Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-10-2012, 08:35 PM   #16
Pointguard
NBA rookie of the year
 
Pointguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 6,478
Pointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by PTB Fan
Interesting definitions in there and ways of viewing things.

There might be little difference. There're numerous ways of ranking the best players of all time and defining them. Also, i'd add GOAT team superstar: players who dominated on the court, had a team first mentality and made all better on the court e.g Russell, Bird, Magic, Duncan...
GOAT team player is something I discussed here before with Jlauder and named it just like you did above. They are selfless, sacrificing winners who had the great affect on teammates. It was so impactful it's tangible but its listed as an intangible. Great point!

Quote:
Then individual superstar: guys who dominated on the court, produced well for the teams but were mostly focused on themselves rather than the team in comparison to the above mentioned. Such involves Wilt, Oscar, Kobe, O'Neal, Hakeem etc.
I agree with the concept and definition. Problem is that it has a way of generating a troll fest.
Quote:
And the point of this thread is good too. In a way, it looks how the users here make their lists of the greatest players ever and are made by using different criteria which makes some selections reasonable.
Yeah, I don't see the list as being the same. I do think its a way of spreading more love to different players and increases how the fan appreciates different aspectsof the game, while seeing more dimensions of the game.

Thanks for the solid contribution.
Pointguard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 11:07 PM   #17
jlauber
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,836
jlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Looking at definitions and examples would it be fair to say that a/the big (if implicit) difference between GOAT and GOAT player is the latter is era independent (i.e. "stick them in a time machine" type of arguments).

Would you put Wilt in "complete". I'd say his shooting touch away from the basket makes him less complete than players who are substatiantially worse overall, had less impact etc. Also does one have to be a superstar to be complete. The most complete player thread was dominanted by superstars but guys like Wilt and Russell were mentioned yet I'd find it easier to find a flaw in their games (ft shooting) than in that of say, Tom Gugliotta. Does complete imply excellence in most categories or a lack of flaws in any.

Superstar, I'd say refers more to media status (and often ppg) than basketball ability. Carmelo Anthony is a superstar, but there are guys I would rather have who have a lower name recognition (Russell Westbrook for example). Amar'e is probably a superstar too but the same applies (sorry Knicks fans).
I'd say the equivalant to superstar in basketball talent terms would be roughly a top 10 player in the league at that time.

Anyway interesting distinction between GOAT and GOAT player.


I think you are severely under-rating an early NBA Chamberlain. He was a good outside shooter in college, with a solid 15+ ft. range, and he carried it into his first few seasons of his NBA career.

CavsFan posted this outstanding footage of Chamberlain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4WZX...eature=related

In terms of complete, he was the game's greatest scorer, greatest rebounder, BY FAR the greatest passing big man in NBA history (only NBA center to ever average more than 5.8 apg in a season, and he BLEW that number away with seasons of 7.8 apg and 8.3 apg...along with an entire post-season of 9.2 apg), most efficient shooter of all-time (especially against a league average), the game's greatest shot-blocker, and only Russell had a greater defensive impact.

His 65-66 season was perhaps the best all-around season in NBA history. He LED the NBA in scoring at 33.5 ppg; LED the NBA in rebounding, at 24.6 rpg; LED the NBA in FG%, at .540 (in a league that shot .433); was seventh in assists, at 5.2 apg; his 8.5 defensive win share was the 17th greatest season in NBA history; and those that actually were around would claim that he was probably blocking somewhere around 8-10 shots per game.

Not only that, but in his 33 H2H games against the NBA's three other elite centers, (Russell, Thurmond, and Bellamy), he just DESTROYED them.

Now, some here would diminish Chamberlain's FT shooting, but who has a greater IMPACT from the line... a Steve Kerr, who would go 2-2 from the line in a good game, or a Wilt who routinely took 15+ FTAs per game, and was routinely making 8 of them? Not only that, but Chamberlain, along with Shaq, were, BY FAR, the greatest "and-one" players in NBA history. They were getting a TON of baskets while drawing fouls. And, when you factor in that Wilt's IMPACT, in terms of drawing fouls, resulted in an early bonus for TEAMMATES, and foul trouble for entire opposing rosters, his poor FT shooting was not nearly as negative as the "Wilt-bashers" would have you believe.

In Wilt's 14 season career, he averaged 5.8 FT and 11.4 FTA game. By contrast, in Hakeem's career seasons, he averaged 4.4 FT and 6.2 FTA per game. Now, Hakeem never had the ability to overwhelm his opponents like Chamberlain did, but, even if Hakeem could have somehow averaged 11.4 FTAs per game in his career, he would have made about 8 per game. Or, roughly 2 points more, per game, than Chamberlain. Then, think about this...a PRIME Chamberlain took 17 FTAs per game in an entire season, and MADE 10.4 of them. Wilt also had SEASONS where he MADE 8.0 and 8.3 FTs per game. A PRIME Hakeem never averaged more than 8 FTAs per game, and never made more than 5.6 of them. Here again, IF Hakeem could have ever come close to 17 FTAs per game, (which, of course was preposterous), he would have made 13 of them. Or 2.6 more ppg than what Wilt ACTUALLY accomplished. Kind of puts this "Wilt was awful from the line" crap in it's proper context, doesn't it.

So, those that claim that Wilt "cost" his team's games with his FT shooting, had better realize that, BECAUSE of WILT, his TEAM's were ROUTINELY leading the league in FTAs. How many game's did Wilt "win" because his TEAMMATES were getting 10-15 more FTAs at the line?

Once again, Wilt's TEAMs were always among the league leaders in FTAs, and in fact, LED the league on several occasions. His 66-67 76ers were MILES ahead the next best team. But, the best example of Wilt's IMPACT at the line, came in his 68-69 and 69-70 seasons with LA. In the 68-69 season, the Lakers LED the NBA in FTAs. They also shot 179 more FTAs than the next best team in the playoffs, (Boston.) And while Wilt has been single-handedly blamed by some ignorant posters for losing the seven game Finals against Boston because of HIS FT shooting, how about the fact that Wilt's Lakers had a 286-201 margin in FTAs, as well as a 182-159 edge in total FTs MADE.

Wilt was injured in game nine of the '69-70 season, and missed 70 games that season. How did his Lakers do in terms of FTAs that season? They came in 12th, in a 14 team league. AND, it gets even better. Wilt came back for the playoffs, and the result? LA took 200 MORE FTAs than the next best playoff team (NY), AND, in the Finals, the Lakers had a 256-160 margin FTAs against the Knicks, AND a whopping 176-122 margin in FTs MADE in that series.

Once again, how many game's did Wilt's Lakers WIN because Chamberlain's IMPACT at the line allowed his TEAM to SCORE much more from the line?


The bottom line...and in terms of "complete"...Wilt was the game's greatest scorer, greatest rebounder, most efficient, among the game's best passers (and clearly the greatest passing "big man" of all-time), the game's greatest shot-blocker, and only Russell was greater in terms of defensive impact.

Last I checked, basketball was a game of scoring, rebounding, passing, and defense. Give me a player who was better in ALL four categories combined.
jlauber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2012, 11:28 PM   #18
jlauber
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,836
jlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunksby
Since GOAT = Kareem and post does not include him it is concluded that OP is a fakkit and none of the mentioned in the OP can be considered in the conversation.

Aside from the fact that Wilt was a better scorer, better rebounder, better passer, and better defensively,... Kareem has a solid case over Wilt.
jlauber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 08:32 AM   #19
Helix
I airball my layups
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 79
Helix has no real reputation yet.
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
Last I checked, basketball was a game of scoring, rebounding, passing, and defense. Give me a player who was better in ALL four categories combined.


It can't be done because there isn't one.
Helix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 09:09 AM   #20
Owl
Local High School Star
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,503
Owl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this board
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
I think you are severely under-rating an early NBA Chamberlain. He was a good outside shooter in college, with a solid 15+ ft. range, and he carried it into his first few seasons of his NBA career.

CavsFan posted this outstanding footage of Chamberlain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4WZX...eature=related
Wilt had a decent shot from short-midrange early on. Going beyond 12 feet or so I can't see it. His free throw% are indicative that he never had 15 foot range, even in college his ft% was only .619 and after having three of his first four pro years fairly near that that mark (though all below) (and one at around 50%) he was thereafter on average a below 50% shooter (in the regular season). It is unfortunate that his worst years from the line coincided with his best chances to win titles (76ers years) and that his free throw shooting was worse in the playoffs (though this is in large part due to his longest playoff runs coming in those poor shooting years).

He scored a lot of points from the free throw line and we are all aware of that. Still that you could hold Wilt to approx 1 point per possession by fouling him was a boon to opposing teams and indicates an area where he was substatially below average and thus by my (and I suspect most people's) definition incomplete.
Owl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 11:49 AM   #21
Pointguard
NBA rookie of the year
 
Pointguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 6,478
Pointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Wilt had a decent shot from short-midrange early on. Going beyond 12 feet or so I can't see it. His free throw% are indicative that he never had 15 foot range, even in college his ft% was only .619 and after having three of his first four pro years fairly near that that mark (though all below) (and one at around 50%) he was thereafter on average a below 50% shooter (in the regular season). It is unfortunate that his worst years from the line coincided with his best chances to win titles (76ers years) and that his free throw shooting was worse in the playoffs (though this is in large part due to his longest playoff runs coming in those poor shooting years).

He scored a lot of points from the free throw line and we are all aware of that. Still that you could hold Wilt to approx 1 point per possession by fouling him was a boon to opposing teams and indicates an area where he was substatially below average and thus by my (and I suspect most people's) definition incomplete.
Bruce Bowen lead the league in three point percentage in 03 with like 41% he shot 40% from the free throw line that year. The Two aren't as related as you suggest.

If a player is among the best in three/four categories ever FT shooting is nitpicking. No way am I going to say Kareem is more complete because he shot FT better when he didn't score, rebound, defend, hustle, or block in the same way. Most great centers didn't shoot FT's well.
Pointguard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 12:10 PM   #22
NumberSix
Big Booty Hoes!!
 
NumberSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Internets
Posts: 17,191
NumberSix has not been impressing people
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

OP is a phaggit
NumberSix is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 01:10 PM   #23
jlip
Decent college freshman
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Memphis
Posts: 2,943
jlip has an incredible reputation herejlip has an incredible reputation herejlip has an incredible reputation herejlip has an incredible reputation herejlip has an incredible reputation herejlip has an incredible reputation herejlip has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
For definitions sake.
GOAT - Combination of on the court production, accomplishments, and impact on the sport to a limited degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
GOAT Player - What happens between the 50 by 90 foot court. This does not incorporate such things as accolades, resume or impact off of the court. Its about pure play. Stats can be used but player description and excellence are looked at. Skills, Fundamentals, Domination, Qualites are all part of the equation.
I agree totally. Many times I call this individual the "best" player as opposed to the "greatest" player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
Complete Player - Complete implies full set of skills, full set of tools, full set of defensive skills, full set of offensive skills, full set of fundamentals, full set of intangibles, full set of gifts, full set of talent, full set of versatility, full mental set, full physical set, full set of talents, full set of qualities, full set of front court and back court abilities would be the most complete player.
Agree with this also

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
Curious as to how you would define superstar?
A superstar IMO is during his era a consensus top 2 player at his position and has a legitimate case for being the best. To be a superstar the player also needs to have been at worst a top 7 player in the league, but prefereably a top 5. I feel that if you're out of the top 7 then you're not really a "superstar." You're more an all star.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
Do you really care to make the distinction? Do you have others?
I have been known to make distinctions between the greatest "team" players and the greatest "individua"l players. IMO Magic and Russell are my GOAT team players because the essence of their respective games was to make others better. Honestly the stats of their teammates may be better indicators of how well they performed than their own individual stats. Then you have the likes of young Wilt, Jordan, and Kareem. Those are my greatest individual players. Their individual stats are better gauges for them. Bird IMO is a combination of both styles.
jlip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 02:25 PM   #24
Owl
Local High School Star
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,503
Owl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this boardOwl is popular on this board
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
Bruce Bowen lead the league in three point percentage in 03 with like 41% he shot 40% from the free throw line that year. The Two aren't as related as you suggest.

If a player is among the best in three/four categories ever FT shooting is nitpicking. No way am I going to say Kareem is more complete because he shot FT better when he didn't score, rebound, defend, hustle, or block in the same way. Most great centers didn't shoot FT's well.
If you want to pick exceptions Dan Majerle is a good one too. Nick Anderson kind of although off the top of my head I don't thinks his 3 percentages were that good.

But they are exceptions. There are a few good ft shooters who don't quite have 3 point range. But especially since the 3 pointer became an established weapon, 3 shooters have almost inevitably been good ft shooters.

Free throw shooting is an excellent gage of how good a shooter someone is. Maybe guys who are good at FTs will have trouble getting shots off in games but it's hard to argue that someone who can't score unguarded from 15 feet will consistently make them with a hand in their face.

Moses Malone, Jack Sikma, Bill Laimbeer are all off the top of my head above 80% (I think). I'd expect most others are above 70%.

Shaq, Wilt and Russell are greats, but they weren't great shooters and thus are less than complete.
Owl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 03:31 PM   #25
rodman91
Bulls
 
rodman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,245
rodman91 has a terrific reputationrodman91 has a terrific reputationrodman91 has a terrific reputationrodman91 has a terrific reputationrodman91 has a terrific reputation
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

GOAT: Jordan. Most iconic name in basketball.Considered one of three greatest athletes (Babe Ruth & Muhammad Ali) He best total of greatest stats, awards & accomplishments.

GOAT player: Michael Jordan.One the greatest at both ends of floor. Great fundamentals,shooting touch, athletcisim, endurance.

Complete player : Kevin Garnett. He had seasons many seasons with +20rpg, +11 rpg & +5apg.. Also +1.5 bpg & spg. He can play post, he can shoot threes, some playmaking, he can dribble, he was good to great at everything. Yuri Boyka of Basketball.
rodman91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 07:42 PM   #26
jlauber
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,836
jlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Owl
Wilt had a decent shot from short-midrange early on. Going beyond 12 feet or so I can't see it. His free throw% are indicative that he never had 15 foot range, even in college his ft% was only .619 and after having three of his first four pro years fairly near that that mark (though all below) (and one at around 50%) he was thereafter on average a below 50% shooter (in the regular season). It is unfortunate that his worst years from the line coincided with his best chances to win titles (76ers years) and that his free throw shooting was worse in the playoffs (though this is in large part due to his longest playoff runs coming in those poor shooting years).

He scored a lot of points from the free throw line and we are all aware of that. Still that you could hold Wilt to approx 1 point per possession by fouling him was a boon to opposing teams and indicates an area where he was substatially below average and thus by my (and I suspect most people's) definition incomplete.

Where do you rank Bird then? Bird was a BELOW AVERAGE shooter in the post-season, including FIVE entire post-seasons of .450, .444, .427, .422, and .408. He also shot .455 in his 31 Finals games, and was below .399 in 11 of them (and below .299 in two of those.) Or that Bird's 3pt shooting in the post-season was virtually non-existant (80 made in 164 post-season games.)

How about MJ's rebounding? 6.2 rpg over the course of his career. Acceptable for a guard, but WAY BELOW AVERAGE. And, take away the years in which the NBA moved the line in, and he was a career .288 shooter...or WAY BELOW AVERAGE.

Kareem? He was a good rebounder in the first half of his career, but never great. In the last half of his career, he wasn't even as good a rebounder as his PG teammate. And, he had his fair share of post-season "flop jobs", too. He had FIVE entire post-seasons of shooting less than the league average, which is even more damaging when you consider that he was a center. And, along with those entire post-seasons, he had numerous post-season series in which he shot relatively poorly. Furthermore, he was outplayed in a number of post-season series. You would be hard-pressed to find single games in which Chamberlain was outplayed in, and virtually none in his prime (Kareem had several in his prime.)

And once again, Kareem and Hakeem were basically 70% FT shooters, which was BELOW AVERAGE (albeit average for centers.) BUT, they had nowhere near the IMPACT that even a below average Chamberlain had from the line. Here again, Chamberlain was taking and MAKING more considerably more FTs, per season, than either of them.

What bothers me, is that, Wilt was the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history. Not just on pure numbers either, but by huge margins over his peers.

And no one was even remotely close to the rebounder that Chamberlain was, in terms of both numbers, and pure domination of his peers (including the post-season.)

He was also the most efficient shooter in NBA history, especially when compared to the league averages of the league's he played in. And here again, those that disparage Wilt's FT shooting, never bring up the fact that he was outshooting the other "greats" by .050 to as much as .200 points from the field.

Defensively, he was ROUTINELY holding his opposing centers to .100 under their normal FG%'s, including a PRIME Kareem (in 28 H2H games, Kareem shot .464 against Wilt, including .434 over the course of their last 10 H2H's.) And the evidence that exists points to Wilt being the greatest shot-blocker of all-time.

Passing. He was a GOOD passer when compared to the average NBA player, and a GREAT passer when compared to CENTERS.

Clutch? Aside from MJ, Wilt was probably the most "clutch" player of all-time, particularly in his BIGGEST games. And I challenge anyone to find another player (other than MJ) who played bigger in the post-season, and in their biggest games, INCLUDING how their OPPOSING players performed. Those that claim that Wilt "declined" in the post-season NEVER bring up the fact that he was SUBSTANTIALLY reducing the play of his opposing centers.

The bottom line...as Psileas claimed, give Wilt a "5" (on a scale of 10) for his FT shooting (although I rank it higher based on pure IMPACT), but then you have to give him "10's) for scoring, rebounding, defense, shot-blocking, FG% effciency, and no worse than a 7+ for passing (keep in mind that Wilt LED the league in assists one season, and came in THIRD in another.) And if you are going to give him a "0" for 3pt shooting, well, then 99% of the centers will be joining him. And, the fact was, there was no 3pt line in Wilt's era, either...so, you really can't even hold that against him.

You could give MJ a 10 for scoring, but really only a 4 for rebounding (the average NBA was better than a 6.2 rpg player.) He was also a below average shot-blocker (in fact, at 1 bpg, he was considerably below average...albeit, good for a guard.) His 3pt shooting, while better than the vast majority of centers, was below average in the vast majority of his seasons. He would certainly not be a 10 at the line, and would be an 8+ (although, much like Wilt, he got to the line frequently.) Passing? Probably around a 7+. Defensively, yeah, I would NOT give him a 10, either. Why? Take a look at the greatest Defensive rRating seasons and the greatest Defensive Win Share seasons, and you won't find MJ anywhere on those deep lists. As great a defender as he was for a guard, he simply didn't have the defensive impact that the great centers and PF's had. I wouldn't even give him a "9" in that category.

Bird? A good, but not great rebounder (he never came close to leading the league in rebounding.) A good, but not great passer. Not much more than an average shooter in terms of FG% (and worse in the post-season.) A POOR shot blocker. And when you factor in volume, his 3pt shooting was not much better than average (and once again, not even a factor in the post-season.) He wasn't even a GREAT scorer (not only did he NEVER lead the league in scoring, he NEVER even averaged 30+ ppg...unlike quite a few elite scorers.)Defense? Like MJ, find Bird on the defensive statistics lists. He was a good defender for a SF, and no more than average overall. The more you break down Bird's overall "ratings", the less spectacular it looks. He was merely good in several categories, and average or worse in other's.

And you could do the same for every other "great" player. Most of the centers were poor passers overall, as well as below average FT shooters. And only a small handful could be considered "9's" in scoring (and if Wilt was a 10, then no other center would have been any more than a "9.") And, here again, how many centers would be any more than a "0" in 3pt shooting.

Take the other "great" guards. How many would even be AVERAGE rebounders (none BTW) ? Or shot-blockers (none BTW)? And how about FG% efficiency (very few)?

So, in terms of COMPLETE players...Chamberlain stands alone.

Last edited by jlauber : 04-11-2012 at 07:53 PM.
jlauber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 11:19 PM   #27
Pointguard
NBA rookie of the year
 
Pointguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 6,478
Pointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlip
A superstar IMO is during his era a consensus top 2 player at his position and has a legitimate case for being the best. To be a superstar the player also needs to have been at worst a top 7 player in the league, but prefereably a top 5. I feel that if you're out of the top 7 then you're not really a "superstar." You're more an all star.
Thanks Jlip, this is the hardest one for me. I recall reading your distinctions before as well. I have trouble with box office draw aspect of it.
Quote:

I have been known to make distinctions between the greatest "team" players and the greatest "individua"l players. IMO Magic and Russell are my GOAT team players because the essence of their respective games was to make others better. Honestly the stats of their teammates may be better indicators of how well they performed than their own individual stats. Then you have the likes of young Wilt, Jordan, and Kareem. Those are my greatest individual players. Their individual stats are better gauges for them. Bird IMO is a combination of both styles.
Yeah I agree. Bird had a way with being in front and behind his teammates. It was easy for other players to step up with him and he wasn't ball dominant. Good example.
Pointguard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 11:38 PM   #28
Pointguard
NBA rookie of the year
 
Pointguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 6,478
Pointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
Where do you rank Bird then? Bird was a BELOW AVERAGE shooter in the post-season, including FIVE entire post-seasons of .450, .444, .427, .422, and .408. He also shot .455 in his 31 Finals games, and was below .399 in 11 of them (and below .299 in two of those.) Or that Bird's 3pt shooting in the post-season was virtually non-existant (80 made in 164 post-season games.)

How about MJ's rebounding? 6.2 rpg over the course of his career. Acceptable for a guard, but WAY BELOW AVERAGE. And, take away the years in which the NBA moved the line in, and he was a career .288 shooter...or WAY BELOW AVERAGE.

Kareem? He was a good rebounder in the first half of his career, but never great. In the last half of his career, he wasn't even as good a rebounder as his PG teammate. And, he had his fair share of post-season "flop jobs", too. He had FIVE entire post-seasons of shooting less than the league average, which is even more damaging when you consider that he was a center. And, along with those entire post-seasons, he had numerous post-season series in which he shot relatively poorly. Furthermore, he was outplayed in a number of post-season series. You would be hard-pressed to find single games in which Chamberlain was outplayed in, and virtually none in his prime (Kareem had several in his prime.)

And once again, Kareem and Hakeem were basically 70% FT shooters, which was BELOW AVERAGE (albeit average for centers.) BUT, they had nowhere near the IMPACT that even a below average Chamberlain had from the line. Here again, Chamberlain was taking and MAKING more considerably more FTs, per season, than either of them.

What bothers me, is that, Wilt was the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history. Not just on pure numbers either, but by huge margins over his peers.

And no one was even remotely close to the rebounder that Chamberlain was, in terms of both numbers, and pure domination of his peers (including the post-season.)

He was also the most efficient shooter in NBA history, especially when compared to the league averages of the league's he played in. And here again, those that disparage Wilt's FT shooting, never bring up the fact that he was outshooting the other "greats" by .050 to as much as .200 points from the field.

Defensively, he was ROUTINELY holding his opposing centers to .100 under their normal FG%'s, including a PRIME Kareem (in 28 H2H games, Kareem shot .464 against Wilt, including .434 over the course of their last 10 H2H's.) And the evidence that exists points to Wilt being the greatest shot-blocker of all-time.

Passing. He was a GOOD passer when compared to the average NBA player, and a GREAT passer when compared to CENTERS.

Clutch? Aside from MJ, Wilt was probably the most "clutch" player of all-time, particularly in his BIGGEST games. And I challenge anyone to find another player (other than MJ) who played bigger in the post-season, and in their biggest games, INCLUDING how their OPPOSING players performed. Those that claim that Wilt "declined" in the post-season NEVER bring up the fact that he was SUBSTANTIALLY reducing the play of his opposing centers.

The bottom line...as Psileas claimed, give Wilt a "5" (on a scale of 10) for his FT shooting (although I rank it higher based on pure IMPACT), but then you have to give him "10's) for scoring, rebounding, defense, shot-blocking, FG% effciency, and no worse than a 7+ for passing (keep in mind that Wilt LED the league in assists one season, and came in THIRD in another.) And if you are going to give him a "0" for 3pt shooting, well, then 99% of the centers will be joining him. And, the fact was, there was no 3pt line in Wilt's era, either...so, you really can't even hold that against him.

You could give MJ a 10 for scoring, but really only a 4 for rebounding (the average NBA was better than a 6.2 rpg player.) He was also a below average shot-blocker (in fact, at 1 bpg, he was considerably below average...albeit, good for a guard.) His 3pt shooting, while better than the vast majority of centers, was below average in the vast majority of his seasons. He would certainly not be a 10 at the line, and would be an 8+ (although, much like Wilt, he got to the line frequently.) Passing? Probably around a 7+. Defensively, yeah, I would NOT give him a 10, either. Why? Take a look at the greatest Defensive rRating seasons and the greatest Defensive Win Share seasons, and you won't find MJ anywhere on those deep lists. As great a defender as he was for a guard, he simply didn't have the defensive impact that the great centers and PF's had. I wouldn't even give him a "9" in that category.

