The NBA players PANTHEON (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

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.

It might be an "outstanding job" but I already know he's full of crap. For example, I read that Simmons Bill Simmons states that revisionist history has caused Chamberlain to be rated higher than Bill Russell. He also said that back when both men were playing, it was common knowledge that Russell was the better player. If that is the case, then why was Wilt selected to the First Team All-NBA ahead of Russell in seven of the nine seasons that they played together? Also, Chamberlain was 7'1 while Russell was only 6'9. That is a significant difference in height. A match-up like that in the NBA today would be called a "mismatch." The extra four inches are likely the reason Russell wasn't able to match Chamberlain's dominance offensively in an era plagued by 6’7 post-players. The edge goes to Chamberlain.So we already know that Simmons is wrong, and biased. Now as for the rest of his argument, I don't know what it is. But your comment that in order to avoid the 6th foul Wilt would let players in the lane, and that this was "well known". According to who? His detractors? I would like to hear a teammate or coach of Wilt say this, and then I'd believe it. And even if it were true, which I SERIOUSLY doubt at this point, I'd still rather have Wilt on the court. His very presence changed the offenses of the teams he was facing.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Simmons spent a page talking about how opponents knew Wilt would give up the lane once he had 4-5 fouls.

And how often did that actually happen? Wilt averaged 1.99 fouls per game for his career. I wonder if Simmons bothered to research that or if he just threw out that number to bolster his argument.

 

[Capella]

I'm not going to re-write the book for you here, Tim. Just go to the bookstore and read the chapter. It'll take you an hour. Anything you take umbrage with, report back.

Unless I am missing someone, anyone who has read it here has agreed with his stance. Seemingly, even mega, super-Lakers homer jmon.

 

[timschochet]

Simmons spent a page talking about how opponents knew Wilt would give up the lane once he had 4-5 fouls.

And how often did that actually happen? Wilt averaged 1.99 fouls per game for his career. I wonder if Simmons bothered to research that or if he just threw out that number to bolster his argument.

I don't buy it anyhow.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not going to re-write the book for you here, Tim. Just go to the bookstore and read the chapter. It'll take you an hour. Anything you take umbrage with, report back. Unless I am missing someone, anyone who has read it here has agreed with his stance. Seemingly, even mega, super-Lakers homer jmon.

Well I just listed two arguments here that I already disagree with.

 

[Capella]

I'm not going to re-write the book for you here, Tim. Just go to the bookstore and read the chapter. It'll take you an hour. Anything you take umbrage with, report back. Unless I am missing someone, anyone who has read it here has agreed with his stance. Seemingly, even mega, super-Lakers homer jmon.

Well I just listed two arguments here that I already disagree with.

How can you disagree with the argument without reading the book? I'm going to go argue with my dog now. Probably more productive. Starting to understand why people say don't engage you.

 

[Jewell]

I'd still rather have Wilt on the court. His very presence changed the offenses of the teams he was facing.

You act like that last line doesn't also apply to Russell. I'll concede the offensive end of the floor to Chamberlain, but that bolded sentence applies as much to Russel as it does Chamberlain -- if not more.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not going to re-write the book for you here, Tim. Just go to the bookstore and read the chapter. It'll take you an hour. Anything you take umbrage with, report back. Unless I am missing someone, anyone who has read it here has agreed with his stance. Seemingly, even mega, super-Lakers homer jmon.

Well I just listed two arguments here that I already disagree with.

How can you disagree with the argument without reading the book? I'm going to go argue with my dog now. Probably more productive. Starting to understand why people say don't engage you.

The problem is, you haven't engaged me. You have stated one reason why YOU believe that Simmons is right, and when I disputed that point, you replied that I should read Simmons and that everyone is convinced who reads him. Rather than just suggesting the guy must be right because you bought into his argument, why don't you reply the reasons YOU believe that Russell is better? Then we could engage each other.

 

[Capella]

I'm not going to re-write the book for you here, Tim. Just go to the bookstore and read the chapter. It'll take you an hour. Anything you take umbrage with, report back. Unless I am missing someone, anyone who has read it here has agreed with his stance. Seemingly, even mega, super-Lakers homer jmon.

Well I just listed two arguments here that I already disagree with.

How can you disagree with the argument without reading the book? I'm going to go argue with my dog now. Probably more productive. Starting to understand why people say don't engage you.

The problem is, you haven't engaged me. You have stated one reason why YOU believe that Simmons is right, and when I disputed that point, you replied that I should read Simmons and that everyone is convinced who reads him. Rather than just suggesting the guy must be right because you bought into his argument, why don't you reply the reasons YOU believe that Russell is better? Then we could engage each other.

I guess I just don't want to. No offense. Maybe someone else will.

 

[timschochet]

I'd still rather have Wilt on the court. His very presence changed the offenses of the teams he was facing.

You act like that last line doesn't also apply to Russell. I'll concede the offensive end of the floor to Chamberlain, but that bolded sentence applies as much to Russel as it does Chamberlain -- if not more.

Oh absolutely. Russell is perhaps the most tremendous defensive player ever. I was simply responding to the idea, which I find extremely doubtful, that Wilt with 4-5 fouls allowed guys to score right past him.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not going to re-write the book for you here, Tim. Just go to the bookstore and read the chapter. It'll take you an hour. Anything you take umbrage with, report back. Unless I am missing someone, anyone who has read it here has agreed with his stance. Seemingly, even mega, super-Lakers homer jmon.

Well I just listed two arguments here that I already disagree with.

How can you disagree with the argument without reading the book? I'm going to go argue with my dog now. Probably more productive. Starting to understand why people say don't engage you.

The problem is, you haven't engaged me. You have stated one reason why YOU believe that Simmons is right, and when I disputed that point, you replied that I should read Simmons and that everyone is convinced who reads him. Rather than just suggesting the guy must be right because you bought into his argument, why don't you reply the reasons YOU believe that Russell is better? Then we could engage each other.

I guess I just don't want to. No offense. Maybe someone else will.

None taken. I actually enjoy most of your commentary regarding the NBA, and especially regarding the team you root for. I think it's incisive.

 

[Capella]

Thanks. Just off of a long workday and won't be around tomorrow. No sense trying to get into a long discussion right now.

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[JMon348]

UPDATED PANTHEON:

1. Michael Jordan(6)

2. Magic Johnson(5)

3. Kobe Bryant(5)

4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)

5. Bill Russell(11)

6. Larry Bird(3)

7. Tim Duncan(4)

8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)

9. Shaquille ONeal(4)

10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

 

[JMon348]

UPDATED PANTHEON:

1. Michael Jordan(6)

2. Magic Johnson(5)

3. Kobe Bryant(5)

4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)

5. Bill Russell(11)

6. Larry Bird(3)

7. Tim Duncan(4)

8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)

9. Shaquille ONeal(4)

10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

Do you let Kobe wear the mask from Scream when he does you from behind?

and he wears a Ali Farokhmanesh jersey.

 

[Jewell]

UPDATED PANTHEON:1. Michael Jordan(6)2. Magic Johnson(5)3. Kobe Bryant(5)4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)5. Bill Russell(11)6. Larry Bird(3)7. Tim Duncan(4)8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)9. Shaquille ONeal(4)10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

It's tough leaving the Big O off of a Pantheon.

 

[JMon348]

UPDATED PANTHEON:1. Michael Jordan(6)2. Magic Johnson(5)3. Kobe Bryant(5)4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)5. Bill Russell(11)6. Larry Bird(3)7. Tim Duncan(4)8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)9. Shaquille ONeal(4)10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

It's tough leaving the Big O off of a Pantheon.

Multiple titles are required for the top 10. 5 titles are required to be in the top 5.

 

[boubucarow]

UPDATED PANTHEON:1. Michael Jordan(6)2. Magic Johnson(5)3. Kobe Bryant(5)4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)5. Bill Russell(11)6. Larry Bird(3)7. Tim Duncan(4)8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)9. Shaquille ONeal(4)10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

It's tough leaving the Big O off of a Pantheon.

Multiple titles are required for the top 10. 5 titles are required to be in the top 5.

This is the silliest argument that almost everybody believes to be gospel. Every year more than one superstar plays well enough in the regular season and in the playoffs to have led a team to a title. A series loss in the NBA Finals, Conference Finals, or even sometimes the Conference Semi-Finals doesn't change that fact. It only means either he didn't have the support to advance or a shot didn't fall here or there. It doesn't change the fact that they deserve as much credit as the player that was lucky enough to have the support or have the shot fall here or there.

 

[Das Boot]

UPDATED PANTHEON:1. Michael Jordan(6)2. Magic Johnson(5)3. Kobe Bryant(5)4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)5. Bill Russell(11)6. Larry Bird(3)7. Tim Duncan(4)8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)9. Shaquille ONeal(4)10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

It's tough leaving the Big O off of a Pantheon.

Multiple titles are required for the top 10. 5 titles are required to be in the top 5.

This is the silliest argument that almost everybody believes to be gospel. Every year more than one superstar plays well enough in the regular season and in the playoffs to have led a team to a title. A series loss in the NBA Finals, Conference Finals, or even sometimes the Conference Semi-Finals doesn't change that fact. It only means either he didn't have the support to advance or a shot didn't fall here or there. It doesn't change the fact that they deserve as much credit as the player that was lucky enough to have the support or have the shot fall here or there.

I agree... Kobe moved up several slots due to Artest's 3-ball.Kinda crazy.

 

[JMon348]

1. Michael Jordan2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar3. Wilt Chamberlain4. Bill Russell5. Larry Bird6. Magic Johnson7. Tim Duncan8. Shaquille O'Neal9. Jerry West10. Oscar Robertson11. Hakeem Olajuwon12. Moses Malone

You might be the last person with a great knowledge of the game to have Kobe outside of the top 10. Keep on fighting it. Atleast you are consistent and dont give up!

 

[JMon348]

UPDATED PANTHEON:

1. Michael Jordan(6)

2. Magic Johnson(5)

3. Kobe Bryant(5)

4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)

5. Bill Russell(11)

6. Larry Bird(3)

7. Tim Duncan(4)

8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)

9. Shaquille ONeal(4)

10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

Do you let Kobe wear the mask from Scream when he does you from behind?

and he wears a Ali Farokhmanesh jersey.

3 out of 5 stars, a solid effort. -1 for not keeping it NBA-themed, -1 because I got over that loss in a day. (A 5/5 answer would have been "Does LeBron like to be choked when he does you?", or a variation on that theme.)

Damn it!

 

[Pat Patriot]

Updated Pantheon

1. Michael Jordan

2. Bill Russell

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

4. Larry Bird

5. Magic Johnson

6. Kobe Bryant

7. Wilt Chamberlain

8. Tim Duncan

9. Shaquille O'Neal

10. Jerry West

11. Moses Malone

12. Hakeem Olajuwon

13. Oscar Robertson

Simmons had Magic Johnson rated ahead of Bird because of longevity. His prime extended longer than Birds. I dont value longevity as much as I do true greatness.

Tim, it is certainly not just Celtics fans that rate Russell ahead of Wilt. Wilt was a force of nature and a great athlete but Bill Russell was the better and more accomplished basektball player. Red Auerbach often said that Russell was the smartest player he ever coached. You do realize that Bill Russell was player coach for his last 2 championships, neither of which did he have the best statistical team. One year the Celtics were 4th in the East and the other year they were 2nd in the East.

The biggest reason that Bill Russell's teams beat Wilt Chamberlain's team in the playoffs was because they had Bill Russell.

Kobe has 5 championships but on 3 of those teams he was not the best player. He has won 2 Finals MVP's out of 7 trips to the Finals. If Kobe's team wins another title with him as leading man he moves ahead of Magic into the top 5.

 

[JMon348]

5-time NBA champion: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010

7 NBA Finals appearances: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010

2-time NBA Finals MVP: 2009, 2010

NBA Most Valuable Player: 2008

Gold Medal: 2008

2-time scoring champion: 2006, 2007

2nd most points in a game: 81 (on January 22, 2006 vs. the Toronto Raptors)

12-time NBA All-Star; all consecutive. Youngest player to ever start an All-Star game

3-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2002, 2007, 2009

12-time All-NBA selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd) 2(3rd)

10-time All-Defensive selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd).

-Most All-Defensive selections from a guard

-Youngest player to ever make All-Defensive 1st team

NBA All-Rookie selection: 2nd team. Youngest player to ever be named to an All-Rookie team

NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1997

Scored 40 points or more in nine consecutive games in 2003.

Scored 50 points or more in four consecutive games in 2007.

Scored 60 points or more 5 times, tied with Jordan for 2nd All-Time.

Most three-point field goals made, one game: 12 (on January 7, 2003 vs. Seattle SuperSonics; shared with Donyell Marshall)

Most three-point field goals made, one half: 8 (on March 28, 2003 vs. Washington Wizards; shared with 5 other players)

Youngest player to score 20,000 points

Youngest player to score 25,000 points

Only player in NBA history to score at least 600 points in the postseason for three consecutive years.

633 (2008), 695 (2009), 671 (2010)

AllTime Regular Season Rankings:

Points-12th

Steals-28th

AllTime Postseason Rankings:

Points-4th

Steals-7th

Assists-11th

Games-6th

3Ptrs-2nd

 

[boubucarow]

5-time NBA champion: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010

7 NBA Finals appearances: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010

2-time NBA Finals MVP: 2009, 2010

NBA Most Valuable Player: 2008

Gold Medal: 2008

2-time scoring champion: 2006, 2007

2nd most points in a game: 81 (on January 22, 2006 vs. the Toronto Raptors)

12-time NBA All-Star; all consecutive. Youngest player to ever start an All-Star game

3-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2002, 2007, 2009

12-time All-NBA selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd) 2(3rd)

10-time All-Defensive selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd).

-Most All-Defensive selections from a guard

-Youngest player to ever make All-Defensive 1st team

NBA All-Rookie selection: 2nd team. Youngest player to ever be named to an All-Rookie team

NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1997

Scored 40 points or more in nine consecutive games in 2003.

Scored 50 points or more in four consecutive games in 2007.

Scored 60 points or more 5 times, tied with Jordan for 2nd All-Time.

Most three-point field goals made, one game: 12 (on January 7, 2003 vs. Seattle SuperSonics; shared with Donyell Marshall)

Most three-point field goals made, one half: 8 (on March 28, 2003 vs. Washington Wizards; shared with 5 other players)

Youngest player to score 20,000 points

Youngest player to score 25,000 points

Only player in NBA history to score at least 600 points in the postseason for three consecutive years.

633 (2008), 695 (2009), 671 (2010)

AllTime Regular Season Rankings:

Points-12th

Steals-28th

AllTime Postseason Rankings:

Points-4th

Steals-7th

Assists-11th

Games-6th

3Ptrs-2nd

Bolded will be pointed to as his shortcomings in any discussion of the top 10-15 players of all time. 7 finals appearances with only 2 MVPs and 1 regular season MVP in his career. Both clearly fall short of the best of the best. When you examine his stats when accounting for league environment for that particular year, he falls short of the top tier. While I feel he deserves more credit for 2000-2002 than most of his detractors, it is easy to point out the reasons that having him top 5 is clearly overrating him . The burden of proof his honestly on the side of Kobe backers.

 

[JMon348]

5-time NBA champion: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010

7 NBA Finals appearances: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010

2-time NBA Finals MVP: 2009, 2010

NBA Most Valuable Player: 2008

Gold Medal: 2008

2-time scoring champion: 2006, 2007

2nd most points in a game: 81 (on January 22, 2006 vs. the Toronto Raptors)

12-time NBA All-Star; all consecutive. Youngest player to ever start an All-Star game

3-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2002, 2007, 2009

12-time All-NBA selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd) 2(3rd)

10-time All-Defensive selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd).

-Most All-Defensive selections from a guard

-Youngest player to ever make All-Defensive 1st team

NBA All-Rookie selection: 2nd team. Youngest player to ever be named to an All-Rookie team

NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1997

Scored 40 points or more in nine consecutive games in 2003.

Scored 50 points or more in four consecutive games in 2007.

Scored 60 points or more 5 times, tied with Jordan for 2nd All-Time.

Most three-point field goals made, one game: 12 (on January 7, 2003 vs. Seattle SuperSonics; shared with Donyell Marshall)

Most three-point field goals made, one half: 8 (on March 28, 2003 vs. Washington Wizards; shared with 5 other players)

Youngest player to score 20,000 points

Youngest player to score 25,000 points

Only player in NBA history to score at least 600 points in the postseason for three consecutive years.

633 (2008), 695 (2009), 671 (2010)

AllTime Regular Season Rankings:

Points-12th

Steals-28th

AllTime Postseason Rankings:

Points-4th

Steals-7th

Assists-11th

Games-6th

3Ptrs-2nd

Bolded will be pointed to as his shortcomings in any discussion of the top 10-15 players of all time. 7 finals appearances with only 2 MVPs and 1 regular season MVP in his career. Both clearly fall short of the best of the best. When you examine his stats when accounting for league environment for that particular year, he falls short of the top tier. While I feel he deserves more credit for 2000-2002 than most of his detractors, it is easy to point out the reasons that having him top 5 is clearly overrating him . The burden of proof his honestly on the side of Kobe backers.

10th All-Time in MVP Shares.8 out of 9 years in the top 5.

 

[boubucarow]

5-time NBA champion: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010

7 NBA Finals appearances: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010

2-time NBA Finals MVP: 2009, 2010

NBA Most Valuable Player: 2008

Gold Medal: 2008

2-time scoring champion: 2006, 2007

2nd most points in a game: 81 (on January 22, 2006 vs. the Toronto Raptors)

12-time NBA All-Star; all consecutive. Youngest player to ever start an All-Star game

3-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2002, 2007, 2009

12-time All-NBA selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd) 2(3rd)

10-time All-Defensive selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd).

-Most All-Defensive selections from a guard

-Youngest player to ever make All-Defensive 1st team

NBA All-Rookie selection: 2nd team. Youngest player to ever be named to an All-Rookie team

NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1997

Scored 40 points or more in nine consecutive games in 2003.

Scored 50 points or more in four consecutive games in 2007.

Scored 60 points or more 5 times, tied with Jordan for 2nd All-Time.

Most three-point field goals made, one game: 12 (on January 7, 2003 vs. Seattle SuperSonics; shared with Donyell Marshall)

Most three-point field goals made, one half: 8 (on March 28, 2003 vs. Washington Wizards; shared with 5 other players)

Youngest player to score 20,000 points

Youngest player to score 25,000 points

Only player in NBA history to score at least 600 points in the postseason for three consecutive years.

633 (2008), 695 (2009), 671 (2010)

AllTime Regular Season Rankings:

Points-12th

Steals-28th

AllTime Postseason Rankings:

Points-4th

Steals-7th

Assists-11th

Games-6th

3Ptrs-2nd

Bolded will be pointed to as his shortcomings in any discussion of the top 10-15 players of all time. 7 finals appearances with only 2 MVPs and 1 regular season MVP in his career. Both clearly fall short of the best of the best. When you examine his stats when accounting for league environment for that particular year, he falls short of the top tier. While I feel he deserves more credit for 2000-2002 than most of his detractors, it is easy to point out the reasons that having him top 5 is clearly overrating him . The burden of proof his honestly on the side of Kobe backers.

10th All-Time in MVP Shares.8 out of 9 years in the top 5.

10th All-Time in MVP shares means top 5 all time?Being one of the 5 best players in the league 8 times means top 5 of all time?

Don't see the logic.

 

[JMon348]

5-time NBA champion: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010

7 NBA Finals appearances: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010

2-time NBA Finals MVP: 2009, 2010

NBA Most Valuable Player: 2008

Gold Medal: 2008

2-time scoring champion: 2006, 2007

2nd most points in a game: 81 (on January 22, 2006 vs. the Toronto Raptors)

12-time NBA All-Star; all consecutive. Youngest player to ever start an All-Star game

3-time NBA All-Star Game MVP: 2002, 2007, 2009

12-time All-NBA selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd) 2(3rd)

10-time All-Defensive selection: 8(1st) 2(2nd).

-Most All-Defensive selections from a guard

-Youngest player to ever make All-Defensive 1st team

NBA All-Rookie selection: 2nd team. Youngest player to ever be named to an All-Rookie team

NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion: 1997

Scored 40 points or more in nine consecutive games in 2003.

Scored 50 points or more in four consecutive games in 2007.

Scored 60 points or more 5 times, tied with Jordan for 2nd All-Time.

Most three-point field goals made, one game: 12 (on January 7, 2003 vs. Seattle SuperSonics; shared with Donyell Marshall)

Most three-point field goals made, one half: 8 (on March 28, 2003 vs. Washington Wizards; shared with 5 other players)

Youngest player to score 20,000 points

Youngest player to score 25,000 points

Only player in NBA history to score at least 600 points in the postseason for three consecutive years.

633 (2008), 695 (2009), 671 (2010)

AllTime Regular Season Rankings:

Points-12th

Steals-28th

AllTime Postseason Rankings:

Points-4th

Steals-7th

Assists-11th

Games-6th

3Ptrs-2nd

Bolded will be pointed to as his shortcomings in any discussion of the top 10-15 players of all time. 7 finals appearances with only 2 MVPs and 1 regular season MVP in his career. Both clearly fall short of the best of the best. When you examine his stats when accounting for league environment for that particular year, he falls short of the top tier. While I feel he deserves more credit for 2000-2002 than most of his detractors, it is easy to point out the reasons that having him top 5 is clearly overrating him . The burden of proof his honestly on the side of Kobe backers.

10th All-Time in MVP Shares.8 out of 9 years in the top 5.

10th All-Time in MVP shares means top 5 all time?Being one of the 5 best players in the league 8 times means top 5 of all time?

Don't see the logic.

Playing with Shaq for 8 years, then scrubs for the next couple hurts his MVP count.

 

[the moops]

Playing with Shaq for 8 years, then scrubs for the next couple hurts his MVP count.

Playing with an inferior player (Shaq) hurts his MVP count?

 

[JMon348]

UPDATED PANTHEON:1. Michael Jordan(6)2. Magic Johnson(5)3. Kobe Bryant(5)4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)5. Bill Russell(11)6. Larry Bird(3)7. Tim Duncan(4)8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)9. Shaquille ONeal(4)10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

Are you trying to convince some people (via a proxy writer) that KOBE BRYANT is the 3rd best NBA player ever?You're not seriously trying that are you?

Im grouping Magic, Kobe, Kareem, and Russell in the same tier. So if you want to switch those guys around I wont argue. I think Kobe is a better player than Bird, Duncan, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.

 

[boubucarow]

UPDATED PANTHEON:1. Michael Jordan(6)2. Magic Johnson(5)3. Kobe Bryant(5)4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)5. Bill Russell(11)6. Larry Bird(3)7. Tim Duncan(4)8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)9. Shaquille ONeal(4)10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

Are you trying to convince some people (via a proxy writer) that KOBE BRYANT is the 3rd best NBA player ever?You're not seriously trying that are you?

Im grouping Magic, Kobe, Kareem, and Russell in the same tier. So if you want to switch those guys around I wont argue. I think Kobe is a better player than Bird, Duncan, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.

As a player, there is no question that I would take Duncan, Shaq, and Hakeem over Kobe. He never matched the impact of those players in their prime. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Why does Kobe deserve more credit as a player than his 1 MVP and 2 Finals MVP's would indicate?

 

[drummer]

1. Michael Jordan2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar3. Wilt Chamberlain4. Bill Russell5. Larry Bird6. Magic Johnson7. Tim Duncan8. Shaquille O'Neal9. Jerry West10. Oscar Robertson11. Hakeem Olajuwon12. Moses Malone

That's a damn good Pantheon right here.

 

[timschochet]

1. Wilt Chamberlain

2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

3. Michael Jordan

4. Oscar Robertson

5. Magic Johnson

6. Bill Russell

7. Kobe Bryant

8. Larry Bird

9. Tim Duncan

10. Jerry West

11. Shaquille O'Neil

12. Hakeem Olajuwan

13. Elgin Baylor

14. Moses Malone

15. Julius Erving

16. George Mikan

17. LeBron James

18. Bill Walton

19. Kevin Garnett

20. Karl Malone

 

[Pat Patriot]

1. Wilt Chamberlain2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar3. Michael Jordan4. Oscar Robertson5. Magic Johnson6. Bill Russell7. Kobe Bryant8. Larry Bird9. Tim Duncan10. Jerry West11. Shaquille O'Neil12. Hakeem Olajuwan13. Elgin Baylor14. Moses Malone15. Julius Erving16. George Mikan17. LeBron James18. Bill Walton19. Kevin Garnett20. Karl Malone

We all know your top ten has serious problems. I'll leave that alone for now. How can you have Bill Walton ahead of Kevin Garnett? Walton could have been a top 5 guy but his career didnt play out like that. Even if you include Walton's UCLA days, Garnett's achievement is greater than Walton's.Besides, I'm not sure why you did a top 20, we are talking about the Pantheon. Your bottom 7 guys are not in that group.

 

[cobalt_27]

1. Michael Jordan2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar3. Wilt Chamberlain4. Bill Russell5. Larry Bird6. Magic Johnson7. Tim Duncan8. Shaquille O'Neal9. Jerry West10. Oscar Robertson11. Hakeem Olajuwon12. Moses Malone

That's a damn good Pantheon right here.

Any pantheon that does not have Kobe Bryant is a good pantheon by me. Shows someone with a good basketball acumen.

 

[pollardsvision]

UPDATED PANTHEON:1. Michael Jordan(6)2. Magic Johnson(5)3. Kobe Bryant(5)4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)5. Bill Russell(11)6. Larry Bird(3)7. Tim Duncan(4)8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)9. Shaquille ONeal(4)10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

It's tough leaving the Big O off of a Pantheon.

Multiple titles are required for the top 10. 5 titles are required to be in the top 5.

This is the silliest argument that almost everybody believes to be gospel. Every year more than one superstar plays well enough in the regular season and in the playoffs to have led a team to a title. A series loss in the NBA Finals, Conference Finals, or even sometimes the Conference Semi-Finals doesn't change that fact. It only means either he didn't have the support to advance or a shot didn't fall here or there. It doesn't change the fact that they deserve as much credit as the player that was lucky enough to have the support or have the shot fall here or there.

I completely agree that "rings" is an over-rated argument when it comes to the NFL (nobody cares about them when arguing about MLB players), but not when it comes to the NBA.One great player completely changes the destiny of a franchise. The team with the league's best player won't always win the title that year, but they'll always have a shot. Great players in the NBA essentially have the ability to run the franchise, so bad supporting cast arguments hold less weight. Players can leave or call their own shots, hand pick coaches, etc. They even decide if their team cares about defense or not (if the best player plays defense, the rest will follow.).Obviously, there's luck involved, in the NBA, I'm quite comfortable saying that if you didn't get 2+ rings, you can't be considered a top 10 player. A top 10 player should be the dominant player in the league for the better part of a decade (or share the honors in some cases). 10+ shots should net 2 rings for a top 10 player.

 

[JMon348]

Not good posting, GREAT POSTING!

 

[timschochet]

1. Wilt Chamberlain2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar3. Michael Jordan4. Oscar Robertson5. Magic Johnson6. Bill Russell7. Kobe Bryant8. Larry Bird9. Tim Duncan10. Jerry West11. Shaquille O'Neil12. Hakeem Olajuwan13. Elgin Baylor14. Moses Malone15. Julius Erving16. George Mikan17. LeBron James18. Bill Walton19. Kevin Garnett20. Karl Malone

We all know your top ten has serious problems. I'll leave that alone for now. How can you have Bill Walton ahead of Kevin Garnett? Walton could have been a top 5 guy but his career didnt play out like that. Even if you include Walton's UCLA days, Garnett's achievement is greater than Walton's.Besides, I'm not sure why you did a top 20, we are talking about the Pantheon. Your bottom 7 guys are not in that group.

I did top 20 because I didn't want to leave the others out. But you're right I should have stopped earlier. I could switch Walton and Garnett. Walton led a team with less talent to a championship than did KG. At his peak when healthy there was arguably no one better. But you could make the argument for KG as well. What serious problems for my top 10?

 

[Abraham]

This is a tough discussion because a career is different then a prime. Hakeem in his prime is top five to me, but his career is closer to ten. Conversely, kobe for his career is top ten but I'm not site his prime tanks that high.

 

[boubucarow]

UPDATED PANTHEON:1. Michael Jordan(6)2. Magic Johnson(5)3. Kobe Bryant(5)4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar(6)5. Bill Russell(11)6. Larry Bird(3)7. Tim Duncan(4)8. Wilt Chamberlain(2)9. Shaquille ONeal(4)10. Hakeem Olajuwon(2)

It's tough leaving the Big O off of a Pantheon.

Multiple titles are required for the top 10. 5 titles are required to be in the top 5.

This is the silliest argument that almost everybody believes to be gospel. Every year more than one superstar plays well enough in the regular season and in the playoffs to have led a team to a title. A series loss in the NBA Finals, Conference Finals, or even sometimes the Conference Semi-Finals doesn't change that fact. It only means either he didn't have the support to advance or a shot didn't fall here or there. It doesn't change the fact that they deserve as much credit as the player that was lucky enough to have the support or have the shot fall here or there.

I completely agree that "rings" is an over-rated argument when it comes to the NFL (nobody cares about them when arguing about MLB players), but not when it comes to the NBA.One great player completely changes the destiny of a franchise. The team with the league's best player won't always win the title that year, but they'll always have a shot. Great players in the NBA essentially have the ability to run the franchise, so bad supporting cast arguments hold less weight. Players can leave or call their own shots, hand pick coaches, etc. They even decide if their team cares about defense or not (if the best player plays defense, the rest will follow.).Obviously, there's luck involved, in the NBA, I'm quite comfortable saying that if you didn't get 2+ rings, you can't be considered a top 10 player. A top 10 player should be the dominant player in the league for the better part of a decade (or share the honors in some cases). 10+ shots should net 2 rings for a top 10 player.

Why 2 rings, why not 3, or 4, or 1, or whatever? It is true that in the NBA the star player has more influence than any other sport by a large distance. So in that light I understand the rings argument. But I think all are too simplistic in analyzing the regular season by stats and the postseason by rings. To me, the performance of the player is more important than the team success in evaluating a player unless you can pinpoint a reason that player was detrimental to his team in accumulating those stats.The best player in the NBA often wins a championship. But he doesn't always. A player like Jerry West won 1 ring and we all know why. I just don't see why such a simplistic view is taken to evaluating players. Magic and Bird won titles because their teams were stacked and didn't win more because they had to run into each other. Kobe has won 2 titles in a row because he plays on the best team in the NBA and not because he is the best player in the NBA. Against the Celtics in the playoffs, Kobe's game scores are as follows: 21.0, 12.9, 20.7, 17.4, 24.7, 24.1, and 9.9.Against the Celtics in the playoffs, LeBron's game scores are as follows: 31.6, 18.2, 36.9, 13.8, 9.1, and 22.1.LeBron's average game score was higher (21.9 to 18.7). The best player didn't win a title and those seasons need to be accounted for in some way. The best teams still win titles and the best players are not always on the best teams. That should not diminish their legacy. While I agree that in general the best players get their titles. The number of titles a player has isn't always representative of the player he was.

 

[boubucarow]

This is a tough discussion because a career is different then a prime. Hakeem in his prime is top five to me, but his career is closer to ten. Conversely, kobe for his career is top ten but I'm not site his prime tanks that high.

I think that Olajuwon pre-titles is completely forgotten sometimes.Career Regular Season PER - Olajuwon 23.6 Kobe 23.5Career Playoff PER - Olajuwon 25.7 Kobe 22.4Number of Regular Season PER above 20 - Olajuwon 16 Kobe 11Number of Regular Season PER above 25 - Olajuwon 5 Kobe 3Let's not forget a career D Rating of 98 for Olajuwon leading the league 5 times versus Kobe's career 105 rating.I think Olajuwon is a prime example of an consistently elite player who didn't win more titles because of this supporting cast and the greatness of his opponents. Kobe is somewhat lucky to have played with the most dominant force in league for three titles and then win two more when the other best players in the league (Wade and LeBron) did not have anywhere near his supporting cast. Note: Please don't overreact. I don't question Kobe's greatness and he played at an elite level for at least 3 of those titles and probably for 4 of them.

 

[Abraham]

This is a tough discussion because a career is different then a prime. Hakeem in his prime is top five to me, but his career is closer to ten. Conversely, kobe for his career is top ten but I'm not site his prime tanks that high.

I think that Olajuwon pre-titles is completely forgotten sometimes.Career Regular Season PER - Olajuwon 23.6 Kobe 23.5Career Playoff PER - Olajuwon 25.7 Kobe 22.4Number of Regular Season PER above 20 - Olajuwon 16 Kobe 11Number of Regular Season PER above 25 - Olajuwon 5 Kobe 3Let's not forget a career D Rating of 98 for Olajuwon leading the league 5 times versus Kobe's career 105 rating.I think Olajuwon is a prime example of an consistently elite player who didn't win more titles because of this supporting cast and the greatness of his opponents. Kobe is somewhat lucky to have played with the most dominant force in league for three titles and then win two more when the other best players in the league (Wade and LeBron) did not have anywhere near his supporting cast. Note: Please don't overreact. I don't question Kobe's greatness and he played at an elite level for at least 3 of those titles and probably for 4 of them.

:whoosh: That is info I was not aware of, but certainly changes my view a bit.

 

[pollardsvision]

This is the silliest argument that almost everybody believes to be gospel. Every year more than one superstar plays well enough in the regular season and in the playoffs to have led a team to a title. A series loss in the NBA Finals, Conference Finals, or even sometimes the Conference Semi-Finals doesn't change that fact. It only means either he didn't have the support to advance or a shot didn't fall here or there. It doesn't change the fact that they deserve as much credit as the player that was lucky enough to have the support or have the shot fall here or there.

I completely agree that "rings" is an over-rated argument when it comes to the NFL (nobody cares about them when arguing about MLB players), but not when it comes to the NBA.

One great player completely changes the destiny of a franchise. The team with the league's best player won't always win the title that year, but they'll always have a shot. Great players in the NBA essentially have the ability to run the franchise, so bad supporting cast arguments hold less weight. Players can leave or call their own shots, hand pick coaches, etc. They even decide if their team cares about defense or not (if the best player plays defense, the rest will follow.).

Obviously, there's luck involved, in the NBA, I'm quite comfortable saying that if you didn't get 2+ rings, you can't be considered a top 10 player. A top 10 player should be the dominant player in the league for the better part of a decade (or share the honors in some cases). 10+ shots should net 2 rings for a top 10 player.

Why 2 rings, why not 3, or 4, or 1, or whatever? It is true that in the NBA the star player has more influence than any other sport by a large distance. So in that light I understand the rings argument. But I think all are too simplistic in analyzing the regular season by stats and the postseason by rings. To me, the performance of the player is more important than the team success in evaluating a player unless you can pinpoint a reason that player was detrimental to his team in accumulating those stats.

The best player in the NBA often wins a championship. But he doesn't always. A player like Jerry West won 1 ring and we all know why. I just don't see why such a simplistic view is taken to evaluating players. Magic and Bird won titles because their teams were stacked and didn't win more because they had to run into each other. Kobe has won 2 titles in a row because he plays on the best team in the NBA and not because he is the best player in the NBA.

Against the Celtics in the playoffs, Kobe's game scores are as follows: 21.0, 12.9, 20.7, 17.4, 24.7, 24.1, and 9.9.

Against the Celtics in the playoffs, LeBron's game scores are as follows: 31.6, 18.2, 36.9, 13.8, 9.1, and 22.1.

LeBron's average game score was higher (21.9 to 18.7). The best player didn't win a title and those seasons need to be accounted for in some way. The best teams still win titles and the best players are not always on the best teams. That should not diminish their legacy. While I agree that in general the best players get their titles. The number of titles a player has isn't always representative of the player he was.

I don't really know why "2". You don't have very many bull#### champions in the NBA like you do in the NFL, so 1 could work. 2 feels right though, for some reason.

Jerry West, as you mentioned, would be very difficult to leave out of the top 10 based on a 2-ring prerequisite. He's the only one though and it took an incredible run of bad luck for that to happen. His 1 title could've very easily been 4 or 5.

I know the number of titles doesn't come close to telling the whole story, but in the NBA, all-time great players generally win multiple titles. (Or in West's case, make it to the NBA Finals 9 times).

 

[Pat Patriot]

1. Wilt Chamberlain2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar3. Michael Jordan4. Oscar Robertson5. Magic Johnson6. Bill Russell7. Kobe Bryant8. Larry Bird9. Tim Duncan10. Jerry West11. Shaquille O'Neil12. Hakeem Olajuwan13. Elgin Baylor14. Moses Malone15. Julius Erving16. George Mikan17. LeBron James18. Bill Walton19. Kevin Garnett20. Karl Malone

We all know your top ten has serious problems. I'll leave that alone for now. How can you have Bill Walton ahead of Kevin Garnett? Walton could have been a top 5 guy but his career didnt play out like that. Even if you include Walton's UCLA days, Garnett's achievement is greater than Walton's.Besides, I'm not sure why you did a top 20, we are talking about the Pantheon. Your bottom 7 guys are not in that group.

I did top 20 because I didn't want to leave the others out. But you're right I should have stopped earlier. I could switch Walton and Garnett. Walton led a team with less talent to a championship than did KG. At his peak when healthy there was arguably no one better. But you could make the argument for KG as well. What serious problems for my top 10?

The Pantheon is for the GREATEST players ever. Greatness is hard to quantify but I define it as some combination of talent and achievement. In basketball more so than some other sports (QB in football is similar) achievement is tied to team success and championships. I give more credence to Greatness of the moment and others give more points for longevity.By my measure of Greatness, Wilt isnt even top 5. That is the first problem you have in your top 10. You have Russell at 6. That is your second problem. Oscar Robertson is too high and Larry Bird is too low. Think about it. When Larry and Magic were at their peak, there were about 10 titles up for grabs. Magics team won 5 of them and Birds team won 3 of them. If not for the other, Magic or Bird could each have won 8 championships at least. That has to be taken into consideration.Russell had Wilt and beat him every time but once. Magic had Bird and the score was 5-3 Magic. Oscar had Jerry West to an extent but they never played for the title. I think that helps put Magic and Bird in the top 5.

 

[wildbill]

Think about it. When Larry and Magic were at their peak, there were about 10 titles up for grabs. Magics team won 5 of them and Birds team won 3 of them. If not for the other, Magic or Bird could each have won 8 championships at least. That has to be taken into consideration.

The Sixers, Rockets and Pistons might disagree with you. Bird beat Magic in the Finals once, and beat the Rockets twice. Magic beat Bird in the Finals twice, and beat the Sixers twice and the Pistons once. Their teams did dominate the Finals in the 1980's, but you're exaggerating it a little.

 

[boubucarow]

Think about it. When Larry and Magic were at their peak, there were about 10 titles up for grabs. Magics team won 5 of them and Birds team won 3 of them. If not for the other, Magic or Bird could each have won 8 championships at least. That has to be taken into consideration.

The Sixers, Rockets and Pistons might disagree with you. Bird beat Magic in the Finals once, and beat the Rockets twice. Magic beat Bird in the Finals twice, and beat the Sixers twice and the Pistons once. Their teams did dominate the Finals in the 1980's, but you're exaggerating it a little.

And while it is obvious that Bird/Magic were the best players on their teams. The Celtics and Lakers were completely stacked in the 80's.

 

[timschochet]

Russell had Wilt and beat him every time but once. Magic had Bird and the score was 5-3 Magic.

See, this is where I completely disagree. Russell's Celtics defeated Wilt's Warriors and Lakers. Magic's Lakers won more championships than Bird's Celtics. But this doesn't tell us anything about whether or not Russell was a better center than Wilt (IMO, he clearly wasn't) and it doesn't tell us anything about who was better between Magic and Bird. Basketball is a team sport. Russell generally had better teammates than Wilt.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Russell had Wilt and beat him every time but once. Magic had Bird and the score was 5-3 Magic.

See, this is where I completely disagree. Russell's Celtics defeated Wilt's Warriors and Lakers. Magic's Lakers won more championships than Bird's Celtics. But this doesn't tell us anything about whether or not Russell was a better center than Wilt (IMO, he clearly wasn't) and it doesn't tell us anything about who was better between Magic and Bird. Basketball is a team sport. Russell generally had better teammates than Wilt.

But you discount that even when Russell didnt have the better teammates later in his career, he still won. Does that count at all in your analysis?

 

[timschochet]

Frankly, I don't think greatness has anything to do with number of championships. I don't buy it on behalf of Kobe fans in the Kobe-LeBron debate, and I don't buy it now. If you think Kobe is a better basketball player than LeBron (I do) it should be based, solely, on his individual achievement and skills- not on the number of rings he has, which is an element of who he gets to play with.

If Wilt Chamberlain had never won a championship, he would still be my #1 NBA player of all time.

 

[boubucarow]

Frankly, I don't think greatness has anything to do with number of championships. I don't buy it on behalf of Kobe fans in the Kobe-LeBron debate, and I don't buy it now. If you think Kobe is a better basketball player than LeBron (I do) it should be based, solely, on his individual achievement and skills- not on the number of rings he has, which is an element of who he gets to play with. If Wilt Chamberlain had never won a championship, he would still be my #1 NBA player of all time.

I agree to a point. If you can provide evidence that Wilt wasn't Wilt when his team lost in the playoffs or that Russell elevated his game during the playoffs, then that should factor in. For example, Jordan won 6 titles with the Bulls and he clearly played at an elite level in nearly every if not in every playoff series in all 6 years. In short, the playoff performance should count concerning a player's contribution to his team whether they won or not.

 

[timschochet]

Russell had Wilt and beat him every time but once. Magic had Bird and the score was 5-3 Magic.

See, this is where I completely disagree. Russell's Celtics defeated Wilt's Warriors and Lakers. Magic's Lakers won more championships than Bird's Celtics. But this doesn't tell us anything about whether or not Russell was a better center than Wilt (IMO, he clearly wasn't) and it doesn't tell us anything about who was better between Magic and Bird. Basketball is a team sport. Russell generally had better teammates than Wilt.

But you discount that even when Russell didnt have the better teammates later in his career, he still won. Does that count at all in your analysis?

I think you're talking about one series, right? 1969. Wilt had Jerry West and Elgin, and they lost to an aging Celtics team in Russell's last season. There are extenuating circumstances with regard to that series, involving the Laker's head coach and his inability to get along with Wilt, and a big controversy resulting from this in game 7. But even without that controversy, I would tell you that the sample is too small.And even if Bill Russell outplayed Wilt Chamberlain head to head whenever they met, this still doesn't tell us who is the better player. Head to head competition is not nearly as important as how both players perform against the rest of their peers. Was Michael Cooper a better basketball player than Larry Bird? Of course not. Yet Coop always defended him well and wins the overall head to head matchup. So obviously, that in itself tells us nothing.

 

[timschochet]

Frankly, I don't think greatness has anything to do with number of championships. I don't buy it on behalf of Kobe fans in the Kobe-LeBron debate, and I don't buy it now. If you think Kobe is a better basketball player than LeBron (I do) it should be based, solely, on his individual achievement and skills- not on the number of rings he has, which is an element of who he gets to play with. If Wilt Chamberlain had never won a championship, he would still be my #1 NBA player of all time.

I agree to a point. If you can provide evidence that Wilt wasn't Wilt when his team lost in the playoffs or that Russell elevated his game during the playoffs, then that should factor in. For example, Jordan won 6 titles with the Bulls and he clearly played at an elite level in nearly every if not in every playoff series in all 6 years. In short, the playoff performance should count concerning a player's contribution to his team whether they won or not.

I agree with this. If evidence is presented that Wilt choked in playoffs and Russell rose to excellence in such situations, that should be a factor- ONE factor. Obviously, we can't give it TOO much weight, otherwise Robert Horry and Derek Fisher would be in this discussion.