PDA

View Full Version : PSD's Official #5 NBA Player of All Time



ManRam
07-01-2014, 10:33 AM
Voting for the #4 player of all time has concluded. The winner is...

Earvin Magic Johnson

19.5 PPG | 7.2 RPG | 11.2 AST | 1.9 SPG | .520% FG | 24.11 PER | 155.8 WS

Achievements:

12 time All-Star
5 NBA Championships
3 Time MVP
3 Time Finals MVP
2 Time AllStar Game MVP
9 Time All-NBA First Teamer
Led the League in Assists 4 times
Led the League in Steals 2 times
138 Career Triple Doubles

Voting:

Magic Johnson = 31 votes
Larry Bird = 12 votes
Shaquille O'Neal = 10 votes
Bill Russell = 8 votes
LeBron James = 8 votes
Kobe Bryant = 5 votes
Tim Duncan = 4 votes
Hakeem Olajuwon = 4 votes
Jerry West = 1 vote
Moses Malone = 1 vote
Oscar Robertson = 0 votes
Julius Erving = 0 votes
David Robinson = 0 votes

The List:

1. Michael Jordan (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?868731-PSD-s-Official-1-Player-of-All-Time)
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?868922-PSD-s-Official-2-NBA-Player-of-All-Time)
3. Wilt Chamberlain (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?869144-PSD-s-Official-3-Player-of-All-Time)
4. Magic Johnson (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?869307-PSD-s-Official-4-Player-of-All-Time)

----------------

Please vote, explain your vote and NOMINATE someone else to be added to the poll.

Elgin Baylor has been added to the list.

Longhornfan1234
07-01-2014, 10:46 AM
Russell. For some reason I can't see the poll on my iPad.

akia83
07-01-2014, 10:53 AM
Larry Bird for me here. Kind of a homer pick, since he's probably my favorite player ever, but I still think he deserves it.
I could have gone with the 2 players who dominated the most Lebron or Shaq, but I still give the edge to Larry Legend.

ManningToTyree
07-01-2014, 11:13 AM
Tough one. I'll go shaq

Chronz
07-01-2014, 11:22 AM
Tough one. I'll go shaq

Agreed

flea
07-01-2014, 11:32 AM
Lakers fans must have really pumped the vote to get Wilt at #3. I might have him outside my top 10, and if I was going to take anyone from that era in top 10 it would be West or Russell over him.

FYL_McVeezy
07-01-2014, 11:33 AM
I'm gonna go Russell here....

FYL_McVeezy
07-01-2014, 11:33 AM
Lakers fans must have really pumped the vote to get Wilt at #3. I might have him outside my top 10, and if I was going to take anyone from that era in top 10 it would be West or Russell over him.

I think that was the right call, just my opinion...

MiamiBoy77
07-01-2014, 11:55 AM
i went shaq but i really wanted to pick Russell.. theres just nobody ive ever watched with my own 2 eyes as physically dominating as Shaq.. and thats saying something because I watch LeBron on a nightly basis.

Pierzynski4Prez
07-01-2014, 12:25 PM
Have to go with Shaq

XpLiCiTT
07-01-2014, 12:33 PM
Lakers fans must have really pumped the vote to get Wilt at #3. I might have him outside my top 10, and if I was going to take anyone from that era in top 10 it would be West or Russell over him.

You have Wilt outside your top 10……?


LOL

FlashBolt
07-01-2014, 12:47 PM
Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, and Hakeem can all fill this #5 spot and I don't think there is a wrong choice.

Minimal
07-01-2014, 12:50 PM
Lakers fans must have really pumped the vote to get Wilt at #3. I might have him outside my top 10, and if I was going to take anyone from that era in top 10 it would be West or Russell over him.
good thing most people don't share your opinion. if you don't have wilt in your top 3, let alone in top 10, its really really sad, son.

flea
07-01-2014, 12:53 PM
You have Wilt outside your top 10……?


LOL

I have all players that played the majority of their careers in the 8-team era out of my top 10. That's fine if you don't, but I just don't know how to properly gauge someone like Wilt who was a true 7 footer playing against mostly 6'6 and less guys. That's like judging Lebron's all-time value on his AAU career.

That said, if I did include one I'd want to include the most dominant one. Russell had a great team, but so did Wilt with the Lakers for part of his career. Russell is the guy with the hardware from the era. It's the same reason I like Cobb over guys like Hornsby and Wagner in baseball - he's the guy that dominated that era. Not being able to see it, that's about all I can say for it.

flea
07-01-2014, 12:57 PM
good thing most people don't share your opinion. if you don't have wilt in your top 3, let alone in top 10, its really really sad, son.

Why? Just because he was an absurd scorer? Well Hakeem did the same thing in his generation, was a better defender, and actually played against real competition. Why is Wilt top 3 and Hakeem isn't? Can't be postseason because Wilt got schooled by Russell, whereas Hakeem won one title basically by himself. What does Wilt do better than Hakeem? Allegedly have a 100 point game? Against midgets that's not all that impressive. I think Hakeem's quadruple-double record that he got during the 90s is more impressive.

Crackadalic
07-01-2014, 01:02 PM
I have all players that played the majority of their careers in the 8-team era out of my top 10. That's fine if you don't, but I just don't know how to properly gauge someone like Wilt who was a true 7 footer playing against mostly 6'6 and less guys. That's like judging Lebron's all-time value on his AAU career.

That said, if I did include one I'd want to include the most dominant one. Russell had a great team, but so did Wilt with the Lakers for part of his career. Russell is the guy with the hardware from the era. It's the same reason I like Cobb over guys like Hornsby and Wagner in baseball - he's the guy that dominated that era. Not being able to see it, that's about all I can say for it.

Wilt only played 4 seasons for the Lakers at the twlight of his career. At least get your facts straight man.

Russell had more HOF on his celtics team against Wilt in his earlier days. No matter how great Wilt is your not beating a team full of HOFers

Anyway like the last poll I'm voting for Shaq because he took dominating others to a whole other level on both ends. It was ridiculous to watch

flea
07-01-2014, 01:05 PM
Yeah but with the Lakers was the only time he won it all, otherwise he was being abused. The same people that want to excuse Wilt's wilting in the postseason do not excuse Hakeem for playing in a highly competitive era on a crappy team.

XpLiCiTT
07-01-2014, 01:08 PM
I have all players that played the majority of their careers in the 8-team era out of my top 10. That's fine if you don't, but I just don't know how to properly gauge someone like Wilt who was a true 7 footer playing against mostly 6'6 and less guys. That's like judging Lebron's all-time value on his AAU career.


Just know that Wilt would absolutely dominate the league if he played today.

FlashBolt
07-01-2014, 01:12 PM
Yeah but with the Lakers was the only time he won it all, otherwise he was being abused. The same people that want to excuse Wilt's wilting in the postseason do not excuse Hakeem for playing in a highly competitive era on a crappy team.

Dude.. Bill Russell's team was stacked as hell. You don't know what you're talking about man.

flea
07-01-2014, 01:15 PM
Just know that Wilt would absolutely dominate the league if he played today.

Thanks, your baseless declarations have assured me.

XpLiCiTT
07-01-2014, 01:18 PM
Thanks, your baseless declarations have assured me.

Good.

It's hilarious that Larry Bird isn't gonna be top 5 in this poll. What a joke. I love Shaq and consider him the most dominant player of all time. But he is not better than Larry Bird all time.

flea
07-01-2014, 01:20 PM
So you discredit Russell's accomplishments versus Wilt, but then you can't believe that someone would think Bird isn't top 5? I love Bird and he's definitely in my top 10, but he had just as much of a stacked team as Russell did.

Bruno
07-01-2014, 01:26 PM
Yeah but with the Lakers was the only time he won it all, otherwise he was being abused. The same people that want to excuse Wilt's wilting in the postseason do not excuse Hakeem for playing in a highly competitive era on a crappy team.

Wilt dominated the 1967 playoffs while ousting the Celtics 4-1 in the ECF as a member of the 76ers.

Minimal
07-01-2014, 01:27 PM
Why? Just because he was an absurd scorer? Well Hakeem did the same thing in his generation, was a better defender, and actually played against real competition. Why is Wilt top 3 and Hakeem isn't? Can't be postseason because Wilt got schooled by Russell, whereas Hakeem won one title basically by himself. What does Wilt do better than Hakeem? Allegedly have a 100 point game? Against midgets that's not all that impressive. I think Hakeem's quadruple-double record that he got during the 90s is more impressive.
so much wrong with your post here. the competition wasn't weak back then, they had boston with mazillion hall of famers back then, and he was basically by himself against those hofs. players werent small back then, thats a ******** tale. its a tale because wilt dominated everyone, and its not about his height, but because he was so much stronger than everyone else, he was even stronger than shaq. he could bench press 550lb, while shaq could 450lb, heck he could bench press more than shaq ever did at age 59 with 465lb. russell never dominated wilt, its wilt who dominated russell, but you are too lazy to find out about that, are you? there were rule changes because of wilts dominance. wilt could score, rebound and pass on the highest level, he remains the only center to lead the league in assists in a season. go read more about wilt and his records and then make an assumption.
wilt would destroy this league if he played in these days, just the way he did 50 years ago.

FlashBolt
07-01-2014, 01:27 PM
So you discredit Russell's accomplishments versus Wilt, but then you can't believe that someone would think Bird isn't top 5? I love Bird and he's definitely in my top 10, but he had just as much of a stacked team as Russell did.

The level of competition was much more difficult in Bird's era because of Magic's Lakers and Julius still being around. Nothing compares to Bill's level of competition. Wilt was better than him in every thing - defense, scoring, rebounding, and passing. Didn't you also say you put West over Wilt? West never truly won a Finals MVP and Wilt was an intricate part of that squad. Wilt won a ring in Philly before he came to LAL and he was only there for 4 years - hardly stacked considering you also put West on that team but never said it was stacked for him... No one is discrediting Russell's accomplishments but he was one of four guys who were 6"8 and above for quite some time. Wilt was 7"0+ and would transition into any era much more easily than Bill. Wilt was by far better than Bill and West.. You don't have any clue what you're talking about, just lay it to rest.

XpLiCiTT
07-01-2014, 01:29 PM
So you discredit Russell's accomplishments versus Wilt, but then you can't believe that someone would think Bird isn't top 5? I love Bird and he's definitely in my top 10, but he had just as much of a stacked team as Russell did.

Where did i discredit Russells accomplishments? If i'm not mistaken you were the one discrediting Wilt for "playing against 6'6 guys", even though Russell played in the same era. Quit with your "stacked team" BS, its pretty consensus most places you go that Bird is top 5 (top 6 is at WORST). PSD just seems to dislike him.

flea
07-01-2014, 01:36 PM
Strength and height are the biggest factors in post dominance - I agree with that. I just question whether Wilt had the skill to do what he did against guys who could defend him (except Russell). I am not saying he'd be a scrub or anything - but why are you so sure he'd be better than Hakeem? I'm not sure I could say he'd be that much better than a Ewing or Moses Malone. That's fine if you want him top 10 for what he did in his era with a huge asterisk - but 2nd best center of all time? Not a chance.

Anyone who has a 22 rebound career average was just playing against weak competition. Even probably the best rebounder in the history of the modern era game (Rodman) didn't even touch 20 in a single season, much less talking about career averages. Rebounds are the key stat for me, in fact, because defensive rebounding is really more of a team stat. If you're collecting 22 on average for your career then you're just physically so much more imposing than everyone else that it's hard to take any of those numbers seriously. That's what the 7 footers do in high school - not in a professional league.

flea
07-01-2014, 01:40 PM
The level of competition was much more difficult in Bird's era because of Magic's Lakers and Julius still being around. Nothing compares to Bill's level of competition. Wilt was better than him in every thing - defense, scoring, rebounding, and passing. Didn't you also say you put West over Wilt? West never truly won a Finals MVP and Wilt was an intricate part of that squad. Wilt won a ring in Philly before he came to LAL and he was only there for 4 years - hardly stacked considering you also put West on that team but never said it was stacked for him... No one is discrediting Russell's accomplishments but he was one of four guys who were 6"8 and above for quite some time. Wilt was 7"0+ and would transition into any era much more easily than Bill. Wilt was by far better than Bill and West.. You don't have any clue what you're talking about, just lay it to rest.

I didn't watch them (except clips) but according to some of the old guys around here that did they think that Russell's D would hold up in any era because of how athletically gifted he was. I could see that since that's where he made his hay, but I've never heard the same for Wilt. It's easy to rim protect when you're the only specimen of your caliber in the league. Kwame Brown probably would have collected 20 rebounds per game and been just as dominant a defender then too, it doesn't mean he was skilled.

XpLiCiTT
07-01-2014, 01:45 PM
Strength and height are the biggest factors in post dominance - I agree with that. I just question whether Wilt had the skill to do what he did against guys who could defend him (except Russell). I am not saying he'd be a scrub or anything - but why are you so sure he'd be better than Hakeem? I'm not sure I could say he'd be that much better than a Ewing or Moses Malone. That's fine if you want him top 10 for what he did in his era with a huge asterisk - but 2nd best center of all time? Not a chance.

Anyone who has a 22 rebound career average was just playing against weak competition. Even probably the best rebounder in the history of the modern era game (Rodman) didn't even touch 20 in a single season, much less talking about career averages. Rebounds are the key stat for me, in fact, because defensive rebounding is really more of a team stat. If you're collecting 22 on average for your career then you're just physically so much more imposing than everyone else that it's hard to take any of those numbers seriously. That's what the 7 footers do in high school - not in a professional league.

You can't be serious. Or at least for your sake, I hope you're not serious.

Rodman was 6'7 and in his prime he would grab 16-18 boards a game as a season average. He had 167 20 rebound games, actually. Sure, Wilt's rebounding numbers might go down a little bit in a different era but he's still gonna be probably the best rebounder in the league no matter what era he played in.

XpLiCiTT
07-01-2014, 01:47 PM
I didn't watch them (except clips) but according to some of the old guys around here that did they think that Russell's D would hold up in any era because of how athletically gifted he was. I could see that since that's where he made his hay, but I've never heard the same for Wilt. It's easy to rim protect when you're the only specimen of your caliber in the league. Kwame Brown probably would have collected 20 rebounds per game and been just as dominant a defender then too, it doesn't mean he was skilled.

hahahahahahahhaha ok I'm done, putting that in my sig

JasonJohnHorn
07-01-2014, 01:52 PM
Still no Mike James? WTF?

akia83
07-01-2014, 01:59 PM
I just don't know how to properly gauge someone like Wilt who was a true 7 footer playing against mostly 6'6 and less guys. That's like judging Lebron's all-time value on his AAU career.


What if tomorrow a true skilled and athletic 8 footer Center average 40 points and 18 boards 5 blocks in his rookie year? You won't say he is the best because he's unfairly strong?

Raps08-09 Champ
07-01-2014, 01:59 PM
Small issue but Baylor on the poll is way too early.

Raps08-09 Champ
07-01-2014, 02:01 PM
Duncan wasn't as dominant of a force as Shaq but Duncan has it all.

tredigs
07-01-2014, 02:01 PM
Yeah, Flea you are burying yourself right now with some of the oldest/tiredest cliches of that era that have been put to rest long ago countless times over. Just do a little research on the subject to discover all you need to know about some of these myths (like the 6'6" center BS) that you're going on about. On by the same token that you can accrue more potential team success in an 8 man league, you have to realize that with such saturation EVERY team had a HOF level talent. And this was at a time when you didn't see 18 year old kids in the league, and it was a much more physical era (most who watched it daily seems to agree to a fault).

Players like Wilt were racking up 45+ mpg in that era at a much higher pace than our current level - hence the inflated per-game #'s (though it's probably foolish to discount the stamina level that it takes to maintain that year after year). But, even adjusting their shooting %'s to a more 2010 friendly 45% average, the pace and the minutes, Russell and Wilt are still rebounding at a 16-19 rpg level through their prime.

And... I will leave Russell aside for now (an insanely gifted athlete in his own right), but... have you ever even seen film on Wilt? I can't even comprehend how someone could think he would not absolutely destroy the current NBA. He's over 7 feet tall, extremely fast, skilled and can jump through the roof. What do you think would happen? Kwame Brown??? The ****? He was a mess, just like countless other 6'11"+ bigmen that were destroyed in Wilt's wake.

flea
07-01-2014, 02:02 PM
hahahahahahahhaha ok I'm done, putting that in my sig

You do know that Kwame Brown is actually a good rebounder in the modern NBA, right? As well as his 1v1 defense. He's a total joke because his hands are god awful and he has the basketball IQ of a senile granny.

FlashBolt
07-01-2014, 02:03 PM
I didn't watch them (except clips) but according to some of the old guys around here that did they think that Russell's D would hold up in any era because of how athletically gifted he was. I could see that since that's where he made his hay, but I've never heard the same for Wilt. It's easy to rim protect when you're the only specimen of your caliber in the league. Kwame Brown probably would have collected 20 rebounds per game and been just as dominant a defender then too, it doesn't mean he was skilled.

Lol, Bill was not an offensive player. He was someone who rebounded and defended. Wilt was the overall package and did everything better than Bill - that is not false. Can you answer why you put Jerry West above Wilt when Wilt has two rings, a Finals MVP, and more achievements than Jerry? Jerry has 0 Finals MVP as far as I'm concerned.

flea
07-01-2014, 02:05 PM
You can't be serious. Or at least for your sake, I hope you're not serious.

Rodman was 6'7 and in his prime he would grab 16-18 boards a game as a season average. He had 167 20 rebound games, actually. Sure, Wilt's rebounding numbers might go down a little bit in a different era but he's still gonna be probably the best rebounder in the league no matter what era he played in.

Just don't see how you can say that at all, especially considering the only other dominant center of that era also rebounded at that rate. To me that just says they're so much more skilled and tall than both the competition and their teammates. Would they be 10-13 rebounds per game guys today? Probably, but that just puts you in the conversation with guys like Duncan, Ewing, Robinson, etc. It doesn't make you heads and shoulders better than anyone.

flea
07-01-2014, 02:09 PM
Lol, Bill was not an offensive player. He was someone who rebounded and defended. Wilt was the overall package and did everything better than Bill - that is not false. Can you answer why you put Jerry West above Wilt when Wilt has two rings, a Finals MVP, and more achievements than Jerry? Jerry has 0 Finals MVP as far as I'm concerned.

Great defender by all accounts, very good playmaker, shot creator, and one of the best shooters of all time. Like I said, none of them are in my top 10. But I'm more impressed by a 6'2 shooter's ability to score 27 PPG on average without a 3 point line than I am a 7 footer playing against slower, shorter, and weaker players. Shooting and shot creation translates across eras - having an insane physical advantage less so.

flea
07-01-2014, 02:14 PM
Yeah, Flea you are burying yourself right now with some of the oldest/tiredest cliches of that era that have been put to rest long ago countless times over.

The era conversation is not a cliche, it's a serious thing you must grapple with when comparing players. Most guys dismiss Unitas versus Manning out of hand, and Cobb versus Bonds out of hand. But in basketball it's so much different? In the sport where size and strength matter probably the most?

I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what other posters are - that I think Russell or Wilt would be scrubs. That is not what I'm saying. I'm arguing with the assumption that Wilt is easily better than Hakeem/Ewing/Robinson and would easily dominate in any era just because they did it in a crappy era.

XpLiCiTT
07-01-2014, 02:23 PM
Just don't see how you can say that at all, especially considering the only other dominant center of that era also rebounded at that rate. To me that just says they're so much more skilled and tall than both the competition and their teammates. Would they be 10-13 rebounds per game guys today? Probably, but that just puts you in the conversation with guys like Duncan, Ewing, Robinson, etc. It doesn't make you heads and shoulders better than anyone.

http://i.qkme.me/3pxb9d.jpg


I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what other posters are - that I think Russell or Wilt would be scrubs. That is not what I'm saying. I'm arguing with the assumption that Wilt is easily better than Hakeem/Ewing/Robinson and would easily dominate in any era just because they did it in a crappy era.

False, this all started when you said you probably don't even have Wilt in your top 10. This has nothing to do with people thinking you are calling him a scrub. And then you put Kwame Brown in the same sentence as him, which pretty much just buried your own grave..

FlashBolt
07-01-2014, 02:36 PM
Flea, I agree with your argument that the rebounding rate was highly inflated and it is why we see half of what they rebounded today and not 30 rebounds a game. But, sometimes you have to judge a player by what they had to play in because it wasn't their fault Jordan, Bron, Kobe, and Shaq were born in other eras. I discredit them a bit for playing against weaker competition but I still give them props because they played with what the game gave them and Wilt surely dominated at that. Seriously, I'm with you on the fact that Kwame will be more dominant in Wilt's era. Not 20 rebounds but 20 points and 15 rebounds doesn't seem off. That era was very weak and with only 8 teams, it was easy to dominate if the rest of the league wasn't very good. I still don't see your argument of West/Bill over Wilt. 50/25 is impressive in any era. How come Bill never averaged those numbers? Also, Wilt frequently gave Kareem the business despite being 36 years old.

flea
07-01-2014, 02:38 PM
I said none of them from that era are in my top 10, because it's like the dead-ball era of baseball in my mind. You don't have to agree with that, but please stop trying to say I was specifically being disrespectful to Wilt. I think it's disrespectful to Ewing and Dream to assume that a guy beating up on weak competition makes him automatically better than guys that played in the golden era of centers.

Bruno
07-01-2014, 02:39 PM
any of the Shaq voters feel like saying anything in defense of shaqs defense?

even at his most physically dominant in the early 2000's he still only made his way onto three defensive teams, none of them first team.

out of all our GOAT caliber anchors its probably a toss up between Shaq and Kareem for worst defensively.

Bruno
07-01-2014, 02:40 PM
Wilt was two threads ago guys.

ManRam
07-01-2014, 02:51 PM
Small issue but Baylor on the poll is way too early.

You dweebs need to nominate people then!!! I agree...but only 3 people nominated and 2 said Baylor. So that's why he's there

tredigs
07-01-2014, 02:51 PM
Shaq should get more grief for his defense, it was always a letdown that he was not better on that end. Kareem would've been a multiple DPOY winner had it existed and was easily the most decorated defender of the 70's along with being it's best post defender/shot-blocker.

As for Baylor, no problem with a guy who won a decade straight All NBA 1st Teams being on the list. A lot of people at the time considered him the best.

flea
07-01-2014, 02:53 PM
To tredigs and others saying there was good competition physically.

FYI, for 1965 the rebounding leader on each of the 9 teams was:

6'9 Reed, 6'8 Barnes (Knicks)
6'6 DeBusschere, 7' Harding (Pistons)
6'9 Beaty, 6'6 Bridges (Hawks)
6'7 LaRusso, 6'5 Baylor (Lakers)
6'9 Jackson, 7'1 Chamberlain (Sixers)
6'6 Sanders, 6'10 Russell (Celtics)
6'6 Johnson, 6'10 Bellamy (Bullets)
6'8 Lucas, 6'8 Embry (Royals)
6'11 Thurmond, 7'1 Chamberlain (Warriors)

Chamberlain was top 2 in rebounds on 2 of the 9 teams that year because he got traded, despite only playing half a season for each. Also, we all know those heights are embellished - especially Russell's who is thought to be about 6'8 rather than the 6'10 he is listed. Even if you believe those measurements, the height advantage is distinct. I understand height isn't everything, but for role players it often is. There are only so many Rodmans and Barkleys ever to play - and it's still why teams to this day prefer size, even as the game gets smaller.

ManRam
07-01-2014, 02:53 PM
Bill Russell only having three votes brings a tear to my eye. A tear of joy!

I'm not sure who I'm voting for yet. It's between Duncan and Shaq for me. I think I'm leaning Duncan because, while he wasn't as offensively imposing, he was no slouch himself...but mostly because his defense and longevity were quite superior.

tredigs
07-01-2014, 02:56 PM
To tredigs and others saying there was good competition physically.

FYI, for 1965 the rebounding leader on each of the 9 teams was:

6'9 Reed, 6'8 Barnes (Knicks)
6'6 DeBusschere, 7' Harding (Pistons)
6'9 Beaty, 6'6 Bridges (Hawks)
6'7 LaRusso, 6'5 Baylor (Lakers)
6'9 Jackson, 7'1 Chamberlain (Sixers)
6'6 Sanders, 6'10 Russell (Celtics)
6'6 Johnson, 6'10 Bellamy (Bullets)
6'8 Lucas, 6'8 Embry (Royals)
6'11 Thurmond, 7'1 Chamberlain (Warriors)

Chamberlain was top 2 in rebounds on 2 of the 9 teams that year because he got traded, despite only playing half a season for each. Also, we all know those heights are embellished - especially Russell's who is thought to be about 6'8 rather than the 6'10 he is listed. Even if you believe those measurements, the height advantage is distinct. I understand height isn't everything, but for role players it often is. There are only so many Rodmans and Barkleys ever to play - and it's still why teams to this day prefer size, even as the game gets smaller.
Go ahead and add 1.5-2" to most of those players to get their modern NBA equivalent (in-shoes) height.

--------------------------

From what I've seen, I bet RPM would've rated a prime Bill Russell (let's say we'll give him 2 years of indoctrination into the modern times to train) as the #1 player in the NBA this season simply on his defensive prowess. Similar in vein to how it rated peak Ben Wallace, but with offensive value.

FlashBolt
07-01-2014, 02:58 PM
I said none of them from that era are in my top 10, because it's like the dead-ball era of baseball in my mind. You don't have to agree with that, but please stop trying to say I was specifically being disrespectful to Wilt. I think it's disrespectful to Ewing and Dream to assume that a guy beating up on weak competition makes him automatically better than guys that played in the golden era of centers.

And how can you make the 100% assumption that Dream/Ewing would dominate in Wilt's era? You can't so just drop it. No doubt his stats would drop as we enter more into the modern era but there is no way in hell he wouldn't be able to compete against Ewing/Dream. This dude had physical feats that not many could accomplish even today. Btw, I think Hakeem is the greatest center but Wilt is easily top 5. Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, Shaq, and Robinson are my top 5 centers.

Ebbs
07-01-2014, 02:58 PM
Vote Bird again. Though I won't be mad if Shaq goes here.

Nominate Dirk Nowitzki

DR_1
07-01-2014, 03:32 PM
Shaq I think

jerellh528
07-01-2014, 03:35 PM
Kobe here, his mix of accolades, effectiveness as a two way player, skill, and longevity, especially for a perimeter player, put him over the top for me.

KnicksorBust
07-01-2014, 04:14 PM
What happened to the people that were drooling over 2-way players???

Tim Duncan = The most all-nba defensive selections in NBA History. He has anchored the Spurs offense and defense for 15 years.

How is he losing to Shaq? SIGNIFICANTLY longer peak, more rings, more MVPs, better 2-way player. This should be Timmy...

Raps08-09 Champ
07-01-2014, 04:21 PM
You dweebs need to nominate people then!!! I agree...but only 3 people nominated and 2 said Baylor. So that's why he's there

Nominate Dirky Dirk. 2nd best PF man.

THE MTL
07-01-2014, 04:37 PM
I honestly want to know the ages of the people voting for russell. He is an accomplished player I'd admit but raw skill. Hell no! Shaq, Hakeem should go before him.

Jeffy25
07-01-2014, 04:47 PM
Shaq should have won the last one ;)

Jeffy25
07-01-2014, 04:54 PM
What happened to the people that were drooling over 2-way players???

Tim Duncan = The most all-nba defensive selections in NBA History. He has anchored the Spurs offense and defense for 15 years.

How is he losing to Shaq? SIGNIFICANTLY longer peak, more rings, more MVPs, better 2-way player. This should be Timmy...

Because Shaq had the better peak


Shaq had 25,000 minutes from 92-03 where he had a 29.1 PER a .584 TS% and 125.1 Win Shares

He had 15 seasons where he had at least a 20 PER and 9 seasons of a 10 WS or better (and one with a 9.9)

Duncan has a longer sustained valued performance....but he was never as great as Shaq was during that peak.

Duncan's best 9 year streak he averaged a 25.6 PER on .551 TS% and 119.8 WS....but he had 12 seasons with 10 WS or better and all 17 seasons he has had at least a 21.0 PER.

Duncan was a plus player for longer, but Shaq put up seasons that Duncan never could touch.

In total, they are a really good split, and their rankings are very very close. Shaq was more efficient as an overall player. Duncan potentially produced more value over his career because he sustained his great play for longer...even if it never peaked like Shaq's did.

YAALREADYKNO
07-01-2014, 05:00 PM
this is shaq

alexander_37
07-01-2014, 05:30 PM
The level of competition was much more difficult in Bird's era because of Magic's Lakers and Julius still being around. Nothing compares to Bill's level of competition. Wilt was better than him in every thing - defense, scoring, rebounding, and passing. Didn't you also say you put West over Wilt? West never truly won a Finals MVP and Wilt was an intricate part of that squad. Wilt won a ring in Philly before he came to LAL and he was only there for 4 years - hardly stacked considering you also put West on that team but never said it was stacked for him... No one is discrediting Russell's accomplishments but he was one of four guys who were 6"8 and above for quite some time. Wilt was 7"0+ and would transition into any era much more easily than Bill. Wilt was by far better than Bill and West.. You don't have any clue what you're talking about, just lay it to rest.

Wilt was in no way better than Russell defensively not even close.

Ebbs
07-01-2014, 06:09 PM
Anyone who truly thinks Duncan's longevity and consistency out weighs Shaq's dominance is butt **** crazy.

If we are building a franchise you could argue Duncan all the way up to #2. But that's a different debate.

XpLiCiTT
07-01-2014, 06:54 PM
Anyone who truly thinks Duncan's longevity and consistency out weighs Shaq's dominance is butt **** crazy.

If we are building a franchise you could argue Duncan all the way up to #2. But that's a different debate.

Tim Duncan is a better basketball played than Shaq. Just not as "dominant". Just about anyone you ask (I guess outside this site) would have Duncan ahead of Shaq all time.

flea
07-01-2014, 07:00 PM
Tim Duncan is a better basketball played than Shaq. Just not as "dominant". Just about anyone you ask (I guess outside this site) would have Duncan ahead of Shaq all time.

We agree! Shaq's mediocre defense gets overlooked on this site by PPG junkies. Duncan could also play whistle to whistle because his shooting wasn't pathetic. In about a 4-5 year span Shaq was pretty good on D because of his size, but he was very raw when he was young and he was fat and slow by 2005. Duncan is 38 and is still the best and most impactful defender on a championship team. Shaq was also at no point in his career an equal or better team defender as Duncan, who is one of the best of all time.

FlashBolt
07-01-2014, 07:31 PM
Wilt was in no way better than Russell defensively not even close.

Bill often picked his defensive moments while Wilt went after every ball. Bill might be remembered more for his defense but Wilt literally went for every possession and according to referees of their time, many say he averaged more blocks than Russell.

alexander_37
07-01-2014, 07:57 PM
Bill often picked his defensive moments while Wilt went after every ball. Bill might be remembered more for his defense but Wilt literally went for every possession and according to referees of their time, many say he averaged more blocks than Russell.

Really you watched every play?

todu82
07-01-2014, 08:45 PM
Bill Russell

Lucky.
07-01-2014, 09:14 PM
Nominate: Kevin Garnett

ThuglifeJ
07-01-2014, 10:01 PM
I'll live with Magic as #4..... Now it's really a toss up. Shaq, Bird, Duncan, Hakeem, Kobe.

I think Shaq and Bird slightly are above the others but only slightly.


Going Bird because you just can't leave him out your top 5....Shaq also got fat real quick and is annoying as hell on broadcast majority of the time. And yes I'm using that against him because Bird doesn't do that **** and if he did he'd probably be his goofy funny self.

But man Shaq was so insane on the Lakers... I can honestly say I feel bad for any kiddies in the future who never got to see him play. it was the definition of dominance he was so dam ****ing huge and great.


Shaq or Bird here...going Bird just to make the poll more interesting.

ThuglifeJ
07-01-2014, 10:11 PM
Dam, I feel like Duncan didn't even move up on anyones list after another championship this year..kinda crazy. Especially as it was against the Heat who were suppose to dominate this new era..

Cant help but think any other player not named Duncan winning another championship moves up significantly in peoples minds. I hope he goes in the top 7.

KnicksorBust
07-01-2014, 10:37 PM
Dam, I feel like Duncan didn't even move up on anyones list after another championship this year..kinda crazy. Especially as it was against the Heat who were suppose to dominate this new era..

Cant help but think any other player not named Duncan winning another championship moves up significantly in peoples minds. I hope he goes in the top 7.

Lol we just had a poll and I felt like a lot of people put him 4 too. Sustained elite 2way play is losing out to lame excuses like "dominance." Well how else would you describe winning +60% of your games for 15 years in a row? He also has more league and finals MVPs than Shaq and a decades worth of more all-defensive teams than Bird.

hidalgo
07-01-2014, 11:16 PM
Tim Duncan # 5 all time in my book

but looks like Shaquille O'Neal has this locked up. he's also a fine choice for #5

flea
07-01-2014, 11:22 PM
It's because of the glut of Laker fans and guys who look at PPG and other volume stats like PER. For some reason, people in the PSD NBA forum praise players for having a giant USG%. It's the same reason you'll hear people around here argue for Kobe over Bird, or Wade over Drexler, or Westbrook over Paul. They love volume stats, even if it's an the expense of offensive cohesion.

hidalgo
07-01-2014, 11:25 PM
Dam, I feel like Duncan didn't even move up on anyones list after another championship this year..kinda crazy. Especially as it was against the Heat who were suppose to dominate this new era..

Cant help but think any other player not named Duncan winning another championship moves up significantly in peoples minds. I hope he goes in the top 7.it moved him up quite a few spots for me(these past 2 seasons really, where last year he just barely missed being finals mvp, & this year could have had a case for it, but leonard was the right choic) Tim Duncan was the best player on 5 championship team (almost 6). the 50+ wins every single year since he was a rookie(99's win% would have easily been over 50 wins, but only 50 games total were played)

he moved from like number 8 for me, to #5, & i'm thinking possibly #4(but undecided, & when his career is over i may move him to #4 if they make another finals or even wcf, & 50+ wins). but if he wins his 6th, he's debatable for #2, & the spurs have a good chance of repeating. that ball movement....

Jeffy25
07-01-2014, 11:45 PM
Dam, I feel like Duncan didn't even move up on anyones list after another championship this year..kinda crazy. Especially as it was against the Heat who were suppose to dominate this new era..

Cant help but think any other player not named Duncan winning another championship moves up significantly in peoples minds. I hope he goes in the top 7.

Why do people put so much emphasis on team rings when discussing individual player ranks?

Pablonovi
07-02-2014, 12:04 AM
I voted LeBron James (I don't think the other 4 who voted for him have said why they did?).
imo, he is the MOST COMPLETE player ever (virtually Magic's equal in distributing the ball; as good a non-center defender (against 4+ positions) ever.

His first 10-11 seasons have been better than Bird's. iirc, Bird has said recently that LeBron already has had a better career than him.

For me, to be in the GOAT Top 10, you had to have, at least, 10 Great Seasons. So LeBron fits that criteria.
Then, his PEAK has been better than anybody NOT already in our Top 4 (MJ, KAJ, Wilt, Magic).

His PRIME includes these past 10(-11) years (and, though I don't count it in his favor); I anticipate that he will rack up 5 more excellent PRIME years.

He already has 4 MVP's (and should have, imo, gotten 5 in row, the year they gave it to DRose).

alexander_37
07-02-2014, 12:23 AM
Why do people put so much emphasis on team rings when discussing individual player ranks?

Becuz ringz

Fisher > Stockton bum couldn't even win 1 ring.

alexander_37
07-02-2014, 12:24 AM
I voted LeBron James (I don't think the other 4 who voted for him have said why they did?).
imo, he is the MOST COMPLETE player ever (virtually Magic's equal in distributing the ball; as good a non-center defender (against 4+ positions) ever.

His first 10-11 seasons have been better than Bird's. iirc, Bird has said recently that LeBron already has had a better career than him.

For me, to be in the GOAT Top 10, you had to have, at least, 10 Great Seasons. So LeBron fits that criteria.
Then, his PEAK has been better than anybody NOT already in our Top 4 (MJ, KAJ, Wilt, Magic).

His PRIME includes these past 10(-11) years (and, though I don't count it in his favor); I anticipate that he will rack up 5 more excellent PRIME years.

He already has 4 MVP's (and should have, imo, gotten 5 in row, the year they gave it to DRose).

So much wrong with this but the bolded is just egregious.

flea
07-02-2014, 12:28 AM
Like it or not, your postseason play means much more in the NBA than any other sport. Partially it's because the regular season is an 82-game exhibition, and partially it's because guys can have such a huge impact on team success in basketball (unlike other team sports). Some people take it too far, but if you're an all-timer and consistently lose in the postseason it affects your legacy. It's why Hakeem over Robinson is a no-brainer, even though their numbers aren't terribly different.

Of course having better teams matters, so you have to use rings judiciously, but I believe they belong as part of the conversation. In baseball and football? Utterly useless - but people try to force it (like crediting Brady with being gifted an elite defense and Vinateri's right foot, rather than crediting him for the amazing run he's had as an individual player since his last Super Bowl win).

alexander_37
07-02-2014, 12:35 AM
Like it or not, your postseason play means much more in the NBA than any other sport. Partially it's because the regular season is an 82-game exhibition, and partially it's because guys can have such a huge impact on team success in basketball (unlike other team sports). Some people take it too far, but if you're an all-timer and consistently lose in the postseason it affects your legacy. It's why Hakeem over Robinson is a no-brainer, even though their numbers aren't terribly different.

Of course having better teams matters, so you have to use rings judiciously, but I believe they belong as part of the conversation. In baseball and football? Utterly useless - but people try to force it (like crediting Brady with being gifted an elite defense and Vinateri's right foot, rather than crediting him for the amazing run he's had as an individual player since his last Super Bowl win).

People seem to forget how long its been since brady's last ring and how unimpressive his volume stats were in his ring winning years... He became a true "elite" passer after he stopped winning.

Pablonovi
07-02-2014, 12:57 AM
Some Thoughts Based On 55+ Years Of Being A Rabid NBA Fan

A few thoughts/responses to points other posters have brought up.

1) Mikan, the 50s & 60s:
Back in his day, Mikan was called "Mr. Basketball". And, (I've seen newspaper clippings of this), when he came to town, the marquee wouldn't say "home team vs Lakers"; it would say, "home team vs Mikan!" He WAS that dominant.

btw, I started watching the NBA (watching NYC-based TV - so if it was broadcast; I saw it), in the late 50s, at the start of the careers of Russell, Baylor & Wilt. I got to see Wilt 3 times as a member of the Harlem Globetrotters. I was "instructed" in basketball at the knee of my dad who had been a pro-B-Ball fan from its very beginnings. While we watched, he taught me about all HIS old-time greats: Mikan, and all his contemporaries. My dad would compare those greats with the current ones; he was surprisingly un-biased in favor of those who grew up loving.

2) SOP: Brutal Beatings & Raunchy Racism EVERYWHERE:
Back then, I witnessed many, many gang-bang beatings (the type of gang-bangs NOT involving women and YES involving people getting seriously hurt). We traveled to the Deep South twice a year - it was everywhere. And they had the "3-Bathroom 'System'" - "men", "women" and "colored" - the third was an absolute abomination, never cleaned, never with lighting at night, often without even running water.

3) West-Baylor's Bi-Racial Artistry Is What Enamored Me To The NBA:
Even though I was born and raised just outside of NYC, the Knicks were always "only" my second favorite team. I really loved the Big "O", especially his work with Jerry Lucas.

But (perhaps because there was much more equality of skill & play between the two main stars (than at Cincy); my favorite team was the Lakers BECAUSE of the bi-racial beautiful acrobatics of West-Baylor. West had unlimited range, was a great passer, and an outstanding Defender. Baylor was the Hawk before him, the Hawk was Dr. J. before him, and Dr. J. was MJ before him. Baylor "invented" virtually all the great around-the-rim moves. He had virtually unlimited offensive prowess. My All-Time favorite dunk was Elgin gliding across the paint winding up for a killer dunk. Then Wilt appeared, ready to squash both the ball & Elgin. Elgin, still gliding (he INVENTED Hang Time); flips the ball from one hand to the other, and moster-MoFo'd the ball over Wilt!

4) I've accumulated 55+ years of rabidly observing many sports:
I have lived being a sports fan (many pro sports: basketball, baseball, football, a bit of hockey; AND, track and field (especially the running events: 400meter hurdles (Edwin Moses won 122 straight races over a 10-year period(!); 100meters, 200, 400, 800, 1500/mile, 5K/3.1 miles, 10K/6.2 miles; AND distance running on the streets: 5Ks, 10Ks, 1/2 Marathons (13.1 miles); and especially the Marathon (26.21875 miles). I've seen & studied a bleep-load of great athletes. I've watched them on TV; listened to radio-broadcasts; and read endless articles in newspapers and magazines; and bought and read a series of books.

5) Wilt: It is my opinion that Wilt was THE Greatest Athlete of the entire 20th Century. Bill Russell was an extraordinary athlete; but Wilt was a once-in-a-century FREAK OF NATURE.

In the NBA, he was the:
a) strongest (could and did lift up two big guys simultaneously by their shirts to stop a fight);

b) quickest / most explosive (blocked shots at the TOP of the backboard). Earlier he had been a top-quality high-jumper and long-jumper;

c) fastest (regularly beat ALL the PGs down the court. Earlier he had top-quality speed in the sprints;

d) had the most stamina (imo, he could play 40 mpg in any NBA era; he just never tired.)

e) had tremendous tenacity (he DID go after every rebound; he usually did whatever his coach asked him to do).

f) Dominated his era more than anybody ever has since then (only Mikan dominated more; but I don't count that nearly as much because: that was pre-integration; and the level of play was probably only 1/2 of what it's been ever since the '60's).

Wilt DOMINATED Bill Russell (in some 140 head-to-heads; in end-of-the-year ALL-NBA Teams:
Wilt ranked higher than Russ in most of those years). Wilt averaged 29+ ppg and 29+ rpg VS Russ (and Russ got LOTS of help from the C's killer Defense); this is only a small amount less than Wilt averaged against everybody else!

Part of the reason people don't know how great he was defensively was because they didn't keep the block stat back then - witnesses say he was blocking 10 a game! BUT, people would NOT shoot with him nearby; whereas they would vs Russ.

imo, Wilt would have been The Best Center in any era except possibly KAJ's era.

g) Wilt was an exceptional Peace-Maker (both preventing/stopping fights generally, AND NOT getting involved himself - he knew he'd end anybody's career he hit in anger).

h) Wilt was an exceptional racial-integrator: People might know that Russ did a lot. But Wilt, personally, single-handedly, integrated entire cities! He made it his business to go to "whites-only" (or "coloreds in the back only") restaurants and sat in front. He risked his life each time. He was so BIG, so INTIMIDATING, and so FAMOUS; it WORKED !

6) Bird is hurt by two things: he had a Great Team (with McHale & Parish; and top-quality guards, etc.) yet didn't win that much. But more importantly for me, he only had 10 Great years, and then injury knocked him down and then out of the game.

7) Hakeem was very complete; but NOT simultaneously for very long (and Chronz often points out). And Hakeem did NOT have even 10 Years as ALL-NBA 1st-Team or 2nd-Team member. So, he didn't even dominate the centers he faced - not enough for me at this level of GOAT discussion. He only made it to 2 Finals.

8) LeBron - I doubt anybody other than he could have taken that Cav's team to the Finals.

9) The 60's: The 60's were TOUGHER than MJ's 90's, EASILY. After just his first year, Wilt seriously considered quitting because he was getting beat on so bad (imagine that). I watched a ton of ball back then (including live at Madison Square Garden and the Boston Gaaaaden). I don't believe that that style is the best style; that level of roughness detracted/detracts from the beauty/flow of the game. But it was what it was - WAY tougher than any period later on.

10) Bill Russell: Russell's teams were UNIQUE because:
a) They EASILY had a higher concentration of the best players on those teams than at any other time in NBA history.
b) They had the most ahead-of-his-time COACH ever (Red Auerbach);
c) They had the most ahead-of-his-time GM ever (Red Auerbach);
d) Yet they often only won in 7-game series and in close games (even OverTime).
Regardless, I call them the Celtics All-Star teams.

imo, if you put any other Great Center on that team, they win 10+ Chips in those 13 years.
Meanwhile, if you put Bill Russell on half the teams in the League back then, he wins few or NO Chips.

imo, Bill Russell's offensive side was super-weak (he played very close to the rim, yet shot terribly). It was that Celtics All-Star team that covered for his great one-sidedness. Put him on any other team then or in any other era; and he's a glorified Dennis Rodman - and his team is average.

hidalgo
07-02-2014, 01:34 AM
Pablonivo. i really appreciate how far back you go as a fan (i can only claim about 1991 & on, with a smidge of 89-90 in there. born in 1979), to have seen Wilt & all those other greats. i might not agree with everything you say, but it's cool that you go so far back & have seen so many eras, & maybe know better who from the 60s would still flurish today. we all know Wilt would, any era. true freak, far far ahead of his time or even this time(like MJ)

how old are you anyway? and in your opinion how would, Wilt have done in the 90s vs prime Shaq, Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning & Mutombo? and what do you think his highest ppg for a season, & his career would, have been if he came out in the 84 draft with MJ? or say the 97 draft too? both

Wilt looked like he could still play(solid ball) when he was 50

Jerry West as well, how would he do today?

jerellh528
07-02-2014, 02:12 AM
It's because of the glut of Laker fans and guys who look at PPG and other volume stats like PER. For some reason, people in the PSD NBA forum praise players for having a giant USG%. It's the same reason you'll hear people around here argue for Kobe over Bird, or Wade over Drexler, or Westbrook over Paul. They love volume stats, even if it's an the expense of offensive cohesion.

Why do you always mention laker fans as a negative? You really have something personal against us, why? I don't know.
Anywho, you know the 3 cases you mention, each on of those players you don't think are over the other have a much higher history of winning than the ones you prefer. Kobe's won more than bird, wade has won more than drexler and Westbrook has won more than Paul. Interesting how you seem to think they thwart unit cohesion when they win more than the guys you don't think do.

alexander_37
07-02-2014, 02:23 AM
Some Thoughts Based On 55+ Years Of Being A Rabid NBA Fan

A few thoughts/responses to points other posters have brought up.

1) Mikan, the 50s & 60s:
Back in his day, Mikan was called "Mr. Basketball". And, (I've seen newspaper clippings of this), when he came to town, the marquee wouldn't say "home team vs Lakers"; it would say, "home team vs Mikan!" He WAS that dominant.

btw, I started watching the NBA (watching NYC-based TV - so if it was broadcast; I saw it), in the late 50s, at the start of the careers of Russell, Baylor & Wilt. I got to see Wilt 3 times as a member of the Harlem Globetrotters. I was "instructed" in basketball at the knee of my dad who had been a pro-B-Ball fan from its very beginnings. While we watched, he taught me about all HIS old-time greats: Mikan, and all his contemporaries. My dad would compare those greats with the current ones; he was surprisingly un-biased in favor of those who grew up loving.

2) SOP: Brutal Beatings & Raunchy Racism EVERYWHERE:
Back then, I witnessed many, many gang-bang beatings (the type of gang-bangs NOT involving women and YES involving people getting seriously hurt). We traveled to the Deep South twice a year - it was everywhere. And they had the "3-Bathroom 'System'" - "men", "women" and "colored" - the third was an absolute abomination, never cleaned, never with lighting at night, often without even running water.

3) West-Baylor's Bi-Racial Artistry Is What Enamored Me To The NBA:
Even though I was born and raised just outside of NYC, the Knicks were always "only" my second favorite team. I really loved the Big "O", especially his work with Jerry Lucas.

But (perhaps because there was much more equality of skill & play between the two main stars (than at Cincy); my favorite team was the Lakers BECAUSE of the bi-racial beautiful acrobatics of West-Baylor. West had unlimited range, was a great passer, and an outstanding Defender. Baylor was the Hawk before him, the Hawk was Dr. J. before him, and Dr. J. was MJ before him. Baylor "invented" virtually all the great around-the-rim moves. He had virtually unlimited offensive prowess. My All-Time favorite dunk was Elgin gliding across the paint winding up for a killer dunk. Then Wilt appeared, ready to squash both the ball & Elgin. Elgin, still gliding (he INVENTED Hang Time); flips the ball from one hand to the other, and moster-MoFo'd the ball over Wilt!

4) I've accumulated 55+ years of rabidly observing many sports:
I have lived being a sports fan (many pro sports: basketball, baseball, football, a bit of hockey; AND, track and field (especially the running events: 400meter hurdles (Edwin Moses won 122 straight races over a 10-year period(!); 100meters, 200, 400, 800, 1500/mile, 5K/3.1 miles, 10K/6.2 miles; AND distance running on the streets: 5Ks, 10Ks, 1/2 Marathons (13.1 miles); and especially the Marathon (26.21875 miles). I've seen & studied a bleep-load of great athletes. I've watched them on TV; listened to radio-broadcasts; and read endless articles in newspapers and magazines; and bought and read a series of books.

5) Wilt: It is my opinion that Wilt was THE Greatest Athlete of the entire 20th Century. Bill Russell was an extraordinary athlete; but Wilt was a once-in-a-century FREAK OF NATURE.

In the NBA, he was the:
a) strongest (could and did lift up two big guys simultaneously by their shirts to stop a fight);

b) quickest / most explosive (blocked shots at the TOP of the backboard). Earlier he had been a top-quality high-jumper and long-jumper;

c) fastest (regularly beat ALL the PGs down the court. Earlier he had top-quality speed in the sprints;

d) had the most stamina (imo, he could play 40 mpg in any NBA era; he just never tired.)

e) had tremendous tenacity (he DID go after every rebound; he usually did whatever his coach asked him to do).

f) Dominated his era more than anybody ever has since then (only Mikan dominated more; but I don't count that nearly as much because: that was pre-integration; and the level of play was probably only 1/2 of what it's been ever since the '60's).

Wilt DOMINATED Bill Russell (in some 140 head-to-heads; in end-of-the-year ALL-NBA Teams:
Wilt ranked higher than Russ in most of those years). Wilt averaged 29+ ppg and 29+ rpg VS Russ (and Russ got LOTS of help from the C's killer Defense); this is only a small amount less than Wilt averaged against everybody else!

Part of the reason people don't know how great he was defensively was because they didn't keep the block stat back then - witnesses say he was blocking 10 a game! BUT, people would NOT shoot with him nearby; whereas they would vs Russ.

imo, Wilt would have been The Best Center in any era except possibly KAJ's era.

g) Wilt was an exceptional Peace-Maker (both preventing/stopping fights generally, AND NOT getting involved himself - he knew he'd end anybody's career he hit in anger).

h) Wilt was an exceptional racial-integrator: People might know that Russ did a lot. But Wilt, personally, single-handedly, integrated entire cities! He made it his business to go to "whites-only" (or "coloreds in the back only") restaurants and sat in front. He risked his life each time. He was so BIG, so INTIMIDATING, and so FAMOUS; it WORKED !

6) Bird is hurt by two things: he had a Great Team (with McHale & Parish; and top-quality guards, etc.) yet didn't win that much. But more importantly for me, he only had 10 Great years, and then injury knocked him down and then out of the game.

7) Hakeem was very complete; but NOT simultaneously for very long (and Chronz often points out). And Hakeem did NOT have even 10 Years as ALL-NBA 1st-Team or 2nd-Team member. So, he didn't even dominate the centers he faced - not enough for me at this level of GOAT discussion. He only made it to 2 Finals.

8) LeBron - I doubt anybody other than he could have taken that Cav's team to the Finals.

9) The 60's: The 60's were TOUGHER than MJ's 90's, EASILY. After just his first year, Wilt seriously considered quitting because he was getting beat on so bad (imagine that). I watched a ton of ball back then (including live at Madison Square Garden and the Boston Gaaaaden). I don't believe that that style is the best style; that level of roughness detracted/detracts from the beauty/flow of the game. But it was what it was - WAY tougher than any period later on.

10) Bill Russell: Russell's teams were UNIQUE because:
a) They EASILY had a higher concentration of the best players on those teams than at any other time in NBA history.
b) They had the most ahead-of-his-time COACH ever (Red Auerbach);
c) They had the most ahead-of-his-time GM ever (Red Auerbach);
d) Yet they often only won in 7-game series and in close games (even OverTime).
Regardless, I call them the Celtics All-Star teams.

imo, if you put any other Great Center on that team, they win 10+ Chips in those 13 years.
Meanwhile, if you put Bill Russell on half the teams in the League back then, he wins few or NO Chips.

imo, Bill Russell's offensive side was super-weak (he played very close to the rim, yet shot terribly). It was that Celtics All-Star team that covered for his great one-sidedness. Put him on any other team then or in any other era; and he's a glorified Dennis Rodman - and his team is average.

So you hold great teams against guys but fail to realize how bad Hakeems team was solid logic bro.

Didn't dominate other centers? That is a great joke there.

WadeKobe
07-02-2014, 02:31 AM
Give me Bird

5ass
07-02-2014, 02:47 AM
I voted Bird because I forgot about Shaq, but now that I think about it, if I'm picking Bird or Shaq for my franchise give me Bird.

Edit: Give me bron over Shaq as well for the same reason.
edit2: and Duncan.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 02:49 AM
I went with Duncan. I used to have Shaq as my number five, but with Duncan's recent success, I have bumped him up a bit. Shaq definitely had the better peak, best peak in NBA history as far as I'm concerned, but Duncan's longevity and overall resume surpass Shaq's. Have to go with the guy who won titles in three different decades with a plethora of different squads... Hard to match that overall impact. Shaq at six for sure though.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 02:53 AM
8) LeBron - I doubt anybody other than he could have taken that Cav's team to the Finals.

Kidd took a mediocre team to the finals twice in the weak East, and Iverson took a mediocre team there once as well only he didn't get swept in the finals and managed to win a game on the road against one of the best teams in NBA history who went 15-1 that year. How come they don't get the same consideration you are giving to Lebron based on the same factor you mentioned...

amos1er
07-02-2014, 02:57 AM
Anyone who truly thinks Duncan's longevity and consistency out weighs Shaq's dominance is butt **** crazy.

If we are building a franchise you could argue Duncan all the way up to #2. But that's a different debate.

I agree that it depends on the criteria we are considering, but this is a list of All-Time Greatness, and resume to me should count the most. Duncan has the better resume than Shaq despite Shaq having the best peak of All-Time IMO... And thats coming from a hard core Laker fan. Shaq was one of my favorite players of All-Time I might add.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 02:59 AM
Tim Duncan is a better basketball played than Shaq. Just not as "dominant". Just about anyone you ask (I guess outside this site) would have Duncan ahead of Shaq all time.

I agree with this... And I am a hardcore Lakers/Shaq fan as well.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 03:00 AM
Bird should not be this high up or have this many votes. I am also a very big fan of Bird despite him being a Celtic.

tredigs
07-02-2014, 03:15 AM
I agree with this... And I am a hardcore Lakers/Shaq fan as well.

No, you're not. Because it discounts Kobe's legacy and you don't appreciate that. I've seen way too many arguments of yours to support my point for you to say this with a straight face.

And Bird was better than Magic in his prime, with the two having 1a/b careers (can argue it either way depending on opinion). For you to discount that he should be getting votes at this level while simultaneously championing Magic (who is already off the board) is ridiculous.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 03:29 AM
No, you're not. Because it discounts Kobe's legacy and you don't appreciate that. I've seen way too many arguments of yours to support my point for you to say this with a straight face.

I rank Shaq above Kobe All-Time, I don't see what you are getting at here... I have been extremely non-bias and logical in my decisions, not letting personal feelings or homerism affect me in the slightest. What sort of specifics do you have to prove this...


And Bird was better than Magic in his prime, with the two having 1a/b careers (can argue it either way depending on opinion). For you to discount that he should be getting votes at this level while simultaneously championing Magic (who is already off the board) is ridiculous.

Magic had the more successful career than Bird. He won more rings and his teams won the match-ups in the finals 2/3 times. Bird and Magic may have had similar impacts on the overall game of basketball, but Magic won more at the highest level and thats what I base my criteria off the most... Winning and impact. It's all about what you value most and to me on a list of All-Time Greatness, the overall resume counts the most with winning being the highest priority.

XpLiCiTT
07-02-2014, 03:34 AM
In reality, Shaq should be towards the bottom end of the top 10 all-time. I would put him 8 or 9, putting him at 5 is just not accurate at all.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 03:39 AM
In reality, Shaq should be towards the bottom end of the top 10 all-time. I would put him 8 or 9, putting him at 5 is just not accurate at all.

Why not... Dude was the most dominant player of All-Time in his peak and he has the rings as well. Other than overall impact and winning, peak and longevity play a huge factor. Shaq having the best peak, and winning four rings with some pretty good longevity has to be pretty high up. Also, he is the only player other than Jordan to win Finals MVP's back to back to back... Pretty damn impressive if you ask me. The only other player with three Finals MVP's is Magic with Jordan being the top at six.

Ebbs
07-02-2014, 03:41 AM
Dam, I feel like Duncan didn't even move up on anyones list after another championship this year..kinda crazy. Especially as it was against the Heat who were suppose to dominate this new era..

Cant help but think any other player not named Duncan winning another championship moves up significantly in peoples minds. I hope he goes in the top 7.

Why do people put so much emphasis on team rings when discussing individual player ranks?
Thank you. Wake up people. The Spurs total team effort had to take away from the individual praise. Other wise it's hypocrisy or stupidity.

XpLiCiTT
07-02-2014, 03:44 AM
Why not... Dude was the most dominant player of All-Time in his peak and he has the rings as well. Other than overall impact and winning, peak and longevity play a huge factor. Shaq having the best peak, and winning four rings with some pretty good longevity has to be pretty high up. Also, he is the only player other than Jordan to win Finals MVP's back to back to back... Pretty damn impressive if you ask me. The only other player with three Finals MVP's is Magic with Jordan being the top at six.

You're acting like I'm insulting him by saying I would rank him 8 or 9 all time (maybe even 7). Shaq is clearly the most dominant player of all time, doesn't mean you should just put him ahead of guys who are better basketball players.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 03:46 AM
Thank you. Wake up people. The Spurs total team effort had to take away from the individual praise. Other wise it's hypocrisy or stupidity.

Being a leader on a championship squad is very important. Whether you a stats leader, a vocal leader, or an impact leader, it should be noted and have a great impact on overall greatness rankings IMO. All three would be the most optimal of course.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 03:47 AM
You're acting like I'm insulting him by saying I would rank him 8 or 9 all time (maybe even 7). Shaq is clearly the most dominant player of all time, doesn't mean you should just put him ahead of guys who are better basketball players.

Better basketball players is so ambiguous though... Better in which way...

XpLiCiTT
07-02-2014, 03:54 AM
Better basketball players is so ambiguous though... Better in which way...

Other than being dominant and a great passer, Shaq was pretty one-dimensional. He couldn't really shoot at all (awful free throw shooter too), and wasn't that great of a defender either. Bird, Duncan, and LeBron (if you're ready to put him where everyone knows he is going to end up) are all better than Shaq.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 03:55 AM
Thank you. Wake up people. The Spurs total team effort had to take away from the individual praise. Other wise it's hypocrisy or stupidity.

False Dilemma Fallacy.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 04:03 AM
Other than being dominant and a great passer, Shaq was pretty one-dimensional. He couldn't really shoot at all (awful free throw shooter too), and wasn't that great of a defender either. Bird, Duncan, and LeBron (if you're ready to put him where everyone knows he is going to end up) are all better than Shaq.

Wilt couldn't shoot free-throws either, yet most consider him to be a top 5 player. His career averages were 51%.

Duncan was not a good foul shooter for a good part of his career either. Lebron is bellow average in that respect as well. If you are going to penalize Shaq for not being a good shooter or FT shooter, than there are way more you could pick to out rank him based on those standards alone. Shaq has a better resume than most including Bird and Lebron. BTW, Lebron has been a pretty mediocre outside shooter for the bulk of his career as well. He has improved the last few years though, but if not for his athleticism, he wouldn't have all that space to shoot because defenders wouldn't fear his drive as much as they do. Yes, Shaq did not have many skills, but thats not what counts unfortunately otherwise they would have given Kobe all those Finals MVP awards if they were basing on skills and not impact. Again, it depends what your criteria is... I am going by resume and winning the most, with impact second, and peak and longevity third. Shaq had the best peak of All-Time, with better longevity than both Bird and Lebron. Shaq's impact during his peak years were second to none. He won back to back to back Finals MVP's... Something has to be said for that alone.

XpLiCiTT
07-02-2014, 04:18 AM
Wilt couldn't shoot free-throws either, yet most consider him to be a top 5 player. His career averages were 51%.

Ok, I don't have him in my top 5.


Duncan was not a good foul shooter for a good part of his career either. Lebron is bellow average in that respect as well. If you are going to penalize Shaq for not being a good shooter or FT shooter, than there are way more you could pick to out rank him based on those standards alone.
Give me a break dude. Shaq is a lifetime like 52% FT shooter, that is absolutely horrendous. Duncan and LeBron aren't the best but Duncan is around 70% lifetime and LeBron is like 75%


Shaq has a better resume than most including Bird and Lebron.
That is extremely debatable. Plus, LeBrons career isn't even close to over and he already has 3 more MVPs than Shaq. You must be basing a "resume" off of rings (a team statistic).


BTW, Lebron has been a pretty mediocre outside shooter for the bulk of his career as well. He has improved the last few years though, but if not for his athleticism, he wouldn't have all that space to shoot because defenders wouldn't fear his drive as much as they do.

Thats part of what makes him a great player. He does it all.


Yes, Shaq did not have many skills, but thats not what counts unfortunately otherwise they would have given Kobe all those Finals MVP awards if they were basing on skills and not impact.

Um no, Shaq was the best player on all of those teams. He was more deserving of MVP than Kobe.


Again, it depends what your criteria is... I am going by resume and winning the most, with impact second, and peak and longevity third. Shaq had the best peak of All-Time, with better longevity than both Bird and Lebron. Shaq's impact during his peak years were second to none. He won back to back to back Finals MVP's... Something has to be said for that alone.

What is your definition of longevity? LeBron will have better longevity than Shaq once his career is over. You won't see him being a bench player at the end of his career, I can guarantee you that.

thenaj17
07-02-2014, 04:31 AM
No point adding any more players to this poll until Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Bird, LeBron and Hakeem have gone. If they are not within the next 8 at most, this poll is a joke (maybe Oscar & Russell pip ahead of some of them)

Shaq here for me. He was basically unstoppable, time and time again he forced double teams

KnicksorBust
07-02-2014, 06:50 AM
Dam, I feel like Duncan didn't even move up on anyones list after another championship this year..kinda crazy. Especially as it was against the Heat who were suppose to dominate this new era..

Cant help but think any other player not named Duncan winning another championship moves up significantly in peoples minds. I hope he goes in the top 7.

Why do people put so much emphasis on team rings when discussing individual player ranks?
Thank you. Wake up people. The Spurs total team effort had to take away from the individual praise. Other wise it's hypocrisy or stupidity.

I completely disagree with this idea that team success should be minimized when discussing rankings. The value of the greatest players of all-time should be clear through their ability to raise the level of their team's play. Duncan's leadership and impact on the defensive end are well documented and far superior to Shaq. In addition, Shaq may have dominant runs in the early 00s but that would be after he used the regular season to get into playing shape. Let's also not forget who stopped that Lakers dynasty with an inferior team. Tim Duncan. In addition, the amount of seasons Shaq was 100% committed is dwarfed by TD and thats how Duncan has more All-NBA teams, All-NBA Defensive teams, and more MVPs (all individual awards). Then on top of that we can add how his teams succeeded significantly better than Shaq's and for a much consistently longer time period.

hidalgo
07-02-2014, 07:52 AM
i don't think SHAQ had the best peak ever, that's gotta go to Michael Jordan (his stats & PER in reg season, playoffs & finals, & big moments, clutch moments, ppg, defense, etc in the playoffs & especially the finals back me up). FTs were Shaq's achilles heal. MJ had no weakness, silky smooth outside Jumper, & had a post game like Olajuwon, & a better defender for sure

at his peak, SHAQ probably was the 2nd most dominant i ever saw though. he was really dominant. gotta love the diesel

my 5-7

#5 Tim Duncan
#6 SHAQ
#7 Bird

looka09
07-02-2014, 07:54 AM
Bird is madly overrated

ricky recon
07-02-2014, 07:55 AM
Too many kids and young people voting. Should be Bird.

ThuglifeJ
07-02-2014, 09:22 AM
Thank you. Wake up people. The Spurs total team effort had to take away from the individual praise. Other wise it's hypocrisy or stupidity.

False Dilemma Fallacy.

High School English Class terms. We get it.

Jeffy25
07-02-2014, 09:37 AM
I completely disagree with this idea that team success should be minimized when discussing rankings. The value of the greatest players of all-time should be clear through their ability to raise the level of their team's play. Duncan's leadership and impact on the defensive end are well documented and far superior to Shaq. In addition, Shaq may have dominant runs in the early 00s but that would be after he used the regular season to get into playing shape. Let's also not forget who stopped that Lakers dynasty with an inferior team. Tim Duncan. In addition, the amount of seasons Shaq was 100% committed is dwarfed by TD and thats how Duncan has more All-NBA teams, All-NBA Defensive teams, and more MVPs (all individual awards). Then on top of that we can add how his teams succeeded significantly better than Shaq's and for a much consistently longer time period.

Then you are relying on something you can't prove to rank people as all time greats.

And there are just too many factors involved to give a **** about team accomplishments.

We know you can't win a ring alone
One of the best facilitators of all time never won a ring (Stockton)
It can easily be influenced by who you play and when


It's just silly to even look at number of rings when ranking individual greatness. It's too much of a team game to care about it. This isn't tennis or golf when you individually can win. You require assistance to win. And having or not having the appropriate supporting cast makes a huge deal.

FYL_McVeezy
07-02-2014, 09:44 AM
I am a HUGE Shaq fan(from his orlando days, can't stand the Lakers) he's my fav center of all time, but he's not the 5th best player ever...

A lot of kids voting here I suspect.....

Ebbs
07-02-2014, 12:10 PM
High School English Class terms. We get it.

"Thuglifej" Did you even go to high-school.

Ebbs
07-02-2014, 12:26 PM
Shaq / Duncan

Career highs PER:
30.6 / 27.1
30.6 / 27
30.2 / 27
29.7 / 26.9
29.5 / 26.1
28.8 / 24.8
28.6 / 24.7
28.5 / 24.4
27.1 / 24.4
27.0 / 24.4

Career High WS/48

.283 / .257
.262 / .249
.255 / .248
.252 / .245
.250 / .230
.245 / .218
.230 / .215
.224 / .213
.211 / .201

I don't think people are giving Shaq is due in terms of longevity here either. It's not like he fell off immediately.

flea
07-02-2014, 12:48 PM
PER means nothing in this conversation. WS also doesn't capture defense nearly as well as it should, and it doesn't account for the fact that Shaq team-hopped twice after his old teams dried up. Both those stats are reliant on heavy USG%, and while Duncan had comparable USG% when he had to carry his team during its rebuilding ('99-'05) it still wasn't to the degree Shaq did later in his career.

I'm not denying Shaq's peak was superior. Age 24-30 he was great, but he also played on one of the most stacked teams. After that, nagging injuries, weight, and inattention to defense turned him into not nearly the player he was - even if he still demanded the ball on the offensive end because he was simply immovable off the block.

ThuglifeJ
07-02-2014, 02:09 PM
High School English Class terms. We get it.

"Thuglifej" Did you even go to high-school.

No. Since I listened to 2pac, hence my 2009 username choice, I didn't go to high school..

I was referring to am1oser anyways..he always calls out ppl using fallacies...because he's learning about them in highschool currently

WadeKobe
07-02-2014, 02:14 PM
Shaq / Duncan

Career highs PER:
30.6 / 27.1
30.6 / 27
30.2 / 27
29.7 / 26.9
29.5 / 26.1
28.8 / 24.8
28.6 / 24.7
28.5 / 24.4
27.1 / 24.4
27.0 / 24.4

Career High WS/48

.283 / .257
.262 / .249
.255 / .248
.252 / .245
.250 / .230
.245 / .218
.230 / .215
.224 / .213
.211 / .201

I don't think people are giving Shaq is due in terms of longevity here either. It's not like he fell off immediately.

Don use PER or WS48.

Use EWA and WS.

Shaq missed a lot of playing time and it matters. Sure he was better per minute, but Duncan was able to give his teams a lot more minutes (games) and that's incredibly valuable.

YAALREADYKNO
07-02-2014, 05:18 PM
I am a HUGE Shaq fan(from his orlando days, can't stand the Lakers) he's my fav center of all time, but he's not the 5th best player ever...

A lot of kids voting here I suspect.....




who would you take over him? the only argument left on the board is duncan or kobe and please dont say bill russell

tredigs
07-02-2014, 05:38 PM
The guy who outclassed prime Magic: Bird.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 06:29 PM
Becuz ringz

Fisher > Stockton bum couldn't even win 1 ring.

:facepalm:

If you can't see the difference between comparing team leaders and role players, than your clearly not capable of having this discussion.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 06:29 PM
The guy who outclassed prime Magic: Bird.

Too bad Magic had the better career.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 06:31 PM
who would you take over him? the only argument left on the board is duncan or kobe and please dont say bill russell

You didn't mention Bird. Yes, Russell should not be mentioned until we hit the 10 spot voting.

alexander_37
07-02-2014, 06:38 PM
:facepalm:

If you can't see the difference between comparing team leaders and role players, than your clearly not capable of having this discussion.
There is also a difference between leading a team of good players and a team of scrubs....... you need context

Pablonovi
07-02-2014, 06:39 PM
Pablonivo. i really appreciate how far back you go as a fan (i can only claim about 1991 & on, with a smidge of 89-90 in there. born in 1979), to have seen Wilt & all those other greats. i might not agree with everything you say, but it's cool that you go so far back & have seen so many eras, & maybe know better who from the 60s would still flurish today. we all know Wilt would, any era. true freak, far far ahead of his time or even this time(like MJ)

how old are you anyway? and in your opinion how would, Wilt have done in the 90s vs prime Shaq, Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning & Mutombo? and what do you think his highest ppg for a season, & his career would, have been if he came out in the 84 draft with MJ? or say the 97 draft too? both

Wilt looked like he could still play(solid ball) when he was 50
Jerry West as well, how would he do today?

Hey hidalgo,
imo Wilt & West Would Be, At Worst, 1B's In ANY Era

Thanx for complimenting on being so old! (hehe). I'm in my mid-'60's (though I'm NOT exactly decrepit - I've run 2.5+ hours a day, every day, for the last 36 years; and, for my 62nd birthday, I ran 62+ Kilometers (40+ miles) thru & over high mountains, (10,000+ feet altitude on average) on a solo run of 7 hours). (I started out carrying a quite heavy back-pack, loaded with fluids and some snacks. I didn't see a fellow human being or even a large animal for the middle 5 hours!)

btw, I take what you say as a compliment. Thanx.

It IS cool to be able to compare the Top 5 or so players from each of the past 5.5 decades. I have a deep admiration and love for ALL of the Top 25-50 players ever. Keep that in mind if it APPEARS that I am putting any of them down - it is ONLY in comparisons among their fellow monsters that I can even consider finding "fault".

imo, THE Biggest difference between the '60's and later decades is that, while the Top 4 guys (Wilt, West, Big "O" and Baylor) were about the same quality as the Top 4 in any other era; the gap between them and their contemporaries was greater than it has been since then - in other words, the 2nd tier has gotten closer to the first tier - just as, for me, the general level of play throughout the ranks has gotten better.

A testament to the general level of conditioning of today's players might be that the coaches have gotten ever-more inventive - devising sets that push the intensity-level close to some kind of maximum for the entire 24-second shot clock. To work that intensely (on both offense and defense); and then, still be able to play well at the other end - that requires exquisite conditioning (both physical and mental). *

Perhaps a way to view this is with the Barry's. Rick was just phenomenal. My impression is that his sons were even better athletes (what with his DNA AND his coaching) - yet they could barely get playing time.

1) Wilt: What can I say about Wilt?
btw, he was playing professional volleyball (a very intense sport) in his 40s. What couldn't the guy do? (I'm trying to do with one woman what he supposedly did with many: 20,000 times - we're within 400 of his All-Time Record as we speak! hehe)

If I imagine just a couple of things:
a) That he had the physical advantages of modern training (ON TOP of that Freak-Of-The-Century Body); and
b) That he had the mental advantages of knowing how people NOW view greatness ...

Wilt VS Shaq: Wilt On D:
Wilt would be the ONLY guy that Shaq couldn't bully (and I mean "bully" in a positive sense - I loved Shaq's immobility for defenders). Wilt was phenomenally stronger; a good deal stronger AND always in top condition. He'd be a handful for Shaq's Offense. And would TIRE Shaq like no one could come close to - Wilt NEVER tired.

The guy I respect the most because of Shaq is Dennis Rodman. How that dude defended Shaq is virtually impossible for me to understand. If Rodman could do that; Wilt would, relatively-speaking, manhandle Shaq.

Wilt On Offense: All the advantages that Shaq had (quick first step, locomotive once moving), Wilt had even better - he was lightening quick: reaction time, initial moves; had explosive "UPS", was never lazy at either end of the court. He'd fluster Shaq because the ONE thing Shaq was never challenged with (and was too out-of-shape to contend with) is a version of himself that was at least a little bit better at everything.

I would have loved to have seen the two of them go at it; it WOULD have brought the best out in both. Late in Wilt's career, he still always played his "A" game against KAJ. THAT was something to behold; almost frightening how dominant he could still be.

Wilt VS: Hakeem, DRob, Ewing, etc. Defensively, basically, whatever problems Shaq gave each of them; Wilt would give them more. He was quick enough to give the Dream Shake more problems than any other player ever. Quick enough to give DRob problems on his medium range Js. Ewing and the others wouldn't stand a chance against him (he'd do to them what he did to Bill Russell, dominate them).

Offensively: He'd give them more problems than even Shaq did. I remember (in absolute awe) the way Shaq dominated DRob AND TD. Wilt would have given them even more problems. He was ridiculously strong, thru and thru. To stop fights he lifted up guys like Nate The Great Thurmond - like he was no big deal. And he would have relished taking NO plays off against them.

2) Jerry West:
Jerry West, as much as any player ever, had "unlimited range". Boy, how he would have thrived with the 3-point shot! His competitors used to swear about his quick-release. He was one of the most complete players ever; his D was intense; his smarts among the best; his passing exquisite. And, talk about will-to-win, and intensity & poise under pressure. They called him "Mr. Clutch" because along with that "unlimited" range, he was Iceman before George Gervin. The incredible shot he made from beyond half-court to send that Finals game against the Knicks into OverTime may be the single greatest shot ever. (Yet his contemporaries were "used to" that kind of dead-eye touch.)

I have Jerry West as my #3 GOAT SG; only because MJ is unequaled from that position; and Kobe has racked up an incredible run of 15 years of PRIME work. Given this estimation, naturally West would have been THE best SG in any MJ-less or Kobe-less era, and, with them, at "worst", the 1B SG. Think of Stephen Curry with Major Defense!

btw, whenever I think about All-Time GOAT rankings, one of THE biggest problems I have is ranking the three contemporaries: West, Baylor & "O". Each time, I come up with a different order.

One of the most-incredible highlights of West's amazing career was what he did TO the Celtics All-Star team in the Finals in 1969. They started off the first two games in single coverage on him; and he just absolutely torched them. Then they double-teamed him; and he still torched them (though less ppg, more assists and other dominance). In that 7-Game Series, West averaged 37.9ppg! (he averaged 29pt/game through his 13 playoff seasons) and in the Lakers' loss in Game 7, West had 42 points, 13 rebounds, and 12 assists. All this with a severely strained hamstring suffered in game 5.

I've marveled at MJ's Finals play; but I don't think I'd take any of his 6 Finals over West's '69.
He won the fMVP for the losing team (the ONLY time it's ever happened) because that was how utterly unstoppable (on both ends) he was!

3) The Big "O":
I remember reading an interview with Jack Twyman, one of the League's truly elite players back then, talking about the first SCRIMMAGES, when "O" joined the team, PRIOR to "O's" first year. Twyman said that "O" made them feel like High School-ers - he was THAT much better than everybody else. (This was exactly echoed three and a half decades later by MJ with the Bulls.)

The "problem" with "O" is that the Royals ALWAYS got beat down by the Celtics; so, until he joined up with KAJ, late in "O's" career, he never even tasted the Finals. That just makes it very difficult to judge him fairly - in the Regular Season he was just a machine of Offensive Excellence.

He averaged a Triple-Double NOT just for one season, but for his first 5-Seasons collectively: that's 400+ games averaging a Triple-Double! Otoh, his Defense was NOT elite (but then neither was Magic's. Maybe when you're Offense and TEAM-work is that "pure"; it makes up for "only" being average on D? At least, that's how I look at it in their cases).

4) Elgin Baylor: Of the three of them, Elgin excited me the most because the multiplicity of gorgeous and highly-inventive ways he could score. For most of the decade they played together, I just can't say who was better between West & Baylor. PERHAPS (?) the tiebreaker, is that West was CONSISTENTLY an MJ-like MONSTER in the Play-Offs.

btw, The Big "O" has ranked Elgin as THE greatest player ever - such an argument can be made.
I rank Elgin about EVEN with Bird - in the 11-15 GOAT range.

5) Decade VS Decade Amongst The Top 5s:
Overall, I believe there has been general equality of the Top 5 In EVERY Decade: 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s).

With the exception of Bill Russell (whose too-weak scoring ability would be exposed on virtually any non All-Star team - so he'd be a defensive & rebounding demon like a Ben Wallace or a Dennis Rodman - nothing to be ashamed of!); the other 25-30 guys from the Top 5s of these 5.5 decades COULD play in any other era. The other Centers could; the PFs and SFs could; the SGs and PGs could. My GOAT Top 25-30 is just about evenly divided amongst those decades.

6 & 7) 2 Forgotten Greats From The 70s-80s: Rick Barry & Dr. J.
In particular, to address a couple of players from the 70's who I believe are severely underrated here on PSD: Rick Barry & Dr. J. Rick Barry EASILY had 10 great years, spread from the NBA to the ABA and back to the NBA (and he had what should have been one of his greatest years erased when he tried to jump to the ABA). He was PERHAPS the greatest genius ever at b-ball - I don't know how else to explain his dominance despite being a forward in a (relatively) frail-looking body.

Dr. J. was, imo, better than Larry Bird, WHEN they were both in the NBA in the early 80’s. But, his ABA years were hard to believe if you didn't see him play then. I got to see him some LIVE back then; and, what little there was of TV coverage, I did see it – (I was a very-early fan of his.)

He had OVER-SIZED HANDS and total ball-control. After rebounding, and finding no one up court to pass to, he often took the ball himself, rim-to-rim, beating the entire other team, even dribbling FORWARDS without losing speed, BETWEEN HIS LEGS! He was truly unstoppable with the ball; and played a mean D.

Perhaps THE greatest non-center defender of the mid-late 70's - early 80's was Bobby Jones. Dr. J. just dismantled Jones in the ABA 1976 Finals. In the closeout game, Dr J put up 31/19/5/5/5 against Bobby Jones.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Erving
“The Erving-led Nets defeated the Denver Nuggets in the swan-song finals of the ABA. In the postseason, Erving averaged 34.7 points and was named Most Valuable Player of the playoffs.

That season, he finished in the top 10 in the ABA in points per game, rebounds per game, assists per game, steals per game, blocks per game, free throw percentage, free throws made, free throws attempted, three-point field goal percentage and three-point field goals made.[17]”

When he came to the NBA, he could have still done lots of that stuff; but he was one of those Ultimate Gentlemen - he always did whatever was asked of him by the coaching staff; so he toned down his amazing "handles"; and merged his talents seamlessly into the 6ers team.
- - - - -
* About the 24-seconds-long intensity level of today's NBA: I'm no expert, nor have I seen any scientific studies on it; but it appears to me that we ARE reaching some kind of physiological limit with this level of intensity. To keep up with this (mental and) physical non-stop pushing, imo, is forcing the players to push their bodies to the very limits our bodies, well, THEIR bodies are capable of.

I think this is why, DESPITE tremendous improvement in conditioning, medical-related assistance, and diet - injuries are still frequent and often season-ending. These guys are truly playing "on the razor's edge".

ThuglifeJ
07-02-2014, 06:40 PM
The guy who outclassed prime Magic: Bird.

Too bad Magic had the better career.

Better Hollywood lifestyle? Sure

Bird was a better player.

Hawkeye15
07-02-2014, 06:46 PM
Shaq for me here. Tough one, to try and sort out the bigs in this stage.

Bruno
07-02-2014, 06:54 PM
I have a question on Hakeem. the footwork and fundamentals are legendary, so are the moves, so is the defense.

why did his highest advanced lines top out so much lower than Shaq and Duncans despite the above characteristics? its a considerable difference in 5-7 year advanced peak.

tredigs
07-02-2014, 07:32 PM
Too bad Magic had the better career.

I'm not so sure about that. 5 MVPs in 3 years + prime for a decade is enough for me to take the better player.

WadeKobe
07-02-2014, 07:46 PM
I have a question on Hakeem. the footwork and fundamentals are legendary, so are the moves, so is the defense.

why did his highest advanced lines top out so much lower than Shaq and Duncans despite the above characteristics? its a considerable difference in 5-7 year advanced peak.

(1) defense is difficult to quantify, so he may lose a bit of credit in PER and WS48 there. Be interesting to look at RAPM numbers.
(2) he was a poor offensive rebounder - especially compared to Shaq - and ORB are both more valuable (harder to replace) and are solely a function of the player, whereas defensive rebounds are more a function of the team.
(3) negative AST%:TOV% ratio. The other two were positive and they were both more productive passers than Hakeem.

My feeling is that Hakeem is a bit of the ultimate test for the way we discuss basketball. People always talk about his skill set. I don't care about skill... Production wins games.

Olajuwon was a poor offensive rebounder who turned the ball over too much and was not a productive passer.

He was an all time great, but simply goes lower on the list than Shaq and Duncan.

For me I usually have

MJ/Magic
Kareem/Wilt
Bird
Duncan
Shaq/West/Oscar/Lebron
Hakeem/Robinson
Garnett/Kobe/Barkley/Malone

amos1er
07-02-2014, 08:30 PM
There is also a difference between leading a team of good players and a team of scrubs....... you need context

:rolleyes: That was my point. Of course you need context. It's just when you say that the rings argument is foolish because Fish has more rings than Stockton you are not using context either.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 08:34 PM
(1) defense is difficult to quantify, so he may lose a bit of credit in PER and WS48 there. Be interesting to look at RAPM numbers.
(2) he was a poor offensive rebounder - especially compared to Shaq - and ORB are both more valuable (harder to replace) and are solely a function of the player, whereas defensive rebounds are more a function of the team.
(3) negative AST%:TOV% ratio. The other two were positive and they were both more productive passers than Hakeem.

My feeling is that Hakeem is a bit of the ultimate test for the way we discuss basketball. People always talk about his skill set. I don't care about skill... Production wins games.

Olajuwon was a poor offensive rebounder who turned the ball over too much and was not a productive passer.

He was an all time great, but simply goes lower on the list than Shaq and Duncan.

For me I usually have

MJ/Magic
Kareem/Wilt
Bird
Duncan
Shaq/West/Oscar/Lebron
Hakeem/Robinson
Garnett/Kobe/Barkley/Malone

Your list makes no logical sense. How can you have Kobe on the same level as guys like Barkely, Malone, and Garnett while having West above Hakeem, Duncan above Shaq, Bird above both Shaq and Duncan, Lebron above Hakeem... The list goes on... What are you grading on... If I had to guess I would say complete homerism.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 08:39 PM
I'm not so sure about that. 5 MVPs in 3 years + prime for a decade is enough for me to take the better player.

Are you really trying to say that Bird had the better career than Magic... I would agree with 3-5 year peak for sure, but thats not what we are discussing here. We are discussing All-Time Greatness... Peak is but a small piece of the pie. Even Bird admitted that Magic was better last time they were on Letterman together... Look it up.

Magic = more rings, more finals MVP's, more finals appearances, won the individual match up 2/3 times in the finals.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 08:42 PM
Better Hollywood lifestyle? Sure

Bird was a better player.

Thats open to interpretation. The fact that Magic had the better career in terms of a better overall resume is not.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 08:44 PM
Why don't people get that we are discussing All-Time Greatness, not who we think the better individual player is. If that was the case, then why not just have a thread about who the best one-on-one player of All-Time is and close this one. There needs to be a more clear and concise description as to what the criteria for the voting is because people are clearly not all on the same page here.

alexander_37
07-02-2014, 08:54 PM
:rolleyes: That was my point. Of course you need context. It's just when you say that the rings argument is foolish because Fish has more rings than Stockton you are not using context either.
But people put way too much stock into rings and dont look at the team around them. A guy like tmac stepoed hid game up in the playoffs. But people ignore that. If they totally choke in the playoffs go ahead crucify them. But if they play well but their team sucks you cant hold it against them.

WadeKobe
07-02-2014, 08:57 PM
Your list makes no logical sense. How can you have Kobe on the same level as guys like Barkely, Malone, and Garnett while having West above Hakeem, Duncan above Shaq, Bird above both Shaq and Duncan, Lebron above Hakeem... The list goes on... What are you grading on... If I had to guess I would say complete homerism.

I am more than happy to explain to you how I go about ranking professional basketball players. However, I am curious as to what type of "homerism" would produce the results you are uncomfortable with.

Could you explain that? What "homerism" would cause someone to give undue respect to West (Laker), KG (Wolves/Celtics), Barkley (Sixers/Suns), and Duncan (Spurs), while also putting Magic (Lakers) right alongside MJ as the best ever?

ricky recon
07-02-2014, 09:11 PM
I don't think anyone who watched Bird from his first season to the last could say that Shaq had a better career, to put it in general terms.

WadeKobe
07-02-2014, 09:20 PM
Your list makes no logical sense. How can you have Kobe on the same level as guys like Barkely, Malone, and Garnett while having West above Hakeem, Duncan above Shaq, Bird above both Shaq and Duncan, Lebron above Hakeem... The list goes on... What are you grading on... If I had to guess I would say complete homerism.

I have done my own research into many different composite player statistics and what makes them different from each other. Once one understands this, they can look at all of them and see different ways they come about grading players. I use this knowledge to look at players' productivity based upon a few main value metrics, wherever they are available -

Wins Produced
Win Shares
Regularized Adjusted Plus Minus
Adjusted Statistical Plus Minus
Estimated Wins Added (PER)

I then rank players in tiers based upon that productivity, taking into account peak as well as longevity.

From there, I look at the players and their success, and determine how much they were to blame for failure and how much they were their reasons for success.

Magic, Michael, Bird, Kareem, Wilt were the best players of all time productivity wise. Bird falls a little bit due to his injuries, while I give the nod to Magic and Michael over the centers because (1) pre-1978 information simply isn't as good and therefore players are harder to judge and (2) the MJs did what they did as guards.

Next is Duncan because he has health and longevity over Shaq, and was also part of the reason his team was able to fill 5 championship rosters with talent while Shaq battled injuries , missed valuable playing time, and ran through multiple teams causing problems and burning bridges which cost him championships. Even though he has the best peak ever, it doesn't quite overcome his problems.

That brings us to Shaq at 7.

From there, Oscar and West dominated their eras and I think west is hugely penalized for not having a 3-point line to boos his efficiency. Next is LeBron who is already puttin together a top7 career productivity wise, with a top3 peak, but who needs more time to move up and is hurt for his horrible performance in 2011 Finals.

Next you get DRob/Hakeem who are two sides of the same coin. Elite production, but Hakeem was a little overrated in the regular season while he smashed his competitors come playoffs and DROB was a top3 center all time in the regular season but sees his productivity in the playoffs plummet at a rate no other all time great does. Everyone gets worse in the playoffs. Hakeem got better. DRob fell apart.

That's a very comfortable 12.

Then we get to the group of guys who were awesome, but lack one aspect of their resume that those above aren't lacking (with exception to West and O, who played in an era where big men won, period).

Kevin Garnett's productivity is legendary, every bit as good as Duncan's, but he lacks playoff success (1 chip) for reasons mostly his fault.
Malone was awesome, but lacks a championship.
Barkley is another top7 producer all time, who lacks a championship.
Kobe has longevity and playoff success but lacks elite peak productivity.

That last group can really be shuffled order-wise any way you want.

Call it what you want. Disagree all you like. I don't care. That's my list. It's probably more well-researched than the large majority of posters. So I really don't care what others think.

It certainly is not homerism.

bagwell368
07-02-2014, 09:59 PM
I have all players that played the majority of their careers in the 8-team era out of my top 10. That's fine if you don't, but I just don't know how to properly gauge someone like Wilt who was a true 7 footer playing against mostly 6'6 and less guys. That's like judging Lebron's all-time value on his AAU career.

That said, if I did include one I'd want to include the most dominant one. Russell had a great team, but so did Wilt with the Lakers for part of his career. Russell is the guy with the hardware from the era. It's the same reason I like Cobb over guys like Hornsby and Wagner in baseball - he's the guy that dominated that era. Not being able to see it, that's about all I can say for it.

I am not that far off from your thoughts. The 6'6" can't jump crowd at C was all but over by 1964-65 (9 teams - Bill, Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, Bellamy, Beaty). in '68-'69 (14 teams). You can point at Willis and Unseld as shorter (but wide and fierce) - but I can point at Cowens, and many later that were sub 6' 10".

Wilt played with weaker teams than Russell. No player in NBA history played with stronger teams than Russell (9 1st place in SRS, 3 2nd's, 1 4th). I'd argue that Wilt's big teams for the 76'ers were a good match for the Lakers.

I saw it starting in the Fall of '65. Wilt was more dominant, and could beat you both ways. Russell had the teams, coach, GM, and the D. His O was below average (before Wilt only 3 players were 6' 8" or over and he couldn't dominate them, when they expanded the lane, and most teams had big time Centers, his O days were all behind him).

bagwell368
07-02-2014, 10:01 PM
Kevin Garnett's productivity is legendary, every bit as good as Duncan's, but he lacks playoff success (1 chip) for reasons mostly his fault.


Care to expound on this?

Pablonovi
07-02-2014, 10:07 PM
Hey Bruno,
I'm gonna approach Hakeem's career from 2 different perspectives; but they will end up shining, what I believe is, a lot of light on just how great he was. First, let's look at how all 14 Greatest Centers did by their Number & Quality of their ALL-NBA Selections; and then we'll compare Hakeem to his contemporaries.

Hakeem Olajuwon Was The 4th Best Center All-Time

THE ALL-TIME 14 GREAT CENTERS:
by ALL-NBA 1st-Team, 2nd-Team (& 3rd-Team) N.B. I use a "Point System" of: (1s X 5) + (2s X 3)
Remember: the ALL-NBA Team Selections is an exceptionally good reflection of how well each player did compared to his contemporaries at his own position; and overall, compared to everbody else.

1. KAJ: 10 + 5 = 15 PTS: 65
HUGE GAP
2. Shaq: 8 + 2 = 10 (+4) PTS: 46 (+4)
3. Wilt: 7 + 3 = 10 PTS: 44
GAP
4. Hakeem: 6 + 3 = 9 (+3) PTS: 39 (+3)
5. Russell: 3 + 8 = 11 PTS: 39(I pro-rate his first two, pre-1960 years down: so adjusted PTS: 34.5) **
GAP
6. Moses: 4 + 4 PTS 32
7. Howard: 5 + 1 (+2) PTS: 28 (+2)
8. DRob: 4 +2 = 6 (+4) PTS: 26 (+4)
9. Gilmore: 5 + 0 PTS: 25
10. Ewing: 1 + 6 PTS: 23
11. Daniels: 4 + 1: PTS: 23
GAP
12. Issel: 1 +4 : PTS: 17
13. Reed: 1 + 4: PTS: 17
14. Mikan: 8 + 0 = 40 PTS (I pro-rate these to 14.65 PTS *)
- - - -- -
Now let’s compare how Hakeem Olajuwon did against his own contemporaries:
1. Hakeem VS KAJ: 0-2 (KAJ beat him in KAJ’s 16th & 17th years VS Hakeem’s 1st & 2nd)
2. Hakeem VS Moses: 0-1 (In Moses 11th year VS Hakeem’s 1st year)
3. Hakeem VS Ewing: 11-2
4. Hakeem VS DRob: 5-5
5. Hakeem VS Shaq: 3-3

So here we see that in his first 2 years he was outplayed by KAJ both years.
He dominated Ewing.
But he played DRob & Shaq even.

What this tells ME, along with the table above is that:
Hakeem Olajuwon was the 4th Greatest Center ever.
Clearly inferior to: KAJ, Shaq & Wilt,
Probably superior to Russell.
Clearly superior to: DRob & Ewing.

A couple of notes:
Notice that KAJ played a tougher set of All-Time Centers (most of the 14 guys on this list); than did
Hakeem or anybody else.

* My BRAND NEW "Pro-Rating" "System" for the early players (pre-1960):
There are 2 component parts, pro-rating downwards due to relative weakness of the era; AND, pro-rating downwards due to the (often) much fewer number of games played each regular season.

1) Pro-Rated Downwards due to relative weakness of era:
A): 1947-1959: 50% ALL years-played prior to 1960 and starting with Mikan's first full year (1947) count as 50% (due to pre-integration). 1960 was the year that Wilt "modernized" the game.
and
B) 1938-1946: 25% All years played prior to Mikan's first full year (1947),(due not only to pre-integration; but also a much inferior level of play until Mikan revolutionized the game.

2) Pro-Rated Downwards due to (often much) less than 82 games per season:
I multiply all achievements by: the number of games played that season / 82 games.

Thus, this small series of Pro-Ratings downwards have the effect, for example in Mikan's case, of devaluing his 8 ALL-League 1st-Team Selections from 40 points (5 each) down to 14.65 points (with each of the 8 worth about 36.6% of what they are worth from 1960 onwards.

** Bill Russell played two seasons before 1960. He won a 2nd-Team and then a 1st-Team All-NBA Selection those two years. Using my "Pro-Rating Deduction System"; he'd lose about 4.5 points, taking him from what's listed here: 39 PTS, down to about 34.5 PTS. He'd barely still be in the same "grouping" with Hakeem, or move down as the top-rated of the next group down with: Moses, Howard, DRob, etc.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 10:32 PM
But people put way too much stock into rings and dont look at the team around them.

Rings are very important yes and I do agree that people should look at the entire situation such as the team around them as well as the competition they faced along with other factors as well. This is exactly why I don't have Russell in my top 9. Similarly, I don't have Lebron in my top ten due to this as well. His team was very stacked similar to Russell, and he faced very weak competition relative to the strength of his own team.


A guy like tmac stepoed hid game up in the playoffs. But people ignore that. If they totally choke in the playoffs go ahead crucify them. But if they play well but their team sucks you cant hold it against them.

T-Mac had a good team on Houston and was given a chance to see what he could do. He still couldn't get past the first round. Guys like Kidd, Iverson, and Lebron were able to get to the finals in the weak East with mediocre squads... Though they had better teams than T-Mac for sure, still have to take all things into account.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 10:33 PM
I don't think anyone who watched Bird from his first season to the last could say that Shaq had a better career, to put it in general terms.

They are all just looking at stat sheets and forming their opinions from there.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 10:38 PM
I am more than happy to explain to you how I go about ranking professional basketball players. However, I am curious as to what type of "homerism" would produce the results you are uncomfortable with.

Having Lebron in your top ten as of right now is pretty homeristic IMO. The current players in the top ten all have better overall resume's than him and have not had failures on nearly as epic a scale. Winning only 2/5 of the finals you have made it to is not a quality that a top ten player of All-Time should have.


Could you explain that? What "homerism" would cause someone to give undue respect to West (Laker), KG (Wolves/Celtics), Barkley (Sixers/Suns), and Duncan (Spurs), while also putting Magic (Lakers) right alongside MJ as the best ever?

Homerism is not limited to teams... It can be (very often is) applied to individual players as well. Especially in todays NBA where people are fans of players more than they are teams. The NBA markets it that way as well.

Pablonovi
07-02-2014, 10:40 PM
By the way, I've included both the ALL-ABA 1st-Team & 2nd-Team Selections AND the ALL-NBL 1st-Team & 2nd-Team Selections.

It is my opinion, that the ABA level of play, particularly after its first 2 years, was close enough to on a par to be treated as equal. (N.B. with each year that passed, the ABA won more and more of the exhibition season games teams from the two Leagues played; by the end it was winning a very good percentage of such games. They also played the NBA almost to dead-even in the two "Super All-Star Games" the Leagues played.

It is my opinion that the NBL level of play, was SUPERIOR to that of the BAA (1947-1949, 3 seasons). The BAA had the bigger cities (by far); but the NBL had the superior players and teams (by far). So, I've including all ALL-NBL Selections on an equal basis to those of the BAA. One of the absolute proofs of this superiority is that whenever NBL teams joined the BAA, they averaged much better than just winning records; and a number of their teams became THE best teams in the BAA upon their entry.

In my previous post I addressed the question (for the first time in history as far as I know); about how to fairly deal with the pre-1960 (pre-Wilt if you will) and the pre-1947 (pre-Mikan if you will) years. On that basis the great players from those early years are neither: excluded completely, nor over-rated for their greatness in clearly weak eras.

amos1er
07-02-2014, 10:48 PM
I have done my own research into many different composite player statistics and what makes them different from each other. Once one understands this, they can look at all of them and see different ways they come about grading players. I use this knowledge to look at players' productivity based upon a few main value metrics, wherever they are available -

Wins Produced
Win Shares
Regularized Adjusted Plus Minus
Adjusted Statistical Plus Minus
Estimated Wins Added (PER)

I then rank players in tiers based upon that productivity, taking into account peak as well as longevity.

From there, I look at the players and their success, and determine how much they were to blame for failure and how much they were their reasons for success.

Magic, Michael, Bird, Kareem, Wilt were the best players of all time productivity wise. Bird falls a little bit due to his injuries, while I give the nod to Magic and Michael over the centers because (1) pre-1978 information simply isn't as good and therefore players are harder to judge and (2) the MJs did what they did as guards.

Next is Duncan because he has health and longevity over Shaq, and was also part of the reason his team was able to fill 5 championship rosters with talent while Shaq battled injuries , missed valuable playing time, and ran through multiple teams causing problems and burning bridges which cost him championships. Even though he has the best peak ever, it doesn't quite overcome his problems.

That brings us to Shaq at 7.

From there, Oscar and West dominated their eras and I think west is hugely penalized for not having a 3-point line to boos his efficiency. Next is LeBron who is already puttin together a top7 career productivity wise, with a top3 peak, but who needs more time to move up and is hurt for his horrible performance in 2011 Finals.

Next you get DRob/Hakeem who are two sides of the same coin. Elite production, but Hakeem was a little overrated in the regular season while he smashed his competitors come playoffs and DROB was a top3 center all time in the regular season but sees his productivity in the playoffs plummet at a rate no other all time great does. Everyone gets worse in the playoffs. Hakeem got better. DRob fell apart.

That's a very comfortable 12.

Then we get to the group of guys who were awesome, but lack one aspect of their resume that those above aren't lacking (with exception to West and O, who played in an era where big men won, period).

Kevin Garnett's productivity is legendary, every bit as good as Duncan's, but he lacks playoff success (1 chip) for reasons mostly his fault.
Malone was awesome, but lacks a championship.
Barkley is another top7 producer all time, who lacks a championship.
Kobe has longevity and playoff success but lacks elite peak productivity.

That last group can really be shuffled order-wise any way you want.

Call it what you want. Disagree all you like. I don't care. That's my list. It's probably more well-researched than the large majority of posters. So I really don't care what others think.

It certainly is not homerism.

Seems like you value advanced stats over everything else. According to advanced stats, DRob was top five. Can't really just look at some guys statistical interpretation of what he calculates greatness to be on paper. Especially if you are grading based on OVERALL GREATNESS You are taking away from players who have accomplished more in terms of winning in favor of guys who stuffed their stat sheets. As we all know, individual stats, don't necessarily put your team in a better place to win games. Just look at how Lebron is the leader in points, assists, and rebounds on his current Heat team. That may look great and all, but under closer examination, we can see that the Heat as a team, are ranked poorly in these areas. Give me the guy who is the leader of his team in those things, or two of the three and his team is top of the league as well. If your stats come at the expense of your teammates, than how does that allow one to put their team in a better position to win games... You really need to look at the big picture in addition to whats on paper... Then you can interpret whats actually going on a bit better. Certain players tend to pad their stats in garbage time and then when you look at the Box Score, you think they had a good game when they really didn't go much when their team was in striking distance.

ThuglifeJ
07-02-2014, 11:04 PM
Kevin Garnett's productivity is legendary, every bit as good as Duncan's, but he lacks playoff success (1 chip) for reasons mostly his fault.


Care to expound on this?

Garnett was the best player in the league a couple years in Minnesota hands down.

Ppl forget so easily

roshan3ai
07-03-2014, 08:46 AM
(1) defense is difficult to quantify, so he may lose a bit of credit in PER and WS48 there. Be interesting to look at RAPM numbers.
(2) he was a poor offensive rebounder - especially compared to Shaq - and ORB are both more valuable (harder to replace) and are solely a function of the player, whereas defensive rebounds are more a function of the team.
(3) negative AST%:TOV% ratio. The other two were positive and they were both more productive passers than Hakeem.

My feeling is that Hakeem is a bit of the ultimate test for the way we discuss basketball. People always talk about his skill set. I don't care about skill... Production wins games.

Olajuwon was a poor offensive rebounder who turned the ball over too much and was not a productive passer.

He was an all time great, but simply goes lower on the list than Shaq and Duncan.

For me I usually have

MJ/Magic
Kareem/Wilt
Bird
Duncan
Shaq/West/Oscar/Lebron
Hakeem/Robinson
Garnett/Kobe/Barkley/Malone

Did Moses sleep with your wife or something? Where's he?

ManRam
07-03-2014, 09:09 AM
Just a heads up...I'm heading out of town this morning and won't be around for a few days. Unless a mod (Bruno? Jeffy? Don't feel obligated) wants to get the next thread up, we'll be taking a break from this until Monday.

XpLiCiTT
07-03-2014, 12:04 PM
Having Lebron in your top ten as of right now is pretty homeristic IMO. The current players in the top ten all have better overall resume's than him and have not had failures on nearly as epic a scale. Winning only 2/5 of the finals you have made it to is not a quality that a top ten player of All-Time should have.

Because getting to 5 out of the last 8 finals is such an epic fail. Oh wait and it's not a team sport, LeBron is the only reason "he" is 2-3, right?

Chronz
07-03-2014, 01:46 PM
His team was very stacked similar to Russell, and he faced very weak competition relative to the strength of his own team.
Based on what?



T-Mac had a good team on Houston and was given a chance to see what he could do. He still couldn't get past the first round.
Problem was it was an undermanned team that faced superior competition. Context matters, remember.


Guys like Kidd, Iverson, and Lebron were able to get to the finals in the weak East with mediocre squads... Though they had better teams than T-Mac for sure, still have to take all things into account.
What are these "things" because it seems like you're ignoring just about everything and going off blind glances at the win/loss tallies.

Chronz
07-03-2014, 01:50 PM
Just a heads up...I'm heading out of town this morning and won't be around for a few days. Unless a mod (Bruno? Jeffy? Don't feel obligated) wants to get the next thread up, we'll be taking a break from this until Monday.

I think some of the earlier threads should have been left open alil longer. I have to catch up to this one, not sure if I'll get the chance tho.

mrblisterdundee
07-03-2014, 06:12 PM
I have all players that played the majority of their careers in the 8-team era out of my top 10. That's fine if you don't, but I just don't know how to properly gauge someone like Wilt who was a true 7 footer playing against mostly 6'6 and less guys. That's like judging Lebron's all-time value on his AAU career.

That said, if I did include one I'd want to include the most dominant one. Russell had a great team, but so did Wilt with the Lakers for part of his career. Russell is the guy with the hardware from the era. It's the same reason I like Cobb over guys like Hornsby and Wagner in baseball - he's the guy that dominated that era. Not being able to see it, that's about all I can say for it.

I'm one of those people who agrees that as basketball has become more popular, more people have started playing it, and the competition has increased. Of course, it would be hard to find a comparison between now and the 1970s or so, to see what percentage of the population was playing.
While it's up in the air how good Chamberlain might have done today, I think it's fair to say he wouldn't have the numbers he did back in the day. He probably couldn't score 100 points or grab more than 50 rebounds in a game today.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-03-2014, 10:29 PM
Magic is over rated. He is not better than Bird, Shaq, Lebron or Duncan. Bird says everyone was better than him now that he has retired but when he played he never would have said something like that. All this Bird had a great team stuff overlooks that Bird went to a team that was horrible (29 wins) as a rookie. He then led them to 61 wins. Parish and Mchale were not Celtics when Bird was a rookie.

Pablonovi
07-04-2014, 01:38 AM
I'm one of those people who agrees that as basketball has become more popular, more people have started playing it, and the competition has increased. Of course, it would be hard to find a comparison between now and the 1970s or so, to see what percentage of the population was playing.
While it's up in the air how good Chamberlain might have done today, I think it's fair to say he wouldn't have the numbers he did back in the day. He probably couldn't score 100 points or grab more than 50 rebounds in a game today.

Hey mrblisterdundee,
Wilt was a once-in-a-century FREAK of nature (very fast, lightening-quick (awesome vertical), immensely strong, almost unlimited stamina, giant wing-span). He would crush today's centers at both ends of the court. imo, he'd have been THE best Center in any era (perhaps 1b to KAJ).

No, he wouldn't get 50 rebounds; shooting has gotten decidedly better than it was when he did that; and the game pace has slowed. I could seem him simultaneously being in the top 5 in rebounders, blocks, mpg and scoring 10+ years in a row. The game's not that different; but a good deal less physical - which would only further unleash him.

Chronz
07-04-2014, 01:40 AM
I'm one of those people who agrees that as basketball has become more popular, more people have started playing it, and the competition has increased. Of course, it would be hard to find a comparison between now and the 1970s or so, to see what percentage of the population was playing.
While it's up in the air how good Chamberlain might have done today, I think it's fair to say he wouldn't have the numbers he did back in the day. He probably couldn't score 100 points or grab more than 50 rebounds in a game today.

Everyones numbers would be different depending on era. Wilts numbers could be better in later eras, so long your understanding of numbers are beyond per game averages. Wilt played and held his own against Kareem, the same Kareem who held his own vs another older generation, and so on and so forth.

Pablonovi
07-04-2014, 01:40 AM
I think some of the earlier threads should have been left open alil longer. I have to catch up to this one, not sure if I'll get the chance tho.

Hey High Horse,
I very much agree. Seems that the early threads (and Polls) about the very greatest should be open a good deal longer than when we get down below 20; i.e., longer time-periods earlier on, shorter ones later on.

Otoh, I think the overall quality of the posts has been pretty good (and the negative stuff pretty infrequent and not that intense). Good threads.

tredigs
07-04-2014, 12:22 PM
Are you really trying to say that Bird had the better career than Magic... I would agree with 3-5 year peak for sure, but thats not what we are discussing here. We are discussing All-Time Greatness... Peak is but a small piece of the pie. Even Bird admitted that Magic was better last time they were on Letterman together... Look it up.

Magic = more rings, more finals MVP's, more finals appearances, won the individual match up 2/3 times in the finals.
Funny you mention that clip, I was watching it last week. The one where Letterman asks who's better and Bird offers that, "well - I always go by championships so I will have to give it to Magic" (the polite but clearly false answer), then Magic just flat out says that he always felt and said that Bird was better than he was. Which, he was. He had an all around game, and literally the only thing Magic had on Bird - Bird was the best ever at at his position. If you go by who was the better player, it's Bird. If you go by who had more team success or who is more popular with kids, it's Magic.

-1.

flea
07-04-2014, 12:32 PM
It is kind of funny how Magic gets all this praise on here, some even having him up there with Michael, and yet he has the exact same major flaw that Bird does (short career). Magic only played 9 more regular season games than Bird, and was a total nonfactor in his last season - whereas Bird had a pretty good swan song in spite of back problems.

Bird was also the better defender, but as I've said before, people on PSD seem to just assume star players have above average defense if they're good offensively and that's pretty much all the analysis they're willing to do on that end of the court.

Pablonovi
07-04-2014, 12:48 PM
It is kind of funny how Magic gets all this praise on here, some even having him up there with Michael, and yet he has the exact same major flaw that Bird does (short career). Magic only played 9 more regular season games than Bird, and was a total nonfactor in his last season - whereas Bird had a pretty good swan song in spite of back problems.

Bird was also the better defender, but as I've said before, people on PSD seem to just assume star players have above average defense if they're good offensively and that's pretty much all the analysis they're willing to do on that end of the court.

Hey flea,
Put Him On Other Teams; Who Would Most Have Improved Them?

You make a number of valid points here and in other posts.
I simultaneously feel strongly that I've got my GOAT rankings "right"; and yet, can recognize that other people have quite strong arguments for their counter-lists.

One of the things that "argues" most strongly in my mind for Magic being way up on the GOAT list is this: If I imagine him being replacing the PG on other teams (with the possible exception of the Stockton-led Jazz); I picture him improving all those (other) squads more than the other GOAT Top 10 guys; more than Bird for instance. In other words, for me, he is the GOAT #1 TEAM-mate; better at bringing the maximum possible (given the stage of their careers) of all the players around him. And I rank TEAM-work as my number one criteria for All-Time Greatness (amongst all those who had at least 10 Great Years).

ricky recon
07-04-2014, 12:49 PM
The fact that Bird is getting the kind of disrespect is a true testament to those using numbers without substance. Bird was far away not only a more impact-full player than Shaq, but truly left a greater legacy on the game and American sports. Bird dominated.

This is a damn shame.

Chronz
07-04-2014, 12:58 PM
The fact that Bird is getting the kind of disrespect is a true testament to those using numbers without substance. Bird was far away not only a more impact-full player than Shaq, but truly left a greater legacy on the game and American sports. Bird dominated.

This is a damn shame.

Bird dominated. Shaq was deemed "Mr. Dominant" by many who saw him. Thats the difference. That Shaq had a superior rate of production, more accolades, more championships AND a FAR longer career is not something only stat heads can appreciate nor is it something he has to apologize for.

Bird did not dominate like that, in fact he was locked down more often than I care to count right now. Shaq was never contained to such a degree despite facing more intricate defenses. Bird does have a greater legacy due to the timing of he and Magic entering the league during rampant technological growth, but why should that matter at all here? This isn't about popularity, its about on court impact.

At his best , Shaq displayed the best 2-way dominance we've ever seen. Only Wilt, MJ, Hakeem can sport such stellar 2-way play and Shaq did it for longer.

Pablonovi
07-04-2014, 01:05 PM
Bird dominated. Shaq was deemed "Mr. Dominant" by many who saw him. Thats the difference. That Shaq had a superior rate of production, more accolades, more championships AND a FAR longer career is not something only stat heads can appreciate nor is it something he has to apologize for.

Bird did not dominate like that, in fact he was locked down more often than I care to count right now. Shaq was never contained to such a degree despite facing more intricate defenses. Bird does have a greater legacy due to the timing of he and Magic entering the league during rampant technological growth, but why should that matter at all here? This isn't about popularity, its about on court impact.

At his best , Shaq displayed the best 2-way dominance we've ever seen. Only Wilt, MJ, Hakeem can sport such stellar 2-way play and Shaq did it for longer.

Hey High Horse,
Spot on. Only thing I'd change: add KAJ to: Wilt MJ & Hakeem.
KAJ has 10 All-NBA 1st Teams, 5 All-NBA 2nd-Teams (had enough votes to have made 2-3 3rd-Teams but they didn't have them back then). Nobody else even has 14 combined (years!) of 1st+2nd All-NBA Teams.

AND
KAJ had 11 All-NBA Defensive 1st- + 2nd- Teams.
NOBODY beats that combination; nobody beats that sustained 2-way excellence.

Chronz
07-04-2014, 01:11 PM
Hey High Horse,
Spot on. Only thing I'd change: add KAJ to: Wilt MJ & Hakeem.
KAJ was an excellent team defender, that prolly matters more than the reason I left him out (weaknesses in the big mans zone aka the paint/boards)


KAJ has 10 All-NBA 1st Teams, 5 All-NBA 2nd-Teams (had enough votes to have made 2-3 3rd-Teams but they didn't have them back then). Nobody else even has 14 combined (years!) of 1st+2nd All-NBA Teams.

AND
KAJ had 11 All-NBA Defensive 1st- + 2nd- Teams.
NOBODY beats that combination; nobody beats that sustained 2-way excellence.
They faced different competition and some of those All-NBA squads were either undeserved or came when he was weak defensively.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-04-2014, 01:33 PM
From the guys I actually saw play in their primes the first 4 are not difficult for me to choose.

Jordan
Kareem
Bird
Shaq

After those 4 you have the Hakeem, Duncan, Drob, Magic, and Lebron group to choose from. Very tough calls among those 5. Kobe is not far from that group as well. Magic should not be above Bird or Shaq. I liked Magic but he is being way over rated at #3.

I do not rate guys like Russell, Wilt, Baylor, West or Oscar because I did not see them play in their primes or at all.

Chronz
07-04-2014, 01:51 PM
I think these sort of threads are more interesting when we argue why it shouldn't go to other players instead of defending our own pick.

Chrisclover
07-04-2014, 08:14 PM
Russell. The FMVP trophy is named after him.

Jint.
07-04-2014, 08:28 PM
Kendall Gill

Pablonovi
07-04-2014, 08:48 PM
I think these sort of threads are more interesting when we argue why it shouldn't go to other players instead of defending our own pick.

Hey High Horse,
That's so true. Sometimes I've gotta look back up at the Poll to remember who we're really arguing FOR with all the "tearing" down going on. A lot of interesting perspectives too. It IS a lotta fun.

KnicksorBust
07-05-2014, 02:44 PM
The fact that Bird is getting the kind of disrespect is a true testament to those using numbers without substance. Bird was far away not only a more impact-full player than Shaq, but truly left a greater legacy on the game and American sports. Bird dominated.

This is a damn shame.

Bird dominated. Shaq was deemed "Mr. Dominant" by many who saw him. Thats the difference. That Shaq had a superior rate of production, more accolades, more championships AND a FAR longer career is not something only stat heads can appreciate nor is it something he has to apologize for.

Bird did not dominate like that, in fact he was locked down more often than I care to count right now. Shaq was never contained to such a degree despite facing more intricate defenses. Bird does have a greater legacy due to the timing of he and Magic entering the league during rampant technological growth, but why should that matter at all here? This isn't about popularity, its about on court impact.

At his best , Shaq displayed the best 2-way dominance we've ever seen. Only Wilt, MJ, Hakeem can sport such stellar 2-way play and Shaq did it for longer.

How can you leave Tim Duncan off that list?

KnicksorBust
07-05-2014, 02:45 PM
I think these sort of threads are more interesting when we argue why it shouldn't go to other players instead of defending our own pick.

Hey High Horse,
That's so true. Sometimes I've gotta look back up at the Poll to remember who we're really arguing FOR with all the "tearing" down going on. A lot of interesting perspectives too. It IS a lotta fun.

Shaq ruined just as many title teams as he created.

tredigs
07-05-2014, 04:01 PM
Chronz, who fooled you into thinking Shaq was a dominant defender at an All-Time Great level? This is some serious revisionist history.

Chronz
07-05-2014, 04:26 PM
Chronz, who fooled you into thinking Shaq was a dominant defender at an All-Time Great level? This is some serious revisionist history.
Shaq did.

tredigs
07-05-2014, 04:40 PM
I definitely never felt that way, I can't imagine how you did either. Want to score on Shaq? Step into the high post, or have a dribble drive, or do a pick 'n roll. He was good in the low block as a post defender and good on weakside help (much more so in Orlando and 3peat LA), but he was so far from All-Time greatness on that end. "Why isn't Shaq an elite defender??" was such a common theme of the time, do you not remember that?

I won't say he did not achieve an elite level at his peak - because he did - but overall his career defense was consistently underwhelming compared to its potential.

Chronz
07-05-2014, 04:46 PM
I remember contesting those threads. Shaq in Orlando was definitely not the defender that Peak Shaq was, not sure what makes you think otherwise. That Shaq was more mobile but not as assertive patrolling the paint. Like Phil said, when Shaq was engaged, he could impact the game defensively as much as anyone to ever play. He should have won DPOY that same year he won the MVP but he had to settle for 2nd place IIRC. He had his lapses but when it mattered most, he was a quality defender.

My All-Time stance was mostly based on 2-way impact, his offense is obviously legendary. Now imagine the years where he was an arguable DPOY to go with that offense, its easy to see why I went there.

I cant name a better 4-5 year stretch from any bigman.

tredigs
07-05-2014, 05:52 PM
Chronz, you're high again. That was an important and all too prominent "When". Even in the playoffs I never recall it being a mainstay, and when you're bringing him into the Russell/Chamberlain/Olajuwon/Robinsond conversation who had huge BBIQ's + effort along with the physical attributes it just isn't a comparison. He just was not engaged at that level defensively, regardless of his large impact through his prime.

Rivera
07-05-2014, 06:04 PM
I can't vote on tapatalk so add a vote for me for Timmy D. Just a flat out beast whose done it for ever


Nomination. Kemba walker. #Kembaswag

Dr Positivity
07-05-2014, 06:20 PM
Can I get on this voting?

My vote would be for Hakeem Olajuwon. I value the two way bigs Hakeem, Duncan and KG very highly compared to more one way players like Russell, Magic and Bird

Hakeem has a near perfect skillset of offensive anchor-value and defense. He didn't get as much buzz as players like Magic and Bird early in his career because offense gets more glorified and Houston wasn't as dominant a team. I consider his value to a team over his career to be near GOAT caliber.

Nominate: Kevin Garnett

I believe KG was close to as good a player as Hakeem and Duncan and his legacy has got the short stick due to Minnesota's ineptitude.

flea
07-05-2014, 06:46 PM
I'm not a huge fan of defensive win shares, but Shaq is pretty shamefully low on the list for a guy who played as long as he did and with as much talent as he did. Shaq is 65th all time in defensive rating, in spite of being 19th all time defensive win shares (largely because of longevity). I mean, Robert Horry is higher all time in defensive rating than Shaq (a fine defender, but not generally recognized as an all-timer).

Let's look at Shaq's teams' defensive ratings though, to get a better idea of what his teams actually accomplished - in case the individual ratings underrate him. I'm going to include Duncan's Spurs starting in his rookie season, for comparison to the other elite big man who kind of overlapped with Shaq.

Adjusted team defensive ratings rankings (per BR, rankings out of 30). When appropriate I will give Shaq's teams before the semicolon, and Duncan's after.

92-93: 10th
93-94: 15th
94-95: 14th
95-96: 12th
96-97: 8th (first year with Lakers)
97-98: 11th; 2nd (Spurs ranking for Duncan's rookie year)
98-99: 22nd; 1st
99-00: 1st; 2nd
00-01: 19th; 2nd
01-02: 7th; 1st
02-03: 18th; 3rd
03-04: 7th; 1st
04-05: 7th (Shaq's first year with Heat); 1st
05-06: 9th; 1st
06-07: 11th; 1st
07-08: 25th; 3rd (Shaq was with the Heat until the trade deadline)
08-09: 27th; 5th

I'll end there as Shaq was basically done. Spurs ranks for the 5 years after 09 to present are: 6th, 10th, 10th, 3rd, 3rd FWIW.

I'm not saying these numbers are the be-all, end-all. But I think they do show that Shaq's teams rarely dominated, even in his prime. The only top his team was top 5 was the 99-00, which had Glen Rice, Ron Harper, and AC Green ring-chasing. I know they were old, but all were very good defenders (except perhaps Rice) in their day - possibly partially explaining an outlier season. They also show how the Spurs remained a very competitive defensive team - even during the Spurs rebuild from 00-03, the rebuild from 07-12, and Duncan's decline.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 08:06 PM
Russell. The FMVP trophy is named after him.

He was also a Center who failed to average 20 ppg on at least 50% shooting in any of his seasons and postseasons. His offense was abysmal. Guy was truly fortunate to be on the best team of his era by far. Much of Russell's greatness is attributed to the fact that he was simply fortunate enough to be on a great team. Hard to give a guy too much props individually for that. How can a put a guy in the top five of All-Time who wouldn't even be the best big man in the game today.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 08:11 PM
I'm not a huge fan of defensive win shares, but Shaq is pretty shamefully low on the list for a guy who played as long as he did and with as much talent as he did. Shaq is 65th all time in defensive rating, in spite of being 19th all time defensive win shares (largely because of longevity). I mean, Robert Horry is higher all time in defensive rating than Shaq (a fine defender, but not generally recognized as an all-timer).

Let's look at Shaq's teams' defensive ratings though, to get a better idea of what his teams actually accomplished - in case the individual ratings underrate him. I'm going to include Duncan's Spurs starting in his rookie season, for comparison to the other elite big man who kind of overlapped with Shaq.

Adjusted team defensive ratings rankings (per BR, rankings out of 30). When appropriate I will give Shaq's teams before the semicolon, and Duncan's after.

92-93: 10th
93-94: 15th
94-95: 14th
95-96: 12th
96-97: 8th (first year with Lakers)
97-98: 11th; 2nd (Spurs ranking for Duncan's rookie year)
98-99: 22nd; 1st
99-00: 1st; 2nd
00-01: 19th; 2nd
01-02: 7th; 1st
02-03: 18th; 3rd
03-04: 7th; 1st
04-05: 7th (Shaq's first year with Heat); 1st
05-06: 9th; 1st
06-07: 11th; 1st
07-08: 25th; 3rd (Shaq was with the Heat until the trade deadline)
08-09: 27th; 5th

I'll end there as Shaq was basically done. Spurs ranks for the 5 years after 09 to present are: 6th, 10th, 10th, 3rd, 3rd FWIW.

I'm not saying these numbers are the be-all, end-all. But I think they do show that Shaq's teams rarely dominated, even in his prime. The only top his team was top 5 was the 99-00, which had Glen Rice, Ron Harper, and AC Green ring-chasing. I know they were old, but all were very good defenders (except perhaps Rice) in their day - possibly partially explaining an outlier season. They also show how the Spurs remained a very competitive defensive team - even during the Spurs rebuild from 00-03, the rebuild from 07-12, and Duncan's decline.

Pretty interesting stuff, but these guys won't respect any of that. I constantly show them how Lebron's teams are bottom tier in assists and rebounds and they will continue to praise him as an individual based on his great "all-around game" due to the fact that he gets a high number of assists and rebounds. Go figure. Most of these guys just look at individual stat sheets and nothing else. How these numbers impacted their respective teams are of no consequence to them at all.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 08:14 PM
Chronz, you're high again. That was an important and all too prominent "When". Even in the playoffs I never recall it being a mainstay, and when you're bringing him into the Russell/Chamberlain/Olajuwon/Robinsond conversation who had huge BBIQ's + effort along with the physical attributes it just isn't a comparison. He just was not engaged at that level defensively, regardless of his large impact through his prime.

Oh snap.

Funny how he criticizes Magic for the same thing, yet none of that logic applies to any of his precious big men.

Chronz
07-05-2014, 08:21 PM
How can you leave Tim Duncan off that list?

When was his offense elite, Historically elite?


Oh snap.

Funny how he criticizes Magic for the same thing, yet none of that logic applies to any of his precious big men.

LOL. Even Tre wouldn't agree with you on that one.


Chronz, you're high again. That was an important and all too prominent "When". Even in the playoffs I never recall it being a mainstay, and when you're bringing him into the Russell/Chamberlain/Olajuwon/Robinsond conversation who had huge BBIQ's + effort along with the physical attributes it just isn't a comparison. He just was not engaged at that level defensively, regardless of his large impact through his prime.
lol wat? Russell never had elite offense, Robinson's game never translated into the post season so I dont put him in the same tier either. Hakeem took FOREVER to become an elite offensive player but yes, he too qualifies, Shaq just had a longer stretch of dominance.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 08:22 PM
Funny you mention that clip, I was watching it last week. The one where Letterman asks who's better and Bird offers that, "well - I always go by championships so I will have to give it to Magic" (the polite but clearly false answer), then Magic just flat out says that he always felt and said that Bird was better than he was. Which, he was. He had an all around game, and literally the only thing Magic had on Bird - Bird was the best ever at at his position. If you go by who was the better player, it's Bird. If you go by who had more team success or who is more popular with kids, it's Magic.

-1.

I'm basing my list of All-Time greats on legacy for the most part. Magic lead his team to more victories and won the finals match-ups 2/3 times. To me that is the most important thing and even Larry agrees. The better player between the two statistically is of no consequence to me. Magic impacted his teams in terms of winning on a greater scale than did Larry. I don't really care what the numbers say after that.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 08:28 PM
Because getting to 5 out of the last 8 finals is such an epic fail. Oh wait and it's not a team sport, LeBron is the only reason "he" is 2-3, right?

In the weak east with that good of a team is hardly an accomplishment worth mentioning.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 08:35 PM
Based on what?

Vegas odds.


Problem was it was an undermanned team that faced superior competition. Context matters, remember.

Yao was able to get them out of the first round without T-Mac... How come not vise versa...


What are these "things" because it seems like you're ignoring just about everything and going off blind glances at the win/loss tallies.

T-Mac's teams were a lot worse than any of Kidd's, Iverson's, or Lebron's. I'll give you that, but to never pass the first round ever is very hard to justify.

FlashBolt
07-05-2014, 08:49 PM
I seriously can't believe Bird is getting this volume of votes. How can you not put Shaq, Kobe, or Duncan over Bird? Not to mention Hakeem? Seriously, Bird doesn't have anything against those guys. Realistically, Bird has only played 11 seasons. Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, and Hakeem have averaged at least 15 full seasons worth of dominance. No way Bird sniffs those accolades.

XpLiCiTT
07-05-2014, 08:52 PM
In the weak east with that good of a team is hardly an accomplishment worth mentioning.

2011 vs the Mavs there was no excuse. He won 2 in a row, and this past season had no help against a far superior team. Same for when he was on the Cavs, you really expect him to beat those Spurs teams by himself? Are you calling his Cavs team and this most recent Heat team good? If so, you're crazy. Don't really see what these "epic failures" are that you speak of about a 4 time MVP and 2 time NBA champion (2x finals MVP), who isn't even 30 years old yet.

XpLiCiTT
07-05-2014, 08:54 PM
T-Mac's teams were a lot worse than any of Kidd's, Iverson's, or Lebron's. I'll give you that, but to never pass the first round ever is very hard to justify.

T-Mac had teams "a lot worse" than any of Iverson's or LeBrons? Hm, thats news to me.

FlashBolt
07-05-2014, 08:57 PM
Vegas odds.



Yao was able to get them out of the first round without T-Mac... How come not vise versa...



T-Mac's teams were a lot worse than any of Kidd's, Iverson's, or Lebron's. I'll give you that, but to never pass the first round ever is very hard to justify.

No, T-Mac's 2008 Rockets were good. Not his teammates fault he was injured when Rockets were at their peak without him. Also, he wasn't even the best player on that Toronto team so let's just agree that his team was better than Kidd, Iverson, or leBron's at one point. Oh wait, didn't T-Mac play for the Spurs?

In the weak east with that good of a team is hardly an accomplishment worth mentioning.

Yeah, I'll admit that the Eastern Conference is nothing to talk about but it was only very recently that it was this bad.

Pacers were pretty good two years ago. Boston was very good two years ago. Chicago was very good two years ago. It's not as if it was this easy for them the entire four years. Btw, did you notice that LeBron played great against OKC, Spurs, and Spurs again three straight years in a row? So it's not as if he didn't play well against the Western Conference teams. I don't think any LeBron or Heat fan will defend him for 2011. It was notoriously bad. Nothing to say against that. But those three years, he was the best and did the best he could for them. No way Miami could beat Spurs after what Spurs did. They were just too good for any one man to beat. You cannot tell me you watch that Finals and say James didn't do enough. What could he had possibly done? He did his part, his team didn't. Simple as that. Go play a pick-up game with 4 scrubs on your team and tell me you can win a 5v5. Odds are you will lose - face it.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 09:00 PM
2011 vs the Mavs there was no excuse. He won 2 in a row, and this past season had no help against a far superior team. Same for when he was on the Cavs, you really expect him to beat those Spurs teams by himself? Are you calling his Cavs team and this most recent Heat team good? If so, you're crazy. Don't really see what these "epic failures" are that you speak of about a 4 time MVP and 2 time NBA champion (2x finals MVP), who isn't even 30 years old yet.

One is a lock out season against a team that was so green they were pissing grass. The next he was barely able to out do an aged Spurs team with a miracle three from Ray Allen to save his legacy. Not very impressive wins to me. I just need to see more before I can consider him a top ten player of All-Time.

Oh, and as for blaming his teammates for this recent debacle and affording none of the blame to him what so ever...

Was LeBron James Truly Effective in the 2014 Finals...

Many people seem to be under the misconception that Lebron was the only one to bring his "A-Game" while it was his teammates who let him down. This breakdown puts that theory to the test and proves why people are totally mislead by flashy paper stats that they really know nothing about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y02r-Dz5cMw

It appears that Lebron had a great series individually, but under close examination, a few things stood out...

Of the 141 total points Lebron scored in the Finals, 51 of them were scored in blowout situations where the Spurs were up by 15 or more points. During these situations, Lebron averaged a healthy 1.1 points per minute. When the games were closer, he only averaged 0.65 points per minute.

Also, Lebron had just about the same amount of turnovers as he did assists. 20 assists total for the Finals and 19 total turnovers for the finals.

Additionally, Lebron had just about the worst +/- on his team throughout the series... Not just the cramps game.

During the regular season and Eastern Conference playoffs, Lebron was in the 94th and 97th percentile in post up production. In the finals, he only posted up only 11% of the time compared to the 13.9% and 14% he did in the regular season and Eastern Conference playoffs which resulted in him averaging a lowly 1.1 Points Per Post-Up in the finals.

This just goes to show that all the stuff I have been telling you all about over the years is all very true and is agreed upon by people who know how to truly breakdown the game of basketball. Lebron just can't generate enough points against elite teams to be effective. I have told you all time and time again that he pads his stats in both garbage time and against inferior competition and it seems there are other experts who agree with this as well. What good does it do you to be the leader in points, rebounds, and assists when your team is bottom tier in all three. What good does it do you to stuff your Stat Sheet at the expense of your teammates. I'll tell you what good it does you, you get results like you did in this years finals.... The mirage of great individual stats to the layman eye at first glance, while your team receives the worst beat down in finals history.

flea
07-05-2014, 09:03 PM
When was his offense elite, Historically elite?

Well if Hakeem was historically elite ever, then Duncan assuredly was from 2001-2005. He had 37.8 offensive win shares. 28 was Hakeem's best 5 year stretch of his career (1991-1996). Shaq's best stretch was 49.3 (1999-2003). I know WS are flawed, but his traditional line of 21.7/11.7 (3.0 ORBs)/3.1 on 55.2% TS with a 28.8 USG% is pretty damn good (that's his 5 year line).

Shaq's traditional line for his 5 year offensive prime is 26.6/11.3 (3.7 ORBs)/3.1 on 58.5% TS with 31.4 USG%.

Hakeem's traditional line for his 5 year offensive prime is 26.0/11.8 (2.9 ORBs)/3.3 on 56.4% TS with 29.6 USG%.

While I'll agree that Duncan is the lesser offensively of these 3 players, I think it was definitely elite offense. He gets docked for having lower USG%s that affect his PPG, which is my main problem with going by PPG anyway. For one thing, the game changes so much that raw PPG and USG% is hard to go by. Duncan never pushed 30% USG after 05, and he never even hit 30% once. Shaq had 11 seasons at or above 30% and a number more that came very close.

Also, from 99-09, scoring around the NBA was very low, whereas it was absurdly high in the early and mid 90s, boosting guys like Hakeem and Robinson's PPG. Link. (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html) This explains why OWS likes Duncan so much more than the traditional line.

Guys like Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron get a pass for mediocre defense because they are "saving energy" to be monsters offensively. Well, I think that's what Duncan was doing oftentimes by design. An extremely sharp post defender is a more efficient allocation of energy than making him back guys down for 1/3 of the game - especially once Manu and Parker came into their own around 05.

Oh and on passing, Duncan is the only one of these 3 to have more assists than turnovers in his career, for all the love that gets thrown at Shaq's passing. Duncan has been one of the better and more reliable ballhandlers for big men for a long time, but it's usually Shaq or KG that get the praise.

Chronz
07-05-2014, 09:07 PM
Vegas odds.
So how does any of that signify his supporting level being on par with Russell's Celtics? You know whats better than Vegas odds? Actual events.


Yao was able to get them out of the first round without T-Mac... How come not vise versa...
Competition and support. Did you really not watching anyone outside LA back then?


T-Mac's teams were a lot worse than any of Kidd's, Iverson's, or Lebron's. I'll give you that, but to never pass the first round ever is very hard to justify.
Its very easy actually, you just have to know how much of a team game this is.

WadeKobe
07-05-2014, 09:12 PM
Duncan was more elite offensively than Shaq ever dreamed of being defensively. Calling him great is some seriou revisionist history.

XpLiCiTT
07-05-2014, 09:13 PM
One is a lock out season against a team that was so green they were pissing grass. The next he was barely able to out do an aged Spurs team with a miracle three from Ray Allen to save his legacy. Not very impressive wins to me. I just need to see more before I can consider him a top ten player of All-Time.

This is hilarious. You're really gonna use the "lockout" season argument? :laugh:
Oh wait, you're not done! The miracle Ray Allen 3 argument! :laugh: :laugh:
LeBron clearly did nothing to deserve either of those championships, you're right, wow I'm so dumb can't believe I would actually give the man credit for something he accomplished.


Oh, and as for blaming his teammates for this recent debacle and affording none of the blame to him what so ever...

Was LeBron James Truly Effective in the 2014 Finals...

Many people seem to be under the misconception that Lebron was the only one to bring his "A-Game" while it was his teammates who let him down. This breakdown puts that theory to the test and proves why people are totally mislead by flashy paper stats that they really know nothing about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y02r-Dz5cMw

It appears that Lebron had a great series individually, but under close examination, a few things stood out...

Of the 141 total points Lebron scored in the Finals, 51 of them were scored in blowout situations where the Spurs were up by 15 or more points. During these situations, Lebron averaged a healthy 1.1 points per minute. When the games were closer, he only averaged 0.65 points per minute.

Also, Lebron had just about the same amount of turnovers as he did assists. 20 assists total for the Finals and 19 total turnovers for the finals.

That was quite possibly the worst youtube video I have ever watched in regards to sports. Are you being serious with these stats? Is he supposed to not score when they're down? Was the 19/23 points he scored in the third of the one game not enough to at least cut into the lead? His teammates were nowhere to be seen, Hellen Keller could have told you that.


Additionally, Lebron had just about the worst +/- on his team throughout the series... Not just the cramps game.

During the regular season and Eastern Conference playoffs, Lebron was in the 94th and 97th percentile in post up production. In the finals, he only posted up only 11% of the time compared to the 13.9% and 14% he did in the regular season and Eastern Conference playoffs which resulted in him averaging a lowly 1.1 Points Per Post-Up in the finals.

You're really going to bring up LeBrons +/- in this Spurs series? Ok by your logic, lets just take LeBron off the court in that series, it would have helped the Heat, right? And do you understand basketball at all? Are you aware of the who Gregg Popovich is? Probably not, that wouldn't surprise me if you weren't. He posted up 2 % less in the finals (astonishing percentage drop btw), ever think it might be because of defensive schemes that forced him to do other things? Nah, thats illogical too, right?


This just goes to show that all the stuff I have been telling you all about over the years is all very true and is agreed upon by people who know how to truly breakdown the game of basketball. Lebron just can't generate enough points against elite teams to be effective. I have told you all time and time again that he pads his stats in both garbage time and against inferior competition and it seems there are other experts who agree with this as well. What good does it do you to be the leader in points, rebounds, and assists when your team is bottom tier in all three. What good does it do you to stuff your Stat Sheet at the expense of your teammates. I'll tell you what good it does you, you get results like you did in this years finals.... The mirage of great individual stats to the layman eye at first glance, while your team receives the worst beat down in finals history.

:laugh::yawn: He "pads his stats in garbage time". He stuffs the stat sheet at the expense of his teammates? You're basically saying LeBron is the reason the Heat got embarrassed. Listen to yourself, you must be drunk.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 09:17 PM
So how does any of that signify his supporting level being on par with Russell's Celtics? You know whats better than Vegas odds? Actual events.

Being the odds on favorite every single year is pretty huge. Of course I can't quantify the actual disparities in talent, but IMO it's very similar to the advantage Russell had back in the 60's. Only Russell didn't get upset half of the time and almost again last season by the skin of his teeth.


Competition and support. Did you really not watching anyone outside LA back then?

Resorting to personal attacks already are we.


Its very easy actually, you just have to know how much of a team game this is.

What about a players impact to their team...

We might as well debate who's better one on one if thats the case.

FlashBolt
07-05-2014, 09:19 PM
One is a lock out season against a team that was so green they were pissing grass. The next he was barely able to out do an aged Spurs team with a miracle three from Ray Allen to save his legacy. Not very impressive wins to me. I just need to see more before I can consider him a top ten player of All-Time.

Oh, and as for blaming his teammates for this recent debacle and affording none of the blame to him what so ever...

Was LeBron James Truly Effective in the 2014 Finals...

Many people seem to be under the misconception that Lebron was the only one to bring his "A-Game" while it was his teammates who let him down. This breakdown puts that theory to the test and proves why people are totally mislead by flashy paper stats that they really know nothing about...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y02r-Dz5cMw

It appears that Lebron had a great series individually, but under close examination, a few things stood out...

Of the 141 total points Lebron scored in the Finals, 51 of them were scored in blowout situations where the Spurs were up by 15 or more points. During these situations, Lebron averaged a healthy 1.1 points per minute. When the games were closer, he only averaged 0.65 points per minute.

Also, Lebron had just about the same amount of turnovers as he did assists. 20 assists total for the Finals and 19 total turnovers for the finals.

Additionally, Lebron had just about the worst +/- on his team throughout the series... Not just the cramps game.

During the regular season and Eastern Conference playoffs, Lebron was in the 94th and 97th percentile in post up production. In the finals, he only posted up only 11% of the time compared to the 13.9% and 14% he did in the regular season and Eastern Conference playoffs which resulted in him averaging a lowly 1.1 Points Per Post-Up in the finals.

This just goes to show that all the stuff I have been telling you all about over the years is all very true and is agreed upon by people who know how to truly breakdown the game of basketball. Lebron just can't generate enough points against elite teams to be effective. I have told you all time and time again that he pads his stats in both garbage time and against inferior competition and it seems there are other experts who agree with this as well. What good does it do you to be the leader in points, rebounds, and assists when your team is bottom tier in all three. What good does it do you to stuff your Stat Sheet at the expense of your teammates. I'll tell you what good it does you, you get results like you did in this years finals.... The mirage of great individual stats to the layman eye at first glance, while your team receives the worst beat down in finals history.

1) Who cares if it was a lock-out season? No one received any advantages so let's cut to the chase. If Miami loses that season, you would be screaming 1-4. Stop making pointless arguments that aren't logical. Didn't OKC beat Spurs that year? Right..

2) Ray Allen made a three. That game was very close. Tony Parker made a very difficult shot that series in game 1. That series was VERY close in games 1, 6, and 7. Again, you're picking one shot that has happened many times over the years. Derek Fisher, Robert Horry, Steve Kerr.. Shots like those have been made before for their respective teams. Btw, Ray Allen is KNOWN to hit those threes. It's not a miracle if it's something that Ray Allen has a reputation for. Didn't James dominate in the fourth quarter, btw?

3) Good, you researched a Youtube video to answer your "question" and further brainwash you. Anyone saying James didn't have a great finals last year is just looking for an argument. Of course most of his points were in a blowout situation - his team was getting blown out since the second quarter. Assists===Turnovers because his team couldn't make a damn shot. Check his teammates FG% for the Finals. I believe only one player who played decent minutes cracked above 45%.

4) Post up. Really? Did you not see who was guarding him? Tim Duncan is there. Splitter is there. Diaw is a good defender. Leonard should have been in the NBA ALL DEFENSIVE team. Seriously, one man doesn't win alone. It's why Jordan couldn't beat the Pistons and by far, this Spurs team was better than that Pistons team.

Those really aren't your arguments, btw. Amoster, it might be time to give up on the act and pretense that James isn't all that we say he is. He's been in the NBA for 11 years and he's been consistent year after year while also getting better. He exceeded expectations back to when they said he would be the most scrutinized athlete before he played an NBA game. Just enjoy the damn game and stop making these silly accusations. You're really not a bad poster - when you don't make crap up like this.

Chronz
07-05-2014, 09:22 PM
Being the odds on favorite every single year is pretty huge. Of course I can't quantify the actual disparities in talent, but IMO it's very similar to the advantage Russell had back in the 60's. Only Russell didn't get upset half of the time and almost again last season by the skin of his teeth.
Thats because the disparity in talent isn't as dramatic as you claim. And Russ escaped with a few G7's too. And Im pretty sure the odds were against them in one of their chips and in this Finals loss, they were clearly outclassed by a superior team (Vegas odds were about as even as you can get), that they won the year before was a miracle, so I dont see this lopsided affair that you do, certainly not Russell-esque in its advantages.


Resorting to personal attacks already are we.
Ignoring relevant questions already? There was no attack, you just really come off that way.


What about a players impact to their team...
Thats what matters most.


We might as well debate who's better one on one if thats the case.
Why is that? 1 on 1 has little to do with a TEAM game.

amos1er
07-05-2014, 09:33 PM
This is hilarious. You're really gonna use the "lockout" season argument? :laugh:
Oh wait, you're not done! The miracle Ray Allen 3 argument! :laugh: :laugh:
LeBron clearly did nothing to deserve either of those championships, you're right, wow I'm so dumb can't believe I would actually give the man credit for something he accomplished.

He gets credit for sure... Those two rings and Finals MVP's are the major reason I moved him from the 25-30 spot to the 11-15 spot on my All-Time rankings.


That was quite possibly the worst youtube video I have ever watched in regards to sports. Are you being serious with these stats? Is he supposed to not score when they're down? Was the 19/23 points he scored in the third of the one game not enough to at least cut into the lead? His teammates were nowhere to be seen, Hellen Keller could have told you that.

Yet nothing you said has come remotely close to refuting any of the points Coach Nick's made in his vid.


You're really going to bring up LeBrons +/- in this Spurs series? Ok by your logic, lets just take LeBron off the court in that series, it would have helped the Heat, right? And do you understand basketball at all? Are you aware of the who Gregg Popovich is? Probably not, that wouldn't surprise me if you weren't. He posted up 2 % less in the finals (astonishing percentage drop btw), ever think it might be because of defensive schemes that forced him to do other things? Nah, thats illogical too, right?

It's actually a very astonishing drop off considering that could be the difference in scoring 4-6 points more for the Heat. Also could make Pop have to adjust his defense more. Point is, great players perform better and utilize their strengths more in championship games... Not the opposite. Though considering they were blowout scenarios, those 4-6 points wouldn't have really mattered anyways in the grand scheme. It was but a small piece of the pie and proof positive that contrary to popular belief, Lebron is accountable for this debacle as well as his teammates.

Lebron homers love to use the +/- stat in his favor whenever they can, yet in this case they all the sudden want to dismiss it. Love the hypocrisy. Though I am very used to it from Lebron fans. Yet another piece of the pie of his finals failure. In any sort of battle or competition, it's the leader who gets the lions share of the credit in both victory and defeat. Yet in Lebron's case, his worshipers do their best to shield him from any sort of blame when he comes up short. How can the guy ever act like a man and claim responsibility in loses when his own fans have even less sportsmanship than he does.


:laugh::yawn: He "pads his stats in garbage time". He stuffs the stat sheet at the expense of his teammates? You're basically saying LeBron is the reason the Heat got embarrassed. Listen to yourself, you must be drunk.

Yet you have brought nothing to the table as far as refuting any of it other than Ad Hominem retorts.

Chronz
07-05-2014, 09:41 PM
Poll is closed, anyone want to start the next one for man ram?

FlashBolt
07-05-2014, 09:44 PM
Poll is closed, anyone want to start the next one for man ram?

PSD nominates you?

amos1er
07-05-2014, 09:44 PM
Thats because the disparity in talent isn't as dramatic as you claim. And Russ escaped with a few G7's too. And Im pretty sure the odds were against them in one of their chips and in this Finals loss, they were clearly outclassed by a superior team (Vegas odds were about as even as you can get), that they won the year before was a miracle, so I dont see this lopsided affair that you do, certainly not Russell-esque in its advantages.

I do agree that Russell had the greatest advantage in terms of having the more talented teams than his opponents. Since then it has been Lebron's "Big Three" Heat teams. Russell is just the best comparison I can make because I can't really think of anyone else that had a comparable situation.


Ignoring relevant questions already? There was no attack, you just really come off that way.

Of course the vast majority of the games I watch are Laker games, but I do follow what is happening through out the league as well. You were inferring that I am some sort of Lakers homer who really doesn't know much outside of what is happening with my team. Personal attacks are usually the last refuge of a failing argument.

Which relevant question did I ignore...


Thats what matters most.

Then why all the emphasis on individual stats...


Why is that? 1 on 1 has little to do with a TEAM game.

Because the pretense of most of your arguments are individual play over team success. Don't they both go hand and hand...

Chronz
07-05-2014, 09:57 PM
I do agree that Russell had the greatest advantage in terms of having the more talented teams than his opponents. Since then it has been Lebron's "Big Three" Heat teams. Russell is just the best comparison I can make because I can't really think of anyone else that had a comparable situation.
You could name Kobe's recent championship squads. KG's, Duncans, Shaqobes, MJ's. You just have to look beyond the names and actually investigate their performance.



Of course the vast majority of the games I watch are Laker games, but I do follow what is happening through out the league as well. You were inferring that I am some sort of Lakers homer who really doesn't know much outside of what is happening with my team. Personal attacks are usually the last refuge of a failing argument.
You can choose to take it as a personal attack, definitely your prerogative but it was honestly how you come off, not an isolated incident tho, I've seen you regurgitate flawed rhetoric plenty in my stay. I cant comment on what you do and dont know about your own team tho.



Then why all the emphasis on individual stats...
Your confused, I simply dont ignore them, I recognize that a player has more control in his performance than he does the 9 other players on the court. Its a team game where an individual has a tremendous influence, but its not all encompassing, not even close. You can be the best player in the league and miss the playoffs entirely, much less win a chip.




Because the pretense of most of your arguments are individual play over team success. Don't they both go hand and hand...
So you expect me to believe them going hand in hand means an equal level of influence? I dont understand the question.