Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
 
Author Topic: Your tteams best player of all time: Warriors  (Read 4945 times)
Kobe Is Awesome
Journeyman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


Respect: 0

« on: October 09, 2006, 08:37:15 pm »
0

Wilt Chamberlain, no question
Logged

Chopper reads your letters!
"I'm 35 and have trouble meeting girls" Brad, Queensland.
Grow a f****n moustache
Ronnie Johns
cselby
Hall of Famer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42172


Respect: +2791

« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2006, 08:38:33 pm »
0

Quote from: "Kobe Is Awesome"
Wilt Chamberlain, no question




Easily.
Logged



Soon....
turk
Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569

Respect: 0

« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2006, 11:26:31 pm »
0

I would say Rick Barry or Nate Thurmond before Wilt.
Logged

--turk--
Mild Sauce
Hall of Famer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28299


Respect: +180

« Reply #3 on: October 09, 2006, 11:35:59 pm »
0

Wilt Chamberlain, simply one of the most dominating players of all time, if not the most dominating player of all time.
Logged

The tape over your mouth says more than words ever could.

They said heroin would be the best high I ever had, they lied.

Mild, he lays his glory by - Mendelssohn
cselby
Hall of Famer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42172


Respect: +2791

« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2006, 12:57:56 pm »
0

Quote from: "turk"
I would say Rick Barry or Nate Thurmond before Wilt.



Did you forget what Wilt did as a player.
Logged



Soon....
Maia®
Journeyman
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


Respect: 0

« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2006, 01:02:10 pm »
0

I think, a better thread would be 2nd best player of all time, so what do you think???

Chris Mullin in my opinion.
Logged
cselby
Hall of Famer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42172


Respect: +2791

« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2006, 01:06:46 pm »
0

Quote from: "Maia®"
I think, a better thread would be 2nd best player of all time, so what do you think???



I think not.
Logged



Soon....
turk
Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569

Respect: 0

« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2006, 05:03:58 pm »
0

Quote from: "cselby"
Quote from: "turk"
I would say Rick Barry or Nate Thurmond before Wilt.



Did you forget what Wilt did as a player.

Did the Warriors win any championships while Wilt was there?
Plus he only played with them for 5 years and change.
Whe I thnk of the Warriors, I think of Rick Barry, Nate Thurmond and Mullin who played most of their careers with the Warriors.
Logged

--turk--
Mild Sauce
Hall of Famer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28299


Respect: +180

« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2006, 05:15:14 pm »
0

Wilt's PPG during his career with the Warriors: 37.6, 38.4, 50.4, 44.8, 36.9, and for 38 games 38.9.

Wilt's average rebounds per game with the Warriors: 27, 27.2, 25.7, 24.3, 22.3, 23.5 (38 games).

When you put up numbers like that, I don't really think that it matters if it was only 5 1/2 years that he played with the team, those are 5 1/2 of the best seasons of all time.
Logged

The tape over your mouth says more than words ever could.

They said heroin would be the best high I ever had, they lied.

Mild, he lays his glory by - Mendelssohn
jaykhope
Benchwarmer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 361

Respect: 0

« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2006, 12:13:21 pm »
0

Quote from: "Mild Sauce"
Wilt's PPG during his career with the Warriors: 37.6, 38.4, 50.4, 44.8, 36.9, and for 38 games 38.9.

Wilt's average rebounds per game with the Warriors: 27, 27.2, 25.7, 24.3, 22.3, 23.5 (38 games).

When you put up numbers like that, I don't really think that it matters if it was only 5 1/2 years that he played with the team, those are 5 1/2 of the best seasons of all time.

Yeah, Wilt is easily the best.  Barry is probably #2 and Thurmond #3.  The competition is to fill out the rest of the list, not for #1.
Logged
turk
Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569

Respect: 0

« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2006, 01:27:19 pm »
0

Quote from: "jaykhope"
Quote from: "Mild Sauce"
Wilt's PPG during his career with the Warriors: 37.6, 38.4, 50.4, 44.8, 36.9, and for 38 games 38.9.

Wilt's average rebounds per game with the Warriors: 27, 27.2, 25.7, 24.3, 22.3, 23.5 (38 games).

When you put up numbers like that, I don't really think that it matters if it was only 5 1/2 years that he played with the team, those are 5 1/2 of the best seasons of all time.

Yeah, Wilt is easily the best.  Barry is probably #2 and Thurmond #3.  The competition is to fill out the rest of the list, not for #1.

I guess it depends how you define it. Wilt only played 5 years with Warriors, they were the Philadelphia Warriors (not Golden State or San Francisco), and they never won a championship with them. Both Barry and Nate won championships.

If you go strictly by stats, yes I would agree. However, if you go by stats then you would have to say that Wilt was better than MJ too, yet most say that he was the greatest player ever, so there must be other factors involved (other than statistics) which people go by. I think one of the biggest ones is how many championships did they win? Now Wilt did win 2 championships (76ers and Lakers) but they were not with the Warriors. When I think of Wilt, I really don't think of him as a Warrior but maybe that's because I'm not originally from here. Anyway at this point I respectfully disagree. When I think of the Warriors, the 3 players I think of are Barry, Thurmond and Mullin in that order.
Logged

--turk--
jaykhope
Benchwarmer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 361

Respect: 0

« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2006, 01:51:38 pm »
0

I guess it depends how you define it. Wilt only played 5 years with Warriors, they were the Philadelphia Warriors (not Golden State or San Francisco), and they never won a championship with them. Both Barry and Nate won championships.

If you go strictly by stats, yes I would agree. However, if you go by stats then you would have to say that Wilt was better than MJ too, yet most say that he was the greatest player ever, so there must be other factors involved (other than statistics) which people go by. I think one of the biggest ones is how many championships did they win? Now Wilt did win 2 championships (76ers and Lakers) but they were not with the Warriors. When I think of Wilt, I really don't think of him as a Warrior but maybe that's because I'm not originally from here. Anyway at this point I respectfully disagree. When I think of the Warriors, the 3 players I think of are Barry, Thurmond and Mullin in that order.[/quote]
If you're defining Wilt out of that, then that's ok.  I was including all the permutations of the franchise when looking at these (i.e., the Minneapolis Lakers count for the current LA Lakers).  Either way is ok.

Mullin is a decent choice.  If Tim Hardaway hadn't gotten injured, he might have been on this list.  As is, I think he's close to Mullin.
Logged
turk
Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569

Respect: 0

« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2006, 02:03:59 pm »
0

Quote from: "jaykhope"
I guess it depends how you define it. Wilt only played 5 years with Warriors, they were the Philadelphia Warriors (not Golden State or San Francisco), and they never won a championship with them. Both Barry and Nate won championships.

If you go strictly by stats, yes I would agree. However, if you go by stats then you would have to say that Wilt was better than MJ too, yet most say that he was the greatest player ever, so there must be other factors involved (other than statistics) which people go by. I think one of the biggest ones is how many championships did they win? Now Wilt did win 2 championships (76ers and Lakers) but they were not with the Warriors. When I think of Wilt, I really don't think of him as a Warrior but maybe that's because I'm not originally from here. Anyway at this point I respectfully disagree. When I think of the Warriors, the 3 players I think of are Barry, Thurmond and Mullin in that order.

If you're defining Wilt out of that, then that's ok.  I was including all the permutations of the franchise when looking at these (i.e., the Minneapolis Lakers count for the current LA Lakers).  Either way is ok.[/quote]

Quote
Mullin is a decent choice.  If Tim Hardaway hadn't gotten injured, he might have been on this list.  As is, I think he's close to Mullin.[/quote]
Yeah, I agree if Hardaway didn't get hurt, for sure. If we're going to include Hardway, then I suppose we should include Richmond in the mix as well, who was certainly one of the Warriors all time greats.
Logged

--turk--
jaykhope
Benchwarmer
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 361

Respect: 0

« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2006, 02:07:56 pm »
0

Quote from: "turk"
Quote from: "jaykhope"
I guess it depends how you define it. Wilt only played 5 years with Warriors, they were the Philadelphia Warriors (not Golden State or San Francisco), and they never won a championship with them. Both Barry and Nate won championships.

If you go strictly by stats, yes I would agree. However, if you go by stats then you would have to say that Wilt was better than MJ too, yet most say that he was the greatest player ever, so there must be other factors involved (other than statistics) which people go by. I think one of the biggest ones is how many championships did they win? Now Wilt did win 2 championships (76ers and Lakers) but they were not with the Warriors. When I think of Wilt, I really don't think of him as a Warrior but maybe that's because I'm not originally from here. Anyway at this point I respectfully disagree. When I think of the Warriors, the 3 players I think of are Barry, Thurmond and Mullin in that order.

If you're defining Wilt out of that, then that's ok.  I was including all the permutations of the franchise when looking at these (i.e., the Minneapolis Lakers count for the current LA Lakers).  Either way is ok.


Quote
Mullin is a decent choice.  If Tim Hardaway hadn't gotten injured, he might have been on this list.  As is, I think he's close to Mullin.[/quote]
Yeah, I agree if Hardaway didn't get hurt, for sure. If we're going to include Hardway, then I suppose we should include Richmond in the mix as well, who was certainly one of the Warriors all time greats.

I think Richmond was decent.  He was unlucky enough to spend his prime years in Sac. so it's tough to really know how good he was.  His role on the Warriors was limited to just scoring, so I'd put him a touch below Hardaway and Mullin.
Logged
turk
Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1569

Respect: 0

« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2006, 02:50:29 pm »
0

Quote from: "jaykhope"
Quote from: "turk"
Quote from: "jaykhope"
I guess it depends how you define it. Wilt only played 5 years with Warriors, they were the Philadelphia Warriors (not Golden State or San Francisco), and they never won a championship with them. Both Barry and Nate won championships.

If you go strictly by stats, yes I would agree. However, if you go by stats then you would have to say that Wilt was better than MJ too, yet most say that he was the greatest player ever, so there must be other factors involved (other than statistics) which people go by. I think one of the biggest ones is how many championships did they win? Now Wilt did win 2 championships (76ers and Lakers) but they were not with the Warriors. When I think of Wilt, I really don't think of him as a Warrior but maybe that's because I'm not originally from here. Anyway at this point I respectfully disagree. When I think of the Warriors, the 3 players I think of are Barry, Thurmond and Mullin in that order.

If you're defining Wilt out of that, then that's ok.  I was including all the permutations of the franchise when looking at these (i.e., the Minneapolis Lakers count for the current LA Lakers).  Either way is ok.


Quote
Mullin is a decent choice.  If Tim Hardaway hadn't gotten injured, he might have been on this list.  As is, I think he's close to Mullin.[/quote]
Yeah, I agree if Hardaway didn't get hurt, for sure. If we're going to include Hardway, then I suppose we should include Richmond in the mix as well, who was certainly one of the Warriors all time greats.

I think Richmond was decent.  He was unlucky enough to spend his prime years in Sac. so it's tough to really know how good he was.  His role on the Warriors was limited to just scoring, so I'd put him a touch below Hardaway and Mullin.

You're right. Mitch was there as a player for only 3 years. I thought for sure he was there longer than that. Even though he was in Sacramento longer you still tend to think of him as a Warrior. In terms of player comparisons, I personally liked Richmond's game a whole lot. Not only was he a very good shooter and post up player, but he was tops as far as defending other 2 guards were concerned. If I'm not mistaken there was a time when Michael had named him the toughest defender he had to go up against. Hardaway although as exciting a player as there was during his prime, was erratic at times would shoot too mucn. As a pure point guard, where he was distributing the ball and driving to the hoop, there was no one better during that time. He basically "invented" the Killer Crossover. Regardless, Richmond didn't play enough with the Warriors to merit being called the best Warriors player of all time and so I would have to agree with you.
Logged

--turk--
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 
 
Jump to: