NBA Top 5 All-Time... (1 Viewer)

[BroadwayG]

George Mikan Down?

If it weren't for him, we'd still have a 'key'

 

[Chaka]

No consideration for Robert Horry?

Russell is the original Robert Horry.

is this for real?

It's all about rings isn't it?

When it comes to Russell that logic seems to be liberally applied.

 

[Chaka]

What stuns me is that some of you don't even have Wilt Chamberlain in your top 5. To me, Wilt is CLEARLY the greatest basketball player ever. He is to basketball what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Nobody can touch his individual accomplishments.

Easy to rack up individual numbers when the competition is weak. There is a reason that the guys who have put up crazy numbers in relation to their peers - Wilt, Hutson, Jim Brown, Ruth, Cy Young etc. etc. have records that can't be broken - they all played very early in their sports' history.

Shouldn't that logic apply to Russell's championships as well?

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

What stuns me is that some of you don't even have Wilt Chamberlain in your top 5. To me, Wilt is CLEARLY the greatest basketball player ever. He is to basketball what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Nobody can touch his individual accomplishments.

Easy to rack up individual numbers when the competition is weak. There is a reason that the guys who have put up crazy numbers in relation to their peers - Wilt, Hutson, Jim Brown, Ruth, Cy Young etc. etc. have records that can't be broken - they all played very early in their sports' history.

Shouldn't that logic apply to Russell's championships as well?

Considering he just got done saying Russell wasn't better than Alonzo Mourning or Yao Ming, I think he would agree with you.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Shaq ahead of Jordan?

Also, shouldn't all baseball legends be docked a spot or two if they played prior to Jackie Robinson?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Shaq ahead of Jordan?

Jordan OR Duncan make the cut at 5 Everyone has their own opinion, BUT the guy who doesn't have Jordan definitively in his top 5 can't be taken seriously.

 

[sn0mm1s]

What stuns me is that some of you don't even have Wilt Chamberlain in your top 5. To me, Wilt is CLEARLY the greatest basketball player ever. He is to basketball what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Nobody can touch his individual accomplishments.

Easy to rack up individual numbers when the competition is weak. There is a reason that the guys who have put up crazy numbers in relation to their peers - Wilt, Hutson, Jim Brown, Ruth, Cy Young etc. etc. have records that can't be broken - they all played very early in their sports' history.

Shouldn't that logic apply to Russell's championships as well?

Yes - easier to win championships when you essentially have to only be better than 7-10 other teams. Once you are the best team it is more likely that you will remain the best team.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Shaq ahead of Jordan?

Also, shouldn't all baseball legends be docked a spot or two if they played prior to Jackie Robinson?

Jackie Robinson + the influx of Latin American and eventually Asian players. Take a look at baseball's stat rankings and imagine them without black, Latino and Asian players. It would basically be Mike Trout, Paul Goldschmidt, Joey Votto and a handful of fat DH types (another factor) leading the way with very few players anywhere near them. They'd look like baseball Gods, or in Trout's case, more of a God.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What stuns me is that some of you don't even have Wilt Chamberlain in your top 5. To me, Wilt is CLEARLY the greatest basketball player ever. He is to basketball what Babe Ruth was to baseball. Nobody can touch his individual accomplishments.

Easy to rack up individual numbers when the competition is weak. There is a reason that the guys who have put up crazy numbers in relation to their peers - Wilt, Hutson, Jim Brown, Ruth, Cy Young etc. etc. have records that can't be broken - they all played very early in their sports' history.

Shouldn't that logic apply to Russell's championships as well?

Yes - easier to win championships when you essentially have to only be better than 7-10 other teams. Once you are the best team it is more likely that you will remain the best team.

Also no salary cap.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Where did I say they were 7 ft?

Back when you said that Wilt played in a league with hardly any 7-footers and Shaq did, proving the level of competition was more difficult. The main theme in your against Wilt posted here is the dearth of quality 7-footers he played against, something you've gone back to again and again.

I was responding to the "Shaq played against nobody".

Straw man. No one even came close to saying anything resembling that quote. I pointed out that because of expansion, Wilt played a higher percentage of his games against the other top players of his era, mitigating the effect a bit of the deeper talent era Shaq played in.

Also, in early years of a league the number of HOFs is a much higher percentage. You see this across all sports. The bar is much lower than when the sport matures. Those players' stats aren't nearly as impressive when you realize that teams were chucking up 20%+ more shots per game and missing even more. Wilt only played against one other 7 ft who made the HOF - and didn't exactly dominate.

I only listed the HOF centers Wilt played against because you listed the HOFs/projected HOFs Shaq played against. I was trying to apply your argument equally across the debate. Had I known you felt your argument only applied to the side that the benefits you, I wouldn't have bothered. But while we're here... Sabonis and Yao are historically significant players who didn't have NBA careers consistent with a HOF-quality player born in the USA. By the time Sabonis came over, his health limited him to 20-25 minutes per night, so the Sabonis Shaq played against wasn't the Sabonis who played at a HOF level. If Yao was born in Texas instead of China, he would be remembered as a big dude who put up empty numbers, got hurt a lot, didn't come close to winning anything of significance, and wouldn't be a serious HOF candidate.So again your bring up the 7-footer thing with Wilt, when most of the great players you listed as obstacles for Shaq either weren't 7-footers (Duncan, Hakeem, Dirk, Howard, Mourning), or didn't play at a HOF level while in the NBA (Sabonis, Yao).

I don't consider any of those guys greater than Kareem but I think they are equally as good as Russell and better than anyone else Wilt played against.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think if you shared your opinion with a lot of people who have studied that game's history for a meaningful amount of time, your opinion would be met with a lot of resistance.

. Well stated.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding my ranking of Jordan: he is quite clearly the greatest guard ever to play. I just put a greater value on centers. LeBron is the only non center in my top 4.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Shaq ahead of Jordan?

Also, shouldn't all baseball legends be docked a spot or two if they played prior to Jackie Robinson?

Yes, although in Ruth's case his numbers (both hitting and pitching) are so great you have to assume that he would be great in any era (this applies to guys like Jim Brown, Wilt Chamberlain, and Don Hutson too). Now, I don't think any of their numbers in the modern game would approach what they accomplished in their era (I don't see Ruth outhomering entire teams, Jim Brown wouldn't lead the league in rushing every year, Wilt wouldn't average 30/20 for a career, Hutson wouldn't be better than Jerry Rice) but I don't think that they suddenly wouldn't be great either. I am sure all would make the HOF regardless of era they played.

 

[Dentist]

Is this just a top 5 all-time or a legitimate starting 5?

I think the best 5 players in NBA history are:

MJ - no one is going to make a list without him

KAJ - 6 time MVP not a top 5? please

Magic

Russell

Wilt or Shaq - tough to call

I think that LeBron will bump Magic off this list as time passes.

If I needed to make a true starting 5 that I think would just kill it in terms of cohesiveness and talent:

PG - Magic

SG - MJ

SF - Bird

PF - KAJ

C - Shaq

Backups:

PG - Oscar Robertson

SG - Kobe Bryant

SF - LeBron James

PF - Duncan

C - Wilt or Russell (flip a coin)

 

[Koya]

Regarding my ranking of Jordan: he is quite clearly the greatest guard ever to play. I just put a greater value on centers. LeBron is the only non center in my top 4.

How lebron can be rated AHEAD of Jordan at this stage of his career is nearly unfathomable.

 

[Timmay]

Regarding my ranking of Jordan: he is quite clearly the greatest guard ever to play. I just put a greater value on centers. LeBron is the only non center in my top 4.

How lebron can be rated AHEAD of Jordan at this stage of his career is nearly unfathomable.

So you're telling me there's a chance?

 

[Chemical X]

here's some interesting wilt stats that may be overlooked.

-averaged 48.5 minutes per game in 61-62.

-averaged 45.8 for his career.

-averaged 37.6 pts & 27 boards as a rookie.

-the last 8 years of his career averaged over 4 assists per game, with 2 seasons exceeding 7.

-missed 5,805 FTs (free points).

-it appears thru articles he actually was able to dunk FT attempts based on rules of the time.

he started as a pro at 23 and missed what could have been 3-4 of his best years if he could have started earlier.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Where did I say they were 7 ft?

Back when you said that Wilt played in a league with hardly any 7-footers and Shaq did, proving the level of competition was more difficult. The main theme in your against Wilt posted here is the dearth of quality 7-footers he played against, something you've gone back to again and again.

I was responding to the "Shaq played against nobody".

Straw man. No one even came close to saying anything resembling that quote. I pointed out that because of expansion, Wilt played a higher percentage of his games against the other top players of his era, mitigating the effect a bit of the deeper talent era Shaq played in.

Also, in early years of a league the number of HOFs is a much higher percentage. You see this across all sports. The bar is much lower than when the sport matures. Those players' stats aren't nearly as impressive when you realize that teams were chucking up 20%+ more shots per game and missing even more. Wilt only played against one other 7 ft who made the HOF - and didn't exactly dominate.

