Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

ESPN top 100
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=98729
Page 1 of 2

Author:  312player [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:  ESPN top 100

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Lebron
4. Magic
5. Wilt
6. Bird
7. Russell
8. Duncan
9. Shaw
10. Hakeem


http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/nba ... ayers-ever

Author:  FavreFan [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Shaq and LeBron are too high. Hakeem and Oscar are ranked too low.

Author:  veganfan21 [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Hoiberg would go 40-42 with that roster. They don't fit his system.

Author:  312player [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Yeah. I'd have Oscar top 5 .. bump Bird down a few notches, Hakeem up. Shaq n Lebron are top 12 .. Lebron needs to kick some ass for a few more years to be top 5.

Author:  Beardown [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

312player wrote:
Yeah. I'd have Oscar top 5 .. bump Bird down a few notches, Hakeem up. Shaq n Lebron are top 12 .. Lebron needs to kick some ass for a few more years to be top 5.


What are you talking about. Needs to play longer?

Lebron has already played 13 seasons. You know how many seasons Jordan played for the Bulls? 13. So, no, Lebron doesn't need to play longer to be top 5

Author:  312player [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

If lebron retired tomorrow he's not ahead of Duncan or Magic or Robertson. He's in the Shaq tier now, 10-12 the best all time..a few more years of what he's doing now and another ring n he's top 5.

Author:  Chet Coppock's Fur Coat [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

MJ, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Duncan, LeBron, Russell, Bird, Oscar

Author:  leashyourkids [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Jordan isn't high enough.

Author:  Douchebag [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Brian Shaw is ranked much too high on 312player's list.

Author:  RFDC [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Douchebag wrote:
Brian Shaw is ranked much too high on 312player's list.

:lol:

Author:  ZephMarshack [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Good to see no Kobe in the top 10.

Author:  bigfan [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Where is Dirk?

Author:  ZephMarshack [ Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

bigfan wrote:
Where is Dirk?

17th. Not sure I agree with having Malone being at 16 ahead of both him and Barkley.

Author:  312player [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

ZephMarshack wrote:
bigfan wrote:
Where is Dirk?

17th. Not sure I agree with having Malone being at 16 ahead of both him and Barkley.



All great, but I'd agree Malone > Dirk and Barkley > Dirk and Malone > Barkley.

Author:  billypootons [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

lebron has made 5 finals in a row in the salary cap era, that's pretty damn impressive.

Author:  312player [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

billypootons wrote:
lebron has made 5 finals in a row in the salary cap era, that's pretty damn impressive.



He's a great player, he makes everyone around him better..That said, nobody ever pulled the Collusion he did with Bosh and Wade in Miami, Salary cap or not. I don't see him winning another ring unless he goes to Golden State or San Antonio or OK City. He played his whole career in the East while the East was kinda weak.

Author:  Powerhouse233 [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

312player wrote:
Yeah. I'd have Oscar top 5 .. bump Bird down a few notches, Hakeem up. Shaq n Lebron are top 12 .. Lebron needs to kick some ass for a few more years to be top 5.


You have Oscar top 5 over Shaq and Lebron? I don't see the justification for that. Shaq owned the NBA for years and had one of the greatest peaks of all time. Oscar Robertson obviously put up some incredible stats but it was in a league where the pace was far faster and the the field goal percentage was exceptionally low, thus inflating numbers. Oscar won 1 championship in his career and that was as the second best player on his team behind Kareem. Shaq was the undisputed best player on three teams. I would put Shaq and LeBron over Oscar all time.

Author:  312player [ Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Not efficient? 49% is very efficient, The Celtics won it like 9 of his first ten years in the league. Have you seen his workload? He averaged like 47 minutes a game for a decade.

Author:  IMU [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Where does Butler end up in 10 more years? 51-60?

Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Isaiah Thomas was better than Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, Steph Curry, and David Robinson. They shouldn't not be rated above him on this list.

Author:  Douchebag [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

long time guy wrote:
Isaiah Thomas was better than Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, Steph Curry, and David Robinson. They shouldn't not be rated above him on this list.

Image

Author:  JORR [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

long time guy wrote:
Isaiah Thomas was better than Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, Steph Curry, and David Robinson. They shouldn't not be rated above him on this list.


The jury is still out on Curry but I agree about Stockton and Pippen. I'm not sure how you can say a great player who is 5'10" is better than a great player who is 7'0" though.

Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say a great player who is 5'10" is better than a great player who is 7'0" though.


What do you mean by this? If the 5'10" player impacts the game more, he's better.

Author:  JORR [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say a great player who is 5'10" is better than a great player who is 7'0" though.


What do you mean by this? If the 5'10" player impacts the game more, he's better.


That's really subjective. We're talking about two of the greatest players ever. Obviously the seven footer is capable of impacting the game more. Kobe can hog the ball like a goof and impact the game more than Shaq but that doesn't mean he was a better player. In the post-Jordan years the big man has become unfairly maligned and dismissed with shit like "he's just big". It's no different than saying Curry "can just shoot".

Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say a great player who is 5'10" is better than a great player who is 7'0" though.


What do you mean by this? If the 5'10" player impacts the game more, he's better.


That's really subjective. We're talking about two of the greatest players ever. Obviously the seven footer is capable of impacting the game more. Kobe can hog the ball like a goof and impact the game more than Shaq but that doesn't mean he was a better player. In the post-Jordan years the big man has become unfairly maligned and dismissed with shit like "he's just big". It's no different than saying Curry "can just shoot".


Isaiah Thomas was the best player on a team that won two championships and was an injury away from winning a third. Robinson had a reputation for coming up small in the playoffs. He only became a winner once Duncan came aboard. Thomas's teams also had to go through the Celtics and Lakers to win championships. Even During Robinson's best season, his MVP season, he was thoroughly outplayed during the playoffs by Olajuwon. Thomas dominated every guard he matched up against aside from Magic. The size difference necessitated that he couldn't guard Magic. He beat Boston and L.A. without the benefit of having great players on his team. Pat Riley once suggested that for about a Four year stretch he provided some of the best point guard play that the NBA has ever seen.

Author:  JORR [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

long time guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say a great player who is 5'10" is better than a great player who is 7'0" though.


What do you mean by this? If the 5'10" player impacts the game more, he's better.


That's really subjective. We're talking about two of the greatest players ever. Obviously the seven footer is capable of impacting the game more. Kobe can hog the ball like a goof and impact the game more than Shaq but that doesn't mean he was a better player. In the post-Jordan years the big man has become unfairly maligned and dismissed with shit like "he's just big". It's no different than saying Curry "can just shoot".


Isaiah Thomas was the best player on a team that won two championships and was an injury away from winning a third. Robinson had a reputation for coming up small in the playoffs. He only became a winner once Duncan came aboard. Thomas's teams also had to go through the Celtics and Lakers to win championships. Even During Robinson's best season, his MVP season, he was thoroughly outplayed during the playoffs by Olajuwon. Thomas dominated every guard he matched up against aside from Magic. The size difference necessitated that he couldn't guard Magic. He beat Boston and L.A. without the benefit of having great players on his team. Pat Riley once suggested that for about a Four year stretch he provided some of the best point guard play that the NBA has ever seen.


You don't have to make a case for Thomas' greatness with me. I saw him throw his team on his back in many fourth quarters. I just give more weight to a big man. I couldn't say he was better than Nate Thurmond or Bob Lanier either. If I'm picking first in a two man draft of Thomas and Robinson, I've gotta go Robinson every time.

Author:  312player [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

long time guy wrote:
Isaiah Thomas was better than Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, Steph Curry, and David Robinson. They shouldn't not be rated above him on this list.




Agreed, he's a top 20 player all time..the others are not. Where do you think A.I. should be ranked?,



Curry could be top 10 in 12 years, too early to say.

Author:  FavreFan [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

312player wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Isaiah Thomas was better than Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, Steph Curry, and David Robinson. They shouldn't not be rated above him on this list.




Agreed, he's a top 20 player all time..the others are not. Where do you think A.I. should be ranked?,



Curry could be top 10 in 12 years, too early to say.

Curry could be top 2 in 12 years.

Author:  long time guy [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

312player wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Isaiah Thomas was better than Scottie Pippen, John Stockton, Steph Curry, and David Robinson. They shouldn't not be rated above him on this list.




Agreed, he's a top 20 player all time..the others are not. Where do you think A.I. should be ranked?,



Curry could be top 10 in 12 years, too early to say.



A.I is one of the tougher guys to evaluate. He was one of the most unique players but when it comes to best I probably place him in the 45-50 range. That's if I'm really going to be objective and leave personal bias out.

He shot a low percentage. Philly actually got better the year they traded him for Andre Miller. ended up making the playoffs after he thought they were dead in the water. Detroit got worse after trading him for Billups. He did take Philly to the finals and that will always be something of note.

He was one of the more selfish players that I have ever seen playing in the league. His style of play would never mesh with other great players and that is why Larry Brown surrounded him with role players. Weak defender also. he got steals but he gambled alot. He tended to get torched on defense and that is why it was necessary for Snow and Mckie to take his cover.

45-50 would be his range for me.


His scoring ability for a guy that size is only rivaled by Curry. Curry in the long run will be better because of his overall skill level. He just has to do it for a few more years.

I still place Isaiah over Curry because of his ability to play defense. Curry wouldn't stand a chance with Checking Isaiah. Isaiah was the ultimate competitor too. He was in Jordan's class as a competitor. He would take the challenge of guarding Curry personal. Isaiah would be too quick for Curry but Curry's range is something I have never seen. That is definitely an equalizer for him.

Author:  leashyourkids [ Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: ESPN top 100

Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say a great player who is 5'10" is better than a great player who is 7'0" though.


What do you mean by this? If the 5'10" player impacts the game more, he's better.


That's really subjective. We're talking about two of the greatest players ever. Obviously the seven footer is capable of impacting the game more. Kobe can hog the ball like a goof and impact the game more than Shaq but that doesn't mean he was a better player. In the post-Jordan years the big man has become unfairly maligned and dismissed with shit like "he's just big". It's no different than saying Curry "can just shoot".


Ranking the best players ever is a subjective endeavor, but saying someone is just "better" because he's taller doesn't make any sense. I mean, you're basically saying that if all things are equal between two players, great or not, you'd take the taller guy. OK. But clearly, things are never equal. They are likely to have very different styles and impact the game in vastly different ways, and we subjectively evaluate those things and assign one as better, regardless of size.

Regarding your point that big men are unfairly maligned, I disagree. People may say Will Perdue was "just big", and they would be correct, but people aren't saying that about Hakeem, Wilt, or Shaq. The style of the NBA has clearly changed to devalue traditional "big men," but every one of these teams would kill to win. If there was a market inefficiency to exploit for undervalued big men, they would do it. Traditional back-to-the-basket big men have deficiencies in today's game that are difficult to overcome in terms of matchups and game speed, so it has to be worth it. Hakeem, Shaq, and Wilt would all be fine today, but there aren't any of them out there at the moment.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/