Any time a list is made of greatest something there are always controversies. I still haven't forgiven baseball for leaving Rickey Henderson off their greatest 100.
I have a hard time seeing Dame on there and not Tony Parker or Dwight Howard. Tony Parker especially. He never put up the numbers Dame did, but he was so damned good for so long, and his teams far outstripped ours in terms of results. You could pencil in the Spurs as a contender for pretty much every year he was there. The Spurs were the most consistently great team of this millennium. It deserves more than just Duncan in the 75. (Yeah, I guess Robinson is also on the list, but he's there for what he did in the 90's, not for the incredible run the Spurs put out between 1999 and 2015.)
Unbelievable! Henderson single-handedly affected every game he played from the moment he stepped into the batters box.
Being the consummate grumpy old man…..I’ve always hated lists like this one, regardless of the sport. Comparing athletes from different eras is impossible and asinine. Rules change, athletes and conditions improve, talent gets diluted as leagues expand, etc, etc, etc. The only things these lists provide is endless, futile debate. So I guess there is that…….
I have MAJOR respect for the players from back in the day, but I really look at the athleticism of the guys. I mean can you imagine what Dame would do playing against point guards in the 1960-61 season? I mean c'mon FAMS!
72. Tracy McGrady* 18381 97. Grant Hill* 17137 100. Damian Lillard 16835 McGrady and Hill have to be on the list. Even with how shortened their careers were by injury, they were still proficient enough to rank ahead of Dame as an all-time scorer. "Grant"ed, not for much longer, but the list wasn't made a season from now. I suppose an interesting question could be asked, is it better to be a 30 pts/game guy for 5 seasons and counting, or a 20 pts/game guy for 10 seasons? Which one is more significant historically? The per game and per season average, or the career totals? Parker's [continuing] problem is, he was never really viewed as a top PG. Every match-up, the opposing team's PG was considered the superior player. But, Parker always ended up being the best PG on the floor. If there's a best underdog, or biggest overachiever list, of all-time, he's surely #1.
well, that's the problem when comparing retired players to active ones McGrady played in 938 games Hill played in 1026 games Dame has played in 683 if Dame had played in 938 games like McGrady, he'd win the scoring comparison 23,075 to 18,281 and the assist race 6,191 to 4,161 if Dame had played in 1026 games like Hill, he'd win the coring comparison 25,240 vs 17,137 and the assist race 6,772 vs 4,252 obviously, that assumes Dame can maintain his career pace for the next 3-4 years. That's very realistic by the way
You conveniently omitted the next paragraph: "I suppose an interesting question could be asked, is it better to be a 30 pts/game guy for 5 seasons and counting, or a 20 pts/game guy for 10 seasons? Which one is more significant historically? The per game and per season average, or the career totals?"