GoldenSTWarriors

[tHe_pEsTiLeNcE]

Wrong. He was a good rebounder and defender and shot blocker. If he wasn't that good, why is he in the hall of fame?

KC Jones is in the hall of fame and Artis Gilmore isn't. In other words the HOF means nothing.

[migya]

Wrong. He was a good rebounder and defender and shot blocker. If he wasn't that good, why is he in the hall of fame?

KC Jones is in the hall of fame and Artis Gilmore isn't. In other words the HOF means nothing.

I wouldn't say that but it is not a true indication of whether a player was a superstar or not and it doesn't show who is better than who. Alot of players will end up in the hall of fame without having had a great career but just a long one

[The Coooach]

Wrong. He was a good rebounder and defender and shot blocker. If he wasn't that good, why is he in the hall of fame?

KC Jones is in the hall of fame and Artis Gilmore isn't. In other words the HOF means nothing.

I wouldn't say that but it is not a true indication of whether a player was a superstar or not and it doesn't show who is better than who. Alot of players will end up in the hall of fame without having had a great career but just a long one

Thanks migya, My friend pest, HOF nothing? But your opinion does? Now who sounds stupid? Honestly, did you ever see David play? He really was something. the man had a 44" verticwith a good outside shot. Please go to the HOF site and read up on him. If you are a true baskeball fan (which I think you are) You have to appreciate his game.

P.S. Just because the guy eneded up with a drug problem does not make him a bad person, or a bad player.

[migya]

Wrong. He was a good rebounder and defender and shot blocker. If he wasn't that good, why is he in the hall of fame?

KC Jones is in the hall of fame and Artis Gilmore isn't. In other words the HOF means nothing.

I wouldn't say that but it is not a true indication of whether a player was a superstar or not and it doesn't show who is better than who. Alot of players will end up in the hall of fame without having had a great career but just a long one

Thanks migya, My friend pest, HOF nothing? But your opinion does? Now who sounds stupid? Honestly, did you ever see David play? He really was something. the man had a 44" verticwith a good outside shot. Please go to the HOF site and read up on him. If you are a true baskeball fan (which I think you are) You have to appreciate his game.

P.S. Just because the guy eneded up with a drug problem does not make him a bad person, or a bad player.

I have read up on him and he indeed was a great player that COULD have been a real alltime great but the fact is he only played some three proper seasons at a high level and this whole draft idea was to based on factors including the length of time a player was at a high level. That is why I see Nash as only great for three years and pretty good for 4 or 5! Grant Hill is only a superstar for 6 years and very good for 2 or 3 more! That was good enough for me as for 6 years, I get a megastar player.

If we were to simulate all this, you have to use what happened in real life and that would mean that you lose a player after a few years Reggie, in the case of David Thompson. Colt doesn't get much out of Walton either. I picked taking this very much into consideration, as well as talent and career performances, attitude and leadership

[The Coooach]

Wrong. He was a good rebounder and defender and shot blocker. If he wasn't that good, why is he in the hall of fame?

KC Jones is in the hall of fame and Artis Gilmore isn't. In other words the HOF means nothing.

I wouldn't say that but it is not a true indication of whether a player was a superstar or not and it doesn't show who is better than who. Alot of players will end up in the hall of fame without having had a great career but just a long one

Thanks migya, My friend pest, HOF nothing? But your opinion does? Now who sounds stupid? Honestly, did you ever see David play? He really was something. the man had a 44" verticwith a good outside shot. Please go to the HOF site and read up on him. If you are a true baskeball fan (which I think you are) You have to appreciate his game.

P.S. Just because the guy eneded up with a drug problem does not make him a bad person, or a bad player.

I have read up on him and he indeed was a great player that COULD have been a real alltime great but the fact is he only played some three proper seasons at a high level and this whole draft idea was to based on factors including the length of time a player was at a high level. That is why I see Nash as only great for three years and pretty good for 4 or 5! Grant Hill is only a superstar for 6 years and very good for 2 or 3 more! That was good enough for me as for 6 years, I get a megastar player.

If we were to simulate all this, you have to use what happened in real life and that would mean that you lose a player after a few years Reggie, in the case of David Thompson. Colt doesn't get much out of Walton either. I picked taking this very much into consideration, as well as talent and career performances, attitude and leadership

I agree, migya. That is one reason I drafted Parish, Miller, and Kareem, Very long careers at a high level.

[migya]

Wrong. He was a good rebounder and defender and shot blocker. If he wasn't that good, why is he in the hall of fame?

KC Jones is in the hall of fame and Artis Gilmore isn't. In other words the HOF means nothing.

I wouldn't say that but it is not a true indication of whether a player was a superstar or not and it doesn't show who is better than who. Alot of players will end up in the hall of fame without having had a great career but just a long one

Thanks migya, My friend pest, HOF nothing? But your opinion does? Now who sounds stupid? Honestly, did you ever see David play? He really was something. the man had a 44" verticwith a good outside shot. Please go to the HOF site and read up on him. If you are a true baskeball fan (which I think you are) You have to appreciate his game.

P.S. Just because the guy eneded up with a drug problem does not make him a bad person, or a bad player.

I have read up on him and he indeed was a great player that COULD have been a real alltime great but the fact is he only played some three proper seasons at a high level and this whole draft idea was to based on factors including the length of time a player was at a high level. That is why I see Nash as only great for three years and pretty good for 4 or 5! Grant Hill is only a superstar for 6 years and very good for 2 or 3 more! That was good enough for me as for 6 years, I get a megastar player.

If we were to simulate all this, you have to use what happened in real life and that would mean that you lose a player after a few years Reggie, in the case of David Thompson. Colt doesn't get much out of Walton either. I picked taking this very much into consideration, as well as talent and career performances, attitude and leadership

I agree, migya. That is one reason I drafted Parish, Miller, and Kareem, Very long careers at a high level.

Again, Parish and Miller were good but nothing more. They both did have long careers and most of it was at a good level, so you know you will get many years from them. Kareem is an alltime great and your best player

[tHe_pEsTiLeNcE]

Wrong. He was a good rebounder and defender and shot blocker. If he wasn't that good, why is he in the hall of fame?

KC Jones is in the hall of fame and Artis Gilmore isn't. In other words the HOF means nothing.

I wouldn't say that but it is not a true indication of whether a player was a superstar or not and it doesn't show who is better than who. Alot of players will end up in the hall of fame without having had a great career but just a long one

Thanks migya, My friend pest, HOF nothing? But your opinion does? Now who sounds stupid? Honestly, did you ever see David play? He really was something. the man had a 44" verticwith a good outside shot. Please go to the HOF site and read up on him. If you are a true baskeball fan (which I think you are) You have to appreciate his game.

P.S. Just because the guy eneded up with a drug problem does not make him a bad person, or a bad player.

you do realize that for the most part migya agreed with me there.....

Wrong. He was a good rebounder and defender and shot blocker. If he wasn't that good, why is he in the hall of fame?

KC Jones is in the hall of fame and Artis Gilmore isn't. In other words the HOF means nothing.

I wouldn't say that but it is not a true indication of whether a player was a superstar or not and it doesn't show who is better than who. Alot of players will end up in the hall of fame without having had a great career but just a long one

Thanks migya, My friend pest, HOF nothing? But your opinion does? Now who sounds stupid? Honestly, did you ever see David play? He really was something. the man had a 44" verticwith a good outside shot. Please go to the HOF site and read up on him. If you are a true baskeball fan (which I think you are) You have to appreciate his game.

P.S. Just because the guy eneded up with a drug problem does not make him a bad person, or a bad player.

I have read up on him and he indeed was a great player that COULD have been a real alltime great but the fact is he only played some three proper seasons at a high level and this whole draft idea was to based on factors including the length of time a player was at a high level. That is why I see Nash as only great for three years and pretty good for 4 or 5! Grant Hill is only a superstar for 6 years and very good for 2 or 3 more! That was good enough for me as for 6 years, I get a megastar player.

If we were to simulate all this, you have to use what happened in real life and that would mean that you lose a player after a few years Reggie, in the case of David Thompson. Colt doesn't get much out of Walton either. I picked taking this very much into consideration, as well as talent and career performances, attitude and leadership

I agree, migya. That is one reason I drafted Parish, Miller, and Kareem, Very long careers at a high level.

here's the thing bro, you can't have it both ways. You either choose long careers or short flashy ones as the ones that you value, you can't say both Thompson and Miller were better than hill by ANY single rationalle. period. In fact, you haven't supplied a single bit of evidence for a single one of your arguments..... oh wait, I forgot, you said that Rick Barry thought that Rick Barry was a better player than larry bird, that's really objective. that makes up for the lack of any evidence, statistical or otherwise, in any of your arguments

[migya]

I have read up on him and he indeed was a great player that COULD have been a real alltime great but the fact is he only played some three proper seasons at a high level and this whole draft idea was to based on factors including the length of time a player was at a high level. That is why I see Nash as only great for three years and pretty good for 4 or 5! Grant Hill is only a superstar for 6 years and very good for 2 or 3 more! That was good enough for me as for 6 years, I get a megastar player.

If we were to simulate all this, you have to use what happened in real life and that would mean that you lose a player after a few years Reggie, in the case of David Thompson. Colt doesn't get much out of Walton either. I picked taking this very much into consideration, as well as talent and career performances, attitude and leadership

I agree, migya. That is one reason I drafted Parish, Miller, and Kareem, Very long careers at a high level.

here's the thing bro, you can't have it both ways. You either choose long careers or short flashy ones as the ones that you value, you can't say both Thompson and Miller were better than hill by ANY single rationalle. period. In fact, you haven't supplied a single bit of evidence for a single one of your arguments..... oh wait, I forgot, you said that Rick Barry thought that Rick Barry was a better player than larry bird, that's really objective. that makes up for the lack of any evidence, statistical or otherwise, in any of your arguments

That's not a personal attack on you Reggie but you really haven't proven any claims you made. Bird is better than Barry. Both are alltime greats but Bird is top 5 to 10 player ever, Barry isn't it, maybe top 25 to 30. Grant Hill, as I have mentioned more than once, is an alltime great and top 5 in the years he was with the Pistons

[TMC]

Grant Hill's stats % is good, but he has been hurt so much of over the course of his career that yes, his % is going to be good. I never liked him as a player. Maybe it was because he went to my hated college school, Duke. Reggie had a long and illustrioous career. He was an iron man of sorts. He moved without ball probably second only to Havlicek.

