All-Time Best Player

[Axel]

It would be a shame if Kobe were to be generally accepted as the NBA's greatest player of all time, and the NBA would probably agree. Someone with better character would be good... and adultery doesn't count as good character.

Just a thought.

[---]

Yeah I agree, the NBA would probably roll with it because Kobe is not just a basketball player, he's a figure in entertainment in general. He brings in the cash, and by the time he retires, MJ to most people will be thought of as alot of us think of Wilt - Dominating in a less talented era

[Amphatoast]

when kobe whens DPOY award and averages over 30points then you can talk.

you just looking at the offensive numbers, jordan is a top 10 defender alltime at the guard position.. kobe i dont think he makes that list

[---]

when kobe whens DPOY award and averages over 30points then you can talk.

you just looking at the offensive numbers, jordan is a top 10 defender alltime at the guard position.. kobe i dont think he makes that list

Amphatoast, I agree with you there but just a quick question... who do you think is the better defender out of McGrady and Bryant?

[Gundy]

Yeah I agree, the NBA would probably roll with it because Kobe is not just a basketball player, he's a figure in entertainment in general. He brings in the cash, and by the time he retires, MJ to most people will be thought of as alot of us think of Wilt - Dominating in a less talented era

I doubt people will think of MJ as they think of Wilt. Jordan was and still is a symbol in culture all over the world. Wilt is a somewhat forgotten player to the average joe. He was the best there was when he played but he played during the 60's and 70's. Jordan's greatness came at a time in the world where you just had to turn on the TV and there he was. Jordan's greatness will never be questioned (by people that have any sense) and will never be forgotten.

[---]

^^

Good point Gundy, now that I think of all the media's that made MJ so accesable, your right.

What I said about T-Mac and Kobe... Ive always been a big T-Mac fan, but Im not being biased here. Look at their respective career averages on defence:

Kobe Bryant: 1.50spg 0.6bpg 2.7fpg

Tracy McGrady: 1.37spg 1.0bpg 2.0fpg

Those are awfully close numbers, but I think T-Mac has the upper hand statistically in terms of defence. Factor in that hes 2 inches taller and has long arms, plus the fact he is just as quick and strong as Kobe and I think McGrady is the better defender. I guess I'm just sick of hearing about Kobe being such an amazing defender and continuesly making the all defensive teams when he really isnt that great of a defender. Oh and by the way, McGrady was 10th in the NBA in blocks per back in 2000 with 1.91bpg while playing just 31.2 minutes per... don't forget he's a small forward that hangs on the perimeter either

[Matt]

It's too hard to compare players across era's. Obviously the stats of the 60's 70's players are inflated due to them being physically superior to pretty much all competition.

But how does that translate to todays game? too hard to tell. I'd be interested to know, how Wilt & Russell matched up to today's big men regarding fitness. I think that would give us a better picture of how to rank them.

As far as my opinion goes.....

1. MJ
2. Hakeem
3. Magic

before anyone starts bitching, let me say that i can't include a lot of legends because i haven't seen them play significantly enough, or ever. Can't judge a player by statistics alone. These 3 guys i got to see play a lot.

[Matthew]

How did you see magic play "significantly", and if you did, how on gods name did you put hakeem ahead of him?

my top 10:
1. MJ
2. Magic
3. Russell
4. Bird
5. Shaq
6. Kareem
7. Wilt
8. Tim Duncan
9. Jerry West
10. Karl Malone

Feel free to criticise

[magius]

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Wilt
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. West
9. Hakeem
10. Kareem/Big O

As for the argument 'well if that guy in the 70s played today he wouldn't avergage those numbers'.... thats stupid. Its like saying the richest man in the 70s would be a bum today because he doesn't know what a computer is. Or that Einstein wouldn't be a genius if he were alive today because all his theories would already have been discovered.

[---]

Then why isnt Wilt your number 1?

[magius]

You remember the season Wilt scored 100 and averaged 50? You should, after all, that is the season most people point to when trying to do one of two things: a. prove him the best ever, b. prove him better than russel. Guess who won reg season mvp that year? Russell. Guess who won the championship that year? Russell.

If Russell had only won 3 championships.... hell even if he had won 5 or 6 I might consider Wilt close. but 11?! (and don't give me that "oh derek fisher won a championship I guess he's better than lebron" crap - russell was the clear focus) um, sorry. no.

[Matthew]

1. Russell
2. MJ
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Wilt
6. Duncan
7. Shaq
8. West
9. Hakeem
10. Kareem/Big O

As for the argument 'well if that guy in the 70s played today he wouldn't avergage those numbers'.... thats stupid. Its like saying the richest man in the 70s would be a bum today because he doesn't know what a computer is. Or that Einstein wouldn't be a genius if he were alive today because all his theories would already have been discovered.

Hakeem behind Kareem? Wow. As for the numbers arguement, the pace of the game was twice as fast in the 60's and 70's. Surely you can understand scoring 20 points when your team had 70 possesions in lock down half court defense is more impressive then scoring 30 points on a team with 110,120 possesions where both teams like to get out in the open floor.

[magius]

i don't understand what you're saying about the numbers argument. all i am saying is that you can't compare a player from one era using a different era as criteria.

the only reason I'd put hakeem ahead of kareem is because I'm not so sure kareem was 'the man' during his championship era for more than maybe 1 championship. I also think hakeem was quite a bit better defensively.

[Matthew]

Numbers arguement: If a team gets 110 shots per game (compared to 65-70 in the current nba) then the stats are indeed inflated. Assists, rebounds, scoring, blocks, etc.

The question of whether Kareem was "the man" or not is interesting, but not really relivent. It wasnt untill the lakers repeat in 87 and 88 did Magic truely take control of the lakers. Up until that point, it was Kareems team. Just look at the 1985 finals mvp, who do you think won that?

But what I dont understand is you say how Hakeem might be better defensively, but in the "who's best right now" thread, you say none of that means anything, its all about team success rather then actual skills.

[---]

You remember the season Wilt scored 100 and averaged 50? You should, after all, that is the season most people point to when trying to do one of two things: a. prove him the best ever, b. prove him better than russel. Guess who won reg season mvp that year? Russell. Guess who won the championship that year? Russell.

If Russell had only won 3 championships.... hell even if he had won 5 or 6 I might consider Wilt close. but 11?! (and don't give me that "oh derek fisher won a championship I guess he's better than lebron" crap - russell was the clear focus) um, sorry. no.

OK, fair enough. I couldn't choose between Russell and Wilt myself, I jumped the gun. But then why is Wilt only number 5 when you said this...

As for the argument 'well if that guy in the 70s played today he wouldn't avergage those numbers'.... thats stupid. Its like saying the richest man in the 70s would be a bum today because he doesn't know what a computer is. Or that Einstein wouldn't be a genius if he were alive today because all his theories would already have been discovered.

Compare Wilt to Larry Bird or Magic Johnson...

Career Averages

Larry Bird: 24.3ppg 10.0rpg 6.3apg

Magic Johnson: 19.5ppg 7.2rpg 11.2apg

Wilt Chamberlain: 30.1ppg 22.9rpg 4.4apg

Championships & Personal Awards

Larry Bird: 3 NBA Championships, 2 NBA Finals MVPs, 3 NBA MVPs, NBA ROY, All Defensive 2nd team (3), All NBA 1st team (9), All NBA 2nd team (1), HOF

Magic Johnson: 5 NBA Championships, 3 NBA Finals MVPs, 3 NBA MVPs, All NBA First team (9), All NBA 2nd team (1), HOF

Wilt Chamberlain: 2 NBA Championships, 1 NBA Finals MVP, 4 NBA MVP's, NBA ROY, All Defensive 1st team (2), All NBA 1st team (7), All NBA 2nd team (3), HOF

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you were to look at the awards and championships, it would be a toss up between Larry and Magic. However, where talking about the All-Time Best Player. Although championships, finals MVPs and All NBA teams are big factors in determining a players greatness, looking at statistics is the way to gauge a players skill, talent and overall dominance. Look at Kevin Garnett, great numbers, no championships. He does all he can but one player by himself can not beat a greater team. It wasnt Wilts fault he didnt win as many championships as Larry or Magic, he did all he could - just look at the numbers. Wilts stats are just to great for him to be rated lower than Bird or Magic.

[Matthew]

If you were to look at the awards and championships, it would be a toss up between Larry and Magic. However, where talking about the All-Time Best Player. Although championships, finals MVPs and All NBA teams are big factors in determining a players greatness, looking at statistics is the way to gauge a players skill, talent and overall dominance. Look at Kevin Garnett, great numbers, no championships. He does all he can but one player by himself can not beat a greater team. It wasnt Wilts fault he didnt win as many championships as Larry or Magic, he did all he could - just look at the numbers. Wilts stats are just to great for him to be rated lower than Bird or Magic.

If its based on numbers then, what do you do with Stockton? Is he better then Magic? What about Karl Malone, better then Bird?

The thing with Wilt, Oscar and alot of players back then that contradicts the numbers, is the lack of winning. If Wilt truely was that damn good as 50 ppg suggests, 2 championships doesnt cut it. He really should of won more. That may sound harsh, but it proves the weak competition theory right. Same applies for Oscar.

[magius]

no its not all about team success, though I do consider that more a factor than others. and I never said 'none of that means anything' btw - I said that I couldn't consider a great player with mediocore success better than a great player with incredible success. I also believe that in order for a great player to have more success than another it is usually neccessary that they be better then them in certain facets of the game not encompassed by 'individual talents.'

oh and about hakeem being better than kareem defensively - its not a matter of 'might.' its a a matter of fact.

hmmm, I think I understand what you are saying now - yes certain things like scoring 20 per in a slower paced league is possibly equivalent to scoring 30 in a faster paced one. i was to a certain extent agreeing with you. listen - what i was saying was that imo the only way you can reallistically compare players of different eras is by comparing what they did during their era rather than what they might have done in another. I'm not saying russell is the best ever because he averaged 22 rpg and 10 bpg and no one could do that nowadays. i'm saying he's the best ever because he won 11 championships and owned during his time (and regardless of 'inflation' he was still a monster statistically during his era as well).

[---]

Remember Wilt played in the era of Bill Russell, who also had a better team around him.

Neither Karl Malone nor John Stocktons numbers are better than the player's you mentioned, and I was comparing the arguably the greatest (statistically) player of all times' numbers to two players that had great stats, but were not on the same level as Wilt.

[Matthew]

hmmm, I think I understand what you are saying now - yes certain things like scoring 20 per in a slower paced league is possibly equivalent to scoring 30 in a faster paced one. i was to a certain extent agreeing with you. listen - what i was saying was that imo the only way you can reallistically compare players of different eras is by comparing what they did during their era rather than what they might have done in another. I'm not saying russell is the best ever because he averaged 22 rpg and 10 bpg and no one could do that nowadays. i'm saying he's the best ever because he won 11 championships and owned during his time (and regardless of 'inflation' he was still a monster statistically during his era as well).

I have no debate when it comes to Russell being number 1 in your opinion. 11 championships is 11 championships. That really cant be argued against. I'm not sure why you think I was argueing that point with you...

oh and about hakeem being better than kareem defensively - its not a matter of 'might.' its a a matter of fact.

You're going exclusively off steals and blocks to determine who was a better defender?

Neither Karl Malone nor John Stocktons numbers are better than the player's you mentioned, and I was comparing the arguably the greatest (statistically) player of all times' numbers to two players that had great stats, but were not on the same level as Wilt.

In Stocktons case, his number are compariable. In Malones case, they are superior. Lets have a look:

(btw im only comparing the first 13 seasons for stockton, becuase magic only played 13 years)
Stockton 14.8 ppg, 13 apg, 2.5 spg,
Magic 19.5 ppg, 11.2 apg, 1.3 spg

Remember, this is a comparison of pg play.

Malone and Hakeem:
Malone 25 ppg, 10rpg
Hakeem 21.8 ppg, 11.1 rpg

So off numbers alone, you could make the arguement that stockton is = to magic, or at least compariable, and malone is superior to hakeem. Of course I dont hold those views, but thats how flawed they are.

[---]

actualy, you compared Malone to Bird. Have a look

If its based on numbers then, what do you do with Stockton? Is he better then Magic? What about Karl Malone, better then Bird?

Stocktons numbers are nice, but why don't you go ahead and add rebounds per game in there

[magius]

You're going exclusively off steals and blocks to determine who was a better defender?

that, 2 dpoy's, and tape.

[sdot_thadon]

1. MJ
2. Hakeem
3. Magic

you might be on to something here, Hakeem is one of the most overlooked legends in the greatest of all-time debate. If not for Jordan this conversation may have been about The Dream, his dominance during his peak was scary.

Stocktons numbers are nice, but why don't you go ahead and add rebounds per game in there

couldn't agree with you more, but there are intangibles that a guy brings that can't be represented by statistics otherwise some guys wouldn't even have a case.

[Air Zoom Kobe I]

Have you ever seen Mike play?

NAH I HAVENT SEEN HIM PLAY! (SARCASM)

I'm just saying. Give Him TIme and Look at His Work Ethic and Physical Fitness. Look at his work ethic. Look at the Impact he has on his team. Im not saying that MJ doent do that because, of course he does. But Kobe Bryant needs SOME love. Somewhere. But GIVE HIM TIME



He Might deteriorate Over time but look at How Good MJ was at 35,36,37,38 so on. Those final 3 Seasons. Just look at those. You're saying Kobe will be Nowhere Near as good as he was then?! Come on Now.

I take that back. He WONT let himself Deteriorate. He'll work at his game. Hes gonna try his Goddamn HARDESt to stay at the top until he's 6 feet under






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTTxNQ0wqzE

Even In the face of Controversy, he still prevails







O yea. Olajuwon, in his Final season as a legendary Houston Rocket, STILL averaged over 15 points a game(15.9) and he still had 8 rebounds a game (7.6) AND they Stlil had Steve Francis(20.9) and Cuttino Mobley(19.6) running the show. He did Deteriorate, that is a fact. But he did stand strong in those 58,59 games he played in and had flashes showing why he is one of, if not, THE most dominating center in NBA history.

[---]

Everyone deteriates... If they didn't Mike would still be putting up 30+

[Air Zoom Kobe I]

You are right. Everyone does deteriorate. Im not saying Kobe won't. Im just saying that he won't let himself do that. But Michael didnt seem like he did at his age. What he lost in skills he learned and taught in wisdom, am I not right?

Kobe SHOULD do the same thing. Hell, he's doing it right now leading a young bunch of players and getting wisdom from Phil Jackson by the day.

Jordan could still fly well into his mid to late 30's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BB7kUUKVN0 THis says it all: 1997