBA. Anybody with even a basic knowledge of the league's history would not even bring up Andre Miller's name in this conversation.

ewing
07-22-2018, 08:19 AM
2x Final MVP, regular season MVP, 7 time all star Willis Reed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KnicksorBust
07-22-2018, 08:22 AM
2x Final MVP, regular season MVP, 7 time all star Willis Reed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea this is a no brainer. Willis Reed

mightybosstone
07-22-2018, 08:52 AM
The argument has to be between Robert Parish, Sam Jones and Willis Reed. All three guys were perennial All-Stars and All-NBA guys who contributed to multiple championships and whose numbers still stack up damn well today despite playing in primarily the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Parish vs. Reed is a fantastic peak vs. longevity debate. Parish holds the record for NBA games played and is top 25-30 in just a ton of career statistics. He won three titles on the 80s Celtics teams and consistently put up 17-19 points and 10 rebounds for a full decade. BUT he's historically known as the third best Celtic from those teams behind Bird and McHale (and the numbers back that up) and only cracked two All-NBA teams in 20+ years.

Meanwhile, Reed was a 5-time All-NBA guy despite his career being less than half as long as Parish. And in that time he won an MVP and two Finals MVPs while helping will the Knicks to their only two championships. You could argue that Frazier was the better Knick, but Reed was an elite two-way player who posted essentially 20/13 for five straight seasons, and I've got to give him the edge over Parish. It's unfortunate for Parish in these all-time conversations that he happened to play across the two eras with the most elite centers in NBA history (80s and 90s) and that he played with two better players at the height his career. But you could argue that if he had been the No. 1 on a lesser team and not won all those titles, maybe he doesn't pop up in these conversations at all.

Then there's Sam Jones. It's harder to judge where he fits in this conversation. Like Reed, he had a shorter career with probably a stronger peak statistically than Parish and was known for being a good two-way player with a reputation for being clutch in big games. But like Parish, he's historically been in the background of those 60s Celtics teams, generally considered the second greatest Celtic of that era behind Russell and arguably even behind Hondo. One thing I'll say for Jones is that he actually led the Celtics several seasons, and his advanced numbers are arguably a little better than Reed. But I have a harder time taking advanced numbers at face value between eras, and I'd prefer to judge players by how they were compared to their peers at the time.

Jones was never the best player on the Celtics or considered the greatest player of his era in any given season, so I can't rank him ahead of Reed. But he also doesn't have the insane length and consistency of Parish's career, so I don't feel like I can rank him ahead of Parish either. Third seems fair for Jones, but you could honestly make a really strong case for any of those three guys.

Behind those three, I'd probably rank Sikma and Schrempf at 4th and 5th, respectively. Sikma gets like no respect in these conversations, but he was a damn solid all-around player, an elite defender in his era and arguably the best player on a championship team: the 78-79 Sonics.

mightybosstone
07-22-2018, 08:56 AM
2x Final MVP, regular season MVP, 7 time all star Willis Reed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yea this is a no brainer. Willis Reed

...said the two Knicks fans. ;)

I obviously agree, but I don't think it's as much of a "no-brainer" as you do, KOB.

KnicksorBust
07-22-2018, 10:15 AM
2x Final MVP, regular season MVP, 7 time all star Willis Reed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yea this is a no brainer. Willis Reed

...said the two Knicks fans. ;)

I obviously agree, but I don't think it's as much of a "no-brainer" as you do, KOB.

We don't often get to be the arrogant ones. Give us this one. :laugh:

Vee-Rex
07-22-2018, 10:39 AM
In 15 years, we will be saying: Collin Sexton.

KingstonHawke
07-22-2018, 10:49 AM
We don't often get to be the arrogant ones. Give us this one. :laugh:

Taking Parish over Reed. Bigger, better numbers, played in a better league, more longevity...

If Rudy Gay had been in a better situation I think he'd be at the top of this list actually. Gay is very underrated. He could've easily been the third best player on a dynasty a la James Worthy, Dennis Rodman, Chris Bosh, or Klay Thompson.

So many players owe their legacy to luck. And so many players that are superior to their counterparts get forgotten because they had bad luck... T Mac, Grant Hill, Allen Iverson, Chris Webber. Seriously, imagine if the 76ers would've got the #1 instead of the #2. There was such a big drop off. They would've had Iverson and Tim Duncan for their entire careers. Iverson would easily go down as a top 5 PG all time in that scenario... easily!

mightybosstone
07-22-2018, 12:19 PM
Taking Parish over Reed. Bigger, better numbers, played in a better league, more longevity...
Better numbers? How do you figure? Reed posted five straight seasons of at least 20.8 points and 13.2 rebounds per game. In 21 years, Parish's best season was 19.9 and 10.8. Parish's advanced numbers are a little better, but it's kind of hard to compare those stats across 20 years, especially considering a lot of the stats that go into those numbers weren't tracked in the 60s.

Then you factor in defense, and it's no contest. Reed was the superior defender. AND the guy has an MVP and two Finals MVPs. If you want to use longevity as your argument, OK I guess. But you can't possibly use prime production as your reasoning. There's no argument to be made there at all.


If Rudy Gay had been in a better situation I think he'd be at the top of this list actually. Gay is very underrated. He could've easily been the third best player on a dynasty a la James Worthy, Dennis Rodman, Chris Bosh, or Klay Thompson.

So many players owe their legacy to luck. And so many players that are superior to their counterparts get forgotten because they had bad luck... T Mac, Grant Hill, Allen Iverson, Chris Webber. Seriously, imagine if the 76ers would've got the #1 instead of the #2. There was such a big drop off. They would've had Iverson and Tim Duncan for their entire careers. Iverson would easily go down as a top 5 PG all time in that scenario... easily!

No. Rudy Gay sucked. Period. The dude is a volume scorer and a chucker who didn't do very much else at a high level and never made a single All-Star game. Maybe on a winning team he might have had a chance as a No. 3 type on a contender, but he was never efficient enough or versatile enough to be a true No. 1 in the NBA. There's nothing wrong with just being a very good player, and that's all Gay is/was.

Vinylman
07-22-2018, 01:49 PM
lol at Robert Parish... a very good player who benefitted unbelievably playing alongside Bird/McHale..


Easily one of the most overrated players of the 80s...

PowerHouse
07-22-2018, 02:13 PM
lol at Robert Parish... a very good player who benefitted unbelievably playing alongside Bird/McHale..


Easily one of the most overrated players of the 80s...

But this is a 3 man race between Chief, Reed and Sam Jones who all benefited greatly from playing alongside 3 or more HOFers. We cant disqualify these guys just for that, that leaves us with Andre Miller lol.

Chronz
07-22-2018, 02:16 PM
In 15 years, we will be saying: Collin Sexton.

Clippers legend Collin Sexton

GREATNESS ONE
07-22-2018, 05:07 PM
2x Final MVP, regular season MVP, 7 time all star Willis Reed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about Andre Miller? Lmfao


Itís EASILY Willis Reed

Mr.B
07-22-2018, 11:53 PM
Yea I have to agree that this one should go to Willis Reed.

Hawkeye15
07-23-2018, 09:53 AM
Reed for me. Without question.

MannyWood
07-23-2018, 03:49 PM
Detlef Schrempf isn't going to win this, but he had some great numbers. For todays NBA, I would take him off that list.

kobebabe
07-23-2018, 04:18 PM
Iím torn between Parrish and Andre Miller. I believe Miller is very underrated and he hasnít been in an ideal situation like Parrish was. But based on the old heads that saw those mid-80s Celtics teams, they say he was a hell of a player and I donít think Iíve heard anyone refer to Miller that way.

Really dude??

Jeffy25
07-23-2018, 04:19 PM
My issue with voting for Reed is length of career.


He only played 23K minutes, Parish played twice as many minutes in his career for example. He is 24th on this list in career games played. If the minutes don't matter, then does Geoff Petrie get some consideration?

Does Parish get extra credit for the amount he played? Even though he was never a star and Reed was?
Sam Jones carved out a Hall of Fame career because of his teams, but he obviously was a big contributor.
Detlef had a nice career, but also was a third option player.
Shouldn't Chambers get more credit?


Nobody is a total stud/star except maybe Reed, so I get why he would get the votes. But 23K minutes is a pretty short career. It's outside the top 300 to ever play the game in fact. I dunno if he should get extra credit for sticking around and being 75% of his former self, but it's such a short career in terms of all-time discussions.

