Backpick all time rankings..

[elmouse03]

Well I wouldn't say Wilt had a low bball iq. He just wasn't committed to winning as much as he should have been.

[FPL]

Well I wouldn't say Wilt had a low bball iq. He just wasn't committed to winning as much as he should have been.

My issue with Wilt is that he didn't have a high-level understanding of the game.

If you read the books he's written, or listen to his interviews and such, he describes things in elementary terms. Like, when talking about passing, it doesn't get beyond assists for him. When talking about shooting ability, it doesn't get beyond field goal percentage for him. Early in his career, he was content taking every shot (though a lot of this is on McGuire and ownership), because he felt in a vacuum he was the best scorer (not realizing that it made the team predictable offensively and easier to stop, and made it harder for his teammates to get in a rhythm in the playoffs, when he'd face the Celtics, and Russell would limit his attempts). He played every minute on the court, because he felt that he was the best option, not noting that he was less effective as games went on, particularly as he put on weight. if On the other hand, if you read books by contemporaries (Russell, Robertson, West, Jabbar), there's a generally more cerebral understanding of what's going on on the court.

I feel Wilt had legit tunnel vision, and he needed some feedback to see how he was playing. Maybe that means today, with some of the better data we have, he'd see the +/- metrics, or hell, even the turnovers (with a gun to my head, I think Wilt probably averaged 6 per game for his career, and close to 10 a game during his high scoring years), that Wilt would correct his play. Or that some of the analytics scouting reports that smarter players utilize (Battier for instance is a guy who consumed them) might get through to him.

[elmouse03]

Well I wouldn't say Wilt had a low bball iq. He just wasn't committed to winning as much as he should have been.

My issue with Wilt is that he didn't have a high-level understanding of the game.

If you read the books he's written, or listen to his interviews and such, he describes things in elementary terms. Like, when talking about passing, it doesn't get beyond assists for him. When talking about shooting ability, it doesn't get beyond field goal percentage for him. Early in his career, he was content taking every shot (though a lot of this is on McGuire and ownership), because he felt in a vacuum he was the best scorer (not realizing that it made the team predictable offensively and easier to stop, and made it harder for his teammates to get in a rhythm in the playoffs, when he'd face the Celtics, and Russell would limit his attempts). He played every minute on the court, because he felt that he was the best option, not noting that he was less effective as games went on, particularly as he put on weight. if On the other hand, if you read books by contemporaries (Russell, Robertson, West, Jabbar), there's a generally more cerebral understanding of what's going on on the court.

I feel Wilt had legit tunnel vision, and he needed some feedback to see how he was playing. Maybe that means today, with some of the better data we have, he'd see the +/- metrics, or hell, even the turnovers (with a gun to my head, I think Wilt probably averaged 6 per game for his career, and close to 10 a game during his high scoring years), that Wilt would correct his play. Or that some of the analytics scouting reports that smarter players utilize (Battier for instance is a guy who consumed them) might get through to him.

Wilt's selfishness is well documented.

[Sudanese Sensation]

Well I wouldn't say Wilt had a low bball iq. He just wasn't committed to winning as much as he should have been.

My issue with Wilt is that he didn't have a high-level understanding of the game.

If you read the books he's written, or listen to his interviews and such, he describes things in elementary terms. Like, when talking about passing, it doesn't get beyond assists for him. When talking about shooting ability, it doesn't get beyond field goal percentage for him. Early in his career, he was content taking every shot (though a lot of this is on McGuire and ownership), because he felt in a vacuum he was the best scorer (not realizing that it made the team predictable offensively and easier to stop, and made it harder for his teammates to get in a rhythm in the playoffs, when he'd face the Celtics, and Russell would limit his attempts). He played every minute on the court, because he felt that he was the best option, not noting that he was less effective as games went on, particularly as he put on weight. if On the other hand, if you read books by contemporaries (Russell, Robertson, West, Jabbar), there's a generally more cerebral understanding of what's going on on the court.

I feel Wilt had legit tunnel vision, and he needed some feedback to see how he was playing. Maybe that means today, with some of the better data we have, he'd see the +/- metrics, or hell, even the turnovers (with a gun to my head, I think Wilt probably averaged 6 per game for his career, and close to 10 a game during his high scoring years), that Wilt would correct his play. Or that some of the analytics scouting reports that smarter players utilize (Battier for instance is a guy who consumed them) might get through to him.

I forgot which coach it was but one of Wilt's coaches convinced Wilt to play a more team oriented game by letting him think it was his decision.

[elmouse03]

Well I wouldn't say Wilt had a low bball iq. He just wasn't committed to winning as much as he should have been.

My issue with Wilt is that he didn't have a high-level understanding of the game.

If you read the books he's written, or listen to his interviews and such, he describes things in elementary terms. Like, when talking about passing, it doesn't get beyond assists for him. When talking about shooting ability, it doesn't get beyond field goal percentage for him. Early in his career, he was content taking every shot (though a lot of this is on McGuire and ownership), because he felt in a vacuum he was the best scorer (not realizing that it made the team predictable offensively and easier to stop, and made it harder for his teammates to get in a rhythm in the playoffs, when he'd face the Celtics, and Russell would limit his attempts). He played every minute on the court, because he felt that he was the best option, not noting that he was less effective as games went on, particularly as he put on weight. if On the other hand, if you read books by contemporaries (Russell, Robertson, West, Jabbar), there's a generally more cerebral understanding of what's going on on the court.

I feel Wilt had legit tunnel vision, and he needed some feedback to see how he was playing. Maybe that means today, with some of the better data we have, he'd see the +/- metrics, or hell, even the turnovers (with a gun to my head, I think Wilt probably averaged 6 per game for his career, and close to 10 a game during his high scoring years), that Wilt would correct his play. Or that some of the analytics scouting reports that smarter players utilize (Battier for instance is a guy who consumed them) might get through to him.

I forgot which coach it was but one of Wilt's coaches convinced Wilt to play a more team oriented game by letting him think it was his decision.

Either Hannum or Sharman.

[Odogg]

Sounds like Sharman

[FPL]

Yeah I think it was Sharman.

Hannum was a man's man, an ex-Marine. There's a story that he openly challenged Wilt to a fight at some point, and said that only one of them was walking out of the locker room (they hashed things out that day and turned the team around). He was pretty cerebral though. Only guy to beat the Russell Celtics as a coach (and he did so twice - once with the Hawks, once with the Sixers).

[elmouse03]

Yeah I think it was Sharman.

Hannum was a man's man, an ex-Marine. There's a story that he openly challenged Wilt to a fight at some point, and said that only one of them was walking out of the locker room (they hashed things out that day and turned the team around). He was pretty cerebral though. Only guy to beat the Russell Celtics as a coach (and he did so twice - once with the Hawks, once with the Sixers).

Hannum was/is underrated as a coach. I think he has an aba championship too.

[Lamelo_Ball]

garnett being 8th ruined this list


another selection that makes zero sense... his spacing/versatility/2 way effectiveness/longevity/length/outside shooting/post up scoring/play making should have placed him above jordan

garnett can be THE MAN and your DEFENSIVE ANCHOR... and a complimentary player that works with anyone

jordan can't


what did jordan play? 9 seasons as a bull in reality?


1985 - 30 win team
1986 - missed entire season. swept in playoffs
1987 - losing team
1988 - 50 win team but jordan hogged like crazy
1989 - first year he could really blend well with others
1990 - choke
1991 - beat a washed up lakers team with no center
1992 - beat hakeems future sidekick
1993 - beat a guy that didn't care about basketball. paxson bail out
1994 - missed entire season
1995 - missed entire season. sucked in playoffs
1996 - worst finals ever. saved by rodman
1997 - got every call. kerr bail out
1998 - got every call. push off
1999 - missed entire season
2000 - missed entire season
2001 - missed entire season
2002 - total waste, missed playoffs, not even 3rd team all nba
2003 - total waste, missed playoffs, not even 3rd team all nba





the bold are the only seasons anyones really willing to pay top dollar for. this is a genius calculator top 7 all time career that factors in everything?


jordan wasn't his teams best playmaker.. not even close to a top rebounder... couldn't stretch the floor... couldn't play off the ball... couldn't play more than 2 positions. and hes leaving a shit ton of years on the table for your franchise


what the fuck????? and winning isn't supposed to count for anything ( see karl malones ranking )


shut this thread down


@FPL ... you have the power

[Sudanese Sensation]

Yeah I think it was Sharman.

Hannum was a man's man, an ex-Marine. There's a story that he openly challenged Wilt to a fight at some point, and said that only one of them was walking out of the locker room (they hashed things out that day and turned the team around). He was pretty cerebral though. Only guy to beat the Russell Celtics as a coach (and he did so twice - once with the Hawks, once with the Sixers).

I read that. Wilt had flaws but being a violent guy wasn't one of them. I suspect his inability to listen or accept instruction is what upset Hannum.

He needed a coach like a Popps, Riley or Jackson who knew how to employ reverse psychology. The challenge to get people to do what you want them to do, who otherwise wouldn't, is to convince them it was their idea in the first place.

[Sudanese Sensation]

garnett being 8th ruined this list


another selection that makes zero sense... his spacing/versatility/2 way effectiveness/longevity/length/outside shooting/post up scoring/play making should have placed him above jordan

garnett can be THE MAN and your DEFENSIVE ANCHOR... and a complimentary player that works with anyone

jordan can't


what did jordan play? 9 seasons as a bull in reality?


1985 - 30 win team
1986 - missed entire season. swept in playoffs
1987 - losing team
1988 - 50 win team but jordan hogged like crazy
1989 - first year he could really blend well with others
1990 - choke
1991 - beat a washed up lakers team with no center
1992 - beat hakeems future sidekick
1993 - beat a guy that didn't care about basketball. paxson bail out
1994 - missed entire season
1995 - missed entire season. sucked in playoffs
1996 - worst finals ever. saved by rodman
1997 - got every call. kerr bail out
1998 - got every call. push off
1999 - missed entire season
2000 - missed entire season
2001 - missed entire season
2002 - total waste, missed playoffs, not even 3rd team all nba
2003 - total waste, missed playoffs, not even 3rd team all nba





the bold are the only seasons anyones really willing to pay top dollar for. this is a genius calculator top 7 all time career that factors in everything?


jordan wasn't his teams best playmaker.. not even close to a top rebounder... couldn't stretch the floor... couldn't play off the ball... couldn't play more than 2 positions. and hes leaving a shit ton of years on the table for your franchise


what the fuck????? and winning isn't supposed to count for anything ( see karl malones ranking )


shut this thread down


@FPL ... you have the power

You don't think this is not the greatest thread in anger general history, if not all of internet history ?

[elmouse03]

Yeah I think it was Sharman.

Hannum was a man's man, an ex-Marine. There's a story that he openly challenged Wilt to a fight at some point, and said that only one of them was walking out of the locker room (they hashed things out that day and turned the team around). He was pretty cerebral though. Only guy to beat the Russell Celtics as a coach (and he did so twice - once with the Hawks, once with the Sixers).

I read that. Wilt had flaws but being a violent guy wasn't one of them. I suspect his inability to listen or accept instruction is what upset Hannum.

He needed a coach like a Popps, Riley or Jackson who knew how to employ reverse psychology. The challenge to get people to do what you want them to do, who otherwise wouldn't, is to convince them it was their idea in the first place.

I think Red tried to draft him out of high school.

[FPL]

After this is over, we should do a thread where everybody lists their top x players of all-time, and lists what they value in players.

[Lamelo_Ball]

garnett being 8th ruined this list


another selection that makes zero sense... his spacing/versatility/2 way effectiveness/longevity/length/outside shooting/post up scoring/play making should have placed him above jordan

garnett can be THE MAN and your DEFENSIVE ANCHOR... and a complimentary player that works with anyone

jordan can't


what did jordan play? 9 seasons as a bull in reality?


