the best 20 players of all time

[Damien War]

I like your facts, but that's not all true. Before the breakout 39 point outburst in Game 5 Malone was God awful in the series, including Game 3 when they took the worst ass whipping in Finals history losing 96-54. Game 5 was the first time the team had gotten anything from Karl in the Finals, and you already mentioned how he struggled with his offense in '97.

As for Tim disappearing, you lost me. Timmy's the most clutch big man in the game today. Even when we eliminated them last year he made the most incredible shot of the night in Game 5. And you can't say when he takes a late game shot and goes glass it's not money. The only possible way I can see you saying he disappears is situations when he doesn't get the ball in crunch time, which I have seen before.

[Sauru]

micheal jordan
scottie pippen

thats all. in my generation though.
a couple of old geezers might go with wilt. but i think jordan was better. if jordan was in the 60's hed burn all those retro guys fros with a bombardment of points.
Mj was superb almost godlike compare to other players in the rest of the world when he was at his prime. somewhere in the late 80's to the late 90's

if mj played in the 60's he would have been called for traveling all the time. cant argue this. infact almost all of todays players would have been called for traveling almost constantly back then.

[Sauru]

Jeffx, nice to see a familiar name from the old message board.

25 Best of All-Time

1. Bill Russell - 11 rings, 5 MVP trophies, and Man-handled Wilt on a nightly basis

i just want to point out that this is wrong. he never man handled wilt. infact alot of the time wilt would drop 40 or so on russell but bill would always take the win. he has talked about how he would let wilt score how ever many he wanted and he would just stop the other 4 players on the floor. russell always talked about how wilt took his team out the game by always demanding the ball so he said wilt was easy to beat. so yeah russell would grab the W almost everytime but he never man handled wilt.


p.s. sorry for the back to back posts i suck at quoteing 2 people in 1 post

[Jeffx]

micheal jordan
scottie pippen

thats all. in my generation though.
a couple of old geezers might go with wilt. but i think jordan was better. if jordan was in the 60's hed burn all those retro guys fros with a bombardment of points.
Mj was superb almost godlike compare to other players in the rest of the world when he was at his prime. somewhere in the late 80's to the late 90's

if mj played in the 60's he would have been called for traveling all the time. cant argue this. infact almost all of todays players would have been called for traveling almost constantly back then.

...and palming too.

[John WB]

I like Sit's list.

[Damien War]

Maybe our definitions difer, but when you always beat somebody, to me you're man handling them.

[The GOAT]

Bill Russel didn't man handle Wilt, the Celtics did.

[Damien War]

Same difference. However you want to put it. Bill Russell's Cetics always man handled Wlit Chamberlain's team. That would still be the point I was making.

[The GOAT]

But the list is of best players, not players' whose teams beat better players

[Damien War]

Well, if I actually thought Wilt was better than him you might would have had a point. In my opinion Bill is on a whole different plateau from Wilt. Wilt has alot of alcolades to his credit like his scoring numbers but I've said it time and time again that scoring isn't everything. Bill didn't have to score, he was the ultimate team player and his defense changed games. The Celtics weren't even a championship caliber team before Bill got there. Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman had been there for six years already and were solid players, but Russell made them into Hall of Famers. 13 season career, 11 championships, 8 in a row. The two seasons Russell didn't win it all? One he was injured and the other was his first year as the player-coach to Wilt and Billy Cunnigham's Sixers.

[Matthew]

I like your facts, but that's not all true. Before the breakout 39 point outburst in Game 5 Malone was God awful in the series, including Game 3 when they took the worst ass whipping in Finals history losing 96-54. Game 5 was the first time the team had gotten anything from Karl in the Finals, and you already mentioned how he struggled with his offense in '97.

As for Tim disappearing, you lost me. Timmy's the most clutch big man in the game today. Even when we eliminated them last year he made the most incredible shot of the night in Game 5. And you can't say when he takes a late game shot and goes glass it's not money. The only possible way I can see you saying he disappears is situations when he doesn't get the ball in crunch time, which I have seen before.

Malone was subpar up until game 5 in 98, but subpar as compared to his own high levels. Malone was still playing at a higher level than any other Jazz. Sometimes a team will get you on your heels and make you struggle, and thats what the bulls did to him. Credit to chicago, and no shame to Malone or the jazz. In 97 he produced a good game in game 3, and got utah back into the series. Its not as if he went from a 30 ppg scorer to totally disappearing....

... Which is the same for tim duncan. When Timmy and the spurs were knocked out by the Lakers in back to back years, Duncan disappeared in crunch time altogether. Remember 2002 when the spurs took a lead into the 4th quarter of each of the 5 games, and only managed one victory? That to me was more of a choke than Malones "poor" play against the bulls becuase malone had rodman on him, as compared to duncan having samaki walker or robert horry on him. As for the "most clutch big man at the moment" call on duncan, just think to his shaky free throw shooting. I'd even rather Shaq shooting free throws in crunch time than him.


As for the "oh jordan would be called for travelling", you honestly dont think he would be able to adjust? [/quote]

[Ataraxia]

the G.O.A.T = Jordan
the 2nd G.O.A.T = Andre Miller
the 3rd G.O.A.T = Tim Duncan
the 4th G.O.A.T = JR Smith


hmm well my list would be

1.Jordan
2.Wilt
3.Magic
4.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
5.The Dream Olajuwon
6.Bill Russel
7.Dr. J
8.Jerry West
9.Isiah T
10.Bird
11.Pippen
12.Shaq
14.Moses
15.George Gervin
16.David Robinson
17.Timmy D
18.Stockton
19.Barkley
20.Ewing

[Matthew]

Bird at 10? Apart from that its not that bad of a list

[Damien War]

Malone was subpar up until game 5 in 98, but subpar as compared to his own high levels. Malone was still playing at a higher level than any other Jazz. Sometimes a team will get you on your heels and make you struggle, and thats what the bulls did to him. Credit to chicago, and no shame to Malone or the jazz. In 97 he produced a good game in game 3, and got utah back into the series. Its not as if he went from a 30 ppg scorer to totally disappearing....

... Which is the same for tim duncan. When Timmy and the spurs were knocked out by the Lakers in back to back years, Duncan disappeared in crunch time altogether. Remember 2002 when the spurs took a lead into the 4th quarter of each of the 5 games, and only managed one victory? That to me was more of a choke than Malones "poor" play against the bulls becuase malone had rodman on him, as compared to duncan having samaki walker or robert horry on him. As for the "most clutch big man at the moment" call on duncan, just think to his shaky free throw shooting. I'd even rather Shaq shooting free throws in crunch time than him.

The years you're comparing aren't on the same level. In 2002 that was a second round matchup against a rebuilding Spurs team. Outside of Timmy they had a shell of David Robinson and a rookie Tony Parker. They weren't favored to win at all, unlike Karl's '98 Jazz were who had had an amazing season and had beat the Bulls both times they played in the regular season. That was the Finals they were in, the bigggest stage, and if you are lucky enough to get there you damn well better show up. And when the Spurs got put out in 01, nobody stood a snowball's chance in hell against the Lakers. Even with that said, both times Tim won it all he went through those very same Lakers so you can't hold that against him. Even if Tim does struggle from the line, he is still a clutch shooter away from it, but the idea of picking Shaq over Tim at the stripe, shooting free-throws, in the clutch, in a game, with a regulation size goal? Well that's just plain disrespectful

[Matthew]

I disagree about "no team ahving a chance against the 2001 lakers". I think both dynasty teams from the bulls would have beaten them, as would the lakers early in their dynasty run, and dont forget philly, who were so close to going up 2-0 on the lakers. Thats about it. However, the 2003 lakers werent the same team that won in 2001. Shaq had stuggled all season, fisher wasnt himself, and there was no fox or george. Horace Grant wasnt there and Robert Horry had his worst series. Ever. That being said though, Kobe was playing his best individual basketball of his career.

As for me choosing shaq, early on i wouldnt have, but ive seen duncan just choke so badly, and shaq has confidence at the line in the clutch. I'd take him over duncan.

[Damien War]

As for me choosing shaq, early on i wouldnt have, but ive seen duncan just choke so badly, and shaq has confidence at the line in the clutch. I'd take him over duncan.

Well, to each his own, I guess

You're right about that Bulls team. But we could have beat one maybe two of 'em. I would love to have seen them against the '96 Bulls just to see where they measured up. I don't know about Philly, I don't think Larry Brown could have asked for anymore out of that team with the kind of roster they had.

[Matthew]

Philly was a massive overachieving team. They had a legitimate shot at being up 3-0:
They won game 1 in overtime despite taking shaqs best blows
They were in crontrol of game 2 midway through the 4th quarter and could have won that game
They had a huge chance in the 4th quarter in game 3 when shaq fouled out.

I remember after horry hit that 3 pointer thinking to myself "how exactly did la get up in this series" becuase philly had outplayed them for the majority of the 1st 3 games. Had they been up 3-0 you'd have to think they would have gone on to win the series.. so i do think they gave themselves a chance against the lakers, they just didnt capitalise.

As for the Bulls/Lakers dream series, I think Pippen would have been the difference maker. Remeber when portland won game 5 and 6 in the western conference finals, how well the blazers contained shaq? That was mainly pippen and his swarming defense (another major reason why malones production was down against the bulls). Jordan would have gotten the better of kobe, fisher would have gotten the better of harper, Pippen offensively would have been unstopable against fox, and rodman would have gotten plenty of offensive rebounds. With shaq neautrilized, Chicago wins in 6 games max imo.

[cyanide]

Philly was a massive overachieving team. They had a legitimate shot at being up 3-0:
They won game 1 in overtime despite taking shaqs best blows
They were in crontrol of game 2 midway through the 4th quarter and could have won that game
They had a huge chance in the 4th quarter in game 3 when shaq fouled out.

I disagree that Philly would've been up 3-0. The best game they had was definitely game 1, but it took overtime, and those games after, I thought even though they tried their best, they couldn't reproduce game 1, and the Lakers were too strong, especially with Shaq in the middle. I really wanted Philly to win, but the Lakers had way more firepower than they did.

[Wormy10]

Ya man that's all right. We're discussing as Kings fans and I think u're right I should've put Oscar higher.
Thanks for your opinion...

We agreed on something!!

Woot Woot

[Drex]

I disagree that Philly would've been up 3-0. The best game they had was definitely game 1, but it took overtime, and those games after, I thought even though they tried their best, they couldn't reproduce game 1, and the Lakers were too strong, especially with Shaq in the middle. I really wanted Philly to win, but the Lakers had way more firepower than they did.

At least they could've been 2-0. I remember Horry hitting one or two clutch 3-pointers that got the Sixers out of the second game.

[Jeffx]

Well, if I actually thought Wilt was better than him you might would have had a point. In my opinion Bill is on a whole different plateau from Wilt. Wilt has alot of alcolades to his credit like his scoring numbers but I've said it time and time again that scoring isn't everything. Bill didn't have to score, he was the ultimate team player and his defense changed games. The Celtics weren't even a championship caliber team before Bill got there. Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman had been there for six years already and were solid players, but Russell made them into Hall of Famers. 13 season career, 11 championships, 8 in a row. The two seasons Russell didn't win it all? One he was injured and the other was his first year as the player-coach to Wilt and Billy Cunnigham's Sixers.

Your explanation is why I have Russ rated #2 over Jordan. IMO, folks underestimate his greatness.

[Andrew]

My bias aside, I still rank Michael Jordan over Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain. While I mean no disrespect to past generations of NBA players - they were, after all, the individuals who paved the way for the great players in recent times - so many excuses are made for them. All criticisms are brushed aside while the more recent players are dissected and all manner of asterisks are placed next to their name.

Take Wilt's height advantage. It's always dismissed as a non-issue. I really can't see how the size advantage he enjoyed over his opponents wasn't a factor. As I've said before, it's like the 12 year old kid who's already 6'6" with the beginnings of a goatee who has to bring his birth certificate to little league to prove he isn't actually 18.

And that's not to say that Wilt didn't have talent. We all know there have been plenty of tall players who were just tall players. But these days, a 6'7" player guarding someone over seven feet with a lot more bulk would not be considered an ideal gameplan. During Wilt's career, opponents didn't always have the luxury of throwing out a couple of 6'10", 7' players against him.

Size matters. Is Shaq's ability to get to the basket against anyone in the league a matter of skill or a matter of the seemingly superhuman strength he can exert against other centres? Sure, his footwork is important. Certainly, he knows how to position himself and take advantage of defensive errors. But when he's taking the ball up with a couple of defenders doing their best to hold him down, it's not amazing basketball talent that allows him to finish with a dunk anyway. He can do it because he's 7'1" with the strength to rip down the entire backboard.

Then there's the question of winning. Wilt is associated with incredible scoring feats and the legend that he was completely unstoppable, but not with championships, though he did win two of those. He could shoulder the scoring load with 50.4 ppg, but he couldn't take a team on his back. His teammates could keep feeding him the ball so he'd score a ridiculous amount of points, but he couldn't take them to the promised land year in, year out.

And that's one of the main differences between Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain. Jordan could be the league's most dominant scorer, with 40 and 50 points nights, averaging 30+ and so on, AND be The Man on a championship team. Wilt had to cut his scoring average nearly in half before his teams could succeed.

Wilt's playoff scoring average is also nearly 8 points fewer than his regular season averages. That's a huge dropoff for a player who is considered to be unstoppable and the most dominant in history. His scoring average was nearly almost always lower in the playoffs. For some reason, this is hardly ever mentioned.

Furthermore, this comparison is where on of the most frustrating double-standards occurs. The most common critcism of Michael Jordan's game is that he was a ballhog. If such criticism is warranted by scoring a lot of points and taking a lot of shots, is Wilt not simply a much bigger ballhog? At what point does it stop being selfish and start being unstoppable? And if excuses are to be made, then surely MJ's six rings outrank Wilt's two.

For a long time, double-standards have been used to rank the great players in NBA history. Moving on to Bill Russell - while there's no denying his greatness, one of the selling points is his 11 rings. But how often are Jordan's six rings dismissed as not being his, but the Bulls? That's a fair statement of course; the team wins the championships and MJ was hardly alone in the quest. But with that in mind, how can Russell be the best player in history having won 11 titles, when "teams win rings, not players"?

Especially given the talent on those Boston teams. The 1961 Boston Celtics featured nine players now enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Nine! Only one player from the Bulls' championship teams is currently a Hall of Famer - Robert Parish - and he's not there for his role in Chicago. Jordan is a lock for the Hall, Pippen should be, but that's it. Rodman's a long shot at best, Grant doesn't make the cut.

Even comparing Wilt and Russell, there are double-standards and contradictions. How can you rank Wilt over Russell when the rings are so lopsided? How can you rank Russell over Wilt when The Stilt's lack of rings is ascribed to the dominance of the Celtics' team rather than a single individual?

And it's the same with Michael Jordan. How often are the Bulls' six championships chalked up to the "weakness" of the 90s? "They'd never win six titles in the 80s", many experts and fans agree. But what of Jordan's greatest statistical accomplishments, many of which came in that decade? "No defense was played in the 80s; it was much weaker than today." The 80s are portrayed as being both much stronger and much weaker than the era that followed it, depending on the argument that is being made.

I'm sure it must sound somewhat disrespectful or ignorant, but that's not my intention. The truth is, there were great players before Michael Jordan's time and there are great players now. But the players I rank above all others are from the 80s/90s era - I just feel that too many excuses are made for the early years and today's players while so much is said to take away from the accomplishments of the Magic/Bird/Jordan years.

Having said that, I'll give a top 20 a shot.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Larry Bird
4. Bill Russell
5. Wilt Chamberlain
6. Kareem Abul-Jabbar

These would be my top six. My opinions for 7-20 aren't set in stone, in fact, I'd probably swap some of them around on further thought.

7. Isiah Thomas
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Julius Erving
10. Bob Cousy
11. George Mikan
12. Oscar Robertson
13. Scottie Pippen
14. John Havlicek
15. Jerry West
16. Willis Reed
17. Moses Malone
18. Karl Malone
19. David Robinson
20. John Stockton

[Damien War]

For a long time, double-standards have been used to rank the great players in NBA history. Moving on to Bill Russell - while there's no denying his greatness, one of the selling points is his 11 rings. But how often are Jordan's six rings dismissed as not being his, but the Bulls? That's a fair statement of course; the team wins the championships and MJ was hardly alone in the quest. But with that in mind, how can Russell be the best player in history having won 11 titles, when "teams win rings, not players"?

Especially given the talent on those Boston teams. The 1961 Boston Celtics featured nine players now enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Nine! Only one player from the Bulls' championship teams is currently a Hall of Famer - Robert Parish - and he's not there for his role in Chicago. Jordan is a lock for the Hall, Pippen should be, but that's it. Rodman's a long shot at best, Grant doesn't make the cut.

Prime example of what Jeffx said. It's real easy for someone to misinterpet the number of players that Bill Russell played with who were inducted into the Hall. But what it's really showing you is how great a player he truly was. Russell was such a dominating force he made players appear better than they actually were. He didn't demand the majority of the shots like a Michael Jordan or definitely a Wilt so there was room for other players to shine, and Celtics could play up on opponents aggressively because if they got by them Russell was waiting and he shut down everything. He's the reason it seemed he always had the best team, and when he retired the so called team of "Hall of Famers" couldn't even crack the playoffs for the next two seasons. IMO Bill Russell is just in a class by himself.

[Indy]

ok ill do one

1.) Michael Jordan
2.) Wilt Chamberlain
3.) Oscar Robertson
4.) Magic Johnson
5.) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
6.) Bill Russell
7.) Larry Bird
8.) Jerry West
9.) Hakeem Olajuwon
10.) Isiah Thomas
11.) George Mikan
12.) John Havlicek
13.) Bob Cousy
14.) Moses Malone
15.) Julius Erving
16.) Willis Reed
17.) Scottie Pippen
18.) Karl Malone
19.) Tim Duncan
20.) George McGinnis

[The GOAT]

Good list, but there's a few things I don't agree with:

The Big O berfore Magic? IMO Magic is either second or third best, but defintiely not fourth and NOT behind the Big O.

The other thing is Larry Bird not in the Top 5. He would be top 3 in my list (interchangeable 2 and 3 with Magic.

The last thing was George Mikan at 11. I don't think he's Top 15 material, maybe 17 or 18 at the most.