|
On May 10 2011 08:29 bigjenk wrote:
Oh god just heard the rick carlisle comments that dirk is an all time top 10 player, so painful to hear. Maybe a top 50, maybe. Not possible to be top 10 with no rings.
lol that was a good laugh
edit:
i dont think lakers will get howard unless some drastic changes are made to the team, lotta money being thrown around and fitting is considered here
PS:
Please edit your posts, double posting is one thing but quadruple posts?? I'm no mod so you don't have to do this but this is a bit of forum etiquette...
|
On May 10 2011 08:29 bigjenk wrote:
Oh god just heard the rick carlisle comments that dirk is an all time top 10 player, so painful to hear. Maybe a top 50, maybe. Not possible to be top 10 with no rings.
yeah, it's pretty far fetched...he's prob not even top 3 of active players. guess he's just promoting his man...
|
Why is it not possible to be top 10 without rings? That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. Getting rings has to do with how good your team/coach is. Being a top 10 player has to do with how good you are. Duh.
And I think Dirk is eeeeaaaasily top 50.
|
i wouldnt even put dirk into top 50. top 50 out of the people you know yes. but i hope im not overgeneralizing when i say that we are very young to say something like that. Im almost 100% sure that if you ask anyone who has been following pro basketball for 30+ years, they would not put dirk in the top 50.
|
On May 10 2011 08:30 Holcan wrote:
Kobe and Pau will be much closer to 50million per year, not 40, If i recall correct Pau starts his extended contract worth over 20 million a year, and Kobe himself is worth 25 million.
Yeah wasn't exactly sure on numbers but i don't think if any sort of lower cap or hard cap is in place they can sign d12 in a year without trading one of those 2 as they both have 3 years left.
|
On May 10 2011 08:53 JiYan wrote:
i wouldnt even put dirk into top 50. top 50 out of the people you know yes. but i hope im not overgeneralizing when i say that we are very young to say something like that. Im almost 100% sure that if you ask anyone who has been following pro basketball for 30+ years, they would not put dirk in the top 50.
That's true but I would argue that basketball has evolved and that in general most of the better players come from the more recent eras.
Better health and physical science, better coaching and more competition at earlier stages in development, and much bigger pools of players to pick from.
|
On May 10 2011 08:55 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 08:53 JiYan wrote:
i wouldnt even put dirk into top 50. top 50 out of the people you know yes. but i hope im not overgeneralizing when i say that we are very young to say something like that. Im almost 100% sure that if you ask anyone who has been following pro basketball for 30+ years, they would not put dirk in the top 50. That's true but I would argue that basketball has evolved and that in general most of the better players come from the more recent eras. Better health and physical science, better coaching and more competition at earlier stages in development, and much bigger pools of players to pick from.
That's a crazy way to look at it. If you go by that logic, there have been thousands of baseball players better than Babe Ruth, and we can throw out any pre-90s NFL because the lineman were significantly smaller. We have no idea how older players would fare if you bring them into 2011 and introduce them to modern diets/sports medicine. You have to look at players relative to their peers when making a comprehensive ranking in any sport.
With that being said, I consider myself well versed in basketball history and Dirk is definitely in the top 50. It's impossible for him to ever break the top 10 at this point, but top 50 is nothing to sneeze at.
|
On May 10 2011 08:29 bigjenk wrote:
Oh god just heard the rick carlisle comments that dirk is an all time top 10 player, so painful to hear. Maybe a top 50, maybe. Not possible to be top 10 with no rings.
I don't believe it, but I can see how it's possible.
He's the best big outside shooter the game's ever seen, very low turnover rate.
|
On May 10 2011 08:47 travis wrote:
Why is it not possible to be top 10 without rings? That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. Getting rings has to do with how good your team/coach is. Being a top 10 player has to do with how good you are. Duh.
And I think Dirk is eeeeaaaasily top 50.
My top 10 no real order or even deliberated on that long
Jordan
Shaq
bird
magic
duncan
Oscar
Hakeem
Wilt
Kareem
Russell
And that is skewed towards modern era due to my age. All of those players have rings and with the exception of mr triple double multiple rings. In a top 20 stockton malone come into play but i think they are both a class above dirk, who has not been the definitive player at their position until maybe this year as kg and duncan have outclassed him the rest of his.
|
On May 10 2011 08:53 JiYan wrote:
i wouldnt even put dirk into top 50. top 50 out of the people you know yes. but i hope im not overgeneralizing when i say that we are very young to say something like that. Im almost 100% sure that if you ask anyone who has been following pro basketball for 30+ years, they would not put dirk in the top 50.
He possibly is. Guys like The Big O and Wilt while they were good competed in the "playground" NBA. Put them in today's game and they would get mauled. Best way to compare NBA players is to look at the game from the 70s on up. In that respect Dirk is going to probably be in the top 50. Not many players with that much offensive talent at 7 ft made it to the NBA.
travis is also correct. How many rings you have shouldn't affect your ranking on the greatest ever chart. It's just silly.
|
On May 10 2011 09:13 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 08:29 bigjenk wrote:
Oh god just heard the rick carlisle comments that dirk is an all time top 10 player, so painful to hear. Maybe a top 50, maybe. Not possible to be top 10 with no rings. I don't believe it, but I can see how it's possible. He's the best big outside shooter the game's ever seen, very low turnover rate.
Cough larry bird who was a much better all around player.
|
On May 10 2011 09:11 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 08:55 travis wrote:On May 10 2011 08:53 JiYan wrote:
i wouldnt even put dirk into top 50. top 50 out of the people you know yes. but i hope im not overgeneralizing when i say that we are very young to say something like that. Im almost 100% sure that if you ask anyone who has been following pro basketball for 30+ years, they would not put dirk in the top 50. That's true but I would argue that basketball has evolved and that in general most of the better players come from the more recent eras. Better health and physical science, better coaching and more competition at earlier stages in development, and much bigger pools of players to pick from. That's a crazy way to look at it. If you go by that logic, there have been thousands of baseball players better than Babe Ruth,
umm... no, lol. who said it was anything that extreme? I am just saying that in competitive sports the competition gets more fierce as time goes on, for the exact reason I said. are you going to argue this isn't the case?
and actually I do think there are probably many active baseball players who are better than babe ruth. but thousands? lol
and we can throw out any pre-90s NFL because the lineman were significantly smaller. We have no idea how older players would fare if you bring them into 2011 and introduce them to modern diets/sports medicine. You have to look at players relative to their peers when making a comprehensive ranking in any sport.
except for they weren't introduced to modern diet/sports medicine and im not comparing what a man could hypothetically be im comparing what they actually are and do.
However, if you are just trying to say that it's my view on it that is flawed and that how good a player is is only based on how well he fares vs his given competition then I can respect that, though I disagree with it. (you think there will ever be a player as dominant as wilt chamberlain was? of course not. now why is that?)
|
On May 10 2011 09:15 bigjenk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 08:47 travis wrote:
Why is it not possible to be top 10 without rings? That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. Getting rings has to do with how good your team/coach is. Being a top 10 player has to do with how good you are. Duh.
And I think Dirk is eeeeaaaasily top 50. My top 10 no real order or even deliberated on that long Jordan Shaq bird magic duncan Oscar Hakeem Wilt Kareem Russell And that is skewed towards modern era due to my age. All of those players have rings and with the exception of mr triple double multiple rings. In a top 20 stockton malone come into play but i think they are both a class above dirk, who has not been the definitive player at their position until maybe this year as kg and duncan have outclassed him the rest of his.
Where's Doctor J? :<
|
I think kobe would have to be considered top 10., even though I have never been a big fan of his and hate comparisons of him to MJ (which thankfully seem to have stopped)
|
On May 10 2011 09:23 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 09:11 city42 wrote:On May 10 2011 08:55 travis wrote:On May 10 2011 08:53 JiYan wrote:
i wouldnt even put dirk into top 50. top 50 out of the people you know yes. but i hope im not overgeneralizing when i say that we are very young to say something like that. Im almost 100% sure that if you ask anyone who has been following pro basketball for 30+ years, they would not put dirk in the top 50. That's true but I would argue that basketball has evolved and that in general most of the better players come from the more recent eras. Better health and physical science, better coaching and more competition at earlier stages in development, and much bigger pools of players to pick from. That's a crazy way to look at it. If you go by that logic, there have been thousands of baseball players better than Babe Ruth, umm... no, lol. who said it was anything that extreme? I am just saying that in competitive sports the competition gets more fierce as time goes on, for the exact reason I said. are you going to argue this isn't the case? and actually I do think there are probably multiple active baseball players who are better than babe ruth. but thousands? lol Show nested quote +
and we can throw out any pre-90s NFL because the lineman were significantly smaller. We have no idea how older players would fare if you bring them into 2011 and introduce them to modern diets/sports medicine. You have to look at players relative to their peers when making a comprehensive ranking in any sport.
except for they weren't introduced to modern diet/sports medicine and im not comparing what a man could hypothetically be im comparing what they actually are and do. However, if you are just trying to say that it's my view on it that is flawed and that how good a player is is only based on how well he fares vs his given competition then I can respect that, though I disagree with it. (you think there will ever be a player as dominant as wilt chamberlain was? of course not. now why is that?)
I think it is fair to look at his relative to time how good he was and relative to all time how good he was. Shaq in his prime was the absolute most dominant big man ever but does that detract from russell? not in my eyes. It would also skew any all time list to the present. There are a ton of better baseball players than ruth if you match them straight up, considering how much better pitching is now but does that make ruth any less good? I don't think so because then if you want to ask how much better griffey would have been 80 years ago you must ask how much better ruth would have been with modern training and pitch analysis etc, works both ways.
As for kobe or dr j yes you make arguments to sneak either in but i think even being generous they are both on the 8-10 range and both had way better careers than dirk.
|
On May 10 2011 09:29 bigjenk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 09:23 travis wrote:On May 10 2011 09:11 city42 wrote:On May 10 2011 08:55 travis wrote:On May 10 2011 08:53 JiYan wrote:
i wouldnt even put dirk into top 50. top 50 out of the people you know yes. but i hope im not overgeneralizing when i say that we are very young to say something like that. Im almost 100% sure that if you ask anyone who has been following pro basketball for 30+ years, they would not put dirk in the top 50. That's true but I would argue that basketball has evolved and that in general most of the better players come from the more recent eras. Better health and physical science, better coaching and more competition at earlier stages in development, and much bigger pools of players to pick from. That's a crazy way to look at it. If you go by that logic, there have been thousands of baseball players better than Babe Ruth, umm... no, lol. who said it was anything that extreme? I am just saying that in competitive sports the competition gets more fierce as time goes on, for the exact reason I said. are you going to argue this isn't the case? and actually I do think there are probably multiple active baseball players who are better than babe ruth. but thousands? lol
and we can throw out any pre-90s NFL because the lineman were significantly smaller. We have no idea how older players would fare if you bring them into 2011 and introduce them to modern diets/sports medicine. You have to look at players relative to their peers when making a comprehensive ranking in any sport.
except for they weren't introduced to modern diet/sports medicine and im not comparing what a man could hypothetically be im comparing what they actually are and do. However, if you are just trying to say that it's my view on it that is flawed and that how good a player is is only based on how well he fares vs his given competition then I can respect that, though I disagree with it. (you think there will ever be a player as dominant as wilt chamberlain was? of course not. now why is that?) I think it is fair to look at his relative to time how good he was and relative to all time how good he was. Shaq in his prime was the absolute most dominant big man ever but does that detract from russell? not in my eyes.
Wilt is the most dominant big man ever but anyways if I am trying to objectively judge players then yes it does detract from russell.. well not really detract, but I mean I would have no option but to rate him lower. actually im not even sure what you mean there by it detracting from russell.
It would also skew any all time list to the present. There are a ton of better baseball players than ruth if you match them straight up, considering how much better pitching is now but does that make ruth any less good? I don't think so because then if you want to ask how much better griffey would have been 80 years ago you must ask how much better ruth would have been with modern training and pitch analysis etc, works both ways.
well thats what I am saying I don't think that it's fair to try to theorize how they would do with todays sports science. but I guess you do and that's cool it's just differing views. but it is more than just sports science anyways, there are more people competitively playing these sports than there were in the past.
|
Wilt's dominance is actually laughable. He was playing against guys 6 inches shorter than him, taking 50 shots per game, in a system with fast pace and low shooting %. He wouldn't be able to do all of that in todays era or even 80s/90s basketball. I don't even want to consider him top 50.
|
United States22883 Posts
"How many 50/50 balls in this series and in game 4 have the Celtics come up with?"
I DON'T KNOW BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW. THANKS REGGIE
|
In order:
Jordan
Kareem
Russell
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Wilt
Olajuwon
Oscar
Kobe
Shaq and Doctor J make the top 20. LeBron should have made the top 10 but then he decided he wanted to rely on raw talent and never improved the weak areas of his game, plus he failed to win a title with Cleveland when he really should have, and I'm keeping him out of the top 20 until we see how this Heat experiment pans out.
Dirk doesn't even make the top 20 *BUT* he is the best European player ever, so there's something.
Wilt definitely had some era-specific advantages but to say he would get mauled today? That's a bit of a stretch. The same goes for Oscar.
About rings: how many rings you have SHOULD affect your ranking. I don't care if you're the most "talented" basketball player who ever lived, if you're a locker room cancer whose teammates hate you and who can't get your TEAM to play together and win titles, then you aren't a GREAT player. Oscar almost misses out on the top 10 because he was such an awful teammate in some ways, but he at least finally managed to ride Kareem to a title despite being the most talented player in the NBA for years before that.
Rings certainly aren't the be-all end-all of the discussion but they're definitely relevant.
|
On May 10 2011 09:44 ilikejokes wrote:
In order:
Jordan
Kareem
Russell
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Wilt
Olajuwon
Oscar
Kobe
Shaq and Doctor J make the top 20. LeBron should have made the top 10 but then he decided he wanted to rely on raw talent and never improved the weak areas of his game, plus he failed to win a title with Cleveland when he really should have, and I'm keeping him out of the top 20 until we see how this Heat experiment pans out.
Dirk doesn't even make the top 20 *BUT* he is the best European player ever, so there's something.
Wilt definitely had some era-specific advantages but to say he would get mauled today? That's a bit of a stretch. The same goes for Oscar.
Shaq under kobe and possibly lebron 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
