Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
penbeast0 wrote:The early voting results:
Karl Malone -- FJS, Doctor MJ, rich316, penbeast0
Moses Malone -- JordansBulls, Warspite
(I will be adding Jim Naismith and Ryoga Hibiki for the next thread as they are both active now)
Steve Nash -- colts18
Charles Barkley -- ShaqAttack
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
ronnymac2 wrote:DannyNoonan1221 wrote:batmana wrote:I'm curious, do you believe Stockton and Malone were equally relied on to be 1st options or do you have a different look on what being a 1st option is, or do you not determine that at all when trying to judge a player's impact? Because frankly I haven't seen too many people argue Stockton was on the same level as Malone as an overall player even though it's pretty much accepted they are responsible for each other's success as much as for their own.
For me it's not a matter of was Karl the first option. I would say he was the first option. But I don't think that means he was necessarily the more important player. To me the real question is how important was Stockton for Karl Malone? How much of Karl's individual success was a result of having Stockton as his point guard?
Some people have touched on it- there was a quote about Karl not being able to create his own shot at the end of important games if the defense focused in on stockton. To me that is far more telling than any information that will come out regarding who was option 1a and 1b for the team.
That's what they say about Kevin Durant when Russell Westbrook can't deliver him the ball at the end of playoff games. It's not a legitimate critique of either Kevin Durant or Karl Malone.
DayofMourning wrote:Quotatious wrote:On a sidenote, I feel the same way about Robinson as I feel about Wade - both guys were amazing at their best, but neither sustained that super high level of play for nearly as long as the Malones, Barkley or even Nash.
Give me a team highlighted with Robinson and Wade over Malone and Nash any day;)
Injuries and other circumstances suck, but both Admiral and Wade had excellent peaks. Higher than those of others. Had they stayed healthy, then it wouldn't be a discussion. Longevity is great though. It just seems weird to me that Admiral and Wade have one MVP while Malone and Nash have 4 MVPs. When someone looks back at that in the future, they'll miss the truth.
JordansBulls wrote:The Warriors are basically a good college team until they meet a team with bigs in the NBA.
Chuck Texas wrote:Stunned people are already considering Nash. Obviously for about 5 years he was among the greatest offensive PGs we've ever seen, but even tho he played until he was 40 his longevity as a superstar is shorter than David Robinson who lots of guys are knocking for longevity. And while he had several great runs in the PS with the Suns, his overall playoff resume isn't nearly as strong as his regular season resume.
PaulieWal wrote:DayofMourning wrote:Quotatious wrote:On a sidenote, I feel the same way about Robinson as I feel about Wade - both guys were amazing at their best, but neither sustained that super high level of play for nearly as long as the Malones, Barkley or even Nash.
Give me a team highlighted with Robinson and Wade over Malone and Nash any day;)
Injuries and other circumstances suck, but both Admiral and Wade had excellent peaks. Higher than those of others. Had they stayed healthy, then it wouldn't be a discussion. Longevity is great though. It just seems weird to me that Admiral and Wade have one MVP while Malone and Nash have 4 MVPs. When someone looks back at that in the future, they'll miss the truth.
Wade was a little unlucky to peak when he did peak. He peaked right around the time LeBron had his first peak and that overshadowed him to an extent. Secondly, he wasn't going to win the MVP on a 43 win team. Simply wasn't going to happen. It's similar to Kobe's 05-06 season when many think he deserved the MVP but you aren't getting the MVP on a 40 something win team that's a 5-7th seed. People like to talk about Kobe's supporting cast before Gasol got there or LeBron in Cleveland but Wade in Miami was working with absolute garbage (sorry to the players on the team) before Bosh and LeBron got there.
Sideshowbob did a fantastic breakdown of Wade's 08-09 season and that season is up there with anyone and by anyone I mean anyone. I will try to locate the post and post some of those stats when Wade gets serious traction in this project.
colts18 wrote:
Steve Nash's playoff resume is really good.
Playoff numbers from 05-10:
20-11-4, 50-39-91, .604 TS%, 118 O rating, 22 PER
Compare that to his Regular season numbers:
17-11-4, 51-45-91, .628 TS%, 121 O rating, 22 PER
That looks very similar to me.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Quotatious wrote:penbeast0 wrote:Monster finals performances in both 1970 and 1973 where he was clearly the best player out there
I think his best finals performance against the Lakers was actually the year when they lost, 1972 - 23/8/8 on 58.5% FG, and locked down Jerry West (West averaged just 19.8 on 32.5% FG) - that's unbelievable.
I see that I'm a little lower on Frazier than penbeast, though, as I don't think he's better than Wade or Nash, but I still have him pretty high, around 25. Frazier is IMO pretty similar to Wade and Robinson in the sense that his peak/prime was GREAT, but his longevity is lacking, compared to some other comparable players. I know that I'm inconsistent with my criteria though, as I have Frazier slightly ahead of Stockton, despite his way inferior longevity, and not THAT much higher peak (and Stockton certainly played defense, too), and have Nash ahead of both as I really believe that Nash is one of the GOAT offensive players, with higher impact than Stockton, despite his much worse defense. It's just very difficult for me to be satisfied with whatever criteria I'd choose.
ronnymac2 wrote:Can somebody explain to me how David Robinson is a great offensive player? I don't see it. Average portability (only gets to average based on being unselfish and without ego and being willing to do what he needs...if you only analyze his on-court talent for portability, he doesn't impress at all), average as a first option in the playoffs. What's he great at?
I keep saying Garnett comparisons, but they make absolutely no sense to me. Robinson has a vastly inferior jumper because he lacks the range out to 20 feet, he's not as good at passing, and he can't handle the ball as a pressure release guy. Heck KG has played PG at times. His back-to-the-basket game is inferior to KG's. Average passer from that position. Garnett has vastly superior offensive portability.
I keep seeing Malone comparisons, but they make absolutely no sense to me. Again, Robinson's jumper isn't as good, and he's not nearly the passer or power post-up threat. Malone has a very strong back-to-the-basket low post game to pair with a jumper. Malone is even better as a pick-n-roll option because he can dive toward the rim like Robinson, hit a jumper better than Robinson, and make a quick, decisive read/pass upon catching the ball from the ball-handler in the pick-n-roll. Malone has vastly superior offensive portability and is a much, much better offensive first option.
GC Pantalones wrote:Quotatious wrote:penbeast0 wrote:Monster finals performances in both 1970 and 1973 where he was clearly the best player out there
I think his best finals performance against the Lakers was actually the year when they lost, 1972 - 23/8/8 on 58.5% FG, and locked down Jerry West (West averaged just 19.8 on 32.5% FG) - that's unbelievable.
I see that I'm a little lower on Frazier than penbeast, though, as I don't think he's better than Wade or Nash, but I still have him pretty high, around 25. Frazier is IMO pretty similar to Wade and Robinson in the sense that his peak/prime was GREAT, but his longevity is lacking, compared to some other comparable players. I know that I'm inconsistent with my criteria though, as I have Frazier slightly ahead of Stockton, despite his way inferior longevity, and not THAT much higher peak (and Stockton certainly played defense, too), and have Nash ahead of both as I really believe that Nash is one of the GOAT offensive players, with higher impact than Stockton, despite his much worse defense. It's just very difficult for me to be satisfied with whatever criteria I'd choose.
I have Nash, Walt, and Wade all tied at around 20. All over David Robinson (when he gets some more support my reasons why will come).
DayofMourning wrote:GC Pantalones wrote:Quotatious wrote:I think his best finals performance against the Lakers was actually the year when they lost, 1972 - 23/8/8 on 58.5% FG, and locked down Jerry West (West averaged just 19.8 on 32.5% FG) - that's unbelievable.
I see that I'm a little lower on Frazier than penbeast, though, as I don't think he's better than Wade or Nash, but I still have him pretty high, around 25. Frazier is IMO pretty similar to Wade and Robinson in the sense that his peak/prime was GREAT, but his longevity is lacking, compared to some other comparable players. I know that I'm inconsistent with my criteria though, as I have Frazier slightly ahead of Stockton, despite his way inferior longevity, and not THAT much higher peak (and Stockton certainly played defense, too), and have Nash ahead of both as I really believe that Nash is one of the GOAT offensive players, with higher impact than Stockton, despite his much worse defense. It's just very difficult for me to be satisfied with whatever criteria I'd choose.
I have Nash, Walt, and Wade all tied at around 20. All over David Robinson (when he gets some more support my reasons why will come).
I love Wade, but I'd take Admiral over him every time. Drob was such a unique talent. His career was disrupted by Navy commitments or by injury, but at his peak ,he was one of a kind. Just an awesome basketball player.
Basketballefan wrote:Vote: Moses Malone
...
I wasn't around to watch Moses play, so i can't give much detail on his defense, most are saying he wasn't very good in that regard but he wasn't worse than Barkley i can say that.
GC Pantalones wrote:DayofMourning wrote:GC Pantalones wrote:I have Nash, Walt, and Wade all tied at around 20. All over David Robinson (when he gets some more support my reasons why will come).
I love Wade, but I'd take Admiral over him every time. Drob was such a unique talent. His career was disrupted by Navy commitments or by injury, but at his peak ,he was one of a kind. Just an awesome basketball player.
Wade could lead a team to a ring and will always show up in the postseason. Robinson.... Yeah...
ronnymac2 wrote:
I keep saying Garnett comparisons, but they make absolutely no sense to me. Robinson has a vastly inferior jumper because he lacks the range out to 20 feet, he's not as good at passing, and he can't handle the ball as a pressure release guy. Heck KG has played PG at times. His back-to-the-basket game is inferior to KG's. Average passer from that position. Garnett has vastly superior offensive portability.
.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.