Best NBA Player to Come Out of the Big East | Page 5 | The Boneyard

Best NBA Player to Come Out of the Big East

Status
Not open for further replies.
boog204 said:
Nobody disagrees with his accomplishments... But if you're starting a team today of prime AI, Ewing, Melo, Ray, Mullin, etc. are you taking Ray first? Love the guy, but there's no way I'm taking him over the first three and it's debatable with Mullin.
Expand ...

Not sure why Mullins would be debatable. Ray did everything he did but better, and I like Chris

I don't want AI on my team. Leadership and chemistry matter. I think he's a Kryrie Irving or Stephon Marbury

Melo can score, seems to have chemistry issues, but not as bad as AI.

Ewing is the only player that's debatable for me. But in today's NBA, with three point shooting up a ton, Ray would be even better than he was.
 
boog204 said:
Nobody disagrees with his accomplishments... But if you're starting a team today of prime AI, Ewing, Melo, Ray, Mullin, etc. are you taking Ray first? Love the guy, but there's no way I'm taking him over the first three and it's debatable with Mullin.
Expand ...

Ray was objectively better than Mullin.

To me it's pick between Iverson and Ewing, then pick between Ray and Anthony, Mullin 5th, Jimmy Butler 6th.
 
Dogdeacon said:
Game 5 of that series was pivotal. Bucks shot 16 free throws at home vs 28 for Sixers in a 1-pt loss. Overall 76ers made more FT 140/186 than the Bucks were awarded-120 (made 101). That's a huge 39pt discrepancy of 6ppg on makes. Iverson made 43/55 free throws vs Ray a cool 30/31.
Also 12-3 in techs against the Bucks. Game 7 the Sixers won handily so it looks less rigged but the deck was heavily stacked against the Bucks.
Fix was in theory
Expand ...
I am remember that series well. The Bucks got screwed in that series by the officiating. I remember, Glenn Robinson didn't shoot 1 FT in games 1-4.
 
Excalibur said:
Ray was objectively better than Mullin.
Expand ...
If we are talking just college, the gap is a lot closer than you imply. Mullin took his team to the Final Four. And before anyone says "But Walter Berry", Ray played with players, too.
 
.-.
Not reading this whole thread, so apologies if this take has been argued. But Ray Allen was a better NBA player than Iverson. It’s honestly not even that close tbh.
 
storrsroars said:
Actually, if I want to build a roster to win a championship today, I probably am taking Ray, knowing what we know about the accomplishments of all five. Three-point shooting prowess is a premium. AI didn't have that, he's a volume shooter like Harden, and neither have rings. Ewing probably wouldn't be as effective now as in his time. And I think Allen would contribute more than Mullen or even Melo, although the latter is a pretty close 1b.
Expand ...

Ray was only the clear cut #1 star of the team once in his career, that was for his 5 seasons in Seattle where he led them to a 195-215 record. They only made the playoffs once, winning one series. I thought Ray was the best player on the Bucks but that was a three headed deal. He shared the scoring duties with Big Dog, they both averaged the same amount of points and were both all-stars and Cassell had the ball in his hands just as much. In Boston Ray was super clutch and had big moments in the playoffs but he was probably considered #3 out of the big three and then there was Rondo. Ray hit probably the biggest shot in finals history but he was just a great role player playing with superstars at that point.

If you were looking for a vital piece on a championship team Ray is your guy but Iverson and Ewing were clearly more successful #1 guys leading a team.
 
Waquoit said:
If we are talking just college, the gap is a lot closer than you imply. Mullin took his team to the Final Four. And before anyone says "But Walter Berry", Ray played with players, too.
Expand ...

Well, the title of the thread is “Best NBA Player”, so there’s that . . .
 
I'd take Ray above all else if we were building a team for the modern NBA. If he graduated in 2010 instead of '95, he would have been a top-5 pick, won a couple more chips, and averaged 30+ a game for a decade.
 
.-.
husky429 said:
I'd take Ray above all else if we were building a team for the modern NBA. If he graduated in 2010 instead of '95, he would have been a top-5 pick, won a couple more chips, and averaged 30+ a game for a decade.
Expand ...
He was a Top-5 pick!

I think most of what you said and more would pertain to AI as well though.
 
Ray had a better career but AI had a better peak. AI career went the way rbs careers go in the NFL, a peak then a huge drop off. Once he lost his explosiveness he could never alter his game, he couldn’t shoot.

As you get older your shooting needs to improve of course you saw it with but also in PG like Jason Kidd and Steve Nash. It also didn’t help AI partied and drank his whole career sure you can get away with it when your young but once your in your 30s it takes its toll.
 
CardiacAndre7 said:
He was a Top-5 pick!

I think most of what you said and more would pertain to AI as well though.
Expand ...

I don't know if there's much of a place for AI in 2023, but it the last time I watched any of his games was obviously a long, long time ago.

The era of low-effeciency gunners is GONE--a career 31% deep shooter (and under 30% for much of his prime). Even his 2pt% was under 45% for most of his career. NBA teams don't tolerate that kind of efficiency any more.

Top that off with his inability to switch onto bigger guards when the NBA is so switch and pre-switch heavy right now, and I'm not sure AI would be an all-star these days. He's what, 5'10 and 170lbs? I can't imagine someone of his caliber not being a league starter, but I just don't see a household name.
 
husky429 said:
I don't know if there's much of a place for AI in 2023, but it the last time I watched any of his games was obviously a long, long time ago.

The era of low-effeciency gunners is GONE--a career 31% deep shooter (and under 30% for much of his prime). Even his 2pt% was under 45% for most of his career. NBA teams don't tolerate that kind of efficiency any more.

Top that off with his inability to switch onto bigger guards when the NBA is so switch and pre-switch heavy right now, and I'm not sure AI would be an all-star these days. He's what, 5'10 and 170lbs? I can't imagine someone of his caliber not being a league starter, but I just don't see a household name.
Expand ...
Yeah I mean I think you have to adjust to the era. Shooting will always translate, which is why Ray wouldn’t have a problem. But AI would have to change his game. He would put more emphasis on the 3 for sure. Not saying he would be a 40% 3 pt shooter but he would improve those numbers. VanVleet was an All-Star. AI is leaps and bounds better.
 
I really think AI in the modern game is being underestimated. Two things about him... 1) he could defintely shoot but because the game was much more physical and midrange heavy his numbers (and body) took a toll. If he played today, he'd shoot more threes without a doubt and I'm confident his three point numbers would be dramatically different. 2) with today's spacing, he'd be blowing by everyone to the rim and his 2 point numbers would be dramatically better as well. The question of his defense and switching is legit but he was such a fierce competitor, I'm sure he'd figure it out.
 
BuffaloHusky said:
I really think AI in the modern game is being underestimated. Two things about him... 1) he could defintely shoot but because the game was much more physical and midrange heavy his numbers (and body) took a toll. If he played today, he'd shoot more threes without a doubt and I'm confident his three point numbers would be dramatically different. 2) with today's spacing, he'd be blowing by everyone to the rim and his 2 point numbers would be dramatically better as well. The question of his defense and switching is legit but he was such a fierce competitor, I'm sure he'd figure it out.
Expand ...

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but with a player like Ray there is no "if he shot more threes" or "if his numbers would be a higher %" or "with today's spacing he could..." His game was tailor-made for the new era and he could have transitioned with exactly the same game he developed in the 90s and 2000s. There's always a big "IF" when it comes to whether Iverson could have competed once the league changed.

Obviously we're talking hypotheticals here, so I'm not getting my panties in a bunch. Just food for thought.
 
.-.
Ewing would have been a great modern center. He had range, and he was athletic in the first half of his career. The Knicks' backcourts during his career were not great, and any team that was depending on Charles Smith for production was not going to win a title, so I don't want to penalize him too much for not winning it all.
 
husky429 said:
I don't know if there's much of a place for AI in 2023, but it the last time I watched any of his games was obviously a long, long time ago.

The era of low-effeciency gunners is GONE--a career 31% deep shooter (and under 30% for much of his prime). Even his 2pt% was under 45% for most of his career. NBA teams don't tolerate that kind of efficiency any more.

Top that off with his inability to switch onto bigger guards when the NBA is so switch and pre-switch heavy right now, and I'm not sure AI would be an all-star these days. He's what, 5'10 and 170lbs? I can't imagine someone of his caliber not being a league starter, but I just don't see a household name.
Expand ...
There's players who break the mold, Iverson is one of those players and he would be unstoppable with the ball in his hands in any era. Only difference is he would probably average 35+ now instead of his 30 then. Iverson was averaging over 30 when the league average for points in NBA games was around 95 ppg, it's now around 114.

Iverson was certainly inefficient but part of that is when he played, it's simply easier to score now in the NBA.

Kemba was an inefficient big time scorer in Charlotte. I love Kemba but Iverson was a way more talented scorer than him. It's not like inefficient guards still haven't been coveted and given the green light...Harden, Dame, Westbrook etc.
 
superjohn said:
There's players who break the mold, Iverson is one of those players and he would be unstoppable with the ball in his hands in any era. Only difference is he would probably average 35+ now instead of his 30 then. Iverson was averaging over 30 when the league average for points in NBA games was around 95 ppg, it's now around 114.

Iverson was certainly inefficient but part of that is when he played, it's simply easier to score now in the NBA.

Kemba was an inefficient big time scorer in Charlotte. I love Kemba but Iverson was a way more talented scorer than him. It's not like inefficient guards still haven't been coveted and given the green light...Harden, Dame, Westbrook etc.
Expand ...
I know they aren’t efficient to the eye, but both Dame and Harden are technically efficient scorers when it comes to TS% and efg%. Not sure about Russ, but I assume not because of how poor of a shooter he is overall.
 
Lol @ judging AI through today's lense, AI played in a completely different era with different spacing and offensive philosophy, if he was in today's game obviously his game and offensive approach would be altered.
 
aceboon said:
Lol @ judging AI through today's lense, AI played in a completely different era with different spacing and offensive philosophy, if he was in today's game obviously his game and offensive approach would be altered.
Expand ...
Sure. He'd be Harden. Still no rings.

I lol @ thinking AI would actually develop a work ethic to improve on his weaknesses.
 
storrsroars said:
Sure. He'd be Harden. Still no rings.

I lol @ thinking AI would actually develop a work ethic to improve on his weaknesses.
Expand ...
Rings aren’t the only measurement. Harden won an MVP and probably shoulda had another. His prime was the Warriors dynasty. The ring argument is getting very annoying.
 
.-.
CardiacAndre7 said:
Rings aren’t the only measurement. Harden won an MVP and probably shoulda had another. His prime was the Warriors dynasty. The ring argument is getting very annoying.
Expand ...
Well, we're UConn. Rings mean something.

1701449674862.png
 
aceboon said:
Lol @ judging AI through today's lense, AI played in a completely different era with different spacing and offensive philosophy, if he was in today's game obviously his game and offensive approach would be altered.
Expand ...
I think AI would be holding on to the rock too long in any era.
 
The mental gymnastics people go through on here to prove their bias is pretty funny. AI is simply a better player than Ray in NBA history.
 
CardiacAndre7 said:
The mental gymnastics people go through on here to prove their bias is pretty funny. AI is simply a better player than Ray in NBA history.
Expand ...
The NBA 75th Anniversary team has Ray at 47th all-time which seems more than fair to me. They have him 6 spots ahead of Clyde Drexler and 15 spots ahead of Paul Pierce. Ewing is #40 on the list and Iverson is #31 on the list.
 
superjohn said:
The NBA 75th Anniversary team has Ray at 47th all-time which seems more than fair to me. They have him 6 spots ahead of Clyde Drexler and 15 spots ahead of Paul Pierce. Ewing is #40 on the list and Iverson is #31 on the list.
Expand ...
I’m fine with that, but I would also need to look at the list. My Dad is/was a die hard Knicks fan and he thinks Ewing is somewhat overrated. He always got the short end of the stick against the other star centers of the league. It. was a golden era so nothing to cry about, but it does come into play.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,271
Messages
4,560,889
Members
10,451
Latest member
WashingtonH


Top Bottom