ESPN Top 100 list

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Whether or not he's overrated is a personal issue, based on where the person in particular rates them. So any discussion of the most overrated player ever is going to depend on who's having it. That's Kobe to me.

As far as Reggie, he's a legend because he was legendary. Same as Reggie Jackson, you show up when everyone is watching and your name is going to be in lights. I don't think there are logical basketball fans who say Reggie is one of the greatest, I think he's held to the exact standard he should be. People say he's clutch, he was a killer, a great shooter, he only existed to ruin the childhood of young Knicks fans, had ice in his veins, etc. All of that is true. The real issue is just that it's easier to pinpoint Reggie's greatness to make him seem better than he was or frame his accomplishments in a way that make them bigger so that a casual would misunderstand.

"Oh wow, he scored that many points in 13 seconds? That's incredible he must be one of the greatest!"

It's just all about putting things, as everyone loves to say around here, in context.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

If Miller didn't play most of his career under the old hand-checking, cut-bumping rules I believe he would have averaged about three more points per game, a considerable increase.

Of the guards/wings listed, only Michael Finley has a claim to be on Reggie Miller's level because of his two-way game. Actually, Finley was more of a small forward than a two-guard.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

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.

Definitely not new, and we definitely still see it. We still see it in awards voting, Jamal Crawford consistently winning 6th man of the year for example.

Whether or not he's overrated is a personal issue, based on where the person in particular rates them. So any discussion of the most overrated player ever is going to depend on who's having it. That's Kobe to me.

As far as Reggie, he's a legend because he was legendary. Same as Reggie Jackson, you show up when everyone is watching and your name is going to be in lights. I don't think there are logical basketball fans who say Reggie is one of the greatest, I think he's held to the exact standard he should be. People say he's clutch, he was a killer, a great shooter, he only existed to ruin the childhood of young Knicks fans, had ice in his veins, etc. All of that is true. The real issue is just that it's easier to pinpoint Reggie's greatness to make him seem better than he was or frame his accomplishments in a way that make them bigger so that a casual would misunderstand.

"Oh wow, he scored that many points in 13 seconds? That's incredible he must be one of the greatest!"

It's just all about putting things, as everyone loves to say around here, in context.

I'm right there with you on the Kobe front. I do think however that this list more accurately represents where he should be placed. I've always considered him somewhere around 10-15 rather than the top 5ish people tend to label him at. Top 3 if you were asking a Lakers fan in the mid-2000's.


As a knicks fan, I'm sure Reggie's impact was felt much more for you than someone like me. I guess me beef with has always been simply who he's mentioned among. When people talk Jordan, Hakeem, Magic, Miller is almost always brought up in the discussions. Whether it's annalists, fans, ESPN, whatever, he's in that group of guys. I guess I just feel he doesn't belong amongst those guys. He's almost the reverse of how most guys are judged. We see all time greats like Barkley, Malone, get penalized for not winning a ring, LeBron for the longest time, Dirk, KG, Ewing, etc. Even though they were still performing at All-Time levels, ring or no ring. Reggie never won a ring, never performed at an All-Time level and still gets that greatness label. He's like a rule breaker for how these players are typically judged.

This list in particular you've got guys like Walton, Yao, Grant Hill had just a few seasons of great play. Curry with one great year passing up players with all time careers. If all it takes is picking a 3 season "peak" I could probably name close to 20 shooting guards better than Reggie.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

now we're quick to dub someone an MVP after a week for example.

You mean like PorzinGOD? Because that **** ain't no joke.

[ProfessaPackMan]

ESPN Top 100 list

We see all time greats like Barkley, Malone, get penalized for not winning a ring, LeBron for the longest time, Dirk, KG, Ewing, etc. Even though they were still performing at All-Time levels, ring or no ring. Reggie never won a ring, never performed at an All-Time level and still gets that greatness label. He's like a rule breaker for how these players are typically judged.

Resist Pack.

Just resist, come on you can do it.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I've never heard anyone who's opinion I respect put Reggie in a conversation with Jordan, Hakeem, and Magic lol. You need to find better people to talk to bruh.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

They were having this discussion on NBA radio this morning, and since both guys are pretty close on this list, Jason Kidd or Steve Nash?

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

They were having this discussion on NBA radio this morning, and since both guys are pretty close on this list, Jason Kidd or Steve Nash?

Different types of points. Kidd was much stronger, more versatile, a much better defender and slightly better passer. Nash was the better shooter, handler, finisher, and creator. Nash was quicker and faster.
Nash would be the pick for a running team while I would choose Kidd to command a slow-down attack.

[Dangerous10K]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Dirk over Garnett and Barkley,and stockton wtf

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Dirk over Garnett and Barkley,and stockton wtf

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

It's a tough call, they are all so close that it really isn't much of a difference. For example, if they were to swap the order 17. Dirk, 18. Chuck, 19 Stockton, to 17. Stockton, 18. Chuck, 19. Dirk, you likely wouldn't have even said anything. I think the difference between 17-19 is so small that it doesn't matter too much.

Dirk has had a career that compares to those guys. Though there likely isn't many who believe Dirk at his very best was at they level they were at their very best. Knowing how much most voters for things of this nature value rings it kind of makes sense. Dirk won a ring as "his team", something none of the other 3 were able to do. KG got a ring, but wasn't finals MVP like Dirk.

And for what it's worth, Dirk is now 8th all time scoring ahead of all of them. Likely has a chance at passing Moses Malone and Dr. J this year, putting him at 6th on his career. The only guys ahead of him being Kareem, Karl, Kobe, MJ, Wilt, and only LeBron on pace to surpass him anytime soon.

His career mark is narrowly short of missing 50/40/90, with career shooting and scoring numbers that are very much comparable to Larry Bird.

My vote would probably be Dirk's career > KG's career, the other two are tougher to decide. I've always been a big Stockton fan, arguably the best point man to ever do it from an all around pure PG standpoint. Barkley and Dirk are close to me. Chuck wasn't a great defender either which was the area KG had the advantage, but he was a rebound machine. Dirk was the better shooter and therefor, IMO, a bigger threat to defenses.

I think I agree with you, that those 3 guys were better at their best than Dirk, but I might be inclined to say Dirk's career has been the best of the 4. So I guess it depends how you were casting your vote. I would probably have them all lumped together in the same tier of players, deciding a number value would be tougher. Members of the 3rd tier group.

[Dangerous10K]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Id have to say stockton had the bwst career followed by kg imo all time assists and steals leader even though he doesnt have a ring. Also I dont see how steph curry is so far up the list when hes really only had 2 great years he should be in the low 30s along with durant who still has a better resume imo because for the first 4 years in the league most people didnt even know who curry was if ya think about it his career is the opposite of derrick roses so far 2 great years rest of it hes pretty solid nothing legendary though and his playoff production I wont even go there Still a great player but top 20s already i dont think so for eithier one of those 2

Sent from my LG-H631 using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Should Lenny Wilkens be ranked better than 93rd?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Should Lenny Wilkens be ranked better than 93rd?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, and I would have him inside the top 40 or so. Whenever I participate in an all time draft type deal I almost always choose Wilkens as my point man. He was quicker than a hiccup and had a superb handle. Had limited range on his lefty pop jumper but could hit enough to keep the defense honest. Could make any pass and always made the right plays. Could even rebound at a serious level. His flaws? He wasn't strong and was only an average defender. A fantastic player.

[J_Posse]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Different types of points. Kidd was much stronger, more versatile, a much better defender and slightly better passer. Nash was the better shooter, handler, finisher, and creator. Nash was quicker and faster.
Nash would be the pick for a running team while I would choose Kidd to command a slow-down attack.

Young Jason Kidd was much more athletic and faster than Steve Nash ever was. Nash was never blessed with great speed, but he was like Chris Paul in that he knew how to "Yo-Yo" a defender by changing speeds and such.

from Spurs Nation/Bills Backer HQ

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Young Jason Kidd was much more athletic and faster than Steve Nash ever was. Nash was never blessed with great speed, but he was like Chris Paul in that he knew how to "Yo-Yo" a defender by changing speeds and such.

from Spurs Nation/Bills Backer HQ

Even in his younger days Kidd was not as quick (in a confined area) or fast (up and down) as Nash. Young Chris Paul was quicker and faster than both of these guys though.