Who is the most underrated NBA player in history? My 2 submissions.

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No they wouldn't. They were too small, too slow and too weak. They would get run off the court. It's truly amazing how nostalgia clouds people's perspective.

Hardly, potatohead. Robertson would go through them as easily as King James, et al. They would have to learn (and this is big) how to shoot the three.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No they wouldn't. They were too small, too slow and too weak. They would get run off the court. It's truly amazing how nostalgia clouds people's perspective.

Not if they had modern training and knowledge

 

[Couchpotato]

I don’t think I’m demanding them to be installed, I’m simply pointing out players who have been filtered out of mention in NBA history who really don’t deserve to be if you look at their accolades.

And I'm saying there's a reason that happens and that reason is that those guys aren't nearly as good as you are remembering them to be. Great for their era? Yes. Great comparatively across era's? No. That's why no one is talking about them. Pretty simple.

 

[Couchpotato]

Not if they had modern training and knowledge

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Since she doesn't.....

You're make a hypothetical argument you have no evidence to support. There are tons of people who have natural athletic talent who don't make it. The reasons for that are legion and assuming the players of yesterday would have necessarily taken advantage of the training and knowledge, put in the work, or that their bodies would have responded to it or that they would be able to withstand it is a fools errand. All you can do is look at their game and compare it across era's. Those players don't stand up.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Since she doesn't.....

You're make a hypothetical argument you have no evidence to support. There are tons of people who have natural athletic talent who don't make it. The reasons for that are legion and assuming the players of yesterday would have necessarily taken advantage of the training and knowledge, put in the work, or that their bodies would have responded to it or that they would be able to withstand it is a fools errand. All you can do is look at their game and compare it across era's. Those players don't stand up.

Of course it's hypothetical because it's impossible to perform the opposite.

But both of these are true:
1. If you gave Wilt, Russell, Cousy, West, Oscar Robertson of the 60's... even Bird and McHale in the 80's... the types of modern strength/plyometric training, nutrition, shooting form training, and basic strategies... they'd easily hang in today's NBA.
2. Likewise, if you took away all of these things from Jordan, Lebron, Kobe, etc.. and put them back in 1963 where they just ran suicides and practiced shooting, probably poor nutrition, with minimal known training regimens... they'd fit into that time, but not today.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

potatohead is showing why he is named such.

You put a team of Russell, Chamberlain, Malone, Baylor, and West on the floor, with modern training, and they would very competitive.

Put a team of Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Campanella, Mays, Mantle, Banks, and Cobb, with Young, Johnson, and Marquardt pitching, against the all stars of the last decade, you would have an incredible game.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

And I'm saying there's a reason that happens and that reason is that those guys aren't nearly as good as you are remembering them to be. Great for their era? Yes. Great comparatively across era's? No. That's why no one is talking about them. Pretty simple.

Eh, I think it's not complete meritocracy. There are certain guys who the media clings onto and mentions for different reasons that aren't completely unbiased.

For example, Reggie Miller gets mentioned a lot more than tons of players in the 90's who were better than him, but he's a media guy. Same with Charles Barkley.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Barkley and Miller were great, but they were not Malone and Robertson.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Barkley and Miller were great, but they were not Malone and Robertson.

Agreed that Moses and the Big O are more accomplished in NBA history than Sir Charles and Reggie.

I'll move to the 90's... David Robinson is certainly underrated in NBA history discussion. That's safe to say without pause or consideration. That era's centers are always about Ewing and Hakeem, and at the tail end Shaq... and even then Hakeem is probably a bit underrated compared to Ewing. Ewing is overrated IMO.

 

[Couchpotato]

Of course it's hypothetical because it's impossible to perform the opposite.

But both of these are true:
1. If you gave Wilt, Russell, Cousy, West, Oscar Robertson of the 60's... even Bird and McHale in the 80's... the types of modern strength/plyometric training, nutrition, shooting form training, and basic strategies... they'd easily hang in today's NBA.
2. Likewise, if you took away all of these things from Jordan, Lebron, Kobe, etc.. and put them back in 1963 where they just ran suicides and practiced shooting, probably poor nutrition, with minimal known training regimens... they'd fit into that time, but not today.

All we know for sure is what these guys are/were. It's why comparing across era's is so hard. That said you cant with any honestly say that you KNOW those players would be better. Maybe they would. or maybe they would have quit because they didn't want to put in the work. Or maybe their bodies wouldn't hold up. Way too many maybe's IMO so you look at who they were. The other issue is that the NBA was hardly the league in the 60's it is today or even in the 80's. Less popular sports draw fewer and inferior athletes. At that point it's just a math problem. If I have a pool of a billion to choose from my chances of getting superior athletes is better than if my pool is only 1 million. My guess is that the disparity in numbers is far greater than that 1960's to today. Once someone is more than 40 years in the past in sports you have to have been transcendent in order to get any run from other than die hard fans.

 

[candycorn]

Dantley, Erving, Robertson, West, Baylor (?) would do amazingly well against today's greats, yes.

Erving....I doubt it. He'd be a starter but he probably wouldn't be the transcendent figure he was when the talent pool was supposedly much more shallow.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

All we know for sure is what these guys are/were. It's why comparing across era's is so hard. That said you cant with any honestly say that you KNOW those players would be better. Maybe they would. or maybe they would have quit because they didn't want to put in the work. Or maybe their bodies wouldn't hold up. Way too many maybe's IMO so you look at who they were. The other issue is that the NBA was hardly the league in the 60's it is today or even in the 80's. Less popular sports draw fewer and inferior athletes. At that point it's just a math problem. If I have a pool of a billion to choose from my chances of getting superior athletes is better than if my pool is only 1 million. My guess is that the disparity in numbers is far greater than that 1960's to today. Once someone is more than 40 years in the past in sports you have to have been transcendent in order to get any run from other than die hard fans.

I'm not making guarantees, I'm talking about educated generalizations that would likely be true. If you want to stress over the idea that it can't be proven... that's fine to do yourself. Maybe one player wouldn't be able to do it, but the logic fits.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It's why comparing across era's is so hard.

This right here is straight truth, which is why I rarely do it.

 

[sealybobo]

In no particular order

1. Moses Malone
3 time NBA MVP
13 Time All star
4 time all NBA first team
6 time rebounding leader
1 NBA championship
1 NBA Finals MVP
11th all time scoring leader
Top Scoring Averages: 31.1, 27.8, 25.8, 24.8
Top Rebounding Averages: 15.3, 14.8, 14.7, 14.5
Career Playoff Average: 22.1ppg, 13.8rpg


2. Elgin Baylor
All NBA First team 10 times
Rookie of the year in 1958-59
11 time all star
Finished 2nd in MVP one year, 3rd in MVP 3 times

This guy doesn't have the "leads the league" stats (he played in the era of Wilt), but is a total beast. Look at his first 5 years in the league
1958-59: 24.9 ppg, 15 rpg, 4.3 apg
1959-60: 29.6 ppg, 16.4 rpg, 3.5 apg
1960-61: 34.8 ppg, 19.8 rpg, 5.1 apg
1961-62: 38.3 ppg, 18.6 rpg, 4.6 apg
1962-63: 34.0 ppg, 14.3 rpg, 4.6 apg

Throughout the 60's afterwards he had points per game scores of: 25.4, 27.1, 16.6, 26.6, 26.0, 24.8, and 24.0
Rebounds of: 12.0, 12.8, 9.6, 12.8, 12.2, 10.6, 10.4

This is easy. Lebron James. Even I under estimate how great he is/was.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

This is easy. Lebron James. Even I under estimate how great he is/was.

As great as he is, he is not “underrated” by any metric.

 

[sealybobo]

As great as he is, he is not “underrated” by any metric.

Tell that to the young men who tell me he's better than Jordan and I say no way.

They make a lot of good arguments.

I'm telling you for me, personally, he's the most under rated player ever.

Let me think of who else. Hmmm. Booker? He's freakin Amazing but they don't treat him with the star power they give to Curry. Who else?

Who do you think is under rated? I'll go back and look at what others have said.

 

[Papageorgio]

“Pistol” Pete Maravich was one of the greats, his skills and ability were of the charts.

 

[sealybobo]

In no particular order

1. Moses Malone
3 time NBA MVP
13 Time All star
4 time all NBA first team
6 time rebounding leader
1 NBA championship
1 NBA Finals MVP
11th all time scoring leader
Top Scoring Averages: 31.1, 27.8, 25.8, 24.8
Top Rebounding Averages: 15.3, 14.8, 14.7, 14.5
Career Playoff Average: 22.1ppg, 13.8rpg


2. Elgin Baylor
All NBA First team 10 times
Rookie of the year in 1958-59
11 time all star
Finished 2nd in MVP one year, 3rd in MVP 3 times

This guy doesn't have the "leads the league" stats (he played in the era of Wilt), but is a total beast. Look at his first 5 years in the league
1958-59: 24.9 ppg, 15 rpg, 4.3 apg
1959-60: 29.6 ppg, 16.4 rpg, 3.5 apg
1960-61: 34.8 ppg, 19.8 rpg, 5.1 apg
1961-62: 38.3 ppg, 18.6 rpg, 4.6 apg
1962-63: 34.0 ppg, 14.3 rpg, 4.6 apg

Throughout the 60's afterwards he had points per game scores of: 25.4, 27.1, 16.6, 26.6, 26.0, 24.8, and 24.0
Rebounds of: 12.0, 12.8, 9.6, 12.8, 12.2, 10.6, 10.4

Isiah Thomas. Won back to backs in between the Lakers/Celtic and Bull's era. Evidence: Wasn't enough uproar when he wasn't selected to the Olympic team.

Hakeem Olajuwon won two when Jordan stepped away. I don't feel he gets enough credit

Dwayne Wade did it with Shaq then Lebron.

Pau Gasol won 2 titles with Kobe after Shaq left.

 

[Couchpotato]

As great as he is, he is not “underrated” by any metric.

Unless you think he's the GOAT there are lots of people who would say you are underrating him.

 

[sealybobo]

Unless you think he's the GOAT there are lots of people who would say you are underrating him.

So I looked back at who other people said were under rated. So old, who knows? Fine if they say so. Oscar Robertson? And all the people mentioned are HOF'ers. Let's put it this way. If I know their names, they have not been under rated. For some reason I know their names so they've gotten their props.

Let's talk about TODAY. Let's think about people in the NBA today who are under rated. Lebron is certainly on top of that list. Because he has only won 4 rings. And he shouldn't have won the one in Cleveland. And he had to join Bosch and Wade to win a couple. And they should have won more than they did. And because I look back at all the finals he stunk it up or got cramps. And he won one in the bubble. We should have called that year off. Instead he got his 4th ring.

I'm one of the people who under estimates Lebron. The older he gets, the more I see he has OWNED the league for 20 years. My god. I shouldn't be under estimating him. But even still, I think Jordan would have kicked his ass.