There's no doubt if you include Harden's legacy (MVPs, scoring titles etc...) that at his best he was a superstar.harden
Last edited:
NBA 2021-2022
- Thread starter elmo
- Start date
If the tiering you want @charlton66 is purely about legacies or potential all-time ranking of currently active players (who are still starter quality), it would be
Tier 1 (all-time top 20) : Lebron, Steph, KD, Giannis
Tier 2 (all-time next 30) : Kawhi, Chris Paul, Jokic (unlikely he breaks top 20), Doncic(will get there without injuries, and has potential to get to top-20)
Tier 3 (51-100) : Harden, Dame, AD, Embiid, Butler, Tatum, Kyrie
Tier 4 (101-200) : Klay, Draymond, Westbrook, Gobert, Lowry, PG, Morant, Trae, Booker (last 3 have potential to go higher though not tier-1 potential)
Tier 1 (all-time top 20) : Lebron, Steph, KD, Giannis
Tier 2 (all-time next 30) : Kawhi, Chris Paul, Jokic (unlikely he breaks top 20), Doncic(will get there without injuries, and has potential to get to top-20)
Tier 3 (51-100) : Harden, Dame, AD, Embiid, Butler, Tatum, Kyrie
Tier 4 (101-200) : Klay, Draymond, Westbrook, Gobert, Lowry, PG, Morant, Trae, Booker (last 3 have potential to go higher though not tier-1 potential)
That's a lot more like I was trying to do. In simple terms from today's players, who would you say was an all time great, who would you say was a superstar and who was a star.
he is and always was a fraud. Killing it in the circus part of the season but then doing feck all when it actually matters.
This is a fair list, IMO. However, I'd have Tatum still in the 'Star' tier for the moment. Kawhi and Harden could potentially go to the all-time great tier in the future (although I'd say it is unlikely, especially for Harden considering how he looked).
If you use this criteria (rather than the current Top 20 players) then Westbrook is included and should be ahead of many of the nominations given for current legacy (e.g., Dame, Butler, Tatum, Embiid) and obviously a wait-and-see for future legacies (but I expect Luka to surpass him....Tatum also a possible candidate).
I see but then your list is even stranger because you put the likes of Booker, Mitchell or Young ahead of the likes of Middleton, Irving or Westbrook when they all achieved far more.
@charlton66
In hindsight, if you were in charge of the Warriors would you still pick Wiseman over Ball, taking into account the Kuminga pick? Assuming that Wiseman was fit.
In hindsight, if you were in charge of the Warriors would you still pick Wiseman over Ball, taking into account the Kuminga pick? Assuming that Wiseman was fit.
That's probably why I shouldn't have picked 20 since the number of all time greats, stars and superstars is what it is. I picked 20 because it seemed a decent cutoff point but I definitely missed a few. I deliberately left Westbrook off my list because to be honest based on where he stands today I couldn't figure out which category to put him in.
Bloody hell imagine LaMelo running the point with this team
that's an injustice GSW did too all basketball fans.Harden, Westbrook and Carmelo Anthony should go into same historically shit tier. Happy their careers are ending the waý they are.
If Wiseman was fit and turns out to be the player the Dubs expect him to be, he is still the player the Dubs need - a big man who can rim protect and rebound. As to Ball, he is a good player but a bit of a hot dog. I'm not sure how well he would fit into the Warriors all for one "strength in numbers" culture.
He seems to be a team player, did I miss something?
Bloody hell imagine LaMelo running the point with this team
He seems perfect. A distributor, that is long, skilled, can shoot and hold his own defensively.
I suppose it comes down to "do the Dubs need another distributor or a rebounder and rim protector?" Since they have been leading the league (or close) the last few years in assists and have often struggled on the boards, I would still prioritize getting in a good big man over another passer. As to LaMelo himself, maybe I'm letting his father's horrible presence influence me on his fit with the team.
You see, that's how this point topic crossed my mind. The Wolves need rebounding but their bigs are prolific rebounders, the issue is with the guard who are subpar rebounders. Since I'm always looking at thing from a Wolves perspective, it kind of dawned on me, that your issues is with your starting guards/wings who are not good rebounders partially because they lack size and some of your key players are "badly" lacking in offense or defense. Enters Lamelo Ball, he gives all you need from the wing/guard position, as a package he is a better rebounder, distributor and shooter than Wiggins or Poole.
And it's not say that Poole, Wiggins and Thompson aren't good players but that in hindsight you had the opportunity to have the perfect backcourt/wing, especially with the way you play.
Regarding LaMelo, my understanding is that people misjudged both him and Edwards, from what I understand they are both team oriented, hard working and nice kids.
For discussions sake, let's presume I don't have a problem with the ball patriarch, the issue then becomes "need." Even if LaMelo was the perfect fit, you still have Wiggins, Thompson and Poole under contract and they can all do things which the Dubs value even if for discussions sake we say that LaMelo can do them better. With LaMelo, they still lack an interior presence and would have duplication of effort in multiple areas. If Wiseman can be the player the Dubs expected him to be (big if maybe) I still think he was the right choice.
That's fair but I don't think that you draft for need when you are in the lottery and I also think that Lamelo Ball fits a need while also being the superior talent. And then there is this interrogation, is the n°2 pick where you draft someone for rebounding and rim protection? I don't know if even Gobert would justify it, I'm under the impression that at the top of the draft only score driving bigs justify a selection over the best wings/guards particularly when we are talking about relatively large 1s-3s.
Interestingly our conversation is exemplified by the 2018 draft where many teams at the top of the draft seemingly drafted for needs and picked more bigs than usual, almost all of them proved to be the wrong pick even for good players.
I think the Dubs had/have visions of Wiseman becoming more of an offensive force eventually. I think rim protection and rebounding were just the basic minimums they expected of him.
Funnily enough, I think somebody they were hoping he mind end up being similar to is Karl Anthony Towns.
Last edited:
Talking about lists well Nick wrong has been doing this recently . Kawhi being 32 felt so wrong to me
Why does everyone put Bill Walton on these lists? Bizarre.
Doncic way too high, Iverson should be higher.
@JPRouve warriors didn’t think they were a lottery team when drafting Wiseman so draft the best talent available didn’t really apply and they could draft for need.
Lamelo over Wiseman in isolation.
Drafting Lamelo would have taken minutes from Poole, who likely will never be as good but will almost certainly develop to be good enough as 3rd option for a championship team, so the nuanced answer is not so simple.
Ant would have been perfect.
Ant, old man Steph, Poole, Wiggins, Kuminga would be a championship contender once Klay and Draymond roll off
Lamelo over Wiseman in isolation.
Drafting Lamelo would have taken minutes from Poole, who likely will never be as good but will almost certainly develop to be good enough as 3rd option for a championship team, so the nuanced answer is not so simple.
Ant would have been perfect.
Ant, old man Steph, Poole, Wiggins, Kuminga would be a championship contender once Klay and Draymond roll off
At least he's got one thing right. He's got Steph rated higher than KD.
I would say that the Hall of Fame consideration / induction is a good benchmark for stars / superstars and one borderline name at this moment in time is Rondo. As for the current finalists, would Draymond, Brown, Horford get in the conversation, in case they pull a monster rabbit out of the current 2-2 Finals series and propel their team to the ring? I am seeing Klay and Tatum (barring a catastrophe) already in the future HoF discourse. Curry is clearly one notch above them all as a superstar and his Game 4 monster performance just adds to his wide and long legacy.
Draymond is a guaranteed HoF inclusion.
Probably an unpopular one with fans but it’s what it is.
Probably an unpopular one with fans but it’s what it is.
I agree, rare to see a player make it with his stats though. Of course we don’t have defensive stats for the old days to compare that side, but there’s pretty much no one in the hall just on defense.
Bruce Bowen might deserve consideration on those grounds, and for being the prototype 3 & D player that is so crucial to the modern game.
Rodman not only made into the HOF but was also one of the top 75 all time and it was purely on defense.
Draymond actually has a higher ppg average than Dennis Rodman.
Last edited:
Can you name another besides Rodman? Here’s the only one who came to mind for me. Plus his rebounding rating was consistently miles above anyone else’s, he’s pound for pound the greatest rebounder ever, and deserves inclusion just based on that.
Ben Wallace is a good shout, I thought if him after the post. Certainly The Glove got in on defense at least in large part.
I still think it's rare.
Mutombo?
Also, defensive impact is harder to quantity, beyond basics like rebounds and steals and blocks. It's possible that there others who have gone under the radar historically because their defensive importance on the court didn't translate in basic box score stats.
Absolutely
The case against HoF Draymond is many fans (and me) can not see his “originality” or indisputable mark very clearly, apart of being the heart and the defensive staple of the very successful, prime Dubs cycle… which may well be enough, mind… yet not as clear cut as other defense-first names you rightfully added to support his case.
I named Rondo as the borderline, defense-first case because many fans are disputing his possible HoF inclusion as well, in spite of his two rings (one early in his career, another late), his stats as a defensive IQ genius, his contribution as a maverick PG and passes, and his characteristic playoff-Rondo transformation at crunch time.
Do you really have Draymond as a better case than 50/50-HoF-inclusion Rondo overall?
EDIT: just reading basketball reference, having both at 60% probability… n18 and n19 among the active players…… and Klay behind them at n21 with 51%!?
I named Rondo as the borderline, defense-first case because many fans are disputing his possible HoF inclusion as well, in spite of his two rings (one early in his career, another late), his stats as a defensive IQ genius, his contribution as a maverick PG and passes, and his characteristic playoff-Rondo transformation at crunch time.
Do you really have Draymond as a better case than 50/50-HoF-inclusion Rondo overall?
EDIT: just reading basketball reference, having both at 60% probability… n18 and n19 among the active players…… and Klay behind them at n21 with 51%!?
Last edited:
I agree completely. Mutumbo was an underrated scorer, but that’s another great shout. Also a tremendous ambassador for the game.
The greatest of them all, Bill Russell, was better at defense than anything else.
One that most people probably won't remember - Wes Unseld. Also made top 75.
I know the name but I don’t think I’ve ever see him play, or George Mikan.
His son coaches the Wizards - Wes Unseld Jr.
The sheer contrast between that and the regular attention whore having another twitter meltdown.