The Top 50 NBA Players of My Generation

[bob_barron 0]

I still don't get how Penny Hardaway is on your list.

[Dangerous A 0]

Penny Hardaway is ranked too high on his list, IMHO, but I think he is deserving to be on it around 45-50 ranking.

[AboveAverage484 0]

Championships are overrated in these matters.  If you are a GM, do you evaluate what players to sign based on their skills, or whether or not they won a championship.  As we've seen, most players who won championships did so because they benefitted from good teammates.  I have yet to see a player win a championship by himself.

 

Championships are nice, but you CAN be a good player without winning it all.  Karl Malone, John Stockton, Dominique Wilkins, Reggie Miller, Kevin Garnett, Allen Iverson, Gary Payton, Jason Kidd.  All are (or were) great players, and all never won a championship.  A title is a nice accomplishment, but it is not the end-all factor in ABILITY.  Basketball statistics can be complicated.  It takes more to select the greatest players then sticking your head in the sand and yelling "Championships!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Bill Simmons from espn.com put it this way Al:

 

Would you rather have Karl Malone's career or Robert Horry's?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you want the honest to God truth; Malone's. Hell, he he made millions more than Horry has made.

 

Malone made about 106 million, while Horry made 44 million. Still nothing to cry about, but that's less than twice what Malone made.

[AboveAverage484 0]

I knew I'd get shit for having Penny on the list, but for about four years Penny was pretty fuckin' good, and his first seven years he was pretty damn good. His all-around game is(was) sound and he made four all-star games and got all-NBA three times, twice being elected first team.

[godthedog 0]

other than his 93 and 94 seasons with the suns, i'm totally ignorant on charles barkley's career and am always baffled at how he can consistently be ranked so highly. and nobody ever argues about it, so there must be multitudes of shit about him that i don't know. somebody make his case for me, preferably ripper.

[Dangerous A 0]

Actually, the period between 89-92 you could argue that he should've or could've been league MVP if he weren't playing for Philly. In 1989-90, he should've won MVP and even had more first place votes than Magic, but not enough overall. Even before 89, he was pretty damn good although I will admit he is a pretty good self promoter and controversy helped put him more into the spotlight in the early years than his play or team record.

[Guest Vitamin X]

But my point is that WINNING (and by that I mean championships) has a large part in whether player A is better than player B.  That's what I have said over and over. I really don't know how to put it better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And your argument is ridiculously flawed because teams win championships, not individuals.

[The Czech Republic 0]

DARKO HAS A RING. HE MIGHT EVEN GET A SECOND!

 

Does that make him better than Reggie Miller?

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

DARKO HAS A RING. HE MIGHT EVEN GET A SECOND!

 

Does that make him better than Reggie Miller?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It makes him luckier. I'm sure Reggie wishes he was in Detroit or San Antonio's shoes right now. I've heard a lot of guys say they'd trade in their career accomplishments for a chance to win the title. Dan Marino said he'd trade in those 61,000 yards for ONE Super Bowl ring.

[The Czech Republic 0]

That's pretty stupid. I'd rather be John Stockton, Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley, or Karl Malone than Darko. Well ideally, I could be one of them, but have the name "Darko" anyway. Even better, I could be all five of them at once. I'd be a little white boy point guard with a weird-shaped head and a penchant for good interviews, all the while hunting little Mexican girls. Yeah. That's livin'.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Being a champion to some people is better than being the best at what you do. Sometimes there are people like Marino and Miller, that no matter what they do, the team never gets to the top, and it frustrates them to no end. That's why they'd say they'd trade those stuff in for a title.

[Black Lushus 0]

yeah, it's a sad world when guys like Jeff Hostettler, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have rings and guys like Dan Marino and Jim Kelly don't have shit...

[Crimson Platypus 0]

If you want the honest to God truth; Malone's.  Hell, he he made millions more than Horry has made.

 

Malone made about 106 million, while Horry made 44 million.  Still nothing to cry about, but that's less than twice what Malone made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So wait.. 44 million isn't enough? Okay Latrell. I'd take Horry's 5 rings and 44 mil anyday.

[Ripper 0]

The list isn't whose career you would take, its who was the better player. And no one here is going to argue that Robert Horry is a better player than Karl Malone. And I don't think you can seriously argue that there have been 30-40 players better than Scottie Pippen since 1984. Charles Barkley was on a horrible team in Philly and they were losing, but he was still a GREAT player and one of the best in the league. If this was a list of best teams since 84, then I could see the Championship argument, but if you are argueing best individual players, then championships are kinda a moot point. Because only a few teams have won championships. That doesn't mean everyone else in the league sucked.

[AlwaysPissedOff 0]

On that last list, Pippen being ranked 19th is criminally insane.

[Dangerous A 0]

On that last list, Pippen being ranked 19th is criminally insane.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Insane that he should be ranked higher or lower?

[AlwaysPissedOff 0]

Higher. Sorry, shoulda made that clearer, I guess.

[Dangerous A 0]

You should know better, you were once a mod!!!

 

That said, there are great arguments for him being higher or lower than where benoitrulz ranked him. That's the beauty of lists, they are subjective, and therefore ripe for TSM's scorn.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

The list isn't whose career you would take, its who was the better player.  And no one here is going to argue that Robert Horry is a better player than Karl Malone.  And I don't think you can seriously argue that there have been 30-40 players better than Scottie Pippen since 1984. Charles Barkley was on a horrible team in Philly and they were losing, but he was still a GREAT player and one of the best in the league.  If this was a list of best teams since 84, then I could see the Championship argument, but if you are argueing best individual players, then championships are kinda a moot point.  Because only a few teams have won championships.  That doesn't mean everyone else in the league sucked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

His second list had "career value" as one of the factors for his list. Isn't winning a championship part of having a great career?

 

 

Someone else brought up the Dan Marino question already. I'm a Dolphins fan, my earliest memory of the NFL was seeing Marino play, I would (with admitted bias) say he's the greatest QB never to win a Super Bowl. Still... because he hasn't won I doubt I'd put him in my top 5 or so (note that I haven't really made such a list).

[Ripper 0]

Its a team sport though. Being a great player means absolute shit. Since 84, its been 7 teams(i think) that have won the championship. You can't legitimately say that every other player in the leauge that didn't play for one of 7 teams weren't great players. That is just ridiculous.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

Someone else brought up the Dan Marino question already. I'm a Dolphins fan, my earliest memory of the NFL was seeing Marino play, I would (with admitted bias) say he's the greatest QB never to win a Super Bowl. Still... because he hasn't won I doubt I'd put him in my top 5 or so (note that I haven't really made such a list).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Marino is without question top 5 QB. To say he's not because he hasn't won the Super Bowl is laughable. It takes more than a QB to take a team to the Super Bowl. Hell look at Peyton Manning. He set a record for TD passes and he still couldn't get to the Super Bowl because his defense was atrocious. Marino had no running game to complement the passing game. This doesn't fault him, nor should it. I'd put him at #2 at the very least (though in my mind he is always #1).

[AboveAverage484 0]

What confuses me is he says championships are important and then trashes my ranking of Scottie Pippen, who has six rings to his credit. I guess we should disregard Kobe's rings too since he wouldn't have won shit without Shaq. While we're at it, who gets credit for Detroit last year? Billups won the Finals MVP, but you could also say Hamilton, Ben or Rasheed are all equally deserving of being the most important player.

 

One can't say Maravich wasn't a good player either, he was just surrounded by garbage for the majority of his career.

[Dangerous A 0]

What makes the Pippen argument so compelling is he has the hardware and was second best on his team, but even with the first year after Jordan in 94, he really just seemed slightly above average. The Bulls campaign in 94 was exceptional, but the half year after before Jordan came back, the Bulls were not a playoff team and Pippen was not doing so well.

 

I figure if Jordan would've stayed retired after 93, Pippen would probrably been in the echelon of Barkley, Malone, Ewing, level players since I consider that time to be his peak. I also don't think Pippen could lead a team to a championship. He needed to feed off another big name. Not saying he wasn't good. Just not good enough to be the #1 guy on a team that could win hardware.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

What confuses me is he says championships are important and then trashes my ranking of Scottie Pippen, who has six rings to his credit.  I guess we should disregard Kobe's rings too since he wouldn't have won shit without Shaq.  While we're at it, who gets credit for Detroit last year?  Billups won the Finals MVP, but you could also say Hamilton, Ben or Rasheed are all equally deserving of being the most important player.

 

One can't say Maravich wasn't a good player either, he was just surrounded by garbage for the majority of his career.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I'm now done with this thread. I don't know how many times I have to put down that Pippen only has those rings because of Jordan.

 

 

Comparing Kobe to Pippen must be a joke. Really.

[Guest Vitamin X]

yeah, it's a sad world when guys like Jeff Hostettler, Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have rings and guys like Dan Marino and Jim Kelly don't have shit...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even funnier is how Hostetler, Dilfer, and Johnson all had once chance apiece at a championship, while Marino had two in a row, and Kelly had four in a row..

[Black Lushus 0]

see that's just it...though I think we can attribute luck on the Giants and top notch defense for the Ravens and Bucs those seasons...

[snuffbox 0]

John Stockton must have been the King of Suck then. He never won a ring AND he had Karl Malone.

 

Scottie Pippen is top 15 for this time period and definitly top 50 All-Time. This 'only cuz he had Jordan' arguement is among the stupidest things Ive ever heard in sportstalk debate.

 

Top 5 Guys who sucked cuz they had another star on their team:

Kobe Bryant

Ray Allen

Tim Duncan

John Stockton

Scottie Pippen

 

And, if you dont think Dan Marino is a top-5 QB ever...punch yourself in the face, repeatedly. If you hit like a bitch, ask a friend to do it for you.

[Guest Vitamin X]

What confuses me is he says championships are important and then trashes my ranking of Scottie Pippen, who has six rings to his credit.  I guess we should disregard Kobe's rings too since he wouldn't have won shit without Shaq.  While we're at it, who gets credit for Detroit last year?  Billups won the Finals MVP, but you could also say Hamilton, Ben or Rasheed are all equally deserving of being the most important player.

 

One can't say Maravich wasn't a good player either, he was just surrounded by garbage for the majority of his career.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, on the flipside, Shaq wouldn't have won shit without Kobe or an equally great perimeter player, or at least someone that could play D.

 

Here's the thing, and apparently a couple of you are having a very difficult time comprehending this:

 

TEAMS WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS, NOT INDIVIDUALS.

 

To even be considered a championship contender, you need at LEAST 2-3 great players on your team to win from what I see. Very few players can power a team to the Finals, and even once there, to winning a championship, by themselves. Kobe and Shaq had each other, and a great coach. There was Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman (and the great coach). There was Kareem and Magic in the 80's. There was Stockton and Malone in the 90's. The list can go on and on, but you still see the same trend today in any team that could even be considered to be a contender. Duncan/Ginobili/Parker in San Antonio, Stoudamire/Nash/Marion in Phoenix, Wallaces in Detroit, Shaq/Wade in Miami.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Marino had no running game to complement the passing game.

Not to mention sub-par defenses. His teams were extremely 1 dimensional.

 

Even funnier is how Hostetler, Dilfer, and Johnson all had once chance apiece at a championship, while Marino had two in a row, and Kelly had four in a row..

Marino only played in 1 SB.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Marino had no running game to complement the passing game.

Not to mention sub-par defenses. His teams were extremely 1 dimensional.

 

Even funnier is how Hostetler, Dilfer, and Johnson all had once chance apiece at a championship, while Marino had two in a row, and Kelly had four in a row..

Marino only played in 1 SB.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oops, that's right, it was his second year too, wasn't it? I know the `84 Dolphins lost to the `84 Niners, forgot that it was `82, not the `83 Dolphins who lost to the Redskins (who were then beaten the following year by the Raiders).