The NBA players PANTHEON

[TommyGilmore]

Moses' best season: 31.1 points, 14.7 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 1.5 blocks, 3.6 turnovers

Shaq's best season: 29.7 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 3.0 blocks, 2.8 turnovers

Hakeem's best season: 26.1 points, 13 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 4.2 blocks, 3.2 turnovers

Is one of these seasons supposed to be better than the others? I can't decide which one I would want my starting center to have.

I think they're all pretty close, with Hakeem a hair below the other two. But that's kind of the point -- if Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses were that close in their peak years, then how can you dismiss Moses so easily?I think Moses is too easily dismissed because he had a long, slow decline at the end of his career. But Shaq is in the middle of that same kind of decline right now, and it hasn't diminished his career (not yet at least).

But come on -- Moses had THREE MVPs in FIVE YEARS!! Neither Shaq nor Hakeem ever did that.

 

[Jewell]

Moses' best season: 31.1 points, 14.7 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 1.5 blocks, 3.6 turnovers

Shaq's best season: 29.7 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 3.0 blocks, 2.8 turnovers

Hakeem's best season: 26.1 points, 13 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 4.2 blocks, 3.2 turnovers

Is one of these seasons supposed to be better than the others? I can't decide which one I would want my starting center to have.

I think they're all pretty close, with Hakeem a hair below the other two. But that's kind of the point -- if Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses were that close in their peak years, then how can you dismiss Moses so easily?I think Moses is too easily dismissed because he had a long, slow decline at the end of his career. But Shaq is in the middle of that same kind of decline right now, and it hasn't diminished his career (not yet at least).

But come on -- Moses had THREE MVPs in FIVE YEARS!! Neither Shaq nor Hakeem ever did that.

I don't dismiss Moses, and I agree with everything you're saying. I think Moses is vastly underrated. I think it's because he had such a non-flashy game and he really sucked on the mike. Championship appearances and MVPs, however, followed Moses in the early 80s.To me you can number Russell, Chamberlain, and Jabbar anyway you want between 1-3 and I can't really argue with it. I feel the same way with Shaq, Moses, and Hakeem at 4-6. Arguments can be made for all of them.

 

[SKribbles]

Moses' best season: 31.1 points, 14.7 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 1.5 blocks, 3.6 turnovers

Shaq's best season: 29.7 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 3.0 blocks, 2.8 turnovers

Hakeem's best season: 26.1 points, 13 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 4.2 blocks, 3.2 turnovers

Is one of these seasons supposed to be better than the others? I can't decide which one I would want my starting center to have.

I think they're all pretty close, with Hakeem a hair below the other two. But that's kind of the point -- if Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses were that close in their peak years, then how can you dismiss Moses so easily?I think Moses is too easily dismissed because he had a long, slow decline at the end of his career. But Shaq is in the middle of that same kind of decline right now, and it hasn't diminished his career (not yet at least).

But come on -- Moses had THREE MVPs in FIVE YEARS!! Neither Shaq nor Hakeem ever did that.

MVP awards are the most useless 'stat'.

 

[Jewell]

Moses' best season: 31.1 points, 14.7 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 1.5 blocks, 3.6 turnovers

Shaq's best season: 29.7 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 3.0 blocks, 2.8 turnovers

Hakeem's best season: 26.1 points, 13 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 4.2 blocks, 3.2 turnovers

Is one of these seasons supposed to be better than the others? I can't decide which one I would want my starting center to have.

I think they're all pretty close, with Hakeem a hair below the other two. But that's kind of the point -- if Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses were that close in their peak years, then how can you dismiss Moses so easily?I think Moses is too easily dismissed because he had a long, slow decline at the end of his career. But Shaq is in the middle of that same kind of decline right now, and it hasn't diminished his career (not yet at least).

But come on -- Moses had THREE MVPs in FIVE YEARS!! Neither Shaq nor Hakeem ever did that.

MVP awards are the most useless 'stat'.

Unlike football or baseball, every single NBA MVP (that is eligible) is in the Basketball Hall of Fame. In the NBA, more than the other sports, the MVP is a sign of individual dominance rather than team achievement or being a good player in a good situation.

 

[Tough As Nails]

Moses' best season: 31.1 points, 14.7 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 1.5 blocks, 3.6 turnoversShaq's best season: 29.7 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 3.0 blocks, 2.8 turnoversHakeem's best season: 26.1 points, 13 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 4.2 blocks, 3.2 turnovers

Is one of these seasons supposed to be better than the others? I can't decide which one I would want my starting center to have.

