Will Dirk retire as the 2nd greatest white man to ever play in the NBA?

[DirtBag]

Nash

[~primetime~]

See, I hate logic like this.

[COLOR="Red"]If Dirk isn't better than him now, at 31, exactly what point will he be better? [/COLOR]

I'm just speaking in general terms here. People are always like "If this guy finishes with these numbers, or this amount of titles, etc. will he pass that guy?"

Either the guy is better or he's not. If he's already in his prime then you can decide right now if he's a better player. Passing a milestone at age 36 isn't gonna make Dirk any better of a player in his prime, which is how guys should be compared.

yeah I gotcha...semantics

we can go by a player's prime

or we can go by a player's accomplishments in the league



I think it should be a mix of 50% prime and 50% accomplishments...

[Gifted Mind]

wait time out...

why not?


and most of those things Bird doesn't have...so who is to say that West > Bird...

But there are many things Bird has that West doesn't. What exactly does Dirk have that West doesn't besides the MVP? Also, I don't think it's mentioned, but West also has a Finals MVP.

[lakerHater]

you are claiming that when Dirk retires he will be underneath all these names?

I didnt say that!

But you seem pretty biased...alota these players were great & played different positions in different times!

[Gifted Mind]

because he is a freakin 7 foot 240 lb. outside shooter...who plays "today"...

West was 175 lbs....played in the freakin 60s...

are you really gonna pretend that you would take West over Dirk..."NOW"?

f*ck no...

I would easily take West over Dirk Nowitzki today. And so would most other knowledgeable NBA fans. I also don't discredit a player because of the era he played in. That's just nonsensical.

[~primetime~]

you guys are arguing different things.

prime, you're arguing who is literally, side by side the better basketball player. the answer is obviously dirk. the game was barely developed in the 60's. Guys dribbled up at their chest. they shot rainbow layups. they ran like girls.

these other guys are basing the comparison on who was more dominant in their era. that would go to jerry west. in his time he was an unbelievable player, probably moreso than dirk is in his era. not that i've watched extensive jerry west footage so i dont really know, but just going by the numbers.


and this is why i hate when people compare players of different eras. cause nobody really knows the players that well, and everyone has different criteria anyway. its such a futile exercsize.

yeah I agree on all this...

but if we were to compare correctly, I would say it should be a combination of "pure athletism" and then just NBA accomplishments...

so Dirk doesn't have the accomplishments of West, but he blows him out of the water as an athlete...where does that leave us?...

you're right, it might be a completely pointless debate...impossible to compare the 2...

[~primetime~]

[COLOR="Red"]I would easily take West over Dirk Nowitzki today. [/COLOR]And so would most other knowledgeable NBA fans. I also don't discredit a player because of the era he played in. That's just nonsensical.

"easily"...

have you seen him play?

can he even "touch rim"...


Nash's highlights completely destroy the highlight reel of West...

[50inchvertical]

Highlight reels? Shit, well give me the Professor over both of them.

[Gifted Mind]

you guys are arguing different things.

prime, you're arguing who is literally, side by side the better basketball player. the answer is obviously dirk. the game was barely developed in the 60's. Guys dribbled up at their chest. they shot rainbow layups. they ran like girls.

You're right that is what he is arguing. And it is flawed reasoning to argue like this.

[snipes12]

you guys are arguing different things.

prime, you're arguing who is literally, side by side the better basketball player. the answer is obviously dirk. the game was barely developed in the 60's. Guys dribbled up at their chest. they shot rainbow layups. they ran like girls.

these other guys are basing the comparison on who was more dominant in their era. that would go to jerry west. in his time he was an unbelievable player, probably moreso than dirk is in his era. not that i've watched extensive jerry west footage so i dont really know, but just going by the numbers.


and this is why i hate when people compare players of different eras. cause nobody really knows the players that well, and everyone has different criteria anyway. its such a futile exercsize.

wtf is wrong with your avatar , it annoys me

[Bigsmoke]

its close. Right now i have Dirk over Kevin McHale by inches. not sure if u could put him over West yet

[bdreason]

If Dirk had won in the Finals, and grabbed a Finals MVP, this would be a more interesting discussion.

[alenleomessi]

Pistol Pete, Kevin McHale, Bob Pettit, Dave Cowens, Rick Barry, Paul Arizin, Billy Cunningham, Dave DeBusschere, John Havlicek, Jerry West, Bill Sharman, Dolph Schayes, George Mikan....

/thread

[imlmf]

~10 years of 50+ wins~

yet zero championship

you know why? because your best player choked, whereas west is known as Mr. Clutch

stop embarrassing yourself and

/ thread

[~primetime~]

You're right that is what he is arguing. And it is flawed reasoning to argue like this.

it isn't flawed at all, it is simply a different arguement...

athletic skill/dominance vs. accomplishments

imo it should be a combination of the 2...in your opinion...well in your opinion you actually seem to think West was physically supierior...

your mind isn't gifted at all really...