Sorry to make a ridiculous thread worse but...in what way did Penny Hardaway "not reach his prime"? He has two All-NBA first teams in an era loaded with guards. In one of those years, he beat out Payton, Richmond, Dexler, and Miller. In the other, he beat out Payton, Stockton, Miller, and Richmond. All of those players, with the exception of Drexler, were at or extremely close to their career peaks. He has two top 10 MVP voting finishes. He has one top three MVP finish. Whether he was the second best (instead of third best player) for a year, or the eighth best (instead of tenth best) in the next year is, frankly, irrelevant. A 2 to 3 year period of top level production is plenty. Nobody looks at Bill Walton and says, "But he didn't have a prime." Nobody looks at David Thompson and says "Well, he had no prime in the NBA." Nobody thinks Connie Hawkins "didn't have a prime as an ABA or NBA player." You can, obviously, say that their primes were sadly cut short--in the case of Walton, Thompson, and Hawkins, for three completely different reasons. But they still had a period of clear dominance in the league that lasted at least two seasons. How is that not a prime?
In Hawk's case (or, in a different context, Julius Erving's), you could even say that he didn't have a prime in the NBA. But even that is a moderated argument. In both cases, the player was relatively near their ABA peak in the NBA...for one year in Connie Hawkins' case, for about a dozen in Dr. J's case. And, judged only by their NBA peak, their prime was still very high.
In Penny's case, you either have to say that his prime was a top 4-7 player for a couple of years...or that his "prime" would have been even higher, putting him in Jordan/peak Hakeem territory. As it is, for two years, Penny Hardaway was judged to be the equal or better of Gary Payton and Karl Malone at or near their peaks. He was hands down better than Pippen, Barkley, or Stockton. This is what All-NBA and MVP voters said; they were watching the games at the time. This is what contemporaries thought was valid. That's a hell of a good prime.
Somehow, the argument has been twisted here...to imply that Penny and/or that Brandon Roy should be given credit for what he has not accomplished yet. Not sure how that happened, whether it's just trying to be contrary or willful ignorance. Whatever it is, it's ridiculous. If you want to question if Brandon Roy
will be better than Penny Hardaway was, knock yourself out. If you want to ask whether Brandon Roy
will have a better career (with the understanding that career and peak/prime values are not mutually inclusive, and that peak/prime is generally considered more valuable, go for it. But the thread title asks
Prime Penny Hardaway vs Brandon Roy
and gives a condition at the beginning
Assuming Portland wins 50 games this season without Greg Oden.
that makes it clear that we are talking about Brandon Roy
now (this season, not in the future) vs. the peak Penny Hardaway, the one who made two All-NBA first teams over multiple hall of famers at his position and got as high as third in MVP voting. It is a clear (although foolish) question with a clear answer.
btw...attempting to judge players purely by numbers is never a good idea. I couldn't stand Penny Hardaway when he was at his peak...but he was a terrific player, one whose impact when way beyond his numbers. This was known at the time (again, see the All-NBa and MVP voting). Trying to change that now based purely on stats is revisionist history...and it's wrong.
