# Why Was Dominique Wilkins Not Voted As One Of The Top 50 NBA Players Of All Time??



## kingofkings (Jun 9, 2002)

Can anyone explain this point to me??

He finished his NBA career totalling 26,534 points, which is 8th all time in NBA regular season scoring. The knock on him was that he was a selfish player who shot too much. But, the reason why he finished his NBA career only averaging 2 assists was that he was the only scoring option for the Hawks. 

Who could he pass to, Doc Rivers, Tree Rollins, Cliff Levingston, Spud Webb, etc. The Hawks needed finishers and players that could get the job done offensively, for them to win games.

He was a champion and deserves more respect then he got from the "experts" who voted for the top 50 players of all time. He did all he could to lead the Hawks to numerous playoff contests and epic battles with Larry Bird.The Hawks did alot of winning, with the seemingly feable playing roster that they had, in those days.

When the top 50 players of all time was announced Jordan, Magic and Bird alll came to Wilkins defense and said that they knew that he deserved to be in that elite group of players.They all expressed shock and amazement, that he was left off that list.

He also ended his NBA career shooting in excess of 46% from the field. Not bad for a pure scorer. I mean, when your number one player and option is putting up that many shots, at least he is shooting at a good percentage.Which is more than we can say for some current players.

To quote Wilkins, "Some of the players that were voted top 50 could not even hold my Jock,"

This quote seems to sum up the whole situation. He was robbed. He did all he could for the Hawks and what do they do, trade their best player of all time??

He was a scorer and the Hawks needed him to score otherwise the team could not win. He was the number #1 option and the team needed him to put the ball in the hole, otherwise they could not win.He filled his role and performed night in and night out.

So can anyone explain why he was not voted Top 50?? I really think that the "chumps" who voted for these guys need to revise the list, because this guy was robbed. He was a superstar small forward who helped build the Hawks to respectability and played his guts out every night. So who agrees that he was robbed??

What basis, was the Top 50 players of all time, voted on?? Was it based on championships, playing on winning teams, etc etc. Did they even take into account particular players roles on teams, in making up this list??

I know that there are always going to be controversial selections and admissions, on lists like this, but in my opinion, it was a blatant omission.

My opinion, was that Wilkins reputation as a gunner, was what counted against him, being one of the Top 50 players of all time. But once again, how many other players could score more than 26,000 points, in the best league in the world.

Wilkins led the Hawks all he could and as far as he could. Unfortunately, when you are surrounded by role players and an average supporting cast, you can only go so far......


Here is the complete list of the Top 50 NBA players voted in 1996.

1 Abdul-Jabbar Kareem 
2 Archibald Nate 
3 Arizin Paul 
4 Barkley Charles 
5 Barry Rick 
6 Baylor Elgin 
7 Bing Dave 
8 Bird Larry 
9 Chamberlain Wilt 
10 Cousy Bob 
11 Cowens Dave 
12 Cunningham Billy 
13 DeBusschere Dave 
14 Drexler Clyde 
15 Erving Julius 
16 Ewing Patrick 
17 Frazier Walt 
18 Gervin George 
19 Greer Hal 
20 Havlicek John 
21 Hayes Elvin 
22 Johnson Magic 
23 Jones Sam 
24 Jordan Michael 
25 Lucas Jerry 
26 Malone Karl 
27 Malone Moses 
28 Maravich Pete 
29 McHale Kevin 
30 Mikan George 
31 Monroe Earl 
32 Olajuwon Hakeem 
33 O'Neal Shaquille 
34 Parish Robert 
35 Pettit Bob 
36 Pippen Scottie 
37 Reed Willis 
38 Robertson Oscar 
39 Robinson David 
40 Russell Bill 
41 Schayes Dolph 
42 Sharman Bill 
43 Stockton John 
44 Thomas Isiah 
45 Thurmond Nate 
46 Unseld Wes 
47 Walton Bill 
48 West Jerry 
49 Wilkens Lenny 
50 Worthy James


----------



## HBM (Oct 17, 2002)

Who do you get rid of to add Dominique???


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

As much as I hate to say it, Nique deserves it just as much as anyone in the lower section. 

By lower section, I mean aside from like the Top 10 on everyone's list (Jordan, Bird, Magic, Wilt, etc.).

I think he deserves it more than Ewing.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

although I HATE to say it, maybe Wilkins OVER Pippen?


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

How about taking one of these guys out:

Paul Arizin, or Hal Greer, Dave Bing, or DeBusschere Dave ? Gervin (their numbers are about equal) wasn't any more of a passer than 'Nique - either.

I agree with <b>Bird, Magic, and Jordan</b> when it comes to this glaring omission.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Definately. Wilkins got the shaft in 1996, but that was then and this is now. And now he is getting the shaft by Hawks management. They had an opening for a freaking assistant coach position and the 2 options were Nique and some head scout, and they chose the head scout. The Hawks don't even have Nique in their media guide. Dominique Wilkins is like the Rodney Dangerfield of the NBA, NO RESPECT.

Also kingofkings you aren't giving the old Hawks enough credit. They went to the ECF or got VERY close to it a bunch of time, would've made the Finals if it wasn't for Detroit. With Nique they had a great front court with Nique/Willis/Malone.


----------



## JaK (Aug 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> although I HATE to say it, maybe Wilkins OVER Pippen?


I've always felt that Pippen should not have ever made this list... I don't think you can overlook Nique for Pippen... Nique did a hell of lot more for the game than Pippen ever did...


----------



## tinygiant (Sep 10, 2002)

I definitely agree that Nique should have been on the list. In the 80s he was one of the main reasons I started watching ball. But I don't think there's any way that you can leave Pippen off of the list. Don't get confused by the fact that he sucks now. In his prime, he was a guy who could do everything for 6 championships teams. He was consistently one of the best defenders in the league, probably the best open court player in the league, basically ran the Bulls offence as kind of a point forward, and was a great second option scoring to only the best player of all time.
If you are going to take guys off for Nique may I suggest people like Wilkens, Cunningham, Bing or Walton.


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

Obvious Selections over Wilkins (in my opinion):

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Archibald
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
George Mikan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Robert Parish
Bob Pettit
Willis Reed
Oscar Robertson
David Robinson
Bill Russell
Dolph Schayes
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Bill Walton
Jerry West
James Worthy

Questionable Selections over Wilkins (in my opinion):

Paul Arizin
Dave Bing
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Clyde Drexler
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
John Havlicek
Elvin Hayes
Pete Maravich
Kevin McHale
Earl Monroe
Scottie Pippen

Highly Questionable Selections over Wilkins (in my opinion):

Hal Greer
Sam Jones
Bill Sharman
Lenny Wilkens

What I would have done is take out two of my highly questionable selections and inserted Dominique Wilkins and Reggie Miller, but that's just me.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Remove:

Lenny Wilkens
Paul Arizin
Dave Bing

Insert:

Bob McAdoo
Mark Aguirre/Joe Dumars
Dominique Wilkins


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*thats insane!!!*



> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> although I HATE to say it, maybe Wilkins OVER Pippen?


there is no way wilkins was better than pip 

i'm not disputing Wilkins talent or him impact on 80's sportcenter highlights

but there is a reason pip is there and Dominique isn't 

willingness to use his talent to simply win games 

playing one side of the floor no matter how good you are at it shouldn't be enough and it isn't 

wilkins had talent on his team more than enough to have more of an impact than he did in the playoffs but when it came down to it when did 'nique ever grab a key rebound make that defensive stop score that bucket or simply pass the ball to his numerous competent players (in his time he had Moses malone reggie theus doc rivers kevin willis all of whom were all-stars at some point and most at the same time if not all of them ) that would really say he earned his way on the top 50 ?

dominique wilikns had the supporting cast if he supplied the heorics people expected of him he may have made the list 

pippen on the other hand was the best defensive small forward of his time threw in 20 a game and ran the best best off. of his era 

other than score what were wilikins accomplishments?


thats why he and and players like bob macadoo (led the nba in scoring twice) dont make the cut but players like pippen and worthy did


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

Questionable - John Havlicek? 
You really don't know about this 6th man who scored 
more than <b>20 PPG, 
more than 20,000 points, 
more than 8000 rebounds, 
more than 6000 assists, </b>

won 8 championships and losing NONE, 

was the MVP of the finals in 1974 and 
was cheated out of it the first year it was given in 1969, 

was all defensive team 8 times, 
was an all star 13 times,
was all NBA 11 times
still holds the finals game records for most points in OT and the most STEALS.

<b>QUESTIONABLE????? I don't think so. </b>


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Scottie Pippen is the only player in nba history to have over 18000 pts, 7000 boards, 5000 assists, and 2000 steals. There's a reason y people call him one of the greatest all round players of all time. Add the 6 rings, all nba selections and the defensive selections, u easily have a top 50 player right there. Anybody who disagrees either listens a lot to the sportwriters(wilbon, wiley, korheiser etc) who can't get off MJ's *******, or just hates Scottie.

Keep it clean. -Petey


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

The NBA game has changed greatly over the past 50 years. I don't think that anyone here is of age to have watched Arizin, Jones, etc. during their prime. Heck, their are probably few here who watched Magic in his prime. Numbers aren't everything. Take a look at baseball for example. When Babe first broke the season home run record, it was at 29! 29 home runs, I think that what Barry Bonds does in two months. 

Personnally, I don't think that Nique should've been top 50. Hall-of-famer, yes, but not top 50. I think that Bob McAdoo should've been in instead. You could make a case for Alex English also. Had Bernard King not have had the knee problems, he would've been listed as well.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Wilkins should have been a 50 great. But what perplexes me so is, why wasn't Dennis Rodman a 50 great?


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> Questionable - John Havlicek?
> You really don't know about this 6th man who scored
> more than <b>20 PPG,
> ...


Ugh, I'm NOT saying Havlicek was a questionable selection PERIOD. I'm saying that the fact that Havlicek was chosen and Wilkins wasn't WAS questionable.

When a great player like Havlicek is chosen, and another great like Wilkins ISN'T chosen, that's questionable. That's all I meant to say. Believe me, I have nothing but respect for John Havlicek.


----------



## Villa909 (Jun 17, 2002)

Worthy over Wilkins is definitely questionable. Look at the career averages...

Wilkins: 24.8 points, 6.7 rebounds, 2.5 assists.
Worthy: 17.6 points, 5.1 rebounds, 3.0 assists.

Career numbers

Wilkins: 1074 games, 26,668 points, 7169 rebounds, 2,677 assists, 1378 steals, 642 blocks, 46.1 FG %, 81.1 FT%.

7 time all NBA
9 time all-star

Worthy: 926 games, 16,320 points, 4,707 rebounds, 2791 assists, 1041 steals, 624 blocks, 52.1 FG%, 76.9 FT%.

2 time all NBA
7 time all-star


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

Worthy = key component on a Lakers squad that won several (3 or 4) championships. Champsionships are a key component of being named to that all 50, take a look of all the Celtic greats listed. It's arguable, but I surmise that a Worthy in-his-prime would have put up the same numbers as Wilkins. I do have to admit though... Magic to Nique would've made Showtime even more fun.


----------



## Villa909 (Jun 17, 2002)

Rings don't make a player, had Nique played with Magic he's sure to have more than a couple. And had Worthy been in Nique's spot he's sure to have none.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*#s alone dont do it*

Worthy was a better all around player than nique 

he was more willing to play a role than wilkins 

and when it counted Worthy stepped up (they did call him Big Game James)

when did Wilkins ever step up and become the difference between winning and losing in the playoffs?

he never did and thats why he in the scheme of things is not better than Worthy

because what good is a great player if he's not great when you need him to be?


----------



## tinygiant (Sep 10, 2002)

Actually, Wilkins did have some great playoff series. He just never had the rest of the team around him to go very far. As great as someone can be, no one can win playoffs by themselves. Think about Jordan dropping 63 on the Celtics (the highest playoff mark ever) but they lost. I would have to agree with those who say that if Wilkins had played with Magic, Kareem, Scott etc. he probably would've had a few rings too.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

a starting line up of wilkins moses malone reggie theus kevin willis and doc rivers should have gotten past the 2nd once 

dont you think once ? if wilkns was as good as people say he is 

can you name a player that is top 50 that never got as far as the conf. finals in his entire career ?

i dont think you can


----------



## Villa909 (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> can you name a player that is top 50 that never got as far as the conf. finals in his entire career ?
> 
> i dont think you can


Not exactly fair, their were less teams in the playoffs during some of these guys playing years.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Villa909</b>!
> 
> 
> Not exactly fair, their were less teams in the playoffs during some of these guys playing years.


that may be true but you always had to beat someone in the top 4 to get to your conf finals.

the hawks (when led by dominique) where never that high because they never beat anyone that wasn't one of the bottom half(5-8) seeds 

and thats my point he never won series in the pro's that mattered he beat a team or 2 that wasn't going anywhere anyway but when it was time to play the big boys he and his teams folded up like lawnchairs and a lot of that had to do wirh him and him alone

he never got the tough boards or made the timely passes or surely never made any important defensive stops (as he is one of the worse defenders of his era) and as the star of his team he should have done more and the sportwriters who were voting on the top 50 agreed which is why he isn't there


----------



## ez8o5 (Aug 22, 2002)

i think that Nique should of been on the list instead of ShaQ, cuz that list was composed back in 97' and that was only ShaQ's 5th year in the league he hadn't won any championships yet plus he was the youngest guy on the list and he could wait to be in like an all NBA at 60 or somethin, if it would ever happen again


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

well if want to get rid of someone for lack of longevity 

you could always throw out Bill Walton who when healthy played really well but didn't play for very long at that level 

walton played in 468 career games(it comes out to less than 6 82 game seasons) and most of it was not a dominant player 

by that point shaq hadn't won any titles but he did at least get to the finals and was probably the best center in the game at the time the 50 best players were announced

he did deserve it imo


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> Remove:
> 
> Lenny Wilkens
> ...


I am not one of the Dominique Wilkins lovers like most here. I think that the person that really got the shaft was Bob McAdoo. He Clearly should have been top 50, Wilkins I'm less sold on, while I believe he probably should be as well. But, then who do you take out.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> Questionable - John Havlicek?
> You really don't know about this 6th man who scored
> more than <b>20 PPG,
> ...



:clap: :clap: :clap: 

I was wondering about that one myself! Questionable? Thats got to be the first time i have ever read something about John being questionable!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Someone mentioned iceman doesn't deserve to be there. I beg to differ! They didnt call him iceman for nothing! If you kept the game close, he would rip your heart out at the end of it!! 

Nique does deserve to be in the top 50 but it is difficult to take anyone out of it!!


----------



## Big John (Sep 11, 2002)

Maybe Wilkins didn't make it because people remembered how badly he played when he came to the Celtics. He was an embarrassment.

But he does deserve to rank ahead of Arizin, who was a jump shooter but not much else.

Lists like the one published in '96 are always subject to change. Kobe and Kidd aren't on the list either. If you did another list in 2003, they would definitely be on it. These lists are also popularity contests. Why is Walton on the list? He had a couple of great years, then hurt his foot. Career-wise his stats are mediocre.


----------



## I'm Just Saying (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kingofkings</b>!
> Can anyone explain this point to me??


Same reason Bernard King, Adrian Dantley and Alex English were left off the list, POLOTICS.

People and teams with influence lobbied for their people, while those I mentioned above had no one with influence to lobby for them.

For instance, I happen to think that King, Dantley, English and Nique were all better than Scottie Pippen or James Worthy. They were both great players but not as great that quartet. If you ever saw them play against them you'd know I'm right.

Pippen had Jordan and Phil Jackson to push for him, while Worthy had Magic, Jabbar, Riely and West.

The same could be said for other great player from great teams, Parish comes to mind. He wasn't as good as say Bob Macadoo, but he had the whole Celtic mystic behnd him.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i believe the only player the lakers would have traded worthy for was a healthy bernard king (although there were trade rumors early in his career about a trade for aguirre, although they would have regretted that one in the long run). they wouldn't have traded him for any of the others, imo. same goes for chicago (and in that case, maybe for a healthy bernard).

worthy was as efficient a scoring sf as there was. he was long, he ran the floor better than anyone. he had a post game, and could spread the floor.

pippen was a dominant defender, an excellent passer, and an excellent rebounder. he handled the ball. he hit the 3. he certainly deserved to be there.


----------



## I'm Just Saying (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> i believe the only player the lakers would have traded worthy for was a healthy bernard king (although there were trade rumors early in his career about a trade for aguirre, although they would have regretted that one in the long run). they wouldn't have traded him for any of the others, imo. same goes for chicago (and in that case, maybe for a healthy bernard).
> 
> worthy was as efficient a scoring sf as there was. he was long, he ran the floor better than anyone. he had a post game, and could spread the floor.
> ...


who you'd trade for is not a true barometer of who's a better player. King was "way" better than Worthy, but Worthy was a better fit for the Lakers style. King was basically a post up player and The post was already filled on those laker teams.

A better barometer is head-to-head play and in these cases the four player I named consistantly out played Pippen/Worthy. In particular Adrian Dantley should have been forced to get a marrage license for what he did to Pippen (the great defender) every time they met.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

dantley left detroit in '89, and maybe faced pippen 3 or 4 times the rest of his career. pippen's prime began around '91.

dantley was a great player, and his stats were amazing. he was unstoppable. underrated and underappreciated overall. his head-to-head with pippen is hardly relevant considering when they played.

none of those guys really saw much of pippen, with the exception of wilkens. they did see worthy, and they had little chance of containing him. they may have outscored him, because of their roles for their teams, but that doesn't mean they outplayed him.

the point that championship teams would have rather had 1 player over another is relevant, imo. the ability to be successful in a winning situation and still excel individually and set yourself apart at the same time is a plus, imo.


----------



## I'm Just Saying (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> dantley left detroit in '89, and maybe faced pippen 3 or 4 times the rest of his career. pippen's prime began around '91.
> 
> dantley was a great player, and his stats were amazing. he was unstoppable. underrated and underappreciated overall. his head-to-head with pippen is hardly relevant considering when they played.
> ...


Who you'd pick to be the final peice of a championship team is not a good criteria because with hindsight you'd always pick the player who's the best fit (e.g, I'd take Russell over wilt if I already had 4 scorers, but I'd take wilt over Russell if I lacked scoring)

.A better way to look at who's better, is who would you take to start a team if you were going to have THAT player and a bunch of CBA type scrubs. I contend that a team of Nique and a bunch of scrubs would be more competitive that Pippen and the same scrubs. Just a Wilt and a bunch of scrubs would be more competitive than Russel and the same scrubs.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

that's the problem. raising a bunch of scrubs to mediocrity isn't the ultimate measure of a great player. it's not the objective of the game. who can you build a championship team around is a better question, imo, than who can help a bad team get mediocre.

nique may be a better leading man than worthy (maybe), but he wasn't, imo, a leading man you build a winner around. and i believe worthy was better as a great complimentary player than nique would have been (or dantley). so who do you take, the not great enough #1, or the #2 who you're more likely to win with? it's not all about who's the better #1, imo.


----------



## I'm Just Saying (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> that's the problem. raising a bunch of scrubs to mediocrity isn't the ultimate measure of a great player. it's not the objective of the game. who can you build a championship team around is a better question, imo, than who can help a bad team get mediocre.
> 
> nique may be a better leading man than worthy (maybe), but he wasn't, imo, a leading man you build a winner around. and i believe worthy was better as a great complimentary player than nique would have been (or dantley). so who do you take, the not great enough #1, or the #2 who you're more likely to win with? it's not all about who's the better #1, imo.


I thought we were talking about the greatest individual players not the players who best fit on his team or who was lucky enough to play with truely great players (i.e. Magic, Bird, MJ) It is widely accepted that these guys made their teamates better. 

For example, before Worthy, Jamal Wilkes filled the same role/position with similar stats for the Magic Johnsons Lakers first Championship. Had Wilkes been young enough to play through the rest of the 90's would be be calling him one of the 50 greatest? I say no, he just like Worthy was a very good player, maybe even an all-star player, but not one of the truely great ones.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

we're talking about the greatest players. not players who put up the best individual stats. how you define greatest is up for interpretation. once you get past the jordans, magics and birds, it's not so clear. when dantley was on utah, he was putting up better numbers and losing to worthy's lakers. dantley was on detroit, and worthy's putting up better numbers and still coming out on top. aguirre's numbers plummeted when he went to detroit, but he became a winner. how do you define greatness? pippen had the best year of his career without jordan, and his team was about as successful as any dominique led team ever was.

worthy was one of the great players of his era. he scored 21 ppg in the playoffs on 54%. he has a finals mvp. he was a #1 pick. riley said he was the best sf ever (obviously biased, but still heavy praise). he scored 40 without magic against the bad boy pistons on 17-26 shooting in the '89 finals. he was more than very good.


----------



## jsa (Jul 16, 2002)

Endless debate. Having seen them all but Mikan, I would put D. Wilkens ahead of Sharman, who was somewhat "great by association". 

Wilkens was not better than Greer,S.Jones and certainly not in the DeBusschere, Bing category. 

Wiggin and Sovereignz- I do not agree at all with your drop off list. Study your history Wiggen , not the stats only, if you really believe that "questionable" list. I would have a hard time leaving Havlicek, for instance, off my top 12 roster, let alone top 50, and I do not like the Celtics. 

Pippen is a question, but he did play a complete game.Ewing playing center,the least represented position, might put him just in. Worthy is borderline, but probably worthy. 

Perhaps unfairly, L. Wilkens the player may have improved his status after his play days, because he was such a great coach. But he was a hell of a player. 

Gervin is not top 20. for sure, but tough to keep him out of top 50.


----------



## I'm Just Saying (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> we're talking about the greatest players. not players who put up the best individual stats. how you define greatest is up for interpretation. once you get past the jordans, magics and birds, it's not so clear. when dantley was on utah, he was putting up better numbers and losing to worthy's lakers. dantley was on detroit, and worthy's putting up better numbers and still coming out on top. aguirre's numbers plummeted when he went to detroit, but he became a winner. how do you define greatness? pippen had the best year of his career without jordan, and his team was about as successful as any dominique led team ever was.
> 
> worthy was one of the great players of his era. he scored 21 ppg in the playoffs on 54%. he has a finals mvp. he was a #1 pick. riley said he was the best sf ever (obviously biased, but still heavy praise). he scored 40 without magic against the bad boy pistons on 17-26 shooting in the '89 finals. he was more than very good.


I guess you forgot to address my point about Jamal Wilkes playing as well a Worthy on the 1st title team. 

Here's another one for you, Pippen "seemed" great when he was with MJ. Later with Houston and Portland, w/o MJ btw, he showed us that he's just another guy who was lucky. Don't tell me he's old, because other players are still playing at all-star or all-pro levels at or near his age (e.g. Malone, Stockton, Payton, Reggie ... etc). 

FACE IT PIPPEN WAS MADE BY JORDAN. WITH OUT MJ HE MAYBE MAKES THE ALL-STAR TEAM 2 OR 3 TIMES AT BEST. IF HE'S NOT PLAYING WITH MJ, NOWAY THE REFS LET HIM PLAY THE REACHING/HACKING/HOLDING DEFENSE HE'S FAMOUS FOR.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

wilkes was a very good player for a short period. he had his best season in '81 when magic missed more than half the season. had he had a full career playing at the level he did for that short period while winning championships we may have a discussion. he didn't. he was never as highly regarded as a player as worthy was (although he did play a big role on 2 title teams, including 37 in game 6 in '80).

worthy was a tremendous player on 3 title teams. he was pretty unstoppable, and extremely difficult to match up against. to big for smaller players, too quick for taller players. half court game or fast break game. he was best when the games were biggest. we're not comparing him to larry bird or magic johnson here. we're comparing him to dominque and dantley. wilkens was a better rebounder, worthy a better defender, imo. offensively, wilkens a better overall scorer, although far less efficient. dantley was a better scorer and incredibly efficient, but he also stagnated an offense and needed to dominate the ball.

pippen had his best season without jordan. that seems relevant. what's also relevant is that he was a dominant all-around player with jordan, and contributed heavily to 6 titles. he had back surgery in '98 and was never the same player, even with jordan. his lack of success afterwards is a strike against him, but doesn't erase all he accomplished before. jordan didn't make him a dominant defender (one of the best ever), an excellent rebounder, or a good ballhandler. he didn't make him a good 3 point shooter. pippen was the type of player you win with, who makes plays and doesn't need to dominate the ball.

nique and dantley and english were all excellent players. i'd personally rather have pippen or worthy. it's somewhat close, and their strengths are somewhat different.

again, i don't think you win with 'nique, dantley or english as your 
#1. do you? if you don't, then who do you think serves you better as your #2? is it a relevant question? is it relevant to ask who gives you the best chance to build a champion? these guys weren't just good players in the right spot. they were great players who helped make their teams great.


----------



## I'm Just Saying (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> wilkes was a very good player for a short period. he had his best season in '81 when magic missed more than half the season. had he had a full career playing at the level he did for that short period while winning championships we may have a discussion. he didn't. he was never as highly regarded as a player as worthy was (although he did play a big role on 2 title teams, including 37 in game 6 in '80).
> 
> worthy was a tremendous player on 3 title teams. he was pretty unstoppable, and extremely difficult to match up against. to big for smaller players, too quick for taller players. half court game or fast break game. he was best when the games were biggest. we're not comparing him to larry bird or magic johnson here. we're comparing him to dominque and dantley. wilkens was a better rebounder, worthy a better defender, imo. offensively, wilkens a better overall scorer, although far less efficient. dantley was a better scorer and incredibly efficient, but he also stagnated an offense and needed to dominate the ball.
> ...


----------



## Lem7373 (May 4, 2020)

Da Grinch said:


> *thats insane!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not even close,pippen even admitted nique was the toughest guy he ever guarded,dominique was way better than pippen!!


----------

