2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time #19

[Y2K]

Bill Russell put up sub-par stats in a few Finals series yet that doesn't stop folks from considering him the leader of those Boston teams. You think Sheed was the leader of those Blazers? Damon Stoudemire?

Come on...

Bottom line Pippen put up legit MVP caliber production when Jordan left. He proved he was much more than just a second-fiddle... and any attempt to argue against that fact is futile.

All we know for sure about Pippen in Chicago, without Jordan, he put Grant Hill type numbers... with slightly better success in the playoffs.

In Portland, he put up complementary player stats for a balanced team that didn't rely on any single player to excel. He lost in a Game 7 both years... shooting 11 - 32 in the process (34% fg).

Those are facts. Trying to make any other claims seems to be a bit forced and full of conjecture that seems out of place in this exercise.

Wrong...

Pippen put up (legit) MVP production as the LEAD DOG in 94 and 95; he was a Top 3-5 player in the game withOut Jordan.

Get it right...

... and Scottie was past his prime in Portland but he was still the leader of that team on the court, on both sides of the court.

That's a fact....

Thus, my point stands: Pippen accomplished enough withOut Jordan to clearly prove he was more than a second-fiddle, and perfectly capable of leading a team... and again, any attept to argue otherwise is an exercise in futility.

That's not the point, tdk. The point is: What DID he do as a lead vs what he did playing next to Jordan.

Clearly he was no where near as successful as Kobe without Shaq. The pinnacle if Scottie Pippen's career was as a sidekick.

Jerry West was a sidekick. That's not a bad thing.

[thedangerouskitchen]

And again TDK, I have no idea how you *still* don't get the idea of weighting a multitude of variables to produce a judgment call.

No one says that winning titles TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERYTHING ELSE is all-important.

What some have determined is that the relative advantages on those other variables is enough to overcome the defect created by having fewer lead dog rings.

What you are doing is like someone calling someone a hypocrite because they say they like big tits, but then say they would fuck Jennifer Lawrence over some 300 pound chick, because "you said you like big tits and fatty clearly has bigger tits".

It's inane, and you need to stop doing this if you want to discuss these things seriously.

There is no consistency with how most fans evaluate/rank players yet I'm being scolded for pointing it out?

[thedangerouskitchen]

All we know for sure about Pippen in Chicago, without Jordan, he put Grant Hill type numbers... with slightly better success in the playoffs.

In Portland, he put up complementary player stats for a balanced team that didn't rely on any single player to excel. He lost in a Game 7 both years... shooting 11 - 32 in the process (34% fg).

Those are facts. Trying to make any other claims seems to be a bit forced and full of conjecture that seems out of place in this exercise.

Wrong...

Pippen put up (legit) MVP production as the LEAD DOG in 94 and 95; he was a Top 3-5 player in the game withOut Jordan.

Get it right...

... and Scottie was past his prime in Portland but he was still the leader of that team on the court, on both sides of the court.

That's a fact....

Thus, my point stands: Pippen accomplished enough withOut Jordan to clearly prove he was more than a second-fiddle, and perfectly capable of leading a team... and again, any attept to argue otherwise is an exercise in futility.

That's not the point, tdk. The point is: What DID he do as a lead vs what he did playing next to Jordan.

Clearly he was no where near as successful as Kobe without Shaq. The pinnacle if Scottie Pippen's career was as a sidekick.

Jerry West was a sidekick. That's not a bad thing.

West was a sidekick? I never heard that label used to describe Mr. Clutch... and that's precisely my point: Seems only in Pippen's case is that word / second-fiddle phrase used as "a bad thing".

[elmouse03]

Wrong...

Pippen put up (legit) MVP production as the LEAD DOG in 94 and 95; he was a Top 3-5 player in the game withOut Jordan.

Get it right...

... and Scottie was past his prime in Portland but he was still the leader of that team on the court, on both sides of the court.

That's a fact....

Thus, my point stands: Pippen accomplished enough withOut Jordan to clearly prove he was more than a second-fiddle, and perfectly capable of leading a team... and again, any attept to argue otherwise is an exercise in futility.

That's not the point, tdk. The point is: What DID he do as a lead vs what he did playing next to Jordan.

Clearly he was no where near as successful as Kobe without Shaq. The pinnacle if Scottie Pippen's career was as a sidekick.

Jerry West was a sidekick. That's not a bad thing.

West was a sidekick? I never heard that label used to describe Mr. Clutch... and that's precisely my point.

Seems only in Pippen's case is that word / second-fiddle phrase used... and my point is Scottie did enough without Jordan to prove he was perfectly capable of leading a team AND putting up MVP caliber production in the process.

West/Baylor is the one duo in which you can say that there was no 1 or 2.

[Y2K]

That's not the point, tdk. The point is: What DID he do as a lead vs what he did playing next to Jordan.

Clearly he was no where near as successful as Kobe without Shaq. The pinnacle if Scottie Pippen's career was as a sidekick.

Jerry West was a sidekick. That's not a bad thing.

West was a sidekick? I never heard that label used to describe Mr. Clutch... and that's precisely my point.

Seems only in Pippen's case is that word / second-fiddle phrase used... and my point is Scottie did enough without Jordan to prove he was perfectly capable of leading a team AND putting up MVP caliber production in the process.

West/Baylor is the one duo in which you can say that there was no 1 or 2.

In the earlier years, Baylor was the #1. West was the sidekick. It wasn't until 1965-66 that West came to the forefront as Baylor Never fully recovered from the knee injury. Baylor was still their team captain but West had a bigger role than in previous years.

[wailuaFC]

First time on my computer so Ill post some Karl vs. Moses relevant things
Karl
career 52/74 for 25/10/4 WS/48- .205 234.6 winshares
Best year 56/76 for 31/11/3 WS/48-.268 16.4 winshares

Moses
career 50/76 for 20/12/1 WS/48- .174 179.1 winshares
best year 51/76 for 31/15/2 WS/48- .218 15.4 Winshares



Karl
2 MVP
14 x all star
11 x first team all nba
3 x all defensive first team

Moses
1 ring
3 MVP
12 x all star
4x first team all nba
1x defensive first team


I just dont see why moses is rated so much higher then karl despite karl having an advantage in almost every aspect

[Bush4Ever]

There is no consistency with how most fans evaluate/rank players yet I'm being scolded for pointing it out?
a:

No, I'm saying you don't seem to understand how people are evaluating players in the first place, so your statement is inane.

[Bush4Ever]

Like I said earlier in this thread, because of how tight the spots immediately outside the top 12 are (to maybe top 20), a player who is ranked several spots higher in rank, may still be close to that player in absolute terms. For example:

1. 90
2. 86
3. 80
4. 79
5. 78
6. 77
7. 76
8. 75
9. 74
10. 73

Going from 1 to 3 is greater in absolute terms than going from 3 to 10, even though you are moving through more ranks from 3 to 10, just because of how tightly those players (3 to 10) are packed against each other. I think it's a similar case with Moses vs. Karl Malone here.

In my opinion, and like I've said before, the big jump is going from 0 lead dog rings to at least 1 such ring. And Moses has that and Malone doesn't. When combined with the MVPs (Moses also won a Finals MVP), world-class rebounding, general advantage over Kareem in H2Hs, I think he deserves the slight nod over Malone.

IMO, the 0 to 1 lead dog ring swings it on balance, IMO, especially considering Karl's main strength (longevity and volume statistics) is blunted somewhat by Moses also playing for an extremely long time at a high level. In fact, IIRC Moses is second to Karl Malone in

Just my opinion. YMMV and I think reasonable people can differ on this.

[elmouse03]

Like I said earlier in this thread, because of how tight the spots immediately outside the top 12 are (to maybe top 20), a player who is ranked several spots higher in rank, may still be close to that player in absolute terms. For example:

1. 90
2. 86
3. 80
4. 79
5. 78
6. 77
7. 76
8. 75
9. 74
10. 73

Going from 1 to 3 is greater in absolute terms than going from 3 to 10, even though you are moving through more ranks from 3 to 10, just because of how tightly those players (3 to 10) are packed against each other. I think it's a similar case with Moses vs. Karl Malone here.

In my opinion, and like I've said before, the big jump is going from 0 lead dog rings to at least 1 such ring. And Moses has that and Malone doesn't. When combined with the MVPs (Moses also won a Finals MVP), world-class rebounding, general advantage over Kareem in H2Hs, I think he deserves the slight nod over Malone.

IMO, the 0 to 1 lead dog ring swings it on balance, IMO, especially considering Karl's main strength (longevity and volume statistics) is blunted somewhat by Moses also playing for an extremely long time at a high level. In fact, IIRC Moses is second to Karl Malone in

Just my opinion. YMMV and I think reasonable people can differ on this.

I didn't realize how dominant Moses was in the 81 and 83 finals. Pretty much averaged 24ppg and 17rpg in the 2 finals. Won 6 rebounding titles in his career. That's more then Russell.

[thedangerouskitchen]

There is no consistency with how most fans evaluate/rank players yet I'm being scolded for pointing it out?
a:

No, I'm saying you don't seem to understand how people are evaluating players in the first place, so your statement is inane.

