PDA

View Full Version : PSD's Official #7 Player of All Time



ManRam
07-08-2014, 09:44 AM
Voting for #6 has concluded and PSD's Official #6 NBA Player of all time is....

Tim Duncan

19.9 PPG / 11.1 RPG / 2.2 BPG / .506 FG / 24.6 PER / 191.6 WS

Achievements:

14 time All-Star
5 NBA Championships
2 Time MVP
3 Time Finals MVP
1 Time Allstar game MVP
10 Time All-NBA First Teamer
8 Time Defensive First Teamer
Rookie of the Year

Voting

Tim Duncan 27 votes
Larry Bird 16 votes
Bill Russell 12 votes
Hakeem Olajuwon 12 votes
LeBron James 11 votes
Kobe Bryant 9 votes
Oscar Robertson 1 votes
Moses Malone 0
Jerry West 0 votes
Jerry West 0 votes
David Robinson 0 votes
Elgin Baylor 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)
5. Shaquille O'neal
6. Tim Duncan (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?869509-PSD-s-Official-5-NBA-Player-of-All-Time)

akia83
07-08-2014, 09:47 AM
Between Larry and Lebron for me.
But I have to go with Bird for the 3rd time now :)

YAALREADYKNO
07-08-2014, 10:08 AM
its kobe

phlp_bj
07-08-2014, 10:22 AM
hakeeemmm

ManningToTyree
07-08-2014, 10:53 AM
Sticking with Larry

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 11:26 AM
How is Lebron not dominating the vote here? Who left has four MVPs in a four year span and is top five in career WS/48 and PER? One guy. Lebron James. I would have put him 4th or 5th, and if he doesn't make the top 7, PSD's hatred of this guy is inevitably starting to show. I'm a huge Hakeem Olajuwon fan. Like the guy was my childhood idol and I absolutely adored him. I would not rank him as a better basketball player than Lebron James, and I certainly wouldn't rank Bird or Kobe over him.

Raps08-09 Champ
07-08-2014, 11:27 AM
I voted for the #7th best player.

And get Garnett up there.

Purch
07-08-2014, 11:28 AM
Id go with Bird

FlashBolt
07-08-2014, 12:07 PM
For me, longevity is the only reason Bron isn't up here. He has as many rings and more MVPs as Hakeem but I want to see a few more years from LeBron first.

D-Leethal
07-08-2014, 12:28 PM
Its a travesty Bird hasn't gone yet. The reasoning is so stupid too. If Dirk had no qualms "dominating" these big, tall, strong athletes with his jump shot and BBIQ there is no reason Bird wouldn't do the same when you add his phenomenal passing and intangible instincts.

Too many old guys get shafted on this forum for reasons like "they wouldn't be able to hang today". The cream of the crop is going to rise in any era because each era has its own level playing field, every era has their own freak athletes. If LeBron was in the 80s you could come up with reasons his body would be diminished and he would be facing much different rules than he faces today where a slap on the shoulder is a flagrant and ejection. The eras will even out.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 12:30 PM
For me, longevity is the only reason Bron isn't up here. He has as many rings and more MVPs as Hakeem but I want to see a few more years from LeBron first.
But why? I do not understand the longevity argument AT ALL and I never have. If a player has accomplished everything and more that another player did at a much earlier point in his career and his peak statistical production is superior, **** longevity. Lebron is undoubtedly the best basketball player left on the board in terms of production and accolades and it shouldn't matter how long he played in the league. Hell, he's already played roughly 70% of the amount of games that Hakeem has in the regular season while playing in 13 more postseason games. That's more than enough of a sample size to make a judgment about the two players' careers.

And it's really, REALLY hard for me to stay objective when it comes to Hakeem Olajuwon. We're talking about my favorite player of all time in any sport and the athlete who made me want to watch sports in the first place. So I'm certainly not being a homer in this case by saying Lebron should be ranked higher.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 12:33 PM
Its a travesty Bird hasn't gone yet. The reasoning is so stupid too. If Dirk had no qualms "dominating" these big, tall, strong athletes with his jump shot and BBIQ there is no reason Bird wouldn't do the same when you add his phenomenal passing and intangible instincts.

Too many old guys get shafted on this forum for reasons like "they wouldn't be able to hang today". The cream of the crop is going to rise in any era because each era has its own level playing field.

I don't think that's why Bird hasn't gone yet. The reason Bird hasn't gone yet is that he's just simply not as good as the players ahead of him. Compare his career and peak production to Lebron and the guy just doesn't stack up. I definitely think Bird should go top 10 and I would actually put him ahead of Kobe (unlikely many posters), but he simply was not as good at his peak as Lebron was. Period. And unlike the case with Hakeem or other players, you can't argue longevity for Bird over Lebron as Lebron has played in only 55 fewer games than Bird did in his carer and Lebron's peak and prime are already far longer than Bird's.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 12:35 PM
I think the the rest of the top 10 should be:

7. Lebron James
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Larry Bird
10. Bill Russell

You could make a strong case for Kobe at 10, but I just can't justify ranking him ahead of Russell because so much of the Kobe argument revolves around postseason success and Russell is the king of postseason dominance.

Lucky.
07-08-2014, 12:55 PM
I voted for Hakeem, although I do feel as if I made a mistake not voting for LeBron. It just doesn't seem right having Hakeem or LeBron falling to number eight. Same applies for Bird, but sadly someone has to get the short end of the stick.

FlashBolt
07-08-2014, 01:00 PM
But why? I do not understand the longevity argument AT ALL and I never have. If a player has accomplished everything and more that another player did at a much earlier point in his career and his peak statistical production is superior, **** longevity. Lebron is undoubtedly the best basketball player left on the board in terms of production and accolades and it shouldn't matter how long he played in the league. Hell, he's already played roughly 70% of the amount of games that Hakeem has in the regular season while playing in 13 more postseason games. That's more than enough of a sample size to make a judgment about the two players' careers.

And it's really, REALLY hard for me to stay objective when it comes to Hakeem Olajuwon. We're talking about my favorite player of all time in any sport and the athlete who made me want to watch sports in the first place. So I'm certainly not being a homer in this case by saying Lebron should be ranked higher.

But you just put LeBron over Kobe, as well. I don't see how you can make that argument. It's the only reason Bird isn't ranked higher than he should be. Hands down, he's a top 5 talent but his longevity just doesn't cut it. I don't judge everything by accolades. I also have to judge a player on how long they have been performing and how well they played as well. Just give James a few more years (2-3) and see what he can carve out from those years. If he can be the same player he was the past few years while getting a ring-2 and 2 more MVP's? He's a top 5 for me. But for now, I want to see what else he can do. And I'm a huge Bron fan. I just respect the longevity of some players. No way Bron has anything over Kobe other than MVP's.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 01:00 PM
I voted for Hakeem, although I do feel as if I made a mistake not voting for LeBron. It just doesn't seem right having Hakeem or LeBron falling to number eight. Same applies for Bird, but sadly someone has to get the short end of the stick.

Personally, I would have ranked Duncan, Lebron and Hakeem ahead of Shaq. I think he's way too high on this list and gets way too much credit because of freakish efficiency and not nearly enough criticism for the holes in his game.

YAALREADYKNO
07-08-2014, 01:10 PM
Personally, I would have ranked Duncan, Lebron and Hakeem ahead of Shaq. I think he's way too high on this list and gets way too much credit because of freakish efficiency and not nearly enough criticism for the holes in his game.


the man was so dominant. he belongs where he belongs

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 01:16 PM
the man was so dominant. he belongs where he belongs

But where he "belongs" is completely subjective. That's the point of having polls and discussions about stuff like this. I could make a case for Shaq as high as No. 2 or No. 3 if you wanted to, or I could make a case for him closer to that 12-15 range. All of these arguments are completely subjective depending on what barometers you're using to judge careers, and I personally think Shaq should be in that 7-9 range and not the 4-5 range as the voting would suggest.

jerellh528
07-08-2014, 01:18 PM
Should've been
Mj
Kaj
Wilt
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Bird
Magic
Russell

YAALREADYKNO
07-08-2014, 01:20 PM
But where he "belongs" is completely subjective. That's the point of having polls and discussions about stuff like this. I could make a case for Shaq as high as No. 2 or No. 3 if you wanted to, or I could make a case for him closer to that 12-15 range. All of these arguments are completely subjective depending on what barometers you're using to judge careers, and I personally think Shaq should be in that 7-9 range and not the 4-5 range as the voting would suggest.


shaq is ahead of duncan imo and hakeem. lebron still has to accomplish a lil bit more before i can put him ahead

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 01:21 PM
Should've been
Mj
Kaj
Wilt
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan
Bird
Magic
Russell

Why does Kobe belong at No. 4? What are you using to make that assessment? And let's hear a legitimate argument for Lebron not cracking the top 10. That I would love to see.

jerellh528
07-08-2014, 01:24 PM
Why does Kobe belong at No. 4? What are you using to make that assessment? And let's hear a legitimate argument for Lebron not cracking the top 10. That I would love to see.

Hold on I'm on my way to work, I'll get back to this later today

jaayytheillest
07-08-2014, 01:35 PM
It's definitely kobe Bryant he gets so disrespected these days it's ridiculous he has a combination of stats and longevity

tredigs
07-08-2014, 01:39 PM
Jordan
Kareem
Russell
Wilt
Bird
Magic
Tim
Shaq
Lebron
Hakeem

RocketLoc80
07-08-2014, 01:39 PM
For me its between Hakeem,Lebron or Bird. I wouldn`t be mad if either of the three get this spot and the last 2 after get the final spots before 10 but all I know is Kobe doesn`t belong in this spot before Bird,Hakeem and even Lebron

Chronz
07-08-2014, 02:02 PM
Between Dream, Kobe and Bron/Bird/Russ for me. Leaning in that order right now.


Personally, I would have ranked Duncan, Lebron and Hakeem ahead of Shaq. I think he's way too high on this list and gets way too much credit because of freakish efficiency and not nearly enough criticism for the holes in his game.

If those holes in your game dont prevent you from producing better results, why does it matter again?

Ebbs
07-08-2014, 02:03 PM
Poor Larry Legend. He was better than Magic in their hay day and yet he's plummeting down this damn list.

I know everyone's lists are different but Magic and Bird should go side by side every year.

Chronz
07-08-2014, 02:04 PM
Poor Larry Legend. He was better than Magic in their hay day and yet he's plummeting down this damn list.

I know everyone's lists are different but Magic and Bird should go side by side every year.

Agreed. Magic should have be in the mix right now with the rest of these guys.

Ebbs
07-08-2014, 02:09 PM
Hakeem is one of the more lovable players all time. But his only two Championships coming during the Jordan hiatus hurts a bit.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 02:14 PM
Between Dream, Kobe and Bron/Bird/Russ for me. Leaning in that order right now.
I'd love to hear your argument for Hakeem AND Kobe over Lebron. I just don't see it. Sure, you can argue longevity until you're blue in the face, except their edges in longevity at this point aren't THAT significant. It's essentially 400 games or about five seasons worth of playing time. And if you aren't arguing longevity, I don't see where you'd have much of a leg to stand on.

In terms of peak production and individual performance, Lebron is so clearly better. I guess you could use defense as your justification for Hakeem and postseason success for Kobe. But if that's the case, where's the consistency? Hakeem and Duncan were certainly better defenders than Shaq, yet he went first. And guys like Russell and Kobe had far more postseason success than the players ahead of them on this list.


If those holes in your game dont prevent you from producing better results, why does it matter again?
Define "results." Are we talking advanced stats? Basic stats? Individual accolades? Postseason production? Because you could poke a hole in any one of those arguments if you wanted to.

Chronz
07-08-2014, 02:17 PM
Hakeem is one of the more lovable players all time. But his only two Championships coming during the Jordan hiatus hurts a bit.
I prefer to look at every championship individually, grade the comp, role and dominance of squads. Not winning when MJ wasn't around is something that holds true for all these guys. Duncan won his right after MJ retired, at least MJ played in the playoffs during Dreams run. Magic, Bird won when Michael had zero help. Not everything should revolve around MJ.

Had he stayed, MJ's Bulls would have gotten crushed in 95 anyways.

Ill make my case against players around 9ish tonight. Gotta bounce for work damnitall

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 02:17 PM
Hakeem is one of the more lovable players all time. But his only two Championships coming during the Jordan hiatus hurts a bit.
Correction... The FIRST title came during Jordan's hiatus. I hate that people always conveniently gloss over the fact that Jordan came back and played a good chunk of that second season before the playoffs. Sure, he might have been rusty, but the Rockets still crushed the team that beat Jordan's Bulls in the conference finals.

I've probably said this a million times, but my biggest regret as a sports fan was that Hakeem's Rockets never met Jordan's Bulls in the Finals. I think Olajuwon and Houston would have given Chicago the toughest challenge of any Finals series those Bulls teams ever faced, and there's a good chance Houston would have won. It's unfortunate that the 97 Rockets underachieved by losing the conference finals to Utah, because I think that team could have knocked Jordan off his pedestal.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 02:23 PM
How is Lebron not dominating the vote here? Who left has four MVPs in a four year span and is top five in career WS/48 and PER? One guy. Lebron James. I would have put him 4th or 5th, and if he doesn't make the top 7, PSD's hatred of this guy is inevitably starting to show. I'm a huge Hakeem Olajuwon fan. Like the guy was my childhood idol and I absolutely adored him. I would not rank him as a better basketball player than Lebron James, and I certainly wouldn't rank Bird or Kobe over him.

Who left has more all-nba teams than Kobe? Who left has more finals MVPs than Kobe?
What comparable player left has more rings than Kobe?

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 02:28 PM
Its a travesty Bird hasn't gone yet. The reasoning is so stupid too. If Dirk had no qualms "dominating" these big, tall, strong athletes with his jump shot and BBIQ there is no reason Bird wouldn't do the same when you add his phenomenal passing and intangible instincts.

Too many old guys get shafted on this forum for reasons like "they wouldn't be able to hang today". The cream of the crop is going to rise in any era because each era has its own level playing field, every era has their own freak athletes. If LeBron was in the 80s you could come up with reasons his body would be diminished and he would be facing much different rules than he faces today where a slap on the shoulder is a flagrant and ejection. The eras will even out.

Its become comical for me that Magic is at #3 and people are putting Bird down farther than here. I'm convinced that most people voting never saw Larry in his prime and are overly dependent on stats and rings.

Lets take a peak of what people thought of the 2 players at the time they were actually playing in the first 9 years of their careers before Larry hurt his back.

MVP voting Larry Bird:
1979-80 NBA 0.068 (4)
1980-81 NBA 0.613 (2)
1981-82 NBA 0.661 (2)
1982-83 NBA 0.485 (2)
1983-84 NBA 0.858 (1)
1984-85 NBA 0.978 (1)
1985-86 NBA 0.981 (1)
1986-87 NBA 0.357 (3)
1987-88 NBA 0.659 (2)

MVP Voting Magic Johnson:
1980-81 NBA 0.026 (11)
1981-82 NBA 0.097 (8)
1982-83 NBA 0.406 (3)
1983-84 NBA 0.401 (3)
1984-85 NBA 0.338 (2)
1985-86 NBA 0.263 (3)
1986-87 NBA 0.964 (1)
1987-88 NBA 0.635 (3)

All Defense Team Larry Bird:
1981-82 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1982-83 NBA All-Defensive (2nd)
1983-84 NBA All-Defensive (2nd

All Defense Team Magic Johnson:
Nothing

For those that depend heavily on stats:

PER Larry Bird before back injury:
1981-82 NBA 22.6 (8)
1982-83 NBA 24.1 (3)
1983-84 NBA 24.2 (2)
1984-85 NBA 26.5 (1)
1985-86 NBA 25.6 (1)
1986-87 NBA 26.4 (3)
1987-88 NBA 27.8 (2)

PER Magic Johnson:
1981-82 NBA 22.9 (7)
1982-83 NBA 23.0 (6)
1983-84 NBA 22.6 (7)
1984-85 NBA 23.2 (4)
1985-86 NBA 24.0 (4)
1986-87 NBA 27.0 (2)
1987-88 NBA 23.1 (8)

Ebbs
07-08-2014, 02:28 PM
Correction... The FIRST title came during Jordan's hiatus. I hate that people always conveniently gloss over the fact that Jordan came back and played a good chunk of that second season before the playoffs. Sure, he might have been rusty, but the Rockets still crushed the team that beat Jordan's Bulls in the conference finals.

I've probably said this a million times, but my biggest regret as a sports fan was that Hakeem's Rockets never met Jordan's Bulls in the Finals. I think Olajuwon and Houston would have given Chicago the toughest challenge of any Finals series those Bulls teams ever faced, and there's a good chance Houston would have won. It's unfortunate that the 97 Rockets underachieved by losing the conference finals to Utah, because I think that team could have knocked Jordan off his pedestal.

He played 17 games that second season man. I'm not trying to make you sour, I'm not saying the Rockets didn't deserve those rings. But the Bulls were coming off a 3peat and Jordan broke down due to his dad dying and lived the baseball bs fantasy. I agree with you Rockets - Bulls would've been awesome to see.


Who left has more all-nba teams than Kobe? Who left has more finals MVPs than Kobe?
What comparable player left has more rings than Kobe?

Kobe, LeBron, Bird, and Hakeem all have two Finals MVP's.

I'm surprised you are mentioning rings. If you are stacking accolades why aren't you voting for Bill Russell?

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 02:30 PM
Hakeem MVP voting shares:

1984-85 NBA 0.015 (12)
1985-86 NBA 0.247 (4)
1986-87 NBA 0.037 (7)
1987-88 NBA 0.050 (7)
1988-89 NBA 0.211 (5)
1989-90 NBA 0.070 (7)
1990-91 NBA 0.004 (18)
1992-93 NBA 0.660 (2)
1993-94 NBA 0.880 (1)
1994-95 NBA 0.140 (5)
1995-96 NBA 0.211 (4)
1996-97 NBA 0.083 (7)
1998-99 NBA 0.003 (13)

Not even close to Larry in their primes when people were watching the actual games not looking at stats and rings 30 years later. Every year Larry was basically the best or 2nd best in the league before his back injury. Can Hakeem say that? Can Magic?

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 02:33 PM
Who left has more all-nba teams than Kobe? Who left has more finals MVPs than Kobe? What comparable player left has more rings than Kobe?

But those are just points about longevity and team success, both achievements which Lebron has absolutely no control over. Kobe has four more All-NBA first teams and five more All-NBA teams than Lebron despite seven more seasons in the league. Are you telling me that Lebron won't easily surpass those numbers seven seasons from now? And even if he retired today and didn't reach those numbers, would it matter?

Also your point about Finals MVPs is a moot one, because he and Lebron have the same number of Finals MVPs (two). And if they were to give out the award to the best player in the series, not the best player to the winning team, then Lebron would probably have 3-4 by now.

Bottom line, Lebron James has been an absolutely superior basketball player the last 5-7 years than Kobe Bryant ever was at any point in his 17-year career. I don't know how you can overlook that fact in favor of longevity or team success.

Pablonovi
07-08-2014, 02:33 PM
imo, Hakeem Was The 4th Greatest Center Ever;But Not Good Enough To Be In GOAT Top 10
The problems I have with Hakeem being in the GOAT Top 10:
1. He "only" had 9 All-NBA 1st-Teams (6) + 2nd-Team(3) * (least of everybody being seriously considered; historically there have been 23 guys who had more years at 1st+2nd best at their position - that's a lot!);

2. His Best Offensive Years Tended To NOT Coincide With His Best Defensive Years;

3. Against his peers he was:
a. vs KAJ: 0-2 (In Hakeem's 1st two years VS KAJ's 16th & 17th ! years);

b. vs Ewing: 3-3 (Hakeem's years: 4-9; Ewing's years: 3-8);

c. vs DRob: 5-5 (Hakeem's years: 6-15, DRob's years: 1-10);

d. vs Shaq: 3-3 (Hakeem's years: 9-14, Shaq's years: 2-7).

He was only the best center in 6 years; and did not dominate any of these 4 other Great Centers, particularly in the 3 cases of near-simultaneous careers: he split dead-even with Ewing, DRob & Shaq for 6-10 year stretches.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 02:37 PM
Hakeem MVP voting shares:

1984-85 NBA 0.015 (12)
1985-86 NBA 0.247 (4)
1986-87 NBA 0.037 (7)
1987-88 NBA 0.050 (7)
1988-89 NBA 0.211 (5)
1989-90 NBA 0.070 (7)
1990-91 NBA 0.004 (18)
1992-93 NBA 0.660 (2)
1993-94 NBA 0.880 (1)
1994-95 NBA 0.140 (5)
1995-96 NBA 0.211 (4)
1996-97 NBA 0.083 (7)
1998-99 NBA 0.003 (13)

Not even close to Larry in their primes when people were watching the actual games not looking at stats and rings 30 years later. Every year Larry was basically the best or 2nd best in the league before his back injury. Can Hakeem say that? Can Magic?

Yeah, but you're not taking the talent of the era into consideration. By the time Jordan, Hakeem, Malone, Stockton, Robinson, Barkley, etc. were hitting their peaks in the early 90s, Magic and Bird were essentially done. You're also not taking defense into consideration, as Hakeem was arguably one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the NBA, while Bird was pretty good, never great and Magic was below average for much of his career.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 02:41 PM
Lebron has a good case to be in the top 10. The problem is that unlike Jordan and Bird, Lebron has never been looked at as a ice cold closer in the clutch moments of games. His reputation in critical times actually is a detriment to his reputation overall. If we only spoke about the first 40 minutes of games he would have a very strong case.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 02:42 PM
Correction... The FIRST title came during Jordan's hiatus. I hate that people always conveniently gloss over the fact that Jordan came back and played a good chunk of that second season before the playoffs. Sure, he might have been rusty, but the Rockets still crushed the team that beat Jordan's Bulls in the conference finals.

I've probably said this a million times, but my biggest regret as a sports fan was that Hakeem's Rockets never met Jordan's Bulls in the Finals. I think Olajuwon and Houston would have given Chicago the toughest challenge of any Finals series those Bulls teams ever faced, and there's a good chance Houston would have won. It's unfortunate that the 97 Rockets underachieved by losing the conference finals to Utah, because I think that team could have knocked Jordan off his pedestal.

He played 17 games that second season man. I'm not trying to make you sour, I'm not saying the Rockets didn't deserve those rings. But the Bulls were coming off a 3peat and Jordan broke down due to his dad dying and lived the baseball bs fantasy. I agree with you Rockets - Bulls would've been awesome to see.


Who left has more all-nba teams than Kobe? Who left has more finals MVPs than Kobe?
What comparable player left has more rings than Kobe?

Kobe, LeBron, Bird, and Hakeem all have two Finals MVP's.

I'm surprised you are mentioning rings. If you are stacking accolades why aren't you voting for Bill Russell?

Because not all rings come equal and Kobe's two-way brilliance surpasses Russell. I have Russell higher than most just not Kobe.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 02:43 PM
Who left has more all-nba teams than Kobe? Who left has more finals MVPs than Kobe? What comparable player left has more rings than Kobe?

But those are just points about longevity and team success, both achievements which Lebron has absolutely no control over. Kobe has four more All-NBA first teams and five more All-NBA teams than Lebron despite seven more seasons in the league. Are you telling me that Lebron won't easily surpass those numbers seven seasons from now? And even if he retired today and didn't reach those numbers, would it matter?

Also your point about Finals MVPs is a moot one, because he and Lebron have the same number of Finals MVPs (two). And if they were to give out the award to the best player in the series, not the best player to the winning team, then Lebron would probably have 3-4 by now.

Bottom line, Lebron James has been an absolutely superior basketball player the last 5-7 years than Kobe Bryant ever was at any point in his 17-year career. I don't know how you can overlook that fact in favor of longevity or team success.

You ask if LeBron will surpass Kobe in accolades in 7 years and that is a pretty damn easy answer. But isnt the fact that you asked the question at all proof that Kobe has a better career resume?

Ebbs
07-08-2014, 02:46 PM
Correction... The FIRST title came during Jordan's hiatus. I hate that people always conveniently gloss over the fact that Jordan came back and played a good chunk of that second season before the playoffs. Sure, he might have been rusty, but the Rockets still crushed the team that beat Jordan's Bulls in the conference finals.

I've probably said this a million times, but my biggest regret as a sports fan was that Hakeem's Rockets never met Jordan's Bulls in the Finals. I think Olajuwon and Houston would have given Chicago the toughest challenge of any Finals series those Bulls teams ever faced, and there's a good chance Houston would have won. It's unfortunate that the 97 Rockets underachieved by losing the conference finals to Utah, because I think that team could have knocked Jordan off his pedestal.


You ask if LeBron will surpass Kobe in accolades in 7 years and that is a pretty damn easy answer. But isnt the fact that you asked the question at all proof that Kobe has a better career resume?

I would say no. LeBron has had 5+ seasons better than Kobe's best year. Kobe has accumulated a lot of honours some warranted some not. But he's never displayed the level of dominance LeBron did. And LeBron has enough accolades to not make it a huge disparity any more.

ghettosean
07-08-2014, 02:47 PM
How is Lebron not dominating the vote here? Who left has four MVPs in a four year span and is top five in career WS/48 and PER? One guy. Lebron James. I would have put him 4th or 5th, and if he doesn't make the top 7, PSD's hatred of this guy is inevitably starting to show. I'm a huge Hakeem Olajuwon fan. Like the guy was my childhood idol and I absolutely adored him. I would not rank him as a better basketball player than Lebron James, and I certainly wouldn't rank Bird or Kobe over him.

Hakeem is better than Lebron everything is not about MVP's and stats dude... Hakeem is probably the most skilled player to ever play basketball he could score on you a million different ways and was great on both ends of the floor. It's hard to get more MVP's when you are playing in the same era against the greatest player to ever play basketball. Think about that while you count your MVP's.

Also stop the whole butthurt "what about Lebron" drama it's pretty sad let people vote who they want to vote for without the your a hater garbage it gets pathetic after a bit.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 02:50 PM
imo, Hakeem Was The 4th Greatest Center Ever;But Not Good Enough To Be In GOAT Top 10
The problems I have with Hakeem being in the GOAT Top 10:
1. He "only" had 9 All-NBA 1st-Teams (6) + 2nd-Team(3) * (least of everybody being seriously considered; historically there have been 23 guys who had more years at 1st+2nd best at their position - that's a lot!);
That's a terrible argument, because he played in an era where center was a designated position for the All-NBA team and he played in the greatest era of centers in the history of the NBA. He had the pleasure of playing in the same era as five of the other arguably seven greatest centers to ever play the game (Kareem, Shaq, Moses, Robinson, Ewing), not counting guys like Mutombo or Mourning. I don't know this off the top of my head, but I'd be willing to be that no center had more All-NBA teams from 1980-2000.


2. His Best Offensive Years Tended To NOT Coincide With His Best Defensive Years;
This point is just baffling to me. Hakeem peaked statistically from 92-93 to 95-96. He won DPOY in 92-93 and 93-94, so where does this argument come from?


3. Against his peers he was:
a. vs KAJ: 0-2 (In Hakeem's 1st two years VS KAJ's 15th & 16th ! years);

b. vs Ewing: 3-3 (Hakeem's years: 4-9; Ewing's years: 3-8);

c. vs DRob: 5-5 (Hakeem's years: 6-15, DRob's years: 1-10);

d. vs Shaq: 3-3 (Hakeem's years: 9-14, Shaq's years: 2-7).
What? Are you REALLY using regular season team success as a barometer to determine how great he was or wasn't? This is by far your worst argument yet. How about the fact that he absolutely crushed Ewing in the Finals in 94 and Robinson in the conference finals in 95 and then outplayed Shaq in the Finals on the way to a sweep of the Magic in 95? Where's the credit for that?


was only the best center in 6 years; and did not dominate any of these 4 other Great Centers, particularly in the 3 cases of near-simultaneous careers: he split dead-even with Ewing, DRob & Shaq for 6-10 year stretches.
Again, your arguments are just horrible, dude. You aren't taking into consideration that Kareem and Moses played in the same era of his early career and that he had Robinson and Shaq to deal with later in his career. But he was unquestionably the best center from the late 80s to the mid-90s. There may have been seasons where Robinson boasted higher numbers, but Hakeem was still the better overall player.

And seriously... the regular season head-to-head win-loss total thing is just :facepalm:

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 02:53 PM
Yeah, but you're not taking the talent of the era into consideration. By the time Jordan, Hakeem, Malone, Stockton, Robinson, Barkley, etc. were hitting their peaks in the early 90s, Magic and Bird were essentially done. You're also not taking defense into consideration, as Hakeem was arguably one of the greatest defensive players in the history of the NBA, while Bird was pretty good, never great and Magic was below average for much of his career.

Bird played against plenty of great players at different points of their carrers. If they were not great than why is Magic at #3 when Magic did not even beat them out for All Nba 1st team multiple years? If defense is a concern why is Magic at #3? Bird was 5 times the defender that Magic was. Dr J, Kareem, Magic, Moses, Bernard, Isiah, Jordan, Dominque, Barkley, Ewing, Hakeem, Malone, Drexler, all were ALL NBA guys during Larry's peak.

If Hakeem was so great why did people voting for MVP not acknowledge his greatness at that time?

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 02:53 PM
Lebron has a good case to be in the top 10. The problem is that unlike Jordan and Bird, Lebron has never been looked at as a ice cold closer in the clutch moments of games. His reputation in critical times actually is a detriment to his reputation overall. If we only spoke about the first 40 minutes of games he would have a very strong case.
Who gives a ****? Statistics back up the facts that Lebron has been a better clutch player in his career than Kobe Bryant. I don't care what public perception of him as a player is. I care about production and the reality of that production. For every game you could pull where Lebron doesn't do something clutch, I can pull a game where Kobe failed just as badly. And for every clutch Kobe performance, I can pull one for Lebron.

The whole "ice cold killer" argument needs to go away. It's based entirely on perception and not at all on statistical evidence, and it's complete ********.

Pablonovi
07-08-2014, 02:55 PM
LeBron James Has Already Passed Larry Bird
iirc, Even Larry Legend has recently come out saying that LeBron has already passed him.

LeBron's PEAK beats Larry's. LeBron's stats are all already equal to or surpass Bird's.
LeBron DOMINATES Bird when it comes to All-NBA Defensive Team Selections.
All-NBA Defensive 1st-Teams: LeBron 5, Bird 0.
All-NBA Defensive 1st-Teams + 2nd-Teams: Lebron 6, Bird 3.

LeBron is at least Larry's equal at passing.

LeBron can readily cover 4 if not all 5 positions; Larry couldn't cover any guards at all.

LeBron is about equal to Larry at shooting J's. Bird wins at FTs; LeBron at drives to the hoop.

LBJ's already got the same number of Finals appearances (though Bird has 3 Chips to LeBron's 2).

I'd take Bird's teammates over LeBron's:
McHale OVER DWade (the DWade that's been there since LeBron came to the HEAT);
Parish OVER Bosh (and the zeros he had at Cleveland)
Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, Bill Walton, Cornbread Maxwell OVER the HEAT & Cavs "supporting" casts.

imo, Bird (or possibly anybody else) would NOT have led Cleveland to the Finals like LeBron did that year.

I've got LeBron #5 All-Time; I've got Bird 11-15.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 02:57 PM
Bird played against plenty of great players at different points of their carrers. If they were not great than why is Magic at #3 when Magic did not even beat them out for All Nba 1st team multiple years? If defense is a concern why is Magic at #3?
You'll notice I didn't vote for Magic at No. 3, so I have no idea why you're addressing me specifically with that argument.


Bird was pretty good never great? You might as well have stopped right there. That is too much. :D
As a defensive player. Did you even read what I wrote? I would never argue that Bird was never great. Hell, I still rank him ahead of Kobe. :shrug:


If Hakeem was so great why did people voting for MVP not acknowledge his greatness at that time?
There was this guy that was drafted the same year as Hakeem who peaked in the same years that Hakeem did. The name escapes me, but you might remember him from Space Jam.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 02:59 PM
Correction... The FIRST title came during Jordan's hiatus. I hate that people always conveniently gloss over the fact that Jordan came back and played a good chunk of that second season before the playoffs. Sure, he might have been rusty, but the Rockets still crushed the team that beat Jordan's Bulls in the conference finals.

I've probably said this a million times, but my biggest regret as a sports fan was that Hakeem's Rockets never met Jordan's Bulls in the Finals. I think Olajuwon and Houston would have given Chicago the toughest challenge of any Finals series those Bulls teams ever faced, and there's a good chance Houston would have won. It's unfortunate that the 97 Rockets underachieved by losing the conference finals to Utah, because I think that team could have knocked Jordan off his pedestal.


You ask if LeBron will surpass Kobe in accolades in 7 years and that is a pretty damn easy answer. But isnt the fact that you asked the question at all proof that Kobe has a better career resume?

I would say no. LeBron has had 5+ seasons better than Kobe's best year. Kobe has accumulated a lot of honours some warranted some not. But he's never displayed the level of dominance LeBron did. And LeBron has enough accolades to not make it a huge disparity any more.

At the end of the day, I just do not understand how people can downplay the value of championships. Look at your Mavs. Dirk is one of the best players of all-time. He is a league MVP. One of the deadliest offensive players in NBA history! And he has one ring and it took a Herculean effort. Kobe has 5 rings. Do we even understand how hard it is to do that anymore? LeBron teamed with 2 of the top 20 players in the league and only got two!

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 03:03 PM
Who gives a ****? Statistics back up the facts that Lebron has been a better clutch player in his career than Kobe Bryant. I don't care what public perception of him as a player is. I care about production and the reality of that production. For every game you could pull where Lebron doesn't do something clutch, I can pull a game where Kobe failed just as badly. And for every clutch Kobe performance, I can pull one for Lebron.

The whole "ice cold killer" argument needs to go away. It's based entirely on perception and not at all on statistical evidence, and it's complete ********.

I spoe about MJ and Bird. Your response regarding Kobe is a red herring at best since I never mentioned Kobe.

If all you go by is stats you should have let me know that before. That explains why we view players differently.

Stats can be twisted in many ways to support and oppose a predetermined conclusion.

Going by stats were you upset that Lebron was not named MVP of the 2014 NBA finals? By stats alone for people that did not watch the actual games he would have a strong case.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 03:05 PM
You ask if LeBron will surpass Kobe in accolades in 7 years and that is a pretty damn easy answer. But isnt the fact that you asked the question at all proof that Kobe has a better career resume?

No, it's not. Because who has the most overall accolades should not be the sole barometer by which we judge players. Answer this question for me, KoB: If accolades matter the most when judging two players' career resumes, why is Jordan always ranked higher than Kareem? They have the same number of rings and Kareem crushes Jordan in nearly every single other relevant category. More career points, rebounds, assists and blocks. More MVPs, All-NBA teams, All-NBA defensive teams and All-Star games.

If you're telling me that Kobe has a better career resume than Lebron because he has more accolades and more career accomplishments, than you've got to be consistent and say the same thing for Kareem over Jordan.

Chronz
07-08-2014, 03:06 PM
At the end of the day, I just do not understand how people can downplay the value of championships. Look at your Mavs. Dirk is one of the best players of all-time. He is a league MVP. One of the deadliest offensive players in NBA history! And he has one ring and it took a Herculean effort. Kobe has 5 rings. Do we even understand how hard it is to do that anymore? LeBron teamed with 2 of the top 20 players in the league and only got two!

I thought Dirk played rather pedestrian actually, he was just fortunate enough to have the perfect ensemble cast to overcome that. He was still great for sure, I just feel like I've seen better from Dirk in defeat.

Bron only getting 2 vs Kobe's 5 is more reflective of the talent alongside them. Bron winning 2 in 4 years is pretty good, its not like he had multiple championship casts alongside him ala Bird. Bird has disappeared too often to be deemed untouchable IMO.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 03:09 PM
There was this guy that was drafted the same year as Hakeem who peaked in the same years that Hakeem did. The name escapes me, but you might remember him from Space Jam.

Sorry that excuse does not hold water. MJ was and should have been MVP most seasons but if Hakeem was so great he would have been voted #2 or #3 most years. Instead people that actually watched the games as they happened voted him this way. I see only two top 2 finishes in MVP voting. Apparently the people voting at the time did not think he only trailed MJ.

Hakeem MVP Award Shares
1984-85 NBA 0.015 (12)
1985-86 NBA 0.247 (4)
1986-87 NBA 0.037 (7)
1987-88 NBA 0.050 (7)
1988-89 NBA 0.211 (5)
1989-90 NBA 0.070 (7)
1990-91 NBA 0.004 (18)
1992-93 NBA 0.660 (2)
1993-94 NBA 0.880 (1)
1994-95 NBA 0.140 (5)
1995-96 NBA 0.211 (4)
1996-97 NBA 0.083 (7)
1998-99 NBA 0.003 (13)
Career 2.611 (17)

GREATNESS ONE
07-08-2014, 03:11 PM
:laugh2: never gets old.

D-Leethal
07-08-2014, 03:11 PM
Who gives a ****? Statistics back up the facts that Lebron has been a better clutch player in his career than Kobe Bryant. I don't care what public perception of him as a player is. I care about production and the reality of that production. For every game you could pull where Lebron doesn't do something clutch, I can pull a game where Kobe failed just as badly. And for every clutch Kobe performance, I can pull one for Lebron.

The whole "ice cold killer" argument needs to go away. It's based entirely on perception and not at all on statistical evidence, and it's complete ********.

Statistics can lie to you when you pick your spots like LeBron does and run away from taking the big shot like LeBron does. Larry took the big shot with a smile on his face, LeBron tries to bulldoze through weaker defenders and get to the FT line and if the FT line isn't there he defers to a teammate whether he is a scrub role player or not. Of course his clutch stats are gonna look good when you pick your spots the way he does, and pass off the tough shots to a teammate the way he does (and don't gimme crap about "making the right play", passing to Bosh for a contested 3 ball is not the right play - LeBron's chickenshit late game passes are not always the right play).

I think Sly's point about guys looking at stats 30 years later is a great one. Why did everyone at the time who watched him with a microscope night in and night out recognize how truly great he was but guys who never watched him diminish his greatness like he didn't deserve it?

I was born in the late 80s so I never got a chance to see Larry, but I've read the books, I've watched the tapes, heard the interviews and I don't think one person who watched him play, played against him, coached him, or coached against him would have him outside their top 5.

Larry played against just as many great, HOF talent type players in his era and dominated them all, and was recognized as a top 1-3 player in the league year in and year out by all the experts who actually watched him play and trump the competition.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 03:14 PM
At the end of the day, I just do not understand how people can downplay the value of championships. Look at your Mavs. Dirk is one of the best players of all-time. He is a league MVP. One of the deadliest offensive players in NBA history! And he has one ring and it took a Herculean effort. Kobe has 5 rings. Do we even understand how hard it is to do that anymore? LeBron teamed with 2 of the top 20 players in the league and only got two!

I hate to be that guy, but Kobe has exactly the same number of rings as Derek Fisher does. I'm not trying to say that Fisher had the same impact on those championship teams that Kobe did, but that kind of makes my point for me. Kobe has as many rings as an unquestioned No. 1 player as Lebron does: 2. If Lebron had ever played on a team where he was the No. 2 guy, he'd probably have a hell of a lot more rings.

The reason rings are overvalued is because one player does not win a ring. Even championship teams like the 94 Rockets and 03 Spurs that had essentially only one superstar did not have win those rings solely because of a single player's performance. Hell, look at Lebron's stats in this postseason. They're unbelievable. Kobe never once had a postseason that statistically dominant or efficient. But he has five more rings in postseasons where he did not come remotely close to Lebron's performance in these playoffs. Yet at face value you would easily argue that those five postseasons were clearly more successful than this postseason was for Lebron. Does that seem fair to you?

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 03:14 PM
You ask if LeBron will surpass Kobe in accolades in 7 years and that is a pretty damn easy answer. But isnt the fact that you asked the question at all proof that Kobe has a better career resume?

No, it's not. Because who has the most overall accolades should not be the sole barometer by which we judge players. Answer this question for me, KoB: If accolades matter the most when judging two players' career resumes, why is Jordan always ranked higher than Kareem? They have the same number of rings and Kareem crushes Jordan in nearly every single other relevant category. More career points, rebounds, assists and blocks. More MVPs, All-NBA teams, All-NBA defensive teams and All-Star games.

If you're telling me that Kobe has a better career resume than Lebron because he has more accolades and more career accomplishments, than you've got to be consistent and say the same thing for Kareem over Jordan.

The ultimate accolade is a championship ring and MJ was the unquestioned MVP of 6 title teams. That is his significant edge. The fact that for a decade he was simultanousely the best scorer in the world and an all-nba defensive 1st teamer and dpoy dont hurt either.

Bruno
07-08-2014, 03:15 PM
I hate to be that guy, but Kobe has exactly the same number of rings as Derek Fisher does. I'm not trying to say that Fisher had the same impact on those championship teams that Kobe did, but that kind of makes my point for me. Kobe has as many rings as an unquestioned No. 1 player as Lebron does: 2. If Lebron had ever played on a team where he was the No. 2 guy, he'd probably have a hell of a lot more rings.


Irrelevant hypothetical. lets judge them on what has happened.

D-Leethal
07-08-2014, 03:16 PM
LeBron is not some clutch monster because he runs away from the tough game winners and gives them to his fourth option.

Bruno
07-08-2014, 03:17 PM
lets be honest here... 3-4 guys have fine arguments at this point in the rankings. there are no atrocities from now until the end of the top 11.

i don't even know what to do here.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 03:19 PM
Sorry that excuse does not hold water. MJ was and should have been MVP most seasons but if Hakeem was so great he would have been voted #2 or #3 most years. Instead people that actually watched the games as they happened voted him this way. I see only two top 2 finishes in MVP voting. Apparently the people voting at the time did not think he only trailed MJ.

Hakeem MVP Award Shares
1984-85 NBA 0.015 (12)
1985-86 NBA 0.247 (4)
1986-87 NBA 0.037 (7)
1987-88 NBA 0.050 (7)
1988-89 NBA 0.211 (5)
1989-90 NBA 0.070 (7)
1990-91 NBA 0.004 (18)
1992-93 NBA 0.660 (2)
1993-94 NBA 0.880 (1)
1994-95 NBA 0.140 (5)
1995-96 NBA 0.211 (4)
1996-97 NBA 0.083 (7)
1998-99 NBA 0.003 (13)
Career 2.611 (17)

MVP voting is a ****** barometer to judge players and you should know better. If a player wins multiple MVPs and dominates the league for an extended period of time, that's one thing. That's what separates the Jordans, the Kareems and the Lebrons from the rest. But freaking Steve Nash has two MVPs. Wes Unseld has a freaking MVP! You're basing your argument on the subjective voting of a group of people who base their votes every year on completely different criteria. That's insane.

If you want to argue for Bird over Hakeem, that's fine. But find a better criteria than this, because it's just really weak. There are other barometers you could use that would be a hell of a lot better than this.

Also, you keep completely ignoring the defensive side of the ball. At what point does that get taken into consideration? Hakeem was a 2x DPOY and pretty unanimously considered to be one of the three or four greatest defensive players in NBA history. Bird does not belong in the same breath as Hakeem on that side of the ball.

Bruno
07-08-2014, 03:19 PM
How is Lebron not dominating the vote here? Who left has four MVPs in a four year span and is top five in career WS/48 and PER? One guy. Lebron James. I would have put him 4th or 5th, and if he doesn't make the top 7, PSD's hatred of this guy is inevitably starting to show. I'm a huge Hakeem Olajuwon fan. Like the guy was my childhood idol and I absolutely adored him. I would not rank him as a better basketball player than Lebron James, and I certainly wouldn't rank Bird or Kobe over him.

okay, so Nash> Shaq?

Horry>Duncan.

same thing MBT.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 03:19 PM
At the end of the day, I just do not understand how people can downplay the value of championships. Look at your Mavs. Dirk is one of the best players of all-time. He is a league MVP. One of the deadliest offensive players in NBA history! And he has one ring and it took a Herculean effort. Kobe has 5 rings. Do we even understand how hard it is to do that anymore? LeBron teamed with 2 of the top 20 players in the league and only got two!

I thought Dirk played rather pedestrian actually, he was just fortunate enough to have the perfect ensemble cast to overcome that. He was still great for sure, I just feel like I've seen better from Dirk in defeat.

Bron only getting 2 vs Kobe's 5 is more reflective of the talent alongside them. Bron winning 2 in 4 years is pretty good, its not like he had multiple championship casts alongside him ala Bird. Bird has disappeared too often to be deemed untouchable IMO.

It was Terry who shocked the world during that run but Dirk was still the man. And the fact that legendary players like Barkley, Malone, Ewing, etc. couldnt even get ONE just reinforces the point of how hard it is.

Kobe could easily only have 3-4. Its not like he cruised to all of those rings. Just as easily it could be argued LeBron could have more. The difference there makes all the difference. How is his first-year with Bosh and Wade not a championship cast?

Bruno
07-08-2014, 03:20 PM
MBT, you're only wrong because you're so certain. your arguments are generally decent.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 03:23 PM
The fact that for a decade he was simultanousely the best scorer in the world and an all-nba defensive 1st teamer and dpoy dont hurt either.
lol... You realize that sentence essentially describes Kareem as well, right? In the 70s, Kareem was in the top two in points scored seven of the 10 years and made an All-Defensive team eight of the 10 years.

GREATNESS ONE
07-08-2014, 03:24 PM
Pffft.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 03:25 PM
At the end of the day, I just do not understand how people can downplay the value of championships. Look at your Mavs. Dirk is one of the best players of all-time. He is a league MVP. One of the deadliest offensive players in NBA history! And he has one ring and it took a Herculean effort. Kobe has 5 rings. Do we even understand how hard it is to do that anymore? LeBron teamed with 2 of the top 20 players in the league and only got two!

I hate to be that guy, but Kobe has exactly the same number of rings as Derek Fisher does. I'm not trying to say that Fisher had the same impact on those championship teams that Kobe did, but that kind of makes my point for me. Kobe has as many rings as an unquestioned No. 1 player as Lebron does: 2. If Lebron had ever played on a team where he was the No. 2 guy, he'd probably have a hell of a lot more rings.

The reason rings are overvalued is because one player does not win a ring. Even championship teams like the 94 Rockets and 03 Spurs that had essentially only one superstar did not have win those rings solely because of a single player's performance. Hell, look at Lebron's stats in this postseason. They're unbelievable. Kobe never once had a postseason that statistically dominant or efficient. But he has five more rings in postseasons where he did not come remotely close to Lebron's performance in these playoffs. Yet at face value you would easily argue that those five postseasons were clearly more successful than this postseason was for Lebron. Does that seem fair to you?

You are that guy. Its okay I am used to it. :)

The problem that I have is your hypothetical of LeBron as a #2 is strictly imaginary. Do I think LeBron would have more titles if his first few seasons rookie seasons were with Shaq? Probably but I cant prove it and he never did it. Also, am I sure he would have won 2 titles with Gasol? Probably but again its not a guarantee. I cant use hypothetical situations to create an arbitrary ranking.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 03:28 PM
MVP voting is a ****** barometer to judge players and you should know better. If a player wins multiple MVPs and dominates the league for an extended period of time, that's one thing. That's what separates the Jordans, the Kareems and the Lebrons from the rest. But freaking Steve Nash has two MVPs. Wes Unseld has a freaking MVP! You're basing your argument on the subjective voting of a group of people who base their votes every year on completely different criteria. That's insane.

If you want to argue for Bird over Hakeem, that's fine. But find a better criteria than this, because it's just really weak. There are other barometers you could use that would be a hell of a lot better than this.

Also, you keep completely ignoring the defensive side of the ball. At what point does that get taken into consideration? Hakeem was a 2x DPOY and pretty unanimously considered to be one of the three or four greatest defensive players in NBA history. Bird does not belong in the same breath as Hakeem on that side of the ball.

Bird did win multiple MVP and was a dominant player. Hakeem did not win multiple MVPs.

Looking at what people felt about players at that time is much more sane than looking back at stats 30 years later.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 03:30 PM
okay, so Nash> Shaq?

Horry>Duncan.

same thing MBT.

But you're COMPLETELY missing the second part of that criteria I just mentioned, dude. It's not just that he has four MVPs in a five-year stretch, showing he completely dominated his era of basketball. It's that he did that AND his advanced stats show he was one of the most statistically dominant players across any era in the history of the game.

Chris Paul, for example, is a top five player in terms of career WS/48. Zero MVPs. That's not necessarily fair, as he was clearly better than other PGs who have won the MVP in recent years (mainly Rose and Nash), but it proves he didn't dominate his era like Lebron did. The same could be said for David Robinson. On the flip side, Nash won two MVPs, but he isn't top 50 in career WS/48 or career PER. Unseld won an MVP, but he's not even top 100 in either category.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 03:32 PM
I cant use hypothetical situations to create an arbitrary ranking.
No, but apparently you can use the success of teams made up of 12 players to justify the rankings of a single player. ;)

Ebbs
07-08-2014, 03:35 PM
Correction... The FIRST title came during Jordan's hiatus. I hate that people always conveniently gloss over the fact that Jordan came back and played a good chunk of that second season before the playoffs. Sure, he might have been rusty, but the Rockets still crushed the team that beat Jordan's Bulls in the conference finals.

I've probably said this a million times, but my biggest regret as a sports fan was that Hakeem's Rockets never met Jordan's Bulls in the Finals. I think Olajuwon and Houston would have given Chicago the toughest challenge of any Finals series those Bulls teams ever faced, and there's a good chance Houston would have won. It's unfortunate that the 97 Rockets underachieved by losing the conference finals to Utah, because I think that team could have knocked Jordan off his pedestal.


At the end of the day, I just do not understand how people can downplay the value of championships. Look at your Mavs. Dirk is one of the best players of all-time. He is a league MVP. One of the deadliest offensive players in NBA history! And he has one ring and it took a Herculean effort. Kobe has 5 rings. Do we even understand how hard it is to do that anymore? LeBron teamed with 2 of the top 20 players in the league and only got two!

We won't agree because I value Shaq far more than you do. I think Kobe-Shaq Lakers underachieved. Forget LeBron Heat.

I also could argue Pau was more helpful to Kobe over their three Finals runs than Wade was to LBJ over their four.


LeBron is not some clutch monster because he runs away from the tough game winners and gives them to his fourth option.

WHat are you even talking about?

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 03:37 PM
MBT, you're only wrong because you're so certain. your arguments are generally decent.

I'm not saying there's a right or a wrong answer to any of these threads. As I said earlier, if I tried hard enough I could make an argument for a guy like Shaq as high as No. 2 or as low as 12-15. It's all subjective, and for each person, it just matters what criteria you use to judge each player. But I just think we should be consistent with this stuff. Some of the same people who give Lebron crap for moving teams and being 2-3 in the Finals are some of the same people who praised Wilt despite his playing for multiple teams and his 2-4 Finals record. And the same people using peak dominance over career accomplishments to justify MJ over Kareem are the same people doing the exact opposite to justify Kobe over Bird or Lebron.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions on this stuff as I'm entitled to mine. But if you're going to use criteria to judge players, don't be a hypocrite and take an opposite stance on players 5-6 rankings down the line.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 03:38 PM
But you're COMPLETELY missing the second part of that criteria I just mentioned, dude. It's not just that he has four MVPs in a five-year stretch, showing he completely dominated his era of basketball. It's that he did that AND his advanced stats show he was one of the most statistically dominant players across any era in the history of the game.

Chris Paul, for example, is a top five player in terms of career WS/48. Zero MVPs. That's not necessarily fair, as he was clearly better than other PGs who have won the MVP in recent years (mainly Rose and Nash), but it proves he didn't dominate his era like Lebron did. The same could be said for David Robinson. On the flip side, Nash won two MVPs, but he isn't top 50 in career WS/48 or career PER. Unseld won an MVP, but he's not even top 100 in either category.

Nash won two MVPs when he was one of the best players in the league. Was he the absolute best in both years? Probably not but for those two years he was up near the top for sure. The rest of his MVP voting in his career is much more average because those were 2 career type years.

Wes Unseld won MVP once. and had bad showings every other year. That is another red herring.

Larry Bird won MVP 3 times and was top 2 almost every year.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 03:47 PM
Nash won two MVPs when he was one of the best players in the league. Was he the absolute best in both years? Probably not but for those two years he was up near the top for sure. The rest of his MVP voting in his career is much more average because those were 2 career type years.

Wes Unseld won MVP once. and had bad showings every other year. That is another red herring.

Larry Bird won MVP 3 times and was top 2 almost every year.

Nash was never remotely close to being the best player in the league at any given point in his career. In fact, he only cracked top 5 in WS and WS/48 once in his entire career and it was the year AFTER he received his second MVP. He was only top 10 in PER once ever. I love Nash, and I generally rank him higher than most in top PG discussions. But he did not deserve the two MVPs he received.

In 04-05, it should have gone to KG, Dirk or Duncan, and it most definitely should have gone to Dirk in 05-06.

GREATNESS ONE
07-08-2014, 03:53 PM
:laugh:

Ok now I'm done with this thread for good.

Bruno
07-08-2014, 03:56 PM
But you're COMPLETELY missing the second part of that criteria I just mentioned, dude. It's not just that he has four MVPs in a five-year stretch, showing he completely dominated his era of basketball. It's that he did that AND his advanced stats show he was one of the most statistically dominant players across any era in the history of the game.

Chris Paul, for example, is a top five player in terms of career WS/48. Zero MVPs. That's not necessarily fair, as he was clearly better than other PGs who have won the MVP in recent years (mainly Rose and Nash), but it proves he didn't dominate his era like Lebron did. The same could be said for David Robinson. On the flip side, Nash won two MVPs, but he isn't top 50 in career WS/48 or career PER. Unseld won an MVP, but he's not even top 100 in either category.

I missed that intentionally MBT, thats why I didn't bolden it. i take issue with people preaching about regular season MVPs.

i bolded the part of your post I took issue with. as you've mentioned the the numbers speak for themselves, thats why I didn't address that part of the post.

Bruno
07-08-2014, 03:58 PM
I'm not saying there's a right or a wrong answer to any of these threads. As I said earlier, if I tried hard enough I could make an argument for a guy like Shaq as high as No. 2 or as low as 12-15. It's all subjective, and for each person, it just matters what criteria you use to judge each player. But I just think we should be consistent with this stuff. Some of the same people who give Lebron crap for moving teams and being 2-3 in the Finals are some of the same people who praised Wilt despite his playing for multiple teams and his 2-4 Finals record. And the same people using peak dominance over career accomplishments to justify MJ over Kareem are the same people doing the exact opposite to justify Kobe over Bird or Lebron.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions on this stuff as I'm entitled to mine. But if you're going to use criteria to judge players, don't be a hypocrite and take an opposite stance on players 5-6 rankings down the line.

fair enough. reading through your stuff in this thread you seemed quite certain.

i also agree we should all try our best to not by hypocritical in our analysis. we all have players we personally don't like, the challenge is to rank them fairly.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 04:02 PM
:laugh:

Ok now I'm done with this thread for good.

LOL me too. If posters think Larry Bird was the 8th, 9th, 10th, or 12th best player more power to them.

I have a hard time believing many of them actually watched him in his prime though no matter what they say. :)

D-Leethal
07-08-2014, 04:05 PM
Nash was never remotely close to being the best player in the league at any given point in his career. In fact, he only cracked top 5 in WS and WS/48 once in his entire career and it was the year AFTER he received his second MVP. He was only top 10 in PER once ever. I love Nash, and I generally rank him higher than most in top PG discussions. But he did not deserve the two MVPs he received.

In 04-05, it should have gone to KG, Dirk or Duncan, and it most definitely should have gone to Dirk in 05-06.

If your going to point to a flawed, unproven, infant math formula derived from someone who never stepped on a basketball court to make a point lets just agree to disagree.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 04:10 PM
fair enough. reading through your stuff in this thread you seemed quite certain.
If I seem adamant, it's because I believe what I'm saying to be true. I'm not going to sugar coat things and defend both sides of an argument. Did you ever have to write persuasive essays in high school or college arguing one side of a particular issue? I did. I got A's on those papers, because I argued that one side like a mother****er and did whatever I could to dispute the other side of the topic. It's the same logic here. Just fewer grades and more Basketball Reference.


i also agree we should all try our best to not by hypocritical in our analysis. we all have players we personally don't like, the challenge is to rank them fairly.
Agreed. I freaking love Hakeem Olajuwon. I've always disliked Tim Duncan. In an all-time discussion, I'd put Duncan ahead of Hakeem. If we're talking "Who would you rather have on your team?" type discussions, I'd still pick Hakeem (and have), but I'm not so much of a homer that I can't still recognize when a a player I dislike has had a greater overall career than a player I love.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 04:21 PM
If your going to point to a flawed, unproven, infant math formula derived from someone who never stepped on a basketball court to make a point lets just agree to disagree.
I'm pretty sure win shares was adapted from Bill James' baseball formula by Basketball Reference founder Justin Kubatko. Kubatko worked for several years as a consultant for the Portland Trailblazers. So in fact, he has probably spent far, far more time on an NBA basketball court than you or I ever will. :shrug:

akia83
07-08-2014, 04:22 PM
I'm done with those rankings too.

Lebron and Bird are underated as hell. Hakeem wasn't even better than David Robinson, it's not a bad thing since DRob was a beast. Everybody remember one single serie, whereas D-Rob dominated Hakeem his entire career. I mean, it was just regular season, but if Hakeem shot 44% in his career against D-Rob (42 games and 30W for the spurs), it's not because he was waiting for the playoffs, he was just dominated.

DRob is 30-12 against Hakeem, it's just the regular season but it means more in a career than 6 playoff games on a given year. The Spurs supporting cast was bad as hell too, when DRob got hurt, the Spurs went from 60W to 60L to get Duncan.

I know in every of your mind Hakeem>Robinson, I strongly disagree, he was just more fun to watch imo, but still a top 15 player ever anyway, just not 7. Give me Bird, Lebron, Moses, Big O, Kobe, D-Rob and Baylor before him.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 04:31 PM
Correction... The FIRST title came during Jordan's hiatus. I hate that people always conveniently gloss over the fact that Jordan came back and played a good chunk of that second season before the playoffs. Sure, he might have been rusty, but the Rockets still crushed the team that beat Jordan's Bulls in the conference finals.

I've probably said this a million times, but my biggest regret as a sports fan was that Hakeem's Rockets never met Jordan's Bulls in the Finals. I think Olajuwon and Houston would have given Chicago the toughest challenge of any Finals series those Bulls teams ever faced, and there's a good chance Houston would have won. It's unfortunate that the 97 Rockets underachieved by losing the conference finals to Utah, because I think that team could have knocked Jordan off his pedestal.


At the end of the day, I just do not understand how people can downplay the value of championships. Look at your Mavs. Dirk is one of the best players of all-time. He is a league MVP. One of the deadliest offensive players in NBA history! And he has one ring and it took a Herculean effort. Kobe has 5 rings. Do we even understand how hard it is to do that anymore? LeBron teamed with 2 of the top 20 players in the league and only got two!

We won't agree because I value Shaq far more than you do. I think Kobe-Shaq Lakers underachieved. Forget LeBron Heat.

I also could argue Pau was more helpful to Kobe over their three Finals runs than Wade was to LBJ over their four.

But if the Lakers underachieved wouldnt that hurt Shaq's legacy?

Also, even if I concede Pau was more helpful (which I dont), would you even dare to speculate that he was more helpful than Wade AND Bosh?

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 04:33 PM
I cant use hypothetical situations to create an arbitrary ranking.
No, but apparently you can use the success of teams made up of 12 players to justify the rankings of a single player. ;)

:)

Are those really the same thing though? The success of the teams is real, the hypotheticals are theory.

SLY WILLIAMS
07-08-2014, 04:40 PM
I'm pretty sure win shares was adapted from Bill James' baseball formula by Basketball Reference founder Justin Kubatko. Kubatko worked for several years as a consultant for the Portland Trailblazers. So in fact, he has probably spent far, far more time on an NBA basketball court than you or I ever will. :shrug:

There are major reasons we do not replace NBA GMs who use their eyes and knowledge of the game with accountants who can crunch stats.

Who has more win shares per 48?

David Robinson or Magic? Shaq? Hakeem?
Chris Paul or Kareem? Duncan? Bird?
Ed Mcauley or Bill Russell?

I see Hakeem is ranked #43 all time in win shares per 48. Is it possible some stats are not the be all tell all?

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 05:05 PM
There are major reasons we do not replace NBA GMs who use their eyes and knowledge of the game with accountants who can crunch stats.

Who has more win shares per 48?

David Robinson or Magic? Shaq? Hakeem?
Chris Paul or Kareem? Duncan? Bird?
Ed Mcauley or Bill Russell?

I see Hakeem is ranked #43 all time in win shares per 48. Is it possible some stats are not the be all tell all?

Who is saying they are? They can certainly be used as part of an argument though. Also do you think providing examples of stats showing misleading comparisons proves they are completely invalid?

laker4eva
07-08-2014, 05:13 PM
My top 10
jordan
kareem
russell
wilt
magic
kobe
bird
duncan
hakeem
oscar

too many kobe haters here -__-

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 05:15 PM
There are major reasons we do not replace NBA GMs who use their eyes and knowledge of the game with accountants who can crunch stats.

Re-read this post and I can't ignore this statement. This notion that the stat crunching is still taking a backseat is just not a reality anymore... http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/how-geeks-took-over-the-nba-20131220

YAALREADYKNO
07-08-2014, 05:16 PM
how is lebron ahead of kobe?

*Silver&Black*
07-08-2014, 05:17 PM
What is this? Bird should be top 5, no less 7, and lol at Lebron having the same amount of votes right now.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 05:26 PM
What is this? Bird should be top 5, no less 7, and lol at Lebron having the same amount of votes right now.

Tough to dispute this statement... you know, because you didn't actually make an argument. :)

jerellh528
07-08-2014, 05:30 PM
Tough to dispute this statement... you know, because you didn't actually make an argument. :)

There's no such thing as argument on psd. I've never once witnessed a poster change their mind after a post. It's usually a just a display of whatever stat puts your guy in the best light, then done.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 05:30 PM
There are major reasons we do not replace NBA GMs who use their eyes and knowledge of the game with accountants who can crunch stats.

Who has more win shares per 48?

David Robinson or Magic? Shaq? Hakeem?
Chris Paul or Kareem? Duncan? Bird?
Ed Mcauley or Bill Russell?

I see Hakeem is ranked #43 all time in win shares per 48. Is it possible some stats are not the be all tell all?

There is no perfect stat, dude. None. If you used solely points per game, Iverson would be a top 10 player. If you used PER, Paul would be in the top 10. If you used TS%, Cedric Maxwell is the greatest player of all time. And if you used rings, Robert Horry is a top 10 guy.

I never once said WS was perfect or that it should be the sole criteria by which we judge players. It's a good way to get a quick sense of a player's peak and how well a player performed throughout his career, but it's got flaws just like any other stat. But that's why you use context with any statistic. I know that Tyson Chandler boasts a freakishly high TS% and WS, but I know that it's because Chandler doesn't take bad shots, only takes attempts within a few feet and is a relatively productive, efficient player otherwise. Is Tyson Chandler a better player than prime Willis Reed, Tracy McGrady and Ray Allen? No. And if you use WS/48 as a sold barometer to judge players, you're a complete idiot.

You use basic stats, advanced stats, individual accolades, postseason production, team success, team failures, supporting casts, peaks, primes, career numbers, injuries, etc. etc. etc. ALL of that has to be a part of the discussion when considering players in an all-time debate. This **** is pretty common sense...

todu82
07-08-2014, 05:30 PM
Bill Russell.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 05:32 PM
My top 10
jordan
kareem
russell
wilt
magic
kobe
bird
duncan
hakeem
oscar

too many kobe haters here -__-

No Shaq or Lebron? Seems legit...

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 05:33 PM
What is this? Bird should be top 5, no less 7, and lol at Lebron having the same amount of votes right now.
Great post. I love it when people come in, make a vague generalization about the number of votes in the poll without any logic or argument whatsoever. It really adds a lot of value to these discussions.

KnicksorBust
07-08-2014, 05:38 PM
Great post. I love it when people come in, make a vague generalization about the number of votes in the poll without any logic or argument whatsoever. It really adds a lot of value to these discussions.

:laugh: You always sound so salty. It's hysterical.

How would you rank Kobe/Bird/LeBron/Hakeem?

FlashBolt
07-08-2014, 06:02 PM
Compare LeBron's first 11 years with everything he has done vs Larry Bird's first 11 years. You have to be pretty convincing to tell me Bird has done more. He really hasn't done much compared to Bron. Bird only has around 11 seasons out of his 13 seasons since he barely played for two seasons. Bird gets destroyed in every advanced statistic that matters and he doesn't have enough rings, MVP's, and other accolades to argue against LeBron. At least with Hakeem and Kobe, you can mention that they have longevity and with Kobe having more rings, that's certainly a valid argument. With Bird, I really don't see a valid argument other than you being a LeBron-hater and just want to babble. Bird played with McHale, Parish, and Cedric Maxwell with a great supporting cast for a very good portion of his career. LeBron never had that luxury from the get-go early on. Not to mention the level of difficulty in that era compared to this. Bird never played with the athleticism and run and gun style of today's basketball. The style he played greatly fit him as I imagine he would have a lot of trouble chasing the likes of LeBron James and guarding Carmelo Anthony as well. So with that being said, what can you really say about Bird? He created a magical rivalry with Magic but that was probably NBA's attempt to generate some sort of buzz around their sport. NBA wasn't even at it's peak at that point in terms of talent and popularity.

For me, Bird is 10 just right behind LeBron. Funny how some people don't even have Shaq on the list... I mean, really?

Bruno
07-08-2014, 06:03 PM
If I seem adamant, it's because I believe what I'm saying to be true. I'm not going to sugar coat things and defend both sides of an argument. Did you ever have to write persuasive essays in high school or college arguing one side of a particular issue? I did. I got A's on those papers, because I argued that one side like a mother****er and did whatever I could to dispute the other side of the topic. It's the same logic here. Just fewer grades and more Basketball Reference.
the best/worst part of those classes was when you got assigned to defend a view point you were personally against.



Agreed. I freaking love Hakeem Olajuwon. I've always disliked Tim Duncan. In an all-time discussion, I'd put Duncan ahead of Hakeem. If we're talking "Who would you rather have on your team?" type discussions, I'd still pick Hakeem (and have), but I'm not so much of a homer that I can't still recognize when a a player I dislike has had a greater overall career than a player I love.

the funny thing about that being how extremely close Hakeem and Duncan are. in a world without advanced stats, I'm taking Hakeem over Duncan (maybe). Duncan still has the championships, but in a world where I'm okay with putting Bill Russell closer to 10, I can't weight too heavily on that. without advanced numbers showing me that Duncan had a noticeably bigger statistical impact, I'd never know otherwise, based off the eye test.

Hakeems game is more beautiful, more spectacular. you'll hate this but Kobe and Hakeem are practically career twins, just at different positions. beautiful moves, master students, athletic, not quite as statistically dominant as their biggest fans think, two finals MVPs, one MVP, both lived in Jordans shadow in their own way for their own reasons.

Bruno
07-08-2014, 06:06 PM
kobe or hakeem, somebody convince me. i can't decide.

*Silver&Black*
07-08-2014, 06:06 PM
Great post. I love it when people come in, make a vague generalization about the number of votes in the poll without any logic or argument whatsoever. It really adds a lot of value to these discussions.

No problemo. You voted Hakeem right?

tredigs
07-08-2014, 06:19 PM
Re-read this post and I can't ignore this statement. This notion that the stat crunching is still taking a backseat is just not a reality anymore... http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/how-geeks-took-over-the-nba-20131220

... Who use no stats that have been brought up in these discussions, and beyond that they are not privy to the actual premier stats on the NBA.

Greedy22
07-08-2014, 06:27 PM
Bryant

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 06:40 PM
:laugh: You always sound so salty. It's hysterical.
That's really just my sense of humor. I'm a very dry and sarcastic person sometimes. My fiancee is the same way, so we're just constantly being sarcastic dicks to one another. It's awesome.


How would you rank Kobe/Bird/LeBron/Hakeem?
Lebron James
Hakeem Olajuwon
Larry Bird
Kobe Bryant

I'm going with Lebron first, because his peak and individual accomplishments are just greater than the other three guys. Hakeem's a relatively close second because of this defensive dominance and because of my obvious man crush on him. I take Bird third with a slight edge over Kobe because Bird had the greater peak and was more dominant within his own era than Kobe was in his.

I think Lebron is probably getting to the point where he's on another tier than the other three guys, but it's insanely close between Dream, Bird and Kobe. I go back and forth on the Bird vs. Kobe debate, but lately I've really been putting more emphasis on peak performance than other criteria, and I have a hard time picking Kobe over Bird because of that.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 06:41 PM
No problemo. You voted Hakeem right?

Nope. I voted for Lebron.

*Silver&Black*
07-08-2014, 06:58 PM
Nope. I voted for Lebron.

I would have voted Hakeem over Lebron.

Iggz53
07-08-2014, 07:19 PM
Bill Russell, for the 3rd straight time

Shlumpledink
07-08-2014, 07:37 PM
I'm still voting for the 2nd best player of all time, it has just taken 5 tries for the majority to get it right

*Silver&Black*
07-08-2014, 07:44 PM
I'm still voting for the 2nd best player of all time, it has just taken 5 tries for the majority to get it right

Bill Russell?

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 07:45 PM
I'm still voting for the 2nd best player of all time, it has just taken 5 tries for the majority to get it right

I love Hakeem Olajuwon more than any other athlete in the history of professional sports and even I think that's insane. He's not the second greatest player of all time.

amos1er
07-08-2014, 09:00 PM
I love Hakeem Olajuwon more than any other athlete in the history of professional sports and even I think that's insane. He's not the second greatest player of all time.

Edit.

FlashBolt
07-08-2014, 09:03 PM
Wow bro you are craaaazy to think Lebron should even receive one vote here let alone even be mentioned in the top ten of all-time at this moment. Your agenda is very clear here and it's obvious to everyone who reads your ****. There is much more to all-time greatness than just simply regular season MVP awards and PER. Give me a break LMAO. What are we debating here... Fantasy league greatness or real life greatness.

Not top 10? Lol. The reason you don't like using numbers when speaking of LeBron is because you don't have an argument there. Then you rely on "superteam" and all that other nonsense. It doesn't matter how it happened or why it happened. The fact is, if given the same teammates as Jordan, Kobe, etc., Bron would still win. Please don't be like BostonJorge and claim that Bron is BEHIND Kevin Durant in 18th of All Time...

XpLiCiTT
07-08-2014, 09:09 PM
Wow bro you are craaaazy to think Lebron should even receive one vote here let alone even be mentioned in the top ten of all-time at this moment. Your agenda is very clear here and it's obvious to everyone who reads your ****. There is much more to all-time greatness than just simply regular season MVP awards and PER. Give me a break LMAO. What are we debating here... Fantasy league greatness or real life greatness.

Did LeBron sleep with your wife? Jesus christ.

bucketss
07-08-2014, 09:35 PM
Wow bro you are craaaazy to think Lebron should even receive one vote here let alone even be mentioned in the top ten of all-time at this moment. Your agenda is very clear here and it's obvious to everyone who reads your ****. There is much more to all-time greatness than just simply regular season MVP awards and PER. Give me a break LMAO. What are we debating here... Fantasy league greatness or real life greatness.


still in denial i see.

bucketss
07-08-2014, 09:39 PM
Not top 10? Lol. The reason you don't like using numbers when speaking of LeBron is because you don't have an argument there. Then you rely on "superteam" and all that other nonsense. It doesn't matter how it happened or why it happened. The fact is, if given the same teammates as Jordan, Kobe, etc., Bron would still win. Please don't be like BostonJorge and claim that Bron is BEHIND Kevin Durant in 18th of All Time...

he hates stats because when you look at his boy kobes stats, and rest of the top ten, it makes him look out of place :)

Pablonovi
07-08-2014, 09:42 PM
I don't get this "landslide" vote for Hakeem. He was the #1 Center in the NBA only 6 years - less than the just about every other candidate on the list. True he had a beautiful game; but he didn't even dominate his own position to an outstanding degree. Which means that he was NOT a dominant regular season player. And his Play-Off resume is not that great compared to the rest of the guys on the list either.

Pablonovi
07-08-2014, 09:48 PM
Hey ManRam,
It looks like you're leaving this poll open a lot longer than the earlier ones - kudos. These GOAT Top 10-20 spots are much more contentious and interesting - and, imo, deserve a good deal more than 48 hours for us to "debate out".

Purch
07-08-2014, 09:54 PM
Wait Bill Russell's still on the board??? How is that possible. I woulda changed my vote if I had realized it earlier

tredigs
07-08-2014, 10:31 PM
Wait Bill Russell's still on the board??? How is that possible. I woulda changed my vote if I had realized it earlier

Judging by the way votes seem to be placed at this point, I am pretty convinced Karl Malone has a good shot of going ahead of him. I actually gave up on Russell when I saw the vote was at "17 Hakeem: 0 Russell" and went with Bird as to not let him fall 4-5 spots below Magic to try to give some respect to this abortion of a list, but that's a wrap.

amos1er
07-08-2014, 10:31 PM
Not top 10? Lol. The reason you don't like using numbers when speaking of LeBron is because you don't have an argument there. Then you rely on "superteam" and all that other nonsense. It doesn't matter how it happened or why it happened. The fact is, if given the same teammates as Jordan, Kobe, etc., Bron would still win. Please don't be like BostonJorge and claim that Bron is BEHIND Kevin Durant in 18th of All Time...

So you attack the fact that I don't rely enough on subjective facts such as "numbers" in my own personal rankings, yet you use a hypothetical argument as a retort. I just have to Hahaha back at ya for that one.

Here is a hypothetical for you... Do you think that Jordan and Kobe would have lost in 2011 with that squad...

FlashBolt
07-08-2014, 11:04 PM
So you attack the fact that I don't rely enough on subjective facts such as "numbers" in my own personal rankings, yet you use a hypothetical argument as a retort. I just have to Hahaha back at ya for that one.

Here is a hypothetical for you... Do you think that Jordan and Kobe would have lost in 2011 with that squad...

You don't rely on facts. You rely on namecalling, superhero justice league type nonsense to support your abomination towards LeBron. And though hypothetical, Pippen/Rodman and prime Shaq are by far better than Wade/Bosh and they support LeBron better than Wade/Bosh. Bryant and Jordan's primary purpose was to score while James primary purpose is to do everything since he is their best scorer, rebounder, defender, and passer. No one in NBA history has had to carry all that. Do I think Jordan and Kobe would have lost in 2011? Jordan, no. Kobe, yes. And it's hard to believe Wade-Jordan and Kobe-Wade would co-exist considering their egos. James doesn't have that same ego that Jordan/Kobe have so the transition would be much more difficult. Like I said countless times, James losing in 2011 was his worst he could have done. Other than that, name one circumstance in which he truly failed his team?

bucketss
07-08-2014, 11:06 PM
amos1er trying to impose his cuckold fantasies on other people? loool :D


anyways.



i voted bird, didn't even know russel was still on the board.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 11:31 PM
Wow bro you are craaaazy to think Lebron should even receive one vote here let alone even be mentioned in the top ten of all-time at this moment. Your agenda is very clear here and it's obvious to everyone who reads your ****. There is much more to all-time greatness than just simply regular season MVP awards and PER. Give me a break LMAO. What are we debating here... Fantasy league greatness or real life greatness.

I don't recall the last time I ever saw you do any research of your own. You just pick and chose the arguments from other people that you personally don't understand and try to diminish the value of those arguments. How about growing a brain and formulating an opinion of your own that you didn't steal from your Kobe fan club website? You know the site I'm talking about. It's on that tab in the right corner of your screen next to the bookmarked photo of Kobe with his shirt off that you've O-faced to so often that you get an erection every time you watch a Lakers game. That site.

amos1er
07-08-2014, 11:43 PM
he hates stats because when you look at his boy kobes stats, and rest of the top ten, it makes him look out of place :)

No, whats really out of place is Lebron being 2-3 in the finals compared to the rest of the top ten.

mightybosstone
07-08-2014, 11:45 PM
No, whats really out of place is Lebron being 2-3 in the finals compared to the rest of the top ten.

Wilt was 2-4. Based on your logic, Lebron should actually be ranked ahead of him, right?

amos1er
07-08-2014, 11:52 PM
I don't recall the last time I ever saw you do any research of your own. You just pick and chose the arguments from other people that you personally don't understand and try to diminish the value of those arguments. How about growing a brain and formulating an opinion of your own that you didn't steal from your Kobe fan club website? You know the site I'm talking about. It's on that tab in the right corner of your screen next to the bookmarked photo of Kobe with his shirt off that you've O-faced to so often that you get an erection every time you watch a Lakers game. That site.

All my ***** original brah. I don't jack my **** from anywhere and I would be curious to see if you had any proof of these allegations of yours. As for the rest of your ad hominem rant, I just want to say this...

Harden is an overrated offensive player who is a complete zero on defense as well as being a complete choker in big moments.

Dwight Howard is a shell of what he once was and has the competitive spirit of a little girl... I believe Skip Bayless said it best when he told Dwight to his face that he looks like Tarzan and plays like Jane.

That's exactly why both him and Harden had a first round exit once again this year... They are both softer than the ***** I take in the morning after I have been drinking all night long.

As for Lebron... 2-3 in the finals... Nuff said. Kobe's legacy ****'s all over his and Harden and Howard are not nor will ever be fit to sniff his jockstrap.

Oh and just a nickels worth of free advise... Stop hatin... Just stop. We all see through ya.

bucketss
07-08-2014, 11:57 PM
Wilt was 2-4. Based on your logic, Lebron should actually be ranked ahead of him, right?

ouch. he can't deny it either, because i've seen his lists and he had wilt in the top 5.

amos1er
07-08-2014, 11:57 PM
Wilt was 2-4. Based on your logic, Lebron should actually be ranked ahead of him, right?

Wilt has a valid excuse for his playoff short comings... All those Celtic teams were waaay unfairly stacked compared to his teams. Lebron on the other hand was more like the Russell of his time being on all those stacked teams for the past four seasons... Only Russell wasn't near as bad a choke and a far better team leader. Not to mention Wilt was in an entire other solar system when it came to league domination than Lebron could ever dream. Wilt's dominance wasn't merely limited to a stat sheet like Lebron... Other players and teams feared and respected him in a way that Lebron or his worshipers couldn't ever fathom.

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 12:03 AM
All my ***** original brah. I don't jack my **** from anywhere and I would be curious to see if you had any proof of these allegations of yours. As for the rest of your ad hominem rant, I just want to say this...

Harden is an overrated offensive player who is a complete zero on defense as well as being a complete choker in big moments.

Dwight Howard is a shell of what he once was and has the competitive spirit of a little girl... I believe Skip Bayless said it best when he told Dwight to his face that he looks like Tarzan and plays like Jane.

That's exactly why both him and Harden had a first round exit once again this year... They are both softer than the ***** I take in the morning after I have been drinking all night long.

As for Lebron... 2-3 in the finals... Nuff said. Kobe's legacy ****'s all over his and Harden and Howard are not nor will ever be fit to sniff his jockstrap.

Oh and just a nickels worth of free advise... Stop hatin... Just stop. We all see through ya.

You're swinging pretty wildly there amos. You're like a boxer who's down by 10 points on every judges' card in the 12th round and hoping to get the knockout. It's not happening. You started your insult by suggesting I have some sort of "agenda" without realizing I'm a Rockets fan first and foremost and if I had any "agenda" I would realistically be looking to encourage votes for Hakeem, not Lebron.

Then you proceeded to bring up Lebron's Finals record, which is still better than Wilt, easily one of the greatest Lakers players of all time. (You of course then glossed over that comment for your final, nonsensical rant) Then when you realized you had no argument to begin with, you went completely off topic and started ripping on current Houston players, which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the current conversation.

You're just not very good at arguing basketball. Just do yourself a favor and stay out of big boy discussions like this one. Go back to the kiddie pool and find something new to rip on Lebron for in one of the free agent threads. Adults are talking here.

XpLiCiTT
07-09-2014, 12:04 AM
Wilt has a valid excuse for his playoff short comings... All those Celtic teams were waaay unfairly stacked compared to his teams.

Here is your repetitive and inaccurate "stacked teams" argument, one of the few and only arguments you ever have or resort to. Look at the Spurs team that beat LeBron in 2007, was that not stacked against LeBrons Cavs? But you are a hypocrite and hold that against him to a ridiculous level. Look at this past finals, this Spurs team was FAR superior to this Heat team you claim was "stacked" even though DWade was not a shell of what he was prior years and the rest of the roster is full of bench players. You won't ever acknowledge that though.

We have all admitted LeBrons shortcomings. It is known as the 2011 NBA Finals where he played a terrible series. You continuously and irrationally bash him with the same arguments over and over again without any legitimate facts to back it up.

bucketss
07-09-2014, 12:07 AM
Wilt has a valid excuse for his playoff short comings... All those Celtic teams were waaay unfairly stacked compared to his teams. Lebron on the other hand was more like the Russell of his time being on all those stacked teams for the past four seasons... Only Russell wasn't near as bad a choke and a far better team leader. Not to mention Wilt was in an entire other solar system when it came to league domination than Lebron could ever dream. Wilt's dominance wasn't merely limited to a stat sheet like Lebron... Other players and teams feared and respected him in a way that Lebron or his worshipers couldn't ever fathom.

lol, just curious, were you alive for wilts time.

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 12:11 AM
Wilt has a valid excuse for his playoff short comings... All those Celtic teams were waaay unfairly stacked compared to his teams. Lebron on the other hand was more like the Russell of his time being on all those stacked teams for the past four seasons... Only Russell wasn't near as bad a choke and a far better team leader. Not to mention Wilt was in an entire other solar system when it came to league domination than Lebron could ever dream. Wilt's dominance wasn't merely limited to a stat sheet like Lebron... Other players and teams feared and respected him in a way that Lebron or his worshipers couldn't ever fathom.

You're funny in the most pathetic way. You're that odd looking clown at the circus that nobody laughs at until you trip and fall and then everyone unintentionally chuckles. But we all feel a little bad afterward.

5ass
07-09-2014, 12:14 AM
lol amos1er and his "arguments"

bucketss
07-09-2014, 12:15 AM
his insecurities of kobe is kind sad but i guess we have to understand that kobe was probably a childhood hero to him.

tredigs
07-09-2014, 12:21 AM
Wilt has a valid excuse for his playoff short comings... All those Celtic teams were waaay unfairly stacked compared to his teams. Lebron on the other hand was more like the Russell of his time being on all those stacked teams for the past four seasons... Only Russell wasn't near as bad a choke and a far better team leader. Not to mention Wilt was in an entire other solar system when it came to league domination than Lebron could ever dream. Wilt's dominance wasn't merely limited to a stat sheet like Lebron... Other players and teams feared and respected him in a way that Lebron or his worshipers couldn't ever fathom.
Just not true.

Both the 76 and 78 Sixers had plenty of firepower to combat the Celtics and actually both had the best record in the league. Wilt did not move on in '78 and attempt a repeat in large part because he **** the bed in their game 7 against Russell's C's.

Then he teamed up with Baylor and Jerry West only to get to the Finals in '71 and lay one once again during their game 7 against the Knicks. He went 1 for A LOT from the stripe in that Finals game 7. #clutch.

amos1er
07-09-2014, 12:42 AM
You're swinging pretty wildly there amos. You're like a boxer who's down by 10 points on every judges' card in the 12th round and hoping to get the knockout. It's not happening. You started your insult by suggesting I have some sort of "agenda" without realizing I'm a Rockets fan first and foremost and if I had any "agenda" I would realistically be looking to encourage votes for Hakeem, not Lebron.

Don't know what score card your judging on, but might I remind you that you were the one taking desperation shots with your lame 6th grade ad hominem Kobe jokes to begin with. LMAO... Your not even capable of landing a punch. I am well aware of your allegiances/mancrush on Harden, but it's obvious that you are a Laker/Kobe hater. Perhaps even you yourself is in denial and are lying to yourself, but we can all see your obvious hatred.


Then you proceeded to bring up Lebron's Finals record, which is still better than Wilt, easily one of the greatest Lakers players of all time. (You of course then glossed over that comment for your final, nonsensical rant) Then when you realized you had no argument to begin with, you went completely off topic and started ripping on current Houston players, which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the current conversation.

I did it to prove a point at how childish you sounded when you said the following to me...


How about growing a brain and formulating an opinion of your own that you didn't steal from your Kobe fan club website? You know the site I'm talking about. It's on that tab in the right corner of your screen next to the bookmarked photo of Kobe with his shirt off that you've O-faced to so often that you get an erection every time you watch a Lakers game. That site.

So yes I did lower myself to your level, and yes my brain does hurt as a result. Point being is that I did it to show you just how lame it is when the person who is disagreeing with you has nothing pertinent and intellectual to add to the conversation and resorts to childlike behaviors. No surprise that you couldn't see through my both sarcastic, and ironic downplay of your meager witticisms.


You're just not very good at arguing basketball. Just do yourself a favor and stay out of big boy discussions like this one. Go back to the kiddie pool and find something new to rip on Lebron for in one of the free agent threads. Adults are talking here.

Lol. Is this all you can muster... More pathetic personal attacks on me to cope with the fact that Houston hasn't won **** in 20 years and has no hopes of doing so anytime in the near future with your current soft prima donna duo. LMAO... With all this supposed basketball knowledge you act like you have, you would think that you would have realized what a bust both Harden and Dwight are by now. Harden is a B rate at best offensive player who flops and is one of the worst perimeter defenders in the league. Dwight's glory days are far behind him and is more concerned with his lame Facebook posts and jokes than he is about winning a ring. Dude could have been Bill Russell and instead he is on the fast track to becoming Erick Dampier. a Have fun with that one brah.

amos1er
07-09-2014, 12:48 AM
Just not true.

Both the 76 and 78 Sixers had plenty of firepower to combat the Celtics and actually both had the best record in the league. Wilt did not move on in '78 and attempt a repeat in large part because he **** the bed in their game 7 against Russell's C's.

Then he teamed up with Baylor and Jerry West only to get to the Finals in '71 and lay one once again during their game 7 against the Knicks. He went 1 for A LOT from the stripe in that Finals game 7. #clutch.

Still wasn't nearly as bad as what happened to Lebron in 2011. Plus Wilt was far more dominant and I still maintain that the 60's Celtics were still tougher than anything Lebron ever faced. Respective to their own era's of course. Wilt was also on the best team of all-time next to Jordan's Bulls. Lebron had the potential to be the leader of one of the best teams of all-time, but failed in both the leadership and team impact department. To be 50% in the finals on teams that were clear favorites to win it all every single year is a ginormous failure... One the likes of which Wilt has never even come close to. Wilt's impact and dominance were far greater than the paper stats Lebron fans love to jerk off to. His impact was true, while Lebron's was only good for fantasy league and regular season glory.

Chronz
07-09-2014, 12:50 AM
People, of course we have to make hypothetical arguments here, we are comparing careers from different eras and circumstances. So plz don't rely on the cop out that we can't prove anything, I'd that's ur crutch then you shouldn't be voting

tredigs
07-09-2014, 01:04 AM
Still wasn't nearly as bad as what happened to Lebron in 2011. Plus Wilt was far more dominant and I still maintain that the 60's Celtics were still tougher than anything Lebron ever faced. Respective to their own era's of course. Wilt was also on the best team of all-time next to Jordan's Bulls. Lebron had the potential to be the leader of one of the best teams of all-time, but failed in both the leadership and team impact department. To be 50% in the finals on teams that were clear favorites to win it all every single year is a ginormous failure... One the likes of which Wilt has never even come close to. Wilt's impact and dominance were far greater than the paper stats Lebron fans love to jerk off to. His impact was true, while Lebron's was only good for fantasy league and regular season glory.
I don't care about your Lebron obsession right now. I was simply speaking to your comments on Wilt.

bucketss
07-09-2014, 01:09 AM
Still wasn't nearly as bad as what happened to Lebron in 2011. Plus Wilt was far more dominant and I still maintain that the 60's Celtics were still tougher than anything Lebron ever faced. Respective to their own era's of course. Wilt was also on the best team of all-time next to Jordan's Bulls. Lebron had the potential to be the leader of one of the best teams of all-time, but failed in both the leadership and team impact department. To be 50% in the finals on teams that were clear favorites to win it all every single year is a ginormous failure... One the likes of which Wilt has never even come close to. Wilt's impact and dominance were far greater than the paper stats Lebron fans love to jerk off to. His impact was true, while Lebron's was only good for fantasy league and regular season glory.

also good for two nba championships, but thats none of my business *SipsTea*

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-09-2014, 01:43 AM
Lebron with 16 votes, lmao!!!!! what a joke. The guy has lost as the favorite more than any top 10 player, 2-3 in finals series, 11-16 in finals game, out played by role players in finals series, and has 2 bronze medals. In what world does this make you top 7?


Kobe easily here.

XpLiCiTT
07-09-2014, 02:05 AM
Lebron with 16 votes, lmao!!!!! what a joke. The guy has lost as the favorite more than any top 10 player, 2-3 in finals series, 11-16 in finals game, out played by role players in finals series, and has 2 bronze medals. In what world does this make you top 7?


Kobe easily here.

I thought we went over this before. Aside from 2011 vs the Mavs, when did he lose as the favorite?

The first 3 letters of your username should be DEL and not ILL.

RocketLoc80
07-09-2014, 03:08 AM
Lol I come back in here and I see Kobe is ahead of Lebron in this poll now? I wouldn`t be suprised if amos1er,jerellah or Illisionist log on as other names for this to happen.

bucketss
07-09-2014, 03:16 AM
Lol I come back in here and I see Kobe is ahead of Lebron in this poll now? I wouldn`t be suprised if amos1er,jerellah or Illisionist log on as other names for this to happen.

amos1er just got banned for creating another account lol, so you're not wrong

didn't expect hakeem to have such a lead though

RocketLoc80
07-09-2014, 03:29 AM
amos1er just got banned for creating another account lol, so you're not wrong

didn't expect hakeem to have such a lead though

But I just hope Kobe doesn`t finish ahead of Bird or Lebron. Do you think Kobe finishes higher then them with the way things work around here and how there`s a bunch of dikkriders and ***** I wouldn`t surprise me to that that being how biased people are here

b@llhog24
07-09-2014, 04:47 AM
Glad to see Hakeem winning this poll. Although I'll never understand how people think that Magic is better than Shaq.

KnicksorBust
07-09-2014, 10:12 AM
People, of course we have to make hypothetical arguments here, we are comparing careers from different eras and circumstances. So plz don't rely on the cop out that we can't prove anything, I'd that's ur crutch then you shouldn't be voting

So I can say LeBron would have more rings than Kobe if he played with the Lakers so his career was better?

ManRam
07-09-2014, 10:19 AM
Really, I was mostly ready to argue against Russell for this go-around...and that hasn't had to happen. I'm stunned/happy how far he's falling. Only three votes?!?

Perhaps the LeBron/Kobe crowd being unable to not vote for their guy is the dooming factor here.

I went with Bird but my heart's not in it. I think LeBron has had a better career, even this early into it. Bird's didn't last too long. But I think Hakeem probably is the right pick. Either way, it's getting much tighter.


And please nominate guys that you want to see. Not enough people are. I just copied the options from the last time around which is not what I want to be doing.

jerellh528
07-09-2014, 10:32 AM
But I just hope Kobe doesn`t finish ahead of Bird or Lebron. Do you think Kobe finishes higher then them with the way things work around here and how there`s a bunch of dikkriders and ***** I wouldn`t surprise me to that that being how biased people are here

Look in the mirror.

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 10:37 AM
And please nominate guys that you want to see. Not enough people are. I just copied the options from the last time around which is not what I want to be doing.

Hell, some of the guys on the poll aren't anywhere close from being voted in. But if we're adding guys who should be in consideration for at least the top 20, the following names should be on the poll:
Julius Erving
John Havlicek
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
Scottie Pippen

The fact that Erving isn't on the list already, but KG, Mikan, Malone, Stockton and Baylor are, is quite disturbing. That's a top 15 all-time caliber player.

jerellh528
07-09-2014, 10:55 AM
People aren't nominating probably because there's no reason to at this point.

tredigs
07-09-2014, 11:23 AM
Really, I was mostly ready to argue against Russell for this go-around...and that hasn't had to happen. I'm stunned/happy how far he's falling. Only three votes?!?

Perhaps the LeBron/Kobe crowd being unable to not vote for their guy is the dooming factor here.

I went with Bird but my heart's not in it. I think LeBron has had a better career, even this early into it. Bird's didn't last too long. But I think Hakeem probably is the right pick. Either way, it's getting much tighter.


And please nominate guys that you want to see. Not enough people are. I just copied the options from the last time around which is not what I want to be doing.

I will take the argument against the man who is in the GOAT conversation for leadership/grit/shot-blocking/rebounding/overall D as well as exhibiting + offensive efficiency for the time and elite outlet + (especially later) half-court passing at any juncture if you have it ready. Essentially, the perfect teammate/leader and by all accounts one of the most cunning thinkers the game has ever had. If there was a player that was "more than his #'s" (at least, the #'s used on here and that were available for the time), it's him. The % of "effective" blocked-shots stat that came out a few years ago highlighting Duncan's genius over Howard comes to mind as one corollary there.

Please don't combat his argument with PER, PPG, etc at the #8+ spot for Bill Russell on an All-Time List spot.

I gotta say that I did prefer the way that the rival site did this same vote a few years ago a bit better in simply leaving the voting open to a select # of NBA forum active contributors with X+ amount of posts already. Filtered out the chance of fanbase bias for certain players and also the need to triple-check for psychotics like Amoser making dupe accounts to vote for Kobe. Had much, much better discussion as well. I think Bill went #2 there fwiw.

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 11:33 AM
I will take the argument against the man who is in the GOAT conversation for leadership/grit/shot-blocking/rebounding/overall D as well as exhibiting + offensive efficiency for the time and elite outlet + (especially later) half-court passing at any juncture if you have it ready. Essentially, the perfect teammate/leader and by all accounts one of the most cunning thinkers the game has ever had. If there was a player that was "more than his #'s" (at least, the #'s used on here and that were available for the time), it's him. The % of "effective" blocked-shots stat that came out a few years ago highlighting Duncan's genius over Howard comes to mind as one corollary there.

Please don't combat his argument with PER, PPG, etc at the #8+ spot for Bill Russell on an All-Time List spot.

I gotta say that I did prefer the way that the rival site did this same vote a few years ago a bit better in simply leaving the voting open to a select # of NBA forum active contributors with X+ amount of posts already. Filtered out the chance of fanbase bias for certain players and also the need to triple-check for psychotics like Amoser making dupe accounts to vote for Kobe. Had much, much better discussion as well. I think Bill went #2 there fwiw.

Russell belongs in the top 10. Where in that top 10 is certainly up for debate. I used to be a "Russell is a lock in the top 5" guy, too. But the more attention I pay to peak performance and offensive efficiency, the harder it is to justify him that high. But on his defensive merit and team success alone, I think he belongs in the top 10. If it were me, I'd still rank Lebron and Hakeem ahead of him, but I'd put Russell and Bird behind those two in any particular order before Kobe.

YAALREADYKNO
07-09-2014, 12:09 PM
Hell, some of the guys on the poll aren't anywhere close from being voted in. But if we're adding guys who should be in consideration for at least the top 20, the following names should be on the poll:
Julius Erving
John Havlicek
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
Scottie Pippen

The fact that Erving isn't on the list already, but KG, Mikan, Malone, Stockton and Baylor are, is quite disturbing. That's a top 15 all-time caliber player.


Dirk is right up there with Dr.J if were just talking about NBA careers and he's a top 20 player of alltime. He shouldn't just get "consideration"

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 12:17 PM
Dirk is right up there with Dr.J if were just talking about NBA careers and he's a top 20 player of alltime. He shouldn't just get "consideration"

Personally, I've got Dirk in my top 20. After we get through Hakeem, Lebron, Russell, Bird and Kobe in whatever order, the next four to go should be Moses, Oscar, West and Erving in any order. That's the top 15. After that, I've got some random combination of Garnett, Barkley, Robinson, Dirk and Wade in my top 20 with guys like Pippen, Havlicek and Stockton just outside the top 20.

FlashBolt
07-09-2014, 12:27 PM
Take out rings, what kind of argument does Bill have? And if rings are the holy grail, then Wilt should be disqualified.

tredigs
07-09-2014, 12:41 PM
Take out rings, what kind of argument does Bill have? And if rings are the holy grail, then Wilt should be disqualified.

#1: I just did a quick rundown and somehow did not even think to mention the fact that he won the title essentially every year he played and in lieu of the fact that the FMVP did not exist at the time, they just named it after him instead.

#2: Wilt won rings. Why would that DQ him? Are we DQ'n Lebron, too?

jerellh528
07-09-2014, 12:50 PM
It's funny how everyone tries to use arbitrary stats and formulas to argue who's the best and discredits rings as team success. But the only true common denominator every player in the top 10 has is multiple rings. Coincidence? I think not. The great ones find a way. The things you won't find consistently amongst the top 10? Advanced statistical theories like per or ws.

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 01:03 PM
It's funny how everyone tries to use arbitrary stats and formulas to argue who's the best and discredits rings as team success. But the only true common denominator every player in the top 10 has is multiple rings. Coincidence? I think not. The great ones find a way. The things you won't find consistently amongst the top 10? Advanced statistical theories like per or ws.

That's actually not true at all. Every single player in that likely top 20 that I just posted is in the top 50 in WS/48, including Bill Russell. That's a pretty uncanny stat if that's THAT likely to pick guys at the top of the all-time list. By comparison, if you were to take the top 50 players in terms of championships won (or essentially just guys who won 3+ rings), you would miss out on a bunch of guys, including Wilt, Lebron, Oscar, Moses, West, Erving, Barkley, Dirk, Garnett and Robinson who would crack that top 20 list. That's half of the top 20. So, really, WS/48 is a far better barometer of the greatest all-time players than championships are.

jerellh528
07-09-2014, 01:08 PM
That's actually not true at all. Every single player in that likely top 20 that I just posted is in the top 50 in WS/48, including Bill Russell. That's a pretty uncanny stat if that's THAT likely to pick guys at the top of the all-time list. By comparison, if you were to take the top 50 players in terms of championships won (or essentially just guys who won 3+ rings), you would miss out on a bunch of guys, including Wilt, Lebron, Oscar, Moses, West, Erving, Barkley, Dirk, Garnett and Robinson who would crack that top 20 list. That's half of the top 20. So, really, WS/48 is a far better barometer of the greatest all-time players than championships are.

I said top 10 have multiple not 3+. Also top 50 is huge. Of course there's gunna be ten top players in there. Look at the top 10 of all time. The ONLY thing they have in common, small or big, guard or center, is multiple rings.

tredigs
07-09-2014, 01:18 PM
That's actually not true at all. Every single player in that likely top 20 that I just posted is in the top 50 in WS/48, including Bill Russell. That's a pretty uncanny stat if that's THAT likely to pick guys at the top of the all-time list. By comparison, if you were to take the top 50 players in terms of championships won (or essentially just guys who won 3+ rings), you would miss out on a bunch of guys, including Wilt, Lebron, Oscar, Moses, West, Erving, Barkley, Dirk, Garnett and Robinson who would crack that top 20 list. That's half of the top 20. So, really, WS/48 is a far better barometer of the greatest all-time players than championships are.

Though it's an incomplete stat, this is just a fact.

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 01:23 PM
I said top 10 have multiple not 3+. Also top 50 is huge. Of course there's gunna be ten top players in there. Look at the top 10 of all time. The ONLY thing they have in common, small or big, guard or center, is multiple rings.
But you're totally missing the point AND contradicting yourself in the same post. You said that top 50 is "huge," but then go on to suggest that it's some major accomplishment to win 2+ rings in the NBA. Do you know how many players have won at least 3 rings in the NBA? 68. And that list does not include two players in the likely top 10 or 10 players in my hypothetical top 20. If you were to count every player with at least 2 rings, that list would probably be hundreds of players. So it's not that unusual whatsoever for a player to win multiple rings. It's FAR more unusual for a player to crack the top 50 in WS/48.

You're wrong, dude. I'm sorry, but mathematically you're completely off track here.

Hell, PER might even be a better determination than WS/48. 18 of the top 24 players in career PER make my hypothetical top 20 list and 19 of those 20 are in the top 29 of career PER (Moses being 29th). The only guy who doesn't make that list is Bill Russell, who sits at 101st all-time. So, really, no matter how you look at it, PER or WS/48 are a FARRRRRR better barometer for determining all-time greats than rings are. It's not even close.

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 01:27 PM
Though it's an incomplete stat, this is just a fact.
Yeah, and I've addressed that already. No one is suggesting that WS, PER, TS% or any other advanced statistical formula is in any way a perfect criteria to determine a player's worth or to measure players in an all-time discussion. Far from it. You have to use a combination of all factors when having a discussion like this. But in terms of importance, I put far more weight on stats like that than on titles.

Chronz
07-09-2014, 01:29 PM
So I can say LeBron would have more rings than Kobe if he played with the Lakers so his career was better?

You can say whatever you please, its about how you defend that argument that matters.

When comparing careers you have to look at how they performed in various situations. You have to ask yourself if you can forgive the lack of 1 quality if he thrives with another. Thats essentially what we are doing when we favor 1 guy over another with less rings. If all else is equal, then those rings may distinguish the 2, if not, then you're obviously saying the other guy could have had similar/superior team success, he just didn't have the chance.

Otherwise, your list would be a perfect rundown of the winningest players ever. Instead, you have guys with less rings than others for various reasons.


Lebron with 16 votes, lmao!!!!! what a joke. The guy has lost as the favorite more than any top 10 player, 2-3 in finals series, 11-16 in finals game, out played by role players in finals series, and has 2 bronze medals. In what world does this make you top 7?


Kobe easily here.
Being the favorite doesn't negate reality of events. Only in the mind of a kobephile does projecting the future matter more than the actual reality.

PS. Still cant decide on who to vote but I dont know why anyone cares who comes in 2nd. The votes dont carry over .

FlashBolt
07-09-2014, 01:38 PM
#1: I just did a quick rundown and somehow did not even think to mention the fact that he won the title essentially every year he played and in lieu of the fact that the FMVP did not exist at the time, they just named it after him instead.

#2: Wilt won rings. Why would that DQ him? Are we DQ'n Lebron, too?

1) Playing against who? How many teams were in the league back then? Was he even good offensively? Overrated. I think there were only 4 players above 6"8 when Wilt joined the league? Didn't he win a ring as a player-coach? Does that even happen in today's league? Make Duncan a player-coach, no way Spurs win.

2) Because if you take out rings, Bill really has no argument. If you want to use the rings discussion, no one in their right mind would take Bill over Wilt. So what is the argument for Bill?

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 01:56 PM
Being the favorite doesn't negate reality of events. Only in the mind of a kobephile does projecting the future matter more than the actual reality.

PS. Still cant decide on who to vote but I dont know why anyone cares who comes in 2nd. The votes dont carry over .

Also, what does "favorite" really mean? Does it mean having HCA or having a better record? If so, then Lebron has lost only one Finals where that has been the case, in 2010-11 against the Mavs. The two losses to the Spurs were losses to teams that had better records, a higher seed and HCA in the playoffs. Also, if he's assuming this last season's loss to the Spurs was with the Heat as favorites, I would suggest he do some research and check out websites with NBA analysts to see who selected what time as the likely victor in the series. I believe the vast majority of ESPN analysts selected the Spurs over the Heat.

XpLiCiTT
07-09-2014, 03:01 PM
Also, what does "favorite" really mean? Does it mean having HCA or having a better record? If so, then Lebron has lost only one Finals where that has been the case, in 2010-11 against the Mavs. The two losses to the Spurs were losses to teams that had better records, a higher seed and HCA in the playoffs. Also, if he's assuming this last season's loss to the Spurs was with the Heat as favorites, I would suggest he do some research and check out websites with NBA analysts to see who selected what time as the likely victor in the series. I believe the vast majority of ESPN analysts selected the Spurs over the Heat.

I've told this guy before a few days ago in another thread how the Heat/LeBron only lost as the "favorite" once, which was 2011 vs the Mavs. Don't bother with him. 2007 and 2014 they were clearly not favored to win the series. Regardless of who was favorite, the reality is they lost, but it's ridiculous to hear these arguments of "LeBron is 2-3 in the finals". Not the teams he was playing for, but LeBron himself is 2-3. I guess no one else was playing, just him.

XpLiCiTT
07-09-2014, 03:05 PM
It's funny that Kobe is getting multiple votes from people making duplicate accounts. Kind of pathetic actually.

5ass
07-09-2014, 03:16 PM
It's funny that Kobe is getting multiple votes from people making duplicate accounts. Kind of pathetic actually.

They're just kids. I wish PSD can somehow make an age limit, but its not possible to apply it effectively.

Kaner
07-09-2014, 03:35 PM
Tough choice but I went with Lebron. I love Hakeem but,I don't see the argument for him over Lebron. It should just be between him and Kobe here depending on what you value most.

Bruno
07-09-2014, 04:13 PM
It's funny how everyone tries to use arbitrary stats and formulas to argue who's the best and discredits rings as team success. But the only true common denominator every player in the top 10 has is multiple rings. Coincidence? I think not. The great ones find a way. The things you won't find consistently amongst the top 10? Advanced statistical theories like per or ws.

id narrow it down even more by saying that every single NBA player in PSDs collective top 11 has more than one Finals MVP.

MJ- 6
Wilt- 1 (would have two if the award existed in 1967).
KAJ- 2
Duncan- 3
Shaq-3
Kobe-2
Hakeem-2
Bird-2
Magic-3
James-2
Russell- countless had the award existed.

the only player in NBA history with two or more Finals MVPs who's name isn't on this list is Willis Reed who won it in 1970 and 1973. that tells you something. if you've got two or more you're generally a top ten GOAT at this point in time, 2014.

i think these eleven are the indisputable top 11 of all time with O and Moses headlining the second batch.

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 05:19 PM
id narrow it down even more by saying that every single NBA player in PSDs collective top 11 has more than one Finals MVP.

MJ- 6
Wilt- 1 (would have two if the award existed in 1967).
KAJ- 2
Duncan- 3
Shaq-3
Kobe-2
Hakeem-2
Bird-2
Magic-3
James-2
Russell- countless had the award existed.

the only player in NBA history with two or more Finals MVPs who's name isn't on this list is Willis Reed who won it in 1970 and 1973. that tells you something. if you've got two or more you're generally a top ten GOAT at this point in time, 2014.

i think these eleven are the indisputable top 11 of all time with O and Moses headlining the second batch.
This is a much better point than solely rings, and is a far, far better indicator of all-time greatness. However, that being said, I still think this system is not without its flaws. For starters, the absence of the award prior to 69 kills Russell and Wilt (as you already mentioned). And just as is the case with championship rings, it's still ultimately dependent on how good your team is. Lebron was the best player in the Finals against the Spurs. His team sucked and the Heat lost, so Leonard won. Willis Reed has two Finals MVPs, for example, but he was blessed with phenomenal teammates in New York with Frazier, Monroe and Debusschere. Other great all-timers weren't so lucky, so I don't know that it's fair to criticize them for that.

Personally, I've always thought it made more sense to have a postseason MVP rather than just a Finals MVP. Because a player can play like complete crap for three series and then have a few good games in the Finals and be given an arbitrary trophy that he probably didn't deserve as much as somebody else. For example, I thought Kawhi Leonard was fairly mediocre for most of the postseason prior to the Finals, while Duncan was clearly the Spurs best player in the playoffs. Leonard outplays Duncan in three of the five Finals games and all of a sudden he's Finals MVP.

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-09-2014, 05:38 PM
We'll at least psd has proved to be as big of a joke as I thought it was. Congrats.

FlashBolt
07-09-2014, 05:42 PM
We'll at least psd has proved to be as big of a joke as I thought it was. Congrats.

Does this mean we won't see you any longer? Funny how you talk about jokes but 99% of your posts are comical.

bucketss
07-09-2014, 05:52 PM
how kobe get 20 votes?

Ebbs
07-09-2014, 06:00 PM
20 votes for Kobe, Bron and Bird lol..

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 06:07 PM
20 votes for Kobe, Bron and Bird lol..

Yeah, the next 3-4 votes are going to be very, very interesting.

RocketLoc80
07-09-2014, 06:12 PM
Yeah, the next 3-4 votes are going to be very, very interesting.


Man c`mon the only reason Kobe got that many votes because of Kobetards using multiple screen names just to put their hero over Lebron,Hakeem and Bird

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 06:14 PM
Man c`mon the only reason Kobe got that many votes because of Kobetards using multiple screen names just to put their hero over Lebron,Hakeem and Bird
Kobe will almost certainly crack the top 10 of this list. You could argue it's because there are a lot of Kobe fans on this site (and there certainly are), but I think you could also say its because there are a ton of educated posters who think he belongs in the top 10. Personally, I've got him at 11. But if you caught me on an odd day, I could probably see myself ranking him as high as 8th or 9th.

FlashBolt
07-09-2014, 06:16 PM
The amount of disrespect some of you guys have against Kobe... What do you mean how does he have 20 votes. LeBron and Bird has 20, Kobe having 20 is surprising to ya'll? Wow.

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-09-2014, 06:17 PM
20 votes for Kobe, Bron and Bird lol..

I don't get what you guys find so funny, magic Himself has Kobe ranked over him, but I'm supposed to take the word of internet slobs. Get real with yourselves. Kobe's career hovers over Hakeem's. You won't catch any legend or real basketball analyst put many guys over Kobe all time. The haters on here is ridiculous. Lebron getting 20 votes is the only travesty here.

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-09-2014, 06:18 PM
Yeah, the next 3-4 votes are going to be very, very interesting.


Man c`mon the only reason Kobe got that many votes because of Kobetards using multiple screen names just to put their hero over Lebron,Hakeem and Birdkobe is over all of the. And magic said himself Kobe is over him. So I'll take his word over some faceless jokers.

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-09-2014, 06:19 PM
Man c`mon the only reason Kobe got that many votes because of Kobetards using multiple screen names just to put their hero over Lebron,Hakeem and Bird
Kobe will almost certainly crack the top 10 of this list. You could argue it's because there are a lot of Kobe fans on this site (and there certainly are), but I think you could also say its because there are a ton of educated posters who think he belongs in the top 10. Personally, I've got him at 11. But if you caught me on an odd day, I could probably see myself ranking him as high as 8th or 9th.

We'll good thing your not a pro basketball analyst

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 06:23 PM
We'll good thing your not a pro basketball analyst

It's a good thing you're not an English teacher. You type like a guy who failed remedial English.

FlashBolt
07-09-2014, 06:23 PM
I don't get what you guys find so funny, magic Himself has Kobe ranked over him, but I'm supposed to take the word of internet slobs. Get real with yourselves. Kobe's career hovers over Hakeem's. You won't catch any legend or real basketball analyst put many guys over Kobe all time. The haters on here is ridiculous. Lebron getting 20 votes is the only travesty here.

Big O said LeBron is on another class of his own - meaning James is above everyone.. So, what does that mean?

85BearsDefense
07-09-2014, 06:23 PM
This list is already so bad. Wilt over Russell is such a joke.

5ass
07-09-2014, 06:24 PM
:violin:

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 06:26 PM
This list is already so bad. Wilt over Russell is such a joke.

Then vote and argue your case better. I haven't seen you around making a case for players in these threads. :shrug:

85BearsDefense
07-09-2014, 06:33 PM
This list is already so bad. Wilt over Russell is such a joke.

Then vote and argue your case better. I haven't seen you around making a case for players in these threads. :shrug:


Was serving a 2.5 week ban for calling someone a moron. Lol

mightybosstone
07-09-2014, 06:36 PM
Was serving a 2.5 week ban for calling someone a moron. Lol

Hmmm... Fair enough. If the guy deserved it, then it was definitely worth it. But if I was going to get banned for that long, I'd go for something way more offensive than moron. Moron should be like a 1-day ban.

mrblisterdundee
07-09-2014, 06:54 PM
How is Lebron not dominating the vote here? Who left has four MVPs in a four year span and is top five in career WS/48 and PER? One guy. Lebron James. I would have put him 4th or 5th, and if he doesn't make the top 7, PSD's hatred of this guy is inevitably starting to show. I'm a huge Hakeem Olajuwon fan. Like the guy was my childhood idol and I absolutely adored him. I would not rank him as a better basketball player than Lebron James, and I certainly wouldn't rank Bird or Kobe over him.

It's not hatred of LeBron James; it's that he's only played between one-half and two-thirds of his career. I have every confidence that he'll continue to be great, even when his athleticism starts seriously waining – he's just that good. But at the same time, he could get injured and have his career fall apart. Look at Grant Hill, Penny Hardaway and Tracy McGrady.
If you extrapolate his career arc and assume he's healthy, James is easily top-five. As of now, though, I voted for him at No. 7 and have no qualms taking him before Larry Bird or Hakeem Olajuwon.

FlashBolt
07-09-2014, 06:56 PM
This isn't English class. I type fast and usually don't look to correct my spelling. I don't sit at home like most of you, I'm always on the go. That's why a lot of my post are on my phone. I don't have a boss or I would switch you places.

It's a proven fact that people who bring their social status up randomly are insecure. Scientists actually conducted an experiment.

jerellh528
07-09-2014, 06:58 PM
I like turtles

TheIlladelph16
07-09-2014, 07:03 PM
Went with Lebron here... An equally good case can be made for Bird, Hakeem or Kobe though. After Hakeem, this vote is going to become a clusterf*ck haha

FlashBolt
07-09-2014, 07:06 PM
Went with Lebron here... An equally good case can be made for Bird, Hakeem or Kobe though. After Hakeem, this vote is going to become a clusterf*ck haha

If Hakeem and Bird are out of this list, the Kobe vs LeBron war will happen officially.. Will be fun to say the least.

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-09-2014, 07:15 PM
This isn't English class. I type fast and usually don't look to correct my spelling. I don't sit at home like most of you, I'm always on the go. That's why a lot of my post are on my phone. I don't have a boss or I would switch you places.

It's a proven fact that people who bring their social status up randomly are insecure. Scientists actually conducted an experiment.
Lol

XpLiCiTT
07-09-2014, 07:15 PM
This list is already so bad. Wilt over Russell is such a joke.

Seriously? What is your reasoning behind this..? Wilt is so much better than Russell, unless rings is all you're gonna argue.

jerellh528
07-09-2014, 07:41 PM
If Hakeem and Bird are out of this list, the Kobe vs LeBron war will happen officially.. Will be fun to say the least.

It shouldn't even come down to that, besides even being a fantastic two way player longer than almost anyone, his countless accolades, his mark he's left on the game is crazy too. Iirc, Like 4 ever in points scored, 3rd ever playoff points, most assists by a non pg, 2nd all time scoring in a single game etc.. Etc. Lebron will probably end up up there, but to put him ahead of these guys and he's not even 30 yet is somewhat disrespectful.

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-09-2014, 08:22 PM
If Hakeem and Bird are out of this list, the Kobe vs LeBron war will happen officially.. Will be fun to say the least.

It shouldn't even come down to that, besides even being a fantastic two way player longer than almost anyone, his countless accolades, his mark he's left on the game is crazy too. Iirc, Like 4 ever in points scored, 3rd ever playoff points, most assists by a non pg, 2nd all time scoring in a single game etc.. Etc. Lebron will probably end up up there, but to put him ahead of these guys and he's not even 30 yet is somewhat disrespectful.

This is psd after all. Don't even worry about these ranking, the real world would laugh at this.

Bruno
07-09-2014, 08:24 PM
This is psd after all. Don't even worry about these ranking, the real world would laugh at this.

they will, but mainly because Bill Russell will be lucky to crack our top ten considering the amount of votes Bird Kobe and LBJ are getting right now.

Pablonovi
07-09-2014, 08:24 PM
id narrow it down even more by saying that every single NBA player in PSDs collective top 11 has more than one Finals MVP.

MJ- 6
Wilt- 1 (would have two if the award existed in 1967).
KAJ- 2
Duncan- 3
Shaq-3
Kobe-2
Hakeem-2
Bird-2
Magic-3
James-2
Russell- countless had the award existed.

the only player in NBA history with two or more Finals MVPs who's name isn't on this list is Willis Reed who won it in 1970 and 1973. that tells you something. if you've got two or more you're generally a top ten GOAT at this point in time, 2014.

i think these eleven are the indisputable top 11 of all time with O and Moses headlining the second batch.

For Excellent Reasons (The Voters Covered NBA For A Living): The ALL-NBA Teams = The Best "Measuring Stick"

Hey Bruno,
Some thoughts in response to your post (and those of others)

1) You don't mean to leave out Jerry West, do you? He had the fMVP on the LOSING team. He was a tremendous regular season player AND an ever greater Play-Offs performer.

2) I wouldn't leave off Dr J. I could be wrong, but I thought I saw his name in these GOAT Polls in earlier threads - otherwise I definitely would have "nominated" him for inclusion. I STRONGLY believe that the ABA, particularly by the time he was playing in it, was the virtual equal of the NBA. (Witness:
a) The ABA was winning the majority of the inter-league exhibition games;
b) Even though the NBA fleeced the remaining ABA teams (in several ways) they were still competitive once in the NBA;
c) Almost all the ABA All-Stars became NBA All-Stars

IN ADDITION, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, vis-à-vis Dr. J. - what he did in the ABA, how he played, may very well have been THE most impressive, greatest display of basketball ever seen (actually not-seen: the ABA had terrible TV-coverage - I managed to see him live a few times and did catch a tiny number of televised games).
Try this link for the view of someone I consider an all-around EXPERT on the NBA, ABA & NBL (which was decidedly better than the NBA (as the BAA) was).
http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.mx/

David Friedman is OUTSTANDING. (I recommend everything basketball related on his site (100s of articles, as far as I know, I've read them all). In the right hand column, near the top, he has a whole Julius Erving collection of articles - super-well worth the read.)

3) The fMVP's May APPEAR To Correlate With The NBA GOAT Top 10 Due To "Coincidence":

As "evident" as fMVP's may appear to correlate with the NBA GOAT Top 10-11; that could be at least somewhat coincidental - or, perhaps better put, a big part of the reason lots of people put those particular players this high. (Except in the case of Jerry West, and for the last 45 years non-stop, you ONLY get the fMVP because, first, your team made the Play-Offs; second your team did quite well in the Play-Offs, third, your team won the Chip; and, fourth, you probably played the leading role on your team, at least in the Finals - that does leave a lasting impression, almost always).

4) THE ALL-NBA (-ABA, -NBL) 1st-Teams & 2nd-Teams Are THE Best Measuring Stick:

I refer to this list a lot because, IMO, it is THE best indicator of Regular Season Dominance. I know of no instances where the Selectors were WAY-OFF in their votes (I disagree with them occasionally; but so what? If I'm even right in some cases, nobody's perfect, not even them as a group. They have UNDOUBTEDLY, come amazingly close to accurately reflecting each Regular Season's best 2 (and since 1989, 3) players at: Center, Forward and Guard.

I want to point out that I am NOT saying the ALL-NBA Selections are the "be-all and end-all". Far from it. My own NBA GOAT Top 10 does not simply follow the list of total-career All-NBA selections. I just claim that it should be EVERYONE'S STARTING POINT. It's that accurate.
I don’t believe that any single stat or combination of stats comes closer to reflecting who were the greatest players than this list does. And it is far less subjective than any of our individual memories of things and/or evaluation of players and stats can be.

The Selectors are/were paid to write/report on pro-b-ball BECAUSE they knew/know the game. The fact that they consistently (as a collective of 100+ people) got “it right” is a testament to both the greatness of the players they voted for AND for their skill in recognizing that greatness.

To Even Be In The Discussion Of NBA GOAT Top 10, You Need 10+ Great Seasons

Here's the entire list of the 18 NBA(-ABA) players who have had at least 10 Great Regular Seasons (plus 4 guys with 9 or 8). This list is based on the yearly selection of: ALL-NBA(-ABA) 1st-Team PLUS 2nd-Team:

“Pts” * Rank, Name, 1st-Teams + 2nd-Teams; 1st-Team, 2nd-Team (+ 3rd-Teams; MVPs)

65 Pts . 1 Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem 15 10 5 (+0; 6 MVPs) (In 1983, KAJ = All-NBA #1; but Cowens = MVP)

double gap

61 Pts . 2 Bryant, Kobe 13 11 2 (+2; 1 MVPs)
61 Pts . 3 Malone, Karl 13 11 2 (+1; 2 MVPs)
59 Pts . 4 Duncan, Tim 13 10 3 (+1; 2 MVPs)

gap

56 Pts . 5 West, Jerry 12 10 2 (+0; 0 MVPs)
54 Pts . 6 Erving, Julius 12 9 3 (+0; 4 (MVP's: 3 ABA; 1 NBA))

gap

53 Pts . 7 Jordan, Michael 11 10 1 (+0; 5 MVPs)
51 Pts . 8 Robertson, Oscar 11 9 2 (+0; 1 MVPs)

gap

50 Pts . 9 Baylor, Elgin 10 10 0 (+0; 0 MVPs)
48 Pts 10 Johnson, Magic 10 9 1 (+0; 3 MVPs)
48 Pts 11 Bird, Larry 10 9 1 (+0; 3 MVPs)
48 Pts 12 Barry, Rick 10 9 1 (+0; 3 MVPs)
46 Pts 13 O'Neal, Shaquille 10 8 2 (+4; 1 MVPs)
46 Pts 14 James, Lebron 10 8 2 (+0; 4 MVPs)
44 Pts 15 Chamberlain, Wilt 10 7 3 (+0; 4 MVPs) (SEE “N.B.” for Russell)
41 Pts 16 Havlicek, John 11 4 7 ** (+0; 0 MVPs)
40 Pts 17 Barkley, Charles 10 5 5 (+1; 1 MVPs)
39 Pts 18 Russell, Bill 11 3 8 (+0; 5 MVPs) ** (N.B. TWICE Russell got MVP DESPITE Wilt = All-NBA #1)

gap

39 Pts 19 Olajuwon, Hakeem 9 6 3 (+3; 1 MVPs)
37 Pts 20 Gervin, George 9 5 4 (+3; 1 MVPs)
35 Pts 21 Nowitzki, Dirk 9 4 5 (+3; 1 MVPs)

gap

32 Pts 22 Malone, Moses 8 4 4 (+3; 1 MVPs)

Imo,
These 22 guys are the ONLY guys who should have any serious consideration for the NBA GOAT Top 10 or even NBA GOAT Top 15. And, for me personally, constitute exactly 22 out of my NBA GOAT Top 25.

N.B. In this post I intentionally do NOT address either Play-Off Success generally, or, any head-to-head match-ups between these 22 Great Players.

This post is plenty long enough without including such a discussion. I just need to note that:
a) There were/are actually only limited numbers of head-to-head series involving these guys - and whose team won those series may very well NOT have been determined by who outplayed the other; NOR, did one outplaying the other in those series necessarily determine who was the better player - too many factors are involved to make it so clear cut; and

b) TEAM success IN the Play-Offs as related to individual greatness is a very complicated issue - certainly best left for another post (IF I feel confident enough in my analysis to post it!).
- - - - - - - - - -
* My "Points" System is as follows:
ALL-NBA 1st-Team Selections = 5 "Points" each
ALL-NBA 2nd-Team Selections = 3 "Points" each

I might normally allot All-NBA 3rd-Team Selections, 1 "Point" each; but, the NBA only included a 3rd-Team starting in 1989; and thus has two "weaknesses":
a) the gap between the 3rd best player at each position and the 4th best player is minimal usually; whereas the gap between 3rd and 2nd tends to be significantly greater - so winning the 3rd-Team Selection is a lot more "iffy";

b) prior to the season that ended in 1989, the 3rd best player at each position was not recognized; so those who played then are automatically handicapped when one uses the 3rd-Team selections.

** This list is in the exact order of the number of combined ALL-NBA/ABA 1st-Team PLUS 2nd-Team Selections with two exceptions: Havlicek and Russell. *** I've moved these two down one "group" because they are the only two guys with more 2nd-Team Selections than 1st-Team Selections. For me, that is quite significant - they were not the best at their position for most of the years they made this list.

*** The only two guys with 10+ Selections. I note here that only three other players did NOT have more 1st-Team Selections than 2nd-Team Selections: Barkley 5+5, Dirk 4+5 and Moses 4+4. For obvious reasons these 5 combined (including Russell & Hondo), occupy 5 of the bottom 7 positions on this list.

jaayytheillest
07-09-2014, 08:47 PM
The kobe lebron debate will be epic

Pablonovi
07-09-2014, 08:53 PM
they will, but mainly because Bill Russell will be lucky to crack our top ten considering the amount of votes Bird Kobe and LBJ are getting right now.

Bill Russell Was Clearly NOT Even The Best Player At His Own Position In His Own Era

Hey Bruno,
The "world" may some day come around to changing its long-held view on how high Bill Russell should be ranked. Afterall, in just his own era, at just his own position, center, he was CLEARLY 2nd best! (In most of the years they played "together", Wilt was ranked All-NBA 1st-Team and Russ was ranked All-NBA 2nd-Team. That means a LOT.

Further, half of Russell's game was just "atrocious" - he played very close to the rim on Offense, yet his shooting percentage was pathetic. A lot of commentators admit that his offensive "skills" would NOT translate to other eras very well; yes he'd still be a great defender - but ...

Even PSD's own bagwell grants that Wilt VASTLY outplayed Russ.

And both of us were avid NBA fans back then - and saw lots of their 140 or so head-to-heads. It was not even close. Despite having the Celtic "All-Star" Team helping him "stop" Wilt (and they tended to be excellent defensive squads), Russell never stopped him! Wilt averaged 29+ ppg and 29+ rpg vs Russ & those Celtic All-Stars, not much less than he averaged against the rest of the Centers and teams!

I don't see how this can be interpreted other than that Wilt DOMINATED Russell.

Further, I feel confident that had Russell been on half the other teams back then (or most teams since then) he would not have won hardly any (if any) rings. While, any number of other Great Centers, put in his place, WOULD HAVE won 10+ Chips (Nate Thurmond, as a similarly-skilled player, as just one example of a dozen).

Lastly, Red Auerbach was far more ahead-of-his-time as both Coach and GM than any other Coach or GM since then. I believe he was easily worth 3-5 points extra every game (and many of their Play-Off Series and Games were closer than that!)

For these reasons, I can not, in good conscience, put Russell in my GOAT Top 10.

Pablonovi
07-09-2014, 08:56 PM
Seriously? What is your reasoning behind this..? Wilt is so much better than Russell, unless rings is all you're gonna argue.

Yeh YpLiCiTT,
Exactly!

Pablonovi
07-09-2014, 09:02 PM
Hell, some of the guys on the poll aren't anywhere close from being voted in. But if we're adding guys who should be in consideration for at least the top 20, the following names should be on the poll:
Julius Erving
John Havlicek
Dwyane Wade
Dirk Nowitzki
Scottie Pippen

The fact that Erving isn't on the list already, but KG, Mikan, Malone, Stockton and Baylor are, is quite disturbing. That's a top 15 all-time caliber player.

Hey mightybosstone,
I strongly agree with you about Dr. J. I have him my GOAT #10 (imo, BEST small forward ever - he was incredibly great in his ABA years - too bad most never saw that or even know about it; and he was arguably better than Bird during the early 80's.)

I couldn't DIS-agree more with your suggestion that:
Pippen and DWade belong in a GOAT Top 20 discussion. I have them both clearly OUTSIDE of my GOAT Top 25.

I have both Dirk and Hondo ahead of both Pippen & DWade; but with Hondo around 25th (he was "only" the best at his position in 4 years); and Dirk 15-20.

5ass
07-09-2014, 09:16 PM
Bill Russell Was Clearly NOT Even The Best Player At His Own Position In His Own Era

Hey Bruno,
The "world" may some day come around to changing its long-held view on how high Bill Russell should be ranked. Afterall, in just his own era, at just his own position, center, he was CLEARLY 2nd best! (In most of the years they played "together", Wilt was ranked All-NBA 1st-Team and Russ was ranked All-NBA 2nd-Team. That means a LOT.

Further, half of Russell's game was just "atrocious" - he played very close to the rim on Offense, yet his shooting percentage was pathetic. A lot of commentators admit that his offensive "skills" would NOT translate to other eras very well; yes he'd still be a great defender - but ...

Even PSD's own bagwell grants that Wilt VASTLY outplayed Russ.

And both of us were avid NBA fans back then - and saw lots of their 140 or so head-to-heads. It was not even close. Despite having the Celtic "All-Star" Team helping him "stop" Wilt (and they tended to be excellent defensive squads), Russell never stopped him! Wilt averaged 29+ ppg and 29+ rpg vs Russ & those Celtic All-Stars, not much less than he averaged against the rest of the Centers and teams!

I don't see how this can be interpreted other than that Wilt DOMINATED Russell.

Further, I feel confident that had Russell been on half the other teams back then (or most teams since then) he would not have won hardly any (if any) rings. While, any number of other Great Centers, put in his place, WOULD HAVE won 10+ Chips (Nate Thurmond, as a similarly-skilled player, as just one example of a dozen).

Lastly, Red Auerbach was far more ahead-of-his-time as both Coach and GM than any other Coach or GM since then. I believe he was easily worth 3-5 points extra every game (and many of their Play-Off Series and Games were closer than that!)

For these reasons, I can not, in good conscience, put Russell in my GOAT Top 10.
Russell himself would tell you he was always worried wilt would drop 100 points on him.

hidalgo
07-09-2014, 09:23 PM
Larry Bird

ILLUSIONIST^248
07-09-2014, 09:25 PM
This is psd after all. Don't even worry about these ranking, the real world would laugh at this.

they will, but mainly because Bill Russell will be lucky to crack our top ten considering the amount of votes Bird Kobe and LBJ are getting right now.

What does your top 10 look like Bruno?i'm genuinely very curious.

FlashBolt
07-09-2014, 09:43 PM
No way Russell beats Wilt so if by that argument, that means you don't use rings as the total package.. And by default, you have to agree that his rings don't mean jack when compared to some all time amazing players. He wasn't really amazing. Do any of you stop for a second and actually say "Wait, Russell is better than Jordan"? No, and why is that?

Pablonovi
07-09-2014, 10:09 PM
[=mightybosstone;28749516]
Hey mightbosstone,
N.B. I don't know how to split up a post so I can respond to the various parts within it; and I think I've screwed up the "quote" function this time; so I'm just putting "mbt" before your words and bolding mine for contrast.

You, mbt, said, "That's a terrible argument, because he played in an era where center was a designated position for the All-NBA team ...

PABLO: Talk about "terrible argument". The last year they did NOT use designated positions for the All-NBA team was in 1955 !!

mbt: and he played in the greatest era of centers in the history of the NBA.

PALBO: Your claim does NOT make it so. I claim and have proven in previous posst (in the GOAT #1,2 & 3 Threads) that KAJ played against more of the Great Centers (13 of them; not counting Nate the Great Thurmond - who I had left out of those posts; and some great Forward/Centers - because they played more forward than center) than Hakeem did.

mbt: He had the pleasure of playing in the same era as five of the other arguably seven greatest centers to ever play the game (Kareem, Shaq, Moses, Robinson, Ewing), not counting guys like Mutombo or Mourning. I don't know this off the top of my head, but I'd be willing to be that no center had more All-NBA teams from 1980-2000.

PABLO: This is another terrible argument from you. KAJ outplayed Hakeem in KAJ's 16th & 17th years vs Hakeem's 1st & 2nd. In other words, way long into KAJ's career he was still better than Hakeem was at the beginning of his. Yet, for most of the great players, by their 2nd year, they were already GREAT, and many had great 1st years - Hakeem clearly didn't as he was outplayed by both KAJ and Moses then.


mbt: This point is just baffling to me. Hakeem peaked statistically from 92-93 to 95-96. He won DPOY in 92-93 and 93-94, so where does this argument come from?

PABLO: I must admit that I am just "parroting" what I keep hearing from Chronz and Hawkeye here; I tend to trust their analysis (when I haven't had the time to investigate enough to think they might be wrong about something). But what they say does dovetail with what I remember - that Hakeem's best Offensive Years were mostly not his best Defensive Years.

mbt: What? Are you REALLY using regular season team success as a barometer to determine how great he was or wasn't? This is by far your worst argument yet. How about the fact that he absolutely crushed Ewing in the Finals in 94 and Robinson in the conference finals in 95 and then outplayed Shaq in the Finals on the way to a sweep of the Magic in 95? Where's the credit for that?

PABLO: You TWIST my argument here. I DO have Hakeem ranked a good number of spots ahead of DRob and especially Ewing in my GOAT list. My ONLY argument here is that he CLEARLY did NOT DOMINATE THEM during their simultaneous best/PRIME years. Thus, why he can't be in the GOAT Top 10. What he did in ONE series each in the Play-Offs is "by far your worst argument yet". For my part, I have not even addressed the question of head-to-head Play-Off results - a lot because it tends to be a far too small sample size. (As I say, I haven't been addressing THIS question HERE; but I am perfectly aware of how he kicked butt on them in those particular series - I watched those series and was greatly impressed.)

mbt: Again, your arguments are just horrible, dude. You aren't taking into consideration that Kareem and Moses played in the same era of his early career and that he had Robinson and Shaq to deal with later in his career. But he was unquestionably the best center from the late 80s to the mid-90s. There may have been seasons where Robinson boasted higher numbers, but Hakeem was still the better overall player.

PABLO: In my post that this your post responds to, I SPECIFICALLY "took into consideration" just this very fact that Hakeem played KAJ and Moses early and DRob & Shaq later. And what those comparisons show, according to the experts who vote on this very matter is that:
KAJ & Moses, LATE in their careers (for 2 and 1 year respectively) were better than Hakeem; and
DRob & Shaq were equal to Hakeem over 10-year periods during Hakeem's very PRIME.

Specifically, your claim that DRob "may have ... higher numbers, but Hakeem was still the better overall player." I never have referred to any "higher numbers"; I have only referred to the experts' votes: they voted the two EQUAL over that 10-year period 5 years to 5 years of one being superior over the other. Your beef then is NOT with me, but with the expert voters!

Talk about "horrible arguments"!

And seriously... the regular season head-to-head win-loss total thing is just :facepalm:[/QUOTE]

PABLO: I have never, ever even referred to "regular season head-to-head win-loss total thing".

In sum, in this post, contrary to your usual high-quality, you've been, at best, terribly sloppy; at worst, deliberately manipulative with your argumentation.

Chronz
07-09-2014, 10:10 PM
This list is already so bad. Wilt over Russell is such a joke.

It's a joke that you think it's a joke

Kaner
07-09-2014, 10:33 PM
If Hakeem and Bird are out of this list, the Kobe vs LeBron war will happen officially.. Will be fun to say the least.

Yeah am tempted to vote Bird just so it can come down to Kobe vs Lebron in the #9 thread.

Pablonovi
07-09-2014, 10:42 PM
Lebron has a good case to be in the top 10. The problem is that unlike Jordan and Bird, Lebron has never been looked at as a ice cold closer in the clutch moments of games. His reputation in critical times actually is a detriment to his reputation overall. If we only spoke about the first 40 minutes of games he would have a very strong case.

Hey SLY WILLIAMS,
I may be an exception (as usual, hehe) but, more and more so, as I look into it more, I'm coming to the conclusion that the title of "clutch or great closer" simply does NOT apply, or can not be reliably applied to NBA players.

Consider KAJ. The guy hit a remarkable percentage with that UNIQUE Sky Hook of his, REGARDLESS of:
a) when in a game, or
b) the opposition or
c) if it was the Play-Offs.

Given that, and given that his shooting percentage with that shot was in the high 50s ... that is a very good definition of "clutch", no?

Meanwhile, ALL the players we are told are/were clutch, don't come close to making 50% of those clutch shots ...

Yet NOBODY ever even mentions KAJ in such discussions.

Personally, I often find myself "wanting" LeBron to take more of those "clutch-type" shots WHILE watching those moments. Afterwards, I think back and "realize" - this guy almost always puts his team first and that's more important in the long-run (and is often as likely to end up with better shots anyway).

I also would "be careful" about expanding "clutch time" to the entire last 8 minutes of games.

Pablonovi
07-09-2014, 10:57 PM
No way Russell beats Wilt so if by that argument, that means you don't use rings as the total package.. And by default, you have to agree that his rings don't mean jack when compared to some all time amazing players. He wasn't really amazing. Do any of you stop for a second and actually say "Wait, Russell is better than Jordan"? No, and why is that?

Hey FB,
This IS THE important point when it comes to Russell.
Either you saw Russell and Wilt battle for a decade and in some 140 head-to-head games (and most of us old-timers who did SWEAR Wilt absolutely DOMINATED Russ); or
You're just going on, perhaps, the longest-held common belief WITHOUT looking into it much if at all.

When you try to compare Russ to MJ, it tends to become crystal clear. But, then, this implies that one should, perhaps, compare Russ to other All-Time Greats too. And then it becomes a question of "transferrablility"; i.e., could Russ have played about as well in other, later eras. And I'm confident the answer is a definite, "NO!".

OR, would Russ have won numerous Chips if he had played IN his own era but on any of the weaker half of the teams. Again, I'm confident that the answer would be a definite, "NO!"

OR, could other Great Centers have done about as well on that Celtics "All-Star" Team? Again still, I'm confident that a whole number of Great Centers would have gotten some 10 Chips there.

Lastly, people KNOW that Russell was a great defensive player; most claim he was THE BEST defensive player of all times (and Defensive Win Shares would back that up HUGELY). However, I watched ALL of his and Wilt's careers and one thing I always saw, THAT DOES NOT SHOW UP IN ANY STAT: People would try to shoot over Russell when they OFTEN did NOT even try when Wilt was around. There is NO STAT FOR SHOT-INTIMIDATION (nor did they keep track of blocks back then.)

Wilt's contemporaries often said he was racking up 10 blocks a game - I don't doubt this one bit - he was a monster athlete - quick as any b-ball player ever; stronger than any other, and had an awesome wing-span. Late in his career (and when he had put on even more muscle-mass) he was still blocking shots 13 feet up, even with the top of the back board! Given that he was an absolute "blocking-machine"; how many shots were not even attempted around him??? Is that a HUGE part of defense too?

tredigs
07-09-2014, 11:30 PM
Bill Russell Was Clearly NOT Even The Best Player At His Own Position In His Own Era

Hey Bruno,
The "world" may some day come around to changing its long-held view on how high Bill Russell should be ranked. Afterall, in just his own era, at just his own position, center, he was CLEARLY 2nd best! (In most of the years they played "together", Wilt was ranked All-NBA 1st-Team and Russ was ranked All-NBA 2nd-Team. That means a LOT.

Further, half of Russell's game was just "atrocious" - he played very close to the rim on Offense, yet his shooting percentage was pathetic. A lot of commentators admit that his offensive "skills" would NOT translate to other eras very well; yes he'd still be a great defender - but ...

Even PSD's own bagwell grants that Wilt VASTLY outplayed Russ.

And both of us were avid NBA fans back then - and saw lots of their 140 or so head-to-heads. It was not even close. Despite having the Celtic "All-Star" Team helping him "stop" Wilt (and they tended to be excellent defensive squads), Russell never stopped him! Wilt averaged 29+ ppg and 29+ rpg vs Russ & those Celtic All-Stars, not much less than he averaged against the rest of the Centers and teams!

I don't see how this can be interpreted other than that Wilt DOMINATED Russell.

Further, I feel confident that had Russell been on half the other teams back then (or most teams since then) he would not have won hardly any (if any) rings. While, any number of other Great Centers, put in his place, WOULD HAVE won 10+ Chips (Nate Thurmond, as a similarly-skilled player, as just one example of a dozen).

Lastly, Red Auerbach was far more ahead-of-his-time as both Coach and GM than any other Coach or GM since then. I believe he was easily worth 3-5 points extra every game (and many of their Play-Off Series and Games were closer than that!)

For these reasons, I can not, in good conscience, put Russell in my GOAT Top 10.

I think of Russell as a sort of hybrid of Rodman + Olajuowon defensively and on the glass, along with Duncan's BBIQ (probably doing Bill a major disservice here), Jordan's tenacity + disgusting drive to win

I think of Wilt as a cooler Shaq-Of-The-60's, but with better defense and rebounding. Nothing comparable to a Jordan/Russell level in the drive for your team to win departement, but none the less an epic, All-Time talent.

So, who am I picking first between the two if I'm looking to start my dynasty? Bill. Every day I'm picking Bill. And although I waiver on the two in All Time lists, I truly think he's the more important piece to win. That is, assuming I can't have 30 year old Wilt's mind in 23 year old Wilt's body. Because in that scenario **** Russ haha.

As for your comments on his offense being atrocious and his FG% being "truly pathetic", I have to wonder how much you actually remember in watching him play (or understood at a high level in what you were watching)?

The game then would need refining to compensate for the dynamics and standards of modern defenses (and the best of any time period could always manage that given an opportunity), but this is a guy who consistently started offensive fast breaks by blocking shots directly to his teammates who already had a wing crossing half court with pace in anticipation. What player's defense in today's NBA has the ability to create that level of offense? 0. He was also a famously great outlet/transition passer from rebounds in his own right; a key facet of a bigs offensive game that seems lost on all bigs not named Kevin Love right now. And even with a comparably low FG% to 2010 times - he was generally top 10 in the NBA in FG%, and top 5 for half the decade.

Beyond those underrated and generally unmentioned facts, I mean just look at the guy. This is who people like to jokingly brush aside as a Ben Wallace or Kwame Brown of offense... yourself seemingly included. I know you're a diehard Laker fan, but c'mon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEs4KC4xHE0

FlashBolt
07-10-2014, 12:20 AM
What Bill did was nice.. for his time. Look, the guy was what? 6"11 210? How many centers of that body exists today? Just watching those highlights of Bill, none of those plays he did would work as smooth as it did in the modern era. Did he seriously dribble full court straight to the basket with no one standing in front of him? Bill pump faked at the mid point line and the guy fell for it? No one today would even jump if Dwight attempted a jump shot from the mid point line.. In fact, they would think he'd be throwing the game if it ever happened. Plus, look at the level of athleticism at this point of time compared to Wilt and Bill. It was comical to compare the likes of a Russell Westbrook vs some of those PG's of that time. I watched that video and I seriously can't believe that defense could've been that bad. I'm sorry but a 6"11 210 center would not be successful in the modern era. Against some slow, puny players, anything is possible.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 12:28 AM
I think of Russell as a sort of hybrid of Rodman + Olajuowon defensively and on the glass, along with Duncan's BBIQ (probably doing Bill a major disservice here), Jordan's tenacity + disgusting drive to win

I think of Wilt as a cooler Shaq-Of-The-60's, but with better defense and rebounding. Nothing comparable to a Jordan/Russell level in the drive for your team to win departement, but none the less an epic, All-Time talent.

So, who am I picking first between the two if I'm looking to start my dynasty? Bill. Every day I'm picking Bill. And although I waiver on the two in All Time lists, I truly think he's the more important piece to win. That is, assuming I can't have 30 year old Wilt's mind in 23 year old Wilt's body. Because in that scenario **** Russ haha.

As for your comments on his offense being atrocious and his FG% being "truly pathetic", I have to wonder how much you actually remember in watching him play (or understood at a high level in what you were watching)?

The game then would need refining to compensate for the dynamics and standards of modern defenses (and the best of any time period could always manage that given an opportunity), but this is a guy who consistently started offensive fast breaks by blocking shots directly to his teammates who already had a wing crossing half court with pace in anticipation. What player's defense in today's NBA has the ability to create that level of offense? 0. He was also a famously great outlet/transition passer from rebounds in his own right; a key facet of a bigs offensive game that seems lost on all bigs not named Kevin Love right now. And even with a comparably low FG% to 2010 times - he was generally top 10 in the NBA in FG%, and top 5 for half the decade.

Beyond those underrated and generally unmentioned facts, I mean just look at the guy. This is who people like to jokingly brush aside as a Ben Wallace or Kwame Brown of offense... yourself seemingly included. I know you're a diehard Laker fan, but c'mon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEs4KC4xHE0

Hey tredigs,
You have a lot of "worthy" stuff in your post; worthy of being responded to, point by point.

But I first want to respond to your overall tone. Absolute kudos for the dignity of your response to my post with which you clearly and strongly disagree.

I got the chance to go to Boston Gaaaden and watch Russ play a number of times a season over the four years I went to high school just outside of Boston. I would ask that you trust me that whatever (life-long) Laker homerism I have does NOT make we want to downplay how great Russell was.

I don't know if this will help explain how I "lived my basketball life" back then; but I'll try. I was short (5'8") and had an almost "negative" vertical leap (on my best days, once a year, I could barely touch the bottom of the NET!). But I played everyday, for hours, every single day (it was a boarding school, a religious seminary and physically extremely isolated). All around me was this horrible racism (gang-bang beatings; dual cheer-leading squads for each team). At the very Gaaaden, I would almost go into a rage at the hatred the Boston fans would openly display towards their own black players (and don't even get me talking about towards those of the opposing teams!)

I HAD to respect the majesty of Bill Russell - he was NOT my favorite player; but he WAS an inspiration to me - because I deeply felt repulsion towards that "insanity" he had to face.

True his shooting percentage, AT THAT TIME, didn't stand out to me; because, as you say, shooting percentages then were generally pretty bad by later standards. But still, he wasn't shooting from range; and even in that close, (even more so given his exceptional physical skills (compared to most every other big) and exceptional IQ (compared to most every other player, regardless of era); that just makes it seem even worse to me in hindsight.

What do you say to the "argument" that so much of his greatness can be attributed to being surrounded by the greatest collection (league percentage-wise) EVER of great players on one team (and having, easily, imo, the relatively most-advanced (vis-à-vis his competition) coach and GM in Red? Didn't that have a tremendous amount to do with how effective Russ was that he was virtually always surrounded with several All-Stars in a League that didn't have all that many more spread over all the rest of the teams?

btw, I watched the video. Here's the "problem" with it. Virtually all of this short video shows Russ working without any intense defense. Naturally, relatively unchallenged, he could use his speed advantage (and very passable dribbling skills) to get to the rim and score, especially dunk. That doesn't tell us much.

I don't know how to convey that I KNOW that Russ was a great player (after all, everybody in an NBA GOAT Top 20, regardless of where within that list, IS an All-Time Great!); and that I have deep respect for him (both as a player and as a particularly important and barrier-breaking and very gutsy individual within our thoroughly torn society at that time. I KNOW Russ was an EXCEPTIONAL athlete; I saw it repeatedly with my own eyes; and I DID read EVERYTHING in print about all the great players back then. I knew about his off-the-court phenomenal abilities. (My dad raised me to pay particular attention to greatness on other-than-my-favorite team(s) Inspired by that, throughout the decades, I've always loved many players on other teams; and, for that matter, have never hated any player - that never seemed to be reasonable in sports to me - I had one great dad!).

It's just when it comes to comparing him to Wilt, imo, a once-in-a-century Freak Of Nature (and who I consider to be THE greatest athlete, regardless of sport, in the entire 20th Century); only then will I "get verbose".

Let me repeat my "kudos" to your graciousness AND worthiness of argument. You're a class act.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 12:31 AM
Hey tredigs,
I forgot to mention, that just a day or two ago, at that same sight, "Wilt Chamberlain Archive", I "watched" the author dude's personal-commentary on Wilt's "will to win" or supposed lack there of. I say "watched" because it is NOT a video; it's just a commentary (10-15 minutes long iirc). The dude knows his stuff (as exemplified by the quality of his video work AND commentary in those videos.) In this video, he strongly claims that there was nothing lacking in Wilt's will-to-win - I never noticed such a supposed lack of will-to-win back then.

tredigs
07-10-2014, 12:51 AM
That video is just a particular case I was looking at a bit ago of Bill doing things that simply could not be achieved by the likes of players that we like to call "bad offensive players". And that's Bill in the 60's, where the offensive game simply did not need to meet the standards of today's NBA in order to be effective (sort of goes hand in hand with both of our points that A) Competition both for/against is indeed a factor in the context of his legacy and B) that the apex-generational talents will simply find ways to adapt and dominate whatever time period they are in given the opportunity.

You're probably right to call me out on the slight of Wilts drive to win. I mean it more in comparison to the absolute balls to the wall assassins like Jordan/Russell/KG level. Which, in combination of his elite athleticism + intellect + defensive prowess + leadership + ability to start an offense... it's just an unmistakably incredibly unique skill-set in a player that I haven't seen duplicated in a player since. The ring"Z" are a bi-product of his incredible team to a large degree to be sure, but without him they are an absolute shell of what they could have achieved.

But to be fair to Wilt, I've actually defended the claims people make against his tenacity and would point to a lot of statements/facts that show that - while he did love his stats to a fault at times - he still was a die-hard competitor. I absolutely won't take that away from Wilt, and frankly my mentioning of his name is mostly just due to the twos forever connection.

And thanks Pablo, I can be short at times but always appreciate your poise and unique insight from your youth watching the game. I'm jealous at that.

PS: Concerning the WiltArchives - yeah dude, that guy is the best. He posts here and starts threads on his new videos occasionally. Much appreciation for how much work he has put in to compile that for the future generations as well as my own and even yours to look back on. It's a treat to be sure.

mightybosstone
07-10-2014, 01:00 AM
Talk about "terrible argument". The last year they did NOT use designated positions for the All-NBA team was in 1955!!!
That's my bad. I'll concede this one as I was confusing the All-NBA team with the All-Star selections.


Your claim does NOT make it so. I claim and have proven in previous posst (in the GOAT #1,2 & 3 Threads) that KAJ played against more of the Great Centers (13 of them; not counting Nate the Great Thurmond - who I had left out of those posts; and some great Forward/Centers - because they played more forward than center) than Hakeem did.
In one word? ********. Kareem caught the tail end of Wilt, the primes of Moses and Walton (as brief as it was), and the very early years of Hakeem and Ewing. That's it in terms of all-time top 10-15 caliber centers. Hakeem faced prime Shaq, Robinson, Ewing and Mourning, as well as older versions of Kareem and Moses. And that doesn't even consider defensive juggernauts like Mutombo or Wallace.


This is another terrible argument from you. KAJ outplayed Hakeem in KAJ's 16th & 17th years vs Hakeem's 1st & 2nd. In other words, way long into KAJ's career he was still better than Hakeem was at the beginning of his.
Why is this surprising? Kareem was a veteran and probably the second greatest player in the history of the NBA and Hakeem was a rookie fresh out of college who had been playing the game of basketball for only 4-5 years at that point in his life. Also, you're talking about an extremely small sample size in the regular season. Doesn't matter, bro.

Also, you completely glossed over the fact that Hakeem got the better of Kareem in the 86 playoffs both in terms of team success (Rockets victory) and production, in which Dream's stats are clearly better. Also, where are you even pulling your head-to-head stats from? Because I look at their regular season numbers and they seem pretty damn even to me.


Yet, for most of the great players, by their 2nd year, they were already GREAT, and many had great 1st years - Hakeem clearly didn't as he was outplayed by both KAJ and Moses then.[/B]
Again, you've proven nothing. You haven't actually provided any stats as far as I can tell, and you're using the numbers from the first and second year of a guy who didn't even start playing the sport until he was 17. It's completely insane.

[QUOTE]You TWIST my argument here. I DO have Hakeem ranked a good number of spots ahead of DRob and especially Ewing in my GOAT list. My ONLY argument here is that he CLEARLY did NOT DOMINATE THEM during their simultaneous best/PRIME years. Thus, why he can't be in the GOAT Top 10.
He did in the postseason. As far as I'm concerned that's all that really matters. Look at Hakeem's merit and the guy just had a different gear in the playoffs. He's one of the few players in NBA history whose postseason numbers are substantially better than his regular season numbers. That's unusual. And impressive.


What he did in ONE series each in the Play-Offs is "by far your worst argument yet". For my part, I have not even addressed the question of head-to-head Play-Off results - a lot because it tends to be a far too small sample size. (As I say, I haven't been addressing THIS question HERE; but I am perfectly aware of how he kicked butt on them in those particular series - I watched those series and was greatly impressed.)
But you're not even using head-to-head stats. You're using head-to-head team records. How is that a fair comparison? If you look at head-to-head stats in the regular season, you'll see that Hakeem's numbers are clearly superior to Ewing's and arguably better than Robinson (Dream scored more points, Admiral was more efficient). But you're acting as if team results of regular season games matter.

If that's the case, then Hakeem was a better player than Jordan, because if I recall correctly, Dream's Rockets were 13-10 against Jordan's Bulls all-time. See why that's a horrible argument?


Specifically, your claim that DRob "may have ... higher numbers, but Hakeem was still the better overall player." I never have referred to any "higher numbers"; I have only referred to the experts' votes: they voted the two EQUAL over that 10-year period 5 years to 5 years of one being superior over the other. Your beef then is NOT with me, but with the expert voters!
What expert voters? I have no idea what you're talking about. Granted, it's really, really hard to follow what you're saying because I made that post forever ago and you didn't do a particularly good job of quoting my information.


I have never, ever even referred to "regular season head-to-head win-loss total thing".
Yeah... You did. You brought up Robinson's record against Hakeem in the regular season.


In sum, in this post, contrary to your usual high-quality, you've been, at best, terribly sloppy; at worst, deliberately manipulative with your argumentation.
Dude, nothing you've said has hardly any evidence to back it up. You talk about how Kareem dominated Hakeem and how Robinson and Ewing outperformed him in their careers, but the numbers prove otherwise. You claim Kareem played in a great era of centers, but failed to even back that up with evidence. You claimed his greatest offensive and defensive years did not align, which clearly are not the case. Also, using All-NBA teams as any kind of argument to begin with is just a poor start for any argument because it's a completely subjective award that could be given out to any number of players on a given year. And when you've got 3-5 excellent centers all posting relatively similar numbers and then you consider Hakeem's supporting cast was awful from 87-93, you can see why the guy didn't make more All-NBA teams.

Seriously, I think you're grasping at straws and don't have much of a leg to stand on. And I didn't even hardly touch on the fact yet that Hakeem was probably both one of the five greatest defensive big men to ever play the game and one of the five greatest offensive post scorers to ever play the game.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 10:58 AM
I'd like to preface my specific responses to the details in your post by making a kind of apology:
Hey mightybosstone, Please Accept My Apologies - I Have A Lot Of Respect For You; for your General Quality Of Posting - you're one of the guys I pay the most attention to & learn the most from.
So to whatever extent my posts have come across as offensive (or exaggerated) to you; I'll willingly take the blame for that - please accept that it has not been my intent.

Btw, Today is my 1st PSD “Birthday” or “Anniversary”; I wanna thank you and the many other fine-quality posters for your work and for making this place so enjoyable to be a part of!

Further, we agree here (and more generally) about more than we disagree, imo. You say KAJ was probably GOAT #2; I've got him GOAT #1 - that's a very small "disagreement"; that I consider NOT worth getting worked up about - and certainly less important than us getting along as part of what I think of as PSD's "team.

It could very well be that I have NOT been precise enough in what I've been comparing. Let me try to re-phrase it...

I count "everything" (including how long I work on projects); so please believe me that
I've put 200+ hours recently into studying the results of the end-of-the-regular season awards, the voting on, particularly, the ALL-NBA (-ABA, & -NBL) 1st-Teams, 2nd-Teams (and less so, as merited, 3rd-Teams) and the ALL-NBA Defensive Teams. I have come up with what I believe is a highly-innovative and FAIR way to compare the really early Greats (from pre-1960 (i.e. "pre-Wilt"), and from pre-1948 (i.e. "pre-Mikan's first full season)). But I'll address that in another post.

I've compared the specific yearly ALL-NBA voting results to various stats (regular and advanced) to see which results most closely "match" what I saw/remember from those seasons, groups of seasons, careers & the NBA-ABA-NBL entire history. In my opinion, NOTHING, no single stat or group of them, beats the ALL-NBA voting results. Which makes sense to me: the voters were/are professional sports reporters who are paid to know this game - and they do KNOW it.

So, when I refer to such-and-such a player beating out another guy; I'm referring specifically to
how each of those players did vis-à-vis the ALL-NBA... results. For example, Hakeem has 6 ALL-NBA 1st-Team Selections (meaning he was the best Center in 6 separate years.) Seems quite reasonable to me - he was that good. BUT, Wilt had 7, Shaq had 8, and KAJ had 10 - also matching my "eye-test" for their seasons & careers. Why didn't Hakeem have more than his great 6? Because in ALL the other years of his super-great career, other Centers had better years! Plain & simple (and, again, not based on any one stat or group of stats - simply how each was evaluated OVER-ALL, by 100+ experts at season's end each year).

But the very fact that Hakeem did NOT dominate the Center position for the majority of his playing years says to me that while he was 4th Greatest Center ever (a super-high compliment, muchly deserved); he shouldn't be in the GOAT Top 10; because there have been 15 (FIFTEEN !) other guys who have clearly more-dominated for more seasons at their respective positions than he did (in other words, who were THE best at their position more than the 6 times Hakeem was at his). For me, it's that simple, that straight-forward. This does NOT mean that I rate all 15 of those guys ahead of him on my NBA GOAT Top 20 List; I don't - I ONLY use the ALL-NBA/ABA/NBL results as my STARTING POINT, my base of info.

It also doesn't mean that I do NOT recognize that the NBA has been a Center-dominated position for all but its most recent history. My GOAT Top 10 and Top 25 are definitely dominated by Centers (I have 3 Centers in the my Top 10, I have 8 Centers in my Top 25).

Lastly, I HAVE recently posted a whole series of posts specifically addressing comparisons of guys within the NBA GOAT Top 10. So, MOST, if not all, of your responses / objections to me have been addressed in those posts. For example, I have 3 quite long posts (which have, incidentally, received some very high praise from some of PSD's top-notch posters/thinkers) about KAJ (comparing his career to MJ's and to the 13 Great Centers he played simultaneous with; and, the first 11 (chronologically) of which, he dominated, and the last 2 of which: Hakeem & Ewing, he was better than super-late in KAJ's career: his 16th & 17th seasons.)

Here's the LINKs:
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?868922-PSD-s-Official-2-NBA-Player-of-All-Time/page2
Post #66, "KAJ FOR GOAT #2 (I missed the vote on #1; I would have voted him #1 EASILY)"
and
Post #77: "One-Sided Players: Magic "VS" Russell (& A Shout-Out To "Spur-fection") "

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?868922-PSD-s-Official-2-NBA-Player-of-All-Time/page3
Post #82: "The Monster INFLUENCE Of Red Auerbach (& Shout-Out To Pop)"
and
Post #85: "Getting To The Finals IS WAY BETTER Than Getting Knocked Out Earlier "
and
Post #89: "A HUGE CASE CAN BE MADE THAT KAJ'S CAREER WAS GREATER THAN MJ'S";
and
Post #139: "Kareem Utterly DOMINATED 13 Of The All-Time Greatest Centers (during KAJ's career)" [Wilt, Reed, Mel Daniels, Unseld, Cowens, Issel, McAdoo, Gilmore, Walton, Moses Malone, Parish, Olajuwon and Ewing]

N.B. In this last post I intentionally left out at least 1 other clearly Great Center: Nate Thurmond (That post was hugely long as it was.)

Post #140: "MJ Utterly DOMINATED 13 Mostly Relatively-Mediocre “SGs” (during his 10-11 Great Years)"

and just earlier in this very thread:
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?870218-PSD-s-Official-7-Player-of-All-Time/page6
Post #205: "For Excellent Reasons (Voters Covered NBA For A Living): ALL-NBA Teams =Best Measure "


That's my bad. I'll concede this one as I was confusing the All-NBA team with the All-Star selections.


In one word? ********. Kareem caught the tail end of Wilt, the primes of Moses and Walton (as brief as it was), and the very early years of Hakeem and Ewing. That's it in terms of all-time top 10-15 caliber centers. Hakeem faced prime Shaq, Robinson, Ewing and Mourning, as well as older versions of Kareem and Moses. And that doesn't even consider defensive juggernauts like Mutombo or Wallace.


Why is this surprising? Kareem was a veteran and probably the second greatest player in the history of the NBA and Hakeem was a rookie fresh out of college who had been playing the game of basketball for only 4-5 years at that point in his life. Also, you're talking about an extremely small sample size in the regular season. Doesn't matter, bro.

Also, you completely glossed over the fact that Hakeem got the better of Kareem in the 86 playoffs both in terms of team success (Rockets victory) and production, in which Dream's stats are clearly better. Also, where are you even pulling your head-to-head stats from? Because I look at their regular season numbers and they seem pretty damn even to me.

[quote]Yet, for most of the great players, by their 2nd year, they were already GREAT, and many had great 1st years - Hakeem clearly didn't as he was outplayed by both KAJ and Moses then.[/B]
Again, you've proven nothing. You haven't actually provided any stats as far as I can tell, and you're using the numbers from the first and second year of a guy who didn't even start playing the sport until he was 17. It's completely insane.


He did in the postseason. As far as I'm concerned that's all that really matters. Look at Hakeem's merit and the guy just had a different gear in the playoffs. He's one of the few players in NBA history whose postseason numbers are substantially better than his regular season numbers. That's unusual. And impressive.


But you're not even using head-to-head stats. You're using head-to-head team records. How is that a fair comparison? If you look at head-to-head stats in the regular season, you'll see that Hakeem's numbers are clearly superior to Ewing's and arguably better than Robinson (Dream scored more points, Admiral was more efficient). But you're acting as if team results of regular season games matter.

If that's the case, then Hakeem was a better player than Jordan, because if I recall correctly, Dream's Rockets were 13-10 against Jordan's Bulls all-time. See why that's a horrible argument?


What expert voters? I have no idea what you're talking about. Granted, it's really, really hard to follow what you're saying because I made that post forever ago and you didn't do a particularly good job of quoting my information.


Yeah... You did. You brought up Robinson's record against Hakeem in the regular season.


Dude, nothing you've said has hardly any evidence to back it up. You talk about how Kareem dominated Hakeem and how Robinson and Ewing outperformed him in their careers, but the numbers prove otherwise. You claim Kareem played in a great era of centers, but failed to even back that up with evidence. You claimed his greatest offensive and defensive years did not align, which clearly are not the case. Also, using All-NBA teams as any kind of argument to begin with is just a poor start for any argument because it's a completely subjective award that could be given out to any number of players on a given year. And when you've got 3-5 excellent centers all posting relatively similar numbers and then you consider Hakeem's supporting cast was awful from 87-93, you can see why the guy didn't make more All-NBA teams.

Seriously, I think you're grasping at straws and don't have much of a leg to stand on. And I didn't even hardly touch on the fact yet that Hakeem was probably both one of the five greatest defensive big men to ever play the game and one of the five greatest offensive post scorers to ever play the game.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 11:27 AM
That video is just a particular case I was looking at a bit ago of Bill doing things that simply could not be achieved by the likes of players that we like to call "bad offensive players". And that's Bill in the 60's, where the offensive game simply did not need to meet the standards of today's NBA in order to be effective (sort of goes hand in hand with both of our points that A) Competition both for/against is indeed a factor in the context of his legacy and B) that the apex-generational talents will simply find ways to adapt and dominate whatever time period they are in given the opportunity.

You're probably right to call me out on the slight of Wilts drive to win. I mean it more in comparison to the absolute balls to the wall assassins like Jordan/Russell/KG level. Which, in combination of his elite athleticism + intellect + defensive prowess + leadership + ability to start an offense... it's just an unmistakably incredibly unique skill-set in a player that I haven't seen duplicated in a player since. The ring"Z" are a bi-product of his incredible team to a large degree to be sure, but without him they are an absolute shell of what they could have achieved.

But to be fair to Wilt, I've actually defended the claims people make against his tenacity and would point to a lot of statements/facts that show that - while he did love his stats to a fault at times - he still was a die-hard competitor. I absolutely won't take that away from Wilt, and frankly my mentioning of his name is mostly just due to the twos forever connection.

And thanks Pablo, I can be short at times but always appreciate your poise and unique insight from your youth watching the game. I'm jealous at that.

PS: Concerning the WiltArchives - yeah dude, that guy is the best. He posts here and starts threads on his new videos occasionally. Much appreciation for how much work he has put in to compile that for the future generations as well as my own and even yours to look back on. It's a treat to be sure.

A Couple Of Links To 2 Guys Who Do Great Analysis Of The NBA (past & present)

Hey tredigs,
Thanx back to you for your compliments, your dignity (and your jealousy !, hehe).

By the way, in case you're not familiar with him/her: there's another quality video-maker: janarm (that might not be his channel name on YouTube - but it's something close to that); and
David Friedman: (This guy is just super-sharp, both about NBA-ABA-NBL history and about current teams and players - amazing work!):
LINK: http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.mx/

mightybosstone
07-10-2014, 12:46 PM
I'd like to preface my specific responses to the details in your post by making a kind of apology:
Hey mightybosstone, Please Accept My Apologies - I Have A Lot Of Respect For You; for your General Quality Of Posting - you're one of the guys I pay the most attention to & learn the most from.
So to whatever extent my posts have come across as offensive (or exaggerated) to you; I'll willingly take the blame for that - please accept that it has not been my intent.
No worries man. I don't take offense to them just as I would hope you wouldn't take offense to mine. I tend to have a short temper when it comes to Internet arguments, and Hakeem is by far my favorite athlete of all time, so it's a tense subject for me. My apologies if anything I said offended you.


Btw, Today is my 1st PSD “Birthday” or “Anniversary”; I wanna thank you and the many other fine-quality posters for your work and for making this place so enjoyable to be a part of!
Congratulations, sir! Although when you've been around this place as long as I have, you begin to question your sanity and whether or not you can ever quit PSD.


But the very fact that Hakeem did NOT dominate the Center position for the majority of his playing years says to me that while he was 4th Greatest Center ever (a super-high compliment, muchly deserved); he shouldn't be in the GOAT Top 10; because there have been 15 (FIFTEEN !) other guys who have clearly more-dominated for more seasons at their respective positions than he did (in other words, who were THE best at their position more than the 6 times Hakeem was at his). For me, it's that simple, that straight-forward. This does NOT mean that I rate all 15 of those guys ahead of him on my NBA GOAT Top 20 List; I don't - I ONLY use the ALL-NBA/ABA/NBL results as my STARTING POINT, my base of info.
See, I totally disagree with your very premise of ranking players based on All-NBA selections. Because it puts FAR too much weight on longevity and not nearly enough weight on peak and prime production and postseason production. So for guys who didn't play very long (Bird, Magic, Walton, etc.), it's not going to be a particularly fair comparison when looking at guys who played forever (Kareem, Kobe, Karl Malone).

It also isn't going to benefit guys who had unusual careers in terms of peaks and primes. If you look at Hakeem's career, it was rather odd. He had peaks and valleys unlike other guys who were more consistent. He seemed to have peaked in the late 80s, but then found another gear when the Rockets started getting good again in the early-mid 90s.

Also, Hakeem played in an era of dominant centers. Hell, Brad Daugherty even had some ridiculously stat filled seasons and beat out Hakeem for All-NBA honors in 91-92. But Hakeem's weaker seasons by comparison to other era's centers would probably have earned him All NBA honors. And then you look at some of his greatest seasons and they happened to coincide with ridiculous peaks of guys like Robinson and Shaq, who were just freakishly efficient.

But (as previously stated) where Hakeem really shined as a player were on the defensive side of the ball and in the postseason. You can talk about how his series against Ewing, Robinson and Shaq were small sample sizes and you'd be accurate. But they were small sample sizes on the biggest of stages and he dominated those guys (well at least Ewing and Robinson).

Another thing you might not be considering by using All-NBA teams as your major point of criteria is that voters often take team success into account. But Hakeem played on some pretty mediocre basketball teams from 90-92 (three prime years in which he wasn't named to an All-NBA 1st team).


Lastly, I HAVE recently posted a whole series of posts specifically addressing comparisons of guys within the NBA GOAT Top 10. So, MOST, if not all, of your responses / objections to me have been addressed in those posts. For example, I have 3 quite long posts (which have, incidentally, received some very high praise from some of PSD's top-notch posters/thinkers) about KAJ (comparing his career to MJ's and to the 13 Great Centers he played simultaneous with; and, the first 11 (chronologically) of which, he dominated, and the last 2 of which: Hakeem & Ewing, he was better than super-late in KAJ's career: his 16th & 17th seasons.)
I'll look through some of these, but you're going to be hard pressed to try and convince me that Hakeem is not a top 10 player of all time. And as I previously stated, I think All-NBA teams is a poor barometer to rate players on, because you're putting too much weight on longevity. There are a lot of guys who have as many or more All-NBA teams than Bill Walton. That doesn't mean they were better NBA players.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 01:43 PM
No worries man. I don't take offense to them just as I would hope you wouldn't take offense to mine. I tend to have a short temper when it comes to Internet arguments, and Hakeem is by far my favorite athlete of all time, so it's a tense subject for me. My apologies if anything I said offended you.


Congratulations, sir! Although when you've been around this place as long as I have, you begin to question your sanity and whether or not you can ever quit PSD.


See, I totally disagree with your very premise of ranking players based on All-NBA selections. Because it puts FAR too much weight on longevity and not nearly enough weight on peak and prime production and postseason production. So for guys who didn't play very long (Bird, Magic, Walton, etc.), it's not going to be a particularly fair comparison when looking at guys who played forever (Kareem, Kobe, Karl Malone).

It also isn't going to benefit guys who had unusual careers in terms of peaks and primes. If you look at Hakeem's career, it was rather odd. He had peaks and valleys unlike other guys who were more consistent. He seemed to have peaked in the late 80s, but then found another gear when the Rockets started getting good again in the early-mid 90s.

Also, Hakeem played in an era of dominant centers. Hell, Brad Daugherty even had some ridiculously stat filled seasons and beat out Hakeem for All-NBA honors in 91-92. But Hakeem's weaker seasons by comparison to other era's centers would probably have earned him All NBA honors. And then you look at some of his greatest seasons and they happened to coincide with ridiculous peaks of guys like Robinson and Shaq, who were just freakishly efficient.

But (as previously stated) where Hakeem really shined as a player were on the defensive side of the ball and in the postseason. You can talk about how his series against Ewing, Robinson and Shaq were small sample sizes and you'd be accurate. But they were small sample sizes on the biggest of stages and he dominated those guys (well at least Ewing and Robinson).

Another thing you might not be considering by using All-NBA teams as your major point of criteria is that voters often take team success into account. But Hakeem played on some pretty mediocre basketball teams from 90-92 (three prime years in which he wasn't named to an All-NBA 1st team).


I'll look through some of these, but you're going to be hard pressed to try and convince me that Hakeem is not a top 10 player of all time. And as I previously stated, I think All-NBA teams is a poor barometer to rate players on, because you're putting too much weight on longevity. There are a lot of guys who have as many or more All-NBA teams than Bill Walton. That doesn't mean they were better NBA players.

Hey mightbosstone,
This is the you I love. Lots of good stuff in this one post.

Bill Walton - don't even get me started! hehe. Give the dude two good "wheels" and he's the GOAT. My (only) favorite quote from Bill Simmons, "Of all the great defensive centers, Walton was the best offensively. Of all the great offensive centers, Walton was the best defensively." For me, that nails it. The guy was just an improved version of Bill Russell but WAY better offensively.

However, I can't put him in my GOAT Top 25 - cause he had "reverse"-longetivity - not-quite 2 Super Seasons with Portland, and perhaps best 6th man of all time, one year with the C's.

About the longetivity issue. First a question, don't you have ALL the guys with 10+ Great Seasons (i.e., 10+ ALL-NBA 1st+2nd Team Selections in your GOAT Top 15? Pretty much most people do - BUT, 10+ Great Seasons is NOT YET a longetivity issue. BUT it IS my basic criteria (I do always list a couple of guys, Hakeem & Moses who didn't quite hit 10, too). Beyond the 10 "basic" great years, I "re-open" the entire GOAT question, now that I've narrowed the possible candidates down to some 20 guys.

Really, probably the BEST thing about using the ALL-NBA Selections as a first step / guideline, is that it RULES OUT UNWORTHY CANDIDATES. Some player who could not dominate his own position for even 10 years; can't be in the GOAT Top 10, can they? (Like our example of Walton - monster player but far too few years actually demonstrating it - he might be my all-time favorite player, I even met him once, crossing paths in Balboa Park, San Diego, - him absolutely dwarfing his bicycle, me in the middle of a 4-hour hilly run (kind of dwarfing my running shoes!). But those damn feet of his!)

It is NOT, for me, THE determining factor BETWEEN these top 20 or so guys; for example, I don't have Karl Malone sniffing my GOAT Top 10; but yes in my 11-16 DESPITE only he and Kobe and KAJ having 13+ 1st+2nd- Team Selections. Hopefully that'll make my position clear enough, regardless of whether we agree. I do suspect our lists are just not very different.

Besides, I even say about my GOAT Top 4: KAJ, Magic, MJ and Wilt, "That's my order; but I can 'live' with any NBA GOAT list that has THOSE 4 guys in their Top 5." So I AM (at least according to me!) pretty flexible about the list.

And, how could I fail to mention, the GOAT discussion (at least according to how I understand that most people take it) is about CAREERS. So, for example, if Wilt had ONLY had 1962; I'd rate that perhaps the greatest year ever; but he wouldn't sniff my GOAT Top 20.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 01:53 PM
No worries man. I don't take offense to them just as I would hope you wouldn't take offense to mine. I tend to have a short temper when it comes to Internet arguments, and Hakeem is by far my favorite athlete of all time, so it's a tense subject for me. My apologies if anything I said offended you.
[SUPER-SNIP]

Hey mightbosstone,
I don't have a problem with people "offending" me about my favorite player. Pretty much EVERY player in the NBA GOAT Top 25 is "my" favorite player (I've loved them all, relatively equally).

About PSD LONGETIVITY and "sanity". Be prepared for what comes next ...
You are NOT even in my league! (hehe) I've questioned my sanity, for excellent reasons, since way BEFORE I joined PSD; nothing that happens here can change that ... "AND IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!" hehe

Chronz
07-10-2014, 01:54 PM
I think theres a strong possibility that Bill Russell and his style of play, made his teammates worse offensively. That he puts more pressure on his teammates to score than any other.


Pablo, can you comment on Hondo's explosion without Russ? His first year without Russ, there was a sudden explosion in his individual efficiency. Im sure it didn't seem like it at the time but he would go on to play his best ball in the coming years. He was 29 when Russ left so its not like he was a young player on the ascension either.

Hondo is one of those oldies that I havent brushed up on outside of Celtic/Russ/Wilt centered books.

Chronz
07-10-2014, 01:59 PM
I've decided to vote Dream.
Whats the case against him?

Chronz
07-10-2014, 02:02 PM
Hey mightbosstone,
I don't have a problem with people "offending" me about my favorite player. Pretty much EVERY player in the NBA GOAT Top 25 is "my" favorite player (I've loved them all, relatively equally).

About PSD LONGETIVITY and "sanity". Be prepared for what comes next ...
You are NOT even in my league! (hehe) I've questioned my sanity, for excellent reasons, since way BEFORE I joined PSD; nothing that happens here can change that ... "AND IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!" hehe

You were very diplomatic in your response to his rage post. Props. I wouldn't have been so classy.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 02:17 PM
I think theres a strong possibility that Bill Russell and his style of play, made his teammates worse offensively. That he puts more pressure on his teammates to score than any other.


Pablo, can you comment on Hondo's explosion without Russ? His first year without Russ, there was a sudden explosion in his individual efficiency. Im sure it didn't seem like it at the time but he would go on to play his best ball in the coming years. He was 29 when Russ left so its not like he was a young player on the ascension either.

Hondo is one of those oldies that I havent brushed up on outside of Celtic/Russ/Wilt centered books.

The ONLY Thing Hondo Was Excellent At: Being An Always Ready COMPLETE Player
Hey High Horse,
I think I can be quite objective about a player Hondo because I was never either a fan of the C's nor ever came close to hating anybody on that team (except Red; but that was for being a arrogant GENIUS! That's a darned hard combination to take when you're rooting for some other team! hehe)

Hondo is THE "test case" for the Longetivity argument. This guy had an almost never-ending PRIME.
First he was the All-Time Greatest 6th Man, career-wise. How the hell was anybody gonna beat that team when their "best" player was always coming off the bench - he'd have been, at worst, the 2nd best player on most teams, the best on some. He was tough-as-nails on D; as dependable as anybody with the ball; could play multiple positions; and ALWAYS was totally coachable and had almost Wilt-like stamina.

He was one of the first, original, "complete" players (BOTH physically and mentally).

THEN, he gets to really start. It was like, "He had over-paid his dues; and was finally free from that '6th-man' cage. He was magnificent in his continued excellence; now sprinkled with the extra joy of starting. So, essentially, I attribute it to a different mind-set BASED on a different "physical-set". He had ALWAYS BEEN READY; but it does make a world of difference to participate in warm-ups and then have to sit for 10+ minutes of actual clock-time; AND then come in COLD against mostly already very well warmed up guys. AND after years of (correctly) being regarded as a key PIECE (amongst a bevy of All-Stars); they finally said, "Show us what ya still got." And he was ready!

He said, just after his career was over (slightly paraphrased): "If I had known about Bird, I would have kept playing to play with him." And I just know he would have been excellent playing along with the Great Bird. Hondo was always ready; Bird would have been "the doctor's medicine" for a third phase to his great career.

FlashBolt
07-10-2014, 02:20 PM
Does anyone find it funny that Bill had 12 votes on the #6 POAT, but only gets 4 on this? I expected him to win #7.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 02:45 PM
You were very diplomatic in your response to his rage post. Props. I wouldn't have been so classy.

What A Combo: Youth Being Wasted On The Young; & Wisdom Being Wasted On The Old!

Hey Chronz,
Too damned comfortable way up on that horse of yours? hehe

Maybe what "fixed" me attitude-wise was I thought, "Pablo, this is all you're ever gonna be, so, suck it up and live with it!" And I thought being me was plenty funny - more than enough to make gentle fun of. So, if I feel that way about me; what right do I have to get upset with anybody else (unless they're really NASTY - but those people are few and far between - on account of, deservedly so, they tend to get themselves killed-off! hehe).

I guess it's kind of like, "Youth being wasted on the young"; but in reverse: "Wisdom being wasted on the old!" (No wonder our species is such a mess! hehe)

P.S. About that "criminal negligance / neglige'" vis-a-vis Elgin. A "brand-new" video on him, "Most Under-Rated Player Ever" (some title like that). Brought tears to my eyes like NOTHING Baylor-related in easily 4 decades. You might want to check it out.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 03:19 PM
I've decided to vote Dream.
Whats the case against him?

Hey High Horse,
Maybe the 2nd best case is that we might just end up having more than half of the GOAT Top 10 being Centers. The League hasn't been THAT Center-dominated, has it?

The ONLY strong argument I have and can raise (and not with much enthusiasm - I loved the guy's game; there was something exquisitely delicious about his grace on the hardwood) is that he didn't dominate his own position during his own era enough (COMPARED to every other GOAT Top 10 remaining candidate; except Russell). For me, that IS enough to push him back to the GOAT 11-16 group of Greats.

mightybosstone
07-10-2014, 03:32 PM
However, I can't put him in my GOAT Top 25 - cause he had "reverse"-longetivity - not-quite 2 Super Seasons with Portland, and perhaps best 6th man of all time, one year with the C's.
He wouldn't crack my top 25 either, but I'd rank him somewhere in that 25-40 range for sure, and I'd probably rank him somewhere among the 9-12 greatest centers of all-time.


About the longetivity issue. First a question, don't you have ALL the guys with 10+ Great Seasons (i.e., 10+ ALL-NBA 1st+2nd Team Selections in your GOAT Top 15? Pretty much most people do - BUT, 10+ Great Seasons is NOT YET a longetivity issue. BUT it IS my basic criteria (I do always list a couple of guys, Hakeem & Moses who didn't quite hit 10, too). Beyond the 10 "basic" great years, I "re-open" the entire GOAT question, now that I've narrowed the possible candidates down to some 20 guys.
But your definition of a "great season" is pretty exact. It doesn't take any other stats into consideration aside from a completely subjective vote that has its own fair share of flaws. Hakeem had 10 consecutive years of 21+/11+/2+/2.5+/1.5+ with a 23+ PER and a .170+ WS/48. That's 10 freaking great season of statistical production. If you were to look at the NBA careers of every other player in NBA history, I seriously doubt anyone else has every accomplished that feat. Plus the guy made four All-NBA third teams that you're not taking into consideration in addition to eight All-Defensive teams.

And as I've previously mentioned, All-NBA is a completely subjective award. Take Larry Bird as an example. The guy had 10 "great seasons" based on your criteria, but he had exactly 10. And look at his numbers in 80-81 when he was a first-team All NBA guy. That would be a pretty damn weak season by Hakeem's standards. He had better seasons than that where he didn't even make an All NBA team, but that doesn't matter based on your very black and white interpretation of what makes a "great season."


Really, probably the BEST thing about using the ALL-NBA Selections as a first step / guideline, is that it RULES OUT UNWORTHY CANDIDATES. Some player who could not dominate his own position for even 10 years; can't be in the GOAT Top 10, can they? (Like our example of Walton - monster player but far too few years actually demonstrating it - he might be my all-time favorite player, I even met him once, crossing paths in Balboa Park, San Diego, - him absolutely dwarfing his bicycle, me in the middle of a 4-hour hilly run (kind of dwarfing my running shoes!). But those damn feet of his!)
But as I previously proved in my last paragraph, one player's All NBA 1st team season could be another player's season with no accolades whatsoever. Is that fair?


It is NOT, for me, THE determining factor BETWEEN these top 20 or so guys; for example, I don't have Karl Malone sniffing my GOAT Top 10; but yes in my 11-16 DESPITE only he and Kobe and KAJ having 13+ 1st+2nd- Team Selections. Hopefully that'll make my position clear enough, regardless of whether we agree. I do suspect our lists are just not very different.
See, but when do you take postseason performance into consideration. That's such a HUGE piece of the puzzle when comparing guys like Hakeem and Malone. Malone had one of the highest drop offs in efficiency of any star in NBA history in the playoffs compared to his regular season numbers. Hakeem has one of the greatest increases in production and efficiency in the playoffs compared to his regular season numbers.

To me, that's such a key cog in this discussion that you're missing. Also, look at the forwards in the league in the 90s after Bird fell off and tell me that there was an equal amount of talent in the 90s at the forward positions than at center. Plus, they allow for two forwards on each team compared with only one center.

Come to think of it, that's another HUGE piece that you're taking into consideration when looking at your All-NBA discussion. Guards and forwards have a massive advantage to centers because center (as you mentioned) is a designated position that allows for only one player per team. With guards and forwards given twice as many opportunities, you should consider that into your criteria.

ricky recon
07-10-2014, 03:46 PM
Its a travesty Bird hasn't gone yet. The reasoning is so stupid too. If Dirk had no qualms "dominating" these big, tall, strong athletes with his jump shot and BBIQ there is no reason Bird wouldn't do the same when you add his phenomenal passing and intangible instincts.

Too many old guys get shafted on this forum for reasons like "they wouldn't be able to hang today". The cream of the crop is going to rise in any era because each era has its own level playing field, every era has their own freak athletes. If LeBron was in the 80s you could come up with reasons his body would be diminished and he would be facing much different rules than he faces today where a slap on the shoulder is a flagrant and ejection. The eras will even out.

Yep.

Bird should have been top 5, to get topped out by Hakeem just shows how ignorant some of these guys are.

Pablonovi
07-10-2014, 03:55 PM
He wouldn't crack my top 25 either, but I'd rank him somewhere in that 25-40 range for sure, and I'd probably rank him somewhere among the 9-12 greatest centers of all-time.


But your definition of a "great season" is pretty exact. It doesn't take any other stats into consideration aside from a completely subjective vote that has its own fair share of flaws. Hakeem had 10 consecutive years of 21+/11+/2+/2.5+/1.5+ with a 23+ PER and a .170+ WS/48. That's 10 freaking great season of statistical production. If you were to look at the NBA careers of every other player in NBA history, I seriously doubt anyone else has every accomplished that feat. Plus the guy made four All-NBA third teams that you're not taking into consideration in addition to eight All-Defensive teams.

And as I've previously mentioned, All-NBA is a completely subjective award. Take Larry Bird as an example. The guy had 10 "great seasons" based on your criteria, but he had exactly 10. And look at his numbers in 80-81 when he was a first-team All NBA guy. That would be a pretty damn weak season by Hakeem's standards. He had better seasons than that where he didn't even make an All NBA team, but that doesn't matter based on your very black and white interpretation of what makes a "great season."


But as I previously proved in my last paragraph, one player's All NBA 1st team season could be another player's season with no accolades whatsoever. Is that fair?


See, but when do you take postseason performance into consideration. That's such a HUGE piece of the puzzle when comparing guys like Hakeem and Malone. Malone had one of the highest drop offs in efficiency of any star in NBA history in the playoffs compared to his regular season numbers. Hakeem has one of the greatest increases in production and efficiency in the playoffs compared to his regular season numbers.

To me, that's such a key cog in this discussion that you're missing. Also, look at the forwards in the league in the 90s after Bird fell off and tell me that there was an equal amount of talent in the 90s at the forward positions than at center. Plus, they allow for two forwards on each team compared with only one center.

Come to think of it, that's another HUGE piece that you're taking into consideration when looking at your All-NBA discussion. Guards and forwards have a massive advantage to centers because center (as you mentioned) is a designated position that allows for only one player per team. With guards and forwards given twice as many opportunities, you should consider that into your criteria.

Hey mightybosstone,

This reminds me of one of those cases where one guy (me in this case) feels pretty sure he mostly agrees with the other person (you in this case); yet, the other person feels even more sure he mostly DIS-agrees with the first. Kind of boggles my mind - but that could be on me (heck there was once this guy that I gave non-stop compliments to and he responded by arrogantly stating publicly that he disagreed with everything I had just said!)

My INITIAL / FIRST CRITERIA or "TEST" (for winnowing the field way down of worthy candidates for the GOAT Top 10) is, essentially 10 great regular seasons (as either the #1 or #2 at your position). THEN, amongst those "still standing" (some 20 or so super-greats); any number of other considerations come into serious play - longetivity being one of them (for example KAJ's 15 Great Seasons is gonna beat somebody else's 10 Great Seasons).

You are absolutely correct when you say that I don't take into consideration a number of the things you bring up. BUT, that's because I hadn't gotten that far in the discussion. I'd be extremely happy if as many people as possible came to accept the ALL-NBA/ABA/NBL Selections as their first criteria.

For me, it is not much worth it to go on to debating the many other next-level comparison factors WHILE there does NOT appear to be general agreement (at all) about what should be the "first-level" "measuring stick". We have PSD-ers who insist, for example, AI is THE GOAT (or GOAT Top 2-3). The ALL-League Teams "criteria" eliminates that "waste of time due to abject subjectivity" be applying an extremely fair OBJECTIVE critieria. True, as you say, each selector decides for him/her-self (seemingly quite subjective); but it is their job to be as objective as possible about this League and its teams and players - and I'd bet almost anything that those Selectors have, historically, come closer COLLECTIVELY (and that's THE important thing - their decisions are the result of the combined vote of 150 of them or so!); than any of us (equally, if not much more so, subject to subjectivity than they are!).

Lastly, last I saw, since 1955, the ALL-NBA Team Selections were allotted: 1 Center, 2 Forwards & 2 Guards, PROBABLY because, last I remember (hehe) the game IS PLAYED with that EXACT allotment of players!
I can't even conceive of an alternate system where there'd be some OTHER number of spots allotted to each position. What: 1.67 Centers, 1.67 Forwards and 1.67 Guards ???

Please forgive me if I, perhaps, don't further respond going forwards in this thread - mostly because it doesn't seem to me that we are either saying anything new OR convincing each other much. (Makes me feel especially yukky if I think I'm repeating myself repeatedly again! hehe)

Kaner
07-10-2014, 04:40 PM
I've decided to vote Dream.
Whats the case against him?

Went Lebron and honestly think it's hard to see much of a case for Hakeem over him at this point.

Lebron crushes him in terms of era dominance, 4 MVP's in 5 years and leading the league in WS and ws/48 for 5 straight years. For those 5 years Lebron's been hands down the best player in the world and arguably for longer, where Hakeems was probably 'only' the best player for about the 2 years Jordan was retired and wasn't even runner up (or arguably top 3-5) for most of his career.


Lebron has already had 7 seasons with more WS/48 then Hakeems best. In fact for their careers Lebron already has 6 more WS then Hakeem in 400 less games and 11,000 less minutes! It's the same narrative in the playoffs where Lebron's played 13 more games then the Dream and has 11 more ws to show for it. Am being lazy using WS just because I think it adequately point out how big of an advantage Lebron has here statistically.


In terms of Accolades they're pretty close but a edge to Lebron. Lebron already has more 1st team nba selections and equal 1st team all-defense selections.

He obviously has 4 MVPs to Hakeems 1 and they're equal in championships. The only significant advantage for Hakeem here is his 2 DPOY awards but don't think that close too 3 more MVPs.


I love Hakeem and Lebron still has too play out his career but he already has a clear advantage over Hakeem and Bird(for similar reasons) at this point.

mightybosstone
07-10-2014, 05:43 PM
You were very diplomatic in your response to his rage post. Props.
Yeahhhh.... I probably laid it on a bit too thick, but my mind doesn't comprehend civility or diplomacy when it comes to Hakeem Olajuwon arguments.


I wouldn't have been so classy.
Brign it on, Chronz! I'm ready. :box: