ESPN Top 100 list

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Funny that you mentioned Zeke, he was actually part of the reason I asked the question. I'd like to know, how do you compare the two of them? What made you think CP3 would be better than him, and what has kept that from happening in your eyes?

Zeke was 6-1 and was about ten pounds heavier than Paul so he didn't depend on screens as much to locate his shots and thereby made him tougher to double team. Zeke was more of a shoot first guy than Paul. In his early seasons Paul had blinding quickness and a maturity beyond his years so I thought he could eventually compel his team to a title given the right pieces around him. His leg surgery sapped some quickness, he has been on the wrong teams at the wrong time, and (let's face it) he has choked at times in big games.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

https://youtu.be/cBTs0VgLo6c

Posted this here so I didn’t get lost in the off-topic thread. Pretty cool clip. I remember seeing clips/highlights from one of these games before, with Jordan playing so maybe 88-90ish, but this one is fun to watch with that Magic-Bird connection.

Also check out the other #33, who looks like Robert Reid maybe? Out there with some “big man” no look passes of his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Magic was the best ever at running the break and making good passes and decisions at top speed. Even though today's point guards are bigger than the guys Magic faced he would still dominate if he played now.

[KG]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Zeke was 6-1 and was about ten pounds heavier than Paul so he didn't depend on screens as much to locate his shots and thereby made him tougher to double team. Zeke was more of a shoot first guy than Paul. In his early seasons Paul had blinding quickness and a maturity beyond his years so I thought he could eventually compel his team to a title given the right pieces around him. His leg surgery sapped some quickness, he has been on the wrong teams at the wrong time, and (let's face it) he has choked at times in big games.

Agree with everything except this lol

CP3 is out there repping for all us weekend warriors in the inevitable fight vs dad bod

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

E

Agree with everything except this lol

CP3 is out there repping for all us weekend warriors in the inevitable fight vs dad bod

Paul's body has thickened in recent years but at the top of his game he was about 175 and leaner than he is now.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I rank the bigs like this:

1. Bill Russell
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem-Abdul Jabbar
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
6. Tim Duncan
7. Nate Thurmond
8. Kevin McHale
9. Bill Walton
10. Willis Reed
11. Dave DeBusschere
12. Bob Pettit
13. Dolph Schayes
14. Dennis Rodman
15. Gus Johnson
16. Jerry Lucas
17. Dirk Nowitzki
18. James Worthy
19. Wes Unseld

AB how would Robert Parish stack up in a list like this for you? If he’s not close, what about against guys like Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Dwight, Ewing, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

AB how would Robert Parish stack up in a list like this for you? If he’s not close, what about against guys like Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Dwight, Ewing, etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Parish isn't close to that group of bigs. He was below average as a defender and notoriously unreliable in the clutch. Robinson would be close to the top 25 for the ground he could cover with his defensive rotations. His offense was predictable though, all finesse, and he too choked in crunch time. The other four bigs are a notch below Robinson but I might favore Mutombo for his all world defense.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Damn no love for The Chief? I always kinda felt he was a tad underrated, and never considered him a below average defender either though maybe not great. I know he had some great playoff runs, and did a lot of things those Celtics teams needed... Plus I always felt he would have likely given a bit more on a worse team, for example the year Bird was out he jumped to up around 20 and 13 or something like that. I think he was 35, 36 years old at the time? Makes me think some of his better years would have been even higher if not losing out on touches with Bird+McHale.

Plus at his peak he cracked the All-NBA second team, 4th in MVP voting. Also had incredible longevity making his last All-Star game at 37 years old.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Damn no love for The Chief? I always kinda felt he was a tad underrated, and never considered him a below average defender either though maybe not great. I know he had some great playoff runs, and did a lot of things those Celtics teams needed... Plus I always felt he would have likely given a bit more on a worse team, for example the year Bird was out he jumped to up around 20 and 13 or something like that. I think he was 35, 36 years old at the time? Makes me think some of his better years would have been even higher if not losing out on touches with Bird+McHale.

Plus at his peak he cracked the All-NBA second team, 4th in MVP voting. Also had incredible longevity making his last All-Star game at 37 years old.

Oh don't get me wrong he was a fine player but he wasn't Hall of Fame material. He was so tall that he had trouble moving laterally. He wasn't to be trusted in the endgame. His money move was a high-release jumper that invariably was launched fading away which is why he averaged a measly number of free throws. His passing and handle were below par.

[aloncho11]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Oh don't get me wrong he was a fine player but he wasn't Hall of Fame material. He was so tall that he had trouble moving laterally. He wasn't to be trusted in the endgame. His money move was a high-release jumper that invariably was launched fading away which is why he averaged a measly number of free throws. His passing and handle were below par.

But consistent enough within the limited talent he had to play 21 seasons.

[AlexBrady]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

But consistent enough within the limited talent he had to play 21 seasons.

His longevity was impressive but that is a more minor consideration for me. Defense, off the ball play and clutch performance carries a lot of weight in my grading. If I had to keep the list going after Unseld I would go with Dave Cowens and Maurice Stokes.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

I think longevity will always been one of those things that is dependent on whoever you're asking and how much weight they give to it. Somewhat like the rings argument to an extent.

Realistically longevity and sustained excellence is separate from just how "good" a player was at or around their best. However, on lists like this, I do think longevity has to matter to a pretty high degree. If not for longevity do we care about what Bill Russell was able to do to the degree we do now? I think without longevity you could even argue Shaq for GOAT rather than Jordan, etc. Not that Jordan had a necessarily long career, but his number of great years is a large part of his resume IMO, and Shaq's peak was maybe 3-4 years if you stretch it.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

How many more seasons like this past does Jokic need to have to land firmly in a list like this one? Perhaps even climb the rankings fairly quickly?

I was having the convo with some co-workers the other day, for all the extra excuses and hypotheticals we make for previous players; "they would be a much better shooter today", "it's easier to score today", "no hand checking today", "if they had modern medicine", "if the game was less physical", what if we did the same in reverse for someone like Jokic? Seems a lot of people are comfortable saying that numbers across eras can be blurry and we often give past players the benefit of the doubt on the majority of them.

So what if we took Jokic's biggest weakness of just being a bit too slow to be able to make all the switches necessary to cover today's guards? All of the movement and ball-screening mixed with everyone being a shooting threat has made that type of defense an absolute must, and that's easily his biggest flaw. What if he was in an era that didn't exist to the degree it does now? The same excuses we make, or are at least told we should make, for past players.

He's already coming off his best defensive season, he can hold his ground in the post, an honest defender who doesn't often leave his feet because he's not an excellent shot blocker, already one of the best defensive rebounders ever which might could have been better playing in an era with less outside shooting and less situations where he's pulled from the paint, etc.

Hes probably the best passer period in today's NBA. Great numbers for minutes played, and a legit 50/40/90 threat on any given night. Sets great screens, can play inside or outside, can run point-center, and honestly might have been the best individual player in the playoffs this past post-season.. If not the best he was right on par with the Steph, Kawhi, KD, Giannis group, all of which will have their names shooting up lists like this..

I think he also undoubtedly has that Draymond, Rodman, Russell like factor where even just his talent alone doesn't really explain how much better he makes his team when he's on the floor.

Completely understand he would have to keep playing at this level for more than just one season to start getting some "All-Time" recognition, the career aspect has to play into it. But at 23 years old he's off to a pretty good start. What other sub 25 year old players have playoff showings like he had last year? At least in the modern NBA.. LeBron, Jordan, Chris Paul.. maybe it.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

How many more seasons like this past does Jokic need to have to land firmly in a list like this one? Perhaps even climb the rankings fairly quickly?

I was having the convo with some co-workers the other day, for all the extra excuses and hypotheticals we make for previous players; "they would be a much better shooter today", "it's easier to score today", "no hand checking today", "if they had modern medicine", "if the game was less physical", what if we did the same in reverse for someone like Jokic? Seems a lot of people are comfortable saying that numbers across eras can be blurry and we often give past players the benefit of the doubt on the majority of them.

So what if we took Jokic's biggest weakness of just being a bit too slow to be able to make all the switches necessary to cover today's guards? All of the movement and ball-screening mixed with everyone being a shooting threat has made that type of defense an absolute must, and that's easily his biggest flaw. What if he was in an era that didn't exist to the degree it does now? The same excuses we make, or are at least told we should make, for past players.

He's already coming off his best defensive season, he can hold his ground in the post, an honest defender who doesn't often leave his feet because he's not an excellent shot blocker, already one of the best defensive rebounders ever which might could have been better playing in an era with less outside shooting and less situations where he's pulled from the paint, etc.

Hes probably the best passer period in today's NBA. Great numbers for minutes played, and a legit 50/40/90 threat on any given night. Sets great screens, can play inside or outside, can run point-center, and honestly might have been the best individual player in the playoffs this past post-season.. If not the best he was right on par with the Steph, Kawhi, KD, Giannis group, all of which will have their names shooting up lists like this..

I think he also undoubtedly has that Draymond, Rodman, Russell like factor where even just his talent alone doesn't really explain how much better he makes his team when he's on the floor.

Completely understand he would have to keep playing at this level for more than just one season to start getting some "All-Time" recognition, the career aspect has to play into it. But at 23 years old he's off to a pretty good start. What other sub 25 year old players have playoff showings like he had last year? At least in the modern NBA.. LeBron, Jordan, Chris Paul.. maybe it.

And to keep the disrespectful tone away from any way-back past players, just took a glance at the original ESPN list and picked a similar-ish player who's career I got to see entirely, Chris Webber who is ranked at 66th. Jokic this past season was every bit as good as Webber in in very best couple of seasons, probably better actually but attempting to sound less derogatory towards Webber. You have to assume, if he continues to do this from 23-20 and hypothetically improves along the way, Nikola Jokic should go down as an All-Time great.

[ojandpizza]

Re: ESPN Top 100 list

Also I got a question for you guys. And I know not many of you like "lists" and probably rarely open this thread even when there is a new post. But I'd like to get people's opinion on this.

For lists like these do you think there is a certain weight to consider for how good a player is vs how much he helps a team win? If so how much more valuable is one than the other?

Examples being a Dennis Rodman type player, or to a lesser extent Draymond Green type player. On basketball ability alone guys who are not top All-Time level "talents". You couldn't put them on bad teams and expect them to be substantially better teams. You could not build a team centered around either of those guys being your best player. But they both give massive value to championship level teams. Dennis Rodman for example, the Bulls might even get back to the finals or 3 peat if they don't add him, but most people recognize he was not a good player.

With that said, if we never see that player on a top level team do we even ask that question? Example being if Draymond Green was playing for a team like the Knicks the past few seasons instead of Golden State do we even notice/care about all the things he does the way he does it? We recognize what he does for GS, we recognize that his traits help make a good team a great team, but what if he's not on a good/great team to begin with? Does all that value dwindle in a sense?

The reverse of this is you can take a really good player and notice he's still a really good player even if he's on a bad team. A guy like Mitch Richmond for example might have won championships swapping places with Michael Jordan, but was still a really good player on the dumpster fire Kings. Same would go for Jordan in that scenario. He likely still could have been viewed as the best player in the league playing for the Kings, and that team would probably still struggle to win a playoff series even with him.

How about this question, since I know AB checks this thread and actively posts. Specifically one of your favorites Dave DeBusschere. If his whole career was spent with Detroit, and he never has the opportunity to make a good team like the Knicks an All-Time great team by joining them how differently (if at all) would you view him? DD was an All-Star before the Knicks, so this applies less to him than guys previously mentioned, but similar thought process none the less.