Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

21 - 40 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
513 Posts
Actually, Wilkins did have some great playoff series. He just never had the rest of the team around him to go very far. As great as someone can be, no one can win playoffs by themselves. Think about Jordan dropping 63 on the Celtics (the highest playoff mark ever) but they lost. I would have to agree with those who say that if Wilkins had played with Magic, Kareem, Scott etc. he probably would've had a few rings too.
 

·
X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
a starting line up of wilkins moses malone reggie theus kevin willis and doc rivers should have gotten past the 2nd once

dont you think once ? if wilkns was as good as people say he is

can you name a player that is top 50 that never got as far as the conf. finals in his entire career ?

i dont think you can
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!

can you name a player that is top 50 that never got as far as the conf. finals in his entire career ?

i dont think you can
Not exactly fair, their were less teams in the playoffs during some of these guys playing years.
 

·
X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Villa909</b>!


Not exactly fair, their were less teams in the playoffs during some of these guys playing years.
that may be true but you always had to beat someone in the top 4 to get to your conf finals.

the hawks (when led by dominique) where never that high because they never beat anyone that wasn't one of the bottom half(5-8) seeds

and thats my point he never won series in the pro's that mattered he beat a team or 2 that wasn't going anywhere anyway but when it was time to play the big boys he and his teams folded up like lawnchairs and a lot of that had to do wirh him and him alone

he never got the tough boards or made the timely passes or surely never made any important defensive stops (as he is one of the worse defenders of his era) and as the star of his team he should have done more and the sportwriters who were voting on the top 50 agreed which is why he isn't there
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
i think that Nique should of been on the list instead of ShaQ, cuz that list was composed back in 97' and that was only ShaQ's 5th year in the league he hadn't won any championships yet plus he was the youngest guy on the list and he could wait to be in like an all NBA at 60 or somethin, if it would ever happen again
 

·
X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
well if want to get rid of someone for lack of longevity

you could always throw out Bill Walton who when healthy played really well but didn't play for very long at that level

walton played in 468 career games(it comes out to less than 6 82 game seasons) and most of it was not a dominant player

by that point shaq hadn't won any titles but he did at least get to the finals and was probably the best center in the game at the time the 50 best players were announced

he did deserve it imo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,319 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
Remove:

Lenny Wilkens
Paul Arizin
Dave Bing

Insert:

Bob McAdoo
Mark Aguirre/Joe Dumars
Dominique Wilkins
I am not one of the Dominique Wilkins lovers like most here. I think that the person that really got the shaft was Bob McAdoo. He Clearly should have been top 50, Wilkins I'm less sold on, while I believe he probably should be as well. But, then who do you take out.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
58,359 Posts
Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
Questionable - John Havlicek?
You really don't know about this 6th man who scored
more than <b>20 PPG,
more than 20,000 points,
more than 8000 rebounds,
more than 6000 assists, </b>

won 8 championships and losing NONE,

was the MVP of the finals in 1974 and
was cheated out of it the first year it was given in 1969,

was all defensive team 8 times,
was an all star 13 times,
was all NBA 11 times
still holds the finals game records for most points in OT and the most STEALS.

<b>QUESTIONABLE????? I don't think so. </b>:)

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I was wondering about that one myself! Questionable? Thats got to be the first time i have ever read something about John being questionable!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
58,359 Posts
Someone mentioned iceman doesn't deserve to be there. I beg to differ! They didnt call him iceman for nothing! If you kept the game close, he would rip your heart out at the end of it!!

Nique does deserve to be in the top 50 but it is difficult to take anyone out of it!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,722 Posts
Maybe Wilkins didn't make it because people remembered how badly he played when he came to the Celtics. He was an embarrassment.

But he does deserve to rank ahead of Arizin, who was a jump shooter but not much else.

Lists like the one published in '96 are always subject to change. Kobe and Kidd aren't on the list either. If you did another list in 2003, they would definitely be on it. These lists are also popularity contests. Why is Walton on the list? He had a couple of great years, then hurt his foot. Career-wise his stats are mediocre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Originally posted by <b>kingofkings</b>!
Can anyone explain this point to me??
Same reason Bernard King, Adrian Dantley and Alex English were left off the list, POLOTICS.

People and teams with influence lobbied for their people, while those I mentioned above had no one with influence to lobby for them.

For instance, I happen to think that King, Dantley, English and Nique were all better than Scottie Pippen or James Worthy. They were both great players but not as great that quartet. If you ever saw them play against them you'd know I'm right.

Pippen had Jordan and Phil Jackson to push for him, while Worthy had Magic, Jabbar, Riely and West.

The same could be said for other great player from great teams, Parish comes to mind. He wasn't as good as say Bob Macadoo, but he had the whole Celtic mystic behnd him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,527 Posts
i believe the only player the lakers would have traded worthy for was a healthy bernard king (although there were trade rumors early in his career about a trade for aguirre, although they would have regretted that one in the long run). they wouldn't have traded him for any of the others, imo. same goes for chicago (and in that case, maybe for a healthy bernard).

worthy was as efficient a scoring sf as there was. he was long, he ran the floor better than anyone. he had a post game, and could spread the floor.

pippen was a dominant defender, an excellent passer, and an excellent rebounder. he handled the ball. he hit the 3. he certainly deserved to be there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
i believe the only player the lakers would have traded worthy for was a healthy bernard king (although there were trade rumors early in his career about a trade for aguirre, although they would have regretted that one in the long run). they wouldn't have traded him for any of the others, imo. same goes for chicago (and in that case, maybe for a healthy bernard).

worthy was as efficient a scoring sf as there was. he was long, he ran the floor better than anyone. he had a post game, and could spread the floor.

pippen was a dominant defender, an excellent passer, and an excellent rebounder. he handled the ball. he hit the 3. he certainly deserved to be there.
who you'd trade for is not a true barometer of who's a better player. King was "way" better than Worthy, but Worthy was a better fit for the Lakers style. King was basically a post up player and The post was already filled on those laker teams.

A better barometer is head-to-head play and in these cases the four player I named consistantly out played Pippen/Worthy. In particular Adrian Dantley should have been forced to get a marrage license for what he did to Pippen (the great defender) every time they met.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,527 Posts
dantley left detroit in '89, and maybe faced pippen 3 or 4 times the rest of his career. pippen's prime began around '91.

dantley was a great player, and his stats were amazing. he was unstoppable. underrated and underappreciated overall. his head-to-head with pippen is hardly relevant considering when they played.

none of those guys really saw much of pippen, with the exception of wilkens. they did see worthy, and they had little chance of containing him. they may have outscored him, because of their roles for their teams, but that doesn't mean they outplayed him.

the point that championship teams would have rather had 1 player over another is relevant, imo. the ability to be successful in a winning situation and still excel individually and set yourself apart at the same time is a plus, imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
dantley left detroit in '89, and maybe faced pippen 3 or 4 times the rest of his career. pippen's prime began around '91.

dantley was a great player, and his stats were amazing. he was unstoppable. underrated and underappreciated overall. his head-to-head with pippen is hardly relevant considering when they played.

none of those guys really saw much of pippen, with the exception of wilkens. they did see worthy, and they had little chance of containing him. they may have outscored him, because of their roles for their teams, but that doesn't mean they outplayed him.

the point that championship teams would have rather had 1 player over another is relevant, imo. the ability to be successful in a winning situation and still excel individually and set yourself apart at the same time is a plus, imo.
Who you'd pick to be the final peice of a championship team is not a good criteria because with hindsight you'd always pick the player who's the best fit (e.g, I'd take Russell over wilt if I already had 4 scorers, but I'd take wilt over Russell if I lacked scoring)

.A better way to look at who's better, is who would you take to start a team if you were going to have THAT player and a bunch of CBA type scrubs. I contend that a team of Nique and a bunch of scrubs would be more competitive that Pippen and the same scrubs. Just a Wilt and a bunch of scrubs would be more competitive than Russel and the same scrubs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,527 Posts
that's the problem. raising a bunch of scrubs to mediocrity isn't the ultimate measure of a great player. it's not the objective of the game. who can you build a championship team around is a better question, imo, than who can help a bad team get mediocre.

nique may be a better leading man than worthy (maybe), but he wasn't, imo, a leading man you build a winner around. and i believe worthy was better as a great complimentary player than nique would have been (or dantley). so who do you take, the not great enough #1, or the #2 who you're more likely to win with? it's not all about who's the better #1, imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
that's the problem. raising a bunch of scrubs to mediocrity isn't the ultimate measure of a great player. it's not the objective of the game. who can you build a championship team around is a better question, imo, than who can help a bad team get mediocre.

nique may be a better leading man than worthy (maybe), but he wasn't, imo, a leading man you build a winner around. and i believe worthy was better as a great complimentary player than nique would have been (or dantley). so who do you take, the not great enough #1, or the #2 who you're more likely to win with? it's not all about who's the better #1, imo.
I thought we were talking about the greatest individual players not the players who best fit on his team or who was lucky enough to play with truely great players (i.e. Magic, Bird, MJ) It is widely accepted that these guys made their teamates better.

For example, before Worthy, Jamal Wilkes filled the same role/position with similar stats for the Magic Johnsons Lakers first Championship. Had Wilkes been young enough to play through the rest of the 90's would be be calling him one of the 50 greatest? I say no, he just like Worthy was a very good player, maybe even an all-star player, but not one of the truely great ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,527 Posts
we're talking about the greatest players. not players who put up the best individual stats. how you define greatest is up for interpretation. once you get past the jordans, magics and birds, it's not so clear. when dantley was on utah, he was putting up better numbers and losing to worthy's lakers. dantley was on detroit, and worthy's putting up better numbers and still coming out on top. aguirre's numbers plummeted when he went to detroit, but he became a winner. how do you define greatness? pippen had the best year of his career without jordan, and his team was about as successful as any dominique led team ever was.

worthy was one of the great players of his era. he scored 21 ppg in the playoffs on 54%. he has a finals mvp. he was a #1 pick. riley said he was the best sf ever (obviously biased, but still heavy praise). he scored 40 without magic against the bad boy pistons on 17-26 shooting in the '89 finals. he was more than very good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Endless debate. Having seen them all but Mikan, I would put D. Wilkens ahead of Sharman, who was somewhat "great by association".

Wilkens was not better than Greer,S.Jones and certainly not in the DeBusschere, Bing category.

Wiggin and Sovereignz- I do not agree at all with your drop off list. Study your history Wiggen , not the stats only, if you really believe that "questionable" list. I would have a hard time leaving Havlicek, for instance, off my top 12 roster, let alone top 50, and I do not like the Celtics.

Pippen is a question, but he did play a complete game.Ewing playing center,the least represented position, might put him just in. Worthy is borderline, but probably worthy.

Perhaps unfairly, L. Wilkens the player may have improved his status after his play days, because he was such a great coach. But he was a hell of a player.

Gervin is not top 20. for sure, but tough to keep him out of top 50.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
we're talking about the greatest players. not players who put up the best individual stats. how you define greatest is up for interpretation. once you get past the jordans, magics and birds, it's not so clear. when dantley was on utah, he was putting up better numbers and losing to worthy's lakers. dantley was on detroit, and worthy's putting up better numbers and still coming out on top. aguirre's numbers plummeted when he went to detroit, but he became a winner. how do you define greatness? pippen had the best year of his career without jordan, and his team was about as successful as any dominique led team ever was.

worthy was one of the great players of his era. he scored 21 ppg in the playoffs on 54%. he has a finals mvp. he was a #1 pick. riley said he was the best sf ever (obviously biased, but still heavy praise). he scored 40 without magic against the bad boy pistons on 17-26 shooting in the '89 finals. he was more than very good.
I guess you forgot to address my point about Jamal Wilkes playing as well a Worthy on the 1st title team.

Here's another one for you, Pippen "seemed" great when he was with MJ. Later with Houston and Portland, w/o MJ btw, he showed us that he's just another guy who was lucky. Don't tell me he's old, because other players are still playing at all-star or all-pro levels at or near his age (e.g. Malone, Stockton, Payton, Reggie ... etc).

FACE IT PIPPEN WAS MADE BY JORDAN. WITH OUT MJ HE MAYBE MAKES THE ALL-STAR TEAM 2 OR 3 TIMES AT BEST. IF HE'S NOT PLAYING WITH MJ, NOWAY THE REFS LET HIM PLAY THE REACHING/HACKING/HOLDING DEFENSE HE'S FAMOUS FOR.
 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
Top