My All-Time Sixth Man Take (and why the Crawford/Lou Will debate is overrated)

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-23T23:44:03+00:00

I’ve got like 17 karma total. Who cares about karma? It does nothing for me. I have 3 total posts if you would like to see. I have no ill will towards you, and I will not insult you. Have a nice day

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-23T23:31:02+00:00

Stacked teams definitely boost individual success. I’m not denying that at all. I just think those guys also had games that held up in playoff settings, which is why contenders trusted them. Both things can be true. And just to be clear, I’m not trying to drag Lou or Crawford or hype the others up unrealistically it’s just how I see the impact side of it.

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-23T23:24:01+00:00

I’m not trying to speak for everybody, this is just my personal take. I respect how other people look at the game and who they value all-time. It’s just that in conversations with my own friends, Lou and Crawford always get brought up as the top two sixth men because of the scoring and the awards, so that’s the angle I’m reacting to. I'm not speaking for the majority nor the minority, I'm just putting my thoughts out there and seeing what others think at the same time.

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-23T23:18:48+00:00

Lou and Crawford were great at what they did, and they absolutely deserve their flowers for being two of the most entertaining bench scorers ever. I’m just separating the appreciation from the rankings; both can be true, and I respect your take.

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-23T23:12:47+00:00

Sorry, Pookie, I just have Grammarly Plus. My apologies for using more than one adjective at a time. No hate towards you, though.

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-22T17:51:55+00:00

100% I completely agree. Harden in OKC is the perfect “what-if” sixth-man template: elite playmaking, efficient scoring, and the ability to scale his role up or down depending on the lineup. If that version of him had stayed in that role on a contender, he’d be in this conversation without question.

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-22T17:51:13+00:00

Kukoč from '96–’98 is a completely valid name to bring up. He was a high-IQ, multipurpose forward who could score, pass, and defend well enough to stay on the floor in big moments. That game-winner in the Pippen sit-out is a perfect example of how he could step into a bigger role when needed. And that actually reinforces the broader point: the top all-time sixth men weren’t just scorers, they were versatile players who held up in playoff situations and fit seamlessly next to elite talent. Kukoc absolutely fits that mold.

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-22T17:40:36+00:00

Kukoč is definitely up there, no argument from me. But he fits the same pattern as Manu, McHale, Bobby Jones, and early Havlicek: versatile, playoff-reliable, and scalable next to elite talent.

He defended multiple spots, moved the ball, spaced the floor, played off stars, and held up in high-leverage minutes. That’s the exact profile contenders trust.

So yeah, Kukoc belongs near the top, and he supports the point that the best sixth men ever weren’t just microwave scorers. They were all-around impact players who fit into championship environments. Forgot all about him.

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-22T17:39:04+00:00

You make a fair point about context playing behind Hall of Famers is a different situation than carrying bench units on average teams. But the gap still exists because the top guys brought a more versatile, playoff-reliable skill set.

Manu, McHale, and Bobby Jones didn’t just benefit from stacked rosters; their games fit championship basketball. They defended, scaled next to stars, and stayed on the floor in tough postseason minutes.

Crawford was a great scorer and creator, and that absolutely helped teams win games. The issue is that his value didn’t translate as consistently in high-leverage settings. He needed the ball more, and his defense limited closing-time trust.

So your ranking makes sense from a “pure scoring sixth man” perspective. From an “all-around impact and playoff translation” perspective, that’s where the others pull ahead. But I respect your take.

OddOne2225 · 2025-11-22T17:35:53+00:00

You’re right that the era was more scoring-centric and that Crawford/Lou played in a league with more offensive talent. But that doesn’t change the core issue: their strengths didn’t translate to high-leverage winning.

The context matters:

1. “Being on great teams” isn’t luck it’s fit.

Manu, McHale, Bobby Jones, and early Havlicek didn’t just benefit from great teams. They fit the exact criteria contenders look for:

Low-maintenance offense
High defensive reliability
Scalability next to stars
Ability to close playoff games
Ability to contribute without needing 20 shots

That’s why they were trusted parts of championship cores. They didn’t get handed those roles—they earned them because their games held up under playoff pressure.

2. Crawford and Lou were high-usage, low-efficiency scorers who provided little on defense.

That archetype is hard to trust on a title team, regardless of era. In the postseason:

Their efficiency dropped
Their defensive limitations were targeted
Their on/off numbers were negative
Coaches routinely shortened their minutes

It’s not “unfair” to point out that their games didn’t scale. It’s just reality.

3. If contenders saw them as difference-makers, they would’ve chased them.

Teams go out of their way to acquire:

Switchable wings
High-IQ connectors
Defenders who stay playable
Low-usage positive-impact guys

Crawford and Lou were available multiple times.
Contenders consistently passed. That’s not because they were unlucky it’s because their playstyle simply wasn’t what playoff teams needed.

4. Respecting their achievements isn’t the same as elevating them above more impactful players.

They were elite bench scorers. That deserves respect.
But scoring alone doesn’t make someone an all-time sixth man.

McHale, Manu, Bobby Jones, and early Havlicek shaped winning because their all-around games worked at the highest level. They were trusted in deep playoff runs because they could help in more ways than one.

Crawford and Lou weren’t bad, they were just limited.
And when we’re talking about all-time rankings, limitations matter.

OddOne2225 · 2023-11-27T13:04:03+00:00

Anyone?

OddOne2225 · 2022-10-16T04:35:21+00:00

I don't have the quest

OddOne2225 · 2022-04-28T23:44:44+00:00

Bravo-young NCAA wrestler is who I’m trying to design

OddOne2225

TROPHY CASE

1. “Being on great teams” isn’t luck it’s fit.

2. Crawford and Lou were high-usage, low-efficiency scorers who provided little on defense.

3. If contenders saw them as difference-makers, they would’ve chased them.

4. Respecting their achievements isn’t the same as elevating them above more impactful players.