THE GREAT DEBATE: The #1 Greatest Player of All-Time

[WillC]

This thread is solely for nominations for the #1 Greatest Player of All-Time.

Any and all discussion regarding the rules and methodology of these rankings should be posted here: THE GREAT DEBATE: Ranking the Greatest Players of All-Time (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257)

Introduction:

One thing has become clear from recent 'greatest player' polls on ISH: the results are heavily influenced by modern fans acting like sheep to vote for their favourite players at the expense of more deserving - but less popular - alternatives. This skews the results in favour of popular and/or modern players.

Something else that I learned was that sometimes I find myself questioning my own judgement after reading a convincing argument written by someone else in favour of a different player.

Indeed, that is why I continue to come back to this forum. Despite the over abundance of childish posters with little knowledge, there is in fact a group of very knowledgeable members whose intelligence and common sense shines through.

All of the above helped me devise an unusual way of ranking players that I am excited about trialling here.

Rules:

- The goal is to establish an intelligently debated list of the greatest players of all-time.

- Each day, ISH members are invited to nominate a player of their choice.

- You can write a maximum of 200 words to justify your choice.

- You can only vote for one player per day/round.

- Each day, I will select the winning player based upon the most persuasive and convincing nomination.

- Your 200 word nominations might include statistics, quotes, descriptions, explanations and video clips (etc) to help justify your decision.

- If your player isn't selected, you can re-use your nomination the next day, if you wish.

Criteria for selecting players:

- It's completely up to you. NBA, ABA, pre-NBA, NCAA, individual awards, team success, peak, longevity, style, substance... it's up to you.

The Greatest Players of All-Time:

01 -
02 -
03 -
04 -
05 -
06 -
07 -
08 -
09 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -

[pauk]

You dont need a criteria or 200 words for #1.... you need only 2 words and a brain.... Michael Jordan...

[swi7ch]

Jordan

/end debate

Guy destroyed anyone and any team in his decade. So many hall of famers like Malone, Stockton, Reggie, Ewing, etc. all didn't get a ring because Jordan beat them all.

[crisoner]

I say you need one word...Jordan

[G.O.A.T]

^all three of you are missing the point.

Posts like that are what the OP is trying to avoid.

[swi7ch]

The question should be: Who is #2 behind Jordan?

Now THERE'S a debate! Is it Kobe? Is it Russell? Is it KAJ? Who?

[Miller for 3]

Why Kobe is GOAT

* 5

[Deuce Bigalow]

Michael Jordan

30.1 PPG | 6.2 RPG | 5.3 APG

6

[Segatti]

Has to be KOBE BRYANT.

[TheBigVeto]

[QUOTE=Miller for 3]Why Kobe is GOAT

* 5

[Dave3]

It's as if no one actually reads on this website. The guy clearly says that the whole point of this is debate, not just name dropping, and except for 2 posts, every vote has been a name drop.

[Legends66NBA7]

It's as if no one actually reads on this website.

ISH 101.


The guy clearly says that the whole point of this is debate, not just name dropping, and except for 2 posts, every vote has been a name drop.

That's actually the type of posts I wanted to read when Deuce started the all-time list and actually debate and prove your point. Not off to a good start.

You going to participate ?

[Dave3]

ISH 101.



That's actually the type of posts I wanted to read when Deuce started the all-time list and actually debate and prove your point. Not off to a good start.

You going to participate ?
Got nothing to participate with. The consensus top 6 are usually Jordan KAJ Russell Wilt Bird and Magic. I've watched none of them. I participate a lot more in current rankings and debates, never all time. For all time I prefer reading from the more knowledgeable guys here.

[Math2]

http://oi53.tinypic.com/34rtwyh.jpg

:roll: :roll: :roll: :applause:

[DatAsh]

With all due respect WillC, 200 words is not enough to make a well though out and legitimate argument. I would advise increasing the limit to at least 500.

[DatAsh]

The Case for Bill Russell


Rusell turns the game of defense into a high art. Russell’s skills are as recondite as a plumber’s. They don’t show in the record book. They show in the scorebook. He has never-ever-played on a losing team. Wherever Bill Russell showed up in sneakers and a gym suit, his team was a winner. From McClymonds Hight, to San Fransisco U., to the Boston Celts, the only time a team of his failed to win a national championship was when he was in the hospital. (The Free Lance-Star Mar 1, 1966)


Some Stats
http://i49.tinypic.com/n1ur01.png


Things to Note
- The Celtics went from the second worst defense to the best defense the year Russell joined, gaining 18 DWS, and going on to dominate the league defensively for the next 13 years.
- The Celtics went from the best defensive team to middle of the pack when Russell left, losing 18.5 DWS.
- The notion that Russell was "lucky" or was carried by "amazing" offensive teammates doesn't hold much water when you consider the following points
- The Celtics ranged from average to terrible(worst in the league) offensively.
- The Celtics were winning the vast majority of there games with defense(as evidenced by the % of Wins from Def), for which Russell was the one constant and BY FAR the biggest factor.
- The only 2 times the Boston Celtics failed to win a championship is
- When Russell was injured in 58'
- When facing possibly the greatest team and player ever in 67'
- In 1962, the Celtics went 0-4 without Russell, and 60-16 with him
- In 1969, the Celtics went 0-5 without Russell, and 48-29 with him



*couldn't get it done in less than 200 words(I cut out A LOT), but that's my attempt. I'll work on Jordan next, but I doubt I be able to do it in under 200.

[DatAsh]

*edit: nvm

[fpliii]

The Case for Bill Russell




Some Stats
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/557fw


Things to Note
- The Celtics went from the second worst defense to the best defense the year Russell joined, gaining 18 DWS, and going on to dominate the league defensively for the next 13 years.
- The Celtics went from the best defensive team to middle of the pack when Russell left, losing 18.5 DWS.
- The notion that Russell was "lucky" or was carried by "amazing" offensive teammates doesn't hold much water when you consider that
1. The Celtics ranged from average to terrible(worst in the league) offensively.
2. The Celtics were winning the vast majority of there games with defense(as evidenced by the % of Wins from Def), for which Russell was the one constant and BY FAR the biggest factor.
3. The only 2 times the Boston Celtics failed to win a championship is
a) When Russell was injured in 58'
b) When facing possibly the greatest team and player ever in 67'
4. In 1962, the Celtics went 0-4 without Russell, and 60-16 with him
5. In 1969, the Celtics went 0-5 without Russell, and 48-29 with him



*couldn't get it done in less than 200 words(I cut out A LOT), but that's my attempt. I'll work on Jordan next, but I doubt I be able to do it in under 200.

well, we have 24 hours, so I'm going to try and craft my argument (likely for Russ) carefully

[DatAsh]

well, we have 24 hours, so I'm going to try and craft my argument (likely for Russ) carefully

200 words is really difficult

[G.O.A.T]

To me, as I've often said, it's between Jordan and Russell,

I'll try to lay out the case for both and let you decide which one you think is stronger if either is particularly compelling.


For Michael Jeffrey Jordan it starts with the obvious; individual brilliance, paralleled team success post-merger, head-to-head dominance against many of the eras other bright stars in the postseason, ability to take over the game on both ends of the floor. Relentless effort and passion for winning which few have rivaled and unlikely any have exceeded.

Jordan silenced critics who early in his career labeled him ball-hog, selfish, showboat, all of whom concluded he was unlikely to ever win the big one and if he did surely it wouldn't be playing the high-flying high scoring style he made popular in his first few seasons. He won six titles as exactly that. A brash, ultra-confident scoring machine who could and would do whatever it took to beat you.

Jordan also had the look and feel of a guy you could call the greatest. Like Ali, Ruth, Gretzky other likewise GOAT status icons of their sport, those who watched Jordan had the sense that they were watching the best, and that the player they were watching knew it too.

As a personal aside I remember watching Jordan's Bulls complete the annihilation of my treasured Bad Boys Pistons via a broom style beating in the 1991 Eastern Conference Finals. I remember feeling like "this guy is unstoppable" and not being the least bit surprised when the Lakers too were totally over-matched in the Finals that year. #23 Jordan kept that aura around him throughout the rest of his Bulls career. When he seemed vulnerable as #45 during his 1995 return, he responded by leading the Bulls single most dominant season in NBA history, winning a still record 72 games and stampeding through the playoffs never trailing in a series or facing elimination and going undefeated at home.

Michael Jordan changed the way the game was played on the court and the way it was marketed off the court. He satisfies ever raw criteria one can imagine when rating the greatest players in the sports history. While it may seem odd that on a list that almost always is top heavy with big men, it's a guard that is the closest thing to a consensus #1, the fact that he was able to accomplish all he did from the back court only furthers his claim to the top spot.



As for William Felton Russell it is simple. He won. He won more than it is or ever will be reasonable to expect a player to win. He transformed a franchise and the sport while leaving perhaps his most significant footprint on the civil rights front as the one of the first black superstars in sports, the first black coach in American Team Sports history and the first to win a title in both capacities. Russell, a track star in college, had an uncanny ability to leap any hurdle put in front of him without breaking stride.

Russell's forte was defense, No one has ever done it better. He blocked shots yes, in amazing volume by any eras standards, but it was the shots he changed and his understanding of the various ways to have that impact that really set him apart. Russell seemed to break every play down to science. He'd measure his chances of impacting the play with various actions and weigh the potential benefit for his team against the amount of energy he'd need to expire. He;d take note of where a player liked to shoot from and take that preference away, he'd quite simply psych you if he couldn't beat you with strength or speed.

Russell won of course, 11 titles in 13 seasons. The two years he lost were the two you'd guess considering the factors surrounding those defeats. In 1958 he was injured in the finals and the did not play in a game five loss and was very limited in the game six conclusion as the Hawks won the Championship. Russell and Boston then beat St. Louis in two of the next three playoffs. In 1867 it was Russell's first year as coach, he was overwhelmed, tired and his body felt the worst it ever had. Plus the 76ers were busy having the winningest season in NBA history with Wilt Chamberlain focused on, of all things, winning that year. The Celtics were annihilated 4-1, then proceeded to beat the Sixers the next year in the ECF en route to another title then take the Sixers sans Wilt and the Lakers with the Big Dipper to win the 1969 title.

Russell wasn't the offensive force Jordan was, not by a long-shot, but it's hard to hold Russell's offense in question considering the results. Plus the guy was actually a very good offensive player. Early in his career he played the low post primarily and looked to score against over-matched centers. He usually shot a very high percentage for the era (4-times top ten in fg%) and when needed (1862 Finals) he could be the teams primary scorer. As his career progressed and the Celtics offensive needs changed, Russell moved more to the high post and facilitated the teams offense. He has the highest career apg for a center in the postseason and ranks 2nd in that regard during the regular season.

The most impressive thing about Russell though has to be the way he consistently elevated his play in the postseason and amazingly again in elimination or closeout games. Russell was undefeated throughout his professional career in game sevens and his numbers are up from his regular season and overall playoff stats across the board.



Five MVP's each, both retired as the consensus greatest ever to play according to the generation that witnessed them. As different as their games were Jordan and Russell both understood how to win and whenever they had teams good enough to win, they did. Jordan was the only Bull to win a finals MVP during Chicago's six titles. It's possible that Russell would have been the only Celtic to sbag that honor had they awarded it prior to 1969, He;d surely have had at least nine. These guys were the arguably the best all the time, but unquestionably the best in crunch time. That's what distinguishes them from the other guys in and around the top 10 and that's why they have the hardware to prove it.

EDIT: My apologies, I read maximum as minimum.

[DixieNourmous]

01 - Kareem
02 - Magic
03 - Jordan

:applause:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar is my vote for #1

Match your pick up against these stats....http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/abdulka01.html

[pauk]

^all three of you are missing the point.

Posts like that are what the OP is trying to avoid.

I know, no disrespect to OP but i personally think #1 debates end up pretty much one sided :D You could basically just skip the #1 thread (and majority wont get hurt) and go for #2 (thats where its very debatable and indeed requires intelligent words, criteria, facts to justify a players case)....

[KOBE143]

I have 2 GOAT

1a Kobe Bryant
1b Michael Jordan

I dont mind if either of the two is your GOAT..

[pauk]

"In any profession the question that is always asked is, "Who is the best?" People have a desire to determine the one who achieved the greatest success at their field. In many cases there is no definite answer, but we spend our time debating who excelled to the greatest extent.

The NBA is no different. For years basketball fans have argued over who is the greatest player of all time. Players like Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are among the players who come to mind. However, the one player who defined greatness was Michael Jeffrey Jordan.

It

[Asukal]

Michael Jordan

He was great in almost everything. Accolades, stats, championships, skill set, athleticism, shooting, free throws, decent long range, mental toughness, clutch, leadership, competitive drive, mental game (trash talks), offense, defense, longevity, olympic champ, media darling, well spoken (knows what to say in interviews). The only contest he didn't win is the 3 point shootout ffs. No weakness in his game whatsoever.

Years after he retired, he is still as relevant to basketball as he ever was. The league is always looking for that next MJ. His shoes still selling like crazy. I mean come on, MJ is the reason why we have this soft ass rules of today because they want to recreate those MJ moments. MJ ended the era of big men.

Really, number 1 is not an option. It's MJ and everybody knows it. :confusedshrug:

[Freedom Kid7]

200 words max? Jesus man, that's not really fair. I'll vote MJ for the following reasons:

Without stats, he was the greatest combination of athleticism and determination/work ethic. I mean, if you remember the shot of him over the Cavs or that one circus shot against the Lakers, that was probably the ultimate example of both. He had a ridiculous hang time and those plays were monumental to winning both those games. Oh, that and he played the game how he wanted to and won a lot because of it. 6 times as a matter of fact. Just by playing the type of game his critics hated him for.

With stats considered, he had one of the greatest statistical seasons with 32/8/8. It rivals Oscar Robertson because I believe the pace in Robertson's Team in 62 was 124.7. Mj's team was 97.0. If we adjust each to 100.0 pace, then MJ has 33/8/8. With Oscar, we get 25/9/10. I'm not even accounting other stuff. Even without that, he put 34/6/7 in the playoffs for his first three peat on crazy effeciency and 50/39/84 with an AST/TO ratio of well above 2. And I feel that this is the surface of his stats.

TL;DR - MJ due to the good combination of work ethic, determination and athleticism as well as having the stats and accomplishments to prove it

[KG215]

Since the ISH voting started a month or so ago, I've really thought about and changed how I vote. I also do not believe all championships are equal. Not that some championships have no value, but some do carry weight in a legacy ranking. Some people scoff at that notion, but being the clear cut best player on a championship team holds more weight than being a very good to great second option on a championship team. That rings even more true for dynasties.

That's not to say I completely dismiss stats. Obviously they mean something and can't be totally ignored. My criteria when ranking players (right now I've really only got it down to my top 10-12) are, if I'm starting a franchise and have to pick one player to build around with the sole purpose of winning as many championships as possible, who would I pick?

While there's plenty of players I feel you could build a team around and win a championship with in any era, this really comes down to two players for me: Michael Jordan and Bill Russell. I'll have to give more thought on who I want to vote for.

[KG215]

I can't sit here and speak knowledgeably about Russell. I'm 25 and all I have on him is several books I've read and things posted by knowledgeable posters on here. His case for GOAT, though is a strong one. People can discredit him for not putting up Wilt-esque stats all they want. The majority of the time those are the people who don't seem to grasp that basketball goes beyond the numbers you can find in a boxscore. You hear people say things like numbers don't do Player X or Player Y justice; or the numbers don't tell the whole story. Russell is the shining and perfect example of such a player.

G.O.A.T. summed it up perfectly in a thread a few days or weeks or so ago. (Can't really remember when I read it). It's no coincidence that when Wilt didn't worry as much about numbers, and his numbers declined, and played more team oriented Bill Russell type basketball, his teams won. 1967 Wilt Chamberlain may be better than any version of Bill Russell. However, he only played that way, what, one or two seasons of his career?

Russell's grasp on what it took to win, and all the tiny little ins-and-outs of playing winning TEAM basketball, may be unparalleled. I'm not sure there's ever been a more cerebral player. I think he knew, above all else, in order to win his teams had to exploit the opposition's weaknesses. Some games, against a team with a weaker frontcourt, that might mean Russell taking more shots and scoring more points. Against a team with a strong frontcourt but weaker backcourt, that meant not being force-fed the ball and taking an inordinate amount of shots, and playing more of a facilitator role. And, above all else, I believe he's the best defensive anchor in NBA history.

He has a great case for GOAT in my opinion but, at the same time, I know plenty of others won't agree with me or my reasoning.

HOWEVER, my vote for #1 is Michael Jordan. Trolls, Jordan haters, Kobe stans, etc. say he couldn't win until he got Pippen. People argue he never could beat the Bird Celtics or Bad Boy Pistons at their best, while either ignoring or not knowing that he simply just didn't have a team good enough to beat those teams. Jordan, as a basketball player, may have been better from '88-'90 than he was during the first 3-peat. However, Pippen nor Horace Grant were instant impact players, and took several seasons to develop and emerge as bonafide second and third options for Jordan. Both took a few years to develop and, even when they were on the rise, they weren't enough to give Jordan the necessary help to beat the Bad Boy Pistons.

In 1989 his Bulls handed the Pistons their only two playoff losses while a second year Pippen and second year Grant averaged 9.7 and 9.3 PPG respectively. He averaged 30-5.5-6.5-2 on .561 TS% and .467 eFG% against one of the best team defenses of all-time specifically focusing on stopping Jordan.

In 1990 Pippen and Grant were a little better and the Bulls pushed the Pistons to seven games in the ECF. Jordan averaged 32-7-6-2 on .566 TS% and .485 eFG%. They were close, but not quite there...yet. The rest is history. The next three seasons the Bulls won three championships while Jordan put up ridiculous numbers. Someone can throw the DRtg argument at me all they want but, for a guard, the all-around numbers he put up were insane...and his teams won. Period.

During the second 3-peat, as Jordan got older and lost some of his athleticism, he re-tooled his game and still found a way to reel off three more championships. Statistically second 3-peat Jordan doesn't touch first 3-peat Jordan, but he still came through in the 4th quarters and with timely and clutch buckets. Unlike the first 3-peat, you just had this feeling that the Bulls were going to win it all from '96-'98.

Both Jordan and Russell always found a way to win, which is the point of the game. I know it's a team game, and no player can win by himself, but those two players were better than any other player in history as the main driving force of dynasties. Both players had great supporting casts for their combined 17 championships, but one constant remained, and that is both were the best player on those championship teams. In this case, I look at Jordan during the first 3-peat, and I personally don't think there's ever been a better player in the history of the league. A handful are very close, but when you combine his numbers and the end result of championships, it's hard for me to vote anyone else at #1.

[ThaRegul8r]

It's as if no one actually reads on this website. The guy clearly says that the whole point of this is debate, not just name dropping, and except for 2 posts, every vote has been a name drop.

Hardly anyone reads on the internet. This is obvious.


With all due respect WillC, 200 words is not enough to make a well though out and legitimate argument. I would advise increasing the limit to at least 500.

It'll get TL;DRed.

[colts19]

Russell for greatest winner. check how many rings he has.

Wilt for greatest player. Check the record book.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Russell for greatest winner. check how many rings he has.

Wilt for greatest player. Check the record book.
What about in the Playoffs? The Finals?

Check again.

[Owl]

The Case for Bill Russell




Some Stats
http://i49.tinypic.com/n1ur01.png


Things to Note
- The Celtics went from the second worst defense to the best defense the year Russell joined, gaining 18 DWS, and going on to dominate the league defensively for the next 13 years.
- The Celtics went from the best defensive team to middle of the pack when Russell left, losing 18.5 DWS.
- The notion that Russell was "lucky" or was carried by "amazing" offensive teammates doesn't hold much water when you consider the following points
- The Celtics ranged from average to terrible(worst in the league) offensively.
- The Celtics were winning the vast majority of there games with defense(as evidenced by the % of Wins from Def), for which Russell was the one constant and BY FAR the biggest factor.
- The only 2 times the Boston Celtics failed to win a championship is
- When Russell was injured in 58'
- When facing possibly the greatest team and player ever in 67'
- In 1962, the Celtics went 0-4 without Russell, and 60-16 with him
- In 1969, the Celtics went 0-5 without Russell, and 48-29 with him



*couldn't get it done in less than 200 words(I cut out A LOT), but that's my attempt. I'll work on Jordan next, but I doubt I be able to do it in under 200.
Counterpoints:
You (intentionally?) left out the "without Russell" stats in his initial campaign. They were worse with him than without him. He was also hardly the only change, they lost the rights to Cliff Hagan (who had yet to play) and Ed Macauley (good offensive center) and added Tommy Heinsohn and had Frank Ramsey return from the armed forces so there's an element of comparing apples and oranges here when noting "his" impact. Given the 56-57 "with without" is a more substantial sample this should be included in any arguments.
Also in 1962 the Celtics had no backup center and in both years the Celtics game plan centered around Russell. Similarly I believe the 90s Pistons had a terrible record without Rodman (when he was a rebound specialist) because they were used to a system in which he had a very specific role which a bench guy couldn't fulfill. That doesn't make them great (necessarily) just unique and of some value.

No one argues that Russell was "carried" to titles but just because the Celtics weren't clearly great on offense that doesn't mean he didn't have substantial help. Though honestly, we don't really know how good they were on O, their helter skelter style seemed to encourage some poor shots but by doing so probably (a) meant less turnovers as defense didn't have as many opportunities to steal/intercept and (b) quick shots were more likely to lead to offensive rebounds because the defense isn't yet set. Without a full boxscore it's very difficult to say how good or otherwise those Celtics teams were offensively.

And regarding their being good defensively disproving the importance of others, on the contrary it can be argued that it indicates the importance of others. No team is good defensively by virtue of a single individual (though to make a defensive contribution the size of Russell's is impressive because its harder for a single individual to influence D than O) but only by team and coaching. Of the (other) key contributors:
Havlicek, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, Cousy, K.C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Bailey Howell and Ramsey
I think only one was a poor defender (late career Cousy) and many have reputations as excellent defenders e.g. K.C., Sanders, Havlicek, Sharman.

I guess this is the problem with a 200 word limit; not enough room for a more nuanced case. Which isn't to say it's a bad argument just that pure advocacy of one candidate in 200 words inevitably only gives a partial picture.

[Overdrive]

The battle for the number one spot consists of Jabbar, Jordan and Russell in my opinion.

Why Jordan over Jabbar?
The accolades are almost equal. The very difference between those two is that Jordan won as the face of his franchise, even the face of the league. When Jabbar was the undisputed best player of a split league he won one ring. His longevity boosted his accolades greatly and by thus I think Jordan had the more effective career.

Why Jordan over Russell?
Russell and Jordan were the only players who "singlehandly" denied other legends from winning throughout their whole career. The difference is that Jordan put up legendary stats and had the flair to change basketball forever. Russell lacked what Wilt had and Wilt lacked what Russell had. Jordan had both, he had the stats, flair and huge success.

Overall Jordan went on to be a worldwide figure to expand basketball all over the planet. His impact was bigger than shooting a ball through a hoop. No other player before him can claim this and everyone after him is not the original in that aspect. They're all tagged the next Jordan, if they follow the same path.

197 words.

[coin24]

What about in the Playoffs? The Finals?

Check again.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[DatAsh]

The Case for Michael Jordan


My attitude is that if you push me towards something that you think is a weakness, then I will turn that perceived weakness into a strength. - Michael Jordan

Here come the stats

http://i48.tinypic.com/ajv1vl.png

Here I've mapped out the offensive advanced statistics for all of Jordan's teams to measure his offensive impact on those teams, similarly to how I did with Russell's defensive impact. It might not look that impressive in comparison with Russell's impact, but Russell's more valuable to a defense than any player ever was to an offense. One thing that isn't really shown in these numbers, but is worth noting is that Jordan generally reduces a team's turnover rate by a few % points just by nature of being a good ball handler and handling the ball a lot.

Was Jordan the greatest scorer of all time?

Well, lets compare his offensive impact up above to who I personally consider to be the second greatest scorer that's ever lived, Wilt Chamberlain. Normally I'd be somewhat opposed to comparing team statistics like this, but lucky for us, these two player's actually played under surprisingly similar circumstances. Both players were drafted to bottom feeding teams and not really given sufficient personnel until their sixth year or so. Wilt's team hoping along with Jordan's early retirement should give us a good indication of their net offensive worth upon leaving and joining a team.

So, without further ado

http://i45.tinypic.com/250pjer.png


Both players were basically drafted to the worst offense in the league at the time. Jordan's team was a bit worse offensively(-5.2 vs -3.8), but it's close enough to be within reason. Their rookie years, Jordan appears to have been more offensively valuable(+6.0 RORtg, +14.8 OWS vs +1.4 RORtg, +4.1 OWS), while Wilt appears to have been more valuable as a whole(+4.19 SRS vs +5.05 SRS). Looking beyond their rookie years, it should be readily apparent that Jordan was generally the more valuable offensive player throughout their respective careers. The only year Wilt seems to rival Jordan's impact is in 67' which surprisingly enough is what most consider to be Wilt's absolute peak in terms of offensive and defensive brilliance.

If we rank the top ten seasons according to relative ORtg, OWS, and SRS we get the following

http://i45.tinypic.com/snjer4.png

Now to be fair, I'm not saying that these impact numbers clearly demonstrate that Jordan was the best scorer of all time, or even better than Wilt for that matter, but they should give you a general idea of just how valuable he was to an offense.

Finally, following with the rough outline I set with Russell, here are some interesting facts/statistics you may or may not have known.

- Michael Jordan anchored 3 of the top 12 offenses ever relative to the time
- Michael Jordan's Bulls account for 3 of the top 5 efficiency differentials.
- The first three peat post season RORtg numbers are even more incredible than the regular season numbers (1991: +10.9, 1992: +6.0, 1993: +8.9)
- In 1995 the Bulls were +5.6 for the final 17 games that Jordan played.

[colts19]

What about in the Playoffs? The Finals?

Check again.
23pt 25 rebounds and over 4 assist. 2 championships while playing against the greatest dynasty this side of UCLA.

[lakerspng]

The battle for the number one spot consists of Jabbar, Jordan and Russell in my opinion.

Why Jordan over Jabbar?
The accolades are almost equal. The very difference between those two is that Jordan won as the face of his franchise, even the face of the league. When Jabbar was the undisputed best player of a split league he won one ring. His longevity boosted his accolades greatly and by thus I think Jordan had the more effective career.

Why Jordan over Russell?
Russell and Jordan were the only players who "singlehandly" denied other legends from winning throughout their whole career. The difference is that Jordan put up legendary stats and had the flair to change basketball forever. Russell lacked what Wilt had and Wilt lacked what Russell had. Jordan had both, he had the stats, flair and huge success.

Overall Jordan went on to be a worldwide figure to expand basketball all over the planet. His impact was bigger than shooting a ball through a hoop. No other player before him can claim this and everyone after him is not the original in that aspect. They're all tagged the next Jordan, if they follow the same path.

197 words.

not if you add College. Looking at a basketball career in its entirety, Kareem's dominance over college basketball and because of which, his influence in helping make it as popular as it is today has never even come close to being matched by anyone and therefore sets him above MJ, in my opinion.

[BoutPractice]

The case for Jordan is too easy to make, so I'll try Russell.

People have already talked about his resume.
We know his team almost never lost when he was on the court.

But it may not be enough for you. You may wonder why his presence was so important.

The answer is simple. Russell found the secret to winning basketball, 50 years ago. Watch a full game with Russell, focus solely on him, and you'll understand what that secret is - it's all about the details.

Games aren't won just because a guy is looking cool holding a basketball.
As Russell himself said, a basketball game is, quite simply the sum of all moments from tipoff to the final buzzer. Most of those moments are spent not shooting, and even the moment spent shooting is largely determined by what the other 9 people not shooting are doing at that particular time.

Things like team defense and rotations. Setting a good screen. Boxing out. Fighting for position. Communicating. Managing effort and morale. That's what ultimately decides a basketball game. Russell understood that. He would break down the game into moments, and for each moment he would come up with the best possible course of action within an overall strategic framework.

Once he elevated that approach into an art form and made his teammates adhere to it, winning became almost a formality.

[Dave3]

not if you add College. Looking at a basketball career in its entirety, Kareem's dominance over college basketball and because of which, his influence in helping make it as popular as it is today has never even come close to being matched by anyone and therefore sets him above MJ, in my opinion.
You claim Kareem to be the most dominant overall, yet you don't even consider his peak top 5 all time?

[ThaRegul8r]

No team is good defensively by virtue of a single individual (though to make a defensive contribution the size of Russell's is impressive because its harder for a single individual to influence D than O) but only by team and coaching. Of the (other) key contributors:
Havlicek, Heinsohn, Sharman, Sam Jones, Cousy, K.C. Jones, Tom Sanders, Bailey Howell and Ramsey
I think only one was a poor defender (late career Cousy) and many have reputations as excellent defenders e.g. K.C., Sanders, Havlicek, Sharman.

I don't care about the debate, as I have no dog in the hunt, but when people make statements such as this, it's based on preconceptions, not on a knowledge of what happened. For instance, during the height of the Celtics' defensive dominance, the 1963-64 season, Russell missed consecutive games in December, the 19th and 21st, in which Boston played the 8-25 New York Knicks who were averaging 107.4 points per game up to that point. Boston gave up a season-high 140 points in a 143-140 win in Providence, then surrendered 127

[Gotterdammerung]

The popular pick is Jordan, due to his marketing mythology more so than his career and individual brilliance. The next pick is Bill Russell because we confuse player with the career.

But my vote goes to Wilt Chamberlain for the simple reason:
Had there been a mythical draft where all players from the entire history of the NBA were available, the majority of GMs would draft Wilt over Jordan, Russell, Abdul Jabbar, or O'Neal. With the right organization and the right coach Wilt would produce more seasons like that peak year he had in 1967. That peak was higher than any other player's in the history of the game.

[G.O.A.T]

The popular pick is Jordan, due to his marketing mythology more so than his career and individual brilliance. The next pick is Bill Russell because we confuse player with the career.

But my vote goes to Wilt Chamberlain for the simple reason:
Had there been a mythical draft where all players from the entire history of the NBA were available, the majority of GMs would draft Wilt over Jordan, Russell, Abdul Jabbar, or O'Neal. With the right organization and the right coach Wilt would produce more seasons like that peak year he had in 1967. That peak was higher than any other player's in the history of the game.

I don't understand why a draft would be the best way to determine this question.

We have over 50 years of evidence that suggests at the very best it's an inexact science.

We know how these players careers played out. If you knew Russell and Jordan would give you over a decade as the leagues best player and never not show up big when it mattered, obviously you'd take them over Wilt despite his superior peak since he couldn't even make it two seasons before his personal goals and need to prove himself to critics overcame him.

An organization so arrogant as to assume that they could control Wilt or channel him into being the type of player he occasionally was all the time, is asking for disaster.

No matter the way I phrase the question it always comes back to Russell and Jordan these are the only two choices for number one that can't be objectively taken apart by examining what did happen when they played.

[oolalaa]

The Case for Michael Jordan



Here come the stats

http://i48.tinypic.com/ajv1vl.png

Here I've mapped out the offensive advanced statistics for all of Jordan's teams to measure his offensive impact on those teams, similarly to how I did with Russell's defensive impact. It might not look that impressive in comparison with Russell's impact, but Russell's more valuable to a defense than any player ever was to an offense. One thing that isn't really shown in these numbers, but is worth noting is that Jordan generally reduces a team's turnover rate by a few % points just by nature of being a good ball handler and handling the ball a lot.

Was Jordan the greatest scorer of all time?

Well, lets compare his offensive impact up above to who I personally consider to be the second greatest scorer that's ever lived, Wilt Chamberlain. Normally I'd be somewhat opposed to comparing team statistics like this, but lucky for us, these two player's actually played under surprisingly similar circumstances. Both players were drafted to bottom feeding teams and not really given sufficient personnel until their sixth year or so. Wilt's team hoping along with Jordan's early retirement should give us a good indication of their net offensive worth upon leaving and joining a team.

So, without further ado

http://i45.tinypic.com/250pjer.png


Both players were basically drafted to the worst offense in the league at the time. Jordan's team was a bit worse offensively(-5.2 vs -3.8), but it's close enough to be within reason. Their rookie years, Jordan appears to have been more offensively valuable(+6.0 RORtg, +14.8 OWS vs +1.4 RORtg, +4.1 OWS), while Wilt appears to have been more valuable as a whole(+4.19 SRS vs +5.05 SRS). Looking beyond their rookie years, it should be readily apparent that Jordan was generally the more valuable offensive player throughout their respective careers. The only year Wilt seems to rival Jordan's impact is in 67' which surprisingly enough is what most consider to be Wilt's absolute peak in terms of offensive and defensive brilliance.

If we rank the top ten seasons according to relative ORtg, OWS, and SRS we get the following

http://i45.tinypic.com/snjer4.png

Now to be fair, I'm not saying that these impact numbers clearly demonstrate that Jordan was the best scorer of all time, or even better than Wilt for that matter, but they should give you a general idea of just how valuable he was to an offense.

Finally, following with the rough outline I set with Russell, here are some interesting facts/statistics you may or may not have known.

- Michael Jordan anchored 3 of the top 12 offenses ever relative to the time
- Michael Jordan's Bulls account for 3 of the top 5 efficiency differentials.
- The first three peat post season RORtg numbers are even more incredible than the regular season numbers (1991: +10.9, 1992: +6.0, 1993: +8.9)
- In 1995 the Bulls were +5.6 for the final 17 games that Jordan played.

Where are those numbers from, DatAsh? Which website?

[Gotterdammerung]

I don't understand why a draft would be the best way to determine this question.
It would demonstrate the truth of my position.


We have over 50 years of evidence that suggests at the very best it's an inexact science. We know how these players careers played out. If you knew Russell and Jordan would give you over a decade as the leagues best player and never not show up big when it mattered, obviously you'd take them over Wilt despite his superior peak since he couldn't even make it two seasons before his personal goals and need to prove himself to critics overcame him.
That only demonstrates the history of the game, who had the best teams, best teammates, best coaches, best organization, which all play a greater role than the best player alone.

An organization so arrogant as to assume that they could control Wilt or channel him into being the type of player he occasionally was all the time, is asking for disaster.
An organization that thought of "handling" it's players like a horse will always fail indeed. But luckily not all organizations are equal.


No matter the way I phrase the question it always comes back to Russell and Jordan these are the only two choices for number one that can't be objectively taken apart by examining what did happen when they played.
It is possible indeed, and takes us beyond the homer logic of having our favorite team win. Bill Russell was a greater winner than Wilt no question. Jordan was far more competitive than Wilt no question. But is that necessarily sufficient to make them the greater player? Wilt was more dominant than Jordan and had a higher peak than Russell, and played his role better than he did.

My criteria is restricted towards the individual and less to external factors like coaching or organization or other players. And in a mythical draft the GMs will pick Wilt.
:pimp:

[magic chiongson]

that dude who starred as a minor league baseball player in space jam

[G.O.A.T]

It would demonstrate the truth of my position.

To me it would only demonstrate how often GM's make the wrong decision when choosing between comparably talented players.


That only demonstrates the history of the game, who had the best teams, best teammates, best coaches, best organization, which all play a greater role than the best player alone.

If the coach, teammates, organization etc. player a greater role than the superstar, how come there are so few teams who've won a title without one of the top 11 players of all-time?

We've had 66 teams win Championships in the history of the NBA and 44 of them were won by a team with either Mikan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan or Kobe as their best player. Two-thirds of the titles over 66 years split between 11 players. Consider also that two more titles were led by my #12 player all-time Moses Malone and LeBron James who seems a sure thing for the top ten when all is said and done and now the percentage goes up to nearly 70.

Obviously with so few teams having won without the "best player" I don't agree that having a combination of those other things is anywhere near as valuable. You can get a great coach, good chemistry, good role players, even a sidekick with elite or near elite talent. You can't get what those elevn guys bring you though without anything else.



An organization that thought of "handling" it's players like a horse will always fail indeed. But luckily not all organizations are equal. It is possible indeed, and takes us beyond the homer logic of having our favorite team win. Bill Russell was a greater winner than Wilt no question. Jordan was far more competitive than Wilt no question. But is that necessarily sufficient to make them the greater player?

Yes, as evidenced by their careers. Obviously you need to have transcendent talent as Jordan and Russell did. And obviously you'd have a better chance with Wilt than a very good but not great player who had Jordan's Killer Instinct and Russell's savvy. But in Russell and Jordan you are talking about two guys who were the most athletic, driven and creative players of their eras. Players who recognized and developed specific skills needed to win games in the league they played. Wilt Wilt it's a guy who could have been all of those things based on his physical gifts alone, but was constantly distracted and thus is still a question mark. Even if Wilt had the focus Russell had, could he really do so much better than 11 in 13 years that it'd be worth taking a chance on? Gambling on losing as many as nine titles just to gain at most two and having the stipulation be you have to keep Wilt Chamberlain focused on playing winning basketball above all other things...If I were a bookie, I'd let you make that bet.



Wilt was more dominant than Jordan and had a higher peak than Russell, and played his role better than he did.

My criteria is restricted towards the individual and less to external factors like coaching or organization or other players. And in a mythical draft the GMs will pick Wilt.


The problem with your criteria is that those other factors are always present and that the individual player can have considerable impact on them. A superstar can not only make his teammates better on the court, he can help attract better players to play there and put pressure on management to bring better players in. He can get the coach changed and the team's style changed, all of this has been evidenced. Ignoring that portion of a players impact when evaluating them is no different than saying "I don't consider rebounding because taller players have a built in advantage."

The same GM's would pick Wilt picked Si Green, Joe Barry Carroll, Sam Bowie, Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Art Heyman, Fred Hetzel, Shawn Bradley, Michael Olowakandi and so on.

In an ideal situation where a player reaches their full potential and the factors around him are managed correctly, there are a lot of guys who can be great. In reality there are very few.

[LeBird]

Bird.

One of the few players in history to be able to change a franchise's fortunes single handedly and overnight. Was a team player when required and Atlas when required. Could show up Magic in passing, Jordan in scoring and Malone in rebounding - the best all-round player ever. A phenom with unparalleled basketball intelligence.

[Boomerang]

Lebron James.
Single handedly brought his team to 2 finals, and 1 eastern finals with an incredible run all by himself and crappy teammates.
Won it all once all by himself :pimp: No on in the NBA has ever won with less than this dude.

[WillC]

With all due respect WillC, 200 words is not enough to make a well though out and legitimate argument. I would advise increasing the limit to at least 500.

I agree. In fact, we will scrap the use of a word limit. It's too difficult to monitor and, ultimately, unnecessary.

However, I would advise people to keep their arguments concise and to the point. We don't need long-winded essays.

[oolalaa]

I agree. In fact, we will scrap the use of a word limit. It's too difficult to monitor and, ultimately, unnecessary.

However, I would advise people to keep their arguments concise and to the point. We don't need long-winded essays.

You should be encouraging long-winded essays.

[rmt]

Lebron James.
Single handedly brought his team to 2 finals, and 1 eastern finals with an incredible run all by himself and crappy teammates.
Won it all once all by himself :pimp: No on in the NBA has ever won with less than this dude.

Do you really think that Wade and Bosh are less than who Hakeem and Duncan had in 94-95 and 03?

[WillC]

You should be encouraging long-winded essays.

Not if they're long-winded for the sake of being long-winded, like some of the posts I've seen on the boards.

However, if they're well written, then I agree that there is a place for them.

[WillC]

Lebron James.
Single handedly brought his team to 2 finals, and 1 eastern finals with an incredible run all by himself and crappy teammates.
Won it all once all by himself :pimp: No on in the NBA has ever won with less than this dude.

You could actually turn that into a convincing argument. Those Cavs teams were very mediocre minus LeBron.

Most players who led their teams to the Finals did so with talented support casts. I'm not sure how many superstars - other than LeBron - could lead that Cavs team to the Finals.

[lakerspng]

You claim Kareem to be the most dominant overall, yet you don't even consider his peak top 5 all time?

1. Shaq
2. Wilt
3. Jordan
4. Kobe
5. Kareem

basically how I see peaks. though I could switch Kobe and Kareem easily.

I have Kareem as the #1 basketball player of all time. Looking at the entirety of his career. His pro career alone has him in the discussion by nyone with half a brain and his college resume is on a level so far beyond anyone else, it's not even funny.

[Owl]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I don't care about the debate, as I have no dog in the hunt, but when people make statements such as this, it's based on preconceptions, not on a knowledge of what happened. For instance, during the height of the Celtics' defensive dominance, the 1963-64 season, Russell missed consecutive games in December, the 19th and 21st, in which Boston played the 8-25 New York Knicks who were averaging 107.4 points per game up to that point. Boston gave up a season-high 140 points in a 143-140 win in Providence, then surrendered 127

[fpliii]

What was not "knowledge" or "without knowledge". In any case in the entirity of my post I addressed that Russell was irreplaceable for the Celtics, especially (a) with guys on their bench and (b) because of a system designed around him.

But posting 2 games as though that is irrefutable evidence of his value is bizzare. Teams with hall of fame big men playing fourty-something minutes don't tend to have have a backup of the calibre worthy of starting. So if what you're trying to prove is: Bill Russell was much better than Boston's 34 year old Lovellette (45 games played 9.7mpg) that year and/or Bill Russell fulfilled a role (very well) that was difficult to fulfill with a bench player, then yes those games do suggest that. Wilt's quote even touches on this "they were so used" to having Russell there that they couldn't instantly switch back to a different role.

If those two games were a legitimate sample size then I could just as well say that Boston averaged 130 ppg over that period so Russell was taking 14 points a game off Boston's offense (Boston average 113ppg, Knick opponents averaged 119, so halfway between gives an expected 116 points) relative to what could be expected by playing a substitute. But it's not credible.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against unless you believe that one man can singlehandedly make a defense in which case I'd like to see a much larger sample and ideally one which isn't based on a player being so much better than their backup in a system designed for the former.

If you really feel the need to argue this any further I suggest you start a new topic, as this is severly off the main point of the thread.

It might be off topic, but I think this discussion is very valuable and interesting. All defense is not created equally, and different types of defense have different degrees of importance (both historically and from era to era). I might be regarding defensive anchors/paint protectors (not man post defenders) too highly, but to me by far they play the most important role on that side of the ball (with the possible exception of today's era of new hand-checking guidelines...I still think anchoring a defense is the most important, but skilled perimeter defenders who can lock a man down without fouling are at a premium). I don't know how successful the thread might be, but if both of you are interested (as well as some other motivated posters), I think the dialogue would be very valuable.

[LBJFTW]

I'm not sure how many superstars - other than LeBron - could lead that Cavs team to the Finals.

When you have a fan base like Cleveland, amazing happens.

[KG215]

1. Shaq
2. Wilt
3. Jordan
4. Kobe
5. Kareem

basically how I see peaks. though I could switch Kobe and Kareem easily.

I have Kareem as the #1 basketball player of all time. Looking at the entirety of his career. His pro career alone has him in the discussion by nyone with half a brain and his college resume is on a level so far beyond anyone else, it's not even funny.

Just...no. Kobe's peak is nowhere close to #4 all-time.

[DatAsh]

Where are those numbers from, DatAsh? Which website?

I've had a lot of the Russell statistics for some time now, I want to say that I originally got them from Elgee's blog, but don't quote me on that.

A lot of the stuff I ended up having to calculate on my own though, and for the early years that involves estimating pace.

I error checked most of my results against against fplii's google doc(there are slight differences that are most likely due to the estimation of pace).

[rmt]

1. Shaq
2. Wilt
3. Jordan
4. Kobe
5. Kareem

basically how I see peaks. though I could switch Kobe and Kareem easily.

I have Kareem as the #1 basketball player of all time. Looking at the entirety of his career. His pro career alone has him in the discussion by nyone with half a brain and his college resume is on a level so far beyond anyone else, it's not even funny.

Kobe's peak is nowhere near top 4. IMO, his peak is the lowest of the top 10 - his calling card will be longevity.

[Young X]

Michael Jordan

- No weaknesses in his game: best scorer ever, great playmaker, great rebounder, great defender, one of the most skilled, and athletic players in nba history, best playoff performer ever

- Statistically, the most dominant player in modern basketball

- Has 5 MVPs, 6 Finals MVPs, 10 Scoring Titles, 3 Steals Titles, DPOY

- Led his team to the 1st and 2nd best records in nba history

- His teams NEVER underachieved

- Arguably a top 3 player in every season as a Bull

- The most exciting player ever

[Dave3]

1. Shaq
2. Wilt
3. Jordan
4. Kobe
5. Kareem

basically how I see peaks. though I could switch Kobe and Kareem easily.

I have Kareem as the #1 basketball player of all time. Looking at the entirety of his career. His pro career alone has him in the discussion by nyone with half a brain and his college resume is on a level so far beyond anyone else, it's not even funny.
If those are your rankings, then NBA speaking, you should have Kobe in your top 3, considering he has a top 4 peak and better longevity than almost anyone. Do you have Kobe in your top 3 ever?

[jongib369]

IMO Wilt Chamberlain is like the Queen on a chessboard (I know Im going to get shit for that LOL) With the right coach who he respected that knew how to play him, he would literally do what you want him to do...which is SO valuable when you need a superstar to change his game from the ground up to fit the team you have..Whether that be scoring a hell of a lot of points if need be...Pass more (led league in assists...with stricter rules back then, if it was today's rules then it would of been 10 + APG) A ton of rebounds, blocks, locked down post etc. Not a single player had an overall game impact across the board like Chamberlain. If coached and utilized properly, can you disagree he has the most potential out of any superstar to ever play the game? PG's and C's are and will always be the most important positions in the game...With Wilt and how he was able to score, rebound, block, defend, and PASS...He was 'essentially' a hybrid of the 2 getting so many damn assists

His willingness to completely change his style of play multiple times is something I dont think any other superstar/HOF player had to do. He went from taking 39 FGA (because his team NEEDED it) to more than 10 less within 4 years while still in his prime. And then later double that even though as he proved in 69, was still more than capable of putting up 60 + (which means if he was never asked to change, Kareem wouldn't even be a close second in total points even with 6 + years.. I think 6?)Lets see a coach make Jordan take 10 less FGA while in his prime...or kareem, kobe, etc....

Longer than Yao Ming, possibly the most athletic center of all time, armed with an unstoppable fadeaway (his go to move, which was ASKED to be taken out of his arsonal...lets see you ask Jordan to stop fading, or dirk...Kareem no more skyhook...Magic no more no looks (lol just joking on that one).. great post moves which would be opened up with todays palming rules, amazing timing on his blocks which was good enough to swat Kareems skyhook post injury post prime on multiple occasions...What would he of done when young?

Some people say Wilts ego would of been a problem if he played on The Celtics which would of caused him to not win as much as Russell...but My counter to that is seeing as Chamberlain was so malleable, and truly respected great coaches...Red, a GREAT manipulator would be able to make chamberlain the best player of all time no question. There is a reason he tried to get wilt so bad....RUSSELL HIMSELF SAID HES PLAYING THE ROLE HE DID BUT BETTER...And I think Red saw he was more than capable of it.

IMO, Red could of worked wilt like this, who could be considered an egoist...but wanted to prove to everyone he was SKILLED

"Wilt, the best thing you can do to be Remembered, respected, and known as the best player to ever play the game you must give up the personal gain for the team gain. For there gain, is also yours. Not only will you be remembered as the most complete center of all time, but also the most unselfish and most willing to adapt to win. That, will make you remembered as the best ever. If you trust me and let me play you the way I envision, I can guarantee you a Ring for every finger and thumb you have. You'll have the Stats & Rings"

Besides Thurmond, NO ONE defended Kareem like Wilt. Wilt post injury, past prime, older than thurmond held kareem to 45% or 47%...Now Kareem did outplay Wilt on many occasions, but Wilt also outplayed kareem on many occasions...I cant post all the stats but the one I think is the best what if is "How chamberlain would of done if he never got injured during the year he was asked to be the main scoring option once again"

Regular season – 1969-70

1. Date: Fri 10/24/69
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 9-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 23 pts, 20 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 9-21 FG/FGA L

who knows where this could of gone :confusedshrug:

I'm sure people will have NO trouble picking this apart and showing me why I'm wrong..but, if I were to build a team I'd do EVERYTHING I can to get Dip...

Put Wilt Chamberlain on the 90's Jazz for the chemistry Of Stockton & Malone....I'd love to see that team

EXTRA

I dont like "best ever"

I believe in tiers

Tier 1 noone higher then the other (writing this quick, ill forget big names by mistake)

Jordan, Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Oscar, Duncan, Hakeem


Tier 2 (All have a case to be in tier 1) -Barkley, Shaq, Kobe, Malone, West, LeBron (To early to say, he could rise or fall), Vspan

ETC

[lakerspng]

If those are your rankings, then NBA speaking, you should have Kobe in your top 3, considering he has a top 4 peak and better longevity than almost anyone. Do you have Kobe in your top 3 ever?

I don't.

All said and done, if he's able to make a real run at Kareem's all time scoring record, as well as the all time playoff scoring record, as well as add another ring, maybe 2 with a finals MVP to his resume, he will be top 5 in my book.

Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Jordan, Magic are my top 5 not in any particular order, other than I believe Kareem is the greatest, but I can also see arguements for the others.

My next 5 is Bird, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem

I think Kobe had a better peak than Russell, Magic, Hakeem, Duncan and Bird, which puts him where he is in my book.

The difference may be that though Kobe has 5 rings, obviously his first 3 are not exactly in the same Alpha status as his last 2. His first ring he was a huge part of and the Lakers obviously would not have won without him, but that ring was Shaq through and through. The second and third, kobe started carrying more and more of the load, but as great as he was in some of those runs (some of which are all time great playoff series), that team took its identity and focus and direction from Shaq. They were Shaq's teams. They were built around him and complimented him and were filled with veterans who looked to him for their inspiration and leadership. Kobe wasn't the born leader Magic was, that took time for him to develop. partly because of Shaq and partly because of him. Kobe was gifted nothing, he earned everything he ever got on an NBA court, but playing with Shaq early in his career definitely made his road to the ring counting hierarchy much easier.

Honestly, all time rank, I have Kobe floating between 6-8. I have him above Bird but I know many others don't (I am a Lakers fan and I hated him with a great passion, so you'll have to forgive my homerism there).

[Gotterdammerung]

To me it would only demonstrate how often GM's make the wrong decision when choosing between comparably talented players.
That they do, but it's usually the dumb GM making the mistake.

That is why I am not talking about a short-sighted random GM with blunders on his record. I'm talking about a poll with the greatest GMs of all time. And they'll go with Wilt Chamberlain.


If the coach, teammates, organization etc. player a greater role than the superstar, how come there are so few teams who've won a title without one of the top 11 players of all-time? We've had 66 teams win Championships in the history of the NBA and 44 of them were won by a team with either Mikan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan or Kobe as their best player. Two-thirds of the titles over 66 years split between 11 players. Consider also that two more titles were led by my #12 player all-time Moses Malone and LeBron James who seems a sure thing for the top ten when all is said and done and now the percentage goes up to nearly 70.
No doubt the great player in basketball gets more share of the credit of success than in almost any other sport. But a sustained excellence spreads the wealth until the relationship between the player and those other factors become symbiotic, where none of us can tell where the credit ends and the influence starts.


Obviously with so few teams having won without the "best player" I don't agree that having a combination of those other things is anywhere near as valuable. You can get a great coach, good chemistry, good role players, even a sidekick with elite or near elite talent. You can't get what those elevn guys bring you though without anything else.
OTOH if you have a weak coach, weak players, weak organization that thinks it can "handle" superstar players with massive egos, you get nothing, except defeats after defeats. I never saw a superstar win a title despite having a shitty organization. It works both ways.

Just observe the difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox in the 50s to 60s. They both were excellent organizations with plenty of talent at hand (Ted Williams for Boston & Dimaggio for NYK). However, Yawkey pampered his guys by getting chummy with them (played cards and went out drinking) and making sure the players were comfortable (nice hotels). Yankees OTOH were all business, very disciplinary, and judged themselves by results. They allowed the manager to make his calls. Results? Red Sox guys got petty and splintered into factions. They won a single pennant. Whereas the Yankees were unified and collective, and won 13 pennants, plus 10 world series.

I understand you want to give all the credit for the team's success to the superstar player, but when they lose, it's not always on them. We like to spin bogus mythical narratives when they win or when they lose, for our simple-minded fanbases, but the truth is far more complicated than most of our journalists are capable of explaining.


Yes, as evidenced by their careers. Obviously you need to have transcendent talent as Jordan and Russell did. And obviously you'd have a better chance with Wilt than a very good but not great player who had Jordan's Killer Instinct and Russell's savvy. But in Russell and Jordan you are talking about two guys who were the most athletic, driven and creative players of their eras. Players who recognized and developed specific skills needed to win games in the league they played. Wilt Wilt it's a guy who could have been all of those things based on his physical gifts alone, but was constantly distracted and thus is still a question mark. Even if Wilt had the focus Russell had, could he really do so much better than 11 in 13 years that it'd be worth taking a chance on? Gambling on losing as many as nine titles just to gain at most two and having the stipulation be you have to keep Wilt Chamberlain focused on playing winning basketball above all other things...If I were a bookie, I'd let you make that bet.

Then again, you have to admit a number of those victories/losses between Chamberlain & Russell often came down to a single bucket.
:oldlol:


The problem with your criteria is that those other factors are always present and that the individual player can have considerable impact on them. A superstar can not only make his teammates better on the court, he can help attract better players to play there and put pressure on management to bring better players in. He can get the coach changed and the team's style changed, all of this has been evidenced. Ignoring that portion of a players impact when evaluating them is no different than saying "I don't consider rebounding because taller players have a built in advantage."

That's a little bit of a stretch, though. :no:
During Russell's and Chamberlain's time the superstar player had less impact/control: players were drafted regionally, and there was no free agency in place.


The same GM's would pick Wilt picked Si Green, Joe Barry Carroll, Sam Bowie, Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Art Heyman, Fred Hetzel, Shawn Bradley, Michael Olowakandi and so on.
False, and you know why. Cherry-picking the worst GMs does not help your case.

It is true that general managers have dropped the ball many times, which means they're not objective, but that is mostly hindsight, and dollars to donuts, I bet YOU would have made the same pick at the same time. Let's not pretend that we knew different at the time. :no:


In an ideal situation where a player reaches their full potential and the factors around him are managed correctly, there are a lot of guys who can be great. In reality there are very few.
In reality, there are other factors than the great player. No contest.

In a fictional draft where we are picking among the greatest ever, who other than the experts on drafting players?

Not us Internet geniuses. Not the fans. Not the journalists. Not the [I]soi disant experts.

The GMs.

And the greatest of them all would agree with my pick.
:cheers:

[DatAsh]

I'm talking about a poll with the greatest GMs of all time. And they'll go with Wilt Chamberlain.

Without doing an actual poll, you have no real way of backing that statement up, and as such it must be chalked up to pure speculation. I could easily say the opposite, and it would hold just as much weight, and be just as true.

We do know that most of the players from the time that played with or against both players were choosing Russell. That we do know.

[Gotterdammerung]

Without doing an actual poll, you have no real way of backing that statement up, and as such it must be chalked up to pure speculation. I could easily say the opposite, and it would hold just as much weight, and be just as true.

I doubt it. You may say so but GMs usually go for size, strength, athleticism, anything quantifiable over intangibles like IQ and competitive drive.

Moreover Chamberlain is easier to build around than Russell.


We do know that most of the players from the time that played with or against both players were choosing Russell. That we do know.
Right.

[G.O.A.T]

Moreover Chamberlain is easier to build around than Russell.



Absurdly false. If that were true he wouldn't have been traded for players you don't build around twice.

If we didn't know how their careers would turn out, sure I can see why someone would take Wilt. But knowing everything that happened. I'd say 90-95% of GM's would take Russell.

[andgar923]

This thread is solely for nominations for the #1 Greatest Player of All-Time.

Any and all discussion regarding the rules and methodology of these rankings should be posted here: THE GREAT DEBATE: Ranking the Greatest Players of All-Time (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257)

Introduction:

One thing has become clear from recent 'greatest player' polls on ISH: the results are heavily influenced by modern fans acting like sheep to vote for their favourite players at the expense of more deserving - but less popular - alternatives. This skews the results in favour of popular and/or modern players.

Something else that I learned was that sometimes I find myself questioning my own judgement after reading a convincing argument written by someone else in favour of a different player.

Indeed, that is why I continue to come back to this forum. Despite the over abundance of childish posters with little knowledge, there is in fact a group of very knowledgeable members whose intelligence and common sense shines through.

All of the above helped me devise an unusual way of ranking players that I am excited about trialling here.

Rules:

- The goal is to establish an intelligently debated list of the greatest players of all-time.

- Each day, ISH members are invited to nominate a player of their choice.

- You can write a maximum of 200 words to justify your choice.

- You can only vote for one player per day/round.

- Each day, I will select the winning player based upon the most persuasive and convincing nomination.

- Your 200 word nominations might include statistics, quotes, descriptions, explanations and video clips (etc) to help justify your decision.

- If your player isn't selected, you can re-use your nomination the next day, if you wish.

Criteria for selecting players:

- It's completely up to you. NBA, ABA, pre-NBA, NCAA, individual awards, team success, peak, longevity, style, substance... it's up to you.

The Greatest Players of All-Time:

01 -
02 -
03 -
04 -
05 -
06 -
07 -
08 -
09 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -

Michael Jeffrey Jordan

Why?

Simple.

Almost any criteria you want judge a player on, he either matches it or surpasses it.

Rings

[jlip]

I tend to rank simply according to tiers, but I will go ahead and bite on this thread. I think that "greatest" is different from 'best." "Best" IMO is simply about on court abilities and performance. "Greatest" is the combination of performance and career achievements. I'm going to make a case for Russell as the greatest. Since the OP has removed the 200 maximum criterion, this may be a little lengthy.

Accomplishments
5 MVPs- Tied for 2nd most all time
11 Rings- Most all time
Widely considered the greatest defender of all time


Winning
What strengthens Russell's rings argument is that he was clearly the most important player on at least 7 (maybe as many as 9) of his championship runs. His coach, teammates, opposing coaches, and opponents all confirm this. Also his rings were won in a very competitive fashion. Nearly 40% of his playoff series en route to his championships went to an elimination game. 60% went at least to a game 6, and only 8% were sweeps. His teams actually were roughly 8-10 combined plays from losing 5 titles. That's a very competitive era there. They were not just breezing their way to titles at all. He led his teams to championships under all conditions including winning 3 playoff series in one season on the road as underdogs. He won with a GOAT coach in Auerbach and more impressively while coaching himself.

Stats
Russell raised his game based upon the magnitude of the moment.

Regular season- 15.1ppg 22.5rpg 4.3apg.
Playoffs 16.2ppg 24.7rpg 4.7 apg
Game sevens- 18ppg and 29.45rpg.

Despite never leading his team in scoring during the regular season, he led them in scoring multiple times during the Finals.

For every scoring Finals record MJ has Russell has the corresponding rebounding record.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/01playoffs/finals/records.htm
http://www.nba.com/history/records/finals_index.html

He also leads all centers in assists per game avg. in the playoffs. He never led his team in assists for a season but did lead his team in assists during the playoffs multiple times. His defense is well lauded, but as seen, he could be, and was effective on both sides of the ball.

Intangibles
It is again the consensus of players and coaches that Russell's presence changed the entire game by making his teammates better and instilling a winner's mentality into his teammates. As an NBA player, he did not have to learn how to win. He did whatever it took to win and didn't care what his stat line was in the process. Russell's winning style was so innovative that even his coach was baffled by it:

So he [Red Auerbach] says to me , "Do you know how good you are?" I said, "Yeah, I know (laughter)." He says, "You're the best player playing basketball." I said, "I know that."

He says, "Well, I want you to know that I know it,[B] but I have to confess I don't know what you're doing, so I can't help you. But I like your results and I'm not gonna mess with it, so I just wanted you to know that. What I'm gonna do is, as I figure out what you're doing, I'll take that and incorporate it into our system and make that part of the system."
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200905/20090522_russell.html

[DatAsh]

I tend to rank simply according to tiers, but I will go ahead and bite on this thread. I think that "greatest" is different from 'best." "Best" IMO is simply about on court abilities and performance. "Greatest" is the combination of performance and career achievements. I'm going to make a case for Russell as the greatest. Since the OP has removed the 200 maximum criterion, this may be a little lengthy.

Accomplishments
5 MVPs- Tied for 2nd most all time
11 Rings- Most all time
Widely considered the greatest defender of all time


Winning
What strengthens Russell's rings argument is that he was clearly the most important player on at least 7 (maybe as many as 9) of his championship runs. His coach, teammates, opposing coaches, and opponents all confirm this. Also his rings were won in a very competitive fashion. Nearly 40% of his playoff series en route to his championships went to an elimination game. 60% went at least to a game 6, and only 8% were sweeps. His teams actually were roughly 8-10 combined plays from losing 5 titles. That's a very competitive era there. They were not just running breezing their way to titles at all. He led his teams to championships under all conditions including winning 3 playoff series in one season on the road as underdogs. He won with a GOAT coach in Auerbach and more impressively while coaching himself.

Stats
Russell raised his game based upon the magnitude of the moment.

Regular season- 15.1ppg 22.5rpg 4.3apg.
Playoffs 16.2ppg 24.7rpg 4.7 apg
Game sevens- 18ppg and 29.45rpg.

Despite never leading his team in scoring during the regular season, he led them in scoring multiple times during the Finals.

For every scoring Finals record MJ has Russell has the corresponding rebounding record.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/01playoffs/finals/records.htm
http://www.nba.com/history/records/finals_index.html

He also leads all centers in assists per game avg. in the playoffs. He never led his team in assists for a season but did lead his team in assists during the playoffs multiple times. His defense is well lauded, but as seen, he could be, and was effective on both sides of the ball.

Intangibles
It is again the consensus of players and coaches that Russell's presence changed the entire game by making his teammates better and instilling a winner's mentality into his teammates. As an NBA player, he did not have to learn how to win. He did whatever it took to win and didn't care what his stat line was in the process. Russell's winning style was so innovative that even his coach was baffled by it:

So he [Red Auerbach] says to me , "Do you know how good you are?" I said, "Yeah, I know (laughter)." He says, "You're the best player playing basketball." I said, "I know that."

He says, "Well, I want you to know that I know it,[B] but I have to confess I don't know what you're doing, so I can't help you. But I like your results and I'm not gonna mess with it, so I just wanted you to know that. What I'm gonna do is, as I figure out what you're doing, I'll take that and incorporate it into our system and make that part of the system."
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200905/20090522_russell.html


I'm curious as to what years you think there was another more important player playing for the Boston Celtics.

Important and best have two somewhat different meanings. Dwyane Wade is better, but Crish Bosh is more important. At the very least, I would say that he was the most important player for ten of their eleven championships, and when you really break it down, probably all eleven.

Even if you you change the argument to "best" I don't see any logical way in which you can conclude that there was a better player on that team than Bill Russell for four of the eleven years.

Good post by the way.

[DatAsh]

I doubt it.


Doubting it is one thing, using your doubt as a basis to say "I'm talking about a poll with the greatest GMs of all time. And they'll go with Wilt Chamberlain.", is something else entirely.

[KOBE143]

This is no debate anymore..

We already know who is the Greatest Player of All Time..

No need for 200 fkng words, I only need 3 words..

"KOBE BEAN BRYANT"

[LeBird]

Are these fanboy rants?

I'd be happy if somebody attempted to disprove them.

This thread should be who's the 2nd best player ever, cause no.1 is locked.

Yes. I can think of half a dozen players that meet the same merits and so no. 1 is nowhere near being locked. Only a biased fan would make that statement. It is debatable that Jordan is the best player during his own career; let alone of all time.

[andgar923]

Yes. I can think of half a dozen players that meet the same merits and so no. 1 is nowhere near being locked. Only a biased fan would make that statement. It is debatable that Jordan is the best player during his own career; let alone of all time.

Well

[LeBird]

You don't seem to understand what context means. Every accolade you point for Jordan can't be compared at face value to the likes of Bird who had a far tougher era in comparison to Jordan for both personal and team achievements. During his own playing career there are 3 GOAT candidates in Bird, Magic and Kareem. All of them have a more than good case. So to state that no.1 is locked just shows your bias/ and or ignorance.

Nevermind guys like Wilt, RusselL and Robinson who werent in his era. Making arguments as facile as yours I can basically say that Bird was better than Jordan in everything bar scoring and man-to-man defense.

[Legends66NBA7]

To me, it comes down to 4 players with the best case for GOAT:

Jordan, Russell, Wilt, and Kareem.

While I won't be participating, my best bet is that it will come down to those 4. Still waiting to see a better case for Kareem, I've seen already from the Jordan, Russell, and Wilt camps.

I think Magic, Bird, and Shaq are also on their levels too, but I don't know if you can make a strong enough case for them.

[DatAsh]

You don't seem to understand what context means. Every accolade you point for Jordan can't be compared at face value to the likes of Bird who had a far tougher era in comparison to Jordan for both personal and team achievements.

I can see this as a somewhat valid argument. No doubt the 80s was one of the toughest era's ever for winning championships. The counter argument might be that Bird generally had quite a bit more help, somewhat nullifying the stiffer competition argument.



During his own playing career there are 3 GOAT candidates in Bird, Magic and Kareem. All of them have a more than good case. So to state that no.1 is locked just shows your bias/ and or ignorance.


It might be an interesting dicscusion to debate as to how many mvps Jordan/Magic/Bird would have accumulated had all three played in the exact same time-frame.



Nevermind guys like Wilt, RusselL and Robinson who werent in his era. Making arguments as facile as yours I can basically say that Bird was better than Jordan in everything bar scoring and man-to-man defense.

Jordan was a better scorer, man-to-man defender, help defender, off-ball defender, and ball handler. Bird was the better rebounder, both offensively and defensively, the better passer and the better playmaker. How much weight is given to each of those measurements is wherein lies the debate.

[LeBird]

I'd generally say that during Bird's career; even when he won titles; he didn't have the best team in the league, no matter how stacked you want to say it is - the Lakers were even more stacked. It was an era where many of those teams, in other eras, could have had dynasties. Jordan, during the part of his career when he won titles generally had the best team in the league and nowhere near the competition to have multiple teams capable of disrupting a title run. The same argument said for Bird can be similarly made for Magic, although to a lesser extent. For similar reasons the MVP award was also split between several greats during that era.

I agree with you on how people perceive the attributes of players and how much people put importance on certain facets. For example, when it came to the more 1v1 orientated defense I acknowledge Jordan's superiority. However, I think team defense is much more important and Bird was great at that. In terms of scoring/rebounding/playmaking I think Bird has the overall advantage too.

That said I'm a huge Bird fan. I put his case forward because I think it isn't stated enough. On the other hand, I'll never pretend he has #1 locked down. I find people who make that claim should be written off as intelligible posters.

[fpliii]

I can see this as a somewhat valid argument. No doubt the 80s was one of the toughest era's ever for winning championships. The counter argument might be that Bird generally had quite a bit more help, somewhat nullifying the stiffer competition argument.



It might be an interesting dicscusion to debate as to how many mvps Jordan/Magic/Bird would have accumulated had all three played in the exact same time-frame.



Jordan was a better scorer, man-to-man defender, help defender, off-ball defender, and ball handler. Bird was the better rebounder, both offensively and defensively, the better passer and the better playmaker. How much weight is given to each of those measurements is wherein lies the debate.

great post as always

I believe you mentioned that your dad shares this account with you...I'm wondering if your dad had a chance to watch Russell and his contemporaries play live? If so, I'm wondering who he'd rate as the best defenders of different types. I'm also interested in hearing some of the more interesting things about Wilt while playing for the Sixers (much more interesting player than when he was with the Warriors IMO from limited knowledge...LA Wilt was great too, but I feel there's more known about him). My dad only started watching when Dr. J and the ABA were big, though when he was young he also got to see those early 70s Knicks squads (and my mom didn't really watch until Magic started playing for LA, since she was in California for some time when she was younger, lol...).

:cheers:

[andgar923]

You don't seem to understand what context means. Every accolade you point for Jordan can't be compared at face value to the likes of Bird who had a far tougher era in comparison to Jordan for both personal and team achievements. During his own playing career there are 3 GOAT candidates in Bird, Magic and Kareem. All of them have a more than good case. So to state that no.1 is locked just shows your bias/ and or ignorance.

Nevermind guys like Wilt, RusselL and Robinson who werent in his era. Making arguments as facile as yours I can basically say that Bird was better than Jordan in everything bar scoring and man-to-man defense.

Uh…. MJ had better individual statistics in Bird's era as well.

And do we have to go through how the early 80s was filled with under conditioned drug addicts?

As far as 'team' achievements, MJ was still young, had a rotating coaching staff, and had a young inexperienced and horrible cast in the early years. Yet he still took them to the playoffs. Also, is it his fault that he dominated and kept other teams from becoming champions during his run?

He dismantled teams, teams that were great teams, drove franchises crazy, his play single handedly changed the way the game was played and how teams drafted.

Bird also never faced the type of defensive intensity and pressure that MJ faced. Shit….a new era of defense was ushered in because of MJ. Almost every team copied/implemented their own version of the "Jordan Rules". Almost every team had to have their pseudo-Jordan "Stopper".

Stop saying shit like that bolded part.

LIke I mentioned in my original post.

Every positive thing that can be said about the players that will be mentioned here, can be said about MJ as well…. but without their negative aspects.

Magic is known for not having great defense….MJ easily top 5 perimeter all time defender

Wilt is known for not being tough minded aka "clutch" in the playoffs…. MJ's legend spawned from there.

Thing is, if you were to get 10 points on a game to create the perfect player (or as close to it as possible) it would be him.

It wouldn't be Bird, Magic, Wilt, Russell, etc. it would be MJ.

Which is why he is universally revered as the GOAT.

[LeBird]

And who cares if he had better stats?

Same druggie was putting up damn good numbers.

Bird took the 2nd worst team to the best record overnight. Jordan took the 2nd best team and it took him years to turn that team around.

Jordan scored a lot of empty points where teams let him cash in because they knew the Bulls weren't going anywhere.

Bird never faced the same type of defensive intensity? Bird played in a league where you could rugby tackle a player and you could see players bleeding due to swipes. Bird never had the kind of favourable refereeing treatment Jordan had.