1985 - 30 win team
1986 - missed entire season. swept in playoffs
1987 - losing team
1988 - 50 win team but jordan hogged like crazy
1989 - first year he could really blend well with others
1990 - choke
1991 - beat a washed up lakers team with no center
1992 - beat hakeems future sidekick
1993 - beat a guy that didn't care about basketball. paxson bail out
1994 - missed entire season
1995 - missed entire season. sucked in playoffs
1996 - worst finals ever. saved by rodman
1997 - got every call. kerr bail out
1998 - got every call. push off
1999 - missed entire season
2000 - missed entire season
2001 - missed entire season
2002 - total waste, missed playoffs, not even 3rd team all nba
2003 - total waste, missed playoffs, not even 3rd team all nba





the bold are the only seasons anyones really willing to pay top dollar for. this is a genius calculator top 7 all time career that factors in everything?


jordan wasn't his teams best playmaker.. not even close to a top rebounder... couldn't stretch the floor... couldn't play off the ball... couldn't play more than 2 positions. and hes leaving a shit ton of years on the table for your franchise


what the fuck????? and winning isn't supposed to count for anything ( see karl malones ranking )


shut this thread down


@FPL ... you have the power

You don't think this is not the greatest thread in anger general history, if not all of internet history ?

the greatest thread in AG history is probly one i'm not a part of

[Lamelo_Ball]

After this is over, we should do a thread where everybody lists their top x players of all-time, and lists what they value in players.

my top 10 is based on careers and weight in stats/accolades/accomplishments/rings based on eras/competition


i give respect to players i don't like and some that i just give the benefit of the doubt to. there is no clear cut formula you can judge everyone on equally with because some guys all we have to go by is highlights ( as seen with me putting russell top 3 on a list i made earlier in this thread )


if i was making a top 10 based strictly on who i'd pick for one game during their absolute peaks.. it would be different than who i think truly was the best or better player because of some positional value or rarity ( as seen before in the all time draft thread with me selecting shaq )



however to make something different for a change... if i had to throw 10 names out there just based on the eye test with no stats/accomplishments/accolades as part of my judgement. then it would be


#1 - Kobe Bryant
#2 - Michael Jordan
#3 - Larry Bird
#4 - Hakeem Olajuwon
#5 - John Stockton
#6 - Kevin Garnett
#7 - Jerry West
#8 - Rick Barry
#9 - Kevin Durant
#10 - Dirk Nowitzki


these are probably the 10 most talented guys i've ever seen play basketball


some might say steve nash, steph curry or lebron belong on a list like that but they just weren't alpha/aggressive enough when it mattered most

[FPL]

Griff - You think accolades aside, Hakeem is the best center ever?

I might agree

[Lamelo_Ball]

Griff - You think accolades aside, Hakeem is the best center ever?

I might agree

the eye test tells me hakeems the best center


however it also tells me that kobe at his best is the most dangerous player ever... so i dunno how much my opinion would be valued by anyone else here. but theres only one guy not 7 feet tall that can destroy a team single handedly

[Robceltsfan]

Kobe doesn't belong at the top of any list OTHER THAN most missed FGs for a career.

But I don't blame Griff for trying to push the Kobe agenda....it's the only topic he's any good at.

[FPL]

Griff - You think accolades aside, Hakeem is the best center ever?

I might agree

the eye test tells me hakeems the best center


however it also tells me that kobe at his best is the most dangerous player ever... so i dunno how much my opinion would be valued by anyone else here. but theres only one guy not 7 feet tall that can destroy a team single handedly

How many rings do Kobe and Hakeem win if they come up and play together?

[Lamelo_Ball]

Kobe doesn't belong at the top of any list OTHER THAN most missed FGs for a career.

But I don't blame Griff for trying to push the Kobe agenda....it's the only topic he's any good at.

theres only one guy that can blow out a championship caliber team by himself


even jordan never scored more than 61 through 4 quarters


kobe did 62 through 3 quarters beat the mavs 1 on 12


i'm sorry but nobody else can do this not named wilt