ESPN Top 100 list

[aloncho11]

Quote: Originally Posted by aloncho11

It's really a hard concept to define, but to me it all comes down to the people in discussion. For example, I consider Iguodala to be above Green simply because I've seen him in every particular scenario you mentioned in the Sixers, Nuggets and Warriors. That for me is a reassurance that he will be a team player, perform to the best of his abilities and actually contribute a team to win no matter the situation. Regardless of how much better of a player Green actually is, the fact that I've never seen Green in the other scenarios ranks him lower in my list. Rodman was a special athlete, but he needed to be surrounded by great players, a stable environment, a father type figure and a friend to confide in to perform at his best and make his team win. His last two years at Detroit where a mess for him and the team, his stay at San Antonio was a little better, but ended in a mess too (team chemistry wise). His last year at the Bulls was a "closely controlled mess" that fortunately didn't affect the team as maybe it should have. Yes, he was a great athlete and a great specialist (and personality), but he wasn't great at winning in non favorable scenarios.

Another example, Carmelo Anthony.

He is considered a great player by Vox-Populi (including fans, journalists, players and coaches), to the point that his pal players are campaigning for him.

But yet inside the league there's an unspoken truth and feeling amongst players, coaches, GM's and people related to the business in general that he is a cancer to teams and their chemistry, doesn't pass the ball once he gets it, doesn't play defense, and will not provide the leadership and attitude to make the players around him better and contribute to win. Yes players, most coaches and GM's like Melo, but they don't want him on their team because the intangibles associated with him have long surpassed anything he can offer basketball talent-wise.

That intangible factor is a big one for me not to consider him as a top player in any sort of list (the same goes for Iverson). No matter how great the basketball talents of these players are/were, they will never truly embody the attitude and work ethic of real professionals, either to become a great player or an average Joe (Johnson).

[ojandpizza]

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...vealed#slide49

Just going to add this to the other lists.. Bleacher Report released a top 50.. Biggest difference here in comparison to other lists is Steph is all the way up to 10th.

[AlexBrady]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...vealed#slide49 Just going to add this to the other lists.. Bleacher Report released a top 50.. Biggest difference here in comparison to other lists is Steph is all the way up to 10th.

Their argument against Bill Russell was that he faced fewer teams but that is actually a point in his favor. The competition level was higher.

You look at the teams that missed the playoffs in the mid 60s and they would certainly qualify for the playoffs in todays game. The Knicks missed the playoffs in '65 with Willis Reed and Bob Boozer on the front line.

The Warriors won 17 games and missed the playoffs in '65 with Wilt Chamberlain (healthy for 38 games), Nate Thurmond, Guy Rodgers and Al Attles on the team. That was one of the worst teams in the league.

Detroit with Dave DeBusschere, Reggie Harding, Ray Scott, and Joe Caldwell failed to make the playoffs in '65.

The weak sisters were not all that weak back then.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

Their argument against Bill Russell was that he faced fewer teams but that is actually a point in his favor. The competition level was higher. You look at the teams that missed the playoffs in the mid 60s and they would certainly qualify for the playoffs in todays game. The Knicks missed the playoffs in '65 with Willis Reed and Bob Boozer on the front line. The Warriors won 17 games and missed the playoffs in '65 with Wilt Chamberlain (healthy for 38 games), Nate Thurmond, Guy Rodgers and Al Attles on the team. That was one of the worst teams in the league. Detroit with Dave DeBusschere, Reggie Harding, Ray Scott, and Joe Caldwell failed to make the playoffs in '65. The weak sisters were not all that weak back then.

I think this argument is fair, though I also think the counter-argument would be fair. With so few players in the league, and so many of the top players on his team, I'm not sure they were regularly not the favorites.. If that makes sense.

I also think there is a general sense of a lot of people not feeling the league was as good back then, less players or not.. Back then you had plenty of players saying random street-ballers were the best in the world, guys didn't make enough money to always choose basketball over other revenues.. I also think athletic guys like Wilt, Russell, Baylor, were almost anomalies then instead of just another great athlete that today's era seems to have an abundance of.

Either way, I think Bill Russell is firmly planted in everyone's top 10, where as we keep seeing a guy who many even call "GOAT" in Kobe being bounced out of the top 10.. I think that illustrates how highly people think of Bill, whether he's 1 or 8 or whatever.

[AlexBrady]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

I think this argument is fair, though I also think the counter-argument would be fair. With so few players in the league, and so many of the top players on his team, I'm not sure they were regularly not the favorites.. If that makes sense. I also think there is a general sense of a lot of people not feeling the league was as good back then, less players or not.. Back then you had plenty of players saying random street-ballers were the best in the world, guys didn't make enough money to always choose basketball over other revenues.. I also think athletic guys like Wilt, Russell, Baylor, were almost anomalies then instead of just another great athlete that today's era seems to have an abundance of. Either way, I think Bill Russell is firmly planted in everyone's top 10, where as we keep seeing a guy who many even call "GOAT" in Kobe being bounced out of the top 10.. I think that illustrates how highly people think of Bill, whether he's 1 or 8 or whatever.

The Celtics with Russell struggled more than people remember especially in the mid-late sixties. They dropped a lot of winnable games in the regular season and usually raised their level of play on their late season road trips which they had to do well on to get home court advantage. They were great in the big money games. Even today though, I don't see guys with Russel's lateral and vertical quickness at 6-10 (legit height). I don't see guys 7-1 and 300 pounds with Wilt's grace.

[J_Posse]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

The Celtics with Russell struggled more than people remember especially in the mid-late sixties. They dropped a lot of winnable games in the regular season and usually raised their level of play on their late season road trips which they had to do well on to get home court advantage. They were great in the big money games. Even today though, I don't see guys with Russel's lateral and vertical quickness at 6-10 (legit height). I don't see guys 7-1 and 300 pounds with Wilt's grace.

Agreed, those two and a few more could easily adapt and play in any era. Most players from their era couldn't sniff today's league though because they weren't skilled, athletic, lacked size (imagine Zion or LeBron in 1960's NBA) or all three.

Yes, they had a "better" fundamental grasp of the game and were more technically sound, but modern players are more efficient (believe or not) & have big athleticism advantage (comparing rank and file in both eras).


The game has gotten a lot faster (not pace wise, but in smaller space/shorter distances) and with a lot more above the rim play.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Operation Sports mobile app

[2KUte]

Quote: Originally Posted by ojandpizza

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...vealed#slide49 Just going to add this to the other lists.. Bleacher Report released a top 50.. Biggest difference here in comparison to other lists is Steph is all the way up to 10th.

All peole on twitter could talk about is Kobe's ranking. In this you got Robinson over Olajuwon, Barkley over Malone, and Chris Paul over Stockton and all people want to talk about is Kobe at 14?!?!

[ojandpizza]

I think I could at least listen to arguments for Barkley>Malone and CP3>Stockton, I’m not so sure about Robinson over Hakeem. Though I am part of the Hakeem gets overrated Robinson gets underrated based on that one series team.. still definitely don’t buy that Robinson surpasses him, or even ranks quite that high All-Time.. seems like his positioning is very box-score heavy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk