Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 11197 Location: The Other Perspective
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:13 pm Post subject:
LAL1947 wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
wilt>>>>>hakeem
Wilt is probably the only center I wouldn't argue against. He owns the record books and possibly the most badass b-ball quote ever... "There shall be no more layups in this gym!"
Call me crazy, but I'll take Cap over Wilt any day of the week. _________________ "Chick lived and breathed Lakers basketball…but he was also fair and objective and called every game the way it was played."
-from Chick: His Unpublished Memoirs and the Memories of Those Who Knew Him
Wilt is probably the only center I wouldn't argue against. He owns the record books and possibly the most badass b-ball quote ever... "There shall be no more layups in this gym!"
Hakeem is to centers as Kobe is to shooting guards. Skill level is on another planet. Their games also didn’t translate to the modern nba archetype. But for me personally they played the most aesthetically beautiful games at their respective positions.
While ad is certainly prototypical for this era, I still don’t think that people go to sleep about being a 3 and d player or a jump shooting big man. They dream about shaking like the dream or ripping people’s heart out with shots like Kobe bang!
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8351 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 7:29 pm Post subject:
LAL1947 wrote:
slavavov wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
governator wrote:
Olajuwon still better but prime healthy T-Mac vs current Greek Freak?
Sheesh. That’s tough. Tracy was so smooth. I don’t know
I think the Greek Freak is better. He's taller, stronger, more explosive, a much better rebounder and much more efficient despite lacking a strong outside shot.
If you think about it it's not even that close.
When you say "better", do you mean better athlete or better b-ball player or better power forward?
If you think about it... you've pointed out that Giannis is taller, stronger, more explosive and a better rebounder, all of which make him a better ATHLETE and power forward than McGrady... but T-Mac was easily a better B-BALL PLAYER and small forward if we're comparing skills and shooting... and it's not even close!
I mean he's a better overall player, for the reasons that I mentioned. It's not just that Giannis is a better athlete, but imo his production is greater.
T-Mac shot at least 45% only five seasons, and in 9 seasons he shot less than 44%. His high water mark was just 45.7%, and his career shooting % is just 43.5. Giannis, on the other hand, only shot less than 44% in his rookie season. Since then, he's always shot over 49% each season.
I agree T-Mac is more skilled, but that's different than saying he's BETTER. Just like how Kobe was more skilled than Jordan, but Jordan was the BETTER player. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Olajuwon still better but prime healthy T-Mac vs current Greek Freak?
Sheesh. That’s tough. Tracy was so smooth. I don’t know
I think the Greek Freak is better. He's taller, stronger, more explosive, a much better rebounder and much more efficient despite lacking a strong outside shot.
If you think about it it's not even that close.
When you say "better", do you mean better athlete or better b-ball player or better power forward?
If you think about it... you've pointed out that Giannis is taller, stronger, more explosive and a better rebounder, all of which make him a better ATHLETE and power forward than McGrady... but T-Mac was easily a better B-BALL PLAYER and small forward if we're comparing skills and shooting... and it's not even close!
I mean he's a better overall player, for the reasons that I mentioned. It's not just that Giannis is a better athlete, but imo his production is greater.
T-Mac shot at least 45% only five seasons, and in 9 seasons he shot less than 44%. His high water mark was just 45.7%, and his career shooting % is just 43.5. Giannis, on the other hand, only shot less than 44% in his rookie season. Since then, he's always shot over 49% each season.
I agree T-Mac is more skilled, but that's different than saying he's BETTER. Just like how Kobe was more skilled than Jordan, but Jordan was the BETTER player.
45% or 50%. We’re talking about 5 more made baskets out of a 100! Who gives a Sh**. Lol
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8351 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:58 pm Post subject:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
slavavov wrote:
LAL1947 wrote:
slavavov wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
governator wrote:
Olajuwon still better but prime healthy T-Mac vs current Greek Freak?
Sheesh. That’s tough. Tracy was so smooth. I don’t know
I think the Greek Freak is better. He's taller, stronger, more explosive, a much better rebounder and much more efficient despite lacking a strong outside shot.
