or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Slam Magazine's 50 Best NBA Players
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Slam Magazine's 50 Best NBA Players - Page 4

post #46 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwiteaboy View Post
The NBA averaged 27 more FGA per game in Robertson's time than it does now. Adjust for pace.

No 3 point line. Softer rules (ie hand checking) and reinforcement of said rules (particularly bad in LBJ's case). Re-adjust.
post #47 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by whacked View Post
The Bulls sucked royally during Jordan's first 10 years.




Are you even a basketball fan anyway?

not much but i'm a laker fan, and i'm into soccer so i dislike it when people rate players based on championships won, as though the other 20 guys on the team had nothing to do with it.

you can only evaluate a player by watching him play and seeing what he does, the decisions he makes, the plays he makes. stats don't tell you much because they are effected entirely by the teammates, strategies of the coach, etc...
post #48 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by matadorpoeta View Post
exactly. it's team game so you should not judge players on how many championships but how they play as individuals. if michael jordan had spent his career with the clippers, he'd have zero titles, but he would have been the same player. why penalize his legacy because of his teammates?
Unlike a football player (who is one of 11 members of his team on the field and does not play both offense and defense) or a baseball player (who cannot affect play but only respond to events as they occur), a basketball player has a direct and significant effect on the outcome of a game. For that reason, postseason success, or lack thereof, is an important part of a basketball player's legacy, much more so than that of a football player or baseball player. Obviously, this proposition has limits; no one would contend that Robert Horry is a better basketball player than Charles Barkley. It is quite useful in ranking comparable players, however. Why do you think Olajuwon is ranked above Robinson, who is ranked above Ewing?
post #49 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post
Unlike a football player (who is one of 11 members of his team on the field and does not play both offense and defense) or a baseball player (who cannot affect play but only respond to events as they occur), a basketball player has a direct and significant effect on the outcome of a game. For that reason, postseason success, or lack thereof, is an important part of a basketball player's legacy, much more so than that of a football player or baseball player. Obviously, this proposition has limits; no one would contend that Robert Horry is a better basketball player than Charles Barkley. It is quite useful in ranking comparable players, however. Why do you think Olajuwon is ranked above Robinson, who is ranked above Ewing?

i understand they use that for ranking, but i don't think they should. as i said, if you put a great player on a lousy team, he's not going to win anything, but he's still a great player. you can rank kobe as better than lebron because of his championships, but if kobe played for cleveland, he wouldn't have any championships either. if lebron played for the lakers, he'd be the champion right now. that's all i'm saying.
post #50 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by whacked View Post
The Bulls sucked royally during Jordan's first 10 years.

No they didn't.

In Jordan's first 10 seasons the Bulls made the playoffs EVERY year.

In his first 3, they lost in the first round.

In his next 3, they lost in the conference semis once and the conference finals twice.

In his next 3, they won the championship.

Not exactly sucking royally, by most definitions.
post #51 of 124
If Jordan never won an NBA title, he would be considered a better Dominique Wilkins.
post #52 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post
If Jordan never won an NBA title, he would be considered a better Dominique Wilkins.

Michael Jordan was the kind of player that would have won a title even on a shitty team. He just was.
post #53 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekunk07 View Post
i think more than any other sport, mj is the most clearly defined #1. list should go from 1 to 3

post #54 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
Michael Jordan was the kind of player that would have won a title even on a shitty team. He just was.

I could be wrong, but didn't Phil Jackson (with help from Tex Winter) introduce the Triangle offense? I go back and forth with people on whether it was Joe Montana or the West Coast Offense.
post #55 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post
Unlike a football player (who is one of 11 members of his team on the field and does not play both offense and defense) or a baseball player (who cannot affect play but only respond to events as they occur), a basketball player has a direct and significant effect on the outcome of a game. For that reason, postseason success, or lack thereof, is an important part of a basketball player's legacy, much more so than that of a football player or baseball player. Obviously, this proposition has limits; no one would contend that Robert Horry is a better basketball player than Charles Barkley. It is quite useful in ranking comparable players, however. Why do you think Olajuwon is ranked above Robinson, who is ranked above Ewing?

AC:

You don't think a pitcher has a direct effect on play in baseball?
post #56 of 124
sorry, you misunderstood, i said sport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiaroscuro View Post
post #57 of 124
i love iverson but i'm surprised he is on the top 50.
post #58 of 124
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by whacked View Post
A dozen of players put up dashing stats every year on bad teams too, all but a handful who later join winning systems where they put up less eyepopping numbers become forgotten. What's your point again?

A dozen players put Lebron level number and dominate games to the same extent every year?
Winning championship doesn't mean you are a great player. Charles Barkley and Karl Malone didn't win and their legacies are pretty secure.
post #59 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekunk07 View Post
sorry, you misunderstood, i said sport.

post #60 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeirpont View Post
A dozen players put Lebron level number and dominate games to the same extent every year?
Winning championship doesn't mean you are a great player. Charles Barkley and Karl Malone didn't win and their legacies are pretty secure.

Of course not LeBron's numbers, but close. I was only pointing out that the correlation between statistics and basketball greatness, whatever that means anymore, is streneous at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
Michael Jordan was the kind of player that would have won a title even on a shitty team. He just was.

I know this kind of statement if fun to say for shit and gigles, but there's really no way to prove or disprove it. After all, Phil and Scottie were there for the whole ride.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Slam Magazine's 50 Best NBA Players