|
On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in.
Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument.
|
On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument.
I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact.
|
Hmm.. I just heard Sabonis made it to HOF.
|
On April 05 2011 08:33 iDoMiNaTe2.0 wrote:
Hmm.. I just heard Sabonis made it to HOF.
Why are you hating on lithuanians Omar?
|
On April 05 2011 08:27 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact.
Pierce is not better than David Thompson, in terms of HOF qualification. He's had a better NBA career because Thompson had a coke addiction, but Thompson is arguably a top 5 college player ever and led Denver to the ABA finals as a rookie.
|
basketball is for kfc people
|
On April 05 2011 09:15 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 08:27 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact. Pierce is not better than David Thompson, in terms of HOF qualification. He's had a better NBA career because Thompson had a coke addiction, but Thompson is arguably a top 5 college player ever and led Denver to the ABA finals as a rookie.
We can agree to disagree there. While David Thompson only played 8 meaningful seasons in the NBA, he was a very impressive and productive player; combined with his 4 years with the Wolfpack, the HOF voters honored him with an induction. Paul Pierce has played 13 seasons in the NBA, 3 at Kansas(obviously less stellar than Thompson) and will probably remain productive/useful for 4 more seasons.
I don't see why Paul Pierce shouldn't be rewarded for his continuity, stability and consistency, while Thompson is rewarded for his tremendous ability and brief peak. Pierce was more productive. Thompson jumped way higher.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompda01.html David Thompson
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html Paul Pierce
|
On April 05 2011 09:41 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:15 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:27 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact. Pierce is not better than David Thompson, in terms of HOF qualification. He's had a better NBA career because Thompson had a coke addiction, but Thompson is arguably a top 5 college player ever and led Denver to the ABA finals as a rookie. We can agree to disagree there. While David Thompson only played 8 meaningful seasons in the NBA, he was a very impressive and productive player; combined with his 4 years with the Wolfpack, the HOF voters honored him with an induction. Paul Pierce has played 13 seasons in the NBA, 3 at Kansas(obviously less stellar than Thompson) and will probably remain productive/useful for 4 more seasons. I don't see why Paul Pierce shouldn't be rewarded for his continuity, stability and consistency, while Thompson is rewarded for his tremendous ability and brief peak. Pierce was more productive. Thompson jumped way higher. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompda01.html David Thompson http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html Paul Pierce
I don't contest that Pierce is a nice player. I think he is less nice than most people seem to think. I think that he made a lot of those all start teams because the East was really bad. I also think that a HoF player should be able to get his team to the playoffs in the NBA (when he is in his prime).
Here is the thing, the media people say Paul Pierce is a HoF LOCK. I say he is HoF questionable. KG is a HoF lock, Kobe is a lock, LeBron is a lock, Shaq is a lock, Pierce is questionable. He is like a worse Allen Iverson with extended productivity, or Vince Carter with better teammates. Would I be outraged if he makes it, no because the HoF does not outrage me, but I will respect the voters less if they put him in. He is comparable to Joe Dumars who is in the hall, but Dumars doesn't really deserve to be in he's borderline.
|
On April 05 2011 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:41 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 09:15 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:27 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact. Pierce is not better than David Thompson, in terms of HOF qualification. He's had a better NBA career because Thompson had a coke addiction, but Thompson is arguably a top 5 college player ever and led Denver to the ABA finals as a rookie. We can agree to disagree there. While David Thompson only played 8 meaningful seasons in the NBA, he was a very impressive and productive player; combined with his 4 years with the Wolfpack, the HOF voters honored him with an induction. Paul Pierce has played 13 seasons in the NBA, 3 at Kansas(obviously less stellar than Thompson) and will probably remain productive/useful for 4 more seasons. I don't see why Paul Pierce shouldn't be rewarded for his continuity, stability and consistency, while Thompson is rewarded for his tremendous ability and brief peak. Pierce was more productive. Thompson jumped way higher. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompda01.html David Thompson http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html Paul Pierce I don't contest that Pierce is a nice player. I think he is less nice than most people seem to think. I think that he made a lot of those all start teams because the East was really bad. I also think that a HoF player should be able to get his team to the playoffs in the NBA (when he is in his prime). Here is the thing, the media people say Paul Pierce is a HoF LOCK. I say he is HoF questionable. KG is a HoF lock, Kobe is a lock, LeBron is a lock, Shaq is a lock, Pierce is questionable. He is like a worse Allen Iverson with extended productivity, or Vince Carter with better teammates. Would I be outraged if he makes it, no because the HoF does not outrage me, but I will respect the voters less if they put him in. He is comparable to Joe Dumars who is in the hall, but Dumars doesn't really deserve to be in he's borderline.
Dude, we totally agree, except for the "respect the voters less" part. It's just one of those really vague judgement calls. No one can say he wasn't productive, he played on some bad teams , made a couple of playoff series...Again, he's like Clyde Drexler to me. Good...maybe good enough.
|
Start the playoffs already!!
|
Finals MVP, and one of the scoring leaders of Boston ahead of Mchale, and Parish, going to pass Bird next year most likely. Records are made to be broken, and he did it, even without going to as many playoffs as these guys.
|
D-Will: 21 assists tonight. ouch.
|
Oh man, Hayward was torching Kobe in the 2nd half, and Kobe was getting SO pissed. It was awesome to watch. The Jazz were running their whole offense through Hayward towards the end.
|
On April 05 2011 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:41 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 09:15 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:27 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact. Pierce is not better than David Thompson, in terms of HOF qualification. He's had a better NBA career because Thompson had a coke addiction, but Thompson is arguably a top 5 college player ever and led Denver to the ABA finals as a rookie. We can agree to disagree there. While David Thompson only played 8 meaningful seasons in the NBA, he was a very impressive and productive player; combined with his 4 years with the Wolfpack, the HOF voters honored him with an induction. Paul Pierce has played 13 seasons in the NBA, 3 at Kansas(obviously less stellar than Thompson) and will probably remain productive/useful for 4 more seasons. I don't see why Paul Pierce shouldn't be rewarded for his continuity, stability and consistency, while Thompson is rewarded for his tremendous ability and brief peak. Pierce was more productive. Thompson jumped way higher. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompda01.html David Thompson http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html Paul Pierce I don't contest that Pierce is a nice player. I think he is less nice than most people seem to think. I think that he made a lot of those all start teams because the East was really bad. I also think that a HoF player should be able to get his team to the playoffs in the NBA (when he is in his prime). Here is the thing, the media people say Paul Pierce is a HoF LOCK. I say he is HoF questionable. KG is a HoF lock, Kobe is a lock, LeBron is a lock, Shaq is a lock, Pierce is questionable. He is like a worse Allen Iverson with extended productivity, or Vince Carter with better teammates. Would I be outraged if he makes it, no because the HoF does not outrage me, but I will respect the voters less if they put him in. He is comparable to Joe Dumars who is in the hall, but Dumars doesn't really deserve to be in he's borderline.
I actually think AI deserves to be in the HoF. Only because there hasn't been a player his size that dominated like he did. And we can go on forever about how much he shoots and his cornrows but that still doesn't change the fact that he tore up the league in his prime. But I can see how the haters will just point to his detroit, denver and memphis stints to take away what he did with the sixers. Go ahead and take a look back at that 2001 team, who did he have? let's see, Matt Harping? Aaron Mckie? oh and we can't forget about pure point guard Eric Snow who couldn't win a game of 21 if his life depended on it. Taking that one game from the Lakers was absolute beast mode.
|
On April 06 2011 15:43 BalliSLife wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 13:21 cLutZ wrote:On April 05 2011 09:41 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 09:15 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:27 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact. Pierce is not better than David Thompson, in terms of HOF qualification. He's had a better NBA career because Thompson had a coke addiction, but Thompson is arguably a top 5 college player ever and led Denver to the ABA finals as a rookie. We can agree to disagree there. While David Thompson only played 8 meaningful seasons in the NBA, he was a very impressive and productive player; combined with his 4 years with the Wolfpack, the HOF voters honored him with an induction. Paul Pierce has played 13 seasons in the NBA, 3 at Kansas(obviously less stellar than Thompson) and will probably remain productive/useful for 4 more seasons. I don't see why Paul Pierce shouldn't be rewarded for his continuity, stability and consistency, while Thompson is rewarded for his tremendous ability and brief peak. Pierce was more productive. Thompson jumped way higher. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompda01.html David Thompson http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html Paul Pierce I don't contest that Pierce is a nice player. I think he is less nice than most people seem to think. I think that he made a lot of those all start teams because the East was really bad. I also think that a HoF player should be able to get his team to the playoffs in the NBA (when he is in his prime). Here is the thing, the media people say Paul Pierce is a HoF LOCK. I say he is HoF questionable. KG is a HoF lock, Kobe is a lock, LeBron is a lock, Shaq is a lock, Pierce is questionable. He is like a worse Allen Iverson with extended productivity, or Vince Carter with better teammates. Would I be outraged if he makes it, no because the HoF does not outrage me, but I will respect the voters less if they put him in. He is comparable to Joe Dumars who is in the hall, but Dumars doesn't really deserve to be in he's borderline. I actually think AI deserves to be in the HoF. Only because there hasn't been a player his size that dominated like he did. And we can go on forever about how much he shoots and his cornrows but that still doesn't change the fact that he tore up the league in his prime. But I can see how the haters will just point to his detroit, denver and memphis stints to take away what he did with the sixers. Go ahead and take a look back at that 2001 team, who did he have? let's see, Matt Harping? Aaron Mckie? oh and we can't forget about pure point guard Eric Snow who couldn't win a game of 21 if his life depended on it. Taking that one game from the Lakers was absolute beast mode.
I agree totally, but just one point of contention? I think Isaiah Thomas was no bigger than AI and he was totally dominant as well. I was too young to really see him, but I hear he played tough and angry, just like Iverson.
|
On April 06 2011 16:05 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 15:43 BalliSLife wrote:On April 05 2011 13:21 cLutZ wrote:On April 05 2011 09:41 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 09:15 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:27 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact. Pierce is not better than David Thompson, in terms of HOF qualification. He's had a better NBA career because Thompson had a coke addiction, but Thompson is arguably a top 5 college player ever and led Denver to the ABA finals as a rookie. We can agree to disagree there. While David Thompson only played 8 meaningful seasons in the NBA, he was a very impressive and productive player; combined with his 4 years with the Wolfpack, the HOF voters honored him with an induction. Paul Pierce has played 13 seasons in the NBA, 3 at Kansas(obviously less stellar than Thompson) and will probably remain productive/useful for 4 more seasons. I don't see why Paul Pierce shouldn't be rewarded for his continuity, stability and consistency, while Thompson is rewarded for his tremendous ability and brief peak. Pierce was more productive. Thompson jumped way higher. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompda01.html David Thompson http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html Paul Pierce I don't contest that Pierce is a nice player. I think he is less nice than most people seem to think. I think that he made a lot of those all start teams because the East was really bad. I also think that a HoF player should be able to get his team to the playoffs in the NBA (when he is in his prime). Here is the thing, the media people say Paul Pierce is a HoF LOCK. I say he is HoF questionable. KG is a HoF lock, Kobe is a lock, LeBron is a lock, Shaq is a lock, Pierce is questionable. He is like a worse Allen Iverson with extended productivity, or Vince Carter with better teammates. Would I be outraged if he makes it, no because the HoF does not outrage me, but I will respect the voters less if they put him in. He is comparable to Joe Dumars who is in the hall, but Dumars doesn't really deserve to be in he's borderline. I actually think AI deserves to be in the HoF. Only because there hasn't been a player his size that dominated like he did. And we can go on forever about how much he shoots and his cornrows but that still doesn't change the fact that he tore up the league in his prime. But I can see how the haters will just point to his detroit, denver and memphis stints to take away what he did with the sixers. Go ahead and take a look back at that 2001 team, who did he have? let's see, Matt Harping? Aaron Mckie? oh and we can't forget about pure point guard Eric Snow who couldn't win a game of 21 if his life depended on it. Taking that one game from the Lakers was absolute beast mode. I agree totally, but just one point of contention? I think Isaiah Thomas was no bigger than AI and he was totally dominant as well. I was too young to really see him, but I hear he played tough and angry, just like Iverson.
I think so. Even if he brought in a more street style to his game, it's undeniable that he still sort of changed the game (a little) from how he played. I could be totally wrong here and I'm still a big fan boy of his but the way he threw his body around against all these big guys night in and night out and getting injured, and still going hard every play with absolutely zero fear in my opinion is a HoF. Not to mention during the Lakers finals he was playing through a ton of injuries. You remeber the first or second round vs the bucks? they were throwing him to the floor and basically clotheslining him so much it would of made Vince Mcmahon happy. Even the picks they were setting was with the intention of hurting him. The end result was AI dropping 40 bombs on them nearly every game I think just like he had done to every team the whole season including the rest of the playoffs.
|
On April 06 2011 14:00 shmay wrote:
Oh man, Hayward was torching Kobe in the 2nd half, and Kobe was getting SO pissed. It was awesome to watch. The Jazz were running their whole offense through Hayward towards the end.
This has basically been the worst season I've ever witnessed as a Jazz fan. Tonight made up for a tiny bit  Hayward seems to be quite entertaining when given the chance.
And what is with Dennis Rodman getting into the Hall of Fame? I always hoped the last I heard of him was the reference on Men In Black.
|
Dennis Rodman was a beast in his prime, imo his HOF entry was well deserved. He was the best rebounder for not sure how many years in a row and one of the best defenders as well. There hasn't been anyone like him since then.
|
On April 06 2011 16:51 Ansinjunger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 14:00 shmay wrote:
Oh man, Hayward was torching Kobe in the 2nd half, and Kobe was getting SO pissed. It was awesome to watch. The Jazz were running their whole offense through Hayward towards the end. This has basically been the worst season I've ever witnessed as a Jazz fan. Tonight made up for a tiny bit Hayward seems to be quite entertaining when given the chance. And what is with Dennis Rodman getting into the Hall of Fame? I always hoped the last I heard of him was the reference on Men In Black.
On April 06 2011 16:55 MassHysteria wrote:
Dennis Rodman was a beast in his prime, imo his HOF entry was well deserved. He was the best rebounder for not sure how many years in a row and one of the best defenders as well. There hasn't been anyone like him since then.
I always felt like Rodman was going to get in simply because he re-invented the Power Forward position. He was never really a dominant player, but he was dominant at THINGS. Even so he is clearly part of the borderline.
|
On April 05 2011 09:41 slyboogie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 09:15 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:27 slyboogie wrote:On April 05 2011 08:16 city42 wrote:On April 05 2011 08:07 slyboogie wrote:
If you just want to look at boxscore stats, and I imagine most HoF voters do, Paul Pierce is pretty similar to Rick Barry. Something like 80% of Rick Barry. Pierce is also substantially better than David Thompson, who is also in the HoF. He's pretty borderline, imo, but I don't think there would be a huge outroar if he made it in. Thompson is in the HOF because his N.C. State days, so that's a poor argument. I wasn't trying to argue that Pierce should be in because Thompson is in. It's just a fact that Pierce is better and Thompson is in the Hall of Fame. I made my position clear, I don't feel strongly either way. Besides, Pierce was pretty good at Kansas. <----Tongue in cheek. Please don't overreact. Pierce is not better than David Thompson, in terms of HOF qualification. He's had a better NBA career because Thompson had a coke addiction, but Thompson is arguably a top 5 college player ever and led Denver to the ABA finals as a rookie. We can agree to disagree there. While David Thompson only played 8 meaningful seasons in the NBA, he was a very impressive and productive player; combined with his 4 years with the Wolfpack, the HOF voters honored him with an induction. Paul Pierce has played 13 seasons in the NBA, 3 at Kansas(obviously less stellar than Thompson) and will probably remain productive/useful for 4 more seasons. I don't see why Paul Pierce shouldn't be rewarded for his continuity, stability and consistency, while Thompson is rewarded for his tremendous ability and brief peak. Pierce was more productive. Thompson jumped way higher. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thompda01.html David Thompson http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html Paul Pierce
The basketball HOF is unique in that it isn't restricted to the NBA. The voters include a lot of players and coaches from the women's game, the international game and the college game. So somebody who completely dominated in college but had a not HOF-worthy pro career can get voted in. So you can't compare the careers of two different NBA players and argue for induction if one of the players is essentially getting in because of college.
It resulted in a lot of terrible classes in the mid-2000s when too many college coaches and not enough NBA players made it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
