Is Dirk top 10 all time?

Or maybe your r****ded ass just missed the point.

 

this was your post

i looked them up. and you're wrong. so what point were you trying to make here?

 

You still don't get it. Wow you are so stupid it isn't even funny anymore. Outlier's sig describes you amazingly.

My point was you can't say one career is better than another based on the first few years. There is a reason (LONGEVITY) as to why most people rank guys like Dirk Nowitzki ahead of Bob McAdoo (like most of the posters in this thread it seems) when McAdoo had an amazing start to his career.

Anything can happen, even a legitimate superstar like Grant Hill becoming a role player pretty much overnight. Okay maybe it doesn't "blow him out of the water" but it is still very comparable and in some ways, better.

Measuring players careers requires seeing what they have done and for how long they have done it for. Kidd has been in the league for 17 years and by your own admission, among the top PGs for at least 13 (and still a damn good PG for the other years). That is impressive as hell.

LBJ has only been in the league for wht, 7? 8 years? I just don't think it is fair to say that he has had a better career than Kidd.

 

longevity matters if that player dominates for most/all of that span. a perfect example is kobe bryant. despite going on 33, he has still been a top 5 player; he continues to be an all-nba player. now that is when longevity matters.

jason kidd has not made an all-nba team since 03-04. so technically, he has not been a top 15 player for the last 6 years. do you get that?

just b/c you play many years, but if you are not considered a top 10-15 player for those years, you're not at the top of the game. all i'm saying is jkidd hasn't been considered a top 15 player for quite a long time now.

and another FYI: grant hill had 5 superstar years before he got injured. lebron has already put up 8 years of all-star performances. 3 years of great play is a HUGE difference.

 

I can't believe you guys are still defending Lebron.

 

Hill had 6 I believe.

Kidd was a starting All-Star in 2008 (All-NBA team=top 3 at each position, not top 15 overall) then which was 14 years into his career. He was considered to be an elite PG for most of his career (won Co-ROY with Hill his first year and since then went on to become known as one of the best passers/defenders/rebounders at the PG position, completely turned around two, you could argue three, franchises). The stats may not scream elite player but he was considered by many to be an elite players for many years.

Pretty sure both of us are just repeating the same stuff. You don't get it, so I will stop here.

 

chris bosh was an all-star this year, are you considering him an "elite" player? aldrige didn't make the all-star game this year, but i consider him a better player than bosh this past year.

i'm talking about performance, and usually that reflects in the all-nba selections, rather than all-star selections (i.e a perfect example is aldridge). sure there may be a few bad selections here and there, but usually the all-nba selections are fairly accurate in determining who were the top players that year.

jason kidd hasn't made one in over 6 years. these past 6 years, he had been "pretty good" or "above average." but nobody has ever said he's a superstar or a top-flight player. and outside of this past playoffs, he hasn't really gone anywhere in the playoffs either.

in the past 5-6 years, jason kidd has not been in the conversation for being a top 3-4 PG, which has been dominated by nash/paul/deron and now rose/westbrook.

so i don't see how the past 6 years (and 5 of them with little to zero playoff success) contribute much to your argument in terms of longevity.

so like i said, lebron's 8 all-star years vs kidd's 6-8 all-star years (comparing their primes/elite years), lebron has had a much better career. if you're adding in jason kidd's last 6 years and in his first 2 years, he wasn't a top-flight player, so that would only diminish your argument.

again, if you use longevity as your argument: see kobe bryant.

 

t_mac1:

 

The difference here is that even without a ring, Kobe Bryant would've been considered an all-time great player for his scoring ability. Without a ring, Shaq would've still been one of the most dominant players we'd ever seen on an NBA court. Those guys would've been on the cusp of "all time greats" or "near top-15-20" players by the time their careers were over without winning a ring. Winning rings just shot them higher. Before this season, few would've said that about Dirk. So now he wins a ring, and *poof*, he's possibly one of the 10 best?

Again, I'm not saying Dirk isn't an all-time great (he is), but for him to have his status "elevated" this much as you said, by fans because he won one ring, is nuts. If you never believed he was an all-time great and now because he won a ring, you think he may be top-10, is just ... odd.

I also thing we put too much weight on rings being how great a player is. Barkley, Malone, Stockton, etc. are all-time great players. So if they had won 2 or 3 rings, where would we rank them? Each are already considered among the greatest at their positions.

 

Where do you think history would have ranked Hakeem if he never patched things with the Rockets in 1991, got traded elsewhere and continued to make all-star teams but never won it all? Is he also a guy who would have been 15-20 regardless? Consider the question from a national perspective.

 

i completely agree with you. we do put too much weight on rings, rather than the player's entire body of work. that is why i still put karl malone and charles barkley above dirk nowitzki. i don't think dirk has been as dominant at his position as those 2 guys were.

but you have to understand, the OP said "dallas fans" think he's a top 10 player of all time. i don't think anybody in this thread has stated that dirk is a top 10 player of all time.

there is difference between simply making all-star teams, and dominating his position and making all-nba teams, while going deep in the playoffs.

had hakeem continue his prime peak as we saw, but never won it all, i think he would still go down as a top 20-25 player. the guy was absolutely dominant on both ends.

karl malone was widely considered the best PF of all time, and tim duncan did not overtake that spot in the national media until he won his 2nd or 3rd ring. kevin garnett won a ring and nobody is saying he's better than karl malone or charles barkley. kobe bryant won 5 rings, but the majority of the national media still pegs him lower than magic/bird, who won less.

 

Lebron's whole career at this point is better than grant hill's entire career in the nba. Saying otherwise is just hating. If its about expectations and rings, then thats a completely different subject

 

He'd be ranked right around a guy like Ewing or Barkley, in that case.

Also, just a slight correction, Dream had trouble with the management in 92, not 91. In 91, he came back from the eye injury and happily accepted a smaller role in the offense and it was all going well until the Rockets got swept.

 

If Dirt can win three more rings playing as the top dog then he can have a great chance at cracking the top ten. I dont see that happening so no he will never be top ten. Maybe top 20 when its all said and done for him.

 

I guess the biggest LOL here is the OP, he's the only one who thought Dirk would be top 10 all time. Anyway Dirk right now is somewhere between top 11-25, he'll only go higher if he continues his pace. Remember although Dirk has never been the best player for his position prior to this season he's also been playing the longest at a high level. He's already been playing what, 11 years? With no signs of slowing down, if he continues this pace for 4 more years and then slowly becomes ineffective he'll become the goat PF, ahead of duncan IMHO.

 

to begin with, it's very funny that winning just ONE ring puts dirk in the 11-25 range already as kobe has 5 rings and he BARELY cracks the top 10 lists for most. wade will end up probably with a better career than dirk and he most likely won't crack the top 10 list.

secondly, tim duncan has 4 rings (and it's not unanimous that he's top 10 of all time either), 9-all nba 1st teams, 9 all-nba defense 1st teams (meaning he dominated on BOTH ends at his position = he was the best PF in the game for a decade, the same time frame that dirk plays in).

dirk wasn't even considered the best PF at the end of the reg season this year (all-nba 2nd team). and we all know he has minimal impact on the defensive end of the floor. next year may be the first year where he will be considered by most as the best PF in the L.

despite what dirk does, he will never overtake tim duncan as the best PF to ever play the game. you simply can't be considered the best at your position all-time if you aren't considered the best at your position while you play for more than a 7-8 year stretch. that's just ludicrous.

 

Ok some points:

1) TD IS the GOAT PF. I simply can't think of any other power forward that has outperformed him carreer wise.
2) TD was dominant for around 12 years. Now, he's starting to break down. Dirk OTH can still ball like a max player, even though he started playing more or less the same time as TD.
3) You already admitted Dirk was the best pf last year. If he keeps up this performance, he'll be the best pf next year. In my scenario, he'll be the best pf for like 4 years, and then spend the next 4 years declining before he retires.
4) Dirk has been one of the best players in the L for a long time, he's been at this A-level for the last 3 years now. Most people just haven't noticed it because the Mavs haven't won anything before. If he wants to, he can keep playing 8-10 more years before he retires, and if he does I'd rather have him than Duncan.

 

So is it Lebron James or Kevin Durant that's a better PF than Dirk? All-NBA? Seriously? 'Tard.

 

This is far from true, only way it could be true if Dirk wins four rings in those four years.

Just ask yourself this what does Dirk to better than Duncan besides scoring?