best player ever

[Joe']

Yes, I did...and Jordan plays better...even in his last season, Jordan played better than Robertson

[BBBBBlockMe]

Reggie Miller.

[putodelagoa]

[quote="Da King23"]Tell me... I don't get why no one here recognizes that Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time.
quote]

Only 99% of the people posting here agreed that Jordan IS the best ever.
It's just shortsighted of you to deny Oscar's value (he averaged a triple double, you know, double digits in points, rebounds and assists, ), in an era where only very good players would have a place in the League, unlike nowadays. So I completely disagree with your assumption that Jordan faced "better competition" than Oscar did. The fact that Oscar was able to dominate the game in such a resounding way without having the physical gifts Jordan had only makes me admire him even more.

[j.23]

^ i've also read that back in the day they were more lenient in giving out assists, but good argument though.

[Joe']

(he averaged a triple double, you know, double digits in points, rebounds and assists, )

I'm not an idiot...well...at least...I know what triple double means.

Anyway, you can't just say that Oscar Robertson was better than Jordan in everything else than "flying"...
Have you ever seen "Big O" shooting those buzzer beaters, and last seconds shoots like MJ? I don't. (this is just an example)

[Amphatoast]

Tell me when Jordan average a triple double for a season.

[putodelagoa]

Have you ever seen "Big O" shooting those buzzer beaters, and last seconds shoots like MJ? I don't.

What I stated is a comment made by a respected and successfull NBA player, one of the 50 greatest, Nate Thurmond, whose opinion must be taken seriously.
It's pretty obvious that Jordan's flying prowess allowed him to do things other guys could only dream of, like "the shot", and he knew how to use his habilities in order to win. As did Oscar. That being said, Oscar was a better passer, rebounder and shooter than Jordan, and that's what Thurmond meant.
Kyle Korver shoots better than Kobe. Reggie Evans is a better rebounder than Kobe. Brevin Knight is a better passer than Kobe. Neither is as good as Kobe.

Jordan won more titles, and was mentally and athletically dominant. But you can't dismiss Big O's hypothetical buzzer beaters just because you didn't saw them.

About the 60's

Throughout the decade Robertson averaged at least 25 ppg, 6 rpg and 8 apg. The league was full of stars at the time, including West, Chamberlain, Russell, Elgin Baylor, Willis Reed and John Havlicek.

That Robertson stood out as equal to-and, in the eyes of many, even better than-these players was testimony to his greatness. From 1960 to 1968 Robertson was the only player other than Chamberlain or Russell to win the MVP Award. And it took Chamberlain's prodigious point totals to keep Robertson from winning a scoring title.

No other player excelled in as many ways as Robertson did. Basketball watchers marveled at his hardworking style of play. Knicks guard Dick Barnett once said: "If you give him a 12-foot shot, he'll work on you until he's got a 10-foot shot. Give him 6, he wants 4. Give him 2 feet and you know what he wants? That's right, man, a layup." Red Auerbach joked that after telling his players to stretch out their fingers extra wide while defending Robertson, "Oscar shot the ball through their fingers!"

We didn't have Nike commercials and NBC, ESPN or TNT, or Canal + back in the day. You probably never saw him play, period. Neither have I.
He retired in 1974. I don't know about you, but I wasn't born then. We relate easier to the guys we saw playing. This doesn't mean that Jason Richardson is better than Big O. Damn, I know Mc grady isn't better than Bird was, cause I saw both playing, but everyone born after 1988 might think I've some kind of drinking problem for saying this.
People who played with or saw Bob Pettit playing guarantee he would be a Rodman class rebounder in today's game. I tend to believe them.

[Andrew]

Double standards can prove anything. When we talk about Michael Jordan's greatness, all the factors a brought up. The numbers, the championships, the great performances, the MVPs and so on. But when folks talk about Wilt and Robertson, it's enough to mention one statistical feat; and that's apparently good enough.

There's no denying Robertson's awesome statistical achievements, though I find it difficult to believe he'd achieve the same marks in eras that were noted for better shooting and bigger players. But since we are talking numbers, there's a few significant ones related to the Big O that get brushed over very quickly.

.500 - the mark his Royals were just above during his tenure
4 - the number of times his Royals missed the postseason
0 - the number of championships he won as "The Man"

Obviously, I have my own bias and perhaps even my own ignorance having not been around during the 60s. Perhaps the games I've seen from that era don't do the basketball from that time justice. But it seems to me much is glossed over and forgotten in order to make a point.

The fact that Robertson's Royals were largely unsuccessful is a taboo subject. The fact they missed the playoffs is never mentioned. The fact he won his first championship as Kareem's sidekick is quickly dismissed. Most stories revolve around the triple doubles, yet there are few stories of how he carried his team to the promised land. There seem to be few stories of heroic performances where he lifted his game. His playoff averages are actually lower than his regular season numbers, compared to a Jordan, Magic or Bird.

Ditto Wilt. People talk about the scoring and they mention the two championships, but the two don't go hand in hand. The Wilt that people think of most - the 100 points, the 50.4 ppg - wasn't a winner, at least not in terms of success comparable to the likes of Russell and Jordan. Then there's the fact his playoff scoring average is almost 8 points lower than his regular season average. Or the double-standard that Michael Jordan was a ballhog but Wilt was an unstoppable force (though given his drop in numbers come playoff time, I'd hardly call that an unstoppable force). And once again, there are few stories of Chamberlain having heroic performances, save for the 100 points. There aren't any tales of how he was able to lead his team to victory.

While we're on the subject of double standards...how is it that a player like Shareef Abdur-Rahim can be criticised for putting up good numbers on a bad team, while Oscar Robertson can put up great numbers on a pretty average team and be called the greatest to ever play the game? Like I said, double standards can prove just about anything, as can manipulation of statistics.

What makes players like Jordan, Magic, Bird and Russell stand out from the rest is that they not only enjoyed great personal success, but also great team success. They were fantastic as individuals and their teams were fantastic too. I think that's a fair and logical mark of excellence in a team sport. Furthermore, they could all be themselves and still be successful. Wilt had to re-invent himself, Robertson didn't find success until he joined Kareem's Bucks.

You're probably right - we relate to the players we watched growing up and consider that era the dominant one. But that applies to all of us; we'd all have that same bias. If we are to dismiss the notion that a player from the 80s or 90s is the greatest of all-time because of such personal bias, then the same must go from folks who were around to see the great players of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

The fog of time does a pretty good job of covering things up. Much of the negatives relating to players from the 60s are dismissed and glossed over, while today's society's infatuation with the "truth" and muckraking taint the view of athletes of today and the not too distant past as we look past the positives in an attempt to "dispel the myth".

The most we can hope to agree upon is that all these guys whose names always pop up when we talk about the greatest players of all-time is that they all had a huge impact on the game, they were all impressive in their own way and they are all truly significant individuals in the history of a team sport.

[09_darryl_09]

Baby MJ!!!

LoL...

hes a legend!!!

[beau_boy04]

I saw this coming... anyways this is my 2 cents on the topic >>>

Overal team success+individual sucess=greatest of all time=Michael Jordan.

[Jugs]

Wouldn't your logic result in Bill Russel?

[beau_boy04]

Wouldn't your logic result in Bill Russel?

does it? then I'd have to manually count how many regular MVP, Finals MVP, regular season stats leader, All-Star game MVP, championship rings, team overall sucess in regular season and playoff, etc etc.

Bill Russell forte was his defense, MJ strongside was his offensive and if you think about it his defense wasn't that bad either. MJ only needed Pippen to win 6 rings, Russell had a dozen of future Hall-of-Famers playin on the same team to win 11, right? PLus MJ had the strongest and most competitive will to excell at all cost... remenber the game he played with the flu?

[kinokong]

lol.... here we go again... again you have to factor in the outside variables... michael had nowhere near the talent level that russells celtics had... they were loaded with all-stars 1-5.... also before michael came to town.... you had to have a dominant big man to win the championship(spurs had d-rob and td, lakers shaq, lakers kareem, lakers wilt, celtics russell, celtics mchale bird parish, well you get the point) but he just tore down that sterotype and won 6.... that's why i consider him a great.... he didn't need that dominant shaq to win and that is why he is the greatest and todays kobe, tmac will never follow him