Top 5 shooting guards in NBA history

[Sticksboi05]

so he wasnt dominant, he wasnt the best big man in the world, and he wasnt considered a great player. THanks, you just proved me right.

He was considered a great player. I mean there's no point arguing if you choose to ignore being completely wrong as half a dozen in this thread have pointed out. Unless your definition of great is Hall-of-Fame caliber.

20/9 a game from your PF is great.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

So lakers have a bad team, but kobe does well, then its the lakers fault they dont win. Memphis has a bad team, but gasol does well, but its gasol's fault that they dont win.

I dont see how you dont find anything wrong with that. But, its your opinion.

the Lakers were having a great season before Gasol arrived.

and I didnt say Gasol wasnt a positive, I said you are giving him too much credit.

Its not hard to understand, its just not true lol Gasol was a beast, face of the franchise in Memphis, regarded as one of, if not, the best offensive big man in the game at the time. Fair enough, if kobe was your number one option, and you dont have one or even two dominant big men, you were not going to make the playoffs.

and you keep making my point for me. Face of hte franchise. Franchise player. Zero playoff wins. Carmelo gets slandered for only getting out the first round one time in his career. McGrady got slandered for never getting out the first. Gasol doesnt win a playoff game, and somehow he was a great player and dominant.

And he was never considered the best big man in the game before he came to LA. Thats just flat out untrue statement. Not in a league with Duncan, Dirk, Amare, and Webber (pre knee injury).

I may be wrong, correct me If i am, but I dont think they had the best record before the trade. They went 22-5 once they aquired Gasol, by the way. And New Orleans and San Antonio finished only one game behind them.

apologies, I meant when Bynum got injured they had the best record in the West. Which is true. On January 13th, 2008, the Lakers were tied for the best record and had been there the entire season.

Again, they had Odom's best mismatch for a couple of years. And bynum as well.

Odom was a starter when they were a 7th/8th seed. When Gasol arrived and Bynum was able to play, Odom moved to the bench and thats when he started to play great basketball for them.

Thats just crazy. He was the face of the franchise in memphis, and regarded as one of, if not the best offensive big man in the game at the time. Actually people like to put all the success in to Kobe when the team does well, and blames the team when they dont do well. Kobe cant even make the playoffs without a dominant big man, people fail to acknowledge this, first shaq (3 finals MVP), and Bynum and Gasol, you can throw Odom in there also cause dude is like 6'11

the face of a franchise that won zero playoff games. What that means is that he wasnt a guy that could LEAD you to the promised land, and had to be a complimentary player. He was never considered dominant and it had nothing to do with the market he played in, and everything to do with the fact that he was never a dominant player. No All NBA appearances and only one all star game before he arrives in LA. He was never considered a great player because he was not. Its the great championship/anti-Kobe revision that is at play here.

and Kobe couldnt make the playoffs without a dominant big man? Chris Mihm and Kwame Brown are dominant now? and at Odom being a dominant big man too. Reckless talk.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 11:01 AM ----------

He was considered a great player. I mean there's no point arguing if you choose to ignore being completely wrong as half a dozen in this thread have pointed out. Unless your definition of great is Hall-of-Fame caliber.

20/9 a game from your PF is great.

you know who this guy is right?

and him

Just call those two great players for me.

[Going Commando]

Exactly. Very well said, I dont get why its hard for people to understand and realize these points.

I don't think acknowledging Kobe had great teammates on his championship teams takes away from him individually though.

I think it's extremely rare for a great guard to be able to lead a championship team on his own without front court help. Maybe a passing PG can do it because his job so heavily involves getting the most out of the guys around him. But a 2 guard like Kobe needs help IMO.

A great big man can do it by himself because they have disproportionate impact. But a great guard can play at a high level and still not make a huge difference in the W/L department. Especially when he's a pure scorer like Kobe or even Ray Allen, neither of whom are facilitators. A big man can have a huge impact on the W/L column without even being a skilled offensive player or scoring threat. If he defends the rim and rebounds at a high level, chances are your team is playoff bound.

Also, another thing to think about is there are some horrid bigs out there in the NBA. Even starting. Many more bigs that don't know how to play the game very well than guards and wings. It's just easier and more common to find good basketball players in the 6' to 6'7 range than than the 6'8+ range because there are many more of them. So the effect is the delta between a great perimeter player and an average perimeter player is not nearly as big as the delta between a great big and an average one.

Kenny Smith talked about this some once. He said Hakeem used to look at the schedule and say, "I get a night off" against a crap bigs he'd face on crap teams. But then he'd point to the guards and say, "but you don't." He could get his numbers without working too hard, but those teams would still have good guards.

Bad teams would still have good guards but never good bigs. More good guards in the league and guards have much less of an impact on a game that bigs, even with the rule changes designed to make it easier for penetrating guards to thrive.