If you think about it it's not even that close.
When you say "better", do you mean better athlete or better b-ball player or better power forward?
If you think about it... you've pointed out that Giannis is taller, stronger, more explosive and a better rebounder, all of which make him a better ATHLETE and power forward than McGrady... but T-Mac was easily a better B-BALL PLAYER and small forward if we're comparing skills and shooting... and it's not even close!
I mean he's a better overall player, for the reasons that I mentioned. It's not just that Giannis is a better athlete, but imo his production is greater.
T-Mac shot at least 45% only five seasons, and in 9 seasons he shot less than 44%. His high water mark was just 45.7%, and his career shooting % is just 43.5. Giannis, on the other hand, only shot less than 44% in his rookie season. Since then, he's always shot over 49% each season.
I agree T-Mac is more skilled, but that's different than saying he's BETTER. Just like how Kobe was more skilled than Jordan, but Jordan was the BETTER player.
45% or 50%. We’re talking about 5 more made baskets out of a 100! Who gives a Sh**. Lol
Are you being serious? Are you saying that we shoudn't pay attention to detail and value efficiency? _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Olajuwon still better but prime healthy T-Mac vs current Greek Freak?
Sheesh. That’s tough. Tracy was so smooth. I don’t know
I think the Greek Freak is better. He's taller, stronger, more explosive, a much better rebounder and much more efficient despite lacking a strong outside shot.
If you think about it it's not even that close.
When you say "better", do you mean better athlete or better b-ball player or better power forward?
If you think about it... you've pointed out that Giannis is taller, stronger, more explosive and a better rebounder, all of which make him a better ATHLETE and power forward than McGrady... but T-Mac was easily a better B-BALL PLAYER and small forward if we're comparing skills and shooting... and it's not even close!
I mean he's a better overall player, for the reasons that I mentioned. It's not just that Giannis is a better athlete, but imo his production is greater.
T-Mac shot at least 45% only five seasons, and in 9 seasons he shot less than 44%. His high water mark was just 45.7%, and his career shooting % is just 43.5. Giannis, on the other hand, only shot less than 44% in his rookie season. Since then, he's always shot over 49% each season.
I agree T-Mac is more skilled, but that's different than saying he's BETTER. Just like how Kobe was more skilled than Jordan, but Jordan was the BETTER player.
45% or 50%. We’re talking about 5 more made baskets out of a 100! Who gives a Sh**. Lol
Are you being serious? Are you saying that we shoudn't pay attention to detail and value efficiency?
I don’t think it matters if a player makes 5 extra shots out of a hundred.
Like, At All. And if that’s the criteria you’re using to separate the value of a Tracy McGrady compared to The Greek Freak then I think that’s nuts
Wilt is probably the only center I wouldn't argue against. He owns the record books and possibly the most badass b-ball quote ever... "There shall be no more layups in this gym!"
KaReem>>>HaKeem
To each their own. I'm taking Hakeem in my dream team every time because a starting 5 with Hakeem will be more relevant in any era and he'd have been more able to fit with any style or team... and that has everything to do with his natural talent/skills.
Last edited by LAL1947 on Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:04 am; edited 2 times in total
I don’t think it matters if a player makes 5 extra shots out of a hundred.
Like, At All. And if that’s the criteria you’re using to separate the value of a Tracy McGrady compared to The Greek Freak then I think that’s nuts
This is why the geeks have taken over basketball. They beat you with those extra five shots. If a player takes 20 shots per game, that's one extra made shot per game. There are five players on the court, so that's five extra made shots per game. Then they use FTs and threes to maximize the value of those five extra made shots per game. The math grinds you down.
Joined: 19 Jul 2002 Posts: 15403 Location: Oak Park
Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 5:46 am Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
LaLaLakeShow wrote:
I don’t think it matters if a player makes 5 extra shots out of a hundred.
Like, At All. And if that’s the criteria you’re using to separate the value of a Tracy McGrady compared to The Greek Freak then I think that’s nuts
This is why the geeks have taken over basketball. They beat you with those extra five shots. If a player takes 20 shots per game, that's one extra made shot per game. There are five players on the court, so that's five extra made shots per game. Then they use FTs and threes to maximize the value of those five extra made shots per game. The math grinds you down.
Yeah. And fantasy has skewed people’s perception of value too. So many people don’t even watch harden pound the ball into a step back 3 or flail to get those free throws. It’s robotically efficient but imho just really boring.
I don’t think it matters if a player makes 5 extra shots out of a hundred.
Like, At All. And if that’s the criteria you’re using to separate the value of a Tracy McGrady compared to The Greek Freak then I think that’s nuts
This is why the geeks have taken over basketball. They beat you with those extra five shots. If a player takes 20 shots per game, that's one extra made shot per game. There are five players on the court, so that's five extra made shots per game. Then they use FTs and threes to maximize the value of those five extra made shots per game. The math grinds you down.
Yeah. And fantasy has skewed people’s perception of value too. So many people don’t even watch harden pound the ball into a step back 3 or flail to get those free throws. It’s robotically efficient but imho just really boring.
it would be ok if it were something other players can do too for the same results. but when its something only one guy is "allowed" to do, its just basically cheating. its affecting the integrity of the game because people now think this is normal and allowed, and no big deal if it wasnt allowed all the previous decades. so i get into these debates about whether its traveling or not, or if its a foul or not...but the point is that whatever it is, it wasnt allowed before. this idea that these guys are so "creative" that they are coming up with new moves is silly. its "new" ONLY because it wasnt allowed before. its not like oscar was trying to think of it and couldnt, and harden is this genius that figured out the quantum physics of basketball. no...its just cheating thats allowed for some reason.
people need to remember one thing when they disregard traveling sticklers like me about the rule....there is literally only one thing that separates real deal basketball (olympics nba, etc., college, whatever) from things like and1 and globetrotters....traveling. you allow traveling and there is now no difference. its a very big deal.
I don’t think it matters if a player makes 5 extra shots out of a hundred.
Like, At All. And if that’s the criteria you’re using to separate the value of a Tracy McGrady compared to The Greek Freak then I think that’s nuts
This is why the geeks have taken over basketball. They beat you with those extra five shots. If a player takes 20 shots per game, that's one extra made shot per game. There are five players on the court, so that's five extra made shots per game. Then they use FTs and threes to maximize the value of those five extra made shots per game. The math grinds you down.
Yeah. And fantasy has skewed people’s perception of value too. So many people don’t even watch harden pound the ball into a step back 3 or flail to get those free throws. It’s robotically efficient but imho just really boring.
Harden is polarizing, but so far he is one of a kind. No one else has made a significant effort to play like him. I really don't understand why. Like it or not, it works, and it has gained Harden a lot of money and fame. Fans complain about Harden, but other players seem to respect him.
The faces of the Moneyball game are guys like Curry and Lebron. They milk the spreadsheets with things like TS% and RPM. There are people who get all excited about guys like Carmelo and Westbrook. I get it, but HAL won't open the pod bay doors for them.
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8351 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 6:33 pm Post subject:
I'm definitely not an analytics guy, but I don't understand how shooting % doesn't matter. Don't those extra missed shots hurt your team? _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
I'm definitely not an analytics guy, but I don't understand how shooting % doesn't matter. Don't those extra missed shots hurt your team?
For example... because you're comparing the shooting percentage of a guy who mainly only shoots/dunks within a few feet of the basket while mainly being fed the ball by a team mate (Giannis) vs the shooting percentage of a guy who used to take all sorts of shots from all over the floor and while mainly creating space for himself with his skills (McGrady)... to then come up with your opinion that Giannis is a better "player" because he is more "efficient". So where does it stop? I ask because using this same logic, someone else could also argue that DeAndre Jordan was a better player than the GOAT Michael Jordan... because DeAndre had a higher true shooting percentage, no?
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8351 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:36 pm Post subject:
LAL1947 wrote:
slavavov wrote:
I'm definitely not an analytics guy, but I don't understand how shooting % doesn't matter. Don't those extra missed shots hurt your team?
For example... because you're comparing the shooting percentage of a guy who mainly only shoots/dunks within a few feet of the basket while mainly being fed the ball by a team mate (Giannis) vs the shooting percentage of a guy who used to take all sorts of shots from all over the floor and while mainly creating space for himself with his skills (McGrady)... to then come up with your opinion that Giannis is a better "player" because he is more "efficient". So where does it stop? I ask because using this same logic, someone else could also argue that DeAndre Jordan was a better player than the GOAT Michael Jordan... because DeAndre had a higher true shooting percentage, no?
That actually sounds like a good point, and we should take that into account in general.
Although I don't know if it matters as much in this case, because Giannis is still a perimeter player. Both guys create a good number of their own shots, although I do agree T-Mac created more of his own shots.
It would come into play if we're comparing someone like Shaq who shot like a zillion percent versus a guy like T-Mac or Kobe who were perimeter players and created many of their own shots.
I consider Giannis a perimeter player because of his style of play - amazing that someone who's 6-11 has that type of open court game. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
That actually sounds like a good point, and we should take that into account in general.
Although I don't know if it matters as much in this case, because Giannis is still a perimeter player. Both guys create a good number of their own shots, although I do agree T-Mac created more of his own shots.
It would come into play if we're comparing someone like Shaq who shot like a zillion percent versus a guy like T-Mac or Kobe who were perimeter players and created many of their own shots.
I consider Giannis a perimeter player because of his style of play
Well, yeah, it would matter more when comparing a center like Shaq to a guard but it's still relevant for Giannis too. Not trying to be argumentative or anything... I just think Giannis is a lot closer to Shaq in terms of what he does but being more agile/mobile and having better dribbling/shooting than the big guy allows him to do more things on the perimeter. Yet having some perimeter game is not enough to call him a "perimeter player" IMO... as you can see from the number of shots/dunks he takes close(r) to the basket.
Giannis: 0-3 feet (50%), 3-10 feet (16%), 10-16 feet (7%), 16-3PT (14%), 3PT (13%). 50% within 3 feet... and 66% taken from within 10 feet of the basket.
Shaq: 0-3 feet (54%), 3-10 feet (39%), 10-16 feet (6%), 16-3PT (0%), 3PT (0%). 54% within 3 feet... but 93% taken from within 10 feet of the basket.
McGrady: 0-3 feet (25%), 3-10 feet (13%), 10-16 feet (10%), 16-3PT (38%), 3PT (14%). Only 25% within 3 feet... and 62% taken beyond 10 feet.
slavavov wrote:
amazing that someone who's 6-11 has that type of open court game.
It is cool. McGrady was amazing in his prime too... playing his style of game at 6'8"?
Wilt is probably the only center I wouldn't argue against. He owns the record books and possibly the most badass b-ball quote ever... "There shall be no more layups in this gym!"
KaReem>>>HaKeem
When I make my top 10 list first off I don't include players I didn't see play. I was too young to remember Wilt, and Russell, Wilt, Baylor and West were before my time. So I'm going from 1979 on and I got:
Honorable mention: Dr J because his best years were in the ABA, but he was still dam good on the 76'ers.
Remember folks, if you ask 10 people who their top 10 is, you're probably going to get 10 different answers. My list is based on mental toughness as much as physical. People may question Dominique's mental toughness but I don't. Most of his teams just weren't good enough to beat the Pistons or Celtics, and back then the East was the tougher conference.
I'm definitely not an analytics guy, but I don't understand how shooting % doesn't matter. Don't those extra missed shots hurt your team?
For example... because you're comparing the shooting percentage of a guy who mainly only shoots/dunks within a few feet of the basket while mainly being fed the ball by a team mate (Giannis) vs the shooting percentage of a guy who used to take all sorts of shots from all over the floor and while mainly creating space for himself with his skills (McGrady)... to then come up with your opinion that Giannis is a better "player" because he is more "efficient". So where does it stop? I ask because using this same logic, someone else could also argue that DeAndre Jordan was a better player than the GOAT Michael Jordan... because DeAndre had a higher true shooting percentage, no?
If DeAndre Jordan took as many shots as MJ, then you could indeed make that argument. He would have averaged 30-35 ppg with about 14 rpg. Adjusting for pace and minutes, those are Wilt Chamberlain numbers.
This is the problem with picking someone like DeAndre Jordan or Mark Eaton to argue about efficiency. It sounds clever, but it misses the point. This is like citing Robert Horry in ring counting arguments. There is more to analytics than just a recitation of statistics without context.
There are advanced metrics like RAPM (and now RPM) that capture the entirety of a player's impact. You can find a compendium of all of the RAPM stats for the databall era here:
It looks like McGrady had about three years in the top 10, when he was young. Giannis hasn't done it yet, but then analytics don't love Giannis as much as the media does. A better comparison is Curry, who the analytics types just love. There is a video about this linked in the Thinking Basketball Videos thread in General.
Dominique, that's interesting. Out of the ringless, I would put Barkley and Malone on top
It was hard for me to not put Malone on there. He stayed in tip top physical shape and was about as consistent as you can get. Plus he makes his free throws. Barkley is close too, but not consistent. He was never really in great shape, came in the league fat and left fat. Like Shaq, if he had a better work ethic he could have been near the top. With Shaq, even though his last 6 years or so in the league weren't great, he had a good 10 year stretch of dominance. I don't have a problem swapping Dominique out with Malone, but I love an underdog and he doesn't get enough credit. His game was a great mixture of finesse and brute strength. When he dunked you got the heck out of the way lol. Plus he was just a joy to watch play, and Malone was a bit on the boring side. Hey, basketball is entertainment at the end of the day.
Dominique, that's interesting. Out of the ringless, I would put Barkley and Malone on top
It was hard for me to not put Malone on there. He stayed in tip top physical shape and was about as consistent as you can get. Plus he makes his free throws. Barkley is close too, but not consistent. He was never really in great shape, came in the league fat and left fat. Like Shaq, if he had a better work ethic he could have been near the top. With Shaq, even though his last 6 years or so in the league weren't great, he had a good 10 year stretch of dominance. I don't have a problem swapping Dominique out with Malone, but I love an underdog and he doesn't get enough credit. His game was a great mixture of finesse and brute strength. When he dunked you got the heck out of the way lol. Plus he was just a joy to watch play, and Malone was a bit on the boring side. Hey, basketball is entertainment at the end of the day.
What about against the newer 1 ring guys, KG and Dirk... still ahead of them (I know different position and era, just for fun)
I don’t think it matters if a player makes 5 extra shots out of a hundred.
Like, At All. And if that’s the criteria you’re using to separate the value of a Tracy McGrady compared to The Greek Freak then I think that’s nuts
This is why the geeks have taken over basketball. They beat you with those extra five shots. If a player takes 20 shots per game, that's one extra made shot per game. There are five players on the court, so that's five extra made shots per game. Then they use FTs and threes to maximize the value of those five extra made shots per game. The math grinds you down.
Yeah. And fantasy has skewed people’s perception of value too. So many people don’t even watch harden pound the ball into a step back 3 or flail to get those free throws. It’s robotically efficient but imho just really boring.
Harden is polarizing, but so far he is one of a kind. No one else has made a significant effort to play like him. I really don't understand why. Like it or not, it works, and it has gained Harden a lot of money and fame. Fans complain about Harden, but other players seem to respect him.
The faces of the Moneyball game are guys like Curry and Lebron. They milk the spreadsheets with things like TS% and RPM. There are people who get all excited about guys like Carmelo and Westbrook. I get it, but HAL won't open the pod bay doors for them.
This is entertainment and the majority of non Houston fans do not like the way Harden plays and it makes the game ugly to watch. You can talk all day long about stats but at the end of the day it's all about entertainment. If players started playing more like Harden the NBA would start dying out. There's a reason he struggles in the playoffs, the refs stop giving him the tick tac bs calls and his efficiency plummets and his teams underachieve
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
