Who really is top 10 of all time?

[Soothing Layup]

1. MJ
2. KAJ
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Bill Russell
5. Magic Johnson
6. Shaq
7. Larry Bird
8. Kobe
9. Tim Duncan
10. Hakeem The Dream
11.Moses Malone
12.Jerry West/LBJ

[jlauber]

Those are generally the Top-12...and then you can add Dr. J and Oscar, as well. Lebron is not there YET.

[Soothing Layup]

Those are generally the Top-12...

I had to show where I have LBJ though. Or else LBJ stans would rage

[jlauber]

I had to show where I have LBJ though. Or else LBJ stans would rage

He certainly has the POTENTIAL to be there. But let's get real here...his CAREER pales in comparison to even West's at this point.

[MJ23forever]

1. Jordan

2. Magic

3. Kobe

4. Bird

5. Jabbar

6. Olajuwon

7. Shaq

8. Duncan

9. Russell

10. Wilt

[jlauber]

1. Jordan

2. Magic

3. Kobe

4. Bird

5. Jabbar

6. Olajuwon

7. Shaq

8. Duncan

9. Russell

10. Wilt

It must have just killed you to put Russell and Wilt in that list at all...

[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

[24r2]

1. Kobe
2. Jordan
3. Pippen
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Jabbar
7. Oneal
8. Duncan
9. Chamberlain
10. Dirk

[raid09]

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

[Kurosawa0]

1. Kobe

I took you off my ignore list to read this post. Now I realize why you were on it in the first place.

[jlauber]

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

Let's have your criteria in selecting Bird over Wilt. Yes, he has a 3-2 edge in rings, playing on far more talented teams in his entire career...but after that Bird has virtually nothing on Wilt. Chamberlain went to more Finals, more Conference Finals, and played MUCH better in the playoffs AND Finals. Then, do you care to compare their regular season accomplishments? That would be truly laughable.

[jlauber]

1. Kobe
2. Jordan
3. Pippen
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Jabbar
7. Oneal
8. Duncan
9. Chamberlain
10. Dirk

Another one...give me your criteria for selecting Bird over Wilt.

[jlauber]

1. Jordan

2. Magic

3. Kobe

4. Bird

5. Jabbar

6. Olajuwon

7. Shaq

8. Duncan

9. Russell

10. Wilt

Might as well throw you into this as well. Give me your criteria in selecting Bird over Wilt.

[magnax1]

1-Bird
2-Jordan
3-Kareem
4-Russell
5-Magic
6-Shaq
7-Duncan
8-Kobe
9-Hakeem
10-Moses
Just made this to see if Jlauber would react lol

[MJ23forever]

It must have just killed you to put Russell and Wilt in that list at all...

hard for me to rank them higher on my list due to competition when they played...and weren't there only 8 teams?

[FKAri]

I can't imagine how Duncan can be better than Hakeem.

[24r2]

Wilt is a black guy in an era of whites

Bird is a white guy who dominated blacks :D

[jlauber]

1-Bird
2-Jordan
3-Kareem
4-Russell
5-Magic
6-Shaq
7-Duncan
8-Kobe
9-Hakeem
10-Moses
Just made this to see if Jlauber would react lol

I honestly KNEW that this couldn't be a legit post the second I saw it. I was thinking...that is aimed strictly at me...

[Jotaro Durant]

1) Kevin Wayne Durant
2) Kevin Durant
3) KD
4) KD35
5) Kid Delicious
6) KDthunderup
7) Kevin
8) Durant
9) Durantula
10) KDurant35

:rockon:

Seriously though:

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

[magnax1]

I honestly KNEW that this couldn't be a legit post the second I saw it. I was thinking...that is aimed strictly at me...
:lol

[jlauber]

Wilt is a black guy in an era of whites

Bird is a white guy who dominated blacks :D

Yep...Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Hawkins, McAdoo, Lanier, Hayes, Oscar, Bing, Greer, Sam Jones, Gilmore, and Kareem to name a few.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Right now, this would probably be my list.

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

Could alternate MJ and Kareem, or Duncan and Magic, and Russell is the toughest for me to rank, I could see him either higher or lower(but no lower than 9th).

After that, Jerry West would probably be 11th, while Lebron is already top 15 for me.

[Kurosawa0]

Let's have your criteria in selecting Bird over Wilt. Yes, he has a 3-2 edge in rings, playing on far more talented teams in his entire career...but after that Bird has virtually nothing on Wilt. Chamberlain went to more Finals, more Conference Finals, and played MUCH better in the playoffs AND Finals. Then, do you care to compare their regular season accomplishments? That would be truly laughable.

Basketball isn't just a game of numbers. It's also about intangibles. It's kinda the Shaq vs. Duncan argument to me. Shaq was better statistically, but I'm going to have a better franchise and culture with Duncan. Bird was just a better teammate and had more basketball character.

And besides, I've never been sold that you couldn't throw Hakeem or even David Robinson back in the 1960's and they wouldn't get similar results.

Finally, Wilt's career is defined more by disappointment than victory. He should've been much better and much more successful than he was. You'll ramble off all these numbers and stats, but I don't care. I'll take Larry Legend. In the end, it's just my opinion and think he was better.

You just need to settle down and realize that they're two of the top 10 ever and to have one over the other is not sacrilegious. Not everyone's going to agree with you.

[Doctor K]

Right now, this would probably be my list.

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

Could alternate MJ and Kareem, or Duncan and Magic, and Russell is the toughest for me to rank, I could see him either higher or lower(but no lower than 9th).

After that, Jerry West would probably be 11th, while Lebron is already top 15 for me.

:roll:
At Kobe over Wilt

[Nevaeh]

Wilt is a 7 Foot 2 inch black guy playing 48 minutes a game in an era of white guys who only played in the NBA part time while working other jobs as well

Bird is a white guy who dominated blacks :D

There you Go sir (It's been a minute since Jlauber got served on his Wilt Worship on these Boards) :cheers:

[jlauber]

hard for me to rank them higher on my list due to competition when they played...and weren't there only 8 teams?

So instead of having the best players in the world on eight teams, you would have preferred bringing in many more mediocre players and make 30 teams? My god, what would Wilt have done to 25 crappy centers, instead of facing a HOF center in half of the games in the seasons in which he played? He would have been hanging 100 a every night on starting centers that would either have been backups, or not even in the league in an eight team league.

[Nobler]

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

[jlauber]

Right now, this would probably be my list.

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

Could alternate MJ and Kareem, or Duncan and Magic, and Russell is the toughest for me to rank, I could see him either higher or lower(but no lower than 9th).

After that, Jerry West would probably be 11th, while Lebron is already top 15 for me.

Bird over Wilt???? Give me your criteria.

[Round Mound]

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

[Kurosawa0]

So instead of having the best players in the world on eight teams, you would have preferred bringing in many more mediocre players and make 30 teams? My god, what would Wilt have done to 25 crappy centers, instead of facing a HOF center in half of the games in the seasons in which he played? He would have been hanging 100 a every night on starting centers that would either have been backups, or not even in the league in an eight team league.

So, by that logic, Wilt played in an inferior league than what we have had in recent years.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Bird over Wilt???? Give me your criteria.

I have many many times before.

[24r2]

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

your on my ignore list b

[magnax1]

1-Jordan
2-Russel/Wilt
4-Kareem
5-Shaq
6-Bird
7-Hakeem
8-Magic
9-Oscar
10-Moses
Bird vs. Shaq is awfully tough to decide, and Kobe vs Moses is also becoming increasingly difficult for me to choose from.

[jlauber]

Basketball isn't just a game of numbers. It's also about intangibles. It's kinda the Shaq vs. Duncan argument to me. Shaq was better statistically, but I'm going to have a better franchise and culture with Duncan. Bird was just a better teammate and had more basketball character.

And besides, I've never been sold that you couldn't throw Hakeem or even David Robinson back in the 1960's and they wouldn't get similar results.

Finally, Wilt's career is defined more by disappointment than victory. He should've been much better and much more successful than he was. You'll ramble off all these numbers and stats, but I don't care. I'll take Larry Legend. In the end, it's just my opinion and think he was better.

You just need to settle down and realize that they're two of the top 10 ever and to have one over the other is not sacrilegious. Not everyone's going to agree with you.

Yep, that ONLY applies to Wilt I see. Bird played on one more title team, LOADED with HOF teammates for his entire career. He played in less Finals, far less Conference Finals, and wasn't CLOSE to Wilt in performance in those playoffs, either. Chamberlain carried teams much further, and played SIGNIFICANTLY better in doing so. He also faced HOF-laden teams his ENTIRE career, with as many as NINE. And Wilt's two title teams were greater than ANY of Bird's.

Of course, if you want to take a look at the RECORD BOOK, I'm sure you might occasionally find an insignificant Bird record BURIED under page after page of Chamberlain's accomplishments.

[jlauber]

So, by that logic, Wilt played in an inferior league than what we have had in recent years.

NOT AT ALL. I can't imagine the carpet-bombing Chamberlain would be leveling on the current inept centers of the NBA. The Turiaffs, the Chuck Hayes', the Dampier's, the Jason Collins', whoever Boston could scrape up, etc., etc. Aside from 6-10 Dwight, there isn't a center in the league that would have been starting for half of the centers in the NBA in '72.

[dyna]

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

11- Oscar
12- West
13- Moses
14- Dr. J

[magnax1]

Right now, this would probably be my list.

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

Could alternate MJ and Kareem, or Duncan and Magic, and Russell is the toughest for me to rank, I could see him either higher or lower(but no lower than 9th).

After that, Jerry West would probably be 11th, while Lebron is already top 15 for me.
How'd you decide to put Duncan at 6?

[Pointguard]

My greatest list
1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Magic
4. Russell
5. KAJ
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Akeem
10.Bird

[jlauber]

I have many many times before.

I didn't think so. There is NONE. Wilt even had WAY more IMPACT at the FT line (he MADE 2000 more in his career.) And Bird's 3pt shooting was insiginficant, especially in the post-season, when he couldn't even make ONE every TWO games.

My god, Wilt even LED the NBA in assists one season, and finished THIRD in another. Give me an example of Bird doing that.

After that it is Wilt in a LANDSLIDE. Scoring, FG% efficiency, rebounding, shot-blocking, defense...and he was LIGHT YEARS ahead in ALL of them.

And his post-season play DWARFS Bird's. Especially in PEAK performances. Here again, scoring, FG% efficiency, rebounding, shot-blocking, defense, and even passing (his best post-seasons were better than Bird's best...despite being a CENTER.)

[Kurosawa0]

Yep, that ONLY applies to Wilt I see. Bird played on one more title team, LOADED with HOF teammates for his entire career. He played in less Finals, far less Conference Finals, and wasn't CLOSE to Wilt in performance in those playoffs, either. Chamberlain carried teams much further, and played SIGNIFICANTLY better in doing so. He also faced HOF-laden teams his ENTIRE career, with as many as NINE. And Wilt's two title teams were greater than ANY of Bird's.

Of course, if you want to take a look at the RECORD BOOK, I'm sure you might occasionally find an insignificant Bird record BURIED under page after page of Chamberlain's accomplishments.

Nice way of completely side-stepping the main point of my explanation and instead just trying to push you're own opinion onto people. I agree Wilt has some great stats. Maybe the greatest ever. That's why I have him at #6. (Wow, what an insult, right?), but you can't deny that he didn't have the career to back up his numbers. It's not always about stats. In fact, most of the times it's not about stats. It's about how they play the game.

I tend to look at these rankings and think if you were to tell the NBA's history in story form, which players would you spend the most time on? I'd spend more time on Bird than Wilt. Bird represents maybe the best era of basketball ever and represents success and basketball at it's apex. Wilt doesn't do any of that.

Like I said, intangibles count.

[Kurosawa0]

I didn't think so. There is NONE. Wilt even had WAY more IMPACT at the FT line (he MADE 2000 more in his career.) And Bird's 3pt shooting was insiginficant, especially in the post-season, when he couldn't even make ONE every TWO games.

My god, Wilt even LED the NBA in assists one season, and finished THIRD in another. Give me an example of Bird doing that.

After that it is Wilt in a LANDSLIDE. Scoring, FG% efficiency, rebounding, shot-blocking, defense...and he was LIGHT YEARS ahead in ALL of them.

And his post-season play DWARFS Bird's. Especially in PEAK performances. Here again, scoring, FG% efficiency, rebounding, shot-blocking, defense, and even passing (his best post-seasons were better than Bird's best...despite being a CENTER.)

You write about this like you read it in a book. Do you even watch the game? It's so much more than that.

Honestly, how long have you been watching? I don't know anyone who has watched the game for several years that would try to make an argument based off of just numbers. When talking about great players the numbers are usually secondary, at best.

[Kurosawa0]

NOT AT ALL. I can't imagine the carpet-bombing Chamberlain would be leveling on the current inept centers of the NBA. The Turiaffs, the Chuck Hayes', the Dampier's, the Jason Collins', whoever Boston could scrape up, etc., etc. Aside from 6-10 Dwight, there isn't a center in the league that would have been starting for half of the centers in the NBA in '72.

So then you think Wilt would put up 50 a game today, really? :oldlol:

[jlauber]

Nice way of completely side-stepping the main point of my explanation and instead just trying to push you're own opinion onto people. I agree Wilt has some great stats. Maybe the greatest ever. That's why I have him at #6. (Wow, what an insult, right?), but you can't deny that he didn't have the career to back up his numbers. It's not always about stats. In fact, most of the times it's not about stats. It's about how they play the game.

I tend to look at these rankings and think if you were to tell the NBA's history in story form, which players would you spend the most time on? I'd spend more time on Bird than Wilt. Bird represents maybe the best era of basketball ever and represents success and basketball at it's apex. Wilt doesn't do any of that.

Like I said, intangibles count.

So, Bird playing on HOF-laden teams his ENTIRE career, and winning one more ring...while Wilt was shackled with crap rosters for HALF of his career, and yet he still went to more Finals, FAR more conference finals, and was a FAR greater player when he played in them...means that Bird was more successful??? I give up.

[Kurosawa0]

I give up.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea, kid.

[jlauber]

So then you think Wilt would put up 50 a game today, really? :oldlol:

Did I say that anywhere here? All I said is that he would be even more dominant today. In any case, prove to me that he couldn't. We do know this...he was far more dominant in his era, which included Kareem, than Kareem was. Yet, a 38 year old Kareem could drop 46 on Hakeem in the mid-80's. Meanwhile, a PRIME Shaq's HIGHEST game against Hakeem, who was just a shell by then, was 37 points. Kind of makes you wonder just how much more dominant Wilt would be today doesn't it?

Wilt was the ONLY player to put up HUGE scoring, rebounding, and FG% efficiency seasons. It was not like everyone was doing it back then.

[Doctor K]

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

...

24. Kobe

[Kurosawa0]

Kind of makes you wonder just how much more dominant Wilt would be today doesn't it?


Seriously, how old are you?

[jlauber]

You write about this like you read it in a book. Do you even watch the game? It's so much more than that.

Honestly, how long have you been watching? I don't know anyone who has watched the game for several years that would try to make an argument based off of just numbers. When talking about great players the numbers are usually secondary, at best.

What more do you want? Using your logic ANY player could be labeled great. I get so sick-and-tired of those "excuses" (which is ALL they really are.) Basketball is a TEAM game, to be sure, but the BEST players put up the BEST statistics. Plain-and-simple. If they didn't have any meaning, no one would bother keeping track. But they DO SIGNIFICANTLY portray a player's dominance.

In any case, there were very few games in Wilt's ENTIRE career in which he was NOT the best player on the floor.

[Kurosawa0]

Basketball is a TEAM game, to be sure, but the BEST players put up the BEST statistics.

Watch great players talk about the game and the other great players. Have you ever seen Larry or Magic talk about each other using stats?

I'm sorry, but I've been watching for 15 years and I've never seen anyone argue basketball that has watched it for a long to in the way you are.

It's just not how you think it is. I really don't know how to explain it to you.

[TylerOO]

Original thread.....

[Fatal9]

Watch great players talk about the game and the other great players. Have you ever seen Larry or Magic talk about each other using stats?

I'm sorry, but I've been watching for 15 years and I've never seen anyone argue basketball that has watched it for a long to in the way you are.

It's just not how you think it is. I really don't know how to explain it to you.
This, I don't know how someone can be so illogical and understand so little about the game. He thinks Dantley was a better offensive player than Bird, that pretty much explains what a stat whoring fool he is. And you argue with him, it's a waste of time because you're getting a copy/paste wall of text that is filled with exaggerations and completely dance around all the relevant points.

[jlauber]

Watch great players talk about the game and the other great players. Have you ever seen Larry or Magic talk about each other using stats?

I'm sorry, but I've been watching for 15 years and I've never seen anyone argue basketball that has watched it for a long to in the way you are.

It's just not how you think it is. I really don't know how to explain it to you.

Wilt NEVER "choked" as often as Bird in the Finals. Do you realize that Bird shot less than 50% from the field in 20 of his 31 Finals games? Or that he shot under 40% as often as he shot over 50% (11 times each?) And a .455 career Finals FG% in league's that averaged between .480 and .490 was downright embarrasing. In his lone game seven in his Finals, he also shot 6-18.

He had NOWHERE near the IMPACT that Chamberlain had in his post-season career. Bird holds a 3-2 edge in rings (and in one, the '84 Finals, his team should have been SWEPT.) Meanwhile, Chamberlain was a TOTAL of NINE points away, in FOUR game sevens, from probably winning as many as FOUR more rings. Chamberlain led horrible rosters to near upsets of two of Russell's greatest team's, among those, as well. Bird couldn't even get several of his HOF-laden rosters to conference finals, much less Finals.

[FKAri]

Stats are overrated in terms of evaluating players. At the same time winning championships is even more overrated. You have these super teams of the past with multiple hall of famers, which if each put in dead end franchises would be just as forgotten as Dantley and Bellamy etc.

This concept of being a "winner" has some merit to it but is still grossly flawed. Great players talk about the game this way because it's what they feel psychologically and anyone here who's played sports can attest to. But if you're analyzing the game as an observer, you need to watch the players play and gauge how good they are at playing the game.

Lebron wasn't considered a "winner". Now he's on a better team and makes a couple 3 pointers and you got Pippen comparing him to MJ where just 2 seasons ago analysts were saying he's not even as good as current Kobe. Complete stupidity.

Bill Russel and Wilt switch places and what happens? Bill Russel might not even be considered to be better than Nate Thurmond. Red Auerbach instills discipline and defensive principles in Wilt instead and Boston dominates even more.

I'd rather compare players on their basketball playing ability than their resume. Comparing resumes is boring. It's more challenging and interesting to compare ability.

[Kurosawa0]

This, I don't know how someone can be so illogical and understand so little about the game. He thinks Dantley was a better offensive player than Bird, that pretty much explains what a stat whoring fool he is. And you argue with him, it's a waste of time because you're getting a copy/paste wall of text that is filled with exaggerations and completely dance around all the relevant points.

He just doesn't get that I'm agreeing with him. Wilt was great. I just value Bird more. It's a preference. They're both two of the top 5-7 players ever.

[Kurosawa0]

Wilt NEVER "choked" as often as Bird in the Finals. Do you realize that Bird shot less than 50% from the field in 20 of his 31 Finals games? Or that he shot under 40% as often as he shot over 50% (11 times each?) And a .455 career Finals FG% in league's that averaged between .480 and .490 was downright embarrasing. In his lone game seven in his Finals, he also shot 6-18.

He had NOWHERE near the IMPACT that Chamberlain had in his post-season career. Bird holds a 3-2 edge in rings (and in one, the '84 Finals, his team should have been SWEPT.) Meanwhile, Chamberlain was a TOTAL of NINE points away, in FOUR game sevens, from probably winning as many as FOUR more rings. Chamberlain led horrible rosters to near upsets of two of Russell's greatest team's, among those, as well. Bird couldn't even get several of his HOF-laden rosters to conference finals, much less Finals.

It's funny, you answer each one of my replies except for the one where I ask your age...

Then again, I guess that tells me all I need to know.

[Round Mound]

your on my ignore list b

Sorry i forgot to put Hakeem at Top 7-8

No Garnett

[ShaqAttack3234]

This, I don't know how someone can be so illogical and understand so little about the game. He thinks Dantley was a better offensive player than Bird, that pretty much explains what a stat whoring fool he is. And you argue with him, it's a waste of time because you're getting a copy/paste wall of text that is filled with exaggerations and completely dance around all the relevant points.

This, and there's a parade of double standards in every argument he makes. My favorite recent one was criticizing Hakeem for not winning with Barkley and Drexler who were not near their prime while making every excuse in the book for Wilt not winning in '69 with a prime Jerry West(who would become the only finals MVP on a losing team that year) and Elgin Baylor(who was still good enough to make the all-nba first team).

[yeaaaman]

1. Kobe
2. Jordan
3. Pippen
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Jabbar
7. Oneal
8. Duncan
9. Chamberlain
10. Dirk



Another one...give me your criteria for selecting Bird over Wilt.

The most concerning part of his post is having Bird over Wilt? :facepalm

[Gifted Mind]

Though I usually agree with jlauber, some of his arguments are a little funny. And a little too Wilt obsessive.

[Alamo]

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

[jlauber]

It's funny, you answer each one of my replies except for the one where I ask your age...

Then again, I guess that tells me all I need to know.

56. And I saw MANY of Russell's and Wilt's games in the 60's. EVERY televised game between Kareem and Wilt. And EVERY Finals game between Magic's Lakers and Bird's Celtics, as well as most all of their televised regular season meetings.

Bird was NOWHERE near the player that Wilt was. Chamberlain was a FAR greater scorer; a FAR greater rebounder; a MUCH more efficient shooter; a more dominant FT shooter (yes, he MADE FAR more FT's than Bird in his career); a FAR greater shot-blocker; and was FAR more of a force defensively. Even in terms of passing, Wilt had seasons in which he LED the NBA in assists. And his OUTLET passing was the MAIN reason why his '72 Lakers team just destroyed the NBA with a devastating fast-break.

He played considerably better in his post-seasons. He CARRIED crappy rosters further. And his best team's were better and more dominant than Bird's, as well. More MVP's, more RULES (give me a "Bird" rule), and then, as Oscar stated, "the RECORD BOOK does not lie."

[ThaSwagg3r]

1. MJ
2. KAJ
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Bill Russell
5. Magic Johnson
6. Shaq
7. Larry Bird
8. Kobe
9. Tim Duncan
10. Hakeem The Dream
11.Moses Malone
12.Jerry West/LBJ
Your top 10 is correct but your order isn't. I think everyone can agree that....

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Russell
Magic
Bird
Kobe
Duncan
Olajuwon

are the top 10, but the order is always the debate.

[jlauber]

The most concerning part of his post is having Bird over Wilt? :facepalm

No, I was just adding him to the idiot list which had Bird over Wilt.

[Mr. Jabbar]

1- Kobe/J ordan/ KAj (interchangable)
2- Derek Fisher/Horry (interchangable
3- dunno herre, ook maybe nik van exel
4 .shaquille

5 Larry bird (if not for white he would be rankied even highher
6
- wilt chambers if not for 100 poins not beeing recorded wuld be highier
7 reggieeeeeeeeee miller
8 shiwan kemp
9 hard spot dunno here
10 ver y hard too

[Gifted Mind]

Stats are overrated in terms of evaluating players. At the same time winning championships is even more overrated. You have these super teams of the past with multiple hall of famers, which if each put in dead end franchises would be just as forgotten as Dantley and Bellamy etc.

This concept of being a "winner" has some merit to it but is still grossly flawed. Great players talk about the game this way because it's what they feel psychologically and anyone here who's played sports can attest to. But if you're analyzing the game as an observer, you need to watch the players play and gauge how good they are at playing the game.

Lebron wasn't considered a "winner". Now he's on a better team and makes a couple 3 pointers and you got Pippen comparing him to MJ where just 2 seasons ago analysts were saying he's not even as good as current Kobe. Complete stupidity.

Bill Russel and Wilt switch places and what happens? Bill Russel might not even be considered to be better than Nate Thurmond. Red Auerbach instills discipline and defensive principles in Wilt instead and Boston dominates even more.

I'd rather compare players on their basketball playing ability than their resume. Comparing resumes is boring. It's more challenging and interesting to compare ability.

I agree with the general premise of this post. It's more than statistics and how many championships you won. But FKAri, I would say its even more than your talents and your basketball skills.

Its the combination of all of the above. To say it in one sentence, it's about your ability to win basketball games through your basketball playing ability. Or how about another one sentence summary, the best player is the player who impacts a team game the most with his individual ability.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Your top 10 is correct but your order isn't. I think everyone can agree that....

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq
Russell
Magic
Bird
Kobe
Duncan
Olajuwon

are the top 10, but the order is always the debate.

I agree, regardless of what order they're in, the top 10 players are obvious. Sorry, to those who put them in, but I don't see the case for Moses or Oscar and rank West over either of them.

[Kurosawa0]

56

:roll:

SURE.

Whatever buddy.

[jlauber]

Though I usually agree with jlauber, some of his arguments are a little funny. And a little too Wilt obsessive.

I could have ripped many of these "lists" but it is FUNNY for ANYONE to rank Bird's career over Wilt's. There is NO criteria that exists that would possibly put Bird ahead of Wilt. (OK, one more ring...in a year in which his team beat a 40-42 team in the Finals, and in a series in which Bird was not even Boston's best player.) In terms of total playoff performances...both PEAK and CAREER, Wilt DWARFS Bird. And, then in terms of regular season accomplishments (MVPs, statistical titles, RECORDS, etc), and Chamberlain was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Bird.

[jlauber]

Stats are overrated in terms of evaluating players. At the same time winning championships is even more overrated. You have these super teams of the past with multiple hall of famers, which if each put in dead end franchises would be just as forgotten as Dantley and Bellamy etc.

This concept of being a "winner" has some merit to it but is still grossly flawed. Great players talk about the game this way because it's what they feel psychologically and anyone here who's played sports can attest to. But if you're analyzing the game as an observer, you need to watch the players play and gauge how good they are at playing the game.

Lebron wasn't considered a "winner". Now he's on a better team and makes a couple 3 pointers and you got Pippen comparing him to MJ where just 2 seasons ago analysts were saying he's not even as good as current Kobe. Complete stupidity.

Bill Russel and Wilt switch places and what happens? Bill Russel might not even be considered to be better than Nate Thurmond. Red Auerbach instills discipline and defensive principles in Wilt instead and Boston dominates even more.

I'd rather compare players on their basketball playing ability than their resume. Comparing resumes is boring. It's more challenging and interesting to compare ability.

Of course the "anti-Wilt" posters NEVER bring this up. Even the great John Wooden commented that had Wilt had Russell's rosters, that he likely would have won 11 rings, as well. I won't disparage Russell here...I'm not certain that Wilt would have won as many rings...but he most certainly would have won considerably more. The fact was, Wilt took two crappy rosters, that were outgunned by a HUGE margin, to two game seven losses by a combined THREE points. I'm sorry but I don't see Russell carrying those teams nearly as far as Wilt did, especially if Chamberlain is manning the middle in Boston. In fact, I suspect that if you swapped rosters in Wilt's first six seasons, with Russell's, that Wilt would have gone 6-0. His '63 and '64 teams were just AWFUL (and yet he STILL got that '64 team to the Finals...a team that had a scrimmage before the season even started, and without Wilt, and was beaten by a team rookies and undrafted players.)

[Gifted Mind]

I could have ripped many of these "lists" but it is FUNNY for ANYONE to rank Bird's career over Wilt's. There is NO criteria that exists that would possibly put Bird ahead of Wilt. (OK, one more ring...in a year in which his team beat a 40-42 team in the Finals, and in a series in which Bird was not even Boston's best player.) In terms of total playoff performances...both PEAK and CAREER, Wilt DWARFS Bird. And, then in terms of regular season accomplishments (MVPs, statistical titles, RECORDS, etc), and Chamberlain was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Bird.

Yes but don't you think you concentrate on Wilt Chamberlain a little too much? For example, as 1 poster pointed out, in a list with Kobe ranked #1 you were ripping Bird over Wilt. Now as absurd as you think ranking Bird over Wilt might be, don't you think ranking Kobe #1 is even more absurd?

And though most of your arguments are logical, there are instances where you kind of go off track and look illogical/funny making your point. I believe you just try too hard and try to throw everything out there. You should instead just concentrate on the main points.

For example, the part I found kind of funny was mentioning Bird has a 3-2 ring edge, but in one of his rings his team should've been swept. :lol
Now, for one, that is a really difficult to support statement. Two, it is kind of irrelevant and makes you seem kind of biased. And just using words like "Light-Years" ahead or "Dwarfs Bird" have similar effect.

[jlauber]

Yes but don't you think you concentrate on Wilt Chamberlain a little too much? For example, as 1 poster pointed out, in a list with Kobe ranked #1 you were ripping Bird over Wilt. Now as absurd as you think ranking Bird over Wilt might be, don't you think ranking Kobe #1 is even more absurd?

And though most of your arguments are logical, there are instances where you kind of go off track and look illogical/funny making your point. I believe you just try too hard and try to throw everything out there. You should instead just concentrate on the main points.

For example, the part I found kind of funny was mentioning Bird has a 3-2 ring edge, but in one of his rings his team should've been swept. :lol
Now, for one, that is a really difficult to support statement. Two, it is kind of irrelevant and makes you seem kind of biased. And just using words like "Light-Years" ahead or "Dwarfs Bird" have similar effect.

Well, let me answer that with this. In the '84 Finals, the Lakers BLEW that series...Boston did not win it. The Lakers easily won games one and three (a 19 point lead late en route to a 115-109 win in game one, and a 137-104 win in game three.) In game two, they had the lead, AND the ball, with only seconds left. And for some reason Worthy threw a cross-court inbounds pass with Magic standing right next to him. In game four, LA led by five with 41 secs left. However, BOTH Worthy and Magic EACH went 0-2 from the line in those last 41 secs, and LA lost in OT.

And I did point out that in another of Bird's titles, his team beat a 40-42 team in the Finals, in a series in which Bird was not even Boston's best player.

As for DWARFING Bird...where do you want me to begin. Wilt had SIX post-seasons in which he outscored Bird's HIGHEST scoring average. Bird's high post-season in rebounding was 14.0 rpg. Chamberlain's LOW was 20.2 rpg, with EIGHT over 24.7 rpg, and even one of over 30! Wilt outshot Bird's BEST post-season FG%, in EIGHT of his post-seasons, and his .522 to .472 post-season margin is even considerably more when you factor in that Wilt's league's were shooting between .410 and .456 in his entire career, while Bird's were at between .477 and .492. Chamberlain even had a post-season with a higher apg. And we all KNOW that Wilt was MUCH more of a force defensively.

How about regular season titles? Wilt held a 4-3 edge in MVPs (and SHOULD have won more...particularly in '62.)

Bird does beat Wilt in FT titles, 4-0. HOWEVER, Bird's HIGHEST season in terms of FT's made was 441. Chamberlain had SIX seasons in which he made more, including one in which he made 835 (which is the second greatest season of all-time.)

MPG? Wilt with a 9-2 edge. Not only that, Wilt's WORST season, at 42.3 beats Bird's BEST season of 40.6 mpg. In fact, Wilt has the SEVEN highest seasons in NBA HISTORY.

Assist titles? Wilt with a 1-0 edge (and he finished third in another season.)

Scoring titles? Wilt with a 7-0 margin (and Wilt not only has the FOUR highest in NBA HISTORY, he averaged 40 ppg over the course of his first seven seasons...COMBINED.) In fact, Wilt's CAREER average of 30.1 ppg is better than Bird's greatest single season (29.9 ppg.)

FG% titles? Wilt with a 9-0 edge. (And Wilt has the TWO highest in NBA history, as well.) Not only that, but when you factor in the league averages between the two, and the gap is widened even more considerably.

Rebounding titles? Chamberlain with an 11-0 edge. And the THREE highest in NBA HISTORY. Wilt's WORST season, at 18.4 rpg, just blows away Bird's BEST season of 11.0 rpg, too.

Shot-blocking? Well, we really don't know how many shots that Wilt blocked in his career. However, Harvey Pollack, the most esteemed statistician in the history of the NBA had educated estimates with Chamberlain having SEASONS of 10+ bpg. Think about this...Bird had 755 blocks in his entire CAREER. If Pollack was right, then Wilt had more blocks in ONE SEASON, than Bird did in his entire CAREER.

Defense? Here again, Wilt gets short-changed because the defensive teams only came into effect in his last five seasons. And, in his last two, he was first-team all-defense...which is two more than Bird had in his entire career.

RECORDS? At last count , in 2009 (and again by Pollack) Wilt held 130 records. And in many of those, he holds the second best mark(s), as well. In fact, MOST of his records will never be broken. Does anyone care to compare Bird's records with Chamberlain's?

And when you factor in that the NBA created SEVERAL RULES in an attempt to curtail Wilt's dominance...well, give me a "Bird" rule.

Even in TEAM numbers, Wilt went to more Finals (6-5), went to more Conference Finals (12-8), and he anchored TWO teams that had better W-L records, and were more dominant in the post-season.

There you have it. Now, other than all of that, Bird might have a case as better overall player.

[crosso√er]

1) Jordan
2) Jabbar
3) Russell
4) Chamberlain
5) Magic
6) Shaquille
7) Bird
8) Bryant
9) Duncan
10) Olajuwon

I personally don't see Duncan climbing this ladder anymore and Kobe will have to finish with at least another ring/Finals MVP and a couple more 25/5/5 type seasons to potentially surpass Bird & Shaquille. That still might not be enough because of how dominant Shaq was at his peak. Bird isn't as untouchable but still not easy to beat-out. Duncan/Kobe are interchangeable though; I have no problem with putting Bryant at 9 and Duncan at 8 right now.

Both have had better careers then Hakeem though, IMO.
My 11th player right now is Moses Malone.

If I put those ten in a tier; it'll go like this.

Tier 1: Jordan
Tier 2: Jabbar, Wilt & Russell
Tier 3: Magic, Bird & Shaquille
Tier 4: Bryant & Duncan
Tier 5: Hakeem

I still to this day believe Shaq is the best player of All-Time if we compare players at their absolute best, however, his longevity is what leaves him short from that 2nd or even 1st tier. Jabbar's overall basketball career (high school, college & NBA) and longevity makes him that clear 2nd best. He had the most unstoppable shot in the history of the game, has won championships at every level and has been a complete player while doing so. He might not have been as dominant as Wilt or as successful (in the NBA) as Russell but that overall criteria of talent, success & dominance is greater then that of Wilt & Russell's. Many people may consider Magic & Bird interchangeable but what makes Magic greater (IMO) is his versatility and the anchoring position he played. I just see him as a more important piece to any team because of the role he played and the ability to affect the game from literally any position. Despite their impact being nearly identical that versatility is enough for me to place Magic higher then Bird on my list.

[Scholar]

I was about to drop my top 10 list, but then I saw paragraphs and paragraphs worth of posts debating whose top 10 is better...
:facepalm

Here's my top 10 anyway:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Shaquille O' Neal
5. Magic Johnson
6. Deshawn Stevenson
7. Larry Bird
8. Kevin Garnett
8. Tim Duncan
9. Blake Griffin
1. Michael Jordan
10. Yao Ming
2. Tracy McGrady
99. Shawn Bradley
6. Gilbert Arenas
7. Larry Bird
8. Bob Pettit
9. Pete Maravich
7. Lamar Odom
24. Kobe Bryant
23. Michael Jordan
6. LeBron James
2. Derek Fisher
16. Pau Gasol
1. Michael Jordan

[Sakkreth]

1) Jordan
2) Magic
3) Jabbar
4) Russell
5) Chamberlain
6) Shaquille
7) Bird
8) Duncan
9) Olajuwon
10) Kobe

[G.O.A.T]

In the last year I've realized that any top ten list without George Mikan is incomplete.

I used to think that was an era that you could hold against players, but then I realized how dumb that concept was.

Someone asked me the questions...what more could he have done? What more should he have done?

I see five pages of lists and the fact that no one mentions Mikan only further convinces me how important it is to have him included.

As obvious as it easy that basketball has evolved, holding that factor against Mikan is about the stupidest thing you can do. Not only did it have no baring on his or any one else's career at the time, it ignores a vital and critical part of the history of the game.

Russell and Jordan have now clearly separated themselves as the top two for me. Those are the guys that won the most when they had a chance and were consistently brilliant in the clutch.

The rest of the "sacred six" are still pretty solid for me and 7-11 is Mikan, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and Hakeem in some order, which is changing a lot right now as I finish biographies of the centers from the 90's like Shaq/Robinson/Ewing and Hakeem.

[Harison]

1. Kobe
2. Jordan
3. Pippen
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Jabbar
7. Oneal
8. Duncan
9. Chamberlain
10. Dirk
Thanks for a good laugh :roll:

[Harison]

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

[NuggetsFan]

To be honest, how do you even argue a top 10 list these days? I always had one, but nowadays when I think about it it's completely ridiculous. You have Wilt who was born as a genetic freak in an era without players with the same athletic ability. You can list off centers he played against, and that's all well and good but there's something to be said when your getting stripped by a 6 foot guard who can't jump compared to having a Westbrook or Rose collapse on you. Not saying athletic ability is better than skill .. but come on just watch the difference. That's not to say Wilt\Russel etc. aren't top 10, because at the end of the day I'd consider there careers just that but how are you suppose to argue Wilt vs Kobe|LeBron? Can't do it by there basketball abilities. 90% never even watched these guy's play. So in the end it's all resume\statistics\whatever you can find to read about them. I think that can justify one of the greatest of all time, but kinda hard to use that to argue a guy from #5 to #7.

College|High school|Everyday ameuteur basketball has evolved and changed so much, so why hasn't the NBA?. I understand you have to compare what players did in there ERA, but where do you draw the line? Is it the top 10 NBA careers of All-Time? Top 10 NBA basketball players? Top 10 NBA basketball player based on what they did in there time period?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QCP6mMMH2Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp-zqIYGjNg

How do you compare that? On paper? When leagues\rules were completely different. Leagues had less\more teams and players.

I'm not disrespecting players from older era's either. Like I said a player like Wilt|Russel have had a "top 10" career. Just recently realized how am I suppose to compare\get to technical about 2-3 spots on a top 10 list when the game is so completely different that it's basically like comparing basketball to soccer :oldlol:

I dunno, maybe I'm just the crazy one. I use to be able to come up with an exact top 10 list and based on a piece of paper argue one guy ahead of the other. I like Jordan as the greatest because of the combination. I would probably have a similar group as to what's been listen. At this point don't think I'd argue anyone over eachother except for when it comes to modern day players whom I've got to see for an entire 82 games if I had the time. Jordan vs Kobe, Shaq vs Duncan makes sense to me. Russel vs Wilt. Magic vs Bird. Wilt vs Jordan, Russel vs Shaq however does not. At the end of the day all you have is what if's and a piece of paper stating what they did in leagues that couldn't be farther from eachother.

[DMAVS41]

He certainly has the POTENTIAL to be there. But let's get real here...his CAREER pales in comparison to even West's at this point.

I just can't put Dr. J that high. He's for sure top 20, but the more I evaluate him as a player and think about him, I have him out of my top 15. He's in that 16 to 20 range now.

Lebron is easily a better player than Dr. J. He just doesn't have the resume yet to put him over the top at this point.

If Lebron wins the title this year, I'm putting him ahead of Dr. J.

And really, I think Dirk was a better basketball player overall than Dr. J as well. If Dirk wins a title this year he's going over Dr. J for me as well.

[symbol33]

Wilt is a black guy in an era of whites

Bird is a white guy who dominated blacks :D

were you made this list as a joke

[blablabla]

1.Jordan
2.Russell/Wilt(interchangeable)
4.KAJ
5.Bird/Magic/Kobe/Shaq/Duncan(interchangeable)
11.Young Sushi

[EnoughSaid]

1.Jordan
2.Russell/Wilt(interchangeable)
4.KAJ
5.Bird/Magic/Kobe/Shaq/Duncan(interchangeable)
11.Young Sushi

There is now way that Magic and Bird are that low. It's more like:
1. Jordan
2. Russell/Wilt
3. KAJ/Bird/Magic
4. Kobe/Shaq/Duncan.

[blablabla]

There is now way that Magic and Bird are that low. It's more like:
1. Jordan
2. Russell/Wilt
3. KAJ/Bird/Magic
4. Kobe/Shaq/Duncan.

why would you rank bird over shaq or over duncan what does he have on them
and i don't think that he is ranked low
But the problem for me is i don't know how to rank kaj that's why i never put him in the same tier as kobe,shaq,bird... and also not in the same tier as Wilt and Russell i mean he has alot of mvps and statistical records but he has only 2fmvps while winning 6championships for me it looks like he is a worse version of wilt but i don't know much about him thats why i have a problem ranking him

[sh0wtime]

Here is my list, have no trouble with ranking top 10 but after that it starts to be more and more controversial.

1 a. Bill Russell
1 b. Michael Jordan
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic Johnson
5. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
6. Larry Bird
7. Shaquille Oneal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Tim Duncan
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Hakeem Olajuwon
12. Jerry West
13. Julius Erving
14. Moses Malone
15. John Havlicek
16. Karl Malone
17. Bob Cousy
18. Bob Pettit
19. Charles Barkley
20. Isiah Thomas
21. Lebron James
22. Elgin Baylor
23. Elvin Hayes
24. Kevin Garnett
25. John Stockton
26. Gary Payton
27. Dirk Nowitzki
28. Dwyane Wade
29. Scottie Pippen
30. Jason Kidd

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Top 10 as of now

Michael Jordan
Kareem
Bill Russ
Magic
Bird
Wilt
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon

We're running out of room in the top 10.

[DMAVS41]

Here is my list, have no trouble with ranking top 10 but after that it starts to be more and more controversial.

1 a. Bill Russell
1 b. Michael Jordan
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Magic Johnson
5. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
6. Larry Bird
7. Shaquille Oneal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Tim Duncan
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Hakeem Olajuwon
12. Jerry West
13. Julius Erving
14. Moses Malone
15. John Havlicek
16. Karl Malone
17. Bob Cousy
18. Bob Pettit
19. Charles Barkley
20. Isiah Thomas
21. Lebron James
22. Elgin Baylor
23. Elvin Hayes
24. Kevin Garnett
25. John Stockton
26. Gary Payton
27. Dirk Nowitzki
28. Dwyane Wade
29. Scottie Pippen
30. Jason Kidd

Nice list man.

I personally have KG/Dirk/Wade higher.

I think you have Cousy/Stockton/Payton/Thomas too high.

I'd be interested to hear why you have Stockton and Payton over Dirk and Wade.

[AlphaWolf24]

These list are stupid.....80% of the posters here didn't even watch most of the players in the top 5.

MY top 10 from actually watching the players since the early 80's.

1. Magic Johnson - had his fingerprints everywhere....could elevate his team like No other...in a Pick up game or Organized , I would take Magic first.

2. Michael Jordan - The man simply can beat you everywhere on the court, combined with a Killer Instinct that is 2nd to none.....Jordan is Threat...everywhere...all the time....and never stops attacking.

3. Larry Bird - He had a special feel for the game (much like Magic) that could open up and create for himself and especially his teamates...he could see who was open 3 steps ahead...had a desire to win that very few players ever had.

4. Kobe - A true Love for the game that is unmatched by any player..Kobe simply Loves Basketball more then anyone...this has lead to a allaround skillset that is unmatched and a desire to be the best that is rare. Kobe knows the game and knows how to use his skills to win.

5. Tim Duncan - Perhaps the greatest Leader of his generation...Duncan uses a precise execution and unquestionable desire to due whatever it takes to win.....

6. Kareem - Could score anywhere inside the 20' he was a great interior defender/rebounder with the most unstobbable move in NBA history..he was basically ungaurdable.

7. Scottie Pippen - Defense wins Championships...overshadowed by MJ's offense, Pippen was one of the greatest defenders ever, too go along with a unhealthy desire to win, Pippen simply could dominate with defense to go along with being one of the best allaround players ever.

8. Kevin Mchale - Basketball smarts to go along with the greatest interior post game ever made Kevin ungaurdable on the block....could also shut down the lane defensively with his shotblocking

9. Shaq - Size and Power never before seen made Shaq Ungaurdable 5' from the hoop....Size alone made him clog the paint,

10. Dwyane Wade - Wade much like Duncan is a great leader who knows how to maximize his team. A great player off the dribble , Wade uses his skillset to create for himself and teamates....




_________________________________________

Russell , Wilt , Oscar and Cousy are great players , I'm sorry to have never watched them play.....But putting them over players I have watched would be B.S....and a Fuax way to sound knowledgeable.

[jlauber]

I just can't put Dr. J that high. He's for sure top 20, but the more I evaluate him as a player and think about him, I have him out of my top 15. He's in that 16 to 20 range now.

Lebron is easily a better player than Dr. J. He just doesn't have the resume yet to put him over the top at this point.

If Lebron wins the title this year, I'm putting him ahead of Dr. J.

And really, I think Dirk was a better basketball player overall than Dr. J as well. If Dirk wins a title this year he's going over Dr. J for me as well.

What hurts Dr. J in some eyes anyway, is that he played in the ABA (and he and Gilmore just dominated it BTW.) But those were prime years for Dr. J, too. We will never know just how great he would have been in the NBA in those years, but based on just how spectacular he was immediately after his ABA years, it is a safe bet that he would have probably been a top-5 player year-after-year in those seasons.

Lebron, with a couple of rings, and barring injury, will be very close to a top-10 player. Dirk, with a ring this year, may have a case for top-20. And a couple of rings would probably catapault him into top-15 status.

[jlauber]

In the last year I've realized that any top ten list without George Mikan is incomplete.

I used to think that was an era that you could hold against players, but then I realized how dumb that concept was.

Someone asked me the questions...what more could he have done? What more should he have done?

I see five pages of lists and the fact that no one mentions Mikan only further convinces me how important it is to have him included.

As obvious as it easy that basketball has evolved, holding that factor against Mikan is about the stupidest thing you can do. Not only did it have no baring on his or any one else's career at the time, it ignores a vital and critical part of the history of the game.

Russell and Jordan have now clearly separated themselves as the top two for me. Those are the guys that won the most when they had a chance and were consistently brilliant in the clutch.

The rest of the "sacred six" are still pretty solid for me and 7-11 is Mikan, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe and Hakeem in some order, which is changing a lot right now as I finish biographies of the centers from the 90's like Shaq/Robinson/Ewing and Hakeem.

My problem with Mikan is two-fold. One, he dominated in a pre-shot clock era, and was never a factor in the post-shot clock period. And secondly, the truly great Black players did not arrive until the late 50's and forward.

And I don't have Russell and MJ as clearly separating themselves from Magic and Wilt (and perhaps even Kareem.) In fact, IMHO, Russell's edge over Wilt is razor-thin. Watching the two play, I seldom (actually not at all) came away thinking that Russell was a better player. However, there was no question that his teammates almost always outplayed Wilt's, even in the few instances when they were relatively even (and Wilt's were not decimated by injuries.) And, as the great John Wooden stated...had Wilt been blessed with Russell's rosters, he likely would have won 11 rings, as well. As it was, he was a total of NINE points away, in four game seven's, og having a 5-3 edge in H2H play over Russell. Furthermore, had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters in Wilt's first six seasons, and I truly believe that Chamberlain would have had six rings in those years, alone.

Magic HAS to be in the discussion, simply because, in a TEAM game, he was nearly as great a winner as Russell. His team's AVERAGED 59 wins per season in 12 years(and his WORST record was 54-28), and went to NINE Finals, with FIVE rings...in an era of the great Philly teams of the first half of the 80's, the great Pistons teams of the late 80's, and the HOF-laden Celtic teams of the entire decade. And one more time, even withOUT Kareem he led teams to records of 63-19 and 58-24 (and this was an over-the-hill and injury-riddled Laker team that he somehow got to the Finals.) Kareem, while never as dominant as Wilt, still had more MVPs and more Rings (thanks in large part to Magic.) All five of them have to be in the discussion.

After that there is a drop-off to Shaq and Duncan. And then after that, there is a scramble between Kobe, Hakeem, Bird, Oscar, West, and perhaps even D-Rob.

[Doranku]

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

[G.O.A.T]

My problem with Mikan is two-fold. One, he dominated in a pre-shot clock era, and was never a factor in the post-shot clock period. And secondly, the truly great Black players did not arrive until the late 50's and forward.

Not Mikan's problem though. What more could he have done? He was clearly the best player of his era and that's what matters most to me. It's the only way to be fair and objective.


And I don't have Russell and MJ as clearly separating themselves from Magic and Wilt (and perhaps even Kareem.) In fact, IMHO, Russell's edge over Wilt is razor-thin.

Yes, but Magic and Wilt are your two favorite players and 90% of people here with an opinion worth listening to will tell you that you do not look at those players and their careers objectively.

The gap between Russell and Wilt is nine titles. Russell won more MVP's and was twice voted ahead of Wilt as the greatest player of all-time, so even though Wilt was clearly more talented, Russell did more with the talent that he had. That gap is pretty big for me. There are a lot of what-is and this and that, but all subjective and my answer to that stuff will always be "who cares?"


Magic HAS to be in the discussion, simply because, in a TEAM game, he was nearly as great a winner as Russell. His team's AVERAGED 59 wins per season in 12 years(and his WORST record was 54-28), and went to NINE Finals, with FIVE rings...in an era of the great Philly teams of the first half of the 80's, the great Pistons teams of the late 80's, and the HOF-laden Celtic teams of the entire decade.

Problem is that none of those great teams you mention were in the West and the Lakers only played them twice a year. That helps you win the West every year. Magic's a great winner, the closest we've seen to Russell, but Russ has twice as many titles, nearly twice as many MVP's and would have three times the number of the awards that bears his name.

Jordan also has a clear edge on Magic with twice the Finals MVP's, twice the rings as the clear #1 guy and nearly twice the regular season MVP's. Plus Magic only won back-to-back titles once, and if the right call was made, he never would have won back-to-back titles and would have finished with a losing record against the Pistons, 76ers, Celtics and Bulls during his career.



And one more time, even withOUT Kareem he led teams to records of 63-19 and 58-24 (and this was an over-the-hill and injury-riddled Laker team that he somehow got to the Finals.)

And zero titles. It was impressive, but not to the level of what MJ or Russell did.

I do believe that had Magic not contracted HIV, he would have moved into at least the #3 spot all-time. He had 2-4 prime years left I believe.

The most interesting/difficult debate to me right now is Kareem/Wilt for the #3 spot.

I am going to assume we all know where you stand on that.

[jlauber]

Not Mikan's problem though. What more could he have done? He was clearly the best player of his era and that's what matters most to me. It's the only way to be fair and objective.



Yes, but Magic and Wilt are your two favorite players and 90% of people here with an opinion worth listening to will tell you that you do not look at those players and their careers objectively.

The gap between Russell and Wilt is nine titles. Russell won more MVP's and was twice voted ahead of Wilt as the greatest player of all-time, so even though Wilt was clearly more talented, Russell did more with the talent that he had. That gap is pretty big for me. There are a lot of what-is and this and that, but all subjective and my answer to that stuff will always be "who cares?"



Problem is that none of those great teams you mention were in the West and the Lakers only played them twice a year. That helps you win the West every year. Magic's a great winner, the closest we've seen to Russell, but Russ has twice as many titles, nearly twice as many MVP's and would have three times the number of the awards that bears his name.

Jordan also has a clear edge on Magic with twice the Finals MVP's, twice the rings as the clear #1 guy and nearly twice the regular season MVP's. Plus Magic only won back-to-back titles once, and if the right call was made, he never would have won back-to-back titles and would have finished with a losing record against the Pistons, 76ers, Celtics and Bulls during his career.




And zero titles. It was impressive, but not to the level of what MJ or Russell did.

I do believe that had Magic not contracted HIV, he would have moved into at least the #3 spot all-time. He had 2-4 prime years left I believe.

The most interesting/difficult debate to me right now is Kareem/Wilt for the #3 spot.

I am going to assume we all know where you stand on that.


A few points. Yes, CLOSE games DO matter. The teams that Russell and Chamberlain had were never even, especially in their first six seasons. Had Wilt had even a smidgeon of the talent that Russell had in his career, well, that 11-2 edge would have been MUCH closer. And a Wilt with even SIX rings (and in actuality he was a few points away from having as many as SEVEN)...not too many people would rank either Russell or MJ over Chamberlain. And one more time...swap Wilt's pathetic cast of clowns rosters with Russell's from '60 to '65, and Wilt goes 6-0. Especially since he would have had a field day in the Finals against the Lakers in those years. I have long maintained that had Wilt's crappy teammates been able to score THREE more points in game seven of the '62 ECF's...and Wilt would probably have set a Finals scoring record of 50+ ppg that would also never be approached (he averaged 51.5 ppg against LA that season, in eight games, with THREE games of 60+ including a 78-43 game.)

As for the Magic comment. I don't see this "right call" that you mentioned. If anything, Magic's Lakers dominated the '80 and '82 Sixers (something that even Bird's '81 team could barely beat in a a seven game series in which his team came back from a 3-1 deficit and won the last three games by a total of five points.) The Pistons series you mentioned was questionable to be sure, but then Magic took an 11-0 team into the Finals the following year, and was injured mid-way in a close game two...and the Lakers, despite being swept (obviously without Magic in the last two and half games) still lost three close games.

And the Celtic series were actually much more one-sided in LA's favor. They SHOULD have SWEPT Boston in '84. And they pretty easily handled them in '85, and dominated them in '87.

And, to say that the Celtics had a tougher road to the Finals doesn't make up for the fact that Magic led LA to a better record in '80 and '82 (and he took his Laker team to another very close sweeping series loss to the '83 Sixers) than Bird did in Boston in those four seasons. And he took his Lakers much further against the Pistons, as well, later in the decade. And people forget who Bird-led teams beat in two of his three Finals wins... a 40-42 Rocket team in '80, and a 54-28 Riocket team in '86. Those were not great finals wins...even if LA was stunned by both (and '81 was simply because MAGIC was nowhere 100% in that best-of-three series.)

Kareem did far less in his first ten seasons, and against much weaker competition that Chamberlain did in his 10 years of the 60's. Wilt even outplayed him in '71 and '72, and took his team's further overall, in three of their four seasons together (and had Baylor and West not been out of the '71 playoffs...it might have been 4-0.) In terms of dominance...well, no one would suggest that Kareem ever dominated the NBA the way Chamberlain dominated his peers.

[G.O.A.T]

A few points. Yes, CLOSE games DO matter. The teams that Russell and Chamberlain had were never even, especially in their first six seasons. Had Wilt had even a smidgeon of the talent that Russell had in his career, well, that 11-2 edge would have been MUCH closer. And a Wilt with even SIX rings (and in actuality he was a few points away from having as many as SEVEN)...not too many people would rank either Russell or MJ over Chamberlain.

You know how much I hate when you do this. Those are your opinions, are in no way facts, and we don't agree.



And one more time...swap Wilt's pathetic cast of clowns rosters with Russell's from '60 to '65, and Wilt goes 6-0.

I think Russell goes 4-2. See how that works and why it's meaningless.


As for the Magic comment. I don't see this "right call" that you mentioned.

Game six of the 1988 NBA Finals. Pistons lead series 3-2. Lakers down one, the play goes to Kareem, skyhook misses, no contact, foul called, Kareem makes two, Lakers win game. Isiah's ankle gets worse, struggles in game seven, Lakers win title. If the correct call was made on Kareem's hook shot, the Pistons are almost guaranteed to win the title.

As for everything else, we agree on Magic over Bird. I just don't feel the need to exaggerate Magic's achievements and focus on Bird's short comings to make that point. And certainly if Russell's teammates were superior to Wilt's, Magic's were superior to Bird's...right?

[jlauber]

You know how much I hate when you do this. Those are your opinions, are in no way facts, and we don't agree.




I think Russell goes 4-2. See how that works and why it's meaningless.



Game six of the 1988 NBA Finals. Pistons lead series 3-2. Lakers down one, the play goes to Kareem, skyhook misses, no contact, foul called, Kareem makes two, Lakers win game. Isiah's ankle gets worse, struggles in game seven, Lakers win title. If the correct call was made on Kareem's hook shot, the Pistons are almost guaranteed to win the title.

As for everything else, we agree on Magic over Bird. I just don't feel the need to exaggerate Magic's achievements and focus on Bird's short comings to make that point. And certainly if Russell's teammates were superior to Wilt's, Magic's were superior to Bird's...right?

Except that I am being completely rational in my 6-0 take, and you are being utterlky ridiculous in your 4-2 take. Russell had en edge in HOF teammates (and much deeper rosters) in those first six seasons of 8-3, 8-3, 7-3, 9-1, 8-2, and 6-2. Give Wilt that much ammunintion, and given the fact that he could blow away Russell in '67 even with a 5-3 deficit in HOF talent...well, I have to agree with Wooden here.

As for the Pistons series, sure, Detroit could have won that series. Still, the Lakers won DESPITE Kareem' sole contribution being those two FTs. He was simply AWFUL in those Finals. Had Green and Thompson played more minutes, instead of Kareem shooting .414, and I have no doubt that LA would have won anyways.

The Magic-Bird rivalry was considerably one-sided in favor of Magic. In fact, if Magic has just made one of his two FT attempts in game four of the Finals, and LA would have won that series easily....which would have given Magic a 3-0 edge over Bird in their H2H play...and a 6-2 edge in rings. And the reality was, Bird was not a superhuman player in his post-season career, and was even worse in his Finals. Magic was clearly a better post-season player, and had a huge margin in his Finals play.

I forgot to add that Bird had more HOF teammates in the 80s than Magic had. In terms of surrounding talent, Bird had as much as a 5-3 edge in total HOFers in two of their seasons.

[G.O.A.T]

Except that I am being completely rational in my 6-0 take, and you are being utterlky ridiculous in your 4-2 take. Russell had en edge in HOF teammates (and much deeper rosters) in those first six seasons of 8-3, 8-3, 7-3, 9-1, 8-2, and 6-2. Give Wilt that much ammunintion, and given the fact that he could blow away Russell in '67 even with a 5-3 deficit in HOF talent...well, I have to agree with Wooden here.

I'll side with Auerbach and the Celtic players take on that topic. I see no problem with my logic. The illogical part is comparing how many HOF players each team had on it. When they played the game, each team had the same number of HOF players. Zero.

Give Russell a cast of Gola, Arizin, Rodgers, Attles and Meschery and he'd be able to beat a Celtics team with Wilt. All of those players get more touches, more shots and more help on defense with Russell.

Meanwhile Celtics like Heinsohn and Sharman get half the shots (thus score half as much) And Cousy has to slow down his pace and wait for Wilt.

If you take away the Celtic's titles guys like Heinsohn, Ramsey and KC Jones are not hall of famers. You also used Satch Sanders as a HOFer which is incorrect because he is not in as a player but as a contributor. Also your counting guys like Arnie Risen and Andy Phillip, pre-shot clock era stars who were playing 10 minutes a game in their final NBA seasons, hardly HOF caliber at that point. Same goes for Clyde Lovellette on later teams. Basically half of the guys who you count in Russell's HOF cast were not slightly above average players at best when they teamed with Russ.

Now if you give the Warriors two or three titles from 60-64, as Russell's career track record suggests he'd deliver and now Guy Rodgers is in the HOF, Al Attles is likely in and maybe even Meschery. Plus since guys always wanted to play with Russell, guys like Lovellette, Naulls (who thrived with Russell and flopped with Wilt) Bailey Howell etc. end up Warriors, not Celtics.

Then factor in the territorial picks and Russell's loyalty and you might end up with a roster including Rick Barry, Nate Thurmond and Bill Russell by 1965. No matter who Wilt team with he's not beating that trio.

I hate hypotheticals, they prove nothing. In my opinion if you switch Russell and Wilt in 1960, Russell wins more than one title in the decade for sure and Wilt wins less than nine for sure. I don't think that's a stretch at all.



As for the Pistons series, sure, Detroit could have won that series. Still, the Lakers won DESPITE Kareem' sole contribution being those two FTs. He was simply AWFUL in those Finals. Had Green and Thompson played more minutes, instead of Kareem shooting .414, and I have no doubt that LA would have won anyways.

And James Worthy was better than Magic ever was in a game seven. Not that that proves anything, but it's funny you leave that out.


The Magic-Bird rivalry was considerably one-sided in favor of Magic. In fact, if Magic has just made one of his two FT attempts in game four of the Finals, and LA would have won that series easily....which would have given Magic a 3-0 edge over Bird in their H2H play...and a 6-2 edge in rings. And the reality was, Bird was not a superhuman player in his post-season career, and was even worse in his Finals. Magic was clearly a better post-season player, and had a huge margin in his Finals play.

All this does is devalue the good points you make. People won't take you serious when you say things like this.

[Hyperephania]

Except that I am being completely rational in my 6-0 take, and you are being utterlky ridiculous in your 4-2 take. Russell had en edge in HOF teammates (and much deeper rosters) in those first six seasons of 8-3, 8-3, 7-3, 9-1, 8-2, and 6-2. Give Wilt that much ammunintion, and given the fact that he could blow away Russell in '67 even with a 5-3 deficit in HOF talent...well, I have to agree with Wooden here.

As for the Pistons series, sure, Detroit could have won that series. Still, the Lakers won DESPITE Kareem' sole contribution being those two FTs. He was simply AWFUL in those Finals. Had Green and Thompson played more minutes, instead of Kareem shooting .414, and I have no doubt that LA would have won anyways.

The Magic-Bird rivalry was considerably one-sided in favor of Magic. In fact, if Magic has just made one of his two FT attempts in game four of the Finals, and LA would have won that series easily....which would have given Magic a 3-0 edge over Bird in their H2H play...and a 6-2 edge in rings. And the reality was, Bird was not a superhuman player in his post-season career, and was even worse in his Finals. Magic was clearly a better post-season player, and had a huge margin in his Finals play.

I forgot to add that Bird had more HOF teammates in the 80s than Magic had. In terms of surrounding talent, Bird had as much as a 5-3 edge in total HOFers in two of their seasons.

I think Russells edge against Wilt was more psychological than anything else, I actually believe that if Wilt put his mind to it he would be able to straight up crush Russell in a 1on1, unfortunately Basketball is a game of 5on5, and here Russell was able to win. This had much to do with the demands Wilt was facing from "varying" in his game; thus not just dunking on other players, but also shooting, making hook shots etc.

"My game plan whenever I played Wilt was to keep him in the dark as much as I could. That may seem far-fetched, but it was crucial to the success I had against him. Because I knew Wilt as well as I did, I was always seeking to take advantage of his good nature. I did whatever I could to make sure I would never get him angry or fired up. My battle plan with him was always to keep him feeling as comfortable as possible with his own game. If he felt pressured or shown up, he would take notice and try that much harder. I was determined to make sure that never happened.
I was able to block Wilt's shots when I wanted. I knew that he liked to use his right, for example, and because I was left-handed, I didn't have to reach across my body to get a hand on the ball when he shot.(...) - but most often I didn't want to do that because that was precisely the kind of thing that would get him going. Instead what I tried to do was to play him just a little closer, force him to lean ever so slightly away from the basket, just enough to change his angle so that the comfortable shot he took was really slightly out of his range. "

-Bill Russell

I can't find the exact quote but somewhere along the lines Russell also mentions that "Wilt would break his arm if he tried to block one of his dunks."

I know that you mention that Russell played with a bunch of HOF teammates, but I ask you: How many of those would have made the HOF without Russell?
Furthermore, it was not a coincidence Russell ended up with the Celtics, he was the perfect fit, a guy with the will to win, he gelled well with Red Auerbach, and they formed a great team under the leadership of the two.

[jlauber]

I'll side with Auerbach and the Celtic players take on that topic. I see no problem with my logic. The illogical part is comparing how many HOF players each team had on it. When they played the game, each team had the same number of HOF players. Zero.

Give Russell a cast of Gola, Arizin, Rodgers, Attles and Meschery and he'd be able to beat a Celtics team with Wilt. All of those players get more touches, more shots and more help on defense with Russell.

Meanwhile Celtics like Heinsohn and Sharman get half the shots (thus score half as much) And Cousy has to slow down his pace and wait for Wilt.

You are saying that a team with Russell, Arizin, Gola, Meschery, Attles, Rodgers, would beat a team with Wilt, Cousy, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Ramsey, Sanders and KC Jones (and Sharman before '62? Or Havlicek from '63 on?) Player-for-player the Celtics had better players. The ONLY player on those Warrior teams that would have matched up with ANY Boston player was Arizin.

Just in '62 alone, and when Russell's edge was the LEAST, here we go...

Meschery 12.1 ppg, 9..1 rpg, 1.8 apg, .404
Heinsohn 22.1 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.1 apg, .429

Gola 13.7 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 4.9 apg, .421
Sanders 11.2 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 0.9 apg, .435

Rodgers 8.2 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 8.0 apg, .356
Cousy 15.7 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 7.8 apg, .391

Attles 11.3 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 4.4 apg, .474
Ramsey 15.3 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 1.4 apg, .429

Arizin 21.9 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, .410
Sam Jones 18.4 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 3.0 apg, .464


Boston then had KC Jones, a defensive guru with these numbers.

9.2 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, .406

The rest of their benches also favor Boston.

I see Boston with a solid edge in FOUR of those, and the other two are very close. Then, of course, you can add KC Jones numbers to either Cousy's or Sam Jones, and it becomes a 5-1 edge, with only Gola, with a SLIGHT edge.

And in terms of HOFers, Boston had Ramsey, KC Jones, Russell, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and Cousy, as well as Sanders. I will give you the fact that Sanders, KC Jones, and Ramsey are not legit HOFers, but then neither is Gola, who was not only NOT deserving of the HOF, he was among the WORST post-season "HOF" players (BEFORE and with Wilt) in NBA history. A CAREER .355 post-season FG%.

True, some of Boston's players numbers would decline, and some of the Warriors would increase in a swap, depending on how much scoring and shooting that Wilt would actually take on loaded roster like that. Remember, it was Wilt's COACH who asked that Wilt score 50 ppg. Why? Because he took one look at that pathetic roster, and decided that the ONLY chance they would have had, was for Wilt to shoot. As for Wilt's DEFENSE, just take a look at how he DOMINATED Russell in his ROOKIE season. Russell shot a career high .467 that year. Yet, in the known ten H2H games with Wilt (out of 11), Chamberlain held Russell to .398 shooting (BTW, Wilt shot a career worst .461 that season, and .465 against Russell, despite being swarmed by Russell and his teammates.) I think a Chamberlain that would have had the luxury of not having to CARRY his team offensively would have been a DOMINANT defensive player.

Now, once again, this was the CLOSEST roster differential in Wilt's first six seasons that he had with Russell.

There were other years in which you could add Sharman, a legit HOFer, and Havlicek, a player that could score 29 and 28 ppg a season AFTER Russell.

As for the Celtics having to "slow down" their offense for Wilt. Are you kidding me. Chamberlain's teams scored at a considerably higher average during those six seasons. And, furthermore, Wilt was acknowledged as the FASTEST player in the NBA. There was footage of him on YouTube (since removed) titled "The Speedness of Wilt" (I know, I don't like that title, either.) In any case, Wilt was a SPRINTER in college (among other track events.)

Now, if you were to take a look at Wilt's 62-63 roster...

Meschery and Rodgers...and that was IT. Neither of whom would have made Boston's top-SEVEN. Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Cousy-KC Jones, Ramsey, Havlicek, and of course Russell. Then Boston had Sanders and Lovellette, as well. A NINE to ONE edge in HOFers. Take away Ramsey, KC Jones, Lovellette and Sanders, all of whom were quality players, and Boston would STILL have had a 5-1 edge.

Same in 63-64, when Wilt was once again saddled with essentially that same roster, and somehow took them to the Finals. True, they added rookie Thurmond, but he played part-time (26 mpg), out of position (PF), and only shot .395. He helped on the glass and defensively, but he was nowhere near the player that he would become a few years later. Meanwhile, Boston had EIGHT HOFers. And STILL, it was a close series, despite Boston winning 4-1. The Warriors actually routed Boston in one game, and lost two very close games. And, of course, Wilt not only outrebounded Russell, 27-25 per game, he heavily outscored him, as well, 29-11. And, while we don't know what the two shot, Russell shot .356 in his ten playoff games, while Wilt shot .543 in his 11 playoff games...and five of those were against each other. The odds are overwhelming that Chamberlain heavily outshot Russell in that series.

I could go on for EVERY year, but you get the picture. Wilt carried MEDIOCRE rosters his ENTIRE first six seasons (remember, the Warriors were a LAST PLACE team when he arrived.) Meanwhile, Russell came to a 39-33 team, ALONG with Heinsohn in his rookie season, and then Boston added Sam Jones the very next year.


Also your counting guys like Arnie Risen and Andy Phillip, pre-shot clock era stars who were playing 10 minutes a game in their final NBA seasons, hardly HOF caliber at that point.

NEVER counted either one.

Here was Russell's PEAK team in '63. Russell, himself, Havlicek, Heinsohn, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Cousy, Ramsey, Sanders and Lovellette. ALL NINE in the HOF. Now, here again, you can probably easily remove Sanders and KC Jones, but both were considered the best defensive players at their positions at the time. Ramsey was not a HOFer, but he was damned good offensive player off the bench (several 15+ ppg seasons, and all off the bench.) Lovellette was past his prime, but he did have multiple 20+ ppg seasons in his career, and the ONLY reason he was brought to Boston was to just POUND on Wilt, which he did, and finally Wilt punched him out in the '64 Finals, and ended his career. Havlicek, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, and Cousy were all great players.


Now if you give the Warriors two or three titles from 60-64, as Russell's career track record suggests he'd deliver and now Guy Rodgers is in the HOF, Al Attles is likely in and maybe even Meschery. Plus since guys always wanted to play with Russell, guys like Lovellette, Naulls (who thrived with Russell and flopped with Wilt) Bailey Howell etc. end up Warriors, not Celtics.

Highly unlikely. In fact, had Russell been saddled with those goofballs, I doubt he even gets a winning record in any of them. His legacy would have took a hit, and his rings would have dropped dramatically.

Incidently, you must be quoting Simmons on your take on Naulls. He was WASHED-UP by the time he played with Wilt, and then played WORSE with Russell. Look it up.



Then factor in the territorial picks and Russell's loyalty and you might end up with a roster including Rick Barry, Nate Thurmond and Bill Russell by 1965. No matter who Wilt team with he's not beating that trio.



So, I guess Russell moves to the PF position? It was CLEAR that Thurmond could not play the PF position. And of course, we KNOW that Chamberlain ABUSED Thurmond throughout his career...even into his LAST season (in the playoffs in '73...Thurmond fresh from leading his 47-35 Warriors over Kareem's 60-22 Bucks) was just CRUSHED by Wilt, who outrebounded him, per game, 24-17, and outshot him by a .550 to .392 margin...in leading HIS 60-22 Lakers to a 4-1 series blowout over the Warriors, and Rick Barry.) Just as Wilt dominated Nate and Barry in leading his '67 Sixers to a deceptive 4-2 series win (at their best, they annihilated SF, 126-95 in a game in that series.)

I don't see it. A HEALTHY Sixer squad was considerably better than even Russell's 60-21 Celtics, and would have routed them in '68 had they not just been DECIMATED by injuries.



I hate hypotheticals, they prove nothing. In my opinion if you switch Russell and Wilt in 1960, Russell wins more than one title in the decade for sure and Wilt wins less than nine for sure. I don't think that's a stretch at all.


They are hypotheticals, but they are not a stretch at all. When Wilt had an equal (or even slightly less equal) , and HEALTHY roster, he easily beat Russell's team...in a series in which he just CRUSHED Russell (pretty much like he almost always did individually BTW.)


And James Worthy was better than Magic ever was in a game seven. Not that that proves anything, but it's funny you leave that out.

Magic averaged 19.9 ppg, 5.4 apg, 12.6 apg, and shot .514 in the playoffs that season. In the Finals, he averaged 21.7 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 13.0 apg, and shot 55% (against Rodman BTW.) In his game seven, he had 19 points, on 6-9 shooting, with 5 rebounds, and 14 assists. Worthy played great in that game seven, but for the series, he was at 22.0 ppg, 7.4 rpg, 4.4 apg, and shot .492. I think a good case could be made for Magic once again winning the Finals MVP that year. We all KNOW that he LED the Lakers to the title.

[jlauber]

I think Russells edge against Wilt was more psychological than anything else, I actually believe that if Wilt put his mind to it he would be able to straight up crush Russell in a 1on1, unfortunately Basketball is a game of 5on5, and here Russell was able to win. This had much to do with the demands Wilt was facing from "varying" in his game; thus not just dunking on other players, but also shooting, making hook shots etc.

"My game plan whenever I played Wilt was to keep him in the dark as much as I could. That may seem far-fetched, but it was crucial to the success I had against him. Because I knew Wilt as well as I did, I was always seeking to take advantage of his good nature. I did whatever I could to make sure I would never get him angry or fired up. My battle plan with him was always to keep him feeling as comfortable as possible with his own game. If he felt pressured or shown up, he would take notice and try that much harder. I was determined to make sure that never happened.
I was able to block Wilt's shots when I wanted. I knew that he liked to use his right, for example, and because I was left-handed, I didn't have to reach across my body to get a hand on the ball when he shot.(...) - but most often I didn't want to do that because that was precisely the kind of thing that would get him going. Instead what I tried to do was to play him just a little closer, force him to lean ever so slightly away from the basket, just enough to change his angle so that the comfortable shot he took was really slightly out of his range. "

-Bill Russell

I can't find the exact quote but somewhere along the lines Russell also mentions that "Wilt would break his arm if he tried to block one of his dunks."

I know that you mention that Russell played with a bunch of HOF teammates, but I ask you: How many of those would have made the HOF without Russell?
Furthermore, it was not a coincidence Russell ended up with the Celtics, he was the perfect fit, a guy with the will to win, he gelled well with Red Auerbach, and they formed a great team under the leadership of the two.

Russell could NOT block Wilt's shot anytime he wanted to. If that were the case, then Russell would never have lost 58 games against Wilt (nor 20 of 49 playoff games.) In game seven of the '65 ECF's, and with Wilt playing with a 40-40 team, on the road, against Russell's 62-18, Chamberlain scored six of Philly's last eight points, including a thunderous dunk on him with 5 secs left. In fact, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass, and had "Havlicek not stole the ball", who knows? In any case, in that game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds.

Of course, why couldn't Russell step up in the '67 ECF's, then, either, when Chamberlain CRUSHED him and his Celtics, 4-1, and only a four point loss in game four prevented a sweep? In the clinching game five win of that series, Chamberlain scored 22 first-half points, en route to 29 points, on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocks...while holding Russell to FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds, and 7 assists.

The fact was, Russell had to "hold on for dear life" in MANY of their H2H games. Chamberlain had a PLAYOFF games of 50 points and 35 rebounds, in a WIN over Russell. He also had another playoff game against Russell, in which he outscored him, 42-9, and outrebounded him, 37-20 in yet another win.

I could list a TON of games in which Chamberlain just BURIED Russell, including a slew of playoff games.

As for HOF teammates, even throwing out the borderline HOFers that Russell had, they were STILL very good players. In terms of QUALITY players, Russell played with MANY more and for MUCH longer.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4229


but you can still see that Chamberlain's teammates were in fact significantly less talented than Russell's, by both our Quality of Teammates metric and even by Bill Simmons' own ranking method. So I don't think it's quite fair to say, "let's never mention the supporting-cast card again with Russell and Chamberlain," because it's still pretty obvious that Wilt's supporting cast was inferior to Russell's by a good margin.



"Now you can see Russell's "score" is more than twice that of Wilt,"


I have documented the HUGE difference in talent MANY times, and I won't take the time to do it again right now...but once again, Russell had MUCH better players and had them MUCH longer.

And please don't bring up Baylor, who only played with Wilt for ONE full season (and only two post-seasons....one in which Wilt had just returned from major knee surgery...and was STILL significantly better than Baylor. And in the other, Baylor was simply AWFUL.) Or Thurmond, who Wilt played with only ONE season, and Thurmond was a rookie, playing part-time, out of position, and shooting .395. Or Goodrich, who Chamberlain did not play with at all during the Russell era. And look up Tom Gola's career, and you tell me if he is a HOFer...especially if you look at his HORRID post-season play ( a CAREER .355 shooter...and was awful even before Wilt.)

[DKLaker]

1. MJ
2. Kobe
3. Magic
4. KAJ
5. Bird
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Russell
9. Baylor
10. The Big O
11. Karl Malone
12. Jerry West

Argue if you may, this is MY opinion and unlike 99.9 percent of people on here, I saw every one of these players play live in their prime.
Yeah......NO TIM DUNCAN ON HERE FOR ME......befor anyone can say I forgot him....lol.

[Papaya Petee]

Let's have your criteria in selecting Bird over Wilt. Yes, he has a 3-2 edge in rings, playing on far more talented teams in his entire career...but after that Bird has virtually nothing on Wilt. Chamberlain went to more Finals, more Conference Finals, and played MUCH better in the playoffs AND Finals. Then, do you care to compare their regular season accomplishments? That would be truly laughable.
Go away, go jerk off to Wilt's posters and pictures, honestly.

1.) MJ
2.) KAJ
3.) Wilt
4.) Shaq
5.) Bird
6.) Magic
7.) Kobe
8.) Russell
9.) Hakeem
10.) Duncan

[rmt]

1. MJ
2. Kobe
3. Magic
4. KAJ
5. Bird
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Russell
9. Baylor
10. The Big O
11. Karl Malone
12. Jerry West

Argue if you may, this is MY opinion and unlike 99.9 percent of people on here, I saw every one of these players play live in their prime.
Yeah......NO TIM DUNCAN ON HERE FOR ME......befor anyone can say I forgot him....lol.

Don't know which is more implausible: Kobe at #2 (1 MVP & 2 Finals MVP) or Duncan at #13 or less (4 rings without an all-nba team mate, 2 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs, 13 all-defensive teams). I'd love to hear your reasoning for Baylor, Oscar, K. Malone and West over TD and Hakeem.

[Status Quo]

1. Kobe
2. Jordan
3. Pippen
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Jabbar
7. Oneal
8. Duncan
9. Chamberlain
10. Dirk

Pippen as 3rd best player of all time ... come on now

[jlauber]

Give Russell a cast of Gola, Arizin, Rodgers, Attles and Meschery and he'd be able to beat a Celtics team with Wilt. All of those players get more touches, more shots and more help on defense with Russell.

Meanwhile Celtics like Heinsohn and Sharman get half the shots (thus score half as much) And Cousy has to slow down his pace and wait for Wilt.

G.O.A.T, think about this...

Since we KNOW that Chamberlain pretty much did whatever his COACHES asked of him, let's assume that Auerbach has Wilt take CONSIDERABLY less shots. For example, Russell took around 16 FGAs in the early 60's, while Wilt was taking around 35.

Two important points, Wilt was already a MUCH more efficient shooter than Russell was, DESPITE being the focal point of EVERY defense he played against. Can you imagine how much MORE EFFICIENT a Chamberlain would have been when taking far less attempts (as in '67 when he shot an eye-popping .683 in a league that shot .441)?

So, not only would Wilt be naturally more efficient, by taking less forced shots (because he WAS the offense)...BUT, given quality SCORERS such as Heinsohn and Sam Jones as well as either Sharman or Havlicek, he would be even MORE efficient since opposing defenses couldn't just game-plan against him. You have to remember that the ONLY scoring option Wilt really had in the first half of the decade was Paul Arizin, who was nearing the end of his career, and who only played with Wilt for three years (from '60 thru '62.) After that, Wilt had ZERO scorers from '63 thru '64. Players like Gola and Meschery had their career HIGHs with Wilt, but neither were more than 16 ppg at ANY point in their careers. Meanwhile, Russell had players like Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek...ALL with multiple 20+ ppg scoring seasons (my god, Havlicek averaged 29 and 28 ppg AFTER Russell, and Sam Jones had a season as high as 26 ppg with Russell.)

That brings me to this point. Wilt, with Auerbach, probably would have averaged about 20 FGAs per game, instead of the 16 that Russell took...which is still a DRAMATIC reduction from 35 per game. Now, given the fact that Russell made about 7 FGs per game, on his 16 attempts, and that we can safely assume that Wilt would have shot better than the .506 to .540 he shot in the first half of the decade, I would CONSERVATIVELY estimate that Wilt would have made about 55% of his shots, with 20 FGAs per game..which would mean that he would have made about 11 per game.

Think about that, Wilt would only be taking four more shots per game, than Russell, and yet would also be making FOUR more shots per game...or shooting 100% on them...or EIGHT more points per game. Now, granted, the rest of Boston's roster would lose four shots per game under that scenario, but given the fact that those players shot around 43%, the Celtics would lose than four points a game on those four shots.

Ultimately, a Chamberlain would have made Boston about 4-5 pts better on the SAME number of shots. And that is before Wilt's FT shooting, which also would have been a couple more points a game...probably just on more "bonus shots" that he would have created. (BTW, Wilt and Russell were nearly identical at the line in terms of efficiency early in their careers.) All of which makes me believe that the Celtics would have scored 6-7 more points per game, on the exact same number of shots.

The real question would then become...just how much better defensively was Russell than Wilt? I for one, believe that he was marginally better, even then, and was probably no better by the mid-60's. And since Wilt would not have had to waste so much energy on the offensive end in this scenario, and could devote more attention to his defense, I don't think the Celtics defense would decline much at all. Here again, though, even if Russell's defense was worth seven points more than Chamberlain's, which is hard to believe...that would still mean that Boston would have been, at worst, just as great with Wilt, as with Russell. IMHO, they would have been better.

Then, you are now taking a Russell, who was usually no more than a 3rd or 4th best scoring option on those Celtic teams, and certainly not as feared as Wilt ever was...what would he do on those Warrior teams? Once again, we know that the Warriors had limited scorers on those teams. And on more time, none of them, other than Arizin ever scored much more after Wilt (although Rodgers did raise his offense a little in Chicago, but on just HORRIBLE FG%'s.) So, Russell, who was probably slightly better than an average shooter, at best, in those early 60's leagues, would have had to shoot more, and probably at an even lower efficiency...especially if he were anything close to a number one scoring option.

In variably, he would have probably given his teammates a few more shots per game, than Wilt, but he would have had to take more than what he had in Boston, as well. And given the fact that Wilt's teammates shot about 100% worse than he did, on average...I just don't see Russell raising the Warriors offense at all. In fact, I think they would decline significantly. Furthermore, does Russell make players like Rodgers, Meschery, and Arizin better defenders? I don't think so.

It is certainly interesting speculation, but the bottom line...put Wilt with MUCH better teammates, and give Russell MUCH worse one's (and less contributing players overall), and I think Wilt EASILY goes 6-0 in his first six seasons in the league.

[Draz]

So people choose Lebron over Dirk?

[DMAVS41]

Its not hard. Great teams win titles. Its a simple fact that Russell had a better coach and better teammates.

I'm not going to sit here and say who was better because I didn't see them play live.

But I can speak to this era.....and what did we hear about Lebron James his first 7 years. He can't win. He's the new Wilt. All stats no substance.

And now he's got a quality team around him for the first time in his career and he's playing great ball and making every big shot. He's playing so well that Pippen said he might be better than MJ and the stats guys at ESPN just wrote an article comparing him favorably to MJ.

Funny how that works. Kobe goes 5 years without a title and its:

"he'll never win without shaq. kobe meant nothing to those Lakers teams"

Or whatever the bullshit was being said.

Dirk's a choker....bla bla bla.

Great teammates change everything. Always has.

People forget that MJ was labeled as a "all stats no substance" guy his first 6 years.



Wilt was a legend. One of the greatest to ever play. Anyone that insinuates that his teams lost because of him is a joke. He lost to Russell and great teams. No shame in that.

I can just see it now. Dirk could have a great series and lose to a much better Heat team and the same narrative will kick in about how he's soft and a choker and you can't win with him.

Getting sick of the inconsistency in the sports world, but it seems even worse in the NBA.

[jlauber]

Its not hard. Great teams win titles. Its a simple fact that Russell had a better coach and better teammates.

I'm not going to sit here and say who was better because I didn't see them play live.

But I can speak to this era.....and what did we hear about Lebron James his first 7 years. He can't win. He's the new Wilt. All stats no substance.

And now he's got a quality team around him for the first time in his career and he's playing great ball and making every big shot. He's playing so well that Pippen said he might be better than MJ and the stats guys at ESPN just wrote an article comparing him favorably to MJ.

Funny how that works. Kobe goes 5 years without a title and its:

"he'll never win without shaq. kobe meant nothing to those Lakers teams"

Or whatever the bullshit was being said.

Dirk's a choker....bla bla bla.

Great teammates change everything. Always has.

People forget that MJ was labeled as a "all stats no substance" guy his first 6 years.



Wilt was a legend. One of the greatest to ever play. Anyone that insinuates that his teams lost because of him is a joke. He lost to Russell and great teams. No shame in that.

I can just see it now. Dirk could have a great series and lose to a much better Heat team and the same narrative will kick in about how he's soft and a choker and you can't win with him.

Getting sick of the inconsistency in the sports world, but it seems even worse in the NBA.

Great post, as always...but you once made a comment which pretty much sums it all up...

Unless all of the great players started off with identical rosters, there is simply no way of comparing them.

In Wilt's case, virtually NONE of his teammates played significantly better withOUT him, and in several cases, they played their BEST with him. Goodrich, Greer, Gola, Meschery, Jackson, and probably others' all played BETTER with Wilt. West played about as well. Baylor declined, but he was already in a state of decline before Wilt played with him (and then, they really only played ONE full season together.) Rodgers, Walker, and Arizin probably all played SLIGHTLY better without Chamberlain, but in Walker's case, it was he became a #1 option on the Bulls instead of a #3-4 option with Wilt, and in Arizins case, he was more in his prime before Wilt arrived. Same with Cunnigham, who was sixth man with Chamberlain, and a #1 option afterwards. And you can't count Thurmond because he basically played the same position. That is it.

So, swap Wilt's teammates, and since they become no better, on average (and in fact, probably worse), you simply can't blame WILT for how his TEAM's performed. None of them were considerably better without him. So it was not like he was holding them back.

In any case, how would Lebron or Dirk have done with Shaq as a teammate? Look at Garnett. He made horrible teams considerably better, and then, with quality teammates, he became a champion.

I do believe that TEAM accomlishments should count in a player's resume, but you also have to evaluate their entire body of work. I have long maintained that Russell's career is an EYE-LASH greater than Wilt's. Had those two swapped rosters in Chamberlain's ten years in the league, and I don't think there is any question that Wilt would have had an edge in rings over Russell in those ten seasons. It may not have been as large as Russell's 9-1 margin, but even a 7-3 edge for Wilt, along with a ring in '72 would have made him a lock for GOAT on ANY intelligent list.

[DMAVS41]

Great post, as always...but you once made a comment which pretty much sums it all up...

Unless all of the great players started off with identical rosters, there is simply no way of comparing them.

In Wilt's case, virtually NONE of his teammates played significantly better withOUT him, and in several cases, they played their BEST with him. Goodrich, Greer, Gola, Meschery, Jackson, and probably others' all played BETTER with Wilt. West played about as well. Baylor declined, but he was already in a state of decline before Wilt played with him (and then, they really only played ONE full season together.) Rodgers, Walker, and Arizin probably all played SLIGHTLY better without Chamberlain, but in Walker's case, it was he became a #1 option on the Bulls instead of a #3-4 option with Wilt, and in Arizins case, he was more in his prime before Wilt arrived. And you can't count Thurmond because he basically played the same position. That is it.

So, swap Wilt's teammates, and since they become no better, on average (and in fact, probably worse), you simply can't blame WILT for how his TEAM's performed. None of them were considerably better without him. So it was not like he was holding them back.

In any case, how would Lebron or Dirk have done with Shaq as a teammate? Look at Garnett. He made horrible teams considerably better, and then, with quality teammates, he became a champion.

I do believe that TEAM accomlishments should count in a player's resume, but you also have to evaluate their entire body of work. I have long maintained that Russell's career is an EYE-LASH greater than Wilt's. Had those two swapped rosters in Chamberlain's ten years in the league, and I don't think there is any question that Wilt would have had an edge in rings over Russell in those ten seasons. It may not have been as large as Russell's 9-1 margin, but even a 7-3 edge for Wilt, along with a ring in '72 would have made him a lock for GOAT on ANY intelligent list.

Team accomplishments should of course count. What should also factor in is team accomplishments based on circumstances.

For example, what will be more impressive. Lebron winning a ring this year with the Heat team or Dirk carrying the Mavs to the finals sweeping the Lakers in the process?

I think its a legit discussion to have, but historically the title by Lebron will be all that matters.

That is the huge flaw in the way we rank players. Take 2006 for Dirk. Its now looked at as a negative. Dirk would have been better off just playing great against the Spurs and losing....as he should have. Nobody would call him a choker. Instead, Dirk does something legendary by beating the Duncan led spurs in a game 7 on the road and over-achieves.....only to see that swept under the rug.

Then the next year he plays amazing, wins MVP, and leads a team that has no business winning 57 games.....let alone 67. But the Mavs get upset and its all on Dirk that a 67 win team lost in the first round. Even though that team grossly over achieved to win 67.

Lebron is very similar in Cleveland. His teams had no business being as good as they were. His own greatness worked against him.

And thats sad.

[King Lebron LBJ]

Team accomplishments should of course count. What should also factor in is team accomplishments based on circumstances.

For example, what will be more impressive. Lebron winning a ring this year with the Heat team or Dirk carrying the Mavs to the finals sweeping the Lakers in the process?

I think its a legit discussion to have, but historically the title by Lebron will be all that matters.

That is the huge flaw in the way we rank players. Take 2006 for Dirk. Its now looked at as a negative. Dirk would have been better off just playing great against the Spurs and losing....as he should have. Nobody would call him a choker. Instead, Dirk does something legendary by beating the Duncan led spurs in a game 7 on the road and over-achieves.....only to see that swept under the rug.

Then the next year he plays amazing, wins MVP, and leads a team that has no business winning 57 games.....let alone 67. But the Mavs get upset and its all on Dirk that a 67 win team lost in the first round. Even though that team grossly over achieved to win 67.

Lebron is very similar in Cleveland. His teams had no business being as good as they were. His own greatness worked against him.

And thats sad.

Great post, agreed on all counts.

[Kobe24Clutch]

1. Jordan

2. Magic

3. Kobe

4. Bird

5. Jabbar

6. Olajuwon

7. Shaq

8. Duncan

9. Russell

10. Wilt
This. :applause:

[Pointguard]

Team accomplishments should of course count. What should also factor in is team accomplishments based on circumstances.

For example, what will be more impressive. Lebron winning a ring this year with the Heat team or Dirk carrying the Mavs to the finals sweeping the Lakers in the process?

I think its a legit discussion to have, but historically the title by Lebron will be all that matters.

That is the huge flaw in the way we rank players. Take 2006 for Dirk. Its now looked at as a negative. Dirk would have been better off just playing great against the Spurs and losing....as he should have. Nobody would call him a choker. Instead, Dirk does something legendary by beating the Duncan led spurs in a game 7 on the road and over-achieves.....only to see that swept under the rug.

Then the next year he plays amazing, wins MVP, and leads a team that has no business winning 57 games.....let alone 67. But the Mavs get upset and its all on Dirk that a 67 win team lost in the first round. Even though that team grossly over achieved to win 67.

Lebron is very similar in Cleveland. His teams had no business being as good as they were. His own greatness worked against him.

And thats sad.
Well said. I think its sad when we witness things and can't provide context for what we see. This rings are the ultimate decider on who is what is never the whole story or even provides who is great.

Kidd, Dirk and Chris Paul are great players but historically can be buried if they don't win. Not the cases in other sports but basketball is a different medium. Statistic's won't capture the full extent of their work and ability to affect the game.

[Duncan21formvp]

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

[asdf1990]

1. spot reserved for lebron james
2.jordan
3.kareem
4.wilt
5.magic
6.bird
7.russell
8.duncan
9.shaq
10.hakeem

[Hyperephania]

Russell could NOT block Wilt's shot anytime he wanted to. If that were the case, then Russell would never have lost 58 games against Wilt (nor 20 of 49 playoff games.) In game seven of the '65 ECF's, and with Wilt playing with a 40-40 team, on the road, against Russell's 62-18, Chamberlain scored six of Philly's last eight points, including a thunderous dunk on him with 5 secs left. In fact, the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass, and had "Havlicek not stole the ball", who knows? In any case, in that game, Chamberlain scored 30 points, on 12-15 shooting, with 32 rebounds.

Actually I was quoting what Russell said, and I think his main point would not be he was able to block Wilt each time, but that he would be better off not even trying to block Wilt, because as you said Wilt would have his monster games were even Russell couldn't handle him. Russell's strategy was aimed at forcing Wilt into misses without Wilt really noticing it.

Russell also says:
"I particularly loved those games when he would rack up forty points and thirty rebounds while I would get half those and the Celtics would away with the game"

Russell's plan is not to beat Wilt 1on1, he realized that he can't do this, instead he tried to limit him.


You are saying that a team with Russell, Arizin, Gola, Meschery, Attles, Rodgers, would beat a team with Wilt, Cousy, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Ramsey, Sanders and KC Jones (and Sharman before '62? Or Havlicek from '63 on?) Player-for-player the Celtics had better players. The ONLY player on those Warrior teams that would have matched up with ANY Boston player was Arizin.

No, I'm implying that the team dynamics would probably have changed with Russell on the team, so the Warriors wouldn't have looked that way in '62 and '63. I have much faith in Russell's mindset regarding making his teammates better, furthermore I highly doubt Russell and KC Jones would not end up on the same team, due to their college history together.

I might be wrong in all that I'm saying but I think that you are giving Russell little credit for actually "making his teammates better", if that is actually possible, Russell definitely did it.

[jlauber]

Actually I was quoting what Russell said, and I think his main point would not be he was able to block Wilt each time, but that he would be better off not even trying to block Wilt, because as you said Wilt would have his monster games were even Russell couldn't handle him. Russell's strategy was aimed at forcing Wilt into misses without Wilt really noticing it.

Russell also says:
"I particularly loved those games when he would rack up forty points and thirty rebounds while I would get half those and the Celtics would away with the game"

Russell's plan is not to beat Wilt 1on1, he realized that he can't do this, instead he tried to limit him.



No, I'm implying that the team dynamics would probably have changed with Russell on the team, so the Warriors wouldn't have looked that way in '62 and '63. I have much faith in Russell's mindset regarding making his teammates better, furthermore I highly doubt Russell and KC Jones would not end up on the same team, due to their college history together.

I might be wrong in all that I'm saying but I think that you are giving Russell little credit for actually "making his teammates better", if that is actually possible, Russell definitely did it.

Good post. And I don't have much time this morning so I will just say that close to HALF of Russell's teammates that made the HOF (and it was a slew of them) would not have been in the HOF, had it not been for him.

As for Chamberlain...IF only he would have had anything close to the rosters that Russell had for much of his career. And even in the few years that he did, they were decimated by injuries, played awfully, or had a incompetent coach...except ONE, his '67 76er team. And we saw just how dominant a Chamberlain could be when his teammates neutralized Russell's.

In any case, those two EACH have a legitimate argument for GOAT status, and anyone that has either of them below their top-5 has no clue about the game.

[G.O.A.T]

You are saying that a team with Russell, Arizin, Gola, Meschery, Attles, Rodgers, would beat a team with Wilt, Cousy, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Ramsey, Sanders and KC Jones (and Sharman before '62? Or Havlicek from '63 on?) Player-for-player the Celtics had better players. The ONLY player on those Warrior teams that would have matched up with ANY Boston player was Arizin.

Just in '62 alone, and when Russell's edge was the LEAST, here we go...

Meschery 12.1 ppg, 9..1 rpg, 1.8 apg, .404
Heinsohn 22.1 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.1 apg, .429

Gola 13.7 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 4.9 apg, .421
Sanders 11.2 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 0.9 apg, .435

Rodgers 8.2 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 8.0 apg, .356
Cousy 15.7 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 7.8 apg, .391

Attles 11.3 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 4.4 apg, .474
Ramsey 15.3 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 1.4 apg, .429

Arizin 21.9 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, .410
Sam Jones 18.4 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 3.0 apg, .464


Boston then had KC Jones, a defensive guru with these numbers.

9.2 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, .406

The rest of their benches also favor Boston.

I see Boston with a solid edge in FOUR of those, and the other two are very close. Then, of course, you can add KC Jones numbers to either Cousy's or Sam Jones, and it becomes a 5-1 edge, with only Gola, with a SLIGHT edge.

Actually I think the Warriors have an edge at five of the six spots. Only Meschery is inferior to his comparison.

And I love the idea of adding KC Jones' numbers to Cousy or Sam. Could the Celtics play six at a time?

You post the numbers like they man anything. If Russell and Wilt switched teams, do you think those numbers all stay the same? Do the Warriors average just 70 points a game to the Celtics 140?

And let me remind you again Tom Sanders is NOT in the HOF as a player.

[gengiskhan]

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

Kobe at #9 . :roll: :roll:

Hakeem Top 8 GOATs easily. 1994: NBA MVP + NBA FINALS MVP + DPOY all in same year also beat arch-rival Ewing in center position to win Finals MVP!!!!
followed back-2-back finals MVP with destroying D'Rob & Shaq in 1995.

****ing GOAT Stuff.

Kobe at #9 ahead of Hakeem. Kobe is yet to beat a true SG in NBA finals. Last time I checked Billups, a true SG kicked kobe's ass in 2004 & won finals MVP.

[glidedrxlr22]

The top then players have multiple season mvps......except.....:lol

[G.O.A.T]

The top then players have multiple season mvps......except.....:lol

Shaq?

[nycelt84]

1.Michael Jordan
2.Bill Russell
3.Wilt Chamberlain
4.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5.Larry Bird
6.Magic Johnson
7.Kobe Bryant
8.Shaquille O' Neal
9.Tim Duncan
10.Julius Erving (with ABA performance added)

[blablabla]

Kobe at #9 . :roll: :roll:

Hakeem Top 8 GOATs easily. 1994: NBA MVP + NBA FINALS MVP + DPOY all in same year also beat arch-rival Ewing in center position to win Finals MVP!!!!
followed back-2-back finals MVP with destroying D'Rob & Shaq in 1995.

****ing GOAT Stuff.

Kobe at #9 ahead of Hakeem. Kobe is yet to beat a true SG in NBA finals. Last time I checked Billups, a true SG kicked kobe's ass in 2004 & won finals MVP.
:facepalm

[Disaprine]

Original thread.....
^^^

[jlauber]

Actually I think the Warriors have an edge at five of the six spots. Only Meschery is inferior to his comparison.

And I love the idea of adding KC Jones' numbers to Cousy or Sam. Could the Celtics play six at a time?

You post the numbers like they man anything. If Russell and Wilt switched teams, do you think those numbers all stay the same? Do the Warriors average just 70 points a game to the Celtics 140?

And let me remind you again Tom Sanders is NOT in the HOF as a player.

I get accused of being a Wilt homer, yet you post this NONSENSE. Take a look at the careers of everyone of those players. The Celtics had 20 ppg scorers all over the floor. Heinsohn, Cousy, Sam Jones...ALL MULTIPLE 20 ppg scorers (as were Sharman and Havicek), and Jones was putting up HUGE games in the playoffs, too THAT season. The ONLY 20 ppg scorer, in their CAREERS, whether with Wilt or not, that Wilt had, was Arizin, at the end of his career.

As for adding KC Jones numbers to either Cousy or Sam Jones...OF COURSE you do. Those guys didn't play 48 mpg. Hell Cousy, was MUCH more of a factor than Rodgers, in LESS minutes. He was barely playing HALF the damn game.

And give me a break...Meschery, Attles, Rodgers, GOLA, better than Cousy, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Ramsey??? You are delusional my friend. Those Warrior scrubs, including the WORST post-season HOFer of all-time, GOLA and their lousy careers don't hold a candle those Celtic players. AND even MESCHERY would agree with me. After the '62 ECF's, he stated that it was because of WILT that the Warriors made it to that game seven. He said that PLAYER-FOR-PLAYER, Boston had better players. And it is INARGUABLE. Please ...you are better than that.

YEAR-AFTER-YEAR, in Wilt's first six seasons, Russell had a HUGE edge in QUALITY players, and MUCH DEEPER rosters.

As for the Celtics WITH Wilt...

Evidently you didn't read my post earlier in this thread...


G.O.A.T, think about this...

Since we KNOW that Chamberlain pretty much did whatever his COACHES asked of him, let's assume that Auerbach has Wilt take CONSIDERABLY less shots. For example, Russell took around 16 FGAs in the early 60's, while Wilt was taking around 35.

Two important points, Wilt was already a MUCH more efficient shooter than Russell was, DESPITE being the focal point of EVERY defense he played against. Can you imagine how much MORE EFFICIENT a Chamberlain would have been when taking far less attempts (as in '67 when he shot an eye-popping .683 in a league that shot .441)?

So, not only would Wilt be naturally more efficient, by taking less forced shots (because he WAS the offense)...BUT, given quality SCORERS such as Heinsohn and Sam Jones as well as either Sharman or Havlicek, he would be even MORE efficient since opposing defenses couldn't just game-plan against him. You have to remember that the ONLY scoring option Wilt really had in the first half of the decade was Paul Arizin, who was nearing the end of his career, and who only played with Wilt for three years (from '60 thru '62.) After that, Wilt had ZERO scorers from '63 thru '64. Players like Gola and Meschery had their career HIGHs with Wilt, but neither were more than 16 ppg at ANY point in their careers. Meanwhile, Russell had players like Cousy, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek...ALL with multiple 20+ ppg scoring seasons (my god, Havlicek averaged 29 and 28 ppg AFTER Russell, and Sam Jones had a season as high as 26 ppg with Russell.)

That brings me to this point. Wilt, with Auerbach, probably would have averaged about 20 FGAs per game, instead of the 16 that Russell took...which is still a DRAMATIC reduction from 35 per game. Now, given the fact that Russell made about 7 FGs per game, on his 16 attempts, and that we can safely assume that Wilt would have shot better than the .506 to .540 he shot in the first half of the decade, I would CONSERVATIVELY estimate that Wilt would have made about 55% of his shots, with 20 FGAs per game..which would mean that he would have made about 11 per game.

Think about that, Wilt would only be taking four more shots per game, than Russell, and yet would also be making FOUR more shots per game...or shooting 100% on them...or EIGHT more points per game. Now, granted, the rest of Boston's roster would lose four shots per game under that scenario, but given the fact that those players shot around 43%, the Celtics would lose than four points a game on those four shots.

Ultimately, a Chamberlain would have made Boston about 4-5 pts better on the SAME number of shots. And that is before Wilt's FT shooting, which also would have been a couple more points a game...probably just on more "bonus shots" that he would have created. (BTW, Wilt and Russell were nearly identical at the line in terms of efficiency early in their careers.) All of which makes me believe that the Celtics would have scored 6-7 more points per game, on the exact same number of shots.

The real question would then become...just how much better defensively was Russell than Wilt? I for one, believe that he was marginally better, even then, and was probably no better by the mid-60's. And since Wilt would not have had to waste so much energy on the offensive end in this scenario, and could devote more attention to his defense, I don't think the Celtics defense would decline much at all. Here again, though, even if Russell's defense was worth seven points more than Chamberlain's, which is hard to believe...that would still mean that Boston would have been, at worst, just as great with Wilt, as with Russell. IMHO, they would have been better.

Then, you are now taking a Russell, who was usually no more than a 3rd or 4th best scoring option on those Celtic teams, and certainly not as feared as Wilt ever was...what would he do on those Warrior teams? Once again, we know that the Warriors had limited scorers on those teams. And on more time, none of them, other than Arizin ever scored much more after Wilt (although Rodgers did raise his offense a little in Chicago, but on just HORRIBLE FG%'s.) So, Russell, who was probably slightly better than an average shooter, at best, in those early 60's leagues, would have had to shoot more, and probably at an even lower efficiency...especially if he were anything close to a number one scoring option.

In variably, he would have probably given his teammates a few more shots per game, than Wilt, but he would have had to take more than what he had in Boston, as well. And given the fact that Wilt's teammates shot about 100% worse than he did, on average...I just don't see Russell raising the Warriors offense at all. In fact, I think they would decline significantly. Furthermore, does Russell make players like Rodgers, Meschery, and Arizin better defenders? I don't think so.

It is certainly interesting speculation, but the bottom line...put Wilt with MUCH better teammates, and give Russell MUCH worse one's (and less contributing players overall), and I think Wilt EASILY goes 6-0 in his first six seasons in the league.

[G.O.A.T]

I get accused of being a Wilt homer

Because you are. You have to admit it sucks that a lot of people ignore your valid opinions because of your reputation.


yet you post this NONSENSE.

I don't think it's nonsense. Let me explain and maybe, even if you don't fully agree, you'll see my point. First, I misspoke. I meant 4 of 5, or 4 of 6 if you include the extended bench. But in regards to the individual comparisons you drew.



Meschery 12.1 ppg, 9..1 rpg, 1.8 apg, .404
Heinsohn 22.1 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 2.1 apg, .429

Meschery was a rookie, Heinsohn was at his best. I'd take Tommy-gun any day here. However, in their series, head-to-head, with Gola ineffective on offense do to an injury to his shooting wrist, Meschery stepped up. He averaged 20 and 12, superior to Heinsohn despite being a much less featured player in their offense. Still, edge Boston here.



Gola 13.7 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 4.9 apg, .421
Sanders 11.2 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 0.9 apg, .435

You love to dog Gola as one of the worst Hall of Famers of all-time, you only cite his worst shooting postseason (when he played with a badly injured shooting hand) and never mention that this is a guy who averaged 10 rebounds and 5 assists per game while being the best defensive player at the two and three position in the league. (meaning he guarded the oppositions scoring guard or forward (excluding Pettit who he could not handle by his own admission). Gola was defensively what Sanders would become and was a better offensive player than Sanders ever could be, especially as a rookie. A big edge to Philly here.


Rodgers 8.2 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 8.0 apg, .356
Cousy 15.7 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 7.8 apg, .391

As you know, the strategy that season was to get the ball to Wilt at all times. That killed Rodgers game. He loved to attack the basket in the open court, McGuire preferred an Arizin jump shot or a set play to Wilt. Either way, this is the season I think Rodgers becomes better than Cousy. Having watched parts of eight head-to-head games from this season, my notes almost exclusively have Rodgers getting the better of Cousy. He had already passed him in the assist standings and scored just as (in)efficiently while providing borderline all-league defense according to reputation compared to Cousy who was disinterested at best, though good for a few steals a game I'd guess. Either way, slight edge to the Warriors here. Cousy in his last to years was pretty ugly.


Attles 11.3 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 4.4 apg, .474
Ramsey 15.3 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 1.4 apg, .429

Again, a case of the one player on the rise, and another falling with age. Ramsey wore down over the season and was a disaster on both ends in the playoffs. He was benched in favor of Satch and K.C. Attles gave you more efficient scoring, equal rebounding from the 1/2 compared to Ramsey a 2/3 and provides play making and ball handling, which Ramsey lacks.


Arizin 21.9 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, .410
Sam Jones 18.4 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 3.0 apg, .464

This one is really close, but this is Sam's first playoffs as a starter and Arizin is still a 20 per game guy and an all-star, he only retires the next year because the franchise moves. Again, a slight edge to the Warriors. But going into the next season, I'd take Jones over him, it was that close by the playoffs.


Take a look at the careers of everyone of those players. The Celtics had 20 ppg scorers all over the floor. The ONLY 20 ppg scorer, in their CAREERS, whether with Wilt or not, that Wilt had, was Arizin, at the end of his career.

Rodgers averaged 18 or 19 while leading the league in assists.

Arizin was a scoring champ, Russell never played with one of those.

Meschery could have been Wilt's Heinsohn, he averaged 19 and 9 in his two playoff runs with Wilt (over 20+ games)



Evidently you didn't read my post earlier in this thread...

Had Wilt done all that, maybe. However, Red didn't invent Russell's role, Russell did. Red told him "I don't understand what you do, but I know it works."

Who is to say Red ever figures out how best to use Wilt? The advantage of Russell is that he is already committed to winning above all else.

[raptorfan_dr07]

In the last year I've realized that any top ten list without George Mikan is incomplete.

I used to think that was an era that you could hold against players, but then I realized how dumb that concept was.

Someone asked me the questions...what more could he have done? What more should he have done?

I see five pages of lists and the fact that no one mentions Mikan only further convinces me how important it is to have him included.

As obvious as it easy that basketball has evolved, holding that factor against Mikan is about the stupidest thing you can do. Not only did it have no baring on his or any one else's career at the time, it ignores a vital and critical part of the history of the game.


Same here. :cheers: Glad to see there's at least one other person here that respects Mikan. I've also become of the opinion that there really is no clear cut greatest player of all time. To me it's a matter of personal preference with players like Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Wilt all having legit arguments.

My top 10, in random order:

Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
George Mikan
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Hakeem Olajuwon

LMFAO at any list with Kobe in the top 5.

[jlauber]

Rodgers averaged 18 or 19 while leading the league in assists.

Arizin was a scoring champ, Russell never played with one of those.

Meschery could have been Wilt's Heinsohn, he averaged 19 and 9 in his two playoff runs with Wilt (over 20+ games)




Using your Meschery argument, how about this...

Cousy had post-season scoring averages as high as 26.3 ppg and 20.2 ppg with Russell. He had regular season scoring averages as high 21.7 ppg, and 20.6 ppg with Russell (and TEN seasons of 18 ppg or more.)

Ramsey had post-season scoring as high as 23.2 ppg WITH Russell.

Heinsohn had post-season scoring as high as 24.7 ppg with Russell, and THREE more of 20.7+. He had THREE regular season marks of 21.3 + with a high of 22.1.

Sam Jones had post-seasons as high as 28.9 ppg (!) WITH Russell, and SEVEN of 20.5+. He had regular seasons as high as 25.9 ppg with Russell with FOUR of 21.3+ and a total of SEVEN og 18.4+


And what makes all of this even more FRIGHTENING, was that you could ADD Sharman to that roster BEFORE 61-62, without losing ONE player...and you could ADD Havlicek to that same roster AFTER 61-62 without losing ONE player. That 61-62 roster, with TEN TIMES the scoring power of Wilt's teammates was MUCH stronger before 61-62, and MUCH stronger after 61-62.

Sharman had FOUR post-seasons of 20.7+ , with a high of 21.1 ppg. And he had THREE regular seasons of 20.4+, with a high of 22.3 ppg.

Havlicek played considerably better AFTER Russell. In any case, with Russell he had THREE seasons of 20.7+ ppg season, with a high of 21.6 ppg. Without Russell, he had FIVE MORE of 22.6+ with a high of... 28.9 ppg (and another season of 27.5!)

Compare all of that with Wilt's LONE 20+ scorer, WITH or WITHOUT Chamberlain. Aside from Arizin, NONE of Wilt's teammates on that 61-62 team EVER had ONE 20 ppg season.

Arizin had NINE seasons of 20.7+, with a high of 26.4 and SEVEN of 20.5+ with a high of 28.9. He even had a 26.3 WITH Wilt in '60.

So, let's add them up.

Wilt with ONE player on that 61-62 team that had multiple 20+ ppg seasons in his career.

Russell, just on that 61-62 team, had FOUR players that had multiple 20+ ppg seasons, and if you add the players before 62 and after 62, there were then SIX...all before Wilt's 64-65 season, when he was traded to Philly (and even that team was OVERWHELMED by Russell' scoring teammates.)

Of course, as Simmons alluded to (and you pointed out) Wilt played with Willie Naulls, who was washed-up by the time he came to Wilt's team...and who played WORSE with Russell.

Once again, Meschery's CAREER high season was 16.0 ppg...and it came with WILT. Gola, the WORST post-season HOF player of all-time had his HIGH season, of 15.0 ppg WITH Wilt. Rodgers, as you pointed out had a career high after Wilt of 18.6 ppg ...on get this... .373 shooting, in a league that shot .433. How about Attles? Surely after Wilt he must have proven what a scorer he could have been right? Yep, he went from a season high with Wilt of 10.9 ppg, to a career high of 11.2 ppg without him.

So, there you have it. You are trying to convince me that the bricklayers that Wilt was shackled with in '62 COULD have been productive scorers somewhere else. Yep...they sure PROVED it didn't they.

You and I BOTH know Wilt was at a HUGE disadvantage And it would get WORSE for Wilt. He lost Arizin to retirement following that '62 season (while Russell ADDED Havlicek.) From 62-63 thru the halfway point of 64-65, Chamberlain had virtually ZERO scoring options on his team. They were just awful. In his 62-63 for instance, in a year in which Wilt led the NBA in scoring at 44.8 ppg on a then-record .528 FG%...his moronic teammates collectively shot .412...and the worst team in the league was at .427.

But let's breakdown your other points...


As you know, the strategy that season was to get the ball to Wilt at all times. That killed Rodgers game. He loved to attack the basket in the open court, McGuire preferred an Arizin jump shot or a set play to Wilt. Either way, this is the season I think Rodgers becomes better than Cousy. Having watched parts of eight head-to-head games from this season, my notes almost exclusively have Rodgers getting the better of Cousy. He had already passed him in the assist standings and scored just as (in)efficiently while providing borderline all-league defense according to reputation compared to Cousy who was disinterested at best, though good for a few steals a game I'd guess. Either way, slight edge to the Warriors here. Cousy in his last to years was pretty ugly.



So you are basically stating that Rodgers had a better season in '62 than Cousy.

Rodgers averaged 33.1 mpg, scored 8.2 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 8.0 apg, and shot .356 (yes, .356)

Cousy averaged 28.2 mpg, scored 15.7 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 7.8 apg, and shot .391.

Yep...I sure see an advantage there for the Warriors.

And let's be brutally honest here. Rodgers was very possibly the WORST shooter in NBA HISTORY. His career average was .378...in leagues that shot between .395 thru .460. And, I know, you will bring up Cousy's career average of .375...except that Cousy's league's shot between .357 and .441 (and only four seasons above .395, while Rodgers played in TWELVE seasons above .395.) Cousy not only shot much better compared to the league average, he also was nearly TWICE the scorer that Rodgers was (18.4 to 11.7 ppg).

If Rodgers NEVER took a shot, he would have been a MUCH greater player. Unfortunately, he took WAY too many. And for those that value PER, he is among the worst ever. Cousy had a career 19.5 PER...Rodgers, a paltry 13.5.
And finally regarding Rodgers...has there ever been a player who played in 79 games, that shot as bad as he did that season. .347 (yes .347) in a league that shot .446...or nearly 100 points lower than the league average. One more time...the WORST shooter of all-time. And, he was just as bad WITH and WITHOUT Chamberlain.


You love to dog Gola as one of the worst Hall of Famers of all-time, you only cite his worst shooting postseason (when he played with a badly injured shooting hand) and never mention that this is a guy who averaged 10 rebounds and 5 assists per game while being the best defensive player at the two and three position in the league. (meaning he guarded the oppositions scoring guard or forward (excluding Pettit who he could not handle by his own admission). Gola was defensively what Sanders would become and was a better offensive player than Sanders ever could be, especially as a rookie. A big edge to Philly here.

Gola had no business being in the HOF. His CAREER averages are 11.3 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 4.2 apg, and a .431 FG%. But, as mediocre as those pathetic numbers were...well, he quite possibly was the WORST post-season HOF player ever. His CAREER post-season averages (in FIVE post-seasons) were 11.1 ppg, 10.0 rpg, 4.6 apg...and get this...a .336 FG%. Now, as I have stated many times, here were Gola's FG%'s in his three post-season's with Wilt. .412, .206, and .271. Yes, .412, .206, and .271. Of course, he was hardly any better withOUT Wilt, either. In his two other post-seasons without Chamberlain, he shot .355 and .330.

So, as you can CLEARLY see, BOTH Gola and Rodgers were about as INEFFICIENT as you could possibly get. Wilt would have been better off with Stevie Wonder shooting the ball than those two.

And Sanders was far more efficient, and it was SANDERS, who was acknowledged as the premier defensive forward in the league by 1962 (as quoted from Cherry's book on Wilt.) Not only that, but KC Jones, the backup to both Sam and Cousy, was considered the premier defensive guard in the league. So, Boston not only had Russell, they had the two best defensive players at the F and G positions...AND they also had FAR more firepower with players like Heinsohn, S. Jones, and even Ramsey...than the pathetic shooters that Chamberlain had on his team.

And speaking of post-season shooting. That gets me back to Arizin...who was basically Wilt's ONLY legitimate scoring option. How did Arizin fare in his post-seasons with Wilt? A respectable .431 in '60, and then an awful .328 in '61 and .375 in '62.

As you can clearly understand...Wilt came to a LAST PLACE team before he arrived. Even more remarkably, with all of that ineptitude, he somehow SINGLE-HANDEDLY took that cast of over-matched clowns to a game seven against Russell's HOF-laden 60-20 Celtics...and a TWO-POINT loss. And, as incredible as it was just on the surface...not ONE of those blind teammates shot better than .397 in the '62 playoffs (meanwhile, Russell had THREE teammates shoot over the league average of .426.) NOT ONE teammate, on his ENTIRE roster, shot better than .397.

Here were the numbers....397, .375, .368, .359, .314, .271 (GOLA), .250, .200, .167, and even a .000 for good measure.

Probably the most incredible post-season by ONE player in NBA history.

I'm sorry, but there is simply NO WAY Russell could carry those idiots to a title. And one more time, other than the choking Arizin, NONE of the rest of that roster ever amounted to anything more than slightly better than ordinary teammates ANYWHERE else.

[AlphaWolf24]

1. MJ
2. Kobe
3. Magic
4. KAJ
5. Bird
6. Shaq
7. Wilt
8. Russell
9. Baylor
10. The Big O
11. Karl Malone
12. Jerry West

Argue if you may, this is MY opinion and unlike 99.9 percent of people on here, I saw every one of these players play live in their prime.
Yeah......NO TIM DUNCAN ON HERE FOR ME......befor anyone can say I forgot him....lol.


Actually you 're list is probably the most accurate to the Majority of the fans.....

There is a small minority of "hardcore online" fans who use fancy ideas to push their agenda and will attack you if you don't have hakeem top 5 or slight Kobe for "winning" on a "team":lol

Your actually represents most fans views.....great job,

[talkingconch]

Kobe at #9 . :roll: :roll:

Hakeem Top 8 GOATs easily. 1994: NBA MVP + NBA FINALS MVP + DPOY all in same year also beat arch-rival Ewing in center position to win Finals MVP!!!!
followed back-2-back finals MVP with destroying D'Rob & Shaq in 1995.

****ing GOAT Stuff.

Kobe at #9 ahead of Hakeem. Kobe is yet to beat a true SG in NBA finals. Last time I checked Billups, a true SG kicked kobe's ass in 2004 & won finals MVP.

:facepalm

[Ne 1]

Actually you 're list is probably the most accurate to the Majority of the fans.....

There is a small minority of "hardcore online" fans who use fancy ideas to push their agenda and will attack you if you don't have hakeem top 5 or slight Kobe for "winning" on a "team":lol

Your actually represents most fans views.....great job,

This is the majority view.

http://oi55.tinypic.com/16h2a0k.jpg

[AlphaWolf24]

This is the majority view.

http://oi55.tinypic.com/16h2a0k.jpg


repped

[jlauber]

This is the majority view.

http://oi55.tinypic.com/16h2a0k.jpg


The fans obviously did not see Russell or Wilt play, since they blindly selected Bird ahead of both, ... and who has absolutely NO case over either.

[zay_24]

1. Kobe

2. Magic

3. Kareem

4. Shaq

5. Bird.

6. Hakeem

7. Wilt

8. Duncan

9. bynum

10. Jordan

[bl2k8]

1 MJ
2 KAJ
3 Magic
4 Wilt
5 Russel
6 Bird
7 Kobe
8 Duncan
9 Shaq
10 hakeem