Is Klay Thompson the most overrated player in the history of the NBA?

[RodNIc91]

I saw him wearing the # 77 shirt because of his 'snub' of the 75th anniversary of the NBA. I think he's a nice player and would definitely love to have him on my team, but I just can't stand the fact that he gets so overrated. Granted: a top 5 shooter of all time. Does that make him one of the greatest ever? Discuss.

[horseshue]

Luka wears #77 all the time. Does that makes him overrated aswell?

[MultiTroll]

Yes for him to think he is in the top 75 for his limited run band waggoning with the Warriors is a joke.

The whining about how it was only because of the injury that Toronto won in 2019, please.
He got nearly 40 minutes in almost every game.
The injuries to opponents, the WarriorRef, the Durant puss out all drastically take down their phony *dynasty. Toronto combined with the Lebron Cavs beating them forever puts their other *Championships in perspective.

Super good role player, shooter on a tv network team.

[KobesAchilles]

Dennis Rodman is even more overrated.

[baseline bum]

Nope, Rodman is

[Neo.]

I saw him wearing the # 77 shirt because of his 'snub' of the 75th anniversary of the NBA. I think he's a nice player and would definitely love to have him on my team, but I just can't stand the fact that he gets so overrated. Granted: a top 5 shooter of all time. Does that make him one of the greatest ever? Discuss.

1) no hes not overrated at all, if anything hes arguably underappreciated. maybe not top 75 great but still a fantastic player

2) his team gave him that shirt as a joke

[Neo.]

Yes for him to think he is in the top 75 for his limited run band waggoning with the Warriors is a joke.

The whining about how it was only because of the injury that Toronto won in 2019, please.
He got nearly 40 minutes in almost every game.
The injuries to opponents, the WarriorRef, the Durant puss out all drastically take down their phony *dynasty. Toronto combined with the Lebron Cavs beating them forever puts their other *Championships in perspective.

Super good role player, shooter on a tv network team.

not sure how you can dismiss their accomplishments based on injuries to opponents, then credit the loss to toronto as something to put their championships in perspective, after they lost their #1 and #3 guy

[MultiTroll]

not sure how you can dismiss their accomplishments based on injuries to opponents, then credit the loss to toronto as something to put their championships in perspective, after they lost their #1 and #3 guy
True, fair to say GS without colluding Durant thus their #2 guy out. Curry is easily the #1 Dub and along with WarriorRef how Durbetta got such wide open shots. #3 Thompson played all but one quarter of that series.

Beyond that, easy.
Golden Phaggot 2015 opponents had key players out the entire series. Kyrie Irving blows his knee in what, game 1? Or was it before the series even began? 2015 i think every single opponent had a key injury.

2019 Phaggots had Thompson for all but a quarter or so of the final game. Toronto ran them off the court on the way to a 3-1 lead with Thompson at full strength.

[Neo.]

2019 Phaggots had Thompson for all but a quarter or so of the final game. Toronto ran them off the court on the way to a 3-1 lead with Thompson at full strength.

not true at all. he had been dealing with lingering injuries, left early in game 2 and missed game 3

[MultiTroll]

not true at all. he had been dealing with lingering injuries, left early in game 2 and missed game 3
Game 3 out, my bad. Yes that effected them
Game 2, 32 minutes. BooHoo he had to leave early. Kwa Leonard was out there battling with a degenerative quad. :lol

Bottom line yes, Toronto was effected by Thompsons missing a game and Durbetta being all but out.
With their depth and ref pampering, ZERO sympathy from me. None. They finally had to deal with a fraction of what their opponents had to deal with and got exposed again.

[Neo.]

Bottom line yes, Toronto was effected by Thompsons missing a game and Durbetta being all but out.

this is correct


With their depth and ref pampering, ZERO sympathy from me. None. They finally had to deal with a fraction of what their opponents had to deal with and got exposed again.

no one asked for sympathy. injuries are simply part of the game, as much as it sucks and can alter outcomes. point is, its illogical to knock them for winning against teams that were affected by injuries, then give other teams full credit for beating them when they were severely affected by injuries.

[MultiTroll]

this is correct



no one asked for sympathy. injuries are simply part of the game, as much as it sucks and can alter outcomes. point is, its illogical to knock them for winning against teams that were affected by injuries, then give other teams full credit for beating them when they were severely affected by injuries.
It's not apples to apples.
Throw in the ref pampering, collusion (whatever, call it you wish) of Durbetta.

But again concede the Dubs had absolutely seized momentum in Game 6 and Klaynus was a huge part of that.

To say they would have won for sure is nonsense. Kwa Leonard had show he was just as capable of going on a tear.

[Neo.]

To say they would have won for sure is nonsense. Kwa Leonard had show he was just as capable of going on a tear.

so what about the teams they beat that had dealt with injuries? would they have won for sure if they were healthy?

hm sounds like more nonsense tbqhfwiwimhoiirc

[GAustex]

Good shooter
Benefits from being on a good team
No where near as good a defender as portrayed

[MultiTroll]

^ Probably.
Lebron was playing out of his mind Tim Duncan levels in 2015. He was the Finals MVP.

2017 the super rigged call to pamper Durant to the FT line with under a minute to go was literally a game changer. Of course JR Dumbshit sealed that deal.
Lebron broke his hand slamming it in the locker room afterwords.

2018 i think the Collusion Dubs win for sure even vs a healthy Cavs team.

[ambchang]

The top 75/76:
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Ray Allen
3. Giannis Antetokounmpo
4. Carmelo Anthony
5. Nate Archibald
6. Paul Arizin
7. Charles Barkley
8. Rick Barry
9. Elgin Baylor
10. Dave Bing
11. Larry Bird
12. Kobe Bryant
13. Wilt Chamberlain
14. Bob Cousy
15. Dave Cowens
16. Billy Cunningham
17. Stephen Curry
18. Anthony Davis
19. Dave DeBusschere
20. Clyde Drexler
21. Tim Duncan
22. Kevin Durant
23. Julius Erving
24. Patrick Ewing
25. Walt Frazier
26. Kevin Garnett
27. George Gervin
28. Hal Greer
29. James Harden
30. John Havlicek
31. Elvin Hayes
32. Allen Iverson
33. LeBron James
34. Magic Johnson
35. Sam Jones
36. Michael Jordan
37. Jason Kidd
38. Kawhi Leonard
39. Damian Lillard
40. Jerry Lucas
41. Karl Malone
42. Moses Malone
43. Pete Maravich
44. Bob McAdoo
45. Kevin McHale
46. George Mikan
47. Reggie Miller
48. Earl Monroe
49. Steve Nash
50. Dirk Nowitzki
51. Hakeem Olajuwon
52. Shaquille O'Neal
53. Robert Parish
54. Chris Paul
55. Gary Payton
56. Bob Pettit
57. Paul Pierce
58. Scottie Pippen
59. Willis Reed
60. Oscar Robertson
61. David Robinson
62. Dennis Rodman
63. Bill Russell
64. Dolph Schayes
65. Bill Sharman
66. John Stockton
67. Isiah Thomas
68. Nate Thurmond
69. Wes Unseld
70. Dwyane Wade
71. Bill Walton
72. Jerry West
73. Russell Westbrook
74. Lenny Wilkens
75. Dominique Wilkins
76. James Worthy

I know they left the top 50 in and not bumped anybody out, but a few that I felt should be left, even after taking into their historical significance into account, are:
4. Carmelo Anthony - If Bernard King didn't make it, Melo shouldn't
6. Paul Arizin - Early pioneer, but his team never had much success with him at the helm
10. Dave Bing - A Chauncey Billiups type of guy, and Billups didn't make it (nor should he)
39. Damian Lillard - Too early, maybe in a few years, and his defense left a lot to be desired
62. Dennis Rodman - the best defender in NBA history, but he did it only for a few years with Detroit. The Bulls years really overrated him. I'd take Ben Wallace over him. And it's not like defensive specialists get recognized, nobody will ever think of putting Michael Cooper or Bruce Bowen
65. Bill Sharman - One of those players overrated due to the Celtics dynasty
71. Bill Walton - Too injured, too long. If he made it, Derrick Rose should have make it

Some i think should have made it over the ones above (in the following order, so English wouldn't make it in the top 75.
T-Mac
Vince Carter
MVPau
Ginobili
Shawn Kemp
Sidney Moncrief
Alex English

[GAustex]

Chris Paul?

[lefty]

Klay is underrated

One of the best shooters of all time and also a great defensive player tbh (except vs Kyrie, but that brother can cook anyone 1 on 1 tbh)

[Darth_Pelican]

Steve Nash is. 2 MVPs for a white midget because he could dribble and pass well, but got blown by even the end of bench plumbers on defense every time he was on the floor.

[FrostKing]

Never seen a sports league backstab its history to pimp today's product for TV ratings like the NBA. Quarter of those guys will just get replaced by the new shiny thing coming up

[TD 21]

1) no hes not overrated at all, if anything hes arguably underappreciated. maybe not top 75 great but still a fantastic player

2) his team gave him that shirt as a joke

He's highly overrated (as most catch all metrics bare out) and overappreciated because of the media's obsession with the Warriors. They act like he's some lovable superstar, when in reality he's a complimentary fringe star who doesn't rank among the top snubs for NBA 75.

The fact that he has five All-Star selections to Ginobili's two, despite having no credible argument for being the same caliber of player, is an embarrassment.

[Neo.]

They act like he's some lovable superstar, when in reality he's a complimentary fringe star who doesn't rank among the top snubs for NBA 75.

i havent really seen anyone act like this at all. certainly not the majority. most people know hes simply a fantastic role player, whos contributions are often overlooked because of steph, kd and dray


The fact that he has five All-Star selections to Ginobili's two, despite having no credible argument for being the same caliber of player, is an embarrassment.

well considering ginobilis stats were inferior, he frequently dealt with injury issues, and averaged 8 less mpg for his career, there is a very credible argument

but making more all star teams doesnt make klay a better basketball player, i think anyone who legit knows basketball can see that ginobili is maybe the most underappreciated player of all time and among the more skilled guards the league has ever seen

[DMC]

Steve Nash is. 2 MVPs for a white midget because he could dribble and pass well, but got blown by even the end of bench plumbers on defense every time he was on the floor.

Steve Nash was real deal. For his size he gave the Spurs fits. He was tough as nails, didn't quit in games. I'd take him any day over some of these fucking pussies of today, and Carmelo can fuck off.

Klay isn't overrated. If you think he is just look at how the Warriors did last year. He's half of probably the best back court tandem in the history of the game.

[TD 21]

i havent really seen anyone act like this at all. certainly not the majority. most people know hes simply a fantastic role player, whos contributions are often overlooked because of steph, kd and dray



well considering ginobilis stats were inferior, he frequently dealt with injury issues, and averaged 8 less mpg for his career, there is a very credible argument

but making more all star teams doesnt make klay a better basketball player, i think anyone who legit knows basketball can see that ginobili is maybe the most underappreciated player of all time and among the more skilled guards the league has ever seen

Seriously? You'd be hard pressed to watch, listen or reed to any mainstream NBA related context and not have heard this ad nauseam.

Except his catch all metrics easily eclipsed Thompson's and even before they were widespread, head coaches should have known his value went far beyond the counting stats that were supressed for obvious reasons.

[DMC]

Manu is probably a 1st ballot HOFer. That's not underrated and yeah a lot of that is international play, but it's still Manu. In the NBA he is only underrated by other teams' fans, certainly not by other players.

[DMC]

Seriously? You'd be hard pressed to watch, listen or reed to any mainstream NBA related context and not have heard this ad nauseam.

Except his catch all metrics easily eclipsed Thompson's and even before they were widespread, head coaches should have known his value went far beyond the counting stats that were supressed for obvious reasons.

Manu is far and away a better player than Klay ever will be but that doesn't make Klay overrated.

[james evans]

This thread is fucking ridiculous. If you've ever examined any of the Spurs vs Warriors games, and I'm talking really examined, you'd know that Klay was the mf we should have feared. I was never afraid of Curry, Klay is the dude I was scared of. The offense and defense is designed for Curry to come off screens and be hid on defense. Klay is a LETHAL shooter(probably better without the ESPN support) and a top notch defender. That's why his body broke down. He was guarding the guys that Curry wouldn't and COULDN'T!!. And he wasn't even making every all defensive team. No Klay, Curry never wins an mvp or title(pre-durant). But, this is Klay's fault. He's the guy taking pay cuts after his rookie deals to be Curry's flunkie as he gets no credit in the media or from casual NBA fans, so he has no one to blame but himself. I don't know if he'll ever be the same because playing defense against the top players every night while having to help carry the load offensively as 1B option is a mf. Let's not forget, Curry missed a whole first round series a few years ago that the Warriors breezed through. Now, how many series has Curry won without Klay? Better yet, How many times has he been to the playoffs without Klay?

[james evans]

He's highly overrated (as most catch all metrics bare out) and overappreciated because of the media's obsession with the Warriors. They act like he's some lovable superstar, when in reality he's a complimentary fringe star who doesn't rank among the top snubs for NBA 75.

The fact that he has five All-Star selections to Ginobili's two, despite having no credible argument for being the same caliber of player, is an embarrassment.
of course Ginobili's better, but Ginobili is better than a LOT of guys. Doesn't make Klay overrated. Ginobili is better than Ray Allen too overall, but that doesn't make Ray Ray overrated.

[Down Under]

No, players like Pete Maravich, Lenny Wilkins, Dave DeBusschere, Earl Monroe, Dave Cowens & Hal Greer are vastly more overrated.

[james evans]

earl Monroe was doing things with a basketball in the 70s that players today can't even do. Back when the refs didn't let you put your hands under a basketball while dribbling or travel during crossovers, he was the best ball handler in the league. Unstoppable college player. There is nothing overrated about Black Jesus' game. Absolutely nothing

[GAustex]

Earl the Pearl Monroe was the real deal. Love his game.

[GAustex]

Dave Ciwnes is a hall of famer

[Dirks_Finale]

Steve Nash was real deal. For his size he gave the Spurs fits. He was tough as nails, didn't quit in games. I'd take him any day over some of these fucking pussies of today, and Carmelo can fuck off.

Klay isn't overrated. If you think he is just look at how the Warriors did last year. He's half of probably the best back court tandem in the history of the game.

Most overrated MVP in league history, by far.

They change the rules and he suddenly becomes a basketball god. What a coincidence. :lol

Agree with you on him being tougher than today's guys. He could take contact and didn't let it faze him like these mental midgets of today.

[james evans]

Dave Ciwnes is a hall of famer
plus he won 2 titles in the most competitive decade in NBA history.

[DMC]

Nash 2 MVPs
Kobe 1 MVP

That's it and that's all

[lefty]

This thread is fucking ridiculous. If you've ever examined any of the Spurs vs Warriors games, and I'm talking really examined, you'd know that Klay was the mf we should have feared. I was never afraid of Curry, Klay is the dude I was scared of. The offense and defense is designed for Curry to come off screens and be hid on defense. Klay is a LETHAL shooter(probably better without the ESPN support) and a top notch defender. That's why his body broke down. He was guarding the guys that Curry wouldn't and COULDN'T!!. And he wasn't even making every all defensive team. No Klay, Curry never wins an mvp or title(pre-durant). But, this is Klay's fault. He's the guy taking pay cuts after his rookie deals to be Curry's flunkie as he gets no credit in the media or from casual NBA fans, so he has no one to blame but himself. I don't know if he'll ever be the same because playing defense against the top players every night while having to help carry the load offensively as 1B option is a mf. Let's not forget, Curry missed a whole first round series a few years ago that the Warriors breezed through. Now, how many series has Curry won without Klay? Better yet, How many times has he been to the playoffs without Klay?
Klay is pretty much the Alpha of that team, bailed Curry out in the 2016 WCF

[james evans]

Klay is pretty much the Alpha of that team, bailed Curry out in the 2016 WCF
but if you let ESPN(the Jordan/Lebron network) explain it to you, Curry has to do everything alone..

[Neo.]

plus he won 2 titles in the most competitive decade in NBA history.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

[james evans]

:lmao :lmao :lmao
what's so funny? 8 teams won in the 70s. No other decade in NBA history had that many different winners. They maxed out at 22 teams(which it should have stayed at, but GREED was evident), no team won back to back and only 2 teams won more than 1 title(knicks and boston). The Bullets went to to the finals the most with 4 trips winning once. Knicks and lakers both had 3 trips. BUUUUT, that competitiveness almost ruined the NBA. people couldn't jump on a team to bandwagon and be fake fans so that's how the powerhouse Lakers and Boston were created . Just so happens that the lakers from a previous trade had Cleveland's pick in the draft that year. They won the coin toss and got Worthy. This was AFTER WINNING THE 82 TITLE!!!. Then in 86, through previous trades, Boston ended up with the 2nd pick in the draft, AFTER WINNING THE TITLE, and picked the best player in the draft, but that didn't work out for them. There is always some shit going on in the NBA to ensure the Lakers or Celtics aren't bad for too long. Just as many people hate the lakers as those that love them, so when you have that many people paying to see them lose or win, you find ways to keep them relevant. The same they did with GS for 5 years straight. We aint getting another Suns vs Bucks finals. Fuck that. I hope you enjoyed that cuz it aint happening again. I remember mfers complaining in 2005 when we played the Pistons and Stern made sure the next season with thet division bs, we would be playing Dallas in the 2nd round. And one of those games, those mfers shot about 20 freethrows in one quarter

[TDMVPDPOY]

Yes for him to think he is in the top 75 for his limited run band waggoning with the Warriors is a joke.

The whining about how it was only because of the injury that Toronto won in 2019, please.
He got nearly 40 minutes in almost every game.
The injuries to opponents, the WarriorRef, the Durant puss out all drastically take down their phony *dynasty. Toronto combined with the Lebron Cavs beating them forever puts their other *Championships in perspective.

Super good role player, shooter on a tv network team.

klay is nothing more then overglorified brent barry with the green light to chuck

and brent has 2 rings

[lefty]

what's so funny? 8 teams won in the 70s. No other decade in NBA history had that many different winners. They maxed out at 22 teams(which it should have stayed at, but GREED was evident), no team won back to back and only 2 teams won more than 1 title(knicks and boston). The Bullets went to to the finals the most with 4 trips winning once. Knicks and lakers both had 3 trips. BUUUUT, that competitiveness almost ruined the NBA. people couldn't jump on a team to bandwagon and be fake fans so that's how the powerhouse Lakers and Boston were created . Just so happens that the lakers from a previous trade had Cleveland's pick in the draft that year. They won the coin toss and got Worthy. This was AFTER WINNING THE 82 TITLE!!!. Then in 86, through previous trades, Boston ended up with the 2nd pick in the draft, AFTER WINNING THE TITLE, and picked the best player in the draft, but that didn't work out for them. There is always some shit going on in the NBA to ensure the Lakers or Celtics aren't bad for too long. Just as many people hate the lakers as those that love them, so when you have that many people paying to see them lose or win, you find ways to keep them relevant. The same they did with GS for 5 years straight. We aint getting another Suns vs Bucks finals. Fuck that. I hope you enjoyed that cuz it aint happening again. I remember mfers complaining in 2005 when we played the Pistons and Stern made sure the next season with thet division bs, we would be playing Dallas in the 2nd round. And one of those games, those mfers shot about 20 freethrows in one quarter

Last years Finals had a 70s Finals vibe tbh

[Dirks_Finale]

what's so funny? 8 teams won in the 70s. No other decade in NBA history had that many different winners. They maxed out at 22 teams(which it should have stayed at, but GREED was evident), no team won back to back and only 2 teams won more than 1 title(knicks and boston). The Bullets went to to the finals the most with 4 trips winning once. Knicks and lakers both had 3 trips. BUUUUT, that competitiveness almost ruined the NBA. people couldn't jump on a team to bandwagon and be fake fans so that's how the powerhouse Lakers and Boston were created . Just so happens that the lakers from a previous trade had Cleveland's pick in the draft that year. They won the coin toss and got Worthy. This was AFTER WINNING THE 82 TITLE!!!. Then in 86, through previous trades, Boston ended up with the 2nd pick in the draft, AFTER WINNING THE TITLE, and picked the best player in the draft, but that didn't work out for them. There is always some shit going on in the NBA to ensure the Lakers or Celtics aren't bad for too long. Just as many people hate the lakers as those that love them, so when you have that many people paying to see them lose or win, you find ways to keep them relevant. The same they did with GS for 5 years straight. We aint getting another Suns vs Bucks finals. Fuck that. I hope you enjoyed that cuz it aint happening again. I remember mfers complaining in 2005 when we played the Pistons and Stern made sure the next season with thet division bs, we would be playing Dallas in the 2nd round. And one of those games, those mfers shot about 20 freethrows in one quarter

Avery had that team being aggressive and penetrating; unlike past Dallas teams. Only 1 or 2 questionable calls and they were on Dallas HC. You guys got questionable calls for 20 years in the barn with Pop intimidating the refs.