Jordan is nowhere near the perfect player. Just because he could do a lot of things to a very good level, some to a great, doesn't mean it would outdo Bird's skillset or even Magic's (with his relatively weaker defending). As DatAsh has pointed out, different people put different value on different skills. I personally don't think Jordan has the best skillset because it is too limited in terms of meshing with other players - I think he was fortunate to inherit the team he had. ]

See how easy it is? I can do it too. Stop making stupid statements. I don't care if you think Jordan is #1. That's a decent claim. Pretending there are no other claims is just retarded.

[andgar923]

I'd generally say that during Bird's career; even when he won titles; he didn't have the best team in the league, no matter how stacked you want to say it is - the Lakers were even more stacked. It was an era where many of those teams, in other eras, could have had dynasties. Jordan, during the part of his career when he won titles generally had the best team in the league and nowhere near the competition to have multiple teams capable of disrupting a title run. The same argument said for Bird can be similarly made for Magic, although to a lesser extent. For similar reasons the MVP award was also split between several greats during that era.

I agree with you on how people perceive the attributes of players and how much people put importance on certain facets. For example, when it came to the more 1v1 orientated defense I acknowledge Jordan's superiority. However, I think team defense is much more important and Bird was great at that. In terms of scoring/rebounding/playmaking I think Bird has the overall advantage too.

That said I'm a huge Bird fan. I put his case forward because I think it isn't stated enough. On the other hand, I'll never pretend he has #1 locked down. I find people who make that claim should be written off as intelligible posters.

YOu do know they were underdogs various times right?

They were written off in a number of occasions, they didn't always have the best teams. Depending on which season you wanna judge them by, they didn't have the best 'team' all around. There was teams with better bench and role players, and more importantly better big men.

you make it seem as tho they were just these huge 1000 pd Gorrillas playing against the Clippers or Raptors every night, and no great teams existed, the Bulls were simply untouchable.

Also, MJ fared very well against the top teams in the 80s even tho he didn't have the best cast.

MJ and the Bulls actually had a good record vs the Lakers in the 80s, the team you are so highly of.

[LeBird]

And who cares if he had better stats? He padded them as part of a one-man crusade whereas Bird shared the load. As if stats tell you everything, anyway.

Same druggie was putting up damn good numbers.

Bird took the 2nd worst team to the best record overnight. Jordan took the 2nd worst team and it took him years to turn that team around.

Jordan scored a lot of empty points where teams let him cash in because they knew the Bulls weren't going anywhere.

Bird never faced the same type of defensive intensity? Bird played in a league where you could rugby tackle a player and you could see players bleeding due to swipes. Bird never had the kind of favourable refereeing treatment Jordan had.

Jordan is nowhere near the perfect player. Just because he could do a lot of things to a very good level, some to a great, doesn't mean it would outdo Bird's skillset or even Magic's (with his relatively weaker defending). As DatAsh has pointed out, different people put different value on different skills. I personally don't think Jordan has the best skillset because it is too limited in terms of meshing with other players - I think he was fortunate to inherit the team he had. You're the same genius who said Jordan was on par with Magic and Bird in terms of passing.

See how easy it is? I can do it too. Stop making stupid statements. I don't care if you think Jordan is #1. That's a decent claim. Pretending there are no other claims is just retarded. The reason for the universal adoration is the multi-billion dollar advertising campaign that has been the Jordan brand. Appealing to that is the best you'll have, because on the facts there is no clear #1.

[andgar923]

And who cares if he had better stats?

Same druggie was putting up damn good numbers.

Bird took the 2nd worst team to the best record overnight. Jordan took the 2nd best team and it took him years to turn that team around.

Jordan scored a lot of empty points where teams let him cash in because they knew the Bulls weren't going anywhere.

Bird never faced the same type of defensive intensity? Bird played in a league where you could rugby tackle a player and you could see players bleeding due to swipes. Bird never had the kind of favourable refereeing treatment Jordan had.

Jordan is nowhere near the perfect player. Just because he could do a lot of things to a very good level, some to a great, doesn't mean it would outdo Bird's skillset or even Magic's (with his relatively weaker defending). As DatAsh has pointed out, different people put different value on different skills. I personally don't think Jordan has the best skillset because it is too limited in terms of meshing with other players - I think he was fortunate to inherit the team he had. ]

See how easy it is? I can do it too. Stop making stupid statements. I don't care if you think Jordan is #1. That's a decent claim. Pretending there are no other claims is just retarded.

I brought up stats cause you mentioned Bird having it a harder time, you know "context". That's also the same reason why I brought up the druggie issue, to let you know how silly your claims are. You claim I'm not "intelligible" yet you say shit like "Bird who had a far tougher era", how is one supposed to take that shit serious specially when MJ ripped through that same era, even tho he had yet to hit his prime?

MJ was fortunate to "inherit" that team?

:roll:

MJ doesn't have the best skill set because it's limited in meshing with other players? WTF? are you just making shit up to make an argument? how the f*ck do you even begin to explain that?

The man has 6 rings, how is that not messing? he LED them, his teammates, coaches and rivals have praised him endlessly in how he made them better. They may have hated him, but not every player loved Bird, Magic, Kareem etc.etc. his "skill set" drew constant double and triple teams, he got his teammates open looks, he cleaned up after their defensive mistakes, he let them gamble on defense and roam freely on offense, his skill set became the template (for good or bad) for the modern day player, often imitated never duplicated.

I've said in the past that if there's one man that I'd take as the GOAT >>> MJ is Bird, but no reason has been shown as to why.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Magic Johnson

[LeBird]

YOu do know they were underdogs various times right?

Maybe for 1 title, not the other 5.


They were written off in a number of occasions, they didn't always have the best teams. Depending on which season you wanna judge them by, they didn't have the best 'team' all around. There was teams with better bench and role players, and more importantly better big men.

you make it seem as tho they were just these huge 1000 pd Gorrillas playing against the Clippers or Raptors every night, and no great teams existed, the Bulls were simply untouchable.

Also, MJ fared very well against the top teams in the 80s even tho he didn't have the best cast.

MJ and the Bulls actually had a good record vs the Lakers in the 80s, the team you are so highly of.

They did have the best teams during their title winning years 1990-Jordan 2nd retirement. Forget about hype; hindsight clearly shows what was true.

Even after the Bulls record breaking season, Rodman came out saying it wouldn't have happened in the 80s. Take a look at the Lakers roster in the 80s; do you actually think the Bulls would have maintained the same 6 title winning run against that team? That Lakers team itself won no more than 5 because of the competition it faced.

MJ and the Bulls also had a crap record against the Celtics. Bird sweeping him twice IIRC and outplaying him head-to-head.

As I said, Jordan is definitely a candidate but not near the only candidate.

[Legends66NBA7]

Maybe for 1 title, not the other 5.

Pretty sure 1993 and 1998 they were underdogs. Wasn't 1991 questionable too, as a healthy Laker team would give them trouble ?


As I said, Jordan is definitely a candidate but not near the only candidate.

For sure.

[LeBird]

I brought up stats cause you mentioned Bird having it a harder time, you know "context".

Yes, for winning titles and MVPs. Bird's skillset was different to Jordan's; so how would you do a straight stat comparison anyway? Especially considering that the Bulls were reliant on Jordan and hence he'd have a better share of stats.


That's also the same reason why I brought up the druggie issue, to let you know how silly your claims are. You claim I'm not "intelligible" yet you say shit like "Bird who had a far tougher era", how is one supposed to take that shit serious specially when MJ ripped through that same era, even tho he had yet to hit his prime?

Jordan was a great player and unstoppable on offense. But he didn't rip teams like you think he did. A lot of them let him expend the energy because they knew that the Bulls weren't doing jack whilst Jordan was on his one-man crusade. And that's what happened. Moreover, Bird, with lesser stats, turned around a Celtics team; where Jordan with better stats couldn't. Stats themselves need context and a lot of things can't be contextualised by stats.


MJ was fortunate to "inherit" that team?


Because they were players that did a limited set of things well fantastically which didn't interrupt Jordan's playing or require him to change his play in any fundamental way.


MJ doesn't have the best skill set because it's limited in meshing with other players? WTF? are you just making shit up to make an argument? how the f*ck do you even begin to explain that?

Because unless he is the premier scoring option with a hugely dominant ball-playing role he's not as good as the likes of Bird or Magic who were extremely efficient (Magic, with his shooting - Bird with his shooting and passing).


The man has 6 rings, how is that not messing? he LED them, his teammates, coaches and rivals have praised him endlessly in how he made them better. They may have hated him, but not every player loved Bird, Magic, Kareem etc.etc. his "skill set" drew constant double and triple teams, he got his teammates open looks, he cleaned up after their defensive mistakes, he let them gamble on defense and roam freely on offense, his skill set became the template (for good or bad) for the modern day player, often imitated never duplicated.

The same can be said about a tonne of other players. Winning 6 rings means nothing to me in that era. I consider Bird's 3 in the 80s the equivalent to those 6 that Jordan won in the 90s. I think Magic's 5 is more impressive as well.

The fact that his skillset became a template isn't a good thing IMO because it isn't translatable to a consistent team achievement outside of any player than Jordan and any team bar the Bulls. Give me Bird/Magic skillset any day.


I've said in the past that if there's one man that I'd take as the GOAT >>> MJ is Bird, but no reason has been shown as to why.

Whether you think Bird is better or not is not something I worry about. I am trying to signal to you that it is more than debatable. That only idolworship can be the explanation to see Jordan as #1 and no one else coming near.

[KG215]

Pretty sure 1993 and 1998 they were underdogs. Wasn't 1991 questionable too, as a healthy Laker team would give them trouble ?



For sure.

1991 they weren't really underdogs after the Lakers knocked out the Blazers in the WCF. Now, if the Blazers had won that series and played Chicago, the Bulls would've been the underdogs.

Obviously some were saying or thinking that since the Lakers beat the Blazers (the team most people considered the best in the NBA) they could beat the Bulls. Not to mention that was Chicago's first Finals going up against 5-time champion and 1991 MVP Magic Johnson. There were still questions about Jordan, too, and his ability to lead a team to a championship. The Bulls were probably the favorites but I'm not sure they were overwhelming favorites by any stretch of the imagination. In hindsight, it may seem that way, but at the time it wasn't.

And don't forget, the Bulls were VERY close to going down 1-2 in the series and having to play two more games in LA. Jordan, after a miserable second half, hit a 12ish foot pull-up buzzer beating jumper over Vlade to force OT where the Bulls won game three. Think about that for a second and what it could've done to the team's mental psyche. They already lost game one on their home floor and would've had to dig themselves out of a 1-2 hole on the road.

[Legends66NBA7]

The Bulls were probably the favorites but I'm not sure they were overwhelming favorites by any stretch of the imagination. In hindsight, it may seem that way, but at the time it wasn't.

Okay sure, that makes a bit more sense.

I remember the ending broadcast from Marv Albert saying something of the lines of "Well, we weren't expecting the Lakers to be beaten that easily in this series"... now off course, Lakers weren't full strength, but I suppose he was hinting that a full strength Laker team would win because of experience.


Winning 6 rings means nothing to me in that era.

Got to love these era arguments.

[LeBird]

Got to love these era arguments.

Sorry, I should rephrase that - sounds incredibly silly left like that. It doesn't mean nothing - it is an incredible achievement. But what I mean in terms of 'nothing' is that I don't go +1 to Jordan over Bird, because of it. If you replaced the 90s Bulls and the 80s Celtics, and visa-versa; the Bulls would do awesomely merely to match the Celtics did winning 3 and I see no reason why the Celtics can't get 6. Either way, it's not a 1=1 argument.

That's what I mean by context; I couldn't care less that Jordan also won more 2 MVPs than Bird. Bird was competing with Dr J, Malone, Kareem, Magic and Jordan himself. That he won 3, and in a row, is unbelievable. That he got 4 more runner-ups means that for the majority of his career - even in that era, he was either the 2nd or best player in the league. Again, not a 1=1 argument.

So arguing as if each MVP title or each NBA title was garnered the same exact way, with the same exact competition level, etc, is disingenuous.

[Asukal]

Winning 6 rings means nothing to me in that era.

You lost all credibility when you said this stan. :hammerhead:

[jlip]

I'm curious as to what years you think there was another more important player playing for the Boston Celtics.

Important and best have two somewhat different meanings. Dwyane Wade is better, but Crish Bosh is more important. At the very least, I would say that he was the most important player for ten of their eleven championships, and when you really break it down, probably all eleven.

Even if you you change the argument to "best" I don't see any logical way in which you can conclude that there was a better player on that team than Bill Russell for four of the eleven years.

Good post by the way.

Thanks. I guess I should have said that Russell was clearly the "best" player on at least 7 (maybe 9) of his title runs instead of "most important." The two where I seriously question whether he was the best player are '68 and '69. I was questioning the '57 title for a minute, but his own coach called him the best after that season. So who am I to argue with Red? You're right it could be argued that he was still the most important player even on the '69 team. That can be validated by my next statement. The '69 Celtics experienced the worst losing streak of the "Russell years". He suffers an acute ligament sprain causing him to miss part of one game and the next 4 straight. The Celtics lose all 5 games. The team still had 3 other hall of fame players, but with Russell out they have now lost their coach, best defender, and best rebounder. Russell returns and they win the next 2 games. I'd say that he was very improtant to that team's success.

[G.O.A.T]

Sorry, I should rephrase that - sounds incredibly silly left like that. It doesn't mean nothing - it is an incredible achievement. But what I mean in terms of 'nothing' is that I don't go +1 to Jordan over Bird, because of it. If you replaced the 90s Bulls and the 80s Celtics, and visa-versa; the Bulls would do awesomely merely to match the Celtics did winning 3 and I see no reason why the Celtics can't get 6. Either way, it's not a 1=1 argument.

That's what I mean by context; I couldn't care less that Jordan also won more 2 MVPs than Bird. Bird was competing with Dr J, Malone, Kareem, Magic and Jordan himself. That he won 3, and in a row, is unbelievable. That he got 4 more runner-ups means that for the majority of his career - even in that era, he was either the 2nd or best player in the league. Again, not a 1=1 argument.

So arguing as if each MVP title or each NBA title was garnered the same exact way, with the same exact competition level, etc, is disingenuous.

Do you understand how even though you believe Bird's MVP's are more impressive, others might think Jordan's MVP's are more impressive?

Bird won his three from 1984-1986, after Kareem Doc and Moses prime/peak and before Magic, Jordan's, Hakeem's, Barkley's etc. They players who recieved the second most first place votes during Bird's MVP streak were Bernard King, Terry Cummings and Dominique Wilkins.

Jordan meanwhile won MVP's during the at least one year of the peaks of Magic, Bird, Barkley, Hakeem, Drexler, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq and Karl Malone. The players who finished second to MJ as an aside...Bird, Magic, Drexler, Robinson and Karl Malone.

[andgar923]

Sorry, I should rephrase that - sounds incredibly silly left like that. It doesn't mean nothing - it is an incredible achievement. But what I mean in terms of 'nothing' is that I don't go +1 to Jordan over Bird, because of it. If you replaced the 90s Bulls and the 80s Celtics, and visa-versa; the Bulls would do awesomely merely to match the Celtics did winning 3 and I see no reason why the Celtics can't get 6. Either way, it's not a 1=1 argument.

That's what I mean by context; I couldn't care less that Jordan also won more 2 MVPs than Bird. Bird was competing with Dr J, Malone, Kareem, Magic and Jordan himself. That he won 3, and in a row, is unbelievable. That he got 4 more runner-ups means that for the majority of his career - even in that era, he was either the 2nd or best player in the league. Again, not a 1=1 argument.

So arguing as if each MVP title or each NBA title was garnered the same exact way, with the same exact competition level, etc, is disingenuous.

LOL so much bullshit in all of your replies, I don't even know which ones to reply to or where to begin.

Amazing at how you're grasping at something, anything to criticize or nitpick just to try and prove a point.

For example

[andgar923]

Yes, for winning titles and MVPs. Bird's skillset was different to Jordan's; so how would you do a straight stat comparison anyway? Especially considering that the Bulls were reliant on Jordan and hence he'd have a better share of stats.



Jordan was a great player and unstoppable on offense. But he didn't rip teams like you think he did. A lot of them let him expend the energy because they knew that the Bulls weren't doing jack whilst Jordan was on his one-man crusade. And that's what happened. Moreover, Bird, with lesser stats, turned around a Celtics team; where Jordan with better stats couldn't. Stats themselves need context and a lot of things can't be contextualised by stats.



Because they were players that did a limited set of things well fantastically which didn't interrupt Jordan's playing or require him to change his play in any fundamental way.



Because unless he is the premier scoring option with a hugely dominant ball-playing role he's not as good as the likes of Bird or Magic who were extremely efficient (Magic, with his shooting - Bird with his shooting and passing).



The same can be said about a tonne of other players. Winning 6 rings means nothing to me in that era. I consider Bird's 3 in the 80s the equivalent to those 6 that Jordan won in the 90s. I think Magic's 5 is more impressive as well.

The fact that his skillset became a template isn't a good thing IMO because it isn't translatable to a consistent team achievement outside of any player than Jordan and any team bar the Bulls. Give me Bird/Magic skillset any day.



Whether you think Bird is better or not is not something I worry about. I am trying to signal to you that it is more than debatable. That only idolworship can be the explanation to see Jordan as #1 and no one else coming near.

You're clearly a Kobe stan pretending to be a Bird fan, and it shows here.

Teams "let" MJ expend energy? is that why he was constantly double and triple teamed?

Stats with "context"? how about 6 rings b*tch! you want "context"?

And

[AlphaWolf24]

What debate?

5 Rangz in the worldwide talent filled 00's>6 rangz in the watered down 90's

- soon to pass up WC, MJ , Kand then KAJ on the altime scorer lists...

- too many awards, all NBA / all nba defense/allstar games etc to mention



- the answer is alwas KOBE BRYANT



LMAO @ people taking all these threads serious...and actually trying to get 200 words

[KG215]

Okay sure, that makes a bit more sense.

I remember the ending broadcast from Marv Albert saying something of the lines of "Well, we weren't expecting the Lakers to be beaten that easily in this series"... now off course, Lakers weren't full strength, but I suppose he was hinting that a full strength Laker team would win because of experience.


They were healthy until game five. That's the only game I recall Worthy and Byron Scott missing. They might have been playing a little banged up but they only missed one game in the series and it was probably over by then anyway.

[colts19]

I have always said that you can't compare players that play different positions. Because each position requires a different set of skills to make a TEAM great. I have also always said that I would rather have a great big man to build around than a great small man.

I respect the view point of many of the posters on this board, but sometimes when you are trying to prove a point you may overlook the fact that basketball is a team game. If a player like Bird, Magic or Jordan win it has a lot to do with how they fit with the other players on the court with them. All that being said, here is my list.

Greatest Player of all time.
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Jabbar

Center is always the most important position on a team. So I would pick one of these before I would pick a player from any other position. Not because I think they are better than the Bird's, Magic's and Jordan's of the world, but because it is easier to build around a Center.

Next is.
Magic
Oscar
I. thomas
Nash
Frasier.

Point guard is the next most important.

Next is
Larry Bird greatest forward of all time.

Next is
Jordan greatest 2 guard of all time.

Next is
Duncan greatest Power forward of all time.

[Duncan21formvp]

I have always said that you can't compare players that play different positions. Because each position requires a different set of skills to make a TEAM great. I have also always said that I would rather have a great big man to build around than a great small man.

I respect the view point of many of the posters on this board, but sometimes when you are trying to prove a point you may overlook the fact that basketball is a team game. If a player like Bird, Magic or Jordan win it has a lot to do with how they fit with the other players on the court with them. All that being said, here is my list.

Greatest Player of all time.
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Jabbar

Center is always the most important position on a team. So I would pick one of these before I would pick a player from any other position. Not because I think they are better than the Bird's, Magic's and Jordan's of the world, but because it is easier to build around a Center.

Next is.
Magic
Oscar
I. thomas
Nash
Frasier.

Point guard is the next most important.

Next is
Larry Bird greatest forward of all time.

Next is
Jordan greatest 2 guard of all time.

Next is
Duncan greatest Power forward of all time.

How is it easier to build around Wilt or Shaq or Kareem when each of them lost several times as the favorite and each of them had mega stars on there teams that were arguably top 10 all time?

Not to mention why would you build around guys like Kareem, Wilt and Shaq if you know they will bolt your franchise?

[KG215]

Yes, for winning titles and MVPs. Bird's skillset was different to Jordan's; so how would you do a straight stat comparison anyway? Especially considering that the Bulls were reliant on Jordan and hence he'd have a better share of stats.



Jordan was a great player and unstoppable on offense. But he didn't rip teams like you think he did. A lot of them let him expend the energy because they knew that the Bulls weren't doing jack whilst Jordan was on his one-man crusade. And that's what happened. Moreover, Bird, with lesser stats, turned around a Celtics team; where Jordan with better stats couldn't. Stats themselves need context and a lot of things can't be contextualised by stats.



Because they were players that did a limited set of things well fantastically which didn't interrupt Jordan's playing or require him to change his play in any fundamental way.



Because unless he is the premier scoring option with a hugely dominant ball-playing role he's not as good as the likes of Bird or Magic who were extremely efficient (Magic, with his shooting - Bird with his shooting and passing).



The same can be said about a tonne of other players. Winning 6 rings means nothing to me in that era. I consider Bird's 3 in the 80s the equivalent to those 6 that Jordan won in the 90s. I think Magic's 5 is more impressive as well.

The fact that his skillset became a template isn't a good thing IMO because it isn't translatable to a consistent team achievement outside of any player than Jordan and any team bar the Bulls. Give me Bird/Magic skillset any day.



Whether you think Bird is better or not is not something I worry about. I am trying to signal to you that it is more than debatable. That only idolworship can be the explanation to see Jordan as #1 and no one else coming near.

You know, I thought you were doing a good job and building a semi-decent argument. Then I got to this post and all of that went out the window.

[KG215]

I have always said that you can't compare players that play different positions. Because each position requires a different set of skills to make a TEAM great. I have also always said that I would rather have a great big man to build around than a great small man.

I respect the view point of many of the posters on this board, but sometimes when you are trying to prove a point you may overlook the fact that basketball is a team game. If a player like Bird, Magic or Jordan win it has a lot to do with how they fit with the other players on the court with them. All that being said, here is my list.

Greatest Player of all time.
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Jabbar

Center is always the most important position on a team. So I would pick one of these before I would pick a player from any other position. Not because I think they are better than the Bird's, Magic's and Jordan's of the world, but because it is easier to build around a Center.

Next is.
Magic
Oscar
I. thomas
Nash
Frasier.

Point guard is the next most important.

Next is
Larry Bird greatest forward of all time.

Next is
Jordan greatest 2 guard of all time.

Next is
Duncan greatest Power forward of all time.
Wait, so you have Steve Nash, Walt Frazier, and Isiah Thomas ahead of Bird, Jordan, and Duncan because of their positions?

[rmt]

I have always said that you can't compare players that play different positions. Because each position requires a different set of skills to make a TEAM great. I have also always said that I would rather have a great big man to build around than a great small man.

I respect the view point of many of the posters on this board, but sometimes when you are trying to prove a point you may overlook the fact that basketball is a team game. If a player like Bird, Magic or Jordan win it has a lot to do with how they fit with the other players on the court with them. All that being said, here is my list.

Greatest Player of all time.
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Jabbar

Center is always the most important position on a team. So I would pick one of these before I would pick a player from any other position. Not because I think they are better than the Bird's, Magic's and Jordan's of the world, but because it is easier to build around a Center.

Next is.
Magic
Oscar
I. thomas
Nash
Frasier.

Point guard is the next most important.

Next is
Larry Bird greatest forward of all time.

Next is
Jordan greatest 2 guard of all time.

Next is
Duncan greatest Power forward of all time.

When in NBA history (with the exception of Magic) has the point guard position been so important in winning championships? I don't see any won by Nash, Kidd, Stockton, Chris Paul, etc. If the one of the most important roles of a point guard is to distribute the ball, some one's got to finish. It seems to me that the ones who are finishing and putting points on the board: the Lebrons, Dirks, Kobes, Duncans, Shaqs are the positions that are more important in crunch time than bringing the ball up, handling and distributing the ball. You can take your point guard - I'll take MJ or another of the great bigs.

[G.O.A.T]

I have always said that you can't compare players that play different positions. Because each position requires a different set of skills to make a TEAM great. I have also always said that I would rather have a great big man to build around than a great small man.

I respect the view point of many of the posters on this board, but sometimes when you are trying to prove a point you may overlook the fact that basketball is a team game. If a player like Bird, Magic or Jordan win it has a lot to do with how they fit with the other players on the court with them. All that being said, here is my list.

Greatest Player of all time.
Wilt
Russell
Shaq
Jabbar

Center is always the most important position on a team. So I would pick one of these before I would pick a player from any other position. Not because I think they are better than the Bird's, Magic's and Jordan's of the world, but because it is easier to build around a Center.

Next is.
Magic
Oscar
I. thomas
Nash
Frasier.

Point guard is the next most important.

Next is
Larry Bird greatest forward of all time.

Next is
Jordan greatest 2 guard of all time.

Next is
Duncan greatest Power forward of all time.

Several issues with this mess...

-I don't agree that center is most important anymore, it's just not.
-Duncan's skill set is roughly the same as most centers
-A lot of players play more than one position so obvious the idea that each position requires a different skill set is not true. In Football or Baseball, sure, not in Basketball.
-Point Guard has never been an important position in pro basketball. Besides Magic the rest of the top ten point guards of all-time have tree combined titles as their teams best player.
-The fact that you don't know how to spell Walt Frazier's name suggests you're not qualified to opine on him.
-You're the one ignoring that it's a team game if you think Wilt or Kareem were easier to build around than Magic, Bird or Jordan.
-Centers are more dependent on having the right type of players around them than any other position since they require a lot more from their teammates to run the offense through them.

[WillC]

After much consideration, despite the fact that pauk copied and pasted this from an online article (hopefully written by pauk himself), the winning nomination for the #1 Greatest Player of All-Time is for Michael Jordan (I have highlight in bold the most convincing parts):

[QUOTE=pauk]"In any profession the question that is always asked is, "Who is the best?" People have a desire to determine the one who achieved the greatest success at their field. In many cases there is no definite answer, but we spend our time debating who excelled to the greatest extent.

The NBA is no different. For years basketball fans have argued over who is the greatest player of all time. Players like Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar are among the players who come to mind. However, the one player who defined greatness was Michael Jeffrey Jordan.

It

[DatAsh]

After much consideration, despite the fact that pauk copied and pasted this from an online article (hopefully written by pauk himself), the winning nomination for the #1 Greatest Player of All-Time is for Michael Jordan (I have highlight in bold the most convincing parts):

He used quotes, so I don't think he intended that to be read as his own work.

[KG215]

He used quotes, so I don't think he intended that to be read as his own work.

Yeah, the first time I read it I thought, wow, this can't be pauk's work, but I missed the quotation marks. At least providing a link would've been nice but I don't think he was trying to play it off as his own.

[WillC]

He used quotes, so I don't think he intended that to be read as his own work.

I saw the quote marks. I assumed he actually wrote the piece though.

If not, I will choose someone else's argument (not necessarily for Jordan, but the next most convincing argument).

[DatAsh]

I saw the quote marks. I assumed he actually wrote the piece though.
http://cs.ttu.edu/~cs4392
If not, I will choose someone else's argument (not necessarily for Jordan, but the next most convincing argument).

I wasn't trying to say that you shouldn't use that as a nomination because of the fact(it's a great argument regardless of who wrote it); I was just pointing that out in Pauk's defense.

[LeBird]

Do you understand how even though you believe Bird's MVP's are more impressive, others might think Jordan's MVP's are more impressive?

Bird won his three from 1984-1986, after Kareem Doc and Moses prime/peak and before Magic, Jordan's, Hakeem's, Barkley's etc. They players who recieved the second most first place votes during Bird's MVP streak were Bernard King, Terry Cummings and Dominique Wilkins.

Utterly wrong. He came runner up against those names during his formative years, when those players were still at their peak. Otherwise, Bird could've had 6 in a row.


Jordan meanwhile won MVP's during the at least one year of the peaks of Magic, Bird, Barkley, Hakeem, Drexler, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq and Karl Malone. The players who finished second to MJ as an aside...Bird, Magic, Drexler, Robinson and Karl Malone.

Jordan's MVPs are impressive, but Bird's contemporaries were even more notable. Jordan didn't win during Bird's peak, although Bird came 2nd that year. Bird was on the way down and already had injury problems. The fact that he was still regarded as the 2nd best player in the league shows what a phenom he was.

Moreover, there were no stacked teams like there were in the 80s. When one team is winning the trophies it's hard for the spotlight to be shared.

[hawke812]

Michael Jordan played in an era comparable to elementary school basketball. Sure he won and had success, but what is the substance of his victories?

It's like a kid moving from 4th grade to 5th grade. Sure you are moving to the next grade, but it is not the same as graduating college with honors.

[LeBird]

MJ has most of the best qualities the other players mentioned have, but without their deficiencies.

Blah blah blah, more bullshit and especially the above. Apart from being an elite scorer Jordan had nothing similar to Bird. Bird was a far better rebounder and playmaker. The same goes for Magic. The debate is it is not a 1=1 contention; do you get that or are you coughing up too much rage to let it sink in?


You're clearly a Kobe stan pretending to be a Bird fan, and it shows here.

LOL, I am a Kobe stan when I was in another thread saying Kobe shouldn't even be in the top 10. I'm not a fan of Kobe. Great player, but I'd rather watch about 50 other players before I would watch Kobe. Kobe stan, good one.


Teams "let" MJ expend energy? is that why he was constantly double and triple teamed?

Sure he was. Ever watch him play against the Celts?


Stats with "context"? how about 6 rings b*tch! you want "context"?


Exhibit A on why kids shouldn't talk about old school ballers.


And…. MJ DID change his style of play. MJ could've averaged 35+ points for his entire career and gone out to score 50 every night, but he didn't. He changed the way he played to WIN, to adapt to his teammates.

Nope, he scored less, deferred a bit more; but was still basically the same player. He'd never be the playmaker either Magic or Bird were; he didn't have the mentality or the skill. And really, why would you when it was working for you? Jordan was a bundle of energy on both offense and defense. If he didn't have those players, who didn't really require him to change much, then it could have been very different. The same could be said of maybe all players. Point being: Jordan wasn't this mythical beast that was good at everything. Awesome at scoring, Awesome at defense, but merely very good on everything else.



WOW so much fail I dunno where to start.

:facepalm

Because you're covering yourself in glory at the moment...:lol

[LeBird]

You know, I thought you were doing a good job and building a semi-decent argument. Then I got to this post and all of that went out the window.

I'm doing a good job then. I'm trying to mirror the stupid posts I'm getting, to use it as an example.

[KG215]

LeBird, are you saying this stuff about Jordan (undervaluing his accomplishments and who he was as a player) just to counter the arguments by andgar? Sorry, but most of what you're saying about Jordan is coming off as very ignorant. I agree, he isn't the undisputed GOAT, but some of what you are saying about him isn't making your argument very strong.

EDIT: Never mind, just saw your reply to me.

[G.O.A.T]

Utterly wrong. He came runner up against those names during his formative years, when those players were still at their peak. Do you realise why I think Bird's are more impressive now?

No, you didn't make a point at all.

He was only runner-up to Moses during his peak and Doctor J at the very end of his. Kareem's peak ended in 1980 and Bird was not runner-up then.



Jordan's MVPs are impressive, but Bird's contemporaries were even more notable.

How so? Was Moses better than Hakeem? Doctor J better than Barkley or Malone? A past his prime Kareem better than Shaq or David Robinson?


Jordan didn't win during Bird's peak, although Bird came 2nd that year. Bird was on the way down and already had injury problems. The fact that he was still regarded as the 2nd best player in the league shows what a phenom he was.

Bird wasn't hurt in 1988. He broke down the year after. 1988 was still Bird's peak, although the tail end of it. Surely he was as good or better than than he was from 1980-1983. Also Jordan finished ahead of Bird in 1987, his only other healthy non-rookie season against a prime Bird.

The more I read from you on this, the more I don't see the point your making.

[LeBird]

LeBird, are you saying this stuff about Jordan (undervaluing his accomplishments and who he was as a player) just to counter the arguments by andgar? Sorry, but most of what you're saying about Jordan is coming off as very ignorant. I agree, he isn't the undisputed GOAT, but some of what you are saying about him isn't making your argument very strong.

EDIT: Never mind, just saw your reply to me.

One can debate/argue and give credit to others without shitting on everyone else in the process. That's what andgar is doing by making a joke of the debate with the #1-locked crap.

Jordan has his own case, and you can argue it intelligently. There will never be an argument where he is the clear best as there is enough competition for him. I used Bird and Magic as examples of players who played in his own era that have legitimate cases over him.

I am sure KAJ, Wilt and Russell have more than decent shouts themselves.

[G.O.A.T]

One can debate/argue and give credit to others without shitting on everyone else in the process. That's what andgar is doing by making a joke of the debate with the #1-locked crap.

Jordan has his own case, and you can argue it intelligently. There will never be an argument where he is the clear best as there is enough competition for him. I used Bird and Magic as examples of players who played in his own era that have legitimate cases over him.

I am sure KAJ, Wilt and Russell have more than decent shouts themselves.

Even Larry Bird himself will tell you he has no case over Michael Jordan. Russell has a case, the rest really don't. At least that's where I am at this point after a decade plus of consideration.

[LeBird]

No, you didn't make a point at all.

He was only runner-up to Moses during his peak and Doctor J at the very end of his. Kareem's peak ended in 1980 and Bird was not runner-up then.

True, but Kareem's peak didn't end in 1980. He was still as good as he was in 81 as he was in 80. He just didn't win the award. Dr J won the MVP for the first time, the same year Bird came second. Even in Bird's Rookie season they were talking about him as the MVP.



How so? Was Moses better than Hakeem? Doctor J better than Barkley or Malone? A past his prime Kareem better than Shaq or David Robinson?

Certainly debatable. What wasn't is that they had much better teams which meant they actually won things that put them in the spotlight to win those awards.


Bird wasn't hurt in 1988. He broke down the year after. 1988 was still Bird's peak, although the tail end of it. Surely he was as good or better than than he was from 1980-1983. Also Jordan finished ahead of Bird in 1987, his only other healthy non-rookie season against a prime Bird.

He injured his back in 85 fixing his mom's driveway. It continuously got worse year after year. Because of Bird's fundamentals he'd be great in a wheelchair, but is that the same as Magic, for example, competing with Bird as it was for Jordan? Clearly not. Even still, his doctors said that Bird's last 7 years were about him just keeping his back right so he could get on the court. From videos of matches back then, you can clearly tell he is not moving freely.


The more I read from you on this, the more I don't see the point your making.

Pretty simple: Bird had more competition, and better competition, for his MVPs; and he also played in an era where there were many title challengers and stacked rosters. So to argue that 1=1 in terms of all MVP/Titles across eras are the same is disingenuous.

[LeBird]

Even Larry Bird himself will tell you he has no case over Michael Jordan. Russell has a case, the rest really don't. At least that's where I am at this point after a decade plus of consideration.

Larry Bird will tell you Magic is the best he's seen too. It doesn't matter, Larry did the walking, he never was brash or showy on the mic. Larry is a humble guy; not even his opinion changes the facts.

You are free to your opinion on who is the best but the suggestion that only Russell and Jordan have a case is simply ridiculous though. Maybe it'll take you another 10 years to see that.

[WillC]

Larry Bird will tell you Magic is the best he's seen too. It doesn't matter, Larry did the walking, he never was brash or showy on the mic. Larry is a humble guy; not even his opinion changes the facts.

You are free to your opinion on who is the best; the suggestion that only Russell and Jordan have a case is simply ridiculous though. Maybe it'll take you another 10 years to see that.

There are a number of players who can claim to be the best ever. I agree with LeBird that it's not just Jordan vs Russell.

- There is a convincing argument in Bjarkman's Biographical History of Basketball (1997) that Oscar Robertson is in fact the greatest basketball player of all-time. Nobody was more skilled in more facets of the game than the Big O. LeBron James is the only player to come close.

- Shaq's level of dominance in 2000 to 2002 - when nobody could stop him - gives him a case for being the best ever.

- Wilt Chamberlain, statistically, is the greatest player ever. Even if you factor in the pace of the game (and, thus, the amount of extra shots and rebounds available), his level of dominance over the next best player (at least offensively) will never be replicated. When he averaged 50ppg for the season, Walt Bellamy was second in the league with 30ppg (approximately). That's like Durant leading the league with 30ppg but the next best player only getting 18ppg.

- There are obvious cases for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird too.

Personally, I'm disappointed nobody made a more passionate case for Wilt Chamberlain. I'd be open to a new school of thought that he was in fact the greatest basketball player of all-time.

[G.O.A.T]

True, but Kareem's peak didn't end in 1980. He was still as good as he was in 81 as he was in 80. He just didn't win the award. Dr J won the MVP for the first time, the same year Bird came second. Even in Bird's Rookie season they were talking about him as the MVP.

For sure on Bird, by his second seasons end and the NBA title there was actually some talk of him being the greatest player of all-time. A bit of hyperbole, and a bit of great white hope IMO, but it does speak to how profoundly talented and fundamentally skilled he was.

I don't think Kareem was as good in 1981 though. Career lows in rebounds, assists and blocks. Additionally for the first time in his career since a decade prior against Wilt Chamberlain and the Lakers in the 1971 WCF, Kareem's opponent at center was outscoring and outrebounding him.

Kareem was still very good in 1981, but his peak was over.



He injured his back in 85 fixing his mom's driveway. It continuously got worse year after year. Because of Bird's fundamentals he'd be great in a wheelchair, but is that the same as Magic, for example, competing with Bird as it was for Jordan? Clearly not. Even still, his doctors said that Bird's last 7 years were about him just keeping his back right so he could get on the court. From videos of matches back then, you can clearly tell he is not moving freely.

Agreed but 1986 is often considered Bird's best season. So I'm not willing to extrapolate the effects of that injury to exclude 1987 or 1988 from his peak. The numbers, awards and the Celtics success suggest it was still a prime Larry Bird.



Pretty simple: Bird had more competition, and better competition, for his MVPs and he also played in an era where there were many title challengers and stacked rosters.

Only the Sixers and Lakers in the first half of the decade and Pistons and Lakers in the late eighties had rosters comparable to Bird's Celtics. The Celtics were almost always the best regular season team in the 80's. It's also notable that the Celtics only won one title against the Lakers and did it in seven games only with the help of two major Laker collapses. The Celtics actually finished with a losing record in playoff series against the Doctor J Sixers (1-2), Showtime Lakers (1-2) and Bad Boy Pistons (2-3). Though to be fair, Bird was far from healthy for the last two meetings with Mo-Town.


So to argue that 1=1 in terms of all MVP/Titles across eras are the same is disingenuous.

So is to claim Bird's or Jordan's are definitive greater.

[The Iron Fist]

Kareem. Dominated every level while knowing and understanding the concept of team without being selfish. Always did what was best in order to achieve the ultimate goal, a championship. He often gets overlooked as being one of the great all around players as well. But the man had it all.

[magictricked]

So is this the greatest basketball player of all time or the greatest NBA player?

[G.O.A.T]

There are a number of players who can claim to be the best ever. I agree with LeBird that it's not just Jordan vs Russell.

- There is a convincing argument in Bjarkman's Biographical History of Basketball (1997) that Oscar Robertson is in fact the greatest basketball player of all-time. Nobody was more skilled in more facets of the game than the Big O. LeBron James is the only player to come close.

- Shaq's level of dominance in 2000 to 2002 - when nobody could stop him - gives him a case for being the best ever.

- Wilt Chamberlain, statistically, is the greatest player ever. Even if you factor in the pace of the game (and, thus, the amount of extra shots and rebounds available), his level of dominance over the next best player (at least offensively) will never be replicated. When he averaged 50ppg for the season, Walt Bellamy was second in the league with 30ppg (approximately). That's like Durant leading the league with 30ppg but the next best player only getting 18ppg.

- There are obvious cases for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird too.

Personally, I'm disappointed nobody made a more passionate case for Wilt Chamberlain. I'd be open to a new school of thought that he was in fact the greatest basketball player of all-time.

This will surely come across as an "i'm smarter than you" but I promise you that's not my intention nor my belief.
However, I used to think there was a case for a lot more players, and in a certain sense, I still do. However there is also a case against just about every player and that's where I've begun making my distinctions the past two or three years. Over time as I find out more and more about every player, read more and more arguments for and against and generally absorb more knowledge about the NBA and it's history, I can better contextualize (admittedly in my own mind, for sure, alone) each players accomplishments/achievements and their impact on winning basketball games. As of now I find that I can narrow it down to two people who I cannot make a case against that satisfies me.

I don't consider there to be a strong enough case for Oscar Robertson anymore because to many people who said it early in his career had stopped saying it later in his career. His amazing talent and eye-popping numbers gave many the impression that he'd do things no one else could, but as it unfolded we learned that he too could not do those things.

I don't consider Wilt's case strong enough either when I learn that the main reason for the large disparity between his stats and the rest of the leagues was because the teams primary goal was to have him score as much as was possible, Other teams did not have one player who they feed this way and as his time with the Warriors showed, it was not a winning formula. Beyond that his dominance, while unrivaled probably at it's peak, is far too erratic to be valued over the steady and most of all timely dominance of my top two.

Kareem phoned in half a decade, Bird's body broke down too soon and was probably too limited to begin with and Magic's case was centered around his overtaking Bird when he stepped into the Lakers clear-cut alpha role, but Jordan did the same thing to him shortly after and then rode of into the sunset leaving a wake of would be MJ's in his haste.

It's not that those players weren't great obviously, or even that Jeffery and Felton are worlds better. It's that I believe I have enough evidence and have considered every argument I've heard or heard of, to make a clear distinction between those two and the rest of people who played the game.

[G.O.A.T]

Always did what was best in order to achieve the ultimate goal, a championship.

When was distancing himself from teammates what was best for winning a Championship?

[LeBird]

For sure on Bird, by his second seasons end and the NBA title there was actually some talk of him being the greatest player of all-time. A bit of hyperbole, and a bit of great white hope IMO, but it does speak to how profoundly talented and fundamentally skilled he was.

I don't think Kareem was as good in 1981 though. Career lows in rebounds, assists and blocks. Additionally for the first time in his career since a decade prior against Wilt Chamberlain and the Lakers in the 1971 WCF, Kareem's opponent at center was outscoring and outrebounding him.

Kareem was still very good in 1981, but his peak was over.

He had 0.5 less rebounds (10.8 v 10.3) 0.5 blocks (3.4 vs 2.9) and whilst he had about an assist less he scored almost 2 more points than the previous season. Saying this season was different to his last is hair splitting.


Agreed but 1986 is often considered Bird's best season. So I'm not willing to extrapolate the effects of that injury to exclude 1987 or 1988 from his peak. The numbers, awards and the Celtics success suggest it was still a prime Larry Bird.

Just because it was Bird's best season doesn't mean he couldn't have had an even better one if he hadn't gotten injured. By 87 he had 2 years of constant physical therapy on his back and he'd lost a step. I am not going to say Bird was a bad player, I am just saying if he hadn't gotten injured he may have won even more MVPs in a row. To say Jordan faced Bird at his peak is unfair to someone like Magic who also had 3 MVPS and really faced Bird at his peak.


Only the Sixers and Lakers in the first half of the decade and Pistons and Lakers in the late eighties had rosters comparable to Bird's Celtics. The Celtics were almost always the best regular season team in the 80's. It's also notable that the Celtics only won one title against the Lakers and did it in seven games only with the help of two major Laker collapses. The Celtics actually finished with a losing record in playoff series against the Doctor J Sixers (1-2), Showtime Lakers (1-2) and Bad Boy Pistons (2-3). Though to be fair, Bird was far from healthy for the last two meetings with Mo-Town.

You're arguing as if I think the Celtics were the best team of the decade; no, the Lakers were. The point was that those teams provided far more competition so to see the titles split is no surprise.

Consider that the Lakers won 5 in that decade, and the Bulls won 6 in the 90s. I think everyone and their mama knows how stacked that Lakers team was, and it still didn't win as many. That's why 1=/=1.


So is to claim Bird's or Jordan's are definitive greater.

Good point, but I am not the one claiming Bird is the greatest and has #1 locked. That's a point you should be sharing to someone else.

[WillC]

So is this the greatest basketball player of all time or the greatest NBA player?

Basketball player.

I'm hoping someone will make an argument for Nat Holman or Hank Luisetti at some point.

[LeBird]

It's not that those players weren't great obviously, or even that Jeffery and Felton are worlds better. It's that I believe I have enough evidence and have considered every argument I've heard or heard of, to make a clear distinction between those two and the rest of people who played the game.

Even in that sense; this is your opinion. You should realise that people weight certain things differently, and a change here or there can change rankings - that's how close they are. And if you're not saying they're that close; then I don't know what to tell you.

[magictricked]

Basketball player.

I'm hoping someone will make an argument for Nat Holman or Hank Luisetti at some point.


Then they got it wrong already. Kareem is the greatest basketball player ever. Jordan best NBA, Kareem best basketball player

[magictricked]

When was distancing himself from teammates what was best for winning a Championship?
Teams from all range of sports have won titles with bad chemistry. Discounting Kareem because he wasn't a good locker room guy is plain old silly. It's what happens on the floor, not in the newspapers.

[WillC]

This will surely come across as an "i'm smarter than you" but I promise you that's not my intention nor my belief.
However, I used to think there was a case for a lot more players, and in a certain sense, I still do. However there is also a case against just about every player and that's where I've begun making my distinctions the past two or three years. Over time as I find out more and more about every player, read more and more arguments for and against and generally absorb more knowledge about the NBA and it's history, I can better contextualize (admittedly in my own mind, for sure, alone) each players accomplishments/achievements and their impact on winning basketball games. As of now I find that I can narrow it down to two people who I cannot make a case against that satisfies me.

I don't consider there to be a strong enough case for Oscar Robertson anymore because to many people who said it early in his career had stopped saying it later in his career. His amazing talent and eye-popping numbers gave many the impression that he'd do things no one else could, but as it unfolded we learned that he too could not do those things.

I don't consider Wilt's case strong enough either when I learn that the main reason for the large disparity between his stats and the rest of the leagues was because the teams primary goal was to have him score as much as was possible, Other teams did not have one player who they feed this way and as his time with the Warriors showed, it was not a winning formula. Beyond that his dominance, while unrivaled probably at it's peak, is far too erratic to be valued over the steady and most of all timely dominance of my top two.

Kareem phoned in half a decade, Bird's body broke down too soon and was probably too limited to begin with and Magic's case was centered around his overtaking Bird when he stepped into the Lakers clear-cut alpha role, but Jordan did the same thing to him shortly after and then rode of into the sunset leaving a wake of would be MJ's in his haste.

It's not that those players weren't great obviously, or even that Jeffery and Felton are worlds better. It's that I believe I have enough evidence and have considered every argument I've heard or heard of, to make a clear distinction between those two and the rest of people who played the game.

Your arguments against the credentials of Wilt, Kareem and others are valid.

However, you overlooked criticisms that might be levied against Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.

For instance, Bill Russell is clearly the worst offensive player of those discussed above. Of course, his offense wasn't limited enough to prevent him from winning. However, how much of that success was due to him having the best coach and the best teammates of any superstar at the time?

In a different situation, Russell would not have 11 championships and would not be in the conversation for the greatest of all-time.

Should we really be rewarding a player for the situation he found himself in?

(Note: I am playing devil's advocate here; I happen to rate Russell higher than most)

Meanwhile, Michael Jordan was only able to dominate the league once Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were on the decline. Who was his true nemesis? Other legendary players had to battle equally talented rivals during the peak of their respective careers; Bird vs Magic, Wilt vs Russell, Shaq vs Duncan. Who was Jordan's competition? Sure, the league was full of stars in the 1990s, but none of the top 10 players of all-time were in their prime during the 1990s.... except Jordan.

Malone? Kemp? Drexler? Stockton? Ewing? Barkley?

Plenty of great players. But none are elite superstars.

How things might have been different if Jordan's Bulls faced Olajuwon's Rockets in the Finals....

[G.O.A.T]

He had 0.5 less rebounds (10.8 v 10.3) 0.5 blocks (3.4 vs 2.9) and whilst he had about an assist less he scored almost 2 more points than the previous season. Saying this season was different to his last is hair splitting.

Additionally consider that Magic missed more than haf the season you'd expect them to go up and 1980 was already the edge of Kareem's peak IMO. Had it not been for his play in the playoffs I'd have said his peak was over in 1979. Kareem had been trending downward for a few years, you have to draw the line somewhere, there makes the most sense to me.


Just because it was Bird's best season doesn't mean he couldn't have had an even better one if he hadn't gotten injured. [/quote]

Also doesn't mean he would have had a better one. Maybe the injury made Bird work harder because of what a great competitor he was. Maybe he was more determined to prove himself. Who cares...


By 87 he had 2 years of constant physical therapy on his back and he'd lost a step. I am not going to say Bird was a bad player, I am just saying if he hadn't gotten injured he may have won even more MVPs in a row. To say Jordan faced Bird at his peak is unfair to someone like Magic who also had 3 MVPS and really faced Bird at his peak.

So in 1981 Kareem posts career lows in rebounds, assists, steals and blocks and it's still his prime, but Bird sets a career high for apg in '87 and ppg in '88 and those seasons are past his prime?

Yes Bird had slowed down physically, but he had gotten smarter and more skilled. His game was never dependent on the physical and had it not been for the pain he felt by 1989 he'd have kept being great playing through it. He was playing 75 games a year and posting some of the best numbers of his career while contending for titles. That's peak play to me.



You're arguing as if I think the Celtics were the best team of the decade; no, the Lakers were. The point was that those teams provided far more competition so to see the titles split is no surprise.

The rest of the league was weak though relative to the elite teams. Thus it was easier to get deep into the playoffs. When Bird's Celtics meet teams as good or better than them, they lsot as often as they won, no shame in that. But when Jordan's Bulls meet teams as good or better than them, they owned them. The only exception was the Bad Boy Pistons and the Sweep the Bulls put on them in 1991 ended the era.


Consider that the Lakers won 5 in that decade, and the Bulls won 6 in the 90s. I think everyone and their mama knows how stacked that Lakers team was, and it still didn't win as many. That's why 1=/=1.

What's your point? That sounds like an argument for Jordan, not Bird.

[LeBird]

Additionally consider that Magic missed more than haf the season you'd expect them to go up and 1980 was already the edge of Kareem's peak IMO. Had it not been for his play in the playoffs I'd have said his peak was over in 1979. Kareem had been trending downward for a few years, you have to draw the line somewhere, there makes the most sense to me.

You're trying to split hairs on basically identical statlines so you can hold to your opinion. This isn't the sign of an objective person.



Also doesn't mean he would have had a better one. Maybe the injury made Bird work harder because of what a great competitor he was. Maybe he was more determined to prove himself. Who cares...

The fact that we can't predict it as a guarantee doesn't mean that we can't use common sense: a player who is injured is likely to be inferior to the same player uninjured and uninhabited.


So in 1981 Kareem posts career lows in rebounds, assists, steals and blocks and it's still his prime, but Bird sets a career high for apg in '87 and ppg in '88 and those seasons are past his prime?

He won the MVP the year before with basically the same statline. I am not saying Bird was crap; I am saying it's not as if Jordan bested the best of Bird. By 87, that had gone.

There is a difference in the comparison: Bird was injured. What are you saying was KAJ's reason was? He was basically the same player the year after.

Stats simply don't say everything and need context. You should know this bigging up Russell; because Wilt owns him statistically.


Yes Bird had slowed down physically, but he had gotten smarter and more skilled. His game was never dependent on the physical and had it not been for the pain he felt by 1989 he'd have kept being great playing through it. He was playing 75 games a year and posting some of the best numbers of his career while contending for titles. That's peak play to me.

A lot of Bird's numbers won't see as dramatic of a drop since he was so fundamentally sound. His teammates being injured also meant he got a better share of the spoils. In terms of his affect on the game, it doesn't represent the same Bird that was winning MVP titles consecutively and winning titles. It's ironic that you think one is the same peak based on stats, and yet another guy (KAJ) isn't.



The rest of the league was weak though relative to the elite teams. Thus it was easier to get deep into the playoffs. When Bird's Celtics meet teams as good or better than them, they lsot as often as they won, no shame in that. But when Jordan's Bulls meet teams as good or better than them, they owned them. The only exception was the Bad Boy Pistons and the Sweep the Bulls put on them in 1991 ended the era.

No it wasn't. Teams like the Rockets and the Bucks caused upsets because of their personnel. These teams in the 90s would've been title contenders, just as they were (although sporadically) in the 80s.


What's your point? That sounds like an argument for Jordan, not Bird.

How does it? He won nothing in the 80s. 80s Celtics > 90s Bulls (at worst, even); and they only won 3.

[Legends66NBA7]

Sorry, I should rephrase that - sounds incredibly silly left like that. It doesn't mean nothing - it is an incredible achievement. But what I mean in terms of 'nothing' is that I don't go +1 to Jordan over Bird, because of it. If you replaced the 90s Bulls and the 80s Celtics, and visa-versa; the Bulls would do awesomely merely to match the Celtics did winning 3 and I see no reason why the Celtics can't get 6. Either way, it's not a 1=1 argument.

The Bulls had to go through some pretty tough teams in their era, as I would like to keep things within their era. Beating multiple 60+ win teams in the 90's, my assumption is that if you wanted to switch the Bulls to the 80's, they would have to have more depth (since it is a different era).


That's what I mean by context; I couldn't care less that Jordan also won more 2 MVPs than Bird. Bird was competing with Dr J, Malone, Kareem, Magic and Jordan himself. That he won 3, and in a row, is unbelievable. That he got 4 more runner-ups means that for the majority of his career - even in that era, he was either the 2nd or best player in the league. Again, not a 1=1 argument.

You could actually make the argument that Jordan deserved more MVP's. I heard he was robbed in 1993 and 1997, as well (look what happened in the Finals those years), could have made a case 1990 too. He also had to up against like prime Bird, Magic, but like some mentioned here, the great era of centers and power forwards too.


So arguing as if each MVP title or each NBA title was garnered the same exact way, with the same exact competition level, etc, is disingenuous.

No title is garnered the same exact way, but I view it has a tough accomplishment to get and the fact that Jordan 3 peated twice, that's something I can't just overlook from a competition stand point, especially when they were underdogs in at least 2 of them.


You're clearly a Kobe stan pretending to be a Bird fan, and it shows here.

How do fans, particularly Jordan fans, draw conclusions like these ? Weird...

[G.O.A.T]

Your arguments against the credentials of Wilt, Kareem and others are valid.

However, you overlooked criticisms that might be levied against Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.


For instance, Bill Russell is clearly the worst offensive player of those discussed above.

True but when did it interfere with his team winning. Jordan is clearly the worst defensive anchor, Kareem the worst perimeter defender by far. Bird the worst athlete etc. It only matters to me if it stops them from winning.



Of course, his offense wasn't limited enough to prevent him from winning. However, how much of that success was due to him having the best coach and the best teammates of any superstar at the time?

I like that you're following me, always enough talking with you. Russell has a great coach, but one who won zero titles in nearly a decade without Russell. He had great teammates who combined have about five rings without Russell. Even when Auerbach was gone, he still won. Even when he didn't have the best teammates, he still won. Every single player on the roster, the coach, the owner and 98% of the players in the league were different between the time of Russell's first title and his last. He answered those critiques during his career so they don't hold up for me now.


In a different situation, Russell would not have 11 championships and would not be in the conversation for the greatest of all-time.

Or he'd have 13 and there would be no argument. I never base my conclusions on anything hypothetical.


Should we really be rewarding a player for the situation he found himself in?

Should we be punishing him?

By the way that situation was with the only team left in the NBA that hadn't been to the Finals since the leagues inception.


(Note: I am playing devil's advocate here; I happen to rate Russell higher than most)

I understand and enjoy the discussion as I mentioned prior.


Meanwhile, Michael Jordan was only able to dominate the league once Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were on the decline.

He took Magic down while he was still at his peak. Magic had won the 1990 MVP and was second to MJ in 1991. Magic was only 31 at the time of the NBA finals. As for Bird, his decline started before MJ hit his peak. By 1989, when the Bulls were just starting to compete (Grant and Pippen's second year) Bird was laying on the floor waving a towel.


Who was his true nemesis? Other legendary players had to battle equally talented rivals during the peak of their respective careers; Bird vs Magic, Wilt vs Russell, Shaq vs Duncan. Who was Jordan's competition? Sure, the league was full of stars in the 1990s, but none of the top 10 players of all-time were in their prime during the 1990s.... except Jordan.

To me it's a case for Jordan. Here you have a generation that produced more superstars than any other and none are even considered a rival to MJ more than temporarily. How about the fact that Hakeem Olajuwon, a top ten player in most people's mind, was never considered even close to Jordan's all-time level. More on this in response to your next counterpoint.


How things might have been different if Jordan's Bulls faced Olajuwon's Rockets in the Finals....

Olajuwon would have lost twice in the finals not once?

No one can say, again I hate hypotheticals, but considering MJ's 6-0 finals record, It'd be hard to bet against him.

[LeBird]

True but when did it interfere with his team winning. Jordan is clearly the worst defensive anchor, Kareem the worst perimeter defender by far. Bird the worst athlete etc. It only matters to me if it stops them from winning.


Your argument falls apart on this premise. How can you gauge how they've won if you don't look at what they contributed? In particular, stats for half the game (i.e. offense?). If you ignore that facet, then you're basically saying you only care who won the most - irrespective of the reasons/contributions. That would mean that Jordan would be at best the 10th best player, equal with about 3 others.

[G.O.A.T]

Even in that sense; this is your opinion. You should realise that people weight certain things differently, and a change here or there can change rankings - that's how close they are. And if you're not saying they're that close; then I don't know what to tell you.

Of course it's my opinion, but it's backed by a lot of time and thought and having considered as much information as is available so far. As I stated then, I think only Russell and Jordan have a case.

The entire point of these things are to explain your opinion and allow others to explain theirs. Now opinions can be wrong, let's not pretend they can't. If my opinion is that Scottie Pippen had a greater peak than Michael Jordan I am wrong. There is enough evidence to draw a definitive conclusion on that topic.

[LeBird]

The Bulls had to go through some pretty tough teams in their era, as I would like to keep things within their era. Beating multiple 60+ win teams in the 90's, my assumption is that if you wanted to switch the Bulls to the 80's, they would have to have more depth (since it is a different era).

Watered down era. Only 1-2 teams really challenged the Bulls and not very well and not for very long.




You could actually make the argument that Jordan deserved more MVP's. I heard he was robbed in 1993 and 1997, as well (look what happened in the Finals those years), could have made a case 1990 too. He also had to up against like prime Bird, Magic, but like some mentioned here, the great era of centers and power forwards too.


You could argue the same for other GOAT candidates too. Jordan debuted in 84 and only won 1 MVP during that era.



No title is garnered the same exact way, but I view it has a tough accomplishment to get and the fact that Jordan 3 peated twice, that's something I can't just overlook from a competition stand point, especially when they were underdogs in at least 2 of them.

They were underdogs in probably 1 of them, and even in that one the team in question had two of their starters unfit and eventually missing games.


How do fans, particularly Jordan fans, draw conclusions like these ? Weird...

Beats me. Actually funny.

[LeBird]

Of course it's my opinion, but it's backed by a lot of time and thought and having considered as much information as is available so far. As I stated then, I think only Russell and Jordan have a case.

As opposed to everyone else creating their opinions on a whim?

This is what I do: respect other peoples' opinions because the comparisons are close enough. How I do it: not saying something as stupid as "the player that I think is the best, only has a shot".


The entire point of these things are to explain your opinion and allow others to explain theirs. Now opinions can be wrong, let's not pretend they can't. If my opinion is that Scottie Pippen had a greater peak than Michael Jordan I am wrong. There is enough evidence to draw a definitive conclusion on that topic.

Yes, because the difference statistically and anecdotally points to that (MJ>Pippen) being a very accurate description. There is no encompassing measure where Jordan (or Russell) is of a different class to Bird, Magic, Wilt or KAJ.

[G.O.A.T]

Your argument falls apart on this premise. How can you gauge how they've won if you don't look at what they contributed? In particular, stats for half the game (i.e. offense?).

Because a lot more goes into a player scoring than can be measured by stats. I have looked into what he contributed, he was crucial to there offense. When they needed him to score he scored, when they needed to run the offense through him as a passer he did that, when they needed him to pull a big man away from the basket by setting screens and positioning himself for rebounds, he did. No one is ignoring offense. I'm ignoring that he was the worst offensive player out of the top ten all-time because it didn't hurt his teams chances at winning.

If Russell's offensive stats were poor, or even average, I'd be able to see how someone could see this as a detriment to the team, but the Celtics were a poor offensive team overall. They didn't win with offense, they won with defense and again what is important to me is how you use the skills you have to impact your teams winning.


If you ignore that facet, then you're basically saying you only care who won the most - irrespective of the reasons/contributions. That would mean that Jordan would be at best the 10th best player, equal with about 3 others.

Only if I was an idiot who could not discern between a player like Jordans contribution to winning a title from a player like KC Jones.

Thankfully, I'm not that dumb.

[WillC]

Your arguments against the credentials of Wilt, Kareem and others are valid.

However, you overlooked criticisms that might be levied against Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.



True but when did it interfere with his team winning. Jordan is clearly the worst defensive anchor, Kareem the worst perimeter defender by far. Bird the worst athlete etc. It only matters to me if it stops them from winning.




I like that you're following me, always enough talking with you. Russell has a great coach, but one who won zero titles in nearly a decade without Russell. He had great teammates who combined have about five rings without Russell. Even when Auerbach was gone, he still won. Even when he didn't have the best teammates, he still won. Every single player on the roster, the coach, the owner and 98% of the players in the league were different between the time of Russell's first title and his last. He answered those critiques during his career so they don't hold up for me now.



Or he'd have 13 and there would be no argument. I never base my conclusions on anything hypothetical.



Should we be punishing him?

By the way that situation was with the only team left in the NBA that hadn't been to the Finals since the leagues inception.



I understand and enjoy the discussion as I mentioned prior.



He took Magic down while he was still at his peak. Magic had won the 1990 MVP and was second to MJ in 1991. Magic was only 31 at the time of the NBA finals. As for Bird, his decline started before MJ hit his peak. By 1989, when the Bulls were just starting to compete (Grant and Pippen's second year) Bird was laying on the floor waving a towel.



To me it's a case for Jordan. Here you have a generation that produced more superstars than any other and none are even considered a rival to MJ more than temporarily. How about the fact that Hakeem Olajuwon, a top ten player in most people's mind, was never considered even close to Jordan's all-time level. More on this in response to your next counterpoint.



Olajuwon would have lost twice in the finals not once?

No one can say, again I hate hypotheticals, but considering MJ's 6-0 finals record, It'd be hard to bet against him.

I agree with each of your comments above.

Regardless, my point is that, much as there are criticisms that can be levied against Bird, Magic, Wilt and other superstars, so too can we find fault in Russell's and Jordan's legacy.

However, perhaps it is easier to refute criticisms against the latter two players.

In other words, the criticisms hold less weight for Russell and Jordan.

On a separate note, imagine you'd never seen any 'greatest player' rankings. Wouldn't you assume George Mikan should be ranked in the top 4 or 5? I certainly would.

I think our judgements have become clouded in recent years by Bill Simmons, Slam magazine and other journalistic attempts to rank players.

That's why I started this thread; I wanted to see people deconstructing the rankings and starting afresh.

[LeBird]

Because a lot more goes into a player scoring than can be measured by stats. I have looked into what he contributed, he was crucial to there offense. When they needed him to score he scored, when they needed to run the offense through him as a passer he did that, when they needed him to pull a big man away from the basket by setting screens and positioning himself for rebounds, he did. No one is ignoring offense. I'm ignoring that he was the worst offensive player out of the top ten all-time because it didn't hurt his teams chances at winning.

If Russell's offensive stats were poor, or even average, I'd be able to see how someone could see this as a detriment to the team, but the Celtics were a poor offensive team overall. They didn't win with offense, they won with defense and again what is important to me is how you use the skills you have to impact your teams winning.



And who says that had anything to do with him? It could be his teammates (and was) that filled in that deficit. That's why comparisons are tough: once you contextualise how things were achieved it's difficult to say that Russell deserves the recognition as the GOAT and Wilt doesn't have a chance. Especially considering that Wilt dominated Russell and that it was the rest of his team that usually lacked - not him.


Moreover, you're not consistent. If what you say is your measure; then not even Jordan can lick Russell's boots.

Only if I was an idiot who could not discern between a player like Jordans contribution to winning a title from a player like KC Jones.

Thankfully, I'm not that dumb.

But what about Jordan and KAJ? Or Jordan and Bird. You've missed the point: you can't dismiss anything just because it fits your preconceived notion of what is necessary. That is a subjective point of view that shouldn't be used to make definitive statements.

[G.O.A.T]

As opposed to everyone else creating their opinions on a whim?

No one suggested that.


This is what I do: respect other peoples' opinions because the comparisons are close enough. How I do it: not saying something as stupid as "the player that I think is the best, only has a shot".

No one said that.



Yes, because the difference statistically and anecdotally points to that (MJ>Pippen) being a very accurate description. There is no encompassing measure where Jordan (or Russell) is of a different class to Bird, Magic, Wilt or KAJ.

Yes. My point is that you'd need to accumulate a lot more information to make a distinction between players so much closer.

I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong, I'm only challenging your opinions because they are different than mine. Maybe I can learn something or see something a different way than I previously have.

[LeBird]

Yes. My point is that you'd need to accumulate a lot more information to make a distinction between players so much closer.

I'm not trying to argue that you are wrong, I'm only challenging your opinions because they are different than mine. Maybe I can learn something or see something a different way than I previously have.

And my point is that there is no single way to look at it, as if my way may be right and you will agree with me or visa versa. It's not a matter of science where mine will supersede yours and you'll use my formula henceforth. It can be that we see things differently in terms of what is important and for that reason we'll never change our positions.


We can, however, appreciate, as a priori, that there are great arguments for the likes of Bird, Magic, etc. And when you do that, you wont make definitive statements where you can't...as you understand that it gets subjective when you're talking about a certain handful of players. Even on statistical grounds, the more you dig and the finer the margins the less reliable that data is.

[G.O.A.T]

And who says that had anything to do with him?

His coach, teammates, opponents, the media the time, his biographers, other athletes in their biographies and finally me because I read what all those people had to say.


It could be his teammates (and was) that filled in that deficit.

Could have been, but wasn't. Celtics were last or near last in offense most every year. Russell consistently upped his offensive performance more than any teammate in the playoffs (even Sam Jones) and in many series or entire playoffs he lead the team in scoring and/or assists.


That's why comparisons are tough: once you contextualise how things were achieved it's difficult to say that Russell deserves the recognition as the GOAT and Wilt doesn't have a chance.

I diagree here. It used to be very tough for me to say that. Knowing everything I know now, it's easy. The context of Russell and Wilt's battles is what has given me clarity. Doesn't mean I'm right, but based on the information I have, that's how I feel.


Especially considering that Wilt dominated Russell and that it was the rest of his team that usually lacked - not him.

This is an example of an opinion that is wrong.

Statistically Wilt dominated sure, but he was trying to.
Russell was trying to win and he dominated in that regard.



But what about Jordan and KAJ? Or Jordan and Bird. You've missed the point: you can't dismiss anything just because it fits your preconceived notion of what is necessary. That is a subjective point of view that shouldn't be used to make definitive statements.

Any ranking is subjective, mine is more so than yours or anyone else's. If I was going to spend as much time as I do researching basketball, I'm surely not going to just resign to drawing or advancing no conclusions.

[LeBird]

And who says that had anything to do with him?[/quotes]

His coach, teammates, opponents, the media the time, his biographers, other athletes in their biographies and finally me because I read what all those people had to say.

It doesn't matter what they said. That is anecdotal evidence. That does not prove anything bar the existence of opinions. It isn't definitive by any measure. A lot of that is also influenced by winning (compare that to a Russell clone who had the same exact output and lost) or by character (people disliked Wilt).


Could have been, but wasn't. Celtics were last or near last in offense most every year. Russell consistently upped his offensive performance more than any teammate in the playoffs (even Sam Jones) and in many series or entire playoffs he lead the team in scoring and/or assists.

Could have been is not a hypothetical; it is a possibility that you can't prove. You can't say Russell's team won despite his low scoring because even if they were the worst team he relied on others to score more in his place.

Moreover, whether he shows up in the playoffs is irrelevant. They have to get to the playoffs first. That is still reliance on others.


I diagree here. It used to be very tough for me to say that. Knowing everything I know now, it's easy. The context of Russell and Wilt's battles is what has given me clarity. Doesn't mean I'm right, but based on the information I have, that's how I feel.

I am not here to change your opinion. I am here to say that it is close enough that people will disagree. Whether it is your opinion that they're not close is not a statement of fact but another opinion.


This is an example of an opinion that is wrong.

Statistically Wilt dominated sure, but he was trying to.
Russell was trying to win and he dominated in that regard.

Russell can't guarantee a win anymore than Jesus could. All he can do is have a certain output and his teammates have to add to that to create an aggregate that the other team can't beat. What is certain is that when it comes to individual output that Wilt dominated Russell. It is that the rest of Wilt's team did not add enough to the aggregate to get the win.


Any ranking is subjective, mine is more so than yours or anyone else's. If I was going to spend as much time as I do researching basketball, I'm surely not going to just resign to drawing or advancing no conclusions.

Draw as many conclusions as you want. But be wary that you're not right anymore than anyone else is. One can say "it is my opinion that X is better than Y" but you can't make a definitive statement about it.

[G.O.A.T]

I agree with each of your comments above.

Regardless, my point is that, much as there are criticisms that can be levied against Bird, Magic, Wilt and other superstars, so too can we find fault in Russell's and Jordan's legacy.

However, perhaps it is easier to refute criticisms against the latter two players.

In other words, the criticisms hold less weight for Russell and Jordan.

That's about it right there. For me, the difference is significant enough that I only see an argument for two at the top.



On a separate note, imagine you'd never seen any 'greatest player' rankings. Wouldn't you assume George Mikan should be ranked in the top 4 or 5? I certainly would.

I have him at #9. Only six NBA seasons (though the NBL, where he played two years, was probably superior to the BAA) and I don't think he had anymore in him. His peak is not any greater than any of the other guys above him except maybe Tim Duncan as all were the arguably best player in the league for that peak. He lacks in longevity and just as Russell having 10-11 alpha rings doesn't guarantee he's over Jordan with 6 as an lead dog, Mikan's 6-7 alpha titles (five NBA) don't assure him a spot ahead guys like Timmy, Shaq, Bird, Kareem, Magic and Wilt with 2-4.


I think our judgements have become clouded in recent years by Bill Simmons, Slam magazine and other journalistic attempts to rank players.

That's why I started this thread; I wanted to see people deconstructing the rankings and starting afresh.

I love the idea, it's spawned some good conversation.

I don't think your view gets clouded unless you let it. To me more information and informed opinion is never a good thing. It rarely changes our mind on the spot, but over time it does help crystallize things.

[G.O.A.T]

It doesn't matter what they said. That is anecdotal evidence. That does not prove anything bar the existence of opinions. It isn't definitive by any measure. A lot of that is also influenced by winning (compare that to a Russell clone who had the same exact output and lost) or by character (people disliked Wilt).

It's overwhelming to ignore. If there was an equally or comparably compelling counterpoint, I'd see where you're coming from.

But your logic (in the above quoted) is the sort of thing that leads to Evolution being questioned and Intelligent Design considered. I can't follow that.



Could have been is not a hypothetical; it is a possibility that you can't prove.

If we had signatures, this would be mine.

Green is not a color, it's Blue and Yellow combined.



You can't say Russell's team won despite his low scoring because even if they were the worst team he relied on others to score more in his place.

He didn't rely on them anymore than he should have. When Russell needed to score for his team to win he did. When it was best for the team that Russell lead them in scoring, he did. Did Jordan lean on Rodman or Grant to rebound to much, on Pippen to take the match-up of the opponents best perimeter player too often?

Russell let other players play to their strengths and he covered up their weaknesses. There were far more great offensive players than defensive players in the 1950's and 1960's, thus Russell focused on defense a lot more. Look into his scoring at San Francisco or on the Olympic team in 1956 if you wonder what type of scorer he could be on a team with fewer offensive options.


Moreover, whether he shows up in the playoffs is irrelevant. They have to get to the playoffs first. That is still reliance on others.

I don't understand. You're saying that because other players scored as much or more as Russell he was relying on them because he couldn't do it?




I am not here to change your opinion. I am here to say that it is close enough that people will disagree. Whether it is your opinion that they're not close is not a statement of fact but another opinion.

Whose arguing this?





Maybe not, but he could more than Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird etc. That's not an opinion as much as it is a conclusion based on his career, in particular in game sevens.


[QUOTE=LeBird]All he can do is have a certain output and his teammates have to add to that to create an aggregate that the other team can't beat.

Sort of. Russell can also limit the opponents output and enhance his teammates output. In fact considering that that element of the game impacts 90% of the players, it should be considered far more than individual numbers.


What is certain is that when it comes to individual output that Wilt dominated Russell. It is that the rest of Wilt's team did not add enough to the aggregate to get the win.

That's just not true. Not even a little. As I mentioned opinions can be wrong and if you research this topic, you'll find that one is wrong.



Draw as many conclusions as you want. But be wary that you're not right anymore than anyone else is.

But I can try and back my opinion better than theirs if I disagree. That again is the point.


One can say "it is my opinion that X is better than Y" but you can't make a definitive statement about it.

I don't think you need to make a statement about it, but you need to be able to believe what you say is more based in fact that what you contest.

[The Iron Fist]

After much consideration, despite the fact that pauk copied and pasted this from an online article (hopefully written by pauk himself), the winning nomination for the #1 Greatest Player of All-Time is for Michael Jordan (I have highlight in bold the most convincing parts):
After two paragraphs that piece is dogshit. Jordan isn't the only player to define greatness. Many define the word.

[The Iron Fist]

When was distancing himself from teammates what was best for winning a Championship?
Its a game of basketball, not Romper Room. Save that bff shit for cornballs like lebron. The fact is, he won, more than pretty much everyone at every level, multiple times.

[G.O.A.T]

Its a game of basketball, not Romper Room. Save that bff shit for cornballs like lebron. The fact is, he won, more than pretty much everyone at every level, multiple times.

He didn't win nearly as much in the NBA. He won one title in his first ten seasons and as few as zero or as many as two during his peak if you allow for a decade long peak.

He didn't do whatever he could to help his teams win, on the court, sure, but off it, not at all.

A leader is not only great at what they do, but a great servant as well.

[LeBird]

It's overwhelming to ignore. If there was an equally or comparably compelling counterpoint, I'd see where you're coming from.

But your logic (in the above quoted) is the sort of thing that leads to Evolution being questioned and Intelligent Design considered. I can't follow that.

Quite the opposite: science is proving something to the extent that you can replicate results. Whilst this isn't science; Hearsay/anecdotal evidence is amongst the least reliable forms of proof you can get.

This is the hilarity of it. A guy with basically the same output as Russell, but who scored twice as much is considered to be inferior to him. Why?

It's basic maths: if Russell is on Wilt, he is getting dominated and the point differential between them is huge. Who makes that up? Russell's teammates.




If we had signatures, this would be mine.

Green is not a color, it's Blue and Yellow combined.

You've misunderstood the statement. I said "Could have been" and you replied "Could have been but wasn't", which is you giving a definitive statement as if I proposed a hypothetical (an event that hasn't happened). The whole point of the statement is that you can't say it hasn't happened therefore it is a possibility, that could've occurred in the past, that you can't prove didn't.



He didn't rely on them anymore than he should have. When Russell needed to score for his team to win he did. When it was best for the team that Russell lead them in scoring, he did. Did Jordan lean on Rodman or Grant to rebound to much, on Pippen to take the match-up of the opponents best perimeter player too often?

Russell let other players play to their strengths and he covered up their weaknesses. There were far more great offensive players than defensive players in the 1950's and 1960's, thus Russell focused on defense a lot more. Look into his scoring at San Francisco or on the Olympic team in 1956 if you wonder what type of scorer he could be on a team with fewer offensive options.

You're looking at it the wrong way. Russell won because his team was better than Wilt's. That doesn't mean Russell is better than Wilt. The fact that his teammates took over the slack in the offense (to whatever extent) means using the result of the game as proof that Russell was better is fallacious. He was a lesser player than Wilt because he did less (across all measurable contributions); yet he won because his teammates did more than Wilt's.


I don't understand. You're saying that because other players scored as much or more as Russell he was relying on them because he couldn't do it?

I am saying if you compare him to Wilt it is quite obvious he is half the offensive player yet (and arguably) only marginally better on defence. How this should translate into Russell being better than Wilt is left to arbitrary and subjective nonsense.



Whose arguing this?


You're insinuating there is enough proof to separate them insofar as making them incomparable. That is not an objective statement. You've made an opinion to back up an opinion.


Maybe not, but he could more than Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird etc. That's not an opinion as much as it is a conclusion based on his career, in particular in game sevens.

No, he couldn't. That fact is about as relevant as saying the sky is blue. We don't judge players on just how good they were in game 7s. Arguments like that are facile and juvenile.

What we know is overall his stats are not a little bit inferior to Wilt's...but a lot inferior. It is one thing to say 2 players who have scoring averages within 2 points of each other are equal and contextualise that; it is another thing to make up a 15 point differential. That is just unheard of in statistical arguments. It is nonsensical.

And what is your proof that you're right? That Russell won. This is the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. Which is why I told you: if it just comes down to winning; then someone like Horry is better than Duncan. Why? Because he did what he needed to and nothing more to win. Which is basically your argument for Russell taken to its absurd conclusion.

Titles matter, being the main reason matters; but in terms of comparisons everything matters. And just because your teammates contributed enough offensively that your offensive deficiencies didn't stop you from winning doesn't make you the better player.



Sort of. Russell can also limit the opponents output and enhance his teammates output. In fact considering that that element of the game impacts 90% of the players, it should be considered far more than individual numbers.

Not sort, of; exactly. When I mention aggregate, I am referring to negatives as well (i.e. defence). Wilt was a better rebounder than Russell, a better blocker than Russell, maybe worse on team defence but not enough to hide a 15 point difference between their scoring.


That's just not true. Not even a little. As I mentioned opinions can be wrong and if you research this topic, you'll find that one is wrong.

They're all opinions; that's the problem. On gaugeable statistics, it's about as true as the law of gravity. Wilt dominated Russell; that doesn't mean the better player wins. Which is the premise you keep arguing.



But I can try and back my opinion better than theirs if I disagree. That again is the point.


It comes to a stage where I am sure you've heard about 95% of the arguments that have to do with the players. If you can't gauge how there can be a variance then you're not being honest with yourself. You're just being honest about your dishonesty (that you are sure about something, make a definitive statement, and rely on the subjectiveness of opinion to hold it legitimately).


I don't think you need to make a statement about it, but you need to be able to believe what you say is more based in fact that what you contest.

But the point is, with regards to Russell, you're not arguing on facts. You're arguing with hearsay. Which is not to say you should abandon contemporary opinion; but that you have to temper that with the stats.

[G.O.A.T]

Quite the opposite: science is proving something to the extent that you can replicate results. Whilst this isn't science; Hearsay/anecdotal evidence is amongst the least reliable forms of proof you can get.

This is the hilarity of it. A guy with basically the same output as Russell, but who scored twice as much is considered to be inferior to him. Why?

It's basic maths: if Russell is on Wilt, he is getting dominated and the point differential between them is huge. Who makes that up? Russell's teammates.





You've misunderstood the statement. I said "Could have been" and you replied "Could have been but wasn't", which is you giving a definitive statement as if I proposed a hypothetical (an event that hasn't happened). The whole point of the statement is that you can't say it hasn't happened therefore it is a possibility, that could've occurred in the past, that you can't prove didn't.




You're looking at it the wrong way. Russell won because his team was better than Wilt's. That doesn't mean Russell is better than Wilt. The fact that his teammates took over the slack in the offense (to whatever extent) means using the result of the game as proof that Russell was better is fallacious. He was a lesser player than Wilt because he did less (across all measurable contributions); yet he won because his teammates did more than Wilt's.



I am saying if you compare him to Wilt it is quite obvious he is half the offensive player yet (and arguably) only marginally better on defence. How this should translate into Russell being better than Wilt is left to arbitrary and subjective nonsense.





You're insinuating there is enough proof to separate them insofar as making them incomparable. That is not an objective statement. You've made an opinion to back up an opinion.



No, he couldn't. That fact is about as relevant as saying the sky is blue. We don't judge players on just how good they were in game 7s. Arguments like that are facile and juvenile.

What we know is overall his stats are not a little bit inferior to Wilt's...but a lot inferior. It is one thing to say 2 players who have scoring averages within 2 points of each other are equal and contextualise that; it is another thing to make up a 15 point differential. That is just unheard of in statistical arguments. It is nonsensical.

And what is your proof that you're right? That Russell won. This is the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. Which is why I told you: if it just comes down to winning; then someone like Horry is better than Duncan. Why? Because he did what he needed to and nothing more to win. Which is basically your argument for Russell taken to its absurd conclusion.

Titles matter, being the main reason matters; but in terms of comparisons everything matters. And just because your teammates contributed enough offensively that your offensive deficiencies didn't stop you from winning doesn't make you the better player.




Not sort, of; exactly. When I mention aggregate, I am referring to negatives as well (i.e. defence). Wilt was a better rebounder than Russell, a better blocker than Russell, maybe worse on team defence but not enough to hide a 15 point difference between their scoring.



They're all opinions; that's the problem. On gaugeable statistics, it's about as true as the law of gravity. Wilt dominated Russell; that doesn't mean the better player wins. Which is the premise you keep arguing.




It comes to a stage where I am sure you've heard about 95% of the arguments that have to do with the players. If you can't gauge how there can be a variance then you're not being honest with yourself. You're just being honest about your dishonesty (that you are sure about something, make a definitive statement, and rely on the subjectiveness of opinion to hold it legitimately).



But the point is, with regards to Russell, you're not arguing on facts. You're arguing with hearsay. Which is not to say you should abandon contemporary opinion; but that you have to temper that with the stats.

We're just too far apart on this and it's starting to feel like you're just arguing.

If you believe Wilt dominated Russell, we'll never agree. From what I've seen, read and heard (including stats) Russell usually got the best of Wilt.

If you think Wilt lost because Russell always had better teammates, I think you're 100% wrong and uninformed overall on the topic.

If you think stats can tell us more than the people who've played the game, we'll never agree.

[colts19]

Wait, so you have Steve Nash, Walt Frazier, and Isiah Thomas ahead of Bird, Jordan, and Duncan because of their positions?
My bad, I didn't mean they were better, I just used them as an example of what you need to win.

I'm going with the big guy first and then Magic or Oscar, because if you have a great big for them to play with they will win a lot.

[LeBird]

We're just too far apart on this and it's starting to feel like you're just arguing.

If you believe Wilt dominated Russell, we'll never agree. From what I've seen, read and heard (including stats) Russell usually got the best of Wilt.

If you think Wilt lost because Russell always had better teammates, I think you're 100% wrong and uninformed overall on the topic.

If you think stats can tell us more than the people who've played the game, we'll never agree.

I'll boil it down: you're saying Russell is better because he won. That is the result of the efforts of his team; not necessarily Russell himself. It's circular logic: Russell is the best because he won; he won because he is the best.

Use stats to show that Russell was better than Wilt. You can't without being a world champ cherry picker. Russell was a better defender than Wilt - as is commonly stated - but even in the measured statistics they kept at the time Wilt was still his match (if not better).

You'll not only have a tough time proving it is better; you have to deal with the logic of explaining away 15 points per game by way of that defence - just for Wilt, not even the rest of his team.

But that's just absurd. Career ratios with such huge gaps cannot be contextualised when the players are contemporaries and they played the same game. Just try to argue it; I'm all eyes.

Stats and opinions have to be balanced. In the end, you're using an opinion to justify an opinion. And what opinion? A definitive one where Russell is significantly better than Wilt, enough so, to make them incomparable. That just takes the cake. It is not a logical nor very intelligent argument to make. You can't prove opinions without facts.

[fpliii]

We're just too far apart on this and it's starting to feel like you're just arguing.

If you believe Wilt dominated Russell, we'll never agree. From what I've seen, read and heard (including stats) Russell usually got the best of Wilt.

If you think Wilt lost because Russell always had better teammates, I think you're 100% wrong and uninformed overall on the topic.

If you think stats can tell us more than the people who've played the game, we'll never agree.

I agree that a (very) good statistical argument can be made to support Russell against any challenger, using what we have available (DRtg analysis is one of the easier ways to measure defense, but for guys obsessed with box scores your bpg estimates should do him some justice). With a metric for defensive anchoring (DRtg) and some semblance of a measure of help defense (blocked shots, though he probably stole a good number of balls too...working on this now by dumping all Celtics articles). If someone wants the man-to-man defense numbers, BBR should be able to help them if they compare Russ to his counterparts, but straight up defense is only part of the picture.

There are some things that are difficult to measure in retrospect since they weren't kept track of at the time such as drawn charges, but I'm sure my man Elgin Baylor can tell you more about that...

EDIT: almost forgot: 2+1+11=14 in 16 years (that's a stat too...)

[oolalaa]

I'll boil it down: you're saying Russell is better because he won. That is the result of the efforts of his team; not necessarily Russell himself. It's circular logic: Russell is the best because he won; he won because he is the best.

Use stats to show that Russell was better than Wilt. You can't without being a world champ cherry picker. Russell was a better defender than Wilt - as is commonly stated - but even in the measured statistics they kept at the time Wilt was still his match (if not better).

You'll not only have a tough time proving it is better; you have to deal with the logic of explaining away 15 points per game by way of that defence - just for Wilt, not even the rest of his team.

But that's just absurd. Career ratios with such huge gaps cannot be contextualised when the players are contemporaries and they played the same game. Just try to argue it; I'm all eyes.

Stats and opinions have to be balanced. In the end, you're using an opinion to justify an opinion. And what opinion? A definitive one where Russell is significantly better than Wilt, enough so, to make them incomparable. That just takes the cake. It is not a logical nor very intelligent argument to make. You can't prove opinions without facts.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? G.O.A.T is NOT saying that Russell was better than Wilt merely because he won more. You've constructed a straw man.



You'll not only have a tough time proving it is better; you have to deal with the logic of explaining away 15 points per game by way of that defence - just for Wilt, not even the rest of his team.


15 points per game? Nope. Try 6 points per game. The playoffs are what define the legacies of the greats. Russell was a regular season coaster who, outside of '64, consistently upped his performance in the post season. Wilt was the exact opposite.

[LeBird]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? G.O.A.T is NOT saying that Russell was better than Wilt merely because he won more. You've constructed a straw man.

Other than state that Russell did enough to win more he hasn't explained anything else. I know what his arguments will be; why he thinks that is enough to compensate for all the other stuff Wilt did better is the question.


15 points per game? Nope. Try 6 points per game. The playoffs are what define the legacies of the greats. Russell was a regular season coaster who, outside of '64, consistently upped his performance in the post season. Wilt was the exact opposite.

No it's not. Regular seasons count for the comparison's sake because who knows which team they'll end up inheriting? If we gave them both 4 scrubs who ends up winning/going to playoffs? Moreover, the difference between Russell's regular season and playoff record is 1 point more per game - so let's not pretend Russell played out of his skin come playoffs.

The playoff stats also hide the fact that toward the end of his career Wilt was asked to score less - which hindered his stats a lot - not because he couldn't do it. Wilt is a 30ppg scorer, Russell averages half that. Full stop. He has to make up that difference to merely establish that Russell took Wilt out of the equation; it still doesn't mean his teammates weren't better than Wilt's.

[The Iron Fist]

He didn't win nearly as much in the NBA. He won one title in his first ten seasons and as few as zero or as many as two during his peak if you allow for a decade long peak.

He didn't do whatever he could to help his teams win, on the court, sure, but off it, not at all.

A leader is not only great at what they do, but a great servant as well.
You just went full pauk and you should never go full pauk.

[DatAsh]

What we know is overall his stats are not a little bit inferior to Wilt's...but a lot inferior. It is one thing to say 2 players who have scoring averages within 2 points of each other are equal and contextualise that; it is another thing to make up a 15 point differential. That is just unheard of in statistical arguments. It is nonsensical.
What we know is overall his stats are not a little bit inferior to Wilt's...but a lot inferior. It is one thing to say 2 players who have scoring averages within 2 points of each other are equal and contextualise that; it is another thing to make up a 15 point differential. That is just unheard of in statistical arguments. It is nonsensical.

What do you mean by this? Wilt dominated Russell with respect to box score statistics, but so what? Russell dominates Wilt with respect to impact statistics almost any way you slice it. Russell's defense was not only better than Wilt's offense, I think you can make a convincing argument that it was a lot better.

Quoting myself from earlier in the thread

http://i46.tinypic.com/dwewyu.png

vs

http://i46.tinypic.com/169miq9.png

Box score stats can only tell you so much, and tend to measure a player's roll a lot more so than a player's impact, which isn't really what we should be trying to measure. It's no coincidence that Wilt's smallest impact statistics happen to coincide with hist best box score statistics. Straight(non-advanced) box score stats have their uses, but players like Russell and Walton are players in which that use straight up goes out the window.

People see 44ppg, 50ppg 40ppg and all sense goes out the window. That player has to be the best ever. If Wilt was so great offensively in those years, why wasn't it affecting his offenses? 80ppg on 45% looks great in a box score but is almost certainly terrible for team. I'd much rather have 30ppg on 50% than 80ppg on 45%.

Also, the argument that Russell was just "lucky" kind of falls a part when you actually do some research and start to understand just why those teams were so good. Why is it that from 66-69, despite Wilt having a slightly better supporting cast, lost 3 of the 4 years?

[Gotterdammerung]

Absurdly false. If that were true he wouldn't have been traded for players you don't build around twice.
That's a non sequitur, and you know it. :no:


If we didn't know how their careers would turn out, sure I can see why someone would take Wilt. But knowing everything that happened. I'd say 90-95% of GM's would take Russell.
Correction:

Had there been a mythical draft of all the greatest players collected in a singular talent pool, as rookies, with all their potential, all their drawbacks, the GMs would pick Wilt Chamberlain. He had a higher peak than anyone else in history, and GMs are more than likely to exploit that.

I'm not talking about a general consensus among GMs who had the best career, after the fact. :no:

The reason I went with this criteria is because they, not us, not historians, not commentators, not players, not anyone else, are paid to make those kind of decisions for a living.

The greatest player of all time depends on your criteria.

Some go with career. Some go with statistics. Some go with reputation. Some go with the consensus. My hat is in the GMs' ring. :pimp:

[Gotterdammerung]

Doubting it is one thing, using your doubt as a basis to say "I'm talking about a poll with the greatest GMs of all time. And they'll go with Wilt Chamberlain.", is something else entirely.
:facepalm
My doubt is based on the reasons why GMs decide who is the number one pick in any draft in the history of the game. They base it on tangibles like strength, athleticism, skillset, potential, health, etc.

[Deuce Bigalow]

pauk has no shame :facepalm

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/926592-michael-jordan-the-greatest-of-all-time

[LeBird]

Winshares (which rely on defensive and offensive rating) are poor stats, unreliable, and especially for this debate hinder Wilt. Two players can have the same exact output but have different winshares depending on their team's success. That stat starts making more sense when the players are on the same team.

Detlef Shrempf for example has a better winshare than Hakeem Olajuwon. Having said that:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_yearly.html

Wilt during 8 seasons with the most win-shares in a season. Russell 0. KAJ 9.

[DatAsh]

Winshares (which rely on defensive and offensive rating) are poor stats, unreliable, and especially for this debate hinder Wilt. Two players can have the same exact output but have different winshares depending on their team's success. That stat starts making more sense when the players are on the same team.

Detlef Shrempf for example has a better winshare than Hakeem Olajuwon. Having said that:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_yearly.html

Wilt during 8 seasons with the most win-shares in a season. Russell 0. KAJ 9.

If you were referring to my post on the previous page, I wasn't referrencing individual win shares. I've come to the conclusion that individual winshares prior to 1974 are somewhat meaningless stat. As fpliii pointed out, they didn't keep track of defensive rebounds, blocks, steals, or turnovers in Wilt and Russell's day.

[Nevaeh]

You're clearly a Kobe stan pretending to be a Bird fan, and it shows here.

Teams "let" MJ expend energy? is that why he was constantly double and triple teamed?

Stats with "context"? how about 6 rings b*tch! you want "context"?

And…. MJ DID change his style of play. MJ could've averaged 35+ points for his entire career and gone out to score 50 every night, but he didn't. He changed the way he played to WIN, to adapt to his teammates.

And then this:




WOW so much fail I dunno where to start.

:facepalm

Looks like LeBird needs to change his name to "LeBitter".
http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Anyway, Great Thread guys.

[Legends66NBA7]

Looks like LeBird needs to change his name to "LeBitter".
http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Anyway, Great Thread guys.

That still doesn't explain how LeBird's a Kobe stan.

How do people come up with random conclusions like that ? I've seen it in past threads too. I hope for the sake of the continuation of this thread, that more accusations don't derail the topic at hand, not that I agree with LeBird's main arguments to begin with. That's statement just came from left field.

[fpliii]

If you were referring to my post on the previous page, I wasn't referrencing individual win shares. I've come to the conclusion that individual winshares prior to 1974 are somewhat meaningless stat. As fpliii pointed out, they didn't keep track of defensive rebounds, blocks, steals, or turnovers in Wilt and Russell's day.

for blocks we have good estimates for both guys based on a good number of samples, but spot on with the rest

[Nevaeh]

That still doesn't explain how LeBird's a Kobe stan.

How do people come up with random conclusions like that ? I've seen it in past threads too. I hope for the sake of the continuation of this thread, that more accusations don't derail the topic at hand, not that I agree with LeBird's main arguments to begin with. That's statement just came from left field.

I quoted that with regards to Lebird asserting that teams "Let Jordan Score", along with the "Stats with Context" line that Andgar picked up on. Also with his "Jordan's playing style didn't translate well for copycat perimeter players", while conveniently forgetting Wade, Kobe and most recently Lebron, all won Titles with the "Take over a game offensively" mindset. If that's not blatantly throwing Jordan's whole game under a bus, I don't know what is.

Anyway, you sure have been on a lot of "Kobe rescue missions" in Threads here lately Legends. What happened, did he save you from a burning building or something?
:oldlol:

Don't worry, the Thread survived this long, I'm sure it'll be just fine.

[Legends66NBA7]

I quoted that with regards to Lebird asserting that teams "Let Jordan Score", along with the "Stats with Context" line that Andgar picked up on. Also with his "Jordan's playing style didn't translate well for copycat perimeter players", while conveniently forgetting Wade, Kobe and most recently Lebron, all won Titles with the "Take over a game offensively" mindset. If that's not blatantly throwing Jordan's whole game under a bus, I don't know what is.

Oh nah, I got that too. I remember you and the other Jordan/Bulls fans were going at LeBird when talking about is Jordan the unanimous GOAT on ISH.

I guess I'm still waiting for andgar to explain why you throwing someone off about being a Kobe stan. Calling LeBron stan or Bird Stan in that case would have made sense, right ?

I would have reacted similarly if he called him a Shaq stan or Wilt stan or Kareem stan too... get it ? It just doesn't make sense in terms of the particular poster.


Anyway, you sure have been on a lot of "Kobe rescue missions" in Threads here lately Legends. What happened, did he save you from a burning building or something?

I'm more or less annoyed, Nev. Weird hating or trolling, even though it's the offseason. I guess I'm just compelled to defend players when their wrongly been posted about.

Just today, some guy clowned Kobe, George Mikan, and Steve Nash in the same post. He brought up about how one was lucky, one played in a weak, and one of was inferior to John Stockton.

He proceeded to talk down posters with the usual "you don't know basketball, by ranking player x here" (what does that even mean ?)... I was about to rip on him by clowning his own logic, but reading more into his posts, he's not someone to have a rational conversation with it, so finally I said **** it.

If you recall my posts from last off season till the start of the season, I was more active defending LeBron (although, some idiot will still try to bring him down) than any other player.


Don't worry, the Thread survived this long, I'm sure it'll be just fine.

Yeah, your right. I don't know why I'm bringing up something that small, I guess I shouldn't be buggin to much about it.

What's good Nev, good to see you around.

[Nevaeh]

Oh nah, I got that too. I remember you and the other Jordan/Bulls fans were going at LeBird when talking about is Jordan the unanimous GOAT on ISH.

Yeah, it's all in good fun though. Debating is a sport in itself to me. Some of his opinions are thought provoking, others have been pure nonsense in this thread.


I guess I'm still waiting for andgar to explain why you throwing someone off about being a Kobe stan. Calling LeBron stan or Bird Stan in that case would have made sense, right ?


My only guess, without putting words in his mouth, is that maybe Andgar recognized a familiarity in Lebird's post-style that tipped him off that he could be a Kobe Fan just pretending. It won't be the first time on ISH. I can almost guarantee that poster Kobe143 is one of those imposters pretending to be a Kobe fan.
:oldlol:


I would have reacted similarly if he called him a Shaq stan or Wilt stan or Kareem stan too... get it ? It just doesn't make sense in terms of the particular poster.


Yeah, I've seen you go to bat for almost every player to ever lace em up at some point on these Boards. That's why we love you.
:cheers:



I'm more or less annoyed, Nev. Weird hating or trolling, even though it's the offseason. I guess I'm just compelled to defend players when their wrongly been posted about.


And ain't nothing wrong with that


Just today, some guy clowned Kobe, George Mikan, and Steve Nash in the same post. He brought up about how one was lucky, one played in a weak, and one of was inferior to John Stockton.

Come on man, don't dog 97 Bulls out like that.......JK :lol


He proceeded to talk down posters with the usual "you don't know basketball, by ranking player x here" (what does that even mean ?)... I was about to rip on him by clowning his own logic, but reading more into his posts, he's not someone to have a rational conversation with it, so finally I said **** it.


Yeah, sometimes you just gotta let it go. There's always other posters to pick up the slack if you find yourself getting weary.


If you recall my posts from last off season till the start of the season, I was more active defending LeBron (although, some idiot will still try to bring him down) than any other player.


Dude, don't waste your time. Pauk's got every Lebron defense on LOCK!! :bowdown:



Yeah, your right. I don't know why I'm bringing up something that small, I guess I shouldn't be buggin to much about it.

What's good Nev, good to see you around.


Not too much. My old lady's giving me the flux, like most women do, but other than that I'm just enjoying work (on 3rd shift time frame for now), and trying to narrow down my character's look for "My Player" in NBA2k12.

If you're not a gamer, that's basically a mode in the game where you can create your player from scratch, give him his look, height, school background, etc. And compete in a rookie game to determine what NBA teams will take an interest in you.

Once you're on a team, it's up to you and how well you play that will determine both your popularity and overall value to your team. It really gives you the feeling of being out there on the court trying to balance being both a team player, and a go-to guy (I'm playing a 6'5 PG BTW).

You can play multiple seasons and hopefully retire a Legend when it's all said and done. It's basically a Basketball Role Playing Game to keep things simple

[Legends66NBA7]

It won't be the first time on ISH. I can almost guarantee that poster Kobe143 is one of those imposters pretending to be a Kobe fan.
:oldlol:

He is. This is second account here and his old one was called "I LUV KOBE"... subtle, huh ?

He doesn't believe he even says and continues to troll the boards in the off season.


Come on man, don't dog 97 Bulls out like that.......JK :lol

His recent statements have made me not engage with him in a debate (it's not worth it) and while yeah he did say Stockton > Magic as pure point guards (and other absurd claims), I'm talking about another poster... he joined this year.



Not too much. My old lady's giving me the flux, like most women do, but other than that I'm just enjoying work (on 3rd shift time frame for now), and trying to narrow down my character's look for "My Player" in NBA2k12.

If you're not a gamer, that's basically a mode in the game where you can create your player from scratch, give him his look, height, school background, etc. And compete in a rookie game to determine what NBA teams will take an interest in you.

Once you're on a team, it's up to you and how well you play that will determine both your popularity and overall value to your team. It really gives you the feeling of being out there on the court trying to balance being both a team player, and a go-to guy (I'm playing a 6'5 PG BTW).

You can play multiple seasons and hopefully retire a Legend when it's all said and done. It's basically a Basketball Role Playing Game to keep things simple

Sounds like fun.

I used to play more often back in the day. I've yet to start this new game "Dissidia 2", Final Fantasy game. It's long, so I don't really have to play for extended periods, hopefully just at night. Also, checking out more movies, like used to a few years back, but it's September. Not many great movies to check out right now, but see the new Resident Evil movie and Dredd 3D, the latter is damn good remake.

I have to get out and work more these days, I can't seem to get out of bed early enough, but then again I'm staying up at 5 in the morning.

[LeBird]

If you were referring to my post on the previous page, I wasn't referrencing individual win shares. I've come to the conclusion that individual winshares prior to 1974 are somewhat meaningless stat. As fpliii pointed out, they didn't keep track of defensive rebounds, blocks, steals, or turnovers in Wilt and Russell's day.

So how do those stats help the argument about Russell's individual prowess? It's just not accurate in the least. It is more a garnish than the main course.

FTR I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't know whether Wilt was better or not. I do think statistically he is somewhat of a phenom. That doesn't have to be refuted by cherry picking stats to make Russell good. I do think in sports a lot of things that happen aren't statistically represented (I do think Russell comes under that). But if someone wants to say Wilt is better than Russell and say that those "unrepresented stats" are just subjective nonsense, they're logically free to do that.

If someone, however, said that Wilt was the only candidate for the #1 spot I'd be defending Russell.

[LeBird]

I quoted that with regards to Lebird asserting that teams "Let Jordan Score", along with the "Stats with Context" line that Andgar picked up on. Also with his "Jordan's playing style didn't translate well for copycat perimeter players", while conveniently forgetting Wade, Kobe and most recently Lebron, all won Titles with the "Take over a game offensively" mindset. If that's not blatantly throwing Jordan's whole game under a bus, I don't know what is.

Anyway, you sure have been on a lot of "Kobe rescue missions" in Threads here lately Legends. What happened, did he save you from a burning building or something?
:oldlol:

Don't worry, the Thread survived this long, I'm sure it'll be just fine.

This has to be one of the stupidest posts I've read. I don't like Kobe much. If anything my arguing against Jordan's style of play - which Kobe imitates - should indicate that. That I also think Lebron could someday be the GOAT should also show I am not cheering for Kobe here.

I've already made countless posts where I identify more with team players - pass first kind of players - than those who look to drive, again and again, for themselves.

[DatAsh]

So how do those stats help the argument about Russell's individual prowess? It's just not accurate in the least. It is more a garnish than the main course.

FTR I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't know whether Wilt was better or not. I do think statistically he is somewhat of a phenom. That doesn't have to be refuted by cherry picking stats to make Russell good. I do think in sports a lot of things that happen aren't statistically represented (I do think Russell comes under that). But if someone wants to say Wilt is better than Russell and say that those "unrepresented stats" are just subjective nonsense, they're logically free to do that.

If someone, however, said that Wilt was the only candidate for the #1 spot I'd be defending Russell.

They help his individual argument because it shows just how impactful he was on defense. It's useful for the same reason stats like RAPM are useful. He was the defensive anchor of that team, and as such he had by far the biggest defensive impact of anyone on the team. We can directly compare just how good Boston was before Rusell joined, and after he left and in doing so it should be easy to see the defensive impact he was having. They went from the second worst defense to the best, and then stayed there for the next 12 years, and then once again dropped back down to below average the year he left. Do you think all of that is coincidence?

Not all of those teams were loaded with great defenders. Other than Russell the only defender that was considered "great" was Havlicek, and that wasn't untilt the 60s. The fact that Russell was the one and only defensive constant throughout that time frame can't be ignored.

As far as it not being accurrate, well that's simply not true, unless you want to get into an argument of the pace estimations. These kinds of impact stats in my opinion are far more telling and valuable than simple box score stats. Box score stats measure a players role much moreso than a player's impact.

I'm in the process of running these kinds of stats for a bunch of other players and the results are pretty much what I'd expect. Bird does quite well with these in case you were wondering.

Finally, I'm not saying that Wilt doesn't have a case against Russell, I'm just saying that personally, after all of the research that I've done, I don't see it. Now, that doesn't mean that I can't change my mind, and if someone makes a compelling enough argument then I most certainly will.

I used to regard Wilt as the best player of all time by a considerable margin up until just a few years ago. Since then, as I've done more and more research into the subject, my views have changed. Jordan and Russell are MY clear top two, but I can easily see why some people might consider Magic, Kareem, Bird, or Wilt to be the best ever.

Btw, we should probably take this debate to the #2 thread since this decision has been made.

[DatAsh]

for blocks we have good estimates for both guys based on a good number of samples, but spot on with the rest

So I've heard. How many game are we talking, and over what time frame?

[LeBird]

They help his individual argument because it shows just how impactful he was on defense. It's useful for the same reason stats like RAPM are useful. He was the defensive anchor of that team, and as such he had by far the biggest defensive impact of anyone on the team. We can directly compare just how good Boston was before Rusell joined, and after he left and in doing so it should be easy to see the defensive impact he was having. They went from the second worst defense to the best, and then stayed there for the next 12 years, and then once again dropped back down to below average the year he left. Do you think all of that is coincidence?

Russell had a myriad of teammates through his tenure, that is why the above is a poor way to argue his case. You can't gauge his importance to any accurate degree; you can only say it was big. Russell will have teammates come and go, some who may have been poor when he began and may have improved later, retired or gone. It doesn't give any real indication to Russell's defensive impact on a game by game basis. It's fine to say Russell was a great - just how great is the question. It's a crap stat for our purposes.


Not all of those teams were loaded with great defenders. Other than Russell the only defender that was considered "great" was Havlicek, and that wasn't untilt the 60s. The fact that Russell was the one and only defensive constant throughout that time frame can't be ignored.

This is the thing; you are using hearsay to back up a vague stat. You don't know who was actually good or not because you don't have the stats to objectively look at it yourself. Again, you're going off opinions and team defensive rating. If this is the argument that Russell is statistically superior to Wilt it falls way short.


As far as it not being accurrate, well that's simply not true, unless you want to get into an argument of the pace estimations. These kinds of impact stats in my opinion are far more telling and valuable than simple box score stats. Box score stats measure a players role much moreso than a player's impact.

I'm in the process of running these kinds of stats for a bunch of other players and the results are pretty much what I'd expect. Bird does quite well with these in case you were wondering.

They're not accurate because you can't make any arguments definitively for Russell himself. You're using correlation to prove causation, essentially. Box scores are also flawed - I agree - however, they are objective facts. On those measurable ones, Russell isn't close to Wilt...really, no one is. But that's ok if you don't think those box scores are the be-all and end-all. I don't, personally, but if someone wanted to; then you couldn't deny them that argument - that's my point.


Finally, I'm not saying that Wilt doesn't have a case against Russell, I'm just saying that personally, after all of the research that I've done, I don't see it. Now, that doesn't mean that I can't change my mind, and if someone makes a compelling enough argument then I most certainly will.

I used to regard Wilt as the best player of all time by a considerable margin up until just a few years ago. Since then, as I've done more and more research into the subject, my views have changed. Jordan and Russell are MY clear top two, but I can easily see why some people might consider Magic, Kareem, Bird, or Wilt to be the best ever.

Btw, we should probably take this debate to the #2 thread since this decision has been made.

See, the bolded is something I can respect. You state your opinion, but leave the door open because you can see the arguments for other players. I appreciate that; because it means you're not making a definitive statement (like there are NO arguments for them) which may mislead someone who doesn't know any better. You're saying: you've heard those arguments, but you don't share the opinion of their importance/accuracy.

:cheers:

[andgar923]

That still doesn't explain how LeBird's a Kobe stan.

How do people come up with random conclusions like that ? I've seen it in past threads too. I hope for the sake of the continuation of this thread, that more accusations don't derail the topic at hand, not that I agree with LeBird's main arguments to begin with. That's statement just came from left field.

I may have been wrong about him being a Kobe stan, but the reason I accused him of such was because he always criticizes MJ. But it isn't that he criticizes him per se. It's the things he criticizes him for, he uses some of the same arguments and tactics that Kobe stans use. HIs arguments appear to be ripped off from the Kobe stan anti Jordan playbook.

[LeBird]

I may have been wrong about him being a Kobe stan, but the reason I accused him of such was because he always criticizes MJ. But it isn't that he criticizes him per se. It's the things he criticizes him for, he uses some of the same arguments and tactics that Kobe stans use. HIs arguments appear to be ripped off from the Kobe stan anti Jordan playbook.

If saying he is one of the GOAT candidates means I am anti Jordan then by that measure only by sharing your opinion - that he alone is a lock for #1 spot - could it ever mean I'm fair.

Ridiculous.

[Nevaeh]

If saying he is one of the GOAT candidates means I am anti Jordan then by that measure only by sharing your opinion - that he alone is a lock for #1 spot - could it ever mean I'm fair.

Ridiculous.

You came off bitter as hell though dude, with the way you were making your points earlier. "6 rings during the 90s means nothing to me" sealed your fate son. You bitter, deal with it.

Here's a few more from you too:


Jordan scored a lot of empty points where teams let him cash in because they knew the Bulls weren't going anywhere.




I personally don't think Jordan has the best skillset because it is too limited in terms of meshing with other players



They did have the best teams during their title winning years 1990-Jordan 2nd retirement. Forget about hype; hindsight clearly shows what was true.



Jordan was a great player and unstoppable on offense. But he didn't rip teams like you think he did.


Lines like this just let me know that you already knew Jordan was coming out of this thing as #1, so you decided to go out with guns blazin'!! Good job LeBird.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/applause.gif

[oolalaa]

They help his individual argument because it shows just how impactful he was on defense. It's useful for the same reason stats like RAPM are useful. He was the defensive anchor of that team, and as such he had by far the biggest defensive impact of anyone on the team. We can directly compare just how good Boston was before Rusell joined, and after he left and in doing so it should be easy to see the defensive impact he was having. They went from the second worst defense to the best, and then stayed there for the next 12 years, and then once again dropped back down to below average the year he left. Do you think all of that is coincidence?

Not all of those teams were loaded with great defenders. Other than Russell the only defender that was considered "great" was Havlicek, and that wasn't untilt the 60s. The fact that Russell was the one and only defensive constant throughout that time frame can't be ignored.

As far as it not being accurrate, well that's simply not true, unless you want to get into an argument of the pace estimations. These kinds of impact stats in my opinion are far more telling and valuable than simple box score stats. Box score stats measure a players role much moreso than a player's impact.

I'm in the process of running these kinds of stats for a bunch of other players and the results are pretty much what I'd expect. Bird does quite well with these in case you were wondering.

Finally, I'm not saying that Wilt doesn't have a case against Russell, I'm just saying that personally, after all of the research that I've done, I don't see it. Now, that doesn't mean that I can't change my mind, and if someone makes a compelling enough argument then I most certainly will.

I used to regard Wilt as the best player of all time by a considerable margin up until just a few years ago. Since then, as I've done more and more research into the subject, my views have changed. Jordan and Russell are MY clear top two, but I can easily see why some people might consider Magic, Kareem, Bird, or Wilt to be the best ever.

Btw, we should probably take this debate to the #2 thread since this decision has been made.

Don't wanna crap on a good post, but Bill Sharman, K.C Jones and Satch Sanders were 3 of the best perimiter defenders of their generation.

[DatAsh]

Don't wanna crap on a good post, but Bill Sharman, K.C Jones and Satch Sanders were 3 of the best perimiter defenders of their generation.


Sanders I can somewhat agree with, the other two not so much, K.C was good, but Sharman was nothing spectacular and I've even heard him mentioned as a below average defender, based on what I've read.

KC was by no means a bad defender, and he's certainly above average, but I've read nothing, and seen nothing, that leads me to believe that he was any better than someone like Dwyane Wade.

Playing with Bill Russell affords a player certain defensive freedoms that can make him appear to be better than he actually is.

Lets continue this discussion in the #2 thread though.

[G.O.A.T]

Don't wanna crap on a good post, but Bill Sharman, K.C Jones and Satch Sanders were 3 of the best perimiter defenders of their generation.

Agreed. One of the interesting things I've found about Russell, when researching his block numbers the past few months, is that once the Jones boys, Hondo and Satch had replaced Heinsohn, Cousy, Sharman and Ramsey as the teams core around Russell (c. 1964) Russell adjusted his style and stayed in the paint a lot more because of how much better the defenders in front of him were. Previously he'd come out and pick up perimeter players, even block 18-22 foot jump shots fairly regularly.

Early in the 1963-64 season there were a number of articles about Russell blocking less shots than previously. In each players being interviewed agreed that he was just as dangerous as ever. As Si Green put it when asked if Russell was slipping a bit: "He must have lost some stamina after all these years. But it doesn't show in tough spots. If he has to block shots, he'll block them. The Psychological edge he has over men in this league is something."

[andgar923]

If saying he is one of the GOAT candidates means I am anti Jordan then by that measure only by sharing your opinion - that he alone is a lock for #1 spot - could it ever mean I'm fair.

Ridiculous.

As I stated, a fair argument I would have no issue. But almost every one of your posts in this board is ANTI MJ. And as I stated and as Neveah already summarized, it was your arguments that were ridiculous and hypocritical, just like Kobe stans do.

Here are Kobe stans arguments vs MJ:

He played in a weak era
He faced weak defense
His wins/stats don't count
He faced nobodies

And that's basically what you keep mentioning over and over and over, but instead of defending Kobe, you placed Bird as the superior. The hypocritical part of it all was, MJ FACED THE EXACT SAME SITUATIONS because well

[LeBird]

Saying Jordan is a lock for #1 and no one else comes close disqualifies you from the contention that you've given a 'fair argument'. Had you said there were other candidates, but you thought he was simply the best choice would have been a different issue.

The fact that you don't think Jordan has any deficiencies is hilarious. Or that you think he has the skills touted by other GOAT candidates.

If you think Bird is the only other guy to be better than Jordan than clearly you know yourself then that it isn't a clearcut case. I don't think you're a fan of Bird as much as I am; and yet I'd never make the statement that he is a lock for #1 and no one else compares. It's just an immature/ignorant thing to say.

[G.O.A.T]

Saying Jordan is a lock for #1 and no one else comes close disqualifies you from the contention that you've given a 'fair argument'. Had you said there were other candidates, but you thought he was simply the best choice would have been a different issue.

The fact that you don't think Jordan has any deficiencies is hilarious. Or that you think he has the skills touted by other GOAT candidates.

If you think Bird is the only other guy to be better than Jordan than clearly you know yourself then that it isn't a clearcut case. I don't think you're a fan of Bird as much as I am; and yet I'd never make the statement that he is a lock for #1 and no one else compares. It's just an immature/ignorant thing to say.

As long as no one ever thinks Kobe has a case though right...

[andgar923]

Saying Jordan is a lock for #1 and no one else comes close disqualifies you from the contention that you've given a 'fair argument'. Had you said there were other candidates, but you thought he was simply the best choice would have been a different issue.

The fact that you don't think Jordan has any deficiencies is hilarious. Or that you think he has the skills touted by other GOAT candidates.

If you think Bird is the only other guy to be better than Jordan than clearly you know yourself then that it isn't a clearcut case. I don't think you're a fan of Bird as much as I am; and yet I'd never make the statement that he is a lock for #1 and no one else compares. It's just an immature/ignorant thing to say.

I NEVER said he was perfect, I even alluded to that in one of my posts.

And yeah

[csh19792001]

We're just too far apart on this and it's starting to feel like you're just arguing.

If you believe Wilt dominated Russell, we'll never agree. From what I've seen, read and heard (including stats) Russell usually got the best of Wilt.

If you think Wilt lost because Russell always had better teammates, I think you're 100% wrong and uninformed overall on the topic.

Russell got the better of Wilt?

143 games, head to head:

Russell: 14.5/23.8/4.6 on .394 shooting. Yes, .394.

Wilt: 27.8/28.1/4.0 on .498 shooting. Yes, Wilt outshot him by 104 points. Doubled him up in points. Outrebounded him by a massive margin, and nearly had the same assists per game.

Who had better teammates?

https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/index4f3e.html?p=4229

Excerpt:

In fact, according to career Win Shares per minute, Russell's teammates were worth 8.10 WS/3000 MP over his career, while Chamberlain's were worth 6.06. So if both men played 3,300 minutes per season, with a schedule of 80 games and 48.3 MPG (the NBA's all-time average), that gives roughly 16,000 minutes to each center's teammates in total for each year:

((8.10 - 6.06) / 3000) * 16000 = 10.88

In other words, Russell's teammates alone were worth approximately 11 more wins than Chamberlain's per regular season... And in the playoffs since 1957, teams with 10-12 more regular-season wins than their opponent won 71 of 85 series (83.5%). So should it have been any surprise that Russell and the C's were coming out ahead of Chamberlain's Warriors & Sixers?

[ELITEpower23]

1. LeBron

~gap~

2. Who cares