• Have something to say? Register Now! and be posting in minutes!

SportsHoopla's top 10 NBA players

knowyourenemy

Well-Known Member
5,985
1,348
173
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Hoopla Cash
$ 200.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
post your top 10 greatest nba players of all time. some criteria to consider, in no particular order:

  • accolades and championships
  • pure basketball skills
  • statistics
  • iconic moments, games, series, playoff runs
  • intangibles (basketball iq, toughness, clutch play)

10 points will be awarded to your #1 player, 9 points to your #2 player, descending all the way down to 1 point to your #10 player. if a player happens to be absent from someone's list, that player will receive 0 points from said list and it will count towards their average

after everybody's list is submitted, i will rank all the players by their average score and we will determine the SportsHoopla's top 10. this will only work with serious lists so anything deemed trolling will be ignored.


@bksballer89 @Mecca @Shanemansj13 @UK Cowboy @trojanfan12 @tlance @DJ @LAD @Heatles84 @TurnUpTheHeat @Vyle203 @mick7-1961 @knowyourenemy @Hambombs @Nosferatu @TheRobotDevil @WiggyRuss @gordontrue @Shaqdaddy11 @LALakersboy24.7

and anyone else that wants to participate.

Entries will stop on Tuesday night at 12 am, have your entries in before that, I'll calculate the scores that night and Wednesday afternoon I'll post the SportsHoopla sports top 10 NBA players.

We should do this again some time but with current NBA players.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Here are 7.


The Black Mamba is a way cooler nickname than The King or The Chosen One.

Kobe chooses to be bald.

Kobe has the hotter wife.

Kobe lives in Newport Beach, Lebron lives in Akron.

The GOAT himself says so.

Airplane glide celebration is way cooler than the Herman Munster walk celebration.

Kobe's "Death Stare" is way more intimidating than Lebron's whiney face or I just bit into an aspirin face.

What'd I win?
My admiration for your wit!!!! :first:
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
The Warriors are an interesting case study. I agree with you on Curry and KD, but I also think they poke a lot of holes in the "more rings = better player" argument. If Curry finishes his career with 6 rings and LeBron has 3, I think many people will rate him higher. But that is so clearly wrong.

My hope is that the possible Warrior dynasty forces people to reconsider their views on the importance of ring count. KD has the talent to finish pretty high on the all time list. Curry is great, but I don't think I can ever put him top 10 no matter how many rings he gets.
Interesting...but he's already topped a list that none of the other players listed have- best shooter this league has ever seen. And he's not even close to the end of his career (barring injury of course). What I think is even more interesting is this proclamation is coming from other players who are also on that list.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Durant is really interesting. We'll have to see where everything ends up but he has a lot of great basketball ahead of him. The only downside is that playing on the Warriors will probably limit his regular season numbers a bit -- but probably not significantly so. I think if the Warriors win again next year, especially if they beat LeBron in the process, you'll already hear people talking about Durant over LeBron.
I think the other side of that coin is that his ability to stay at the top of league in terms of stats ranking DESPITE playing with Steph & Klay speaks volumes. Having mastered the art of sharing the load equally makes for remarkable basketball.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
That is crazy.

So LeBron loses a series in which he will be a heavy underdog amidst a ton of drama and he moves down?

Finals record doesn't matter people. Look at the context. Losing to the Warriors should not hurt anyone's legacy.
I don't think the emphasis of losing should be placed on the opponent, but rather on losing in general. IMO losing is losing no matter if it was expected or not.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Consider the first 3 finals teams Kobe faced (Pacers, Sixers, and Nets)
Any of Lebrons finals team post 2010 would go 3-0 too.

Now let's compare all their finals opponents

Kobe: Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Pistons, Celtics, Magic, Celtics

Lebron: Spurs, Magic, Thunder, Spurs, Spurs, Warriors, Warriors, Warriors

Lebron has faced 6 great teams in the finals. Kobe has faced 3. None of those teams Kobe faced are better than an of the Warrior teams. I'd argue those Spurs team are better than the Pistons and Celtics. That 2012 Thunder team was young but more talented than any of the team Kobe faced too.

