Backpick all time rankings..

[FPL]

Griff - Scottie couldn't guard quick PGs well. For example, when they played the Pistons, Jordan guarded Isiah much better. Superior lateral quickness and foot speed.

[Sudanese Sensation]

Griff - Scottie couldn't guard quick PGs well. For example, when they played the Pistons, Jordan guarded Isiah much better. Superior lateral quickness and foot speed.

Do you consider pre injuries Derrick Rose a quick pg ?

[FPL]

Griff - Scottie couldn't guard quick PGs well. For example, when they played the Pistons, Jordan guarded Isiah much better. Superior lateral quickness and foot speed.

Do you consider pre injuries Derrick Rose a quick pg ?

Yeah I think so. Even when he couldn't hit a jumper, he could still get to the basket at will.

[Lamelo_Ball]

Griff - Scottie couldn't guard quick PGs well. For example, when they played the Pistons, Jordan guarded Isiah much better. Superior lateral quickness and foot speed.

so scottie can guard average speed pg's,, fast/strong sg's, fast/strong sf's, quick/long/strong pf's, undersized c's


again i ask. what did pippen do to you bro lol


regardless of pippen not matchup up well with iverson or some shit... who the fuck else guarded more different types of players well


nobody did... not even garnett covered more people


why nitpick when no other guy can do what pippen did + guard speedy PG's... lol

[Sudanese Sensation]

Griff - Scottie couldn't guard quick PGs well. For example, when they played the Pistons, Jordan guarded Isiah much better. Superior lateral quickness and foot speed.

Do you consider pre injuries Derrick Rose a quick pg ?

Yeah I think so. Even when he couldn't hit a jumper, he could still get to the basket at will.

I'll just throw this out there:

One of the biggest factors in the Miami Heat's 4-1 Eastern Conference Finals win over the Chicago Bulls was the defense LeBron James (a 6'8 small forward) played on Derrick Rose (a 6'3 point guard, one of the league's quickest players, and the NBA MVP). LeBron took over Rose duty in critical moments, including entire fourth quarters. And the two-time MVP clearly shut down his successor.

But the level to which LeBron locked up Rose is still amazing, even for those who watched every second of the series. Via J.E. Skeets, ESPN's Stats and Info Department put together the data to show how incredible James' defense on Rose was in this series.

After going 0-for-5 from the floor with a turnover when guarded by LeBron James in Game 4, Derrick Rose struggled against him once again Thursday, going 1-for-10 with two turnovers in Game 5. Rose shot 6.3 percent from the floor in the series when defended by James, lowest among any player that defended him on five or more plays.

That's just unbelievable -- 1-15 for the MVP over two critical playoff games when defending by a player five inches taller and maybe 50 pounds heavier. There's a reason LeBron makes the All-Defense team every year, and while he'll continue to for the next several years. That's just unfair.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/5/27/ ... cago-bulls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lamelo_Ball]

Do you consider pre injuries Derrick Rose a quick pg ?

Yeah I think so. Even when he couldn't hit a jumper, he could still get to the basket at will.

I'll just throw this out there:

One of the biggest factors in the Miami Heat's 4-1 Eastern Conference Finals win over the Chicago Bulls was the defense LeBron James (a 6'8 small forward) played on Derrick Rose (a 6'3 point guard, one of the league's quickest players, and the NBA MVP). LeBron took over Rose duty in critical moments, including entire fourth quarters. And the two-time MVP clearly shut down his successor.

But the level to which LeBron locked up Rose is still amazing, even for those who watched every second of the series. Via J.E. Skeets, ESPN's Stats and Info Department put together the data to show how incredible James' defense on Rose was in this series.

After going 0-for-5 from the floor with a turnover when guarded by LeBron James in Game 4, Derrick Rose struggled against him once again Thursday, going 1-for-10 with two turnovers in Game 5. Rose shot 6.3 percent from the floor in the series when defended by James, lowest among any player that defended him on five or more plays.

That's just unbelievable -- 1-15 for the MVP over two critical playoff games when defending by a player five inches taller and maybe 50 pounds heavier. There's a reason LeBron makes the All-Defense team every year, and while he'll continue to for the next several years. That's just unfair.

https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/5/27/ ... cago-bulls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lebron was a good defender for about 2 years


even i admit i liked his 2012,13 versions ... he had 2 guys that could bail him out. aside from clutch play he was the perfect basketball player. didn't chase triple doubles nearly as much. gave effort on defense. posted up


lebron back then was a COMPLETELY different player than he is now

[Lamelo_Ball]

Griff - Scottie couldn't guard quick PGs well. For example, when they played the Pistons, Jordan guarded Isiah much better. Superior lateral quickness and foot speed.

Do you consider pre injuries Derrick Rose a quick pg ?

Yeah I think so. Even when he couldn't hit a jumper, he could still get to the basket at will.

the thing about rose is you can give him space... pippen also would do ok vs rose because he wouldn't have to body him up on the perimeter

having that 3-4 feet inbetween you and him gave lebron the ability to recover on any driving attempt


if however lebron tried guarding a guy like chris jackson. then it might be a bit different

[thedangerouskitchen]

Ignoring everything else, I would love to hear an argument— even a drunken, rambling one— for Pippen over KG.

Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension skills, or maybe it's you who should put down the bottle. I never said Pippen should be ranked ahead of KG, little bitch.

Why should they be ranked so much closer then, Grif...eh, I mean, TDK?

PS: you have forfeited the right to ever call anyone a little bitch again in this community. You forfeited said right when you, as a man in his 50’s, cried to the ProBoards admins in an effort to shut down an entire internet community because a poster (house) hurt your wittle feelings online by changing a word filter (something easy to do against you because you’re hilariously and predictably repetitive).

You’re a caricature and a punchline here.

Because pippen was the undisputed second best player on the greatest dynasty in modern NBA history, for starters (i.e.; impact)... because he was the defensive floor general on some of the best defensive teams in NBA history... because every one of his former teammates (including Jordan) will attest to the significant impact he had with respect to making them better, or making the game easier for them... because he's got the longevity, because he was one of the greatest all-around players ever, because he was a MVP caliber force without Jordan (while his team played .400 ball when he wasn't on the floor when mike retired)... because he had more team success (post bulls) than did KG in Minnesota... soooo many reasons why Pip should be right-there with KG using the criteria for this list.

Refute that... and FTR yes, you are a little bitch because you make smart-ass comments after you fail to comprehend what you read, and because you will no doubt fail to refute my points and instead deflect... just like a little bitch.

Prove me wrong.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Pippen is universally regarded as one of the greatest / most versatile defenders ever, and arguably THE greatest perimeter and team defender ever... and we're knocking him for not being able to lock-down lightning fast 6-foot PG's??

Did KG? Can draymond green or kawhi Leonard defend Westbrook?

Hardly... come on people.

As for LeBron / Rose... James did nothing except play 5 feet off rose, taking away his first step / dribble and daring him to chuck long-range jumpers or pass to his teammates (none of whom could make a shot in that series to save their lives). Rose, being the alpha MVP, chose to shoot... and he missed.

Simple as that..

Call it "smart" defense by LeBron, yes... but nothing "great" like pippen picking up Msgic full court and harassing and disrupting his ability to get the Lakers set in their offense.

Big difference when put in perspective.

[Bush4Ever35]

Pippen absolutely does not have "great longevity".

He was an all-star caliber player from 1990 to 1998.

By contrast, KG made 15 all-star games.

[elmouse03]

Great thread guys.

[vcsgrizzfan]

It's kind of amusing watching the class clowns (Griff and TDK) trying to debate the smart kids and getting their shit pushed in and never realizing it. Their lack of self awareness of both their biases and lack of intelligence has reached legendary levels.

[kobeunderbite]

This is sad.

[Y2K]

You were already provided with several examples.

"Pippen 23rd but KG Top 8... Magic/Bird borderline Top 10... Karl Malone ahead of Kobe, etc., etc... it's laughable in too many ways to count, really." - TDK

So what's the problem according to you?

Malone played his entire career alongside another all-time great HOFER and together they didn't accomplish squat... so exactly how did he have a greater impact on his team/s than Kobe, who was intrumental on 5 Championhip teams (as a #2 and a top dog)? Go ahead and explain why you thing Malone should get the nod.

You're still falling back onto the "championship rings" concept instead of the various analytics provided. Start here: secondary scoring threat. Can you name a championship team over the past 30 years that hasn't had a secondary scoring threat?

[thedangerouskitchen]

"Pippen 23rd but KG Top 8... Magic/Bird borderline Top 10... Karl Malone ahead of Kobe, etc., etc... it's laughable in too many ways to count, really." - TDK

So what's the problem according to you?

Malone played his entire career alongside another all-time great HOFER and together they didn't accomplish squat... so exactly how did he have a greater impact on his team/s than Kobe, who was intrumental on 5 Championhip teams (as a #2 and a top dog)? Go ahead and explain why you thing Malone should get the nod.

You're still falling back onto the "championship rings" concept instead of the various analytics provided. Start here: secondary scoring threat. Can you name a championship team over the past 30 years that hasn't had a secondary scoring threat?

This list is about "the impact each (player) had in his own time over the course of a career" and "ranks the players who have provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning championships over the course of their careers".

So using that criteria, in what way was Malone's "impact" greater than Kobe's (OR Stockton's for that matter) insofar as increasing the odds of their respective teams winning championships?

How can you define "impact" withOut looking at the results of that impact on the bottom-line objective of the game, which is Winning / team success?

It's an "exercise" in futility with foolish criteria, is what it is... and as such it has zero credibility, which is what I said from the outset.

[Y2K]

Malone played his entire career alongside another all-time great HOFER and together they didn't accomplish squat... so exactly how did he have a greater impact on his team/s than Kobe, who was intrumental on 5 Championhip teams (as a #2 and a top dog)? Go ahead and explain why you thing Malone should get the nod.

You're still falling back onto the "championship rings" concept instead of the various analytics provided. Start here: secondary scoring threat. Can you name a championship team over the past 30 years that hasn't had a secondary scoring threat?

