Posted by snydpie on 2/7/2011 6:08:00 PM (view original):
I don't think his career even comes close to qualifying him for the top 50. He couldn't even play a full season. Greatest includes consistancy and longevity and Walton doesn't qualify for either of those. He wasn't nothin but a backup for his 2nd championship. Horry and Salley won more championships than Walton. They won a bunch and Horry was one of the greatest clutch playoff players ever but he isn't top 50. Barkley never won a championship but he was one of the greatest PF's ever. Are you really suggesting Walton should have been on the top 50 list and Dominique Wilkins shouldn't have? Two great seasons doesn't qualify a player to be considered as one of the greatest players ever. Lever had a better career than Walton but he will never be mentioned as a top 50 candidate. Grant Hill either! Walton, Hill, and Lever could easily make top 50 with healthy full careers but they were not that fortunate. Wilkins was an incredible player on some very average teams. Without Wilkins Atlanta would have been one of the worst teams in the NBA during his career.
Totally missed this rant...the reason Horry didn't make it is that he only had 2 championships at that point and he was never great. Salley, while I love his podcast, was never great either...he could guard the rim, but he wasn't call on to score so he allowed himself to be one-dimensional. Nique was also considered one-dimensional and he never won anything. Even when the Hawks brought in Moses he was not able to get over the hump (granted it was late in his career, but this is the thought process in 1997) and Wilkins wasn't very well liked in the league at the time as were many Hawks not named Doc. Shaq at that point in his career was not one of the best players in the history of the league (4 and half years no titles and got dominated in his one finals appearance) Walt Bellemy would have been a t better choice. Grant Hill was only in the league for 3 and a half years do he certainly had no place on the list. Lever played for a marginal team that couldn't get out of the 2nd round and only had four dominate seasons.
Walton got in because he was respected on TV and when he did play he was a dominate player. Should he have made it? Yes. He is an interesting argument. He was a the best player in the league for a period of time. None of the players before could say that. He beat Dr. J at his NBA pinnacle. He was a killer player of the bench for, perhaps, the greatest team in NBA history, 85-86 Celtics. The guy also gets bonus ponts for the injuries that he went through and how he kept trying to comeback when some guys would have thrown in the towel. He was a great team player and did all the little things to make his team win. Walton was a rare player that could completely dominate both sides of the court. The list of guys that could do that was very, very short (including more modern players) it is:
MJ, Dream, Wilt, Robinson, Shaq, CP3, Duncan, Kobe, Cowens, KG, and Walton.
There may be a couple more, but that is pretty much it.
Walton also gets credit for playing one of the two most difficult positions. If you give anyone to choice of having a random HOF center or random HOF any other position, center is always the one that gets picked first. Proof - No one ever faults Houston for taking Dream over Jordan.