ISH's #7 Player of Alltime

[B]Vote for the #7 Player of Alltime[/B]
----------------------------------

[B]#1: Michael Jordan[/B] (9/15 votes)
[B]#2: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar[/B] (17/32 votes)
[B]#3: Bill Russell[/B] (15/35 votes)
[B]#4: Magic Johnson[/B] (20/32 votes)
[B]#5: Wilt Chamberlain[/B] (17/44 votes)
[B]#6: Larry Bird[/B] (21/28 votes)

-----------------------------------------------
[B][SIZE="4"]ISH's #6 Player of Alltime - Larry Bird[/SIZE][/B]

[IMG]http://cdn2.iofferphoto.com/img/item/544/313/71/o_Larry_Bird_1985.jpg[/IMG]
----------------------------------------------

[B]Candidates:[/B]
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Oscar Robertson
Hakeem Olajuwon
Jerry West
Moses Malone
Julius Erving
Karl Malone

----------------------------------
Previous Thread [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=238181[/url]

As much as I love Shaq my vote goes to Tim Duncan.

[B]Shaquille O'Neal[/B]

I started this thread earlier than the other ones because the #6 voting wasn't even close, so I decided to move on.

Shaq again

Shaq gets this!

Tim Duncan - consistent excellence, made the most of what he had.

If I could re-arrange the top 7 it would probably be this

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Shaq

Wilt shouldn't be on here yet, but I assume a lot of people are naive about him and just look at his numbers.

Big O

[QUOTE=Odinn]Kobe is a top 10 player ever IMO. Also I think 7-12 range acceptable.

My list;
1. Kareem
1. Jordan
3. Magic
4. Russell
5. Bird
6. Wilt
6. Duncan
6. Shaq
9. Kobe
10. Hakeem
10. Moses
12. Dr. J
12. J. West[/QUOTE]

This was my list and top 6 pretty similar.

Duncan-Shaq-Hakeem-Kobe
Duncan has the best resume/accomplishments.
The highest peak debate goes between Shaq-Hakeem.

I think debate should be between Duncan-Shaq. But in ISH, Kobe will get the 7th place I guess.

I vote for Tim Duncan.

Hakeem Olajuwon.

Shaq

[QUOTE=Inception28]If I could re-arrange the top 7 it would probably be this

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Magic
5. Bird
6. Duncan
7. Shaq

Wilt shouldn't be on here yet, but I assume a lot of people are naive about him and just look at his numbers.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, the case against Wilt is that he has not delivered in the playoffs like the others

1969 Finals, Game 7: 4-13 free-throws
1970 Finals, Game 7: 1-11 free-throws

Shaq

[QUOTE=Odinn]This was my list and top 6 pretty similar.

Duncan-Shaq-Hakeem-Kobe
Duncan has the best resume/accomplishments.
The highest peak debate goes between Shaq-Hakeem.

I think debate should be between Duncan-Shaq. But in ISH, Kobe will get the 7th place I guess.

I vote for Tim Duncan.[/QUOTE]
One thing that usually goes unnoticed is the length of one's prime. Hakeem's prime was clearly the shortest of the three and the argument is now simply between Duncan and Shaq.

Another reason why I give Duncan the edge is the intangibles. Those are just things you don't notice and cannot see on the stat-sheet. I have no problem if one wanted to take Shaq because he is one of my favorite players ever and he is one of the most dominant players to play the game. But Duncan is just the more logically choice here to me, at least as far as how I determine rankings. Both of them should be above Wilt though.

edit: nevermind

I can live with Wilt beating Bird. I don't agree, but hey... it's understandable.

As for #7?
[B]Tim Duncan[/B]

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Does anyone want a re-vote on #5 since it was so close?

#5 voting
17/44 votes - Wilt
16/44 votes - Bird[/QUOTE]
I've already voted for Bird. But I think he sould be over Wilt, absouletly. He was much better playoff-performer.

[QUOTE=Inception28]One thing that usually goes unnoticed is the length of one's prime. [B]Hakeem's prime was clearly the shortest of the three[/B] and the argument is now simply between Duncan and Shaq. [/QUOTE]

I guess that depends on your definition of a player's prime.

Shaq's true prime may have been '98-'02, or you could extend it from '95-'03.

Hakeem's true prime may have been '93-'95, but you could extend it earlier, he was a top 5 player by his second season when he led Houston to the finals.

Duncan also had a couple of seasons that stand out from the rest of his career('02 and '03), but his level of play in general wasn't that different from '99-'07. Though Duncan started having more nagging injuries post-'03-'04 that prevented him from playing the same amount of minutes.

But Duncan certainly wasn't elite any longer than Hakeem or Shaq.

Anyway, my top 3-5 is pretty interchangeable between Hakeem, Shaq and Bird. But lately, I lean towards Hakeem.

So [B]my vote goes to Hakeem Olajuwon.[/B]

[QUOTE=Odinn]I've already voted for Bird. But I think he sould be over Wilt, absouletly. He was much better playoff-performer.[/QUOTE]

Not only that, OP should should put time limits for every voting. Bird and Wilt was too close to be shut down like that.

edit: nevermind

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I guess that depends on your definition of a player's prime.

Shaq's true prime may have been '98-'02, or you could extend it from '95-'03.

Hakeem's true prime may have been '93-'95, but you could extend it earlier, he was a top 5 player by his second season when he led Houston to the finals.

Duncan also had a couple of seasons that stand out from the rest of his career('02 and '03), but his level of play in general wasn't that different from '99-'07. Though Duncan started having more nagging injuries post-'03-'04 that prevented him from playing the same amount of minutes.

But Duncan certainly wasn't elite any longer than Hakeem or Shaq.

Anyway, my top 3-5 is pretty interchangeable between Hakeem, Shaq and Bird. But lately, I lean towards Hakeem.

So [B]my vote goes to Hakeem Olajuwon.[/B][/QUOTE]
-To me, what you are referring to is peak. In my definition of prime, a prime can last up to 5-10 seasons to me. This is when a player performed at or close to their best. While a peak can last up to 3 seasons at their very best. It is probably strange although I do see a few people follow my criteria.

For example, I believe Kobe's prime lasted from 02-09. His peak on the other hand was probably from 06-08.

Like you just listed, Duncan's prime probably lasted from 99-07 but his one of his peak or best seasons was 02-03.

Hakeem doesn't have the accolades or accomplishments to be in this debate if you ask me. He should be 9th or 10th with Kobe while Wilt gets that 8th spot.

6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Wilt
9. Hakeem/Kobe
10. Kobe/Hakeem

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I guess that depends on your definition of a player's prime.

Shaq's true prime may have been '98-'02, or you could extend it from '95-'03.

Hakeem's true prime may have been '93-'95, but you could extend it earlier, he was a top 5 player by his second season when he led Houston to the finals.

Duncan also had a couple of seasons that stand out from the rest of his career('02 and '03), but his level of play in general wasn't that different from '99-'07. Though Duncan started having more nagging injuries post-'03-'04 that prevented him from playing the same amount of minutes.

But Duncan certainly wasn't elite any longer than Hakeem or Shaq.

Anyway, my top 3-5 is pretty interchangeable between Hakeem, Shaq and Bird. But lately, I lean towards Hakeem.

So [B]my vote goes to Hakeem Olajuwon.[/B][/QUOTE]
Duncan may be the most complete player to ever come out of college.

He was doing the same numbers in his rookie year that he was in his prime after they made him the focal point of the offense and David took a backseat post All-Star break. They realized that was the way to go since that was a better and more natural fit for either. Duncan was already taking control and leading the team.

The only thing I can say got better is his passing out of double teams which naturally improves with experience as one gets used to reading NBA defenses.

25.2 ppg
12.4 rpg
3.0 apg
2.7 bpg
54.0 FG%

Hakeem

Here is what we have so far, OP.

Duncan - 4
Shaq - 5
Hakeem - 3
Oscar - 1

[QUOTE=Inception28]-To me, what you are referring to is peak. In my definition of prime, a prime can last up to 5-10 seasons to me. This is when a player performed at or close to their best. While a peak can last up to 3 seasons at their very best. It is probably strange although I do see a few people follow my criteria.

For example, I believe Kobe's prime lasted from 02-09. His peak on the other hand was probably from 06-08.

Like you just listed, Duncan's prime probably lasted from 99-07 but his one of his peak or best seasons was 02-03.

Hakeem doesn't have the accolades or accomplishments to be in this debate if you ask me. He should be 9th or 10th with Kobe while Wilt gets that 8th spot.

6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Wilt
9. Hakeem/Kobe
10. Kobe/Hakeem[/QUOTE]

I consider a player's peak to be their best single season.

I think that accolades and "accomplishments" depend heavily on circumstances and I think he was less fortunate than Shaq or Duncan as far as the situation he was in. Though that's just my personal opinion.

Kobe's prime was from '01-'10, imo. Though you could argue that it was a bit shorter from '03-'09 for example.

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Duncan may be the most complete player to ever come out of college.

He was doing the same numbers in his rookie year that he was in his prime after they made him the focal point of the offense and David took a backseat post All-Star break. They realized that was the way to go since that was a better and more natural fit for either. Duncan was already taking control and leading the team.

The only thing I can say got better is his passing out of double teams which naturally improves with experience as one gets used to reading NBA defenses.

25.2 ppg
12.4 rpg
3.0 apg
2.7 bpg
54.0 FG%[/QUOTE]

I agree, Duncan pretty much entered the league as a finished product, or close to it. I do think that he became more dominant defensively and improved in little areas, but you could even argue that his prime started in his rookie season.

[QUOTE=Inception28]-To me, what you are referring to is peak. In my definition of prime, a prime can last up to 5-10 seasons to me. This is when a player performed at or close to their best. While a peak can last up to 3 seasons at their very best. It is probably strange although I do see a few people follow my criteria.

For example, I believe Kobe's prime lasted from 02-09. His peak on the other hand was probably from 06-08.

Like you just listed, Duncan's prime probably lasted from 99-07 but his one of his peak or best seasons was 02-03.

Hakeem doesn't have the accolades or accomplishments to be in this debate if you ask me. He should be 9th or 10th with Kobe while Wilt gets that 8th spot.

6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. Wilt
9. Hakeem/Kobe
10. Kobe/Hakeem[/QUOTE]

That is nonsense.

Hakeem and accomplishments? The guy is 1 in blocks, 8 in steals, 11 in rebounds, 9th in scoring. Accomplishments? Easily. And on top of that he was DPOY twice, finals MVP 2 times, NBA MVP once, led the league in rebounding twice and he got the highest scoring average for any center in the playoffs of all-time and on the way to his titles he beat 3 top 10 centers. And in his 2nd season he outplayed the showtime Lakers in the playoffs, a team with Kareem on it and he also outplayed Parish in the finals of the '86 season.

And peak-wise he had one of the best peaks of all-time.

Hakeem Olajuwon

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I consider a player's peak to be their best single season.

I think that accolades and "accomplishments" depend heavily on circumstances and I think he was less fortunate than Shaq or Duncan as far as the situation he was in. Though that's just my personal opinion.

Kobe's prime was from '01-'10, imo. Though you could argue that it was a bit shorter from '03-'09 for example.



I agree, Duncan pretty much entered the league as a finished product, or close to it. I do think that he became more dominant defensively and improved in little areas, but you could even argue that his prime started in his rookie season.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you about Hakeem's accolades. I think he should've won 1 more MVP (1993) and 2-3 more DPoYs.

I've been critical of his 1987-1992 stretch but I think he was underrated back then because big men defense wasn't seen the same way as it is now or more so, the right way.

Man defense was considered just as important as well as how much exposure/coverage you got which is influenced by the market you play in. Guys like Rodman and Cooper were excellent man defenders but they aren't impacting the team defense as much as Hakeem. Lakers/Celtics rivarly is big plus Bird called Cooper his toughest match up so media gives him the award. Rodman, great man defender, best in the league but he has a great defensive system around him and the Rockets were still on their level defensively.

Eaton, Hakeem and Robinson definitely deserved more love than they got.

There is no really explanation for Cooper winning the DPoY over him in 1987 or Rodman winning in 1990. I'd have Eaton in the two years in between. Robinson in 1991 and 1996 to add to his 1992 award.

Tim Duncan

[B]Duncan[/B]. Sustained excellence and did more with less than Shaq, who inexplicably is the other guy in the running for this spot.

[QUOTE=JMT][B]Duncan[/B]. Sustained excellence and did more with less than Shaq, who inexplicably is the other guy in the running for this spot.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol:

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]I agree with you about Hakeem's accolades. I think he should've won 1 more MVP (1993) and 2-3 more DPoYs.

I've been critical of his 1987-1992 stretch but I think he was underrated back then because big men defense wasn't seen the same way as it is now or more so, the right way.

Man defense was considered just as important as well as how much exposure/coverage you got which is influenced by the market you play in. Guys like Rodman and Cooper were excellent man defenders but they aren't impacting the team defense as much as Hakeem. Lakers/Celtics rivarly is big plus Bird called Cooper his toughest match up so media gives him the award. Rodman, great man defender, best in the league but he has a great defensive system around him and the Rockets were still on their level defensively.

Eaton, Hakeem and Robinson definitely deserved more love than they got.

There is no really explanation for Cooper winning the DPoY over him in 1987 or Rodman winning in 1990. I'd have Eaton in the two years in between. Robinson in 1991 and 1996 to add to his 1992 award.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Hakeem definitely deserved DPOY in 1990, imo. Not to take anything away from Rodman, but Rodman's man to man defense wasn't equal in terms of impact to Hakeem's overall defense. Detroit and Houston were tied as the best defensive teams, and it's obvious that Houston relied on Hakeem more for that. He had improved his defense, though I don't think he was quite at his peak. Detroit was a great defensive team regardless.

While, a lot of defense(and a player's value in general), can't be demonstrated in stats, Hakeem leading the league in blocks(4.6 per game), defensive rebounds(10.4 per game), DRB% and 8th in steals while his team was tied as the best defensive team. I can't see an argument against him. Particularly with him being out on the court for 9 more minutes than Rodman.

And from what I've seen of Hakeem in '90, he was all over the court defensively.

As far as the '93 MVP? I'm fine with Barkley winning, but I can't argue against Dream either.

I understand criticism for some of Hakeem's years, but on some of those teams, the offense was just terrible. Painful to watch, Dream had a pretty complete skill set before Houston won, but it wasn't utilized and the way the offense was run had a lot to do with that.

But the fact that Hakeem almost always showed up in the playoffs has always impressed me. He has less series losses where he can be blamed than probably any top 10 player outside of Russell. Whether it's going down with 49/26/7 in game 6 in '87, his amazing run in '86, losing while averaging 38/17 on 57% shooting in '88(though I haven't seen that series vs Dallas) ect.

One of the few series where his offensive output was limited was 1990 and he was swarmed by the Lakers with constant double/triple teams while making a huge impact defensively(though he did have some foul trouble in the series, iirc).

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yeah, Hakeem definitely deserved DPOY in 1990, imo. Not to take anything away from Rodman, but Rodman's man to man defense wasn't equal in terms of impact to Hakeem's overall defense. Detroit and Houston were tied as the best defensive teams, and it's obvious that Houston relied on Hakeem more for that. He had improved his defense, though I don't think he was quite at his peak. Detroit was a great defensive team regardless.

While, a lot of defense(and a player's value in general), can't be demonstrated in stats, Hakeem leading the league in blocks(4.6 per game), defensive rebounds(10.4 per game), DRB% and 8th in steals while his team was tied as the best defensive team. I can't see an argument against him. Particularly with him being out on the court for 9 more minutes than Rodman.

And from what I've seen of Hakeem in '90, he was all over the court defensively.

As far as the '93 MVP? I'm fine with Barkley winning, but I can't argue against Dream either.

I understand criticism for some of Hakeem's years, but on some of those teams, the offense was just terrible. Painful to watch, Dream had a pretty complete skill set before Houston won, but it wasn't utilized and the way the offense was run had a lot to do with that.

But the fact that Hakeem almost always showed up in the playoffs has always impressed me. He has less series losses where he can be blamed than probably any top 10 player outside of Russell. Whether it's going down with 49/26/7 in game 6 in '87, his amazing run in '86, losing while averaging 38/17 on 57% shooting in '88(though I haven't seen that series vs Dallas) ect.

One of the few series where his offensive output was limited was 1990 and he was swarmed by the Lakers with constant double/triple teams while making a huge impact defensively(though he did have some foul trouble in the series, iirc).[/QUOTE]
Good point about the minutes Rodman was playing. I didn't consider that, it makes the argument all the more stronger.

That's actually true for Cooper as well. Definitely a fundamental flaw in the way they were giving out the award though not to be harsh on these guys since they were all terrific defenders in their own right.

Do you think Hakeem deserves some blame for the offense during those years? I've read reports that he was a unwilling passer and took bad shots, often forcing things. I see some of the stuff about his shot selection and lack of leadership in the games but I don't see him as a unwilling passer. The shooters around him were pretty poor. At the beginning of game 2 of the 1990 playoffs (you brought up the series), Hubie Brown showed a chart that showcased Hakeem being triple teamed every time he touched the ball (33 times IIRC) and he passed it out like he was supposed to but the Rockets only shot 28% from the perimeter. Can't really blame Hakeem in that situation.

I would've actually preferred to see how the Rockets do if they don't lose John Lucas, Lewis Lloyd and Mitchell Wiggins to drugs and Sampson wasn't injury prone. That would've been a nice long rivarly with LA but that team broke apart really quickly.

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
What is so laughable about that post? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Inception28]What is so laughable about that post? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
Look at the way he worded it.

Implying that its inexplicable for Shaq to be in consideration.

You tell me whats wrong.

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Look at the way he worded it.

Implying that its inexplicable for Shaq to be in consideration.

You tell me whats wrong.[/QUOTE]
Oh I didn't see that part, sorry. :hammerhead:

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I consider a player's peak to be their best single season.[/quote]
As do I, it can last from 1-3 years though if you ask me. Hakeem was no different in 94-95 than he was in 93-94. It was a two year peak at the least with Hakeem.


[quote]
I think that accolades and "accomplishments" depend heavily on circumstances and I think he was less fortunate than Shaq or Duncan as far as the situation he was in. Though that's just my personal opinion.[/quote]
I agree with accomplishments not being the best way to determine much which is why I never believe that one having more MVPs than the other makes that player better than another.

It's the same reason why I believe Shaq should be above Wilt. Yeah Wilt has better stats and yeah Wilt has more RS MVPs, but that doesn't mean he was better than him or should be ranked above him. I have always valued playoff dominance over regular season dominance.

If MVPs determined rankings then we would be saying how Nash is greater than Shaq, or how Derrick Rose is greater than Wade. The Bird-Moses comparison would be legit too since they both have 3 MVPs, yet about 99% of the world would tell you that Bird was easily the greater player of the two and that it is a laughable comparison.

Championship rings and finals MVP mean a hell lot more than MVPs. Although we have to look into the context. Wade's finals MVP and championship means more to me than Lebron's MVP, but Tony Parker's finals MVP and championship does not.


[quote]
Kobe's prime was from '01-'10, imo. Though you could argue that it was a bit shorter from '03-'09 for example.
.[/QUOTE]
He was out of his prime in 09-10, that should be obvious. 01-09 is a pretty good list though.

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Good point about the minutes Rodman was playing. I didn't consider that, it makes the argument all the more stronger.

That's actually true for Cooper as well. Definitely a fundamental flaw in the way they were giving out the award though not to be harsh on these guys since they were all terrific defenders in their own right.

Do you think Hakeem deserves some blame for the offense during those years? I've read reports that he was a unwilling passer and took bad shots, often forcing things. I see some of the stuff about his shot selection and lack of leadership in the games but I don't see him as a unwilling passer. The shooters around him were pretty poor. At the beginning of game 2 of the 1990 playoffs (you brought up the series), Hubie Brown showed a chart that showcased Hakeem being triple teamed every time he touched the ball (33 times IIRC) and he passed it out like he was supposed to but the Rockets only shot 28% from the perimeter. Can't really blame Hakeem in that situation.

I would've actually preferred to see how the Rockets do if they don't lose John Lucas, Lewis Lloyd and Mitchell Wiggins to drugs and Sampson wasn't injury prone. That would've been a nice long rivarly with LA but that team broke apart really quickly.[/QUOTE]

Well, I haven't seen that many Hakeem games from those years due to the fact that less is available and I didn't start watching basketball regularly until the mid 90's.

The season I've seen the most of is 1990 post-'86 and pre-championship years and from that season I've seen about a handful of regular season games plus the Lakers/Rockets series.

But from what I've seen, he was a fairly willing passer by '90. Maybe he'd force a shot now or then, but I think a lot of that had to do with poor offense. Most of the blame goes to coaching and Hakeem being underutilized, imo.


[QUOTE=Inception28]As do I, it can last from 1-3 years though if you ask me. Hakeem was no different in 94-95 than he was in 93-94. It was a two year peak at the least with Hakeem. [/QUOTE]

In terms of level of play? I wouldn't argue, but I think his offensive game was even better in '95, but his defense was better in '94. His best season from start to finish factoring in the championship was '94, but the highest level I've seen him play at was probably the '95 playoffs. But he was pretty much just as good as the championship years in '93.

[QUOTE]I agree with accomplishments not being the best way to determine much which is why I never believe that one having more MVPs than the other makes that player better than another. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, MVPs are the worst way to go, imo because it's a very subjective award, particularly when comparing media voted MVPs to MVPs voted by players in the earlier years. The criteria was also much different back then(Moses winning 2 of his on teams that didn't win 50 games, or Kareem winning on a sub .500 team, Walton winning while playing just 58 games ect. would never happen now).

[QUOTE]It's the same reason why I believe Shaq should be above Wilt. Yeah Wilt has better stats and yeah Wilt has more RS MVPs, but that doesn't mean he was better than him or should be ranked above him. I have always valued playoff dominance over regular season dominance.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, in particular, stats across eras are very difficult to compare. Stats even in the same era can reflect the situation more as well.

[QUOTE]Championship rings and finals MVP mean a hell lot more than MVPs. Although we have to look into the context. Wade's finals MVP and championship means more to me than Lebron's MVP, but Tony Parker's finals MVP and championship does not.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

[QUOTE]He was out of his prime in 09-10, that should be obvious. 01-09 is a pretty good list though.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not sure because of how well Kobe played the first 2+ months of the '09-'10 season before injuries. He was scoring at will in the post and had to be doubled. He was averaging 30/6/5, 48 FG%, 57 TS%, slowed down due to injuries, but then was back playing some of the best ball of his career after getting his knee drained late in the OKC series. He killed Utah and Phoenix. The Phoenix series was arguably his best ever.

Shaquille O'Neal