Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 8:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/15/2025 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 8:22:00 PM (view original):
So Midge, tell us. When did Curry pass by Issel and become more valuable?

How many seasons did Curry have to play before he became more valuable than Issel?

BTW, Issel has 3 seasons in the sim with a salary of $8M or more. Curry has one.

Why don't you start mocking the sim for that? Obviously you must think that the sim is dead wrong saying that between Issel and Curry that Issel has 3 of the 4 best seasons that either of them had.

Cool, you draft a team around Issel, and I’ll draft one around Curry and we’ll see what happens.

You must really think this sim sucks with it rating Issel above Curry. right?

The sim doesn’t have Issel above Curry. You *think* it does because you’re looking at total salary for two players with vastly different minute totals. The SIM *does* have Curry above Issel, which is why I would happily take Curry if you take Issel in a league.

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 8:22:00 PM (view original):
So Midge, tell us. When did Curry pass by Issel and become more valuable?

How many seasons did Curry have to play before he became more valuable than Issel?

BTW, Issel has 3 seasons in the sim with a salary of $8M or more. Curry has one.

Why don't you start mocking the sim for that? Obviously you must think that the sim is dead wrong saying that between Issel and Curry that Issel has 3 of the 4 best seasons that either of them had.

March 14, 1988

Posted by dBKC on 4/15/2025 8:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 8:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/15/2025 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 8:22:00 PM (view original):
So Midge, tell us. When did Curry pass by Issel and become more valuable?

How many seasons did Curry have to play before he became more valuable than Issel?

BTW, Issel has 3 seasons in the sim with a salary of $8M or more. Curry has one.

Why don't you start mocking the sim for that? Obviously you must think that the sim is dead wrong saying that between Issel and Curry that Issel has 3 of the 4 best seasons that either of them had.

Cool, you draft a team around Issel, and I’ll draft one around Curry and we’ll see what happens.

You must really think this sim sucks with it rating Issel above Curry. right?

The sim doesn’t have Issel above Curry. You *think* it does because you’re looking at total salary for two players with vastly different minute totals. The SIM *does* have Curry above Issel, which is why I would happily take Curry if you take Issel in a league.

The sim has Issel's best 3 "seasons" as more valuable than Curry's best 3 "seasons". I've said all along that my rankings are based on value created. Not on who was "better" while they both were on the floor. You guys seemed to have missed that.

Posted by Midge on 4/15/2025 8:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 8:22:00 PM (view original):
So Midge, tell us. When did Curry pass by Issel and become more valuable?

How many seasons did Curry have to play before he became more valuable than Issel?

BTW, Issel has 3 seasons in the sim with a salary of $8M or more. Curry has one.

Why don't you start mocking the sim for that? Obviously you must think that the sim is dead wrong saying that between Issel and Curry that Issel has 3 of the 4 best seasons that either of them had.

March 14, 1988

I get it. You're gonna keep making jokes because you can't back up any of your assertions with any facts.

If peak Issel plays 36 minutes in a game, how many minutes does Curry have to play in that game to become more valuable in that game than Issel?

Give me 2 answers. One with 3 point shots, and one without 3 point shots.

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 12:13:00 AM (view original):
And your assertion that my numbers give more credit for playing time than for quality of playing time is total horseschit. There are lots of guys with real long careers that did not make these rankings. But if both guys are high quality players and one played 38% more minutes than the other, guess what?

54852 minutes of Karl Malone at a rate of .205 win shares per 48 minutes is FAR MORE VALUABLE than 34443 minutes of Larry Bird at .203 win shares per 48 minutes. Malone is even slightly more valuable that Bird on a per minute basis, but he also played 59% more minutes than Bird. You're a complete fool if you'd rather have Bird on your team for his entire career than Malone on your team for his entire career.

If you want to just talk each player's 2 or 3 best seasons you'd lose that too. Malone's best 3 seasons in win shares per 48 minutes are all better than Bird's best season. But Karl only had one other hall of famer to play with while Bird had four. After Stockton the best player Malone ever had with him on the Jazz was Hornacek. When they had him they tore through the Western Conference playoffs twice in a row like a hot knife through butter. and then lost really close games to the Bulls to lose the title. But if Dick Bavetta had not ****** up and called a bad 24 second violation as Eisley hit a 3 in game 6, most likely they win that game and are slight favorites to win game 7 at home.

So because a referee ****** up, now Malone is a loser, right?

You arseholes think that all that matters is championships. David Robinson took the Spurs who were a joke and made them a huge contender. Before they got Duncan who was the best player he ever had on his team? Avery Phucking Johnson?

The year before the Admiral got there the Spurs went 21-61. His first year they went 56-26, a 35 game improvement, which is still the highest ever. The year before Olajuwon arrived the Rockets went 29-53. His first year they went 45-37. That's a great 16 game improvement, which is less than half of the Spurs improvement with the rookie David Robinson.

The first Spurs championship, 98-99, when YOU think Duncan was the reason, Robinson was the best player in the league. He led the league in WS/48 at .261. Duncan was .213. David led the league in that metric 5 times, and his career WS/.48 was .250. Olajuwon was just .177 for his career. Robinson was far more valuable than Olajuwon. That's why he went 30-12 against him head to head. Counting playoffs David went 32-16 head to head against Hakeem.

To the Olajuwon argument:

In year two Olajuwon took the Rockets to the finals. In year 2 Robinson lost int the first round so there is that.

You discuss win shares a lot, but what bolsters win shares....WINNING! That has a lot to do with what is around you. Olajuwon's peak only featured playing with one all-star player that made the all-star game one time. BTW Duncan was above Robinson in WS in the 98-99 Season. Duncan finished 3rd in MVP voting and Robinson was 12th. Say what you will about the objective nature of MVP voting, but the top 3 is rarely wrong. I can argue with about 10 of the eventual winners, but the top 3 were the dominant figures of the league clearly. Additionally, you asked who the best player was and like a moron you stated Avery Johnson was the best player. You forgot that Sean Elliott and Vinny Del Negro played there. Plus, in the 98-99 season Mr. "The Kiss of Death" had a higher WS total than were better despite player 380 fewer minutes. So, to the Karl Malone point, if you think the choker/kid toucher Mailman was in the same class with Larry Bird puts you squarely against any basketball historian. At some point you have to acknowledge that you are wrong and not everyone else. Bird won when the game was on the line, and Bird was THE dominant player in the league for five years. Malone was a footnote in comparison. There has never been a question about Bird's MVPs...the same cannot be said for Mailman. 1997 was voter fatigue and 1999 you have already questioned. (BTW you want to complain about Bavetta? Olajwuon received more techs and was fouled out by him more than any other referee so let's not go down the road of referee preferences lest I get into another Scott Foster/Joey Crawford diatribe). Then you want to talk about how I lose the debate about the best seasons between Bird and Malone. Bird's level of competition was light years ahead or Malone in a weaker western conference. The Lakers were done, the Suns were borderline, the Sonics, Rockets, and Spurs were good consistently (except that one year when Robinson was hurt), but he played in the era of vast expansion. Bird had the Sixers, Bucks, Pistons, Bulls, Cavs, and Knicks were all good at varying times. The league didn't expand until Bird was starting his downhill turn. Malone's only argument was longevity. When he "tore through the western conference like a knife through hot butter" the west was not exceptional. The Bulls had stiffer competition in the east plus had to play through more adversity.

I never said that championships are all that matters, but when we get to the cream of the crop (the top 10-15 players in history) winning matters and winning as the best player is crucial. The list of players I shared is bulletproof except for Reed (one of his Finals MVPs is specious at best - should have belonged to Frazier). If I was selecting a power forward for my team, I would choose at least four before I got to Malone. I get your argument about the eye test. When you don't know the game, it is hard to understand what you are seeing.

Duncan was above Robinson in win shares in 98-99 because Robinson missed a lot of games with injuries. When they were both playing Robinson was like 20% more effective per every 40minutes played. But you knew that already. You are trying to manipulate stats now. Robinson was the best player in the league that season per 48 minutes played. David missed 33 games with injuries.

Olajuwon didn't "Take" the Rockets to the finals in his second year. The Rocket got to the finals because they had 2 or 3 other good players. Olajuwon had become their best player by then, but he was still not a big superstar. His WS/48 was well below .200. But again, how good players are is not just about the playoffs. It's MORE about the regular season then the playoffs. Even if a team makes the finals they are only playing like 25% as many games in the playoffs as the played in the regular season. If they lose in the first or second round that may only play like 12% as many games in the playoffs as in the regular season.

You can go with your so called "historians," I'm taking Malone over Bird if I have a choice of having either player for their FULL Career. Calling Malone a "choker" is beyond absurd. Malone is easily the top PF of all time (Duncan is a center, about 65% of his minutes were played at center). It's not even close. You can take who you want. And I forgot more about the game than you know.

I will agree with you on one thing. You did forget more about the game. I doubt you ever knew it.

Olajuwon didn't take them there in 1995 and he wasn't a big superstar yet. You realize he won MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same season the year prior and was the first to accomplish that in history, right? RIGHT? Go be dumb elsewhere. You clearly don't know the story of 1995. CLEARLY. Olajuwon fought through injuries early in the season. Then they traded for Drex. Glide wasn't the same Glide that he was in 1988. Olajuwon dominated the second half of the season and the Rox got the 6 seed. Then led the Rox to the title without ever having HCA.

You allege that I manipulated stats. I did nothing of the sort. What I did was not take your BS as gospel truth and showed where you were lying. You should have provided context to your argument.

Malone WAS a choker. Your favorite stat proves it.
Regular season .205 WS/48. Playoffs .146 WS/48
Jordan .250 to .255.
LeBron .221 to .237.
Wilt .248 to .200.
Kareem .228 to .193.
CP3 .226 to .187
Dirk .193 to .188
Duncan .209 to .194
Oscar .207 to .178
Stockton .209 to .160

Bird .203 to .173.
Olajuwon .177 to .189
Robinson .250 to .199

No player in "your" top 10 fell off more in the playoffs. He was worse than Stockton, which is hard to imagine because he sucked too in the postseason.

My power forwards I would choose over Malone:
Duncan (I do count him as a PF he won his MVPs there)
Giannis
Garnett
McHale

The best version of Barkley runs close with the best version of Mailman. Karl was a better defender, but Barkley was better at virtually everything else. Dirk isn't in the discussion. You have to do more than just shoot the ball. Dirk couldn't guard his shadow and was a very light rebounder considering his size, position, and era.

I'll take the best version of them against the best version of Malone and win every time.

Golden State and Memphis are playing tonight, but I think I will go find some Kentucky Colonel videos on YouTube to watch instead of Curry.

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 9:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 12:13:00 AM (view original):
And your assertion that my numbers give more credit for playing time than for quality of playing time is total horseschit. There are lots of guys with real long careers that did not make these rankings. But if both guys are high quality players and one played 38% more minutes than the other, guess what?

54852 minutes of Karl Malone at a rate of .205 win shares per 48 minutes is FAR MORE VALUABLE than 34443 minutes of Larry Bird at .203 win shares per 48 minutes. Malone is even slightly more valuable that Bird on a per minute basis, but he also played 59% more minutes than Bird. You're a complete fool if you'd rather have Bird on your team for his entire career than Malone on your team for his entire career.

If you want to just talk each player's 2 or 3 best seasons you'd lose that too. Malone's best 3 seasons in win shares per 48 minutes are all better than Bird's best season. But Karl only had one other hall of famer to play with while Bird had four. After Stockton the best player Malone ever had with him on the Jazz was Hornacek. When they had him they tore through the Western Conference playoffs twice in a row like a hot knife through butter. and then lost really close games to the Bulls to lose the title. But if Dick Bavetta had not ****** up and called a bad 24 second violation as Eisley hit a 3 in game 6, most likely they win that game and are slight favorites to win game 7 at home.

So because a referee ****** up, now Malone is a loser, right?

You arseholes think that all that matters is championships. David Robinson took the Spurs who were a joke and made them a huge contender. Before they got Duncan who was the best player he ever had on his team? Avery Phucking Johnson?

The year before the Admiral got there the Spurs went 21-61. His first year they went 56-26, a 35 game improvement, which is still the highest ever. The year before Olajuwon arrived the Rockets went 29-53. His first year they went 45-37. That's a great 16 game improvement, which is less than half of the Spurs improvement with the rookie David Robinson.

The first Spurs championship, 98-99, when YOU think Duncan was the reason, Robinson was the best player in the league. He led the league in WS/48 at .261. Duncan was .213. David led the league in that metric 5 times, and his career WS/.48 was .250. Olajuwon was just .177 for his career. Robinson was far more valuable than Olajuwon. That's why he went 30-12 against him head to head. Counting playoffs David went 32-16 head to head against Hakeem.

To the Olajuwon argument:

In year two Olajuwon took the Rockets to the finals. In year 2 Robinson lost int the first round so there is that.

You discuss win shares a lot, but what bolsters win shares....WINNING! That has a lot to do with what is around you. Olajuwon's peak only featured playing with one all-star player that made the all-star game one time. BTW Duncan was above Robinson in WS in the 98-99 Season. Duncan finished 3rd in MVP voting and Robinson was 12th. Say what you will about the objective nature of MVP voting, but the top 3 is rarely wrong. I can argue with about 10 of the eventual winners, but the top 3 were the dominant figures of the league clearly. Additionally, you asked who the best player was and like a moron you stated Avery Johnson was the best player. You forgot that Sean Elliott and Vinny Del Negro played there. Plus, in the 98-99 season Mr. "The Kiss of Death" had a higher WS total than were better despite player 380 fewer minutes. So, to the Karl Malone point, if you think the choker/kid toucher Mailman was in the same class with Larry Bird puts you squarely against any basketball historian. At some point you have to acknowledge that you are wrong and not everyone else. Bird won when the game was on the line, and Bird was THE dominant player in the league for five years. Malone was a footnote in comparison. There has never been a question about Bird's MVPs...the same cannot be said for Mailman. 1997 was voter fatigue and 1999 you have already questioned. (BTW you want to complain about Bavetta? Olajwuon received more techs and was fouled out by him more than any other referee so let's not go down the road of referee preferences lest I get into another Scott Foster/Joey Crawford diatribe). Then you want to talk about how I lose the debate about the best seasons between Bird and Malone. Bird's level of competition was light years ahead or Malone in a weaker western conference. The Lakers were done, the Suns were borderline, the Sonics, Rockets, and Spurs were good consistently (except that one year when Robinson was hurt), but he played in the era of vast expansion. Bird had the Sixers, Bucks, Pistons, Bulls, Cavs, and Knicks were all good at varying times. The league didn't expand until Bird was starting his downhill turn. Malone's only argument was longevity. When he "tore through the western conference like a knife through hot butter" the west was not exceptional. The Bulls had stiffer competition in the east plus had to play through more adversity.

I never said that championships are all that matters, but when we get to the cream of the crop (the top 10-15 players in history) winning matters and winning as the best player is crucial. The list of players I shared is bulletproof except for Reed (one of his Finals MVPs is specious at best - should have belonged to Frazier). If I was selecting a power forward for my team, I would choose at least four before I got to Malone. I get your argument about the eye test. When you don't know the game, it is hard to understand what you are seeing.

Duncan was above Robinson in win shares in 98-99 because Robinson missed a lot of games with injuries. When they were both playing Robinson was like 20% more effective per every 40minutes played. But you knew that already. You are trying to manipulate stats now. Robinson was the best player in the league that season per 48 minutes played. David missed 33 games with injuries.

Olajuwon didn't "Take" the Rockets to the finals in his second year. The Rocket got to the finals because they had 2 or 3 other good players. Olajuwon had become their best player by then, but he was still not a big superstar. His WS/48 was well below .200. But again, how good players are is not just about the playoffs. It's MORE about the regular season then the playoffs. Even if a team makes the finals they are only playing like 25% as many games in the playoffs as the played in the regular season. If they lose in the first or second round that may only play like 12% as many games in the playoffs as in the regular season.

You can go with your so called "historians," I'm taking Malone over Bird if I have a choice of having either player for their FULL Career. Calling Malone a "choker" is beyond absurd. Malone is easily the top PF of all time (Duncan is a center, about 65% of his minutes were played at center). It's not even close. You can take who you want. And I forgot more about the game than you know.

I will agree with you on one thing. You did forget more about the game. I doubt you ever knew it.

Olajuwon didn't take them there in 1995 and he wasn't a big superstar yet. You realize he won MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same season the year prior and was the first to accomplish that in history, right? RIGHT? Go be dumb elsewhere. You clearly don't know the story of 1995. CLEARLY. Olajuwon fought through injuries early in the season. Then they traded for Drex. Glide wasn't the same Glide that he was in 1988. Olajuwon dominated the second half of the season and the Rox got the 6 seed. Then led the Rox to the title without ever having HCA.

You allege that I manipulated stats. I did nothing of the sort. What I did was not take your BS as gospel truth and showed where you were lying. You should have provided context to your argument.

Malone WAS a choker. Your favorite stat proves it.
Regular season .205 WS/48. Playoffs .146 WS/48
Jordan .250 to .255.
LeBron .221 to .237.
Wilt .248 to .200.
Kareem .228 to .193.
CP3 .226 to .187
Dirk .193 to .188
Duncan .209 to .194
Oscar .207 to .178
Stockton .209 to .160

Bird .203 to .173.
Olajuwon .177 to .189
Robinson .250 to .199

No player in "your" top 10 fell off more in the playoffs. He was worse than Stockton, which is hard to imagine because he sucked too in the postseason.

My power forwards I would choose over Malone:
Duncan (I do count him as a PF he won his MVPs there)
Giannis
Garnett
McHale

The best version of Barkley runs close with the best version of Mailman. Karl was a better defender, but Barkley was better at virtually everything else. Dirk isn't in the discussion. You have to do more than just shoot the ball. Dirk couldn't guard his shadow and was a very light rebounder considering his size, position, and era.

I'll take the best version of them against the best version of Malone and win every time.

Are you really that stupid?

I said Olajuwon did not "take" the Rockets to the finals in HIS second year (1985-86). Where are you getting 1995 from????

I don't care about MVP, Finals MVP or DPY. Those are all awards that are voted on by human beings and their emotions. I deal in cold hard facts, numbers. Like the sim. The sim does not check awards or championships out before it calculates the result of a play.

So Bird fell off 30 points in the playoffs compared to the regular season. I guess he's a choker too, right?

David Robinson WS/48 in the playoffs was .1992, 10th all time. Olajuwon was .1887, 19th all time. So Robinson played better in the playoffs than Olajuwon. He fell off more from his regular season level of play, but he STILL was better than Olajuwon was in the playoffs over the course of their 2 careers. Robinson also played slightly better than Duncan did over the course of their 2 careers in the playoffs. Larry Bird was 41st all time for level of play in the playoffs. Dirk is 20th. Billups was 22nd, Isiah was 87th.

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 9:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 5:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by PBandJ on 4/15/2025 11:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 12:13:00 AM (view original):
And your assertion that my numbers give more credit for playing time than for quality of playing time is total horseschit. There are lots of guys with real long careers that did not make these rankings. But if both guys are high quality players and one played 38% more minutes than the other, guess what?

54852 minutes of Karl Malone at a rate of .205 win shares per 48 minutes is FAR MORE VALUABLE than 34443 minutes of Larry Bird at .203 win shares per 48 minutes. Malone is even slightly more valuable that Bird on a per minute basis, but he also played 59% more minutes than Bird. You're a complete fool if you'd rather have Bird on your team for his entire career than Malone on your team for his entire career.

If you want to just talk each player's 2 or 3 best seasons you'd lose that too. Malone's best 3 seasons in win shares per 48 minutes are all better than Bird's best season. But Karl only had one other hall of famer to play with while Bird had four. After Stockton the best player Malone ever had with him on the Jazz was Hornacek. When they had him they tore through the Western Conference playoffs twice in a row like a hot knife through butter. and then lost really close games to the Bulls to lose the title. But if Dick Bavetta had not ****** up and called a bad 24 second violation as Eisley hit a 3 in game 6, most likely they win that game and are slight favorites to win game 7 at home.

So because a referee ****** up, now Malone is a loser, right?

You arseholes think that all that matters is championships. David Robinson took the Spurs who were a joke and made them a huge contender. Before they got Duncan who was the best player he ever had on his team? Avery Phucking Johnson?

The year before the Admiral got there the Spurs went 21-61. His first year they went 56-26, a 35 game improvement, which is still the highest ever. The year before Olajuwon arrived the Rockets went 29-53. His first year they went 45-37. That's a great 16 game improvement, which is less than half of the Spurs improvement with the rookie David Robinson.

The first Spurs championship, 98-99, when YOU think Duncan was the reason, Robinson was the best player in the league. He led the league in WS/48 at .261. Duncan was .213. David led the league in that metric 5 times, and his career WS/.48 was .250. Olajuwon was just .177 for his career. Robinson was far more valuable than Olajuwon. That's why he went 30-12 against him head to head. Counting playoffs David went 32-16 head to head against Hakeem.

To the Olajuwon argument:

In year two Olajuwon took the Rockets to the finals. In year 2 Robinson lost int the first round so there is that.

You discuss win shares a lot, but what bolsters win shares....WINNING! That has a lot to do with what is around you. Olajuwon's peak only featured playing with one all-star player that made the all-star game one time. BTW Duncan was above Robinson in WS in the 98-99 Season. Duncan finished 3rd in MVP voting and Robinson was 12th. Say what you will about the objective nature of MVP voting, but the top 3 is rarely wrong. I can argue with about 10 of the eventual winners, but the top 3 were the dominant figures of the league clearly. Additionally, you asked who the best player was and like a moron you stated Avery Johnson was the best player. You forgot that Sean Elliott and Vinny Del Negro played there. Plus, in the 98-99 season Mr. "The Kiss of Death" had a higher WS total than were better despite player 380 fewer minutes. So, to the Karl Malone point, if you think the choker/kid toucher Mailman was in the same class with Larry Bird puts you squarely against any basketball historian. At some point you have to acknowledge that you are wrong and not everyone else. Bird won when the game was on the line, and Bird was THE dominant player in the league for five years. Malone was a footnote in comparison. There has never been a question about Bird's MVPs...the same cannot be said for Mailman. 1997 was voter fatigue and 1999 you have already questioned. (BTW you want to complain about Bavetta? Olajwuon received more techs and was fouled out by him more than any other referee so let's not go down the road of referee preferences lest I get into another Scott Foster/Joey Crawford diatribe). Then you want to talk about how I lose the debate about the best seasons between Bird and Malone. Bird's level of competition was light years ahead or Malone in a weaker western conference. The Lakers were done, the Suns were borderline, the Sonics, Rockets, and Spurs were good consistently (except that one year when Robinson was hurt), but he played in the era of vast expansion. Bird had the Sixers, Bucks, Pistons, Bulls, Cavs, and Knicks were all good at varying times. The league didn't expand until Bird was starting his downhill turn. Malone's only argument was longevity. When he "tore through the western conference like a knife through hot butter" the west was not exceptional. The Bulls had stiffer competition in the east plus had to play through more adversity.

I never said that championships are all that matters, but when we get to the cream of the crop (the top 10-15 players in history) winning matters and winning as the best player is crucial. The list of players I shared is bulletproof except for Reed (one of his Finals MVPs is specious at best - should have belonged to Frazier). If I was selecting a power forward for my team, I would choose at least four before I got to Malone. I get your argument about the eye test. When you don't know the game, it is hard to understand what you are seeing.

Duncan was above Robinson in win shares in 98-99 because Robinson missed a lot of games with injuries. When they were both playing Robinson was like 20% more effective per every 40minutes played. But you knew that already. You are trying to manipulate stats now. Robinson was the best player in the league that season per 48 minutes played. David missed 33 games with injuries.

Olajuwon didn't "Take" the Rockets to the finals in his second year. The Rocket got to the finals because they had 2 or 3 other good players. Olajuwon had become their best player by then, but he was still not a big superstar. His WS/48 was well below .200. But again, how good players are is not just about the playoffs. It's MORE about the regular season then the playoffs. Even if a team makes the finals they are only playing like 25% as many games in the playoffs as the played in the regular season. If they lose in the first or second round that may only play like 12% as many games in the playoffs as in the regular season.

You can go with your so called "historians," I'm taking Malone over Bird if I have a choice of having either player for their FULL Career. Calling Malone a "choker" is beyond absurd. Malone is easily the top PF of all time (Duncan is a center, about 65% of his minutes were played at center). It's not even close. You can take who you want. And I forgot more about the game than you know.

I will agree with you on one thing. You did forget more about the game. I doubt you ever knew it.

Olajuwon didn't take them there in 1995 and he wasn't a big superstar yet. You realize he won MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same season the year prior and was the first to accomplish that in history, right? RIGHT? Go be dumb elsewhere. You clearly don't know the story of 1995. CLEARLY. Olajuwon fought through injuries early in the season. Then they traded for Drex. Glide wasn't the same Glide that he was in 1988. Olajuwon dominated the second half of the season and the Rox got the 6 seed. Then led the Rox to the title without ever having HCA.

You allege that I manipulated stats. I did nothing of the sort. What I did was not take your BS as gospel truth and showed where you were lying. You should have provided context to your argument.

Malone WAS a choker. Your favorite stat proves it.
Regular season .205 WS/48. Playoffs .146 WS/48
Jordan .250 to .255.
LeBron .221 to .237.
Wilt .248 to .200.
Kareem .228 to .193.
CP3 .226 to .187
Dirk .193 to .188
Duncan .209 to .194
Oscar .207 to .178
Stockton .209 to .160

Bird .203 to .173.
Olajuwon .177 to .189
Robinson .250 to .199

No player in "your" top 10 fell off more in the playoffs. He was worse than Stockton, which is hard to imagine because he sucked too in the postseason.

My power forwards I would choose over Malone:
Duncan (I do count him as a PF he won his MVPs there)
Giannis
Garnett
McHale

The best version of Barkley runs close with the best version of Mailman. Karl was a better defender, but Barkley was better at virtually everything else. Dirk isn't in the discussion. You have to do more than just shoot the ball. Dirk couldn't guard his shadow and was a very light rebounder considering his size, position, and era.

I'll take the best version of them against the best version of Malone and win every time.

You'd win every time, huh?

Malone and Duncan played 11 playoff games head to head. Malone's team won 8 of those 11 games.

Utah played the Spurs just once in the playoffs during both of their careers, and Utah won the series 4 games to one.

The meeting was in 1998 and the Jazz won the series 4 games to one. Malone averaged 24 and 10 and 4 assists, Duncan averaged 21 and 8, and 1 assist.

Old man Malone on the Lakers faced the Spurs in the playoffs in 2004 and the Lakers won that series in 6 games. Malone was 40 years old and not great anymore, Duncan was 27 years old and right in his prime. But Malone's team still won the series.

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 4/15/2025 8:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/15/2025 8:22:00 PM (view original):
So Midge, tell us. When did Curry pass by Issel and become more valuable?

How many seasons did Curry have to play before he became more valuable than Issel?

BTW, Issel has 3 seasons in the sim with a salary of $8M or more. Curry has one.

Why don't you start mocking the sim for that? Obviously you must think that the sim is dead wrong saying that between Issel and Curry that Issel has 3 of the 4 best seasons that either of them had.

March 14, 1988

I get it. You're gonna keep making jokes because you can't back up any of your assertions with any facts.

I think Midge keeps making jokes because he's funny

So McHale was better than Karl Malone now.

I thought you cared about MVP awards?

Malone won 2, and finished in the top 5 seven other times, and top 10 another 5 times.
McHale got MVP votes in a whopping 3 seasons where he finished 4th, 15th and 19th.

In his silly book, bosoxbill correlates playing with octagenarian Paul Arizin in his final broken *** year with playing with Bob Cousy throughout about 8 years of his prime. He counts the 40-some games over 4 injury-ravaged years of coexisting with Elgin Baylor as the same thing as playing 8 years with Hondo in his prime. Discuss.

If Dan Issel is so good why isn’t he on the NBA 75th Anniversary Team?

Do you think maybe they didn’t consider his WIS basketball salary?

Posted by Midge on 4/15/2025 10:50:00 PM (view original):
If Dan Issel is so good why isn’t he on the NBA 75th Anniversary Team?

Do you think maybe they didn’t consider his WIS basketball salary?

Because half of Issel's peak was not in the NBA, DUH. He is in the Hall of Fame. I think a team with him and Rudy T. as the stars won the last Decades League championship here.

And because the voters for that thing are stupid. No way Maravich should be on that team, as well as some others.

Oh no! Naismith Hall of Fame reference! ouch! - not an NBA HOF! Pat Summit ftw!