First to 50 in the West

[westkoast]

I'm not trying to disrespect TD at all -- I'm simply stating that the 50 wins doesn't elevate him to a higher status -- he already belongs to elite status based on his ability.

This I would agree with.  Even if the Spurs had not cracked 50 wins in the past 2-3 seasons he would still be an elite player in this league.

I take it you guys are not really debating elite so much as HOF caliber.  I consider Dirk an elite player in this league over the past 4-5 seasons.  An ultra marshmellow soft one but still elite.  If you are a leader of a squad that consistently clears the 50 win mark I think that is when you start moving from an 'elite' player to a HOF player.

Bottom line is strictly definitions at this point.  What is elite?  Is that different than superstar?  Is HOF a higher standard than elite?

A big part of my issue with Randy is his "X is a great player but that is a team accomplishement".  This seems to be randomly applied depending upon Randy's like/dislike for the player, team and/or poster making the claim.  In earlier discussion the Spurs support players are (paraphrazing) "only that good because Duncan commands so much attention".  But now Duncan can't be elevated to the highest level because his "team is so good".  So depending on the argument Randy needs to support his position the quality of Duncan's teammates change.

Bird is arguably the best SF ever.  And most would point to his team's success as the difference...there have been other small forwards with as good of stats. Why would most fans pick Bird over Erving as the best SF of all time?  Because when you start looking at the best of alltime then team success becomes a very big factor. Unless it involves the Spurs then Randy's blinders jump up faster than Reality can start a Kobe thread.

Duncan needs to be given credit for helping build a great team.   I agree with you, you do not get that 'best of all time' title with out being apart of a great team(s). I think hitting 50+ wins year after year says a lot about his leadership and personality.  He seems like a great guy to hang out with and play basketball with.   Personally if I was a basketball player and someone as talented as Tim Duncan was treating me like im this world class player I might start to believe it and play better.  Popavich gets credit for getting Parker in line and developing Manu but it takes the best player on the squad to really get you on the same page on the court.   That is something Duncan doesn't get credit for.  This team is great because hes great.  He's great because he has got his teammates to believe (and KNOW) they are great.  Manu and Parker are good but if you take Tim Duncan away from those two you end up with a heck of a SF and a small who can get to the rim well....hmmm who does that sound like?  Maybe the Denver Nuggets who have been unable to do anything let alone win a championship??

Tim Duncan is every possible positive label you can attach to a sports player all at once.  Elite, HOF, best of the best, champion, etc.

[Ted]

Stockton was not an elite player?!?!?! Randy my boy allow me to explain something to you, not only did Stockton personify the perfect combination of skills to be the quintessential point guard, he holds 3 records that no one currently playing is even in the vicinity of breaking, all time assists, all time steals, and all time minutes. Stockton had perfect floor vision, he had perfect passing skills, he stayed healthy, and was the perfect floor general leader of the Jazz. He simply must be the point guard by which all others are judged, only Magic should be mentioned in the same breath as Stockton, in fact had Magic's career not been cut short he would have been better than Stockton, was better in all respects except Magic played little defense. Stockton may have been a dirty/sneaky player, but no way he wasn't an elite player.

I should point out here that I am in no way shape or form a John Stockton fan, Magic is and for the forseeable future will be my all time favorite player, but I am objective enough to recognize an elite player when I see one, and John Stockton was definately an elite player.

Randy your criteria is far too narrow to be realistic, you need to broaden your scope a little bit and quit being so argumentative when you are this completely unarmed, stockton not an elite player indeed!

Thank you for saying that. I'm just glad I kept reading instead of responding immediately. You saved me the effort.

[Randy]

IMO, the HOF has embraced far too many players.  Was I stating that Stockton wasn't an elite player?  Nope -- I don't believe, however, that he is at the same place that I believe some other players were -- MJ, Magic, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Bird, Hakeem, TD, the Big O -- I'm talking the very BEST of the very best (the Best of the Best, sir).  That's not a complete list but I don't think that Stockton belongs with that list.  Am I saying that Stockton isn't a HOF?  Nope -- I'm narrowing down that classification.  I think Dirk belongs in the same classification as Stockton -- definately a HOF but not up there with the best of the best and I believe TD belongs in the that top classification.  He does it all on both ends of the court.

Where have I said that TD isn't playing with a great team?  I may not think they are as good as YOU do but outside of Reality, who does?  It's not like you are real objective when it comes to the Spurs.  Parker, Manu, Bowen, Kurt Thomas together with TD -- you don't think that's a pretty good team?  Would TD be able to do that with the likes of Charlotte Bobcats and help them to 50+ wins a season for 10 years?  See, according to your criteria, if TD were on another team that didn't accomplish the 50+ wins a season for 10 years then he would fail to be up there with the best players our league has ever seen.  THAT'S why I don't want to use the criteria to make that determination -- because I believe that TD deserves that status no matter WHAT team he plays on.  I'm still not sure why you feel it's a diss.  IMO, you are dissing him more than I am.  Does he deserve props for what he and the Spurs have accomplished?  Yep!  But he would STILL deserve that status if he played for a team without making that accomplishment.  I just can't buy it -- according to your initial post, it seems you want to elevate him above the status of players like the Big O -- I can't agree with that.  There IS such thing as luck in the world -- you would think that of all people, a Spurs fan would know and be grateful for luck!  

In earlier discussion the Spurs support players are (paraphrazing) "only that good because Duncan commands so much attention".

Oh please, show me where I said "only" -- you don't think that TD has made his players better?  Who does the defense focus on every night when TD and the Spurs are on the court?  Why is Bruce Bowen shooting better FG% and 3pt% better with the Spurs than he EVER has in his career (and it wasn't like he only play 1 or 2 years before coming to the Spurs).  Manu IS better playing with TD than he would be playing for the Chicago Bulls or the Seattle Supersonics -- so is Parker and every other Spurs player.  But go back and show me where I said "only" -- that applies to Fabs but nobody else on the team.  Horry has how many rings?  Finley was a star in this league at one time.  Kurt Thomas has been a stud defender all of his life.  Barry has been a great starter with the Sonics.  I've never once said these guys were only good because TD commands so much attention.  I said that TD makes them BETTER!!!

[Randy]

I'm not trying to disrespect TD at all -- I'm simply stating that the 50 wins doesn't elevate him to a higher status -- he already belongs to elite status based on his ability.

This I would agree with.  Even if the Spurs had not cracked 50 wins in the past 2-3 seasons he would still be an elite player in this league.

I take it you guys are not really debating elite so much as HOF caliber.  I consider Dirk an elite player in this league over the past 4-5 seasons.  An ultra marshmellow soft one but still elite.  If you are a leader of a squad that consistently clears the 50 win mark I think that is when you start moving from an 'elite' player to a HOF player.

Bottom line is strictly definitions at this point.  What is elite?  Is that different than superstar?  Is HOF a higher standard than elite?

A big part of my issue with Randy is his "X is a great player but that is a team accomplishement".  This seems to be randomly applied depending upon Randy's like/dislike for the player, team and/or poster making the claim.  In earlier discussion the Spurs support players are (paraphrazing) "only that good because Duncan commands so much attention".  But now Duncan can't be elevated to the highest level because his "team is so good".  So depending on the argument Randy needs to support his position the quality of Duncan's teammates change.

Bird is arguably the best SF ever.  And most would point to his team's success as the difference...there have been other small forwards with as good of stats. Why would most fans pick Bird over Erving as the best SF of all time?  Because when you start looking at the best of alltime then team success becomes a very big factor. Unless it involves the Spurs then Randy's blinders jump up faster than Reality can start a Kobe thread.

Duncan needs to be given credit for helping build a great team.   I agree with you, you do not get that 'best of all time' title with out being apart of a great team(s). I think hitting 50+ wins year after year says a lot about his leadership and personality.  He seems like a great guy to hang out with and play basketball with.   Personally if I was a basketball player and someone as talented as Tim Duncan was treating me like im this world class player I might start to believe it and play better.  Popavich gets credit for getting Parker in line and developing Manu but it takes the best player on the squad to really get you on the same page on the court.   That is something Duncan doesn't get credit for.  This team is great because hes great.  He's great because he has got his teammates to believe (and KNOW) they are great.  Manu and Parker are good but if you take Tim Duncan away from those two you end up with a heck of a SF and a small who can get to the rim well....hmmm who does that sound like?  Maybe the Denver Nuggets who have been unable to do anything let alone win a championship??

Tim Duncan is every possible positive label you can attach to a sports player all at once.  Elite, HOF, best of the best, champion, etc.

See, wk, this is EXACTLY why I responded to this thread.  I TOTALLY disagree with you with this comment:

I agree with you, you do not get that 'best of all time' title with out being apart of a great team(s).

I can't agree with this statement at ALL -- how well would the Bulls have done without Grant or Rodman?  They would have been a poor rebounding team and they wouldn't have had any post defense.  What if the Cavs are unable to EVER surround LeBron with the talent that he needs in order to win a title -- does that mean that he doesn't receive that title of being one of the best of all time?  One of these days the Eastern Conference is going to be a better than it currently is and the Cavs may find it harder to win 50 in the competition that currently exists in the West. 

Does this mean that Oscar Robertson doesn't get included as one of the best of all time because he played for a crappy team? 

This is the WHOLE reason I object to the point -- it isn't taking ANYTHING away from TD -- you are taking away from other players who didn't accomplish that goal.  I can't buy into using this as a criteria for the best of the best.

[Laker Fan]

You are already in too deep Randy, why are you still digging?

One more time and I will type real slow, so you will understand, John Stockton was a first tier, elite player, at his position he was the best of the best, has the numbers to prove it, and is, because Magic retired early, arguably the greatest point guard of ALL TIME, you follow?

[Skandery]

Bird is arguably the best SF ever.  And most would point to his team's success as the difference...there have been other small forwards with as good of stats. Why would most fans pick Bird over Erving as the best SF of all time?  Because when you start looking at the best of alltime then team success becomes a very big factor. Unless it involves the Spurs then Randy's blinders jump up faster than Reality can start a Kobe thread.

I'm jumping in only because it seems we've all come down a little hard on Randy, lately, and if I'm not completely misunderstanding his point, I can sort of agree with where he is coming from . . . with various disclaimers and dependent factors.

Assuming that the main thesis of his point is the following, "An uber-elite, historically transcendent player is an uber-elite, historically transcendent player no matter how many times his team clears 50 wins and no matter how many rings he is wearing."

In one part I agree with that statment.  One of the most memorable basketball players of all time is Pistol Pete Maravich but he sure didn't do a whole lot of winning in the NBA.  Randy makes no bones about the fact that TD should be mentioned alongside the absolute cream of the crop when it comes to all time greats because he has surpassed a certain threshold of individual ability and accomplishments.  Should Oscar Robertson not be mentioned alongside the greatest players because he didn't have the team talent to win a-lot of rings and is that truly fair?  Same would go for Wilt, Jerry West, Rick Barry, Dr. J., Hakeem Olajuwon, etc. who have 1 or 2 rings?  Even a tougher question for guys like Barkley, Ewing, Miller, who have no rings.  

On the other hand, one can't lose sight of the fact that Basketball is a TEAM sport, and the conventional method of measuring TEAM success is WINS and CHAMPIONSHIPS.  Not only must your individual ability be tremendous or transcendent, you must also elevate the play of your teammates, and in a perfect world assert your will so that the outcome of "Losing" is simply not an option!  

In that dogmatically narrow criteria, I would venture only a few players can truly be placed on the pedestal of elite status; specifically,  Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, and Tim Duncan.  Each of those players played with a passion for winning and an absolute hatred for losing that they simply overcame the odds to continuously win year after year.  You can further split hairs and micro-analyze the contribution of each of those players teammates (Cousy/Havlicek, McHale/Parish, Kareem/Worthy, Pippen, Kobe, and Robinson/Manu).  In the end a very few select, 1 or 2 in a generation type players, through sheer force of will push their teams to consistently win, season after season, playoff after playoff.  

That slight, but supremely significant difference between someone like Tim Duncan and Hakeem Olajuwon has to be acknowledged.            

[Randy]

You are already in too deep Randy, why are you still digging?

One more time and I will type real slow, so you will understand, John Stockton was a first tier, elite player, at his position he was the best of the best, has the numbers to prove it, and is, because Magic retired early, arguably the greatest point guard of ALL TIME, you follow?

I would disagree with that -- I don't believe that he is at the level of the other players I mentioned.  By being 2nd tier, I was referring to subdividing even the elite players in the league.  I believe that Malone was the better of the Stockton and Malone tandem.  This team would have had enough to go all the way had they been able to find a decent center to add to the squad.  Magic was the greatest PG to ever play the game -- it's another situation of not being able to go by stats alone.  If you want to go by stats alone, Wilt is the best player to ever play the game -- I don't agree with that statement.  

[Randy]

Bird is arguably the best SF ever.  And most would point to his team's success as the difference...there have been other small forwards with as good of stats. Why would most fans pick Bird over Erving as the best SF of all time?  Because when you start looking at the best of alltime then team success becomes a very big factor. Unless it involves the Spurs then Randy's blinders jump up faster than Reality can start a Kobe thread.

I'm jumping in only because it seems we've all come down a little hard on Randy, lately, and if I'm not completely misunderstanding his point, I can sort of agree with where he is coming from . . . with various disclaimers and dependent factors.

Assuming that the main thesis of his point is the following, "An uber-elite, historically transcendent player is an uber-elite, historically transcendent player no matter how many times his team clears 50 wins and no matter how many rings he is wearing."

In one part I agree with that statment.  One of the most memorable basketball players of all time is Pistol Pete Maravich but he sure didn't do a whole lot of winning in the NBA.  Randy makes no bones about the fact that TD should be mentioned alongside the absolute cream of the crop when it comes to all time greats because he has surpassed a certain threshold of individual ability and accomplishments.  Should Oscar Robertson not be mentioned alongside the greatest players because he didn't have the talent to win a-lot of rings and is that truly fair?  Same would go for Wilt, Jerry West, Rick Barry, Dr. J., Hakeem Olajuwon, etc. who have 1 or 2 rings?  Even a tougher question for guys like Barkley, Ewing, Miller, who have no rings.  

On the other hand, one can't lose sight of the fact that Basketball is a TEAM sport, and the conventional method of measuring TEAM success is WINS and CHAMPIONSHIPS.  Not only must your individual ability be tremendous or transcendent, you must also elevate the play of your teammates, and in a perfect world assert your will so that the outcome of "Losing" is simply not an option!  

In that dogmatically narrow criteria, I would venture only a few players can truly be placed on the pedestal of elite status; specifically,  Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, and Tim Duncan.  Each of those players played with a passion for winning and an absolute hatred for losing that they simply overcame the odds to continuously win year after year.  You can further split hairs and micro-analyze the contribution of each of those players teammates (Cousy/Havlicek, McHale/Parish, Kareem/Worthy, Pippen, Kobe, and Robinson/Manu).  In the end a very few select, 1 or 2 in a generation type players, through sheer force of will push their teams to consistently win, season after season, playoff after playoff.  

That slight, but supremely significant difference between someone like Tim Duncan and Hakeem Olajuwon has to be acknowledged.            

Thanks, in the future, I will just e-mail you my thoughts and allow you to put it on paper for me. 

Actually, I was with you all the way UNTIL you came to one player -- Shaquille O'Neal!  IMO, Shaq has tarnished his own legacy.  He WOULD have gone down as one of those players but what he did in not one but two cities proves he isn't one of those players.  After winning his first title, he began to coast in LA -- his 2nd year was bad but his 3rd and 4th were pathetic.  Coming into the season out of shape shows a poor competitive drive and disregard for his teammates.  If Shaq had been in the shape of his first year in Miami, the Lakers would have won a fourth title against Detroit.  Then he repeats that pattern once again in Miami after title #1.  I can't buy into this status for Shaq. 

I will, however, agree with you that there is a different between TD and Hakeem when it comes to drive.  I wouldn't, however, say the same about others who didn't accomplish this feat at the center position -- namely Kareem and Wilt.

[westkoast]

I'm not trying to disrespect TD at all -- I'm simply stating that the 50 wins doesn't elevate him to a higher status -- he already belongs to elite status based on his ability.

This I would agree with.  Even if the Spurs had not cracked 50 wins in the past 2-3 seasons he would still be an elite player in this league.

I take it you guys are not really debating elite so much as HOF caliber.  I consider Dirk an elite player in this league over the past 4-5 seasons.  An ultra marshmellow soft one but still elite.  If you are a leader of a squad that consistently clears the 50 win mark I think that is when you start moving from an 'elite' player to a HOF player.

Bottom line is strictly definitions at this point.  What is elite?  Is that different than superstar?  Is HOF a higher standard than elite?

A big part of my issue with Randy is his "X is a great player but that is a team accomplishement".  This seems to be randomly applied depending upon Randy's like/dislike for the player, team and/or poster making the claim.  In earlier discussion the Spurs support players are (paraphrazing) "only that good because Duncan commands so much attention".  But now Duncan can't be elevated to the highest level because his "team is so good".  So depending on the argument Randy needs to support his position the quality of Duncan's teammates change.

Bird is arguably the best SF ever.  And most would point to his team's success as the difference...there have been other small forwards with as good of stats. Why would most fans pick Bird over Erving as the best SF of all time?  Because when you start looking at the best of alltime then team success becomes a very big factor. Unless it involves the Spurs then Randy's blinders jump up faster than Reality can start a Kobe thread.

Duncan needs to be given credit for helping build a great team.   I agree with you, you do not get that 'best of all time' title with out being apart of a great team(s). I think hitting 50+ wins year after year says a lot about his leadership and personality.  He seems like a great guy to hang out with and play basketball with.   Personally if I was a basketball player and someone as talented as Tim Duncan was treating me like im this world class player I might start to believe it and play better.  Popavich gets credit for getting Parker in line and developing Manu but it takes the best player on the squad to really get you on the same page on the court.   That is something Duncan doesn't get credit for.  This team is great because hes great.  He's great because he has got his teammates to believe (and KNOW) they are great.  Manu and Parker are good but if you take Tim Duncan away from those two you end up with a heck of a SF and a small who can get to the rim well....hmmm who does that sound like?  Maybe the Denver Nuggets who have been unable to do anything let alone win a championship??

Tim Duncan is every possible positive label you can attach to a sports player all at once.  Elite, HOF, best of the best, champion, etc.

See, wk, this is EXACTLY why I responded to this thread.  I TOTALLY disagree with you with this comment:

I agree with you, you do not get that 'best of all time' title with out being apart of a great team(s).

I can't agree with this statement at ALL -- how well would the Bulls have done without Grant or Rodman?  They would have been a poor rebounding team and they wouldn't have had any post defense.  What if the Cavs are unable to EVER surround LeBron with the talent that he needs in order to win a title -- does that mean that he doesn't receive that title of being one of the best of all time?  One of these days the Eastern Conference is going to be a better than it currently is and the Cavs may find it harder to win 50 in the competition that currently exists in the West. 

Does this mean that Oscar Robertson doesn't get included as one of the best of all time because he played for a crappy team? 

This is the WHOLE reason I object to the point -- it isn't taking ANYTHING away from TD -- you are taking away from other players who didn't accomplish that goal.  I can't buy into using this as a criteria for the best of the best.

Certainly I am not saying that criteria is the ONLY reason.  Just like having a ring is not the ONLY requirement to get in, in my eyes.  What Lurker is saying (correct me if I am wrong) is it's pretty darn tough to be the best player and leader on a squad that consistently wins 50+ games a season.  Teams rebuild, players retire, new talent joins, but the squad continues to be at the very top of the league.  That is a testament to a star player just as much as a lot of his stats are IMO.  Again, not the only thing that gets Duncan included but one of the many things that do. 10-20 years after a player retires people remember the teams they were on more then their individual stats.  When people talk about Michael Jordan they talk about his 6 rings first and everything else second.  When people talk about Magic Johnson they talk about his rings and how great his show time teams were.  When Duncan is long retired 15 years from now  and Lurker Jr, Randy Jr, and JoMaL jr (who is probably older then I am right now) are debating on a message board they are going to bring up how great his Spurs were moreso then the year he averaged 26 - 13 in the regular season.

Out of all the members of the Basketball Hall of Fame who are players, how many can you pick out that were not apart of great teams at one point or another?  You would really have to dig pre-80s basketball to find more then a couple.  You named one who averaged a triple double and makes it a no brainer for him to go.  Who else though?  Skandery has brought up Pistol Pete.  I think if you are lucky you find a few more players who were the exception to the rule. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Basketball_Hall_of_Fame

[WayOutWest]

I may be a little obtuse here WOW but I don't quite understand what you meant.

OBTUSE?  Look Laker Fan, if YOU want US to abide by the "no foul language" rule then YOU need to live by it as well!

[Skandery]

OBTUSE?  Look Laker Fan, if YOU want US to abide by the "no foul language" rule then YOU need to live by it as well!

Good post.  Awesome contribution!






 

[SPURSX3]

I may be a little obtuse here WOW but I don't quite understand what you meant.

OBTUSE?  Look Laker Fan, if YOU want US to abide by the "no foul language" rule then YOU need to live by it as well!

Yeah WOW isn't FAT!!   







sorry, couldn't pass that one up...

[WayOutWest]

I may be a little obtuse here WOW but I don't quite understand what you meant.

OBTUSE?  Look Laker Fan, if YOU want US to abide by the "no foul language" rule then YOU need to live by it as well!

Yeah WOW isn't FAT!!   







sorry, couldn't pass that one up...

I don't know where that "you had me at hello" line comes from but when Laker Fan threw "obtuse" out there I went Shawshank on him!

[Laker Fan]

Excellent summation Skander, one I must agree with, all except your lumping Shaq in with those uber-elites. Shaq IS NOT in that category by even your own definition he never had that win at all costs attitude, he did not make his teammates better if it didn't suit him, he had NO passion for winning, and he didn't hate losing, he didn't just take games off, he took seasons off.

I actually agree Randy, you never really dissed Duncan, but you did offer backhanded compliments, fair enough, I do the same myself. Where you are so categorically wrong in this thread IMO is not the Duncan issue, you readily acknowledge his greatness, rather it is your stubborn refusal to acknowledge Stockton's place in NBA history. I agree that Magic was the better PG, would that he would have played defense, but his short career of necessity relegates him to second place from a numbers point of view but first place from a rings point of view. That said, Stockton had a 20 year run of winning seasons that simply cannot be discounted and MUST put him in the elite first tier upper echelon. You simply baffle me in that something so glaringly obvious escapes your otherwise fairly sound analysis.

[Lurker]

Great discussion guys.  Threads like this is what makes this such a great board.

Hopefully we will have some more in the playoffs...