I have no idea why it took me so long but I have next thought to ask everyone.
Criteria. What criteria does each person use to eval players?
A ton of the arguments we've all been thru in here have been skewed/flawed in some way.
As an example, Deuce brought up multiple MVP's. Kobe only has 1. Someone mentioned Nash. I can do even better than that, Moses Malone. Moses has 3 MVP's, he won a title, points, rebounds, all kinds of stuff. We're 173 pages in, and I'm the first person to even say his name. And again, Moses, has 3, the logo of the NBA Jerry West has 0, Shaq has 1, Dream has 1, Wilt has 1 and Kobe has 1. So, is Moses better than all of them? Why?
So if you say no, just having 3 MVP's and 1 title is not enough, Shaq/Wilt etc have other stuff, then what counts, and what doesn't count?
Early early in the thread, someone was throwin Dr J around. J won 1 title, 1 MVP, and was all NBA 5 times, that's it. No Finals MVP's, not All Defense, just that. His numbers were nothin flashy, he doesn't even have 20K points, he was 22-6-4 per game for his career. Yet this resume was used as someone above the overratedness of Kobe.
So clearly, we all have a leak in our criteria basis.
If we did it by skill only. Talent, ability, guys like TMac, Vince, JR Smith would get big bump ups vs where they truly rank. So do you credit someone for being elite for a year, say a Grant Hill, but then falls off due to injury and such? Again, what do we use, a single year, 2 years? Minimum of 5?
I've spoken on someone before that I believe without a doubt SHOULD have been one of the 5-10 best ever. SHOULD. But clearly, never came close.
Rasheed Wallace.
He's known for his garbage, techs, etc. But talent and ability wise, look what he COULD do. He had range from 30+ feet. At 6-11, he could play C, PF, and SF. He had the quickness to go out on the peremiter on a switch, and bother a SG, yet recover down low to get a block at the rim. He had excellent footwork on the block, he was extremely well coached in terms of he shot the ball high every time, he was as fundamental as Duncan, he could use the glass, he could rebound, he could pass, he could defend in the post, and on the wing. He was long, athletic, could jump, he had EVERY, SINGLE, TOOL, needed. Everything. The entire, complete, package.
And he was a waste of time. He HATED playing in the paint. Hated banging. Was lazy early in his career. Unfocused. Never wanted IT. The IT that the greats have. Sheed never cared. He'd go to sleep during games, wouldn't demand the ball, hated posting up. He had everything, EVERYTHING in his game, and he wouldn't unleash it. He just wouldn't.
He had the range of Dirk, the defense of KG, the post footwork and fundamentals of Duncan, the passing of Webber, and he had the heart of Vince Carter.
So I don't rank him in the top anything because he didn't amass the things that the greats have that we are all debating. Look at Pierce who has been brought up. He's not tremendous at anything. Not a jumper, not overly athletic, not incredible on D, has range, but not unlimited like Sheed, a good passer, but nothing special or anything, yet his career is far better than Sheed. Harder worker? More heart? What is it? How do you slot them, or I should say, how do WE slot them?
If Sheed had all that natural talent and ability with the passion for the game that MJ and Kobe played with, think about what he could have done. TMac had the ability, but his body broke down all the time. AI had all the heart in the world. But he couldn't D anyone up, or play in the post, or rebound in the trees, his range was good, not special. Where do you slot them all, and based on what?
Does anyone even have a criteria they base things on?