When's the last time you ever heard of an elite big giving a healthy season on an awful team? Kevin Love is the only one I can think of. And I've talked about him a lot before.

There are some outliers. LeBron for instance. He's an instant ticket to contention despite the fact he's a perimeter player. His impact on games is so astoundingly disproportionate though because he's an elite player in pretty much every area. He's an elite on ball defender at every single position, elite transition defender, elite rebounder, elite passer, elite scorer.

Carmelo and Durant are others. Again, they're guys who are automatic tickets to the post season, but they're practically the size of bigs. They defend multiple positions and have no problems scoring efficiently against any matchup.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 11:23 AM ----------

so he wasnt dominant, he wasnt the best big man in the world, and he wasnt considered a great player. THanks, you just proved me right.

No I didn't. He was dominant, he wasn't the best big man in the world, and he was considered a great player.

Are you presenting that for Pau had to be considered the best big man in the world to be great? Duncan was great even when Shaq was the most dominant big in basketball. Dirk and Garnett were great even when Duncan was better. Pau was great, even when those three were better.

Your position is that Kobe is still great regardless of his teammates and team success. You're arguing against the claim that Kobe is not great because he couldn't achieve significant team success without receiving dominant post play, first from Shaq, then from Gasol/Bynum/Odom. But to make your argument, you're arguing that Gasol was not a great player. I actually think your position is sound but your argument for it is not. Gasol was a great player.

[Shabby]

and you keep making my point for me. Face of hte franchise. Franchise player. Zero playoff wins. Carmelo gets slandered for only getting out the first round one time in his career. McGrady got slandered for never getting out the first. Gasol doesnt win a playoff game, and somehow he was a great player and dominant.

Pot meet kettle. Kobe was the face of the franchise, and when shaq left he couldnt make the playoffs two years, and got knocked out of the first round the next. So Kobe wasnt dominant either, gotcha.

And he was never considered the best big man in the game before he came to LA. Thats just flat out untrue statement. Not in a league with Duncan, Dirk, Amare, and Webber (pre knee injury).

If you reread my post i said best OFFENSIVE BIG MAN, which was true because of his passing ability.

Odom was a starter when they were a 7th/8th seed. When Gasol arrived and Bynum was able to play, Odom moved to the bench and thats when he started to play great basketball for them.

And you dont give any credit of that to the fact the Gasol was a dominant big man?

the face of a franchise that won zero playoff games. What that means is that he wasnt a guy that could LEAD you to the promised land, and had to be a complimentary player. He was never considered dominant and it had nothing to do with the market he played in, and everything to do with the fact that he was never a dominant player. No All NBA appearances and only one all star game before he arrives in LA. He was never considered a great player because he was not. Its the great championship/anti-Kobe revision that is at play here.

[

Again pot meet kettle. Kobe couldnt even get out of the first round, and struggled to make it to the playoffs. He couldnt even lead them to the promise land if the promise land was the second round. Its more people trying to give Kobe all the credit like they have his entire career. Kobe is champion and a great scorer, but without a dominant big man, a great scorer is all he is.

and Kobe couldnt make the playoffs without a dominant big man? Chris Mihm and Kwame Brown are dominant now? and at Odom being a dominant big man too. Reckless talk.

Im sorry, he can make it to the playoffs ONCE but gets knocked out of the FIRST round. What about the two years he completely missed the playoffs? Did you forget about those?

Just look at this season and last season. Kobe won a championship with this group. People gave all the credit to Kobe like they always do. But these last two season, he gets knocked out of the second round both times, and just like before gasol was aquired, no one blames Kobe, instead, it is the lakers team again. But when this same team won the championship, it was all Kobe.

People never want to blame kobe, they are always making excuses for him lol ALWAYS.

[Sticksboi05]

you know who this guy is right?

http://simg.sportsbybrooks.com/7/2/7201bcb5bfae83630fa5aceec163f254_Abdur-Rahim.Shareef.1_feature.JPG

and him

http://isportsweb.com/wp-content/uploads//2012/07/A-Jamison.jpg

Just call those two great players for me.

Jamison was a great player in his prime. I agree. Too bad it was only on one side of the ball. Also not as good a passer.

Exactly what shabby said, everyone blames someone else when L.A. loses but when they win, it was all Kobe.

[Going Commando]

you know who this guy is right?

http://simg.sportsbybrooks.com/7/2/7201bcb5bfae83630fa5aceec163f254_Abdur-Rahim.Shareef.1_feature.JPG

and him

http://isportsweb.com/wp-content/uploads//2012/07/A-Jamison.jpg

Just call those two great players for me.

Straw man. Gasol was obviously a better player than either Abdul-Rahim or Jamison before he was traded to the Lakers.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm not a big fan of advanced stats in any sports. When a player finishes his career, like it or not, all stats that are looked at are the regular stats of that sport. Baseball looks at average, home runs, RBIs, Doubles, Triples, Steals usually. Depending on the position in football, its about yards and scores. In basketball its about points, rebounds and assists usually. And hockey is about goals and assists. I'm not sure any HOF voter looks at advanced stats. I'm not saying they don't, but its more that its unlikely.

Old people look at the stats you listed because old people are stupid.

[pjfootballer]

Old people look at the stats you listed because old people are stupid.

Have fun trying to figure all the formulas out. I'm just not that serious about it. I enjoy watching sports and I enjoy watching the players accumulate career stats, but I don't need to dissect every play or game for one player. I don't need to figure out the "whys" when looking at the final score. I just don't want to be that involved in it. To each his own. I feel that I'm fairly knowledgeable about most sports. I don't claim to be an expert in any and I know I don't know everything. If someone thinks because I don't know "advanced or sabermetrics" and they think I'm stupid because I don't know or care about them, then that's their own egotistical opinion and I just don't care. I know what I know about sports and that's all I can bring to the table. So be it. Everyone in here is a random person on a message board that I'll probably never meet, so it doesn't matter what people think of me.

[Going Commando]

Exactly what shabby said, everyone blames someone else when L.A. loses but when they win, it was all Kobe.

Kobe has been sainted now and his defenders are amazingly staunch and have a voice in the media. But before he won the fourth ring, he was heavily criticized.

Kobe's legacy is completely taken for granted even though I find it kind of puzzling. Honestly, I think Jerry West has a better case as the #2 SG in NBA history. Kobe's had a decade of terrific play in his career, but I feel like the bulk of his prestige comes from volume and longevity.

There is a reason Kobe only won one MVP, and it was a lifetime achievement MVP in a year when both Chris Paul and LeBron James had stronger cases for winning. Kobe's never led the league in win share nor in PER.

I see a lot of talk of Kobe potentially challenging Jordan as the GOAT or at least talk of Kobe being a top ten player in NBA history. I don't understand where it comes from. Kobe wasn't even the greatest player of the 2000's. By any measure except rings, Duncan was greater and Dirk probably was too. Relying on rings to make the case is obviously flawed. Robert Horry has more after all. Scottie Pippen has more. Kobe won his first three rings as the second banana on a completely stacked team. He won the second two on a team that was better and more talented than any team Dirk or Duncan has ever played on. Yet he gets credit for being the best player in the league and an all time great based on his rings and his high volume low efficiency scoring.

[Sticksboi05]

It's all rings and because he is a SG. I will give that he is one of the most clutch players of all-time though. He's a scorer and he doesn't do much else in reality. He's not as good a passer as MJ or LeBron obviously and he's not a great rebounding guard. Defensively he was very good but not on the level of MJ or where LeBron is now. He was also a much less efficient scorer. It's no surprise that for a player so obsessed on for his offensive stats, he never led the league in PER.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Jamison was a great player in his prime. I agree. Too bad it was only on one side of the ball. Also not as good a passer.

Exactly what shabby said, everyone blames someone else when L.A. loses but when they win, it was all Kobe.

Jamison was not, and never was a great player. He was a player who put up empty stats.

I think he could have been a championship player if he was put in a 6th man role instead of being relied upon to score points as a #1 or #2 option.

And that doesnt include his awful defense.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 02:20 PM ----------

Straw man. Gasol was obviously a better player than either Abdul-Rahim or Jamison before he was traded to the Lakers.

how exactly is it strawman when the poster clearly said "20 and 9 is great from a power forward?"

Its only called strawman because it proves that line of thinking incorrect when you actually cite examples.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 02:30 PM ----------

No I didn't. He was dominant, he wasn't the best big man in the world, and he was considered a great player.

he was not dominant. You arent a dominant player if you cant LEAD a team to a playoff win. This is post-LA revisionism.

Are you presenting that for Pau had to be considered the best big man in the world to be great? Duncan was great even when Shaq was the most dominant big in basketball. Dirk and Garnett were great even when Duncan was better. Pau was great, even when those three were better.

1) I just had a debate that McGrady was only a great player one season even though the numbers said poster was using showed that to be true, so no I am not saying that.

2) Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Webber and Jermaine O'Neal (before the knee injuries), Elton Brand, and even Chris Bosh were all considered better players than Pau Gasol when he was in Memphis. And for the argument about lack of media coverage, Toronto isnt even in the United States and yet Bosh made an All NBA team before Pau Gasol. In 2006, no one was saying Gasol was one of the best big men in the league. He was not in conversation, no one thought about dude at that level at all. Its only after he won two rings as Kobe's sidekick did people start to overrate him. I called it back when the trade for Gasol was made in 2008. I said Kobe was about to make Gasol a HOFer, and its born fruit.

Your position is that Kobe is still great regardless of his teammates and team success. You're arguing against the claim that Kobe is not great because he couldn't achieve significant team success without receiving dominant post play, first from Shaq, then from Gasol/Bynum/Odom. But to make your argument, you're arguing that Gasol was not a great player. I actually think your position is sound but your argument for it is not. Gasol was a great player.

I think we are mixing things up here.

First, Pau Gasol was great during their title run. I never denied that. What I am saying is that Pau Gasol was never this dominant player. Never this imposing force that people have romanticized him to be. A dominant big man wins a game in the postseason as the #1 option. A dominant player wins a game in the playoffs as the #1 option. Gasol never did. A dominant big man makes All NBA teams. Gasol did not. He was a good player in Memphis, but he couldnt win a game. If that was any other player, they get that used against them. With Gasol, its ignored. Its a double standard.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 02:46 PM ----------

Pot meet kettle. Kobe was the face of the franchise, and when shaq left he couldnt make the playoffs two years, and got knocked out of the first round the next. So Kobe wasnt dominant either, gotcha.

actually it was one year, and Kobe was injured most of that season. But fair enough he missed the playoffs in 2005.

But to kill this "pot meets kettle" thing, Kobe took the team with the best record in the NBA in the Suns to 7 games - and probably wins that series if Lamar Odom wasnt a dummy in game 6 - with Kwame Brown, DeVean George, Brian Cook, and Smush Parker either starting or in the rotation. With Luke Walton making big shots. If Gasol is the best player on that team, they dont make the playoffs and may end up with 50+ loses. That was a terrible team that Kobe had an out of this world season to get them into post season contention.

If you reread my post i said best OFFENSIVE BIG MAN, which was true because of his passing ability.

I read your post and understood it fine. He was not a better offensive big man than Webber, Duncan, and Amare. Webber and Duncan are probably the two best big man passers ever. Especially Webber in that Princeton offense in Sacramento. Webber finding cutters in the high post made that offense soar.

And you dont give any credit of that to the fact the Gasol was a dominant big man?

no, I give Gasol credit for being a great complimentary player. No insult in that, but he was never dominant. That has only been brought up in his LA years to take credit away from Kobe. Where as this "dominant big man" when Boston had Big Baby and an old KG punking him when the Finals returned to Boston in 2010? He was nonexistant all 3 games there.

Again pot meet kettle. Kobe couldnt even get out of the first round, and struggled to make it to the playoffs. He couldnt even lead them to the promise land if the promise land was the second round. Its more people trying to give Kobe all the credit like they have his entire career. Kobe is champion and a great scorer, but without a dominant big man, a great scorer is all he is.

explained this earlier, but Kobe at least WON a playoff game. Think about that, he WON a playoff game. Gasol couldnt even do that in Memphis

And I give Gasol a lot of credit, but I refuse to accept people re-writing the past to suit their agenda.

Im sorry, he can make it to the playoffs ONCE but gets knocked out of the FIRST round. What about the two years he completely missed the playoffs? Did you forget about those?

Well one year he missed the playoffs didnt actually happen yet you keep saying it.

But no, I didnt forget, and you dont have to keep repeating it.

Just look at this season and last season. Kobe won a championship with this group. People gave all the credit to Kobe like they always do. But these last two season, he gets knocked out of the second round both times, and just like before gasol was aquired, no one blames Kobe, instead, it is the lakers team again. But when this same team won the championship, it was all Kobe.

now the agenda is coming out. It took you long enough.

Sometimes championship teams have their runs end. Not a bad thing, no? in 2011, Dallas made Kobe a jump shooter by crowding the lane. But I ask, where was Gasol, the dominant big man, in that series? But its cool, its all Kobe's fault. (and I dont say this to say Kobe played well either).

This year, OKC were a better team and Kobe lost them game 2. Again tho, where was this dominant big man in Gasol? He should have been the best front court player in that series since he is so dominant, but that did not happen. Some how that is Kobe's fault.

People never want to blame kobe, they are always making excuses for him lol ALWAYS.

yup, your agenda has been shown out.

[Going Commando]

It's all rings and because he is a SG. I will give that he is one of the most clutch players of all-time though. He's a scorer and he doesn't do much else in reality. He's not as good a passer as MJ or LeBron obviously and he's not a great rebounding guard. Defensively he was very good but not on the level of MJ or where LeBron is now. He was also a much less efficient scorer. It's no surprise that for a player so obsessed on for his offensive stats, he never led the league in PER.

Kobe has a reputation for being very clutch. Ask around the league who you'd want taking your final shot of a close game and I bet most people would say Kobe. But there are some interesting stats floating around out there that say Chris Paul and Carmelo would be better options.

Kobe has made a lot of game winners and he's got ridiculous confidence and he's great at creating space for himself. But I wonder if it's a situation where he's just taken so many last minute shots in his long career (he's always the guy with the ball) that he's in the conversation on volume. I wouldn't put him in the same category Reggie Miller, Bird, or MJ, that's for sure.

[Predicto]

I find it interesting that Kobe is being criticized for being an inefficient scorer, yet Iverson remains on many people's list despite being much, much more inefficient. And Gervin is left off many lists despite being one of the most efficient scorers of all time.

Eye of the beholder, I guess.

[CrypticVillain]

I find it interesting that Kobe is being criticized for being an inefficient scorer, yet Iverson remains on many people's list despite being much, much more inefficient. And Gervin is left off many lists despite being one of the most efficient scorers of all time.

Eye of the beholder, I guess.

I got all three in my top 5.

People pay too much attention to stats. I rather look at the players impact on the game. Kobe has huge impacts on every game he plays. And most of the time that is a good thing.

He is number 2.

[Going Commando]

I find it interesting that Kobe is being criticized for being an inefficient scorer, yet Iverson remains on many people's list despite being much, much more inefficient. And Gervin is left off many lists despite being one of the most efficient scorers of all time.

Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Kobe's making my list over Iverson. The inefficiency complaint is there for both. But Kobe gets less of a pass because he's a king sized two guard and Iverson was pint sized.

I think Gervin gets overlooked a bit because he was a one dimensional merger player whose teams weren't really that successful. Despite being such an efficient scorer, his PERs for his career were fairly pedestrian and his win share totals are mediocre for an all time great despite having a 14 year career. He wasn't really helping his teams win games at a rate that would make him a top 5 all time SG. He was an important player and made an individual mark on the offensive style of the game. But he wasn't a very holistic basketball player.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 04:17 PM ----------

I got all three in my top 5.

People pay too much attention to stats. I rather look at the players impact on the game. Kobe has huge impacts on every game he plays. And most of the time that is a good thing.

He is number 2.

Jerry West was a better player, had more of an impact on his team's success for most of his career, and probably leaves a much bigger legacy on the NBA than Kobe does.

[Sticksboi05]

I got all three in my top 5.

People pay too much attention to stats. I rather look at the players impact on the game. Kobe has huge impacts on every game he plays. And most of the time that is a good thing.

He is number 2.

And The Logo didn't?

[CrypticVillain]

Jerry West was a better player, had more of an impact on his team's success for most of his career, and probably leaves a much bigger legacy on the NBA than Kobe does.

And The Logo didn't?

Here is my list

1.Jordan

2.Kobe

3.The Logo

4.A.I.

5.The Iceman

Okay, impact and talent then. Stats are good and all, but sometimes they lie.

[mcsluggo]

Kobe averaged 35 point a game one year. Wade averaged 30 one year. Nah, Kobe's prime is better than Wade's.

.

wasn't that the year the Lakers didn't make it to the playoffs?

[Going Commando]

how exactly is it strawman when the poster clearly said "20 and 9 is great from a power forward?"

Its only called strawman because it proves that line of thinking incorrect when you actually cite examples.

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Generally, when you're assigning the weakest possible interpretation to your opponents argument, you're creating a straw man to fight. That's exactly what you did.

You and I and everyone knows that in the overwhelming majority of cases, 20 and 10 from your PF is a tremendous player. You're picking out deviations from the norm and trying to equate Pau Gasol with much lesser players in Jamison and Abdul-Rahim.

he was not dominant. You arent a dominant player if you cant LEAD a team to a playoff win. This is post-LA revisionism.

I think the one engaging in revisionism is you. Gasol was a dominant player in Memphis. He broke out in 2005-2006 and was playing at an All-NBA level. That year, only Garnett, Dirk, and Brand put in better seasons than him, and he was not a huge step down from their level. The next year he was good when he played but only played 59 games and was hurt for much of the season. It probably depressed his value. The next year he was traded to the Lakers. Then the next three seasons he experienced a small bump in win shares from that break out 05/06 despite posting almost identical numbers everywhere else. Probably because the Lakers were winning so many more games than the Grizzlies did.

2) Duncan, Garnett, Dirk, Webber and Jermaine O'Neal (before the knee injuries), Elton Brand, and even Chris Bosh were all considered better players than Pau Gasol when he was in Memphis. And for the argument about lack of media coverage, Toronto isnt even in the United States and yet Bosh made an All NBA team before Pau Gasol. In 2006, no one was saying Gasol was one of the best big men in the league. He was not in conversation, no one thought about dude at that level at all. Its only after he won two rings as Kobe's sidekick did people start to overrate him.

Gasol was hardly anonymous before he went to the Lakers. Maybe people considered him a star player and many more wrote that it was an incredibly lopsided trade at the time. Gasol wasn't better than Duncan, Garnett, or Dirk. Those are three transcendent players. He also wasn't better than Amar'e when Amar'e was healthy in Phoenix. That's where most of your All NBA selections were going. Then you had Shaq and Yao getting spots. Gasol wasn't better than those players, but that doesn't mean he wasn't dominant.

I called it back when the trade for Gasol was made in 2008. I said Kobe was about to make Gasol a HOFer, and its born fruit.

Gasol isn't going to the HoF. His career isn't long enough and he's had too many incomplete seasons because of injuries. I also don't think Kobe has changed him all that much as a player. He's got rings now, which is a result from going from an also-ran to a power team. He's been pretty much the same player since he was 24.

I think we are mixing things up here.

First, Pau Gasol was great during their title run. I never denied that. What I am saying is that Pau Gasol was never this dominant player. Never this imposing force that people have romanticized him to be. A dominant big man wins a game in the postseason as the #1 option. A dominant player wins a game in the playoffs as the #1 option. Gasol never did. A dominant big man makes All NBA teams. Gasol did not. He was a good player in Memphis, but he couldnt win a game. If that was any other player, they get that used against them. With Gasol, its ignored. Its a double standard.

I think Gasol gets underrated more than overrated. He's a quiet player that stays out of the limelight despite the fact he plays in LA. But he's a tremendous player. Tremendous skills, probably the most offensively versatile and skilled low post player in the league. Terrific production when he's been healthy too.

Why are you fighting this so hard?

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 07:08 PM ----------

Does everyone here accept my premise that big men have a disproportionately high impact on the outcome of games compared to guards?

It seems pretty straightforward and conventional.

If so, I've got a question I've been mulling over for a few years and I want to see what other people think.

Michael Jordan is pretty much the undisputed GOAT in NBA history. The only players you can really make a case for against him are Wilt and Kareem but their case is unsatisfying to me. I like Russell as a dark horse candidate, but it's hard to justify a case for him because of his supporting cast being so good pushing down his numbers + the state of competition in the NBA at the time doesn't really help him. Malone gets a case off of just numbers but... ugh. Jordan is the only one who has everything.

But if you accept that bigs have a disproportionate value compared to guards, if you got a chance to start a franchise from scratch with any player in NBA history, do you choose Michael Jordan? Or do you choose a big?

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Generally, when you're assigning the weakest possible interpretation to your opponents argument, you're creating a straw man to fight. That's exactly what you did.

You and I and everyone knows that in the overwhelming majority of cases, 20 and 10 from your PF is a tremendous player. You're picking out deviations from the norm and trying to equate Pau Gasol with much lesser players in Jamison and Abdul-Rahim.

no, I actually took his use of those numbers as being the symbol of greatness and gave 2 examples that refute that. And honestly, when Gasol was in Memphis he was pretty much Shareef Abdur Rahim. There is nothing strawman about it, it just shows that maybe you shouldnt use those numbers as the end all be all.

in fact Shareef and Antawn were as accomplished as Gasol was in Memphis as players.

Comparing Gasol in Memphis to those players is a fair comparison.

I think the one engaging in revisionism is you. Gasol was a dominant player in Memphis. He broke out in 2005-2006 and was playing at an All-NBA level. That year, only Garnett, Dirk, and Brand put in better seasons than him, and he was not a huge step down from their level. The next year he was good when he played but only played 59 games and was hurt for much of the season. It probably depressed his value. The next year he was traded to the Lakers. Then the next three seasons he experienced a small bump in win shares from that break out 05/06 despite posting almost identical numbers everywhere else. Probably because the Lakers were winning so many more games than the Grizzlies did.

nope, Im not revising what actually happened. How can a play be dominant and not win a playoff game? Dirk, Garnett, and Elton BRAND being on the All NBA team over him shows that maybe he wasnt this dominant player you want to believe he is, and actually revising him to be. He never was that in Memphis.

Gasol was hardly anonymous before he went to the Lakers.

I KNOW. I said he wasnt, but Shabby claimed he was.

Maybe people considered him a star player and many more wrote that it was an incredibly lopsided trade at the time. Gasol wasn't better than Duncan, Garnett, or Dirk. Those are three transcendent players. He also wasn't better than Amar'e when Amar'e was healthy in Phoenix. That's where most of your All NBA selections were going. Then you had Shaq and Yao getting spots. Gasol wasn't better than those players, but that doesn't mean he wasn't dominant.

dominant - Most important, powerful, or influential: "they are now in an even more dominant position in the market".

If you have 7-8 players better than you at your position, then you arent dominant.

Gasol isn't going to the HoF. His career isn't long enough and he's had too many incomplete seasons because of injuries. I also don't think Kobe has changed him all that much as a player. He's got rings now, which is a result from going from an also-ran to a power team. He's been pretty much the same player since he was 24.

Gasol is def a HOFer. He would not have been if he stayed in Memphis, and probably would have been seen as a very good player, but he is a HOFer now after two rings as Kobe's side kick.

and you are making my point about Gasol's game not changing much in LA. He wasnt dominant in Memphis and he isnt dominant in LA. He has been overrated

I think Gasol gets underrated more than overrated. He's a quiet player that stays out of the limelight despite the fact he plays in LA. But he's a tremendous player. Tremendous skills, probably the most offensively versatile and skilled low post player in the league. Terrific production when he's been healthy too.

I dont knock how good he was as a player, he was never a dominant player.

and no, Gasol has gotten wildly overrated since he became a Laker. During their title run, he was some how put on the level as best big man in the NBA. You heard it during games, and you saw articles written about him in that fashion. It was only until Dirk crushed him (again) last year in the playoffs that people started to fall back from those ridiculous statements.

Why are you fighting this so hard?

because I dont like people revising the past. And I wont accept anyone trying to knock down a true NBA legend like Kobe Bryant to prop up a pretender to that title like Gasol.

You see I never said anything against Shaq, even tho similar arguments about Kobe needing a big man could be made for Shaq needing a dominant perimeter player, but I digress. I dont question anyone saying Shaq was a great or dominant player. He was a beast as soon as he entered the NBA.

Does everyone here accept my premise that big men have a disproportionately high impact on the outcome of games compared to guards?

It seems pretty straightforward and conventional.

If so, I've got a question I've been mulling over for a few years and I want to see what other people think.

Michael Jordan is pretty much the undisputed GOAT in NBA history. The only players you can really make a case for against him are Wilt and Kareem but their case is unsatisfying to me. I like Russell as a dark horse candidate, but it's hard to justify a case for him because of his supporting cast being so good pushing down his numbers + the state of competition in the NBA at the time doesn't really help him. Malone gets a case off of just numbers but... ugh. Jordan is the only one who has everything.

But if you accept that bigs have a disproportionate value compared to guards, if you got a chance to start a franchise from scratch with any player in NBA history, do you choose Michael Jordan? Or do you choose a big?

Jordan is only the undisputed GOAT because of Nike and the NBA allowing it. Wilt, Kareem, Oscar Robertson, even Magic could argue they are the game's best ever player.

and I would always choose the big over Jordan. Give me Kareem or Wilt over Michael any day of the week.

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 08:29 PM ----------

Jerry West was a better player, had more of an impact on his team's success for most of his career, and probably leaves a much bigger legacy on the NBA than Kobe does.

see, this is what Im getting at. Jerry West would tell you himself that is not true and Kobe is a better player.

[Sticksboi05]

see, this is what Im getting at. Jerry West would tell you himself that is not true and Kobe is a better player.

Players praise each other all the time.

[PeterMP]

If so, I've got a question I've been mulling over for a few years and I want to see what other people think.

Michael Jordan is pretty much the undisputed GOAT in NBA history. The only players you can really make a case for against him are Wilt and Kareem but their case is unsatisfying to me. I like Russell as a dark horse candidate, but it's hard to justify a case for him because of his supporting cast being so good pushing down his numbers + the state of competition in the NBA at the time doesn't really help him. Malone gets a case off of just numbers but... ugh. Jordan is the only one who has everything.

But if you accept that bigs have a disproportionate value compared to guards, if you got a chance to start a franchise from scratch with any player in NBA history, do you choose Michael Jordan? Or do you choose a big?

It depends on the rules and how they enforced.

The ability to put your hand on the side and even below the ball (i.e. turn it over) has changed how well and fast perimeter players can change the directions and stop.

It has given them more control, and therefore made them "better".

Not to mention the "legalization" of the hop step.

Pre-early 1980s give me the big man. post-1980s give me Jordan.

[CrypticVillain]

Note to self: Never get into a debate with AsiaticSkinsFan and SteveMcqueen. I might as well read a novel today.

[Going Commando]

no, I actually took his use of those numbers as being the symbol of greatness and gave 2 examples that refute that. And honestly, when Gasol was in Memphis he was pretty much Shareef Abdur Rahim. There is nothing strawman about it, it just shows that maybe you shouldnt use those numbers as the end all be all.

in fact Shareef and Antawn were as accomplished as Gasol was in Memphis as players.

Comparing Gasol in Memphis to those players is a fair comparison.