But carry on with the topic :lol

[JamStone]

Overrated by whom? I think most realize and acknowledge he’s an excellent complementary player. Among the best in that regard. Great two-way player. But also not the type of talent you build your entire team around expecting championships. He could be a #1. But a team with him as a #1 likely has a ceiling less than championship aspirations. He didn’t make the 75 team and there are players that did that are arguably worse. So how would he be “most” overrated and by whom?

Now is he one of the most overrated by himself and his teammates? Yeah, sure, maybe. I don’t think he belonged on the 75 list. Not more than some of the other names left off, including Vince and Manu and T-Mac and Bernard King. But if he and his teammates really believe he’s the next one in line, then yeah. Pretty overrated by them.

Then again, I question several selections like Dame and Melo, Reggie and Scottie and Dominique, heck, Dave Bing, Bob Cousy. I can find flaws and arguments to exclude all those guys. Nique ain’t do shit but look sweet dunking the ball and statpad points just like Dame. Reggie could shoot the ball as well as anyone in history but was not above average in any other aspect of the game. Probably made it because he played until he was 50 and he had those Spike Lee moments against the Knicks. Cousy never shot over 40% from the field in an era where there were no threes. And I know some revere Pippen, sometimes essentially to discredit Jordan, but have him get drafted by shit Seattle and he would have been Derrick McKey.

The 75 team is just dumb in general. It’s a gratuitous, self-fellating, look at me exercise the league should have just decided against.

[DMC]

klay is nothing more then overglorified brent barry with the green light to chuck

and brent has 2 rings

Erin has more.

[Texas_Ranger]

he is not even in the top 100. Give him a team where he's the alpha and that team won make the playoffs ever. He's just a smaller Kevin Love.

[140]

He's basically a glorified Dennis Scott tbh

[Chucho]

Steve Nash is. 2 MVPs for a white midget because he could dribble and pass well, but got blown by even the end of bench plumbers on defense every time he was on the floor.

So?

Does Phoenix go as far as they go those years without Nash? No. Not at all.

Nash was certainly the most valuable player to his team in 05 and 06. The closest candidate is '06 Kobe and that's just a myth. Dude was west coast Iverson that season, at best.

[ambchang]

Overrated by whom? I think most realize and acknowledge he’s an excellent complementary player. Among the best in that regard. Great two-way player. But also not the type of talent you build your entire team around expecting championships. He could be a #1. But a team with him as a #1 likely has a ceiling less than championship aspirations. He didn’t make the 75 team and there are players that did that are arguably worse. So how would he be “most” overrated and by whom?

Now is he one of the most overrated by himself and his teammates? Yeah, sure, maybe. I don’t think he belonged on the 75 list. Not more than some of the other names left off, including Vince and Manu and T-Mac and Bernard King. But if he and his teammates really believe he’s the next one in line, then yeah. Pretty overrated by them.

Then again, I question several selections like Dame and Melo, Reggie and Scottie and Dominique, heck, Dave Bing, Bob Cousy. I can find flaws and arguments to exclude all those guys. Nique ain’t do shit but look sweet dunking the ball and statpad points just like Dame. Reggie could shoot the ball as well as anyone in history but was not above average in any other aspect of the game. Probably made it because he played until he was 50 and he had those Spike Lee moments against the Knicks. Cousy never shot over 40% from the field in an era where there were no threes. And I know some revere Pippen, sometimes essentially to discredit Jordan, but have him get drafted by shit Seattle and he would have been Derrick McKey.

The 75 team is just dumb in general. It’s a gratuitous, self-fellating, look at me exercise the league should have just decided against.

You'd leave Pippen off? Really? Pippen is a top 40 player at worst. One of the best defensive players in league history, one of the original point forwards. I just can't see leaving him off.

Nique and King are of the same ilk, stat pad extraordinaire, but their talent is unquestioned. Nique actually did decently well with the roster he had. They beat an up and coming Pistons team in 86 but then lost to one of the best teams of all time vs. the celtics in the next round. You can't blame him for the stupid front office signing Jon Koncak to a gigantic contract that hampered them for years. The Hawks teams weren't bad, but they were no where close the talents of the Celtics and the bad boys. They were supposed to lose.

Agreed on Miller though, I never really understood why he was so well regarded. He was a great shooter, but averaged around 18 to 21 most of his career. Ray Allen was a much better player.

[TD 21]

of course Ginobili's better, but Ginobili is better than a LOT of guys. Doesn't make Klay overrated. Ginobili is better than Ray Allen too overall, but that doesn't make Ray Ray overrated.

It was just an example. If you follow enough of the mainstream discourse in the NBA, you know Thompson is overrated.

[Neo.]

It was just an example. If you follow enough of the mainstream discourse in the NBA, you know Thompson is overrated.

exaggeration

[DMC]

So?

Does Phoenix go as far as they go those years without Nash? No. Not at all.

Nash was certainly the most valuable player to his team in 05 and 06. The closest candidate is '06 Kobe and that's just a myth. Dude was west coast Iverson that season, at best.

Remember Nash got hurt and sat out a lot of games, and the team struggled. When he returned they returned to form. This cemented his MVP status. Same happened to Durant when RW went out and Kevin carried the team.

[JamStone]

You'd leave Pippen off? Really? Pippen is a top 40 player at worst. One of the best defensive players in league history, one of the original point forwards. I just can't see leaving him off.

Nique and King are of the same ilk, stat pad extraordinaire, but their talent is unquestioned. Nique actually did decently well with the roster he had. They beat an up and coming Pistons team in 86 but then lost to one of the best teams of all time vs. the celtics in the next round. You can't blame him for the stupid front office signing Jon Koncak to a gigantic contract that hampered them for years. The Hawks teams weren't bad, but they were no where close the talents of the Celtics and the bad boys. They were supposed to lose.

Agreed on Miller though, I never really understood why he was so well regarded. He was a great shooter, but averaged around 18 to 21 most of his career. Ray Allen was a much better player.

I have not tried to make my own personal extensive list because as I suggested it’s a futile exercise. Also, while I know a lot of the names of the past greats, I don’t feel qualified enough on how to judge, evaluate, and rank a lot of the old players I never watched, certainly not way back to guys like George Mikan or Bob Pettit, other than looking up stats on bballreference. So, in reality, I’m not sure where I’d rank Pippen. I know I’d rank players left off the list higher than him. But again, there are others that are on the list I’d also take out.

All this shit is subjective, depending on what you value more and how you weigh things like natural talent versus actual production or team success versus individual awards and honors. And that’s the thing, everyone’s definition and criteria can be different. For me, guys like Scottie and Worm and Worthy and Ray Allen, etc were never #1 type superstars. They were superstar role players, secondary players. They needed to play off a true #1 in order to excel. That’s why I temper the perception of their “greatness.” And I know people refer to the 94 Bulls that still won 50+ games without Jordan. I don’t buy that shit. Scottie’s numbers didn’t actually improve all that much without Jordan and the East by then was super watered down without the powerhouse teams of the 80s that all got old. The EC in that 94 season had that flawed Ewing Knicks team, that juggernaut (sarcasm) that was the Cleveland Cavaliers with Price and Daugherty, and the Magic with a rookie Penny and Shaq in his second year. I don’t agree with the argument that Scottie proved himself as his own #1 with that 94 season. That’s my personal opinion. But again, does that mean he wasn’t great? Depends what you think greatness is. Was Rodman great at what he did with rebounding and defense? Yes, he was great... at that. Would I rather build a team around Dennis or Tracy McGrady who was not on the 75 team? McGrady 10 times out of 10, even though I was a huge fan of Dennis growing up.

Fuck if I know what’s the proper criteria and what greatness really is. Vince Carter to me belongs in the top 10-15 among natural talents in the history of basketball ever. But I also understand why his career achievements both individually and with his teams leave him lacking for what many basketball fans perceive as greatness. And in that same vein, it’s why I question why guys like Nique and Melo and Dame were put on the team but Vince was left off.

So would I really leave Pipoen off? Without actually making the list, my feeling is yeah, I’d leave him off. Along with several other guys who were on the team. Pippen being an original point forward is a funny fallacy, and probably an insult to guys like Elgin Baylor and John Havlicek, let alone Bird. How the term “point forward” became such a thing would be interesting to research because I’m assuming it was probably around the late 70s / early 80s where basketball became so position specific. Feels like it wasn’t so crazy for a bigger player to also be a primary playmaker until everyone made a big deal about Magic being a “pure point guard” at 6’9. Didn’t Wilt lead the league in assists one year? Anyway, Scottie was a good all around player. His “greatness” is subjectively lost on me. He was a “great” role player, second banana, complementary guy. That’s as much credit as I’ll give him.

