#56 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

[WillC]

So many great players to choose from: Tiny Archibald, Hal Greer, Earl Monroe, Billy Cunningham, Jerry Lucas, Dave DeBusschere, etc.

But my vote goes to Pete Maravich.

[MiamiThrice]

Pau Gasol


-2x NBA Champion (2009, 2010)
-Led 2010 Lakers to the championship as the best player
-4 x NBA Allstar
-18.7 PPG, 9.2 RPG 3.2 APG career numbers
-3 All NBA teams
-Two silver medals as the best player
-One of the most skilled bigmen of all-time
-Made the cover of the NBA video game in Spain

[DatAsh]

My vote will be for Hal Greer

[inclinerator]

ray allen

[Fudge]

ray allen

He's been voted in already.

[Kblaze8855]

Anything else 100% untrue you'd like to try and pass off as fact. You're hurting your own argument with hyperbole and distortion that thoughtful/intelligent fans can see through.

People here know you know your stuff, but it's not trolls or fan boys or even casual fans that are taking issue with your assessment of Reggie. People who agree with you on where he should be ranked are even telling you that you're going overboard.

100% untrue? They both lost in the finals. Making more conference finals while playing 3 times longer is not winning more. Its being 50 while the other guy is 25. Reggie did nothing Durant didnt. Should be quite clear what I meant.


And I couldnt care less if telling the truth as I see it is seen as overboard. If you cant explain why im wrong I dont much care what your opinion is.

I dont exactly mind you saying I am...because I know you arent making an emotional decision on a whim. I also know most arent you and most arent me....and just dont care about history.

Like some guy called "Colts" who id assume is from Indiana is voting for Reggie Miller because he looked into what guys like Westphal, Dennis Johnson, and Hal Greer did and decided Reggie is better.

Its emotional attachment/fan of the 90s votes.

Such things annoy me. If there is one time a casual fan should care enough to look into the facts its when making an effort to rank players all time.

That said....Reggie Miller should probably be higher than Pistol Pete who I just saw get a vote.

I couldnt possibly be less impressed with Pistol Pete. There are 3 major things I consider....

How good you are
How good you were considered in your time/your accolades
What you managed to win

Reggie might....MIGHT...beat out Pete in 2 of those. Middle one is...tough. Voted all NBA first team yet your GM says nobody would trade for you? Eh.

Reggie has enough of an edge in the 3rd category to justify the discussion on if the gap in their talent is wide enough to ignore the rest.

Id have to say...it is not.

And id have to say...id want to have Reggies career over Petes.

There are people...HOF guys...legends...my process puts Reggie ahead of.

A guy like Durant? Hes clearly better at basketball, hes clearly higher ranked in his time/has more accolades, and Reggie didnt win anything he didnt.

So I consider it obvious who is greater.

That is not always the case. We are approaching the level where Reggie wont be behind many others in all 3. Pistol Pete for example....

[Whoah10115]

People like to look at accolades a little too much. It's really just checking off certain boxes and saying "See".


Durant has not yet had a greater career than Miller, but whatever. Why don't we rank Grant Hill already? I'd take prime Hill over current Durant. And at worst it's not a big gap. Is Hill gonna end up anywhere near the top 75? Shit, should have just retired, as adding in years as a solid player, following years just not playing are somehow worse. So I have digressed...

[Kblaze8855]

Kevin Durant has done things and won more than Grant Hill did. Reggie Miller took 13 or 14 years to make the finals...which is the peak of his accomplishments...Durant has already done that. I can have Grant Hills accomplishments...or Reggies...id probably take Reggies. Id be a worse player. My team would have done more. Grant didnt win a playoff series till he was like 38. Doesnt make him a worse player. It knock him down in the "What did he get done" department.

Considering that and the fact hes been injured so much...you can argue Reggie is "greater" if he isnt better. There is no such case to be made with Durant. There is no "But Reggie was able to...." to say. Reggie led a finals team and lost. Durant did too. Once thats a wash...there is the rest. The rest...is firmly on Durants side.

With Grant? Cant say that. He is the superior player.

He did not accomplish as much team wise.

That isnt exactly his fault. But its the world we have.

So I see a case for Reggie>grant. Its at least worth discussing. Durant? Nah.

[DatAsh]

100% untrue? They both lost in the finals. Making more conference finals while playing 3 times longer is not winning more. Its being 50 while the other guy is 25. Reggie did nothing Durant didnt. Should be quite clear what I meant.

One guy made more conference finals because, as you said, he "play[ed] 3 times longer". Playing 3 times longer in itself is not winning more - you're right there, but it is playing 3 times longer, and it is improving you and your team's chances of winning, which is the ultimate goal of the game - and the ultimate measuring stick between players all time.

Like some guy called "Colts" who id assume is from Indiana is voting for Reggie Miller because he looked into what guys like Westphal, Dennis Johnson, and Hal Greer did and decided Reggie is better.

It's an unfortunate and inevitable truth whenever these types of threads come along, but I would hope that most people would at the very least research the guys within the general vicinity.

Its emotional attachment/fan of the 90s votes.

You might be right.

Such things annoy me. If there is one time a casual fan should care enough to look into the facts its when making an effort to rank players all time.

Agreed

That said....Reggie Miller should probably be higher than Pistol Pete who I just saw get a vote.

Agreed

How good you are

How good you were considered in your time/your accolades

What you managed to win

Your first criteria, and the first part of your second criteria should in combination be your one and only criteria. The remaining criteria - along with whatever stats you deem meaningful - should be used as a method for assessing your first criteria. Accolades, Team Success, Statististics - all of these should be tools for answering the "who was a better player?" question, and not a ranking criteria in and of themselves.

A guy like Durant? Hes clearly better at basketball, hes clearly higher ranked in his time/has more accolades, and Reggie didnt win anything he didnt.

So I consider it obvious who is greater.

How exactly do you consider who is greater? Current Durant is better than any version of Reggie ever, and by a decent margin, but we can't ignore the fact that Reggie's played more than three times the amount of games.

For all we know, this could be Durant at his absolute best, I doubt it, but even if he doesn't manage to top his current self on a per season basis, he'll continue to improve as a player overall up until the point in which he becomes a net negative for the average team.

If my goal was to win a single championship given one year of play, I'd take Durant without hesitation over Reggie, and would probably do the same for Durant in comparison with a large number of the guys above him at this point.

But, if my goal was to win as many championships as possible over a 20 year period the question of who to pick becomes a lot more difficult. Does 5 years of Kevin Durant - only 3 of which can realistically be considered as prime years - give me, on average a better chance of winning than 18 years of Reggie Miller, over a 20 year span? I'm honestly not sure.

[Kblaze8855]

Im not ignoring that Reggie played 3 times as long. Im considering it and placing it in favor of Durant. 3 years of Durant being what he is now vs maybe...10-12 years of roughly prime Reggie...and Durant has already done the greatest thing Reggie managed. You asked if 20 years of reggie gives you a better chance to win....

We already saw. 20 years of Reggie....was 20 years of not winning. Durant can claim hes done all Reggie did far as taking his team to a level of success...and he did it in 3 years as a serious top flight player. Id say that makes it more likely he has more in him than Reggie could do in 20.

Reggies 20 has come and gone. Durants few....already reached as high. The question is can he go higher. We know Reggie didnt. Book is written.

Durants book is barely started and its first chapter is as good as reggies climax.

Id say tie goes to the youngster. All he can do is go beyond what Reggie did. He cant do less. This isnt Tmac or Grant Hill. There is far less to say he still has to do.

[StateOfMind12]

Grant Hill will easily be at least in the top 70. I'm curious to know whether people think Hill or Tmac's career was better though. That is a tough one imo.

[L.Kizzle]

Billy Cunningham.

How is Durant gettin votes now?

[Deuce Bigalow]

What happened to all the Chris Paul votes? He was getting some a couple threads ago and hasn't got one since.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Billy Cunningham.

How is Durant gettin votes now?

3x All-NBA First Team
Top 5 in MVP voting 3 times, runner up twice
3x NBA scoring champion
Led Thunder to the NBA Finals in 2012

[L.Kizzle]

3x All-NBA First Team
Top 5 in MVP voting 3 times, runner up twice
3x NBA scoring champion
Led Thunder to the NBA Finals in 2012

5 seasons.

If he retired tonight, he's not close to a top 50 player.