All-Time Overrated/Underrated (Charley Rosen)

[writerman]

As I said, if he were in the game today, Luke would be THE perennial All-Star starting PF. What in the hell are McAdoo, Hayes, Nowitzski, Cowens, Payton and Nash doing ahead of him on the list? There are some judges in this I respect, but there must be either some really young guys or some total idiots as well.

Lucas was the whole package. There's not a PF in the game today better than Luke was. That includes Duncan (whose game I love, BTW) and Garnett, Duncan really being a five and Garnett a glorified three. He'd be worth three of Dirk on toughness alone.

BTW, how about this all-time Ohio Team?

C- Nate Thurmond
PF - Jerry Lucas
SF - LeBron James
SG - John Havlicek
PG - Norm Van Lier

Bench - Gus Johnson, Howie Komives, Charles Oakley, Wayne Embry, Eric Snow, Ron Harper, Steve Mix, Larry Siegfried, Michael Redd, Antonio Daniels, Jim Jackson

Coach - Bobby Knight

I wouldn't hesitate to put that Ohio team up against any you could assemble from any other state.

[iamworthy]

Link? or did I miss it.

[ponder276]

As I said, if he were in the game today, Luke would be THE perennial All-Star starting PF. What in the hell are McAdoo, Hayes, Nowitzski, Cowens, Payton and Nash doing ahead of him on the list? There are some judges in this I respect, but there must be either some really young guys or some total idiots as well.

Lucas was the whole package. There's not a PF in the game today better than Luke was. That includes Duncan (whose game I love, BTW) and Garnett, Duncan really being a five and Garnett a glorified three. He'd be worth three of Dirk on toughness alone.

BTW, how about this all-time Ohio Team?

C- Nate Thurmond
PF - Jerry Lucas
SF - LeBron James
SG - John Havlicek
PG - Norm Van Lier

Bench - Gus Johnson, Howie Komives, Charles Oakley, Wayne Embry, Eric Snow, Ron Harper, Steve Mix, Larry Siegfried, Michael Redd, Antonio Daniels, Jim Jackson

Coach - Bobby Knight

I wouldn't hesitate to put that Ohio team up against any you could assemble from any other state.

You really think he'd be better than guys like Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett? Come on, he was an excellent player, but not that great. He was an all-time-great rebounder (though you can't just look at his rebounding numbers on their own - lots of people put up crazy numbers in the 60s/70s, and Jerry Lucas certainly did not pull down as many boards as Wilt or Russell, who played at the same time), had a real nice shot, and was very smart, but he would be undersized in todays game (he was 6'8"), and an inferior athlete. He never averaged 22 ppg, despite regularly averaging 44+ mpg in an extremely fast-paced era. He was also not known as a particularly special man defender.

Not saying he wouldn't be a solid PF, but to say he'd be better than Duncan or KG? Come on. Even in his day he was only voted to the all-NBA 1st team 3 times, and he had zero MVPs.

[writerman]

As I said, if he were in the game today, Luke would be THE perennial All-Star starting PF. What in the hell are McAdoo, Hayes, Nowitzski, Cowens, Payton and Nash doing ahead of him on the list? There are some judges in this I respect, but there must be either some really young guys or some total idiots as well.

Lucas was the whole package. There's not a PF in the game today better than Luke was. That includes Duncan (whose game I love, BTW) and Garnett, Duncan really being a five and Garnett a glorified three. He'd be worth three of Dirk on toughness alone.

BTW, how about this all-time Ohio Team?

C- Nate Thurmond
PF - Jerry Lucas
SF - LeBron James
SG - John Havlicek
PG - Norm Van Lier

Bench - Gus Johnson, Howie Komives, Charles Oakley, Wayne Embry, Eric Snow, Ron Harper, Steve Mix, Larry Siegfried, Michael Redd, Antonio Daniels, Jim Jackson

Coach - Bobby Knight

I wouldn't hesitate to put that Ohio team up against any you could assemble from any other state.

You really think he'd be better than guys like Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett? Come on, he was an excellent player, but not that great. He was an all-time-great rebounder (though you can't just look at his rebounding numbers on their own - lots of people put up crazy numbers in the 60s/70s, and Jerry Lucas certainly did not pull down as many boards as Wilt or Russell, who played at the same time), had a real nice shot, and was very smart, but he would be undersized in todays game (he was 6'8"), and an inferior athlete. He never averaged 22 ppg, despite regularly averaging 44+ mpg in an extremely fast-paced era. He was also not known as a particularly special man defender.

Not saying he wouldn't be a solid PF, but to say he'd be better than Duncan or KG? Come on. Even in his day he was only voted to the all-NBA 1st team 3 times, and he had zero MVPs.

Of course you're right!!! After all, you've seen Lucas play dozens of times and are eminently qualified to judge--right? And of course he was an inferior athlete--after all, he's one of those old guys and white, and everyone knows none of them were any good. Of course I suspect to you athleticism = hops (maybe a "killa crossova") and little else, so maybe your perception of his athleticism is a bit one-dimensional...

(I'm willing to bet you wouldn't know Jerry Lucas from Jerry Springer...)

[That Nicka]

how is KG a glorified 3 but Dirk isnt?

and you avoided the fact that he probably would not be as good a defender as KG/Duncan and was never as good a scorer in an era with a faster pace

[Curtis Lemansky]

Do you actually have any argument other than "I have seen them play,you obviously did not since you are not old"? Since when does that alone makes you a credible evaluator of talent ? For the love of God,you said David Harrison was better than Dwight Howard.

Bob Cousy,who did not only see the players you rave about in action, but also competed against them for years is known as a notoriously bad talent evaluator.He did deal Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas for Flynn Robinson, Charlie Paulk, Jim King and Bill Turner .

[kooldude]

Of course you're right!!! After all, you've seen Lucas play dozens of times and are eminently qualified to judge--right? And of course he was an inferior athlete--after all, he's one of those old guys and white, and everyone knows none of them were any good. Of course I suspect to you athleticism = hops (maybe a "killa crossova") and little else, so maybe your perception of his athleticism is a bit one-dimensional...

(I'm willing to bet you wouldn't know Jerry Lucas from Jerry Springer...)

hey writerman, when you have time, can you rank your list of the best players ever. Like a list of the top 20 or so players, in order would be nice. Thanks.

[Silver Bullet]

btw which legitimate 7 footer has ever been a 3 ?

[The Main Event]

Of course you're right!!! After all, you've seen Lucas play dozens of times and are eminently qualified to judge--right? And of course he was an inferior athlete--after all, he's one of those old guys and white, and everyone knows none of them were any good. Of course I suspect to you athleticism = hops (maybe a "killa crossova") and little else, so maybe your perception of his athleticism is a bit one-dimensional...

(I'm willing to bet you wouldn't know Jerry Lucas from Jerry Springer...)

hey writerman, when you have time, can you rank your list of the best players ever. Like a list of the top 20 or so players, in order would be nice. Thanks.

I second that. I'd love to know how you rank say, the top 20 of all time, given that you've been watching ball since before i was born.

[writerman]

Do you actually have any argument other than "I have seen them play,you obviously did not since you are not old"? Since when does that alone makes you a credible evaluator of talent ? For the love of God,you said David Harrison was better than Dwight Howard.

Bob Cousy,who did not only see the players you rave about in action, but also competed against them for years is known as a notoriously bad talent evaluator.He did deal Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas for Flynn Robinson, Charlie Paulk, Jim King and Bill Turner .

Well, at least it's some basis for evaluation/comparsion based on first-hand, eyewitness data, a lot better IMO than passing judgment based on a lot of secondhand bull written by guys biased toward current players because they weren't even a gleam in daddy's eye when guys like Lucas were playing. What are you basing your evaluation on? Are you killing chickens and divining your judgments by reading their entrails? Consulting Marie Laveau maybe? Or are you going by the opinions of a lot of other "experts" who, like I said of Ponder above, wouldn't know Jerry Lucas from Jerry Springer?

I've been associated with basketball my whole life--scout, coach, ref at the HS level. I'm not totally unqualified to make some judgement based on my knowledge of the game. And you can dismiss it all you like, but actually having seen these players live is a lot better basis for evaluating them and comparing them to others than the second-hand BS most of you guys base your evaluations on....

I'll try to put together a list...it will take some time. There will be some on the list who will surprise you and others not on it that will maybe surprise you even more.

[That Nicka]

how is KG a glorified 3 but Dirk isnt?

and you avoided the fact that he probably would not be as good a defender as KG/Duncan and was never as good a scorer in an era with a faster pace

this is all I wanna know... We didnt have the pleasure to see them play, so in order for us to agree with you, you need to at least tell us why we should.... for you to just say I saw them play therefore I know they are better doesnt really make a legitimate argument... there are posters on here who have seen Jamal Crawford play and swear he's a top 10 SG in the league

[NO-KG-AI]

You seeing a player doesn't hold much weight, since you saw that David Harrison was much more talented than Dwight Howard.

[penbeast0]

Charles Barkley

The Round Mound of Rebound was never in acceptable game shape. But reporting to one Houston training camp 20 pounds overweight didn't prevent him from chastising his teammates for not being serious about challenging for the championship. Also, he only played defense when the spirit moved him — which was very seldom. These days, he complains about not having played with top-flight teammates — left unsaid, however, is the fact that Barkley's self-involved style of play did nothing to compliment whatever talents his teammates did have. Over the course of his career, Barkley's selfishness and total lack of discipline made him a chronic underachiever.

All true; but one of the GREAT post scorers ever.


Walt Bellamy
He was lazy, sloppy, soft, selfish, defenseless, and useless in the clutch. The media called him "Big Bells," but his fellow players had another name for him — "Tinker Bell". His career averages of 20.1 points and 13.7 rebounds per game notwithstanding, what's Bellamy doing in the Hall of Fame?

He wasn't in shape after his first couple of years and he ate himself into mediocrity but he wasn't Eddie Curry out there. He was Shaq of the last 3 years; just could have been more.


Patrick Ewing
Had he played out of the spotlight in someplace like Orlando or Salt Lake City, Ewing would be remembered as a jump-shooting center who worked hard. Period. With the adulatory New York fans and media filtering their perceptions through the lens of their need to have heroes to celebrate, Ewing was celebrated as being far better than he really was. In truth, he couldn't handle, pass, move laterally, and do anything worthwhile when an important game was on the line. Moreover, his dim apprehension of what the game was all about precluded any thoughts of being unselfish. Except for the early days of the Mets and the Brooklyn Dodgers, New York sports fans rarely hitch their devotion to a loser like Ewing.

Every NY player gets too much press but Ewing was a top 10 center all time.


George Gervin
Double-G was a great scorer, smooth and virtually unstoppable. And that's all, folks. He couldn't (or didn't) pass, defend, or rebound. Gervin's idea of team basketball was when a teammate passed him the ball. Of necessity, his San Antonio teams played high-octane offense and flat-tire defense. That's why Gervin never played in a championship series.


Connie Hawkins
He could finish in spectacular ways, and he could make both plain and simple passes. Otherwise, he couldn't shoot, rebound, run, or play defense. How bad was the Hawk's defense? The first time he played in Madison Square Garden, the Suns tried to hide Hawkins' atrocious defense by matching him up with Dick Barnett. Too bad Barnett was so insulted by the ploy that he lit up Hawkins for 35 points. Also, nobody ever accused Hawkins of having a passion to play basketball: He once told the Suns that he couldn't play that night because he had a fever. A doctor was summoned, and Hawkins' temperature registered at 98.9. As a result, Hawkins felt justified to sit on the bench in his civvies. Hawkins was all flash and very little substance.

His ABA teammates rave about his team play and basketball IQ. And if you were playing the Knicks, you didn't "hide" a SF by switching him from Bill Bradley to Dick Barnett; Barnett was a much greater threat. They were trying to disrupt Barnett's shooting by playing a taller player on him but Barnett was one of the NBA's great streak shooters and once hot, John Havlicek couldn't slow him down. To be fair, Hawkins had a chip on his shoulder and was a bad interview -- probably why Rosen rips him.


Elvin Hayes
He could do three things — rebound, block shots, and shoot a high percentage on turnaround jumpers from the left box. He couldn't pass, handle, play honest defense, or hit a clutch shot to get into heaven. In addition, he paid no attention to the basketball alphabet of Xs and Os. All he cared about was "me-ball-basket."

Another bad interview (he started with Barkley or I'd be seeing a trend here since Ewing and Bellamy were too). Hayes had a very limited game and he wasn't that high a percentage shooter from the left box either; but he played the game well enough to make the Bullets the winningest team in the league during his tenure.


Karl Malone
I've been on this guy's case many times before, and for the same reasons. He found various ways to choke in the 1996 Conference finals and in the 1997 and 1998 Finals — missed free throws, damaging turnovers, ill-advised shots, losing gambles on defense, and so on. In addition, his passing skills and his defense were both overblown, and his assist-turnover ration was a horrendous 5:4. There are only two reasons why Malone is deemed to be an elite power-forward — John Stockton, and longevity.

Rosen's ripped him for years. Yeah . . . his scoring 25ppg and getting 10+ rebounds have nothing to do with why he's considered elite . . .riiiiight.


Bob McAdoo
Here's all anyone needs to know about McAdoo's game: When he played against the Celtics, McAdoo was usually defended by Dave Cowens. Now Cowens was a legitimate tough guy who always played with intensity, power, and courage, and whose rough-house tactics on defense would often approach minor felonies. At the start of McAdoo's matchups with Cowens, B-Mac would assume his favorite position on the left box. Perhaps he'd even get a shot off. Perhaps he'd even get fouled. But Cowens would definitely assault him with elbows, knees, hips, forearms, and fists. By the middle of the first quarter, McAdoo would post-up five feet beyond the box. By the end of the fourth quarter, he'd be looking to receive the ball near the 3-point line. Anything to avoid contact. In other words, McAdoo was nothing more than a big, quick, soft, jump-shooter deluxe.

Yeah, he was a big quick jump shooter; at his peak one of the best that ever played. That's the game he played just like Jerry Lucas who Rosen loved.


Pete Maravich
A one-man circus who wouldn't throw a pass unless it was behind the back or through the legs or in one ear and out the other. And his completion rate was barely above .500. His ball-hogging made him unpopular with his teammates, but scored big-time with the media. It's no accident that his teams were always pretenders and never contenders. It also says here that Maravich was the worst defender in NBA history.

agree

Gary Payton
G.P. has always been a shoot-first point guard, favoring post-ups, open middles, and high-and-low screens to locate his shots. He was also a confrontational player, demanding perfection form his teammates and his coaches, but never from himself. Payton's reputation for playing outstanding defense gained him All-Defense honors for nine seasons, and a famous nickname, "The Glove." Even so, during the 1996 Finals, the Chicago Bulls set out to prove something that they already knew — that Payton's rep was mostly bogus. In lieu of playing solid contain defense, Payton routinely gambled for steals at every opportunity, and when he failed he put his teammates in jeopardy. The Bulls limited Payton's room to maneuver by posting Michael Jordan, who had little difficulty catching, shooting, driving, and generally having his way against G.P. Payton's game was, and is, less than meets the eye.

All true but Jordan made fools of a lot of great defenders and Payton was a genuine P.I.T.A. to opposing point guards; with Frazier the most disruptive point in history.

David Robinson
This guy was a cream puff. He could come from the weak-side to block shots, but he couldn't guard his own man. He could rebound, but rarely in a crowd. He could score, but only on foul-line jumpers, or only if a defender bought a head fake after he drove his left hand into the middle. He couldn't pass or handle. He couldn't stand his ground in the paint. And, according to one of his ex-coaches, he never worked on his game in the off-season simply because he really didn't like playing basketball. Had he not played alongside of Tim Duncan, The Admiral would have been lost at sea.

Bull. Robinson was a good man defender, scored efficiently and at volume. His hands were good and he was an intelligent player. His only real weakness was that he didn't raise his game in the playoffs; he would be thinking out there instead of reacting.


Charley Rosen, former CBA coach, author of 12 books about hoops, the current one being A pivotal season — How the 1971-72 L.A. Lakers changed the NBA, is a frequent contributor to FOXSports.com.

All-time underrated NBA players

Story Tools: Print Email XML
Charley Rosen / FOXSports.com




If some over-hyped players have become NBA icons, just as many truly superlative performers have failed to get the credit they deserve. As a partial corrective, here's an alphabetical list of several all-time underrated players.

Rick Barry
Barry's arrogance was always hard for his teammates and the media to deal with. Hey, not even his kids are crazy about him. He was also a self-described basketball gypsy, playing for five teams and two leagues in his 14-year career. But the guy had a Hall-of-Fame game.
Scoring was his forte — he led the NBA in 1966-67 with 35.6 ppg. He was irresistible in an open court and a dead-eye shooter whenever the game slowed down. Passing was another specialty. Nothing fancy, mind you, just simple, direct and invariably right on the money. He was the progenitor of the point-forward and his teams' offense always went through Barry.

If he wasn't an outstanding one-on-one defender, he played excellent team defense — rotating, helping and anticipating — and no one ever played the passing lanes better than he did. In 1974-75, Barry led the NBA with 2.85 steals per game.

Above all, however, Barry always played hard and smart. Blame an off-court, know-it-all persona for his great skills being so neglected.

He rips Payton for playing the passing lanes and then extols Barry's defense?


Joe Dumars
He was a big-time, crunch-time scorer, who could shoot and also power his way to the basket. Forget about Isiah Thomas, Vinnie Johnson or Mark Aguirre — when the Bad Boys desperately needed a score, Chuck Daly routinely called Dumars' number.

His defense was just as reliable— he was named to the NBA All-Defensive First Team in 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1993. Gutsy, scratchy, confrontational defense was his style, and it was Dumars who set the tone for the Pistons' belligerent game plan.

Did the Pistons need a score? A stop? A rebound? A pass? The recovery of a loose ball? Dumars was right there on the spot.

While Zeke took all the bows, it was Dumars who did most of the dirty work.


Hal Greer
Aside from Oscar Robertson, Hal Greer was the strongest backcourtsman of his era. He could drive to the hole with the power and determination of a mini tank. While he didn't posses outstanding range, he rarely missed from 16-18 feet. Twenty-point seasons were commonplace — from 1960-70, he averaged 21.9 ppg for Syracuse and Philadelphia. He could also pass, rebound and play hellacious defense. He proved his crunch-time prowess by posting better numbers (in virtually every category) during his 92-game playoff career. During Philly's championship run in 1967, it was Greer (not Wilt Chamberlain) who led his team in postseason scoring.

When the chips were down, Greer always had a winning hand.


Neil Johnston
He was one of the few players (Bill Sharman and Bob Cousy being two other notables) whose excellence survived into the post-shot-clock era. Injuries curtailed his career, but in his eight seasons, he managed to lead the NBA in scoring twice, in rebounding once and three times in field goal percentage.

They called him "Gabby" because he never spoke much. Instead, Johnston let his one-handers, hook shots and tricky moves to the hoop do the talking. In his prime, he could play the mighty George Mikan on even terms. Johnston was an All-NBA first-teamer (1953-56) and the wheel-horse of Philadelphia's 1956 championship team.

Johnston is another superlative talent lost in the amped-up, existential world of the modern-day NBA.

Great numbers and great all-time PER but he played in a weak era, didn't play for that long, and his contemporaries tended to prefer Dolph Schayes despite Johnston's numbers being better which makes me think he was soft.


Jerry Lucas
Lucas was by far the best rebounder who never led the league in his specialty. From 1964-66, for example, Lucas averaged 20.5 per game but was surpassed by Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. (Did any NBA player ever have better hands than Lucas?) With three seasons of more than 20 ppg, Lucas could also score—with hooks and assorted slick moves in the pivot, and also with long-range bombs that even guards envied.

He was a wonderful team-oriented defender, and one of most intelligent players ever. Lucas had been exclusively a power forward throughout his career, but at only 6-foot-8 he was forced to play center for the Knicks (1972-73) when Willis Reed came up lame. When the Knicks won the gold in 1973, Lucas and Dave DeBusschere shot from the perimeter, while Earl Monroe and Walt Frazier posted up. It was topsy-turvy basketball, and it succeeded primarily because of Lucas' toughness and resourcefulness.

Interesting, though, how easily the Memory-Man has been forgotten.


Vern Mikkelsen
The only record Mikkelsen ever set was for fouling out of 127 games during his career. Indeed, it was Mikkelsen who put the power in power forward. He provided the Minneapolis dynasty with aggressive defense, rebounding (four seasons of over 10 per game) and burly inside scoring (14.4 ppg lifetime with a high of 18.7 in 1954-55). Mikkelsen was a winner in every aspect of the game, but his significant contributions to four Lakers championships were obscured by George Mikan's huge shadow.


Sidney Moncrief
This guy did every thing except win a championship. His adhesive defense was proverbial — from 1983-86, he was named to the NBA All-Defensive First Team and in 1983 and 1984 was the Defensive Player of the Year.

Ah, but Sid "The Squid" could also score. Long-distance shooting was not part of his repertoire — he was more of a pull-up shooter whose hops could raise him above virtually all his erstwhile defenders. Moncrief had four seasons in which he averaged at least 20.2 ppg. And in 1983, was given a place on the All-NBA first team.

He could also run, rebound and pass. Moncrief was a jack of all trades and master of most.

Forgot to mention his scoring efficiency for his peak was better than that of Shaquille O'Neal's peak.


Willis Reed
The Captain was justly celebrated for his courage, but his specific skills tend to be glossed over and forgotten. Reed was a reliable and versatile scorer from the high-post, the pivot and along either baseline. Possessed of a soft jumper, and deadly hooks and fadeaways, Reed was the Knicks' fail-safe option on offense.

When he jumped to retrieve an errant shot, even the most hard-nosed opponents stepped away to avoid his burly shoulders and bone-seeking elbows. It's not surprising that Reed also played rock-'em-sock-'em defense. In the Knicks' championship season of 1970, Reed was named the league's MVP and NBA Finals MVP, as well as being named to the All-NBA First Team, and NBA All-Defensive first team.

Why isn't he in the Hall of Fame? Because a hip injury — first suffered in 1967 when the Atlanta Hawks used to play their home games at Georgia Tech on a court directly over a concrete base, and then exacerbated in the 1970 NBA Finals — limited Reed to only seven healthy seasons.


Dennis Rodman
More known by Sports America for wearing a wedding dress in public than his high-level basketball skills, only Dennis Rodman's contemporaries understood his greatness. His ability to rebound was never a secret — he led the league in caroms from 1992-1998.

But whereas most outstanding rebounders have an effective range of three or four body widths in every direction, Rodman was at least an eight-space rebounder. He was the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year in 1992 and 1995, and his penchant for not only stifling an opponent's offense, but also scrambling his psyche, was legendary.

More hidden from public view, however, was Rodman's phenomenal on-court intelligence. While he was never a play-maker, he rarely made mistakes in execution. He could also run like a sprinter and finish with aplomb. Well aware of his blighted jump shot, Rodman happily accepted his off-the-ball role and left the shooting to the shooters.

Sure, he was impulsive and foolish. Yes, he hated to practice and to have a clock determine his whereabouts. Once games began though, no one competed more ferociously. Rodman's abbreviated stint with the Spurs (1993-95) showed how much he was focused on winning. Whenever a running team snatched a defensive rebound, Rodman liked to linger in the backcourt to harass the outlet pass and delay any subsequent fast break. It was a sound and highly effective strategy.

However, in order for Rodman to freelance, David Robinson was forced to temporarily cover the player Rodman normally defended — just for a few ticks of the clock, until the progress of the ball was arrested and Rodman could hustle back. But Robinson refused to make the accommodation because, if the ball was rapidly advanced somehow, he would be guarding a much quicker player who might easily embarrass him.

Rodman was disgusted. His understanding was that Robinson did not want to put himself at risk (albeit a slight one) to better the Spurs' chances of winning. From that point on, Rodman made it clear (mostly by unlacing his sneakers whenever he was taken out of a game) that he no longer wanted to play with a big man who wasn't totally committed to winning.

In the end, Rodman retired with five championship rings. But because most of his labors were accomplished without the ball, he's been widely dismissed as nothing more than a freak.

The other side of it is that David Robinson AND THE COACH were disgusted by Rodman's bad practice habits, leaving his man to pad his rebounding stats, and stupid antics to get press. There was bad blood between Rodman and pretty much everyone else on the team; but Rosen is a fanboy and thinks of him as superintelligent so the fault must be Robinson's.


Honorable mention

Bill Sharman — a great two-way guard.
Or a one dimensional jump shooter

K.C. Jones — a brilliant defender who habitually disrupted the offensive schemes of the Celtics opponents.
With little playmaking or shooting skills

Bill Bradley — a thinking man's player who maximized his minimal physical skills.
You want a soft, mediocre defense player who did nothing as a professional averaging about 10-12 points on mediocre shooting and less rebounds (2-3/game) than any other forward in the NBA but was hyped up like he was an all-star by the New York press. Bradley isn't underrated, he may be the most overrated player in NBA history because he scored a lot in college (at Princeton which isn't exactly super competition) and because he was a Rhodes Scholar who made NBA players look like real scholar-athletes.

Wes Unseld — a picker, rebounder and outlet-passer extraordinaire who was good enough to carry Elvin Hayes to a championship.

Ralph Beard/Alex Groza — basketball geniuses who suffered from their undergraduate mistakes.

Jim McMillian — the unsung hero of the 1972 L.A. Lakers' championship.

Damn, I can't believe I did that again . . . sorry Shawngoat

[penbeast0]

Writerman, I saw Jerry Lucas and he was a good player but (a)I never got this whole toughness thing you seem to love when he was good, he was actually amazingly passive for a guy with such great numbers when playing with the Kings (maybe deferring too much to Oscar Robertson who would happily slam a basketball off the back of your head if he thought you were showboating).

He didn't move well either on offense or defense, tending to hang low defensively instead of chasing his man and tending to spot up looking for the open jumper or hang low for the rebound/putback offensively like a supersized version of Bruce Bowen (to be fair, that was how you were frequently coached back then) rather than moving for the open spot like a Havlicek (not that anyone did it quite like Havlicek who reminded me of those big sharks in the Aquarium unable to stop moving or they drown).

What he did really really well was to seal his man off. He always had his man on his back it seemed, clearing the rebounding space on his side of the basket while Embry just blocked his man out so Lucas or Oscar could rebound. Another resume weakness you don't mention is that he and Oscar never were able to take the Royals much over .500 despite their skills.

Yeah, I voted for Payton over him; GP was a nasty defender and good offensive guard who took a team where Shawn Kemp was the second best player further than Oscar and Lucas ever took their squad (with better wing play I admit but still). Hayes v. Lucas . . . tough call . . . Hayes is much the better defender and they are reasonably comparable rebounders. Hayes scored a lot more, Lucas much more efficiently, Hayes was top of his game for longer and again . . . his teams went a lot further which I think is a valid part of a player's legacy (I voted Bill Russell for GOAT over MJ and Wilt). McAdoo, Nowitski, Cowens, Nash . . . ok, I'll entertain arguments but even there I don't think it's as open and shut as you make it when you factor in pace and team impact.

[shawngoat23]

Damn, I can't believe I did that again . . . sorry Shawngoat

No worries. It didn't interfere with discussion, and your comments were really insightful.

[shawngoat23]

writerman, how would your favorite Ohio products (Oscar/Havlicek/LeBron/Lucas/Thurmond) fare in a hypothetical game against some other talented older players (say, West/S. Jones/Baylor/Cunningham/Wilt)?

[Curtis Lemansky]

You seeing a player doesn't hold much weight, since you saw that David Harrison was much more talented than Dwight Howard.

Exactly my point.

Also writerman's all time list is pretty easy to guess:

1)Wilt
2)Wilt's left testicle
3)Wilt's right testicle
4)Wilt's jockstrap
5)Wilt's illegitimate kids
6 to 10.000 - Every player played between 50's and 70's
10.001 to 10.199- Every former Pacers player
10.200-David Harrison
10.201-Dwight Howard

[aggressivestyle]

I don't consider Rosen a professional writer.