PDA

View Full Version : Duncan the G.O.A.T at PF, bigger gap than any position?



Slick Pinkham
06-11-2007, 09:23 AM
Lots of discussions about this last night.

I would say Jordan and Duncan are the most dominant at their positions

greatest of all time:

PG: Magic, close 2nd: Oscar
SG: Jordan, distant second: Kobe, West
SF: Bird, close 2nd: Dr. J
PF: Duncan, distant second: Malone, McHale, and Barkley
C: pretty much a tossup, with Wilt and Russell, then Kareem, Moses Malone, Shaq, and Hakeem following very close behind


In today's game 6'9" Bill Russell would be a PF, and better than Duncan. He once had 30 points and 40 rebounds in an NBA finals close-out game.

Trader Joe
06-11-2007, 09:30 AM
I'd take the Big O over Magic otherwise I'd probably agree with that lineup.

King Tuts Tomb
06-11-2007, 12:26 PM
Russell wouldn't be a better PF than Duncan. Those rebound numbers are inflated by the era he played in. And let's not forget that TD put up that ridiculous 21-20-10-8 in the 2003 Finals close-out game.

Duncan is the best ever at his position and really belongs in the conversation as one of the best players ever, regardless of position.

If you're building a top ten it's basically, give or take a player or two (in no particular order):

-MJ
-Magic
-Larry
-Russell
-Wilt
-Kareem
-Big O
-Dr. J
-and...Shaq and Duncan, right?

DisplacedKnick
06-11-2007, 12:33 PM
I haven't figured out how to judge this.

Duncan's the perfect example.

If he retired today (or after this series anyway) I'd have to pick Malone based on longevity. But if TD goes another 4-5 years at roughly the same level, he's the easy pick for me.

PG's a tough one on the same basis - can I pick Jerry West? I think I would go with O over Magic though - same kind of play but for more seasons.

And I can't see leaving Pettit off the runners-up PF list. Not sure what to do with Mikan for centers either - in his day he was as dominant as anyone.

And at SF I think I have to pick Hondo over Bird. Elgin Baylor gets a mention too - I'd take him over Dr. J

RamBo_Lamar
06-11-2007, 12:39 PM
If discussing great PFs, lets not forget Elvin Hayes.

But I would have to agree Duncan is in a class of his own.

Talk about a smooth operator... He just seems to get so much done
using so little energy to do it. A smooooth operator if there ever was one.

J_2_Da_IzzO
06-11-2007, 12:39 PM
Iverson is the best PG in my eyes.

Evan_The_Dude
06-11-2007, 12:43 PM
That's because you're young school.

Trader Joe
06-11-2007, 12:51 PM
Iverson is the best PG in my eyes.

His fingers are a little too empty at this point in time.

Shade
06-11-2007, 01:41 PM
Iverson is the best PG in my eyes.

AI isn't even a true PG.

And I agree with those who are picking Oscar over Magic. But it's close.

Russell, as a PF, would be better than Duncan.

beast23
06-11-2007, 02:34 PM
AI isn't even a true PG.

And I agree with those who are picking Oscar over Magic. But it's close.

Russell, as a PF, would be better than Duncan.

True, and even if you classified AI as a PG, I wouldn't even pick him as the top PG in the game today, let alone of all time.

I'll also take Oscar over Magic.

The Russell - Duncan debate is a tough one. For me it comes down to the player's value at both ends of the floor. At center, with the expectation that shooting range is limited to the area near the basket, I would take Russell over Duncan. However, at PF, with the expectation that the shooting range goes out to 18 feet or more (at least in today's game), I would probably take Duncan over Russell.

I would probably have to go with Bird as my SF with Jordan as the SG.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 02:42 PM
1. russell was a center

2. If Tim Duncan is a better player than Karl Malone, it's a very thin gap.

travmil
06-11-2007, 03:10 PM
I'd take Magic over Oscar, but at the end of the day I guess they're really interchangeable. I'd give the VERY slight nod to Malone at PF over Duncan. To me, there are no arguments at SG and SF, it's Jordan and Bird all the way. As for the center, it's a close call between Russell and Wilt but I'm gonna have to take Wilt.

So my All NBA all time team is:

PG - Magic
SG - Jordan
SF - Bird
PF - Malone
C - Wilt

2nd team

PG - Oscar
SG - West
SF - Dr. J
PF - Duncan
C - Russell

3rd team

PG - Stockton
SG - Kobe
SF - Elgin Baylor (tough call over Pippen though)
PF - Barkley (also considered McHale here)
C - Kareem


Any time you put a list like this together you're gonna get some flak like how can you say x is better than y. Any of the three teams I put together above could easily be argued for GOAT. I can't resist topics like these :)

edc
06-11-2007, 03:14 PM
For me Kevin Mchale is the best Power Forward

Hicks
06-11-2007, 03:27 PM
Could McHale play defense? And was his offense really so much better than Tim's that you'd prefer him over Duncan if you had to choose one?

LG33
06-11-2007, 03:38 PM
2. If Tim Duncan is a better player than Karl Malone, it's a very thin gap.

I think Timmy does most of the work himself though, as opposed to getting great feeds, which I'll admit Parker and 'Nobli provide every now and again (but not at the rate of Johnny Stockton).

Since86
06-11-2007, 03:49 PM
Whenever the debate comes up about the G.O.A.T. for the entire NBA, I always throw Oscar's name out there. There are actual basketball fans that just don't understand how good this guy was. They know he averaged a triple double for an entire season, but for some reason it's like they think it was a fluke or something.

Just look at these season averages for his first four years in the league.
60-61
30.5 pts 10.1 rbs 9.7 asts
61-62
30.8 pts 12.5 rbs 11.4 asts
62-63
28.3 pts 10.4 rbs 9.5 asts
63-64
31.4 pts 9.9 rbs 11.0 asts

That's a 4yr average of 30.25 pts 10.73 rbs and 10.4 asts. I would match those numbers against any player during their prime and I would bet that Oscar's numbers beat them in two categories.

He was selected to the All-NBA 1st team during his first 9 seasons as a pro.
He is the only guard to ever average 10rbs for a season and he did it three times.
He is one of two players to ever lead the NBA in pts and asts for an entire season.

DisplacedKnick
06-11-2007, 03:56 PM
Whenever the debate comes up about the G.O.A.T. for the entire NBA, I always throw Oscar's name out there. There are actual basketball fans that just don't understand how good this guy was. They know he averaged a triple double for an entire season, but for some reason it's like they think it was a fluke or something.



There are 4 players I automatically list on my best player in the history of the league list:

Wilt
Russell
Jordan
Oscar

Whenever I get in a discussion of choosing my all-time all-NBA 1st team (no positional requirements) I get to those 4. Number 5 - I can come up with 10 different players like Kareem, Magic, Malone, Pettit, Havlicek, West, blah, blah, blah - who I pick will depend on my mood that day.

But I have my top 4 - and I can't pick a top one out of them.

JayRedd
06-11-2007, 03:58 PM
I have Timmy over Karl/Barkley/McHale by quite a bit. Not close at all in my mind. Aside from piles of numbers, there just aren't many memories I have of thinking Mailman was gonna rip your heart out and just not let his team lose. We would have beaten them in the '98 Finals had we gotten a few more rebounds. I will believe this forever.

And I'd hafta say Jordan and Bird are unarguably the best at their positions, too. Never saw Hondo or Baylor except on Classic, and I know both are severly underrated in the mainstream discussion, but I just can't see anyone bringing enough to the table to make up for Bird's amazing passing, rebounding, range and, most of all, killer instinct. That guy was Haley's comet, only I doubt we see that combination again in even 94 years.

JayRedd
06-11-2007, 03:59 PM
He is one of two players to ever lead the NBA in pts and asts for an entire season.

The other being, just as impressively, Stilt.

Robertmto
06-11-2007, 04:12 PM
Best Ever (that I was fortunate enough to see play)

PG - Stockton
SG- Jordan
SF - Bird
PF - Timmy D
C - Shaq

ajbry
06-11-2007, 04:13 PM
Since this has essentially turned into an All-Time team thread, I'll name mine:

C: Wilt
PF: Duncan
SF: Bird
SG: Jordan
PG: Oscar

I'd say Larry has a real healthy lead on Dr. J, so both him and Timmy are the easiest to choose at their respective positions.

Shade
06-11-2007, 04:23 PM
Since this has essentially turned into an All-Time team thread, I'll name mine:

C: Wilt
PF: Duncan
SF: Bird
SG: Jordan
PG: Oscar

I'd say Larry has a real healthy lead on Dr. J, so both him and Timmy are the easiest to choose at their respective positions.

That would be mine, as well.

Naptown_Seth
06-11-2007, 04:24 PM
AI isn't even a true PG.

And I agree with those who are picking Oscar over Magic. But it's close.

Russell, as a PF, would be better than Duncan.
I like Magic's size/muscle that allowed him to play truly any style needed. He could go Barkley on you and then come back in his best Big O imitation. But Oscar was silky that's for sure.

AI - yikes, not even in the park, seriously. You put Cheeks on him and watch him go night-night.


I think Tim and Karl are pretty close. Parker isn't the PG that Stockton was, but Tim has had better options next to him to hold defenses off or for him to kick to IMO. Hornecek was solid, but I still like Manu overall there. Eaton will NEVER be confused for the Admiral. I mean you have guys like Horry and Finley just as spare parts with that team, they've been deep for years.

But defense probably gives Tim the advantage.

For a brief, fleeting moment I seriously think Kemp was better than them all, but he blew that and tanked out. Too bad, dude was fast and strong, a real beast. JO in his prime was still slower than Kemp in his. Spin, dunk, defender still looking for his shoes.


By the way, while Dr. J was amazing, I'd have Worthy in that mix at least. To me he and Magic WERE Showtime, as much as Pippen went with Jordan. Worthy is a bit overlooked I think. Pippen had the steals edge, but in blocks they were close which is something I think people don't realize. Pippen basically only had the 3 ball when the line was shorter, he has a slight edge in rebounding.

But Worthy was the more efficient scorer by a decent margin. Pippen was over 50% twice, Wothy was at or over 55% 6 times by comparison. Dr. J over both of them certainly, just getting his name into the mix.


Where is Kevin Garnett in all of this? I realize he doens't have the playoff wins, but come on. He has huge numbers that he clearly earns with a great combo of speed and size. His basketball database similarity score most closely matches the previously mentioned Dr. J in fact. I can't honestly say that I think if you swapped KG and Duncan that the Spurs would be worse off.

avoidingtheclowns
06-11-2007, 04:44 PM
C: Wilt
PF: Duncan
SF: Bird
SG: blue edwards
PG: Oscar



mine too, with a slight change

Kstat
06-11-2007, 04:58 PM
Again, I'd say Bird is the best SF ever, but in no way is he heads and shoulders above Dr. J.

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:01 PM
Where is Kevin Garnett in all of this? I realize he doens't have the playoff wins, but come on. He has huge numbers that he clearly earns with a great combo of speed and size. His basketball database similarity score most closely matches the previously mentioned Dr. J in fact. I can't honestly say that I think if you swapped KG and Duncan that the Spurs would be worse off.

KG is a natural SF.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:04 PM
KG is a natural SF.

Huh?

How many years did he play small forward, two?

He's a power forward. You can call him a natural small forward, but you can also call Tim Duncan a natural center, and Magic Johnson a natural power forward.

The player is ultimately judged by the position he plays, not where you think he should be played.

As for KG, he's easily one of the top 5 or 6 PFs ever. But he's not in top-3 discussion.

edc
06-11-2007, 05:07 PM
Could McHale play defense? And was his offense really so much better than Tim's that you'd prefer him over Duncan if you had to choose one?

Not solely the stats.

Its because in the 80s the defense were more physical. The refs seldom blew whistle. Unlike todays game.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:09 PM
defense was the reason it took McHale the better part of a decade just to crack the starting lineup...

he might be the greatest post-up scorer of all time at his position. But his defense and so-so passing ability drop him from GOAT consideration.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:11 PM
BTW, Duncan is a clear #1 and Malone is a clear #2, then Bob Pettit is the clear #3.

Pettit was the gold standard for power forwards in the NBA for the first 40 years. Had he played in Boston and not St. Louis, nobody would be forgetting him.

edc
06-11-2007, 05:26 PM
Im just thinking what if Duncan played in the 80s.

Hand checks were not fouls back then.

Thats why i chose Mchale.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:28 PM
If this was a question of which PF was a better post player, then yeah.

But there is a lot more to the position than just scoring in the post.