Bird? A good, but not great rebounder (he never came close to leading the league in rebounding.) A good, but not great passer. Not much more than an average shooter in terms of FG% (and worse in the post-season.) A POOR shot blocker. And when you factor in volume, his 3pt shooting was not much better than average (and once again, not even a factor in the post-season.) He wasn't even a GREAT scorer (not only did he NEVER lead the league in scoring, he NEVER even averaged 30+ ppg...unlike quite a few elite scorers.)Defense? Like MJ, find Bird on the defensive statistics lists. He was a good defender for a SF, and no more than average overall. The more you break down Bird's overall "ratings", the less spectacular it looks. He was merely good in several categories, and average or worse in other's.

And you could do the same for every other "great" player. Most of the centers were poor passers overall, as well as below average FT shooters. And only a small handful could be considered "9's" in scoring (and if Wilt was a 10, then no other center would have been any more than a "9.") And, here again, how many centers would be any more than a "0" in 3pt shooting.

Take the other "great" guards. How many would even be AVERAGE rebounders (none BTW) ? Or shot-blockers (none BTW)? And how about FG% efficiency (very few)?

So, in terms of COMPLETE players...Chamberlain stands alone.
Yeah, the complete question can't work against Wilt. And if you are the greatest at rebounding, endurance, scoring, quadruple doubles, double-doubles, triple-doubles, shooting percentage, most assist as a center, and more titles than any other player and among the best in blocks, defense and records (missing something) folks bringing up FTs just doesn't cut it. Wilt owns every measure of a complete game record even tho they have officially admitted to a very small portion of them.

Last edited by Pointguard : 04-11-2012 at 11:41 PM.
Pointguard is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2012, 11:49 PM   #29
jlauber
3-time NBA All-Star
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,836
jlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginablejlauber is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointguard
Yeah, the complete question can't work against Wilt. And if you are the greatest at rebounding, endurance, scoring, quadruple doubles, double-doubles, triple-doubles, shooting percentage, most assist as a center, and more titles than any other player and among the best in blocks, defense and records (missing something) folks bringing up FTs just doesn't cut it. Wilt owns every measure of a complete game record even tho they have officially admitted to a very small portion of them.

Exactly. Chamberlain had a single game of 53 points, 32 rebounds, 14 assists, 7 blocks, and on 24-29 shooting, in as late as the 1968 season.

And while I like Ginobili's game, he was mentioned in this topic...he was slightly above average in a few categories, average in other's, and even below average in a couple. Yet, he is an exmaple of a "complete" player?

The best all-around "complete" player would have to be Garnett. He was good to very good in virtually every category. He could even handle the ball as well as many PG's.

In any case, those that quickly dismiss Wilt based on his poor FT shooting, are eliminating a player that was the game's greatest scorer, greatest rebounder, moist efficient shooter, greatest shot-blocker, above average passer (and the best passing "big man", and by a MILE, in NBA history), and the game's second greatest defensive force of all-time.

One more time...basketball is a game of scoring, rebounding, passing, and defense. Using THAT criteria, he is THE most COMPLETE player of all-time.
jlauber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2012, 12:21 PM   #30
Pointguard
NBA rookie of the year
 
Pointguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 6,478
Pointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterPointguard is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Superstar, GOAT, GOAT Player, Complete player...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
Exactly. Chamberlain had a single game of 53 points, 32 rebounds, 14 assists, 7 blocks, and on 24-29 shooting, in as late as the 1968 season.

And while I like Ginobili's game, he was mentioned in this topic...he was slightly above average in a few categories, average in other's, and even below average in a couple. Yet, he is an exmaple of a "complete" player?

The best all-around "complete" player would have to be Garnett. He was good to very good in virtually every category. He could even handle the ball as well as many PG's.

In any case, those that quickly dismiss Wilt based on his poor FT shooting, are eliminating a player that was the game's greatest scorer, greatest rebounder, moist efficient shooter, greatest shot-blocker, above average passer (and the best passing "big man", and by a MILE, in NBA history), and the game's second greatest defensive force of all-time.

One more time...basketball is a game of scoring, rebounding, passing, and defense. Using THAT criteria, he is THE most COMPLETE player of all-time.
I know if you gave a point system for everything thing - scoring, rebounds, assist, defense, skills, fundamentals, gifts, tools, talent, qualities, production, efficiency etc. and attached an application value -bad, below average, average, good, great, elite with a deduction for weaknessess -Wilt would win with MJ right behind him. If you said least amount of weaknesses with some strengths its KG for me. No weaknesses across the board maybe Pippen fights KG there.
Pointguard is online now   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:20 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy