Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[QUOTE=Niquesports]maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
I think the problem is that yall are hell bent on making it something it wasn't. Saying look at Gola, even referenced as getting GOAT votes, when he was sporting a 6.3 ppg and .271 FG% and, as you say Wilt should have still cut the slack? This was their third/2nd best player that year. He was on self check, meaning it didn't make sense to guard him. And Sam Jones wasn't being stopped either. So Wilt now has a freelanced defender on him.

The other best player was an elderstatesman whose game was declining so his reflexes might not have been what they used to be. The Fourth a rookie who did elevate his game but he was subject rookie mistakes against Boston. One was too young and inexperienced, the other past his prime, the other couldn't hit the side of a barn - yet it boiled down to two baskets. What you see as strength can easily be seen as ripe for exploitation.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]maybe The Great Wilt The Stilt should have scored the 3 measley points. I mean according to you he carried team by himself.Really I agree with you Russ had a better support cast but it wasn't like he had a weak support.That is where you are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Yep...it would have been too much to ask for a TEAMMATE of Chamberlain to hit a game-winning shot. Russell's TEAMMATES not only routinely hit game-winners, some of them were borderline miraculous.

As far as Wilt's support...let's completely ignore his 62-63 thru 64-65 Warrior teams, when he had virtually NO help, and concentrate on his 59-60 thru 61-62 teams. Once again, the Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team when he arrived. Even going back a couple of years, and with Neil Johnston, they had consecutive seasons of 37-35. Without Johnston, they were a last-place team, and with him they were basically a .500 team. Take Johnston away, and add Wilt, and then all of a sudden, they became a 49-26 team. Even in Chamberlain's monstrous 61-62 season, the Warriors "only" went 49-31. And, once again, his teammates, particularly HOFers Arizin and Gola...and especially Gola, played poorly in the those three post-seasons with Chamberlain. Arizin had two post-seasons of .328 and .375 shooting, while Gola couldn't hit the Pacific Ocean from a life-boat, shooting .412, .206, and .271.

So, here we have an already average-at-best roster (even WITH Johnston they were no better than .500)...and with their next two best players playing poorly, and with everyone of Wilt's other teammates shooting worse...and yet, somehow Wilt was able to get his team to a two-point loss in a game seven, and against SIX HOFers, with a deeper bench, and a HOF coach.

Look, I respect your's and even G.O.A.T's opinions, but the OVERWHELMING evidence illustrates that not only did Russell have better teammates, they were CONSIDERABLY better. Man-for-man it was just no contest. BUT, the Russell-supporters will suggest that somehow Russell outplayed Wilt. How was that possiblem, then, that Wilt could take a vastly outmatched crew to a game seven, two-point loss, especially when almost to a man they played poorly?

And I SAW many of the Russell-Wilt duels, and I can honestly say that I NEVER came away thinking that Russell was the better player. I WILL say, though, that in many instances, I came away thinking just how poorly Wilt's teammates played. I'm sure that Russell deserved some of the credit for that, and Wilt perhaps deserved some of the blame. BUT, just take a look at what Russell's teammates accomplished in their careers, most all of whom played with Russell for many years...and compare that to those that played with Chamberlain, and even without Wilt. It was just not close.

Now if you want to carry the argument into the second half of Chamberlain's career, yes, Wilt did play with some quality teammates. But even then you have to really analyze that. For those that say that Wilt played with Baylor....yes, BUT for really only ONE full season. And only TWO post-seasons (and Baylor was awful in one, and Chamberlain was playing on a knee that had major surgery just four months prior in another.) Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons. And Chamberlain played with West for five, but West missed one complete post-season in one, and once again, Wilt played at nowhere near 100% in another. And West was hobbled with injuries in the two of the other three. Only in his three years in Philly did he play with quality teammates for any length of time...and they had the best record in the league in all three. And I won't get into the many reasons why they didn't win a title in two of them. Needless to say, when Chamberlain's Philly squad was healthy, and played well, they brutalized Russell and the Celtics.

Russell played alongside Sam Jones for 12 years, Heinsohn for nine, Cousy for five, Sharman for four, Havlicek for seven, etc, etc.

And, once again, take a look at Wilt's Warrior rosters from the 62-63 season thru the first half of the 64-65 season, and they were basically a laughing stock. Russell's Celtics had edges in HOFers in 62-63 of 8-1, and in 63-64 of 7-2.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Yep...it would have been too much to ask for a TEAMMATE of Chamberlain to hit a game-winning shot. Russell's TEAMMATES not only routinely hit game-winners, some of them were borderline miraculous.

As far as Wilt's support...let's completely ignore his 62-63 thru 64-65 Warrior teams, when he had virtually NO help, and concentrate on his 59-60 thru 61-62 teams. Once again, the Warriors were a LAST-PLACE team when he arrived. Even going back a couple of years, and with Neil Johnston, they had consecutive seasons of 37-35. Without Johnston, they were a last-place team, and with him they were basically a .500 team. Take Johnston away, and add Wilt, and then all of a sudden, they became a 49-26 team. Even in Chamberlain's monstrous 61-62 season, the Warriors "only" went 49-31. And, once again, his teammates, particularly HOFers Arizin and Gola...and especially Gola, played poorly in the those three post-seasons with Chamberlain. Arizin had two post-seasons of .328 and .375 shooting, while Gola couldn't hit the Pacific Ocean from a life-boat, shooting .412, .206, and .271.

So, here we have an already average-at-best roster (even WITH Johnston they were no better than .500)...and with their next two best players playing poorly, and with everyone of Wilt's other teammates shooting worse...and yet, somehow Wilt was able to get his team to a two-point loss in a game seven, and against SIX HOFers, with a deeper bench, and a HOF coach.

Look, I respect your's and even G.O.A.T's opinions, but the OVERWHELMING evidence illustrates that not only did Russell have better teammates, they were CONSIDERABLY better. Man-for-man it was just no contest. BUT, the Russell-supporters will suggest that somehow Russell outplayed Wilt. How was that possiblem, then, that Wilt could take a vastly outmatched crew to a game seven, two-point loss, especially when almost to a man they played poorly?

And I SAW many of the Russell-Wilt duels, and I can honestly say that I NEVER came away thinking that Russell was the better player. I WILL say, though, that in many instances, I came away thinking just how poorly Wilt's teammates played. I'm sure that Russell deserved some of the credit for that, and Wilt perhaps deserved some of the blame. BUT, just take a look at what Russell's teammates accomplished in their careers, most all of whom played with Russell for many years...and compare that to those that played with Chamberlain, and even without Wilt. It was just not close.

Now if you want to carry the argument into the second half of Chamberlain's career, yes, Wilt did play with some quality teammates. But even then you have to really analyze that. For those that say that Wilt played with Baylor....yes, BUT for really only ONE full season. And only TWO post-seasons (and Baylor was awful in one, and Chamberlain was playing on a knee that had major surgery just four months prior in another.) Wilt played with Goodrich for TWO seasons. And Chamberlain played with West for five, but West missed one complete post-season in one, and once again, Wilt played at nowhere near 100% in another. And West was hobbled with injuries in the two of the other three. Only in his three years in Philly did he play with quality teammates for any length of time...and they had the best record in the league in all three. And I won't get into the many reasons why they didn't win a title in two of them. Needless to say, when Chamberlain's Philly squad was healthy, and played well, they brutalized Russell and the Celtics.

Russell played alongside Sam Jones for 12 years, Heinsohn for nine, Cousy for five, Sharman for four, Havlicek for seven, etc, etc.

And, once again, take a look at Wilt's Warrior rosters from the 62-63 season thru the first half of the 64-65 season, and they were basically a laughing stock. Russell's Celtics had edges in HOFers in 62-63 of 8-1, and in 63-64 of 7-2.[/QUOTE]
YOur battle with G.O.A.T. is different from mine. I just differ from you in you saying that Wilt's support cast was "weak". I have never said Wilt was a loser or a choker I have just said that Wilt and Russ's approched the game was different. Russ made sure his cast had roles and they were able to fulfill them. NOt that Wilt didn't but there is a reason only 1 scoring champ has ever won a title the year they were scoring champs.Lets look at 61-62
Boston had 5 players take 1,000 or more FGA Philly only had 2 WIlt and Arizn.Now this has nothing to do with FG% just how many times a player shot was involved in the shot selection.LEts look at KC and Rogers in 2054 min. KC takes 724FGA yet Rodgers in 2650 min. he takes only 749 FGA. Thats only 25 more shots in almost 600 more min.
Now you write really long post sometimes so long your main point is missed. You made a great point SIr John W said if Wilt had played with that Celtic team he would have won just as many rings. I have asked to show quotes of teammates coahes media someone claim Wilt was a strong leader. I have never said or posted that Russ out played Wilt but i do believe in everything I have read that Russ was the better leader.I can be wrong but I have always felt Wilt thought he was bigger than the team. Which made many coaches do thinks like jan Van ect.. did in terms of benching him and the trades.AS I have said that you never responded to Wilt has never been the franchise of a team. Thats the sign of leadership.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]YOur battle with G.O.A.T. is different from mine. I just differ from you in you saying that Wilt's support cast was "weak". I have never said Wilt was a loser or a choker I have just said that Wilt and Russ's approched the game was different. Russ made sure his cast had roles and they were able to fulfill them. NOt that Wilt didn't but there is a reason only 1 scoring champ has ever won a title the year they were scoring champs.Lets look at 61-62
Boston had 5 players take 1,000 or more FGA Philly only had 2 WIlt and Arizn.Now this has nothing to do with FG% just how many times a player shot was involved in the shot selection.LEts look at KC and Rogers in 2054 min. KC takes 724FGA yet Rodgers in 2650 min. he takes only 749 FGA. Thats only 25 more shots in almost 600 more min.
Now you write really long post sometimes so long your main point is missed. You made a great point SIr John W said if Wilt had played with that Celtic team he would have won just as many rings. I have asked to show quotes of teammates coahes media someone claim Wilt was a strong leader. I have never said or posted that Russ out played Wilt but i do believe in everything I have read that Russ was the better leader.I can be wrong but I have always felt Wilt thought he was bigger than the team. Which made many coaches do thinks like jan Van ect.. did in terms of benching him and the trades.AS I have said that you never responded to Wilt has never been the franchise of a team. Thats the sign of leadership.[/QUOTE]

Good post, and I have to concede some of it. We do know that Russell was obsessed with winning, while Chamberlain found many other facets in his life. And ultimately, while Russell was a bitter man for much of his life, Chamberlain died a very contented man.

But here's my take...

Wilt was EXPECTED to win. He was usually the tallest player in the league; he was always the biggest; he was among the fastest, if not the fastest (just ask Chief's coach Hank Stram); he was not only the strongest, but perhaps the strongest athlete in all of the major team sports at the time; with his height, and his leaping ability, he probably jumped the highest; and was amazingly skilled for a seven-footer (especially in that era.) And, individually, he was a MUCH better player than Russell.

With all of that, he was EXPECTED to win title-after-title...even with inferior rosters. And, perhaps because he was so gifted, it ultimately hurt him. The coaches he had early on, came to the conclusion that, since Wilt could get his shot against anyone (or multiple players), and since he routinely shot nearly 100 points over the league average, that it was better to have Chamberlain take the shots, than say a Rodgers, who consistently shot well below the league average. However, Chamberlain's teammates became way to dependent upon him, and as Hannum noticed before the start of the 63-64 season, Wilt's teammates had basically forgotten how to play basketball.

And, in the second half of his career, Wilt's coaches had asked Wilt to change his game several times. And, for whatever reasons, his teammates, in almost every season, but two, played poorly in the post-season (with the exception of West in a couple.) But, in any case, unless his TEAM won, it was Wilt that received the blame. If he scored 30+ and his team lost...well, he shot too much. If he "only" scored 20, and his TEAM lost,...well, why didn't he shoot more?

Once again, IMHO, there were the expectations for everyone else whoever played the game...and then there were the expectations for WILT. And, unfortunately, he seldom could live up to them. And, in the vast majority of his career, the losses he suffered were not his fault.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]I think the problem is that yall are hell bent on making it something it wasn't. Saying look at Gola, even referenced as getting GOAT votes, when he was sporting a 6.3 ppg and .271 FG% [/QUOTE]

Or maybe he had a severely sprained ankle and a major back injury...

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Or maybe he had a severely sprained ankle and a major back injury...[/QUOTE]

Couldn't move freely and didn't like contact afterward, blaaah. Was never the same afterwards. But the NBA liked him. Was he the best defender before Russell came on the scene???

[QUOTE=jlauber]Good post, and I have to concede some of it. We do know that Russell was obsessed with winning, while Chamberlain found many other facets in his life. And ultimately, while Russell was a bitter man for much of his life, Chamberlain died a very contented man.

But here's my take...

Wilt was EXPECTED to win. He was usually the tallest player in the league; he was always the biggest; he was among the fastest, if not the fastest (just ask Chief's coach Hank Stram); he was not only the strongest, but perhaps the strongest athlete in all of the major team sports at the time; with his height, and his leaping ability, he probably jumped the highest; and was amazingly skilled for a seven-footer (especially in that era.) And, individually, he was a MUCH better player than Russell.

With all of that, he was EXPECTED to win title-after-title...even with inferior rosters. And, perhaps because he was so gifted, it ultimately hurt him. The coaches he had early on, came to the conclusion that, since Wilt could get his shot against anyone (or multiple players), and since he routinely shot nearly 100 points over the league average, that it was better to have Chamberlain take the shots, than say a Rodgers, who consistently shot well below the league average. However, Chamberlain's teammates became way to dependent upon him, and as Hannum noticed before the start of the 63-64 season, Wilt's teammates had basically forgotten how to play basketball.

And, in the second half of his career, Wilt's coaches had asked Wilt to change his game several times. And, for whatever reasons, his teammates, in almost every season, but two, played poorly in the post-season (with the exception of West in a couple.) But, in any case, unless his TEAM won, it was Wilt that received the blame. If he scored 30+ and his team lost...well, he shot too much. If he "only" scored 20, and his TEAM lost,...well, why didn't he shoot more?

Once again, IMHO, there were the expectations for everyone else whoever played the game...and then there were the expectations for WILT. And, unfortunately, he seldom could live up to them. And, in the vast majority of his career, the losses he suffered were not his fault.[/QUOTE]
I'm with you now. THe league ,the media, for the most part the fans never accepted Wilt.Here was this man that no one have ever seen as gifted. But too problems he was outspoken, and "BLACK" in the 1960's .Your right many people felt Wilt should have won if he played with 4 Nuns and a blind 6th man.IT drives me crazy when you see threads "The Most Dominant Player Ever" People have Wilt 3rd and 5th. :facepalm . That being said I don't think Wilt really learned how to be a teammate until he got to the Lakers.His skills had slowed down a little due to age and he was finally had some foundation.IT's really sad that more people don't appreciate Wilt's greatness.But some can say he brought it on him self when he left Kanas early.

Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time. He won 6 NBA titles in the modern Era.

His team beat Utah Jazz (Karl Malone and John Stockton), New York Knicks ( Patrick Ewing) Orlando Magic (Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway), Phoenix Suns (Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson), Los Angeles Lakers (Magic Johnson, James Worthy), Portland Trailblazers (Clyde Drexler), Seattle Supersonics (Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp), Cleveland Cavaliers ( Mark Price and Brad Daugherty), Detroit Pistons (Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumas and Bill Laimbeer), Indiana Pacers (Reggie Miller), and Miami Heat ( Alonzo Morning, and Tim Hardaway) in the playoffs.

[QUOTE=Lebron23]Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time. He won 6 NBA titles in the modern Era.

His team beat Utah Jazz (Karl Malone and John Stockton), New York Knicks ( Patrick Ewing) Orlando Magic (Shaquille O'Neal and Penny Hardaway), Phoenix Suns (Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson), Los Angeles Lakers (Magic Johnson, James Worthy), Portland Trailblazers (Clyde Drexler), Seattle Supersonics (Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp), Cleveland Cavaliers ( Mark Price and Brad Daugherty), Detroit Pistons (Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumas and Bill Laimbeer), Indiana Pacers (Reggie Miller), and Miami Heat ( Alonzo Morning, and Tim Hardaway) in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.[/QUOTE]
FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars

[QUOTE=jlauber]I am not as big an MJ fan, but this is a pretty good post. The knock against Jordan by some from MY generation was that his competition was somewhat watered down. However, as you have noted, he faced quite a number of great players...and was the best of the group. I would only argue that perhaps had he faced the Shaq-Kobe duo of say 2001, in his prime, and beaten them, then I would have been more impressed. IMHO, a PRIME Shaq might have been his equal.

As for All-Time...MJ's post-season play probably gives him a slight edge over almost all the greats, like Kareem, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Shaq, and Duncan...except for Russell and his 11 rings.

And individually, I really believe that Chamberlain was more dominant, and a more dominant all-around player. As Oscar once said, "The Record Book does not lie." Seven scoring titles, nine FG% titles, 11 rebounding titles, and even one assist title. And as great a defender as MJ was, Wilt's defense probably impacted games considerably more. And, not only did Chamberlain win statistical titles, he put many of them light-years away from the next guy (and often that was himself.) He does get diminished somewhat in the post-season, because his scoring dropped some, but there were reasons for that which I have covered before, and I don't want to waste the time rehashing it again. I will say this, though, about his post-season play...in his 29 post-season series, he was probably never outplayed by an opposing center, and in many of those series, he absolutely crushed them. And he faced a HOF center in nearly two-thirds of them.

And, I would also put a PRIME Shaq right there with MJ, as well...even in the post-season. I have maintained that Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals were the greatest in NBA history...with perhaps the only question being his opposing centers in those Finals.

And some would argue for Kareem. My only problem with Abdul-Jabbar was that, in his prime, and in a weaker period in the NBA (from '74 thru '79), he didn't lead his teams to titles. And, I have also maintained that he didn't put forth a maximum effort for much of his career, either. Still, he was among the best players in the league for some 17 seasons, and probably the best player for almost all of the 70's. And with six MVPs and six rings, he is right there with MJ.

And finally, I would say that Magic should also be in the conversation. He never came close to experiencing a losing season; his team's averaged nearly 60 wins per season over the course of his career (and excluding his comeback year in the mid-90's); he took his team's to nine Finals in 12 seasons, and won five rings. And he was an even better player in the post-season, than he was in the regular season. IMHO, he is the second greatest "winner" behind Russell.

Oh, and Duncan deserves a P.S., too. 50+ win seasons every year. Four rings. Winning titles with weaker casts. He is somewhat like Magic and Russell for me. He made his teammates better, and he made opposing teams worse.

Overall, though, MJ's resume probably has the best case for G.O.A.T. status. In any case, I don't have a problem with any of my top-seven (and perhaps even Bird at his peak)...being labeled as the greatest ever (Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan.)

And, IF Kobe wins a ring this year, he too, should be in the conversation. BTW, Shaq and Duncan might be adding a fifth ring this year, as well...which would make for an interesting discussion on THEIR all-time place in NBA history.[/QUOTE]
FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars

[QUOTE=Niquesports]FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars[/QUOTE]

I agree. And the reality was/is, there have just been so MANY outstanding players since the 50's. Even I find myself forgetting Mikan's impact on the game, for instance.

The Top-9 is generally something along the lines of MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, and Kobe.

Then it gets congested. Moses, Hakeem, Oscar, West, Robinson, Garnett, Havlicek, Barkley, K. Malone, Baylor, and probably a few other's I have forgotten...including Mikan. And I think a case could be made for Lebron in that group, as well.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I agree. And the reality was/is, there have just been so MANY outstanding players since the 50's. Even I find myself forgetting Mikan's impact on the game, for instance.

The Top-9 is generally something along the lines of MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Bird, and Kobe.

Then it gets congested. Moses, Hakeem, Oscar, West, Robinson, Garnett, Havlicek, Barkley, K. Malone, Baylor, and probably a few other's I have forgotten...including Mikan. And I think a case could be made for Lebron in that group, as well.[/QUOTE]


I would move oscar into the Top Elite group and drop Kobe down. The one problem I have with Kobe being in the Top elite is that one thing all the other 9 Top Elite Players have been dominanat from day 1.IT may have took some like Oscar and MJ a few years to win their title they were still dominant players.Lebron is just a monster finals away from moving into this group.Its not something I would argue but imho.

[QUOTE=Niquesports]FOr Shaq and Duncan I think winning a ring this year will do little in impacting their legacy. Both have lesser roles with Shaq even a less role than Duncan.How ever if both were to have a monster playoff run both could be in that elite Top 5 player convo.
We trying to select a GOAT its almost impossible. ITs more based on your view of the era,style of play,impact of player.
You have scorers
Wilt, Jordan
Floor generals
Magic
Russ
Total overall player
Kareem
Oscar
Each player's dominance was in a different way. Each had fewe weakness and their few wasn't a liability just a weaker part of their game.
So Ifeel its just best to say a player has reached elite status. Shaq ,Duncan have reached that
with
Bird ,Baylor,Karl Malone,Barkley in the next tier.Super Stars[/QUOTE]

Duncan is still arguably the best/most important player on the team. He is the sole frontcourt player they have that is considered even above average. His defense is as good as it's been in years (I've watched nearly every Spurs game throughout his career), and everything about his game is exactly what it was last the last 4 years or better with the exception of a couple minutes played, and the volume of shots he's being allowed to take in the current system. That's it.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html[/url]

Compare his stats on a per minute basis to the last 4 years. You will see his rebounding and assists are almost the exact same as they've been the last 3-4 years. . .his shot blocking and steals are up to what they were during the last Spurs' championshop. His assists are the same. His rebounding is actually up from that year.

Only things that are down are his minutes, and FGAs (and by proxy his PPG). Duncan didn't disappear, fall off the table, or drop into the roleplayer category. He's playing the same he has for years. Don't confuse his lesser minutes and subsequently lowered overall per game stats due to it as Duncan being done. Look at what he's doing while he's on the floor. I'd say he's playing his best defensive ball since 2007. His offense is only down slightly due to getting less chances. And it's the regular season. I expect his touches to go up late, and in the playoffs where he is money.

If Duncan wins again, it will be as the 1a or 1b best player on the Spurs. Which imo, should count towards his legacy. He's no more done than Russell or Jabaar were for their later titles. And well-deserved credit goes to both of them for those titles.

[QUOTE=DuMa]its a good question. but not very many people, and even less people online, can say they legitimately saw both of their careers play out and make their own unbiased opinion.[/QUOTE]

but yet many players and coaches who DID see Russell play agree Jordan is better.

there are GOAT arguments to be made for Jordan, Kareem, Russell, and to a lesser extent--Magic and Wilt. however, it's widely accepted by the [U]majority of people working in or around basketball[/U] that Jordan has the best case overall.

Yet, some of you ISH people, rather due to hidden agenda (like Roundball) or just lack of understanding of things like context and the history of the league (Jordan's combo of winning/stats/dominance over peers/outright destroying opponents were well-documented long before the internet or espn era) continue to pretend like Jordan is [I][U]ONLY [/U][/I]considered to be the best because of:

A: ESPN's buttkissing
B: Nike's marketing
C: people only remember recent stars

:facepalm