0x's All Time 50!

[The Messenger]

SMH @ Larry Bird @ 12.

Shaq is the most dominant big man of all time.

 

[stevsta]

my only gripe is pierce he should not be so high especially with james worthy not being included stats or no stats worthy>pierce

 

[DoubleDeuce]

I'd personally have Oscar Robertson higher.

 

[Macken]

no mr. clutch robert horry??

 

[Sharkweather]

no mr. clutch robert horry??

You my friend are hilarious.

 

[Esjay]

Its hard to putt Wilt at #2. considering he was playing agaisnt a bunch of white nate robinsons.

Also wheres Vinsanity? Best dunker of all time

YouTube - Vince Carter dunks over 7'2 Wiess (FROM ALL ANGLES!!!!!)

Who cares? Gerald Green is a great dunker too. So was J.R. Rider.

Vince Carter belongs nowhere close to a top 50 list. Maybe top 50 softest and most overrated players of all time.

 

[red33]

cool list man. OBV i dont agree with all of them but its your list.

top 50 is so hard.

 

[Whatupdoe44]

Who cares? Gerald Green is a great dunker too. So was J.R. Rider.

Vince Carter belongs nowhere close to a top 50 list. Maybe top 50 softest and most overrated players of all time.

people like you make me lol, i mean hes no top 50, but the VC hate is hilarious

 

[Esjay]

people like you make me lol, i mean hes no top 50, but the VC hate is hilarious

What did I say that isn't true? STFU. Carter is and always will be overrated. If he played for Boston or Cleveland you would have thanked my post.

 

[Whatupdoe44]

what makes a player soft??

what makes a player over rated? I think vince is known around the league as an all star caliber player, is that over rating him? look at his numbers and tell me they arent all star caliber.

like I said im not saying hes even close to being top 50, but people have labeled him as 'soft' since his toronto days even tho he has very rarely missed games in the past 4-5 seasons and he can still put up 20+ and play at a all star level.

so you please STFU

and btw carters been one of my favorite players for years, ive had the screen name vinsanity4215 since I was about 13, thats goin on 9 + years now....hmm, dont think he was playing for my favorite team then.

 

[Esjay]

what makes a player soft??

what makes a player over rated? I think vince is known around the league as an all star caliber player, is that over rating him? look at his numbers and tell me they arent all star caliber.

like I said im not saying hes even close to being top 50, but people have labeled him as 'soft' since his toronto days even tho he has very rarely missed games in the past 4-5 seasons and he can still put up 20+ and play at a all star level.

so you please STFU

and btw carters been one of my favorite players for years, ive had the screen name vinsanity4215 since I was about 13, thats goin on 9 + years now....hmm

What makes a player overrated? Let's see.

On the list of players given the title of 'next Jordan' when it's quite clear to everyone who understands basketball they have zero similarities other than they both played at UNC and Carter is nice above the rim. Plays no defense (soft). I want more from players than the ability to jack up 3's and score 20 a game. Whoop de doo. 75% of the NBA can do that. Carter is not the kind of player you win titles with.

Carter = empty stats.

 

[Whatupdoe44]

What makes a player overrated? Let's see.

On the list of players given the title of 'next Jordan' when it's quite clear to everyone who understands basketball they have zero similarities other than they both played at UNC and Carter is nice above the rim. Plays no defense. I want more from players than the ability to jack up 3's and score 20 a game. Whoop de doo. 75% of the NBA can do that. Carter is not the kind of player you win titles with.

Carter = empty stats.

who ever called him the next jordan here? not me, I also highly doubt 75% of players in the NBA have the capabilities to average 20 + points a game, a little exaggeration there.

I guess we'll see if carter is the type of player you win titles with in the next couple seasons, as he has never had a good enough team around him to contend, and now he wont be the focus of the offense either.

and you chose not to elaborate on the soft comment :dontknow:

EDIT- you edited your post and just put (soft) in paranthesis next to defense, so players who arent good defenders are soft?? or maybe theyre just not great defenders, has nothing to do with whether they're soft or not, and I think Carters 'Rep' gets him the title of being a bad defender as he is atleast an average defender..... I d understand if he was flopping all over the place left and right but hes not

 

[Esjay]

who ever called him the next jordan here? not me, I also highly doubt 75% of players in the NBA have the capabilities to average 20 + points a game, a little exaggeration there.

I guess we'll see if carter is the type of player you win titles with in the next couple seasons, as he has never had a good enough team around him to contend, and now he wont be the focus of the offense either.

and you chose not to elaborate on the soft comment :dontknow:

I didn't say anyone here called him the next Jordan. That's insanity. I meant when he was still a young player in Toronto, at the peak of his hype.

Maybe not 75% but a hell of a lot of players could average 20 a game if that's all they cared about.

He's soft because he plays no defense and missed time with injuries constantly for most of his career. Injuries that other players play through.

You're right he won't be the focus of the offense. Still don't think Orlando made a good decision letting Hedo go and trading a solid young player for Vince.

 

[The Messenger]

Its hard to putt Wilt at #2. considering he was playing agaisnt a bunch of white nate robinsons.

That's why I don't agree with people putting Wilt at number 2 or as the most dominant big man. Take Shaq for instance, he's played against how many Hall of Fame centers? Hakeem, Alonzo, Ewing, Duncan, etc. Wilt played when the average center was like 6'6" or 6'8". Imagine Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire back in those times. They could have just as easily did what Wilt did.

 

[stevsta]

That's why I don't agree with people putting Wilt at number 2 or as the most dominant big man. Take Shaq for instance, he's played against how many Hall of Fame centers? Hakeem, Alonzo, Ewing, Duncan, etc. Wilt played when the average center was like 6'6" or 6'8". Imagine Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire back in those times. They could have just as easily did what Wilt did.

while that may be the case the guy did post alltime rebound and points marks 100 points in a game thats insane

 

[The Messenger]

while that may be the case the guy did post alltime rebound and points marks 100 points in a game thats insane

So you're saying that if Shaq or Amare or Dwight Howard or KG or Charles Barkley was playing during that time, they couldn't do the same things? Go look at the highlights of that game. He had no one that could even alter his shot. He was above every defenders head every time he put up a shot.

That's the thing I hate. People don't go back and look at the footage of Wilt playing, they go off of his stats. His stats are the most skewed stats of any player in any sport.

With LeBron's size, speed, and athleticism, I doubt any of those teams could have held him under an average of 100 points and 40 rebounds a game.

 

[Len B]

That's why I don't agree with people putting Wilt at number 2 or as the most dominant big man. Take Shaq for instance, he's played against how many Hall of Fame centers? Hakeem, Alonzo, Ewing, Duncan, etc. Wilt played when the average center was like 6'6" or 6'8". Imagine Dwight Howard or Amare Stoudemire back in those times. They could have just as easily did what Wilt did.

I had this argument with someone a while back. Dumbest fucking argument ever.

Athleticism (height, weight, speed, strength) is one of the biggest factors when determining a player's quality. You cannot take away someone's athleticism just because they were ahead of the curve at the time. LeBron James is one of the fastest 6 foot 8 people you will ever see. He's ahead of the curve. Let's take away his athleticism just because he's more physically gifted than the rest of the NBA and see what player we have.

While we're at it, let's take Babe Ruth out of the "best baseball player of all time" list, and put Carlos Delgado ahead of Ruth. I mean, Ruth was beating up on white pitchers who didn't throw any junk pitches and couldn't hit 90 mph. Delgado hit over 300 homeruns vs. pitchers who could throw upwards to 100 mph and so much junk mixed in. Same exact argument, but it's amazing how stupid the argument sounds, doesn't it?

Wilt Chamberlain was ahead of the game -- that's not a penalty. Of course LeBron, Shaq or Dwight Howard could dominate back in the 1950's, but you're forgetting that they didn't exist in the 1950's. Shaq and Dwight Howard's body composition was built over time through evolution and the help of things such as personal trainers, fitness discoveries, health discoveries, basketball gaming strategy, etc. If you were physically more dominant than 99.99% of people in the world at the time, you are an athletic specimen.

Wilt is easily the second best player in the history of the NBA. Anyone who disagrees should just live in the modern era and not even pay attention to history.

Oh btw, Larry Bird wouldn't be nearly as good if he played now. Players today > historical players

 

[Len B]

You can't put them on the court at the same time. It's history and it's evolution. That's the point of how stupid the argument is to say that Shaq would beast on people from the 1950's. It would never happen because Shaq wouldn't exist in the 1950's.

It'd be like taking a modern day soldier and having him fight against General Patton. Are you going to say that the modern day soldier is better than Patton because he could kick his ass?

 

[Len B]

From TIME article:

Q: Why are people taller today than yesterday?

A: There are two main reasons. One is that the diet has improved considerably. In spite of some very negative aspects of the diet of industrialized populations, we have much better vitamin, mineral and protein intake than 100 or 200 years ago. As a consequence the body can grow much better.

In addition, our health has improved considerably along with medical technology. We have fewer endemic diseases, and fewer epidemic diseases. That is important because an incidence of disease usually means that the nutrients we do consume are not absorbed by the body sufficiently. Diseases lay a claim on our energy intake, so that there is not enough left over for the body to grow. These two factors play a considerable role.

We have been increasing in height for about 140 years. Prior to that, there were cycles in height, depending on economic circumstances and agricultural productivity and so forth. We were relatively tall in the Middle Ages, when population densities were relatively low and food supplies were still fairly adequate. The low point was in the 17th century. Frenchmen, for example, were about 162 cm on average [not quite 5 ft. 4 in.], which is extremely small. Only since about the middle of the 19th century has there been a general trend upwards.

 

[Len B]

So a player is less dominant now because they have more knowledge of the game, more strength, and are more fit?

Makes no sense.

Ranking players throughout history is about where they stand in their time of place. It's the reason why guys like Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth are considered elite in baseball. They obviously cannot hold a candle to modern day baseball, but that doesn't mean they were less dominant.

Michael Jordan will never be topped, because he single handedly prevented countless big men from winning championships. Even if LeBron James wins seven titles, it won't hold a candle as long as his greatest competition is Dwight Howard and Dwayne Wade, etc.

Michael Jordan winning six titles vs. Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, Malone, Barkley etc. >>>> LeBron winning seven titles and having better stats vs. Dwight Howard, Dwayne Wade

LeBron as a whole is more dominant than MJ, but that doesn't mean he's a better player.

If you want to rank by who is more dominant, than almost every modern day player will be ahead of any historical player, because as a whole the game is more athletic and challenging nowadays.

What you guys are trying to say is that a guy with 20+ years of medial/diet/fitness advancements on his side should be able to beat up guys who eat meat, bread, and water. No shit? There's a reason every world record in the Olympics gets tumbled as time goes on.