ESPN Top 100 list

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Said this when the list came out, but I really think the top 14 or so guys are the right guys. You can shuffle a few spots, I mean it's splitting hairs to decide how much better someone at 7 is compared to 10 anyways.

But to me, the guys ahead of Kobe all have one thing that really separate them from him. If Kobe had an "off night" lets say he scored 12-15 points instead of his usual 30, his off night impacts the game differently than those other guys. Most of them could score 15 points and still be the best player on the floor, Kobe I never got that from him. They just seem to impact the game, night in and night out, in more ways than Kobe.

Julius Erving is a tad too high. He had a well-rounded game but his defense and perimeter shooting were below average. John Havlicek should be in that 14 spot instead.

Kobe could still rebound and defend when his shot wasn't falling. Actually, his man to man defense was better than LeBron's. LeBron has the big power edge over Kobe though.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Man to man against his position sure. LeBron was much more versatile, better help defender, better shot blocker, in the passing lanes, on the defensive glass, and outlet passes.

I feel like LeBron's length benefitted him more on guards too, as we saw against Rose, TP, and then Steph this year. And his size helped elsewhere. Kobe was better man to man against his own position though.

I guess it depends where you put the weight. LeBron in the playoffs has been a pretty strong defender and gotten the upper hand on plenty of elite players. Kobe has a long tenure of sustained defense making however many defensive first teams he made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Man to man against his position sure. LeBron was much more versatile, better help defender, better shot blocker, in the passing lanes, on the defensive glass, and outlet passes.

I feel like LeBron's length benefitted him more on guards too, as we saw against Rose, TP, and then Steph this year. And his size helped elsewhere. Kobe was better man to man against his own position though.

I guess it depends where you put the weight. LeBron in the playoffs has been a pretty strong defender and gotten the upper hand on plenty of elite players. Kobe has a long tenure of sustained defense making however many defensive first teams he made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In addition to wings, Kobe used to lock down point guards in his younger days. At 6'7'' he had length as well. LeBron could never keep up with the ultra-quick guys like Kobe.

LeBron's hustle and anticipation makes him a good help defender, which Kobe was never much for. I don't put too much weight on defensive first teams since Kobe made some during the tail end of his career that he didn't deserve.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Kobe made some during the tail end of his career that he didn't deserve.

This tends to happen a lot in general with players of that caliber.

Most of the time all defensive teams aren't really the leagues best defenders. More so the best defenders out of the leagues All Stars. Sometimes the league has it right, often better defenders get snubbed for lack of "star" status.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[daflyboys]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I love that the entire '72 Knicks team is on there.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Just glancing at this list, and with former evaluations, does anyone else think it's not much of a reach to say that Reggie Miller might be the most overrated player of all time?

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Just glancing at this list, and with former evaluations, does anyone else think it's not much of a reach to say that Reggie Miller might be the most overrated player of all time?

Miller's clutch shooting was a bit overrated simply because he hit so many big ones against the Knicks. Still, he could be deadly in the clutch. Had 30 foot range on his bombs with the quick release. Could find a makeable shot in traffic at 6-7 height. His speed and energy coming off baseline screens was incredible. Automatic foul shooter.

On the downside Miller looked to flop and run out on defense. He didn't look to pass and frequently aborted the designed play as it was drawn up. Tough guy to coach too, big ego. His placement at number 51 overall is too lofty indeed. I would slot him in the 75-80 range. But certainly, he was not the most overrated player of all time.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I don't know if he's the most overrated player or not, there are plenty over/under rated guys and it would be a tough task to label how much considering it's opinion based to begin with.

But I am definitely comfortable in saying that Reggie is the least legendary "legend" that I can think of off the top of my head. The list of guys he's mentioned with, and maybe it's because of my age, he just belongs nowhere near being mentioned with.

Reggie had 3 things going for him:
1.) longevity. He played for a long time, and not just like those guys who drag out their careers with a short 2-3 year peak. He was at his "prime" for a good 12 or more years of sustained play.

2.) He was clutch. Not just in the sense of last second shots, he had huge playoff games, teams game-planned for his scoring, game winners, deep bombs, went toe to toe with some other great players.

3.) He's one of the best shooters ever. And often gets his bonus points for being one of the first great shooters who actually developed their offensive game around outside shooting.

Other than that he really doesn't stand apart from most "solid" guys I've watched, and definitely doesn't match up with the standard that players I would consider legends set. And it's not just me, he wasn't even considered that way from his peers when playing. He was rarely an All-Star, and most of his selections came in the late 90's when the likes of Dumars, Clyde, Richmond had somewhat faded. He only made 3 All-NBA teams (all 3rd team) again in the late 90's, the highest he ever finishes for MVP was tied for 13th, with one point total the same as Jalen Rose, Darrell Armstrong, Michael Finley..

Here is a bit of the deal breaker for me. Reggie's "star power" is revolved around him being a scorer. He wasn't really above average at anything else. He wasn't a great playmaker, rebounder, defender. He was a scorer. He's ranked 51 on this chart, but he's rank 116 in points per game. Reggie averaged 18ppg on his career. Keeping in mind he's a player only known to be great from his offensive abilities. Even if you take out his first two season and last 3 seasons, since those years don't really match up the the rest of his career, he's still only at 20ppg. How many players have been able to score like that, 20ish points per game? That's your run of the mill go-to scorer numbers. Not All-Time great numbers.

Just using guys playing right now his output is comparable to the likes of Jimmy Butler, DeRozan, Wiggins, McCollum, Klay, PG, Hayward, Kawhi.. Granted they haven't done it for 10 straight years. I'll go a step farther, is it even fair to consider him better than say Jimmy Butler, considering he can also give you 20ppg while also being your best defender? What about Klay, solid defender, equal scorer, possibly even a better shooter.. People would scoff at idea that they were playing a "legend" level game right now. I would even go as far as saying that now that I've seen Klay add that stop on a dime mid range pull-up, his post up game, and proven that he can score like that even when they don't have Steph, that this past season from him tops, or at least equals, any of Reggie's best years.

I'm sure I would be fine with him being somewhere in the 80-100 range. But I do believe that Mitch Richmond was definitely a better guard, playing in the same era under the same rules against the same competition, and unless I missed him I don't believe he's even on the list. I don't believe Reggie is a top 10 SG of all time, I think he's a stretch to make the back of the list and has no business being half way down it and consistently having his name mentioned with the likes of Magic, Bird, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Surprised this is still going on.

I'm all Top 1-100'd out from the discussions over the years.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Again, you really can't compare Miller's numbers to today's wing men because the rules were different. Miller could be grabbed and bumped on his patterns more liberally than today's stars are used to. Miller's off-ball activity created openings and space for his teammates to work which doesn't show up in the stats. Teams used to have to do extensive preperation for how they were going to handle the single-double baseline screens Miller ran off of. One of the most feared sequences in the game then.

I would agree that Miller is not a top 10 all time shooting guard. You have to play defense to crack that group. Ray Allen was a more well-rounded player. Mitch Richmond was much stronger and a more versatile scorer.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Surprised this is still going on.

I'm all Top 1-100'd out from the discussions over the years.

They need more Nets on the list.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Again, you really can't compare Miller's numbers to today's wing men because the rules were different. Miller could be grabbed and bumped on his patterns more liberally than today's stars are used to. Miller's off-ball activity created openings and space for his teammates to work which doesn't show up in the stats. Teams used to have to do extensive preperation for how they were going to handle the single-double baseline screens Miller ran off of. One of the most feared sequences in the game then.

I would agree that Miller is not a top 10 all time shooting guard. You have to play defense to crack that group. Ray Allen was a more well-rounded player. Mitch Richmond was much stronger and a more versatile scorer.

Again you can, because it's not so much of a drastic difference that a player would drop 10 points per game because someone bumped them slightly harder than they were bumped now.. We watched the same kind of stuff happen with Curry all playoffs long.

But that wasn't even the point of what I was saying. How about guys that played when Reggie did then. Ricky Pierce, Hersey Hawkins, Tony Mitchell, Kendall Gill, Jeff Hornacek, Nick Anderson, Jim Jackson, Latrell Sprewell, Isaiah Rider, Ced Ceballos, Sean Elliot, Jerry Stackhouse, Steve Smith, Michael Finley, Eddie Jones, Jalen Rose, Allan Houston, Michael Redd..

My post was more so that to the people who didn't see Reggie play, I was giving them a more realistic idea of his output rather than in comparison to the legends they likely typically see him lumped with. Reggie gets the same type of "extra" that lot's of players from that generation get. He was a nasty competitor and a master trash talker. Most people remember back to those type of players and somehow correlate that to actual basketball skills.

But either way, there is you a more comparable list. Guys during that era, who could/would put up Reggie numbers. Like I said before with the others, some of them didn't do it for 10-12 years. Reggie stayed healthy, stayed on one team, and his play style aged incredibly well.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

My post was more so that to the people who didn't see Reggie play, I was giving them a more realistic idea of his output rather than in comparison to the legends they likely typically see him lumped with.

But we've all(basically everyone that posts here) pretty much seen Reggie play though...

Reggie gets the same type of "extra" that lot's of players from that generation get. He was a nasty competitor and a master trash talker. Most people remember back to those type of players and somehow correlate that to actual basketball skills.

Translation: Most of those players from that era are more overrated than what their actual game is.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Translation: Most of those players from that era are more overrated than what their actual game is.

I don't believe that, but you do see it. For example Iverson is probably top 3 in terms of players I've watched in terms of his competitive nature. But I wouldn't use that as some sort platform to label him a better player than someone like Tim Duncan because he's quite. It's one of the first things mentioned about Reggie, but that doesn't make him a better player than someone who's emotions aren't as openly apparent.

People gravitate towards what looks appealing or exciting. Reggie drilling a dagger after talking **** up the court, Nique dunking all over someone after his man scored on him, it's exciting it's fun. But outside of bragging rights on a playground court it doesn't mean much.

There are plenty of players overrated from that era, that was the launch point of the media driven league we have now. But there are just as many underrated that nobody mentions too.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

People gravitate towards what looks appealing or exciting.

That's with EVERYTHING in life man.

Reggie drilling a dagger after talking **** up the court, Nique dunking all over someone after his man scored on him, it's exciting it's fun. But outside of bragging rights on a playground court it doesn't mean much.

Idiots still do this today except now we're quick to dub someone an MVP after a week for example.

There are plenty of players overrated from that era, that was the launch point of the media driven league we have now. But there are just as many underrated that nobody mentions too.

And people in our group were saying this 10 years ago and the people before us were saying this 20 years ago. Everyone in their "era" thinks the players they watched are "underrated", just like we do now.

It's a cycle, this ain't nothing new.