[QUOTE=Yung D-Will][IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/25q8wnp.png[/IMG]
One of these two.
7-8 respectively[/QUOTE]
you got to pick one of them
Printable View
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will][IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/25q8wnp.png[/IMG]
One of these two.
7-8 respectively[/QUOTE]
you got to pick one of them
[QUOTE=aau]deuce
this one's a rap
let's get into #8 while we chillin
on a sunday watchin football[/QUOTE]
idk maybe its too early
[QUOTE=Inception28]Update for the vote so far
17 - Shaquille O'Neal
10 - Tim Duncan
6 - Hakeem Olajuwon
3 - Oscar Robertson
Duncan was a better and a more willing passer than Hakeem. Duncan also made his teammates better than both Hakeem and Shaq did. That being said, I don't think Duncan had a better peak than Hakeem did. If we were just talking about peaks, Hakeem would be top 3 or 5 on my list and he would have a case for #1.[/QUOTE]
so duncan being a more willing passer and making his teammates better is enough to rank him higher?
hakeem is better at offence and defense in almost every aspect of the game. what more does he need?
[QUOTE=Fazotronic]so duncan being a more willing passer and making his teammates better is enough to rank him higher?
hakeem is better at offence and defense in almost every aspect of the game. what more does he need?[/QUOTE]
Are we comparing their peaks here or what? I said Hakeem was better during their peaks. But Duncan accomplished and did more than Hakeem did, that makes him above Hakeem in my opinion. It's not like Hakeem blows Duncan away in prime/peak play either. Duncan on the other hand does blow Hakeem away in longevity and accomplishments.
[QUOTE=Inception28]Are we comparing their peaks here or what? I said Hakeem was better during their peaks. But Duncan accomplished and did more than Hakeem did, that makes him above Hakeem in my opinion. It's not like Hakeem blows Duncan away in prime/peak play either. Duncan on the other hand does blow Hakeem away in longevity and accomplishments.[/QUOTE]
Duncan does not blow Hakeem away in longevity, not even close. And accomplishments based on winning, yes, based on personal accolades no. I can barely see Duncan winning 1 MVP in Hakeem's era, absolutely not 2..
Back to longevity, just look at Duncan now, he is 34 and a corpse compared to the younger version of himself. 2010-2011 season he averaged [B] 13.4 points (50% shooting), 8.9 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.9 blocks per game.[/B]
Hakeem at the same age, 34, was still balling and he averaged [B]23.2 points (51% shooting), 9.2 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks per game.
[/B]
And I'd take prime Hakeem over prime Duncan without no doubt and especially considering the guy's Hakeem outplayed compared to the guy's Duncan outplayed during their runs.
[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]
Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?[/QUOTE]
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-bu-bu-bu-but Wilt was a choking statpadder!!!!!!!!
Shaq :pimp:
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Why would Bird, Magic, Kareem, Duncan or Shaq be clearly ahead of Wilt?[/QUOTE]
They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.
[QUOTE=millwad]Duncan does not blow Hakeem away in longevity, not even close. And accomplishments based on winning, yes, based on personal accolades no. I can barely see Duncan winning 1 MVP in Hakeem's era, absolutely not 2..
Back to longevity, just look at Duncan now, he is 34 and a corpse compared to the younger version of himself. 2010-2011 season he averaged [B] 13.4 points (50% shooting), 8.9 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.9 blocks per game.[/B]
Hakeem at the same age, 34, was still balling and he averaged [B]23.2 points (51% shooting), 9.2 rebounds, 3 assists, and 2.5 blocks per game.
[/B]
And I'd take prime Hakeem over prime Duncan without no doubt and especially considering the guy's Hakeem outplayed compared to the guy's Duncan outplayed during their runs.[/QUOTE]
Even a 36 year old Hakeem was better than a 34 year old Duncan
18.9 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.5 bpg on .519 FG%
[QUOTE=Inception28]They are all better playoff performers and every bit as accomplished, if not more accomplished than Wilt was. Wilt is more talented sure, he is more talented than anyone who has ever played but that isn't enough.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact.
Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.
None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).
Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly.
Yes his numbers dipped in the playoffs, and that is a good reason to suggest maybe he was lacking a quality that guys like MJ, Russ, Bird, Duncan and Magic had, but Kareem didn't have it either so that can't be it.
Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did.
I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.
[QUOTE=Deuce Bigalow]Even a 36 year old Hakeem was better than a 34 year old Duncan
18.9 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.5 bpg on .519 FG%[/QUOTE]
He definitely was, many seem to think that Hakeem just came from no where and played GOAT-like for 2 years when he lead the Rockets to them back-to-backs and then he just disappeared.
Very few ever give him cred for how good he was in the 80's or how he lead his team to the finals in his 2nd pro season while outplaying players like Abdul-Jabbar and Parish or that he still played basketball at a very high level even after the back to backs.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]I don't think you can say they are better playoff performers. Certainly you can't just say it and assume people will accept it as fact. [/quote]
Sure if you are completely naive about Wilt and his failures.
[quote]
Wilt's teams went to more conference finals and NBA finals than Bird, Shaq or Duncan and Kareem and Magic did 80% of their prime damage together.[/quote]
And how many times did he win the championship? The argument that I got further than someone else but I still failed to win it all doesn't hold much weight to me. Cause it is not like we are comparing Wilt to Tmac here, we are comparing Wilt to other all-time greats like Magic, Shaq, Duncan, and Bird.
[quote]
None of them ever had a playoffs that rivals Wilt's '67 campaign. And really you can barely find a bad game Wilt had in a pressure spot ('68 game seven is the only one I really hold against him).[/quote]
So one dominant post-season makes up for all the other shortcomings he had?
[quote]
Wilt won more MVP's than anyone besides Kareem, his Prime averages of 35-24-4 are other worldly. [/quote]
I already talked about how MVPs don't mean that much to me. Wilt won less MVPs than Russell and MJ by the way.
Here is what I said earlier about the MVPs when I was talking to ShaqAttack
[url]http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6444159#post6444159[/url]
[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]
[QUOTE]Wilt scored just as much in the playoffs as Kareem, averaged twice as many rebounds, more assists and if they kept the numbers probably at least twice as many blocks. His teams were also upset less often and certainly he didn't have the amount of Sweeps against him that Shaq's teams did. [/QUOTE]
A loss is a loss, why am I suppose to care if he got swept or not. Why should something hold more weight just because you win 1, 2, or 3 more games but you still lose the series? If you lose the series you lose the series.
[quote]
I just don't see how those guys have a stronger case, let alone an obvious one.[/QUOTE]
Sure, they were better playoff performers.
[QUOTE=Inception28]Sure, they were better playoff performers.[/QUOTE]
Let me offer a counterpoint that is the equivalent to what you presented:
No they're not!
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Let me offer a counterpoint that is the equivalent to what you presented:
No they're not![/QUOTE]
Well is it not true that Wilt Chamberlain won the least championships and least finals MVP out of the group?