I'm (sort of) with Reggie here. I'd pick Miller over Hill in a landslide. Not based on stats, tho, as Hill's are way better than Miller's (not scoring, but any other stat is better), but Reggie has been a top performer on the playoffs, while Hill has been pretty much the same player he was during the regular season... That has to count for something. I don't care much about regular season stats. It's the playoffs when players show what they're made of.

[migya]

Grant Hill's stats % is good, but he has been hurt so much of over the course of his career that yes, his % is going to be good. I never liked him as a player. Maybe it was because he went to my hated college school, Duke. Reggie had a long and illustrioous career. He was an iron man of sorts. He moved without ball probably second only to Havlicek.

I'm (sort of) with Reggie here. I'd pick Miller over Hill in a landslide. Not based on stats, tho, as Hill's are way better than Miller's (not scoring, but any other stat is better), but Reggie has been a top performer on the playoffs, while Hill has been pretty much the same player he was during the regular season... That has to count for something. I don't care much about regular season stats. It's the playoffs when players show what they're made of.

Grant Hill is light years better than Reggie Miller! It isn't even close!

[TMC]

Grant Hill is light years better than Reggie Miller! It isn't even close!

Yeah... but he wasn't in the playoffs.

[migya]

Grant Hill is light years better than Reggie Miller! It isn't even close!

Yeah... but he wasn't in the playoffs.

He went to the playoffs some 3 or 4 times (can't remember right now) and didn't have a Center half as good as Rik Smits, a fellow forward as good as Detlef Schrempf, Derrick McKey, Chuck Person, Antonio Davis and Dale Davis. Didn't have a PG that was even an eighth as good of a team controller and leader as Mark Jackson and didn't have a coach as good as Larry Brown.

They you have it, all clear now

[TMC]

He went to the playoffs some 3 or 4 times (can't remember right now) and didn't have a Center half as good as Rik Smits, a fellow forward as good as Detlef Schrempf, Derrick McKey, Chuck Person, Antonio Davis and Dale Davis. Didn't have a PG that was even an eighth as good of a team controller and leader as Mark Jackson and didn't have a coach as good as Larry Brown.

They you have it, all clear now

It's pretty easy to understand, in fact.

Reggie was the guy the Pacers relied on in those games. His numbers were always up in the playoffs. Hill's stats went usually down.

It's not about teammates, it's about being able to lead the team when it matters. Hill wasn't that kind of guy.

[migya]

He went to the playoffs some 3 or 4 times (can't remember right now) and didn't have a Center half as good as Rik Smits, a fellow forward as good as Detlef Schrempf, Derrick McKey, Chuck Person, Antonio Davis and Dale Davis. Didn't have a PG that was even an eighth as good of a team controller and leader as Mark Jackson and didn't have a coach as good as Larry Brown.

They you have it, all clear now

It's pretty easy to understand, in fact.

Reggie was the guy the Pacers relied on in those games. His numbers were always up in the playoffs. Hill's stats went usually down.

It's not about teammates, it's about being able to lead the team when it matters. Hill wasn't that kind of guy.

Hill's stats for the playoff series he has been in:
1995-96 = 19.0 ppg., 7.3 rpg., 3.7 apg. and 1.00 stlpg in three games against Orlando
1996-97 = 23.6 ppg., 6.8 rpg. and 5.4 apg. during five playoff games against Atlanta
Was injured in 1999-2000 playoffs (that ankle injury)

He didn't step up alot but his stats are great anyway and better than Miller's ever was. Miller just scored more (and only 20.6 per game over 144 playoff games for his career) but the players I mentioned that he had in his teams over the years, allowed him to score alot. His teams were always loaded with talent, Hill's were always awful

[TMC]

Hill's stats for the playoff series he has been in:
1995-96 = 19.0 ppg., 7.3 rpg., 3.7 apg. and 1.00 stlpg in three games against Orlando
1996-97 = 23.6 ppg., 6.8 rpg. and 5.4 apg. during five playoff games against Atlanta
Was injured in 1999-2000 playoffs (that ankle injury)

Hill's stats for those regular seasons:

1995-96 = 20.2 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 6.9 apg, 1.2 steals
1996-97 = 21.4 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 7.3 apg, 1.8 steals

His numbers go down during the playoffs. Not so much his scoring (slightly up), but his overall numbers go down. That's my whole point. I'm not saying Hill was a bad player, just that come playoff time, Reggie stepped up his game while Hill didn't.