The finals record is the most overrated and overused argument to justify (insert player) is better than Lebron. If Lebron gets eliminated in the first round or in the east finals in 2007, 2011, 2014, and 2015...now all of a sudden he's 3-1 in the finals

How does that make his resume better? Not advancing as far in the playoffs but having a cleaner finals record.
In regard to Finals opponents: IMO there some important factors you failed to mention in regards to the teams Kobe/LBJ had to play in the Finals. Kobe had to play the original Big 3 TWICE with only himself and Gasol. That was a pretty lopsided scale and he actually won one. When LBJ faced the Big 3 and lost he teamed up with Bosh/Wade to create his own Big 3. Since doing so he's manage to be 1/3 of a Big 3 - I would argue not by coincidence.

In regards to Finals regards being overrated I think there's a couple of points that were left out here.

I think most people rate Finals losses higher/lower (depending on how you see this) because that is the Final stage before reaching the ultimate goal.

With that being said, 16 teams make the playoffs every season, but only 2 make the Finals. Those are very different odds. I haven't done the math but I'm willing to bet there are plenty of teams who have made the playoffs pretty consistently but don't have a Finals appearance - and those that have made the Finals haven't done it as consistently as they've made the playoffs.
 

flyerhawk

Well-Known Member
96,062
32,804
1,033
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Location
Hoboken
Hoopla Cash
$ 500.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
In regard to Finals opponents: IMO there some important factors you failed to mention in regards to the teams Kobe/LBJ had to play in the Finals. Kobe had to play the original Big 3 TWICE with only himself and Gasol. That was a pretty lopsided scale and he actually won one. When LBJ faced the Big 3 and lost he teamed up with Bosh/Wade to create his own Big 3. Since doing so he's manage to be 1/3 of a Big 3 - I would argue not by coincidence.

Who did Lebron have on his team when he faced the Big 3 prior to going to Miami?

In regards to Finals regards being overrated I think there's a couple of points that were left out here.

I think most people rate Finals losses higher/lower (depending on how you see this) because that is the Final stage before reaching the ultimate goal.

People remember finals losses more because they are more memorable. Losing in the finals is still a better achievement than winning 34 games in a season.


With that being said, 16 teams make the playoffs every season, but only 2 make the Finals. Those are very different odds. I haven't done the math but I'm willing to bet there are plenty of teams who have made the playoffs pretty consistently but don't have a Finals appearance - and those that have made the Finals haven't done it as consistently as they've made the playoffs.

That's a lot of words to not say anything.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Who did Lebron have on his team when he faced the Big 3 prior to going to Miami?



People remember finals losses more because they are more memorable. Losing in the finals is still a better achievement than winning 34 games in a season.




That's a lot of words to not say anything.
So now you want to blame his team mates for him losing in the Finals? Didn't he play in those games? Exactly NOBODY is going to ask "who were his team mates" when they are looking at his w/l stats. So miss me with that lame argument.

Second, of course Finals are more memorable. What are you saying here that has a different meaning than what I already said? Nothing. Talk about using a lot of words to say nothing.....

And finally just because you didn't understand the comparison doesn't mean I wasn't saying anything.
 

tlance

Kyrie Hater
40,289
20,698
1,033
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
Virginia
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,700.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Interesting...but he's already topped a list that none of the other players listed have- best shooter this league has ever seen. And he's not even close to the end of his career (barring injury of course). What I think is even more interesting is this proclamation is coming from other players who are also on that list.

I should not close the door on him, but I am quite certain that Kawhi Leonard is a better basketball player. I am equally certain that Curry will have a much better resume and therefor rate higher on all time lists because of all the winning. It is a flaw in the all time great debates, IMO. If Curry and Kawhi switched teams, I bet SA would not be a threat to GS.
 

tlance

Kyrie Hater
40,289
20,698
1,033
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
Virginia
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,700.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I don't think the emphasis of losing should be placed on the opponent, but rather on losing in general. IMO losing is losing no matter if it was expected or not.

It does matter though.

Losing to an all time great team is not the same as losing to the 2011 Mavericks or whatever year Kobe lost to the Pistons.

Personally, I am much more impressed by a win against a superior team (Cleveland in '16) than I am swayed by a loss to a great one.

Aside from those Mavericks and possibly the '12 Thunder, every team LeBron faced was at least as good if not better than those Celtic groups that were Kobe's toughest opponents.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I should not close the door on him, but I am quite certain that Kawhi Leonard is a better basketball player. I am equally certain that Curry will have a much better resume and therefor rate higher on all time lists because of all the winning. It is a flaw in the all time great debates, IMO. If Curry and Kawhi switched teams, I bet SA would not be a threat to GS.
I'm not sure I can agree with either of your assumptions. Here's why:

Steph is a PG. His job is to make others around him better. I think he's done an exceptional job with balancing that responsibility & being aggressive when needed. As some have pointed out, he's much more than just a great shooter. Do you think Kawhi's stock would rise if he had Steph on his team?

Curry is a HUGE asset to ANY team, as is Kawhi. But, they have different roles on their respective teams. As constructed today, of course GS would still have the advantage over SA if they switched teams. But that'd be the case no matter which player you insert onto the Warriors. They're not a team with just 1 or even 2 great players. They're a compilation of great players. When I say great I mean they're great in their specific roles on that team. It doesn't mean they can go somewhere else and lead, or that they're MVP material. It means they're a great piece that completes the puzzle.

And honestly, we don't know how that series would've ended had Kawhi been healthy. I can say I don't think it would've been a sweep in either direction, but I have confidence GS would've prevailed. I think as the series progressed GS would've eventually taken control. They were too deep not to, especially when SA only had Kawhi & LA as their #1 & #2. Also, what we saw in game 1 of that series we saw earlier in the season between these two teams. Kawhi was healthy AND GS won that game. Which is why many people were scratching their heads when some automatically thought SA would've won that series solely based on the first 3 quarters.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
It does matter though.

Losing to an all time great team is not the same as losing to the 2011 Mavericks or whatever year Kobe lost to the Pistons.

Personally, I am much more impressed by a win against a superior team (Cleveland in '16) than I am swayed by a loss to a great one.

Aside from those Mavericks and possibly the '12 Thunder, every team LeBron faced was at least as good if not better than those Celtic groups that were Kobe's toughest opponents.
Ok, so it matters to fans for cosmetic reasons. And I can agree that it might mean something to some players when we think about rivalry aspects. But in the history books there is no meaning. It's either you won or you lost.
 

tlance

Kyrie Hater
40,289
20,698
1,033
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
Virginia
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,700.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Ok, so it matters to fans for cosmetic reasons. And I can agree that it might mean something to some players when we think about rivalry aspects. But in the history books there is no meaning. It's either you won or you lost.

True.

But the topic we are discussing is the impact of those losses on a player in the all time great discussion. That is where opponent matters.
 

tlance

Kyrie Hater
40,289
20,698
1,033
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
Virginia
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,700.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I'm not sure I can agree with either of your assumptions. Here's why:

Steph is a PG. His job is to make others around him better. I think he's done an exceptional job with balancing that responsibility & being aggressive when needed. As some have pointed out, he's much more than just a great shooter. Do you think Kawhi's stock would rise if he had Steph on his team?

Curry is a HUGE asset to ANY team, as is Kawhi. But, they have different roles on their respective teams. As constructed today, of course GS would still have the advantage over SA if they switched teams. But that'd be the case no matter which player you insert onto the Warriors. They're not a team with just 1 or even 2 great players. They're a compilation of great players. When I say great I mean they're great in their specific roles on that team. It doesn't mean they can go somewhere else and lead, or that they're MVP material. It means they're a great piece that completes the puzzle.

And honestly, we don't know how that series would've ended had Kawhi been healthy. I can say I don't think it would've been a sweep in either direction, but I have confidence GS would've prevailed. I think as the series progressed GS would've eventually taken control. They were too deep not to, especially when SA only had Kawhi & LA as their #1 & #2. Also, what we saw in game 1 of that series we saw earlier in the season between these two teams. Kawhi was healthy AND GS won that game. Which is why many people were scratching their heads when some automatically thought SA would've won that series solely based on the first 3 quarters.

Look. I am driving the train for Curry being a great player. He is the most skilled offensive player of all time IMO. Still though, his overall impact doesn't compare to a player like Kawhi who is a really good offensive player and an elite defender.

Of course they have different roles and responsibilities. I think 95% of people on here would still say Kawhi is the better overall player. Curry is in the middle of his prime years and Kawhi hasn't hit his yet.

Yet, despite all that, I will bet anything that Curry will rank higher on all time great lists when their careers are over because of the titles he has and the future titles he will get. That is my whole point. Team accomplishments count for more than they should. They matter, but they aren't the end all be all in rating individuals. Or at least they shouldn't be.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
True.

But the topic we are discussing is the impact of those losses on a player in the all time great discussion. That is where opponent matters.
I still disagree...because I have yet to hear someone say they gave a player a specific rating based on losses because of the team said player lost to.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Look. I am driving the train for Curry being a great player. He is the most skilled offensive player of all time IMO. Still though, his overall impact doesn't compare to a player like Kawhi who is a really good offensive player and an elite defender.

Of course they have different roles and responsibilities. I think 95% of people on here would still say Kawhi is the better overall player. Curry is in the middle of his prime years and Kawhi hasn't hit his yet.

Yet, despite all that, I will bet anything that Curry will rank higher on all time great lists when their careers are over because of the titles he has and the future titles he will get. That is my whole point. Team accomplishments count for more than they should. They matter, but they aren't the end all be all in rating individuals. Or at least they shouldn't be.
I think we're saying some of the same things. But, I think that team accomplishments should count for more than you'd like when we're talking about a TEAM sport. What you're saying here sounds a bit contradicting to me because without the team there wouldn't be any other stats to measure.
 

tlance

Kyrie Hater
40,289
20,698
1,033
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
Virginia
Hoopla Cash
$ 11,700.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
I think we're saying some of the same things. But, I think that team accomplishments should count for more than you'd like when we're talking about a TEAM sport. What you're saying here sounds a bit contradicting to me because without the team there wouldn't be any other stats to measure.

Not contradictory at all.

For example. Just about everybody (including me) has Magic ranked ahead of Bird. Was he really better? Or did he simply win more titles because he was on a better team?

History tends to remember the guy who won most. But, if the other player doesn't have the same caliber teammates, is it really fair to decide it that way? There are many factors outside of individuals' control that decide winning and losing. LeBron vs. the Warriors is just another example. He was the best player on the court the last 3 years. But the Warriors were clearly the better team.

That should not take away from LeBron's legacy whatsoever. Especially considering that a loss prior to the Finals against a team far weaker than Golden State wouldn't diminish his legacy one bit.
 

LAD

GSAD - formally known as LAD
11,583
2,283
173
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Location
Cali
Hoopla Cash
$ 1,000.00
Fav. Team #1
Fav. Team #2
Fav. Team #3
Not contradictory at all.

For example. Just about everybody (including me) has Magic ranked ahead of Bird. Was he really better? Or did he simply win more titles because he was on a better team?

History tends to remember the guy who won most. But, if the other player doesn't have the same caliber teammates, is it really fair to decide it that way? There are many factors outside of individuals' control that decide winning and losing. LeBron vs. the Warriors is just another example. He was the best player on the court the last 3 years. But the Warriors were clearly the better team.

That should not take away from LeBron's legacy whatsoever. Especially considering that a loss prior to the Finals against a team far weaker than Golden State wouldn't diminish his legacy one bit.
I hear ya, but just disagree.
 
Top