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

[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 Pet , 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 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 . 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.

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 Pet , 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 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 . 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.

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

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

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 ing 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 le(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 compe iveness 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 LE!!!. Then in 86, through previous trades, Boston ended up with the 2nd pick in the draft, AFTER WINNING THE LE, and picked the best player in the draft, but that didn't work out for them. There is always some 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. 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 COMPE IVE!!!

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 compe iveness of the league and not having the same teams play for the le 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 COMPE IVE!!!

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 compe iveness of the league and not having the same teams play for the le 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 les in that watered down league.

[james evans]

You were trying to argue how awesome Dave Cowens was in the 70s son by winning two les 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 les 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 les. 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 le(one belt per weight class). Bottom line is, you don't know because you don't want to know and get up here to repeat what you heard on ESPN(and they don't know 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 ing 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 Pet , 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 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 . 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.

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 les is a pretty high ing compliment.

[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 les 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 les. 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 le(one belt per weight class). Bottom line is, you don't know because you don't want to know and get up here to repeat what you heard on ESPN(and they don't know 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 le 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 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 le 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 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 1970's NBA wasn't watered down like today 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 1970's NBA wasn't watered down like today 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 . This is a break. When I'm here, I'm not writing papers or writing to be published. I know it's ed 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 . This is a break. When I'm here, I'm not writing papers or writing to be published. I know it's ed up and I don't care. Now I can comb thru your posts as well for grammatical/punctuation/spelling errors, but I won't.

[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. , 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. , 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?

, 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 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 cons ute 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 le run? If not, do they still win some? 2, 3, 4 les 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 mings? 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 le runs by the Showtime Lakers with Magic and Kareem before Magic kind of took over. The third Shaq and Kobe le, 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 les is a pretty high ing compliment.

Yep, just like Kobe minus one le. 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 le 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.