Top ten Players in Atlanta History...

[Sothron]

8 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

The fact remains he didn't play longer.  He only played 50 of 80 games his last year and he  'only' made All NBA 2nd team that same year so maybe, just maybe it was time to retire?

I believe he said he retired early because he wasn't making the money he thought he should have been making. Regardless of the reason, it is clear he retired while still being a dominant player in his prime. Dude made 10 All NBA teams in 10 seasons played. That is testament of how elevated his play was.

[AHF]

50 minutes ago, Sothron said:

I believe he said he retired early because he wasn't making the money he thought he should have been making. Regardless of the reason, it is clear he retired while still being a dominant player in his prime. Dude made 10 All NBA teams in 10 seasons played. That is testament of how elevated his play was.

Duncan and Pettit were like two clones in different generations.  Duncan had the longer career so I would have to give him the nod for list making purposes but they were so very similar in terms of impact during the overlapping parts of their career.  The best reason to distinguish them is PF vs C.  Otherwise, they were both classy, amazing players who are among the top in NBA history.  Pettit is incredibly underrated.  If he was a Knick, Celtic or Laker he would be on a lot of top 10 lists along with Russell, Wilt, Duncan, etc.  Once you rule out Duncan as more of a center than a PF, Pettit is on the short list for best PF in history.

[Watchman]

On 8/15/2016 at 9:58 AM, AHF said:

Why Maravich over Sap?  During his time with the Hawks Maravich was a two-time All-Star, never was close to winning a playoff series, missed the playoffs, and led the team to an amazing 155-173 record.  He never played defense and ball hogged inefficiently and then left the team.  Even on offense, Lou Hudson was the much better scorer during their 4 years together (more points on a much better FG%).  I'll take Sap over him.

I would like to point out that Bellamy and Hudson were on the team during the Maravich years.  Why do Hudson and Bellamy get a pass?  I'd also point out that Maravich led the team in assists during that period.  Bellamy was in decline by the time he joined the Hawks (compare it to Moses Malone when he was here.)  Maravich didn't technically "leave the team" as he was traded for a draft pick (which became David Thompson, who chose to play in the ABA rather than with the Hawks.)

[Watchman]

On 8/15/2016 at 8:47 AM, macdaddy said:

I agree with others about Horford.   Replace Millsap with Horford.   I can't see any case for Sap over Horf for Hawks career.   I'd probably replace Mookie with Willis.

Sap pretty much equaled or exceeded Horford's production during their mutual time on the team.  Can't see including one without the other.

[Watchman]

Here are my ten Atlanta Hawks (in no particular order)

1.   D. Wilkins
2.   P. Maravich
3.   L. Hudson
4.   D. Mutombo
5.   S. Smith
6.   J. Johnson
7.   D. Rivers
8.   D. Roundfield
9.   K. Willis
10.   J. Drew

Honorable mention:     A. Horford; P. Millsap; M. Blaylock; W. Hazzard; W. Bellamy; H. Gilliam; S. Abdur-Rahim; E. Johnson; M. Malone; T. Kukoc

Shoulda, Coulda been here:   J. Erving; D. Thompson; M. Webster;

Over the hill/too injured to recover by the time they got here:   T. McGrady; G. Petrie; T. Burleson;

I'm sure I've left some out, but at the moment I can't recall them.

[macdaddy]

16 minutes ago, Watchman said:

Sap pretty much equaled or exceeded Horford's production during their mutual time on the team.  Can't see including one without the other.

That may be but what about the 6 years before Sap got here.   I mean it's best Hawk career not season right?   I don't see anyway you leave Horford off the list.  Multiple All-Star appearances, more productive seasons as a Hawk than the majority of the list if not all of it.   ECF.   How do Steve Smith, Doc Rivers make it and not Horford.  

[Watchman]

5 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

That may be but what about the 6 years before Sap got here.   I mean it's best Hawk career not season right?   I don't see anyway you leave Horford off the list.  Multiple All-Star appearances, more productive seasons as a Hawk than the majority of the list if not all of it.   ECF.   How do Steve Smith, Doc Rivers make it and not Horford.  

I think you forgot how good Rivers and Smith were.  Rivers was the PG who fed Nique and Willis, and Smith was the offense during the Mutombo era.   No slight against Alice, but he should have been a far better rebounder than he was.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Watchman

[Diesel]

On 8/15/2016 at 11:11 AM, NBASupes said:

No one with sense is taking Pettit over Duncan. Barkley and Malone, yes but Duncan is a top 10 ATG. Possibly top 5. Top it.

Petit was never an ATLANTA Hawk.

[Diesel]

23 hours ago, Sothron said:

Did Duncan make All NBA every year of his career? Newp. Did Malone? Newp. Only Bob Pettit managed to do that in the history of the entire NBA. He also invented the position of power forward in his career. Can Duncan say he did anything like that? Newp.

 Wasn't there 9 teams when Pettit played?  That's a very small amount of competiton to beat out compared to the 30 now.

 

[AHF]

25 minutes ago, Diesel said:

 Wasn't there 9 teams when Pettit played?  That's a very small amount of competiton to beat out compared to the 30 now.

 

Yeah - Beating Bill Russell's Celtics was nothing.  That is why guys like Bill Russell, Oscar Roberson, Wilt Chamberlein, etc. are no longer respected today.  We should similarly discount Pettit for winning MVPs and a ring against them.

[benhillboy]

I'm looking in a narrow, modern, Atlanta-only scope.  It's Nique then whoever else you wanna sequence 2-10, but I can rock with @NBASupes list.

I'm shameful I can't recall more of the Smitty, Deke, Mookie era, particularly the latter's best season.  And I love PGs who hit the glass and defend hard.  I also enjoy posting guards in Smitty's case.  I just never liked the way he moved lol.  I knew about Deke before and after Atlanta.

  After the Nique trade debacle I wasn't even thinking about the Hawks while it was possible to see the mid-90's Bulls on WGN regularly.

Edited August 16, 2016 by benhillboy

[Diesel]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

Yeah - Beating Bill Russell's Celtics was nothing.  That is why guys like Bill Russell, Oscar Roberson, Wilt Chamberlein, etc. are no longer respected today.  We should similarly discount Pettit for winning MVPs and a ring against them.

I know that you're being cynical... however, what you say is true.   Pettit talked about the fact that Wilt Chamberlein averaged 50 ppg on them.   Do you honestly believe that Wilt would average 50 ppg on any team today?  I don't.   I think that these greats that you mention were great, but they were great for their time period.   I think just as time would have made them open to being better players, today, time would have also taken away some of their legend.  What I mean is that Kareem was every bit as dominant as Wilt, so was Shaq.. but those dudes didn't average 50 ppg on anybody.   The modern era brought in better quality of players and I believe that the greats still would have been great, but their greatness would have been more in line with greats of today than with the legend that we see of them from then.  SO yes, Pettit would have had trouble being as great as a Duncan or Malone or Barkley.    Pettit was not a great shooter.  He was labelled as MR. SECOND EFFORT.   He has the low FG% because he would miss often but his second effort allowed him to scuffle to get the rebound and score.  That's easy to do when there's 9 teams and players of so-so athleticism.   However, you place him in today's game with the calibre of Athlete that exist now and he'd probably look closer to Humphries than Duncan. 

 

 

[Buzzard]

On 8/15/2016 at 2:55 PM, AHF said:

Duncan and Pettit were like two clones in different generations.  Duncan had the longer career so I would have to give him the nod for list making purposes but they were so very similar in terms of impact during the overlapping parts of their career.  The best reason to distinguish them is PF vs C.  Otherwise, they were both classy, amazing players who are among the top in NBA history.  Pettit is incredibly underrated.  If he was a Knick, Celtic or Laker he would be on a lot of top 10 lists along with Russell, Wilt, Duncan, etc.  Once you rule out Duncan as more of a center than a PF, Pettit is on the short list for best PF in history.

I agree 100%, Put Pettit in any of those three markets and he would be immortalized in NBA History.

[macdaddy]

Even with these last 2 seasons of low rebounding Al averaged 14/9 in nine seasons as a Hawk with 2.7 assists and 1.2 blocks a game.   Shooting  54% from the field.  4 All star appearances.   I think we're all letting the last season and his clumsy departure cloud what he did as a Hawk.    

[Diesel]

So how about this top ten for Atlanta Hawks Basketball:

 

Nique, JJ, Deke, Mookie, Smitty, Millsap, Roundfield, Bellamy, Hudson, and Horford?  (IN no Order)

[AHF]

18 hours ago, Diesel said:

I know that you're being cynical... however, what you say is true.   Pettit talked about the fact that Wilt Chamberlein averaged 50 ppg on them.   Do you honestly believe that Wilt would average 50 ppg on any team today?  I don't.   I think that these greats that you mention were great, but they were great for their time period.   I think just as time would have made them open to being better players, today, time would have also taken away some of their legend.  What I mean is that Kareem was every bit as dominant as Wilt, so was Shaq.. but those dudes didn't average 50 ppg on anybody.   The modern era brought in better quality of players and I believe that the greats still would have been great, but their greatness would have been more in line with greats of today than with the legend that we see of them from then.  SO yes, Pettit would have had trouble being as great as a Duncan or Malone or Barkley.    Pettit was not a great shooter.  He was labelled as MR. SECOND EFFORT.   He has the low FG% because he would miss often but his second effort allowed him to scuffle to get the rebound and score.  That's easy to do when there's 9 teams and players of so-so athleticism.   However, you place him in today's game with the calibre of Athlete that exist now and he'd probably look closer to Humphries than Duncan. 

 

 

I'll agree to disagree with you.  You show me the 7 footer over the last 30 years that is even close to as athletic as Wilt and maybe I'll bite.  Give me the high jump winning track star standing 7'1''.  

He would crush it in any era of the NBA.  As would those other stars.  The stats would not be same (neither would their nutrition, training, etc.) but they would dominate today's NBA if they grew up in this era.  Where the players of old would fall short is at the average or role player level - not the superstars.   They would be exceptional in any era. 

[macdaddy]

6 hours ago, Diesel said:

So how about this top ten for Atlanta Hawks Basketball:

 

Nique, JJ, Deke, Mookie, Smitty, Millsap, Roundfield, Bellamy, Hudson, and Horford?  (IN no Order)

I love Sap but i just don't think he belongs on the Hawks all time greats...yet.   Willis has to be there instead.

[Diesel]

The point you miss is about the quality of the competition.   Wilt played against Guys who saw Basketball as a hobby.  Pettit talks about having a good job at the bank waiting for him.    The competition that Wilt or Pettit would face now is 10 times better than the truck drivers that they amassed those stats against.   Wilt would still be great and Pettit would be too, but you can't believe that playing against better competition would lead them to the same stats and legend that they have now?  It's like the 92 dream team going to the Olympics.  Since that time, other countries have posted better teams.  Now, America doesn't have the 100 point blowouts that they used to have because the competition is better.  I say the same for the greats of old. 

[AHF]

The limited number of teams actually runs counter to your argument.  If you only had 8-9 teams in the nba today imagine how much stronger the competition would be.  I've listed Pettit big man competition before and it is impressive.

[Watchman]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

The limited number of teams actually runs counter to your argument.  If you only had 8-9 teams in the nba today imagine how much stronger the competition would be.  I've listed Pettit big man competition before and it is impressive.

Correct.  The greater number of teams dilutes the talent base so that less and less talented players make it into the league.