Note, I never saw most of these guys play (only Gay, Schrempf, Miller, Crawford, etc). I missed a lot of Parish, all of Reed, don't remember Sikma, never saw Jones. If you retired 1990 or earlier, I didn't see you play with any kind of a memory.

kobebabe
07-23-2018, 04:21 PM
Reed for me with Parish a close 2nd

Hawkeye15
07-23-2018, 04:45 PM
My issue with voting for Reed is length of career.


He only played 23K minutes, Parish played twice as many minutes in his career for example. He is 24th on this list in career games played. If the minutes don't matter, then does Geoff Petrie get some consideration?

Does Parish get extra credit for the amount he played? Even though he was never a star and Reed was?
Sam Jones carved out a Hall of Fame career because of his teams, but he obviously was a big contributor.
Detlef had a nice career, but also was a third option player.
Shouldn't Chambers get more credit?


Nobody is a total stud/star except maybe Reed, so I get why he would get the votes. But 23K minutes is a pretty short career. It's outside the top 300 to ever play the game in fact. I dunno if he should get extra credit for sticking around and being 75% of his former self, but it's such a short career in terms of all-time discussions.

Note, I never saw most of these guys play (only Gay, Schrempf, Miller, Crawford, etc). I missed a lot of Parish, all of Reed, don't remember Sikma, never saw Jones. If you retired 1990 or earlier, I didn't see you play with any kind of a memory.

tell me this, would you rather have the 10 years of Reed on your team, or the 20 years of Parish, if designing a team to win?

mightybosstone
07-23-2018, 04:59 PM
My issue with voting for Reed is length of career.

He only played 23K minutes, Parish played twice as many minutes in his career for example. He is 24th on this list in career games played. If the minutes don't matter, then does Geoff Petrie get some consideration?
Look at Geoff Petrie's advanced stats and try to make that argument. And how many MVPs, Finals MVPs and rings did Petrie rack up in his career?

Also, you say 23,000 minutes like that's nothing. But that's a decent length for an NBA career, especially considering he played in an era where every athlete played four years of college ball and every star player was playing 35+ minutes per game. If you averaged 23,000 minutes over 32 minutes over 82 games, that's nearly nine full seasons of basketball. And that doesn't factor in all of the minutes he played in the postseason (more than 2,600).


Does Parish get extra credit for the amount he played? Even though he was never a star and Reed was?
Consider this, though. In their respective eras, Reed was a far more dominant player than Parish was. He was a top 5 player in the league for probably five straight seasons. Was Parish ever a top 5 player in his entire career?

And think about this from the perspective of a team or a fan. Would you rather have one guy who was really good, but never a true No. 1 for 10-15 seasons or would you rather have a great player who could be the No. 1 guy on two championship teams for only five seasons? I'd much rather have the elite guy for five seasons than the really good guy for 10-15.


Nobody is a total stud/star except maybe Reed, so I get why he would get the votes. But 23K minutes is a pretty short career. It's outside the top 300 to ever play the game in fact. I dunno if he should get extra credit for sticking around and being 75% of his former self, but it's such a short career in terms of all-time discussions.

Consider this, though. You keep bringing up Reed's 23,000 minutes. What about Sam Jones? He only played in 24,285 minutes in his career. He played in more than 200 more games than Reed, but he wasn't logging Reed's 35+ minutes every night for the better part of a decade.

And you mention Parish's longevity; how about Andre Miller's longevity? He's 20th in career games and played 16,000 more minutes in his career than Jones. But would you take Andre Miller over Sam Jones in an all-time conversation just because he played way more minutes? Of course not. Because Miller's "really good" 40,000 minutes don't him having the better career over Jones' "great" 24,000.

KingstonHawke
07-23-2018, 05:00 PM
Better numbers? How do you figure? Reed posted five straight seasons of at least 20.8 points and 13.2 rebounds per game. In 21 years, Parish's best season was 19.9 and 10.8. Parish's advanced numbers are a little better, but it's kind of hard to compare those stats across 20 years, especially considering a lot of the stats that go into those numbers weren't tracked in the 60s.