[lefty]

Bird was a GOAT passer but didn’t bring the ball up the court, that’s why he’s not considered a point forward

[ambchang]

I have not tried to make my own personal extensive list because as I suggested it’s a futile exercise. Also, while I know a lot of the names of the past greats, I don’t feel qualified enough on how to judge, evaluate, and rank a lot of the old players I never watched, certainly not way back to guys like George Mikan or Bob Pettit, other than looking up stats on bballreference. So, in reality, I’m not sure where I’d rank Pippen. I know I’d rank players left off the list higher than him. But again, there are others that are on the list I’d also take out.

All this shit is subjective, depending on what you value more and how you weigh things like natural talent versus actual production or team success versus individual awards and honors. And that’s the thing, everyone’s definition and criteria can be different. For me, guys like Scottie and Worm and Worthy and Ray Allen, etc were never #1 type superstars. They were superstar role players, secondary players. They needed to play off a true #1 in order to excel. That’s why I temper the perception of their “greatness.” And I know people refer to the 94 Bulls that still won 50+ games without Jordan. I don’t buy that shit. Scottie’s numbers didn’t actually improve all that much without Jordan and the East by then was super watered down without the powerhouse teams of the 80s that all got old. The EC in that 94 season had that flawed Ewing Knicks team, that juggernaut (sarcasm) that was the Cleveland Cavaliers with Price and Daugherty, and the Magic with a rookie Penny and Shaq in his second year. I don’t agree with the argument that Scottie proved himself as his own #1 with that 94 season. That’s my personal opinion. But again, does that mean he wasn’t great? Depends what you think greatness is. Was Rodman great at what he did with rebounding and defense? Yes, he was great... at that. Would I rather build a team around Dennis or Tracy McGrady who was not on the 75 team? McGrady 10 times out of 10, even though I was a huge fan of Dennis growing up.

Fuck if I know what’s the proper criteria and what greatness really is. Vince Carter to me belongs in the top 10-15 among natural talents in the history of basketball ever. But I also understand why his career achievements both individually and with his teams leave him lacking for what many basketball fans perceive as greatness. And in that same vein, it’s why I question why guys like Nique and Melo and Dame were put on the team but Vince was left off.

So would I really leave Pipoen off? Without actually making the list, my feeling is yeah, I’d leave him off. Along with several other guys who were on the team. Pippen being an original point forward is a funny fallacy, and probably an insult to guys like Elgin Baylor and John Havlicek, let alone Bird. How the term “point forward” became such a thing would be interesting to research because I’m assuming it was probably around the late 70s / early 80s where basketball became so position specific. Feels like it wasn’t so crazy for a bigger player to also be a primary playmaker until everyone made a big deal about Magic being a “pure point guard” at 6’9. Didn’t Wilt lead the league in assists one year? Anyway, Scottie was a good all around player. His “greatness” is subjectively lost on me. He was a “great” role player, second banana, complementary guy. That’s as much credit as I’ll give him.

Fair enough, but seems like that hate for the Bulls in the late 80s didn't die afterall :lol

And good point about Bird. I guess when I said Point Forward, I meant modern point forward like the Lebrons and Paul Georges.

[JamStone]

Fair enough, but seems like that hate for the Bulls in the late 80s didn't die afterall :lol


Maybe, idk. I hated Jordan with infinitely more passion than I ever did Pippen. And I have no issues ranking Jordan #1 overall, above Wilt or Russell or Kareem or LeBron or anyone else fans or the media try to throw into the debate.

And maybe you have an illogical reverence for role players and clearly inferior second tier caliber players. Scottie fucking Pippen a top 40 player in NBA history... to me, that’s tantamount to suggesting Draymond Green is a top 10 player in the league today. And I think Draymond sucks. But he kind of plays defense and can dribble the ball up the court and pass the ball to the best shooter in NBA history and he’s been part of multiple championship winning teams. I guess he must be great.

[baseline bum]

what's so funny? 8 teams won in the 70s. No other decade in NBA history had that many different winners. They maxed out at 22 teams(which it should have stayed at, but GREED was evident), no team won back to back and only 2 teams won more than 1 title(knicks and boston). The Bullets went to to the finals the most with 4 trips winning once. Knicks and lakers both had 3 trips. BUUUUT, that competitiveness almost ruined the NBA. people couldn't jump on a team to bandwagon and be fake fans so that's how the powerhouse Lakers and Boston were created . Just so happens that the lakers from a previous trade had Cleveland's pick in the draft that year. They won the coin toss and got Worthy. This was AFTER WINNING THE 82 TITLE!!!. Then in 86, through previous trades, Boston ended up with the 2nd pick in the draft, AFTER WINNING THE TITLE, and picked the best player in the draft, but that didn't work out for them. There is always some shit going on in the NBA to ensure the Lakers or Celtics aren't bad for too long. Just as many people hate the lakers as those that love them, so when you have that many people paying to see them lose or win, you find ways to keep them relevant. The same they did with GS for 5 years straight. We aint getting another Suns vs Bucks finals. Fuck that. I hope you enjoyed that cuz it aint happening again. I remember mfers complaining in 2005 when we played the Pistons and Stern made sure the next season with thet division bs, we would be playing Dallas in the 2nd round. And one of those games, those mfers shot about 20 freethrows in one quarter

Meh, 1970s NBA was weak. Lot of the best talent like Dr J, Ice, David Thompson, Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore, Maurice Lucas, James Silas, Dan Issel, etc were playing in the ABA until 76-77.

[james evans]

Meh, 1970s NBA was weak. Lot of the best talent like Dr J, Ice, David Thompson, Moses Malone, Artis Gilmore, Maurice Lucas, James Silas, Dan Issel, etc were playing in the ABA until 76-77.
I said COMPETITIVE!!!

we can argue over which decade had the best players, most athletic, best shooters, etc, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm going strictly off competitiveness of the league and not having the same teams play for the title or win every year. Is anything i said wrong? Where in my post did I remotely come close to mentioning the 70s had the best talent pool? Did you honestly read that whole post and not comprehend any of that? Is this a problem you've been having with reading?

[baseline bum]

I said COMPETITIVE!!!

we can argue over which decade had the best players, most athletic, best shooters, etc, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm going strictly off competitiveness of the league and not having the same teams play for the title or win every year. Is anything i said wrong? Where in my post did I remotely come close to mentioning the 70s had the best talent pool? Did you honestly read that whole post and not comprehend any of that? Is this a problem you've been having with reading?

You were trying to argue how awesome Dave Cowens was in the 70s son by winning two titles in that watered down league.

[james evans]

You were trying to argue how awesome Dave Cowens was in the 70s son by winning two titles in that watered down league.
Dave Cowens was indeed one of the best of his era. Key words, "his era". And there were even less teams in 74 and 76, when the celtics won 2 titles of the 70s, than there were at the turn of the decade. A watered down league is what we have today. 30 teams. If you guys actually learned history of the sport, or any sport you follow, you'd understand the league didn't start when your favorite players started winning titles. I'm speaking from a point of view of the game overall. The history of the game, the eras, the rule changes. I have these same conversations when talking about the NFL and ESPECIALLY boxing. Having to explain to a Mayweather fan that retiring 51-0, winning multiple trinkets(belts) across 17 weight classes is nowhere near finishing with over a 100 victories, dominating 3 weight classes(when there were only 8). There are currently 18 weight classes in boxing(a new one was added last week) and 7 belts per weight class. Back in the day, you would have had 50 or 60 fights before getting a shot at the title(one belt per weight class). Bottom line is, you don't know shit because you don't want to know shit and get up here to repeat what you heard on ESPN(and they don't know shit either). It makes absolutely no sense in any form of debating, that an 18 team league is watered down, but a 30 team league isn't.

[Arcadian]

He's highly overrated (as most catch all metrics bare out) and overappreciated because of the media's obsession with the Warriors. They act like he's some lovable superstar, when in reality he's a complimentary fringe star who doesn't rank among the top snubs for NBA 75.

The fact that he has five All-Star selections to Ginobili's two, despite having no credible argument for being the same caliber of player, is an embarrassment.

Ginobili was a 6th man for most of his NBA career. That's why he only made 2 all-star teams.

Also Klay is a more prolific scorer, and people tend to value scoring more than everything else.

Agree that Manu was the better all-around player.

[ambchang]

Maybe, idk. I hated Jordan with infinitely more passion than I ever did Pippen. And I have no issues ranking Jordan #1 overall, above Wilt or Russell or Kareem or LeBron or anyone else fans or the media try to throw into the debate.

And maybe you have an illogical reverence for role players and clearly inferior second tier caliber players. Scottie fucking Pippen a top 40 player in NBA history... to me, that’s tantamount to suggesting Draymond Green is a top 10 player in the league today. And I think Draymond sucks. But he kind of plays defense and can dribble the ball up the court and pass the ball to the best shooter in NBA history and he’s been part of multiple championship winning teams. I guess he must be great.

You are really stretching this. Pippen is not a role player as you suggested. He was a 20/6/7/2/1 player for years, 7 all star games, 3 time all-nba first team, 2 time second, 2 time 3rd team, 8 time all-d first team and 2 time all d second team. Top 5 in MVP voting twice, top 10 in nba scoring once, top 20 3 more times. These are numbers Draymond couldn't even come close to. Pippen is a role player like McHale, Ginobili, Anthony Davis and Magic were role players that they weren't the best player on the team, but my definition of a role player is player who plays a specific role and that's it. Pippen covers pretty much all the grounds.

[Arcadian]

I have not tried to make my own personal extensive list because as I suggested it’s a futile exercise. Also, while I know a lot of the names of the past greats, I don’t feel qualified enough on how to judge, evaluate, and rank a lot of the old players I never watched, certainly not way back to guys like George Mikan or Bob Pettit, other than looking up stats on bballreference. So, in reality, I’m not sure where I’d rank Pippen. I know I’d rank players left off the list higher than him. But again, there are others that are on the list I’d also take out.

All this shit is subjective, depending on what you value more and how you weigh things like natural talent versus actual production or team success versus individual awards and honors. And that’s the thing, everyone’s definition and criteria can be different. For me, guys like Scottie and Worm and Worthy and Ray Allen, etc were never #1 type superstars. They were superstar role players, secondary players. They needed to play off a true #1 in order to excel. That’s why I temper the perception of their “greatness.” And I know people refer to the 94 Bulls that still won 50+ games without Jordan. I don’t buy that shit. Scottie’s numbers didn’t actually improve all that much without Jordan and the East by then was super watered down without the powerhouse teams of the 80s that all got old. The EC in that 94 season had that flawed Ewing Knicks team, that juggernaut (sarcasm) that was the Cleveland Cavaliers with Price and Daugherty, and the Magic with a rookie Penny and Shaq in his second year. I don’t agree with the argument that Scottie proved himself as his own #1 with that 94 season. That’s my personal opinion. But again, does that mean he wasn’t great? Depends what you think greatness is. Was Rodman great at what he did with rebounding and defense? Yes, he was great... at that. Would I rather build a team around Dennis or Tracy McGrady who was not on the 75 team? McGrady 10 times out of 10, even though I was a huge fan of Dennis growing up.

Fuck if I know what’s the proper criteria and what greatness really is. Vince Carter to me belongs in the top 10-15 among natural talents in the history of basketball ever. But I also understand why his career achievements both individually and with his teams leave him lacking for what many basketball fans perceive as greatness. And in that same vein, it’s why I question why guys like Nique and Melo and Dame were put on the team but Vince was left off.

So would I really leave Pipoen off? Without actually making the list, my feeling is yeah, I’d leave him off. Along with several other guys who were on the team. Pippen being an original point forward is a funny fallacy, and probably an insult to guys like Elgin Baylor and John Havlicek, let alone Bird. How the term “point forward” became such a thing would be interesting to research because I’m assuming it was probably around the late 70s / early 80s where basketball became so position specific. Feels like it wasn’t so crazy for a bigger player to also be a primary playmaker until everyone made a big deal about Magic being a “pure point guard” at 6’9. Didn’t Wilt lead the league in assists one year? Anyway, Scottie was a good all around player. His “greatness” is subjectively lost on me. He was a “great” role player, second banana, complementary guy. That’s as much credit as I’ll give him.

Being the second best player on a dynasty that won 6 titles is a pretty high fucking compliment. :lol

[baseline bum]

Dave Cowens was indeed one of the best of his era. Key words, "his era". And there were even less teams in 74 and 76, when the celtics won 2 titles of the 70s, than there were at the turn of the decade. A watered down league is what we have today. 30 teams. If you guys actually learned history of the sport, or any sport you follow, you'd understand the league didn't start when your favorite players started winning titles. I'm speaking from a point of view of the game overall. The history of the game, the eras, the rule changes. I have these same conversations when talking about the NFL and ESPECIALLY boxing. Having to explain to a Mayweather fan that retiring 51-0, winning multiple trinkets(belts) across 17 weight classes is nowhere near finishing with over a 100 victories, dominating 3 weight classes(when there were only 8). There are currently 18 weight classes in boxing(a new one was added last week) and 7 belts per weight class. Back in the day, you would have had 50 or 60 fights before getting a shot at the title(one belt per weight class). Bottom line is, you don't know shit because you don't want to know shit and get up here to repeat what you heard on ESPN(and they don't know shit either). It makes absolutely no sense in any form of debating, that an 18 team league is watered down, but a 30 team league isn't.

Oh yeah Cowens' 76 title run was brutal, teaming with Havlicek to go through the Jim Cleamons lead Cavs in the ECF and the Alvan Adams led Suns in the Finals. I remember the way Dick Van Arsedale used to strike fear in every opposing SG's heart whenever the Suns came to town.

Also did you ever learn about these things called paragraphs in 6th grade? What a wall of text lol.

[james evans]

Oh yeah Cowens' 76 title run was brutal, teaming with Havlicek to go through the Jim Cleamons lead Cavs in the ECF and the Alvan Adams led Suns in the Finals. I remember the way Dick Van Arsedale used to strike fear in every opposing SG's heart whenever the Suns came to town.

Also did you ever learn about these things called paragraphs in 6th grade? What a wall of text lol.
I'm still waiting on you to claim that I'm lying. You've typed a lot, but calling me a liar isn't something I've seen.

[baseline bum]

I'm still waiting on you to claim that I'm lying. You've typed a lot, but calling me a liar isn't something I've seen.

Ran away quick from that :cry 1970's NBA wasn't watered down like today :cry point I see. LOL 70s NBA when you'd never have international talents like Antetokounmpo, Jokic, or Doncic and half the best young American talent was playing in the other league.

[james evans]

Ran away quick from that :cry 1970's NBA wasn't watered down like today :cry point I see. LOL 70s NBA when you'd never have international talents like Antetokounmpo, Jokic, or Doncic and half the best young American talent was playing in the other league.
The NBA took on 4 teams, pacers, nets, nuggets, and I forget the other one, maybe you can help me out on that one.. There were some great players that did come in the league during that merger that included Dr, J, thompson, gervin, gilmore, malone, and many others. And yes those guys are better than a lot of players that were in the league. That's not for argument, I agree. But the league, in the 70s, had West, Wilt(at the end of his career, but still very serviceable), Kareem(that the league got tired of giving the MVP to and decided to spread it around), Havilcek, White, Dandridge(underrated player overshadowed by Kareem and an old Big O), Unseld, Barry, Hayes, and others. 18 team league vs 30 team league.

As for my lack of paragraphs on an internet forum; . I have several degrees from Real universities I attended(I've stated this before). I have been involved with writing books under a pseudonym. I currently tutor and do other things I can't name involved with writing. When I'm posting here or on another forum, the correct way of writing isn't my concern. I constantly make punctuation errors, spelling mistakes, run-on sentences, because I don't give a fuck. This is a break. When I'm here, I'm not writing papers or writing to be published. I know it's fucked up and I don't care. Now I can comb thru your posts as well for grammatical/punctuation/spelling errors, but I won't.

Btw, can you name the international talent of the 70s that would have dominated in the NBA had they played? And do you understand what the term "watered down" actually means when pertaining to the subject we're arguing? Personally, I feel that the league should get rid of 6 teams right now, but that will never happen due to the greed of corruption of many while Commissioner Powder keeps teasing about adding 2 more teams. But you'd love that because, more teams means a better product""

[Neo.]

As for my lack of paragraphs on an internet forum; . I have several degrees from Real universities I attended(I've stated this before). I have been involved with writing books under a pseudonym. I currently tutor and do other things I can't name involved with writing. When I'm posting here or on another forum, the correct way of writing isn't my concern. I constantly make punctuation errors, spelling mistakes, run-on sentences, because I don't give a fuck. This is a break. When I'm here, I'm not writing papers or writing to be published. I know it's fucked up and I don't care. Now I can comb thru your posts as well for grammatical/punctuation/spelling errors, but I won't.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

[JamStone]

You are really stretching this. Pippen is not a role player as you suggested. He was a 20/6/7/2/1 player for years, 7 all star games, 3 time all-nba first team, 2 time second, 2 time 3rd team, 8 time all-d first team and 2 time all d second team. Top 5 in MVP voting twice, top 10 in nba scoring once, top 20 3 more times. These are numbers Draymond couldn't even come close to. Pippen is a role player like McHale, Ginobili, Anthony Davis and Magic were role players that they weren't the best player on the team, but my definition of a role player is player who plays a specific role and that's it. Pippen covers pretty much all the grounds.

You didn’t seem to understand the reference. I didn’t compare Draymond directly to Pippen as players. I compared your notion of Pippen being a top 40 player all time to the idea of Draymond being considered a top 10 player in today’s league. Both nonsensical imo. That’s not comparing players or their numbers or accomplishments or awards. That’s comparing how some people might overrate each guy. By arguing how Draymond could never come close to Pippen’s numbers (even though he pretty much has put up the same numbers minus the scoring, as a 4th or 5th scoring option to Pippen as a second option), you either missed or misunderstood the reference.

I don’t think very highly of McHale as an all time great either. Ginobili was a role player for the Spurs. A superstar role player without a doubt, but a role player. He was NOT a role player in Europe or for his Argentine national team. But for the Spurs, he was a role player. If Anthony Davis played second banana his entire career, I’d consider him a role player too. I feel the same way about Worthy. I’ll just ignore the foolishness of you including Magic. Role players can be vitally important to team success. Like a Ginobili, like a McHale. Their contributions can be crucial. They’re still role players. And being second or third in scoring on a team doesn’t automatically make a player a role player. Magic was not a role player. Bill Russell was not a role player. Jason Kidd, Chris Paul not role players. Ben Wallace on the Pistons not a role player because that team was built around his defense. But Ben Wallace before the Pistons and after the Pistons and pretty much the rest of his basketball life, he was a role player. It’s not a scoring thing. It’s not a numbers thing. When the team is built around you, you’re the franchise player, the foundation of the team. Michael, Shaq, Wilt, Magic’s Showtime, Hakeem, Duncan, LeBron, Dwight Howard on the Magic, James Harden, Steph Curry, Dirk, Luka. Their teams were built around them. The players around those franchise players are complementary players, role players. Some more important than others, but Ginobili, McHale, Worthy, Rodman, Klay Thompson... Pippen. Role players.

Some role players can become franchise superstars too. Kobe’s the obvious example. Role player with Shaq, team built around him after Shaq left. Harden from OKC to Houston. Kawhi evolved into one after his first few seasons as a role player. And superstars can become role players, like Duncan did his last few seasons, like the second decade of Vince Carter’s NBA career. Thing with guys like Pippen and Worthy and McHale, while they were great players in their own right, I don’t think they proved at the NBA level that they could be franchise superstars you build teams around and be championship level. Role players can have great games, great playoff series. Hell, Maxwell and Iguodala showed they can even be Finals MVPs.

I’m not saying any of this as an insult. I’m just explaining my personal criteria for greatness, and how that criteria would separate tiers of players.

[R. DeMurre]

Klay can be part of a championship team. Westbrook is an obstacle to a championship... So that puts Klay ahead of Russ for me.