Exactly. All 3 guys have similar (and incredible) stats. Shaq won more. Shaq gets the nod. WinShares isn't winning. WinShares is an individual statistic trying to quantify impact. My longevity comment wasn't about total games played. It was the length of time in which the players were truly dominant. All 3 were similar with Shaq having a slight edge. Comparing eras and teammates and head-to-head match-ups, etc...that's anecdotal. THIS year something happened. IF that then this.I don't have much issue with you if you want to put Hakeem or Moses ahead of Shaq because of the anecdotal stuff. That's fine...I disagree...but they are all very close. But somebody said Shaq was "the most overrated on the list" and that Moses and Hakeem were "clearly" ahead of him. Ummmmm, no. They're not. That's flat out wrong.

 

[Saints-Man]

....Simmons' list is subjective one based on the central premise of his book. I'll save you $30 by summarizing his thesis: the secret of basketball is that it's not about basketball.

What does this mean?

That chemistry and wanting to win means more than numbers.

Sure...but that is the essence of basketball, is it not?

 

[SKribbles]

Moses' best season: 31.1 points, 14.7 rebounds, 1.8 assists, 1.5 blocks, 3.6 turnovers

Shaq's best season: 29.7 points, 13.6 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 3.0 blocks, 2.8 turnovers

Hakeem's best season: 26.1 points, 13 rebounds, 3.5 assists, 4.2 blocks, 3.2 turnovers

Is one of these seasons supposed to be better than the others? I can't decide which one I would want my starting center to have.

I think they're all pretty close, with Hakeem a hair below the other two. But that's kind of the point -- if Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses were that close in their peak years, then how can you dismiss Moses so easily?I think Moses is too easily dismissed because he had a long, slow decline at the end of his career. But Shaq is in the middle of that same kind of decline right now, and it hasn't diminished his career (not yet at least).

But come on -- Moses had THREE MVPs in FIVE YEARS!! Neither Shaq nor Hakeem ever did that.

MVP awards are the most useless 'stat'.

Unlike football or baseball, every single NBA MVP (that is eligible) is in the Basketball Hall of Fame. In the NBA, more than the other sports, the MVP is a sign of individual dominance rather than team achievement or being a good player in a good situation.

It is still a subjective award handed out by biased sports writers. Why didn't Kobe win the MVP in 05/06 when he averaged 35 per game? Most people would say he was the most dominant player that year... but he was on an awful team. Nash won the award because he was a facilitator on a great team which played at a high pace and inflated his stats.

 

[SKribbles]

....Simmons' list is subjective one based on the central premise of his book. I'll save you $30 by summarizing his thesis: the secret of basketball is that it's not about basketball.

What does this mean?

That chemistry and wanting to win means more than numbers.

Sure...but that is the essence of basketball, is it not?

Not much of a secret.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

I am thinking of the Shaq of 1995 that choked against Hakeem's team. Hakeem outplayed him. Best player vs best player.For the 1995 playoffs, their averages were:Olajuwon .681%, 33.0 ppg, 10.3 rebounds, 4.5 assistsO'Neal .571%, 25.7 points, 11.9 rebounds, 3.3 assistsO'Neal only outperforms him in rebounds, and Olajuwon clearly outperforms him everywhere else. The FG% and points is especially distinct.

HOU won the series because Olajuwon was the best player in the league.HOU swept the series because ORL got nothing out of Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson, and their bench stunk. Nick Anderson never fully recovered from the free throws he missed at the end of Game 1.

 

[wildbill]

Olajuwon completely owned Shaq in the 1995 NBA Finals, leading his team to a 4-0 sweep. A freaking sweep.

Hakeem outscored Shaq (33 to 28), and shot better from the line (69% to 57%), but Shaq beat him in most of the other categories. Shaq shot better from the field (60% to 48%), grabbed more rebounds (12.5 to 11.5), passed out more assists (6.25 to 5.5) and blocked more shots (2.5 to 2). It's tough to blame the sweep on Shaq.Maybe you're thinking of David Robinson. He won the regular season MVP that year, but got torn apart by Hakeem in the playoffs.

 

[wildbill]

I am thinking of the Shaq of 1995 that choked against Hakeem's team. Hakeem outplayed him. Best player vs best player.For the 1995 playoffs, their averages were:Olajuwon .681%, 33.0 ppg, 10.3 rebounds, 4.5 assistsO'Neal .571%, 25.7 points, 11.9 rebounds, 3.3 assistsO'Neal only outperforms him in rebounds, and Olajuwon clearly outperforms him everywhere else. The FG% and points is especially distinct.

You're comparing their stats for the entire playoffs. I think it's more accurate to compare their head-to-head stats from the Finals where they were playing against each other.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

I think they're all pretty close, with Hakeem a hair below the other two. But that's kind of the point -- if Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses were that close in their peak years, then how can you dismiss Moses so easily?

I think Moses is too easily dismissed because he had a long, slow decline at the end of his career. But Shaq is in the middle of that same kind of decline right now, and it hasn't diminished his career (not yet at least).

But come on -- Moses had THREE MVPs in FIVE YEARS!! Neither Shaq nor Hakeem ever did that.

It is interesting to note that Moses Malone was no media darling. The NBA became more about personality after this time frame, so his MVPs were very impressive.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

Exactly. All 3 guys have similar (and incredible) stats. Shaq won more. Shaq gets the nod.

WinShares isn't winning. WinShares is an individual statistic trying to quantify impact.

My longevity comment wasn't about total games played. It was the length of time in which the players were truly dominant. All 3 were similar with Shaq having a slight edge.

Comparing eras and teammates and head-to-head match-ups, etc...that's anecdotal. THIS year something happened. IF that then this.

I don't have much issue with you if you want to put Hakeem or Moses ahead of Shaq because of the anecdotal stuff. That's fine...I disagree...but they are all very close. But somebody said Shaq was "the most overrated on the list" and that Moses and Hakeem were "clearly" ahead of him. Ummmmm, no. They're not. That's flat out wrong.

That list had Shaq above Russell. In that context, Shaq was the most overrated on that list.I can see the point that Malone, Olajuwon & Shaq are in the same tier below the tier of Chamberlain, Russell and Jabbar. To move any of the former three above the latter three is overrating them.

 

[Saints-Man]

I am thinking of the Shaq of 1995 that choked against Hakeem's team. Hakeem outplayed him. Best player vs best player.For the 1995 playoffs, their averages were:Olajuwon .681%, 33.0 ppg, 10.3 rebounds, 4.5 assistsO'Neal .571%, 25.7 points, 11.9 rebounds, 3.3 assistsO'Neal only outperforms him in rebounds, and Olajuwon clearly outperforms him everywhere else. The FG% and points is especially distinct.

HOU won the series because Olajuwon was the best player in the league.HOU swept the series because ORL got nothing out of Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson, and their bench stunk. Nick Anderson never fully recovered from the free throws he missed at the end of Game 1.

If Shaq outplays Hakeem, which is the point of this, maybe the Magic do not get SWEPT.

 

[Tough As Nails]

I am thinking of the Shaq of 1995 that choked against Hakeem's team. Hakeem outplayed him. Best player vs best player.For the 1995 playoffs, their averages were:Olajuwon .681%, 33.0 ppg, 10.3 rebounds, 4.5 assistsO'Neal .571%, 25.7 points, 11.9 rebounds, 3.3 assistsO'Neal only outperforms him in rebounds, and Olajuwon clearly outperforms him everywhere else. The FG% and points is especially distinct.

HOU won the series because Olajuwon was the best player in the league.HOU swept the series because ORL got nothing out of Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson, and their bench stunk. Nick Anderson never fully recovered from the free throws he missed at the end of Game 1.

If Shaq outplays Hakeem, which is the point of this, maybe the Magic do not get SWEPT.

Maybe you didn't see this: "Hakeem outscored Shaq (33 to 28), and shot better from the line (69% to 57%), but Shaq beat him in most of the other categories. Shaq shot better from the field (60% to 48%), grabbed more rebounds (12.5 to 11.5), passed out more assists (6.25 to 5.5) and blocked more shots (2.5 to 2). It's tough to blame the sweep on Shaq."Shaq played Hakeem to a draw. Shaq was great in that series. He was great that entire playoffs. Don't forget that it was that year that his team booted Michael Jordan from the playoffs...and it was only Shaq's 3rd season. And Shaq won 4 titles. Throwing up four games as the argument is a sample size that really does have much impact. Especially when the stats are so similar between the two.

 

[Jewell]

I am thinking of the Shaq of 1995 that choked against Hakeem's team. Hakeem outplayed him. Best player vs best player.For the 1995 playoffs, their averages were:Olajuwon .681%, 33.0 ppg, 10.3 rebounds, 4.5 assistsO'Neal .571%, 25.7 points, 11.9 rebounds, 3.3 assistsO'Neal only outperforms him in rebounds, and Olajuwon clearly outperforms him everywhere else. The FG% and points is especially distinct.

