Most underrated player of all-time

[Doctor MJ]

Here's another lens along the same lines:

Top players by draft class who never made all-star/NBA by RAPM VORP.
Remember: Drafts before 1996 are not totally covered by this data, and so to the extent a player peaked pre-1996, there's a good chance he gets underrated here.

1984 - Sam Perkins
1985 - Tyrone Corbin
1986 - Ron Harper
1987 - Muggsy Bogues
1988 - Harvey Grant
1989 - Nick Anderson
1990 - Toni Kukoc
1991 - Stacey Augmon
1992 - Robert Horry
1993 - Bo Outlaw
1994 - Aaron McKie
1995 - Kurt Thomas
1996 - Derek Fisher
1997 - Stephen Jackson
1998 - Cuttino Mobley
1999 - Lamar Odom
2000 - Hedo Turkoglu
2001 - Shane Battier
2002 - Nene
2003 - Boris Diaw
2004 - Trevor Ariza
2005 - Amir Johnson
2006 - Rudy Gay
2007 - Thaddeus Young
2008 - George Hill
2009 - Ricky Rubio
2010 - Eric Bledsoe
2011 - Tobias Harris
2012 - Jae Crowder
2013 - CJ McCollum
2014 - Aaron Gordon
2015 - Myles Turner
2016 - Jamal Murray
2017 - Derrick White
2018 - Mikal Bridges

[Dr Positivity]

There are multiple ways to answer this, but Bill Bridges is a good player who contributed to winning teams I didn't know about a few years ago.

Gus Williams being underrated is unique considering he was best offensive player on a champion team.

Larry Costello was close to being best PG in the league a few years as his prime came in the more overrated Cousy years.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

John stockton. The Utah teams were pretty horrible compared to other playoff teams that era. Either Malone is goat type or Stockton has alot to do with the winning also. He is seemingly never mentioned among the top 5 PGs anymore but his effect is easily seen.

That's a big exaggeration, especially in the early 90s. Player for player they were equal to a slightly better roster overall than the 94 Rockets who won the title. Outside of Olajuwon there was nothing overly spectacular about that roster. There's no way they should've lost that series in a mere 5 games.

Stockton played down to the level of Kenny Smith in b2b years. That series loss was sandwiched by the same Kenny Smith that was absolutely ran ragged by KJ and Derek Harper. I already mentioned in this thread how he was absolutely bludgeoned by Terry Porter 2 years earlier chiefly contributing to Utahs defeat

Stockton imho should be held at fault to a degree for why they came up short. He never evolved into what they needed most.....a legit 2nd scoring option to Malone. And guys that he was better than took him to school in the playoffs.

Maybe when he retired he was a top 5 PG ever, but imho he's been surpassed by the likes of Curry, CP3 & Kidd to bump him out of there.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

For me Terry Porter. He was unheralded when he entered the NBA coming from a school that wasn't even a blip on anyone's radar and not much expected from someone drafted late in the 1st round.

He was overshadowed in a era of PGs during his prime (about 87-93). HOFers Magic and Stockton Isiah took most of the glory and media attention. Then the likes of KJ, Price & Hardaway were probably more popular than Porter.

Although Clyde was the franchise player, Porter was the Blazers' best offensive player when the pace slowed and it was a half court game.

In 92 vs Utah he might have had lowkey arguably the most impressive individual playoff series in NBA history imho.

Of course there are guys that produced better in playoff series than Porter but there are no other instances in NBA history I can think of off of the top of my head where a guy that didn't make the HOF absolutely obliterated his opposite HOF number h2h in the prime of his career. This was Stockton fresh off of being selected for the Dream Team.

That series for me was the PG version of Olajuwon vs Robinson.

Your comment made me look up the stats for the 1992 WCF. Porter had 26 ppg and 8.4 apg with a 72.4 TS% and 25 game score. Stockton only had 14/11 with a 53 TS% (40/23 splits, ugh) and 14 game score. That really is an asswhoopin'.

Previous round porter also had almost identical 25.8/8.3 numbers. He was on a roll.

I always look back with deep regret that Sabonis wasn't able to join the late 80s/early 90s Blazers like he should have.

From 90-92 they could run any team outta the gym but when the pace slowed in successive defeats they often had a brain freeze and ran outta ideas in the halfcourt.

I dont want to disrespect the teams that won during that span but i think Sabonis would've helped put them over the top one of those years.

[sp6r=underrated]

I think guys like Sidney Moncrief, Marques Johnson, and Paul Pressey are pretty underrated. Those 1980s Bucks teams were actually really good and just couldn’t get over the hump against great Celtics and Sixers teams.

Unlike some other teams in history that were really good in the regular season over a long timespan but didn’t have a ton of playoff success, those Bucks teams were pretty consistently only losing to genuinely great teams in the playoffs. These were the teams they lost to in the playoffs:

- 1980: Lost a really close series to a 56-win defending champion Sonics team
- 1981: Lost a really close series to a 62-win, 7.76 SRS Sixers team, led by Julius Erving.
- 1982: Lost to a 58-win, 5.74 SRS Sixers team, led by Julius Erving.
- 1983: Lost to a 65-win, 7.53 SRS Sixers team, led by Moses Malone and Dr. J. They lost in 5 games, but actually handed the Sixers their only playoff loss that year.
- 1984: Lost to a 62-win, 6.42 SRS Celtics that that would win the title.
- 1985: Lost to a 58-win, 4.17 SRS Sixers team, led by Moses Malone and Dr. J, with a rookie Barkley.
- 1986: Lost to a 67-win, 9.06 SRS Celtics team, which won the title.
- 1987: Lost to a 59-win, 6.57 SRS Celtics team.
- 1988: Lost a very close series to a 50-win, 4.02 SRS Hawks team led by Dominique Wilkins that would go on to be incredibly close to beating the Celtics (Note: This was the least good opponent the 1980s Bucks lost to, but it came in easily their worst regular season—they actually only were a 42-win, 1.21 SRS team that year)
- 1989: Lost to the 63-win, 6.24 Pistons, which won the title.

Basically, over the course of a decade, the Bucks averaged a 5 SRS and about 52 wins a year, and just kept losing to great teams in the playoffs. Obviously, they weren’t one of the NBA’s truly elite teams, or they would’ve been able to push past those great teams more often (though they did beat the 1983 Celtics, took out the Sixers in 1986 and 1987 when the Sixers were a bit past their best, and beat the 5+ SRS Hawks in 1989, so they didn’t only beat minnows in the playoffs). But they were really good and I think the players responsible for that get underrated.

This is a really good post. I just got curious and looked up the series. Milwaukee outscored the team they lost to in 80 and 81, was barely outscored by Boston in 87. They swept out Boston in 83 who would go on to represent the East in the next 4 finals. A few of the sweeps look bad but overall the impression I get is that Milwaukee if they were in the West, which was substantially weaker back then, would have broken through and gotten to a couple of finals and maybe a title.

[sp6r=underrated]

2004 - Trevor Ariza

This is totally off-topic but seeing Ariza on the list makes me thing about his career.

Why did Ariza bounce around so much? Yes, he was a 2nd round pick but he looks good by the box score and plus/minus. He came from a good college program and athletically watching him he always looked like a good player. I didn't follow his career closely but I did follow the NBA heavily and never heard particularly bad things about him.

Was Los Angeles better with Ariza than Artest? I did notice the 2010 dropoff at the time but never really attributed it to him. But it isn't implausible that being younger and more mobile gave the lakers more of what they needed than later stage Artest. The rest of that lakers team was really old

[ShotCreator]

I think Ray Allen was the best guard in the NBA during his Bucks peak.

Ray Allen was not "good on D" by any stretch of the imagination in Milwaukee, there isn't any film study that backs up that assertion. He provided next to zero value of resistance on entry passes from his man, very susceptible to dribble blowbys with non existent recovery, he had a relatively short wing span which is why he provided zero value as a shot blocker, very low value as defensive Rebounder. Ray Allen was a significantly more problematic defender than Allen Iverson ever was, both on-ball & off-ball.

Ray Allen was not Steph Curry Sr., he was a slightly better archetype of Peak Glen Rice. Both Mcgrady and Vince Carter were comfortably better players than Ray Allen at their respective Playoff Peaks. Ray Allen was a low peak player.

His foot speed on defense was fine. He wasn’t too strong but other than that, he was solid, especially in the playoffs.

His teams were better with him on the court defensively every year from 99-01 come playoff time. His DRAPM in 2002 was very good.

I think it was a matter of effort and focus. Which is common with young guys. Especially offensively strong ones. But in the playoffs they can clean things up

T-Mac and VC were not on his offensive level in the playoffs. Different level of pressure and efficiency.

I don’t think any guard can match up to his playoff play in the stretch. There’s no other guard I’d rather have, on practically any team across all styles, in that time period.

Imagine LeBron or Shaq playing next to a guy who literally does 50/50/90 on volume with good playmaking on the ball and absolutely no extra fat, no wasted possessions, chemistry killing habits, ego.

And a high effort guy on defense.

I think it’s the best basketball of any guard in the time period. VC is a decent mention though, I think his defense is underrated. That athleticism was not wasted.


And by the way, Glen Rice could not get his shot even close to the same level as Ray Allen. I want to note, Ray Allen's 2001 playoff run is an all-time offensive carry job rub. The Bucks had the #1 offense in the league due to Robinson, Cassell and Allen, and Cassell became a liability, Robinson dropped off significantly. Allen actually increased his primacy and got through elite defenses shooting at all-time levels.

It's a bigger offensive carry job than guard you can name in the period ever accomplished in their careers, but as I said, I actually like his game most for scaling up next to better players overall players. A Shaq, a Duncan, a Garnett. He has the best carry job run and best portability at once.

[Dr Positivity]

2004 - Trevor Ariza

This is totally off-topic but seeing Ariza on the list makes me thing about his career.

Why did Ariza bounce around so much? Yes, he was a 2nd round pick but he looks good by the box score and plus/minus. He came from a good college program and athletically watching him he always looked like a good player. I didn't follow his career closely but I did follow the NBA heavily and never heard particularly bad things about him.

Was Los Angeles better with Ariza than Artest? I did notice the 2010 dropoff at the time but never really attributed it to him. But it isn't implausible that being younger and more mobile gave the lakers more of what they needed than later stage Artest. The rest of that lakers team was really old

I think Artest was the better bet as he had a much better regular season in 2009 than Ariza, who could have been seen as a toolsy project who got hot shooting in the playoffs, a situation teams have got burned overreacting to in the past. He went on to be pretty mediocre with 2010 Rockets and 2011/2012 Hornets, arguably his prime started in 2013 with Wizards. After that it looks pretty normal as leaving Wizards for a stronger contender in Rockets right after they got Howard makes sense, and Morey is smarter than them identifying his prototype as valuable. Then by the time he leaves Rockets, he's close to washed and takes the bag from Phoenix.

[Fadeaway_J]

2004 - Trevor Ariza

This is totally off-topic but seeing Ariza on the list makes me thing about his career.

Why did Ariza bounce around so much? Yes, he was a 2nd round pick but he looks good by the box score and plus/minus. He came from a good college program and athletically watching him he always looked like a good player. I didn't follow his career closely but I did follow the NBA heavily and never heard particularly bad things about him.

Was Los Angeles better with Ariza than Artest? I did notice the 2010 dropoff at the time but never really attributed it to him. But it isn't implausible that being younger and more mobile gave the lakers more of what they needed than later stage Artest. The rest of that lakers team was really old

Well to start with, he didn't really develop into a starter until the tail end of his Lakers career (the championship season). He was a free agent that summer, but his agent tried to play hardball and the Lakers pivoted to Artest instead. That led to him signing with the post-Yao/T-Mac Rockets where he was in a role that was way above his capabilities. His outside shot seems to have deserted him after a hot streak during the 2009 playoffs, until he ended up in Washington four years later.

For a role player who was only just starting to become a decent shooter, leaving the Lakers seems to have set him back quite a bit. Like you said, the Lakers were getting old and would really have valued his athleticism had he stuck around.

[sp6r=underrated]

2004 - Trevor Ariza

This is totally off-topic but seeing Ariza on the list makes me thing about his career.

Why did Ariza bounce around so much? Yes, he was a 2nd round pick but he looks good by the box score and plus/minus. He came from a good college program and athletically watching him he always looked like a good player. I didn't follow his career closely but I did follow the NBA heavily and never heard particularly bad things about him.

Was Los Angeles better with Ariza than Artest? I did notice the 2010 dropoff at the time but never really attributed it to him. But it isn't implausible that being younger and more mobile gave the lakers more of what they needed than later stage Artest. The rest of that lakers team was really old

Well to start with, he didn't really develop into a starter until the tail end of his Lakers career (the championship season). He was a free agent that summer, but his agent tried to play hardball and the Lakers pivoted to Artest instead. That led to him signing with the post-Yao/T-Mac Rockets where he was in a role that was way above his capabilities. His outside shot seems to have deserted him after a hot streak during the 2009 playoffs, until he ended up in Washington four years later.

For a role player who was only just starting to become a decent shooter, leaving the Lakers seems to have set him back quite a bit. Like you said, the Lakers were getting old and would really have valued his athleticism had he stuck around.

Thanks for the walkthrough and it makes sense why they pivoted off him. That said, it is a shame it didn't work out because there is a shot if he stays in LA the lakers can maintain that 09 play a bit longer.

[lessthanjake]

I think guys like Sidney Moncrief, Marques Johnson, and Paul Pressey are pretty underrated. Those 1980s Bucks teams were actually really good and just couldn’t get over the hump against great Celtics and Sixers teams.

Unlike some other teams in history that were really good in the regular season over a long timespan but didn’t have a ton of playoff success, those Bucks teams were pretty consistently only losing to genuinely great teams in the playoffs. These were the teams they lost to in the playoffs:

- 1980: Lost a really close series to a 56-win defending champion Sonics team
- 1981: Lost a really close series to a 62-win, 7.76 SRS Sixers team, led by Julius Erving.
- 1982: Lost to a 58-win, 5.74 SRS Sixers team, led by Julius Erving.
- 1983: Lost to a 65-win, 7.53 SRS Sixers team, led by Moses Malone and Dr. J. They lost in 5 games, but actually handed the Sixers their only playoff loss that year.
- 1984: Lost to a 62-win, 6.42 SRS Celtics that that would win the title.
- 1985: Lost to a 58-win, 4.17 SRS Sixers team, led by Moses Malone and Dr. J, with a rookie Barkley.
- 1986: Lost to a 67-win, 9.06 SRS Celtics team, which won the title.
- 1987: Lost to a 59-win, 6.57 SRS Celtics team.
- 1988: Lost a very close series to a 50-win, 4.02 SRS Hawks team led by Dominique Wilkins that would go on to be incredibly close to beating the Celtics (Note: This was the least good opponent the 1980s Bucks lost to, but it came in easily their worst regular season—they actually only were a 42-win, 1.21 SRS team that year)
- 1989: Lost to the 63-win, 6.24 Pistons, which won the title.

Basically, over the course of a decade, the Bucks averaged a 5 SRS and about 52 wins a year, and just kept losing to great teams in the playoffs. Obviously, they weren’t one of the NBA’s truly elite teams, or they would’ve been able to push past those great teams more often (though they did beat the 1983 Celtics, took out the Sixers in 1986 and 1987 when the Sixers were a bit past their best, and beat the 5+ SRS Hawks in 1989, so they didn’t only beat minnows in the playoffs). But they were really good and I think the players responsible for that get underrated.

This is a really good post. I just got curious and looked up the series. Milwaukee outscored the team they lost to in 80 and 81, was barely outscored by Boston in 87. They swept out Boston in 83 who would go on to represent the East in the next 4 finals. A few of the sweeps look bad but overall the impression I get is that Milwaukee if they were in the West, which was substantially weaker back then, would have broken through and gotten to a couple of finals and maybe a title.

Yeah, the trouble for the Bucks in the West just would’ve been the Lakers. Given how the Bucks did against the Celtics and Sixers, I’m skeptical the Bucks could’ve beaten the Lakers in a series—though they did take out the Celtics once, so we might think they could’ve beaten the Lakers once. But the difference is that if the Lakers went down to another team, there generally wouldn’t have been any other team that would’ve stopped them. So, for instance, if the Bucks were in the Western Conference in a year like 1981 where the Rockets upset the Lakers, I think the Bucks would’ve made the Finals. So I guess my estimate is that the Bucks probably make two Finals if they were in the Western Conference—one year where the Lakers lose to someone else, and probably one year where they actually beat the Lakers.

Of course, once they make the Finals, they’d basically be facing the same Eastern Conference juggernauts that they almost always lost to in reality. So I suspect they’d have lost in the Finals when they made it.

However, we might change the hypothetical and have the Bucks and Lakers exchange conferences, so that the Bucks’ path to the Finals was essentially the same difficulty as the Lakers’ paths. In that case, I think the 1980s Bucks would make the Finals many times, and while they’d probably generally lose those Finals to the juggernaut teams they’d face there, I think they’d probably be able to pull out a title or two.

[Doctor MJ]

2004 - Trevor Ariza

This is totally off-topic but seeing Ariza on the list makes me thing about his career.

Why did Ariza bounce around so much? Yes, he was a 2nd round pick but he looks good by the box score and plus/minus. He came from a good college program and athletically watching him he always looked like a good player. I didn't follow his career closely but I did follow the NBA heavily and never heard particularly bad things about him.

Was Los Angeles better with Ariza than Artest? I did notice the 2010 dropoff at the time but never really attributed it to him. But it isn't implausible that being younger and more mobile gave the lakers more of what they needed than later stage Artest. The rest of that lakers team was really old

Great observation and questions.

So, here's how I see Ariza's career:

* He starts off as a low priority rookie and isn't able to instantly break out, but he plays more as he goes on both his first two teams, and on his 3rd he's a starter for a 65-17 NBA champ. At the time, it just made sense for him to stay on the Lakers, but of course that didn't happen.

* My recollection was that Ariza understandably thought he was in line for a big pay day, and so the Lakers pivoted because they were able to get Artest for the MLE. I still feel Ariza probably deserved more...but I also think Artest was better and available for cheap largely because of the crazy.

* So then Ariza moves to Houston and takes on more shooting primacy...which it turned out, was a bad idea. He keeps with that style for a while unfortunately.

* Ariza finds a new niche on the Wall-Beal Wizards, and from there he joins the Harden-Paul Rockets and it seems like he's destined for a long run with them, but instead he chooses to leave. He's 33 at this point and had basically a good half decade run with those two teams, but after he leaves he just bounces around gradually playing less as he goes.

My feeling on Ariza is that it's entirely possible that he deserves some blame as a guy who likes to shoot more than his skills allow, but he had a lot of success over a pretty long time embracing being a role player.

Why did he keep switching teams? Early on he was low priority, then he was a disappointment, then he was an established role player, and then finally he was an old vet. It did diminish his potential legacy some, but I don't see him as toxic.

[penbeast0]

John stockton. The Utah teams were pretty horrible compared to other playoff teams that era. Either Malone is goat type or Stockton has alot to do with the winning also. He is seemingly never mentioned among the top 5 PGs anymore but his effect is easily seen.

That's a big exaggeration, especially in the early 90s. Player for player they were equal to a slightly better roster overall than the 94 Rockets who won the title. Outside of Olajuwon there was nothing overly spectacular about that roster. There's no way they should've lost that series in a mere 5 games.

Stockton played down to the level of Kenny Smith in b2b years. That series loss was sandwiched by the same Kenny Smith that was absolutely ran ragged by KJ and Derek Harper. I already mentioned in this thread how he was absolutely bludgeoned by Terry Porter 2 years earlier chiefly contributing to Utahs defeat

Stockton imho should be held at fault to a degree for why they came up short. He never evolved into what they needed most.....a legit 2nd scoring option to Malone. And guys that he was better than took him to school in the playoffs.

Maybe when he retired he was a top 5 PG ever, but imho he's been surpassed by the likes of Curry, CP3 & Kidd to bump him out of there.

Curry, yes. Paul, if you don't value ironman play and being out there every day I can certainly see. Kidd? Better defensively but if you blame Stockton for not being a legit #2 scoring option, I can't see Kidd ever handling that role. Stockton was a much better playmaker, shooter, his picks and other "dirty" play help make up the rebounding differential but you have to put a ton of weight on Kidd's superior defense (and I have him 1st or second all time at PG) to move him above Stockton unless you just disliked Stockton.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

John stockton. The Utah teams were pretty horrible compared to other playoff teams that era. Either Malone is goat type or Stockton has alot to do with the winning also. He is seemingly never mentioned among the top 5 PGs anymore but his effect is easily seen.

That's a big exaggeration, especially in the early 90s. Player for player they were equal to a slightly better roster overall than the 94 Rockets who won the title. Outside of Olajuwon there was nothing overly spectacular about that roster. There's no way they should've lost that series in a mere 5 games.

Stockton played down to the level of Kenny Smith in b2b years. That series loss was sandwiched by the same Kenny Smith that was absolutely ran ragged by KJ and Derek Harper. I already mentioned in this thread how he was absolutely bludgeoned by Terry Porter 2 years earlier chiefly contributing to Utahs defeat

Stockton imho should be held at fault to a degree for why they came up short. He never evolved into what they needed most.....a legit 2nd scoring option to Malone. And guys that he was better than took him to school in the playoffs.

Maybe when he retired he was a top 5 PG ever, but imho he's been surpassed by the likes of Curry, CP3 & Kidd to bump him out of there.

Curry, yes. Paul, if you don't value ironman play and being out there every day I can certainly see. Kidd? Better defensively but if you blame Stockton for not being a legit #2 scoring option, I can't see Kidd ever handling that role. Stockton was a much better playmaker, shooter, his picks and other "dirty" play help make up the rebounding differential but you have to put a ton of weight on Kidd's superior defense (and I have him 1st or second all time at PG) to move him above Stockton unless you just disliked Stockton.

And I couldn't see any version of Stockton handling the role of Kidd on those b2b runner up Nets Finalists teams. Now while I have argued on here part of that had to do with how lousy the East was those years, Kidd still elevated that team massively compared to having Marbury in charge and the team heading nowhere fast a year earlier.

Kidd actually was the leading scorer in the regular season and playoffs for the 03 Nets, I wouldn't trust any version of Stockton to do as such. Stocktons FG % was more efficient and he was a better shooter than Kidd but part of that was he often didn't shoot much.

Kidd is one of the top 5 playmakers in NBA history so even if there was any apparent advantage here for Stockton (most of the time passing to Malone who was FAR above anyone Kidd played with for most of his career outside of being past his prime with Dirk), you're not losing much in that aspect if they switched places

Kidd's defensive versatility gave him a HUGE advantage of over Stockton. He could guard either back court position and was strong enough to guard some SFs. Even past his prime in the 11 run he effectively guarded Kobe and LBJ in stretches.

Stockton could only guard his own position and as i mentioned in the playoffs sometimes he couldn't stop guys he was better than from going off against him.

[basketballRob]

Anthony Black

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using RealGM mobile app

[Hair Jordan]

Rick Barry. Only person who ever led the NCAA, ABA and NBA in scoring. Great scorer, great shooter, great passer, one of the best FT shooters ever. Set the NBA record for most 3’s in a game with 8 during the first year of its existence (1979-80) which was also his last season. Just imagine how much more he would have scored if the 3 was around his entire career. Nobody ever mentions his name anymore when discussing the best SF ever.

[Jaivl]

Yeah, no 20 ppg scorer is ever the most underrated player of all-time. No 90s player, either (except probably unheralded guys like Vern Fleming or something). No current player, too many stans. No NBA top 75, no member of any title team, no, no, no.

It's gotta be a random, old guy that's absolutely NEVER talked about, but was secretly a star and nobody noticed. Like, for example (just saying random names that could qualify), guys like Campy Russell. Mike Riordan. Rich Kelley.

[O_6]

Rasheed Wallace is the guy I feel like mentioning. I don’t think he’s underrated on here because a lot of the guys here know how valuable his skillset was + have seen him listed near the top of his era in terms of PbP impact metrics.

But 4 All-Star seasons, 0 All-NBA or All-D teams, no 20 PPG seasons, no seasons of even 8.5+ RPG, no seasons above 3 APG, no seasons of 3 BPG, no seasons of 1.5 SPG, no seasons in the top 10 of popular bbref advanced stats like Win Shares or VORP… HOF probability of 7.5% according to Bbref (he won’t make it).

The two things that most people think about him is that he was a hot-head from that era, with good reason due to all the technicals he accrued. And that he was an underachieving partial disappointment due to how much potential he flashed at UNC.

The reputation makes him sound like just another sports oddball that was a loser due to poor attitude and effort, which might honestly be true to a degree.

But he was a VERY GOOD player in his prime.

One of the main reasons the ‘04 Pistons hit a ridiculous level, especially on D. Unreal mid-season trade.

He was known as the best defender of both KG and Duncan during that era. Especially against Duncan, he’d dig deeper. Had a high team IQ. He was ahead of his time on the 3pt shooting/spacing too, unreal release on his outside shot. I said he could guard KG/Duncan the best but he couldn’t guard Shaq. Just wasn’t strong enough.

And yet one of worst series of Shaq’s three peat run was against Arvydas’ big self checking him and Rasheed being right there too in the ‘00 7 game classic. Shaq averaged 25.9 PPG on .550 TS% and Rasheed averaged 23.3 PPG on .582 TS% to lead their teams. Portland actually outscored the Lakers by 13 points in that 7 game series. They just blew it in a rough way in Game 7, despite Rasheed leading both teams in scoring with 30 (Kobe with 25, Shaq with 18).

But atleast Rasheed got something back against them in ‘04.

One of the best team players of his era. He probably could’ve been better. But he was still really really good and more valuable on the court than a lot of players with better basic stats and accolades. He’s a HOF impact player in my book.

[trex_8063]

Somewhat off the cuff (and assuming we're mostly talking about in the mainstream), names that come to mind.....

Horace Grant
Terry Porter
Shawn Marion
LaMarcus Aldridge
Maurice Cheeks
Jack Sikma
Dan Issel
Kyle Lowry
Jeff Hornacek
Reggie Miller
edit: Rasheed Wallace

[70sFan]

Artis Gilmore