Comments on: Inner-Circle Hall of Famers: 1950s/1960s NBA & ABA Basketball Statistics & History Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:04 +0000 hourly 1 By: GURU Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:03:57 +0000 C- WILT /BRUSSEl (Brussel team was better thats why i put him on the bench).
PF- BPetit
SF- EBaylor

By: AYC Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:13:59 +0000 Kevin, you're starting to sound delusional. Do you really think Isiah wasn't one of the top 3 players on the Pistons?! That Stockton was better than Malone?! Can I have some of what you're smoking? I think if you polled players and coaches, 99% would disagree with you on both points; but hey, you've got win-shares on your side, right?

As for strength of competition, I'll go with the late 80's over the late 90's without hesitation. Team record isn't the only indicator of how good a team was, because it doesn't factor in level of competition (last year, the cavs won 66 games but failed to make the finals, losing to a 59 win team).

there were 6 expansion teams for the Bulls to feast on in 96 that didn't exist when the Celts, Lakers, Bulls and Pistons were duking it out in Zeke's prime. I'm of the opinion that the Jazz teams that made the finals in 97/98 weren't any better than the teams from the early 90's that couldn't get past the 2nd round; they, like the Bulls, only looked better because the rest of the league had gotten worse. It's ridiculous to pretend the Bulls teams that the Pistons beat en route to the title weren't tough teams; personally I'll take the first 3-peat bulls over the second any day.

And who's to say those Jazz players didn't see their % rise due to playing with Malone, rather than Stockton?

By: kevin Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:43:11 +0000 "Luke, I can't believe you used the team success argument, when Zeke has 2 rings and Stockton has ZERO; also, I think Stockton's teams might have benefited slightly from having some guy named Karl Malone... Stock was never the best player on his own team!"

As Luke mentioned, the Jazz teams that faced the Jordan Bulls at their zenith had to face a much tougher opponent than the Pistons faced. When the Pistons won their back-to-backs, the league power Celtics and Lakers were in decline and Pistons slipped into the void. The Jazz faced off against a Bulls team that won 69 regular season games.

The 2 years the Jazz made it to the Finals, they won 64 and 62 games. The Pistons won 63 add 59 games and the teams they beat won 57 and 59 games, rather low for a team in the Finals.

Additionally, you are making 2 questionable assumptions:

1) Malone was a better player than Stockton

2) Thomas was the best player on the Pistons.

In 1990, Thomas was fourth on the team in Win Shares, behind Dumars, Rodman and Laimbeer. In 1989, he was tied for third with Dumars.

Stockton's Win Shares were second to Malone's both years (on a rate basis. Stockton missed 14 games in 1998 yet still managed 8 Win Shares). but I think it fair to say that the reason Malone's Win Share totals were so high was because Stockton was so good at gettig him high percentage shots.

Stockton did that for everyone. After Hornacek got traded to Utah, his FG% shot up 50 points. Adam Keefe went from .455 in Atlanta to .577 in Utah. Antoine Carr went from .488 to .531. Tyrone Corbin was shooting .401 in Milwaukee, got traded to Utah after 11 games and shot .504 the rest of the year and .503 the following year.

Malone and Stockton helped each other but I think Stockton helped Malone more than vice versa.

By: AYC Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:48:41 +0000 Luke, I can't believe you used the team success argument, when Zeke has 2 rings and Stockton has ZERO; also, I think Stockton's teams might have benefited slightly from having some guy named Karl Malone... Stock was never the best player on his own team!

By: TRad Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:56:10 +0000 70s Jabbar, Erving, Havlicek, Hayes
80s Jordan, Johnson, Bird, Malone
90s Robinson, Olajuwon, Malone, Stockton - sorry, Pip
00s O'Neal, Garnett, Duncan, Bryant - Kidd and Nash just missed it

By: Luke Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:53:25 +0000 AYC,
To address your "Stockton hurt his teams by not shooting more" theory, throughout his career, Stockton's teams were a combined 966-560 for a .633 win percentage. Thomas's teams, on the other hand, went 603-463 for a .566 win percentage. That seems like a pretty big difference to me. Also, in 13 years, Thomas missed the playoffs 4 times. In 19 years, Stockton NEVER missed the playoffs. So, it seems to me that whatever Stockton was doing (passing more/less, shooting more/less, whatever), he figured out a way to ensure that his teams were successful and that they won games, which is what I think being a great point guard is all about.

Isiah Thomas was a great player, but if I wanted someone to lead my team and run my offense, I'd take Stockton. (And I'd take Magic Johnson over both of them. And possibly Jason Kidd, just to start a few more arguments...)

By: kevin Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:28:58 +0000 There you go. Thomas was playing more minutes, so it was fatigue that was causing him to miss all those shots.

By: AYC Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:49:10 +0000 I understand that, I just disagree. One final point and I'm done: All the stats being quoted here are based on 36 min; but Stockton didn't play 36 mpg, he played 31.8, while Zeke played 36.3. So all these great Stockton stats are hypothetical, not real; they are based on the disputable assumption of an absolute, linear correlation between minutes played (and pace) and statistical production.

Per min stats might be useful for judging role-players, but when it comes to superstars like these two, the ACTUAL stats are what matter, not what a player MIGHT have averaged if he had played more min. I asked before why a supposedly great scorer like Stock didn't shoot more; well, we can also ask why such a great player didn't play more minutes; 31.8 mpg isn't alot.

How many min you play is a good indicator of how valuable you are to your team; that's the problem with PER, it penalizes players who are asked to carry their teams with big minutes (like Russell, who ranks a dismal #82 on the all-time PER list). Peace.

By: Robert August de Meijer Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:48:34 +0000 Recently, I was wondering how putting Russell in the 50s instead of the 60s, perhaps Bob Cousy was bumped off in favor for Elgin Baylor. To me, Cousy is much more an "Hall of Famer", but I do not have his Media/Stats points; could you tell us how much the difference is?

By: Caleb Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:34:45 +0000 AYC... I don't think anyone is arguing that Isiah wasn't a great player... just that Stockton was a better player.