[B]Connie Hawkins[/B] was voted the #97 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops.
16.5 PPG | 8 RPG | 4.1 APG
4
Printable View
[B]Connie Hawkins[/B] was voted the #97 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops.
16.5 PPG | 8 RPG | 4.1 APG
4
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow][B]Connie Hawkins[/B] was voted the #97 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops.[/QUOTE]
:applause:
Mark Aguirre
Now GUS JOHNSON time.
Manu Ginobli!!!!
Walt Bellamy
The most slept on player in NBA history...
[B][U]Joe Fulks[/U][/B]
- Won the BAA/NBA first ever championship as the league's top scorer
- 3 x league-leading scorer
- Won the scoring championship while scoring 30% more points than the 2nd highest scorer (equivalent of someone averaging over 40ppg today).
- Scored a then-record 63 points in a game which lasted for a decade until Elgin Baylor topped it (63 points was incredible back then, since most [I]teams [/I]scored much less than that)
- Revolutionised the jump shop as one of the first pros to utilise it
- Member of the NBA's Silver Anniversary Team of 10 players (along with Paul Arizin, Bob Davies, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, George Mikan, Dolph Schayes, Bob Pettit, and Sam Jones)
- Voted the 1948 Athlete of the Year by Sporting News, ahead of Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Doak Walker, Ben Hogan, Pancho Gonzales, and Joe Louis who were at their peaks
- Ranked 64th all-time in Slam's 500 greatest players magazine
- Ranked 38th all-time in Basketball's 100 Greatest Players (Wayne Patterson)
[QUOTE=Wavves]Walt Bellamy[/QUOTE]
Your avatar :oldlol:
Lebron James already ahead of the guys like Garnett? This list is bullshit.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow][B]Connie Hawkins[/B] was voted the #97 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops.
16.5 PPG | 8 RPG | 4.1 APG
4
Bosh
NBA champion (2012)
7
[QUOTE=WillC]The most slept on player in NBA history...
[B][U]Joe Fulks[/U][/B]
- Won the BAA/NBA first ever championship as the league's top scorer
- 3 x league-leading scorer
- Won the scoring championship while scoring 30% more points than the 2nd highest scorer (equivalent of someone averaging over 40ppg today).
- Scored a then-record 63 points in a game which lasted for a decade until Elgin Baylor topped it (63 points was incredible back then, since most [I]teams [/I]scored much less than that)
- Revolutionised the jump shop as one of the first pros to utilise it
- Member of the NBA's Silver Anniversary Team of 10 players (along with Paul Arizin, Bob Davies, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, George Mikan, Dolph Schayes, Bob Pettit, and Sam Jones)
- Voted the 1948 Athlete of the Year by Sporting News, ahead of Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Doak Walker, Ben Hogan, Pancho Gonzales, and Joe Louis who were at their peaks
- Ranked 64th all-time in Slam's 500 greatest players magazine
- Ranked 38th all-time in Basketball's 100 Greatest Players (Wayne Patterson)[/QUOTE]
Good call, he's the only player left considered to be the best at his peak. In a different league though right? Was he BAA or NBL?
Penny Hardaway
Joe Fulks
[QUOTE=WillC]The most slept on player in NBA history...
[B][U]Joe Fulks[/U][/B]
- Won the BAA/NBA first ever championship as the league's top scorer
- 3 x league-leading scorer
- Won the scoring championship while scoring 30% more points than the 2nd highest scorer (equivalent of someone averaging over 40ppg today).
- Scored a then-record 63 points in a game which lasted for a decade until Elgin Baylor topped it (63 points was incredible back then, since most [I]teams [/I]scored much less than that)
- Revolutionised the jump shop as one of the first pros to utilise it
- Member of the NBA's Silver Anniversary Team of 10 players (along with Paul Arizin, Bob Davies, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, George Mikan, Dolph Schayes, Bob Pettit, and Sam Jones)
- Voted the 1948 Athlete of the Year by Sporting News, ahead of Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Doak Walker, Ben Hogan, Pancho Gonzales, and Joe Louis who were at their peaks
- Ranked 64th all-time in Slam's 500 greatest players magazine
- Ranked 38th all-time in Basketball's 100 Greatest Players (Wayne Patterson)[/QUOTE]
The greatest chucker of all-time. Makes Allen Iverson look like Michael Jordan when you look at the numbers.
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/f/fulksjo01.html[/url]
No, he wasn't a chucker. His FG% was right around the league average, unlike Iverson.
Meanwhile, Iverson is ranked 36th on this list, whereas Fulks has yet to receive a vote (until now) despite leading the league in scoring and winning the first BAA/NBA championship.
I strongly recommend reading this article about him: [url]http://justicebillcunningham.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/joe-fulks/[/url]
There are numerous others on the internet, but that's perhaps the best.
He is surely the most overlooked superstar in NBA history.
Some quotes about Fulks:
Walt Bellamy!
He is ranked #51 behind Steve Nash & Dwyane Wade on SLAMs top 500 players ever in 2011.
So i would guess its safe to say he is at least #99 ??? No? :confusedshrug: He sure dropped better numbers than at least 70 players on this list and in his prime dropped numbers only a few top 10 players could....
Joe Fulks
[QUOTE=pauk]Walt Bellamy!
He is ranked #51 behind Steve Nash & Dwyane Wade on SLAMs top 500 players ever in 2011.
So i would guess its safe to say he is at least #99 ??? No? :confusedshrug: He sure dropped better numbers than at least 70 players on this list and in his prime dropped numbers only a few top 10 players could....[/QUOTE]
Look, I'm not saying he belongs here, but when you say he has better numbers than 70 others, it just isn't true. Or that his prime is as good as the Top 10. Teams nearly attempted 120 FGA per game in the 60's, while the league right now is averaging around 85 FGA per game.
5.5 seasons Durant at 56? :biggums: :durantunimpressed:
Steve Francis. Just cuz.
Rasheed Wallace.
Let's go.
Weird that Fulks never received a single vote in all the previous 97 threads, yet is leading in this one all of a sudden.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Weird that Fulks never received a single vote in all the previous 97 threads, yet is leading in this one all of a sudden.[/QUOTE]
Bellamy and Manu each two back...who are you voting for btw?
[QUOTE=fpliii]Bellamy and Manu each two back...who are you voting for btw?[/QUOTE]
Forgot to vote...
[B]Bob Dandridge[/B]
2x NBA Champion (1971 and 1978)
'71 Playoffs: 19-10-3 on 46%
'78 Playoffs: 21-7-4 on 48%
4x NBA All-Star
All-NBA Second Team
All-Defensive First Team
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Forgot to vote...
[B]Bob Dandridge[/B]
2x NBA Champion (1971 and 1978) - Key member in both
'71 Playoffs: 19-10-3 on 46%
'78 Playoffs: 21-7-4 on 48%
4x NBA All-Star
All-NBA Second Team
All-Defensive First Team[/QUOTE]
that's actually a very interesting vote...I've seen his name before but I just looked into him briefly
in addition to those two championship runs, he played on two other teams that went to the Finals:
74 Bucks - 19-7-3 on 49%
79 Bullets - 23-7-6 on 47%
seems like he was the real deal...he has my vote :cheers:
[QUOTE=fpliii]that's actually a very interesting vote...I've seen his name before but I just looked into him briefly
in addition to those two championship runs, he played on two other teams that went to the Finals:
74 Bucks - 19-7-3 on 49%
79 Bullets - 23-7-6 on 47%
seems like he was the real deal...he has my vote :cheers:[/QUOTE]
Alright. Fulks is still up though, by only 1 now. :cheers:
That is an impressive '79 run too.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Alright. Fulks is still up though, by only 1 now. :cheers:
That is an impressive '79 run too.[/QUOTE]
nice
What's the justification for Bob Dandridge over Joe Fulks?
Did Dandridge ever lead his own team to a championship? Did he ever lead the league in scoring (let alone 3 times)?
Did he help change the game of basketball? Fulks did.
Fulks was the BAA/NBA alpha dog for three years.
[QUOTE=WillC]What's the justification for Bob Dandridge over Joe Fulks?
Did Dandridge ever lead his own team to a championship? Did he ever lead the league in scoring (let alone 3 times)?
Did he help change the game of basketball? Fulks did.
Fulks was the BAA/NBA alpha dog for three years.[/QUOTE]
I can't speak for Deuce, but for me it was the shot clock issue (Fulks last played in 54)
Dandridge did spend half of his career in a split league, but it seems he was essentially the same player pre- and post-merger (though I'd defer to somebody who watched him play extensively if they felt otherwise)
[QUOTE=WillC]No, he wasn't a chucker. His FG% was right around the league average, unlike Iverson.
[/QUOTE]
He was above the league average only once his rookie year, quite easy to do when the league average was.....27.9%
The rest:
'47-48: Fulks: 25.9%, League: 28.4% (Not close)
'48-49: Fulks: 31.3%, League: 32.7%
'49-50: Fulks: 27.8%, League: 34.0% (Not close)
'50-51: Fulks: 31.6%, League: 35.7% (Not close)
'51-52: Fulks: 31.2%, League: 36.7% (Not close)
'52-53: Fulks: 34.6%, League: 37.0% (Not close)
'53-54: Fulks: 26.6%, League: 37.2% (Not close)
[QUOTE=WillC]What's the justification for Bob Dandridge over Joe Fulks?
Did Dandridge ever lead his own team to a championship? Did he ever lead the league in scoring (let alone 3 times)?
