Redistro of NBA legends debate - Simulations soon

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:46 pm
ReginaldLewis wrote: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.
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:54 pm
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote: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
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya

All Star
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:41 am
Poster Credit: 3
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:48 pm
migya wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote: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.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:08 pm
ReginaldLewis wrote:
migya wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote: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
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya

All Star
Posts: 2958
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:41 am
Poster Credit: 3
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:25 pm
migya wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote:
migya wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote: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.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:10 am
ReginaldLewis wrote:
migya wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote:
migya wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote: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
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 2558
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:53 am
Location: where you aren't
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:11 am
ReginaldLewis wrote:
migya wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote: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.....

ReginaldLewis wrote:
migya wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote:
migya wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote: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
ImageImage
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:17 am
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote:
migya wrote: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
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:31 am
ReginaldLewis wrote: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.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:49 am
TMC wrote:
ReginaldLewis wrote: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!
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:11 am
migya wrote:Grant Hill is light years better than Reggie Miller! It isn't even close!


Yeah... but he wasn't in the playoffs. :wink:
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:16 am
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:Grant Hill is light years better than Reggie Miller! It isn't even close!


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



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 :wink:
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:34 am
migya wrote: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 :wink:


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. :wink:
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21379
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:09 am
TMC wrote:
migya wrote: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 :wink:


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
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:42 am
migya wrote:
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.
PreviousNext

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron