Bar So Low, TMac In The HOF

I've seen Hill play, when he was in Detroit. To me, he was a much much better player than T-Mac. For starters -- he played the f***ing defense.

 

Tmac did....until he started being the main guy.

 

hmmm...i think calling iverson's finals year cast lame is a stretch. deke wasn't on his last legs, he was the dpoy. larry brown was coy, iirc. and wasn't mckie sixth man, too? and i don't remember the east being particularly troublesome back then, either. anyway, we're still really pointing to one year's good fortune.

i guess i view ai, tmac, vc, ray allen all on roughly the same plane. if one's in the HOF, they all are. i would hear arguments for none making it, but i think parsing there is tougher than some are suggesting.

 

Playoff success, complete numbers, longevity, high peaks. Tmac only has one of those. The rest have all 4, though his peak was a bit higher than than VC and Allen.

AI's cast wasn't garbage in 01 but he, and Mckie to a much small extent, were the offense. Ty Hill, Eric Snow, Mat Geiger, George Lynch, Deke. Rugged, defenders but pretty much one way players. It was very remarkable that he beat the Raptors and the Bucks, who weren't pushover those years. But, year, he only made a few more playoff wins after.

 

right. i wouldn't call iverson's career one defined by winning and playoff success. actually, ray allen has a better case there. and for the five-year peak, i'm not sure any of those had more "complete" stats. all were superstars as scorers only, none had consistent reps as defenders, none had any sustained success in terms of W/L as a team's top option.

so, the argument comes down to sustained productivity. if that's your case, i guess mcgrady is out (as is grant hill, who was indeed better than all of them). but i'm not sure if that's the most appropriate way to determine who's a hofer.

 

Wait, wut? League-leading scoring along with an all around game is the definition of a superstar in the NBA.

 

He is a superstar. Stay with superstar score all great everything else. He was never a superstar passer, shooter, rebounder or shot blocker. And didnt last nearly as long as the other players on that list.

 

Superstar = HOFer

You keep bringing up longevity but let's not act like he was only active for 2-3 years. He was elite for nearly a decade.

 

this is what it comes down to...what's the arbitrary time cutoff? i agree that longer dominance is more impressive, but longer semi-dominance versus shorter actual dominance is a tougher discussion.

 

Not a Kobe? Bust.

 

I think it's obvious what type of discrimination is going on here...

 

05 3rd all nba team.
06 none. hurt, not my problem.
07 2nd.
08 3rd.

I think we have a lower bar set for elite, too.

 

Isn't the journalistic consensus that the refs screwed the Bucks because Iverson was a big brand?

 

Consensus? Idk, what are your thought about yalls 2002 vs Kings?

 

They choked, and the aggressive team got the calls. That being said, lucky to get the win, and they probably remain one of the best teams never to win a championship. That was a seriously solid squad

 

It was an awesome series, but we never had a rivalry with the Queens. They have to win in order to have a rivalry.