The NBA is going to do a 60 Greatest Players tribute at the All Star Game. As you might recall, ten years ago, when the NBA was 50 years old, they trotted out the best 50 players. So which 10 guys should join the club? Here are the original 50.
My guess would be that not all 10 players are going to be current players, but the current players that should be added are:
Iverson Duncan Kidd Kobe (?) K.G. (?)
The only question with the last two is their age; I don't know if the NBA wants to honor players whose careers aren't even half-over (though with Duncan it doesn't matter).
Know what's funny? From a purely statistical point, you could make a case for Mitch Richmond that might be stronger than the case for some of these other guys. Not that I want to take that stance.
Worthy got rings and played with the Showtime Lakers so it's easy to understand how me might be overrated. I don't think he had a reputation as a great defender (that was Michael Cooper), but he got a lot of steals. When I was looking at a site about Worthy I found the following quote: "member of the All-NBA Third Team on two occasions." This would seem to imply that he was never a dominant player. However, you've also got to consider that he played with Magic, Kareem, Byron Scott, A.C. Green--a solid contributor on the court, if rather flacid off it--so his scoring numbers don't necessarily reflect the player he was. Oh well, none of us really got that great a look at him in his prime.
I'll throw another name into the discussion. How about my Michigan friend C-Webb?
I was just thinking about Webber too. I think his playoff record may hurt him, and somewhat unjustly. But I would definitely put him above Worthy--way above him. I feel like too much weight is given to championships in the NBA's list. I mean it matters, but if Webber had been on the Lakers you could make the argument that they would have won even more titles. So logically that means Webber deserves the spot more than Worthy. Another interesting name I saw--Chris Mullin. He played on some shitty teams though. Any thoughts?
C-Webb's been good, but he needs some more time before he could make this list. Louis is going to have a convulsion when he reads this, but unlike baseball, where postseason statistics/reputation tell us very little, C-Webb's annual disappearing act in the playoffs, or at least the last five minutes of games in the postseason, has to count against him. That's especially true because of any five players on the floor, C-Webb is one of the more prolific "scorers" at any given time, which makes his disappearance - on a team of 5 players, unlike baseball, where 9 people carry the load - even more conspicuous.
If he starts playing full seasons again and averages 22/10 for five more years, then you can stick him on the list. But to maintain for that long is very hard to do, obviously.
"annual disappearing act" is a little harsh for a guy who led his team within a game of taking out the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, no? Since Webber's departure from Sacramento I think it's become quite evident that Peja and Bibby were severely overrated on those Kings teams--streaky shooting aside, neither of them play a lick of defense. Swap Brad Miller for Webber and the team is garbage. Thusly, in retrospect, Webber's accomplishments in getting those teams as far as they got look all the more impressive to me.
Citing Webber's most infamous disappearing act doesn't quite help your argument. I would not say Peja was "severely overrated," either - he was not as streaky as you say he is, he was or as streaky as Bibby, who you're probably thinking got an inordinate amount of credit for the Kings' success because of one great playoff series. You're right about that, because Webber was the force that carried them through the season and even that playoff series. He did, however, completely disappear at the end the biggest two games of his career. So judge the top 60 players how you want to, but I think the criteria has to be both anecdotal and statistical - this isn't baseball - and notice how CWebb, despite his gaudy numbers, isn't even on heavily statistics-influenced the list Louis posted above of top players. That's why I say give him time. CWebb is the basketball equivalent of Jim Rice in a sport where statistics are not 100% of the criteria, but we're not talking about the Hall of Fame, either. We're talking about the best 10 players not on the original list of 50.
Besides Ben, there's no reason to back CWebb. He never went to Michigan.
Louis, you can read this if you won't respond: Miller averaged 18.2 ppg for 18 seasons; for the same reason I'm not ready to punch C-Webb's ticket after 11 with 23 and 10, I am ready to punch Miller's ticket now.
Also: "Not sure why you thought I was saying C-Webb was one of the 60 greatest"
Uh:
"I doubt C-Webb will be considered while he's still playing, because he's already past his prime but not yet retired. Should he be, though? If not for the injuries and/or lack of championships, he'd be a no-brainer, right?"
Am I crazy? Or am I so sane I just blew your mind?
Ben, Ply loves to argue. It all derives from a simple equation: Bryan + coffee = Ply.
16 comments:
My guess would be that not all 10 players are going to be current players, but the current players that should be added are:
Iverson
Duncan
Kidd
Kobe (?)
K.G. (?)
The only question with the last two is their age; I don't know if the NBA wants to honor players whose careers aren't even half-over (though with Duncan it doesn't matter).
"My guess would be that not all 10 players are going to be current players"
I'd say that's a definite.
I'll take your five, plus
Nique
Bernard King
Reggie
Payton
Alex English
Know what's funny? From a purely statistical point, you could make a case for Mitch Richmond that might be stronger than the case for some of these other guys. Not that I want to take that stance.
Worthy got rings and played with the Showtime Lakers so it's easy to understand how me might be overrated. I don't think he had a reputation as a great defender (that was Michael Cooper), but he got a lot of steals. When I was looking at a site about Worthy I found the following quote: "member of the All-NBA Third Team on two occasions." This would seem to imply that he was never a dominant player. However, you've also got to consider that he played with Magic, Kareem, Byron Scott, A.C. Green--a solid contributor on the court, if rather flacid off it--so his scoring numbers don't necessarily reflect the player he was. Oh well, none of us really got that great a look at him in his prime.
I'll throw another name into the discussion. How about my Michigan friend C-Webb?
damnit, I spelled flaccid wrong. I hate this no editing bullshit.
I was just thinking about Webber too. I think his playoff record may hurt him, and somewhat unjustly. But I would definitely put him above Worthy--way above him. I feel like too much weight is given to championships in the NBA's list. I mean it matters, but if Webber had been on the Lakers you could make the argument that they would have won even more titles. So logically that means Webber deserves the spot more than Worthy. Another interesting name I saw--Chris Mullin. He played on some shitty teams though. Any thoughts?
I rely on my selection of university to remind me how absurdly good C-Webb was. Pathetic, no?
C-Webb's been good, but he needs some more time before he could make this list. Louis is going to have a convulsion when he reads this, but unlike baseball, where postseason statistics/reputation tell us very little, C-Webb's annual disappearing act in the playoffs, or at least the last five minutes of games in the postseason, has to count against him. That's especially true because of any five players on the floor, C-Webb is one of the more prolific "scorers" at any given time, which makes his disappearance - on a team of 5 players, unlike baseball, where 9 people carry the load - even more conspicuous.
If he starts playing full seasons again and averages 22/10 for five more years, then you can stick him on the list. But to maintain for that long is very hard to do, obviously.
"annual disappearing act" is a little harsh for a guy who led his team within a game of taking out the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, no? Since Webber's departure from Sacramento I think it's become quite evident that Peja and Bibby were severely overrated on those Kings teams--streaky shooting aside, neither of them play a lick of defense. Swap Brad Miller for Webber and the team is garbage. Thusly, in retrospect, Webber's accomplishments in getting those teams as far as they got look all the more impressive to me.
Citing Webber's most infamous disappearing act doesn't quite help your argument. I would not say Peja was "severely overrated," either - he was not as streaky as you say he is, he was or as streaky as Bibby, who you're probably thinking got an inordinate amount of credit for the Kings' success because of one great playoff series. You're right about that, because Webber was the force that carried them through the season and even that playoff series. He did, however, completely disappear at the end the biggest two games of his career. So judge the top 60 players how you want to, but I think the criteria has to be both anecdotal and statistical - this isn't baseball - and notice how CWebb, despite his gaudy numbers, isn't even on heavily statistics-influenced the list Louis posted above of top players. That's why I say give him time. CWebb is the basketball equivalent of Jim Rice in a sport where statistics are not 100% of the criteria, but we're not talking about the Hall of Fame, either. We're talking about the best 10 players not on the original list of 50.
Besides Ben, there's no reason to back CWebb. He never went to Michigan.
nor did I say Webber was in the top 60. I just wanted to discuss him. Ply likes to argue, this much is clear.
Louis, you can read this if you won't respond: Miller averaged 18.2 ppg for 18 seasons; for the same reason I'm not ready to punch C-Webb's ticket after 11 with 23 and 10, I am ready to punch Miller's ticket now.
Also: "Not sure why you thought I was saying C-Webb was one of the 60 greatest"
Uh:
"I doubt C-Webb will be considered while he's still playing, because he's already past his prime but not yet retired. Should he be, though? If not for the injuries and/or lack of championships, he'd be a no-brainer, right?"
Am I crazy? Or am I so sane I just blew your mind?
Ben, Ply loves to argue. It all derives from a simple equation: Bryan + coffee = Ply.
Can we take pause for a moment to acknowledge what a bespectacled ogre George Mikan was.
I understood what Louis meant.
This aggression will not stand, Ben.
The bums will always lose, Ply.
Post a Comment