The NBA players PANTHEON (1 Viewer)

[Getinthemix]

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.

What???

 

[the moops]

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.

What???

Dont you remember all those awful games Bird had against the Lakers?

 

[ivnabru]

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.

What???

Dont you remember all those awful games Bird had against the Lakers?

I was too young to remember the Bird/Magic days but didn't Bird and Magic play off position to cover each other? I also thought Bird did the same with Jordan and covered him.

 

[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?

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.

So Tim you are trying to sell that Cooper won the overall matchup head to head vs. Bird? When are you going to stop making such outlandish statements. Coop played Bird well compared to the rest of the league. I'm pretty sure that Larry contributed more to his team than Michael Cooper in those playoff series. Bird without question won the individual matchup with Cooper just not by as big a margin as he did against the rest of the league.

 

[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?

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.

1984 Finals Celtics 4 Lakers 3 Larry Bird 27 pts and 14 rebounds per game. Shot 48% overall and 66.7% from 3.

I'm not even going to list Cooper because it doesnt matter what he did, he didnt outplay Bird.

1985 Finals Lakers 4 Celtics 2

Larry Bird 23.8 pts and 8.8 rebounds per game. Shot 45% overall and 33.3% from 3. 5 assists per game and 1.8 steals.

Michael Cooper 10.2 pts and 2 rebounds per game. Shot 59% overall and 33.3% from 3. 3.7 assists per game and 1.2 steals.

Cooper shot great but again Bird did much more for his team than Cooper did.

1987 Finals Lakers 4 Celtics 2

Larry Bird 24.2 pts and 10 rebounds per game. Shot 45% overall and 50% from 3. 5.5 assists and 1.2 steals.

Michael Cooper 12 pts and 2.3 rebounds per game. Shot 54% overall and 60% from 3. 4.7 assists and 1.7 steals.

Again, Cooper outshot Bird but he certainly didnt outplay him.

I love basketball reference. Tim, you should love it once in awhile too.

 

[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?

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.

Tim, take a look at the rosters for the teams in the 1968 Eastern Finals. Wilt had the better teammates that year as well. Who's team won? Celtics 4-3. Russell beat Wilt when he had better teammates and when he had lesser teammates (with the exception of 1 year, 1967). Russell was the better player.

 

[oneohh]

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

 

[oneohh]

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.

The obvious omission is more than refreshing.

 

[oneohh]

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?

Awesome thread.

 

[JMon348]

Offseason is slowing down with the big names all signed. Lets have some debates:

Who's had the better career?

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

 

[the moops]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

 

[JMon348]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

Created this from you asking if Ben Wallace was a HOF.I went with

Horry

Fisher

Barkley

Worthy

Nash

Allen

Ewing

Pippen

Kobe

 

[the moops]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

Created this from you asking if Ben Wallace was a HOF.I went with

Horry

Fisher

Barkley

Worthy

Nash

Allen

Ewing

Pippen

Kobe

Barkley over Garnett is ridiculous. As is Nash over Stockton. I can see arguments for all the others though. And I am not surprised that we agree on nearly none of them.

 

[JMon348]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

Created this from you asking if Ben Wallace was a HOF.I went with

Horry

Fisher

Barkley

Worthy

Nash

Allen

Ewing

Pippen

Kobe

Barkley over Garnett is ridiculous. As is Nash over Stockton. I can see arguments for all the others though. And I am not surprised that we agree on nearly none of them.

Stockton IMO is one of the most overated players in NBA history. I have noted in the past his performances in big games. I think he is viewed as great as he is, because he had a long career and compiled some amazing stats. Nash never played with a player like Malone, and his 2 MVPs push him over Stockton IMO. Close though as all of these are.

 

[ivnabru]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

Created this from you asking if Ben Wallace was a HOF.I went with

Horry

Fisher

Barkley

Worthy

Nash

Allen

Ewing

Pippen

Kobe

Barkley over Garnett is ridiculous. As is Nash over Stockton. I can see arguments for all the others though. And I am not surprised that we agree on nearly none of them.

Stockton IMO is one of the most overated players in NBA history. I have noted in the past his performances in big games. I think he is viewed as great as he is, because he had a long career and compiled some amazing stats. Nash never played with a player like Malone, and his 2 MVPs push him over Stockton IMO. Close though as all of these are.

Bird's 3 MVPs don't push him over Kobe?

 

[wildbill]

Barkley over Garnett is ridiculous.

What's the argument for Garnett over Barkley?

 

[the moops]

Stockton IMO is one of the most overated players in NBA history. I have noted in the past his performances in big games. I think he is viewed as great as he is, because he had a long career and compiled some amazing stats. Nash never played with a player like Malone, and his 2 MVPs push him over Stockton IMO. Close though as all of these are.

You are forgetting one very important part of basketball. Defense.Steve Nash may be the worst defesive player in the league, while John Stockton was a top rate defender. Same goes for your Barkley over Garnett choice. Garnett is arguably the greatest defensive post player of the past 20 years.

 

[Sweet J]

Barkley over Garnett is ridiculous.

What's the argument for Garnett over Barkley?

I admit that I don't use "stats" then thinking about players, especially when comparing players that i have first-hand memory of watching. I have watched the (close to) entire career of both Barkley and Garnet (although neither was in my "market" at any time, so I did not watch either on a daily basis). So without looking at the stats, I feel comfortable saying: 1. I would take Barkley in his "prime" over Garnet. I think pretty easily.2. I would take Barkley "over the course of his career" over Garnet. I think pretty easily.Barkley was a monster. A monster. In the mid-80s to early 90s, I remember him as one of the top 3-5 players on the planet, every single year. Am I mis-remembering?

 

[Sweet J]

Stockton IMO is one of the most overated players in NBA history. I have noted in the past his performances in big games. I think he is viewed as great as he is, because he had a long career and compiled some amazing stats. Nash never played with a player like Malone, and his 2 MVPs push him over Stockton IMO. Close though as all of these are.

You are forgetting one very important part of basketball. Defense.Steve Nash may be the worst defesive player in the league, while John Stockton was a top rate defender. Same goes for your Barkley over Garnett choice. Garnett is arguably the greatest defensive post player of the past 20 years.

Barkley was on of the few players who could handle Kevin McKale (one of the best post players of his generation). Barkley easily handles Garnett.

 

[the moops]

Stockton IMO is one of the most overated players in NBA history. I have noted in the past his performances in big games. I think he is viewed as great as he is, because he had a long career and compiled some amazing stats. Nash never played with a player like Malone, and his 2 MVPs push him over Stockton IMO. Close though as all of these are.

You are forgetting one very important part of basketball. Defense.Steve Nash may be the worst defesive player in the league, while John Stockton was a top rate defender. Same goes for your Barkley over Garnett choice. Garnett is arguably the greatest defensive post player of the past 20 years.

Barkley was on of the few players who could handle Kevin McKale (one of the best post players of his generation). Barkley easily handles Garnett.

McHale averaged 18 pts and 7 rebounds and shot 55% for his career.Playing against Barkley, he averaged 20 pts, 7 rebounds and shot 60% from the floor.

 

[Balco]

Offseason is slowing down with the big names all signed. Lets have some debates:

Who's had the better career?

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed WallaceDerek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

The only ones I thought were clear cut when I saw the comparisons were Bird over Kobe, Garnett over Barkley, and Stockton over Nash (this one wasn't even in the same ball park).

 

[Balco]

Stockton IMO is one of the most overated players in NBA history. I have noted in the past his performances in big games. I think he is viewed as great as he is, because he had a long career and compiled some amazing stats. Nash never played with a player like Malone, and his 2 MVPs push him over Stockton IMO. Close though as all of these are.

You are forgetting one very important part of basketball. Defense.Steve Nash may be the worst defesive player in the league, while John Stockton was a top rate defender. Same goes for your Barkley over Garnett choice. Garnett is arguably the greatest defensive post player of the past 20 years.

Barkley was on of the few players who could handle Kevin McKale (one of the best post players of his generation). Barkley easily handles Garnett.

McHale averaged 18 pts and 7 rebounds and shot 55% for his career.Playing against Barkley, he averaged 20 pts, 7 rebounds and shot 60% from the floor.

Maybe it's because he played in Minnesota for most of his career, but I am really surprised at how underrated Garnett is.

 

[Sweet J]

Stockton IMO is one of the most overated players in NBA history. I have noted in the past his performances in big games. I think he is viewed as great as he is, because he had a long career and compiled some amazing stats. Nash never played with a player like Malone, and his 2 MVPs push him over Stockton IMO. Close though as all of these are.

You are forgetting one very important part of basketball. Defense.Steve Nash may be the worst defesive player in the league, while John Stockton was a top rate defender. Same goes for your Barkley over Garnett choice. Garnett is arguably the greatest defensive post player of the past 20 years.

Barkley was on of the few players who could handle Kevin McKale (one of the best post players of his generation). Barkley easily handles Garnett.

McHale averaged 18 pts and 7 rebounds and shot 55% for his career.Playing against Barkley, he averaged 20 pts, 7 rebounds and shot 60% from the floor.

I'm clearly in the minority. Barkley was a monster, who could finish, who could carry a team on his back and who could rebound like a beast and could shoot. Garnett is a wild man, I guess, who can rebound and play D, but . . . just didn't have that "thing" that I remember Barkley having.If you are picking a player for your team, I pick a Barkley in his prime over Garnet in his prime.

 

[Jewell]

Barkley was on of the few players who could handle Kevin McKale (one of the best post players of his generation). Barkley easily handles Garnett.

McHale averaged 18 pts and 7 rebounds and shot 55% for his career.Playing against Barkley, he averaged 20 pts, 7 rebounds and shot 60% from the floor.

I've seen interviews where Barkley has said that McHale was his toughest match-up due to his length.

Here's a video of Barkley commenting on McHale with highlights from the man with the greatest low post moves in NBA history...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlSZC4TAYVc

 

[wildbill]

Barkley over Garnett is ridiculous.

What's the argument for Garnett over Barkley?

I admit that I don't use "stats" then thinking about players, especially when comparing players that i have first-hand memory of watching. I have watched the (close to) entire career of both Barkley and Garnet (although neither was in my "market" at any time, so I did not watch either on a daily basis). So without looking at the stats, I feel comfortable saying: 1. I would take Barkley in his "prime" over Garnet. I think pretty easily.2. I would take Barkley "over the course of his career" over Garnet. I think pretty easily.Barkley was a monster. A monster. In the mid-80s to early 90s, I remember him as one of the top 3-5 players on the planet, every single year. Am I mis-remembering?

That's how I remember it as well.

 

[thecatch]

Stockton IMO is one of the most overated players in NBA history. I have noted in the past his performances in big games. I think he is viewed as great as he is, because he had a long career and compiled some amazing stats. Nash never played with a player like Malone, and his 2 MVPs push him over Stockton IMO. Close though as all of these are.

You are forgetting one very important part of basketball. Defense.Steve Nash may be the worst defesive player in the league, while John Stockton was a top rate defender. Same goes for your Barkley over Garnett choice. Garnett is arguably the greatest defensive post player of the past 20 years.

Barkley was on of the few players who could handle Kevin McKale (one of the best post players of his generation). Barkley easily handles Garnett.

McHale averaged 18 pts and 7 rebounds and shot 55% for his career.Playing against Barkley, he averaged 20 pts, 7 rebounds and shot 60% from the floor.

I'm clearly in the minority. Barkley was a monster, who could finish, who could carry a team on his back and who could rebound like a beast and could shoot. Garnett is a wild man, I guess, who can rebound and play D, but . . . just didn't have that "thing" that I remember Barkley having.If you are picking a player for your team, I pick a Barkley in his prime over Garnet in his prime.

I think this is an interesting question. Barkley and KG have been among my favorite players since I started watching basketball. I remember Barkley as a far superior offensive player, which I think is pretty clearly backed up in the statistics. Barkley was a better rebounder, though both are/were great. On the other hand, KG certainly is the better defender and I don't think this one is even close (the fact that KG is 1/2 a foot taller puts Barkley at something of a disadvantage here). I think it's close question, and which one I took would probably depend on the rest of the team.

 

[JMon348]

Larry Bird has a career Player Efficiency Rating (PER) of 23.5. Kobe Bryant has a career player efficiency rating of 23.6. You might think the difference is negligible, but remember Kobe came into the league as a 17-year-old. He didn’t play much his rookie or sophomore year – two years in which he posted PERs under 20.

Kobe Bryant’s playoff PER average is exactly at 22.0, while Bird’s is only 21.4. Again, Kobe’s Player Efficiency Rating is higher, despite coming into the league much earlier than Larry Bird and having limited minutes in his first three years.

Kobe and Bird each have 12 allstar appearances. Kobe has been named All NBA 11 times(8 1st teams), Bird has 10(9).

I know the FBG's here think Kobe’s defensive reputation is overrated. You can complain all you want, fact is the coaches of the NBA have put Kobe on the All-Defensive Team 10 times, the most ever by a guard. Only five players in the history of the NBA have more defensive team selections than Kobe. Bird has only been selected 3 times.

Bird played his whole career with 2 HOFers by his side, and as everyone knows the MVP usually goes to the best player on the team with the best record. In Bird's prime the Celtics had the best record in the NBA 3 times......those are Bird's 3 MVP.

Finally the championships, Bird has been to 5, winning 3. Kobe has been to 7, winning 5.

Whenever a writer or broadcaster starts a sentence by declaring that Player X (usually referring to Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson or Larry Bird) "would never have" done something that a current player (often Kobe Bryant) just did (such as taking a tough shot/"letting" his team lose a key game/shooting a low field goal percentage in a game or series/making a certain kind of mistake) you can be reasonably certain that some serious historical revisionism is about to take place.

Bird is rightly considered one of the greatest shooters of all-time and he is renowned for his ability to make clutch shots--but in his five trips to the NBA Finals Bird never shot better than .484 from the field even though he played in an era when field goal percentages were much higher than they are now. Overall, Bird shot .458 from the field during his NBA Finals career, significantly worse than his .496 regular season career field goal percentage.

In the 1981 NBA Finals, Bird's 62-20 Boston Celtics--loaded with three other future Hall of Famers (Nate Archibald, Robert Parish and rookie Kevin McHale)--needed six games to beat a 40-42 Houston team to win the championship. Bird averaged 15.3 ppg, 15.3 rpg and 7.0 apg while shooting .419 from the field. After struggling with his shot for most of the series, Bird came up big in the decisive game six (26 points on 11-20 field goal shooting, team-high 13 rebounds) but he still only ranked second on the Celtics in scoring behind Finals MVP Cedric Maxwell (17.7 ppg) and just ahead of Parish (15.0 ppg).

Although Bird later established himself as a great three point shooter, his low field goal percentage during that series was not mitigated by long range marksmanship; he shot 1-2 from three point range versus the Rockets. In fact, Bird used the three point shot very sparingly in most of his Finals appearances, shooting 4-6 in 1984, 3-9 in 1985, 7-20 in 1986 and 4-7 in 1987.

With all that said, IMO Kobe is better than Bird. To totally dismiss the comparison, to laugh at the comparison is just being biased. I have them both ranked in my top 6 players of alltime, so its very very close. So if you have Bird better than Kobe, thats fine, thats your opinion. To say they are not close is just showing your dislike for Kobe.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

 

[Premier]

I've never seen any fan love an athlete as much as jmon loves Kobe. It's honestly a little weird.

 

[JMon348]

I've never seen any fan love an athlete as much as jmon loves Kobe. It's honestly a little weird.

He's got the biggest group of haters, so it just seems like it.

 

[Maik Jeaunz]

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

(not even close)

some people forget how good Byron Scott really was during his prime. on the 87-88 Lakers championship team, he actually led the team in scoring, despite sharing the court with Magic, Worthy, and Kareem.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

("If you've never seen it before, how can you know it's travelling?"; better all-around player than remembered)

I could swear I remember reading that in a book when I was a kid, but said by Oscar Robertson.Anyway, as good as Pippen was, Erving was out of this world. I don't give a damn what kind of geek numbers anyone pulls out of their asses, I watched both & Erving was as dominant a non-center as I've ever seen.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

With all that said, IMO Kobe is better than Bird. To totally dismiss the comparison, to laugh at the comparison is just being biased. I have them both ranked in my top 6 players of alltime, so its very very close. So if you have Bird better than Kobe, thats fine, thats your opinion. To say they are not close is just showing your dislike for Kobe.

I'm not laughing at the comparison, but Bird did more from his position relative to his peers than Kobe does. I do think it's relatively close, but Bird was the better player.Just so you know, I couldn't stand the Celts (mostly because my racist friends loved them) so I'm no Bird apologist. But that dude has more "moments" than any other player I can think of.

 

[JMon348]

I've never seen any fan love an athlete as much as jmon loves Kobe. It's honestly a little weird.

This was a post of mine after the Lakers blew a 20+ point league to the Celtics in the 08 Finals:

What a sad day, all the Laker haters feel like its a holiday.God bless the FFA if the Lakers win three in a row, i think i would get suspended for all the "#### yous".Ok, the Lakers choked last game away and have been dissapointing in the series. For a team that wasnt predicted to make the playoffs to possibly NBA Finals losers, this season is a huge success. Of course if Boston closes this out, it will hurt like hell and all the haters will ignore all the accomplishments of the season and focus on the lakers being 2nd place.Want to see another reason why Laker fans are so defensive and prideful, look at how many Laker threads there are.

Everyone was throwing it in the Lakers face. Kobe was torn apart, everyone came out of nowhere to kick all the Laker fans when they were down. After the Lakers winning the last two titles the fans in here of the Lakers have been mild to say the least. So me defending Kobe/Lakers is nothing compared to the others ripping him apart.

 

[JMon348]

Those that are saying Drexler is better than Worthy, what are the reasons?

Worthy sacrificed a lot of his stats as mostly a 3rd option on the Lakers. Would Drexler have been willing to take a lesser role in his prime for titles? What would have happened if they switched places?

The 1988 Finals for Worthy pushed him over Drexler for me. His Finals MVP and triple double domination in game 7 was one of the most underated performances in NBA history.

Drexler averaged 20.4pts in the regular season and amazingly averaged 20.4pts in the playoffs too

Worthy averaged 17.6pts in the regular season and averaged 21.1pts in the playoffs

 

[Balco]

Those that are saying Drexler is better than Worthy, what are the reasons?

Worthy sacrificed a lot of his stats as mostly a 3rd option on the Lakers. Would Drexler have been willing to take a lesser role in his prime for titles? What would have happened if they switched places?

The 1988 Finals for Worthy pushed him over Drexler for me. His Finals MVP and triple double domination in game 7 was one of the most underated performances in NBA history.

Drexler averaged 20.4pts in the regular season and amazingly averaged 20.4pts in the playoffs too

Worthy averaged 17.6pts in the regular season and averaged 21.1pts in the playoffs

That is a lot of speculating, no? Taking lesser roles for titles is a criteria for you?

 

[JMon348]

Those that are saying Drexler is better than Worthy, what are the reasons?

Worthy sacrificed a lot of his stats as mostly a 3rd option on the Lakers. Would Drexler have been willing to take a lesser role in his prime for titles? What would have happened if they switched places?

The 1988 Finals for Worthy pushed him over Drexler for me. His Finals MVP and triple double domination in game 7 was one of the most underated performances in NBA history.

Drexler averaged 20.4pts in the regular season and amazingly averaged 20.4pts in the playoffs too

Worthy averaged 17.6pts in the regular season and averaged 21.1pts in the playoffs

That is a lot of speculating, no? Taking lesser roles for titles is a criteria for you?

In regards to Drexler being a first option.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Worthy sacrificed a lot of his stats as mostly a 3rd option on the Lakers. Would Drexler have been willing to take a lesser role in his prime for titles? What would have happened if they switched places?

So, sacrificing stats and taking a lesser role for the sake of the greater good of a title-winning team is a credit, right? Can we expect you to also applaud LeBron James for this if the Heat win a title with him doing so in the next year or two?

 

[JMon348]

Worthy sacrificed a lot of his stats as mostly a 3rd option on the Lakers. Would Drexler have been willing to take a lesser role in his prime for titles? What would have happened if they switched places?

So, sacrificing stats and taking a lesser role for the sake of the greater good of a title-winning team is a credit, right? Can we expect you to also applaud LeBron James for this if the Heat win a title with him doing so in the next year or two?

James Worthy wasnt in the discussion for best player in the league or top 10 player of alltime.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Worthy sacrificed a lot of his stats as mostly a 3rd option on the Lakers. Would Drexler have been willing to take a lesser role in his prime for titles? What would have happened if they switched places?

So, sacrificing stats and taking a lesser role for the sake of the greater good of a title-winning team is a credit, right? Can we expect you to also applaud LeBron James for this if the Heat win a title with him doing so in the next year or two?

James Worthy wasnt in the discussion for best player in the league or top 10 player of alltime.

Is that a no?

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Those that are saying Drexler is better than Worthy, what are the reasons?

I guess you could start with "more rebounds and almost TWICE as many assists and steals"?Put Drexler on the Lakers and they win titles in 1989 and 1990.Drexler sacrificed his stats when he went to Houston. Heck, he even sacrificed his stats when the Blazers made runs in the early '90s.Worthy was a great role player but he wasn't capable of carrying a team.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

What's next week? Kurt Rambis was better than Kevin McHale and Karl Malone?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

("If you've never seen it before, how can you know it's travelling?"; better all-around player than remembered)

I could swear I remember reading that in a book when I was a kid, but said by Oscar Robertson.Anyway, as good as Pippen was, Erving was out of this world. I don't give a damn what kind of geek numbers anyone pulls out of their asses, I watched both & Erving was as dominant a non-center as I've ever seen.

That quote might have been Oscar. I've only heard that quote second-hand from a MSP sports columnist/NBA historian who used it in a column tangent once. He might have tagged it wrong. I never researched it.As far as the numbers comparison goes, Pippen has an edge in passing (though not as great as you would think, especially in the playoffs), an edge in 3PT% (though Pippen shot more threes during Jordan's baseball sabbatical than Erving did in his entire career), and the slightest of edges in steals (around 0.1 STL per36 in their meaningful seasons). Doc has the edge everywhere else, with huge advantages in scoring, shooting, free throw shooting, rebounding, and shot blocking. I hesitate to bring up PER when I know Laker fans are reading, but Erving absolutely blows Pippen away in PER.

IMO, fans now look at guys like Nique or Carter and assume that's how Erving played. Not at all. Doc was a ferocious offensive rebounder and could protect the rim flying in from SF.

Trust me, it was Oscar. My memory ain't what it used to be, but I'm sure on this one.Anyway, I'm with ya on most of the rest. Didn't Dr J average 20/20 for the Squires? There's no doubt he could've done the same in the NBA had he wanted to. I believe the highlights have actually hurt his legacy, though I think he fell a little into his own myth with Philly in the late 70s.

 

[Jewell]

I know that highlights don't tell the whole story, but I thought some of you might enjoy these hoops highlight videos (best on Youtube, IMO) to go along with these ongoing debates.

 

[JMon348]

I know that highlights don't tell the whole story, but I thought some of you might enjoy these hoops highlight videos (best on Youtube, IMO) to go along with these ongoing debates.

Loved Barkley's dribble the length of the court, gorilla slam.

 

[the moops]

Worthy sacrificed a lot of his stats as mostly a 3rd option on the Lakers. Would Drexler have been willing to take a lesser role in his prime for titles? What would have happened if they switched places?

So, sacrificing stats and taking a lesser role for the sake of the greater good of a title-winning team is a credit, right? Can we expect you to also applaud LeBron James for this if the Heat win a title with him doing so in the next year or two?

James Worthy wasnt in the discussion for best player in the league or top 10 player of alltime.

So bringing up stuff like sacrificing stats only applies to what? The top 30 players of all time? Top 50?

 

[Pat Patriot]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace - Wow. Ben would be 3rd for me.

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper - I think Byron Scott was the more complete player.

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley - Agree. The defense is not even close and pushes me toward Garnett.

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler - Agree. Drexler was a more versatile player and much better defender.

Steve Nash or John Stockton - I'll take Nash.

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller - Agree. And its not nearly as close as people think.

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish - Agree.

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving - This might be the closes one for me. I'll agree with Dr. J.

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird - Agree 100%.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

Created this from you asking if Ben Wallace was a HOF.I went with

Horry

Fisher

Barkley

Worthy

Nash

Allen

Ewing

Pippen

Kobe

The only one I agreed with you is Ewing. You realize that your list has a WAY OVER THE TOP Lakers bias, right?

 

[JMon348]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

Created this from you asking if Ben Wallace was a HOF.I went with

Horry

Fisher

Barkley

Worthy

Nash

Allen

Ewing

Pippen

Kobe

The only one I agreed with you is Ewing. You realize that your list has a WAY OVER THE TOP Lakers bias, right?

Says the Celtic fan who took Bird, Allen, and Garnett. You also agreed with me on Nash. Who did you pick for Horry, Wallace x2? You said you had Ben 3rd.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Robert Horry or Ben Wallace or Rasheed Wallace

Derek Fisher or Byron Scott or Michael Cooper

Kevin Garnett or Charles Barkley

James Worthy or Clyde Drexler

Steve Nash or John Stockton

Ray Allen or Reggie Miller

Patrick Ewing or Robert Parish

Scottie Pippen or Julius Erving

Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird

Created this from you asking if Ben Wallace was a HOF.I went with

Horry

Fisher

Barkley

Worthy

Nash

Allen

Ewing

Pippen

Kobe

The only one I agreed with you is Ewing. You realize that your list has a WAY OVER THE TOP Lakers bias, right?

Says the Celtic fan who took Bird, Allen, and Garnett. You also agreed with me on Nash. Who did you pick for Horry, Wallace x2? You said you had Ben 3rd.

Bird was a no brainer. Allen and Garnett didnt even do their best work as Celtics. I think Ray Allen is a much better all around player than Reggie Miller. Garnett vs. Barkley is a toss up. I could certainly make a case for Barkley. Its a toss up between Horry and Rasheed as well. I certainly feel that Rasheed was the better all around player but Horry had the bigger moments in the playoffs. I would probably go Horry.Edit. I made my comment because Fisher and Worthy are not even close and you picked them. Fisher is 3rd in his group and Worthy is well behind Drexler.