the top ten has nineteen guys in it

[NYKalltheway]

Cmon , you've never heard these expressions?

Bill Russell : "Los Angeles has not won the championship, but Jerry West is a champion."

He wasn't literally a champion but he had the heart of one. Likewise, there are losers with rings.

This is not what I meant though, it's a different thing but also valid.

What I mean is that for today's NBA generation you're not a winner unless you win a lot. Being dominant without rings doesn't cut it anymore. There's a reason why people were talking about Lebron finally winning a chip with the Heat. There's also a reason why people weren't impressed with the 2/4 success rate with Miami. There's a reason why they're hyping up the 2016 chip. If that were the only one, it wouldn't look that great, but since it was the third plus the story behind it, they pushed to grow the legend.
You don't see anyone calling Dirk a "winner" for example just because he won. He will never be looked at like Duncan.

Kareem now is still held to high esteem because he has 6 rings on top of his career. I don't care about it much, but it's something that's there. He has Magic to thank for that.

Magic is downplayed a lot because people say he was carried by Kareem, but they've been a 1-2 punch since day 1. It wasn't like Kobe and Shaq where the big guy had to wait for the new guy to mature.

And obviously Magic couldn't win those first rings without Kareem as much as the opposite is true. It's a team sport after all. But Magic was on a path to compete for at least 3-4 more seasosn but his career was cut short for out-of-basketball reasons. And it's the main reason he reached the Finals only once after Kareem retired. That's one in the only two seasons he played without Kareem...The other season they ended up with the top seeding in the West.

[NYKalltheway]

Let's choose to not feed the troll.

Not sure who you're calling the troll here

[NYKalltheway]

I have genuinely never met a single person who punishes Magic for having played with Kareem. I think everyone recognizes Magic's greatness, he is almost consistently ranked inside the Top 5 by everyone, almost always ahead of Bird.

Magic is likely the greatest team offensive booster in NBA history. I think that's widely recognized by all.

During their time together, who's had more impact, Magic or Kareem?

[Hawkeye15]

Except all that losing/underachieving in an era of parity. These are the nit picks amongst the goats

which is why I rank KAJ below MJ/LeBron. Despite the point you are making, KAJ was a dominant force who won at every level, has accolades galore, stats, longevity, you name it.

[Hawkeye15]

During their time together, who's had more impact, Magic or Kareem?

what difference does that make? KAJ was dominating the pros when Magic was 10 years old.

[ortforshort]

Steph Curry
LeBron James
Kevin Durant

Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'Neal
Kobe Bryant

Michael Jordan

Magic Johnson
Larry Bird

Julius Erving
Rick Barry
Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Oscar Robertson
Jerry West
Elgin Baylor
Bill Russell
Wilt Chamberlain

Bob Cousy
George Mikan

Number of rings - this started with Jordan because people were using rings to justify him as the GOAT. It's valid for Jordan but isn't a big factor in evaluating most other guys.

Dominance in an era - because the game is so different from era to era, a big factor has to be whether a guy was dominant in his era. It's all relative, but what made you great in one era doesn't necessarily make you great in another. You'll notice that I broke out my list by era. The guys in each era all stood head and shoulders above the rest, figuratively. Mikan makes this list because he was dominant in the Fifties.

Longevity - it counts. It's a reason that Bill Walton doesn't make any lists. He was as good, if not better, than any other center in history when he was healthy.

Innovation - Guys who brought a skill or attribute to the table that changed the game move high on the list. If you are really good, but bring nothing new to the table, it's hard to get too excited about your game. Been there, done that. Bill Russell revolutionised defence and, to this day, no one has ever come close to how he played the game. Bird and Magic brought high level passing back to the game. And, of course, Curry brought handle and shooting to a level never before seen. I never got into Kobe, for example, because he was doing his best to copy Jordan. And he was a lesser version of Jordan, at that.

Skills - Guys who are skilled are more impressive than guys who physically dominate. It's all about being more impressed with guys who had to work for it rather than guys who were born with it. Robertson, Cousy, Barry, Magic, Bird, Durant and Curry come to mind here. Luka looks like he may be the next great skill guy.

Personality - Winners vs. Losers. Leaders vs. Followers. Grit vs Softness. Russell, Jordan, Bird and Magic are the winners, leaders and gritty guys. Kareem was not a leader and was considered soft. I always thought Kareem thought it was almost embarrassing to play to his full ability. He could of scored a hundred a game if came out there like Jordan, but it wasn't his way. Duncan was the ultimate team player and coachable player.

Physicality - Wilt and Shaq don't get enough credit because their dominance was due to the fact that they physically dominated the opposition as no one else ever has. Wilt was not only big, he was the strongest player in the game and he could have been great at 6-1. At 7-1, it just wasn't fair. To a lesser extent, Shaq was the same way. Doctor J could soar above everyone else. We haven't seen anyone quite like him before or since. It's interesting that nobody puts the super quick guys like Iverson or Archibald on any lists. Maybe Morant or Trae Young will be the first sometime down the road. Barkley was another unique physical specimen. He's on the next level from the guys on this list. Porzingis was supposed to be the unicorn. Maybe he would have been if he didn't get hurt. And, of course, Zion, but health is a problem with him. He may have a higher ceiling than Barkley did if he ever gets healthy.

[NYKalltheway]

Number of rings - this started with Jordan because people were using rings to justify him as the GOAT. It's valid for Jordan but isn't a big factor in evaluating most other guys.

Dominance in an era - because the game is so different from era to era, a big factor has to be whether a guy was dominant in his era. It's all relative, but what made you great in one era doesn't necessarily make you great in another. You'll notice that I broke out my list by era. The guys in each era all stood head and shoulders above the rest, figuratively.

Longevity - it counts. It's a reason that Bill Walton doesn't make any lists. He was as good, if not better, than any other centre while he was healthy.

Innovation - Guys who brought a skill or attribute to the table that changed the game move high on the list. If you are really good, but bring nothing new to the table, it's hard to get too excited about your game. Been there, done that. Bill Russell revolutionised defenece and, to this day, no one has ever come close to how he played the game. Bird and Magic brought high level passing back to the game. And, of course, Curry brought handle and shooting to a level never before seen.

Skills - Guys who are skilled are more impressive than guys who physically dominate. It's all about being more impressed with guys who had to work for it rather than guys who were born with it. Robertson, Cousy, Barry, Magic, Bird and Curry come to mind here.

Personality - Winners vs. Losers. Leaders vs. Followers. Grit vs Softness. Russell, Jordan, Bird and Magic are the winners, leaders and gritty guys. Kareem was not a leader and was considered soft. I always thought Kareem thought it was almost embarrassing to play to his full ability. He could of scored a hundred a game if came out there like Jordan, but it wasn't his way.

Spot on.

But I'd put Hakeem on your list, too. 90s perhaps. So many miss out due to the Jordan factor.
And Moses Malone deserves the 80s mention as well, much more than Durant his 2010s mention.

[Hawkeye15]

Spot on.

But I'd put Hakeem on your list, too. 90s perhaps. So many miss out due to the Jordan factor.
And Moses Malone deserves the 80s mention as well, much more than Durant his 2010s mention.

holy **** we actually agree on something.

[Saddletramp]

Not sure who you're calling the troll here

You. You’re insufferable.

[mngopher35]

Not sure who you're calling the troll here

Jordan was always a dominant player but he wasn’t a championship winner without pippen. Pippen made Jordan a winner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NYKalltheway]

Jordan was always a dominant player but he wasn’t a championship winner without pippen. Pippen made Jordan a winner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Terrible counterexample. But a decent one would be the Wade & Lebron relationship.

[NYKalltheway]

You. You’re insufferable.

Yes, I have the tendency to annoy Lebron fanboys by saying it how it is. No surprise that Lebron became a legend in the era of snowflake society, there's no other era that'd breed so many people that follow a false narrative and cry & hate over anyone who disagrees with them.

Maybe what's insufferable is having to withstand this idiotic mentality that people have when they cannot handle the disapproval of their views and resort to calling out names and singling out people just to ostracized their views because it spoils their (false) narrative.. just maybe...

P.s. This ad hominem, in a basketball thread, coming from you, feels like a compliment. Maybe if you actually ever managed to talk about the sport with coherence it'd feel like an insult.

[Scoots]

Yes, I have the tendency to annoy Lebron fanboys by saying it how it is. No surprise that Lebron became a legend in the era of snowflake society, there's no other era that'd breed so many people that follow a false narrative and cry & hate over anyone who disagrees with them.

Maybe what's insufferable is having to withstand this idiotic mentality that people have when they cannot handle the disapproval of their views and resort to calling out names and singling out people just to ostracized their views because it spoils their (false) narrative.. just maybe...

P.s. This ad hominem, in a basketball thread, coming from you, feels like a compliment. Maybe if you actually ever managed to talk about the sport with coherence it'd feel like an insult.

Do you have ANY reason to characterize me as a "LeBron fanboy"? I think you were characterized as "insufferable" because you have awful takes and defend them bizarrely and rudely.

[NYKalltheway]

Do you have ANY reason to characterize me as a "LeBron fanboy"? I think you were characterized as "insufferable" because you have awful takes and defend them bizarrely and rudely.

I wasn't talking to you, was I?

[Saddletramp]

I wasn't talking to you, was I?

He’s the guy who originally called you a troll and it’s because you’re insufferable.

And it’s not just your **** takes on Lebron. It’s most of your takes.