THE GREAT DEBATE: The #3 Greatest Player of All-Time

[WillC]

This thread is solely for nominations for the #3 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.

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- 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 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 - Michael Jordan (nominated by: pauk)
02 - Bill Russell (nominated by: DatAsh)
03 -
04 -
05 -
06 -
07 -
08 -
09 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -

[funnystuff]

Kareem

[Asukal]

Magic Johnson

- Greatest PG of all time
- unrivaled passing skills and playmaking
- as a rookie, he took over the most crucial game in a finals series when their best player went down
- if russell is the anchor of great defense, magic is the anchor of great offense
- a true leader and likeable media personality
- can play all 5 positions effectively

[DatAsh]

This one's between Kareem, Wilt, and Magic for me

[ThaRegul8r]

If I were to participate, I would say Magic. I don't get involved in these because it's usually always agenda-driven, and people just whine about why their favorite player isn't ranked by everyone else as highly as they rank them, but I may see if I feel like making a case for Magic purely because Wilt and Kareem already have advocates on this board.

[fpliii]

If I were to participate, I would say Magic. I don't get involved in these because it's usually always agenda-driven, and people just whine about why their favorite player isn't ranked by everyone else as highly as they rank them, but I may see if I feel like making a case for Magic purely because Wilt and Kareem already have advocates on this board.

I'd actually really like to see someone make a good case for Magic...my preference is not to rank players, but I he, Russell, and Jordan are fairly inseparable at the top. I think there's an excellent argument out there, but there's some work to be done.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'd actually really like to see someone make a good case for Magic...my preference is not to rank players, but I he, Russell, and Jordan are fairly inseparable at the top. I think there's an excellent argument out there, but there's some work to be done.

I'd actually began writing a case for Magic a while ago because I've seen people say Magic had a case but no one had actually taken the time to go in depth about it, so it was something new rather than the same thing regurgitated over and over again. I find it pointless to repeat things countless others have said countless times. I hadn't intended for anyone other than myself to read it (I just enjoy writing), but I might revise it to post here once I get home.

[BlueandGold]

lol how many "GOAT TOP" threads we gonna have on ISH?

shit is boring

[Dictator]

Wilt. One man army. Stat stuffer(What ISH loves the best).

:coleman:

[fpliii]

I'd actually began writing a case for Magic a while ago because I've seen people say Magic had a case but no one had actually taken the time to go in depth about it, so it was something new rather than the same thing regurgitated over and over again. I find it pointless to repeat things countless others have said countless times. I hadn't intended for anyone other than myself to read it (I just enjoy writing), but I might revise it to post here once I get home.

Ah, well I'd love to read it. In my opinion Magic is the best offensive player in league history (this characterization is purely subjective though), and while this might be an uphill battle (since I believe the majority of people place him clearly behind Wilt/Kareem for whatever reason, plus the whole played-out 'inseparability with Bird' thing), it should enlighten a lot of people. Additionally, new arguments/evidence are always great for the community.

[iamgine]

How about Wilt simply because most would agree he was a better player than Russell (while playing at the same time), who is #2?

Or do we need a long post?

[fpliii]

How about Wilt simply because most would agree he was a better player than Russell (while playing at the same time), who is #2?

Or do we need a long post?

I don't know that most would agree... (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_35th_Anniversary_Team)

Personally, I don't have a dog in this race though.

[ThaRegul8r]

Ah, well I'd love to read it. In my opinion Magic is the best offensive player in league history (this characterization is purely subjective though), and while this might be an uphill battle (since I believe the majority of people place him clearly behind Wilt/Kareem for whatever reason, plus the whole played-out 'inseparability with Bird' thing), it should enlighten a lot of people. Additionally, new arguments/evidence are always great for the community.

I'll send you what I've written then, and then decide whether or not I wish to post it on the board.

[DatAsh]

Ah, well I'd love to read it. In my opinion Magic is the best offensive player in league history

I also share that belief.

[G.O.A.T]

How about Wilt simply because most would agree he was a better player than Russell (while playing at the same time), who is #2?

Or do we need a long post?

Most wouldn't agree. Especially those who were alive and watching or participating when they played. That's not opinion either. They had votes and Russell won them.

[Patrick Chewing]

Magic?? It's Wilt the Stilt. Ahead of Russell IMO even.

[Freedom Kid7]

I'm nominating Kareem.

I will come up with a post later though giving analysis. It's 11 down here and I need some sleep

[jongib369]

This has to be Wilt IMO. I mean were talking about a guy who held Kareem (who is getting a decent amount of votes for 3) to 47% shooting if I'm not mistaken...the ONLY other defender to do better is the great Nate Thurmond, while he faced Kareem at a younger age than Chamberlain did...BOTH were past there prime post injuries. He out Rebounded Kareem, FG% was better. Was known to block the skyhook, imagine if he was young?

And then, you COULD make a case for chamberlain over russell...how could anyone say Chamberlain wouldnt of done as good with Red Aurbach a GREAT manipulator as his head coach? A coach from chamberlains rookie year onwards who he respected surrounded by HOF players that were young, and able to avoid injuries. Teams with DEPTH..Unlike the Wilt laker teams who basically had no bench. There is a reason why Red tried to get Chamberlain, he just later said he couldn't Win as much IMO because he didn't want to say Russell could of been replaced with Wilt...to much of a bond to disrespect the dynasty like that... in 67.. might be wrong could of been with lakers) RUSSELL ADMITTED chamberlain was playing the same role he did, but better...More assists, rebounds, points, fg%, more blocks.

Id go more into it, but once again I know someone could make a better argument then me...

[Legends66NBA7]

This has to be Wilt IMO. I mean were talking about a guy who held Kareem (who is getting a decent amount of votes for 3) to 47% shooting if I'm not mistaken...the ONLY other defender to do better is the great Nate Thurmond, while he faced Kareem at a younger age than Chamberlain did...BOTH were past there prime post injuries. He out Rebounded Kareem, FG% was better. Was known to block the skyhook, imagine if he was young?

In Kareem's defense, he was younger but his body wasn't able to handle the physical defense yet by the tougher veteran minds of Wilt and Nate. I agree with the other stats, but Wilt also was playing a different role and was not always called upon to score at that stage of his career and yes blocking Kareem's skyhook is impressive at any stage of one's career.

That said, should be a great argument between these two. Might as well flip a coin.

[MetsPackers]

Would vote for Kobe but......jk

Gotta go with KAJ. I'm sure someone could make a case for Wilt over him but if KAJ is out of the top 4 the list will be off the a bad start. I'm surprised Russell got number 2, not that its a bad thing, just unexpected. Glad people made a case for him.

I kinda wish instead of these top 100 threads we could just have a highly debated top 10 with like 5 days of time for lots of cases to be made. Getting a legit top 10 with tons of responses would be much better and more interesting than these top 100s where people just respond with "Kobe"

[Asukal]

This has to be Wilt IMO. I mean were talking about a guy who held Kareem (who is getting a decent amount of votes for 3) to 47% shooting if I'm not mistaken...the ONLY other defender to do better is the great Nate Thurmond, while he faced Kareem at a younger age than Chamberlain did...BOTH were past there prime post injuries. He out Rebounded Kareem, FG% was better. Was known to block the skyhook, imagine if he was young?

And then, you COULD make a case for chamberlain over russell...how could anyone say Chamberlain wouldnt of done as good with Red Aurbach a GREAT manipulator as his head coach? A coach from chamberlains rookie year onwards who he respected surrounded by HOF players that were young, and able to avoid injuries. Teams with DEPTH..Unlike the Wilt laker teams who basically had no bench. There is a reason why Red tried to get Chamberlain, he just later said he couldn't Win as much IMO because he didn't want to say Russell could of been replaced with Wilt...to much of a bond to disrespect the dynasty like that... in 67.. might be wrong could of been with lakers) RUSSELL ADMITTED chamberlain was playing the same role he did, but better...More assists, rebounds, points, fg%, more blocks.

Id go more into it, but once again I know someone could make a better argument then me...

This is flat out wrong and is disrespectful to Russell's game. You can't use the what if argument for Wilt. We judge them based on facts. It is true that Wilt has better tools as a player than Russell, but Russell is a greater player than Wilt imo. :no:

Also just because he did good against 1 man (Kareem), are we supposed to take that as a measuring stick and put him as the GOAT center? The game is 5 on 5, we should take what he did on that basis not what he did against 1 person. Because if we take that logic then Shawn Marion must be ranked very high on the all time list for posterizing Lebron James in the 2011 finals. :confusedshrug:

[jongib369]

This is flat out wrong and is disrespectful to Russell's game. You can't use the what if argument for Wilt. We judge them based on facts. It is true that Wilt has better tools as a player than Russell, but Russell is a greater player than Wilt imo. :no:

Also just because he did good against 1 man (Kareem), are we supposed to take that as a measuring stick and put him as the GOAT center? The game is 5 on 5, we should take what he did on that basis not what he did against 1 person. Because if we take that logic then Shawn Marion must be ranked very high on the all time list for posterizing Lebron James in the 2011 finals. :confusedshrug:
Like I said, i could of gone into more detail...I listed one man, but we both know it wasnt just one man he did good against...the only one I felt like mentioning because hes considered the GOAT center by many...atleast on offense....I could say How Chamberlain did against other peers like Nate Thurmond, Walt bellamy, Willis Reed, wes unseld etc...and then also compare how kareem did against those exact players and youd see that chamberlain while they were in there prime, and so was he out played them more so than Kareem did while they were past there prime and he in his peak seasons. Nate Held Kareem to below 45% shooting...Wilts average against Thurmond was above 50%....possibly above 55% (off the top of my head so sorry if Im mistaken)

I could Point out how kareem played multiple games against the guy Wilt scored 100 on, yet never came anywhere close to that (not easy to do lol, and not really a fair argument but still)

I didnt mean to disrespect Russell, all I'm saying is he fell into the pefrect situation more so than chamberlain did...and With Red, Im sure he could of molded chamberlain into a better player mentally than he turned out to be (some would say). Russell is a legend and deff deserves to be 2 or 3...can be argued 1...all Im saying is that Chamberlain does have the tools, especially if coached properly from the get go could of been a lot more than he was for multiple reasons

looking and comparing the situations they were put in is fact...and from what i can tell, he was put in a FAR better system than chamberlain. The what if is a toss up though.

[jongib369]

This is flat out wrong and is disrespectful to Russell's game. You can't use the what if argument for Wilt. We judge them based on facts. It is true that Wilt has better tools as a player than Russell, but Russell is a greater player than Wilt imo. :no:

Also just because he did good against 1 man (Kareem), are we supposed to take that as a measuring stick and put him as the GOAT center? The game is 5 on 5, we should take what he did on that basis not what he did against 1 person. Because if we take that logic then Shawn Marion must be ranked very high on the all time list for posterizing Lebron James in the 2011 finals. :confusedshrug:
btw, Im talking about 28 H2H matchups...Not just a series so your Merion-lebron example is not the same IMO

[Owl]

Most wouldn't agree. Especially those who were alive and watching or participating when they played. That's not opinion either. They had votes and Russell won them.
Not strictly true, certainly not as absolute as you suggest.

Whilst both were in the NBA together:
The press put Wilt in the All NBA First team 7 times to Russell 2
They got 4 MVPs each.
Wilt claimed, at least (we don't have all the records), two press based MVPs (U.S. Metropolitan Sportswriters Association Sam Davis Memorial Award and U.S. Basketball Writers Association) the first in 1962, the later in 1964 in years when other players took the player vote MVP (Russell in '62 and Robertson in '64). Only in '63 and '65 does Russell have a consensus (as far as we are aware) as the best player and best center, Wilt has (as far as we're aware) four such years.

[DatAsh]

Not strictly true, certainly not as absolute as you suggest.

Whilst both were in the NBA together:
The press put Wilt in the All NBA First team 7 times to Russell 2
They got 4 MVPs each.
Wilt claimed, at least (we don't have all the records), two press based MVPs (U.S. Metropolitan Sportswriters Association Sam Davis Memorial Award and U.S. Basketball Writers Association) the first in 1962, the later in 1964 in years when other players took the player vote MVP (Russell in '62 and Robertson in '64). Only in '63 and '65 does Russell have a consensus (as far as we are aware) as the best player and best center, Wilt has (as far as we're aware) four such years.

I do think it depends on the year in question. The only years I really see the argument for Wilt being better are 64' 66' 67' 68'. A lot of people might include 62' in there as well because of the 50ppg, but I don't.

[Owl]

I do think it depends on the year in question. The only years I really see the argument for Wilt being better are 64' 66' 67' 68'. A lot of people might include 62' in there as well because of the 50ppg, but I don't.
My comment wasn't with regard to whether there was a subjective case (though interesting that you don't think there's a case for 1960 All-NBA first team, MVP Wilt), it's the implication that Russell was considered clearly better, when actually the accolades when they were both active were pretty evenly split with Wilt having the edge.

[LEFT4DEAD]

Russell #2 :facepalm

[DatAsh]

My comment wasn't with regard to whether there was a subjective case (though interesting that you don't think there's a case for 1960 All-NBA first team, MVP Wilt), it's the implication that Russell was considered clearly better, when actually the accolades when they were both active were pretty evenly split with Wilt having the edge.

Again it depends on the years in question. I feel there were a few years Russell was clearly better, a few years when Wilt was clearly better, and few in between.

[G.O.A.T]

Not strictly true, certainly not as absolute as you suggest.

Whilst both were in the NBA together:
The press put Wilt in the All NBA First team 7 times to Russell 2
They got 4 MVPs each.
Wilt claimed, at least (we don't have all the records), two press based MVPs (U.S. Metropolitan Sportswriters Association Sam Davis Memorial Award and U.S. Basketball Writers Association) the first in 1962, the later in 1964 in years when other players took the player vote MVP (Russell in '62 and Robertson in '64). Only in '63 and '65 does Russell have a consensus (as far as we are aware) as the best player and best center, Wilt has (as far as we're aware) four such years.

I'll dig up my records, but during Russell's prime years (through 1965) he owned Wilt in MVP awards voted by the press or players. I don't think Wilt actually won one in 1962, I was just going through my 1962 file last night looking for block numbers. There is an article that says Wilt won the MVP but on the same day there are many more saying Russell did. Even articles with some voting breakdowns giving it to Russell. Here are the major MVP awards from that season. The basketball writers selected Russell link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hNQzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aekFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5831,3154836&dq=russell+most+valuable&hl=en) and of course we know he won the NBA award http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1962.html#mvp. As far as the all-nba voting, even most writers found this a hollow victory for Wilt link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BZozAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fzIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=7012,1192003&dq=russell+most+valuable&hl=en) The players and coaches, just mocked it link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vqQrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uvwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6273,5551511&dq=russell+most+valuable&hl=en).

Of course we also know that Russell was voted the Greatest Player of All-Time in 1970 by a comfortable Margin when the NBA selected it's Silver Anniversary team. Couple that with a current tally where I can find 5-6 people who pick Russell for every one who picks Wilt (among the players, coaches, media of that era) and I feel secure in saying that Russell was widely considered the greater player while he was playing.

Wilt was the first to do it in 1960 as a rookie, but I have Russell taking both MVPs in '61, '62, '63 and '65. Wilt returning the favor, though with Russell past his peak, from '66 to '68. 4-4 is my tally.

I promise you I won't try and distort anything, thanks for calling me out.

[Owl]

I'll dig up my records, but during Russell's prime years (through 1965) he owned Wilt in MVP awards voted by the press or players. I don't think Wilt actually won one in 1962, I was just going through my 1962 file last night looking for block numbers. There is an article that says Wilt won the MVP but on the same day there are many more saying Russell did. Even articles with some voting breakdowns giving it to Russell. Here are the major MVP awards from that season. The basketball writers selected Russell link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=hNQzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aekFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5831,3154836&dq=russell+most+valuable&hl=en) and of course we know he won the NBA award http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_1962.html#mvp. As far as the all-nba voting, even most writers found this a hollow victory for Wilt link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BZozAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fzIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=7012,1192003&dq=russell+most+valuable&hl=en) The players and coaches, just mocked it link (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vqQrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uvwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6273,5551511&dq=russell+most+valuable&hl=en).

Of course we also know that Russell was voted the Greatest Player of All-Time in 1970 by a comfortable Margin when the NBA selected it's Silver Anniversary team. Couple that with a current tally where I can find 5-6 people who pick Russell for every one who picks Wilt (among the players, coaches, media of that era) and I feel secure in saying that Russell was widely considered the greater player while he was playing.

Wilt was the first to do it in 1960 as a rookie, but I have Russell taking both MVPs in '61, '62, '63 and '65. Wilt returning the favor, though with Russell past his peak, from '66 to '68. 4-4 is my tally.

I promise you I won't try and distort anything, thanks for calling me out.
If you wanted to say to Russell's peak then okay you're now saying that, but that's not how the initial post read.

Russell did indeed claim the USBW MVP in '62, it's the MS Sam Davis Memorial MVP that he didn't get, I tried to make the distinction between the two in my post above. As such Russell claimed the official MVP from the players and one award from the writers, plus the Sporting News MVP from front offices/coaches(though as noted in the thread linked to below the front offices tended to more or less follow the official MVP when it was player vote but since then has become more independent) whilst Wilt claimed one sportswriters MVP and the All-League honors. 3-2 to Russell (though I'm not sure whether to count TSN at that time because of the sheep like following, but perhaps because Russell got the official MVP one might give him the edge).

Anyway my main source is here http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4421 but if you don't trust Robert Bradley, googling will find you the newspapers.

One opinion piece found it a hollow victory and whilst you'd probably prefer the official MVP, it's official and I'm guessing it came with more prize money, that doesn't mean that Wilt wasn't favoured by two other sources. It might also feel hollow because the Celtics were expected to win again, but that doesn't make Chamberlain the worse player.
And Red Auerbach and the Celtics family unit mocked Wilt being on the 1st team. Big surprise. Bob Cousy said that the Celtics "might have won one [title] with Chamberlain but no more than that". Might! If you trust members of those Celtic teams to be impartial judges of Russell versus Chamberlain then that's up to you. I don't.


Of course we also know that Russell was voted the Greatest Player of All-Time in 1970 by a comfortable Margin when the NBA selected it's Silver Anniversary team. Couple that with a current tally where I can find 5-6 people who pick Russell for every one who picks Wilt (among the players, coaches, media of that era) and I feel secure in saying that Russell was widely considered the greater player while he was playing.

In 1980 if we are no longer talking about his contemporaries he was voted best ever. Was he voted the best player in 1970? I have no awareness of this, though of course that does not make it untrue. I wasn't sure if I could recall there being a tally for the '80 vote in any case, so links would be appreciated.

If it is only the '80 one you're referring to and we're looking at non-contemporaries, then Wilt has ranked ahead of Russell in 6 out of 7 book lists of 50/100 greatest type lists (Simmons' TBoB is the exception), Russell was behind Wilt in the AP player of the century (3 and 4th respectively), behind of Chamberlain in 3 of 4 Slam lists, though in other magazine’s Russell has tended to come out on top. Athlon, Beckett and Pete Vecsey in Sport all have Russell ahead, as does Basketball Digest though this was a case of the editor overruling the piece’s main contributor who had Chamberlain at two and Russell at 3. Lacy Banks’ newspaper piece “50 sense” has Chamberlain above Russell. Off the top of my head the magazine’s rankings have tended to be more erratic in general than the books though some of the books lists are also of mixed quality.

In position specific rankings 2 books favour Wilt and one Russell (though one of the two picking Wilt is one of the more eccentric rankings and has MJ as 4th best guard behind Magic, Oscar and West; whilst Dirk whose name is misspelt as 92nd best forward and was in book published in 2009). ESPN columnists had Wilt over Russell, Charley Rosen had Russell higher on position specific rankings though neither source inspires great confidence.

Of web based lists only yours and 2 RealGM rankings and one hoops hype forum go for Russell above Wilt, many more take Chamberlain though I would state that yours and the RealGM ones have been among the better lists, at least in terms of quality of debate/information (though I didn’t read through either of RealGM’s many poll threads properly, just a cursory glance). I don’t know about the present ongoing list on this site but tbh looking at early votes “Oscar Robinson” and seeing suggestions that posters were deterred from voting by the OP running the polls I wouldn’t take it especially seriously. TBH web based ones don’t carry that much weight with me anyway.

[Owl]

Owl, here are some other rankings that you didn't mention:

Elliot Kalb's Who's Better Who's Best in Basketball: Wilt 2nd, Russell 4th

Wayne Patterson's Basketball's 100 Greatest Players: Wilt 1st, Russell 3rd

Kenneth A. Shouler's The Expert's Picks: Basketball's Best 50 Players in the Last 50 Years (all-time center rankings): Wilt 2nd, Russell 1st

Peter Bjarkman's Biographical History of Basketball: Wilt 3rd, Russell 5th
The Wilt favouring 3 are amongst the 6 pro Wilt 50/100 greatest books (well I technically I was thinking of Bjarkman's Encyclopedia of Pro Basketball Team Histories as his list there is deeper, and I didn't want to count him twice), Shouler's is the one position specific ranking that favours Russell.

[DatAsh]

Owl, how do you rank Wilt, Kareem, Magic?

[Owl]

Owl, how do you rank Wilt, Kareem, Magic?
Wilt and Kareem I have difficulty separating, 2 and 3 all time. If forced to choose I might lean Wilt, I'd struggle to really justify it though.
Magic definitely third amongst that group. Partly due to shorter career, partly due to only being notably good at one end (going from being on Bob Ryan's No-Defense Team in '83 and just being a gambler early on in his career, to a (roughly) above average and smart but not special defender later.

I'm not sure that Magic was the best pg ever, Oscar might have been better.

[DatAsh]

The opening link doesn't work if you just click the hyperlink because you've posted a full stop immediately after it and includes that as part of the URL.

Should be working now


Skill curves are more or less an accurate idea. But you can't say take one less shot per game and you'll shoot a higher percentage. Basketball being so organic and random it's difficult to create an optimum offense especially one for against all teams, and still harder to prove whether it was optimal. On the whole though with good teams, you don't get the sense that they pass up good shots. Shot creation is a real skill (though perhaps overvalued by some) especially where you do so at high percentages. An inability to create ones own shot places the burden of creating (for you or themselves) onto other players and means they will face increased defensive attention.

Spot on, the articles in question actually mention most of what you're saying here. I actually think that % can rise as overall fga rise, and such is the case when Wilt started shooting less fga. The articles were posted as an example to show a way in which box-score stats can be misleading. Someone who is averaging 30/15/2 on 50% can be a better scorer than someone averaging 50/15/2 on 50% if he's improving his team's overall efficiency more.

The Nash paradox is basically the unintuitive notion that comes about when an individual or group of individual's can increase the overall team efficiency by sacrificing their own personal gain.



As to whether good defensive teams win more often than good offensive teams (and if this is true it would seem to be a marginal difference) this doesn't prove cause and effect only a correlation.

Correct. The statistics only show that over the course of history a good defense has won the championship far more often than an equally good offense. Whether or not you think that has any value going forward is up to you.



I wouldn't exclude his rookie year from any samples of with/without Russell because

1) I haven't yet seen justification for doing so.
2) It's the largest sample.
3) It's a sample where (despite the loss of Macauley), the team hasn't built a strategy centered around and dependent on Russell. When Russell was gone for short periods, they weren't going to radically change roles for a couple of weeks then change back when Russell came back.

1) The justification for excluding his rookie year is to get a more accurrate representation of how much Russell was worth to his team.
2) "It's the largest sample" is exacly why it needs to be discluded if we wish to get an accurrate representation. Otherwise our results are much more likely to paint us a picture of Rookie Russell's worth when what were really interested in is figuring out a "semi-prime" Russell's worth - ages 24-31 or so. If Lebron James had missed 45 games in his career, 30 of those in his rookie year, you'd want to exclude those rookie games if your goal was to assess Lebron's Jame's approximate worth.


Regarding his departure it was not just him leaving, but also Sam Jones, and a change of coach and a change of focus from winning to developing talent. Plus Bailey Howell falling off a cliff (though it might be argued that that was Russell making his teammates better, though it is at least as plausible that a combination of age and motivation on sub .500 team were the main factor).

The coaching thing is a bit weird because the coach we're talking about is Russell himself, and I consider that to be part of Russell's defensive value in those years.

If I was citing an offensive drop off and acrediting that to Russell I think your arguments might be more accurrate, but I'd actually argue that losing a 35 year old Sam Jones(who was somewhat average defensively), and Baily Howell playing 7 less mpg should be a net positive on the defense, yet there defense still dropped them nearly 20 wins.


Sanders and K.C. Jones have called the best defensive forward and guard in the league by those covering the league at the time. Havlicek's all-D team appearances speak for themselves. Sharman, who was frequently in the top ten in ts% as a fairly high usage guard,

No disagreement here.




Is that right? I just checked basketball-reference and I think 16-8 is right for their start, sans Russell.
Anyways what measure are you using, points differential?
My point would be not that they were better off without him but that his impact that season was, ultimately, relatively marginal. And though those numbers (points diff?) show a positive impact from Russell as you’d expect they aren’t the sort of leap you’d expect from a GOAT candidate replacing the minutes of a washed up Arnie Risen and Jack Nichols (who?) as starters and perhaps a few minutes of Jungle Jim playing out of position.

The problem with using win% or record with/without is that it can easily be explained by SoS. That's why I think my method is better here, that and the results seem to be more logically correct. It's hard to imagine that a player who was already being called the greatest player to every play would be a net negative to his team.

The bolded and below I agree with, and it's the main reason why that year is the one year I can see the argument for Russell not being the most valuable player on his team. I'm almost positive that he was by far the main reason for them improving from 6th to 1st and gaining 18 DWS that year, but part of me also feels that he was a net negative on offense in that stage of his career.

[DatAsh]

Wilt and Kareem I have difficulty separating, 2 and 3 all time. If forced to choose I might lean Wilt, I'd struggle to really justify it though.
Magic definitely third amongst that group. Partly due to shorter career, partly due to only being notably good at one end (going from being on Bob Ryan's No-Defense Team in '83 and just being a gambler early on in his career, to a (roughly) above average and smart but not special defender later.

I'm not sure that Magic was the best pg ever, Oscar might have been better.

I think Oscar gets somewhat underrated because of his lack of team success. I tend to cut him some slack for the same reason I cut Chamberlain slack - the fact that they were both forced to try and win in perhaps the toughest era ever in which to do so.

I actually have Oscar as the best offensive player of the 60's - it's between him and West, but I think he's a bit overrated defensively.

I struggle with Wilt-Kareem as well. It's hard to ignore Kareem's team success, but I'm not really sure I can point to a single(major) aspect of basketball that Kareem was better at.

[Freedom Kid7]

Anyways, it seems this is between Wilt and KAJ. I, for one, have Magic at third GOAT (don't hate me). But I feel that it'd be tough to make a case for him above KAJ so I'll just try to make another case for KAJ.

I get the argument for KAJ v. Wilt. Both were incredible big men and put up mind blowing stats, had a hell of a lot of MVPs and always get mentioned in the GOAT conversation after MJ. I can't put Wilt ahead of KAJ. I just can't. Wilt did have a much better peak than Kareem ever did and had a better build for basketball (probably blessed with the best frame to play), but I feel those are the only two things that are clear cut advantages (you could argue scoring abilities, rebounding abilities for either one. I think Kareem was the better scorer and Wilt was the better rebounder). For the argument on 'Wilt defended Kareem like a boss', that's not a fair argument because Kareem didn't peak yet and did not reach his full potential. Kareem also improved his team more as a rookie than Wilt did, and Kareem was a better player in college than Wilt was. Kareem dominated in every way and only lost twice, once when he was injured. Wilt lost in a couple of big time games and didn't even finish his college ball career - something that you gotta consider. I know Kareem was blessed with Wooden and Wilt had some coach that is not Wooden, but I still don't think that matters imo. In the NBA, Kareem played for 2 decades and was 20/10 guy for 12 seasons (I'd argue he was an elite center for 15 or so years). Wilt only played for 13 seasons but was a 20/10 guy for 11 seasons. So longevity goes to Kareem. Mentality wise, both had a hell of a lot of short comings, but at the very least Kareem did play for team success and ended up becoming a team guy in the end, and that was something Wilt never understood. In terms of actual playing, Wilt rebounded the ball better than Kareem but Kareem had a better scoring game than Wilt did. In terms of passing, I think it's a crapshoot. Before the 'Wilt had the assist record' deal, Wilt passed in essence to get that assist record, where Kareem passed to make sure they scored, etc. I do think it probably goes to Wilt by a slight margin though. In terms of impact on teams I think both had a similar impact. Both would vastly improve the team, but if the sole focus was on that player, you could beat them. So I guess what I'm trying to say here is I feel Wilt may have had better stats and a better peak, but Kareem brought a bit more to the table in terms of scoring and intangibles that Wilt couldn't do.

[Owl]

Should be working now
Cool, I could get it to work by copy and pasting and not including the full stop but thought I should make all aware of it.


Spot on, the articles in question actually mention most of what you're saying here. I actually think that % can rise as overall fga rise, and such is the case when Wilt started shooting less fga. The articles were posted as an example to show a way in which box-score stats can be misleading. Someone who is averaging 30/15/2 on 50% can be a better scorer than someone averaging 50/15/2 on 50% if he's improving his team's overall efficiency more.

The Nash paradox is basically the unintuitive notion that comes about when an individual or group of individual's can increase the overall team efficiency by sacrificing their own personal gain.
The problem I have here (at least in comparing basketball with Braess) is that this wasn't independant self-interested individuals, this was a basketball team that communicated and talked that knew that they got more money if they won games and titles.

Whilst I can concieve that McGuire's strategy of a Wilt-centric offense may have demotivated other players and left them left them less sure of their shooting touch, I would argue:
a) That's not Wilt's fault, if it were true that the offense was sub-optimal it would be the coaches fault. Wilt showed the ability to shoulder a huge portion of the offense, meaning others didn't have as much defensive attention. That's an asset.
b) I'm not sure there's the evidence to show it was sub-optimal, perhaps a comparison of players fg% before and after might help. I don't know.
c) There's been a trend (on here at least) to look at 76ers Wilt as apex Wilt which is fair enough given the absurd % he shot combined with passing, maintaining his rebounding and probably a greater focus on D. But there has been the implication that the ridiculous scoring numbers weren't helping. They were. The difference (SRS, win%, whatever) between Warriors before he arrived and his healthy years are very substantial despite the aging then loss of Arizin, the aging and loss of Gola and the lack of substantial additions (Attles being probably the only notable one).


Correct. The statistics only show that over the course of history a good defense has won the championship far more often than an equally good offense. Whether or not you think that has any value going forward is up to you.
Does it show FAR more often? In any case the defense as cause (of winning) or effect (of other factors which cause winning, e.g. coaching, cohesion) thing is a big issue for me.


1) The justification for excluding his rookie year is to get a more accurrate representation of how much Russell was worth to his team.
2) "It's the largest sample" is exacly why it needs to be discluded if we wish to get an accurrate representation. Otherwise our results are much more likely to paint us a picture of Rookie Russell's worth when what were really interested in is figuring out a "semi-prime" Russell's worth - ages 24-31 or so. If Lebron James had missed 45 games in his career, 30 of those in his rookie year, you'd want to exclude those rookie games if your goal was to assess Lebron's Jame's approximate worth.
Don't quite understand 1.
2) Fair enough, with regard to his rookie value not being equal to his apex value if that is what you or anyone were trying to find, though I'm not sure Russell's career arc follows James'. Indeed if you want to argue the spike in Boston's performance is down to Russell you have to be arguing Russell as a huge impact player straight away. My main problem remains otherwise you're taking small samples with inadequate backups playing in a system designed for Russell.

To me it really depends on the strength of claim you wish to make. If you use that to say Russell was a very good defender, then thats a good piece of supporting evidence.
In the first thread of this series (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277266&page=3 and response http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277266&page=4) ThaRegul8er seemed to suggest that a 2 game sample of their struggles without Russell invalidated my point that teams not individuals played defense, I don't think it did.

If you want to say Russell was very good defensively based on "games he was missing from" data that's fine. If you want to say no one on the Boston bench team could remotely replace what he brought fine. If you believe Boston's other players ability was accurately gauged in regular season games in which they knew Russell would soon be back and so didn't vastly adapt their strategy, and either weren't playing with a proper center or with an old one near retirement, who had been playing very limited minutes before injuries and one who never played like Russell and think that that's how well Boston would have played over full seasons, I say no and I'd point to '57.


The coaching thing is a bit weird because the coach we're talking about is Russell himself, and I consider that to be part of Russell's defensive value in those years.

If I was citing an offensive drop off and acrediting that to Russell I think your arguments might be more accurrate, but I'd actually argue that losing a 35 year old Sam Jones(who was somewhat average defensively), and Baily Howell playing 7 less mpg should be a net positive on the defense, yet there defense still dropped them nearly 20 wins.
Not that coaching is worse, that there is a coaching changeover, new strategies, culture change, substantial player turnover (especially in terms of player minutes) so lack of continuity etc. Like I said it's part of a big picture along with a change of emphasis from winning to player development. For example Larry Siegfried, who thought he was going to get more minutes, got less. Why? Because they gave some of his minutes to Don Chaney. But wasn't Chaney awful at that time? Well it looks like it but the priority wasn't winning it was player development.

I don't know too much on Jones' defensive level but he was the one who covered Oscar when in the backcourt with Cousy (obviously Cousy is terrible matchup but by '63 they could have used Hondo). But yeah he's aging and wasn't notably considered as stopper.

Howell I don't know about defensively at all. It would seem he was giving effort over his career what with all those fouls he racked up. Bill Simmons' TBoB paperback likened him to Artest but that might just be offensive style (though that would be a terrible comp if so because Howell was very efficient).

Also I'm not sure offense and defense can always easily be separated. I've talked in these threads about Boston shooting very quickly in part to minimize turnovers and maximise offensive boards, but another part of it was what I think Tommy Heinsohn called "offensive pressure" by which I take to mean, Boston played so played so hard, so fast on O they exhausted opponents. Boston were fitter but opponents tired and that would make Boston's defensive job easier. To be honest this is just me b.s.ing/playing with ideas here, but I guess my point would be a lot of your data is at team level and there isn't a clear indication of which factors caused what to what degree.

Again level of replacement has to be figured in too. The drop off to Hank Finkel is a big one. Boston's fall might by as much to do with the trouble he had dealing with prime Unseld, Thurmond, Reed, near prime Wilt, scoring peak Hayes etc as Russell's success against them. In a suddenly very center heavy league Boston were fielding (starting) a player who would never play even 2/3s as many minutes in any other season and who was rarely a rotation player for the rest of his career.


No disagreement here.
:cheers:

The problem with using win% or record with/without is that it can easily be explained by SoS. That's why I think my method is better here, that and the results seem to be more logically correct. It's hard to imagine that a player who was already being called the greatest player to every play would be a net negative to his team.

The bolded and below I agree with, and it's the main reason why that year is the one year I can see the argument for Russell not being the most valuable player on his team. I'm almost positive that he was by far the main reason for them improving from 6th to 1st and gaining 18 DWS that year, but part of me also feels that he was a net negative on offense in that stage of his career.
What is your measure, SRS?
Like you say you'd be very surprised to see Russell making them worse, it's just not the sort of level of impact you'd expect to see in a GOAT candidate. If your numbers are SRS, and if Russell's first year impact as limited as these numbers imply, and given that the "without Russell" numbers are still significantly better than any other team's it would seem you'd expect (or at least favor) Boston to have won the title that year anyway, with or without Russell, with or without the players they traded for Russell, with Russell on another team or not.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the exchange of ideas and trying out arguments.
:cheers:

[Owl]

I think Oscar gets somewhat underrated because of his lack of team success. I tend to cut him some slack for the same reason I cut Chamberlain slack - the fact that they were both forced to try and win in perhaps the toughest era ever in which to do so.

I actually have Oscar as the best offensive player of the 60's - it's between him and West, but I think he's a bit overrated defensively.

I struggle with Wilt-Kareem as well. It's hard to ignore Kareem's team success, but I'm not really sure I can point to a single(major) aspect of basketball that Kareem was better at.
It's not one skill per se but Kareem combined his offensive efficiency with usage (Wilt, in large part due to awful free throw shooting peaked at 4th in TS% whilst scoring big points, he would lead twice when he took less touches), Kareem got 2nd twice whilst leading the league in scoring and then later came second in ts% whilst finishing 3rd in ppg. Kareem was usually topped only by role players (wheras players like Robertson, Bellamy and Howell were playing roles vaguely comparable to Wilt, though not shouldering quite as huge a share of the scoring burden) and did so in more competive era at the center position. Though those first two Kareem years might partially be a reflection of Robertson's quality as a playmaker.
So maybe not one skill but in terms of putting it all together at the same time Kareem might get an edge, plus tougher era. Advanced stats like him too (though pre-full boxscore it's hard to say you're getting a good fully accurate read) probably because of the afforementioned combination of usage and efficiency.

Hard to get a gauge on Robertson's D, though I'm beggining to think it was better than I had initially thought. Wilt trashed it in his last book, by which time in matters relating to basketball he was heavily self-glorifying and nearly unreadable, and even those arguing for Robertson as GOAT (I've seen two authors do so though mostly before Jordan's first comeback) tended not to refer to his D. But I've read mostly good things since, I think there's a thread with some of them on. So there's not a great deal of info (that I could find) but he seems to have been a positive on that end, hard to tell to what degree.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'm not sure that Magic was the best pg ever, Oscar might have been better.

Likewise why I would rank Jerry West over Oscar, Magic was better in the playoffs and finals in his performances.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm going to put forth the case for Magic Johnson as the third greatest player ever.

If the competition is Wilt and Kareem I will specifically tell you why I'd rather have Magic's career than either of theirs.

There were essentially three versions of Magic Johnson during his astounding career which was cut tragically short after twelve, appropriately, Magical seasons. Version number one is Buck. Buck was the man who guided Michigan State to a National Championship, the charismatic, big-smilin' uber-confident super winner who played the game with an unselfishness and zest that galvanized teammates and fans alike. When the Captain and MVP was unable to go for game six of the 1980 Finals, Magic filled his shoes. But it's not the 42-15-8 stat line or the overrated fact that he jumped center to start the game, it's what he did before the game that separate him from guys like Kareem and Wilt.

Never fear, E.J. is here...

Magic spent the time before the game convincing his teammates how fun it was going to be to have to run all night on Philly with Kareem out of the middle. Michael Cooper marveled at what he called a "one man pep rally" he watched as the Lakers whole mood changed with Magic motivation; "We went from thinking we couldn't win, to talking like we would win."

You won't find a single story about Wilt or Kareem doing anything like that. Magic was just as capable of posting huge offensive numbers in a critical game as either and, in fact, has greater numbers that both in the postseason...especially in the Finals. However he also had the ability to impact his teammates in a positive way to a much, much greater extent than either of those immensely talented giants.

Version two of Magic is the Earvin, the grown man learning from his failures. He is the player who evolved into a better jump shooter than Buck, a better ball handler, less prone to turnovers and less infatuated with the head turning play. He is the player who took control of the Laker franchise in 1981 and turned it in a direction that lead to the greatest dynasty in Los Angeles Sports history.

"The Magic is Back..."

After Magic Johnson was injured during the 1981 season, his second in the NBA, Laker owner Jerry Buss printed pins trumpeting his return proclaiming "the Magic is Back" However the Lakers washed out in the playoffs as a Magic Johnson air ball on a play designed to go to Kareem cost the defending Champs a best of three series with the Rockets. The next season started slowly with Magic frustrated over coach Paul Westhead's slow it down system favoring the offense running exclusively through Kareem. Magic forced management's hand and Westhead was fired. He and his system were replaced by Pat Riley and a Magic-centric fast break offense that would eventually become Showtime. The Lakers won the title that season, Magic was less than a half a rebound and a half assist away from averaging a triple double and he won his second Finals MVP already surpassing teammate Jabbar's total despite Kareem's decade head start.

From that point on Magic finished ahead of Kareem in the MVP voting every single season. At no point was Kareem ever considered the face of the franchise even though he was still arguably a better player until 1984 or '85. In my opinion Kareem was better, but not more important, not more valuable and not greater. That's the basis for Magic's case.

Earvin (version II) was constantly stepping up a level and then facing a set back. After winning the title in '82 a rash of injuries and the 76ers fo-fo-fo Manifest Destiny got them swept from the '83 Finals, but in 1984 they were back and seemed clearly the better team versus Larry Bird's Celtics. However a number of late game meltdown's including missed free throw's, turnovers and failure to get a last second shot off by Magic cost the Lakers as Bean-town celebrated in seven. The next year however the rematch...the Memorial Day Massacre in game one as Boston takes LA to the Woodshed. Riley delivers a post game tirade complete with tongue-lashing targeting Kareem and Magic most of all. The Lakers respond by winning four of the next five and securing their third title of the Reagan administration.

When Wilt and Kareem lost devastating game seven's against inferior opponents (in '68 and '74 respectively) they simply asked out and were traded. Magic asked for more responsibility and delivered.

The third version of is the peak Magic, the true Magic.

Junior, Junior Sky Hook and other three-word phrases to make Bostonian's barf...

Another set back in 1986, the Twin-Towers in Houston truck-sticked the Lakers from the WCF and sent the Purple and Golder's searching for answers. Slick-hairded, nattily-clad Pat Riley had a solution, turn to the Magic Man. He asked Kareem to step aside fully as the focal point of the half court and allow Magic to fully embrace the role of leader in the public and in crunch time as well as the locker room where he had taken control six years prior. Magic came back a man possessed and posted his most remarkable individual season. The Lakers dominated the regular season posting their most impressive win total of the decade and Johnson won his first MVP in emphatic fashion. In the playoffs the Lakers and their leader offered no quarter, disassembling opponents en route to the Finals where they left the long-time rivals in their wake as the aforementioned junior sky hook, over all three points of Boston's all-time great front-line triumvirate, sank the Celtic ship.

The Lakers were able to repeat the next season, the first team to do so in nearly two decades, something Wilt or Kareem were never able to do as arguably their teams best player, much less the clear and defined best player and leader. In three game sevens during that second title run Magic averaged 22-8-14 and shot 62% from the field and 90% from the line.

What it comes down to for me is winning. And other than Jordan and Russell, nobody did a better job of putting his team a position to win that Magic Johnson. As mentioned, during eight out of the ten seasons he shared with Kareem he was the considered the more valuable player by the people who voted on it for the NBA and by the organization who paid their contracts. He won five titles as his teams best or second best player, Kareem won four, Wilt won two despite both having longer careers than Magic. Without Kareem Magic wins at least two titles in the eighties for sure, without Magic, Kareem probably ends his career with a single ring. Wilt had issues maintaining his focus on winning, Magic never wavered. What Russell was to a teams defense and confidence, Magic was to their offense and confidence.

From SI following the 1987 title


"There's no question this is the best team I've played on," said Magic Johnson, a member of the 1980, '82 and '85 championship Lakers. "It's fast, it can shoot and rebound, it has inside people, it has everything. I've never played on a team that had everything before." Nor has a team often played with an individual who does everything to the degree that Magic did this season. After a 16-point, 19-assist, 8-rebound, 3-steal performance in the finale, he was the unanimous choice as series MVP, his third such selection; any other choice would have been a joke.


The Lakers got transcendent play from their superstar, just as Boston had last season from Bird. Magic was the constant, the man who played, in the words of Abdul-Jab-bar, "with enough intensity, at times, for the other four guys on the floor."


Thompson, meanwhile, was planning a trip to his native Bahamas, where he'll be joined later this summer by Magic and a few other teammates. "They love the Lakers down there," Thompson said. "They'll treat me like a king."

Given that, Mychal, how will they treat Magic?

"They'll treat him," said Thompson, "like the king of kings." And right now, that's exactly what he is in the NBA.

[miles berg]

We just did this already, we are on player #52 as we speak.

Why do this again, just bump the original thread if you want to read it.

[DatAsh]

WillC you might want to extend the time frame for these threads to be more than a single day; that should allow for more in depth discussions each time.

[Asukal]

Great stuff G.O.A.T. Exactly why I value Russell and Magic over Kareem and Wilt. :applause:

[Freedom Kid7]

WillC you might want to extend the time frame for these threads to be more than a single day; that should allow for more in depth discussions each time.
I concur.

[WillC]

WillC you might want to extend the time frame for these threads to be more than a single day; that should allow for more in depth discussions each time.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. That's why I haven't selected a winner just yet.

[DatAsh]

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. That's why I haven't selected a winner just yet.

Good deal. I haven't been keeping up with the timelimits so far and thus wasn't sure.

[ThaRegul8r]

It's actually too long, so it isn't going to work. I can't post it here.

[Freedom Kid7]

G.O.A.T - I love your argument and all, but I feel you forget to mention a couple things that really differentiate Kareem and Magic. Kareem won without Magic. You can't say the same about Magic. And Magic's defense was pretty awful, where Kareem was pretty good. And then there's the longevity argument. I do agree that Magic had better intangibles especially leadership and pumping up other players to be better, but Kareem probably had a more complete game sans passing, so :confusedshrug:

[G.O.A.T]

G.O.A.T - I love your argument and all, but I feel you forget to mention a couple things that really differentiate Kareem and Magic. Kareem won without Magic. You can't say the same about Magic.

I actually feel like Magic did more to prove he could win without Kareem than Kareem proved he could win without Magic or a comparable player. '87 & '88 Kareem was a 25 mpg player who didn't run the floor very often, didn't rebound at all and was in his forties. Saying that '87 and '88 Magic couldn't win without Kareem is like saying the Showtime Lakers couldn't win without Michael Cooper.

Kareem's only title without Magic came in 1971 of course. While Jerry West was hurt for the Lakers, the Celtics were rebuilding, the Knicks were upset and Rick Barry was in the ABA leaving the Warriors short-handed. Not to mention that the ABA was gaining strength and had at least 25% of the would be all-stars on it's rosters.


And Magic's defense was pretty awful, where Kareem was pretty good. And then there's the longevity argument. I do agree that Magic had better intangibles especially leadership and pumping up other players to be better, but Kareem probably had a more complete game sans passing, so :confusedshrug:

Magic's defense never stopped him from winning though. He was, not a good defender, but I'd rather have a poor defender who makes his teammates better than a solid all-around player who has little to no positive impact on the rest of the roster.

Kareem should have been greater than Magic, no doubt, but he wasn't.

[fpliii]

G.O.A.T - I love your argument and all, but I feel you forget to mention a couple things that really differentiate Kareem and Magic. Kareem won without Magic. You can't say the same about Magic. And Magic's defense was pretty awful, where Kareem was pretty good. And then there's the longevity argument. I do agree that Magic had better intangibles especially leadership and pumping up other players to be better, but Kareem probably had a more complete game sans passing, so :confusedshrug:

I don't have any preference in these rankings, but isn't it telling that the one ring Kareem won without the #1 GOAT PG was with the #2 GOAT PG? Just playing devil's advocate here bro...

EDIT: lol got anonymously negged for this?

[ThaRegul8r]

I always wonder how people use Kareem's longevity as a point when in comparison to Magic, acting like Magic had nothing to do with it. Kareem would never have played 20 years if Magic didn't come along, so I don't see how that's a point in Kareem's ledger against Magic of all people.

And Magic got further without Kareem than Kareem did sans Oscar or Magic. Playing with the top two point guards in the history of the game does wonders for a scoring center's game, which Kareem himself had no problem admitting.

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't have any preference in these rankings, but isn't it telling that the one ring Kareem won without the #1 GOAT PG was with the #2 GOAT PG? Just playing devil's advocate here bro...

I just mentioned this myself. He played with the top two point guards in the history of the game. I find it disingenuous when people omit this fact. Magic did better sans a Top 3 C than Kareem did sans a Top 2 PG. People should give the whole facts instead of slanting them.

[jongib369]

To be honest I'm not THAT impressed with Kareem's longevity. From what I can tell, Wilt at 36 > kareem at 36. Wilt at 41 >!!! Kareem at 41....Wilt at 50 was getting legit offers from the Nets and Knicks to play...Was kareem?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AO2iGqgnDs

-Kareem (age 38) 20.6 pts, 5.4 rebs, 2.8 as, 1.5 blocks, .581 fg%
-Patric Ewing (age 23) 18.8 pts, 9.3 rebs, 1.8 as, 2 blocks, .446 fg%

Kareem high vs ewing was 40 points - 8 total games
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kareem (Age 38) 20.2 Pts, 6.3 rebs, 1.9 as, 1.4 blocks, .599 fg%
Hakeem (Age 22) 22.8 Pts, 11.7 rebs, 2.6 as, 2.7 blocks, .495 fg%

kareem high vs hakeem 46 points - 18 total games

For shits and gigs, look up how ewing and hakeem did vs shaq here

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game by game stats Wilt VS kareem. Which an UBER old kareem did amazing against a young Hakeem, Ewing etc. So how would a PRIME Chamberlain do against Kareem, hakeem, ewing, shaq, howard and etc

Regular season – 1969-70 (wilt has a major season ending injury not long after the first meeting. knee surgery

ALSO NOTE AT THIS POINT IN HIS CAREER WILT WAS ASKED TO CHANGE HIS GAME, OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE SCORED A LOT MORE.

He was still able to score 60 + twice when needed in 69 even ...61 or 2 and 66...Dont remember ATM

1. Date: Fri 10/24/69
- Chamberlain (Age 33) 25 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 9-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar (Age 22) 23 pts, 20 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 9-21 FG/FGA L

Regular season – 1970-71
2. Date: Fri 11/20/70
- Chamberlain 28 pts, 23 rebs, 3 as, 10 blocks, 7-20 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 13 rebs, 0 as, 2 blocks, 13-32 FG/FGA W

3. Date: Mon 12/21/70
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 2 blocks, 11-23 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 0 as, 4 blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA W

4. Date: Fri 02/05/71
- Chamberlain 14 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 6 blocks, 7-10 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 27 pts, 10 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA L

5. Date: Thu 02/11/71
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 11 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 21 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 13-30 FG/FGA – 2 blocks against Wilt W

6. Date: Wed 03/03/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 13 rebs, 5 as, 8 blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 15 pts, 6 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-21 FG/FGA W

Post season – 1970-71 – WCF playoffs
7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

8. Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L
-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W

9. Date: Wed 04/14/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, 3 blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, 0 blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L

10.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W

11.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W

Regular season – 1971-72
- Chamberlain 11 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 4-9 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA L

13.Date: Sun 01/09/72
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 12 rebs, 2 as, 6 blocks, 7-11 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, 9 blocks, 18-34 FG/FGA W

14.Date: Fri 02/04/72
- Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 8-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 18 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 16-33 FG/FGA L

15.Date: Wed 03/01/72
- Chamberlain 8 pts, 17 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 12 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

16.Date: Fri 03/17/72
- Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 50 pts, 8 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 22-39 FG/FGA L

Post season – 1971-72 – WCF playoffs

17.Date: Sun 04/09/72
- Chamberlain 10 pts, 24 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 3-12 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-26 FG/FGA W

18.Date: Wed 04/12/72
- Chamberlain 11 pts, 17 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 7 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 18-31 FG/FGA L

19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
- Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 15-37 FG/FGA L

20.Date: Sun 04/16/72
- Chamberlain 5 pts, 11 rebs, 4 as, 3 blocks, 2-7 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 18 rebs, 3 as, 7 blocks, 14-33 FG/FGA W

21.Date: Tue 04/18/72
- Chamberlain 12 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 2-3 FG/FGA - 4 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 28 pts, 16 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

22.Date: Sat 04/22/72
- Chamberlain 20 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, 9 blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 25 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 16-37 FG/FGA L

Regular season – 1972-73
23.Date: Tue 11/14/72
- Chamberlain 16 pts, 15 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 6 as, 7 blocks, 17-32 FG/FGA L

24.Date: Tue 12/05/72
- Chamberlain 9 pts, 15 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 4-4 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 11-30 FG/FGA L

25.Date: Sun 01/07/73
- Chamberlain 9 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 12 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 17-36 FG/FGA W

26.Date: Fri 02/09/73
- Chamberlain 8 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-3 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-24 FG/FGA W

27.Date: Sun 02/25/73
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 20 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 10-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 21 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 10-27 FG/FGA L

28.Date: Tue 03/27/73
- Chamberlain 0 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 0-0 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 24 pts, 17 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 12-31 FG/FGA W

* Blocked stats are collected from archive newspapers articles (as most of the data), NBA doesn't kept track of blocked shots before 1973/74 season. I have some blocked shots numbers ( for example if Wilt blocked 20 shots - 11 of Jabbar in two consecutive games in 1972 WCF - and if that were the game 5 and 6 - it will be like Wilt had 11 blocks (4 against Jabbar) in game 5 and 9 blocks (7 against Jabbar) in game 6. But since if I am not able to cross checked it I did not put that data. Also I find in the forum info about Wilt blocked 8 shots in game 1 of 1971/72 regular season, but I was not able to find evidence in google news archive search,so again I do not post it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harvey pollack "For instance, a triple-double-double -- there isn't anybody since Wilt did this in 1968 that has come close to getting 20 points, 20 rebounds and 20 assists in a game."


http://oi49.tinypic.com/28us7cp.jpg

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2rmwkzd.jpg

http://oi45.tinypic.com/160zyhe.jpg

[jongib369]

To be honest I'm not THAT impressed with Kareem's longevity. From what I can tell, Wilt at 36 > kareem at 36. Wilt at 41 >!!! Kareem at 41....Wilt at 50 was getting legit offers from the Nets and Knicks to play...Was kareem?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AO2iGqgnDs

-Kareem (age 38) 20.6 pts, 5.4 rebs, 2.8 as, 1.5 blocks, .581 fg%
-Patric Ewing (age 23) 18.8 pts, 9.3 rebs, 1.8 as, 2 blocks, .446 fg%

Kareem high vs ewing was 40 points - 8 total games
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kareem (Age 38) 20.2 Pts, 6.3 rebs, 1.9 as, 1.4 blocks, .599 fg%
Hakeem (Age 22) 22.8 Pts, 11.7 rebs, 2.6 as, 2.7 blocks, .495 fg%

kareem high vs hakeem 46 points - 18 total games

For shits and gigs, look up how ewing and hakeem did vs shaq here

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game by game stats Wilt VS kareem. Which an UBER old kareem did amazing against a young Hakeem, Ewing etc. So how would a PRIME Chamberlain do against Kareem, hakeem, ewing, shaq, howard and etc

Regular season – 1969-70 (wilt has a major season ending injury not long after the first meeting. knee surgery

ALSO NOTE AT THIS POINT IN HIS CAREER WILT WAS ASKED TO CHANGE HIS GAME, OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE SCORED A LOT MORE.

