Z's Top 100 NBA Players of All Time

#127
#127
Legacy rankings potentielly

- Title gets Giannis or Jokic top 15

- Jayson Tatum top 60 finals win

- Luka Finals appearance top 50

- Gobert Finals appearance top 100

- Durant top 15/Booker top 75 if finals win
 
#128
#128
zjcvols said:
Legacy rankings potentielly

- Title gets Giannis or Jokic top 15

- Jayson Tatum top 60 finals win

- Luka Finals appearance top 50

- Gobert Finals appearance top 100

- Durant top 15/Booker top 75 if finals win
Click to expand...
Luka + Durant already there

Gtfo Gobert
 
#129
#129
#130
#130
hUTch2002 said:
But what I said stands. No one wins a championship alone but that 1991 Bulls team outplayed a better team on paper to win it and Jordan was the only AS that year.
Click to expand...

I recently rewatched the 1991 NBA Finals, and I’d highly recommend anyone who is interested in NBA history to also watch it. Scottie Pippen was huge in that series with his defense against Magic Johnson. Pippen’s defense on Magic, starting in the 2nd quarter of game 2, completely turned that series around. It disrupted everything the Lakers wanted to do.

Horace Grant also had an excellent series. He had a terrible game 1, but then after that, averaged 17ppg. He also played really good defense against Magic in spots.

If you remember anything about that series, I’m sure it’s John Paxson’s shooting. He was always wide open because the defense was collapsing on Jordan constantly, but he went 8 for 8 in game 2, 7 for 11 in game 4, and 9 for 12 in game 5, taking over in that 4th quarter.

Saying “Jordan won a title as the only all-star,” sounds amazing on paper, but is an incomplete analysis. No doubt, Jordan deserved Finals MVP, averaging 31/7/11 in that series with countless amazing plays, but the Bulls as a team were unstoppable that playoff season. Honestly, I believe the ‘91 Bulls was their best championship team. They were young and undisciplined in the half-court offense, but they were probably the most athletic team of all-time up to that point in NBA history. And the way they turned their defense into offense was and still is probably the greatest of all-time.

If you ever have the time to read “The Jordan Rules,” I highly recommend it. It goes into great detail about the entire 1991 NBA season about all the Bulls players. That team at the beginning of the season was a hot mess. Jordan wanted to leave the team, maybe even retire. Pippen, Grant, Stacey King, Will Perdue, and BJ Armstrong all demanded to be traded. John Paxson noted that he had never been on a more dysfunctional team off the court, but on the court, they really came together after the all-star break. Phil Jackson deserves tons of credit for keeping that team together. He was only a 2nd year coach, but he handled it like a seasoned veteran. He handled it better than the 2003 and 2004 Lakers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#133
#133
KoachKrab127 said:
I recently rewatched the 1991 NBA Finals, and I’d highly recommend anyone who is interested in NBA history to also watch it. Scottie Pippen was huge in that series with his defense against Magic Johnson. Pippen’s defense on Magic, starting in the 2nd quarter of game 2, completely turned that series around. It disrupted everything the Lakers wanted to do.

Horace Grant also had an excellent series. He had a terrible game 1, but then after that, averaged 17ppg. He also played really good defense against Magic in spots.

If you remember anything about that series, I’m sure it’s John Paxson’s shooting. He was always wide open because the defense was collapsing on Jordan constantly, but he went 8 for 8 in game 2, 7 for 11 in game 4, and 9 for 12 in game 5, taking over in that 4th quarter.

Saying “Jordan won a title as the only all-star,” sounds amazing on paper, but is an incomplete analysis. No doubt, Jordan deserved Finals MVP, averaging 31/7/11 in that series with countless amazing plays, but the Bulls as a team were unstoppable that playoff season. Honestly, I believe the ‘91 Bulls was their best championship team. They were young and undisciplined in the half-court offense, but they were probably the most athletic team of all-time up to that point in NBA history. And the way they turned their defense into offense was and still is probably the greatest of all-time.

If you ever have the time to read “The Jordan Rules,” I highly recommend it. It goes into great detail about the entire 1991 NBA season about all the Bulls players. That team at the beginning of the season was a hot mess. Jordan wanted to leave the team, maybe even retire. Pippen, Grant, Stacey King, Will Perdue, and BJ Armstrong all demanded to be traded. John Paxson noted that he had never been on a more dysfunctional team off the court, but on the court, they really came together after the all-star break. Phil Jackson deserves tons of credit for keeping that team together. He was only a 2nd year coach, but he handled it like a seasoned veteran. He handled it better than the 2003 and 2004 Lakers!
Click to expand...
Interesting that you responded to that post back to you over a year ago. Of course the team was playing great in the playoffs. What championship team doesn’t play well and wins it all anyway? That’s like saying water is wet. What I said is still true though.
 
#134
#134
hUTch2002 said:
Interesting that you responded to that post back to you over a year ago. Of course the team was playing great in the playoffs. What championship team doesn’t play well and wins it all anyway? That’s like saying water is wet. What I said is still true though.
Click to expand...

The point is that it's true but it doesn't mean anything because the spirit of what's true is that Pippen was arguably the best SF in the league since Bird had fallen off, and Grant was at least a top 8 PF. Saying "no other all stars" is a way of tricking people who don't remember it into thinking MJ carried a mediocre team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Notorious B.E.N and KoachKrab127
#135
#135
n_huffhines said:
The point is that it's true but it doesn't mean anything because the spirit of what's true is that Pippen was arguably the best SF in the league since Bird had fallen off, and Grant was at least a top 8 PF. Saying "no other all stars" is a way of tricking people who don't remember it into thinking MJ carried a mediocre team.
Click to expand...
Except that I also literally said no one wins it alone. You’re just seeing what you want to see because you want to argue something I’m not arguing. Then again, the discussion was over a year ago so I don’t even remember what was even being discussed beyond what was in my post that Krab responded to and the one Krab sent.
 
#136
#136
hUTch2002 said:
Except that I also literally said no one wins it alone. You’re just seeing what you want to see because you want to argue something I’m not arguing. Then again, the discussion was over a year ago so I don’t even remember what was even being discussed beyond what was in my post that Krab responded to and the one Krab sent.
Click to expand...

Nobody said you said that he won it alone. We're just saying pointing out no all stars is misleading. Why are you arguing "on paper" instead of what the reality was?....Pippen and Grant were better than Divac and Worthy. When you frame the conversation with phrases like "on paper" when that doesn't represent what we know to be true, people are gonna deconstruct it.

Scottie Pippen was the best defensive player in the league, scored almost as much as Worthy and got lots more rebounds and assists. Worthy got an all star nod. Pippen didn't. But we know who was better.
 
#137
#137
n_huffhines said:
Nobody said you said that he won it alone. We're just saying pointing out no all stars is misleading. Why are you arguing "on paper" instead of what the reality was?....Pippen and Grant were better than Divac and Worthy. When you frame the conversation with phrases like "on paper" when that doesn't represent what we know to be true, people are gonna deconstruct it.

Scottie Pippen was the best defensive player in the league, scored almost as much as Worthy and got lots more rebounds and assists. Worthy got an all star nod. Pippen didn't. But we know who was better.
Click to expand...
Because at that time the Lakers had proven they could win it all and they had a deeper roster. The Bulls were a good team but they weren’t nearly as proven as those Lakers at the time. The Lakers had 5 double digit scores, 2 more over 9ppg and the Bulls didn’t have the same top to bottom talent. Nobody carries a mediocre team to the NBA title alone but the Lakers had the deeper and more proven roster on paper, the Bulls were better in that series. Coming into the season the Bulls were +700 to win the title. That was the second worst odds by a good margin among title winners for an 18 year span starting in 84-85 (first year if data) and ending in 01-02. I assume parity kicked in more after 01-02 as players moved all over the place more frequently and you see the odds all over the place for title winners ever since then.
 
#138
#138
n_huffhines said:
Nobody said you said that he won it alone. We're just saying pointing out no all stars is misleading. Why are you arguing "on paper" instead of what the reality was?....Pippen and Grant were better than Divac and Worthy. When you frame the conversation with phrases like "on paper" when that doesn't represent what we know to be true, people are gonna deconstruct it.

Scottie Pippen was the best defensive player in the league, scored almost as much as Worthy and got lots more rebounds and assists. Worthy got an all star nod. Pippen didn't. But we know who was better.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, you state your opinion as fact and try to claim it as such when all you or I are expressing are opinions. Good try in attempting to pass your version as fact though. Typical for the BS I see from you in the PF.
 
#139
#139
hUTch2002 said:
Not to mention, you state your opinion as fact and try to claim it as such when all you or I are expressing are opinions. Good try in attempting to pass your version as fact though. Typical for the BS I see from you in the PF.
Click to expand...

Why are you making this personal?

Do you think Worthy was better than Pippen in 1991? You are missing the point. You are still making arguments about what we thought going into the season and what they were on paper. I'm talking about what it actually was, with the benefit of hindsight.

You're counting double digit scorers as if that means anything. MJ was ball-hogging and Magic was diming the other guys up. Inherently the Lakers were going to have more double-digit scorers. It doesn't explain anything about the quality of the cast, it just explains MJ and Magic. Just like with all-stars...it's hard for young up-and-comers like Grant and Pippen to get all-star nods when they have a teammate shooting over 25% of the team's attempts. There is a reason why Grant got an all-star nod as soon as MJ left for baseball....his FGA's went up 20%.

Worthy was getting 19 shots a game next to Magic, and scoring just 21. Not great.
 
Last edited:
#140
#140
n_huffhines said:
Why are you making this personal?

Do you think Worthy was better than Pippen in 1991? You are missing the point. You are still making arguments about what we thought going into the season and what they were on paper. I'm talking about what it actually was, with the benefit of hindsight.

You're counting double digit scorers as if that means anything. MJ was ball-hogging and Magic was diming the other guys up. Inherently the Lakers were going to have more double-digit scorers. It doesn't explain anything about the quality of the cast, it just explains MJ and Magic. Just like with all-stars...it's hard for young up-and-comers like Grant and Pippen to get all-star nods when they have a teammate shooting over 25% of the team's attempts. There is a reason why Grant got an all-star nod as soon as MJ left for baseball....his FGA's went up 20%.

Worthy was getting 19 shots a game next to Magic, and scoring just 21. Not great.
Click to expand...
Eh, I just threw that last line to see what you’d say. I do think it’s odd though that I said what actually was, there was one AS on that Bulls team that year and somehow that sent you down this rabbit hole of where you say I’m trying to spin it as if the Bulls were mediocre aside from MJ. That is not dealing with what it actually was that I said which was actually the way it was. One AS. Pretty much everything else we’ve said has been opinion. It is interesting though you say it’s hard for up and comers to make AS but Pippen was an AS the year prior if I recall correctly. Now if you wanted to say that AS awards don’t mean squat that’s a different conversation but it doesn’t change the fact I stated.

Hindsight is always 20/20 of course and that was over 30 years ago so I’m going off memory and the stats. At that time, yes Worthy was as good as Pippen, who was still coming up. Now Worthy was hurt a good bit and aging so maybe in that series he wasn’t as good, I don’t recall specifically, but he was still a great player.

Yes I’m quoting the scoring as that’s the object of the game but we can go names if you like. Byron Scott, Sam Perkins, and AC Green were good role
players to compliment Magic and Worthy. Throw in Divac and I’d say at that time the Lakers had a better roster top to bottom.
 
