Best Player to Wear #5?

[Najee]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

I meant he was the best player ever to wear 4 different numbers, not that he only wore 4.

Not sure who else has wore 15 but I doubt he wins that.

Ron Artest wouldn't win either one of those contests. More than likely the player who wore at least four different uniform numbers (Moses Malone immediately comes to mind), and certainly not who wore No. 15 (see Earl "The Pearl" Monroe, Hal Greer, Tom Heinsohn, Carmelo Anthony, Latrell Sprewell, Vince Carter, Vinny Johnson).

[Jamel Irief]

Originally Posted by Najee

Ron Artest wouldn't win either one of those contests. More than likely the player who wore at least four different uniform numbers (Moses Malone immediately comes to mind), and certainly not who wore No. 15 (see Earl "The Pearl" Monroe, Hal Greer, Tom Heinsohn, Carmelo Anthony, Latrell Sprewell, Vince Carter, Vinny Johnson).

Check my post, and then check the numbers metta wore. I said he would lose 15. Who beats him at 37? 91? 93? 97?


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App

[XxIrvingxX]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

Check my post, and then check the numbers metta wore. I said he would lose 15. Who beats him at 37? 91? 93? 97?


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App

If we make it to those numbers...

[Najee]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

Check my post, and then check the numbers metta wore. I said he would lose 15. Who beats him at 37? 91? 93? 96?

You left out the part where Ron Artest is about the only person who ever wore those numbers. And even then, Artest would lose the No. 91 contest, because Dennis Rodman wore that for Chicago during the Bulls' second three-peat.

[Dee-Zy]

I'm a big fan of Horry so I almost voted for him but I'm going with JKidd just because for me, Garnett is 21.

[Krstic All-Star]

Since Bill Walton only wore #5 for two years, it's got to be future HOFer Kidd

[Hyperion]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

Check my post, and then check the numbers metta wore. I said he would lose 15. Who beats him at 37? 91? 93? 97?


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App

Rodman wins 91

[Jamel Irief]

Originally Posted by Najee

You left out the part where Ron Artest is about the only person who ever wore those numbers. And even then, Artest would lose the No. 91 contest, because Dennis Rodman wore that for Chicago during the Bulls' second three-peat.

I didn't "leave it out" I thought it was obvious. That was my whole point, that if you evaluate players only when they wore a number we are punishing players with storied careers that wore multiple numbers (mo Malone) or rewarding them (metta).

As for rodman, ok 3 numbers metta wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App

[Mattsanity]

this poll should be based on their whole career. otherwise, it's ridiculous because you're cancelling out a chunk of their career just for wearing another number at the time.

[Najee]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

I didn't "leave it out" I thought it was obvious. That was my whole point, that if you evaluate players only when they wore a number we are punishing players with storied careers that wore multiple numbers (mo Malone) or rewarding them (metta).

Then it changes the context of the threads, which goes from "Who was the greatest player ever to wear that number?" to the generic "Who was the greatest player of all time?"-type of thread.

And the context is what makes the debate interesting. Ron Artest is only going to be mentioned because he wore numbers only a couple of people may have worn ever. It also makes for interesting debate with other players ("Who was the greatest player ever to wear No. 6 in his career?" "Why didn't LeBron James pick a number not famously associated with other players?").

[Mattsanity]

It's a misleading question because it should be "Who was the greatest player while they wore #5?"


BTW, I got cyberlynched by Basel via Rep Power. Thank you man.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Mattsanity

this poll should be based on their whole career. otherwise, it's ridiculous because you're cancelling out a chunk of their career just for wearing another number at the time.

is this a question about a number or a player? if it's about a player why are we spending time worrying about a number? if it is about a player then the answer is 23 or perhaps 13 or maybe 33 - you see, young grasshopper it is the introduction of the number into the question that formalizes it and makes it worth considering - think again upon the question and return when you have found more wisdom

[Jamel Irief]

Originally Posted by Najee

Then it changes the context of the threads, which goes from "Who was the greatest player ever to wear that number?" to the generic "Who was the greatest player of all time?"-type of thread.

And the context is what makes the debate interesting. Ron Artest is only going to be mentioned because we wore numbers only a couple of people may have worn ever. It also makes for interest debate with other players ("Who was the greatest player ever to wear No. 6 in his career?" "Why didn't LeBron James pick a number not famously associated with other players?").

Fair enough.

[Jamel Irief]

Originally Posted by Najee

Then it changes the context of the threads, which goes from "Who was the greatest player ever to wear that number?" to the generic "Who was the greatest player of all time?"-type of thread.

And the context is what makes the debate interesting. Ron Artest is only going to be mentioned because we wore numbers only a couple of people may have worn ever. It also makes for interest debate with other players ("Who was the greatest player ever to wear No. 6 in his career?" "Why didn't LeBron James pick a number not famously associated with other players?").

Fair enough.

[Mattsanity]

Originally Posted by e-monk

is this a question about a number or a player? if it's about a player why are we spending time worrying about a number? if it is about a player then the answer is 23 or perhaps 13 or maybe 33 - you see, young grasshopper it is the introduction of the number into the question that formalizes it and makes it worth considering - think again upon the question and return when you have found more wisdom

Your passive aggressiveness is amusing.


I'm not saying Basel was wrong for posting that specific question. If I was him, I would've asked the exact same question in hindsight.