It says in the OP. It's not any one of those things; it's all of those things, together. In the end, Jordan is the best player ever. We're not just looking at accomplishments or peak. We're looking at everything, over time.
Oh, so all of that combined.
Well here's mine...only listing 5 each and only listing players i've seen.
4. Chris Paul
5. Deron Williams
...I don't think i saw Stockton in his prime when i was old enough to make a judgement on his game, so i'm leaving him off
5. Ray Allen
I did see Miller enough to make a judgement on him, and I think Ray Allen was better and had more longevity
4. Grant Hill
If it's not peak, prime, or based on accomplishments then what are you basing it on exactly.
We'll need to know before posting our lists and commenting on yours.
I've always been curious as to why people can't just post their own lists and let other people post theirs. When people comment on other people's lists, the vast majority of the time it's either 1) say how stupid the list is because it's different from their own, and/or their favorite player(s) is/are ranked lower than they like; or 2) praise the list because it mirrors their own.
Secondly, different people have different criteria. If someone is knowledgeable about basketball then they should already know what criteria they use to rank players if they do such a thing, and thus should be able to make their own lists without having the need to ask other people how they should go about it.
If you're just going off what you saw, I demand you put T-Mac in there
You're presuming he saw T-Mac (I don't know if he did or didn't, I'm just saying). Which is why I've proposed GIES (Greatest I've Ever Seen) lists rather than GOAT lists, as all-time means all-time. If one doesn't feel they can knowledgeably comment on all the potential candidates, then they really shouldn't be attempting to make all-time lists, since "all-time" is not bound by what one did or did not see.
this types of list always favor the new generations.
Originally Posted by kshutts1
Because you think he's better.. that's fine. I can't argue with that. They're close, and I'd flip them, but to each their own I guess, so long as you're aware of the arguments against Reggie being better.
But I still want to hear an argument for Hill being in the top 10 list, lol.
Of course...it's all subjective, at least to a point.
I explained most of it, as far as how much he actually got to play and how much he accomplished. As far as peak goes, I'd take him over most. There's this revisionism amongst people who talk a lot but Hill was an elite player and he'd be elite today. His peak was good enough and he did enough to merit inclusion. Worthy, Arizin, English, Dantley (who I certainly am not ranking). Bernard King played much less. McGuire, Mullen. Bernard King may have the highest peak amongst these guys, but Grant isn't so far behind he has the better career. And he has a higher peak than any of the other guys and was better overall...at least I think, on the latter.
Last edited by Whoah10115 : 02-15-2013 at 07:27 PM.
IMO, you under-rate Parker and Duncan and overate Manu.
While Manu is very versatile and has more "skills" than Parker, no way has he contributed to the team as Parker does. Parker has pretty much carried the team offensively for the better part of 2-3 years. Manu is (it seems) forever injured or coming back from injury. Don't get me wrong, for a big-time, crunch situation, there's not many I'd take over Manu but those few moments don't over-ride the night in, night out, consistent production from Parker. Also, Parker is a 5-time All-star, and has one 2nd team and one 3rd team all-nba honors. Manu - only 2 times an All-Star and 2 times on the 3rd team all-nba. Parker has also been in the conversation for MVP - Manu never at that level.
Even Barkley says Duncan is the best power forward ever. Except for peak play, I don't see how Barkley could be considered better - certainly not in the winning, defense or longevity categories.
1 MVP/2 MVPs
0 FMVPs/3 FMVPs
0 rings/4 rings
11 All-Star/14 All-Star
5 1st team all-nba/9 1st team all-nba
5 2nd team all-nba/3 2nd team all-nba
1 3rd team/1 3rd team
0 all-defensive team/8 1st all-defensive, 5 2nd all-defensive
Better part of 2 years...Manu was the guy carrying the year before. He was also better than Parker the year before that, when Parker missed a good amount of time. That's unquestionable. Manu didn't make more all-star games because he was on the bench. He was All-NBA but not an all-star.
Someone said that Parker contributed more to those teams. Parker has contributed more these last two seasons and in 08/09. There's not another year where he was better than Ginobili, I don't think. He had the better Finals in 2007, obviously. But he didn't contribute more than Ginobili did, before these last two seasons. And the PG crowd is better than the SG crowd.
I go up and down on Duncan. Barkley would take Duncan for a career, as Duncan had the team good enough to compete every year and Duncan -to his credit obviously- raised his game in the playoffs...always. But Barkley was a better player in total. But I could very well change my mind on that later.