Where would you guys rank Duncan on an All Time list?

[SScarrJ]

Kinda in a debate with some people on his place in history, but its hard to speak about guys like Wilt, Russel, Dr. J, and West since I never really got to see them play. Even then all I've ever seen of f Bird vs Magic is on ESPN Classic and NBA TV, but I at least can that I have actually seen them.

Just curious to see where the older people would rank Duncan

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

Somewhere 3-6.

[Kindergarten Cop]

Are you talking about ranking him with every NBA player at any position? If so - I'd have to put him at 3 or 4. If you asked me to rank him at his position, he's a lock at #1 (hey, it is a Spurs' forum ;) )

[SRJ]

Duncan is in the same neighborhood with Hakeem, Shaq, Bird, and Magic, looking up only at MJ, Wilt, and Kareem.

[SScarrJ]

I mean the greatest players of all time, where would Duncan rank on that list?

I figured he would come in around 7-10 range right next to Shaq.

[2centsworth]

top 10

[Mal]

hmm MJ, Magic, Wilt, Bird , yep he will be 5. Maybe 6 , cause of Kareem

[Tacker]

Behind Karl Malone.

[spursjustice]

Duncan is #1 on my list... just infront of the Admiral...

From an unbias point of view
He's behind Russell, Kareem, MJ, Wilt and Magic... on the same level as Bird, Hakeem, Shaq...

[Spurtacus]

Best PF of all-time.

Top 10 player of all-time.

[angelbelow]

probably top 10.

[samikeyp]

IMO,

Russell
MJ
Magic
Wilt
Duncan

[Bartleby]

Behind Karl Malone.

:rollin

[samikeyp]

Behind Karl Malone.

Now you're the one on everyone's shitlist. :lol

[Ronaldo McDonald]

12 - 15.

The thing that helps Duncan is that he's been so consistently good (and so have his teams) over the course of his career AND that he never had to face Jordan.

I'm pretty young so I really wouldn't know where to place him definitively. Ever since I started watching basketball in 1997 (which by chance was Duncans first year in L) there's only been two players I've seen play that I can say without a shadow of doubt are better than Duncan and should rank higher than Duncan on a list: Shaq and Jordan.

[baseline bum]

In the 6-10 range.

[thekingrobert]

I list him behind Kwame Brown and both were drafted #1 overall and play the same position.....haha really he's top ten but with possibilities to be top 5

[jack sommerset]

15-20

[tmtcsc]

Top 15 for sure. As far as PF's, he's number 1. Magic Johnson was incredible. He was probably the second best player I ever saw play. How many players can move from Point Guard to Center in the biggest game of their lives and actually score 40 something points to win...on the road...for the title ?

[exstatic]

Right now? Top 10. Call me in four years when he hangs up his kicks.

[duncan228]

There's no way I can be objective about this. :)

Power Forward #1.

All-Time right now, top 5-8.

As far as all-time goes, like exstatic said let's see what he does with the rest of his career. I can easily see him moving up with another Title or two.

[mavs>spurs2]

you guys go extreme

[Doctor J]

In my view, he is right behind

Chamberlain, Russell, Kareem, Jordan, Magic and Bird.... the Untouchables....

And he is in the same breath with Shaq.

[peewee's lovechild]

Greatest Power Forward ever.

Overall, Top 5.

[JamStone]

In the 6-10 range.

+2

And, I agree best PF of all time.

Thing is players in the 6-15 range are all all-time greats and I can see an argument for many of them to be closer to 6 than closer to 15. It's definitely a subjective thing. But, without specifically making a list, I'd probably have Duncan in the lower half of the top 10 all time.

[tonylongoriafan]

an argument can be made for top 5 but definitely top 10

[peskypesky]

Top 10. Best power forward of all time.

[rj215]

1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Russell
4. Duncan/Kareem
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem
10. Robinson/Shaq

Top PF without a doubt because Karl Malone was about as clutch in the postseason as ARod.

[peewee's lovechild]

1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Russell
4. Duncan/Kareem
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem
10. Robinson/Shaq

Top PF without a doubt because Karl Malone was about as clutch in the postseason as ARod.

Hmmm, not bad.

[Sway]

#1 PF All-Time
Top 10 All Time Great Player
Could easily climb a couple more spots if he wins another Championship or two

[JamStone]

David Robinson is not close to being a top 10 player in the history of the NBA. Sorry guys.

[Josepatches]

If I have to say where i would say number 2 behind MJ but.....

NBA players now are better than before.It happens in every sport.Physically they are much better and they know more tactics,dribblings,defensive and offensive schemes....etc..The humanity progresses in all the aspects.
One more thing.Basketball is more important in other countries.Today we have the best players of the world in the NBA like yesterday but yesterday the world of basketball was small than today.
I like Bird but I'm pretty sure he would have more problems to be as greatness as he was today.Magic?I don't know. i would say Wilt never could score 100 today.Even I'm not sure if he could score 50. Bill Russell could be better than David robinson was? I don't think so.They played against kids in the 60's.Hard to say but it's true.

It's a joke to compare TD with any other PF of the history.even I believe TD could be the best center of the 50's-70's too.
How good could be the actual TD in the 60's? or in the 50's? Who could stop Kobe in the 70's? anyone in the early 80's? What about Lebron? Could Mikan play today in the NBA?

it's no real to compare players from different years if you are talking about who is better.Could Carl Lewis run faster than Tyson Gay? Well,He was not able to do it but who would say Tyson Gay is better than Carl Lewis was?

The better way to compare NBA players it's talking about tittles.But of course that's not real too because someones played with better teammates and they played against different players.

[JamStone]

Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Elgin Baylor, among other greats could have easily played in the current era and be HOF dominant with respect to their athleticism, especially if you give them the same modern nutritional supplements, dietary regimens, weight training programs, and have them play basketball all year round. There were plenty of great athletes back in the 60s and 70s. The athletes today might be a little bigger and stronger, but that's because of modern advancements. Guarantee you that if Wilt was born in 1980, he'd be the most dominant player in the NBA right now. The guy was reported (and of course it's not documented) close to a 50 inch vertical, could high jump 6-foot-10, and ran a mile in under 5 minutes. Wilt was a freak. Oscar was a freak too. Elgin Baylor was a freak. If some of those players were born in this generation, they'd be right up there with the LeBrons and Dwight Howards athletically.

[Tully365]

The Duncan/Shaq comparison is an interesting one. I would say Shaq at his absolute peak was the most unstoppable player of the last decade, but he took longer to reach that peak than Duncan did, and also his decline has been surprisingly fast and sudden-- in part maybe because of bad conditioning. Russell usually had better teams than Wilt, but I don't think that can be said of Duncan-- actually, it seems like Shaq has had more talent around him.
If you'd predicted at the end of the 2002 season that Duncan would finish his career with as many championships as Shaq, I think most people would have laughed and said no way. But right now, Duncan's chances of getting a 5th look better than Shaq's...

[tav1]

Top 10. Best power forward of all time.

What he said.

Increasingly, the consensus starting 5 is Magic, Jordan, Bird, Duncan, and debate amongst yourselves. But most people are of the opinion that Duncan is the best 4 to have played.

[Juanobili]

Best PF of all-time.

Top 10 player of all-time.

[tmtcsc]

If I have to say where i would say number 2 behind MJ but.....

NBA players now are better than before.It happens in every sport.Physically they are much better and they know more tactics,dribblings,defensive and offensive schemes....etc..The humanity progresses in all the aspects.
One more thing.Basketball is more important in other countries.Today we have the best players of the world in the NBA like yesterday but yesterday the world of basketball was small than today.
I like Bird but I'm pretty sure he would have more problems to be as greatness as he was today.Magic?I don't know. i would say Wilt never could score 100 today.Even I'm not sure if he could score 50. Bill Russell could be better than David robinson was? I don't think so.They played against kids in the 60's.Hard to say but it's true.

It's a joke to compare TD with any other PF of the history.even I believe TD could be the best center of the 50's-70's too.
How good could be the actual TD in the 60's? or in the 50's? Who could stop Kobe in the 70's? anyone in the early 80's? What about Lebron? Could Mikan play today in the NBA?

it's no real to compare players from different years if you are talking about who is better.Could Carl Lewis run faster than Tyson Gay? Well,He was not able to do it but who would say Tyson Gay is better than Carl Lewis was?

The better way to compare NBA players it's talking about tittles.But of course that's not real too because someones played with better teammates and they played against different players.


Wow, that is funny. You are obviously very young and have no idea how good the players of the past were. That includes the 60's and 70's. If the Spurs have shown the world anything at all in the last 10 years, its that you don't have to be the most athletic team in the world to be the best.

Back in the day, there were less specialists. Players were basketball players and all of them were expected to know how to rebound, shoot, pass, make FT's, etc. Today, you have 1 dimensional players who get by on their athleticism alone because they really aren't the smartest players on the court and just aren't very skilled. Sure, they can dunk the ball and can jump but that's it.

Larry Bird was a bad ass in his day and would be again against any competition. He could do everything. He was a GREAT shooter and passer. He went head to head with MJ and Magic and Dominique in some classic battles. This isn't like Football. Those teams of the past were good but they wouldn't have the strength or speed to match up as well with today's teams. That's a whole different story.

As for David being Top 10 of all time ? No way. He wouldn't even put himself in that list. He was probably the most athletic Center who has ever played and perhaps Top 10 defensive player but Top 50 is where he belongs, not Top 10.

[Spurs Brazil]

Best PF all time, top 10 player

[tmtcsc]

Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Elgin Baylor, among other greats could have easily played in the current era and be HOF dominant with respect to their athleticism, especially if you give them the same modern nutritional supplements, dietary regimens, weight training programs, and have them play basketball all year round. There were plenty of great athletes back in the 60s and 70s. The athletes today might be a little bigger and stronger, but that's because of modern advancements. Guarantee you that if Wilt was born in 1980, he'd be the most dominant player in the NBA right now. The guy was reported (and of course it's not documented) close to a 50 inch vertical, could high jump 6-foot-10, and ran a mile in under 5 minutes. Wilt was a freak. Oscar was a freak too. Elgin Baylor was a freak. If some of those players were born in this generation, they'd be right up there with the LeBrons and Dwight Howards athletically.

Thank You..and I'm 37. Just so you don't think I'm living in the past or jockeying for my "generation". The Celtics, Lakers and Sixers teams of the Late 70's and 80's would absolutely kill some of the teams today...even without the supplements.

[Lakers_55]

You want the old folks opinions? :)

To be objective and fair about this, it's probably best to wait until his career is over. The NBA had a list of the top 50 players after 50 years, but that was before Duncan was playing. I don't know why they didn't keep adding a player every year. Duncan would be on the list.

After reading this thread, I don't think I saw Julius Erving mentioned. Or Elgin Baylor. Or even Elvin Hayes. I don't think Duncan is better than any of those forwards in their prime.

I don't rate Bill Russell as high as some people do, nor do I put Shaq up there...

My top 10 would be probably....(Yeah, it's mostly older players, but these guys rocked and I did see them all play).

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Michael Jordan
4) Magic Johnson
5) Elgin Baylor
6) Oscar Robertson
7) Jerry West
8) Julius Erving
9) Larry Bird
10) Elvin Hayes

[rj215]

You want the old folks opinions? :)

To be objective and fair about this, it's probably best to wait until his career is over. The NBA had a list of the top 50 players after 50 years, but that was before Duncan was playing. I don't know why they didn't keep adding a player every year. Duncan would be on the list.

After reading this thread, I don't think I saw Julius Erving mentioned. Or Elgin Baylor. Or even Elvin Hayes. I don't think Duncan is better than any of those forwards in their prime.

I don't rate Bill Russell as high as some people do, nor do I put Shaq up there...

My top 10 would be probably....(Yeah, it's mostly older players, but these guys rocked and I did see them all play).

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Michael Jordan
4) Magic Johnson
5) Elgin Baylor
6) Oscar Robertson
7) Jerry West
8) Julius Erving
9) Larry Bird
10) Elvin Hayes

:rollin

[ShoogarBear]

You want the old folks opinions? :)

To be objective and fair about this, it's probably best to wait until his career is over. The NBA had a list of the top 50 players after 50 years, but that was before Duncan was playing. I don't know why they didn't keep adding a player every year. Duncan would be on the list.

After reading this thread, I don't think I saw Julius Erving mentioned. Or Elgin Baylor. Or even Elvin Hayes. I don't think Duncan is better than any of those forwards in their prime.

I don't rate Bill Russell as high as some people do, nor do I put Shaq up there...

My top 10 would be probably....(Yeah, it's mostly older players, but these guys rocked and I did see them all play).

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Michael Jordan
4) Magic Johnson
5) Elgin Baylor
6) Oscar Robertson
7) Jerry West
8) Julius Erving
9) Larry Bird
10) Elvin Hayes

Obviously you read the list as "name as many Lakers as possible", or rather, "name as many players as you can who got their ass kicked by Bill Russell." You would think if Wilt, Elgin, and West were all top ten, they would have been able to beat him just once.

Elvin Hayes? You must be joking. Dude was notorious for being non-clutch when he played. He was the Karl Malone of his day.

[Tully365]

Obviously you read the list as "name as many Lakers as possible", or rather, "name as many players as you can who got their ass kicked by Bill Russell." You would think if Wilt, Elgin, and West were all top ten, they would have been able to beat him just once.

Elvin Hayes? You must be joking. Dude was notorious for being non-clutch when he played. He was the Karl Malone of his day.

I have to agree. The only guy in NBA history to get 11 rings, the guy all of his contemporaries agreed was by far the greatest defender-- and he doesn't even crack the top 10?

[Lakers_55]

Obviously you read the list as "name as many Lakers as possible", or rather "name as many players as you can who got their ass kicked by Bill Russell." You would think if Wilt, Elgin, and West were all top ten, they would have been able to beat him just once.

Elvin Hayes? You must be joking. Dude was notorious for being non-clutch when he played. He was the Karl Malone of his day.


Well, it's my opinion. We're talking greatest players, not most titles. Michael Cooper has 5 rings, TD has 4. Is Cooper top 50? maybe top 1000. Russell had the teammates that West, Baylor, and Wilt didn't. Most of Wilt's success was done before he was a Laker. If you put Bird in the top 10 which I did, you must have Magic. I can't help it West and Baylor played for the Lakers. If I wanted more Lakers on the list, I would have added Shaq. Or Kobe. I don't think Kobe will ever crack the top 10, let alone top 20 or so. I think history will drop Shaq in the rankings. Outside of 5 feet away, he can't score. He can't even come close! Mikan is top 50 per the NBA, but he wasn't that great. The guy was the first big man in the league and just overpowered everyone. However, the key was 3 feet wide back then and he was a career 40% shooter from the field. Sorry, he wouldn't make it today.

Hayes in his prime was a beast. It's been a long time since I saw him play, but he was unstoppable. Also, I am the only one to mention Dr. J.

If you want to start a topic on the best players who were MVP's to their team, then Bill Russell has a good shot at top 10. So does TD. Until then, my list is reasonably accurate. Topic is about individual players.

[JamStone]

Reasonably subjective. Its accuracy is far from reasonable.

[Lakers_55]

Reasonably subjective. Its accuracy is far from reasonable.

Exactly.:toast I am an old guy that saw them all play, and I have great memories. I list players that most of you never saw play the game. Duncan belongs on the all time list that I mentioned the NBA needs to update. Some clown writer a few years ago thought the 50 number was set in stone and wanted to add players from the new generation and kick off a few from the original list. That defeats the purpose of the Top 50 players of the NBA at 50 years, which will become the NBA at 60...at 70...etc...

However he was smart enough to add TD to the 50.

[ShoogarBear]

Well, it's my opinion. We're talking greatest players, not most titles. Michael Cooper has 5 rings, TD has 4. Is Cooper top 50? maybe top 1000.

I guess I throw more weight towards "guys who were the main factor in winning games that mattered", not "guys with lots of numbers in games that didn't". Certainly by your criteria, Kevin Garnett and Karl Malone should be top ten players above Hayes.


Russell had the teammates that West, Baylor, and Wilt didn't.Yeah, the only teammates West, Baylor, and Wilt had were . . . each other! :lmao

So explain this math to me. If (West > Russell) + (Baylor > Russell) + (Chamberlain > Russell), then (Celtics stomping Lakers every year) must mean Cousy, Sam Jones, Heinsohn = Top Ten players?


Hayes in his prime was a beast. It's been a long time since I saw him play, but he was unstoppable.Until it mattered. I'd be surprised if anyone on this board saw more of Elvin Hayes than I did. The guy was a talent, but he was also selfish and unclutch.

Any list with Elvin Hayes as a top ten player is just bad, sorry.

[samikeyp]

Shoog....

Hayes or Unseld?

[Lakers_55]

I guess I throw more weight towards "guys who were the main factor in winning games that mattered", not "guys with lots of numbers in games that didn't". Certainly by your criteria, Kevin Garnett and Karl Malone should be top ten players above Hayes.

Yeah, the only teammates West, Baylor, and Wilt had were . . . each other! :lmao

So explain this math to me. If (West > Russell) + (Baylor > Russell) + (Chamberlain > Russell), then (Celtics stomping Lakers every year) must mean Cousy, Sam Jones, Heinsohn = Top Ten players?

Until it mattered. I'd be surprised if anyone on this board saw more of Elvin Hayes than I did. The guy was a talent, but he was also selfish and unclutch.

Any list with Elvin Hayes as a top ten player is just bad, sorry.

Hmm....Wilt, West and Baylor were together "healthy" for 2 title runs. Boston was the 4th seed in the East in 1969 and sent Russell out a winner. It was a surprise they even made the finals. Lakers counted the title theirs before they won it. In 1969-70 Wilt went down with a probable season ending knee injury early in the season, but he came back at the end of the regular season. Against the Knicks in 1970, the Lakers coughed up a huge lead after Willis Reed went down in game 5. I still remember Walt Frazier picking Elgin Baylor blind for break away layups twice in succession when the Knicks made their run. LA didn't win the game when West tied it at the buzzer with his 59 footer and sent it to OT in game 3. Game 7 came around, Reed came back, and one of the greatest finals routs in history was on. That Knick team was predicted to be a dynasty. Well, they were good a few more years, but Reed was injured a lot. With a squad of Reed, Frazier, Monroe, Bradley, Lucas, and Debusschere they were one of the best teams in history over a short period.

Baylor and West were both out injured when the 1971 playoffs started. Lakers did beat Chicago in 7 games before succcumbing to Lew Alcindor and the Big O of Milwaukee in 5 games. Elgin retired 9 games into the 1971-2 season after he was told he was being moved to the bench in favor of Jim McMillian. Lakers promptly won 33 games in a row, and Baylor appears in the team photo later that year, and got a championship ring.

Hey, I don't expect everyone to agree with me about Hayes. As to your math question, I believe I already answered this. Discussion is about individual players, not role players that were better than the other team's role players therefore elevating a non top 10 player of all time to the top 10.

[ShoogarBear]

Shoog....

Hayes or Unseld?

Hayes was the better talent, but if I was looking for a piece to a team, I'd rather have Unseld. Guy was a monster rebounder, among the top 2-3 passing centers when he played, had the best outlet pass in the game (maybe ever), and before he wrecked his knees was a solid defender (even after that he was a pretty crafty one despite being severely undersized).

Imagine if Oberto was about five times the rebounder he is now and twice the defender and that would approximate Unseld.

[samikeyp]

Hayes was the better talent, but if I was looking for a piece to a team, I'd rather have Unseld. Guy was a monster rebounder, among the top 2-3 passing centers when he played, had the best outlet pass in the game (maybe ever), and before he wrecked his knees was a solid defender (even after that he was a pretty crafty one despite being severely undersized).

Imagine if Oberto was about five times the rebounder he is now and twice the defender and that would approximate Unseld.

:tu

[slayermin]

You want the old folks opinions? :)

To be objective and fair about this, it's probably best to wait until his career is over. The NBA had a list of the top 50 players after 50 years, but that was before Duncan was playing. I don't know why they didn't keep adding a player every year. Duncan would be on the list.

After reading this thread, I don't think I saw Julius Erving mentioned. Or Elgin Baylor. Or even Elvin Hayes. I don't think Duncan is better than any of those forwards in their prime.

I don't rate Bill Russell as high as some people do, nor do I put Shaq up there...

My top 10 would be probably....(Yeah, it's mostly older players, but these guys rocked and I did see them all play).

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Michael Jordan
4) Magic Johnson
5) Elgin Baylor
6) Oscar Robertson
7) Jerry West
8) Julius Erving
9) Larry Bird
10) Elvin Hayes

:lol at Hayes/Erving/West/Baylor > Tim Duncan

None of those players belong in the top ten.

[DaDakota]

Let's see.

1. MJ
2. Wilt
3. Magic
4. Bird
5. Kareem
6. Hakeem
7. Duncan

Ok...top 7.

DD

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1) Chamberlain
2) Russell
3) Jordan
4) Jabbar
5) Bird
6) Magic
7) Duncan
8) Robertson
9) O'Neal
10) Irving

[xtremesteven33]

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Abdul-Jabbar
4. Chamberlain
5. Magic
6. Duncan
7. Bird
8. Robertson
9. O'Neal
10. Hakeem

[angelbelow]

glad most posters agree with me, duncan is definitely somewhere in the 6-10 range.

[Texas_Ranger]

6 or 7.

[Indazone]

Kinda in a debate with some people on his place in history, but its hard to speak about guys like Wilt, Russel, Dr. J, and West since I never really got to see them play. Even then all I've ever seen of f Bird vs Magic is on ESPN Classic and NBA TV, but I at least can that I have actually seen them.

Just curious to see where the older people would rank Duncan

Behind Olajuwan :downspin:

[polandprzem]

if he wins 2 more championships he can join the elite

cause he is not elite

:rolleyes

[mrspurs]

dont know bout yall but ive been watching basketball since 73, ive seen to many greats to be able to place duncan anywhere, until he is gone and im almost gone...then and only then will i have an answer for your question

[Kobe>Duncan]

WQxgHgRh95Y

Duncan is ok but he cannot be in the top ten, i put tony parker ahead of him.

[urunobili]

Top 5

[stretch]

top 5.

Jordan
Magic
Bird
Duncan
Vince Carter

jk about the VC part. seriously id probably say... its a toss-up between Kareem, Hakeem, or Shaq

[brespursfan20]

#1 PF, But everyone included definately top 5!!

[slayermin]

1. Magic Johnson
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Tim Duncan
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Larry Bird
9. Oscar Robertson
10.David Robinson

[The Franchise]

Behind Karl Malone.

Whether this is popular or not Karl was better.

[The Franchise]

1. Magic Johnson
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Tim Duncan
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Hakeem Olajuwon
8. Larry Bird
9. Oscar Robertson
10.David Robinson

Dave and Tim Are not top ten players. Neither was better than Charles Barkley. If he is not top ten then they are way down the list. Everyone Judges this by championships. That is flawed reasoning. It doesn't ask who won more it asks who was better. If Duncans career was during the Jordan era he wouldn't have won either.

[GrandeDavid]

You want the old folks opinions? :)

To be objective and fair about this, it's probably best to wait until his career is over. The NBA had a list of the top 50 players after 50 years, but that was before Duncan was playing. I don't know why they didn't keep adding a player every year. Duncan would be on the list.

After reading this thread, I don't think I saw Julius Erving mentioned. Or Elgin Baylor. Or even Elvin Hayes. I don't think Duncan is better than any of those forwards in their prime.

I don't rate Bill Russell as high as some people do, nor do I put Shaq up there...

My top 10 would be probably....(Yeah, it's mostly older players, but these guys rocked and I did see them all play).

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Michael Jordan
4) Magic Johnson
5) Elgin Baylor
6) Oscar Robertson
7) Jerry West
8) Julius Erving
9) Larry Bird
10) Elvin Hayes

Sure are quite a few Lakers on that list of yours! :lol

I'd say Tim is the greatest power forward and top 10 without a shred of a doubt, probably closer to top 5.

[mardigan]

1) MJ
2) Kareem
3) Magic
4) Russell
5) Timmy
6) Shaq
7) Bird
8) Hakeem
9) Wilt
10) Isiah Lord

[mardigan]

Dave and Tim Are not top ten players. Neither was better than Charles Barkley. If he is not top ten then they are way down the list. Everyone Judges this by championships. That is flawed reasoning. It doesn't ask who won more it asks who was better. If Duncans career was during the Jordan era he wouldn't have won either.

So I guess Hakeem shouldnt be top 10 either? He never won shit while Jordan played.

Barkley>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hakeem, right?

[The Franchise]

So I guess Hakeem shouldnt be top 10 either? He never won shit while Jordan played.

Barkley>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hakeem, right?

No but he's better than Duncan.

[rascal]

1. Jordan
2. Chamberlain
3. Abdul-Jabbar
4. Robertson
6. Duncan
7. Magic
8. Baylor
9. Hayes
10. Russell

The more I thought about this I changed some of the rankings.

The most dominate players were the ones that played closer to the basket.

Jordan was an exception that he won without a star center thats why I ranked hinm first.

Robertson was a triple double machine and deserves a top ranking because he did so much for his team.

And Magic was a pg who could play many positions if he had to, a special talent.

[mardigan]

No but he's better than Duncan.

:lol
He won less titles with better teams.
But keep telling yourself that.

[The Franchise]

This a not a knock on Duncan. I think Duncan is a great player, but he is being rated way to high here.

[ambchang]

No but he's (Barkley) better than Duncan.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


































:lmao

[Kobe>Duncan]

This a not a knock on Duncan. I think Duncan is a great player, but he is being rated way to high here.

Duncan is slightly overated..take away manu or parker...(the nba lockdown year cannot count as a legit ring) = 0 rings.

[FromWayDowntown]

This a not a knock on Duncan. I think Duncan is a great player, but he is being rated way to high here.

There's been a better 2-way power forward in the history of the NBA?

[Oh, Gee!!]

#1 PF, #8 all time

[rascal]

Duncan is slightly overated..take away manu or parker...(the nba lockdown year cannot count as a legit ring) = 0 rings.

No duncan is the difference between a championship level team and a bottom feeding lottery team. Manu and Parker are not that good to keep the spurs out of the lottery without Duncan.

[Lakers_55]

Sure are quite a few Lakers on that list of yours! :lol


Someone already mentioned that and I addressed the question. Did you read this thread? Poster asked for opinions. I gave mine. No one is right, it's all subjective. However, I am one of the few people participating that saw all these giants actually play. I know one thing, I sure took some heat for my opnions. That's ok, we're here to discuss and as long as the arguments have content, it's all good. I picked Elvin Hayes but a detractor of his saw him play more than I did. All I know is he was one of a few players that always beat his season averages when he played against the Lakers.

[Kobe>Duncan]

No duncan is the difference between a championship level team and a bottom feeding lottery team. Manu and Parker are not that good to keep the spurs out of the lottery without Duncan.

this is why i said overated!

[FromWayDowntown]

this is why i said overated!

You don't read well, do you?

[manufor3]

Duncan is slightly overated..take away manu or parker...(the nba lockdown year cannot count as a legit ring) = 0 rings.

so are you a spurs fan or not? obviously you haven't followed the spurs very long if you have

[nfg3]

Top ten - 7th

Russell
MJ
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Chamberlain
Duncan

[slayermin]

Bill Russell was a great defensive player but he is way overrated by most people.

You gotta do it on both ends of the court to crack the top ten, imo.

[HarlemHeat37]

LOL @ Duncan without Manu and Parker..did that person miss out on 2003? that was one of the top 3 worst supporting casts for a championship team in NBA history, only next to Hakeem in 1993 and Rick Barry from the 70's..The Admiral was nearly done at that point, and Parker and Manu were just role players..some people just don't know anything about the NBA..

some of us are being biased though..Duncan isn't a top 5 player of all-time, that's a stretch..

tier 1 is undoubtedly(IMO) Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Magic and Bird, in no particular order(except Russell being last out of those for me)..the next tier for me would have to be Shaq, Hakeem and Duncan..I'd say Timmy is at #10, but unlike Shaq, he still has a few years at the end of his prime, where he can bring in a 5th ring and some accolades..

[rj215]

Duncan is slightly overated..take away manu or parker...(the nba lockdown year cannot count as a legit ring) = 0 rings.

Kobe without Shaq = 0 rings
Kobe without Shaq = trying to get traded
Kobe without Shaq = even more horrible teammate


Duncan is the heart and soul of the Spurs. He's won with so many different teammates over the years. He saves his best for the postseason.....why am I even explaining this....

[Spuradicator]

Somewhere 3-6.

Easily

[Rummpd]

(first 5 in any order you would like) = Jabbar, Jordan, Russell, O. Robinson, Chamberlain, Bird, Magic and next is Tim Duncan (8) with Malone, K. Bryant, E. Baylor right below him.

[spursnatic]

Number 1

[bresilhac]

How can Tim be the greatest pf of all time and not be in the top five of all time? If he's the best 4 that ever played than this by definition makes him a top five player. Ahead of anybody at the position. I'd put K. Malone and Elvin Hayes right behind him though.

No question Tim is a top five player of all time. And he's not done yet. I foresee at least two more Championships for him when it's all said and done.

[Brutalis]

Top 7 for sure.

[Anti.Hero]

There is the NBA all-time team.



Then above that is the NBA Duncan elite team.

[tmtcsc]

How can Tim be the greatest pf of all time and not be in the top five of all time? If he's the best 4 that ever played than this by definition makes him a top five player. Ahead of anybody at the position. I'd put K. Malone and Elvin Hayes right behind him though.

No question Tim is a top five player of all time. And he's not done yet. I foresee at least two more Championships for him when it's all said and done.


I think I know what you are getting at..But if you were to make a list of the top 10 football players that ever played would you have to list a Tight End or an offensive lineman ? No, you might have 4 QB's in your top 10 list. That's why Duncan isn't top 10 necessarily.

MJ - Guard
Magic - Guard
Oscar Robertson - Guard
Wilt Chamberlin - Center
Bill Russell - Center

I'm not saying these are my top 5, I'm just using them as an example to my point.

[Lakers_55]

Bill Russell was a great defensive player but he is way overrated by most people.

You gotta do it on both ends of the court to crack the top ten, imo.
Yeah, you get it. Explained further below. If a player makes everyone's top 10 list, he is probably top 10. If he is left off enough "ballots" he may not be.

This thread is very interesting. Naturally, there will usually be bias towards newer players. Which is why some people may rate LeBron ahead of MJ eventually, simply because they saw him play and didn't see Michael do his stuff.

I have also pointed out this topic is about individual players, not how many titles they won because their teammates were better. Looking at baseball, how many titles did Ernie Banks win? Nolan Ryan can be argued as one of the greatest pitchers in history. He got one championship when he was young, as a bullpen player for the 69 Mets. He probably would have won plenty of Cy Young awards if his Angel teams were better. That award usually went to pitchers who helped their teams make the playoffs. Anyway, Ryan finally earned respect due to his longevity of greatness. If you use the term no-hitter, you think of Nolan Ryan. If you think strikeout, Nolan Ryan comes up again. Going to Texas to play probably lengthened his career, and his excellence.

I am still surprised no one is discussing the pros and cons of Julius Erving. Certainly there are other older fans on this board that remember what he could do! Certainly you have all seen his move to the basket in the video below at the 1 minute mark. Michael Jordan makes comments near the end.:

nPYJodKri9c

[Newton]

Trying REALLY hard to be objective, and taking into account that I am 35:

1. Jordan
2. Wilt
3. Russell
4. Kareem
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9. Oscar Robinson
10. Snaq

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Anyone that doesnt have Russell and Chamberlain in their top 2 or 3 has no notion of the history of the game.

Russell was the common and key component of 11 World Titles.

Chamberlain over a 14 year career averaged 30/23/4. He went to the finals 5 times and won 2 titles and was perennial in the conference finals on the other years accruing 160 playoff games. One season he averaged 50/26/2. Another he went 24/24/9 which led the league in assists. He scored 100 points in a game; he grabbed 50 rebounds in another. He averaged 48.5 minutes one season. He led the league in points 7 times, rebounding 11 times, FG% 9 times, minutes played 9 times.

[spursfan09]

:lol I love reading threads like this. Fans of other teams making themselves look foolish and jealous. Get over it. Tim is top 10 and best pf of all time

[Lakers_55]

Anyone that doesnt have Russell and Chamberlain in their top 2 or 3 has no notion of the history of the game.



I have plenty of knowledge of the history of the game. The arguing point seems to be whether or not we are talking about individual players, or players who had the right teammates to help them win them titles. There is a huge difference! I think we are talking greatest players. Russell fails to make the top 3 in the first criterea, let alone top 10.

[IronMexican]

MJ
Magic
Kareem
Bird
Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem
Wilt
Kobe.

my list.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have plenty of knowledge of the history of the game. The arguing point seems to be whether or not we are talking about individual players, or players who had the right teammates to help them win them titles. There is a huge difference! I think we are talking greatest players. Russell fails to make the top 3 in the first criterea, let alone top 10.

You just come across as a Laker's fan that is pissed because Russell and co kept on spanking Baylor's ass so he couldn't get a championship. I am sorry that Russell could adequately defend Wilt one on one.

Russell was the best player on those Celtics teams and he was the only player that was on all of them. He was the foundation. Cousy, Havlicek, Hensohn, the Jones bros et all all came and went but Bill was there the entire time. Heck he even coached some of those teams.

Furthermore you make it seem as if he is offensively inept. He averaged 15 ppg but for the core of his career it was closer to 17. Russell wasnt in te same position as Wilt on those Wariors teams or the Big O where everything had to go through them for them to have a shot at winning. He had Cousy, Havlicek etc to take the load off of him.

The dude was the best player on the best dynasty in the history of basketball.

[rj215]

I have plenty of knowledge of the history of the game. The arguing point seems to be whether or not we are talking about individual players, or players who had the right teammates to help them win them titles. There is a huge difference! I think we are talking greatest players. Russell fails to make the top 3 in the first criterea, let alone top 10.

Russell like Duncan made all his teammates better. This is the difference between Timmy and KG.

[MarHill]

Dave and Tim Are not top ten players. Neither was better than Charles Barkley. If he is not top ten then they are way down the list. Everyone Judges this by championships. That is flawed reasoning. It doesn't ask who won more it asks who was better. If Duncans career was during the Jordan era he wouldn't have won either.

How winning championships is flawed reasoning? That is one of my essential points in judging the best players of all time.

Regarding Tim Duncan...... He is the reason the San Antonio Spurs have reached the golden age of their franchise. Players like a Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, Bird, & Magic are judged by how many championships they have won.

In my mind...that is what separates Duncan from Karl Malone. Malone was a great power forward but he didn't win any championships...Sorry!!! I know he played in 2 NBA Finals against the Bulls.

Also, you have to play in the era of your time. So you can't penalize Duncan and say well....he wouldn't have won anything since he didn't play against Jordan. You play against the opponents of your era.

Otherwise...you will have a what if scenario for every great player?

What if Bill Russell played against Shaq? What if Shaq played against the Wilt?...etc

There are four questions I have for the greatest players of all time:

1) Did they elevated their position while they played? (Duncan at the PF; Jordan at SG, Magic at PG, Shaq at C......)

2) Did They win multiple championships? (Jordan-6, Magic-5, Shaq-4, Duncan-4

3) Did they dominated the era...they played in?

4) Did they change their franchise's history?

Duncan answers yes to all four of those questions.

He is in the 8-12 range of all time.

[Lakers_55]

You just come across as a Laker's fan that is pissed because Russell and co kept on spanking Baylor's ass so he couldn't get a championship. I am sorry that Russell could adequately defend Wilt one on one.

Russell was the best player on those Celtics teams and he was the only player that was on all of them. He was the foundation. Cousy, Havlicek, Hensohn, the Jones bros et all all came and went but Bill was there the entire time. Heck he even coached some of those teams.

Furthermore you make it seem as if he is offensively inept. He averaged 15 ppg but for the core of his career it was closer to 17. Russell wasnt in te same position as Wilt on those Wariors teams or the Big O where everything had to go through them for them to have a shot at winning. He had Cousy, Havlicek etc to take the load off of him.

The dude was the best player on the best dynasty in the history of basketball.

Well, maybe you perceive me that way, but if you knew my post history, I am about as unbiased as they come. Except when it comes to Wilt, lol. And I acknowledge that Wilt's best years were pre-Lakers. To quote Wilt: "I would always beat the pants off Russell, but his 4 guys would whip my 4 guys". You could however say that if Boston traded Russell to the Warriors for Wilt when he was a rookie, Boston would have won until Wilt retired.

See, you are falling for the perception that to make a top player, you must win titles. This thread is about individual players. I have pointed that out already numerous times.

[Lakers_55]

How winning championships is flawed reasoning? That is one of my essential points in judging the best players of all time.


I am one that goes against this reasoning. I have no problem if you want to rank MVP's in a new topic, then Russell and TD go way up. It isn't an individual player's fault his teammates don't perform. This topic is about individual players.

Oscar Robinson: 1 title
Jerry West: 1 title
Wilt Chamberlain: 2 titles
Julius Erving: 1 Title
The first 3 played during the Russell era, Dr. J.'s twilight years were during the Bird/Magic era. I have them all in my top 10, and quite a few people have at least the Big O and Wilt on theirs.

[O-Factor]

Dave and Tim Are not top ten players. Neither was better than Charles Barkley. If he is not top ten then they are way down the list. Everyone Judges this by championships. That is flawed reasoning. It doesn't ask who won more it asks who was better. If Duncans career was during the Jordan era he wouldn't have won either.


:rolleyes Uh, even Barkley has said Tim is the best PF of all-time. I think I'll take Barkley's word over you or any other Spurs hater.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, maybe you perceive me that way, but if you knew my post history, I am about as unbiased as they come. Except when it comes to Wilt, lol. And I acknowledge that Wilt's best years were pre-Lakers. To quote Wilt: "I would always beat the pants of Russell, but his 4 guys would whip my 4 guys". You could however say that if Boston traded Russell to the Warriors for Wilt when he was a rookie, Boston would have won until Wilt retired.

See, you are falling for the perception that to make a top player, you must win titles. This thread is about individual players. I have pointed that out already numerous times.

Dude youre a Lakers fan at the very least you have to admit that you are biased. Im sure you get all up in a tizzy anytime someone puts Bird over Magic its just the nature of things. I know for a fact that Lakers fans the world over resent Russell and the Celtics because they kept Baylor from getting a ring and Wilt just couldn't beat them.

