In the 95-96 season, it was the Nba's 50th season, so to celebrate it, at the all star game that year the nba named the 50 greatest players of all time. So it got me thinking a couple weeks ago. If we had to replace some of the players on that list for this generation's greatest stars, like Tim Duncan, Kobe, KG, J Kidd, who would you replace on that list? The first person I would take off the list is Scottie Pippen, because he played second fiddle to Jordan for most of his career. To me, to be on this list you have to be the go to guy on the team, a guy that can carry a team on his back for the victory. That wasn't Pippen. The guy I would replace him with, without even blinking Tim Duncan. In my opinion this generation's greatest player. After that its a toughy. I'll just let you guys talk it out. 1.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 2. Nate Archibald 3.Paul Arizin 4.Charles Barkley 5.Rick Barry 6.Elgin Baylor 7.Dave Bing 8.Larry Bird 9.Wilt Chamberlain 10.Bob Cousy 11.Dave Cowens 12.Billy Cunningham 13.Dave DeBusschere 14.Clyde Drexler 15.Julius Erving 16.Patrick Ewing 17.Walt Frazier 18.George Gervin 19.Hal Greer 20.John Havlicek 21.Elvin Hayes 22.Magic Johnson 23.Sam Jones 24.Michael Jordan 25.Jerry Lucas 26.Karl Malone 27.Moses Malone 28.Pete Maravich 29.Kevin McHale 30.George Mikan 31.Earl Monroe 32.Hakeem Olajuwon 33.Shaquille O'Neal 34.Robert Parish 35.Bob Pettit 36.Scottie Pippen 37.Willis Reed 38.Oscar Robertson 39.David Robinson 40.Bill Russell 41.Dolph Schayes 42.Bill Sharman 43.John Stockton 44.Isiah Thomas 45.Nate Thurmond 46.Wes Unseld 47.Bill Walton 48.Jerry West 49.Lenny Wilkens 50.James Worthy
Can't really replace anyone from that list. I think your memories of Scottie Pippen is severely skewed from his days with the Rockets. No matter how much of a jackass he was after he choked against the Lakers, he's still an all-time great. In his prime, he was an elite player with or without Jordan.
You don't need to replace anyone, just call those guys the 50 greatest 20th century ballers. Then you can have another list for this century, of course none of us will be around to see it....
Pippen was an absolutely elite defender, a very good point-forward, and a solid scorer, and was clear #2 guy on a 6 ring championship team, and kept the team quite respectable during Jordan's first retirement. I think he deserves to be on the list. Shaq arguably didn't deserve to be on the list in 1996, but since then he's definitely justified his position. Bill Walton will forever be debatable due to his injuries (after all he played fewer games than Yao has already played) but on talent he is a top 15 talent of all time and led his team to a championship, so he has a case. I think Robert Parish and James Worthy have been overrated based on their place on the Celtics and Lakers respectively. Parish was a solid player on both ends but he was definitely not elite in any aspect of the game, I've been rewatching 1980's Finals games and find myself less and less impressed with Parish. I find Worthy quite similar to Jamaal Wilkes in stats, game, and accomplishments, but for some reason Worthy is HoF and 50 Greatest while Wilkes has nothing. Perhaps Wilkes was underrated but I think Worthy was overrated. I think Thurmond might not belong in the 50 Greatest; his defense was historically elite, but his offense was bad in a way that hurt his team, sure he scored but he took a lot of shots that he shouldn't have and was very inefficient offensively, and he was on mediocre to bad teams for most of his career; the Warriors won a title the year AFTER they traded him for relative peanuts (Clifford Ray and a first round pick). On who should be in the list, I think Artis Gilmore should be on the list. He should at the very least be in the Hall of Fame.
Thats why I said, if you could. I know, in about 37 years they are going to make the top 100 players, when the Nba reaches 100 years old. But I thought it would be cool to see which modern superstar would you put in and which ones will you take out.
I knew someone was gonna say something like that. Dude, that has nothing to do with why I took him out. Yes I agree Pip was an elite defender, a great slasher, and could hit a jumper when left wide open by teams doubling and tripling teaming Jordan. But would of he been great, won as many championships without Jordan? No. Like I said before, he wasn't the #1 option on his team, and they are better players Duncan, Kobe, KG, heck, I'll even replace him with D. Wilkins.
The thing is that there are not many people capable of making that call. How many of those players have you actually seen in action? How can you talk about guys that you've never seen play? The only people capable of objectively answering your question are 70 year old sports writers.
Being the "#1 option" on your team just isn't a very good criterion. Antoine Walker was a #1 option for many years with the Celtics. Glen Robinson was a #1 option with the Bucks. Were they better players than Scottie Pippen? Of course not. And in any case, how many players can you name who'd be a "#1 option" when for the bulk of their career they are teamed up with Michael Jordan?
I see some names on there that could be replaced with the new guys. Here's some more names to be considered as replacements: Paul, Lebron, Wade, Nash, and Nowitzki. I only included Nowitzki in there since he was an MVP, but I don't think he makes the list. All of those guys have the talent to maybe make the cut.
So by your definition, we should eliminate: 1. Drexler because he didn't win one as the #1 option 2. Kevin Garnett shouldn't even merit considering none of his teams actually made it to the NBA Finals until he had Pierce and Ray Allen 3. Kobe was Mr. 2nd Banana and shouldn't even be placed among the all-time greats if he didn't win it all last year. What's laughable is that you would replace Pippen with Wilkins (who IIRC was on the list of near-misses for this list when it was first formed), a player that never even got to the finals and a player that didn't excel at both ends of the floor. In about 10 years, I'm willing to bet that Tony Parker will be considered (not de facto) one of the greats but he didn't win it all being the #1 option. Nash has two MVP trophies stashed in his closet without being the #1 option. Hell, omit John Stockton from this list too because he wasn't the #1 option.
Ridiculous. Pippen led a team that won 55 games (93-94) in EVERY STATISTICAL CATEGORY. He's one of two players to ever do that. By your logic, if Hakeem, Karl Malone, Drexler, Jordan, and Stockton all played on one team for their whole careers, only one of them should even get top 50 consideration. Bit of a logical flaw you got there.
If there was ever one person born who was meant to play basketball it was Pistol Pete Maravich. Don't be ignorant because you looked at some old stats.
Uh no, and the answer to question you answered yourself was either Bill Russell or Michael Jordan. Pistol Pete was a born loser, Tracy McGrady today? See Pistol Pete for more memories.
Ok, I'm guessing you want me to backup my case... He scored 44ppg on 43% shooting in college, could never beat the teams he needed to, and the only time he led the league in scoring he did it on a % lower than we lambaste Kobe with. Lucky for him, they didn't keep track of turnovers until toward the end of his career. Pistol Pete once averaged almost twice as many turnovers as he did steals or defensive rebounds. The all-time leader in turnovers, Karl Malone, never averaged as many TO's as Pete did in a season, and you can argue that both had the ball in their hands equally, Pete more so because he was a guard. Again, If you think Allen Iverson and Jason Williams were bad, this guy was plenty worse. I'm not surprised though, most people are blinded by his flashy game.
Ewing -> Kobe - Easy choice Kobe is top 10 all-time, Ewing has a theory. Worthy -> Garnett - Better numbers 20-10 career avg also revolutionized the hybrid PF. Wilkens -> Nash - 2 MVPs, made scrubs into millionaires.