He was still able to score 60 + twice when needed in 69 even ...61 or 2 and 66...Dont remember ATM

1. Date: Fri 10/24/69
- Chamberlain (Age 33) 25 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 9-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar (Age 22) 23 pts, 20 rebs, 2 as, 2 blocks, 9-21 FG/FGA L

Regular season – 1970-71
2. Date: Fri 11/20/70
- Chamberlain 28 pts, 23 rebs, 3 as, 10 blocks, 7-20 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 13 rebs, 0 as, 2 blocks, 13-32 FG/FGA W

3. Date: Mon 12/21/70
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 2 blocks, 11-23 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 0 as, 4 blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA W

4. Date: Fri 02/05/71
- Chamberlain 14 pts, 14 rebs, 3 as, 6 blocks, 7-10 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 27 pts, 10 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA L

5. Date: Thu 02/11/71
- Chamberlain 25 pts, 11 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 21 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 13-30 FG/FGA – 2 blocks against Wilt W

6. Date: Wed 03/03/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 13 rebs, 5 as, 8 blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 15 pts, 6 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-21 FG/FGA W

Post season – 1970-71 – WCF playoffs
7. Date: Fri 04/09/71
- Chamberlain 22 pts, 20 rebs, 1 as, 8 blocks, 10-19 FG/FGA – 3 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 32 pts, 22 rebs, 1 as, 1 blocks, 14-30 FG/FGA W

8. Date: Sun 04/11/71
- Chamberlain 26 pts, 22 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA - Wilt blocked numerious shots L
-Abdul-Jabbar 22 pts, 10 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W

9. Date: Wed 04/14/71
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 24 rebs, 3 as, 3 blocks, 9-19 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 19 rebs, 6 as, 0 blocks, 8-16 FG/FGA L

10.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 16 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 7-14 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 14-20 FG/FGA W

11.Date: Fri 04/16/71
- Chamberlain 23 pts, 12 rebs, 4 as, 6 blocks, 10-21 FG/FGA – 5 blocks against Jabbar L
-Abdul-Jabbar 20 pts, 15 rebs, 5 as, 3 blocks, 7-23 FG/FGA W

Regular season – 1971-72
- Chamberlain 11 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 4-9 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 17-33 FG/FGA L

13.Date: Sun 01/09/72
- Chamberlain 15 pts, 12 rebs, 2 as, 6 blocks, 7-11 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 39 pts, 20 rebs, 5 as, 9 blocks, 18-34 FG/FGA W

14.Date: Fri 02/04/72
- Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 8-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 18 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 16-33 FG/FGA L

15.Date: Wed 03/01/72
- Chamberlain 8 pts, 17 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 12 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

16.Date: Fri 03/17/72
- Chamberlain 18 pts, 25 rebs, 5 as, * blocks, 7-15 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 50 pts, 8 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 22-39 FG/FGA L

Post season – 1971-72 – WCF playoffs

17.Date: Sun 04/09/72
- Chamberlain 10 pts, 24 rebs, 0 as, * blocks, 3-12 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-26 FG/FGA W

18.Date: Wed 04/12/72
- Chamberlain 11 pts, 17 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 40 pts, 7 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 18-31 FG/FGA L

19.Date: Fri 04/14/72
- Chamberlain 7 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, 10 blocks, 1-3 FG/FGA – 6 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 33 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 15-37 FG/FGA L

20.Date: Sun 04/16/72
- Chamberlain 5 pts, 11 rebs, 4 as, 3 blocks, 2-7 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 31 pts, 18 rebs, 3 as, 7 blocks, 14-33 FG/FGA W

21.Date: Tue 04/18/72
- Chamberlain 12 pts, 26 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 2-3 FG/FGA - 4 blocks against Jabbar W
-Abdul-Jabbar 28 pts, 16 rebs, 3 as, * blocks, 13-33 FG/FGA L

22.Date: Sat 04/22/72
- Chamberlain 20 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, 9 blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 25 rebs, 8 as, * blocks, 16-37 FG/FGA L

Regular season – 1972-73
23.Date: Tue 11/14/72
- Chamberlain 16 pts, 15 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 8-12 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 16 rebs, 6 as, 7 blocks, 17-32 FG/FGA L

24.Date: Tue 12/05/72
- Chamberlain 9 pts, 15 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 4-4 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 17 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 11-30 FG/FGA L

25.Date: Sun 01/07/73
- Chamberlain 9 pts, 18 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 3-5 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 37 pts, 12 rebs, 7 as, * blocks, 17-36 FG/FGA W

26.Date: Fri 02/09/73
- Chamberlain 8 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 3-3 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 29 pts, 24 rebs, 2 as, * blocks, 14-24 FG/FGA W

27.Date: Sun 02/25/73
- Chamberlain 24 pts, 20 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 10-14 FG/FGA W
-Abdul-Jabbar 21 pts, 21 rebs, 6 as, * blocks, 10-27 FG/FGA L

28.Date: Tue 03/27/73
- Chamberlain 0 pts, 14 rebs, 4 as, * blocks, 0-0 FG/FGA L
-Abdul-Jabbar 24 pts, 17 rebs, 1 as, * blocks, 12-31 FG/FGA W

* Blocked stats are collected from archive newspapers articles (as most of the data), NBA doesn't kept track of blocked shots before 1973/74 season. I have some blocked shots numbers ( for example if Wilt blocked 20 shots - 11 of Jabbar in two consecutive games in 1972 WCF - and if that were the game 5 and 6 - it will be like Wilt had 11 blocks (4 against Jabbar) in game 5 and 9 blocks (7 against Jabbar) in game 6. But since if I am not able to cross checked it I did not put that data. Also I find in the forum info about Wilt blocked 8 shots in game 1 of 1971/72 regular season, but I was not able to find evidence in google news archive search,so again I do not post it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harvey pollack "For instance, a triple-double-double -- there isn't anybody since Wilt did this in 1968 that has come close to getting 20 points, 20 rebounds and 20 assists in a game."


http://oi49.tinypic.com/28us7cp.jpg

http://oi48.tinypic.com/2rmwkzd.jpg

http://oi45.tinypic.com/160zyhe.jpg
LOL who is the asshole who negged me for my post?

[oolalaa]

Reserved

The tension is palpable.

[oolalaa]

I'm going to put forth the case for Magic Johnson as the third greatest player ever.

If the competition is Wilt and Kareem I will specifically tell you why I'd rather have Magic's career than either of theirs.

There were essentially three versions of Magic Johnson during his astounding career which was cut tragically short after twelve, appropriately, Magical seasons. Version number one is Buck. Buck was the man who guided Michigan State to a National Championship, the charismatic, big-smilin' uber-confident super winner who played the game with an unselfishness and zest that galvanized teammates and fans alike. When the Captain and MVP was unable to go for game six of the 1980 Finals, Magic filled his shoes. But it's not the 42-15-8 stat line or the overrated fact that he jumped center to start the game, it's what he did before the game that separate him from guys like Kareem and Wilt.

Never fear, E.J. is here...

Magic spent the time before the game convincing his teammates how fun it was going to be to have to run all night on Philly with Kareem out of the middle. Michael Cooper marveled at what he called a "one man pep rally" he watched as the Lakers whole mood changed with Magic motivation; "We went from thinking we couldn't win, to talking like we would win."

You won't find a single story about Wilt or Kareem doing anything like that. Magic was just as capable of posting huge offensive numbers in a critical game as either and, in fact, has greater numbers that both in the postseason...especially in the Finals. However he also had the ability to impact his teammates in a positive way to a much, much greater extent than either of those immensely talented giants.

Version two of Magic is the Earvin, the grown man learning from his failures. He is the player who evolved into a better jump shooter than Buck, a better ball handler, less prone to turnovers and less infatuated with the head turning play. He is the player who took control of the Laker franchise in 1981 and turned it in a direction that lead to the greatest dynasty in Los Angeles Sports history.

"The Magic is Back..."

After Magic Johnson was injured during the 1981 season, his second in the NBA, Laker owner Jerry Buss printed pins trumpeting his return proclaiming "the Magic is Back" However the Lakers washed out in the playoffs as a Magic Johnson air ball on a play designed to go to Kareem cost the defending Champs a best of three series with the Rockets. The next season started slowly with Magic frustrated over coach Paul Westhead's slow it down system favoring the offense running exclusively through Kareem. Magic forced management's hand and Westhead was fired. He and his system were replaced by Pat Riley and a Magic-centric fast break offense that would eventually become Showtime. The Lakers won the title that season, Magic was less than a half a rebound and a half assist away from averaging a triple double and he won his second Finals MVP already surpassing teammate Jabbar's total despite Kareem's decade head start.

From that point on Magic finished ahead of Kareem in the MVP voting every single season. At no point was Kareem ever considered the face of the franchise even though he was still arguably a better player until 1984 or '85. In my opinion Kareem was better, but not more important, not more valuable and not greater. That's the basis for Magic's case.

Earvin (version II) was constantly stepping up a level and then facing a set back. After winning the title in '82 a rash of injuries and the 76ers fo-fo-fo Manifest Destiny got them swept from the '83 Finals, but in 1984 they were back and seemed clearly the better team versus Larry Bird's Celtics. However a number of late game meltdown's including missed free throw's, turnovers and failure to get a last second shot off by Magic cost the Lakers as Bean-town celebrated in seven. The next year however the rematch...the Memorial Day Massacre in game one as Boston takes LA to the Woodshed. Riley delivers a post game tirade complete with tongue-lashing targeting Kareem and Magic most of all. The Lakers respond by winning four of the next five and securing their third title of the Reagan administration.

When Wilt and Kareem lost devastating game seven's against inferior opponents (in '68 and '74 respectively) they simply asked out and were traded. Magic asked for more responsibility and delivered.

The third version of is the peak Magic, the true Magic.

Junior, Junior Sky Hook and other three-word phrases to make Bostonian's barf...

Another set back in 1986, the Twin-Towers in Houston truck-sticked the Lakers from the WCF and sent the Purple and Golder's searching for answers. Slick-hairded, nattily-clad Pat Riley had a solution, turn to the Magic Man. He asked Kareem to step aside fully as the focal point of the half court and allow Magic to fully embrace the role of leader in the public and in crunch time as well as the locker room where he had taken control six years prior. Magic came back a man possessed and posted his most remarkable individual season. The Lakers dominated the regular season posting their most impressive win total of the decade and Johnson won his first MVP in emphatic fashion. In the playoffs the Lakers and their leader offered no quarter, disassembling opponents en route to the Finals where they left the long-time rivals in their wake as the aforementioned junior sky hook, over all three points of Boston's all-time great front-line triumvirate, sank the Celtic ship.

The Lakers were able to repeat the next season, the first team to do so in nearly two decades, something Wilt or Kareem were never able to do as arguably their teams best player, much less the clear and defined best player and leader. In three game sevens during that second title run Magic averaged 22-8-14 and shot 62% from the field and 90% from the line.

What it comes down to for me is winning. And other than Jordan and Russell, nobody did a better job of putting his team a position to win that Magic Johnson. As mentioned, during eight out of the ten seasons he shared with Kareem he was the considered the more valuable player by the people who voted on it for the NBA and by the organization who paid their contracts. He won five titles as his teams best or second best player, Kareem won four, Wilt won two despite both having longer careers than Magic. Without Kareem Magic wins at least two titles in the eighties for sure, without Magic, Kareem probably ends his career with a single ring. Wilt had issues maintaining his focus on winning, Magic never wavered. What Russell was to a teams defense and confidence, Magic was to their offense and confidence.

From SI following the 1987 title

Mmmmmmmm good stuff. I think #3 quite clearly deserves to go to the Magic Man. Outside of his basically unmatched 'intangibles', he was probably the 2nd greatest offensive player in NBA history at his peak (Behind only Jordan). There have been many, many great playmakers, passers and floor generals over the years, but none of them have come remotely close to being able to run a team like Earvin Johnson (I personally don't think anyone is even in his stratosphere). Combine that with unrivaled ball security, an utterly devastating post game, and a staunchly consistent 20 foot jumper and you had something truly special.

[oolalaa]

LOL who is the asshole who negged me for my post?

Don't worry, I just got negged in a 4 month old thread for defending '12 Durant against prime T-Machoke.

[Legends66NBA7]

Playing with the top two point guards in the history of the game does wonders for a scoring center's game

This is true, however, Kareem put up pig scoring numbers, even without Oscar and Magic, especially during some of his playoff runs. He would have been a great scorer no matter who was getting him the ball.

[Freedom Kid7]

I actually feel like Magic did more to prove he could win without Kareem than Kareem proved he could win without Magic or a comparable player. '87 & '88 Kareem was a 25 mpg player who didn't run the floor very often, didn't rebound at all and was in his forties. Saying that '87 and '88 Magic couldn't win without Kareem is like saying the Showtime Lakers couldn't win without Michael Cooper.
I'll give you that. Magic did reinvigorate the Lakers franchise and made them competitors, and for all we know Kareem could have ended in the second round consistently in the years he played in the playoffs without Magic.



Kareem's only title without Magic came in 1971 of course. While Jerry West was hurt for the Lakers, the Celtics were rebuilding, the Knicks were upset and Rick Barry was in the ABA leaving the Warriors short-handed. Not to mention that the ABA was gaining strength and had at least 25% of the would be all-stars on it's rosters.
I don't think the competition was all that weak at that point, you still had Nate Thurmond, Kareem still faced Wilt (who albeit was very much past his peak, but still effective) and still beat Unsled and them Bullets. That, and Kareem still trumped though the regular season posting up a 66-16 record and leading a small market team to a championship. Not a lot of guys have given a small market team a championship.



Magic's defense never stopped him from winning though. He was, not a good defender, but I'd rather have a poor defender who makes his teammates better than a solid all-around player who has little to no positive impact on the rest of the roster.
Solid point there. So, out of curiousity, do you believe making teammates better is an important testament to greatness? I do feel Kareem made his teammates better, but not near to the extent Magic did.


Kareem should have been greater than Magic, no doubt, but he wasn't.
Interesting thought actually.


I don't have any preference in these rankings, but isn't it telling that the one ring Kareem won without the #1 GOAT PG was with the #2 GOAT PG? Just playing devil's advocate here bro...

EDIT: lol got anonymously negged for this?
I'm down for the devils advocate here. I feel that while Oscar was still excellent at this time, he was not triple double Oscar and was no longer the best PG at the time, as Fraizer was entering his peak. I will agree that Kareem was blessed with having elite PGs when he was actually winning, but I've always wondered if Kareem helped keep Oscar around and helped Magic develop or if the PGs helped him. I dunno.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't think the competition was all that weak at that point, you still had Nate Thurmond, Kareem still faced Wilt (who albeit was very much past his peak, but still effective) and still beat Unsled and them Bullets. That, and Kareem still trumped though the regular season posting up a 66-16 record and leading a small market team to a championship. Not a lot of guys have given a small market team a championship.


I don't want to take anything away from Kareem, that was an amazing season and he was the NBA's best player. However the Warriors were without Barry (their best or second best player), The Lakers were without West (again, best or second best) and the Bullets were without Gus Johnson (One of their top three and best all-around player).

That's like Kareem losing Oscar or Dandridge. When Oscar got injured the next season, the Bucks never regained the title. Just something to consider.

[Freedom Kid7]

I don't want to take anything away from Kareem, that was an amazing season and he was the NBA's best player. However the Warriors were without Barry (their best or second best player), The Lakers were without West (again, best or second best) and the Bullets were without Gus Johnson (One of their top three and best all-around player).

That's like Kareem losing Oscar or Dandridge. When Oscar got injured the next season, the Bucks never regained the title. Just something to consider.
Valid point indeed. Injuries and losses of players are part of the game though. I'm not gonna argue LeBron's competition was weak because Rose was injured, I'm not gonna argue Duncan's competition was weak because Dirk got injured in '03, etc etc.

[DatAsh]

Going to re-post Owl's argument for Wilt in this thread from the previous thread since we've seen arguments for both Kareem and Magic.

[QUOTE=Owl]The case for Wilton Norman Chamberlain (posited as somewhat as a

[DatAsh]

Valid point indeed. Injuries and losses of players are part of the game though. I'm not gonna argue LeBron's competition was weak because Rose was injured, I'm not gonna argue Duncan's competition was weak because Dirk got injured in '03, etc etc.

I can somewhat see the need for bringing up injuries in certain situations, but you're right that they are a part of the game and bringing them up usually opens up an entirely new can of worms.

Bill Walton is probably a top ten player of all time had it not been for injuries.

[KOBE143]

Kobe at worst is the 3rd greatest player of all time..

[Freedom Kid7]

I can somewhat see the need for bringing up injuries in certain situations, but you're right that they are a part of the game and bringing them up usually opens up an entirely new can of worms.

Bill Walton is probably a top ten player of all time had it not been for injuries.
It goes beyond Walton, though he is the class example because his peak was so great. I mean, look at Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway, Ralph Sampson, and a hell of a lot more players. You could go on all day about the hypothetical scenarios, but it does nothing in the end and just goes to show injuries are a bitch and rob us of some talent. Yet, in the end those hypotheticals remain hypotheticals because no amount of thinking or whate have you will change the players injury

[G.O.A.T]

Valid point indeed. Injuries and losses of players are part of the game though. I'm not gonna argue LeBron's competition was weak because Rose was injured, I'm not gonna argue Duncan's competition was weak because Dirk got injured in '03, etc etc.

Totally agree. My point in all of that was just that it would have been nice to see Kareem put up at least one more with the Bucks or Lakers in the seventies. Remember that people were predicting a dynasty for Milwaukee after that '71 sweep.

[LeBird]

Mmmmmmmm good stuff. I think #3 quite clearly deserves to go to the Magic Man. Outside of his basically unmatched 'intangibles', he was probably the 2nd greatest offensive player in NBA history at his peak (Behind only Jordan). There have been many, many great playmakers, passers and floor generals over the years, but none of them have come remotely close to being able to run a team like Earvin Johnson (I personally don't think anyone is even in his stratosphere). Combine that with unrivaled ball security, an utterly devastating post game, and a staunchly consistent 20 foot jumper and you had something truly special.

Why Magic over Bird?

[crisoner]

lol how many "GOAT TOP" threads we gonna have on ISH?

shit is boring

Agreed....tired of it now. Maybe revisit a year from now or something. And this one really lags not feeling the convos so far.

[oolalaa]

Why Magic over Bird?

Ball handling is a big reason. It's a luxury to have someone who is almost impossible to strip when they're dribbling the ball up court or at the top of the key (See '88 Finals). Magic gave you this assurance, Bird always needed a point guard to do this for him.

This ties into their ability to "run" a team too. In terms of pure passing ability, Bird is very close to magic, but when it comes to playmaking, being a floor leader, calling out each play, directing where everyone needs to be, executing whilst getting hounded, etc, etc, Bird pales in comparison. I essentially think this outweighs Bird's superior scoring ability, partly because '87-91 Magic could score whenever he wanted. He was obviously just more concerned with getting his teammates easy points.

[LeBird]

Thanks for your answer, I was interested in your reason, but I disagree. Bird could play with mediocre PGs - he wasn't especially reliant on someone bringing the ball up or giving him any special passes. All players are reliant, one way or another so I don't think Magic rises above the comparison in that respect. Magic wasn't a very good defender and relied on his teammates to cover for him, for example.

I think while Magic was a genuine scoring threat later in his career, he simply never reached the level of Bird - basically, an elite scorer. I'd argue that Bird was as good of a ball handler as Magic was a scorer - unorthodox, but get the job done anyway, if asked/forced. Having said that I think the difference is irrelevant because of their positions. It would be like arguing that Magic is better than Wilt/Russell/Kareem because of ball-handling. You wouldn't want them to be doing that even if they could.

[Freedom Kid7]

Totally agree. My point in all of that was just that it would have been nice to see Kareem put up at least one more with the Bucks or Lakers in the seventies. Remember that people were predicting a dynasty for Milwaukee after that '71 sweep.
Agreed 100% there.

Now we wait to see what the verdict is.

[iamgine]

Ball handling is a big reason. It's a luxury to have someone who is almost impossible to strip when they're dribbling the ball up court or at the top of the key (See '88 Finals). Magic gave you this assurance, Bird always needed a point guard to do this for him.

This ties into their ability to "run" a team too. In terms of pure passing ability, Bird is very close to magic, but when it comes to playmaking, being a floor leader, calling out each play, directing where everyone needs to be, executing whilst getting hounded, etc, etc, Bird pales in comparison. I essentially think this outweighs Bird's superior scoring ability, partly because '87-91 Magic could score whenever he wanted. He was obviously just more concerned with getting his teammates easy points.
Well duh, those are PG's duty and Bird wasn't a PG. On that note we can also say Bird rebounds significantly more.

I also don't think the last part is accurate in its portrayal. When you say Magic could "score whenever he wanted", is it at the level of Larry or MJ? I mean, Chris Paul can "score whenever he wanted", but's he's hardly at Durant's level.

[oolalaa]

BTW, I was exclusively talking about offense in that post. Bird's slightly better on ball defense and rebounding of course closes the gap between the two as overall players. In the end, '84-'87 Bird and '87-'90 Magic are close to a toss up, although I still give the edge to Magic. In terms of career all time rankings, Magic is at #3 like I said, and Bird is at #5 or #6.


Thanks for your answer, I was interested in your reason, but I disagree. Bird could play with mediocre PGs - he wasn't especially reliant on someone bringing the ball up or giving him any special passes.


Who were the mediocre point guards Bird played with? Tiny was seemlessly replaced with DJ in '84. Both very, very good ball handlers who could run a team. And would you be comfortable with Bird dribbling the ball up court every single posession? I certainly wouldn't. I call that being reliant.

I never said he was reliant on "special" passes or playmaking by his point guards, though. Of course he wasn't. He just needed someone to handle the ball for him.



All players are reliant, one way or another so I don't think Magic rises above the comparison in that respect. Magic wasn't a very good defender and relied on his teammates to cover for him, for example.


Bird relied on his teammates to cover him, too. McHale always guarded the opposing teams best SF or PF. Bird very often was given the worst offensive threat to guard, just like Magic.



I think while Magic was a genuine scoring threat later in his career, he simply never reached the level of Bird - basically, an elite scorer.


I never said he did. I merely said Magic's playmaking edge outweighed Bird's scoring edge.



I'd argue that Bird was as good of a ball handler as Magic was a scorer - unorthodox, but get the job done anyway, if asked/forced. Having said that I think the difference is irrelevant because of their positions. It would be like arguing that Magic is better than Wilt/Russell/Kareem because of ball-handling. You wouldn't want them to be doing that even if they could.

lebron is a small foward. Do you not want him dribbling up court and handling the point, then, even though he can? He shouldn't do it because that's not a small forwards job? Leave it to mario Chalmers?

[oolalaa]

Well duh, those are PG's duty and Bird wasn't a PG. On that note we can also say Bird rebounds significantly more.

I also don't think the last part is accurate in its portrayal. When you say Magic could "score whenever he wanted", is it at the level of Larry or MJ? I mean, Chris Paul can "score whenever he wanted", but's he's hardly at Durant's level.

You don't think the last part is "accurate in it's portrayal" because you clearly didn't read it properly. I stated that Bird was a superior scorer to magic. That doesn't take away from the fact that Magic could have been a 27/28 ppg scorer if he wanted to be.

The scoring ability discrepancy between Magic and Bird is FAAAAR smaller than with CP3 and Durant. I'm not sure why you brought them up.

[iamgine]

You don't think the last part is "accurate in it's portrayal" because you clearly didn't read it properly. I stated that Bird was a superior scorer to magic. That doesn't take away from the fact that Magic could have been a 27/28 ppg scorer if he wanted to be.

The scoring ability discrepancy between Magic and Bird is FAAAAR smaller than with CP3 and Durant. I'm not sure why you brought them up.
How do you conclude it's far smaller when CP's peak was 23 ppg and Durant's peak was 30 ppg. That's about the same with Magic and Larry.

[gigantes]

The Greatest Players of All-Time:

01 - Michael Jordan (nominated by: pauk)
02 - Bill Russell (nominated by: DatAsh)
not sure if you're saying those are the primary nominations for the #3 greatest player of all time or if you're saying those are the two top spots already decided. if the latter:

wilt chamberlain cannot be out of the top two in any rational world. that's just crazy talk. as good as russell was an effective, team-oriented player, chamberlain was still on a whole 'nother level when it came to sheer ability. "greatest" is of course a nebulous term, but when it comes down to a choice, individual ability, stats and records get a slight nod from me when compared to team trophys won and pure skill at being a team player. that's basically what it comes down to between those two players.

fix your chart and then let's talk. the true #3 position should probably be between jabbar and russell, with lebron rapidly coming in to that conversation.

[ThaRegul8r]

It's actually too long with what I wanted to address, and after making sure all the tags and formatting was correct, I find it more trouble than it's worth trying to cut it into segments that fit within the maximum character limit for a post. And the people who are enamored with points and statistics won't understand it anyway, and the people whose minds are made up are already decided, so it's really pointless. G.O.A.T. already did a good job anyway, I had just wanted to come from a different angle and make some points he didn't. I'm not really that interested though in this, as I have no desire to try to convince anyone of anything. I just thought I might make an argument most people wouldn't even think of because it would be something different from the usual.

[Legends66NBA7]

It's actually too long with what I wanted to address, and after making sure all the tags and formatting was correct, I find it more trouble than it's worth trying to cut it into segments that fit within the maximum character limit for a post. And the people who are enamored with points and statistics won't understand it anyway, and the people whose minds are made up are already decided, so it's really pointless. G.O.A.T. already did a good job anyway, I had just wanted to come from a different angle and make some points he didn't.

Is it possible to PM it ?

Would still love to read it.

[Asukal]

It's actually too long with what I wanted to address, and after making sure all the tags and formatting was correct, I find it more trouble than it's worth trying to cut it into segments that fit within the maximum character limit for a post. And the people who are enamored with points and statistics won't understand it anyway, and the people whose minds are made up are already decided, so it's really pointless. G.O.A.T. already did a good job anyway, I had just wanted to come from a different angle and make some points he didn't. I'm not really that interested though in this, as I have no desire to try to convince anyone of anything. I just thought I might make an argument most people wouldn't even think of because it would be something different from the usual.

Post it on a blog and provide the link. :D

[Force]

Calling Magic #3 just sounds disrespectful even if it might be right. Magic was so great and rare that you don't ever number him. He is in his own category. There has never been another player like him.

Although golf claps to "the next Magic Johnson" fails Billy Owens and Steve Smith for trying.

[LeBird]

Who were the mediocre point guards Bird played with? Tiny was seemlessly replaced with DJ in '84. Both very, very good ball handlers who could run a team. And would you be comfortable with Bird dribbling the ball up court every single posession? I certainly wouldn't. I call that being reliant.

You've misread what I've written. I said any mediocre PG could play with Bird as he wasn't especially reliant on a great PG giving him the kind of chances that he wouldn't otherwise be getting. Bird didn't get that kind of service from any PG he had, regardless. Bird just needed someone to bring it to the half-court then give the ball to him. That's it.


I never said he was reliant on "special" passes or playmaking by his point guards, though. Of course he wasn't. He just needed someone to handle the ball for him.


Ok, but that makes him no different to 90% other Big man/forward players. It simply wasn't his role to bring the ball out anyway.


Bird relied on his teammates to cover him, too. McHale always guarded the opposing teams best SF or PF. Bird very often was given the worst offensive threat to guard, just like Magic.

Bird was far better suited to guarding the PFs - he wasn't as athletic to regularly play opposing SFs (although, he never disgrace himself when asked to, either). He never was embarrassed the way Magic was by an opposing PG, however, and didn't need extra help on his own man. In fact, Bird is probably one of the best team defenders ever.

All that aside, I am just saying every player is reliant on another player. Even if they do have the skills to do something averagely. Often, it isn't their role and the difference is irrelevant. As it is here.


I never said he did. I merely said Magic's playmaking edge outweighed Bird's scoring edge.


I don't know about that. As all-round offensive threats I think they're pretty equal in output; although Bird was less reliant on others to create that output. Whatever you want to say about Magic's ball-handling, he had awesome teammates to pass the ball to for most of his career. Not that Bird didn't but that slight edge you might give to Magic can be accounted for playing in a better team.


lebron is a small foward. Do you not want him dribbling up court and handling the point, then, even though he can? He shouldn't do it because that's not a small forwards job? Leave it to mario Chalmers?

Bird guarded PFs and attacked SFs because it created a mismatch. Much like Lebron carrying the ball. Just because Lebron carries the ball, doesn't mean Bird should do it too. He'd just be wasting energy as the Celtics had a fine PG and Bird is a far better off-the-ball player in comparison to Lebron - so he didn't need to be ball-dominant.

I take your opinion, just don't agree with your reasoning. It's fine though, so please don't take this as some sort of attack. I asked the question since you'll hear people tout Magic higher than Bird and I am yet to hear a reason that I can agree with.

[LeBird]

That doesn't take away from the fact that Magic could have been a 27/28 ppg scorer if he wanted to be.

The scoring ability discrepancy between Magic and Bird is FAAAAR smaller than with CP3 and Durant. I'm not sure why you brought them up.

That's a huge claim that I disagree with. Magic never averaged above 24 in a season (Bird's career average). Although I agree that the difference between Durant's and Paul's scoring is larger than Bird's and Magic's; it's still large enough to get the point across that in terms of scoring they were on different planes.

[Freedom Kid7]

Regarding the Bird vs Magic debate, I feel both were incredible. Larry had less than Magic to work with and overachieved as a basketball player. I feel Magic has the edge due to being a slightly better 'team man', slightly better tangibles, etc. I feel that you could make an argument both ways though

[DatAsh]

It's actually too long with what I wanted to address, and after making sure all the tags and formatting was correct, I find it more trouble than it's worth trying to cut it into segments that fit within the maximum character limit for a post. And the people who are enamored with points and statistics won't understand it anyway, and the people whose minds are made up are already decided, so it's really pointless. G.O.A.T. already did a good job anyway, I had just wanted to come from a different angle and make some points he didn't. I'm not really that interested though in this, as I have no desire to try to convince anyone of anything. I just thought I might make an argument most people wouldn't even think of because it would be something different from the usual.

No such thing as too long if the content is there :cheers:

I'm sure there's quite a few people on this board who would love to read it.

[Legends66NBA7]

No such thing as too long if the content is there :cheers:

I'm sure there's quite a few people on this board who would love to read it.

Same here.

Anything from a different angle, I'm all up for it.

[Freedom Kid7]

bump.

[DatAsh]

I should have some free time tomorrow - depending what the "boss" has in mind for me - to write a few things about the 3 guys I think could realistically be called the third greatest player ever.

[Freedom Kid7]

WillC, if you're still doing this, I say pick who you feel made the best argument and move on to the next one. I feel all that needs to be said has been said.

[aau]

That's a huge claim that I disagree with. Magic never averaged above 24 in a season (Bird's career average).

highest scoring seasons

bird 88 - 30p on 22 shots - 5 fta
mag 87 - 24p on 16 shots - 8 fta

.

considering the fact that magic got to the line much better than bird

6 more points on a couple of more shots seems hardly impossible