Did he help change the game of basketball? Fulks did.
Fulks was the BAA/NBA alpha dog for three years.[/QUOTE]
Leading a team to one championship in an era that 1. Didn't have black players (maybe 1 or 2), 2. Had a League average FG% of UNDER 30%, 3. Didn't even have a shot-clock.
vs.
A key member of 2 Championships teams, and 4 Conference Finalists, multiple all-star, made an all-nba and all-defensive team in the 70's with black players, a shot clock, and a league that had FG% over 45%.
Changing basketball is all timing. He had the ability to create a new "move" or shot because it was the start of the NBA.
[QUOTE=fpliii]I can't speak for Deuce, but for me it was the shot clock issue (Fulks last played in 54)[/QUOTE]
And yet we have George Mikan ranked in the top 20 or so.
Fulks was every bit as good as Paul Arizin, who is another player ranked much higher than 98th.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]He was above the league average only once his rookie year, quite easy to do when the league average was.....27.9%
The rest:
'47-48: Fulks: 25.9%, League: 28.4% (Not close)
'48-49: Fulks: 31.3%, League: 32.7%
'49-50: Fulks: 27.8%, League: 34.0% (Not close)
'50-51: Fulks: 31.6%, League: 35.7% (Not close)
'51-52: Fulks: 31.2%, League: 36.7% (Not close)
'52-53: Fulks: 34.6%, League: 37.0% (Not close)
'53-54: Fulks: 26.6%, League: 37.2% (Not close)[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the clarification.
Still, Allen Iverson and Jason Kidd weren't close to the league average in the majority of their seasons, yet they're both in the top 50.
It seems crazy to penalise Fulks for his field goal percentage when it clearly wasn't detrimental to his team; not only did he lead the league in scoring 3 times but he also carried his team on his back to the first ever BAA/NBA championship.
So his shooting obviously helped his team, rather than being a hindrance.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Leading a team to one championship in an era that 1. Didn't have black players (maybe 1 or 2), 2. Had a League average FG% of UNDER 30%, 3. Didn't even have a shot-clock.
vs.
A key member of 2 Championships teams, and 4 Conference Finalists, multiple all-star, made an all-nba and all-defensive team in the 70's with black players, a shot clock, and a league that had FG% over 45%.
Changing basketball is all timing. He had the ability to create a new "move" or shot because it was the start of the NBA.[/QUOTE]
Bob Dandridge was All-NBA 2nd Team once. A very good player for sure but not one of the truly elite players of his era.
Joe Fulks was All-BAA 1st Team three times and All-NBA 2nd Team once. Along with George Mikan, Joe Fulks was one of the top two professional basketball players from about 1946 to 1949.
You can't penalise Fulks for the era of basketball within which he played. It's not his fault there was no shot clock (and anyway, his style of play would have served him well in the post shot-clock era). You can't pick and choose who you're going to use that argument against, e.g. you can't penalise Fulks but not Mikan. That makes no sense.
Some more quotes, this time from the outstanding writer and NBA historian Peter Bjarkman:
[I]"There was little question among those who saw him that the charismatic Fulks was basketball's first great pure shooter"
"He was one of the fledgling NBA's biggest drawing cards and certainly its most important playing-style innovator".
"His record 63-point game surpassed the previous league mark by better than 25 percent".
"Jumpin' Joe's approach to shooting a basketball was not only unique but deadly effective as well. He wowed fans with his jump-shooting technique, but he also floored opponents with his scoring onslaughts".
"Among basketball's dozen or so most important playing pioneers, Joe Fulks may well be the most easily overlooked and thus the most fully short-changed by the course of history".[/I]
[QUOTE=WillC]And yet we have George Mikan ranked in the top 20 or so.
Fulks was every bit as good as Paul Arizin, who is another player ranked much higher than 98th.[/QUOTE]
I didn't vote for Mikan either. I'm not holding it against him, it was just a different game before the shot clock.
Though when I vote, I'm trying to identify the most suitable candidate remaining based on my own standards. If one is instead trying to remain consistent with the selection criteria of the community consensus thus far, then obviously there would be a discrepancy.
[QUOTE=fpliii]I didn't vote for Mikan either. I'm not holding it against him, it was just a different game before the shot clock.
Though when I vote, I'm trying to identify the most suitable candidate remaining based on my own standards. If one is instead trying to remain consistent with the selection criteria of the community consensus thus far, then obviously there would be a discrepancy.[/QUOTE]
So out of curiosity, where would you rank Mikan amongst the all-time greats?
[QUOTE=WillC]So out of curiosity, where would you rank Mikan amongst the all-time greats?[/QUOTE]
I just wouldn't be able to do so. I have a great deal of interest in Mikan historically (one of my current research projects entails his college/NBL days) and respect both his success and his impact on the game, but if I were to try and place him I'd be doing the man a great disservice. The only way to even try to compare him to other greats is by projecting how he would've performed if he played in a league with a shot clock for a substantial portion of his career (instead of the handful of games a year and a half after walking away from the league, after a myriad of injuries), and I just can't do that.
Even for guys who played at a high level before and after the change (Bob Cousy, for instance), I struggle with this issue. Presently I see no reasonable option for such guys other than to set aside those seasons before 54-55. I'm sure this isn't going to be a very popular stance (and not really satisfying, since the goal here is to put together an all-encompassing ranking of every player in league history), but that's just how I feel.
[QUOTE=fpliii]I just wouldn't be able to do so. I have a great deal of interest in Mikan historically (one of my current research projects entails his college/NBL days) and respect both his success and his impact on the game, but if I were to try and place him I'd be doing the man a great disservice. The only way to even try to compare him to other greats is by projecting how he would've performed if he played in a league with a shot clock for a substantial portion of his career (instead of the handful of games a year and a half after walking away from the league, after a myriad of injuries), and I just can't do that. Even for guys who played at a high level before and after the change (Bob Cousy, for instance), I struggle with this issue. Presently I see no reasonable option for such guys other than to set aside those seasons before 54-55. I'm sure this isn't going to be a very popular stance (and not really satisfying, since the goal here is to put together an all-encompassing ranking of every player in league history), but that's just how I feel.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, although it's difficult to compare players who played in different eras, it's perfectly manageable to rank players [I]within their own era[/I]. I would argue that Fulks is one of the top 2 players of the late 1940s.
Having achieved that, it's then possible to begin to compare players across different eras. For example, we could compare Mikan's level of dominance in the late 1940s with Shaq's level of dominance in the early 2000s.
After all, you can only beat the players put in front of you under the rules and regulations of the time.
Using my methodology, I would argue that Fulks deserves to be ranked ahead of 'good but not great' players of different eras including Mitch Richmond, Spencer Haywood, Tim Hardaway, etc.
Relatively speaking, Fulks was a much better player in his playing days than Richmond was in his.
Now, if you want to rank players based purely on talent (i.e. how they would fare head-to-head in today's league), then we may as well not bother ranking anyone who played prior to about 1960.
But, in doing so, you'd be effectively wiping out a significant portion of NBA history.
Which would be criminal, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=WillC]The thing is, although it's difficult to compare players who played in different eras, it's perfectly manageable to rank players [I]within their own era[/I]. I would argue that Fulks is one of the top 2 players of the late 1940s.
[B]I have no problem with this logic.[/B]
Having achieved that, it's then possible to begin to compare players across different eras. For example, we could compare Mikan's level of dominance in the late 1940s with Shaq's level of dominance in the early 2000s.
[B]It's certainly possible, but I don't know if it's appropriate given changes in the game.[/B]
After all, you can only beat the players put in front of you under the rules and regulations of the time.
[B]Agreed.[/B]
Using my methodology, I would argue that Fulks deserves to be ranked ahead of 'good but not great' players of different eras including Mitch Richmond, Spencer Haywood, Tim Hardaway, etc.
[B]I'd have no problem with this opinion, but I'm not ranking him behind those guys. My proposal is just to 'set aside' those years, not discard them, to produce two separate lists. I haven't done extensive enough research to rank pre-shot clock era players so I would only attempt to rank careers from the 54-55 season to the present. If I produced a personal list, I would certainly preface it with a note that it is only of players from 1954 to the present.[/B]
Relatively speaking, Fulks was a much better player in his playing days than Richmond was in his.
[B]With regards to his league certainly, but again I didn't nominate Richmond.[/B]
Now, if you want to rank players based purely on talent (i.e. how they would fare head-to-head in today's league), then we may as well not bother ranking anyone who played prior to about 1960.
[B]I agree for the most part, though I don't have any problem putting a Bob Pettit against a Karl Malone for instance. The former wouldn't translate perfectly into the rules/strategy/style of play of the latter's era, but that argument works in reverse as well. The farther apart the playing careers in question are though, the greater in scope the task will be, since the rules in particular are constantly in flux (and usually changes build upon each other as opposed to negating each other, so the game is moving from one side of a spectrum to another).[/B]
But, in doing so, you'd be effectively wiping out a significant portion of NBA history.
Which would be criminal, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
I think the main difference in opinion here is the extent to which we weight the impact of the introduction of the shot clock in (much more substantial to me than the second largest change, namely the introduction of the three-point field goal). I have absolutely no issue with comparing Sam Jones' greatness to Ray Allen's for instance, but I really can't reconcile pre- and post- shot clock seasons/careers. A poster with a greater understanding/more knowledge of the league up to and including the 53-54 season could do a much better job compiling the former list, so I have no interest in painting myself as an authority on the matter.