Top 10 players in NBA history as of 2011, Fox Sports

[Legends66NBA7]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-players-in-NBA-history#photo-title=Best%20of%20the%20best&photo=30219323

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

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

[Sakkreth]

Quite messed up...

[Legends66NBA7]

Quite messed up...

Agreed. Don't know what they were thinking. Everyone seems out of place, outside of you know who. No Hakeem, either.

[DaPerceive]

Oscar is not a top 10 player of all-time. I don't even think he is in my top 12, but he is in my top 15. Magic was overrated once again just like in most lists. There is no reason why Magic should be above Bird by that many spots.

My rankings....

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

[catch24]

Oscar is not a top 10 player of all-time. I don't even think he is in my top 12, but he is in my top 15. Magic was overrated once again just like in most lists. There is no reason why Magic should be above Bird by that many spots.

My rankings....

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

Nice to see you posting again. Knew you had it in you. :applause:

[with malice]

My list (http://with-malice.com/articles/nba/nba-top-ten.html)...

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

[Cali Syndicate]

Top 5 looks right. Some could be interchanged but at least the right players are there. The rest looks a little iffy.

[donald_trump]

i honestly break out into hysterical laughter at these lists that have magic johnson over the likes of wilt, kareem and particularly bird, who was around at the same time.

i believe 80% of basketball fans outside of celtics and lakers fans will tell you bird was indefinitely the better player who actually watched that era of basketball. im not sure what has made magic climb above him and other players who were clearly better than him. might simply be the fact that he is well known to the regular basketball fans due to his HIV incident and the fact that he is the one constantly on tv.

EDIT: furthermore, does anyone have any reason as to why magic is rated above the likes of shaq? better peak, longer peak, better prime, more impactful, was just as much of a winner. what is the reason magic is above shaq on most lists?

[with malice]

i honestly break out into hysterical laughter at these lists that have magic johnson over the likes of wilt, kareem and particularly bird, who was around at the same time.


I honestly break out into hysterical laughter at these people who deride Magic's ability.
Well, actually... no I don't. That's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
I mean, really? You "break out into hysterical laughter..."? Might want to get that checked into.

[G-Funk]

Big O has got to be the most overrated

[Asukal]

Oscar is great but he doesn't belong in the top ten imo. :cheers:

[millwad]

Duncan and Robertson over Hakeem..:facepalm

[JohnnySic]

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

11. West
12. M. Malone
13. K. Malone
14. Havlicek
15. Bryant
16. Baylor

[Yung D-Will]

Duncan and Robertson over Hakeem..:facepalm

Yea the more I've been watching Hakeem and Shaq's Playoff and finals games at their peaks it's making me realize that Duncan and Kobe have just never been that dominant. That's no knock on them because Duncan had one of the greatest playoffs/Finals runs of all time and Kobe is ....Kobe.

So I guess as of now.

Jordan
Russell
Kareem/Wilt
Bird
Magic
Shaq/Hakeem
Duncan
Kobe

[greensborohill]

These lists are great and typically have 10 of the handful of 15 players that you could consider top 10. Arguing over the order just geta trivial at some point other than Jordan @ #1 and making sure Russell and Kareem are in the top 5 all the rest is debatable.

[Odinn]

:oldlol: @ Kobe&Big O ahead of Shaq&Duncan.:roll:

[donald_trump]

is there any case for magic over shaq?

[KevinNYC]

I think Olajuwon is overrated on this board. He was a guy who had all the tools and when he put them all together he was spectacular. But there were years he didn't.

I don't see much separation between him and Moses who was a three time MVP while Hakeem was a 1-time MVP. Moses's top 5 seasons in MVP voting are

1978-79 NBA 0.521 (1)
1980-81 NBA 0.261 (4)
1981-82 NBA 0.735 (1)
1982-83 NBA 0.960 (1)
1984-85 NBA 0.279 (3)


1985-86 NBA 0.247 (4)
1992-93 NBA 0.660 (2)
1993-94 NBA 0.880 (1)
1995-96 NBA 0.211 (4)
1988-89 NBA 0.211 (5) also 5 1994-95 NBA 0.140 (5)

[KevinNYC]

And I like Hakeem a lot.

[bagelred]

Where Walt Frazier be at?

[Niquesports]

i honestly break out into hysterical laughter at these lists that have magic johnson over the likes of wilt, kareem and particularly bird, who was around at the same time.

i believe 80% of basketball fans outside of celtics and lakers fans will tell you bird was indefinitely the better player who actually watched that era of basketball. im not sure what has made magic climb above him and other players who were clearly better than him. might simply be the fact that he is well known to the regular basketball fans due to his HIV incident and the fact that he is the one constantly on tv.

EDIT: furthermore, does anyone have any reason as to why magic is rated above the likes of shaq? better peak, longer peak, better prime, more impactful, was just as much of a winner. what is the reason magic is above shaq on most lists?


Its called knowing and understanding the game.
There is a reason Magic's teams beat Bird's team more. There are fans of the game and there are people that know the game. Fans see Bird ect.. scoring points and making great plays. People that know the game see Magic like Russell take a team and just win championships.

[Niquesports]

is there any case for magic over shaq?
Is there any case for Shaq over Moses Hakeem Shaq is like Wilt talent bigger than accomplishments. Which hurst his legacy

[Math2]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-players-in-NBA-history#photo-title=Best%20of%20the%20best&photo=30219323

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

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

Yes, very bad...

[Math2]

i honestly break out into hysterical laughter at these lists that have magic johnson over the likes of wilt, kareem and particularly bird, who was around at the same time.

i believe 80% of basketball fans outside of celtics and lakers fans will tell you bird was indefinitely the better player who actually watched that era of basketball. im not sure what has made magic climb above him and other players who were clearly better than him. might simply be the fact that he is well known to the regular basketball fans due to his HIV incident and the fact that he is the one constantly on tv.

EDIT: furthermore, does anyone have any reason as to why magic is rated above the likes of shaq? better peak, longer peak, better prime, more impactful, was just as much of a winner. what is the reason magic is above shaq on most lists?

Hm.....Tougher era, more champs? lol at you thinking Shaq is better than Magic...Shaq isn't even top 8 probably and Magic is top 6 without any question.

[Math2]

How is West not top 10?

[Legends66NBA7]

How is West not top 10?

I know right ? Dude is underrated. Some people in shooting guard rankings have Dwyane Wade over him at this point -__-''....

[kaiiu]

lol at Magic at #2. Bird> Magic. Lol at Oscar even on the list

[JordanTime]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-players-in-NBA-history#photo-title=Best%20of%20the%20best&photo=30219323

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

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

wow.

my list looks like this

1.Michael Jordan
2.Kareem Abdul Jabaar
3.Magic Johnson
4.Bill Russell
5.Wilt Chamberlain
6.Shaquille O'neal
7.Tim Duncan
8.Larry Bird

[Math2]

lol at Magic at #2. Bird> Magic. Lol at Oscar even on the list

Even as a Boston fan, I'd say Magic> Bird...

[Miller for 3]

wow.

my list looks like this

1.Michael Jordan
2.Kareem Abdul Jabaar
3.Magic Johnson
4.Bill Russell
5.Wilt Chamberlain
6.Shaquille O'neal
7.Tim Duncan
8.Larry Bird

Jordan fans with obvious agendas :facepalm

[Lakerlove420]

Even as a Boston fan, I'd say Magic> Bird...

:cheers: (not just because I agree with you.. but...
because you admit the truth :cheers: even though a Boston fan
that's :pimp: dog .. . much respect for that.

[DaPerceive]

lol at Magic at #2. Bird> Magic. Lol at Oscar even on the list
It's arguable. If you value prime/peak, Bird is your guy. If you value accomplishments/career/winning, Magic is your guy. There is no clear cut answer between the two because there are great arguments for both sides.

[DMAVS41]

I don't see any reason to put Oscar in the top 8...or over Hakeem for that matter.

And I still don't understand the logic in ranking Kobe over Shaq/Duncan...those guys were just better basketball players for the majority of their careers.

[JordanTime]

I don't see any reason to put Oscar in the top 8...or over Hakeem for that matter.

And I still don't understand the logic in ranking Kobe over Shaq/Duncan...those guys were just better basketball players for the majority of their careers.

AGREED.

Oscar shouldn't be on that list....because that list is in terms of dominance/winning/career/acomplish/longeivty. But in terms of dominance............. Oscar Robertson could be argued as one of the greatest who has ever play the game of basketball.

And agreed on the last part as well.

[DaPerceive]

I find it hilarious how one player is put over another because of better longevity and then the next player is put over the other because that player had a better prime/peak. Can somebody just stick with one consisted list instead of constantly contradicting themselves?

[with malice]

is there any case for magic over shaq?
Well, yes. It's called "basketball".


lol at Magic at #2.
Really? How can anyone act so dismissively about Magic? All that tells me is that you've never watched him play at his peak.

[Odinn]

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

[Math2]

Mine:

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

[DaPerceive]

Mine:

1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Chamberlain
7. Duncan
8. West
9. Kobe
10. Hakeem
No Shaq? :facepalm

Duncan and Robertson over Hakeem..:facepalm
What is wrong with Duncan being ahead of Hakeem??

[BlackJoker23]

No Shaq? :facepalm

What is wrong with Duncan being ahead of Hakeem??
yo rg u trying to gain credibility bro where is the jordan quote in ur biography

[NumberSix]

1. Kobe
2. Tony Allen
3. Clyde Drexler
4. Allen Iverson
5. Scottie Pippen
6. Michael Jordan
7. Bruce Blitz
8. Tracey McGrady
9. LeBron James
10. Bill Walton

[millwad]

What is wrong with Duncan being ahead of Hakeem??

Put Hakeem in Duncan's shoes and you'll see he'd accomplish just as much, if not more.

Duncan played against worse bigs, imagine him having to face Barkley and Malone in the playoffs all the time.

And then if you want go after stats, Hakeem put up more points per game on better FG%, more blocks per game, more steals per game, better FT-shooter.

And if you want to check them to the age of 34 (Duncan's current age) Hakeem would average more rebounds per game as well and assists would basically be a draw.

And in the playoffs Hakeem was more dominant as well.

So in all, Hakeem was a better rebounder, better scorer with better FG%, better defender, better shotblocker, better at steals, better ft-shooter etc..

[Kurosawa0]

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

[eliteballer]

Duncan actually played against better comp when you consider how shallow the center position has always been

[millwad]

Duncan actually played against better comp when you consider how shallow the center position has always been

Center position? Since when did Duncan become a center and even if he would been a center he'd still only face crappy centers plus Shaq. Shaq is obviously amazing but other than him you won't find good centers in Duncan's era.

[eliteballer]

....

You're comparing Hakeem to Duncan?

Hakeem is better but saying he faced better comp isnt true when you consider the depth of the PF's Duncan faced vs how shallow the center position is for Hakeems comp.

[jlauber]

I don't see how Bird has any argument over Chamberlain. Yes, he played on stacked team's his entire career, and won one more ring, but that was it. Wilt was far more dominant, in both the regular season, and the post-season. And I always find it laughable that anyone would think that Bird was more "clutch." Bird dropped considerably in the playoffs, and particularly in the Finals, and in fact, had some AWFUL post-seasons. AND, he was part of SIX teams that lost with HCA. including one that was SWEPT. And, once again, he had pathetic playoffs, including one against the Pistons in '88 (and in arguably Bird's greatest regular season), in which he shot .351 from the field. His shooting in his five Finals was only .455, and not only that, but it occurred in league's which shot about .485 on average. Along the way, he had as many playoff games at shooting below 40% (including a couple under 30%), as he did over 50% (11 games of each, in 31 total post-season games.)

Bird was a better FT shooter, and a better 3 pt shooter in his career, than Wilt, of course...BUT, Wilt MADE some 2000 MORE FTs in his career, and Bird's 3pt shooting was a non-factor in the post-season (he made a TOTAL of 80 3pt shots in his 164 playoff games...or about one every TWO games...and shot .321 in the process.)

And you could argue that Wilt was a better passer, too. Wilt was certainly a better passer at the center position, than Bird was at the SF spot. While Lebron can challenge Bird's passing, no other center ever came close to what Chamberlain was able to accomplish. In fact, not even Bird ever LED the league in assists, nor did he ever finish third, either....which Wilt DID achieve.

In every other aspect of the game, Wilt was considerably more dominant. He was a much better scorer, rebounder, defender, and was far more efficient (especially if you factor in league average...Wilt's NBA averaged about 44% during his 14 seasons, while Bird's NBA was at about 48% in his 13 seasons.)

Chamberlain also won more MVPs, and FAR more statistical titles. In fact, Bird holds very few NBA records, while Wilt holds some 130. And Wilt even led his best team's to better records, and more dominant post-seasons, than what Larry did with his.

Once again,...I don't see Bird having a case over Chamberlain.

[whatever666]

My list:

1. Bill Russell <--- Sorry MJ, but 11 rings as the man > 6 rings as the man and if there was any DPOY-FMVP when he played he would had all of it.
2. Michael Jordan
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5. Magic Johnson
6. Larry Bird
7. Shaquille Oneal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Tim Duncan
10. Bob Cousy - Hakeem Olajuwon - Moses Malone - Jerry West - Kobe Bryant cant decide really

[Jacks3]

Kareem
Jordan
Russ
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Bryant/Garnett/Malone/West/Oscar--can't decide.

[DaPerceive]

My list:

1. Bill Russell <--- Sorry MJ, but 11 rings as the man > 6 rings as the man and if there was any DPOY-FMVP when he played he would had all of it.
2. Michael Jordan
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5. Magic Johnson
6. Larry Bird
7. Shaquille Oneal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Tim Duncan
10. Bob Cousy - Hakeem Olajuwon - Moses Malone - Jerry West - Kobe Bryant cant decide really
This list speaks contradiction.

So Russell is ahead of MJ because of the rings, but Wilt is above Kareem despite having less rings and less accomplishments.

Oscar is above Duncan even though Oscar only has 1 ring and he wasn't even the best player or "alpha" on his team while Duncan has 4 rings and was the best player or "alpha" every single time.

If rings is your argument then Oscar has no place for discussion and he certainly has no place to be ahead of Duncan, Olajuwon, and Kobe.

[jlauber]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-players-in-NBA-history#photo-title=Best%20of%20the%20best&photo=30219323

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

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


1. Russell/MJ
3. Magic/Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Shaq
7. Duncan
8. Kobe
9. Bird
10. Hakeem
11. Oscar
12. Moses
13. West

[DaPerceive]

1. Russell/MJ
3. Magic/Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Shaq
7. Duncan
8. Kobe
9. Bird
10. Hakeem
11. Oscar
12. Moses
13. West
:oldlol: Really? Magic above Bird by arguably 6 spots? Sorry, but Bird and Magic are hand-cuffed together. Any list where Magic is ahead of Bird by two sports and vice versa lacks credibility. Those two were that close. I don't know why people all of a sudden feel like one is clearly better than the other now a days.

[jlauber]

:oldlol: Really? Magic above Bird by arguably 6 spots? Sorry, but Bird and Magic are hand-cuffed together. Any list where Magic is ahead of Bird by two sports and vice versa lacks credibility. Yes, those two were that close.

The two were pretty close during their careers, but Magic had a better overall career. He won more rings, as many MVPs, more FMVP's, was better H2H, and was better in the post-season. Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan all had better careers, as well. In fact, Kobe has a solid case, too. And, if you include the playoffs, even Hakeem, as well. I can't see Bird any higher than 8th, and he could even be as low as 10th.

[millwad]

....

You're comparing Hakeem to Duncan?

Hakeem is better but saying he faced better comp isnt true when you consider the depth of the PF's Duncan faced vs how shallow the center position is for Hakeems comp.


You can't be serious, you just can't.
Who was the great PF's Duncan faced during his runs to the finals who were better than Kareem, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq?

[Niquesports]

The two were pretty close during their careers, but Magic had a better overall career. He won more rings, as many MVPs, more FMVP's, was better H2H, and was better in the post-season. Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan all had better careers, as well. In fact, Kobe has a solid case, too. And, if you include the playoffs, even Hakeem, as well. I can't see Bird any higher than 8th, and he could even be as low as 10th.

When I think of Magic and Bird I cant help but to compare them to Ali Frazier. Frazier was great he just got beat more times by a greater fighter. Same with Bird Magic just outplayed him when it really counted.

[Asukal]

My list:

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

3 to 5 is really really close and are interchangeable imo. :cheers:

[pauk]

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

As u can see..... I value talent/skill/domination and individual accomplishments over team accomplishments...

[DaPerceive]

You can't be serious, you just can't.
Who was the great PF's Duncan faced during his runs to the finals who were better than Kareem, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq?
How often did he even play those guys?

Ewing - once
Robinson - once
Shaq - once
Kareem - once

Duncan faced Dirk, KG, Shaq/Kobe, Sheed, Amare/Marion. Maybe not as good as the guys Hakeem faced, but he faced those players more times in his career than Hakeem did to his. The only player Duncan had only faced once of those players I listed was KG...

prime Duncan was not better than prime Hakeem in my mind, but it was close nevertheless. Duncan's career/longevity and accomplishments were clearly better than Hakeem's though, and that isn't close.

[Math2]

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

As u can see..... I value talent/skill/domination and individual accomplishments over team accomplishments...

lolol :lol
Team accomplishments don't mean anything? Typical of a LeBron fan, you need to cover up for his lack of championships...

[Heavincent]

lolol :lol
Team accomplishments don't mean anything? Typical of a LeBron fan, you need to cover up for his lack of championships...

Apparently 60+ win seasons aren't team accomplishments, but championships are. Well that's what Lebron fanboys think anyway.

[Deuce Bigalow]

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

As u can see..... I value talent/skill/domination and individual accomplishments over team accomplishments...

It's consensus that Kobe was top 10 after 2010

[Rekindled]

oscar is the most overrated player ever. dude didnt do shit except stat pad. he didnt win a championship until he go ride a prime Kareen's tail

[imlmf]

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

[Phong]

Apparently 60+ win seasons aren't team accomplishments, but championships are. Well that's what Lebron fanboys think anyway.Touch

[RazorBaLade]

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

As u can see..... I value talent/skill/domination and individual accomplishments over team accomplishments...

shaq is better than half the guys above him domination,skill,talent wise...

[the_wise_one]

Quite messed up...

Indeed. Kobe in top 10? Shaq above Duncan? Magic at #2 above Kareem?
AIDS please.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Apparently 60+ win seasons aren't team accomplishments, but championships are. Well that's what Lebron fanboys think anyway.

:oldlol:

[DaPerceive]

Apparently 60+ win seasons aren't team accomplishments, but championships are. Well that's what Lebron fanboys think anyway.
:applause: Nice.

I am not even sure if I have Oscar in my top 12. I think I would have Erving and Moses in the 11th and 12th spot. Oscar is definitely top 15 at the least though; top 10 is pushing it.

[donald_trump]

i've still yet to see anyone give me a reason as to why magic deserves to be over shaq in these lists.
so far the best answers, or more so only answers are "did you even watch magic play", "duh, hes just better at basketball"... clear to me im not the one thats lacking on watching magic play if these are the best answers.

not one single decent answer. the only reason they have is because its considered some kind of basketball sacrilege to have magic low on your list (which he should be, he wasnt as good as the other greats). go through the peak of the top 10 and you'll see that magic has the worst one of the lot. it's always great to be a laker, because you will undoubtedly be ranked high, though magic takes the cake as far as being ranked too high in basketball history.

i've still yet got one reasonable answer as to why shaq is lower than magic on these lists. shaq is just as much of a winner, more dominant, better on both sides of the court, better longevity. so what is the reason magic is over him?

[millwad]

i've still yet to see anyone give me a reason as to why magic deserves to be over shaq in these lists.
so far the best answers, or more so only answers are "did you even watch magic play", "duh, hes just better at basketball"... clear to me im not the one thats lacking on watching magic play if these are the best answers.

not one single decent answer. the only reason they have is because its considered some kind of basketball sacrilege to have magic low on your list (which he should be, he wasnt as good as the other greats). go through the peak of the top 10 and you'll see that magic has the worst one of the lot. it's always great to be a laker, because you will undoubtedly be ranked high, though magic takes the cake as far as being ranked too high in basketball history.

i've still yet got one reasonable answer as to why shaq is lower than magic on these lists. shaq is just as much of a winner, more dominant, better on both sides of the court, better longevity. so what is the reason magic is over him?

Magic won 5 titles compared to Shaq's 4 although both won the same amount of FMVP. Magic won 3 MVP's compared to Shaq's one and Magic was top 3 in the MVP voting 9 times compared to Shaq's 5.

Even though Magic had better teammates by his side he still faced better competition a la the 80's Celtic team and other great teams like the late 80's/early 90's pistons and the 76ers.

Magic made 9 ALL-NBA first teams compared to Shaq's 8 and most of Shaq's, 7 of them came in the 00-era when the great centers of the 90's either were really old or already retired.

To those are the reasons why I personally rank Magic ahead of Shaq. I still have Shaq after Kareem as the 2nd best center ever.

[Jacks3]

go through the peak of the top 10 and you'll see that magic has the worst one of the lot.



:roll:

[donald_trump]

Magic won 5 titles compared to Shaq's 4 although both won the same amount of FMVP. Magic won 3 MVP's compared to Shaq's one and Magic was top 3 in the MVP voting 9 times compared to Shaq's 5.

Even though Magic had better teammates by his side he still faced better competition a la the 80's Celtic team and other great teams like the late 80's/early 90's pistons and the 76ers.

Magic made 9 ALL-NBA first teams compared to Shaq's 8 and most of Shaq's, 7 of them came in the 00-era when the great centers of the 90's either were really old or already retired.

To those are the reasons why I personally rank Magic ahead of Shaq. I still have Shaq after Kareem as the 2nd best center ever.

shaq has less chance to make all nba teams since there is only 1 center spot on there. magic has two spots he could take. and who was magic fighting off for all nba teams. shaq had more competition that magic if anything.

mvps? who cares, shaq was a better basketball player. thats not debatable. nash has more mvps too. irrelevant. moses malone has more as well. dr j has more. tim duncan has more mvps. the list goes on. none of these players are rated above shaq. shaq having one mvp is a tragedy.

cant blame teams for who they played, and with magics supporting cast he should have won as much as he did.

[donald_trump]

:roll:

lets take a look then.
mj - yep
wilt - yep
kaj - yep
shaq - yep
bird - yep
russell - yep
hakeem - yep
duncan - yep
kobe - imo yep

which do you disagree with? i cant see anyones peak being worse than magics. he literally had the worst one of the top 10.

EDIT: another fun fact. since people love talking about how great players need to play both sides of the ball, why is magic the only player that doesnt have a single all defensive team selection?

[talkingconch]

:oldlol: @ Kobe&Big O ahead of Shaq&Duncan.:roll:

Kobe should NOT be ahead of Duncan?

:oldlol:

[talkingconch]

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

--

TBH, a top 10 all-time list will always spark debate. There's only 10 spots to fill and there is arguably 12-13 players, ONE PLAYER WILL always be listed ahead of another. Then there's the ol' Kobe-Bird debate, Oscar debate, the 'HOW MANY RINGS DOES HE HAVE?' debate and so on...

[DaPerceive]

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

I would really like to know the reasoning for Magic being 5 spots ahead of Bird, Kobe being ahead of Bird, Shaq being 4th over Russell and Wilt while Hakeem and Duncan are 9th and 10th.

I am not going to lie, but that is one of the worst orders of the top 10 I ever seen.

[Big#50]

This is the real top ten players ever.
KAJ
DUNCAN
SHAQ
MJ
Bird
Hakeem
KOBE
BARKLEY
DROB
DIRK

[donald_trump]

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

--

TBH, a top 10 all-time list will always spark debate. There's only 10 spots to fill and there is arguably 12-13 players, ONE PLAYER WILL always be listed ahead of another. Then there's the ol' Kobe-Bird debate, Oscar debate, the 'HOW MANY RINGS DOES HE HAVE?' debate and so on...

you accidentally switched magic and bird. other than that good list.

[DMAVS41]

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

[jlauber]

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

As good a list as I have seen.

[DaPerceive]

:facepalm at the people who have Magic above Bird multiple spots.

[Yung D-Will]

:facepalm at the people who have Magic above Bird multiple spots.
Honestly the more I watch their games fully the bigger my urge to put BIRD MULTIPLE spots higher than magic

[Math2]

Magic won 5 titles compared to Shaq's 4 although both won the same amount of FMVP. Magic won 3 MVP's compared to Shaq's one and Magic was top 3 in the MVP voting 9 times compared to Shaq's 5.

Even though Magic had better teammates by his side he still faced better competition a la the 80's Celtic team and other great teams like the late 80's/early 90's pistons and the 76ers.

Magic made 9 ALL-NBA first teams compared to Shaq's 8 and most of Shaq's, 7 of them came in the 00-era when the great centers of the 90's either were really old or already retired.

To those are the reasons why I personally rank Magic ahead of Shaq. I still have Shaq after Kareem as the 2nd best center ever.

Not to mention an Infinitely tougher era with Magic.

[oolalaa]

I don't see Bird having a case over Chamberlain.

Firstly i'd like to say that, whilst i'm certainly not a frequent poster (for various reasons), i do follow this forum and i've seen enough posts form you to know that you are knowledgeable but also ludicrously biased and laughably hypocritical, especially when it comes to wilt (have you ever written a negative word about wilt? ever? i doubt it).


"he played on stacked team's his entire career" - I see you rank magic as the 3rd/4th greatest player of all time and have him over bird, which is fair enough, i do too. But the lakers teams were, if not by much, more 'stacked' than the celtics teams for the majority of the 80s, especially in the early years. Does it effect you're perception or ranking of him? Clearly it doesn't, so please don't be a hypocrite.
And with regards to wilt. Wilts undoubtedly had some mediocre teammates in his first 6 years but for the last 8 years his teammates were comparatively similar to birds in his first 8 years. greer, cunningham, walker, jones, west, baylor and goodrich were all quality players.

"Wilt was far more dominant, in both the regular season, and the post-season" - Wilt was the most dominant & the greatest regular season player of all time (to me, this is almost completely worthless though. I judge players on how they perform in the postseason and so should everybody). No one can dispute this. Come playoff time? Not as dominant and certainly not 'far more dominant' than bird :facepalm .
-Bird had a 22/14/6 47efg% postseason in 81' on the way to a championship. Is that not all round domination? Oh and don't give that crap about him only averaging 15 points on 43efg% in the finals because he also had 15 rpg (only 1 less than moses!!), 7 apg and 2 spg.
-How about a 28/11/6 53efg% postseason in 84' on the way to beating L.A in the finals in which he averaged a 27/14/4 50efg%. Is that not all round domination?
-Or perhaps his 26/9/6 47efg% postseason in 85' losing only to L.A in the finals. Is that not all round domination?
-Or maybe his 26/9/8 55efg% postseason in which he averaged a 24/10/10/3 on 51efg% in the finals, after which many former players, pundits and hardcore fans declared him to be the goat. Is that not all round domination?
-What about a 25/9/7 49efg% postseason in 87' losing only to magic in his absolute prime. Is that not all round domination?
-Or even his 25/9/7 47efg% postseason in 88' (which included a poor shooting series against the pistons great defence, who even MJ struggled against). Is that not all round domination?

Is averaging a 24/10/7 on 49 efg% in 42 mpg for his playoff career (and that includes 2 postseasons in which there were games that he could hardly move in) really less dominant than 23/25/4 on 52 fg% (47 mpg) when you take into account the different eras? Only someone who has no ability whatsoever to be objective would agree. Oh, wait...

"Bird dropped considerably in the playoffs, and particularly in the Finals, and in fact, had some AWFUL post-seasons" - HY-PO-CRITE! HY-PO-CRITE! HY-PO-CRITE! In the 69' playoffs wilt put up 14/25/3 on 55 fg% and 39 FT% after averaging a 21/21/5 on 58 fg% and 45 FT% in the regular season! Absolutely pathetic. With the way jerry west was playing, the lakers would have won that title if wilt didn't play like a bum. But you already know this right? you just pretend it never happened. And i wont even mention his 68' debacle. You wouldn't acknowledge it anyway.

"And you could argue that Wilt was a better passer" - :roll: . Wilts 'amazing' passing involved getting the ball with his back to the basket about 10/15 feet out, waiting 5 seconds for a teammate to run through a couple of screens, then dumping the ball off and watching his teammate make an open 20 foot jumper. You think that because wilt led the league in assists for one season means that he was a better passer than bird? Your obsession with stats blinds you.
Bird, along with lebron, is the greatest playmaking forward of all time. His vision, awareness and knack for finding a teammate (usually mchale/parish) open under the basket was matched by few who have ever played. But you don't care about this do you? You just look at the stat sheet, see that wilt averaged 9 apg one season and conclude that he has a legitimate case to be considered better than larry bird as a passer.

"He was a much better scorer, rebounder, defender, and was far more efficient" - Better scorer? Of course. Better rebounder? Firstly, wilt was a centre, just in case you hadn't realised, of course he grabbed more rebounds than a small forward. Secondly, bird is the greatest rebounding small forward of all time. Far more efficient? Again, wilt was a centre! And when you take into account birds 3 point shooting, he was an efficient scorer. I actually think efficiency is a little overrated (only a little. I cannot excuse someone like iverson for being such a shot jacker for instance)

"Chamberlain also won more MVPs, and FAR more statistical titles. In fact, Bird holds very few NBA records, while Wilt holds some 130. And Wilt even led his best team's to better records, and more dominant post-seasons, than what Larry did with his" - Only 20 of those 130 records are from the playoffs and 11 of those are fga, mpg and FTs missed related. And saying that 'wilt led his best teams to better records, and more dominant postseasons is hilarious.

"laughable that anyone would think that Bird was more "clutch." - Since when did being clutch equal how good someones playoff numbers are? I define clutch as how well someone performs in critical and late game situations. There has been numerous testimonies by numerous players of wilts era that give the strong impression that wilt was the definition of anti-clutch, that he shied from the latter part of 4th quarters, in part because of his woeful FT shooting (which dropped almost 5% come playoff time!). But you don't care what they say do you? You inevitably will go on to say that this is preposterous and that all of his peers are wrong and you will handpick a select couple of times that wilt played well 'in the clutch' and exclaim "AHA SEE! THIS PROVES WILT WAS A CLUTCH BEAST!", Wilt wasn't clutch! The fact that he lost four game 7s against the celtics by a total of 9 points is testament to this, though i'm sure that someone like you will claim this proves how unlucky he was.
Bird on the other hand was considered to be the greatest clutch player of his generation. He hit countless game winners, had numerous big 4th quarters and because he was a 90% FT shooter, wasn't afraid of getting fouled with the game on the line.

Bird > Chamberlain.

Anyway, considering this a top 10 nba players of all time thread, here's mine (you may not like it :lol ):

1. Jordan
2. Johnson
3. Russell
4. Abdul-jabbar
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Chamberlain
9. West
10. Bryant

11. Olajuwon

[jlauber]

"he played on stacked team's his entire career" - I see you rank magic as the 3rd/4th greatest player of all time and have him over bird, which is fair enough, i do too. But the lakers teams were, if not by much, more 'stacked' than the celtics teams for the majority of the 80s, especially in the early years. Does it effect you're perception or ranking of him? Clearly it doesn't, so please don't be a hypocrite.
And with regards to wilt. Wilts undoubtedly had some mediocre teammates in his first 6 years but for the last 8 years his teammates were comparatively similar to birds in his first 8 years. greer, cunningham, walker, jones, west, baylor and goodrich were all quality players.



True, Magic and Bird's teams were comparable in the 80's. YET, Magic had a 5-3 edge in rings, and an 8-5 edge in Finals (and he added another Finals in '91...and without Kareem.) Furthermore, had Magic not been injured in '81, and playing at well below 100%, I am convinced that LA would have won that year. Why? Because in the '81 ECF's, the Celtics came back from a 3-1 deficit against the Sixers, winning the last three games by a total of five points. Now, in contrast, the Lakers wiped out the Sixers in six games in BOTH '80 and '82 (and won the clinching game six in '80 withOUT Kareem.)

As for Wilt's teammates in the post-season. Again, you are dead on. In his first six seasons, they were crappy. But not only that, they played WORSE in the post-season. In four of those six seasons (and he missed a fifth because they were so bad they didn't make the playoffs) they collectively shot .382, .354, .352, and .332.

Then how about his 65-66 team, which had the best record in the league? In the post-season, they collectively shot .352...while Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509.

And again, yes, Wilt played with some quality teammates. BUT, why is it NO ONE mentions the fact that he was routinely OUTGUNNED in the post-season? Aside from the '61 post-season, and the '71 post-season, he was outgunned in HOFers EVERY single post-season. And some by HUGE margins. Russell's Celtics held a minimum of a 5-3 edge in ALL of them, and some by as many as 8-2. Most were around 6-7 to 2-3. Then Wilt, on one leg, and with Baylor way past his peak, and playing with the brilliant West, and little else, took his '70 Lakers (who went 46-36) to a game seven against the 60-22 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers (and much deeper bench.) Even in his last season, his Lakers lost four close games to the Knicks, and their SIX HOFers in the Finals (and with West hobbled by TWO knee injuries.)


"Wilt was far more dominant, in both the regular season, and the post-season" - Wilt was the most dominant & the greatest regular season player of all time (to me, this is almost completely worthless though. I judge players on how they perform in the postseason and so should everybody). No one can dispute this.

And this always irritates me. Here was Chamberlain, absolutely dominating the NBA in 82 regular season games, year-after-year, and yet posters like yourself just BRUSH it OFF. And yet, some here claim Hakeem as a GOAT candidate, which is interesting considering that in over HALF of his post-seasons, he played in FIVE games, or LESS. So, he is ranked on a post-season career that had 34 games in the FIRST ROUND, and yet we just dismiss Wilt's 13 FULL SEASONS, covering over 1000 games???? Makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.


Come playoff time? Not as dominant and certainly not 'far more dominant' than bird .
-Bird had a 22/14/6 47efg% postseason in 81' on the way to a championship. Is that not all round domination? Oh and don't give that crap about him only averaging 15 points on 43efg% in the finals because he also had 15 rpg (only 1 less than moses!!), 7 apg and 2 spg.
-How about a 28/11/6 53efg% postseason in 84' on the way to beating L.A in the finals in which he averaged a 27/14/4 50efg%. Is that not all round domination?
-Or perhaps his 26/9/6 47efg% postseason in 85' losing only to L.A in the finals. Is that not all round domination?
-Or maybe his 26/9/8 55efg% postseason in which he averaged a 24/10/10/3 on 51efg% in the finals, after which many former players, pundits and hardcore fans declared him to be the goat. Is that not all round domination?
-What about a 25/9/7 49efg% postseason in 87' losing only to magic in his absolute prime. Is that not all round domination?
-Or even his 25/9/7 47efg% postseason in 88' (which included a poor shooting series against the pistons great defence, who even MJ struggled against). Is that not all round domination?

Is averaging a 24/10/7 on 49 efg% in 42 mpg for his playoff career (and that includes 2 postseasons in which there were games that he could hardly move in) really less dominant than 23/25/4 on 52 fg% (47 mpg) when you take into account the different eras? Only someone who has no ability whatsoever to be objective would agree. Oh, wait...



You really want to play the STAT game in comparing Wilt and Bird...even in the post-season? Ok, here goes...

How many 28+ ppg post-seasons did Bird have? ZERO. How about Chamberlain? SIX, with FOUR of 33+!

How many 15+ rpg post-seasons did Bird have? Again...ZERO. How about Chamberlain? Wilt's LOW was 20.2 in his 14 of his post-seasons, including EIGHT of 24.7+, and even two of 29 and 30!

FG%'s? Bird had THREE post-seasons of over .500 (and one was an even .500 covering four games), with highs of .524 and .517. Oh, and BTW, Bird also had FIVE entire post-seasons of .450 or worse (.450, .444, .427, .422, and an abysmal .408 .) How about Chamberlain? Wilt had NINE post-seasons of .500 or better, including EIGHT that were better than Bird's BEST post-season. Wilt's worst post-season was .467, BUT, it came in a league that shot .426. In fact, Wilt's post-season shooting came in league's that averaged between .410 and .456. Bird's shooting came in league's that averaged between .477 and .492.

True, Bird had a higher post-season apg, 6.5 to Wilt's 4.2, BUT, Chamberlain's assists came in league's in which assists were considerably MORE difficult to come by. Not only that, but Wilt's teammates also shot FAR worse than most all of Bird's post-season rosters. Furthemore, Wilt was asked to shoot more early in his career. And finally, Wilt, at his BEST, had a 9.2 apg post-season (which included TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series), which is higher than ANY of Bird's best.

Continuing...how many 30-25 (pts and rebs) post-seasons did Bird have? Of course, ZERO. Wilt? THREE. How many 28-23 post-seasons did Bird have? Of course...ZERO. Chamberlain? SIX. And how many 20-20 post-seasons did Bird have? You already know the answer...ZERO. Meanwhile Wilt had EIGHT! How many 22-29-9 post-seasons did Bird have...and on .579 shooting? How about a 24-25-7 post-season, and on .534 shooting? How about a 22-22-5 post-season, and on .549 shooting?

And NONE of the above takes into account Wilt's FAR GREATER impact at the DEFENSIVE END. Wilt not only reduced players like Kareem to shooting WAY under his normal season FG%, he was also shutting down the entire lane in the process. For example, Bird had 145 blocked shots in his 164 post-season games. Wilt likely had over a 1000 in his 160, and perhaps MUCH more. In any case, Wilt was one of the all-time greatest DEFENDERS in NBA HISTORY. Bird? Not so much.

Continuing...

[Miller for 3]

True, Magic and Bird's teams were comparable in the 80's. YET, Magic had a 5-3 edge in rings, and an 8-5 edge in Finals (and he added another Finals in '91...and without Kareem.) Furthermore, had Magic not been injured in '81, and playing at well below 100%, I am convinced that LA would have won that year. Why? Because in the '81 ECF's, the Celtics came back from a 3-1 deficit against the Sixers, winning the last three games by a total of five points. Now, in contrast, the Lakers wiped out the Sixers in six games in BOTH '80 and '82 (and won the clinching game six in '80 withOUT Kareem.)

As for Wilt's teammates in the post-season. Again, you are dead on. In his first six seasons, they were crappy. But not only that, they played WORSE in the post-season. In four of those six seasons (and he missed a fifth because they were so bad they didn't make the playoffs) they collectively shot .382, .354, .352, and .332.

Then how about his 65-66 team, which had the best record in the league? In the post-season, they collectively shot .352...while Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509.

And again, yes, Wilt played with some quality teammates. BUT, why is it NO ONE mentions the fact that he was routinely OUTGUNNED in the post-season? Aside from the '61 post-season, and the '71 post-season, he was outgunned in HOFers EVERY single post-season. And some by HUGE margins. Russell's Celtics held a minimum of a 5-3 edge in ALL of them, and some by as many as 8-2. Most were around 6-7 to 2-3. Then Wilt, on one leg, and with Baylor way past his peak, and playing with the brilliant West, and little else, took his '70 Lakers (who went 46-36) to a game seven against the 60-22 Knicks and their FOUR HOFers (and much deeper bench.) Even in his last season, his Lakers lost four close games to the Knicks, and their SIX HOFers in the Finals (and with West hobbled by TWO knee injuries.)



And this always irritates me. Here was Chamberlain, absolutely dominating the NBA in 82 regular season games, year-after-year, and yet posters like yourself just BRUSH it OFF. And yet, some here claim Hakeem as a GOAT candidate, which is interesting considering that in over HALF of his post-seasons, he played in FIVE games, or LESS. So, he is ranked on a post-season career that had 34 games in the FIRST ROUND, and yet we just dismiss Wilt's 13 FULL SEASONS, covering over 1000 games???? Makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.



You really want to play the STAT game in comparing Wilt and Bird...even in the post-season? Ok, here goes...

How many 28+ ppg post-seasons did Bird have? ZERO. How about Chamberlain? SIX, with FOUR of 33+!

How many 15+ rpg post-seasons did Bird have? Again...ZERO. How about Chamberlain? Wilt's LOW was 20.2 in his 14 of his post-seasons, including EIGHT of 24.7+, and even two of 29 and 30!

FG%'s? Bird had THREE post-seasons of over .500 (and one was an even .500 covering four games), with highs of .524 and .517. Oh, and BTW, Bird also had FIVE entire post-seasons of .450 or worse (.450, .444, .427, .422, and an abysmal .408 .) How about Chamberlain? Wilt had NINE post-seasons of .500 or better, including EIGHT that were better than Bird's BEST post-season. Wilt's worst post-season was .467, BUT, it came in a league that shot .426. In fact, Wilt's post-season shooting came in league's that averaged between .410 and .456. Bird's shooting came in league's that averaged between .477 and .492.

True, Bird had a higher post-season apg, 6.5 to Wilt's 4.2, BUT, Chamberlain's assists came in league's in which assists were considerably MORE difficult to come by. Not only that, but Wilt's teammates also shot FAR worse than most all of Bird's post-season rosters. Furthemore, Wilt was asked to shoot more early in his career. And finally, Wilt, at his BEST, had a 9.2 apg post-season (which included TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series), which is higher than ANY of Bird's best.

Continuing...how many 30-25 (pts and rebs) post-seasons did Bird have? Of course, ZERO. Wilt? THREE. How many 28-23 post-seasons did Bird have? Of course...ZERO. Chamberlain? SIX. And how many 20-20 post-seasons did Bird have? You already know the answer...ZERO. Meanwhile Wilt had EIGHT! How many 22-29-9 post-seasons did Bird have...and on .579 shooting? How about a 24-25-7 post-season, and on .534 shooting? How about a 22-22-5 post-season, and on .549 shooting?

And NONE of the above takes into account Wilt's FAR GREATER impact at the DEFENSIVE END. Wilt not only reduced players like Kareem to shooting WAY under his normal season FG%, he was also shutting down the entire lane in the process. For example, Bird had 145 blocked shots in his 164 post-season games. Wilt likely had over a 1000 in his 160, and perhaps MUCH more. In any case, Wilt was one of the all-time greatest DEFENDERS in NBA HISTORY. Bird? Not so much.

Continuing...

You have to be the least knowledgable poster on this site. all you do is post stats over and over. I have never seen you once demonstrate that you understand fundamental aspects of basketball. I laugh everytime I see a 6000 word essay by you because its just numbers you found on wikipedia and copy and pasted. No one fukin cares about Wilt or his meaningless statpadding records. LOL at only 2 titles while playing with muitiple HOFers.

[jlauber]

Continuing...


"laughable that anyone would think that Bird was more clutch" - Since when did being clutch equal how good someones playoff numbers are? I define clutch as how well someone performs in critical and late game situations. There has been numerous testimonies by numerous players of wilts era that give the strong impression that wilt was the definition of anti-clutch, that he shied from the latter part of 4th quarters, in part because of his woeful FT shooting (which dropped almost 5% come playoff time!). But you don't care what his peers say do you? You inevitably will go on to say that this is preposterous and that they are all wrong and you will handpick a select couple of times that wilt played well 'in the clutch' and exclaim "AHA SEE! THIS PROVES WILT WAS A CLUTCH BEAST!", Wilt wasn't clutch! The fact that he lost four game 7s against the celtics by a total of 9 points is testament to this, though i'm sure that someone like you will claim this proves how unlucky wilt was.
Bird on the other hand was considered to be the greatest clutch player of his generation. He hit countless game winners, had numerous big 4th quarters and because he was a 90% FT shooter, wasn't afraid of getting fouled with the game on the line.



I will save myself some time here and just repost this...(and thanks to PHILA for much of it)...


1960 Game 3 vs. Nationals (best of 3 series at the time): 53 points in a 20 point win.

1962 Game 5 vs. Nationals: 56 points, 35 rebounds in a 17 point win.

1962 Game 6 vs Celtics: 32 points in a 10 point win

1962 Game 7 vs Celtics: 22 points, 21 rebounds in a 2 point loss

1964 Game 5 vs. Hawks: 50 points in a 24 point win.

1964 Game 7 vs. Hawks: 39 points, 26 rebounds, 12 blocks in a 10 point win.

1965 Game 6 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 26 rebounds in a 6 point win

1965 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 30 points, 32 rebounds in a 1 point loss

1966 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 46 points, 34 rebounds in an 8 point loss

1967 Game 2 vs. Royals: 37 points, 27 rebounds, 11 assists in a 21 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Royals: 16 points, 30 rebounds, 19 assists in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 1 vs. Celtics: 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists, 12 blocks in a 15 point win.

1967 Game 3 vs. Celtics: 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists in an 11 point win.

1967 Game 5 vs. Celtics: 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists in a 24 point win.

1968 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 25 points, 27 rebounds in an 18 point win. Little known fact is that Chamberlain led BOTH TEAMS in points, rebounds, and assists for the entire series, whilst nursing an assortment of injuries, including his annual shin splints. This against two Hall Of Fame centers Walt Bellamy & Willis Reed. Apparently Willis used to tremble at the mere sight of Luke Jackson in the MSG tunnel pre-game.

1968 Game 7 vs Celtics: 14 points, 34 rebounds in a 4 point loss (This despite two touches in the entire 4th quarter, the smartest move Russell has ever made in his career switching himself over to guard Chet).

1969 Game 7 vs. Celtics: 18 points, 27 rebounds in a 2 point loss (Head coach leaves him on the bench due to a personal grudge.)

1970 Game 5 vs. Suns: 36 points, 14 rebounds in a 17 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Suns: 30 points, 27 rebounds, 11 blocks in a 35 point win (helped lead Lakers back from 1-3 deficit)

1970 Game 6 vs. Knicks: 45 points, 27 rebounds in a 22 point win

1970 Game 7 vs. Knicks: 21 points, 24 rebounds in a 14 point loss

(Understand that he should have not even been playing in the 1969-70 season after his injury, but was able to rehab his knee in time with his workouts in volleyball, a sport he would later become a Hall Of Famer in as well.)

1971 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 25 points, 18 rebounds in an 11 point win

1971 Game 5 vs. Bucks: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 6 blocks in an 18 point loss without Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. (Alcindor in this game had 20 points, 15 rebounds, and 3 blocks).

1973 Game 7 vs. Bulls: 21 points, 28 rebounds in a 3 point win (Bulls had the ball and a one point lead with 30 or so seconds left in the 4th. Norm Van Lier goes up for the shot only to have it rejected by the "big choker" Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain blocked Van Lier's shot right to Gail Goodrich down court for the go ahead basket. Is there any mention of this clutch defensive play from Chamberlain in Bill Simmons "Book Of Basketball"?

1973 Game 5 vs. Knicks: 23 points, 21 rebounds in a 9 point loss (a hobbled Jerry West finished with 12 points)


Yep...Wilt was a "choker" and a "failure."

Incidently, you can add game five of the '60 ECF's (Philadelphia was down 3-1, so it was a must-win game), and he responded with a 50-35 game against Russell in a 128-107 win. Keep in mind that game was in his rookie season, and he faced a Celtic team with SEVEN HOFers.

And, IMHO, his greatest effort came against Kareem in game six of the WCF's. He held Kareem to 16-37 shooting, while going 8-12 himself, and scoring 22 points with 24 rebounds. And, he absolutely took over the game in the 4th quarter, and led LA back from a 10 point deficit to a clinching four point win. He also blocked 11 shots in that game, and five of them were Kareem's sky-hooks.

Or Wilt, with two badly injured wrists dominating the clinching game five win the Finals, with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound (the ENTIRE Knick team had 39 BTW), and 10 block game.


Ok, how about Wilt vs. Russell in those game seven's you mentioned? I don't have Russell's FG% from one of those games (67-68 ECF's), but I do have the rest...

Wilt outscored Russell in those four games, 21.3 to 13.2. He outrebounded Russell in those four games by a 28.5 to 24.5 rpg average. And he shot a mind-boggling .638 against Russell in those four games, while Russell shot .429 against him in the known three games.

BTW, how well did Wilt perform in his NINE game seven's? All he did was average 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot a staggering .626 from the field. Yep, that was Wilt the "choker."


Now, yes, Bird had some clutch moments on his playoff history. But he also laid some huge eggs. In his game seven of the '84 Finals, he shot 6-18 from the floor. He shot .419 in the '81 Finals (and against a 40-42 Rocket's team BTW.) He also shot .445 and .450 in two Finals against LA. In fact, he shot .455 overall in his five Finals. And, once again, he shot less than 40% in 11 of his 31 Finals games, (and two below 30%), in his 31 Finals games, and in fact, shot over 50% in 11. And find me a playoff series in which Wilt ever shot .351 (as Bird did against the '88 Pistons...and Magic shot .550 against that same Piston team in the Finals), or entire post-seasons of .408, .422, or .427.


Bird > Chamberlain.



Sorry...but NO @#$%ing WAY!

[its_this_big]

I'm gonna try to make a top 10 list for the first time. These rankings are only based on the impact that a player has on the game and the success that it led to.

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

[talkingconch]

I would really like to know the reasoning for Magic being 5 spots ahead of Bird, Kobe being ahead of Bird, Shaq being 4th over Russell and Wilt while Hakeem and Duncan are 9th and 10th.

I am not going to lie, but that is one of the worst orders of the top 10 I ever seen.

Nope it can't be, I just accumulated all the arguments in this thread and did my best to come up with an order. Like I said, one player will always occupy one number, no ties, so I dunno what to do.

[millwad]

You have to be the least knowledgable poster on this site. all you do is post stats over and over. I have never seen you once demonstrate that you understand fundamental aspects of basketball. I laugh everytime I see a 6000 word essay by you because its just numbers you found on wikipedia and copy and pasted. No one fukin cares about Wilt or his meaningless statpadding records. LOL at only 2 titles while playing with muitiple HOFers.

Spot on, Jlauber only knows Wilt's stats as you said, demonstrating fundamental aspects of basketball is something you'll never see even though he writes (copies) essay after essay.

The only time you'll see him not bringing up stats is the series in '72 vs Kareem. Then he only writes that "Wilt schooled Kareem", he is too ashamed to bring up the fact that Kareem averaged 23 more points per game on better FG% in that series..

Jlauber is the most biased and ignorant poster of this site..

[Math2]

Bird > Chamberlain.

Anyway, considering this a top 10 nba players of all time thread, here's mine (you may not like it :lol ):

1. Jordan
2. Johnson
3. Russell
4. Abdul-jabbar
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Chamberlain
9. West
10. Bryant

11. Olajuwon

Very good post...Don't agree with your rankings though....No way is Johnson higher than Kareem or Russell.

[oolalaa]

Furthermore, had Magic not been injured in '81, and playing at well below 100%, I am convinced that LA would have won that year. Why? Because in the '81 ECF's, the Celtics came back from a 3-1 deficit against the Sixers, winning the last three games by a total of five points. Now, in contrast, the Lakers wiped out the Sixers in six games in BOTH '80 and '82 (and won the clinching game six in '80 withOUT Kareem.)

As for Wilt's teammates in the post-season. Again, you are dead on. In his first six seasons, they were crappy. But not only that, they played WORSE in the post-season. In four of those six seasons (and he missed a fifth because they were so bad they didn't make the playoffs) they collectively shot .382, .354, .352, and .332.

Then how about his 65-66 team, which had the best record in the league? In the post-season, they collectively shot .352...while Wilt averaged 28 ppg, 30 rpg, and shot .509.

Then Wilt, on one leg, and with Baylor way past his peak, and playing with the brilliant West, and little else, took his '70 Lakers (who went 46-36) to a game seven

And yet, some here claim Hakeem as a GOAT candidate, which is interesting considering that in over HALF of his post-seasons, he played in FIVE games, or LESS. So, he is ranked on a post-season career that had 34 games in the FIRST ROUND, and yet we just dismiss Wilt's 13 FULL SEASONS, covering over 1000 games???? Makes absolutely NO SENSE to me.

How many 28+ ppg post-seasons did Bird have? ZERO. How about Chamberlain? SIX, with FOUR of 33+!
How many 15+ rpg post-seasons did Bird have? Again...ZERO. How about Chamberlain? Wilt's LOW was 20.2 in his 14 of his post-seasons, including EIGHT of 24.7+, and even two of 29 and 30!

True, Bird had a higher post-season apg, 6.5 to Wilt's 4.2, BUT, Chamberlain's assists came in league's in which assists were considerably MORE difficult to come by. Not only that, but Wilt's teammates also shot FAR worse than most all of Bird's post-season rosters. Furthemore, Wilt was asked to shoot more early in his career. And finally, Wilt, at his BEST, had a 9.2 apg post-season (which included TWO TRIPLE-DOUBLE playoff series), which is higher than ANY of Bird's best.

And NONE of the above takes into account Wilt's FAR GREATER impact at the DEFENSIVE END. Wilt not only reduced players like Kareem to shooting WAY under his normal season FG%, he was also shutting down the entire lane in the process. For example, Bird had 145 blocked shots in his 164 post-season games. Wilt likely had over a 1000 in his 160, and perhaps MUCH more. In any case, Wilt was one of the all-time greatest DEFENDERS in NBA HISTORY. Bird? Not so much.

Continuing...


I disagree that the lakers would have won in 81', even with a completely healthy magic. The chemistry of that team wasn't right that season, mostly because magic got their coach fired mid way through and then got handed a $25 million dollar contract.


Ok then, how about his 65/66 team? Do you honestly think it was a coincidence that in the 66' postseason, his teammates shot poorly with wilt playing selfishly and focusing exclusively on points, and then the very next season, with wilt playing unselfishly and with the exact same team, they shot much better and went on to win the championship. Is this a coincidence? Of course not.

Completely exonerating wilt for his early teammates level of play is farcical. Basketball is a team game. Wilt wasn't a team player for his first 7 years.


Yes i agree, it's ludicrous that some people consider hakeem to be anywhere close to the goat. His peak was up there with the very best but people forget that there were legitimate concerns in the late 80s and early 90s about hakeems leadership and ability to raise his teammates level of play (Even though his teammates were really bad. kind of like wilts first 7 years really :lol ). I also can't shake the fact that he won his 2 rings with the goat (at his apex) not even in the league.


I feel i need to remind you of something. Jerry west was the best player and leader of all of those laker teams, and yes that includes the 71/72 seaon when he shot poorly in the postseason (please don't debate this point, unless you want me to chuck the 68 ' 69' and 70' playoffs at you in full detail).


Why do you bring up rebounding numbers? Can't you see how biased it makes you look? 1. Wilt was a centre. Bird was a small forward (the best rebounding SF of all time). 2. Betwen 63' and 73' there were around 10 more rebounds per game available to grab than in the 80s and in wilts first 3 season there were around 18 more!!


Omg. You're not still trying to pretend that wilt was a better playmaker than bird are you? :facepalm


I agree, wilt was a great defender. But again, let's not be hypocritical, magic was even worse than bird defensively and it doesn't affect you're ranking of him.

[oolalaa]

Ok, how about Wilt vs. Russell in those game seven's you mentioned? I don't have Russell's FG% from one of those games (67-68 ECF's), but I do have the rest...

Wilt outscored Russell in those four games, 21.3 to 13.2. He outrebounded Russell in those four games by a 28.5 to 24.5 rpg average. And he shot a mind-boggling .638 against Russell in those four games, while Russell shot .429 against him in the known three games.

BTW, how well did Wilt perform in his NINE game seven's? All he did was average 24.4 ppg, 26.3 rpg, and shot a staggering .626 from the field. Yep, that was Wilt the "choker."

Now, yes, Bird had some clutch moments on his playoff history. But he also laid some huge eggs. In his game seven of the '84 Finals, he shot 6-18 from the floor. He shot .419 in the '81 Finals (and against a 40-42 Rocket's team BTW.) He also shot .445 and .450 in two Finals against LA. In fact, he shot .455 overall in his five Finals. And, once again, he shot less than 40% in 11 of his 31 Finals games, (and two below 30%), in his 31 Finals games, and in fact, shot over 50% in 11. And find me a playoff series in which Wilt ever shot .351 (as Bird did against the '88 Pistons...and Magic shot .550 against that same Piston team in the Finals), or entire post-seasons of .408, .422, or .427.



Again, i define clutch as how well someone plays in 4th quarters of close games. I never claimed, and never would, that wilt was a poor big game player, just that there are many testimonies that conclude he sucked 'in the clutch'.


Bird could dominate a game whilst shooting poorly. That's how good he was. And, if you're citing percentages, please use efg% or ts%. fg% is insulting.

[D.J.]

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


:facepalm Should be more like this:



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



Jordan is the clear cut GOAT. Wilt and Kareem are interchangable, as are Bird/Magic and Olajuwon/Shaq IMO. #10 could go between West and Kobe. Good chance Barkley is top 10 with a ring.

[oolalaa]

Very good post...Don't agree with your rankings though....No way is Johnson higher than Kareem or Russell.

Why not? Magic was the best player, leader and driving force on 4 of those championship winning laker teams. He proved in 87 and 88 that he didn't need a dominant kareem to win rings.

I also think kareems career is slightly overrated (just slightly). The 70s was the weakest era of basketball (apart form the 40s and 50s of course) and whilst kareem was undoubtedly the best player in the league for the entire decade he didn't have as much team success as you would expect (only 1 ring, 2 finals and he missed the playoffs for 2 straight years in 75' and 76').

With regards to russell, they are very close but ultimately i regard leading a team to 5 championships and 9 finals in the 80s/90s as slightly better than leading a team to 11 championships and 13 finals in the 50s/60s (when there were only between 8 and 12 teams in the league).

[Math2]

Why not? Magic was the best player, leader and driving force on 4 of those championship winning laker teams. He proved in 87 and 88 that he didn't need a dominant kareem to win rings.

I also think kareems career is slightly overrated (just slightly). The 70s was the weakest era of basketball (apart form the 40s and 50s of course) and whilst kareem was undoubtedly the best player in the league for the entire decade he didn't have as much team success as you would expect (only 1 ring, 2 finals and he missed the playoffs for 2 straight years in 75' and 76').

With regards to russell, they are very close but ultimately i regard leading a team to 5 championships and 9 finals in the 80s/90s as slightly better than leading a team to 11 championships and 13 finals in the 50s/60s (when there were only between 8 and 12 teams in the league).

I don't think he was the leader until 1985, maybe even 1987.....True about Kareem...I'll give you that. But Kareem was the best player in the league in through the entire 70s, which is impressive in itself.

I'd call Russell the Goat, and the 60s are up there with the 80s as the strongest era. Look at definite top 10 players:

Russell
Jordan
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Wilt
West
Duncan
Kobe
Hakeem/Robertson

Russell, Wilt, West, and Robertson all played then...There was also Baylor, Pettit, Dolph Schayes, and Cousy in the early part of the decade (for the last 3)...Not weak at all...4 top players played then, 4 in the 80s, 1 in the 70s, and 2 in the 2000s...

[tontoz]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/lists/Top-10-players-in-NBA-history#photo-title=Best%20of%20the%20best&photo=30219323

Reasons for the choices are in the link.

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


Kareem @ 4 = FAIL. He is 2 at worst.

[oolalaa]

Kareem
Jordan
Russ
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Bryant/Garnett/Malone/West/Oscar--can't decide.

You're serious?

[Jasi]

The top five are a given.

MJ-Magic-KAJ-Bird-Russell
(in no order except the GOAT)

All others can vary and honestly it's difficult to come up with anything credible.

[jlauber]

Spot on, Jlauber only knows Wilt's stats as you said, demonstrating fundamental aspects of basketball is something you'll never see even though he writes (copies) essay after essay.

The only time you'll see him not bringing up stats is the series in '72 vs Kareem. Then he only writes that "Wilt schooled Kareem", he is too ashamed to bring up the fact that Kareem averaged 23 more points per game on better FG% in that series..

Jlauber is the most biased and ignorant poster of this site..

Stats...and quotes, and game recaps, and newspaper articles from his era, and even VIDEO footage,...all of which CONFIRMED his overwhelming dominance.

And yes, the vast majority of those that actually WATCHED the '72 WCF's had Wilt outplaying Kareem (and some DECISIVELY.) Even the MILWAUKEE press, players, and coach agreed that WILT was the difference in that series.

But a complete idiot like yourself, who NEVER saw Chamberlain play, would look blindly at the stats. Kareem shot .414 over the course of the last four games of that series, and watched helplessly as Wilt was knocking the "unblockable sky-hook" all over the gym.

BTW, Wilt, in '62, took what was the same basic last-place roster he inherited in his rookie season, to a game seven, two-point loss against Russell's 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers. AND, he did so with that crappy roster collectively shooting .354 in the playoffs.

Meanwhile, in '72, Kareem was playing with the defending champion Bucks, who had gone 66-16 in '71, and then went 63-19 in '72...and had Oscar and Dandridge, as well as McGlocklin, and Allen. The Bucks in '71 outscored their opponents by +12.2 ppg, and outshot them by a record differential of .509 to .424. In '72 Milwaukee outscored their opponents by +11.1 ppg, and outshot them by a .498 to .420 margin. Quite a bit of difference, don't you think?

Of course, even more remarkbale, was the fact that this was a PRIME Kareem going down in flames against a 35 year-old Wilt, in the twilight of his career, and playing on a surgically repaired knee. "One can only wonder" just what a PRIME Chamberlain would have dropped on Kareem that season.

[D.J.]

The top five are a given.

MJ-Magic-KAJ-Bird-Russell
(in no order except the GOAT)

All others can vary and honestly it's difficult to come up with anything credible.


Wilt says hi.

[DaPerceive]

People could easily argue that Shaq and Duncan should be in the top 5 and ahead of both Bird and Magic.

There is really nothing given in order of the top 10 other than Hakeem or Kobe not being in the top 5. I love both of those guys but they have no argument for top 5 at all.

[Yung D-Will]

People could easily argue that Shaq and Duncan should be in the top 5 and ahead of both Bird and Magic.

There is really nothing given in order of the top 10 other than Hakeem or Kobe not being in the top 5. I love both of those guys but they have no argument for top 5 at all.
If you can argue Shaq and Duncan in the top 5 there's no way in hell you can't argue Hakeem.

Either way you're gonna end up looking retarded. But in the end Hakeem basiclly did everything Duncan did but was more dominant whiles doing it.

[Jasi]

Wilt says hi.

Not on par with the above mentioned 5. Yeah, despite all the stats and bla bla.

[D.J.]

People could easily argue that Shaq and Duncan should be in the top 5 and ahead of both Bird and Magic.


No you can't. Bird and Magic did things on the court and revolutionized the game in a way that Shaq and Duncan never could have done.



There is really nothing given in order of the top 10 other than Hakeem or Kobe not being in the top 5. I love both of those guys but they have no argument for top 5 at all.


Agreed. I have Hakeem around 7 or 8(depending on whether you rank Shaq above him or not) and Kobe is at 10 or 11(fighting with Jerry West for 10th).

[Yung D-Will]

The more and more I get to watch full Hakeem games and compare them to the peak Duncan I watch the more I realize that Hakeem was just a better player. He basiclly did everything that Duncan did except he was better at it. It's kinda like when I compare Duncan and Shaq, Duncan had the better career but Shaq was just the better player. That's similar to how I feel when I compare Duncan and Hakeem now

[DaPerceive]

The more and more I get to watch full Hakeem games and compare them to the peak Duncan I watch the more I realize that Hakeem was just a better player. He basiclly did everything that Duncan did except he was better at it. It's kinda like when I compare Duncan and Shaq, Duncan had the better career but Shaq was just the better player. That's similar to how I feel when I compare Duncan and Hakeem now
You could argue that Shaq had the better career than Duncan though which is why it isn't the same. There is no argument that Hakeem had a better career than Duncan though, none.

Hakeem wasn't that much better than Duncan wasn't in his prime/peak either. Was he better? Absolutely. Was he much better? Not at all. Duncan's prime/peak gets overlooked because he wasn't flashy. The truth is that Duncan gets the job done and that is really all that matters.

[DaPerceive]

If you can argue Shaq and Duncan in the top 5 there's no way in hell you can't argue Hakeem.

Either way you're gonna end up looking retarded. But in the end Hakeem basiclly did everything Duncan did but was more dominant whiles doing it.
Go ahead and define more dominant for me. I always find it funny how everybody says that to dismiss Duncan.

[Yung D-Will]

You could argue that Shaq had the better career than Duncan though which is why it isn't the same. There is no argument that Hakeem had a better career than Duncan though, none.

Hakeem wasn't that much better than Duncan wasn't in his prime/peak either. Was he better? Absolutely. Was he much better? Not at all. Duncan's prime/peak gets overlooked because he wasn't flashy. The truth is that Duncan gets the job done and that is really all that matters.
Yes both Shaq and Hakeem were much better. I've defended Duncan against both of them for a lot time and I've uploaded so many video of 03 Duncan and trust me there's a reason he's the greatest pf of all time. But when it comes to dominance over games Shaq and Hakeem were just much more imo.

[DaPerceive]

Yes both Shaq and Hakeem were much better. I've defended Duncan against both of them for a lot time and I've uploaded so many video of 03 Duncan and trust me there's a reason he's the greatest pf of all time. But when it comes to dominance over games Shaq and Hakeem were just much more imo.
Define dominance for me as I requested earlier. I really want to know what you're talking about. No offense, but I am expecting you to completely talk out of your ass on this like most people do about this subject. I won't have a problem informing you though but you can still list your opinion if you wish.

[boredfun91]

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

11. West
12. M. Malone
13. K. Malone
14. Havlicek
15. Bryant
16. Baylor

Mostly this. I could argue taking Russell out of the top 5 altogether and Bird vs Magic is close. Other than that I agree.

As for the original list, I can't see a strong argument for having Kobe above Shaq/Hakeem. They were dominant in an extremely competitive era. Hakeem is possibly the best defensive player of all time and has top 5 or better offensive skills.

[boredfun91]

You could argue that Shaq had the better career than Duncan though which is why it isn't the same. There is no argument that Hakeem had a better career than Duncan though, none.

Hakeem wasn't that much better than Duncan wasn't in his prime/peak either. Was he better? Absolutely. Was he much better? Not at all. Duncan's prime/peak gets overlooked because he wasn't flashy. The truth is that Duncan gets the job done and that is really all that matters.

Yes he was much better. Defensively he was much better. Offensively he was marginally better but against superior competition.

Why is there no argument for Hakeem having a better career? What defines "better" or "career"? If we're talking accolades, Duncan has a SLIGHT edge. Hakeem is 8th all time in steals, 1st in blocks, has 2 rings, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 MVP and 2 DPOYs. Had Hakeem not played in the Bird/Jordan/Magic era, this would probably be a lot different.

[Legends66NBA7]

Yes he was much better. Defensively he was much better. Offensively he was marginally better but against superior competition.

Why is there no argument for Hakeem having a better career? What defines "better" or "career"? If we're talking accolades, Duncan has a SLIGHT edge. Hakeem is 8th all time in steals, 1st in blocks, has 2 rings, 2 Finals MVPs, 1 MVP and 2 DPOYs. Had Hakeem not played in the Bird/Jordan/Magic era, this would probably be a lot different.

Hey, is this boredfun91 from youtube ?

If so, what's up man, love you're insight on sports. Good to see you on ISH, I see you're just recent here, though. Stick around, still.

[Math2]

Mostly this. I could argue taking Russell out of the top 5 altogether and Bird vs Magic is close. Other than that I agree.

As for the original list, I can't see a strong argument for having Kobe above Shaq/Hakeem. They were dominant in an extremely competitive era. Hakeem is possibly the best defensive player of all time and has top 5 or better offensive skills.

:lol

[Legends66NBA7]

:lol

I used to think that way too. Boy, did I ever change my prespective after learning more about the legendary Bill Russell.

[Math2]

I used to think that way too. Boy, did I ever change my prespective after learning more about the legendary Bill Russell.

Really...I'd call him GOAT. What's your argument against him?

[Legends66NBA7]

Really...I'd call him GOAT. What's your argument against him?

Not much of an arguement, really. My list jumbles around a lot, because I try to find out all the information I need to know to rank them properly. Don't know if I want to tiers yet. However ranking wise, I would Russell is either GOAT like your said or # 2 behind Jordan.

[RRR3]

Bill Russell is the most overrated player of all time. :facepalm :rant :hammerhead: :banghead: :hammerhead: :wtf: :sleeping

[donald_trump]

:facepalm Should be more like this:



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



Jordan is the clear cut GOAT. Wilt and Kareem are interchangable, as are Bird/Magic and Olajuwon/Shaq IMO. #10 could go between West and Kobe. Good chance Barkley is top 10 with a ring.

how is hakeem above shaq?

shaq has longevity, peak play, dominance, championships, stats and impact over him. what exactly makes hakeem better? :oldlol:

[Miller for 3]

Bill Russell is the most overrated player of all time. :facepalm :rant :hammerhead: :banghead: :hammerhead: :wtf: :sleeping

Do some research man. You can pull up old newspaper articles from Russell's day and see his team's performance with and without him from year to year. (to sum it up quickly, basically when he missed games, his teams got slaughtered, and when he played they were the best defensive teams in history). Also take into account his international, college, and high school success. He won big at every level, and performing a variety of roles (go to scorer for Olympic and college teams, defensive juggernaut on run and gun Cousy teams, lead facilitator on later Celtics team)

[donald_trump]

No you can't. Bird and Magic did things on the court and revolutionized the game in a way that Shaq and Duncan never could have done.



okay, so what are those things? show me another center thats done what shaqs done.

same with duncan. coming in and dominating straight away the way he did.


this is the problem with the basketball population and particularly this forum. they say shit like 'because they just are' or 'they were just better at the game of basketball and its finer points'. yet when you ask them to elaborate on everything they've said, they can't.

shaq is better than both bird and magic at basketball, but due to legend and stupidity he will never be ranked so.

[Legends66NBA7]

Bill Russell is the most overrated player of all time. :facepalm :rant :hammerhead: :banghead: :hammerhead: :wtf: :sleeping

Elaborate for me. Right now.

What makes him the most overrated player of all-time ?

[RRR3]

Elaborate for me. Right now.

What makes him the most overrated player of all-time ?
Because people think he has a case for the GOAT when MJ and Kareem have much stronger cases. I realize he was a great player, and one of the greatest ever, but he's not the GOAT. And yes, I know he "won 11 rings". :rolleyes:

[Math2]

Not much of an arguement, really. My list jumbles around a lot, because I try to find out all the information I need to know to rank them properly. Don't know if I want to tiers yet. However ranking wise, I would Russell is either GOAT like your said or # 2 behind Jordan.

What don't you like about him? Just curious....

[Math2]

Because people think he has a case for the GOAT when MJ and Kareem have much stronger cases. I realize he was a great player, and one of the greatest ever, but he's not the GOAT. And yes, I know he "won 11 rings". :rolleyes:

"won 11 rings"...He did, and in the strongest, or second strongest era of all time (second to the 80s maybe...).

[D.J.]

how is hakeem above shaq?

shaq has longevity, peak play, dominance, championships, stats and impact over him. what exactly makes hakeem better? :oldlol:


He was a much more versatile player. He had a load of post moves in the paint and could shoot jumpers as well. He was at least equal in rebounding, perhaps even a bit better. At least equal in passing and was far better defensively. In Shaq's prime, he won 3 titles with 3 Finals MVPs. Dream won 2 titles with 2 Finals MVPs and did so with a far weaker cast. 3 vs 2 is a minimal difference and doing so with a weaker cast, they're very comparable. Hakeem also won one of his rings against...Shaq! And a sweep I might add.

Prime Shaq put up 30/13+/4/3. Peak Dream can be debated over a few seasons. Those seasons include 25/13+/2/2.6/3.4, 24/14/3/2.1/4.6, and 21/14/2/2.2/3.9, 26/13/3+/1.8/4.2. Dream for his career put up 22/11/2+/1.7/3.1 to Shaq's 24/11/2+/0.6/2.3.

Dream had a better career defensive rating, 98 to Shaq's 101. He put up 94.5 win shares(led the league 4 times and in consecutive seasons) to Shaq's 66.4(led the league once).

[RRR3]

"won 11 rings"...He did, and in the strongest, or second strongest era of all time (second to the 80s maybe...).
He didn't win the rings alone, he played with a lot of great teammates. There were way less teams back then as well. Never denied he's an all time great and deservedly a legend, but MJ and Kareem were better for sure.

[D.J.]

this is the problem with the basketball population and particularly this forum. they say shit like 'because they just are' or 'they were just better at the game of basketball and its finer points'. yet when you ask them to elaborate on everything they've said, they can't.


And I just did.



shaq is better than both bird and magic at basketball, but due to legend and stupidity he will never be ranked so.


Being a dominant big man doesn't automatically rank you above others, especially two that not just dominated, but changed the game forever.

[RRR3]

He was a much more versatile player. He had a load of post moves in the paint and could shoot jumpers as well. He was at least equal in rebounding, perhaps even a bit better. At least equal in passing and was far better defensively. In Shaq's prime, he won 3 titles with 3 Finals MVPs. Dream won 2 titles with 2 Finals MVPs and did so with a far weaker cast. 3 vs 2 is a minimal difference and doing so with a weaker cast, they're very comparable. Hakeem also won one of his rings against...Shaq! And a sweep I might add.

Prime Shaq put up 30/13+/4/3. Peak Dream can be debated over a few seasons. Those seasons include 25/13+/2/2.6/3.4, 24/14/3/2.1/4.6, and 21/14/2/2.2/3.9, 26/13/3+/1.8/4.2. Dream for his career put up 22/11/2+/1.7/3.1 to Shaq's 24/11/2+/0.6/2.3.

Dream had a better career defensive rating, 98 to Shaq's 101. He put up 94.5 win shares(led the league 4 times and in consecutive seasons) to Shaq's 66.4(led the league once).

Win shares are a seriously flawed stat.

[D.J.]

Because people think he has a case for the GOAT when MJ and Kareem have much stronger cases. I realize he was a great player, and one of the greatest ever, but he's not the GOAT. And yes, I know he "won 11 rings". :rolleyes:


He doesn't have a case for GOAT, but he does for top 5. I personally have Russell at 6.

[D.J.]

Win shares are a seriously flawed stat.


It's only flawed when you're trying to prove how that individual isn't better.

[Math2]

He didn't win the rings alone, he played with a lot of great teammates. There were way less teams back then as well. Never denied he's an all time great and deservedly a legend, but MJ and Kareem were better for sure.

What does it matter that there are less teams? That's just a shitty excuse for "I can't think of anything". MJ and Kareem didn't win alone either.

[RRR3]

He doesn't have a case for GOAT, but he does for top 5. I personally have Russell at 6.
This. :applause:

[Math2]

He doesn't have a case for GOAT, but he does for top 5. I personally have Russell at 6.

Why doesn't he have a case for GOAT? He dominated the loaded 60s. And how is it just a "case". He won 11 champs...

[RRR3]

What does it matter that there are less teams? That's just a shitty excuse for "I can't think of anything". MJ and Kareem didn't win alone either.
No shit. No player in history has done that. MJ and Kareem were more dominant on an individual level than Russell though.

[D.J.]

Why doesn't he have a case for GOAT? He dominated the loaded 60s


So did Wilt. Kareem dominated the 70s and for much longer. MJ won 6 titles, the same number of Finals MVPs, and never lost a series with home court. Bird was such a dominant scorer, elite rebounder, best passing player 6'9"+, and had the highest ball IQ of anyone that's ever played. Magic basically put up Bird type numbers with 5-7 fewer points. He had IMO the 2nd highest ball IQ ever, and was the GOAT fastbreak PG.

Those are the 5 I have above him with the order being MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, and Magic.

[D.J.]

He won 11 champs...


Horry won 7 to Jordan's 6. So?

[Math2]

So did Wilt. Kareem dominated the 70s and for much longer. MJ won 6 titles, the same number of Finals MVPs, and never lost a series with home court. Bird was such a dominant scorer, elite rebounder, best passing player 6'9"+, and had the highest ball IQ of anyone that's ever played. Magic basically put up Bird type numbers with 5-7 fewer points. He had IMO the 2nd highest ball IQ ever, and was the GOAT fastbreak PG.

Those are the 5 I have above him with the order being MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, and Magic.

Russell had a higher IQ than anyone. Wilt won only once in the 60s, and another time in the less competitive 70s.

[Math2]

Horry won 7 to Jordan's 6. So?

That's a really weak argument. :roll: Jordan won in a not as competitive league, so 11 champs is more impressive than 6.

[D.J.]

Russell had a higher IQ than anyone.


Not higher than Bird or Magic, no.



Wilt won only once in the 60s, and another time in the less competitive 70s.


And that should be held against him? He completely dominated. It's not his fault his teammates were five tiers below Russell's teammates.

[Legends66NBA7]

Because people think he has a case for the GOAT when MJ and Kareem have much stronger cases. I realize he was a great player, and one of the greatest ever, but he's not the GOAT. And yes, I know he "won 11 rings". :rolleyes:

There is no "think" about it. He has a strong case for the GOAT, just like Kareem and MJ. And no it's not just about 11 rings (although that's very important, considering if he Finals MVP existed back then, he would most likely won 9-10 of them).

Back in Russell's day, the players voted for MVP. They voted for Russell 5 times, once 3 times in a row.

They voted Russell MVP in 1961-62 over these players that season:

They even voted for Russell MVP in 1962, over these seasons:

Wilt Chamberlain: 50.4ppg 25.7rpg 2.4apg 50.6%fg 61.3%ft

Oscar Robertson: 30.8ppg 12.5rpg 11.4apg 47.8%fg 80.3%ft

Elgin Baylor: 38.3ppg 18.6rpg 4.6apg 42.8%fg 75.4%ft

Jerry West: 30.8ppg 7.9rpg 5.4apg 44.5%fg 76.9%ft

Bob Pettit: 31.1ppg 18.7rpg 3.7apg 45.0%fg 77.1%ft

Richie Guerin: 29.5ppg 6.4rpg 6.9apg 44.2%fg 82.0%ft

Russell's impact on the game went further than a stat sheet. You can't measure his leadership. You can't measure his heart and desire to win. You can't measure how much of a defensive anchor the rest of the Boston Celtics needed him to be. Hell, Russell took some his teammates to Hall of Fame, just for them being on his team.

This right here shows how he was more than just "11 Rings":

Bill Russell from age 17 till he retired, won (lead):

- High School Championship x2

- NCAA Championship x2

- 1956 Olympic Gold Medal

- NBA Championship x11

Russell's Record in Game 7's: 10 - 0

Russell's Record in the Finals: 11 - 1

He has lost only 2 elimination games:

1958 Finals to the Bob Pettit led St.Louis Hawks, while Russell was injured.

The other ? 1967. This time it took Wilt Chamberlain averaging 22 ppg 32 rpg and 10 apg for the series. Wilt put up 29pts 36reb 13ast to knock them out of the playoffs. Not to mention that 1967 Sixers team was one of the greatest teams ever assembled.


Russell was a flat out winner, where ever he went. When healthy, he won everthing. You just cannot deny his place in the GOAT conversations. He's either GOAT or he's damn near close to it, IMO.

[Math2]

Not higher than Bird or Magic, no.





And that should be held against him? He completely dominated. It's not his fault his teammates were five tiers below Russell's teammates.

....Yes his IQ is right up there with Bird/Magic's. His team really wasn't that bad when you actually look at it. If he really is that much better than Russell, wouldn't he have won more than one against him?

[D.J.]

That's a really weak argument. :roll: Jordan won in a not as competitive league, so 11 champs is more impressive than 6.


It's not an argument. It's pointing out your stupidity. And you continue to make stupid comments. There was plenty of competition in Jordan's day. There were always 2-3 teams capable of taking out Chicago.

1991- Boston(56-26), Detroit(50-32), Milwaukee(48-34)
1992- Cleveland(57-25), Boston(51-31), New York(51-31), Detroit(48-34)
1993- New York(60-22), Cleveland(54-28), Boston(48-34)
1996- Orlando(60-22), Indiana(52-30), Cleveland(47-35), New York(47-35), Atlanta(46-36), Detroit(46-36)
1997- Miami(61-21), New York(57-25), Atlanta(56-26), Detroit(54-28), Charlotte(54-28)
1998- Indiana(58-24), Miami(55-24), Charlotte(51-31), Atlanta(50-32), Cleveland(47-35)


1991 was the only time Chicago steamrolled to a title. 1992, they went the full 7 with the Knicks, needed 6 to beat Cleveland, and without a collapse from Portland, go 7 with them. 1993, trailed 0-2 to the Knicks before coming back and without a title clinching 3 from Paxson, go 7 with the Suns. 1996, they need 6 to beat Seattle. 1997, they needed 6 to beat Utah. 1998, they needed 7 to beat the Pacers and trailed by double digits in the first half and they went 6 with Utah and were a Karl Malone smart play away from going 7.

So yes, the league was quite competitive in Jordan's day. They were quite close to defeat on several occasions.

[D.J.]

Yes his IQ is right up there with Bird/Magic's.


Up there, yes. Better, no.



His team really wasn't that bad when you actually look at it. If he really is that much better than Russell, wouldn't he have won more than one against him?


They were bad. Certainly worse than Russell's Celtics. Basketball is a team game. The better player doesn't always win. The better TEAM does.

[Math2]

It's not an argument. It's pointing out your stupidity. And you continue to make stupid comments. There was plenty of competition in Jordan's day. There were always 2-3 teams capable of taking out Chicago.

1991- Boston(56-26), Detroit(50-32), Milwaukee(48-34)
1992- Cleveland(57-25), Boston(51-31), New York(51-31), Detroit(48-34)
1993- New York(60-22), Cleveland(54-28), Boston(48-34)
1996- Orlando(60-22), Indiana(52-30), Cleveland(47-35), New York(47-35), Atlanta(46-36), Detroit(46-36)
1997- Miami(61-21), New York(57-25), Atlanta(56-26), Detroit(54-28), Charlotte(54-28)
1998- Indiana(58-24), Miami(55-24), Charlotte(51-31), Atlanta(50-32), Cleveland(47-35)


1991 was the only time Chicago steamrolled to a title. 1992, they went the full 7 with the Knicks, needed 6 to beat Cleveland, and without a collapse from Portland, go 7 with them. 1993, trailed 0-2 to the Knicks before coming back and without a title clinching 3 from Paxson, go 7 with the Suns. 1996, they need 6 to beat Seattle. 1997, they needed 6 to beat Utah. 1998, they needed 7 to beat the Pacers and trailed by double digits in the first half and they went 6 with Utah and were a Karl Malone smart play away from going 7.

So yes, the league was quite competitive in Jordan's day. They were quite close to defeat on several occasions.

I'm not saying it was an automatic champ for Chicago, but would you really say that the 90s were stronger than the 60s?

[Math2]

Up there, yes. Better, no.





They were bad. Certainly worse than Russell's Celtics. Basketball is a team game. The better player doesn't always win. The better TEAM does.

Maybe better...Yes, but they weren't bad teams. They were not as good as Russell, but not "5 tiers" below them...Maybe one or two.

[D.J.]

Maybe better...Yes, but they weren't bad teams. They were not as good as Russell, but not "5 tiers" below them...Maybe one or two.


Still a significant difference. Rings doesn't automatically put a player above another, especially when comparing different eras.

[D.J.]

I'm not saying it was an automatic champ for Chicago, but would you really say that the 90s were stronger than the 60s?


Um, yes. More teams, longer playoff runs, more stars. Much stronger and more competition.

[Math2]

Still a significant difference. Rings doesn't automatically put a player above another, especially when comparing different eras.

It doesn't automatically, but when someone wins more in a stronger era, that is one thing that would promote him...

[D.J.]

It doesn't automatically, but when someone wins more in a stronger era, that is one thing that would promote him...


And the 60s weren't stronger than the 90s. The 90s had elite perimeter players and big men. The 90s had the best big men of any decade. Shaq, Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, young Duncan, Mutombo, Malone, Barkley(if you want to count him).

[Math2]

Um, yes. More teams, longer playoff runs, more stars. Much stronger and more competition.

More teams don't mean more stars. More teams, but more top players played in the 60s...Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor, Robertson, and Pettit...All of them are top 20 players...The 90s had Jordan....but not much else. Bird and Magic were there for a while, but Bird wasn't Bird, though Magic was good. Thomas was there, Barkley and Malone and Pippen and Shaq and Hakeem....3 definite top 10 players in the 60s, and 5 definite top 20. The 90s had 2 top 10 (through most of the decade...), and 5 definite top 20. More teams mean more scrubs, not more competition.

[D.J.]

More teams don't mean more stars. More teams, but more top players played in the 60s...Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor, Robertson, and Pettit...All of them are top 20 players...The 90s had Jordan....but not much else. Bird and Magic were there for a while, but Bird wasn't Bird, though Magic was good. Thomas was there, Barkley and Malone and Pippen....3 definite top 10 players in the 60s, and 5 definite top 20. The 90s had 1 top 10 (through most of the decade...), and 3 definite top 20. More teams mean more scrubs, not more competition.


Yes, it does mean more competition. Less teams meant fewer stars. The 90s had Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Mullin, Ewing, Mourning, Larry Johnson, Bird(albeit he was injured), Magic(for the first year), Barkley, Malone, Payton, Kemp, Isiah, Rodman, Pippen, Webber, Mutombo, Stockton. There were many great players.

Of course it's easy to have quite a few top 20 players during the 60s since not nearly as many guys played in the NBA. The NBA was only about 20 years old at the time.

[Math2]

Yes, it does mean more competition. Less teams meant fewer stars. The 90s had Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Robinson, Mullin, Ewing, Mourning, Larry Johnson, Bird(albeit he was injured), Magic(for the first year), Barkley, Malone, Payton, Kemp, Isiah, Rodman, Pippen, Webber, Mutombo, Stockton. There were many great players.

Of course it's easy to have quite a few top 20 players during the 60s since not nearly as many guys played in the NBA. The NBA was only about 20 years old at the time.

:facepalm Less stars because of less teams makes zero sense...Why would there be less? The good players don't join the NBA because there are too many good players per team?

[D.J.]

:facepalm Less stars because of less teams makes zero sense...Why would there be less? The good players don't join the NBA because there are too many good players per team?


With 30 teams, there's going to be more stars. Simply because there's more guys in the league. Not a difficult concept. There will be more stars along with more scrubs.

[Math2]

With 30 teams, there's going to be more stars. Simply because there's more guys in the league. Not a difficult concept. There will be more stars along with more scrubs.

Why? :lol It means less scrubs.

[donald_trump]

He was a much more versatile player. He had a load of post moves in the paint and could shoot jumpers as well. He was at least equal in rebounding, perhaps even a bit better. At least equal in passing and was far better defensively. In Shaq's prime, he won 3 titles with 3 Finals MVPs. Dream won 2 titles with 2 Finals MVPs and did so with a far weaker cast. 3 vs 2 is a minimal difference and doing so with a weaker cast, they're very comparable. Hakeem also won one of his rings against...Shaq! And a sweep I might add.

Prime Shaq put up 30/13+/4/3. Peak Dream can be debated over a few seasons. Those seasons include 25/13+/2/2.6/3.4, 24/14/3/2.1/4.6, and 21/14/2/2.2/3.9, 26/13/3+/1.8/4.2. Dream for his career put up 22/11/2+/1.7/3.1 to Shaq's 24/11/2+/0.6/2.3.

Dream had a better career defensive rating, 98 to Shaq's 101. He put up 94.5 win shares(led the league 4 times and in consecutive seasons) to Shaq's 66.4(led the league once).

thats great. versatility doesnt mean youre better. he could shoot jumpers? great. hes a big man. doing something i dont want him to.
equal rebounders, shaq was a better passer.

no, he was not far better defensively. shaq had people scared to drive into the paint. he is the best defensive anchor of all time. undoubtedly.

shaq was far better offensively. hakeem shot just over 50% in some seasons. pretty terrible for someone who constantly gets rated as one of the best offensive players ever. especially at the C position.

its not 3 against 2. its 4 against 2 in terms of titles. shaq was the second best player on that heat team.

sure hakeem won one against shaq in his 3rd year. if thats your reason for having him higher than put magic above bird on your list as well.

you cant even begin to argue hakeem was better in his prime. thats just stupid. i dont think there is a single basketball historian that would agree with you.

[D.J.]

Why? :lol It means less scrubs.


Um, no. You have a league with 8 teams and 15 on a team. That's 120 for the league. If each team has 1 star and half the team is scrubs, that's 8 stars and 56 scrubs.

Now take the same ratios and apply it to 30 teams. 30 stars and 203 scrubs. Not saying that's the correct number, but it shows you that with more teams, you get more stars and more scrubs.

[donald_trump]

Being a dominant big man doesn't automatically rank you above others, especially two that not just dominated, but changed the game forever.

see you keep saying this but you never elaborate. you dont have a reason.

how did magic and bird change the game more than duncan and shaq?

[Math2]

Um, no. You have a league with 8 teams and 15 on a team. That's 120 for the league. If each team has 1 star and half the team is scrubs, that's 8 stars and 56 scrubs.

Now take the same ratios and apply it to 30 teams. 30 stars and 203 scrubs. Not saying that's the correct number, but it shows you that with more teams, you get more stars and more scrubs.

Some people may seem like "stars" because they are the only good player on their team, but the number of stars doesn't correlate with the number of teams. Is Russell not a star because Cousy is on the team? Is there a set amount of stars per league? The ratios aren't the same. There are more stars per team because there are less available options.

[D.J.]

thats great. versatility doesnt mean youre better. he could shoot jumpers? great. hes a big man. doing something i dont want him to.
equal rebounders, shaq was a better passer.


If your big man can shoot, you let him. That gives him and inside/outside game. Shaq was not the better passer. Shaq had 4 seasons over 3 APG, Dream had 6. Dream had 4 seasons with 3.5 APG or more, Shaq had 2.



no, he was not far better defensively. shaq had people scared to drive into the paint. he is the best defensive anchor of all time. undoubtedly.


Yes he was far better defensively. People were equally scared to attack against Hakeem. And Hakeem was able to play D outside the paint and strip you of the ball. Not to mention he was a better shot blocker on top of that.



shaq was far better offensively. hakeem shot just over 50% in some seasons. pretty terrible for someone who constantly gets rated as one of the best offensive players ever. especially at the C position.


Better, but not far better. Hakeem took more outside shots, which is why he shot around 50% instead of the high 50s.



its not 3 against 2. its 4 against 2 in terms of titles. shaq was the second best player on that heat team.


Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit. I said prime. Shaq won 3 in his prime, not 4.



sure hakeem won one against shaq in his 3rd year. if thats your reason for having him higher than put magic above bird on your list as well.


I already listed my reasons for having Dream over Shaq.



you cant even begin to argue hakeem was better in his prime. thats just stupid. i dont think there is a single basketball historian that would agree with you.


Opinions are never wrong, nor do I care what a historian thinks. My opinion is that Dream was better and I have Dream/Shaq at 7 and 8 respectively. You certainly can make a case for Hakeem and I just did.

[D.J.]

see you keep saying this but you never elaborate. you dont have a reason.

how did magic and bird change the game more than duncan and shaq?


Magic and Bird came into the league at a time when ratings were in the crapper. Bird was a 6'9" player with an outside shot matched by very few(if any), elite rebounding, point guard-esque passing, amazing court awareness, clutch play matched only by Michael Jordan, and the highest IQ of anyone that's played the game. And he did it without an ounce of athleticism.

Magic was a 6'7"-6'8" point guard with the best court awareness of anyone that's played, good rebounding, the best fastbreak PG of all-time, and was able to play just about any position, just like Bird.

That's how they changed the game more than Duncan and Shaq.

[donald_trump]

If your big man can shoot, you let him. That gives him and inside/outside game. Shaq was not the better passer. Shaq had 4 seasons over 3 APG, Dream had 6. Dream had 4 seasons with 3.5 APG or more, Shaq had 2.

shaq was a better rebounder then. more season of 10+ rebounds.

shaq has a better assist percentage as well as rebounding percentage. he was better at both. this was apparent from watching the game as well. particularly with passing.



Yes he was far better defensively. People were equally scared to attack against Hakeem. And Hakeem was able to play D outside the paint and strip you of the ball. Not to mention he was a better shot blocker on top of that.

is there any point in arguing with you if you think it was equally scary driving on a 6'10 240lbs guy than it is a 7'2, 320lbs guy? why do you think hakeem has posters over him, while shaq has none. kevin johnson sure found it scary going at hakeem. would love to see him do it to shaq.




Better, but not far better. Hakeem took more outside shots, which is why he shot around 50% instead of the high 50s.

so why should that help his case. he took stupid outside shots when he was a center. not something i want him doing. shaq took it inside and scored at a 58%+ clip.
hes better, no questions. more points on better percentages.





Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit. I said prime. Shaq won 3 in his prime, not 4.

an all nba first team selection means youre not in your prime?





I already listed my reasons for having Dream over Shaq.

you listed them based on false assumptions that hakeem was better at certain things when in fact he wasnt.





Opinions are never wrong, nor do I care what a historian thinks. My opinion is that Dream was better and I have Dream/Shaq at 7 and 8 respectively. You certainly can make a case for Hakeem and I just did.

thank you for showing the rest of the board not to value your opinions.

[D.J.]

shaq was a better rebounder then. more season of 10+ rebounds.


Fail. :facepalm Dream averaged more RPG for his career and furing his prime.



shaq has a better assist percentage as well as rebounding percentage. he was better at both. this was apparent from watching the game as well. particularly with passing.


Percentage means nothing. He was not a better passing. Being double-teamed and finding the open man doesn't automatically you a better passer. Dream was able to do that without being double-teamed.



is there any point in arguing with you if you think it was equally scary driving on a 6'10 240lbs guy than it is a 7'2, 320lbs guy? why do you think hakeem has posters over him, while shaq has none. kevin johnson sure found it scary going at hakeem. would love to see him do it to shaq.


Because Shaq would flagrantly foul you. That's why they avoided doing it. Mourning and Mutombo both got dunked on. I'd be more afraid of getting knocked to the ground and injured than getting my dunk or layup blocked.



so why should that help his case. he took stupid outside shots when he was a center. not something i want him doing. shaq took it inside and scored at a 58%+ clip.
hes better, no questions. more points on better percentages.


So I guess everyone that shoots jump shots takes stupid shots. And I guess Shaq is better than Jordan then, going by your logic.



an all nba first team selection means youre not in your prime?


Not sure what relevance that is, but I would expect that from a poster of your quality(or lack there of).



you listed them based on false assumptions that hakeem was better at certain things when in fact he wasnt.


With a name like Donald Trump, I highly doubt you're that knowledgable and certainly not more knowledgable than me. I proved with input and statistics why I think Dream is better. You have not done that. All you've done is convince yourself that you know more than me and throw out some mumbo jumbo.



thank you for showing the rest of the board not to value your opinions.


They value mine much more than yours. Thank you for showing the rest of the board not to listen to you at all.

[donald_trump]

Magic and Bird came into the league at a time when ratings were in the crapper. Bird was a 6'9" player with an outside shot matched by very few(if any), elite rebounding, point guard-esque passing, amazing court awareness, clutch play matched only by Michael Jordan, and the highest IQ of anyone that's played the game. And he did it without an ounce of athleticism.

Magic was a 6'7"-6'8" point guard with the best court awareness of anyone that's played, good rebounding, the best fastbreak PG of all-time, and was able to play just about any position, just like Bird.

That's how they changed the game more than Duncan and Shaq.

shaq was a 7'2, 310lbs center who had a higher vertical (36 inches)than the likes of dwyane wade, russell westbrook, amare stoudamire, blake griffin, etc... all who are considered some of the best nba athletes ever. shaq was faster up than both bird and magic up the court. shaq was the most feared player ever. shaq is the most powerful player ever.
shaq is a more rare generational talent than either bird or magic.

duncan on the other hand came in as one of, if not the most polished player in nba history first year out of college. carried san antonio to 50+ wins for every single year hes been there. won with some of the worst casts ever, while beating out an all time great team team in the early 2000 lakers. the most fundamentally sound player ever at the pf/c position.

[D.J.]

shaq was a 7'2, 310lbs center who had a higher vertical (36 inches)than the likes of dwyane wade, russell westbrook, amare stoudamire, blake griffin, etc... all who are considered some of the best nba athletes ever. shaq was faster up than both bird and magic up the court. shaq was the most feared player ever. shaq is the most powerful player ever.
shaq is a more rare generational talent than either bird or magic.


Shaq may have been the most dominant, but he wasn't the only dominant center. Bird was the only unathletic white guy to dominate like he did. Magic was the only player of his size to do what he did. No other 6'7"-6'8" played the point at all, never mind did what he did. The only that comes close is Oscar Robertson, but he was shorter than Magic by a few inches.


duncan on the other hand came in as one of, if not the most polished player in nba history first year out of college. carried san antonio to 50+ wins for every single year hes been there. won with some of the worst casts ever, while beating out an all time great team team in the early 2000 lakers. the most fundamentally sound player ever at the pf/c position.


He didn't change the game by being the most polished. Arvydas Sabonis and Brad Daugherty were both extremely polished when they arrived. Magic and Bird changed the game. They were extremely skilled. Shaq was a physical freak of nature.

[donald_trump]

Fail. :facepalm Dream averaged more RPG for his career and furing his prime.

shaq played more years. of course his numbers are going to be lower.





Percentage means nothing. He was not a better passing. Being double-teamed and finding the open man doesn't automatically you a better passer. Dream was able to do that without being double-teamed.

yes it does. percentages do mean something. it shows how well you were able to complete something at. shaq was better. exactly. shaq drew more attention and was still able to be more dominant as a player. glad you're catching up.




Because Shaq would flagrantly foul you. That's why they avoided doing it. Mourning and Mutombo both got dunked on. I'd be more afraid of getting knocked to the ground and injured than getting my dunk or layup blocked.

so now you're backtracking? so? who cares what he did? its a great tactic. if you have a 7'2, 300lbs monster, you use him accordingly. like a monster. shaq was the most feared player ever, because you were afraid to get injured driving into him. even as a celtic, players of the other team were scared to drive in. shaq was still a great defensive player even then.




So I guess everyone one that shoots jump shots takes stupid shots. And I guess Shaq is better than Jordan then, going by your logic.

nope. just my big men. if you dont know how to do your job, learn. why would i want my 7 foot center shooting jumpshots. its not stupid for the smaller guys to do it, since they are actually good at it, and needed on the perimeter unlike the big men.
no shaq is not better than jordan. some seasons, sure. but overall, no. jordan scored more on high percentages.




Not sure what relevance that is, but I would expect that from a poster of your quality(or lack there of).

if you are selected as the best center in the nba, you are the premier guy at that position. it might not be your best year, but you are the prime center in the league. who cares if shaq didnt win it at his best, he still won, and was in the top 5 team that year.




With a name like Donald Trump, I highly doubt you're that knowledgable and certainly not more knowledgable than me. I proved with input and statistics why I think Dream is better. You have not done that. All you've done is convince yourself that you know more than me and throw out some mumbo jumbo.

statistics show shaq had the better peak. statistics show that shaq won more. statistics show that shaq has more accolades. statistics show, shaq had better longevity. statistics show shaq was just better.





They value mine much more than yours. Thank you for showing the rest of the board not to listen to you at all.

are you seriously playing he said she said right now? jesus...
arent you the guy who said wade would suck playing in the 80's and 90's? and that lebron is comparable player to dominique? and that nash's awards and achievements dont count?
you're just one of the douches caught up on nostalgia and because of it doesnt know what hes talking about when it comes to basketball.

[donald_trump]

Shaq may have been the most dominant, but he wasn't the only dominant center. Bird was the only unathletic white guy to dominate like he did. Magic was the only player of his size to do what he did. No other 6'7"-6'8" played the point at all, never mind did what he did. The only that comes close is Oscar Robertson, but he was shorter than Magic by a few inches.

magic wasnt the only dominant pg. bird wasnt the only dominant sf.

who cares about their height and athletic ability. we're supposed to give bird extra points because he couldnt jump as high and run as fast as others? too bad.
there are 6'6+ point guards out there. magic, oscar, and now an even better version of them, lebron.

kiki vandegwhe was a phenomenal player during his time. he wasnt athletic. chris mullin can go on that list as well. stojakovic as well. getting mvp talks back in the early 2000's.
petrovic as well to a lesser extent. how about dirk nowitzki?

on the other hand, yet to see another 7'2 320lbs beast. with arguably the greatest peak of all time.

[KevinNYC]

Because people think he has a case for the GOAT when MJ and Kareem have much stronger cases. I realize he was a great player, and one of the greatest ever, but he's not the GOAT. And yes, I know he "won 11 rings". :rolleyes:

It's not simply that Russel won 11 rings. He was the primary force behind his team winning those 11 Rings. It's not like Horry's 7rings.

Replace Russell on those teams with any other center from that era other than Wilt and that team doesn't win a single rings let alone multiples, let alone 8 straight.

Red Auerbach admitted to Russell his rookie year, he didn't know how Russell did all the things he did because they were revolutionary at the time. He did a lot of subtle things that other players, let alone the guy keeping the box score didn't pick up. The sportswriters during the first part of his career sure as hell didn't understand what he was doing. He said there was an invisible line on the court, if you crossed it his shot was yours, if you stayed outside that line he let you shoot. The only player who ever caught on this was Oscar Robertson, he came over the line and went into his crouch for his jumpshot and then shot it from the crouch without jumping while winking.

Russell played with an intensity, intelligence, athleticism and team oriented focus that has rarely been matched in NBA history. There's a reason Jerry West said he would pick him over Chamberlain. There's a reason in 1980 in was voted greatest NBA player ever over Kareem by sportswriters who had seen both play. Russell was 11 for 13 and Kareem was 6 out 20. Kareem would go on to win a fist full of rings in the 80's, but the addition of another top 5 player had something to do with that.

[KevinNYC]

kiki vandegwhe was a phenomenal player during his time.

Are you high?

[donald_trump]

Are you high?

i forgot. 20ppg on 53% shooting over your career is terrible.

[KevinNYC]

i forgot. 20ppg on 53% shooting over your career is terrible.

So you're coming down now and changing the standard from phenomenal to not terrible.

So what's your standard for phenomenal? Top 125 players in NBA history? Top 150?

[donald_trump]

So you're coming down now and changing the standard from phenomenal to not terrible.

So what's your standard for phenomenal? Top 125 players in NBA history? Top 150?

so 20ppg on 53% shooting is not terrible now.

how about listing all the players in the league that are doing that now.

and having a season of 30ppg on 55% shooting makes you a great player.

i wouldnt put vince carter or gilbert arenas in my top 75-100 players, but id still call them phenomenal players.

[KevinNYC]

But this is a thread about 10 time players all time. Kiki vandegwhe was never first or second team NBA during the time he played and thus he doesn't belong in this thread.

[donald_trump]

But this is a thread about 10 time players all time. Kiki vandegwhe was never first or second team NBA during the time he played and thus he doesn't belong in this thread.

the argument was, there was never any great white unathletic players before bird. he was wrong.

i dont know why you're bringing up any of that if you saw the argument.

[millwad]

shaq played more years. of course his numbers are going to be lower.


Stop talking out of your ass, Shaq "played" one more year but in total Hakeem played more games in his career compared to Shaq.

[donald_trump]

Stop talking out of your ass, Shaq "played" one more year but in total Hakeem played more games in his career compared to Shaq.

a large chunk of shaqs missed games were from his prime. thanks to injuries and the lockout. his stats would only be higher if he had more games from there.

and shaq did play more games in his career.

[KevinNYC]

the argument was, there was never any great white unathletic players before bird. he was wrong.

i dont know why you're bringing up any of that if you saw the argument.

I did see the argument.

For one all the guys you mention came after Bird. Kiki coming right after but still after.

Secondly, he didn't use the term great, he said Bird would "dominate." Kiki was a great shooter, but he's not even in the top 30 players of the 80's, so I don't see how he dominated.

[millwad]

a large chunk of shaqs missed games were from his prime. thanks to injuries and the lockout. his stats would only be higher if he had more games from there.

and shaq did play more games in his career.

Idiot.

Shaq played 1207 games and Hakeem played 1238 games.
And Hakeem Olajuwon collected 2 rebounding titles, Shaq won ZERO.

[donald_trump]

Idiot.

Shaq played 1207 games and Hakeem played 1238 games.
And Hakeem Olajuwon collected 2 rebounding titles, Shaq won ZERO.

playoff games count as well.

not shaqs fault he was better at winning.

congratulations on the rebounding titles, hes still not better at rebounding.

[RRR3]

Idiot.

Shaq played 1207 games and Hakeem played 1238 games.
And Hakeem Olajuwon collected 2 rebounding titles, Shaq won ZERO.
Shaq>Hakeem. Deal with it.

[millwad]

Shaq>Hakeem. Deal with it.

Dude, get your head outta Ida's ass.
Personally I rank them both as the 2nd best center ever and I don't care if sommeone picks Shad ahead of Hakeem or Hakeem over Shaq but the fool is writing untrue crap.

[RRR3]

Dude, get your head outta Ida's ass.
Personally I rank them both as the 2nd best center ever and I don't care if sommeone picks Shad ahead of Hakeem or Hakeem over Shaq but the fool is writing untrue crap.
What the hell does that have to do with this thread? :facepalm

[millwad]

playoff games count as well.

not shaqs fault he was better at winning.

congratulations on the rebounding titles, hes still not better at rebounding.

So he grabbed more rebounds and won two rebounding titles and still he's not better than Shaq when it comes to rebounding? :facepalm

[donald_trump]

Dude, get your head outta Ida's ass.
Personally I rank them both as the 2nd best center ever and I don't care if sommeone picks Shad ahead of Hakeem or Hakeem over Shaq but the fool is writing untrue crap.

no im not.

shaq did play more games. thats a fact.
shaq had better stats. thats a fact.
shaq won more games. thats a fact.
shaq won more championships. thats a fact.
better prime? shaq.
more dominant? shaq?
longevity? shaq.

[RRR3]

So he grabbed more rebounds and won two rebounding titles and still he's not better than Shaq when it comes to rebounding? :facepalm
Shaq career total rebound percentage: 17.8
Hakeem: 17.2

[Odinn]

no im not.

shaq did play more games. thats a fact.
shaq had better stats. thats a fact.
shaq won more games. thats a fact.
shaq won more championships. thats a fact.
better prime? shaq.
more dominant? shaq?
longevity? shaq.
Nope.


Shaq had 10 straight seasons with 25+/10+. Last one at his 30, 11th season.
Shaq had 9 straight playoffs with 25+/10+. Last one at his 30, 11th season.
Shaq had 13 straight seasons with 20+/10+. Last one at his 32, 13th season. (he averaged 20 ppg at his 33 but 9.2 rpg)
Shaq had 11 straight playoffs with 20+/10+. Last one at his 31, 12th season.

Hakeem had 4 straight seasons with 25+/10+. Last one at his 33, 12th season.
Hakeem had 7 playoffs with 25+/10+.(4 straight & 3 straight) Last one at his 35, 14th season.
Hakeem had 12 straight seasons with 20+/10+. Last one at his 33, 12th season. (he averaged 23.2 ppg at his 34 but 9.2 rpg)
Hakeem had 11 playoffs with 20+/10+.(it could be 13 straight but in 1990 playoffs he was 1.5ppg away and 1996 playoffs 0.9rpg away) Last one at his 35, 14th season.

[donald_trump]

So he grabbed more rebounds and won two rebounding titles and still he's not better than Shaq when it comes to rebounding? :facepalm

jason kidd has 5 assist titles compared to magics 4? is jason kidd a better passer than magic?

stop talking douchebag, youre embarrassing yourself.

[donald_trump]

Nope.




yep.

in their 13th seasons, shaq was still averaging a double double. hakeem was not.

and he played more games. he clearly was.

[millwad]

no im not.

shaq did play more games. thats a fact.
shaq had better stats. thats a fact.
shaq won more games. thats a fact.
shaq won more championships. thats a fact.
better prime? shaq.
more dominant? shaq?
longevity? shaq.

Are you an idiot? Seriously?
I just told you that I have them at the same place on the all-time center ranking and I don't care if someone takes Shaq over Hakeem or the other way around.

Better stats, well, he peaked in the worst center era and he won while only facing crappy centers. The best center Shaq faced when he won his rings was Dikembe Mutombo, now go and compare that to Hakeem who outplayed Ewing, Robinson and Shaq during his runs. And Shaq didn't have to go through the Showtime Lakers/Celtics era or the Pistons and Bulls era and Shaq had better teammates.

Shaq won while having Kobe Bryant and Wade by his side and Hakeem won his first ring while playing with Maxwell who averaged 13.8 points on 37% shooting and the 2nd one came with Drexler who even wasn't an all-star the year they won, neither was he in his prime. Winning is also about the guys you have around you and the last ring came with Wade being the teams best player, Hakeem never had the luxury to be the team's second best player while winning.

And defense goes to Hakeem easily, number one in blocks, 8 in steals, 2-time DPOY and 2 time rebounding champ. And in the playoffs Hakeem had a higher PPG average, he also average more steals, more blocks, more assists and he shot FT's at a way higher rate.

Both of them are close to each other and as I said, I don't mind at all anyone taking Hakeem over Shaq or the other way around but to claim that it was a huge gap between them is a joke.

[millwad]

jason kidd has 5 assist titles compared to magics 4? is jason kidd a better passer than magic?

stop talking douchebag, youre embarrassing yourself.

Horrible example, idiot.
First of all, Magic couldn't play more than 12 seasons due his sickness and he battled Thomas and Stockton for the assist titles and when he won his assist titles he had more assists compared to Kidd.

In fact, Kidd's all-time season high when it comes to assist is 10.8 assists per game. Magic had 8 seasons where he averaged more assists per game than what Kidd did during his highest assist average year...:facepalm

[RRR3]

Horrible example, idiot.
First of all, Magic couldn't play more than 12 seasons due his sickness and he battled Thomas and Stockton for the assist titles and when he won his assist titles he had more assists compared to Kidd.

In fact, Kidd's all-time season high when it comes to assist is 10.8 assists per game. Magic had 8 seasons where he averaged more assists per game than what Kidd did during his highest assist average year...:facepalm
Shaq career total rebound percentage: 17.8
Hakeem: 17.2

[donald_trump]

there is a huge gap between them. shaq is on the same tier as kaj and wilt. hakeem was never that good.

shaq was better statistically even when all the good centers were around. they were almost on par with his best statistical season in LA. this is in his second and third year.
are you going to pretend like shaq didnt outplay ewing and robinson every time they matched up? shaq slaughtered both of them. particularly robinson.

hakeem only won because jordan took a break. shaq actually beat jordan in the playoffs.

i dont care where you have them ranked. hakeem wasnt better. thats the whole point. not at his peak, and not over there careers.

[RRR3]

there is a huge gap between them. shaq is on the same tier as kaj and wilt. hakeem was never that good.

shaq was better statistically even when all the good centers were around. they were almost on par with his best statistical season in LA. this is in his second and third year.
are you going to pretend like shaq didnt outplay ewing and robinson every time they matched up? shaq slaughtered both of them. particularly robinson.

hakeem only won because jordan took a break. shaq actually beat jordan in the playoffs.

i dont care where you have them ranked. hakeem wasnt better. thats the whole point. not at his peak, and not over there careers.

In b4 millwad goes on an anti-wilt tirade.

[donald_trump]

Horrible example, idiot.
First of all, Magic couldn't play more than 12 seasons due his sickness and he battled Thomas and Stockton for the assist titles and when he won his assist titles he had more assists compared to Kidd.

In fact, Kidd's all-time season high when it comes to assist is 10.8 assists per game. Magic had 8 seasons where he averaged more assists per game than what Kidd did during his highest assist average year...:facepalm

shaq had more seasons over 10rpg and his percentage was better.

[millwad]

shaq had more seasons over 10rpg and his percentage was better.

Haha, the difference in 10 rpg seasons is one season and Hakeem had more 9 rebounds per game season than Shaq and still he has a higher average and total rebounds.

Shaq should have been a better rebounder during his career considering his height and how strong and athletic he was but still Hakeem is a 2 time rebounding champion compared to Shaq's ZERO.

[millwad]

there is a huge gap between them. shaq is on the same tier as kaj and wilt. hakeem was never that good.

Wilt, haha.. Shaq is way ahead of Wilt.
Hakeem not being "that good"? Last time I checked Hakeem won just as many titles as Wilt while being more dominant the years he won and with way worse teammates.


shaq was better statistically even when all the good centers were around. they were almost on par with his best statistical season in LA. this is in his second and third year.

In his 2nd year Hakeem swept him in the playoffs, are you going to claim that 2nd year Shaq was better than Hakeem? He outplayed Shaq in the finals..:facepalm



are you going to pretend like shaq didnt outplay ewing and robinson every time they matched up? shaq slaughtered both of them. particularly robinson.

Hakeem abused Ewing big time in the 1994 finals and held the poor guy to a pathetic 36% FG average in the finals. And don't even let me start about how he took a dump on prime Robinson in 1995 in the playoffs, he had 3 games where he scored 40+ points in that 6 games series and one 39 point game, the same Robinson was the league MVP that year.



hakeem only won because jordan took a break. shaq actually beat jordan in the playoffs.


Haha, you're an idiot. First you write that Hakeem only won because of MJ retiring and then you mention Shaq beating MJ in the playoffs, the same year Hakeem won his 2nd title. And the same Magic team that beat the Bulls in 1995 got their asses swept in the finals by the Hakeem lead Rockets..

Put Shaq in Hakeem's shoes and we'll see how many more titles than Hakeem he would have won and how he would have beat the showtime Lakers and Celtics by his own and how he would have crushed prime Jordan..:facepalm

Shaq faced pathetic competition when he won..

[Odinn]

yep.

in their 13th seasons, shaq was still averaging a double double. hakeem was not.

and he played more games. he clearly was.
Shaq averaged his last double-double season at his 32 and 13th season.
Hakeem averaged his last double-double season at his 33 and 12th season.

Shaq averaged his last double-double playoff at his 31 and 12th season.
Hakeem averaged his last double-double playoff at his 35 and 14th season.

You lose again. Sorry.

IMO Shaq should be ranked over Hakeem and I'd rather peak Shaq over peak Hakeem. But in longevity argument, Hakeem has the edge.

[donald_trump]

Shaq averaged his last double-double season at his 32 and 13th season.
Hakeem averaged his last double-double season at his 33 and 12th season.

Shaq averaged his last double-double playoff at his 31 and 12th season.
Hakeem averaged his last double-double playoff at his 35 and 14th season.

You lose again. Sorry.

IMO Shaq should be ranked over Hakeem and I'd rather peak Shaq over peak Hakeem. But in longevity argument, Hakeem has the edge.

so in his 13th season shaq was averaging a double double where as hakeem wasnt. thats longevity. shaq wins.

as far as the playoff thing goes, thats a short span of games, and the funny thing is, in that 14th season for hakeem it was only 5 games. and in shaqs 13th season where he didnt average a double double in the playoffs, he was 2nd in mvp that season, with many thinking he should have infact won. shaq has longevity over hakeem.

try again next time.

[jlauber]

Wilt, haha.. Shaq is way ahead of Wilt.
Hakeem not being "that good"? Last time I checked Hakeem won just as many titles as Wilt while being more dominant the years he won and with way worse teammates.


In his 2nd year Hakeem swept him in the playoffs, are you going to claim that 2nd year Shaq was better than Hakeem? He outplayed Shaq in the finals..:facepalm



Hakeem abused Ewing big time in the 1994 finals and held the poor guy to a pathetic 36% FG average in the finals. And don't even let me start about how he took a dump on prime Robinson in 1995 in the playoffs, he had 3 games where he scored 40+ points in that 6 games series and one 39 point game, the same Robinson was the league MVP that year.




Haha, you're an idiot. First you write that Hakeem only won because of MJ retiring and then you mention Shaq beating MJ in the playoffs, the same year Hakeem won his 2nd title. And the same Magic team that beat the Bulls in 1995 got their asses swept in the finals by the Hakeem lead Rockets..

Put Shaq in Hakeem's shoes and we'll see how many more titles than Hakeem he would have won and how he would have beat the showtime Lakers and Celtics by his own and how he would have crushed prime Jordan..:facepalm

Shaq faced pathetic competition when he won..

Hakeem basically built his CAREER in THIRTEEN GAMES. He outplayed Ewing and his WORSE teammates in a seven game series in the Finals in '94, and he outplayed Robinson in a six game playoff series in '95. BTW, Robinson was, at the very LEAST, Hakeem's EQUAL over the course of the rest of their 42 H2H games...except that David's Spurs went 30-12 against Hakeem in those games. Look the numbers up. Hakeem slightly outscored Robinson (21.9 to 19.6 ppg), while Robinson easily outshot Hakeem, .488 to .441. The rest of their stats were nearly dead even.

The ENTIRE rest of his career was simply very good. NEVER an exceptional season. He NEVER led the NBA in scoring. His FG%'s were nothing spectacular..(AND, his best seasons in efficiency occured in the defenseless 80's when EVERY player was shooting 50+% ...and the truly outstanding centers were shooting nearly 60%.) He won two rebounding titles (and barely at that), BUT, when he was paired with a superior rebounder in Barkley, Charles outrebounded him by FOUR per game.

As for Hakeem having a greater post-seaosn run than Wilt in '67???? You are complete moron. Chamberlain reduced Russell and Thurmond to ashes. AND, when he had the RARE occasion to face a non-HOF center like Connie Dierking, he absolutely destroyed him (28 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and .612 shooting.) And, Hakeem NEVER faced anywhere near the COMPETITION that Wilt faced in that '67 season post-season. Go ahead...give me the TEN HOFers that Hakeem faced in either '94 (virtually Ewing and that was it), or in '95 when he outplayed Robinson, and was POUNDED by a young Shaq. That was IT. And Wilt's LOW rebounding game was probably higher than Hakeem's BEST. Not to mention that Wilt also averaged 9.2 apg...and on .579 shooting. And, as good a defender as Hakeem was, he was no Wilt.

BTW, an aging Wilt reduced a PRIME Kareem to .464 shooting in 28 H2H games. Kareem, from ages 38 thru 41 shot an eye-popping .599 against Hakeem. So, while a PRIME Kareem shot some 100 points UNDER his career FG% against Wilt in the twilight of his career, an OLD Kareem shot some 50 points HIGHER than his career average against a PRIME Hakeem.

In fact, this nonsense that Hakeem outplayed Shaq has to come to an end. Shaq scored at WILL against him. How many other HOF centers have allowed a HOF center to score 28 ppg on 60% against them...all while being outrebounded?

Of course, that was a PRIME Hakeem, and facing a very young Shaq. A few years later Shaq reduced Hakeem to an embarrassment. 29 ppg on .516 shooting, while Hakeem could only muster 13 ppg on .426 shooting.

Hakeem's career PALES in comparison to Shaq's. Shaq was a much better scorer, an equal rebounder, and a FAR more efficient shooter. On top of that, Shaq's three-peat run BLOWS AWAY Hakeem's two-year title run (and really only 13 games in which he could claim dominance.)

No more of this nonsense. Hakeem is a borderline Top-10 player. In fact, Moses Malone probably has a better case.

One more DAMN time...

Hakeem won ONE MVP (and in a year in which MJ took off.) He came in SECOND, ...ONE time. He finished FOURTH...on TWO occasions. That was IT...in EIGHTEEN seasons! He was not even considered a TOP-TEN player, in HIS own era, in NINE of his seasons...or HALF of them!

Hakeem never took a team to more than 58 wins (and that season his team barely edged Ewing's 56-26 Knicks in seven games.) He was part of a 50 win team in FOUR seasons. Of course, his biggest BLACK-EYE? He couldn't get EIGHT teams past the first round...or OVER HALF of his playoff career.

As for comparing Hakeem's CAREER to Wilt's...:roll: :roll: :roll:

Where to begin. Wilt holds 130 NBA RECORDS. Give me the number that Hakeem has. How about statistical TITLES? Hakeem won TWO rebounding titles, and THREE blocked shot titles. Again...that was IT! Wilt won SEVEN scoring titles (and virtually EVERYONE at the time acknowledged that he could have won considerably more.) He won NINE FG% titles. He won ELEVEN rebounding titles (and had he not been injured in '70, it would have easily been 12.) He even won an ASSIST title. As for blocked shots...Wilt was KNOWN to have SEASONS of 10+ bpg. Yes, KNOWN. He was KNOWN (and this is even DOCUMENTED) to have 20+ blocks in single games. Wilt, in his WORST season, was probably at around 6 bpg. In the KNOWN games of his '72 season (his second to last season) he was between 7-8.

Not only that, but Wilt LED the NBA in scoring AND rebounding, at the same time, FIVE times. He LED the NBA in scoring AND FG%, at the same time, THREE times. He LED the NBA in rebounding and FG%, at the same time, an incredible EIGHT times (yes, EIGHT TIMES)! Then, he LED the NBA in scoring, rebounding, AND FG%, at the SAME TIME, a staggering THREE times. He also LED the NBA in rebounding, FG%, AND assists, one time.

Post-season? Give me a break. Wilt's FG% is slightly less than Hakeem's (.528 to .522), BUT, Wilt faced a HOF center in TWO-THIRDS of his post-season career, including Russell in 49 of them! How many times did Hakeem face a HOF center in his 15 post-seasons? AND, Wilt played in leagues that shot FAR worse than Hakeem's. Chamberlain played in leagues that shot between .410 to .456 over the course of his entire CAREER, and an average of about .440. Hakeem played in leagues that shot between .437 (very LATE in his career) to a high of .492...and the average was around .470.

Scoring? Here again, Wilt had FOUR entire post-seasons of 33.2 ppg to 37.0 ppg. He also had THREE entire series of between 37 to 38.6 ppg. Hakeem had TWO of 30 ppg. Chamberlain also had FOUR games of 50+. How many did Hakeem have? Wilt also had a 45 point Finals game (and on ONE leg.) How many 45+ Finals games did Hakeem have? Did Hakeem ever have a 20-20 .600 Finals ( 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and .625 shooting)? Wilt also had FOUR post-seasons of 30+ ppg against RUSSELL, and even a 30-31 series against him.

Rebounding? This is really laughable. Wilt's post-season LOW was 20.2 rpg. Hakeem's high was 16.8 (and just like his scoring high...it came in only FOUR games.) Wilt had EIGHT entire post-seasons of 24.7 rpg, or better, including two of 29 and 30. Wilt had a series in which he outrebounded RUSSELL, 32- 23 per game! AND, Wilt was NEVER outrebounded in ANY of his 29 post-season series. Can Hakeem make THAT claim? Hell NO.

Wilt had FOUR post-seasons of 33+ppg - 23+ rpg. He had SIX of 28+ ppg - 23 rpg. He had EIGHT 20-20 post-seasons. He had a post-season of 35-27 .543. He averaged 33-27 on .510 shooting (in leagues that shot about .430) in his first SIX post-seasons. And he averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, .4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg) and on 518 shooting (in leagues that shot about .435 on average), in his first EIGHT post-seasons.

Chamberlain took FAR worse teams to near titles...and with virtually no help. My god, give me the number of times Hakeem's teammates shot under 40% in the post-season. Wilt's teammates shot .382, .354, .352, .352, and even .332...and he STILL nearly carried those inept rosters to titles. And Wilt took TWELVE teams to the Conference Finals. Oh, and BTW, he only had ONE team eliminated in the FIRST ROUND...unlike Hakeem with his well-known EIGHT first round exits (and in only 15 post-seasons...or over HALF!) Wilt carried SIX teams to the Finals...in FOURTEEN seasons. Hakeem took THREE teams to the Finals...in EIGHTEEN seasons. And Wilt anchored FOUR teams that won 60+ games...and in leagues that were FILLED with HOFers...including TWO dominating title teams that went 68-13 and 69-13 respectively.

Hakeem has NO case over Shaq. And certainly NO case over Wilt.

[Legends66NBA7]

jlauber with the GOAT post. And yes, I did read.

[jlauber]

And Dickwad,

I am also sick-and-tired of reading about Hakeem having the same number of rings as Wilt. First of all, Hakeem played EIGHTEEN seasons to Wilt's FOUTEEN. In Wilt's LAST TWO seasons his teams went 69-13 and 60-22, winning a dominant title in '72 behind WILT'S overwhelming play...and then getting an injury-riddled Laker team to the Finals in '73, where they lost all four games in the last minute ( by scores of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points) to a Knick team that had SIX HOFers (how many times did Hakeem face a team with even FOUR HOFers?) So,. while Hakeem was just a fading star in his last few seasons in the league, Wilt was finishing #3 and #4 in the MVP balloting in his last two.

FURTHERMORE, Wilt came within an EYE-LASH of winning FIVE more rings. His teams lost FOUR game seven's to the world champion Celtic Dynasty (and another series to them in the '64 Finals...when Russell's Celtics had an 8-2 edge in HOFers) , as well as losing a game seven to the heavily-favored Knicks in '70 (and in which the officials had a hand in NY winning game five of that series.)

Meanwhile Hakeem made it to THREE Finals, winning those two rings, and losing in six games to the Celtics in '86. That was IT. Once again, Olajuwon seldom even made it past the FIRST ROUND (only SEVEN times in 18 seasons.) AND, while he outplayed the 38 year old Kareem in the '86 WCF's (and that over-the-hill Kareem STILL poured in 27 ppg against him)... MAGIC dominated the Rockets in '90 and particularly '91. In fact, Hakeem FLOPPED in the '91 playoffs against MAGIC's Lakers (BTW, Magic had a 38 point game, on 14-20 shooting in the clinching and sweeping game three win.) Meanwhile Hakeem stumbled to an 18.5 ppg on .443 shooting series, in yet ANOTHER first round collapse!

How about Hakeem in his 97-98 playoffs, and at age 35? Once again he took his team down in flames in the FIRST ROUND, with 20.4 ppg on...get this... .394 shooting. Now, what was Wilt doing at age 35? Just leading HIS Lakers to a dominating title, AND winning the Finals MVP in the process.

Then Hakeem followed that 97-98 flop job up the very next season, and at age 36, when Shaq treated him like a red-headed step-child. And it was comical to watch, too. Here was Hakeem, doing all of his "shake-and-bake" moves...while Shaq just stood there, flat-footed, waiting for Hakeem to stop, so that he could easily alter or block Hakeem's hopeless attempts. Chamberlain at age 36? Leading his Lakers to a 60-22 record. And, while a PRIME Kareem and his 60-22 Bucks crumbled against Thurmond's 47-35 Warriors in the first round, Chamberlain just abused Nate in the WCF's, en route to a 4-1 series romp, including a game three wipeout in Oakland by a 126-70 margin (and BTW, I was at that game.) Once again, Wilt, at 36, got his team to the Finals, and had West not been nursing TWO injured knees, he might have had a back-to-back title run.

And for umpteenth time... I just shake my head at those that claim that Hakeem had no help, even in his title runs. My god, his '94 Rockets went 58-24. Guess what, they EDGED a 56-26 Knick team that had LESS talent. Yes, Hakeem easily outplayed Ewing. So what? Hell, a 38 year old Kareem dumped all over Ewing...just as he did against Hakeem in the regular season. And while Hakeem slightly outplayed an OLD Kareem in the '86 playoffs, "one can only wonder" what a younger, faster, more athletic Kareem, circa the early to mod-70's, would have dropped on THAT Hakeem. It would have been UGLY.

Then, in Hakeem's '95 run...yes, he played brilliantly. He dominated Robinson in four of their six playoff games. And, NO, he did NOT outplay Shaq in the Finals. I always laugh my ass off when I read that nonsense. Hakeem battled him to a draw, but it was not any sort of "win." Shaq averaged 28 ppg (to Hakeem's shot-jacking 32 ppg), while outshooting Hakeem by an ENORMOUS .595 to .483 margin. Shaq also outrebounded Hakeem in that series, 12.5 to 11.5 rpg, as well as out-assisting him, 6.3 apg to 5.5. Shaq even had more blcocked shots, and he made more FTs. Hakeem's TEAM won that series because Shaq's teammates, especially Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott, BLEW that series.

And I seldom read anyone bringing up that a more prime Shaq just CRUSHED Hakeem in the playoffs a couple of years later. Over the course of their regular season, AND, post-season play, Shaq was a solidly superior player.

Once again...Hakeem had a two year run,...in an EIGHTEEN season career, in which he was arguably the best player in the game. And in one of them, MJ did not play. In the other, a YOUNG Shaq was, at the very LEAST, his equal.

There was a reason that Hakeem was seldom voted in the top-4, or even TOP-TEN in the MVP balloting in his career. He was seldom even the 4th or 5th...or even 10th best player in the league AT THE TIME.

This over-rating of Hakeem has got to come to an end. He was a very good player for most of his career, and he caught lightning in the bottle in '95 and '95. And had a TON of LUCK in that '94 title run....considering that MJ did not play, and the Bulls STILL went 55-27, and lost a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

Hakeem had a BORDERLINE TOP-TEN career. Nothing more. And this nonsense of somehow ranking him over Shaq, and especially Wilt, has got to stop. Hakeem's career was not better than Russell's, MJ's, Magic's, Wilt's, Kareem's, Shaq's, nor Duncan's. And Kobe and Bird have solid cases over him, as well.

The reality is, Hakeem's career is neck-and-neck with Moses', and even West, Oscar, and Dr. J are right there.

[with malice]

jlauber with the GOAT post. And yes, I did read.
Meh... as soon as someone starts repeatedly throwing insults, and using smileys - then I tend to turn off.

[Legends66NBA7]

Meh... as soon as someone starts repeatedly throwing insults, and using smileys - then I tend to turn off.

To each is own.

Some people have passion in these things and wouldn't mind poking some fun here and there.

[jlauber]

Looks like a Dickwad post...

Makes about as much sense as one of his typical posts.

[millwad]

Looks like a Dickwad post...

Makes about as much sense as one of his typical posts.

Go lick your mother or something, you're the sucker who always get called out for crappy posts you always copy from wikipedia. Everyone sees you as a joke.:facepalm

You are the same idiot who wrote everywhere some years ago that the players of the modern era obviously were stronger, bigger and more skilled and then 50 years after the actual games YOU never saw you changed your mind. Sad, sad, sad old man...

[millwad]

And Millwad, the best poster on ISH..

I am also sick-and-tired of reading about Hakeem having the same number of rings as Wilt. First of all, Hakeem played EIGHTEEN seasons to Wilt's FOUTEEN. In Wilt's LAST TWO seasons his teams went 69-13 and 60-22, winning a dominant title in '72 behind WILT'S overwhelming play...and then getting an injury-riddled Laker team to the Finals in '73, where they lost all four games in the last minute ( by scores of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points) to a Knick team that had SIX HOFers (how many times did Hakeem face a team with even FOUR HOFers?) So,. while Hakeem was just a fading star in his last few seasons in the league, Wilt was finishing #3 and #4 in the MVP balloting in his last two.



As usual you are full of crap, Wilt retired for a reason. His stats were all-time low and he had problems with injuries, it's just retarded to bring up the fact that Hakeem played 4 years more because Wilt retired for a reason, idiot.
Yes, Wilt two last seasons where when he played with HOF:ers and all-stars, what the hell do you expect?



FURTHERMORE, Wilt came within an EYE-LASH of winning FIVE more rings. His teams lost FOUR game seven's to the world champion Celtic Dynasty (and another series to them in the '64 Finals...when Russell's Celtics had an 8-2 edge in HOFers) , as well as losing a game seven to the heavily-favored Knicks in '70 (and in which the officials had a hand in NY winning game five of that series.)


Buhu, he played in an era that first had 8 teams. To understand the difference you can check you beloved '64 season. How many series did Wilt and his team have to play that season to reach the finals? 1!

He had to play 1 freaking series in the '64 season to reach the finals vs a team they barely won against, the same Hawk team only 46 games that season..



Meanwhile Hakeem made it to THREE Finals, winning those two rings, and losing in six games to the Celtics in '86. That was IT. Once again, Olajuwon seldom even made it past the FIRST ROUND (only SEVEN times in 18 seasons.) AND, while he outplayed the 38 year old Kareem in the '86 WCF's (and that over-the-hill Kareem STILL poured in 27 ppg against him)... MAGIC dominated the Rockets in '90 and particularly '91. In fact, Hakeem FLOPPED in the '91 playoffs against MAGIC's Lakers (BTW, Magic had a 38 point game, on 14-20 shooting in the clinching and sweeping game three win.) Meanwhile Hakeem stumbled to an 18.5 ppg on .443 shooting series, in yet ANOTHER first round collapse!


Again, pure nonsense. After Sampson fading away he played on horrible teams, you always bit*h about how bad Wilt's teammates where, well, Hakeem had even worse teammates. Wilt won his rings with all-stars and HOF:ers, Hakeem won his rings with Vernon Maxwell in '94 as his 2nd best scorer who averaged 13.8 points on 37% shooting. Pretty amazing that Hakeem won just as much as Wilt when Wilt's teammates where so much better..

And haha, how the hell is the '90 and '91 series relevant while talking about the '86 series, you idiot. Magic is a point guard and Hakeem is a center and Hakeem had horrible teammates by his side.



How about Hakeem in his 97-98 playoffs, and at age 35? Once again he took his team down in flames in the FIRST ROUND, with 20.4 ppg on...get this... .394 shooting. Now, what was Wilt doing at age 35? Just leading HIS Lakers to a dominating title, AND winning the Finals MVP in the process.


Yeah, Wilt was just so amazing when he got outscored with 23 points a game by Kareem. He should even be glad that he played with the guys he played with, considering the asswhoopin' he recieved by Kareem. It's just sad to even compare Wilt's rings with Hakeem. Can you imagine Hakeem being the fourth best scorer of his own team while getting outscored with 23 points a game while you opponent shoots with higher FG% the same year you collect your second ring?:facepalm



Then Hakeem followed that 97-98 flop job up the very next season, and at age 36, when Shaq treated him like a red-headed step-child. And it was comical to watch, too. Here was Hakeem, doing all of his "shake-and-bake" moves...while Shaq just stood there, flat-footed, waiting for Hakeem to stop, so that he could easily alter or block Hakeem's hopeless attempts. Chamberlain at age 36? Leading his Lakers to a 60-22 record. And, while a PRIME Kareem and his 60-22 Bucks crumbled against Thurmond's 47-35 Warriors in the first round, Chamberlain just abused Nate in the WCF's, en route to a 4-1 series romp, including a game three wipeout in Oakland by a 126-70 margin (and BTW, I was at that game.) Once again, Wilt, at 36, got his team to the Finals, and had West not been nursing TWO injured knees, he might have had a back-to-back title run.


Haha, now you're just getting sad. Do you really wanna go there? Are you really trying to compare Hakeem at age 36 to prime Shaq is just sad. And what's funny is that Shaq's all-time high vs Hakeem is 37 and you consider it to be the worst asswhoopin' ever.

In '72 Wilt himself was Kareem's b*tch, Kareem freaking averaged 40 points per game on 50% shooting on prime Wilt (defensively) during the regular season and then outscored him with 23 points a game on better FG% in the playoffs. The playoff-series in '99 Shaq never once outscored Hakeem with 23 points a game.. HAHA!



And for umpteenth time... I just shake my head at those that claim that Hakeem had no help, even in his title runs. My god, his '94 Rockets went 58-24. Guess what, they EDGED a 56-26 Knick team that had LESS talent. Yes, Hakeem easily outplayed Ewing. So what? Hell, a 38 year old Kareem dumped all over Ewing...just as he did against Hakeem in the regular season. And while Hakeem slightly outplayed an OLD Kareem in the '86 playoffs, "one can only wonder" what a younger, faster, more athletic Kareem, circa the early to mod-70's, would have dropped on THAT Hakeem. It would have been UGLY.


Hakeem outplayed Kareem big time in the playoffs, don't be pathetic now. Ask however you want, only an idiot like you would claim that he "slightly" outplayed Kareem in '86 playoffs. So Wilt getting outscored with 23 points a game in the playoffs against Kareem is "Wilt schooling Kareem" but Hakeem crushing the Lakers is "slighty outplaying Kareem", get real.



Then, in Hakeem's '95 run...yes, he played brilliantly. He dominated Robinson in four of their six playoff games. And, NO, he did NOT outplay Shaq in the Finals. I always laugh my ass off when I read that nonsense. Hakeem battled him to a draw, but it was not any sort of "win." Shaq averaged 28 ppg (to Hakeem's shot-jacking 32 ppg), while outshooting Hakeem by an ENORMOUS .595 to .483 margin. Shaq also outrebounded Hakeem in that series, 12.5 to 11.5 rpg, as well as out-assisting him, 6.3 apg to 5.5. Shaq even had more blcocked shots, and he made more FTs. Hakeem's TEAM won that series because Shaq's teammates, especially Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott, BLEW that series.


Everyone says he outplayed Shaq in the finals, even Shaq himself. And this only shows that you duidn't watch the seris because you mention stats and stats only, you haven't even watched the series.

Even SHAQATTACK who is the biggest fan of Shaq in this forum says he outplayed Shaq in the finals and here you are claiming he didn't, you even didn't see the series..:facepalm



Once again...Hakeem had a two year run,...in an EIGHTEEN season career, in which he was arguably the best player in the game. And in one of them, MJ did not play. In the other, a YOUNG Shaq was, at the very LEAST, his equal.


Yes, Shaq was his equal while getting swept and outplayed by Hakeem, yeah.. And Hakeem had a two year run when he won, so does Wilt, you don't make any sense.



Hakeem had a BORDERLINE TOP-TEN career. Nothing more. And this nonsense of somehow ranking him over Shaq, and especially Wilt, has got to stop. Hakeem's career was not better than Russell's, MJ's, Magic's, Wilt's, Kareem's, Shaq's, nor Duncan's. And Kobe and Bird have solid cases over him, as well.


Over Shaq? No, I have them at the same place and I am perfectly fine with someone taking Shaq over Hakeem or the other way around.

Over Wilt? Yes.

[Odinn]

so in his 13th season shaq was averaging a double double where as hakeem wasnt. thats longevity. shaq wins.

as far as the playoff thing goes, thats a short span of games, and the funny thing is, in that 14th season for hakeem it was only 5 games. and in shaqs 13th season where he didnt average a double double in the playoffs, he was 2nd in mvp that season, with many thinking he should have infact won. shaq has longevity over hakeem.

try again next time.
Firstly; you're consistently not including age to the count.

Also secondly; just look at when the last time they came close to average a double-double season.
Shaq averaged 20/9.2 at his 33 and 14th season.
Hakeem averaged 23.2/9.2 at his 34 and 13th season.
Hakeem averaged 16.4/9.8 at his 35 and 14th season.
Hakeem averaged 18.9/9.6 at his 36 and 15th season.

Yep. You're the one who should try it next time.

[RRR3]

Damn jlauber just ETHERED millwad. :applause:

[millwad]

Damn jlauber just ETHERED millwad. :applause:

You're just butthurt because I dissed Ida..
Other than his constant off topic crap and copy and paste he didn't put up anything new and his way of thinking is just pathetic.

Way to go, praising a dude for putting up blatant lies a la Kareem getting "schooled" by Wilt while outscoring him by 23 points a game on better FG% in the playoffs the same year Wilt got his 2nd title..:facepalm

And ETHER;
[B]
NOUN: 1. Any of a class of organic compounds in which two hydrocarbon groups are linked by an oxygen atom. OTHER FORMS: etheric (-thrk, -th

[millwad]

What bothers me about Wilt is whenever someone posts a full game of Wilt he just doesn't look as dominant and skilled as his stats do. And guys like Jlauber always put up highlight-videos to prove their points regarding Wilt's game and whenever someone puts up a full game he goes, "GO TO HELL, THIS WAS WILT'S WORST GAME EVER" and then puts up another highlight-video to prove that WIlt looked better..:facepalm

[jlauber]

What bothers me about Wilt is whenever someone posts a full game of Wilt he just doesn't look as dominant and skilled as his stats do. And guys like Jlauber always put up highlight-videos to prove their points regarding Wilt's game and whenever someone puts up a full game he goes, "GO TO HELL, THIS WAS WILT'S WORST GAME EVER" and then puts up another highlight-video to prove that WIlt looked better..:facepalm

I can think of only ONE FULL game in which we have footage of Wilt (and even that doesn't include the last minute), and that was his '72 game five of the Finals...when he DOMINATED the Knicks (and their FIVE HOFers) with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound, 9 block game. Oh, and BTW, he was 35 at the time, playing on a surgically repaired knee, ... AND, he was playing with one severely sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED.

Once again, I gave you an example of his '62 All-Star game, in which he was hitting shots from up to 15 ft, and blowing past the other players. There was 22 minutes of footage there, which gives us much of an indication of what he would be capable of, as the two HALVES of his '64 Finals and '67 ECF's. And once again, that game four of the '67 ECF's WAS among his WORST games of his entire post-season play in the 60's. He scored 20 points, on 8-18 shooting.

Once you can provide me with one of his FULL games of 40+ points, of which he had 271, then maybe we can get a much better idea of the skills that Wilt had.

[millwad]

I can think of only ONE FULL game in which we have footage of Wilt (and even that doesn't include the last minute), and that was his '72 game five of the Finals...when he DOMINATED the Knicks (and their FIVE HOFers) with a 24 point, 10-14 shooting, 29 rebound, 9 block game. Oh, and BTW, he was 35 at the time, playing on a surgically repaired knee, ... AND, he was playing with one severely sprained wrist, and the other FRACTURED.

Once again, I gave you an example of his '62 All-Star game, in which he was hitting shots from up to 15 ft, and blowing past the other players. There was 22 minutes of footage there, which gives us much of an indication of what he would be capable of, as the two HALVES of his '64 Finals and '67 ECF's. And once again, that game four of the '67 ECF's WAS among his WORST games of his entire post-season play in the 60's. He scored 20 points, on 8-18 shooting.

First of all, an All-star game is not what I'm looking for, and even in the freaking All-star game the guy didn't look to have the skills you always spam about. I saw alot of the footage that the spanish guy put up on youtube as well and that was what made me all confused regarding Wilt. I had read all over and heard from everyone that Wilt was like the most skilled big men and had amazing skills combined with amazing athleticism but when I watched him play it was just a let down, the whole era was a let down as well. Even in '67 ECF game he doesn't look anywhere close to as good as you always write he was, you can still see how he moves and how he posts up, it's not impressive, honestly. I know you always claim that it was his worst game but you still get a feeling of how he played.




Once you can provide me with one of his FULL games of 40+ points, of which he had 271, then maybe we can get a much better idea of the skills that Wilt had.

You're the one who should provide us with those games since you're the one spamming about them constantly. I have seen enough of Wilt and his era to make up my mind, he doesn't look as skilled as you always spam about and I'd honestly expected a much greater player when I first checked him out years ago and saw his stats.

[Legends66NBA7]

[QUOTE=millwad]And ETHER;
[B]
NOUN: 1. Any of a class of organic compounds in which two hydrocarbon groups are linked by an oxygen atom. OTHER FORMS: etheric (-thrk, -th

[Legends66NBA7]

And wow, the bot just posted like 12+ times here.....

[donald_trump]

Firstly; you're consistently not including age to the count.

Also secondly; just look at when the last time they came close to average a double-double season.
Shaq averaged 20/9.2 at his 33 and 14th season.
Hakeem averaged 23.2/9.2 at his 34 and 13th season.
Hakeem averaged 16.4/9.8 at his 35 and 14th season.
Hakeem averaged 18.9/9.6 at his 36 and 15th season.

Yep. You're the one who should try it next time.


why should i include age? longevity is about how much you can provide over your career. how many years. not shaqs fault he was better at a younger age.

in shaqs 13th season he was 2nd in mvp, and people thought he should have won.
in hakeems 13th, he wasnt the player shaq was and hardly got any mvp love.

same goes with 14th season. shaq was better and won a title.

shaq was playing less minutes in the regular season and saving himself for the playoffs and finals. thats why hakeem burned out in his later years when going into the playoffs. look at the 98-99 season.

shaq was putting up equal if not better stats on less minutes in their later seasons.

you lose, again.

[donald_trump]

millwad how do you have wilt over hakeem?

wilt was a better scorer, rebounder, passer, got more blocks and steals. shot a better fg%, was more dominant, won more mvps, more all nba first teams.
2 championships as the best player. same as hakeem. though wilt actually beat out the best winner of his generation where as hakeem skimped out and only won when jordan left.

what way is hakeem better than wilt? this is more of an insult than considering hakeem better than shaq, or equal.

[millwad]

millwad how do you have wilt over hakeem?

wilt was a better scorer, rebounder, passer, got more blocks and steals. shot a better fg%, was more dominant, won more mvps, more all nba first teams.
2 championships as the best player. same as hakeem. though wilt actually beat out the best winner of his generation where as hakeem skimped out and only won when jordan left.

what way is hakeem better than wilt? this is more of an insult than considering hakeem better than shaq, or equal.

We don't have any stats on Wilt's blocks and steals, Hakeem is number one in blocks since they started to count them and he is number 8 all-time in steals. And then you gotta compare the players Hakeem blocked to the players Wilt blocked. He is the only center in the top 10 and the second best center is Drob when it comes to steals and he's around 40 on the all-time steal list.

Regarding the rebounds, first of all, Wilt played in an era where the teams averaged more possessions per game and they played the game at a much higher pace which led to more available rebounds. Not only that, the players of Wilt's era also shot with a much lower FG% which also led to more available rebounds. The centers of Wilt's era were obviously great rebounder but they didn't face much competition from the unathletic guards. Obviously Wilt was an amazing rebounder but people need to stop stare blind at his rebounding average, he played inthe same era where SF Elgin Baylor had a season where he almost averaged 20 rebounds per game over a season.

Regarding Wilt's scoring, Hakeem actually averaged both more points per game in the playoffs and he also shot with a better FG% in the playoffs. And Wilt won when he averaged less shots so the Wilt who averaged 50 points per game was not a winner, Wilt averaging 24 points per game and Wilt averaging 14 points per game was a winner, so much for his scoring..

Regarding his MVP's, I'd like to see how many MVP's he'd get while playing in Hakeem's era.

Wilt got one more ALL-NBA first team nominations and it should be said that Hakeem had to deal with Kareem, Moses, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq over his career for the ALL-NBA nominations. That is 5 of the 10 best centers of all-time, Wilt only only had to beat out two, Russell and Kareem.

I'm glad you mentioned Wilt facing "better competition", you do realize that Wilt's first ring came when he firt had to face a 39-42 team, then a 60 win team in Celtics and finally in the finals he faced a team who won 44 games, haha. You do realize that two out of 3 of those teams wouldn't even make the playoffs in today's era?:facepalm

The second run was in '72 where he and the Lakers first faced a Bullet team who won 38 games, then the Lakers beat the Bucks who had injury issues that season and Kareem outscored Wilt by 23 points a game in that series on better FG% and in the finals he played against a 48 win Knick team.

And lets not forget that Wilt played with much greater players during those 2 runs. In '67 he played with HOF Hal Greer who averaged 27 points per game in the playoffs that season and beside Greer he had 3 other guys who put up more than 15 points per game. Now compare that to Hakeem who won in '94 with Maxwell as his 2nd best scorer at 13.8 points on 37% shooting..:facepalm

And don't even get me started about the '72 season, Wilt was the fourth option on offense and he had 3 guys (2 of the HOF:ers) who put up more than 19 points per game in the playoffs..

And it's funny you talk about competition, only in 1995 Hakeem beat as many 60+ win teams as Wilt did during both his runs so try again...

Hakeem's two titles are more dominant, easily..

[Odinn]

why should i include age? longevity is about how much you can provide over your career. how many years. not shaqs fault he was better at a younger age.

in shaqs 13th season he was 2nd in mvp, and people thought he should have won.
in hakeems 13th, he wasnt the player shaq was and hardly got any mvp love.

same goes with 14th season. shaq was better and won a title.

shaq was playing less minutes in the regular season and saving himself for the playoffs and finals. thats why hakeem burned out in his later years when going into the playoffs. look at the 98-99 season.

shaq was putting up equal if not better stats on less minutes in their later seasons.

you lose, again.
You proved you're a true retard.:applause:

You're the on who talks about double-doubles.

Shaq's final double-double average for a season was at his 32 and 13th season.
Shaq came close to double-double average at his 33 and 14th season.

Hakeem's final double-double average for a season was at his 33 and 12th season.
Hakeem came close to double-double average at his 36 and 15th season.

Just give it up.

[donald_trump]

You proved you're a true retard.:applause:

You're the on who talks about double-doubles.

Shaq's final double-double average for a season was at his 32 and 13th season.
Shaq came close to double-double average at his 33 and 14th season.

Hakeem's final double-double average for a season was at his 33 and 12th season.
Hakeem came close to double-double average at his 36 and 15th season.

Just give it up.

if someone is able to play from ages 15-35, he has better longevity than someone who is able to play from 30-40. one played longer. that is longevity.

longevity is 'life expectancy'. it has nothing to do with age retard.

[millwad]

if someone is able to play from ages 15-35, he has better longevity than someone who is able to play from 30-40. one played longer. that is longevity.

longevity is 'life expectancy'. it has nothing to do with age retard.

You're not making any sense at all..:facepalm

[donald_trump]

You're not making any sense at all..:facepalm

it makes perfect sense, you're just too stupid to understand it.

what bit of that post was difficult to understand?

[millwad]

it makes perfect sense, you're just too stupid to understand it.

what bit of that post was difficult to understand?

You're getting ethered...:facepalm

[Legends66NBA7]

You're getting ethered...:facepalm

Glad you understand the slang of that term now :P.

[millwad]

Glad you understand the slang of that term now :P.

Haha, you're the boss! :cheers:

[Legends66NBA7]

Haha, you're the boss! :cheers:

No worries :cheers:

[donald_trump]

You're getting ethered...:facepalm

lol at you thinking you're cool.

adding nothing to the conversation. do you know what longevity means? how about looking it up like you did ether?
that way you won't be so stupid and you could contribute to the conversation.

[millwad]

lol at you thinking you're cool.

adding nothing to the conversation. do you know what longevity means? how about looking it up like you did ether?
that way you won't be so stupid and you could contribute to the conversation.

Yeah, I'm so "cool".

You haven't added crap to this thread beside nonsense, and I knew what ether was, didn't get why it was used in that sentence though. And I just gav you my reasons why I prefer Olajuwon over Wilt but obviously you couldn't reply.

[donald_trump]

Yeah, I'm so "cool".

You haven't added crap to this thread beside nonsense, and I knew what ether was, didn't get why it was used in that sentence though. And I just gav you my reasons why I prefer Olajuwon over Wilt but obviously you couldn't reply.

see you're still not answering the question.

which bit of the longevity post didnt make sense? you seemed sure on calling me out about it. which bit doesnt make sense? stop avoiding the question.

[jlauber]

We don't have any stats on Wilt's blocks and steals, Hakeem is number one in blocks since they started to count them and he is number 8 all-time in steals. And then you gotta compare the players Hakeem blocked to the players Wilt blocked. He is the only center in the top 10 and the second best center is Drob when it comes to steals and he's around 40 on the all-time steal list.

Regarding the rebounds, first of all, Wilt played in an era where the teams averaged more possessions per game and they played the game at a much higher pace which led to more available rebounds. Not only that, the players of Wilt's era also shot with a much lower FG% which also led to more available rebounds. The centers of Wilt's era were obviously great rebounder but they didn't face much competition from the unathletic guards. Obviously Wilt was an amazing rebounder but people need to stop stare blind at his rebounding average, he played inthe same era where SF Elgin Baylor had a season where he almost averaged 20 rebounds per game over a season.

Regarding Wilt's scoring, Hakeem actually averaged both more points per game in the playoffs and he also shot with a better FG% in the playoffs. And Wilt won when he averaged less shots so the Wilt who averaged 50 points per game was not a winner, Wilt averaging 24 points per game and Wilt averaging 14 points per game was a winner, so much for his scoring..

Regarding his MVP's, I'd like to see how many MVP's he'd get while playing in Hakeem's era.

Wilt got one more ALL-NBA first team nominations and it should be said that Hakeem had to deal with Kareem, Moses, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq over his career for the ALL-NBA nominations. That is 5 of the 10 best centers of all-time, Wilt only only had to beat out two, Russell and Kareem.

I'm glad you mentioned Wilt facing "better competition", you do realize that Wilt's first ring came when he firt had to face a 39-42 team, then a 60 win team in Celtics and finally in the finals he faced a team who won 44 games, haha. You do realize that two out of 3 of those teams wouldn't even make the playoffs in today's era?:facepalm

The second run was in '72 where he and the Lakers first faced a Bullet team who won 38 games, then the Lakers beat the Bucks who had injury issues that season and Kareem outscored Wilt by 23 points a game in that series on better FG% and in the finals he played against a 48 win Knick team.

And lets not forget that Wilt played with much greater players during those 2 runs. In '67 he played with HOF Hal Greer who averaged 27 points per game in the playoffs that season and beside Greer he had 3 other guys who put up more than 15 points per game. Now compare that to Hakeem who won in '94 with Maxwell as his 2nd best scorer at 13.8 points on 37% shooting..:facepalm

And don't even get me started about the '72 season, Wilt was the fourth option on offense and he had 3 guys (2 of the HOF:ers) who put up more than 19 points per game in the playoffs..

And it's funny you talk about competition, only in 1995 Hakeem beat as many 60+ win teams as Wilt did during both his runs so try again...

Hakeem's two titles are more dominant, easily..


We don't need the actual stats on Wilt's blocked shots. EVERYONE acknowledges that he was blocking between 7-10+ bpg per season in his CAREER. Only a complete moron would dispute that. Hell, how many games did Hakeem RECORD 23 blocks in as Wilt did in the '68-69 season?

Hakeem wasn't even the best shot-blocker of HIS era. The 7-4 cement statue, Mark Eaton was. And Wilt's WORST season would have easily eclipsed Eaton's NBA "record" season.

Rebounding? Here again, using even the most idiotic math, and Wilt BLOWS Hakeem away. Chamberlain was getting 27 rpg in the regular season, and as many as 30 in the post-season. Wilt was more than TWICE the rebounder that Hakeem was. Unless you can prove that Wilt's era was scoring, shooting, and rebounding at over TWICE what Hakeem's era was (which is a complete fallacy), Hakeem's rebounding PALES in comparison to Wilt's.

Of course, we don't need math to do know that Wilt won ELEVEN rebounding titles in his FOURTEEN seasons, and then ELEVATED his rebounding in the post-season. Meanwhile, Hakeem barely won TWO rebounding titles in his EIGHTEEN season career, and was LIGHT YEARS behind Wilt in the post-season. My god, when Hakeem was paired with Barkley, who was roughly the SAME age, Charles absolutely BURIED Hakeem...outrebounding Hakeem by FOUR per game. And Wilt not only was NEVER outrebounded in his 29 post-season series, he was just CRUSHING his peers, TWO-THIRDS of whom were HOFers. Hakeem was outrebounded by Shaq in two alone, and no one would ever claim that Shaq was a great rebounder.

Scoring? Hakeem NEVER won a scoring title. Why? Because he was INCAPABLE of it. He was not even a great shooter in his career. How many FG% titles did Hakeem win? ZERO. The man was simply a very good scorer. Meanwhile, not only did Wilt win SEVEN scoring titles, he did so by as many as 19 ppg. In fact, when he was in his "scoring seasons", (60-66) all Wilt did was average 40 ppg.

How about this fact. Career 50+ point games. Hakeem with ONE, Chamberlain...118. 60+ point games? Well, goodbye Hakeem, who is not in the discussion. Wilt? 32 of the entire 62 recorded 60+ point games in NBA history. BTW, Wilt also had FOUR of the top-6 in terms of EFFICIENT 60+ point games, including THE highest game (.829 shooting...on 29-35 shooting.) Of course, when speaking of EFFICIENCY...well Hakeem was never known for that.

And...:roll: :roll: :roll: at Wilt not being a "winner" when he averaged 50 ppg in '62. His TEAM went 49-31, and they lost a game seven in the ECF's to Boston's 60-20 Celtics, and their SEVEN HOFers, by two points...in a post-season in which Wilt's teammates contributed NOTHING (they collectively shot .354.)

BTW, how many times did Hakeem LEAD the NBA in scoring, while taking his team to the BEST RECORD in the league, as Wilt did in the 65-66 season? Oh wait...Hakeem NEVER even led any of his 18 teams to the best record in a league, much less leading the league in scoring. Wilt played on two teams that did not have a winning record. He also played on FIVE that had WINNING records, while LEADING the NBA in scoring. Oh and BTW, the year that Wilt LED the NBA in scoring, and carried his TEAM to the BEST RECORD... he also LED the NBA in rebounding, averaged 5.2 apg, AND set a FG% record (that HE would shatter two more times.)

As for the post-season scoring. Of course Hakeem had a higher average. Wilt dramatically cut back his shooting in the last HALF of his career. Of cours, in his "scoring seasons", Wilt was MILES ahead of Hakeem in post-season scoring. In his first SIX post-seasons (and his TEAM was so bad that it did not make the playoffs in a year in which Wilt LED the NBA in scoring at 44.8 ppg and set a then-record FG% mark of .528)...all Wilt did was average 33 ppg and on .510 shooting, in league's that shot FAR worse than those that Hakeem played in. Oh, and BTW, Wilt also averaged 27 rpg in that six year span. So, here was a prime "scoring" Wilt AVERAGING 33 ppg and 27 rpg (on .510 shooting...in leagues that shot, on average, at about .430.)

In Wilt's first NINE seasons, covering EIGHT post-seasons, all Wilt did was average 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg (yes, 4.8 apg), and shot .518 from the floor (in league's that shot, on average, around .435.)

Wilt also had FOUR post-seasons in which he averaged 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He also had SEVERAL post-season series in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including three of 37 ppg, 37 ppg, and 39 ppg. In fact, he had FOUR post-season series against RUSSELL in which he averaged 30+ ppg, including one in which he averaged 30 ppg AND 31 rpg (in a SEVEN game series.)

BTW, Hakeem's high post-season series average was 37.5, in a FOUR game series, in which his team was eliminated in the FIRST ROUND. Of course, that was the NORM in Hakeem's post-season career. FIRST ROUND exits. No other all-time "great" came close to being knocked out EIGHT times in the first round...and in over HALF of his post-season career. Oh, and BTW, Hakeem's post-seaosn rebounding series high was 16.8...also achieved in a four game first round series, and in which his team was knocked out.

How about 50+ point games in the post-season? Hakeem with...ZERO. And Wilt with FOUR, including one against RUSSELL (and in that game, Wilt also snagged 35 rebounds.) How about the Finals? Did Hakeem ever have a 40+ point game in the Finals? Hell no. How about Wilt. Yep...a 45 point game, on 20-27 shooting, with 27 rebounds, AND, on ONE leg. Oh, and it was in a "must win" elimination game, too. Oh, so was that 50-35 game against Russell. Oh, and so was Wilt's 56-35 game against Syracuse in the '62 playoffs. As was Wilt's 46-34 game against RUSSELL in the '66 ECF's.

So, NO, Hakeem was NOT a better post-season scorer than Wilt. Wilt COULD have easily scored FAR more. That he didn't was by design.

And I get a kick out of Dickwad constantly harping on Wilt not leading his team in scoring in his two title runs. So what? Hakeem led his team in scoring in nearly every one of his post-seasons, and the result was usually a quick first-round exit. BTW, in Wilt's '67 title run, he had the HIGH game by a Philly player, and was, BY FAR, their most EFFICIENT scorer.

To be continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

And speaking of "EFFICIENCY"...how about Hakeem in his three Finals? He collectively shot .488. How about Chamberlain in his SIX? .560! In fact, Wilt had one Final series of 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and a staggering .625 from the field. Hakeem had ONE Finals, in his THREE, in which he shot 50%...and it was an even 50%.

And I also get a kick out Dickwad's ridiculous comment about Hakeem's second best scorer in the '94 playoffs averaging 13.8 ppg on 37% shooting. He also had THREE OTHER teammates that averaged 10+, including Otis Thorpe who not only averaged 11.3 ppg (and 9.9 rpg), but shot a sizzling .589 from the field. Wilt NEVER had a teammate shoot .589 in his post-season career. Oh, and give me a season in which Hakeem's teammates shot as low as .382 in the playoffs. And then see of you can find any as low as .354. Or as low as .352 (twice.) Or how about this one... as low as .332. Yep...THAT is what Chamberlain had to overcome in FIVE of his post-seasons.

Kareem outscoring Wilt in the '72 WCF's. Sure he did...but on a HORRIBLE .457 FG%...including an AWFUL .414 over the course of his last FOUR games of that series. In fact, a PRIME Kareem shot .464 against an OLD Wilt, in their 28 H2H games. And yet, Kareem, from ages 38 thru 41 shot .599 against Hakeem-led teams. In one season, that 38 year old Kareem averaged 33 ppg on, get this... .634 shooting against Hakeem.

Of course, Dickwad NEVER mentions that Wilt was 35 years old in the '72 WCF's. NOR that virtually EVERYONE who WATCHED that seriescame away claiming that Wilt outplayed Kareem in that series (including Time Magazine, which proclaimed that Wilt DECISIVELY outplayed Kareem.)

Furthemore, Dickwad IGNORES the FACT that a PRIME Wilt just obliterated many of the SAME centers that Kareem would face a few years later...and to a FAR greater extent. Chamberlain was routinely hanging 30+ games on Thurmond in Wilt's "scoring seasons", including one game in which he battered Nate by a mind-boggling 45-13 margin. Kareem faced Nate in over 50 H2H games...and his HIGH game was only 34 points.

And then how about a PRIME Wilt against HOFers Reed and Bellamy...both of whom Kareem faced many times (and both of whom were past their primes when he did so)? Wilt had THREE games of 50+ on Reed, including a HIGH game of 58. And Chamberlain had THREE games of 60+ against Bellamy...including a HIGH game of 73 points! Where are those games by Kareem against those two? Don't bother looking...you won't find ANY.

And let's end this nonsense that Hakeem faced tougher competition in the playoffs. Here were Hakeem's opposing HOF centers in his FIFTEEN season post-season career.

Shaq... 8 games
Ewing.... 7 games.
Robinson... 6 games.
Parish... 6 games.
Kareem (and at age 38)... 5 games.

How about Wilt in his 13 season post-season career?

Lucas (as a starting center)... 5 games.
Bellamy... 6 games.
Reed (as a starting center)...11 games.
Kareem (and in his PRIME)... 11 games.
Thurmond... 17 games.
Russell... 49 games (yes, 49 games.)

Let's add those up, shall we? Hakeem faced a HOF center (and Kareem was WAY past his prime)...in 32 games. Wilt? 99 games. Hmmm... 99-32.

Of course, while Wilt and Hakeem each won two rings...Chamberlain came within an eyelash of winning FIVE more. AND, Hakeem won one of his rings in a season in which the acknowledge best player in the league took the year off (and that Chicago team still went 55-27 without him, and bearly beat a BY team that lost a close seven game series against Hakeem's Rockets in the Finals.)

Oh, and Hakeem facing tougher competition in his regular season career? First of all, Hakeem faced a WAY past his prime Kareem, and a fading Moses. So, in reality, his only real competition was Shaq (who was easily more dominant), Robison (who was basically Hakeem's equal), and Ewing, who was a notch below all of the above.

Wilt? Let's see...

How about Bellamy, Lucas, Reed, Cowens, Hayes, McAdoo, Unseld, Thurmond, Lanier, Russell, and Kareem.

BTW, Wilt finished 3rd and 4th in the MVP balloting in '72 and '73 (and had the playoff counted, he would very likely have been FIRST in BOTH years)...and at ages 35 and 36...and in leagues that had Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Unseld, Hayes, Lanier, Cowens, and Kareem.

How was Hakeem doing at ages 35 and 36? No where to be found...except that he was horribly outplayed in the post-season, and as USUAL, was taking his team's down in flames in the FIRST ROUND of the playoffs.

Hakeem greater than Wilt? :roll: :roll: :roll:

[DaPerceive]

Hakeem greater than Wilt? :roll: :roll: :roll:
I don't think Hakeem is greater or better than Wilt but I would rather have and build my team around Hakeem than Wilt. But still I think Wilt was greater and the better player of the two. I would also take Shaq and Duncan over Wilt as well, but I don't think any of the guys I listed were actually better or greater than him though. Shaq has the best argument of the three though.

[jlauber]

I don't think Hakeem is greater or better than Wilt but I would rather have and build my team around Hakeem than Wilt. But still I think Wilt was greater and the better player of the two. I would also take Shaq and Duncan over Wilt as well, but I don't think any of the guys I listed were actually better or greater than him though. Shaq has the best argument of the three though.

Hmmm...Hakeem NEVER played on a team that won 60+ games. In fact his HIGH season was 58. He also carried EIGHT of his teams down in flames in the FIRST ROUND of the playoffs. In FACT, Hakeem went out in the FIRST ROUND in over HALF of his post-season career.

Wilt? FOUR teams that won 60+ games...including TWO that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and won 33 straight games.) Wilt also took pathetic rosters to within an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in major professional sports history on TWO occasions. Hakeem? In one of his title runs, he had the great luck to not have to contend with MJ. As it was, MJ's Bulls went 55-27 withOUT him, and lost a close seven game series against the Knicks, who would lose a close seven game series against Hakeem's Rockets.

BTW, did Hakeem ever lead his team to the BEST record in the league? Hell no. How about Wilt? FOUR times, including one in which he LED the NBA in scoring (33.5 ppg), rebounding (24.6 rpg), and FG% (.540...in a league that shot .433)...as well as averaging 5.2 apg. BTW, EVERY one of those numbers were better than ANY of Hakeem' greatet single season numbers in those categories...and Wilt did it in the SAME season. Of course, Wilt easily exceeded all of them at some point in his career, as well.

Oh, and did Hakeem ever LEAD the league in assists? Did he ever finish THIRD in assists? Hmmm...well Wilt did (AND, in the process, Wilt LED those teams to the BEST RECORD in the league.)

Defense?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_season.html

Take Russell out of the equation...and, well you guessed it...Wilt had the greatest defensive seasons.

Of course, the bottom line....while Wilt was taking SIX of his teams, in his 13 post-seasons, to the Finals...Hakeem was taking EIGHT of his teams right out of the FIRST ROUND in his fifteen.

You can have Hakeem. I will take the FAR more successful Wilt.

[jlauber]

Dickwad
As usual you are full of crap, Wilt retired for a reason. His stats were all-time low and he had problems with injuries, it's just retarded to bring up the fact that Hakeem played 4 years more because Wilt retired for a reason, idiot.
Yes, Wilt two last seasons where when he played with HOF:ers and all-stars, what the hell do you expect?

Wilt NEVER "retired." He jumped to the ABA following his 72-73, and was expecting to be a PLAYER-coach. The Lakers sued, though, and prevented him from playing.

BTW, how long could Wilt have continued to DOMINATE?

Well, considering that he LED the NBA in rebounding in his LAST season, and then averaged 22.5 rpg in his 17 post-season games. And considering that he was voted first-team all defense in his LAST season...and over the likes of Cowens, Hayes, Lanier, Thurmond, and Kareem. And considering that he not only LED the NBA in FG%, at .727, but that is STILL the all-time RECORD (and probably will be into infinity.) And considering that in his very LAST game, all he did was score 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, and with 21 rebounds.

AND, considering this...


Of all his memories of Wilt Chamberlain, the one that stood out for Larry Brown happened long after Chamberlain's professional career had ended. On a summer day in the early 1980s, when Brown was coaching at UCLA, Chamberlain showed up at Pauley Pavilion to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. "Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at 63, "and he called a couple of chintzy fouls and a goaltending on Wilt. "So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one [of Johnson's] shots get to the rim."

Stewart, Larry (1999-10-13). "Giant Towered Over the Rest". The Los Angeles Times.

AND considering this...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1065131/index.htm

[QUOTE]Chamberlain was on holiday on the Adriatic in the summer of '74 when it occurred to him that he would finally hang it up. It wasn't anything dramatic that made him quit. Good Lord, he could sure still play. (Twelve years later, just this past April, the [B]New Jersey Nets reportedly offered him nearly half a million dollars to play out the last couple weeks of the NBA season

[millwad]

Hmmm...Hakeem NEVER played on a team that won 60+ games. In fact his HIGH season was 58. He also carried EIGHT of his teams down in flames in the FIRST ROUND of the playoffs. In FACT, Hakeem went out in the FIRST ROUND in over HALF of his post-season career.

Wilt? FOUR teams that won 60+ games...including TWO that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and won 33 straight games.) Wilt also took pathetic rosters to within an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in major professional sports history on TWO occasions. Hakeem? In one of his title runs, he had the great luck to not have to contend with MJ. As it was, MJ's Bulls went 55-27 withOUT him, and lost a close seven game series against the Knicks, who would lose a close seven game series against Hakeem's Rockets.

BTW, did Hakeem ever lead his team to the BEST record in the league? Hell no. How about Wilt? FOUR times, including one in which he LED the NBA in scoring (33.5 ppg), rebounding (24.6 rpg), and FG% (.540...in a league that shot .433)...as well as averaging 5.2 apg. BTW, EVERY one of those numbers were better than ANY of Hakeem' greatet single season numbers in those categories...and Wilt did it in the SAME season. Of course, Wilt easily exceeded all of them at some point in his career, as well.

Oh, and did Hakeem ever LEAD the league in assists? Did he ever finish THIRD in assists? Hmmm...well Wilt did (AND, in the process, Wilt LED those teams to the BEST RECORD in the league.)

Defense?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_season.html

Take Russell out of the equation...and, well you guessed it...Wilt had the greatest defensive seasons.

Of course, the bottom line....while Wilt was taking SIX of his teams, in his 13 post-seasons, to the Finals...Hakeem was taking EIGHT of his teams right out of the FIRST ROUND in his fifteen.

You can have Hakeem. I will take the FAR more successful Wilt.

Again pure nonsense about Wilt's stats, still Hakeem won just as many rings while being more dominant, you can't seriously even try to compare Wilt's '72 run to any run of Hakeem's.

Wilt and his later success was due playing with greater players than Hakeem, give Hakeem 3 guys who score more than 19 points per game in the playoffs (2 of them being HOF:ers) and you'd see how many titles he'd get.

Or give him 4 guys who score more than 15 points per game while 2 of them being HOF:ers and one of them being Hal Greer putting up 27 points per game during the whole playoffs.

And I know you like to spam about Wilt's "amazing games" you never even saw but when all of us watch Wilt play, his skills really doesn't translate in those stats, it doesn't. His post game was weak, his outside shot was weak and he was one of the worst FT-shooters of all-time.

Everytime I watch Wilt play I get amazed over how unskilled and awkward he looks in the post.

And Wilt leading the league in assists tells more about how weak the era was rather than what a great passer he was. As I told you before, based on PER 36 Hakeem had a higher assist average in the playoffs than Hakeem which just shatters your bs about Hakeem being this HUGE BLACK HOLE..:facepalm

And regarding Hakeem not playing on any 60 win teams, which of his teams should have been 60 games or more according to you? Tell me now..

And Hakeem sure thing could beat 60+ win teams like he did twice in the playoffs of '95 when he and the Rockets faced the Jazz and the Spurs and like that wasn't enough, Phoenix Suns was also a team Rockets faced and they were a 59 win team..