Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Can a player HURT their legacy by playing past their prime?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes a lot

    1 11.11%
  • Yes a little

    2 22.22%
  • Not at all

    6 66.67%
  • Only Dwight Howard

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 156
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    47,027

    Can a player HURT their legacy by playing past their prime?

    He was very successful as a third option [emoji3]


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 05-27-2020 at 04:59 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,042
    honestly, in the case of Vince carter, I'd say yes. he's probably the only player I'd say that for though.

    only because he literally played like...what, 15 years after his prime ended? an entire generation grew up watching him play as a role player, hardly anyone remembers him as one of the best dunkers ever.

    so it kind of has hurt his legacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by NormSizedMidget View Post
    It's different now than it was.

    When he won the second one, Giants fans are here we're outside of their minds.
    That quote always cracks me up.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,796
    Quote Originally Posted by basch152 View Post
    honestly, in the case of Vince carter, I'd say yes. he's probably the only player I'd say that for though.

    only because he literally played like...what, 15 years after his prime ended? an entire generation grew up watching him play as a role player, hardly anyone remembers him as one of the best dunkers ever.

    so it kind of has hurt his legacy.
    Does it though? That's still part of his legacy, it just makes people rushing to judge a player more ignorant.

    Grant Hill is another. Some people grew up thinking he's some scrub, but the guy was legit and possibly one of the greatest players, per peak, in the 90s. That's his legacy, if people are unaware it doesn't take it away from his legacy. It just makes people ignorant of his legacy.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,363
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Does it though? That's still part of his legacy, it just makes people rushing to judge a player more ignorant.

    Grant Hill is another. Some people grew up thinking he's some scrub, but the guy was legit and possibly one of the greatest players, per peak, in the 90s. That's his legacy, if people are unaware it doesn't take it away from his legacy. It just makes people ignorant of his legacy.
    This sums up why I made the thread. I agree completely with this post.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    47,027
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Does it though? That's still part of his legacy, it just makes people rushing to judge a player more ignorant.

    Grant Hill is another. Some people grew up thinking he's some scrub, but the guy was legit and possibly one of the greatest players, per peak, in the 90s. That's his legacy, if people are unaware it doesn't take it away from his legacy. It just makes people ignorant of his legacy.
    Yes. A legacy is how you are remembered not how you should be remembered.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    6,281
    I think Dwight is an interesting case here, because the period after his prime was actually really instructive about what kind of person he was. Like we didn't realize what a terrible teammate he was until he left Orlando, so in that sense, yes, playing past his prime taught us a lot about him and therefore hurt his legacy.

    I don't think typical age-related regression can hurt someone's legacy, but cases like Dwight's, where we learn new things about players, should be open for relitigation.
    POOP

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,042
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Does it though? That's still part of his legacy, it just makes people rushing to judge a player more ignorant.

    Grant Hill is another. Some people grew up thinking he's some scrub, but the guy was legit and possibly one of the greatest players, per peak, in the 90s. That's his legacy, if people are unaware it doesn't take it away from his legacy. It just makes people ignorant of his legacy.
    like the other guy said, legacy is how you're remembered, not how you SHOULD be remembered.

    so yes, grant hill playing as a supporting player for probably 8 years LONGER than he played in his prime means more people remember him that way.

    many people alive these days grew up watching him being a role player.

    so it absolutely hurt his legacy
    Quote Originally Posted by NormSizedMidget View Post
    It's different now than it was.

    When he won the second one, Giants fans are here we're outside of their minds.
    That quote always cracks me up.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,796
    I get the people who feel this way. Coming from a culture that lives on proverbs which is loosely translated in English as 'you are only as good as your last performance'. I completely get it.

    But I disagree on the definition of the word. And why are only those who didn't witness the entire story get to be the storytellers? They are the ones that need to learn a few things, not tell others what this person was.

    Legacy is what you carry over, not your last deed.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,796
    Otherwise Michael Jordan would be remembered as some senile underperformer on a scrub team.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,374
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Yes. A legacy is how you are remembered not how you should be remembered.
    This. And everything a player does can effect a legacy. Terrell Owens' legacy certainly changed with time. Dennis Rodman's has too. Both became side shows later in their careers where their behavior overshadowed their play and certainly changed their legacy.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,374
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I get the people who feel this way. Coming from a culture that lives on proverbs which is loosely translated in English as 'you are only as good as your last performance'. I completely get it.

    But I disagree on the definition of the word. And why are only those who didn't witness the entire story get to be the storytellers? They are the ones that need to learn a few things, not tell others what this person was.

    Legacy is what you carry over, not your last deed.
    Part of it is that parts of their story overshadow and diminish other parts. Greg Oden, Brandon Roy, Grant Hill and others had short peak periods ... in two of those cases they are more known for the injury than the play and in the third the peak has just largely been forgotten.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,363
    How we define "legacy" seems to alter our perception of this poll. The crux of the thread was to determine if a player's all-time ranking can actually go DOWN because of inferior play, diminishing skills, bad attitude, etc. after the prime of their career is over.

    Ewing, Scoots, Basch all make compelling arguments. Over time, younger generations will only remember certain players for how their careers ended. A whole generation only knows Grant Hill as a role player. That is a tremendous example. I remember vacationing in Orlando as a kid and I actually met him coming out of a "Ripley's Believe It or Not" museum. I was going inside.

    I said "You're Grant Hill!"
    He smiled and said "Yes, I am" as we walked past each other. That one of my only star athlete interactions so excuse the walk down memory lane. It felt like a commercial and like I had just met the next Michael Jordan.

    That never happened unfortunately but he did carve out a nice career. If we look at just "how some people will REMEMBER" a player than even I would go back and change my vote.

    However, the intention of the thread was more about an all-time player ranking and that is why I agree with NYK. The best example here is Jordan. NO ONE ever talks about Wizard's MJ when discussing his all-time rank. No one brings it up when discussing MJ vs. LeBron. It's like it never happened. Why? Because we already knew in 1998 everything that we needed to know. Anything after that was just extra.

    That is how I feel about MJ / Hakeem / Ewing / D12 / etc.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,374
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    How we define "legacy" seems to alter our perception of this poll. The crux of the thread was to determine if a player's all-time ranking can actually go DOWN because of inferior play, diminishing skills, bad attitude, etc. after the prime of their career is over.

    Ewing, Scoots, Basch all make compelling arguments. Over time, younger generations will only remember certain players for how their careers ended. A whole generation only knows Grant Hill as a role player. That is a tremendous example. I remember vacationing in Orlando as a kid and I actually met him coming out of a "Ripley's Believe It or Not" museum. I was going inside.

    I said "You're Grant Hill!"
    He smiled and said "Yes, I am" as we walked past each other. That one of my only star athlete interactions so excuse the walk down memory lane. It felt like a commercial and like I had just met the next Michael Jordan.

    That never happened unfortunately but he did carve out a nice career. If we look at just "how some people will REMEMBER" a player than even I would go back and change my vote.

    However, the intention of the thread was more about an all-time player ranking and that is why I agree with NYK. The best example here is Jordan. NO ONE ever talks about Wizard's MJ when discussing his all-time rank. No one brings it up when discussing MJ vs. LeBron. It's like it never happened. Why? Because we already knew in 1998 everything that we needed to know. Anything after that was just extra.

    That is how I feel about MJ / Hakeem / Ewing / D12 / etc.
    On meeting players and being a fan:
    I had the dumb luck to work across the street for the 49ers training facility in the 80s back when NFL security was nowhere like what it is now and got to meet pretty much all of the players on those teams, and through them the Run TMC Warriors and some of the SF Giants and Oakland As. My favorite memory was I was talking to hard as nails 49ers FB Tom Rathman and a guy comes up and asks him why he fumbled in the previous game. Rathman has scratches and bruises visible on his face and arms and I watched the muscles in his jaw twitch as he said "just couldn't hold it" while his eyes shot death at the guy. That was Rathman's only fumble that year, I sometimes wonder if he thought about that idiot after that.

    On topic:
    I still think players can lower their ranking by playing past their peak. For instance, if a players best year was their 2nd year and it was spectacular but they never live up to that year again even without injury as an excuse, then it makes sense that their ranking after that spectacular year would be the highest it would ever be and everything after that would effect their ranking only one way, down.

    I would think everyone would agree that player rankings can go up as years go by ... if a player has a 7 out of 10 year, then an 8/10, then a 9/10 year, then a 10/10 year their ranking would be climbing during that process, if they then string together 5 10/10 years their ranking will be as an all time great and at that point their ranking would not likely go down regardless of what they do because they had shown 9 years of excellent to superlative play. But if someone went 5, 6, 7, 8, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1 their ranking would be climbing through 4 years and would reasonably decline after that as well.

    Injuries are of course always a reason to explain a ranking. D Rose before injury and after are different players, like Grant Hill and countless others. And to some extent those players get a pass. But if we switch from all-time rankings to evaluating a draft pick for a team it becomes about production for the team and injuries are part of the ranking. Shawn Livingston didn't live up to his draft pick ... his play after his injury lowered his ranking as a draft pick. Wouldn't the same be true in evaluating them for all-time ranking?

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,363
    Cool story about Rathman. My buddy was diehard Niners growing up (bc of Montana) and I was diehard Giants. We would play each other in Tecmo Super Bowl everyday and I remember hating Rathman because he wasn't fast but he was so hard to tackle. Sometimes even as LT you would just bounce off him and I would get so mad.

    In regard to your on topic section, I think ESPN did us a favor because they set up the perfect example.

    John Stockton #28
    Giannis Antetokounmpo #27

    If we go by your ranking system, then right now Giannis is playing at what...9/10? Probably even better if you like advanced statistics. 9.5 out of 10? By that measurement he should be ranked #27. However, I don't think there is anyway in hell you can convince me that if Giannis retired right now he had a better CAREER than Stockton. So I call B.S. on that ESPN ranking. Giannis should not be #27 yet. He didn't earn it yet.

    I don't like ranking systems that project. That is why I don't believe in declining rankings unless a player has been surpassed by a new rising player.

    I don't understand how you can hold that argument up with MJ. If, Jordan played for 10 horrible seasons on the Wizards at "5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1" would that really lower him? If you can't apply your rule universally I think it loses some validity.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    33,374
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Cool story about Rathman. My buddy was diehard Niners growing up (bc of Montana) and I was diehard Giants. We would play each other in Tecmo Super Bowl everyday and I remember hating Rathman because he wasn't fast but he was so hard to tackle. Sometimes even as LT you would just bounce off him and I would get so mad.

    In regard to your on topic section, I think ESPN did us a favor because they set up the perfect example.

    John Stockton #28
    Giannis Antetokounmpo #27

    If we go by your ranking system, then right now Giannis is playing at what...9/10? Probably even better if you like advanced statistics. 9.5 out of 10? By that measurement he should be ranked #27. However, I don't think there is anyway in hell you can convince me that if Giannis retired right now he had a better CAREER than Stockton. So I call B.S. on that ESPN ranking. Giannis should not be #27 yet. He didn't earn it yet.

    I don't like ranking systems that project. That is why I don't believe in declining rankings unless a player has been surpassed by a new rising player.

    I don't understand how you can hold that argument up with MJ. If, Jordan played for 10 horrible seasons on the Wizards at "5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1" would that really lower him? If you can't apply your rule universally I think it loses some validity.
    Okay, so if you are only evaluating a player after they retire you are taking into account their whole career including the years after their peak.

    And I did say that a sustained peak will make anything after that be forgiven. I think it's more if there is a clear decline before a player is 30 that makes the biggest difference.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •