How do you rank players all-time?

[Marchesk]

Which criteria do you count as more important? Common criteria would be of course:

Accolades
Individual stats
Advanced stats (where available)
Team achievement
Offensive ability
Defensensive ability
Longevity
Iconic
Changed the game
Eye test (where available)
What the media tells you
How peers rank them
Era
Competition at their position

[Dr Seuss]

i dont. it's fruitless

[Marchesk]

I forgot a common one on here:

Who you think would be better if they all played at the same time (time travel argument).

[ISHGoat]

***** length * Girth.

So LeBron/Pippen would be first

Kobe/Jordan dead last.

[Marchesk]

i dont. it's fruitless

No doubt. But it can be fun. I had wondered about what the result would be if people ranked the criteria and then a top 20 list was generated from that. But then how do you assign values to things like "eye test"? I guess people would have to say who they thought was better according to certain criteria, and then the numeric ones would be automatically factored.

[Marchesk]

***** length * Girth.

So LeBron/Pippen would be first

Kobe/Jordan dead last.

http://cdn2-www.hoopsvibe.com/assets/uploads/2013/04/file_170901_0_Chuck-Nevitt-Manute-Bol.jpg

[FatComputerNerd]

Not based off of rings.

Personally I look at the individual and try to gauge how skilled he is/was. This means stats to some extent but also the eye-test.

[Dr Hawk]

Prime (impact, stats count but not as much)
Peak (impact, stats count but not as much)
Longevity

I can't care less about rings

[Marchesk]

Not based off of rings.

Personally I look at the individual and try to gauge how skilled he is/was. This means stats to some extent but also the eye-test.

Does that mean you rank Bill Russell lower than most?

[FatComputerNerd]

Does that mean you rank Bill Russell lower than most?

Honestly I can't say.

I wasn't around to watch him live. I try not to rank players I didn't get to see play. Youtube highlights only show just so much.

I don't think I'd even attempt to rank him or most anyone from that era.

[WayOfWade]

I largely just try to take how impactful and successful a player was in his own time period, including accolades and everything he himself was able to do. That's why I don't penalize Wilt and Russell for being as good as they were back in the day, they did their best with what they had. I really don't use advanced stats too much, but that's mainly due to my disinterest and lack of knowledge thereof; I do believe they hold value though. And personally, I am not a fan of the "eye test" theory. I don't need to see how a player plays to know he was successful and dominated his competition. Players can have ugly games yet still get the job done

[LAZERUSS]

Well, we know that today's basketball players are much better athletes, and more skilled...

How about this 6-8 white guy winning a rpg title, and putting up a 26-12 season...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kevin+love+misses+a+dunk

Or this skilled marvel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=993UTozPECc

and how about this two-time MVP winning beast of a man...

http://morethan-stats.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/prepnash2.jpg

[G0ATbe]

Eye test
Era
Rings

[Dr Hawk]

Well, we know that today's basketball players are much better athletes, and more skilled...

How about this 6-8 white guy winning a rpg title, and putting up a 26-12 season...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kevin+love+misses+a+dunk

Or this skilled marvel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=993UTozPECc

and how about this two-time MVP winning beast of a man...

http://morethan-stats.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/prepnash2.jpg

Why this passive-aggressive post?

[kennethgriffin]

its a little bit of everything combined


say 2 guys have around the same stats and finals mvps


ok so 1 guy has more mvps

the other guy has more rings

guy 1 has more mvps though

the other guy has more 1st team all nbas

guy 1 has the mvps again

the other guy has more 1st team all defensive awards

guy 1 has 4 mvps doe

the other guy won 2 rings without a top 50 player all time unlike guy 1

but guy 1 has those mvps

the other guy has way more 40, 50, 60 point games and even an 80 point game

but guy 1 has 4.. count em... 4 mvps

the other guy beat 5 times as many great teams throughout his career ( 24 series wins vs 50+ win teams ) while the other guy had a cake walk in the crap east

but .... 4 mvps for guy 1

the other guy has way more of a polished skillset, fundamentals, footwork, post game, and does it in a way smaller body with way less physical advantages

but the big guy 1 has does mvps


the other guy never ring chased. never colluded. never took a play cut in order to rig a team together. never left to join another guy who already won a title a few years earlier. never won during a lockout year or had a teammate hit a season saving shot in an elimination game.

but guy 1... well you get the picture





so in the end.. having more titles and more of everything in every aspect except for mvps and efficiency is basically worthless in the minds of some retards

[LAZERUSS]

Why this passive-aggressive post?

Just for the benefit of those that somehow believe that basketball is played at far greater levels than by those of previous eras.

[feyki]

Individual impact .

[hateraid]

Impact to team success
Eye test

[La Frescobaldi]

For the top level players?

1 I have to have seen them live (at least live on tv).
I can't really talk about Bill Russell too much even though I saw him a lot, because he was old by the time I saw him, just his last couple three seasons. His will to win... I can tell you about that - un f@cking matched. Jordanesque. Duncanesque. But as far as his time on the court, he was slow, clearly his legs were bad.... see? All my older friends who did see him, late 50s early 60s are unanimous that he was one of the finest physical specimens ever seen on a court.
Baylor the same way but more so. The man split his kneecap who would ever be the same after that? Had to live in fear. Had to. At least for awhile. We all saw what happened to D Rose here few years back. I wish all those guys had titanium knees or whatever.

2 The guy has to dominate the entire court - not just offense, not just defense, not just transition or just pure scoring or anything else. The whole court.
Russell Westbrook - who I detest because he's so incredibly stupid - can do this at times. I've literally never seen Kevin Durant do it, not even once. He's Dr. J like.
Bob McAdoo in his early days, he could do it; Elvin Hayes never did that I ever saw. Bird, Magic, who are bashed a lot for their 'bad defense' they could absolutely do it not just for quarters or games but for series. Jordan of course. Walt Frazier of course. As far as you can go with this one, John Havlicek is a player who took it clear out there to the outer limits.

3. The guy has to loom over the entire game - other players tend to fade into the background but more than that they will just pretty much vanish. Here is where centers can shine, the last one was Celtics Garnett although Dwight Howard before he jacked his back could really keep up with the forwards and even some guards. Shaq of course reached the heights in his days. Jabbar, Chamberlain, Shaq, they just got bigger and bigger as the game went along until they totally dominated every aspect. Guards literally afraid to shoot.

So it's very subjective of course, for me. Stats can mean a lot but then what do you do with Bill Walton or Tim Duncan or 70s Chamberlain? You can't tell me those guys couldn't have put up enormous numbers if they had a Kobe Bryant mentality. Because they absolutely could. When his legs were good, Bill Walton could score literally at will at all times. NOBODY who's ever played could stop him. The best guys, all they could do would be slow him down. But yet he played within the team at all times, stayed balanced and played like Wooden knew best.

[winwin]

Mentality


eye test
Team achievement
Offensive ability
Defensensive ability
Longevity

[La Frescobaldi]

Mentality


eye test
Team achievement
Offensive ability
Defensensive ability
Longevity

team achievement is a problem for me.
Maybe the best team I ever saw was the 1968 Sixers. Incredible team in every way, great great teamwork, confidence building on their title from the year before, excellent coaching...... fell apart due to injuries.

That Celtics squad here a few years back...... Rondo, Ray and all those guys..... right there in the Finals and Perkins broke his knee when bynum jumped on his back. Does Paul Pierce get ranked lower now because his team didn't win that Finals ?

Team achievement is a big deal but there has to be context. Injuries are too big a factor. Did Jordan ever lose a main teammate to injury for playoffs? What if Horace Grant had gone down with a separated shoulder like Havlicek did in '73? I don't see Bulls winning without Horace. Or if Rodman & Kerr had missed playoffs like West & Baylor did in '71. Now Jordan...... isn't the greatest anymore because he only won three or 4?

[Muskarat]

A mix of four factors for me

Eye test
Skill
Personality/Attitude
Circumstances/Story/Legend

[knicksman]

rings. It means you achieve your stats while winning. Coz there are players who achieve their stats by sacrificing wins. MVPs measure that coz its the best player on the best team but it is for the RS and playoffs is a different animal. It exposes the wilt/bran. So the only way is rings.

[bizil]

For GOAT status, I factor:

Solo Accolades
Team Accolades
Career Numbers
Peak Value
Longevity being great
Impact on the game (redefining a position, rule changes, etc.)

Looking at this criteria I laid out, I think MJ and Kareem are the most balanced across the board. That's why I consider them the top two GOAT wise.

Another criteria is one based off peak value. For example, I have T Mac as a top 5 SG of all time in this sort of criteria. GOAT wise, T Mac is nowhere near that kind of status. On the flip side, I think Bill Russell is a top 5 player GOAT wise. But peak value wise, I don't consider ANYWHERE near that kind of status.

[Marchesk]

Looking at this criteria I laid out, I think MJ and Kareem are the most balanced across the board. That's why I consider them the top two GOAT wise.

Wouldn't that apply to Mikan as well? He get's penalized for the era he played in, and because almost nobody alive saw him play. But didn't he dominate his competition the same way?

[JebronLames]

LeBron > Kobe

[bizil]

Wouldn't that apply to Mikan as well? He get's penalized for the era he played in, and because almost nobody alive saw him play. But didn't he dominate his competition the same way?

As the years went on, Mikan's resume doesn't stand up to guys like MJ and Kareem. Let alone other legends in the top 10 GOAT. But given what Big George accomplished, I think he's still a top 10 GOAT center though.

[Odinn]

Well, to be honest, the only certain criteria is "feeling comfortable with the ranking" thing. When you rank 'em and you feel comfortable the look, other people explaining how criterias should work won't change your opinion without causing a hard time.
Consistency on these matters hard to find. A person can say "I value peak level of play more than anything else". It can be true for his top 10 ever list. But when he stretches to 20-25, he will see he wants to rank a successful player over a better player, or vice versa.

What I'm trying to say is this;
Criterias are shaped by rankings. Not rankings are shaped by criterias.

[strike]

i don't. I have a life

[sdot_thadon]

Man its so subjective over time my criteria changed alot but the way I see it now:

Peak (who was best, at their respective bests)
Prime (way to quantify sustained excellece)
Impact (it's somewhat subjective and harder to gauge for older players but very important)
Eye test (can't really get a good grip on impact without this one)

Pretty much everything below here is tiebreaker type importance if 2 guys are close

Mvps (need at least one for top 10 consideration, illustrates value as an individual)
FMVP (need one for top 10 rank, usually says player is main reason they won title)
Rings (minimum of 1 for consideration, validation of greatness. Obviously being the leader of the team is most valuable)
Career numbers (record of what actually happened in players career, and a decent measuring stick)
Other accolades (dpoy, Roy all nba, allstar appearances, etc)
Era
Competition at position(not really big on this unless it's an amazing amount of comp)
Longevity (how long player was serviceable )
Team success ( important but not really attributed to one guy)

And there's so many other small details to nit pick. Goat debates have been and will always be subjective because people have too many different types of criteria.

[ClipperRevival]

I don't know what it is with ISH but few in her seem to value CLUTCH play. Maybe it's because we have a ton of Wilt and LeBron fans but the ability to raise your level of play when it matters most is always huge in my part. What good is putting up great individual numbers and playing great for most of the game if you disappear when it matters most because the lights got too bright?

Basketball isn't played by robots. You can make your own destiny every time you step on the court. Some guys want it more than others. People can see it. Effort can't be faked. Desire can't be faked. The guys who want it more usually end up on top.

[sdot_thadon]

I don't know what it is with ISH but few in her seem to value CLUTCH play. Maybe it's because we have a ton of Wilt and LeBron fans but the ability to raise your level of play when it matters most is always huge in my part. What good is putting up great individual numbers and playing great for most of the game if you disappear when it matters most because the lights got too bright?

Basketball isn't played by robots. You can make your own destiny every time you step on the court. Some guys want it more than others. People can see it. Effort can't be faked. Desire can't be faked. The guys who want it more usually end up on top.
It matters indeed, but once again subjective in the eye of the beholder buddy. You managed to single out lebron even though he has as many playoff game winners as MJ now iirc, and more than most atg. It's great when you drop the agenda.

[Dr Hawk]

I don't know what it is with ISH but few in her seem to value CLUTCH play. Maybe it's because we have a ton of Wilt and LeBron fans but the ability to raise your level of play when it matters most is always huge in my part. What good is putting up great individual numbers and playing great for most of the game if you disappear when it matters most because the lights got too bright?

Basketball isn't played by robots. You can make your own destiny every time you step on the court. Some guys want it more than others. People can see it. Effort can't be faked. Desire can't be faked. The guys who want it more usually end up on top.

Who do you think are one of those players who raised their level come the clutch time?

[ClipperRevival]

It matters indeed, but once again subjective in the eye of the beholder buddy. You managed to single out lebron even though he has as many playoff game winners as MJ now iirc, and more than most atg. It's great when you drop the agenda.

Clutch is much more than just making a game winner. It encompasses all aspects of bball, like making a big play on the D end and isn't limited to only the last few seconds of a game.

[sdot_thadon]

Clutch is much more than just making a game winner. It encompasses all aspects of bball, like making a big play on the D end and isn't limited to only the last few seconds of a game.
So you're telling me lebron hasn't shown any of those qualities?

[ClipperRevival]

Who do you think are one of those players who raised their level come the clutch time?

Guys who raised their overall game to higher levels in the playoffs like MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, etc to name a few. Also role players who have been known to hit big shots like Horry, Fish, Kerr, Allen, etc. What separates all these guys is that MENTALLY, they weren't afraid of the moment. Being clutch isn't just about performance, it's about the confidence to get it done when it matters. When you shoot the ball without confidence, most likely you are going to miss. You can't be afraid of the moment.

[ClipperRevival]

So you're telling me lebron hasn't shown any of those qualities?

LeBron has had quite a few legendary, clutch games. I didn't mean to degrade him like that but 2011 sticks out so much to me. I mean he had that title in his hands. But he just shrank, the lights got too bright and he didn't want anything to do with the outcome of that series. But he did redeem himself quite well in 2012 and 2013. But 2011 did happen.

[aj1987]

Guys who raised their overall game to higher levels in the playoffs like MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, etc to name a few. Also role players who have been known to hit big shots like Horry, Fish, Kerr, Allen, etc. What separates all these guys is that MENTALLY, they weren't afraid of the moment. Being clutch isn't just about performance, it's about the confidence to get it done when it matters. When you shoot the ball without confidence, most likely you are going to miss. You can't be afraid of the moment.
LeBron hasn't had "big shots" and epic clutch games in the PO's? Didn't the guy have like 2 games winners just last season, in the PO's?

[Dr Hawk]

Guys who raised their overall game to higher levels in the playoffs like MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, etc to name a few. Also role players who have been known to hit big shots like Horry, Fish, Kerr, Allen, etc. What separates all these guys is that MENTALLY, they weren't afraid of the moment. Being clutch isn't just about performance, it's about the confidence to get it done when it matters. When you shoot the ball without confidence, most likely you are going to miss. You can't be afraid of the moment.

That requires a LOT of eye-test, doesn't it?

[ClipperRevival]

That requires a LOT of eye-test, doesn't it?

Of course. Eye test is huge. The box score can't tell you the ebbs and flows of a game. You need to see it.

But some of the guys I mentioned did raise their overall play. These guys won rings for a reason, because as "the man" on their team, they raised their play when the team needed it most.

MJ
RS: 30.1 PPG, 6.2 APG, 5.3 RPG, 27.9 PER
PO: 33.4 PPG, 6.4 APG, 5.7 RPG, 28.6 PER
Finals: 33.6 PPG

Hakeem:
RS: 21.8 PPG, 11.1 RPG, 3.1 BPG, 23.6 PER
PO: 25.9 PPG, 11.2 RPG, 3.3 BPG, 25.7 PER
Finals: 27.5 PPG

Duncan:
RS: 19.2 PPG, 10.9 RPG, 24.3 PER
PO: 21.2 PPG, 11.7 RPG, 24.6 PER

[ClipperRevival]

LeBron hasn't had "big shots" and epic clutch games in the PO's? Didn't the guy have like 2 games winners just last season, in the PO's?

No doubt. He's had quite a few legendary, clutch games. I guess I'm a tad biased because of 2011. That just sticks out to me like a sore thumb. But he did redeem himself quite well in 2012 and 2013.

[ClipperRevival]

Who can forget K. Malone missing 2 FTs in game 1 of the 1997 finals with seconds left, which would've put the team up by 2 and MJ coming back on the next possession and hitting the game winner as time expired? One guy came through, the other guy choked.

Or Malone again getting stripped from MJ in the final seconds of game 6 of the 1998 finals and MJ again hitting the game winner?

[sdot_thadon]

LeBron has had quite a few legendary, clutch games. I didn't mean to degrade him like that but 2011 sticks out so much to me. I mean he had that title in his hands. But he just shrank, the lights got too bright and he didn't want anything to do with the outcome of that series. But he did redeem himself quite well in 2012 and 2013. But 2011 did happen.
See what I mean about subjectivity, the narrative that the lights got too bright for him? This is a kid who at 22 annihilated Detroit under the "lights", had one of the best series/runs in 09 even though it didn't end in a ring. He spent his career in the bright lights I find that hard to believe. But whatever the reason he shat the bed in 2011, hes since made up for it and had more legendary performances/ moments since then than before it. I don't get your point.

[tmacattack33]

Which criteria do you count as more important? Common criteria would be of course:

Accolades
Individual stats
Advanced stats (where available)
Team achievement
Offensive ability
Defensensive ability
Longevity
Iconic
Changed the game
Eye test (where available)
What the media tells you
How peers rank them
Era
Competition at their position

Here's a simple way:


Take their level of player over their years and add them up:

Example:

Shaq: 9, 9, 7 (got injured), 9, 9, 10, 10, 10 (threepeat years), 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 6, 7 (phoenix), 6 (cleveland), 5, 5, retired

That's a 152.

[stalkerforlife]

Eye test/Rings/Post play and one on one ability.

[ClipperRevival]

See what I mean about subjectivity, the narrative that the lights got too bright for him? This is a kid who at 22 annihilated Detroit under the "lights", had one of the best series/runs in 09 even though it didn't end in a ring. He spent his career in the bright lights I find that hard to believe. But whatever the reason he shat the bed in 2011, hes since made up for it and had more legendary performances/ moments since then than before it. I don't get your point.

Yeah, I have to admit, I am a bit biased AGAINST guys who clearly choked at some point for a series and that kind of skews my perception of the guy. But no doubt, Bron has had quite a few legendary playoff games and moments. He's an ATG.

[ArbitraryWater]

I forgot a common one on here:

Who you think would be better if they all played at the same time (time travel argument).

How the fk is that a criteria? Most of these options are retarded and I feel bad for you considering them...

its like saying 'I go by who Id start my team with', NO SHIT, thats what being better means... NOW TELL US WHAT YOU GO BY.

Did you really list offensive and defensive ability?

Eye Test isnt even a thing, Eye Test is merely a 'filter' that would help you detest the individual better.

Slap yourself oldie.

People here dont think one bit.

[LAZERUSS]

I don't know what it is with ISH but few in her seem to value CLUTCH play. Maybe it's because we have a ton of Wilt and LeBron fans but the ability to raise your level of play when it matters most is always huge in my part. What good is putting up great individual numbers and playing great for most of the game if you disappear when it matters most because the lights got too bright?

Basketball isn't played by robots. You can make your own destiny every time you step on the court. Some guys want it more than others. People can see it. Effort can't be faked. Desire can't be faked. The guys who want it more usually end up on top.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Wilt in his 23 MUST WIN PLAYOFF games...


12-11 W-L record

31.1 ppg (Regular season career average was 30.1 ppg)
26.1 rpg (Regular season career average was 22.9 rpg)
3.4 apg (Regular season career average was 4.4 apg)
.540 FG% (Regular season career average was .540 FG%)


3 games of 50+ points (the ONLY THREE by a GOAT candidate in NBA post-season history BTW)

5 games of 40+ points (including a Finals 40+ elimination game)

13 games of 30+ points

6 games of 30+ rebounds

20 games of 20+ rebounds

And then how about this...


Wilt actually played in 37 "elimination games",...games where either his team faced elimination, or could have clinched the series:

1. W: 53-22-2, 24-42 FG/FGA

2. W: 50-35-2, 22-42

3. L: 26-24-0, 8-18

4. L: 33-23-1, 13-29

5. W: 56-35-1, 22-48

6. W: 32-21-1, 12-29

7. L: 22-22-3, 7-15

8. W: 39-30-?, 19-29

9. L: 30-27-2, 12-28

10. W: 38-26-5, 14-22, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

11. W: 30-26-4, 13-22, 13 blks (Triple-Double)

12. L: 30-32-2, 12-15

13. L: 46-34-?, 19-34

14. W: 18-27-9, 7-14

15. W: 29-36-13, 10-16, 7 blks (Triple-Double)

16. W: 24-23-4, 8-13

17. W: 25-27-3, 10-19

18. L: 28-30-7, 11-21

19. L: 20-27-8, 6-21

20. L: 14-34-5, 4-9

21. W: 11-25-1, 5-9

22. W: 16-29-3, 5-11, 16 blks (Triple-Double)

23. L: 8-18-4, 1-5

24. L: 18-27-3, 7-8

25. W: 36-14-3, 12-20

26. W: 12-26-11, 4-11, 11 blks (Quad-Double)

27. W: 30-27-6, 11-18, 11 blks (Triple-Double)

28. W: 45-27-3, 20-27

29. L: 21-24-4, 10-16

30. W: 25-19-9, 7-12

31. L: 23-12-4, 10-21

32. W: 8-31-8, 4-6

33. W: 20-24-2, 8-12, 10 blks (Triple-Double)

34. W: 24-29-4, 10-14, 8 blks

35. W: 21-28-4, 10-17, 8 blks

36. W: 5-22-7, 2-2

37. L: 23-21-3, 9-16


W-L : 24-13

Here were Wilt's averages in those 37 games:

29.5 ppg

26.1 rpg

4.2 apg (missing one game)

.546 FG% (in post-seasons that shot about .440 on average in that span.)

Keep in mind that 24 of those 37 games came after his "scoring seasons" (59-60 thru 65-66)


Wilt = GOAT

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah, I have to admit, I am a bit biased AGAINST guys who clearly choked at some point for a series and that kind of skews my perception of the guy. But no doubt, Bron has had quite a few legendary playoff games and moments. He's an ATG.

Biased???

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hakeem on your "clutch" list?

The KING of FIRST ROUND EXITS Hakeem???

The guy couldn't win with both Barkley and Drexler.

The guy had FIVE seasons, in his 18 season career, in which he could even get 50+ wins, with a high of 58.

Couldn't beat centers like Mychal Thompson, and Mark Eaton.

Won a title in a season in which MJ took the year off, and another in a Finals in which he was brutalized by a 22 year old Shaq (and then DESTROYED by a prime Shaq in '99 playoffs.)

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Dr Hawk]

Biased???

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hakeem on your "clutch" list?

The KING of FIRST ROUND EXITS Hakeem???

The guy couldn't win with both Barkley and Drexler.

The guy had FIVE seasons, in his 18 season career, in which he could even get 50+ wins, with a high of 58.

Couldn't beat centers like Mychal Thompson, and Mark Eaton.

Won a title in a season in which MJ took the year off, and another in a Finals in which he was brutalized by a 22 year old Shaq (and then DESTROYED by a prime Shaq in '99 playoffs.)

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Hakeem played in terrible teams. The only time in the 80's he had a team, he went all the way to the Finals, over Showtime Lakers.

Doesn't matter if he was playing with Barkely and Drexler if they play like shit. Hakeem posted 27/9/4/2/3.3 on .59 FG% at 34 years old. what else is he supposed to do?


Couldn't beat centers like Mychal Thompson, and Mark Eaton.

No, he couldn't beat their teams.

Shaq hardly brutalized him when Hakeem posted 33/11.5/5.5/2/2 on .483 FG%

In 1999, Hakeem was 36

[LAZERUSS]

Hakeem played in terrible teams. The only time in the 80's he had a team, he went all the way to the Finals, over Showtime Lakers.

Doesn't matter if he was playing with Barkely and Drexler if they play like shit. Hakeem posted 27/9/4/2/3.3 on .59 FG% at 34 years old. what else is he supposed to do?



No, he couldn't beat their teams.

Shaq hardly brutalized him when Hakeem posted 33/11.5/5.5/2/2 on .483 FG%

In 1999, Hakeem was 36

Oh...I see now.

We give Hakeem EVERY possible EXCUSE, but then this ClipperClown BLAMES Chamberlain for his post-season "failures" when Chamberlain played with pathetic rosters, or injured rosters, or choking TEAMMATES, or FAR superior teams, or a combination of all of those, even in TITLE runs.

Yep...the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW...


And, had he had the good "fortune" to have been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs, EIGHT times, as was the case with Hakeem, his first round numbers were often HIGHER. And, I have read an idiot post claiming that Hakeem outshot Wilt from the field in the post-season (by a .528 to .522 margin), BUT, I will be comparing their post-season LEAGUE AVERAGES, (and even including eFG%'s), which CLEARLY gives Chamberlain a HUGE edge.

As examples, in Wilt's fist eight post-seasons, and in his first round, he averaged

38.7 ppg

37.0 ppg

37.0 ppg

38.6 ppg and on .559 shooting (in a post-season NBA of 105.8 ppg on .420 shooting)

27.8 ppg (and then 30.1 ppg, on .555 shooting, and against Russell)

28.0 ppg

28.0 ppg (and a great example of FG% at .612 in a post-season at .424)

25.5 ppg (and on .584 shooting, while his opposing center, Bellamy was at 20.0 on .421 shooting.)

Even in his 11th season, and only four months removed from major knee surgery, Chamberlain put up a first round of 23.7 ppg., 20.3 rpg, and .549.

And, in his 71-72 post-season, he had a 14.5 ppg, 20.8 rpg, .629 first round series (and in an NBA post-season of .446.)

So while Chamberlain was shooting .522 in his post-season career, it came in post-seasons of between .402 to .455.) Meanwhile Hakeem's .528 came in post-seasons of as high as .492, and an efg% as high as .500. MANY in the .485+ range, as well.

And, keep in mind two more interesting points. One, in Wilt's second greatest scoring season (44.8 ppg on .528 shooting) his all-time worst roster kept him from playing in the post-season (which probably cost him another 2-3+ ppg in his post-seasob career average.) And two, he faced a starting HOF center in 105 of his 160 post-season games, including Russell in 49, Thurmond in 17, and a PRIME Kareem in 11.QUOTE]

Chamberlain would have put up HUGE numbers had he had the good fortune to get wiped out in the FIRST ROUND, EIGHT times.

[ClipperRevival]

Oh...I see now.

We give Hakeem EVERY possible EXCUSE, but then this ClipperClown BLAMES Chamberlain for his post-season "failures" when Chamberlain played with pathetic rosters, or injured rosters, or choking TEAMMATES, or FAR superior teams, or a combination of all of those, even in TITLE runs.

Yep...the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

:roll:

Meltdown.

[Dr Hawk]

Oh...I see now.

We give Hakeem EVERY possible EXCUSE, but then this ClipperClown BLAMES Chamberlain for his post-season "failures" when Chamberlain played with pathetic rosters, or injured rosters, or choking TEAMMATES, or FAR superior teams, or a combination of all of those, even in TITLE runs.

Yep...the WILT DOUBLE STANDARD.

So we can agree the same happened to Wilt and Hakeem (and KG). Amazing talents but terribly bad luck with the teams they had.

[LAZERUSS]

So we can agree the same happened to Wilt and Hakeem (and KG). Amazing talents but terribly bad luck with the teams they had.

Somewhat.

Wilt carried worse rosters much further, and against much better competition.

And a prime Chamberlain (the bashers hold Wilt's post-surgery playoff numbers against him...even though he was still a force on the glass and defensively) was far more dominant.

And yes, KG wasted his prime with a poorly run organization. We saw what he could do with a good supporting cast in 2008.

[riseagainst]

Hakeem >> Wilt

[Cold soul]

Accolades
MVP and FMVP
Stats
Team achievement (Rings)
Impact (offense and defense)
Longevity
Clutch ( killer instinct)
Intangibles
Era
Eye test
Competition at their position as whole

[Wade's Rings]

:roll:

Meltdown.

This post by TLP summarizes Lazeruss perfectly.


What bugs me about Laz is, he posts these essays that are nothing but opposing Center FG%s, as if Wilt was defending said player on every possession.

And he never engages on Wilt's actual play. Show him a game highlight and he'll go on about how Wilt destroyed the opposing player seven years prior, as if that has anything to do with his stiff movements, bad timing/positioning, or his terribly lazy FT attempts (players would likely get benched for that today).

He's just so robotic. He sucks the wind out of every thread, and he never stops making excuses for Wilt.

Bested by a certain player? Doesn't matter, Wilt outperformed him in most of the other games.

Scoring dip from Regular Season to Playoffs to Finals? Doesn't matter, he could have scored more if he wanted to, and his coaches tried making him look bad.

Poor postseason play late in his career? Injured.

Poor FT shooting? Shaq wasn't good at the line either.

It's really boring now. He must know nobody reads his essays anymore.

[La Frescobaldi]

Hakeem >> Wilt
lol

hakeem is by far the most overrated player on ish and quite probably all time.
dirk >>> olajuwon
duncan >>>> olajuwon

won't even talk about the large numbers of centers >

[Dr Hawk]

lol

hakeem is by far the most overrated player on ish and quite probably all time.
dirk >>> olajuwon
duncan >>>> olajuwon

won't even talk about the large numbers of centers >

Mother of god

[the mesiah]

Which criteria do you count as more important? Common criteria would be of course:

Accolades
Individual stats
Advanced stats (where available)
Team achievement
Offensive ability
Defensensive ability
Longevity
Iconic
Changed the game
Eye test (where available)
What the media tells you
How peers rank them
Era
Competition at their position


Accolades-3 got to have the hardware
Individual stats-2got to have both sides of the ball presented well
Advanced stats (where available)-12"PER" means nothing to me
Team achievement-5some of the greats of all time have been in unfortunate situations , bad coaching , bad front office moves etc..
Offensive ability-4object of the game is to have more points than the other team, got to be able to put the ball in the hole.
Defensensive ability-6player has to be able to stop the other guy from going off and be known it's going to be a tough game .
Longevity-7depends on numbers and what all they accomplished
Iconic-11other fans thoughts on popularity means nothing to me
Changed the game-8depends what time frame and how they transcended game exactly.
Eye test (where available)-1most importantly , with my own eyes see how a player controls game, what skill he has on both sides, have ability to take over when needed against whoever .
What the media tells you-14couldn't care less bout the media , most don't understand the game and/or played at any level.
How peers rank them-13dont care about others players thoughts.
Era-10depends on player
Competition at their position-9depends on player

[Moonbeam]

Not very well, probably. :oldlol:

I generally am someone who considers contributions during prime more than anything else. It's hard to slight a player from the 50s or 60s when medical care, equipment, etc. wasn't as good as it was today, and the financial incentive wasn't nearly as great. I'd say I generally try to assess a player's dominance within his era, and then try to adjust for the strength of the era.

Playoff performance matters a fair amount to me - guys like Jerry West and Walt Frazier are higher on my list than most others in part due to their ability to maintain or elevate their level time and time again in the postseason.

[La Frescobaldi]

Not very well, probably. :oldlol:

I generally am someone who considers contributions during prime more than anything else. It's hard to slight a player from the 50s or 60s when medical care, equipment, etc. wasn't as good as it was today, and the financial incentive wasn't nearly as great. I'd say I generally try to assess a player's dominance within his era, and then try to adjust for the strength of the era.

Playoff performance matters a fair amount to me - guys like Jerry West and Walt Frazier are higher on my list than most others in part due to their ability to maintain or elevate their level time and time again in the postseason.

man this is a great post right here