[R. DeMurre]

In the year Pippen played without Jordan, he led Chicago to a 55-27 record, and that was after lots of predictions from sportscasters that the Bulls would be a .500 team without Jordan. Pippen led that team in scoring, assists, and steals, and was second in rebounds and blocks. He was named to the first all NBA team that year and first All Defensive team. People talk today about positionless basketball like it's some kind of new concept, but Pippen was one of the prototypes for this concept over 25 years ago. He was the de facto point guard for the most successful team of the modern era and regularly guarded the opposing team's best player, from PGs to PFs.

[ambchang]

You didn’t seem to understand the reference. I didn’t compare Draymond directly to Pippen as players. I compared your notion of Pippen being a top 40 player all time to the idea of Draymond being considered a top 10 player in today’s league. Both nonsensical imo. That’s not comparing players or their numbers or accomplishments or awards. That’s comparing how some people might overrate each guy. By arguing how Draymond could never come close to Pippen’s numbers (even though he pretty much has put up the same numbers minus the scoring, as a 4th or 5th scoring option to Pippen as a second option), you either missed or misunderstood the reference.

I don’t think very highly of McHale as an all time great either. Ginobili was a role player for the Spurs. A superstar role player without a doubt, but a role player. He was NOT a role player in Europe or for his Argentine national team. But for the Spurs, he was a role player. If Anthony Davis played second banana his entire career, I’d consider him a role player too. I feel the same way about Worthy. I’ll just ignore the foolishness of you including Magic. Role players can be vitally important to team success. Like a Ginobili, like a McHale. Their contributions can be crucial. They’re still role players. And being second or third in scoring on a team doesn’t automatically make a player a role player. Magic was not a role player. Bill Russell was not a role player. Jason Kidd, Chris Paul not role players. Ben Wallace on the Pistons not a role player because that team was built around his defense. But Ben Wallace before the Pistons and after the Pistons and pretty much the rest of his basketball life, he was a role player. It’s not a scoring thing. It’s not a numbers thing. When the team is built around you, you’re the franchise player, the foundation of the team. Michael, Shaq, Wilt, Magic’s Showtime, Hakeem, Duncan, LeBron, Dwight Howard on the Magic, James Harden, Steph Curry, Dirk, Luka. Their teams were built around them. The players around those franchise players are complementary players, role players. Some more important than others, but Ginobili, McHale, Worthy, Rodman, Klay Thompson... Pippen. Role players.

Some role players can become franchise superstars too. Kobe’s the obvious example. Role player with Shaq, team built around him after Shaq left. Harden from OKC to Houston. Kawhi evolved into one after his first few seasons as a role player. And superstars can become role players, like Duncan did his last few seasons, like the second decade of Vince Carter’s NBA career. Thing with guys like Pippen and Worthy and McHale, while they were great players in their own right, I don’t think they proved at the NBA level that they could be franchise superstars you build teams around and be championship level. Role players can have great games, great playoff series. Hell, Maxwell and Iguodala showed they can even be Finals MVPs.

I’m not saying any of this as an insult. I’m just explaining my personal criteria for greatness, and how that criteria would separate tiers of players.

True, I did miss the reference of Pippen vs. Draymond, taking it as a straight comparison, but even in your comparison, Draymond only finished once in the All-NBA 2nd team, which was in 15-16, and he does have a good argument being a top 10 player that season. 14/10/7/1.5/1.5 and being the leader of that GSW team is a great argument for him to be a top 10 player. For the last few years? His accomplishments do not stack up. And what is so absurd about it? Role players, by your definition, are routinely top 10 players in the league. Pippen definitely was one during the two 3-peats, Kobe was clearly a top 10, if not top 5 player, in 2002, and probably 2001. MVPau was one during the repeat, McHale was one during the mid 80s, and Magic ... He was a role player, by your definition, in the early 80s. The Lakers were built around Kareem, and he did become the Lakers later on, he was a role player and clearly a top 10 player in the league.

As for a scoring thing, never meant that was the criteria, so apologies if unclear.

Given this is your criteria, it is your criteria, I am just having trouble understanding which 75 players would be above Pippen if being a role player for the entire career would preclude you from it. Because if that's the case, the following players will not be i the top 75 and I am having trouble finding enough people to fill in the void who are clearly better than Pippen.

14. Bob Cousy (Russell was the man, unless you want to count the first 5 or 6 years when the Celtics didn't go anywhere)
16. Billy Cunningham
19. Dave DeBusschere
25. Walt Frazier (It was either him or Willis Reed, but I felt the Knicks were more Reed's team)
35. Sam Jones
40. Jerry Lucas
45. Kevin McHale
48. Earl Monroe (Maybe the Washington years)
53. Robert Parish
62. Dennis Rodman
65. Bill Sharman
66. John Stockton

I would be interested to see which 12 players you would put in before these 12, plus you mentioned that Nique and Melo are stat padders, so guys like Alex English, TMac, and a bunch of guys who scored and led their teams no where shouldn't be considered.

[JamStone]

In the year Pippen played without Jordan, he led Chicago to a 55-27 record, and that was after lots of predictions from sportscasters that the Bulls would be a .500 team without Jordan. Pippen led that team in scoring, assists, and steals, and was second in rebounds and blocks. He was named to the first all NBA team that year and first All Defensive team. People talk today about positionless basketball like it's some kind of new concept, but Pippen was one of the prototypes for this concept over 25 years ago. He was the de facto point guard for the most successful team of the modern era and regularly guarded the opposing team's best player, from PGs to PFs.

I already stated in an earlier post that I didn’t buy Pippen’s 94 season as him being a franchise player in his own right. I’ll explain why.

In the first Bulls 3peat from 90-93, Pippen put up:

19 points, 7.6 rebounds, 6.5 assists, 2 steals, 1 block on 50% FG shooting.

In that 93-94 season when Jordan left, Pippen put up:

22 points, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 2.9 steals, 0.8 blocks on 49%

So after losing Jordan, arguably the greatest player ever, a 30 point scorer, Pippen elevated his game to the tune of about 3 more points, 1 extra rebound, and another steal. That sure proves how he took over for Jordan... seems like the team collectively picked up the slack, not Pippen and his star talent.

Further, in the 94 playoffs, Pippen put up:

22.8 points, 8.3 rebounds, 4.6 assists, 2.4 steals, 0.7 blocks on 43.4% FG

So he not only didn’t elevate his game in the post season, but he was slightly worse.

Additionally, the Bulls record is a bit deceiving. Only 6 of the Bulls losses came against non playoff teams that year. They were 29-6 against non playoff teams. They did really well against the Western Conference, even the good teams, which they deserve credit for. There were three other 50 win teams in the Eastern Conference that season. Knicks, Hawks, Magic. The Bulls were 6-7 against them. Now good teams are supposed to beat up on bad teams. It’s not their fault. But it gives context. The EC as has been the case for what seems like forever had a couple good teams and the rest was garbage. That 55 win record isn’t as impressive as it seems. And of course they lost in the second round.

What did 1993-94 Scottie Pippen really proves that season?

Hell, the following season before Jordan made his return, I believe they were something like 34-31.

To me, Pippen was one of the best role players. But still. A role player.

[JamStone]

True, I did miss the reference of Pippen vs. Draymond, taking it as a straight comparison, but even in your comparison, Draymond only finished once in the All-NBA 2nd team, which was in 15-16, and he does have a good argument being a top 10 player that season. 14/10/7/1.5/1.5 and being the leader of that GSW team is a great argument for him to be a top 10 player. For the last few years? His accomplishments do not stack up. And what is so absurd about it? Role players, by your definition, are routinely top 10 players in the league. Pippen definitely was one during the two 3-peats, Kobe was clearly a top 10, if not top 5 player, in 2002, and probably 2001. MVPau was one during the repeat, McHale was one during the mid 80s, and Magic ... He was a role player, by your definition, in the early 80s. The Lakers were built around Kareem, and he did become the Lakers later on, he was a role player and clearly a top 10 player in the league.

As for a scoring thing, never meant that was the criteria, so apologies if unclear.

Given this is your criteria, it is your criteria, I am just having trouble understanding which 75 players would be above Pippen if being a role player for the entire career would preclude you from it. Because if that's the case, the following players will not be i the top 75 and I am having trouble finding enough people to fill in the void who are clearly better than Pippen.

14. Bob Cousy (Russell was the man, unless you want to count the first 5 or 6 years when the Celtics didn't go anywhere)
16. Billy Cunningham
19. Dave DeBusschere
25. Walt Frazier (It was either him or Willis Reed, but I felt the Knicks were more Reed's team)
35. Sam Jones
40. Jerry Lucas
45. Kevin McHale
48. Earl Monroe (Maybe the Washington years)
53. Robert Parish
62. Dennis Rodman
65. Bill Sharman
66. John Stockton

I would be interested to see which 12 players you would put in before these 12, plus you mentioned that Nique and Melo are stat padders, so guys like Alex English, TMac, and a bunch of guys who scored and led their teams no where shouldn't be considered.


I told you I didn’t make a list. And of those 12 names, I was only alive to have watched McHale, Parrish, Rodman, and Stockton. I can’t tell you much about those other names in terms of player evaluation. That’s why I can’t make a list. Like I know shit about Billy Cunningham or Bob Cousy... I’m in my 40s. I’m not 90 years old.

I don’t have an exact algorithm for what would constitute my 75. And I didn’t say unequivocally that a player who was a role player couldn’t be on it. I just tend to think he wouldn’t be. My thing with the whole franchise superstar versus role player distinctions, it’s more of a subjective feeling than a plug-in, numbers formula. I look at the Michael and Pippen Bulls. I think if I remove Michael and replace him with any other star of the time, like a Drexler or a Dominique or a Reggie, does that player produce like Michael did and lead the Bulls to that 6 title run? If not, do they still win some? 2, 3, 4 titles without Michael? I answer no, none, zero. Replace Pippen with a star player from that time, a Drexler, a Dominique, how about someone like Terry Cummings? Would any of those guys put up similar production and would the team have the same success? I tend to think they still win all 6, maybe the loss of Pippen hurts them in one of the runs. So they win 5 instead of 6. And yes, that’s all subjective conjecture, personal opinion. But that’s why I view Pippen and guys like Worthy and McHale and Ginobili as role players.

A team can have two superstars, like Golden State with Durant and Steph. The early title runs by the Showtime Lakers with Magic and Kareem before Magic kind of took over. The third Shaq and Kobe title, maybe even the second kind of. I just don’t think that was the case with Pippen and Jordan. That wasn’t Batman v Superman. Pippen was clearly Robin.

I cannot stress this enough, it’s subjective opinion. If you believe different, I certainly won’t fight you on your opinion to try to change it. I’m only explaining mine.

[DMC]

Being the second best player on a dynasty that won 6 titles is a pretty high fucking compliment. :lol

Yep, just like Kobe minus one title. He will always be lite one vs MJ. Always and forever.

[R. DeMurre]

So after losing Jordan, arguably the greatest player ever, a 30 point scorer, Pippen elevated his game to the tune of about 3 more points, 1 extra rebound, and another steal. That sure proves how he took over for Jordan... seems like the team collectively picked up the slack, not Pippen and his star talent.
.

That's one way to look at it. I tend to to see it as the Bulls lost the greatest player ever and then only won two fewer games for the season with Pippen as their best player. To me, that's pretty impressive.

Do you think Pippen's defensive abilities are overrated? Because for me, a guy who in his prime was consistently a first team all defensive player, plus a 20 ppg guy, plus the team leader in assists is more than a role player. That's what Pippen did like eight times. During their first title run, it was the move to have Pippen guard Magic that is seen as the most important match up in that series, and that's before Pippen really emerged as a star. It's all subjective of course, but I think Pippen is more than a role player.

[james evans]

I already stated in an earlier post that I didn’t buy Pippen’s 94 season as him being a franchise player in his own right. I’ll explain why.

In the first Bulls 3peat from 90-93, Pippen put up:

19 points, 7.6 rebounds, 6.5 assists, 2 steals, 1 block on 50% FG shooting.

In that 93-94 season when Jordan left, Pippen put up:

22 points, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 2.9 steals, 0.8 blocks on 49%

So after losing Jordan, arguably the greatest player ever, a 30 point scorer, Pippen elevated his game to the tune of about 3 more points, 1 extra rebound, and another steal. That sure proves how he took over for Jordan... seems like the team collectively picked up the slack, not Pippen and his star talent.

Further, in the 94 playoffs, Pippen put up:

22.8 points, 8.3 rebounds, 4.6 assists, 2.4 steals, 0.7 blocks on 43.4% FG

So he not only didn’t elevate his game in the post season, but he was slightly worse.

Additionally, the Bulls record is a bit deceiving. Only 6 of the Bulls losses came against non playoff teams that year. They were 29-6 against non playoff teams. They did really well against the Western Conference, even the good teams, which they deserve credit for. There were three other 50 win teams in the Eastern Conference that season. Knicks, Hawks, Magic. The Bulls were 6-7 against them. Now good teams are supposed to beat up on bad teams. It’s not their fault. But it gives context. The EC as has been the case for what seems like forever had a couple good teams and the rest was garbage. That 55 win record isn’t as impressive as it seems. And of course they lost in the second round.

What did 1993-94 Scottie Pippen really proves that season?

Hell, the following season before Jordan made his return, I believe they were something like 34-31.

To me, Pippen was one of the best role players. But still. A role player.
And you're conveniently failing to mention that they had no interior defense in the 94-95 season. Even when Jordan came back, they were bounced in the 2nd round and should have been put out by the hornets, but obvious shady officiating put them in the 2nd round. ESPECAILLY game 4 when Jordan pulled hawkins' arm down in front of the ref with 2 seconds left in the game with no call. No Grant during 94-95 season and they lost interior defense/rebounding. Adds Rodman in the summer and they rest is history. You can put Jordan on that same 94-95 team in Pippen's place and their record wouldn't have been any better.

[lefty]

Jordan before Pippen was Russell Westbrook before Russell Westbrook

[FrostKing]

Jordan before Pippen was Russell Westbrook before Russell Westbrook
Westbrook + Curry's jumpshot. Steph has never matched the FG% of MJ's rookie season

[lefty]

Westbrook + Curry's jumpshot. Steph has never matched the FG% of MJ's rookie season
Curry’s j…

what?

[james evans]

Westbrook + Curry's jumpshot. Steph has never matched the FG% of MJ's rookie season
Cmon man Jordan wasn't a great jump shooter when he entered the league. He still never became a great 3 point shooter. He has the all time record for worst 3 point score in the 3 point contest and he rarely shot them. You've got to realize when jordan was in high school and his first year of college, there was no 3 point line. I don't know where you got that information from that Jordan was this great shooter.

[FrostKing]

Cmon man Jordan wasn't a great jump shooter when he entered the league. He still never became a great 3 point shooter. He has the all time record for worst 3 point score in the 3 point contest and he rarely shot them. You've got to realize when jordan was in high school and his first year of college, there was no 3 point line. I don't know where you got that information from that Jordan was this great shooter.
I'm just going by data. In a more defensive Era, Jordan had a higher FG% as a rookie than Curry ever has.

[lefty]

I'm just going by data. In a more defensive Era, Jordan had a higher FG% as a rookie than Curry ever has.

« a more defensive era »

:lol yeah when accountants like Craig Ehlo and grocery baggers like JohnStark were left on an island in the illegal defense era and didn’t have the right to breathe on Jordan

[DMC]

MJ has never been a better shooter than either Klay or Steph. It's never happened. I guess you want to say Patrick Ewing was better since his FG% was high, being camped under the rim.

MJ finished with a 32.7% 3pt shooting.. Michael Finley finished with 37%

[Chris Fall]

Jordan wasn't a "great" shooter early in his career. But he is also pretty underestimated as a jumpshooter because in his early years, he mostly drove and dunked. And his three point shooting percentages weren't very good. But three point percentages back then were warped by small sampling. Jordan would take like one three point attempt a game, or less. The percentages would be all over the place because of that. Case in point, Larry Bird shot under 30% from three point range four of his first five NBA seasons. Small samples. People going to argue Bird couldn't shoot when he started in the league? The evolution of volume three point shooting made for more accurate stats.

[Dirks_Finale]

Jordan wasn't a "great" shooter early in his career. But he is also pretty underestimated as a jumpshooter because in his early years, he mostly drove and dunked. And his three point shooting percentages weren't very good. But three point percentages back then were warped by small sampling. Jordan would take like one three point attempt a game, or less. The percentages would be all over the place because of that. Case in point, Larry Bird shot under 30% from three point range four of his first five NBA seasons. Small samples. People going to argue Bird couldn't shoot when he started in the league? The evolution of volume three point shooting made for more accurate stats.

This.

And Jordan was on record as saying he actually did not want to be a good 3 point shooter as he felt that he might get too complacent with it and not drive as often as he should be doing. I have no doubt that if he wanted to be a better 3 point shooter, he would have. At least as good as Lebron is from out there, if not better. We saw what happened in the 92 Finals vs Portland when Jordan actually had a chance to get in a groove from distance.

[lefty]

« I don’t want to be a good 3 pt shooter »

:lmao what a lame retarded excuse

[MultiTroll]

^ meh different era.

[lefty]

^ meh different era.
Shaq didn’t want to be a good FT shooter

I respect that tbh

[MultiTroll]

Shaq didn’t want to be a good FT shooter

I respect that tbh
With LakerRef he only needed to make 50%.

[ElNono]

Raymond Green is

[james evans]

This.

And Jordan was on record as saying he actually did not want to be a good 3 point shooter as he felt that he might get too complacent with it and not drive as often as he should be doing. I have no doubt that if he wanted to be a better 3 point shooter, he would have. At least as good as Lebron is from out there, if not better. We saw what happened in the 92 Finals vs Portland when Jordan actually had a chance to get in a groove from distance.

ONE HALF!!! he had 35 in the first half, but then finished the game with 39 lol. Jordan just wasn't a great 3 point shooter. I don't care how personal he took it or if you made him mad. he could hit 1 or 2 wife open, but he rarely shot them.

[james evans]

« I don’t want to be a good 3 pt shooter »

:lmao what a lame retarded excuse
Jordan did actually say that. His quote was something like, "Drexler is a better 3 point shooter than I want to be" or something like that basically stating he doesn't want to shoot them.

[FrostKing]

I bet if you broke down the data, Curry/Klay/whoever else today take far more open/uncontested shots than MJ did. Yet his FG% was superior. As a 21 year old no less.

[lefty]

Jordan did actually say that. His quote was something like, "Drexler is a better 3 point shooter than I want to be" or something like that basically stating he doesn't want to shoot them.
yeah he did, stil a retarded thing to say

[james evans]

I bet if you broke down the data, Curry/Klay/whoever else today take far more open/uncontested shots than MJ did. Yet his FG% was superior. As a 21 year old no less.
I agree, but in no universe is jordan on par or better than curry or Klay in shooting. You're also failing to mention that Jordan attacked the basket quite a bit and shot mostly midrange. Also, there was an illegal defense while Jordan played. This means, you could double while they had the ball, but not without. A defender had to be within an arm's reach of their assignment at all times so this enabled a lot of 1 on 1 play. The play was still physical and you could clothesline someone at the rim, but it's was a lot of 1 on 1. No need to shoot 3s back then. 3 point shooting was so rare that the league moved the line in during the 94-95 season. That's when we saw guys like MOurning taking 3s during games. And then they moved it back.

[Neo.]

I bet if you broke down the data, Curry/Klay/whoever else today take far more open/uncontested shots than MJ did. Yet his FG% was superior. As a 21 year old no less.

just a quick glance but Steph has the superior 2pt%, 3pt%, efg%, and ts%

mjs fg% was higher simply because he took less 3s

[Dirks_Finale]

ONE HALF!!! he had 35 in the first half, but then finished the game with 39 lol. Jordan just wasn't a great 3 point shooter. I don't care how personal he took it or if you made him mad. he could hit 1 or 2 wife open, but he rarely shot them.

Unless Reggie or someone was shooting it, they were considered bad shots back then.

[Neo.]

Unless Reggie or someone was shooting it, they were considered bad shots back then.

sounds like the game has evolved

unfortunately that makes too much sense for some and it's easier for most people to just chalk it up entirely to "rule changezzsz11!!!!" when said rule actually existed since the 70s

[MultiTroll]

Effective fg% needs to be used when comparing Jordan to the Warrior twinks.

[DMC]

Shaq didn’t want to be a good FT shooter

I respect that tbh

Shaq didn't want to take the time to become a good FT shooter. Two different things.

[DMC]

yeah he did, stil a retarded thing to say

In context maybe not, but at face value it's like he's saying he'll shoot a 3 if he has to but doesn't want to make it as often.

[lefty]

Shaq didn't want to take the time to become a good FT shooter. Two different things.
Your sarcasm detector isn’t working tbh

[lefty]

In context maybe not, but at face value it's like he's saying he'll shoot a 3 if he has to but doesn't want to make it as often.

Why wouldn’t he want to add it to his arsenal?

He sucked at 3s and that’s it, his 2 motion jump shot limited his range and accuracy from downtown

[Neo.]

Why wouldn’t he want to add it to his arsenal?

He sucked at 3s and that’s it, his 2 motion jump shot limited his range and accuracy from downtown

yep

there are very few players that have been able to consistently hit high elevation turnaround/fadeaway/pullup 2pt shots, as well as 3s. mainly due to how different shooting forms cater to different ranges. usually if someone is consistent at the midrange game, they are streaky or rhythm shooters from 3, and vice versa.

[baseline bum]

Shaq didn't want to take the time to become a good FT shooter. Two different things.

Always heard his teammates say he practiced the hell out of his FT shooting, but

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/incompetencedemotivator.jpeg

[DMC]

Always heard his teammates say he practiced the hell out of his FT shooting, but

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/incompetencedemotivator.jpeg

Jeff Errors comes to mind.

[DMC]

Why wouldn’t he want to add it to his arsenal?

He sucked at 3s and that’s it, his 2 motion jump shot limited his range and accuracy from downtown

He wouldn't want to add it because They couldn't stop him from scoring closer. Why would he shoot from out there? Different mentality today. Adding a skill doesn't come without a time expense which detracts from other skills.

[JamStone]

I think jordan would have been a very good (not great) three point shooter had he decide to concentrate on incorporating it more in his game. Back then, elite scorers didn’t need to do that. And it wasn’t a strategic approach by coaches and teams. Shooters like Reggie and Dale Ellis were one dimensional players and that’s pretty much mostly what they did. They weren’t asked to playmake, handle the ball, defend, rebound, orchestrate or manage tempo. They were on the court to shoot. Look at when Jordan did shoot more than once a game. The three seasons he attempted at least three threes a game, he shot 37%, 41%, 37% from three point range. No he wouldn’t have shot like Steph or Klay. But I could see him shooting similarly to James Harden or Damian Lillard, career 36-37% with a couple seasons getting over 40%.

It was really mostly about him not taking a lot of them in games, not practicing on them, and his teams/coaches not emphasizing it.

[lefty]

I think jordan would have been a very good (not great) three point shooter had he decide to concentrate on incorporating it more in his game. Back then, elite scorers didn’t need to do that. And it wasn’t a strategic approach by coaches and teams. Shooters like Reggie and Dale Ellis were one dimensional players and that’s pretty much mostly what they did. They weren’t asked to playmake, handle the ball, defend, rebound, orchestrate or manage tempo. They were on the court to shoot. Look at when Jordan did shoot more than once a game. The three seasons he attempted at least three threes a game, he shot 37%, 41%, 37% from three point range. No he wouldn’t have shot like Steph or Klay. But I could see him shooting similarly to James Harden or Damian Lillard, career 36-37% with a couple seasons getting over 40%.

It was really mostly about him not taking a lot of them in games, not practicing on them, and his teams/coaches not emphasizing it.

His 3 pt shooting percentage went up during the shortened 3 pt line era

He wasn’t a good 3 pt shooter and that’s that

[LeGiannis]

Its difficult to evaluate Thompson objectively because he has been overshadowed by Curry for his entire career. His rookie season was the only time where he was the #1 guy (since Curry was injured that year). We will probably never know his true ceiling. If someone like Reggie Miller can be a #1 option, then i dont see why Thompson cant do it. Can Thompson win a championship as a #1 guy? I doubt it. But he can probably get a team to the playoffs and make some noise.

[Neo.]

Its difficult to evaluate Thompson objectively because he has been overshadowed by Curry for his entire career. His rookie season was the only time where he was the #1 guy (since Curry was injured that year). We will probably never know his true ceiling. If someone like Reggie Miller can be a #1 option, then i dont see why Thompson cant do it. Can Thompson win a championship as a #1 guy? I doubt it. But he can probably get a team to the playoffs and make some noise.

I'd agree with this, mainly because klay has a couple underrated skills as an iso scorer, with a dribble pull-up and a very good postup game. his limited ball handling skills will hurt him against elite defenses though, definitely not a true #1 but still a solid player

[LeGiannis]

I'd agree with this, mainly because klay has a couple underrated skills as an iso scorer, with a dribble pull-up and a very good postup game. his limited ball handling skills will hurt him against elite defenses though, definitely not a true #1 but still a solid player
Klay has also shown that he can step up his game when when the stakes are high. Some of his best performances were in playoff elimination games. This is something that Curry has not done. Curry wouldnt have any championship rings without Thompson. Thompson's problem is that he tends to coast through the regular season at times and let do Curry take the spotlight.

[lefty]

Klay has also shown that he can step up his game when when the stakes are high. Some of his best performances were in playoff elimination games. This is something that Curry has not done. Curry wouldnt have any championship rings without Thompson. Thompson's problem is that he tends to coast through the regular season at times and let do Curry take the spotlight.

yep

[JamStone]

His 3 pt shooting percentage went up during the shortened 3 pt line era

He wasn’t a good 3 pt shooter and that’s that

Not exactly false, but not completely true either.

One season he shot over 37% from three was before the line was shortened. Another season where he shot just under three attempts per game, he averaged over 35%. Also before the line was shorter. Not great percentages, but for the era, pretty good. Compare with other “shooting” guards of that era.

Danny Ainge 37.8%
Byron Scott 37.0%
Craig Ehlo 36.9%
Dan Majerle 35.8%
Joe Dumars 38.2%

Those were considered good threes point shooters in the 80s, early 90s. Not the best in the league. But good, even “very good” shooters. I think Jordan proved that if he took more than just one or so a game and actually put the three point shot into his game to game arsenal, he was capable of shooting somewhere in that range, 35-38%. In the league now, that’s pedestrian. Back then, he’d be a good three point shooter. Again, Larry Bird shot under 30% from three in four of his first five seasons in the NBA. Attempts / sample size had something to do with that.

Clearly, Jordan was not Steph or Klay as a shooter. He was not a “great” three point shooter. But suggesting he was not good or even bad seems overly harsh and based on a deceptive statistical narrative.

[Dirks_Finale]

I think jordan would have been a very good (not great) three point shooter had he decide to concentrate on incorporating it more in his game. Back then, elite scorers didn’t need to do that. And it wasn’t a strategic approach by coaches and teams. Shooters like Reggie and Dale Ellis were one dimensional players and that’s pretty much mostly what they did. They weren’t asked to playmake, handle the ball, defend, rebound, orchestrate or manage tempo. They were on the court to shoot. Look at when Jordan did shoot more than once a game. The three seasons he attempted at least three threes a game, he shot 37%, 41%, 37% from three point range. No he wouldn’t have shot like Steph or Klay. But I could see him shooting similarly to James Harden or Damian Lillard, career 36-37% with a couple seasons getting over 40%.

It was really mostly about him not taking a lot of them in games, not practicing on them, and his teams/coaches not emphasizing it.

Spot on.

Basketball is a rhythm sport and you need an opportunity to get in a groove. That's why bench players like Vinnie Johnson always amazed the hell out of me. Coming in cold off the bench and catching fire so often and so quickly was remarkable, imho.

[Seventyniner]

Spot on.

Basketball is a rhythm sport and you need an opportunity to get in a groove. That's why bench players like Vinnie Johnson always amazed the hell out of me. Coming in cold off the bench and catching fire so often and so quickly was remarkable, imho.

I remember reading some story about Steve Kerr (back when he was a player) sitting and chatting with an assistant coach, then the coach would say "GO!" and Kerr would have to get up, sprint to a spot at the three-point line to catch a pass and immediately shoot. The whole point was to practice shooting when cold because Kerr would be on the bench for most of the game and could be needed to hit a late three.

Or maybe it was late career Ray Allen? I forget the player but remember the overall story.

[KobesAchilles]

I remember reading some story about Steve Kerr (back when he was a player) sitting and chatting with an assistant coach, then the coach would say "GO!" and Kerr would have to get up, sprint to a spot at the three-point line to catch a pass and immediately shoot. The whole point was to practice shooting when cold because Kerr would be on the bench for most of the game and could be needed to hit a late three.

Or maybe it was late career Ray Allen? I forget the player but remember the overall story.
Matt Bonner used to make a sandwich before each one of his shots at practice

[DMC]

Its difficult to evaluate Thompson objectively because he has been overshadowed by Curry for his entire career. His rookie season was the only time where he was the #1 guy (since Curry was injured that year). We will probably never know his true ceiling. If someone like Reggie Miller can be a #1 option, then i dont see why Thompson cant do it. Can Thompson win a championship as a #1 guy? I doubt it. But he can probably get a team to the playoffs and make some noise.

No Klay isn't that guy to carry the team in a season but he's that guy to carry the offense. He'd need a really good PG and some front court help. There's only about 4 guys in the NBA who can take a team to the Finals.

[DMC]

Spot on.

Basketball is a rhythm sport and you need an opportunity to get in a groove. That's why bench players like Vinnie Johnson always amazed the hell out of me. Coming in cold off the bench and catching fire so often and so quickly was remarkable, imho.

Same upward ramp but maybe not as accurate off the bench was Manu. There's only one Microwave for a reason.