Tamika Catchings... GOAT?

[BBallF]

Jordan couldn't get anything going until Pippen developed into a star.

I don't think that is accurate at all. Jordan had 63 against the 86 Celtics in the playoffs who probably had the greatest front court in NBA history and averaged 37 ppg. What stopped Jordan was first the great Celtics teams and then the back to back Pistons teams. He was also maturing as a player. It is true that Pippen had a great defensive year in 91 and thereafter and was developing and the missing piece but you have to remember who won the Finals MVP trophies. It wasn't him. In my view, Pippen was important but could not be "the guy" since they later proved they couldn't win without Jordan. Not only that, each year the Bulls progressed as a team without Pippen and then later when Pippen was in his early years and Jordan had a lot to do with that. He made everyone better that was around him. A solid team behind you may put you in the position to show and achieve greatness but then the great ones rise to the occasion. My objection is to the title and tenor of the article. He called her the GOAT. The author has attempted to prove a theory by statistics centered on individual value to a team exclusive of the team's achievements in the league. As I said, if the player was so valuable and so great, none of those team obstacles would matter. There has to be an "eye" test also. I'm sorry but she didn't look like the GOAT to me. She was a great player and first team all time WNBA and deserves to be in the HOF. The author however was not content with that and had the audacity to"discover" the one true way of determining who was the greatest ever. So if Stewie wins another 4 or 5 titles in her career but her "new value stats" are not as good as Tamika's, she can't be the greatest. It's called "Let me write a controversial article that will get people talking". It obviously worked.

 

[lne001]

I think Willie Mays is the greatest baseball player ever.

Obviously you are someone of impeccable taste and intellect.

 

[bballnut90]

I don't think that is accurate at all. Jordan had 63 against the 86 Celtics in the playoffs who probably had the greatest front court in NBA history and averaged 37 ppg. What stopped Jordan was first the great Celtics teams and then the back to back Pistons teams. He was also maturing as a player. It is true that Pippen had a great defensive year in 91 and thereafter and was developing and the missing piece but you have to remember who won the Finals MVP trophies. It wasn't him. In my view, Pippen was important but could not be "the guy" since they later proved they couldn't win without Jordan. Not only that, each year the Bulls progressed as a team without Pippen and then later when Pippen was in his early years and Jordan had a lot to do with that. He made everyone better that was around him. A solid team behind you may put you in the position to show and achieve greatness but then the great ones rise to the occasion. My objection is to the title and tenor of the article. He called her the GOAT. The author has attempted to prove a theory by statistics centered on individual value to a team exclusive of the team's achievements in the league. As I said, if the player was so valuable and so great, none of those team obstacles would matter. There has to be an "eye" test also. I'm sorry but she didn't look like the GOAT to me. She was a great player and first team all time WNBA and deserves to be in the HOF. The author however was not content with that and had the audacity to"discover" the one true way of determining who was the greatest ever. So if Stewie wins another 4 or 5 titles in her career but her "new value stats" are not as good as Tamika's, she can't be the greatest. It's called "Let me write a controversial article that will get people talking". It obviously worked.

I can agree with all of that. I just dont agree with the original rhetoric that winning titles is essentially the most important piece to the argument.

Your statement of, "a solid team behind you may put you in the position to show and achieve greatness but then the great ones rise to the occasion" is very accurate. Problem for Catchings is she never had that solid team behind her. Same with Lebron for much of his career. On the contrary, all of the WNBA greats and NBA players who've won a slew of titles did have incredible supporting casts, usually with Hall of Fame teammates. If Moore and Catchings swapped teams from 2011-2017, my guess is Catchings has several more trophies but we'll obviously never know.

At the end of the day though I agree, I dont think Catchings is the best WNBA player ever largely due to eye test.

 

[domerduck]

Everyone leaves out Lauren Jackson who from the time she came into the WNBA until her last full year 2010 was among the top 3 if not the best.

She is top 3 in both of the article's justification that Catching is #1: "Basketball-Reference.com's win shares have Catchings No. 1 with 93.7 career win shares, 20 more than anyone else. (Three-time MVP Lauren Jackson of the Seattle Storm is second at 73.1, with Taurasi third at 65.3.)" and his "WNBA Leaders, Wins Above Replacement Player" where Catching is #1 at 128.5, Taurasi #2 at 93.4, and Jackson #3 at 89.2. Pelton sure puts Jackson up there with the advanced stats.

 

[BBallF]

I can agree with all of that. I just dont agree with the original rhetoric that winning titles is essentially the most important piece to the argument.

Your statement of, "a solid team behind you may put you in the position to show and achieve greatness but then the great ones rise to the occasion" is very accurate. Problem for Catchings is she never had that solid team behind her. Same with Lebron for much of his career. On the contrary, all of the WNBA greats and NBA players who've won a slew of titles did have incredible supporting casts, usually with Hall of Fame teammates. If Moore and Catchings swapped teams from 2011-2017, my guess is Catchings has several more trophies but we'll obviously never know.

At the end of the day though I agree, I dont think Catchings is the best WNBA player ever largely due to eye test.

Very good basketball conversation. I think a new thread is in order! Here it comes.

 

[asuwish]

Doesn't DT lead the league in points scored, 3 pointers, etc... I cannot even read something that I know is a falsehood

Why are the numbers false? Do you think this person made them up? Tamika is great! Tarasi just wins, granted she did have great teamates. Except Uconn title 2 and 3 she carried them. She also won oversees and is by far the player you give the ball to to win a game. Tamika may have great stats, but I'll take DT. or maybe Breanna if her career is long enough

 

[Steelerone]

This is a Williams vs DiMaggio, Bird vs Johnson, Montana vs Brady post.

 

[bballnut90]

She is top 3 in both of the article's justification that Catching is #1: "Basketball-Reference.com's win shares have Catchings No. 1 with 93.7 career win shares, 20 more than anyone else. (Three-time MVP Lauren Jackson of the Seattle Storm is second at 73.1, with Taurasi third at 65.3.)" and his "WNBA Leaders, Wins Above Replacement Player" where Catching is #1 at 128.5, Taurasi #2 at 93.4, and Jackson #3 at 89.2. Pelton sure puts Jackson up there with the advanced stats.

What's interesting too is that LJ basically accomplished these numbers over a 10 year career while DT/Taurasi did theirs in 15. If LJ maintained the same win shares per season for another 5 years, she's likely par with Catchings or possibly ahead of her.

If you look at the offensive on/off summary the writer highlights in his article, Indiana was 12.6 ppg better per 100 possessions with Catchings on the court over her career. Jackson from 2001-2010 had an average of 13.7.

These numbers are interesting but the problem with these stats though is they primarily show how important you are to your team which doesn't paint the total picture. These numbers are a reflection of how important Catchings was to her team, but it also shows how bad her team was without her on the court, or how poor her replacement was. DT had better teammates so they were able to pick up the slack if she was out.

 

[bballnut90]

Why are the numbers false? Do you think this person made them up? Tamika is great! Tarasi just wins, granted she did have great teamates. Except Uconn title 2 and 3 she carried them. She also won oversees and is by far the player you give the ball to to win a game. Tamika may have great stats, but I'll take DT. or maybe Breanna if her career is long enough

Moore has more WNBA titles than DT and double the number of finals appearances in a career half the length of Diana's. I don't know how people can overlook her, especially on a UCONN forum.