Naptown_Seth
06-11-2007, 05:28 PM
As for KG, he's easily one of the top 5 or 6 PFs ever. But he's not in top-3 discussion.
Well to me he is if McHale is. Kevin was crafty as all get out, great fundamentals, but his defense was nothing compared to KG.

BTW, if you want to see some greats like Bird and McHale totally melting down in a game, pull up game 5 1992 vs the Pacers and watch how it is the Pacers are able to almost salvage that win. Sometimes we forget that even the best of players have some pretty bad stretches.

IIRC Boston scored something like 2 points in the final 3-4 minutes and turned it over all over the place to a Pacers team that wasn't exactly all about defense.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:29 PM
As I stated above, McHale shouldn't in top-3 discussion either.

he and KG are probably top-6 or top-7, but they don't have that kind of best-ever status.

DisplacedKnick
06-11-2007, 05:44 PM
Again, I'd say Bird is the best SF ever, but in no way is he heads and shoulders above Dr. J.

I'd still argue for Havlicek - at least as good of a passer and better defender, not as good of a rebounder, plus a longer career with more rings. Of course Bird has the MVP's. I can see it the other way - I just don't agree with it.

Why is anyone talking about McHale? Couldn't defend or rebound - I'm not sure he'd make my top 10 PF's. He sure wouldn't beat out Elvin Hayes, Spencer Haywood, Dan Issel, KG - heck, I never saw him play but based on rep I doubt I'd pick McHale over Dolph Schayes.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:45 PM
again, leave it to me to bring up Jerry Lucas...

he's easily ahead of the half the guys you just listed.

the guy was dennis rodman with post moves.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:52 PM
ok, just to clear my stance up, here's my top 10:

1. Duncan
2. Malone
3. Pettit
4. Barkley
5. Lucas
6. Hayes
7. KG
8. Issel
9. McHale
10. Schayes

DisplacedKnick
06-11-2007, 05:59 PM
again, leave it to me to bring up Jerry Lucas...

he's easily ahead of the half the guys you just listed.

the guy was dennis rodman with post moves.

If you're talking to me, I didn't list everyone - I like Lucas. Heck, IMO Paul Silas gets serious consideration for a top 10. He wasn't a big time scorer but he could have gone for 18-20 if he'd been on a team that needed it - and one of the best defenders ever. And everyone would include Barkley.

sig
06-11-2007, 06:10 PM
Amazing how those guys in the 60's piled up stats. Those early 60's were amazing runs for Lucas.

Talk about flying under the radar. Buck Williams was a very solid PF over his career. 16k pooints and 13k rebounds.

DisplacedKnick
06-11-2007, 06:16 PM
Amazing how those guys in the 60's piled up stats. Those early 60's were amazing runs for Lucas.

Talk about flying under the radar. Buck Williams was a very solid PF over his career. 16k pooints and 13k rebounds.

PF gets interesting because of criteria. Frex, I wouldn't argue hard against someone putting Rodman in (top 10 - not top 5). IMO the top 2 things a PF should do are defend and rebound - and Rodman WAS defense and rebounding.

Well, and wedding dresses ...

Kstat
06-11-2007, 06:18 PM
I simply look at all-around game when I consider any position.

I try to balance a player's ability to to something GREAT, and his ability to be versatile.

Rodman was a top-4 player if you only consider rebounding and defense, but his ability to do anything offensively was so poor that I couldn't list him in the top-10.

King Tuts Tomb
06-11-2007, 06:26 PM
He is one of two players to ever lead the NBA in pts and asts for an entire season.

I could have sworn Tiny Archibald was the only player to lead the league in points and assists in the same season.

EDIT: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/11/22/gallery.alltimepointguards/content.4.html

Kstat
06-11-2007, 06:34 PM
I could have sworn Tiny Archibald was the only player to lead the league in points and assists in the same season.

EDIT: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/11/22/gallery.alltimepointguards/content.4.html

yeah, Oscar never led the NBA in scoring.

Since86
06-11-2007, 07:08 PM
In the '68-'69 season he had the highest point and assist average in the NBA, but total points and assists were used to determine the category leaders prior to the 1970.

If he was playing today, or had done it a season later, it would be universally recognized.

EDIT: Sorry, it was the '67-'68 season in which he did it.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 07:22 PM
In the '68-'69 season he had the highest point and assist average in the NBA, but total points and assists were used to determine the category leaders prior to the 1970.

If he was playing today, or had done it a season later, it would be universally recognized.

EDIT: Sorry, it was the '67-'68 season in which he did it.

I believe there is a 70 games played minimum to begin with to win a league scoring title.

So I don't believe it's recognized anyhow.

Y2J
06-11-2007, 08:08 PM
Duncan has benefited from a very weak NBA. Outside of the period where Shaq & Kobe kicked *** and took names, the NBA post-Jordan has been incredibly weak. This same Spurs team wouldn't have won a single ring in either the Magic/Bird or Jordan years - that's a 20 year span. I mean, look at their Finals opponents...

1999 Knicks (8th Seed)
2003 Nets
2005 Pistons
2007 Cavs


Give me a break.

Hicks
06-11-2007, 08:15 PM
You work with what you've got. If the Pacers won the '99, '03, and '05 titles I doubt anyone here would be complaining about the competition. They earned what they had as much as anyone.

Hell, even to get the '03 and '05 rings they had to beat the previous defending champs both times (with the same best players in tact).

Since86
06-11-2007, 08:16 PM
I believe there is a 70 games played minimum to begin with to win a league scoring title.

So I don't believe it's recognized anyhow.

I looked it up on his NBA.com profile page and he is recognized as leading the league in both that year.

He lead the league 8 times in assists and that was the only time he was the scoring champ.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/robertson_stats.html

King Tuts Tomb
06-11-2007, 08:35 PM
I can't believe how people are denigrating this Spurs team. Are they as loaded as some of the great championship teams? No, but the salary cap along with the increased intelligence of GMs makes it impossible to replicate those teams. But I look at the Spurs roster and I don't see a weakness.

Post scoring? Duncan
Outside shooting? Ginobli, Barry
Mid-range shooting? Finley, Horry, Ginobli
Dribble penetration? Parker, Ginobli

Post defense? Duncan, Oberto
Perimeter defense? Bowen, Ginobli
Transition defense? The whole team

Then all the intangibles...

Leadership? Duncan
Intelligence? Duncan, Horry
Maturity? Horry, Duncan, Vaughn

And an often underrated aspect: coaching.

Are these Spurs lacking in any of these categories? They're at least a B in all of them and in many get A's and even a couple A+ (low post scoring, low post defense, coaching, intelligence). The only weakness is athleticism, and that might be solved in the next couple years with White.

Y2J
06-11-2007, 09:01 PM
A championship is a championship. But still, it's foolish to pretend all champions are created equal. Duncan has been fortunate to have his prime in probably the weakest era of NBA basketball of the past 30 years, and as a result has won 3 (soon to be 4) titles. Those titles are the biggest reason people rank Duncan ahead of Malone. Switch the 80's-90's Jazz teams and these Spurs teams eras around, and I wonder what the title count for each would look like?

Roferr
06-11-2007, 09:09 PM
Can't Elgin Baylor get any love. Don't think I've even seen his name mentioned. It may have been but I just missed it.

With the NBA overlapping different eras, it's tough to rank players on an all time basis. Mikan, Pettit, Schayes were the very elite in their day but I don't think they rank that high overall except for Mikan.

Center wise, it has to be Russell and Wilt, interchangeable at 1 and 2, followed by Jabbar and Mikan.

I think I'd put Karl Malone as the #1 PF, followed by TD, KG, McHale and Barkley.

There was a period of time when forwards and guards weren't distinguished as PF,SF or SG and PG. So there has to be some overlap in the two positions. Elgin Baylor was only 6-5 but played forward. However, at what I call SF, I'd put Bird, Baylor, Dr. J, Barry and Pippen.

Shooting guard would be MJ, West, Drexler and Pistol Pete.

PG would be Magic, Big O, Stockton and Cousy.

Man, it's tough to rank the top players in each category. The above players could be interchanged with the likes of Worthy, Hayes, Moses, Olajuwon, Hondo, Clyde, D. Robinson, Hawkins, Kobe, AI, Shaq, etc. Just for the output of Walton's brief career, I would have to put him in the top 5 centers. There are so many variables, that the lists can be very subjective except for players like MJ, Magic, Bird and a few others.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 09:11 PM
I'll never consider Elgin Baylor a power forward for the same reason I'll never consider Jerry West a PG. He never played the freakin position.

Watch any Laker game from the 60's. Nothing Baylor did offensively was consistent with a power forward. He was a slasher in the lane and did most of his work on the perimeter.

And Pettit was the best power forward in NBA history for four decades. He better be high on the list.

sig
06-11-2007, 09:24 PM
I don't think it is denegrating to the Spurs to say they couldn't beat the Lakers, Celts of the 80's or the Bulls of the 90's. I wish the 88 Mavs could play in the playoffs these days.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 09:25 PM
that said, most of the 5-8 seeds in the NBA during the 80's wouldn't have even made the playoffs today.

It wasn't a better league, it was simply more top-heavy. People remember the final 4 or 8 teams to make the playoffs every year, but they don't realize that those were the only good teams in the entire league, which is why you almost ALWAYS saw the same 6 or 8 teams remaining in the playoffs every single year.

ChicagoJ
06-11-2007, 10:48 PM
Oscar is clearly the best guard of all time, IMO. (Edit: For that matter, I always say the all-time best player is a two-person race between Wilt and Oscar - nobody else is in thier league and really its just a matter of whether you give Oscar credit for being a creator or Wilt credit for owning the paint.)

If you want Magic to be your GOAT PG, you put Oscar at SG.

If you want Jordan to be your GOAT SG, you put Oscar at PG.

Oscar played in era where there was not a significant distinction between PG and SG, and SF and PF. But there was a huge difference between a G and F.

Regardless, Oscar is clearly in the only player in NBA history that could be the GOAT at two positions (based on current definitions of positions.)

BTW, Jerry West is probably the fourth best guard of all time, and you could put him at either G position as well.

King Tuts Tomb
06-11-2007, 11:54 PM
I'm not a huge fan of Bill Simmons but I think he puts Oscar's gaudy numbers nicely into perspective in this passage:

Q: Whoa, whoa, WHOA. You wrote of Oscar Robertson: "The triple-double in 1961 was a little overrated because all the offensive stats were completely skewed that season (it was like a steroids year in baseball)." You owe us an explanation. That stat -- along with all the praise from guys like Russell and Wilt -- has kept the Big "O" on a pedestal in my mind for years. If this stat isn't legit, everything changes for me. The world is no longer round.
--Greg I., Philly, Pa.

SG: Little-known fact: NBA stats are completely screwed up from 1959 to '67. Teams were running and gunning at a breathtaking pace. For instance, the 1960 Celtics scored 124.5 points per game and averaged nearly 120 shots a game, but since the shooters weren't as good back then (the Celts only shot 41 percent that year, which also led the league), they also averaged a whopping 80.2 rebounds per game. To put that in perspective, Phoenix led the league with 111.9 points and 85 shots per game, but they only averaged 44.1 rebounds per game because everyone can make a jumper now and it's not run-and-gun.
Take Oscar's first five years compared with Magic's first five years. From 1961 to 1965, Oscar averaged 30.3 points, 10.4 assists and 10.6 rebounds ... but he was the 17th-best rebounder in the league over that time (in an eight-team league) and the third-best rebounder on his own team (behind Wayne Embry and Jerry Lucas). Magic averaged 18.2 points, 10.3 assists and 8.0 rebounds ... he was the 36th-best rebounder in the league over that stretch (in a 23-team league) and the second-best on his own team (behind that ninny Kareem). Oscar's team averaged 69 rebounds a game 1961-65; Magic's team averaged 45 a game.
Not to infringe on Hollinger's territory here ... but if you prorated Magic's stats to the run-and-gun 1961-65 era, they would look something like this: 21 points, 12 assists and 12 rebounds per game. Even if you transported the 1987-90 Fat Lever (18.9 points, 8.9 rebounds, 7.5 assists, 19th-ranked rebounder), he would have matched all of Oscar's numbers except for the scoring. But if you brought Oscar to the modern era? His rebounding per game would have dropped into the 7-8 range and the "Who was the only NBA player to average a triple-double?" trivia question wouldn't exist. It's true.
(Random "comparing the players from different eras" comment: From 1979 to 1983, Moses Malone averaged 26.8 points and 15.4 rebounds a game. Transport him back to the '60s and he would have averaged something like 30 and 25 every night. To put this in perspective, Wilt Chamberlain averaged 41.7 points and 25.3 rebounds a game from 1960 to 1964, Bill Russell averaged 15.5 and 24.0, and Elgin Baylor averaged a 32-16. Yet, you never hear Moses mentioned in the "greatest centers ever" discussion. I find this interesting.)

BoomBaby31
06-12-2007, 04:07 AM
Magic+tied+Stockton
MJ/Kobe(I'm about to get hated on but it's true; sorry fellas"
Bird/R.Miller :)
Duncan/Malone
Mikan&Wilt (did so much for the game it's disrespectful not to put him here)/Shaq

Out of all of these players, I was thinking isn't sad the way Malone's career came to an end? There was no proper good bye, or anything. He was a dominate player for so many years, then to chase a ring, bicker with shaq,kobe and payton, hit bum knees then just never come back. Just sucks how it happened. He should of never left Utah, ruined his rep.

edc
06-12-2007, 08:23 AM
Why is anyone talking about McHale? Couldn't defend or rebound - I'm not sure he'd make my top 10 PF's. He sure wouldn't beat out Elvin Hayes, Spencer Haywood, Dan Issel, KG - heck, I never saw him play but based on rep I doubt I'd pick McHale over Dolph Schayes.

Charles Barkley said that Kevin Mchale was the best power forward he ever played against.(not even karl malone )

Tim Ducan and Kevin Garnett said in an interview they idolizes Kevin Mchale.

ChicagoJ
06-12-2007, 11:52 AM
Little-known fact: NBA stats are completely screwed up from 1959 to '67. Teams were running and gunning at a breathtaking pace.... - snip- But if you brought Oscar to the modern era? His rebounding per game would have dropped into the 7-8 range and the "Who was the only NBA player to average a triple-double?" trivia question wouldn't exist. It's true.


Uh... why is it Oscar's fault that today's NBA coaches are destroying the game with the snail-slow pace?

And why is it Oscar's fault he played with hard-nosed, legendary rebounders like Lucas and Embry - he might've averaged even more than ~10 rpg.

It doesn't matter what pace they play the game, Oscar would still be regarded as the best all-around guard to ever play the game, and he'd still be the best rebounding guard to ever play the game. (Jordan, for example, only averaged more than 6.5 rpg once in his career.)

Hicks
06-12-2007, 01:32 PM
Jay at first I felt the same as you, but are those guys really legendary rebounders if so many missed shots are up for grabs? Naturally any good rebounder should see his numbers shoot up in that environment.

Since86
06-12-2007, 01:57 PM
Jay at first I felt the same as you, but are those guys really legendary rebounders if so many missed shots are up for grabs? Naturally any good rebounder should see his numbers shoot up in that environment.

So we should start docking home runs from Larry Walker because he played in Denver for most of his career and the thinning air is easier to hit them?

You don't penalize someone for something they themselves can't control.

It's the one-on-one argument all over again, just dressed up differently. It's like saying that if Oscar played in today's NBA he wouldn't be nearly as good because of the athleticism even for the "average" player is way above those of the players in the '60s. Oscar can't control when he played, how the game was played as a whole, and so forth.

Kstat
06-12-2007, 02:16 PM
Oscar was the best post-up PG ever.

That said, no way do I take him over Magic Johnson as my PG.

rexnom
06-12-2007, 02:24 PM
Oscar was the best post-up PG ever.

That said, no way do I take him over Magic Johnson as my PG.
Thank you!

It's like people forget how amazing Magic was...wow...

Also...as far as I'm concerned, the GOAT discussion starts and ends with Michael Jordan. Number two and so on are debatable, one is not.

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 03:10 PM
Duncan has benefited from a very weak NBA. Outside of the period where Shaq & Kobe kicked *** and took names, the NBA post-Jordan has been incredibly weak. This same Spurs team wouldn't have won a single ring in either the Magic/Bird or Jordan years - that's a 20 year span. I mean, look at their Finals opponents...

1999 Knicks (8th Seed)
2003 Nets
2005 Pistons
2007 Cavs


Give me a break.
Wait a second, didn't they play some other teams before they got to that point? I mean if you are already stuck in the better conference where you have to beat 2-3 of the next best teams just to get to the Finals then what's the difference?

Just reorder the list of teams they played, put the Finals opponent as their 2nd round matchup and their WCF as the true Finals team. That makes for a legitimate test IMO. For example, NYK-MIN-POR-LAL in 1999, and they SWEPT LA and POR no less.

Duncan "only" had to face Shaq and KG in that 99 run, 2 guys being listed here as top 10 types, as well as Sheed and the POR front line so deep they didn't need JO. Add to the mix that he faced Karl, Barkley AND Hakeem while they still could put up numbers (in 99 Barkley and Olajuwon were even on the same front line against him), Yao now, and Dallas teams that featured TWO future MVP winners as the main players, one of which was at his position.

Um, isn't that half the greatest frontline players ever we just listed? The only reason he didn't face another is because Robinson was his teammate.


The issue is that Duncan has become matter of fact in his winning, such that it diminishes the respect people have for his opponents in that context.

Kstat
06-12-2007, 03:15 PM
If you want to call someone out for lack of competition, how about the conference Magic played in during the 80's?

THAT may have been the weakest conference in NBA history outside of one team. They could have made the finals every year playing blindfolded.

Arcadian
06-12-2007, 03:18 PM
I don't know about comparing players of different eras, but Duncan is the best player since Jordan. He's better than Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, KG, Kobe or whomever you want to include.

Kstat
06-12-2007, 03:20 PM
Both Shaq and Hakeem were better players in their primes.

Duncan in his dreams couldn't duplicate what Hakeem did in the mid-90's or what Shaq did from 2000-2002.

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 03:23 PM
Uh... why is it Oscar's fault that today's NBA coaches are destroying the game with the snail-slow pace?

And why is it Oscar's fault he played with hard-nosed, legendary rebounders like Lucas and Embry - he might've averaged even more than ~10 rpg.

It doesn't matter what pace they play the game, Oscar would still be regarded as the best all-around guard to ever play the game, and he'd still be the best rebounding guard to ever play the game. (Jordan, for example, only averaged more than 6.5 rpg once in his career.)
Put it this way. I've lifted 2 tons before...sure it took years of lifting much less, but let's call it 2 tons anyway.

Comparing rebounding where the OPPORTUNITIES are that much greater isn't really fair. What if we counted 2 games worth of rebounding for one player and only 1 for another? With 80 chances compared to 45 that's what is being done.