This list is about "the impact each (player) had in his own time over the course of a career" and "ranks the players who have provided the largest increase in the odds of a team winning championships over the course of their careers".

So using that criteria, in what way was Malone's "impact" greater than Kobe's (OR Stockton's for that matter) insofar as increasing the odds of their respective teams winning championships?

How can you define "impact" withOut looking at the results of that impact on the bottom-line objective of the game, which is Winning / team success?

It's an "exercise" in futility with foolish criteria, is what it is... and as such it has zero credibility, which is what I said from the outset.

Karl Malone didn't win any championships but that does not take away the fact that:

1. The Jazz regular season record was 919-511 (64%) over 18 seasons in games that he played.

2. He was never a negative defensive player (DBPM) in 19 seasons.

3. He had 11 prime seasons with 18 seasons of quality longevity.



Contrary:

1. Not only was Kobe a negative defensive player in multiple seasons but he was one for his career.

2. Kobe had 7 prime seasons. His physical peak was marred by knee surguries. The last three seasons of his career were the "Father Time" years.

[Bush4Ever35]

It's easily the case that player A can increase the odds of winning a game more than player B can increase the odds, even if player B plays on a more successful team in an absolute sense.

Player A: Changes the probability of beating an average team from 50 to 70 percent.
Player B: Changes the probability of beating an average team from 60 to 75 percent.

Player A plays on a worse team that will have less success long-term, but player A also increases the odds more than player B.

But Karl Malone and Kobe's rankings were razor-close to each other in the first place, and if Malone didn't have god-tier longevity, Kobe would have almost certainly been slotted over him.

Like Y2K illustrates above, winning in a continuous construct, not a binary one. There are gradients to winning, not just "guys who win a title" and "guys that don't win a title".

Interestingly, the scouting report on Stockton was less flattering than I was anticipating. I basically knew what he was going to say going in, but the tone and severity of it was a little more harsh than I expected, IIRC.

[vcsgrizzfan]

It's easily the case that player A can increase the odds of winning a game more than player B can increase the odds, even if player B plays on a more successful team in an absolute sense.

Player A: Changes the probability of beating an average team from 50 to 70 percent.
Player B: Changes the probability of beating an average team from 60 to 75 percent.

Player A plays on a worse team that will have less success long-term, but player A also increases the odds more than player B.

But Karl Malone and Kobe's rankings were razor-close to each other in the first place, and if Malone didn't have god-tier longevity, Kobe would have almost certainly been slotted over him.

Like Y2K illustrates above, winning in a continuous construct, not a binary one. There are gradients to winning, not just "guys who win a title" and "guys that don't win a title".

Interestingly, the scouting report on Stockton was less flattering than I was anticipating. I basically knew what he was going to say going in, but the tone and severity of it was a little more harsh than I expected, IIRC.

In that same vein, I think FPL pointed out that the author would had Magic 4th overall if he had greater longevity. I'm sure there's an element to that with Bird as well, along with some very pedestrian playofg performances.

[FPL]

In that same vein, I think FPL pointed out that the author would had Magic 4th overall if he had greater longevity. I'm sure there's an element to that with Bird as well, along with some very pedestrian playofg performances.

I don't know how high he'd rate Bird, but I'm sure it would be higher if he had a more complete career. He ranks his prime years very high in that writeup. He does admittedly have an LA bias though (went to UCLA where he wrote for the paper, and covered the Lakers for the LA Times blog a few years back), so it wouldn't surprise me if he had a healthy Magic above a healthy Bird.

[FPL]

It's easily the case that player A can increase the odds of winning a game more than player B can increase the odds, even if player B plays on a more successful team in an absolute sense.

Player A: Changes the probability of beating an average team from 50 to 70 percent.
Player B: Changes the probability of beating an average team from 60 to 75 percent.

Player A plays on a worse team that will have less success long-term, but player A also increases the odds more than player B.

But Karl Malone and Kobe's rankings were razor-close to each other in the first place, and if Malone didn't have god-tier longevity, Kobe would have almost certainly been slotted over him.

Like Y2K illustrates above, winning in a continuous construct, not a binary one. There are gradients to winning, not just "guys who win a title" and "guys that don't win a title".

Interestingly, the scouting report on Stockton was less flattering than I was anticipating. I basically knew what he was going to say going in, but the tone and severity of it was a little more harsh than I expected, IIRC.

In general I think I'd prefer Player B. This is an old thread by ElGee (and he weighs the portability differences more now I believe), but in general, the higher you get in SRS, the harder it is to scale:

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewto ... ?t=1197767" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's also the fact that in general, even great teams don't have a really high chance of winning in a single year:

Included below are the team championship odds based on SRS using this method:

14 95.2%
13 92.0%
12 87.4%
11 82.2%
10 72.1%
9 62.7%
8 52.4%
7 35.3%
6 22.3%
5 16.3%
4 9.9%
3 3.7%
2 0.8%
1 0.4%
< 0 0.0%

Of course the longer you keep a core together and the healthier you are, the more expected championships you'll have.