#22 NBA Player Of All-Time According to InsideHoops

[fpliii]

Do we rank them by hypothetics, myths and legends or the actual awards they actualy yield... that is the million dollar question....

If your answer is hypothetics, then Bill Russell is the undisputed GOAT and George Mikan is probably top 5 of all time.

If your answer is no, then Bill Russell is still in the top 10 but George Mikan is faaaaar away from top 5...

well, think about it this way

if one thinks of the MVP and Finals MVP as valuable awards, then they must measure something, right?

if one knows what they're measuring, then they must reflect something done on the court

all hypothetical MVPs and Finals MVPs do is label great achievements during the regular season and Finals respectively, just as actual MVPs and Finals MVPs do

so it has nothing to do with actual awards, but more to do with noting the accomplishments that the aforementioned awards signify

at least that's my take

[KG215]

Do we rank them by hypothetics, myths and legends or the actual awards they actualy yield... that is the million dollar question....

If your answer is hypothetics, then Bill Russell is the undisputed GOAT and George Mikan is probably top 5 of all time.

If your answer is no, then Bill Russell is still in the top 10 but George Mikan is faaaaar away from top 5...

How do you plead?

No, you just don't use those accolades to compare players and make a case for a player over another player who didn't even have the opportunity to win the award. Just like you should judge a player for what he did in his era, and not what he could or couldn't have done in a different era, you don't penalize a player for not having an award or more accolades when sai accolades weren't available during his career.

No one said anything about hypothetical situations. You're the one knocking Mikan for not having more All-Star game appearances (and I guess Finals MVPs) even though one didn't exist during his career and the other was only around the last few years of his career.

[pauk]

Garnett was the best player, most valuable individual, and undisputed leader of the Celtics until the latter part of the 2010-2011 season.

On that 2008 championship team? Garnett was the guy.

Pierce was awarded the FMVP, but that team, as blasphemous as it may have seemed to Boston fans at that time (considering Pierce's long and brittle tenure with the Celtics organization) was more impacted by Garnett's post-peak prowess than anyone else.

Did you not watch the NBA back then? Serious question, requesting an honest answer.

That is your opinion.... my opinion is that Paul Pierce & Kevin Garnett were the best players on that team.... that nobody really significantly stood out as the best player in that team...

We agree to disagree then...

[fpliii]

No, you just don't use those accolades to compare players and make a case for a player over another player who didn't even have the opportunity to win the award. Just like you should judge a player for what he did in his era, and not what he could or couldn't have done in a different era, you don't penalize a player for not having an award or more accolades when sai accolades weren't available during his career.

No one said anything about hypothetical situations. You're the one knocking Mikan for not having more All-Star game appearances (and I guess Finals MVPs) even though one didn't exist during his career and the other was only around the last few years of his career.

another issue is the lack of DPOYs and all-defensive teams during Russell's era

[pauk]

No, you just don't use those accolades to compare players and make a case for a player over another player who didn't even have the opportunity to win the award. Just like you should judge a player for what he did in his era, and not what he could or couldn't have done in a different era, you don't penalize a player for not having an award or more accolades when sai accolades weren't available during his career.

No one said anything about hypothetical situations. You're the one knocking Mikan for not having more All-Star game appearances (and I guess Finals MVPs) even though one didn't exist during his career and the other was only around the last few years of his career.

You dont get it do you? We are not talking about individuals careers here, we are talking about all time rankings... in which all players are FORCED to be compared to all players from any eras in order to assume their rightful place on the rankings....

I am not knocking on anybody, i am just asking... how do we do this?!??

[Deuce Bigalow]

You dont get it do you? We are not talking about individuals careers here, we are talking about all time rankings... in which all players are FORCED to be compared to all players from any eras in order to assume their rightful place on the rankings....

I am not knocking on anybody, i am just asking... how do we do this?!??

We are just saying to not compare certain accolades of someone who played at a time in which that award never exsisted.

[KG215]

I am not knocking on anybody, i am just asking... how do we do this?!??

It kind of sounds like to me that's what you're doing.

Thats exactly what i mean, that is hypothetical........ with those accomplishments he would be #3 or something of all time in my list.... kindof like when talking about Bill Russell and how many FMVP/DPOYs he would have if those accomplishments did exist at that time, in which if he would have he would be the undisputed GOAT by far (considering he was the best player in his team and often the best defensive player in the NBA)....

You say he would be "#3 or something of all time in my list" if he had all those accomplishments. He doesn't have those accomplishments because they didn't exist, not because he wasn't deserving. If you would think so highly of him with those accomplishments, then why can't you think as highly of him for what he did accomplish without those accolades due to them not existing?

I'm not saying vote for Mikan here, but don't say you would rank someone as high as #3 all-time with certain accolades, but act confused on what to do with him because he doesn't have the accolades that weren't available to him during his career.

You dont get it do you? We are not talking about individuals careers here, we are talking about all time rankings... in which all players are FORCED to be compared to all players from any eras in order to assume their rightful place on the rankings....

Yes, we're comparing careers of players from different eras. A player from the 50s, 60s, and even 70s isn't going to have as impressive of a resume as one from the 80s, 90s, and 00s due to not being afforded the same opportunity to win awards that weren't made available until after they retired.

[lilblingy]

Dirk

[The Choken One]

"I vote LeBron. He's so good he should be on the list twice."-Pauk

[KG215]

another issue is the lack of DPOYs and all-defensive teams during Russell's era

Right. And who knows how many DPOYs, All-Defense 1st teams, and Finals MVPs Russell would have if they did exist. But pauk is saying if he did have all of those, he'd be the undisputed GOAT. Why? Does the attachment of those awards all of a sudden make him a better player and what he did achieve look better? No. Anyone that knows the history of the NBA understands that Russell was the anchor for 11 championship teams and arguably the greatest defensive player of all-time. If he did have something like 10 or 11 Finals MVPs, 12 or 13 All-Defense 1st teams, and 10 DPOYs wouldn't change anything for me. He's still the same player and his career would would still look the exact same.

[rhythmic]

Right. And who knows how many DPOYs, All-Defense 1st teams, and Finals MVPs Russell would have if they did exist. But pauk is saying if he did have all of those, he'd be the undisputed GOAT. Why? Does the attachment of those awards all of a sudden make him a better player and what he did achieve look better? No. Anyone that knows the history of the NBA understands that Russell was the anchor for 11 championship teams and arguably the greatest defensive player of all-time. If he did have something like 10 or 11 Finals MVPs, 12 or 13 All-Defense 1st teams, and 10 DPOYs wouldn't change anything for me. He's still the same player and his career would would still look the exact same.

It's just easier for people who don't really understand the game to compare player A and player B. I usually just ignore people who spoon feed me straight stats as their sole reasoning.

[RRR3]

"I vote LeBron. He's so good he should be on the list twice."-Pauk

[fpliii]

Right. And who knows how many DPOYs, All-Defense 1st teams, and Finals MVPs Russell would have if they did exist. But pauk is saying if he did have all of those, he'd be the undisputed GOAT. Why? Does the attachment of those awards all of a sudden make him a better player and what he did achieve look better? No. Anyone that knows the history of the NBA understands that Russell was the anchor for 11 championship teams and arguably the greatest defensive player of all-time. If he did have something like 10 or 11 Finals MVPs, 12 or 13 All-Defense 1st teams, and 10 DPOYs wouldn't change anything for me. He's still the same player and his career would would still look the exact same.

not speaking of Pauk per se (since I haven't had many exchanges with him), but most posters on here sometimes let their 'stanning' totally take over their posting on this board

when people try to have discussions about the game instead of pushing meaningless agendas, we actually have some conversation on this board; I'm certain that every individual posting on this board has a large volume of useful knowledge to impart on the community, but some people take this 'gawd/hater' stuff (particularly that pertaining to Kobe, LeBron, but other players as well) waaaaay too far, to the point where it detracts from the actual dialogue

[Horatio33]

Sam jones.

[pauk]

We are just saying to not compare certain accolades of someone who played at a time in which that award never exsisted.

So you mean to say that if we are to compare lets say Larry Bird to George Mikan we can compare only championships since those are the only significant accolades both could deploy.... in which Mikan would come out on top considering not only did Mikan win more championships but he was the best player on both ends of the floor in his team while also being the best player in the NBA at that time...

Russell should be GOAT because of the FMVPs/DPOYs he hypothetically achieved...
Mikan should be a top 5 player because of the FMVPs/MVPs/DPOYs he hypothetically achieved...

Does it work like that? It certainly doesnt if you take a look at any top 50 list existing today.... including this one we just made... where majority were fully aware of these hypothetical accomplishments but did NOT vote for the hypothetical career, but chose to vote for the authentic ones....