HOU won the series because Olajuwon was the best player in the league.HOU swept the series because ORL got nothing out of Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson, and their bench stunk. Nick Anderson never fully recovered from the free throws he missed at the end of Game 1.

If Shaq outplays Hakeem, which is the point of this, maybe the Magic do not get SWEPT.

Maybe you didn't see this: "Hakeem outscored Shaq (33 to 28), and shot better from the line (69% to 57%), but Shaq beat him in most of the other categories. Shaq shot better from the field (60% to 48%), grabbed more rebounds (12.5 to 11.5), passed out more assists (6.25 to 5.5) and blocked more shots (2.5 to 2). It's tough to blame the sweep on Shaq."Shaq played Hakeem to a draw. Shaq was great in that series. He was great that entire playoffs. Don't forget that it was that year that his team booted Michael Jordan from the playoffs...and it was only Shaq's 3rd season. And Shaq won 4 titles. Throwing up four games as the argument is a sample size that really does have much impact. Especially when the stats are so similar between the two.

Even if you accept that Hakeem dominated Shaq in that series (which I do), that's still young Shaq vs. Hakeem at the peak of his powers. When Shaq was at his peak he won three straight titles and dominated other centers as Hakeem dominated him -- but to a greater degree.

 

[Saints-Man]

...Maybe you didn't see this: "Hakeem outscored Shaq (33 to 28), and shot better from the line (69% to 57%), but Shaq beat him in most of the other categories. Shaq shot better from the field (60% to 48%), grabbed more rebounds (12.5 to 11.5), passed out more assists (6.25 to 5.5) and blocked more shots (2.5 to 2). It's tough to blame the sweep on Shaq."Shaq played Hakeem to a draw. Shaq was great in that series. He was great that entire playoffs. Don't forget that it was that year that his team booted Michael Jordan from the playoffs...and it was only Shaq's 3rd season. And Shaq won 4 titles. Throwing up four games as the argument is a sample size that really does have much impact. Especially when the stats are so similar between the two.

On those 4 titles, he was not the go-to guy. It was Kobe(some reasonable debate here) and Wade(not much here). When he was the "guy" vs when Olajuwon was the "guy", Shaq lost. Shaq was swept.

 

[wildbill]

...Maybe you didn't see this: "Hakeem outscored Shaq (33 to 28), and shot better from the line (69% to 57%), but Shaq beat him in most of the other categories. Shaq shot better from the field (60% to 48%), grabbed more rebounds (12.5 to 11.5), passed out more assists (6.25 to 5.5) and blocked more shots (2.5 to 2). It's tough to blame the sweep on Shaq."Shaq played Hakeem to a draw. Shaq was great in that series. He was great that entire playoffs. Don't forget that it was that year that his team booted Michael Jordan from the playoffs...and it was only Shaq's 3rd season. And Shaq won 4 titles. Throwing up four games as the argument is a sample size that really does have much impact. Especially when the stats are so similar between the two.

On those 4 titles, he was not the go-to guy. It was Kobe(some reasonable debate here) and Wade(not much here). When he was the "guy" vs when Olajuwon was the "guy", Shaq lost. Shaq was swept.

The Pistons knocked the Bulls out of the playoffs three years in a row, from 1988 to 1990. That doesn't mean Joe Dumars was better than Michael Jordan.

 

[saintsfan]

As usual, I'm gonna disagree with Magic over Bird.

The only thing that he can claim is that Magic won more. It's certainly not based upon any stats because Bird was a much better offensive player and equal as a defender.

If Bird played with Kareem, he would have won the 5 titles. Bird played on a great team, but Magic is the only guy on this list who played with another top 5 All Time player and Bird STILL won 3 championships. I'm sorry. Magic wasn't even the best player on that team until Kareem got old.

Magic is a top 5 or 6 player, but he's behind Bird IMO.

 

[Saints-Man]

...Maybe you didn't see this: "Hakeem outscored Shaq (33 to 28), and shot better from the line (69% to 57%), but Shaq beat him in most of the other categories. Shaq shot better from the field (60% to 48%), grabbed more rebounds (12.5 to 11.5), passed out more assists (6.25 to 5.5) and blocked more shots (2.5 to 2). It's tough to blame the sweep on Shaq."Shaq played Hakeem to a draw. Shaq was great in that series. He was great that entire playoffs. Don't forget that it was that year that his team booted Michael Jordan from the playoffs...and it was only Shaq's 3rd season. And Shaq won 4 titles. Throwing up four games as the argument is a sample size that really does have much impact. Especially when the stats are so similar between the two.

On those 4 titles, he was not the go-to guy. It was Kobe(some reasonable debate here) and Wade(not much here). When he was the "guy" vs when Olajuwon was the "guy", Shaq lost. Shaq was swept.

The Pistons knocked the Bulls out of the playoffs three years in a row, from 1988 to 1990. That doesn't mean Joe Dumars was better than Michael Jordan.

Dumars wasn't the go-to guy on the Pistons. Isiaih was. And, Jordan had subsequent years when he was the go-to guy and won.

 

[Saints-Man]

As usual, I'm gonna disagree with Magic over Bird.The only thing that he can claim is that Magic won more. It's certainly not based upon any stats because Bird was a much better offensive player and equal as a defender.If Bird played with Kareem, he would have won the 5 titles. Bird played on a great team, but Magic is the only guy on this list who played with another top 5 All Time player and Bird STILL won 3 championships. I'm sorry. Magic wasn't even the best player on that team until Kareem got old.Magic is a top 5 or 6 player, but he's behind Bird IMO.

I am on board with this also.The Celtics would not have considered trading Bird for Magic straight up, and I think the Lakers would have made the trade.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

On those 4 titles, he was not the go-to guy. It was Kobe(some reasonable debate here) and Wade(not much here). When he was the "guy" vs when Olajuwon was the "guy", Shaq lost. Shaq was swept.

No, there is no reasonable debate on Shaq/Kobe during the title years. The ones arguing for Kobe are primarily Laker fans that didn't like how the Shaq/Kobe era ended and/or people who played in roto leagues where FT% counted double in the category scoring, and are trying to revise history. There is no question Shaq was the better player during the title years. None. Shaq was the best player in the entire league during the title years. Just watch who comes in here and agrees and disagrees. You will see who is right.

 

[wildbill]

The Celtics would not have considered trading Bird for Magic straight up, and I think the Lakers would have made the trade.

I don't think either team would make that trade.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

...

I think they're all pretty close, with Hakeem a hair below the other two. But that's kind of the point -- if Shaq, Hakeem, and Moses were that close in their peak years, then how can you dismiss Moses so easily?

I think Moses is too easily dismissed because he had a long, slow decline at the end of his career. But Shaq is in the middle of that same kind of decline right now, and it hasn't diminished his career (not yet at least).

But come on -- Moses had THREE MVPs in FIVE YEARS!! Neither Shaq nor Hakeem ever did that.

It is interesting to note that Moses Malone was no media darling. The NBA became more about personality after this time frame, so his MVPs were very impressive.

The TV people didn't know what to do with him, and when it was time to put NBA players in commercials and promos, there were brighter stars. However, the print media, especially the beat reporters following the teams around the league during the season, were fond of Moses.

 

[saintsfan]

The Celtics would not have considered trading Bird for Magic straight up, and I think the Lakers would have made the trade.

I don't think either team would make that trade.

When Bird was in his prime, he was a scorer the likes of which Magic never was. With the game on the line, Bird was deadly. Magic was throwing it in to Kareem with the game on the line.

 

[Jewell]

There is no question Shaq was the better player during the title years. None. Shaq was the best player in the entire league during the title years.

No question. As in 0.00 repeating.

 

[SKribbles]

On those 4 titles, he was not the go-to guy. It was Kobe(some reasonable debate here) and Wade(not much here). When he was the "guy" vs when Olajuwon was the "guy", Shaq lost. Shaq was swept.

No, there is no reasonable debate on Shaq/Kobe during the title years. The ones arguing for Kobe are primarily Laker fans that didn't like how the Shaq/Kobe era ended and/or people who played in roto leagues where FT% counted double in the category scoring, and are trying to revise history. There is no question Shaq was the better player during the title years. None. Shaq was the best player in the entire league during the title years. Just watch who comes in here and agrees and disagrees. You will see who is right.

This is 100% correct.

 

[Koya]

Jerry West seems like the weak link there. And how is Elgin Baylor not on that list?

The Logo.Mr. Clutch.One of the all time greatest shooters and scorers in the game who also played fantastic D and could pass the ball.A winner.Did I mention the Logo?

 

[Koya]

I don't know if it's fair to compare big men and guards.

But in terms of big men:

Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>> everyone else, including Russell. Not that I'm surprised, though, that Simmons would see it the other way around. All Celtic fans do, but they're the only ones. I'm betting Simmons wrote that entire book just so that he could slam Wilt.

Can't stand the Celts. Russell was better. Maybe not more dynamic. Maybe not more talented. Maybe not more statistically productive. But clearly better (i.e. - a winner. A champion. Not just winning championships, but epitomizing the word, Champion).

 

[Koya]

I'd think I'd take Kareem over Russell too. And Shaq. My list of bigs would look like this:1. Wilt2. Kareem3. Shaq4. Russell5. DuncanAkeem and both Malones in the top ten somewhere. The guy I don't know how to rank is Mikan. On the one hand, all of these guys would run rings around him. On the other hand, if you measure him solely against his peers, he's one of the most dominant athletes ever.

I think had Shaq gone against the truly great centers, the weaknesses in his game would have shown a lot more. He got an aging Ewing and Hakeem by the time Shaq reached his prime.

 

[JMon348]

As usual, I'm gonna disagree with Magic over Bird.The only thing that he can claim is that Magic won more. It's certainly not based upon any stats because Bird was a much better offensive player and equal as a defender.If Bird played with Kareem, he would have won the 5 titles. Bird played on a great team, but Magic is the only guy on this list who played with another top 5 All Time player and Bird STILL won 3 championships. I'm sorry. Magic wasn't even the best player on that team until Kareem got old.Magic is a top 5 or 6 player, but he's behind Bird IMO.

I am on board with this also.The Celtics would not have considered trading Bird for Magic straight up, and I think the Lakers would have made the trade.

The Lakers would have never, ever, ever, ever have traded Magic Johnson for Larry Bird. Besides Magic being the better player, they already had an all-world NBA SF in James Worthy. Another reason, besides being the better player, is that Jerry Buss loved him, and was perfect for the "LA, Hollywood, SHOWTIME" style Buss wanted to run. As for who had the better supporting cast, its up for debate, but its not a reason to argue Bird's 3 titles vs Magic's 5 titles. They both played for 2 of the greatest teams in NBA history. Played each other in the Finals three times with Magic winning twice.Bill Simmons is the biggest Larry Bird fan on the planet and a blind homer most of the time, yet he has Magic above Bird.

 

[Jewell]

As usual, I'm gonna disagree with Magic over Bird.The only thing that he can claim is that Magic won more. It's certainly not based upon any stats because Bird was a much better offensive player and equal as a defender.If Bird played with Kareem, he would have won the 5 titles. Bird played on a great team, but Magic is the only guy on this list who played with another top 5 All Time player and Bird STILL won 3 championships. I'm sorry. Magic wasn't even the best player on that team until Kareem got old.Magic is a top 5 or 6 player, but he's behind Bird IMO.

I am on board with this also.The Celtics would not have considered trading Bird for Magic straight up, and I think the Lakers would have made the trade.

The Lakers would have never, ever, ever, ever have traded Magic Johnson for Larry Bird. Besides Magic being the better player, they already had an all-world NBA SF in James Worthy. Another reason, besides being the better player, is that Jerry Buss loved him, and was perfect for the "LA, Hollywood, SHOWTIME" style Buss wanted to run. As for who had the better supporting cast, its up for debate, but its not a reason to argue Bird's 3 titles vs Magic's 5 titles. They both played for 2 of the greatest teams in NBA history. Played each other in the Finals three times with Magic winning twice.Bill Simmons is the biggest Larry Bird fan on the planet and a blind homer most of the time, yet he has Magic above Bird.

I'm born, raised, and bred in Boston. I grew up in the 80s with Bird as my second favorite player. Weird McHale fetish, but that's beside the point. The point is that everything that this man says is true.

 

[Capella]

All Celtic fans do, but they're the only ones. I'm betting Simmons wrote that entire book just so that he could slam Wilt.

I hate both teams. But Simmons completely runs through the argument to such a degree that Wilt > Bill almost seems comical afterwards.Instead of sounding ignorant and saying what you think the book may say, why not just read it?

 

[SKribbles]

All Celtic fans do, but they're the only ones. I'm betting Simmons wrote that entire book just so that he could slam Wilt.

I hate both teams. But Simmons completely runs through the argument to such a degree that Wilt > Bill almost seems comical afterwards.Instead of sounding ignorant and saying what you think the book may say, why not just read it?

Have you not read a post from timschochet before? He never has a clue what he is talking about.

 

[Popinski]

Just completed Simmons fantastic 700 page book that increased my knowledge of the game ten fold.

 

[JMon348]

Just completed Simmons fantastic 700 page book that increased my knowledge of the game ten fold.

If it makes you laugh buddy, god bless you. Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Eephus]

Just completed Simmons fantastic 700 page book that increased my knowledge of the game ten fold.

If it makes you laugh buddy, god bless you. Happy Thanksgiving.

strained pop culture references notwithstanding, it is a very good sports book. It's even in the Pantheon, one pyramid level below The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.

 

[timschochet]

All Celtic fans do, but they're the only ones. I'm betting Simmons wrote that entire book just so that he could slam Wilt.

I hate both teams. But Simmons completely runs through the argument to such a degree that Wilt > Bill almost seems comical afterwards.Instead of sounding ignorant and saying what you think the book may say, why not just read it?

Have you not read a post from timschochet before? He never has a clue what he is talking about.

Celtic fans are usually the only ones with less of a clue than me. This allows me to make that comment. I will read it, eventually. But I doubt there's anyway he can win that argument. Who was the better president, Lincoln or Washington? All depends on your POV.

 

[JMon348]

Just completed Simmons fantastic 700 page book that increased my knowledge of the game ten fold.

If it makes you laugh buddy, god bless you. Happy Thanksgiving.

strained pop culture references notwithstanding, it is a very good sports book. It's even in the Pantheon, one pyramid level below The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.

If you dont like Simmons, some parts will annoy you, but you cant overlook the facts he gives you. He quotes a lot of other books, so you are getting first hand accounts of a lot of the older stuff. Again Simmons fan or not, if you are a big basketball fan, its a must read.

 

[timschochet]

Just curious, from anyone who's read the book: Who does Simmons have at the top of the coach list? Red? Phil? Someone else?

 

[Eephus]

Just curious, from anyone who's read the book: Who does Simmons have at the top of the coach list? Red? Phil? Someone else?

Isiah Thomas

 

[timschochet]

Here is a good article by Gabriel Taylor on this subject:

Kobe Bryant or LeBron James? A pretty good debate, but not quite as good as the debate between Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell.

Wilt Chamberlain is the best player in NBA history not named Michael Jordan.

Bill Russell is the greatest winner in American sports with 11 championships in 13 seasons ('57, '59-66, '68,'69).

Did I mention Russell came to the NBA having won the last two NCAA championships and an Olympic gold medal? That's 13 championships in 15 years. All this man did was win.

But those who say Russell, the ultimate team player, was better than Chamberlain are sadly mistaken.

Who was better: Chamberlains teams or Russell's teams? The answer is simple: Russell's.

His teams were loaded. His college and Olympic teams featured fellow Hall of Famer K.C. Jones. His Celtics featured seven future Hall of Famers including old pal K.C. Jones.

Chamberlain's Philadelphia 76ers featured two Hall of Famers and won the title 1967.

Though many feel Chamberlain wasn't a team player, he won two championships. He played on the best team in league history at the time, the 1971-72 Lakers who won an American professional sports record 33 games in a row.

The ultimate challenge in comparing individuals in team sports is whether to include the amount of wins or championships? By this logic, Russell would be the greatest basketball player ever (and many think that he is).

If we compare individual stats Chamberlain beats Russell hands down.

Wilt Chamberlain was the most dominant player in NBA history. In head-to-head matchups vs. Russell, Chamberlain scored more points, grabbed more rebounds, passed for more assists...and lost more games.

Chamberlain came into the league in 1959 and was named MVP and Rookie of the Year.

Russell came into the league in 1956 and his teammate, Tom Heinsohn, was named Rookie of the Year.

Most likely, Chamberlain's records are unattainable.

A regulation NBA game lasts 48 minutes. Chamberlain averaged 48.5 minutes/game in 1961-62.

He...AVERAGED...50...points...a...game in '61-62. The same year he scored 100 points in a game (Russell averaged a career-best 18.9 points/game in '61-'62).

He averaged 27 rebounds a game (Russell's career best was 24.7).

A 7'1" center, Chamberlain led the league in total assists in 1967-68, averaging 8.6 assists a game (2nd place). Chamberlain is the only center to lead the league in assists (Russell's career-best average was 5.3 assists/game in 1964-65).

He led the league in minutes per game nine times. He still holds the record at 45.8 minutes/pg for his career. He never fouled out of a game.

Sounds like a team player to me.

Bill Russell was no slouch. He was a great defender and rebounder. But he wasn't near Chamberlain's level.

Chamberlain was a better all-around player, offensive force, rebounder, and, yes, defender.

For years, no team could beat the Celtics. That doesn't mean Chamberlain wasn't better than Russell.

It only means that the Celtics were a great team.

XXXXXX

The facts are so clear to me this writer (and to me) I can't really fathom how anyone but the most myopic Celtic fan thinks otherwise. As I wrote, I will read Simmons book eventually, but he's got to be blind. The debate should not even be Wilt vs. Russell. It's Wilt vs. Michael. That's a pretty close debate, but I have to go with Wilt.

 

[RebelINS]

I'm not a Celtics fan. Chamberlain valued stats above everything else and it showed in how much he won. It's fine and dandy that he had so many eye-popping stats but when you look at the competition I'm not overly impressed. It's all just opinion but I think he's one of the most over-rated athletes ever. *shrug*

 

[Hack Attack]

What is that? 200 words? Simmons part on it is about 27 pages so he goes a little more in depth (while covering much of those points) than stating something and not backing it up.

 

[Jewell]

Here is a good article by Gabriel Taylor on this subject...The facts are so clear to me this writer (and to me) I can't really fathom how anyone but the most myopic Celtic fan thinks otherwise. As I wrote, I will read Simmons book eventually, but he's got to be blind. The debate should not even be Wilt vs. Russell. It's Wilt vs. Michael. That's a pretty close debate, but I have to go with Wilt.

This is akin to that Looks vs. Personality thread. Instead, it's Stats vs. Championships. You and the author obviously prefer stats, and many of us here prefer championships so long as the stats are respectable. I just think there's a reason they play the games and it isn't the accumulation of stats.

 

[timschochet]

Here is a good article by Gabriel Taylor on this subject...The facts are so clear to me this writer (and to me) I can't really fathom how anyone but the most myopic Celtic fan thinks otherwise. As I wrote, I will read Simmons book eventually, but he's got to be blind. The debate should not even be Wilt vs. Russell. It's Wilt vs. Michael. That's a pretty close debate, but I have to go with Wilt.

This is akin to that Looks vs. Personality thread. Instead, it's Stats vs. Championships. You and the author obviously prefer stats, and many of us here prefer championships so long as the stats are respectable. I just think there's a reason they play the games and it isn't the accumulation of stats.

I understand. I do. It's just that I've disagreed with this my entire life. I think Dan Marino was a better QB than Joe Montana, and that Peyton Manning is better than both of them (and MUCH better than Tom Brady.) I realize those are unpopular opinions. Of course, according to your logic, we should consider Otto Graham to be the greatest QB of all time.

 

[Jewell]

I understand. I do. It's just that I've disagreed with this my entire life.

I think Dan Marino was a better QB than Joe Montana, and that Peyton Manning is better than both of them (and MUCH better than Tom Brady.) I realize those are unpopular opinions. Of course, according to your logic, we should consider Otto Graham to be the greatest QB of all time.

I do.

 

[timschochet]

I understand. I do. It's just that I've disagreed with this my entire life.

I think Dan Marino was a better QB than Joe Montana, and that Peyton Manning is better than both of them (and MUCH better than Tom Brady.) I realize those are unpopular opinions. Of course, according to your logic, we should consider Otto Graham to be the greatest QB of all time.

I do.

Well then at least you're consistent.

 

[Eephus]

Here is a good article by Gabriel Taylor on this subject...The facts are so clear to me this writer (and to me) I can't really fathom how anyone but the most myopic Celtic fan thinks otherwise. As I wrote, I will read Simmons book eventually, but he's got to be blind. The debate should not even be Wilt vs. Russell. It's Wilt vs. Michael. That's a pretty close debate, but I have to go with Wilt.

This is akin to that Looks vs. Personality thread. Instead, it's Stats vs. Championships. You and the author obviously prefer stats, and many of us here prefer championships so long as the stats are respectable. I just think there's a reason they play the games and it isn't the accumulation of stats.

We're comparing two of the all time greats so ultimately it comes down to a subjective call. But the Gabriel Taylor article just strings a bunch of individual stats together and then states >>Sounds like a team player to me.<< It isn't a very compelling argument. For much of his career, Chamberlain wasn't a team player. Even if you accept the premise that his supporting cast wasn't as strong as Russell's, the fact remains that he didn't do enough to make them better.

 

[Capella]

Just stop, Tim. You sound dumb. Whether you like Simmons or not, he really does an outstanding job of destroying this topic.

Really, if you're using the "he never fouled out" argument, you already lost. Simmons spent a page talking about how opponents knew Wilt would give up the lane once he had 4-5 fouls. Wilt was very stats focused, which is fine, but it also explains the massive difference between the two.