As for snail's pace, I wouldn't say that efficient shooting by the Suns is a snails pace, and they are slow by Big O era standards.

Frankly Simmons makes a strong case. If I give you 30 FTAs and someone else 10, I expect you to have more FTMs.


A nice set of stats would be to have where a guy ranked in each category rather that his actual numbers. And this doesn't have to mean that Oscar wasn't an all-time great, I mean he's still being compared to other greats here, just trying to place perspective on it.

If you want to take the other side of it and point out that his FG% looks even better when you consider the low % most teams shot in his day that's certainly okay in my book.

It's not slighting him, it's an attempt to compare stats across eras which is always tough.

LG33
06-12-2007, 03:26 PM
What about Deron Williams? He must be a close second given the way the announcers talked about him this past playoffs?

Since86
06-12-2007, 03:29 PM
It's not slighting him, it's an attempt to compare stats across eras which is always tough.

Agreed, but IMHO the best way to compare stats across eras is to compare their stats with other big time players from the same era.

There isn't a formula you can plug different time periods stats into and get numbers comparative to a different time periods, and I doubt there ever will be. So why not look at just HOW dominate that player was compared to the rest of the players that he played against?

Oscar was THE prodominate player. He never had the best team available to him, until he was paired with a certain player by the name of Lew Alcindor, but he cream of the crop, and performed year in and year out like he was.

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 03:32 PM
Both Shaq and Hakeem were better players in their primes.

Duncan in his dreams couldn't duplicate what Hakeem did in the mid-90's or what Shaq did from 2000-2002.
I think Duncan might match Shaq, though their approach is different. But Dream Shake? The Cat? That dude went from strong big man to tall Jordan for a couple of seasons. He was a thrilling terror when he took his game up to the next level.

He wasn't always that player of course and that hurts him in the GOAT debates, but he peaked at the GOAT overall level for a couple of years. What couldn't/didn't he do during those years?


BTW, this coincides with me busting out the NBA2K7 last week in order to go after some live achievements and try my hand at Pacers rebuilding. The game is still flawed with the menus and lacks Jordan and Barkley (argh) but man was I having fun with the 60's/70's/80's all-star teams.

Magic-Drexler-Worthy dunk, Wilt AND Jabbar in the paint. Some of the animations are really good and for a second you get the fleeting glimpse of what was like to have them in action.

Kstat
06-12-2007, 03:34 PM
um, Wilt Chamberlain was THE predominate player of that era...

Since86
06-12-2007, 03:43 PM
Sorry, I should have put guard.

ChicagoJ
06-12-2007, 03:54 PM
Thank you!

It's like people forget how amazing Magic was...wow...

No, I don't forget how amazing Magic was.

That doesn't make him better than Oscar.

Tangentally, several places on the internet today I've read that "It should be noted that the criteria for an assist have been relaxed over time.

The statisticians now allow for a dribble between the pass and made basket, and I've heard that some statisticians will credit an assist if the player is fouled on a missed shot (that would have resulted in an assist if the shot was made) if the shooter hits his FTs.

LG33
06-12-2007, 03:57 PM
The statisticians now allow for a dribble between the pass and made basket, and I've heard that some statisticians will credit an assist if the player is fouled on a missed shot (that would have resulted in an assist if the shot was made) if the shooter hits his FTs.

What if he makes 1 of 2?

ChicagoJ
06-12-2007, 04:10 PM
I don't know. I can't really find that documented - just something I've heard. Clearly, in the past, it was not an assist even if the guy hit both FTs.

So you've got a scenarion in which Tinsley throws an alley-oop pass to Granger, who gets clobbered by the defender trying to break up the pass, he hits two FTs and Tinsley may or may not get an assist. Clearly, in that situation, without the pass there would be no alley-oop layup attempt.

Contrasted to a scenario in which Anthony Johnson can't get the ball to JO in the paint, so he leads JO to the dotted line where JO pivots, takes a dribble, launches, and tomahawks a dunk, and AJ gets an assist. Clearly, in that situation, the pass wasn't remotely related to the ensuing athletic play.

Wacky, huh?

Robobtowncolt
06-12-2007, 04:13 PM
I don't know. I can't really find that documented - just something I've heard. Clearly, in the past, it was not an assist even if the guy hit both FTs.

So you've got a scenarion in which Tinsley throws an alley-oop pass to Granger, who gets clobbered by the defender trying to break up the pass, he hits two FTs and Tinsley may or may not get an assist. Clearly, in that situation, without the pass there would be no alley-oop layup attempt.

Contrasted to a scenario in which Anthony Johnson can't get the ball to JO in the paint, so he leads JO to the dotted line where JO pivots, takes a dribble, launches, and tomahawks a dunk, and AJ gets an assist. Clearly, in that situation, the pass wasn't really a setup for the ensuing athletic play.

Wacky, huh?

Hey, don't know why you're complaining at all. I was watching that make-believe game too and was shocked Tinsley didn't turn it over or brick a three pointer.

Slick Pinkham
06-12-2007, 04:24 PM
I've heard that some statisticians will credit an assist if the player is fouled on a missed shot (that would have resulted in an assist if the shot was made) if the shooter hits his FTs.

That should not happen and I have never heard of it happening. That is clearly against NBA rules.

The NBA defines assist as: A pass that leads directly to a basket.

Not leading to a score at the free throw line, but a made field goal. The only interpretation is in the meaning of the word "directly"-- can the pass receiver dribble once, twice, make a spin move, etc?

http://www.82games.com/assisted.htm

not saying it can be screwed up, but I've never heard of a statistician doing this.

King Tuts Tomb
06-12-2007, 05:15 PM
Even given the circumstances of the era, Robertson's accomplishment is impressive just for the fact that no one else did it. I'm not of the crowd that sees it as the best season ever, but it's amazing nonetheless.

What I liked best about that Simmons article was the part about Moses. I've always thought he was underrated and that 83 Sixers team is especially underrated. They went 12-1 in the playoffs (nearly went fo' five fo') and they were absolutely stacked. J, Moses, Toney, Cheeks, Bobby Jones. That's a damn good line-up.

bellisimo
06-12-2007, 06:51 PM
as good as Duncan can be...he never really gave me that "unstoppable/G.O.A.T" feeling that some players do...maybe the PF position is a weak one aftearll...

#31
06-12-2007, 06:59 PM
Well yea thats a no brainer Pacertom (almost).... but i always put Reggie Miller over Jordan... :whistle:

I guess I always pick "best players" not after All-Round skills, but specific skills! Afterall, this is basketball, a team game where you build a team that fits! So it depends on what you are after at the specific position, its not like if you put the best all-round players at each position or 5 ballhogers at each position and expect that team to be better than a team that is engineered "tailor made" or "handcrafted" team...

bellisimo
06-12-2007, 07:00 PM
Well yea thats a no brainer Pacertom.... but i always put Reggie Miller over Jordan... :whistle:

how could you not? :buddies:

#31
06-12-2007, 07:35 PM
how could you not? :buddies:

Well, why not? Best Slasher or Best Shooter at the SG position? Think about it... this is a basketball game where 5 players gets it done and not a 1 on 1 game or even a All-Star game.

I mean, when you build a team... what do you prefer?? But you must make them fit directly! People usually pick the best players after allround skills or stats or after what they hear, so they are brainwashed to think that 5 ballhogers or 5 best allround players at each position is better than a "handcrafted" team.
It doesnt work like that...

I personally believe that this team...

PG: John Stockton
SG: Reggie Miller
SF: Larry Bird
PF: Tim Duncan
C: Hakeem Olajuwon

would be better than this team...

PG: Magic Johnson
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: Lebron James
PF: Karl Malone
C: Shaquille Oneal

Why? Think about it...
TEAM 1: A Jackpot! Ball movement and just.. movement! They fit together and each player has a skill and style that the other doesnt have and at the correct position!
TEAM 2: 5 ballhogers... chemistry problems? Fighting for balltime? God knows.. :)

ChicagoJ
06-12-2007, 07:39 PM
Fine.

I'll take this team
G - Oscar
G - West
F - Erving
F - Garnett
C - Wilt

and kick either of those team's butts.

bellisimo
06-12-2007, 07:39 PM
Well, why not? Best Slasher or Best Shooter at the SG position? Think about it... this is a basketball game where 5 players gets it done and not a 1 on 1 game or even a All-Star game.

I mean, when you build a team... what do you prefer?? But you must make them fit directly! People usually pick the best players after allround skills or stats or after what they hear, so they are brainwashed to think that 5 ballhogers or 5 best allround players at each position is better than a "handcrafted" team.
It doesnt work like that...

I personally believe that this team...

PG: John Stockton
SG: Reggie Miller
SF: Larry Bird
PF: Tim Duncan
C: Hakeem Olajuwon

would be better than this team...

PG: Magic Johnson
SG: Michael Jordan
SF: Lebron James
PF: Karl Malone
C: Shaquille Oneal

Why? Think about it... :)

However *I hate starting off like this*...when you're talking about G.O.A.T. the last thing you want to worry about is TEAM chemistry. Personally, when I look at a list of G.O.A.T. its basically like a mock draft where you can draft one person from that position for your current team...

Don't get me wrong, I'm one a huge Miller fan...but he was no MJ...which actually is a reason why I am his fan. :D

ChicagoJ
06-12-2007, 07:41 PM
And...

I'll take this team:
G - Cheeks
G - Toney
F - Erving
F - Jones
C - Malone

in any seven game series against any all-star team.

#31
06-12-2007, 07:44 PM
Fine.

I'll take this team
G - Oscar
G - West
F - Erving
F - Garnett
C - Wilt

and kick either of those team's butts.

Yes! Thats what im talking about, that team FIT!! :)

Kstat
06-12-2007, 09:59 PM
Yes! Thats what im talking about, that team FIT!! :)

Yeah, YOUR team....

There are plenty of combinations where Reggie would be a terrible fit compared to other shooting guards.

The fact you like him does not make him the greatest SG of all time, nor does it make him the best team player of all time.

Since86
06-13-2007, 02:20 AM
Well yea thats a no brainer Pacertom (almost).... but i always put Reggie Miller over Jordan... :whistle:

I guess I always pick "best players" not after All-Round skills, but specific skills! Afterall, this is basketball, a team game where you build a team that fits! So it depends on what you are after at the specific position, its not like if you put the best all-round players at each position or 5 ballhogers at each position and expect that team to be better than a team that is engineered "tailor made" or "handcrafted" team...

So Stockton should be put in the category as the best ever to play the game? I mean he is light years ahead of everyone for total assists and he's the all time steals leader too.

That makes him him the best player in two different categories for specific skills.

STOCKTON FOR G.O.A.T!!!

Kstat
06-13-2007, 03:11 AM
So Stockton should be put in the category as the best ever to play the game? I mean he is light years ahead of everyone for total assists and he's the all time steals leader too.


He's also #2 all-time in turnovers...

ChicagoJ
06-13-2007, 10:13 AM
He's also #2 all-time in turnovers...

More than Herb Williams? I didn't think that was possible.

Sollozzo
06-13-2007, 04:46 PM
The fact that Reggie's name is entering this thread is laughable....but I guess I shouldn't be suprised because this is a Pacers forum.

Was Reggie ever anything higher than all NBA third team in any of his seasons? I don't think so, I think he had about 3 third team selections, nothing higher. And you're telling me some of you are putting him into an ALL TIME team? :lol2:

kidthecat
06-13-2007, 04:59 PM
Reggie was the number two shooting guard when Jordan was around. One could even argue for Mitch Richmond in Reggie's place. But, Reggie was on the second team at least once to my recollection.

For an all-decade team, at least, Reggie would be there.

Frank Slade
06-13-2007, 05:07 PM
Before we needlessly go down that road, let's at least get on the same page with the facts... just putting them out there in case you have not memorized them....sorry to divert O/T.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Miller

Miller made the All-NBA Third Team three times throughout his career and received his only MVP votes in 1998 and 2000.
5 time All-Star
The book Who's Better, Who's Best by Elliott Kalb lists Miller among the top 50 NBA players of all time.
Miller is the all-time NBA leader in total 3-point field goal made (2,560) and ranks at 13th place in total points (25,279), 7th in free throw percentage (88.8%), 6th in minutes played (47,619) and 6th in games played (1,389). He is also all-time NBA leader in total three-point field goals made in the playoffs (320).
Miller also holds the record for most taken three point field goals in an NBA career.(6,486)
Miller led the league twice in three-point field goals made (1992-93, 1996-97). He also led the league in free throw percentage five times, including his last season.
Miller is the NBA's career leader in four-point plays with 24.

