Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46
  1. #31
    Kobe Apostle Deuce Bigalow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    10,611

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by WillC
    No, he wasn't a chucker. His FG% was right around the league average, unlike Iverson.
    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)

  2. #32
    Kobe Apostle Deuce Bigalow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    10,611

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  3. #33
    Local High School Star WillC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,715

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by fpliii
    I can't speak for Deuce, but for me it was the shot clock issue (Fulks last played in 54)
    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.

  4. #34
    Local High School Star WillC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,715

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by 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)
    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.

  5. #35
    Local High School Star WillC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,715

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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:

    "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".

  6. #36
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.

  7. #37
    Local High School Star WillC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,715

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    So out of curiosity, where would you rank Mikan amongst the all-time greats?

  8. #38
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by WillC
    So out of curiosity, where would you rank Mikan amongst the all-time greats?
    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.
    Last edited by fpliii; 11-21-2012 at 02:41 PM.

  9. #39
    Local High School Star WillC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,715

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    The thing is, although it's difficult to compare players who played in different eras, it's perfectly manageable to rank players within their own era. 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.

  10. #40
    sahelanthropus fpliii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    9,702

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by WillC
    The thing is, although it's difficult to compare players who played in different eras, it's perfectly manageable to rank players within their own era. I would argue that Fulks is one of the top 2 players of the late 1940s.

    I have no problem with this logic.

    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.

    It's certainly possible, but I don't know if it's appropriate given changes in the game.

    After all, you can only beat the players put in front of you under the rules and regulations of the time.

    Agreed.

    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.

    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.

    Relatively speaking, Fulks was a much better player in his playing days than Richmond was in his.

    With regards to his league certainly, but again I didn't nominate Richmond.

    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.

    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).

    But, in doing so, you'd be effectively wiping out a significant portion of NBA history.

    Which would be criminal, in my opinion.
    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.
    Last edited by fpliii; 11-21-2012 at 04:46 PM.

  11. #41
    Serious playground baller RobertdeMeijer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    419

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Bob Dandridge

  12. #42
    10 plus years on ISH crisoner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Californications
    Posts
    11,393

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Where are we at with the votes right now?

  13. #43
    Kobe Apostle Deuce Bigalow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    10,611

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Quote Originally Posted by crisoner
    Where are we at with the votes right now?
    3- Joe Fulks
    3- Bob Dandridge
    2- Walt Bellamy
    1- Mark Aguirre
    1- Gus Johnson
    1- Manu Ginobili
    1- Tom Chambers
    1- Chris Bosh
    1- Penny Hardaway
    1- Steve Francis
    1- Rasheed Wallace

  14. #44
    maimi heat fan sinc'89 Theoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    icealand
    Posts
    2,669

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    i vote p

  15. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,998

    Default Re: #98 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

    Bob Dandridge

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •