ISH's #7 Player of Alltime

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]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]
I haven't seen that many games either. I'm just going off the research I like doing.

To be honest, there aren't a lot of games available from that stretch.

I can buy him being underutilized in 1991 and 1992 but that's only because of how well the guards performed in the open court after he had the eye injury (15-10 in that stretch, 12-3 in the last 15 games). That of course didn't work out as evidenced by LA sweeping them with Maxwell taking more shots than Hakeem.

I don't really see him being underutilized earlier because he's taking more shots per game in less minutes in 1990 than he is in 1993. The problem may have been the quality of shooters in 1990 (Horry, Kenny Smith ect came later) but I don't think a lack of touches is the concern.

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]I haven't seen that many games either. I'm just going off the research I like doing.

To be honest, there aren't a lot of games available from that stretch.

I can buy him being underutilized in 1991 and 1992 but that's only because of how well the guards performed in the open court after he had the eye injury (15-10 in that stretch, 12-3 in the last 15 games). That of course didn't work out as evidenced by LA sweeping them with Maxwell taking more shots than Hakeem.

I don't really see him being underutilized earlier because he's taking more shots per game in less minutes in 1990 than he is in 1993. The problem may have been the quality of shooters in 1990 (Horry, Kenny Smith ect came later) but I don't think a lack of touches is the concern.[/QUOTE]

I was referring more to the 80's in terms of Hakeem being underutilized, '92 as well. As far as 1990, the offense was just really poor, and the lack of shooters was a problem as you said.

Tim Duncan.

Update on the votes

Duncan - 7
Shaq - 6
Hakeem - 4
Oscar - 1

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]I was referring more to the 80's in terms of Hakeem being underutilized, '92 as well. As far as 1990, the offense was just really poor, and the lack of shooters was a problem as you said.[/QUOTE]
1987 and 1988?

That is plausible. I remember reading Hakeem complaining about Sleepy Floyd and Bill Fitch which may have been because of a lack of touches. Their entry passing probably got weaker too with the team breaking apart.

[QUOTE=Inception28]Update on the votes

Duncan - 7
Shaq - 6
Hakeem - 4
Oscar - 1[/QUOTE]

Im surprised Kobe has not even been voted once yet

Shaq

Sha Qweel O'Neal

elgin baylor

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234] 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]
There is a difference between having a better season and being a better player. I see no difference as far as what Hakeem was capable of doing in 94 that he wouldn't have been able to do in 95 and vice versa.

It's like this...

Kevin Garnett was never a better player than Tim Duncan was before the 07-08 season. He was never the better player. However, Garnett did have a better season than Duncan did in '03-'04, but I don't think he was a better overall player than him. Because what really changed in Duncan's game from 02-03 to 03-04?? Pretty much nothing other than being less successful.

It's the same thing in today's era.

If we were to talk about the 2010-2011 season and who was the best then? It would be Dirk easily. However, I don't think he is the best overall player though. He is just too one-dimensional, I'll take Howard, Wade, and maybe even Lebron over Dirk as far as being the better overall player.

And with this.....

[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.[/QUOTE]

Kobe had the best season in 09-10 including Lebron and Wade but he wasn't a better overall player than either Lebron or Wade then. I would say Lebron was a better overall player in 09-10 than he was in 08-09, but Lebron had a better season in 08-09.

That being said, you will remembered more for being best that season than being the best overall player then.

[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]
Well Wilt does have the higher PER and that pretty much adjusts minutes and pace and such I believe. Wilt is 2nd in PER of all-time only to be behind Michael Jordan.


[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 don't put heavy emphasis in All-NBA Teams because it is just other people's opinions.

Kenny Smith, Hakeem's teammate said Kobe is more dominant than Hakeem
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQkYxfenDHA[/url]
this was in 2009

[QUOTE=inclinerator]elgin baylor[/QUOTE]

I'll add him in the candidates list for the next voting okay.

Im voting for Shaq on this one

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Kenny Smith, Hakeem's teammate said Kobe is more dominant than Hakeem
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQkYxfenDHA[/url]
this was in 2009[/QUOTE]
Robert Horry, Hakeem's teammate said Hakeem was better than both Shaq and Duncan while playing next to those guys.

Mario Elie, Hakeem's teammate said Hakeem was the best he played with and he won a championship with prime Duncan.

So if you're going to vote Kobe over Hakeem based on that, be consistent and vote Hakeem over those two as well.

Shaq

[QUOTE=NugzHeat3]Robert Horry, Hakeem's teammate said Hakeem was better than both Shaq and Duncan while playing next to those guys.

Mario Elie, Hakeem's teammate said Hakeem was the best he played with and he won a championship with prime Duncan.

So if you're going to vote Kobe over Hakeem based on that, be consistent and vote Hakeem over those two as well.[/QUOTE]

I think Hakeem is better than Duncan for sure, but not Shaq
Even though we all know what happened in '95, but that was not a peak Shaq

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]I think Hakeem is better than Duncan for sure, but not Shaq
Even though we all know what happened in '95, but that was not a peak Shaq[/QUOTE]
You could argue that Hakeem in '93-'95 was better than peak Shaq.

Reasons would be as simple as Hakeem wasn't a liability in the FT line and had practically no defensive weaknesses while Shaq was practically a liability in the FT line and couldn't defend the pick n roll.

That being said this is how I judge players...

Prime > Longevity > Peak

Prime determines who you are as a player, not your peak. Longevity would be next so people can tell how long you sustained your dominance and success. Peak means the least because it shows the least.

[QUOTE=Inception28]You could argue that Hakeem in '93-'95 was better than peak Shaq.

Reasons would be as simple as Hakeem wasn't a liability in the FT line and had practically no defensive weaknesses while Shaq was practically a liability in the FT line and couldn't defend the pick n roll.

That being said this is how I judge players...

Prime > Longevity > Peak

Prime determines who you are as a player, not your peak. Longevity would be next so people can tell how long you sustained your dominance and success. Peak means the least because it shows the least.[/QUOTE]

I agree with all that you said
but Shaq offensively is too much to ignore, and you can also say that Hakeem never got to play with Kobe so its close

[QUOTE=Inception28]There is a difference between having a better season and being a better player. I see no difference as far as what Hakeem was capable of doing in 94 that he wouldn't have been able to do in 95 and vice versa.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't know, I think players can just play better in certain aspects of the game certain seasons depending on their growth as a player, focus on that aspect, age/athleticism/injuries ect. I do think player's capabilities can vary on a season to season basis.

[QUOTE]It's like this...

Kevin Garnett was never a better player than Tim Duncan was before the 07-08 season. He was never the better player. However, Garnett did have a better season than Duncan did in '03-'04, but I don't think he was a better overall player than him. Because what really changed in Duncan's game from 02-03 to 03-04?? Pretty much nothing other than being less successful.[/QUOTE]

Well, Duncan's free throw problems arose again in '04 and he had more injuries which it seemed was the start of minutes dropping and maybe aging. other than that, he didn't seem different watching him play. But going from 71% at the line to 59.9% matters when talking about effectiveness as well as durability.

It's the same thing in today's era.

[QUOTE]Kobe had the best season in 09-10 including Lebron and Wade but he wasn't a better overall player than either Lebron or Wade then. I would say Lebron was a better overall player in 09-10 than he was in 08-09, but Lebron had a better season in 08-09.[/QUOTE]

Wade may have been a better player than Kobe in '09(not sure about that, it could be a toss up), but his level of play fell off in 2010. Part of that was that he seemed lazier for the first few months(Pat Riley called him out on this), but his jump shot which had been good in 2009 fell off a lot throughout 2010 which made him less dominant, imo.

Lebron looked like the same player to me in 2009 and 2010 as far as what he was capable of, maybe he was a slightly better shooter in 2010, but slightly quicker and better defensively in 2010. So a virtual toss up for overall ability, but I agree that his '09 season was better.

[QUOTE]Well Wilt does have the higher PER and that pretty much adjusts minutes and pace and such I believe. Wilt is 2nd in PER of all-time only to be behind Michael Jordan.[/QUOTE]

I do use stats, but I've never been an advanced stats/formula guy. PER isn't horrible like win shares, imo, but I've never found PER useful.

The #7 spot is probally the toughest spot in the top 10 IMO
Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, and Duncan all can go there

Shaquille Oneal

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]The #7 spot is probally the toughest spot in the top 10 IMO
Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, and Duncan all can go there[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with anyone taking Shaq over Hakeem or the other way around, personally I have them both at same place. But I really don't think Duncan was better than any of those 2 players and Duncan should be happy he didn't enter the league in the late 80's or early 90's. Having to battle prime Malone, prime Barkley, prime Hakeem, prime Robinson, prime Ewing and young and beasty Shaq would probably hurt his legacy big time and good luck getting MVP's against Jordan.

[IMG]http://p.twimg.com/AY2FCzKCEAEddM8.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]I agree with all that you said
but Shaq offensively is too much to ignore, and you can also say that Hakeem never got to play with Kobe so its close[/QUOTE]
He got to play with Clyde in his 2nd championship in '95, but he is no Kobe.

Hakeem and Shaq are a lot closer offensively than you would think. Hakeem was clearly more versatile and could space the floor better. They were also pretty close as far as scoring efficiency goes.

I have no idea what years people believe Hakeem's prime was but I do know that his peak years were '93-'95

Hakeem's '93-'94 RS shooting efficiency: 27.3 ppg with 52.8% FG and 56.5% TS
Hakeem's '93-'94 PS shooting efficiency: 28.9 ppg with 51.9% FG and 56.8% TS

Keep in mind that in '94-'95 Hakeem was injured which was one of the reasons why the Rockets faltered to the 6th seed and traded for Clyde Drexler

Hakeem's '94-'95 RS shooting efficiency: 27.8 ppg with 51.7% FG and 56.3% TS
Hakeems' '94-'95 PS shooting efficiency: 33.0 ppg with 53.1% FG and 56.0% TS


Shaq's two clear peak season were '99-'00 and '00-'01

Shaq's '99-'00 RS shooting efficiency: 29.7 ppg with 57.4% FG and 57.8% TS
Shaq's '99-'00 PS shooting efficiency: 30.7 ppg with 56.6% FG and 55.6% TS

Shaq's '00-'01 RS shooting efficiency: 28.7 ppg with 57.2% FG and 57.4% TS
Shaq's '00-'01 PS shooting efficiency: 30.4 ppg with 55.5% FG and 56.4% TS


Hakeem and Shaq in their peaks actually generated very close and similar TS% which determines their scoring efficiency. Sorry, but we have to include their FT shooting ability. Shaq clearly has the edge in FG% and a lot of that has to do with Shaq playing much closer to the paint than Hakeem, but they are equally efficient at scoring.


People say that '99-'00 was Shaq's best season because that was the season where he put the most work and effort in defensively. Shaq was pretty much the same offensively for most of his career.

[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]


I can tell you. There are 3-4 guys on the candidate list that belong ahead of Shaq.

Duncan, Robertson and Bryant are easily ahead. You can debate Hakeem and West.



That's what makes it so absurd that Shaq is in consideration.

[QUOTE=millwad]I have no problem with anyone taking Shaq over Hakeem or the other way around, personally I have them both at same place. But I really don't think Duncan was better than any of those 2 players and Duncan should be happy he didn't enter the league in the late 80's or early 90's. Having to battle prime Malone, prime Barkley, prime Hakeem, prime Robinson, prime Ewing and young and beasty Shaq would probably hurt his legacy big time and good luck getting MVP's against Jordan.

[IMG]http://p.twimg.com/AY2FCzKCEAEddM8.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Where's Shaq's taco bell?

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Where's Shaq's taco bell?[/QUOTE]
It's Shaq, he obviously already ate 5 of them :lol

[QUOTE=Inception28]He got to play with Clyde in his 2nd championship in '95, but he is no Kobe.

Hakeem and Shaq are a lot closer offensively than you would think. Hakeem was clearly more versatile and could space the floor better. They were also pretty close as far as scoring efficiency goes.

I have no idea what years people believe Hakeem's prime was but I do know that his peak years were '93-'95

Hakeem's '93-'94 RS shooting efficiency: 52.8% FG and 56.5% TS
Hakeem's '93-'94 PS shooting efficiency: 51.9% FG and 56.8% TS

Keep in mind that in '94-'95 Hakeem was injured which was one of the reasons why the Rockets faltered to the 6th seed and traded for Clyde Drexler

Hakeem's '94-'95 RS shooting efficiency: 51.7% FG and 56.3% TS
Hakeems' '94-'95 PS shooting efficiency: 53.1% FG and 56.0% TS


Shaq's two clear peak season were '99-'00 and '00-'01

Shaq's '99-'00 RS shooting efficiency: 57.4% FG and 57.8% TS
Shaq's '99-'00 PS shooting efficiency: 56.6% FG and 55.6% TS

Shaq's '00-'01 RS shooting efficiency: 57.2% FG and 57.4% TS
Shaq's '00-'01 PS shooting efficiency: 55.5% FG and 56.4% TS


Hakeem and Shaq in their peaks actually generated very close and similar TS% which determines their scoring efficiency. Sorry, but we have to include their FT shooting ability. Shaq clearly has the edge in FG% and a lot of that has to do with Shaq playing much closer to the paint than Hakeem, but they are equally efficient at scoring.


People say that '99-'00 was Shaq's best season because that was the season where he put the most work and effort in defensively. Shaq was pretty much the same offensively for most of his career.[/QUOTE]

I do think that Shaq was the better offensive player, though Dream's advantage defensively was bigger than Shaq's advantage offensively.

However, I'll definitely disagree that Shaq was pretty much the same offensively for most of his career. As a scorer, he was pretty much as good as he would become by '98, maybe slightly improvements after, but not much. He was already an above average passer by '95, but improved a lot once Phil coached him.

[QUOTE=Inception28]He got to play with Clyde in his 2nd championship in '95, but he is no Kobe.

Hakeem and Shaq are a lot closer offensively than you would think. Hakeem was clearly more versatile and could space the floor better. They were also pretty close as far as scoring efficiency goes.

I have no idea what years people believe Hakeem's prime was but I do know that his peak years were '93-'95

Hakeem's '93-'94 RS shooting efficiency: 27.3 ppg with 52.8% FG and 56.5% TS
Hakeem's '93-'94 PS shooting efficiency: 28.9 ppg with 51.9% FG and 56.8% TS

Keep in mind that in '94-'95 Hakeem was injured which was one of the reasons why the Rockets faltered to the 6th seed and traded for Clyde Drexler

Hakeem's '94-'95 RS shooting efficiency: 27.8 ppg with 51.7% FG and 56.3% TS
Hakeems' '94-'95 PS shooting efficiency: 33.0 ppg with 53.1% FG and 56.0% TS


Shaq's two clear peak season were '99-'00 and '00-'01

Shaq's '99-'00 RS shooting efficiency: 29.7 ppg with 57.4% FG and 57.8% TS
Shaq's '99-'00 PS shooting efficiency: 30.7 ppg with 56.6% FG and 55.6% TS

Shaq's '00-'01 RS shooting efficiency: 28.7 ppg with 57.2% FG and 57.4% TS
Shaq's '00-'01 PS shooting efficiency: 30.4 ppg with 55.5% FG and 56.4% TS


Hakeem and Shaq in their peaks actually generated very close and similar TS% which determines their scoring efficiency. Sorry, but we have to include their FT shooting ability. Shaq clearly has the edge in FG% and a lot of that has to do with Shaq playing much closer to the paint than Hakeem, but they are equally efficient at scoring.


People say that '99-'00 was Shaq's best season because that was the season where he put the most work and effort in defensively. Shaq was pretty much the same offensively for most of his career.[/QUOTE]

So Kobe was just as efficiency as both of them for 2 of his championships?
2009 PO - .564 TS%
2010 PO - .567 TS%

and for a Finals apperance,
Kobe's 2008 PO - .577 TS% compared to Shaq's 1995 PO - .575 TS% compared to Hakeem's 1986 PO - .566 TS%
If your going by true shooting %

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]So Kobe was just as efficiency as both of them for 2 of his championships?
2009 PO - .564 TS%
2010 PO - .567 TS%
If your going by true shooting %[/QUOTE]
Yes. TS% determines your scoring efficiency, eFG% determines your shooting efficiency, and FG% probably determines your shot selection. Sometimes it is better to have a miss shot so one of your teammates can get the rebound and maybe get a better shot selection. That is just me though.

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]So Kobe was just as efficiency as both of them for 2 of his championships?
2009 PO - .564 TS%
2010 PO - .567 TS%

and for a Finals apperance, Kobe's 2008 PO - .577 TS% compared to Shaq's 1995 PO - .575 TS%
If your going by true shooting %[/QUOTE]
OP did you just start this project to try and prop Kobe up? :facepalm

I don't trust to TS%. I calculate player's efficiency like that;

Shaq tried 1228 2-pointers, 1 3-pointer and 717 free throws in 2001-02 regular season. He scored 1822 points in total. 1822 / ( (1228*2) + (1*3) +717 ) = 0.574.

By using that formula;
Shaq's efficiency were 0.564(rs) - 0.547(po) in threepeat years.
Hakeem's efficiency were 0.552(rs) - 0.553(po) in repeat years.

[QUOTE=RRR3]OP did you just start this project to try and prop Kobe up? :facepalm[/QUOTE]

How am I proping Kobe "up"?

[QUOTE=JMT]I can tell you. There are 3-4 guys on the candidate list that belong ahead of Shaq.

Duncan, [B]Robertson[/B] and Bryant are [b]easily ahead[/B]. You can debate Hakeem and West.



That's what makes it so absurd that Shaq is in consideration.[/QUOTE]

Oscar ahead of Shaq?

That being said, I usually like to use eFG% when calculating perimeter player's shooting/scoring efficiency. There isn't too much of a point in using eFG% with big men specifically Hakeem and Shaq because it is not like either one of those guys were capable of hitting 3s outside of luck pretty much.

Kobe in '08 playoffs: 51.4 eFG%
Kobe in '09 playoffs: 49.2 eFG%
Kobe in '10 playoffs: 50.6 eFG%

Hakeem in '94 playoffs: 52.1 eFG%
Hakeem in '95 playoffs: 53.3 eFG%

Shaq in '00 playoffs: 56.6 eFG%
Shaq in '01 playoffs: 55.5 eFG%


Kobe pretty much was less efficient as far as shooting is concerned, not scoring.

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Oscar ahead of Shaq?[/QUOTE]

Having been the only one to vote for Oscar, let me answer your question.
Shaq didn't have the drive to be truly great, I can't vote for someone who didn't even try to live up to his talent. Say what you want about Big O and his lack of championships. He was the standard for what a great all around player was for 30 years.:bowdown: :bowdown:

[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Oscar ahead of Shaq?[/QUOTE]

Yes. As a guy who saw both, I believe Robertson was unquestionably a better basketball player.

Let's start with the fact that I'm a Shaq fan. Immensely entertaining and, at his best, a truly dominant player. But in one of the weakest eras of big men in league history, Shaq wasn't a dominant rebounder for an extended period during his career. He was never a great shot blocker, and for half his career was a real liability as a pick & roll defender. He was essentially a power player on the offensive end, and only really increased his repetoire as his age and conditioning dictated. And his lack of conditioning accelerated his decline. His last 5 years in the league he was a shadow of his former self who survived because of the lack of quality bigs in the NBA.

Robertson was as complete a basketball player as has ever stepped on the floor. He faced up and shot the ball effectively; had a post game that Shaq should have aspired to (and that would make LeBron James an all time great if he developed); defended, often the best scorer on the other side; rebounded like a much bigger player; and did it all, for the most part, with an inferior cast of teammates. Yes, he won with Kareem at the tail end of his career, but he certainly never played with guys the caliber that Shaq did.

I kind of lost faith in this list when Magic came in at #4 ( a great player and unique to this day, but not close to the 4th best player of all time). I chalk it up to the youth of the people voting in your poll. Their knowledge of players prior to Jordan is obviously pretty spotty, and they appear to be more influenced by threads on Ish than how well guys actually played the game.

Just my .02. Thanks for asking.

17 - Shaquille O'Neal
11 - Tim Duncan
5 - Hakeem Olajuwon
3 - Oscar Robertson
2 - Kobe Bryant

Total - 38 votes

Shaq had an excellent career and his prime shits on anyone left, not to mention the players already picked above him.

Shaq.

[QUOTE=JMT]Yes. As a guy who saw both, I believe Robertson was unquestionably a better basketball player.

Let's start with the fact that I'm a Shaq fan. Immensely entertaining and, at his best, a truly dominant player. But in one of the weakest eras of big men in league history, Shaq wasn't a dominant rebounder for an extended period during his career. He was never a great shot blocker, and for half his career was a real liability as a pick & roll defender. He was essentially a power player on the offensive end, and only really increased his repetoire as his age and conditioning dictated. And his lack of conditioning accelerated his decline. His last 5 years in the league he was a shadow of his former self who survived because of the lack of quality bigs in the NBA.

Robertson was as complete a basketball player as has ever stepped on the floor. He faced up and shot the ball effectively; had a post game that Shaq should have aspired to (and that would make LeBron James an all time great if he developed); defended, often the best scorer on the other side; rebounded like a much bigger player; and did it all, for the most part, with an inferior cast of teammates. Yes, he won with Kareem at the tail end of his career, but he certainly never played with guys the caliber that Shaq did.

I kind of lost faith in this list when Magic came in at #4 ( a great player and unique to this day, but not close to the 4th best player of all time). I chalk it up to the youth of the people voting in your poll. Their knowledge of players prior to Jordan is obviously pretty spotty, and they appear to be more influenced by threads on Ish than how well guys actually played the game.

Just my .02. Thanks for asking.[/QUOTE]

Whats wrong with Magic at 4?

and for those who say he had Kareem:
[B]
1987 Playoffs[/B]
Magic - 21.8 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 12.2 apg on 53.9 FG%
Kareem - 19.2 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.0 apg on 53 FG%

[B]1988 Playoffs[/B]
Magic - 19.9 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 12.6 apg on 51.4 FG%
Kareem - 14.1 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 1.5 apg on 46.4 FG%

#1 alltime in Playoff assists
#1 alltime in Playoff APG
#11 alltime in Playoff points

[QUOTE=JMT]
I kind of lost faith in this list when Magic came in at #4 ( a great player and unique to this day, but not close to the 4th best player of all time). I chalk it up to the youth of the people voting in your poll. Their knowledge of players prior to Jordan is obviously pretty spotty, and they appear to be more influenced by threads on Ish than how well guys actually played the game.
.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm Magic is arguably the greatest offensive player to ever play the game, and yes that includes MJ. MJ is my favorite player of all-time, but recently I am starting to lean towards saying Magic is the greatest offensive player ever. There is nobody that can anchor an entire offense like him.