What it boils down to is that you cannot look at the individual and take out the context of the team. Its a team game and as such the individual is just one of 5 players working together on the court. This is not gold where its a guy hitting his own ball or even baseball where its one guy up at the plate by himself. Those Celtics teams played as a team.

i will not disagree that Wilt was a better player. Any man that can grab 50 rebounds gets my nod but basically what you do is the exact opposite of what you accuse everyone else of doing: you're penalizing Russell for being on a good team.

if you put a good player around other good players his numbers are not going to be as good. That has been the bane of Team USA in the past. it takes a particular type of player to not demand all the touches and make his team better. Duncan is one of those players, his numbers have dipped since parker and Manu have rolled in. Does that make him less great? Look to 2003 for the answer to that question.

Again Russell was the best player on the best team of all time. that means something even if youre not willing to admit it.

[O-Factor]

How would Russells Celtics of even fared against the teams from the 80s like the Celtics, Rockets, Pistons, or the 90's Bulls and Rockets, or the Spurs over the past 10 years or Shaq and Kobe's Lakers. Im not so sure they would be as dominant.

[IronMexican]

Dude youre a Lakers fan at the very least you have to admit that you are biased. Im sure you get all up in a tizzy anytime someone puts Bird over Magic its just the nature of things. I know for a fact that Lakers fans the world over resent Russell and the Celtics because they kept Baylor from getting a ring and Wilt just couldn't beat them.

What it boils down to is that you cannot look at the individual and take out the context of the team. Its a team game and as such the individual is just one of 5 players working together on the court. This is not gold where its a guy hitting his own ball or even baseball where its one guy up at the plate by himself. Those Celtics teams played as a team.

i will not disagree that Wilt was a better player. Any man that can grab 50 rebounds gets my nod but basically what you do is the exact opposite of what you accuse everyone else of doing: you're penalizing Russell for being on a good team.

if you put a good player around other good players his numbers are not going to be as good. That has been the bane of Team USA in the past. it takes a particular type of player to not demand all the touches and make his team better. Duncan is one of those players, his numbers have dipped since parker and Manu have rolled in. Does that make him less great? Look to 2003 for the answer to that question.

Again Russell was the best player on the best team of all time. that means something even if youre not willing to admit it.

i would resent Bird over Magic, because Magic was better.

just like i would resent Kobe over Jordan.

I go by who was better.

[HarlemHeat37]

Barkley is definitely below Timmy and DRob..the fact that both Duncan and Robinson are 2 of the best defensive players of all-time easily beats out Barkley, who only played decent defense at best, even that only for parts of his career..

[Lakers_55]

Dude youre a Lakers fan at the very least you have to admit that you are biased. Im sure you get all up in a tizzy anytime someone puts Bird over Magic its just the nature of things. I know for a fact that Lakers fans the world over resent Russell and the Celtics because they kept Baylor from getting a ring and Wilt just couldn't beat them.

What it boils down to is that you cannot look at the individual and take out the context of the team. Its a team game and as such the individual is just one of 5 players working together on the court. This is not gold where its a guy hitting his own ball or even baseball where its one guy up at the plate by himself. Those Celtics teams played as a team.

i will not disagree that Wilt was a better player. Any man that can grab 50 rebounds gets my nod but basically what you do is the exact opposite of what you accuse everyone else of doing: you're penalizing Russell for being on a good team.

if you put a good player around other good players his numbers are not going to be as good. That has been the bane of Team USA in the past. it takes a particular type of player to not demand all the touches and make his team better. Duncan is one of those players, his numbers have dipped since parker and Manu have rolled in. Does that make him less great? Look to 2003 for the answer to that question.

Again Russell was the best player on the best team of all time. that means something even if youre not willing to admit it.

First, Baylor did get a ring, I mentioned it earlier in this thread. Now, ask yourself this: Suppose during the Russell era, he didn't win 11 titles and they were equally distributed among the NBA teams. Also, suppose he played in that scenario exactly like he played in reality. Would many people rank him in the top 10 with his stats? Probably not. See, it all comes down to my argument that this discussion is about an invidual player's talents. Not what his team does for him.

To make it simple, think of one-on-one basketball. It's me versus you. If you win, you're better. Now, look at the greats in the NBA, how they played. Was what Russell did as individually great as what Dr. J. did? No, it wasn't even close!

Why don't you start a new topic about MVP's which will seperate the two mutually exclusive comparisons. Thanks for your input.

[HarlemHeat37]

btw, the stats are skewed..Duncan has played on a team that has consistently ranked near the bottom of the NBA in pace, especially compared to many of the greatest players..so he hasn't always put up the best stats..also due to the fact that he isn't that type of player..even with that being said, he has put up monster stats..

as for the teammates argument..

I'll ignore the fact that IT'S RARE to win an NBA title without GREAT teammates, so that argument shouldn't even count..but Duncan is actually one of the few guys that led a team to a title WITHOUT a guy on his team that was even nearly an all-star..

Parker was a 15.5 and 5 APG guy in the 2003 regular season..that's definitely good, but nothing near all-star caliber..Manu and Robinson were 8 point scorers for the regular season..Duncan won MVP..pretty self-explanatory of what Timmy meant..

furthermore, Duncan's teammates got WORSE during the playoffs..Parker's numbers went down, and even worse, his FG% went down by 6% during the playoffs..Manu averaged more points, but shot 5% lower..Jackson played better, but shot 41% during those playoffs..

Duncan averaged 25(#1 on the team), 15.5 RPG(#1 on the team), 5 APG(#1 on the team), 3 BPG(#1 on the team) on 53% shooting(#2 on the team)..this is during a span of 24 games IN THE PLAYOFFS..where it matters most..

so Duncan's team was basically a star with role players..if you look at the numbers and look at the ratio of conference competition, Duncan's 2003 team is actually virtually the same as Lebron's supporting cast last year..what's the difference? the media..of course The King is gonna get the hype of playing with a poor supporting cast, but the media obviously ignores our guy CARRYING a team to a title with no other all-star caliber players, because he's "borring" and our team is "borring"..

if Duncan had the hype he deserves, he would be getting the credit he deserved..it's disgusting to listen to all these myths and false information that gets spread about him..the guy was undoutedly the best player in the NBA in 2003..had a GREAT argument in 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2005 to be the best, and many people would agree with me(maybe not in 2002, because Shaq was still in his prime)..disgusting..

[spursfan09]

Some won't start to appreciate Tim til hes done in the NBA. Even then, there will be haters who will refuse to recognize his place in NBA history. That's just the way it is. Either way he brought 4 championships to San Antonio, and he didn't for your city, so ha ha ha ha ha!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

First, Baylor did get a ring, I mentioned it earlier in this thread. Now, ask yourself this: Suppose during the Russell era, he didn't win 11 titles and they were equally distributed among the NBA teams. Also, suppose he played in that scenario exactly like he played in reality. Would many people rank him in the top 10 with his stats? Probably not. See, it all comes down to my argument that this discussion is about an invidual player's talents. Not what his team does for him.

To make it simple, think of one-on-one basketball. It's me versus you. If you win, you're better. Now, look at the greats in the NBA, how they played. Was what Russell did as individually great as what Dr. J. did? No, it wasn't even close!

Why don't you start a new topic about MVP's which will seperate the two mutually exclusive comparisons. Thanks for your input.

If my aunt had nuts hed be my uncle. hypotheticals are worthless. Imagine they played NBA out in space and Russell was teammates with Marvin the Martian then wouldnt he be the greatest. The fact of the matter is he was those things and playing fantasyland posits nothing.

When the NBA starts playing one on one then Ill care about your analogy. Basketball is a team game and you cannot seperate a player completely from his team.

Also Baylor never got a ring. i wasnt even alive when he played and i know that.


Baylor never played on a club that won an NBA Championship.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/baylor_bio.html

[baseline bum]

This a not a knock on Duncan. I think Duncan is a great player, but he is being rated way to high here.

LMAO. Barkley himself acknowledges he is only the second best PF of all time, behind Duncan. Charles isn't exactly known for humility.

[Lakers_55]

Also Baylor never got a ring. i wasnt even alive when he played and i know that.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/baylor_bio.html

Well, I was alive when Baylor got his ring. Let me tell the story. First, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Elgin retired 9 games into the 1971-2 season after he was told he was going to the bench in favor of Jim McMillian. Lakers then went on to win 33 games in a row. I still have a copy of the team photo that Der Weinerschnitzel gave away in the winter of 1972 with a purchase. I walked a mile to get that, I was in high school. Baylor appears in the photo, along with John Q. Trapp, who was acquired after Baylor left. The caption of the photo simply states "Longest winning streak in professional sports history". Keep in mind Elgin posed for this before the Lakers won the title.

I have an audio tape of the final game in 1972 versus the Knicks, including the post game locker room interviews. Elgin was in the locker room, celebrating with his friends. He is on the tape I have. It is common knowledge among Laker fans of that era that Elgin was given a ring. Chick Hearn, the longtime Laker broadcaster acknowledged that. I have the video too on DVD but the end is missing, lost forever it seems.

The internet is not always accurate. Your link doesn't know the whole story, given above.

As for the rest of your argument, I have said what I will say. No one is right anyway, it's all everyone's opinion.

[vednam]

A lot of overrating of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird going on here. They belong in the top 10, but how were either of these guys better than Wilt Chamberlain or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or even Oscar Robertson or Julius Erving?

Magic and Bird so captured the imagination of the public in the 80s that people just assume they were as good as the publicity would have you believe. If you go back and examine accomplishments and skills, I don't see any way they are shoe-ins ahead of the guys that I listed.

[vednam]

Duncan is anywhere from 5-12.

