Zasterror wrote:Why the hell A.I. is so high and Wade just barely made the list? Jesus Christ.
I don't get it either. Iverson may have the edge in terms of longevity (so far at least), and he has the MVP, albeit a very arguable one driven by the narrative back then. Today there's almost no discussion that 2001's Shaq and Duncan were better players than him, while (I think not only in my opinion) Iverson benefitted much from a very weak conference and a bit of luck. In 2001 people thought that it was a breakthrough for that little guy with a team that finally clicked, but the following years showed that it was a fluke. He had several equally good seasons, but he couldn't make the Sixers successful anymore.
I don't care too much for those scoring titles as they came at the cost of taking way more shots than everybody else: Between 1998-99 and 2004-05 he took 11.154 FGAs while no other player had more than 9.750 (Garnett) in that period. Scoring titles are almost inevitable doing so, but what are they worth in team sports when you can't make your team a true contender in most years by playing that way?
Wade's career isn't exactly as stellar as the ones of the very best players of all time, but he was the decisive player on the 2006 championship team with a superb finals round (not matter if with the help from refs or forcing them to give him the calls by playing that way), and an important player for two more titles. Without any doubt a great all-around player with an ultra high albeit short peak, and with only a lack of good shooting from the distance. Other than that there's no downside when regarding him as a player. OK, maybe being injury prone and missing a lot of games but that's the case with other players (Webber, and if that's no exclusion criterion for Walton, then it's none for anyone...), too.
I don't have a problem with Iverson being named as a candidate for the next 10 greatest, but unanimous while those guys argue about other equally good players is quite strange.
Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, KG and Dirk are obvious choices. After them it gets hard as there are many candidates battling for 5 remaining spots: Payton, Kidd, Nash, Wade, Iverson, Pierce, and Webber, arguably even Ray Allen and Reggie, and Durant, who is catching up in terms of accolades fast. He just needs two more All-NBA team nominations and will have the same collection of awards as Iverson including scoring titles (doing that by taking many shots, too, but at a lower rate - he never broke 21 FGAs/G in a season yet which is lower than Iverson's career average... - and a higher percentage than Iverson, so it's way more justified). Iverson will only lead him in All-Star teams then, but we know that those come due to popularity often. So Durant will join the list of obvious choices inevitably soon if his career will go on like in the last couple of years, especially when he wins a title. And there are those omitted guys from former times like Wilkins, McAdoo and English as well.
We had this discussion in the main board as well (unfortunately the topic is locked now), and I'm no fan of Webber as I think that he lacked true winning impact (the Kings were almost just as good without him as with him, as seen in the many games he missed - you don't see that with guys like Shaq, Duncan or Dirk... and the Warriors and Washington were far from being contenders, so he didn't make them true winners as seen with only 6 playoffs games with those team - all losses! He didn't make the playoffs for most years and didn't make it out of the first round. By that criterion, McGrady made almost all of his teams winners), so he's out for me.
My next 10 greats would be Duncan, Kobe, LeBron, Garnett, Dirk, Payton, Kidd, Nash, Wade and Durant. With Pierce, Iverson, Reggie (props to him for taking himself out), Wilkins and McAdoo just missing the cut.
and adding Durant and Wade.
The man basically won an extra ring for him.