Top 50 All-Time List - Shot Clock Era = #1

[QUOTE=Thenameless;14425489]10 - 3 in Wilt's favour sounds about right to me.

In hockey, Wayne Gretzky is more or less the undisputed greatest. There are proponents of Howe, Orr, and Lemieux, but Gretzky gets the overwhelming amount of number 1 votes. No one penalizes him for only having won four Stanley Cups, while Henri Richard has eleven and Jean Beliveau has ten.

He's number 1 because he owns the record book. Wilt is the same but different. He doesn't have some of the career records that Gretzky has, but he proves to be more dominant in his peak seasons, and unlike Gretzky, he was also a monster on the defensive end (being best or second best all time).[/QUOTE]


Hell after the Oilers traded Gretzky to the Kings they still managed to win a Stanley Cup without him and nobody I know penalizes him for that when talking about who the greatest player ever in hockey is.



Gretzky is always ranked number one by fans because he owns the record book in hockey to an insane degree.


And Stanley cups don't even come into the debate when talking about Gretzky as the GOAT.


Unlike Basketball in which rings utterly dominate the GOAT debate.

[QUOTE=Thenameless;14425489]10 - 3 in Wilt's favour sounds about right to me.

In hockey, Wayne Gretzky is more or less the undisputed greatest. There are proponents of Howe, Orr, and Lemieux, but Gretzky gets the overwhelming amount of number 1 votes. No one penalizes him for only having won four Stanley Cups, while Henri Richard has eleven and Jean Beliveau has ten.

He's number 1 because he owns the record book. Wilt is the same but different. He doesn't have some of the career records that Gretzky has, but he proves to be more dominant in his peak seasons, and unlike Gretzky, he was also a monster on the defensive end (being best or second best all time).[/QUOTE]

I remember vividly in the early 70s, Wilt Chamberlain was known as the Babe Ruth of basketball….obviously meaning he was the GOAT. This is also what the national mainstream media said too.



I don’t remember anyone besides Red and journalists from Boston saying it was Bill Russell.


Russell had the titles, but everyone understood that if Wilt and Russell traded places, Wilt would have both the stats and the titles.



Russell was almost always surrounded by multiple HOFers. One of Russell’s teams had 8 or 9 future HOFers on it All-time greats coming off the bench even!!


People enjoy shitting on Wilt for being selfish but he took fewer shots in 1967, which resulted in a 68-win team that was thought to be one of the better teams of all time.


In fact, he was tied for third on the team in shot attempts, well below Hal Greer and just below Billy Cunningham, tied with the immortal Chet Walker. His shots stayed much lower after this season so he made his sacrifices, which I never seem to read about.


I think you can move Wilt anywhere and he produces. He's a complete player at center, and the greatest athlete in NBA history


Plug him in anywhere and you still get the greatest raw player of the time.


As Wilt was an oversized LeBron, which is even more amazing than it sounds when you think what happens to the body with that scaling.

The speed, the coordination, the sheer power, the stamina! I truly think Wilt is the best physical specimen to ever play basketball.

Shaq, David Robinson, Nate Thurmond, LeBron, Westbrook, Jordan...

All of them were one in a million guys, but Wilt was one in an entire species. Never seen anything like it.



Russell, on the other hand, is the more limited player so he needs the right situation to succeed to the best of his abilities.


I've long said that he's very lucky to have gone to the best-run organization in the league, not to mention the best coach/basketball mind of all time and hall of famer players crawling out of every season's roster like cockroaches.


Because I don't think he's the guy who makes you a contender by himself, whereas Chamberlain is.



Wilt vs Russell is one of those rare situations where if Wilt played him one on one in a game to 100, Russ might get 16 points. It's rare to see that huge of discrepancy in any sport. It would be total domination.


True there is a team aspect to be considered but nobody is comparing Draymond Green to Anthony Davis either.

Wilt was more skilled, more prolific, a better shooter, a better passer, a better dribbler, faster, taller, etc.


While Russell was great at rebounding, Wilt was better than him at that as well.


While Russ was great at blocking shots, Wilt said in front of Russ and Wilt naysayers that when he played Russ, he blocked 3 shots to every one of Russell and you could tell they weren't even thinking of contradicting Wilt.

Hell I even remember vividly


That



Oscar Robertson was once regarded as a top 5 to top 3 player of all time.

Here are some quotes that demonstrate his sometimes underrated greatness.

Praise from players, coaches


Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (2013)

“LeBron is awesome, MJ was awesome — but I think Oscar Robertson would have kicked them both in the behind,” said Abdul-Jabbar when asked about James and Jordan. “Absolutely. Oscar was awesome. He had brains. […] He had all the skills.”

Red Auerbach

“He Oscar is so great he scares me.”

Jerry Lucas

“He obviously was unbelievable, way ahead of his time. There is no more complete player than Oscar.”

Bill Russell

“Oscar was one of basketball’s great leaders, and his life is one of basketball’s great stories. He was unafraid, unabashed, and unmatched in everything he did. There will never be another like him.”

Rick Barry

“People just don’t have any idea how good Oscar was. The numbers are ridiculous. If you’re getting 30 points and double-figures in rebounds as a point guard and 10 assists a game, that’s sick. He is the greatest athlete in the history of sports in this country who has been overlooked in terms of his greatness.”

Jerry West

“Oscar Robertson was never a rookie. He was the measuring stick for how a player should play. He is a man for the ages.”

John Havlicek

"He Oscar is the best I've seen."

Jerry West

"Oscar Robertson was the greatest player I played against, period."

Magic Johnson

"I never knew how good Oscar was until I tried to do it."

Wayne Embry

“Oscar knew you were open before you knew you were open. [...] He was the greatest player I have ever seen, period.”

Pete Newell

"Oscar Robertson was the most fundamentally flawless player I ever saw."

Bob Boozer

“He played the game like he invented it. Oscar was James Naismith in tennis shoes. He did what he wanted to do.”

John Wooden
"I've always considered Oscar Robertson to be the best player in the game," says John Wooden. "Now I'm not so sure that Larry Bird isn't."

John Salley (on what Michael Jordan told him)

Interviewer: "Who did Jordan tell you is the greatest player ever?"

Salley: "He would say Oscar Robertson."


Praise from media & notable awards

AP Basketball Player of the Century (1999)

Michael Jordan (49)

Oscar Robertson (44)

Wilt Chamberlain (42)

Bill Russell (41)

Earvin Johnson (36)

Larry Bird (34)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (25)

Elgin Baylor (19)

Jerry West (16)

Julius Erving (12)

Karl Malone (6)

Bob Pettit (4)

Bob Cousy (1)

John Havlicek (1)

Selection Panel of Marv Albert, Chick Hearn, Fuzzy Levane, Harvey Pollack, Bill Russell, and Lenny Wilkens


SLAM Magazine Top 75 NBA Players of All-Time (2003)

Michael Jordan

Wilt Chamberlain

Oscar Robertson

Bill Russell

Magic Johnson

Larry Bird

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Jerry West

Shaquille O'Neal

Julius Erving



National Association of Basketball Coaches' Player of the Century

PLAYERS OF THE CENTURY

Larry Bird (Indiana State)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar (UCLA)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson (Michigan State)

Michael Jordan (North Carolina)

Oscar Robertson (Cincinnati)

Bill Russell (San Francisco)

Bill Walton (UCLA)

PLAYER OF THE CENTURY

Oscar Robertson Cincinnati
New York Times (2009

The GOAT debate is interesting.





Today there seems to be a forcing of Kareem's name higher in GOAT talk (as #1 or 2), but in the Slam 50 Greatest Players from 1996, he was ranked 6 all time.



And in AP Basketball Player of the Century (1999) he was ranked 7th alltime.





That was only 7 and 10 years after his retirement so there were a ton of older people including myself who saw all or most of his career...

in a quarter-century what exactly has Kareem done to leap from outside of Top 5 to consensus Top 3, seeing as he's never played a minute and was already 7 years into retirement?


I think his legacy is immensely helped by the Showtime Lakers run in the 1980s.


I wanna clarify, I'm not implying Showtime isn't his legacy like he didn't help drive it.


But he was 1 title in 10 years without Magic. 2 titles in 12 years as the best player on a championship team until Magic matured into that role.



And again the primary era he played in where he was at his most dominant, the 70s, was a parity-driven era where he and the results of his talent underwhelmed.



There was no 60s Celtics, 90s Bulls, 10s Warriors standing in his way in the 70s that impeded greater success.


That's an indictment on Kareem...




And all I do think think people lose sight of the fact that everybody in that time period at the time was arguing newer players such as Bird as the Goat or Magic or hell even Jordan, not Kareem.

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425495]I remember vividly in the early 70s, Wilt Chamberlain was known as the Babe Ruth of basketball….obviously meaning he was the GOAT. This is also what the national mainstream media said too.



I don’t remember anyone besides Red and journalists from Boston saying it was Bill Russell.
[/QUOTE]

For what it's worth the NBA crowned Russell the GOAT in 1980.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_35th_Anniversary_Team[/url]

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14425506]For what it's worth the NBA crowned Russell the GOAT in 1980.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_35th_Anniversary_Team[/url][/QUOTE]

:applause:



And funny enough the NBA at the time crowned The 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers that Wilt led as the greatest individual team of all time.

What's alarming to me about Kareem is that in the second weakest decade ever in NBA history.


in Kareem’s 5 seasons without one of the 2 best point guards ever, which also should be 5 of, if not his 5 best seasons (ages 27-31) Kareem:



Missed the playoffs twice – Left a team that had the same exact record after he left with the same main pieces intact – Got swept once (With home-court advantage)



Won a grand total of 2 playoff series (one of which required 2 victories to win)


Beat 0 teams with 50+ wins (While playing alongside 3 HOF players along the way in Goodrich, Wilkes, and Dantley.


Keep in mind Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron are a combined 48-1 vs sub-50 win teams, so it is an accurate cutoff in deciding whether a team is elite or not).


Won 2 MVPs (one of which he won without making the playoffs in 1976)




My thing with Kareem is I don't doubt that he's one of the GOAT's.


But for some time now I've questioned whether his longevity should put him over Magic when everybody acknowledges Magic was the best player 8/10 years they were together and the driving force behind the dynasty that was Showtime.

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425507]:applause:



And funny enough the NBA at the time crowned The 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers that Wilt led as the greatest individual team of all time.[/QUOTE]

Hard to go against a team that had a 68-13 record and a peak Wilt, I'm certain the '72 Lakers were right there in the discussion as well for GOAT team, but Wilt himself said numerous times that the '67 Sixers were the better team.

People's definition of greatness are always changing for variety of reasons. Before the stats era, people might rely on stories, testaments, eye test. Now people consider stats as one of the main part. And the stories we hear are no longer from 1st person source, but from wikipedia and the likes. After the 3pt boom, people start subconsciously deducting points if someone couldn't shoot 3s, especially guards.

Not saying it's good or bad, but the greatness metric will always change and evolve.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14425511]Hard to go against a team that had a 68-13 record and a peak Wilt, I'm certain the '72 Lakers were right there in the discussion as well for GOAT team, but Wilt himself said numerous times that the '67 Sixers were the better team.[/QUOTE]


The 72 Lakers would have given the 1967 76ers all that they could handle as West and Goodrich would have done well against the 76er's guards of Wally Jones and Hal Geer.



But a peak Wilt and Luke Jackson along with Billy Cunningham on the boards would have just physically murdered that undersized and old Lakers team.

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425515]The 72 Lakers would have given the 1967 76ers all that they could handle as West and Goodrich would have done well against the 76er's guards of Wally Jones and Hal Geer.



But a peak Wilt and Luke Jackson along with Billy Cunningham on the boards would have just physically murdered that undersized and old Lakers team.[/QUOTE]

As far as single season teams are concerned, the consensus was that those were the two best teams ever by a comfortable margin up until the mid 80's came around.

I do wonder if Wilt picked the Sixers as the better team because he was at his absolute peak in '67 compared to past his prime in '72. Kareem for example has stated that the '85 Lakers were the best Lakers team of the showtime era, he won Finals MVP that year while Magic & Worthy have said the '87 team was their best version, by that time Kareem had a lesser role on the team.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14425517]As far as single season teams are concerned, the consensus was that those were the two best teams ever by a comfortable margin up until the mid 80's came around.

I do wonder if Wilt picked the Sixers as the better team because he was at his absolute peak in '67 compared to past his prime in '72. Kareem for example has stated that the '85 Lakers were the best Lakers team of the showtime era, he won Finals MVP that year while Magic & Worthy have said the '87 team was their best version, by that time Kareem had a lesser role on the team.[/QUOTE]


Wilt picked the 76ers as the better team because he along with everyone else on that team was at their absolute peaks.


That starting five of Jones--Walker--Greer--Wilt--Jackson with Billy C. as the 6th man was just unreal.


Had Luke Jackson not gone down with basically a career-ending injury after Wilt left the team to join the Lakers.


Then the 1967 76ers would have ended up with 5 Hall of fame players all of which were basically at their peaks at the same time.



Wilt made a huge mistake leaving the 76ers for an old Lakers team as he left 3 to 4 rings on the table.


Losing the 1968 ECF to the Celtics was a fluke.


No disrespect to the Celtics, but Philly was a far better team.

The injury to Billy C. and other key Sixers, including Chamberlain who played with a pulled thigh muscle, a torn calf muscle, and a sprained right toe (all injuries on the same leg) doomed the Sixers.




With a fully healthy squad, the Sixers with Wilt were going to be the best team after 1968 for three to five more years.






Now the 1972 Lakers had a past his prime Wilt and West and a prime Goodrich and happy Hairston along with a weak bench.



While those 72 and 73 Laker teams were special as they overachieved.



And also what is perhaps forgotten about the 1973 Lakers is that they were down a man.


Happy Hairston, who had put up 13ppg and 13rpg as their starting PF during their title-winning 1972 season.


Had gone down 28 games into the 72-73 season with a knee injury, having averaged 16ppg and 13rpg to that point.



He missed the remainder of the regular season and most of the post-season.

he returned for limited minutes in the last game of the conference finals and two games in the finals, but he wasn't himself.



In the 28 RS games with Hairston, that 1973 Lakers team had gone 24-4(.85.7) with a MOV of +9.679.



While without him they went 36-18(.66.6) with a MOV of +7.388.




You have to wonder, given three of the Lakers' four losses in the finals that season were by a margin of only 4-5 points, if the Lakers would've won back to titles in 1972 and 1973 had Hairston been 100%.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14425517]As far as single season teams are concerned, the consensus was that those were the two best teams ever by a comfortable margin up until the mid 80's came around.

I do wonder if Wilt picked the Sixers as the better team because he was at his absolute peak in '67 compared to past his prime in '72. Kareem for example has stated that the '85 Lakers were the best Lakers team of the showtime era, he won Finals MVP that year while Magic & Worthy have said the '87 team was their best version, by that time Kareem had a lesser role on the team.[/QUOTE]




The 85 Lakers were a better team than the 87 Lakers.


The 1987 team had the easiest post-season situation you can imagine that year:

In the pitiful Western Conference, they beat the 37-45 Nuggets, 42-40 Warriors, and 39-43 Sonics on the way to the Finals.


And in the 1987 finals, the Celtics were mega-hurt (5 of their top-7 were out or playing injured, including McHale playing on a broken foot that the Pistons kept stepping on in the ECF, which only made life easier for the Lakers in the finals.



Those banged-up Celtics if not for Magic's iconic game-winner in game 4 would have taken the 87 team to a Game 7 despite the fact that the 87 Lakers were the most well-rested Finals team ever.




For me the fact that the 1985 Lakers team played with such anger and the desire to destroy everyone in their path after choking to the Celtics the year prior in the finals.


And the fact they won the title at the Garden which had tormented so many past Laker teams going back to the West and Baylor days was such a ****ing sweet feeling as a Lakers fan and it's why I rank the 85 team over the 87 team.

[B]We need more votes!! [/B]

A few people actually posted on this thread without saying who their vote is.

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425344][B]Russell was a system player[/B]--the ultimate system player to be sure, but I wonder if, as legendary, as he was, he would have been nearly as effective in another system and with worse teammates around him.





On the other hand, Wilt or Kareem or hell [B]Lebron[/B] and [B]Jordan[/B] with a [B]team of pretty fair roleplayers[/B]--yet alone superior players like the ones that were the cogs in the well-oiled Celtic machine that supported Russell--is always going to make a team a serious contender.


I am not sure you can say that of Russell.[/QUOTE]

I see this thread has turned into a coastalmarker aka jlauber spam thread...the bolded above is a great example of ISH drivel and hilarious...never change ISH.

There's really no point for me to post anything in response to this as this thread's point wasn't ever to convince anyone...at least I wasn't. I thought we were just stating our opinion on GOAT criteria and TBH, there's an argument to be had for most people in the top10, which is why they're in the top 10 ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just an insecure kid who for some reason ties their self worth to people validating their favorite player as #1. Grow the **** up