OT: Dirk or Garnett?

[Knicks411]

I'm not saying the 86 Celtics weren't the best team ever, they have a great argument for it, just it came off very strange to me that he made such a big deal out of ranking Magic over Bird proving he didn't have any bias.

 

[Eric15]

1. 86 Celtics 2. 96 Bulls 3. 87 Lakers 4. 89 Pistons. 5. 92 Bulls and put the 87 Lakers 2nd and 96 Bulls 3rd.

What about the 2000 Lakers? 67 wins, Shaq and Kobe both Top 5 players in the league at that point. I personally would put them ahead of the Pistons.

 

[Alsacs]

What about the 2000 Lakers? 67 wins, Shaq and Kobe both Top 5 players in the league at that point. I personally would put them ahead of the Pistons.

Good call they are a top 5 team of alltime. Simmons said in his book he would pick the 2001 Lakers to beat the 1996 Bulls because nobody on Chicago could stop Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe could have atleast played Jordan close. The weakness of those Bulls teams were teams with dominant centers. Those Bulls teams faced the 1995 and 1996 Orlando Magic with Shaq and split those series losing to the Magic in 95 and sweeping the Magic in 96 but Horace Grant, and Nick Anderson got hurt during that series which helped the Bulls win easily. I think the 86 Celtics/87 Lakers could handle those Shaqobe Lakers teams, but those teams in 80's didn't play in a diluted league and had deeper teams.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I agree Horry shouldn't be in the top 96, but valued his role playing ability and rewarded the 7 rings. I don't think Horry is even a HOFer, but I respect the opinion.

Did you see the Bad Boys 30 for 30? Even Isiah Thomas who hated the Celtics admitted that 1986 was the best ever.
Bird, McHale, Parrish, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge was a superb starting 5.
Bill Walton(healthy for this season) backup C
Jerry Schting
Scott Wedman
was a nice bench.

I agree he wanted to give the 1986 Celtics love, but I think they are worthy of that spot. The 96 Bulls were overrated IMO the NBA had just expanded to Toronto and Vancouver and diluted the league even more. Jordan/Pippen/Rodman were studs, but Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr weren't that good. The Bulls 97 team was better than the 96 team because of Brian Williams(Bison Dele) giving them a legit post game which they never had in any other championship team. Simmons has since amended his all-time teams from 1. 86 Celtics 2. 96 Bulls 3. 87 Lakers 4. 89 Pistons. 5. 92 Bulls and put the 87 Lakers 2nd and 96 Bulls 3rd.

Knicks rank your top 5 teams of alltime. Don't use back to back seasons i.e. 87 Lakers, 88 Lakers, 91 Bulls, 92 Bulls.

I think two other teams deserve consideration for best ever - the Laker team that won 33 straight (1972?) with Wilt, Elgin Baylor, Happpy Hairston, Jim McMillan, Goodrich and West. That was a heck of a team, although Baylor was about done.

And of the course the Bulls team that won 72 games with Rodman.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Good call they are a top 5 team of alltime. Simmons said in his book he would pick the 2001 Lakers to beat the 1996 Bulls because nobody on Chicago could stop Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe could have atleast played Jordan close. The weakness of those Bulls teams were teams with dominant centers. Those Bulls teams faced the 1995 and 1996 Orlando Magic with Shaq and split those series losing to the Magic in 95 and sweeping the Magic in 96 but Horace Grant, and Nick Anderson got hurt during that series which helped the Bulls win easily. I think the 86 Celtics/87 Lakers could handle those Shaqobe Lakers teams, but those teams in 80's didn't play in a diluted league and had deeper teams.

Rodman defended the post on those teams a lot of the time - arguably the best defensive player of his era and among the top 5 ever. If they were good enough to win 72 games, you have to think it wasn't that big of a weakness.

 

[Knicks411]

Rodman defended the post on those teams a lot of the time - arguably the best defensive player of his era and among the top 5 ever. If they were good enough to win 72 games, you have to think it wasn't that big of a weakness.

Rodman was a great defensive player, but he's not guarding Shaq or Kareem or something. I don't think Rodman guarded a lot of 5's, he was more of a 3/4 guy. Probably for the bad boys he could guard 2-4.
Baylor retired in the middle of the 72 season, right? Still, 33 wins in a row is no joke.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Rodman was a great defensive player, but he's not guarding Shaq or Kareem or something. I don't think Rodman guarded a lot of 5's, he was more of a 3/4 guy. Probably for the bad boys he could guard 2-4.
Baylor retired in the middle of the 72 season, right? Still, 33 wins in a row is no joke.

You may not be old enough to remember those teams, but Rodman guarded the opposing center a lot. Take a look at how he did against Shaq in a playoff game from when Shaq was still in Orlando.

 

[Eric15]

You may not be old enough to remember those teams, but Rodman guarded the opposing center a lot. Take a look at how he did against Shaq in a playoff game from when Shaq was still in Orlando.

This is off-topic, but if NBC could get television rights to the NBA again, and install the same exact music, graphics, big game announcers (Costas or Albert), etc., I would unquestionably watch more games.

 

[RandygoCuse]

This is off-topic, but if NBC could get television rights to the NBA again, and install the same exact music, graphics, big game announcers (Costas or Albert), etc., I would unquestionably watch more games.

Always loved Albert and Fratello with Costas in the studio.

 

[Knicks411]

You may not be old enough to remember those teams, but Rodman guarded the opposing center a lot. Take a look at how he did against Shaq in a playoff game from when Shaq was still in Orlando.

Yeah I was 11 or 12 for that run, so I admit I don't remember it very well.
I know they played in the 96 playoffs, from checking the box scores and playing time, it looks like Rodman may have checked Shaq more than I thought though. Still probably wasn't more than 5 or 6 minutes per game, (guessing), but more than I thought.

 

[NashvilleOrange]

This is a great topic. I'd rather build a team around Garnett but Dirk's run in 2011 is absolutely incredible. KG is dirty and that's a big reason why I'd love to have him on my team; probably list him a touch above Dirk.
Side note: Have people been checking out this Toronto - Brooklyn series? The energy in Toronto is insane, so great to see the NBA doing so well there. Last night Wiggins and Drake are sitting right near the court and with the thousands outside the arena it looks like the premier venue in the whole NBA.
Also for those that missed it - Terrence Ross of the Raptors did one of the best Reddit AMAs about a month ago where he said he wanted to face Brooklyn in the first round and called out Garnett for being the best pick setter because he only sets illegal screens.
http://www.reddit.com/20c7it

 

[OrangeDW]

Read the book.

I read it. Don't remember. I'll have to see if I can find it, though now that I know how annoying his voice sounds, I can't read his stuff anymore because I hear his voice in my head.

 

[OrangeDW]

Says the person who probably didn't the read the freaking book. If you like Pro Basketball Bill Simmons book is among the best ever on the subject. He is unbias in his rankings. He put Magic Johnson rightfully above his Basketball Jesus Larry Bird. I mean he is bias for the Celtics in his articles and on TV, but the Book of Basketball was great in understanding the NBA game. It made realize how underrated some guys were like Moses Malone, John Havlicek, Tim Duncan, and how overrated other guys were like Elvin Hayes, Dominique Wilkins.

Your comment doesn't mean Simmons book is bias. He put Willis Reed above Dave Cowens, none of the Celtics players are overrated in his rankings.

"Says the person who probably didn't the read the freaking book." Wow, you've got the wrong guy. Not my style. I read the book. Liked it. He IS a biased Celtics fan, and has never attempted to hide it or claimed otherwise. And he's not the freakin end all be all, he's just a big hoops fan. Nothing more, nothing less. His book is not the basketball bible, and I personally value my own opinions and observations over his. But it was an entertaining read, and well done.

I'll see if I can find it and see what he said about Worthy, because I don't remember.

Though I'm automatically defensive of Worthy being "overrated" because he was a fantastic player.

 

[Knicks411]

Obviously overrated comes down to how a guy is rated in the first place.
Worthy was clearly a very good player, but his career was pretty short (for a great player at least) and he was never considered one of the true elite players in the league. Never finished in the top 10 in MVP voting. Made third team all league twice. And he probably benefited from playing with 2 of the 5 greatest players of all time.

But you can't say Simmons is unbiased. Everyone has their own biases. Simmons put a ton of effort/research into the book and I respect that greatly, and it's probably the best book on the NBA from a historical perspective, but it doesn't mean all his rankings/opinions/whatever are correct.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I read it. Don't remember. I'll have to see if I can find it, though now that I know how annoying his voice sounds, I can't read his stuff anymore because I hear his voice in my head.

Guess you don't watch old Tyson fights too much

 

[Eric15]

Though I'm automatically defensive of Worthy being "overrated" because he was a fantastic player.

According to basketballreference.com, Worthy's closest peer in terms of productivity/accomplishments is Glen Rice.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/worthja01.html

 

[IthacaMatt]

According to basketballreference.com, Worthy's closest peer in terms of productivity/accomplishments is Glen Rice.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/worthja01.html

Well, that site tells us just how close this debate is - their closest statistical match for Kevin Garnett? It's Dirk Nowitzki. LOL

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/garneke01.html