Is Larry Bird a top 15 player of all time?

[O.J Mayo]

According to some idiots on this board, not winning 2 championships in a row means you are not a top 15 player of all time.

According to this retarded logic, Larry Bird is also not a top 15 player of all time. And also according to such logic, James Worthy should be considered a top 15 player of all-time. Sam Jones should also be a top 15 player of all time. Lets face it, even George Mikan is a top 15 player of all time by this logic. Jerry West should not be considered a top 15 player cause he didn't win multiple, yet alone 2 consecutive.

Should Larry Bird be considered one of the top 15 greatest players of all time?

[TheSpursFNRule]

Plus 1 my nigga.

[BRHornet45]

sons did you know that his daughter is a lesbo ?

[phyzik]

My list....

Jordan
Magic
Hakeem
Kobe
Duncan
Bird
Shaq
Robinson
Dirk
Gervin

[BadOdor]

My list....

Jordan
Magic
Hakeem
Kobe
Duncan
Bird
Shaq
Robinson
Dirk
Gervin

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

[BRHornet45]

My list....

Jordan
Magic
Hakeem
Kobe
Duncan
Bird
Shaq
Robinson
Dirk
Gervin

lol Kobe #4??? son you may as well throw Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, and John Cena in the top 10 as well! .... surely you can't truly believe that a role player like Kobe Byrant is a top 5 player of all time? seriously???

[BRHornet45]

My list....

Jordan
Magic
Hakeem
Kobe
Duncan
Bird
Shaq
Robinson
Dirk
Gervin

nevermind. I forgot who I was dealing with .......

http://i56.tinypic.com/2ik5rw8.jpg

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Making a top 10 is opinion only and not easy. I'm still working on my top 10, I have it narrowed to a top 20, in no order, and haven't moved beyond the NBA's top 50 players at 50 years list.

To the original question, Bird is in my top 20. Constructing a top 10 list is further muddled when you place players on it that you never saw play. I think many people just copy what other people say belong on a top 10 and run with that. I see plenty of duplication on top 10 lists with just the rank order changed.

[O.J Mayo]

Making a top 10 is opinion only and not easy. I'm still working on my top 10, I have it narrowed to a top 20, in no order, and haven't moved beyond the NBA's top 50 players at 50 years list.

To the original question, Bird is in my top 20. Constructing a top 10 list is further muddled when you place players on it that you never saw play. I think many people just copy what other people say belong on a top 10 and run with that. I see plenty of duplication on top 10 lists with just the rank order changed.

It is not the opinion I am challenging. I am challenging the stupid criteria set by some idiots who think not repeating = not a top 15 player of all time

With this retarded logic, players like Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Julius Erving are automatically kicked out of the top 15. As great as Isiah Thomas was a player, has he racked up more accolades, be it championships, All-NBA selections, all star appearances than Larry Bird type players? Isiah repeated, should he be considered a top 15 player and better than Duncan and Bird, even West and Oscar, maybe Julius Erving? Even Wilt Chamberlain didn't repeat in championships. Should he not be considered a top 15 player of all time?

With such insane logic, one could conceive James Worthy, as part of the top 15, or Sam Jones and all those Celtics in the 50s/60s, like Bob Cousy (who actually may deserve a top 15 spot), and George Mikan should deserve a spot in the top 15 of all time, ahead of all those aforementioned players on the above paragraph?

[Nahtanoj]

Why is this even a debate? Both Larry and Timmay are Top 15 All Time.

[Giuseppe]

They just failed chronologically to go back-to-back.

It happens.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

It is not the opinion I am challenging. I am challenging the stupid criteria set by some idiots who think not repeating = not a top 15 player of all time

With this retarded logic, players like Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Julius Erving are automatically kicked out of the top 15. As great as Isiah Thomas was a player, has he racked up more accolades, be it championships, All-NBA selections, all star appearances than Larry Bird type players? Isiah repeated, should he be considered a top 15 player and better than Duncan and Bird, even West and Oscar, maybe Julius Erving? Even Wilt Chamberlain didn't repeat in championships. Should he not be considered a top 15 player of all time?

With such insane logic, one could conceive James Worthy, as part of the top 15, or Sam Jones and all those Celtics in the 50s/60s, like Bob Cousy (who actually may deserve a top 15 spot), and George Mikan should deserve a spot in the top 15 of all time, ahead of all those aforementioned players on the above paragraph?

I saw your point. It made so much sense I didn't comment on it.

[Giuseppe]

It's just a stain on Duncan and on Bird. Not the end of the world. They're both still the goods.

They're both just failures at repeating.

[midnightpulp]

The reason for Lakerfan obsession with repeating is that when the Lakers won their first 3 championships of the 80s and the word "Dynasty" was being applied to their success, Red Auerbach came forward and issued a decree that you ain't a dynasty until you can repeat.

Which is bullshit, but it is a fine example of how Red mindfucked all the simple minded Lakers fans, as well as an example of how the Celtics organization as a whole owns the soul of Jerry Buss's pride and joy.

And Artest not imploding ain't gonna change that reality one bit.

[Giuseppe]

....though Jackson yanking that X Cap outta nowhere June of '09 was pretty crafty.

tee, hee.

[midnightpulp]

....though Jackson yanking that X Cap outta nowhere June of '09 was pretty crafty.

tee, hee.

But see, Jackson won 6 of his titles with a different organization.

So it wasn't any kind of victory for the Lakers franchise, only for Jackson.

[Giuseppe]

Perhaps, but, it was still sweet that he got his X with the Lakers. & you can be that it rolled Auerbach over like Tony Parker on her wedding nite.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

The reason for Lakerfan obsession with repeating is that when the Lakers won their first 3 championships of the 80s and the word "Dynasty" was being applied to their success, Red Auerbach came forward and issued a decree that you ain't a dynasty until you can repeat.

Which is bullshit, but it is a fine example of how Red mindfucked all the simple minded Lakers fans, as well as an example of how the Celtics organization as a whole owns the soul of Jerry Buss's pride and joy.

And Artest not imploding ain't gonna change that reality one bit.

Buss as owner vs. Celtics head to head: 3 to 2. He bought the team in order to beat the Celtics and he succeeded.

You realize why Boston won so much in the 60's don't you? It wasn't because of Bill Russell, it was because of the stacked teams they had. 8 players in the hall of fame, with 4 on the NBA top 50 at 50 years list. Having an 8 team league and a first round bye into the ECF where HCA awaited didn't hurt either. 12 finals appearances in 13 years (11-1) under that regime, then 9 appearances in 41 years (6-3) afterward. Boston as a franchise is clearly overrated in today's NBA. By the time Boston matches the finals appearances of the old Celtics, (3 more needed if you're counting), another 20-30 years will have passed.

[Basketball Jones]

In my book he is.

[midnightpulp]

Buss as owner vs. Celtics head to head: 3 to 2. He bought the team in order to beat the Celtics and he succeeded.

You realize why Boston won so much in the 60's don't you? It wasn't because of Bill Russell, it was because of the stacked teams they had. 8 players in the hall of fame, with 4 on the NBA top 50 at 50 years list. Having an 8 team league and a first round bye into the ECF where HCA awaited didn't hurt either. 12 finals appearances in 13 years (11-1) under that regime, then 9 appearances in 41 years (6-3) afterward. Boston as a franchise is clearly overrated in today's NBA. By the time Boston matches the finals appearances of the old Celtics, (3 more needed if you're counting), another 20-30 years will have passed.

60s must've been some painful times at chez Daddy of All Trolls.

And the whole "the reason the Celtics won so much in the 60s was because of their stacked teams!!111" excuse is a bunch of crybaby nonsense.

That's the way it works, the teams with the most talent usually win the title.

Using your reasoning, I'm going to discredit the success of the 80s Lakers and Celtics, since those teams were far more stacked than their counterparts.

[Giuseppe]

Buss as owner vs. Celtics head to head: 3 to 2. He bought the team in order to beat the Celtics and he succeeded.

You realize why Boston won so much in the 60's don't you? It wasn't because of Bill Russell, it was because of the stacked teams they had. 8 players in the hall of fame, with 4 on the NBA top 50 at 50 years list. Having an 8 team league and a first round bye into the ECF where HCA awaited didn't hurt either. 12 finals appearances in 13 years (11-1) under that regime, then 9 appearances in 41 years (6-3) afterward. Boston as a franchise is clearly overrated in today's NBA. By the time Boston matches the finals appearances of the old Celtics, (3 more needed if you're counting), another 20-30 years will have passed.

& it was shaved seeing Bias & Lewis auger in.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, and while we're at it, let's discredit those 50s Minneapolis Lakers who, with Mikan, were automatically guaranteed a title every year.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

60s must've been some painful times at chez Daddy of All Trolls.

And the whole "the reason the Celtics won so much in the 60s was because of their stacked teams!!111" excuse is a bunch of crybaby nonsense.

That's the way it works, the teams with the most talent usually win the title.

Using your reasoning, I'm going to discredit the success of the 80s Lakers and Celtics, since those teams were far more stacked than their counterparts.

The game was different back then, none of those 60's teams would stand a chance today against any of the champions of the past 30 years. The 80's Celtics and Lakers would be a match for Jordan's Bulls, Shaq or Kobe's Lakers, and so on.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Also, Russell's Celtics owned more depth advantages across the board than any team in history has ever had. The current Heat and Lakers only wish they were as relatively better than the rest of the league as the old Celtics were.

Mikan was a scrub. Tallest and biggest man to ever play and with a tiny key to work in, he shot 40%. Basketball was evolving back then. Give credit to the old Minneapolis Lakers and the Boston Celtics for figuring it out, but by the 80's, so did the rest of the league.

[midnightpulp]

The game was different back then, none of those 60's teams would stand a chance today against any of the champions of the past 30 years. The 80's Celtics and Lakers would be a match for Jordan's Bulls, Shaq or Kobe's Lakers, and so on.

Doesn't matter. A championship is a championship, no matter the era in which it was won. When we're comparing franchises, you compare their entire existence with one another.

And what's the excuse here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1968.html

And here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969.html

The Lakers and Celtics rosters were ostensible equals talent wise, and the Lakers still failed to break through.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Also, Russell's Celtics owned more depth advantages across the board than any team in history has ever had. The current Heat and Lakers only wish they were as relatively better than the rest of the league as the old Celtics were.

Mikan was a scrub. Tallest and biggest man to ever play and with a tiny key to work in, he shot 40%. Basketball was evolving back then. Give credit to the old Minneapolis Lakers and the Boston Celtics for figuring it out, but by the 80's, so did the rest of the league.

[cutewizard]

According to some idiots on this board, not winning 2 championships in a row means you are not a top 15 player of all time.

According to this retarded logic, Larry Bird is also not a top 15 player of all time. And also according to such logic, James Worthy should be considered a top 15 player of all-time. Sam Jones should also be a top 15 player of all time. Lets face it, even George Mikan is a top 15 player of all time by this logic. Jerry West should not be considered a top 15 player cause he didn't win multiple, yet alone 2 consecutive.

Should Larry Bird be considered one of the top 15 greatest players of all time?

[midnightpulp]

Also, Russell's Celtics owned more depth advantages across the board than any team in history has ever had. The current Heat and Lakers only wish they were as relatively better than the rest of the league as the old Celtics were.

Mikan was a scrub. Tallest and biggest man to ever play and with a tiny key to work in, he shot 40%. Basketball was evolving back then. Give credit to the old Minneapolis Lakers and the Boston Celtics for figuring it out, but by the 80's, so did the rest of the league.

You already posted that.

See my post that disproves that theory. For the early and middle part of the 60s, that might've been somewhat true, but not for the late 60s.

The 68 and 69 Lakers were actually more talented than Russell's Celtics and still failed to win a championship.

[cutewizard]

MY 15 GREATEST OF ALL TIME:

CHamberlain at center
Russell at power forward/center
Larry Bird at small forward
Magic at point
Jordan at off guard

Shaq at center
Duncan at power forward
Rodman as defensive small forward
Kobe at off guard
Pippen as point forward

Arvydas Sabonis as point center (he can hit the three also)
Kareem as offensive power forward/center
Paul Presssey as point forward
Manu Ginobili at off guard
Oscar Robertson at point.

I love point forwards!

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Doesn't matter. A championship is a championship, no matter the era in which it was won. When we're comparing franchises, you compare their entire existence with one another.

And what's the excuse here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1968.html

And here:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969.html

The Lakers and Celtics rosters were ostensible equals talent wise, and the Lakers still failed to break through.

Since a championship is a championship, and using your statement, the ones with the most titles are the greatest no matter when they are won, let me ask you this:

Who are the greatest college football teams of all time?

So, let's see, let's name a few collegiate powerhouses:

Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, USC, Florida, Texas, Penn State, LSU, Miami, Georgia.....

Hate to break it to you pal, but Princeton (28 titles) and Harvard (26 titles) should be the greatest because they have more titles than any other college. Please convince us they are the greatest. then get laughed off the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Di vision_I_FBS

[midnightpulp]

Since a championship is a championship, and using your statement, the ones with the most titles are the greatest no matter when they are won, let me ask you this:

Who are the greatest college football teams of all time?

So, let's see, let's name a few collegiate powerhouses:

Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Alabama, Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, USC, Florida, Texas, Penn State, LSU, Miami, Georgia.....

Hate to break it to you pal, but Princeton (28 titles) and Harvard (26 titles) should be the greatest because they have more titles than any other college. Please convince us they are the greatest. then get laughed off the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Di vision_I_FBS

That's great. But we're talking about the NBA here, which has a much shorter history.

And anyhow, to someone who is a 1000 years old, Princeton and Harvard just might be the greatest programs of all time. We ascribe more importance to events that occur closer to our lifetimes.

By your logic, if the game evolves another significant step in 100 years (say they allow performance enhancing drugs that are far more advanced than steroids, or if the technology is there, cybernetic augmentation) and the Clippers win 10 championships during this period, while the Lakers stay stuck at 16 or 17, the Clippers should be considered the greater franchise because they won a significant amount of championships during "a more evolved era."

Also by your logic, the Bulls are the greater franchise than the Celtics, because they won all of their championships in the "modern era" while the Celtics have only won 5.

You just can't discount history because something evolves. The United States could obliterate medieval England, but we are not relatively the more dominant empire.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, and quit strawmanning me.

I never equivocally stated that the franchises with the most championships are automatically the greatest.

This is what I said:

Doesn't matter. A championship is a championship, no matter the era in which it was won. When we're comparing franchises, you compare their entire existence with one another.

And yes, it's somewhat important to consider qualitative issues such as the era in which a championship was won, but the value assigned to those championships is a matter of opinion.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

That's great. But we're talking about the NBA here, which has a much shorter history.

And anyhow, to someone who is a 1000 years old, Princeton and Harvard just might be the greatest programs of all time. We ascribe more importance to events that occur closer to our lifetimes.

By your logic, if the game evolves another significant step in 100 years (say they allow performance enhancing drugs that are far more advanced than steroids, or if the technology is there, cybernetic augmentation) and the Clippers win 10 championships during this period, while the Lakers stay stuck at 16 or 17, the Clippers should be considered the greater franchise because they won a significant amount of championships during "a more evolved era."

Also by your logic, the Bulls are the greater franchise than the Celtics, because they won all of their championships in the "modern era" while the Celtics have only won 5.

You just can't discount history because something evolves. The United States could obliterate medieval England, but we are not relatively the more dominant empire.

You misunderstand my logic and yours is messed up. You state most means best, I don't. It's crystal clear Harvard and Princeton aren't the best. Your logic would say to always apply most as meaning best and that falls apart when you compare players and their rings.

All you want to do is put down the Lakers, we know your schtick. You can win some arguments, and you can lose some arguments. What happened 50 years ago in the NBA is already ancient history in relation to how the game has evolved, and simply has less relevance. Exact same thing with Harvard's and Princeton's titles. It doesn't matter they are different sports, all of them evolve.

The future? We will watch it unfold before us.

[midnightpulp]

You misunderstand my logic and yours is messed up. You state most means best, I don't.

I never stated such. If you missed it, see my post above your most recent.



It's crystal clear Harvard and Princeton aren't the best. Your logic would say to always apply most as meaning best and that falls apart when you compare players and their rings.


How can you determine this a priori? To the fans who witnessed those championships being won, it was just as important and meaningful as any championships being won currently. Just because we weren't there and the game wasn't as sophisticated back then doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of those championships.

Furthermore, your skewed logic would suggest that an NBDL title is more important than a Minneapolis Lakers title, because the NBDL is a "more evolved league."

Say that out loud and laugh at how ridiculous it sounds.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Ok, let's get off this argument, and I'll ask you another question.

What was worse, even though both players won titles:

A) Jerry West shooting 30% in 1972 playoffs versus Milwaukee and the Knicks (11 games)
B) Kobe shooting 6-24 in game 7 against the Celtics in game 7, 2010.

[midnightpulp]

Ok, let's get off this argument, and I'll ask you another question.

What was worse, even though both players won titles:

A) Jerry West shooting 30% in 1972 playoffs versus Milwaukee and the Knicks (11 games)
B) Kobe shooting 6-24 in game 7 against the Celtics in game 7, 2010.

The comparison doesn't make any sense.

If we're going to compare their relative performances, we should compare their respective playoff runs or Finals series against each other.

[midnightpulp]

Looking at the stats, Kobe's 2010 playoff run was far better than West's, who shot a dismal .376 from the field.

[Kobe™]

sons did you know that his daughter is a lesbo ?

?
http://i30.tinypic.com/dsi1h.jpg

[midnightpulp]

?
http://i30.tinypic.com/dsi1h.jpg

I'm not gonna hate. I really want to say something mean, but I won't.

You have no control over the face you're born with, and I have to praise the girl for trying her hardest to look the best she can.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

The comparison doesn't make any sense.

If we're going to compare their relative performances, we should compare their respective playoff runs or Finals series against each other.

Looking at the stats, Kobe's 2010 playoff run was far better than West's, who shot a dismal .376 from the field.
West shot well versus Chicago. I don't have his stats in the last two series, but I recall they were about 30%, including something like 1-14 in game 1 versus the Bucks. Chamberlain and Goodrich carried the team, and topped finals MVP voting order. The point is, both Jerry and Kobe admitted they got caught up in the hype. West entered that season ready to quit. Lakers won the first 37 games he played in, going 2-3 early in the year without him when he sprained an ankle. Baylor gave up, then a 33 game winning streak ensued. As the playoffs dawned West expected to win a championship but couldn't perform, and he admitted that when it was all over. I believe Kobe expected to win going into game 7 vs. Boston and admitted while getting his MVP trophy, the hype got the best of him.

Clearly West's performance was the worst, whether you compare the criteria in my original post, or the entire playoffs. Yet, few talked then or now about West's poor showing, just as no one will talk about 6-24 in the future. (Except you and H-Ho) What really matters is a title. West finally got his, and Kobe actually beat the Celtics, something West would have also done had Boston not been upset by the Knicks in the ECF who were without Willis Reed.

[midnightpulp]

West shot well versus Chicago. I don't have his stats in the last two series, but I recall they were about 30%, including something like 1-14 in game 1 versus the Bucks. Chamberlain and Goodrich carried the team, and topped finals MVP voting order. The point is, both Jerry and Kobe admitted they got caught up in the hype. West entered that season ready to quit. Lakers won the first 37 games he played in, going 2-3 early in the year without him when he sprained an ankle. Baylor gave up, then a 33 game winning streak ensued. As the playoffs dawned West expected to win a championship but couldn't perform, and he admitted that when it was all over. I believe Kobe expected to win going into game 7 vs. Boston and admitted while getting his MVP trophy, the hype got the best of him.

Clearly West's performance was the worst, whether you compare the criteria in my original post, or the entire playoffs. Yet, few talked then or now about West's poor showing, just as no one will talk about 6-24 in the future. (Except you and H-Ho) What really matters is a title. West finally got his, and Kobe actually beat the Celtics, something West would have also done had Boston not been upset by the Knicks in the ECF who were without Willis Reed.

Of course, because the media likes to gloss over facts when hyping up their most popular cash cows.

At the end of the day, rings are a TEAM accomplishment. Kobe was not the best player in the league during the past two seasons, nor do I believe Duncan was the best player in the league in '07, but by virtue of a little luck and strong supporting casts, they were able to win despite not being the best.

Trolling aside, I hate top ten player lists and the like, and honestly, I don't care about player vs. player comparisons. It's objectively impossible to determine, because how can you compare single players when so much of who they are is dependent on what kind of teammates they have, what system they're in, who the coach is, etc...

There's simply too many variables at work, and truthfully, it's a meaningless argument. Basketball is a TEAM game after all.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Of course, because the media likes to gloss over facts when hyping up their most popular cash cows.

At the end of the day, rings are a TEAM accomplishment. Kobe was not the best player in the league during the past two seasons, nor do I believe Duncan was the best player in the league in '07, but by virtue of a little luck and strong supporting casts, they were able to win despite not being the best.

Trolling aside, I hate top ten player lists and the like, and honestly, I don't care about player vs. player comparisons. It's objectively impossible to determine, because how can you compare single players when so much of who they are is dependent on what kind of teammates they have, what system they're in, who the coach is, etc...

There's simply too many variables at work, and truthfully, it's a meaningless argument. Basketball is a TEAM game after all.

Exactly, I find it hard to compare players as well. Some had the right teammates and won titles. Some languished in lottery land and never won squat. For what it's worth, West still did other things on the court in the 1972 playoffs. He dished for assists and provided leadership.

I like the NBA's list of top 50 at 50 years and have it narrowed down to a top 20 of my own opinion, but truth is,TI don't know exactly who should be added to that list from the last 14 years. Tim and Kobe should be, maybe it's too soon for LeBron, Wade, Carmelo,Nowitkzki, et al....Shaq is the only player on that list still active, and I am not certain he should be a top 10 player. His career just hasn't been consistent enough and we all know Shaq can't win without Kobe/D.Wade. LOL, had to throw that in...

Kobe can't win without Shaq. Well, finally wrong.
Wade can't win without Shaq. probably will hold true, lol.

[Giuseppe]

Looking at the stats, Kobe's 2010 playoff run was far better than West's, who shot a dismal .376 from the field.

But, Kobe wasn't white, at least after Colorado.

tee, hee.

[Giuseppe]

I'm not gonna hate. I really want to say something mean, but I won't.

You have no control over the face you're born with, and I have to praise the girl for trying her hardest to look the best she can.

She looks like Jimmie Durante's grand-daughter, or, she's eating a banana.

[midnightpulp]

She looks like Jimmie Durante's grand-daughter, or, she's eating a banana.

Spot on, there.

[ButtHurt Committee]

According to some idiots on this board, not winning 2 championships in a row means you are not a top 15 player of all time.

According to this retarded logic, Larry Bird is also not a top 15 player of all time. And also according to such logic, James Worthy should be considered a top 15 player of all-time. Sam Jones should also be a top 15 player of all time. Lets face it, even George Mikan is a top 15 player of all time by this logic. Jerry West should not be considered a top 15 player cause he didn't win multiple, yet alone 2 consecutive.

Should Larry Bird be considered one of the top 15 greatest players of all time?

:wakeup

[rickross]

?
http://i30.tinypic.com/dsi1h.jpg

daam, u should be banned for smth like dat tbh.

dwade = bron > larry>> kobe

[JamStone]

Larry Bird is a tough comparison (if you're trying to draw the comparison between him and Duncan) in terms of how their legacies should be viewed. You look what prevented the Larry Bird Celtics from winning back-to-back championships in Larry's prime. The Celtics went to 4 straight NBA Finals from 1984 to 1987. What prevented them from going back-to-back were the Magic Johnson Los Angeles Lakers who would end up winning 5 titles in that era.

The best chance for Duncan's Spurs to go back-to-back would have been in either 2004 or 2006. In 2004, they lost to a great Lakers squad with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Gary Payton. In 2006, they lost in 7 games to the Dallas Mavericks. But it's important to note that neither opponent went on to win the title that year and both losses were in the second round of the playoffs.

Personally, I don't buy the "back-to-back" argument making a great player less of a great player for not going back-to-back, because it's so hard to do and everything has to go right, including staying healthy and getting lucky bounces along the way. But, if you're going to make the argument against it, I don't think Larry Bird is a very relevant comparison to make to help support the argument. Bird in his prime went to four straight NBA Finals and it was one of the greatest teams of all time and greatest players of all time in Magic and the Lakeshow that kept Bird from going back-to-back.

[Giuseppe]

Personally, I don't buy the "back-to-back" argument making a great player less of a great player for not going back-to-back

Well, pish posh.

[Koolaid_Man]

Larry Bird is a tough comparison (if you're trying to draw the comparison between him and Duncan) in terms of how their legacies should be viewed. You look what prevented the Larry Bird Celtics from winning back-to-back championships in Larry's prime. The Celtics went to 4 straight NBA Finals from 1984 to 1987. What prevented them from going back-to-back were the Magic Johnson Los Angeles Lakers who would end up winning 5 titles in that era.

The best chance for Duncan's Spurs to go back-to-back would have been in either 2004 or 2006. In 2004, they lost to a great Lakers squad with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Gary Payton. In 2006, they lost in 7 games to the Dallas Mavericks. But it's important to note that neither opponent went on to win the title that year and both losses were in the second round of the playoffs.

Personally, I don't buy the "back-to-back" argument making a great player less of a great player for not going back-to-back, because it's so hard to do and everything has to go right, including staying healthy and getting lucky bounces along the way. But, if you're going to make the argument against it, I don't think Larry Bird is a very relevant comparison to make to help support the argument. Bird in his prime went to four straight NBA Finals and it was one of the greatest teams of all time and greatest players of all time in Magic and the Lakeshow that kept Bird from going back-to-back.


Of course you don't how else would you explain those one-hit mo-town wonders...
:lol

[Purch]

JhlWddAXSRA

[JamStone]

Of course you don't how else would you explain those one-hit mo-town wonders...
:lol

What is there to explain? No player on the 2004 Detroit Pistons is or should be considered one of the greatest players of all time. None of them even break the top 50, much less get into the conversation of top 20 or top 10. So what is there to explain? They won as a collective group of very good players with no individual great players. That was part of the intrigue of that team and what was so impressive about them manhandling a Lakers team that had Kobe and Shaq in their prime with two Hall of Fame role players. Or did you forget what happened?

[Ashy Larry]

definitely .... top ten in my book.

[midnightpulp]

Bullshit!!! This is absolute bullshit. Going back to back shows dominance. Winning a title here and there shows that the front office was good enough to make adjustments from previous years. But when you do it two, three, four times with the same team, then that shows the mental toughness of that team and it's leader. Duncan failed to even get back to even try to defend his title. The 80's Celtics were just as good as the Lakers, but Magic wanted it more than Bird. Slice it up however you want it, but Bird failed to defend his title.

In every sport, from boxing to tennis, and everything in between, defending your crown is the hardest thing to do, because everyone is giving you their best shot. Now you want to say it holds know weight in basketball because Kobe has mad a career of it? Get the fuck out of here. Kobe going to the finals and winning the last two is a greater feat than anything Duncan has ever done. Not to mention the fact that he has a three-peat as well. Anyone can luck up and win a title. The Pistons are a perfect example in two situations. The lucked up in 89 when Magic and Scott went down and the swept a great Laker team. And they lucked up in 04 when Malone went down and they beat a great Laker team that had Kobe and Shaq feuding. The difference between those two Pistons teams was the 89 team came right back and showed it wasn't luck. The 04 team didn't.

A Lakaluva special. Comparing an individual sport to a team sport.

Truthfully, rings are a team accomplishment, and if you rooted for the front of the jersey instead of the back, you'd understand that.

[O.J Mayo]

Also, to add on the mystique of non-top 15 greatest players of all time, we have 3 time MVP Moses Malone who won the 83 Finals.

Adding another top 15 player of all time would be Tommy Heinsohn and Scottie Pippen. Dennis Rodman should be in the top 15 too considering he has repeated with not one, but 2 teams. He should be number 1 on the all-time list.

[Koolaid_Man]

What is there to explain? No player on the 2004 Detroit Pistons is or should be considered one of the greatest players of all time. None of them even break the top 50, much less get into the conversation of top 20 or top 10. So what is there to explain? They won as a collective group of very good players with no individual great players. That was part of the intrigue of that team and what was so impressive about them manhandling a Lakers team that had Kobe and Shaq in their prime with two Hall of Fame role players. Or did you forget what happened?

I'm convinced with all the evidence presented to me that Detriot beating LA was Kobe's way of denying Malone a ring since he tried hitting on Nessa...:lmao

Kobe losing 2 finals is impressive...he would already be 1 up on MJ...he could have had 10 titles when it's all said and done but those 2 missed opportunities will prevent him from reaching the 10 title mark.

[Latarian Milton]

Also, to add on the mystique of non-top 15 greatest players of all time, we have 3 time MVP Moses Malone who won the 83 Finals.

Adding another top 15 player of all time would be Tommy Heinsohn and Scottie Pippen. Dennis Rodman should be in the top 15 too considering he has repeated with not one, but 2 teams. He should be number 1 on the all-time list.

naw pippen & rodman were just minions at most. if they were considered 15 greatest of all time you would have to arrange another slot for Robert Horry who tallied 7 rings with 3 different teams.

[O.J Mayo]

naw pippen & rodman were just minions at most. if they were considered 15 greatest of all time you would have to arrange another slot for Robert Horry who tallied 7 rings with 3 different teams.

Nope. They were on all defensive (Rodman and Pippen) and all NBA teams (Pippen and Heinsohn).

I would also nominate Joe Dumars because he repeated too. He was also the 1989 Finals MVP.