can't even put TMac in the same class as James Worthy at this point in his career. TMac will have to do some serious winning to surpass Big Game, who was an integral part of multiple championship teams.
You logic: TMac will never reach the level of Bird; and Bradley will never reach the level of Hakeem. => TMac is not much closer to Bird than Bradley is to Hakeem. or TMac will never reach the level of Bird; and Weatherspoon will never reach the level of Duncan. => TMac is not much closer to Bird than Spoon is to Duncan.
Worthy had Magic and Kareem. Who has TMac had at this point in his career? I still don't understand why people keep using ring-counting as the ONLY measure for greatness. Nolan Ryan once said something like this: "The win-loss record of a pitcher shows what kind of teams he plays on, not what kind of pitcher he is."
Not bashing anyone, however I never realized that Pippen's career averages are 16.1 PPG 6.4 RPG 5.2 APG Wow thats all I can say, top 50 of ALLTIME I guess he must have had some intangible quality that helped him win when he was with the bulls, and I think we all know who that was
Sorry about that last post, not trying to derail the thread. I would say now its very hard to ever compare players from different generations. Different eras take different skills to win. With all that I would say that t-mac will be one of the best of this generation, and would be comparable to some of the greats if he and yao get some rings.
An individual can have the most impact on a basketball team. Almost every great player in the sport has won. Wilt Jordan Bird Magic Dr. J. Russell Hakeem Big O Isiah Magic and so on. Its not like that in football and baseball. I think Nolan strictly meant that quote for baseball.
I know Ryan meant it for baseball. And I understand that individual players have greater impact on a team in basketball than in football and baseball. But the logic of ring-counting is still flawed because nobody had ever won by himself. Moses Malone was one of the best centers of all time. He couldn't win until traded to a better team. And there is the competition factor. Isiah couldn't win during Magic's and Bird's prime. And he couldn't win after Jordan emerged. Shaq and Robinson couldn't win during Hakeem's prime. And Malone and Stockton (*gasp*) couldn't win because their careers coincided with all the great teams in the mid 80s to mid 90's period. Wilt almost couldn't win because of Russell's teams. And when you list all the "greats," there is always that suspicion of circular reasoning: Why are they on the list? Because they won. Why do you think winning should be the standard? Look at the list. Yeah, why are they on the list? Becasue they won. But why do you think. . . etc.
I agree. Too much emphasis is placed on championships. By that logic, someone Byron Scott was better than Clyde Drexler.
I think it's the perfect year for the Rox to win a championship, too! My sense is that, in the NBA, it's pretty easy for people to forgive mistakes players make early in their careers, once they start collecting rings... And I think, though I haven't checked yet, that up to the time of Pippen's decline with the Blazers, he had Drexlerish and sometimes better numbers... I used to hate him, but I'm mellowing somewhat in my old age...
i have said it once and i'll say it again, yao can't even hold hakeem's jock strap. let's stop talking nonsense. they'll never be another dream
I've always thought of KG following in Dream's footsteps. Sure he might not be at the defensive level Hakeem was at, but their games are kind of similar.
are you kidding? hakeem became an offensive powerhouse. that quote by shaq about how he had 3-4 moves and 4-5 variations on each move making him have some 15-20 moves total? at the end of the game i want a big man who can score. shaq can do that but you can hack him. duncan can. malone could. hakeem could. KG? no way. he has no dominant inside move which nears hakeem.
