RealGM

both all time great rebounders. malone prob has the edge in scoring, though thurmond was so slouch. he had 20-20 seasons. And thurmond was as dominant a defensive player as anybody. better shotblocker than moses, and a very good passer. He had the first quad-double ever (well, first recorded). Both kareem and wilt said thurmond made them work harder for their points than anyone. Now, i know moses malone had a better career- thats undisputable. But who is the better player? and who would you take if starting a team?

Have to take Moses. He is in the 2nd tier of centers, below Wilt/Kareem/Russell but in the group with Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson and (if you want) peak Walton). He is toward the bottom of that group, yes, but he was a Top 5 center of all time when he retired. Thurmond is generally ranked in the next tier with guys like Lanier, Gilmore, Cowens, Reed, Parish, Unseld, etc.

Alot of it comes down to personal preference as to how you rank them, but I have rarely ever seen Thurmond rated above Malone.

I'll take Moses given what I know.

I don't think many people will take Thurmond, except possibly writerman, who thinks very highly of him.

Moses

Thurman lacks the offensive game but he was a great defender. Best thing you can say about Nate is that the GM thought so highly of him that after his rookie yr they traded away the starting C and gave him the job. The Warriors then went to the Finals.

The starting Center the Warriors traded away was Wilt Chamberlain.


If you already have a #1 option like Duncan, K malone, Kobe, then Thurmond is a great pick as he will play defense and reb like few others

If you dont have that #1 option and you need a player to dominate on offense you take Moses.

Even still I would take Moses. Moses took a lottery team and played .500 ball vs Birds Celtics and Magics Lakers. Moses basicly will win 2 games of every series single handed. Thats something no player playing today can say.

LeBron can say that . . . on the other hand, he's in the East.

penbeast0 wrote:LeBron can say that . . . on the other hand, he's in the East.

Saying it and doing it are totaly differant. LBJ was swept by the Spurs. Moses with his high school team could win at least 1 game

shawngoat23 wrote:I'll take Moses given what I know.

I don't think many people will take Thurmond, except possibly writerman, who thinks very highly of him.

Thurmond played defense at a higher level than Malone. IMO, probably the third best defensive center of all time after prime Russell and prime Wilt.

A comment about Nate from argueably the two greatest centers to ever play the game:

"Both Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain have gone on record saying they felt Thurmond was their toughest adversary. "He plays me better than anybody ever has," Abdul-Jabbar told Basketball Digest when he was in his prime. "He's tall, has real long arms, and most of all he's agile and strong." In an article in Sport, Abdul-Jabbar also said, "When I score on Nate, I know I've done something. He sweats and he wants you to sweat, too."

http://www.nba.com/history/players/thurmond_bio.html


I don't know where people are getting this stuff that Malone was so much better offensively than Thurmond. Thurmond may not have scored as much, but he had the whole package, inside and out, and he dominated on defense at a higher level thanMalone.

I'm not dissing Malone either--he was a helluva player, one whose toughness I always admired.

bluestang302 wrote:Have to take Moses. He is in the 2nd tier of centers, below Wilt/Kareem/Russell but in the group with Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson and (if you want) peak Walton). He is toward the bottom of that group, yes, but he was a Top 5 center of all time when he retired. Thurmond is generally ranked in the next tier with guys like Lanier, Gilmore, Cowens, Reed, Parish, Unseld, etc.
Alot of it comes down to personal preference as to how you rank them, but I have rarely ever seen Thurmond rated above Malone.

Show me some evidence that this is true.

writerman wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Show me some evidence that this is true.

Elliott Kalb's book had Thurmond listed in the "next 10" group. Or, players 51-60 that he didn't detail in this Top 50 players. I don't agree with alot of his rankings though.

In Ken Shouler's book, The Experts Pick Basketball's Best 50 Players in the Last 50 Years (written around 1997), Thurmond is ranked 12th among centers. He is ahead of Bellamy, McAdoo, Parish, and Gilmore and just behind Robinson, Ewing, Unseld, and Cowens.

He came in at #46 on the Top 100 from this forum. He was below Sabonis, McAdoo, Unseld, Walton, Reed, Cowens and Ewing. He was above Lanier, Parish, Deke, Zo, Bellamy, and Mel Daniels.

I don't have any other rankings handy. I wish there was an online repository of some sort that coalite lists of these kinds - preferably credible ones.

I never saw Thurmond play myself, so I have to go on what I read. In all the books and sites/forums I've seen, he's generally rated in that second or third tier of centers. Sometimes he is not mentioned. Which can be attributed to lack of knowledge about him, not that he doesn't deserve mention.

bluestang302 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




Elliott Kalb's book had Thurmond listed in the "next 10" group. Or, players 51-60 that he didn't detail in this Top 50 players. I don't agree with alot of his rankings though.

In Ken Shouler's book, The Experts Pick Basketball's Best 50 Players in the Last 50 Years (written around 1997), Thurmond is ranked 12th among centers. He is ahead of Bellamy, McAdoo, Parish, and Gilmore and just behind Robinson, Ewing, Unseld, and Cowens.

He came in at #46 on the Top 100 from this forum. He was below Sabonis, McAdoo, Unseld, Walton, Reed, Cowens and Ewing. He was above Lanier, Parish, Deke, Zo, Bellamy, and Mel Daniels.

^^^none of those people know what the **** they're talking about, and probably think basketball was invented by Michael Jordan. Thurmond used to carry teammates up and down the court, uphill both ways, and when he would get to his bench, his coach would chop him up into little pieces and dance and sign hallelujah around his grave, and THEN expect him to play in the second half.

****ing kids today.

I love elliott kalb's book. He has my favorite player, shaq, ranked first. lol but like you (and harry) i disagree with most of his rankings.

However, there is much evidence that people usually have moses ranked higher. Writerman, just look at the big man threads on Realgm.

There is a reason for this. Moses was a great, great player. He is an all time center. And his career, in terms of length of career, titles, and mvps, etc. is better than thurmond's. There is really no argument against this.

However, i tend to agree with writerman here. Thurmond affected the game a lot. Nate is uiniversally known as a great shotblocker and defender. His help d was great and his post d, due to his length and strength, was dominant. He was at least as good at defensive rebounding as moses was. Both were tough, and set strong picks. Both hit the offensive glass, tho, no doubt, moses was better at this. They were hardworkers, too.

Scoring wise, moses has nate. Nate's fg% just isnt that good. But nate's passing was really good. Malone's wasnt at all. and he turned the ball over a lot. Something about malone i really like is how he got to the free throw line so much. for me, thats very important, as far as impacting the game. plus he made them, which is a bonus.

I dunno. I like moses malone, but i might take nate for a team, only because it seems to me he impacted the game alot, maybe moreso then malone did.

ronnymac2 wrote:I love elliott kalb's book. He has my favorite player, shaq, ranked first. lol but like you (and harry) i disagree with most of his rankings.

Not me, I was just trying to channel writerman. I do that once a week as a colonic, works like a charm.

Harry Palmer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Not me, I was just trying to channel writerman. I do that once a week as a colonic, works like a charm.

lmao, ummm, dominant. wait, so you agree with kalb's rankings then?

ronnymac2 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




lmao, ummm, dominant. wait, so you agree with kalb's rankings then?

How do they go again?

Harry Palmer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



How do they go again?

well okay. an example is that he has bob cousy at number 10. Over jerry west, bob pettit, david robinson, hakeem, moses malone, and elgin baylor, among many others. do u agree with that?

ronnymac2 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




well okay. an example is that he has bob cousy at number 10. Over jerry west, bob pettit, david robinson, hakeem, moses malone, and elgin baylor, among many others. do u agree with that?

Not unless the ranking is 'overrated white point guards.'

Harry Palmer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Not unless the ranking is 'overrated white point guards.'

hahaha exactly. to be fair, he valued how the player did against his contemporaries very highly, and also valued if the player brought something new and revolutionary to the game. However, to me, this still doesnt justify cousy over baylor. His rankings are weird. I feel like he penalized kareem for his longevity. I dunno. He knows his stuff well, i just feel he doesn't use the information right.

ronnymac2 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-




hahaha exactly. to be fair, he valued how the player did against his contemporaries very highly, and also valued if the player brought something new and revolutionary to the game.

So Mikan's his GOAT?

However, to me, this still doesnt justify cousy over baylor. His rankings are weird. I feel like he penalized kareem for his longevity. I dunno. He knows his stuff well, i just feel he doesn't use the information right.

Yeah, he sucks at sucking. Knowledgeable sucking.

no, mikan is 19. i just meant he values it alot, but doesnt base everything solely on that criteria.