It's quite obvious just by looking at the list that many people themselves don't even understand how they rank players. How else can we justify Kobe at 8 all-time while Hondo is not even Top 20... or why Oscar is ranked so far ahead of Baylor... or why Karl Malone is ranked ahead of Isiah...?

These (among others) are glaring inconsistencies resulting from no consistent manner in which players are ranked.

[Robceltsfan]

There is no consistency with how most fans evaluate/rank players yet I'm being scolded for pointing it out?
a:

No, I'm saying you don't seem to understand how people are evaluating players in the first place, so your statement is inane.

It's quite obvious just by looking at the list that many people themselves don't even understand how they rank players. How else can we justify Kobe at 8 all-time while Hondo is not even Top 20... or why Oscar is ranked so far ahead of Baylor... or why Karl Malone is ranked ahead of Isiah...?

These (among others) are glaring inconsistencies resulting from no consistent manner in which players are ranked.

I hate having to bash a Celtic in favor of a Laker, but trying to compare Kobe to Hondo is insane. Havlicek was never a top 3 player in the league at any point. He never led the league in ANY statistical category at any point in his career (other than minutes played). He averaged 21/6/5, which is very respectable, but he did that in the fastest paced era in NBA history. Elgin Baylor, who's also yet to make this list, averaged 27/13/4 in a similar era. Havlicek never finished higher than 4th in the MVP vote. He only made 1st team All-NBA 4 times.

Yes, he won 8 titles, but he also played for arguably the most dominant franchise in sports history during that stretch (13 titles in 20 seasons). He had A LOT of help and statistically, he can't compare to his contemporaries.

This is very similar to Pippen. Yes, he was an integral piece on 6 championship teams. Yes, he was a great, great defender. However, he never did anything outside of Michael Jordan. He didn't win any titles. He didn't win any MVPs. He didn't even take a team to the Finals. Could he have with the right pieces around him? Maybe, we'll never know.

Same can be said for a guy like Kevin McHale. On the right team, as the #1 option, he might have been a career 25/10 type player. As it stands he was the #2 or #3 option on his very own team most of his career. Could McHale have led a different team to a title or won an MVP? Maybe, but again, we'll never know.

All we can evaluate a player on is WHAT THEY DID, not what they almost did, or might have done.

[elmouse03]

No, I'm saying you don't seem to understand how people are evaluating players in the first place, so your statement is inane.

It's quite obvious just by looking at the list that many people themselves don't even understand how they rank players. How else can we justify Kobe at 8 all-time while Hondo is not even Top 20... or why Oscar is ranked so far ahead of Baylor... or why Karl Malone is ranked ahead of Isiah...?

These (among others) are glaring inconsistencies resulting from no consistent manner in which players are ranked.

I hate having to bash a Celtic in favor of a Laker, but trying to compare Kobe to Hondo is insane. Havlicek was never a top 3 player in the league at any point. He never led the league in ANY statistical category at any point in his career (other than minutes played). He averaged 21/6/5, which is very respectable, but he did that in the fastest paced era in NBA history. Elgin Baylor, who's also yet to make this list, averaged 27/13/4 in a similar era. Havlicek never finished higher than 4th in the MVP vote. He only made 1st team All-NBA 4 times.

Yes, he won 8 titles, but he also played for arguably the most dominant franchise in sports history during that stretch (13 titles in 20 seasons). He had A LOT of help and statistically, he can't compare to his contemporaries.

This is very similar to Pippen. Yes, he was an integral piece on 6 championship teams. Yes, he was a great, great defender. However, he never did anything outside of Michael Jordan. He didn't win any titles. He didn't win any MVPs. He didn't even take a team to the Finals. Could he have with the right pieces around him? Maybe, we'll never know.

Same can be said for a guy like Kevin McHale. On the right team, as the #1 option, he might have been a career 25/10 type player. As it stands he was the #2 or #3 option on his very own team most of his career. Could McHale have led a different team to a title or won an MVP? Maybe, but again, we'll never know.

All we can evaluate a player on is WHAT THEY DID, not what they almost did, or might have done.

Yeah I am a big Hondo fan myself but the guy only had 2 seasons of putting up 25+ppg. Kobe had 12.

[876Stephen]

Why are people putting guys with zero rings like Malone and Baylor ahead of guys who actually won something. It seems like the love for Malona and Baylor is based on gaudy offenisve numbers.

I might as well vote for Iverson next round. He has monster numbers in the regular and postseason and has a well deserved MVP. Plus he went to the finals with less help than either of those players.

I just don't get it.

[elmouse03]

Why are people putting guys with zero rings like Malone and Baylor ahead of guys who actually won something. It seems like the love for Malona and Baylor is based on gaudy offenisve numbers.

I might as well vote for Iverson next round. He has monster numbers in the regular and postseason and has a well deserved MVP. Plus he went to the finals with less help than either of those players.

I just don't get it.

The whole ring argument gets overblown sometimes. There are players who have lead their teams to titles who Baylor and probably Malone are way better then.

[Robceltsfan]

Why are people putting guys with zero rings like Malone and Baylor ahead of guys who actually won something. It seems like the love for Malona and Baylor is based on gaudy offenisve numbers.

I might as well vote for Iverson next round. He has monster numbers in the regular and postseason and has a well deserved MVP. Plus he went to the finals with less help than either of those players.

I just don't get it.

Other than strictly PPG Iverson has no place in the top 30 discussion.

1 MVP
1 Finals appearance

Nothing else.

Karl Malone had far more team success and a far better all-around game than Iverson ever did. Comparing the two as near-equals is not possible.

[876Stephen]

Why are people putting guys with zero rings like Malone and Baylor ahead of guys who actually won something. It seems like the love for Malona and Baylor is based on gaudy offenisve numbers.

I might as well vote for Iverson next round. He has monster numbers in the regular and postseason and has a well deserved MVP. Plus he went to the finals with less help than either of those players.

I just don't get it.

Other than strictly PPG Iverson has no place in the top 30 discussion.

1 MVP
1 Finals appearance

Nothing else.

Karl Malone had far more team success and a far better all-around game than Iverson ever did. Comparing the two as near-equals is not possible.

Malone had far more team success with far more help than Iverson ever had, that's for sure. Plus made only 1 more finals than Iverson did. Iverson was a great passer when he he wanted to be. As evidenced by some of his assist totals.

The Malone and Baylor love is pretty unfathomable to me. Barry is greater than both them, sorry that's just the truth.

[876Stephen]

Why are people putting guys with zero rings like Malone and Baylor ahead of guys who actually won something. It seems like the love for Malona and Baylor is based on gaudy offenisve numbers.

I might as well vote for Iverson next round. He has monster numbers in the regular and postseason and has a well deserved MVP. Plus he went to the finals with less help than either of those players.

I just don't get it.

The whole ring argument gets overblown sometimes. There are players who have lead their teams to titles who Baylor and probably Malone are way better then.

Like who?

[elmouse03]

Why are people putting guys with zero rings like Malone and Baylor ahead of guys who actually won something. It seems like the love for Malona and Baylor is based on gaudy offenisve numbers.

I might as well vote for Iverson next round. He has monster numbers in the regular and postseason and has a well deserved MVP. Plus he went to the finals with less help than either of those players.

I just don't get it.

Other than strictly PPG Iverson has no place in the top 30 discussion.

1 MVP
1 Finals appearance

Nothing else.

Karl Malone had far more team success and a far better all-around game than Iverson ever did. Comparing the two as near-equals is not possible.

Malone had far more team success with far more help than Iverson ever had, that's for sure. Plus made only 1 more finals than Iverson did. Iverson was a great passer when he he wanted to be. As evidenced by some of his assist totals.

The Malone and Baylor love is pretty unfathomable to me. Barry is greater than both them, sorry that's just the truth.

It's only the truth to you and that's the truth.

[elmouse03]

Why are people putting guys with zero rings like Malone and Baylor ahead of guys who actually won something. It seems like the love for Malona and Baylor is based on gaudy offenisve numbers.

I might as well vote for Iverson next round. He has monster numbers in the regular and postseason and has a well deserved MVP. Plus he went to the finals with less help than either of those players.

I just don't get it.

The whole ring argument gets overblown sometimes. There are players who have lead their teams to titles who Baylor and probably Malone are way better then.

Like who?

Lets see.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awa ... s_mvp.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Take a look at some of the finals mvps and tell me that Baylor and/or Malone is or is not better then some of those who won it.

[876Stephen]

Other than strictly PPG Iverson has no place in the top 30 discussion.

1 MVP
1 Finals appearance

Nothing else.

Karl Malone had far more team success and a far better all-around game than Iverson ever did. Comparing the two as near-equals is not possible.

Malone had far more team success with far more help than Iverson ever had, that's for sure. Plus made only 1 more finals than Iverson did. Iverson was a great passer when he he wanted to be. As evidenced by some of his assist totals.

The Malone and Baylor love is pretty unfathomable to me. Barry is greater than both them, sorry that's just the truth.

It's only the truth to you and that's the truth.

Well i have the stats, accolades and postseason success to back that claim up.

Malone and Baylor. Some gaudy regular season numbers and that's it.