You're only taking into account peak. I already acknoledged Reed wins if we're just looking at better invidiual season. But I'm not. Why would I be if this is a comparison between careers?




Then you factor in defense, and it's no contest. Reed was the superior defender. AND the guy has an MVP and two Finals MVPs. If you want to use longevity as your argument, OK I guess. But you can't possibly use prime production as your reasoning. There's no argument to be made there at all.


Defense is a hard one considering who they played against. You swap Javelle McGee and Willis Reed and McGee is going to look like the best defensive player of all time. Both on offense and defense I give extra consideration to whoever played later if the difference is significant. NBA in the 60s was wack.




No. Rudy Gay sucked. Period. The dude is a volume scorer and a chucker who didn't do very much else at a high level and never made a single All-Star game. Maybe on a winning team he might have had a chance as a No. 3 type on a contender, but he was never efficient enough or versatile enough to be a true No. 1 in the NBA. There's nothing wrong with just being a very good player, and that's all Gay is/was.

You just said what I said in harsher words, and with more hyperbole. He obviously never sucked. He was a volume scorer. Claiming he never did anything else like averaging 7 assist per night is nothing is silly. Charles Barkley was also a volume scorer and a chucker. Imagine what he'd of looked like if he wasn't on three different teams surrounded by hall of famers? Does that mean we should write off his entire career?

Hawkeye15
07-23-2018, 05:06 PM
Taking Parish over Reed. Bigger, better numbers, played in a better league, more longevity...

If Rudy Gay had been in a better situation I think he'd be at the top of this list actually. Gay is very underrated. He could've easily been the third best player on a dynasty a la James Worthy, Dennis Rodman, Chris Bosh, or Klay Thompson.

So many players owe their legacy to luck. And so many players that are superior to their counterparts get forgotten because they had bad luck... T Mac, Grant Hill, Allen Iverson, Chris Webber. Seriously, imagine if the 76ers would've got the #1 instead of the #2. There was such a big drop off. They would've had Iverson and Tim Duncan for their entire careers. Iverson would easily go down as a top 5 PG all time in that scenario... easily!

Gay is the most replaceable type of player in the game. Lots of hollow points, and nothing else. In the perfect situation, would have had played some role in winning? Perhaps.

mightybosstone
07-23-2018, 05:35 PM
You're only taking into account peak. I already acknoledged Reed wins if we're just looking at better invidiual season. But I'm not. Why would I be if this is a comparison between careers?
Reed's peak/prime pretty much was his whole career. He averaged those numbers I posted for six of his first seven seasons, and he was pretty much done as a player after that 7th season. So if we're not talking about their prime production, what exactly are we talking about? Total numbers? Because if that's your sole justification, then you could say Oakley was a better player than Reed. He has way more career points and rebounds than Reed did.


Defense is a hard one considering who they played against. You swap Javelle McGee and Willis Reed and McGee is going to look like the best defensive player of all time. Both on offense and defense I give extra consideration to whoever played later if the difference is significant. NBA in the 60s was wack.
OK, but how can you prove that? And it's kind of hard to knock guys who played in the 60s solely because they played in the 60s. It's not their fault they played in that era of sports. You can certainly use that barometer to judge players if you want, but if you do that, you pretty much have to throw out all the guys from that era: Wilt, Russell, Jones, West, Pettit, Oscar, etc.


You just said what I said in harsher words, and with more hyperbole. He obviously never sucked. He was a volume scorer. Claiming he never did anything else like averaging 7 assist per night is nothing is silly. Charles Barkley was also a volume scorer and a chucker. Imagine what he'd of looked like if he wasn't on three different teams surrounded by hall of famers? Does that mean we should write off his entire career?
Huh? Charles Barkley was one of the most efficient scores in the history of the NBA. The dude is ninth in career TS%, led the league in TS% four times and once had a season where he averaged 60 percent from the floor. 60! That's insane!

It's actually funny that you brought Barkley up as a comparison to Gay, because he's the perfect example of someone I would use to counter the idea that Rudy Gay is a good basketball player. If you look at their careers, Gay and Barkley took about the same number of shots per game. Gay peaked at about 16-17, and Barkley peaked at about 16-18.

For their careers, Gay has taken 15 shots per game while Barkley took 14.5 shots per game. But Barkley averaged 22.1 PPG in his career, compared to only 17.9 for Gay. That's 4.2 more points every game despite taking 0.5 fewer shots! Gay has made 1.19 points for every shot he took his career, while Barkley made 1.52 points for every shot. So essentially Barkley made 28 percent more points per shot in his career than Gay!

I could throw a ton of more numbers at you, but I think I've proven my point. If you think Barkley is a "chucker" and a "volume scorer," I kinda have to question that you know what the hell you're talking about...

PowerHouse
07-23-2018, 07:42 PM
tell me this, would you rather have the 10 years of Reed on your team, or the 20 years of Parish, if designing a team to win?

If we're talking about each player in their absolute peak, Im taking Parish in his '81 season over Reed's best year ('69) easily.

Reed per 36 min: 20.1 ppg/13.8 rpg/2.2 apg/21.4 PER/ .562 TS%

Parish per 36 min: 24.3 ppg/12.2 rpg/2.3 apg/25.2 PER/ .579 TS% & 214 blocks

KingstonHawke
07-23-2018, 08:16 PM
Reed's peak/prime pretty much was his whole career. He averaged those numbers I posted for six of his first seven seasons, and he was pretty much done as a player after that 7th season. So if we're not talking about their prime production, what exactly are we talking about? Total numbers? Because if that's your sole justification, then you could say Oakley was a better player than Reed. He has way more career points and rebounds than Reed did.

He played 10 seasons, and 3 of them were down years. Compare that to 16 seasons of good play. I'll take 16 good years over 7 years of great play any day.



OK, but how can you prove that? And it's kind of hard to knock guys who played in the 60s solely because they played in the 60s. It's not their fault they played in that era of sports. You can certainly use that barometer to judge players if you want, but if you do that, you pretty much have to throw out all the guys from that era: Wilt, Russell, Jones, West, Pettit, Oscar, etc.


How can I prove that? It's valid to ask to what degree, but it's not valid to suggest sports don't evolve, in general.



Huh? Charles Barkley was one of the most efficient scores in the history of the NBA. The dude is ninth in career TS%, led the league in TS% four times and once had a season where he averaged 60 percent from the floor. 60! That's insane!

It's actually funny that you brought Barkley up as a comparison to Gay, because he's the perfect example of someone I would use to counter the idea that Rudy Gay is a good basketball player. If you look at their careers, Gay and Barkley took about the same number of shots per game. Gay peaked at about 16-17, and Barkley peaked at about 16-18.

For their careers, Gay has taken 15 shots per game while Barkley took 14.5 shots per game. But Barkley averaged 22.1 PPG in his career, compared to only 17.9 for Gay. That's 4.2 more points every game despite taking 0.5 fewer shots! Gay has made 1.19 points for every shot he took his career, while Barkley made 1.52 points for every shot. So essentially Barkley made 28 percent more points per shot in his career than Gay!

I could throw a ton of more numbers at you, but I think I've proven my point. If you think Barkley is a "chucker" and a "volume scorer," I kinda have to question that you know what the hell you're talking about...

Worst three point shooting percentage with at least 1000 attempts... Barkley.
Shooter under 30% with the most attempts... Barkley.
Almost every year he was in Phoenix/Houston his FG% was 50% or below.
He scored a ton of put-backs and FTs because he was an amazing rebounder and that boost his TS%...

That doesn't make him any less of a chucker, it just means that he's a chucker who can do more than just chuck, and was surrounded by HoFers letting him get loose the same way Durant is. Put Barkley on a team with no other stars, in today's league, so he's doubled every time he enters the paint, and all of those efficiencey numbers fall off of a cliff quickly.

Let me ask you. Have you ever played organized basketball? Coached it? You really don't think the situation you're in makes a huge difference on which skills you're able to make use of and how your numbers will look? I don't think Barkley or Jordan would have the same success in today's league. Jordan because his lack of three point shooting, and Barkley because his lack of size. People like to focus on the few elite centers of the 90s and forget that these guys were going against unathletic white guys more often than not.

The attention Bird and Magic brought to the league pushed it forward. The attention Michael brought pushed it forward even more.

mightybosstone
07-23-2018, 08:19 PM
If we're talking about each player in their absolute peak, Im taking Parish in his '81 season over Reed's best year ('69) easily.

Reed per 36 min: 20.1 ppg/13.8 rpg/2.2 apg/21.4 PER/ .562 TS%

Parish per 36 min: 24.3 ppg/12.2 rpg/2.3 apg/25.2 PER/ .579 TS% & 214 blocks

But you conveniently left out the part where Parish only played 28 minutes per game that season. You can't just throw per 36 numbers out there like they're the actual stats of a player. When asked to play 35+ minutes like Reed played in his prime, Parish never posted advanced numbers that strong in his career. Also, Parish's WS/48 was practically identical to Reed that season despite Reed playing more than 800 more minutes than Parish.

mightybosstone
07-23-2018, 08:38 PM
He played 10 seasons, and 3 of them were down years. Compare that to 16 seasons of good play. I'll take 16 good years over 7 years of great play any day.
Thank god you're not an NBA GM...


How can I prove that? It's valid to ask to what degree, but it's not valid to suggest sports don't evolve, in general.
I'm not saying they don't evolve, but you can't look at a guy from the 60s and assume he's trash just because he played in the 60s. Reed was a legit player who went toe to to with Wilt, Russell and Kareem and willed the Knicks to two championships. Dude deserves some credit.


Worst three point shooting percentage with at least 1000 attempts... Barkley.
Shooter under 30% with the most attempts... Barkley.
So what? The most 3-point attempts he ever had in a season was 220. Last year, that would have ranked the 136th most in the entire league. His total 3-point attempts made up less than 13 percent of all of his field goal attempts in his career. It's an irrelevant figure in terms of his productivity.


Almost every year he was in Phoenix/Houston his FG% was 50% or below.
He scored a ton of put-backs and FTs because he was an amazing rebounder and that boost his TS%...
Dude didn't post a TS% below 56 until he was 35 years old. No matter how you look at it, he was a hyper-efficient scorer. I don't care how he got his points.


That doesn't make him any less of a chucker, it just means that he's a chucker who can do more than just chuck, and was surrounded by HoFers letting him get loose the same way Durant is. Put Barkley on a team with no other stars, in today's league, so he's doubled every time he enters the paint, and all of those efficiencey numbers fall off of a cliff quickly.
If I take 8 shots and seven of them are well within my range and I know can hit them at a high clip, but then I take one bad shot, does that make me a chucker? Because essentially I would be, based on your definition of Barkley.

Also, you do realize Barkley's best seasons in the league were on a mediocre Philly team with no other significant star players, right? His most efficient season was in 87-88, and the second best player on that team was probably Mo Cheeks. Then in the early 90s, the best player he played with in Philly was Hershey Hawkins. So you can't tell me the guy didn't thrive as the only major superstar threat. He did it in his peak for many years.


Let me ask you. Have you ever played organized basketball? Coached it? You really don't think the situation you're in makes a huge difference on which skills you're able to make use of and how your numbers will look?

I don't think Barkley or Jordan would have the same success in today's league. Jordan because his lack of three point shooting, and Barkley because his lack of size.
Why would Barkley's size matter when the average center today is probably a good 2-3 inches smaller and 20 pounds lighter, and teams are constantly playing small ball? Also, I don't know that Michael would be as good in this era, but I'm guessing he'd be perfectly fine. You're talking about a guy who regularly posted a 60+ percent TS% for the bulk of his career while taking very few 3-pointers and making less than 33 percent on average.


People like to focus on the few elite centers of the 90s and forget that these guys were going against unathletic white guys more often than not.
I'm confused here. Are you saying centers in the 90s were going against unathletic white guys or centers in the 60s were? You didn't really connect those dots very well...


The attention Bird and Magic brought to the league pushed it forward. The attention Michael brought pushed it forward even more.
:confused: Huh? What the hell does this have to do with anything we're discussing?

Jeffy25
07-23-2018, 09:40 PM
tell me this, would you rather have the 10 years of Reed on your team, or the 20 years of Parish, if designing a team to win?

Reed, certainly. But there is a value in getting a guy you can consistently run out there like that, and constantly put guys around.

Jeffy25
07-23-2018, 09:43 PM
Look at Geoff Petrie's advanced stats and try to make that argument. And how many MVPs, Finals MVPs and rings did Petrie rack up in his career?

Also, you say 23,000 minutes like that's nothing. But that's a decent length for an NBA career, especially considering he played in an era where every athlete played four years of college ball and every star player was playing 35+ minutes per game. If you averaged 23,000 minutes over 32 minutes over 82 games, that's nearly nine full seasons of basketball. And that doesn't factor in all of the minutes he played in the postseason (more than 2,600).


Consider this, though. In their respective eras, Reed was a far more dominant player than Parish was. He was a top 5 player in the league for probably five straight seasons. Was Parish ever a top 5 player in his entire career?

And think about this from the perspective of a team or a fan. Would you rather have one guy who was really good, but never a true No. 1 for 10-15 seasons or would you rather have a great player who could be the No. 1 guy on two championship teams for only five seasons? I'd much rather have the elite guy for five seasons than the really good guy for 10-15.


Consider this, though. You keep bringing up Reed's 23,000 minutes. What about Sam Jones? He only played in 24,285 minutes in his career. He played in more than 200 more games than Reed, but he wasn't logging Reed's 35+ minutes every night for the better part of a decade.

And you mention Parish's longevity; how about Andre Miller's longevity? He's 20th in career games and played 16,000 more minutes in his career than Jones. But would you take Andre Miller over Sam Jones in an all-time conversation just because he played way more minutes? Of course not. Because Miller's "really good" 40,000 minutes don't him having the better career over Jones' "great" 24,000.

You have convinced me to give Reed my vote :)

ciaban
07-23-2018, 10:33 PM
Taking Parish over Reed. Bigger, better numbers, played in a better league, more longevity...

If Rudy Gay had been in a better situation I think he'd be at the top of this list actually. Gay is very underrated. He could've easily been the third best player on a dynasty a la James Worthy, Dennis Rodman, Chris Bosh, or Klay Thompson.

So many players owe their legacy to luck. And so many players that are superior to their counterparts get forgotten because they had bad luck... T Mac, Grant Hill, Allen Iverson, Chris Webber. Seriously, imagine if the 76ers would've got the #1 instead of the #2. There was such a big drop off. They would've had Iverson and Tim Duncan for their entire careers. Iverson would easily go down as a top 5 PG all time in that scenario... easily!

MMMMM Rudy Gay exists in this weird area, as both Under Rated and Over Rated. People who like him over rate him, and people that hate him really under rate him. (granted there are more people that **** on him than like him)
**p.s. that 06 draft was pretty under rated actually.
LaMarcus Aldridge, Paul Milsap, Kyle Lowry, Rajon Rondo, JJ Reddick, Rudy Gay.
Even some solid role players too.

KingstonHawke
07-24-2018, 12:52 AM
I'm not saying they don't evolve, but you can't look at a guy from the 60s and assume he's trash just because he played in the 60s. Reed was a legit player who went toe to to with Wilt, Russell and Kareem and willed the Knicks to two championships. Dude deserves some credit.

Good strawman, but I never called him trash. I only said that I grant more credit to players who played in better versions of the league.




So what? The most 3-point attempts he ever had in a season was 220. Last year, that would have ranked the 136th most in the entire league. His total 3-point attempts made up less than 13 percent of all of his field goal attempts in his career. It's an irrelevant figure in terms of his productivity.

The ENTIRE league shoots more threes. How does it make sense to pretend he'd shoot the same amount of threes in a league with different rules?



Dude didn't post a TS% below 56 until he was 35 years old. No matter how you look at it, he was a hyper-efficient scorer. I don't care how he got his points.


If I take 8 shots and seven of them are well within my range and I know can hit them at a high clip, but then I take one bad shot, does that make me a chucker? Because essentially I would be, based on your definition of Barkley.

My entire point was that Barkley benefitted from his situation, and that I think Gay could've too. I'm not saying that Barkley was inefficient. When I call someone a "chucker" I'm saying that person took a lot of bad shots. You're focussing on the good shots he took, I'm focussing on the bad ones. We seem to simply have different definitions of the term "chucker", and unless you can find me a concrete definition in a dictionary somewhere, then you'll have to live with that...

What I'm not going to do is go back and forth with you all night about a game you probably can't play to save your life.

KingstonHawke
07-24-2018, 12:57 AM
MMMMM Rudy Gay exists in this weird area, as both Under Rated and Over Rated. People who like him over rate him, and people that hate him really under rate him. (granted there are more people that **** on him than like him)
**p.s. that 06 draft was pretty under rated actually.
LaMarcus Aldridge, Paul Milsap, Kyle Lowry, Rajon Rondo, JJ Reddick, Rudy Gay.
Even some solid role players too.

A lot of these nerds who have never actually played the game don't get that your situation makes all the difference in the world. Gay has a lot of talent. He can shoot, he can finish, he can dribble, he can pass. I respect these players more than most people. Put him on the 01 Lakers and we're talking about him like he's James Worthy. What could Robert Horry or Rick Fox do that he couldn't?

Jeffy25
07-24-2018, 01:00 AM
You're focussing on the good shots he took, I'm focussing on the bad ones.
.

Just to point something out.

Saying their points per shot attempts isn't focusing on the good or the bad shots.

It's how many points they scored per shot.

Which Barkely did plenty well (of course, he shot too many 3's in his career), and Gay not so much.

PowerHouse
07-24-2018, 01:22 AM
A lot of these nerds who have never actually played the game don't get that your situation makes all the difference in the world. Gay has a lot of talent. He can shoot, he can finish, he can dribble, he can pass. I respect these players more than most people. Put him on the 01 Lakers and we're talking about him like he's James Worthy. What could Robert Horry or Rick Fox do that he couldn't?

The bold is a tough sentence to figure out what you mean. Nobody on earth puts Horry or Fox in the same category as James Worthy and nobody on earth puts Horry or Fox over Rudy Gay on their all-time lists.

*edit* Well maybe some put Horry above him because Horry was a hell of a defender in his prime.

COOLbeans
07-24-2018, 01:47 AM
:facepalm: Andre Miller? Are you kidding me? He wouldn't crack my top 6 on this list. The only thing Miller has on these guys is that he was consistent and played for a really, really long time. Parish, Reed, Jones, Sikma, Schrempf and Chambers were all vastly superior players in their primes. We're talking about guys who went to multiple All-Star games and in many cases were All-NBA guys and key contributors to NBA championships.

I don't mean to belittle you, but you should seriously do a little reading on the history of the NBA. Anybody with even a basic knowledge of the league's history would not even bring up Andre Miller's name in this conversation.

Sorry man. I dont take every thread as serious as you do. My mentioning Miller is sentimental. My first attendance at allstar weekend, 2000, Miller played in the rookie sophomore game and he layed the ball up instead of dunking on a wide open break. And the entire arena booed him relentlessly for the rest of the game. Ive always wanted Miller to be good because of that, and I do believe hes an underrated PG.

COOLbeans
07-24-2018, 01:52 AM
Really dude??

I only looked at the first 4 or 5 names on the list. Wasnt really concerned with anyone else after I saw Miller and Parrish

Obviously Willis Reed is the best player on this list.

Hawkeye15
07-24-2018, 09:43 AM
Reed, certainly. But there is a value in getting a guy you can consistently run out there like that, and constantly put guys around.

there is absolutely value in consistency. But above average forever still isn't as valuable as borderline great for most a decade.

mightybosstone
07-24-2018, 11:31 AM
Sorry man. I dont take every thread as serious as you do. My mentioning Miller is sentimental. My first attendance at allstar weekend, 2000, Miller played in the rookie sophomore game and he layed the ball up instead of dunking on a wide open break. And the entire arena booed him relentlessly for the rest of the game. Ive always wanted Miller to be good because of that, and I do believe hes an underrated PG.

Then why comment at all? If you're going to take the time to post in this thread with an opinion based on the first four names, why not take the extra five seconds to scroll down to see the next 5-6 to see Willis Reed's name? But even if you DID just look at the first four names on the list, Andre Miller is a distant, distant fourth behind Parish, Sikma and Schrempf. And that's kind of my point: Miller doesn't belong in this conversation at all.

As for your love of the guy, you can personally love a player and still recognize they don't hang with the all-time greats in a historical conversation like this. I've loved a lot of Rockets over the years, but you're not going to hear me try to justify Shane Battier being a better SF than Adrian Dantley or Luis Scola being a better international player than Arvydas Sabonis.