#141
#141
hUTch2002 said:
Interesting that you responded to that post back to you over a year ago. Of course the team was playing great in the playoffs. What championship team doesn’t play well and wins it all anyway? That’s like saying water is wet. What I said is still true though.
Click to expand...

The reason I responded to this post a year after it was posted is because, like I said, I just rewatched the 1991 NBA Finals, and for that reason, it was on my mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#142
#142
hUTch2002 said:
Eh, I just threw that last line to see what you’d say. I do think it’s odd though that I said what actually was, there was one AS on that Bulls team that year and somehow that sent you down this rabbit hole of where you say I’m trying to spin it as if the Bulls were mediocre aside from MJ. That is not dealing with what it actually was that I said which was actually the way it was. One AS. Pretty much everything else we’ve said has been opinion. It is interesting though you say it’s hard for up and comers to make AS but Pippen was an AS the year prior if I recall correctly. Now if you wanted to say that AS awards don’t mean squat that’s a different conversation but it doesn’t change the fact I stated.

Hindsight is always 20/20 of course and that was over 30 years ago so I’m going off memory and the stats. At that time, yes Worthy was as good as Pippen, who was still coming up. Now Worthy was hurt a good bit and aging so maybe in that series he wasn’t as good, I don’t recall specifically, but he was still a great player.

Yes I’m quoting the scoring as that’s the object of the game but we can go names if you like. Byron Scott, Sam Perkins, and AC Green were good role
players to compliment Magic and Worthy. Throw in Divac and I’d say at that time the Lakers had a better roster top to bottom.
Click to expand...

You really should rewatch the 1991 NBA Finals and see how much the entire Bulls teams was better than the Lakers. You mentioned Byron Scott and AC Green. Those two averaged a whopping 5 points per game each at about 30% shooting in the ‘91 Finals. I don’t understand why you are going by what the narrative was in 1991 before the Finals that year rather than going by what actually happened. What actually happened was Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, and John Paxson outplaying their competition. Even Cliff Levingston had a good (great in spurts) impact off the bench.
 
#143
#143
KoachKrab127 said:
You really should rewatch the 1991 NBA Finals and see how much the entire Bulls teams was better than the Lakers. You mentioned Byron Scott and AC Green. Those two averaged a whopping 5 points per game each at about 30% shooting in the ‘91 Finals. I don’t understand why you are going by what the narrative was in 1991 before the Finals that year rather than going by what actually happened. What actually happened was Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, and John Paxson outplaying their competition. Even Cliff Levingston had a good (great in spurts) impact off the bench.
Click to expand...

The Bulls had the best defensive 2, 3, and second best defensive 4 in the league. They had tons of length and athleticism. All 3 guys could pass and handle the ball, two of them being MVP caliber guys at running offense. Everybody was content with their shot count. It's like the best fitting big 3 ever. Their only weakness was perimeter shooting which didn't matter a ton in 1991.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KoachKrab127
#144
#144
n_huffhines said:
The Bulls had the best defensive 2, 3, and second best defensive 4 in the league. They had tons of length and athleticism. All 3 guys could pass and handle the ball, two of them being MVP caliber guys at running offense. Everybody was content with their shot count. It's like the best fitting big 3 ever. Their only weakness was perimeter shooting which didn't matter a ton in 1991.
Click to expand...
I don't think I would agree that everyone was content with their shot count, well, at least in the regular season. The team really came together in April, but during the season, Jordan hated the triangle offense, and his teammates hated the way Jordan would often ignore the triangle. The book "The Jordan Rules" goes into all of these details. Everyone wanted more playing time and more shots on that team, and I mean everyone. About half the team demanded trades that season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#145
#145
KoachKrab127 said:
I don't think I would agree that everyone was content with their shot count, well, at least in the regular season. The team really came together in April, but during the season, Jordan hated the triangle offense, and his teammates hated the way Jordan would often ignore the triangle. The book "The Jordan Rules" goes into all of these details. Everyone wanted more playing time and more shots on that team, and I mean everyone. About half the team demanded trades that season.
Click to expand...

OK, let me rephrase that with more information now...the fit is in the fact that Grant and Pippen are not high-volume guys, so it worked out that Jordan led the league in FGA's. When Jordan left, they combined for just 30 shots a night when the team was asking them to score. They're just not high-volume guys, so they fit well next to MJ. Funny that they still had interpersonal issues regarding that. The actual product on the court was good. Grant and Pippen could be productive without a ton of shots, and the team thrived.

The problem with a lot of these big 2's and big 3's is that they have multiple players whose value is in being high-volume scorers but they aren't great all-around players. Luka is arguably the best player in the league and Kyrie is the scariest scorer in the league, and they can beat anybody in a series, but it's gonna be tough to get through 4 rounds when neither guy plays good D (and Luka doesn't do much work off ball). They're a pair who is actually happy with their shot count though, LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KoachKrab127
#147
#147
KoachKrab127 said:
You really should rewatch the 1991 NBA Finals and see how much the entire Bulls teams was better than the Lakers. You mentioned Byron Scott and AC Green. Those two averaged a whopping 5 points per game each at about 30% shooting in the ‘91 Finals. I don’t understand why you are going by what the narrative was in 1991 before the Finals that year rather than going by what actually happened. What actually happened was Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, and John Paxson outplaying their competition. Even Cliff Levingston had a good (great in spurts) impact off the bench.
Click to expand...
And that’s why they won. Maybe that’s the issue. You’re talking about in the Finals. I’m talking about coming into it. No doubt the Bulls rose to the occasion and whopped LA.
 
#148
#148
zjcvols said:
Durant lost top 15 status after what he did in Brooklyn
Click to expand...

I'm more worried about his Phoenix tenure. We are totally ****ed. I had big-time mixed feelings when we made that trade, but ultimately, I thought it raised our championship ceiling. It's been awful. He's mostly played good but we're just not good and that's on him and Booker. The defense and the rebounding are problems to overcome, but why did we have one of the worst 4th quarter offenses in the league this year? We got two of the best bucket-getters in the league. It makes no sense.

We got way too precious about trading Ayton. We held out and ended up getting a bag of ******** for him. If we had made the Myles Turner-centered trade and sat on Cam and Bridges, we'd still have had all our assets and Chris Paul's contract to trade. Then we lift Jrue off the Blazers and here we are with a nasty 5 and lots of draft capital. Instead, Isbhia tied two anchors around us with KD and Beal and we have one of the bleakest futures in the NBA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#149
#149
hUTch2002 said:
And that’s why they won. Maybe that’s the issue. You’re talking about in the Finals. I’m talking about coming into it. No doubt the Bulls rose to the occasion and whopped LA.
Click to expand...
Yes. I’m talking about what actually happened in the finals. I don’t know why we would give the narrative going into the finals any merit when we’ve had the actual results for 30+ years.

Some analysts made the prediction that the Bulls were too young and inexperienced to handle the Lakers. Some analysts thought the Lakers had the better team. The results clearly showed those analysts were wrong. So why should we act like those incorrect analyses had any merit?
 
#150
#150
KoachKrab127 said:
Yes. I’m talking about what actually happened in the finals. I don’t know why we would give the narrative going into the finals any merit when we’ve had the actual results for 30+ years.

Some analysts made the prediction that the Bulls were too young and inexperienced to handle the Lakers. Some analysts thought the Lakers had the better team. The results clearly showed those analysts were wrong. So why should we act like those incorrect analyses had any merit?
Click to expand...
But that’s the point I was making. People didn’t expect the Bulls to win. But like Huff basically said, that series represented a changing of the guard. Out with the old and in with the young. I agree the Bulls were better than the Lakers, they just weren’t expected to be headed into that series. What matters is they were though, on that we agree.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top