In 2003, Reggie Miller was ranked 52nd on SLAM magazine's Top 75 NBA players of all time.

Reggie Miller is one of only five members of the 50-40-90 club along with Larry Bird, Mark Price, Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki. This club is for players who during the course of a season shot 50% or better from the field, 40% or better from three-point range, and 90% or better from the free throw line.

ChicagoJ
06-13-2007, 05:35 PM
Miller was third-team all-NBA three times ('95, '96 and '98, and never second-team all-NBA) and in 1998 and 2000 did receive a smattering of third-place MVP votes.

Miller was constantly outvoted for all-NBA positions by Jordan, Richmond, Sprewell, Rice, Drexler, Dumars, Penny Hardaway, Bryant, Iverson, etc.

Reggie has a better "career" than those guys because of longevity, but not because he was better than them when he was at his peak.

It should be noted that in a number of years, Reggie's career paralleled the NBA's "golden days" for PGs so guys like Payton, Stockton, KJ, Tim Hardaway, Kidd, and Price were also gobbling up the guard spots.

Mark Jackson, who is second all-time in NBA Assists (again, thanks to his longevity), never even made the third-team all-NBA because of the raw number of outstanding guards during that era.

I understand why we're fans of Reggie. But that doesn't put him into this thread, where were are talking about the GOATs.

Sollozzo
06-13-2007, 06:29 PM
Before we needlessly go down that road, let's at least get on the same page with the facts... just putting them out there in case you have not memorized them....sorry to divert O/T.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Miller

Miller made the All-NBA Third Team three times throughout his career and received his only MVP votes in 1998 and 2000.
5 time All-Star
The book Who's Better, Who's Best by Elliott Kalb lists Miller among the top 50 NBA players of all time.
Miller is the all-time NBA leader in total 3-point field goal made (2,560) and ranks at 13th place in total points (25,279), 7th in free throw percentage (88.8%), 6th in minutes played (47,619) and 6th in games played (1,389). He is also all-time NBA leader in total three-point field goals made in the playoffs (320).
Miller also holds the record for most taken three point field goals in an NBA career.(6,486)
Miller led the league twice in three-point field goals made (1992-93, 1996-97). He also led the league in free throw percentage five times, including his last season.
Miller is the NBA's career leader in four-point plays with 24.

In 2003, Reggie Miller was ranked 52nd on SLAM magazine's Top 75 NBA players of all time.

Reggie Miller is one of only five members of the 50-40-90 club along with Larry Bird, Mark Price, Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki. This club is for players who during the course of a season shot 50% or better from the field, 40% or better from three-point range, and 90% or better from the free throw line.



I know that he has some special numbers. But those aren't G.O.A.T. numbers. 52nd on SLAMS top 75? OK, that's fine. But if you put Reggie on a GOAT team, then I think you're putting him a helluva lot higher than 52, which isn't ok. That's making him top 5, or 10, or 15...which is a complete joke.

5 time all star: Nothing to really brag on considering he played 18 years. Anyone mentioned in a G.O.A.T. is consistantly an allstar every year. Not just every couple.

Reggie's numbers are one dimensional. Practically every stat you listed has to do with shooting, mainly 3 point shooting. He never got assists or rebounds, and was an average defender. One dimensional players don't belong in this thread.

The longevity makes him special and allowed him to inflate his numbers. Take pracitcally any of the players Jay mentioned and compare their best season's to Miller's best. I'm sure most have 3 or 4 seasons that were better than Miller's best. The simple fact of that matter is that someone who was only voted to the All NBA third team 3 times has absolutely no business being mentioned in a thread about G.O.A.T. To put him there is a definition of a homer.

Naptown_Seth
06-14-2007, 03:36 AM
That should not happen and I have never heard of it happening. That is clearly against NBA rules.

The NBA defines assist as: A pass that leads directly to a basket.

Not leading to a score at the free throw line, but a made field goal. The only interpretation is in the meaning of the word "directly"-- can the pass receiver dribble once, twice, make a spin move, etc?

http://www.82games.com/assisted.htm

not saying it can be screwed up, but I've never heard of a statistician doing this.
You'd get fired for doing that, period. That's why 82 Games went out of their way to do that passes-leading-to-FTs study in the first place.


The statisticians now allow for a dribble between the pass and made basket,When WASN'T this true? Certainly no time that I can recall. 1 dribble was the rule. Now stats guys will vary in just how much leeway they give, which is why many think Mark Jackson's assists jumped up so much when he got to Denver. But still they must be accountable for their reasoning, it has to be close. No different than the error/hit rulings in baseball.


Now if you want to talk about odd stats, did you know that some of Babe Ruth's homeruns BOUNCED over the fence? Used to be that what is now a ground rule double was a HR. But on the flipside if the ball went out around the foul pole but then landed in foul territory it was just a foul ball, not a homerun. Go figure.



I love Reggie. Now he must get the hell out of this thread and never return. ;)

Slick Pinkham
06-14-2007, 11:07 AM
Now if you want to talk about odd stats, did you know that some of Babe Ruth's homeruns BOUNCED over the fence? Used to be that what is now a ground rule double was a HR. But on the flipside if the ball went out around the foul pole but then landed in foul territory it was just a foul ball, not a homerun. Go figure.

A tangent here...

That rumor has been around for decades. Sure enough, the ground rule double came into existance in 1931. Several baseball historians have examined all of the newspaper reports of every single Ruth home run (baseball was covered in detail in the papers since this is how most people followed it).

They have found not one single account of a "bounce home run" as they were always called then, hit by Babe Ruth. Lou Gehrig had a few, so did Rogers Hornsby and many, many other players of that era. "Bounce home runs" were typically called exactly that in newspaper accounts.

You are right that a ball curving foul after leaving the yard fair was called a foul ball not a home run. Babe lost a lot of home runs this way, but it is hard to guess how many since the type of foul ball was never recorded.

The only legitimate reasons for questioning his home run totals is to point out that the Babe never faced African American pitching in real major league games and the concept of "relief pitcher" was almost unheard of, so a bad starter was around for a long time to get pummeled.

#31
06-14-2007, 11:43 AM
Screw u guys, Reggie is the best ever! :happydanc

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 11:45 AM
When WASN'T this true? Certainly no time that I can recall. 1 dribble was the rule.

I always see this in reference to Oscar and players from the 1960s. I think the one-dribble rule came along later. I'd agree that every player from the 80's and forward gets the benefit of the one-dribble rule.