Top 10 players of all time?

[edhemsoccer]

I'm curious to see what other people think.
Criteria should be:
how good the player was at his peak
consistency
abilities/talent
championships (extra as the best player)
ability in the clutch ( would you trust him in a do-or-die game?)
was he a difference maker on good teams?

My list has to be:

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Magic Johnson

5. Larry Bird

6. Wilt Chamberlain

7. Tim Duncan

8. Kobe Bryant

9. Jerry West

10. Oscar Robertson


I can never decide between Oscar and Shaq, I'll just give it to Oscar.

[talkingconch]

Oscar Robertson??


Bill Russell isn't No. 2

[pauk]

I'm curious to see what other people think.
Criteria should be:
how good the player was at his peak
consistency
abilities/talent
championships (extra as the best player)
ability in the clutch ( would you trust him in a do-or-die game?)
was he a difference maker on good teams?

My list has to be:

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Magic Johnson

5. Larry Bird

6. Wilt Chamberlain

7. Tim Duncan

8. Kobe Bryant

9. Jerry West

10. Shaquille O'Neal

he doesnt belong there higher than shaq or duncan..... thats the most stupid rank ive seen in my entire life all in all..... you did another stupid thing also... you totally ditched oscar ****ing robertson.....

which in essence puts kobe where he belongs... at #11-#15 somewhere...

[talkingconch]

Yeah I think shaq should be higher than Kobe, Not sure about Duncan being higher though

[edhemsoccer]

Bill Russel isn't No. 2



:facepalm
Great argument by the way.

Bill Russell won 11 titles. He was the defensive presence of those title winning teams. He was the best defensive player of all time. A complete game changer.
Russell's teams were 10-0 in deciding game 5's and game 7's. At his peak, he consistently slowed down Wilt Chamberlain in the playoffs. What more do you want?

[edhemsoccer]

You know, instead of complaining about my list, you could make your own list...

[kaiiu]

Kobe ahead of Shaq:facepalm

edit: Your list doe, cant hate

[pauk]

here is how it should look like... watch and learn...


1. MICHAEL JORDAN
2. WILT CHAMBERLAIN
3. KAREEM ABDUL JABBAR
4. BILL RUSSELL
5. MAGIC JOHNSON
6. LARRY BIRD
7. OSCAR ROBERTSON
8. SHAQUILLE ONEAL
9. TIM DUNCAN
10. HAKEEM OLAJUWON

ONLY AFTER THEM DOES KOBE BELONG AND ARGUABLY... FIGHTING FOR THAT #11 SPOT WITH JULIUS ERVING AND JERRY WEST..............

[d.bball.guy]

:facepalm
No Shaq = retarded

[pauk]

Kobe ahead of Shaq:facepalm

edit: Your list doe, cant hate

wtf???? arent you a kobe ******ger and a moron? shouldnt you put kobe at #1? :lol

[kaiiu]

Michael
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Russell
Shaq
Duncan
Kobe
Oscar

[edhemsoccer]

People, Shaq got swept out of the playoffs 6 times. 6 TIMES! He was a liability in late game situations because of his terrible free throw shooting. His decline also hurts his legacy. Also Shaq could have been much better than what he was. He coasted through seasons at times. He could have been a top 5 of all time, but he was never motivated to do so.

[edhemsoccer]

here is how it should look like... watch and learn...


1. MICHAEL JORDAN
2. WILT CHAMBERLAIN
3. KAREEM ABDUL JABBAR
4. BILL RUSSELL
5. MAGIC JOHNSON
6. LARRY BIRD
7. OSCAR ROBERTSON
8. SHAQUILLE ONEAL
9. TIM DUNCAN
10. HAKEEM OLAJUWON

ONLY AFTER THEM DOES KOBE BELONG AND ARGUABLY... FIGHTING FOR THAT #11 SPOT WITH JULIUS ERVING AND JERRY WEST..............


I just don't get why Wilt is ahead of Russell? WHY?

[Round Mound]

I`ll go with what happened on court and statistical proof of level of play such as PER, EFF +/- and Shot Made/Missed Diferential

1-MJ
2-Wilt
3-Kareem
4-Shaq
5-Bird
6-Magic
7-Hakeem
8-Barkley
9-Duncan
10-Big 0

[edhemsoccer]

I`ll go with what happened on court and statistical proof of level of play such as PER, EFF +/- and Shot Made/Missed Diferential

1-MJ
2-Wilt
3-Kareem
4-Big 0
5-Bird
6-Magic
7-Hakeem
8-Barkley
9-Duncan
10-Baylor

Very nice of you to use your own criteria. No Bill Russell completely kills your list.:facepalm

[Soothing Layup]

1 - Michael Jordan
2 - Wilt Chamberlain
3 - Kareem abdul Jabbar
4 - Bill Russell
5 - Magic Johnson
6 - Larry Bird
7 - Shaquille O'neal
8 - Oscar Robertson
9 - Hakeem Olajuwon
10 - Tim Duncan
11 - Jerry west/Julius Erving
12 - Kobe Bryant/Dominique Wilkins

[chips93]

1 mj
2 wilt
3 kareem
4 magic
5 russell
6 hakeem
7 shaq
8 kobe
9 bird
10 duncan

[Round Mound]

Very nice of you to use your own criteria. No Bill Russell completely kills your list.:facepalm

To Be Great does NOT = rings. Thats a team.

I am talkin about Domination on an All Around Game

Russell was a Great Rebounder, Defender and Shot Blocker...but he was a lousy Offensive Player scoring wise even more. Ofcourse if u play with a Team that has like 8 All Stars and 7 Hall of Famers. You are going to win rings and get assists.

I messed up forgot Shaq i corrected it now

EFF
PER
+/-
Shot Missed/Made Diferential

All That I`ve Mentioned Are Top 1-15 at some point even more

[chips93]

I just don't get why Wilt is ahead of Russell? WHY?


because wilt scored way more points, and grabbed way more rebounds. russell was the best player on a great team.

people give him credit over wilt because he wanted to win, more than wilt. while that might be true, wilt was still better at winning, irregardless of who 'wanted' to win more.

[MasterDurant24]

here is how it should look like... watch and learn...


1. MICHAEL JORDAN
2. WILT CHAMBERLAIN
3. KAREEM ABDUL JABBAR
4. BILL RUSSELL
5. MAGIC JOHNSON
6. LARRY BIRD
7. OSCAR ROBERTSON
8. SHAQUILLE ONEAL
9. TIM DUNCAN
10. HAKEEM OLAJUWON

ONLY AFTER THEM DOES KOBE BELONG AND ARGUABLY... FIGHTING FOR THAT #11 SPOT WITH JULIUS ERVING AND JERRY WEST..............
Oscar Robertson over Shaq, Duncan, Olajuwon, and Kobe is silly. All have won titles as the best player on their team, and just have had better careers overall. Dr. J is also not at the number eleven spot...Moses Malone should be in that spot imo. He was the best player on that legendary 83 sixers team.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic
5. Russell
6. Larry Bird
7. Shaq
8. Tim Duncan
9. Kobe Bryant
10. Hakeem Olajuwon

My list.

[blablabla]

1-jordan
2-wilt
3-russell
4-kaj
5-bird
6-magic
7-kobe
8-shaq
9-hakeem
10-duncan

but I think that most of the rankings are interchangeable so it's better to make tiers

like

jordan tier

jordan





second tier

russell,wilt

both great players but alot people underrate them because they played in a "weak era", but as we saw an old wilt destroyed a prime kaj on several meetings and an old kaj destroyed a young hakeem so I think that these 2 would also be elite players in todays game

than we have kaj he is between the second and third tier you could put him in both

third tier

magic,shaq,bird,kobe,duncan,hakeem

[KevinNYC]

because wilt scored way more points, and grabbed way more rebounds. russell was the best player on a great team.

people give him credit over wilt because he wanted to win, more than wilt. while that might be true, wilt was still better at winning, irregardless of who 'wanted' to win more.


Uh, how was Wilt better at winning?

[chips93]

Uh, how was Wilt better at winning?


he was a much better scorer and better rebounder, both contributing to winning.

however boston's teams were better than phillys teams at winning.

[KevinNYC]

and yet when Wilt changed his style of play was when he won his titles.

[chips93]

and yet when Wilt changed his style of play was when he won his titles.


or was it when he got an all time great as a teammate in jerry west?

[KevinNYC]

or was it when he got an all time great as a teammate in jerry west?

Jerry West wasn't on his team when he won his first title. Go read Wilt's wikipedia page and you'll see what changed the first year Wilt won a title.

He was famously challenged by his coach to change his style of play and become a better teammate on and off the floor. He did so and the team went 68-13. And Chamberlain finally beat Russell in the playoffs after something like 6 straight losses.

Also check this thread, for some knowledge by folks who know far more about Wilt and Russell than I do.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=171377

[KevinNYC]

If you look at the years before Wilt won his first title, his playoff averages were something like 32 points and 3 assists a game.

The year his coach tells him to change his game and they set the record season record, his playoff averages, are 22 points and 9 assists

[FKAri]

1-jordan
2-wilt
3-russell
4-kaj
5-bird
6-magic
7-kobe
8-shaq
9-hakeem
10-duncan

but I think that most of the rankings are interchangeable so it's better to make tiers

like

jordan tier

jordan


Jordan was not in his own tier. KAJ and Wilt are right there with him. All 3 should be in the top tier.

[Colby Brian]

1. mj
2. wilt
3. russell
4. KAJ
5. magic
6. shaq
7. kobe
8. bird
9. duncan
10. hakeem

[Rnbizzle]

not this topics AGAIN..

[G.O.A.T]

I'm curious to see what other people think.
Criteria should be:
how good the player was at his peak
consistency
abilities/talent
championships (extra as the best player)
ability in the clutch ( would you trust him in a do-or-die game?)
was he a difference maker on good teams?

My list has to be:

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Magic Johnson

5. Larry Bird

6. Wilt Chamberlain

7. Tim Duncan

8. Kobe Bryant

9. Jerry West

10. Oscar Robertson


I can never decide between Oscar and Shaq, I'll just give it to Oscar.

We have the same top six. I like Wilt a little more than you. I can excuse him only having two titles because of dealing with Russell. The other superstars of the era, Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit all ended up with one or zero.

The Jordan vs. Russell debate is the hardest for me; mostly because it's impossible to find someone who understands both players to discuss who two guys so fundamentally different in nearly every way became the two greatest players in the history of the sport.

I think you're being too hard on Shaq. For all his flaws and his early struggles in the postseason, he had a seven year run where he won four titles, went to the finals five times and was one of if not the best player in the league all the while. That's something guys like Oscar and West never did.

good take on an often tackled topic.

[kizut1659]

here is how it should look like... watch and learn...


1. MICHAEL JORDAN
2. WILT CHAMBERLAIN
3. KAREEM ABDUL JABBAR
4. BILL RUSSELL
5. MAGIC JOHNSON
6. LARRY BIRD
7. OSCAR ROBERTSON
8. SHAQUILLE ONEAL
9. TIM DUNCAN
10. HAKEEM OLAJUWON

ONLY AFTER THEM DOES KOBE BELONG AND ARGUABLY... FIGHTING FOR THAT #11 SPOT WITH JULIUS ERVING AND JERRY WEST..............

Thats retarded. Julius Erving never won a championship except as a second banana to Moses Malone. Jerry West won one championship and had horrible finals series that year. Hakeem Olajuwan only had 2 championships that coincided with Jordan's retirement. Besides 5 championships, Kobe is # 6 on all-time scoring (will be #5 next year) and #4 in playoff scoring (might be #3 after this year.) Even an avowed Kobe hater like Bill Simmons has Kobe as # 8. Peole who don't think Kobe is top 10 are as deluded who think Kobe is as good as Jordan.

[kizut1659]

I'm curious to see what other people think.
Criteria should be:
how good the player was at his peak
consistency
abilities/talent
championships (extra as the best player)
ability in the clutch ( would you trust him in a do-or-die game?)
was he a difference maker on good teams?

My list has to be:

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Magic Johnson

5. Larry Bird

6. Wilt Chamberlain

7. Tim Duncan

8. Kobe Bryant

9. Jerry West

10. Oscar Robertson


I can never decide between Oscar and Shaq, I'll just give it to Oscar.

This is exactly Bill Simmons' list.

[Kurosawa0]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Kobe Bryant
8. Tim Duncan
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Hakeem Olujawon

[kizut1659]

We have the same top six. I like Wilt a little more than you. I can excuse him only having two titles because of dealing with Russell. The other superstars of the era, Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit all ended up with one or zero.

The Jordan vs. Russell debate is the hardest for me; mostly because it's impossible to find someone who understands both players to discuss who two guys so fundamentally different in nearly every way became the two greatest players in the history of the sport.

I think you're being too hard on Shaq. For all his flaws and his early struggles in the postseason, he had a seven year run where he won four titles, went to the finals five times and was one of if not the best player in the league all the while. That's something guys like Oscar and West never did.

good take on an often tackled topic.

I agree about Shaq - he is clearly top 10.

[whoartthou]

WTF? shaq should be on EVERYONES top 10 list...

[EnoughSaid]

1. Michael Jordan

2. Magic Johnson

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Larry Bird

5. Bill Russell

6. Wilt Chamberlain

7. Tim Duncan

8. Shaquille O'Neal

9. Hakeem Olajuwon.

10. Kobe Bryant

[magnax1]

This is exactly Bill Simmons' list.
You sure? I thought he had Kobe around 15?

[EnoughSaid]

Kobe is barely Top 10. He is so overrated on all-time terms. All those people were constantly the number 1 options and the best players on all of their championship teams.

[BarberSchool]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Larry Bird
5. Magic Johnson
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Oscar Robertson
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Shaquille O'neal
10. Tim Duncan

[Colby Brian]

Kobe is barely Top 10. He is so overrated on all-time terms. All those people were constantly the number 1 options and the best players on all of their championship teams.

kareem(magic), magic(kareem), shaq(wade), wilt(west) or west(wilt)

[Colby Brian]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Larry Bird
5. Magic Johnson
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Oscar Robertson
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Shaquille O'neal
10. Tim Duncan

wheres kobe? :facepalm

[MasterDurant24]

Kobe is barely Top 10. He is so overrated on all-time terms. All those people were constantly the number 1 options and the best players on all of their championship teams.
Kareem wasn't the best on all of the Lakers teams. Shaq wasn't the best in Miami. And(not really knocking to much on Bird) Cedric Maxwell was the number 1 option in Bird's first championship.

[Simple Jack]

Oscar shouldn't be in the top 10.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Bill Russell
5. Magic Johnson/Larry Bird
6. Larry Bird/Magic Johnson
7. Shaq
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon/Kobe Bryant
10. Kobe Bryant/Hakeem Olajuwon

[whoartthou]

1. Michael Jordan

2. Magic Johnson

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Larry Bird

5. Bill Russell

6. Wilt Chamberlain

7. Tim Duncan

8. Shaquille O'Neal

9. Hakeem Olajuwon.

10. Kobe Bryant

id put kareem at 2, russel at 3, magic and bird at 4/5 and we have identical lists!

[Alhazred]

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Wilt Chamberlain

5. Shaquille O'Neal

6. Larry Bird

7. Magic Johnson

8. Kobe Bryant

9. Hakeem Olajuwon

10. Tim Duncan

[kizut1659]

You sure? I thought he had Kobe around 15?

Originally yes, before 2009 playoffs. His paperback moves him up to 8 because of the last 2 championshipss.

[jlauber]

We have the same top six. I like Wilt a little more than you. I can excuse him only having two titles because of dealing with Russell. The other superstars of the era, Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit all ended up with one or zero.

The Jordan vs. Russell debate is the hardest for me; mostly because it's impossible to find someone who understands both players to discuss who two guys so fundamentally different in nearly every way became the two greatest players in the history of the sport.

I think you're being too hard on Shaq. For all his flaws and his early struggles in the postseason, he had a seven year run where he won four titles, went to the finals five times and was one of if not the best player in the league all the while. That's something guys like Oscar and West never did.

good take on an often tackled topic.

Your take on Wilt is 100% correct. Most uneducated posters look at his 1-7 record against Russell (and the Celtic Dynasty) as a clear-cut rout for Russell...when the reality was, Chamberlain was a TOTAL of NINE points, in FOUR game SEVENs from holding a 5-3 edge over Russell's Celtics.

Throw in what should have been a ring in the '70 Finals, when game five was officiated as poorly as game's five and six of the '02 WCF's...and Chamberlain would have had yet another ring.

And, it was not as if Russell was just crushing Wilt in their eight H2H post-season series, either. If anything, Wilt outplayed Russell, individually, and by a large margin, in virtually all of them.

I give Russell credit for elevating the play of his teammates, many of them in the HOF strictly because of him, ... while Chamberlain's teammates, time-and-again, played poorly, which may be a reflection on Wilt.

In any case, the difference between Russell, who I personally have at #1, and Wilt, who I have at #4, is razor-thin. Once again, INDIVIDUALLY, Chamberlain had NO peers. He was the game's greatest offensive force, and nearly the game's greatest defensive force (only Russell's impact was greater), and he was clearly the game's greatest rebounder.

I have MJ and Magic ahead of Wilt based solely on their ability to win. Here again, though, had Russell not played in the Wilt era, OR, IF Chamberlain's teammates had just played SLIGHTLY better in only 4-5 games, and Wilt could very well have worn SEVEN rings. And, if that were the case, HE would be the clear-cut GOAT.

[jlauber]

BTW, for those that rank Bird above Wilt...I would LOVE to read their reasons. IMHO, he has NO case over Wilt. He is a borderline top-10 player all-time.

[SinJackal]

1: Michael Jordan
2: Bill Russell
3: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4: Wilt Chamberlain
5: Shaquille O'Neal
6: Magic Johnson
7: Tim Duncan
8: Larry Bird
9: Kobe Bryant
10: Hakeem Olajuwon



I like to give Russell his props for the 11 rings. Wilt has so many records, and the best statistical season ever, so he deserves a high rank. I think Shaq's 4 rings is close enough to Magic's 5 that it's safe to put him above Magic since he was a better player. I have Timmy in above Bird because he's won more titles with teams with far less talent on them than Bird had, and was a much bigger force on the defensive end. Bird is still great of course, so I have him above Kobe despite two less rings. I believe Hakeem was a better player than Kobe, but Kobe's sheer ring total and other accomplishments gives him the edge over Hakeem. Had Hakeem won 3 rings, I think he could arguably be #7-8 on the list. Likewise, if Duncan won an extra ring back during his prime such as in 2006, I think he could arguably be #5 or 6.

[jlauber]

1: Michael Jordan
2: Bill Russell
3: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4: Wilt Chamberlain
5: Shaquille O'Neal
6: Magic Johnson
7: Tim Duncan
8: Larry Bird
9: Kobe Bryant
10: Hakeem Olajuwon



I like to give Russell his props for the 11 rings. Wilt has so many records, and the best statistical season ever, so he deserves a high rank. I think Shaq's 4 rings is close enough to Magic's 5 that it's safe to put him above Magic since he was a better player. I have Timmy in above Bird because he's won more titles with teams with far less talent on them than Bird had, and was a much bigger force on the defensive end. Bird is still great of course, so I have him above Kobe despite two less rings. I believe Hakeem was a better player than Kobe, but Kobe's sheer ring total and other accomplishments gives him the edge over Hakeem. Had Hakeem won 3 rings, I think he could arguably be #7-8 on the list. Likewise, if Duncan won an extra ring back during his prime such as in 2006, I think he could arguably be #5 or 6.

IMHO, had Chamberlain been fortunate to have played with a healthy Magic for TEN seasons, even in the Russell era, and he would have won at least SIX rings.

[rmt]

Oscar shouldn't be in the top 10.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Bill Russell
5. Magic Johnson/Larry Bird
6. Larry Bird/Magic Johnson
7. Shaq
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon/Kobe Bryant
10. Kobe Bryant/Hakeem Olajuwon

I like this one best except switch Russell and Wilt.

[SinJackal]

IMHO, had Chamberlain been fortunate to have played with a healthy Magic for TEN seasons, even in the Russell era, and he would have won at least SIX rings.

That could probably be true. We'll never know though, so just gotta go based on how fortunate these players were. We could make the argument of, what if Kobe was in T-Mac's situation? What if David Robinson had more offensive help? What if Barkley was 4 inches taller? etc etc

I penalize players for their teams when I do my ranks. I think Kareem was a huge force in the NBA even before he joined the Lakers though, which is why I have him so high up there. He also had some extremely good seasons, some even rivaling Wilt's great seasons statistically (not the 50/22 one of course). And, he won a title without Magic. . .while having the best longgevity of any great player in NBA history. Hard not to give Kareem a lot of props.

I think Wilt should be cemented as top 4 though, until some new legendary player comes along who dominates both ends and wins 4-5 rings as top dog. Nobody in the current NBA has that potential imo. Besides maybe LeBron. But he's playing with Wade, so I'd probably penalize him a little for it. He's prolly gonna need 5 rings for consideration.

[jlauber]

That could probably be true. We'll never know though, so just gotta go based on how fortunate these players were. We could make the argument of, what if Kobe was in T-Mac's situation? What if David Robinson had more offensive help? What if Barkley was 4 inches taller? etc etc

I penalize players for their teams when I do my ranks. I think Kareem was a huge force in the NBA even before he joined the Lakers though, which is why I have him so high up there. He also had some extremely good seasons, some even rivaling Wilt's great seasons statistically (not the 50/22 one of course). And, he won a title without Magic. . .while having the best longgevity of any great player in NBA history. Hard not to give Kareem a lot of props.

I think Wilt should be cemented as top 4 though, until some new legendary player comes along who dominates both ends and wins 4-5 rings as top dog. Nobody in the current NBA has that potential imo. Besides maybe LeBron. But he's playing with Wade, so I'd probably penalize him a little for it. He's prolly gonna need 5 rings for consideration.

Of course Kareem has a solid case for GOAT. But, take away Magic, and he probably only has ONE ring. And that came in a year in which the only team that might have been able to beat his Bucks, the Lakers, were without BOTH West and Baylor (and even Erickson) in the playoffs. Then, they beat a 42-40 team in the Finals. And while Kareem was the best player of the decade of the 70's, he only won that ONE ring...in a decade of the WORST champions ever. He also played on some stacked teams in that decade that failed to win. Furthermore, he played poorly in the '72 and especially in '73, when his 60-22 Bucks were beaten 4-2 by a 47-35 Warrior team...in a series in which Kareem shot .428. His '78 and '79 teams were LOADED with talent (Nixon, Hudson, Wilkes, and Dantley...in league's in which a 44-38 Bullet team won the title, and a 52-30 Sonics team, with one borderline HOFer (Dennis Johnson) won titles. Hell, even in '75, Rick Barry carried a group of no-names to a title, on a 48-34 team.

[d.bball.guy]

Oscar shouldn't be in the top 10.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Bill Russell
5. Magic Johnson/Larry Bird
6. Larry Bird/Magic Johnson
7. Shaq
8. Tim Duncan
9. Hakeem Olajuwon/Kobe Bryant
10. Kobe Bryant/Hakeem Olajuwon
This is pretty much mine, my new one. My old list sucks.

[SinJackal]

Of course Kareem has a solid case for GOAT. But, take away Magic, and he probably only has ONE ring. And that came in a year in which the only team that might have been able to beat his Bucks, the Lakers, were without BOTH West and Baylor (and even Erickson) in the playoffs. Then, they beat a 42-40 team in the Finals. And while Kareem was the best player of the decade of the 70's, he only won that ONE ring...in a decade of the WORST champions ever. He also played on some stacked teams in that decade that failed to win. Furthermore, he played poorly in the '72 and especially in '73, when his 60-22 Bucks were beaten 4-2 by a 47-35 Warrior team...in a series in which Kareem shot .428. His '78 and '79 teams were LOADED with talent (Nixon, Hudson, Wilkes, and Dantley...in league's in which a 44-38 Bullet team won the title, and a 52-30 Sonics team, with one borderline HOFer (Dennis Johnson) won titles. Hell, even in '75, Rick Barry carried a group of no-names to a title, on a 48-34 team.

You bring up some pretty strong points there. Luck of what team you end up with plays a role in every player's career though. You could try to eliminate the luck factor by just going off of game impact regardless of whether players have won rings, but that can lead to a lot of opinion since it eliminates some of the rigid factual basis we're ranking these guys by.

For example, I think Hakeem is easily better than Kobe. But I don't rank him as high because of Kobe's success. I think David Robinson in his prime was a better player than a lot of people that are ranked above him, but we have to look at his failures in the playoffs, even though he probably could've won at least 2 titles in the mid 90's too, had he had a better supporting cast.

Is Wilt being at my #4 really an insult though? Half the people here have Wilt in the 7-9 area. 4 is pretty damn good imo.

[KevinNYC]

And(not really knocking to much on Bird) Cedric Maxwell was the number 1 option in Bird's first championship.
I'm not usually one for smilies, but
:lol :roll: :eek: :oldlol: :lol :roll: :eek: :oldlol: :lol :


I haven't laughed that hard in a good, long time.

[Odinn]

First tier;
Jordan - Kareem - Magic

Second tier;
Bird - Duncan - Shaq - Kobe

Third tier;
Wilt - Hakeem - Russell

[jlauber]

You bring up some pretty strong points there. Luck of what team you end up with plays a role in every player's career though. You could try to eliminate the luck factor by just going off of game impact regardless of whether players have won rings, but that can lead to a lot of opinion since it eliminates some of the rigid factual basis we're ranking these guys by.

For example, I think Hakeem is easily better than Kobe. But I don't rank him as high because of Kobe's success. I think David Robinson in his prime was a better player than a lot of people that are ranked above him, but we have to look at his failures in the playoffs, even though he probably could've won at least 2 titles in the mid 90's too, had he had a better supporting cast.

Is Wilt being at my #4 really an insult though? Half the people here have Wilt in the 7-9 area. 4 is pretty damn good imo.

I have Wilt at #4 myself. But once again, individually he had no peers. Still, the bottom line is that basketball is a TEAM game, and ultimately, it is still about winning.

Of course, as DMAVs pointed out in another thread...in a TEAM game, the team's do not all start out on even footing (yes, I know,...they all start 0-0.) There are LOADED rosters, and then there are the other teams. Some of the great players, like Hakeem and Wilt, were saddled with mediocre rosters for years. And, in Hakeem's case, he had to battle the Laker and then the Bull's dynasties, while Chamberlain had to battle the Celtic dynasty, AND, the LOADED Knick teams (with as many as SIX HOFers), as well as the great Kareem-led Bucks' teams.

Players like Russell, Magic, and Duncan significantly elevated the play of their teammates, though. Their IMPACT goes well beyond their individual stats (which were certainly great BTW.)

[matts290]

1. Allen Iverson
2. Tracy McGrady
3. Vince Carter
4. Derrick Rose
5. Brian Scalabrine
6. Adam Morrison
7. Yao Ming
8. Kwame Brown
9. Eddie House
10. Nick Collison

[Colby Brian]

First tier;
Jordan - Kareem - Magic

Second tier;
Bird - Duncan - Shaq - Kobe

Third tier;
Wilt - Hakeem - Russell

:wtf:

[trooper]

1.2. Michael Jordan, Bill Russell

3.4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain

5.6. Magic Johnson, Larry Bird

7.8. Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal

9.10. Kobe Bryant, Hakeem Olajuwon -> if Kobe wins this year (HIGHYL unlikely), I'd move him up with Shaq and Timmy.

Interchangeable.

I personally put more emphasis on winning than anything, hence why I wouldn't argue Russell being number 1. Longevity probably comes next - I feel that playing at elite level for 15 years is much more impressive than 5 years of absolute dominance.

Wilt, honestly, just denies my logic. I put him at 3/4, and I'd have him lower if he wasn't just so damn dominant individually.

Two things I don't understand though, when comparing greats is:

1. Penalizing players because they have good teams: What the hell is that? You penalize a player because he had talent around him? Hypotheticals such as putting players on other trams is plain retarded.

2. Putting players into different eras: Are you really going to say if Russell played in today's era he'd be some scrub? Are you high? When comparing greats, you have to compare how they did against their era. It's different, I don't care if Russell would be worse than Kwame Brown if he played now, he won 11 rings, when he was playing.

[kizut1659]

Fist Tier: Michael Jordan
Second Tier: Magic, Bird, Jabaar, Russel, Chamberlain, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq.
Third Tier: Hakeem, West, Robertson, M. Malone, Havlicek.

[Big#50]

KAJ
Duncan
SHAQ
MJ
Magic
BIRD
WILT
Russell
HAKEEM
LEBRON

[Kobe24Clutch]

Adam Morrison should be up their the dude won 2 rings sitting on the bench in a suit that should be enough for top 10.

[Colby Brian]

KAJ
Duncan
SHAQ
MJ
Magic
BIRD
WILT
Russell
HAKEEM
LEBRON

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :roll:

[LA_Showtime]

Elgin Baylor clearly doesn't belong in the top 10, but he's one of the most underrated basketball players of all-time, especially on ISH.

[Big#50]

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :roll:
My top ten. Go worship Kobe.
Lebron>Kobe
Kobe is a better jump shooter. Nothing else.

[Fatal9]

1. MJ
2. KAJ
3. Shaq
4. Bird
5. Hakeem
6. Duncan
7. Magic
8. Bean
9. Russell
10. Wilt (lol @ people who consider him top 5)

Weighing prime/playoff performances heavily.

[HighFlyer23]

1. MJ
2. KAJ
3. Shaq
4. Bird
5. Hakeem
6. Duncan
7. Magic
8. Bean
9. Russell
10. Wilt (lol @ people who consider him top 5)

Weighing prime/playoff performances heavily.

Russell over Wilt? :roll: :roll:

[LEFT4DEAD]

1a Jordan
1b Kareem
3 Chamberlain
4 Russell
5 Magic Johnson
6 Bird
7 Duncan
8 Shaq
9 Robertson
10 Hakeem
Borderline top 10: West, Moses Malone, Kobe, Erving

[PHILA]

Russell over Wilt? :roll: :roll:If he was really "weighing prime/playoff performances heavily" then Russell would be #1.

[MasterDurant24]

I'm not usually one for smilies, but
:lol :roll: :eek: :oldlol: :lol :roll: :eek: :oldlol: :lol :


I haven't laughed that hard in a good, long time.
There was a reason he won the Finals MVP in 80-81.

[Hyperephania]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Larry Bird
8. Tim Duncan
9. Kobe Bryant
10. Hakeem Olajuwon

I'm finding it hard deciding between Jordan/Russell, Kareem/Wilt, and Shaq/Bird. You could call them interchangeable

[necya]

i don't have a special ranking but i will give credit to players who was the reference at their post

Magic, MJ, Bird, Malone, KAJ

1 is without a doubt MJ
then 2, 3, 4 are KAJ, Bird and Magic in no order.

then i have Russel, Hakeem, Wilt, Malone no order again.

i would never put Shaq as a top 10 player ever for sure.
he can't be rank higher than the KAJ, Russell, Wilt, Hakeem for his average defense, cause shaq is an average defender.

after those guys without order, i have Erving, West, Robertson, Barkley, Pippen, Duncan, Havlicek, Pettit, Robinson, Moses, O'neal, Baylor, Hardaway (my little surprise that i will defend :D )

[game385]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlin
3. Bill Russell
4. Magic Johnson
5. Shaquille O'Neal
6. Oscar Robertson
7. Kareem Abdul Jabar
8. Larry Bird
9. Kobe Bryant
10. Tim Duncan

I have to admit, even though I still believe that LeBron hurt his legacy a bit by choosing to join D-Wade's team. If the Heat win at least 3 rings, LeBron can be inserted anywhere on this list between 5 and 10...

but Dwyane Wade will then have to be inserted one spot ahead of him..lol

[G.O.A.T]

Cedric Maxwell was the number 1 option in Bird's first championship.

No.

Cornbread was their fourth or fifth best player and third option behind Bird and Parish.

[Heilige]

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Magic Johnson

5. Tim Duncan

6. Larry Bird

7. Shaquille O'Neal

8. Kobe Bryant

9. Wilt Chamberlain

10. Hakeem Olajuwon

[Gotterdammerung]

People, Shaq got swept out of the playoffs 6 times. 6 TIMES! He was a liability in late game situations because of his terrible free throw shooting. His decline also hurts his legacy. Also Shaq could have been much better than what he was. He coasted through seasons at times. He could have been a top 5 of all time, but he was never motivated to do so.
In a week, revise that number. :oldlol:

[edhemsoccer]

I had Russell ahead of Wilt because Russell's teams almost ALWAYS beat Wilt's teams. I've gone through the rosters, and Russell's teams weren't always more talented. Wilt had more talented times toward the latter of his career and he never won. This is exactly from Bill Simmon's book:

Wilt was more talented; Russell gave his teams a better chance to win. Wilt had a greater statistical impact; Russell had a greater impact on his teammates. Wilt peaked in the regular season; Russell peaked in the playoffs. Wilt shrank from the clutch; Russell thrived in the clutch. Wilt lost nearly every big game; Russell won nearly every big game. Wilt averaged 50 points for one season; Russell was voted Most Valuable Player by his peers the same season.
Wilt was traded twice in his career; Russell never would have been traded in a million years. Wilt was obsessed with statistics; Russell was obsessed with winning. Wilt cared about what fans, writers, and critics thought; Russell only cared about what his teammates thought. Wilt never won a title in high school or college and won only 2 as a pro; Russell won two in college and eleven in the NBA. Wilt ignored The Secret; Russell embraced the secret. After all of that, how can you have Wilt ahead of Russell? Let's look at some stats:

Here are their head-to-head stats in 142 games (including playoffs)

Wilt: 28.7 points, 28.7 rebounds
Russell 14.5 points, 23.7 rebounds

Hold on, I'm just getting started.

Wilt's record against Russell: 58-84
Russell's record against Wilt: 84-58

Now let's look at their playoff numbers.

Wilt: 160 games, 22.5 points, 24.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 47% FT, 52% FG
Russell: 165 games, 16.2 points, 24.9 rebounds, 4.7 assists,60% FT, 43% FG

See, Russell gets better in the playoffs; Wilt doesn't.

Wilt's record in game 7's: 4-5
Russell's record in game 7: 10-0

Wilt's record in elimination games for his team: 10-11
Russell's record in elimination games for his team: 16-2

Wilt: 2 championships
Russell: 11 championships

So how can one still put Wilt above Russell? How? You just can't make a case for him. Wilt was the greatest regular season player ever; We can all agree on that. But for the playoffs, he wasn't that great. This should be case closed.

[King of Loss]

My list

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Chamberlain
4. Magic
5. Abdul-Jabbar
6. Bird
7. O'Neal
8. Duncan
9. Bryant
10.Olajuwon

4/5/6 and 9/10 are arguable

[KevinNYC]

No.
Cornbread was their fourth or fifth best player and third option behind Bird and Parish.
This one is still making me laugh.
It's such a "I don't like Bird and I want to dis him, but I need a reason to justify it and a lot of folks on ISH talk about first options and sidekicks, so I'll go that route." But seriously, if it leads you down the path to this Cedric Maxwell was the number 1 option in Bird's first championship. You ought to just give it up.

For the record,
1981 Regular Season
Bird
PPG RPG APG STL BLK
21.2 10.9 5.5 2 0.8

Maxwell
PPG RPG APG STL BLK
15.2 6.5 2.7 1 0.8

1981 Playoffs
Bird
PPG RPG APG STL BLK
21.9 14 6.1 2.3 1

Maxwell
PPG RPG APG STL BLK
16.1 7.4 2.7 0.7 1

Maxwell was their third highest scorer after Bird and Parish who had 18.9 and I would say their fourth best player after Bird, Parish and Tiny Archibald. McHale wasn't yet the McHale of the mid 80's yet, so I wouldn't put him over Maxwell, though if you gave McHale Maxwell's minutes, I don't think you'd lose much. Maxwell had a good NBA finals and was the Finals MVP, but as you can see he was not the player Bird was in 1981 playoffs. In the Finals, Bird had two bad shooting games, but he still had a terrific series, look at the numbers, Maxwell had 2.5 more points, .5 more blocks, per game while Bird had nearly 6 more rebounds, 4 more assists and 2 more steals per game.

PPG RPG APG STL BLK
15.3 15.3 7.0 2.3 0.5
17.7 9.5 2.8 0.2 1.0

[KevinNYC]

Just for kicks, I looked up how many times in NBA history, someone has averaged >21 points, >14 rebounds, and >6 assists in the playoffs?

It's only happened three times (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&type=per_game&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=Y&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=0&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=pts_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=21&c2stat=trb_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=14&c3stat=ast_per_g&c3comp=gt&c3val=6&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=per) Wilt Chamberlain in 67 and 68 and Bird in 81. Pretty good for a second option.

[Gotterdammerung]

Wilt never won a title in high school
I would take what Bill Simmons wrote in that book with a giant pillar of salt for this reason alone:

He isn't reliable with facts. Wilt won a couple of titles in high school.
[quote=Wikipedia]After three years, Chamberlain had won Overbrook two city championships, logged a 56

[Gifted Mind]

Russell over Wilt? :roll: :roll:

Of all the criticisms you could have given that list, this one was very weak.

[JohnnyBravo5]

1. Zaza Pachulia:rockon:

[Psileas]

1. Wilt
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Shaq (I used to have him at #7, but it seems to me I underrated him a bit and that Magic and Bird being together or seperated by 1 position forever is more of a conventional "fashion" than an undisputed fact)
7. Bird
8. Kobe
9. Duncan (I used to rank him lower, but in the end, we're talking about career and accomplishments, not primes alone. Duncan's prime is below Hakeem's)
10. Robertson

[edhemsoccer]

1. Wilt
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Shaq (I used to have him at #7, but it seems to me I underrated him a bit and that Magic and Bird being together or seperated by 1 position forever is more of a conventional "fashion" than an undisputed fact)
7. Bird
8. Kobe
9. Duncan (I used to rank him lower, but in the end, we're talking about career and accomplishments, not primes alone. Duncan's prime is below Hakeem's)
10. Robertson

:facepalm at Wilt being number 1.

[Da_Realist]

1. Wilt
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Shaq (I used to have him at #7, but it seems to me I underrated him a bit and that Magic and Bird being together or seperated by 1 position forever is more of a conventional "fashion" than an undisputed fact)
7. Bird
8. Kobe
9. Duncan (I used to rank him lower, but in the end, we're talking about career and accomplishments, not primes alone. Duncan's prime is below Hakeem's)
10. Robertson

How would your top ten change if you judged based on impact instead of career achievements?

[Psileas]

:facepalm at Wilt being number 1.

:facepalm if you think he's not in the discussion.


How would your top ten change if you judged based on impact instead of career achievements?

Impact is included in the accomplishments and always played a big role at me ranking Wilt @ 1.

[edhemsoccer]

:facepalm if you think he's not in the discussion.



Impact is included in the accomplishments and always played a big role at me ranking Wilt @ 1.

:facepalm at ANYONE who thinks Wilt is number 1. ZERO logic behind it.

[bizil]

1. MJ
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Russell
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Duncan
10. Big O-Hakeem-Dr. J

For me these are my 12 man team. But for me that 10th spot can go with Big O, Hakeem, or Doc. Each has a big time case. But once Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan hit the top ten it really shook it up. Cause before those three I think most top tens were:

1. MJ
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Russell
6. Bird
7. Big O
8. Hakeem
9. Dr. J
10. Jerry West

And this top ten could be arranged in many ways. But I think these guys were the top ten with guys like Moses, Barry, Havlicek, Barkley, Mailman, Gervin, and Isiah behind them. Then Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe shot up the charts ahead of them.

[bizil]

My list

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Chamberlain
4. Magic
5. Abdul-Jabbar
6. Bird
7. O'Neal
8. Duncan
9. Bryant
10.Olajuwon

4/5/6 and 9/10 are arguable

I agree with u. It could be arranged many ways and I wouldn't complain. Disagree some but not complain.

[Da_Realist]

Impact is included in the accomplishments and always played a big role at me ranking Wilt @ 1.

Ok. I misunderstood your reason for ranking Duncan higher than Olajuwon. So your ranking includes impact + career achievements but Duncan's advantage in career achievement outweighs Olajuwon's better prime, right?

[Jotaro Durant]

1) Jordan
2) Kareem
3) Russell
4) Magic
5) Wilt
6) Bird
7) Shaq
8) Duncan
9) Kobe
10) Olajuwon

[bizil]

I think ranking the greatest of all time includes longevity being great, individual accolades, team accolades, numbers, and impact on the L. Impact meaning things like being the face or one of the faces of the L. Or changing the game stylistically. Or being involved in defining in game moments. U know the Havlicek steal. Or Bird's steal. Or Zeke's epic quarter vs. Lakers. Or the Bird vs. Nique shootout. MJ's shot vs. Jazz. What about Miller's shit vs. the Knicks. Magic playing all five positions as a rookie. Wilt scoring 100 in the game. All of those things can count as point for impact as well. U have guys like Mitch Richmond and Tom Chambers who scored over 20,000 points. But their impact on the L wasn't as great as others. But that doesn't mean they aren't HOF worthy. Cause I feel they are. But the best of the best are clearly on another level.

[Psileas]

:facepalm at ANYONE who thinks Wilt is number 1. ZERO logic behind it.

Biggest impact ever, at least in the shot clock era, the last player that had the league modify multiple rules to cut his dominance. Most dominant player ever (and among the greatest offense-defense combos ever), with the most records ever by a country mile. Led two of the greatest teams ever. Dominated while playing at least 4 different roles in his career (scorer - scorer/passer - passer/scorer - "Russell"). 4 MVP's, just for good measure (that alone and his practically 2 Finals' MVP's would be enough to put him among the immortals). Sorry, I find LOTS of logic behind it.

[edhemsoccer]

Biggest impact ever, at least in the shot clock era, the last player that had the league modify multiple rules to cut his dominance. Most dominant player ever (and among the greatest offense-defense combos ever), with the most records ever by a country mile. Led two of the greatest teams ever. Dominated while playing at least 4 different roles in his career (scorer - scorer/passer - passer/scorer - "Russell"). 4 MVP's, just for good measure (that alone and his practically 2 Finals' MVP's would be enough to put him among the immortals). Sorry, I find LOTS of logic behind it.


This is all I say:

I had Russell ahead of Wilt because Russell's teams almost ALWAYS beat Wilt's teams. I've gone through the rosters, and Russell's teams weren't always more talented. Wilt had more talented times toward the latter of his career and he never won. This is exactly from Bill Simmon's book:

Wilt was more talented; Russell gave his teams a better chance to win. Wilt had a greater statistical impact; Russell had a greater impact on his teammates. Wilt peaked in the regular season; Russell peaked in the playoffs. Wilt shrank from the clutch; Russell thrived in the clutch. Wilt lost nearly every big game; Russell won nearly every big game. Wilt averaged 50 points for one season; Russell was voted Most Valuable Player by his peers the same season.
Wilt was traded twice in his career; Russell never would have been traded in a million years. Wilt was obsessed with statistics; Russell was obsessed with winning. Wilt cared about what fans, writers, and critics thought; Russell only cared about what his teammates thought. Wilt never won a title in high school or college and won only 2 as a pro; Russell won two in college and eleven in the NBA. Wilt ignored The Secret; Russell embraced the secret. After all of that, how can you have Wilt ahead of Russell? Let's look at some stats:

Here are their head-to-head stats in 142 games (including playoffs)

Wilt: 28.7 points, 28.7 rebounds
Russell 14.5 points, 23.7 rebounds

Hold on, I'm just getting started.

Wilt's record against Russell: 58-84
Russell's record against Wilt: 84-58

Now let's look at their playoff numbers.

Wilt: 160 games, 22.5 points, 24.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 47% FT, 52% FG
Russell: 165 games, 16.2 points, 24.9 rebounds, 4.7 assists,60% FT, 43% FG

See, Russell gets better in the playoffs; Wilt doesn't.

Wilt's record in game 7's: 4-5
Russell's record in game 7: 10-0

Wilt's record in elimination games for his team: 10-11
Russell's record in elimination games for his team: 16-2

Wilt: 2 championships
Russell: 11 championships

So how can one still put Wilt above Russell? How? You just can't make a case for him. Wilt was the greatest regular season player ever; We can all agree on that. But for the playoffs, he wasn't that great. This should be case closed.

[Psileas]

Ok. I misunderstood your reason for ranking Duncan higher than Olajuwon. So your ranking includes impact + career achievements but Duncan's advantage in career achievement outweighs Olajuwon's better prime, right?

Yes, though, mind you, I still don't feel "safe" with these rankings. I'm always going back and forth in these Duncan vs Hakeem and Oscar vs West rankings. For me, prime Hakeem was better than prime Duncan, but probably not to the extent their numbers show - and, to be honest, 2003 playoffs Duncan was so good (after Round 1, at last), I'd see no problem matching his postseason against Hakeem's '94 or '95.
As for Oscar vs West, I view prime Oscar as more revolutionary and impactful, and while in the playoffs he had a clearly lesser career than West, he, not West, had the bad fortune of facing the Celtics or Wilt's teams before reaching the Finals. In the 71-74 period, he won more than West and, despite West being more impactful in that period, I still don't think it was to the extent their numbers show. Sometimes, I still feel I'm doing Oscar a favor by ranking him over West, but he still dwarfs every other guard of the era. West seemed like the Kobe of the era, more passionate, more successful, while Oscar was like LeBron, simply more all-around dominant than anyone else and clutch without having to take one tough shot after the other - instead, he took the most efficient shot.

(While we are at it, when it's all said and done, I and most others will probably be ranking LeBron over Kobe, as well).

[Big#50]

To the people ranking Kobe ahead of Duncan:facepalm
What makes Kobe Bryant a jump shooter better than the best big man since KAJ?

[Psileas]

This is all I say:

I had Russell ahead of Wilt because Russell's teams almost ALWAYS beat Wilt's teams. I've gone through the rosters, and Russell's teams weren't always more talented. Wilt had more talented times toward the latter of his career and he never won. This is exactly from Bill Simmon's book:

Wilt was more talented; Russell gave his teams a better chance to win. Wilt had a greater statistical impact; Russell had a greater impact on his teammates. Wilt peaked in the regular season; Russell peaked in the playoffs. Wilt shrank from the clutch; Russell thrived in the clutch. Wilt lost nearly every big game; Russell won nearly every big game. Wilt averaged 50 points for one season; Russell was voted Most Valuable Player by his peers the same season.
Wilt was traded twice in his career; Russell never would have been traded in a million years. Wilt was obsessed with statistics; Russell was obsessed with winning. Wilt cared about what fans, writers, and critics thought; Russell only cared about what his teammates thought. Wilt never won a title in high school or college and won only 2 as a pro; Russell won two in college and eleven in the NBA. Wilt ignored The Secret; Russell embraced the secret.

Then why is Russell not #1 in your or anybody else's lists, either? Seems like either that his "will to win" doesn't count against everyone else's or that Wilt had absolutely no such a thing, and this can't be true, since people who knew him always claimed Wilt was competitive and wanted to win everywhere. Yes, Wilt was traded. Kareem was traded, too. Shaq was traded, and there were times where Jordan threatened to be traded, Hakeem threatened to be traded, and so did Magic and Kobe - and yes, sometimes they did it for quite selfish reasons. Hell, didn't Magic practically say "either coach Westhead goes or I'll do" and was later booed in his own stadium? And we're talking about the epitome of the team player.

Plus, to be honest, it's not as evident to me that Wilt played in better teams in 1965-69, either. Look at the series of Wilt's vs Russell's teams in that period. The only pattern you see is Wilt still outplaying Russell per average and Russell's teammates outplaying Wilt's. Want to see the 1969 Finals for example? Wilt slightly outplays Russell and West outplays Havlicek. Below that? Whose fault is it that Siegfried torched the Lakers in Game 3 or that Baylor scored only 11 points? Or that Siegfried scored 20 in Game 4, while Baylor was virtually absent or that Sam Jones scored the game winning basket (that was West's fault)? Or that Don freaking Nelson scored 25 in Game 6? I don't think Wilt has a big part on any of those things (maybe some responsibility for Nelson's 25, but still not the biggest part) that helped Boston do the trick.



After all of that, how can you have Wilt ahead of Russell? Let's look at some stats:

Here are their head-to-head stats in 142 games (including playoffs)

Wilt: 28.7 points, 28.7 rebounds
Russell 14.5 points, 23.7 rebounds

Hold on, I'm just getting started.

Wilt's record against Russell: 58-84
Russell's record against Wilt: 84-58

Now let's look at their playoff numbers.

Wilt: 160 games, 22.5 points, 24.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 47% FT, 52% FG
Russell: 165 games, 16.2 points, 24.9 rebounds, 4.7 assists,60% FT, 43% FG

See, Russell gets better in the playoffs; Wilt doesn't.

I only see one winning category here for Russell, and it's not his playoff stats. Wilt was better in both regular season and playoffs, Russell only cut the lead in the playoffs, and this includes the fact that Russell played in the 1957-59 era, which was definitely less competitive than the 1970-73 era when Wilt played. Take only the era they both played at (1960-69) and their stats become:

Wilt: 98 games, 26.4 points, 26.3 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 46.6% FT, 52.0% FG
Russell: 135 games, 16.5 points, 24.7 rebounds, 5.0 assists, 60.9% FT, 44.1% FG



Wilt's record in game 7's: 4-5
Russell's record in game 7: 10-0

Wilt's record in elimination games for his team: 10-11
Russell's record in elimination games for his team: 16-2

Wilt: 2 championships
Russell: 11 championships

So how can one still put Wilt above Russell? How? You just can't make a case for him. Wilt was the greatest regular season player ever; We can all agree on that. But for the playoffs, he wasn't that great. This should be case closed.


See, here's where I don't agree. For me, Wilt was an all-time great playoff performer too, easily on par with, if not greater than, someone like Bird or Kobe. It's only the fact that you compare Wilt's playoff stats with Wilt's regular season stats that makes Wilt's playoff stats "not so great".

[lilblingy]

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Russell
Bird
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Hakeem

[hkfosho]

Lol notice how all the kobe ******gers avoid this thread because scared of facts :lol

[10x91= 5 Rings]

No list without Dr J will be considered serious.

[Da_Realist]

Yes, though, mind you, I still don't feel "safe" with these rankings. I'm always going back and forth in these Duncan vs Hakeem and Oscar vs West rankings. For me, prime Hakeem was better than prime Duncan, but probably not to the extent their numbers show - and, to be honest, 2003 playoffs Duncan was so good (after Round 1, at last), I'd see no problem matching his postseason against Hakeem's '94 or '95.
As for Oscar vs West, I view prime Oscar as more revolutionary and impactful, and while in the playoffs he had a clearly lesser career than West, he, not West, had the bad fortune of facing the Celtics or Wilt's teams before reaching the Finals. In the 71-74 period, he won more than West and, despite West being more impactful in that period, I still don't think it was to the extent their numbers show. Sometimes, I still feel I'm doing Oscar a favor by ranking him over West, but he still dwarfs every other guard of the era. West seemed like the Kobe of the era, more passionate, more successful, while Oscar was like LeBron, simply more all-around dominant than anyone else and clutch without having to take one tough shot after the other - instead, he took the most efficient shot.

(While we are at it, when it's all said and done, I and most others will probably be ranking LeBron over Kobe, as well).


Interesting comparison of West and Oscar. By the way, I feel the same way you do about Hakeem and Duncan. I still think Hakeem was better, but I can see how it can be argued the Duncan's way, too.

[jlauber]

This is all I say:

I had Russell ahead of Wilt because Russell's teams almost ALWAYS beat Wilt's teams. I've gone through the rosters, and Russell's teams weren't always more talented. Wilt had more talented times toward the latter of his career and he never won. This is exactly from Bill Simmon's book:

Wilt was more talented; Russell gave his teams a better chance to win. Wilt had a greater statistical impact; Russell had a greater impact on his teammates. Wilt peaked in the regular season; Russell peaked in the playoffs. Wilt shrank from the clutch; Russell thrived in the clutch. Wilt lost nearly every big game; Russell won nearly every big game. Wilt averaged 50 points for one season; Russell was voted Most Valuable Player by his peers the same season.
Wilt was traded twice in his career; Russell never would have been traded in a million years. Wilt was obsessed with statistics; Russell was obsessed with winning. Wilt cared about what fans, writers, and critics thought; Russell only cared about what his teammates thought. Wilt never won a title in high school or college and won only 2 as a pro; Russell won two in college and eleven in the NBA. Wilt ignored The Secret; Russell embraced the secret. After all of that, how can you have Wilt ahead of Russell? Let's look at some stats:

Here are their head-to-head stats in 142 games (including playoffs)

Wilt: 28.7 points, 28.7 rebounds
Russell 14.5 points, 23.7 rebounds

Hold on, I'm just getting started.

Wilt's record against Russell: 58-84
Russell's record against Wilt: 84-58

Now let's look at their playoff numbers.

Wilt: 160 games, 22.5 points, 24.5 rebounds, 4.2 assists, 47% FT, 52% FG
Russell: 165 games, 16.2 points, 24.9 rebounds, 4.7 assists,60% FT, 43% FG

See, Russell gets better in the playoffs; Wilt doesn't.

Wilt's record in game 7's: 4-5
Russell's record in game 7: 10-0

Wilt's record in elimination games for his team: 10-11
Russell's record in elimination games for his team: 16-2

Wilt: 2 championships
Russell: 11 championships

So how can one still put Wilt above Russell? How? You just can't make a case for him. Wilt was the greatest regular season player ever; We can all agree on that. But for the playoffs, he wasn't that great. This should be case closed.

Bill Simmons is a COMPLETE IDIOT! He was born in 1969 and NEVER even saw either Russell or Wilt play.

Read MY take on that clown, and get back to me...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=160893

[PHILA]

I would take what Bill Simmons wrote in that book with a giant pillar of salt for this reason alone:

He isn't reliable with facts. Wilt won a couple of titles in high school.


Also, a lot of his other arguments are heavily biased due to his Boston Celtics homerism. I don't have the time to list them, but Jlauber, another poster, already exposed them on this board. Wilt Chamberlain had his weaknesses, sure, but Bill Simmons is the wrong sort of person to analyze them. He's a fan first, before he's a sports analyst/historian. In fact, his Book of Basketball is the only book on NBA history, but written from the fan's perspective.:applause:


http://articles.philly.com/2010-01-05/sports/24956014_1_simmons-war-and-peace-bulls-pistons

Stan Hochman: War and Peace and Basketball

January 05, 2010

DOES BILL SIMMONS know that Red Auerbach used to ban the distribution of postgame box scores in the Boston locker room? "Statistics are for losers," Auerbach would grumble on his way to another NBA championship.

Surely Simmons must know that. He grew up in Boston, adored the Celtics. Still adores the Celtics. How else can you explain why he would list John Havlicek as the 13th best player in NBA history, ahead of Elgin Baylor, ahead of Julius Erving, ahead of Scottie Pippen in a book he's written called, "The Book of Basketball."

It is 697 pages long. They took it to a shooting gallery and it stopped a 9-millimeter slug at Page 642. Me, I would have taken a machete to it. Wham, cut all the extraneous vulgarity (10 pages). Bam, cull all the venomous stuff about Wilt Chamberlain (20 pages). Slash, cut all the obscure movie references (30 pages).

The last book I read that was this long was "War and Peace." Loved Peace, hated War.

Simmons is an ESPN.com columnist. He loves the NBA in spite of its flaws. The ardor comes through loud and clear. He doesn't want to come across as romantic. He shudders at the image of being didactic. Which is probably why he sprinkles all the obscenities around, trying to sound cooler than Jay-Z.

So he comes across as a slobbering nerd, playing blackjack in Vegas alongside a topless pool. Outdoors, dummy, the pool had no top and neither did the babes using it.

That segment stays, because that's where Simmons discovers the "secret" of championship basketball. Gets it from Isiah Thomas, of all people, a guy Simmons had ridiculed "for some of the cheap shots he took as a player, for freezing out MJ in the '85 All-Star game, for leading the classless walkout at the tail end of the Bulls-Pistons sweep in '91, for pushing Bird under the bus by backing up Rodman's foolish, 'he'd be just another good player if he weren't white.' " Killed him "for bombing as a TV announcer, for sucking as Toronto's GM, for running the CBA into the ground . . . "

That's like scrambling up a mountain to find a guru with the secret of a happy life and finding Charlie Sheen. Would you build a 697-page book around anything Charlie Sheen told you?

"The secret of basketball," Thomas tells Simmons, "is that it's not about basketball."

Chemistry. The '89 Pistons are his proof. Chuck Daly wants to give more time to Dennis Rodman. Adrian Dantley balks because those are his minutes they're talking about. They swap Dantley and win a championship. General manager Jack McCloskey gets credit for building the roster and Daly is mentioned that one time in four pages of revealing the secret.

Simmons must not think much about coaches. He rates the 96 best players, the very best NBA team (it's not the '67 Sixers), best outfits worn on draft day, best nicknames, but maybe he's saving his list of best coaches for his next book, inventing some kind of complex Bill James equation for ranking them. Simmons is going to hate being linked in the same sentence with James, who lives by the decimal point.

His player rankings do what they are intended to do, spark raucous arguments. Allen Iverson at 29? Simmons states the case against A.I. in one of his 1,032 footnotes. Ball hog, averaging 23 plus shots in seven straight seasons, horrible three-point shooter making 31 percent his whole career, yet attempting 3,300 threes.

Blames writers for A.I.'s negative image. Means creaky, old, white guys. Calls him an "alleged" coach-killer. Next sentence he says the writers "glossed over the fact that he was saddled with an incompetent front office, a subpar supporting cast and a revolving door of coaches." Who does Simmons think was pushing the door?

Wilt winds up ranked sixth in Simmons' pantheon of players. Can you hear him grumbling from his grave? Michael Jordan is at the top, Bill Russell (who else?) is second, followed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Did Simmons puke Celtic green when he ranked Magic ahead of Bird?

To atone for that, he wants the current Hall of Fame, in Springfield, Mass., demolished and replaced with a saner one in French Lick, Ind.

This might be the moment to acknowledge that I thoroughly enjoyed huge segments of the book. I just wish he had gotten Dr. Jack Ramsay's name right seven of the eight times he mentions him. I just wish he didn't feature the race issue when he states Havlicek's case for No. 13. What he does do is point out that "other than Russell and Sam Jones nobody won more titles. Other than Jordan and Bird nobody had more memorable clutch moments. Other than Magic and West nobody did a better job of reinventing his game as the years passed."

Opinions, meshed with numbers, sprinkled with bias, the new journalism at its gaudiest. Buy the book, use it as a flak jacket when you walk into a Boston bar to argue Wilt vs. Russell. Make sure the other guy isn't carrying. Or, if he is, nothing bigger than 9-millimeter.

[jlauber]

1. MJ
2. KAJ
3. Shaq
4. Bird
5. Hakeem
6. Duncan
7. Magic
8. Bean
9. Russell
10. Wilt (lol @ people who consider him top 5)

Weighing prime/playoff performances heavily.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hakeem at #5. He of 18 seasons, 15 post-seasons, and EIGHT first round playoff exits. ONE MVP. TWO rebound titles, and three block titles. MAYBE a COUPLE of NBA records.

And this clown has him WAY over Chamberlain.


Same with Larry Bird. Yes, three titles to two for Wilt...playing alongside the most LOADED rosters of the 80's. And, in his three titles, only two Finals MVP's. Why? Because he was AWFUL in '81. The man shot .419, and had it not been for Cedric Maxwell (of ALL people) Boston would nolt have beaten a 40-42 Houston team that year. Of course, put Bird up against the Lakers, and he was badly beaten in two of the three, and SHOULD have been SWEPT in the other. Thoroughly outplayed by Magic in two of them, and a strong case for all three. Oh, and BTW, the "clutch" Bird shot .455 in his five Finals...in league's that shot .480+.

Now, do you want to compare statistical domination between Bird and Wilt? True, Bird was a better FT shooter. Of course, in roughly the same amount of games in their careers, Wilt MADE 2000 MORE than Bird. So, who had a greater IMPACT at the line?

After that, Wilt DESTROYS Bird in EVERY statistical category. My god, Wilt was even a superior PASSER. How many times did Bird finish in the top-three in assists? Wilt did it TWICE, including LEADING the league one year.

How many scoring titles did Bird win? ZERO. How about Wilt? SEVEN...and anyone that watched him play in the 60's would attest to the fact he COULD have won several more. In his first seven seasons, he averaged 40 ppg...COMBINED! FG% titles? Bird was never even CLOSE to winning a FG% title. Chamberlain...NINE, including the TWO greatest seasons ever, and three of the top-5. Rebounding titles. LOL! Bird was not even remotely close to leading the league in rebounding in ANY season. Wilt won ELEVEN rebounding titles, and had he not been injured in 69-70, it would have been TWELVE. Oh, and BTW, he finished SECOND in his other two seasons.

So there you have it...Wilt was BY FAR, the greatest SCORER, by FAR the greatest REBOUNDER, and at peak efficiency, he was LIGHT YEARS better than anyone else at SHOOTING.

And then, how many first-team all-defensive selections did Bird have in his career? ZERO. Meanwhile Wilt "only" won two...primarily because the award did not exist until the last four years of his career (and he was injured in one of them.) How about blocked shot titles? Well, Bird TIES Wilt here. Why? Because that stat was not officially kept until the year after Chamberlain retired. HOWEVER, those that have extensively covered the sport will acknowledge that Wilt was the game's greatest shot-blocker, and probably by a solid margin.

Of course, Fecal9 is going by prime and playoffs. How many times did Bird average 30+ ppg in the post-season? ZERO. How about Chamberlain? FIVE times, with a high of 37 ppg (and two other post-seasons of 29 and 28 ppg.) How many times did Bird average 20+ rpg in his post-season career? Of course...ZERO....and not even 15 ONCE. His HIGH was 14.0, and his career average was 10.3 rpg. How many times did Wilt average 20 rpg in his post-season career? In ALL 13 of them...with a LOW of 20.2 rpg...and SEVEN of 24.7 rpg or HIGHER (with a HIGH of 30.2 rpg.) How many times did Bird shoot even 50%+ in his12 year post-season career? Twice, with .517 and .524. How about Wilt? NINE times, and EIGHT of those were better than Bird's BEST. BTW, Wilt was shooting his FG%'s in leagues that shot between .410 to .456. Bird shot his in league's that ranged from .477 to .492. AND, Bird had THREE post-seasons of .427 or WORSE.

Peak? How many 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, .543 post-seasons did Bird have? Or even 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, .579 post-seasons? BTW, BOTH of those accomplished by Wilt came in post-seasons in which he faced Russell, too. How many 37 ppg, or 35 ppg post-seasons did Bird have? Or how many 30.2, or 29.1 rpg post-seasons did Bird have? Or .579 or .563 FG% post-seasons did Bird have? Hell, how many 9.2 apg assist post-seasons did Bird have?

BTW, Wilt played in SIX Finals, to Bird's five...and was FAR superior in those six Finals than Bird was in his five. One year, Wilt, on ONE leg, averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625. And he was ripped for it.

How many RECORDS does Bird (or even Hakeem) hold? I doubt that the two COMBINED hold more than a dozen, or so. How about Chamberlain? Some 130+.

And finally, how many RULES were put in place that were aimed STRICTLY at Bird (or Hakeem)? We KNOW that there were SEVERAL instituted in a feeble attempt to curtail Wilt's absolute domination of the sport.

Hakeem and Bird are LIGHT YEARS behind Wilt in any INTELLIGENT ranking system.

[jlauber]

:facepalm at ANYONE who thinks Wilt is number 1. ZERO logic behind it.

You my friend, and much like Simmons,...are a complete idiot.

Chamberlain has as much a case for #1 as Russell, Kareem, MJ and Magic. And the RECORD BOOK says so. Of course with Wilt there was always the DOUBLE STANDARD. If he "only" had a 30-20 game, well, he "choked." If he had a 40-30 game, and his team lost...well, he was "padding his stats." And if he had a 40-30 game, and his team won...well, he was playing against vastly inferior competition (yes, against players like Russell, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy.)

How many other players have had a 30-30 playoff series in NBA HISTORY...and against a player like Russell? Chamberlain took a 40-40 team against the HOF-laden Celtics (SIX of them) that was at their apex in the Dynasty years, with a 62-18 record,...and somehow got them to a game seven, where he dominated the game...in a one-point loss. In that game seven, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting (yes, 80%) with 32 rebounds. And for the series, he AVERAGED a 30-31 game.!

BTW, if Russell were truly a better player...what happened in '67? How could he could let Wilt just ABUSE him the entire series, and allow Chamberlain's Sixers to BURY his Celtics, 4-1 (and it was nearly a SWEEP, with Boston narrowly winning game four)?

Here is a great example...

In the clinching game five loss of the '66 playoffs, Wilt hung a 46-34 game on Russell (who played well with an 18-31 game.) Now, the very next year, Russell was faced with the EXACT same scenario. His team was down 3-1, and hanging by a thread. How did he respond? He went out like a lamb to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting. And, while he had 21 rebounds, Chamberlain hauled in 36. Meanwhile, Wilt scored 22 points in the first half of that game, en route to 29, on 10-16 shooting. And Chamberlain also added 13 assists and 7 blocks. So, if Russell were really the more "clutch" player...how come he was so badly blown away in that series?

One of the writers who covered nearly all of the Russell-Wilt rivalry, George Kiseda, wrote, "Wilt outplayed Russell in one-third of their games. Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third of those games. And Wilt DOMINATED Russell in one-third of their games." In fact, the numbers suggest that he was being kind in saying that Russell outplayed Wilt in one-third of them.

As for the one-third that Wilt DOMINATED Russell...here is just 40 H2H games between the two...

[QUOTE]For reference, the first number of the pair next to each player's name is points in that particular game, while the second is rebounds. An example would be the first one, with Wilt scoring 45 points, and grabbing 35 rebounds (45-35), while Russell's numbers were 15 points, with 13 rebounds (15-13.)


Wilt 45-35 Russell 15-13
Wilt 47-36 Russell 16-22
Wilt 44-43 Russell 15-29
Wilt 43-26 Russell 13-21
Wilt 43-39

[az00m]

malone > barkley

[jlauber]

1. Wilt
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Shaq (I used to have him at #7, but it seems to me I underrated him a bit and that Magic and Bird being together or seperated by 1 position forever is more of a conventional "fashion" than an undisputed fact)
7. Bird
8. Kobe
9. Duncan (I used to rank him lower, but in the end, we're talking about career and accomplishments, not primes alone. Duncan's prime is below Hakeem's)
10. Robertson

I don't have a problem at all with this list. It is certainly one of the most intelligent posts on the topic. I would personally put Magic over Kareem, though. Bird is tough. He is probably the most over-rated player in NBA history (with only Hakeem giving him a run in that category.) There were those that were claiming he was the GOAT during the 80's...and yet, he wasn't even the best player in the league for most of the decade. Moses was more dominant early on, Magic took over in '85, and MJ was better by the late 80's. H2H, Bird couldn't hold a candle to Magic. I have both Kobe and Duncan over Bird on my list. Bird is a borderline top-10 player at best.

[rodman91]

Wilt > Russell. Probably even Russell would admit it.

[jlauber]

Wilt > Russell. Probably even Russell would admit it.

In terms of individual greatness...no question about it...

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/quotes.html


"One-on-one he [Wilt] would've murdered Russell and everyone. But playing five-on-five, Wilt was consigned to a specific role because of his ability to score so easily, whereas the Celtics fit Russell into their team concept better."

--Red Holzman, A View form the Bench, p. 78

[edhemsoccer]

You may not like Simmon's case for Russell over Wilt, but it's clear as day. Russell won games; Wilt lost them. Russell won titles; Wilt only won two. Russell thrived in the clutch,Wilt shrank from the clutch. Russell had a greateter impact on his teammates; Wilt had a greater impact in the box score. Most important of all, Russell knew The Secret and embraced it; Wilt ignored it.

[jlauber]

You may not like Simmon's case for Russell over Wilt, but it's clear as day. Russell won games; Wilt lost them. Russell won titles; Wilt only won two. Russell thrived in the clutch,Wilt shrank from the clutch. Russell had a greateter impact on his teammates; Wilt had a greater impact in the box score. Most important of all, Russell knew The Secret and embraced it; Wilt ignored it.

Hmmmm...

Wilt took FAR inferior rosters in the first half of the decade, and nearly beat Russell's vaunted Celtics SINGLE-HANDEDLY. In the '62 playoffs, Wilt did not have ONE teammate that even shot better than .398. His "HOF" teammate, Tom Gola, and as always, shot HORRIBLY, shooting .271 (and in the '61 playoffs he shot .206.) And yet Wilt, with basically much of the same roster that had finished in LAST place the year before he arrived, took that team on his back, and to a game seven, TWO-POINT loss against the HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics.

BTW, in their FOUR game seven's, Wilt outscored Russell, 21.3 ppg to 13.2 ppg, and outrebounded him, 28.5 rpg to 24.5 rpg. And while we only have two of Russell's FG%'s in those four games, Russell only shot .391 combined in those two. Meanwhile, all Chamberlain did was shoot .652 (yes .652!) against Russell over the course of those four games...combined!

Once again, you also ignored Chamberlain CRUSHING Russell in the '67 ECF's...and leading his 76ers to a BLOW-OUT rout of the "Dynasty." Where was the "clutch" Russell in that series?

And, while Russell and his CELTICS enjoyed a 7-1 H2H edge over Wilt's team's in the post-season, Chamberlain's TEAM's were a TOTAL of NINE points, in FOUR game seven's, of having a 5-3 margin in rings over Russell. It was certainly NOT a case of Russell somehow "dominating" Wilt.

John Wooden, who knew FAR more about the game than that idiotic Simmons, claimed that had Wilt been blessed with Russell's rosters, he would likely have won 11 rings, as well. And Leonard Koppett, who actually STUDIED the game, went even further, claiming that Wilt likely would have went 13-0 with the same circumstances as Russell had.

Simmons NEVER saw the two go H2H, and probably NEVER even looked at any recaps. If he had, he would have come away with a FAR greater appreciation of Wilt's career.

[Helix]

BTW, if Russell were truly a better player...what happened in '67? How could he could let Wilt just ABUSE him the entire series, and allow Chamberlain's Sixers to BURY his Celtics, 4-1 (and it was nearly a SWEEP, with Boston narrowly winning game four)?

Yes Jeff, and don't forget about 68. The Sixers were well on there way to a repeat of 67 when injuries just simply overwhelmed them. Had the Sixers been healthy in 68, there's little doubt that 68 would have been a repeat of 67.

I really don't take all these GOAT threads too seriously, but I can't help getting a kick out of a handful of posters on this forum who elevate Russell almost to godhood because he has 11 rings. I would never argue against Russell's greatness.....he certainly deserves to be in that elite top five or six. But to suggest (as some posters do) that Russell deserves all the credit for the Boston dynasty and all those championships shows me a complete lack of understanding of just what that Boston dynasty was all about. As important as Russell was to that Boston dynasty, there was one other member of that dynasty who was just as important as Russell. That person was Red Auerbach. Remove either one of them from that team and there's no Boston dynasty.....simple as that. It seems that very few people understand Auerbach's greatness, and HIS impact on the NBA.

[jlauber]

Yes Jeff, and don't forget about 68. The Sixers were well on there way to a repeat of 67 when injuries just simply overwhelmed them. Had the Sixers been healthy in 68, there's little doubt that 68 would have been a repeat of 67.

I really don't take all these GOAT threads too seriously, but I can't help getting a kick out of a handful of posters on this forum who elevate Russell almost to godhood because he has 11 rings. I would never argue against Russell's greatness.....he certainly deserves to be in that elite top five or six. But to suggest (as some posters do) that Russell deserves all the credit for the Boston dynasty and all those championships shows me a complete lack of understanding of just what that Boston dynasty was all about. As important as Russell was to that Boston dynasty, there was one other member of that dynasty who was just as important as Russell. That person was Red Auerbach. Remove either one of them from that team and there's no Boston dynasty.....simple as that. It seems that very few people understand Auerbach's greatness, and HIS impact on the NBA.

GREAT post!

I don't have a problem with those that rank Russell at #1 (hell, I do myself)...BUT, I do have a problem with morons like Simmons (and some idiotic posters here) who DISPARAGE Wilt's career. The FACT was, Wilt was probably NEVER outplayed in ANY post-season series...against the likes of Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Reed, Kareem, and Russell. In fact, in the majority of them, he DOMINATED those guys.

The man had THREE SEASONS of 38 ppg against Russell...and in years in which they faced each other 10+ times per year. In fact, over the course of their first seven years, he was averaging about 33 ppg against him. 24 games of 40+, FIVE of 50+, and even a 62 point game (on 27-45 shooting.) Against the greatest defensive player in NBA history. AND, BTW, Russell seldom guarded Wilt one-on-one, either.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html


In Chamberlain's first year, and for several years afterward, opposing teams simply didn't know how to handle him. Tom Heinsohn, the great Celtics forward who later became a coach and broadcaster, said Boston was one of the first clubs to apply a team-defense concept to stop Chamberlain. "We went for his weakness," Heinsohn told the Philadelphia Daily News in 1991, "tried to send him to the foul line, and in doing that he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever.. I hear people today talk about hard fouls. Half the fouls against him were hard fouls."



Russell was the game's greatest winner, and as you stated, he also had perhaps the game's greatest COACH, as well (unless you would want to argue Wooden.) And no doubt Russell elevated the play of his teammates, half of whom would not have sniffed the HOF without him. But, he had a plethora of quality players on his rosters, year-after-year, and he also played with the them for many years.

Meanwhile, Wilt was stuck with incompetent coachs, and teammates for much of his career....sometimes in the same seasons. He had some of the worst supporting rosters in NBA history, too. He was ripped here by a couple of posters for his TEAM's 31-49 record in 62-63 (arguably the greatest individual season in NBA history BTW)...but those same clowns did not acknowledge that he also took that same basic roster to a 48-32 record the very next year, and a Finals appearance.

And, as you stated, Wilt's '68 team probably would have romped over Boston just as easily as they did in '67 had they not been DECIMATED by injuries. And, in the '69 Finals, there a TON of inconceivable circumstances that prevented LA from winning that series, 4-1. The biggest being his chump of a coach benching Chamberlain in the last five minutes of a game seven, two-point loss.

One more time...Wilt was NINE points away from another FOUR rings. Add in another ring that he SHOULD have won in '70 (when the officials cheated LA out of a win in game five), and he COULD have won SEVEN rings in his career. And, had Wilt won SEVEN rings in his career...and there would be no conversation as to the real GOAT was.

[DMAVS41]

GREAT post!

I don't have a problem with those that rank Russell at #1 (hell, I do myself)...BUT, I do have a problem with morons like Simmons (and some idiotic posters here) who DISPARAGE Wilt's career. The FACT was, Wilt was probably NEVER outplayed in ANY post-season series...against the likes of Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Reed, Kareem, and Russell. In fact, in the majority of them, he DOMINATED those guys.

The man had THREE SEASONS of 38 ppg against Russell...and in years in which they faced each other 10+ times per year. In fact, over the course of their first seven years, he was averaging about 33 ppg against him. 24 games of 40+, FIVE of 50+, and even a 62 point game (on 27-45 shooting.) Against the greatest defensive player in NBA history. AND, BTW, Russell seldom guarded Wilt one-on-one, either.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html



Russell was the game's greatest winner, and as you stated, he also had perhaps the game's greatest COACH, as well (unless you would want to argue Wooden.) And no doubt Russell elevated the play of his teammates, half of whom would not have sniffed the HOF without him. But, he had a plethora of quality players on his rosters, year-after-year, and he also played with the them for many years.

Meanwhile, Wilt was stuck with incompetent coachs, and teammates for much of his career....sometimes in the same seasons. He had some of the worst supporting rosters in NBA history, too. He was ripped here by a couple of posters for his TEAM's 31-49 record in 62-63 (arguably the greatest individual season in NBA history BTW)...but those same clowns did not acknowledge that he also took that same basic roster to a 48-32 record the very next year, and a Finals appearance.

And, as you stated, Wilt's '68 team probably would have romped over Boston just as easily as they did in '67 had they not been DECIMATED by injuries. And, in the '69 Finals, there a TON of inconceivable circumstances that prevented LA from winning that series, 4-1. The biggest being his chump of a coach benching Chamberlain in the last five minutes of a game seven, two-point loss.

One more time...Wilt was NINE points away from another FOUR rings. Add in another ring that he SHOULD have won in '70 (when the officials cheated LA out of a win in game five), and he COULD have won SEVEN rings in his career. And, had Wilt won SEVEN rings in his career...and there would be no conversation as to the real GOAT was.

So true.

One thing you hit on is something that is hugely over looked about team strength and winning.

COACHING.

Its vital to winning in the NBA. Just look at recent history. Pistons get over the hump with Larry Brown. Iverson makes the finals with Larry Brown. Heat get over the hump with Riley. Phil turns Shaq/Kobe/Gasol into a champion. Pop has been great. Rivers has been great. Thibs just doing a great job this year with the Bulls.

Coaching matters so much more than people here give credence to. I'm guilty of it sometimes as well. We never talk about coaching when we analyze a team. But they are a huge part of it and absolutely can be the deciding factor in a close series.

As a Mavs fan, i have no doubt in my mind that if Riley coached us in 06 and Avery coached the Heat, we would have not only won that series but would have swept them.

Coaching importance is huge.

[jlauber]

So true.

One thing you hit on is something that is hugely over looked about team strength and winning.

COACHING.

Its vital to winning in the NBA. Just look at recent history. Pistons get over the hump with Larry Brown. Iverson makes the finals with Larry Brown. Heat get over the hump with Riley. Phil turns Shaq/Kobe/Gasol into a champion. Pop has been great. Rivers has been great. Thibs just doing a great job this year with the Bulls.

Coaching matters so much more than people here give credence to. I'm guilty of it sometimes as well. We never talk about coaching when we analyze a team. But they are a huge part of it and absolutely can be the deciding factor in a close series.

As a Mavs fan, i have no doubt in my mind that if Riley coached us in 06 and Avery coached the Heat, we would have not only won that series but would have swept them.

Coaching importance is huge.

I agree. My god, Brown horribly outcoached the great Jackson in '04.

And, as much as great coaching can make a substantial difference...BAD coaching can have an equally opposite effect. One need look no further than Van Breda Kolf for that. He took a roster with three of the greatest players of all-time, down in flames in a series in which even an average coach would have won 4-1. And someone like Sharman would have probably taken to a 69-13 record and a dominating title...just as he did in his '71-72 season with the Lakers.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Yeah DMAVS41 you are right. Coaching matters so much in the NBA and people rarely give credit to it sometimes. Just look at something so small as the 1991 NBA Finals in Game 3 in which Magic was KILLING MJ in the post all game and MJ was having an awful shooting night. When the Lakers took the ball out, MJ was on Magic and Levingston was on Worthy. But then as soon as the Lakers inbounded the ball, they switched so Cliff Levingston was on Magic instead and with him being 6'8'', it made it harder for Magic to pass over him and it resulted in a missed shot for L.A. and a victory for the Bulls. That was coaching genius by Phil. Little things like that make a big difference.

And reading jlauber's posts have given me a lot of information and insight into Wilt Chamberlain. He's an enigma to me. On paper he's easily the GOAT but few people put him there. Because he doesn't have titles...but titles are team accomplishments..along with a little luck. Plus since he played so long ago it's harder to find any of his games

[DMAVS41]

Yeah DMAVS41 you are right. Coaching matters so much in the NBA and people rarely give credit to it sometimes. Just look at something so small as the 1991 NBA Finals in Game 3 in which Magic was KILLING MJ in the post all game and MJ was having an awful shooting night. When the Lakers took the ball out, MJ was on Magic and Levingston was on Worthy. But then as soon as the Lakers inbounded the ball, they switched so Cliff Levingston was on Magic instead and with him being 6'8'', it made it harder for Magic to pass over him and it resulted in a missed shot for L.A. and a victory for the Bulls. That was coaching genius by Phil. Little things like that make a big difference.

And reading jlauber's posts have given me a lot of information and insight into Wilt Chamberlain. He's an enigma to me. On paper he's easily the GOAT but few people put him there. Because he doesn't have titles...but titles are team accomplishments..along with a little luck. Plus since he played so long ago it's harder to find any of his games

I didn't see Wilt play. But I have done a ton of my own research and have tried to listen to informed opinions like JLAUBER and others. Its hard because guys like Bill Simmons and Ric Bucher just think Wilt was just basically all "empty stats".

I disagree. You don't come that close to winning that many titles by accident. Winning in any sport/league is difficult. Winning in the NBA is the hardest out of any major sport. Its why I hate using rings so heavily to rank players. I'm not saying winning isn't important, and players should absolutely be given credit for it.

Its just that so many things are totally out of the control of some players. The reason I have MJ/Magic/Duncan so high on my list all time is because I truly believe those players willed their team to wins more so than anyone in history. I didn't see Russell play so I can't speak for that. But even those guys had plenty of help as well.

Take Shaq for example. Is he "empty stats"? Of course not. Well then why did it take him 8 years to win a title and why did he need Kobe Bryant and Wade to win along with two of the five best coaches ever?

Winning is ****ing hard in the NBA...thats why. And we seem to ignore the circumstances for all these players. Wilt didn't play with the kind of help that Russell did. Just a fact. Same is true with coaching. And its even more magnified because Wilt lost in such dramatic and close fashion where one shot was often the difference in the big games.

Take Dirk for example in the 06 Finals. Yes, he did not play great a couple of games. But with the series tied 2 to 2...in game 5 Dirk was amazing late. He made a go ahead huge bucket late. Then a potential game winning beautiful assist to Dampier with a few seconds left in regulation....only to be answered by Wade. In overtime of that game. Dirk made a fall away jumper over Haslem and Shaq to put the Mavs up 1 point with 9 seconds to go. One of the biggest shots in NBA finals history. Then what happened? Wade goes 1 on 5...is allowed to shove terry to the ground...and then is given a touch foul. Game over. Is that on Dirk. Or is that on the Mavs team that couldn't stop Wade. Or the refs.

In game 6 Dirk was amazing. He had 29 points and 15 boards. The mavs still lost. Why? Terry and Howard combined to go 12 of 41 in that game.

But history will deem Dirk a choker for that series. When in reality, it couldn't have been further from the truth. Dirk actually played his best in the most important games.

That is why we can't credit or blame one player with winning or losing. Hopefully people will learn this at some point. I'm not confident in it though.

But this is why I love all these advanced stats. It gives some credit to guys like Dirk and shows how good they have actually been. Hopefully the trend continues.

[jlauber]

I didn't see Wilt play. But I have done a ton of my own research and have tried to listen to informed opinions like JLAUBER and others. Its hard because guys like Bill Simmons and Ric Bucher just think Wilt was just basically all "empty stats".

I disagree. You don't come that close to winning that many titles by accident. Winning in any sport/league is difficult. Winning in the NBA is the hardest out of any major sport. Its why I hate using rings so heavily to rank players. I'm not saying winning isn't important, and players should absolutely be given credit for it.

Its just that so many things are totally out of the control of some players. The reason I have MJ/Magic/Duncan so high on my list all time is because I truly believe those players willed their team to wins more so than anyone in history. I didn't see Russell play so I can't speak for that. But even those guys had plenty of help as well.

Take Shaq for example. Is he "empty stats"? Of course not. Well then why did it take him 8 years to win a title and why did he need Kobe Bryant and Wade to win along with two of the five best coaches ever?

Winning is ****ing hard in the NBA...thats why. And we seem to ignore the circumstances for all these players. Wilt didn't play with the kind of help that Russell did. Just a fact. Same is true with coaching. And its even more magnified because Wilt lost in such dramatic and close fashion where one shot was often the difference in the big games.

Take Dirk for example in the 06 Finals. Yes, he did not play great a couple of games. But with the series tied 2 to 2...in game 5 Dirk was amazing late. He made a go ahead huge bucket late. Then a potential game winning beautiful assist to Dampier with a few seconds left in regulation....only to be answered by Wade. In overtime of that game. Dirk made a fall away jumper over Haslem and Shaq to put the Mavs up 1 point with 9 seconds to go. One of the biggest shots in NBA finals history. Then what happened? Wade goes 1 on 5...is allowed to shove terry to the ground...and then is given a touch foul. Game over. Is that on Dirk. Or is that on the Mavs team that couldn't stop Wade. Or the refs.

In game 6 Dirk was amazing. He had 29 points and 15 boards. The mavs still lost. Why? Terry and Howard combined to go 12 of 41 in that game.

But history will deem Dirk a choker for that series. When in reality, it couldn't have been further from the truth. Dirk actually played his best in the most important games.

That is why we can't credit or blame one player with winning or losing. Hopefully people will learn this at some point. I'm not confident in it though.

But this is why I love all these advanced stats. It gives some credit to guys like Dirk and shows how good they have actually been. Hopefully the trend continues.

I find it fascinating that after game four of the Portland series, Dirk was just getting BASHED here. Now, a few games later, and he is being considered a better player than Kobe (and, at this point, for sure...he IS.)

Here again, the "fly-by-night posters" (or "hit-and-run" posters as I call them) have NO real understanding of the game. The TRULY knowledgeable fans have LONG known that Dirk was among the most CLUTCH players in the league.

The idiotic posters will cite a few games in Dirk's career as "evidence" that he was a "choker"...and yet, those same posters will ignore the MANY poor games played by Kobe, Kareem, Bird, and even MJ.

[DMAVS41]

I find it fascinating that after game four of the Portland series, Dirk was just getting BASHED here. Now, a few games later, and he is being considered a better player than Kobe (and, at this point, for sure...he IS.)

Here again, the "fly-by-night posters" (or "hit-and-run" posters as I call them) have NO real understanding of the game. The TRULY knowledgeable fans have LONG known that Dirk was among the most CLUTCH players in the league.

The idiotic posters will cite a few games in Dirk's career as "evidence" that he was a "choker"...and yet, those same posters will ignore the MANY poor games played by Kobe, Kareem, Bird, and even MJ.

So true. I never thought I would be having to argue for Kobe in this series. Just hilarious.

And people call me a "hater" or "homer'. Far from it. I call it like I see it.

Yes, Dirk has been the best player in this series, but the series isn't over yet. And the hate Kobe is getting is absurd. I thought he has played well so far. Just not great.

The Lakers have been in every game and they have played really poor late. The Mavs have played well. I give Dirk a ton of credit, but we don't win the last 2 games without barea/terry/peja making a bunch of huge plays.

Kobe has not "quit"...Kobe is not a "choker"....its absurd to even say that.

I was blinded by this board a little at first because I thought it was just basically a ton of Kobe fans. But now I realize that its just a bunch of children running around trying to comment on a game they know nothing about.

In 3 games almost everyone here has done a complete 180 and has grossly over reacted.

Really weird and quite annoying to tell the truth.

[PHILA]

It seems that very few people understand Auerbach's greatness, and HIS impact on the NBA.


Sports Illustrated - May 09, 1966 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1078517/index.htm)


The Last Cigar For Red Auerbach

Frank Deford

Red Auerbach is a complex man, inspiring a wide range of responses from people. He can be completely tactless, querulous, belligerent without apparent provocation. A moment later he will be the most gracious of companions. Possibly his finest quality is an intense loyalty to his associates, particularly the Boston players. Modesty is not his long suit. For nearly a decade he was openly resentful about not being chosen the NBA's Coach of the Year, an honor he undoubtedly deserved many times but did not receive until last year. Some of his players, including Russell, never warmed to him sufficiently to call him a close friend, but none would deny his genius as a coach.

Of all the misconceptions about him, one of the really serious ones is that he is a lucky guy who was "made" by Russell but that he was at least an expert in the drafting of players. The reverse is more nearly true: he has been terribly underrated as a coach, considerably overrated as a drafter of talent. The latter half of the legend is based almost entirely on his selection of Sam Jones from little-known North Carolina College and John Havlicek out from under Jerry Lucas' shadow at Ohio State. In truth, Jones was not only drafted earlier by Minneapolis (when he was in the Army), he was all but forced on Auerbach by Red's old friend, Bones McKinney. In Havlicek's year, Red really wanted Leroy Ellis, but L.A. took him first and Auerbach was left with Havlicek.

At the same time, Auerbach is correctly praised for his reclamation projects with assorted rejects, has-beens and other wandering basketball waifs ( Gene Conley, Clyde Lovellette, Willie Naulls, Larry Siegfried, Don Nelson, etc.). This is an illuminating insight into his coaching success: he handles the professionals. Yes, Boston would not have been dominant without Russell, but it is false to suggest that this diminishes Auerbach's achievement.

[ATL_Bball_King]

I jus made a thread about how most people on ISH are not real fans of the game of basketball and just come on here to hate on players and wat not and i dont know the reason for this forum anymore...

And the administrator deleted my thread within 15 mins....lmao...wow...
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[jlauber]

I didn't see Wilt play. But I have done a ton of my own research and have tried to listen to informed opinions like JLAUBER and others. Its hard because guys like Bill Simmons and Ric Bucher just think Wilt was just basically all "empty stats".



I have often wondered what exactly Simmons and even Bucher are alluding to with regards to Wilt.

The FACT was, Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team. In his very FIRST season, that team went 49-26, and set a then TEAM record for best W-L record in their HISTORY (at the time anyway.) He was "traded" a few years later to the 76ers, and in his third season, the Sixers went 68-13, en route to a world title. Oh, and BTW, that '67 Sixer team STILL holds the record for the best W-L record in team history. Then, a couple of years later, Wilt was "traded" once again, and in his 4th season with the Lakers, they went 69-13, and their first title in LA. And, BTW, that 69-13 record REMAINS as the Lakers best ever.

Wilt played in the NBA in 14 seasons. In TWELVE of them, his TEAM's reached the Conference Finals. He went to SIX Finals (and playing well in all of them, and BRILLIANTLY in FOUR of them.) He also is one of the few players to lead the NBA in scoring AND to take his team to the best record in the league in the same year (and oh BTW, he also led the NBA in rebounding and set a FG% mark that season.) He played on SIX conference champions. He played on FOUR TEAM's with the best record in the league. And he achored TWO of the greatest TEAM's in NBA history. And all the while, he was setting staggering records...some 130 that he STILL owns.

Now, how are those considered "empty stats?"

[ATL_Bball_King]

So true. I never thought I would be having to argue for Kobe in this series. Just hilarious.

And people call me a "hater" or "homer'. Far from it. I call it like I see it.

Yes, Dirk has been the best player in this series, but the series isn't over yet. And the hate Kobe is getting is absurd. I thought he has played well so far. Just not great.

The Lakers have been in every game and they have played really poor late. The Mavs have played well. I give Dirk a ton of credit, but we don't win the last 2 games without barea/terry/peja making a bunch of huge plays.

Kobe has not "quit"...Kobe is not a "choker"....its absurd to even say that.

I was blinded by this board a little at first because I thought it was just basically a ton of Kobe fans. But now I realize that its just a bunch of children running around trying to comment on a game they know nothing about.

In 3 games almost everyone here has done a complete 180 and has grossly over reacted.

Really weird and quite annoying to tell the truth.


Good post...

And yea Barea/Terry/Peja have been yall difference maker....Lakers hasnt had consistent bench play all playoffs...How can they win if this happens...This wasnt a problem of the past...But its a big reason this series is the way it is right now...

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

I disagree. You don't come that close to winning that many titles by accident.

Maybe I should've explained what I meant better. I mean like things that happen in favor of a team that increases their chances of winning such as injuries to opposing teams (like Kendrick Perkins last year, Manu being injured at the start of the playoffs, Amar'e and Chauncey being injured during the playoffs), teams losing games at the end of the season and that in turn makes another team's playoff schedule a little easier.

Of course by no means is winning a championship by accident nor is it influenced by luck more than skill, commitment, and great performances by teams and coaches, I was just saying sometimes it helps.

And I agree totally with the rest of your post. It's crazy how Dirk goes from being a "choker" and "not even in the same breath as Kobe" to the best closer/clutch player in the league and much better than Kobe LOL. People on this board just flock to the hottest topic, beat it to death then switch sides once the commotion dies down. If the Mavs win this series (which they most likely will) and if they lose to the Thunder or Grizzlies next series people will start to flip on Dirk again. But what people don't get is that Dirk has been doing this entire career, putting up great numbers and hitting big shots that is. One thing I admire about Dirk is his consistency. You know what you are getting from him every game. Of course he has bad games sometimes, as does everyone but it's not that often that he just completely stinks throughout an entire series. I mean he has been in the league for over a decade and has constantly put up at least 22/7/2 To me, that's the mark of a true superstar

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Good post...

And yea Barea/Terry/Peja have been yall difference maker....Lakers hasnt had consistent bench play all playoffs...How can they win if this happens...This wasnt a problem of the past...But its a big reason this series is the way it is right now...

I agree. They've been able to get away with it the past few years because the starters (mainly Kobe and Gasol) have carried the bulk of the offense. It was the same way with Kobe and Shaq. But now that they are facing a team whose bench is playing very well, and the starters aren't playing to their usual level (Kobe, Gasol) now they are getting exposed

[ATL_Bball_King]

Just noticed that this thread is about top ten players...
my bad...:oldlol:

[ATL_Bball_King]

I agree. They've been able to get away with it the past few years because the starters (mainly Kobe and Gasol) have carried the bulk of the offense. It was the same way with Kobe and Shaq. But now that they are facing a team whose bench is playing very well, and the starters aren't playing to their usual level (Kobe, Gasol) now they are getting exposed

Yep...Its hard to watch...

[DMAVS41]

Maybe I should've explained what I meant better. I mean like things that happen in favor of a team that increases their chances of winning such as injuries to opposing teams (like Kendrick Perkins last year, Manu being injured at the start of the playoffs, Amar'e and Chauncey being injured during the playoffs), teams losing games at the end of the season and that in turn makes another team's playoff schedule a little easier.

Of course by no means is winning a championship by accident nor is it influenced by luck more than skill, commitment, and great performances by teams and coaches, I was just saying sometimes it helps.

And I agree totally with the rest of your post. It's crazy how Dirk goes from being a "choker" and "not even in the same as Kobe" to the best closer/clutch player in the league and much better than Kobe LOL. People on this board just flock to the hottest topic, beat it to death then switch sides once the commotion dies down. If the Mavs win this series (which they most likely will) and if they lose to the Thunder or Grizzlies next series people will start to flip on Dirk again. But what people don't get is that Dirk has been doing this entire career, putting up great numbers and hitting big shots that is. One thing I admire about Dirk is his consistency. You know what you are getting from him every game. Of course he has bad games sometimes, as does everyone but it's not that often that he just completely stinks throughout an entire series. I mean he has been in the league for over a decade and has constantly put up at least 22/7/2 To me, that's the mark of a true superstar

I was disagreeing with simmons and bucher calling wilt "empty stats"....not you.

Totally agree about everything.

Although I think Dirk's career playoff averages are a better representation of what kind of player he is.

26 points 11 boards 3 assists on 58% true shooting. Dirk has the most 30 point elimination games in history. Tied with Jerry West all time. Dirk's teams have never lost a game 7....5-0. Dirk has three different game 7's with over 30 and 10...including an all time great 37 point 15 rebound game against Duncan and the Spurs in SA.

Dirk is not the best player ever. He's not a top ten player ever. But he is one of the truly all time greats and he's arguably one of the 15 or so best playoff performers of all time.

This series does nothing one way or the other. Dirk is who he is. If the Mavs win this series Dirk will get all the credit, but its been his role players finally stepping up that is the difference. And that is why hating or loving on one player for winning is hugely flawed.

We should judge these players on how they actually play the damn game. Winning is just so much of a team accomplishment it unfairly diminishes the other players and the coach.

Dirk played a near perfect game last night....but we don't win if Terry/Peja don't make those shots. TEAM.

[MayCeltics]

MJ
Bill Russell
Abdul Jabbar
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Olajuwon
Duncan
Oscar

[KevinNYC]

Same with Larry Bird. Yes, three titles to two for Wilt...playing alongside the most LOADED rosters of the 80's. And, in his three titles, only two Finals MVP's. Why? Because he was AWFUL in '81. The man shot .419, and had it not been for Cedric Maxwell (of ALL people) Boston would nolt have beaten a 40-42 Houston team that year. .

Put your Wilt fetishism aside for a second look at two statements you made here.
Now go and look what I posted earlier in this thread.

1981 NBA finals
Bird
PPG RPG APG STL BLK
15.3 15.3 7.0 2.3 0.5
That's an awful series?

Maxwell
17.7 9.5 2.8 0.2 1.0

Maxwell was the difference maker? His 2.4 points a game edge over Bird made the difference in the series? Not Bird''s 6 rebounds and 4 assist edge? A series the Celtics won in 6 games? If anyone can point me to the boxscores for each game please do, but from what I have been able to find, I know that in that series Bird had back to back games with over 20 rebounds, back to back games with 5 steals, a couple near triple doubles and in the close out game had 27 points and 13 rebounds.

Found the http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124491/1/index.htm from that year. Let's see if people thought he was awful.

[QUOTE] Love, hate, anger and some inspired play by two young forwards

[talkingconch]

:facepalm
Great argument by the way.

Bill Russell won 11 titles. He was the defensive presence of those title winning teams. He was the best defensive player of all time. A complete game changer.
Russell's teams were 10-0 in deciding game 5's and game 7's. At his peak, he consistently slowed down Wilt Chamberlain in the playoffs. What more do you want?

11 Titles with 8 teams in the league. He is def top 10 but not No. 2

[G.O.A.T]

11 Titles with 8 teams in the league. He is def top 10 but not No. 2

Based on the history of pro basketball, it's was harder for a team to repeat as champion in the era of ten or fewer teams.

Russell is a top two lock and no other players have anywhere near strong enough an argument to place them over Russ.

[jlauber]

Put your Wilt fetishism aside for a second look at two statements you made here.
Now go and look what I posted earlier in this thread.

1981 NBA finals
Bird
PPG RPG APG STL BLK
15.3 15.3 7.0 2.3 0.5
That's an awful series?

Maxwell
17.7 9.5 2.8 0.2 1.0

Maxwell was the difference maker? His 2.4 points a game edge over Bird made the difference in the series? Not Bird''s 6 rebounds and 4 assist edge? A series the Celtics won in 6 games? If anyone can point me to the boxscores for each game please do, but from what I have been able to find, I know that in that series Bird had back to back games with over 20 rebounds, back to back games with 5 steals, a couple near triple doubles and in the close out game had 27 points and 13 rebounds.

Found the http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124491/1/index.htm from that year. Let's see if people thought he was awful.



Robert Reid did a good job guarding Bird that series and he had a couple of bad scoring games, but to say Larry Bird was awful in the 1981 Finals once you look at the facts is to be kidding yourself.

Here is the six games of the '81 Finals...

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1981.htm

You brought up Bird's good games in that series...how about the middle three though...

8 points on 3-11 shooting, 8 points on 3-11 shooting, and 12 points on 5-16 shooting.

As for Maxwell in that series,...while Bird shot .419, Maxwell shot .567. And once again, this was against a 40-42 Rockets team.

BTW, Bird played in 31 Finals' games. He shot 50% or better in 11 of them, or in nearly one-third.

Once again...anyone that has Bird at higher than #8 is deluding themselves. I have him at #10.

And, there is simply NO comparsion to between Bird's and Wilt's careers. Chamberlain was a FAR greater force...BOTH in the regular season...AND, in the post-season.

As for "clutch" play, Bird only played in one game seven in his five Finals...and shot 6-18. And, in that series, had Worthy not completely blown game two, and had BOTH Worthy and Magic had not gone 0-4 from the line in the last minute of game four...the Lakers would have SWEPT Boston. Of course, they did manhandle the Celtics in '85 and '87...in series in which Magic completely outplayed Bird.

Meanwhile, Wilt played in two game seven's in his Finals career, and shot 17-24 (or .708 from the field), while averaging 20 ppg and 25 rpg in those two game seven's. And both of those series were later in Wilt's career...and one of them came just four months after major knee surgery.

[DMAVS41]

Here is the six games of the '81 Finals...

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1981.htm

You brought up Bird's good games in that series...how about the middle three though...

8 points on 3-11 shooting, 8 points on 3-11 shooting, and 12 points on 5-16 shooting.

As for Maxwell in that series,...while Bird shot .419, Maxwell shot .567. And once again, this was against a 40-42 Rockets team.

BTW, Bird played in 31 Finals' games. He shot 50% or better in 11 of them, or in nearly one-third.

Once again...anyone that has Bird at higher than #8 is deluding themselves. I have him at #10.

And, there is simply NO comparsion to between Bird's and Wilt's careers. Chamberlain was a FAR greater force...BOTH in the regular season...AND, in the post-season.

As for "clutch" play, Bird only played in one game seven in his five Finals...and shot 6-18. And, in that series, had Worthy not completely blown game two, and had BOTH Worthy and Magic had not gone 0-4 from the line in the last minute of game four...the Lakers would have SWEPT Boston. Of course, they did manhandle the Celtics in '85 and '87...in series in which Magic completely outplayed Bird.

Meanwhile, Wilt played in two game seven's in his Finals career, and shot 17-24 (or .708 from the field), while averaging 20 ppg and 25 rpg in those two game seven's. And both of those series were later in Wilt's career...and one of them came just four months after major knee surgery.

Yea. I loved Bird, but I have to agree with this. If Kobe is going to take as much crap for his finals play then so should Bird.

Bird's career is romanticized quite a bit by a lot of people. Bill Simmons in particular. His prime/peak play was downright scary good, but its not like Bird was perfect.

I have him right at 8 and feel he's a lock there for a long time (unless Lebron/Wade do some crazy things)

My updated list.

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Bird
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe

[ljsbb27]

1- Jordan
2- Russel
3- Chamberlain
4- Abdul-Jabbar
5- Magic
6- O'Neal
7- Duncan
8- Bird
9- Bryant
10- Olajuwon

[jlauber]

Yea. I loved Bird, but I have to agree with this. If Kobe is going to take as much crap for his finals play then so should Bird.

Bird's career is romanticized quite a bit by a lot of people. Bill Simmons in particular. His prime/peak play was downright scary good, but its not like Bird was perfect.

I have him right at 8 and feel he's a lock there for a long time (unless Lebron/Wade do some crazy things)

My updated list.

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Bird
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe


Almost identical to mine...



1- Jordan
2- Russel
3- Chamberlain
4- Abdul-Jabbar
5- Magic
6- O'Neal
7- Duncan
8- Bird
9- Bryant
10- Olajuwon


Another excellent list...

[jlauber]

BTW, I am NOT bashing on Bird here. He IS a top-10 player. Three MVPs, three rings, and two Finals MVPs are proof of that.

BUT, can you really say that he had a better CAREER than

MJ
Russell
Magic (and please...there is just NO way that Bird had a better CAREER)
Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan


In fact, IMO, Kobe has had achieved more in his career, even if he was not as dominant as a PEAK Bird. And Hakeem MIGHT have a case based on PEAK playoff performances. In any case, IMHO, Bird could go anywhere from #8 to #10.

If someone would like to argue Bird against my top-7, I would be more than willing do so. I just don't see him having ANY case at all, though.

[DMAVS41]

BTW, I am NOT bashing on Bird here. He IS a top-10 player. Three MVPs, three rings, and two Finals MVPs are proof of that.

BUT, can you really say that he had a better CAREER than

MJ
Russell
Magic (and please...there is just NO way that Bird had a better CAREER)
Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Duncan


In fact, IMO, Kobe has had achieved more in his career, even if he was not as dominant as a PEAK Bird. And Hakeem MIGHT have a case based on PEAK playoff performances. In any case, IMHO, Bird could go anywhere from #8 to #10.

If someone would like to argue Bird against my top-7, I would be more than willing do so. I just don't see him having ANY case at all, though.

It would all depend on how they value peak play. Because bird's peak play was just insanely good.

Thats really the only way though.

[DRoseOwnsACamry]

1. Michael Jordan

2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar

3. Bill Russell

4. Larry Bird

5. Wilt Chamberlain

6. Magic Johnson

7. Tim Duncan

8. Shaquille O'Neal

9. Jerry West

10. Hakeem Olajuwon

My top 10.

[jlauber]

It would all depend on how they value peak play. Because bird's peak play was just insanely good.

Thats really the only way though.

Perhaps...but I find this fascinating...

Bird's BEST regular seasons were '84-85, '86-87, and '87-88...and he averaged 28.7 ppg on .522 shooting, 28.1 ppg on .525 shooting, and 29.9 ppg on .527 shooting.

However, in the playoffs those three years, his scoring dropped somewhat, to 26.0 ppg, 27.0 ppg, and 24.5 ppg...AND, his shooting REALLY dropped...to .461, .476, and .450.

He also made the Finals in two of those years... 84-85 and 86-87. In the '85 Finals, he averaged 23.8 ppg on .449 shooting. And in '87 he averaged 24.2 ppg on .445 shooting. And in both his Celtics were beaten 4-2 by the Lakers. AND, in BOTH of those, Magic was CLEARLY the better player.

[jlauber]

Quote:
Originally Posted by edhemsoccer

1. Michael Jordan

2. Kareem Abdul Jabbar

3. Bill Russell

4. Larry Bird

5. Wilt Chamberlain

6. Magic Johnson

7. Tim Duncan

8. Shaquille O'Neal

9. Jerry West

10. Hakeem Olajuwon


My top 10.

You obviously didn't read MY Bird-Wilt take. In any case...give me your argument as to why Bird was a greater player than a) Magic, and b)Duncan, c) Shaq, and finally d) Wilt.

[DMAVS41]

Perhaps...but I find this fascinating...

Bird's BEST regular seasons were '84-85, '86-87, and '87-88...and he averaged 28.7 ppg on .522 shooting, 28.1 ppg on .525 shooting, and 29.9 ppg on .527 shooting.

However, in the playoffs those three years, his scoring dropped somewhat, to 26.0 ppg, 27.0 ppg, and 24.5 ppg...AND, his shooting REALLY dropped...to .461, .476, and .450.

He also made the Finals in two of those years... 84-85 and 86-87. In the '85 Finals, he averaged 23.8 ppg on .449 shooting. And in '87 he averaged 24.2 ppg on .445 shooting. And in both his Celtics were beaten 4-2 by the Lakers. AND, in BOTH of those, Magic was CLEARLY the better player.

Yep.

You don't have to convince me. Bird is romanticized to death in the basketball world.

He was a fantastic player and one of the best all time. But he, like every player, had his share of let downs and piss poor games....and had his share of let downs in big moments.

But people don't talk about that stuff with him.

[jlauber]

Yep.

You don't have to convince me. Bird is romanticized to death in the basketball world.

He was a fantastic player and one of the best all time. But he, like every player, had his share of let downs and piss poor games....and had his share of let downs in big moments.

But people don't talk about that stuff with him.

EXACTLY, and yet these same "experts" completely IGNORE what Wilt accomplished in his career. It is just a huge puzzle to me. Wilt was a FAR greater player in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season. Yet, he is somehow perceived as a "loser", a "choker", and a "failure."

[DMAVS41]

EXACTLY, and yet these same "experts" completely IGNORE what Wilt accomplished in his career. It is just a huge puzzle to me. Wilt was a FAR greater player in BOTH the regular season, AND the post-season. Yet, he is somehow perceived as a "loser", a "choker", and a "failure."

You hit the nail on the head. PERCEIVED.

The fact remains that people just seem to be OK with certain things even if they aren't true. No matter what, Wilt will be perceived as something he wasn't.

Dirk will always be perceived as something he wasn't. Just the way basketball history works. Its frustrating and quite frankly a little sad.

NBA history is pretty much a joke because of these false perceptions.

Just take this year. Kobe is going to make first team all nba over Wade. Kobe got 16 times more mvp points than Wade and 4 times more points than Dirk.

30 years from now people that didn't see this year play out will be using that as reasons why Kobe is better than Wade.....etc.

Unfortunately, just the way it is. Certain players get no respect all time. Wade, Dirk, and Wilt are three of the most under appreciated players ever.

Sucks because I'm a huge fan of all three.

[KevinNYC]

Here is the six games of the '81 Finals...

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1981.htm

You brought up Bird's good games in that series...how about the middle three though...

8 points on 3-11 shooting, 8 points on 3-11 shooting, and 12 points on 5-16 shooting.

Once again you're missing the point and only talking about scoring. Now that you've pointed to the boxscores we can look at the evidence.

P R A
18 21 9
19 21 3
8 13 10
8 12 7
12 12 8
26 13 5

Even in his three poor shooting games, he was close to triple double in all of them. So he had 2 monster games (1&2), a great game (6) and three near-triple doubles where he didn't shoot well (3,4,5). In 1,2 and 6 he shot 51%. In one of his poor shooting games he also had five steals. So Even on the days he wasn't shooting well, he was still making major contributions. To call these six games awful is to discount every other aspect of basketball except shooting.

Let's take a look how he did in the 4 Celtic wins

Game 1 victory, led his team in points, rebounds, assists
Game 3 victory, led his team in rebounds, assists, steals (5) and tied for lead in blocks with Maxwell (2)
Game 5 victory led team in assists, second in rebounds
Game 6 victory led team in points and rebounds and put the Rockets away with a great 4th quarter.

So in two of the wins he was clearly the best player on his team (1 and 6), in game 3 he was arguably the best player on his team or tied for it (Maxwell had a good, but not great game with 19p 10r and 0a). Game 5 is the only game where his performance was the second best on his team.



And once again, this was against a 40-42 Rockets team.
And a team that defeated Magic, Kareem and the rest of the defending champions Lakers. A team that obviously had it going on at playoff time.

So, once again, you said Bird was AWFUL in 1981 finals and when we look at the record, We see Bird stats are
PPG RPG APG SPG BPG
15,3 15,3 7,0 2.3 .5

He was the third best scorer in the series. (2nd on his own team)
He was within 1.0 rebounds of the series lead in rebounds. (Some scrub named Moses beat him.)
He had the most assists in the series.
He had the most steals in the series.
He was easily the best all-around player in the series.
He was certainly the best player on his team in two of the wins.

So I wasn't just cherry picking his good games all three of his "poor" games are near triple-doubles.

[KevinNYC]

Weird.
Just as I posted this. VH1 was showing House of Pain's "Jump Around" Video where Everlast is wearing a Larry Bird Jersey.

[jlauber]

Once again you're missing the point and only talking about scoring. Now that you've pointed to the boxscores we can look at the evidence.

P R A
18 21 9
19 21 3
8 13 10
8 12 7
12 12 8
26 13 5

Even in his three poor shooting games, he was close to triple double in all of them. So he had 2 monster games (1&2), a great game (6) and three near-triple doubles where he didn't shoot well (3,4,5). In 1,2 and 6 he shot 51%. In one of his poor shooting games he also had five steals. So Even on the days he wasn't shooting well, he was still making major contributions. To call these six games awful is to discount every other aspect of basketball except shooting.

Let's take a look how he did in the 4 Celtic wins

Game 1 victory, led his team in points, rebounds, assists
Game 3 victory, led his team in rebounds, assists, steals (5) and tied for lead in blocks with Maxwell (2)
Game 5 victory led team in assists, second in rebounds
Game 6 victory led team in points and rebounds and put the Rockets away with a great 4th quarter.

So in two of the wins he was clearly the best player on his team (1 and 6), in game 3 he was arguably the best player on his team or tied for it (Maxwell had a good, but not great game with 19p 10r and 0a). Game 5 is the only game where his performance was the second best on his team.


And a team that defeated Magic, Kareem and the rest of the defending champions Lakers. A team that obviously had it going on at playoff time.

So, once again, you said Bird was AWFUL in 1981 finals and when we look at the record, We see Bird stats are
PPG RPG APG SPG BPG
15,3 15,3 7,0 2.3 .5

He was the third best scorer in the series. (2nd on his own team)
He was within 1.0 rebounds of the series lead in rebounds. (Some scrub named Moses beat him.)
He had the most assists in the series.
He had the most steals in the series.
He was easily the best all-around player in the series.
He was certainly the best player on his team in two of the wins.

So I wasn't just cherry picking his good games all three of his "poor" games are near triple-doubles.


So you are going to overlook Bird's .297 FG% in game's 3, 4, and 5? Two of them wins?

And don't feed me this "near" triple double crap. 8-13-10, 8-12-7, and 12-12-8 games are BORDERLINE DOUBLE-DOUBLE's (in fact one WAS NOT even a double-double!) In fact, all three were close to being triple-SINGLE's for cryingoutloud. And when you factor in his ATROCIOUS shooting...well, the FACTS remain...he was AWFUL in those games, and without Maxwell in game's 3, 5, AND SIX, Boston gets blown out by that 40-42 team in the Finals. Maxwell was Bird's EQUAL in that game six, and CLEARLY better in 3 and 4. Maxwell DESERVED the Finals MVP. Not only did he LEAD Boston in scoring, he was a LIGHT YEARS better shooter than Bird (.567 to .419.)

And to brag out being the THIRD best scorer in the series...with a 15.3 ppg average???? And on .419 shooting to boot? Sorry, ANY other supposedly GREAT player with a series with a stat-line like that would have been SHREDDED for it. My god, Wilt was RIPPED for a 23.2 ppg-24.1 rpg-.625 FG% Finals in 1970. And he played the entire series on a knee that had undergone MAJOR surgery just four months prior.


And YES, the reason the 40-42 Rockets beat Magic's Lakers is because Magic had been injured for a huge portion of the season. And, because it was stupid best-of-three series.

In fact, the Lakers eaily dispatched the 76ers in BOTH '80 and '82 in the Finals. Meanwhile, Boston came back from a 3-1 deficit against the '81 76ers, by winning the last three games by 2, 2, and 1 point. Furthermore, Magic engineered a clinching Finals win over the 76ers withOUT his best teammate.

And I always find it laughable that some posters here have stated that the Lakers had an easier road to the Finals in the 80's, because of their Western conference rivals. Take a close look at Boston's three Finals titles. They beat a 40-42 Houston team in '81, that would have been crushed by a healthy Magic. The Celtics also beat a 51-31 Rockets team that stunned the heavily-favored Lakers. And, of course, Boston eked out a 4-3 series over the Lakers in '84. HOWEVER, Boston did not WIN that series...the Lakers BLEW that series. In fact, LA should have SWEPT Boston. LA easily won games 1 and 3 (by a 137-104 margin in game three)...but in game two, the Lakers had the lead AND the ball with only about 15 secs left. Worthy, instead of just HANDING the ball to Magic, instead chose to make a cross-court pass, which was intercepted and resulted in the tying basket...and an OT loss for LA. Then, in game four, the Lakers had a five point lead with 41 secs left...but BOTH Magic and Worthy each missed two FT's (FOUR total) which allowed Boston to tie in regulation, and win in OT.

Once again...Bird is a top-10 player...but his ACTUAL resume is no more than the very bottom of it.

[G.O.A.T]

Here's how I have them split now, I allow for movement within tiers almost weekly as I learn and uncover more.

Tier One: The High Pasture

Jeffrey
Felton


Tier Two: Atop the Beanstalk

Dippy
Ferdinand


Tier Three: The Untouchables

Bean
Big George
Buck
Diesel
Dream
Legend
Timmy


Tier Four: The Fringe

Big E
Big O
Doc
Logo
Moses
Pettit

[jlauber]

Here's how I have them split now, I allow for movement within tiers almost weekly as I learn and uncover more.

Tier One: The High Pasture

Jeffrey
Felton


Tier Two: Atop the Beanstalk

Dippy
Ferdinand


Tier Three: The Untouchables

Bean
Big George
Buck
Diesel
Dream
Legend
Timmy


Tier Four: The Fringe

Big E
Big O
Doc
Logo
Moses
Pettit

Pretty good list, but very evasive...

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Kareem

ALL of the above have a case for #1.

6. Shaq
7. Duncan

8. Kobe

9. Hakeem
10. Bird



11. Oscar
12. Moses
13. Mikan
14. West
15. Dr. J

16. KG
17. Pettit
18. Barry
19. DRob
20. Baylor

21. Barkley
22. Hondo
23. Dirk
24. Pippen
25. K. Malone

And you can mix-and-match the above anywhere from 11-25.

And, Lebron will likely be anywhere from #15 to somewhere in the top-10 by the time he is done.

[Round Mound]

malone > barkley

Yeah after Barkley was constantly injured from 96-2000

Never Ever Before :violin:

[thelucifer69]

kobe can't even compare to magic.

[G.O.A.T]

kobe can't even compare to magic.

At this point, the numbers suggest otherwise.

I too prefer Magic and still give him the all-time edge, but Kobe was worked his way into that discussion. I think they are the two greatest Lakers of all-time.

[jlauber]

At this point, the numbers suggest otherwise.

I too prefer Magic and still give him the all-time edge, but Kobe was worked his way into that discussion. I think they are the two greatest Lakers of all-time.

Can you give us your Top-25 now...in order?

[G.O.A.T]

Can you give us your Top-25 now...in order?

At this second

In sets of five

Top Five

#6
#13
#23
#32
#33 Gold

Next Five

#21
#24
#33 Green
#34
#99

11-15

1964 NBA MVP
1969 FINALS MVP
1976 ABA MVP
1979 NBA MVP
1994 & 1995 FINALS MVP

16-20

Big E
Cooz
Hondo
Pettit
Zeke

21-25

Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Kevin Garnett
Karl Malone
Scottie Pippen

[Odinn]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102569

I used this topic and calculated as 1st place 10 points, 2nd 6 points, 3rd 4 points.
According to that, top 10;
1- Kareem (112)
2- Jordan (94)
3- Chamberlain (92)
4- Russell (78)
5- Shaq (72)
6- Duncan (66)
7- Bird/Magic (54)
9- Mikan (50)
10- Kobe/M.Malone/B.Pettit (40)

Surely we can argue KAJ>Jordan or Duncan>Bird/Magic but excluding placements pretty good list though I think.

[KevinNYC]

So you are going to overlook Bird's .297 FG% in game's 3, 4, and 5? Two of them wins?

No, I'm going to consider them with
A. the other aspects of his game such as rebounds, assists, steals
B. Then I'm going consider the series as a whole, so he had three games where he shot well and three where he didn't.


(8-12-7 ..........in fact one WAS NOT even a double-double!)

This is my mistake. I cut and pasted the data into a word file and I think I went I looked this over I confused it with the line above with 10 assists. So I'll agree to throw that one out.



And don't feed me this "near" triple double crap. 8-13-10, X-XX-X, and 12-12-8 games are BORDERLINE DOUBLE-DOUBLE's In fact, all three were close to being triple-SINGLE's for cryingoutloud.
You're nitpicking. 10-10-10 is a triple double and in game 3 he was two points from one and in game 5 he was two rebounds from. You can argue that a triple double is not a valuable game or it's completely arbitrary, but that's a different argument.


And when you factor in his ATROCIOUS shooting...well, the FACTS remain...he was AWFUL in those games,
and without Maxwell in game's 3, 5, AND SIX, Boston gets blown out by that 40-42 team in the Finals. Maxwell was Bird's EQUAL in that game six, and CLEARLY better in 3 and 4.
Your argument is still only valid if you throw out all the aspects of the game except scoring.

Game 3
Bird led his team in rebounds, assists, steals and blocks (tied). Awful game? No bad-shooting night. He still had the most impact offensively on the team including Maxwell.
Bird 8 points + (10 assists x 2) =28 points vs Maxwell 19 points + (0 assists x 2) = 19 points. So I disagree that Maxwell was CLEARLY better.

Game 5
12 12 8 Shot poorly. led team in assists, second in rebounds Awful game?
This was Maxwell's best game and the only win where he clearly outplayed Bird.

Game 6
Bird had 26 13 5 and Maxwell had 19 5 6. I don't see this as being equal.


Maxwell DESERVED the Finals MVP. Not only did he LEAD Boston in scoring, he was a LIGHT YEARS better shooter than Bird (.567 to .419.)
A. Again this ignores all the other aspects of the game.
B. This also ignores where they took their shots from. Maxwell had a career field goal percentage that was .050 better than Bird's? Did he have a better career than Bird's. Maxwell was a post player who took his shots close in and over 800 NBA games attempted 1 three-pointer.


And to brag out being the THIRD best scorer in the series...with a 15.3 ppg average???? And on .419 shooting to boot? Sorry, ANY other supposedly GREAT player with a series with a stat-line like that would have been SHREDDED for it.
You're moving the goalposts here. First you claimed he was awful. Then when I pointed out that far from being awful, his averages of 15.3ppg 15.3rpg 7.0apg, show that he had a very good all around series even if he wasn't shooting well. And no one was bragging about anything.

I searched the Basketball reference database and there have only been 33 INDIVIDUAL games where a player has had a 15p, 15r, 7a game in the playoffs in the last 20 years, let alone averaged it for a 6 game stretch. (The database only goes back 20 years for the playoffs.) If you add in the 2 steals a game, it's only 12 individual games.


And YES, the reason the 40-42 Rockets beat Magic's Lakers is because Magic had been injured for a huge portion of the season. And, because it was stupid best-of-three series.
I think this is where I would add a "U Mad" picture, if I was a snot-nosed kid.

Also you don't have to relay the entire history of 80's Lakers/Celtics rivalry. I'm only responding to your limited view of the 1981 NBA Finals and the play of Larry Bird therein.

[G.O.A.T]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102569

I used this topic and calculated as 1st place 10 points, 2nd 6 points, 3rd 4 points.
According to that, top 10;
1- Kareem (112)
2- Jordan (94)
3- Chamberlain (92)
4- Russell (78)
5- Shaq (72)
6- Duncan (66)
7- Bird/Magic (54)
9- Mikan (50)
10- Kobe/M.Malone/B.Pettit (40)

Surely we can argue KAJ>Jordan or Duncan>Bird/Magic but excluding placements pretty good list though I think.

I can never abide Kareem at #1

His career has far too many flaws and he left too many what-ifs.

Can a guy who underachieved for most of his prime in the weakest (post-shot clock) era of NBA basketball all-time be considered the best ever?

I don't think so.

As amazing as his career was and as deserving of respect as he is, if he's the best, the sport kind of sucks.

[Odinn]

I can never abide Kareem at #1

His career has far too many flaws and he left too many what-ifs.

Can a guy who underachieved for most of his prime in the weakest (post-shot clock) era of NBA basketball all-time be considered the best ever?

I don't think so.

As amazing as his career was and as deserving of respect as he is, if he's the best, the sport kind of sucks.
Kareem is a tier1 along side Jordan and Magic but he wasn't as good as Jordan or Magic. But I think he is a tier1 nonetheless.

I've already said this.:cheers:

First tier;
Jordan - Kareem - Magic

Second tier;
Bird - Duncan - Shaq - Kobe

Third tier;
Wilt - Hakeem - Russell

[G.O.A.T]

Kareem is a tier1 along side Jordan and Magic but he wasn't as good as Jordan or Magic. But I think he is a tier1 nonetheless.

I've already said this.:cheers:

You having Russell in the third tier tells me we don't see the game the same at all.

It tells me, in all honesty that you don't know very much about basketball in it's entire historical context. (That sounds worse than I want it to, not trying to insult you)

[Odinn]

You having Russell in the third tier tells me we don't see the game the same at all.

It tells me, in all honesty that you don't know very much about basketball in it's entire historical context.
It can be. I don't know very well 60s and 70s as well as after 80s.

[G.O.A.T]

It can be. I don't know very well 60s and 70s as well as after 80s.

The simplest way I can explain it, the Celtics went from being the wost defensive team in the league and an afterthought in the playoffs, to the top defensive team every year and the greatest dynasty in sports history once Russell showed up.

Then, it all stopped once Russell left. And even now, as proud as the Celtics are, 32 years after his retirement they've earned just over half the number of rings (six) he racked up in 13 seasons. (eleven)

[jlauber]

No, I'm going to consider them with
A. the other aspects of his game such as rebounds, assists, steals
B. Then I'm going consider the series as a whole, so he had three games where he shot well and three where he didn't.



This is my mistake. I cut and pasted the data into a word file and I think I went I looked this over I confused it with the line above with 10 assists. So I'll agree to throw that one out.



You're nitpicking. 10-10-10 is a triple double and in game 3 he was two points from one and in game 5 he was two rebounds from. You can argue that a triple double is not a valuable game or it's completely arbitrary, but that's a different argument.


Your argument is still only valid if you throw out all the aspects of the game except scoring.

Game 3
Bird led his team in rebounds, assists, steals and blocks (tied). Awful game? No bad-shooting night. He still had the most impact offensively on the team including Maxwell.
Bird 8 points + (10 assists x 2) =28 points vs Maxwell 19 points + (0 assists x 2) = 19 points. So I disagree that Maxwell was CLEARLY better.

Game 5
12 12 8 Shot poorly. led team in assists, second in rebounds Awful game?
This was Maxwell's best game and the only win where he clearly outplayed Bird.

Game 6
Bird had 26 13 5 and Maxwell had 19 5 6. I don't see this as being equal.

A. Again this ignores all the other aspects of the game.
B. This also ignores where they took their shots from. Maxwell had a career field goal percentage that was .050 better than Bird's? Did he have a better career than Bird's. Maxwell was a post player who took his shots close in and over 800 NBA games attempted 1 three-pointer.


You're moving the goalposts here. First you claimed he was awful. Then when I pointed out that far from being awful, his averages of 15.3ppg 15.3rpg 7.0apg, show that he had a very good all around series even if he wasn't shooting well. And no one was bragging about anything.

I searched the Basketball reference database and there have only been 33 INDIVIDUAL games where a player has had a 15p, 15r, 7a game in the playoffs in the last 20 years, let alone averaged it for a 6 game stretch. (The database only goes back 20 years for the playoffs.) If you add in the 2 steals a game, it's only 12 individual games.


I think this is where I would add a "U Mad" picture, if I was a snot-nosed kid.

Also you don't have to relay the entire history of 80's Lakers/Celtics rivalry. I'm only responding to your limited view of the 1981 NBA Finals and the play of Larry Bird therein.

A well thought out post.

:cheers:

I don't necessarily agree with it, but you argued it well. IMO, Bird's performance was probably not "awful", but in terms of what is generally considered standard play for a "great" in an NBA playoff series, I just can't give it much more than "ordinary", if that. Now, if you are talking about every player, then it was a good series. But, in terms of "elite" players...quite simply...not even average.

Bird certainly had better Finals, but even those were never what I would term "exceptional", at least for a "great" player. Players like MJ, Russell, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq all had greater one's...and probably each had several better. And if you factor in defense, Duncan too. Hakeem, while not the regular season player that Bird was, clearly had better post-seasons. Now, Kobe and Bird were close. Kobe was clearly a better scorer. And, if you factor in league average FG%, he was not far behind Bird in shooting. But, Bird was a much better rebounder, and a considerably better passer.

BTW, if you want to rank PEAK play...say over the course of 3-4 years...a case could be made that Bob McAdoo had a better PEAK than Bird. And that includes post-season play, too. Take a look at McAdoo in his three years from '74-'76 (and when he finished 2nd, 1st, and 2nd in the MVP balloting.) BTW, his '75 scoring average of 34.5 ppg came in a league that only averaged 102.6 ppg.

Overall, I can live with those that rank Bird above Kobe and Hakeem. Invariably, Kobe will surpass him at some point. But, I just don't see Bird having a case over Duncan, or Shaq...and absolutely NO case over Kareem, Wilt, Magic, MJ, or Russell.

Oh, and a sidenote...I can't see awarding a player TWO points for an assist. I can accept ONE point, but the player making the shot should get some credit, as well. BUT, if you were to use two points, Magic would have had some staggering offensive post-seasons.

[KevinNYC]

:cheers:

[Kiarip]

Oscar Robertson isn't top 10 of all time.

He is the ultimate box-score player. He's had decent teams and finished with poor records until he teamed up with KAJ, who is obvsly a contender for GOAT (probably second,) so it kinda makes you wonder. Kobe is probably top 10.

I honestly have him over Shaq, because of his longevity in comparison to Shaq. Shaq was very dominant but started getting lazy and it showed, so I have it as Duncan > Kobe > Shaq.

Jordan
KAJ
<Wilt Magic Russel Bird in some order>
Duncan
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem

[rodman91]

Oscar Robertson isn't top 10 of all time.

He is the ultimate box-score player. He's had decent teams and finished with poor records until he teamed up with KAJ, who is obvsly a contender for GOAT (probably second,) so it kinda makes you wonder. Kobe is probably top 10.

I honestly have him over Shaq, because of his longevity in comparison to Shaq. Shaq was very dominant but started getting lazy and it showed, so I have it as Duncan > Kobe > Shaq.

Jordan
KAJ
<Wilt Magic Russel Bird in some order>
Duncan
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem
Shaq is was quite okay since traded to Cavs. Joined the league in 20 and played at star level since 37. 17 years.

Kobe drafted at 18.2 years as a bench player.He is playing at star level from 20 to 32 so far. 12 years.

So far Shaq had better longevity, actually. Kobe was playing only 15 and 26 minutes in his first 2 seasons.Drafted in 96-97. Shaq drafted in 92-93 and played 38 minutes per game.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Again I feel that with many players you have to wait until their career is complete to fully understand since you have to take that step back and examine it as a whole.

That said:

1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. KAJ
4. Russell
5. Magic
6. Birdy
7. Shaq
8. TimmyD (These two bound to swap if Tim logs another decent year or ring).
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe (Also plenty of room to move at this point. But I'd say ceiling is 7)

[brownmamba00]

1.Kareem/Jordan
2.Kareem/Jordan
3.Russell
4.Magic
5.Bird
6.Wilt
7.Hakeem
8.Kobe
9.Shaq
10.Duncan


Hakeem is better then Kobe Shaq and Duncan, dude is so underrated imo. And if Kobe wins another one in dominating fashion a la '09 and '10 he can move to 7

[edhemsoccer]

Jlauber, I'm curious as to what is your Top 10 list? You have some knowledgeable insight on the game and certainly know your history.
My revised Top 10 list goes:

1. Jordan

2. Russell

3. Wilt

4. Magic

5. Kareem

6. Bird

7. Duncan

8. Shaq

9. Kobe

10. West


I've read a lot of your cases against Bird, but I can't really bump Duncan or Shaq ahead of Bird. I just can't. Bird's peak for me was incredible. I know, he was on a loaded roster, but he was their most important player and the team followed Bird's attitude. That alone is enough for me to rate Bird at #6.

[DMAVS41]

Jlauber, I'm curious as to what is your Top 10 list? You have some knowledgeable insight on the game and certainly know your history.
My revised Top 10 list goes:

1. Jordan

2. Russell

3. Wilt

4. Magic

5. Kareem

6. Bird

7. Duncan

8. Shaq

9. Kobe

10. West


I've read a lot of your cases against Bird, but I can't really bump Duncan or Shaq ahead of Bird. I just can't. Bird's peak for me was incredible. I know, he was on a loaded roster, but he was their most important player and the team followed Bird's attitude. That alone is enough for me to rate Bird at #6.

Good list.

I'd have Hakeem in there though ahead of Kobe/West.

I personally have Duncan and Shaq over Bird, but have no problem with it.

While some think Hakeem is over-rated because of his two titles, I don't really see it that way. I think Hakeem was an amazing player on both ends and I could just never imagine picking kobe or west to build a team around over Hakeem.

Really good list though.

JLAUBER will probably like how you left out Hakeem. Haha.

[Jasper22]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Bill Russel
5. Magic Johnson
6. Larry Bird
7. Shaq Oneal
8. Kobe Bryant
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan


11. Oscar Robinson
12. Jerry West
13. Julius Erving
...

[jlauber]

Jlauber, I'm curious as to what is your Top 10 list? You have some knowledgeable insight on the game and certainly know your history.
My revised Top 10 list goes:

1. Jordan

2. Russell

3. Wilt

4. Magic

5. Kareem

6. Bird

7. Duncan

8. Shaq

9. Kobe

10. West


I've read a lot of your cases against Bird, but I can't really bump Duncan or Shaq ahead of Bird. I just can't. Bird's peak for me was incredible. I know, he was on a loaded roster, but he was their most important player and the team followed Bird's attitude. That alone is enough for me to rate Bird at #6.

:cheers:

Very close to mine. As for Bird over Shaq and Duncan, I personally just don't see it, based on their resumes. Bird had a slight edge in MVP's, but Duncan has an edge in Finals MVPs, and rings. Furthermore, Duncan played considerably better in the post-season. Both were great "winners", however. Meanwhile, Shaq's peak was better than Bird's (despite only one MVP), and not only was his post-season career considerably better, his peak post-season play just blew away Bird's.

Granted, Shaq seldom faced a HOF center in his post-season career. And he certainly didn't put up huge numbers against David Robinson and the Spurs in the post-season, either. With the exception of Robinson's last season, when hardly played, Shaq only scored about 23 ppg on less than 50% against DRob over the course their post-season H2H. And while Shaq had those great "three-peat" Finals, it must be pointed out that he faced a Smits-Davis combo that had a combined TWO All-Star games (for reference, Chamberlain battered Zelmo Beaty for a 39-23 playoff series...and Beaty was a FIVE time All-Star.) Shaq also pounded DPOY Motumbo by a 33-17, 16-12 margin, but amazingly, Motumbo, who was a .484 season during the regular season, shot .600 against Shaq (Shaq shot .572 against Motumbo.) Here again, as a comparison, Chamberlain had MULTIPLE post-season series against Russell in which he outscored Russell by as great, or greater margins, as well as outrebounding him in EVERY one of them, and some in which he outshot Russell by nearly 200 points. And Russell was not only a DPOY, he was the greatest defensive player of all-time, and the game' second greatest rebounder. And, finally, I wonder how many people here who could even remember who the Nets' center(s) were in the 2002 Finals. So, while Shaq's three-peat Finals were, statistically at least, perhaps the greatest ever, they must also be taken in context.

West at #10 is not a bad choice. IMHO, he was the second greatest post-season scorer in NBA history, and his nick-name of "Mr. Clutch" is well-deserved. But only a one-time MVP (as was Hakeem), one Finals MVP (the only player to ever win it playing on the losing team), and one ring, are slightly behind Hakeem's two Finals MVPs and two rings. Still, Hakeem never had a truly GREAT regular season (yes, he had many very good one's...but so did West.) And while Hakeem's defense has been very much over-rated here, he was still a great defender. Having said that, though, so was West. In any case, West and Hakeem are very close, and I don't have a problem with either.

All-in-all, a very solid list.

[Disaprine]

1. Wilt/Bill
2. Jordan/Kareem
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Kobe

honestly, wilt, bill, jordan, russell, any of those guys could be the goat. similar to number 10, moses malone, dr. j, kobe, any of those guys could be number 10.

[jlauber]

1. Wilt/Bill
2. Jordan/Kareem
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Hakeem
9. Duncan
10. Kobe

honestly, wilt, bill, jordan, russell, any of those guys could be the goat. similar to number 10, moses malone, dr. j, kobe, any of those guys could be number 10.

EXCELLENT post.

:cheers:

[gengiskhan]

he doesnt belong there higher than shaq or duncan..... thats the most stupid rank ive seen in my entire life all in all..... you did another stupid thing also... you totally ditched oscar ****ing robertson.....

which in essence puts kobe where he belongs... at #11-#15 somewhere...

now way Kobe can ever belong ahead of H.A.K.E.E.M or S.H.A.Q

Kobe at best #11 GOAT.

Hakeem. sweapt 1993-1995 season. NBA MVP, NBA DPOY, NBA Finals MVP.

Kobe even failed to win NBA MVP & NBA FINALS MVP in same year.

Kobe at 11 or 12. Shaq & Hakeem Top 8 GOATs ever for sheer dominance in their era.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Kobe is NOT a top 10 player of all time, end of the thread.

[gengiskhan]

Kobe is NOT a top 10 player of all time, end of the thread.

what angers me is how

ISH forumers insult HAKEEM despite sweeping 1993-1994 season & then butt raping 1994-1995 NBA MVP D'Rob in WCF & then SHAQ in 1995 finals.

HAKEEM's back-2-back Finals MVPs >>>>>>>>>>>>>Kobe's back-2-back finals MVPs.

HAKEEM's beat arch nemesis Ewing then D'Rob then Shaq. all 3 all time GOATs.

KOBE never beat WADE or LEBRON, his arch rivals.

[Sterlingsucks]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell
7. Shaq
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Kobe
10. Tim Duncan

then followed by J. West, Hakeem, Dr. J, Karl Malone, and John Stockton

[Kiddlovesnets]

Well lets revisit ISH's top 50 players from this thread:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57766

Kobe was ranked at No.24, the players ahead of him were:
ISH 100 Greatest NBA Players of All-Time
1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan
11. Jerry West
12. Julius Erving
13. Moses Malone
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Bob Pettit
16. John Havlicek
17. Karl Malone
18. George Mikan
19. David Robinson
20. Isiah Thomas
21. Charles Barkley
22. John Stockton
23. Bob Cousy
24. Kobe Bryant

With his two titles and two final MVP, I'd move him somewhere around 14-16, but not enough to challenge the top 10 yet, not even close. There are too many Lakers and Kobe fans on ISH nowadays, they overestimate Kobe's greatness to an extent that he can even be ranked at No.7 or 8. This is so epic fail, Kobe aint even top 13 or 14 yet. Also to make things clear, Tim Duncan > Kobe Bryant, some wont admit it but its true.
:facepalm

[Ne 1]

Kobe is NOT a top 10 player of all time, end of the thread.

5 championships, NBA MVP, 2x Finals MVP, 13x All-Star, 2x scoring champion, 13 All-NBA Team selections, 11 All-Defensive Team selections, 27868 total career points (6th all-time), 5280 playoff points (3rd all-time), 81 points in regulation etc. etc. and you don't think he's top 10 yet? :facepalm

I would love to see who you have ranked over him.

[Kiddlovesnets]

5 championships, NBA MVP, 2x Finals MVP, 13x All-Star, 2x scoring champion, 13 All-NBA Team selections, 11 All-Defensive Team selections, 27868 total career points (6th all-time), 5280 playoff points (3rd all-time), 81 points in regulation etc. etc. and you don't think he's top 10 yet? :facepalm

I would love to see who you have ranked over him.

I already made a new post, if you wanna know, these are definitely better:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan
11. Jerry West
12. Julius Erving
13. Moses Malone

The other five may be close call:
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Bob Pettit
16. John Havlicek
17. Karl Malone
18. George Mikan

I'd rank Kobe somewhere around 14-16, which is where he truly belongs.

[dynasty1978]

I'd rank Kobe somewhere around 14-16, which is where he truly belongs.

In your opinion, which is invalid. :facepalm

[gengiskhan]

5 championships, NBA MVP, 2x Finals MVP, 13x All-Star, 2x scoring champion, 13 All-NBA Team selections, 11 All-Defensive Team selections, 27868 total career points (6th all-time), 5280 playoff points (3rd all-time), 81 points in regulation etc. etc. and you don't think he's top 10 yet? :facepalm

I would love to see who you have ranked over him.

Yes. you moron. Kobe is still not top 10. Kobe is volume scorer & shot jocker & ball hogger. Please take away his last 2 all-def 1st team. It belongs to Wade. :facepalm

2007-2008 MVP Kobe lost NBA finals to much older Ray Allen SG.:facepalm
2003-2004 Kobe Bryant lost NBA finals MVP to SG Chauncy Billips despite having the most dominant center of 2000 decade on lakers. :facepalm

Ever heard of Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan. All 3 more dominant than Kobe ever was even in his prime.

Kobe **********s like you need to get off his nuts & start facing reality. He is Top 12 GOATs & not Top 10 & definitely not Top 8 GOATs.

He just doesn't have the sheer dominance of Top 10. He is a points accumulator, volume scorer who takes tons of bad FG attempts.

[Ne 1]

Well lets revisit ISH's top 50 players from this thread:


Elliot Kalb ranked Kobe at #18 in his book that was published in 2003. It's 2011 now, its it really shocking that most people have moved him up to their top 10 since then?

[Kiddlovesnets]

In your opinion, which is invalid. :facepalm

How is my opinion invalid? You live in Kobe's era, you only saw Kobe winning his two rings and thus Kobe is better than Hakeem, Julius Erving and even Tim Duncan.
:facepalm

[dynasty1978]

1) Michael Jordan
2) KAJ
3) Bill Russell
4) Magic Johnson
5) Larry Bird
6) Wilt Chamberlain
7) Tim Duncan
8) Shaquille O'neal
9) Kobe Bryant
10) Hakeem

[dynasty1978]

Typical Kobe trolls have Kobe out of the top 10, while his Stans prop him to 6 and above.

Somewhere in the middle (7-10) is about right, which happens to be where most REASONABLE posters have him.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Typical Kobe trolls have Kobe out of the top 10, while his Stans prop him to 6 and above.

Somewhere in the middle (7-10) is about right, which happens to be where most REASONABLE posters have him.

Not giving up yet? Kone is not a top 10 player of all time, never was and never will be(since he is already washed up this season).

[dynasty1978]

Not giving up yet? Kone is not a top 10 player of all time, never was and never will be(since he is already washed up this season).

Spoken like a true TROLL. Good Day. :cheers:

[Kiddlovesnets]

Spoken like a true TROLL. Good Day. :cheers:

lol its funny how you classify me as a troll simply because I dont have Kobe at top 10. :D

But guesss what? I am not alone, read the posts above, many people dont have Kobe at top 10, and they all have good reasons.

[Ne 1]

I already made a new post, if you wanna know, these are definitely better:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan
11. Jerry West
12. Julius Erving
13. Moses Malone

The other five may be close call:
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Bob Pettit
16. John Havlicek
17. Karl Malone
18. George Mikan

I'd rank Kobe somewhere around 14-16, which is where he truly belongs.

:oldlol:

Most reasonable fans already had him in the top 10-15 before '09, but now it's not even an argument. All he needed was a championship as his teams best player, he already had everything else.

Kareem, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Russell, Duncan, Hakeem and Wilt are the only players that can be ranked in front of him. No one else has a case.

Take into consideration the following things:
- Peak play
- Overall career stats
- Awards/Records/Accomplishments
- Championships
etc.

There really aren't more than 9 players that can be ranked in front of him. None of those other guys you listed haven't done anything to place themselves over Kobe Bryant.

[LA_Showtime]

Typical Kobe trolls have Kobe out of the top 10, while his Stans prop him to 6 and above.

Somewhere in the middle (7-10) is about right, which happens to be where most REASONABLE posters have him.

He's in the 8-10 range, and he's not going anywhere until LeBron or Wade do something significant. I expect LeBron to eventually bump him out. I think one title + some other significant achievement (either another title or MVP) would do it.

[az00m]

Kareem has far to many loop holes in his career.

Also bird > magic

[Kiddlovesnets]

:oldlol:

Most reasonable fans already had him in the top 10-15 before '09, but now it's not even an argument. All he needed was a championship as his teams best player, he already had everything else.

Kareem, Jordan, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Russell, Duncan, Hakeem and Wilt are the only players that can be ranked in front of him. No one else has a case.

Take into consideration the following things:
- Peak play
- Overall career stats
- Awards/Records/Accomplishments
- Championships
etc.

There really aren't more than 9 players that can be ranked in front of him. None of those other guys you listed haven't done anything to place themselves over Kobe Bryant.

Still have a hard time accepting the reality that Kobe is just a top 15 player? It must hurt, but thats life and you will have to get over it.

[Sarcastic]

1 Air
2 Wilt
3 Magic
4 Lew Alcindor
5 William Felton Russell
6 Big Aristotle
7 the hick from French Lick
8 Olajuwon
9 Kobe
10 Timmy D

8, 9, and 10 are pretty much a toss up for me though. You can jumble them around in any order.

Lebron will be on this list in about 2-3 years btw with a title or two.

[Ne 1]

In your opinion, which is invalid. :facepalm

Yup.

:oldlol: @ top 14-16

Do these guys have any sense of how to evaluate a players legacy? He seems to be struggling placing today's players in historical context.

He has: 5 championships, 2 Finals MVP, League MVP, 2 scoring titles, 7 finals appearances, excellent statistics, and he's not even breaking the top 15 yet? :oldlol:

[Ne 1]

Still have a hard time accepting the reality that Kobe is just a top 15 player? It must hurt, but thats life and you will have to get over it.

Wow! What a well thought out, reasonable post. Surely you will change my mind with this. :rolleyes:

[dynasty1978]

He's in the 8-10 range, and he's not going anywhere until LeBron or Wade do something significant. I expect LeBron to eventually bump him out. I think one title + some other significant achievement (either another title or MVP) would do it.

I think if Lebron definitively leads his team to titles (multiple), he's a lock. Of course, if say Wade steals the shine and walks away w/2 more Finals MVPs, it's going to be a tough sell to add LBJ to the top 10.

[Ne 1]

I think if Lebron definitively leads his team to titles (multiple), he's a lock. Of course, if say Wade steals the shine and walks away w/2 more Finals MVPs, it's going to be a tough sell to add LBJ to the top 10.

You know for the past few year I've thought that LeBron could go down as a top 15 player or so all-time, even if he never won a ring. However with the team he's on now though and himself saying the Heat will win at least 8 titles, his legacy will take a hit if he dosen't win a title within the next two years IMO.

[G.O.A.T]

I already made a new post, if you wanna know, these are definitely better:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan
11. Jerry West
12. Julius Erving
13. Moses Malone

The other five may be close call:
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Bob Pettit
16. John Havlicek
17. Karl Malone
18. George Mikan

I'd rank Kobe somewhere around 14-16, which is where he truly belongs.

Why would Oscar, Jerry West, Julius Erving or Hakeem Olajuwon be ahead of Kobe? He's had more individual and team success and greater longevity.

Moses shouldn't be above him either, but I can see someone making a case because of his three MVP's, though I disagree.

Russell, Wilt, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Mikan, Duncan, Hakeem, Kobe.

Those are the guys in NBA history who were the best player on two or more NBA title teams. That's a pretty solid top 11.

[Ne 1]

Why would Oscar, Jerry West, Julius Erving or Hakeem Olajuwon be ahead of Kobe? He's had more individual and team success and greater longevity.

Moses shouldn't be above him either, but I can see someone making a case because of his three MVP's, though I disagree.

Russell, Wilt, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Mikan, Duncan, Hakeem, Kobe.

Those are the guys in NBA history who were the best player on two or more NBA title teams. That's a pretty solid top 11.

I actually do think you can make a case for Hakeem. I have no idea how to rank Mikan though since he played in the raw era of the NBA. I don't acknowledge players from the 40s/50s, due to the competition/rules back then and the fact that the color barrier wasn't broken until 1951.

[G.O.A.T]

I actually do think you can make a case for Hakeem. I have no idea how to rank Mikan though since he played in the raw era of the NBA. I don't acknowledge players from the 40s/50s, due to the competition/rules back then and the fact that the color barrier wasn't broken until 1951.

Hakeem over Kobe is fair, but Kobe has him beat in every measurable regard.

That guys is so clearly hating he makes a total Kobe homer like you look sensible.

[lakers_forever]

1. MJ
2. Kareem/ Wilt
4. Russell
5. Magic/Bird
7 Shaq
8 Kobe
9 Duncan
10 Olajuwon

By tier:


This is considering primes, titles, stats, all that. (will not put guys like Lebron , Wade and Dirk who still have chance of climbing the tier ladder).


Tier 1 : Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Bird and Magic (guys who have legit arguments to be considered the best ever)

Tier 2: Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Olajuwon, Oscar Robertson, Dr.J, Jerry West, and Moses Malone (guys who have a legit case to be considered top 10).

Tier 3: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor, KG, John Stockton, John Havlicek, Isaiah Thomas, Bob Pettit, George Mikan, Bob Cousy and David Robinson (i was considering adding Malone, Barkley and Baylor to tier 2, they cleary were that great, but lack of rings put them here).

Tier 4: Rick Barry, Scottie Pippen, Willis Reed, Drexler and so on.

[Ne 1]

11. Jerry West
12. Julius Erving
13. Moses Malone

None of these guys have a case over Kobe btw.


Jerry West:

He has just one championship, as arguably the third fiddle. He has no edge on Kobe awards wise, scoring wise, statistically, winning wise...absolutely none. Also, since people like to go this "failure" route with Kobe, what about West's 1-8 Finals record?

Julius Erving: Again he has just one championship, as the second best player on his team. According to Kobe detractors technically Kobe's first 3 rings aren't valid since won them with Shaq as the best player on the Lakers, well using that logic Erving's ring isn't valid either then because he won with Moses Malone as the best player on the Sixers. Kobe has the edge on him in terms of winning, scoring, statics, awards/accolades/records and peak play.

Moses Malone:

3 MVPs to Kobe's 1.
1 Finals MVP to Kobe's 2
1 championship to Kobe's 5
PER during his 5 peak years is 24.9 and Kobe's PER in his 5 peak years is 25.8 (FYI; blocks/TOs/steals were counted for him so PER is valid here) - PER is really the only real way to compare position to position and era to era statistics. Usually Kobe haters love to use PER to diminish him, but now it isn't valid, right?

[G.O.A.T]

1. MJ
2. Kareem/ Wilt
4. Russell
5. Magic/Bird
7 Shaq
8 Kobe
9 Duncan
10 Olajuwon

By tier:


This is considering primes, titles, stats, all that. (will not put guys like Lebron , Wade and Dirk who still have chance of climbing the tier ladder).


Tier 1 : Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Bird and Magic (guys who have legit arguments to be considered the best ever)

Tier 2: Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Olajuwon, Oscar Robertson, Dr.J, Jerry West, and Moses Malone (guys who have a legit case to be considered top 10).

Tier 3: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor, KG, John Stockton, John Havlicek, Isaiah Thomas, Bob Pettit, George Mikan, Bob Cousy and David Robinson (i was considering adding Malone, Barkley and Baylor to tier 2, they cleary were that great, but lack of rings put them here).

Tier 4: Rick Barry, Scottie Pippen, Willis Reed, Drexler and so on.


Well done.

Move Barry up a tier though. That's one of the10-15 guys who led a team to a title as the clear #1 and he did it without a legit #2 option.

I'd move Stockton down a peg too, but he has a case for inclusion in that third group. However I don't think he belongs ahead of Walt Frazier on any all-time list (non-stat related)

[G.O.A.T]

None of these guys have a case over Kobe btw.


Jerry West:

He has just one championship, as arguably the third fiddle. He has no edge on Kobe awards wise, scoring wise, statistically, winning wise...absolutely none. Also, since people like to go this "failure" route with Kobe, what about West's 1-8 Finals record?

Julius Erving: Again he has just one championship, as the second best player on his team. According to Kobe detractors technically Kobe's first 3 rings aren't valid since won them with Shaq as the best player on the Lakers, well using that logic Erving's ring isn't valid either then because he won with Moses Malone as the best player on the Sixers. Kobe has the edge on him in terms of winning, scoring, statics, awards/accolades/records and peak play.

Moses Malone:

3 MVPs to Kobe's 1.
1 Finals MVP to Kobe's 2
1 championship to Kobe's 5
PER during his 5 peak years is 24.9 and Kobe's PER in his 5 peak years is 25.8 (FYI; blocks/TOs/steals were counted for him so PER is valid here) - PER is really the only real way to compare position to position and era to era statistics. Usually Kobe haters love to use PER to diminish him, but now it isn't valid, right?

Moses has a case because of his 3 MVP's and higher peak.

West was in a 1A/1B with the '72 Lakers. There is no argument that he was their #3, Goodrich was a scorer and little else. West was their best playmaker, perimeter scorer ad go-to-guy in the clutch. But still, Kobe has clearly surpassed him IMO.


Doc peaked as the best player in the world in '76, Kobe has never been he clear best player IMO, though he's been in the conversation for nearly a decade.

[10x91= 5 Rings]

None of these guys have a case over Kobe btw.


Jerry West:

He has just one championship, as arguably the third fiddle. He has no edge on Kobe awards wise, scoring wise, statistically, winning wise...absolutely none. Also, since people like to go this "failure" route with Kobe, what about West's 1-8 Finals record?

Julius Erving: Again he has just one championship, as the second best player on his team. According to Kobe detractors technically Kobe's first 3 rings aren't valid since won them with Shaq as the best player on the Lakers, well using that logic Erving's ring isn't valid either then because he won with Moses Malone as the best player on the Sixers. Kobe has the edge on him in terms of winning, scoring, statics, awards/accolades/records and peak play.

Moses Malone:

3 MVPs to Kobe's 1.
1 Finals MVP to Kobe's 2
1 championship to Kobe's 5
PER during his 5 peak years is 24.9 and Kobe's PER in his 5 peak years is 25.8 (FYI; blocks/TOs/steals were counted for him so PER is valid here) - PER is really the only real way to compare position to position and era to era statistics. Usually Kobe haters love to use PER to diminish him, but now it isn't valid, right?

tztztztztzt........ever heard of the ABA????

NBA Champion (1983)
2

[Ne 1]

I'm just curious why nobody ever really has Shaq in the same tier as Magic/Bird?

If ranking by tiers it goes like this IMO:

First tier (strong GOAT candidates): Kareem, Jordan, Russell, Wilt

Second tier: (weak GOAT candidates): Bird, Magic, Shaq

Third tier: (Top 5 at best candidates): Hakeem, Kobe, Duncan

Fourth tier (weak top 10 candidates): Moses, Dr. J, Jerry West

Why do most people have Shaq in the same class as Hakeem/Kobe/Duncan and not Bird/Magic?

When you look at winning, peak play, longevity and impact on teams during his prime (Orlando, L.A. and Miami years).....I think he's clearly up there.

[KingBeasley08]

Jordan
KAJ
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Bird
Magic
Kobe
Duncan
Hakeem

[gengiskhan]

I'm just curious why nobody ever really has Shaq in the same tier as Magic/Bird?

If ranking by tiers it goes like this IMO:

First tier (strong GOAT candidates): Kareem, Jordan, Russell, Wilt

Second tier: (weak GOAT candidates): Bird, Magic, Shaq

Third tier: (Top 5 at best candidates): Hakeem, Kobe, Duncan

Fourth tier (weak top 10 candidates): Moses, Dr. J, Jerry West

Why do most people have Shaq in the same class as Hakeem/Kobe/Duncan and not Bird/Magic?

When you look at winning, peak play, longevity and impact on teams during his prime (Orlando, L.A. and Miami years).....I think he's clearly up there.

You may be a lot stupider than you think. :roll:

Magic & Bird are 2nd tier GOAT?:facepalm

Bird won Back-2-back-2-back Reg Sea MVPs over Magic. 3 consequitive. :rolleyes: Bird beat Magic for ROTY honors. :rolleyes:

Shaq is not above Hakeem. Hakeem is Top 8 GOATs. Hakeem butt raped 2nd year veteran Shaq in 1995 NBA finals. before that Hakeem butt raped Ewing & D'Rob.

so please, do not insult Hakeem by putting him in Kobe's catagory. Kobe is a 4th tier GOAT. Hakeem is a teacher of Kobe. go watch some kobe student videos on youtube.

Shaq will always always be above Kobe in GOAT catagory. & also above Duncan who is above kobe. Shaq absolutely dominated '00 decade at front court PF/C position like MJ dominated backcourt SG/PG/2G position in '90s like Hakeem absolutely dominated PF/C position in '90s decade.

jordan>Magic=Bird>Hakeem>Shaq in that order.

dont give a fk where overrated kobe who won a toss up finals MVP vs gasol last year.

[G.O.A.T]

Hakeem absolutely dominated PF/C position in '90s decade.

Not true at all. Robinson/Ewing/Hakeem were all very close throughout the decade, only for those two years did Hakeem seperate himself. And Hakeem essentially never played PF.

[lakers_forever]

Not true at all. Robinson/Ewing/Hakeem were all very close throughout the decade, only for those two years did Hakeem seperate himself. And Hakeem essentially never played PF.

:applause: Olajuwon only made the All NBA 1st team two times in the 90's.
He did not dominate the center position the same way Shaq did in the late 90's to mid 00's.

[edhemsoccer]

:applause: Olajuwon only made the All NBA 1st team two times in the 90's.
He did not dominate the center position the same way Shaq did in the late 90's to mid 00's.



Would Olajuwon even have 2 rings if Jordan never "retired?" I say no, and nobody can change my mind on that.

[KevinNYC]

Not true at all. Robinson/Ewing/Hakeem were all very close throughout the decade, only for those two years did Hakeem separate himself. And Hakeem essentially never played PF.

Even when he was Akeem and teamed up with Ralph Sampson?

And I think he MJ was around he has 8 titles and Hakeem has none.

[jlauber]

The more I study Hakeem's career, the LESS impressed with it I become. He is a borderline top-10 player, at BEST. ONE MVP, in EIGHTEEN years for cryingoutloud. CAREER averages of 21.8 ppg, 11.1 rpg, .512 FG%, and 3.1 bpg. Highest scoring season... 27.8 ppg. Highest rebounding seasons...14.0 rpg. Highest FG% season... .538 (in his ROOKIE season BTW.) Best BPG season...4.6 bpg (in an era when world champion low-jumper, Mark Eaton set an NBA "record" of 5.6 bpg.)

He NEVER won ONE scoring title. He won two rebounding titles. And he won three BPG titles.

He won two rings and Finals MVP's, one in a year in which MJ did not play. And I still don't see him as more than battling a yound Shaq to a draw in the '95 Finals. My god, he barely outscored Shaq, was outrebounded, and outblocked By Shaq...and outshot by Shaq by a .595 to .483 margin in those four games.

He basically built the vast majority of his career on outplaying Ewing and Robinson in the playoffs in those TWO playoff runs. Meanwhile, in 42regular season H2H games against Robinson, his TEAM went 12-30. And take a look at those H2H's...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

Almost IDENTICAL numbers across the ENTIRE statistical spectrum...except Hakeem outscored Robinson by a 21.9 ppg to 19.6 ppg margin...and Robinson outshot Hakeem from the field by a .488 to .441 margin.

How about Hakeem vs. Shaq in their 20 regular season H2H's...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=olajuha01

Shaq pretty much OWNED Hakeem in those 20 games. And while everyone remembers a prime Hakeem besting a young Shaq in the '95 Finals, very few bring up the fact that a PRIME Shaq just ABUSED a washed-up Hakeem in the '99 playoffs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199905150HOU.html

Hakeem averaged 13.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg and shot .426
Shaq averaged 29.5 ppg, 10.3 rpg, and shot .523.


Sorry, I just don't see Hakeem's resume much better, if at all, than Oscar's, West's, or Moses' (as well as Pettit and Mikan's.) I don't think it is as strong as Bird's or Kobe's. And he clearly has no business being mentioned in the same conversation with Duncan, nor Shaq (who badly outplayed Hakeem in the majority of their games...and was considerably more dominant in his peak seasons). And his career was LIGHT YEARS behind those of Kareem, Wilt, Magic, MJ, and Russell.

[DMAVS41]

The more I study Hakeem's career, the LESS impressed with it I become. He is a borderline top-10 player, at BEST. ONE MVP, in EIGHTEEN years for cryingoutloud. CAREER averages of 21.8 ppg, 11.1 rpg, .512 FG%, and 3.1 bpg. Highest scoring season... 27.8 ppg. Highest rebounding seasons...14.0 rpg. Highest FG% season... .538 (in his ROOKIE season BTW.) Best BPG season...4.6 bpg (in an era when world champion low-jumper, Mark Eaton set an NBA "record" of 5.6 bpg.)

He NEVER won ONE scoring title. He won two rebounding titles. And he won three BPG titles.

He won two rings and Finals MVP's, one in a year in which MJ did not play. And I still don't see him as more than battling a yound Shaq to a draw in the '95 Finals. My god, he barely outscored Shaq, was outrebounded, and outblocked By Shaq...and outshot by Shaq by a .595 to .483 margin in those four games.

He basically built the vast majority of his career on outplaying Ewing and Robinson in the playoffs in those TWO playoff runs. Meanwhile, in 42regular season H2H games against Robinson, his TEAM went 12-30. And take a look at those H2H's...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

Almost IDENTICAL numbers across the ENTIRE statistical spectrum...except Hakeem outscored Robinson by a 21.9 ppg to 19.6 ppg margin...and Robinson outshot Hakeem from the field by a .488 to .441 margin.

How about Hakeem vs. Shaq in their 20 regular season H2H's...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=olajuha01

Shaq pretty much OWNED Hakeem in those 20 games. And while everyone remembers a prime Hakeem besting a young Shaq in the '95 Finals, very few bring up the fact that a PRIME Shaq just ABUSED a washed-up Hakeem in the '99 playoffs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199905150HOU.html

Hakeem averaged 13.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg and shot .426
Shaq averaged 29.5 ppg, 10.3 rpg, and shot .523.


Sorry, I just don't see Hakeem's resume much better, if at all, than Oscar's, West's, or Moses' (as well as Pettit and Mikan's.) I don't think it is as strong as Bird's or Kobe's. And he clearly has no business being mentioned in the same conversation with Duncan, nor Shaq (who badly outplayed Hakeem in the majority of their games...and was considerably more dominant in his peak seasons). And his career was LIGHT YEARS behind those of Kareem, Wilt, Magic, MJ, and Russell.

This is true. This goes back to the age old discussion of how we rank players. Is it more resume/career.....or level of play and impact?

On resume alone, I have no problem with someone putting Kobe or West or Oscar or Moses over Hakeem.

As a player though in terms of impact? There is no way Kobe had a bigger impact than Hakeem. I can't speak for West or Oscar because I missed most of their careers.

But if I'm starting a team and I have to pick Hakeem or Kobe....its not even close for me.

[jlauber]

This is true. This goes back to the age old discussion of how we rank players. Is it more resume/career.....or level of play and impact?

On resume alone, I have no problem with someone putting Kobe or West or Oscar or Moses over Hakeem.

As a player though in terms of impact? There is no way Kobe had a bigger impact than Hakeem. I can't speak for West or Oscar because I missed most of their careers.

But if I'm starting a team and I have to pick Hakeem or Kobe....its not even close for me.

You have a good point, but still, most here focus on Hakeem's two rings...and seldom bring up his MANY failures. I have seen Wilt ripped here for his post-season losses (and MANY of them narrow game seven losses in either conference Finals or the Finals), while Hakeem gets praised for his post-season career...which included EIGHT FIRST ROUND EXITS in his 15 season post-season career (in 18 seasons.)

[D.J.]

1)Michael Jordan
2)Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3)Wilt Chamberlain
4)Larry Bird
5)Magic Johnson
6)Bill Russell
7)Hakeem Olajuwon
8)Shaquille O'Neal
9)Tim Duncan
10)Oscar Robertson


1- MJ should be everyone's #1. Anyone that doesn't is simply out of their mind.

2 and 3- Kareem and Wilt are the most dominant big men of all-time. Wilt was more dominant, but Kareem had such insane longevity where the only one that comes close is Karl Malone. I personally have Kareem at #2 and Wilt at #3, but I wouldn't hold it against someone if they went vice versa.

4 and 5- I rank Bird over Magic because of his ball IQ, better defense, shooting ability, and clutch play. The better question is how Magic would have done if Kareem wasn't playing at such a high level until '86-'87.

6- I know Russell wasn't the most skilled, but he anchored Boston's defense and he has 11 rings. That can't be overlooked.

7 and 8- I rank Hakeem over Shaq because of his dominance at both ends of the court and his defensive abilities. Shaq was better offensively. Not light years ahead, but noticeably better. He also coasted and didn't give it 100% all the time. Hakeem was light years ahead of Shaq defensively, outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals as a 32 year old(stats don't tell the whole story), and won 2 titles with a weak supporting cast, even weaker than Duncan's Spurs.

9- Duncan won 4 titles without any team having a strong supporting cast. He had an aging/washed up David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, Malik Rose, Jaren Jackson, Steve Kerr, Kevin Willis, 2nd year Tony Parker, rookie Manu Ginobili, Stephen Jackson, Speedy Claxton, Nazr Mohammed, Fabricio Oberto, and Brent Barry just to name some of them. Duncan didn't quite have Hakeem's or Shaq's dominance, but he was up there. He is easily the GOAT PF. He anchored the Spurs defense, carried weak teams, was a dominant post defender, good outside shot, and one of the clutchest players in NBA history.

10- Oscar was the Jason Kidd of his time. Good all-around play, even averaged a triple-double for a season. He was basically a slightly shorter version of Magic Johnson.

[jlauber]

1)Michael Jordan
2)Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3)Wilt Chamberlain
4)Larry Bird
5)Magic Johnson
6)Bill Russell
7)Hakeem Olajuwon
8)Shaquille O'Neal
9)Tim Duncan
10)Oscar Robertson


1- MJ should be everyone's #1. Anyone that doesn't is simply out of their mind.

2 and 3- Kareem and Wilt are the most dominant big men of all-time. Wilt was more dominant, but Kareem had such insane longevity where the only one that comes close is Karl Malone. I personally have Kareem at #2 and Wilt at #3, but I wouldn't hold it against someone if they went vice versa.

4 and 5- I rank Bird over Magic because of his ball IQ, better defense, shooting ability, and clutch play. The better question is how Magic would have done if Kareem wasn't playing at such a high level until '86-'87.

6- I know Russell wasn't the most skilled, but he anchored Boston's defense and he has 11 rings. That can't be overlooked.

7 and 8- I rank Hakeem over Shaq because of his dominance at both ends of the court and his defensive abilities. Shaq was better offensively. Not light years ahead, but noticeably better. He also coasted and didn't give it 100% all the time. Hakeem was light years ahead of Shaq defensively, outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals as a 32 year old(stats don't tell the whole story), and won 2 titles with a weak supporting cast, even weaker than Duncan's Spurs.

9- Duncan won 4 titles without any team having a strong supporting cast. He had an aging/washed up David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, Malik Rose, Jaren Jackson, Steve Kerr, Kevin Willis, 2nd year Tony Parker, rookie Manu Ginobili, Stephen Jackson, Speedy Claxton, Nazr Mohammed, Fabricio Oberto, and Brent Barry just to name some of them. Duncan didn't quite have Hakeem's or Shaq's dominance, but he was up there. He is easily the GOAT PF. He anchored the Spurs defense, carried weak teams, was a dominant post defender, good outside shot, and one of the clutchest players in NBA history.

10- Oscar was the Jason Kidd of his time. Good all-around play, even averaged a triple-double for a season. He was basically a slightly shorter version of Magic Johnson.

The better question would be...how would have Kareem's career have been without Magic. Here is what we do know...

Kareem won ONE title, in the '71 season. And has there ever been an easier road to a title than what his Bucks had that season? They beat a 41-41 Warrior team in the first round of the playoffs. They then beat a 48-34 Laker team in the next round, in a series in which NEITHER West nor Baylor played, and in a series in which a Chamberlain, at well past his peak, and only a year removed from major knee surgery battled Kareem to a statistical draw. Then they swept a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals.

In the entire rest of the decade of the 70's, Kareem, and his team's were basically flops...plain-and-simple. He either played poorly in big games, or played poorly in entire playoff series. He couldn't carry stacked team's to titles in the weakest decade for championship team's in NBA history (the '75 Warriors went 47-35; the '77 Blazers, who at 49-33 not only swept Kareem's 53-29 Lakers, they went on to win the title; the '78 Bullets who went 44-38; and the '79 52-30 Sonics who drubbed a stacked Laker team 4-1, and pounded them in the first round the year before.) Geezus...Rick Barry, playing with rooke Wilkes, and very little else, won a title...while Kareem with a near-prime Wilkes, Hudson, Nixon, and Dantley, were blown away two straight years by a Sonics team with only one borderline HOFer in Dennis Johnson

Then, in the clinching game six of the '80 Finals, and with Kareem at home placing a band-aid on his ankle, Magic CARRIED the Lakers to a title with one of the greatest games in Finals history...en route to the Finals MVP.

With Magic battling an injury and nowhere near 100% in '81, and with Moses battering a Kareem who could not do what Magic did the year before (and elevate his game with an injured partner), the Lakers were knocked off by a 40-42 Rockets team.

Kareem played worse than normal in '82 as well, but with Magic again playing BRILLIANTLY, the Lakers won the title and Magic again won the Finals MVP.

In '83, Magic played poorly, but Kareem was treated like a step-child by Moses again, and the Lakers were swept.

In '84, while Magic contributed to LA's choke job in a series they should have swept, Kareem didn't help matters with his awful 7-25 shooting performance in game five. And Magic (.560) easily outshot both Kareem (.481) and Bird (.484), and led LA in rebounding.

Kareem FINALLY had a better Finals than Magic in '85 (the ONLY time in their careers)...although Magic was the real catalyst behind a Laker offense that averaged 126 ppg in the post-season.)

In '86, Kareem, who had just PUMMELED Hakeem during the regular season, was outplayed by him in the WCF's, and LA was stunned by a 54-28 Rockets team.

In '87 Magic AND Worthy led LA to a title, with Kareem contributing as the "third wheel."

In '88 it was again Magic and Worthy leading LA to a title, DESPITE Kareem's AWFUL post-season play (and even WORSE Finals in which he averaged 13 ppg, 4 rpg, and shot .414.) My god, Green and Thompson BOTH played FAR better than Kareem that post-season.

And in '89, LA, behind Magic went into the Finals at 11-0. BUT, whne Magic went down mid-way in game two, and was lost for the series...well, the Lakesr were swept. Kareem contributed absolutely NOTHING in that series.


So, here we go...

BEFORE Magic...the Lakers, with players like Nixon, Hudon, Wilkes, Dantley and Kareem were not much more than ordinary.

WITH Magic, they averaged 59 wins per season in his 12 years; went to NINE Finals, and won FIVE rings.

WITH Magic...and without Kareem, who retired after the '89 season...the Lakers went 63-19 (best record in the league...and their 2nd best record in the decade of the 80's), and then 58-24 and with Magic carrying a well-past their prime, and injury-riddled Laker team to yet another Finals.

Then, AFTER Magic retired...LA plummetted to 43-39, and then 39-43 records.

And, during Magic's and Kareem's 10 years in the league together, MAGIC outvoted Kareem in the MVP balloting in their last EIGHT seasons.

Now, you tell me who benefitted more...Magic, or Kareem?

[DMAVS41]

You have a good point, but still, most here focus on Hakeem's two rings...and seldom bring up his MANY failures. I have seen Wilt ripped here for his post-season losses (and MANY of them narrow game seven losses in either conference Finals or the Finals), while Hakeem gets praised for his post-season career...which included EIGHT FIRST ROUND EXITS in his 15 season post-season career (in 18 seasons.)

Well said. I totally agree.

And I'd laugh at anyone ranking Hakeem over Wilt.

Hakeem is tough because his 94 Title is probably the most impressive title in the modern era (didn't seen Barry in 75).....and he won it back to back.

Plus he has some of the best playoff numbers ever and provides all time great defense.

He just had a huge impact...and sadly much like KG, we'll never really know what he could have done with a great 2nd option and team around him his entire career.

[nycelt84]

My Top 10 list
1.Michael Jordan
2.Bill Russell
3.Wilt Chamberlain
4.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5.Larry Bird
6.Magic Johnson
7.Shaquille O'Neal
8.Kobe Bryant
9.Tim Duncan
10.Julius Erving on his combined ABA/NBA play

[G.O.A.T]

1)Michael Jordan
2)Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3)Wilt Chamberlain
4)Larry Bird
5)Magic Johnson
6)Bill Russell
7)Hakeem Olajuwon
8)Shaquille O'Neal
9)Tim Duncan
10)Oscar Robertson


1- MJ should be everyone's #1. Anyone that doesn't is simply out of their mind.

2 and 3- Kareem and Wilt are the most dominant big men of all-time. Wilt was more dominant, but Kareem had such insane longevity where the only one that comes close is Karl Malone. I personally have Kareem at #2 and Wilt at #3, but I wouldn't hold it against someone if they went vice versa.

4 and 5- I rank Bird over Magic because of his ball IQ, better defense, shooting ability, and clutch play. The better question is how Magic would have done if Kareem wasn't playing at such a high level until '86-'87.

6- I know Russell wasn't the most skilled, but he anchored Boston's defense and he has 11 rings. That can't be overlooked.

7 and 8- I rank Hakeem over Shaq because of his dominance at both ends of the court and his defensive abilities. Shaq was better offensively. Not light years ahead, but noticeably better. He also coasted and didn't give it 100% all the time. Hakeem was light years ahead of Shaq defensively, outplayed Shaq in the '95 Finals as a 32 year old(stats don't tell the whole story), and won 2 titles with a weak supporting cast, even weaker than Duncan's Spurs.

9- Duncan won 4 titles without any team having a strong supporting cast. He had an aging/washed up David Robinson, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, Malik Rose, Jaren Jackson, Steve Kerr, Kevin Willis, 2nd year Tony Parker, rookie Manu Ginobili, Stephen Jackson, Speedy Claxton, Nazr Mohammed, Fabricio Oberto, and Brent Barry just to name some of them. Duncan didn't quite have Hakeem's or Shaq's dominance, but he was up there. He is easily the GOAT PF. He anchored the Spurs defense, carried weak teams, was a dominant post defender, good outside shot, and one of the clutchest players in NBA history.

10- Oscar was the Jason Kidd of his time. Good all-around play, even averaged a triple-double for a season. He was basically a slightly shorter version of Magic Johnson.

By ranking him sixth you're overlooking most of accomplishments and skills. He is the one guy who can be above Jordan. He was easily more dominant than Wilt and Kareem.

[BallsOut]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Kobe Bryant
8. Tim Duncan
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Hakeem Olujawon

:bowdown:

[StateOfMind12]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Tim Duncan
10. Kobe Bryant

Lebron will eventually kick Kobe out of the top 10. I don't know where LeBron will end up but if I had to take a guess he will end up #4 or #5.

[fpliii]

my top 10 (of retired players)

Jordan
Kareem, Magic, Russell, Wilt, Bird in some order
Hakeem, Shaq, Oscar, West in some order

Kobe and Duncan will land somewhere in the top 10 and knock Oscar/West out when they retire

[Freedom Kid7]

1. Jordan
2. Kareem/Lew
3. Magic
4. Russell
5. Bird
6. Wilt
7. Shaq
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe

[Deuce Bigalow]

1. Jordan
2. Magic
3. Russell
4. Kareem
5. Bird
6. Shaq
7. Kobe
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem
10. Mikan

HM: Wilt

u mad jlauber?

[BallsOut]

1. Bill Russell
2. Michael Jordan
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Magic Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Kobe Bryant
7. Tim Duncan
8. Shaquille O'Neal
9. Hakeem Olujawon
10. Wilt Chamberlain

[Faptastrophe]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Larry Bird
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Bill Russell
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Shaq O’Neal
10. Tim Duncan

14. LeBron James

40.-ish Steve Nash

[BallsOut]

[QUOTE=Faptastrophe]1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Larry Bird
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Bill Russell
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Shaq O

[StateOfMind12]

14. LeBron James

40.-ish Steve Nash
Nash is in the 25-30 range for me and LeBron is #11 to me.

I made a top 40 list a few days ago, you should check it out.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=268753&page=23



1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Magic Johnson
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5. Larry Bird
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Tim Duncan
10. Kobe Bryant
11. LeBron James
12. Julius Erving
13. Jerry West
14. Oscar Robertson
15. Moses Malone
16. Kevin Garnett
17. Karl Malone
18. Dirk Nowitzki
19. David Robinson
20. Charles Barkley
21. George Mikan
22. Bob Pettit
23. Elgin Baylor
24. Walt Frazier
25. Patrick Ewing
26. Steve Nash
27. Dwyane Wade
28. Scottie Pippen
29. John Havlicek
30. Rick Barry
31. Clyde Drexler
32. Isiah Thomas
33. Paul Pierce
34. John Stockton
35. Gary Payton
36. George Gervin
37. Jason Kidd
38. Kevin McHale
39. Willis Reed
40. Dave Cowens

[dreamshake]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hakeem at #5. He of 18 seasons, 15 post-seasons, and EIGHT first round playoff exits. ONE MVP. TWO rebound titles, and three block titles. MAYBE a COUPLE of NBA records.

And this clown has him WAY over Chamberlain.


Same with Larry Bird. Yes, three titles to two for Wilt...playing alongside the most LOADED rosters of the 80's. And, in his three titles, only two Finals MVP's. Why? Because he was AWFUL in '81. The man shot .419, and had it not been for Cedric Maxwell (of ALL people) Boston would nolt have beaten a 40-42 Houston team that year. Of course, put Bird up against the Lakers, and he was badly beaten in two of the three, and SHOULD have been SWEPT in the other. Thoroughly outplayed by Magic in two of them, and a strong case for all three. Oh, and BTW, the "clutch" Bird shot .455 in his five Finals...in league's that shot .480+.

Now, do you want to compare statistical domination between Bird and Wilt? True, Bird was a better FT shooter. Of course, in roughly the same amount of games in their careers, Wilt MADE 2000 MORE than Bird. So, who had a greater IMPACT at the line?

After that, Wilt DESTROYS Bird in EVERY statistical category. My god, Wilt was even a superior PASSER. How many times did Bird finish in the top-three in assists? Wilt did it TWICE, including LEADING the league one year.

How many scoring titles did Bird win? ZERO. How about Wilt? SEVEN...and anyone that watched him play in the 60's would attest to the fact he COULD have won several more. In his first seven seasons, he averaged 40 ppg...COMBINED! FG% titles? Bird was never even CLOSE to winning a FG% title. Chamberlain...NINE, including the TWO greatest seasons ever, and three of the top-5. Rebounding titles. LOL! Bird was not even remotely close to leading the league in rebounding in ANY season. Wilt won ELEVEN rebounding titles, and had he not been injured in 69-70, it would have been TWELVE. Oh, and BTW, he finished SECOND in his other two seasons.

So there you have it...Wilt was BY FAR, the greatest SCORER, by FAR the greatest REBOUNDER, and at peak efficiency, he was LIGHT YEARS better than anyone else at SHOOTING.

And then, how many first-team all-defensive selections did Bird have in his career? ZERO. Meanwhile Wilt "only" won two...primarily because the award did not exist until the last four years of his career (and he was injured in one of them.) How about blocked shot titles? Well, Bird TIES Wilt here. Why? Because that stat was not officially kept until the year after Chamberlain retired. HOWEVER, those that have extensively covered the sport will acknowledge that Wilt was the game's greatest shot-blocker, and probably by a solid margin.

Of course, Fecal9 is going by prime and playoffs. How many times did Bird average 30+ ppg in the post-season? ZERO. How about Chamberlain? FIVE times, with a high of 37 ppg (and two other post-seasons of 29 and 28 ppg.) How many times did Bird average 20+ rpg in his post-season career? Of course...ZERO....and not even 15 ONCE. His HIGH was 14.0, and his career average was 10.3 rpg. How many times did Wilt average 20 rpg in his post-season career? In ALL 13 of them...with a LOW of 20.2 rpg...and SEVEN of 24.7 rpg or HIGHER (with a HIGH of 30.2 rpg.) How many times did Bird shoot even 50%+ in his12 year post-season career? Twice, with .517 and .524. How about Wilt? NINE times, and EIGHT of those were better than Bird's BEST. BTW, Wilt was shooting his FG%'s in leagues that shot between .410 to .456. Bird shot his in league's that ranged from .477 to .492. AND, Bird had THREE post-seasons of .427 or WORSE.

Peak? How many 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, .543 post-seasons did Bird have? Or even 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, .579 post-seasons? BTW, BOTH of those accomplished by Wilt came in post-seasons in which he faced Russell, too. How many 37 ppg, or 35 ppg post-seasons did Bird have? Or how many 30.2, or 29.1 rpg post-seasons did Bird have? Or .579 or .563 FG% post-seasons did Bird have? Hell, how many 9.2 apg assist post-seasons did Bird have?

BTW, Wilt played in SIX Finals, to Bird's five...and was FAR superior in those six Finals than Bird was in his five. One year, Wilt, on ONE leg, averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625. And he was ripped for it.

How many RECORDS does Bird (or even Hakeem) hold? I doubt that the two COMBINED hold more than a dozen, or so. How about Chamberlain? Some 130+.

And finally, how many RULES were put in place that were aimed STRICTLY at Bird (or Hakeem)? We KNOW that there were SEVERAL instituted in a feeble attempt to curtail Wilt's absolute domination of the sport.

Hakeem and Bird are LIGHT YEARS behind Wilt in any INTELLIGENT ranking system.

:applause: vintage jlauber :bowdown:

[dreamshake]

Pretty good list, but very evasive...

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Kareem

ALL of the above have a case for #1.

6. Shaq
7. Duncan

8. Kobe

9. Hakeem
10. Bird



11. Oscar
12. Moses
13. Mikan
14. West
15. Dr. J

16. KG
17. Pettit
18. Barry
19. DRob
20. Baylor

21. Barkley
22. Hondo
23. Dirk
24. Pippen
25. K. Malone


Barkley should be ahead of Robinson though. Dirk and KG should be ahead of Hondo. Otherwise :applause:

[Mr Know It All]

1A: Kareem
1B: Michael Jordan
1C: Wilt Chamberlain
4: Magic Johnson
5: Shaquille O'Neal
6: Larry Bird
7: Bill Russell
8: Hakeem Olajuwon
9: Lebron James
10: Tim Duncan

[itsGameTime]

1A: Kareem
1B: Michael Jordan
1C: Wilt Chamberlain
4: Magic Johnson
5: Shaquille O'Neal
6: Larry Bird
7: Bill Russell
8: Hakeem Olajuwon
9: Lebron James
10: Tim Duncan

http://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gifhttp://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gifhttp://chatroulettegifs.com/black_guys_laughing.gif

[Heavincent]

1.) Jordan
2.) Kareem
3.) Russell
4.) Magic
5.) Wilt
6.) Shaq
7.) Kobe
8.) Bird
9.) Duncan
10.) Hakeem

[BallsOut]

1.) Jordan
2.) Kareem
3.) Russell
4.) Magic
5.) Wilt
6.) Shaq
7.) Kobe
8.) Bird
9.) Duncan
10.) Hakeem

:applause:

[BallsOut]

1. Jordan
2. Magic
3. Russell
4. Kareem
5. Bird
6. Shaq
7. Kobe
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem
10. Mikan

HM: Wilt

u mad jlauber?

West before Mikan imo.

[BallsOut]

Once again you're missing the point and only talking about scoring. Now that you've pointed to the boxscores we can look at the evidence.

P R A
18 21 9
19 21 3
8 13 10
8 12 7
12 12 8
26 13 5

Even in his three poor shooting games, he was close to triple double in all of them. So he had 2 monster games (1&2), a great game (6) and three near-triple doubles where he didn't shoot well (3,4,5). In 1,2 and 6 he shot 51%. In one of his poor shooting games he also had five steals. So Even on the days he wasn't shooting well, he was still making major contributions. To call these six games awful is to discount every other aspect of basketball except shooting.

Let's take a look how he did in the 4 Celtic wins

Game 1 victory, led his team in points, rebounds, assists
Game 3 victory, led his team in rebounds, assists, steals (5) and tied for lead in blocks with Maxwell (2)
Game 5 victory led team in assists, second in rebounds
Game 6 victory led team in points and rebounds and put the Rockets away with a great 4th quarter.

So in two of the wins he was clearly the best player on his team (1 and 6), in game 3 he was arguably the best player on his team or tied for it (Maxwell had a good, but not great game with 19p 10r and 0a). Game 5 is the only game where his performance was the second best on his team.


And a team that defeated Magic, Kareem and the rest of the defending champions Lakers. A team that obviously had it going on at playoff time.

So, once again, you said Bird was AWFUL in 1981 finals and when we look at the record, We see Bird stats are
PPG RPG APG SPG BPG
15,3 15,3 7,0 2.3 .5

He was the third best scorer in the series. (2nd on his own team)
He was within 1.0 rebounds of the series lead in rebounds. (Some scrub named Moses beat him.)
He had the most assists in the series.
He had the most steals in the series.
He was easily the best all-around player in the series.
He was certainly the best player on his team in two of the wins.

So I wasn't just cherry picking his good games all three of his "poor" games are near triple-doubles.

Are we gonna overlook Bird's game 5 in that series? :coleman:

[Odinn]

1. Michael Jordan
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Bill Russell
4. Larry Bird
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Magic Johnson
7. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Tim Duncan
9. Kobe Bryant
10. Hakeem Olajuwon or Moses Malone

[BlackVVaves]

LoL @ whoever put Baylor and Barkley in their Top 10 List.

1. MJ
2. Bill
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Bird
6. Wilt
7. Duncan
8. Kobe
9. Shaq
10. Hakeem OR Oscar

Wilt did not finish with a career superior to Bill Russell. Quiet that noise. The two giants dominated in the same era, play in some of the same Finals, and played the same position. How more direct can you get when comparing two players? Bill walked away with 11 titles, Wilt walked away with 2. That's a difference of 9 championships, again, in the SAME ERA. Stop it.

Magic finishes above Kareem because Magic was the undisputed leader of that team, and Kareem leaned on Magic's brilliance more than Magic leaned on Kareem's greatness. And, despite his greatness, Kareem never got to the Finals without a dominant point guard - he needed both Oscar Robertson and Magic to reach the promise land. In fact, after Oscar retired in 1974, the Bucks plunged to last place in the division. This after they had just reached the NBA Finals.

I have Kobe over Shaq simply because Kobe's career was greater than Shaq's overall. Do not get that twisted with who was more dominant in their peak, or who I would personally take first if I were a General Manager in a hypothetical "All-Time" draft. It's funny, people always say Kobe needed a "dominant big" to win titles -- let me know when Shaq got to the Finals without a dominant 2-guard. Penny, Kobe, and then Wade. When Shaq won his 4th ring, he did so watching Wade dominate the Finals, a Finals that the Heat would have lost if they had continued to try to play through Shaq. Gasol was indeed a very special and pivotal piece to Kobe's 2 rings after the Dynasty 2000 Lakers, however only a fool would concede that Gasol was more important to Kobe's rings than Wade was to Shaq's. Furthermore, Kobe proved the Lakers made the right decision trading Shaq instead of Kobe, as he went on dominate in historic fashion from 2006-2009, and entered the new decade with an MVP, another ring, a FMVP, and a 81-point game performance under his belt. Again, Shaq's prime was more dominant, probably top 3 most dominant peaks of all time actually, but Kobe has accomplished more than Shaq in his career, particularly since they split, and for that Kobe gets the nod above the Diesel.

[jlauber]

LoL @ whoever put Baylor and Barkley in their Top 10 List.

1. MJ
2. Bill
3. Magic
4. Kareem
5. Bird
6. Wilt
7. Duncan
8. Kobe
9. Shaq
10. Hakeem OR Oscar

Wilt did not finish with a career superior to Bill Russell. Quiet that noise. The two giants dominated in the same era, play in some of the same Finals, and played the same position. How more direct can you get when comparing two players? Bill walked away with 11 titles, Wilt walked away with 2. That's a difference of 9 championships, again, in the SAME ERA. Stop it.

Magic finishes above Kareem because Magic was the undisputed leader of that team, and Kareem leaned on Magic's brilliance more than Magic leaned on Kareem's greatness. And, despite his greatness, Kareem never got to the Finals without a dominant point guard - he needed both Oscar Robertson and Magic to reach the promise land. In fact, after Oscar retired in 1974, the Bucks plunged to last place in the division. This after they had just reached the NBA Finals.

I have Kobe over Shaq simply because Kobe's career was greater than Shaq's overall. Do not get that twisted with who was more dominant in their peak, or who I would personally take first if I were a General Manager in a hypothetical "All-Time" draft. It's funny, people always say Kobe needed a "dominant big" to win titles -- let me know when Shaq got to the Finals without a dominant 2-guard. Penny, Kobe, and then Wade. When Shaq won his 4th ring, he did so watching Wade dominate the Finals, a Finals that the Heat would have lost if they had continued to try to play through Shaq. Gasol was indeed a very special and pivotal piece to Kobe's 2 rings after the Dynasty 2000 Lakers, however only a fool would concede that Gasol was more important to Kobe's rings than Wade was to Shaq's. Furthermore, Kobe proved the Lakers made the right decision trading Shaq instead of Kobe, as he went on dominate in historic fashion from 2006-2009, and entered the new decade with an MVP, another ring, a FMVP, and a 81-point game performance under his belt. Again, Shaq's prime was more dominant, probably top 3 most dominant peaks of all time actually, but Kobe has accomplished more than Shaq in his career, particularly since they split, and for that Kobe gets the nod above the Diesel.

Chamberlain played with FAR inferior rosters to Russell in his first six seasons. And I mean FAR inferior. Russell enjoyed anywhere from a 6-3 to 9-1 edge in HOF teammates in those six seasons, along with having a HOF coach (while Wilt had several, some of whom had no business coaching.)

In those SIX seasons, Wilt took his 61-62 49-31 Warrior team, which had the same basic core as the LAST PLACE team he inherited in '60, thru Syarcuse in the first round (which included a series clinching performance of 56 points and 35 rebounds) to a game seven, two point loss, against Russell's 60-20 team, and their SEVEN HOFers. And in that post-season, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354. Now, you tell me how just how in the hell that Wilt could single-handedly carry that putrid roster that far? BTW, In that series, Chamberlain averaged 34 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .468. Russell averaged 22 ppg, 26 rpg, and shot .399.

In the 64-65 season, Wilt took his 40-40 Sixers, which had gone 34-46 the year before Wilt arrived, to a game seven, ONE point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, at the peak of their Dynasty. And in that series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30 ppg to 16 ppg, outrebounded Russell, per game, 31 rpg to 25 rpg, and outshot Russell by a .555 to .447 margin.

In Wilt's rookie season, again, he took what had been a LAST PLACE team, to a 49-26 record, and to a game six, two point loss, against Russell's 59-16 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. And had Chamberlain not injured his hand in game two, and played horribly in a 120-90 game three loss, who knows? He did respond with a "must-win" 50-35 game in game five (on 22-42 shooting.)

And in the '64 Finals, Russell's Celtics, with an 8-2 edge in HOFers, beat Wilt's Warriors, 4-1. However, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds (both losses for Wilt's team.) In that series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, outrebounded Russell, per game, 27-25, and outshot Russell in that series, .517 to .386.

And Wilt's teammates were so awful, that in the '61 post-season, while Chamberlain was averaging 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shooting .469, his teammates collectively shot .332. His two "HOF" teammates, Arizin and Gola, shot .325 and .206 respectively.

And in the 62-63 season, Wilt had arguably the worst roster in NBA history, and didn't even make the playoffs (in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting.) Meanwhile, Russell's Celtics won a title with NINE HOFers. Wilt's BEST teammate would have been Boston's TENTH best player.

Ok, then in Wilt's last four seasons, he finally had equal rosters to Russell. And he still could only go 1-3 against him. Why?

Why? Because his 65-66 teammates, who had helped Wilt lead Philly to the best record in the league, completely puked all over themselves in the ECF's. While Chamberlain was averaging 28 ppg, on .509 shooting, and with 30.2 rpg in that series, his teammates collectively shot .352 (yes, .352.)

How about his 67-68 Sixers, who ran away with best record in the league? The Sixer team that went 62-20 in the regular season was nowhere near the Sixer team that faced Boston in the ECF's. HOFer Billy Cunningham didn't play at all. And even without him, the Sixers STILL forged a 3-1 series lead. THEN, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. Not only that, but Chamberlain was nursing SEVERAL injuries, and in fact, was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three on (and he still played every minute of every game of that series.) THEN, in game seven, Wilt's teammates completely ignored Chamberlain in the second half, and collectively shot 25-74,...all in a 100-96 game seven loss. Think about that...with ALL of that...Wilt's decimated Sixers lost a game seven by FOUR points.

How about the 68-69 Lakers, who went 55-27? They were ONE PLAY away from winning that series in a 4-1 romp. They were leading the series, 2-1, and leading late in game four, 88-87, and WITH the ball. For some reason only known to the incompetent Butch Van Breda Kolf, Johnny Egan handled the ball in the waning seconds. The result, he lost it, and Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game winner at the buzzer. So, instead of leading the series, 3-1, it was now 2-2. And, given the fact that LA easily beat Boston in game five, that series should have been over in five.

But, that is not all. The idiotic Van Breda Kolf preferred Baylor over Wilt when it came to shooting. And while Chamberlain shot 50% against Russell, Baylor had these games...

In the game three, 111-105 loss, Baylor shot 4-14. Not only that, but he and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the 4th quarter. As bad as that was, how about Baylor in that game four, 89-88 loss? He shot 2-14 from the floor, AND, 1-6 from the LINE. Then, in the game seven 108-106 loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the field. BTW, Chamberlain, only playing 43 minutes, and benched by that jackass of a coach in the last five minutes, scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds (Russell was at 6 points, on 2-7 shooting, and with 21 rebounds BTW)...while Wilt's teammates shot .360 in that game seven.

Of course, when Wilt was given an equal roster, that was healthy, and played near their norm, they just annihilated a 60-21 Celtic team in the '67 ECF's. Boston narrowly avoided a sweep with a 121-117 game four win, and were murdered 140-116 in the clinching game five (BTW, from late in the first period, to late in the 4th, Philly outscored Boston by 44 points.)

And for those that claim that Russell "owned" Wilt, explain this to me: In the '66 ECF clinching game five loss, Wilt hung a 46-34 game on Russell.

Ok, so in the '67 ECF's, it was Russell who was faced with the identical set of circuimstances. His Celtics were down 3-1. How did Russell perform in that clinching game five loss? He went out like a lamb to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 7 assists, and 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain scored 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and 36 rebounds.

Where was this Russell who supposedly "dominated" Wilt in the post-season? Why couldn't he turn up his offense, when it was obvious his teammates needed him to?

Chamberlain's TEAMs were NINE points away from a 5-3 series edge in those eight post-season series' H2H's (game seven losses by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) And had Wilt had any surrounding talent at all in '60 and '64, it likely would have been 7-1. Oh, and BTW, Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in EVERY H2H post-season series. Which included scoring margins of 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg, and 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg. And included rebounding margins of 31.4 to 25.2 rpg, and 32.0 to 23.4 rpg. And which included FG% margins of .555 to .447, .517 to .386, and .556 to .358.

Russell the better player? I don't think so.

[BuffaloBill]

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Bill Russell
4. Magic
5. Wilt
6. Timmy
7. Bird
8. Kobe
9. Shaq
10. Hakeem

[t-rex]

I'm curious to see what other people think.
Criteria should be:
how good the player was at his peak
consistency
abilities/talent
championships (extra as the best player)
ability in the clutch ( would you trust him in a do-or-die game?)
was he a difference maker on good teams?

My list has to be:

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Magic Johnson

5. Larry Bird

6. Wilt Chamberlain

7. Tim Duncan

8. Kobe Bryant

9. Jerry West

10. Oscar Robertson


I can never decide between Oscar and Shaq, I'll just give it to Oscar.

Hakeem Olajuwan and Shaq belong on your list for sure.

Oscar Robertson was a great player, but there is no way in he** he is top 10 all time. I would also remove Jerry West. So if you take West and Robertson out and replace them with Shaq and Hakeem your top 10 is set. :rockon:

What order they belong in is always an issue, and I am too the point where I really don't think there is no wrong answer in this regard. Its largely just personal opinion.

[BlackVVaves]

Chamberlain played with FAR inferior rosters to Russell in his first six seasons. And I mean FAR inferior. Russell enjoyed anywhere from a 6-3 to 9-1 edge in HOF teammates in those six seasons, along with having a HOF coach (while Wilt had several, some of whom had no business coaching.)

In those SIX seasons, Wilt took his 61-62 49-31 Warrior team, which had the same basic core as the LAST PLACE team he inherited in '60, thru Syarcuse in the first round (which included a series clinching performance of 56 points and 35 rebounds) to a game seven, two point loss, against Russell's 60-20 team, and their SEVEN HOFers. And in that post-season, Wilt's teammates collectively shot .354. Now, you tell me how just how in the hell that Wilt could single-handedly carry that putrid roster that far? BTW, In that series, Chamberlain averaged 34 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .468. Russell averaged 22 ppg, 26 rpg, and shot .399.

In the 64-65 season, Wilt took his 40-40 Sixers, which had gone 34-46 the year before Wilt arrived, to a game seven, ONE point loss, against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, at the peak of their Dynasty. And in that series, Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30 ppg to 16 ppg, outrebounded Russell, per game, 31 rpg to 25 rpg, and outshot Russell by a .555 to .447 margin.

In Wilt's rookie season, again, he took what had been a LAST PLACE team, to a 49-26 record, and to a game six, two point loss, against Russell's 59-16 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. And had Chamberlain not injured his hand in game two, and played horribly in a 120-90 game three loss, who knows? He did respond with a "must-win" 50-35 game in game five (on 22-42 shooting.)

And in the '64 Finals, Russell's Celtics, with an 8-2 edge in HOFers, beat Wilt's Warriors, 4-1. However, the last two games were decided in the waning seconds (both losses for Wilt's team.) In that series, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, 29-11, outrebounded Russell, per game, 27-25, and outshot Russell in that series, .517 to .386.

And Wilt's teammates were so awful, that in the '61 post-season, while Chamberlain was averaging 37 ppg, 23 rpg, and shooting .469, his teammates collectively shot .332. His two "HOF" teammates, Arizin and Gola, shot .325 and .206 respectively.

And in the 62-63 season, Wilt had arguably the worst roster in NBA history, and didn't even make the playoffs (in a year in which he averaged 44.8 ppg on .528 shooting.) Meanwhile, Russell's Celtics won a title with NINE HOFers. Wilt's BEST teammate would have been Boston's TENTH best player.

Ok, then in Wilt's last four seasons, he finally had equal rosters to Russell. And he still could only go 1-3 against him. Why?

Why? Because his 65-66 teammates, who had helped Wilt lead Philly to the best record in the league, completely puked all over themselves in the ECF's. While Chamberlain was averaging 28 ppg, on .509 shooting, and with 30.2 rpg in that series, his teammates collectively shot .352 (yes, .352.)

How about his 67-68 Sixers, who ran away with best record in the league? The Sixer team that went 62-20 in the regular season was nowhere near the Sixer team that faced Boston in the ECF's. HOFer Billy Cunningham didn't play at all. And even without him, the Sixers STILL forged a 3-1 series lead. THEN, in game five, BOTH Luke Jackson and Wali Jones went down with leg injuries, and were worthless the rest of the series. Not only that, but Chamberlain was nursing SEVERAL injuries, and in fact, was NOTICEABLY LIMPING from game three on (and he still played every minute of every game of that series.) THEN, in game seven, Wilt's teammates completely ignored Chamberlain in the second half, and collectively shot 25-74,...all in a 100-96 game seven loss. Think about that...with ALL of that...Wilt's decimated Sixers lost a game seven by FOUR points.

How about the 68-69 Lakers, who went 55-27? They were ONE PLAY away from winning that series in a 4-1 romp. They were leading the series, 2-1, and leading late in game four, 88-87, and WITH the ball. For some reason only known to the incompetent Butch Van Breda Kolf, Johnny Egan handled the ball in the waning seconds. The result, he lost it, and Sam Jones, while falling down, hit the game winner at the buzzer. So, instead of leading the series, 3-1, it was now 2-2. And, given the fact that LA easily beat Boston in game five, that series should have been over in five.

But, that is not all. The idiotic Van Breda Kolf preferred Baylor over Wilt when it came to shooting. And while Chamberlain shot 50% against Russell, Baylor had these games...

In the game three, 111-105 loss, Baylor shot 4-14. Not only that, but he and West combined for 1-14 shooting in the 4th quarter. As bad as that was, how about Baylor in that game four, 89-88 loss? He shot 2-14 from the floor, AND, 1-6 from the LINE. Then, in the game seven 108-106 loss, Baylor shot 8-22 from the field. BTW, Chamberlain, only playing 43 minutes, and benched by that jackass of a coach in the last five minutes, scored 18 points, on 7-8 shooting, with 27 rebounds (Russell was at 6 points, on 2-7 shooting, and with 21 rebounds BTW)...while Wilt's teammates shot .360 in that game seven.

Of course, when Wilt was given an equal roster, that was healthy, and played near their norm, they just annihilated a 60-21 Celtic team in the '67 ECF's. Boston narrowly avoided a sweep with a 121-117 game four win, and were murdered 140-116 in the clinching game five (BTW, from late in the first period, to late in the 4th, Philly outscored Boston by 44 points.)

And for those that claim that Russell "owned" Wilt, explain this to me: In the '66 ECF clinching game five loss, Wilt hung a 46-34 game on Russell.

Ok, so in the '67 ECF's, it was Russell who was faced with the identical set of circuimstances. His Celtics were down 3-1. How did Russell perform in that clinching game five loss? He went out like a lamb to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 7 assists, and 21 rebounds. Meanwhile, Chamberlain scored 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, with 13 assists, and 36 rebounds.

Where was this Russell who supposedly "dominated" Wilt in the post-season? Why couldn't he turn up his offense, when it was obvious his teammates needed him to?

Chamberlain's TEAMs were NINE points away from a 5-3 series edge in those eight post-season series' H2H's (game seven losses by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.) And had Wilt had any surrounding talent at all in '60 and '64, it likely would have been 7-1. Oh, and BTW, Wilt outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in EVERY H2H post-season series. Which included scoring margins of 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg, and 29.2 ppg to 11.2 ppg. And included rebounding margins of 31.4 to 25.2 rpg, and 32.0 to 23.4 rpg. And which included FG% margins of .555 to .447, .517 to .386, and .556 to .358.

Russell the better player? I don't think so.

Thanks for your insight :cheers:

I never said Russell was the better individual player, if you notice. I did say however that Russell and Wilt played in the same era, and the same position, and that Russell walked away from the game with 9 more NBA championships that Wilt. He was the undisputed winner of his generation -- of ALL generations. For all of Wilt's dominance, Bill still walked away with 5 MVPS to Wilt's 4 (back when the player's, not media, voted and selected the league MVP award), and Russell

[jlauber]

Thanks for your insight :cheers:

I never said Russell was the better individual player, if you notice. I did say however that Russell and Wilt played in the same era, and the same position, and that Russell walked away from the game with 9 more NBA championships that Wilt. He was the undisputed winner of his generation -- of ALL generations. For all of Wilt's dominance, Bill still walked away with 5 MVPS to Wilt's 4 (back when the player's, not media, voted and selected the league MVP award), and Russell’s Celtics won 7 of 8 playoff series against Chamberlain’s team's (Warriors, Sixers and Lakers).

I still have Russell ranked higher than Wilt on the All-Time List, that's just my opinion and it'll never change.

IMHO, Russell and Wilt are tied together. The object of the game is to win, and Russell did that better than anyone else in NBA history. But once again, Chamberlain was only nine points away from having a total of SIX rings. And it's not like Wilt played poorly in those series or game seven's (although his '69 Finals was his worst effort.)

And it is still a TEAM game. For those that like to claim Wilt was a "loser" (and I am not saying that as directed at you BTW) Larry Bird called MJ "god" in a series in which Jordan and his Bulls were swept. MJ averaged 40 ppg in a series in which his 30-52 Bulls were swept by a 67-15 Celtic team with FIVE HOFers. Well, Wilt played on two teams that were overwhelmed in talent, and still almost pulled off game seven miracles.

If Wilt had a flaw (other than FT shooting), it was that, for some reason, his teammates, whether good or poor, almost always played WORSE in the post-season. Still, I have not seen any direct evidence which points to Chamberlain.

For example, in Wilt's 65-66 season, he led the league in scoring, at 33.5 ppg, rebounding, at 24.6 rpg, and in FG% at .540 (in a league that shot .433.) And he even found time to average 5.2 apg. And in the process, his Sixers edged Boston for the best record in the league (albeit, theu had to win their last 11 straight games to do so.)

And, against Russell in the regular season, Chamberlain averaged 28.3 ppg and 30.7 rpg (I don't have his regular season FG%, though.) Ok, so in the ECF"s, Chamberlain averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509. He also dished out 3.2 apg in that series. Now, before someone jumps up and says, "see, his assists dropped", think about this...his teammates collectively shot .352 in that series. So, how many assists did Wilt lose because his teammates couldn't hit the toilet while sitting on the pot?

From everything I have gathered, Wilt essentially played the same in the post-season, as he did in the regular season. But, his teammates repeatedly played much worse. Meanwhile, and perhaps to Russell's credit, Russell's teammates generally elevated their play. Sam Jones and John Havlicek almost always played better in their post-seasons with Russell.

And even the MVP voting was reflective of just how close the two were (albeit, I honestly believe their was at least some "anti-Chamberlain" sentiment in the voting.) In their ten seasons in the league together, they each won four MVPs. And for the life me, I have never read any logical reasoning for Russell beating Wilt out in '62, nor finishing ahead of Wilt in '69 (Russell didn't win it either, though.)

And the bottom line was that Chamberlain HAD to do more than Russell. I have used these analogies before, but they are worth repeating. In game two of the '62 ECF's, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20. The result? A 113-106 Warrior win. In game three of the '60 ECF's, and with Chamberlain nursing a badly damaged hand, Russell outscored Wilt, 26-12, and outrebounded him, 39-15 (his greatest post-season game against Wilt.) The result? A 120-90 Boston win.

In any case, Russell's TEAM success was actually a lot closer than his 9-1 margin in the Wilt-era. His TEAM's beat Wilt's 60% of the time, and in the post-season it was even closer. Boston held a 29-20 record over Wilt's teams in the post-season, which included those four game seven wins by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

Whether Wilt would have enjoyed the same 9-1 margin had they somehow swapped rosters in those years is debatable, but I don't thinks anyone would argue that Wilt would have won considerably more rings under that scenario. John Wooden, himself, claimed that Wilt likely would have won the same number of rings had they swapped rosters.

And Chamberlain's '67 ring confirms at least some of that theory. He had an equal supporting cast, who were healthy, and who played as well as they had in the regular season. The result was a dominating world title which included a blowout series win over Russell's 60-21 Celtics.

In any case, I personally rank the two as equals. And, IMHO, along with MJ and Magic, are the four greatest to have ever played the game. And I won't argue with those that rank Kareem among them, as well.

[G.O.A.T]

[QUOTE=BlackVVaves]Thanks for your insight :cheers:

I never said Russell was the better individual player, if you notice. I did say however that Russell and Wilt played in the same era, and the same position, and that Russell walked away from the game with 9 more NBA championships that Wilt. He was the undisputed winner of his generation -- of ALL generations. For all of Wilt's dominance, Bill still walked away with 5 MVPS to Wilt's 4 (back when the player's, not media, voted and selected the league MVP award), and Russell