ESPN Top 100 list

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I also don't understand the "yet" behind the LeBron complaints. Anything he does past this point is just shelf jewelry. More awards, more trophies, etc. And if you are using that as your base to rank these guys then I think you're looking at this list the wrong way to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mikey3148]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I also don't understand the "yet" behind the LeBron complaints. Anything he does past this point is just shelf jewelry. More awards, more trophies, etc. And if you are using that as your base to rank these guys then I think you're looking at this list the wrong way to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just don't believe he's better than Larry Bird or Tim Duncan. That's just my opinion.

[dubcity]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I just don't believe he's better than Larry Bird or Tim Duncan. That's just my opinion.

It's just ESPN trying to skew modern, so that younger fans will read it and feel like they're watching all-time greats every time ESPN shows a game. I love LeBron, but 3rd all-time before he's retired or even turned 32 is just whatever. Kevin Love is all-time great too lol. Dwight Howard needs to gtfo out too.

[Mikey3148]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

It's just ESPN trying to skew modern, so that younger fans will read it and feel like they're watching all-time greats every time ESPN shows a game. I love LeBron, but 3rd all-time before he's retired or even turned 32 is just whatever. Kevin Love is all-time great too lol. Dwight Howard needs to gtfo out too.

I like Kevin Love a lot just stats are sooo inflated with the Timberwolves. Just don't think he's good enough to be in this list

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

What exactly does LeBron turning 32 or retiring do to make a difference in his placement though? That's the argument I don't get.

From about 2007ish till now he's been nearly unanimously the best player in the league. The only two other players to take that throne and maintain it for a lengthy stretch like that has been Jordan and Kareem.. That's why they are the top 3.

Look at other eras, who was the best player in the 60's? Was it Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor? It's argumentative. The 70's was Kareem's world, then you have the 80's. Was the best player Magic, was it Bird, Dr. J, Moses, Kareem still, young Jordan? Again, there is no player that separates himself.. The 90's was Jordan, 2000's pre LeBron was Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, a year of AI, year of KG.. And then LeBron and his stretch.

I actually think those guys being the top 3 might be the most logical thing about this list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I'd be more interested in knowing who replaces Love.

It's not like he's top 30, he barely made the cut. 100 players is a large chunk of players. And just a couple years ago he was being called a top 5-10 player in the league. A top 5-10 player from his era is making this list plain and simple.

His numbers were inflated in Minny, but he proved he could carry a team offensively. Which not every player can do, tons of guys on this last haven't proven to be able to do that. During his best 4 years with the Wolves his averages were about 24 and 14. You adjust that to the pace of the game in the 80's and he's more like 28 and 16 or something.. Those aren't top 100 type of player numbers?

I mean if you kicked him off I wouldn't really argue it. But it's definitely not a big deal that he's there. Realistically who do you swap him for? Someone who's likely at the same level as him anyways. So what's the argument to be made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Bill Walton is in the top 50 and literally had 2 healthy seasons. Bobby Jones was a career 6th man who didn't really have the big years most people on this list had. Dennis Rodman was the ultimate role player, he's a rebounding version of Tony Allen. What have some of these guy done to earn such high rankings?

I think Zo is too high. I don't believe he is better than Artis. Others too, I've always felt he's overrated anyways.

Curry's logic would place Grant Hill amongst the top 5 in SF, and T-Mac amongst the top 5 in SG. No reason for him to be so high off such a short body of work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Ewing - I think a lot of the guys immediately behind him should be ranked higher than him.

Mikan, Pettit, Kidd, Drexler, Barry, Frazier, Hayes, Worthy.

I would put him behind those guys.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dubcity]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

From about 2007ish till now he's been nearly unanimously the best player in the league.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I don't agree with that. Kobe had some of his best individual years from 2007-2012. 2 rings, an MVP, 2 Finals MVPs, etc. I would say just as many people were saying Kobe was the best in the world at that time. And Duncan was still doing his thing, winning rings. So I don't see the throne being as cut and dry this whole time.



Plus Kevin Durant was totally the best player in the world the year he won MVP. (okay, that last part I'm kidding)

[Mikey3148]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Bill Walton is in the top 50 and literally had 2 healthy seasons. Bobby Jones was a career 6th man who didn't really have the big years most people on this list had. Dennis Rodman was the ultimate role player, he's a rebounding version of Tony Allen. What have some of these guy done to earn such high rankings?

I think Zo is too high. I don't believe he is better than Artis. Others too, I've always felt he's overrated anyways.

Curry's logic would place Grant Hill amongst the top 5 in SF, and T-Mac amongst the top 5 in SG. No reason for him to be so high off such a short body of work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ultimate role player? Idk about that 17 boards a game, put his body on the line every loose ball, and great defense. Don't get in the hall of fame being a role player.

[Mikey3148]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I just don't buy that LeBron is the 3rd best player ever. Is he the most physically gifted? Yes. But you also have to look at the era that they all played in. LeBron ruled/ruling in a pretty soft era of basketball in my opinion. The East has been awful since 2010 really while the West has been filled with very good teams. He has had a couple really easy road to the finals and then got beat in the finals. The only challenge he's had in the past years was really the Pacers. While the 80s and 90s were great years in basketball. That is why there was no true "ruler" of the 1980s as well.

[ojandpizza]

ESPN Top 100 list

Edit: not worth it.

Someone can delete this post

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Ultimate role player? Idk about that 17 boards a game, put his body on the line every loose ball, and great defense. Don't get in the hall of fame being a role player.

There are plenty of role players in the half of fame.. That was Rodman's role, to rebound. He was a great defender in Detroit, more of a nuisance in Chicago but still good.

You're basically saying that being one of the leagues best rebounders and defenders makes you a top 100 player ever? Regardless that you can't shoot, can't dribble well, can't make free throws, aren't a good playmaker, etc. Don't even finish well at the rim, can't make the defense respect you.

No need to argue about who replaces Love then. Deandre Jordan can have his spot. And let's go ahead and get Draymond into that top 50.

I just think it's funny that a guy who can score 30 a night but is just average defensively gets so much hate because he isn't a "two way" player. But someone who is a great defender that gives even less offensively than what the scorer does offensively is praised like crazy.

I love Rodman. He was a huge addition to those Bulls squads and played a big role in making them so dominant. Probably the best pound for pound rebounder ever. But he's not a top 100 talent. He wasn't a top 20 player in his era. And no way is he a top 10 power forward ever.. He's got the jewelry on his fingers, and his double standard ranking is inflated from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Well, I don't agree with that. Kobe had some of his best individual years from 2007-2012. 2 rings, an MVP, 2 Finals MVPs, etc. I would say just as many people were saying Kobe was the best in the world at that time. And Duncan was still doing his thing, winning rings. So I don't see the throne being as cut and dry this whole time.

Kobe was good.. He just wasn't LeBron. To me anyways. Just like Chuck and Karl weren't better than MJ when they took the MVP awards either.

Duncan and Kobe both won rings during that time span. A team award to skew an individual ranking?

I'm not trying to get into one of those big Kobe debates. But I've always said he narrowly misses my top 10. So having him at 12 here is fitting to me. You look at all of the guys in front of him and they could all control the game, all manipulate the game in multiple ways. If Kobe had a bad shooting night his impact was just minimal from my perspective.. He was a good defender in his prime, I'm not arguing he wasn't, but his overall impact on the game just feels lacking in comparison to the others who made the top 10 cut. He couldn't go out and score 15 and still be the best player on the floor. I think nearly everyone ahead of him on this list could.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mikey3148]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

There are plenty of role players in the half of fame.. That was Rodman's role, to rebound. He was a great defender in Detroit, more of a nuisance in Chicago but still good.

You're basically saying that being one of the leagues best rebounders and defenders makes you a top 100 player ever? Regardless that you can't shoot, can't dribble well, can't make free throws, aren't a good playmaker, etc. Don't even finish well at the rim, can't make the defense respect you.

No need to argue about who replaces Love then. Deandre Jordan can have his spot. And let's go ahead and get Draymond into that top 50.

I just think it's funny that a guy who can score 30 a night but is just average defensively gets so much hate because he isn't a "two way" player. But someone who is a great defender that gives even less offensively than what the scorer does offensively is praised like crazy.

I love Rodman. He was a huge addition to those Bulls squads and played a big role in making them so dominant. Probably the best pound for pound rebounder ever. But he's not a top 100 talent. He wasn't a top 20 player in his era. And no way is he a top 10 power forward ever.. He's got the jewelry on his fingers, and his double standard ranking is inflated from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I agree that he's not s top 10 power forward I just don't think he is a role player. My conception of a role player is someone that comes in and has one jitb specifically. Rodman was a great rebounder, was a very good outlet passer which Love is great at as well(the best in the league possibly), and very good on defense. Tony Allen is a role player because he specifically does 1 thing and that's just defense.