Comments on: The Best Uniform Numbers in NBA History

By: traverse city

traverse city — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:56:23 +0000

You really make it appear really easy with your presentation however I in finding this matter to be actually something which I feel I might never understand. It kind of feels too complicated and very wide for me. I'm looking forward to your subsequent publish, I'll attempt to get the cling of it!

By: danny95207

danny95207 — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 07:56:59 +0000

No Isiah Thomas for #11? Yes . Isiah Thomas is not good enough to be on the list :)

By: taheati

taheati — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 05:25:11 +0000

WS v WS/48 example. WS/48 #33/Abdul-Jabbar (.231), Bird (.203), Ewing (.150) = .584 #23/Jordan (.250), James (.224), Murphy (.132) = .606 n.b. when you compare top WS/48s, qualified for games (min. 500) & average-minutes (min. 25 mpg), HOFers like Bird & Ewing don't resonate quite as loudly as their media-amplified resumés suggest.

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:23:54 +0000

Fisher is exactly who I was thinking of for the Lakers to break that rule, but I really don't know if they'll do it considering all of the other really good players they've had on title teams in the past... I mean, they didn't even retire Goodrich's number until he was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1996, almost 20 years after he had retired. Personally, as a Lakers fan, it'll just seem weird to me when I look at their rafters 20 years from now and see Shaq's #34 (which I think they will, and probably should, retire) but not Fisher's #2. It'll also be weird if Gasol doesn't make the Hall of Fame and doesn't get his number up there either. I'd say he's about 50/50 if he stopped playing today. Probably hasn't done enough just on NBA accomplishments, but he'll get lots of bonus points for the international flavor.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 13:22:22 +0000

Re: #34 - I did a little digging around, but I couldn't find any other franchise who only retires a player's jersey once they reach a specific requirement. I think other teams have some standard that must be met as well, but they're basically unwritten rules, and they probably don't write them in case they want to break them later. Btw, if there ever was a case where the Lakers should break their own rule, it's gotta be for Derek Fisher, right? The Red Sox have a similar rule about the HoF, but they made an exception for Johnny Pesky. The Lakers should probably do the same for Fisher after the shots he's made that helped them seal championships. And no, I can't believe I compared the Red Sox and Lakers either... Excuse me while I throw up.

By: taheati

taheati — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 03:54:06 +0000

I like win-shares because it supports without replacing your eyes (what you see is what WS also & usually gets), filters glare (of inefficient or defensively indifferent volume scorers) sharpens distant objects. That's also why I'd prefer WS/48 to identify the most productive 3-player numbers after you've qualified eligible players (min. games, minutes). Otherwise straight WS says as much (maybe more) about longevity as it does productivity.

By: BSK

BSK — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:23:49 +0000

It'd be most interesting to see the top 3 or top 5 at a given position.

Then again, with the retired numbers, some of these numbers have little chance to grow.

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:29:47 +0000

Neil, as far as the retired numbers go, do you have any idea which teams have which rules for which players can have their numbers retired? I know the Lakers require a player to make the Hall of Fame, but the Celtics seem to retire anybody's that they feel like. Do you know any of the "rules" for any other teams?

By: slotto

slotto — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:35:45 +0000

Hey, don't forget Earl the Pearl had his best years--at least statistically--as #10.

By: Neil Paine

Neil Paine — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:19:04 +0000

Totally agree.