NBA: Top 5 pure scorers of all time...........

[Dirks_Finale]

Also, Kobe was a chucker. You can say he looked great in a given game when shots were going down.
But ffs, the topic is pure scorer. Dude is all-time bricker. OP is sh**.

This.

I know Kobe has a ton of points, but I can not dismiss his sh1t shot selection just because he died a horrific death.

I don't really have a top 5 but Bird, Steph, KD, Bernard King all come to mind. You don't need to be 50-40-90 to be considered, but having decent shot selection helps your cause. Kobe will always be a chucker with a lot of heart, imo.

[Neo.]

I agree, he should be on any list of "best scorers" in history. The term "pure scorer" implies that it's people who only score and can't do anything else at an elite level, which would actually be a downgrade for guys like Kareem. He's not just a scorer, but he's still one of the best scorers of all time.

no pure scorer is not a matter of players who can only score and nothing else, otherwise mike wouldnt be in the discussion

its a matter of skillset, someone who can score a variety of ways, against a variety of defenses

kareem probably should get more love, but to say he had a more versatile scoring skillset compared to guys like mike, kd or kyrie is simply untrue.

[140]

90s fans were playing Bulls vs Blazers then NBA Live, no difference tbh

sure

[Rummpd]

Kobe
KD
Harden
Wilkins
Dirk

Honorable mentions : English, Steph, Gervin

Kobe not even top ten as inefficient and not clutch advanced stats but surprised you did list James

[Spurtacular]

White dude from the 50s/60s. Not eligible for all-time, amirite?

[Neo.]

White dude from the 50s/60s. Not eligible for all-time, amirite?

anytime I want a good laugh, I can always count on watching ridiculously crappy old school basketball defense

[Dirks_Finale]

White dude from the 50s/60s. Not eligible for all-time, amirite?

Consider his compe ion, though

I mean it honestly looks how lefty inaccurately describes the 90's. Plumbers and milkmen attempting to play something that slightly resembles defense.

[DMC]

no pure scorer is not a matter of players who can only score and nothing else, otherwise mike wouldnt be in the discussion

its a matter of skillset, someone who can score a variety of ways, against a variety of defenses

kareem probably should get more love, but to say he had a more versatile scoring skillset compared to guys like mike, kd or kyrie is simply untrue.

This. It's a person who can get that score you absolutely need, and that same person can pour in 60pts against a good team in a RS game or in the playoffs. You see them now and then, but there's not a lot of them.

[lefty]

Consider his compe ion, though

I mean it honestly looks how lefty inaccurately describes the 90's. Plumbers and milkmen attempting to play something that slightly resembles defense.

Inaccurately?
the 90s , ahem, “defense”, was comical

[Dirks_Finale]

Inaccurately?
the 90s , ahem, “defense”, was comical

you could actually get physical then. Rule changes and overall wussifaction of today's society and the NBA will not stand for that stuff now.

[lefty]

you could actually get physical then. Rule changes and overall wussifaction of today's society and the NBA will not stand for that stuff now.

So many myths in thay post wow

[Arcadian]

no pure scorer is not a matter of players who can only score and nothing else, otherwise mike wouldnt be in the discussion

its a matter of skillset, someone who can score a variety of ways, against a variety of defenses

kareem probably should get more love, but to say he had a more versatile scoring skillset compared to guys like mike, kd or kyrie is simply untrue.

Ok, but that's my point - the term "pure scorer" is ambiguous, so my definition was completely different from your definition.

If we simply said "best scorers" Kareem would be a no-brainer.

[Neo.]

Ok, but that's my point - the term "pure scorer" is ambiguous, so my definition was completely different from your definition.

If we simply said "best scorers" Kareem would be a no-brainer.

well you were about the only one who didn't seem to understand. you and derp, that is. yep, great company to be in

[lebomb]

you could actually get physical then. Rule changes and overall wussifaction of today's society and the NBA will not stand for that stuff now.

Exactly, lefty is in the tiny ass minority of folks who believe his bull on Today NBA.

Also lefty, I played 4yrs of HS Bball, 2 yrs in college, multiple 30 and over leagues and many church leagues. Yeah, no Pro ball. BUT! I damn sure understand the game.

[Arcadian]

well you were about the only one who didn't seem to understand. you and derp, that is. yep, great company to be in

Nah. You could take a quick survey around the internet to prove my point. Just ask a bunch of random basketball fans how they define "pure scorer" and see how many different answers you get.

You included versatility in your definition, but why does that even matter? If somebody is unstoppable at scoring, it doesn't matter how they do it.

[FrostKing]

Ron Jeremy

[Neo.]

Nah. You could take a quick survey around the internet to prove my point. Just ask a bunch of random basketball fans how they define "pure scorer" and see how many different answers you get.

i dont disagree with that, but look at the context of the thread, the very guy who started the thread listed a bunch of players who do a lot more than only score points. so i think it was pretty much implied as to what definition he was going for.

You included versatility in your definition, but why does that even matter? If somebody is unstoppable at scoring, it doesn't matter how they do it.

so you consider shaq to be a skilled scorer (which was the basis of the discussion at hand), even though he had basically 2 moves (push defender deep then go up, or spin move using the elbow as a shield and go up) simply because he was unstoppable? you would consider him equally or more skilled of a scorer to highly skilled and versatile guys like timmy, hakeem, AD, and others that he averaged more ppg than?

[Mark Celibate]

I agree, he should be on any list of "best scorers" in history. The term "pure scorer" implies that it's people who only score and can't do anything else at an elite level, which would actually be a downgrade for guys like Kareem. He's not just a scorer, but he's still one of the best scorers of all time.

This has always been my interpretation of it as well. It's always been vague what "pure scorer" means, but when I hear analysts talk about guys like Jamal Crawford and Lou Williams as some of the best "pure scorers" in the league, I assumed your definition as well. Because it seems obvious that guys like Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, etc are elite scorers but they help their team in other ways and are never termed "pure scorers"

[DMC]

Nobody talks about Danny Granger anymore

[Spurtacular]

Bird was pure everything.

Dude passed on $7 million to play final year of his contract. That's like a player today passing on $50 million.

[lefty]

He got money under the table

[ambchang]

Didn’t need that money because he just ditched his kids.

[lefty]

Didn’t need that money because he just ditched his kids.

Poor Corrie Bird tbh
Larry is a ty father