Cool NBA challenge. what say you guys?
- Thread starter dhdawg
- Start date
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
6 players, 1 coach, 20 dollars
I think you gotta start with Durant($4), Lebron($5) and Pop($2) so that leaves me with $9 for four players.
Will go Tony Parker for $2, Noah for $2, I'll go with Harden($3) and Aldridge($2)
Damn that's a sick roster don't see how they would lose.
CuntWaffle
New Fish
Uhhh is that Kobe in his prime for $5 or now?
This is the team. No one's fucking with them. I might take Dirk over Aldridge. Tough call though.
Last edited:
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
We have basically the same team only he has Curry/Johnson combo over Harden/Parker. His combo is better shooters. Mine is more slashers although with Lebron that seems redundant.
I give Tequilla slight edge.
I think any team that doesn't have Lebron-Durant-Pop is going to be shit.
CuntWaffle
New Fish
I would take Dirk. He is the guy who stopped the Miami dynasty happening earlier than it was suppose to.
Tequilla
Active poster
I agree that Jordan/Russell is really a 1A/1B kind of thing ... they are the only 2 acceptable answers to me when it comes to greatest players of all time. I put Kareem 3rd back a bit from Jordan/Russell and ahead of the next group. Magic, Bird, and LBJ form the next pack.
Wilt and Oscar are probably 2 of the toughest guys for me to rank because they put up huge numbers, didn't really win titles, but how much of that was due to them versus the Celtics/Russell being such a great power?
I would probably move Duncan over Wilt at this point given Duncan's longevity.
I'd include Jerry West right behind Kobe.
I have a really hard time separating Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses Malone (who I think always gets slighted when talking about the greats).
I think that there's a big drop from the Top 14 back to guys like Hondo, Baylor, Dr. J (who probably gets a bit of a bad rap at times).
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
Hey @DNC sorry that I didn't "Nut up" and post my top 10 rankings. Oh wait I did...........
Last edited:
dnc
New Fish
When I said "would love to see your top 10" the first time you could have just said "look in the NBA challenge thread" instead of ignoring. I don't memorize everything everyone poasts here.
Interesting ranks. I don't disagree much other than I think you have Bron where he'll eventually end up as opposed to where he deserves to be on acocomplishments thus far. Why do you hate the Big O?
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
Truthfully I don't know anything about him. Unlike Russell and Wilt who I never saw play at least I feel like I've seen enough highlights of them to sort of form an opinion.
All I know about the Big O is one year he averaged a triple double. That's it. Don't even know what number he wore, what hand he shot with.
So I tend to leave him out as I don't really have much to rank him. I don't know if he was a stat compiler or had those stats so his teams could win.
dnc
New Fish
That's fair, I don't know a whole ton either. I know that one of the CBB POY trophies is named after him and that he was on the 60 Olympic team so I assume he was a hell of a player in college as well. His accolades match up pretty well with the rest of these guys: 9 time All NBA, 12 time All Star. Only one MVP and one ring though. Maybe I do have him a bit too high.
FWIW, ESPN had him as the 7th basketball player on their list of top athletes of the 20th century, behind MJ, Wilt, Magic, Russell, Kareem and Bird. Considering Duncan, Kobe and Lebron weren't eligible (and Shaq's best work came right after the century turn) he's probably a fringe top 10 guy at this point. My point guard bias probably overranked him.
I do remember reading someone (probably Simmons) say that the triple double year the whole league was played at a ridiculously high pace and plenty of players racked up crazy high stats that year. Still impressive, of course, but probably not as insane of a year as it sounds.
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
Oscar from that era wasn't even my hardest snub. I think Jerry West and Baylor were to me.
Those two just played in the wrong era far as lack of rings. Perhaps Durant-Westbrook might be this generations West-Baylor or Stockton-Malone. Time will tell with those two.
Baylor averaged 27.4 PPG and 13.5 RPG with 4.3 APG for an entire career. That's an amazing season. He did that for a career.
Although his PER is only 22.7 which tells me he compiled a lot. I think in general that era is hard to look at stats. Something was going on back then for every great guy to have ridiculous high numbers. Obviously the league was at a high pace like you alluded to.
Why I go by PER a lot because it really regulates the era's well and stat inflation. It's not a perfect system by any means as no stat is but I think it's a good way to judge great players.
Those two just played in the wrong era far as lack of rings. Perhaps Durant-Westbrook might be this generations West-Baylor or Stockton-Malone. Time will tell with those two.
Baylor averaged 27.4 PPG and 13.5 RPG with 4.3 APG for an entire career. That's an amazing season. He did that for a career.
Although his PER is only 22.7 which tells me he compiled a lot. I think in general that era is hard to look at stats. Something was going on back then for every great guy to have ridiculous high numbers. Obviously the league was at a high pace like you alluded to.
Why I go by PER a lot because it really regulates the era's well and stat inflation. It's not a perfect system by any means as no stat is but I think it's a good way to judge great players.
Tequilla
Active poster
The late 50's and early 60's was a time of learning and experimentation for the game of basketball. The influence of a big like Mikan in the 50s (who probably is one of the hardest guys to judge in the history of the game regarding his place in the game) changed the game with the advent of the shot clock. With the shot clock led to Cousy, Russell, and the Celtics revolutionizing the art of the fast break. Many of that era began to have the mentality that you beat teams through out scoring them and that pace was the key to the game (definitely made the game more exciting). As time passed you started merging the pace of the game with defense and the game generally evolved into what we had today as players began harnessing the skill of the game with athleticism.
To me, the older players you have to look at with a grain of salt as you mentioned given that their stats were at higher levels. However, so many of them grew the game, revolutionized it, and laid the foundation for the next generation to take to the next level. I don't think that it's that many of those players couldn't evolve into today's game but instead that they'd have benefited from learning about what was possible and incorporating into today's modern game.
To me, the older players you have to look at with a grain of salt as you mentioned given that their stats were at higher levels. However, so many of them grew the game, revolutionized it, and laid the foundation for the next generation to take to the next level. I don't think that it's that many of those players couldn't evolve into today's game but instead that they'd have benefited from learning about what was possible and incorporating into today's modern game.