OT:Larry Bird

[STOMP]

I'd take Jordan's rockets. I don't think a team starting BJ armstrong and John Paxon (if I'm remembering correctly and that's who they would have had) starting in the backcourt can win a championship. Big guys win titles but you still need someone to manage the game and control the ball. Without Jordan, Pippen would not be known as a "point forward", IMO.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1991.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1992.html

PIP was known as a point forward when he was with the Blazers... even broken down and well into his 30's he was the guy who made the team go. Just like in Chicago, Portland was able to start two shooting guards (Wells & DA) beside him. I see absolutely no reason he wouldn't have initiated the offense in Chicago if MJ hadn't been there... after all they were running the triangle.

In the time frame you are doubting having a Paxson-BJ backcourt would have been able to get the Rockets over the top, Buck Johnson was the Rockets starting SF and 35 year old Tree Rollins would have been their starting 5 sans HO. You said Big guys win titles... how would you access MJ's championship chances with that frontcourt? Hakeem may have become bored with winning the title every year and taken a couple year sabbatical to pursue his boyhood dreams of being a soccer goalie.

STOMP

 

[Boob-No-More]

Flip MJ and Hakeem in the 1984 draft. All things staying the same, how many rings does MJ win playing with Mad Max and Otis Thorpe as his best teammates for the prime of his career? How many does Hakeem win playing with PIP and Horace? Imagine teams trying to score in the paint vs that frontline...

Interesting to ponder. Of course, you never know how the two rosters would have developed. Had the Rockets taken MJ in 84, they probably would have drafted bigs after that. And who knows who the Bulls would have drafted after taking Hakeem in '84. They probably would have been looking for an outside scoring threat to compliment Hakeem's inside game. So, they might never had drafted Ho Grant or Pip.

Jordan may have won fewer titles with the Houston roster (sans Hakeem), but he probably would have won at least one earlier in his career - while Ralph Sampsom was still healthy and productive.

Ultimately, the point is moot. If the Rockets had taken Jordan at number 1, the Blazers would have taken Hakeem with the second pick and the Bulls would have likely taken Barkley, or possibly Perkins, with the third pick. About six months ago, I read a great book about the 84 draft: Tip-Off: How the 1984 NBA Draft Changed Basketball Forever. The chapter on Barkley alone is worth the price of the book ("But Mr. Katz, round is a shape" - hilarious).

BNM

 

[STOMP]

Richmond better than Pippen? I think that's absolutely crazy.

Koo koo for CoCo puffs crazy.

Not only was PIP better talent-wise then Mitch, he was also a vastly better fit beside MJ.

STOMP

 

[Minstrel]

Ultimately, the point is moot. If the Rockets had taken Jordan at number 1, the Blazers would have taken Hakeem with the second pick and the Bulls would have likely taken Barkley, or possibly Perkins, with the third pick.

How high was Bowie ranked back then, in terms of talent? When do you think he'd have been drafted had no one "reached for need," as the Blazers did?

 

[Boob-No-More]

Slow down and read more closely... I referred to Hakeem's championship pedigree, i.e. the years he won championships, not the early portion of his career when he was shut out. That championship window likely would not have opened if not for MJ's foray into baseball.

Fair enough, but I'm still not sure I aggree with your point. Jordan off playing baseball certainly removed the most significant roadblock to Hakeem's championship aspirations, but I still don't think there was some huge league wide talent void at that time. You still had Robinson, Ewing, Barkley, Malone and Stockton in their primes and Shaq already starting to dominate. Hakeem was the only one able to captialize on Jordan's absence and grab a ring (or two) before his airness returned.

BNM

 

[STOMP]

Interesting to ponder. Of course, you never know how the two rosters would have developed. Had the Rockets taken MJ in 84, they probably would have drafted bigs after that. And who knows who the Bulls would have drafted after taking Hakeem in '84. They probably would have been looking for an outside scoring threat to compliment Hakeem's inside game. So, they might never had drafted Ho Grant or Pip.

weren't Hodges, Paxson, and BJ on the Bulls because they were outside scoring threats? Without Ho and PIP, who are the Bulls starting forwards? Of course this is a hypothetical and things would have evolved differently, I bring up this to demonstrate why I think team context should be considered when discussing the GOAT

If the Rockets had taken Jordan at number 1, the Blazers would have taken Hakeem with the second pick and the Bulls would have likely taken Barkley, or possibly Perkins, with the third pick.

okay okay... how many titles would the Blazers have hypothetically won with Hakeem, Cliff, Kersey, Clyde, and Porter? I'm guessing a hell of a lot more then MJ with Kenny Smith, Mad Max, Buck Johnson, Otis Thorpe and Tree Rollins.

btw... Sampson's knee and back problems became chronic in the 1986-7 season... which would have been MJ's 3rd year in the league.

STOMP

 

[Boob-No-More]

Flip MJ and Hakeem in the 1984 draft. All things staying the same, how many rings does MJ win playing with Mad Max and Otis Thorpe as his best teammates for the prime of his career? How many does Hakeem win playing with PIP and Horace? Imagine teams trying to score in the paint vs that frontline...

So, late in his career, does this mean Jordan gets teamed with Drexler, Barkley and eventually Pippen in Houston?

If the circumstances had been different, Jordan might not have gotten bored with backetball and twice retired after winning three consecutive championships. He may have won fewer mid-career, but he might have stuck around longer with the desire to win more later in his career.

Too many variables - makes my head hurt.

BNM

 

[STOMP]

How high was Bowie ranked back then, in terms of talent? When do you think he'd have been drafted had no one "reached for need," as the Blazers did?

3rd or 4th would be my guess... ah hindsight

STOMP

 

[WarriorFan]

Richmond better than Pippen? I think that's absolutely crazy. Pippen was a similarly good scorer, a much better rebounder, a much better passer and one of the several greatest defenders ever. Richmond didn't even approach Pippen's caliber.

Maybe it's just my Warrior bias but I think Mitch is pretty underrated because of the teams he was on. People discount his Warrior stats becuase it was Nelson's team and no one noticed him in Sac becuase it's Sac. I think he was a better outside shooter and scorer than pippen but wasn't anywhere close defensively.

Looking at the stats, you're right, I definately overvalued Richmond, but I still think Jordan/Richmond could have won titles. Jordan's that good and Mitch would have been the best offensive player he played with.

 

[STOMP]

Maybe it's just my Warrior bias but I think Mitch is pretty underrated because of the teams he was on. People discount his Warrior stats becuase it was Nelson's team and no one noticed him in Sac becuase it's Sac. I think he was a better outside shooter and scorer than pippen but wasn't anywhere close defensively.

Looking at the stats, you're right, I definately overvalued Richmond, but I still think Jordan/Richmond could have won titles. Jordan's that good and Mitch would have been the best offensive player he played with.

it's so unusual for posters to admit they were wrong on something... very refreshing! You're welcome here anytime WarriorFan

STOMP

 

[Boob-No-More]

weren't Hodges, Paxson, and BJ on the Bulls because they were outside scoring threats? Without Ho and PIP, who are the Bulls starting forwards?

Hard to say. Perhaps if they had drafted Hakeem in 84 they would have taken Karl Malone instead of Keith Lee in the 85 draft. Or, maybe without Jordan, they would have taken a guard like Joe Dumars. They most certainly would not have wasted a top 10 pick on Brad Sellers in 86 if they had Hakeem at center. And, there would have been a lot of better options available to them in the backcourt instead of Hodges, Paxson and BJ Armstrong if they wouldn't have wasted so many high first round draft picks (Lee, Sellers, Will Perdue, Staci King etc.) desparately trying to find a center to pair with Jordan. For example, rather than take Staci King with the 6th pick in 89, they could have had their choice of Nick Anderson, Mookie Blaylock or Tim Hardaway instead of BJ Armstrong.

btw... Sampson's knee and back problems became chronic in the 1986-7 season... which would have been MJ's 3rd year in the league.

Yep, but Jordan was already starting to dominate as a rookie, and Sampson was a 20/10 guy at the time - something Jordan never had as a teammate in his entire NBA career.

Again, too many unknows, too many variables.

BNM

 

[alex42083]

How high was Bowie ranked back then, in terms of talent? When do you think he'd have been drafted had no one "reached for need," as the Blazers did?

According to this article, there was no doubt that if the Blazers had picked Jordan, Chicago would have grabbed Bowie with the third pick.

http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/bowie.html

Chicago needed a big man desperately, and the Tribune reported that the Bulls were actually shopping the third pick for a big man (either Jack Sikma or Tree Rollins).

"The Bulls' decision to select Jordan, a 6-foot-6-inch All-America guard with unlimited potential was dictated by their No. 3 position in the draft order. Lack of a dominating center is the major reason they have lost 111 games in the last two seasons, but there are only two can't miss pivotmen this time - and both will be gone by the time the Bulls make their choice."

"Frustrated in their bid to land center Jack Sikma from Seattle, the Bulls again went after ex-De Paul star Terry Cummings last week. A proposed three-way trade involving Cummings' Los Angeles Clippers, the Dallas Mavericks and the Bulls reportedly fell through."

And then this...

The Blazers picked according to their needs and the evaluation of the talent as they saw it. Portland was a team on the rise. They did not gain the second pick due to a poor record, instead they were in the enviable and rare position of having the second pick to add to a winning team. They had the opportunity to draft a top-notch player to complement their team and put them over the top. Their main need was at center.

Sounds kind of familiar..

 

[Boob-No-More]

3rd or 4th would be my guess... ah hindsight

STOMP

Actually, more like 5 - 6. Barkley, for sure would have gone ahead of Sam, and most likely Perkins. After that, it probably would have been a toss up between Bowie and his teammate Mel Turpin (who had not yet earned the "Dinner Bell" knickname). Bowie had more talent, but Turpin had put up better scoring numbers at Kentucky - and of course, there were already injury concerns about Bowie.

BNM

 

[STOMP]

Actually, more like 5 - 6. Barkley, for sure would have gone ahead of Sam, and most likely Perkins. After that, it probably would have been a toss up between Bowie and his teammate Mel Turpin (who had not yet earned the "Dinner Bell" knickname). Bowie had more talent, but Turpin had put up better scoring numbers at Kentucky - and of course, there were already injury concerns about Bowie.

it's extremely unusual for broken leg bones to be a longterm concern as opposed to say a player already having a weight problem at age 20. You can guess (not guarantee) that a 6'4 forward would have been the choice for them at 3, but I'll go with guessing conventional wisdom of the value of a long 7' coordinated defensive center coming off a healthy season would probably have won out.

btw... the Bulls had a pretty decent collection of frontcourt players at the time, so I don't think need would have pushed them towards either.

STOMP

 

[Boob-No-More]

it's extremely unusual for broken leg bones to be a longterm concern as opposed to say a player already having a weight problem at age 20. You can guess (not guarantee) that a 6'4 forward would have been the choice for them at 3, but I'll go with guessing conventional wisdom of the value of a long 7' coordinated defensive center coming off a healthy season would probably have won out.

My assessment was based on the book, Tip-Off that I mentioned previously. It breaks down the top picks in that draft with interviews by GMs, scouts, coaches, players, owners, etc. Barkley was the most interesting (and funniest, of course) story of the lot. While they didn't have the pre-draft camps back then, like they do now, they had something even better in 1984 right before the NBA draft - the 1984 Olympic try outs. Bobby Knight was the coach and he was hellbent on assembling the best US team ever (at that time). He originally planned for two weeks of tryouts starting with the top 72 college players in the nation. That wasn't enough for him. They ended up with 76 players competing for 12 roster spots.

Barkley dominated the first week, and stood out much more than even Jordan. By all accounts, he was the best player at the tryouts. But, Barkley's goal was not to make the team. He knew every NBA team would have scouts there watching the try outs. So, his goal was purely financial - to cement his place as a top five pick and secure a million dollar contract. The first week, Barkley was the buzz of the camp. He was convinced he'd wowed the scouts and played his way into a guaranteed top 5 pick. After the first week, many of the players had been cut (I think they were down to something like 20 - 24) and the NBA scouts had seen all they needed to see and left. So, for the second week, Barkley was insubordinate, insolent and did everything he could to piss off Bobby Knight. It worked (surprise, surprise). He viewed the Olympics, which didn't pay anything, as a waste of his time. He wanted to get cut - and did - even though he was clearly far better than several of the players that made the team.

Anyway, it's an interesting read with lots of different first hand viewpoints on the 84 draft.

BNM

 

[Da_O]

Almost no player has been as dominating as O'Neal was. I have no idea why his inclusion in the top five would be controversial, beyond deification that goes on of players long since retired. The same mentality that says "Previous generations of players would crush more recent generations of players."

Olajuwon is more controversial, certainly, but I think he's incredibly underrated. He was one of the greatest defenders ever, a great scorer and a great rebounder. He was Bill Russell with more scoring talent (and not playing in the pace-inflated '60s or surrounded by as much of his generation's talent).

David Robinson was also one of the greatest combinations of scoring, defense and rebounding. Silly notions of him being "weak" cause people to underrate him enormously. Very few players in history brought more value he did...like 9 of them.

I disagree here. While he was certainly dominate offensively. He definitely lacked on the defensive side of the ball. Which is half the game. I would also argue that the 5 players I named were just as dominant if not more so. And finally, if you look at the numbers and times they have played Shaq has never once bested Duncan. If you're going to include Shaq you almost certainly have to include Duncan in top 5.

The notion not to include championships among the accolades of players is ridiculous. They were all integral parts of winning a championship so why wouldn't they get credited for it?

 

[Minstrel]

I disagree here. While he was certainly dominate offensively. He definitely lacked on the defensive side of the ball. Which is half the game.

Shaq wasn't a great individual defender, but he was still one of the bigger team defensive presences in the league over his prime. He definitely altered the paths and shots of slashers routinely. Plus, he was a great rebounder. He wasn't merely a scorer.

The notion not to include championships among the accolades of players is ridiculous. They were all integral parts of winning a championship so why wouldn't they get credited for it?

Because it's noise in terms of evaluating their abilities. Their abilities contributed to their team's success, but aren't directly reflected by their team's success. Kevin Garnett was a much better player five years ago, but he only won a championship last year...when he was surrounded by much better talent. Tim Duncan wouldn't be a worse player if he had toiled without a championship for the Timberwolves in place of Garnett.

Sometimes great players and great team success coincide, sometimes they don't. I think it's a much better idea to evaluate a player by his contributions to the team's success, not by the team's success, since the latter is too dependent on the player's teammates.

 

[Da_O]

Shaq wasn't a great individual defender, but he was still one of the bigger team defensive presences in the league over his prime. He definitely altered the paths and shots of slashers routinely. Plus, he was a great rebounder. He wasn't merely a scorer.



Because it's noise in terms of evaluating their abilities. Their abilities contributed to their team's success, but aren't directly reflected by their team's success. Kevin Garnett was a much better player five years ago, but he only won a championship last year...when he was surrounded by much better talent. Tim Duncan wouldn't be a worse player if he had toiled without a championship for the Timberwolves in place of Garnett.

Sometimes great players and great team success coincide, sometimes they don't. I think it's a much better idea to evaluate a player by his contributions to the team's success, not by the team's success, since the latter is too dependent on the player's teammates.

Tim Duncan in 2003 had a team much like the teams Garnett had in Minnesota. Duncan had a rookie Parker, Ginobli who were nowhere near they players they are today. He had David Robinson who was way past his prime. Yet Duncan still carried that team to the championship. He was clearly the "reason" they won it. So why wouldn't he get accredited to it.

Like I said players like Kareem, Wilt, and Russell all showed levels of dominance for longer than Shaq did. I think Olajuwon, individually, was a better center than Oneal. But only a few would put Olajuwon in the top 5 greatest of all time.

 

[Minstrel]

Tim Duncan in 2003 had a team much like the teams Garnett had in Minnesota. Duncan had a rookie Parker, Ginobli who were nowhere near they players they are today. He had David Robinson who was way past his prime. Yet Duncan still carried that team to the championship. He was clearly the "reason" they won it. So why wouldn't he get accredited to it.

Why should he get "credit" beyond what he did on the court, that is his production (which can be measured by stats to a pretty decent extent) and his defense (which can't, it's a subjective thing but an evaluation of him, not what the Spurs accomplished)?

Are you talking about leadership and other such intangibles? Or that statistics and judging defense don't really measure players very well and that what their teams accomplished measure individual players better?

Suppose in an alternate universe, the exact same Tim Duncan was put on a different team and never won a title...would you say he was a worse player then?

Like I said players like Kareem, Wilt, and Russell all showed levels of dominance for longer than Shaq did.

I agree with you on Kareem and Wilt...and I have both ranked ahead of Shaq. I don't agree with Russell. He was a great defender and rebounder, but I don't think his advantages there close the enormous scoring gap between them.

I think Olajuwon, individually, was a better center than Oneal. But only a few would put Olajuwon in the top 5 greatest of all time.

Okay. I think you're right that only a few would, but that doesn't change my appraisal of Olajuwon, since I saw him play and can look at the numbers. I'm always open to listening to the opinions of others, but just because most people wouldn't rank a player at a certain level doesn't change my opinion. I'm not looking to reflect a consensus, I'm trying to reflect my own opinions.

 

[Denny Crane]

How high was Bowie ranked back then, in terms of talent? When do you think he'd have been drafted had no one "reached for need," as the Blazers did?

Bowie was the Oden of his time. Hugely hyped coming out of college as the next great big guy, franchise center. Even though I don't remember ever seeing him not on crutches in college.

 

[Denny Crane]

Fair enough, but I'm still not sure I aggree with your point. Jordan off playing baseball certainly removed the most significant roadblock to Hakeem's championship aspirations, but I still don't think there was some huge league wide talent void at that time. You still had Robinson, Ewing, Barkley, Malone and Stockton in their primes and Shaq already starting to dominate. Hakeem was the only one able to captialize on Jordan's absence and grab a ring (or two) before his airness returned.

BNM

The void was on the Rockets. Hakeem's teammates were pretty weak.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The void was on the Rockets. Hakeem's teammates were pretty weak.

I can almost buy that for his first title. Hakeem was a superstar surrounded by a group of VERY good role players. Not a star among them, but guys like Robert Horry, Otis Thorpe, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell and Mario Elie didn't exactly stink the place up.

And, then for the second championship, he had those guys (minus Thorpe) plus fellow Hall of Famer Clyde Drexler by his side. Clyde may have been slightly past his prime, but he was still one of the best 2-guards in the league at that time (especially, with no Jordan around) and had a PER of >22 that season and came up huge in the finals against Orlando (23/11/7 in game 1 and 25/13/7 in game 3).

BNM

 

[handiman]

Are you talking about leadership and other such intangibles? Or that statistics and judging defense don't really measure players very well and that what their teams accomplished measure individual players better?

It's pretty simple, really. The truly great players make everyone around them better and produce wins when it counts ... also known as deep playoff runs and championships.

Defense and leadership intangibles are every bit as important as the measurable offensive statistics, if not more so. Jordan was the best (in the eyes of many) because of his clutch performances, personified by the quote, "It doesn't matter how hard you push along the way. What matters is how much you have left for the finish."

Karl Malone was the antithesis of this... Huge production along the way but a lot of choke jobs when it counted.

If you were building a team, would you take Malone in his prime or Duncan in his prime? Would anyone outside the state of Utah pause even the slightest of moments on this one? It's a no brainer, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Minstrel]

It's pretty simple, really. The truly great players make everyone around them better and produce wins when it counts ... also known as deep playoff runs and championships.

Defense and leadership intangibles are every bit as important as the measurable offensive statistics, if not more so. Jordan was the best (in the eyes of many) because of his clutch performances, personified by the quote, "It doesn't matter how hard you push along the way. What matters is how much you have left for the finish."

Karl Malone was the antithesis of this... Huge production along the way but a lot of choke jobs when it counted.

If you were building a team, would you take Malone in his prime or Duncan in his prime? Would anyone outside the state of Utah pause even the slightest of moments on this one? It's a no brainer, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, it's simple, but basically superstition, IMO. Players don't have a magical ability to get better "in the clutch." Logically, it's possible for players to get worse, but players who reach the NBA are a picked population of athletes who don't wilt under pressure...they've been under extreme pressure to even reach the NBA. Their entire futures have been on the line at each step of the way. Players who aren't able to handle pressure get winnowed out during all the stages one has to excel to be among the tiny percentage who reach the NBA.

So while I think a random person might well be capable of "choking," I don't think it happens at the highest level of professional sports. "Choking" is just the way people justify having scorn for those who fail. Simply not being good enough doesn't make a person loathsome, the way many sports writers and fans like to cast the losers. It's much better if you can ascribe a moral failing to them. Similarly, it's much easier to make heroes if they're more than simply great athletes...if you can attach a moral virtue to them, like being "clutch" then they make much better heroes. Sports culture is all about narratives and myth-making.

Jordan wasn't great at the end of games because he was "clutch." He was great at the end of games because he was the best player in basketball, all the time. Tim Duncan failed plenty of times in huge games, especially during the Lakers' threepeat. Not because he was a choker, but because he and the Spurs weren't good enough those years. Malone had plenty of great games in big games. He and Stockton carried the Jazz to the Finals and pushed the Bulls in both series. They didn't lose because they choked, they lost because the Bulls were better.

If your belief in championships as a measure of individual players rests on the notion that some players are clutch and some are chokers, then we definitely have a fundamental divide.

 

[Denny Crane]

I can almost buy that for his first title. Hakeem was a superstar surrounded by a group of VERY good role players. Not a star among them, but guys like Robert Horry, Otis Thorpe, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell and Mario Elie didn't exactly stink the place up.

And, then for the second championship, he had those guys (minus Thorpe) plus fellow Hall of Famer Clyde Drexler by his side. Clyde may have been slightly past his prime, but he was still one of the best 2-guards in the league at that time (especially, with no Jordan around) and had a PER of >22 that season and came up huge in the finals against Orlando (23/11/7 in game 1 and 25/13/7 in game 3).

BNM

Where's the 2nd guy who's top 50 all time? (like Jordan/Pippen). Bulls also had Rodman who was always pretty terrific as a rebounder/defender, and Kukoc (best euro player at that time).

Compared to the sixers (Dr. J, Malone, Barkley, et al) who won just one championship, the Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish, etc.) or the Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy)... Those were the champs beforehand, afterwards you had DRob&Duncan and Shaq&Kobe (with a deep bench).

 

[STOMP]

I can almost buy that for his first title. Hakeem was a superstar surrounded by a group of VERY good role players. Not a star among them, but guys like Robert Horry, Otis Thorpe, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell and Mario Elie didn't exactly stink the place up.

Thorpe was a good player, no question. Horry and Cassell were rookies cutting their teeth in the league. Vernon was a streak shooting undersized 2 guard and Elie defined journeyman. Kenny Smith? meh... at least he could shoot. If someone were to call Hakeem's supporting cast average I'd feel they were being generous... thats a subpar collection of talent. They succeeded because HO could collapse a D and consistently get them as wide open looks from the outside as any post player I've seen. Most NBA players can drain wide open looks and the Rockets did make their share, but guess which guy in the rotation shot the highest % from 3's?

This very mediocre collection was easily the best group of teammates that 31 year old HO had enjoyed since his brief pairing with Ralph. Horry and Cassell, though rookies, were decent sized players for their positions and immediate upgrades from the dreck that proceeded them. But don't kid yourself, few players in the history of the game (other then HO) could have made that a successful group. Since you sited PER, heres a link that contains the individual ratings. 15 is an average NBA player... besides HO only Thorpe (at 16.1) rated as average or above.

And, then for the second championship, he had those guys (minus Thorpe) plus fellow Hall of Famer Clyde Drexler by his side. Clyde may have been slightly past his prime, but he was still one of the best 2-guards in the league at that time (especially, with no Jordan around) and had a PER of >22 that season and came up huge in the finals against Orlando (23/11/7 in game 1 and 25/13/7 in game 3).

Thorpe for Clyde was an upgrade in talent for them. But when you look at the absolute scrubs who were thrust into major roles at PF in Thorpe's absence (Carl Herrera, Pete Chilcutt & Chuckie Brown), whatever gain Clyde gave them was largely (if not entirely) offset. Clyde's arrival also pushed crazy Vernon out of the picture... he only appeared in one post season game. The real gain in talent from the 1st championship to the 2nd was the maturation of Horry and Cassell, but that was still a thin collection of NBA talent.

STOMP

 

[STOMP]

Where's the 2nd guy who's top 50 all time? (like Jordan/Pippen).

Drexler was named to the top 50 all time list

STOMP

 

[Boob-No-More]

Where's the 2nd guy who's top 50 all time? (like Jordan/Pippen). Bulls also had Rodman who was always pretty terrific as a rebounder/defender, and Kukoc (best euro player at that time).

That would be Clyde Drexler - top 50, PER of 22 that season.

Rodman and Kukoc were role players, good at what they did but limited skills. Rodman was a great rebounder and still a pretty good defender in his mid-30s with the Bulls, but pretty useless on offense. Kukoc was a good offensive player, but a horrible defender. Every team needs role players, and they deserve credit for what they did, but then so do the Rockets role players - even if all they did was get the ball into Hakeem on the low block and knock down open 3-pointers. That was their role and they did it well enough to help the team in two championships.

Compared to the sixers (Dr. J, Malone, Barkley, et al) who won just one championship, the Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parrish, etc.) or the Lakers (Magic, Kareem, Worthy)... Those were the champs beforehand, afterwards you had DRob&Duncan and Shaq&Kobe (with a deep bench).

And what about the 2004 Pistons? Where are their 2 top 50 players? They won a championship - beating the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton Lakers in the finals. They didn't have a single player with a PER above 19 that season. They had a bunch of guys in the 13.0 - 18.8 range. Slightly below average to a bit above average players, but not a superstar in sight, let alone two top 50 players.

BNM

 

[handiman]

Yes, it's simple, but basically superstition, IMO. Players don't have a magical ability to get better "in the clutch."

How do you explain Outlaw then? He's crap for most of the game and rarely misses in the 4th quarter. Ever hear of terms like focus, concentration, and relaxation? The great athletes in all sports focus best when the pressure is the greatest. That's what allows them to rise to the occasion.

(Note: I'm not counting Outlaw among the greats, just that his offensive concentration gets much better as the game goes along.)

 

[Minstrel]

How do you explain Outlaw then? He's crap for most of the game and rarely misses in the 4th quarter.

Selective memory. He's missed plenty in the fourth quarter, and has plenty of good first, second and third quarters.

Ever hear of terms like focus, concentration, and relaxation?

Yup. Elite players have those things all the time, which is what gives them the edge to be among the top 0.01%.

If they have the ability to "take it up a notch," they'd do it all the time. It's in their best interests both to help their team and to put up stats that earn them dollars. They don't have that ability, though, unless they intentionally take their effort down a level prior. Older players may cruise a bit during a long season, but in big games, they're not cruising through three quarters and then suddenly trying hard in the fourth quarter. Jordan was at max fury in minute one of a playoff game.