No it isn't. Gasol was much better than Abdul Rahim. Lamar Odom's career is closer to Abdul Rahim's than Gasol's is.

nope, Im not revising what actually happened. How can a play be dominant and not win a playoff game? Dirk, Garnett, and Elton BRAND being on the All NBA team over him shows that maybe he wasnt this dominant player you want to believe he is, and actually revising him to be. He never was that in Memphis.

Elton Brand had an amazing year in 2005/2006. If he'd kept it up instead of getting fat and hurt, he'd be a HoFer. But he flamed out. That year Gasol was one of the 15 best players in the NBA. That's a true blue star.

dominant - Most important, powerful, or influential: "they are now in an even more dominant position in the market".

If you have 7-8 players better than you at your position, then you arent dominant.

Gasol broke out in 2005-2006. In that year, he was the fourth best big in the NBA and had a legit star season. The next year he was on track to have an even better season but he battled injuries and missed a lot of time. He had broken out.

Dominant means you go out and dominate your opponent most nights. That's what Gasol did. His season was fantastic.

Gasol is def a HOFer. He would not have been if he stayed in Memphis, and probably would have been seen as a very good player, but he is a HOFer now after two rings as Kobe's side kick.

and you are making my point about Gasol's game not changing much in LA. He wasnt dominant in Memphis and he isnt dominant in LA. He has been overrated

His game was already excellent. It didn't need to change for him to be great because he's already super skilled. Gasol was a dominant player in LA. He's put up three All NBA caliber seasons since he's been there.

I dont knock how good he was as a player, he was never a dominant player.

Equating him with Sharif Abdul Rahim and Antawn Jamison is definitely knocking him. He's much better than both.

because I dont like people revising the past. And I wont accept anyone trying to knock down a true NBA legend like Kobe Bryant to prop up a pretender to that title like Gasol.

If anyone is revising the past, it's you. Any metrics you could want demonstrate you are wrong and pretty much everyone else agrees you are wrong about this. You're argument is entirely based off of him not winning a playoff game but nobody else thinks that's sufficient (plus it's questionable when you're simultaneoulsy defending Kobe for having a lack of surrounding talent).

You see I never said anything against Shaq, even tho similar arguments about Kobe needing a big man could be made for Shaq needing a dominant perimeter player, but I digress. I dont question anyone saying Shaq was a great or dominant player. He was a beast as soon as he entered the NBA.

That's because it's completely obvious Shaq was great and Kobe was the second banana on those teams. He said it himself at the time when he forced Shaq out--he was tired of being a sidekick.

Kobe is a true great. There is no need to knock Gasol in order to make this point. He's played at a high level for years and years.

see, this is what Im getting at. Jerry West would tell you himself that is not true and Kobe is a better player.

Jerry West's 14 seasons are better than Kobe's best 14 seasons. Kobe will eventually pass him on pure longevity. Their careers are close, but West was better.

Jordan is only the undisputed GOAT because of Nike and the NBA allowing it. Wilt, Kareem, Oscar Robertson, even Magic could argue they are the game's best ever player.

and I would always choose the big over Jordan. Give me Kareem or Wilt over Michael any day of the week.

There was a time when I would have agreed with you. Kareem and Wilt each have strong cases for GOAT but Jordan wins pretty easily when you look at the total picture. He crushes Wilt on all of the intangibles and when you compare the level of competition each faced. He beats Kareem in the wide

The funny thing is, Jordan accomplished everything you can basically do to be considered the GOAT.

- Unstoppable champion as the top dog on a team that didn't have a dominant offensive post player? Check

- Freakish scoring exploits cementing his case as the greatest offensive player in NBA history? Check

- One of the best defensive players at his position of all time? Check.

- A career full of legendary moments? Check.

- Impact on the game that goes far beyond the numbers and the wins? Check.

Even something as simple as changing the way the game looked belongs to Michael. He made shoes awesome and he ushered in the transition from hot pants to bermuda shorts. What's crazy is Jordan lost two of his prime years too. If he doesn't get burned out, what's his career look like then?

He's a one of a kind player. LeBron is the only player I expect to ever see in my lifetime have a chance of topping him as the GOAT. And I don't think he'll do it.

Push comes to shove, I'll take Jordan over any big. You can't bet against him. Everyone was afraid of him and basketball ultimately comes down to respect. Nobody disrespected Jordan, not for long anyway. Nobody bet against him. He'd find a way to be a champion with Luc Longley or Bill Cartwright as his bigs. Oh wait...

---------- Post added July-25th-2012 at 09:13 PM ----------

Note to self: Never get into a debate with AsiaticSkinsFan and SteveMcqueen. I might as well read a novel today.

I'm glad to do my part for people everywhere who are looking for something to read while on the crapper.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

Players praise each other all the time.

Great, he still says Kobe is the better player and best Laker. So does Earvin