My list:

1. Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem-Abdul Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Oscar Robertson

I have a hard time separating the rest, so they are all on the same general level and occupy positions 5-13

Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Tim Duncan, Bill Russell, Elgin Baylor, Shaquille O'Neal, Jerry West, Hakeem Olajuwon


If pressed, I'd have Shaq at 5 and then Duncan at 6

[Lakers_55]

I did a little searching, found the official Laker team photo for 1971-2

http://www.badongo.com/t/640/3947331

Baylor is on the right, front row, next to John Q. Trapp. Trapp was added to the roster after Baylor retired. Baylor also got at least a partial championship share. Laker roster, stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1972.html

[vednam]

I am still surprised no one is discussing the pros and cons of Julius Erving. Certainly there are other older fans on this board that remember what he could do! Certainly you have all seen his move to the basket in the video below at the 1 minute mark. Michael Jordan makes comments near the end.:

nPYJodKri9c



Julius Erving is very underrated. He was every bit as good as Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, but gets overlooked because he played his best basketball during an era when basketball was overlooked and received little attention from the national media. If he began his career in 1981 instead of 1971, he'd be much higher on most lists.


Few people know about Dr. J's accomplishments in the ABA (2 championships, 3 straight MVPs, and perhaps the greatest Finals performance in basketball history in the 1976 ABA Finals). And the ABA was very much the NBA's peer during that time.

He sacrificed his scoring numbers when he got to the 76ers because they were a team filled with players who demanded the ball. People who look at stats will try to diminish just how great he was in the NBA (just like people 30 years from now will look at basketball-reference.com and conclude Duncan wasn't all that because he was "only" a 20 ppg scorer). Erving led a dysfunctional 76ers team deep into the playoffs every year, where they normally lost to more talented teams.

[TheMadHatter]

David Robinson does not belong in this thread. Other than that I agree with most people's rankings about Duncan. His consistency is what separates him from other great PF's in the game.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, I was alive when Baylor got his ring. Let me tell the story. First, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Elgin retired 9 games into the 1971-2 season after he was told he was going to the bench in favor of Jim McMillian. Lakers then went on to win 33 games in a row. I still have a copy of the team photo that Der Weinerschnitzel gave away in the winter of 1972 with a purchase. I walked a mile to get that, I was in high school. Baylor appears in the photo, along with John Q. Trapp, who was acquired after Baylor left. The caption of the photo simply states "Longest winning streak in professional sports history". Keep in mind Elgin posed for this before the Lakers won the title.

I have an audio tape of the final game in 1972 versus the Knicks, including the post game locker room interviews. Elgin was in the locker room, celebrating with his friends. He is on the tape I have. It is common knowledge among Laker fans of that era that Elgin was given a ring. Chick Hearn, the longtime Laker broadcaster acknowledged that. I have the video too on DVD but the end is missing, lost forever it seems.

The internet is not always accurate. Your link doesn't know the whole story, given above.

As for the rest of your argument, I have said what I will say. No one is right anyway, it's all everyone's opinion.

He only played 9 games that year and was not on the roster at the end of the year. He had been hurt the year before and if you look at that bball reference link you'll note that he didn't play any playoff games that year. He was done.

Thats why they say his career ended in 1971 because he never made into 1972 on that roster. The Lakers may have felt sorry for him and gave him a ring as an attaboy but the NBA does not recognize Baylor as being on a championship roster.

As for my link, its from NBA.com. You know the NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION....

[Lakers_55]

He only played 9 games that year and was not on the roster at the end of the year. He had been hurt the year before and if you look at that bball reference link you'll note that he didn't play any playoff games that year. He was done.

Thats why they say his career ended in 1971 because he never made into 1972 on that roster. The Lakers may have felt sorry for him and gave him a ring as an attaboy but the NBA does not recognize Baylor as being on a championship roster.
As for my link, its from NBA.com. You know the NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION....
In 1971 Baylor was on the roster at playoff time, suited up and practicing. Teams can't put a player on the bench in uniform if he isn't on the roster. I know, I saw it live. I went to my first Laker game vs. Chicago, game 7.

Why is Baylor on the official photo saying 1971-72 if he was done in 1971? Because he left on his own. He could have unretired anytime it was legal, but chose not to be an opportunist. He knew he would get his ring anyway, better if few people noticed it. However, it's fact. Or call Chick Hearn and Elgin liars.

Remind me later to show you material from my graduate studies that shows how much of the internet is unreliable. What you can trust, and what you can't. I don't have time now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In 1971 Baylor was on the roster at playoff time, suited up and practicing. Teams can't put a player on the bench in uniform if he isn't on the roster. I know, I saw it live. I went to my first Laker game vs. Chicago, game 7.

Why is Baylor on the official photo saying 1971-72 if he was done in 1971? Because he left on his own. He could have unretired anytime it was legal, but chose not to be an opportunist. He knew he would get his ring anyway, better if few people noticed it. However, it's fact. Or call Chick Hearn and Elgin liars.

Remind me later to show you material from my graduate studies that shows how much of the internet is unreliable. What you can trust, and what you can't. I don't have time now.

This isn't some random blog. Its the official site of the NBA. They take those team photos at the beginning of every year. He tried to go that year and couldn't. He went 8 games and then hung it up.

Probasketball reference who you linked shows him not playing in the 71 or 72 playoffs. He got hurt his career was over i don't care what you think you remember.

[Tully365]

You want the old folks opinions? :)

To be objective and fair about this, it's probably best to wait until his career is over. The NBA had a list of the top 50 players after 50 years, but that was before Duncan was playing. I don't know why they didn't keep adding a player every year. Duncan would be on the list.

After reading this thread, I don't think I saw Julius Erving mentioned. Or Elgin Baylor. Or even Elvin Hayes. I don't think Duncan is better than any of those forwards in their prime.

I don't rate Bill Russell as high as some people do, nor do I put Shaq up there...

My top 10 would be probably....(Yeah, it's mostly older players, but these guys rocked and I did see them all play).

1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Michael Jordan
4) Magic Johnson
5) Elgin Baylor
6) Oscar Robertson
7) Jerry West
8) Julius Erving
9) Larry Bird
10) Elvin Hayes

The problem I have with your list is that I think several guys on there themselves would say Bill Russell was the best player they ever faced. I think your list shows a clear bias for offense over defense, which is understandable, but I disagree. Wilt was the best offensive player of his time, but had a few weaknesses: one was outside shooting, and the second was free throw shooting. Like Shaq, having Wilt on the floor in a close game could actually work against his team, since fouling him was such a good strategy. In the 67-68 season, Wilt shot an abysmal 38% from the free throw line. In the 64-65 season, he shot 41.6% from the FT line. For his career he was just over 50%.

I don't think the same can be said of Russell's defense. His post defense, shot blocking, rebounding, and box out abilities were all supreme, and his quickness meant he didn't become a defensive liability if his man tried to lure him away from the paint. He was a great man-defender, a great help- defender, a great weakside-defender... so what I'm arguing is that it was sometimes possible to neutralize Wilt's offense, if even for just certain crucial moments, but almost never possible to neutralize Russell's defense, which was even better in those same crucial moments. This is the crux of the whole "defense wins championships" philosophy, and, in my opinion, the reason why Russell was so great.

[Lakers_55]

This isn't some random blog. Its the official site of the NBA. They take those team photos at the beginning of every year. He tried to go that year and couldn't. He went 8 games and then hung it up.

Probasketball reference who you linked shows him not playing in the 71 or 72 playoffs. He got hurt his career was over i don't care what you think you remember.

You didn't read what I said earlier. Baylor retired. John Q. Trapp came along later. My old Laker programs had a section called "How they've come and gone" which shows exactly when Trapp joined the team, as well as every other Laker. They're stored away and I can't look for them now. But, Trapp only played 58 games that season. I don't recall him being injured. To counter the Laker acquisition of Trapp, Milwaukee quickly signed a guy named Curtis Perry. He only played 50 games for the Bucks. Look it up at site I give above, just change url from LAL to MIL. I can't find Trapp's join date on the internet, but trust me, he came later.

Now, if Baylor was gone, and Trapp came later, why is Baylor in the picture? Because he is still considered on the team. As I said, he could have come back anytime but chose not to be a role player. Being told he was being benched hurt his pride. He was unselfish in not returning, he could break up the team chemistry.

As far as the NBA site versus a blog, I agree, you are right. However, the internet didn't exist in those days and everything that's on it now from pre internet had to come from a paper trail. You won't find box scores on those old games at that site, have a look. I tried to find a score of a USC vs. USC football game from 1980. (Haha, figure that out, there were two Heisman trophy winners in that game, one from each team.) No luck, even at the Trojan website. I think it was 23-13 and I was at that game too.

Paper trail in this case says:
Baylor retired in 1971, 9 games in.
Baylor didn't come back.
Lakers won so Baylor didn't get a ring.

Evidence outside of the paper trail shows a photo, I gave this above. Also, radio accounts by Chick Hearn that Elgin got a ring. I will grant you this, he may not have deserved one for not playing it out, but he was given one just the same. He certainly was entitled to a share of the playoff winnings. The players vote who gets how much of a percentage when a player isn't on the team the whole year, but everyone who was on the squad gets something.

[Tully365]

btw, the stats are skewed..Duncan has played on a team that has consistently ranked near the bottom of the NBA in pace, especially compared to many of the greatest players..so he hasn't always put up the best stats..also due to the fact that he isn't that type of player..even with that being said, he has put up monster stats..

as for the teammates argument..

I'll ignore the fact that IT'S RARE to win an NBA title without GREAT teammates, so that argument shouldn't even count..but Duncan is actually one of the few guys that led a team to a title WITHOUT a guy on his team that was even nearly an all-star..

Parker was a 15.5 and 5 APG guy in the 2003 regular season..that's definitely good, but nothing near all-star caliber..Manu and Robinson were 8 point scorers for the regular season..Duncan won MVP..pretty self-explanatory of what Timmy meant..

furthermore, Duncan's teammates got WORSE during the playoffs..Parker's numbers went down, and even worse, his FG% went down by 6% during the playoffs..Manu averaged more points, but shot 5% lower..Jackson played better, but shot 41% during those playoffs..

Duncan averaged 25(#1 on the team), 15.5 RPG(#1 on the team), 5 APG(#1 on the team), 3 BPG(#1 on the team) on 53% shooting(#2 on the team)..this is during a span of 24 games IN THE PLAYOFFS..where it matters most..

so Duncan's team was basically a star with role players..if you look at the numbers and look at the ratio of conference competition, Duncan's 2003 team is actually virtually the same as Lebron's supporting cast last year..what's the difference? the media..of course The King is gonna get the hype of playing with a poor supporting cast, but the media obviously ignores our guy CARRYING a team to a title with no other all-star caliber players, because he's "borring" and our team is "borring"..

if Duncan had the hype he deserves, he would be getting the credit he deserved..it's disgusting to listen to all these myths and false information that gets spread about him..the guy was undoutedly the best player in the NBA in 2003..had a GREAT argument in 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2005 to be the best, and many people would agree with me(maybe not in 2002, because Shaq was still in his prime)..disgusting..

Great Post.

[Lakers_55]

Oh, I want to add this. I mentioned I have an audio tape of that final game in 1972. The Laker team was getting rings for everyone, even broadcasters Chick Hearn and Lynn Shackelford got one. I remember Chick telling Lynn he was getting one too and all Lynn could say was "I'll take it". Lynn is known for playing at UCLA with Kareem. He also had a brief pro career, at least in the ABA. During the short time he was with the Lakers, he worked out with them at every practice to help the team out.

[Ghazi]

I don't think there should even be a debate that Duncan is the best power forward of all time

I would say top 10 all time as well.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You didn't read what I said earlier. Baylor retired. John Q. Trapp came along later. My old Laker programs had a section called "How they've come and gone" which shows exactly when Trapp joined the team, as well as every other Laker. They're stored away and I can't look for them now. But, Trapp only played 58 games that season. I don't recall him being injured. To counter the Laker acquisition of Trapp, Milwaukee quickly signed a guy named Curtis Perry. He only played 50 games for the Bucks. Look it up at site I give above, just change url from LAL to MIL. I can't find Trapp's join date on the internet, but trust me, he came later.

Now, if Baylor was gone, and Trapp came later, why is Baylor in the picture? Because he is still considered on the team. As I said, he could have come back anytime but chose not to be a role player. Being told he was being benched hurt his pride. He was unselfish in not returning, he could break up the team chemistry.

As far as the NBA site versus a blog, I agree, you are right. However, the internet didn't exist in those days and everything that's on it now from pre internet had to come from a paper trail. You won't find box scores on those old games at that site, have a look. I tried to find a score of a USC vs. USC football game from 1980. (Haha, figure that out, there were two Heisman trophy winners in that game, one from each team.) No luck, even at the Trojan website. I think it was 23-13 and I was at that game too.

Paper trail in this case says:
Baylor retired in 1971, 9 games in.
Baylor didn't come back.
Lakers won so Baylor didn't get a ring.

Evidence outside of the paper trail shows a photo, I gave this above. Also, radio accounts by Chick Hearn that Elgin got a ring. I will grant you this, he may not have deserved one for not playing it out, but he was given one just the same. He certainly was entitled to a share of the playoff winnings. The players vote who gets how much of a percentage when a player isn't on the team the whole year, but everyone who was on the squad gets something.

Thats nice and all but the NBA doesn't recognize Baylor as having won the championship. But go ahead and wax poetic about it all day long. Its very clear on the NBA's official website.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/baylor_bio.html


Baylor never played on a club that won an NBA Championship.

That was what was the big irony about the whole thing. HE RETIRED 9 GAMES INTO WHAT TURNED INTO A CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON.

[Eli Manning]

That was what was the big irony about the whole thing. HE RETIRED 9 GAMES INTO WHAT TURNED INTO A CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON.

Kinda reminds me of that little bitch Tiki Barber retiring right before a championship season. :lmao

[MarHill]

I am one that goes against this reasoning. I have no problem if you want to rank MVP's in a new topic, then Russell and TD go way up. It isn't an individual player's fault his teammates don't perform. This topic is about individual players.

Oscar Robinson: 1 title
Jerry West: 1 title
Wilt Chamberlain: 2 titles
Julius Erving: 1 Title
The first 3 played during the Russell era, Dr. J.'s twilight years were during the Bird/Magic era. I have them all in my top 10, and quite a few people have at least the Big O and Wilt on theirs.

Lakers__55,

You are leaving out the bottom half of my post. I will agree with you about it isn't the individual player's fault if his teammates didn't perform.

But...when you are talking about a top 10 or top 15 players of all time....then you have to use multiple championships as a judging factor. Also, if you are a top ten or top fifteen player you make your teammates around you better.

Duncan has helped the growth of Tony Parker, Manu, Bruce Bowen, and even David Robinson (towards the latter end of his career)

Also, if you have changed a franchise's history. Duncan has certainly done with the Spurs. The Spurs have gone from being a good team to a championship contender in the last ten years.

Lastly, did you dominate the position during your era. Yes....the argument against Duncan isn't doesn't have the eye-popping statisics. But...it is his consistency that has made him great since he came into league in '97. And...he is standard-bearer for all power forwards since that time.

I agree with you that Oscar Robinson, Jerry West, & Dr. J were great players and they belong in the top 20 of all time. However, the top ten or fifteen of all time have to meet all those four criteria I mentioned earlier.

[Gant]

I put empahasis on winning and domination.

Top 10 (no order within tiers):

First tier:

Russell and Jordan.
They are clearly above everyone else.

Second tier:

Kareem, Wilt, Bird, and Magic.

Third tier:

Duncan, Shaq, and Oscar. Four championships each for the big guys. Two great players.

Oscar played on horrible teams until the end when he paired up with Kareem in Milwaukee. (I would place Oscar behind Shaq and Duncan based on winning.)

Fourth tier:

Havlicek. The only guy I can think of who was not the main man, but who took up that mantle after the stud retired and led his team to further titles. (Pippen didn't do it and neither has Kobe.)

If you didn't see him play you can't understand. Not only did he have stats but his main value was in purely wearing his opposite number down. He sprinted every minute of every game leaving his man worn out in the 4th quarter. He had an unusual heart (literally, not metaphorically) that allowed him to run endlessly.

He was at the top of his game for an incredibly long time.

[ShoogarBear]

:rollin

Celtic Fan is just as myopic as Laker Fan.

[Gant]

You don't win one quarter of the titles in league history without some of the best players.

Also, actually having seen these guys play is of some considerable help in making these types of rankings.

[Lakers_55]

The problem I have with your list is that I think several guys on there themselves would say Bill Russell was the best player they ever faced. I think your list shows a clear bias for offense over defense, which is understandable, but I disagree. Wilt was the best offensive player of his time, but had a few weaknesses: one was outside shooting, and the second was free throw shooting. Like Shaq, having Wilt on the floor in a close game could actually work against his team, since fouling him was such a good strategy. In the 67-68 season, Wilt shot an abysmal 38% from the free throw line. In the 64-65 season, he shot 41.6% from the FT line. For his career he was just over 50%.

I don't think the same can be said of Russell's defense. His post defense, shot blocking, rebounding, and box out abilities were all supreme, and his quickness meant he didn't become a defensive liability if his man tried to lure him away from the paint. He was a great man-defender, a great help- defender, a great weakside-defender... so what I'm arguing is that it was sometimes possible to neutralize Wilt's offense, if even for just certain crucial moments, but almost never possible to neutralize Russell's defense, which was even better in those same crucial moments. This is the crux of the whole "defense wins championships" philosophy, and, in my opinion, the reason why Russell was so great.


The rules were different in Wilt's day. "Hack-A-Wilt" never happened. You had to foul the guy with the ball, so his team avoided passing it to him if the game was on the line. Also, there was an intentional foul strategy. If you had less than 4 team fouls, you could grab the guy with the ball and send him to the line for 1 shot. After 4 fouls, the next foul involved a penalty. So, an intentional foul meant 2 chances to make 1 and fouled in the act of shooting meant 3 to make 2. Wilt often airballed all 3 chances much to many people's delight. Wilt also could play defense. The league didn't record blocked shots until after Wilt left the league. Wilt is on the all-time league lead for triple doubles, ranking 4th due to his assists. His rank would go higher if shot blocking were included, I saw him snuff the same player 3 times in a row on one play many times. It wasn't uncommon to see Wilt yank down 30 rebounds in a game either. Wilt used to employ a fall away bank shot, about the same range and location that Duncan takes his bank shots from. I would say Duncan is more pure and better with his, but Wilt could hit them.

I don't argue at all about Russell's defensive abilities. I pointed out earlier that if Boston hadn't won 11 titles with Russell, he wouldn't be looked at as that great. Russell was more of a team player than an indivdual one. It all comes down in my opinion how we define a player's greatness.

That's the whole point of a great discussion like we are having, it's what thoughts we get to share with each other.



Thats nice and all but the NBA doesn't recognize Baylor as having won the championship. But go ahead and wax poetic about it all day long. Its very clear on the NBA's official website.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/baylor_bio.html



That was what was the big irony about the whole thing. HE RETIRED 9 GAMES INTO WHAT TURNED INTO A CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON.

First paragraph of what you posted, you didn't answer me about what I said about the paper trail theory of old news on the internet. It doesn't matter what's on the NBA site, probably not even to Elgin. The latter part, I stated why he didn't come back, even though he would have been welcomed. He knew if the Lakers won, he would still get his ring. Why would I make up this story if it didn't happen? The point is, people think he didn't get a ring and he did. It just doesn't seem like he did. Now, anyone paying attention to this thread has learned something. I'll take the way things went. If the Lakers win in 69 or 70 with Baylor, or even before that, 33 in a row doesn't happen in 71-72. Maybe Wilt doesn't even join the Lakers. Also, Jerry West was very pissed off about his failures in the 60's. After he retired, he served briefly as Laker coach, then became a general manager with a mission. He is responsible for 8 more Laker championships.


Lakers__55,

You are leaving out the bottom half of my post. I will agree with you about it isn't the individual player's fault if his teammates didn't perform.

But...when you are talking about a top 10 or top 15 players of all time....then you have to use multiple championships as a judging factor. Also, if you are a top ten or top fifteen player you make your teammates around you better.

Duncan has helped the growth of Tony Parker, Manu, Bruce Bowen, and even David Robinson (towards the latter end of his career)

Also, if you have changed a franchise's history. Duncan has certainly done with the Spurs. The Spurs have gone from being a good team to a championship contender in the last ten years.

Lastly, did you dominate the position during your era. Yes....the argument against Duncan isn't doesn't have the eye-popping statisics. But...it is his consistency that has made him great since he came into league in '97. And...he is standard-bearer for all power forwards since that time.

I agree with you that Oscar Robinson, Jerry West, & Dr. J were great players and they belong in the top 20 of all time. However, the top ten or fifteen of all time have to meet all those four criteria I mentioned earlier.

I'll quote your whole post this time. I don't get why you have to include multiple championships if you are judging the top individual players. The criterea for judging players is open ended. Some agree with my way, some agree with your way. Neither of us is right. As I said, there are two ways to discuss this. Make a thread judging them your way, and I have no problem with anyone's list. I have said this all several times. Early in the thread I said it isn't fair yet to place Duncan anywhere on the list, however, he definitely belongs on it somewhere.

[ShoogarBear]

You don't win one quarter of the titles in league history without some of the best players.

Also, actually having seen these guys play is of some considerable help in making these types of rankings.

Maybe you're right, 'cause I only lived in Boston for 17 years.

Havlicek the tenth best player of all time when he was never once the dominant player in the league? Over Bob Pettit, Moses Malone, Olajuwon, Barkley, Baylor, Garnett?

Shoot, I could argue that Rick Barry was better than Havlicek.

[Gant]

The only 17 years that count in this case are the early 60s to the late 70s.

Havlicek:
13 consecutive all star games.

Best player (with Cowens) on the two 70s title teams.

Eight championships.

Wikipedia: "John Havlicek is the Celtics all-time leader in points and games played, scoring 26,395 points (20.8 points per game, 10th all-time in points scored in the NBA), and playing in 1,270 games (4th all-time). He became the first player to score 1,000 points in 16 consecutive seasons, with his best season coming during the 1970-71 NBA season when he averaged 28.9 points per game."

Intangibles are off the charts (see my first post).

Havlicek at 10th is no stretch at all.

[ShoogarBear]

Robert Parish must be 11th, then.

[Gant]

Robert Parish must be 11th, then.

More like 72nd.

[ambchang]

A lot of overrating of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird going on here. They belong in the top 10, but how were either of these guys better than Wilt Chamberlain or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or even Oscar Robertson or Julius Erving?

Magic and Bird so captured the imagination of the public in the 80s that people just assume they were as good as the publicity would have you believe. If you go back and examine accomplishments and skills, I don't see any way they are shoe-ins ahead of the guys that I listed.

Larry Bird won 3 straight MVPs, revolutionized the concept of a small forward by being able to pass, dribble, shoot from outside, score from inside and rebound, and won 3 titles.

Magic won 3 MVPs, won 5 titles and led the Lakers to 9 trips to the finals, winning finals MVP 3 times. Broke Big O’s long standing assist record (size eclipsed by John Stockton and Mark Jackson), and along with Bird hauled the NBA out of financial difficulty and made it a major sport in North America.

You can make an argument with ranking Wilt, Kareem, Big O, Dr. J Magic and Bird in any order, but it would be difficult to make a hard case that one is definitely better than the others.

[SpursChampsIII]

Behind Karl Malone.:

Only a Jazz fan or a dumb :donkey would really believe that.

However, they could be one and the same.

[SpursChampsIII]

I put Kareem and MJ on top of the list, and could make a case for Duncan, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell for the next 5 spots.

[polandprzem]

All those rankings are shit

You can make any list and make a case for each player on each position. You can slice it whatever you want.
Playing against, playing with - that all you can add ijn the discussion. But everybody got their own theory and got their points

Add the taste, liking one pleyer more then the other and all this stuff.

So argubly IMO all list are bullshits.
However saying that hayes in top 10 is ridiculus no matter how you slice it. No matter.



Btw. in the discussion - why the before Russell Celtics could not won the title?
They had cousy, Sharman and MaCauley (hof player). And Red ofcourse.
Bill changed the face of the frenchise.
He was the core. And Bob said he was better on O then people think.

thx

[polandprzem]

BTW - what Kareem accoplished without Magic ot Oscar?

[SpursChampsIII]

BTW - what Kareem accoplished without Magic ot Oscar?

What did Magic or Oscar accomplish without KAREEM? I think you'll find out that Kareem won more titles than both, 5 with Magic, 1 with the Big O. I'm not trying to belittle Magic or O, but there is no substance to your statement.

[polandprzem]

Kareem had not much success after winning the first title.
He did not advanced to the playoffs 75 Mil, 76 LA

He was not emotional leader - LA needed a guy like magic who always was in the playoffs and even when Jabbar left the team they were one step of winning the title in 1991 and they were title contenders.

So there is a point I guess.

[Robinzine]

I'd put him in the Top-10. Dude has had an awesome career, he's a winner, and he has done so without for the most part the shadow of David Robinson.

[Fiestadog]

Kinda in a debate with some people on his place in history, but its hard to speak about guys like Wilt, Russel, Dr. J, and West since I never really got to see them play. Even then all I've ever seen of f Bird vs Magic is on ESPN Classic and NBA TV, but I at least can that I have actually seen them.

Just curious to see where the older people would rank Duncan

Consider this years playoffs, which many have said he's already slipping. Against Phoenix he had 40 points and the clutch trey in overtime. Against NO one game he had 22/22...slipping indeed! The final game against LA he had a triple-double.

These are the types of numbers (along with the championships) which put Timmmy 3rd behind Russel and Chamberlain. He's more vauable than Jabar, Johnson or Bird and still has five good years left.

[vednam]

Larry Bird won 3 straight MVPs, revolutionized the concept of a small forward by being able to pass, dribble, shoot from outside, score from inside and rebound, and won 3 titles.

Magic won 3 MVPs, won 5 titles and led the Lakers to 9 trips to the finals, winning finals MVP 3 times. Broke Big O’s long standing assist record (size eclipsed by John Stockton and Mark Jackson), and along with Bird hauled the NBA out of financial difficulty and made it a major sport in North America.

You can make an argument with ranking Wilt, Kareem, Big O, Dr. J Magic and Bird in any order, but it would be difficult to make a hard case that one is definitely better than the others.


Rick Barry did a lot of the stuff that you credit Bird with bringing to the game (in "revolutionizing" the small forward position) a decade earlier. So did Julius Erving. If we are going to talk impact on the game, Erving had a much greater impact than Bird as far as influencing how future generations would play.


I don't really have a problem with your last statement, and I mostly agree. It just puzzles me when people act like it's obvious that Bird and Magic were better than Wilt or Kareem or Dr. J or Robertson, because there are really no facts to back it up.

Kareem was on 6 championship teams, got to the finals 10 times, and won 6 MVPs. Kareem could do everything on the court at the highest of levels.

Wilt won 2 championships on two of the most dominant teams of all time, won 4 MVPs, and I think everyone knows about all his records. Wilt could do everything at elite levels except make free throws.

Dr. J won 3 championships, got to the finals 6 times and won 4 MVPs (these numbers include his ABA years).

Oscar Robertson could do everything on the basketball court at the higest level, but spent most of his career on mediocre teams.

No one seems to ever consider the defensive shortcomings of both Bird and Johnson.

[tonyisamazing]

best power forward ever and top 5 player

[vednam]

Kareem had not much success after winning the first title.
He did not advanced to the playoffs 75 Mil, 76 LA

He was not emotional leader - LA needed a guy like magic who always was in the playoffs and even when Jabbar left the team they were one step of winning the title in 1991 and they were title contenders.

So there is a point I guess.



Do you know who Kareem was playing with in Milwaukee and LA during those years? He had a VERY poor supporting cast. That's why his teams didn't regularly go deep in the playoffs during the 70s. Every great player needs a good supporting cast to advance. The Bulls regularly were stomped out in the first round (and had sub-.500 records) before they got Michael Jordan some help.

Please know your facts before posting.

[vednam]

I put empahasis on winning and domination.

Top 10 (no order within tiers):

First tier:

Russell and Jordan.
They are clearly above everyone else.

Second tier:

Kareem, Wilt, Bird, and Magic.

Third tier:

Duncan, Shaq, and Oscar. Four championships each for the big guys. Two great players.

Oscar played on horrible teams until the end when he paired up with Kareem in Milwaukee. (I would place Oscar behind Shaq and Duncan based on winning.)

Fourth tier:

Havlicek. The only guy I can think of who was not the main man, but who took up that mantle after the stud retired and led his team to further titles. (Pippen didn't do it and neither has Kobe.)

If you didn't see him play you can't understand. Not only did he have stats but his main value was in purely wearing his opposite number down. He sprinted every minute of every game leaving his man worn out in the 4th quarter. He had an unusual heart (literally, not metaphorically) that allowed him to run endlessly.

He was at the top of his game for an incredibly long time.



Your rankings don't make sense. Kareem won and dominated as much as Jordan, so by your standards he should be in the first tier. Duncan has more titles than Bird. So how is Bird a tier above him?


On top of all this, your methodology is flawed. Looking purely at winning doesn't show much. Wilt Chamberlain could do everything Bill Russell could and then some. The only areas in which Russell was superior to Chamberlain was having a better coach, front office, and supporting cast.

[TheMadHatter]

Without Kareem there is no Showtime Lakers.

Man some of you are downright retarded. I realize the Spurs weren't shit until 1999, but the NBA has been around a hell of a lot longer than that.