I only listed the HOF centers Wilt played against because you listed the HOFs/projected HOFs Shaq played against. I was trying to apply your argument equally across the debate. Had I known you felt your argument only applied to the side that the benefits you, I wouldn't have bothered. But while we're here... Sabonis and Yao are historically significant players who didn't have NBA careers consistent with a HOF-quality player born in the USA. By the time Sabonis came over, his health limited him to 20-25 minutes per night, so the Sabonis Shaq played against wasn't the Sabonis who played at a HOF level. If Yao was born in Texas instead of China, he would be remembered as a big dude who put up empty numbers, got hurt a lot, didn't come close to winning anything of significance, and wouldn't be a serious HOF candidate.

So again your bring up the 7-footer thing with Wilt, when most of the great players you listed as obstacles for Shaq either weren't 7-footers (Duncan, Hakeem, Dirk, Howard, Mourning), or didn't play at a HOF level while in the NBA (Sabonis, Yao).

I don't consider any of those guys greater than Kareem but I think they are equally as good as Russell and better than anyone else Wilt played against.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I think if you shared your opinion with a lot of people who have studied that game's history for a meaningful amount of time, your opinion would be met with a lot of resistance.

I said Wilt didn't play against many tall players - which is why the 7+ ft was brought up.

The response was Wilt played against better quality while Shaq didn't face good players often compared to Wilt. That was the listing of players. Also, I am sure if you just adjusted the scoring/rebounding based on shots you would find that Wilt's competition wasn't that great and even some of the lesser players Shaq played against would have nicer looking stats.

Russell shot .440 from the field, never led his team in scoring, wasn't a good FT shooter, and his career averages - considering the number of shots/rebounds taken per game - aren't that great. Neither are many of the other HOF big men during that era - aside from Wilt. People resist this opinion because they don't want to face facts about competition.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

I said Wilt didn't play against many tall players - which is why the 7+ ft was brought up.

Given the vast majority of obstacles Shaq had to overcome were under 7 feet, does that mean Shaq also didn't play against many tall players? Or maybe height doesn't correlate with greatness as well as you need it to avoid admitting you screwed the pooch by drawing a line a 7 feet as if it was meaningful?

The response was Wilt played against better quality while Shaq didn't face good players often compared to Wilt. That was the listing of players. Also, I am sure if you just adjusted the scoring/rebounding based on shots you would find that Wilt's competition wasn't that great and even some of the lesser players Shaq played against would have nicer looking stats.

I like the selective use of stats here. They matter until they don't. You might be a candidate for the HST thread.

Russell shot .440 from the field, never led his team in scoring, wasn't a good FT shooter, and his career averages - considering the number of shots/rebounds taken per game - aren't that great. Neither are many of the other HOF big men during that era - aside from Wilt. People resist this opinion because they don't want to face facts about competition.

BOOM! There it is! #HST

Fewer people would resist your opinion if you understood what facts are.

 

[mr. furley]

i think you start with the 2014 Spurs starting 5 and go down from there

 

[Tau837]

Is this just a top 5 all-time or a legitimate starting 5?

I think the best 5 players in NBA history are:

MJ - no one is going to make a list without him

KAJ - 6 time MVP not a top 5? please

Magic

Russell

Wilt or Shaq - tough to call

I think that LeBron will bump Magic off this list as time passes.

If I needed to make a true starting 5 that I think would just kill it in terms of cohesiveness and talent:

PG - Magic

SG - MJ

SF - Bird

PF - KAJ

C - Shaq

Backups:

PG - Oscar Robertson

SG - Kobe Bryant

SF - LeBron James

PF - Duncan

C - Wilt or Russell (flip a coin)

Give me:

PG - Magic

SG - Jordan

SF - Lebron

PF - Duncan

C - Kareem

Great at passing, scoring in the post, mid-range shooting, running, and defense. Only non-dominant area is three point shooting.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Give me:

PG - Magic

SG - Jordan

SF - Lebron

PF - Duncan

C - Kareem

Great at passing, scoring in the post, mid-range shooting, running, and defense. Only non-dominant area is three point shooting.

I think that's the five I would go with, too. The toughest call for me would be Bird or LeBron at SF, but Jordan, LeBron, and Magic out trapping on the perimeter IMO is worth the 3PT shooting sacrifice.

Bench: Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Julius Erving, Larry Bird, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Shaquille O'Neal

 

[sn0mm1s]

I said Wilt didn't play against many tall players - which is why the 7+ ft was brought up.

Given the vast majority of obstacles Shaq had to overcome were under 7 feet, does that mean Shaq also didn't play against many tall players? Or maybe height doesn't correlate with greatness as well as you need it to avoid admitting you screwed the pooch by drawing a line a 7 feet as if it was meaningful?

The response was Wilt played against better quality while Shaq didn't face good players often compared to Wilt. That was the listing of players. Also, I am sure if you just adjusted the scoring/rebounding based on shots you would find that Wilt's competition wasn't that great and even some of the lesser players Shaq played against would have nicer looking stats.

I like the selective use of stats here. They matter until they don't. You might be a candidate for the HST thread.

Russell shot .440 from the field, never led his team in scoring, wasn't a good FT shooter, and his career averages - considering the number of shots/rebounds taken per game - aren't that great. Neither are many of the other HOF big men during that era - aside from Wilt. People resist this opinion because they don't want to face facts about competition.

BOOM! There it is! #HST

Fewer people would resist your opinion if you understood what facts are.

Sorry - what are your facts again other than nostalgia? Are you really trying to argue that the number of shots thrown up in a game has no effect at all on the stats? Is never leading your team in scoring the hallmark of a top 5 player - who is supposedly better than everyone else he has played with?

 

[Anarchy99]

As in any comparison of players across multiple decades, who really knows how guys from 40-50 years ago would do in today's game. That being said, Oscar Robertson is not getting anywhere near the amount of respect he is due. One year he AVERAGED a triple double (30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, 11.4 assists). Before he got shipped off to Milwaukee, he averaged almost 30 ppg for 10 years. Even counting his more pedestrian numbers with the Bucks playing in the shadow of Kareem, his career averages were 25.7 ppg, 7.5 rebounds, and 9.5 assists over a 14 year career. But since very people have seen him play, he seemingly gets swept under the rug.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Sorry - what are your facts again other than nostalgia?

I stand by my earlier statement that you do not understand what facts are. Not "the facts", as in not understanding the facts of this particular situation. I'm saying you do not properly grasp the general concept of what a fact is.If you're on the side with all the facts, why did you put so much effort into making stuff up about what the opposition was saying? Why did you raise arguments that either aren't true or relevant?

I even gave you a pass for not knowing David Robinson and Tim Duncan were teammates to keep the discussion going. You made it a lot more complicated than it had to be.

Are you really trying to argue that the number of shots thrown up in a game has no effect at all on the stats?

I'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion about me. Could you indulge me and pull my quote that most closely represents how you decided this was my POV. Don't paraphrase. Post the actual quote.

Is never leading your team in scoring the hallmark of a top 5 player - who is supposedly better than everyone else he has played with?

I think evaluating a player's career - top 5 or top 500 - is best done using a much broader criteria than just scoring. It's nice to be able to filter out results to simplify the process, but doesn't always make it better.

 

[Tau837]

As in any comparison of players across multiple decades, who really knows how guys from 40-50 years ago would do in today's game. That being said, Oscar Robertson is not getting anywhere near the amount of respect he is due. One year he AVERAGED a triple double (30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, 11.4 assists). Before he got shipped off to Milwaukee, he averaged almost 30 ppg for 10 years. Even counting his more pedestrian numbers with the Bucks playing in the shadow of Kareem, his career averages were 25.7 ppg, 7.5 rebounds, and 9.5 assists over a 14 year career. But since very people have seen him play, he seemingly gets swept under the rug.

He was great, just not top 5 great. Several posters have posted their top 10+, and most if not all of them included Robertson in their second 5.

It's no insult to be ranked behind the caliber of players mostly being discussed in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

As in any comparison of players across multiple decades, who really knows how guys from 40-50 years ago would do in today's game. That being said, Oscar Robertson is not getting anywhere near the amount of respect he is due. One year he AVERAGED a triple double (30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds, 11.4 assists). Before he got shipped off to Milwaukee, he averaged almost 30 ppg for 10 years. Even counting his more pedestrian numbers with the Bucks playing in the shadow of Kareem, his career averages were 25.7 ppg, 7.5 rebounds, and 9.5 assists over a 14 year career. But since very people have seen him play, he seemingly gets swept under the rug.

Totally agree. I know one very knowledgeable basketball fan who has Oscar as the best guard ever, above Michael Jordan. I can't do that. But at least statistically, there is an argument to be made.